Liberal Doctor refuses to answer simple question "Can men get pregnant?"

[Sean Mooney 2,104]

1 minute ago, Strike said:

She didn't answer by saying irrelevant.  She deflected and refused to answer at all.

Why does she have to say "irrelevant"? The person asking the question knows it is irrelevant. There is no need to even ask it other than to get the reaction it did here and get a bunch of people on X saying "Look at how this doctor is owned...."

Just now, Strike said:

Or she could have said "except in very rare cases, no" which would accurately answer the question.

And she still would've gotten push back on it. It's a dumb question that there is no answer that would've been accepted by the MAGA mob other than "No" which she knows is not entirely accurate from a specific biological standpoint

[Strike 6,153]

Just now, Sean Mooney said:

Why does she have to say "irrelevant"? The person asking the question knows it is irrelevant. There is no need to even ask it other than to get the reaction it did here and get a bunch of people on X saying "Look at how this doctor is owned...."

And she still would've gotten push back on it. It's a dumb question that there is no answer that would've been accepted by the MAGA mob other than "No" which she knows is not entirely accurate from a specific biological standpoint

Wrong.  But you do you.

[squistion 2,717]

Just now, Sean Mooney said:

Why does she have to say "irrelevant"? The person asking the question knows it is irrelevant. There is no need to even ask it other than to get the reaction it did here and get a bunch of people on X saying "Look at how this doctor is owned...."

And she still would've gotten push back on it. It's a dumb question that there is no answer that would've been accepted by the MAGA mob other than "No" which she knows is not entirely accurate from a specific biological standpoint

Exactly.

[Sean Mooney 2,104]

2 minutes ago, Mike Hunt said:

Have you ever watched these hearings? They always take different paths.

Just say no, men can`t get pregnant and move on.  Takes all of 5 seconds.

And the fact that they go down different paths shows how idiotic they are.

Can we at least admit the question has nothing to do with what the hearing is about?

[League Champion 1,938]

2 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

Why does she have to say "irrelevant"? The person asking the question knows it is irrelevant. There is no need to even ask it other than to get the reaction it did here and get a bunch of people on X saying "Look at how this doctor is owned...."

And she still would've gotten push back on it. It's a dumb question that there is no answer that would've been accepted by the MAGA mob other than "No" which she knows is not entirely accurate from a specific biological standpoint

So Men can get pregnant? 

[Sean Mooney 2,104]

2 minutes ago, Strike said:

Wrong.  But you do you.

What is wrong about it? 

Actually try to have a discussion here for once. 

[Ron_Artest 2,777]

This is the type of BS that keeps us distracted from all the awful sh1t the govt is doing.

[Mike Honcho 5,586]

 

29 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

It's probably because of the extreme cases, people with XY chromosomes can get pregnant. 

 

So the answer is more complicated than yes/no, but hey all the experts here say there are only two sexes, no exceptions, so it must be settled. 

 

27 minutes ago, Strike said:

No it's not.  But you do you.

 

7 minutes ago, Strike said:

Or she could have said "except in very rare cases, no" which would accurately answer the question.

So my answer that it was more complicated than yes/no was in fact, correct.  Thank you for confirming.

20 minutes ago, Reality said:

This is so pathetic, even for you. 

She wouldn't answer because she's afraid of the woke mob coming after her, it's that simple. She's scared of stating the truth because of your kind. 

Nobody needs an explanation of scientific 1-off's that are statistically insignificant. You and everybody on the planet knows that's not what we're talking about here. 

This sums of the philosophy of the right wing - ignore facts that we don't like. 

[Strike 6,153]

1 minute ago, Sean Mooney said:

What is wrong about it? 

Actually try to have a discussion here for once. 

You're suggesting that if she says no she would get pushback.  That's the answer they want.  

[Gladiators 2,048]

If I ask my doctor if I can get pregnant, he will tell me no.  But he's also not a political hack like the doctor in this video.

[Strike 6,153]

Just now, Mike Honcho said:

 

 

 

So my answer that the answer was more complicated than yes/no was in fact, correct.  Thank you for confirming.

This sums of the philosophy of the right wing - ignore facts that we don't like. 

