It's not necessarily obvious that the usage refers to sex, gender issues are fair game for nature as well. This also isn't a publication in nature, it's a PR/news release designed to be accessible.
The statement you are quoting first appears after a paragraph talking about lifestyle and not the first usage of the word which could create ambiguity. The article also does not make an explicit reference to "sex" or "gender" at any point.
> The issue is the political (mis/dis/ab)use of language in all contexts.
While there may be some truth to this statement, this article isn't a particularly striking example.
It is totally obvious that the usage refers to sex. The title is "How the Y chromosome makes some cancers more deadly for men", how much more obvious could it be?
Pre-emptive edit: Given that this is a press release for a broader audience, rather than the primary research, I suppose there might actually be some readers who don't make the connection between "Y chromosome" and "sex".
Ding ding ding. The research articles being cited both explicitly state "sex" and make no disclaimer.
The statement reads as having been added after the fact due to potential ambiguity by not explicitly stating (gender|sex) once and/or misquoting by the audience intended to be reached ("Nature says gender = sex").
The statement you are quoting first appears after a paragraph talking about lifestyle and not the first usage of the word which could create ambiguity. The article also does not make an explicit reference to "sex" or "gender" at any point.
> The issue is the political (mis/dis/ab)use of language in all contexts.
While there may be some truth to this statement, this article isn't a particularly striking example.