Help end medical misogyny. Sign our petition.

Help end medical misogyny.
Sign our petition.

Sign the petition

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

The chair of SEEN is being sued.

1000 replies

PriOn1 · 19/03/2024 18:07

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’.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
58
MyLadyDisdainlsYetLiving · 25/06/2026 12:07

From TT:

AL A variety of methods of communication can be used for these networks.
C I agree
AL And Yammer was a way, not the only way, of doing this
C [answer too quiet]
AL [to second bundle] This is a set of slides entitled Yammer update. Context is there was due to be an update to

Yammer in April 2023.
AL I see ref to Native Yammer and Engage. I think we're talking about same thing.
C Yes, agree.
AL In March we are talking about hundreds of Yammer groups. Widely used form of communication
C Don't know if groups were active or not

AL When it comes to SEEN, by which I mean both cross government and Defra there's nothing unusual
C No, but I don't think they should have been using Yammer.
AL But it reflects what other staff networks were using.
C Yes.
AL Looking at period prior to Nov 22. Before

AL principles of communication were fully adopted. [to doc] Email 8/12/22 from Kylie Manning re Yammer. Started in 2013 - Yammer had been used as communication platform from then
C Yes
AL It was developed across Defra group. These parameters are existing code of conduct and use

MyLadyDisdainlsYetLiving · 25/06/2026 12:08

CriticalCondition · 25/06/2026 12:04

So online observers are not only unable to see the Claimant, they possibly can't hear the Claimant either.

So much for open justice. At a suitable juncture when the judge things have calmed down a bit, can someone observing ask the clerks to draw the camera angle to the judge's attention and say it doesn't seem to be in the interests of open justice to be denied a view of the witnesses giving evidence.

I can hear the claimant ok (noise cancelling headphones) but given the mood the judge is in I wouldn't be going near him for a while.

CriticalCondition · 25/06/2026 12:10

MyLadyDisdainlsYetLiving · 25/06/2026 12:08

I can hear the claimant ok (noise cancelling headphones) but given the mood the judge is in I wouldn't be going near him for a while.

Absolutely!

MyLadyDisdainlsYetLiving · 25/06/2026 12:14

From TT:

policy. There was already regulation of Yammer use.
C There was a Yammer code of conduct, yes.
AL If I can take you to Yammer Acceptable Use policy. Defra emblem top left. It is V7.0. We see control changes in the table, and final version implemented on 13/9.

AL So this is policy been in place since at least 2013.
C Yes.
AL Makes clear that must be used appropriately in line with regulations and government policy. Allows Defra to regulate use
C Yes, with examples
AL Egs include things that could be harassment etc, inc language.

AL And it includes the PC of GR expressly in this.
C Yes
AL So Rs already had policies in place to ensure use of Yammer etc be appropriate
C Yes
AL Paragraph re respect at work. Says bullying and harassment not tolerate.
C It says that, yes.
AL R position is that prior to 2022

need of Defra to deal with complaints re Yammer use was extremely rare.
C I don't know how many complaints they had.
AL [reads] EA [assume Environment Agency]has v few issues. Afterwards, comments re posts on Yammer started to increase.
AL Total of 5 posts removed in 2022

Ereshkigalangcleg · 25/06/2026 12:16

God I hated Yammer when I had to work with it.

Iamnotalemming · 25/06/2026 12:19

I'm getting bundle anxiety just reading this.

MyLadyDisdainlsYetLiving · 25/06/2026 12:21

From TT:

AL Then more reports. There was an escalation of reporting issues re Yammer use in 2022.
AL Moving to November 2022 - April 2023 for next questions. [to docs] Email 28/7 confirm speaking to Caroline Air to clarify how people should behave on Yammer. Do you agree this refs to EW

expressing GC view and responses to that.
C Yes
AL So R is looking at doc to give guidance as to how people should behave on Yammer
C I think that had already started, in March
AL Post re International Women's Day.
J Your understanding is that guidance is already in

course of preparation beforehand.
AL It may help to go to doc July 2022, issue arose from a post earlier
C AM says he posted it in his own WS
AL This was a response to IWD. There is discussion to GC views being recognised by EAT (Forstater) case

