Thread by @tribunaltweets

This is the PM session at the employment tribunal (Prof Jo Phoenix v The OU)
#OpenJustice
We are due to start at 2.30pm

Next witness expected to be either:

LW - Louise Westmarland, Prof of Criminology, Co-Deputy Head SPC, 2018-21, Current Head SPC

Or

LD - Dr Leigh Downes, Senior Lecturer in Criminology (in SPC), Academic Lead for EDI FASS 2019-21

Resuming....

J is asking for diclosure of other grievance.

JM explaining she will get the information and has agreed with BC that she will tell J what is in it rather than provide to panel

J: Its a suggestion but my concern is that Tribunal needs to know what overlaps with decision re JP

JM: We will look at first and then decide as we dont know what's in it
J: I still may make the disclosure order...
JM: Thats fine as then you've made an order. Maybe BC ok if only you see.... we need to see it first
J: Do be ready to address us on this tomorrow.

J: Can I just check there are two grievances?
JM: Yes but I think second one might not be relevant
J: Ok
JM: We are going to call Dr Downes (LD)

LD affirming the oath

JM and LD agreeing LD WS. Over to BC

BC: I will start with 3 general propositions. 1. First you believe GC views are inherently transphobic and harmful to T people?

LD: GC belief that sex is immutable, binary and fixed has impact on facilities required by T people that are required for their protection and to participate in public life
BC: So inherently harmful?
LD: They can manifest that way, yes

BC: 2. You don't think GC beliefs should be expressible in a uni or academic context and they are against EA2010?
LD: No, that's too broad a statement for me to agree with.

BC: 3. From Spring 2019 to Summer 2021 you repeatedly agitated behind the scenes and publicly to restrict JP and others from expressing those views
LD: I disagree
BC now asking about stopping a conference

The conference is a CCJS conference

LD: I expressed a view about statements. I made a point about how difficult it would be to continue my research on trans prisoners

BC: [Gives bundle ref]

BC: Those are both entirely nuanced and unobjectionable statements?
LD: I disagree, they could be objectionable
BC: Can we be precise, could be or are?
LD: I find them objectionable

BC: Can you give me the phrases which you find objectionable?
[LD highlights repeated use of 'male-bodied']
BC: So if RG cannot make his point about housing trans prisoners in female prisons his belief becomes inexpressible doesn't it?

LD: I disagree, there are different ways to express. In my view, there's an absence of an understanding that t women prisoners are also vulnerable to self-harm, suicide etc. I think that's objectionable.
BC: Have a look at...
LD: Can I just finish my answer Judge?
J: OK

LD: Being called male-bodied is a denial of t woman sense of self. That could be objectionable
J: Could be?
LD: I think it is.

BC: Logical extension is that you cant express GC beliefs then as that will always be objectionable?
LD: Thats at the heart of the intellectual disagreement
BC: We are talking about what can be said in relation to that debate.

If a GC person cannot without exception say this person is male-bodied notwithstanding their gender and in this situation the fact they are male-bodied matters more - then they just cant express their beliefs can they?

LD: Its not respecting their sense of self
BC: But its not a moral judgment. Your logic doesn't allow expressing that biology is different to GI

LD: Can I take a moment to think about that
BC: Yeah

LD: I would come back to the harm that can be caused by statements like 'male-bodied trans women prisoners'. RG standpoint is that they belong in mens prisons which is a valid argument but...
BC: We are getting off track on whether can express GC views

J intervenes to ask witness for clarity re separation of sex and gender
LD: This is a really tricky question I think back to the separation of sex and gender and my training in gender studies. Long history in feminist theorising in sex and gender.

Sex isn't a blank slate. The idea they can be separated...
J: Its not just that its the prioritisation of sex over gender. You haven't answered that bit
LD: This is a really difficult question. We understand sex is a historical and a legal category. What Im trying to say is...

BC: I think I will move on as this could go on. I would not stop you expressing GC views are harmful. But do you agree with that when you do so its important you don't cross line into discrimination or harassment?

LD: With GC I see a fixed idea not allowing for an open debate...
BC: I dont wanna go back into it. You dont have to not have a fixed view. You can debate being firm in your view
LD: I dont know. Wouldn't have thought its a good way to dialogue

BC: Im not asking what's good Im asking that one can
LD: It depends on context
BC: [Gives bundle ref] This is part of an online chat at same time as a meeting on 14 March 2019 after cancellation of CCJS conference. Remember meeting?
LD: No

BC: There are comments from you re disrespect of trans people
LD: Yes
BC: You talk about conversations with RG trying to persuade him to change his views/expression

LD: Yes
BC: Then you say without accountability from CCJS there could be repetitional harm. So your meant retraction and apology?
LD: Thats not how I use the word accountability. My work focusses on restorative justice. So how can we resolve

BC: You were looking for him to acknowledge harm his views had and some remorse
LD: I was simply trying to get conversation going
BC: If he hadn't got to a point you were happy with then you were saying the relationship shouldn't continue

LD: Worried about impact on research I was doing and reputation
BC: But there would no rep risk unless a belief on your part that relevant people took a similar view to you
LD: Difficult ideas circulating..

BC: Im not going to keep pressing questions where I dont get a clear answer I will just deal with it in subs. Moving on do you remember this meeting with CCJS?
LD: Long time ago, I remember having it

BC discussing views around risk of discrimination and rep risks to research being done and references to LD comments to this effect in the bundle. Further discussion re cancellation of the conference and LD role

BC: Did you have a view on whether the relationship should continue?
LD: I think I was concerned about it continuing

[Missed bit]
BC: Decision to cease relations with CCJS. You reply I'll raise a glass to that. So you certaintly did think it should be terminated
LD: I certainly did think there issues

BC: You did not think there should be association with someone with GC views?
LD: I think it was more than that. There were other difficulties for other projects and synergies

BC: Email from you re JP WPUK talk. You said you found it very upsetting.
LD: Yes
BC: You said it was time to bring to attention of Vicky and Steve and that action needs to be taken to protect rep of OU and give 'me and Abby a shot at our research in this area'

But the issue with the talk is her views isn't it?
LD: Its a threat to the view that trans women are women
BC: Im not going to debate but moving on. JP emphasises that she absolutely supports 'my trans brothers and sisters & there fight to be free and express their sense of

self.' *their
Etc but she argues that not t phobic to challenge the logic that institutions should organise around sense of self.

She is expressing GC belief?
LD: That is the view she is expressing
BC: Your belief that this would stop you doing research in this area doesn't make sense
LD: I dont agree

BC: If you can do it quickly tell us the bit that is wrong in her talk

LD: where she talks about people with penises cant have babies...
BC: But if people of different sexes are put together they will make babies
LD: She brings in example of Karen White

BC: But she says forget about KW, there is no research out there that analyses the problems etc. So she's not talking about TW being a threat to women and children. She is straight down the middle making criminological posts...

Your conduct is not to engage in debate and explain to JP why she is wrong. You got to Head of Dept and say they need to take action.

LD: Thats not how I remember it happened. We have regular process where we talk about how we are feeling with LM. I raised with my LM I was upset about the video.
J Break until quarter to.

@threadreaderapp please unroll