Researchers are wounded in academia’s gender wars

The toxic dispute over the rights of transgender people and how freely these matters should be discussed remains academia’s most divisive issue. Laura Favaro explains what she learned from speaking to both sides

September 15, 2022
Marble female statue caged in a wooden crate to illustrate Scholars are wounded in  academia’s gender wars
Source: Alamy

“Are you not terrified? Everybody is going to hate you.” This response was not unusual as I interviewed those caught up in the so-called gender wars that have divided Western academia so deeply in recent years.

Warnings that the field was risky for an early career researcher to investigate came from scholars on all sides – from “gender-critical” feminists, who described being vilified and ostracised for stating that sex is binary and immutable, to those who saw that position as callous bigotry, or, moreover, “a genocidal project” (including journal editors thus endorsing censorship). Certain doors in academia may quietly close if I went further; invitations to speak would disappear and online abuse would follow, they warned.

“There’s just such a toxic climate around this subject,” I was repeatedly told. A mid-career sociologist added: “There is conflict, and bullying, but no debate happening.”

But the topic seemed too important to ignore. In recent times, it has moved from Twitter (where it now trends almost daily) to the centre-stage of politics; would Liz Truss have been elected as the new Conservative Party leader by Tory MPs and party members without her consistent opposition to gender self-identification? Nowhere is the debate more febrile, however, than academia. It has ended friendships, research collaborations and even academic careers.

One recent case in point is the accusation that University and College Union general secretary Jo Grady presided over a “gender ID witch-hunt”. The Times obtained minutes of a meeting she attended that sought to gather information about alleged “transphobes and prominent gender-critical activists” working in university diversity departments.

More than two years ago, I set out to find whether the warnings about entering this domain were justified, or, as others suggest, spurious claims made by those keen to spark a phoney “culture war”. It led me to interview 50 gender studies academics across many disciplines, including sociology, psychology and education, most of whom worked at English universities, to learn about their views and experiences of the dispute.

Having approached the topic with an open mind, however, 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.

Protester holding banner reading 'Truss is a transphobe' during a protest as described in the copy

All of my interviewees self-defined as feminist, with 14 of those approached holding views now described as “gender critical”. For them, there is a clear difference between “sex”, which refers to biological categories that are binary and immutable, and “gender”, which describes the roles, behaviours and attributes that a given culture deems appropriate for people by virtue of their sex. Recognising this difference is important because, as well as constraining both sexes, gender serves to justify the subordination of females. This group of academics also noted that their perspective was, until recently, largely shared across feminism, as well as within many academic disciplines.

It was clear that the “gender-critical” feminist academics I interviewed had faced negative repercussions for years for expressing their view (now protected in the UK under the Equality Act 2010 following last year’s tribunal ruling that a thinktank researcher, Maya Forstater, had been unlawfully dismissed for tweeting that women could not change their biological sex). Among other experiences, my interviewees described complaints to and by management, attempts to shut down events, no platforming, disinvitations, intimidation, smears and losing career progression opportunities, including being blocked from jobs.

Others spoke about being physically removed from events, alongside receiving torrents of abuse online that even included incitements to murder. One criminology scholar said her experience was “a continuum of hell”, while a law scholar claimed “the impact has been huge [and] is going to last a long time”. Aware of these potential consequences, and citing feelings of fear, isolation and despair, others had decided to “hide in the shadows”.

Those in the earlier stages of their careers said that “it would just be too terrifying” to make their views public due to the threat of being “ostracised…because so much within academia depends on personal connections”, while more experienced colleagues alluded to “self-preservation”. Feared by all was the “horrible backlash” online; one sociologist worried about death and rape threats seen elsewhere stated: “I have children – I’m frightened.”

From these scholars’ perspective, the supporters of what is often called “trans-inclusive feminism” held near-total control in academia, deciding what was discussed in departments or included in scholarly journals.

But did trans-inclusive feminists see themselves as holding this powerful position? I spoke to 20 such academics to understand their heterogeneous, often ambiguous and contradictory constellation of ideas and to explore whether they recognised the accusations of unfair “gatekeeping” made against them.

