{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreieogivz7n2v57y777zulyjulkbo6mp4rci2pzbxgdlnnyyuzq3rkm",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:gxs6vp6pkwm2revsdeyh6g5v/app.bsky.feed.post/3mijm5ulzueu2"
  },
  "path": "/2026/04/02/trans-exclusionary-philosopher-seeks-to-exclude-trans-philosopher/",
  "publishedAt": "2026-04-02T10:52:45.000Z",
  "site": "https://dailynous.com",
  "tags": [
    "Academic Freedom",
    "academic freedom",
    "discrimination",
    "trans",
    "trans women",
    "Trans-Exclusionary Philosopher Seeks to Exclude Trans Philosopher",
    "Daily Nous"
  ],
  "textContent": "Jonathan Pike, a professor of philosophy at Open University who defends trans-exclusionary (aka “gender critical”) views has submitted a formal complaint about the appointment of his colleague, professor of philosophy Sophie Grace Chappell, a trans woman, to the Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2029 subpanel for philosophy, according to a report in Times Higher Ed. The REF exercise aims to assess the quality of research in the UK’s institutions of higher education and its ratings inform the distribution of grant funds. Professor Pike, who founded a “Gender Critical Research Network” at his university, is objecting to Professor Chappell’s inclusion on the REF Panel because of harsh posts she made on social media about “gender critical” views. According to Times Higher Ed, he is worried about her being biased against views like his, and he “raised concerns about whether the philosophy panel would assess all kinds of outputs on their merits, regardless of their political or ideological position.” The idea seems to be that we should infer from Chappell’s comments on social media, in which she expressed negative views about particular philosophical positions, that she can not be trusted to fulfill her responsibilities as a member of the REF subpanel. One concern about this idea is that it seems to be a rather incautious leap from judgments about a person’s political expression in a non-academic environment to conclusions about their professional conduct (the kind of leap that people make, say, in arguing that Holly Lawford-Smith (Melbourne) should be disciplined by her university for her creation of a transphobic website). Another concern is that it appears to assume that the expression of strong negative opinions about some kinds of philosophical work is evidence of unprofessional bias against that work. But of course it needn’t be. The negative opinions may instead be a conclusions reached on the basis of detailed research and analysis of that work informed by expertise in that area. Remarkably, Pike appears to say that Chappell needn’t actually be biased for her appointment to the subpanel to be problematic. It is enough for others, perhaps moved by well-poisoning by Pike, to think she is biased. According to Times Higher Ed, Pike claimed that “Chappell’s presence may dissuade departments from submitting gender-critical..\n\nThe post Trans-Exclusionary Philosopher Seeks to Exclude Trans Philosopher first appeared on Daily Nous.",
  "title": "Trans-Exclusionary Philosopher Seeks to Exclude Trans Philosopher"
}