They are in their place explaining the current state of science on gender. They are kind of all right expanding this to point out, that some real people out there would be hurt by a narrow binary definition.
But they also say, in bold, that the government "proposal is fundamentally inconsistent not only with science, but also with ethical practices, human rights, and basic dignity". And they cite the UN as a reference.
This is not "framing it somewhat hysterically". This is an attempt to use science authority (that should be limited to science topics) as a prod with which to guide us to the proper ethical norms and correct human rights. Scientists should not assume the role of guardians of our morals.
Imagine a letter written by 1642 army officers including 9 generals, rebuking the government for its wrong ethics. In this country a military coup is somewhat unlikely, so let's place the letter in say, Turkey or Brasil, where such threat is more real. In the US hijacking ethical policy decisions by an undemocratic elite specialist class is a real threat.
no subject
But they also say, in bold, that the government "proposal is fundamentally inconsistent not only with science, but also with ethical practices, human rights, and basic dignity". And they cite the UN as a reference.
This is not "framing it somewhat hysterically". This is an attempt to use science authority (that should be limited to science topics) as a prod with which to guide us to the proper ethical norms and correct human rights. Scientists should not assume the role of guardians of our morals.
Imagine a letter written by 1642 army officers including 9 generals, rebuking the government for its wrong ethics. In this country a military coup is somewhat unlikely, so let's place the letter in say, Turkey or Brasil, where such threat is more real. In the US hijacking ethical policy decisions by an undemocratic elite specialist class is a real threat.