For some, “sex” is a construct of oppressive systems, notably Western colonialism. Others argue it is a biological spectrum that can – at least in part – change. For others still, it is both a social fiction and a biological reality. “Gender” is likewise understood in different ways: as socially or discursively constructed (performative model); as an inseparable combination of biological, psychological and social elements (biopsychosocial model); or, to a much lesser extent, as innate subjectivity, evoking notions of sexed brains (psychobiologist model). At times, “gender” is used as a synonym for “gender identity”, usually understood as an internal sense of self as a woman, a man, both, neither or something else, such as “non-binary” – which, among other possibilities, can be “plural” (“like having two or more alter egos or personas”) or “fluid” (changing “over years, months, or the course of the day”), as explained in the 2019 book Gender: A Graphic Guide.

Despite its conceptual diversity, genderism coheres around the push for gender (identity) to replace sex in most – if not all – contexts. Unlike feminism, its political subject is not female people but rather all those subjected to gender oppression – a concept that is redefined to emphasise lack of choice and affirmation relating to gender identity.

For many, the urgency of recognising this societal injustice could not be overstated. “Trans-exclusionary radical feminists” (Terfs), as they frequently labelled them, are part of nothing less than a “colonial [and] ultimately an eliminationist project” against people who identify as transgender or non-binary, some believe, as explained by Alison Phipps in her 2020 book Me, not You: The Trouble with Mainstream Feminism. On the issue of “no platforming”, some interviewees ridiculed the idea that gender-critical feminists were victims of it, echoing influential writers such as Sara Ahmed, who in 2015 discredited claims by feminists about silencing at universities being “a mechanism of power”, even while conceding that she was “aiming to eliminate the positions that aim to eliminate people”.

Others, however, openly embraced the “no debate” position on the basis that gender-critical feminism is “hate speech” or even “rhetorical violence [that] actually does have real-world aims”, equivalent to movements such as fascism and eugenics. One interviewee who identified as a trans woman described the current situation in academia as “a political battle over an institutional space”, clarifying that: “My political bottom line is – I don’t concede to people who are interested in the eradication of me and everyone like me in the world because I consider that a genocidal project.”

This view, together with the belief that “cis women have more power than trans people”, led genderist academics to refrain from forthrightly denouncing some transgender activists’ aggressive tactics towards feminists. These include threats and ideations of extreme violence, which, as well as being pervasive on social media, appear to be increasingly condoned at universities. For example, last year, a London School of Economics postgraduate student conference paper described a scene in which feminists critical of genderism “scream for mercy”. The paper then described the potential threat: “I hold a knife to your throat and spit my transness into your ear”, concluding: “Are you scared? I sure fucking hope so.”

When discussing this horrific anti-feminism, some interviewees, including those working on violence against women, would nonetheless still equivocate. As one sociologist put it: “My priority are the people who are being harmed by this debate, who I perceive to be trans people.” “These gender-critical feminists – they are intellectualising [sex and gender], and I think it’s harmful,” she added.

When asked to describe their arguments, however, she responded: “I don’t know if what I understand or what I think are the issues are the issues, I’ll be honest with you – I stay out of their way.” This remarkable coupling of condemnation and ignorance regarding gender-critical feminism was fairly common among genderist academics. Many readily admitted that they limit their academic engagements, including their reading, to their “echo chambers and bubbles” where, as one journal editor noted, “we all share basically the same perspectives”.

Many genderist academics struggled, or were discomfited, when asked to provide their own definitions of sex, gender and (particularly) gender identity, despite their research and teaching revolving around these very topics. Some acknowledged lack of sufficient reflection, while others explained this peculiar situation by citing concerns over “perpetuating harms” with their words to people who identify as transgender. For others still, the concern related to “sounding Terfy”, or was a reaction to the fact that “there is very little openness to debating certain subjects which are difficult other than being framed as transphobic”.

A number of genderist academics recognised that “more nuanced, more honest, self-aware conversations [should] take place” – although strictly among genderists only and in private spaces, since, in public, “you’ve got to be for your team and toe the party line”, one education scholar explained.

Another leading scholar lamented how “the ability to openly debate thorny, complex, contested things has diminished in recent years” – but still admitted she would not publish a gender-critical feminist paper in the journal she serves as an editor.

