Public servant sued for saying sex is binary

Thanks for sharing.

“The aim is to put a question mark over their head, to bring their reputation into question, and in the process scare them into shutting up. They weaponise ‘politeness’.”

It's just come to my attention that someone on is attempting to 'expose' people involved in SEEN and is targeting named individuals
https://x.com/SpotlightOnSEEN

It reads very much like some crazed TRA trying to pick people off and damage SEEN. They're CCing Katie Montgomerie and MimmyMum, among others. Also targeting LGBA.

Bumping this again!!

Good stuff

Looks like Andreas has reached his first target 👏

I don't think you've followed any of the numerous cases with almost identical backgrounds, LondonPapa Had you, you would realise that, starting from Maya Forster's ET appeal onwards, it has been legal precedent that GC views may be expressed.

The claimant is not only suing Mueller, but is also trying to shut the SEEN network down. The discussion of GC views on the network is legally protected free speech.

I don't see how this

It all sounds so childish. When I worked as a lowly Clerical Officer , albeit aeons ago , we often had political discussions at work which might be described by the euphemism ' full and frank'. Then just got on with the job ?

I think you’re probably right about your department, there are many where HR would not have recognised that there were two opposing views and both had validity and a limited right to express them at work. Oddly, they would also not have recognised that they were happy to promote one side of a political debate and silence the other - it’s clearly a blindspot. Maybe Andreas would just have been forced out.

Luckily for Andreas, he was in Defra where senior HR people were aware of the issues. I suspect senior HR in other departments have not been as well informed and have trusted expert advice from biased sources rather than testing and triangulating. They are busy people and the culture tends to ‘be kind’ in HR, and they must also fear for their careers and reputations.

Whether they are inclined to concede because of ideology or because it's simpler still need to send the same message that the actions of the TRAs on these boards are against the law and that people like Andreas will be supported when they challenge this. Any donation helps send that message.

Are you really suggesting that staff networks are apolitical? The issue on there isn't having an opinion. It's having one that goes against the groupthink (i.e. TWAW). It's fine to slag off the SEEN network though.

anyolddinosaur it's not so much that departments concede, more that the people who investigate are also she/hers, he/hims etc and are completely in with the ideology. They grit their teeth to have to deal with GC views and do the minimum necessary. They don't shut down bullying rhetoric, they're so understanding that feelings run high when TRAs are challenged 🤬

Some people get paid 4 weekly. It's going up still and hopefully a post payday boost at the end of the month.

I dont know about the internal procedures but definitely time to highlight that the sort of posts being made on those internal boards are bullying and to take the people who make them through those internal grievance procedures. If Londonpapa has any responsibility for internal procedures then he really needs to be up to date on the law and exactly who should be in trouble here - and it's not Andreas.

The concern is that it's simpler for departments to concede in these cases and we need to make sure they are well aware that would be challenged and be found to be illegal.

I'm still waiting for a judge to rule at least one of these claims inadmissible in a pre tribunal hearing. I am sure, when it's clear they (TRA's) cannot win, that the claims can be classed as vexatious.

Perhaps a counter claim because it is clear the process, yet again, is the punishment. Claims brought to shut us up is my view, give me bloody strength

Payday is approaching!

442 pledges now but still a couple of thousand to get to target.

A belief in gender identity is political. It's also not been established that it is worthy of respect in a democratic society as that requires It must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance (personally I dont think it does) and (crucially for the purposes of Forstater)

not conflict with the fundamental rights of others

Gender ideologists are often in conflict with the fundamental rights of others and the claimant in this case can certainly be argued to be acting in that way. Belief in a gender identity might pass the low bar to be a WORIAD - but not if you express that belief by insisting that others must, say, use preferred pronouns. That is a fundamental conflict with their right not to believe.

Hi @LondonPapa I'd also like to know why you think having a lack of belief in gender identity and expressing this is political, but that holding that belief (and expecting everyone else to as well) is not.

And how do you know any of the details of this anyway? Unless you are the claimant (or the claimant in Elspeth's case) or have been directly involved in the internal grievance or tribunal??

Interesting. Can you elaborate on why those statements are political rather than neutral or are you intimating that Elizabeth and Andreas have delivered partial accounts of the matter?

If it went through internal grievance, does that mean the resolution available was that no further action should be taken or that the grievance was not validated? Can you share more information?

I've seen this and he is rightfully being sued. Although I'm not sure if sued is the right terminology, it started with an internal grievance and escalated. Andreas crossed the boundary and in my department, he'd be on thin ice. He should've thought more about being political in an apolitical environment.

Ah ty for that. Rather scary.

Nope, you're completely right!

What makes this quite unusual is that it's one colleague suing another colleague. I didn't even know that was possible. (Most of the other cases have involved gender-critical employees taking their employer to tribunal for discrimination eg Lizzy Pitt, Rachel Meade etc).

I'd be interested to know what kind of lawyer would take on a case like this, given the low chance of success. Unless, of course, there's solid evidence that Mueller has been harassing his colleague, which seems unlikely - the incidents cited in Mueller's CrowdJustice post are all protected under the Equality Act, as shown by Forstater.

But probably the aim is not to have a successful legal case, but simply to cause distress and anxiety to Andreas Mueller.

I thought gender critical views were protected after the Forstater case. Must have misunderstood this.

Yes, it's great to see that many people are willing to financially support him.

Anyone feeling demoralised take a look at the thread about James Esses. A garden that has bloomed beautifully.