Academic Freedom, Harassment and GC academics - ask me any questions

[ProfJoPhoenix]

Hi Mumsnetters

Jo Phoenix here - as in the academic cancelled by Essex and harassed by colleagues at the OU. I decided to join mumsnet because I know that several women here are supportive of what it is that we (GC academics) are going through and dealing with. I thought I would start a thread - a sort of ask me any question thread. I'll be making an announcement on twitter (@JoPhoenix1) on Sunday morning that you might find interesting. What's happened to Kathleen Stock has left all of us reeling and I am going to do something that, I hope, will help. Watch this space.

there are legitimate questions to answer, especially in the context of a fundraiser generating tens of thousands of pounds

Your questions are irrelevant in the context of a successful fundraiser, because the fundraiser is not contingent on your questions being answered, your points being discussed or anyone agreeing with you on anything.

Why has nobody, including Jo Phoenix, addressed the 7 questions I put down earlier? They are extremely important questions about how freedom of speech operates in the context of possible societal harm and discrimination

There has been plenty of comment on your questions. Have you not read the thread? Are you aware of the content of the court case this thread is discussing and what might or might not therefore be appropriate for Jo to post?

@foxgoosefinch

So at least you aren’t in favour of violent protests or harassment, *@suggestionsplease1*.

What about if I believe that your ideology makes me feel unsafe and at risk of harm? Can I refuse to teach you or have you in my lecture hall? Can I say I won’t be your tutor and have you handed over to someone else?

What if other students feel you make them unsafe? Do they get to say you can’t be in a space with them? At what point when you caress an opinion that upsets someone else are they allowed to protest you? You seem very sure that you know who is the one causing harm; but what of someone decides you are? Are you fair game then?

What if it turns out you’re doing a bad thing to someone or making them feel uncomfortable? Is it a different rule then?

For myself I can't say that I have an ideology. My position is largely to examine what others are saying and to challenge what I perceive as potential harm coming from them - so it is responsive rather than assertive generally, although I am happy to assert things that I believe to be true based on good evidence. I'm a pretty quiet, unexcitable person really so it is doubtful that I could make a (reasonable) person feel unsafe.

But of course people can feel uncomfortable when they're reasonably challenged on their positions, that shouldn't be conflated with being made to feel unsafe.

If a student acted in such a way that according to a reasonable, professional 3rd party judgement would likely make any lecturer or other student feel unsafe then the educational establishment should take relevant steps. That should not purely be a personal judgement by the person that experiences a scenario, rather the full transparent circumstances should be made known in some sort of arbitration process so a more objective, nonpartisan judgement might be arrived at.

Everyone is fair game in that process, but lecturers are responsible and accountable in their position as lecturers, and students over 18 are responsible and accountable in their position as adult students.

I'll give an example of what I mean by "Everyone is fair game in that process, but lecturers are responsible and accountable in their position as lecturers, and students over 18 are responsible and accountable in their position as adult students."

...lecturers at universities are generally employees and have usually signed some of contract and there will be obligations that come with this, just like many professionals have - obligations to their company, or not bring an organisation into disrepute etc etc. So it is likely, and reasonable, I believe, that they are held to a higher standard than students.

So when @ProfJoPhoenix posts something like this:
"There is also a lot of research that is trying to chart some of the challenges and problems that trans and gender non-binary people have because so much of what is said by politicians, campaigners and in the media is, frankly, just wrong. Stuff about suicide rates for instance or that trans people 'are the most marginalised' (that is an impossible to research assertion - for any marginalised group - you cannot measure oppression so easily much less then compare the levels)."

I think a university might reasonably consider this problematic coming from one of their lecturers - they might view it as making light of / undermining serious issues that affect trans people - like suicidality and completed suicide. This comment did not arise as a response to another person's comment, which I believe would be more acceptable - eg "I think the suicide statistics that you have posted are incorrect because of .......", .... and it is a bit too flippant in the context of the serious harm we do know trans people experience and has the potential to trivialise these serious harms and to communicate to others that suicide is not actually really an area of concern for trans people.

What if a mens' rights activist who was also a lecturer posted something like 'We are examining the former studies on domestic abuse against women, and we believe that these have actually exaggerated the situation and it's really not that bad' ?

Would that be problematic - that a men's right activist during their tenure as a lecturer spent their time trying to downplay abuse against women?

I find it a little bit sad that the implication of that post is that Jo Phoenix is spending time trying to prove that suicide is not really such a big deal amongst trans people.

It might be that a university would find this more problematic coming from a lecturer than they would do from a student, because of the professional obligations that lecturers have, that students do not have.

