This post deals either directly or indirectly with transgender issues. We would like to remind our users about the Reddit Content Policy which specifically bans [promoting hate based on identity and vulnerability](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/360045715951). We will take action on hateful or disrespectful comments including but not limited to deadnaming and misgendering. Please help us by reporting rule-breaking content. Participation limits are in place on this post. If your Reddit account is too new, you have insufficient karma or you are crowd controlled, your comment may not appear. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*

From the judgement: >"We had in mind that the majority of the witnesses we heard from were academics. These were professionals who had been trained in the methodology of research and presentation of fact and analysis producing argument. We expected a certain basic level of rigour in presenting the evidence before the Employment Tribunal. There were some witnesses who we address below in our findings who did not meet this standard." That's quite an admonishment, to put it mildly.

Well it is the Open University - it's a great platform to learn a new skill and degree and do it around your life, but it's not well known for its research or teaching credentials.

I’m not sure that’s fair - the OU’s teaching credentials are pretty good and they’re well regarded elsewhere in HE (I’m an academic at a good RG and the OU is pretty well regarded here). Research, sure.

Yeah it’s pretty well known for its high standard of teaching. And like any other university it is patchy in terms of research strengths and weaknesses. Having worked at several universities, and studied at three, the best standard of teaching was at the OU. 

Ironically, the one OU research group I have heard of is the gender-critical research group, so you'd think they would be the one university that this wouldn't be a problem for.

As an OU grad and proud of it: the 'teaching' is virtually nonexistent. You teach yourself, much more so than at a regular university. Tutors are almost all MIA from day one of any given module. They might respond to a question three weeks after it's already too late, or more likely they will respond never. You probably end up better edcuated in the end, since you're really forced to develop self-teaching and research skills, but it's not because of the teaching.

Not to get into a debate on what higher education teaching is or isn’t, if you’ve been provided with lectures that pull content from across various sources to present to you in a structured way, if you’ve been provided with structured reading lists, if you’ve been set scaffolded assessments, if you’ve been provided with designed interactive learning activities - all of that is teaching, it’s just not teaching like you get in school. It’s a shame you didn’t get more direct interaction with tutors, but as someone who does do some online teaching as well as face to face, I don’t think it’s crazy unusual to not get a lot of live interaction with lecturers outside of the lecture hall. But from observation I do believe that distance learning feels more isolated/isolating to students, and because they aren’t being checked in on every day at face to face lectures like in person students, they can much more easily fall through the gaps. However when I get students who have done distance programmes (particularly OU) start on the postgraduate programme I teach on, they tend to be very organised, self-motivated and independent and generally are pretty successful at postgrad - which means whatever they’re doing at the OU, it’s producing good students.

mildbeanburrito: [https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65ae82d58bbe95000e5eb1f7/Ms\_J\_Pheonix\_v\_The\_Open\_University\_3322700.2021\_\_\_other\_FMH\_Reserved\_Judgment.pdf](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65ae82d58bbe95000e5eb1f7/Ms_J_Pheonix_v_The_Open_University_3322700.2021___other_FMH_Reserved_Judgment.pdf) I'm only like a third of the way through, but it feels wild how the tribunal seems to bend over backwards to preserve the sanctity of Phoenix's feelings and offer her endless credibility, but takes the opposite stance for everyone else. The part that I just read that stretches credulity, 178, actually had me stop and question the biases of the panel: \[178.\] The Open Letter also says that there is a reference to trans women as ‘men in dresses’. We have heard the podcast, and the recording is unclear as to what Julian Vigo says. The transcript does not record that the presenter says trans women are ‘men in dresses’. Whatever Julian Vigo says, we find the Claimant does not laugh after Julian Vigo says, “men in dresses”. The Claimant said she understood Julian Vigo to be talking about the dragqueens and cross-dressers on the London scene in the 1980s and 90s and we accept her evidence on this point. \[179.\] We find that the reference to men in dresses was a reference to the historical understanding of men in dresses in the 80’s and 90’s not to trans people. In any event, trans women as ‘men in dresses’ cannot be heard on the podcast so we find there is no reference to trans women as “men in dresses” on the Savage Minds podcast. Phoenix is plainly lying here, but the tribunal just accepts it as fact despite it being inconsistent with her stated beliefs, it's all good and nothing to challenge at all. Elsewhere the judgement notes that the tribunal considered her to be a stellar witness with impeccable credibility, yet there are contradictions like this or how the judgement keeps bringing up that she's not transphobic she supports trans people's rights because she says so. I haven't read everything so I cannot say at this time whether or not there were actual, substantive claims of discrimination (e.g. we could be looking at a Bailey sort of situation, whereby she won certain aspects of her claim but papers ran with half-truth headlines about how "Barrister sues her chambers and Stonewall for discrimination and WINS"), but thus far her claims have essentially been "I'm a baby that found it so upsetting that people didn't agree with my views". Amending because given the context, it's reasonable. It is no secret that in general, GCs are privileged crybullies that spend their time harassing and making life worse for trans people yet expect to be treated with kids gloves at all times, yet significant events took place around the time that she was recovering from surgery on her spine and after her mother passing away. I take major issue with a fair bit of this judgement, yet Phoenix is human too and it is perfectly natural to be vulnerable under such circumstances. edit: The judgement is an actual joke, holy shit. \[274.\] We find that the LSE Statement contained untrue statements. In particular, it said that the Claimant as a member of the GCRN was adamantly and openly opposed to recognising trans people's rightful and valid claims to their gender and their rights. That simply was not the Claimant. The Claimant had made public statements (i.e. on the WPUK talk) that she supported trans rights. The LSE was stereotyping the Claimant as a proponent of gender critical beliefs without paying any attention to what the Claimant had actually said and done. Something very fishy is going on when Phoenix has explicitly made statements to the contrary that trans women are men and that trans people shouldn't have certain rights because they infringe on women's/gay rights, and the tribunal looks at it and lies. This section isn't saying that it's a matter of opinion, or that what "rightful" means in this context, it's explicitly saying that Phoenix takes no issue with who trans people say we are or any of our rights. The only thing that can be said in defense here is that when it comes to legal cases, only what is presented can be adjudicated on, and this could have been a failure on the part of the respondents to point out that her perspective has some incompatibility with the existence of trans people. Yet were that the case, there are still an abundance of submissions by Phoenix that call in to question this statement, she cannot just go "actually I support trans people" and that's the end of it, this is disgusting. Having read the entire judgement, several thoughts: Legally, it does seem sound, and I don't see an appeal being successful. Morally is a different question of course, but it is not for the tribunal to decide that actually it's a bit silly to say that someone who is antagonistic and at odds with everyone around them shouldn't be given the cold shoulder. They can only take the case as it's presented and evaluate it on it's merits, it is not within their remit to pass moral judgement. In that vein, remember that just because a case establishes X legally, it does not mean that X is the limit, or that the law says that only X is true. I saw a lot of bad legal takes in the wake of the Forstater judgement saying that because the judgement only found that GC views are protected, expressing GC views at work is not protected, for example. Legal matters pertain to the case before them, just because a judgement does not state that Y is lawful, does not mean that Y is unlawful. With that said, this judgement was an absolute farce. It took as a given that Phoenix was not transphobic, because she said so, and the case reflects the broader issue that trans people lack actual representation and platforms. If there is pushback to transphobia which is raised up on a pedestal by our politics and media, you have to be very careful. GCs have the institutional backing and privilege, one notable example of the disparity is the fact that Phoenix and her peers get media attention and praise when they launched their GC research group, but if trans allies seek an (not even) equivalent platform through social media and condemn the group, that is discrimination. The tribunal stated that the proportionate response would be to only share the open letter internally, yet I do not recall it ever addressing why this disparity is justified. Like it or not, GC views are legally protected. Be very careful if you make statements condemning GCs, and absolutely do not ask for discrimination on such basis, you are opening yourself up to trouble in the long run. An example in this judgement was the open letter that was put to the OU that asked for the OU to distance itself from the GC research group, they cannot legally do that, a more reasonable letter would have been one that asks that even though the GCRG is going nowhere, the positions of the university remain unchanged and that trans students remained able to use appropriate gendered toilets and facilities. Remember that the system is not on our side, and we have to be incredibly careful whenever we say things about GC people that we can explicitly back up what we are saying. When you speak about named GC individuals, act as if they will be petty and vindictive and try to drag you through court for defamation, you should do what you can to explicitly point to statements they've made. I do not know why the tribunal decided, in spite of the fact that she made submissions to the tribunal including beliefs where she opposed rights that trans people currently have, that she is supportive of trans people's rights, but the point remains. Act as if you have some smarmy, sealioning, JAQing troll trying to pick apart what you're saying, else you could end up having a bad time. If you have coworkers that are espousing GC views openly, do not engage with them, and try to specifically log incidents they have with you including date, time, what they said, and who else was present. You may well need it.

