World renowned New England Medical Journal is now pushing to remove sex from babies' birth certificates, a report says.
Citing the insanity the pandemic has brought to many leftists this year, Life Site said New England Medical Journal's declaration of biological sex as irrelevant to be one of them.
Three authors published this in the New England Medical Journal: Brown University Clinical Assistant Professor of Medicine Vadim Shteyler, Former Dean of Medicine and Biological Sciences Eli Adashi, and Vanderbilt Law School Professor Jessica Clarke. Life Site raised the fact that said authors are learned people who come from esteemed universities.
"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," Life Site undermined after giving a backgrounder on each of the authors.
Life Site stressed 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 and insane mothers. Accepting as true person's claim that he 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".
Entitled "Failed Assignments--Rethinking Sex Designations On Birth Certificates," the article questioned the relevance of assigning sex at birth in line with the LGBT agenda giving basis that "the birth certificate has been an evolving document, with revisions reflecting social change, public interest, and privacy requirements" and raised that there is no way for one to actually know it since a person "contain varying sex chromosomes" in the first place.
"We believe it is time for another update: sex designations should move below the line of demarcation. Designating sex as male or female on birth certificates suggests that sex is simple and binary when, biologically, it is not," the authors said.
"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," they stressed.
"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," they continued.
According to the authors, most of whom are doctors, that "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."
"Sex designations on birth certificates offer no clinical utility; they serve only legal--not medical--goals," insisted Shteyler, Adashi, and Clarke in the two-page article published in the said journal.
A full copy of the said journal could be downloaded online.
