Dr Jo Grady, new general secretary of the University and College Union, crticised by academics for her use of Twitter "Terf-blocker" Telegraph article

[R0wantrees]

'Feminist academics in uproar over new union chief's 'Terf blocker' as they complain of assault on free speech'

(extract)
"Ms Grady has defended her past use of a “Terf-blocker”, which she said is an “easy mechanism for blocking large numbers of accounts that have been identified as articulating transphobic views”.

Prof Selina Todd, an expert in modern history at Oxford University, said that she and many colleauges consider "Terf" to be an "abusive term".

Refusing to debate with people whose views you disagree with is not a suitable approach for a representative of academics, she said.

Prof Rosa Freedman, Reading University’s chair of law, conflict and global development, said that by using a Terf-blocker “legitimises” the narrative that anyone who expresses gender critical views poses a danger to transgender students.

“She is in a position of leadership and is supposed to defend all academics and academic freedom,” she added.

Alice Sullivan, a professor of sociology at University College London, said: “Academic freedom means nothing if it does not extend to those with whom one disagrees.”

Michael Biggs, an associate professor of sociology at Oxford, said he fears Ms Grady will treat transgenderism “as a new orthodoxy, beyond question and scrutiny”.

He added: “Precisely because this issue is so contentious, the Union must defend the academic freedom of all its members—which will inspire our students to value intellectual and political debate.”

Kathleen Stock, a professor of philosophy at Sussex University, said she is concerned by Ms Grady’s use of “block lists” which mean “she can’t hear voices of gender critical academics”.

Ms Grady, a senior lecturer in employment relations at Sheffield University Management School, was elected as general secretary on Friday with 64 per cent of the vote.

Defending her previous use of a “Terf-blocker”, she has said that “filtering out and muting people is not the same as denying them free speech”, adding that she used it due to the “enormous volume of personal abuse” she was getting online. "(continues)

www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2019/05/24/feminist-academics-uproar-new-union-chiefs-terf-blocker-complain/

A professorship? In what? Advanced self-promotion? Campaign poster design?

This is a real mess. But unions have been key in what some have called the 'regulatory capture' by extreme TRAs.

I didn't know she only became active such a short time ago and has never led a branch. UUK and USS will wipe the floor with UCU if we're unlucky.

That EHRC document is really important, and I would not be surprised if universities were already contravening it with their diversity and equality policies, probably significantly influenced by external organisations that have a habit of misrepresenting the Equality Act 2010 (Stonewall, Gendered Intelligence).

Bangs head against wall

SWP = Socialist Workers Party?
Don't get this, sorry.

It’s not relevant to the trans debate but just shows her utter lack of understanding and knowledge of the workings of the union she is now in charge of. Yes, SWP is socialist worker party.

I thought she was an industrial relations specialist?

Honestly, I don't know what to do. I haven't resigned my membership (yet) but signing up with another union such as UNISON is probably not the answer, either. If Grady is really as incompetent as you imply, then we're probably headed for some long-winded disastrous strikes ...

I heard there was a TRA blockist that lots of GC people have signed up to too? Cult Blocker, or something? How is that different?

It is always best to research things for yourself, I feel. Relying on second hand accounts, and the views of others, is not conducive to intellectual integrity. I, for one, have never heard of such a thing as a 'cult blocker'. It has never once been mentioned on here, for example.

I'm genuinely astounded at the number of people who use the esteemed title of DR before their names these days. It certainly does not speak well of standards in the academy; especially when many of these people do not seem to be able to tolerate debate at all.

In fairness, a great many female academics put Dr into their Twitter titles last year after some internet kerfuffle where someone’s academic credentials were called into account.

SWP = Socialist Workers Party?

Yes. Many members of which are now members of the Labour Party since Corbyn became leader, if I recall correctly.

There is not one trade union and not one political party that represents women now. All of those institutions rely on patriarchal structures and culture created by men for the advantage of men. All union officials and members are constrained by those patriarchal structures and that culture.

Women now need to create something different .. something non-patriarchal ... what that might be we need to discover and develop?

I try very hard to think of some of these women as being honestly ignorant, not deliberately malicious. Some of the things they write are so ludicrous they are beyond parody.

But then again, I sometimes also really wish the TRA wolves would turn on them and suddenly find them as "problematic" as she finds us. Just to show how her super-wokey-cokey still isn't enough and she is entirely disposable to them.

What I don't understand is how she got so many more votes than the opposition. Surely they cannot have been that correspondingly worse than her?
I saw a youtube of some hustings - the first question put was, 'it looks like in your manifestos you are applying for the job of president, not that of GS which has a full staff and £100,000 salary...'

I think there is a combination of things. First of all, the turnout was poor, although better than previous GS elections. Only about 20% of union members voted.

Second, she buddied up with Jo McNeil to exclude Matt Waddup quite early on so anyone voting for Jo M would put Jo G as second choice and vice versa, meaning that she got the benefit of the second choice votes when Jo M was eliminated.

Neither of the other two had much charisma tbh and there was hostility against Matt from the outset as members wanted ‘one of us’ ie someone with experience as an academic, to lead the union as a break from Sally Hunt. To be fair to her, Jo did talk a better talk than the other Jo and I didn’t ever see Matt as having a chance to get elected.

Third, Jo had gained a lot of online support from her work during the pensions strike last year in terms of explaining the issues to people.

Finally, and most significantly, she went to town on her campaign. A campaign video of her childhood, tote bags, hashtags and vocal supporters. Neither of the others did that to the extent that she did. So she definitely came across as a break from the old, which helped immensely.

