🧵
Dear @Daragh_Murray@livesrunning@edajones16
Thank you for submitting your report to the Open Journal Of Legal Analysis. I'm afraid that the decision of the editorial board is to reject it. It does not meet the standards of academic publishing for the following reasons:
1. The paper is, presentationally, very poor with numerous typographical errors and infelicities of expression. May we kindly suggest that next time you proof read your paper prior to submission. Our readers are not there to provide copy editing services.
2. The paper has a tendency to assert rather than argue the case, indeed so much so that the paper veers towards unsubstantiated monologue. There are several places where instead of using authoritative sources on the law - or indeed even academic concepts - your paper...
3. ... relies on dictionary definitions. See particularly the definition of gender critical. Quite frankly, there is no excuse in academic work to rely on a dictionary definition when there is both case law (please see the EAT in Forstater V CGD) or a reasonably extensive body..
4. .. of academic literature. We are happy to provide a reading list of appropriate sources to help improve your thinking on this matter. See also your footnote 29 where you assert - without further discussion - that gender critical beliefs contain the same logic errors as those
5. espoused by members of the BNP - namely trading in negative and highly prejudicial stereotypes of an entire category of individuals. Had you argued rather than merely asserted your case here, you might have seen the irony in your footnote.
6. More concerningly however is the fact that you state that your paper provides a balanced analysis of the situation viz-a-viz balancing academic freedom, freedom to protest and harassment in universities viz trans inclusivity. The problem the reviewers had is that ...
7. your description of the law contains far too many factual errors for the paper to be treated seriously. Please see the very illuminating analysis of @akuareindorf (whose work I believe you may be familiar with) and @AudreySuffolk. Both these analyses show that
8. your understanding of the Equality Act 2010 is highly problematic - in fact we suggest your *demonstrated* understanding would not even merit a bare pass at UG level. There are three more issues though that lead to the decision to reject.
9. One would assume in any attempt to publish an authoritative analysis of the *balancing* that Universities must do in this area would require *at a minimum* a detailed consideration of s26(4) Equality Act 2010. Yet this is wholly absent.
10. Your inclusion of the concept of 'contagion' and 'contamination' goes beyond legal analysis and veers into the realm of rhetoric.
11. Your chosen examples seem to work against you. We believe that at @Uni_of_Essex there were indeed campaigns of the type you describe that resulted unlawful actions. #ReindorfReport
12. Thus, the substandard presentation, combined with lack of authoritative sources and lack of informed discussion of key legal framework means that this report is simply not up to the requisite academic standards for peer review. That said, it is a great exemplar paper that can
13. be used for teaching purposes. It provides students with a great example of what not to do.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ A mini thread in the bleeding obvious: Stonewall's lobbying started an attempt to redefine the category 'women' in a way that ended up being antithetical to much feminist thinking and politics, especially those versions concerned with male violence, safeguarding & justice.
2/ Yesterday we saw in Mermaids v LGB Alliance a contest over the meaning of the word lesbian.
Not gay.
Lesbian.
3/ And an attempt to redefine the *object* of women's sexuality. Lesbianism is not a state of mind. It is a statement of same sex sexual desire and a politics.
1/ Saturday morning rage thread - pls read to end:
I started openly criticizing Stonewall, the idea that TWAW & the campaign for self-ID in 2018 - as part of my job.
I signed a letter to The Guardian & The Sunday Times openly critical of Stonewall & its impact on Universities.
2/ My concerns about self-ID in prisons, abt the silencing that was happening in universities, abt the foreclosure of academic freedom got me branded as "anti-trans" and a "transphobe" by colleagues at OU. This had profound and life-changing effects on my career.
3/ I didn't see what was happening as harassment or discrimination. This was (literally) unthinkable to me. I struggled to make sense of the reactions - thinking that if only I could convince ppl that we needed to talk about this stuff all would be okay.
1/ So, apparently it has comes as news to several of my twitter followers that the QWERTY keyboard was invented to keep women out of the printing industry. Here's the story:
In 1988, I did a women and work module as part of my UG Sociology degree @ Bristol University.
2/ I came across the work of Cynthia Cockburn. Two formative texts about the material of male power. First one was called The Material of Male Power and can be found jstor.org/stable/1394914… (1st 4 page shown)
1: Please take time to read the full report. Women’s fear of male violence is rooted in their experiences and deep knowledge about how it permeates the entirety of their lives. Single sex provision *of all kinds* (not just toilets) is one way women have navigated the risks.
2: Removing this means that women’s use of public services and civic space will, necessarily, be reduced. As @HJoyceGender stated at the launch in House of Lords - of course not all women experience this fear….
3: but those who do not cannot and should not consent on behalf of all women to give up these vital services.
1/For those who like their discussions informed by facts:
More than 100K women report 1 type of sexual violence or other every year since 2017. Around 10 x more women than men report rape and sexual assault (although more men are reporting rape and more still sexual assault).
3/ I've only pulled out those categories that refer specifically to biological sex and thus we know what the victim's sex is. Loads of caveats are needed but the above indicates that there are very real reasons why women don't want to give up their rights to single-sex spaces.