Aibu? Don't want to include anyone but women

[Getthatwindowclosed]

I recently took up a position at a university and will be undertaking research as part of this.

I had to propose the topic to three senior colleagues and my topic is women in my field - don't want to out myself too much here.

I was able to get almost to the end of my pitch and one of my colleagues cut me off when I said 'women' and stated that surely I meant to include non-binary and transwomen too. Felt like I was under pressure to say yes. So I did.

My field is notoriously difficult for women and I wanted to focus on this. I like to think that I'm open-minded but I just don't know how to handle this, as my colleagues seem very set on being as inclusive as possible.

Am I being unreasonable by fighting to keep my research purely about women?

Research is specific, not inclusive.

It involves choosing particular categories and comparing/examining relationships/ results within them (amongst many other things)

So you choose - smokers/never smoked , research on police officers, research on particular age groups.

Those people who do not fit the categories are not included because the research is NOT ABOUT THEM!

That's not a problem though if the topic of research is specifically biological women who birthed a child. This is common practice in research to only look at a specific population. Not all research can or should be inclusive.

Or you could be crystal clear and define women as adult human females. My God, when they introduced the Equality Act in 2009 they didn't define women because everyone felt it was so patently obvious. Now in rarelified academic fields women are reduced to a subset of ourselves. Thanks to Maya Forstater and Jo Pheonix you are allowed to use clear language and your research may actually be of some use as a result.

Trans women make up 0.5% of the entire population. I doubt they’re going to take over your research 🙄

Is there a way to pitch running two parallel projects? Ie, you run a trans/NB inclusive project looking at slightly different questions and then argue that there is a research case for quarantining data on the biological women? Not sure on your field, but depending upon whether the data you are collecting is qualitative rather than quantitative you might be able to exclude or at least place that subset of data in its own data set? Mine is qualitative, as it’s a creative arts PhD, so am exploring lived experience of mothers very specifically, which helps because it both implicitly and explicitly excludes male born/non gestating subjects!!

Including non-binary people in research about women is nonsensical. Surely it would be offensive to a non-binary person to suggest they should take part in research about a gender they don’t identify with?

Trans women are a different kettle of fish as it could be seen to be excluding them in research on their own gender.

What kind of research? What kind of numbers? In a large quantitative survey the numbers of trans women would be far too small to skew anything and you could do a sub-group analysis if needed. For smaller numbers in qualitative research you’re unlikely to get any trans participants and if you did you could note where their experiences differ in your write up.

If there is a wealth of research on women in your field why are you so keen to do more of the same rather than branch out and contribute more meaningfully and originally by doing research on nb and trans, which you are saying there is very little research about?

Maybe that's why your colleagues asked you, as you have an opportunity to take a new angle, and novelty and originality is generally highly valued in research and it's unusual for a researcher to shy away from that.

Fuck sake. You can either be part of the problem or you can set boundaries. Why did you say 'yes'?

Surely the rationale for your research question should lead this eg exploring the impact of societal views on female children and young adults entering the profession?

No, this is nonsense.

Can you reframe the parameters as being about females?

It sounds like what non-binary females and trans-identified females have in common with other females (ie women) is more relevant to the study than their personal beliefs.

Having no idea what your field or thesis is, suggest that the extent of part 2 being along the following lines: also note that trans women are now able to ride on the coattails of the fight of actual women to gain leg ups in industries (where those trans women already had no disadvantage), at the expense of all the women I've discussed in part 1"

Well if you agreed to include all women already then the decision is already made tbh

Trans women are a different kettle of fish as it could be seen to be excluding them in research on their own gender.

Why do you assume she is researching anything to do with gender? I understand her to be researching something affected by sex. Specifically, the female sex. In which case it is entirely appropriate to exclude transwmen from her research.

I did my nursing top up on breast implant illness in women and had to bloody write a spell about why only someone born as a woman. So as long as you state clearly the rationale and then give research into why you want to only look into women then your OK. You can maybe look into non binary female at birth possibly as they may chose to be non binary given the difficulties they have in your work place. As long as you state your facts and literature be ok

Do you know if any trans or NB women in the field?
If you do not then just focus on women in that field?

I'm quite active in the women's group at my work. Whenever someone brings up 'but what about traaaaaaannnssss' (and predictably someone always does) I say, 'yes, we include trans, we welcome women who identify as men or NB. Men? No.'

That's my position and I always state it, with the hope and intention that it makes others braver to state their boundaries.

Transwomen are neither the gender nor the sex of women. Therefore they in no way fit a research category called women.

What they are are 'gender identifying' individuals. If you are researching using this category- that's fine.

Gender identity is made up bollocks that has led to some people thinking they have the right to order other people (usually women) to do and say what they want, giving up their own rights and spaces for them at great harm to themselves and their sex specific group.

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…

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

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

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?

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.

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.

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.