No, I was compromising, something you should try sometime.  Either a simple No or "except in rare cases, no" are acceptable answers to this question.  The rare cases you are hanging your hat on are statistically insignificant as someone else noted earlier in this thread.

[League Champion 1,938]

Where would a Man deliver a baby? Through his asss? 

[Strike 6,153]

1 minute ago, Gladiators said:

If I ask my doctor if I can get pregnant, he will tell me no.  But he's also not a political hack like the doctor in this video.

You mean he's not going to do a chromosone check before telling you no?

[edjr 7,133]

I would think you should ask any of our FFT members that has taken a load in the butt. 

Pisspaws?

[nobody 2,981]

Why wouldn't you just say, "a person with the biological systems needed for pregnancy can get pregnant, and if that person identifies as a woman or man, I would respect that." It's clearly what she is told to believe.  Maybe she's trying to ride the fence.

[edjr 7,133]

4 minutes ago, League Champion said:

Where would a Man deliver a baby? Through his asss? 

C-section. Dur

[League Champion 1,938]

Just now, edjr said:

C-section. Dur

Ohhh, makes sense. With that whole uterus thingy, got it 

[Mike Honcho 5,586]

6 minutes ago, Strike said:

No, I was compromising, something you should try sometime.  Either a simple No or "except in rare cases, no" are acceptable answers to this question.  The rare cases you are hanging your hat on are statistically insignificant as someone else noted earlier in this thread.

Your compromise states is that it can be more than a yes/no answer, hence more complicated.

Also, as a doctor it's probably in everyone's best interest that they consider the "statistically insignificant" cases. But if you believe that, maybe you should only visit doctors who don't consider any advances or knowledge that goes against your beliefs.  "Mr Strike, it's really rare that any gets this disease, so we're not going to test for it, only a statistically insignificant die from it---you'll be fine."  

You, Josh and all the righties should stop playing gotcha soundbite games and getting the libz and actually concentrate on working to improve the nation.  HTH. 

[edjr 7,133]

8 minutes ago, League Champion said:

Ohhh, makes sense. With that whole uterus thingy, got it 

Obviously they are cuckoo for cocoa puffs

[dogcows 1,445]

Just now, Mike Honcho said:

Your compromise states is that it can be more than a yes/no answer, hence more complicated.

Also, as a doctor it's probably in everyone's best interest that they consider the "statistically insignificant" cases. But if you believe that, maybe you should only visit doctors who don't consider any advances or knowledge that goes against your beliefs.  "Mr Strike, it's really rare that any gets this disease, so we're not going to test for it, only a statistically insignificant die from it---you'll be fine."  

You, Josh and all the righties should stop playing gotcha soundbite games and getting the libz and actually concentrate on working to improve the nation.  HTH. 

Unemployment is up, prices are up, we’re barreling towards another govt shutdown and the GOP holds yet another transgender hearing. That oughtta fix it.

[Reality 3,183]

4 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

This sums of the philosophy of the right wing - ignore facts that we don't like. 

That's not why she wouldn't answer, if you truly believe what you posted, you don't understand any of this.

That would explain quite a bit of your posting history though, sadly.

[Strike 6,153]

Several of our geeks have been eating retard sandwiches the last couple of days.

[League Champion 1,938]

2 minutes ago, dogcows said:

Unemployment is up, prices are up, we’re barreling towards another govt shutdown and the GOP holds yet another transgender hearing. That oughtta fix it.

Did it hurt the first time you gave birth? 

[seafoam1 3,597]

Honcho believes men can have babies. 

[seafoam1 3,597]

27 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

Why does she have to say "irrelevant"? The person asking the question knows it is irrelevant. There is no need to even ask it other than to get the reaction it did here and get a bunch of people on X saying "Look at how this doctor is owned...."

And she still would've gotten push back on it. It's a dumb question that there is no answer that would've been accepted by the MAGA mob other than "No" which she knows is not entirely accurate from a specific biological standpoint

The babysitter thinks men can have babies. 

[League Champion 1,938]

1 minute ago, seafoam1 said:

Honcho believes men can have babies. 

@Mike Honcho was delivered anally. He's living proof that LIBERAL MEN can give birth 

[Sean Mooney 2,104]

29 minutes ago, Strike said:

You're suggesting that if she says no she would get pushback.  That's the answer they want.  

