The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released new definitions for 'sex,' 'man,' and 'woman', an action that has provoked widespread discussion in health, scientific and policy communities. While proponents believe the revisions bring back biological truth, opponents caution that they will weaken science and harm healthcare policies.

On February 19, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. released new federal guidelines that strictly define sex as an unchanging biological category based on reproductive function. The memo claims that sex is genetically determined at birth and does not change throughout life, making it clear that biological sex cannot be altered by medical treatment or self-identification.

The guidelines establish a female "as an individual who has a reproductive system that produces eggs (ova) and a male as an individual whose reproductive system produces sperm". The memo also indicates that hormone therapy or surgery does not change an individual's biological sex, emphasizing the view that sex is strictly determined by reproductive function. Also, it explains that sexual development disorders are not a third sex because they do not lead to the formation of a new gamete type.

These definitions will now be used in all federal agencies, affirming a binary definition of sex in federal policy and regulations. This action has been met with both approval and disapproval with those in favor believing it brings biological truth back to federal guidelines and those opposed believing it overlooks scientific complexity and may harm healthcare policies for transgender and intersex people.

Supporters of the policy, such as former HHS Office for Civil Rights Director Roger Severino, have praised the move as a return to "science and common sense." The initiative is also linked to an executive order by former President Donald Trump, which required the federal government to recognize only two sexes.

"Today, this administration is restoring common sense and biological reality to the federal government," Kennedy stated.

Its supporters contend that the former strategy, where it acknowledged gender identity in addition to biological sex, introduced uncertainty in the domains of legal protections, health coverage and data collection. They assert that affirming biological definitions will assist in upholding certainty in medical and scientific studies.

"It took a lot of years of work but we are now back to science and common sense," responded Roger Severino, the previous director of the HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR) during the first Trump administration.

Critics Warn of Negative Health and Scientific Impacts

The move has been severely criticized by medical professionals and lobby groups, with the latter citing that the action disregards widely accepted scientific research on gender diversity. The groups argue that the policy fails to support huge bodies of research into gender identity, intersex, and how hormones affect biological sex. Through enforcing strict definitions, critics fear that the guidelines might limit transgender and nonbinary access to critical healthcare services especially those aiming at treating gender dysphoria.

Furthermore, public health research can be held back, since data collection depends on a deeper comprehension of sex and gender in order to appropriately represent diverse groups. The inability to adapt the definitions may compromise scientific progress in medical research and healthcare policies. Moreover, opponents claim that the memo overlooks the important contribution of social and psychological determinants in the development of gender identity, which have been universally acknowledged by medical societies and researchers across the globe.

How The New HHS Guidelines Might Affect Health and Healthcare

The new definitions might have significant implications across several divisions of HHS, impacting key areas like healthcare coverage, public health research, and emergency response planning.

Health Care Coverage and Affordability

Insurance companies and health centers can now be obligated to adhere to strict biological definitions of sex, with the possibility of influencing transgender healthcare service coverage, including gender-affirming treatments. This would create legal confrontations regarding medical discrimination.

Public Health and Disease Control

The epidemic studies tend to examine health hazard by gender identity as well as biological sex. If studies were limited to dual categorizations, they could frustrate attempts at comprehending as well as coping with health gaps among transgender people and nonbinaries.

Emergency Preparedness and Response

Public health interventions, such as emergency response and emergency care, typically take gender identity into account in attending to displaced or vulnerable persons' needs. Such a rigorous biological approach may truncate the utility of these efforts.

Food and Drug Safety

The FDA and regulatory agencies could have issues with approving medications that act differently according to gender identity or hormone treatment. This could affect the treatment plans for transgender individuals with diseases like osteoporosis or cardiovascular disease.

Scientific Research and Innovation

Medical and psychological studies can be impacted by limitations placed on defining gender. Funding for studies of gender identity, hormone interaction, and social determinants of health may be barred.

Helping Families and Communities

Initiatives that support non-traditional family forms, including those with transgender children or parents will be hindered if federal laws fail to acknowledge gender identity as more than an either-or differentiation.

The HHS's newly promulgated definitions of sex, man, and woman are a sweeping policy change with profound implications for healthcare, research and public health. Whereas supporters claim these definitions bring biological clarity, detractors caution they ignore scientific facts and potentially do harm to vulnerable communities. Controversy around the changes will likely persist as policymakers, medical providers and advocacy groups consider the long-term effect on health and society.

