Open University pushing transrights falsehoods

[ChristinaXYZ]

The ideological capture of educational institutions is one the most depressing aspects of the war on women. where one hopes for logics, free speech and evidence based argument one gets obfuscation and 'feelings'.

This OU article shows how far it has gone - it is so unbalanced and full of falsehoods, shows no concept of the other side of the argument and presents things that aren't so - like no trans organisations allowed to be represented at the Keira Bell case (when they weren't give permission to be a party because of their failure to present new, relevant evidence).

www.open.edu/openlearn/education-development/childhood-youth-studies/supporting-young-trans-peoples-rights-health-and-happiness

If you've ever studied with the OU you can leave a comment at the end but it will be in your real name and you may not feel able to do that. You can however login and give it a 1 star without identifying yourself public ally I believe - and I hope you'd do it not because you disagree but because an academic has written something so poor - for failing to acknowledge the range of argument, failing to provide actual evidence and misrepresenting evidence for the other side!

The OU have poor form on this having deleted their congratulation of Kathleen Stock after internal pressure. On the plus side they do employ Jon Pike who has made a public stand for women's sports.

twitter.com/runthinkwrite

Argh. Marvellous. I am starting my degree with them in September hopefully - I did start a thread the other day about the course (introduction to childhood studies and child psychology I think it’s called) as the recommended reading textbook is by someone who was at the time professor of gender and education. Although when I looked up their more recent stuff it seems like they’ve gone away from gender perhaps.

It’s a better fit for me as a first course to my degree but I’m concerned for sure. The description only briefly mentions gender so I’m hoping it won’t need to be a big part of my assignments but who knows.

What a biased and poorly researched article. All the references are for authors with a similar viewpoint and even the account of Bell v Tavistock (which is described as Tavistock v Bell) is loaded and misinformed. This isn’t educating learners, it's indoctrinating them into a single "apporoved" viewpoint. It makes the author appear very naive and gullible to anyone with more experience of real life children and young people and children's rights. It's a poor example for students and needs to be challenged or the capture of schools, youth and play work will become even more entrenched. Renold et al have already done significant damage in Wales weaving their cult like obsession with genderology through toolkits and selling training. Complete hijacking. So very, very selfish and depressing.

@SingToTheSky

Argh. Marvellous. I am starting my degree with them in September hopefully - I did start a thread the other day about the course (introduction to childhood studies and child psychology I think it’s called) as the recommended reading textbook is by someone who was at the time professor of gender and education. Although when I looked up their more recent stuff it seems like they’ve gone away from gender perhaps.

It’s a better fit for me as a first course to my degree but I’m concerned for sure. The description only briefly mentions gender so I’m hoping it won’t need to be a big part of my assignments but who knows.

I think all you can do is plough your own furrow and push back gently when you get the chance. Maybe join the Free Speech Union? And have Counterweight's website saved on your favourites! At least universities are under pressure from the government about free speech at the moment. Good luck with your course!

I wonder if Meg-John Barker has had any influence in this. It's shockingly bad.

What a biased and poorly researched article

With references that don't match the assertions made (which seems to be quite standard in the field)

Trans young people experience many more mental health issues than others, and are at a higher risk of self-harm and suicide.

With more mental health issues being a hyperlink to
www.open.edu/openlearn/health-sports-psychology/mental-health/lesbian-gay-and-bisexual-teenagers-much-greater-risk-depression

Which then references a study (I wonder why she didn't directly cite the study in the original piece?!?!)
Sexual minority youth and depressive symptoms or depressive disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis of population-based studies
journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0004867417713664

The discussion section includes this caveat:
Our focus has been on sexual minority youth and not on adolescents who are diverse in terms of their gender identity (e.g. transgender youth) or sex (i.e. intersex young people).

Very sloppy.
I'd be laughed out of my supervisors office if I tried to pull this kind of shit on her

And in fact the article linked for evidence about mental health harm says as its third paragraph, right at the top of the piece
www.open.edu/openlearn/health-sports-psychology/mental-health/lesbian-gay-and-bisexual-teenagers-much-greater-risk-depression

Because there is scant data available on transgender and intersex young people, we had to exclude these groups from our study.

