Anyone else work at a Uni?

[Phunkychicken]

Just having a uni wide 'meeting' - much pressure from the LGBTQ+ group about what they are going to do re the SC ruling to ensure trans staff/students are safe - management saying they're seeking guidance on what to do practically going forward. Tentatively posted that some of us welcome the ruling and have had 6 thumbs up - so they're at least 6 of us.

It's so hard not giving myself away but the push back has been insane

The Jo Phoenix tribunal was awash with these types.

That’s exactly how I imagine it too, I was actually going to say that it would be like The Purge 😂

If I say at work that I believe sex is binary, and people start to question me and try to change my mind, and get angry with me, would this constitute harrasment?

I’ve talked it over with one person and this is what’s happened. I’ve asked them not to question me again, it’s just my believe.

It’s not just your belief, it is what underpins UK equality law (which recognises only two sexes) and you can tell your work bully that he or she can read the judgment and stop bothering you with his or her beliefs which are based in neither law nor reality.

Thanks, that’s what I think. I sort of wish I’d kept my mouth shut but they started a conversation.

I responded to a recent ‘ask the exec anything’ survey and pointed out that the recent comms re: the SC has very much been focused on lgbt feelings and not women’s. Lo and behold in today’s completely useless school update there was a link from the EDI lead about the ruling that actually included signposting to the women’s network (for the first time ever). A win except the women’s network in our uni is completely captured and includes anybody who identifies as a woman, so no I won’t be going there to vent. I’m wondering though if my little anonymous act (and maybe there are others) has made them think.

Oh, I do think that little queries can be useful. After the judgment, I wrote to a sports club which asked for ‘gender’ (including non-binary) at registration. I pointed out to them that this meant I wouldn’t be able to register as I don’t have a gender identity. I expected to be ignored but apparently they are looking into it now …

Jo Phoenix on twitter

https://x.com/JoPhoenix1/status/1926205665237733740

Calling: UK uni employees. DM or email me at UoR answers w/ name ur uni: 1. Did your University permit men to self-identify into the category 'woman'? Has policy now been revoked? 2. What has ur uni said about FWS if anything and process of implementing it? Pls RT

I noticed this article in the Telegraph and it seems a good fit for this thread, Prof. Jo Phoenix gets a mention

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/05/24/oxford-university-demands-candidates-back-diversity/

https://archive.ph/dMa6z

It's not just Oxford, they're just one of the worst. It annoys and saddens me. I used to think 'diversity' meant everyone would get a fair crack of the whip. Not that there'd still be a whip but it would be used to silence diversity of thought.

So at my place, we've now had the message from the VC, about the Supreme Court ruling, noting that it "is currently under appeal at the European Court of Human Rights". Which is sooo craven.

Named groups are "trans and non-binary members of our community" while "other members of our community may also seek clarity about their rights."

So so bull shit. I am composing an email to the VC as we speak. Any good ammunition any of you have used?

That's a lie, isn't it? A group has indicated that they plan to challenge the SC judgment at the ECHR, but it's not the case that it is actually under appeal.

Perhaps they have got their acronyms muddled deliberately? If they were saying that they were waiting for the EHRC full guidance that would be one thing, but the ECHR case is a very long way off and may never happen. They will be required to implement the law once the EHRC guidance is out and not sit around waiting for an appeal that may not be granted.

The ECHR cannot overrule the Supreme Court in any case, is my understanding. The Labour government would have to agree to abide by its finding - imagine what it would do to their electoral chances if they were to voluntarily overlook the judgment of the highest court in the UK and abide by a European interpretation of our own laws. What a gift to Reform that would be.

Thanks @GCAcademic I shall point that out in my email.

Have PM'ed you too

FWS cannot be appealed. The Scottish government is not recognised as having appeal rights to the ECtHR.

What absolutely blatant and literal othering of women from your VC. Surely in breach of the public sector equality duty.

Well quite. Thanks for these suggestions for language in my email. It'll mark my card, but as I'm sitting on grant income worth a couple of million, I think I'm safe. Ish

Maybe worth having a word with Academics for Academic Freedom? What a depressing battle to have to fight, I do feel for you.

The ECHR cannot overrule the Supreme Court in any case, is my understanding. The Labour government would have to agree to abide by its finding
I think it's more than that even. This specific case can't be appealed but even if a different case went through all our courts to the ECtHR and won, it can't overrule the SC. It would mean that the EA is incompatible with the European convention on human rights. Parliament could pass legislation to repeal/amend/replace the EA but they dint gave to. I believe the ECtHR said our law that prisoners can't vote is also incompatible but we're not changing that.
The university is giving misinformation to its employees about their rights, and the uni's obligations to them. That's quite serious? The SC read the EA and GRA and told us what thet mean. That is what they mean and that's the end if it. The university has to abide by the law and they are putting themselves at risk by announcing to the world that they have chosen not to abide by the law.

I would find a reputable source explaining how SC and ECtHR interact (there's some stuff on HoC library I have posted elsewhere). And a lawyerly source explaining the ruling. And even if you don't link them you will know that you are being accurate. Focus on risk to the uni, and upholding everyone's rights (including women who need single sex spaces).

Basically the uni has been following an erroneous interpretation of the law so that one pc (sex) is impinged on. The SC have rectified that so that needs based on the pc of sex can also be upheld. But your employer has said it does not wish to uphold rights based on that pc and are hoping that a court will make a statement that current uk law is unacceptable, and then parliament will change the law so the uni no longer has that obligation towards you. In the mean time advertising this desire to you. Can you imagine if it was a different pc?

Ill informed biased people in high places.

Sorry about typos.

We've had a stream of communications expressing rainbow solidarity in one form or another along with what now seems to be the usual 'We're reviewing our policies ... but equality and inclusion is our brand'.

@Manderleyagain Thank you, this is extremely valuable. My uni has also put out very one-sided communications and I’ve heard on the grapevine that they are also dangling the potential of a European court case in front of our trans activist colleagues. If you have any more links or resources you can share, that would be great. And you’re right, it comes down to our employers wishing that they could just be allowed to discriminate against those with the protected characteristic of sex, specifically the female sex, because women are the ones who are going to be disadvantaged. Truly the mark of a patriarchal institution …

Just to be clear I don't work at a university though I have done in the past and my OH does. Not sure why that matters but I'm aware that by posting I'm ind of encouraging other people to act when I am not doing so myself. Anyway.

The house of Commons library prepares briefing paper things for ministers & mps. This explains the ruling in a very neutral way. It is obviously not written by a gc person and couldn't be accused of being part of a gc campaign.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10259/

https://supremecourt.uk/about-the-court
Bits of this, especially about the relationship with Europe, are useful.

And I think the other important point is the losing party are the only ones who can appeal any court ruling, but the Scottish government say they accept the ruling. Plus (as a PP said) a government cannot bring a case to the European ct of h r, it can only be the defendant (though i don't have a source for that).

Article 34 of the ECHR sets out who may bring a case before it in the case of a violation of individual rights. They are: the individual, a group of individuals and NGOs. That is because the case is premised on a violation of rights by the state. Ergo, the state can’t sue if it loses.

Just wanted to chip in because I'm pretty sure we're at the same place. Thank you for writing to the VC, and please know that you have support within the university (feel free to pm me). They really took pains to avoid mentioning the word "women" in the email, didn't they? We're simply to be known as "other members of the community". Literally "othered". As you say, it's beyond craven.

Anyone think this will make any difference?
www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c74z8l8vkx3o