Royal Institution getting a pasting on Twitter

And yet organisations such as Girl Guiding (Rape Crisis and Women's Aid?) don't see the need to use the single sex exemption in their organisations .

I'm really pleased they're going to revisit the survey.

MGS would likely argue that they are using the Single Sex exemption (and I think they’d be right to do so), in the same way as the Masons do. So a trans girl could stay at their school but a trans boy couldn’t be accepted.

They could argue that the survey scenario on which they are commenting doesn’t justify the application of the SS exemption on the facts. That hasn’t been tested. Obviously the privacy and safety concerns couldn’t be used in that context. The RI would have to justify it on other grounds eg accuracy of data collection (or similar relevant criteria).

@Cwenthryth so did I, which is heartening!

I'll have you know that tea identifies as coffee!

I suppose they could reflect and decide that from now on the work experience kids would collect the post and make the coffee, but would that even work?

This coffee identifies as having two sugars....

I’m fed up with the word erase! This ideology has made so many words jar on me! No one is erasing you. You still exist! No one is obliged to see you the way you see yourself!

The newest tweet is getting the predictable 'bigots want to erase us' response.

The odd thing is that a transwoman who really, truly believed that TWAW would have no problem with the statement 'this survey is for women'. They'd fill it in, regardless of what GC women thought about that. If they're a woman, it's for them, right?

Wanting the 'identify as' line is something else. It's demanding the explicit acknowledgement that the organisation's stance is that womanhood is a feeling and that the survey is for anyone who thinks they have a ladybrain. Paradoxically, this very statement is drawing a distinction between actual women and men who identify as women in a way that 'this survey is for women' doesn't. And it's prioritising the latter.

It's politically charged and it also seems like a demand for a profession of faith. Phrase it in just the right way, or you're not one of us. (See also: pronouns always being listed as 'she/her' instead of just 'she', even though there's never going to be any confusion that someone might actually want 'she/him')

Thank you for this BingBong. it reads really well and sets the right tone; precise, enquiring but not overtly combative. what concerns me most is the covert way that these views are being disseminated in schools generally.

Perhaps a grownup noticed what the work experience kid had been doing on Twitter.

Will the RI's period of reflection be like Labour's period of reflection .

Well, will you look at this.

Royal Institution
@Ri_Science
·
31m
We have just taken down a tweet and survey we posted yesterday. We’ve heard all your messages and we’re going to take this away to reflect.

Maybe good will come of this, maybe the RI will be inspired to investigate to see if people are put off science when scientists and and science organisations lie to and gaslight them about reality.

I know the tweetings of Prof Alice Roberts have certainly done that with women (and some men) I know.

Once you lose trust it is hard to get it back.

Just popped over here to see what I've missed re: the RI (only saw their 'we've taken it down' tweet). I'm not sure how I feel about it, feels a bit like shutting down the debate. It's completely erased!

They've just posted this:
"We have just taken down a tweet and survey we posted yesterday. We’ve heard all your messages and we’re going to take this away to reflect."
.

DiNATwist, ime it's difficult to complain - when I have questioned TWAW in the past I've been shut down as a bigot and regressive, and felt as if I haven't really got anywhere.

I suppose you could question whether MGS_Chemistry's tweet is in line with official school policy, and if so, how that sits alongside their policy of only admitting boys who are identified as male at birth. Then I suppose you could ask what their policy would be for a boy who then identified as a girl - would they be allowed to stay or would they need to leave?

Been mulling this over. Suppose admission was based on gender rather than sex. I wonder how they would accommodate a transboy with regard to sports and residential trips?

It is about being inclusive of men; men must not be excluded from any space.

They do, therefore, have a bit of a cheek lecturing people about being "inclusive".

It's that special version of inclusion which has nothing to do with equality.
Like in sports, when rules are rewritten to enable boys and men to pick a category according to their ability and testosterone level at the expense of female athletes. They call it "beyond fairness". I bet this school doesn't see anything wrong with that either.

The MGS Chemistry tweet has annoyed me so much. I'd love to see the school justify why transwomen are women but transboys are not boys. It just reeks of hypocrisy.

It was practice for later headbanging, which I suppose also means I was a teenage boy.

*What if the baby is bald and the parents do that godawful thing where they glue a bow to its little bald head so everyone knows it's a girl?

(Still shaking my head at that one.)*

The head shaking is due to you trying to shake the bow off when you were a baby. You are obviously a man.

Wait, I was a bald baby. Was I a boy then and a girl when my hair grew in?

What if the baby is bald and the parents do that godawful thing where they glue a bow to its little bald head so everyone knows it's a girl?

(Still shaking my head at that one.)

If I create a throw away account on Twitter, repost MGS_Chemistry's deleted post will I get blocked?

You can tell based on whether the infant tries to undo the snaps on their onesie, the mother of a trans child told me so (well, told the media, who told everyone).

What about bald babies

This is discrimination against bald babies and very exclusive