To think that scholarships for women shouldn't be open to men?

[HermioneWeasley]

So, scholarship to support women in STEM - a massive issue for all societies that we're not harnessing th talents of half our populations in this area.

But if you "identify as a woman in a way that's meaningful to you" you can apply.

What the ever loving fuck?

Another example of the damage being done to actual women, by saying that "woman" is a feeling in a man's head.

No.

People are allowed to dress how they like, behave how they like, like what they like etc. I could be a bearded man that likes having long pink nails and wearing skirts. I'm still a man.

It's 'gender' that makes the bearded dude rather call himself a woman that just a gender non-conforming man. And that's what's offensive to women.

Gender should be smashed and removed. But we still need pronouns to have some meaning, even if it's just because when in a medical setting doctors need to know tb appropriate way to treat someone.

And to go back to the OP yes I agree th box for non-women is all kinds of wrong.

Oh ok, sorry. I've read too many people claiming she meant anyone could become a woman with the correct socialisation
I agree. To me feminism is partly about the fight not to accept the box that a woman is just a "non-man" and that women are equally valid humans as men in their own right. To me accepting trans women as another class of women as valid as "cis women" just reinforces that "woman = non-man" box so I don't see it as feminist.
Can you explain why your don't see a conflict there?

"Personally, as a straight, white, middle class woman, I have not suffered under the patriarchy at all. "

I used to say this. Then I opened my eyes.

I know we've moved on a bit here...

But I'm personally irked by the lack of "I am female" box.
So as a female who does not "identify as a woman", can I not apply?

CoteDAzur. And what an eye opener it is.

Saying that a woman's scholarship should only be available to women is not transphobic
It is not transphobic to say that a woman does not have a penis.
It is not transphobic to say a lesbian does not want to have penetrative sex with a penis.

If people want to have a scholarshiop for trans people, no one is stopping them from starting one. Its very unlikely that the type of oppression and discrimination they face is identical to that which women face. They may need different types of support.
Black women and white women dont come from an identical place. White women dont object to Black women having their own support groups. It would be wierd if they insited on joining one and claiming their experience is the same.
It would be labelled 'entitlement'.

Yes Jelli, it would indeed be called entitlement. And appropriation, which is exactly what this is.

What this does is to change a women's scholarship into a ladybrain scholarship.

So not only does it potentially let a man take up a place designed to be a step towards redressing the unearned over representation of men in STEM, it also insults all women.

It changes the scholarship from something that was needed because women are discriminated against because they are women into something that is needed because women have lady brains.

For those who don't see the issue here ,think about that. Are you really happy with that? Even if you're not bovvered by a man taking this place up instead of a woman (which of course may not happen) are you happy with the message that lady brain is the reason women are underrepresented in STEM? That is, that we're a bit thick when it comes to important manly things like STEM? We're not actually discriminated against but patronisingly given lady scholarships in order to make up for our crappy lady brains...

Indeeed. Perhaps we also need pink apparatus once we are accepted...?

With bows on.

It says a lot about MN when the comment "all trans > all women" is taken seriously enough for somebody to spend time trying to disprove it.

OBVIOUSLY not all trans women are more disadvantaged than all women. Obviously

I totally agree. However FullTime you were the one who made the "all trans have it harder than women" claim. So given you now accepted this isn't true, we're you simply misinformed or being deliberately inflammatory?

Your (extreme) examples of how "trans women" could seemingly undeservingly snatch the women's scholarship from deserving cases applies equally to women who haven't suffered socialisation issues to any great extent, were going to go into STEM anyway, but might as well get a free ride.

Thing is, they aren't extreme examples. Trans is trans, the trans community accept any definitions of what makes a woman a woman. Nor is it a "suffering woman" scholarship, the criteria should be on if you're female, not your social background.

I'm getting from your posts your real gripe is the fact that this is a scholarship that excludes men, rather than anything to do with trans? If that's the case there's plenty of reasons been given as to why it's appropriate to have female only scholarships. If men were for example, underrepresented in ballet, and there was a scholarship for men only, I for one would have no issue with this and would fully support it (for the record I have no idea if men are under represented in ballet or not it's hypothetical!)

What this does is to change a women's scholarship into a ladybrain scholarship.

completely disagree. What this scholarship does is say there's no such thing as a ladybrain. If nothing else, trans people show that gender is not tied to the biology of the brain.

