Prof Jo Phoenix vs The OU - Employment Tribunal Thread 8

[ickky]

Started on 2nd October at Watford Employment Tribunal (Radius House, 51 Clarendon Rd, Watford WD17 1HP 01923 281750)

You may attend in person or remote viewing has been quite limited but you can request log in details from

Email [email protected]

Header should read

URGENT CURRENT CASE - Public Access Request - J Phoenix - The Open University - 3322700/2021

Ask for access link and pin and please give your name and address in the email as they check when you connect to the tribunal.

The clerk will ask you (in a private remote room) to put your camera on to verify, this involves looking at you, but no ID is needed. You may turn off your camera after this pointless and unnecessary process.

Abbreviations

JP - Jo Phoenix, Claimant (C)
OU - The Open University, Respondent (R)
J - Regional Employment Judge Young
P - Panel or panel member
BC - Ben Cooper KC, Counsel for C
JM - Jane Mulcahy KC, Counsel for R
OU Departments & Networks:
HWSRA - Health & Wellbeing Strategic Research Area
FASS - Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences
SPC - Dept of Social Policy & Criminology
KMi - Knowledge Media Institute
GCRN - Gender Critical Research Network

OU witnesses

PB - Dr Paraskevi Boukli, Former Senior Lecturer Criminology, Deputy Head SPC 2021-22
IF - Prof Ian Fribbance Dean of FASS
MW - Prof Marcia Wilson, Dean EDI, 2020-23
CM - Caragh Molloy, Group People Director 2019-23
LD - Dr Leigh Downes, Senior Lecturer in Criminology (in SPC), Academic Lead for EDI FASS 2019-21
PK - Peter Keogh, Professor Health & Society, Member RSSH
CW - Dr Christopher Williams, Senior Lecturer History
KS - Kevin Shakesheff. PVC for Research and Innovation
NatS - Natalie Starkey, Outreach & Public Engagement Officer Sch Physical Sciences, 2019-22
HBC - Helen Bowes-Catton, Lecturer Social Research Methods
JD - John Domingue, Prof of Computing Science, Director KMi, 2015-22
LW - Louise Westmarland, Prof of Criminology, Co-Deputy Head SPC, 2018-21, Current Head SPC
RH - Richard Holliman, Prof Engaged Research, Head School Environment, Earth & Ecosystem Sciences, 2019-22. Member of Investigation Panel investigating the C’s grievance
CT - Catherine Tomlinson, Senior Student Advisor
DD - Dr Deborah Drake, Senior Lecturer Criminology, Head of SPC 2018-21😇
SD - Shaun Daley, Head OU’s Resourcing Hub. Head Strategic Resources, Co-Chair OU’s LGBT+ Staff Network
SJ - Samantha Jacobson, Employee Relations Case Manager
NS - Nicola Snarey, Assoc Lecturer Eng Language - This witness did not give evidence.

Witness for JP:

SE - Professor Sarah Earle, Head of the HWSRA

Tribunal Tweets - https://twitter.com/tribunaltweets

TT coverage so far - https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/professor-jo-phoenix-v-the-open-university

Prof Jo Phoenix Witness Statement (scroll to bottom of page and download)

https://jophoenix.substack.com/p/phoenix-v-open-university?sd=pf

Thread 1
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4905118-jo-phoenix-vs-the-ou-employment-tribunal-2nd-october-whispers-ben-cooper?page=1

Thread 2
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4913946-prof-jo-phoenix-vs-the-ou-employment-tribunal-thread-2?page=1

Thread 3
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4917480-prof-jo-phoenix-vs-the-ou-employment-tribunal-thread-3

Thread 4
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4918479-prof-jo-phoenix-vs-the-ou-employment-tribunal-thread-4

Thread 5
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4919223-prof-jo-phoenix-vs-the-ou-employment-tribunal-thread-5

Thread 6
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4921308-prof-jo-phoenix-vs-the-ou-employment-tribunal-thread-6

Thread 7
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4922765-prof-jo-phoenix-vs-the-ou-employment-tribunal-thread-7

Why has our new TRA friend's post been deleted? I might not agree with it, but I can't see grounds for deletion.

Berrrrlimey quick fire on the big red button tonight, thank you HQ.

I hate it when a post is deleted before I have had time to read it.

It said we were all unhinged and on the wrong side of history.

@RealityFan do tell what the deleted post said in a round about way i missed it

Thank you.

I may have missed this but while gender reassignment is protected I don’t think the gender ideology has ever been tested to see if it meets the WORIADS test. And of course first someone would have to nail down a few core beliefs. Now those can’t be Gender Critics are all evil (doesn’t meet the test), and it can’t be blindly validate all self created identities (doesn’t meet safeguarding). It’s clearly not actually rooted in gender reassignment. So…what is/are the core beliefs that are WORIADS and all TRAs share?

