Gender Madness at the University of Leeds

A student exposes the oppressive atmosphere on the campus

Last week, much attention was being paid to a research project at the University of Leeds which concerns best practice in clinical assessment for children with gender dysphoria. Nothing wrong with that of course, until you discover that the project’s authors are only allowing gender-affirming clinicians to take part.

This news has come as a shock to some in the academic community, but it didn’t surprise me. My experiences at Leeds as a student, in both academic pursuits and general campus interactions, made the news seem almost inevitable.

‘Inclusion’ Policies

The University of Leeds and its Union are far from unique in their approach to gender ideology. Like many universities across the UK, the campus offers gender-neutral toilets, free pronoun badges scattered throughout the Union, and a gender expression fund; gender non-conforming students can apply for a £50 grant for ‘gender affirming’ products, such as make-up and clothes.

One of the items the Union proudly funds with £50 grants is binders used to flatten breasts. Binders are well known to be dangerous and damaging to women and girls, but don’t worry, the Union provides health warnings for prospective customers: 

Before ordering a binder it is important to know that the health risks of binding are almost entirely unstudied and unknown. Using a binder is frequently accompanied by undesirable symptoms such as back, chest or shoulder pain, overheating, shortness of breath, itching and bad posture. There are also more serious but rarer effects such as scarring, swelling, rib fractures and respiratory infections. 

- Make sure your binder is the right size, binder companies may have different sizing so double-check before ordering.

- Avoid binding for more than eight hours in a day 

- Never sleep in your binder 

- Take rest days where you do not bind as much as you can 

- If you start to feel pain, especially chest pain, take off your binder - If you suspect something is wrong, see a doctor as soon as possible - Never use “homemade” binders made from elastic bandages, duct tape or plastic wrap 

- Only use binders from reputable brands. Ask others if you’re unsure if a brand is reputable or not 

If promoting and funding self-harm wasn’t enough, the Union's guidance on how to run a successful stall at the fresher’s fair dragged everyone else in, too. It advised that we share pronouns and created inclusivity statements to create a ‘safe space’ for the LGBTQ+ community.

Whilst all this was wearingly familiar, I perhaps naively did not expect gender ideology to encroach on my academic studies.

Academia hijacked by gender ideology

Upon returning to Leeds for my final year, I was eager to get stuck into the Feminist Philosophy module I had elected to study. I knew that the gender question would be a hot topic, and as a subscriber to scientific evidence and thus an ever-so-shameless sex realist feminist, I had spent my summer gearing up for the fact that I would be a minority voice, uttering the evil rhetoric of JK Rowling to numerous captured students, and potentially risking social ostracisation, or worse.

Before my first lecture, I discovered the module lead, and one of the professors teaching Feminist Philosophy was a man who identifies as a woman. Given my previous experiences in the Philosophy department, which revealed it to be entirely dominated by gender ideology, cancellation seemed even more likely.

Then, the essay questions were released. They included:

Can someone, such as a very powerful Queen, not be systematically subordinated, but still be a woman?

What are gender identities?

Is it true that, in an important way, trans women in transphobic societies, are not women?

Is having a female gender identity necessary to be a woman?

Should gender be abolished?

Should gender be decertified?

Pick a particular sport that has sex/gender restrictions. Should there be sex/gender restrictions and divisions in that sport? If there should be such restrictions, what exactly should they be and why?

Should sex work be fully decriminalised?

There are lots of proposals for reforming sexual assault/rape law. Pick one of these proposals and assess whether we should reform sexual assault/rape law in this way.

Suppose that one social group is privileged as a result of the other’s diminishment/immobilization—and yet this arrangement is consensual. Is this still oppression, or must there be some form of coercion?

Given the overwhelming quantity of intersecting dimensions of identity/oppression, is there a fair way to allocate attention to some of these positions over others? If not, outline several different strategies for doing so and show how they each fail. If so, suggest a way of allocating attention that would succeed.

Is it possible to challenge oppressive practices that women choose to engage in, while still allowing that such choices may be autonomous?

McClelland and Sliwa describe a double-bind that women face in relation to domestic work. Is there a way to respond to this dilemma that doesn’t perpetuate their own oppression? Regardless of whether your answer is yes or no, describe what you think is the best strategy for women in this situation.

Is every case of sexual disadvantage also a case of injustice? If so, explain why. If not, give an example of mere sexual disadvantage without injustice and outline principles for distinguishing between the two.

Is masculinity necessarily toxic? If so, why? If not, what would/does a version of non-toxic masculinity look like, and is it possible under patriarchy?

Is the call to #BelieveWomen compatible with due diligence and the presumption of innocence?

If it’s not obvious already, here are my three main issues.

1. Almost 40% of them are ultimately asking whether women exist in the first place.

“But it’s a philosophy module Connie,” I hear you say. “40% of questions in philosophy are about whether humans even exist.”

The question of existence is one thing, the question of female existence quite another. Instead of getting on with thinking about the way feminists should deal with women’s standing in society, we now spend our time debating whether women actually exist as a sex class in the first place. Why do feminist studies have to embrace this? I’d be interested to know which modules offer questions on whether men exist as a category, and thus whether they should be entitled to rights as a consequence.

2. It is hard to ignore the fetishistic tones underpinning the first question

Can someone, such as a very powerful Queen, not be systematically subordinated, but still be a woman?

Are we really encouraging students to consider whether it’s potentially impossible for someone who has a lot of power to really be a woman? That it is intrinsic to womanhood that you must be subordinate?

