Skip to main content


At this point, the British court system is actively transphobic, acting as the judicial arm of a state that seeks to eradicate trans people, especially women.

When the law is unjust, it must be ignored. Resist transphobia.

It is disappointing to see the Open University back down in the face of obvious justice denied.

ounews.co/around-ou/ou-speaks-…

in reply to Sarah Brown

the sustained Tory attack on universities has made cowards out of all management.

Sarah Brown reshared this.

in reply to CharLES ☭ H

@Charles "Gender Ideology" ☭ H I fear you are right, and few people have the fortitude to stand up to these bastards.

If the law will not protect us against such blatant discrimination, then the law can go fuck itself.

in reply to Sarah Brown

@celesteh it's also power. The individuals monstered in that awful judgment (which I've read in full 🤮) have no right of reply.

The claimant (terf face) raised 230k in crowd fund from the usual grifters and could get the same again. I've done legal crowd funds where £2k was a slog on big critical issues.

Stephen Whittle has a point when he says how much he hates legal crowd funding and it benefitting hard right rich fascist fucks.

in reply to CharLES ☭ H

@celesteh half the issue is that the OU will have been legally advised its super expensive to appeal and likely to fail which would make this hateful bullshit legally binding as opposed to just a first instance decision.

I need to flag this with my uni employers LGBTQ staff group who are genuinely great on trans and bi stuff. They've been pre-empting strategic terfery and keeping management sane so far.

in reply to NatalyaD

@NatalyaD @Charles "Gender Ideology" ☭ H @Sarah Brown it's expensive but In a precedent based system though you need people to appeal stuff because otherwise the lower level judgments remain accepted as "persuasive" despite their flaws.
in reply to Alexandra Lanes

@ajlanes

Agreed, but you need to appeal the right cases. I suspect Phoenix is not the right case cos of various facts. I hear the OU had pretty good trans lawyers on their team. Appeal wouldn't just be £200k+, low-success-chance, but endless time and ongoing stress for the OU witnesses & staff.

Forstater's appeal success means Forstater is now binding and the TERFs are super smug about it. That employer had shite policies which left the door open for legal awfulness.

@goatsarah @celesteh

in reply to Sarah Brown

@Sarah Brown Not just back down, which I can be disappointed by, but put out a statement saying how badly they did and how they'll make things better for vile bigots in future.

Sarah Brown reshared this.

in reply to Alexandra Lanes

@Alexandra Lanes Trans people in the UK must not be allowed to feel any hope that the state will recognise their humanity, at any point.
in reply to Alexandra Lanes

@ajlanes
Absolutely disgustingly craven statement. Everyone knows there isn't going to be any useful research coming out of a "Gender Critical Research Network" Pretending there's any academic value in it is the most embarrassing thing about this.
in reply to Pete Alex Harris🦡🕸️🌲/∞🪐∫

@petealexharris @ajlanes
Interestingly Phoenix was in the Times last week moaning about how no ex-colleagues from OU have talked to her (I don't think anyone likes her, funnily enough).

Phoenix also whined that the GC Research Network has run out of oomph and blames "TRAs" & OU of course, but not herself for being the only one obsessively bigoted enough to care, not doing the work from new job cos it was prob only ever a "do thing to get challenged & initiate legal action for".

in reply to NatalyaD

@NatalyaD @ajlanes
Well yeah it was obviously exactly that. What research was expected to come out of it?

Intellectual enquiry can be into new understandings of things, or the psychology of why people hold to their views, but it can't simply seek to re-affirm a mainstream view. That's not research in any meaningful sense.

Only imagine my surprise that someone who doesn't understand that turned out not to handle robust criticism well and became unpopular with her colleagues.

in reply to Pete Alex Harris🦡🕸️🌲/∞🪐∫

@petealexharris @ajlanes Phoenix is whining that in criminology there's ~300 academics in the field (seems an under count) and she's been ostracised by them.

That's cos most criminologists follow the Actual Evidence not some "I get to wave my trauma to be a bigot" like Phoenix did. Also there are already prison policies (not always followed) which Phoenix-and-friends (there's a disturbing children's TV prog title) never talk about either.

Shouting about being cancelled=attention.

in reply to Sarah Brown

I'm unaware of the background to this story. What was the ruling by the tribunal?
in reply to Sarah Brown

I suspect actual judges might have applied the law. Employment tribunals are generally one Employment Judge (not a very senior member of the judiciary) and two lay members, one from an employer's organisation and one from a trade union.
in reply to Sarah Brown

TERFs are actual threats to trans people. Threats are not free speech and not acceptable.
in reply to Sarah Brown

@godzero

The judgment itself is at gov.uk/employment-tribunal-dec…

I haven't seen any sensible trans-clued people's review of it and I'm wary of the Guardian for hosting/promoting transphobia/transphobes.

It's a shitty 150 page read. I don't know how you can force people to be nice to you when you're an obsessive bigot. Open letters about uni stuff happen ALL the time. ET said the letter writers did it to get at Phoenix not the GCRN but they barely knew Phoenix so that's an Assumption...

@gz
in reply to NatalyaD

I've had a quick read but given I am an OU law student, I don't particularly want to stick my head above the parapet with a proper analysis as the VC's statement has made me worried about backlash. And as you say it's 150 pages so LONG. Generally, the impression was of a tribunal that did not understand academic politics and was quick to believe every allegation made even without any evidence to back it up. (See, for example, paragraph 85)

There was also a strong undercurrent that the tribunal believed in forced work in an academic context (e.g. paragraph 56, which stated the OU should have compelled academic staff to organise a conference promioting aims they did not believe in) and had misunderstood the law. (E.g. 560)

I don't think the judgement would necessarily stand an appeal. But the OU are likely worried about cost and reputational risk against an extremely well-funded opponent with extensive backing from right-wing media. Nevertheless, the statement from the VC was clearly panicked and unnecessarily obsequious towards transphobic views.

in reply to Zoe O'Connell

@zoeimogen @godzero

I think that's a fair overview. I'm not even a law student, just a disability-law nerd.

I don't think you can appeal mis-facts in a judgment if you just a rando witness and not sure even if you're Claimant/Respondent.

I wonder how much was cis white lady tears by Phoenix getting sympathy from the ET panel and the OU witnesses being perceived as unsympathetic cos they didn't cry (I know one of them, they're fucking livid). It becomes a DARVO.

in reply to Sarah Brown

Fuck Britain. Fuck its judges. Fuck its politicians. Fuck its journalists. Fuck the hatred and spite that riddles every tier of its society. Filthy stinking rotting edifice of a country.

Even from 2000km away it’s making me incandescent with rage.

in reply to Sarah Brown

This is what happens when very expensive lawyers hired by very rich … interested parties … under the cover of crowdfunding can turn any hearing or tribunal into an endless private prosecution.
All the justice you can afford.
Unknown parent

🎃 Andboo Haunton 👻
@pdcawley I grieve for my UK friends. We have plenty of dysfunction and scary crap in the states but at least we’ve managed to undo some of it the last four years.