Did she even read it?
Or did she expect others not to?
Sloppy or disingenuous?
It's becoming increasingly hard to tell

This what gets me: regardless of whether I agree with her (and I don't) it is embarrassingly shoddy. Is her department not embarrassed by the wince-inducing poor scholarship? Is her HoD not embarrassed? Is the OU not embarrassed? Have they ceased to care about their academic reputation?

The more one thinks about it the scarier it seems.

Well facts have never mattered in this debate have they. :(

And thank you! Looking forward to getting started on the course, despite the worry. I shall no doubt be ranting on this board if the subject comes up.

I’ve often looked back on my psychology A level which had a unit on gender and wondered how that would be taught now.

Note the photograh of an actor who has, supposedly, altered those secondary characteristics.

'The case revolved around access to puberty blockers, a treatment that delays the onset of puberty, so that children don’t develop secondary sexual characteristics (such as breasts, facial hair or deepening voice) that conflict with their gender identity and cannot later be altered. '

@ChristinaXYZ
This is were the "no debate", from the principle diversity partner for just about everyone, has got us
Poor science and badly written articles that can't be questioned

Professor Jo Phoenix is the next 'In discussion with' for Cambridge Radical Feminist Network (Tuesday's at 6pm for the next 5 weeks) A criminology prof with the OU so not all academics there are captured by this bloody nonsense. Cam Rad Fems are on Twitter, Faceache and YouTube, the latter where the discussion will be shown at the same time as the zoom meeting.

I don't think many academic institutions have any awareness of the shoddy standard of scholarship on this particular issue. The academics often work in disciplines that are derided and devalued (as I know from personal experience) and regarded as fluffy. It still has a huge impact. The OU needs to take this seriously.

Just reading it.

Gobsmacked at this

'Gender is not as simple as being left- or right-handed. Many aspects of being a man, or being a woman, are influenced by social expectations, and children learn and internalise these as they grow up. Some people feel quite comfortable in their expected gender roles, while others feel comfortable in some aspects of their gender, but uncomfortable in others. Exactly what those gender roles are, and how they’re expressed, has changed over time and will change again in the future. What we see as acceptable for men and women in the UK now is different from even ten or twenty years ago, and it’s different in different places.

Evidence from research with young children shows that from a young age, children who don’t conform to what’s expected from their gender are often socially excluded in obvious or subtle ways. Children learn early to alter aspects of their behaviour to fit into their expected gender roles (Callahan and Nicholas, 2019; Renold, 2005). Even under these pressures, a small percentage of people have always felt that they don’t fit within the expectations for their assigned sex, and have opted to live in ways that cross or dispense with the gender divide. Jules Gill-Peterson has shown how trans children existed and were the subjects of medical attention throughout the 20th century (Gill-Peterson, 2018). In the past, many young children and young people who felt deep discomfort or distress about the sex they were assigned at birth, or felt a strong desire to be another gender, might have suppressed their feelings. '

This is the second time in a week being gender non conforming has been prominent in an article about trans people.

There is something shifting again I think? Loads of people are GNC. Gender is highly restrictive. Before the story was that was different from meeting trans.

And freedom from gender role is what women all over the world have been fighting forever FFS.

Now this is being thrown back at us as a reason to let men access all single sex stuff for women?

FFS. That's properly shit.

Jon Pike is an OU module leader - he is also involved in philosophy of sport and writes about the importance of sex segregated sports.
Peter Cave is another OU academic who supports the sex-based view. Nigel Warburton and Kathleen Stock are in the course materials.

On the other hand, Meg-John Barker wrote a chapter on gender for a psychology module that was more or less a hard sell for BDSM. And Sophie Grace Chappell is a transwoman who is also on the philosophy module team, and compares transwomen to adoptive parents. As in, it would be rude and unnecessary to say that a transwoman wasn't an actual woman.