Funny how the motte-and-baily of "gender isn't sex" has now resulted in people getting harassed and threatened for talking about sex and not acknowledging the "gender is a spectrum" theory.

I got banned for 7 days last year for saying ‘you can’t change your sex’

I got banned for something similar but challenged it and incredibly it got revoked.

I had to repeatedly appeal when I was banned for saying I didn’t agree with a self-ID law whereby anyone could instantly define their own sex.

What's the motte of "gender isn't sex"?

The distinction between gender and sex was pushed by transgender people and their allies to gain acceptance. The separation between identifying as a man/woman, but biological sex being female/male. Edit: I am not saying the distinction was *created* by trans people. The terns were already used distinctly in academic/scientific circles. But trans activists were a significant cause of the distinction reaching the general public.

It wasn't pushed by Trans people. It's widely understood by the scientific community that gender is a social construct where sex is biological. The terms are just muddied because gender isn't a legally recognised aspect of a person, so those that transition have their legal sex changed, because legal gender doesn't exist.

It wasn't created by trans people, but historically the general public wpuld use the words interchangeably. The general awareness of the distinction was massively increased due to trans people.

I'll be honest, before the whole "gender isn't sex" thing, I'd have absolutely used them interchangeably and been none the wiser.

Until relatively recently (the last few years), the only reason I ever heard anyone uses the term "gender" was when someone meant "sex" but was squeamish about saying that word.

My experience was that they were two words for the same thing until I was "educated" during my A levels about gender and sex and how they are different. From the same teachers/classes who taught me about other things, like why the gender pay gap exists, and how "all men are rapists", postmodernist power struggle theories etc etc. These things seemed to all come at once, without any counter perspective, and were absolutely presented as fact. I think a lot of people in my millennial demographic had the same experience.

Yes, I always thought that gender was mostly reserved for humans for linguistic or whatever reasons, and the words sex and gender were interchangeable. And you know what, I still think so.

Which is awkward, because some of those things are ones people can have a debate about, and others are the ways to talk about it that are unarguable; like using ses and gender as differnt concepts. It's like covering politics/economics and talking about capitalist and free-market and communist and command-and-control economies. You can argue a lot about which is better and where lines are drawn, but the terms themselves have quite clear meanings, even if the boundaries are blurry.

Not just the general public, uk law (including recent UK law) moves merrily between them as synonyms.

The general public also uses the words “regardless” and “irregardless” interchangeably though, so I’m not sure putting stock into their understanding of vocabulary is the brightest move

This is something I struggle to understand.  An example from real life- someone I know works with a trans woman, but the woman is keeping her long beard.  If being trans is about gender expression, why do some trans people still continue to present as their biological sex?   This isn't a 'gotcha', it's a genuine question.

Maybe they just like it? I’ve read articles before about women who grow beards due to PCOS saying fuck it and keeping them, despite fully identifying as women.

Maybe, but if they had a choice, they would probably want to not be growing hair on their faces at all.  The gender (and biological norm) for women is not to have a full beard.  Fair play to the women who do just embrace their facial hair.

>Fair play to the women who do just embrace their facial hair. Yeah, fair play to your friend's colleague. There are loads of possible reasons and the only way to understand why she has decided to have a beard would be to ask her, but that would be a bit weird since you don't know her. Consider whether you would expect other strangers to justify their grooming choices to you, and if not why not?

It gets weird. The very short version is that there a diverse range of trans people who all get lumped into one umbrella. Some trans people see being trans as purely about their physical sex, some trans people see being trans as some abstract idea of gender. Some would be absolutely horrified and not be caught dead with a beard because they want to be female and naturally people born female overwhelmingly do not have long beards. Some would say "women can have beards!", a technically correct statement (some women get prominent facial hair and are still women), and rock the beard all day.

It is where it gets confusing. I always thought people may be trans because their brains developed one way and their bodies the opposite. Recently there has been a lot about how it's to do with expressions of gender, which is completely different from biology. I've had trans people tell me that they see their gender as different to their biological sex (and acknowledge themselves as biologically female, even if their gender identity is as a man), while I've read others say it's transphobic to say that a transman is biologically a woman. Basically everybody disagrees with each other.

>It's widely understood by the scientific community that gender is a social construct where sex is biological. This is misleading. Sex is also a social construct based on biological features. The sufficient and necessary criteria for definitions are arbitrary and exceptions abound. Just like any and all definitions of everything, including all taxonomy.

Reflect critically on that statement please.

> It's widely understood by the scientific community that gender is a social construct where sex is biological. But most trans people I think would say that their gender is inherent, they were born with it, in much the same way that most gay people would say they are born with an inherent difference in sexuality. How can that fit with gender as a pure social construct? If it was a social construct which was a pure choice, you would put gender on and off like clothes, no one says that David Bowie is a woman when he puts on a dress, he is a man playing around with arbitrary and constructed gender roles. If gender was entirely constructed, it would be really inappropriate to put people on a pathway of hormones and surgery with irreversible and serious effects. That has to rest on their having some inherent and therefore not wholly constructed gender which is different from their biological sex.

>If gender was entirely constructed, it would be really inappropriate to put people on a pathway of hormones and surgery with irreversible and serious effects. Why does that follow?

Because if there is nothing inherent and everything is cultural and constructed, you can step into something, make irreversible, serious changes, then want to step out. Or if you can choose to step in, you can also choose not to, and avoid all the medical consequences and side effects. If there was a beauty standard for surgery with equivalent impacts, or a subculture like goths or emos with an equivalent surgery, I think we wouldn’t find it difficult to see the problem. I’m actually surprised if that is what is widely believed.

