Tempest v Rural Payments Agency Tribunal Thread 5

[fanOfBen]

Previous thread:
www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5549488-tempest-v-rural-payments-agency-tribunal-thread-4

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.

Hadnt realised Sex Matters were back in court again. Having to argue that sex matters when you are having sex with someone is one of the wierdest things ever in this history of wierd court cases!

@zoonosis I can agree with you on "There is absolutely no reason anyone else’s identity would or should “override your sense of self” or have any impact on your sense of self at all, in fact if your sense of self is so fragile someone else’s choice unrelated to you makes you doubt it, that’s something you need to seek out help with." Tinkerbell really does need help with that.

However - women are oppressed by men. While a man pretending to be a woman makes no difference to who I am I can still be annoyed by the oppressor wishing to claim a status that does not apply. I can also be annoyed by a man thinking he can make me undress in front of him and complain if I wont do it. So your "progress" lanyards annoy me. They are not "progress" at all, they seek to impose on me stereotypes that are highly regressive.

Nobody wants to work with them, I suspect.

So that's the reason for the plateau.

Despite technology, people skills are fundamental to success in the modern workplace. Lead people, persuade them to follow you, to accept your input, to try your approach. Way better than coercion or ordering them.

They’re not women and they have zero in common with women. It’s why all disadvantaged groups take “colonising” personally. Not just women and girls. HTH

@Zoonosis i was wondering where you were. I miss your usual alternative take on all things GI vs all things reality.

What was the quote, “taking a long warm bath in someone else’s oppression”? That

The problem is that many people who "transition" consistently demand that everyone else affirm them as being their "authentic selves", when that in practice means (a) coercing/compelling speech and (b) arrogating the other sex's rights and spaces.

Oh do give over. "Stop existing"?

And no, all women are not alike 🙄. However they have one factor which unites them and excludes every TW there ever was or ever will be, which is that they are women.

(I suspect I am engaging with the Interruptaron, apologies all)

😀. The gerbils really need to give the back alley a good clean.

do you think all women are alike?

No. They are all women though. That's the point.

Men are not women.

This really is not difficult...

@Zoonosis

Are you able to expand on why you think “trans people have to stop existing” is a GC prerequisite?

Can you explain what you mean by “stop existing”?

Zoonosis

Why on earth do you take people transitioning so personally?

Back at you; why do YOU people love to deploy phalanxes of strawmen? No one cares about people who like to claim that they are the opposite sex and dress accordingly.

It isn’t about you and no of course you don’t get to say no to it, you have no veto over other people’s identities or life choices.

Again, a further strawman.

You know quite well that it's antisocial, inappropriate and aggressive behaviour, to which we object. Take the basic one, of tansw in women's toilets.

Everyone knows that they're men and women really don't like it, because a male presence there is frightening, disturbing, upsetting and an outrage to their dignity.

That's just presence, let alone awful behaviour, of which we have read so many examples of here, over the years.

Why do you think that deluded men should be allowed to harass women, by displacing them? What's your motivation for that?

This is such a good question!

Is anyone else finding the C being referred to as ‘she’ really jarring? With the mental picture I have from the anime cosplay photo and the ‘maleness’ of the way the grievance against SEEN was pursued and the special treatment for ‘special’ males I keep forgetting we’re supposed to be pretending C is female

You.... you can speak English right? And understand basic logic?

Ok, let's take this slowly.

If a man says he is a woman

... with me so far?

and if my employer, or my country's law, or the cultural establishment accepts that this is true

then they are accepting that being "a woman" can be something of the mind not the body.

... You see that, yes?

Now, if I am also "a woman", as I have been known and as I have known myself all my life, simply and only because of my body, then this redfinition also redefines me in the eyes of my employer, the law and the cultural establishment into someone I do not think I am.

And not only that, but it has a knock on effect on my rights, protections, and even the language, culture and history in which I exist, turning things that in reality were always about the half of humanity that is female and creating the fiction that they were about people with this "womannyness of the mind".

So, to get back to my very obvious original point, of course it is asymetric, and of course it impacts me and denies my own knowledge of myself, if his definition of "a woman" is allowed to stand over mine.

If me saying being a woman is not a matter of the mind but the body invalidates his womanhood, than him saying being a woman is not a matter of the body but of the mind invalidates mine. You cannot argue one without accepting the other.

I mean, surely this is obvious even to you? You don't have to pick a side to see the two statements are mirror images of each other.

