Here is a philosophical question for our universities to ponder. Should the ‘D’ in ‘EDI’ extend to diversity of opinion? If it doesn’t, this acronym so beloved of HR departments and external ‘training providers’ shouldn’t be worth the candle. But heaven help anyone who speaks the truth about sex and gender within some places of education.

Say the wrong things and the thought police might check your thinking and ensure that you are cancelled. Connie Shaw, a third-year philosophy, religion and ethics student at Leeds University is one of the latest victims. Back in October, Shaw wrote a blog in which she called out some of the more egregious examples of campus life. Not only that, her work was published by Graham Linehan.

I’ve tired of repeating the point that trans woman are not women

Linehan knows what it feels like to be cancelled by those who wield the authoritarian fist within the progressive glove. Linehan’s thought crimes include his passionate support for women’s rights at time when cowardly politicians and policy makers could not even bring themselves to define the word woman. He has also voiced his opposition to the medicalisation of transgender-identified children. After Twitter suspended his account in 2020 – reportedly for pointing out that, ‘men aren’t women tho’, he set up his own platform on Substack. ‘The Glinner Update’ now claims over 32,000 subscribers.

Shaw’s piece – ‘Gender madness at the University of Leeds’ – exposed the ludicrous, the worrying and the downright dangerous impact of an ideology that is anything but liberal and progressive. From the freshers’ fair, where stall holders were asked to introduce themselves with pronouns and display a ‘diversity statement’, to the Union ‘Gender Expression Fund’ from which trans, non-binary, genderqueer or gender-nonconforming students – some of whom will be just 18 years old – can pick up cash for ‘gender-affirming’ products such as breast binders.

The accompanying health warnings, that alert users to risks including ‘scarring, swelling, rib fractures and respiratory infections’ means that the student union knows the practice is dangerous.

Light was also shone on the academic side of university life at Leeds. Essay titles that included ‘Is having a female gender identity necessary to be a woman’, and ‘Can someone, such as a very powerful Queen, not be systematically subordinated, but still be a woman’, were shared with a wider audience than perhaps originally intended. The answers of course are ‘no’ and ‘yes’, respectively and it’s hard to see how further effort is going to produce meaningful and useful knowledge.

But this seems to be about furthering an ideology. A third essay title that Shaw reported asked students to consider whether it was true that, ‘in an important way, trans women in transphobic societies are not women’. I would concur with Shaw’s point that students are being nudged in one direction only.

I’ve tired of repeating the point that trans woman are not women because we are the opposite sex to women. Biology, however, seems to be far less important than gender identities to people who set assignments like these. Personally, I am saddened that places of learning are promoting such a regressive ideology. Gender identity can’t even be defined without recourse to circular reasoning – the gender that someone identifies as – or sexist stereotypes. It’s a hollow concept that has been used to compromise women’s boundaries and sell an impossible dream to vulnerable children distressed about their sex. If a transsexual like me doesn’t need a gender identity to live my life, then nobody does.

However, it’s easier for me to say these things with the privilege of age (in in my 50s), sex (I’m still male) and with an established career than it is for a 20-year-old student like Shaw. Kudos to her for saying what she thinks and standing her ground. Perhaps inevitably it has come at a cost. She was handed a ‘notice of suspension’ by Leeds University Union and barred from her role as head of daytime radio at Leeds Student Radio (LSR).

In a statement, Shaw said: ‘It is ironic that LSR promoted a freedom of speech event – the Battle of Ideas – as a result of being given media passes to attend, and then have in my opinion, removed me from my position due to the interviews I conducted at that event, and more generally for expressing my legal right to freedom of speech.’

It’s not just ironic, it is a shocking indictment of parts of society that have abandoned critical thinking. The ray of light though is the fortitude of young people like Shaw. It is harder to impose authority, conformity and exclude unwelcome opinions when a philosophy, ethics and religion student is willing to stand up and say what she thinks. Indeed, isn’t that what a philosopher should be doing?