Project Nettie: scientists supporting biological sex

[Candidpeel]

This looks like a good idea....one for the scientists and medics amongst us:

What is Project Nettie? Project Nettie is an online and regularly updated record of scientists, medics and those in related disciplines who, by signing their support for the Project Nettie statement, assert the material reality of biological sex and reject attempts to reframe it as a malleable social construct.

How can you be a part of Project Nettie? If you are a scientist, a medic or other healthcare professional, a science educator, or in another relevant field, you can sign the Project Nettie statement.

projectnettie.wordpress.com/

Brilliant.

Signed 😎

Good to see the list of signatories growing!

Someone took Ben Goldacre to task about this a couple of weeks ago when Alice Roberts tweeted that awful Medium article. He replied by saying that he was no longer writing media articles (which is no excuse, in my view - he could have expressed an opinion on Twitter) and then added something vague about competing rights. That's from memory, so not exact. But it was non-committal.

He replied by saying that he was no longer writing media articles (which is no excuse, in my view - he could have expressed an opinion on Twitter)
And yet, he managed to tweet about homeopathy the other week. It's craven behaviour. He made a name for himself calling out bad science - denying biological sex is the non-binary daddy of all bad science. His silence on this issue is so irresponsible, it's tacit acceptance of it.

What Mermoose said. Ben Goldacre has had his chance to pick a side on this, and unfortunately it doesn’t seem to be the side of evidence that he is going along with. Bad Science happens when good people do nothing.

Signed in my real name.

I wouldnt condemn anyone for not 'picking a side' on this. It takes time to work this out; it started for me probably in 1995. If Alice Roberts had taken a bit more time to think, she might not have made a statement of what seemed like instinctive reaching out towards people she feels are oppressed women, only immediately to have to say that sport was a 'special case' (why, Alice, why?) Though I find the public nature of some peoples journey on this quite compelling (Martina navratilova being the most aweinspiring) it is fair enough to decide that you are not going to die on this hill until you have to and until you have actually worked out what you think.

TemporaryPermanent it does take time to work it out, but Goldacre's been well aware of this for a good few years, at least. And it involves precisely some of the things he writes about - using off-label drugs on kids, for example.

There shouldn't be "sides" with science though. That's sort of the point of it. You go with the evidence.
The humanists are (correctly, obviously) campaigning against the teaching of creationism in schools as an alternative "side" to evolution. Ben Goldacre doesn't consider the hurt feelings of homeopathists.
Why is there a blind spot here?

Ben Goldacre has had his chance to pick a side on this, and unfortunately it doesn’t seem to be the side of evidence that he is going along with.

I stand by this, I think at this point it is about picking a side.

Science is obviously about consensus on the evidence. But what’s to debate there? No new scientific evidence has emerged to need any consensus that would in some way back up genderist politics. It’s politics. Human beings can’t change sex, that has never been biological reality.

The rest of it is about picking a side: considering what the social consensus is around this area and what the impact of genderist politics is on that, and considering the authoritarian way the lobby is currently pursuing this agenda on people and institutions. Considering the impact its having on children's medical treatment, safeguarding, women’s spaces and opportunities etc and applying your own political analysis to that to take a view on it. The sceptics community know about these issues. Transgender Trend was shortlisted for a John Maddox Prize. www.transgendertrend.com/tag/maddox-prize/

So like others have said, if the community (not just Ben Goldacre) are happy to speak out against unevidenced ‘woo’ and anti vaxx politics, but they don’t want to do that against subjecting kids to unevidenced permanent interventions, that’s picking a side.

Together they could do a lot to stop the rampant regulatory capture that we are seeing in academia, science institutions, the whole evidence based infrastructure that guides science and medicine, in which women are being harassed when they try to speak out.

This is a clash of rights, its not an issue where a workable accommodation that can be found with each side giving a little. Either women are women, or anyone can be a woman. Either women’s objections to this are worth something, or they aren’t.

