RMW and the potential of legal challenges re the SC Ruling

[Bannedontherun]

I listened to RMW on radio four today. I thought the interviewer was quite good at representing Women's view on access to single sex spaces, whilst giving RMW space to proffer his legal opinion, which was erm interesting.

The nub of RMW argument seems to be that trans people (biological males who have been around for many years including RMW), are now being told they are not women and cannot use women’s spaces.

And that this is the biggest affront to them, as in trans people who have been around just living their lives for 20 years plus are now going to have to adjust their lives.

Make of that what you will, i cannot possibly comment.

RMW did go on about neutral spaces “outing trans people” and that is why they need to use female spaces.

Again i cannot possibly comment.

He did not say much about women who believe they are men.

It does sound like RMW is trying to distance themself from “new age” trans people.

They did state there is no obligation for employers to police facilities, and that they would continue as usual as thus far has not been challenged.

Finally RMW said there are quite a few cases in the pipeline (i await with a keen eye)

On another posted podcast i listened to the solicitor representing the interveners in the SC case, on an American GC site, in which he pretty much opined i hope they do issue legal challenge, bring it on, and that Moylan et al seem to have no realistic strategy, other than to whinge and whine about their feelings. Hence the no wins situation.

He further stated that the reason that that judge and Whittle were not allowed to intervene was because random individuals were never allowed to. Contrary to what RMW claimed on Women’s hour which was no reasons were given.

All in all a damn good cheery day for me and IMHO nothing that needs to be worried about, apart from cake, popcorn supplies and getting sod all done WFH.

Cheers WIMS!!!!!

I can’t for the life of me understand why RMW wanted to be a woman so much when Robin clearly despises us and doesn’t regard us as fully human.
bizarre.

A male who has voluntarily relinquished his power in an effort to gain the favour of other more powerful males will be angry at females whom he perceives as a potential threat, especially as he sees them as innately inferior to him. How dare women try to assert their rights!

That's exactly what happens in the gaming world.

I have paused from reading the blog, at the point where he suggests that ‘no harm’ has occurred since 1999 and males being able to use single sex provision for women (legitimately).

He knows that many females experience discomfort when males use female only provision. He must consider discomfort not to be harmful. Surely it would follow that the discomfort of transwomen from being excluded also is not harmful to them.

I have worked with 3 different organisations, since the court ruling, and I have been able to dismantle the idea of ‘it doesn’t harm/hurt anyone’ argument. I’ve unpacked what they include and exclude in their definition of harm and hurt…..and it always boils down to feelings, as they haven’t experienced any of the assault, voyeurism incidents in their provision (to date). I take them through what feelings they think females might have when a male uses the female provision.

I then give different scenarios as to what might underpin a male’s reasoning for using the female provision. The ‘trans’ reasoning is one of several. I also use disabled and physically vulnerable, serious OCD so phobia of being near urinals, learning disabled and unable to understand signage. I ask which of these warrants the inclusion of the male, knowing that there is a legitimate and proportionate reason for it being female only.

All have responded by pointing out that only the trans identified males actually want to use female only provision. I respond by asking how they think this difference would impact on the experience of females when this category of males use the provision. I ask if they think females would feel differently towards the other categories of vulnerable males if/should they decide they do want to be included.

This approach provides a way into positioning transwomen in the male category without getting simply shut down for being unkind. By grouping them with other vulnerable males who may experience discomfort or fear from using male single sex spaces, it works with their conceptualisation of the vulnerable transwomen.

Attempting to co-opt some aspects of an abstracted idea of 'femininity ' is not becoming a woman.

The expectation is that one will retain advantage, and gain extra advantage.

A man who wears fake breasts doesn't actually think he's become a woman, he just thinks he has a better chance of attracting other males.

He's just added 'tits' to his repertoire.

Brainworm, thank you.

It really is.

For the men who already have male loos but also want the right to use the women's loos, where do the women then go?
The same with every single-sex space that they want access to and their presence would make unisex.
We don't disappear or turn male and we haven't asked for unisex spaces as we are biologically different and they pose us risks and embarrassment (ok, handmaidens would accept them).
The SC would surely always need to identify women as a separate group.
It's like fantasy vs. reality.

