Three years ago, the Conservative government launched a consultation on a somewhat esoteric piece of legislation concerning the rights of trans people to alter their birth certificate and legal sex.
The proposed changes included ‘self ID’, a radical departure from the current system of careful assessment and mindful transition for those suffering dysphoria.
Self ID would have allowed acquisition of legal sex based on no more than a sworn declaration. But, in reality, the sworn declaration was lip service.
The proposed changes would have, de facto, removed, or at least critically compromised, protections afforded by equality legislation on the basis of sex.
‘I am a woman’ would become sufficient to permit access to legally-protected female spaces.
Three years ago, women realised this might be a problem. Many had seen it coming for a long time, but the potential impact of these legislative changes raised an army.
Women said ‘No.’
Not just famous women expert in the politics and theory of gender, but women who had gone about their lives without even realising that these protections apply to themselves each and every day.
Women took to the streets, handed out thousands of leaflets and wrote thousands of letters, raised awareness, lobbied their government representatives, dissected the legal ramifications.
Today, following weeks of leaks and rumours, it seems that Self ID has been scrapped as a mechanism to acquiring the opposite legal sex.
For me, it has been too bitter a fight to evoke much positive emotion.
The three years of campaigning and lobbying has created a climate among service providers such that ‘I am a woman’ is indeed sufficient to permit access to legally-protected female spaces.
I hope this newly-invigorated movement of women, connected in ways unimaginable a few years ago, can stay the course to ensure equality legislation is not only secured but reinforced.
The prison service has reviewed its position on the transfer of transwomen to the female estate. Sporting federations are beginning to revisit their regulations for the female category.
Sex shouldn’t matter half as much as it does, but there are, in my opinion, a small number of situations where it will always matter, and where female protections are necessary.
Let’s see this through.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
He was the first author on a paper led by Peter Goodfellow, and they published side-by-side with a paper led by Robin Lovell-Badge.
This pair of papers showed that the “mysterious make male mammals molecule” was the product of the SRY gene.
Unequivocally.
Their joint discovery was hailed, including by Sinclair himself, as the answer to one of the most fundamental questions about human life: what makes us male or female?
This is, IMO, an entirely reasonable lauding of the impact.
Persistent Müllerian Duct Syndrome is a DSD that occurs in 46,XY males with normal testes and normal virilisation, who also retain Müllerian structures (uterus, cervix, fallopian tubes, upper vagina) that should have degenerated in utero.
How does it happen?
Early in development, every fetus has two duct systems: the paramesonephric/Müllerian (female) and mesonephric/Wolffian (male).
(The formal names will become relevant later).
In XY babies, carrying the “make male” SRY gene, testes are made on schedule.
These testes make testosterone that promotes development of the Wolffian ducts, because testes will need an epididymis, vas deferens and seminal glands to do their fathering job.
I think the Andes hantavirus data is being misread right now.
Claims are circulating that the evidence doesn’t seem to support.
I want to walk through them carefully.
The 40% fatality figure: an artefact of who gets counted.
The 40% case fatality rate (CFR) figure comes specifically from hantavirus pulmonary syndrome (HPS), an outcome in a subset of hanta infections.
This is the severe cardiopulmonary presentation. It excludes subclinical infections that resolved without anyone noticing more than “a touch of flu”.
In Jujuy Province, Argentina, the seroprevalence (rate at which people have antibodies due to hanta infection) is 6.5%. Hospitalised HPS cases had a CFR of 13.3%, but most patients were described as having a mild clinical course.
Disclaimer: although an Argentine outbreak, this has not been confirmed as ANDV.
The 40% is the fatality rate among people sick enough to be diagnosed and hospitalised.
It is not the infection fatality rate.
These are not the same thing, and conflating them is causing significant confusion.
The true attack rate: barely any data.
The Boat had approximately 180 exposed individuals, and around ten cases have been detected. Three - soon to be four, I predict - have died.
Without antibody analysis of the full cohort, we don’t know how many mild or subclinical infections were missed entirely.
Disclaimer: I am a biology PhD, but not virology/epidemiology. Husbandman is a virology PhD. But I’m told I’m good at communicating science, so here’s my take.
#Hantavirus
Humans get hantavirus from rodents who carry it.
Some people went to Argentina birdwatching in a landfill, and were exposed to hantavirus because rodents like landfills.
Looks like one - if not two - people brought the virus onto their cruise boat.
So now we have an isolated boat with an index case: someone who is infected.
That’s not good for the index case. Hantavirus has a high fatality rate, and that’s scary.