Critiquing The Critic: Jon Pike from the OUGCRN on The Critic Podcast
“If my answers frighten you, Vincent, you should cease asking scary questions…”
Notes from Jon Pike’s interview with Olivia Hartley for The Critic Podcast on 23rd July 2021, which can be found here
The interview begins with Olivia Hartley describing what the Open University Gender Critical Research Network is, saying that they aren’t setting out to be Gender Critical activists, but intend to be more nuanced than that. Dr Pike goes on to describe how he and Prof Jo Phoenix were initially brought together by a particular “conflict or quarrel” at the university following the letter published in the Sunday Times by Kathleen Stock in June 2019.
This letter swiftly inspired a counter-letter, initially signed by 3600, finally acquiring the signatures of more than 5000 academics
They were both members of the list of thirty academics who signed this open letter protesting against Stonewall’s Diversity Champion scheme and the transgender inclusivity training involved in being part of it, describing it as ‘unscientific’ and ‘in tension with academic freedom’, and called on universities to sever all ties with Stonewall. This letter swiftly inspired a counter-letter, however, initially signed by 3600, and finally acquiring the signatures of more than 5000 academics, confirming their continued support for trans students and colleagues, and refuting that trans inclusive policies and practices were in any way restrictive. This second letter, by Dr Caroline Dodds Pennock, stated that the signatories supported the right to free speech and debate, but stressed universities’ duty of care to vulnerable staff and students, who should be able to work in an atmosphere free from fear or intimidation.
Dr Pike and Prof Phoenix were brought together by both separately signing the original Prof Kathleen Stock letter, due to their growing concerns about restrictions to academic freedom and Dr Pike’s particular area of interest, the ethics of sport, including how that relates to trans people in sport. He continued on this theme by saying that Stonewall’s attitude to this is simply to say that “trans women are women” and that’s the end of it, whilst “pretty much everyone else” agrees that it is a much more complex problem than this, and there are ethical issues there. The difficulty with the Stonewall approach, or the Gender Identity approach, he continued, is that “you can’t say that”, you can’t draw attention to an incongruence between the physical body and gender. Olivia Hartley adds that Stonewall have a ‘no debate’ policy which is stifling debate in academia.
…it is about being silenced and unable to speak out, whilst quite literally speaking out in a large circulation national newspaper.
The most telling thing here is the disparity between the numbers of signatories on the two letters, obviously. But there are also some interesting elements from the two letters if you examine their content in more detail. The obvious issue with Prof Stock’s letter is that it is about being silenced and unable to speak out, whilst quite literally speaking out in a large circulation national newspaper. The letter complains about restrictions to academic freedoms that come from undertaking diversity training, and having to do things like having respect for trans students’ and staff’s names, pronouns and gender identities. This is in line with the legal protections offered to trans, non binary and gender non conforming people under the Equality Act 2010. The counter-letter stresses that the primary concern for universities should be the wellbeing of vulnerable members of the LGBTQIA+ communities, and how best this can be achieved. Several academics who signed Prof Stock’s letter were reported in the press following this as being surprised to find other staff members at their colleges and universities angry and upset by what they had done, as if signing this letter would have no personal consequences for them, and no reaction from their peers. The fact that it amounted to a public admission of transphobia and might therefore engender censure seems not to have occurred to anyone involved.
Dr Pike then moved on to talk about trans people in sport, and the issues of safety that this may involve, mentioning Laurel Hubbard in particular, and how her inclusion in the New Zealand Olympic squad was “straightforwardly unfair”, and he feels he has been able to come to a firm conclusion about this. He stated that “all recent studies” say that trans women have not lost their male physiological advantage, and that skeletal structures like height and hand size can’t be changed, so therefore including trans women in women’s sport is unfair. Olivia Hartley asks if trans women’s inclusion can be considered on a case by case basis. Dr Pike responds that this would involve the use of a “poor argument” which he described as the ‘Range Argument’, asking if the physiological metrics of an athlete identifying as a woman fall within the possible range for human females – when quite obviously, everyone’s do.
