I find it unfortunate that the author left without comment the two defenses of Judge Jackson's demurral. The notion "that a competent biologist would not be able to offer a definitive answer either" is pure balderdash. Competent biologists know, though many keep their lips zipped for reasons the author cites in the fourth paragraph. And …
I find it unfortunate that the author left without comment the two defenses of Judge Jackson's demurral. The notion "that a competent biologist would not be able to offer a definitive answer either" is pure balderdash. Competent biologists know, though many keep their lips zipped for reasons the author cites in the fourth paragraph. And the assertion "that scientists agree there is no sufficient way to clearly define what makes someone a women" begs the question "Which scientists?" Social scientists perhaps, but evolutionary biologists know better. Ask Heather Heying and Bret Weinstein, EB's who have had many trans students and treated them respectfully and affectionately, but they brook no nonsense about sexual binary.
I find it unfortunate that the author left without comment the two defenses of Judge Jackson's demurral. The notion "that a competent biologist would not be able to offer a definitive answer either" is pure balderdash. Competent biologists know, though many keep their lips zipped for reasons the author cites in the fourth paragraph. And the assertion "that scientists agree there is no sufficient way to clearly define what makes someone a women" begs the question "Which scientists?" Social scientists perhaps, but evolutionary biologists know better. Ask Heather Heying and Bret Weinstein, EB's who have had many trans students and treated them respectfully and affectionately, but they brook no nonsense about sexual binary.