Bishop asks Arrambide how she defines a woman, to which Arrambide replies, “I believe that everyone can identify for themselves.” Bishop follows up with, “Ok. Do you believe then that men can become pregnant and have abortions?”
Arrambide's response was, “Yes.”
These are folks who in other contexts would boast about "following the science," but what science is there to support Arrambide's belief that men can become pregnant and have abortions?Q: "Do you believe that men can become pregnant and have abortions?" -@RepDanBishop
— House Judiciary GOP (@JudiciaryGOP) May 18, 2022
A: "Yes." -Democrat witness pic.twitter.com/TfxboajSJU
It would've been interesting had Bishop asked her exactly what happens in a man's body when he conceives a child. How does the conception occur, what tissue does the conceptus implant upon, what physiological changes does the man's body undergo during the pregnancy?
Perhaps Ms. Arrambide would've given the Ketanji Brown Jackson "I'm not a biologist" reply. Jackson, a pending Supreme Court Justice no less, demurred when asked in a senate hearing to define "woman" by implying that only a biologist could make such a determination.
It's astonishing that we've come to the point in our national descent into madness that educated people actually believe that men can get pregnant, that we can't define what it is to be an adult female, or, for that matter, that we can't tell that what a pregnant woman (or man) is carrying in the womb is a human being .
It seems that one prerequisite to being a modern progressive is that you have to be deeply prone to a wide variety of delusions.
In the same congressional hearing which featured Ms. Arrambide's stunner, Rep. Bishop had also asked reproductive healthcare specialist Dr. Yashica Robinson, who uses “she/her” pronouns, if she could define what a “woman” was.
You can read the circumlocution that passed for Dr. Robinson's response at the link.
Subsequently, the Daily Caller took it upon themselves to conduct a poll of our august senatorial leaders, America's "best and brightest." They reached out,
to every Senate Democrat to see if any of our leaders would provide a definition. Each request was met with silence. Only 15 Republican Senators were willing to provide a definition of what a “woman” is when questioned by the Caller.I don't know why this should be so hard or why one needs to be a professional biologist to ascertain whether an individual is a man or a woman. In probably 95% or more of the cases all one need do is "look under the hood," so to speak. In cases where such an inspection may fail to give an unambiguous result, an abdominal MRI or a simple genetic test would settle the matter.
If there's a uterus or a prostate present, that would seem to be dispositive, as would an XX or XY genotype.
But, someone might object, what if a person who's anatomically, physiologically and genetically male really thinks he's a female. Doesn't a person's psychology trump their biology?
The short answer to that question is, why should it? Why should one's psychology be privileged over one's biology? How does thinking something is the case make it objectively the case?
Abraham Lincoln was once confronted with that question in a different context. He responded with a question of his own. He asked, "If you called a dog's tail a leg how many legs would it have?" "Well, it'd have five legs," his interlocutor answered. To which Lincoln replied, "No sir, it'd have four legs. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one."