Activists push to erase women in both language and in law

Gender identity activists—whose agenda is to erase biological sex from law and public policy, with grave implications—are currently pursuing two routes to end sex-based public policy, and the sex-based rights of women and homosexual people in the US.

The first route is via the Equality Act which has collapsed subjective "gender identity," and objective sex, into one meaningless definition. The second route is to remove sex markers from birth certificates.

If either route succeeds, it will be nothing less than catastrophic for sex-based rights: women and girls' single-sex intimate spaces, Title IX sports provision, all-woman political shortlists and scholarships—all will be history, at the stroke of a pen.

It will also be catastrophic for the medical care of both sexes, so this is not solely a women's issue: it's a human issue, and one which threatens to undermine the entire rational, empirical basis for public administration. If you think this issue won't effect you, you're wrong to take comfort from that.

As regards the Equality Act route, Idaho passed a law preventing boys with a transgender sense of identity from competing in girls' sports. The law has been challenged in the case of Hecox v Little. The interests of boys who want to cheat in girls' sports—and the corporate bodies and philanthropists whose wider interests they serve as a cover for—are represented by the ACLU.

Female athletes, represented by the ADF, have intervened in the case to assert sex-based rights against the wrecking effect of gender identity-based laws and policies. The Women's Liberation Front has filed amicus briefs in these cases.

Big-name female athletes with sponsorship deals and positions of political influence to protect—including Billie Jean King and Megan Rapinoe—have intervened in support of men and boys' right to colonize and ultimately destroy female sports, pulling up the ladder behind them despite owing their careers to Title IX.

As regards the erasure of sex from birth certificates, the editors of the once-respected New England Journal of Medicine are doing the trans lobby's bidding by promoting the end of sex markers on birth certificates.

The NEJM claims that sex designations on birth certificates "offer no clinical utility." This is such a bizarre, counterfactual claim from a medical journal that I contacted the editors for comment, as I assumed it must have been some sort of mistake. They declined to comment, presumably fearful for their careers if they fail to genuflect to the vengeful new gods of gender identity.

Anyone who has ever had medical screening or treatment knows that sex matters in medicine. It's a plain fact, so basic as to be beyond question. Every time a patient has a blood test, for any reason, the levels of certain markers in their blood are measured according to a scale adjusted for sex: female or male. There are many significant differences between men and women's bodies, for clinical purposes.

For example, if an adult female's kidney function is measured according to the male lab reference range, she could be in serious trouble that would not be picked up. This precise scenario happened to a trans-identifying female—Cameron Whitley—whose kidney function problem was masked by her extremely inadvisable insistence on being treated as male for medical purposes. Sex matters, and Whitley nearly lost her life as a result of her profound denial that humans can't change sex.

This is just one of countless examples of avoidable, iatrogenic medical harm to a trans-identifying person's health caused by the erasure of sex—a delusion of the patient which is enabled by a mass delusion embedded in the medical industry.

For the vast majority of people who harbour no delusions about their sex, the scope for medical harm is considerable: for a man to receive a transfusion of blood from a woman who has been pregnant can kill him. If blood from females is not marked as female—because some women wish to pretend they are male, despite having given birth—the families of men avoidably killed by the policy of removing sex markers from birth certificates could sue for negligence.

That a reputable medical journal could make this indefensible claim begs a larger question: What political pressure is being applied to the journal that it would undermine basic scientific knowledge in this way?

Intersex conditions have long been weaponized by trans activists as a pretext for abandoning sex as a socially meaningful category. However, intersex—more accurately known as Disorders of Sexual Development, or DSDs—and transgenderism have nothing whatsoever to do with one another: The former refers to a range of rare genetic conditions; the latter refers to a subjective feeling of discomfort with one's sexed body, and the sex role stereotypes attached to them.

People with DSDs are still either female or male, and their sex is observable at birth in all but a tiny number of cases where genetic testing is needed to determine which of two pathways of sexual development they took in utero. There is no such thing as a human hermaphrodite who went down two pathways simultaneously.

The deliberate, strategic conflation of DSDs with transgenderism by gender identity lobbyists is an attempt to grant a cloak of medical respectability to what is otherwise a brazen power grab motivated by a misogynist, body-rejecting ideology, and by profit.

NEJM said "Moving [sex] designations below the line of demarcation would not compromise the birth certificate's public health function but could avoid harm." Once again, this is a bizarre, counterfactual claim. To claim that dispensing with legal and policy recognition of biological sex on the document which records it at birth will avoid harm is rationally indefensible, as the single case of Cameron Whitley amply demonstrates.

Unrecorded, and unrecognized by medical and other authorities, sexual dimorphism will not go away: we will simply witness the acceleration of such institutional insanity as trans-identifying males, whose lives are based around the fetishization of female biology (autogynephilia), clogging up the queue for smear tests and mammograms. Despite having no medical need for these—being male from seven days after conception until death, and beyond—their infantile compulsion will drive them to seek that all-important hit of 'validation,' at the expense of women's access to healthcare. Some women will opt out of medical screening altogether because they are not guaranteed a female medic for intimate procedures.

Meanwhile, women and girls will have to cope with the psychological impact of being described by medical authorities in dehumanizing terms such as
"carrier," "menstruator" and "cervix-haver." We will be forced to adapt to being routinely broken down for parts to make our biology easier to exploit by industries such as surrogacy, pornography and prostitution. As a sex class capable of uniting in defense of sex-based rights, US women will be starting from scratch.

Birth certificates are an objective record of an observable event—birth—and a record of the observable sex of the baby. Without records of the sex of the population, government cannot gather census data. It cannot track sex differentials in disease, longevity, criminality and every other value which differs according to sex.

Without sex markers on birth certificates, both the innate physical differences between females and males, and the concept of same-sex attraction, vanish from view. They can no longer be captured in data, or referred to as material realities. Social sciences, medical science, and law will no longer be able to look at the observable, material, sexed human body.

Those pushing these laws are not concerned about the wider social ramifications, because their focus is intensely narrow: Making the daily lived experiences of people who think of themselves as transgender more comfortable and frictionless. But, beyond that aim, there lies a profit motive: people are easier to manipulate and sell things to if they are completely detached from physical reality, and dissociated from their bodies.

I don't know about you, but I'm not keen on my children inheriting a tech-enhanced pre-Enlightenment world in which basic standards are gone from medical care, girls can't hope to become professional athletes, and boys who would grow up to be gay are presented as straight girls.

We have a limited window of time in which to make as much noise as possible about this wholesale raid on the legal system and public administration by those motivated to deny that sex is real, and that it matters.