Nixing Sex on Birth Certificates is motivated by inexperienced medical students
The American Medical Association (AMA) continued to challenge basic science and the views of the overwhelming majority of healthcare professionals nationwide when it made the absurd decision in June to resolve to “advocate for the suppression of sex as a legal designation on the public part. of the birth certificate. In taking this position, WADA strayed so far from mainstream thinking that it ceased to be an organization worthy of carrying the word “medical” in its name. But this is only the beginning of WADA’s mismanagement of the case.
The resolution ultimately passed by the board was brought forward by the organization’s medical student section (a fact that in itself is telling). In the contextual portion of their resolution, medical students took great care to differentiate between what they call the “sex designation” and gender identity.
According to the students, “the designation of sex refers to the biological difference between men and women, which is written on the birth certificate.” The students then defined gender as “a social construct that describes the way people identify or express themselves”.
The students observed that the way people express themselves “may not always correspond to the sex assigned to them at birth,” but if sex is the biological difference between males and females and that gender recognizes a social construction linked to sex and sexuality, so why the designation of the first in any way restrictive of the second? In other words, if a person identifies as one of more than 144 genders and such identification is independent of their sex designation, then why the restrictions on reporting the sex designation?
The unaddressed logical gap leads us to the next mistake in student resolution: the claim that sex is “assigned at birth.” This is a concept the students took from an information pamphlet published by the far-left American Psychological Association, but it is a concept that is patently false.
Recall what the students noted in their own resolution, that the designation of sex refers to the biological difference between males and females. However, sex designations cannot be “assigned at birth”. He is simply recognized. The sex of the baby has already been determined by its genetic makeup and the corresponding anatomy. Therefore, no one can “assign” a sex designation at birth.
In their inexperience and because of the erroneous instruction they must receive, medical students confused the recognition of one’s sex by a genital inspection performed by the doctor who gives birth at the time of the infant’s birth with a “duty” .
A child’s sex is no more assigned at the time of birth than a table is assigned its “table” when it is removed from the delivery truck. Masculinity or femininity, like the table of a table, is already established. The doctor simply recognizes the gender the baby already has. So when students claim that a person’s sex (behavior) may not be correlated with their sex (inherent biological characteristics) “assigned at the time of birth”, they are delivering a lie, and it is astonishing that those who taught them medicine did not stress it.
The students go on to fallaciously stating that “there is no clear standard for defining the designation of sex.” The standard for defining one’s gender is indeed quite clear, although there are rare cases where the genitals fail to differentiate sufficiently at birth to make further testing necessary, the number is irrelevant.
The next mistake is the claim by medical students that 48 of the 50 states and the District of Columbia “allow people to change their sex designation on their birth certificates.” Again, this claim is false, but even if it was not, the students did not substantiate their claim.
First, their source is the National Center for Transgender Equality’s Summary of Birth Certificate Gender Change Language, a one-page document produced by an organization so heavily invested in one side of the debate that it cannot be considered the last word. on this point. The council should have demanded from the students – and the students should have demanded of themselves – a presentation of the actual statutory language in each of the jurisdictions. The floor would then be able to discuss what each state actually allows.
Additionally, students claim that all 48 states allow a change in “sex determination”. Again, this is wrong as even the “summary” points out. What is allowed to be changed, according to the “summary” is what is called the “gender marker”, which neither the students nor the “summary” define, not the “sex determination”. Shouldn’t the jury or the professors have asked the students for clarification on this point before proceeding to a debate and a reflection on the question?
Finally, the most important point of all. The lack of experience of medical students on the issue of gender identification in birth certificates is all comment on the advantages and the possible need to keep your sex in a birth certificate. Students only mention the conflict and “confusion” that can be caused by having sex that is different from your gender.
Although they claim that one in 5,000 people have ‘intersex variations’ and six in 1,000 identify as transgender, which allows for ‘confusion’, they do not mention how often this confusion occurs. nor the cost of such confusion to American society. They also do not mention whether removing the person’s gender from a birth certificate will make a difference in this “confusion” since the person Again have a conflict between their sex and the gender they choose, no matter what the birth certificate may say.
In fact, the students’ argument for allowing late changes to gender designations in birth certificates was so flawed that they may have reinforced the arguments against it, but neither the board nor their mentors did. raised a finger to point out their shortcomings.
It is clear that by taking this position on sex determination on birth certificates, WADA has once again done a great service to society and to the medical profession. What is less obvious is the serious disservice he has rendered to his medical students who missed out on opportunities to learn valuable lessons relating to fundamental biology, logic, ontology, parliamentary procedure. and ethics.
WADA is now a sham organization that cannot even demand basic professional standards from its own students. Physicians must demand that this rapidly declining organization pull out and stop falsely claiming to be the voice of America’s physicians.
Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of “The Federalist Pages” and sits in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be contacted via www.thefederalistpages.com.