Another front in the Shut Up About Women wars.

Two academics behind a gender-critical film have taken legal action against their union, accusing it of discrimination and harassment after it campaigned on social media to stop the documentary being screened.

Deirdre O’Neill, a senior lecturer in film studies at the University of Hertfordshire, and Michael Wayne, a professor of media and film studies at Brunel University, describe Adult Human Female as the first UK documentary to look at the “clash between women’s rights and gender ideology/trans rights”.

When a screening was arranged at the University of Edinburgh in 2022, documents before the tribunal said the local branch of the University and College Union (UCU) wrote to the university calling on it to cancel the event, describing it as a “clear attack on trans people’s identities” and denouncing it as “transphobic” on Twitter.

But what about the women’s rights part? Does that not matter at all?

Don’t be silly; of course it doesn’t. Fans of trans ideology succeeded in preventing the film from being shown on two occasions.

Adult Human Female is regarded by trans rights groups as inflammatory, transphobic and inaccurate. Documents before the Watford tribunal said the film examined claims made by trans rights activists that “trans women are women” and should be treated as women in all legal and social contexts.

Can you imagine? Actually examining claims that men are women and should be treated as women in all legal and social contexts? Whatever next? Examining claims that dogs are trees?

O’Neill and Wayne, who describe themselves as gender critical, believe sex is a matter of biology, that it is impossible for a human to change sex, and that sex is important in a range of different political and social contexts.

Or rather they are aware that sex is a matter of biology and that it is impossible for a human to change sex. It’s a reality more than a belief. It is a belief in a sense but it muddies the water to call it that. We don’t burble about “belief” when it’s a matter of speeding cars crashing into objects or bodies jumping off tall buildings. We’re aware of certain realities and we act accordingly.

The union – or respondent – denies it has discriminated against O’Neill and Wayne. Documents before the tribunal said: “The respondent’s conduct was proportionate and necessary in the interests of advocating the rights of others. Accordingly, the reason for any less favourable treatment was not the claimants’ gender-critical belief or lack of a belief in gender identity theory.”

Is that right? What if the film had been about racism? What if the protesters had been brandishing placards raging at immigration and Pakis and replacement?

Denying harassment, the union’s defence stated: “The conduct of the respondent was to highlight its commitment to supporting its members that identify as trans or non-binary. The respondent’s conduct was proportionate and in line with its current support for its trans, non-binary and LGBT+ members.”

But what about women?

We know the answer to that. The answer is nothing. Nothing about women.