We’re old enough to remember back in 2018 when the journal Nature published an editorial opposing a Trump administration proposal to “establish a legal definition of whether someone is male or female based on the genitals they are born with.” Nature’s editors concluded that assigning gender by the genitals one is born with “has no foundation in science.”
They’re late to the party, but now the New England Journal of Medicine has come out against sex designations on birth certificates, saying they can be harmful.
Sex designations on birth certificates offer no clinical utility, and they can be harmful for intersex and transgender people. Moving such designations below the line of demarcation would not compromise the birth certificate’s public health function but could avoid harm.
— NEJM (@NEJM) December 17, 2020
Sex designations have no clinical utility? That reminds us of that HuffPost piece scolding the medical industry for making women with male genetalia hesitant to see a gynecologist.
— 100 Proof ? (@ChampionCapua) December 18, 2020
Doing away with your organization would be a better idea.
— Doctor of Coding Thinkology (@bradcundiff) December 17, 2020
— Bill C'Mon Man McBride (@gilescorey) December 17, 2020
— Rita Panahi (@RitaPanahi) December 17, 2020
Gonna check the "no" box here. Your ideological bullshit is going to hurt children as you force mental instability on them while denying science and basic biology.
— Brandon Morse (@TheBrandonMorse) December 17, 2020
— Duchess of Yuletide Cheer (@AnnaDsays) December 17, 2020
— Tarunperin (@tarunperin) December 17, 2020
This is one of the more loony ideas I’ve seen to come out of 2020 and that’s saying a lot.
— Jay Alders (@jayalders) December 18, 2020
— Spotted Toad (@toad_spotted) December 17, 2020
There was a time when NEJM used to be a serious journal.
— Ricardo Ferreira, MD (@RicardoMFerrei4) December 18, 2020
Just here for the ratio.
— Tamara Shapiro (@tamarashapiro) December 17, 2020
I think it's pretty clinically useful to know whether someone has a uterus or testicles.
— Dr. Philosopher-Emperor, Philippus Arabus (@PhilippusArabus) December 17, 2020
This isn't science. This is political activism.
The pendulum will swing back.
— Pedros (@BiskyRusiness) December 17, 2020
You can no longer be trusted as a journal of medicine.
— Tweetd (@tweetd99) December 17, 2020
Put down the crack pipe
— A Safe Place for Rational Thinking (@aspfrt) December 17, 2020
You know all of this is an exercise on how ridiculous they can make society for us, before we do something, rather than complain about it. I'm sure they have betting odds and score boards.
— GreatBeardofZeus (@GreatbeardoZeus) December 17, 2020
Ok. I tap out here.
— Rene Gagnon (@renegagnon) December 17, 2020
"The world's leading MEDICAL journal" ??????
— Anthony S. Khoury (@askmeabouthelaw) December 17, 2020
I think it is time to stop designating doctors unless the public views them worthy of such a classification.
— WYOMING ?? (@wyomingbroncos) December 17, 2020
How about just do it the normal way
— Official Source/President-Elect Legendary Wartank (@M4Legendary) December 17, 2020
— Christian Strickland ? (@cspropane) December 18, 2020
NEJM. The premiere medical journal has just stated that it's unimportant for clinicians to note the sex of a newborn. As insane as everything has become, I never really thought I'd see the day. Goodnight ladies and gentlemen. And others.
— Barny Fraggles (@BFraggles) December 17, 2020
Science journal Nature is claiming that research on differences between the sexes is ‘rife with bias’ https://t.co/zNZ5LdEObZ
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) February 28, 2019