'I wanted to capture a whole range of views.' (Guillermo Gutierrez/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)
“Are you not terrified? Everybody is going to hate you.” As she began the interviews for the research project she was leading, participants and colleagues asked Dr Laura Favaro if she was afraid. Now, three years later, she is haunted by the work. “All my interviewees provided invaluable insights,” she tells me. “I… have an unbearable sense of guilt for failing to manage to keep hold of and publish on their transcripts. It torments me.”
Favaro dared to study whether women in academia feel able to express their views on transgender issues. For doing so, she says she has been hounded out of her university, barred from publishing her findings, and branded transphobic. In other words, she has been censored for asking questions about feminists being censored.
When Favaro was asked, in the summer of 2019, to lead a vital new research project, she was a rising star in academia. Her PhD in sociology had been awarded at City, University of London in 2017 without a single correction. Examiners described it as “one of the best Doctoral Dissertations they had ever read”. Now, there was funding to carry out a sociological study of the “gender wars” in academia within the Gender and Sexualities Research Centre at City. “My dreams came true,” Favaro tells me, “I was so excited to lead such an important project.”
She moved back to London from her native Spain, with a baby and a toddler in tow, and her research began in March 2020. She carried out an extensive literature review, and an 18-month observation of Twitter. She also included case studies, such as an event at City during which a lesbian feminist was subjected to physical intimidation and removed by security for asking a question perceived as transphobic.
Of her 50 interviewees, 20 described themselves as “gender affirmative”, 14 as “gender critical”, and 16 were from “unknown” perspectives. Feminists who saw themselves as “gender critical” spoke about having been ostracised, removed from networks, disinvited from events, subject to complaints to management, insulted, and accused of not only transphobia but Nazism. There had been letters and petitions against them. They had been blocked from job prospects and promotion. There had been threats of violence and intimidation. Unsurprisingly, the majority of the “gender critical” feminists who agreed to be interviewed were late or mid-career: what woman in the early, insecure stages of a career in academia would feel able to admit to a viewpoint that is met with such abuse?
Favaro’s findings paint a damning picture of academic freedom. The women who stayed silent about their views on trans issues said they felt anxious, depressed and alienated. They were terrified of being subjected to the same fate as those who had spoken out. Some reported feeling paralysed, ashamed and upset, while others admitted to having secret conversations with like-minded women. Meanwhile, the ”gender affirmative” interviewees were either in denial about the bullying, or believed that TERFs deserved it.
Favaro tells me she came to the project “with great curiosity and genuine openness. I wanted to capture a whole range of views.” To make her research as representative as possible, she applied to the British Academy for funding to conduct a broad survey of social scientists in Ireland and England. She asked her interviewees about sex and gender, as well as working conditions and censorship in academia, and their thoughts about how to resolve the conflict. All interviewees were female — with the exception of one transwoman — and involved in gender studies. Favaro actually “interviewed more academics supportive of what I call genderism”, she tells me. “It would have hugely benefited me to find their perspective convincing.”
But by the time she had completed her survey data, her conclusion was unequivocal. “Having approached the topic with an open mind,” Favaro wrote for Times Higher Education in the summer of 2020, “my discussions left me in no doubt that a culture of discrimination, silencing and fear has taken hold across universities in England, and many countries beyond.”
Her work did not go down well. Indeed, the response has, says Favaro, been characterised by “disturbing disappointments”. After she presented the university with a 200-page document evidencing the aggressive silencing and persecution of feminists, for instance, management suggested she needed to offer a “both sides” narrative. Favaro found that even some academics working on violence against women would excuse rather than condemn extreme threats of violence coming from certain trans activists — or, for example, call rape survivors not wanting to be examined by a male doctor “bigots”.
Favaro started to feel that support for her work was being withdrawn. Her line manager told her the project had become too contentious. A number of complaints were made — including one accusation of “ethical breach”, lodged by a former participant. The university investigated this, and Favaro was exonerated. But, as Favaro has written, “further such baseless accusations have been taken at face value, leading to the suspension of my research, and the withdrawal of access to my data.”
The phenomenon Favaro later described, in her THE article, as a “remarkable coupling of condemnation and ignorance” was clear from the outset. One early note in her research diary recalls a colleague — who was completely oblivious to the arguments and concerns she was researching — saying: “I’ve never met a TERF, have you?” Her tone expressed palpable repugnance. This was, of course, important data in and of itself. The whole experience served as “a painful reminder [of] how little women matter”.
