Springer Nature would appear to disagree with your assertion.
"Authors should use the terms sex (biological attribute) and gender (shaped by social and cultural circumstances) carefully in order to avoid confusing both terms. Article titles and/or abstracts should indicate clearly what sex(es) the study applies to. Authors should also describe in the background, whether sex and/or gender differences may be expected; report how sex and/or gender were accounted for in the design of the study; provide disaggregated data by sex and/or gender, where appropriate; and discuss respective results. If a sex and/or gender analysis was not conducted, the rationale should be given in the Discussion. These guidelines apply to studies involving humans, vertebrate animals and cell lines."
https://www.springernature.com/gp/policies/book-publishing-p....
>> sex assigned at birth... female sex assigned at birth
> As an aside - in a scientific article, this is insane language to use and really calls into question the assumptions and conclusions.
Injecting political ideology into what is supposed to be factual findings is wrong.
In scientific writing, such as studies like this - just the facts please. Anything else opens questions about motivations, conclusions, etc.
This is a good point. Once a scientific term becomes politicized by its usage outside of clinical settings, it ceases to be scientific.
For example, weight has become politicized so when you read something like “7lb 5oz infant” in a study you can just throw the whole thing in the trash because the researcher has clearly gone Woke.
You are making my point even stronger... and weight being political is news to me.
You’re telling me buddy! People actually think that doctors weigh babies and write down the numbers they see on the scale when everybody really smart knows they measure infant Mass by measuring their liquid displacement and multiplying it by the density of the standardized homogenous baby slurry provided by NIST.
It’s like dang John Stewart in every delivery theater I tell you what
A birth certificate is not a scientific writing. A study of the affects of MDMA on PTSD is.
I’ll cheers to that! It is important that we do not include words like “assigned female at birth” in any scientific writing because
But those are just very precise facts? Clarifying that they refer to "female sex assigned at birth" is strictly less ambiguous than "female".
Take a look at your statements and tell me you are arguing from a scientific standpoint and not one from your own personal political ideology. You cannot, in good faith, make this claim.
I will not engage any further in a political debate about this subject here. My point was political ideology statements should not be in scientific writing because they are political, the language changes with the political climate, and the language is imprecise. People reading scientific writings 100 years in the future should not have to wonder what political climate the paper was written in.
Scientific writing should not be a product of it's date and political climate.
That's a strawman argument about semantics ("assign" in English does not always mean "soviet-style"), which I'm not going to bother engaging with.
> Scientific writing should not be a product of it's date and political climate.
By virtue of using language, it virtually always is. For example, the common/acceptable way of referring to ethnicities changed over time. It's virtually impossible in anything involving humans to have language (and therefore scientific language) not evolve over time.
> From a scientific standpoint, Female and Male are clearly defined.
And how do you distinguish the "scientific" female and male from the "colloquial" female and male, without leaving it ambiguous according to the "political background" of the reader? Or rather, what if, in a purely hypothetical future English, "female" and "male" refer unambiguously to the gender people identify as? It seems like you would like scientific writing to conform specifically (and only) to what you consider acceptable language _right now_, and are not actually particularly interested in accessibility to future readers.
Expectations of eg emotional stoicism in men preclude eg certain platonic intimacies that are common among women. Gendered relationship norms significantly influence our mental and physical health. It would be unscientific to presume they were physiologically congenital. For that reason, it makes sense to refer to study participants by their "sex assigned at birth," rather than presuming any overlap between socialized gender and congenital sex. Remember, in scientific inquiry, precision is key.
Further, I’d speculate MDMA is not obviously harder on the body than adderall or other stimulants currently legal for ADHD.
This seems a bit of a premature statement. The long term usage affects of MDMA use can be very costly, and I suspect long term use of something that provides artificial "feel good" emotion will have a tremendous downside for people who are already struggling with normality.
> sex assigned at birth... female sex assigned at birth
As an aside - in a scientific article, this is insane language to use and really calls into question the assumptions and conclusions.