Thread by @tribunaltweets

Good morning. We will be reporting from 10 am this morning from the tribunal of Adult Human Female Filmmakers (AHF) vs University and College Union. Deirdre O’Neill and Michael Wayne, who are academic members of the UCU, faced activist backlash over their 2022 documentary AHF.

Our previous reporting, background information on the case and a selection of press coverage can be found here on our Substack.
tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/adult-human-…

Our reporting is not a verbatim transcript of proceedings. We report what we hear in good faith. We are a volunteer collective of citizen journalists, please consider a subscription to our work via our Substack.

Abbreviations that may be used
J - Employment Judge Laidler
P - either Panel member

DON/C1 - Deirdre O’Neill, claimant 1
Senior Lecturer in Film Theory and Practice, Uni of Herts

MW/C2 - Prof Michael Wayne, claimant 2
Prof of Media and Film, Brunel Uni, London

NC - Naomi Cunningham, barrister for both C
assisted by CE - Charlotte Elves, barrister for both C

UCU/R - University and College Union, respondent
TB - Respondent's counsel, Tom Brown
AHF - Documentary ‘Adult Human Female’
RM - Reality Matters, documentary production company

UE - University of Edinburgh
EAFAF - Edinburgh Academics for Academic Freedom
PM/VC - Prof Peter Mathieson, UE’s Principal and Vice-Chancellor

[Full list in link above]⬆️

UCU, the respondents, are expected to call 2 more witnesses today; Grant Buttars (GB) and Lena Wanggren (LW) with LW appearing first.
Submissions will be tomorrow, with counsel submitting written subs in the morning and oral argument from 1:30 pm.

LW, phd, works as Teaching Fellow (Centre for Open Learning) and Tutor (Department of English Literature), teaching English and Scottish Literature, gender studies, and feminist writing per the UE website.

We are currently 'waiting for the conference host to join' as of 10 am.

We begin.
J - speaking to LW, u need to be away by 1 pm to teach, is this correct
LW - yes
J - explains process and timetable, are you working with paper or digital
LW - digital
J - affirm or swear?
LW - affirm, does so

J - thank you, identifies witness statement,
LW - confirms, affirms truthful
J - NC will now ask you questions, she must put her clients case, don't worry about you not being able to find a doc etc, over to NC
NC - which of the issues in the case are you concerned with

NC - direct LW to bundle, set out our heading dir discrim, the 4 things that Cs are complaining of, those 4 things are what Cs say are harassment because of GC beliefs,
3.1, 3.2 - GB email, twitter account, I should ask him about those.
LW - yes
NC - 3.3; email from JG

LW - yes, I have,
NC - JG email, 26 May 2023, JG not giving evidence so I will ask you or GB, who is better
LW - equally, neither involved with letter, I can do my best
NC - the same for the report by the equality officer, who's best to ask about that

LW - I was not on branch committee at the point and GB was so maybe he will be better, but neither of us involved,
NC - let's see how we go with time, under the heading transphobia in your witness statement, entire committee of (not heard exactly but LGBTQ acronym)

NC - referring to statement from Shereen Benjamin, is that the same incident you refer to as June,
LW - it doesn't mention there the staff network resigning, but there are on line reports, so you can establish that
NC - do you recall the incident, the panel on women's sex based

rights.
LW - let me read, yes, I remember the incident,
NC - do you remember the petition about this event
LW - I don't remember but there should be on line evidence
NC - takes LW to evidence of petition
LW - yes
NC - there was counter rally 'no terfs on our turf'

LW - I wasn't one of the organisers
NC - but this is why the committee resigned, they were asked to use less inflammatory language, etc
LW - I don't know about that, not part of the organisers
NC - you speak about an incident in your witness statement,
LW - It was 2019,

my memory is not that good, there should be online evidence.
NC - so your recollection is not that clear
LW - I wish I had a better memory
NC - SB's recollection is more clear
LW - I don't know if it's correct, because I don't remember that, I do remember that there was a panel

discussion, a rally and a protest, I think the event went ahead
NC - yes it went ahead, but attendees were presented with a crowd of protesters, a giant banner, told to go home and Julie Bindel was assaulted on the way out
LW - I did not see Julie Bindel being assaulted