Unfortunately, the public has been denied the opportunity to make up its own mind about Favaro’s research. The survey, entitled “The Gender Wars Survey: A Case Study of Working Life in Academia”, has been deemed “dangerous” by City University management. Both Favaro’s 50 interview transcripts and 700 survey responses have, she says, been confiscated. While working on the survey, Favaro contacted the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) to tell them about the forthcoming research. They decided to commission a report on Favaro’s interview findings, which was submitted in April 2022. It, too, remains unpublished.
The response to Favaro’s work, of course, rather proves her point. The one thing upon which Favaro’s interviewees all agree is that there is a toxic climate in academia today, and that it has hugely detrimental effects on research and teaching, as well as the health and welfare of academics themselves. Feelings of stress, anxiety and exhaustion are disturbingly commonplace — especially among female academics. It is almost exclusively women who are the targets of bullying and harassment in the gender wars.
Favaro feels that the ethos of social media — which is shaped by the “outrage economy” — is penetrating academia. “Rather than evidence, innovation, critique and discussion, this is an academia of safe ‘hot topics of the day’, ‘soundbites’ and ‘compelled speech’ with ‘populist’ inclinations, as participants themselves explained to me.” Universities now foster groupthink, enabling only mediocre, timid scholarship.
“There are some serious systemic issues in academia that need urgent attention,” Favaro says. “I would love to be able to stay and contribute to creating positive change.” But at the moment, she’s fighting to have any kind of future in academia. “This job was meant to boost my career,” she tells me — “I left my life in Spain for this… I lost my support networks” — “and it has threatened to destroy me. This is the ultimate cancellation. It’s a publish or perish situation within academia.” In other words, if her data remains buried, her career could be seriously blighted. “I worry constantly that my work will never be published.” But the data belongs to City, which she says has threatened her with data laws.
And so, as a last resort, Favaro is taking legal action against City. “I hate the media attention,” she says, “but I have to take this case.” Like so many of us who have gone to court in similar circumstances, she is fighting not only to protect her own rights, but also for others. “I feel I have let my participants down because I have failed to keep hold of their data,” she says. “We are talking about more than 700 individuals taking the trouble to talk to me or fill in the survey. I find the decision to suppress this evidence nothing short of a scandal.”
City has said it is “unable to comment on employment matters relating to individual members of staff”, but also stated: “We refute the allegations made against us and reject the context in which they are presented.”
It seems that Favaro has become a victim of the very problem she was hoping to solve. But anyone with the guts to do this research in the first place is obviously courageous. It is time to send a message to institutions that silencing, censoring and bullying women because we refuse to capitulate to gender ideology will bring consequences. “I am fighting for my data, and to get it published,” Favaro tells me. “I will not give up.”
Julie Bindel is an investigative journalist, author, and feminist campaigner. Her latest book is Feminism for Women: The Real Route to Liberation. She also writes on Substack.
bindelj 
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeWe refute the allegations made against us
Just how have they refuted it? Where is the proof that the allegations are wrong? I keep hearing people and organisations saying that they refute something, but providing no evidence. To refute something means to disprove that thing, to give evidence that it is wrong, merely thinking that something may be wrong or, even worse, wishinmg that it were wrong is not a refutation.
They don’t have to. I don’t mean that in the sense that I think they have no moral or social obligation to do so. I mean it in the sense that they can put such a statement out there and there will be no repercussions.
I think they mean ‘reject’ not ‘refute’. I seriously doubt if the university is able to refute what has been claimed…
One would have hoped that a university would know the difference between these words.
Sadly we can no longer take that for granted.
The confusion regarding the different meanings of ‘refute’ and ‘reject’ is widespread, with people in the media, and here, at a university, using the former when they really mean the latter. Shoddy expression reflecting shoddy thinking.
The confusion regarding the different meanings of ‘refute’ and ‘reject’ is widespread, with people in the media, and here, at a university, using the former when they really mean the latter. Shoddy expression reflecting shoddy thinking.
Sadly we can no longer take that for granted.
One would have hoped that a university would know the difference between these words.
If you tell this same lady who has written this piece, or any group of typical campus females – that men are physically stronger and more likely to do better in STEM or IT, there is no gender pay gap, there is no rape culture on campuses.
Do you think they will try to refute your statements with evidence and data? Or come screeching at you like a mob, accusing you of “sexism” or “misogyny”?
