Trans Ex-Judge on BBC Newscast

[CaveMum]

Can’t bear to listen to it mussels, but if anyone has a string stomach/wants to take one for the team, today’s Newscast is a 43 minute long interview by Laura Kuenssberg of Victoria McCloud who is planning a challenge to overturn the Supreme Court ruling that a woman is defined by biological sex under equalities law.

There aren’t enough 🙄 emoji’s in the world!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0lh0c9r?partner=uk.co.bbc&origin=share-mobile

Don't forget McCloud is a key advisor to Goof Law Project. Which means their legal assaults on the Supreme Court/EHCR are even more unhinged and weak than usual based on his fantasy.

Getting their people into positions of power worked incredible well for the TAs, they were very effective in changing rules to favour them. That relied on it being done by stealth, but in open debate, whether legal or scientific they always lose because their inability to see reality unhinges them.

McCloud is a perfect example.

The media are going to continue to platform people like him, then act surprised when their lies all fall apart. That is frustrating, but we should not read too much into it.

The entire broadcast media, the Civil service, academia, most major corporations, charities, the arts all combined together were not strong enough to stop a bunch of angry random women, some gays and JKR armed with the truth and actual competent lawyers. Nothing they can say can change that.

With regard to the “two sexes” thing, even for a transactivist, that’s surely a glass half full/half empty thing. Realistically and in every way his sex is male, so if he is treated as female at any point and under any circumstances, then he is privileged.

To moan that you’ve been given special privilege under some circumstances, but that that privilege is not extended to all the other circumstances (because it conflicts with other peoples human rights) is simply arrogance and entitlement.

Whatever these men are given, it’s never enough. You can be one sex mate, that’s never been a problem. It’s your desire to be the sex that you aren’t that has created this problem.

As for being killed in the men’s toilets, I’m fairly sure I could use men’s toilets throughout the UK and I might get told I shouldn’t be there sometimes, but the chances of actual violence are tiny. If McCloud thinks being killed is likely, then it cannot be because he is a woman. It’s either paranoia, a lie or UK men are very much more violent towards MtF transitioners than women, and I don’t believe that’s backed up with any evidence.

That said, male on male violence does mean that statistically, more men are killed than women. Maybe if MtF transitioners learned to actually act like a woman instead of like aggressive men, they’d be safer in men’s spaces.

How disturbing that someone who has gone to such lengths to be seen as a woman expresses such distain and dislike of women.

I think this applies to the majority of transwomen imho.

As pps have said, if Victoria McCloud and Jolyon Maugham are the opposition, I think the ruling is pretty safe.

Unfortunately, the more conventionally middle aged and female VM looks, the less he will be listened or paid attention to, as many middle aged women have sadly discovered. Silly him for opting into it.

On a more encouraging note, I personally have found the effect can reverse itself once you get past sixty.

Also in the Independent as part of their pride series that the other interview in this thread is...

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/juno-dawson-pride-trans-woman-supreme-court-b2765178.html

The state of this...

I had gender reassignment surgery – then the Supreme Court said I wasn’t a woman

Gender is not sex

On 16 April this year, I held my phone in one hand as a kindly nurse, Sofia, removed my surgical dressings.

“Huh,” I said. “The Supreme Court has just ruled that I’m a man, apparently.”

“Well, you have a lovely new vagina,” Sofia replied.

Nurses are not being kind by lying. You've had cosmetic surgery to mimic a vagina. You do not have a vagina. It is completely biologically different.

I share in the confusion: I changed my passport in 2015, but now I can’t get a visa to the USA for my book tour unless I say I’m male? Will I get detained at JFK? My birth certificate was lawfully reissued in 2018 as a female birth certificate, but now I’m not a woman legally?

But this is always going to be an issue - the laws in the UK are not necessarily the same as laws in other countries. Cos of sovereignty. Having a legal fiction here doesn't change reality, so yes you need to be aware that changing your paperwork is going to cause issues whether you like it or not. The Supreme Court Ruling isn't going to change that. Nor could it ever.

While some may find trans people icky or weird, we overwhelmingly haven’t actually done anything wrong.

Except be deeply sexist and try and remove protections for women and gay people in law. Apart from that.

health secretary Wes Streeting seems to have a personal vendetta against trans youth.

