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’.

From. TT:

and it says nothing about the language of advocates because they would be an extraordinary violation of rights. This application is an example of the type of behaviour that gives rise to the tribunal - a draconian attempt to control language and discussion.

It is a wholly unwarranted interference with Art 10 rights. This is a case in which it is plainly inappropriate for the Tribunal itself to use preferred pronouns. The C's case is that any manifestation of GC belief is harassment in the workplace. It is an important part of this

story that he is male and the network that he is attempting to fit this scold's bridle to is primarily female. We say it is important that the C is male and that SEEN is largely female. The tribunal is a bullying act of a man seeking to silence women. You may feel inclined to

use feminine pronouns out of kindness and courtesy. And those are good things in general. But by using those pronouns you are inherently accepting that it is unkind to not use them. I'm asking you to manifest impartiality between the parties and I'd like you to use name or C

Google tells me Regional Employment Judge Stuart Douglas Robertson officially retired from the UK Employment Tribunals with effect from May 1, 2025. Anyone able to say if judge looks male or female?

Samantha Tempest is attempting to bully everyone into believing that he is a woman. Initially, I was amazed that this case is going ahead, but now I can see why he is pursuing it. He probably sees himself as a Christine Goodwin figure. I really hope we don't have an activist judge 😕

From TT:

for C and avoid using gendered language.
HH - you have the letter from my instructing solicitors, sets out in detail our application. I am surprised by the intervenor's characterisation of application as extraordinary - follows to the the letter the ETBB (Equal Treatment Bench

Judge sounds male, camera pointing at the court not bench.

Thank you! 🙏

From TT:

Book). It's about effective communication, it underlies this entire process, where the C is coming from, language is crucial because the deliberate use of he/him pronouns would have a profound effect on C's ability to give best evidence. Drawing Tribunals attention to

C's previous experience on use of pronouns in earlier hearing. I didn't attend but C was x-examined at length using he/him pronouns and was traumatised by the experience. Because of that the judge in that case had intended to address C by preferred pronouns, the judge used he

/him pronouns, accidental but had the effect of distressing C. This is a case that follows to the letter the guidance set out in the ETBB, could have tried to insist on everyone using she/her but acknowledges can't compel witnesses so is happy with no pronouns. This is a case of

“Traumatised” 🙄 sure

Traumatised by the experience? Oh the hyperbole!!!

From TT:

This is not a case of a rape victim being forced to use she/her pronouns, it is accepted that C has a GRC and is a TW. I'm grateful to the Rs for their approach to use preferred pronouns. We ask the Tribunal to do the same and witnesses to use neutral or no pronouns.

Asking witnesses to use female pronouns for a man is asking them to lie.

If judge orders that - appealable right away.

The controversy here is what pronouns the judge will use.

Google tells me Judge Stuart Robertson dealt with some preliminary matters in the Darlington nurses case. So this isn't his first rodeo.

From TT:

J - we shall retire..
AL - we would like to say something, we do intend to use female pronouns. HH referred to a criminal case and this is not a case of misgendering or use of wrong sex pronouns. Also NC mentions that EW is autistic, I'm not sure of any influence of pronouns on

that condition.
NC - correcting a factual point, HH suggested that the the intervenor's advocate using he/him pronouns. It's simply not true, I don't use pronouns when examining witnesses.
J - we are not really concerned with what happened in that tribunal. We will retire.

<bench has left the room>

Asking witnesses to use neutral or no pronouns goes against the bench book - which also says "However, where one side’s case hinges on the recognition of the biological sex of the trans person as crucial, and the other side on the recognition of their chosen identification, judges need to be careful not to let the choice of gendered pronouns give an appearance of bias, or that there is a predetermined conclusion. If possible, using the individual’s name instead of a pronoun where these pronouns are contested, or alternatively, the gender-neutral pronoun of “they” may help minimise offence towards, or the undermining of, an individual’s personal identification, while also not validating and giving it undue weight over the perceptions of others."

My personal comments:

Naomi hot out of the starting block!
HH sounding professional and unlike Jane Russell
Judge sounds like an English version of Big Sond, which isn't giving me warm and fuzzies.
Room must have effective AC as everyone is in the usual formal clothing and jackets on.

How many in the remote room now @MyLadyDisdainlsYetLiving ?

Any bets on how long before C's counsel misgenders correctly sexes their client?

Still 15 observers including 2 TT.

20 minutes

I am feeling anxious about this, from what I've read so far.

I, like a lot of women, am quietly GC. But if this case goes against us, and we lose the SEEN networks, I will be out there rioting 🤣

I really wish they'd stop using that argument. It makes us trans people look like such fragile, fainting, delicate flowers 🙄

Wasn’t there an ET where, part way through, it became clear that the Judge was ‘working’ from the old Equal Treatment Bench Book?

Thank you to those copying over proceedings today. Hopefully Leeds(?) has functioning aircon.

Does anyone have an idea on the likely order of events/witnesses yet. Given I can't get a log in I may get a train up to Leeds for a day next week to attend in person.

We're back!

From TT:

J - with preliminary matters we will give decisions but not extensive reasons. Is that okay?
NC - may depend on the outcome
J - the tribunal will use preferred name and pronouns, C has pc of GRA. As to the Intervenor and witness we understand their position and accept that we

cannot compel witness to use specific pronouns, we ask the Intervenor as far as possible to use gender neutral language, we appreciate that this will be difficult, accidental slips may happen, but deliberate use of the wrong term or misgendering will be seen