Women in astronomy, go to the back of the line

Comments

16 responses to “Women in astronomy, go to the back of the line”

1. 

   Screechy Monkey

   Jul 1, 2019 10:47 AM

   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.
2. 

   Ophelia Benson

   Jul 1, 2019 11:11 AM

   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.
3. 

   Lady Mondegreen

   Jul 1, 2019 11:47 AM

   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.
4. 

   Ben

   Jul 1, 2019 12:17 PM

   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?
5. 

   iknklast

   Jul 1, 2019 1:32 PM

   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.
6. 

   clamboy

   Jul 1, 2019 3:57 PM

   One question I have is, what was actually *said*? I have been looking and can’t find an account of the offense.
7. 

   Ophelia Benson

   Jul 1, 2019 4:22 PM

   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.
8. 

   clamboy

   Jul 1, 2019 10:02 PM

   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.
9. 

   John the Drunkard

   Jul 2, 2019 6:37 AM

   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.
10. 

    Ophelia Benson

    Jul 2, 2019 8:09 AM

    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.
11. 

    Dave Ricks

    Jul 3, 2019 1:37 PM

    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:

    Immediately Selma and Noel looked at one another and selma said, “we strongly believe in supporting only women born women here. we are disgusted by men who think they can put on dresses and nail polish and pump themselves with chemicals and say they are women. they just aren’t. and we will never support them.”

    I put the RAS Diversity tweets about TERFs in the same category of apocryphal bullshit to make a shitstorm.
12. 

    Ophelia Benson

    Jul 3, 2019 1:59 PM

    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.
13. 

    Ophelia Benson

    Jul 3, 2019 2:02 PM

    Thread is here:

    https://twitter.com/RoyalAstroSoc/status/1146008187872714752
14. 

    Ophelia Benson

    Jul 3, 2019 2:03 PM

    “That is not an apology, that is a list of excuses justifying the misogyny,” said one reply.
15. 

    Dave Ricks

    Jul 5, 2019 2:36 PM

    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):

    A lot of institutions, companies and organisations are terrified of being seen to be transphobic. Even the allegation, however baseless, that someone discriminates against others on the grounds of their gender can cause enormous harm to a reputation.

    So keen are public bodies to avoid this fate that they overstep the relevant laws. The Equality Act 2010 says you can’t discriminate against someone because of either their sex (whether they are anatomically male or female) or their ‘gender reassignment’ (such as when a person born male decides to ‘live as a woman’). But quite a lot of councils and other public bodies routinely ignore physical sex and base their work solely on questions of the social concept of ‘gender’.

    From the Twitter thread you linked, the RAS previously ignored sex (emphasis mine):

    The RAS is committed to creating an environment where diversity is celebrated and everyone is treated fairly, regardless of gender, disability, ethnic origin, religion or belief, sexual, orientation, marital status, age, or nationality.

    And from the RAS press statement you linked (emphasis mine):

    We reiterate that the RAS welcomes all delegates to NAM 2019, regardless of sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, marital or parental status, age, disability, race, religion or physical appearance.

    And from a comment from the Twitter thread that you linked (emphasis mine):

    Gender Identity is not a protected characteristic under the law, Gender Reassignment is.

    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.
16. 

    Ophelia Benson

    Jul 5, 2019 3:56 PM

    There’s so much of that kind of thing about. SO MUCH.