Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Royal Institution getting a pasting on Twitter

220 replies

EwwSprouts · 26/02/2020 16:54

"If you identify as a woman" they'd like you to complete their survey to understand what women watch. twitter.com/Ri_Science/status/1232681119939731458

OP posts:
TheProdigalKittensReturn · 27/02/2020 10:58

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

BingBongSong · 27/02/2020 11:06

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.

ThePurported · 27/02/2020 11:14

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.

Aesopfable · 27/02/2020 11:25

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

BingBongSong · 27/02/2020 11:26

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?

Helmetbymidnight · 27/02/2020 11:32

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."
.

Waitingforplastertodry · 27/02/2020 11:37

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!

OddBoots · 27/02/2020 11:39

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.

TheProdigalKittensReturn · 27/02/2020 11:45

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.

BingBongSong · 27/02/2020 11:48

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

TheProdigalKittensReturn · 27/02/2020 11:49

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

DiNATwist · 27/02/2020 12:05

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.

Miriel · 27/02/2020 12:12

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')

Siameasy · 27/02/2020 12:15

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!

Mockersisrightasusual · 27/02/2020 12:27

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....

TheProdigalKittensReturn · 27/02/2020 12:31

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

FloatOn · 27/02/2020 12:36

@Cwenthryth so did I, which is heartening!

fascinated · 27/02/2020 12:39

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).

wrongsideofhistorymyarse · 27/02/2020 12:46

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

BingBongSong · 27/02/2020 12:47

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 Sad.

TheProdigalKittensReturn · 27/02/2020 12:48

Perhaps they could reconsider the whole "are you watching this so you can help your kids with their homework" angle too.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 27/02/2020 12:53

Great post, Miriel. I think you're exactly right.

fascinated · 27/02/2020 13:09

BingBong. This is the nub of the issue.

Legally, you’re on a hiding to nothing trying to argue that trans shouldn’t be a thing at all. The precedent at ECHR level is strong, it’s based on the right to privacy/family life (among others) and it’s well established over a number of cases. However, that right isn’t absolute. Most rights can be restricted for the purposes of crime prevention/public order/safety etc or even just to balance against conflicting rights of others. It’s just that this wasn’t argued in eg the Nicot case because it wasn’t relevant on the facts and the French State had no reason to bring it up as it wouldn’t have helped their case on the facts. These carve outs are there, though, and they give governments the discretion to design their systems in such a way as to permit these interests to be protected. So the single sex exemptions, and exceptions to the right not to be “outed“ as trans (re the ability of eg Police/employers/authorities to inquire about previous names etc for specific purposes such as DBS checks, manhunts, references — as discussed on here frequently) absolutely could be justified in terms of international best practice. It’s just that the trans lobby are the only ones bringing cases at this level, and they obviously won’t bring up these carve outs.

I suspect there is also an imbalance in that there are perhaps fewer female born transpeople seeking entry to traditionally male spaces than vice versa. In the Guides example it is obvious why...the Scouts already accept girls so no issue. Prisons — for safety reasons I assume no transmen have ever sought access ? Masons, Golf Clubs, the CatholicnPriesthood — I am unclear but perhaps there just isn’t the same champing at the bit to get in (or they just know they’d be refused and the SS exemption upheld).

It’s another example of the lopsidedness of this in favour of natal males. Actually, the current operation of the system , with the systemic failure to invoke and enforce the single sex exemptions (eg in official guidelines/use in practice by the police etc) is vulnerable to a challenge on the basis that it constitutes discrimination against natal females.

fascinated · 27/02/2020 13:15

Bing Bong — they are too scared to, because the State isn’t respecting the right of their service users to dignity, privacy, bodily integrity etc...all Convention rights.. by rendering the single sex exemptions too difficult to use by arms length bodies by, eg, muddying the waters in the official guidelines and by making public funding dependent on trans inclusion etc) or, in the case of emanations of the state such as the Police/NHS/DBS admin people — by failing themselves to invoke them.

BingBongSong · 27/02/2020 13:22

Thank you, fascinated. It's so frustrating.

Swipe left for the next trending thread