Open University invites your say on women

Yes, I elided things for brevity. The key is in your words:

And if you don't think that gender identity or gender stereotypes are different from sex, you are a genderist anyway.

She does think they are different, so we can't tell if she's a soft genderist or soft GC.

GC people agree with the logic, but can differ on the practicalities. You could say, it's not possible to change sex, subjective sex is a psychological phenomenon only, and the GRA should be revoked/GR removed as a PC from the EA2010.

Or you could acknowledge subjective sex in law by at least protecting extremely GNC people from discrimination. So 'gender' would remain as a concept distinct from sex.

Maybe this persons work should be challenged but, as someone said upthread, an inaugural lecture is NOT the right place to do this.

write a blog post or an academic article challenging her work if you want, shout on twitter as much as you like, but it is rude to ask hostile questions at this particular event that is a celebration of her career so far.

fromthegecko

I'm afraid I have to take issue with this bit:
Her view, that gender reassignment, gender, and sex are three distinct things, is a soft GC position

I would say it's just the logic, rather than any political position. Gender reassignment is defined as taking steps in a process, or intending to take steps in a process of GR, while not having to actually take any steps. So clearly different type of thing from gender - whether gender identity or gender stereotypes - or sex. And if you don't think that gender identity or gender stereotypes are different from sex, you are a genderist anyway.

Do correct me if I've misunderstood you.

Love it - women asking questions - bad, mischief

However - men and their familiars turning up in masks, screaming and banging pots and pans, loud disco music, screaming insults and threats at women (and calling the police for hurty feelings) talking about, well anything these days.

It's an inaugural lecture, but she has invited people to have their say.

I don't see evidence that she's a TRA. Her view, that gender reassignment, gender, and sex are three distinct things, is a soft GC position (the hard TRA position is that gender and sex are one and the same). (Thinking all three characteristics need protecting is however evidence of muddled thinking.)

Online violence (=threats) against women is a thing, particularly for women in the public eye, and I don't see evidence she 'really' means correct-sexing transwomen.

I would like to ask her whether the massive volume of online threats towards JKR is motivated by misogyny.

She has an interest in developments in the law that might have a knock-on effect on VAWG, exemplified by abortion law changes.

I would like to ask her what she thinks about how lobbying in recent years has undermined the rights previously held by women as a derogation from the prohibition on sex discrimination. Attempts to interpret the EA2010 to be fair to all with PCs have resulted in injuries to women because of a lack of sex-segregation. More sexual assaults in mixed changing rooms. Sexual assaults in prisons. Injuries on the sporting field. This is something she ought to be interested in.

Every time in here I see a thread critiquing an academics work on women's rights .
si many posters come in to say be kind, don't disrupt they're young etc.

and hen you get Hilary cass warned not to go on public transport. One thing is not like the other.

if they ever gave a thought to how actual women might react to some of the stuff they do we might have better outcomes

I agree, there'll be future opportunities to engage with the new Prof, as energetically and critically as merited.

So they want everything, basically.

It may be that most people are simply not aware, but an Inaugural Lecture - which this is - is not just any seminar. It is a lecture in celebration of the speaker becoming a professor, which (whatever you think of their views) has taken a lot of work and sacrifice. The new professor's family and friends attend. It would be inappropriate to ask difficult questions at it - like engaging someone in political discussion at their wedding reception. Anyone doing so would give OU staff attending the impression that GC women are unreasonable, rude and insensitive. Don't do it, I beg you. (Namechanged because perhaps it's outing to know this!)

Why on earth would you want to try and make a talk by a woman about women into a debate on the trans issue?

What / who gains by forcing her to declare her personal views (or the views she feels compelled to express in public) to 'out' her or 'trap' her?

Hi, Based

Is the TRA demand for Gender to be a PC as well as GR, instead of GR, or instead of Sex?
Or a combination of any of those?

Also a quick read of the outline of the talk is not about online violence only, so not clear why this is being alleged. The three issues she has chosen to look at are:

First, she will look at conflict-related sexual violence to illustrate how the law (here: international law) responds to gender-based violence which ‘shocks the conscience’, often appears ‘extraordinary’ and which has gained legal visibility in the past two decades (despite being perpetrated for millennia).

Second, Professor Jurasz will discuss online violence against women as an illustration of a modern challenge for legal regulation. She will critique how its hypervisibility in everyday life has thus far failed to translate into recognition of this type of violence (and harms arising from it) within the law.

Lastly, Professor Jurasz will discuss the impact that withdrawal of certain rights and laws has on women’s lives and violence they are subjected to. In doing so, she will draw on the US Supreme Court decision in Dobbs from June 2022 which overturned Roe v Wade, and the decision of the Polish Constitutional Tribunal from 22 October 2020 establishing that abortion due to foetal impairment is unconstitutional.

ie 2 out of 3 are NOT about online.

I imagine many women who have worked or campaigned on these issue might have something to say which could enlarge the issues.

But quite prepared to accept that talking about women's issues in an academic environment will not be the same as discussing women's issues on FWR!

I have no vested interest in this Professor but in this context Scotland had already decided not to included sex, even though it is one of the protected characteristics, and instead have a separated Misogyny Bill. As lobbied for by women's groups, not only in Scotland but in the UK which is why the UK Hate crime bill does not include sex. And no these are not trans women's groups, but various Women's Aid and Rape Crisis groups, and feminist commentators such a Joan Smith lobbied for it.

So if the Professor was talking about gender it is because the Hate Crime Bill covers gender recognition. And as we all know from the census etc., very few people understand "gender" so her suggestion seems quite sensible.

Professor Jurasz coauthored an “Expert Response to One Scotland Consultation on Amending Scottish Hate Crime Legislation”.

On p.7, in response to a question about whether people think there should also be a statutory aggravation for gender hostility, they respond, yes, but they must first define gender and add it as a protected characteristic, similar to race and sexual orientation, otherwise no one knows what it means.

Not a single word to recognise that we already have a word that would work perfectly well, one which everyone understands the meaning off, which is even defined in the EA 2010.

https://oro.open.ac.uk/66207/7/66207.pdf

Where did I say anything about discouraging attendance? The first post mentions “mischief-making” and asking what a woman is. Edit: Attending to support the speaker sounds good.

I see. Thank you for explaining.