In a press release on 16th June, the American Medical Association (AMA) announced the policies that were adopted by medical leaders at the latest meeting of the AMA House of Delegates. These policies, we are told, “drive the future of medicine” and aim to “remove obstacles that interfere with patient care”.
The first policy listed is to “oppose work requirements for food stamps”. And the second is to “advocate for alternatives to immigration centers”. If you’re wondering why these particular policies were adopted by a medical organisation, you’re not alone. They sound like standard left-wing talking points to me. (This isn’t meant as a criticism of those policies; it’s just odd to see them in an AMA press release.)
However, the most noteworthy policy adopted by the AMA is to “advocate for the removal of sex as a legal designation on the public portion of the birth certificate”. Now, you might have assumed that a person’s sex was a fairly important piece of medical information – one that really ought to be recorded on their birth certificate. But apparently not.
According to AMA Board Chair-Elect Sandra Adamson Fryhofer, recording sex on birth certificates “fails to recognize the medical spectrum of gender identity”, and “risks stifling an individual’s self-expression and self-identification”. (Note that the AMA is the largest professional association for physicians and medical students in the United States, with annual revenues of over $300 million.)
The AMA’s move comes after the publication of a paper in the New England Journal of Medicine last December titled “Failed Assignments – Rethinking Sex Designations on Birth Certificates”. (The NEJM is arguably the world’s most prestigious medical journal. It boasts an impact factor of 75, compared to only 60 for The Lancet.)
The authors of that paper make a number of arguments in favour of removing sex from the public portion of birth certificates. I will respond to each of them in turn.
First, they note that the birth certificate has always been “an evolving document, with revisions reflecting social change, public interest, and privacy requirements”. For example, race and parents’ marital status were removed from the public portion “to permit self-identification and to avoid stigma, respectively”.
So the argument here is, “since these two characteristics were removed, why not sex as well?” To begin with, parents’ marital status is much less clinically relevant than sex, so little information is lost by removing the former.
Race is clinically relevant (and one could make a case for reintroducing it). However, the number of people who identify with a race or ethnic group different from their actual one is vanishingly small; indeed, there is a lot of stigma against so-called “transracialism”. Hence there is unlikely to be a situation in which someone from one racial or ethnic group is claiming to be from another.
Moreover, there are still a number of domains in society that are segregated by sex (e.g., athletics, prisons, domestic abuse shelters), and it is therefore desirable to have a non-invasive way of confirming someone’s sex. By contrast, there are almost no domains that are segregated by race – in fact, only CRT-inspired “racial sensitivity” workshops and things like that.
Second, the authors argue that recording sex on birth certificates “suggests that sex is simple and binary when, biologically, it is not”. This is simply false, as numerous scholars have pointed out.
While there are a tiny number of intersex people who cannot be easily categorised as either male or female, there are no additional sexes beyond those two. Sex is defined by gamete size: females produce large gametes (eggs), while males produce small gametes (sperm). Since no one has yet discovered another type of gamete, there are only two sexes.
Third, the authors claim that “sex is merely a stand in for other variables and is not generally ascertained from a birth certificate”. While it’s clearly true that sex is “not generally ascertained from a birth certificate” (in 99% of cases, you can tell by looking), there are circumstances where additional information might be needed (e.g., women’s athletics, women’s prisons, forensic medicine).
Interestingly, the authors even acknowledge the concern that “without information from birth certificates, enforcing separate men’s and women’s restrooms or locker rooms would be difficult”. Though they believe this concern is misplaced.
What’s more, even though sex often is a “stand in for other variables”, it may be useful to know someone’s sex when those other variables are not readily available. As a recent literature review in The Lancet notes, there are numerous biological differences between men and women, and these “translate into differences in disease predisposition, manifestation, and response to treatment”.
Fourth, the authors argue that recording sex on birth certificates “risks stifling self-expression and self-identification”, and that such records “may be used to exclude transgender people from serving in appropriate military units”. To begin with, there is no reason why recording someone’s biological sex on their birth certificate should prevent them from having a different gender identity.
