Ah . . . "cisgender" is another term for "non-trans women," which is what the Cassandra was asking for to begin with. And personally, as a trans woman who has had relationships with non-trans women and trans women, I find Cassandra's request rather demeaning to my existance and to all of the relationships I have had. I agree with Gina on this one.

considering that this woman is a doctoral psychology student, I'm going to guess she knows or should know at least what transgender people are and the basics when it comes to GID. Or biology.

"Please consider conducting your own study"

I'm getting sooooooooooooooooooooo tired of this attitude. Seriously. It leaves me feeling so hopeless.

This isn't highly academic at all. And I don't know why "lashing out" is "counterproductive." I don't think Gina is lashing out anyway.

That's exactly what I was thinking. She'll try to say that she couldn't talk about socialization, etc., if transwomen were included, forgetting the fact that gender socialization varies based on a lot of factors, not just birth gender. Like race, class, birth order, etc.

The thing is, this is not an issue of "wouldn't it be nice if they studied..." or "someone should do a study on..." And saying, you can do your own research, completely ignores the way that this study is flawed in a way that will skew and bias the results to create less accurate information.

First off, there's the issue of just plain offensive phrasing. It's one thing to want to study a specific group (ex: "white women"), it's another thing to phrase that an inflammatory way (ex: women (no coloreds)). That's essentially what this study is doing -- and in doing so it's going to skew who is going to feel comfortable responding. Lots of cis women I know would be too offended to respond.

Secondly, it's a terribly confusing, imprecise, and unclear term. Studies don't often say "middle class", they specifically talk about income because so many people have different ideas about what middle class is. Similarly, I consider myself a biological woman, despite being trans. And the study itself appears to be encouraging genderqueer and trans male respondents (as long as they were assigned female), but it's so unclear that there's going to be terrible inconsistency in how respondent's interpret the requirements.

And finally, it's perpetuating an academic history of bigotry. Like the other commenter that mentioned medical studies that exclude women because hormonal cycles make results less understandable -- but then such medication only tested on men is made available to everyone. Or it's like studying middle/upper class white male college students and saying that represents all men. In this case, the researchers intent is clear -- studying women's relationships. It's pretty clear that the results will be generalized to all women. She's not studying cis women (and I guarantee you that the research results will not frame this as a cis women's study), she's studying "women" but for one reason or another, trans women don't count as "women". It's assumed that our experiences must be categorically different and therefore must be excluded. But the only reason to make such an assumption is bigotry.

So this isn't just a case of "I wish she were studying a different group", this is the airing of legitimate challenges to the academic viability of the study based on the researcher's biases prejudicing the results.

I've spent my life since a child feeling that I was a woman. Now, four years into my transition, I'm feeling more embattled than during all those years I tried to pretend to be what the world told me I had to be.

If you can't accept us, please just show a bit of sensitivity.

Maybe I'm getting too simple here, but aren't transwomen technically born female? I'm not talking about the body they were born into, but the mind and sense of self. As Emily states, she has spent her life feeling that she was female. What can be more biological than the brain?

Why can't biological sex be interpreted as a person that is born female, no matter what body she is born with?

I don't get why transwomen were excluded but no other group of women (like black or Canadian or elderly) were either. This group doesn't seem to be all that particular.

That's not a distinct population, Bil. That's potentially every cis woman on Earth, but not a single trans woman.

And whenever I've come across "no trans women allowed" it usually means "...because you're not really women anyway."

Also, I don't think anyone was asking for trans men to be included (although I think the survey questions imply they're welcome to answer).

It's hard to say what her intentions are for sure, but...

... when you're excluded from 100* events, gatherings, studies, queer spaces, women-only spaces, and so on because the people in charge see you as "really a man" is it really fair to ask that the 101st occasion be viewed differently?

* Arbitrary number. I mean that there's a pattern here that's been playing out ever since Beth Elliott was booted from the Daughters of Bilitis 35 years ago.

It's not really cool to tell other people whether their reactions are feigned or not, especially if it's just because you don't like the fact that people are having reactions in the first place.

Your example is broken too: For one thing, HBS women are transsexuals, not intersexed, so they wouldn't belong in a study about all intersexed women. Trans women are women, so a study about all women should include trans women.

Now, a study about all intersexed women that excluded CAIS women or one that excluded all women who had been raised as male and transitioned to female would be more apt, and just as wrong.

Your comment about specifically looking to study cis women is interesting, since we've been asking "why does she only want to study cis women?" I'm not sure this is news?

We all do pick our battles. Some of us picked this one. If you don't like it, you don't have to pick it too - but you shouldn't be playing this "pet issue" card to shame people out of giving a damn.

Seriously, we need to learn to pick our battles. It seems rather silly to get all bent out of shape of a research study.