I would assume that this includes metrics for height and hand size.
This is not a third class, just a blurring of the edges of the liminal space between the two we already have.
He then put forward a ‘philosophical thought experiment’, supposing that if there were a blue pill that someone could take that would remove all male advantage, then it would be fair for them to compete in the female category. He then asked how we would know all male advantage had been removed, which was an odd question for a thought experiment whose premise was to do exactly that. But anyway, if your argument is that it is impossible to define or test for what actually constitutes male advantage, then surely it’s also impossible to draw a clear line between where female and male metrics are divided, and this is because actually they overlap. Cis men and women both inhabit this space, as do trans men and women. This is not a third class, just a blurring of the edges of the liminal space between the two we already have. We don’t have enough long term test data on trans athletes to say complete exclusion from competition is the only way forward, and doing so would certainly not be fair to anyone, just as much as excluding female athletes like Caster Semenya because of a genetic condition is unfair. It will always happen that some people in sport will have physical, physiological advantages. We can either exclude all of them, or none. We don’t even understand the exact advantages of raised testosterone levels on performance yet, or on how the massively decreased levels in trans women affect physical skill or training. That trans women do not in any way or in any discipline dominate sport should certainly tell us something, however. He again says it’s “almost inconceivable” that we would ever be in a position where trans women can compete fairly in women’s sport because of the impossibility of skeletal changes he mentioned earlier. But this contradicts the basis of the Range Argument, that those skeletal, physiological ’advantages’ are not exclusively masculine, and could as easily be female attributes.
…it’s important to remember here that Dr Pike is a philosopher and not a scientist
Dr Pike finished this question by saying that this is why talking about sexed bodies matters, and that the point of the Gender Critical Network was that “in certain social circumstances and contexts, sexed bodies matter”, not just identities. I would have hoped that he was already having these conversations in his role, as were many other academics. There is no moratorium on talking about biology, physiology or gender. These are important conversations that need to be had, across many disciplines. They just need to be based on scientific thinking, not prejudice and scaremongering. They need to come from a place of inclusion and respect, and include people’s identities, gender and genetics, along with all other potentially relevant factors.
Olivia Hartley then said how fascinating it was to have a philosopher’s point of view, and I think it’s important to remember here that Dr Pike is a philosopher and not a scientist when expressing opinions about trans athletes in sport. They moved on to talk about the GCRN itself, and how it’s ‘affiliated’ to the OU which, “makes sense, as the whole ethos of the OU is accessibility”. This actually is a very good point to raise, but of course the priority being accessibility for marginalised people with actual protected characteristics who may find it hard to study elsewhere. Not for the academics who are actually paid to be there.
…at no point is this point answered or addressed, or mentioned again.
Is the OUGCRN ‘affiliated’ to the OU? What does this actually mean? There seems to be a lot of weight given to it, and it certainly makes it sound like the OU have given them their backing, which as far as I am aware, is untrue.
Olivia Hartley then asked what the process of affiliation was like, and if Dr Pike and Prof Phoenix had the support of the OU. I’d like to say here that at no point is this point answered or addressed, or mentioned again.
Dr Pike talked about how the Sunday Times letter led to a lot of flack for himself and Prof Phoenix, both from colleagues and their union, the UCU. He said that they are employed by the OU to study and research these things, his area being the ethics of sport and issues like doping, and whether brain stimulating devices are cheating. Dr Phoenix studying prisons, where sexed bodies matter. He went on to say that they weren’t some arbitrarily particularly bigoted members of staff, they have a research interest.
I suppose it’s reassuring to know they’re not arbitrarily bigoted, but specifically bigoted, and keeping it relevant to their research work. I say this in humour, in response to the use of such an odd turn of phrase. I sincerely hope neither of them actually are bigoted people, but simply hold some outdated and genuinely ignorant views when it comes to the subject of trans people, their lives and rights.
