No one really gets to practice "how to respond to being misrepresented" on social media - right of reply isn't always an option (bc you're blocked), & people make up their mind, their interpretation, their truth....I will always respect that. No means no.

It is no secret I grapple out loud about professional challenges on social media, including, for example, whether parody accounts have a place in conversations about food-health? Whether "myth busting" is in fact a rite of passage for new grads as I'd once thought?

To me, there are obvious things professionals shouldn't do, & that is "to shame" but in particular, single out ANY ONE PERSON in an all-in shame-fest, especially when it masquerades as Science - yes BBPE is a most prominent eg of this, which then became an anti-LC/Paleo...

...openly naming Pete Evans, Gary Fettke, Maryanne Demasi, & I am sure others; I didn't follow so don't know. The anti-individual sentiment & action is alive and well....badges with "I got trolled by Fettke" shown with delight in twitter feeds of HCPs

Why did we do this? Why do we continue? Why do we not shut it down within our groups?

It is shaming. It is shaming a way of eating, it is shaming individuals, it is shaming people's life journey.

As professionals we need to respond differently.

I find myself now feeling compelled to at least attempt to undo a misrepresentation.

Emma & I are not dissimilar in several of our positions.
In particular, I too am #womeninstem, also expected to conform, also asked to change things about self to "fit in better"....

Yes, I did ask Emma to separate the "science" from the dress & accessories, bc she used her dress & accessories to a) make a point of "sticking it" to the "LC" crew with her "most carb-laden dress" & "rice bubble earrings" & ...

b) in doing so, also played down the "Kellogg" reference, the ongoing issue of industry influence in Dietitians, practice & training, as well as in public health policy.

It is serious, & a reason @FionaWiller set up AIDN http://www.aidnsoc.org/registry-of-australian-independent-dietitian-nutritionists.html

Yes, I did say "it is either about your appearance or it isn't" in response to Emmas "my degrees are not my body". It was when Emma later posted herself in a carboholic dress & accessories to make a point about "science (LC & industry influence)"....that I made my appeal to EB

...bc it left me wondering, is your degree about your appearance or not?

I think it is. Who you are includes how you express yourself through dress, & cannot really be separated from the professional you, the parent you, the friend you.... and I would never expect anyone to consider these ARE separate.

The reason for the appeal to "separate" was not a request to stop wearing what she wants, posting the pics of it, chatting about it, being accessible.... the request was to not use what is being worn to play down, dismiss, or make fun of "the evidence bases" we are grappling with

Nothing more, nothing less.

What you wear does bring joy, there is no dispute; what you wear does create a talking point, an accessibility; also not disputed.

What do #womeninstem look like? They look like you & me. The end.

But when you use what you wear to mock "LCers" & "industry influence", you used that joyous platform to make fun - knowing some people will love it while others will be offended (as was seen with comments on "anti-fibre brigade" etc in that thread)

Bc once your "joyful clothing" comes with a -ve message, the joy discriminates. As in, it is no longer joyful for those who've been mocked. It isn't "just a bit of fun" anymore.

This is what I was asking, albeit clumsily.

All I ask is as professionals we need to respond differently - a theme throughout my years as a HCP as seen on the Twit.

I thought I was very clear, & is demonstrated consistently anywhere in my threads related & unrelated to this session:

Wear what you want, be who you want - by virtue of not talking about appearance at all!

AFAICS even the Australian article was way off their interpretation of what the thread was about https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/gender/the-professional-women-not-dressing-quietly-despite-expectations-20191122-p53d8n.html

But, as Emma said - Media's gonna Media

A second level of "rationale to separate" but likely what muddied the waters....is bc once there is a blurring - if I then comment on the "LC & Industry influence" issues, I am also making a comment about appearance. And that is, unfortunately, exactly what happened

To have out in the internetz the idea/proposition I don't like someone, or what they wear, is so beneath my own brand....just makes me feel ill.

That is why I am responding (even though I am blocked).