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.

NC Dogwhistles. Impossible bind. If you characterise all legitimate-sounding arguments GC ppl may make c single sex spaces or fairness in sport or access to sex-specific positions/scholarships... if any of those concerns are characterised as DWs there is nothing that anyone GC can say which isn't a manifestation of hate and so can't be condemned.

NC: (A passage which) Mr Brown and (Kate Something?) wrench out of context…
Wrench used again about the same thing.

Effective choice of word, there.

NC Turns to doc re subset of TiM in prison for sex crimes. Re the predatory comment. If there were a statement about TiM generally would be unfair, no reason to think all TiM are predatory. So looks like good eg of hate speech R is looking for. But disingenuous to wrench it out of context in that way. Rebekah Werschdale speaking re her own experience in prison and in relation to that Jo Phoenix says about the proportions of male prison pop for sex offences - 18% of male, 2% women.
Context is male sex offenders in prison. No other fair interpretation of that passage.

Jeepers! That 50% statistic is frightening. And some politicians appear to regard it as important for those men that they effectively get access to trapped women in prison. They are offering up trapped women to these men. What about the rights of women?

NC Guilt by association with KJK - "GC bogey woman".

They are offering up trapped women to these men.

They are.

Male rapists can get access to vulnerable and trapped women as part of their sentence.

And female inmates must share facilities with rapists, as part of their sentence.

I hope KJK is watching this.

Because she's been used as a guilt by association prop before.

It didn't work out well for the protagonists in that, either.

If these people are going to continue to use KJK as guilt by association, she's going to keep demanding what they think she's guilty of exactly.

I don’t envy Brown for trying to defend this - it’s the job of a barrister to try and come up with the best defence possible (if nothing else to ensure that a judgment/verdict has been stress-tested) but he’s making bricks without straw here.

NC’s case seems much stronger.

Misgendering is highly contentious, but if it's about an imaginary person, and you're not allowed to say it, shows totalitarian nature of GI Theory.

NC Misgendering. GC belief is men can't be women and women can't be men. Idea that misgendering an imaginary person is offensive, is totalitarian. That GC ppl aren't even allowed to address someone they have dreamed up in their own imagination as bruv is extraordinary.

Re cross dressing for fetish reasons. If it had appeared in R evidence C's could have marshalled substantial evidence in rebuttal, but haven't had that opportunity

Aja is making point that TW say they are entitled to everything that belongs to women.

NC is making a much better case, but I have no idea how strong the legal case is in general against UCU.

NC Re UCU - A more extreme case of a course of conduct over a period would be hard to imagine.

Argh I shut down my browser by mistake so will miss the end of this - I don't expect they will let people back in at this stage.

NC Cs v patient, Only litigated when they had tried twice.

NC Please reread carefully Dr Kate Davidson's letter/email to Peter Mathieson. She is dragging passage from R Werschdale's contribution out of context, and saying film gratuitously pornographic/racist/violent etc. And consider whether your view is that that is considered and learned criticism or as I would consider, misleading and borderline hysterical.

suggesting the film was racist due to two-spirits reference is

tendentious, misleading and borderline hysterical!

I have to go out shortly so will also miss the last part.

snap Mmmnotsure - might be my next t-shirt!

Back to Dogwhistles!

TBrown c the claim. R hasn't accepted conduct arose in relation to TU membership.

Suggested C tried twice to screen film. Weren't - other ppl screened it.

R doesn't say everything is a dog whistle. We have said which are.

And we’re done. Judgment to follow at some
point.

Thank you so much everyone. I truly appreciate it

I'm running out of room. I don't really want to have to delete 'rights-hoarding dinosaur' and 'gargoyle of Beelzebub'.

The email from the ET clerk with the meeting link says
Please delete this email once your hearing is complete.

Is the hearing complete now, or only when the panel has issued its report?

Thank you to all contributors, especially those who provided links for me to find things.

Will the WORIADS status of GI be looked at, (ie claiming people can change sex)?