News Feeds

There's a sensation that you experience -- near a plane taking off or a speaker bank at a concert -- from a sound so total that you feel it in your very being. When this happens, not only do your brain and ears perceive it, but your cells may also. Technically speaking, sound is a simple phenomenon, consisting of compressional mechanical waves transmitted through substances, which exists universally in the non-equilibrated material world. Sound is also a vital source of environmental information for living beings, while its capacity to induce physiological responses at the cell level is only just beginning to be understood.

By the 2060s, some airports with shorter runways may need to reduce their maximum take-off weight by the equivalent of approximately 10 passengers per flight during summer months.

When two materials come into contact, charged entities on their surfaces get a little nudge. This is how rubbing a balloon on the skin creates static electricity. Likewise, water flowing over some surfaces can gain or lose charge. Now, researchers have harnessed the phenomenon to generate electricity from rain-like droplets moving through a tube. They demonstrate a new kind of flow that makes enough power to light 12 LEDs.

A team of researchers has successfully predicted abnormal grain growth in simulated polycrystalline materials for the first time -- a development that could lead to the creation of stronger, more reliable materials for high-stress environments, such as combustion engines.

Engineers have developed a building material that uses the root-like mycelium of a fungus and bacteria cells. Their results show that this material -- which is manufactured with living cells at low temperatures -- is capable of self-repairing and could eventually offer a sustainable alternative for high-emission building materials like concrete.

A bioreactor that mimics a circulatory system can deliver nutrients and oxygen to artificial tissue, enabling the production of over 10 grams of chicken muscle for cultured meat applications.

Physicists have created a compact laser that emits extremely bright, short pulses of light in a useful but difficult-to-achieve wavelength range, packing the performance of larger photonic devices onto a single chip.

Physicists have created a compact laser that emits extremely bright, short pulses of light in a useful but difficult-to-achieve wavelength range, packing the performance of larger photonic devices onto a single chip.

Scientists have designed a 'cosmic radio' detector which could discover dark matter in 15 years.

Scientists have designed a 'cosmic radio' detector which could discover dark matter in 15 years.

Switching from diesel to electric trains dramatically improved the air quality aboard the San Francisco Bay Area's Caltrain commuter rail line, reducing riders' exposure to the carcinogen black carbon by an average of 89%, finds a new study. The electrification of the system also significantly reduced the ambient black carbon concentrations within and around the San Francisco station.

Imagine tiny building toy pieces that automatically snap together to form a strong, flat sheet. Then, scientists add special chemical 'hooks' to these sheets to attach glowing molecules called fluorophores. Researchers have created these tiny, clay-based materials -- called fluorescent polyionic nanoclays. They can be customized for many uses, including advancing energy and sensor technology, improving medical treatments and protecting the environment.

Researchers have used a fungus and bacteria to create rigid, living structures similar to bone and coral, which could one day be used as a self-repairing building material

Well, the author came up with today’s Jesus and Mo strip, called “males”, pretty quickly after today’s ruling by the Supreme Court, and even adds the caption “They’ll be fine. Here’s the story.” (It goes to the BBC link.)

As usual, Mo considers himself immune to reason and evidence, as well both he and Jesus should.

Scientists have used an artificial circulatory system to create lab-grown chicken, which may improve its texture

If skies are clear, be sure to watch for the April Lyrid meteors this Easter weekend. Spring in the northern hemisphere brings with it the promise for the Lyrids, the first good meteor shower of the season. Weather is just warming up in April, but we’re not yet in the midst of summer, waiting up late hours for darkness to fall.

This is really breaking news, and apparently settles a roiling controversy in the UK that was most intense in Scotland. Today the UK’s Supreme Court, overturning rulings in Scotland, said that, in law, a “woman” is “a biological woman;” and a trans woman, even with a “gender reassignment certificate” does not legally qualify as a “woman”. Below are three real-time news summaries. Excerpts are indented below the headlines.

First, a Scottish law apparently kicked off the controversy. From Reuters:

Wednesday’s British judgment followed legal action by a campaign group, For Women Scotland (FWS), against guidance issued by the devolved Scottish government that accompanied a 2018 law designed to increase the proportion of women on public sector boards.

The guidance said a trans woman with a gender recognition certificate was legally a woman. FWS, which was backed by lesbian rights groups, had lost its case in the Scottish courts, but the Supreme Court ruled in its favour.

