Syndicated radio host and conservative commentator Erick Erickson (full disclosure: I worked for Erickson a couple years writing for his "Resurgent" website) asked a very intriguing question recently that is not getting nearly enough attention.
"Why is there no data on any genders other than males and females getting COVID?"
It may seem an intentionally provocative question, tailor-made for culture warrior types. But in truth, there's a fundamentally instructive point being made by Erickson that progressive sexual revolutionaries are desperate to shroud.
If you go to the CDC's COVID tracker page, you can find more demographic data for infections than you know what to do with: race, ethnicity, age, geographic location, urban, rural, socioeconomic, sex, and so much more. Yet when you click on sex, this is what you see:
Two genders. Male/Female. Nothing on the COVID numbers of agenders or androgynous, bigenders or butch, genderfluids or gender outlaws, genderqueers or gender expansive, trans or two-spirit. Why is that?
Now, being fair to those progressive culture warriors who have forced us all into this crucible of confusion, the obvious response would be to castigate Erickson and anyone who questions this by pointing out the supposed difference between sex and gender. Sex is based on biology, the argument goes, while gender is a social construct that is based on expression and self-perceived identity.
But as Erickson points out, the sexual revolutionaries of the LGBTQQIP2SAA left, have reflexively forced "sex" into the category of social construct as well:
Sex is far more diverse than we acknowledge when we ask whether a baby is male or female. It cannot be neatly defined by our genitalia, hormone levels, reproductive structures, or brain structure. And as people with intersex traits make exceptionally clear, even chromosomes are a poor guide.
And notice it's not just in peer-reviewed academic journals that you find this kind of thing. The "sex is a social construct" philosophy is firmly entrenched in pop culture as well. That's why Erickson, Allie Beth Stuckey, and others received Twitter bans for calling a biological man, Lauren Hubbard, a man.
Therefore, the question remains a legitimate and significant one – why is there no reported data on the COVID infection and hospitalization rates of other genders/sexes? If we are searching for trends and traits that lead certain portions of the population to be particularly vulnerable, it seems like such information would be pertinent. But it's not there. Anywhere.
Let me propose what I think is the most logical answer to the question. There is no data on the "other genders/sexes" because our medical professionals are fighting a real, legitimate, serious problem and don't have time to waste on puerile and illegitimate social crusades that aren't based in reality. Talking about newly invented terms like "nonbinary," "omnigender," and "pangender" are fine for the political and media class that have little in the way of meaningful work on their agenda.
Serious people with actual, consequential responsibilities don't have time to mess with these kinds of anti-science absurdities. That's why the medical professionals aren't spending manpower and money to try to track down data on something so silly and superfluous.
Now, maybe there's another reason that is more plausible as to why we don't see these numbers reported. Maybe there's another explanation why these identity and label games are played almost exclusively in unserious professions, and in a social media fantasy world dominated by juvenile participants. I'm willing to listen to those, of course.
But if it turns out that my guess is right, will the rest of us, like the medical world, be allowed to opt out of engaging the narcissistic semantic nonsense and just stick with science too?
