Thread by @tribunaltweets

Welcome back to Prof Jo Phoenix v Open University. This is Part 2 fn the afternoon on 16/10/23.

Helen Bowes-Catton (HBC), Lecturer in social research methods at the OU, will take the stand.
2.55pm start.

https://twitter.com/tribunaltweets/status/1713898774639042620

[Tribunal resumes 1459]

[HSB is taken throught oath, WS and confirms signature]

BC: good afternoon. Look at bundle 1 at page 389. [HSB finds]
BC: U recall having exchange with Dr Williams, email at bottom u say 'GRA TERFS thing getting u down' you had visceral reaction ppl

With GC beliefs didn't you?
HSB: no I wouldn't say that.

BC: this is a further exchange between u and CW isn't it in June 19?
HSB: not seen this before.
BC: first para u refer to the Guardian letter and say one of the sigs of letter, you were shocked as u thought she

was a fellow traveller. 'Felt weird about her since' 'met JP in person' and felt simarlary. That's about a good a des riptide of prejudice one can get. Bc of their beliefs u feel weird about them?
HSB: don't agree.

HSB: thought both were fellow travellers.
BC: it makes u feel weird about that person bc of a characteristic about them. That's visceral isn't it?
HSB: it's like I've misunderstood someone and finding new info I didn't know how to integrate

BC: then you say [reads 'apparant terfiness' Bc of one letter ur labelling a person a TERF and that's a visceral reaction?
HSB: don't agree
BC: U wrote along with others to the then acting VC didn't u?
HSB: yes

BC: and Dean of faculty. And u identify that u are deeply concerned that sigs to Sunday Times included OU academics. So u were identifying individuals?
HSB: yes. You see you know who I mean but I don't say them.

BC: when u say in WS and answer just now, when u say not about JP that's disingenuous?
HsB: no never about individuals. About OU and standing with trans and NB
BC: U say they're in conflict and seniors need to look into it?

HBC: I was concerned with pronouns in the letter. (Missed)

BC: the letter was saying many of us want to engage in that debate. It's not saying it won't use pronouns as means of address?
HBC: sounds like that's happening in context of teaching

J: u were asking if it pronouns were accepted in academia. You said no. Do u mean it is decided or isn't decided?
HBC: there's academic discourse but also what do we do in classroom and I thought we had clear policy to respect pronouns.

BC: the letter was not saying many of sigs would not do that. It was saying many of sigs would wish to be able to debate the use of pronouns and what they refer to.
HbC: didn't understand it like that.

BC: re Sunday Times letter. U suggest open letter which u helped produce and signed was doing same thing as ST letter. Can we agree ST was arguing for open space to debate?
HBC : not sure (looking at letter)

HBC: [reads letter] ask again
BC: the letter is seeking to argue for keeping open space for issues to be debated
HBC: its asking Stonewall to clarify academic freedom of thought.
BC repeats
HBC: ur characterising it as broader

BC: it's asking SW as SW is stifling debate. So it's asking not to stifle isn't it? (Paraphrased)
(Long Pause)
HBC: yes. It's characterising SW as stifling debate and making point about teaching.

BC: what it is NOT doing is arguing that Henderson affirmative academic should be treated less favourably?
HBC: yes it's not saying that
BC: its NOT seeking to shut down debate?
HBC: yeh

BC: do u see cut and paste statement from feminist group in OU. U were author?
HBC : yes...I haven't seen this before. Let me have a read please.

HBC: (exhales loudly) OK thanks. I don't remember this.
BC: it was a msg that u and others wrote in context of ST letter?
HBC: I remember Facebook post
BC: this is it. Its cut and pasted.

[Reads 'trans and NB right to identify not up for debate'] as far as ur feminist group qas concerned the debate about self ID was not welcome right?
HBC: yes
BC: FDG means?
HBC: feminist discussion group.

BC: U appreciate important debate on TWAW?
HBC: yes
BC: [reads 'if u can't support that this is not group for u']

HBC: I want to give context. (Talking very fast) Historically women only group. When I took over we wanted to make it more inclusive so. I agree spaces you want to have convos about sexed bodies and whether TWAW.

This group was explicitly intersections and NOT a space for that
BC: so u were saying u weren't welcome in our group
HBC: this is trans friendly space not up for debate.
BC: GC is feminist school of thought?
HBC: I should've renamed the group Intersectional Feminisn

BC: U talk about GC aspect u don't agree with. Do we agree its not illegitimate to voice GC views in academic process?
HBC: no not illegitimate
BC: [reads 'existence'] GCRN weren't seeking to debate existence, they're saying identities not same as sex?

