23 Matching Annotations
  1. Mar 2021
    1. Unless you are a fertility doctor, it’s unlikely you will encounter too many ova, so we must be using other definitions in everyday life.

      This is an extraordinary line to take: "because we don't normally see human ova in our daily lives, the definition of female as being related to an individual whose body is structured to produce large gametes must not be the right definition." Seriously?

      Try applying that same line of 'reasoning' to the definition of a man being an adult human male.

    2. Some people who are very keen to define what a woman is have popularised the definition: “adult human female“. It seems pretty straightforward on the face of it. But to test its usefulness, we can dissect it, just as we can do with “species” and “individual” (and any other biological concept). “Adult”. How do we define that? Biologically, an adult is an organism that has reached sexual maturity and is technically capable of producing offspring. Legally, for humans, (at least in the UK since 1970) adults are people aged 18 or older. So “adult” could cover people from as young as young as 8, or no less than 18, depending on what definition we are using and who we are applying it to. I think you’ll agree that’s quite vague for something so universal.

      This completely misses the fact that in terms of unlawful discrimination and provisions for single-sex spaces and services, the Equality Act 2010 defines sex as a protected characteristic and a person who has this particular protected characteristic is "a reference to a man or to a woman" and defines “woman” as a female of any age and a “man” as a male of any age.

      The argument presented here is irrelevant.

    3. Legally, for humans, (at least in the UK since 1970) adults are people aged 18 or older.

      This is incorrect. There are different ages for different purposes and varies by countries in the UK. For example, in England and Wales, those 16 to 18 can marry, but only with parental consent. In Scotland, parental consent is not required for this age group.

    1. 8. It requires all public sector organisations to actively consider how what they do, every day, affects all of us – not just some

      This is really a very poor description of the Public Sector Equality Duty under the Act.

    2. Businesses, healthcare providers or employers can’t single out trans people thanks to the act. Trans people continue to face stigma and discrimination but this Act has helped strengthen their legal rights.

      This gives those who meet the criterion in the Act for the protected characteristic of 'gender reassignment' addition rights that others do not have.

    3. 1. It protects all of us from discrimination – wherever you are The Act legally protects you from being treated differently by your employer, school or college. It also means you can’t be treated differently when you use public services, like the hospital or the doctors, and even at your local shops and restaurants.

      This fails to mention that some discrimination is lawful under the Act, such as that provided by the single-sex exemption.

    4. 3. The Act protects against discrimination on the grounds of race, colour, ethnic origins, faith, age and nationality

      Why is the protected characteristic of sex not listed? Is this omission incompetence or deliberate?

    5. faith

      The protected characteristic is 'religion or belief', not 'faith'.

  2. Jan 2021
    1. gender identity that is neither entirely male nor entirely female

      Female and male are the names of the two sexes, not 'gender identities'.

      Gender' relies on demeaning, regressive stereotypical notions of societal roles for the two sexes,

    2. although exhibited at lower levels than some other species

      What on earth is this trying to say?

    3. A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.

      Why bring this up? The question made no mention of 'gender reassignment'.

  3. Dec 2020
    1. If known, have you used the pronouns the individual uses to describe themselves in your story?

      This is wrong. An individual doesn't use any pronouns to describe themselves: pronouns are what others use to refer to a third party, usually when they are not present. An individual may prefer, ask or demand others to use specific words to use when referring to them, but no one has any power to compel anyone - nor should they.

    2. If an individual is granted a full GRC they will, from the date of issue, be considered in the eyes of the law to be of their acquired gender.

      This is incorrect. The Gender Recognition Act gives a number of exceptions to the holder of a Gender Recognition Certificate being considered as of the 'acquired gender' as specified on her/his Gender Recognition Certificate.

      The Equality Act 2010 provides additional exemptions, eg the right to single-sex services.

    3. The Gender Recognition Act 2004 enables transgender people to apply to the Gender Recognition Panel

      This presumes a definition of 'transgender', which is a term that is not used or even defined in the Gender Recognition Act 2004.

      It would be more accurate to say that the GRA provides a way for anyone who fulfils the criteria in the GRA to obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate.

  4. Dec 2015
    1. Where a patient’s condition is outside the practitioner’s area of expertise

      Since virtually all CAM practitioners have no medical qualifications, all conditions must be outside their area of expertise.

    2. should take legal advice

      Would it not be more appropriate to take scientific or medical advice rather than legal?

    3. a recognised body

      A body recognised by whom? The only officially recognised CAM practitioners are those registered under the Chiropractors Act 1994 and the Osteopaths Act 1993.

  5. Jul 2015
    1. Skeptics also claim that there is nothing in homeopathy. In that case, there isn't any harm in trying it. They will counter that with saying 'oh but people will then miss out on taking essential medication.' But anyone who knows even the basics of homeopathy will know that there isn't an issue with taking homeopathic remedies alongside pharmaceutical medicines. In light of this, the skeptic argument falls down.

      This demonstrates a severe lack of critical thinking abilities and an inability to listen to what skeptics actually say. Many homeopathic products do contain little or no actual ingredients other than sugar or water, but some do. But one of the main objections to homeopathy is in the belief that it is somehow a 'system of medicine'. Such bizarre beliefs are not founded on any good evidence and any perpetuation of this leads some to eschewing conventional medicines for what might be serious but treatable medical conditions. See http://discoverhomeopathy.co.uk/victims-2/

    2. homeopathy remains available on the NHS in the UK
  6. May 2015
    1. with redacted patient charts considered one of the most accurate and reliable resources for this data acquisition

      This is only asserted by those who fail to understand the hierarchy of evidence.

    2. Thus, to advocate the elimination of either mode of treatment would be counter-productive, would it not?

      This is wrong. It assumes that homeopathy is an effective treatment when the best evidence (eg the Australian NHMRC homeopathy report) shows that homeopathy has no specific effects over placebo. The comparison with conventional medicine is therefore a false equivalence.

    3. either mode of treatment

      Homeopathy isn't a 'mode of treatment' unless and until good quality evidence is presented that shows homeopathy has specific effects over placebo.

      The Australian NHMRC report into homeopathy was the latest review of the best evidence and it concluded:

      Based on the assessment of the evidence of effectiveness of homeopathy, NHMRC concludes that there are no health conditions for which there is reliable evidence that homeopathy is effective. Homeopathy should not be used to treat health conditions that are chronic, serious, or could become serious. People who choose homeopathy may put their health at risk if they reject or delay treatments for which there is good evidence for safety and effectiveness. People who are considering whether to use homeopathy should first get advice from a registered health practitioner. Those who use homeopathy should tell their health practitioner and should keep taking any prescribed treatments.

    4. Good Thinking Society has challenged the CCG NHS Liverpool’s use of homeopathy

      This is technically incorrect. The Good Thinking Society challenged the decision Liverpool CCG made to award a contract to a homeopath.