Archive for gender

Supreme Prejudice

Posted in Biographical, LGBTQ+ with tags , , , , , , , on April 16, 2025 by telescoper

On reflection it was inevitable that the UK Supreme Court would make the decision that it did today, i.e. to decide to deprive trans people of the protections from discrimination that they should have under the 2010 Equality Act. After all, the Court did not consult with a single trans individual or organization representing trans people in the course of its deliberations, preferring instead to base its conclusions only on submissions from known transphobic groups. That alone renders the process indefensible.

That said, the Supreme Court had to twist itself in knots in its judgment to find some semblance of an argument. For example, the judgment claims that the definition of “sex” to be used in the context of the Equality Act is “biological sex” which is “binary”. I paraphrase, of course, but it doesn’t really matter that the argument about biology is wrong – ever heard of intersex people? – because they don’t use it anyway. In fact the judgment does not even attempt to define in biological terms what sex is nor what is a woman is. The definition asserted is “sex at birth”, which actually means what is written on a birth certificate. As a matter of fact, my birth certificate actually says “Boy”…

Whatever is written on an official document is not biological, but bureaucratic, and also non-binary. Intersex people sometimes have “intersex” written on their birth certificate, a fact that thus refutes the binary claim, but sometimes they are arbitrarily assigned “male” or “female” with potentially damaging consequences. I used intersex merely as an example. Very few things in nature are actually binary, and sex – whether it be genetic, hormonal , gonadal or whatever – is emphatically not one of them, particularly not in humans.

Here’s a helpful graphic.

Shoe-horning people into binary categories is wrong not only because it fails to accept scientific reality but also because of the harm it causes to human beings worthy of acceptance and respect. People who dismiss the non-binary nature of sex and gender often say words to the effect that “oh I know there are exceptions, but there aren’t many of them”. But:

  1. if there are so few then why are you so obsessed with them?
  2. one exception is sufficient to refute what purports to be a logical argument!
  3. it’s precisely because trans people are a small minority that means they deserve legal protection.

Today’s judgment looks set to cast an already beleaguered group entirely to the wolves. You can bet your bottom dollar that there will be a tidal wave of follow-up cases targetting trans people with the specific intention of stirring up more hostility. The Supreme Court actually acknowledges the existence of transphobic hate and offers some words to suggest that trans people will still have some legal protections. There can be no doubt however that the judges know that their ruling will be seen as a green light for bigots and their rich backers to engage in still more bigotry. I also fear a rise in the already appalling number of trans suicides that the UK Government is trying so hard to conceal. I think it goes without saying and contrary to the claims of those who brought the case, this ruling does absolutely nothing to protect cis women.

I can’t understand the mindset of people that can look at the evidently complex and nuanced of human sexual identity and respond by putting on blinkers and insisting that it is what it clearly isn’t. Some people just seem to need their bigotry to survive in their joyless unimaginative lives. Whatever that mentality is the Supreme Court shares it. They didn’t listen to any contrary views. It was a foregone conclusion, a sham contrived by a group of reactionary duffers.

I have tried throughout this piece to refer to trans people rather than trans men or trans women. Obviously the ruling today was in response to a case brought by cis women who hate trans women. It will almost certainly lead to more trans women being harassed and victimized (as was the intention of the case). But there are at least as many trans men as trans women. Under the new ruling trans men will presumably be forced to use “women-only” lavatories and will run the risk of hostility should they do so. Trans women using “male only” toilets are likely also to be harassed. The Supreme Court knows this is what will happen, but apparently doesn’t care, and is content to go along with a trajectory set by far-right activists who won’t stop here.

It’s no consolation to my friends living on TERF Island, but at least in Ireland the law is a bit more progressive and better grounded in reality. It’s a grim day for trans people in the UK. All I can do is send a message of solidarity and point you to this list of resources for trans people and their allies. I know it’s only a gesture but I’m proud to share the Trans Pride flag here too.

Update: 27th April. The British Medical Association has just passed this resolution:

Leave a comment »

The Strategic Academic Leadership Initiative Begins

Posted in Education, Maynooth with tags , , , , , on January 3, 2020 by telescoper

I was caught on the hop this morning by the formal announcement that twenty new professorships for women have been created in Ireland. I hadn’t expected this announcement to come so quickly since the idea was only floated in November 2018. There is a piece in the Irish Times about today’s announcement here.

