[AGTRT-BF40] What lessons can the Netherlands learn from the Phoenix case? A comparison between Jo Phoenix and Laurens Buijs

Jan Bergstra & Laurens Buijs
Amsterdam Gender Theory Research Team

In our last blog (see AGTRT-BF39), we described the case of Jo Phoenix, the Open University criminology professor in the United Kingdom who was ousted because of her gender-critical views. Phoenix won the lawsuit on the issue last week. The university was taken to task: it should have protected her and failed to do so, the judge said.

Read more about the Phoenix case:
Professor Jo Phoenix was bullied out for gender-critical views, judge slaps university on the wrist

In The Guardian this week , Sonia Sodha delivers a fine analysis of the utter lack of backbone shown by the Open University’s management in its treatment of Jo Phoenix at the time and in the unmitigated arrogance and rudeness and outright bullying behavior of her colleagues.

It is now clear that in the UK it is no longer so easy to dismiss gender critics as transphobic without factual basis. It is also increasingly clear that the British LGBT organization Stonewall is playing a malign role. The term “gender critical” is experiencing a powerful revival, and Sonia Sodha explains the gender critical position very clearly.

Read more about how British gender critics are fighting back through the courts:
Gender-critical feminists are not necessarily against transgender people

The importance for the Netherlands of this affair is undeniable. The ease with which Laurens Buijs has been dismissed at the UvA as someone who disregards the interests of others is very similar to what happened to Jo Phoenix. The utter unwillingness of her colleagues to engage in debate on fair terms is fully recognizable in the situation at the UvA.

How is it possible that a UvA professor on Twitter (now X) was allowed to mention the word “gender critical” in the same breath as facism and genocide (see AGTRT-BF10) and was not reprimanded in the process, while Buijs’ gender-critical assertions in Folia a year ago now were treated as highly problematic? How is it possible that the social science staff was allowed to avoid any substantive debate and crack Buijs’ name? How is it possible that the committee that looked at Buijs’ complaint could not or would not recognize the pattern that comes into view here?

In the United Kingdom, courts have now had to step in several times to protect people with gender-critical views on work floors, including those at universities. We assume for the time being that it does not have to go that far in the Netherlands. But if administrators and academics wait any longer to restore free debate, a trip to court is to be expected here as well.


Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *