> In scientific writing, such as studies like this - just the facts please.
But those are just very precise facts? Clarifying that they refer to "female sex assigned at birth" is strictly less ambiguous than "female".
But those are just very precise facts? Clarifying that they refer to "female sex assigned at birth" is strictly less ambiguous than "female".
Take a look at your statements and tell me you are arguing from a scientific standpoint and not one from your own personal political ideology. You cannot, in good faith, make this claim.
I will not engage any further in a political debate about this subject here. My point was political ideology statements should not be in scientific writing because they are political, the language changes with the political climate, and the language is imprecise. People reading scientific writings 100 years in the future should not have to wonder what political climate the paper was written in.
Scientific writing should not be a product of it's date and political climate.
That's a strawman argument about semantics ("assign" in English does not always mean "soviet-style"), which I'm not going to bother engaging with.
> Scientific writing should not be a product of it's date and political climate.
By virtue of using language, it virtually always is. For example, the common/acceptable way of referring to ethnicities changed over time. It's virtually impossible in anything involving humans to have language (and therefore scientific language) not evolve over time.
> From a scientific standpoint, Female and Male are clearly defined.
And how do you distinguish the "scientific" female and male from the "colloquial" female and male, without leaving it ambiguous according to the "political background" of the reader? Or rather, what if, in a purely hypothetical future English, "female" and "male" refer unambiguously to the gender people identify as? It seems like you would like scientific writing to conform specifically (and only) to what you consider acceptable language _right now_, and are not actually particularly interested in accessibility to future readers.