15 Matching Annotations
  1. 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'.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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
  5. 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.