I agree with pp that the focus should have been her horrific bullying treatment of a precarious worker (precarity is a huge topic in the union at the moment). It’s harder for people to rally round in support if the facts are there in black and white. Perhaps another paper wants to write a piece....

Jo Grady has never led a local branch. She was very involved during last year's strikes, and her online presence gave her a hug profile amongst many of the staff on strike (me included). I only realised I was blocked by her when I was reading threads about USS in September and could not read various replies (i.e. her tweets). You might be interested in her statement here regarding terfblocker grady4gs.com/tag/faqs/ I was particularly struck by her saying that it was not problematic because academics could simply log out of their twitter account and read her tweets via an internet search. It will be interesting to see what happens at congress today when the motion is proposed by GC UCL academics about defending academic freedom. @GCAcademic I am also close to resigning my membership, and know others have done also.

Thanks for linking to that statement by her -- it's a great statement and I am 100% in agreement with her stance on trans issues.

The turnout for the vote was the highest ever and it shows how much people want a change.

Labour relations are her academic specialty so she does have plenty of expertise in that area.

And her campaign did not focus on supporting trans rights to the exclusion of other issues: there was a great deal of emphasis on pensions and on the casualisation of labour, for example.

So many of the arguments levelled against trans people by so-called GC feminists remind me of arguments that were once advanced against gays (gay men as sexual predators and so on). As an academic and a feminist I will do all I can to combat that prejudice.

marfisa some day your views may be the problematic ones though... That’s why it’s important to protect academic freedom even if you don’t agree with the speaker. Women are being put on those lists for stating the actual law of this country (that sex is a protected characteristic). That’s what we’re talking about here- not hate speech.

Also I don’t think trans women are sexual predators. I don’t engage in the debate at all. I do approach feminism from the pov of structural inequality and recognise that females are discriminated against for our sex. I don’t mention TW. Yet that has been accused of being hateful because I don’t see womanhood as a disembodied identity. Fair comment? Should I have complaints made to my line manager, be harassed online and should there be public calls for my sacking? Presumably so based on your previous post.

Wow Pota that is a lot of mad imaginary projection of my presumed views right there.

Not a rigorous way to argue at all.

So marfisa, should she be blocking members who happen to be GC?

So many of the arguments levelled against trans people by so-called GC feminists remind me of arguments that were once advanced against gays (gay men as sexual predators and so on)

As feminist academic myself, it depresses me to see such bad faith, dishonest arguments. Show me a gender-critical feminist academic who has said that trans people are sexual predators, please.

marfisa all I asked was whether you thought I should be blocked/blacklisted for those arguments. No mad projection. You seem unable to even say that I am entitled to hold those views and be free from harassment because I do. Which says a lot. Disagreement with views does not extend to verbal abuse and calls to have people sacked.

If your own views happen to go out of fashion at some point, rules relating to academic freedom will protect you. It’s dangerous to pretend you don’t need them just because at the moment your view represents what is accepted.

So many of the arguments levelled against trans people by so-called GC feminists remind me of arguments that were once advanced against gays (gay men as sexual predators and so on). As an academic and a feminist I will do all I can to combat that prejudice.

What utter nonsense. [Unless you can provide evidence of course!]

Not once did the civil rights movement for gay and lesbian people ever seek to remove the civil rights of any other group of people.

"Gender identity" ideology is an ideology that is deeply anti-women, deeply anti-lesbian women and deeply anti-gay men.

I assume that the blocking will have a disproportionate impact on female members as I assume women are more likely to take an interest in the debate over the retention of single sex spaces or medical interventions in children. In the way that blocking people who followed liked or retweeted Brexit stuff might disproportionately affect men.

Neither can be right. All members should be able to follow an account where Union business is discussed.

The use of a mass 'terfblocker' has a number of consequences:

1. it prevents a group of people arbitrarily designated 'terfs' by unknown people from reading or engaging with DR Jo Grady.

2. It prevents those people from challenging any misinformation/propaganda which is being spread by those signed up to the 'mass terf block'

3. It conveys a judgement of worth on those on the list

4. Those who sign up to use mass 'terfblocker' (there are a number) will not know who has been silenced, why they were put on the list or by whom

5. it positions considerable power with those unknown people who control the mass terf blocks. Is there accountability, scrutiny?

6. many people will not know who is blocked from seeing their posts or why. As has been illustrated with regards Edward Lord (city of London Corp) who also uses a mass 'terf block', many blocked did not know who Lord was & had not interacted with the account.
   see twitter.com/2010Equality/status/1131934536512806912

7. As twitter represents a 'public square' and those with political and media power are influenced there. To disenfranchise a group of predominantly women from public discussion has serious implications

The turnout for the vote was the highest ever and it shows how much people want a change

I would be worried rather than pleased f such a low proportion of students showed up to my lectures, or if such a low proportion of invited guests came to my party, or if such a low proportion of ticket holders attended a football match, (I could go on but I think you get my point. We have had so many new members join since the strikes, and yet so few engage -- we should be asking why?

As to her being a specialist on industrial relations, that might be her academic expertise but I am concerned about her lack of practical experience, particularly with pensions issues looming again and precarious workers needing protection.

As Jacky said, the civil rights movement for LGB persons did not seek to take away other people's existing rights. Marfisa, rather than trying to make out that so many women are being unreasonable, perhaps engage with the arguments and positions we are putting forward.

So many of the arguments levelled against trans people by so-called GC feminists remind me of arguments that were once advanced against gays (gay men as sexual predators and so on). As an academic and a feminist I will do all I can to combat that prejudice.

This seems the trope de jour

Often said by people who did not campaign against section 28 or against homophic descrimination by dint of their age.