Women in astronomy, go to the back of the line
Again.
RAS Diversity is a branch of the Royal Astronomical Society.
https://twitter.com/RAS_Diversity/status/1145667572131651585
We very much encourage men who identify as women to apply for women only grants and awards.
Now, if you think this is at all wrong or unfair, RAS Diversity has an answer for you.
To all the terfs in our mentions pic.twitter.com/plR6TGhPdC
— RAS Diversity (@RAS_Diversity) July 1, 2019
Nothing like a smartass gif to make a compelling argument.
To be clear: I don’t think that trans people are “faking it” or claiming trans status for some sort of perceived advantage, though perhaps there are some very rare exceptions out there. I don’t doubt that trans people face a lot of adversity that outweighs the occasional set-aside.
But at some point that will happen, whether by men seeking to claim the benefits of positions and grants set aside for women, or even by some men wanting to “troll the libs” and disrupt or end the practice of set asides for women. I’m not sure how a standard of “you are whichever gender you say you are” can handle either group.
Well, it’s evolved, though, such that intense feelings of dysphoria are no longer a necessary part of the definition. I’m not a bit sure that “Lily” Madigan for instance is not just “identifying as” a trans woman for the fame and other jollies. And given the way the rules work – it is forbidden to question ANYONE who claims to be trans or enby or gender fluid etc etc etc – it is inherently impossible for anyone to be sure trans woman X is not faking it. I think some trans people face a lot of adversity, but all of them or most of them? That’s getting increasingly doubtful.
And either way I still don’t think facing a lot of adversity=entitlement to jobs or scholarships or awards reserved for women. If women were not still disadvantaged I might, but that’s not the case, so I don’t.
I don’t care how “genuine” their gender dysphoria is. In the first place, gender dysphoria is not one thing; it’s a grab bag of different conditions. In the second place, males are not women, no matter how they feel. “Woman” is not a role, a feeling, or a “gender identity.”
Let trans people have their own grants and awards if they need them.
Grants for women, women-only lists, etc. were established for a reason. Or for a number of reasons.
All this stuff—transwomen are to be treated as women in every circumstance—obviously ignores the reason those compensatory measures were established. What are we compensating for by allowing transwomen to take advantage of these measures? What wrong are we attempting to right?
I was once working at a job where they couldn’t get the white guy they wanted to hire, because he tested lower than more than 10 women, and they couldn’t pass over that many people above him on the register. So they found out he had some deep past Native American ancestry, got him the Native American boost (which was more than the 1 point they granted women), and hired a white guy.
Now, as far as I’m concerned, no matter how much Native American ancestry you have, if you have lived as a white guy your entire life, you are not entitled to the benefits that are designed for people who have actually spent a lifetime of oppression and prejudice that has made it more challenging for them to meet the standards for a professional level job. And to use that to pass over yet another group who faced challenges you didn’t face (women) and still managed to exceed your abilities (because the one point advantage given to women would not have put 10 women higher than him on that alone; his score was more than 10 points lower than the highest ranked woman).
Sorry, I don’t believe people won’t use trans in the same way. I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that some of these athletes are already doing that.
One question I have is, what was actually *said*? I have been looking and can’t find an account of the offense.
I gathered from reading several threads that it was about the problem of giving women-only awards to men – or to trans women, since I don’t know the wording.
So, a “horrible comment” was made, but no one can, or will, provide the words contained in the comment. Maybe I missed someone quoting the comment somewhere, but that’s what I am getting.
If we mention what they actually SAID, we’d be perpetuating their thoughtcrime. And then someone’s feelings might be hurt.
There actually is such a thing as snotty hostility towards trans-folk, and some of it isn’t from the homophobic religious right. This can be true simultaneously with the existence of deranged misogynist TRAs and creepy bathroom stalkers.
Our culture seems incapable of handling both truths.
Yes, that seems to be the sitch – it was said aloud, and no one has quoted it in writing. Probably afraid the cosmos would explode or something.
I’m following up on clamboy at @6 and @8.
Omitting or obscuring the things that were really said is a pattern and technique that I’ve seen TRAs use to create a shitstorm. I looked up my analysis of the Facebook shitstorm that called for the death of the two lesbian owners of the Bloodroot restaurant. I posted my analysis on a B&W thread as comment #8 here. The origin of the shitstorm was an apocryphal quote of an apocryphal quote:
I put the RAS Diversity tweets about TERFs in the same category of apocryphal bullshit to make a shitstorm.
Funny thing, I’ve just been reading a thread by the RAS about that whole thing. RAS issued a statement
https://ras.ac.uk/news-and-press/news/statement-rasdiversity-twitter-account
saying somebody said naughty things in a naughty tone for a naughty number of times at the lunch – I gather from replies that it was a guy asking if trans women are eligible for woman-only awards – and the RAS diversity account was understandably upset but everyone must be civil, everyone is welcome, yadda yadda. Then later they said we want to move on and those tweets (the RAS diversity ones) have now been removed.
Thread is here:
https://twitter.com/RoyalAstroSoc/status/1146008187872714752
“That is not an apology, that is a list of excuses justifying the misogyny,” said one reply.
Ophelia, thank you for those additional links. I’m sympathetic to the RAS being a scientific organization with no agenda to get into this mess (outside of their Diversity staff members). I’ll quote from an article this week in The Spectator by James Kirkup (h/t Lady M, with emphasis mine):
From the Twitter thread you linked, the RAS previously ignored sex (emphasis mine):
And from the RAS press statement you linked (emphasis mine):
And from a comment from the Twitter thread that you linked (emphasis mine):
The RAS included sex under protest, and effectively implemented gender identity self-ID, which is not UK law. As Kirkup wrote above, their reason is their fear of being called transphobic intimidating them into overstepping the law.
There’s so much of that kind of thing about. SO MUCH.