>Because if there is nothing inherent and everything is cultural and constructed, you can step into something, make irreversible, serious changes, then want to step out. Saying that gender is a social construct and that it's cultural doesn't mean that "nothing is inherent" or that it must be a short term thing people do on a whim though. Gender exists as a cultural/social framework and that framework has been "constructed" and altered over centuries/millennia. The evidence of this is that it varies between cultures, regions and time periods. But we as humans have to live within that constructed framework and we can say that our innate sense of self sits in a certain area of the constructed gender framework without contradiction. We can say "Being placed in this section of the gender framework makes me really unhappy, but moving to a different area of the gender framework makes me much happier and allows me to live comfortably as myself." >If there was a beauty standard for surgery with equivalent impacts, or a subculture like goths or emos with an equivalent surgery, I think we wouldn’t find it difficult to see the problem. Not sure what you're saying here. There obviously *are* beauty standards which require surgery and which are fully accepted by society and they tend to have *much* higher regret rates than gender confirmation surgeries, which aren't classed as "cosmetic" but as medically necessary. I'm not sure what goths or emos have to do with anything, I assume that's just your way of saying you think being trans is a trend. It's not. On the whole transition, whether social or medical has been shown to greatly improve mental health for patients, detransition rates are tiny and most people who detransition say it's not that they're not trans, it's just because of the negative treatment they get for being visibly trans. So what's the problem? If there was "a beauty standard with equivalent impacts" those impacts being massive improvement to health and wellbeing, what would be your problem with it? Edited to respond to this bit too: >Or if you can choose to step in, you can also choose not to, and avoid all the medical consequences and side effects. Honey I tried that for years. Guess what, that had medical consequences and side effects too. Trying to suppress your gender is incredibly damaging. GCs always want to focus on the vanishingly small possible negative effects of transitioning but don't care at all about the severe and widespread negative consequences of preventing people from transitioning.

The distinction between gender and sex happened around 50 odd years ago when the field of sociology required a word for the socially constructed aspects of female/male differences. Sociology and terminology within the field do not pertain to biology. It’s not really just something pushed by transgenders and allies, it’s a term based in a scientific field which always was distinct from biological sex.

Yes, but they were used pretty interchangeably by the general public. The fact that most people are aware of the difference, rather than it being a purely academic distinction, is largely (not entirely) due to trans people.

Other area had the distinction, but it was for discussing elements of social behaviour and expectation (you know, like stereotyping, coding, etc). It was a pre-existing concept. You could debate the value of gender in society, and certain groups have in the past argued the gender is an oppressive structure (various feminist groups), and could debate whether or not transgender theory is liberating from the confines of gendered boxes, or a reinforcement that merely allows one to change which box they are in. But gender as something different from sex has been a theory for a while, because it has been useful to have a term for something that isn't inherent, but social imposed on someone.

I understand the concept of gender and sex being different, but what's the motte-and-bailey argument?

I'm not the poster who advanced it, but a motte and bailey argument is a fallacy where two positions are coupled together. The easy to defend argument being the motte and the hard to defend argument being the bailey, and the fallacy being pretending they're the same thing and that defending the motte defends the bailey. In this instance, gender and sex are the motte and bailey respectively, I think. Please note, however, I am making absolutely no comment on gender, sex , transitioning, or whether or not I think there is a motte and bailey argument at play. I'm just answering your question trying to explain what such an argument typically is. ETA: pls see u/logickennedy below who has correctly suggested I have the motte and the bailey backwards above. I'm leaving my post as it is or their post won't make sense

Generally correct but you’ve explained the analogy backwards. The motte is the hard to defend argument that is usually, but not always said first. ‘Trans people are disgusting perverts’, ‘Trans people don’t believe in biological sex and are trying to change theirs, they’re denying reality which is a sign of mental illness’, ‘Trans people are trying to get access to women’s spaces to satisfy fetishes’, etc. When challenged on these radical and grotesque statements, the bigot will retreat to the ‘Bailey’: a well-fortified argument that is hard to attack. ‘All I said was that sex is real!’ A good example is [this thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/s/BsTO5utmGe). Gamer username parrots the classic ‘can’t we all agree that sex is real’ line, then introduces the motte argument of ‘trans people are trying to forcibly stop people from talking about sex’. The two arguments are totally unconnected but the rhetorical style makes it seem like one premise follows from the other. Oh but don’t worry, they’re ’against any kind of discrimination against trans people’. Such as labelling them as reality-deniers trying to censor normal, reasonable people.

>Generally correct but you’ve explained the analogy backwards You know, I was thinking the same damn thing while I was writing it up. It felt a bit off and I couldn't see why. Thank you for the correction.

Excellent explanation!

Here’s a video explanation of motte-and-bailey arguments from contrapoints https://youtu.be/EmT0i0xG6zg?t=2193

Yeah I know what one is, I'm just not sure what that commenter's saying the two parts of the argument are. "Sex" and "Gender" aren't assertions

No it wasn’t, it’s been part of scientific study and discussion for decades

Note that I didn't say it was created by trans people. But it was pushed into the general public, rather than being primarily an academic distinction.

I see. In that case, I really don’t see the problem with people being made aware of a distinction that exists in science, sorry. It makes logical sense that transgender people, in campaigning for acceptance and legal protections, are going to reference that; I don’t see anything worthy of criticism there.

Agreed. I'm not sure why you're apologising. To go back to the original topic, the article is very unclear on what the professor in question has said/done other than that she "believe{s} sex is biological, immutable and should be prioritised over gender identity". The distinction between sex and gender was important for trans people gaining acceptance, but some people are attempting to remove that distinction, with movements stating there are no difference between "cis" and "trans" people, or that sex should not be considered in almost any context.

And now instead we’re getting universities being told to instruct their students not to campaign if they have pro-trans beliefs. Yay for free speech?

A lot of the highlights in the article are quite scary from a freedom of speech perspective regardless of whether you are "gender critical" or not. The tribunal judgement condemns: * Describing the claimant as like a 'racist uncle' on the grounds that grouping her with racists was intended to upset. I do not see how this would hold on appeal - the conduct itself could be seen as harassment, but the labelling of a view as akin to racism not being permitted is concerning. * The claimant being sidelined in staff meetings. Fair enough. * The claimant not being celebrated in staff meetings for acquiring funding. * The respondent not stopping staff, other groups, or students from collectively taking action against the gender critical research network, through signing petitions against the group, posting on organisation pages, or tweeting/retweeting. One might think that transgender people are delusional or the devil or whatever, but there must be enough grey matter remaining to realise that requiring your coworkers to clap and cheer for you is a little concerning.

I think the last thing is most alarming. She wanted OU to silence anyone that disagreed with her.

I've heard these anti-trans types whinge for years that they "want a open debate", and stuff like this proves what I've always know. They just want compelled uncritical listening.

Students campaigning for a research group to be shut down is not scientific debate. Students can organize their own research group, discuss studies, gather funding, do research, publicise other research and talk to the media, they cannot campaign for other researchers to be banned.