Gatekeeping was also suggested in the responses by another 11 interviewees who held principal editorship roles at feminist, gender and sexuality studies journals. All confirmed that genderist perspectives dominate these publications, in the sense that “on the editorial board, none of us would describe ourselves as in the gender critical camp”. Editors additionally pointed to the preferred perspective of authors, readers and publishing houses. For some, it was a matter of scholarly values, with gender-critical feminism described as “wrong-headed”, “outdated” or “completely delegitimised”. Others, however, acknowledged that “the objection is a political one”.

Censoring efforts were not limited to journals. Genderist academics reported personally imposing bans from academic networks and events, along with language policing of colleagues as well as students. “If students write ‘female’ in their essay, I’ll cross it out,” a sociologist told me, because “what matters is gender [identity]”.

Where does this leave those “in the middle”? I spoke with a further 16 academics whose views were unknown to me, and over half positioned themselves as not straightforwardly or uniquely supportive of one “camp” (as did a few I initially categorised as genderists). “Middle” interviewees tended to decry the fact that “anybody in the middle just has no space to speak”. They also emphasised a desire for less hostile interactions and a “more nuanced debate”. When asked for further details, however, they were principally critical of genderism. Its academic supporters were accused of “virtue signalling”, “performative wokeness”, “bandwagon-hopping”, “tribalism” and “censorious politics of virtuousness”.

These academics, who identified as left-wing feminists, repeatedly denounced what were perceived as aggressive, dogmatic and even authoritarian inclinations. One psychologist mentioned similarities to “authoritarian regimes that like to police the thoughts and speech of their citizens”, and another participant decided to step down from her role as co-editor at a journal, citing similar concerns.

“This is the only time I’ve experienced something like this,” said one “middle” interviewee, affirming a widely held view that “we don’t have these conversations because we are all so afraid”. Some explained that “secret” or “private” conversations were the only forum where these conversations could be held, but even these “don’t feel like a safe space to speak up. And that’s [among] gender scholars.” Repeatedly, interviewees claimed to refrain from publicly expressing their views because of fears over accusations of transphobia, or of being “framed as a gender-critical feminist”.

Many of these “I’m-not-gender-critical-buts” listed concerns about genderism, including the “affirmative” medical approach to children identifying as transgender, the loss of single-sex spaces and the impact of removing sex as a category in data collection in favour of gender. They acknowledged having relevant expertise to offer in these areas but were “too scared” to do so. “Are there things that I could write? Yes. Do I think that they could make a difference, that they could offer something? Yes. Will I write about it? No. Which tells you all you need to know about the current situation,” said a sociologist. “If I am scared to write about this...then I have no doubt that people who might be more easily classified as Terfs would feel afraid to speak, censored,” she added.

One middle-ground psychology scholar was close to stopping her gender-related research because “you see what happens to other people”, while a feminist cultural studies academic told me: “I’m seriously contemplating whether I tell my head of department that I no longer want to teach my [gender-related] course.”

Both academics explained that they “just don’t feel safe”, with the second adding: “I don’t have extreme views at all. It’s fairly middle-ground to say that it is a complex debate and there are multiple facets to it, and in the scholarly setting we have to be able to explore these.” She also told me that “it feels so alienating because academia should be about discussing and exchanging ideas, and it’s not. It’s not in our context.” Palpably upset, she went on: “It’s also incredibly anxiety-provoking because I don’t want to lose my job and I don’t want to put my kids at risk – I know they could be put at risk.”

As well as self-censoring, “middle” participants are contributing to the silencing of others in academia. Some had dissuaded students from gender-critical feminist projects, or refrained from inviting speakers with such views, which one late-career sociologist justified on the grounds that “it would cause too much trouble, [and] I’ve been cowed by that violence”.

Of course, I fear harms to my career and more for instigating, as interviewees repeatedly put it, “difficult conversations” – not least as an immigrant early career scholar with a family to support. But, at the same time, why would I want to work in academia if I cannot do academic work? Much more terrifying than being hated is being gagged.

Laura Favaro is a researcher at City, University of London’s Gender & Sexualities Research Centre.


Print headline: Scholars are wounded in academia’s gender wars

Register to continue

Why register?

  • Registration is free and only takes a moment
  • Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
  • Sign up for our newsletter
Please Login or Register to read this article.

