Keeping thousands of doctors across the country up to date on the latest science and research is not easy. Most of us receive various medical journals each month, and they’re generally a good source of information. For this to be helpful, however, the journals and their content must be trusted. For example, if a journal was owned by Pfizer, the articles in that journal about Pfizer drugs might be questioned, and thus, less valuable. Which is why these journals go to great pains to maintain and demonstrate their impartial, objective viewpoints. Otherwise, why read them?

During the Clinton administration, JAMA (The Journal of the American Medical Association) ran an article about a “research study” which supposedly demonstrated that a majority of American youth do not view oral sex to be real sex, which therefore supposedly demonstrated that when Bill Clinton famously said, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinski,” he was not directly lying. Now, the American Medical Association is not a great measure of the viewpoint of American physicians (I don’t belong to it – last I heard less than 6% of American physicians did belong to it – long story why – that’s another post…), but still, they were attempting to use their influence to shape public opinion. These are dangerous waters. They were willing to risk making themselves look silly, and lose the reputation they had built up over the course of decades, simply to provide temporary cover for a favored politician. I made a mental note to take what I read in JAMA with a grain of salt. And then this week, I receive this medical journal in the mail:

This journal has not one, but two articles about transgender medicine. One is presented in a similar format to the typical diagnosis and treatment articles that you might read in a medical journal. The other is presented as an editorial. The writing styles and content are similar.

Check out the words used in the editorial: Care, committed, advocacy, biologic sex, inclusive, diverse, gender identity, unique, and continuity. What makes that list even more remarkable is that all of those words are found in the first sentence of the editorial. That is remarkable. It reads like satire. The Babylon Bee could post this article with no alterations.

The “science-based” article states that there are over 1.5 million Americans who identify as transgender. For comparison, there are about 1.2 million Americans who identify as Presbyterian. I’ve been practicing medicine for over 20 years. I’ve treated lots of Presbyterians, but I’ve never encountered a transgender patient. I’m not sure what to make of their stats, but Miss Lewinsky cautions me to take them with a grain of salt.

The article helpfully provides some definitions:

“Transgender describes persons whose experienced or expressed gender differs from their sex assigned at birth.”

Wow. Ok, so their experienced gender means, I guess, how they feel about themselves today. Or something. Man, their definitions need definitions. And I love the phrase, “sex assigned at birth.” Assigned by who? On what basis might their sex have been “assigned?” I wonder if that basis for their “sex assignment” might be relevant to the topic of this article? They don’t say. That’s a lot of very careful, awkward phrasing with no possible purpose except to avoid reality.

Avoiding reality is generally unhelpful in scientific articles.

Another definition:

“Gender dysphoria describes distress or problems functioning that may be experienced by transgender and gender-diverse persons; this term should be used to describe distressing symptoms rather than to pathologize.”

Ok, first, you can’t put a phrase like “gender-diverse person” into a definition without defining it. I have no idea what one of those is. The mind boggles. Please help me with that.

Next, a phrase I’ve never seen in a medical journal: “this term should be used to describe distressing symptoms rather than to pathologize.” I was previously unaware that the word “pathology” could be used as a verb. Pathology essentially means disease. I think they’re saying that when you “pathologize” something that you’re describing it as a disease. And I think their point is that we shouldn’t do that to common, normal, healthy behaviors, like transgenderism.

Just as a reminder, this article was written by physicians, in a scientific journal. Or apparently, as Andrew Klavan would say, a former scientific journal.

I won’t review the entire article. I have better things to do than write silliness like that, and you have better things to do than read it.

The modern left is beyond satire.

And now, their experienced dysphoria has pathologized my beloved medical journals. It’s tragic. It really is.

So now, I’m not even allowed to study medical research without having Democrat talking points shoved down my throat. It’s everywhere. Like a metastatic cancer.

With a similar impact on the host.