HBC: I'm not talking about ppl, just GC thought.
BC : but u say trans rights aren't matter for debate when u know scope of those debates is important debate?
HBC: I'm saying *I* am not debating it.

BC: We see here you don't think it shouldn't be discussed at all?
HBC: no I'm saying *I* don't think it should.

BC: this is an email Dr Drake wrote in 2019?
HBC: yes
BC: re ST letter and clear u have been tweeting about it?
HbC: yes
BC: in that context DD says she's in 'tricky position' [reads 'our WhatsApp groups'] so u have a WhatsApp group u were running to discuss at the time?

HBC: we had a group -
BC: before u go down that road, go to this email. We can see CW saying 'Helen has set up a WhatsApp group for this'?
HBC: there's 2 WhatsApp groups and talking about another here. One is about strikes that is one DD referring to

The one CW is referring to is called 'supporting TNB at OU' and set up around ST letter in response to consultation about GRR at that time. Lots of ppl were finding sore and difficult. Lot of transphobia in press for example.

BC: GRR was 2018?
HBC: yes
BC: set up in 2018 and running to 2019. Did it run to 2021?
HBC: no
BC: did DD join that WhatsApp group?
HBC: no
BC: did u discuss this on union/strikes group too?
HBC: no

HBC : wasn't any posts in that group about this stuff
BC: have u deleted the groups?
HBC: yes
BC: was there a group around open letter?
HBC: no
BC: so that other group could have been running to 2021?
HBC: could have been

BC: CW said various convos across various platforms
HBC: I don't know
BC: [reads tweet 'TERFs' 'delete comms on this'] u thought good advice to retweet?
HBC: yes
BC: this is basically saying make sure u organise ur harassment of TERFs and then hide evidence?
HBC: no

HBC: ppl felt uncomfortable having vonvos on campus. It felt unsafe to speak about it
BC: this tweet is identified in index as being from 2nd July 2021. Right in period of reaction to GCRN. U still seem to have no problem retweeting with abusive term TERF in it

HBC: GC use it about themselves and when I saw they saw it as a slur I stopped using it. I wouldn't have used the word myself
BC: this is plainly harassing of TERFs [reads]
HBC: not harassing to say biology used against trans ppl.

BC: it's saying to hide evidence
HBC: no its saying avoid vexatious claims
BC: this is positioning harassment claims as vexatious
HBC: no its saying there are claims ppl should be careful.
BC: looks like harassment of TERFs doesn't it?
HBC: no

HBC: no efforts to delete
BC: we have no disclosure of letter drafting...
HBC: ppl were so scared to talk. Ppl were really frightened
BC: so was it done on private network then u deleted it?
HBC: Google I think. Can remember how it was written

J: BTW plan to finish at 4.15. Will u be finished with this witness?
BC: yes
J: great

BC: this is Part of notes of grievance investigation. Ur asked how u found about open letter. U gave impression u just came across it as I was everywhere?
HBC: open letter and everyone took responsible for it. Keen not to tell employer who was involved

BC: wasn't true u just came across it?
HBC: deliberately being vague as I didn't want to throw ppl under the bus.
BC: [reads 'me and some of my colleagues decided to create open letter'] true?
HBC: of course its true
BC: who were the other colleagues?
HBC: eeeeerrrrm....

HBC: I'd have to guess. Was in convos with loads of ppl. Unfair to pull names out of the air as I really don't know it was 3 years ago. I was involved in drafting and what I did re podcast.

BC: I suggest u have better recollection that ur letting on and still concealing planning that went into it?
HBC: remember being on a call, a zoom, bit couldn't say confidently who else, honestly...
BC: I'll move on

BC: do u agree u stood by the open letter in its entirety?
HBC: yes
[Bundle search]

BC: this is a statement published to the world about GCRN about how it should be treated
HBC: the OU
BC: put on Internet for world to see. U knew ppl would tweet it?
HBC: yes
BC: is it about the GCRN and how it should be treated?
(HBC exhales loudly)

HBC: (pause) yes and asking VC for actions.
BC: so when u said to interviewer panel [reads 'not trying to do anything to GCRN'] Not true is it?
HBC: I'm responding to another line
BC: but u were trying to get GCRN removed from OU?

