Why do scientists swallow gender ideology?

[JellySlice]

The IET recognise the inequalities women and girls face in STEM, and actively encourage and support women and girls in STEM. Yet these initiatives are open to those who 'identify' as women. Presumably that means TM and NBs are excluded.

Shrouk El-Atar's caption. An excellent, inclusive ambition - why the need for 'cis'?

Being a mere arts graduate I had assumed that scientists applied rigorous tests based on evidence and testing. It comes as something of a shock to realise that engineers can and will believe anything

What I have found interesting in Engineering, speaking here in sweeping generalisations which of course does not universally apply, is that although the scientific process is applied rigorously to everything around us, self examination and self awareness is in my experience far less prevalent than in say social sciences/arts degree where critical and ethical thinking are far more developed. I did an MA and the approach to learning/teaching was so far removed from my academic experience to that point. That said Engineering can be conservative and so can many Engineers in my experience and I don’t think that gender ideology would gather massive sway in the hearts and minds of the majority of Engineers.

DH and I are both molecular biologists and most definitely GC, so NASALT But I would say that, like many others who have a mortgage to pay and a family to support, we feel we have to be careful with what we say in public - I am in awe of those who are actively "out" and do wish we dared to be braver.

@Shedbuilder - re "because I didn't want to be impolite I let that go"

IMHO this is one of intellectually limiting shackles imposed on us by gender roles that we must strive to overcome. It is no different than #bekind used to shut women up about the TWAW hypothesis.

There is an intellectual discussion going on in this thread. Why would it be impolite to simply voice your relevant thoughts? Can you imagine men not making a point in similar circumstances because it could be seen as impolite?

Impolite would be saying "You are an idiot". What you said was that an experience or feeling in one's own head is not evidence for the existence of a god, which was a perfectly valid point made in a civil manner.

Going back to the original screenshot that Jelly Slice posted, although there shouldn't be any need for 'cis', I noted that the engineer designs smart tech solutions to improve the lives of "cis women and trans men", i.e. she biological females. It doesn't sound like they have swallowed gender ideology.

This is actually so true. I have been conditioned by decades of female socialisation not to be rude to people, try and keep a civil discussion going etc. I see the error of my ways. When shedbuilder was fucking rude I referred to "impoliteness", my mistake, I should have been more direct. It was so bracing to be likened to "TRAs attacking JKR", it did me the world of good. It also cheered me up no end to see having a religious experience dismissed as doubtless a brain injury.

If women can't show a little compassion to one another and think outside their own tiny lives for a while, why are they even bothered to claim to be feminists? This is supposed to be a discussion about men in STEM subjects, but has been derailed by pontificating and ego trips.

[quote CoteDAzur]@Shedbuilder - re "because I didn't want to be impolite I let that go"

IMHO this is one of intellectually limiting shackles imposed on us by gender roles that we must strive to overcome. It is no different than #bekind used to shut women up about the TWAW hypothesis.

There is an intellectual discussion going on in this thread. Why would it be impolite to simply voice your relevant thoughts? Can you imagine men not making a point in similar circumstances because it could be seen as impolite?

Impolite would be saying "You are an idiot". What you said was that an experience or feeling in one's own head is not evidence for the existence of a god, which was a perfectly valid point made in a civil manner.[/quote]
Thanks, Cote. I was socialised to be nice (including Sunday school indoctrination) and being told I'm rude for stating something obvious always touches a soft spot. I need to build up some intellectual confidence: I think the arts have taken such a bashing over the years that I've forgotten that my degree did actually give me some useful skills.

Gender ideology is a cultural phenomenon. Scientists, whether they like it or not, try to resist it or not, attempt to specifically minimise its influence, are subject to the culture around them. It's a form of environmental influence. It's impossible to reduce all biases. There's cultural influences in science all over the place regarding what is being researched, interpretation of results, recognition of biases, etc etc

I think we'd all agree it's about time for a culture change. Rather than outright rejecting the emergence of a new flawed culture why not steer it and redefine it towards one that is fairer to the whole of society which most definitely includes females which form over half the population?

I was socialised to be nice

There is nothing wrong with being nice. It is a useful tool in the arsenal! Nice often goes unnoticed which aids in smoothly getting people to assimilate new ideas which they might otherwise find contentious.

I would say this is worth remembering. Too much shouting just becomes like white noise.

Exploitation- be it porn, prostitution, surrogacy. These are the human rights issues which need a cultural change IMO. Child protection is a massive part of this, I think women tend to worry more about that side of things.

"There is nothing wrong with being nice."

Agreed, but not as a tool to silence people in an intellectual discussion, where "That's not nice" shouldn't be used to discredit someone's contribution.

Culture affects actions, it affects legislation and now we are seeing it very clearly affecting science. Yes, we very much we need to protect children but culture change is a big part of this. It is there right at the start where a child might worry or be encouraged to worry their body is somehow wrong because they feel their interests do not fit neatly into a rigid stereotypical box.

Instead of outrightly rejecting their existence and influence why not broaden the stereotypes out so they are so wide they emerge into each other and it removes their restrictive and rigid nature.?

but not as a tool to silence people in an intellectual discussion, where "That's not nice" shouldn't be used to discredit someone's contribution.

It doesn't need to. An apology for the less nice aspect of whatever has been said and a reframing of the point so it is made in the most courteous language available completely suffices.

