Anyone else work at a Uni?

Precisely this. And some of the names on those letters are known to me.

Young students - many of whom are from vulnerable demographics who have been sold the lie that transitioning is their route away from whatever has led to their feeling unhappy and excluded - qualify for sympathy. I'd go all out to support those students, and have done many a time.

For supposedly intelligent colleagues, capable of critical thinking, to appease aggressive male rights activitism under the guise of TRA because it's a fashionable cause, and in doing so knowingly throwing their own rights under the bus and those of other women along with them? They are a different matter entirely. I now respect those people far less and will neither forget nor forgive it.

Well, the problem is that there are many female university academics who are very committed to trans activism and misogynistic policies. If you look at the various open letters, the signatories skew female. I’ll never understand this … not only do these women undermine the interests of their own sex, they give university management an excuse to continue discriminating against women. Yay sisterhood!

I have some sympathy for those who've decided not to change policies until the full code of practice / EHRC guidence is out (I'm a bit unsure about what it is we are waiting for). In a sector of cowards anyone who moves early will be out on a limb. If their new policy goes further then the guidence ultimately sets out they will be widely seen as big transphobic meanies. They are probably gambling that the chances of being sued in this interim period are slim, and they are better off waiting and making the move once. Probably not a stupid decision, if a cowardly one.

The way some are communicating about it though is something else. They are telling female staff whose rights are now being upheld that they are really sad about that and wish it wasn't true. So that suggests it's ideological, rather than just pragmatism / realpolitik.

Excellent points @SerafinasGoose

I've taught (briefly) queer theory from a feminist point of view - some years ago now (I'm probably not considered safe to do so any more). I use an excellent essay by Bernhard Schoene (in a Cambridge Comp to QT iirc) which takes the students through Foucault's thinking. I briefly mention Butler, but I prefer Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick's work. Much more grounded in the evidence (mostly literature).

Totally agree about the bastardisation of QT - it reminds me of teaching in the cultutee wars of the 1990s, when there was a lot of what I call "vulgar post-modernism" spouted by students - you know the lazy stuff they used to say:

"If everything's subjective, then that means I can say anything without evidence, doesn't it?"

No, it does not.

My institution is full of people like those you mention in your last paragraph. It’s so tiring!

And here. Existing policy remains unchanged. I'll reserve judgement until full guidelines have come out.

They've bastardised and oversimplified it, as they do everything. I haven't read Butler's later work. But her earlier stuff - Foucault's too - explores in detail the mechanisms by which 'gender' (MF is very clear gender is socially constructed) is embedded within society. Butler saw gender as a process of 'iteration' (naming), reiteration and performance; Foucault saw it as gender constructivism rooted in power and its dissemination.

That's the reason 1980s feminists writing after Foucault were largely enthusiastic about his theories. They liked the fact that gendered constructs (women are nurturers; men are breadwinners) no longer necessarily tied them to a biological destiny.

I'm guessing it's the latter idea that's been twisted to its nth degree. The idea that biology doesn't tie women to the kitchen sink is quite appealing, but it can never get us away from the reality that we are the ones whose bodies are designed to bear children: and mens' are not.

Queer theory isn't necessarily saying what the gender ideologists claim it's saying. But that comes as no surprise. The law and the SC aren't saying what the GIs claim they are, either.

@EdithStourton you have reminded me of my MSc, years ago.

The course organiser's research was on the black community that conveniently lived right next to the university in one of the poorest areas of the UK.

His whole career is based on 'shining a light' on their experiences and how everything was racist.

The sum total of his 'shining a light' as far as I can make out is that he is now a professor.

There has been zero change for the community he studies, regardless of ethnicity, they are still poor and living in a dump.

What really struck me was that in an email marking the 'International Day of...' the focus was 100% on the university sector in the UK. No mention of the poor souls who get chucked off buildings etc in other parts of the world.

(I don't work in a uni, but I have had a fair bit to do with academics. Having been preached to about the value of 'speaking truth to power' by people who have considerable clout but who HATE being disagreed with or challenged, and observed how the way to get ahead seems to involve cuddling up to the prevailing ideology in the department, my respect for them plummeted over the course of 4 or 5 years. NAAALT, obviously, but a significant number are. Also, many of them wang on about social justice having come from positions of immense privilege, and have no clue how the other half lives.)

I’m in on class action. I’ll get the coven to chip in.

I feel like I’m going mad. I’m making poor decisions because I don’t know who or what to trust anymore.

If there's a class action I'm in - it's been implied I'm a bigot; I've had to sit through sessions where we are told cis is a perfectly acceptable term; I'm under constant pressure to add pronouns to my email whether; and we've all been told if we are in the toilets and a man comes in we mustn't leave as that's a micro aggression

And, yes, I do think that the conduct of senior management constitutes harassment, and that women working in such a climate would have a pretty solid case if they wanted to pursue that.

I've seen discussions along these lines elsewhere @GCAcademic - most recently, in the Women's Rights Network. It would be interesting to get an equalities lawyer to advise on whether women could launch a class action.

@DinosaurusFemina you might find watching this recording of a really expert panel on the SC judgement helpful:

(It was linked in another MN thread, but I thought it's worth re-linking here).

The lawyers are so knowledgeable & so clear, but also extremely reasonable. I hope it gives you some phrases to use & confirmation that it is OK to say No to a man (however he identifies) in a women's single sex space.