Dr Pike and Prof Phoenix gained the attention of a few more people during their fight with their union, who wanted to officially censure them, but were turned down. Several people emailed them and they found that they had “kind of got a network going”. Dr Pike described it at this point as very much a political or a union focused network – but they were becoming frustrated by being so involved in doing this when they really just wanted to “get on with their research”. This is what drove them to formally launch the network. They were fed up of being silenced and had people across disciplines who needed a way to talk openly about these things, to have seminars and get grant money. This has been previously mentioned by Prof Stock, how hard it is to get grants and research funding for GC subjects, and to get papers positively peer reviewed. Of course, it’s worth considering that this may have a lot to do with the subject matter, and may even have good reason.
As to why it had been decided that the GCRN should be ‘affiliated’ with the OU – I would suggest that this had actually been rejected by other brick universities before this. But Dr Pike very helpfully went on to clarify that it made sense as both he and Prof Phoenix were both at the OU, the OU was ‘open’ to ideas and approaches, and had a good statement of academic freedom. Other features that made it a handy place to start were: 1) it’s big, so you get critical mass, 2) it has a tradition of openness and 3) the fact that there are no students on campus so there’s less prone to disruption and protest. (my italics and bold)
He went on to say that as their seminars would be all held on zoom, it’s difficult to see the argument that they would make people physically unsafe on campus.
The Open University provides a safe space to staff, students and members of the wider OU community who come from all sorts of vulnerable minorities, and who may not have felt able to work or study at more traditional places of higher education.
I would say that the greatest risk to students and others in the OU community is knowing there are people promoting Gender Critical beliefs at their university, and doing so with the justification that there’s nothing the OU student body can do, as they are too widely spread and cannot easily be organised. This may not be a physical threat, but it is a threat to their mental and emotional health, and directly impacts their ability to work, study and achieve.
I’m also concerned with how they were imagining making people physically unsafe. What did they have in mind? Is this an actual concession that manifesting GC beliefs creates an atmosphere that is actively harmful to trans, non binary and gender non conforming people? And indeed, to the wider LGBTQ+ community. The Open University provides a safe space to staff, students and members of the wider OU community who come from all sorts of vulnerable minorities, and who may not have felt able to work or study at more traditional places of higher education. This is a direct attempt to undermine that status, and it goes against all the OU stands for. The OU does have a campus, (beyond the physical one at Milton Keynes) and it covers practically the whole world. We make up that campus, every one of us who is proud to study or work here, and we stand by our trans colleagues, fellow students and friends.
Dr Pike continued by saying, “We’re just arguing through some stuff, like academics do.” This is not just facile and patronising, but deliberately minimising the harm that is already being done by promoting discussions that look positively on subjects like detransitioning and conversion therapy, and denying the reality of trans people’s lived experiences. Dr Pike said he felt that the fact that there’s no campus “deflates some of the potential criticisms.”
Olivia Hartley responded, “The OU almost seems the perfect place. You can imagine the sort of picketing and disruption there’d be at a campus!”
This I found shocking but very telling. They are here at the OU because they know how much trouble there would be in response to this network launching at a brick university with a physical campus, from where students could make contact, collaborate and organise. This was even timed to launch at the end of term, just as many OU students no longer need to be on forums or checking the OU website, being in touch with the groups of peers that they were during study time.
Olivia Hartley asked him if they had a five year plan, but he replied that he’s not sufficiently Stalinist for that, and that they really weren’t that well organised. They don’t see the OU as being the only GCRN in the world, but being the first.
This clashes with the mention of the network with around a hundred Gender Critical members run by Prof Stock, and mentioned in the Forstater judgement.
Shouldn’t you always be able to justify what you’re doing?
Hopefully, he continued, this would lead to there being a role for Gender Critical research networks happening at other universities, to advance knowledge without needing to justify their existence all the time.
Isn’t it important and necessary for other disciplines to justify what they are doing and why, though? Shouldn’t you always be able to justify what you’re doing? This seems a very odd thing to want to achieve.
He went on to say that setting it up is kind of a political move, but it’s also gathering resources, setting up the website, arranging seminars…
Dr Pike then said:
“When I publish something about fairness in sport, I don’t need people to circulate helplines for distressed readers who might need counselling and therapy because I published an article about weightlighting.”
