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.

The repetition of 'it wasn't a telling off, it was advisory' followed by in essence 'did you follow the advice/no' was rather eye opening. It was obviously clearly stated at the meeting, and has a strong feel of walking on eggshells.

I think the common ground is the desire to minimise the relevance of physical sex and I suspect that for ED it's a coping mechanism.

When people argue over whether sex is binary, they are really arguing over the scope of the definition and whether it is limited to reproductive role, but even if you take the view that some people are intersex and neither male nor female, female people still need sex specific rights and services and the category 'female' will still be exclusive.

That is hilarious!

As much as ED claims to be 'between the sexes' I suspect she has never used a toilet or a changing room specifically labelled for men. Were she to be jailed I doubt it would cross anyone's mind to think of putting her in with the blokes. If she had to travel for a work thing, I don't believe she be told to share a hotel room with a male colleague or not share with a woman because she's male. Although I could see loads of handwringing over who should share with ST.

just through an audit at work and 'advisory' is a very strong finding.

I would love to hear from an actual psychologist on the mental thought processes that people like ST have.

I know it would be unethical of them to comment on ST themselves, but ST can’t be unique in thinking the way they do, so a general insight would be fascinating.

I suspect 'Why does he do that' might shed some insights.

But do the gender believers ever consider whether they should recuse themselves? I'd bet my bottom dollar that the person dealing with the grievance appeal who found that Samantha had been harassed at work was a full ideologue.

Given what we've heard about the Claimant's case, it is clear that members of the SEEN network must be under tremendous pressure to self-censor at work.

It looks as if anything said anywhere would be used against them, and it is to their credit there is virtually nothing - at worst 9 comments moderated on an internal network; and if those comments were more than borderline we would have seen them quoted at length.

Congratulations, and hopefully things will get better after this case is concluded.

Over the years, a number of posters have predicted this is where we’d end up:

Phase 1 - feel good advocacy. Setting up advocacy and ally networks, welcoming and platforming those with trans identities.

Phase 2 - those with trans identities not feeling included/ accepted enough and claiming ‘not enough is being done’. Leading to some ‘trying harder’ and others raising an eyebrow.

Phase 3 - nearly everyone realising that those who centre their identities in the workplace tend to perform badly, raise a lot of grievances and generate stress and discomfort in others.

Phase 4 - many businesses (private sector) deciding enough is enough and putting performance front and centre, with accommodations/ adjustments being agreed where they deem to be non-detrimental to business (TRAs tend to leave or not apply. Hard working, healthy trans people can do as well as anyone else). Most public sector organisation seeking ‘work arounds’, hoping that muddling on won’t impact services too badly.

Phase 5 - a tranche of employment tribunals……..

This ideology runs deep in the civil service. This batshit is what it’s like day in day out working there. Progress Pride flags for most of the summer, blogs on the intranet from senior leaders supporting and lauding the LGBTQIA+ ‘community’, lots of Proud Trust lanyards (rainbow one side and trans colours the other - yes, that Proud Trust who promoted the sex dice game to schoolchildren).

Some of the comments posted on the intranet at the launch of SEEN were absolutely awful and so abusive. A blog by a senior staff member to the whole of Defra group being vile about GC views stayed up for days. A frightening and toxic environment to work in if you believe in the sex binary. The attitudes displayed by ST and ED are mainstream and normalised, believe it or not.

I need to keep my job and I’m pretty junior, so I’m unable to kick up much of a stink. I have challenged misrepresentation of the nine protected characteristics of the Equality Act in a very mild way, to have been met with a lot of hostility and people telling me I’m stuck in the Dark Ages (there is a lot of casual ageism too which goes completely unchallenged).

I am disabled and get good support and reasonable adjustments to enable me to work, and the pension is good, but I’d be off like a shot if there were an equivalent alternative where I live.

Even if you take the view that some people are intersex and neither male nor female, female people still need sex specific rights and services and the category 'female' will still be exclusive.

Exactly. Trying to use the handful of people for whom their physical sex isn't the bog standard easily recognisable at birth characteristic as somehow an argument that physical sex can't possibly have consequences for the vast majority of humans, including trans people, whose physical sex is the bog standard easily recognisable at birth characteristic is as intellectually bankrupt as claiming that because some people are born without a left foot it is impossible that any human could stub their left toe.

