Another GC employment tribunal: Roz Adams vs Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre #3

[nauticant]

Roz Adams was employed by Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre (ERCC) as a counsellor. She is claiming constructive dismissal for Gener Critical (GC) beliefs. The CEO of ERCC is a well known transwoman known for, among other things, controversial "reframe your trauma" remarks.

There's live tweeting from https://twitter.com/tribunaltweets or if Twitter doesn't show the tweets, look at https://nitter.net/tribunaltweets. There's an informative substack here: https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/adams-vs-edinburgh-rape-crisis-centre

This post explains how to get access to watch the hearing: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4988632-another-gc-employment-tribunal-roz-adams-vs-edinburgh-rape-crisis-centre-2?page=24&reply=132419912

Abbreviations:
J: Employment Judge McFatridge
RA: Roz Adams, the claimant
NC: Naomi Cunningham, barrister for the claimant
ERCC or R: Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre, the respondent
DH: David Hay KC, barrister for the respondent
KM: Katy McTernan, ERCC Senior management
MR: Mairi Rosko, ERCC Board Member
MS: Miren Sagues, ERCC Board Member
KH: Katie Horburgh, ERCC Board Member
AB: ERCC staff member (name redacted)
NCi: Nico Ciubotariu, COO of ERCC
MW: Mridul Wadhwa, CEO of ERCC
BP: Beira's Place

RA gave evidence over 15-18 January 2024.

Witnesses:
Nicole Jones (NJ): 18 January 2024 (on behalf of RA)
Mairi Rosko (MR): 19 January 2024 (on behalf of ERCC)
Katy McTernan (referred to both as KT and KM): 22 January 2024 (on behalf of ERCC)
[more to follow]

Thread #1: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4985570-another-gc-employment-tribunal-adams-vs-edinburgh-rape-crsis
Thread #2: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4988632-another-gc-employment-tribunal-roz-adams-vs-edinburgh-rape-crisis-centre-2

Anyone reading who wants to watch as well:

Get thee behind me…I've more deadlines to meet.

I really agree with this. But I think at least part of the problem is that the various actors in this don’t think that what they have is actually a “belief” (on either side). Eg even though it’s framed that way in law, for good reason, since the Forstater case, I and other GC women don’t really think it’s a “belief” that men are not women, so much as a statement of biological fact.

And I think on the other side too, TRAs don’t see TWAW as a belief that one could reasonably hold or not hold. It’s not like “I believe in ghosts, but you don’t”. I think they see it as an essential statement about the world, that is necessary for the creation of a “just” society. And so you can’t provide resources for people who don’t share that “belief”, because that would be like saying we’ll provide all-white groups for people who don’t believe in racial equality.

So in short I don’t see how these things could be reconciled! I mean, a legal solution could be found that involves respecting others’ “beliefs” while ensuring fairness in provision of services - but the actual fundamentals of the TWAW “belief” involve thinking that the other is wrong and shouldn’t be tolerated.

If the law explicitly states that sex (in addition to gender) is a protected characteristic in law, how is it ever possible for it to be unacceptable to talk about sex based rights in a democracy?

Having a culture which deliberately sets out to prevent individuals from discussing and therefore asserting their sex based rights really doesn't sound like a position compatible with democratic principles does it?

The key point is the repression and the silencing by hostile and intimidating means - which are not based on anything - in other words slurs, character assassinations and defamatory comments.

None of which is professional.

It's basically the MN talk principle of you can attack the ball but not the player with personal attacks being the heart of the toxicity in these discussions. You have to be able justify your comments with reasonableness and a specific legally defendable concern. This can include holding people in positions of power to account for on record demonstratable comments. (Unlike the ones that no one has ever identified for JKR)

ACCOUNTABILITY. It's all about accountability of power.

"But if you truly believe TWAW and that “transphobia” is akin to racism, this makes sense, doesn’t it? As in, would a rape crisis centre agree to hold “whites only” sessions? I wouldn’t think so."

Except they might agree to hold a "black only" session, the rationale being provision of a space away from those belonging to the 'oppressor' group. Which is why we don't want males with any identities in female groups.

Yes I completely agree. But, in TWAW ideology, it would be the “trans only” session that is the equivalent of the “black only” session! i.e. it’s the oppressed group that gets the separate session, not the oppressor (and of course “cis” women are seen as the oppressor).

I mean, it’s entirely mad. But it’s consistent.

I think that's why they're muddying, or trying to, what sex actually is. Conflating it with gender. When gender started as a polite euphemism for sex.

Think RedToothBrush raises important point there

GC women's views are typically in line existing law, which makes a distinction between sex and gender and does not confer all the rights of one sex onto the other even if a GRC is obtained. For example, women (ie trans men) with a GRC can't join the Catholic priesthood, or inherit male line wealth or titles. I don't mean that GC feminists support those clearly deeply sexist examples, but that we also don't think that a GRC really changes a person's sex, let alone that simply claiming a gender identity does.

How can it be immoral, illegal, or discriminatory to believe in that distinction, not to believe that people literally and totally change sex, if it's baked into the laws on the topic?

Yes! Which is why clarifying the law, as these cases are doing, and preventing changes to the law (eg self-ID) is so important.

Here's a question.

IF we do eventually get a ruling along the lines of you can't be prejudice to gender critical people and that a lack of tolerance of gender critical views is not acceptable in a democratic society...

...where does that leave every sitting MP who has refused to engage with gender critical women or blocked them on twitter?

Just pondering.

It's astounding that exclusions to stop women with GRCs (trans men) from inheriting wealth and titles were built into the legislation, but nothing to stop rapists claiming places in women's prisons, or men insisting on taking over rape crisis centres.

And then women who suggest that perhaps such exclusions would be a good idea are abused. When mirror distinctions are in the legislation, except that they are only directed against the female sex.

Then stop reading this!!! And get back to work!!

I'm in the room!

Me too.

And me

Are any of the witness statements available to read?

I think they've let us in a bit early!

They don't know we can hear them do they!

Storm Jocelyn

They are discussing issues that may arise from the storm

lordloveadog you mean "astounding" in the same way Ben Cooper KC would say "surprising," don't you! It's totally "surprising" that legal protections for men were passed but not for women. As in, natal women. Transwomen still get all the important stuff like still being able to inherit titles and still be a Freemason, as well as the free pass to female sport/prisons/refuges/changing rooms etc. It's almost like we live in a patrichial world, innit.

Can't DH, a barrister, afford an overnight hotel to, you know, make sure the case gets finished. GIven that it was almost certainly his side that caused much of the delay yesterday.

Should we have a whip round?

I think they plan to use witness statements rather than direct questioning im not too sure though

They are about to start

NC doesn't expect to be done with KM by midday as intended. Since she's the only witness of any real relevance put forward by ERCC, she will need to be cross-examined for longer.

It really is as if the legislation was drafted with a very clear denial of the fact women are entitled to full human rights at the heart of it.

Abusing women. Treating them as less important than men. It's baked in.

NC asking. about the fact that AB excommunicated Roz