This is actually called, understanding evidence based medicine and acting responsibly to safeguard after an official independent report highlighted massive issues and deeply concerning practices at the Tavistock. Obviously a personal vendetta - despite him acting on the recommendations of said report which was commissioned after many many staff at the Tavistock whistleblew. Personal indeed.

My view is that despite the law being very clear, actually, a few very determined transphobes have crawled their way to the heart of the law like maggots in an apple. A system that has been working perfectly well since 2010 has now been unnecessarily tampered with – and Starmer has capitulated because he’s spineless.

Women defending their own rights are 'maggots'.

The law has apparently been working well. Well apart for all the women it's not being working for and who ended up in court, out of jobs or otherwise used and abused in the process of allowing transwomen to get their own way. Of course this is fine as women don't count because they aren't human. They are maggots remember.

Look, I can’t speak for all trans women, but I just want to live my life the way I always imagined it. I have become the version of myself I wanted to be when I was four. This is who I wanted to be. I wear what I want, and eat what I want. I have two dogs and spend my money on expensive cocktails and rare Bratz dolls from 2001. Choices.

I got my fantasy. I, I, I.

You can eat what you want and wear what you want with changing your passport or having unnecessary complex surgery though.

I have the same choices over my life and body that I would want for every single person on earth.

I refer to previous point. Women aren't people so aren't allowed this.

I’m not trying to make a statement about what a woman is, I just want to be one.

Well take that up with reality not women. Cos you can't always have what you want.

I don’t really care if someone thinks that is biologically impossible; I’ve got near enough to be wholly satisfied. I am happy. My friends and family are happy for me. To anyone opposed to gender transition, I would ask, why can’t you be happy for me too?

I don't give a shit about anyone but myself. If it makes you unhappy, it's fine cos you are just a maggot anyway. It's all about me, me, me...

“Well, you have a lovely new vagina,” Sofia replied.

Of all the things that didn't happen, this didn't happen the most.

I heard that in the Bursar of the Unseen University voice from Terry Pratchett's work. It sounds exactly like one of his lines. Followed by 'flobbly wobbly, here comes our jelly'.

I haven’t listened to the interview but imagine how chuffed I was when this person was involved in celebrations of 40 years of women at Christ Church.

This person wasn’t a woman at Christ Church ffs!

They seem to have removed references to the judge’s involvement but I found this: www.law.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-03-05-celebrating-40-years-women-christ-church

It is really frustrating that Laura K didn't probe McCloud's assertion that things didn't really begin to change until 2016. Because I'm sure that what VC was implying is that what happened then is the 'trans moral panic' started. What actually happened was the overreach of the trans lobby and the subsequent push for self ID. And VC doesn't agree with self ID. It's Stonewall that has fucked things for people like VC, and deep down VC knows that.

Bring back the laugh emoticon MNHQ! 😂

Well I was thinking 3. appealing to better nature with this quote:

‘Everyone must play a part in creating a hostile environment for those whose actions and words fall below what society demands and the law expects. Within the context of countering the threat posed by terrorists, we have, for decades, reflected that “communities” defeat terrorism. Defeating unwanted sexual behaviour is no different. Our communities and our passengers can defeat it and we unquestionably all have a part to play.’ - Chief Constable on ‘Creating a Hostile Environment For Sexual Offenders on the Rail Network’.

Single sex toilets are more likely to be enclosed because men don’t stay out of them. Public toilets are safer (and healthier) when they are not enclosed so we can partially see and hear what’s going on around us and others can tell what’s going on inside the cubicle. In truly single sex spaces everyone is safer. The single sex design design saves lives because of people collapsing in cubicles from medical emergencies. This happens so often that it is why public toilets have to have a mechanism be able to be opened outwards from the outside. It’s more likely to be body retrieval if you don’t know someone has collapsed. Toilet door gaps save lives and prevent assaults.

McCloud is making it more dangerous for men and women because design is changing.
If people stayed to their own sex toilets, the designs would be much safer, including for McCloud.

I think this is a decently balanced article. I love the final paragraph clearly refuting the "fact" that trans arguments weren't heard (though it is a shame that they didn't highlight that the literal government was also arguing for trans "rights").

They are the Main Characters and we are just the NPCs, and they feel frustrated when the NPCs don't act according to the programme.

There's a fair amount of elitism and unacknowledge male chauvinism wrapped in there. One fairly prominent TRA who I know (male, not trans) is like this - quite sincerely believes himself to be a feminist ally, but when anything trans related pops up, his attitude is very much: these silly women with their silly unfounded fears and they can't possibly believe anything so absurd as TW being a threat in women's toilets, so this must be a dogwhistle, and surely they'd see how silly and unfounded those fears are if they would just allow me to patiently explain things to them.