The World Health Organization has declared it is unlikely India's deadly Nipah Virus outbreak will cross borders and reach other nations, noting that countries do not need to set any travel restrictions in place.

In an email to Reuters, officials said: "The WHO considers the risk of further spread of infection from these two cases is low". adding that India has the capacity to contain such outbreaks.

"There is no evidence yet of increased human to human transmission," it said, adding that it has coordinated with Indian health authorities.

Earlier this month, two hospital nurses at AIIMS, Kolkata, had tested positive for the infection and were quarantined, prompting widespread testing. As of January 30, five cases, including a doctor and a staff member, were confirmed and nearly 100 people have been quarantined.

While health officials state it is nearly impossible for the virus to transmit across countries and unlikely to cause an international outbreak, countries including Australia, Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore continue to remain on high alert and have begun airport screenings.

Nipah Virus: What Is It And What Are Its Symptoms?

According to WHO, Nipah virus is a zoonotic illness which means it is mostly transmitted from animals to humans through bats. However, it can also spread through fruits that have been contaminated by the saliva, urine or droppings of infected bats. Human-to-human transmission can also occur through close contact with an infected person or their bodily fluids.

The illness has a 75 percent fatality rate and there are no vaccines to protect the public.

The virus was first identified in 1998 during an outbreak among pig farmers in Malaysia and soon made its way to India and Bangladesh in 2001 with cases often involving family members or caregivers tending to infected patient.

READ MORE: Nipah Virus Outbreak In India: How To Stay Safe?

Although Nipah virus has caused only a few known outbreaks in Asia, it infects a wide range of animals and causes severe disease and death in people. Some of its common symptoms include:

• Fever
• Headache
• Breathing difficulties
• Cough and sore throat
• Diarrhea
• Vomiting
• Muscle pain and severe weakness

In 2018, another outbreak occurred in Kerala, India, where 23 confirmed and suspected cases were reported. The virus spread across three hospitals, with both primary and secondary infections traced back to one initial patient.

Samples collected from the patient’s home and workplaces, including pets and partially eaten fruits dropped by bats, all tested negative for the virus, and the exact source of the infection could not be identified.

What Do Doctors Say?

Experts are now cautioning people against the zoonotic nature of the viral infection. Rajeev Jayavedan, the former president of the Indian Medical Association, Cochin, told The Independent, that infection among humans are rare and caused by the accidental spillover due to the human-bat interface, which means consumption of fruits that may have been infected by bats.

“This is more likely in rural and forest-adjacent areas where agricultural practices increase contact between humans and fruit bats searching for food,” he said.

Health and Me previously reported on how doctors are now advising people to be cautious while eating food. Speaking to TOI, Dr Aishwarya R, Consultant, Infectious Diseases at Aster RV Hospital advised people against eating certain food, including fruits fallen from trees, unpasteurized date palm sap and any other fruits without washing.

The doctor explained that this infection can spread with an infected animal which could bite fruits and spread the virus through their saliva.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court, after 19 years, has finally ended the case of medical reimbursement of heart surgery from a non-empanelled hospital. The surgery happened in 2002. This was a government school teacher, Bhupinder Singh, from Government Elementary School, Phus Mandi, Mansa, who had undergone coronary artery bypass surgery at Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre in Delhi. The bill was of Rs. 2,20,677 and Rs 11,000 during his admission from November 18 to 30 that year.

Justice Sudeepti Sharma dismissed the earlier regular second appear filed by the State of Punjab, upholding the 2006 order of district judge, Mansa, that allowed the reimbursement.

The court observed that Singh was referred to the hospital through official government channels after an angiography showed serious cardiac issues. It also noted that Escorts Heart Institute was a recognized center for open-heart surgery under a 1991 Punjab government notification, along with Christian Medical College, Ludhiana, and Apollo Hospital, Madras.

Read: Supreme Court Steps In For 31-year-old's Passive Euthanasia Plea Who Has Been In Vegetative State For 10 Years

The Cycle Of Reimbursement Finally Ends

The judgment referred to official records showing that the referral was made by the Punjab Health Systems Corporation because of the patient’s critical condition. It also relied on a 1995 government instruction stating that prior approval from a medical board is not required in life-threatening emergencies.