I blogged about this scheme here when it was announced, a little over a year ago. The appointments are to be in areas where there is “clear evidence” of significant under-representation of women, such as physics, computer science and engineering.

I’m delighted that two of these new positions will be at Maynooth University, one in Computer Science and one in Physical Geography (in the area of Climate Science). These areas were selected as being of particularly high strategic priority.

The 20 new Chairs represent the first tranche of positions out of 45 planned under the Strategic Academic Leadership Initiative. I understand there will be two further rounds. I do hope that we might get a position in physics at Maynooth in a subsequent round. I note however that there will be a Professorship in Theoretical Physics at Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies. I’ll be sure to pass on the advertisement here when it appears.

Reactions to this scheme among people I know have been very varied, so it seems a good topic on which to have a simplistically binary poll:

For the record, I should state that although I had reservations when about this scheme when it was first announced, largely due to lack of detail about how it was to be implemented, I am now very enthusiastic about it and hope it is successful in its aims.

I will however also repeat that this initiative should not distract attention away from the need for Irish higher education institutions to have much better promotion procedures; see, e.g. here. There are plenty of female academics at lecturer level in Irish universities, but they seem to face serious difficulties getting promoted to Professorships.

7 Comments »

Women-only Professorships in Ireland

Posted in Education, Politics with tags , , , , on November 16, 2018 by telescoper

Earlier this week the Irish Government made an announcement that has ruffled a few feathers: it aims to create a number of new senior positions at Professor level in Irish Universities that are open only to female candidates. I don’t know the details of how this scheme will work, but I understand that the positions will be targeted at subject (and perhaps geographical) areas in which there is a demonstrable gender imbalance and the scheme will cost about €6M.

Reactions to this among people I know have been very varied, so it seems a good topic on which to have a  simplistically binary poll:

For the record, I should state that I am broadly in favour of the idea, but I’d like to know more about how these positions will be allocated to institutions, how they will be advertised and how the recruitment will be done. I’ll also add that my main worry about this initiative is that it might distract attention away from the need for Irish higher education institutions to have much better promotion procedures; see, e.g. here. There are plenty of female lecturers in Irish universities, but they seem to face ridiculous difficulties getting promoted to Professorships.

 

 

21 Comments »

The Strumia Affair

Posted in Politics, The Universe and Stuff with tags , , , , on October 3, 2018 by telescoper

I’m very late to this story as it broke over the weekend when I was preoccupied with many things, but it has triggered quite a reaction in the media (including here in Ireland). The story involves a physicist by the name of Alessandro Strumia who works at the University of Pisa in Italy. This person used the opportunity provided by a Conference on Theory and Gender to deliver a talk that contained highly inflammatory comments about gender and physics ability.

As a service to the community I’ve uploaded the slides for Strumia’s talk to Slideshare so you can read them here if you’re interested in his argument:

There are detailed discussions of Strumia’s talk by fellow bloggers Philip Moriarty here and Jon Butterworth here. Between them they cover most of what I’d say on the topic if I had time so I’ll direct you to them rather than repeat the arguments here. There are a host of other reaction pieces elsewhere, and I won’t attempt to summarize them either. Suffice to say that the old argument that `women are intrinsically not as good at physics as men’ has been refuted many times using solid empirical evidence; see the above post by Philip. It’s no wonder, though, that women get put off doing physics, when there are people like Alessandro Strumia in the field and potentially responsible for evaluating the performance of female staff.

What I will do add is that, for someone who purports to be a scientist, Strumia’s use of evidence is shockingly unscientific. His argument is riddled with non sequitur, unjustified assumptions and formulaic prejudice. Apart from everything else I think this is symptomatic of a malaise that is a widespread affliction in the field theoretical physics nowadays, which is worst among string theorists (which Strumia is not), namely a lack of basic understanding of, or even interest in, the proper application of scientific method.

16 Comments »

Have we reached Peak Physics?

