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’.

I was wondering why this case was scheduled for 3 weeks, but the Claiment has supporting GI witnesses. Cross examination will take some time.

AL: So that group can speak to and about those principles? So a different group can surely speak to GC beliefs?

I am expecting ST to answer No, s'not fair and stamp his feet.

AL: It would be OK for you to discuss being transgender?
ST: I wouldn't do that.

I suspect there will be receipts and ST may come to regret this statement

^ST: Different - trans ppl don't cause gender critical believers any harm, but, GC ppl do cause harm^

He has surely jumped the shark here... That is easily (factually) disproved

trans ppl don't cause gender critical believers any harm

WTF?

This is excellent, I wish I had popcorn.

From TT:

AL: Next page, gives guideline how to report a concern about something on Yammer?
ST: Yes
AL: We shall see in a bit the finalisation of moderation a bit later, but for now, that's the way to contact moderation function?
ST: Yes

AL: p798. Email about dates - Yammer will be taken down end April, new version to be brought in, staged, by 12/5. Agree?
ST: [reading] Based on this, yes.

AL: p1619 - diff volume of bundle
ST: Got it
AL: 2/5/2023 - guidance for teams owners and Yammer group owners, "roles and responsibilities". Each Yammer group is to have its own owner and asset owner, and they will be responsible for moderation?
ST: Yes

AL: Next page - tabulation of responsibilities, and on p1622 we see it includes the rules for moderation and that it will in first instance it should be the group owners, not the moderation panel?
ST: Yes but email address still existed

AL: It would be OK for you to discuss being transgender?
ST: I wouldn't do that.

Not 'I didn't do that'. Always rather telling.

ST: Different - trans ppl don't cause gender critical believers any harm, but, GC ppl do cause harm

I cannot wait for Elspeth's view on this...

But it is really quite something to hear the most batshit Reddit views coming out here. As I said earlier, this is an inevitable consequence of someone with a victim complex existing in an echo chamber of affirmation.

I'm back, @terffert do you want to carry on the c&p for now?

My mind is boggling still at the claimant stating that simply saying "I hold GC beliefs" should be not allowed at work as it is harassing.

Edit to add: And this is the claimant in this case, not a respondent/defendant. I'd love to be able to read the mind of the claimant's legal team at this point on the strength of their claim!

From TT:

AL: p1627 - this is guidance for the group owners about moderation?
ST: Yes
AL: p1629 which includes that all group members must abide by standards and communication policies at all time - the policies we've looked at?
ST: Yes

AL: Says, all comments raised as concerns should be logged as part of the process - and here, under record-keeping? Clear guidance about process of making a decision, and recorded? You accept that?
ST: Feels like log kept by mailbox, not the asset owner, but yes there shd be a log

J: It says clear audit trail needed, but not how?
AL: Yes.
AL: Says here, register to an email address - but different one from before. And next page - says post removal shd not be bcs of disagreement, only if objectively per policies etc.

ST: It shouldn't be but not sure it was
AL: Am asking about what guidance says?
ST: Agree then

Also, it's not just about holding a belief. There will be real world consequences. Presumably if someone objects to a tw in a woman's changing room, then this is a manifestation of their GC beliefs, which ST believes they should be prevented from expressing in the workplace.

The Banarama defence, It ain't what you say it's the way that you say it, has segued into Depeche Mode.

Naomi yesterday talked of a scold's bridle.

From TT:

AL: Section on what if groups are private - we discussed, ppl would only see if they applied to be a member, yes?
[I think ST may have nodded but did not hear an answer]
AL: Judge there are examples at the bottom

AL: p[] doc for group owners - shows training arranged for group owners and asset owners. And if we look at 1899, re moderation - discusses managing conversations.

AL: At the end of process - says, can be referred to moderation panel. So that still existed - just preliminary group-level stage added?
ST: That's what it says, but not sure it was fleshed out fully -
J: ?
ST: The referral to moderation panel.

AL: You accept mod panel still existed?
ST: Only as a feedback mechanism for group owners if post removed
J: only if post removed?
ST: That was mostly what it was
J: And complain if post not removed?
ST: I think that too

I agree, but I still can't get my head around the claim that simply stating you hold that belief is harassment before you even get to expressing that belief or manifesting it.

I mean, no-one would think it was unreasonable for a colleague to simply state "I am Christian/Muslim/Sikh/Jewish" or "I believe in reincarnation" or "I think that Arsenal are the best football team in the PL" would they?

Taking our words and using our spaces is a manifestation of GI belief yet women have been expected to just put up, and shut up.
Stunning lack of self awareness!

From TT:

AL: Can I briefly take instructions judge?

J: You're confided mod panel there to support if post was removed, not sure if it was not?
ST: [confirms]

J: We will take 10 minute break and you can take your instructions AL.

[BREAK]

Would you like to take the c&p back at this break? I can carry on if not.

Yes, totally bonkers because it would have to applied across the board to all beliefs.

I'm happy to do my share now - I will have limited/no availability to do it tomorrow and Monday so if you or someone else could do it then I'd be very grateful. I will be able to listen and follow but won't be glued to my laptop.

Great, I'll hand it back to you for now then. I should be able to do some tomorrow, not completely promising.

On Yammer, would each group have its own page, like on Facebook. So SEEN has a page, the a:gender group do and so on.
And the claimant is upset because sometimes posts from the SEEN page popped up on his Yammer feed?

So his issue is (including but not limited to...)
They shouldn't be allowed to express that they have these views in the workplace,
They shouldn't be allowed to have group,
The group shouldn't be allowed to communicate via Yammer (even though Yammer is the forum used by groups to communicate,)
Because sometimes I see their posts in my Yammer feed and it upsets me.

There is no means of communication he would have found acceptable given he thinks no one should admit to having GC views, let alone try to communicate about them.

Love the way AL pronounces Viva as in defending your PhD, not Veeva like others ☺️

Sums up this complaint in a nutshell. Also, the employer allowed it to happen, and that was bad.