Is it possible he was advising Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre at the time that Mridul Wadhwa and his transmaiden cohorts were hounding Roz Adams out of her job?
But... but... Robin Moira White is one of the authors of "Transgender Law: a practical guide" so must surely be an authority on law in this area?
Oh! Wait!
"Conclusion
If the objective of the book was to increase understanding of the law in this area, it must be judged an abject failure. Even a reader with little prior knowledge will be struck by the regularity with which the authors simply give up on the task of analysis"
I did notice that Robin Moira White is also listed in the acknowledgments for the CIPD’s woefully inadequate and inaccurate guide on Transgender and non-binary inclusion at work. The one that would likely lead an employer to the losing side of an employment tribunal.
What I am astounded by is that it's always relatively few grifters plugging away, making their 'professional' money and gaining influence from 'advising' so many organisations and government departments or associated bodies. It's the same names and they've been remarkably effective. They've being wielding so much underlying power as that 'guidance' and influence has been taken up totally without thought by so many, then that is seen as some kind of evidence base. It's blithely followed, then as soon as it meets the sunlight of legal processes it's shown for what it is. All HR is affected and is then that layer of rot that reaches every other sector. And they let it happen. They defer to 'advice'.
We rely on 'guidance' to provide a context to law, but it has less stringent, and often apparently no standards much of the time. So we are supposed to abide by it, or not? Who's writing it? Anyone checking it's compliant? All this confusion about whether something is statutory or a nice suggestion is that exact gap men like this have manipulated. There should never be doubt over some very basic rights as we can't then uphold them, then everyone sits around arguing. Like the political point scoring wasting time for the last five years, putting off more and more voters, on whether women have a penis, or ever might have had one once maybe possibly.
But it's like magic, that until you face them down in lengthy legal processes everyone's been just going along with this thinking by default 'it's the law' and 'we have to' but not actually bothering to check if it is, or even which laws or principles apply where and how. He set himself up as an expert and somehow too many went along with it, nudging the needle from fantasy, through opinion, to fact all by waving a few pink and blue scarves. Politely ignoring the fetish aspect. It's very like 'health and safety' being used as an excuse to do or not do something, but not quite knowing which bit supposedly applies.
You can apply certain parts of law - he seems to be relying on the parts that say it's up to the provider to decide as they know best. When that's easily shown to not be valid, they don't know best, as they made some very odd decisions in employing a man in a role that was advertised as for a woman, and he lied to get that role. Then that man changed the whole culture of that organisation and pushed out all dissenters or anyone asking questions. They've been bending and breaking and misinterpreting a lot. Nothing seems to have happened to him, no sanctions, he's carried on regardless, with some powerful support from elsewhere in Scotland. So the laws we do have are ineffectual.
And what really floors me is that White is wrong. It's as simple as that. And to have him publicly state 'no' women aren't entitled to single-sex spaces? Oozing such typical cockiness. Oh no, women have no rights, don't be so silly, and I'm an expert. How the hell have men like this been allowed to get away with this, becoming so embedded everywhere? He appears as so arrogant - this Stonewall law we'll-make-it-up-as-we-go-along nonsense. When law and the legal process becomes so divorced from reality people stop trusting all of it.
I agree that too few names have too much influence. They twist the law to suit themselves and exploit anything possible. I think it’s really important that sex is clearly defined in the Equality Act as different to gender but that’s just a start.
You’re right that a huge number of HR people are captured but thankfully not all. I think far too many just blindly follow without thinking it through and that’s unacceptable in the HR profession. When professional bodies like CIPD and even ACAS misrepresent the law, and many lawyers too, it’s easy to see how it happens. I joined a webinar on trans inclusion run by a Glasgow law firm I used to respect and they misrepresented the law, relying on telling all attending to follow the CIPD guidance! There’s a growing number of us in HR fighting back, for our profession and directly challenging CIPD. I’m not sure if it’s okay to share here but in SEEN in HR we are plotting, planning and working hard to help our profession.
