more bionette stuff
sarah at castle.ed.ac.uk
Wed Sep 2 08:53:09 EST 1992
amolina at es.cica writes:
> Steve Modena suggests to re-rename bionet-women (bionette, be-
>fore) with the "real" name: bionet apartheid (according to the dictio-
>nary it's perfect).
> If some people WANT to be appart from the rest because of their
>gonads, that's a kind of appartheid.
Why has the discussion degenerated into comments about women being set
apart from men because of the creation of a bionet.bionette group? (the
name I favour for the resaons stated by Dave K.)
>why they cannot discuss the things they'll discuss in bionette (or what
>name on the hell they will give to the thing), but in bionet.
The group _will_ be part of bionet. A separate group for a particular
discussion, not of interest to all, is the norm for all other topics,
why is this any different?
> Sometimes I don't understand people (again this stupid Y chromo-
>some?), but if you voted to create it, go ahead and ... can I be subs-
>P.S. What would happen if all the men scientists asked to be subscribed
Why is there any question in anyone's mind that men would not be able
to read the group? Are physicists excluded from reading bionet? Are
botanists refusing to let other people read biology.plants? No, of
Sarah J. McQuay
Biocomputing Research Unit, University of Edinburgh, Scotland.
e-mail: S.J.McQuay at ed.ac.uk
More information about the Bioforum