I'm stating what the article is saying so that you understand it's not doctors claiming that biological sex doesn't exist. It's that they want to treat it as information that's not for the general public.

I think that any job that has a physical requirement for participation needs to test any candidate for the ability to manage that physical requirement as a condition of hiring. Woman, man, or whatever, if they pass, they pass and get the job. Seems simple enough.

So sure, let women go through BUD/S. If they can make it through the same training and physical requirements as men, they can be SEALs. I don't care. I've never had a problem with that.

This is more so that if a transgender woman shows up at the interview dressed as a woman, with a woman's name, uses she/her pronouns, and then gives a birth certificate as part of the hiring process, the manager can't see that she is biologically male. If it's medically relevant, the manager will have that information, but it creates a necessity to justify access to that information instead of outing every transgender individual on every job application for Kinkos where it could never matter.

I know the position most of you have on transgender information, but it's just about giving transgender individuals a little more privacy and control over who gets to know they're transgender. It's not the AMA rejecting the notion of gender.

I'm stating what the article is saying so that you understand it's not doctors claiming that biological sex doesn't exist. It's that they want to treat it as information that's not for the general public.

I think that any job that has a physical requirement for participation needs to test any candidate for the ability to manage that physical requirement as a condition of hiring. Woman, man, or whatever, if they pass, they pass and get the job. Seems simple enough.

So sure, let women go through BUD/S. If they can make it through the same training and physical requirements as men, they can be SEALs. I don't care. I've never had a problem with that.

This is more so that if a transgender woman shows up at the interview dressed as a woman, with a woman's name, uses she/her pronouns, and then gives a birth certificate as part of the hiring process, the manager can't see that she is biologically male. If it's medically relevant, the manager will have that information, but it creates a necessity to justify access to that information instead of outing every transgender individual on every job application for Kinkos where it could never matter.

I know the position most of you have on transgender information, but it's just about giving transgender individuals a little more privacy and control over who gets to know they're transgender. It's not the AMA rejecting the notion of gender.

I'm stating what the article is saying so that you understand it's not doctors claiming that biological sex doesn't exist. It's that they want to treat it as information that's not for the general public.

I think that any job that has a physical requirement for participation needs to test any candidate for the ability to manage that physical requirement a condition of hiring. Woman, man, or whatever, if they pass, they pass and get the job. Seems simple enough.

So sure, let women go through BUD/S. If they can make it through the same training and physical requirements as men, they can be SEALs. I don't care. I've never had a problem with that.

This is more so that if a transgender woman shows up at the interview dressed as a woman, with a woman's name, uses she/her pronouns, and then gives a birth certificate as part of the hiring process, the manager can't see that she is biologically male. If it's medically relevant, the manager will have that information, but it creates a necessity to justify access to that information instead of outing every transgender individual on every job application for Kinkos where it could never matter.

I know the position most of you have on transgender information, but it's just about giving transgender individuals a little more privacy and control over who gets to know they're transgender. It's not the AMA rejecting the notion of gender.

I'm stating what the article is saying so that you understand it's not doctors claiming that biological sex doesn't exist. It's that they want to treat it as information that's not for the general public.

I think that any job that has a physical requirement for participation needs to test any candidate for the ability to manage that physical requirement a condition of hiring. Woman, man, or whatever, if they pass, they pass and get the job. Seems simple enough.

So sure, let women go through BUD/S. If they can make it through the same training and physical requirements as men, they can be SEALs. I don't care. I've never had a problem with that.

This is more so that if a transgender woman shows up at the interview dressed as a woman, with a woman's name, uses she/her pronouns, and then gives a birth certificate as part of the hiring process, the manager can't see that she is biologically male. If it's medically relevant, the manager will have that information, but it creates a necessity to justify access to that information instead of outing every transgender individual on every job application for Kinkos where it could never matter.

I know the position most of you have on transgender information, but it's just about giving transgender individuals a little more privacy and control over who gets to know they're transgender. It's not the AMA rejecting the notion of gender.

I'm stating what the article is saying so that you understand it's not doctor's claiming that biological sex doesn't exist. It's that they want to treat it as information that's not for the general public.

I think that any job that has a physical requirement for participation needs to test any candidate for the ability to manage that physical requirement a condition of hiring. Woman, man, or whatever, if they pass, they pass and get the job. Seems simple enough.

So sure, let women go through BUD/S. If they can make it through the same training and physical requirements as men, they can be SEALs. I don't care. I've never had a problem with that.

This is more so that if a transgender woman shows up at the interview dressed as a woman, with a woman's name, uses she/her pronouns, and then gives a birth certificate as part of the hiring process, the manager can't see that she is biologically male. If it's medically relevant, the manager will have that information, but it creates a necessity to justify access to that information instead of outing every transgender individual on every job application for Kinkos where it could never matter.

I know the position most of you have on transgender information, but it's just about giving transgender individuals a little more privacy and control over who gets to know they're transgender. It's not the AMA rejecting the notion of gender.