And from the official Supreme Court press summary (h/t Athayde):

This appeal arose in response to the definition of the term “woman” in the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018 (“ASP 2018”) and associated statutory guidance. This legislation created gender representation targets to increase the proportion of women on public boards in Scotland. The ASP 2018 and the original statutory guidance defined “woman” as including people: (i) with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment; (ii) living as a woman; and (iii) proposing to undergo / undergoing / who have undergone a gender reassignment process. In 2020, the Appellant, a feminist voluntary organisation that campaigns to strengthen women’s rights in Scotland, challenged this guidance. The Inner House found that this statutory definition was unlawful as it involved an area of law reserved to the UK Parliament (equal opportunities) and therefore fell outside the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament (“FWS1”).

In all the stuff I was able to read this morning, I was unable to find the definition of a “biological woman”, save that it refers to one’s natal sex, though they don’t mention gametes. The ruling does refer to the binary nature of sex (see below). And the ruling implies as well that the word “man” can mean in law only a “biological man” (see below).

The Guardian:

Bolding is theirs

• The UK supreme court has ruled that the terms “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act refer to a biological woman and biological sex, in a victory for gender critical campaigners.

• Five judges from the UK supreme court ruled unanimously that the legal definition of a woman in the Equality Act 2010 did not include transgender women who hold gender recognition certificates (GRCs). In a significant defeat for the Scottish government, their decision will mean that transgender women can no longer sit on public boards in places set aside for women.

• It could have far wider ramifications by leading to much greater restrictions on the rights of transgender women to use services and spaces reserved for women, and spark calls for the UK’s laws on gender recognition to be rewritten.

• Lord Hodge told the court the Equality Act (EA) was very clear that its provisions dealt with biological sex at birth, and not with a person’s acquired gender, regardless of whether they held a gender recognition certificate. That affected policy-making on gender in sports and the armed services, hospitals, as well as women-only charities, and access to changing rooms and women-only spaces, he said.

• Hodge urged people not to see the decision “as a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another”. He said all transgender people had clear legal protections under the 2010 act against discrimination and harassment.

• Gender critical campaign group For Women Scotland, which is backed financially by JK Rowling, celebrated outside the supreme court in London, alongside other campaigners, after the ruling was announced.

BBC:

• The UK Supreme Court rules that the legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex

• Judges say the “concept of sex is binary” while cautioning that the landmark ruling should not be seen as victory of one side over another

• Transgender people still have legal protection from discrimination, the court adds – read the full 88-page judgement here

• The Scottish government had argued that transgender people with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) are entitled to sex-based protections, while For Women Scotland argued they only apply to people that are born female

• For Women Scotland says it’s grateful for the decision after a “long road” of legal battles, while charity Scottish Trans urges people “not to panic”

• The Scottish government says it acted “in good faith” and will work with Westminster to understand the full implications of the ruling

Times of London:

“The terms woman and sex in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex.”

In fewer than 20 words, Lord Hodge settled a legal debate that has raged in British society for years. It also drove a stake through the heart of a central tenet of the trans lobby: that trans women are women.

The 88-page ruling will be pored over by lawyers. The implications for Westminster and beyond will be vast.

. . .Scotland’s first minister has said the Scottish government “accepts” the ruling of the UK Supreme Court on biological sex, and added that “protecting the rights of all” will inform its response.

In a post on X, John Swinney said: “The Scottish government accepts today’s Supreme Court judgment.

“The ruling gives clarity between two relevant pieces of legislation passed at Westminster. We will now engage on the implications of the ruling. Protecting the rights of all will underpin our actions.”

. . .The certificated sex interpretation would have “rendered meaningless” a section of the 2010 Equalities Act dealing with protection from discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, according to the ruling.

This interpretation would mean “a trans woman (a biological male) with a GRC (Gender Recognition Certificate) who remains sexually oriented to other females would become a same-sex attracted female, in other words, a lesbian” and would lead to an “inevitable loss of autonomy and dignity for lesbians” as well as impacting lesbian clubs and associations.

The judgment continues: “Read fairly, references to sex in this provision can only mean biological sex. People are not sexually oriented towards those in possession of a certificate.

. . .Kemi Badenoch has said the “era of Keir Starmer telling us women can have penises has come to an end”.

The Conservative leader said: “Saying ‘trans women are women’ was never true in fact, and now isn’t true in law either.

“This is a victory for all of the women who faced personal abuse or lost their jobs for stating the obvious. Women are women and men are men: you cannot change your biological sex.

“Well done to For Women Scotland!”

The full judgement is here (you can also click on the title page below to see the 88-page ruling), and although I haven’t read it carefully, I’ve quoted four bits that seem relevant.