That’s the ironic bit. The trans groups are using the same tactics against women that feminists and other rights activists have used for decades: use emotive language and victimhood based bullying to gain undue benefits, overturn evidence and due process and demonise those who oppose then.
I don’t think any feminist has ever seriously denied that the average man is physically stronger than the average woman. As for better at STEM, this is a little more nuanced, in general fewer women seem to be interested in STEM, I can certainly vouch for this when I was at secondary school where I was the sole female in the last year doing physics. The question is, does this lack of interest also mean a lack of ability, here, again anecdotally, my experience is that I have not seen this, those women in science that I have known all seem to be, overall, as good as the men, in some cases better in other cases not so good. I cannot attest to IT as I don’t have much to do with it other than as a consumer. Your other comments have been made before on this site, and have been answered in a number of places, so I am not going to address then here.
“don’t think any feminist has ever seriously denied that the average man is physically stronger”
Though I can’t stomach the trans jokers, especially given my daughter, this is the kind of female hypocrisy and doublespeak that makes me cheer them on.
– Equal pay for female lawn tennis or football players (when they are not getting hammered by 16 year old boys)
– Title 9 quotas for female athletes in US college sports
– “girl power” females across movies, media, books…
– “Diversity” in military recruitment.
There has been an pervasive, all out campaign by feminists for decades to deny precisely that most basic and obvious gender differences – physical strength.
“The question is, does this lack of interest also mean a lack of ability”
That could be a reason. Ability, interest, or simply higher standard deviation in male intelligence.
Point being, any study or attempt to examine any of these other factors (as opposed to the “patriarchy”) results in, not a data or evidence based rebuttal, but a full assault by the sisterhood. See Damore, or feminist responses to studies on greater male variability.
“have been answered in a number of places, ”
There is no study – not one – that statistically proves any kind of gender pay gap, that is not explained by other factors such as hours worked, choice of career etc.
“don’t think any feminist has ever seriously denied that the average man is physically stronger”
Though I can’t stomach the trans jokers, especially given my daughter, this is the kind of female hypocrisy and doublespeak that makes me cheer them on.
– Equal pay for female lawn tennis or football players (when they are not getting hammered by 16 year old boys)
– Title 9 quotas for female athletes in US college sports
– “girl power” females across movies, media, books…
– “Diversity” in military recruitment.
There has been an pervasive, all out campaign by feminists for decades to deny precisely that most basic and obvious gender differences – physical strength.
“The question is, does this lack of interest also mean a lack of ability”
That could be a reason. Ability, interest, or simply higher standard deviation in male intelligence.
Point being, any study or attempt to examine any of these other factors (as opposed to the “patriarchy”) results in, not a data or evidence based rebuttal, but a full assault by the sisterhood. See Damore, or feminist responses to studies on greater male variability.
“have been answered in a number of places, ”
There is no study – not one – that statistically proves any kind of gender pay gap, that is not explained by other factors such as hours worked, choice of career etc.
oh that stupid feminist analogy again. I don’t recall even most radical feminists ever behaving anything like the transactivist lunatics. And I suspect you don’t either. Give it a rest.
I don’t think any feminist has ever seriously denied that the average man is physically stronger than the average woman. As for better at STEM, this is a little more nuanced, in general fewer women seem to be interested in STEM, I can certainly vouch for this when I was at secondary school where I was the sole female in the last year doing physics. The question is, does this lack of interest also mean a lack of ability, here, again anecdotally, my experience is that I have not seen this, those women in science that I have known all seem to be, overall, as good as the men, in some cases better in other cases not so good. I cannot attest to IT as I don’t have much to do with it other than as a consumer. Your other comments have been made before on this site, and have been answered in a number of places, so I am not going to address then here.
oh that stupid feminist analogy again. I don’t recall even most radical feminists ever behaving anything like the transactivist lunatics. And I suspect you don’t either. Give it a rest.
They mean they deny or dispute it. Too illite4ate to get the difference between refute and deny.
I think the confusion arises from “refute” and “rebut.”
I agree with Anna Bramwell.
I agree with Anna Bramwell.
I think the confusion arises from “refute” and “rebut.”
They deny it. They don’t refute it.
Ah, but as we know, words mean whatever they wish them to mean.
They don’t have to. I don’t mean that in the sense that I think they have no moral or social obligation to do so. I mean it in the sense that they can put such a statement out there and there will be no repercussions.