Of course, we all know the real reason DSDs are brought in isn't in any way to address how this small number of exceptional humans are best supported in a system that still also supports the very real needs and consequences of sex for the majority as well, it is to make the illogical, unevidenced religious leap from "some bodies aren't that straightforward" to "and that means some of the minds in male bodies are so female that they make the physically male body actually a female one so they shouldn't be treated any different to actual female people"

rebax · Today 11:17

Given what we've heard about the Claimant's case... it is to their credit there is virtually nothing - at worst 9 comments moderated on an internal network; and if those comments were more than borderline we would have seen them quoted at length.

I was rather hoping that Naomi would read them out, so as to induce the judge's eyes to do a fruit machine.

That sounds awful @Tallisker . I'm so sorry that this is what you have to tolerate in the workplace.

Maybe the new guidelines and the embarrassing publicity this case generates will continue the shift to returning the civil service to becoming an adult, work focused workplace once again? Fingers crossed.

Yes, I worked at Defra, and I can confirm it was clear that any expression of GC views would put me in a very uncomfortable position. At best, ostracised by some but able to carry on working. At worst, forced out. I wasn’t brave enough to speak up.

From memory (but Google can find no evidence) the previous Perm Sec had a trans child, and was vocal about bringing your whole self to work and being kind. Her views would presumably have been even clearer to the DGs, who as her direct reports would have had quite a lot of contact with her one-to-one or in small groups.

We all know how disruptive even one cry bully grievance happy im off sick with stress individual can be - imagine a whole network of them....

Again, it's staggering that DEFRA is literally set up to help farmers grow (reproduce) plants and breed animals, but is supposed to pretend that sex has no consequences for humans.

Although I suppose if even the NHS can't get to grips with the issue, it's less surprising.

The reason it might not be relevant is because it’s not ED or ST who are being accused of harassment.

The panel has to decide if DEFRA permitting SEEN “violated ST’s dignity” etc and if it was reasonable for him to have felt that way.

ST and ED can have been as mean and conniving and conspiratorial towards anyone GC as we imagine they were - but does it make a difference to what the panel has to decide. The judge obviously thinks not.

I don’t think there’s an exculpatory “but you were nasty to these people and others helped so it was either ok or less likely that - your employer was nasty to you” argument.

I'd like to see the word ally emphasized more

People feeding a:gender privileged information from (high-up) within the CS are not 'friends' or 'agents' the are allies. A:gender is setup with membership restricted to transgender people but with an extension to include people who are described as allies.

It is a grouping within the CS where the allegiance is not to the CS but to another entity - surely this is not OK?

How can you expect due process when one side in the debate has deliberately built a network of allies to achieve their aims by working silently from within?

On another thread it was discussed that, post the Champions scheme, Stonewall has pivoted to try to encourage targeted allyship within the judiciary and government? Does anyone have the reference for this? I wanted to check the precise wording.

On another point, we know that DEFRA funded the full time chair of a:gender

Do we know if any other positions within a:gender were also funded?

Were any other special funds made available to a:gender? (this with allyship in mind, were any of the people with control over discretionary funds directing them a:gender's way? i.e. acting as allies)

Can a comparison be made to other societies within DEFRA - i.e. do other groups have funded positions? Have they received discretionary funds? Is the funding in proportion to the number of CS employees that are members of other groups?

"On another point, we know that DEFRA funded the full time chair of a:gender"

It's the Land Registry, where ED works, that funds her post.

Nothing has been mentioned about other equivalent posts being funded...

This isn’t quite accurate. A:gender is a cross-government network, not a Defra network. It’ll be funded by central funds (possibly Cabinet Office?) not Defra directly.

I remember exchanging pleasantries with you on the first thread about Chair of SEEN being sued <waves>

i thought the joke comment was about ED having in her possession internal Defra emails which were forwarded to her in a breach of data handling, which she then lied about, but the judge wouldn’t let NC deliver the killer blow/smoking gun proof of collusion and corruption. She should never have had the list of SEEN members, she absolutely didn’t get them through casually mentioning to someone who then forwarded them to her as she said.

A SEEN pass says ‘we see and hate you and we will work as hard as possible to make you unwelcome in the workplace and as you attempt to live you life’.

Did the SEEN lanyards have very small font to get this long sentence on?