Oh that's so good to hear. Wishing you all the best. To mangle my metaphors, it's very odd how all roads sometimes lead back to one source - how one document or policy can hold disproportionate power but it's almost hidden and quite hard to figure out who is using what or how. I don't think people realise the power that CIPD guidance has. These guides are produced and then taken as The Guidance. There is no formal quality assurance and we trust that it's correct. Then you can track it back to some poorly drafted something. Or it’s being totally misused and extrapolated to totally different scenarios. Or they really do believe things with really shaky justifications. I often used to have to put together 'what you look up first' guides if you want to know all you need to on a particular topic and to be legally watertight in how you made your decisions in my field. Sometimes students would expect me to splurge out the answer when it had taken me decades to learn how to and there is no one simple ‘answer’. Turns out those in professional fields might not actually use what they are thought to use, or thousands of pieces of guidance and law and it's a much wider way to access layers of knowledge that we draw from. We rely on so much advisory stuff and I've helped write some of it. There will always be some trying to deliberately poke holes in that - it strikes me as some very old form of professional courtesy that we expect people to follow it then use statute as a back stop. Some seem to think well if I'm not expressly told I can't, and it's non-statutory I'll go right ahead until someone catches me or a few someones in a big wig tell me to stop. All the schools and NHS 'guidance' seems bogged down in that and it’s a gap that was filled. It can't be left up to people to interpret things how they like, then it turns out some random 'consultancy' came in to 'train' them in Stonewall law. I sometimes check the list of those still signed up.
I'm sure it's okay to share - I didn't intend to criticise all legal or HR professionals. Blindly following is a human condition in all roles. And we are sometimes skewered in how we have to follow policies. I lost all respect for AC*S decades ago and am still stunned when I see people are advised to contact them. They have given shockingly bad advice and didn’t seem to be able to do a quick Google either. They often pushed people to take pointless claims with no merit or told those who had obvious cases not to enforce their rights and to drop it. It always galls me when I see a bit of 'collateral' which someone has taken time to discuss, plan, put nice logos on and choose the font and although it looks legit it takes me a moment to realise it's total bollix. I have that 'are you going to tell them or shall I?' feeling. I would ask has this been checked by anyone other than me or us? What's the formal government position? Would get tumbleweed back. Or ‘we’re working on it’. Then it would be 'checked' and still be grossly wrong. Who is advising these people??! Oh, that would be...
A big part of the problem is that lawyers are getting it wrong still. It takes a very experienced and strong HR person to tell an employment lawyer they’re wrong! The CIPD had lawyers like that tell them they were doing the right thing. Don’t worry, I didn’t take it as criticism about HR. So many are completely captured and I take every possible opportunity to say we’re not all like that.
My concern is that HR are the gatekeepers of policy for organisations and have to be at the forefront of pushing back. We need to get through to more of them.
Thank you - gatekeeping is exactly it. That crosses professional boundaries as everything gets referred up the line. A gatekeeper (in whatever role, HR or legal) in one profession can seem to overrule another. And that reinforcing layer of seeking advice that's so poor but no one seems to be aware. Then it 'turns out' it was bad advice rather obviously when someone's support dog barks it out loud during their online day in court. It's exactly that professional jockeying for power. People accorded White that respect automatically which is why I love it when other qualified professionals get to counter this rubbish, with the backing to do it. This has very obvious links with what is happening in the NHS and how it all seems to be going very wrong, yet people don't quite seem sure why or how to improve it. Or even who is making the decisions.
Where we seem to have got to is enough people under the impression, or believing and trusting they have followed 'the advice' and done the right thing. I used to almost refuse to state things, or give anything vaguely construed as advice, until I knew why I was doing so and that kind of refusal to be coerced doesn't make you popular. Knowing anything I wrote might be used in court led to so many performative 'putting my pen down now everyone you won't have this attributed' in meetings, but I've seen government officials shaking with fear that they personally would be held responsible.
We need to get this influence out of all our regulatory bodies, which is the role all our professional bodies or membership bodies or chartered this that are acting in.
Reminds me of those naughties mens rights activists who fill the outrage pages of mens sheds -those angry dissolute, often darkly violent - morose ex husbands - the ones who'd gather in small fracas groups standing outside the family law courts- bleating women were stealing their liberty for daring to ask for scraps
Except men's rights activists actually have a worthy cause. Plenty of abusive, vindictive, personality-disordered women out there. Fortunately, a lot of them are getting their tits cut off these days, so men can spot them easier.
That wasn't my main point and in any case I'm sure Julie knows what she is doing. I may be wrong of course but it seems to me that calling White's professional conduct into question in this way may be considered defamatory. To which the answer may be: bring it on!
That wasn't my main point and in any case I'm sure Julie knows what she is doing. I may be wrong of course but it seems to me that calling White's professional conduct into question in this way may be considered defamatory. To which the answer may be: bring it on!
Ah, yes. I see what you mean now. I don't think there's enough for White to hang an action off, but he is noted for having "interesting" notions of what the law is! 😁 😁
But... but... Robin Moira White is one of the authors of "Transgender Law: a practical guide" so must surely be an authority on law in this area?
Oh! Wait!
