What was once important lancet Medical journals did their best to redefine sexism through gender ideologues, abandoning any pretense of “science” along the way.
It is important to “ensure that individuals of a different gender than their own are represented in research data.” lancet I solemnly declare in the latest words problem.
“Sex includes chromosomes, anatomy, and endogenous hormones, while gender is defined in terms of gender identity, gender expression, and sexual modality (i.e., whether a person is cisgender or transgender). “It is a multidimensional construct that can be captured,” the magazine explains.
It goes on to say that gender “refers to aspects of a person’s identity.” “When considering gender, keep in mind that an individual's gender exists on a spectrum, can change over time, and intersects with other aspects of identity such as age, ethnicity, and sexual orientation. It’s worth it.”
by lancetAccording to the calculations, sex is an observable, objective anatomical phenomenon (this is the domain of science), whereas gender is a fog of how a person views themselves at a given moment. It encompasses such gray areas that it inexplicably overrides biology.
To be true to gender ideology, scientists must pretend not to know whether a person is male or female and abandon empirical observations if they conflict with the patient's current thinking. It won't.
Gone are the days when gynecologists treated women. Now, at least by then lancet’s distorted standards — they treat individuals with two X chromosomes regardless of whether they “identify” as women or not.
Systematically deconstructing biology, the authors also baselessly take a swipe at English grammar, stating that gender expression is defined as “how a person outwardly expresses themselves in the face of gendered forces.” It is painfully argued that it means “?”. This kind of twisted syntax should make the author fail 7th grade English.
“Current data collection practices often conflate sex and gender and are not sufficiently accurate, but evidence-based It’s invisible.” lancet laments, but does not mention the even worse invisibility of people who think they are frogs.
Over the past few years, lancet They accepted ideological positions that had little to do with medicine and drifted further and further away from their original mission. It was founded in 1823 as a medical journal. lancet has squandered its hard-earned moral and scientific capital on issues like climate change, immigration and gay rights, evolving into a voice for what it calls “progressive politics.”
In 2019, lancet published a five-part series of articles on “Gender Equality, Norms, and Health” denouncing the conservative “backlash” against global LGBTQ issues.
“A progressive agenda that demands gender equality for girls and women and gender norms that promote the health and well-being of all people, including sexual minorities.” lancet The authors write that these include “opposing toxic masculinity” and “promoting lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) justice.”
If Britain's leading medical journal has fallen to this extent, we can only lament the death of serious medical journalism.
