Aibu? Don't want to include anyone but women

You could do a study specifically looking at the trajectories for female nonbinary people versus male nonbinary people

You could look at experiences of nonbinary women vs transmen, correlated with age of a defined transition event

I suggest that you target “women” without having to define women,

but carefully craft your questions to get to the core questions of your research.

Don’t let it become a controversial research piece, you don’t need to actually say you include special categories of women. It’s just women, let the results tell the story.

Be strict and focused.

Is this the most recent way of shutting women down now? Has the woman's name that is used by certain individuals for this type of thing changed to this ridiculousness?

I'm doing a study on mice. Should I include a few rats? This is what it's feels like, and it surely just skews the data.

Is it notoriously difficult for trans women who were men until later in life, who were men when they studied and entered and became established academics/professionals?

Even if they joined your field post transition, their entire past will affect their likelihood of getting there. If for example, female socialisation during childhood makes it less likely girls/young women will acquire the necessary skills, like with STEM subjects or sport etc, that girls aren't encouraged into in the same way boys are. Or if it's an area where been 'pushy' or self-interest helps, the person who has been raised with male privilege is more likely to have these traits, them women/girls who are raised been told to be kid and think of others.

Yes because they're not a woman.

I think this explains it perfectly.
Including non-binary or trans-women introduces more factors which could skew the results

Can you state it is about female people no matter how they identify? That would include transmen and female non-binary.

Maybe include trans men instead of trans women, if you must expand your research!

Jeeze can women not have anything without involving men?

TransWomen are only TransWomen because they are men!!!!

The very fact that some posters are gaslighting the OP into accepting men as women shows how utterly ridiculous this whole subject is!
Regardless of surgery, drugs or twirly skirts, men are not and never will be women!

If the objective is to correlate reported outcomes with observable parameters such as sex, why not include every category of individual (male/female/trans/not trans) in your data set (so the males are effectively a control group).

With the right questions and analysis, it should be possible to extract the significant correlations whilst identifying and eliminating any confounding effects caused by including trans (eg because numbers too small or because transness itself has a large effect which obscures the sex effect).

You never know what you might find. Though I'd lay odds against a finding that those vulnerable trans ladies are being viciously discriminated against via callous maternity policies.

Can't you do three or four?

1. Women
2. Transwomen (biological men)
3. Transmen (biological women)
4. Non-binary (?????)

Or if you really want to limit it to just women tell your colleagues that you are only looking at issues faced by the female sex and you don't want any findings to be distorted by the noise of entirely separate problems faced by trans subjects. I think somebody suggested a similar sort of wording on page 1.

Obviously I don’t know the exact subject of your research topic, but it might well be the case that some important parts of the issue are the way little girls are encouraged to play, and with what sort of toys, and how popular particular school subjects are with girls, and why that might be, and whether girls are encouraged to do further study in particular school subjects and choose them as A Levels, and whether they have many role models, and whether they are encouraged by school teachers to apply to study that subject at university.

And if any of that is applicable, your research will be compromised and inaccurate if your data includes people who were born and brought up as boys, regardless of whether they think they should have been, or "really were", girls.

As I understand it, AFAB/AMAB are supposed to be ways for trans people to talk about their past gender identity that was imposed on them by the evil cisnormies. But it's a terrible choice of term even for that, because plenty of biologically female babies are assigned male at birth (and vice versa) due to a simple medical or even clerical error, and go on to be perfectly normal women without any sort of transition (the problem usually gets spotted in a few days).

Until about 20 years ago it was legally impossible for people in France to change their sex, even if they weren't trans-identifying. There were cases of women being called up for compulsory military service (which was for men only then) and also being unable to marry because they had M on their birth certificate due to their sex having been wrongly diagnosed at birth (and they were often not even intersex). In the end the European Court of Human Rights forced France to update their procedures to at least allow mistakes to be corrected. It was pointed out that even Turkey, hardly a hotbed of woke, allowed you to change your sex on your documents.

Is there a way you could frame this historically? So prior to (whenever) the field was male-dominated and it was difficult for women to enter and progress. Then something about developments related to sex-specific policies such as maternity leave where you can differentiate by sex. Why have these not been sufficient?
I would start with the group covered by sex-specific maternity legislation given that you want to cover topics like motherhood, and leave open the possibility of extending the study to other groups.
At least from what you have said here.
Work place inequalities have a longer history which relate to discrimination on the basis of sex.

TBF the number of transwomen experiencing period poverty is about as small as it's possible to be, so the argument made was accurate.

I think you can pitch it as sex-based oppression etc. You'll have to fight your corner with regard to excluding trans women but the environment is getting much better for this, thank GOD.

Don't do this.

It is absurd to cower to men in your research by using this gibberish when your whole research is about how your field is difficult to women.

It’s just so absurd, the pretence everyone has to go through.
Anyone who has done basic biology knows men ( XY) cannot have periods.

Granted not all women do, either, but it’s never a male (XY ) who will be knowing the cost and inconvenience &c of periods.

Given what you have said could you consider narrow your population to mothers, those that have experienced pregnancy or have been concerned about the possible impact or potential pregnancy and women concerned about or impacted by peri menopause or menopause?

You could always include a sub section seeing if people who came into the area as men and later transitioned to identify as women were further ahead in their careers after 5 years of entering the profession than people who entered the profession as women

Or in your intro you write AFAB (ASSIGNED FEMALE AT BIRTH) and use this term throughout or interchangably thats what i had to do (tutor was funny and pulled me up on saying women.) therefore AMAB (ASSIGIGNED MALE AT BIRTH) have been excluded from the research as the research is based on how AFAB and whatever it is your research is on. Again give further details as to why AMAb have been excluded from your research. But yes non binary will be included as their sex is female. Basically you may need to say AFAB throughout that's what my tutor said anyways which pissed me of tbh. Your conclusion at the end could say further study researching the impact of AMAB trans women may be something to consider at a later time. No idea

Not necessarily, as a trans woman might present male / not have transitioned when they got into the role therefore find it much easier to succeed than a woman would do.

I however would extend it to people assigned female at birth (to use a phrase I have issues with). That’s inclusive of female non binary people and trans men, but all who shouldn’t be left out of any feminist ventures in my view - because despite what I might have been told, I’m not actually a trans exclusionary feminist…