[Intl_DxMedPhys] FW: [EXTERNAL] Re: Government, science, censorship

[Hazle,John D]

Nicole,

Please read the article.  It starts with the commonly referenced 1.8% number, but concludes that the real incidence of intersex individuals is more like 0.02%.  I’m trying to stick with science…

John

From: Nicole Ranger <nicoletranger at yahoo.com>
Date: Saturday, February 8, 2025 at 12:20 PM
To: "John Hazle, Ph.D." <jhazle at mdanderson.org>
Cc: "intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list at lists.osu.edu" <intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list at lists.osu.edu>
Subject: Re: [Intl_DxMedPhys] FW: [EXTERNAL] Re: Government, science, censorship

SLOW DOWN! - EXTERNAL SENDER: nicoletranger at yahoo.com

Be suspicious of tone, urgency, and formatting. Do not click/open links or attachments on a mobile device. Wait until you are at a computer to confirm you are absolutely certain it is a trusted source.
If you are at all uncertain use the Report Phish button and our Cybersecurity team will investigate.

Quick reply:  Web MD says 1-2%.  Let’s go with 2%.  2% of 340 million is 6.8 million.  That’s the number of people alone disenfranchised by a rigid biological binary.  (That does not include gender-related disenfranchisement.). We are scientists but more importantly we are medical professionals taking care of real people who have a right to exist and not be erased.

Let this end now. You are free to email me privately, John.

Nicole


Sent from my iPhone


On Feb 8, 2025, at 12:11 PM, Hazle, John D via Intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list <intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list at lists.osu.edu> wrote:
According to the Journal of Sex research, 99. 98% of people are either XX or XY (https: //www. tandfonline. com/doi/abs/10. 1080/00224490209552139). Maybe that’s a good scientific place to start. John From: "John Hazle, Ph. D. " <jhazle@ mdanderson. org>
According to the Journal of Sex research, 99.98% of people are either XX or XY (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224490209552139__;!!KGKeukY!3HyNlTgEv6bYmWSVMoob5e2vRde2Z7eh0E8CBEEN2dR4ODd886WcJx1a1uU67t6Cm2QzsH3Dy3vqNtrOhDv0x7VLBeYa-cm41rgZ07q5$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224490209552139__;!!KGKeukY!3RQQNuFm2-C8n_I1oFg6Bgm34WGL8l4N4N0-Zv_YMINou1BWkb-Cbma9RPQKB7fxWW4N9T0H3axl3x-LTJN4CgTIxLgUtbeoCHslI2i9$>).  Maybe that’s a good scientific place to start.

John


From: "John Hazle, Ph.D." <jhazle at mdanderson.org>
Date: Saturday, February 8, 2025 at 11:19 AM
To: Christina Brunnquell <christina.brunnquell at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Intl_DxMedPhys] Government, science, censorship

According to the Journal of Sex research, 99.98% of people are either XX or XY (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224490209552139__;!!KGKeukY!3HyNlTgEv6bYmWSVMoob5e2vRde2Z7eh0E8CBEEN2dR4ODd886WcJx1a1uU67t6Cm2QzsH3Dy3vqNtrOhDv0x7VLBeYa-cm41rgZ07q5$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224490209552139__;!!KGKeukY!3RQQNuFm2-C8n_I1oFg6Bgm34WGL8l4N4N0-Zv_YMINou1BWkb-Cbma9RPQKB7fxWW4N9T0H3axl3x-LTJN4CgTIxLgUtbeoCHslI2i9$>).  Maybe that’s a good scientific place to start.

John

From: Intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list <intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list-bounces at lists.osu.edu> on behalf of Christina Brunnquell via Intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list <intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list at lists.osu.edu>
Reply-To: Christina Brunnquell <christina.brunnquell at gmail.com>
Date: Saturday, February 8, 2025 at 10:37 AM
To: Gary <garyi at paxradia.com>
Cc: Bob Pizzutiello via Intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list <intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list at lists.osu.edu>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Intl_DxMedPhys] Government, science, censorship

SLOW DOWN! - EXTERNAL SENDER: intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list-bounces at lists.osu.edu

Be suspicious of tone, urgency, and formatting. Do not click/open links or attachments on a mobile device. Wait until you are at a computer to confirm you are absolutely certain it is a trusted source.
If you are at all uncertain use the Report Phish button and our Cybersecurity team will investigate.

If the government is censoring scientific publications, how can we be sure that “the return to xx/xy biology” is appropriate? Thank you Bob for raising this issue as one worth encouraging GRAC and other related AAPM committees to respond to. 
If the government is censoring scientific publications, how can we be sure that “the return to xx/xy biology” is appropriate?

