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.

ST - they were happy to exclude me
J - did you try and join the network
ST - no I did not

😏

ST: I'd be confronted by sex based language(if he joined the SEEN Yammer)

This is a new kind of discrimination - Predicted Imaginary Discrimination.

I was responding to the assertion that there is tension in the room so NC needs to watch herself as she is likely the one causing it (I paraphrase) not tactics.

I think her tactics in how she is getting this in are fabulous. I also think she is cleverly creating the circs where a narcissist like ST is going to borrow the authority of the J which he has already done. And while writing this I've just seen that he has, in fact, fallen into that trap by not answering a question but asking if his answer is somewhere in the bundle in a very Judge-like manner. So it is, I think, a successful tactic.

.

So he's being discriminated against by his self exclusion from the group, yet women who self exclude from spaces he enters are not?

NC - I ask the questions here and you answer them.

Succinct!😎

It is absolutely and it’s why people are so fucking fed up with politics, but I can see the argument that it’s not just him doing it and the system has enabled it.

A judge is not supposed to get pissed off by a line of questioning - mixed up bundles and spreadsheets, OK, but if they think a question, or its tone, is wrong, they can point that out in an objective and neutral manner - not 'tone down the rhetoric'.

I don't think NC should have made the taxpayer's comment, accurate though it was; but I expect a judge to raise an objection in a professional way.

From TT:

have the right to express identity and gender expression at work, change appearance, or not, be gender fluid, and use the ss facilities, assumed indivs know what facilities to use based on their gender. Those taken together seem to mean, if gender fluid, then in girl mode use

womens in boy mode use mens, that must follow.
ST - yes it does
NC - doc goes on to say everyone should be comfortable at work and transphobia includes refusing to accept gender identity of trans people,
J - need to para numbers, working between 2 screens,

NC - reading out numbers also 'gender identity must be respected at all times'. That policy could have been dictated agender, Stonewall or any trans advocacy org.
ST - that is their position
NC - and seems to be an outright ban on using sex based pronouns for trans people, you

NC - he was passing you information so he must have joined
ST - it was only info from public posts

Just admitted that someone was feeding him information? Information that was so distressing that supposedly he was put on sick leave in order to avoid?

He galloped right into that one like a herd of wild horses.

I disagree because she is fully aware how much Stonewall has reached into the crucible and to make her points salient she needs to ensure the context for them is also present. Otherwise there would be no salience to the points because without a broader understanding of a non-Stonewall view the salience would be wholly absent.

Showing how Trans ideology operates is a necessary function of such salience.

From TT:

think that's okay
ST - yes, its respectful and to not do it suggests that trans people not supported
NC - say a woman is changing and a TW walks in, she is upset, because she is part undressed, you say she's not allowed to go to her manager and complain that a man is in the

women's changing room, she can't call that person a man. Is that your position
ST - I think I've made it clear that my position has more nuance than that. And in the light of FWS, that may not be the position any more.
NC - do you see the problem....
J - that is not what this

I don't think he's realised he did that!

These Judges have been sitting in these spaces for nigh on 30 years - this guy retired and came back on a day rate.

He is used to women knowing their place and being kind. His colleague was a misognist bully and his investigation therafter still hasn't been published.

They are not properly managed - and this is the justice we get......

Piss them off all we like. There will be judges on appeal who know what an advocate can do in Court. Remember this a regional employment tribnunal judge with no history of note. Naomi has dealt with bigger and better cases in bigger and better places.

I am sorry she has to deal with this hostility from all quarters on her own - but she always highlights the gig is rigged.

NC - say a woman is changing and a TW walks in, she is upset, because she is part undressed, you say she's not allowed to go to her manager and complain that a man is in the
women's changing room, she can't call that person a man. Is that your position
ST - I think I've made it clear that my position has more nuance than that. And in the light of FWS, that may not be the position any more.

Ooof. That must have been existential crisis level of painful for him to have to admit. Yet he's still there.... Existing.

If I'm ever compelled to us the word (unlikely) I shall pronounce it "trans w' MAN."

Let's hope the judge and panel see it that way.

From TT:

case is about.
NC - the Int says that this case is about the C being discriminated against on basis of gender reassignment
J - C's case is that Rs have harassed, not direct discrimination
NC- C is saying that it wants all debate shut down, that is the case

J - that is not what this case in about, not about changing rooms or toilets
NC - it is not, I will move on,
NC - let's touch on impartiality then. Showing sample of sort of training agender provides across the Civil Service
ST - I have no idea if that's the case

NC - perhaps I will put that to ED, let's go back to Int bundle, agender list of successes across gov.l Agender has been uninhibitedly promoting GI.
ST - I don't think I agree with that
NC - do you disagree with that
ST - I've never seen anything from the network itself

NC - the Int says that this case is about the C being discriminated against on basis of gender reassignment J - C's case is that Rs have harassed, not direct discrimination NC- C is saying that it wants all debate shut down, that is the case

J - that is not what this case in about, not about changing rooms or toilets NC - it is not, I will move on,

J - that is not what this case in about, not about changing rooms or toilets

Judge could hear Pete approaching and wasn't having it.

NC - do you disagree with that
ST - I've never seen anything from the network itself

another non-answer.

Where does NC get the patience?

It shouldn't matter if they do or don't? Are you suggesting that if they don't like her approach that will be what settles the matter?

From TT:

just posts from people.
NC - but CA worked with agender on policy development
ST - I don't think it was DEFRA, think it was Cabinet Office
NC - doesn't the policy have all the hallmarks of influence of gender identity ideology
ST - I can't say

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

risk from that. If someone has a different view they are free to present it.
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