Jo Phoenix: ‘every single v-c should read this judgment’

Indeed, this case demonstrates that academics should not expect to hide behind the invoking of academic freedom when they step away from the lectern and the realm of scholarly academic discourse in order to mount a soap-box so as to engage in a Twitter-storm, in (as the ET judgement puts it) a ‘pile-on’. Such abuse on social media might well be free speech but in the context of academics acting as agents of the University and hence the U being vicariously liable for their actions such irresponsible behaviour might contribute to the harassment of a colleague. As the article says, compulsory reading for all VCs and their gangs of PVC little-helpers - a wake-up call to the HE sector.

I commented to the last story in this interminable saga of Professor Phoenix's woes: "It's easy to jump up and down and be dogmatic about whatever it is YOU believe, and to whine like mad when someone has a different opinion. What we ALL need to do is recognise that there is a diversity of views, that people who hold those views feel strongly about them, and that when we disagree it is the OPINION that we are disagreeing with, not the person who holds it. "We must drop this misconception that we have to force our own views on others. I don't really care if you think there are only 2 sexes, immutably fixed at birth, or if you think that each individual can decide what gender they are from a whole menu (or make up a new one) - that's your opinion and you are welcome to hold it. What you do not have the right to do is to demand that I say you are correct. Nor should I demand that you adopt my views as The Only Truth. The sooner we all realise that, the better!" With all due respect, Professor Phoenix ought to realise this as well. Sometimes we have to agree to differ even when our views are diametrically opposite. Both those who accept gender-fluidity and the gender critical need to start acting as if they respected each other, even - especially - when they find t'other lot's views repugnant or somehow threatening (why anyone is threatened by an opinion escapes me but I know some folk do feel that way). Anyone unwise enough to flaunt their views on anti-social media is asking for trouble anyway. Stick to rigorous academic debate, but do it properly, please!

I agree that calm and rational debate is much more becoming of academics than ad hominems and soap-boxing. However, I think it is important to fairly represent the arguments, and from what I can tell, it is inaccurate to say that gender critical academics reject 'gender fluidity'. Rather, they say that no matter how somebody chooses to express their 'gender' in the sense of personal identity, humans cannot change sex. The other side seems to take a range of positions, ranging from 'humans can change sex' or 'sex is hard to define' to 'sex is not important and it is only gender that matters'. And it is not only a theoretical debate but it has implications for employer policies, data collection etc. The groups most impacted are women and transgender people, and the ongoing employment tribunal involving the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre illustrates the real-world stakes of these theoretical claims.

I agree with what Ann_Historian says above. The level of abuse female academics and employees have faced for holding very reasonable views has been appalling and uni managements have, for the most part, hung them out to dry. This ruling should change that! There are more tribunals in the pipeline which should indicate to universities that they may not allow staff or students, who hold certain beliefs about gender identity, to harass and bully those who do not share their belief. The insistence on the validity of these beliefs by zealous EDI staff and academics is truly detrimental, and students who don't wish to go along with the dominant voices are too scared to disagree or speak up. This is just not right and we cannot be ignorant of just how much certain ideologies have taken hold in universities with a limited sense of social justice as their main focus.

Buried within the lengthy legal judgement is a brief reference to Westmorland (one of the key bullies of Jo) as having gone for the O U position Jo held. Can’t say I’m surprised as a retired professor. There is nobody nastier than a jealous colleague!

It seems that many problems arise from the lack of clear definitions, e.g. of biological sex, at least in the relevant discourse. Does anyone dispute the statement: 'an individual cannot change (or has not so far been able to change, to be pedantic) the XX chromosomes in the majority of their body's cells to XY or vice-versa'? If not, then the problem is one of definition, and the worry that the imprecision of the definition will enable a 'yes' answer to a question to be reinterpreted (disingenuously or not) as a 'yes' answer to a different question, and hence to consequences with which the listener disagrees.