Tallisker · 25/06/2026 12:25

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

MyLadyDisdainlsYetLiving · 25/06/2026 12:31

From TT:

AL EW was working on this.
AL Email 29/9 - draft principles of communication had been shared internally. [to doc] Undated, drafted by Caroline Airs [CA] principles of communication had been taken past draft. Does that accord with your recollection?
C Think it was a little bit

C later I saw those principles. Around December.
AL But you agree they were around before that.
C [quiet]
AL There is a ref in a talk given in trans awareness week re launching these principles.
AL Back to the document we were on. We have summary of principles of

AL communication. Makes it clear debate is welcome but in constructive way. Consider tone - satire and irony can be misunderstood. Personal attacks, abuse, defamatory comments all not okay. DEFRA's clear message is that communication on Yammer is permitted but should be

respectful.
C [Yes to above]
AL Discussions allowed on Protected beliefs but must be respectful.
C Sometimes discussing someone else's beliefs is not what is respectful.
AL Doc provides reminder that GC beliefs fall into PC of religion/ belief under EA. WORIADS?
C Yes

MyLadyDisdainlsYetLiving · 25/06/2026 12:35

From TT:

AL [reads] 47 posts have been removed by mods, and 41 were hostile towards SEEN or people with GC beliefs. Reminder is because of inappropriate Yammer message directed towards SEEN/GC people.
C I accept Defra found them to be that way - hostile.

C I don't necessarily agree that they were.
AL Your claim is that you and trans people like you were subjected to inappropriate and hostile comments through Yammer. But the moderation we are looking at now looks like people like you and who share your belief were subjecting GC to this

C I don't have a belief. I have a GC <note I think this should be PC of GR>. You will see that posts were removed when they didn't need to be and SEEN posts left up. A two-tier mod policy.
AL [ to doc] Email from Val Toor, Sept, re moderation panel which was in place.
C My understanding is that there was a mod panel

biddyboo · 25/06/2026 12:36

"C Sometimes discussing someone else's beliefs is not what is respectful"

Doesn't that work both ways though?

I find it really disrespectful when TRAs say that being a woman is something you can identity into it. When they deny our material reality and say that sex is a spectrum and that it's impossible to define.

It seems Defra had clear policies in place regarding harassment. ST's issue seems to be that there are people that believe different things to ST. That is not harassment.

biddyboo · 25/06/2026 12:39

47 posts have been removed by mods, and 41 were hostile towards SEEN or people with GC beliefs.

Wow

MyAmpleSheep · 25/06/2026 12:42

C I don't have a belief. I have a GC <note I think this should be PC of GR>

I have a GRC makes more sense to me.

Does NC get to cross examine this witness? This will be epic.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 25/06/2026 12:42

Exactly. As a woman, I should be able to say I find gender identity ideology stereotypes of what a woman is offensive. And why.

duc748 · 25/06/2026 12:43

I’ve never heard of Yammer. Is it kinda like WhatsApp?

CriticalCondition · 25/06/2026 12:43

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

But not when the demeanor of a witness is a crucial part of assessing their reliability and truthfulness. That's why witnesses give evidence and are cross-examined in person. And the public should be able to see that. An online observer should as far as practicable have the same ability to see the witness as an observer in the courtroom. If the angle of the camera can be changed to angle towards the witness stand during evidence, it should be. It's been done several times in the cases I've observed. Occasionally it's positioned behind the witness (looking at you Big Sond) and the only tells are fidgety feet and head tilts but that's better than nothing.

MyLadyDisdainlsYetLiving · 25/06/2026 12:43

From TT:

of sorts. As to how frequently they met
AL Re how frequent. If you go to CA's WS -
J I have unnumbered pages and no index
AL [apologises]
AL Para 18 you have in front of you, Mrs Tempest. Re complaints about posts on Yammer - can remove individual comments. Met 2-3 times a week.

C That's what statement says. But I'm aware of another email which implies there isn't a frequency.
AL Do you have reason to dispute panel wasn't meeting that frequently in Nov/Dec
C Can't easily check without ref in bundle.
AL I'll leave that to MLF in re-exam if arising.

AL Don't normally do this, but I am feeling faint and light-headed and it is impeding my ability to work.
J Shall we take an early lunch. Will resume 1.45 and let me know if you need longer. [tells C not to discuss evidence over any break inc this one]

J Please have that conversation about providing evidence to Tribunal Tweets.

MyLadyDisdainlsYetLiving · 25/06/2026 12:44

Right, I'm off to run some errands, back in an hour.

MyLadyDisdainlsYetLiving · 25/06/2026 12:45

duc748 · 25/06/2026 12:43

I’ve never heard of Yammer. Is it kinda like WhatsApp?

It was an attempt to be a work version of Facebook, it looked very similar and had the same kind of functionality.

ArabellaScott · 25/06/2026 12:45

MyLadyDisdainlsYetLiving · 25/06/2026 12:35

From TT:

AL [reads] 47 posts have been removed by mods, and 41 were hostile towards SEEN or people with GC beliefs. Reminder is because of inappropriate Yammer message directed towards SEEN/GC people.
C I accept Defra found them to be that way - hostile.

C I don't necessarily agree that they were.
AL Your claim is that you and trans people like you were subjected to inappropriate and hostile comments through Yammer. But the moderation we are looking at now looks like people like you and who share your belief were subjecting GC to this

C I don't have a belief. I have a GC <note I think this should be PC of GR>. You will see that posts were removed when they didn't need to be and SEEN posts left up. A two-tier mod policy.
AL [ to doc] Email from Val Toor, Sept, re moderation panel which was in place.
C My understanding is that there was a mod panel

AL Your claim is that you and trans people like you were subjected to inappropriate and hostile comments through Yammer. But the moderation we are looking at now looks like people like you and who share your belief were subjecting GC to this

DARVO in the wild.

duc748 · 25/06/2026 12:47

MyLadyDisdainlsYetLiving · 25/06/2026 12:45

It was an attempt to be a work version of Facebook, it looked very similar and had the same kind of functionality.

Thanks, MyLady.

biddyboo · 25/06/2026 12:49

duc748 · 25/06/2026 12:43

I’ve never heard of Yammer. Is it kinda like WhatsApp?

It's basically a Microsoft social media platform for work. It's called Viva Engage now. There can be more formal groups on there related to work issues and then more informal ones, e.g. gardening, hiking etc.

Lots of staff networks will have Yammer/Viva Engage pages. The impression I get from this tribunal is that the TRAs felt they could post what they want about their beliefs, but anything remotely GC is harassment. And it is fine for TRAs to bully and harass GC people.

Propertylover · 25/06/2026 12:50

It sounds like DEFRA had a good process in place with clear guidance and a moderation panel.

This case is interesting as the employers appear to have allowed GC views. Unlike OU, GCC, Darlington, NHSF etc.

MyAmpleSheep · 25/06/2026 12:51

ArabellaScott · 25/06/2026 12:45

AL Your claim is that you and trans people like you were subjected to inappropriate and hostile comments through Yammer. But the moderation we are looking at now looks like people like you and who share your belief were subjecting GC to this

DARVO in the wild.

It actually does make sense. The argument being that the Yammer management, for which the employer was responsible, removed only “pro-GI” comments and not GC ones, does support the contention of a hostile workplace for GI people permitted by the employer.

If the evidence was that all GC posts were removed then it could hardly be argued that was discriminatory against the claimant.

Someone will have to show the content of those 41 removed posts, or at least demonstrate the moderation policy was fair.

SlackJawedDisbeliefXY · 25/06/2026 12:51

Ereshkigalangcleg · 25/06/2026 12:42

Exactly. As a woman, I should be able to say I find gender identity ideology stereotypes of what a woman is offensive. And why.

But you have missed this evidence

AL Discussions allowed on Protected beliefs but must be respectful.
C Sometimes discussing someone else's beliefs is not what is respectful.

Not Bananarama but an admission of some thing more - there is no possible way that you can discuss GI because I class any discussion as disrespectful

'It is what you say 'cos I say you can't say it'

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.
Swipe left for the next trending thread