I do keep wondering, if that was:

an intentional attempt to be provocative to annoying women who want rights - which is odd, it does really shift the ground from this being about claiming relationship to merely claiming the right of dominance and authority via sex class -

an attempt to signal other perceived powerful men about how they're good chaps to women even when it would really just be better for everyone if they didn't have equality at all, so it's the little minxes being unreasonable when they already have decent men letting them have some bits on principle-

or whether it was a throw away thoughtless comment trying to signal rationality and reasonability and there'll be bafflement that women would notice it in particular.

Or in some cases cross dressing men just have a breast and women’s underwear fetish and they don’t want to attract other males, they’re straight. It used to be a joke that straight, even homophobic men came out with, that if they had breast implants they’d never leave the house. Along with the “I’m a male lesbian inside” end of the pier howlers.

Whatever RMWs actual motivations for his perspective. He will certainly personally benefit from the continuing confusion/controversy. If there are enough people who think that the laws can be changed/reinterpreted then there will be (and currently are) a pletherer of actions and cases in the works. Losing isn't a deterrent, just proof of how much the establishment hates the queer community.

RMW is well positioned as both experienced in the area and having a personal interest in these cases and could be seen as a very attractive option to take them on. RMW gets that lovely hourly rate regardless of winning or losing afterall. How nice that RMW is getting all this free publicity on WH etc.

Personally I can't think of anyone better. Let them speak/sue.

Re the legal literacy issue. The public get so much general knowledge from the media. Most people's (including mine) assumptions about the law are based on TV which is a) dramatised, b) factually wrong, c) America and therefore irrelevant to our laws.

So much of the English speaking online-world is dominated by American culture and polarisation that it isn't surprising that people gets so mixed up.

TV/film also usually pushes the narrative that the 'good' people always win. If you live as an eternal false victim delusion. You expect that great victory where you win. Justice, then underdog finally getting the standing ovation.

Very true.

It's all appropriating female body parts.

So many excellent insightful posts this morning, so great to read.

This A male who has voluntarily relinquished his power in an effort to gain the favour of other more powerful males will be angry at females whom he perceives as a potential threat, especially as he sees them as innately inferior to him from ArabellaScott reminded me of the idea of women being considered mere tokens in the male:male relationships which, to them, form actual, real society. It rings so true for me that so many of these MRAs just do not consider women to be actual people, with minds and needs of their own. It’s so misogynistic.

It's a variation on a protection money racket.

"Luvly set of 'uman rights you got 'ere, ladies. Be an awful shame if sumfin' was to 'appen to 'em..."

@TheOtherRaven I assumed it was an attempt to equate trans "rights" to women's rights.

Right to vote = right for a TW to play in women's sports
Right to own property = right for a TW to use the women's toilets
Right to be employed = right for a TW rapist to be held in a female prison

Yep. Those things look about equal.

All of which really are the same 'right'.

Which is to access and use women's bodies for the man's personal and unspecified purposes of agenda, without the woman-resource in question having a right of choice, consent or resistance. Specifically to play sports of all kinds (prison sport, police search spot, toilets sports) with the bodies including them being in a state of undress and intimate contact.

I mean they were given the vote for pete's sake even though it was inconvenient, you'd think they'd shut up and submit to men's reasonable use without this silly fuss. But it's ok. The ECHR will tell women that obvs human rights are a men-only deal.

The ECHR will tell women that obvs human rights are a men-only deal.

Unfortunately, the whole farce has demonstrated that great chunks of political bodies apparently share the same thoughts about women's rights being an irritating complication that can just be brushed aside. The entire fucking Scottish fucking Government, for one.

Decided repeatedly and clearly that women did not have rights.

They told us, not only:

1.Transwomen - men - have the right to use women's spaces, because they want a space away from men.

And

2.Women do not have the right to women's spaces, because they cannot have a space away from men.

but also!

3.Women who dare to suggest they want a space away from men are bigoted, homophobic, and probably racist.

Absolutely fucking scunnering.