Ben Goldacre did speak out in favour of sense when that mum was forbidden from contacting Mermaids. Then he went silent.
Andy Lewis started speaking out at that time (or more than he had been) but BG went back under a rock.
He's being a cowardy custard, he blooming well knows the issues and won't say anything.

I guess I'm afraid that BG will turn out to say that TWAW. I can't see how he would, but a hell of a lot of sceptics seem to go that way. Slight feeling that the 'being female is just weird, a choice that women are wrong to make, and only men can do it properly' element in sceptic culture might appeal to him too. Hope not.

I've signed. I've discussed it with spouse and talked it through at length to check he agrees with everything in it and that I'm right to sign. He agrees and I signed, which was the right thing to do. I've asked him to sign (also science/medicine) and he tried to avoid it, saying 'not tonight'. I pointed out that he was actually saying 'I'm not willing to sign this' full stop, despite laughing and agreeing that it was bonkers to have to sign a petition stating something that ten years ago we'd not have paused to think about. He got angry when I pointed this out and stormed (I love a good Mumsnet storm, it's almost as good as fuming 🙄) out the room. When he returned he kept on about he's not saying that he's not signing, he just 'hasn't put that much thought into it'. This is patently a ridiculous thing to say. I feel so angry and so saddened by knowing that, as much as our male allies step up, few of them are really willing to stand up and be counted when it costs them. I know this already, of course, but it's harder and harder to ignore this knowledge in a relationship, even when everything else is great. I'd be hugely grateful for some words of support. I feel out on a limb and lonely on this one.

Databreachnamechanger

Give him time. You're not the only woman whose husband is a little slow on the uptake over this issue.

We live in, they deal with it intellectually. It might take a little time.

*live IT

Can scientists on here or the Nettie list please propose a relevant scientific meeting to the Royal Society?

Since the Royal Society just gave a book prize to Invisible Women by Caroline Criado Perez tonight then they may even know what a woman is?

You could always propose a meeting about why this is so hard an area to research, if there’s isn't enough good evidence to debate?

Open call to suggest scientific meetings is here:

mobile.twitter.com/royalsociety/status/1176073761956741122

Hurry hurry- Closes Friday 27 Sept

Nettie signatories, please can you contact the Commons Health and Social Care Select Committee (and/or Commons Science and Technology Select Committee) and propose an inquiry into children’s rights, consent and medical transitioning which has permanent effects, versus need for ‘watchful waiting’ and abundant talking therapy and psychological support?

You could also respond to this Health and Social Care committee tweet about the need for quality sex and relationships education: mobile.twitter.com/CommonsHealth/status/1174329111281590272

The Science and Technology committee seems to confuse ‘sex’ with ‘gender’ so perhaps you could offer to give them a bit of help understanding that key difference?
mobile.twitter.com/ResFortnight/status/1172448025232297986

Any signatories who research autism and are concerned that young autistic people are being disproportionately affected by a dogma-driven rush to medicalise children with permanent effects, might also contact the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology who are looking for experts and reviewers around what has changed around autism over last ten years?

Or if you have a different background in science, why not contact them and suggest they write a briefing note for Parliament with the evidence for what you have signed up to?

mobile.twitter.com/POST_UK/status/1175085033104838656

Bumping up thread in case there are any more scientists willing to sign this...

I'm really glad for the resources here. I was able to pass on the link to Nettie as part of an online debate so people can see that there are scientists who are willing to openly challenge the recent narrative of 'no one can reliably determine biological sex'.

I'm a nuclear physicist. Do I count as a scientist or a supporter, since I've not got a biology background? I used to be a science teacher as well, so even though I don't do that any more I'll still sign.

Scientists please sign! You'd think a doctor's surgery would be a hub of sensible science based reality. Nope - I had to contact them to tell them their equality notice including gender and omitting sex needed changing. You don't get to rewrite the law. They've corrected it!!!

Bump