Research matters. If it didn't, then it would be far sillier to spend a career, hundreds of personal hours, and in some cases thousands of dollars to do research than it is silly to spend an hour or so writing a thoughtful response in the hopes of correcting flawed research which is hurting our community.

I could tell you about how a body of research like this informs how LGBTQ social services and political organizations craft their strategies. I could tell you that when the community accepts discrimination as okay it only encourages it in other spaces. I could explain to you again how this is not an issue of sample selection (she's trying to represent a broad diversity of women!).

But instead, I just want you to think about all the "little" things that you've been directly impacted. Something rude, a snub from a business you're trying to access, a politician talking about the invalidity of your family, a right-wing activist who spews homophobic rhetoric. When I encounter things like this, I'm not feigning indignation, I'm feigning politeness.

Um actually the whole HBS movement does "believe" they are intersexed, hence what makes them so gleefully batsh!t and so enjoyable to be around.

The fact that HBS people believe they're intersexed does not make them intersexed, which is one of the many reasons your example is broken.

Another is you described a narrowly focused study (women with klinefelters) and HBS women wanting to be part of that study because they believe they're intersexed. This is not only broken, but offensive.

Compare to the actual study: Aimed at all women (except trans women) to study romantic and sexual relationships between women (except trans women). In your example, you're describing a group of women who have no business defining themselves as part of the group that's being surveyed trying to force their way in. In other words, your comparison sets trans women up as interlopers who aren't really women.

Oh by the way, what really is not cool is people saying my example is "broken" when trying to make a point whilst obviously not having researched alleged broken theory.

Oh, goshdarnit, you caught me out. I'm completely ignorant about the HBS movement.

As far as to feign or no to feign, I was really just hoping that the anger was feigned. So you can be really mad, and I will just shake my head at the silliness of the situation; and no my head shaking is not feigned.

Seriously, why is it that something other women get upset about bothers you so much you have to mock, condemn, and shame over it? If you don't care, you don't care, and that's fine, but telling everyone else that you don't approve of what we do care about is . . . what? Making this whole thing about you?

Finally as someone who works in public opinion research, sometimes research is geared towards a specific demographic.

Yes, and this one claims to be aimed at all women (except trans women). Do you really believe that any time this happens it can be considered a neutral action, that it carries no weight of trans misogyny?

BTW, you might want to check yourself a bit and reconsider your assumption that anyone considers this the most important fight of any day. You might also remember why it is is offensive to claim that trans women aren't women.

Not that you claimed that, but you're telling people here we have no right to find that offensive.

Alright Alli, as a university professor involved in scientific research and I found the above a problem because their participation criteria associates women with biological sex. As mentioned above, there is enough historical evidence that leads toward the assumption that this was done to exclude transwomen. And as I mentioned above this is made because of the faulty assumption that the socialization of all transwomen is significantly different from that of all nontrans women. There's no scientific support for such an assumption of dichotomous socialization tracks. Many factors can influence it.

For example, the rough and tumble play issue. Many narratives of lesbians include being a tomboy and rough and tumble play. One can also make distinctions between those women who grew up under title VII vs those who grew up before it. Also, the study is looking at relationships women had with other women. Women can have a wide range of coming out processes (those who come out in adolescence vs. those who come out later in life) that can affect their experiences. Being trans is just another aspect that a researcher can control for.

Now someone could say "they would never have enough trans people to be useful". If one was randomly calling a geographic area, then yeah the sample of trans women would be small. However, the study is recruiting a convenience sample through queer networks. The potential to find transwomen who partner with other women is much higher.

One last thing. The link to their survey now reroutes to the U. of Rhode Island website. I don't know what that means.

Reread the section that you just quoted. I'm talking about the problem of claiming to represent a larger group than you actually do -- "all people" is just an example. In this case, she's intending to represent all women. Specifically, in the consent page of her study she says:

the investigator hopes to learn more about relationship quality for all kinds of women.

Again, I have no problem with someone doing a study on cis women -- but that is clearly not the case. None of the questions are specific to cis women's experience, and the results will not be specified to only represent cis women's experience.

Yeah, I've been resisting linking this for a full day.

I really need to write versions that reference gender and sex rather than race, as that seems to trip people up.

Gosh, Alli... I'm really so happy that you have your family to enjoy your life with. That's just plain good and there's nothing that should put that aside (and I really do mean that).

However, maybe you shouldn't be quite so dismissive about those of us who feel this is a case of either ignorance or discrimination. Maybe this battle is a little more important for us than it is for you. That's life, I guess.

BTW: I promise, the sky won't fall... Just let those of us who feel this is an important issue follow it up. You need not let your life be disturbed by this battle!