So, if he publishes something he knows is controversial, and may upset people who it directly affects, he doesn’t want support to be available to them – even though it doesn’t affect him at all? He wants to be able to say and publish anything he pleases, consequence-free, with only positive responses? Perhaps he would find putting trigger warnings and content notices at the start of any future papers, helpful, to avoid this sort of inconvenience.
He went on, “It’s not where we are yet. It will be when the Gender Critical perspective is understood as just another perspective. As legitimate. […] It’s quite exciting to be in at the start of this.”
The interesting point here is the acknowledgement that Gender Critical beliefs are not just ‘another perspective’, or even legitimate. The Forstater judgement was very clear on how it described Gender Critical beliefs: “[the tribunal] having expressed doubts as to the scientific basis for the Claimant’s belief. The Tribunal refers to “the fact that biological opinion is increasingly moving away from an absolutist approach [to gender]…” and “the Tribunal might consider the scientific foundations of the Claimant’s belief to be weak.” Also, “…including by taking the view that the Claimant’s beliefs were not supported by scientific evidence.”
Tutors should want the best outcomes for all their students, surely, not just the ones whose beliefs align with their own?
Dr Pike then made another very telling statement:
“Unsurprisingly, I’m not too keen on the ‘Safe Space’ idea…”
I find that an unnecessarily unpleasant and unkind thing to say. A university or college – any place of education – should by its very nature be a safe space. There will be students and staff attending who are vulnerable for a wide range of reasons, and they have the right to feel safe and supported whilst they are there whatever the personal views of individual tutors may be about them, their identities, politics or beliefs. That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t encounter a wide range of difficult and potentially disturbing and challenging ideas. But to do so, they need to be aware of what they are studying, why they need to study it and it’s larger context, and they need to be able to make choices about how and when they study difficult things. They also need access to support services and counselling, even if all they read was ostensibly an article about weightlifting. Tutors should want the best outcomes for all their students, surely, not just the ones whose beliefs align with their own?
Dr Pike then suggested that as GC beliefs are protected in law, you can’t be sacked for expressing the view there are two sexes, and sex is immutable. But as Forstater made clear, it is only the right to hold GC beliefs that is protected. Any manifestation of those beliefs is subject to the laws around hate speech, harassment and EqA 2010, just as it always has been.
It was then mentioned that they’ve been approached to see if they “can review all courses at the OU for content that we might think of differently”.
But Dr Pike followed this extraordinary statement by saying they aren’t anywhere close to that stage yet. Which is a relief to us all, I’m sure.
The Open University’s new Anti Trans Mary Whitehouses…
I would infer that this is to counter the Stonewall Diversity Champion criteria, in relation to course content. What they actually think they would be doing I simply cannot imagine. Removing inclusive language from all policies? Redacting most of the gender studies courses? Is this something they genuinely see themselves doing? Replacing all mentions of ‘co-parent’ with ‘father’ and ‘anybody with a cervix’ with ‘woman’? The Open University’s new Anti Trans Mary Whitehouses…
Their concern is apparently establishing the GC perspective as a respectable, authentic, intellectual and academic perspective on some of these questions.
Honestly, this does not seem to be anything like the way to go about achieving those ends.
Olivia Hartley finished by asking how he envisaged the next year, coming out of the mist of this period of stifled discussion? And Dr Pike replied that there is a sense of things turning around slowly, and that the Labour Party is hopefully moving in this direction. He went on to say that, as Kathleen Stock says: things will become more pragmatic, more empirically informed, more a matter that conflicts can be resolved and open to compromise… He admitted she has controversial viewpoints, but he is broadly sympathetic with Professor Stock’s views
It should be noted that Prof Stock is a trustee of LGB Alliance, widely regarded as an actively anti trans and trans exclusionary group, as well as being biphobic, homophobic and misogynistic too.
This interview certainly clarified several points about the OUGCRN for me, and I hope it has done so for you. Please feel free to get in touch with them, or the Open University Vice Chancellor about what they are doing.
