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.

You are most likely correct. The Judge and panel are professional, all-day-long, witness watchers. Over and over again. If you've noticed it then there's no doubt they have.

ST trying to change the meaning of words again when it suits his cause to do so.

That's the one who has been obsessively submitting FOIs. I see from her bio that she is an American who has been in the UK since 2000 becoming a British citizen in 2009 & renouncing her U.S. citizenship in 2023.

This is the only article I could find, behind a paywall.

www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/trans-woman-sues-defra-for-creating-hostile-environment-for-trans-people-8768996

From TT:

NC: p1202 (main)
NC: Community standards for the EA LGBT network. points 2 & 3 - no expression of GC belief will be tolerated?
ST: It doesn't say that can't be stated. It doesn't. It says, we ask all to respect our belief - does not define how to respect.

NC: If we go back to EDW personal post. Conspicuously moderate and careful. Response was a torrent of demonising and abuse?
J: I am not sure the C can respond to that framing?
NC: There was a very hostile reponse?
ST: EDW might have felt so

NC: Not asking about how EDW felt.
ST: Disagree that hostile. Heartfelt.
NC: EDW nor SEEN have ever suggested you should not be able to express your GI beliefs?
ST: Not ideology - my existence.

NC: I need to be able to use abbreviations. GC = sex binary & immutable we've agreed; gender ideology asserts TWAW etc. More in it in both cases, but those are the summaries.

Thanks, Ickky. I suppose it's relatively early in the proceedings yet, but today's testimony should make some journalists sit up and take notice.

Spelling!

ST: It doesn't say that can't be stated. It doesn't...

God, I'm imagining him saying that with his bottom lip trembling and tears in his eyes. Like a peed off toddler.

He really 'struggles' with the 'yes' or 'no' questions. Why use one word, when 27 will do? Strikes me as someone who loves the sound of his own voice (or at least, the way he imagines his voice sounds!)

If you have to imagine something that isn't happening to make the narrative fit your pre-conceptions then that's a you problem.

“I just want to go to work” head lowered, whispered voice, dabbing application of lace handkerchief to tear glistened eye .

Wearing womens clothing, expecting to be referred to using female pronouns, claiming to have symptoms of menopause, being frightened of lanyards. Yes I can see how TS’s modest retiring personality and self restraint in not posting meant that his presence at work was not at all contentious.

I think it's all about control again. Trying to control the narrative.

ST: Disagree that hostile. Heartfelt

So now hostile means heartfelt if he or his allies are the ones spouting vitriol.

Got it!!

More like the man you would not want to meet in an enclosed space on your own, fired up with male entitlement and agression.

From TT:

J: Obviously not unreasonable to have a term; we can use the term and recognise that it is often use. ST if you can tolerate its use it will help Qs along. Does not mean anyone is condoing it.

ST: I don't want panel to think it's an ideology, it's innate to me, my gender identity.
NC: Gender identity is different; the thing I am calling gender ideology is beliefs about what should follow from that. Do you have another term you'd prefer?
ST: Absolutely not

J: Can we agree that we all understand what NC means here?
[seems so]
NC: Neither EDW nor SEEN has ever said you should not be able to express your opposing position.
ST: I think they have - let me look.

NC: HH can take you to things in re-exam. But, I'm not talking abou SEEN objecting to their views being misrepresented. I'm saying they have never said ppl should not say TWAW.

NC: How do you characterise.
ST: Have said before. These posts have veneer of respectability and neutrality, but in fact, like other posts, delegitimises gender identity.

Am hours behind, so I don't know if anyone's asked this, but I'd like to know, or to hear this person explain:

How do posts which merely have a veneer of respectability and neutrality differ from posts which actually are respectable & neutral? How does the reader spot the difference?

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar...

No, it means I'm not watching the live feed.

I have a few 'heartfelt' things I could say right now!

If it doesn't say that what the hell else does no expression of GC belief will be tolerated mean then?

And NC is not pressing for a 'yes' or 'no', the wordy, beside-the-point replies are more valuable.

That's even worse! At least I can deal with annoyed toddlers.

NC. Of course, and do remind me if I forget.

😇

<noting that Claimant's Barrister HH has not objected once so far. How refreshing>

NC: Neither EDW nor SEEN has ever said you should not be able to express your opposing position.
ST: I think they have - let me look.

Just give me a couple of years, I know I'll be able to find something! And spin it to fit my POV.

One would like to think that every time a yes or no answer is dodged, the panel will draw the appropriate conclusions. If you just say 'yes' or 'no' when it's appropriate, it makes the rest of your testimony that much more credible.

How can you be expected to " respect someone's belief" if that belief fundamentally cuts across your own? Not that the binary nature of sex is a 'belief'.