Suggestions If someone thinks suicide is incredibly important, my view is that they would want language and data around it to be accurate.

I see you don't agree though, and you claim that asking for accuracy is "making light".

You don't want words that are used to describe people in law to be definable, and you don't want to prioritise accuracy around suicide data in order to improve outcomes.

Happy to disagree with you there.

Yawn. You've been demanding research and statistics on this area and are now trying to suggest that Jo is somehow unprofessional by referring to this research. She makes a good point that it is impossible to quantify marginalisation and that much of what is reported in the press is incorrect. Its totally unprofessional of you to intimate that Jo is being unprofessional with absolutely zero evidence of this and even potentially libellous.

Hi jo

I've noticed a few academics adding pronouns to their emails , which as a woman with "issues" I find disturbing and insulting, not necessarily rational .

Is it most likely that they are using standard template without thought?

I'm in STEM if that makes any difference

I find it a little bit sad that the implication of that post is that Jo Phoenix is spending time trying to prove that suicide is not really such a big deal amongst trans people.

And so what happens if she is right?

It is a fact that politicians and the media are trotting out incorrect statistics around suicide in trans people. There’s plenty of stuff out there debunking some of the claims. Including by GIDS about suicide in trans children.

So you don’t like her statement and don’t think she as a lecturer should be saying some of the statistics circulating are frankly wrong? And calling for research which improves accuracy? (That’s not even in the ball park of saying it’s “not a big deal”, so you’ve already misrepresented what you’ve actually quoted her above as saying!)

Let me just recap, then - you don’t think she should be saying this - even if she’s factually right?

Sure sounds like an ideology on your part to me.

Why do you want to obfuscate accurate research on suicide in trans people, anyway? Wouldn’t it be a positive for trans people if it turns out suicide isn’t as big a factor as has been claimed by some lobby groups?

(Except then the spectre of suicide wouldn’t work quite as well as a lobbying technique or a rhetoric around transition, I guess.)

Again - sounds suspiciously like an ideology, if motivated reasoning is taking the place of fact finding, research, accuracy and genuine support for people with gender issues that is evidence based rather than opinion based.

(And the analogy, again, with men’s rights activism is misplaced, because a lecturer who said that would need to lay out their research in support of their claim. If the research was factually wrong it wouldn’t work. That’s the point of academic standards and peer review (and reproducibility) - you don’t get to be taken seriously unless the data and research supports you. Which we all know in the case of domestic violence, it wouldn’t, because there is a lot of data on this and a lot of research out there.)

You really don’t seem to think that truth or fact matter in terms of academic research and academic freedom or opinion. Academic freedom isn’t just about being able to express unpopular opinions. It’s about being able to argue that unpopular opinions might be true or right, with argument and evidence to back this up. But it has to be reproducible and durable and open to testing and challenge. Hence why it’s important for academics - and anyone - to be able to say “I think you’re wrong, and this is why”, as much as to say “maybe this argument is right, and here’s the evidence.”

Academic freedom isn’t just about being able to express unpopular opinions. It’s about being able to argue that unpopular opinions might be true or right, with argument and evidence to back this up. But it has to be reproducible and durable and open to testing and challenge. Hence why it’s important for academics - and anyone - to be able to say “I think you’re wrong, and this is why”, as much as to say “maybe this argument is right, and here’s the evidence.”

Gardening in the rain makes you very muddy but clean inside!

61k carrots already!

I haven't donated yet because I just started a new job and am skint, but believe me I will be digging on payday next week.

@InvisibleDragon I love the power of women united.

£61,400 is a hefty wedge already for legal costs. Very steady stream of incoming donations, too. Lots of small personal pledges and messages.

What a lot of lovely carrots. So pleased for you @ProfJoPhoenix

An average of 25 pounds per donation

Isn't that approx a month's UCU union subs? I did wonder if people who've left were diverting their money to causes like this.

@foxgoosefinch

I find it a little bit sad that the implication of that post is that Jo Phoenix is spending time trying to prove that suicide is not really such a big deal amongst trans people.

And so what happens if she is right?

It is a fact that politicians and the media are trotting out incorrect statistics around suicide in trans people. There’s plenty of stuff out there debunking some of the claims. Including by GIDS about suicide in trans children.

So you don’t like her statement and don’t think she as a lecturer should be saying some of the statistics circulating are frankly wrong? And calling for research which improves accuracy? (That’s not even in the ball park of saying it’s “not a big deal”, so you’ve already misrepresented what you’ve actually quoted her above as saying!)

Let me just recap, then - you don’t think she should be saying this - even if she’s factually right?

