Maya Forstater

The point of #manels thing is that lots of conf organisers *don't* oppose them or even think about them. Or the event organiser doesn't have power to tell her boss they should find female experts.The point of the Q was that men have taken the pledge because women underrepresented

As Alice pointed out and as I pointed out, there doesn't seem to be a trade-off between trans rights and women's rights in 99.5% of the cases conference organizers will face.

Treating people who say they are in part or whole women as such doesn't pose much of a risk to the fight for women's representation on panels. Unless you are worried about a nonexistent universe where men start conspiring to cross-dress on a regular basis to duck the pledge.

No it was more of a test case wondering what people think the definition of 'woman' is in a practical setting. The thing with the #manels thing is it is already based on saying lets get women to the point of being at least *underrepresented* on panels (1 person out of 3+)

That seems like a low bar already we are shooting for, given that women are 50% of the popn. Obviously everyone who takes the pledge is using their own guide. there are no rules. But I think in general when 'gender identity' is substituted for 'sex' it means women pushed aside

Given the many ways in which women are under-represented and trans people are discriminated against, worry about trans people being favored seems like a very strange place to focus ones energy on when fighting for women's rights.

I know it does Dina, and I don't think that there is a conflict between supporting trans people *and* women's rights (and obvs the manel question was more of a thought experiment than a suggestion that manels is the place to focus energy) but I do think the move to equate...