American Medical Association Wants Researchers to Embrace Extremist Gender Ideology

One would think that a person who is pregnant must be, by definition, a woman. Well, according to draft style guidance under consideration by the American Medical Association (AMA), that’s not always the case.

The AMA is now considering codifying the most extreme manifestations of gender ideology into its style guidance for medical publications, with the organization’s Manual of Style Committee calling for public review and comment on its “Draft Guidance on Reporting Gender, Sex, Gender Identity, Sexual Orientation, and Age in Medical and Scientific Publication.”

Commenters can share their thoughts about the proposed guidance with the American Medical Association here.

The proposed guidance advises researchers to use gender-neutral terminology when writing or editing medical literature. For instance, the guidance recommends using “pregnant people” over “pregnant women” in service of gender inclusivity.

“In discussing pregnancy and parenting, use gender-neutral (nongendered) terms that are inclusive of all gender identities, such as pregnant people, pregnant individuals, pregnant adolescents, persons with childbearing potential, parents-to-be, expectant parents, nonpregnant partners, and parents,” the draft guidance reads. “The terms caregiving and caregiver can also be used to be inclusive of nonparents in direct care roles.”

However, the guidance does permit the word “woman” to be used to refer to a pregnant person … so long as the individual’s gender identity is “known.”

“Although there is not universal agreement on use of the term birthing parent, it may be used for clarity in contexts where simply using ‘parent’ could be confusing or too vague,” the draft guidance continues.

If that isn’t contorted enough, the AMA draft guidance also advises researchers not to use the term “mothering” and use gender neutral terms such as “parenting” instead. 

Do No Harm commissioned a poll in July that found 93 percent of black adults prefer the term “mother” to the term “birthing person.”

Many of the recommendations in the draft guidance echo the AMA’s previous commitments to use “inclusive language” – for instance, the guidance recommends using the singular “they” pronoun to refer to individuals whose pronouns are not “known.”

Additionally, the AMA guidance advises the phrase “‘sex assigned at birth” rather than simply sex.

The AMA guidance advises researchers to “avoid the terms born, biological or biologically, or genetic or genetically when referring to birth sex assignment” as these could have “inaccurate and have negative implications.” 

Despite being a scientific organization, the AMA is promoting ideology over biological reality, promoting “sex as a characteristic beyond a binary framework.”

The AMA says this is more “inclusive” of “transgender populations” – but later defines “transgender” individuals as those whose gender identity is different from their “assigned sex at birth.” The AMA seems to thus erroneously conflate sex and gender identity to justify its terminology.

The guidance also defines gender as a “social construct” and cites the controversial gender activist organization GLAAD to buttress this point. 

When defining gender identity, the AMA draft guidance recommends researchers consult “The Radical Copyeditor’s Style Guide for Writing About Transgender People” for more information about how to use verbs referring to gender identity. This “style guide” views language as a means of advancing gender ideology and “serving the ends of access, inclusion, and liberation, rather than maintaining oppression and the status quo.”

The guidance is available for review and comment until September 30, 2024, after which it will be revised and published as guidance from the AMA.

Commenters can share their thoughts with the AMA here.