Thread by @tribunaltweets

Good afternoon. This afternoon Jo Phoenix's case at employment tribunal will continue the evidence of PB - Dr Paraskevi Boukli, Former Senior Lecturer Criminology at the OU.

You can read our outline of the case, and coverage of the previous court sessions, on our substack tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/professor-jo…

Other abbreviations:
JP = Jo Phoenix, claimant
BC = Ben Cooper KC, representing JP
OU = Open University, respondent
JM = Jane Mulcahy KC, representing OU

J = the Judge
P = either of the two panel members sitting with J

We expect the hearing to resume at 2pm.

We are still waiting to be let into the virtual hearing.

We resume. J is asking BC re expected timings.

[I do not yet have video, only audio, so bear with me]

BC: PB, your point 2 is that there is a section that questions the existence of trans people. The passage is here. "What's the T?"

BC: this is not JP speaking.
PB: No it's not
BC: And it's not questioning re trans people. It's pointing out the LBG and T are different constiutences.
PB: No.

BC: It is pointing out that 2 different things, so not obvious to join them together.
PB: No it's saying "what is the T", that is questioning existence of trans people.

BC: No; it's someone questioning the addition of the T to lgb, saying they are different.
PB: disagree.
BC we will let tribunal decide.

BC: Moving on. re Diva - discussion of "queerness" - it's in that context that phradse "men in dresses is used".
PB: No that is questioning existence of trans people again.
BC: Can we agree the phrase is not that clear in meaning:
PB: Agree

BC: You say JP is laughing about trans day of visibility. I suggest you are misinterpreting.
BC: You quote this line [they read] [but not out loud]
PB: No I am quoting a different section - this one -
BC: No, that what's we just discussed. This is different.

J asks for reference
BC: 3rd line of paragraph
BC: You quote this top line [I think says "Am completely with you"}
[long pause]

[still pause]

BC: "I am totally with you on this" - you are slightly misquoting this line here aren't you.
PB: I'm looking for a thing about millennia -
BC: we'll come to that. Please look at this line. You are slightly misquoting this line.

PB: I was listening to podcast - had no transcript - I am reporting what was said - the millennia thing -
BC I will come to that
PB: So I have put text I'm quoting and the dot dot dot means there is more text.
BC: I am trying to establish that this is what you are talking about.

BC: Just trying to ensure I have the right place.
PB: I don't think so. i'm not sure. There was a response from JP about "with you on this".
BC JM can come back to this if necessary

BC: JP is not, here, "with you" about the "men in dresses". JP's argument has moved on from that. [reads interim passage]. It is *this* - not "men in dresses" that JP is "totally with" - the move by Stonewall away from LGB rights, the late addition of the T.

PB: Disagree. it is about inclusion in general.

[interjection I could not hear - perhaps JM]
BC: I am at present talking about this particular paragraph, and the point you make.

J: Can I clarify BC - your point is that JP is not responding to "men in dresses".
BC: Yes, we've agreed that that is not a clear thing to follow; and JP is going on to say that what she is "totally with" is the point made re Stonewall switch.

PB: disagree, topic is moved to Diva and queerness and trans-inclusive.

BC: JP says, lesbians differ politically - but, all are women sexually attracted to women. It's entirely clear.

PB: Disagree, she doesn't say Stonewall at this point -
BC: which organisation did you think she was referring to, if not Stonewall? Set up to support LGB, now identitarian, which did she mean?
PB: Not clear if Stonewall or another - or, even, the whole LGBT orgs together

BC: Moving on. JP points out that historically no discussion at all about what is man and what is a woman, this is all new. She is expressing a gender critical belief
PB: Yes

BC: So they are not laughing about trans visibility, they are laughing about the newness of the question.
PB: Yes but they are laughing
BC: At the idea - GC idea - that people don't know what a man is or a woman.

PB: But after they've talked about trans people.
BC: Moving on, you say that she say there are 2 sexes so "non binary" people can't experience sex-based oppression. [reads]

BC: JP is talking about the experiences of women, and her own and in her view, are highly affected by their bodies. Not saying trans people cannot be victims of sexual assault. No indication of that.

PB: No. But earlier in the podcast, says take trans people out of LGB. So that means, ignoring trans people if they are victims

BC: I suggest that is a complete misinterpretaion. JP is talking about what women experience.

PB: Disagree, whole discussion is about how trans people do not exist. Gender Critical people say that. Say that trans people are not authentic.

BC: Will leave tribunal to consider that.

BC: Now the open letter, you signed it?
PB: Yes
BC: You were sent a link by various colleagues, how many?
PB: More than ten.
BC: Can you remember who?
PB: There was a lot of trafficc.
BC: can you remember who?

PB: someone in psychology.
BC: Anyone who is a witness here?
PB No.
BC you say traffic?
PB: Twitter.
BC: Nowhere else? Whatsapp groups?
PB: No
BC: Any emails?
PB: Yes links by email
BC: Other than the person you mention?
PB: Not sure. I think twice from same person.

