The prestigious medical journal The Lancet‘s guidelines encourage writers to embrace gender identity instead of biological sex.
“Sex and gender are often incorrectly portrayed as binary (female/male or woman/man), concordant, and static,” says the guidelines.
Therefore, those submitting articles “should use the term ‘sex assigned at birth’ rather than ‘biological sex,’ ‘birth sex’ or ‘natal sex’ as it is more accurate and inclusive.”
Inclusive for whom? (Rhetorical question. I know the answer. The men pretending to be females)
The Lancet claims “there is no single, universally agreed-upon set of guidelines for defining sex and gender or reporting sex-based and gender based analyses.”
The XX and XY chromosomes set those guidelines, The Lancet.
The guidelines get worse because, apparently, “sex” has many definitions concerning humans.
“In human research, the term ‘sex’ carries multiple definitions,” according to the guidelines. “It often refers to an umbrella term for a set of biological attributes associated with physical and physiological features (eg, chromosomal genotype, hormonal levels, internal and external anatomy). It can also signify a sex categorisation, most often designated at birth (“sex assigned at birth”) based on a newborn’s visible external anatomy.”
My body parts do not make me female. My XX chromosomes make me female.
The Lancet then conflates those with chromosomal disorders with those who identify as non-binary.
For crying out loud. Those born with XXY or XYY didn’t have a choice (emphasis mine):
However, these constructs exist along a spectrum that includes additional sex categorisations and gender identities, such as people who are intersex/have differences of sex development (DSD), or identify as non binary. In any given person, sex and gender might not align, and both can change. Sex and gender are not entirely discrete concepts and their definitions continue to evolve. Biology and society influence both, and many languages do not distinguish between them. Since the terms “sex” and “gender” can be ambiguous, authors should describe the methods they use to gather and report sex-related and/or gender-related data (eg, self-report or physician-report, specific biological attributes, current sex/gender, sex assigned at birth, etc) and discuss the potential limitations of those methods. This will enhance the research’s precision, rigor, and reproducibility, and avoid ambiguity or conflation of terms and the constructs to which they refer.
There are no constructs because sex is binary. You are either a female or male.
You cannot change your sex. It is scientifically and medically impossible to change your sex, no matter what surgeries you have or how many hormones you pump into your body.
This language change will ruin science and medicine in the future, as well as research and studies. Diseases and illnesses affect females and males differently.
Imagine thinking this type of inclusivity will “enhance the research’s precision, rigor, and reproducibility” when you include a male in a female-only study or research.
There’s the DEI:
When ascertaining gender and sex, researchers should use a two-step process: (1) ask for gender identity allowing for multiple options and (2) if relevant to the research question, ask for sex assigned at birth. In addition to this defining guidance and the SAGER guidelines, you can find further information about reporting sex and gender in research studies on Elsevier’s diversity, equity, and inclusion in the publishing author guide available here.
The link provided in the paragraph does not work.
It’s not the first time The Lancet has erased women.
In 2021, The Lancet apologized for referring to females as “bodies with vaginas.”
Stop reducing females to body parts and hormones.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY