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:

[We resume]

J: Ppl in the other room in this building - we have made arrangements to have docs including this witness WS made available in that room too. Apologise for second room but this one is crowded and stuffy and we don't have much space left and can't fit everyone in.

J: Accept this is not ideal but we are doing our best and are fully committed to having this hearing fully public and report-able. Please bear with us.

J: We continue.

NC: Clerk has asked me to raise with you - I may have missed, just spilled my water - there is hearing bundle in the overflow room - you said wd be released when witnesses appear but I think they are all in the other room?

J: Everyone needs to be aware that WS are not to be relied on until each witness has sworn to it at start of evidence.
NC: Am speaking for clerk - thank you for clarification.

AL: Thank you everyone for the earlier lunch break
J: Hope you are feeling better, and if you or anyone needs a break just ask.

AL: p732 please
ST: I wanted to say more about Caroline's statement?
AL: We looked at para 18 & 22 and found moderation panel meeting 2-3 times a week.

ST: look at p488 - says they met previous week - says smaller, is it ad-hoc group not regular, and p633 mentions starting regular mtgs, so suggests not regular so far.
AL: 27th Jan - mentions EDM post of 2022 and another by you which we will come to later.

AL: So going to regular weekly after a period of much more moderation is also an explanation
ST: Yes but 488
AL: You were not on the moderation panel?
ST: No

AL: p732
AL: This is from a slide pack, 8/3/23, we can see that Yammer will be migrating to native late April. We agree there's no substantive difference we need to consider in the Yammer versions?
ST: Yes

From TT:

AL: Says that whole-company won't be available any more, only Yammer groups. If you are member of a group you will see convos, if not not

ST: At this time all groups were public and it was a bit like FB giving you a feed.
AL: Indeed yes, in March, but, intention was to move away from that after April?
ST: You would still get feed from groups not in.

AL: But that reduced after the April changes?
ST: Don't know how it decided what came up.

J: Before April everything was all-company?
ST: No, groups too
J: But all public?
ST: Yes
J: So everything was on "all company"?
ST: No, but it was the default starting page.

Can anyone hear his voice?
Just wondering if he is using falsetto, the manly version of a high voice that has no power behind it, he won't be able to produce much volume if he is.
Orchestras playing with soloists always have to pipe down a bit, but for male altos who use their falsetto voices the piping down has to go to another level because they just cannot be at all loud.

if using the GI framework it wouldn't suprise me if this gets called voice trouble, as opposed to male voice trouble.

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

This may come back to bite. If the removed posts are read out in court, C seems to have made a blanket statement that none of the removed posts were hostile.

'You stated that the posts removed were not hostile.
Is it your position that xxxx is not hostile towards the PC of GC?'

and repeat

From TT:

J: But after April, how could you see things that are in private groups you're not in?
ST: As I understand it, like FB, you could get stuff in feed from any public group - things it thought you would be interested in

J: Is that bcs the group is public, would it happen if group is private?
ST: No if private group, only members see it.
J: So if all groups were private, you'd only see your own?
ST: Yes

AL: So we are in March/April 2023. Page 767.
AL: at top, DEFRA group principles of communication - version is dated March 2023. Next page - explicit bullet point says Yammer included
ST: Yes

From TT:

AL: Also references to other docs eg code of conduct and acceptable use, and stresses that this doc complements those. Must be read alongside, yes?
ST: Would expect them to be included
AL: But it says, amplifies and supplements?
ST: Yes

AL: If you look at the highlighted bits - version control, this is March 2023 changes/additions. p770 - under 'freedom of expression'.

AL: You can see the version we looked at earlier is still there, but there's an addition - nobody has freedom from offence, but at work bear in mind professional standards. Correct no right not to be offended?
ST: Disagree
AL: No right in law?
ST: Agree

[My note: lol, of course he disagrees]

OMG ST is trying to manage their own defence I.e. go to this evidence.

From TT:

AL: This section is aiming to balance freedom of expression with professional standards - rights of speaker and hearer - yes?
ST: Agree in principle but I don't think it's being applied correctly.

AL: p771 - there are statements following those principles. And examples of application - not intended to be exhaustive. Says, it is not acceptable to characterise a lawfully held belief as inherently discriminatory. This is correct isn't it?

