Update from Jo Phoenix

This would be rather like a Christian bringing a case that the employer allowing an agnostic network unacceptably threatened their existential sense of self and belief. (Which by extension would be threatening the existential sense of all those not sharing that person's belief. It gets complicated.)

It's impossible to play these thought experiments because they depend on us all knowing whether or not explicitly saying so, that one view is labelled Good and the other is labelled Sinners and Heretics, and they are not treated equally. In fact the whole case here relied upon equality of treatment and impartiality being an unacceptable sin and trying to punish and eradicate it and its demons accordingly.

It would also have to be considered as to whether the agnostic network were living in a world where the Christian person belonged to a specific Christian group covering their work place with symbols and tenets of their faith, requiring everyone to pray with them and state their language markers of faith and holding holy days with definite issues for not being seen to participate, and where they were seeing themselves and other agnostics excluded, treated with prejudice and discrimination, issued with death threats etc and government being pressured to build this discrimination into law as a punishment for not being of the faith.

I doubt it. We've not seen this kind of behaviour in the UK in a couple of hundred years.

Or as Sonia Sodha put it ‘childish hyperbole’.

No GC person has ever 'threatened trans existence'. Believing there are 2 sexes and you can't change sex is not threatening anyone's existence. It's such toddler tantrum tactics.

This would be amazing sunlight and would lay the narcissistic delusions of the whole ideology bare.

On the other hand, I totally identify as having more money than I actually have (DH would agree with this self identity) and the bank is denying my existence by not providing sufficient funds for my personal identity. So, if we can all define inconvenient facts as 'denying our existence' and force people to change what they do as a result, I look forward to my imminent riches.

I think it would very much depend of the group did in fact threaten trans peoples existence.

And holding views such as sex matters doesn't threaten or deny anyone's existence regardless of what some prominent TRAs might say or think.

I have thought for a while now that trans rights activism has provided the perfect excuse/cover for misogynists and closet bullies to come out swinging.

To be fair, the dissonance between what's happening in courts, the Prison Service, the NHS, Education, and the Employment Tribunal Service is substantial. Bullying and misogyny are positively rewarded.

Look at the comparative generosity with which some "I discovered I'm transgender between conviction and sentencing | Society misunderstand sme so I abuse children" people have been treated by judges, never mind the impact of the Equal Treatment Bench Book. The Prison Service actively gaslights women prisoners. You're positively feted for calling people transphobic and refusing to meet their healthcare needs in the NHS. There was the misogyny-gate of the RCN conference and none of that has settled down. DHSC is in its own quagmire but scarcely cares that rape is happening in schools, they're only too ready to cover themselves in these progressive figleaves.

Employers mostly manage to conceal that they facilitate and even encourage bullying and misogyny. They reward bullies and don't care for the careers ruined along the way (so many science labs).

Of course the perspective and judgments from the Employment Tribunals feels profoundly dissonant. These will remain limited in impact until employers realise that they have to reform their structures and culture and they really don't want to do that.

Completely off topic, but I just love Prof Phoenix's style.

I wonder what would happen if the boot were on the other foot. If a trans person sued their employer and brought a case that the employer allowed a GC network to be set up, which in their view threatened their existence?

That is exactly what they are, vicious bullies.

I have thought for a while now that trans rights activism has provided the perfect excuse/cover for misogynists and closet bullies to come out swinging.

I hope this case gives them pause for thought, otherwise they might end up in court having to explain their behaviour, and so far that hasn't gone well.

The OU set up a helpline for the blue haired bods who might have been traumatised by the case happening. Might have shot themselves in their bullet ridden feet with that

Not only did the Open University allow this harassment campaign to proceed unaddressed, it put out one-sided statements that implied there was a legitimate basis for concern.

I love love love this piece.
Might print it out and frame it.

Well done Jo Phoenix for standing up to these vicious bullies. It is great to see her vindicated.
Sadly, the bullies may never have their ‘Are we the baddies?’ moment, but others will.

'As a society, we are relying far too much on the courts and tribunals to act as a check on our nastier, more illiberal tendencies. These cases will be the tip of the iceberg; few people have the extraordinary resilience and strength of character it takes to see your day in court.

Regardless of your own views on sex and gender, you should care that this is happening in the same way you should care if any group of people is being targeted for bullying on the basis of a protected belief or characteristic. Not just because it is unlawful, but because using disagreement as the pretext for harassment and victimisation is antithetical to an inclusive society, and diminishes us all.'

Thanks, Sonia Sodha

From the guardian/observer

*The judgment is scathing about the way in which 368 academics signed an open letter wrongly implying that the gender-critical academic network that Phoenix helped set up was transphobic; about the academic who said watching back a speech Phoenix gave elsewhere made her “cry at work” despite the court finding it contained no upsetting content; about the colleague who groundlessly likened Phoenix to “the racist uncle at the Christmas dinner table”; and the childish hyperbole some academics deployed in their statement suggesting that to establish a gender critical research network was to put lives at risk.

It's a very odd feeling, suddenly seeing the grown ups reasserting control.

Sonia Sodha

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/28/jo-phoenix-open-university-court-victory-gender-sex-based-womens-rights

Interview in Mail on Sunday by the excellent Sanchez Manning

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13014369/professor-gender-critical-transgender-prisoners-mob-madness-lgbt-stonewall.html

“I plan to send it to every university vice chancellor in the UK,” Prof Phoenix says.

Queen.

And raped at school. Solidarity, sister.

I feel a little foolish for not realising. :)

Don't, I cocked it up, not you

Interview with Jo in the Telegraph

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/01/27/prof-jo-phoenix-tribunal-tactics-were-the-same-rape-case/

https://archive.ph/O8TVu

Cracking photo, love the wee Dobby doggy, just peeking out 😀

I feel a little foolish for not realising. :)

I think that the judgement is likely to make GC staff more free to speak even in what must be a hostile atmosphere.

Many at the OU didn't sign the letter and never changed their email signature to contain pronouns. They just stayed quiet.

It’s an encouraging statement but I need to see some substance behind the words. Action. Maybe they could ask some of the prominent GC community for help with that review and take onboard their advice.

I suspect we wouldn’t have got anything nearly as promising if it wasn’t clear that the judgement has been widely read, reported on and discussed.

Don't know who Ian is

Apologies @RethinkingLife it's a typo for Tim (Blackman)

(I always appreciate the shout out to Allison Bailey's Chambers roommate who listened to her phone calls and relayed the content to others. To this day, I can't grasp how David Renton justified this to himself.

His blog where Maya commented and he argued with her is quite illuminating.

"I'm sorry."
"We're sorry."
"We're all sorry."
"We're all really sorry."
"We're all so fucking sorry."
"We're actually sorry that we got our arses burned."

I'm recalling that Drake was one of several authors of the triumphalist paper about contributing to the downfall of the previous Pro Vice-Chancellor.

Given this shit show, they musy be glad they got out when they did.