In an article about South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem banning biological boys and men from competing in women’s sports, CNN news reporter Devan Cole claims that the executive orders signed by Noem refer to “biological sex,” which he claims is a “disputed term.”
“Though the two executive orders signed by Noem do not explicitly mention transgender athletes, they reference the supposed harms of the participation of ‘males’ in women’s athletics — an echo of the transphobic claim, cited in other similar legislative initiatives, that transgender women are not women,” Cole writes. “The orders also reference ‘biological sex,’ a disputed term that refers to the sex as listed on students’ original birth certificates.”
Interesting moving of the goalposts there, as I thought LGBT activists simply saw “biological sex” and “gender identity” as separate things. But, apparently, Cole doesn’t see much difference. According to him, “It’s not possible to know a person’s gender identity at birth, and there is no consensus criteria for assigning sex at birth.”
So, I guess gender identity and biological sex are self-determined? Is anyone else confused here?
And what exactly does he mean that there is “no consensus criteria” for assigning sex a birth? Sorry, buddy, but I’ve never met anyone who has said that their doctor couldn’t determine the sex of a child at birth. Like a true or false question on an exam, you’ve got two choices, and it’s not hard.
Paging @devancole1. There absolutely is consensus for determining a child's biological sex at birth. #science pic.twitter.com/RXMG7BdtaQ
— Matt Margolis (Gab/MeWe/Heroes: @MattMargolis) (@mattmargolis) March 31, 2021
Doctors have been announcing the sex of newborns in delivery rooms long before the concept of “gender identity” became a thing, and to this day, they still do. Regardless of political agenda, that has always been the standard. While some (crazy) parents may insist on a gender-neutral birth certificate, that decision, as stupid and anti-science as it is, has been the decision of the parents, not the doctors who know that biological sex isn’t a social construct.
Where exactly does Cole get the idea that “biological sex” is a disputed term?
Cole’s “evidence” is an article from Boston Review, which is not a medical or science magazine, but a left-wing non-profit group, which claims in its headline that “Science Won’t Settle Trans Rights,” and declares in the subtitle “Appeals to the biological facts conceal a deeper contest over political equality—and scientific authority itself.”
Wow, it’s like the whole point of the article is to say that a political agenda and feelings trump scientific fact.
Do you see what’s going on here? For years now the political left has been distorting the concepts of consensus and science to justify their political agenda. According to the left, man-made climate change is a fact, and there’s scientific consensus on this point. This is false, but nevertheless, the left believes this to be the case, and claims that science is on their side, basing their claim on the oft-cited myth that 97 percent of sciences agree that man-made climate change is real.
Now, when it comes to biological sex, suddenly, the left is suggesting that science is not relevant, and claims there’s no consensus on the issue of biological sex.
Keep in mind that Cole’s bizarre claim that there is “no consensus criteria for assigning sex at birth” isn’t expressed as part of an opinion piece, but rather it is casually written as part of a straight news story attacking Noem’s executive orders.
Yes, Cole’s claim that “biological sex” is a disputed term was actually written in a news piece. Wrap your head around that.
Please, Devan Cole, go watch Kindergarten Cop.
_____
Matt Margolis is the author of Airborne: How The Liberal Media Weaponized The Coronavirus Against Donald Trump, and the bestselling book The Worst President in History: The Legacy of Barack Obama. You can follow Matt on Twitter, Gab, Facebook, MeWe, Heroes, Rumble, and CloutHub.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member