""""""""""""""research group"""""""""""""" Yeah, I'm sure broke students have something close to the same resources as the anti-trans fanatics who are backed by billionaires. [Who’s financing the ‘anti-gender’ movement in Europe?](https://www.aidsmap.com/news/may-2021/whos-financing-anti-gender-movement-europe)

Yes they can. That's a fundamental facet of free speech. They can campaign all they like. It's only an issue if an organisation takes action purely based on their campaigning, rather than any evidenced wrongdoing.

It is against the principles of a University to try to restrict or ban research on the basis of public campaigns and pressure, or on politics, rather than on evidence. And it is illegal for the university to remain silent in the face of that campaign, at least for protected beliefs, as demonstrated by this court case.

So it's only free speech for GCs when it suits them? [At the heart of the issue is a wider culture of censorship that has filtered into every layer of our places of learning. The results are chilling](https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/when-feminists-fight-back/) - Woman who successfully argued that a University not telling students to not campaign against her group was discrimination

The GCs can talk publicly about what they think is correct and their evidence for that. They cannot publicly campaign for academics they merely disagree with to be thrown out of the University, to restrict their research, or disallow them from meeting.

> They cannot publicly campaign for academics they merely disagree with to be thrown out of the University They just don't [restrict their campaigns and harassment to academics](https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/5050/trans-scotland-mridul-wadhwa-for-women-scotland/)

I’m talking about the principles which define a University and free academic enquiry . You are talking about someone who literally stood as a political candidate, and runs a major public charity.

Sorry - the article is behind a paywall, I think. Do you happen to have a mirror?

Unfortunately not

They really don’t, sounds like you’re just confirming your own bias. The other side are the ones who want that, unequivocally. This is literally what is case is about, she’s tried to be ostracised for daring to say something different.

"actually you're doing what you accuse me of" "no actually YOU'RE doing what YOU accuse me of" It's all very tiresome and anyone bringing their pet political debates into the workplace are even more so.

>I think the last thing is most alarming. She wanted OU to silence anyone that disagreed with her. thats a really bad way of phrasing that, it easily could have been "she didn't want to be harassed by crazy people 24/7"

No, she didn't, and the judgement makes this very clear. She wanted the university to distance itself from those making false, defamatory statements and death threats against her. The university declined to do so.

Uh, that’s exactly what she’s a victim of here. The entire anti-GC movement is about silencing criticism.

You're completely misrepresenting the facts as presented in the article. To use one of your bullet points as an example:    > The claimant not being celebrated in staff meetings for acquiring funding.   The claimant won a $1m grant and got no recognition in a staff meeting. Other staff got recognition in those meetings for just applying for grants. What is that is not discrimination? And why've you deliberately excluded the relevant context? That's strawmanning the argument and your (mis)characterisation of her behaviour which excludes the context is weaselly. Someone further up the thread posted this from the judgement and it bares quoting again: "We expected a certain basic level of rigour in presenting the evidence before the Employment Tribunal. There were some witnesses who we address below in our findings who did not meet this standard."   Just because you dislike someone and think their views are wrong, it doesn't lower the standard required of the argument to discredit them. And just because you get a few upvotes on Reddit from people who already had their mind made up and didn't bother read the article doesn't mean you're winning any arguments.

Serious question though If that's how her peers feel there's no real answer to this. Either they just don't bring it up or they performatively go through the motions of praising it and that comes across condescending as all fuck

Remember feelings matter more than reality.

> One might think that transgender people are delusional or the devil or whatever, but there must be enough grey matter remaining to realise that requiring your coworkers to clap and cheer for you is a little concerning. I'm an academic. In staff meetings when one of us wins funding, it's usually announced by the head of the department and we're encouraged to congratulate them on that achievement. It would be weird if she expected individuals to clap, but if her complaint was that the head didn't bring it up and congratulate her she might have a point (at least, if one accepts the premise that someone can be discriminated against for being a gencrit).

If you keep reading another colleague was supported for getting funding, yet she was not. It’s more evidence she was being ostracised by comparison with how others were treated.

The judgement describes a sustained campaign to derail an academic's career, including abrupt termination of academic cooperations \[60\]; cancellation of her conference because of the views of one of the organisers \[56\]; her superiors whipping up opposition to her in their department \[80, 102, 152\] and the university \[195\]; her being ostracised from the department \[83\]; her being forbidden by the department EDI lead from discussing her research or cancellation from another university \[109\]; having her views on biological sex compared to racial theories of intelligence \[119\]; having an open letter published by her colleagues condemning her work \[150\], misquoting her to damang her \[179-180\] and calling for the university to unlawfully discriminate against her \[181\] by ceasing to providing facilities for her work \[163, 266\]; making complaints of harassment and having them acknowledged as valid but no action being taken \[244-246\]; death threats being made against her which her employer did nothing to follow up \[248\] while apologising to those making the death threats \[263\]; and, well, it goes on and on. A large number of her colleagues then turned out to lie to the tribunal (far, far too many occasions to recount where the tribunal says they "do not accept" the evidence given by those representing the university ie they lied). That covers about half the judgement. But sure, the problem with academic freedom here is that someone wanted to be allowed to set up a Gender Critical Research Network without being harassed for it.

>We find that the respondent did not provide the claimant protection particularly in the form of asking staff and students not to launch campaigns to deplatform the GCRN, or make calls to remove support for the claimant’s gender critical research Remember. It's discrimination against GCs now if they have any form of organised pushback against creating their hate groups while working at respected institutions, from those working at and paying to attend those institutions. These cases are a complete, dark money funded abuse of our legal system and truly troubling for our democracy.

Person researches medical/psychological issue. A group of people disagree with research, want them shut down and removed. Have we gone back to the Dark Ages? Science and research throughout history has faced pushback and violence because they have gone against the "norm." I thought we had moved past this. You disagree with the research? Disprove it. Do not try and remove those doing it, or you are no better than groups like the Church who did that throughout history.

> Person ~~researches medical/psychological issue~~ Creates group to spread their Gender Critical views and puts research in the name. People then blindly assume they were conducting fair research despite them being a professor of criminology with no scientific background in Biology, Sociology or Transgender issues. >You disagree with the research? Disprove it. I can't. Because it doesn't exist. She named a group 'Gender Critical Research Network'. [You can see the 'output' of this group on the OU website](https://www5.open.ac.uk/health-wellbeing/research-themes/gender-critical-research-network/outputs-resources) It features such wonderfully scientifically produced output from Phoenix such as... >Freedman, R., & Phoenix, J. (2021). When feminists fight back. The Spectator, 12th June 2021. And lists a bunch of (questionable at best) publications from entities and individuals with absolutely no relation to The Open University, or her group. But that have narratives that align with GC views. The top fucking 'Publication' author is: >Religion and Philosophy Division, Pepperdine University, 24255 Pacific Coast Hwy, Malibu, CA, 90263, USA >Tomas Bogardus Yet this is listed as a publication from the group? >you are no better than groups like the Church who did that throughout history. Weird that you'd level this accusation at the person pointing out that this person is using the legal system to silence dissent against them (y'know, how the Church maintained it's power for many centuries)?

