“I also wanted to challenge the use of ‘biological’ arguments in the increasing hostility to trans and non-binary people driven by the government.”
“Discredited reductive and over-simplified ‘biological’ models have been actively used to justify discrimination and human rights abuses, and this pseudoscience has no place in modern scientific inquiry or society.
Translation: it's not real science™ if it goes against the narrative.
The letter adds that research in “many contexts does not need to, nor should, restrict itself to a binary definition of sex or gender,
So their "definition" can change on the basis of "context"? This is an admission that they deliberately avoid clear definitions for the words they use, making debate impossible.
and can be inclusive of intersex, non-binary and/or trans participants without losing scientific rigour”.
Why? Why should biology be inclusive of non-binary? It's like the denial stage of grief: "I feel bad the doctor called me male, so biology is pseudoscience", "I feel bad for my cancer diagnosis, so I'm going to pretend cancer is pseudoscience." This is an admission they bend the "science" around their subjective feelings.
Who are these "stakeholders"?
Translation: it's not real science™ if it goes against the narrative.
So their "definition" can change on the basis of "context"? This is an admission that they deliberately avoid clear definitions for the words they use, making debate impossible.
Why? Why should biology be inclusive of non-binary? It's like the denial stage of grief: "I feel bad the doctor called me male, so biology is pseudoscience", "I feel bad for my cancer diagnosis, so I'm going to pretend cancer is pseudoscience." This is an admission they bend the "science" around their subjective feelings.