HBC: I was asking OU not to let GCRN not use shield
BC: or the WHSRA
HBC: yes
BC: you were trying to make GCRN feel isolated and unwelcome and excluded?
HBC: NO my work is about inclusion
BC: U opposed having GCRN in OU wereng you?
HBC: not opposed. It was way it was handled

BC: but that's not mentioned here and asking for removal [paraphrased]
HBC: it had negative connotations to trans and NB ppl and was about expressing solidarity with staff.
BC: when u signed u were aware SM activity about GCRN?
HBC: yes

BC: GCRN accused of being TERFs and transphobes?
HBC: I didn't see anything harassing
BC: purpose of letter was to create a loud voice?
HBC: loud voice in support of trans.
BC: letter we agreed seeks to have GCRN treated less favourably bc if beliefs?
HBC: no

BC: if OU had done what u asked that'd mean treating GCRN less favourably?
HBC: I'm asking them to not allow GCRN to use OU brand

BC: [reads ' I want to send a signal' 'the existence of GCRN' 'not in my name'] u were seeking to create a loud voice that GCRN was not elwelcome at OU?
HBC: no I was being clear I didn't stand for it
BC: to maximise voice u sent letter to as many as possible
HBC: I tweeted it

That's usually what you do with a public statement.
BC: someone called Naomi M sends a msg to herself and then sent to u. She says thanks. Can I infer u had supplied her with link to open letter for her to disseminate?
HBC: no
BC: what's she saying thanks for?
HBC: for the email

BC: as afar as I can tell the one here is first in time? This is a chain that runs back...
HBC: oh yeah
BC: She's saying thanks and u have supplied the letter. She says she will circulate carefully
(HBC explains)
BC: you're right. You respond u have being doing likewise

HBC: yes as I'm talking about being worried about effect on colleagues [reads 'she will find herself isolated' 'because GC is so against prevailing thought'] U are recognising isolating effect of being in minority view?
HBC: yeah

BC: if u launch a letter into that environment...

[Sound gone]

[We have lost sound. The court chat box shows others have lost sound too. Please bear with us to see if we can resume]

[Sound has come on]

BC: she says there's nothing transphobic [savage minds podcast]
HBC: She's laughing along about lesbians sucking dick, inappropriate
BC: reflecting language lesbians get isn't it?
HBC: not the position of SW

BC: U tweeted out link to open letter to maximise voice?
HBC: to circulated it
BC: to maximise loudness of voice?
HBC: I've asked ppl to sign. Those are ur words not mine.
BC: loud voice is your words from ur witness statement

BC: U also circulated a link to statement from LSE with solidarity to add to the voice attacking GCRN?
HBC: no. It was so nice to have solidarity and meant a lot to trans and NB who were feeling horrible about situ

BC: that was another letter calling for OU to disaffiliate GCRN on basis it was transphobic to staff
HBC: it's saying about context of time
BC: do u agree Central message is that OU should disassociate from GCRN?
HBC: it's positioning GCRN outside of scholarship,

BC: do u need me to repeat?
HBC: yes
BC repeats
HBC: [reads part of letter]
BC: I've put the question 3 times. U were tweeting to maximise that GCRN was not welcome at OU?
HBC: no. It was Support for trans and NB students. (Exhales loudly)

BC: Those are all my Qs.
J: a few questions. In that email DD refers to 'plexus' (? Not sure if heard right)
HBC: old name for network
P: re podcast and u particularly thought language use was inappropriate. I just wondered what u understood the podcast to be about?

HBC: about experiences at Essex. A lot about SW and how it had changed.
J: What was it about the language? What was wrong with laughing in bits u referred?

HBC: the way it was laughing at trans ppl. Laughing at org trying to represent trans ppl. The circulation of that. I didn't think context was great. I didn't think it was sensitive at a time the climate for trans was hostile.

Having this come from inside the uni I was just appalled. Felt a bit like this is their launch on day 1. I was very shocked by it.
J: u said the purpose of letter was solidarity to trans?
HBC: yes
J: any other reason?

HBC: thought it important that staff and students knew there were ppl in uni who stood by them.
J: that's all.
[No Qs from JM. HBC is released. Convo about timetable and constraints of time.]
J: we will sit longer tomorrow to get 3 witnesses in.

J: We'll sit until 5pm tomorrow. See you tomorrow 10am.

[Court adjourned]

@threadreaderapp pls unroll