Sometimes he even deploys the Big Waggy Finger of the Male Ally and says, well I don't consider it to be authentic feminism if it isn't inclusive of all women.

He's tried it on me. He knows I have considered objections but he doesn't hear them. He continues to believe that hearing him say the same thing over and over again will programme me to have the right thoughts.

I get a very similar vibe from VM, but with an added, how shall I put this, eccentric take on reality.

What a dickhead. All smoke & mirrors and emotive nonsense.

As a (former) barrister and knowledgeable judge one might reasonably expect VM to be aware of the legal background to FWS which is capably and clearly explained in this latest paper from Michael Foran (a paper which probably deserves its own thread, if there isn’t one already):

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5282283

I think there’s a lot of very improper sleight of hand hat-switching going on. It’s acceptable for VM, just like any other activist, to make the trans talking points he wants to, but he is trying to have his cake and eat it by using his former position as a neutral arbiter of the law to bolster his activism. There is a reason he is no longer a member of the judiciary and I don’t think enough is made of that when he is featured.

The SC wasn't a forum for individual speeches and personal feelings.

The entire Scots Govt case and Amnesty's case was the TRA position and had largely been fed to them and written for them by the GI lobby.

Individual intervenors are not usually allowed as far as I'm aware, and have to represent more than themselves and add an argument or evidence not covered within the case so far (hence the applications being refused)

Emotive sad stories would still not have made the judges interpret the law in a way that led to it being wholly incoherent for three other groups who need the protections of the Equality Act to favour and centre a group of men, whose rights are also fully intact and unaffected within the act.

Human rights and laws etc are not solely and only for trans identified men.

You would think an ex judge might know some of this.

yeah, neither Oxford nor Cambridge have exactly covered themselves in glory in this area. Disappointing!

I can only think their case is, in all honesty, a belief that it is ethical and right that judges and everyone else should ignore the laws, and overturn and abandon all other rights and protections to do what this group of men want. On the grounds that they are more important than everyone else, and rights for others shouldn't really be a thing.

That seems to be what they are saying.

I happened to switch on the TV shortly before the end of this programme. The sound wasn't on and my initial thought when simply seeing VM for the first time was: is that a man? When VM's hands came into shot, it was perfectly obvious to me what sex he is. So if VM thinks no-one would realise he's a trans woman before he walked into the men's loos, that's not true.

Like others, I was disappointed in Laura Kuenssberg's gentle style of questioning. Normally she's much more forceful.

The bbc have a habbit of using lobby groups and individual sob stories instead of any journalism.

The newcast episode was just an opportunity for a TRA to talk bollocks, LK didnt seem to know or care about the details to keep it to facts and the bigger picture. Therefore it was the bbc giving a TRA a platform to say how sad they are on a news programme.

The bbc website then used this content, with a couple of other quotes as "news" on their website.

Laura Kuenssberg was promoting this interview on her Sunday politics show this morning - it felt really odd to single it out there.

They are the Main Characters and we are just the NPCs, and they feel frustrated when the NPCs don't act according to the programme.

I do like this description. I will shamelessly steal it!

@PriOn1 As for being killed in the men’s toilets, I’m fairly sure I could use men’s toilets throughout the UK and I might get told I shouldn’t be there sometimes, but the chances of actual violence are tiny. If McCloud thinks being killed is likely, then it cannot be because he is a woman. It’s either paranoia, a lie or UK men are very much more violent towards MtF transitioners than women, and I don’t believe that’s backed up with any evidence.

And even if you grant that because McCloud is trans he faces existential peril in the men's, that's a problem (get this!) for men to resolve (because he is one!), not women. The faultiness of the augments is astounding. The hyperbole; the alternations between, venom, contempt, and teary-eyed victim-hood; the dishonest and defective logic -- it all rests on a tautologically false premise that TWAW. It's cringingly disgraceful. And it makes one wonder if there isn't a character defect that prevents someone as eminent as McCloud from from feeling shame spouting such nonsense.

To be honest, it reminded me a bit of Nick Griffin on Question Time. Give someone a mainstream platform and just allow them to dig themselves a hole big enough to fall into.

TRA redefine all women spaces as 'safe spaces', then define themselves as the most vulnerable.