What’s The Point?
(Undercover operatives got this confidential footage from the last AMA Subcommittee on Documenting Fluid Equity Definitions, which tells a lot.)
Maybe it’s really unfair to call what we do “medicine” any longer; what we increasingly do is to provide a health-camouflaged enforcement arm for the latest social whims deemed acceptable by approved authorities.
COVID-19 proved nothing if not how malleable and corrupt health care has become. So called public health “experts” scuttle to and fro between policy statements unmoored by facts so quickly that they are laughingstocks with everyone who is not a furrow-browed TV propagandist. The history of medi-, uh, health “care” over the couple of decades-plus is one long trail of intimidation, fear peddling, deceit, and plain ‘ol risk aversion ass covering.
Our latest exhibit: the horribly corrupt, utterly ineffectual American Medical Association has now declared that “Sex should be removed as a legal designation on the public part of birth certificates.” The traitors in the so-called “House of Medicine” have a record of selling out doctors and patients that would make the Vichy Regime blush. Unable to demonstrably improve this dying profession, the AMA either embraced this idiocy, was threatened into it, or both. After failing to cure homelessness or racism – two other areas where the AMA issued a strongly worded statement – these unprincipled imbeciles are going after biology.
When something smells bad in the kitchen, we often try to light a candle or spray some canned potpourri around right before company arrives. Even if things still don’t smell right, it’s harder to initially pin down that something is rotten, and pretty soon everyone gets used to the stench. The author of this latest AMA nonsense (redundant, I know) is trying to justify it by highlighting the difference between state birth certificates, and the U.S. Standard Certificate of Live Birth. The former can say – or not – whatever politics dictate, while the latter is “critical” for vital statistics (here tiresomely again, we see health “care” being used as the data vacuum for Big Government).
Willie Underwood III, MD, MSc, MPH might be a perfectly splendid fellow if you met him for lunch, or if he was your consultant. He has a biology (!) degree, and is a urologist with an impressive resume, including a decade of robotics surgery. He also has a master’s in public health, and seems to be very connected, with all the published articles and books, society memberships, board assignments, NIH grants, and LLC founding one finds in a bigwig.
He said, “Assigning sex using binary variables in the public portion of the birth certificate fails to recognize the medical spectrum of gender identity, and can be used to discriminate.” I’m going to make the comfortable assumption that an experienced urologist knows the difference between boys and girls on sight. That someone of his accomplishments would make such a subjectively ridiculous statement can only be explained by politics. This holder of a U.S. patent for co-developing a biomarker for prostate cancer cannot produce a bio-marker for trans- or gender-fluid anything, or he certainly would do so.
Unhampered by any objective data, yet buttressed by the publicly acceptable emotions at the latest AMA cocktail reception, Underwood has produced this language:
“AMA Policy H-65.967, ‘Conforming Sex and Gender Designation on Government IDs and Other Documents,’ states that ‘the AMA supports every individual’s right to determine their gender identity and sex designation on government documents and other forms of government identification.’” Why the hell should the AMA concern themselves at all with how individuals want to be described on government documents??
“Furthermore, the AMA supports efforts to ensure that the sex designation on an individual’s government-issued documents and identification does not hinder access to medically appropriate care or other social services in accordance with that individual’s needs.” And does it? Any one of the 57-plus genders can still roll in to any ER of their choosing and receive care that they may or may not chose to pay for. As for social services…unable to address any serious medical issue, the feeble AMA again goes after nebulous areas for which they cannot be held responsible, with a stand that will make their next banquet attendees feel really good about themselves.
A co-charlatan named Jeremy Toler, MD, from Health Professionals Advancing LGBTQ Equality, says that sex designation on a birth certificate may be actually “unsafe,” and removing it would “reduce unnecessary reliance on sex as a stand-in for gender,” and “’serve as an equalizer’ since policies differ by state.” Trying to make sense of that started to make all the lights in the room swirl and twist like the ending of 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Back here on Earth, Sarah Mae Smith, MD, of the Women Physicians Section (eyeroll) assures us that as race was once on birth certificates, so now biological sex “is being used to undermine the rights of our transgender, intersex, and nonbinary patients.”
Said she, “Sex no longer has a role to play in the jobs people do, and the designation shouldn’t have to be evaluated for something like a job interview.” (Clearly this woman never enjoyed a Friday happy hour at Hooters back when.)
Medici-, sorry, health “care” is increasingly the refuge for those who wish to hide behind fancy abbreviations while they warp their profession into something dishonest and pointless, usually for their own aggrandizement. That appears to be the final purpose of the AMA and their noble delegates.
Monty Python was so far ahead of their time. The clip is funnier now more than ever.
If you don’t designate it, then does that mean quotas based on it, or attempts at equity based on it, should also be eliminated? If you can’t designate it, how can you count it for diversity objectives?
If it is fluid then it can be er be measured and thus diversity attempts should be abolished in favor of merit.
Science and common sense are dead.