Tempest v Rural Payments Agency Tribunal Thread (follow on from Chair of SEEN is being sued)

[myladydisdainisyetliving]

Previous thread: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5031904-the-chair-of-seen-is-being-sued
TT substack: https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/tempest-vs-defra-and-rural-payments

Tempest (a TW) is claiming discrimination, harassment and/or victimisation on grounds of gender reassignment. Central to the claim is the Sex Equality and Equity Network in the Civil Service (SEEN or IP). SEEN has been granted right to intervene. Parts of the original claim against the co-chair of SEEN (Elspeth Duemmer-Wrigley) and another party (Andreas Mueller) were struck out or narrowed. Another claimant, PQ, is no longer part of the case.

The hearing is in Leeds; the number of online observers has been limited by the court due to "capacity" and posters are reporting that requests for links are being declined on those grounds.

Also to note that Elspeth still has a garden in need of seeds and water to support the ability of SEEN to be an intervenor in this case.

It should always be permitted for them to refer to a person how they presently understand or previously knew them

To do otherwise, and place additional or artificial barriers on a witness, is likely to detract from their ability to give best evidence.

In the light of this I simply can't see how the judge can justify his verbal direction that LW use gender neutral language. And he even mentioned the need to ensure 'best evidence' from witnesses in his exchanges with NC first thing this morning. NC wants to know whether his direction is restricted to pronouns or does it go further. He agreed to put his direction in writing to make it clear and it is going to be very interesting to know what it says. I hope it is shared/read out.

@SexRealistic I want to see how the judge is with EDW before deciding whether it’s grounds for appeal if the case goes against DEFRA/RPA.

Might I be so bold as to remind people that this Yammer spat was taking place just a few months before Musk completed his acquisition of Twitter. There was an awful to of GC censorship going on then. Musk subsequently sacked swathes of moderators (Google AI reckons 80% of trust and safety moderators). Wrongthink had been leading to a lot of bans.

I am prepared to cut ST some slack that they assumed that this pesky SEEN network could be censored and silenced (particularly if they were all busy nattering away on Bluesky).

Is the position that ST thinks people who hold GC views not only not talk about their beliefs but shouldn't even say that they hold these beliefs

@PronounssheRa yes, the claimant was explicity asked this yesterday. Just stating "I hold GC beliefs" is unacceptable to them because they hear the message "I therefore believe you are a man and not a woman".

Which by extension would mean that someone would be unable to say "I am a Roman Catholic" because someone might hear the message "I therefore believe that sex outside marriage is wrong and you are a sinner for living with your romantic partner".

It's totally unreasonable.

I also think the judge has got the point, because he said to AL before lunch that he has gone over the same ground several times now and the witness has stated the same views and can we move on. Which could be because he is interested in scheduling, or it could be because he's got the point that the Claimant is batshit and AL doesn't need to keep flogging a dead horse.

If ST thought about this rationally, he'd see that the predicament he's in isn't the fault of SEEN. It was caused by others long before SEEN was on the scene.

It is a major issue here - and is further underlined in NC's opening submissions in this case - it is not neutral to force someone to use 'neutral' pronouns:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ql4lYtTLz3wuJks0e1-4mCuCpqByHTuX/view

The routine inclusion of pronouns in email signatures, encouraged by gender
ideologists as a signal of assent to the proposition that pronouns should be used by reference to identity rather than biological sex. Note that pronouns and links explaining in gender ideological terms why they are present are included in the email signatures of the grievance decision makers Janet Hughes [681], Steve Moore [1214] and David Hallam [1450].

I am not saying SEEN or DEFRA will need or want to appeal this case depending on outcome.

However this is a grounds of appeal already in that the judge has given a ruling that goes against the ETBB.

This, from para 65 of the WS, cuts to the heart of what's wrong here:

It’s simply a direct attack on my legitimacy and my ability to set the terms on how people interact with me.

Yes. We don't get to "set the terms on how people interact with" us. Fuck's sake.

Maybe GC people should be demanding the DEFRA / RPA be automatically stripping off all pronoun declarations from internal and external e-mails. They are clearly triggering to people with the PC of GI

I take back my reasonably positive comments re DEFRA:

f. The Defra guidance “Gender Identity and Intersex” [1701], which tells those with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment that they may use whichever single-sex facilities they consider appropriate to their gender identity, and implies that that may legitimately vary from day to day with their flexible expression” [1708], and defines bullying, harassment and discrimination to include “refusing to accept an individual’s gender identity,” and warns “The gender identities of individuals must be respected at all times.” [1711] and [1712]

g. The Defra Toolkit “Supporting Transitioning at work” which advises at ¶77 “if other employees are uncomfortable with [a colleague using opposite sex facilities] they should consider using any available alternative facilities.” [1724]

So not only do they want to compell pronouns you have had to submit to forced speech depending on what the compelling party identifies as each day.

Come on little children - you can't be a new identity each and every day.

And it we say this relates to a GRC you have to plan to live in the acquired gender for live. So no back and forth and too'ing and fro'ing.