I said the only answer that wouldn't have gotten push back was "no" but medically speaking she can't say no because she knows the specific circumstances that Honcho mentioned so she would be undermining her medical knowledge to just say what some representative wants her to say so he can have political gain or "own libs"

And to be fair- if she just says "no" outright she is going to get pushback from idiots on the left that want the answer to always be "yes" without the nuance of the scenario outlined...

Which gets us back to the original point of- it's a dumb question to ask in that moment

Did you eat your sandwich already this morning?

[seafoam1 3,597]

1 minute ago, Sean Mooney said:

I said the only answer that wouldn't have gotten push back was "no" but medically speaking she can't say no because she knows the specific circumstances that Honcho mentioned so she would be undermining her medical knowledge to just say what some representative wants her to say so he can have political gain or "own libs"

And to be fair- if she just says "no" outright she is going to get pushback from idiots on the left that want the answer to always be "yes" without the nuance of the scenario outlined...

Which gets us back to the original point of- it's a dumb question to ask in that moment

Did you eat your sandwich already this morning?

The babysitter believes men can have babies. 

[cyclone24 1,980]

See a normal human being would just say yeah this is a dumb hill for Democrats to die on and admit that only women can have babies. Their cult and their delusion won’t let them answer Even the most basic simple question like this.
 

I mean, nobody’s going to take your I’m with her Hillary sticker away from you. Grow a pair of balls.

Sorry, I should’ve put the disclaimer. Men have testicles. Women do not. See it’s not that hard.

[jerryskids 7,279]

45 minutes ago, nobody said:

Why wouldn't you just say, "a person with the biological systems needed for pregnancy can get pregnant, and if that person identifies as a woman or man, I would respect that." It's clearly what she is told to believe.  Maybe she's trying to ride the fence.

I've been saying some variation of this since KBJ couldn't define a woman, a whole video worth of people in the Matt Walsh documentary couldn't, lately the lawyer arguing before SCOTUS, and now this.  

The question is:  why don't they say it?

My theory is that any "qualified" answer is antithetical to the Progressive cause.  It must be 100%.  Recall back to gay marriage: for a while there was general consensus that it was OK, but just call it a "civil union."  Nope.  It had to be "marriage."  No difference whatsoever.  Eventually they got their way which is often the case, as conservatives said "fine, whatever, just STFU about it already."

It will be interesting to see how this one turns out.  We need to differentiate between men and women for medical and legal reasons at least.  How will the Progressives reconcile that?   

[seafoam1 3,597]

Whe whole point is, a pregnant woman can't just call herself a man and be considered a man in reality. 

This doctor lady knows this. Otherwise, she would have just said "Yes, a man can have a baby." But the fact that she couldn't say that shows that all this identity swapping is total BS. She says she treats these people in her business, but all she is doing is making a buck by going along with their mental illnesses which encourages them to believe in this fantasy world they live in. And that is how she makes a living. 

That video proves without a doubt that I correct here.

[squistion 2,717]

Quote

Recall back to gay marriage: for a while there was general consensus that it was OK, but just call it a "civil union."  Nope.  It had to be "marriage."  No difference whatsoever.

That is incorrect. There is a big difference.

AI Overview

 

The main difference is that marriage offers full federal recognition and benefits (like Social Security, federal taxes, immigration) and is recognized in all states, while a civil union provides similar state-level rights (like hospital visitation, inheritance, health insurance) but lacks federal recognition, meaning fewer federal benefits and potentially inconsistent recognition across states. Civil unions were often created as an alternative for same-sex couples before marriage equality, but marriage now offers comprehensive legal standing.   

 

[Mike Honcho 5,586]

7 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

I've been saying some variation of this since KBJ couldn't define a woman, a whole video worth of people in the Matt Walsh documentary couldn't, lately the lawyer arguing before SCOTUS, and now this.  

The question is:  why don't they say it?

My theory is that any "qualified" answer is antithetical to the Progressive cause.  It must be 100%.  Recall back to gay marriage: for a while there was general consensus that it was OK, but just call it a "civil union."  Nope.  It had to be "marriage."  No difference whatsoever.  Eventually they got their way which is often the case, as conservatives said "fine, whatever, just STFU about it already."

