I did not mention any thing about a Biblical position on this. I mentioned what a Haemotology person or a Microscopist would see if they looked at the blood. That can only be changed by a bone marrow transplant, putting a person at risk of death.
I did not take any view of the morality or not of this particular matter. It was purely a view from a perspective from looking down a microscope.
All my Haemotology text books and Haemotology atlas do give this infomation. It is basic to the Science of Haemotology
Here's a good column on why this decision is important.
https://theconversation.com/why-norr...everyone-25200
I can understand a "male"being born in a females body and vice versa,seen it first hand as well as articles on the subject.However,a male may have all the surgery and hormone treatment in the world,same applies to a "female" who wants to be a male,their choice,good luck to them,but genetically they are still male or female.Why anyone would want to be classified as neither is beyond me,and i think the high court has more important things to do than waste tax dollars on thisBleeding heart do gooders,over to you.
The high court is there for exactly this sort of thing - making interpretation on opaque laws. What else should they be up to?
WTF!
What is a microscopist?
A haematology person?What the porter cleaner in haematology? maybe the phelbotomist?
Can you explain the differences in female blood cells and male blood cells when you view them through a microscope? (Even when using a Scanning Electron Microscope)
Haematology is a discipline within science (biology) or within medicine, not the otherway around.
Can you explain how a person's phenotype is changed by a BMT?
Why does that put a person at risk of death? (Remember I have administered BMT)
If you cant even get simple terms correct, how can we expect your opinions to be anything more than overly simplistic and not related to the real world.
You won't find me on: faceplant; Scipe; Infragam; LumpedIn; ShapCnat or Twitting. I'm just not that interesting.
I was a Pathology Technician and at one time worked in a Haemotology Department of a Pathology Pivate Practice Laboratory, doing Differential Counts on blood smears, that is counting white blood cells spread thin on a glass slide under a microscope, looking at whether or not cells were normal, etc., and also reporting on any abnomalities in the Red blood cells, platelets, etc. as visable under the microscope. In other words I was to decide whether or not the blood cells showed a gross abnormality. I was the very first person to diagnose a Acute Lymphoblastic Leukaemia in one woman [she was actually diagnosed with T-cell Leukaemia, T-cells being Lymphoblastic]. I had to ring the doctor and tell him his patient had Leukaemia.
As soon as I saw it was Leukaemia, I ammediately showed the slide to my boss who thought I was wrong in my diagnosis-- He thought it was a MyloMonocytic Lekaemia. But I gave my diagnosis to the GP who sent the patient to Westmead Hosptal. And a T-cell is Lympobalstic, hence I was right and my boss was wrong--Haemotology was not my bosses' area of expertise.
I asked you to explain, anyone could do a Wikipedia or Free Dictionary search.
I know most Path labs have Haematology, there is one next door to me here. That wasn't my comment.
Having a tooth extraction or a blood transfusion has some risk of death. Even if it is only minimal, the disease that requires a person to have a BMT is likely to be a fatal disease. What I asked is why a BMT would be any more a risk? More than that, why did you even introduce the fact in this thread as it has little or nothing to do with the subject of this thread.
You won't find me on: faceplant; Scipe; Infragam; LumpedIn; ShapCnat or Twitting. I'm just not that interesting.
and how does this effect political correctness in the discussion?
seconds in front of me LOL.
| Search AULRO.com ONLY! |
Search All the Web! |
|---|
|
|
|
Bookmarks