"Conclusion
If the objective of the book was to increase understanding of the law in this area, it must be judged an abject failure. Even a reader with little prior knowledge will be struck by the regularity with which the authors simply give up on the task of analysis"
https://www.legalfeminist.org.uk/2021/09/02/a-practical-guide/
It’s highly likely that his incompetent and sticky mitts are all over this.
Yes I'm sure he most definitely was Julie!!! A TRA in sheep's clothing. Oh dear ref that photo....and I have just lost both my breakfast & lunch 🤢 🤮 😂
repugnant
I did notice that Robin Moira White is also listed in the acknowledgments for the CIPD’s woefully inadequate and inaccurate guide on Transgender and non-binary inclusion at work. The one that would likely lead an employer to the losing side of an employment tribunal.
What I am astounded by is that it's always relatively few grifters plugging away, making their 'professional' money and gaining influence from 'advising' so many organisations and government departments or associated bodies. It's the same names and they've been remarkably effective. They've being wielding so much underlying power as that 'guidance' and influence has been taken up totally without thought by so many, then that is seen as some kind of evidence base. It's blithely followed, then as soon as it meets the sunlight of legal processes it's shown for what it is. All HR is affected and is then that layer of rot that reaches every other sector. And they let it happen. They defer to 'advice'.
We rely on 'guidance' to provide a context to law, but it has less stringent, and often apparently no standards much of the time. So we are supposed to abide by it, or not? Who's writing it? Anyone checking it's compliant? All this confusion about whether something is statutory or a nice suggestion is that exact gap men like this have manipulated. There should never be doubt over some very basic rights as we can't then uphold them, then everyone sits around arguing. Like the political point scoring wasting time for the last five years, putting off more and more voters, on whether women have a penis, or ever might have had one once maybe possibly.
But it's like magic, that until you face them down in lengthy legal processes everyone's been just going along with this thinking by default 'it's the law' and 'we have to' but not actually bothering to check if it is, or even which laws or principles apply where and how. He set himself up as an expert and somehow too many went along with it, nudging the needle from fantasy, through opinion, to fact all by waving a few pink and blue scarves. Politely ignoring the fetish aspect. It's very like 'health and safety' being used as an excuse to do or not do something, but not quite knowing which bit supposedly applies.
You can apply certain parts of law - he seems to be relying on the parts that say it's up to the provider to decide as they know best. When that's easily shown to not be valid, they don't know best, as they made some very odd decisions in employing a man in a role that was advertised as for a woman, and he lied to get that role. Then that man changed the whole culture of that organisation and pushed out all dissenters or anyone asking questions. They've been bending and breaking and misinterpreting a lot. Nothing seems to have happened to him, no sanctions, he's carried on regardless, with some powerful support from elsewhere in Scotland. So the laws we do have are ineffectual.
And what really floors me is that White is wrong. It's as simple as that. And to have him publicly state 'no' women aren't entitled to single-sex spaces? Oozing such typical cockiness. Oh no, women have no rights, don't be so silly, and I'm an expert. How the hell have men like this been allowed to get away with this, becoming so embedded everywhere? He appears as so arrogant - this Stonewall law we'll-make-it-up-as-we-go-along nonsense. When law and the legal process becomes so divorced from reality people stop trusting all of it.
I agree that too few names have too much influence. They twist the law to suit themselves and exploit anything possible. I think it’s really important that sex is clearly defined in the Equality Act as different to gender but that’s just a start.
You’re right that a huge number of HR people are captured but thankfully not all. I think far too many just blindly follow without thinking it through and that’s unacceptable in the HR profession. When professional bodies like CIPD and even ACAS misrepresent the law, and many lawyers too, it’s easy to see how it happens. I joined a webinar on trans inclusion run by a Glasgow law firm I used to respect and they misrepresented the law, relying on telling all attending to follow the CIPD guidance! There’s a growing number of us in HR fighting back, for our profession and directly challenging CIPD. I’m not sure if it’s okay to share here but in SEEN in HR we are plotting, planning and working hard to help our profession.
