Sarah Phillimore and Robin Moira White interviewed by Andrew Doyle

God. What a load of whiney boringness of made up shite that article is Blackbird

Also inflaming the tensions further IMO with the hyperbole.

so over the top:

shock at her death has rippled through the LGBT+ community.

this kind of tragedy was waiting to happen.

stoke “debate” over trans people’s lives

something I, as Britain’s only trans discrimination barrister, have to cope with every day.

pulling faces, giggling and laughing - Imagine if the comparable treatment had been meted out

trans people are never quite equal.

Nothing, but nothing compares with the toxicity of social media. I have recently been described online as the “fat white bloke in the awful wig pretending to be a woman”.

recently assaulted on a night out with friends, just for being trans.

We know where dehumanising tactics take us, who uses them and has used them historically. It is used in war, such as the Russian rhetoric about Ukranians. When an “other” is no longer regarded as “human”, then it is easier to kill them or justify shelling civilian homes or facilities.

Trans people experience this, too. We face journalists and politicians playing the game of getting the word “trans” and “paedophile” or “child-molester” in the same sentence to create an impression.

The parallels with the treatment of gay people during the time of section 28 are stark – and hard to bear.

Be in no doubt: if you indulge in these activities you are putting real people at risk.

It is time for some real leadership.

remove people like Nikki da Costa, who has warned against “letting Stonewall dictate trans policies, even where those undermine women’s rights or where they may cause harm to gender distressed children”, from the centre of power

Will Sunak call out the false narratives that tell us that allowing trans people to live decently is a threat to the safety of women and girls? To find an accommodation with the Scottish GRR? To find parliamentary time, in the remainder of this session, to get a cross-party supported, full ban on conversion therapy?

In that case, regardless of whether it was linked to the fact she was trans, Brianna’s terrible and tragic death could – though it will bring scant relief to her family and friends – be a turning point.

false narratives and political expediency count more than a vulnerable minority.

In what way was Maya’s fit of giggles disrespectful?

RMW was claiming that ‘[biological] sex is not simple… it is not straightforward ’ in a fact free attempt to undermine the pc of Sex in the Equality Act to the detriment of women.

Maya whispered “Yes it is” to Helen Joyce and then they laughed.

RMW trying to make out that they were doing any more than that is inaccurate and unjustified. Unsurprising though.

That’s how it goes, RMW says something ridiculous, people giggle, then “you’re only laughing coz I is tranz”.

No you said something stupid mate.

Reminded me of Germaine Greer (?) saying men fear women laughing at them. Women fear men killing them.

www.independent.co.uk/voices/brianna-ghey-trans-girl-stabbed-death-b2281353.html

I’m intrigued by your Germaine Greer reference here though, are you referring to Maya laughing at RMW or linking it to Brianna Ghey?

I think the quote is actually a paraphrase of Margaret Atwood, not GG.

I took it to mean that RMW is losing it over women laughing, in a context where women’s rights to spaces which are guaranteed to be free of male violence, are being debated.

I think the quote is actually a paraphrase of Margaret Atwood, not GG.

You are correct.

GG said 'women have very little idea how much men hate them', and the older i get, the more i realise she was absolutely right.

I think the quote is actually a paraphrase of Margaret Atwood, not GG.

I took it to mean that RMW is losing it over women laughing, in a context where women’s rights to spaces which are guaranteed to be free of male violence, are being debated.

Yes, that’s what I meant @EndlessTea That clip of MF laughing happened before the tragic and senseless death of Brianna Ghey. Yet was somehow seen as relevant by RMW. How? Disingenuous at best. Malevolent and misogynistic at worst.

@Ameanstreakamilewide I am coming depressingly to the same conclusion and fear so much for my wonderful DD.

@RichardBarrister In what way was Maya’s fit of giggles disrespectful?

I am not saying MF was disrespectful. It is evident that RMW clearly felt it was disrespectful and outraged that MF laughed in a ‘how dare they?’ kind of way. Otherwise, why comment in a national newspaper?

The clip RMW references without any context, which is how most people will view it, could be interpreted as being disrespectful or unprofessional behaviour in a Government Committee whilst panel members were giving evidence.

The clip can be used anyway TRAs want to use it - not right but it’s what happens.

Ah yes, I see what you mean.

RMWs reference to it is totally disingenuous.

So, RMW says them is the country's only trans rights lawyer. I wonder why the Bar Association hasn't reprimanded they for consistently misrepresenting the Equalities Act of 2010? After all, them has done so many times.

I think that Joyce pointed out to Forstater that she was being captured on camera saying 'no it's not' to the proposition that sex was very complicated. That is when they got into a bit of a fit of laughter.

One thing I am bemused about. White seemed to be amazed that White was regarded by someone as being, and called (quote) a fat white bloke in the awful wig pretending to be a woman and then goes on to state When an “other” is no longer regarded as “human .

Since have blokes (whether fat, white and with or sans wigs) no longer been regarded as human? Blinking' heck, it seems they are the only ones regarded as human, and there is some attempt to push for women to be regarded as other than a very real biological female sex. Which no amount of 'identity' can result in a male turning into one. You couldn't make up this level of flat earthedness.

Can concur. Blokes are definitely still regarded as human. Even the fat, white, ones.

I listened to that committee hearing rather than watched it.
Always a discombobulating experience, hearing a male voice stating theyself to be a female.

I see you have had to put ‘[biological]’ in brackets. Presumably because you acknowledge it wasn’t there. This was a discussion of what ‘legal’ sex means - far from simple, as recent case law shows.

Disagree with me all you like but don’t misrepresent me.

You just can't resist, can you 🤣

Shocked! 😲 I'm shocked I tell you!

