The American Medical Association has endorsed the removal of sex as a legal designation on birth certificates, and that's not all.

Jun 23rd

Keep in mind this is the American Medical association, an association made up of real medical doctors, not Jill Biden doctors, and they just came out in favor of removing the sex designation on the public portion of birth certificates.

So proud of my AMA! Four years in the making, now the real work begins.

"Now the real work begins."

Are there more chilling words in the English language?

Incidentally, based on her Twitter feed, I hope Spadafore takes the occasional break from virtue signalling her wokeness so she can spend some time on her Emergency Medicine residency.

In fact, I wished the AMA would allot some of the time they spend on taking leftist political positions to, I don't know, cure cancer or something? At least that sounds medicny.

The AMA's position was announced as part of a press release that came from a special meeting they held last week.

Aimed at protecting individual privacy and preventing discrimination, the AMA will advocate for the removal of sex as a legal designation on the public portion of the birth certificate.

Not to worry, your sex will still be recorded, but kept confidential, like the rest of your medical history.

Under the policy, information on an individual's sex designation at birth would still be collected and submitted through the U.S. Standard Certificate of Live Birth form for medical, public health, and statistical use only.

In essence, your sex is going to be treated the same as other embarrassing medical conditions, like an anal rash or bout of explosive diarrhea.

The new policy aligns with existing AMA policy recognizing that every individual has the right to determine their gender identity and sex designation on government documents.

You have a right to determine your "gender identity" and "sex designation?"

They keep moving the goal posts.

We have been lectured for years that gender is different from sex. Sex is biological, gender is a social construct. If gender is a social construct, then you can presumably change that. You can claim to be a "woman" in terms of gender and we're told we have to accept that or we're haters.

Now, they are essentially telling us that we have to accept, as recorded on legal government documents, whatever sex you claim to be (which you can do in 48 states).

They're being quite obvious about it.

"Designating sex on birth certificates as male or female, and making that information available on the public portion, perpetuates a view that sex designation is permanent and fails to recognize the medical spectrum of gender identity.

"...perpetuates the view that sex designation is permanent."

Sex designation.

...and fails to recognize the medical spectrum of gender identity.

Gender identity.

See how they're conflating them? In the same sentence even. Sex is no longer permanent, it's the same as gender, apparently.

According to the AMA, science doesn't matter anymore, and neither do chromosomes.

This type of categorization system...

I want to pause there for a moment.

"Type of categorization system," like it's some fabrication, just an arbitrary designation foisted upon an unwitting population and not a biological reality.

...also risks stifling an individual's self-expression and self-identification and contributes to marginalization and minoritization," said AMA Board Chair-Elect Sandra Adamson Fryhofer, M.D.

If I wanted to identify as a jar of mayonnaise, would the AMA embrace my self-expression and self-identification, or would they send me to a mental ward?

Keep in mind, we're not talking about gender anymore. We're talking about your sex. You don't get to determine that. Sorry, you don't, not unless we want to start allowing Furries to list their anthropomorphic animal designations on their birth certificates.

And yet there are people like this, with 13,000+ followers:

I have always told my daughter, if someone says boys and girls have to be separated ask them why, and don't accept a stupid answer.

I don't know. When it comes time for a prostate exam I could see that coming in pretty useful.

No matter, the AMA is all-in on the radical transgender agenda, strengthening their opposition to anything that would limit their ability to perform irreversible and life-altering procedures on children.

They don't highlight that part, of course.

From the press release:

The American Medical Association (AMA) today strengthened its established position opposing the governmental intrusion into the practice of medicine that is detrimental to the health of transgender and gender-diverse children and adults.

Legislatures in 20 states this year proposed banning physicians and other health care professionals from providing medically necessary gender-affirming care to transgender and gender-diverse youth.

"Children," and "youth."

These are your kids. These are minors, not old enough to vote, drive, work, or in some cases ride certain roller coasters.

Most recently in April 2021, the AMA delivered a letter (PDF) to the National Governors Association urging its members to oppose legislative dictates that inappropriately limit the range of options physicians and families may consider when making decisions for gender-diverse pediatric patients.

They want the freedom to engage in life-altering surgeries and hormone treatments on children.

Oh, and they'd prefer if you meddling parents stay out of it.

They're doctors, they know better!

At the Special Meeting of its House of Delegates, the American Medical Association (AMA) said it will urge the federal government to revise the definition of harm to include mental and emotional distress, making the definition more flexible for physicians who have been constrained by rules that limit the definition to physical events.

They've been constrained. We can't have that!

Under current regulations, physicians must release health information even when—in their professional judgment—...

The same professional judgment that had determined that biological sex is a matter of opinion.

...they believe that doing so would emotionally or psychologically harm their patient.

"Emotionally?" A teenager?

A teenager finds pimples to be emotional harm. At least psychological harm, though open to abuse, creates a clinically higher bar to clear, but "emotional harm?"

For example, physicians treating adolescents must share sensitive information to parents or patients' proxies in sensitive areas such as reproductive health, mental health or substance use.

Parents? What do they have to do with anything?

"The current regulation that permits a physician to withhold the release of information in cases of anticipated physical harm is a blinkered view of the patient-physician relationship. It denies physicians their ability to exercise their expertise and training to evaluate the needs of a patient," said AMA Board Chair-elect Bobby Mukkamala, MD.

The AMA will urge the HHS Office for Civil Rights to revise the definition to include mental and emotional distress. That would give physicians flexibility under the Preventing Harm Exception—based on their professional judgment—to withhold sensitive information they believe could cause physical, mental or emotional harm to the patient.

At the same meeting, the AMA noted the emotional harm transgender people can experience from a designation on a birth certificate.

These proposals are a set, meant to be taken together, to give them the authority and power to make decisions about birth control, drug use, and even life-altering medical procedures on children without input from the parents.

Oh, and one other thing. Probably not even worth bringing up, but apparently they'd like to use the tech monopolies to shut you up.

AMA urges crackdown on medical and public health misinformation by social media companies

On the heels of lengthy campaigns dedicated to bolstering vaccine confidence and advocating for science and evidence in combatting COVID-19, the AMA today adopted policy urging social media companies to further strengthen their content moderation policies related to medical and public health misinformation.

"Content moderation policies." It sounds so benign when you put it that way.

It's not.

"We strongly urge social media companies to further bolster their content moderation of medical and public health information, including enhanced content monitoring, augmentation of recommendation engines focused on false information, and stronger integration of verified health information." 

"Verified health information." Verified by them, of course.

And they're never wrong.

I have nothing but sympathy and compassion for people who genuinely believe that their sex does not match their gender. That is a tough hand to be dealt and I am not interested in making life any more difficult for them than it already is.

However, if the price is that we as a society must believe in fiction, that we must reject biological reality and accept a fantasy, that is a road we should not venture on. It is open to endless mischief and leads nowhere good, no matter what your gender or sex.

__________________

Special thanks to subscriber @JunkerJorge for the hot tip on this article!


P.S. Now check out our latest video: Wait, liberals are the ones who are grateful for America?? 👇

Keep up with our latest videos — Subscribe to our YouTube channel!

Comments

There are 92 comments on this article.

Ready to join the conversation? Start your free trial today.

Access comments and our fully-featured social platform, completely free of charge.

Sign up Now
App screenshot

You must signup or login to view or post comments on this article.