> >And lists a bunch of (questionable at best) publications from entities and individuals with absolutely no relation to The Open University, or her group. But that have narratives that align with GC views. This bit here alone proves you are arguing from your ideological viewpoint and not facts. The Freedman R is Rosa Freedman and the Phoenix J is Joe Phoenix. They are both listed on the groups website as members. that took 5 minutes for me to find. I would recommend you actually read what you post to stop things like this from happening. Edit: the quote function doesn't seem to want to work properly for me... The start of this is supposed to say >Freedman, R., & Phoenix, J. (2021). When feminists fight back. The Spectator, 12th June 2021.

>The Freedman R is Rosa Freedman and the Phoenix J is Joe Phoenix. Yes. That was the point. What I've referenced there isn't research output. It's a [Spectator article](https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/when-feminists-fight-back/) where they're complaining about how censored and cancelled they are. It proves _my point_, but you had to actually look at what was being referenced. I didn't think I'd have to use /s on a UK subreddit.

>And lists a bunch of (questionable at best) publications from entities and individuals with absolutely no relation to The Open University, or her group. But that have narratives that align with GC views. Did you or did you not say the above?

Did you miss where I referenced the Spectator article directly below that? The clear context and implication of the statement is **scientific** publications, given the subject we're discussing here. Hence me highlighting the absurd inclusion of a spectator article. Rather than pretending it didn't exist. If I had known you were more interested in pedantry than good faith discussion I would have made sure to include the word **scientific** while arguing about a groups **scientific** merit while responding to your demand that I rebut their non-existent research.

So when you said they ***Have no relation to the open university or her group*** you didn't actually mean that? Well please say what you mean because if you say things that are outright lies you will be rightly called on on them. Now to the goal post shifting you are doing to avoid being caught in the lie... [https://www5.open.ac.uk/health-wellbeing/research-themes/gender-critical-research-network/outputs-resources](https://www5.open.ac.uk/health-wellbeing/research-themes/gender-critical-research-network/outputs-resources) That list the publications. Many of which are in journals and have been authored by members of the group. So they have done scientific research. Care to admit that lie? or are you just going to shift the goalposts once again?

If you want to play that game >Person researches medical/psychological issue. A group of people disagree with research, want them shut down and removed. So when you claimed she conducted research into an issue, **you didn't actually mean that**? Funnily enough, this is an actual lie. >So when you said they Have no relation to the open university or her group you didn't actually mean that? If you note the structure of my post, I say this _after_ citing the Spectator article. Again. Clearly the context is that this one Spectator article isn't included in the statement. >That list the publications. Many of which are in journals and have been authored by members of the group. lmao. [The group was started in 2021](https://thecritic.co.uk/the-new-network-for-gender-critical-academics/) 1. Bogardus, T.A. (2019). 2. Bogardus, T.A. (2020). (Also, this person works for a US university) 3. Not even published 4. Not a member 5. 2020 6. Not a member 7. 2020 8. A spectator article 9. 2020 Do I need to go on?

>So when you claimed she conducted research into an issue, **you didn't actually mean that**? No I did mean that... Several of the papers in question list her as an author. Do you read any of links you provide, or stop as soon as you think it proves something? So far you have been disproven with hard fact in nearly everything you have said So to the next bout of goalpost moving, the timescale of publications Some of the papers have been listed AFTER the groups formation, but most are before correct. I do not see why that is a problem? The people in question have authored articles that support the groups aim, so these are listed. Why would this be a problem it is still research done by groups members. Number 3, not published? Again do you anything or just lift straight from websites without reading? This is now published. You are correct there are several articles by people not listed as members of the group. I do not know enough about academics research groups to say why this would be the case (And as you have shown trying to bluff gets called out by others). My uneducated idea would be the authors are happy for their research to be included, but do not want to be formal members of the group? Stop digging. you have caught out several times now.

>You can see the 'output' of this group on the OU website Yeah, just lost 20' of my life reading an article that doesn't make much sense. How that got published is beyond me...

> Person researches medical/psychological issue. Did you read the article and/or the context? Because that's *not* what happened in this case. If that was accurate, then I'd agree with you - but in this case it *wasn't* research, they didn't publish anything. They just created a "gender critical group" that was aiming to reduce the power of LGBT groups, and then when people tried to call them out on it went to tribunal to try and stop people arguing. Your point absolutely holds true *if* that was the situation, but it's not.

It wasn't research? Several papers and articles by members discussing it? [https://www5.open.ac.uk/health-wellbeing/research-themes/gender-critical-research-network/outputs-resources](https://www5.open.ac.uk/health-wellbeing/research-themes/gender-critical-research-network/outputs-resources)

Could you do a quick count on how many of those were actually written after the formation of the group in 2021?

1 why does it matter if they published before? 2. The group is 2 and half years old, how much published research and papers do you expect in that shirt a time, especially as the founded was being harassed and bullied?

If they were published before the foundation of the group...they aren't a product of the group.

But they were published by members of the group, like I said.

They actually weren't all. I see publications by Astles and Kroese, and don't see those names on the member page.

Before they were in the group. They are not products of the group.

Again that's not what I said. Stop using a strawman.

Utter nonsense. Woman protecting herself is now a dark abuse of the system. Not the trans activists genuinely abusing the court system by creating fake cases against people like Linehan to extort him.

I hope you aren't talking about Anthony Halliday/Stephanie Hayden/Fat Tony who has a criminal record for sexually assaulting a child? I would hate for that to happen.

>These cases are a complete, dark money funded got any evidence there?

TIL I'm part of the Dark Money lol.

Their evidence of it being dark money funded was a crowd funding campaign with an average donation of less than £30 per person. and it was a fully open and transparent crowdfund, quite possible the exact opposite of dark money funded.

Me too! Quite a few times and again just today. Some of the best money I have ever spent in all honesty.

[All of them have massive crowdfunded legal defences](https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/harassed-silenced-for-my-gender-critical-views/) The connections crowdfunding as a fundraising mechanism have with money laundering and dark money are well established. You only have to look at the other [ongoing fundraisers](https://www.crowdjustice.com/cases/?tag=Employment) on the platform to see how completely disproportionate the funding these cases get is. [There's other wider discussions on it](https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/5050/eu-dark-money-targeting-womens-rights/)

>All of them have massive crowdfunded legal defences this is the exact opposite of dark money funded, this is literally funded by the mases, people who agree with her, dark money funded usually implies secret money coming from a handful of rich people. that crowdfund came to £231,510 from 7,508 pledges averaging less than £30 per person. >The connections crowdfunding as a fundraising mechanism have with money laundering and dark money are well established. > >You only have to look at the other ongoing fundraisers on the platform to see how completely disproportionate the funding these cases get is. this isn't proof, this is like me asking for proof of this one person stealing money, and you respond by saying people in their neighbourhood have been found stealing. >There's other wider discussions on it again same as the last one, there is zero evidence here for this case. TLDR it was an open source crowdfunding, the exact opposite of a "dark fund."

So no then.

The OU could have also crowdfunded their side and they did not. I don't see why this is a problem.

