According to the guardian

[midgemagneto]

Long article

Some good bits

But apparently It's not our sex that led to women getting poorer medical treatment

It was our social identity all along

How insulting
Blame women for how they present themselves for not getting pain relief

Link?

I was so cross ...

www.theguardian.com/science/2021/sep/21/bias-that-blinds-medical-research-treatment-race-gender-dangerous-disparity

I mean it talks about people not wanting to do medical trials with women because they have more complicated hormones abd the. At the end says it's our social identity

I haven’t read the article but it looks like this is the problem with collapsing the distinction between gender as social role, ie the place determined for you in society, and gender as internal sense of identity.
Bad medical treatment for women isn’t an inevitable result of our biological sex, it’s the result of the way the social role of women has been determined.
But given popular gender ideology gives primacy to internal identity rather than social role, you can be forgiven for thinking that is what they are saying. The constant slippage between the two is very dangerous.

Weird, is it not? How she suddenly considers sex to be a social identity? The context is exactly the same - assumptions made about female patients result in inequalities. Some of these assumptions are due to misguided or non-existent medical knowledge, some due to sex stereotypes.

The thing about orchestra auditions concealing sex is no different - some biases in professional musicians are due to perceived sex differences, some due to sex stereotypes - but suddenly she reduces it to social identities alone. Decidedly odd.

And calling our sex or gender (aka the sex stereotypes and sex role stereotypes prescribed and proscribed for us) a social identity is incongruent with her argument anyway.

She talks of "concealing social identity" (auditioning behind a screen so a candidate's sex cannot bias the decision) being erasure. That doesn't even fit her argument.

The article made me angry about poorer healthcare for women. I don't think there was blame cast on women identifying as such - I certainly didn't read it that way.

It's an edited extract from her book. I suspect that some nuances have been skipped.

The Guardian do have form for this.

At some point the guardian is going to peak itself...

The constant slippage between the two is very dangerous.

I'd agree with that.

As for the article itself, I found it decent overall. It was a comparatively plain language style with some good explanations of medical terms and events. I winced at some of the language and also completely understand that it has to be adopted by people who wish to publish in the US.