When ecosystems die

An everyday story of harassment, discriminatory treatment and the silent silencing of gender critical academics

(Introductory note: this is a long post because it documents my story of being frozen out of a jiscmail listserv. I have not named names (exception one high profile harasser of gender critical academics)).  

The research ecosystem within which academics exist is made up of many overlapping communities, units, groups that all interact with each other. A healthy research ecosystem thrives on connectivity – virtual or in real life. Put very simply, academics need each other to sharpen our ideas and need to be kept in touch with what is going on.

Arguably it was the need for academics to share news, funding, publications, results that drove the creation of the world wide web.  But before the world wide web we had JANET (the Joint Academic Network).

JANet (Joint Academic Network) got me through my PhD. It provided connectivity, data sharing and collaboration and email listservs long before google, facebook, twitter, social media and so on. It is, and has been, a critical but often overlooked part of our research ecosystem. A key part of JISC (as it is now called) is JISCMAIL whose aim is “to support the advancement of world class education and research by facilitating free-flowing open discussions, knowledge exchange and collaboration”.

Since winning my tribunal against The Open University I have been trying to find a way back into my academic research communities and so have become more active on jiscmail. I’ll be the first to admit I am slightly out of touch and out of date with what’s going on. Jiscmail is a great way to bring yourself up to date and get back in touch quickly. So I re-subscribed to a number of listservs including one called ‘FEMINISTACADEMICS’. Feministacademics is described as “A list for academics (PhD students through to Professor) who consider themselves to be feminist. Please share news of research, funding, networking, conferences and ideas for a website”. Perfect I thought. That’ll bring me up to speed.

I shouldn’t have bothered. Sadly, what happened when I tried to re-engage is the story of how corrupted our research ecosystem has become. Here is the story – told in three parts.

‘Safeguarding’ as a new justification for discrimination

19^th April 2024

A member of the FEMINISTACADEMIC listserv posts an advertisement for a job vacancy at The Lesbian Project. The ad lists the person spec (a higher degree in social sciences, good communication skills, knowledge of academic literature relevant to lesbians and experience of working with quant data) and the responsibilities (do some research, write some briefing papers, compile a shared database). In other words, a perfectly ordinary research style job.

Same day, four minutes later:

Prof Alison Phipps replies “The Lesbian Project is an anti-trans advocacy group – this is important context for those on the list who might be unfamiliar with it….”.

For those who do not know, The Lesbian Project is a lesbian advocacy group whose aim it is to “build a knowledge base about lesbian lives, promote sensible and evidence-based policy “ amongst other things.

22 April 2024:

Another member posted a reply with a hyperlink to The Lesbian Project encouraging members to look and decide for themselves.

23 April 2024:

Another member posted several message ending with this:

“Dear Lesbian Project,

You are a bunch of anti-trans lesbians / feminists and apparently you think you speak in name of all cis lesbians / feminists: you don't! Many of us cis lesbians / feminists welcome our trans lesbian /feminist sisters 🥰! Just because you're screaming and you got subsidised £££ donated from Famous Trans Haters doesn't mean that your trans hate goes unnoticed or is acceptable/accepted. It's up to you if you don't want to date or befriend trans women (presumably the feeling is mutual), but that does not mean that you got to dictate the welcoming feelings, research and knowledge the rest of us seek to cultivate and produce - and it certainly does not imply that you can speak or research in name of all cis lesbians: you don't! And you don't get to claim 'lesbian' - or for that matter feminist - for your trans-hating purposes. #NotInOurName “

I responded almost immediately stating:

Dear Alison and others

I would have hoped that the various ET successes as well as the CASS report would have created an atmosphere in which there was more tolerance and understanding of the complex issues concerning the relationship between sexual orientation and gender identity. The Lesbian Project has drawn its remit. There are many of us (myself included) who define my sexual orientation as same sex attracted. That I do - and that the Lesbian Project has been established to represent the needs and interests of this group - is not ipso facto anti-trans as you suggest Alison.

Your criticism of the Lesbian Project is not called for on so many levels. You may not agree with the way that The Lesbian Project sees the world or what it does, but to call is anti-trans with no evidence solely for the purpose of warning people off applying for a job shows more about your political dogmatism than anything to do with The Lesbian Project.

