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.

I'm losing patience with his slim grasp of reality now.

I'll be gracious and put it down to wanting my lunch.

The complete answer is worse.

"We disagree about the whole menstruation issue don't we"

He is claiming not to understand that women's experience is shaped by their biology and body ( their lived experience)

ST - we disagree about the whole menstruation issue don't we.

Ooh, especially mansplainy! (ST does not like NC one bit and assumes he's the Clever One here. Bad move, mate)

He knows sod all about the menstruation issue.

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

??? of course you don't! 🙄

From TT:

SEEN has misgendered you - referred to you by correct sex pronouns, the tribunal would have heard all about it
ST - I have not heard that
NC - and SEEN has not encouraged others to do so
ST - well they have because of their sex based focused
NC - bear with me - misgendering

is the narrow use of correct sex pronouns for trans people, has SEEN encouraged anyone to do that, the tribunal would have heard about it
ST - no but they are campaigning with HR to allow it to happen
NC - we're going to go on to the wider meaning of misgendering, what you are

referring to is broader than using correct sex pronouns.
St - can you clearer
NC - you're saying that not saying TWAW or using TIM or pointing out that TW are male, you're sweeping those up into misgendering
ST - I don't think I am, it's unwanted conduct
NC - you're sweeping

This man could not come across as more male if he tried.

Anyone who can't see this for what it is at this point is beyond help.

Come on. He knows more than any mere woman.

I'm not convinced he's ever given it any thought, and he's a married man, isn't he?

To a man, or a woman?

He's a twice married man and has said he has a child - dont know if that's a biological child or step child. First wife was female, divorced him when he transitioned, no idea about second wife. He refers to her as she but could be anyone.

Funny how suddenly he's not understanding what NC is going on about isn't it.

'It felt like such a relief to have someone agree that I wasn't some neurotic overly dramatic activist out to punish gender critical colleagues.'

From his witness statement.

Who was the someone?

Of course he doesnt understand. He's not a woman and has never tried to think about any view but those who agree with him.

I don't know, it's just something someone mentioned on the previous thread.

Emma?

To cannibalise a quote by Upton Sinclair:

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his [ideology] depends on his not understanding it."

NC: I'm asking you to agree that you use mis-gendering as wider than use of correct sex pronouns.

J - that's the grounds of your appeal, what did you mean in referring to misgendering

Judge trying to get ST to focus on the pecise grounds of his claim ( but calling it an 'appeal')

From TT:

them up together as a wider issue. I'm asking you to agree that you use mis-gendering as wider than use of correct sex pronouns.
ST - so calling a TW a man is misgendering
J - that's the grounds of your appeal, what did you mean in referring to misgendering

ST - calling a TW a man, yes
J - thank you that's helpful
NC - turn to para 65d of WS.
ST - yes
NC - you complain there about the post that says GI makes me worry about ss spaces, puts strain on women alone, makes us accept that those men belong in our spaces

He said he had a wife, as he only felt safe going into work on the days that she did. Whether it's an actual wife, who knows.

J - that's the grounds of your appeal, what did you mean in referring to misgendering

Thank you - more of that please Judge

Hasn't he mentioned only going to the office on days that his wife did?

Of course that doesn't necessarily mean he's married to a woman.

From TT:

Is that within your definition of mis-gendering, using masculine pronouns in that context about a TW?
ST - so, I've said that sex and gender are separate things but I would call it misgendering
NC - and you take exception at para 65c, you say comparing GI to religious belief

is incredibly distressing, and using my pronouns to worship a false gods.
ST - yes
NC - but doesn't the use of feminine pronouns for you reinforce that they believe they are female
ST - no, it's just respect
NC - that might be a harmless courtesy if all trans people showed any

signs that women's boundaries should be respected.
ST - I don't know how respect is compared to boundaries.
NC - You say that as TW you are entitled to anything a woman is entitled to, can you not seen that women would refuse to use wrong sex pronouns in that circumstances