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.

CA turning out to be a rather good witness:

Debate outside Defra, society, entrenched views on both side - have been a lot of misunderstanding. I understand T people believe about wanting to erase t people - they have been told this, - but I don't see that.

Caroline has been living in the real world.

CA Based on conversations with people. As an EDI specialist having listened to debates and knew what was going on.

Nice! putting on record that she is not just open-minded but a 'specialist' too.

If only all 'EDI specialists' were more like CA😕

HH This is your view
CA Based on conversations with people. As an EDI specialist having listened to debates and knew what was going on.

😆Nice one CA.

HH T colleagues in Defra have had to overcome considerable difficulties in being accepted in society
CA Yes
HH Would they not be the people to know c GC belief,

Much better than for example an EDI specialist? Let's ask an arachnaphobe on whether or not spiders are scary.....

I think NC should cancel drinks with NB and have a good old chinwag about integrity, etc, with CA instead😁

From TT:

HH Credit them with intelligence
CA I do credit them with intelligence to know effect on them, but I hear them say things that I haven't heard SEEN say
J [?]
CA Can't remember what I said
[J/ALtalking about CA's reply as she's forgotten what she had just said.J had to swop pens]

HH [NC reading note she made of CA's answer, but can't hear - no mic]
HH Isn't that why an org needs to stand back and assess impact - you credit t colleagues with intelligence whether SEEN/GC views base threat, but doesn't tally with what SEEN saying

CA Important to engage with T collegues and networks that support them, but also same for GC colleagues. Next steps - t - is the people we are going to be talking to. But starting point was couldn't discriminate against people for holding GC beliefs.
J Who would be best place

So HH is arguing that the best people to understand GC position is the TRAs? Why on earth would they be expert on anything other than their own 'lived' experience? What she is basically saying here is that men know more about womaning than women.

Would you claim that anti-nuclear campaigners are more expert on nuclear energy than someone willing to review arguments on both sides?

I've been waiting for the judge to step in to limit CA's terfishness - I wonder will he?

Is this the first time at an ET we've had an EDI bod that isn't completely trans captured?

The new TA dogma seems to be 'Forstater grants you may believe it, but never say it' - how did the EAT ever manage to GRAINGER test the belief in the first place? Has there ever been a tribunal about a secret belief?
Obviousy any lawful belief can be expressed in a way that amounts to harrasment, but that does not mean any manifestation of the belief is harrassment if someone just complains loud enough.

CA:I understand T people believe about wanting to erase t people - they have been told this, - but I don't see that.
HH This is your view

Well, yes it is her view, you cannot make her see things she didn't see!

So far, DEFRA are coming across as largely competent and balanced and professional. It's a stark contrast to the employers in all the other cases where GC women have been the complainant.

Yes. A T-shirt for Ms Aires please. NB can fetch the drinks.

If you successfully wangle that even mentioning the word woman and sex based rights (and the law that goes with it) causes trans colleagues to faint in coils and have massed nervous breakdowns....

you have effectively prevented women from even being able to speak out for their rights and equalities, even in the face of active attacks on their rights.

This is the name of the fucking game.

She's having a good go though.

This is good from CA re manifestation ie didn't see them trying to erase t people so manifestation of a belief not a problem. HH now to make something else of it, that she was making a subjective decision based on her own belief system. Where is the J saying 'how is this relevant to the fucking case here!'

CA has the temerity to suggest that supporting T colleagues, which they do, is not exclusive with also supporting those with GC views.

From TT:

[placed] to ask c impact on t colleages
CA Ask staff networks
J Not individuals
CA no
HH This case is c g reassignment etc. But in your WS you haven't talked c great challenges faced by t colleagues
CA I was trying to explain what happened and respond to various qs

HH You discuss at length why SEEN should be allowed to exist and GC views expressed in workplace
CA Yes, cos that was the change in position. The new thing. In WS I am assuming that supporting t colleagues is taken as read. Already the case.
HH Aware of CS People surveys 22-25?

CA Seen in bundle. I left in 25. Might have seen 2023 one.
[they are finding the docs]
CA Don't seem to have page nos
HH About halfway through if that helps.
J 450 pp and this page is c 250. Halfway

Seems that way to me. I am strongly getting the sense that 99% of all EDI posts in this country could be abolished overnight, and the country would be much the better for it. Can't they all be re-trained to do a proper job?

New thread reminder:

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

J Who would be best placed to ask c impact on t colleages?

That could have been a little dig, but not too bad, and CA handled it with ease.
She seems pretty un-rattle-able.

The contradiction in HH argument becomes all the clearer:

The manifestation of a GC belief should not be allowed because the very existence of such a belief is the erasure of trans people.

It's not a new argument but I so loathe it.

Because believing that sex matters in law, and that the material reality of the oppression of women is due to their sex, only means that TWAM, not that trans people don't exist.

Why on earth would they need to identify themselves AS trans if that were actually true.

I wish I could rely on the panel understanding that the hyberbole is about control and in silencing women but I have serious doubts.

Essentially all you need is

1. Don't be a cunt
2. Use common sense.

From TT:

HH I am going to go to a number of docs in this bundle
J Don't want to waste time
HH Could get electronic version.
J So in order to deal with your qs the witness will need access to laptop.
HH Yes
J And you want to be able to do this now
[ they find a laptop for the witness]

HH 2023 survey. There is a later 2024 survey also. You are aware of these surveys - annual government administered surveys done for about 15 years
CA yes
HH To the later survey please, statistical bundle
J To the 2024 survey
HH Yes. My computer screen is frozen.
J 376 when you

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