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 think RMW represented the other Claimant who settled. But I might be wrong.

Walked away? Or bundled off?

From TT:

J: Can you restate what you say it implies.
ST: That GI is not real, that TW are not W, are just parodying women, that is not neutral. Frames my existence as a belief I've picked up and not as my lived experience. I am here and I am a transwoman.

ST: Yes she's chosen all kinds of OK-seeming words but underneath that is what she is saying, and, T&NB staff never expected to hear that kind of thing at work.

AL: EDM mentions LGBAlliance and transgendertrend, but also Stonewall and Mermaids.
ST: That's just her trying to look balanced

If you find statements of fact like 'sex is binary and immutable' to be 'erasing and harassing' then I'm not sure how you're going to function in the workplace.

From TT:

AL: EDM clear that she doesn't expect everyone to agree with her
ST: Yes
AL: This is just a neutral statement of her having belief
ST: Disagree, she posted it on work platform

J: Where should she have posted it?
ST: Well there was a faith and belief platform, shd have gone there, I wd still have disagreed with it but wd not have been so bad

AL: p139 - email - says initially Carly thought EDM post was fair and balance, but, comments had got heated so shd they take it all down, and then notes that EDM planning to repost (revised) next day and they didn't think they could tell her not to.

ST: That's just her trying to look balanced

Nothing less than complete and utter silence and capitulation will do. Even mention of pro-trans groups is a stealth attack.

From TT:

AL: Clear it was the responses not EDM post that were the problem?
ST: [unclear - I think mentions ST having emailed EDM to discuss]

AL: p218 you recall I read from EDM email where she compared her post from humanist network. This is an email from Andreas M, saying he sees parallels to Yammer situation, things are heated; a humanist then posts his own beliefs, gives links for ppl to follow.

AL: Not fundamentally different from what EDM did, is it?
ST: Let me read this -
AL: Of course
J: This is the one EDM said modelled on?
AL: yes

Comments got heated - want to bet some were STs? And they wanted her to take her post down rather than taking down the heated comments, That wasnt balanced.

ST: That's just her trying to look balanced

😮

From TT:

ST: I think if I were religious I might find some things in that offensive, I don't know if anyone complained about it. I don't think same as EDM post, offensive and toxic environment and I don't know if this one did
AL: Some parallels though?
ST: Don't know, re how received

ST: Different bcs no links -
AL: There are links here at the bottom.
AL: S/O v religious cd be offended?
ST: Yes - says 'supernatural'

AL: S/O v religious cd be offended?
ST: I think difference is, this doesn't deny existence of religious ppl, but EDM implies she does re trans ppl

Thanks. I have really struggled to follow this one!

From TT:

AL: It denies the existence of God.
ST: Not sure it does. It's not the same. And if S/O offended, wd expect then to take it up, as I did re EDM.
ST: Point is, would not be received the same.

J: are you saying Humanism does not deny existing of god?
ST: not necessarily - its about scientific enquiry.

I have created a new thread at https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5546841-tempest-v-rural-payments-agency-tribunal-thread-follow-on-from-chair-of-seen-is-being-sued

I will continue posting here until this one is full.

😂 This guy must just be perpetually offended.

RMW did represent the other claimant and could have done so pro bono. There are various foundations that fund transgender groups, maybe one of them funding this. American government funded Stonewall for a time.

All this 'evidence' about erasing and denying the existence of transpeople makes me I feel like I've gone through a portal into another universe. Or time travelled back to 2019.

Even the judge seems a bit surprised.

From TT:

AL: If some ppl might find that offensive - the Humanist post - does that mean it shouldn't be said?
ST: [pause] Can you repeat?
AL: The fact that some ppl might find that offensive doesn't mean it shouldn't be said?
ST: If you know offensive, you shouldn't say it.

AL: p157 - EDM post and what happened around it.
AL: We have already looked at the post. This is the re-post, as we've discussed. We can see that F Whatley then mentions Natural England - where EDM worked then.

<note, I think the references to EDM should be EDW as it's Elspeth Duemmer-Wrigley>

AL: FW says, "on behalf of NE - we are trans-inclusive employer". Talks of there being discussion of ongoing refinement of Yammer engagement rules -we have looked at that timeline
ST: Yes

Perhaps this case will peak the tribunal.

I’m a bit concerned that the judge asked if SEEN had been consulted when ST said that RPA had not. If it is going to boil down to eeksy peeksy then the bonkers shit will be ignored and ST will end with a moral win ie J rules that because it wasn't all eeksy peeksy it wasnt fair to ST.

I am developing a theory that J has it in for NC. Perhaps he watched Judge Kemp make an arse of himself and blames uppity women in general.

From TT:

J: Not sure of your point?
AL: Just ensuring to draw docs to tribunal attention
AL: On p163 - intervention from Sarah Holmer - an LGBT champion at DEFRA? Says, DEFRA absolutely committed to inclusivity.

AL: Then from Sarah McNally - discussing how workplace and societal issues blurring, must keep distinction. My point is that there were several interventions, stressing inclusivity.

ST: I don't see those in the same way - I think, stating that re trans ppl, comments must not be to their detriment. Sarah is measured - tho she sort of says trans ppl is a 'belief' - but at least she is saying, be mindful re potential distress.

ST: Things stray into political issue.
AL: But DEFRA did intervene
ST: Well only that once, not enough

This is too funny 🤣

From TT:

AL: p161. Comment from you - says both sides are immoveable, trans ppl either included or excluded, you say EDM post like a party political broadcast, You are saying your own views also immoveble

ST: Am saying I am an TW and that is not moveable, also that this is all political, and, not relevant to DEFRA business

AL: But you are also trying to be divisive - that GC beliefs must not be expressed.
ST: If someone is GC but doesn't tell me, I don't need to be divided from them. But if they talk about it, it just creates a mess at work. That is what makes harmony in the workplace.

ST: There are plenty of places to express GC views out of work, no need to do that on DEFRA's Yammer

Well, there is this thing called Christian Humanism, which iiuc does not deny the existence of God. We more usually understand "humanism" to be secular humanism, but I think he's not wrong.

The core of this seems to be that others may hold a range of views so long as none directly affect ST.

We've seen this tried before; that all must obey and follow performed GI because the sheer presence and visability of other views is too offensive and distressing to trans people. It's why the mere existence of women only single sex spaces in a nutshell is intolerable, even after multiple other carefully planned facilities are provided.

And as usual 'included' is being misused to mean 'centred around trans people', as obviously 'inclusive' has to also in fact to include people of all views including that sex is immutable.