Posted in Education, The Universe and Stuff with tags , , , , on August 17, 2015 by telescoper

One of the interesting bits of news I picked up concerning last week’s A-level results is a piece from the Institute of Physics about the number of students taking A-level physics. The opening paragraph reads:

Although there was an overall rise of 2% in the number of A-level entries, the number taking physics fell to 36,287 compared with 36,701 last year – the first time numbers have fallen since 2006. The number of girls taking physics rose by 0.5%, however.

The decline is slight, of course, and it’s obviously too early to decide whether we’ve reached Peak Physics or not. It remains the case however that Physics departments in UK universities are competing for a very small pool of students with A-levels in that discipline. With some universities, e.g. Newcastle, opening up physics programmes that they had previously closed, competition  is going to be intense to recruit students across the sector unless the pool of qualified applicants increases substantially.

The article goes on to speculate that students may be put off doing physics by the perception that it is harder than other subjects. It may even be that some schools – mindful of the dreaded league tables – are deliberately discouraging all but the brightest pupils from studying physics in case their precious league table position is affected.

That’s not a line I wish to pursue here, but I will take the opportunity to rehearse an argument that I have made on this blog before. The idea is one that joins two threads of discussion that have appeared on a number of occasions on this blog. The first is that, despite strenuous efforts by many parties, the fraction of female students taking A-level Physics has flat-lined at 20% for over a decade. This is the reason why the proportion of female physics students at university is the same, i.e. 20%. In short, the problem lies within our school system. This year’s modest increase doesn’t change the picture significantly.

The second line of argument is that A-level Physics is simply not a useful preparation for a Physics degree anyway because it does not develop the sort of problem-solving skills, or the ability to express physical concepts in mathematical language, on both of abilities which university physics depends. Most physics admissions tutors that I know care much more about the performance of students at A-level Mathematics than Physics when it comes to selecting “near misses” during clearing, for example.

Hitherto, most of the effort that has been expended on the first problem has been directed at persuading more girls to do Physics A-level. Since all universities require a Physics A-level for entry into a degree programme, this makes sense but it has not been successful.

I now believe that the only practical way to improve the gender balance on university physics course is to drop the requirement that applicants have A-level Physics entirely and only insist on Mathematics (which has a much more even gender mix at entry). I do not believe that this would require many changes to course content but I do believe it would circumvent the barriers that our current school system places in the way of aspiring female physicists. Not all UK universities seem very interested in widening participation, but those that are should seriously consider this approach.

I am grateful to fellow astronomer Jonathan Pritchard for pointing out to me that a similar point has been made to drop A-level Physics as an entry requirement to  Civil Engineering degrees, which have a similar problem with gender bias.

12 Comments »

How to Address Gender Inequality in Physics

Posted in Education, The Universe and Stuff with tags , , , , on January 26, 2014 by telescoper

Last night I was drinking a glass or several of wine while listening to the radio and thinking about a brainwave I’d had on Friday. Naturally I decided to wait until I reconsidered it in the cold light and sobriety of day before posting it, which I have now done, so here it is.

The idea that came to me simply joins two threads of discussion that have appeared on this blog before. The first is that, despite strenuous efforts by many parties, the fraction of female students taking A-level Physics has flat-lined at 20% for over a decade. This is the reason why the proportion of female physics students at university is the same, i.e. 20%. In short, the problem lies within our school system.

The second line of argument is that A-level Physics is not a useful preparation for a Physics degree because it does not develop the sort of problem-solving skills or the ability to express physical concepts in mathematical language on which university physics depends. Most physics admissions tutors that I know care much more about the performance of students at A-level Mathematics than Physics.

Hitherto, most of the effort that has been expended on the first problem has been directed at persuading more girls to do Physics A-level. Since all universities require a Physics A-level for entry into a degree programme, this makes sense but it has not been successful.

I now believe that the only practical way to improve the gender balance on university physics course is to drop the requirement that applicants have A-level Physics entirely and only insist on Mathematics (which has a much more even gender mix). I do not believe that this would require many changes to course content but I do believe it would circumvent the barriers that our current school system places in the way of aspiring female physicists.

Not all UK universities seem very interested in widening participation, but those that are should seriously consider this approach.

11 Comments »