NC - is it likely that they were told not to speak about this event,
LW - I think it's likely, the pride network was told to take down a blog post, so knowing my employer its likely they didn that
NC - isn't it more accurate that the network through a tantrum, and resigned

en masse
LW - no I would never call mass resignations on a point of principle, a tantrum
NC - now on SB trying to organise an event on GNC children, that was eventually cancelled
LW - like many scholars, I don't agree that there is an area of research on gender identity theory

I don't know what orgs she approached, I don't know what she was doing. I was never on the committee.
NC - please read paras 3 h& i. Dr SB's account on what happened when she complained about GB, and then the members of committee complained about her

LW - read
NC - that's accurate, her account
LW - there were 2 complaints, I don't confirm her account, this is Shireen's characterisation, I would describe in a different way, there were two complaints, these are internal UCU complaints, not sure how much we can talk about them

the UCU lawyer could speak
NC - you can answer my question
LW - I don't confirm, I would characterise differently
NC - can you be specific about what is not right
LW - I do not agree that the c/x about GB was on hostility to gc beliefs, do not agree with characterisation of the

panel as about GI theory, there is no such thing, some details on who was the i/x officer it was the same person, I do not agree with last sentence that it was based on distortions of her work without evidentiary basis
NC - there was not a transphobic atmosphere on campus but

rather it was anti gender critical
LW - are you asking if that's my view?
NC - I don't expect you to agree
LW - I don't agree
NC - no such thing as GI theory, what do you call the belief that GI is what really matters, what do you call it
LW - I would call it feminist theory

LW - feminism is a broad church, need to consider the historical context of the second sex, it's feminist theory
NC - would you accept that feminists would not agree with you
LW - yes, there are trans exclusionary feminists
NC - what would you call gender critical beliefs

LW - I would ask GC people to define it
NC - so you don't belief that GC is a stable and well understood term
LW - I would say the belief that there are 2 sexes and that trans identities are not real,
J - asks for clarification
LW - but I'm happy to be corrected

NC - the more usual way is that there are 2 sexes, sex is immutable and sometimes it matters, do you call that anything but feminism?
LW - I can't think of anything else to call it.
<<technology issue - NC to disconnect and reconnect>>
Brief pause

NC - are we back
J - yes, can see you and see movement
NC - you say trans poeple felt unsafe on campus, culture of transphobia, some examples at para 14, you will have mentioned most alarming examples that you're aware of, correct
LW - (looking at wit state) - can you repeat your

question
NC - colleagues felt unsafe due to transphobia, did you give in your wit state most alarming examples
LW - I used speakers , rather than various events that deny the existence, and stickers
NC - so speakers and stickers. If there had been a trans person assaulted

on campus you would have mentioned
LW - I'm not aware of everything that has happened but I haven't heard of that
NC - so you haven't heard of transpeople being surrounded by GC people in balaclavas shouting and screaming
LW - I'm aware of people being misgendered

but this is very personal so we don't always talked about it
NC - so if gc feminists had set off smoke bombs, banged on windows, at trans events, you would have mentioned that
LW - i would have mentioned that
NC - if signs held up saying 'decapitate trannies' you would have

mentioned that
LW - yes, but there are murders of trans people in the world
NC - can you tell the tribunal about the murder of a trans person anywhere in the world by a gc person
LW - I can't say that because I wouldn't know there politics
NC - how many trans people murdered

in the last 10 years, how many women murdered in the UK in the last 10 years
LW - I don't know I'm sure you can find those statistics
NC - so it is the stickers and the misgendering makes people afraid to come on campus
LW - it's is the events that question the right of trans

people exist and no support from trans people when they complain
NC - stickers; AHF you regard as transphobic
LW - it's a dog whistle, if it wasn't it wouldn't be put upt
NC - what about 'women don't have penises' is that transphobic

