Guardian article about sex-related differences in health outcomes

[ValueAddedTaxonomy]

An entire, scientifically informed article about the profound and pervasive significance of sex across a wide range of health conditions, providing more evidence (if we needed it) of the reality and significance of material sex. And then the Guardian can't help but add this at the end:

The analysis was limited to data on females and males and could not produce estimates for gender-diverse or sex-diverse groups, highlighting the need for more data spanning the sex and gender spectrums.

Highlighted by whom? By your subeditors? By your marketing teams that want to keep certain reader demographics on board?
What sex spectrum? There is of course a gender spectrum, in that people respond differently to the gender stereotypes that society imposes on them in virtue of their sex. But the study did mention social pressures related to sex as being a partial determination of poorer health outcomes, and in that sense included gender.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/may/01/women-live-more-years-ill-health-than-men-gender-health-gap-study

Complete anti-science wankers.

Worth a complaint, do you think? It seems plainly like a gratuitous bit of editorialising flung onto the end of a factual article.

If I was in the business of insisting on silly phrases like that, I'd quite fancy:

"The study was limited to data on humans that can't fly and could not produce estimates for flying humans, highlighting the need for more data on spanning the flight spectrum".