Tempest v Rural Payments Agency Tribunal Thread 6

[myladydisdainisyetliving]

Previous thread: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5549959-tempest-v-rural-payments-agency-tribunal-thread-5

TT substack: 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.

Please fill up the previous thread first!

Thank you for new thread.
I'm c&ping this from the previous thread because I think it's a v good illustration of HH v NB
HH your answer there - describing the issue as polarised perspectives in the workplace, you were looking at this as competing beliefs, not beliefs vs lived experience of other
NB No we were looking at this from the perspective of the law, as an employer, where people could feel safe and where CoC and Nolan Principles (NP) were embodied in the work place. It wasn't 2 dimensional, we were thinking about if from a broad perspective

NB - needs not wants - perfect description.

The fact that these transitioned people were consulted on anything created these little monsters that turned into big monsters.

Why should they be consulted on anything let alone a legally compliant group of people sharing their lived experience like total erosion of same sex spaces, erosion of language and then as a sex class.

From TT:

HH so the more serious the equality impact, the more serious the consideration should be,
NB I agree
HH for trans colleagues, this was questioning their existence, required an evidence based analysis of impact
NB yes
HH you didn't do that, did you

NB there was lots of careful consideration, engagement with Cab Office, we took advice, this was a difficult pathway we were trying to work through, in our minds was the experiences and needs of all of our work force. So absolutely we thought about the impact on TG colleagues.

But we had needs and wants from other parts of our workforce that we had to consider equally.
HH 2 final qs on this point, even w/o a formal assessment we don't seen any alternative consideration of evidence based assessment
NB CA's briefing note can show you the work that was

done, we gave it real consideration, we didn't just step into it.
HH what is clear from evidence is that as opposed to stepping back before decision taken, you adopted position proposed by CA in her note of July 22, and did not waver
J what do you say that position was HH

HH open expression of GC beliefs on open platform
HH repeats 'you adopted CA position of allowing expression of GC beliefs on open platform, you adopted that position and rallied around it'.
NB rallied around is not a good description, Y was already available, the EA protects

beliefs and expression and of beliefs, it wasn't about myself or CA allowing expression of beliefs. What we didn't do was adopt a punitive position saying that we were going to restrict expression of beliefs on Y or any other platform.

Its definitely interesting, I "have" lived experience of living as a woman. A transwoman only "believes" they have lived experience, they can't "know"

NB: We were trying to work through, in our minds was the experiences and needs of all of our work force. So absolutely we thought about the impact on TG colleagues, but we had needs and wants from other parts of our workforce that we had to consider equally.

HH for trans colleagues, this was questioning their existence, required an evidence based analysis of impact

Aghhh!

HH for trans colleagues, this was questioning their existence

Holy Hyperbole Batman!

HH open expression of GC beliefs on open platform
HH repeats 'you adopted CA position of allowing expression of GC beliefs on open platform, you adopted that position and rallied around it'.
NB rallied around is not a good description, Y was already available, the EA protects beliefs and expression and of beliefs, it wasn't about myself or CA allowing expression of beliefs. What we didn't do was adopt a punitive position saying that we were going to restrict expression of beliefs on Y or any other platform.

HH; have adopted a position, we say, all your actions were reactive rather than anticipatory
NB we don't take and simply hold on to positions, the way I and my teams work, we are constantly reviewing and assessing evidence to determine a way forward and thats what we did here.l

HH your answer there - describing the issue as polarised perspectives in the workplace, you were looking at this as competing beliefs, not beliefs vs lived experience of other

So she is still
A) trying to set up a hierarchy of PCs
B) acting as if women's lived experience of TW invading single sex spaces etc. does not exist

FFS

It’s like HH is time travelling from 2018.

NB we expected a reaction but we expected that employees would behave in accordance with CoC and EDI policies,

Trying to make clear her job was not to police speech, but to ensure correct and fair process was followed, and in a mature and professional way.

Thanks for the new thread and the c&pers.

And also she's got the belief and lived experience the wrong way around....

So much over egging of the situation from STs side.

Literally no longer existing due to some words on a computer screen, that you don't have to access if you don't want to, that don't say anything about wanting some men to not exist, is so incredibly batshit it would be laughable if it wasn't for the fact that it's being suggested in a court room.

NB reasonable to say that addition of dept network on top of x-gov network would not be welcomed by trans colleagues
HH not just not welcomed, it was causing harm, whether you agree with justified it was causing harm and distress
NB telling me they were distressed and discontent nd went to the core of their being.

Melodrama!

Thanks for the copying and pasting ❤️

Having a quick catch up on my morning break. The only thing I want to say is that I wish the phrase "lived experience" could be retired for ever.

So much nonsense has gone on over the last ten years under this banner. Everyone has lived experience. Most of the time, it has no relevance to your work. Just do your job and accept that your colleagues might believe different things to you.

From TT:

HH have adopted a position, we say, all your actions were reactive rather than anticipatory
NB we don't take and simply hold on to positions, the way I and my teams work, we are constantly reviewing and assessing evidence to determine a way forward and thats what we did here.l

HH lets talk about formation of xgov SEEN and what happened in DEFRA after that, post from EDW Dec 2022, announcing SEEN xgov. Immediately provoked responses in support of trans colleauges.
NB I don't recall, but I suspect so.
HH C posted that day, numerous comments from

lots and lots of colleagues, you're aware of those comments
NB yes
J did you anticipate those comments
NB we expected a reaction but we expected that employees would behave in accordance with CoC and EDI policies,
J one more q, did you know in advance that EW was going to post

this in advance
NB [pause] I'm not certain
J if your team had known, would you have known
NB not necessarily
HH given the response that we see, you were on notice that the formation of dept SEEN was likely to have adverse effect on employees who were trans

NB reasonable to say that addition of dept network on top of x-gov network would not be welcomed by trans colleagues
HH not just not welcomed, it was causing harm, whether you agree with justified it was causing harm and distress
NB telling me they were distressed and discontent

All this talk about the distress and harm and literal annihilation that would be caused to trans employees if a GC network was set up - I hope somebody e.g. NC asks if a risk assessment re distress and harm to women employees was carried out before trans-related networks were allowed to operate.

As I said before, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the goose-identifying gander!

NB: looking at the issue our job in HR is to consider all elements of the law and to ensure that we are sort of applying all dimensions of the law and not be one dimensional.

It's a difficult conflict to manage. Our job is not to take sides.

I hope someone brings it up. This is just so over the bloody top.

NB I use the word review to cover thinking about it, considering it, looking at our policies, it was part of our enduring day to day activity, there was a period where this sort of matter of gender critical/gender identity was consuming the HR EDI team. We did not consider in a light touch way, it was very absorbing.

there was a period where this sort of matter of gender critical/gender identity was consuming the HR EDI team.

And I'd bet most of it was being generated by the claimant and friends.