Open University Gender Critical Research Network

This is the text of the letter I just sent to the Chancellor of the Open University…

As you are no doubt aware, on the 16th June, Professor Jo Phoenix, Dr Jon Pike and Dr Laura McGrath launched the Gender Critical Research Network. As a student at the Open University, I am concerned that the university has given tacit support to the views of “Gender Critical” people, a term which is typically applied to individuals who like to hide their trans exclusionary and transphobic views behind a veneer of respectability.

Prof Phoenix wrote on Twitter that:

“The @OU_GCN and the academics who comprise it are currently being defamed as a hate group and complaints are being made that its mere existence somehow undermines the @OpenUniversity policies on diversity.

One of these claims is DEFAMATORY and actionable. Gender critical beliefs are protected beliefs.The other claim is simply wrong.

@OpenUniversity has LEGAL OBLIGATIONS to support academic freedom. Stopping a research group on the basis of its theoretical perspective would be a clear violation of the law (see #reindorfreport). The @Openuniversity is not in a position to ‘endorse’ any research any more than it is in a position to ‘stop’ researchers gathering, meeting, talking and discussing matters of relevance to their work.

Finally, the new centre merely brings together people who are *already* doing work in this area. It is a research centre. It focuses on how, why, where and IF sexed bodies matter in particular contexts.”

My first observation is that if they are being described as a hate group, a lot of that is because of their choice of name for their research group. The term “Gender Critical” has simply become a dog whistle for all kinds of transphobia. In the groups introductory podcast , Professor Rosa Freedman acknowledges that the term has also come to encompass people holding not only transphobic views but used by people with illiberal views such as homophobia, anti-abortion, and wider misogyny. The people holding “gender critical” views not only question and want to debate if trans people should get further and easier recognition in law, but tend to hold absolutist, often abolitionist views.

While Prof. Phoenix is correct that a recent Employment Appeal Tribunal held that gender critical beliefs are protected under the Equality Act 2010 (EqA) section 10; the judgement was clear that the beliefs protected were quite narrow “a belief that biological sex is immutable and binary and should not be conflated with gender (identity)”. The judgement as such ruled only that the original Employment Tribunal erred in holding that manifestations of a belief should be considered when examining if a belief should be protected. Indeed, the judgement was quite clear that “A philosophical belief would only be excluded for failing to satisfy Grainger V if it was the kind of belief the expression of which would be akin to Nazism or totalitarianism and thereby liable to be excluded from the protection of rights under Articles 9 and 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) by virtue of Article 17 thereof.”

It ruled that “The Claimant’s belief, whilst offensive to some, and notwithstanding its potential to result in the harassment of trans persons in some circumstances, fell within the protection under Article 9(1), ECHR and therefore within s.10, EqA.” In addition, it reiterated that nothing in the ruling should be considered as supporting a particular view as being correct in law, nor to allow harassment of trans people.

I believe this mischaracterisation by Prof. Phoenix is an example of her attitude to this debate in that she will twist facts to suit her ideology. We are seeing a concerted campaign in the media and elsewhere, led often by “gender critical people” to create folk devils out of the transgender communities which is extending beyond into a concerted effort to delegitimise LGBTQ+ rights charities and the important work they do in informing organisations and individuals over equalities legislation such as the Equality Act 2010 and Gender Recognition Act 2004; educating so that children grow up in a more inclusive society and challenging the perpetuation of inequality, much of which can be described as structural in nature.

In addition, while it’s obviously not nice for Prof. Phoenix and her colleagues to be considered a hate group, surely anyone who stands for free speech must recognise that people have the right to form an opinion based on the record of those involved that they are indeed a hate group. To, in essence, threaten legal action against anyone espousing that view blows all pretence of reasonable debate away.

With respect to the comments regarding academic freedom, I would suggest that there is a big difference between allowing academics to carry out they feel is important and hosting a research group. The latter, despite Prof. Phoenix’s claims, IS giving at least a tacit endorsement to any work produced. As Prof. Phoenix states, these academics are already doing this work, no one is stopping them.

In addition, academic freedom brings with it academic responsibility. People hold academics in esteem and so use their opinions as the basis of policy and legislation; as a result, their work should be based not on their common sense and prejudices, but on accurate statements and evidence. This is something I believe can be demonstrated as lacking in the public speaking and writing of some academics mentioned as being associated to the group. Others use their status as academics to promote work outside their area of expertise. Specific examples of this could be demonstrated but do not, in the context of this letter add anything.

What is very noticeable is that everyone in this group are cisgender – that is to say none are transgender or identify in a non-binary manner. Quite rightly we would not countenance research around issues faced by black or other minority ethic groups without including members of those communities; why do we accept the same happening regarding transgender issues?

Listening to their introductory “podcast” – the only thing to judge the group on – we find the academics fundamentally misrepresenting, either through lack of understanding or through deliberate ignorance, what the nature of gender identity is, while referring to ‘sexed bodies’ as if the idea is some kind of settled science instead of referring to numerous intersecting aspect of biology. During the podcast, panel members also recognise that those who call themselves “gender critical” include people with a range of motivations from (albeit exclusionary) feminist views though to strict authoritarian views – people who also seek to continue to control women, deny LGB rights, access to abortion, etc.

The podcast also acknowledge that “gender critical” beliefs have their foundation in opposition to reforms of the Gender Reform Act first proposed in 2015, yet fail to realise that shows that “gender critical” beliefs are fundamentally anti-transgender beliefs. Indeed at least one of the affiliated members of the group signed a declaration which has been described as calling for transgender people to be mandated out of existence. These are not simple a group who follow the belief “biological sex is immutable and binary” but, at least some by their own writings, call for the removal of recognition that trans people should be treated as the sex which aligns to their gender identity.

To conclude, this group may have laudable aims in promoting research which supports society, and especially women in society, however in forming the group they chose to name it using a very loaded term. While of course they have the freedom to name the research group as they deem fit, they cannot be unaware of the way the term is used or of the kinds of people it includes. In picking the name, then either deliberately, or out of naivety chose a name which IS a dog whistle. Neither reason for the choice of name gives much confidence to those looking from the outside that they have pure academic research in mind.

Perhaps this group is genuinely attempting to promote women’s rights and not, as so many “gender critical” do, promote fear uncertainty and doubt about trans people, however their actions so far, and the history of those involved, suggests they seek nothing more than to spread transphobia while hiding behind the veneer of academic respectability.

What this says about the Open University’s commitment to diversity is open to interpretation. Many trans and non-binary people are frightened of the current atmosphere, and some thought the Open University was a safe place to be themselves. They are now concerned that in expressing themselves they may run up against tutors, etc. who are antagonistic or worst about their rights.