I think they mean ‘reject’ not ‘refute’. I seriously doubt if the university is able to refute what has been claimed…
If you tell this same lady who has written this piece, or any group of typical campus females – that men are physically stronger and more likely to do better in STEM or IT, there is no gender pay gap, there is no rape culture on campuses.
Do you think they will try to refute your statements with evidence and data? Or come screeching at you like a mob, accusing you of “sexism” or “misogyny”?
That’s the ironic bit. The trans groups are using the same tactics against women that feminists and other rights activists have used for decades: use emotive language and victimhood based bullying to gain undue benefits, overturn evidence and due process and demonise those who oppose then.
They mean they deny or dispute it. Too illite4ate to get the difference between refute and deny.
They deny it. They don’t refute it.
Ah, but as we know, words mean whatever they wish them to mean.
We refute the allegations made against us
Just how have they refuted it? Where is the proof that the allegations are wrong? I keep hearing people and organisations saying that they refute something, but providing no evidence. To refute something means to disprove that thing, to give evidence that it is wrong, merely thinking that something may be wrong or, even worse, wishinmg that it were wrong is not a refutation.
She should conduct her research project again and publish the results along with the background story of how her original research project was barred from publication.She should Include a description of being “hounded out of her university, barred from publishing her findings, and branded transphobic.” Publication in a book for the general reader could very likely become a best seller.
As a result, through reaching a wider audience she will become better known and City, University of London will come to regret having tried to silence her in the first place.
Rather like what happened to Kathleen Stock.
She should conduct her research project again and publish the results along with the background story of how her original research project was barred from publication.She should Include a description of being “hounded out of her university, barred from publishing her findings, and branded transphobic.” Publication in a book for the general reader could very likely become a best seller.
As a result, through reaching a wider audience she will become better known and City, University of London will come to regret having tried to silence her in the first place.
Rather like what happened to Kathleen Stock.
Thank goodness we don’t live in an increasingly totalitarian society, eh ?
Dunno, Graeme. The more this bloody nonsense gains traction, the more a Franco-ish dictatorship looks like pure heaven. The peace and quiet would be wonderful!
Dunno, Graeme. The more this bloody nonsense gains traction, the more a Franco-ish dictatorship looks like pure heaven. The peace and quiet would be wonderful!
Thank goodness we don’t live in an increasingly totalitarian society, eh ?
Is research even necessary when the evidence is plain for all to see? That’s the problem with academia: they start this cr*p in universities, it bleeds out into society where it wreaks havoc, and then they study it to see why. Self-licking ice cream cone QED.
“…my discussions left me in no doubt that a culture of discrimination, silencing and fear has taken hold across universities in England, and many countries beyond.”
I had the ‘No sh*t, Sherlock!’ reaction when I read that line.
“…my discussions left me in no doubt that a culture of discrimination, silencing and fear has taken hold across universities in England, and many countries beyond.”
I had the ‘No sh*t, Sherlock!’ reaction when I read that line.
Is research even necessary when the evidence is plain for all to see? That’s the problem with academia: they start this cr*p in universities, it bleeds out into society where it wreaks havoc, and then they study it to see why. Self-licking ice cream cone QED.
Outside of a few First and Second Wave Feminists…Feminists are unqualified to intellectually critique the Trans Movement because both movements are founded on using the Hermetic Polarity Principle to dialectically sublate the Gender Binary.
More recent Feminist waves saw the Gender Binary as something that disadvantaged women, so getting rid of gender distinctions was paramount to achieving equality because Third Wave Feminists believed gender roles imposed occupational stigmas on women that curtailed their ability to earn and gain political power.
Both Groups affirm that Gender is not biological but performed and socially constructed…normally in conformance with traditional gender roles. They’re taking two Polar Opposites: Male and Female, removing the particulars but maintaining the Essence of Both, which is “Being Human.”
The only difference is the Trans Movement took the dialectical one step further and said if Gender is only a social construct not affiliated with biological sex than why are people locked in a Gender Identity Box that they don’t want? It was a logical progression of the dialectic and that’s why Third Wave Feminists can’t really win the argument without destroying the base of their own worldview.
Oh come on – leave poor old Hegel out of this grim nonsense, it’s bad enough already with its binaries and performatives. And until they start wearing badges or uniforms I’m not sure it’s possible to tell which ‘Wave’ any of the protagonists belong to, even if you care. The issue is straightforwardly about academic standards and resistance to political interference (from whatever faction) in sticking to academic freedoms.