Ooh, that sounds AMAZING!

I'm not sure - might be the catch all 'not in the spirit'? Would tend to agree with you - I've certainly seen worse left to stand.

Tbh, the better tactics with our trolling friends is to leave their comments up but don't engage with them.

A poster (sorry can't remember who) did mention earlier on these threads that she didn't think that Gender Identity beliefs - whatever they are - have ever been tested to see if they meet the WORIADS test; and your observation above about core beliefs makes a significant point.

So…what is/are the core beliefs that are WORIADS and all TRAs share?

Difficult. I doubt there's agreement on whether

• sex does/not exist or only as a social construct
• transition exists as a phenomenon if sexes don't exist and is to be replaced by queerness as an identity
• there is a coherent ideology that makes up a belief such as (the non-existent phenomenon of) sex is mutable
• there is an ideology beyond a sense of entitlement that others should #BeKind accept an asserted form of identity or reality (which is a substantial step beyond holding it and accepting that it may not be appropriate to manifest it across a range of settings in a tolerant, pluralistic society).

Huh. I hadn't even thought of that. So GC views are definitely WORIADS (as determined by the Forstater appeal) but GI views (meaning TWAW/TWAM I suppose) are only possibly WORIADS, having never been determined by any official means.

If OU believed that JP had overstepped in her expression of her GC beliefs, that should be dealt with via the disciplinary procedure. If the TRA colleagues believed that, then they should have filed a grievance.

BC is speaking about the OU's failure to protect Jo from what is clearly to me an organised bullying campaign. The TRA colleagues overstepped the mark in their expression of disagreement when they started organising boycotts, withdrawing web hosting, etc.

What is the WORAIDS test

Strictly speaking, the Grainger Criteria that determine whether something is Worthy Of Respect In a Democratic Society.

Grainger plc v Nicholson [2010] IRLR 4 (EAT) is a UK employment discrimination law case, concerning the protection of religion or belief. Regarding the question of an employee's conviction about climate change, it examines the scope of the legislation's protection.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grainger_plc_v_Nicholson

It stands for "worthy of respect in a democratic society" and it's explained in the Forstater appeal judgement.

Wasn't clear to me what the OU case was - seemed to consist of saying we wanted to support trans colleagues and students because they were upset by the idea that other people might not share their belief.

Discrimination against people on the grounds of gender reassignment is not acceptable, that implies a belief in gender reassignment is woriad. That does not cover the concept that you can force that view on others, any more than a catholic can force their view of god on muslims. Requiring others to declare pronouns doesnt seem to meet woriad levels. Fairly obviously violence, or inciting violence, against people who dont share your belief is not woriad, unless they are women and you can persuade the judge you are just a silly fool who was seeking publicity.

Last time someone involved in a court case apparently turned up here they were fake. Not saying JoPhoenix is - but remember that anyone can take any username.

@wacademia

thanks

Ah!

Something we didn't know. Nice to see a bit of originality.

Agree.

Grey rock all the. way.

Discrimination against people on the grounds of gender reassignment is not acceptable, that implies a belief in gender reassignment is woriad.

Has anyone actually defined gender reassignment? The Hansard of the debate about the GRA indicates that our MPs were well aware that a GRC creates a legal fiction, nothing more.

I would consider a transwoman stating "I know I'm still male, the hormones and surgery simply make me much more comfortable" to be WORIAD. I wouldn't consider "I'm female and always have been" to be WORIAD when the individual in question has or had a penis and testicles. Either could be described as a belief in gender reassignment.

Thing is the TRA’s don't need to go to court to seek their beliefs as protected since nobody from a GC point of view is either harassing, bullying or discriminating against them, in the workplace. Quite the opposite. Having looked at the grainger test i think such an application would fail anyway. Their MO is to screech and wail and cry about hurt and distress. I said in my first post here, some kind of agency is coordinating all of this undercover. I wish a journalist would go undercover and become a TRA activist to find out. Wouldn’t be difficult to become a trans woman in a dress, they could even keep their beard.

I can't remember which one it was, but in their witness statement they stated the Forstater judgement somehow also meant that TWAW was WORIADS.

I don't recall reading that part in the judgement. Maybe I missed it.

A couple of threads to pull at regarding origins are "The Dentons Document" and you could also lookup the ESG requirements that some companies need to score well on to get funding/awarded contracts ect.

On a recent NHS tender process checklist, if they were in the Stonewall equality index, it got a tick in the box.