Thank you Bob for raising this issue as one worth encouraging GRAC and other related AAPM committees to respond to. I will join you in that effort alongside additional activism outside of this list and our professional society at the encouragement of our colleague.

Christina

On Sat, Feb 8, 2025 at 9:52 AM Gary via Intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list <intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list at lists.osu.edu<mailto:intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list at lists.osu.edu>> wrote:
Here's a thought.  Everyone who is outraged at the return to xx/xy biology should consider a career change.  Maybe greater satisfaction is awaiting you in the exciting field of activism, or politics.  I think there is a super abundance of forums for just those topics.  But there are very few good forums for medical physics, and I hope everyone will agree that we should stick to physics to avoid ruining this wonderful resource.


---
Thanks,
Gary Isenhower




On Sat, 8 Feb 2025 08:09:58 -0500, Bob Pizzutiello via Intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list <intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list at lists.osu.edu<mailto:intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list at lists.osu.edu>> wrote:

>When politics gets the science wrong, how do responsible scientists
>respond? I am raising a scientific issue of concern.
>
>One of the deeply troubling edicts of the current administration now
>demands retraction of manuscripts in preparation/publication that use
>any of the key words listed in the article below. In recent years
>every hospital I know has been asking medical physicists to advise on
>updating pregnancy policies to address the human and scientific
>reality that the simple terms “male” and “female” do not represent all
>patients. Science is what we do.
>
>20+ years ago our profession struggled when a California Law
>pertaining to CT scanners included numerous errors that put compliance
>in conflict with scientific fact.
>
>Perhaps some of our California colleagues would care to refresh our
>collective memories about the complex challenges they encountered as
>they fought for years to change the legislation to be less at
>opposition with science.
>
>Of course, today’s situation is not based on and legislation.
>
>Finally, I offer my sincere concern to our colleagues at VA, FDA and
>other government agencies who must now face the demand to remove those
>terms while remaining true to the scientific reality that is not as
>simple as binary. They may not choose to be identified, but I plan to
>raise this concern with AAPM’s Government Affairs Committee.
>
>https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/faustfiles/114043?xid=nl_mpt_DHE_2025-02-08&mh=cd63cfb826c6259b492e21ab9143b4a3&zdee=gAAAAABm4uQotrW8bAtCQc20dqv7I4FIVoNn-AjQzXpfT7y1hX3RdbBj0pWPFSXMZr70I1N9IwItsKCOPEDJuK5lBKxdutuJ8LQbsQZpQ3JAJoWoNI617-I*3D&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Weekly*20Review*202025-02-08&utm_term=NL_DHE_Weekly_Active__;JSUl!!KGKeukY!0NuOcE-dyb2YN7RQZzdccCV8lgewnOvd9uF7eTzQRMajI4lBjJGw2yYT40EigeACFfPX2JcFKZ-m5jsUdRyYjrn-GSMmcORecAKmwfhO$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/faustfiles/114043?xid=nl_mpt_DHE_2025-02-08&mh=cd63cfb826c6259b492e21ab9143b4a3&zdee=gAAAAABm4uQotrW8bAtCQc20dqv7I4FIVoNn-AjQzXpfT7y1hX3RdbBj0pWPFSXMZr70I1N9IwItsKCOPEDJuK5lBKxdutuJ8LQbsQZpQ3JAJoWoNI617-I*3D&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Weekly*20Review*202025-02-08&utm_term=NL_DHE_Weekly_Active__;JSUl!!KGKeukY!0NuOcE-dyb2YN7RQZzdccCV8lgewnOvd9uF7eTzQRMajI4lBjJGw2yYT40EigeACFfPX2JcFKZ-m5jsUdRyYjrn-GSMmcORecAKmwfhO$>
>
>We should probably focus any comments on the scientific and ethical
>challenge at hand resulting from this anti-scientific censorship, and
>resist blowing up this list with political rhetoric, no matter how
>strongly held.
>
>Bob
>From Bob Pizzutiello, via iPad
The information contained in this e-mail message may be privileged, confidential, and/or protected from disclosure. This e-mail message may contain protected health information (PHI); dissemination of PHI should comply with applicable federal and state laws. If you are not the intended recipient, or an authorized representative of the intended recipient, any further review, disclosure, use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message or any attachment (or the information contained therein) is strictly prohibited. If you think that you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete all references to it and its contents from your systems.

The information contained in this e-mail message may be privileged, confidential, and/or protected from disclosure. This e-mail message may contain protected health information (PHI); dissemination of PHI should comply with applicable federal and state laws. If you are not the intended recipient, or an authorized representative of the intended recipient, any further review, disclosure, use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message or any attachment (or the information contained therein) is strictly prohibited. If you think that you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete all references to it and its contents from your systems.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.osu.edu/mailman/private/intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list/attachments/20250208/47e1f559/attachment.html>