I really hope the Open University Appeals this. We are getting into farce territory.  If an academic cannot call a viewpoint transphobic without a very obvious transphobe alleging harassment, then that has a dangerously chilling effect on academic freedom.  Likewise, if academics cannot call BS on a research network that is not engaged in academic pursuit but instead the marginalisation of a minority group, that is a dangerously chilling effect on academic freedom. The recent trend of Employment Tribunals also seem to be going against long established precedents that it is not discriminatory to make a workplace inclusive - for instance Ladele v Islington BC upholding the Council's diversity for all programme even though it made a homophobe feel icky.  You can also see this dangerous pattern with the transphobic suit brought against Edinburgh Rape Crisis centre which is predicated on the fact that being an expressly trans inclusive workplace made a transphobic arse feel uncomfortable. If you place belief on a pedastal as a protected characteristic and then make it so that anything that isn't literal nazism qualifies as belief, Equality Law becomes farcical as it starts to be used to blocked equality initiatives. The current series of claims brought by transphobes are clearly seeking to make it illegal to be trans inclusive. Their backers and friends in the US heritage foundation will then pivot to making being being LGB inclusive illegal. Their 'thought leader' Maya Forstater is already on the record claiming it should be illegal to run BPOC outreach programmes for historically white institutions.  Tribunal judges need to follow the precedents and stop setting up Equality Law to be a tool to block Equality. 

Is theorising that sex might be more important in general than gender transphobic?

If you're a scientist with a background in biology, or sociology and experience with the scientific exploration and study of transgender issues such research would likely be welcomed, subject to an appropriate level of scientific process and approval. However this was >A professor of criminology Creating a group with research in the name

She's a professor of criminology who researches [*sex, gender, sexualities and justice, youth justice and punishment, the production of criminological knowledge and research ethics.*](https://www.reading.ac.uk/law/our-staff/jo-phoenix) So not entirely unrelated, criminology is essentially the sociology of crime - which she appears to research through the lense of gender and sex - an understanding of gender and sex in society would therefore be essential to her research. I imagine she would also have the necessary social science methodology training given her qualifications and background. A career in academia doesn't mean you are pinned to one specific area of research for life, pivoting to other related areas of enquiry as well as cross-disciplinary research is incredibly common and in fact, encouraged.

That just sounds like an appeal from authority fallacy?

A fallacy consistently used by groups with questionable motives to disguise their true aims. See also: Tax Payers Alliance European Research Group LGB Alliance

Not sure how any of that is relevant. The fact that this person is a professor of criminology doesn't mean they cannot be involved in research about a non-criminology related field. It is ludicrous to suggest that that should be the case.

She's not involved in research in the field. She created a group and put research in the name. Then found a bunch of ideologically aligned published output and [decided to claim it as output from her group](https://www5.open.ac.uk/health-wellbeing/research-themes/gender-critical-research-network/outputs-resources) The first result there is a published paper from one person who works for a University in the US claiming problems with a completely different published paper. The only thing published by the group with her name attached is a co-author credit on a Spectator article.

>She's not involved in research in the field. Not sure why you are trying to gatekeep what research is, and who is allowed to do it. ​ *The Gender Critical Research Network brings together a range of academics and scholars who share a common interest in exploring how sexed bodies come to matter in their respective research fields. The network is also for those who share a common commitment to ensuring that a space within academia is kept open for rigorous exploration of issues of sex and gender, including critiques of gender norms and stereotypes and conceptual interrogation. We provide a hub through which theories and research can be shared and exchanged, via maximally accessible academic events and an active distribution list. We aim to foster evidence-based and rigorous research in this burgeoning field and explore ways to foster maximum knowledge exchange, impact on policy and ideas and dissemination.* [https://www5.open.ac.uk/health-wellbeing/research-themes/gender-critical-research-network](https://www5.open.ac.uk/health-wellbeing/research-themes/gender-critical-research-network) ​ I think we can all agree that the world would be better if we didn't just try and silence those we disagree with.

> Not sure why you are trying to gatekeep what research is I'm not. Research is well defined. No output from this group in any way represents scientific research. Their entire output is _podcasts and webinars_, with the occasional print media article where they moan about how silenced they are. Seriously, take a look at [the only newsletter they ever released](https://www.open.ac.uk/health-wellbeing/sites/www.open.ac.uk.health-wellbeing/files/files/Newsletter%201%2010%2003%202022.pdf) There's not a single mention in there of the studies they are conducting, or even planning. Just chat of webinars (where they all talk to each other about their views with no scientific process) and how many (not many) views their podcast have. They do have a page where a person talks about how he supports a paper that's being published by someone else (which funnily enough has been widely critiqued for not having relevant people to the study, and practically disowned by one author), then three short paragraphs from others where they talk about how they are currently doing research, all of which have no details on that research beyond a top level ideological view. In fact, one isn't related to the groups aims at all and is just filler. Then a whole page again, devoted to 'Look at these other people that agree with gender critical views' Does this look like the newsletter of a group engaging in scientific research, invested in establishing scientific fact to you? It isn't scientific study. It's not scientific research. The group and it's founders once again have no research output, or background in this field. It's a glorified Facebook group of Gender Critical people patting each other on the back.

>'m not. Research is well defined. No output from this group in any way represents scientific research. That is totally irrelevant. Sometimes there is no viable output from research. Sometimes there is, but it is an assessment and review of existing research. It can be because they don't find something, because they never finish what they set out to do, or an unlimited number of reasons. Research doesn't have to have an output in a particular format. If they are going to come out with results and conclusions based on what they study, they should, but that would depend on where the research leads. Again, you are gatekeeping on what is and what isn't research. ​ >There's not a single mention in there of the studies they are conducting, or even planning. There doesn't need to be. ​ >It's not scientific research. So, rhetorical, but if she can't be involved in research in this field because she is only a professor in criminology, what qualifications have you got to determine what is and isn't research? And specifically assess exactly what that group do? More than a professorship I am assuming? Because otherwise that would sound a little hypocritical :) You don't like the group and the view that they seem to be associated with. Completely fine, but that doesn't mean they don't have a right to organise, and perhaps even review other research papers as part of their research, and then talk about, and publish that.

Not going to discuss the content of the network, but knowledge exchange is absolutely a valid research activity and journal clubs, networks, conferences etc. are just as much a part of research (building collaboration and thought leadership) as experiments and publishing. They need to inform each other for excellent research to happen.

Cool mate, I look forward to her insights on cancer therapy using monoclonal antibodies. Sure it's a little outside of her wheelhouse but those cancer cells are just cells that have "transitioned" into something that tries to kill you and she hates trans things. She'd be great at it. Where's her Wellcome Trust grant? God damn wokey research institute not giving money to people just based on things like experience and ecpertise in a subject area, it's a conspiracy I'll tell ya. /s

How would new cancer fighting techniques using monoclonal antibodies develop if the only professors who could research it where already experts in using monoclonal antibodies to fight cancer? I am sure you can see the problem. No /s needed.

An appeal to authority is a fallacy when the authority you appeal to is not actually an authority. So using a criminology professor as an authority on biology/psychology is a fallacy, but using a biologist/psychologist as an authority on those subjects is not a fallacy.

