Don’t Let The SJWs At The American Medical Association Neuter Your Birth Certificate

Don’t Let The SJWs At The American Medical Association Neuter Your Birth Certificate

Nothing about the American Medical Association's advocacy is medical. It's just the next step in the transformation of health care into a science-devoid cesspool of social justice.
Kylee Zempel
By

The American Medical Association’s latest resolution on sex and birth certificates is a mind-bender.

In its June report, which began circulating on Twitter over the weekend and advocates for the removal of sex designations on birth certificates, the board of trustees managed to redefine nearly enough words to fill a pocket dictionary — not only “sex” and “gender,” but even “discrimination,” “intersex,” “assign,” and “violence.” It’s enough to make even the sanest person question her grasp on reality.

“Existing AMA policy recognizes that every individual has the right to determine their gender identity and sex designation on government documents,” the report concluded. “To protect individual privacy and to prevent discrimination, U.S. jurisdictions should remove sex designation on the birth certificate.”

The American Medical Association was quick to point out that this would affect birth certificates only, not the U.S. Standard Certificate of Live Birth, meaning a baby’s sex would still be reported to the government for scientific and statistical reasons, but the feds just wouldn’t include that sex distinction on the subsequent birth certificate they issue. In other words, the AMA board contended, wishing away these sex distinctions on a birth certificate would protect transgender-identifying people from violence and discrimination, but their biological realities would still be reported to the government for medical purposes.

Is This Medical?

This all raises the question of why an association of doctors with “medical” in their name is making recommendations for non-medical documentation. After all, they admit it is important for scientists and medical professionals to have accurate biological information about the populations they study and patients they treat — that’s the medical part. But for a birth certificate, dispensing with reality is a nonissue.

Another question that arises is why so-called gender has any relevance in matters of sex distinction. The LGBT lobby and leftists the world over will tell you — or more likely scream at you — that “sex and gender are different.” Why then would the AMA, under the banner of LGBT advocacy, push for sex to be removed from birth certificates?

If a person’s gender is detatched from his sex (it is not, but for a moment just entertain the delusion), why should he care that the way he identifies doesn’t match the “M” or “F” on his birth certificate? If the argument goes that gender and sex are different, then why is gender identity relevant in matters of sex? Why is something so purportedly so irrelevant to one’s identity so triggering?

With a slip of the pen, the AMA reveals the faults in the false trans narrative that “gender is a social construct.” Notice the flip-flopping between “sex” and “gender” in the board’s report (emphasis mine):

Sex designation, as collected through the standard form and included on the birth certificate, refers to the biological difference between males and females. Today, the majority of states (48) and the District of Columbia allow people to amend their sex designation on their birth certificate to reflect their individual gender identities, but only 10 states allow for a gender-neutral designation, typically ‘X,’ on the birth certificate. Existing AMA policy recognizes that every individual has the right to determine their gender identity and sex designation on government documents.

So if “sex designation” is “the biological difference between males and females” (which, if by “designation,” you mean “specification,” then that’s correct), then why do “gender identity” and “gender-neutral” enter the conversation? And why is “sex” then immediately described as something you have “the right to determine”?

The same people whose veins pop out of their faces while they rage that gender is different from sex conflate the two here — not only because gender is in fact inextricable from sex but because in this case, it fits their narrative.

Where’s the Proof?

All sorts of other issues clutter the AMA board’s resolution, such as this one: “For these individuals, having a gender identity that does not match the sex designation on their birth certificate can result in confusion, possible discrimination, harassment and violence whenever their birth certificate is requested.”

While there’s most certainly some type of confusion present when a man identifies as a woman or vice versa, it’s unlikely that a birth certificate’s sex distinction is the cause of that confusion. Nor does the AMA provide any evidence for sex distinctions causing discrimination, harassment, or violence.

The United States is so far through the looking glass of radical gender theory that a massive medical association can claim, without evidence and without serious corporate media coverage, that non-medical government documents stating the simple biological fact of whether one’s chromosomes include a “Y” (which is apparently different from gender yet completely the same) are discriminatory precursors to violence that confound the already-confused and must therefore be overhauled for equity — did you follow that?

If not, you’re not alone. The gender jungle gym will have you throwing up your hands with confusion before you realize its goal is redefining reality and making you participate.

Equity Trumps All

Of course, this whole AMA push fits squarely within the brave new world of progressive medicine, and it’s a dangerous world indeed. It’s the same world that wants to treat black and brown patients before white ones — no triage required — because “equity.” It’s the world in which a baby dies because the doctors accommodated the child’s mother playacting as a male.

“He was rightly classified as a man,” Dr. Daphna Stroumsa wrote of a pregnant woman whose baby died because doctors treated the mother as a transgender man, dispensing with science and medical ethics in the New England Journal of Medicine. “But that classification threw us off from considering his actual medical needs.”

Unlike the AMA’s lack of evidence that danger befalls trans people because of their birth certificates, history shows an obsession with these dishonest “classifications” comes with real life-or-death consequences. Even when a human being doesn’t die, fidelity to the truth most certainly does.

The legal designation on your birth certificate was never intended to reflect how you feel. The Department of States just wants to make sure you exist. They aren’t interested in whether you believe in a binary. Your future employer doesn’t want a peek at your birth certificate to determine whether you prefer to be called he or she or moonself. They just want to know that you are who you say you are.

Nothing about the American Medical Association’s advocacy is medical. It’s just the next step in the dangerous transformation of health care into a science-devoid cesspool of social justice.

Kylee Zempel is an assistant editor at The Federalist. Follow her on Twitter @kyleezempel.

Copyright © 2021 The Federalist, a wholly independent division of FDRLST Media, All Rights Reserved.