Tempest v Rural Payments Agency Tribunal Thread 8

[myladydisdainisyetliving]

Previous thread: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5551959-tempest-v-rural-payments-agency-tribunal-thread-7

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.

Please 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.

I think a photo would clearly show the maleness and femaleness of the two people being discussed - not necessarily the relative femininity.

And, while we are still trying to get this issue into the public consciousness, a photo of a well built, clearly male ST in ST’s typical court wear, compared to Elspeth, who is tall but slim build, in her standard professional formal wear would be very informative. Picture tells 1000 words and all that. It could be a nicely taken and nicely lit photo of ST, doesn’t have to be a pap shot of ST pulling a face - it would still make the same point.

Good point about the directedness towards an individual, that would at least limit the scope of the potentially criminal behavior.

As to your other point, I fear it won't be so easy to just say 'I don't question your identity, I just point out what sex you are' because then what behavior would the law even try to capture? There would not be a lot.
I'm not sure a woman who tries to tell a TW to stay out of the women's loo might not be accused of denying that man's female identity and trying to make him think of himself as a man.
That would of course contradict the FWS ruling.
But in the past when people assumed that a GRC really meant that a man who had one counted as a woman, but also that a GRC was a secret, that resulted in effective Self-ID because any TW might have had one. So what I'm trying to say is, that situation of legal contradiction was enough for people to be scared of insisting on their rights, and I worry something similar might happen again.
But I hope I'm wrong and you're right (even if you're not a lawyer either - is anybody here?)

'm not sure a woman who tries to tell a TW to stay out of the women's loo might not be accused of denying that man's female identity and trying to make him think of himself as a man.

Denying a man's female identity doesn't appear to me to be against the proposed law. It's not the gender identity that's protected, and it doesn't stop anyone acting against someone's gender identity - it does stop someone persuading them against their transgender identity. Be as trans as you like. But you're not a man. Still seems fine to me.

Bringing it back to this case, nobody has tried to deny ST his transgender identity. Treating him as a man doesn't deny him that. He's as trans as they come. GRC and everything. Still a man.

I expect it will take a few prosecutions to sort out how courts look at it. Not that I think it's a great law, but I don't see it as the disaster that some do.

I think the issue is that the bill applies to medical professionals and psychologists/therapists.

Which potentially makes it difficult to have a conversation in therapy with an individual for whom this is relevant about whether a current gender identity could be linked to previous trauma/internalised homophobia/black and white thinking about gendered behaviour and so on.

Since there is so much disagreement on how dangerous the new Conversion bill might be, including for cases like this one, I wanted to throw this statement from the EHRC in the mix. Is it just me or does the middle paragraph sound a bit worried? 🤔

Mary-Ann Stephenson, Chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, said:
“We welcome the publication of the draft Bill on Conversion Practices for pre-legislative scrutiny. A carefully considered ban on harmful conversion practices is an important step in protecting the rights of LGBT+ people. This legislation has the potential to offer meaningful protection to people who have suffered serious harm and abuse at the hands of those seeking to change who they are.

“It is crucial that the legislation is based on clear definitions and boundaries that protect legitimate medical treatment and therapy as well as ensuring people's rights to freedom of religion and freedom of expression are not disproportionately restricted.

“We look forward to the opportunity to engage with the legislation through pre-legislative scrutiny, which will allow a broad range of voices to be heard. This will help ensure the Bill effectively protects the rights of LGBT+ people and the wider community.”

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/news/ehrc-responds-uk-governments-draft-conversion-practices-bill

I really appreciate everyone’s take on the new bill, and I do sort of see the relevance to the workplace, but might it be possible to discuss the ins and outs on its own thread, rather than on this specific tribunal one? However the bill goes, it won’t affect this tribunal, will it?

I think it might influence the court's perception of what does or does not constitute harrassment, although it is not the main issue about this case.
There is also already a thread about the bill:
www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5546684-draft-conversion-practices-bill-published
(I haven't looked closely yet if it is mainly about parenting or if the wider possible implications have also been discussed there)

I'm not even up to lunchtime on Friday yet. I can't do more than about 10 posts without either screaming or nodding off. But on the question about there being a difference between 'getting it' and 'being GC', I think it depends on what you mean by GC.

If you're taking the post-Forstater legal position 'Sex is real, based on biology, different from gender, sometimes matters (e.g. single sex services)', then 'getting it' is pretty much the same as 'believing it'.

But if you're taking the older, wider point of being against the stereotypes and sexisim that underpin the entire concept of 'gender roles' and 'gender identity', it's different. You could understand the FWS/Supreme Court decision on the EA but still believe that women are fluffy creatures suited to baking and sewing, while men are rugged beasts who like hunting mammoths and discussing the offside rule. You could even support the legal position of physical-based rules while believing that anyone who likes mammoth hunting is mentally a man regardless of their physical body.

