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.

Not to anyone’s face. She was referring to Philip/Pippa Bunce who uses different pronouns on different days.

Just putting this out there…

Which looks to be far more explicit than anything EDW is accused of.

The hearing is restarting - I'll assume @myladydisdainisyetliving is c&ping but let me know if I missed her asking me to!

Yes, still misgendering, talking on yammer wasn’t doing it to ST’s face either.

And he has explicitly said there’s no way to express that belief that he would accept

And he has also said that when that belief was not explicitly expressed, that he knew for sure that it had, really, underneath, silently been expressed and that's exactly the same thing as having it displayed in 2 metre high flashing lights as far as he was concerned.

It’s the lunchtime comedy act, to keep the audience warm.

I'm here, I was just catching up with some work over lunch! Hang on

or maybe since i'm here

From TT:

[Hearing is starting]

HH: I meant to mention this morning - at start of C evidence there was confusion, I had WS with page numbers in it but everyone else had "ref to follow". Apparently solicitor sent my version for DUC on 12th June - not sure what went wrong there.

HH: Solicitor will be sending that again - and Emma Dunn's - this evening.

J: Thank you

NC: We were talking about lanyards and your objections - you felt not safe in presence of ppl with GC views. You have no concern how safe GC colleagues might feel in presence of transactivism in the workplace?

ST: Not aware much transactivism in workplace.
NC: Do you agree there was plenty?
ST: No. Give me examples.

I think NC's reputation came out of that case better than Judge Kemp's did, given the 'irregularities' in his judgment.

Maya specifically stated in court that she would not deliberately misgender a work colleague. I think it's fair to say at this point that this was probably a lie, but the judge accepted it, and this was part of the basis of his ruling that her beliefs were protected.

Aren't you aware of the details of the case?

It was Judge Sandy who mentioned G&T I think. Perhaps he enjoyed a few while a colleague/AI bot produced the written decision references for him.

From TT:

[Hearing is starting]

HH: I meant to mention this morning - at start of C evidence there was confusion, I had WS with page numbers in it but everyone else had "ref to follow". Apparently solicitor sent my version for DUC on 12th June - not sure what went wrong there.

HH: Solicitor will be sending that again - and Emma Dunn's - this evening.

J: Thank you

NC: We were talking about lanyards and your objections - you felt not safe in presence of ppl with GC views. You have no concern how safe GC colleagues might feel in presence of transactivism in the workplace?

ST: Not aware much transactivism in workplace.
NC: Do you agree there was plenty?
ST: No. Give me examples.

He's very combative, in a manly way.

Who here (apart possibly from you) has said anything about ST being misgendered in the office? Not even ST has claimed that.

ST: Not aware much transactivism in workplace.

Says the man saying he has menopause symptoms.

See, this is the problem with the GC bubble, you only ever hear the opinions of a small circle of people who already agree with you.

From TT:

NC: You wouldn't agree there is a consensus there that gender ideology is right and dissent wrong?
ST: That's a vague Q, not sure what you mean. Pronouns yes, activism no. Not sure what you mean

NC: Well for example a lot of ppl put pronouns in email sigs.
ST: some do, not sure how common.
NC: can show examples -
J: We have seen examples yes.

NC: Often with sermon about allyship?
J: Can we say 'statement' not sermon? That's neutral. Says "why am I doing this"
NC: My point is that it's not neutral -
ST: TBH I don't see sigs - you don't read right to the end.

We're talking about the Forstater case not ST.

Most of us I think read widely on the subject, including a lot of GI sources. I certainly do.

Once upon a time, TRSOH was riding high on untouchable infallible NoDebate. Now they consider it a great triumph to see a bit of disobedient-woman-scolding in a document riddled with errors and made-up misstatements. How the mighty have fallen.

Then let’s stop doing that, and talk about this case.

And work in places where it is heavily pushed.

This is untrue.

We have people like you constantly offering opinions that most of us don't agree with.

It doesn't show