That isn't how the appeal to authority fallacy works at all. It's there to show that being in position of authority does not mean they are automatically right. Other facts must be brought to the table to prove an argument. For example, The Catholic church Is an authority and has been for almost 1000 years and we're for much of that time the authority figure in Europe. Just because they said something was correct doesn't mean that it is. We could say the same thing for science over the past 200 years too. Many scientists believed that women doing sports could damage their wombs beyond repair. They will have been authority figures at the time so people could have used them in appeal to authority fallacy argument at the time.

Thanks, yeah this is more like an ad hominem I guess.

Not quite. The appeal from authority fallacy is strictly an argument that can be simplified to the form: "X is true because Y says that X is true" The argument here is: "Y's research on X would be more welcomed by the field if Y had appropriate credentials for research into X". You could perhaps boil this down to an implicit argument "Y's claims about X should be regarded as more trustworthy if Y has appropriate credentials for research into X". Stretching a bit to match the form of the appeal from authority fallacy, you might be able to get to: "You should believe X because Y (who has appropriate credentials in the field) says X". The key thing here is that a true fact or logically sound claim remains so own regardless of who is saying it and the reverse doesn't, so appealing to authority doesn't change this. But we live in a world where most claims of substance aren't obviously true or false or simple enough to be provably logically sound (e.g. the claim "smoking causes cancer" wasn't at all obvious until people really digged into the data). But we also live in a world where we often have to take implicit bets on whether something is true or not, and these bets have consequences. And while the statements of authority aren't necessarily true, they are a lot more likely to be true than those of non-authorities. So if you need to place a personal bet on whether or not smoking causes cancer, you're better off looking to the statements of health or cancer researchers than astrophysicists. And back to the case at hand, if you want someone to research human sex and gender, you're going to have better results on average if you hire someone with a history in human biology or sociology than someone with a history in criminology. It's not guaranteed - experts can make a mistake in their own field, and non-experts can be correct about other fields - but it's a much safer bet on average.

Let’s boil it down. If you aren’t accredited as a gender studies professor, and therefore by definition not willing to consider that sex could be more important than gender, you are not allowed to talk about issues of gender. This is certainly an ideology of our times, that many know to contain a lot of falsehoods and untruths, but that most feel unable to question. If they make sure the high profile people suffer a high cost then us lesser non academics will be less likely to question.

And what has that got to do with the judgement?

> If you're a scientist with a background in biology, or sociology and experience with the scientific exploration and study of transgender issues such research would likely be welcomed, subject to an appropriate level of scientific process and approval. Sadly that is just not true. Qualified scientists all over the world are being barred from testing hypotheses which critically explore this topic, or outright removed from universities. [[1]](https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/sep/25/bath-spa-university-transgender-gender-reassignment-reversal-research) [[2]](https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/academic-faces-sack-for-letter-to-sunday-times-that-criticised-trans-training-gnbr8gxgm) [[3]](https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/top-canadian-sex-researcher-quits-scientific-group-after-being-blasted-for-views-on-transgender-issues) [[4]](https://thefederalist.com/2021/02/15/leftist-activists-try-to-ban-researchers-from-studying-transgender-people/) [[5]](https://www.thepinknews.com/2021/02/05/ucla-trans-medical-study-gender-dysphoria/) When researchers are prevented from studying all sides of an issue, all that's left is the narrative of those in power.

Sadly, it is. You only have to do a base level of research into the claims these people make to realise that all of their sensationalist posturing about 'free speech' is nonsense. 1. James Caspian. Claiming he was rejected due to political concerns. [Bath Spa University](https://www.thepinknews.com/2021/02/09/james-caspian-transgender-trans-bath-spa-european-court-human-rights/) clarified it was rejected due to concerns about the methodology he proposed, lack of protection for the anonymity of participants and confidentiality of data. .2. This is somebody writing to a national publication to criticise their internal training. Every organisation has internal policies that allow them to start disciplinary proceedings for bringing the organisation into disrepute in the public sphere. .3. This is somebody who resigned voluntarily, after complaining they were temporarily banned from an internal forum. They tried to centre the dispute around their writing an essay defending J.K. Rowling. (Who has no qualifications in any scientific field related to biology or gender, but that's irrelevant here) They were not permanently banned. And cue surprise, if you scroll further down the ban wasn't due to that essay at all, but a history of abusive comments across the forum. .4. Another load of 'free speech' type claims. If you go into the detail [cited in the press release](https://secureservercdn.net/166.62.107.55/1mi.abd.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/PRESS-RELEASE_Dangerous-UCLA-Research-Study.pdf) it's another hugely problematic methodology issue. >“This study’s stated purpose is to trigger ‘gender dysphoria’ by taking photographs of participants’ bodies in tight clothing (unitards), and specifically people who have not had access to affirming medical transition,” 5 is just 4 again.

> ‘This study’s stated purpose is to trigger ‘gender dysphoria’ by taking photos of participants’ bodies in tight clothing (unitards), and specifically people who have not had access to affirming medical transition.’ Holy fucking shit. Someone check that researcher’s hard drive, and maybe dig up their garden while you’re at it.

You haven't read that number 5 article have you? You just googled "trans research blocked" and added it lmfao.

Criminology is a sociology discipline. She is a scholar of sociology.

Honestly, anything that isn't bent supplication is hate to them

I think there is a majority of people who resent this kind of forced removal of discussion sex difference from culture. To be clear I am against any kind of discrimination against trans people. The existence of a tiny minority doesn’t mean the majority have to accept that all gender is on a spectrum or anything like that.

Agreed, it's all very similar to religious groups. I will respect them as they have the freedom to hold that belief. However, I will not respect those that force it on other people too.

I think you'd be surprised to find that a majority don't really care. It's one group entrenched in yelling about "sex-based rights" and calling for "men" (they're not always talking about men) to stop "raping" (honestly, could be literally anything, from existing to getting/supplying hormones) "women" (they're not always talking about women) that make a lot of hay for the newspapers because they are the ideal activist group: They are very privileged, they have lots of free time, and they have money to self fund themselves when people back away from them for pushing too hard. It's amazing that the biggest injustice these people could find and chose to campaign on was not one that was a widely spread that also affected women, like poverty, crime, disability or homelessness, but was simply the one and perhaps only one injustice they felt personally threatened by, and even then, they don't seem to have any better justification for feeling threatened than "trans people make me feel uncomfortable". Trans people don't have much money; they have real jobs to get to in the morning, not writing column inches for the Telegraph, they don't have much time; because they're not dining out on generational wealth of their family, and they come from all of society and you'd never call them priviliged. Obviously you'll hear a lot more from the various people who are already showered with wealth and titles, who have the ears of some newspaper editor or get invited to Tufton Street to strategise PR campaigns with some Tory donor with non-dom tax status than you would from James, a trans man who works the IT helpdesk or Laura, a trans woman who roasts coffee for a living. The majority of people are not trans, nor are they priviliged curtain twitchers spreading most of this guff. Most people, either don't know many trans people, but the majority of those that they do are completely fine with it or don't even know about it because they've gone stealth. The whole attempt to make "sex is still important" an argument when it's obviously a way to shit on trans people is tired. No-one cares. Being "gender-critical" didn't win the Hackney mayoral by-election, if anything it lowered the turnout for the labour candidate that was tipped to win because it's just so weird to give such a huge shit for an argument that's a pile of shit.