Sensationalism unfortunately does appeal to many people but it is too easy to discredit to serve well.

@pensivepigeon

Culture affects actions, it affects legislation and now we are seeing it very clearly affecting science. Yes, we very much we need to protect children but culture change is a big part of this. It is there right at the start where a child might worry or be encouraged to worry their body is somehow wrong because they feel their interests do not fit neatly into a rigid stereotypical box.

Instead of outrightly rejecting their existence and influence why not broaden the stereotypes out so they are so wide they emerge into each other and it removes their restrictive and rigid nature.?

Absolutely, gender stereotypes are too narrow.

@TeaAndStrumpets - "When shedbuilder was fucking rude"

Please show where you feel that @Shedbuilder was "fucking rude", with a quote of her post.

"It was so bracing to be likened to "TRAs attacking JKR", it did me the world of good."

The point of an intellectual discussion about scientific thought is not to do "a world of good" to any of its participants. As a former medical professional, you shouldn't need to be told this.

"It also cheered me up no end to see having a religious experience dismissed as doubtless a brain injury."

I didn't say your "personal encounter" was doubtless a brain injury. I said that is one of the things I would worry about and explore, definitely much sooner than thinking "Oh that must have been the creator of all universe who just talked to me, since there can be no other explanation."

"If women can't show a little compassion to one another and think outside their own tiny lives for a while, why are they even bothered to claim to be feminists?"

You don't get it, do you? This is exactly the #bekind rubbish that is used to silence feminists re FWAW. Show compassion to transwomen who are oh so sad and disadvantaged. Just say they are women, why won't you, when you are women and hence you must disregard what you know as fact because you must hold feminine values such as being kind and gentle above standing up for rational thought

"This is supposed to be a discussion about men in STEM subjects"

Are you reading a different thread? This one is called Why do scientists swallow gender ideology? and is about why people who are presumably educated to believe only that which is scientifically evidenced, tested, and independently found true can sometimes believe in dogma like FWAW which is just a belief in some people's heads.

It's fascinating that you can't or don't want to see this.

Absolutely, gender stereotypes are too narrow.

Exactly. Let those people which are hugely (over) invested in gender explore their cultural stereotypes and with (our help widen) them out completely so that they no longer serve as a stereotype and no one really cares about them.

Sex can then go back to describing what it was mean to describe - our biology.

There is nothing wrong with being nice.

There is nothing wrong with being agreeable in the sense of that personality trait that seeks to have people living as harmoniously as possible together and people focussing on growing and developing that trait in themselves since we now know that personalities are not fixed and can develop over a lifetime of experiences.

But these days to me the suggestions that people should “be kind/nice” these days seems more about silencing.

You don't get it, do you? This is exactly the #bekind rubbish that is used to silence feminists re FWAW.

As I have said, being nice doesn't 'silence' anyone. Use courteous language and this accusation falls flat.

Being a mere arts graduate I had assumed that scientists applied rigorous tests based on evidence and testing.

When they do their own research maybe. Most scientists don't have the time to rigorously research everything else. I'm a scientist and I believe that climate change is happening, but I've never rigorously research or performed my own experiments to test it. I have to take it on trust that the people who are experts in that field know what they're talking about.

Most scientists are not experts on sex differentiation and have probably not thought about it much, so if they see credible-sounding people assert that "sex is a spectrum" they are generally inclined to go along with it. Indeed in general scientists are probably predisposed to believe that common sense beliefs like "sex is a binary" are wrong, because a lot of science involves discovering that things the general public believe to be true are in fact incorrect.

I'm sorry if you need sentences to be phrased in a certain way to see the point they are making.

It's interesting when you read about life in the Soviet Union to note how many senior, respected scientists and engineers were women. Does anyone know if this continued into modern Russia today?

Disappointed to read about Alice Roberts. Given Robert Winston apparently spoke well in the House of Lords the other day, could he be brave enough to do a prime time show explaining the biological reality of sex? Would the pitch even get past producers?

@NotDavidTennant - re "in general scientists are probably predisposed to believe that common sense beliefs like "sex is a binary" are wrong, because a lot of science involves discovering that things the general public believe to be true are in fact incorrect."

Homo Sapiens is a sexually dimorphic species, and this is knowledge based on hundreds of years of scientific studies. I can't agree with your perception that this is just something the general public believe, like "We only use 10% of our brains".

CoteDazur you have misread the thread. Try reading it more slowly. It was Babdoc whose religious faith was rudely dismissed, I merely defended her from what I felt was unfair comment. Then shedbuilder weighed in and told me I was as bad as TRAs attacking JKR. I thought that was a bit much.

I am not a medical professional, nor have I had a brain injury. Please read the thread and stop leaping to conclusions.

You seem to have very little reading comprehension.

For reference, Pensive Pigeon runs a 'be nicer, be kinder, be more diplomatic' agenda across other threads and has kept many feminists here busy trying to work out what PP really means, or what their intention really is. A cynical person might think along the lines of distraction and sowing unease.

The JKR thing is apposite, Tea. JKR said something perfectly reasonable and was laid into for things she didn't say. I wasn't impolite. I voiced an alternative point of view that you didn't like. There's a difference.

I'm sorry if you need sentences to be phrased in a certain way to see the point they are making

I don't. Many people do though. And having the volume turned up to 11 constantly gets a bit headache inducing.

A cynical person might think along the lines of distraction and sowing unease.

Cynical or paranoid?