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.

'The TERF blogs are very hard reading, almost as if not in English'

😂

Watching him reply, it is very clear that he has been in a bubble where everyone has agreed with his outrage. Surely noone can listen to what he is saying and think he is being reasonable?

Must be their fuzzy menopausal brains struggling to read, poor lambs.

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

WTF?

Does anyone here have any problem with transwomen competing in their sex class?

I don't think they do, correct me if I am wrong.

From TT:

NC: What we see here is SEEN behaving - as throughout - being conspicuously reasonable and fair, respecting DEFRA authority, accepting quite intrusive changes to blog - and pushing back just a little to say, we'd like others to be treated the same way?
J: Many propositions there ...

NC: What we see here is, SEEN being conspicuously moderate?
ST: No, we see SEEN demanding complete erasure of TW from sport in return for agree to a change. Not reasonable.

NC: Can you understand how some SEEN members might think that allowing eg LGBT network the triumph of a trans identifying man who has won a race against a woman, erases the woman who would have otherwise won?

ST: Disagree. If TW wins, its bcs allowed, so it's fine.
NC: You don't see how SEEN members might find it erasing and unfair?
ST: If those are the rules those are the rules. It's OK to celebrate the person that won.

I know right! How very dare they!

My note: huh?

@fanOfBen Yeah. SEEN were told to edit a blog post to remove all reference to sport as it is divisive. They replied, ok, but we trust you will also apply that to all other blogs that talk about sport, eg in celebrating a TW winning in a women's category, as we consider that equally divisive. Claimant interprets that as, well you can read TT.

"Erasure: denial of exietence,: in perpetuity"....all so dramatic and hyperbolic.

FFS

Another great example of one rule for us, another for them:
ST: Disagree. If TW wins, its bcs allowed, so it's fine.
NC: You don't see how SEEN members might find it erasing and unfair?
ST: If those are the rules those are the rules. It's OK to celebrate the person that won.

From TT:

NC: Can you agree that SEEN and members have said repeatedly that they welcome constructive debate?
ST: Yes

NC: But your position is that that discussion just can't be had?
ST: My postion is that my lived experiences is fact, not something that needs discussion.

NC: Why not debate and discuss with SEEN? Why do you need to silence them?
ST: It's not relevant to the work we do - have allowed for some occasional. Shd not be discussed on open platform for all staff.

NC I want to suggest that real reason transactivist tactic has always been "no debate" is bcs you can't defend gender ideology that way; all you can do is silence GC views, because you have no rational argument.

ST: If those are the rules those are the rules. It's OK to celebrate the person that won.

He's morphing into a rules based person, now......that's good!

NC I want to suggest that real reason transactivist tactic has always been "no debate" is bcs you can't defend gender ideology that way; all you can do is silence GC views, because you have no rational argument.

<I was expecting a mic drop - now is a good time to break today judge at that point>

NC: But your position is that that discussion just can't be had? ST: My postion is that my lived experiences is fact, not something that needs discussion.

A Fact is a condition which is commonly understood and its claims accepted as accurate.

I'm surprised ST's head didn't explode at the point FWS won at the Supreme Court. By his way of thinking he should have puffed right out of existence way before we all got to listen to complete codswallop.

NC I want to suggest that real reason transactivist tactic has always been "no debate" is bcs you can't defend gender ideology that way; all you can do is silence GC views, because you have no rational argument.

I love NC 😍

I have not the faintest idea what that means, @MarieDeGournay, but it still seems to make infinitely more sense than anything on that Reddit thread. Or anything that's come out of Samantha Tempest's no doubt perfectly lipsticked mouth, either..!

NC: Why not debate and discuss with SEEN? Why do you need to silence them?
ST: It's not relevant to the work we do - have allowed for some occasional. Shd not be discussed on open platform for all staff.
NC I want to suggest that real reason transactivist tactic has always been "no debate" is bcs you can't defend gender ideology that way; all you can do is silence GC views, because you have no rational argument.

I'm not sure about NC taking it to the meta-level of trans 'no debate' like that, I think she was doing great keeping the focus on ST.
But what do I know?😏

oops I see I've contradicted a previous poster - just goes to show, this is not an echo chamger😁

NC I want to suggest that real reason transactivist tactic has always been "no debate" is bcs you can't defend gender ideology that way; all you can do is silence GC views, because you have no rational argument.

From TT:

ST I don't think that's the case at all.

NC: Para 29 of your WS - last sentence. You say yhoud Love to know how they expect this to be protected and tolerant when they say a protected characteristic doesn't exist or is lying. Can you show where SEEN have said this.

ST: I've explained. Consequence of what they do say, is, what I say there
NC: So you are not saying it's said in terms?
ST: Not out loud, but that's the consequence.

NC: You said to AL that you don't have a belief, you have a protected characteristc bcs of your lived experience. Nobody denies you have PC of GR. But it's also true you have beliefs about what that means?

Celebrating cheating, nice.

He's mudding up the personal and the political and leaning on the personal when it suits him. Women have been told we are weaponising our trauma when we use our personal experiences to try and explain things, often in exasperation.

Or in some cases have them deleted in case it upsets others to read them.

Google tells me it means 'I don't know what to expect from my person, we all speak English fluently.' Hmm.

NC: Para 29 of your WS - last sentence. You say you'd Love to know how they expect this to be protected and tolerant when they say a protected characteristic doesn't exist or is lying. Can you show where SEEN have said this.

Nobody denies that 'gender -re-assignement' is a protected characteristic, just that having a GRC or that characteristic does not change that person's sex.