University of Essex apologises to Jo Phoenix and Rosa Freedman for infringing their freedom of speech

Good that they gave Jo and Rosa the opportunity to comment about it.

It's a flood of comments, there were only two when I first read the article, 82 now.

The comments are damning too.

I think that's a very strong article. Thank you for sharing it Igneococcus.

New article in the Times:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ee5c6558-ba45-11eb-9a91-c8c89595f50e?shareToken=f91db5efd8b390166a576d136a23e3d5

visually indistinguishable?

Why visually? It's common for me to twig by voice first and appearance later. In a loo block, a male voice outside the cubicle is cause for alarm. And it's pretty obvious who is female and who is a transwoman in radio interviews, so I assume it would also be obvious on, say, a rape phoneline.

The young woke receptionist who doesn't think it should matter? Or the vulnerable abused woman service user who can see it's a male as clear as day?

On the second argument, he agreed with the EHRC that even if a service has met the first requirement by showing it needs to be a single or separate sex service in order to exclude men, nevertheless, it must also meet the second requirement to exclude transwomen where necessary.

Eh, first rquirement to show it needs to be single sex. Second challenge, reaffirm it is meant to be single sex so no males!?

The bit about passing it a bit silly. Because, of course, if someone 100% passed, then noone would be any the wiser.

I said this on another thread:

Stonewall are being disingenuous in their quote .The recent High Court case brought by Ann Sinnott related to a very small section of EHRC guidance in the Code of Practice on use of single sex exceptions. The criticism of Stonewall by the Reindorf Report are much broader and wider.

The full details of the High Court case explained here: legalfeminist.org.uk/2021/05/10/aea-v-ehrc-an-explanation/

"....was it arguable that the EHRC’s guidance was so wrong as to be unlawful.

He decided it was not, for the following reasons:

On the first argument, he agreed that the COP said “should,” not “must.” He pointed out that the guidance extends to just four paragraphs and is intended to be a brief summary not a detailed legal analysis. After “should” comes the disclaimer “However,” followed by an explanation of where exclusion will be reasonable. Although it is not detailed, it is not intended to be an exhaustive guide.
He also agreed that if there are public bodies which have understood a ‘should’ as a ‘must,’ these are capable of challenge by individual service users to individual service providers, whether inclusive or exclusive. We look at this below.
On the second argument, he agreed with the EHRC that even if a service has met the first requirement by showing it needs to be a single or separate sex service in order to exclude men, nevertheless, it must also meet the second requirement to exclude transwomen where necessary.
It may well be that a service needs to be female only, but the variation in presentations of transwomen from someone who is ‘visually indistinguishable’ to someone who has only just announced an intention to transition, and the variation in needs of the service users from a rape crisis centre to a changing room with partitioned cubicles, mean that there cannot be the certainty advanced by the Claimant.
In respect of the third argument, the judge agreed that physical appearance is relevant. This is unfortunate. Someone who is genuinely visually indistinguishable will be unlikely to cause challenge or consternation on accessing a SSS, even if they should choose to do so. Focus on a person’s physical appearance is likely to be experienced as demeaning by both the subject and the person required to make the assessment."

So basically the fight is moved onto individual service users challenging services... which itself isn't helpful

This story seems to have come out at a particularly helpful moment in time for me. I shared with the person responsible for diversity and inclusion at my work as we have been Stonewall Champions for a number of years.

As it happens, our membership is due for review and there were already doubts about renewal for the various reasons you might expect given Stonewall's disproportionate lobbying on trans issues. This might swing it.

Stonewall gave a quote, at the bottom of this article.

wonkhe.com/blogs/what-can-we-learn-from-essexs-free-speech-cases/

"UPDATE 20th May

After this blog was published, Stonewall (mentioned above) sent me a quote. Liz Ward (She/Her), Director of Programmes at Stonewall said:

We are incredibly proud of our longstanding relationship with the University of Essex through the Stonewall Diversity Champions programme. It’s so important that universities create an environment where LGBTQ+ staff and students feel safe, are treated fairly and can thrive. We provide expert advice to more than 850 organisations who are members of the Diversity Champions programme. Our advice on the Equality Act is based on guidance provided by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which was recently reaffirmed in the High Court.”

I wonder if Gendercriticalessex or anyone else can answer this - what is it that made Essex commission this review? How come they took that step when other uni's have had similar situations arise and haven't addressed the problem. It seems important to remember that some senior people decided to do this. What was going on there that isn't going on elsewhere?

I don't know, but I can speculate. There was a highly publicized case of anti-semitism at Essex in 2019, which led to a review of anti-semitism in the University. I wonder whether that experience meant that there was a heightened awareness in University management of issues around hate speech and freedom of expression in the University setting. I would also presume that both Jo Phoenix and Rosa Freedman made formal complaints and may well have indicated a preparedness to take legal action if things weren't dealt with robustly. Maybe (more optimistically and less cynically) we have University leadership committed to freedom of expression

Wow. Always someone else's fault, always semantics, always everyone else misunderstanding them. No Stonewall, we understand what you have done and we understand the comment re you advising based on what you'd like the law to be rather than what the actual law is.

No other charity could get away with the level of careless and inconsistent nonsense they spout.

@noneedtoexpelme @Igneococcus

Ooh can you share the text of the stonewall quote within that article on here, as I can't read the article?

I was going to link to that article too noneedtoexpelme
It's one of the top stories in the online edition too, very prominently placed.

The Times have picked up the Stonewall bad advice angle. The statement from Stonewall at the end of the article beggars belief.

Stonewall ‘gave bad advice’ to university in free speech row

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/2bc11fae-b8d6-11eb-9a91-c8c89595f50e?shareToken=c33a75f94f45350170f507d29babfd10

I wonder if Gendercriticalessex or anyone else can answer this - what is it that made Essex commission this review? How come they took that step when other uni's have had similar situations arise and haven't addressed the problem. It seems important to remember that some senior people decided to do this. What was going on there that isn't going on elsewhere?

Thanks for the links above to the office for students statement.

Great news.

Now, someone sort out Edinburgh Uni, please!

I havent yet, will read now..have been meaning to order that book, though I understand theres a bit infighting about certain aspects of it and much 'do not waste your money' stuff, which honestly, makes me want to buy it even more. Saying dont to me, on stuff like this is like a red rag to a bull in honesty

There is the (perhaps too hopeful..) slight chance too, that they have hidden them, as they are haemorrhaging members quickly also, and that doesnt look good to others feeling uncertain about wether to continue trusting a company that has been proven to actively purposely lie about the law and potentially cause serious legal issues for those in its schemes..