A so-called science journal is being raked over the coals for claiming there is “no foundation in science” for defining someone’s gender based on the genitals they were born with.

An editorial in the international journal of science, Nature, declared that the “move to classify people on the basis of anatomy or genetics should be abandoned.”

The op-ed was in response to a proposed US Department of Health and Human Services plan to use the genitals one is born with to establish a legal definition of whether they are male or female.

Editorial: The US Department of Health and Human Services proposes to establish a legal definition of whether someone is male or female based on the genitals they are born with. This proposal has no foundation in science and should be abandoned. https://t.co/GakJypiEED — nature (@nature) November 20, 2018

According to Nature:

The proposal — on which HHS officials have refused to comment — is a terrible idea that should be killed off. It has no foundation in science and would undo decades of progress on understanding sex — a classification based on internal and external bodily characteristics — and gender, a social construct related to biological differences but also rooted in culture, societal norms and individual behaviour. Worse, it would undermine efforts to reduce discrimination against transgender people and those who do not fall into the binary categories of male or female.

The idea that gender is a “social construct” and that there is no scientific foundation for the proposal sparked instant backlash on social media.

To say “this proposal has no foundation in science” is nonsense. The genitals one is born with show overwhelming correlation with one’s self-assessed gender, as predicted by evolutionary theory. If we grant Nature’s claim, we condemn the study of complex phenomena to a dark age https://t.co/I3gPra3lYa — Bret Weinstein (@BretWeinstein) November 20, 2018

Actually has complete and solid foundation in science. — Christina (@justagirl_75) November 21, 2018

No foundation in science? Not even a little bit? It’s oddly correlated for a phenomenon with no found. Maybe you forgot what science is? — Jarful of Love (@Akev4262F) November 20, 2018

Is there a geneticist in the house? Someone please explain to the editors what a Y chromosome is and what its function is. — Travis Fields (@calitrav) November 20, 2018

Actually, it is derived 100% from science. Arguments for fluid or multiple genders is sociological and political, I mean unless the physical sciences were unable to pin it down even after mapping the genome and all — Jeremy Palo (@scoobs2254) November 20, 2018

The op-ed’s remarks on the plan’s effect on those born with several variations in sex characteristics also generated a load of reactions.

So when someone is born with both we will have a law invalidating them? Not happening, I’ll vote against any such archaic notions each and every time in this foul year of our lord, 2019. — In My Name (@WaldorffLobster) November 20, 2018

Your statement references biological sex (male and female) based on genitals is not based on science, but seem to conflate that biological state with gender expression.

Biological sex is male, female, and ~2% intersex, and it correlates w/genitals 98%+ of the time. — Please Don’t Forget Asia Bibi & Dina Ali Lasloom (@ChuCheeFace) November 20, 2018

Yes, biological mutations can occasionally create ambiguity in sexual classification. But these are edge cases. For the overwhelming majority of the population, your assertion is demonstrably false. Such motivated reasoning in a science journal is disappointing. — Simmo (@mirzsky) November 20, 2018

And by “most transactivists aren’t intersex” I’d say almost 0 are. They continually use intersex people as pawns. And they often “other” them as a third sex when the vast, vast majority of intersex people are clearly male or female with a developmental abnormality. Needs to stop. — Natural Top (@NaturalTop) November 20, 2018

“The research and medical community now sees sex as more complex than male and female, and gender as a spectrum that includes transgender people and those who identify as neither male nor female. The US administration’s proposal would ignore that expert consensus,” the Nature op-ed stated.

“The idea that science can make definitive conclusions about a person’s sex or gender is fundamentally flawed,” it continued.

The so-called science journal also presented a very non-scientific argument.

Political attempts to pigeonhole people have nothing to do with science and everything to do with stripping away rights and recognition from those whose identity does not correspond with outdated ideas of sex and gender. It is an easy way for the Trump administration to rally its supporters, many of whom oppose equality for people from sexual and gender minorities. It is unsurprising that it appeared just weeks before the midterm elections.

The publication’s attempt to get political – and naturally blame President Trump – was not received well.

This article is political opinion and has no place in a scientific magazine — Defender of Truth (@billpu63) November 20, 2018

It’s post modernist fantasy fiction. — GordonFreeman (@BlackMesaResrch) November 20, 2018

I cancelled my Nature subscription some years ago. If I hadn’t, I certainly would after this. If birth genitalia (observable) has ‘no foundation in science’, then science has no objective basis and might as well be abandoned. — Sage Vals (@SageVals) November 20, 2018

Yeah, I have no interest in the mental gymnastics that it would take to get on board with your weird ideology. Your attempt to make the exception the rule is clearly political. — Frank (@frankegiardina) November 20, 2018

Science corrupted by zeitgeist. The subtle influence of herding pressures. No one or group is immune. — Taylor Boyd (@boyd_tfairboyd) November 20, 2018

The fact that one of the most prestigious scientific journals in the world is throwing away its credentials and credibility by dying on a hill as absurd as this is truly horrifying. — Somillian Hiigara (@SomilliBurd) November 20, 2018