In a U.S. Senate hearing both irritating and comical held on Jan. 14, leftist activist/ob-gyn Dr. Nisha Verma foolishly tried to outmaneuver Senator Josh Hawley and in so doing revealed herself to be a buffoon—or buffoonette—or buffoon-x.
In this Senate hearing on the safety of chemical abortifacient drugs, Senator and attorney Ashley Moody asked Dr. Verma if men can get pregnant. Verma appeared flummoxed—a deer caught in those pesky proverbial headlights. Moody asked the question to illustrate just one of the many problems with selling abortion drugs online—drugs that men who can’t get pregnant are purchasing for nefarious purposes.
Hawley, evidently not originally intending to query Verma on basic biology, was astounded by her awkward demurral in responding to Moody, so he asked the same question—a question anyone over six years old could have answered. And this is how that went line of inquiry went down:
Hawley: Dr. Verma, I wasn’t sure I understood your answer to Senator Moody a moment ago. Do you think that men can get pregnant?
Verma: As I mentioned, the reason I paused there is I’m not really sure what the goal of the question is—
Hawley: Well, the goal is the truth. So, can men get pregnant?
Verma: I think yes-no questions like this are a political tool.
Hawley: No, they are about the truth, Dr. Let’s not make a mockery of this proceeding. You said just a moment ago that science and evidence should control, not politics. So, let’s test that proposition. Based on the science, can men get pregnant?
Verma: I take care of people with many identities—
Hawley: Can men get pregnant?
Verma: I take care of many women; I do take care of people that don’t identify as women—
Hawley: Can men get pregnant?
Verma: Again, as I’m saying, I prefer to have a broader conversation rather than respond in a binary way.
Hawley: You’re a doctor of science. Evidence should guide medicine. You’re telling me you can’t answer a basic question of biological reality?
Verma: I am a person of science, and I am also someone here to represent the complex experiences of my patients. I don’t think polarized language or questions serve that goal.
Hawley: It is not polarizing to say that women are a biological reality. That is truth. I’m trying to test your veracity as a medical professional. If you can’t acknowledge that it is women who get pregnant, how can we take your testimony on the safety of these drugs seriously?
Verma: I think you are attempting to reduce a very complex topic to a simple binary for political reasons.
Hawley: For the record, it’s women who get pregnant, not men. We are here about the safety of women and science that shows that this abortion drug causes adverse health events in a significant percentage of cases—which you have also disputed. This refusal to acknowledge basic biology is deeply corrosive to public trust.
Verma’s task as a witness was not to ferret out the “goal” of senators’ questions before answering. Her task was to answer questions truthfully. When the question pertains to objective science, her responsibility was to answer the question with objective scientific information.
Verma criticized “yes-no” questions as political tools. While objective scientific facts elicited by a yes-no question may have political implications, particularly in an Orwellian time awash in “trans” superstitions, that does not make the question a political tool.
The refusal, however, of person-of-science Verma to answer a simple yes-no question about human biology does reveal that she is a political tool.
When asked again whether men can get pregnant, Verma dodged saying she takes care of people with “many identities.” Hawley didn’t ask what she does for a living. Nor did he ask anything about “identity,” by which Verma means how people feel about their femaleness and whether they seek to pass as the sex they aren’t. Her response was a wholly politicized evasion.
Hawley tried again, and Verma tried yet another tactical dodge.
She expressed her personal preference for an entirely different conversation to the one Hawley wanted to have. She wanted to have a conversation that excludes any discussion of the binary nature of sexual dimorphism. In other words, she preferred a politicized conversation based on non-scientific “trans”-cultic assumptions.
I would quibble with one statement by Hawley. In response to Verma’s claim that asking whether men can get pregnant is “polarizing,” he said that “It is not polarizing to say that women are a biological reality.”
In a world where the villagers continue to assert that the naked emperor is clothed in women’s finery and, therefore, is definitely a fully attired woman, saying women are a biological reality that neither clothing, nor hormone-doping, nor surgery can change is, unfortunately, polarizing.
But Hawley is correct that such a claim is objectively true.
Despite the assertion of the polarizing, political Verma to the contrary, the fact that no objectively male humans can become pregnant is not complex. Healthy objectively male humans with no disorder of sexual development have no uterus, ovaries, or fallopian tubes and do not menstruate. They cannot get pregnant.
See, plain as a pikestaff.
Hawley was not playing reductionist games for a political win. Verma was playing rhetorical games for manipulative political ends.
Verma’s pseudo-scientific, Gnostic, “trans”-cultic beliefs on the existence of a non-material “gender” ghost in our machinery are irrelevant to Moody’s and Hawley’s questions about biology and irrelevant to the hearing inquiry into the safety of chemical abortifacients.
There were two other perhaps less obvious lessons implicit in this hearing.
First, it pointed to the essential place the manipulation of language—i.e., Newspeak—is in the spread of lies.
Leftists invented terms and tyrannically imposed their neologisms on everyone, coercing their use via epithet-hurling and threats of loss of employment. Use false pronouns or else. All discussions of this bizarre superstition must, according to leftists, use “transgender,” “transwoman,” “transman,” “cisgender,” “person with a uterus,” and “chestfeeding” because using plain language like “crossdressing man” instead of “transwoman” gives away their game.
The other less obvious lesson Dr. Verma taught us is to stop being impressed by credentials. Verma is a well-credentialed, ignorant fool who utterly failed Senator Hawley’s veracity test.