Open Letter

Dear Vice Chancellor,

Thank you for your letter, which is publicly available today, and I would also like to thank you for the effort and time you have put into formulating such a thorough and thoughtful response in such a timely manner. I know how many of us appreciate your frank and open consideration of the many complex and emotive points of view in dealing with this.

I would like to respond by expanding on the following areas, however:

I do not think anyone objects to anyone else’s right to study difficult or even potentially offensive subjects. Education and learning can only develop through pushing boundaries and tackling all aspects of every subject, without fear or favour. Research networks work by linking academics, researchers and other specialists from different institutions and backgrounds, and allowing people to both collaborate, and share funding opportunities. But by seeking the validation and respectability of calling themselves the ‘Open University Gender Critical Research Network’, and by basing themselves at the Open University, I believe that this network is creating a barrier to working, learning and success for the many trans, non binary and gender non conforming staff and students here. I know that this will include those not yet able to be out yet, outside this very special and unique learning environment, and those still not ready to share who they are with their friends and colleagues here. The tacit approval given to the OUGCRN by allowing the use of the Open University name and affiliation means that LGBTQ+ staff and students can no longer feel the university prioritises their needs or is willing to treat them with dignity and respect.

The Open University has always been a beacon of true ‘openness’, and a place where those whose position in marginalised communities has meant they may not have felt welcome, safe or supported at mainstream brick universities can find a home. This reputation has now been severely harmed, and I know that I have been personally contacted by people who no longer feel willing or able to start or continue their studies here, and these examples must surely be the tiniest drop in the ocean. I am just a first year STEM student with a blog post, but people have reached out to me, to thank me for speaking up when they cannot, and I cannot avoid thinking about how small a fraction of the whole number affected these must be.

I recognise that the Open University’s position in this is not simple. Why shouldn’t this network be able to study gender issues from a critical standpoint? What is it that trans people are afraid of? Robust debate is healthy, and we must have these conversations to move forward, even though they may be uncomfortable for some, surely?

The issue is not that critical research should or should not take place – although of course it should – but that the term ‘Gender Critical’ has a very specific meaning. After all the heated debate and acrimony which has surrounded the acronym TERF, (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist) and whether it is a slur (as any word can be in the right context, of course) or a banner to be reclaimed – or indeed simply an acronym coined by a respected feminist (Smythe, 2018), many anti-trans campaigners and critics began using the less reactionary term ‘gender critical’ in its place. (Burns, 2019) This gives ‘Gender Critical’ a very politicised and polarised meaning.

As has been outlined in the recent ruling in Forstater vs CGD Europe & Others, (2021) Gender Critical beliefs are understood to consist of the belief that:

“…sex is biologically immutable. There are only two sexes, male and female. […] this is a material reality. Men are adult males. Women are adult females. There is no possibility of any sex in between male and female; or that is a person is neither male nor female. It is impossible to change sex. Males are people with the type of body which, if all things are working, are able to produce male gametes (sperm). Females have the type of body which, if all things are working, is able to produce female gametes (ova), and gestate a pregnancy. It is sex that is fundamentally important, rather than “gender”, “gender identity” or “gender expression”. […] will not accept in any circumstances that a trans woman is in reality a woman or that a trans man is a man.”

Additionally, from R vs College of Policing (2020), quoted in the Forstater ruling:

“[it is the belief that]…trans women are men who have chosen to identify as women. […] such persons have the right to present and perform in any way they choose, provided that such choices do not infringe upon the rights of women. […] not believe that presentation and performance equate to literally changing sex; […] conflating sex (a biological classification) with self-identified gender (a social construct) poses a risk to women’s sex-based rights; […] such concerns warrant vigorous discussion. [This] position […] is accurately described as gender critical.”

It is quite obvious from this that, whilst it may be possible to describe a person with these views as not “inherently transphobic” if they are held purely as philosophical beliefs, they do in fact deny the lived reality of transgender people, and if given validity, will create an atmosphere of distress, discomfort and disrespect – if not outright hostility towards trans, non binary and gender non conforming people. The outcome of the appeal in the Forstater case was that whilst it was legally permitted to hold such beliefs, their manifestation would still very easily fall under discrimination and harassment laws. How will a Research Network function without manifesting its views? Is it possible none of those views will affect any staff or students with a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010; the people whose freedom to work and study without distress or discrimination is set out in the university’s own Diversity and Inclusion policy? These are the people your first responsibility should always be towards. It is not, nor should it ever be, trans people’s responsibility to argue for their own right to exist and be treated with respect, or even more importantly, treated as equal members of the university’s community. They have the right to not encounter prejudice being promoted to them, and the denial of their own rights being discussed as though that were acceptable, when it quite clearly is not.

