Yesterday, I posted a clip of a doctor, Nisha Verma, testifying on the Senate floor and persistently refusing to answer the question "Can men get pregnant?"
The thing is, there is in fact zero controversy over who can get pregnant and who can't. Despite all the comments ridiculing Dr. Verma for her ignorance of basic biology and wondering how it is that she has a medical license, she obviously doesn't believe biological men can get pregnant. Since the senator repeatedly clarified that he was asking about biological men, why didn't she just answer the question? It really shouldn't be hard, even for someone who supports the right of "trans people" to identify as whatever.
Suppose for example that I were to show you the below photo and ask, "Is it possible that this man is Norwegian?"
A reasonable answer might be: "The man in the photo is clearly racially Australian, not Norwegian. However, while he is not ethnically Norwegian, it is entirely possible that he could be a citizen of Norway and thus be for legal purposes just as Norwegian as any other citizen."
Is that so hard?
The context of the above "Can men get pregnant?" clip was a discussion of the availability of abortion pills. Another senator, having received a non-answer from Dr. Verma, had turned to another doctor who was more forthcoming:
"Can men get pregnant?""No.""Is there any reason why men should get their hands on the abortion drug?""None.""And are they getting their hands on an abortion drugs?""They are.""And are they getting them through the mail across state lines?""They are.""Even when it is illegal and the people have decided within states that they want to prevent that?""They are. And I would just add that that is because there is a concerted effort to prevent any accountability and any human contact. So they go to anybody who asks for them. They do not identify now in many states the prescriber, the pharmacy or the recipient. And so this is very dangerous. It is by design created that way in order to circumvent Dobbs.""Is it easy for men to get abortion drugs across state lines?""Extraordinarily.""In fact, I had staff members who said, 'My name is Michael. How do I get abortion drugs?' Would it surprise you to know that there are all kinds of organizations ready to satisfy that whim of a man to get abortion drugs?""Sadly, it does not surprise me."
It was after this exchange that the other senator pressed Dr. Verma for a straight answer on whether or not men can get pregnant. If I had been in her shoes -- a pr-abortion, pro-"trans" doctor faced with that question -- here's what I would have said:
Of course no one is suggesting that biological males can become pregnant. However, there are trans men who identify as men, present as men, and have male names but who are biologically female and thus can get pregnant. It has been presented as problematic that a man named Michael should be given access to abortion drugs. However, it is entirely possible that a man named Michael could be trans, could be pregnant, and should have the same access to reproductive health care as any other pregnant person. Regardless of anyone's political opinions on trans issues, it is simply a fact that a person's capacity to become pregnant cannot necessarily be judged by that person's name or physical appearance. No, biological males can't get pregnant -- and no, we can't assume that someone who says "My name is Michael" is necessarily a biological male.
How hard was that? Why did Dr. Verma prefer to make a laughingstock of herself rather than give some such answer?
Because she knows that, despite the fact that literally everyone in the world knows it is true, you are not allowed to say that "trans men" are biologically female. In theory, "trans" proponents insist that biological sex and gender identity are two entirely different things. In practice, only the latter can be acknowledged as real and important.
No comments:
Post a Comment