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’.

Even though there have been hundreds observing in previous et's!

How do you sign in? Which settings? Not that I’ll get in now. 40 observers? Needs 10 times that 😡

From TT

Catching up here: PQ has settled and is no longer part of the case. Revised description: Tempest (the claimant or C) is claiming discrimination, harassment and/or victimisation on grounds of gender reassignment.

Thank you @MyLadyDisdainlsYetLiving. I am busy today at work so will be dipping in and out of this thread to stay updated. I am in a SEEN network so really hoping this case goes the way we would expect it to. GC views are protected in law. If it wasn't for the SEEN network pushing back and reminding my employer of this, my workplace would be intolerable.

It may be as much not wanting their staff to be overwhelmed by the inevitable mails etc from participants as actual worry about the equipment capabilities, I suppose. Doesn't sound as though Leeds ET is especially savvy!

Capacity of 40? That's rubbish, but we've seen from previous ETs that the ability to manage the technology seems to vary from court to court. There was at least one journalist on the list that I got (not Nick Wallis) so there is some media awareness at least.

From TT:
AB - Anna Bond, solicitor for claimant.

From TT:

We have received new remote access details and are WFTCHTJ - waiting for the conference host to join.

Will return when we have any news on start time.

@ickky are you planning to c&p as you have done so valiantly in the past? Happy to be a backup if you need to step away.

I've had the 'limited to 40' email too. This bunch seem particularly useless.

Who is PQ? Not their name, obvs but what was their involvement?

The other bloke who took Andreas thingy to court with the same complaint - he was granted anonymity, unlike Samantha Tempest.

From TT:

Now 10:30, no update on start time for public hearing.

I'm in! Fifteen observers so far, so much for "at capacity".

From TT:

We begin.

J - introduces himself and panel members. We have Ms Hogben, for C, Mr Line for gov, Ms Cunningham - for the intervenor. A number of preliminary matters that we need to address. Helpful short bundle of documents. What order should we address. If we can sort out the

From TT:

pronouns question first. J - I still make hand written notes.
The 1st q is to determine what name and ps (pronouns) for the C. The C's position is clear, what she wishes to be called. AL, you disagree with that. On the basis that we know what the C & R position is, I will

<personal comment - handwritten notes and pronouns already!!>

From TT:

ask NC,
AL/HH - both reserve opportunity to comment on any remarks by NC
NC - in a sense it's not for me to speak to first, C has asked the ET for direction, C wants wrong sex pronouns or no pronouns from me,
J - HH has made that clear
NC - I'm simply making the point that this

is C's application, asking the ET to do something unusual and extraordinary, seeking to control intervenor's speech to use wrong sex pronouns or efforts to avoid pronouns, it's not a trivial matter. Intervenor will not use wrong sex pronouns for the C, because Intervenor does not

believe that C is a woman.

J - even if order by the tribunal
NC - no, the request is for us to choose between wrong sex pronouns and only use his name. Of course, you could go further and order us to use wrong sex pronouns. If we have to do that it will affect our every

Sorry Mylady Bit busy today so dipping in and out.

Go Naomi!

This may be a record - I have a bad feeling about this judge already based solely on the TT reporting of what's being said about pronouns.

So the Judge is suggesting compelled speech. WTAF

From TT:

utterance, and significantly impact the amount of effort required. Witnesses are asked to tell the truth, and advocates need to be able to advocate for our clients. I says it's wholly unjust to be asked to jump through these linguistic hoops. It is a cognitive effort to use

wrong sex pronouns, requires a mental effort to think of the individual as the opposite sex. You do that by trying to think of the C as a woman, cognitively it's a much lighter load to try and think of C as woman, then to remember that the usual rules of grammar don't apply

J - you find yourself in a difficult position, can we be brief on this
NC - you shouldn't interfere with the Intervenor and her advocates every utterance about the C, it's particularly important in this case because a witness and my main instructing party is autistic, its

It is not Naomi in a difficult position, it is the Judge,

From TT:

is particularly difficult for her to do something that requires untruth. The C says this is a matter of hearing management but it's a key part of the case itself. We have been taught and indeed the Tribunal has been taught that it is abusive to refer to trans people by correct

<personal note - sound is good, NC coming through loud and clear, judge slightly quieter>

From TT:

sex pronouns. It is simply not. I also draw attention to the asymmetry here, we have not attempted to control the language of the C or advocate in any way and we would not think of interfering. We take a neutral position that all parties should use the language they see fit.

We say that its a part of HH advocacy to constantly use feminine pronouns and language about ST. If you repeat a lie often enough people come to believe it. For example TWAW
J - that's not what we're here to discuss, can we be brief
NC - that's all I have to say about HH

advocacy. But the C has asked that a key witness, who is autistic, who has sworn to tell the truth. This application to control the language of my witness is flatly contradictory to the Equal Treatment Bench Book which says witnesses should not be compelled to use wrong pronouns

'indeed the Tribunal has been taught...'

NC getting right in there from the off.