by Sometimes the people around you struggle with reality to go up into down, black into white and open into closed. That’s how Prof. felt. Jo Phoenix when she was subjected to what the courts described last week as a “targeted campaign of harassment” by her colleagues facilitated by her employer, the Open University, in a way that ended her academic freedom. and a judge caused her to be constructively dismissed.
What marked his back was his sight, shared by the majority of people and enshrined in law, that whether a person is male or female is a matter of reality, rather than belief, and that a person’s gender identity, or his belief in relation to his sex, cannot replace his actual gender for all purposes in society. That is what paved the way for her fellow academics to mistake the harassed person for harassment, and for the management of her university to deceive themselves that they were protecting free expression through the blind eyes of bullying, when they are severely undermining Phoenix’s ability to do so.
Phoenix isn’t the first woman to score a decisive legal victory over sex discrimination since the landmark ruling in 2021. With several similar cases going through the courts, she is unlikely to be the last. Two aspects of his judgment stand out as particularly important.
I have never seen a judge so clearly say that the view that sex is relevant to certain parts of the world
Firstly, although the courts have already noted that campaigners who want to transcend gender identity are quick to accuse their opponents of being transphobic or hateful when they are not, I have not seen a judge so clearly calling the upper hand. confirmation that the opinion that sex is relevant to certain parts of the world, or to deny that people are trans. There is a difference between protecting important legal protections against discrimination on the basis that a person is trans – which Phoenix will strongly support – and imposing a person’s right to believe that their gender identity trumps their sex on everyone else. and we are. all forced to agree that sex can be separated from reality.
The judgment is appalling about the way 368 academics signed an open letter unfairly suggesting that the gender-critical academic network that Phoenix helped establish was transphobic; about the academic who said looking back at a speech given by Phoenix elsewhere, she “cried at work” despite the court’s decision that there was no upsetting content; about the colleague who compared Phoenix to “the racist uncle at the Christmas dinner table”; and childish hyperbole some academics deployed in their statement implying that the establishment of a vital gender research network was to endanger life.
The Open University has not only allowed this campaign of harassment to go ahead without addressing it, it has issued unilateral statements suggesting that there was a legitimate basis for concern. It is clear from this judgment that if employers take their lead from organizations like Stonewall, whose main lobbying tactic is to portray gender-critical beliefs as inherently hateful, they risk finding themselves on the wrong side of the law. , and if active employees are fleeing. around baseless insults such as “transphobic” and “terf”, which may constitute illegal discrimination in the workplace.
Second, this case of religiously protected harassment occurred at a university, where the free exchange of ideas is supposed to be sacrosanct. In her witness statement, Phoenix eloquently explains the real-world consequences of ending debate and research on the relative importance of sex and gender identity.
It is about the rights of those who are attracted to the same sex, especially lesbians like Phoenix. It is important in the way we support children with gender dysphoria. And it is important that all women, but especially women at risk of male violence and trauma survivors, can access women-only spaces and services, such as intimate care, rape crisis services and prisons.
In another gender-sensitive employment tribunal hearing last week, we heard how women who had been sexually assaulted were being turned away from rape crisis services rather than being referred elsewhere because they expressed a desire with them group therapy for women only.
How on earth was a university set up to democratize access to learning and the exchange of ideas in this way? It is partly a story of how the bullying of women who speak out about their sex-based rights is given an acceptable gloss by a self-described “progressive” cause that would be better described as authoritarian in its threat to confront their beliefs, or else. . But it’s also a story about the harshness of leaders, about audiences looking the other way when a lesbian – who survived a school shooting, the experience of being raped at 15 and then living on the streets, and societal homophobia profound to be a capable ancestor. academic – experiences workplace harassment so badly that it left her with PTSD.
Leaders have left a void in the organization’s culture that is being filled by a small number of dominant bullies
You would expect a mature institution like a university to mediate the polarizing effects of social media on contentious debate; rather, what is happening throughout society is that institutions as diverse as legal and arts organizations and the police are adding to what is happening on social media in women’s professional lives with dire consequences, not not only for the direct targets of persecution, but for the many women who are chilled to self-censor their views as a result. Leaders have left a void in the culture of the organization which is being filled by a small number of dominant bullies; Institutional insanity turns into institutional child which turns into institutional depravity. (The Open University has been accused of discrimination on the basis of gender critical beliefs in at least two other pending lawsuits.)
As a society, we rely far too much on the courts and tribunals to act as a check on our more illiberal tendencies. These cases will be the tip of the iceberg; few people have the extraordinary resilience and strength of character it takes to see your day in court.
Regardless of your own views on sex and gender, you should be careful that this is happening in the same way you should be careful if any group of people is being targeted for bullying on the basis of religion or character. protected. Not just because it’s illegal, but because using dissent as a pretext for harassment and victimization is antithetical to an inclusive society, and it diminishes us all.
• Sonia Sodha is a columnist
-
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a letter of up to 250 words for consideration for publication, please email us at observer.letters@observer.co.uk
