[–] zuubat 1 points Edited

OMG. They used, repeatedly, the words "men" and "women" absent qualifiers like "biological," "born as," "natal," or "cis."

I am genuinely puzzled how this article was published in the Year of Our Lord 2022.

Retraction, groveling apology coming in 10, 9, 8 ...

P.S. Just realized the title writer hoped to avoid said retraction and apology by inserting "biological" in front of "sex." But ... (as the NYT would write) will it be enough?

This was on the front page of Google News today. Looks like the media briefly remembered that biological sex is a real thing!

Am I being cynical if I think that's because it's about men's health in particular, of course everyone then suddenly recalls the differences between men and women.