New England Journal of Medicine declares sex designations on birth certificates ‘harmful’

Get the latest BPR news delivered free to your inbox daily. SIGN UP HERE

CHECK OUT for best SWAG!

Much like the corrupt media establishment, the New England Journal of Medicine seems only too happy to surrender the last vestiges of credibility it may have in the pursuit of politically correct wokeness.

America’s oldest medical journal has declared that designating a baby’s sex on their birth certificate is harmful to people suffering from gender identity disorder.



A recently published New England Journal of Medicine article said birth certificates should no longer include sex identification because it offers “no clinical utility.”

“Sex designations on birth certificates offer no clinical utility, and they can be harmful for intersex and transgender people,” said the official NEJM Twitter account. “Moving such designations below the line of demarcation would not compromise the birth certificate’s public health function but could avoid harm.”

To get a feel for the insanity that passes for science in post-Obama America, here’s a sampling of the article that could have been written by a college intern doubling as a social justice warrior:

Designating sex as male or female on birth certificates suggests that sex is simple and binary when, biologically, it is not. Sex is a function of multiple biologic processes with many resultant combinations. […]

The biologic processes responsible for sex are incompletely defined, and there is no universally accepted test for determining sex.

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.

Sex designations on birth certificates offer no clinical utility; they serve only legal — not medical — goals.


In the event readers don’t catch the political angle, the Journal article goes to great lengths to ensure it’s not missed, claiming sex assignments “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.”

Here’s a sampling of responses to the story from social media users who insist the NEJM is no longer a serious medical publication.


Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!

Success! Thank you for donating. Please share BPR content to help combat the lies.
Tom Tillison


We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.


Scroll down for non-member comments or join our insider conversations by becoming a member. We'd love to have you!

Latest Articles