Jo Phoenix

And that’s when things got ugly

Within 90 minutes, 17 different posts in which The Lesbian Project was directly accused of being unethical in their research practice, I was accused of being unscientific because I said that lesbians are a different sociological constituency of people than males who identify as women and as lesbian, of putting forward transphobic theories (oh how tired I am of that old and utterly incorrect accusation). When I asked for people not to name call, I was told no one was name calling but bigotry must be called out (errr, right, you call me a name then say you haven’t called me a name but that you are calling out bigotry thereby calling me another name… a bigot)

The upshot: one of the administrators of the list contacted Jisc and asked them to turn moderation on for the group.

Curious I thought. So I asked the obvious question: why?

I was told in a private email exchange that it was “both a safeguarding measure for everyone on the list, and also to ensure we retain a focus on the purpose of the list – sharing news”. (Errr, right, the kerfuffle was caused because I pushed back against some bigoted individuals’ attempt to stop the sharing of news about a research job, but this is not my first rodeo of dealing with unreason monster.)

I responded again (but first checked whether there had ever been any discussions of controversial matters on the listserv):

Is this in relation to my posts or the posts of others please? I was not aware that the rules of the list are sharing news. There was certainly topics of discussion previously. When you say safeguarding, what do you mean please? Who is being safeguarded from what? I do not understand how a perfectly legitimate post defending an announcement about a job and allegations of being anti-trans has ended with a statement about safeguarding.  

Apologies for the many questions, but if what you are trying not to say is that too many people are offended by me merely engaging with them and their accusations, then please say so. If this list is just for people who are hostile towards GC academics, jobs and research, then please do me the professional curtesy of saying so.

If you look back to 2018, it was clear that the list had no problem discussing controversial matters of policy reform.

The now familiar evade, avoid reply:

The list is now moderated. This is to safeguard everyone on the list irrespective of their particular position on any issue, and in response to some complaints I have received. 

I replied again:

Thank you for repeating your answer – but safeguard is very strong terminology. Exactly what are we being safeguarded from? Divergence of viewpoints? If you have received complaints, exactly what are the complaints about that generate the need for safeguarding?

I would have thought by now we would be in a position whereby the existence of an openly gender critical feminist academic on a list serv that challenged the accusations of transphobia would not lead to special and extra measures being put in place to moderate an academic listserv.

This is – as you would imagine me to say – ridiculous. If you have asked for moderation in case I am offended, I do not need safeguarding.

Tumbleweed

Since then, not a single reply to any emails and none of my posts are being posted. I have directly contacted the moderator – who, interesting is someone with experience of discrimination law in the UK – asking why my posts are ‘stuck’ in moderation.

My posts are clearly and obviously not ‘allowed’ past the moderator. Yet what has been posted since are many posts advertising events, calling for papers, announcing publications, advertising jobs, book launch or two, calls for book proposals, for essays, for papers, and a host of other research and publication opportunities. Strangely, even an advertisement for “one of the best kitchen knives in the world” made it through moderation (image reproduced below). But nothing I have posted.

The Complaint.

Not to be undeterred, I made an official complaint to jiscmail. On the subscription home page, jiscmail post “Important Information”. Item 4 states: “If you notice anyone misusing this service please inform JiscMail”. In my mind, discriminatory treatment on the basis of my gender critical beliefs, including adding a moderator on spurious “safeguarding grounds” and not posting my legitimate questions about why moderation was introduced after I was called anti-trans, transphobic etc seemed to me to be “misuse”.

So I made the complaint, detailing the story as above. The response?

First, the usual holding emails – we will get back to your shortly, looking into this with relevant department, yada, yada (all of which are a means of buying time while seeking legal advice) and then an email from the (actually very polite and helpful) person I was dealing with. She copied the text from the “Legal/Complaints Team” who had “prepared” a response to me. I have reproduced it in full for those interested in the way these issues are avoided (if you are not, then please scroll down to next section). But bottomline, jiscmail washed it hands and told me to take it up with, errrr, the list owner and list moderator (yes, the two people who were not responding to me.)

---

“With respect to the 2 issues highlighted in your latest emails, our response is set out below.

1) Posts initially being put into moderation by the List Owners

In respect of whether the List Owners have acted in accordance with the responsibilities assigned to them as part of their role, we would like to draw your attention to the JiscMail Service Policies which can be accessed here: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/. Under Section 4 (Role of the List Owners), the List Owners are responsible for managing JiscMail lists and they have the right, amongst other things, to monitor messages to ensure they are appropriate and to take action if necessary. This includes moderating posts and removing subscribers, should they consider such actions appropriate, as long as they act fairly and for the benefit of the majority of list subscribers.