ST: I think it's contradictory. Says nobody has a right never to be offended and then says you can't call something offensive.
AL: Emphasis is on it being a belief legally protected in law, which cannot be inherently discriminatory or offensive.

From TT:

ST: I disagree, if we have to work together -
J: Can we slow down for note-taking?
ST: I think, times when we work together - let me try to remember my words - I think, times when it's right to limit expression to foster better working together.

AL: The expression of a lawfully held belief? Can be lawfully restrained, you mean gender-critical beliefs?
ST: Yes

AL: But that is not what this section is about - it's about saying such a belief is inherently offensive / discriminatory. For example someone simply saying they have GC beliefs?
J: This is a complicated Q - can you break it down.

AL: I think I will have to check my notes - please bear with me. I want to be careful I don't end up asking ST a different question. [is reading notes etc]

From TT:

AL: I asked ST, are you talking about GC beliefs etc, and that as they are legally protected beliefs they cannot be inherently discriminatory can they and (I thought) ST agreed, and that this was what the section we are looking at says, and I thought ST had agreed.

AL: Raised the idea of someone who has only said that they have a GC belief but have said/done nothing more is not being offensive / discriminatory and (I thought) ST disagreed?
ST: Yes

ST: I disagree, I think you can put limits on the expression of the belief it's conducive to working relations between staff.

Regard the heffalump trap...

From TT:

J: Your view is, it's appropriate to limit even the mere expression of holding a belief, for good relations?
AL: Yes that is what I'm trying to ask.
J: Distinction is between articulating the belief, and simply saying you hold it?

ST: I still say, negative effect in the workplace - should not be mentioned, stay away from it in the workplace.
J: Your proposition is that the mere articulation of GC belief is discrimintory?
ST: Yes, it erases transgender ppl

[My comment: omfg]

Surely, surely the judge cannot agree with this...

[Wish I could see NC's eyebrows right now]

I'd be interested to know how many of the deleted posts ST wrote.

"ST: I disagree, I think you can put limits on the expression of the belief it's conducive to working relations between staff"

Has ST thought through where this would end if it was put into practice? Presumably then GC people could object to the trans flags and pronouns in people's work signatures/bios, all the events for trans day of visibility, trans history month etc etc?

Or does ST only want beliefs that ST find offensive to be suppressed?

Difficult to see, raised so far that they have disappeared under her hairline.

Oh here we go again.
The entitlement is strong in this one.

From TT:

J: And that's the opposite of what this doc says - that legally held beliefs cannot be discriminatory?
ST: Yes I think so - you can believe things, but, discriminatory to mention in the workplace.

J: Inherently. That's an absolute. However expressed, whatever is said.
ST: Yes

AL: There should never be mention in the workplace?
ST: Perhaps if discussing a policy, but, never just by staff.

AL: So subject to limited exception, your view on that is absolutist?
ST: Yes. It causes harassment.

AL: It would be OK for you to discuss being transgender?
ST: I wouldn't do that.
AL: But if you did. If other trans colleagues did want to, do you think they shouldn't?
ST {pauses} Yes

I really hope that question gets put to him!

There will be no shortage of TRAs in this organisation who believe they are on a moral crusade, and they will outnumber the (openly) GC people. That may explain the volume of GI posts deleted.

omfg indeed.

From TT:

AL: But they do, don't they? What about the a:Gender group?
ST: Not very familiar
AL: Head of a:Gender is going to appear as your witness? A close friend?
ST: Yes, but, I haven't been to their meetings or anything.

AL: You know that they support trans and intersex staff?
ST: Yes
AL: So that group can speak to and about those principles? So a different group can surely speak to GC beliefs?

[My comment: you'd think]

Judge helping AL out to get key evidence = no debate.

From TT:

ST: Different - trans ppl don't cause gender critical believers any harm, but, GC ppl do cause harm
AL: It sounds as if you are only speaking for yourself? You don't know if your beliefs cause GC ppl harm?
ST: I suppose I don't.

AL: Want to go back to the regulation of Yammer, we looked at March 2023 changes. p772 - same document. Section "Monitoring". Added info about community owners responsibility for comments. Says that moderation is still under discussion at that point.