Mr Hawkes. (A quick response to E&OE.) I think you're making unfounded assumptions about my views. I'm in fact keeping an open mind on this. My quotation elsewhere about a transman with a beard was not that that person is likely or wants to do that but it shows there are perhaps unexpected consequences from this clarification of the law (The supreme court has interpreted existing laws not created or extended law.)Firstly, my background is mainly applied maths, physics with a bit of chemistry and astronomy thrown in. Biology is probably the least of my scientific knowledge but I guess the principles are still similar. Secondly, science isn't static, in the area of biology over the past few decades it's been transformed from a science doing categorisation of species from essentially visual idetentification and taxonomy to new, rigorous definitions based on DNA analysis; for example, including the separation of fungi from plants into their own, separate biological domain. The days of Carl Linnaeus's taxonomy - including his rather dubious definition of human races - is long gone. To my mind there are a lot of unknowns in the field of sex and sexuality: why are some attracted to others of the same or either sex, why are others uncomfortable in the bodies of the sex they were born in, and while the majority fit into the male/female binary model why does nature sometimes mix up chromosomes and hormones in a few?Some medical practitioners, biologists, chemists, etc consider sex/sexuality/gender is partly determined by hormones, neurological and epigenetic factors; as in most areas of science there's disagreements There's also, the personal psychological aspects - homosexual attractions which are a desire not a choice and why would someone who's lived as a male for several decades in the armed forces decide to medically transition to female? Not something I understand but something others genuinely feel.Looking at art from previous generations: non binary is not a new phenomenon.Attitudes and knowledge are evolving- we now have gay marriages, and operations and certification for those wishing for gender realignment.It was made clear (or so it seemed to me) from this ruling that trans as well as women's rights still apply - so will we now have male, female, trans-male, trans-women hospital wards? I believe the term 'proportionate application' was used somewhere so perhaps the ruling wasn't so binary as it seems on first glance? (But I'm just going on reports of the ruling, ive not read it!)So, from a science and personal perspective I like to keep an open mind. Let's be honest, the biggest threats to women must be from heterosexual males rather than honest trans people? Also, sometimes i like to play "devils advocate" (although, obviously, the devil doesn't exist in atheism ...)After all, as I said once before, in a couple of decades or so we've gone from demonising homosexuals with 'section 28' to gay marriage; perhaps knowledge and attitudes of transitioning will change over the next few decades?My own mental model:
1. Sex based on chromosomes: predominately male-female, with a few intersex outliers.
2. Transformations in a mathematical sense:
mainly "null", then hormonal, biochemical, neurological, surgical.
3. Genders: Predominately heterosexual male-female then the LGBTQQIP2SAA+ spectrum (c/o Wikipedia).Probably wrong, but it helps me visualise it!Just to say, my recent biology is based on what I've read and a Planetary Sciences course - as my friend and OU tutor Roger says; why are we looking for intelligent life elsewhere in the Galaxy? Because we damn well sure haven't found it on earth yet! :-)
Michael Ixer ● 87d