Of course it is! But both groups are coming from an Ends Justify the Means Worldview. If Feminists attack the methods that the Trans Movement uses it will ultimately unravel their own Equality argument.
Take a look at how Radicals took charge of the Universities in the first place. It wasn’t like they just used reasoned analysis to win the “Battle of Ideas.” No they pretty much metaphorically stormed the Bastille.
Of course it is! But both groups are coming from an Ends Justify the Means Worldview. If Feminists attack the methods that the Trans Movement uses it will ultimately unravel their own Equality argument.
Take a look at how Radicals took charge of the Universities in the first place. It wasn’t like they just used reasoned analysis to win the “Battle of Ideas.” No they pretty much metaphorically stormed the Bastille.
Feminism has always been a tabula rasa ideology. Spent decades arguing a against nature. This, and its dalliance with PoMo, gave trans its ideological basis.
A good analysis. It might be that gender critical feminists are discovering a new appreciation of biology as the root of gender difference. We do know they emphasise that each gender polarity can express itself on a wide spectrum, encompassing ‘feminine’ males and ‘masculine’ females without needing to stereotype and identify with the opposite sex.
A point very well articulated by Jordan Peterson.
Definitely rediscovering the reality of sex and biological differences more broadly through placing reality – the nature of sex – closer to an axiomatic status than feminist ideology.
Will that be the fourth or fifth wave?
A point very well articulated by Jordan Peterson.
Definitely rediscovering the reality of sex and biological differences more broadly through placing reality – the nature of sex – closer to an axiomatic status than feminist ideology.
Will that be the fourth or fifth wave?
What I’ve always said
You could have shortened your response to the article by simply saying: “Feminists are unqualified to intellectually critique the Trans Movement because we don’t like them opposing the prevailing orthodoxy.”
Well that wouldn’t have worked because it wasn’t what I said or implied!
makes more sense though.
makes more sense though.
Well that wouldn’t have worked because it wasn’t what I said or implied!
Eh?
Yes. Good overview. Lindsay and Pluckrose in Cynical Theories give more meat on the bone as to where the resultant schism occurred and how ‘gender studies’ erupted out of feminist ideology and then subsumed some of it.
Lindsay did a podcast on the topic the other day.
Lindsay did a podcast on the topic the other day.
Was this written by ChatGPT?
I think ChatGPT would have made a better and more coherent job of it.
Hahaha I was just trying to be deductive. It does read pretty robotic.
Also- Thanks for the kind words below, Linda!
I think ChatGPT would have made a better and more coherent job of it.
Hahaha I was just trying to be deductive. It does read pretty robotic.
Also- Thanks for the kind words below, Linda!
Park life.
that frickin’ feminist nonsense again.I was never a fan of radical feminism, to put it mildly, yet I never ever in all my years at university and afterward saw or heard about feminists behaving anywhere near as badly as transactivists. Not even close. Get a grip, man.
Probably true. But did Feminists eliminate the “Wage Gap”??
Probably true. But did Feminists eliminate the “Wage Gap”??
Oh come on – leave poor old Hegel out of this grim nonsense, it’s bad enough already with its binaries and performatives. And until they start wearing badges or uniforms I’m not sure it’s possible to tell which ‘Wave’ any of the protagonists belong to, even if you care. The issue is straightforwardly about academic standards and resistance to political interference (from whatever faction) in sticking to academic freedoms.
Feminism has always been a tabula rasa ideology. Spent decades arguing a against nature. This, and its dalliance with PoMo, gave trans its ideological basis.
A good analysis. It might be that gender critical feminists are discovering a new appreciation of biology as the root of gender difference. We do know they emphasise that each gender polarity can express itself on a wide spectrum, encompassing ‘feminine’ males and ‘masculine’ females without needing to stereotype and identify with the opposite sex.
What I’ve always said
You could have shortened your response to the article by simply saying: “Feminists are unqualified to intellectually critique the Trans Movement because we don’t like them opposing the prevailing orthodoxy.”
Eh?
Yes. Good overview. Lindsay and Pluckrose in Cynical Theories give more meat on the bone as to where the resultant schism occurred and how ‘gender studies’ erupted out of feminist ideology and then subsumed some of it.
Was this written by ChatGPT?
Park life.
that frickin’ feminist nonsense again.I was never a fan of radical feminism, to put it mildly, yet I never ever in all my years at university and afterward saw or heard about feminists behaving anywhere near as badly as transactivists. Not even close. Get a grip, man.
