I think increasingly that the Minister for Universities Sam Gyimah MP (also minister for science) needs to step up.
Still no conclusion to Jess Bradley NUS Officer suspended due to allegations of flashing etc.
Issues raised by Prof Kathleen Stock in her recent speech at the House of Lords:
(extract)
So what is the solution? I suggest we need more academics acting as experts and advisors in this area.
However, we also need to bear in mind three caveats.
First: if those academics are from Gender Studies Departments, we should remember that many academics in such Departments deny that biological sex naturally exists; they think sex is socially constructed. Anyone who sincerely believes this is unlikely to properly consider the interests of the female sex class, in advising on public policy. So, as well as Gender Studies people, we need people from other relevant subject areas: for instance, statisticians, psychologists, psychiatrists, legal theorists, philosophers, sociologists, historians, and so on.
The next caveat is that: the current climate makes it hostile for academics to speak out in these areas, unless their views firmly fall into line with Stonewall’s and Gendered Intelligence’s, etc. Indeed, Stonewall and Gendered Intelligence are frequently brought in to do ‘Equalities’ training in our Universities. My own University has worked hard to become what is known as a ‘Stonewall Diversity Champion’. So University policy on what may permissibly be said and what may not be said, is often written with the advice of lobbying organisations. Because of this interaction between policy in Universities and trans lobbying organisations, academics are often fearful of being disciplined by their employers for speaking critically about trans activism. Vice-chancellors and university managers need to break links with these organisations, and robustly and vocally defend academics’ right to challenge some of the narratives which these organisations disseminate.
The final caveat is this: the refereeing system for AHRC and ESRC research grant applications, journal submissions, and so on, means that those applications and submissions which are critical of accepted narratives are vulnerable to rejection, if they come across the wrong sort of referee. And they will very often come across the wrong sort of referee, given the power dynamics in Universities currently. (Indeed, any academic discussion at all of females, as such, is increasingly vulnerable to rejection. For instance, I was recently told of an article written on vaginisimus, a female medical complaint, which was rejected by a journal partly on the grounds that the author of the article assumed that vaginisimus was something only women could get. I’m not joking.) (continues)
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3391330-Prof-Kathleen-Stock-WPUK-speech-at-House-of-Lords-Important-disection-of-the-key-issues-for-MPs-policy-makers-etc-with-ref-to-The-Trans-Equality-Report
James Caspian's research on detransitioning being prevented (despite the government's announcement of an enquiry into young people and concerns raised by Victoria Atkins Minister for Women)
Prof Michael Biggs statement about the importance of free speech with specific reference to the threat he perceives transideology poses to this.
The points raised by Rose of Dawn on the co-opting of NUS by the extremist positions of Jess Bradley (& others) etc
Harrassment of staff and students for 'wrong think'
Natacha Kennedy etc etc