We should always be encouraged to question everything, however it seems maybe the personal has become a bit too political here. Given the notorious kink of female subordination among trans-identified males, the majority* of whom are estimated to be autogynephilic, it is notable that the question suggests subordination is intrinsic to being a woman.

3. The third question makes it clear there is only one way to answer... perhaps especially when a trans-identifying male is marking the papers.

“Is it true that, in an important way, trans women in transphobic societies are not women?”

Leaving aside the meaningless nature of the question, it is clear to me that there is only one right way to answer it, and students are being forcefully nudged in that direction. When we are constantly surrounded and encouraged to be inclusive and affirm people’s gender identities, can you imagine trying to answer this question in a way that argues that men can never be women? Especially when the question’s premise is predicated on a belief in the muddy, never-defined term ‘transphobic’? Props to the student who gives it a go.

I have recently discovered that the University has offical policy on the way that trans issues should be dealt within academia, and thus a lot of the above makes more sense:

“The University will strive to ensure that its curriculum does not rely on or reinforce stereotypical assumptions about trans people and that it contains material that positively represents trans people and trans lives."

It is difficult to know what “positively represents trans people and trans lives” means — does this mean there must always be a positive spin? And that potential issues with gender ideology cannot be discussed? We cannot mention predators such as ‘Isla Bryson’ in case it is taken to demonise all trans people?

Student censorship

Of course, it is not just professors who are watching us. Students at Leeds have to be careful to conform around fellow students. This became especially apparent following the release of the second episode of my podcast; an interview with Charlie Bentley-Astor, a desister who previously tried to identify out of her femaleness and took puberty blockers for four years.

And as sure as night follows day….

Two people had written in my defence and received this in response. “Truly, shame on both of you guys for trying to justify the existence of this podcast! Especially in an institution like Leeds Uni where you can have peers whose lives would be in danger due to these ideas”.

In the same group chat, someone compared me to people who advocate for rape, and I was accused of contributing towards hate crimes against trans-identified people. Another person in the same group chat accused me of ‘platforming’ Reform UK on my podcast who, according to someone, was trying to kill people of colour over the summer.

The episode they refer to involves me talking about interviews I collected from young members of Reform UK, as well as Richard Tice, at the party conference in September. By their logic, it is immoral for a journalist to even cover Reform UK.

People have been purposely rating my podcast badly, and one of my friends has reported that they have a housemate trying to ostracise them just for being friends with me. No one person, at the time of writing, has said anything directly to me about their concerns.

Their words are a clear signal of the prevailing attitude amongst captured students, whether it be on gender, the ‘genocide’ taking place in Gaza, or the Tory government reintroducing ‘fascism’. They are so sure of themselves, that they fail to consider their position to be political at all, still less one that could cause harm. While Charlie and I are causing ‘harm’ with our perceived unkindness, they are actively promoting or passively permitting medical interventions in physically healthy children. Not only that, they are telling women that they MUST accept men who say they’re women at their word— the irony being that rape is much more likely to occur under this logic. 

More concerningly than this free publicity I’ve been getting on group chats and Instagram stories, there has been an official complaint raised against someone who helped me edit, under the accusation of “making some people feel uncomfortable” by simply being associated with the podcast. The DJing society has ordered them to cut ties with me, remove themselves from my posts, and warned darkly about the consequences getting worse for him if he does not comply.

The debating society refuses to take part in organising… a debate

More recently, I have been trying to organise a debate to take place on campus with James Esses and another external speaker. I approached the Leeds Debating Society and asked if they would want to collaborate with me. This was their response:

This times itself well, considering my recent conversation with Andew Gold, the host of the Heretics podcast and also a Leeds alumnus. He is not included on the notable alumni page under the podcasting, filmmaking, or journalism sections despite his notable success in all three. Kathleen Stock, who completed her PhD at Leeds, is also missing from the list. Given all the avaliable evidence, I would be surprised if this was a simple oversight.

It seems the University of Leeds has a real issue with freedom of speech, both in its administration and throughout the student body. But again, Leeds is not unique in this; as Professor John Marenbon has said, this obsession with diversity and inclusion is destroying univesities up and down the country.

Leeds Student Radio (LSR)

I have had someone I don’t know, message me to ask if my podcast is part of LSR or if it is a personal project. Bearing in mind the backlash to the podcast and the disciplining my editor received from the DJing society, I can only assume the motive here is to find grounds to make a complaint against me — or maybe I’m being cynical.

I am in fact the Day Time Editor at LSR, which means I oversee coverage on our talk shows which include Women’s Hour and LGBTQ+ Hour, among others. Although I was told I had to include pronouns on all application forms as this was the station’s policy in order to ‘ensure gender diversity’, I was not given the choice as to whether I wanted them on display on the committee wall.

On both shows, I purposely selected presenter applicants who were Trans Rights Activists (of which there was no lack) in order to accurately reflect the student voice — to try to silence or de-platform them would be wrong. This is coming from someone who used to want to silence people like me — see an Instagram post from my 16-year-old self cerca August 2020:

Between my gender-critical views making headlines, covering the Reform UK national conference for LSR, and there being formal complaints about my new podcast after only two episodes, it’s safe to say I haven’t had the most conventional start to the academic year.

I now have a new network of people, having become a member of the Women’s Rights Network, Student Academics for Academic Freedom, and the Free Speech Union, as well as making new friends from the Academy of Ideas, Sex Matters and For Women Scotland. Without this network, I’d be far less likely to speak publicly about my views, which is such a shame considering the university, of all places, should be a place for free discussion, a principle the University of Leeds claims to uphold.

*This article was updated to more accurately reflect Blanchard’s work.