Outside of a few First and Second Wave Feminists…Feminists are unqualified to intellectually critique the Trans Movement because both movements are founded on using the Hermetic Polarity Principle to dialectically sublate the Gender Binary.
More recent Feminist waves saw the Gender Binary as something that disadvantaged women, so getting rid of gender distinctions was paramount to achieving equality because Third Wave Feminists believed gender roles imposed occupational stigmas on women that curtailed their ability to earn and gain political power.
Both Groups affirm that Gender is not biological but performed and socially constructed…normally in conformance with traditional gender roles. They’re taking two Polar Opposites: Male and Female, removing the particulars but maintaining the Essence of Both, which is “Being Human.”
The only difference is the Trans Movement took the dialectical one step further and said if Gender is only a social construct not affiliated with biological sex than why are people locked in a Gender Identity Box that they don’t want? It was a logical progression of the dialectic and that’s why Third Wave Feminists can’t really win the argument without destroying the base of their own worldview.
Has she never heard of a backup USB stick?
Amazingly, someone who thinks she is at war with an oppressive fascistic patriarchy didn’t think it would delete any of her stuff given the chance.
Bingo.
You could try explain that using various legal and policy factors.
But the main reason is, she wouldn’t have thought of keeping data because she herself belongs to a privileged group that’s used to getting their way and bullying others while disregarding evidence, data, due process.
It’s a civil war, between two aggressive victimhood based ideologies. Neither of them cares about data.
And that’s the key, Samir. Her side have never been critiqued before, as they just bullied their opponents into submission. But now they have a mirror image opponent. Same tactics, same vocab
“Sexist” = “Transphobe”
“Man-splaining” = “Cis-splaining”
And that’s the key, Samir. Her side have never been critiqued before, as they just bullied their opponents into submission. But now they have a mirror image opponent. Same tactics, same vocab
“Sexist” = “Transphobe”
“Man-splaining” = “Cis-splaining”
oh for chrissakes put a sock in it.
Why? Aren’t feminists the ideological descendants of the women who used terrorist tactics to get the vote?
Why? Aren’t feminists the ideological descendants of the women who used terrorist tactics to get the vote?
Bingo.
You could try explain that using various legal and policy factors.
But the main reason is, she wouldn’t have thought of keeping data because she herself belongs to a privileged group that’s used to getting their way and bullying others while disregarding evidence, data, due process.
It’s a civil war, between two aggressive victimhood based ideologies. Neither of them cares about data.
oh for chrissakes put a sock in it.
It’s amazing that someone who thinks she is a footsoldier in the heroic resistance against an oppressive patriarchy did not think that it would ever delete her stuff.
I’m guessing that very few actual men were involved in this academic travesty.
Disappointing that people downvoted you, but didn’t bother to engage. (Yawn – lazy). In fact, the article mentions female commentary on Dr Favaro’s work, but not male, so I think your question was pertinent. (Other people apparently just thought it “offensive”, but couldn’t be bothered to say why).
Disappointing that people downvoted you, but didn’t bother to engage. (Yawn – lazy). In fact, the article mentions female commentary on Dr Favaro’s work, but not male, so I think your question was pertinent. (Other people apparently just thought it “offensive”, but couldn’t be bothered to say why).
I’m guessing that very few actual men were involved in this academic travesty.
She was probably forced to hand it over on the grounds that the data belong to City.
Unfortunately, if the university claims that the data are theirs, and, if she was being paid by the university, it is more than likely that they do own the intellectual copyright, then if she published them without permission both she and the publisher could (would?) be sued by the university. It’s possible to argue that so what, the data are out there now, but I doubt that she would want the legal wrangling involved.
If her university has the rights to her research (my university wouldn’t, but it seems that hers does), her publishing it by retrieving it from a back-up would breach those rights.
Amazingly, someone who thinks she is at war with an oppressive fascistic patriarchy didn’t think it would delete any of her stuff given the chance.
It’s amazing that someone who thinks she is a footsoldier in the heroic resistance against an oppressive patriarchy did not think that it would ever delete her stuff.
She was probably forced to hand it over on the grounds that the data belong to City.
Unfortunately, if the university claims that the data are theirs, and, if she was being paid by the university, it is more than likely that they do own the intellectual copyright, then if she published them without permission both she and the publisher could (would?) be sued by the university. It’s possible to argue that so what, the data are out there now, but I doubt that she would want the legal wrangling involved.