And the issue of transgender people “serving in appropriate military units” is largely irrelevant. Even if sex were not recorded on birth certificates, it would still be possible to determine someone’s biological sex (e.g., from a DNA test). So if the military decided to exclude transgender people from certain units, enforcing that rule would not depend on what information is given on birth certificates.
Finally, the authors claim that removing sex from the public portion of birth certificates “would be in keeping with legal developments deemphasizing sex distinctions”. This is straightforward to refute: just because sex distinctions have been deemphasised in some contexts, does not mean they should be deemphasised in all contexts. Indeed, one may object to the deemphasis of sex distinctions in general.
The case for removing sex from the public portion of birth certificates doesn’t hold water, relying heavily – as it does – on the fallacy that “sex is not binary”. Recent calls for the removal of sex appear to be motivated more by the goals of radical activists than by any cogent scientific considerations. Sex is a fundamental biological variable, which is still relevant in many areas of society – not least medicine. So it really ought to stay.
You can subscribe to Noah Carl’s Substack newsletter for as little as $5/month here.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
“risks stifling an individual’s self-expression and self-identification”.
Lockdowns do that VASTLY more, and the AMA support those measures which are totally unsupported by trials.
Every modern agenda is based on nonsense. Our Western civilisation is being destroyed
Endless Subsidies For Unreliable Wind & Solar are an Economic Suicide Pact
https://stopthesethings.com/2021/08/01/endless-subsidies-for-unreliable-wind-solar-are-an-economic-suicide-pact/
Stand in South Hill Park Bracknell every Sunday from 10am meet fellow anti lockdown freedom lovers, keep yourself sane, make new friends and have a laugh.
Join our Stand in the Park – Bracknell – Telegram Group
http://t.me/astandintheparkbracknell
Mel Gibson needs to do a movie.
In which the English are responsible for climate change, the oppression of every other ethnic group under the sun and SARS CoV2, renamed in the movie as EngPlague1. The line “They may take away our lives, but they’ll never take our freedom!” could be reused with a little editorial adjustment.
Worth a read, in my opinion. Includes:
Possible escalations, in sequential order:
– unvaccinated people are barred from all public places.
– unvaccinated people are barred from work.
– unvaccinated people have their benefits withdrawn.
– unvaccinated people are forcibly vaccinated (likely under the mental health act).
– unvaccinated people are sent to quarantine camps.
– unvaccinated people are murdered.
https://leftlockdownsceptics.com/2021/07/collaboration-or-resistance-part-3-scapegoats/?doing_wp_cron=1627890873.6848340034484863281250
Plausible – except for this question – will the vaxxed be healthy enough to go around using violence of the unvaxxed?
There was a suggestion that some vaxx is just purified water
My GP, Dr Mengele, tells me that these are all very commendable policies.
It makes sense when you start to see that this is a holistic takeover of the West, to rid us of pretty much every Judaeo/Christian value that lingers. To begin with it was subtle, covert. Now it is open, brazen. It is actually the religion of the leaders of the world to dismantle any part of society that is pro-family, pro-life, pro-stability, pro-mental health, pro-tolerance, pro-equality of opportunity. All the while they project that we are the cruel, stupid, divisive or racist ones. All the while they project that they are the kindest, most understanding ones, most able to sort out our problems. Until people wake up en masse and realize these corrupt leaders are the ones creating the majority of the problems for us, we will be in this awful grip of manufactured division and strife. These corrupt leaders are lockstep in their appalling values. They have their own people infiltrating everywhere. Some have their fervour. Some are in it for rich reward. Some are leveraged to do a job before they step aside, glad to be left alone. We have been stupid to let them take power so easily. They have been very clever to do it so stealthily over so many decades. They know how to lead. They know how to organize. They know how to replicate themselves. They know how to pass their dirty batons on to the next generation. They do not have goodness or rightness on their side though. And it is past time for their awful empire to end, as all wicked empires do. It’s time for a great reset indeed.
The behaviour of our species is increasingly unnatural, thanks largely to the growing encroachment of technology in our lives and the increasing sophistication of our society.
