Recognize a fact when you see one
Gender-critical documentary makers take UCU to tribunal
Two academic filmmakers are taking their union to an employment tribunal, arguing that it treated them unfairly because of their gender-critical beliefs.
Deirdre O’Neill and Michael Wayne faced a backlash from campaigners amid claims that their 2022 film Adult Human Female was “transphobic”. It defines sex as being determined by biology and claims that women’s rights have been damaged by the trans movement.
Reporting on this subject is always such a mush of fact and opinion. It’s not a “belief” that sex is determined by biology, it’s just a fact. The words are human creations but the facts themselves are not.
O’Neill and Wayne, who are academics at the University of Hertfordshire and Brunel University of London respectively, have lodged a tribunal claim against UCU.
At the hearing, due to get under way on 31 March, they are expected to argue that the union treated them detrimentally due to their philosophical beliefs about sex and gender.
Or rather due to their recognition of the reality of sex and the social nature of “gender”.
UCU’s trans’ rights policy states that the union “supports trans rights” and that “debating trans gender identity puts trans people’s being into question and creates fear and distress”.
You know what else creates fear and distress for some people? Science classes. Remember the Scopes trial? Remember Judge Jones’s ruling in the Dover School Board case? Fear and distress, baby.
Edinburgh’s UCU branch previously claimed that “free speech [and] academic freedom” were being used to “justify questioning the validity or the rights of people with marginalised identities”.
Opposing the film screening, the branch said: “This event represents an echo chamber of one specific viewpoint that is very clearly a vilification of trans people, questioning their right to exist, under the guise of academic freedom.”
Liar. It’s no such thing. People exist independently of other people’s deference to their luxury idenninnies. If I claim to be Charles Darwin and you don’t believe me, I don’t instantly puff out of existence when I learn that you don’t believe me.
Magic gender is no more real than magic sky daddy.
Well, we know philosophical beliefs are protected speech. Maybe they are afraid biological fact is not.
I don’t know of any legitimate philosophical method that would produce results that would be in contradiction with biological fact. Maybe I’m not understanding what philosophical beliefs really are. I’m pretty sure I know what beliefs are generally, but I don’t think very many are philosophical. Hamlet must have known that Horatio wasn’t some credulous idiot, and that he was capable of philosophical thought, otherwise he would have said fantasies (or something) instead, provided we can trust WS’ expertise in language.
twiliter, don’t strain your brain too hard; I was making a joke.
It’s always a strain.
It may have been a joke but it literally is the reason UK reporting perpetuates this ridiculous idea. It is indeed because “philosophical beliefs” are protected. It’s infuriating. Journalism is forced to choose between accuracy and protection.
@2 I think by ‘philosophy’ in that line Hamlet is referring to what we would call ‘science’ – ie ‘I can’t explain this scientifically but I swear I had a conversation with my dead father.’
Yes, guest, that’s my idea of it too. I just can’t make out what a “protected philosophical belief” is, other than believing something that’s not true, or not demonstrably true, or factually true. In which case if they’re calling it philosophy, well then that itself isn’t a true description of whatever it is.
More strain ikn. (The struggle is real.)