Good catch! I missed that the first time around. Yes, convinced now that ST's world includes only ST. I used to work with a couple of people like that. Heavily into IT and what passed for 'gaming' in the early 2010s.

Ed. apologies to those into IT and gaming! 😬

Reading the witness statement, and it is a chore frankly, there are many such little comments, which rather than being direct evidence supporting ST ‘s belief that he has been disrespected and attacked by what he perceives as unfair comments made by individuals to SEEN, come across as the obsessive ramblings of someone who has talked themselves into a situation and now can’t see the difference between the reality of the law, the agreed language, science and biology that exists and the unreality of the version of the world they have created by ignoring stuff they don’t like, or which conflicts with their view of them self.

Obviously all of these arguments being put forward by ST could equally be applied the other way. It is harassment for people who are not believers in GI to be forced to enact a belief they do not hold. It's harassment for women to be forced to enable men who are damaging their rights and wishing to use single sex spaces. It is harassment for yes, lanyards and groups to exist that further these aims against women and gay people. It creates an equally hostile environment to them - and they are not requiring anyone else to play along and create the experience they desire and explain needing to feel 'safe'.

We don't know anything about the planned timing, e.g. about how long AL expects to question ST for, do we?

Hs witness statement implies an awful lot too, peppered with his interpretations of meanings, that even if one agreed with him, add nothing to a case about. Harassment, or discrimination.

In spite of his utterances that Defra ignore trans people, on the contrary, they are celebrated, bigged up, pandered to etc etc. pride month goes on all summer, all the days are recognised, directors general write blog posts saying how fabulous they all are.

It can be a very scary environment for GC people to be in.

ST also equating the right to not believe in/participate in GI with active seeking to do harm/plain prejudice, example given, an anti-homosexual group (which I find quite rich as GI is flat out homophobic as homosexuality is sex based).

There is no capacity or will to take on board that those who say no have any needs or thoughts or existence beyond people with gender identities, and are doing this solely to be 'hateful'. The black and white rigidity and total lack of capacity for empathy and reciprocative thinking is front and centre. That SEEN is expressing these thoughts and needs and the other side of the story is in itself seen as a 'dangerous' threat and harassment for ST.

The pronouns are bad enough, but many of the email signatures contain links to external "human rights" (i.e. trans lobby orgs) about why you're a terrible person if you don't use someone's preferred pronouns.

I clicked on one recently that was about 8 pages of pronoun eduction, including the advice that if you haven't talked to someone for a while, you should check that they are still using the same pronouns as when you last spoke to them 🙄 Imagine if we all went around the workplace doing that?

It is never enough. All the ranting at the moment about the guidance, prisons being a very recent example, 'poor men with gender identities thrown to the wolves in the male estate' - the judge went to a lot of trouble to explain, that men who express gender identities in the male estate are not treated as other men, they are given vast amounts of sensitivity, additional provision, care, concern, privileges - to the point where there would really be a case by other men that they are discriminated against.

But it's never enough.

[re my question above, TT say they think court was discussing timing, but does not report what was said, perhaps because it was inaudible]

From TT:

AL: Some Qs re lanyards. p339. Post says - lots of trans-ally merch available inc lanyards. Do you accept that there were such materials in the workplace?
ST: Yes

AL: p287. Post with "100% trans ally" graphic. That sort of thing?
ST: That's just a graphic
AL: The colours indicate 'trans ally'?
ST: Yes could do

AL: p984 Email from a JMcK - uses the same 'trans ally' badge as an email sign-ff?
ST: Yes
AL: And ppl wore 'trans ally' badges at work?
ST: [not clear]
AL: T-shirts?
ST: Haven't seen
AL: Lanyards?
ST [can't hear]

Agree. I do think it's toned done a bit of late though. The idea that Defra is a hostile place to work for trans/GI people is so utterly preposterous beyond belief.

A GC employee likely spends most of their time interacting with others through the e-mail system. A workday is a near continuous avalanche of performative pronoun e-mail signatures.
If you don't play along and include your own pronouns you are 'the nail that sticks out'
Management and HR include pronouns in their own signatures deliberately aligning with the GI side.
What an unbelievably hostile place to work if you take the protected GC position

Edit spelling

I believe the links are considered a breach of Communication Principles but still they stand.

See also the mealy mouthed Comms when FWS verdict was announced and supporting staff.

AL: p287. Post with "100% trans ally" graphic. That sort of thing?
ST: That's just a graphic

And ST would have said 'it's just a graphic' if other staff wore Adult Human Female or Sex Matters badges?

It's nearly the sum total of every other tribunal I've followed, in that it shows, without evasion or any attempt to hide, the demands of people who live in World Trans (or World Queer, World Me, whatever you want to call it). Thinking back to the Peggie tribunal, I can see clearly now that Upton was reading from a script (in his mind: THIS is the correct answer to that question). I'm not convinced he actually believed most of it, just thought it would be useful for his own, nefarious purposes.

In this tribunal, I really think that ST believes we are all living on Planet ST, and that we all started living there in 2018, and never left!