Note the author's subtle toggling between denying a phenomenon exists, and then smugly implying that it does and should.
>The Economist cites the case of Colin Wright, a post-doctoral student who had difficulty finding a job after publishing a series of essays “arguing that sex is a biological reality” (TERFese for “trans people don’t exist”).
> after publishing a series of essays “arguing that sex is a biological reality” (TERFese for “trans people don’t exist”)
I ... what? I'm supportive of trans rights, but that is an absolutely risible mischaracterisation of the utterly banal truism that 'sex is a biological reality'.
For one, no one is denying that trans people exist. As for the biological reality of sex, that's neither here nor there for the transgender movement – which, as the name suggests, is about gender. And doesn't deny at all that 'sex is a biological reality', which statement is absolutely undeniably true and uncontested by anyone.
This article has some true and insightful parts, but it seems to be using the old trick of mixing in true statements with shockingly false and spurious ones, in a bid to make the latter appear more credible.
>The Economist cites the case of Colin Wright, a post-doctoral student who had difficulty finding a job after publishing a series of essays “arguing that sex is a biological reality” (TERFese for “trans people don’t exist”).