First, the court emphasizes binary nature of sex, but unfortunately doesn’t give a definition of sex, though it claims that it does (my bolding).  The court holds to the “ordinary” meaning of “those plain and unambiguous words”, a meaning that corresponds to the biological characteristics that create a binary. One can interpret that, as I would, as the gametic definition of sex, which is the only definition that creates a dichotomy that, with a few hundredths of a percent of exceptions, conforms to a binary:

171. The definition of sex in the EA 2010 makes clear that the concept of sex is binary, a person is either a woman or a man. Persons who share that protected characteristic for the purposes of the group-based rights and protections are persons of the same sex and provisions that refer to protection for women necessarily exclude men. Although the word “biological” does not appear in this definition, the ordinary meaning of those plain and unambiguous words corresponds with the biological characteristics that make an individual a man or a woman. These are assumed to be self-explanatory and to require no further explanation. Men and women are on the face of the definition only differentiated as a grouping by the biology they share with their group

I Interpret this next part to mean that it’s legal to prohibit trans-identified men (“transwomen”) from competing against biological males.  They don’t talk about trans-identified women, but this presumably holds for them, too.  If so, that means a strict separation of athletic competition by sex, but perhaps sports in which the sexes perform equally on average could be an exception. The fate of trans-identified women in sports is not really discussed or spelled out, at least not that I can see, but if one holds to a biological definition of sex, the legal fate of trans-identified women would be the same as that of trans-identified men.

236. On the other hand, a biological definition of sex would mean that a women’s boxing competition organiser could refuse to admit all men, including trans women regardless of their GRC status. This would be covered by the sex discrimination exception in section 195(1). But if, in addition, the providers of the boxing competition were concerned that fair competition or safety necessitates the exclusion of trans men (biological females living in the male gender, irrespective of GRC status) who have taken testosterone to give them more masculine attributes, their exclusion would amount to gender reassignment discrimination, not sex discrimination, but would be permitted by section 195(2). It is here that the gender reassignment exception would be available to ensure that the exclusion is not unlawful, whether as direct or indirect gender reassignment discrimination.

The part below implies that the ruling also holds for the word “man”, which has to mean “biological man” rather than a biological woman who has a GRC or identifies as a man.

264. For all these reasons, this examination of the language of the EA 2010, its context and purpose, demonstrate that the words “sex”, “woman” and “man” in sections 11 and 212(1) mean (and were always intended to mean) biological sex, biological woman and biological man. These and the other provisions to which we have referred cannot properly be interpreted as also extending to include certificated sex without rendering them incoherent and unworkable.

Finally, this last part disposes of the Scottish government’s regarding one’s sex as being that given on a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC).  That means that, in Scotland and all over the UK, a transwoman is not identical to a biological woman, nor a transman to a biological man.  The mantras “a transwoman is a woman” and a “transman is a man” now hold no legal meaning.

. . . 266. For all these reasons, we conclude that the Guidance issued by the Scottish Government is incorrect. A person with a GRC in the female gender does not come within the definition of “woman” for the purposes of sex discrimination in section 11 of the EA 2010. That in turn means that the definition of “woman” in section 2 of the 2018 Act, which Scottish Ministers accept must bear the same meaning as the term “woman” in section 11 and section 212 of the EA 2010, is limited to biological women and does not include trans women with a GRC. Because it is so limited, the 2018 Act does not stray beyond the exception permitted in section L2 of Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act into reserved matters. Therefore, construed in the way that we have held it is to be construed, the 2018 Act is within the competence of the Scottish Parliament and can operate to encourage the participation of women in senior positions in public life.

In toto, the ruling seems fair to me, as I never thought that, say, a “transwoman is a woman” and the same for transmen, as I’ve always adhered to the biological sex definition, which gives an almost 100% binary based on one’s evolved system for either producing large, immobile gametes (women) or small mobile gametes (men). This binary holds for all species, but the terms “woman” and “man” have been reserved for humans.  It does not “erase” trans people, giving them the same rights as everyone—with the exception of a person of one sex inhabiting spaces that properly belong to people of the other sex (sports, jails, locker rooms, etc.)  And as I’ve said endlessly, in all situations where you don’t need sex-specific spaces, trans people should have all the rights of everyone else, and should be treated like everyone else.

h/t: Pyers, Geoff

Quantum effects like superposition and entanglement have long been seen in single particles, but physicists are on a quest to find out just how big an object can be before it loses its quantumness

There were hints that the world may be quantum long before the development of quantum mechanics in 1925 – could we have come up with this revolutionary theory hundreds or even thousands of years earlier?

As quantum computers mature, they will be transformational. But there are good reasons why we don’t yet know exactly which problems they will excel at – and that makes them all the more exciting