So, it's mixed, as you'd hope a university education would be. I was open about my feminist views - against prostitution, sceptical of non-binary identity - and I had no problems. In fact my tutor agreed with me.

There's a prominent disclaimer on the article saying it's an opinion piece and doesn't reflect the views of the faculty or University. Looks like they are anxious to dissociate from it, not surprisingly as it is so poorly researched.

They seem to have just added that disclaimer. It wasn't there yesterday.

<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20210318122902/www.open.edu/openlearn/education-development/childhood-youth-studies/supporting-young-trans-peoples-rights-health-and-happiness" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">web.archive.org/web/20210318122902/www.open.edu/openlearn/education-development/childhood-youth-studies/supporting-young-trans-peoples-rights-health-and-happiness

They seem to have just added that disclaimer. It wasn't there yesterday.
That's hilarious
Someone reads FWR it seems

Amazing 😁

The National College - 'Remote video CPD to empower school leaders, teachers, staff & governors' also have some dubious webinars that recommend students use the toilet of their choice, etc.

thenationalcollege.co.uk/

Yup the disclaimer wasn't there when I read it.

Interesting.

'Disclaimer: This is an opinion article. Please note the views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view or position of the faculty the author is associated with, or of The Open University.'

SingTotheSky, I'm not studying the same subject as you but I am on my last module with the OU and that convenient use only of "Gender" has meant a complete re-planning of my final assessment because they are adamant the wording cannot be changed. I had already discussed the use of sex and gender in the title, with my tutor, and I explained why both were necessary and he grudgingly agreed. And then the announcement came that thou shalt only use the words we gave you which means inclusion of sex would be seen as blethering and would almost certainly result in lost marks.

I, and another student, have already felt brave enough to comment on the choice of language on our module forum, open to all, and also expressed concern that if we did not use the OU compelled speech we would have our marks reduced. Now, in a context when the forums are moderated within minutes if you dare step over the incredibly tight netiquette guidelines for daring to express an opinion, no-one addressed our concerns for a week. Everyone was too scared to comment. We finally got a wishy washy assurance that if we justified why we were using different words in our assessment it would be fine. which is fine if there isn't a word limit. Taking up a paragraph to explain why the constant use of gender by a stonewall champion is incorrect and is actively destructive for the subject we are studying, is not a luxury we have. And now they have mandated the title to use gender so...

So, don't assume you will have the flexibility to use non-gender words but I would suggest you challenge it early on. I'll be writing a letter of complaint to my module lead for their choice of restrictive language, just as soon as I get my marks back. The OU are captured, in pretty much all subjects where mention of humans is required.

Yes, she bloody has on our modules. Thank god she has left but because OU modules seem to have about a 10year lifespan, she has left loads of unscientific tosh all over the place.

As a recent OU module announcement was issued stating that titles must use the words provided and (no sneaking in more scientifically correct words, we're watching you) I expressed frustration to my tutor as it meant I could no longer use the examples I had been collecting info on for months. He tried to sympathise, said we're all in the same boat (nah, I doubt many other people would be dealing with how women had been shafted by the system, mate) and tried to...convince me that the issues I were going to describe were actually gendered and not sex based. I think it was ignorance, rather than stonewalling but he said :-

"I wonder though how power imbalances can arise from males and females based on biological sex? Do you mean sexuality?"

and I'm left wondering how a man his age, working in the field he is in, could even think writing that sentence was reasonable. I haven't replied yet because I haven't stopped swearing at it.

@PogueMahoneBoris

Yes, she bloody has on our modules. Thank god she has left but because OU modules seem to have about a 10year lifespan, she has left loads of unscientific tosh all over the place.

Which she are you referring to? (I’m lost with all the names 😳)

Also is it ok if I PM you later please @PogueMahoneBoris re the unit names?

SingToTheSky,
Apologies, I was referring to Meg John Barker. She was an OU lecturer but left about 2 years ago but she has her influence in several different modules and course books.

DM away!