I would also like to question why this Research Network has been created now, under the Open University’s name. As stated in the Forstater Report, speaking about one of the founding affiliate members of the OUGCRN, “Professor Stock co-runs an informal network of around 100 gender-critical academics working in UK and overseas universities.” If such a network already exists and is functioning, why start another one now, at the OU? Unless it’s purely to gain respectability from use of the Open University’s good name? Professor Stock also published an article in The Critic (Stock, 2021) on the launch of the OUGCRN. In this, she expresses the frustration at being unable to get funding via finding positive peer reviews for Gender Critical research, something, I would suggest, that may ultimately rely on the research itself if it is so persistent an issue, and especially considering a Gender Critical Network of more than a hundred academics already exists. She then goes on to say, “A positive presence on a university webpage confers legitimacy for the network’s female-focused research,” which would seem to be very clear that this is exactly what they are seeking. The article concludes, “the fact that an anti-intellectual, totalitarian tendency within UK universities is at last being resisted by a university itself should be welcome news.” leaving no doubt that the point of this exercise is to have people believe that this network and its principles have the full backing of the Open University.

I would also point out the use of the phrase “at last”. Trying to imply they have a university’s backing by using its logo without permission and then hoping people will just assume that backing was there, would seem to be a last ditch attempt at ‘respectability’. To return to the Forstater tribunal, and to then look at where Gender Critical beliefs are mentioned in relation to their scientific standing, we find, “[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.” All of which ably demonstrates that these are not the sort of beliefs with which a university would want its name associated.

In conclusion, having Gender Critical views researched, disseminated and promoted by this network will not only damage the Open University’s reputation, it will create distress, feelings of rejection and lack of support amongst the majority of its LGBTQ+ staff, students, associates and alumni, and their many allies.

These are your Open University family, and they work and study here because they trust that you will uphold the Open University’s values, and keep them safe from harassment, discrimination and abuse. This is not a topic for ‘robust debate’. There is not even a conversation to be had. Gender Critical research is research without scientific merit or respect, research that takes as its major tenet that trans people’s identities are fictitious, and being transgender is a delusion, a phase or mental illness. Non binary and gender non conforming people are regarded as confused or attention-seeking, if they even get mentioned at all. There is no understanding of trans people’s experiences, no space for trans voices, no moving forward from this intractable position, since it has no scientific or logical basis. All arguments just come down to ‘No’, which allows for no compromise, concession or nuance. This is a misrepresentation of a critical belief system, launched by misrepresentation of motives, and I urge you to do the best thing for the university and its wider community and cut all association with anything or anyone carrying the term ‘Gender Critical.’

Of course, there remain many profound and complex issues to discuss and research around gender and sexuality, and those are taking place every day in philosophy, biology, anthropology, psychology, sociology and many other university departments, including those at the OU. But they are as likely to come from Gender Critical research as the sunlit uplands of an economically successful Brexit solution are to come from this government.

Sarah Jane Russell

References

Burns, K., 2019. The rise of anti-trans “radical” feminists, explained. [Online]
Available at: https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/9/5/20840101/terfs-radical-feminists-gender-critical
[Accessed 01 07 2021].

H M Courts & Tribunals Service, 2021. Employment Appeal Tribunal judgment of Mr Justice Choudhury, Mr C Edwards and Mrs MV McArthur on 10 June 2021.. [Online]
Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/60c1cce1d3bf7f4bd9814e39/Maya_Forstater_v_CGD_Europe_and_others_UKEAT0105_20_JOJ.pdf
[Accessed 01 07 2021].

Smythe, V., . I’m credited with having coined the word ‘Terf’. Here’s how it happened. [Online]
Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/29/im-credited-with-having-coined-the-acronym-terf-heres-how-it-happened
[Accessed 01 07 2021].

Stock, K., 2021. The New Network For Gender Critical Academics. [Online]
Available at: https://thecritic.co.uk/the-new-network-for-gender-critical-academics/
[Accessed 01 07 2021].