It will be interesting to see how this one turns out.  We need to differentiate between men and women for medical and legal reasons at least.  How will the Progressives reconcile that?   

 

Quote

 

Marsha Blackburn asked Ketanji Brown Jackson to define 'woman.' Science says there's no simple answer.

Scientists, gender law scholars and philosophers of biology said Jackson's response was commendable, though perhaps misleading. It's useful, they say, that Jackson suggested science could help answer Blackburn's question, but they note that a competent biologist would not be able to offer a definitive answer either. Scientists agree there is no sufficient way to clearly define what makes someone a woman, and with billions of women on the planet, there is much variation. 

There are at least six different biological markers of “sex” in the body: genitals, chromosomes, gonads, internal reproductive structures, hormone ratios and secondary sex characteristics. None of the six is strictly dichotomous, Jordan-Young said, and the different markers don’t always align. 

Sarah Richardson, a Harvard scholar, historian and philosopher of biology who focuses on the sciences of sex and gender and their policy dimensions, said Jackson's answer accurately reflects legal practice. While U.S. law remains an unsettled arena for the conceptualization and definition of sex, it frequently grounds sex categorization in biological evidence and reasoning. 

But like Jordan-Young, Richardson emphasized that biology does not offer a simple or singular answer to the question of what defines a woman.  

 

 

[TBayXXXVII 2,691]

1 hour ago, supermike80 said:

I genuinely don't understand why liberals are clinging to this.  It makes their entire premise absurd.  Surely they see this?

I have liberal family members, some of them very very liberal, and they hate this tranny stuff.   This is not helping their cause at all

Clearly no, becuse you'll have people in this thread find a way to blame Republicans (see the two above your post... haven't read further yet, but willing to be there's more).

[supermike80 2,190]

38 minutes ago, dogcows said:

Unemployment is up, prices are up, we’re barreling towards another govt shutdown and the GOP holds yet another transgender hearing. That oughtta fix it.

This kills me...

"Hey, they are looting the food king!!!"

"So what?  We have murders to solve!!!"  

Such a dumb response

[Fnord 2,716]

1 hour ago, supermike80 said:

I genuinely don't understand why liberals are clinging to this.  It makes their entire premise absurd.  Surely they see this?

I have liberal family members, some of them very very liberal, and they hate this tranny stuff.   This is not helping their cause at all

They aren't. This is the stupidest "debate" in recent memory, and we're drowning in stupid at the moment. 

[Fnord 2,716]

16 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

I've been saying some variation of this since KBJ couldn't define a woman, a whole video worth of people in the Matt Walsh documentary couldn't, lately the lawyer arguing before SCOTUS, and now this.  

The question is:  why don't they say it?

My theory is that any "qualified" answer is antithetical to the Progressive cause.  It must be 100%.  Recall back to gay marriage: for a while there was general consensus that it was OK, but just call it a "civil union."  Nope.  It had to be "marriage."  No difference whatsoever.  Eventually they got their way which is often the case, as conservatives said "fine, whatever, just STFU about it already."

It will be interesting to see how this one turns out.  We need to differentiate between men and women for medical and legal reasons at least.  How will the Progressives reconcile that?   

How about we just say "yup, you're right MAGA!" Then can we all say fine, and you guys STFU about it already? The oxygen this subject gets, pretty much exclusively from the right, is beyond ridiculous.

 

[nobody 2,981]

34 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

I said the only answer that wouldn't have gotten push back was "no" but medically speaking she can't say no because she knows the specific circumstances that Honcho mentioned so she would be undermining her medical knowledge to just say what some representative wants her to say so he can have political gain or "own libs"

And to be fair- if she just says "no" outright she is going to get pushback from idiots on the left that want the answer to always be "yes" without the nuance of the scenario outlined...

Which gets us back to the original point of- it's a dumb question to ask in that moment

Did you eat your sandwich already this morning?

Nope, she definitely was not thinking about all the corner cases.  She clearly was concerned about crossing her fellow wokies.

[League Champion 1,938]

 

 

[jerryskids 7,279]

12 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

 

 

 Sniffs bait, swims away...