Number 3 is just an attempt to distract from the utter fucking reprehensibly misogynist baked-in fuckwittery of 1. and 2., of course.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1926169522005831849.html

'For over a decade, the Scottish Government quietly rewrote the legal meaning of “woman” — not through Parliament, but through policy. No law. No debate. Just guidance, data rules and admin tweaks. This was self-ID by stealth. Here’s how they pulled it off.⬇️
2/10
In 2014, the prison service let a trans rights lobbyist help draft its transgender prisoner policy. Male offenders could be housed with women. No vote. No scrutiny. Just a quiet shift, dressed as inclusion. A small policy. Huge consequences.
3/10
In 2018, the Public Boards Act was redefined to count biological males as women — even without legal transition. It took @ForWomenScot and a court ruling to strike it down. The government had tried to rewrite protected characteristics by sleight of hand.
4/10
In 2021, schools were told to let boys identifying as girls use girls’ toilets and changing rooms. The guidance claimed there was no legal obligation for single-sex spaces. No consultation. Just state-sanctioned policy capture.
5/10
Then came the data. Public bodies were told to record identity, not biology. Male rapists could now appear as “female” in crime stats — and did. This wasn’t a system error. It was official guidance from the Scottish Government.
6/10
Scotland’s 2022 census allowed self-ID on the sex question — regardless of birth certificate or legal status. The rest of the UK refused. Holyrood embedded gender ideology into the national record — and called it progress.
7/10
By the time the GRR Bill hit headlines, self-ID had already crept into prisons, schools, the NHS, and official data. The bill failed, but the principles behind it were already policy. Unvoted. Undebated. Unseen.
8/10
Then came Isla Bryson. A male double rapist with post-conviction-onset dysphoria, identifying as female, sent to a women’s prison. Ministers acted shocked — but the policy that allowed it had been in place for years. The public just hadn’t been told.
9/10
In April 2025, the UK Supreme Court ruled that “sex” in the Equality Act means biological sex. The scaffolding collapsed. Much of Scotland’s guidance — on schools, crime, prisons — was now unlawful. And suddenly, silence.
10/10
This wasn’t inclusion. It was deception. Rights were redefined through admin memos. The public was never asked. And now the courts have caught up, the façade is falling. Scotland was ground zero for self-ID by stealth. '

That Boswell chappie seems to have his head screwed on right.

This is the reality of the civil service, they are the ones who write the policies and advise the ministers. They embed all of these activist points into policy from the start and shut down any dissent. I have seen directors saying they need to be educated on this new version of the world, and out comes a:gender, the trans staff network, to ‘educate’ everybody. Presenting to senior leadership group their particular view. Promulgating their activist propaganda throughout the entire CS, and being allowed to - indeed, encouraged to. the trumpeting by very senior staff of how fab trans people are, and how progressive and inclusive the CS is. The advent of SEEN caused howls of outrage that such a transphobic staff network was allowed to exist at all, never mind have any legitimacy, was just jaw-dropping in its vitriol. Trans people sued their employer for letting SEEN be established. It is truly frightening to see such nonsense promoted over and above everything else.

“out comes a:gender, the trans staff network, to ‘educate’ everybody. Presenting to senior leadership group their particular view. Promulgating their activist propaganda throughout the entire CS”

Can confirm that the big boss man in charge of my section of the CS has pronouns in his bio and a link to a:gender. I assume at some point he’s been “educated”.

I really don’t understand why further legal challenge is needed to demonstrate to anyone, gender critical, rational, trans rights activist, anyone, that the Supreme Court ruling is valid. It’s the Supreme Court. The clue is in the name. They can wail all they want, it’s just wailing. Give these idiots more air and they just grasp more air. They were shut down. Enough already. I don’t care about their upset or frustration. Find a way to validate your identity that does not infringe on my, or other women’s rights. Enough now. The fight was won.

edited for embarrassing spelling.

Well the hot air continues and the revelation that JKR has funds for challenges

There really ought to be some way of powering green energy through it.

Think of the beauty of it, we could have whole powerstations consisting of a room full of frothing activists, and mostly they'd just keep themselves going. All we'd need to do is occasionally have someone pop a head round the door and say something like 'other people have rights too!' to keep it blazing.