That's what sex means in a medical context, though: your equipment. Your doctor is on the short list of people who have a need to care about that, because it's one of the rare places where anatomy matters.
I'm fairly far right on a lot of matters (and just spent a few ammo boxes hunting the elusive wild skeet this weekend). I'm socially liberal in the classic sense, though, in that I don't care what people do if it doesn't affect me. Want to smoke pot? Marry your gay partner? Go by a gender different from your biological sex (or even something totally different)? I couldn't care less. That's between you and your loved ones.
They are not medically or legally different things.
I grew up in a medical family and I've worked in healthcare in various capacities for a couple of decades now. In any organization I've dealt with, "sex" or "biological" sex explicitly refers to your anatomy. That's important because biological males can't get cervical cancer and biological females can't get testicular cancer, for instance. They're the words used on the occasions when anatomy are relevant. Most medical organizations I've been around in the last decade or so distinguish between "sex" and "gender", which is what the patient presents themselves as. Sure, they're most commonly the same value, but they are separate database fields referring to different concepts.
But what you and other extreme liberals
LOL. You presume much, and wrongly. But con/lib aside, I've never encountered a single problem with referring to someone by their gender. The people who care to distinguish between sex and gender appreciate the respect, and understand when medical decisions require healthcare providers to discuss their sex instead. It's easy to be nice to people, so why not do so? It doesn't cost us anything.
What special privilege is Chelsea asking for? She wants to be called by her gender (not biological sex; those are medically and legally different things). She's not asking to go to an all-girls high school or otherwise do anything controversial. In what remote sense does her request harm you in any way?
And yet here we are explaining the basics of gender to you, so I guess some of us still have sympathy for the weakminded.
A definition of "clemency" says:
Leniency or mercy. A power given to a public official, such as a governor or the president, to in some way lower or moderate the harshness of punishment imposed upon a prisoner.
Clemency is considered to be an act of grace. It is based on the policy of fairness, justice, and forgiveness. It is not a right but rather a privilege, and one who is granted clemency does not have the crime forgotten, as in Amnesty, but is forgiven and treated more leniently for the criminal acts. Clemency is similar to pardon inasmuch as it is an act of grace exempting someone from punishment.
Barring contrary definitions, the President granted her clemency. I strongly suspect Assange is far too little to live up to his promise, but this is exactly the situation the Wikileaks tweet described.
I'm wondering why they don't do the same with blurays.
It seems like many (most?) Blu-Rays come bundled with a digital copy from Ultraviolet or somesuch. I don't really know what that is, never having looked into how it works, but it may be that Amazon doesn't bother because the studios are doing it themselves.
Which manufacturing capacity does ISIS have left? Which engineers have not yet run away from the sinking ship?
Someone is using ISIS as a test run for their latest toy, and it's not the Russians (they would test by themselves). Expect the US or some of its allies to use weaponized small drones in the next war against the next terrorists, the result of "years of military research".
Not true. A helicopter can't be moving horizontally when it lands. A flying car with wheels could potentially be moving at 70+ MPH horizontally when it lands.
1) Under what situation would such a maneuver be necessary, or even advantageous, and
2) Given the relative difficulty if making a "flying car" in the first place, it seems the last thing you'd want to do is add more weight and complexity with a second drivetrain (Indeed this has so far been a major failing in flying car concepts), and
3) Landing at 70+MPH is anything but safe, which is why it's typically only done on access-controlled runways under the supervision of air traffic controllers and ground crews.
Flying cars to not address and real problem. People are fixated on them for the same reason they're fixated on "hover boards" and personal jet packs - it's a cool fantasy concept that's been romanticized in film and TV, but has absolutely zero practicality or advantage outside of fiction.
You want a personal flying vehicle? They're called "ultralight aircraft" and you don't even need a license to fly them in most cases.
Just about anyplace you could safely land a "flying car" you could also land a helicopter.
And that's assuming you actually have to land. If it's enough of an emergency you'd probably be winching the patient up and down while in flight.
Solution in search of a problem.
We have those already. They're called "helicopters" and they are already in service as airborne ambulances at many metropolitan hospitals.
It's a mature and proven technology, with plenty of well trained operators, service/support infrastructure in place, regulatory and safety mechanisms established and well enforced.
"Flying cars" are a solution in desperate need of a problem.
"This is lemma 1.1. We start a new chapter so the numbers all go back to one." -- Prof. Seager, C&O 351