The gaslighting is just awful. I actually find it distressing. The impact on my mental health of working in an environment like this has been considerable. And, yes, I do think that the conduct of senior management constitutes harassment, and that women working in such a climate would have a pretty solid case if they wanted to pursue that.

”Under the Equality Act 2010, harassment counts as:

• ‘Unwanted conduct relating to a protected characteristic where
• the conduct violates the employee’s dignity, and creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment’.”

They will have presented it as wanting to protect gender non-conforming women from being challenged in the Ladies. But obviously, the effect is to warn people off from challenging men.

@Meanacademic I absolutely read it as a low level threat to anybody wanting to challenge a trans-identified person of the opposite sex in the toilets.

Ok, so this means that if you challenge someone who is breaking the law, you will be accused of harassment? Women will have to be quiet about men in their changing rooms until the university deigns to engage with the law? And how can ‘making assumptions’ about anything ever be harassment? I’m assuming based on this message that this particular VC is a coward and an enabler, is this harassment? Infuriating …

Name changed for this.

Here's the email that's been sent out today from our (new) VC.

Note the bit in bold.😶

Tomorrow, Saturday 17 May, marks the International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia, and Transphobia, which is observed annually to raise awareness about the discrimination and violence faced by LGBTQ+ individuals worldwide. The theme this year is ‘the power of communities’, which is a very timely reminder of the power we all have as members of our University community to show support for and allyship towards our LGBTQ+ colleagues and students.

Our city and our university have long been places where trans and non-binary staff and students know they will find spaces that are safe and which celebrate diversity. In this context, and following my message to you last month, I am writing to update you about the steps our university is taking in response to the recent ruling by the Supreme Court in relation to the Equality Act (2010).

Having now met with representatives of our LGBTQ+ Staff Network, Staff and Student Trans and Nonbinary Network, UCU and Unison, I have heard directly about their concerns and about the fears and anxiety that this judgement has caused. I would like to say thank you to these colleagues for trusting me with this, and to reassure them – and every member of our community – that the University must be a place where they can continue to feel safe and respected. This is something that I know my fellow (exec board) colleagues and the wider leadership of this University are also committed to ensuring.

The judgement has raised a number of questions and uncertainties, and it may take some time to work through the implications for our university. In the meantime, I am committed to working in partnership with our staff networks and trade unions to develop our policies and any further actions once the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) publishes its statutory guidance.

As an immediate action following the ruling, we need to provide clear guidance about the availability of toilet facilities across our university estate. We have now completed an audit and an updated list of our facilities, including single sex and gender-neutral toilets can be found here. Gender-neutral toilets are available in every building on each of our campuses. I want to note that making assumptions about the identity of others and challenging their use of university facilities based on those assumptions, could constitute harassment.

I understand that there is a diversity of views about the Supreme Court judgement. We support everyone’s right to engage in respectful discussion and debate, in line with our commitment to freedom of speech.

Please remember that our support systems remain available to any and all staff who may need them and there is also information and access to support on the staff pages. In addition to the support and community provided by our staff networks, (removed as is identifying) is holding in-person and online drop-ins to provide staff and students with a safe space to discuss their views.

Thank you again for your continued dedication to the university, and for embodying its values. All members of our community are entitled to equity.

I hope that I've taken out all the hyperlinks & identifying markers.

I am so bloody frustrated, disappointed, angry and totally unsurprised.

I think we are definitely in the throes of a Herxheimer reaction phase. My local UCU branch has gone all out in response.

Interestingly there's been nothing from the student union or the student LGBTQIA+ society.

We've suddenly got a very strong push from our very newly formed LGBTQ+ group, which seems to be predominantly led by younger women in their 20s/30s and has been quite trans focussed in their messaging.

They pushed for a statement from our senior team on the SC judgement which didn't refer to the impact on women at all. And this week we've had annoucements on our intranet about this "worrying time" for the LGBTQ+ community post the SC judgement. Pronouns and progress flag lanyards are being encouraged.

It's not a welcoming atmosphere to anyone with an alternate view and I thought we'd managed to escape a lot of the madness in recent years.😕

Me too.

I had dealings with my university's Director of HR over a disciplinary complaint re transphobia some time ago, and I can safely attest to their ignorance on the complexities of the matter, and their gullibity in the face of extremist gender ideology.

I suspect we're still a Stonewall subscriber, despite the talk of voluntary severance leading to compulsory redundancies eventually. So again, leaving Stonewall would be a very quick win in terms of savings.

So no equality duty to
Women (protected characteristic of sex)
Religious people (protected characteristic of religion/belief)

????

They are breaking the law.

Now there’s a surprise. Not.

This is an extremely useful document, especially as it also contains contact details for Advance HE. They have been at the forefront of destroying women’s single-sex spaces and provisions in Higher Ed. Athena Swan is, well, not helpful, to put it mildly. I am a member of Advance HE and have been very dismayed by what they have put out over the years. Trans-identified males included in training for women, TRA lawyer Smita Jamdar as one of their advisers, gender identity as innate and so on. But they must know that their gravy train is about to disappear if they are seen to flout the law. So all in all, a welcome reverse ferret.

Agree, that would be the easiest thing to do but I expect we will be waiting quite a while for the full guidance