Sure sounds like an ideology on your part to me.

Why do you want to obfuscate accurate research on suicide in trans people, anyway? Wouldn’t it be a positive for trans people if it turns out suicide isn’t as big a factor as has been claimed by some lobby groups?

(Except then the spectre of suicide wouldn’t work quite as well as a lobbying technique or a rhetoric around transition, I guess.)

Again - sounds suspiciously like an ideology, if motivated reasoning is taking the place of fact finding, research, accuracy and genuine support for people with gender issues that is evidence based rather than opinion based.

I specifically put @ProfJoPhoenix rather than saying 'Jo Phoenix said...' for that last quote I referred to as I was so incredulous an academic who had risen to professor level would write in such a facile way that I thought I might be guilty of misrepresenting the actual professor if it wasn't really her.

Anyway, my posts refer to the person posting as @ProfJoPhoenix, regardless of who it actually is.

Stating that the stats as 'wrong' or 'incorrect' is logically impossible - no-one here or anywhere knows the actual stats, so of course there is a possibility they are wrong, and there is also a possibility they are right. People may debate over what those possibilities are, but they exist, and they make such a statement incoherent.

When this language is mistakenly used what a person is usually saying is they have problems with the methodology. So they don't like the researchers, they think there are vested interests, they think the source of funding is questionable blah, blah.

Of course, what this means if you have problems with this, is that logically you must also state that every piece of research ever previously carried out, and any future research still to be planned by any gender critical feminist is 'wrong' or 'incorrect' because their bias and sources of funding will also prevent them from examining issues in an objective fashion.

It is also common for people to point out flaws with sampling, that people have self-selected to fill in the survey (I didn't realise you could compel people to fill in forms but you learn a new thing every day on the feminist boards, right?)

Or they will say 'they were promoted to LGBT people' - well yes, if you want to know about suicidality in LGBT people you generally ask them, just like if you want to know about women's experience of domestic abuse you ask women rather that 80 year old men in care homes, or dogs, or your goldfish.

Or they say that the sample size wasn't large enough - o wow, what a surprise when only around 0.1% of people state they are trans on surveys.

Or they say they were carried out in the US or China and the US is not the UK, blah blah, it's all pretty boring, when actually you have hundreds of studies examining this issue all showing the same trends of elevated risk for suicide completion and suicidality for trans identifying individuals compare to non trans people.

But maybe you think they all conspired together or something?

A meta-analysis will be more revealing, I imagine people are working on these now.

I've looked at transgendertrend suicide facts and myths page and if that is what you are referring to, it is laughable. The analysis is the bread and butter of every psychology student up and down the country, every country in the world - every study has limitations (they're normally listed by the researchers themselves, maybe transgendertrend copied and pasted?); you don't get your degree until you've written a few 'facts' like that, and the limitations of studies certainly don't mean that important information is being revealed.

is not being revealed

Well that is all rather like gobbledegook @suggestionsplease1 - you don’t seem to understand how academic research is conducted at all. Are you an undergraduate student?

@foxgoosefinch

Well that is all rather like gobbledegook *@suggestionsplease1* - you don’t seem to understand how academic research is conducted at all. Are you an undergraduate student?

I think that’s a bit insulting to undergraduates.

It is also common for people to point out flaws with sampling, that people have self-selected to fill in the survey (I didn't realise you could compel people to fill in forms but you learn a new thing every day on the feminist boards, right?)

Stop, stop, my third-hand embarrassment can't take it.
"self-selection bias" isn't a phenomenon feminists have made up!

If you want to critique something someone has actually said, you need to quote the text/speech in context rather than pretend you understood it and 'summarise' it with the helpful 'blah blah it's boring' addition.

Remember, suggestions - you were the one asking for data on 'things' (you couldn't define) happening to 'people' (you couldn't define). You refused to answer whether my definition of 'women' would be acceptable to you as an example of this, so we are left none the wiser as to what it is you think words mean.

True, true, @GenderAtheist.

Well thank you @suggestions, now that you have put forward your compelling argument I'm definitely inclined to take your point of view on these stats over the criminology professor

I admit I don’t know any of your work @ProfJoPhoenix apologies, however I respect your right to be able to voice your opinions without being threatened. I am appalled at what has been happening in Sussex University to Stock.

For me, critical debate is so important. And by critical I mean, we need to look properly at data, at ideas and evidence. Much of what is being called transphobic and threatened is vital critical debate. There are realities, not just self centred feelings. I don’t want academic to be filled with a lack of open critical thinking. That is when fascism creeps in, the denial of speech.