(Joking of couse - I know it is obvious to you, you just can't admit it. But we all know you get it, we just enjoy making TRAs realise they have to pretend to be reaaaaaallly stupid to carry on making their case😂😂😂😂)

<sigh>

Please can we not let this and subsequent threads fill up with the same old arguments. If you want to engage with Zoo’s posts, I strongly suggest you start a new thread. Otherwise these tribunal ones will just fill up with circular posts we’ve all seen dozens of times before. It stops us discussing the case itself, which I strongly suspect is the whole point.

Nobody wants to work with them, I suspect.

@Justabaker I imagine there were some big signs of relief when ED got a full time position as a:G chair.

Speaking for myself, because gender categories oppress women.

Until 1946 the civil service had a policy of sacking women on marriage because it was assumed that a woman's place was in the home.

But equality legislation is not just about treating everybody equally. Women rely on resources that men don't and can be exploited as a resource in a way that men can't. Ironically, given that this concerns the Rural payments agency, you could say the same of other species too. This isn't a value judgement and it has nothing to do with beliefs about identity. It's just the consequences of being male or female.

I agree that I have no veto over other people's life choices, but I rely on clear language and legislation that protects my rights because of my sex. If language is not coherent then I lose rights.

do you think all women are alike?

Goodness no. For me, that is the point. I don't make assumptions about other people's identities, and I don't want other people to make assumptions about mine.

But I have lived long enough to understand why women need sex specific rights, and to be able to compare my life to that of my mother and grandmother who did not benefit from the rights that I have.

its ultimate demand is that trans people have to stop existing because of your discomfort around them

Existence does not depend on external validation of personal beliefs.

Sorry, point taken. @Zoonosis very happy to continue this on another thread if you care to start one.

Sorry @Justabaker , another question for you, but thought I'd take the opportunity if you are on the thread .🙂Will TT post DH's witness statement on their substack?

Although I agree with @myladydisdainisyetliving about not derailing -sorry! Just had to say I love this post. 🥰

That is all. No more interactions with the derail from me 😊

It’s the insistence that we deny the evidence of our own eyes. Say I work with Karl who comes into work dressed as a woman. Maybe he is a transvestite. Maybe he is rocking David Bowie or the other New Romantics. Maybe he is wearing the national robes of his faith or country of origin. Maybe he claims he is a woman and says he is trans and wants me to call him Kate.

If I refer to Karl as he or him in many of those situations, it’s not a problem. If Karl wants me to call him Kate and refer to him as she and her, I might be courteous and do my best, because I like a happy working atmosphere. Or I might not want to tie myself in knots saying that an obvious man is a woman.

So let’s say I refer to him as him, rather than her. Maybe because I forgot. Maybe because he did something that reminded me of when he was coming to work as a man. Maybe because I am talking about a time when he was at work as a man. Maybe because I don’t want to be forced to call him her because pronouns are rohypnol. Maybe it’s important to refer to him as male because he is in a man in the ladies toilets.

This doesn’t deny Karl/Kate’s existence. S/he is right in front of me, existing. Dressed in a manner that s/he wants to. But forcing me to say this man is an actual woman, rather than this man says he is a woman, is against my rights as a woman and is compelled speech.

I will not lie.
I will not accommodate their wish for compelled speech.
I will correctly sex people because it matters.

None of this stops Kate existing. None of this stops Kate dressing as s/he wishes. None of this says I won’t promote Kate, won’t give Kate a job, won’t rent or sell my house to Kate, won’t serve Kate in a shop or restaurant or won’t sell Kate a ticket to a show or a game. Because those things would be illegal.

Nobody wants to work with them, I suspect.

I wonder if one day there will be someone brave enough to state the oblivious at a ET. 😂

And if law and policy says that 'woman' is a subjective concept that has no relation to evidence or material consequences, you pave the way for the complete removal of the framework that protects women from discrimination.

Would it not depend on the circs of that draft? If it was drafted in error, cos law, and that was pointed out then it doesn’t become relevant to review. I think the changing of mind isn’t relevant either because he is considering the reasonableness of the final decision and process. There might have been eleventymillion drafts, there often are, and it would hamper a review to engage will all. That would be for a reinvestigation, not a review.

ie can we turn to page 10 million of the bundle for FINALFINALTHISTIMEIREALLYMEANFINALDECISIONDOC.doc

😂

"Say I work with Karl who comes into work dressed as a woman."

Which, if Karl is truly reflecting what women wear, might be jeans/t-shirt/trainers.

Love this!