PB: Lots of it going around.

BC: You read the letter
PB: Yes
BC Agreed with it
PB: Yes

BC: Let's look at the letter. [all find page]
BC: Want to ask the purpose of signing an open letter like this. You could have raised a complaint. Or responded directly. The usual ways.
PB: Not sure what you mean.

BC: Well if you think a colleague has said something improper, you could raise a complaint, or engage in argument.
PB: Yes
BC or you could engage in a more general critique of gender critical beliefs.
PB: Yes

BC: This open letter doesn't attempt to do that.
PB: Well it raises issues I'd already raised in other ways. About supporting trans and non binary and gender non conforming students and staff. I'd had no response when raising. So I signed the open letter.

BC: The letter is objecting to OU allowing the GCRN network. Asks OU to cut links to network. Not to provide the usual resources for a resource network.
PB: No I took the letter to be a response to GC comments -
BC: will come back to that. Stick with the section I asked about.

BC: Asks OU to withdraw support.
PB: Yes
BC: Asking for GCRN not to use networks etc
PB: Well not specifically, I mean, it's, branding
BC: Asks that GCRN not be situated in the [missed]

BC: Asks to withdraw support for and affiliation with.
PB: No I thought it meant the specific SRA location
BC: Normal for a RN to be in an SRA, to be funded
PB: Yes

BC: Normal for RN to have repuational benefits of that
PN: Yes normally. Normally SRA networks would not debate existence of certain people

BC: This letter is calling for GCRN *not* to have all those normal things.
PB: No it's talking about harm to trans and non binary people and to do something about that eg support to staff and students. Asking OU to affirm support for trans and non binary staff, student.

BC: You are getting ahead. I am asking how you can say the letter is not asking the OU to treat this RN differently, when it is explicitly asking "withdraw support and affiliation".
PB: but it says other things too.
BC: But it does say that?
PB yes

PB: But there are other things that a recent network could be, we talked about the logo. There are different levels of affiliation.
BC: That is not what letter says. It says "withdraw affiliation".
PB: there are different levels.

BC: Are you asking the tribunal to believe that you signed the letter because you believed it was asking for adjustments to the affiliation of the RN?
BC: If you were told you could not operate in the same way as your colleagues, would you not find that hostile?

[interjection I missed - JM?]
J: witness can answer the question or not, as she chooses.

BC: Letter is written because gender critical feminism is claimed to be inherently hostile to trans people doesn't it. See first paragraph. And last paragraph - says harmful
PB: Well I didn't write the letter.

BC: You said you had read it and agreed with it. Are those your views.
PB: Yes. Grew up 2018, re GRA reforms. Attack trans people. I agreed with the letter.

BC: Not true that GC beliefs are harmful to trans people. Just a different view of sex and gender.
PB: Not true.
BC: But we are agreed that that *view* of GC feminism that the motive for the letter?

PB: well I believed that GC feminism undermines trans people - not sure about letter itself.
BC: Even if the podcast had not existed, your existing beliefs would have meant you signed the letter?

PB: Not really - podcast really upset me, I'd already complained about it.
BC: An open letter is by definition a campaign?
PB: No, exercise in academic freedom.
BC: Could be both.

BC: If lots of people are encouraging people to sign an open letter, that's the start of a campaign?
PB: No it was more people noticing, and saying they're signing.

BC: Let me put this neutrally. If you jointly sign a letter, you are jointly hoping the letter's objectives will be achieved.
PB: Yes, but, we academics sign all sorts of letters.

BC: Not my question. You are jointly hoping that enough people will sign too, to achieve letter's objective.
PB: More I wanted OU to affirm position as protecting trans people.

BC: You knew prevailing orthodoxy in academia is pro gender ideology and anti gender criticism.
PB: I knew lots of discussion parrticularly since 2018. Don't think there's a prevailing orthodoxy.

BC: Shall be taking the tribunal through this in detail. Give you another chance to acknowledge orthodoxy.
PB: No there were different views within OU.

BC: You expected with this letter to tap into prevailing culture, positive view of gender ideology at OU, to cow employers into doing what you wanted.
PB: No I found OU often did poorly by trans / non-binary staff. Attempt to have employer support.

BC: And even if employer didn't do what you wanted, you knew this letter would be so reputationally damaging to GCRN that it would stymie their work
PB: No.

BC: If you knew 369 colleagues had signed a letter condemning a particular area of research, you would think twice before entering that area of research,
PB: the podcast though.
BC {re-puts the question]

PB: disagree. People who wanted to join would presumably agree with the podcast that transwomen force women to suck female ...

BC: we will leave it there.
J: Mid afternoon break - we'll resume 3.15
[BREAK]

@threadreaderapp please unroll