Tempest v Rural Payments Agency Tribunal Thread 2

[myladydisdainisyetliving]

Previous thread: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5546841-tempest-v-rural-payments-agency-tribunal-thread-follow-on-from-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 existence of the Sex Equality and Equity Network in the Civil Service (SEEN). 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.

I will also 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. The claim originated because she said "only women menstruate" and a search with her name and those terms at the usual gardening website should point you to her plot.

But if we had such a map ST would have it too then it wouldn't work!

I predict that either ST is going to cry, or get very angry at NC

From TT:

ST: I think that is what the law allows - I am not sure what you are asking me?
NC: The networks should be based on coherent, prob legal categories? No M can identify into F category?
J: That is 2 Qs really - break it up?

NC: Point of networks is, to group together ppl who have shared needs, priorities?
ST: Wd say that is part of it, but networks also try to bring together anyone interesting in supporting their objectives.

ST: It's not in a vacuum like that.

NC: True that biological women do have somethings in common that no man can share, because he's not a woman?

ST: Don't know what you are alluding to. Something "salient in common" - pls clarify?
NC: Women have biologically female bodies and hence shared needs.
ST: Don't accept.

My note: ah...

ST: Don't accept.

Oh, what a surprise.

I am going for hyperventilating.

Naomi Cunning Plan

NC: Women have biologically female bodies and hence shared needs.
ST: Don't accept.

FFS! How do you even have a discussion?

NC is trying to get ST to accept that men and women have different needs for biological reasons. At some point he will either admit that or say something utterly ridiculous.

😍

NC: You said yesterday, SEEN had never posted re equality between men and women.
ST: Not to my knowledge,
NC: p1267

Ha, anyone knowing NC would surely be a bit wary here!

Perhaps she does hope for him to lose his rag? I don't think this J would let her get there though. I am appreciating her not letting him use a habit he has developed of faux-legalese to not answer questions. The court can infer is a brilliant reminder that he has already made certain things abundantly clear and an obfuscating answer now won't change that

@fanOfBen My note: I do sometimes wish we could have a map of where Naomi is going :-) Is she just trying to rile him?

Can’t speak for anyone else, but I’m here for the riling

I going for needing a Judge directed break so ST can regain his composure. Also a reprimand to NC for upsetting ST.

Yes generally very much like weddings. Instructing solicitors sit behind their barristers so they can pass notes. Witnesses/observers generally behind again, normally stick to their ‘side’. There may also be neutral observers/public at the back.

I’m here for the fireworks

From TT:

NC: You said yesterday, SEEN had never posted re equality between men and women.
ST: Not to my knowledge,
NC: p1267

NC: Heading is what is DEFRA SEEN about - the intro post. First line is, promote equality and equity between men and women, post about men and women?
ST: No it's just a statement.

NC: Intervenor bundle p19 [I think]
NC: Do you accept this about men and women? Ending VAWG?
ST: No
NC: Why not?
ST: Exclusionary to trans ppl, removes us from included in that.

NC: I think you are saying that bcs SEEN focuses on biological women, it never posts about women or sex equality, because they would need to talk about W+TW?
ST: Every post goes on about excluding trans ppl.

ST: I don't know enough about it to say.

well that’s never stopped you before ….

I'm going for NC being very direct, but remaining unfailingly polite, as ST flaps around sounding ever less reasonable.
So no call for the judge to reprimand her.

If a woman calmly asking questions during a tribunal you instigated to begin with sets you off to the point of emotional outbursts then evidently not much riling was required to begin with.

1..2…3 nebulous dog whistle

From TT:

C: Did you read this article?

J: If I may - p19, ST you say, this excludes TW - where is there exclusion? Other than it being SEEN

ST: I think their website was hidden at this time, there was a Viva Engage post though, and SEEN members made it very clear they did not include TW. Don't believe they changed their position for this article.

NC: p866 (main)
NC: Second paragraph beginning "in relation to" - can you read that pls
ST [reads]

NC: This is re where SEEN fits conceptually
ST: Yes
NC: Caroline A is saying the point is not the belief, the focus is on actual sex. That's right isn't it?
ST: Yes agree focus of SEEN is sex.

She has already used the phrase "men who think they are women" and he did not faint or even complain upon hearing it, which is somewhat surprising considering his complaints about pretty much any gc terminology earlier

J: If I may - p19, ST you say, this excludes TW - where is there exclusion? Other than it being SEEN
ST: I think their website was hidden at this time, there was a Viva Engage post though, and SEEN members made it very clear they did not include TW. Don't believe they changed their position for this article.

Again... There is evidence it just doesn't exist.

Excellent, focusing on reality rather than belief.

"NC: Do you accept this about men and women? Ending VAWG?
ST: No
NC: Why not?
ST: Exclusionary to trans ppl, removes us from included in that."

A blindfolded kitten in a dark room could see that this is a staggeringly selfish take to have but ST manages it without a trace of irony.