I want to see this video posted on every clear-thinking person’s Facebook page to force the woke and obstinate of the Mad Left to try to defend this doctor’s response, or rather non-response. I want to have progressives with any semblance of integrity take this ethics test and pass by saying, “Yes, to simultaneously argue that science and not politics should govern policy and then refuse to answer ‘No, of course not to the question, ‘Can men get pregnant?’ is ludicrous, and shows that the Democrats are deep into ‘1984’ territory.”
I have a trans daughter now. I love hi…her—30 years habits are hard to break—unconditionally, and support her life choices whatever they are…BUT she is still a biological male, having a Y chromosome. (Intersex is an exception, estimated at .5% to 1.7% of the population, probably on the lower end, that proves the rule, and is too rare to be relevant in this conversation.) Deliberately denying facts to avoid dealing with a policy position’s weaknesses, flaws and problems is cowardly and unethical.
Shake this video in front of your progressive friends and relatives like a Jack Russell shakes a rat and make them respond, one hopes with more integrity to the ridiculous Dr. Verma. She needs to enter the Federal Cowardly Idiot Protection Program.
_________________
*For the culturally deprived: this was the go-to babbling by bus driver Ralph Kramden (Jackie Gleason) on “The Honeymooners” when he was caught, usually by his wife, beyond salvation in a lie, a scheme, or one of his inevitably disastrous deceptions.
Ethics Alarms 
To me, Dr Verma’s crime is to not stand behind her convictions. I don’t think it’s hard not inaccurate to say “it’s rare, but there are biological women who identify as men, and rarer still, some of these men become pregnant”.
Good point. I’ve also noticed that referring to “identifying as men” doesn’t quite get the point across. It can attract mockery from people who don’t understand the significance.
I might explain it as, “Manhood has a biological aspect, but it also has social and psychological aspects. There are people who are psychologically men and who socialize as men, and we refer to those people as men even if they might not be men in the biological aspect. Is your question about biology, or about the different aspects of manhood?”
What do you think?
Dr. Verma might have handled that question a bit better, but she was under pressure, and she is correct. As phrased, it’s a gotcha question disguised as an objective question. As she said, the question can only be answered if we know why it’s asked. Until we know what decisions hinge on the question, it’s just semantics. The people who think semantics are objective are those who want the world to fit into neat categories because they think it was designed that way.
But categories are things we impose on the world for our own convenience. The territory has no obligation to conform to our maps. “Men” has multiple meanings (up to and including “humankind”). If you define “man” as a human organism that has certain physical features and lacks others, in particular a uterus, then no, men cannot get pregnant. If you define “man” according to the social roles that humans have been pressured to conform to so that human societies could more easily survive, kill each other, and profit their leaders, then I suppose the answer is “traditionally, no”. Different people have different approaches to manhood, though.
Speaking with the luxury of not sitting in a congressional hearing, I would have recommended that Dr. Verma suggest a definition that she believes the questioner cares about, and then use that to answer the question. For example, “If by ‘men’ you mean humans who have male reproductive organs and lack female ones, then no, men cannot get pregnant.” (Since that much is obvious, the real point of the question must be to see whether the doctor shares the same assumed definition of the word “men” as the questioner. It’s a shibboleth, entirely political rather than scientific.)
She could also say “generally speaking, no” but I get the feeling the questioner wouldn’t appreciate that. However, the same principle applies as with the question “Can birds fly?” The answer: “Generally speaking, yes. There are exceptions.” It’s not a biological reality that all birds can fly. If the world were designed according to neat categories called “biological realities” then we wouldn’t expect ostriches to exist, would we? What would be the point of them? Same thing with “Do mammals lay eggs?” If “mammal” were hard-coded into the structure of the universe, we wouldn’t have platypuses or echidnas.
Separate question: Does the Constitution actually protect women specifically, as the questioner claims? The 19th Amendment doesn’t refer to women. Is there another part of the Constitution that does?
Baloney, to be blunt. A simple question like that is valid and answerable, and the answer should be the same regardless of the motive behind the question. The motive doesn’t change the facts. Generally speaking, no would be 100% better than “Huminahumina.” It would draw the follow up, “When would the answer be “Yes” and that’s completely fair and reasonable.