LW - It is trans exclusionary, and I as a cis-gendered woman don't like to see it
NC - but there is a claim that some women have penises, it's a surprising claim,
LW - I don't agree that womens rights and trans rights are in a debate
NC - people who do not have GC beliefs

claim that some women have penises
LW - yes
NC - only reason people say 'women don't have penises' is because the opposite claim has been made.
LW - what do you want me to say
NC - agree or disagree
LW - I don't agree that the only reason its' said is because the claim has been

made, many things are said in society that we could object to
NC - now on to seahorses are horses, hot dogs are dogs, it's a good natured parody of TWAW, is that fair
LW - I don't think it's fair
NC - do you think that's hateful, transphobic, frightening,

LW - I would say it's hateful, and it mischaracterises the war on women (#waronwomen) its male violence and patriarchy are the war on women
NC - some people say that the desire to take over female spaces by male people claiming to be women is part of the war on women,

LW - I am aware that there are people who call themselves feminists who are trans exclusionary, I respect their right to hold that belief, I believe that feminism should fight all oppression
NC - describes sticker 'do male bodied people have the right to undress, shower and

change with women', captioned as the worst, isn't this the heart of the matter
LW - I don't believe that's the debate
NC - you believe that TW have the right to access women only spaces, don't you, that's the heart of the debate
LW - I don't agree that is the debate, I believe in

single sex spaces, protecting women from violence, etc. I read this sticker to say some TW are male sexed people. This questions portrays TW as predatory, not backed up research, lived experience, not in my working life, as a feminist, trans people coming after women's rights

is not the problem. It portrays transpeople as predatory and violent.
NC - you're not going to agree that's a fair question to ask
LW - no
NC - so what about 'silly to think that women have a willy'
LW - I don't think it's silly

NC - I put that question badly, it's reasonable for people to believe that it is silly that women can have a willy
LW - I don't think it's reasonable, I think a lot about words, I think it's rude to use the word silly, its' not reasonable, a lot of people suffer a lot, in

patriarchal transphobic society
NC - even if you don't like language, can we agree that it's a reasonable viewpoint even if expressed in trenchant language
LW - I can't agree, especially because of the language, and the hashtags, and it ridicules transpeople

NC - so if it said 'it is wrong for the Scots Gov to believe men can be women' that would be acceptable
LW - people can hold those views, but why would anyone put it on a sticker and post it, I don't know
NC - now on puberty blocker stickers, is that inherently transphobic

LW - if you define transphobia means denying trans identity, then it is transphobic, the reality is that the lived experience of trans people and LGBTQ community were made to feel unsafe by these stickers, no matter the intention, it made them feel unsafe and unwelcome

NC - you mention definition, is that para 33?
LW - yes, that's one definition of transphobia
NC - we'll come back to that. Let's talk about dog whistles, the branch doesn't object to any and all discussions of sex and gender
LW - we have active campaigns on preventing sexual

violence
NC - Put too broadly. The branch doesn't object to discussions of trans rights
LW - we wouldn't normally have discussions about this unless workplace conditions
NC - why not
LW - we work on policies on intimate relationships, sexual violence

we are a union not a talking shop.
NC - you can't discuss a trans rights policy without discussing the conflict between women's rights and trans rights
LW - a trans policy would b based on the EA
NC - the subject here is a concrete example, GI vs GC is not off limits

this a talk by Katie Montgomery
LW - not organised by UCU
NC - part funded by UCU
LW - I don't know
NC - takes to reference by speaker of thanks,
LW - Okay
NC - UCU did not try to shut down or denigrate this event, did it?
LW - our union policy is to be trans inclusive

so not a surprised
NC - Katie Montgomery is a TiM, and a trans activist
LM - I would disagree, a TW
NC - and this talk was after the first attempted screening and before the second attempted screening
LM - yes
NC - this talk put forward a specific set of views that support

trans rights
LM - I disagree with you, I support women's rights and trans rights, they are not in conflict, I don't agree this is a debate, show me the specific language
NC - how about the title 'combating on line hate'
Judge calls morning break.
End of part one.

@threadreaderapp unroll please