Jisc considers that the List Owners have complied the JiscMail Service Policies in exercising their rights of moderation and have followed the guidance provided to them in the ‘List owner help’ section of JiscMail which can be accessed here: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/help/listowners.html#5.

If you continue to be dissatisfied with how the management of the list has been handled then, pursuant to section 11 (Violating this policy), this should be taken up with the List Owners directly.

We have accordingly informed the List Owners that, if not already done so, they should provide a response to you and explain why they have taken action to reject your posts.

2) The issue of whether the restriction of your posts is discriminatory under the Equality Act 2010 on grounds of ipso facto belief.

We are sorry to hear you consider that the List Owners have violated the protected characteristics in the Equality Act 2010 by removing your posts. We unfortunately cannot comment on whether the List Owners actions in removing your posts amount to any violation of the protected characteristics in the Equality Act 2010 and, in this respect, we kindly refer you to Section 3 (Ethics) of the JiscMail Service Policies where it confirms that Jisc acts merely as a conduit for the messages and we do not control or bear any liability for the content of messages that any users choose to post to the list – nor do we accept liability for the conduct of any JiscMail user, particularly when we do not review, screen or edit the content of messages posted.

Whilst Jisc has discretion to take action in certain circumstances, we do not consider it necessary or appropriate to do so for the reasons given above and we would kindly remind you that the JiscMail Service Policies make it clear that if there are any disagreements between members of a list regarding its management or content then this should be taken up with the List Owners directly. As a result, Jisc will not be taking any further action in relation to this matter.

Notwithstanding the above, we would like to thank you for bringing these matters to our attention and can confirm that we shall use this as an opportunity to revisit the JiscMail Service Policies to identify whether there are any areas that could be updated in order to improve user experience.

We hope you will appreciate and respect our position in light of the review that has been carried out and that this matter can now be brought to a conclusion. However, and for the avoidance of doubt, Jisc’s position in relation to any further action which may be taken by you remains reserved.

---

29th June 2024:

The list owner or moderator of feministacademics has not contacted me to explain why my perfectly legitimate questions about why moderation was invoked on “safeguarding grounds” have not been answered. And my posts have not made it moderation – one of the posts was advertising some of the public talks I was giving which was, in fact, a post that had been previously posted.

So there we have it.

An academic listserv owner brings in moderation to ‘safeguard’ (who? from what?) because I push back against being told that the Lesbian Project is anti-trans, that my point of view is unscientific or against overtly hostile, degrading and prejudicial posts about an organisation I am connected with, because I point out the bleedingly obvious sociological fact that lesbians and males who identify as women and as lesbians are two sociologically distinct categories.

Why? There are only two answers: discrimination on the part of the listserv owner and the moderator and an organisation that does not want to deal with the complexities of academics acting out their prejudices against gender critical academics.

The moral of the story?

My Vice Chancellor at University of Reading pointed out that the well known cases of cancellations in academia – such as what happened to Kathleen Stock at Sussex or me at Essex and The Open University – are not the problem. They are the symptoms of a much deeper crisis in the protection of academic freedom. I agree with him. Jiscmail washes it hands of the actions of list owners and moderators leaving them to act with impunity.

This may seem a small example but it is an example that speaks volumes about the state of the largely peer run research eco-system. It is corrupted through and through. How can I, as a gender critical feminist, now make contact with the feminist academics on that listserv (and judging by the personal responses I received that day there are several who are also gender critical feminists or at the very least agnostic) to advertise publications and events of interest? Gender identity ideologues are running amok and corrupting the ecosystem. They can do this because academia still retains one of the defining features of the professions: self-regulation. This has been exploited by those whose only interest in the world of research and ideas is to police what can be said and what can be questioned. They have become the greenhouse gas in our delicate research ecosystem.

Epilogue

As an experiment, I have today made a request to jiscmail to set up a gender critical academic listserv and posted to two listservs (feministacademics and a criminology related one) asking whether members would like to join me on a gender critical feminist listserv (should jiscmail permit me to set it up!). On the criminology listserv, the post has already been posted and I have a few takers. On feministacademics, I have been told my post is with the moderator. I think I can predict the outcome.