The court came down strongly on the delay in deciding the case, expressing anguish over the 19-year wait. The judge noted that reimbursement matters should be settled promptly, pointing out that the patient had been pursuing his claim since 2002, only for it to take nearly two decades to reach a decision.

Justice Sharma noted: “The government should be liberal in framing the policies for medical treatment and reimbursement since a person in pain is not expected to choose the hospital and would prefer the nearest one only.”

Read: Andhra Pradesh May Ban Social Media for Under-16s To Protect Teenagers

One More Medical Expense Case Allowed

In another news, in the case of another government employee asking for reimbursement from a non-panelled hospital, the Punjab and Haryana high Court under the judgment directed the Haryana Government to reimburse the remaining medical expenses of a government employee incurred for the emergency treatment of his wife, in a non-empanelled private hospital. Justice Sandeep Moudgil said that the denial of reimbursement without reasons is arbitrary and violative of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Read: Delhi High Court Permits JNTL to Sell ₹180-Crore ORSL Stock Despite FSSAI Dispute

The court also found a violation of Article 14. It stated that such rigid application or procedural during a pandemic is arbitrary and unequal treatment. The petition was filed by CRPF personnel Balhar Singh, who is seeking the reimbursement for his wife's medical treatment, which were rejected on technical grounds during the COVID-19 pandemic. Singh began his wife's treatment at an empanelled CGHS hospital in Chandigarh, with limited facility, however, he was compelled to seek further cardiac care at a private hospital with better facilities.

"The medical records established that both the petitioner and his wife faced urgent cardiac emergencies, making the treatment unavoidable. The repeated rejection of the petitioner and his wife's medical reimbursement claims during the COVID-19 pandemic amounts to a clear violation of constitutional rights."

Andy Kershaw, the legendary Radio 1 DJ is diagnosed with cancer that has left him "unable to walk". Now 66, Kershaw revealed that tumors found in his spine back in August 2025 has left him unable to walk. He, however joked, as Daily Star reported, "I am determined not to die before Benjamin Netanyahu, Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump and Ant n Dec. That should keep me going for a while."

Kershaw's friend Peter Everett said, "My friend Andy has been going through a difficult time. Last August he was diagnosed with cancer, mainly affecting his spine and making him unable to walk. Since then he has been undergoing treatment, including chemotherapy, radiotherapy, physiotherapy and a lot of scans and painkillers. Although we have not been able to put together any podcasts in the last six months, we are very grateful to all the patrons and supporters who have stuck with us."

Andy Kershaw Diagnosis: What Are Spinal Tumors?

A spinal tumor is an abnormal growth of cells within or surrounding your spinal cord. Spine is a long flexible column of bones that protects the spinal cord. Usually the spinal tumors are located inside of the spinal cord, in the tissues that cover spinal cord, between the tissues and bones of spine, or in the bone vertebrae of spine.

Tumors that develop on spine are called spinal tumors. Most spinal tumors result from cancer metastasis, which means the cancer has spread from another area of your body to your spine. However, Kershaw has not clarified how his tumor was detected and whether it has spread from another cancer in the body.

Spinal Cancer: Malignant Tumors of the Spine

Most spinal cancers develop within the spinal column itself and do not directly involve the spinal cord. Several types of cancer can affect the spine, either by starting there or spreading from other parts of the body. These include:

Osteosarcoma: A form of bone cancer that can originate in the spine, though it is more commonly found in the long bones of the legs, such as the thigh and shin.

Chondrosarcoma: This cancer begins in cartilage cells surrounding the bone. While it is rare in the spine, it can sometimes arise as a primary tumor in the bones that make up the spinal column.

Multiple myeloma: A blood cancer that affects plasma cells. These abnormal cells accumulate in the bone marrow and the outer layer of bones, with the spine being a frequent site of involvement.

Lymphoma: A group of cancers that affect lymphocytes, which are key cells of the immune system. Lymphoma can develop in the spine as a primary tumor, but more often it starts elsewhere in the body and later spreads to the spine.

Chordoma: A rare malignant bone tumor that forms within the spinal column. It can occur anywhere along the spine but is most commonly diagnosed in the sacrum, the bone at the base of the spine.

Ewing sarcoma: A cancer that affects both bone and surrounding soft tissue. It is uncommon in adults and accounts for roughly one percent of childhood cancers.