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’.

Agreed. There was a discussion on another thread as to whether GI would pass Grainger.
I thought that if you "pruned" gender identity ideology so it was just a belief in gender identity - not that it was more important than sex or overrode sex, or that people can change sex or that a male body is a female body, then it might just sneak through as a religious or philosophical belief in gendered souls. I don't know any examples of other beliefs which fall into this protected category.
Gender identity is itself undefined (undefinable?) and incoherent but some religions have those properties as well. And belief in souls is of course very widespread. As a belief it's offensive in some ways but I don't think it's incompatible with the rights of others simply to believe that there is such a thing(?) as a gender identity.

(To religious posters, I am not putting GII on a par with serious religions.)

There was an appeal to the FWS case after Lady Haldane's judgement and it was decided in that appeal that in those provisions sex did have the normal meaning and did not mean legal sex, so transmen with a GRC did retain the protection of pregnancy and maternity PC.

It's like how Uranus didn't exist until William Hershel had the idea or how gamma radiation just wasn't a thing before 1900 when it was thought up

Yes. But I'd rather this was battled out with the employer and ALB using their funds rather than funding yet another woman who is going to live through enormous stress for an undetermined amount of time that might stretch to a couple of years or more.

Still moving at a quick pace.

Now over £16,000 and 668 donations

Planted some seeds too. Very surprising disappointing that her employer isn't paying for her legal costs and indemnifying her against financial awards given she's the Chair of SEEN as part of her employment

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).

This is so utterly pathetic. You can't just sue people - well obviously you can - because you're too fragile to allow a network to exist because your feelings are hurt. There is no hostile, degrading or humiliating environment except the one they've created in their own, very, very, very stupid head. This is a waist of the courts' time and if the complainent doesn't realise they are going to lose and lose badly then they're more "very, very, very stupid" than I already considered them to be and that level of stupidity is hard to beat.

Donated. Great to see it mounting up so quickly.

Gardened. SEEN need to exist. You can't have free speech for some but not others.

No debate is over.

Shades of what happened when Jo Phoenix helped set up the Gender Critical Research Network at the OU. The mere existence of the network caused outrage. The language is almost the same as used by the people who bullied Jo (as found in the judgment of the ET)

£17k already. I hope the TRAs behind this case realise that we will fund court cases from now until the end of recorded time if that’s what it takes.

£17,000

Reflecting on pp comments, is this the first case where the claimant is GI and challenging GC beliefs?

I know TW have won cases but theirs were based on gender reassignment PC discrimination not GI Belief.

Arguably the Mermaids/LGBA case was - although they were gunning for the LGBA to be struck off as a charity rather than claiming damages against them - as the organisation bringing the case was GI and LGBA is GC.

But otherwise yes, I think it’s the first case I’ve heard of where the GC person is the defendant rather than the claimant. An important shift in the gender ideologists’ approach?

Over £18,000

@SidewaysOtter thanks. I was thinking more of ETs where GI beliefs would be tested like Maya’s beliefs were tested.

I have some concerns.

EDW's employer does not seem to be covering her costs unless EDW opted to spend money now to be removed from the action.

NHS Sheffield, so to speak, chose not to appeal when a tribunal found against them. They may have had their reasons but I wonder if they didn't want to win because it would have caused uproar elsewhere in the NHS. (A little like Maya's employers who didn't want to settle after Maya won her appeal but proceeded to the tribunal hearing. I suspect the cost was immaterial to them because they felt it would be impolitic to settle and the lack of a recording or verified transcript means it would be difficult to identify just how poor their defence and arguments were and just how badly they'd handled the matter.)

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womensrights/4593138-transwoman-wins-employment-discrimination-case-against-nhs-for-being-treated-differently-from-women-in-changing-room

Yes. I’m also out on Twitter and can afford to lose my job. I can’t imagine it will come to that though, they are incredibly discreet, which is why it’s so utterly ridiculous that there is a court case. You could easily remain wholly unaware SEEN existed without much difficulty and to be offended by anything said, you’d have to search it out.

My most senior person has pronouns in his signature.

Great to see that crowd funder increasingly so rapidly. So many heartfelt positive comments as well.

Evening gardening done.
Heartening to see such rapid blooming!

I should imagine GI beliefs are already protected under the Equality Act though and that’s fair enough. They are genuinely held beliefs, even if I - and many others - disagree with them. This case seems to hinge on the claimant saying that the defendant can’t hold the beliefs she does, and that’s already been disproved in the Forstater tribunal.

I should imagine GI beliefs are already protected under the Equality Act though and that’s fair enough.

As a PP has commented, it seems Naomi Cunningham disagrees and it would be interesting to see her lay out her argument that GI is NWORIADS. Perhaps in April when the ERCC hearing resumes for closing arguments?

afaict, asserting something is a belief, doesn't mean it has to be accepted as one. And some beliefs may be sincerely held but NWORIADS. As ever, I will be fascinated to learn why someone else's belief can enforce compelled speech or curtail freedom to dissent.

@UltraLiteLife that is one of the cases which I think was about gender reassignment rather that GI beliefs.

I agree I am surprised by the crowdfunder rather than her employer funding her defence. There maybe a technical reason but I can’t think of one.

Never heard that before either. Do some people really believe that white colonialists invented the “idea” of biological sex 😆?

I think it wasn't completely about the PC. iirc, the supervisor was a little clunky but seems to have been no more remarkable in her behaviour than many people who end up having the claim disallowed. The claimant's behaviour was certainly unusual.

I genuinely don't think NHS Sheffield wanted to win. They'd have had reasonable grounds to appeal. However, watching tribunals doesn't make me even a decent armchair/barrack room employment law bod.