Naomi Cunningham’s response to Prof Norrie’s post on University of Strathclyde’s blog on the SC decision

[Lolapusht]

Yikes!

Gender Doesn’t Matter

This is a brilliantly written piece. Still reading it, but my goodness Naomi is incredible.

Yes, that was a very good point made there, among so many. 'Excoriating' is indeed the word. I read a piece like that, and think, who could argue against that clarity?

I'm forcibly reminded of Brendan O'Neill's 'professor of gibberish'

Am not sure I’m going to be able to explain myself very well here…

One of my initial responses to the Norrie piece was annoyance/rejection of an underlying essence of fabricated whimsy-ness. I felt he was deliberately dressing himself in naivety to project a cloak of childlike innocence across all TW - a take on Harry Potter’s invisibility cloak. Obviously and for the sake of monitors, am not impugning all TW!

His attempts at disarming simplicity and a lack of guile ‘hee hee I stumbled across this most delightful creature called Reddit on this new fangled Internet - oh you must meet Reddit, you would adore her - she’s such a poppet’ simply extenuated and revealed his deliberate dismissive nature of women’s concerns and his inherent annoyance at our temerity, nay existence as anything other than support vessels.

All of which were brilliantly exposed and demolished by Naomi - what a woman!

Naomi Cunningham is somewhat popular on here, isn't she?😂

Wouldn't it be lovely to have your own hologram version of NC, you could sit her down opposite you in the pub and fire questions at her:

'What do you think about the Paradox of Hedonism?'
'Is Trent Alexander-Arnold right to leave Liverpool?'
'Did Averroes successfully reconcile Aristotelianism and Neo-Platonism?'
'Should 'Cheddar' become an Appellation d'Origine Contrôllée'?
'Were the principles of mathematics invented, or did they pre-exist?
'Is darts a sport or a pastime?'
'Do you believe in consequentialism?'
'Where have all the starlings gone?'

and you just know that she'd have an incisive, cogent, articulate answer to everything

Naomi's article is a triumph!

I've only just got round to reading the first one - dear lord, what an interminable load of drivel! Can't believe he essentially started the article by saying "this judgement deserves careful analysis to properly understand it - I haven't done any but I'm going to tell you what to think about it anyway"! 😂

I would give her a break every now and then and wheel in Kathleen Stock.

That's quite a subs bench to have😄

I have the good fortune to come across her in a professional capacity occasionally (IAAL) and she is formidable.

Let’s hope if Norrie’s essence ever decides to identify as a woman, that Naomi is the woman he aspires to imitate. It would certainly make him a better lawyer & save us from his inarticulate misogynistic ramblings.

Sadly we know he’d be more like Robin Moira White, a hulking man who considers third space toilets ghettos, & himself ‘somatically female’ 🤦‍♀️

I am tempted to travel to wherever Naomi is to kiss her

@MarieDeGournay:

Where have all the starlings gone?'

My garden, according to my Merlin app!

Ah, ok, thanks.

OK, but bring a flask of tea and some sandwiches, there's a long queue ahead of you😂

Is it unfair that we have all brains, logic and rationality on our side?

No, thought not.

Fortunately, not everyone's brain has been turned to mush. The clarity of Naomi (and others like her) make you think, what the hell are people thinking? But thinking these days is one of those rather old-fashioned notions, why bother when can pick it second-hand so cheaply?

I think we are living in a post-factual world, so the ability to research and clearly present facts in a structured way is .. meh. 'Here are my facts and I prefer them'.

Me too 😁 she really is the best.

I only just read this.
It does take a certain kind of arrogance to criticise a detailed and ‘painstaking’ (to quote Naomi Cunningham) Supreme Court judgement in an area you are not a specialist in.
And I agree that Naomi Cunningham’s response is extremely clear and well-written (as was I think the original judgement) and she is formidably on top of all the issues which women have raised for many years as well as the law.
But once again, we find women having to spend time responding to men about why their boundaries matter. No matter how well this is done or how much expertise the woman brings, it still takes their time, precious time. And thank God that women like NC do this and have done this, but when you read what NC is saying, it seems so self-evident to me that I question, I really question, why men have so little regard for women that this is even an argument, much less one which had to go all the way to the SC and even despite the 88 page painstakingly laid out judgement, is still being challenged. Her final line is devastating, that men basically want women’s submission and compliance, because it is true.

It’s devastating that after over a century and a half at least of women questioning their socially assigned role and seeking to change it, the argument comes down to whether male-bodied people should be able to access single-sex female spaces and that to some men, women matter so little. The provision of single-sex bathrooms and spaces in the public sphere is what allows women to move through the public sphere at all stages of their lives and no matter what has happened to them.
The upshot of Norrie’s argument is that the only way a woman can be sure of same-sex space and privacy is by staying at home, or staying within the radius of her home that she can get back if she needs the loo. Or she needs to accept the violation of the single-sex boundary. In any other context, that would be a form of control.

But once again, we find women having to spend time responding to men about why their boundaries matter. No matter how well this is done or how much expertise the woman brings, it still takes their time, precious time.

And it still never goes in, or is seen as anything relevant.

I think about that when I donate to legal cases. We're fighting for so very little, aren't we? A word: woman.

Of course, without it we have no women's rights so it's everything at the same time but, really, the suffragettes would surely be astonished we're fighting for something they could take for granted.