UCU being taken to tribunal over discrimination for 'gc' views

[ArabellaScott]

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/gender-critical-documentary-makers-take-ucu-tribunal

The filmmakers of 'Adult Human Female' are taking UCU to tribunal.

I'll try to find an archive copy.

Please please say 'and if he then says he's a woman, do you concerns disappear?'

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=adult+human+female&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3

She can't answer the question!

Oh NOW you're concerned about survivors of sexual violence? Pull the other one!

Ah, we're back to "You can believe but not express that belief".

Either it's an accepted Grainger-compliant WORIADS view or it's not, sunshine.

Hope you get in. I had to wait about 15 mins.

LW actually scares me, especially if she is representative of this type of academic and there are lots of them.

I am putting myself back into the position of being young, at university, in a new and unfamiliar environment, faced by lecturers and dons who were in control of the subject/class/situation/essay marks. I would have had little defence against someone so hard and unremitting. Poor, poor young people, having their education through this lens and through so-called academics who seem to be putting their own demands and wants before the people they teach.

She does NOT look comfortable. Must be all that sunshine...

How do we express that view then?

NC: give an example of a gender critical view that you think isn't unacceptable.
LW: [a very strange story that seemed to be about everyone agreeing that sex isn't a thing]

I would hope a discussion about men’s mental health on campus would be allowed!

"Give me an example of an acceptable GC statement"

"You could be in a meeting and raise the issue of sex-based matters, then other people could say they disagree with you and say this is not the place to discuss this. We'd move on because we have other things to discuss".

"I'm going to move on because you've only reloaded to shoot yourself in the other foot."

Absolute GOLD.

This isn't good. Bundle problems and I think that NC was moving to end her cross-examination on a strong point of clear intolerance by LW.

Thank you all - am reading this thread with interest and gratitude for all your work and insights in posting

She is demonstrating they will not allow GC voices to be heard. She's admitting it? Just because you don't use the WORD banishment doesn't mean it ISN'T banishment.

Unbelievable! She does realise there is a Judge listening?

It seems that even when SB did something where she didn't mention sex realism at all and was doing something else entirely THEY DIDN'T WANT HER TO BE THERE and took steps to remove her.

So she couldn't hold the views as well as express them.

I suspect she can’t say anything different, NC has backed her into a corner.

It’s the same with all these tribunals, the defence witnesses start off bullish and smug, then it all drains away when their views and actions are dissected. They can’t refuse to answer the questions so they just end up looking like fools.

I had a look at the bundle yesterday, and it was clear from their emails that they really dislike SB and there was nothing she could say or do that would be acceptable to them

With her own words she's shown that a trans person sitting in the same room with someone who has views they don't agree with about the immutability of sex is considered harmful to them even if that person says nothing about their views.

But keeping a UCU rep from an event, from meetings and asking her to stand down, refusing to listen to any of her concerns, framing legally held rights as 'hateful' and labelling her a 'bigot' is not harmful.

The unequal nature of it is stark - if you're the ruling class the slightest attempt of someone to say their perceptions don't match yours = hate but actually preventing someone from doing normal academic things = fine if you're the wrong kind of person.

Which is classic bullying and very unprofessional behaviour.

I hate how she comes across as so reasonable but what she's spouting is so blinkered. And frankly horrifying, and untrue.

I think the term 'democratically elected policy' is doing some heavy lifting. She does realise that a small number of UCU reps can vote in illegal things but they're still illegal?

UCU is stuffed full of people who never really left student politics behind, and like student associations they over-estimate the value and representative nature of their views. Student associations and UCU are often making decisions based on arguments from people who are elected by a tiny % of members

Again Dr Jo Phoenix, JCJ etc are academics!

But are they 'decent' academics as TB outlined for us yesterday? @Ereshkigalangcleg