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.

Can you people please start making it clear in your subject line that it's another anti trans thread so those of us who are sick to death of your crap can just scroll on by and avoid the bilge?

Everything Hermione said. How many real women have to be assaulted and abused? How many have to have the chance of a scholarship stolen from them?

Moggy what a strange comparison! Appropriating someone's sex and allowing any Tom, Dick and Harry into women's personal space is not the same as accepting gay people into a religion. You're comparing apples and oranges

all are you obliged to post on every thread you come across? Don't be the thread police, move on if you don't like it

And yuk at comparing tolerance of lesbians and gay men to a demand that girls and women tolerate an attack on our safety, dignity, privacy and right to meet and organise as a marginalised population.

alltouche - What and miss the pleasure of your company?

In a way alltouche's contributions are useful.

They highlight how "pro women" or "women centric" positions are considered "anti-trans".

It's the same as when women are called manhaters when we try to stand up for ourselves.

Indeed, very often, "anti-trans" does mean "man hater". It's the oldest trick in the book.

alltouchedout - I think the thread title's fairly unambiguous - what were you expecting the thread to be about? I'd love to know

The posters who complain about the number of threads do reveal something very important.

If somebody you respected was going on and on about something, you would at some point give them a hearing. If you still felt strongly they were wrong, you'd argue a case. But you would think, if you respected them - there is a great deal of concern here, I will just listen to see if they have a point.

If you respected them, you wouldn't try to shut them down every single time.

These complaints show a very basic lack of respect for women and their opinions.

(apart from the prejudice, the ignorance and all the rest of it)

It is, literally, just Shut up! Shut up now! Shut UP!

In fact Alltouch it would be 'clearer' if you could just say 'Shut up - shut UP' because that's all you mean. Shut up, shut up, shut up.

This is just great for girls.

hermione most of those things are indeed terrible. Rape is terrible. but this thread wasn't entitled 'AIBU to think women shouldn't get raped in prison' if it had been I would have been right there with you saying violent transwomen convicted of rape against women shouldn't be in jail with women. The worst case scenario has already happened there...so it should be a no brainer.

This thread is 'should transwomen be excluded from a fellowship'. I think the first question is 'would it make any difference if they were?'

Do you have data to suggest that a non-zero number of transwomen have applied, let alone been given a fellowship? If not then this is at least mildly transphobic, because you are excluding for the sake of making a point...rather than making a difference to women's actual experience.

The same with the olympics thread. The whole thing was written from a perspective of this one decision meaning the end of XX sport, when there is no evidence whatsoever that that would be the outcome.

I would just prefer that the evidence of harm comes before the powerful counter-reaction...just to make sure a powerful counter-reaction is actually appropriate.

Feminists risk making themselves looks just as unhinged by frothing about non-issues as the transactivists look when they claim someone who decided they were female during sentencing for rape should be in womens prison.

If I was anti-trans, I wouldn't have said that IMO this scholarship should be inclusive of people born and socialised as women even if they now identify as men. Because they will likely have been exposed to the same stereotype threats as other XX people. Just curious, would others agree with that, or am I being too simplistic?

If I was anti-trans, I wouldn't have said that IMO this scholarship should be inclusive of people born and socialised as women even if they now identify as men. Because they will likely have been exposed to the same stereotype threats as other XX people. Just curious, would others agree with that, or am I being too simplistic?

Ice.

If I close my eyes and run across the road there is no guarantee I will get hit by a car.....

Errol, well I would at least in part agree with that. I think the primary reason for needing such a fellowship is the internal bias women face when asking themselves if they should apply. If someone has seen themselves as male since early childhood I would expect them to respond to that key question in a male fashion. If they have published work under an obviously male name then they will not suffer negative bias at shortlisting either....

On the flip side if they are an underrepresented group in STEM (wrt to population proportion) then maybe they should be included.

I would be really interested to know if they actually are under-represented. It would be interesting to shed some light on whether who we see ourselves or how others see us as children has more or less impact on our prospects in STEM.

I know personally of 2 TW in STEM, I am not personally aware of any TM..but clearly you would need population wide stats to come up with anything definitive.

FRET I would rather run across the road with my eyes shut opposite my secluded house than across the M25....

I'm intrigued that the people behind Cards Against Humanity are offering a scholarship - I didn't know of their philanthropic activities.

venusinscorpio
Just like icebeing once entirely derailed a thread about trans athletes pushing women out of sport by going on and on and on about how there shouldn't be any women's sport anyway.

Odd comment to make venus (i.e. a subjective remark about a particular poster on a non recent thread). And from where I'm looking, every single trans thread contains derailment - if you removed the thread titles, people would be hard pressed to distinguish between them. The same subjects and anecdotal evidence are brought up again and again, regardless of the starting point of each discussion.

IceBeing
If I had brought it up it would have been to point out that unsurprisingly there wasn't a massive swamping of women's sports with 'I feel female today' XY people...the world of XX sport didn't in fact end...

It was uneventful in terms of the MN IOC thread predictions. The trans critical threads on here do seem to be examples of castrophic thinking, with an absence of any robust evidence.

HermioneWeasley
Fallon Fox beat a competitor into a pulp - a state that's never been seen when 2 women have boxed. I think Fallon may have fractured her skull

I think you have to consider Fallon Fox within the context of the sport. MMA seems to be intrinsically dangerous, with orbital fractures a common injury. Female fighters get injured - I read somewhere that Rhonda Rousey had a two month medical suspension following her surprise defeat by Holly Holm last year.

Lol at alltouch. Yes, you had absolutely no idea from the title that this could possibly concern trans issues, did you?

Yes, fascicle dear. There's absolutely nothing wrong with a much larger man getting to beat the shit out of a much smaller woman in the name of inclusivity and progress. Nothing at all. It's just MMA, isn't it?

I don't think a man should be allowed into a woman's space because he 'feels' like a woman. What does 'feeling like a woman' feel like? what a load of nonsense

I'm listening/reading and I'm outraged, although the finer points of feminist theory are over my head (due to teething DS!). However I do think there is too much hyperbole which weakens the arguments. Nonetheless I think being complacent on little things like this which are "unlikely" to have transwoman involvement can erode our rights massively. Whoosh and suddenly we're back to where we started with the patriarchy.

On a side note, for academic interest, I'm in Australia where right wing extremist commentators criticise so-called "white Aborigines" for taking jobs/scholarships etc reserved for those who are more visibly Aboriginal. But the specific problem we have in Australia, with the stolen generations that particularly targeted whiter children, is that those people are very likely to have suffered appalling childhoods, possibly a child of rape, and heartbreaking cultural and familial alienation. Just putting it out there to help fellow Spartacists not get trapped into race=visibility arguments as it's not always clear cut in this respect.

Fascicle whereas the opposite argument is so nuanced

i.e. "you're bigots!"

I'm listening to R4 - the current segment is about a Trans politician - this is the 4th segment I've heard about trans people in the past few days. ALL of them completely swallowing the trans agenda.

It's not just us.

I literally do mean this: Oh good, another trans thread.

This HORSESHIT is damaging and dangerous to women. It must be called out regularly.

Those who think there should be a 'trans section' or that trans stuff is dominating MN, think on this - Leo's story on Radio 4 wasn't in a trans programme. The story about how wonderful it is we now have a 'woman' on the front lines wasn't on the trans news. Caitlyn Jenner didn't win 'best trans woman' - she's the best woman, apparently.

Trans stories are everywhere - talking about them must be, too.

Yes I'm listening to "from our own correspondent" - I missed the beginning so didn't hear the country the politician was in (Brazil perhaps?)

Super point errol