A recent entry in the New England Journal of Medicine suggests that it's time to rethink how sex designations are listed on birth certificates to accommodate those who are intersex as well as people who identify as “nonbinary” or transgender.
The New England Journal of Medicine, which describes itself as “the world’s leading medical journal and website,” published an article titled “Failed Assignments—Rethinking Sex Designations on Birth Certificates.”
Published on Dec. 12, the article was written by Drs. Vadim Shtelyer and Eli Adashi of Brown University’s Alpert Medical School along with trained lawyer Jessica Clarke of Vanderbilt University Law School.
“Sex designations on birth certificates offer no clinical utility, and they can be harmful to intersex people. Moving such designations below the line of demarcation wouldn’t compromise the birth certificate’s public health function but could avoid harm,” the authors contend in a summary of the article, which is behind a paywall.
According to the text of the article, obtained by CNS News, “Designating sex as male or female on birth certificates suggests that sex is simple and binary, when, biologically, it is not.” The authors also maintained that “the biologic processes responsible for sex are incompletely defined, and there is no universally accepted test for determining sex.”
They expressed particular concern about the impact that sex designations on birth certificates had for intersex people as well as “nonbinary” people who do not identify with either gender. “Assigning sex at birth perpetuates a view that sex as defined by a binary variable is natural, essential, and immutable.”
“For people with intersex variations, the birth certificate’s public sex designation invites scrutiny, shame, and pressure to undergo unnecessary and unwanted surgical and medical interventions,” the authors asserted. “Sex assignments at birth may be used to exclude transgender [identified] people from serving in appropriate [opposite-sex] military units, serving sentences in appropriate [opposite-sex] prisons, enrolling in health insurance, and, in states with strict identification laws, voting.”
The authors end the article with a call to action, urging all future birth certificates to include the sex designations “below the line of demarcation” alongside information about race and parents’ marital status. They asserted that such a move would enable “self-identification” and the avoidance of stigma. “Leaving any sex designation visible on birth certificates sacrifices privacy and exposes people to discrimination.”
The New England Journal of Medicine’s Twitter account reveals that the organization’s advocacy on behalf of gender ideology is not limited to one article. In a tweet posted Friday, the New England Journal of Medicine called on Congress and “the next administration” to “undo recent damage to transgender rights protections” and provides a link to a podcast discussion about “health coverage and care for transgender people.”
The fate of Russell Toomey’s case against Arizona, and of other transgender Americans’ access to care, depends on the influence of Bostock v. Clayton County. Meanwhile, the new administration and Congress should undo recent damage to transgender rights protections.— NEJM (@NEJM) December 18, 2020
The New England Journal of Medicine is not the only reputable institution to push the idea that one can identify as multiple genders and gender fluidity. Harvard University has also rejected the gender binary.
When promoting a panel discussion about “Maternal Justice,” the Ivy League university referred to women as “birthing people” so as not to offend “those who identify as non-binary or gender,” adding, “not all who give birth identify as ‘women’ or ‘girls.’”
In a previous interview with The Christian Post, Dr. Michelle Cretella, executive director of the American College of Pediatrics, argued that the institutions of “medicine, psychology, education (and) mass media” were “gaslighting our children” by “promulgating gender ideology as science.” According to Cretella, those who advance the idea that young children “might be born in the wrong body” are committing “psychological abuse” by “disrupting their normal cognitive and psychological development.”
The entertainment industry has also joined the medical establishment in promoting the idea of gender as a social construct as opposed to a biological fact. Cartoon Network, one of the most well-known cable channels devoted to airing family-friendly programming, created a whole comic strip on its Twitter account for the purpose of “normalizing gender pronouns” other than “he” and “she.”