Tempest v Rural Payments Agency Tribunal Thread 4

[myladydisdainisyetliving]

Previous thread: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5549122-tempest-v-rural-payments-agency-tribunal-thread-3

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.

ED: So we say TWAW
NC: I also captured from your faster reply correct me if wrong - that GC ppl say sex and gender are the same thing?
ED: I don't really know what GC ppl think - but I understand they think they are tied, that woman = female and man = male
NC: It's that sex - whether you are a man and a woman, as in EA but also wider than that, is a matter of biology and that 'gender identity' is entirely up to individuals.

For something to be atypical, there has to be the typical version, the norm.

It’s is very hard to explore the oriented when words mean differ t things. She is issuing words for sex but meaning gender. And it broke her brain.

ED: aG position is inclusive feminsim, global majority feminism, 'woman' must include ppl with sex charactertics even when not female, or atypical or absent

I think I has just thrown T under the bus. <thump>

NC: And their definition of sex is the exact same as the law.
ED: Not everybody would think so.
NC: In all Equality Act matters, after For Women Scotland?
ED: Not going to argue with you

That's because she can't reasonably argue with that point.

ED: I don't really know what GC ppl think

But I want them to shut up anyway because of what I think they think.

ED: That makes no sense, I think I understand what you say but I don't agree with it.
NC: Fact remains that per EA2010 and the PC of sex, it means female people.
ED: Those recorded female at birth.

My note: careful where you put your toes ED. You might end up with a foot in your mouth.

I don’t really know what GC people think - but I know they’re wrong and evil and shouldn’t be allowed to think it!

Did she say recorded and not assigned

Just reading ED's WS, thanks MNs for sharing.

This strikes me as very odd indeed: I know that, while the way in which beliefs are expressed in the workplace can be limited, there is no such thing as limiting the ‘expression’ of gender reassignment.

So this takes a very narrow view of what is meant by expression with GRA and suggests it is on display in a way that can't be limited. This might well not be true of all those holding a GRA but also she clearly hasn't understood that how how GRA is discussed, whilst not a belief, can still cross boundaries. What if, for example, a man with a GRA decides to get his dick out in the ladies and take a selfie, for example. There is no protection for that behaviour.

Also, she does not understand that sex is a PC.

I'm not really sure that this ideological tit for tat serves any purpose in furthering the case TBH.

I think the mature approach would have been I don’t know or care what they think and it’s not something I can answer about. What I know and can answer about the effect on me of what they say and write.

NC: Re the aG survey - p2347
NC: We see - 3 Qs?
ED: Yes
NC: Each with 4 possible answers, yes/no/ not sure/yes-no
ED: I think yes-no might mean, it's
complicated?
NC: Ah I see - there were 3 possible answers, but ppl could pick more than one?
ED: Yes it looks like that
NC: And on p2348 we see 11 comments from the free text box. you don't know how many comments in total?
ED: No sorry

.

NC: You were asked if you saw that the Qs you asked were leading Qs, you disagreed. But I want to suggest that you cd have asked more neutrally "how would it make you feel", not "would you feel harassed"?
ED: We wanted to find out if they felt harassed as per s26 EA
NC: But that plants the idea that it might?
ED: I think we would have been laughed at if we'd asked neutral. We were trying to find out if S26 threshold met.

NC: And on p2348 we see 11 comments from the free text box. you don't know how many comments in total?
ED: No sorry

My bet is on 11 in total

Naomi trying to show ED steered the responses of the questionnaire to her network by posing directed questions ( "would you feel harrassed")?

Sawyer syndrome is not great. Chromosomes are male but the SRY gene doesn’t switch on so foetuses develop without the male pathway. Apparently they have a vulva and uterus but don’t develop functional ovaries. So they can get pregnant via donor eggs and IVF.

To all intents and purposes they develop as women and socially would be referred to as she. But they are also often tall and their chromosomes are XY.

So they didn’t develop along the pathway for small gametes but also didn’t develop large gametes. They are still binary. There is no third gamete. From her X profile pic, I would say ED does have Swyer Syndrome from her very long face.

NC: Not scientifically rigourous?
ED: Wouldn't claim it was no
NC: And you were asked to take it down, and the associated blog post. [NC looking for page ref for this]
NC: p938 in intervenors bundle
J: Does it get us further, whether it was removed or not?
NC: Perhaps now that we are here?
NC: Do you recall being asked to take survey down and the blog?
ED: We were advised to, not told, and we said no.

The AGender network was advised to take down its questionnaire but they refused.

ED just admitted asking leading questions to get the results they wanted to prove the conclusion they were after to 'prove' harassment?

"Our questionnaire was so shitty you shouldn't trust the results and this is somehow an argument in our benefit. And also we use it as supporting evidence to eradicate the wrongthinkers."

NC: Do you recall being asked to take survey down and the blog?
ED: We were advised to, not told, and we said no.

Twisting the words again asked and told not the same thing, and they were asked because it was a poorly designed questionnaire that asked inflammatory questions.

It's the new 'assigned' because they can't quite bring themselves to say 'registered'. It also fits in neatly with 'sex and gender are not the same' so you can be 'recorded' as female, but feel inside that you are male, so whatever they 'recorded' you as doesn't really count. 'Assigned at birth' is very pre-SC ruling, and sooo 2022, dahling.

(It's still all a nonsense)

I think the judge is slowly begining to see the picture more clearly - that ED and her network breached guidance and advice themselves - in pursuit of their grievance. They are not an innocent party.