Related articles

Reader's comments (41)

Excellent article. Thanks for highlighting a really important issue in higher education
Thanks for this important and frightening article. I hope the right people read it.
The most helpful article I have read on this disturbing issue
Congratulations on this extremely important piece of research. It is exceptionally valuable to have heard from both sides of the debate, and found that the reports support the notion that censoring is happening in the academy. Thank you.
This is disturbing to say the least. Although, sadly, not surprising.
Excellently written article, full of nuance, rare in academia these days...
Thank you for this excellent reserach and article Laura, and to THE for running it.
Eye opening. Thank you for writing it and thank you to THE for publishing it.
A quite remarkable failure of academic principles, as a field seemingly openly slides into authoritarian group think and censorship. This is not even restricted to this particular field, as self-censorship around gender issues has leaked into other fields, including into the medical arena where such self-censorship may lead to the failure to critically examine the safety and efficacy of medical interventions, with the potential of irreversible harm being caused. It is essential that we return to values of open discussion and debate, and stop the spread of the insidious idea that differing views are harmful in of themselves.
An excellent article, and very much needed. Good luck to you in your research!
A huge relief to see an article like this published here. Thankyou so much Laura. Extremely well-written and so timely.
Why is it so difficult? I cannot see why one individual should feel threatened by what another individual says about themselves... being trans yourself does not impose on anyone else more than the simple courtesy of getting someone's name right! It should be no different than someone being straight or gay - it's none of my concern unless and until they decide that they fancy me, then I have to decide how to respond. In a world where we agree that we shouldn't discriminate between men and women, it seems remarkably foolish to worry about which gender a given individual tells you that they are.
Taking a biased position in research is absolutely fine as long as it's contextualised and participants are not being deceived. This is a shocking betrayal of research participants and as a researcher, you should be ashamed.
What a laughable comment. Are you an ally of Alison Phipps by any chance? Her performative victim-hood is an embarrassment .
Thanks for writing this. These paragraphs are especially infuriating - "When asked to describe their arguments, however, she responded: “I don’t know if what I understand or what I think are the issues are the issues, I’ll be honest with you – I stay out of their way.” This remarkable coupling of condemnation and ignorance regarding gender-critical feminism was fairly common among genderist academics. Many readily admitted that they limit their academic engagements, including their reading, to their “echo chambers and bubbles” where, as one journal editor noted, “we all share basically the same perspectives”. Many genderist academics struggled, or were discomfited, when asked to provide their own definitions of sex, gender and (particularly) gender identity, despite their research and teaching revolving around these very topics. Some acknowledged lack of sufficient reflection, while others explained this peculiar situation by citing concerns over “perpetuating harms” with their words to people who identify as transgender. For others still, the concern related to “sounding Terfy”, or was a reaction to the fact that “there is very little openness to debating certain subjects which are difficult other than being framed as transphobic”." Academics are required to think critically about topics in their discipline as a bare minimum of the job spec, I would've thought. If they're not prepared to do that, what are we paying them for??
Excellent article. It is shocking that censorship is so prevalent in academia
his is a very alarming report. “My political bottom line is – I don’t concede to people who are interested in the eradication of me and everyone like me in the world because I consider that a genocidal project.” This is a silly hyperbolic comment - - no one is interested in killing or "eradicating" her. This person can't reason or argue very well if being disagreed with is so threatening.
Participants in this research have since spoken out about their experience and how their data has been woefully misrepresented by the researcher. At the very least this is an example of bad faith engagement in research but also likely represents and ethical violation and poor academic practice.
Well they would say that, wouldn't they.
That's precisely what they would say. Feigning victim hood and threats of violence are two of their favorite political weapons.
Don't pretend to be "neutral" about the topic when you very clearly aren't. Calling trans-inclusive feminists "genderists" makes it extremely clear where you stand. Do the academic research you want, but it's a huge violation of ethics to misrepresent your biases.
How dare she not use the language prescribed by the defenders of the faith. Bring out the comfy chair!
