Can men become pregnant?
Not long ago, this question would have seemed absurd to almost anyone. Yet, Dr. Nisha Verma, a senior adviser with the nonprofit Physicians for Reproductive Health, found herself in a tricky spot when Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Missouri) brought up the topic during a Congressional hearing on abortion pills.
“I care for people with different identities,” Verma said, hesitating somewhat as she navigated Hawley’s line of questioning.
“The goal is simply to establish biological reality,” Hawley remarked. “You previously mentioned that science and evidence should be the guiding factors, not politics. So let’s see if that holds true: Can men get pregnant?”
This doctor, likely knowledgeable in human reproduction, ventured into territory that could impact her image.
She described “yes/no questions” as a political maneuver and contended that Hawley’s inquiries oversimplified a more complex issue, making it polarizing.
One might wonder if she leveled similar criticisms at her professors while studying at the University of North Carolina.
However, admitting that men cannot give birth would be embarrassing for Verma, who stands as a Democratic witness within a progressive framework that often prioritizes identity and ideology over objective truth and science.
She isn’t the only one in this predicament.
Recently, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito posed a straightforward question to attorney Kathleen Hartnett regarding a state law that prohibits transgender athletes from competing in women’s sports.
“What does being a boy or girl mean in terms of equal protection?” Alito inquired.
“There is no definition for the court,” Hartnett replied, representing transgender athletes.
Alito’s response was, “How can a court decide on discrimination based on sex without understanding what sex entails for equal protection purposes?”
It raises the question: what’s really happening here? We’re dealing with basic biological definitions that these professionals in medicine and law seem to struggle with, or perhaps prefer to avoid discussing.
This week has been particularly absurd for progressives, who continue to appear unserious, despite labeling themselves as the science party and posting signs proclaiming beliefs they hold dear.
Activists have used language to create an alternate reality that aligns with the views of the transgender minority.
People who are not transgender are termed “cisgender,” indicating their gender is “assigned at birth” by a physician. This terminology seems ludicrous, almost visualizing a doctor carelessly declaring an F or M based on some random system.
It’s a deliberate attempt from the left to blur traditional gender boundaries and silence those brave enough to call it for what it is—a bunch of nonsense. In fact, previously, simply misidentifying a person’s gender could lead to repercussions, including social media bans that prompted Elon Musk to acquire Twitter in 2022.
During her 2022 Supreme Court confirmation hearing, Ketanji Brown Jackson was asked by Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) to define “woman.”
“No, I can’t… I’m not a biologist,” she answered, seemingly unbothered by the political risk.
Through control of cultural institutions, activists and well-meaning liberals aimed to create a new landscape where sex is fluid and identity supersedes scientific fact.
But we’ve moved on from 2022. The fear of social justice backlash isn’t as paralyzing anymore. Call us transphobic or bigoted—it really doesn’t change the conversation about straightforward facts that contradict sensitive worldviews.
Our society is slowly shaking off the pressure from policing values.
If the left prefers to stay lost in a metaphorical political desert for another four years, that’s their choice.
Ultimately, one cannot change their gender, and men cannot give birth. Acknowledging this seems to be common sense.
