内容摘要：Oil spills can be very harmful to the environment, damaging animals' habitats and polluting the water. They can also be very difficult to clean up.

Oil spills can be very harmful to the environment, damaging animals' habitats and polluting the water. They can also be very difficult to clean up.

"[The court] heard no material going to the question of the proportionality and the impact on trans people. It didn't hear evidence from us."The Supreme Court failed in my view, adequately, to think about human rights points."

Dr McCloud says she and other campaigners will go to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg to seek a declaration that the actions of the UK government and Supreme Court judgement "violate [her] fundamental human rights"."Just as the prime minister didn't know what a woman was, actually the Supreme Court don't know because they haven't defined biological sex," said the former judge."The answer [in my view] is that a woman in law is someone with the letter F on her birth certificate."

Dr McCloud has a Gender Recognition Certificate - which means her acquired female gender is recorded on her birth certificate. At the same time, the Supreme Court ruling means she is defined as a man for the purposes of the Equality Act.In its judgement, the court said biological sex refers to "the sex of a person at birth". It emphasises that only women can be pregnant, for example, and women have specific legal protection during pregnancy.

Trans campaigners argue the court did not take into account their view of the complexities of biology. They argue it is impossible for services - from police officers performing a strip search through to restaurants - to truly specify someone's biology, pointing to intersex cases as an example of where biological sex is not binary.

However, gender-critical campaigners say biology comes down to a common-sense assessment of what makes a man or a woman.Studies on pediatric cancer, Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease would be affected, he wrote.

"In recent weeks, the federal government has launched a broad attack on the critical funding partnerships that make this invaluable research possible," the school's lawsuit said.It said the withholding of federal funding violated Harvard's constitutional rights and was being used as "leverage to gain control of academic decisionmaking at Harvard".

The Trump administration has signalled that another $1bn of federal funding could be suspended. Harvard receives about $9bn in total annually, which is mostly spent on research.Harvard's tax exemption status and its ability to enroll international students could also be under threat.