This is a really interesting article. This article does not so much speak to the victimisation of gender critical feminists, but more so the intolerance and ignorance of those opposing it. It seems that commonly held views that were uncontroversial to speak aloud five years ago have been suddenly deemed exclusionary, genocidal and fascistic by a small but loud and influential number of academics and professional activists. I’ve yet to see a cogent argument against the radical feminist position that doesn’t rely on fallacies and falsehoods, perhaps that’s why the hyperbole is necessary.
"As well as self-censoring, “middle” participants are contributing to the silencing of others in academia" I am a mature student at a leading university. I remember being told in a tutorial on feminist literary theory by a Professor 'don't get into the sex/gender thing, you'll just get bogged down in it ....'. I didn't want to risk a bad essay mark so did as I was told. I remember sitting in a class and being instructed that 'feminism is for everybody' and not being brave enough to challenge it (in my view feminism is for females). Mentioning Greer or de Beauvoir resulted in awkward silences that you wouldn't get when mentioning male critics who published 50+yrs ago - these women were not just old but deeply unfashionable and made people deeply uncomfortable. My tutors weren't (I don't think) trenchant genderists but even so they made it clear that sex/gender was a topic off limits to challenge or discuss. I self-selected out of a feminist writing module even though it interests me as a topic, because the choices of texts and tutor made it clear that being anything other than a full-blown genderist would be unwelcome - the course synopsis said it was 'feminist in the most inclusive sense of the word'. Academia has so far proved the most conservative, non-diverse environment I have ever been in.
The scholars who are too cowed to speak out despite privately disagreeing really perplex me. If they are students, untenured, and so on: sure. But otherwise: do they have no sense of history unfolding, of how ashamed they are going to feel in years to come as the medical lawsuits wend their way and the desisters become totally impossible to dismiss and demonize and the whole juggernaut falls apart? At least the zealots will be able to say they had koolaid poisoning. The people who knew better and kept their heads down anyway? They’ll have their pensions I suppose. But their golden years will just be so full of remorse. I don’t get why they would set themselves up for that.
Thank you for this Laura. The more light shone on this the better. Hope you have lots of support where you are.
this is the same as now. "Freud notes: 'Throughout history people have knocked their heads against the riddle of the nature of femininity – . . . Nor will you have escaped worrying over this problem – those of you who are men; to those of you who are women this will not apply – you are yourselves the problem' ... Irigaray responds... 'So it would be a case of you men speaking among yourselves about woman, who cannot be involved in hearing or producing a discourse that concerns the riddle, the logogriph she represents for you. The enigma that is woman will therefore constitute the target, the object, the stake, of a masculine discourse, of a debate among men, which would not consult her, would not concern her. Which, ultimately, she is not sup-posed to know anything about.". (Irigaray 1985 Speculum of the Other Woman: p.,13 citing Freud, cited in Irigaray and Politics: A Critical Introduction by Laura Roberts 2019:29).
Except that view is only tenable if you believe that trans women are men, talking over women and taking space that belongs to women. I personally don't believe that.
This is a timely and (sad to say) brave piece of research Laura. Thank you. I have numerous friends in academia (lecturers and students) and absolutely know that your findings are accurate. Hard to know how to turn the tide but perhaps your voice will help. Courage calls to courage.
Scary stuff! It’s effect is pervasive. A friend went back to study Social Science at University College Dublin as a mature student. She’s a woman not afraid to voice opinions but she’s also pragmatic. She soon realised in sociology modules to just dish back what she knew the lecturers wanted to hear. She self-censored to protect her results! Do theses people not see how they are destroying education.
Thank you for the courage, honesty and clarity. Thanks also to THE for publishing.
A nasty little hit piece in which the author, according to the accounts of multiple participants, manipulated people to allow for only one side of the argument. And now masquerading online as a 'study': the only question is whether it violates editorialist ethics or academic ethics. Shame on THE for publishing it.
This is a very misleading and distorting article which misrepresents trans-inclusionary feminists and gender studies scholars in particular. Challenging rigid gender binaries and stereotypes, engaging in complexities and aiming to be inclusive is just feminism, not 'genderism'. Journal editors being professional, inclusive, principled and responsible in terms of language does not equate to censorship. This is likely to cause even more confusion and division.
Not personally involved in the debate but saw close up, with great discomfort, cheap & nasty gossip in Sussex's common room. No scholarship. Just depressing nastiness.
Excellent. This is an accurate account of what I experienced in academia.