I understood legal sex to be fairly simple, where it doesn't correspond to biological sex it's a fiction.

Disagree with me all you like but don’t misrepresent me.

DELETED if we do.

DELETED if we don't.

Some people are never satisfied.

RobinMoiraWhite · Today 16:23

Disagree with me all you like but don’t misrepresent me.

When you stop misrepresenting the Equalities Act 2010.

Does that sound fair enough?

This are wise words...

I'm honestly past caring what 'legal sex' means, my interest is long gone. There are two sexes, no one changes sex, some females need female only spaces, male people are going to have to get over this since the world is not solely for and about them. They are welcome to create additional facilities as they need.

And yes, I'd have laughed too at 'it's complicated'. Borrow a toddler: they've got it all figured out and will explain.

Re:
RobinMoiraWhite · Today 16:23

RichardBarrister · Yesterday 22:53

“In what way was Maya’s fit of giggles disrespectful?”

RMW was claiming that ‘[biological] sex is not simple… it is not straightforward ’ in a fact free attempt to undermine the pc of Sex in the Equality Act to the detriment of women.

^Maya whispered “Yes it is” to Helen Joyce and then they laughed*.

RMW trying to make out that they were doing any more than that is inaccurate and unjustified. Unsurprising though.

I see you have had to put ‘[biological]’ in brackets. Presumably because you acknowledge it wasn’t there. This was a discussion of what ‘legal’ sex means - far from simple, as recent case law shows.

Disagree with me all you like but don’t misrepresent me.

Having looked at the House of Commons transcript, I do think it is understandable, that RichardBarrister stated that RMW “was claiming [biological] sex was not simple” rather than ‘legal sex’.

That was the point at which HJ and MF were laughing.

Also, if you read a bit earlier in the transcript you see others on the committee had been saying sex in the Equality Act was clearly biological, but RMW had disagreed which also bears out why Richard Barrister had said this.

But, I am not a lawyer so I am surmising this: RMW may have gone on to bring in ‘legal sex’ when he discussed the case which the expert legal witness Dr Michael Foran had brought up earlier to show how problematically a GRC May interact with the Equality Act, in the case of a transwoman with a GRC who is pregnant losing her maternity rights as a biological woman by being treated as though (s)he is a man because of the GRC “changing” her sex.

This is an excerpt of the transcript of the
committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/12639/pdf/
relevant to where RMW was speaking ( I have put in bold) and Helen Joyce and Maya Forstater laughed when RMW said sex was simple.

(Earlier in the meeting if you read the transcript it was discussed that sex in the Equality Act is biological because it qualifies ‘man’ with male of any age and ‘woman’ by female of any age, which can only be biological. RMW had disagreed it was biological, saying all it did was say a man could be a boy or a woman could be a girl.)

Rachel Maclean: There are four of you, and this is so complicated to navigate and so different from all four of you in different and very technical ways. It is really hard to disagree with the statement that there will be a chilling effect on providers of single-sex services.

Naomi Cunningham: Yes, it is difficult.

*Lord Falconer of Thoroton+: Is that it? We cannot make life more
generous for transgender people.

Rachel Maclean: Here with respect, Lord Falconer, we are talking about the legal ramifications.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Yes, and that is what I am talking about. I am talking about the legal ramifications.

Rachel Maclean: I am trying to tease out with this particular—

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Yes, and I am trying—

Rachel Maclean: I agree, we should try and make life better for transgender people, but I also want to make life better for women who need single-sex spaces and need to be safe. I want to balance the two. The two have to happen at the same time. We do not raise up one group by trying to take away rights and protections from another. That is the separate policy question.

Robin Moira White: The Haldane judgment applies to the Equality Act as it is now.

Rachel Maclean: Yes, I know, but if you remember when I started my line of questioning, from my briefing that I have had, one of the reasons of the UK Government was to say it is about the operation of the Equality Act given the new cohort of people that will be coming into it.

Robin Moira White: No, but to justify using section 35, you have to have an adverse effect on the operation—

Rachel Maclean: Do you not think a chilling effect is an adverse effect?

Robin Moira White: Forgive me. What we have done is explore the
implications of the Haldane judgment on the Equality Act as it is now.

Rachel Maclean: Yes, I understand.

Robin Moira White: Not with what difference the GRR might make to it. I have practised for 30 years in discrimination and I have watched judges take the Equality Act. I really enjoyed reading Michael's paper, a lot of which sets out some of the difficulties with the Equality Act as it is now. That is his point in some points. I disagree that the GRR makes a difference.

Dr Foran: Makes them worse.

Robin Moira White: What we tried to do in the Equality Act is express ways of balancing. There are other protected characteristics, but we are obviously focused on sex. What we have managed to demonstrate is that sex is not simple, not straightforward. What happens very quickly when we try cases on equal pay is there is one poorly argued judgment on the effect of a trans person on an equal pay claim. It is poorly argued because it was only argued by one side of the case in the EAT. There is effectively no useful case law in that area. There will be, ultimately. Ultimately, we will get to it, but actually what sex is, is complex, and that is what we have shown.

We can try and write good law, and people have tried to write good law. Partly, we have to trust the courts to look sensibly at the particular provision. There is a provision that says, as Michael is saying, a woman has a right to pregnancy rights. Is a pregnant trans man to be treated as a woman if they go to their employer and say they want pregnancy rights? I would say yes, because they are in an unusual circumstance, but until that occurs in front of a tribunal, we will not know*.

I had the impression here in that section (in bold) that RMW was talking about sex in the Equality Act. If so, it had been made clear in the meeting a little earlier that to other people on the committee sex meant biological sex, even if not to RMW.