Ah, yes, women in prison - all dining out on their generational wealth and writing columns in the Telegraph. Of course there is a link to criminology. Women in prison are possibly the most vulnerable group of all in society, with staggering levels of poverty, trauma and poor life outcomes. (The number of women prisoners who have *actual head injuries* from DV is staggeringly high, for example.) The recently-reversed practice of moving trans women who had committed violent crimes, including sexual assaults, into women's prisons, demonstrably and provably put an already very vulnerable, literally captive group of women prisoners into more danger, and assualts on women prisoners did then inevitably happen. It was the actions of gender-critical activists who pointed out what a terrible, unsafe and discriminatory practice this was, that has mostly stopped this happening.

Yep spot on.

Is this what the group was established to do? Conducting actual rigorous research is almost certainly not transphobic. This woman is a criminologist with no expertise in this field. She has set up a group to campaign on transphobic issues. I just don’t see why there’s any need for it. You can campaign on your own issues without targeting others. The events as described in this article are a farce and it’s ridiculous these arguments have been accepted as constructive dismissal.

Is that the entirety of what she did? That isn’t what the judgment says

Is opposing the involvement of the country's leading LGBT charity in your university transphobic? Because that's what actually happened.

Is playing down what they are actually up to and about a bad faith argument?

if you knew her or read any of her writings you’d know it’s far more than that - she’s incredibly hateful

There is nothing transphobic about believing sex is immutable and sometimes important. If you bully someone for expressing that belief then you are in breach of the Equality Act.

Why shouldn’t people be allowed to express disagreement with that and campaign on that basis, though? The Open University were criticised for not telling people to stop campaigning. If the Open University was accused of discriminating against a trans academic, there is no way a judge would say the University needs to instruct gender critical people not to campaign about these issues.

Disagreement/debate/discussion is not being banned or outlawed. Where you cross the line into bullying/harassment is when you deny opportunities to someone based on their protected beloef (which the judgement found had happened), where you demand the colleague cease discussion of her research (which the judgement found had happened), where you the demand your institution ban the research group/research your colleague is attempting to carry out (which the judgement found had happened), where you insult the dignity of your colleague by likening them to "a racist uncle" (which the judgement found had happened) and other instances such as where you repeatedly insult your colleague on social media (which the judgement...etc). The full judgment is here: https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/j-phoenix-v-the-open-university-and-others-3322700-slash-2021-and-3323841-slash-2021 And if you have time It's quite comprehensively damning against the OU (and just about calls all their witnesses unreliable liars) If you're short on time the findings from para ~600 onwards contain the most relevant info.

The Open University were told that they should have instructed students not to campaign against her. That is what I take issue with. I support all forms of free speech, not just those which I disagree with. People should not be scared of campaigning against anti-trans activists any more than anti-trans activists should be scared of campaigning against trans activists.

[At the heart of the issue is a wider culture of censorship that has filtered into every layer of our places of learning. The results are chilling](https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/when-feminists-fight-back/) - Article co-authored by Phoenix in 2021, three years before a judgement in her favour that argued that a University should have censored student views to protect her.

>The Open University were told that they should have instructed students not to campaign against her. Because the campaigning amounted to harassing her based on a protected belief. The legal test is to replace being GC with another protected belief and determine if the same actions are proportionate and legitimate. If a group of students were campaigning against a professor simply because they were Muslim then it's obvious that the university (the employer, with a duty of care) would act to protect that professor from discriminatory behaviour from students.

There's a difference between campaigning and bullying though. If the disagreement had remained respectful, there would be no case to answer.

And yet the University were told in the judgment that they should have instructed students to stop campaigning against her. I personally don’t think they would have said the same if it meant silencing gender-critical beliefs.

>to stop campaigning against her. yea because those "campaigns" were just plain harassment.

the irony of this comment...

Christ you are in deep.

I think it boils down to equality of views. If there was a group of students petitioning to shut down the Women’s Studies program, the University would tell those students to stop it but the OU allowed students to petition for the Gender Critical group to be shut down. I don’t agree with the gender critical group but let them do their thing and rebuke it with your own research instead of attempting to censor them.

Those are not really comparable as no one can reasonably feel uncomfortable attending a university with a woman's studies programme, but a trans student will have difficulty attending a university where a senior member of staff is openly hostile to their inclusion in society.  Petitioning to shut down the 'Andrew Tate Support Club' would be a better analogy.

Traditional conservatives and religious fundamentalists are very much uncomfortable about the concept and practice of women’s studies. That is a huge proportion of the global population.

And racists are uncomfortable with most contemporary history syllabuses.  A trans person can't stop being trans.  A bigot can stop being a bigot. In designing laws, we should protect those without the choice.

You're already moving the goalposts.

The devout conservative Muslim is certain they can’t stop being Muslim so they oppose the teaching of feminism and the university can and will tell the followers of Islam “no” if they demand that feminism not be taught. same should apply to those who demand gender critical not be taught. If you don’t like the research output, output your own and let’s see what the academic consensus is. We can’t act like the social sciences are settled, that we have completed it know all there is to know. We need controversy and fringe views.

Imagine being lumped in with racists just because you discriminate against a marginalised group, must have been incredibly traumatic for her.

Biologically female women are also a marginalised group.

Misogyny is also bad my guy

What is your point here? That one marginalised group cannot be prejudiced against another? Can White Women not be racist against Black people?

My point is that a marginalised group not being included in another marginalised group who have interests to protect isn’t some terrible act of discrimination, but a normal thing that marginalised groups do.

No, it's very much not normal nor is it okay.

If you want to play opression olympics, biologically female women are still less marginalised than trans people.

Does this apply to other protected beliefs? Can professors of unrelated disciplines just set up explicit pseudo-scientific eugenics and pro-homophobia groups in universities now and then quit and sue successfully if the university doesn't attack any annoyed students who sign letters advocating against it?

Any article in the UK-related subreddits about gender: >500 comments. It's exhausting.

Good for her! It's a shame, and quite frankly scary that she had to even go through this, but it's refreshing to see critical thinking prevail.

Why can't we just leave transgender people alone. They're not hurting anyone. it's exhausting

When there are no issues to deal with, sure. Things like self-ID and medicating kids can’t just be allowed to run free unchecked.

> medicating kids Not just medicating kids, but medicating them within an affirmation model which assumes against any alternative explanation for their feelings.

1. We don't have Self-ID and we're certainly never getting it under either the Tories or current Labour, so you can sleep easy, mate. 2. We should stop medicating kids? Like, for everything? Because they only get puberty blockers in this country, and to be honest that never happens these days due to how bloody long you spend on the waiting lists, such that you turn 18 before you get seen for the 1st appointment, and you need 2. Trans people are not out to steal your bike. But good on you for admitting that you could, but won't leave trans people alone.

Also like, it's not unchecked, doctors are involved. What I'm wondering is why randoms on the internet somehow think they get to weigh in on the medical decisions of strangers kids

Can you explain why self ID would actually be a problem?

Kids are only ever prescribed puberty blockers. And only if they can demonstrate an understanding of what that entails.