If her university has the rights to her research (my university wouldn’t, but it seems that hers does), her publishing it by retrieving it from a back-up would breach those rights.
Has she never heard of a backup USB stick?
There is a wonderful, almost metaphysical, irony at play here whereby the author of an investigation into intimidation of gender-critical feminists, is herself intimidated.
How on earth does a vocal minority of “gender activists” (and cowards to boot) manage to exert such influence?
There is a wonderful, almost metaphysical, irony at play here whereby the author of an investigation into intimidation of gender-critical feminists, is herself intimidated.
How on earth does a vocal minority of “gender activists” (and cowards to boot) manage to exert such influence?
In general, we need to see a resurgence in traditional churches. They provided a socially-sanctioned outlet for fixed beliefs.
Deprived of such traditional outlets, all the zealots have latched onto newly-minted secular creeds, with negative effects on what used to be secular, rational societies.
Weird. I had exactly the same thought several days ago.
Weird. I had exactly the same thought several days ago.
In general, we need to see a resurgence in traditional churches. They provided a socially-sanctioned outlet for fixed beliefs.
Deprived of such traditional outlets, all the zealots have latched onto newly-minted secular creeds, with negative effects on what used to be secular, rational societies.
The City people don’t even know what ‘refute’ means. They think it means deny. It doesn’t. It means proved wrong. They haven’t proved anything, except that City employs mediocre people capable only of marching in lockstep with whatever trend happens to be current. I wish the good lady the best of luck and hope she emerges triumphant.
The City people don’t even know what ‘refute’ means. They think it means deny. It doesn’t. It means proved wrong. They haven’t proved anything, except that City employs mediocre people capable only of marching in lockstep with whatever trend happens to be current. I wish the good lady the best of luck and hope she emerges triumphant.
One for the FSU?
The univerity’s behaviour should be no great surprise, but the EHCR withholding a report conducted at the taxpayers’ expense demands an intervention. How many other such reports get ‘buried’? Public bodies should be required to publish a list of all reports, research, etc that they commision, and then keep the public informed of progress. If, for any reason something isn’t subsequently published, the reason for this should be made clear, and be open to challenge.
The univerity’s behaviour should be no great surprise, but the EHCR withholding a report conducted at the taxpayers’ expense demands an intervention. How many other such reports get ‘buried’? Public bodies should be required to publish a list of all reports, research, etc that they commision, and then keep the public informed of progress. If, for any reason something isn’t subsequently published, the reason for this should be made clear, and be open to challenge.
One for the FSU?
I wish Dr Favaro much success with her action. Universities used to be fora for rigorous debate, where there was evidence of the application of critical thinking skill whether or not one agreed with the views expressed. Now mindless “woke” ideology prevails in far too many alleged centres of learning, and knee-jerk, mindless offence-taking is privileged rather than the perceived discomfort of engaging in discussion with those who have opposing views. Dr Favaro is not the first and probably won’t be the last.
I wish Dr Favaro much success with her action. Universities used to be fora for rigorous debate, where there was evidence of the application of critical thinking skill whether or not one agreed with the views expressed. Now mindless “woke” ideology prevails in far too many alleged centres of learning, and knee-jerk, mindless offence-taking is privileged rather than the perceived discomfort of engaging in discussion with those who have opposing views. Dr Favaro is not the first and probably won’t be the last.
Why didn’t she make copies?
Copyright issues, as someone else pointed out. But academics working in this area be warned – they really need to post “work in progress” on preprint servers. Get the information out there. Once that’s done, it’s harder for the institution to put the genie of truth back into the bottle. Economics does this with “working papers”, as far as I know.
You’d think someone who believes that she is in a war against an oppressive patriarchy would bear in mind that an institution of such patriarchy might be open to deleting her data on a whim and, as such, would see it as appropriate to circumvent any restrictions for the greater good of wimminz’ rights and academic truth (although I don’t think feminists are bothered about the latter).
You’d think someone who believes that she is in a war against an oppressive patriarchy would bear in mind that an institution of such patriarchy might be open to deleting her data on a whim and, as such, would see it as appropriate to circumvent any restrictions for the greater good of wimminz’ rights and academic truth (although I don’t think feminists are bothered about the latter).
She probably did. But it’s no good if she can’t use the data.
