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.

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 Naomi.

That is all.

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.

We're back to thought crimes now.

NC: So you are not saying it's said in terms?
ST: Not out loud, but that's the consequence.

ST is also, apparently, a mind reader.

I was poking fun at the Redditeer who cast aspersions on our fluency in English - I wrote in Irish that I didn't know what was going on in the mind of 'yer man', we all have fluent English here😄

NC: So you are not saying it's said in terms?
ST: Not out loud, but that's the consequence.

Oh fuck off.

From TT:

ST: Not sure what you mean
NC: Let me try this way. EDW has the protected characteristic of sex?
ST: Yes
NC: And is female?
ST: Couldn't say.
NC: are you saying -
J: Let's not go down that rabbithole

NC: So EDW has PC-sex, assume female. She also has beliefs about what that means and/or should mean. Similary you have PC or GR, but also beliefs about what that means, in the same way?

NC: p[missed] - interview notes from meeting with Carl Hardman. You said - recommendation 9 - that GC ppl had gone round joining LGBT groups and resisting idea that TWAW, and you found that upsetting because not your belief?
ST: Upset by lack of support.

NC: Because you believe in what I can call gender ideology, without supposing you agree to that specific term?
ST: [missed]
NC: We have just agreed that EDW->sex->some beliefs, so you have PC=GR-=>some beliefs?

It’s plausible to me that it’s strategic. They’ve long thought that they can negate Forstater with the right ruling, or create a chilling effect.

NC: p[missed] - interview notes from meeting with Carl Hardman. You said - recommendation 9 - that GC ppl had gone round joining LGBT groups and resisting idea that TWAW, and you found that upsetting because not your belief? ST: Upset by lack of support.

J: Let's not go down that rabbithole

😂😂😂

NC: And is female?
ST: Couldn't say.

I don't believe him.

Is he really as dense as he is coming across, or is he just buying himself time to get out of the mess he's in?

J: Let's not go down that rabbithole

Pardon? Is the judge dictating the way NC should ask questions? Is he bored and wants to make sure he gets home tonight in time for his tea?

'mo dhuine' is literally 'my person' but means 'that person' or in colloquial Hiberno-English, 'yer man'😃
it was 'I don't know what's going on in yer man's mind, we all have fluent English'

From TT:

ST: You would have to be more specific, I have lots of beliefs, this is not helpful Q

NC: We can agree that there are lots of beliefs in workplaces - religions and otherwise?
ST: Yes and if offensive to others, not bring up at work.

NC: So we can agree that while all beliefs/religions tolerated - and some accommodations made eg not meetings in a pub or down tools at sundown - they all rub along together?
ST: Yes I suppose so

NC: But gender ideology is not like that. It makes profoundly upsetting demands of women.
ST: Disagree. Not upsetting to use ppl's names and pronouns, or including them.

My note: I I I ... corwumph

Watching that clip is … horrifying? Incredible? Unbelievable? That so-called intelligent people, judges, push back hard on objections to a man with a penis remaining in a female prison where he preys on and exploits vulnerable women. It’s nothing less than state sanctioned rape of women IMO.

When watching that I get a better understanding of just why Trump and the Republicans gained so much ground and why the Democrats have lost the confidence of the average citizen.

Now he's telling us what is and isn't upsetting to us.
Definitely a man.

He seems oblivious, whether by design or genuinely, to the fact that there are GC gay people, and seems to think they are all straight infiltrators to the LGB group. Probably because he now thinks he's a lesbian.

NC as usual is deconstructing STs position and asking him to point to evidence. He can’t, as SEEN have been very careful.

Not upsetting to use ppl's names and pronouns, or including them.
Of course not🙄

From TT:

ST: It's not about not disagreeing, it's about how, about making it a workplace debate instead of correct channels eg line manager, about not offending colleagues.

NC: So workplace facilities - but the consequences of gender ideology are more upsetting elsewhere. For example if a woman asks for a female doctor, GIdeol would demand that she can't obect to a man identifing as a woman - a TW

ST: Is that a Q?
NC: This is different from religion, isn't it - much more consequences
ST: Depends what the law is, if the law says it's OK then it's OK

NC: There are important practical consequences for women from G-ideol, so surely they must be free to discuss those?
ST: I keep saying, not in workplace - other than appropriate channels.

ST: Depends what the law is, if the law says it's OK then it's OK

We're back to the law now.......

Yes, I agree - you have summed up Tempest most succinctly.

ST: Is that a Q?

Getting a bit tetchy...

There was a whole thread on FWR documenting them when she or a poster claiming to be her started doing this, which she or person claiming to be her turned up on to make bizarre accusations about us.

But he's forgotten that the law at the time didn't say a lot of it was ok, Stonewall just conned people into thinking it was.