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.

He might sit on ETs but he canny write an X post without using AI.

Yes, I thought that was off.

Exactly. In a debate, that’s what it comes down to. People pushing the gender line are generally unable to politely agree to disagree - it’s all or nothing.

In the Kristie Higgs EAT case two separate panel members had to recuse themselves on ideological grounds (and they didn’t volunteer, they were obliged to, one being the notorious Edward Lord)

I'm of a similar vintage and know of two TWO contempories who found out significant diagnoses after entering adulhood. One of whom needed an organ transplant as a young adult. They had been in and out of hospital for regular checkups throughout their childhood and teenage years but was never told the full reasons for it all until a transplant was needed! And another who suffers from a very rare condition that explains why they have some unusual features (nothing too obvious) but only twigged they were slightly different when given the information upon entering adulthood. Being deliberately vague here.

The mind boggles! It must have been a thing at the time. .

I mean if they’d ever sat on a tribunal they’d know the judges don’t wear wigs. So that fell at the first hurdle.

But trans woman and cis gender etc are loaded terms so there’s that too. And even the ETBB won’t make anyone use they/them because it’s confusing. 🫤

But I can believe that person has the intellect for a tribunal panel.

I think NC puts her client first and foremost in her work.

But i think as a side hustle she is pushing hard against bias, and genderism in general, within the judiciary and lawyers hence how she broadens out her line of questioning without losing focus.

She represents sex realism, gender critical women and men, and womens rights without fear.

Lots of mention of A:gender in this thread from 2019, they’ve memory holed the original policy doc the thread was about. https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3520371-civil-service-trans-policy-what-can-i-do?utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=app_share

@Hedgehogforshort - I agree.

And her clients know who she is and they pick her for what she does. If I had a case - I would want her to win for me but also to push back this ideology that is growing like weeds.

It takes people saying the unsayable. Clearly. Bluntly.

People will be shocked, there is that instinctive 'you can't say that!', it's harsh, it's unkind, it's rude, it's too much - but they heard it. And that in itself starts opening up the wider view, it moves the conversation back towards women's ground. And then the realisation dawns as to why something so normal and obvious has been made taboo.

Which is why it is fought so very hard with so much anger. The fear of people hearing it is always evident.

from the thread and the now vanished a:gender policy doc:

“I've just looked at the document, DoxxMeTwice, and it goes from bad to worse. Bearing in mind that "civil servants" includes both border agency and prison officers, consider this:
Section) 11 Searching
"Discrimination law no longer contains the previous specific bar to prevent transsexual people without gender recognition from searching individuals of their acquired gender".
(Section) 8 Dealing With/Attitudes of the Public
"Transsexual people are always aware of the possibility of harassment or even violence against them, perpetrated for no more reason than the victim is a transsexual person. Managers should be similarly aware in occupations where this is a risk. If a member of the public objects to being dealt with by a transsexual staff member, this is an unacceptable objection. The incident should be managed in the same way as any other pressure to discriminate. It would usually be unlawful for a manager to comply with the wishes of that member of the public."
In other words, a male prison officer who declares himself female may now carry out a full strip search on a woman prisoner - and that would include those (mercifully rare) occasions when the woman does not consent to being searched but there is lawful justification for carrying out a full search while she is being physically restrained. As someone who worked for many years with women in custody, I know that a disproportionately high number of those women have suffered years and years of abuse, largely at the hands of men. In which parallel universe would this be considered anything other than yet another form of abuse perpetrated on vulnerable and helpless women?
Similarly, and presumably, a woman travelling in or out of the country could potentially be searched by a male border agency worker who self-identified as female and there is nothing, absolutely nothing, the woman could do about it. Her objection would be deemed "unacceptable" and "discriminatory". Really? The Civil Service can override our rights to be treated decently and with dignity?
I'd say words fail me but actually, I can feel letters to my MP and the Home Secretary coming on...”.

She distinguishes between being diagnosed at 14 and finding out 'the truth' about her condition sometime in her early 20s.
As I said, it seems to be more about the framing of it than specific facts, and is not terribly logical imo.
You can watch it yourself, it's only about 5 minutes of the video starting at 9 min or so.

This was where we were in 2019 and a:gender were a not insignificant part of it.

In other words, a male prison officer who declares himself female may now carry out a full strip search on a woman prisoner - and that would include those (mercifully rare) occasions when the woman does not consent to being searched but there is lawful justification for carrying out a full search while she is being physically restrained.

I have no words.

Thank fuck for Forstater and FWS.

I reckon the Access to Health Records Act 1990 changed how patients are treated with regards to their own health. Prior to that doctors and consultants very much kept patients in the dark. Add in no internet and you couldn't even Google your symptoms.

This is the a:gender policy from 2011

https://transjersey.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/agender-workplace-and-gender-reassignment-guide-oct-2011.pdf

Have a read. Feel your ire rise.

https://www.agender.org.uk/resources/terminology/

How shall we define things?

Now replaced with new ideology dogma

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-workplace-and-gender-reassignment/the-workplace-and-gender-reassignment

I won't be able to copy and paste tomorrow. Do we have anybody lined up who will be able to

The condition is also known as "XY complete gonadal dysgenesis" so there is not just one correct name for it. (There is also a Swyer-James syndrome which is a lung disease, so possibly the term Swyer syndrome was not used because it could lead to confusion?)
And in the early 90ies, pre-internet and pre-trans-fuelled-intersex-hype, the name Swyer syndrome probably had not the name recognition it has today.
And what was actually withheld from her? Mainly the label of 'intersex' which is in itself scientifically dubious, but the thing she latched onto because she did not want to see herself as, in her own words, a 'malformed woman'.

I'm available tomorrow. Very happy for anyone else to take a turn too, though!

But it's being recorded. I'm not sure if anyone gets to listen to the recording, mind you.

Did they mean an electrical recording or a stenographer?

audio, you know what I mean 😀