Freedom of Information requests about SEEN and Mumsnet

[carpety]

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/user/laura_brown_4

Dozens of requests to various public sector bodies asking about SEEN Networks and MN posts made by employees.

https://www.reddit.com/r/transgenderUK/comments/1hobn9b/seen_network/

"There's been discussion here previously of the Sex Equality and Equity Network (SEEN). I've been using Freedom of Information requests to investigate this group's activities, particularly in the Civil Service (where they seem to have originated), and thought people might be interested in what I've learned."

Seems that this requestor is on a mission to unmask heretics.

I hope Laura Brown makes a FOI about this user name.

It’ll be like Mumsnet Inception or a set of Russian nesting dolls.

I do not work for the Civil Service and have no intention of ever working for the Civil Service so no need to waste your typing fingers, Laura (she/her).

Bring it on.

Don’t forget to use my DBE in the request.

At least when it's just a random username on a website the FOI people can say to each other 'lol, as if' and copy and paste a standard response, box ticking 'vexatious' on their system (I am imagining, have never worked on FOIs, Emma).

I hope Laura Brown makes a FOI about this user name.

She's clearly got a lot of time on her hands.

I'm sorry to hear this. I can imagine this is alarming and stressful.

I hope that your employers are supportive; it certainly seems that they are well aware of the issue.

As I've said upthread, it's possible this person is vulnerable, but as I've also said many times before, vulnerable doesn't equate to harmless, and its not an excuse for bad behaviour, and it doesn't ameliorate the impact on others.

Interesting with the Defra one, how the court has made it clear that the complainant doesn’t pass. At all. I wonder whether that was a surprise?
There’s a dissonance about the difference between ‘knowing but being too polite to mention it’- like a scar or a birthmark, v. giving the impression someone passes.

Laura Brown She Her must be really pissed off at not being taken seriously. Maybe Laura Brown She Her will report everyone involved for a transphobic hate crime instead as she's a pronoun person.

She got a PFO from my employer so hopefully that will be that. And agree... assuming all the (very public) social media/personal sites are indeed her there is something a bit 'off', but it is still disturbing.

What's PFO?

'Please fuck off'.

vulnerable doesn't equate to harmless
This is such an important point and so often overlooked.

From these two cases - Laura Brown she/her and Samantha Tempest - it sounds as if the CS attitude has shifted from 'there there, let us make us nicer for you' to 'ODFOD'.

@EdithStourton
The Civil Service has started to realise how expensive it is to pander for a few middle aged white men at the expense of EVERY woman and religious minority.

The policy rewrites out of Eleanor's case will cost £££££££££

And Michael Foran's latest "direct discrimination" blog post is a shot across the bows for the upcoming cases ....

They have gotten away with pretty appalling behaviour up until point - acting like vile bullies whilst claiming to be victims themselves (a textbook case). This seems to be coming to an end now, thanks in no small part to the people who have been brave enough to take legal action.

I thought that was an actual CS acronym! 😂

I expect it is

If it wasn't, it is now

Well, at the very least, they’ve both demonstrated to their respective employers exactly why the SEEN network was needed.

This Foran piece?

In this post I want to look at a different aspect of these kinds of cases: direct discrimination. It is usually assumed amongst discrimination lawyers that if there are claims to be advanced in relation to the lawfulness of trans inclusion policies which permit natal males to use female-only facilities, they will be in harassment or indirect discrimination. But recent case law from the Employment Appeal Tribunal suggests that a woman challenging the lawfulness of such policies can bring a successful claim in direct discrimination.
This is important because direct discrimination can only be justified expressly; if it is established there is no possibility of excusing the treatment or of balancing the interests of one group against the interests of another except where there is a statutory provision permitting discrimination.

https://knowingius.org/p/when-are-mixed-sex-toilets-unlawful

I just realised why I dislike that gender neutral person symbol so much.

The skirt-person / trouser-person convention was a little annoying because it was based on an old fashioned sexist dress code, but we all understood they were just relatively arbitrary symbols for male and female people. Female people weren't defined by wearing skirts, nor male by wearing trousers.

But in the world where men and women apparently exist but sex isn't the differentiator and some people are neither, all you have left is "the people who like to wear skirts", "the people who like to wear trousers" and "the people who like a bit of both". In that world the symbol isn't just a clumsy way to label sex, it's literally depicting what "men", "women" and "non-binary" are. Not an opening up of possibiliities for people but a reduction of people to gender stereotypes.

As a woman, I am far more belittled to be represented as the skirt-wearing side of a gender neutral figure than I ever was to be represented by a complete person wearing a skirt.

@BunburyInATizz
Yup.
Many women are annoyed that Michael has risen to such prominence so quickly.
He's a gay bloke who does not fully get child safeguarding
BUT
He has analysed and predicted many cases - including Sal Grover's
and his hit rate is astounding.

He seems now to be playing the game of
"defend your discrimination and here are the weapons we will deploy"
which may save the crowdfunders a LOT of money in the next year or so ....