Thread by @shantabirdo

A couple of gems from my @NSF #PRFB comments:
Rev.2: "Weaknesses: The work would be conducted at the same institution as their PhD."
Rev. 3: "Weaknesses: No justification is given for staying at the same institution."
A thread about the multidimensionality of diversity... 1/n

@NSF #PRFB firstly, why should I need to justify not wanting to pick up my whole life and move across the country/world for a job that often doesn’t support a single person, let alone a family? 2/

Oh wait, I forgot-REAL scientists are always ready to uproot their life 3-5 times before getting a real job, and screw the consequences to their mental health/family/retirement plans. 3/

But secondly, @NSF #PRFB, I did justify it. I explicitly said that I had a teenage LGBTQ+ kid, and you can't imagine why doing something different at the same institution might be the preferred way forward? 4/

The #PRFB proposal has no personal statement. So you missed a few facts:
1)My kid is as safe in MN as a gender non-conforming, person-with-uterus can be in this country
2)My spouse has a real job that supports us
3)I have a local aging parents & family support network. 5/

This "different institution" criterion felt like an attack on my family. But mostly I’m sorry for the @NSF and for the #PRFB that claims to value expanding representation. 6/

I'm sorry because the @NSF #PRFB's "different institution" criterion is a huge barrier for people w/children, w/aging parents, or w/cultural backgrounds where caregiving and close family community are expected (all 3 are me). 7/

I’m sorry that @NSF #PRFB thinks the dimensions of representation that make people stay put don’t correlate with the diversity you claim to care about and/or wouldn’t enrich the scientific community. 8/

#PFRB, I’m sorry you assume that all graduating PhD’s that might advance representation are 29 years old, single, and already committed to a life of moving cross-country, away from their support systems and taking jobs that don't pay enough to support a family. 9/

@NSF #PRFB reviewers, you had helpful and legit comments on the science in my proposal, and I thank you for that. However, given the implications of your comments about my choice of institution, I think it might not be worth my time to reapply next year. 10/

#PFRB, I’m sorry you're so short-sighted that you assume all graduating PhD’s that might advance representation are 29 years old, single, & already committed to a life of moving cross-country & away from their support systems to jobs that don't pay enough to support a family. 9/

@NSF #PRFB reviewers, you had helpful and legit comments on the science in my proposal, and I thank you for that. However, given the implications of your comments about my choice of institution, I think it might not be worth my time to reapply next year. 10/

Last thing, @NSF #PRFB. Sec. II.B. reads "Applicants who propose remaining in their current locations or positions must justify why a new location or position is not being proposed." When LGBTQIA+ & uterine rights are under attack in 33+ states, this unreasonable & dangerous. 11

JK, one more @NSF #PRFB. As @StaceyTecot pointed out, having an established medical care team is critical for people w/ #disabilities & can take yrs to develop. Forcing people to justify staying put forces them to disclose disabilities they may not be ready to/want to disclose.

Uh, so I didn't really expect this thread to get so much traction. I'm normally here for papers, things like supporting #BlackBirdersWeek, bird pictures, and Jorts. I really appreciate that people care and are talking about it b/c its effects cut across marginalized identities.