Copyright issues, as someone else pointed out. But academics working in this area be warned – they really need to post “work in progress” on preprint servers. Get the information out there. Once that’s done, it’s harder for the institution to put the genie of truth back into the bottle. Economics does this with “working papers”, as far as I know.
She probably did. But it’s no good if she can’t use the data.
Why didn’t she make copies?
You can support the cause here by crowdfunding.
https://click.pstmrk.it/3s/www.crowdjustice.com%2Fcase%2Facademicfreedomforfeminists%2F/dD2h/SsOsAQ/AQ/e2ed563e-f442-4954-b838-9a3f9b650001/1/JiPoEXcAP0
You can support the cause here by crowdfunding.
https://click.pstmrk.it/3s/www.crowdjustice.com%2Fcase%2Facademicfreedomforfeminists%2F/dD2h/SsOsAQ/AQ/e2ed563e-f442-4954-b838-9a3f9b650001/1/JiPoEXcAP0
It is hard to understand how those who run the universities – Deans, Provosts, Presidents, Chancellors – allow this to happen. Most of them have backgrounds as scholars and a duty to the pursuit of truth through honest, rigorous scholarship. When did they abandon this calling and why?
It is hard to understand how those who run the universities – Deans, Provosts, Presidents, Chancellors – allow this to happen. Most of them have backgrounds as scholars and a duty to the pursuit of truth through honest, rigorous scholarship. When did they abandon this calling and why?
Great article. Thanks for this, JB.
This is an important case and I hope she wins.
Great article. Thanks for this, JB.
This is an important case and I hope she wins.
What is all this nonsense?
“Heaven is to found on the back of a horse or in the arms of one’s beloved. Note that the conjunction is OR, not AND”*
(*A.D.W.)
What is all this nonsense?
“Heaven is to found on the back of a horse or in the arms of one’s beloved. Note that the conjunction is OR, not AND”*
(*A.D.W.)
‘It is almost exclusively women who are the targets of bullying and harassment in the gender wars.’ And it is almost exclusively women who are the bullies. But radical feminists are reaping what they have sown. When they were driving the gender wars, men who expressed any ideologically inconvenient idea or opinion, whether or not it was true, were hounded out of jobs and positions. Now feminists have been overtaken by a more fashionable ideology, which is doing the same to them.
‘It is almost exclusively women who are the targets of bullying and harassment in the gender wars.’ And it is almost exclusively women who are the bullies. But radical feminists are reaping what they have sown. When they were driving the gender wars, men who expressed any ideologically inconvenient idea or opinion, whether or not it was true, were hounded out of jobs and positions. Now feminists have been overtaken by a more fashionable ideology, which is doing the same to them.
Interesting that Bindel mentions Favaro came here with “a baby and toddler in tow”, giving the impression that children are just an encumbrance, with no mention of their father. Did he come with her? Is he supportive, absent?
I’d have thought that would make a lot of difference to how well Favaro is coping with her ordeal but, of course, men are totally superfluous to Bindel’s world view.
The article says: “(s)he moved back to London from her native Spain, with a baby and a toddler in tow…” which suggests maybe she went to back to her native Spain to have a child and then came “back” to the UK. Why does the father (assuming there is one) have to be mentioned? The phrase “in tow” is slightly dismissive I suppose, but this is Julie Bindel, after all.
The article says: “(s)he moved back to London from her native Spain, with a baby and a toddler in tow…” which suggests maybe she went to back to her native Spain to have a child and then came “back” to the UK. Why does the father (assuming there is one) have to be mentioned? The phrase “in tow” is slightly dismissive I suppose, but this is Julie Bindel, after all.
Interesting that Bindel mentions Favaro came here with “a baby and toddler in tow”, giving the impression that children are just an encumbrance, with no mention of their father. Did he come with her? Is he supportive, absent?
I’d have thought that would make a lot of difference to how well Favaro is coping with her ordeal but, of course, men are totally superfluous to Bindel’s world view.
“Censor my gender research”
Come off it. What you mean is stuff that i have made up in an attempt to lend credence to my dubious prejudices
That’s a bit harsh.
True, she did conduct her research at the Mickey Mouse end of the academic pool, but there’s no evidence that she made it up. The behaviour of the university towards her is appalling.
That’s a bit harsh.
True, she did conduct her research at the Mickey Mouse end of the academic pool, but there’s no evidence that she made it up. The behaviour of the university towards her is appalling.
“Censor my gender research”
Come off it. What you mean is stuff that i have made up in an attempt to lend credence to my dubious prejudices