We live lives that are so completely detached from nature and so conditioned by modern life and social norms that we are losing track of what is natural.
We’ve reached a point where we think we can condition anyone to do anything for the supposed benefit of society, however unnatural. And our capacity to resist these demands is ever weaker because we’re losing track of what is natural and what is social conditioning.
But it’s really a form of psychosis that simply feeds on itself and like most psychoses grows over time. As a society we are slowly going mad.
But these ideas are against every form of human civilisation. I point this out as a Christian. No civilisation of any religion has ever survived on the basis of the assumptions being adopted by many of our leaders.
Huxley was on to it 90 years ago with Brave New World. Even more prescient than Orwell.
I’m not sure they do know how to replicate themselves. In Austria, one of the few countries to record such information, atheists have a catastrophically low birth rate.
Whom the gods would destroy they first make mad.
Or as St Paul puts it, “Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.”
Yeah, this site’s comment sections are a great example.
I always thought the comment sections (btl) were a great example of free speech.
I thought sex has always been banned from public places
There are significant differences between the sexes which translate into different susceptibility to a number of conditions (as the article states), but also different prevalences of biomarkers which help determine treatment or prognosis of some conditions e.g. HER-2 in female vs. male breast cancer.
You would have thought the AMA would know this – it’s clinically-relevant.
This is a triumph of wokeism over medicine.
What are the AMA doing?
I understood that sex was genetic and binary. Gender however is related to the level of testosterone you are exposed to in the womb, among other factors. This is usually but not always congruent. However this “science” is from long ago . . .
When they finally connect the human brain to AI, what’s left of the human (and humans in general) won’t need to have any form of gender, or a face, or any other individualistic features. They just need to be workable slaves.
It reminds me of the faceless drones in the movie The Blackhole – made into automata by the megalomaniac captain.
‘Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated’
Let’s face it, there are only two sexes and the are easily distinguishable. It’s a well known fact that women have shorter feet than men so that they can stand closer to the kitchen sink! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
“Hence there is unlikely to be a situation in which someone from one racial or ethnic group is claiming to be from another.”
Give it time. Actually it might well be a good idea, if you’re white to identify with a different racial group; no more accusations of “white privilege”. Pick the group that sits at the intersection of “the most oppressed” and the world’s your oyster.
It’s already happened – Elizabeth Warren self-identified as a native American based on no more than (a maximum) of 1.56% DNA (and as little as 0.097%)!
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/412085-elizabeth-warren-shows-how-unpopular-identity-politics-is
Use to happen often; white boys with dreadlocks faining a West Indian accent
I self identify as a disabled black woman!
Another one: https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/584695/Rachel-Dolezal-black-civil-rights-activist-white-resigns
And: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-54008495
and identify with a different age group if you’re old… now how do you transition to 21, I wonder…
What will be recorded on birth certificates, then?
He / him
She / her
or
Undecided yet?
First they came for the men.
Then they came for the family.
Now it’s male and female.
It’s war. Just say no.
Yeah, just ignore it. Its bonkers and like most of this stuff (men are evil, white men are really evil etc, etc) really not worth our time getting into. We’ve got better stuff to do.
Much of this nonsense is easily understood based on the observation that the loony left rejects both God and the notion that they’re nothing but mammals.
Perhaps the next thing will be removing the term birth from the certificate. It’s offensive to those delivered by caesarean section.
All part of the plan. All of it. Everything you see now being pushed is the plan. Go in the opposite direction to thwart their pla.
It’s all to make us the “same” soon we will be a number if nonsense like this gets traction. Just what they want
That’s the funniest thing I’ve seen in a while. But on a serious note, if I were confronted by a consultant who deemed my sex as irrelevant to my medical treatment I’d be out the door like a shot! There have been numerous studies conducted over eons which have neglected to take account of biological sex and women have paid the price for medicines that are inappropriate, ineffective or worse. Sorry but it’s that whole male dominated world’s eye view. And I’m sure it’s had an effect the other way around too. Slate me as you like!