Good question
/
"Why is there no data on any genders other than males and females getting COVID?"
Peter Heck:
“[A]s Erickson points out, the sexual revolutionaries of the LGBTQQIP2SAA left, have reflexively forced "sex" into the category of social construct as well:
Sex is far more diverse than we acknowledge when we ask whether a baby is male or female. It cannot be neatly defined by our genitalia, hormone levels, reproductive structures, or brain structure. And as people with intersex traits make exceptionally clear, even chromosomes are a poor guide.
“And notice it's not just in peer-reviewed academic journals that you find this kind of thing. The "sex is a social construct" philosophy is firmly entrenched in pop culture as well. That's why Erickson, Allie Beth Stuckey, and others received Twitter bans for calling a biological man, Lauren Hubbard, a man.
“Therefore, the question remains a legitimate and significant one – why is there no reported data on the COVID infection and hospitalization rates of other genders/sexes? If we are searching for trends and traits that lead certain portions of the population to be particularly vulnerable, it seems like such information would be pertinent. But it's not there. Anywhere.
“Let me propose what I think is the most logical answer to the question. There is no data on the "other genders/sexes" because our medical professionals are fighting a real, legitimate, serious problem and don't have time to waste on puerile and illegitimate social crusades that aren't based in reality. Talking about newly invented terms like "nonbinary," "omnigender," and "pangender" are fine for the political and media class that have little in the way of meaningful work on their agenda.
“Serious people with actual, consequential responsibilities don't have time to mess with these kinds of anti-science absurdities. That's why the medical professionals aren't spending manpower and money to try to track down data on something so silly and superfluous.”
