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.

Surely humans are fallible - some subtle judgment calls wd go wrong?
ST: They should have had proper policy and process instead

Another non-answer answer. I would guess he is impossible to live with!

He saw the rainbow flag at the end of the signature he didn't read right to the end 🧐

@MarieDeGournay it was the judge, even!

I'd be more impressed if you were regularly engaging in discussion with people who don't already agree with you.

So… what are we doing in this exact exchange, you, and I?

I’d be delighted to contribute to trans UK Reddit, but we both know I’d be banned within two posts. I welcome engaging in discussion. If you can find me a venue other than this where my thoughts would be debated instead of removed, I would be most grateful.

From TT:

NC: Reality is that there has been relentless gender-ideology proselytising in DEFRA for years, isn't it?
ST: No

NC: I need to check a reference - excuse me a minute

NC: pp20-41 (int)
NC: Natural England pride network sharepoint page. It's 21 pages of GI propaganda isn't it?
ST: Haven't seen this
NC: Could you look now -
J: C's opinion won't get us anywhere

.

Well you can't on reddit, they block you.

Yeah I said that during the hydration break too - 'Maybe play Robertson in a sweeper role at the back'😂

From TT:

NC: Am going to show you a few docs then as a Q. [missed ref] This is MoD guide for parents of trans children. Then p115 - an 'introduction to trans inclusion'. These docs bear out what I say - lots of gender ideology in the workplace?

ST: About inclusion in the workplace. You say 'gender ideology' - they are LBGT documents - they are not DEFRA - not sue what you want me to say - it's 3 documents, cannot say how that scales to number.

NC: p1714 we've looked at before - trans & intersex guide. Links to Stonewall - you agree these are links?
ST: Yes
NC: And to GIRES, and to the UK Intersex Association.

I was permanently blocked after my very first post.

Why not go start a thread on this very topic for people to discuss all the things that Maya didn't do and what she said she wouldn't do. Will be fascinating I'm sure.

From TT:

NC: You wd be outraged if the links were to Sex Matters, Transgendertrend?
ST: Yes
NC: But not by these?
ST: Think this doc is being revised - they won't be there

NC: Not my Q - they were there then. I'm suggesting, improperly partisan and political.
ST: I think as guidance was then, they would not be considered that, but now would.

NC: Your WS complains of links to GC organisations - that's not reasonable, of course they would link to support orgs?
ST: No not unreasonable

Zoonosis · Today 14:26

So it's your opinion that Maya Forstater would definitely respect the pronouns of a trans work colleague?

It's what she said, I believe that she wouldn't deliberately mistergender a colleague.

An ace!🎾

I hadn't even bothered, I just read. Unless you are a fully paid up member of the 'you look gorgeous and totally pass, your parents are abusive, everyone hates us and wants us to die, just pee where you like, better woman then they are, splintery rolling pin' club , it's the instant banhammer.

From TT:

NC: You think those orgs campaign against trans rights?
ST: Yes
NC: Aware that some ppl see eg GIRES, Stonewall, as campaigning against women's rights?
ST: No

NC: They want TW to have access to all women's things? Or most at least?
ST: Not really aware what they do

J: I wonder if R witnesses might be better asked here - C opinion will not get us forward?
NC: Yes of course.

NC: Aware that some ppl see eg GIRES, Stonewall, as campaigning against women's rights?
ST: No

I don't believe him

He is such a snivelling, sneaky hypocrite.

deflects to say “those were the rules then” when it suits him but happy to deflect attention by ignoring contents of documents that were published during the period of his claim by saying they are being rewritten. Ye canny have it both ways, ya prick!

I am getting a bit tired of this interfering from the judge.

Agree with him moving NC on if he feels that it is just a dead end but he has repeatedly cut off lines of questioning.

This is one instance where I do believe him. He sees female humans as service bipeds, NPCs, background enabling appliances. So no organisation would be campaigning against their rights, because they don't have them.

.

ST: Not really aware what they do
Not aware of what Stonewall does😒

From TT:

NC: p887 (int)
NC: p883 shows you what this doc is - SEEN letter to Simon Case (Cabinet Secretary) Oct 2023

NC: It discusses a:Gender training and says, indoctrinates ppl into contentious world view. Cd you read para 14. Complains of pervasive tendency to claim hidden messages, dogwhistles - you've said this too - in innocuous messages.

ST: Seems like SEEN are saying that yes
NC: And I suggest that you and allies have used that technique over and again
ST: I've said there's more than just what is in a post, yes

<paging @fanOfBen , please would you be able to take over a little early - after my next post?>

NC: Aware that some ppl see eg GIRES, Stonewall, as campaigning against women's rights?
ST: No
NC: They want TW to have access to all women's things? Or most at least?
ST: Not really aware what they do

Mr. I've Been Living Under A Rock ...On Mars?
or
Mr. Liar Liar Pants On Fire?

(Must be the first one, because no one would EVER lie in a tribunal after swearing to tell the truth, would they, Dr Biological Not-Robot Upton?)

NC: They want TW to have access to all women's things? Or most at least?

ST: Not really aware what they do

Aye, right!