Jo Phoenix: The OU are still causing problems

[Fgfgfg]

This is a piece by Jo Phoenix about research being done by the OU into the experiences of trans and non-binary people as witnesses in employment tribunals. Interestingly, and somewhat unethically, the research is being undertaken by someone involved in Jo's tribunal. How can this have been approved by the OU ethics committee? I'm on a university ethics committee and it wouldn't have got past the first meeting because of the conflict of interest. Even though the OU lost they still can't leave her alone. They also appear to be quite negative about the lovely Tribunal Tweets people.

https://jophoenix.substack.com

Yes, it seems Dr Leigh Downes didn't take the criticism constructively from the Judgement and has instead labelled EVERYTHING Transphobic, worldwide.

Was she the one that pronounced "I think we can all agree Transwomen are Women" during Jo's tribunal?

Just read the piece. You don't want to fuck around with DocStock! You can't disagree with a word she says, can you?

The OU and the vast majority of their staff came across so so badly during that tribunal. Nasty, incompetent, intellectually limited bigots. This research could be seen as harassment.

That explains why LD was observing the Tempest tribunal then. Wondered what the interest was.

V interesting. I expect she’s sore about making herself look foolish to the extent that she did.

That's what I thought as well. They were revealed as the unpleasant bigots and have come up with a way to continue their harassment. I just don't know how the university could approve this because there's so obviously a conflict of interest between the researcher and the subject matter.

Why did I say DocStock when I obviously meant Jo Phoenix? Brain melt, obviously. But the same applies to both of them.

LD knows she's right and she's not going to stop until she proves it, even if she has to go to a million ET's and the ends of the earth to do so.
It's not just men that can't take no for an answer, women who's thinking process is so set in stone they literally can't process information that doesn't agree with what they know in their heart of hearts to be the TRUTH can't either.
JB's better off out of the disinformation factory, I'm sorry they won't let her go, it seems like obsession to me. 🤮

It's horrific how many formerly serious respected organisations have beclowned themselves for the sake of the fetish men in frocks, the OU and Amnesty making utter arses of themselves. They haven't been concentrating on the "go woke go broke" wake up call have they.

LD gives the impression of someone who has this firmly embedded in LD’s personality and has fervent evangelical zeal. Everything must be viewed through the lens of LD’s identity. I think every tribunal must have one as witness -it was Emma Dunn in the Tempest hearing.

It’s not just a lazy #bekind haven’t thought about it too hard thing. I’ve come to the conclusion these women have the type of personality that latches hard onto something, whether it is a faith, a belief, a hobby or a job etc and it becomes part of their core identity, to the exclusion of other topics and interests. I’m sure we all know someone who is similarly fervent and one note about something and we swerve to avoid at the school gate or down the pub etc.

That's a jaw dropping piece by Jo!

Two OU "academics", one who was criticised by the judge in an ET for her "evasive and not credible" evidence?
Instead of being disciplined for bringing a once respected institution into disrepute, the OU appears to be sanctioning a dodgy piece of research by two self interested individuals that attempts to rewrite the ET by framing those who know that sex is binary and are involved in ETs as "transphobic".

As others have said, depressing to see how lacking in ethics and credibility the OU is nowadays.

Absolutely. If it wasn’t “trans” they’d have latched onto some other fringe zealotry.

I agree with all the comments on here about doing this research to prove themselves right and the rest of the country wrong (because who wouldn’t want the freedom to harass?). However as a social science academic (sorry) and as someone who in the past has sat on ethics panels I’m not sure I would go all the way to unethical here. I think it looks like rubbish research, I think it’s personally motivated and frankly I think its conclusions will be (at best) unreliable. But it’s very common for social scientists to research topics in which they are interested/engaged/active. One of the best defences of this I’ve seen was written by an eminent Marxist in the 70s who noted that he was not pretending to be neutral, because he wasn’t - but he would be absolutely truthful about what he found.

I don’t think either of these are good enough academics to be truthful when it’s difficult. I don’t think the OU should have funded this (WTF were they thinking?) but for me unethical on the basis of personal involvement would be a leap.

Was listening to a lecture from a Physics nobel laureate earlier - on the future implications of AI. Anyway at some point he pointed out that the hallmark of a cult was to be expected to profess to believe in something that is plainly silly - and in spite of all evidence to the contrary.

This is not education it is the politics of faith based political 'truths'.

The "research" appears to start from the point of making defamatory accusations and deteriorate from there.

It's illegal to defame people by, for example, stating they're 'transphobic' if they're not (as would be reasonably concluded by any normal person and a Judge). It's not surprising some Unis are making humanities academics redundant is all I can say if this is the kind of personal vendetta that passes for 'research'.