Except that she has the relevant expertise, and therefore this does not apply.
If we analyse it critically, there are six questions we can ask:
Expertise: How credible is the authority as a expert source? Field: Is the authority an expert in a field relevant to the assertion? Opinion: What does the authority assert that implies the assertion? Trustworthiness: Is the expert personally reliable as a source? Consistency: Is the assertion consistent with what other experts assert? Backup evidence: Is the expert’s assertion based on evidence?
And on these regards we can say: she is credible, an expert in said field of genomics, and asserts that XX can be cis men too and vice versa; and she indeed is trustworthy, her assertions being consistent. Plenty of evidence to look it up.
Except that she has the relevant expertise, and therefore this does not apply.
If we analyse it critically, there are six questions we can ask:
Expertise: How credible is the authority as a expert source?
Field: Is the authority an expert in a field relevant to the assertion?
Opinion: What does the authority assert that implies the assertion?
Trustworthiness: Is the expert personally reliable as a source?
Consistency: Is the assertion consistent with what other experts assert?
Backup evidence: Is the expert’s assertion based on evidence?
And on these regards we can say: she is credible, an expert in said field of genomics, and asserts that XX can be cis men too and vice versa; and she indeed is trustworthy, her assertions being consistent. Plenty of evidence to look it up.