"FullTime you were the one who made the "all trans have it harder than women" claim. So given you now accepted this isn't true, were you simply misinformed or being deliberately inflammatory?"

Is this the first time ever that someone outed herself as a GF, I wonder.

So:
Woman is not a biological thing
Woman is not a lady brain
What is it then? What is the scholarship being tied to? Why do you think there are less women in stem and how do you think this scholarship addresses that?

This is why it should be a scholarship to help redress under-represented groups (whatever they may be) rather than focusing on women.

Transmen are also likely under-represented and it doesn't look like they can apply even while in possession of XX and a womb.

So make the scholarship more open.

I liked that Dorothy Hodgkins did this. They switched from a 'for women' to 'for people having to move because of their partners' which meant that the minority of men facing the specific problem the award set out to help with were eligible along side the many women facing the same problem.

This is the way forward.

What this scholarship does is say there's no such thing as a ladybrain.

Nope. Not anymore. That's what it said before making transwomen eligible.

Now what is says is that women and transwomen are in the same sex category - a category that is underrepresented in STEM.

Trans ideology says that "gender is not between your legs, it's in your head". So the thing that women and transwomen have in common (if we agree that they are in the same category) is not what is between their legs but what is in their heads AKA ladybrain .

The only way to logically and coherently not mind this scholarship being opened to transwomen is if you agree that women and transwomen both have ladybrains (because they sure as hell don't have the same genitals).

Do you agree that you have a ladybrain? Really?

Again, I'm interested in myown's response to Beachcomber's post, which for me is it in a nutshell. I'd like her to unpack her logic, as I'm not seeing it.

I think it's unfair to have any kind of sex requisite on the application. How about thinking that scholarships shouldn't be closed to any sex?

Before anyone talks about equality in STEM subjects, I'm just going to drop the F*-bomb.

contexts.org/articles/what-gender-is-science/

Countries which are most 'fair' with regard to equality between the sexes have wider gaps in STEM subjects.

*fact

The only way that trans people "show that gender is not tied to the biology of the brain" is if you accept the circular logic of the trans ideology. Can't you see that? It is subjective, yes? How do they know that they are not the correct gender for their body unless you believe in lady brain?

ice that's great if you can tie lack of a particular group to an issue (like moving).

If it's tied to a form of unconscious bias or exempt out right discrimination (as has been shown to be the case with women and BAME people at work) then that approach at best only partially tackles the problem.
In the case of scholarship to STEM my feeling is trans women are likely to be over rather than under represented as it's such a male dominated profession and many transition later in life. So still not sure what specific issue the award could be targeted at if being female isn't the criteria?

user why not tie scholarships to sex, if there's a representation issue? Or do you have a problem with scholarships for BAME people, lower income people, disabled people? If you only have an issue with sex based scholarship that smacks of misogyny to me.

Women (sex) need STEM scholarships because of the disadvantages of living as and being socialised as female (gender).

Trans-men suffer this disadvantage (along with additional disadvantages) as they are female (sex).

MtT (sex male) were socialised and lived as male (gender) therefore not disadvantages in the same way.

Nobody has a ladybrain - scientific fact
Males and females are male and female and this cannot be changed - scientific fact
Gender is a made up thing based on the sex of an individual - it is purely qualitative and has no biological or other basis.

Just read the article user and I'm getting the impression you didn't before you dropped the "f* bomb". It doesn't say at all what you portrayed it saying.
Oh and BTW a graph doesn't equal either fact or science.

*Judy, how many more female serial killers can you name without googling?

But it's not a question of serial killers, is it? My comment was in response to one which suggested that Claire Derbyshire and Davina Ayrton are representative of all trans women, which is obviously not true, and it's noticeable that you swerve that point. And, of course, they're not serial killers. If you want me to name other female murderers/violent female criminals off the top of my head, you have to bear in mind that of necessity they don't get the publicity because they're not that unusual - which again kind of proves my point. But how about Joanna Dennehy, Aileen Wuornos, Beverley Allitt, Genene Jones, Tracie Andrews, Tracey Connelly ...

"If you want me to name other female murderers/violent female criminals off the top of my head, you have to bear in mind that of necessity they don't get the publicity because they're not that unusual"

I'm not going to converse with someone who is that delusional.