Reversing truth and ideology
What is belief, what are views, what is a concept?
As a scientist at Porton Down developing technology to secure Britain’s defences, Peter Wilkins never imagined he would be considered a threat because of a belief in biology.
But when he stated his gender-critical views and support for the concept of immutable sex, Wilkins was reported for his “ideology” and labelled by colleagues as transphobic, “sad and pathetic” and “a rubbish employee”.
It’s all so weird. What is a “belief in biology”?
Knowing that men are not women is not a belief, it’s just awareness of an obvious and ubiquitous reality. Humans come in two sexes; one of each is required for the manufacture of all humans. That’s not a belief, it’s how things are. We don’t need any effort from the organ of belief to be aware of this fact. It doesn’t involve prayer or faith or an odd costume or weeks of fasting or a holy book.
An employment tribunal has found there was a “clear hostile animus” towards gender-critical beliefs at the top-secret Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL). It found that an intimidating atmosphere resulted in the harassment and discrimination of Wilkins, 43, who was forced to leave as a result.
That is, a clear hostile animus toward the truth at a science and technology lab, which forced a scientist to leave because he was aware of the (obvious, familiar, part of the fabric of life) truth. Bully the scientists out because they’re cognizant of basic facts. Much sensible.
Speaking after he won a two-year legal battle with DTSL, Wilkins still appears slightly bemused that he had to have the argument. “It’s a scientific organisation,” he said, “so it shouldn’t be unacceptable to use the phrase biological sex.”
My point exactly.
“And it was pretty hurtful, really, having spent 15 years working for DSTL on some things which were high-security, to be told that we think you’re a security risk because you have these fairly normal, run-of-the-mill, factual beliefs about sex and genders.”
Not so much fairly normal as utterly completely absurdly normal. So normal that it’s laughable. Did a woman and a man make you? Or did a miracle occur? Which “belief” is more wack?
The case underlines how parts of the civil service have been affected by the debate, with abuse of gender-critical philosophy waged on an internal blog that DSTL employees would use to discuss the issue, often during work time. At least one other person has left the organisation over “spats” on the blog.
Oh gosh, Porton Down sounds like the UK branch of Pharyngula.
Wilkins had worked for DSTL for 15 years, including secondments to support operations in Afghanistan and a role attracting innovative technology into defence. In August 2021, when the neuroscientist Sophie Scott was awarded the Royal Society’s Michael Faraday prize, a DSTL employee wrote on the internal blog that it was “pretty disheartening” given that Scott was “well known for her non-inclusive views on trans and non-binary people”. Another wrote that it emboldened transphobes.
Yep. Pharyngula goes to Wiltshire.
Wilkins complained to moderators that this was “deeply unfair” to Scott, who had simply applied her scientific expertise to her views. It left the implication, he warned, that anyone with gender-critical beliefs should not receive public recognition for their work.
His concerns were not properly acted upon. In the following months a string of blog posts demeaned people with such views. One DSTL employee wrote that explicitly stating gender-critical beliefs was “abusive”. Another described gender criticism as bigotry and one said those who supported gender-critical views led “sad pathetic little lives”.
Been there, seen that.
Paul Kealey, head of counterterrorism at Porton Down, was singled out for criticism. He told Wilkins that while staff were permitted to hold gender-critical beliefs, it was “not OK to express such views in the workplace”.
It’s not ok to express, in a scientific workplace, “views” that men are not women and women are not men. It is ok to express in a scientific workplace that men can be women and women can be men. How does that make sense?
Wilkins resigned in November 2022, citing a hostile, intimidating and degrading environment. The tribunal concluded that he was constructively dismissed.
For the crime of knowing which sex is which.
In a lot of cases, it seems like for most people, what they believe is ‘truth’ and what others believe is ‘ideology’ (we’re seeing this playing out in the Trump/Musk – everyone else battle). In this case, though, as in others, we’re dealing with something that can be demonstrated scientifically, and therefore truth does accrue to one side.
I realize this is what people who hold trans-supportive beliefs would say; they hold the truth, we have the ideology. It is a demonstration of Why Truth Matters. In this case, the actual truth lies on the side of the gender-critical, and that has been demonstrated over and over, even as they drown us in the manure of arguments about clown fish and lived experience.
As M. C. 900 Foot Jesus said, “Truth is out of style”. (For those who do not know M.C. 900 Foot Jesus, he is a Dallas rapper).
I wonder if they’re as nasty and vindictive to colleagues who don’t believe in astrology, auras, and a flat Earth?
They must be using some heavy duty, PZ grade sheilding to maintain that degree of compartmentalization to keep their heads from exploding.
What does ‘constructively dismissed’ mean? – it sounds like something out of a Monty Python sketch.
“Can you tell us how you were dismissed?”
“Yeah, well, it were very constructively?”
“Could tell us exactly what happened?”
“Well, they got all them snitches in their frocks lined up in frontta me, an’ they snitched away for 40 minutes an’ waved their Little Pink Books in frontta my eyes. An’ arter that they all kicked me in the bollocks.’
‘ Oh, dear. All at once?”
“Nah, it were one arter t’other/“
“How did you feel after that surely dreadful experience?”
“Bloody knackered, I c’n tell ya.”
“What did they do after that?”
“Portoned me dahn the knacker’s yard an’ threw me in a pile of rotting offal. An’ then they pelted me with their Little Pink Books. It were reelly medievil.”
“Do you intend to take them to court?”
“Oh, no the beak’d throw the book at me – and that’s a reelly big ‘un’, not like them little pink uns!”
“Do you think you’ve learned your lesson?”
“Well, yeah.”
“Is there anything you regret?”
“Yeah – I wish I’d never taken them effiin’ Biologically classes at school. I’d like to dissect that teacher as taught me that stuff alive, an’ if the bugger’s still alive I’ll go ahead an’ do it. I’ll Porton ‘m dahn all right!”
‘
https://www.acas.org.uk/dismissals/constructive-dismissal
Thank you, Guest!
Mr Harris, I don’t know if you are deliberately being provocative but constructive dismissal is a perfectly simple concept. It means that your employers treat you in such a way that you are forced to quit your job against your will. There are obvious examples like failing to pay you or demoting you for no good reason but case law makes it clear that is also includes allowing other employees to bully or harass you. A few minutes with a good search engine will tell you all you need to know.
The British Military (well, officer class) are actually very trans friendly. I recall a male civilian teacher at one of the academies describing how much support they received during their transition, including the commanding officer stating that it would be a dismissible offence to treat them with anything less than courtesy.
I’ve heard, and it seems believable, that middle aged and older officers are over-represented in transing statistics. Seems believable.
Thank you, Dave, but I had, by the time your comment arrived, read the link kindly provided by Guest. I admit to not having looked up the definition of ‘constructive dismissal’ beforehand, since the term, whatever its official meaning, struck me as being rather amusing on its face. I suspect I was amused by it because I have recently been re-reading Rabelais, who is a good antidote for the prim & proper, and for the pretentiousness of technical – whether theological or legal – terms. I recommend him.