Lucky Bridget Phillipson. As well as that Good Law Project letter, she’s also getting this.
This is in response to a UK Supreme Court ruling that the term “woman” refers to a human of the female sex, and that access to single-sex spaces must be based on “biological sex” instead of a person’s subjective “gender identity.”
The letter (LEFT) claims that “biological sex” is not a scientific term but a political one. It also peddles sex pseudoscience, falsely stating that an individual’s “sex” is “made up of a collection of characteristics, including external genitalia, secondary sex characteristics, gonads, chromosomes, and hormones,” and should be considered “bimodal” instead of binary.
This claim is not only incorrect but incoherent, as I explain in detail in a recent Commentary for the Archives of Sexual Behavior (RIGHT).
Of the letter’s 38 signatories, 23 (~60%) included their pronouns, and 5 (~13%) used “nonbinary” pronouns.
See the letter, plus list of signatories, here.
People – academics mostly – who can’t tell the difference between basic biological sex and sexual characteristics and stereotypes. Or at least pretend they can’t tell the difference for ideological reasons….
Mick Hartley 
Leave a comment