New England Journal of Medicine recommends eliminating assignment of gender on birth certificates


Why bother creating identifiers or differentiators? They are harmful and bring no value to anyone, at least according to the “scientists” at the New England Journal of Medicine.

We currently live in a society that demands that we “follow the science,” especially when it comes to combating COVID-19. Wear a mask. Social distance. Stay home. Do not gather for holidays.  Just listen to the doctors, scientists and other experts, and we will eventually defeat this virus. 

For those of us who have been paying attention, the science seems to be ever-changing. 

But that is not exclusive only to COVID. It is everywhere. If you grew up in the same generation as me, we are now even being told that what we were taught in science in high school was wrong. 

Take biology. Remember in the 6th grade when they took all the guys to the gym and the girls to the cafeteria and made them watch distinctively different films about their biological make-up, how their bodies work and how it relates to the opposite gender?

My school did that. It was 1984 (The irony of that year is not lost on me). 

We learned that there are two genders, and that there are vast biological differences. 

Fast forward 36 years. 

Not only are we now being told that there are infinitely more genders than the correct number of two that we all learned, we are also being told that identifying those male/female designators is unnecessary and potentially damaging.

What you are about to read is equal parts idiotic and mind-boggling, and it has absolutely nothing to do with actual medicine.

Before we dig into this, we must recognize that one of the authors of this study is not a medical doctor, scientist or even a psychologist…but a lawyer. That is why I used quotation marks around the word scientists in the first paragraph.

You are about to see that the vast majority of this is based in legalities, rather than medical evidence. In fact, they even state in the article that sex designations “serve only legal — not medical — goals. Certainly, knowing a patient’s sex is useful in many contexts, when it is appropriately interpreted.”

Secondly, to read the article in its entirety (which I highly recommend), you have to subscribe to the NEJM. It is free, but you have to register with an email address, and you will get updates from them. 

According to the report from the NEJM:

“During the 20th century, as the medical profession assumed greater responsibility for managing childbirth, it also assumed responsibility for completing birth certificates, a process that includes a medical evaluation to categorize each newborn as male or female.

“We believe that it is now time to update the practice of designating sex on birth certificates, given the particularly harmful effects of such designations on intersex and transgender people.

“Designating sex as male or female on birth certificates suggests that sex is simple and binary when, biologically, it is not.”

But sex/gender is simple and binary. 

A study of Genesis shows us that “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” 

But in the genesis of their study, the medical profession has taken more responsibility for completing birth certificates. 

Apparently, the act of filling out the information makes you the arbiter of what information should be provided and what doesn’t matter. 

So, here are a few of the arguments that the authors raise, in no particular order. 

Do you want to join our private family of first responders and supporters?  Get unprecedented access to some of the most powerful stories that the media refuses to show you.  Proceeds get reinvested into having active, retired and wounded officers, their families and supporters tell more of these stories.  Click to check it out.

LET Unity

First, they claim that they want to move the sex of the newborn below the line of demarcation on the birth certificate, meaning it should be information that is statistical in nature only. Why?

Well, because…it fits the narrative. It pushes an agenda. 

“Assigning sex at birth also doesn’t capture the diversity of people’s experiences. About 6 in 1000 people identify as transgender, meaning that their gender identity doesn’t match the sex they were assigned at birth.

“Others are nonbinary, meaning they don’t exclusively identify as a man or a woman, or gender nonconforming, meaning their behavior or appearance doesn’t align with social expectations for their assigned sex.”

In other words, the same people that say “listen to the science” are now saying, “science be damned.”

The facts of being born with either XX or XY chromosomes is completely irrelevant now. All that matters is how you feel and identify. So says the science of the convenient agenda. 

Take Kate Hudson for example. Here is what she said in an interview with AOL. 

“[Having a daughter] doesn’t really change my approach, but there’s definitely a difference,” she told the outlet. “I think you just raise your kids individually regardless — like a genderless [approach]. We still don’t know what she’s going to identify as.”

“I will say that, right now, she is incredibly feminine in her energy, her sounds, and her way,” Hudson explained. “It’s very different from the boys, and it’s really fun to actually want to buy kids’ clothes.”

Does anyone else find the irony and contradiction in Hudson’s statements? 

Yes, girls are very different from boys. 

And how does one raise their child genderless and then refer to that child using gender-based pronouns?

Perhaps ‘she’ is incredibly feminine in ‘her’ energy, ‘her’ sounds and ‘her’ way, because she is a female.  

“Sex assignments at birth may be used to exclude transgender people from serving in appropriate military units, serving sentences in appropriate prisons, enrolling in health insurance, and, in states with strict identification laws, voting.”

There is so much to unpack. 

As a veteran of the US Army, I am not sure I understand the concept of “appropriate military units.” I would welcome someone explaining that to me. 

I live in one of those states that has strict voter ID laws. And I am glad that we require an ID to vote.

If you are a man that identifies as a woman and you legally change your name, then go get a new ID. If you don’t have time to get one before the election, take the court document showing your name change. Problem solved. 

If you simply use a different name that doesn’t reflect your legal identity, that is on you.

“Moving sex designations below the line of demarcation may not solve many of the problems that transgender and intersex people face.

“Controversies regarding bathrooms, locker rooms, and sports participation will continue, regardless of legal sex designations.

“Still, updating the process for reporting sex on birth certificates could be an effective first step.

“Even if the government retains a dichotomous sex-classification system, the system would be based on self-identification at an older age, rather than on a medical evaluation at birth.”

So, it should all be “based on self-identification at an older age, rather than on a medical evaluation at birth?” 

Once again, these medical experts are saying that medical and scientific evidence hold no value. All that matters is a person’s opinion about who they are. 

And, in what I believe to be the most absurd statement of the entire article, the authors write: 

“Governments could also remove gender designations from identification cards altogether and focus more on identifiable physical features and updated photographs.”

Wait. What?

Read that sentence again. I had to read it 5 or 6 times. 

So, let’s get rid of identifiers based off of physical factors and instead rely on identifiers based off of physical factors?

At least 24 years (or more) of college education between these three people and that is the best that they could come up with?

At the end of the day, I am really confused. 

If I claim to be someone I am not, I can be charged cultural appropriation, identity theft, and fraud. 

But millions of people can claim to be something they are not, and the rest of society is required to forget everything science has ever taught us? 

If the recommendations of this study actually take root and inspires change, I hope Texas will let me change the photo on my driver’s license to a Porsche 959. That car was awesome, and that is what I would like to identify as. 


Want to make sure you never miss a story from Law Enforcement Today? With so much “stuff” happening in the world on social media, it’s easy for things to get lost.

Make sure you click “following” and then click “see first” so you don’t miss a thing! (See image below.) Thanks for being a part of the LET family!

Facebook Follow First


Related Posts