I am not personally involved in this debate or this field [thank goodness, given levels of animosity] , but I must say the attacks levied against Stock, Greer and others with different views that were mainstream in my first 15 years in academia, make me think 1) the levels of nastiness are extraordinary in a field that is supposed to be [and is] challenging patriarchal norms and power, and 2) also that principles of academic freedom are not being respected by some of the protagonists. As for the article, would have to examine the resulting publications but as a chair of a human ethic board [not in the same country]: no, you can't lead respondents down a particular path above what was agreed in the PLS and ethics app. during interviews. And they have the right to withdraw. And if they say things they regret, or course they should remain anonymous. I welcome more research in a field I have seen surge in the last 5 years. 8 yrs ago I remember struggling to get support and funding for a university Gender & Diversity committee. Since Athena Swan in our Faculty, no longer.
Thanks to Laura Favaro for her work and to the THE for publishing this. We need more conversations around this issue in academia.
It really is a tragic reflection of the utter dearth of intellectual integrity commonplace in our educational institutions….Transwomen are and will always be…MEN.
Is it any wonder that so many other cultures around the globe are throwing their hands up in despair at where the "civilised" West is heading and are instead looking to re-order the world? At least they don't pretend to be democracies where free speech and open debate is encouraged...............
An important article, but with flaws that are really important because the article itself is important. Some suggestions, which I hope Laura can try to take constructively: "Gender-critical feminism" would be more accurately named "Critical Anti-trans Theory". "Genderism" would be more accurately named "Critical Gender Theory". Then the actual fight here would be much more accurately named: two versions of Critical Theory fighting against each other. Of course “Critical Theory” itself is a misnomer; it really means something like “a radical cohort nursing accusations against our society in one or another field of endeavor, and cultivating vicious circles of privileging for their accusatory narratives.” It too deserves a more honest, less deceptive name. Meanwhile, both sides in this article represent this underlying radical anti-societal fervor. They’re fighting to be counted as the true representative of that fervor. Neither one properly represents women, nor transgender people. Neither women nor transgender people are about being radical leftist or anti-Western society. They both exist thanks to reasons that have nothing to do with the ones that motivate radicals and critical theorists. The "gender critical" Critical Theorists quoted here make it rather obvious that they miss their left-wing special privilege. They're used to having the right to vilify and repress others. Now they are shocked to find that they're the ones being vilified and repressed. They say they’ve never seen anything like this before. But millions of non-woke, non-PC, non-progressive people in academia have seen it before, and seen it and suffered for it on a much larger scale than this – and not just for a few years but for probably more than half a century. This does not in any way justify the repression of the “Gender Critical” Critical Theorists, or make this repression any less alarming. It is alarming for the harm it is doing in this sphere, and the other repressions coming from the Left have done alarming harm in myriad other spheres for decades. It is good you are so alarmed, Laura. But it does tell us that the GC Critical Theorists are not the heroes of free and honest thinking the world should be looking for. Or the people that anyone should want to rely on for truth-telling. Despite all this, Laura F makes some very good points and raises very important questions. She would do it even better if she were more honestly critical of the so-called "Gender Criticals". And if she were more honestly willing to see the many points where the ones she calls "genderists" and in-betweeners are closer to truth than her Gender Criticals. And where what she depicts as vagueness from “genderists” is actually truthfulness about the complexity of gender and sex in reality. And things she depicts as Gender Critical clarity on this subject are actually oversimplifications to the point lying about these crucial realities; the better evidently for angry sloganeering and putting out one-liners, in retort to the many one-line lies on the genderist Critical Theory side. Other angry people – say, one of the large number of people who are rightly angry at the woke crowd -- might reflexively suppose that the angry anti-woke one-liners of the Gender Criticals sort of sound right. This enables them to pose as “speaking truth to power” when in fact they’re lying pretty demagogically themselves. Probably most of her interviewees are leftwing and rather extreme, because she selected her interview cohort to be mostly that way from the start. A pity. Please Laura Favaro, interview a more broadly representative and more sanely balanced cohort on this subject! I really hope you will write an even better article on this subject, reflecting the better not the worst people on both sides. It's too important a subject -- important for thousands of decent people, maybe millions -- to be left as a fight between vicious ideologues and even more vicious ideologues.
Academics are turf-bound, dogmatic, and political to the point of violence? Who would have guessed?