*New* trans-inclusive policy at Maths Society that contravenes SC ruling!

[Notanorthener]

Academic threatens to sue maths society over trans-inclusive policy

https://www.thetimes.com/article/254a2be5-f599-4953-983a-308fd1bbf359?shareToken=58fcee9d566e3e7305939838bc4763f0

So here’s an example of a society introducing a new policy, just last month, which allows trans people to use facilities of their choice. They don’t even have the excuse of it being an old policy and waiting for the new EHRC guidance because it’s all “so complicated” that others are using.

Unbelievable.

2+2=5, eh?🙄

Mmmm forgive me but it seems to
be about pronouns.

There is nothing that I see that breaches the SC - but I take on board the points about gender critical positions and desire not to use pronouns that align with a gender identity

Being discriminated against for not believing in gender identity ideology sounds like reasonable grounds to sue. I wonder why they introduced this sexist policy, does mathematics have a controlling faction of TIMs?

The article does mention the “use of facilities that match the affirmed gender identity” so not just about pronouns at all.

Maths. If you make 1 = 0 then the whole thing falls down.

Helen Joyce.

Sorry, I clearly didn’t read properly! My bad.

Well the lad will have a fair crack at suing them then!

Cannot wait for all the judgements to start pouring in.

It's a policy to control "hurty" words. Seems a member was called a "dick" online by a student and they want to be able to sanction. I strongly suspect they a couple of vocal TiM in the Maths community who have been allowed to introduce the policy. I would hope the threat of litigation will cause a grown up to review and ditch the policy.

As a society relying on subscriptions can they really justify wasting money defending an illegal policy?

What a bunch of idiots. As someone in possession of a Maths degree, I despair.

Barnes wrote in response: “Regarding the use of pronouns: if one does not wish to use ‘xie’ in a sentence, one can easily replace ‘xie’ with the name of the individual. The sentence can only become clearer with this change. I do not see how this restricts freedom of expression.”

I do not see how this restricts freedom of expression.

Again: idiot.

I just mentioned this to an LMS member, and he says most members wouldn't even bother to read this kind of statement. They just screen it out.

“Regarding the use of pronouns: if one does not wish to use ‘xie’ in a sentence, one can easily replace ‘xie’ with the name of the individual. The sentence can only become clearer with this change. I do not see how this restricts freedom of expression.”

Tricky when there is no equivalent of himself or herself using the name of the individual.

But perhaps Dr Barnes () could try replacing he, she, his, her, hers, him ...* with Dr FiveSyllableName throughout Dr Barnes' next introduction of Dr FiveSyllableName as a keynote conference speaker; or next time Dr Barnes engages in an in-depth critical analysis of Dr FiveSyllableName's recent work.

And then we can all admire how much that improves the clarity of Dr Barnes' sentences.

(* I may have wrongly Dr'd Dr Barnes, for all I know Dr Barnes may be a Professor or a Mr.)

Go John!

Though I think the article would have made a stronger point by focusing on the use of facilities over pronouns.

And it is really difficult to avoid using pronouns without either repeating someone's name constantly (sounds peculiar) or tying your brain in knots constructing sentences in a different way. I know because I hate wrong-sex pronouns and try to avoid them, without making it obvious I'm doing so...

https://www.lms.ac.uk/sites/default/files/inline-files/LMS%20Statement%20of%20Commitment%20for%20Trans%20Inclusion%20Sept%2025.pdf

This seems to be the new policy document.

So we've apparently reached the point where correctly calling a male person "he" is comparable to - check notes - calling him "a dick". And the Times calls this argument "robust".
Please tell me "robust" does not mean in English what it does in French (solid, reliable).

Much as it is indeed possible just to refer to someone by their name (“I see that Dr Whatsit has published a paper for which I’d like to congratulate Dr Whatsit. Dr Whatsit’s hypothesis is that, based on Dr Whatsit’s experience…”) it’s not how the English language is used.

Therefore it’s requiring the speaker/writer to put the mental effort in to remembering only to use the name. Which is unreasonable and - yet again - requiring that we dance attendance on those who think they have the right to police other people’s language and thoughts.

John Armstrong has written about John Armstrong's stance in the Spectator

https://archive.ph/VvwaD

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-i-am-threatening-to-sue-the-london-mathematical-society/

The perspective on all the reporting needs a straight flip.

The Maths Society are Committed to Trans Inclusion sounds lovely - in actual fact they are committed to the destruction of women's legal rights and equalities. Which is very much uglier.

The LMS General Secretary helpfully suggested ‘if one does not wish to use “xie” in a sentence, one can easily replace “xie” with the name of the individual. The sentence can only become clearer with this change. I do not see how this restricts freedom of expression.’

And if one does not want to chant the Hail Mary as required due to not sharing in that belief system, one can always just kneel down and mouth it. These people are barking mad.

'Robust' in this case I think refers to strength of feeling rather than quality of argument.

Fascinating that they imagine that "gender neutral toilets"="inclusive" as of course sych facilities exclude/ disadvantage not only vast numbers of women, but also many religiously-observant males.
As ever, I wonder exactly what they mean by "Q+".

Mmmm. Would anyone better at me than maths care to make a comparison with the square root of -1?

I believe this is impossible/doesn't exist, but mathematicians can make up their own pronoun-equivalent terms (i for maths, j for engineering, IIRC), which solves the apparent problem.

The comparison is excellent. Note that the imaginary number whose square is -1 is called i. NOT pi, not e, because they were already taken...

(I've never been adverse to there being a word for the special group of men who absolutely want to wear dresses and have big wet important ladyfeelz. I just don't want this word to be "woman". As Bev Jackson so eloquently put it, "The word is already taken").

ETA that, obviously, they didn't use 1 either (it would be a better equivalent of "woman" as it is so prevalent in normal mathematical language).

This goes somewhat to explain Kings College Maths School's comprehensive section on gender identity and pronouns in their application form.

Thanks for getting it! I'm thrilled. Plus, of course, imaginary numbers might equate to imaginary pronouns...

If you feel like having a go at explaining calculus to me as well (three academic institutions have tried) let me know. 😀

It’s enraging really…

Women are massively underrepresented in Maths (& STEM generally). Now all the efforts to increase female representation have been overridden by requirements for “women and those who identify as women”.

They’ll meet their diversity targets by having men and men-who-think-they-are-women and women will continue to be left out in the cold.

And as for the PP who quoted a member of this esteemed institution who doesn’t bother to read these new policies because it doesn’t affect them. aaaarghhhh

Huge kudos and thanks to John Armstrong!

His complaint was not only about pronouns:

One of his complaints was about the assertion that the society supported “the use of facilities that align with a person’s affirmed identity”.