New England Medical Journal: No More Sex Identification On Birth Certificates

The American medical field is on the verge on insanity.

According to their website, the New England Journal of Medicine is the world’s leading medical journal and website.

They’ve been publishing medical content for over 200 years!

It’s safe to say they’re traditionally one of the most prestigious sources of medical information around the globe.

But now?

It appears they’ve gone fully woke.

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

"New England Journal of Medicine advocates to erase sex from birth certificates"

Girls are cancelled. Boys are cancelled. Biological sex is cancelled. Progressive insanity, not cancelled.https://t.co/74VlO96pCT

— Paul Mitchell (@PaulMitchell_AB) December 19, 2020

No more sex identification on birth certificates, New England Journal of Medicine article declares https://t.co/kNQ1kjcoxw

— TheBlaze (@theblaze) December 18, 2020

“Doctor, am I having a boy or girl?”
“No such thing as a boy or girl anymore.”
New England Journal of Med says birth certificates should no longer state baby’s sex.
Bcs
saying baby is boy or girl might harm trans people.#NotTheBabylonBee @TheBabylonBee https://t.co/XvEZk4IKsc

— Beverly A. Pekala (@PekalaLaw) December 17, 2020

You read that right.

Cancel culture has now reached child births.

These lunatic leftists disguising as medical experts want to erase sex identification on birth certificates.

And I thought the left were supposed to be the ones that had ‘science’ on their side.

Identifying the sex of your child seems like basic science to me.

Zero Hedge discussed the idiocy of this once revered medical journal:

In the latest issue of the NEMJ, two doctors and a lawyer have written that it’s time to do away with putting a newborn baby’s biological sex – as demonstrated by its external genitalia – on birth certificates. The article is behind a paywall, but the summary is there for all to see:

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 wouldn’t compromise the birth certificate’s public health function but could avoid harm.

First, let’s meet the authors.

Vadim Shteyler is a Clinical Assistant Professor of Medicine at Brown University. He’s a hospitalist, which means he’s a regular internal medicine doctor who doesn’t have an office practice but works only in a hospital.

Jessica A. Clarke is a law professor at Vanderbilt Law School. “She studies constitutional and statutory guarantees of non-discrimination based on traits such as race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion and disability.”

Eli Y. Adashi is the former Dean of Medicine and Biological Sciences at Brown University. His clinical specialty is gynecology.

As you can see, these people are not fringe crackpots. They are associated with reputable institutions. They’re getting published in the New England Medical Journal, one of the most prestigious medical magazines in the world. They can be said to represent the mainstream of American medical thinking and its intersection with legal principles.

And from that pinnacle of professionalism, they’re telling us that whether a child is a boy or a girl is irrelevant for purposes of a birth certificate. And why do they say that? Because a vanishingly small percentage of the population has a mental illness that leads those sad people to believe that they’re in the wrong body.

Keep in mind that there is no study at all supporting the magical transgender theory. It is a purely psychological problem, often associated with severe childhood trauma, especially in the form of absentee fathers or insane mothers. Accepting as true person’s claim that he or she is really a member of the opposite sex is precisely the same as accepting as true an emaciated anorexic’s claim that she is morbidly obese – and offering her diet pills and stomach stapling.

Reality is not a construct. We can quibble about our approaches to reality (I say the fabric’s color is puce, you say it’s eggplant), but the real world exists. Gravity is a thing and even if you tell yourself you’re a bird, when you step off that roof and flap your arms, you’re not going anywhere but down.

When a society abandons reality – when it pretends that the genetic coding that dictates our body’s sex – is meaningless, that society is headed for a disastrous landing. Mentally ill men who think they’re women do not need to go to a gynecologist like Dr. Adashi because they do not have a uterus, ovaries, fallopian tubes, or any of the other organs associated with a female animal’s prime function, which is to incubate babies.

Likewise, mentally ill women who think they’re men do need to go to that same gynecologist because their reproductive organs can fall prey to all sorts of unpleasant diseases and conditions that are best treated by someone trained in the area – something like Dr. Adashi, for example. When we start pretending that boys are girls and girls are boys, the pretend girls waste gynecologists’ time, while the real girls pretending to be boys dangerously ignore their biological needs.

And from The Blaze:

The article said birth certificates in 1949 underwent a revision that “created a line of demarcation. The legally identifying fields above the line appear on certified copies of birth certificates, whereas information in the fields below the line, which is used for statistical purposes, is deidentified and reported in the aggregate. Race and parents’ marital status, for example, were moved below the line of demarcation to permit self-identification and to avoid stigma, respectively.”

Simply put, the authors said it’s time to move sex designation below the line.

More from the article:

Designating sex as male or female on birth certificates suggests that sex is simple and binary when, biologically, it is not. Sex is a function of multiple biologic processes with many resultant combinations. About 1 in 5000 people have intersex variations. As many as 1 in 100 people exhibit chimerism, mosaicism, or micromosaicism, conditions in which a person’s cells may contain varying sex chromosomes, often unbeknownst to them.2 The biologic processes responsible for sex are incompletely defined, and there is no universally accepted test for determining sex.

Assigning sex at birth also doesn’t capture the diversity of people’s experiences. About 6 in 1000 people identify as transgender, meaning that their gender identity doesn’t match the sex they were assigned at birth. Others are nonbinary, meaning they don’t exclusively identify as a man or a woman, or gender nonconforming, meaning their behavior or appearance doesn’t align with social expectations for their assigned sex.

NATIONAL POLL: Do You Still Support President Trump?

Sex designations on birth certificates offer no clinical utility; they serve only legal — not medical — goals. Certainly, knowing a patient’s sex is useful in many contexts, when it is appropriately interpreted. Sex modifies the clinical suspicion of a heart attack in the absence of classic symptoms and is a proxy for many undefined social, environmental, and biologic factors in research, for example. But, in each of these applications, sex is merely a stand-in for other variables and is not generally ascertained from a birth certificate.

The article also discusses public criticism of the authors:

A number of article commenters questioned the authors’ conclusions:

• “I consider myself a left of center thinking person but this goes a little too far down a rabbit hole I don’t want to step into,” one reader noted.
• “If a person who is male wants to pretend they are female, does that mean I legally have to pretend with them?” another reader asked.
• “Tinkering with birth certificates will not alter the fact that humans are either men OR women, as little as the Flat Earth Society can make the earth flat,” another reader commented. “There are tiny flat patches on earth and a tiny number of humans have ambiguous sex but this does not change the fundamental principles.”
• “This kind of thinking is just another example of how far we are wandering from truth,” another reader said.

One thing is clear.

The New England Journal of Medicine is fading from reality and slipping further into the clutches of the woke left.