The Family Court of Australia was once the envy of the developed world for the way it approached disputes between separating couples. Now the government wants to do away with it. What went wrong?
What matters in 2021, it seems, is not whether someone has a cervix or a penis, but whether they “feel” male or female.
Now if I had only had known this clever trick during the summer of 1976, I could have self-identified as a burly bloke instead of a scared pregnant girl.
It is easy to mock, but the Scottish government’s apparent determination to erase sex and replace it with gender identity could have serious consequences.
The economic and cultural oppression of women and girls throughout history and across the world is predicated on biology.
For decades, scientists believed that only male birds sang. Then women entered the field and showed what their predecessors had missed.
A Federal Circuit Court judge “edited out” a threat about imprisoning parents who did not follow his orders when he produced a written decision.
“Only transgender women who’ve undergone a gender reassignment surgery are allowed entry,” the Swimming Association’s website stated.
This was a clear case of ladies with vaginas discriminating against ladies with penises.
Members of the University of NSW Student Representative Council released a statement describing the Association’s “outdated” definition of women as “disgusting”.
“Anyone who identifies as a woman … should have access to this space,” the statement said. “To our community, students, and staff at UNSW — your gender identity needs no validation from anyone but yourself.”
The students did not explain how a women-only pool remains a women-only pool if women are only what the guy in the bikini says they are.
“Trans women are women,” the students insisted, in what now passes for debate on university campuses; the aggressive repetition of mindless slogans as if it were reasoned argument.
Within 24 hours of the complaint, the historic women-only pool had become the progressive women-are-only-an-idea pool.
How has a single movement captured institutions at record speed?
We write as medical and biological professionals who are increasingly concerned with how commercial and corporate interests of publishers are being allowed to unduly influence intellectual discourse, especially in relation to biological sex. We represent a variety of backgrounds, with interests ranging from male-lethal genetic disorders in humans to sex behaviours in invertebrates. Human sex is an observable, immutable, and important biological classification; it is a fundamental characteristic of our species, foundational to many biology disciplines, and a major differentiator in medical/health outcomes.
We regard the claim that sex is neither fixed nor binary to be entirely without scientific merit—there are two sexes, male and female, and in humans, sex is immutable (disorders of sexual development are very rare and, in any event, do not result in any additional sexes). Such politically motivated policies and statements have no place in scientific journals. It is essential that impartiality be maintained in order to preserve public trust in science as a process dedicated to producing shared knowledge.