Tempest v Rural Payments Agency Tribunal Thread 3

[myladydisdainisyetliving]

Previous thread: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5548369-tempest-v-rural-payments-agency-tribunal-thread-2

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.

Thanks, yes, that's what I meant.

NC - views like no misgendering, TW can use what ever facilities they want, gender fluid any facilities they want - those are ideological positions

ST - you asked 3 qs, bathroom use is whatever gov says, and gender fluid - my personal position is based on risk, I don't see any

No, NC asked one question: doesn't the policy have all the hallmarks of influence of gender identity ideology?
and gave three examples.
Just answer the one question!

NC - the reality is, that it is acceptable for a public sector employee to promote GI in the workplace because you don't see them as political
ST - we don't see the same things as political

It may not be a bad thing if this judge responds badly to NC. If it then goes to appeal, which seems a distinct possibility, that may actually be helpful in the long term.

To be clear, I think ST is an absolute piss-take. But the employer decides on sick pay entitlement and can put in place occupational health assessment long before 6 months is up. I don't think we have heard anything about that, probably because the employer was totally captured at the time it occurred?

The fact that ST was still looking at intranet threads for new ways to be offended while on sick leave apparently due to the offence caused by those threads seems more pertinent than who was paying for the sick leave that the employer authorised.

NC - GI is not political, but any dissent from GI is political.

Good point!

Pronouns are fucking political..

From TT:

so no.
NC - GI is not political, but any dissent from GI is political.
ST - you're using a very broad brush, some parts are political but some are basic respect like names and pronouns.
NC - back to the guidance, page 1710, para 70 - says indivs are entitled to views and

beliefs but should not express these in the workplace. Are you aware that some women find it offensive by the proposition that a man can become a woman by saying so, by adopting feminine stereotypes and having surgery.
ST - I know some feel that but I don't know the basis.

NC - you think it's fine for those people to be offended but anything they might say that offends you should be shut down
ST - if people are offended they should complain through the proper channels
NC - on the only women menstruate, we from para 50-54 of EW's witness statement

BOOM!

ST - if people are offended they should complain through the proper channels

Like the Supreme Court? Yet here we still are...

NC: Are you aware that some women find it offensive by the proposition that a man can become a woman by saying so, by adopting feminine stereotypes and having surgery.

ST - I know some feel that but I don't know the basis.

That's because you are not a friggin' woman.

To be fair, Pete has been seen in an awful lot of Women's toilets and changing room's. I would head him off too.

I for one am suspicious of Pete motives, Has anyone seen his Plumbing credentials?

I'd like Pete to appear to do a special reading of MBAM just to spite the judge at this point.

NC - but CA worked with agender on policy development
ST - I don't think it was DEFRA, think it was Cabinet Office

How would he know that, if he doesn't know anything about a:gender and how it works?

Nobody wants to see Pete's plumbing.

ST - I know some feel that but I don't know the basis.
You weren't asked to comment on the basis , just asked if you were aware..
every answer as loaded as possible😠

Naomi gets critcicised on each one of these tribunals.

Keep your head down, play nice, stick to the facts, don't annoy the judge, think of the outcome.

She will check in with her clients each day. She does their bidding. And they want her to amplify the horror this ideology has had on all of us. And they know the risks of appeal.

I am personally grateful that both Kelly and Peggie will go to appeal and make binding law. It exposes the nonsense of the Judges and their poor quality.

She knows whats she is doing and she is incredibly good at it. The system is rigged and she shows that every time.

From TT:

please read that
J - we have had quite a bit of evidence on that yesterday, just bear it in mind.
NC - just checking, not going over the same ground
NC - a chat on a women & autism event, EW's evidence is that she was shocked to here women described as people who menstruate,

she didn't like women being erased from something that is all about women's experience.
ST okay
NC and being autistic she's particular concerned about the clear use of language,
ST - okay
NC so if she was to say that any use of preferred pronouns distresses her, she's entitled

to say that isn't she
ST - yes, she's entitled to say it, but in a chat with people that would be distressed by it, it's not professional, she should have complained through proper channels
NC - how is it professional to describe women as people who menstruate
ST - we disagree

He keeps trying to answer the question he thought he should have been asked!

ST - we disagree

Nooooooo! Really? I'm shocked!

Very Yes Minister, isn't it. Or real politics.

Cool, why wasn't the event named "People who menstruate & Autism" then?

ST - yes, she's entitled to say it, but in a chat with people that would be distressed by it, it's not professional, she should have complained through proper channels.

Obviously, though, the appropriate channels would have been biased against her because they'd beeen captured by trans ideology.

ST can keep repeating that she should have followed professional and appropriate channels and anything that he did was entirely within the company rules and according to its charter of behaviour.

From TT:

about the whole menstruation issue don't we.
NC - back to your WS, framing GC beliefs as an alternative point of view, denies my trans existence as a lived fact, isn't what you want to do is deny women's existence as a lived fact
ST - don't really understand

NC - shall I try again
ST yes
NC - GC people beliefs are a weird niche issue and belief that should be suppressed
ST - I accept that people can hold those views but it's all about how they can be expressed in the workplace.
NC - i want to talk a bit about language - no one in

NC - how is it professional to describe women as people who menstruate
ST - we disagree

Look, you pompous eejit, this is a fecking tribunal, and a barrister representing one of the sides is questioning you about your opinion, it's not a chit chat over tea between Samantha and Naomi about what each of them thinks about the term 'people who menstruate' - ANSWER THE QUESTION! and in this case ANSWER THE BLOODY QUESTION!😏