The chair of SEEN is being sued.

[PriOn1]

We can’t post Crowdfunder links here, but there is now a Crowdfunder entitled “Chair of SEEN sued for saying 'only women menstruate'by Elspeth Duemmer Wrigley”

Text from website:

Who are you?
I'm Elspeth Duemmer Wrigley. I work for an arms-length body to a government department (part of the Civil Service) and love my job. I'm also gender critical, and chair of a governmental department SEEN (Sex Equality and Equity Network). SEEN represents those who are gender critical in our workplace.
What can you tell us?
The way I describe the case is restrained by my situation. I am writing this in a personal capacity, but am still employed and must comply with my employer's code of conduct and the Nolan Principles of Public Life. This places certain restrictions on me.
I’ve given as much information as I can, but I hope that what I set out below is sufficient to understand what’s going on.
So what happened?
I work for an arms-length body to the main government department. The case has been brought by a claimant who is an employee of another arms-length body. The claimant is taking their own employer, the government department and me to court.
Among other matters, the claimant is suing the government department for allowing our departmental SEEN network to exist (on the basis that the existence of the network has the effect of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating and/or offensive environment for the claimant).
What is the SEEN network?
SEEN (the Sex Equality and Equity Network) is an official cross-governmental staff network. We also have networks in three government departments (including the one being taken to court). SEEN is known as the gender critical network and is the only civil service network that clearly treats sex and sexual orientation as concepts defined in the Equality Act, which should never be conflated with or replaced by ‘gender identity’.

Yes, there was reference to the standard of lawyering in update 4:

The anonymity application was put off on that occasion, because the judge didn’t think the claimant’s lawyers had done an adequate job of explaining what they wanted, or why they said it was justified, and because the claimant wasn’t there to answer questions.

I have a feeling that popcorn sales are going to spike this time next year.

RMW was successful in Taylor vs Jaguar, although that was a clearcut case of workplace bullying.

RWM has written the standard book (with a coauthor I've forgotten) until such time as Ben Cooper, Anya Palmer, Naomi Cunningham, Akua Reindorf etc. and an appropriate collective of solicitors (is there a collective noun I should use?) perhaps collaborate to rectify matters.

RMW has a thriving practice.

It might be unwise to underestimate the influence that some people have.

It's usually a person with perfectly legal gender critical beliefs taking their employer to a tribunal for discrimination. This one is a trans person taking their employer to tribunal for allowing GC beliefs to exist and be spoken about in the workplace.

Interesting times! And a 14 day hearing! What on earth will take that long? I think there may be a fair chunk of women on annual leave next November

But I hope the refusal to grant anonymity may help others in similar boats.

RMW has a lot of credibility having addressed both the Scottish and UK government hearings on this issue. They have also been prepared to go on TV raising their profile.

This case will be interesting as @Tallisker says this is different because the claimant is a TW and testing out the limits of GC belief from the opposite point of view. As Civil Service Employers are involved it could be key in defining the line at work.

Mention of that book reminds me that RMW described Maya as 'wittering on' when she wrote to RMW's publishers about the outdated content of the book following the judgment in her successful appeal.

Such a revealing choice of words.