Oh that's so good to hear. Wishing you all the best. To mangle my metaphors, it's very odd how all roads sometimes lead back to one source - how one document or policy can hold disproportionate power but it's almost hidden and quite hard to figure out who is using what or how. I don't think people realise the power that CIPD guidance has. These guides are produced and then taken as The Guidance. There is no formal quality assurance and we trust that it's correct. Then you can track it back to some poorly drafted something. Or it’s being totally misused and extrapolated to totally different scenarios. Or they really do believe things with really shaky justifications. I often used to have to put together 'what you look up first' guides if you want to know all you need to on a particular topic and to be legally watertight in how you made your decisions in my field. Sometimes students would expect me to splurge out the answer when it had taken me decades to learn how to and there is no one simple ‘answer’. Turns out those in professional fields might not actually use what they are thought to use, or thousands of pieces of guidance and law and it's a much wider way to access layers of knowledge that we draw from. We rely on so much advisory stuff and I've helped write some of it. There will always be some trying to deliberately poke holes in that - it strikes me as some very old form of professional courtesy that we expect people to follow it then use statute as a back stop. Some seem to think well if I'm not expressly told I can't, and it's non-statutory I'll go right ahead until someone catches me or a few someones in a big wig tell me to stop. All the schools and NHS 'guidance' seems bogged down in that and it’s a gap that was filled. It can't be left up to people to interpret things how they like, then it turns out some random 'consultancy' came in to 'train' them in Stonewall law. I sometimes check the list of those still signed up.
I'm sure it's okay to share - I didn't intend to criticise all legal or HR professionals. Blindly following is a human condition in all roles. And we are sometimes skewered in how we have to follow policies. I lost all respect for AC*S decades ago and am still stunned when I see people are advised to contact them. They have given shockingly bad advice and didn’t seem to be able to do a quick Google either. They often pushed people to take pointless claims with no merit or told those who had obvious cases not to enforce their rights and to drop it. It always galls me when I see a bit of 'collateral' which someone has taken time to discuss, plan, put nice logos on and choose the font and although it looks legit it takes me a moment to realise it's total bollix. I have that 'are you going to tell them or shall I?' feeling. I would ask has this been checked by anyone other than me or us? What's the formal government position? Would get tumbleweed back. Or ‘we’re working on it’. Then it would be 'checked' and still be grossly wrong. Who is advising these people??! Oh, that would be...
A big part of the problem is that lawyers are getting it wrong still. It takes a very experienced and strong HR person to tell an employment lawyer they’re wrong! The CIPD had lawyers like that tell them they were doing the right thing. Don’t worry, I didn’t take it as criticism about HR. So many are completely captured and I take every possible opportunity to say we’re not all like that.
My concern is that HR are the gatekeepers of policy for organisations and have to be at the forefront of pushing back. We need to get through to more of them.
Thank you - gatekeeping is exactly it. That crosses professional boundaries as everything gets referred up the line. A gatekeeper (in whatever role, HR or legal) in one profession can seem to overrule another. And that reinforcing layer of seeking advice that's so poor but no one seems to be aware. Then it 'turns out' it was bad advice rather obviously when someone's support dog barks it out loud during their online day in court. It's exactly that professional jockeying for power. People accorded White that respect automatically which is why I love it when other qualified professionals get to counter this rubbish, with the backing to do it. This has very obvious links with what is happening in the NHS and how it all seems to be going very wrong, yet people don't quite seem sure why or how to improve it. Or even who is making the decisions.
Where we seem to have got to is enough people under the impression, or believing and trusting they have followed 'the advice' and done the right thing. I used to almost refuse to state things, or give anything vaguely construed as advice, until I knew why I was doing so and that kind of refusal to be coerced doesn't make you popular. Knowing anything I wrote might be used in court led to so many performative 'putting my pen down now everyone you won't have this attributed' in meetings, but I've seen government officials shaking with fear that they personally would be held responsible.
We need to get this influence out of all our regulatory bodies, which is the role all our professional bodies or membership bodies or chartered this that are acting in.
Reminds me of those naughties mens rights activists who fill the outrage pages of mens sheds -those angry dissolute, often darkly violent - morose ex husbands - the ones who'd gather in small fracas groups standing outside the family law courts- bleating women were stealing their liberty for daring to ask for scraps
Except men's rights activists actually have a worthy cause. Plenty of abusive, vindictive, personality-disordered women out there. Fortunately, a lot of them are getting their tits cut off these days, so men can spot them easier.
nah
Robin has Jolyon Maugham levels of success…
LoL Rob’s a bloatato tranny that hasn’t won a case isn’t that right Sir? #YWNBAW just a mendacious beta cuttlefish of a man.
That wasn't my main point and in any case I'm sure Julie knows what she is doing. I may be wrong of course but it seems to me that calling White's professional conduct into question in this way may be considered defamatory. To which the answer may be: bring it on!
er, a lot of questions. Why don't you ask him? (and lower the risk of a libel action?)
I see nothing libellous in the article.
That wasn't my main point and in any case I'm sure Julie knows what she is doing. I may be wrong of course but it seems to me that calling White's professional conduct into question in this way may be considered defamatory. To which the answer may be: bring it on!
Ah, yes. I see what you mean now. I don't think there's enough for White to hang an action off, but he is noted for having "interesting" notions of what the law is! 😁 😁