She did that on an earlier occasion, too - read out her notes for him.

I love watching her typing - fast - while probably thinking, but she often looks like she's scanning the wall beside her. No need to look at her keyboard.

You earned it. Thank you.

I also think it might show people why it must be so hard to treat someone as a woman and have them in the loos with you when all your instincts are screaming 'it's a bloke.' I was talking to a m to f transgender person about it at the local hospital after my autistic DD couldn't hide her reaction and they said it's stupid to wear frilly girly dresses at work when the other women were in dark trousers and open necked shirts. Their view was that gender was their belief and sex was other peoples so all they needed was to respect each other. They were autistic too, but the difference was that they were very sensible and happy to explain it. In fact, they said it was nice that someone was interested because they were fed up with activists ruining things for the majority who want to be left in peace. That was the best delay to be seen I've ever had in terms of being educated.

Sorry for the detail about the conversion therapy bill!

Having just about caught up with the action from this tribunal and withany thanks to the c/p team and TT, oh my goodness what have I just read??? A whole week of the absolute minutiae of content moderation of the DEFRA chat tool and workplace groups. My word.

Nothing particularly sophisticated to say here, but some of it reminded me a bit of what you hear about family courts and how abusive men abuse and prolong the court order process to maintain control over female exes.

Many thanks to TT and the C&Pers for slogging their way through that morass.

It seems we have to expand the rules of operation to: 'If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have neither on your side, pound the table. And if you don't even have a table to pound, drag everyone through an interminal loop of non-questions until they expire from boredom or old age.'

I do hope CA is familiar with NC's previous work. I suspect, as 2 intelligent women of excellent recall and clear expression they will get through things efficiently and probably both find it quite enjoyable. But if she's expecting a repeat of HH's torture then then she's facing months of unnecessary dread.

I'm sorry, I'm still way behind after a busy weekend. (Back at work today so should be able to catch up). But. I have to ask:

Has there been any acknowledgement or explanation about why HH was allowed to go on for so long with CA and then NC is told she has to keep it short??
In general terms, who is responsible for keeping things proportionate and on time? I would have thought the judge, but now I guess not.

It's the judge's courtroom, he can more or less do what he likes. The only comeback is if the judgement gets appealed and even then it doesnt stop him doing the same thing next time.

There is guidance in the form of the Bench Book but he has not followed that. https://www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/equal-treatment-bench-book-february-2026-update/

A reminder that the garden signposted Chair of SEEN sued for saying 'only women menstruate' needs more plants.

ruining things for the majority want to be left in peace

Which means, as long as the majority are left to get what they want in peace. It sounds nice but if you think about what they want it's not as tidy as he made out. Think about parkrun for example.

Someone has to set boundaries around what the majority can have. Yes, the activist minority have highlighted the total lack of these boundaries. But one way or another the majority also want to set their own boundaries on their own terms whether or not that means overriding women's boundaries.

And - more relevant to this case - where "being left in peace" has to stop is that other people need to discuss where those boundaries really belong and what happens when people cross them. Aloud. Explicitly. If those boundaries are being set in a workplace, or pushed in a workplace, then they also need to be discussed in the workplace by the people affected.

I saw this post on a video of Elliot Page - from a former trans person.

It actually gave me insight into the dehumanisation / erasure / not existing narrative dear Tinkerbell has been wanging on about. 🧚🏼‍♂️

Genuinely thought provoking- but equally never to be addressed by suing DEFRA to silence those who believe sex is real.

x.com/laurabeckerreal/status/2076500145940955353?s=46

I’ve just unpacked my laptop from last week and found some notes I’d made during the tribunal. Tink characterised the post on the SEEN Yammer by Ritchie Herron, a well-known detransitioner and also a civil servant, as SEEN weaponising Ritchie’s upset for their own ends. My note reads, and I quote: “WE’RE IN COURT WEAPONISING YOUR OWN UPSET, YOU DONUT!”

I doubt that CA wil find the examination by NC enjoyable.
In her Intervener's note, NC describes CA's behavior towards SEEN, specifically her attempts to restrict their language (telling them not to use terms like 'biological male' because that's 'hurtful') as an example of institutional capture and discrimination towards gc views.
In the end, it is beneficial towards Defra's case that they were not biased against trans views if NC can show they were in fact biased against gc, but not necessarily pleasant for CA to get grilled by NC about having discriminated against SEEN.

'Enjoyable' was probably the wrong word, but I'd take the intellectual challenge of sparring with NC over death-by-interminable-spreadsheet-incompetence any day of the week.

Well quite. These people are the kings of DARVO.

Always the last to know!

Kings of Darvo? I think I have a couple of albums by them

I think | saw them at Glastonbury. Headlined on the Friday night, if my hazy memory serves me vaguely correctly.