Not A Load-Bearing Worldview
Or, An Expert Speaks.
In which a Senate hearing on drug safety takes a somewhat surreal turn:
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO): “Can men get pregnant?”
Dr. Nisha Verma: “I’m not really sure what the goal of the question is.”
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO): “The goal is just to establish a biological reality… Can men get pregnant?”
Dr. Nisha Verma: “I take care of people with many… pic.twitter.com/decglkqHkX
— RedWave Press (@RedWave_Press) January 14, 2026
What struck me was the claim by Dr Nisha Verma, our adjunct assistant professor and “person of science,” that she would be “more than happy to have a conversation” – i.e., regarding whether men can get pregnant – while suggesting quite strongly that this is not in fact the case.
Unless, presumably, Dr Verma were given total and unilateral control of what questions may be asked, and of how they may be asked, of what wording may be used, and of which aspects of reality may be mentioned during any such exchange, should one be permitted.
On grounds that direct, very simple questions, asked seemingly in vain, are “polarising” and thus to be avoided.
It seems to me that if your political worldview, and in-group social status, very much depend on shunning certain fairly obvious questions, exposure to which induces wobbling and an urgent need for word salad, then that worldview has some, shall we say, structural issues.
Consider this an open thread. Share ye links and bicker.
That’s the next stage. If you let them.
Well, it would seem to follow as a necessity, given all the wobbling and disgruntlement.
And then there’s the implicit conceit that you should be allowed to assert and imply all kinds of obviously untrue things, quite mad things, to unravel reality, while tutting at any of the obvious but inconvenient responses to that affectation. Because such questions are “polarising.”
It’s an attitude of “Why won’t you just pretend, like I do, damn it?”
She says he’s being ‘political’ as if *she* isn’t.
Quite. And so, reference to observable reality is apparently “polarising” and a “political tool,” and therefore inadmissible, unworthy of a response. While Dr Verma’s own implied fantasy – in which, pregnant women can somehow be men – is presented as some incontestable, perfectly neutral position.
Chutzpah barely covers it.
And in pop culture news:
No laughing at the back.
The entire ‘Modern Audience’?
She knows the answer. She’s just scared to say it.
I’d like to think this sort of question is easily answered by veterianrians but I suspect somewhere in this world a blue-haired, septum-pierced creature is earnestly explaining to one that Fluffy identifies as non-binary and requires special recognition.
Which doesn’t exactly affirm her probity.
It also raises the question of whether Dr Verma would prefer a world in which the rest of us were scared to say it.
To see if she’s a liar, for one thing. It’s a detail one might wish to know about experts, to whom we’re expected to defer.
Another grassroots protester.
Is it any wonder that we’re seeing way more Pinochet helicopter jokes than in the past?
It’s the fact that the good doctor doesn’t appear to grasp that this is now a shit test for our times. And if you go along with the woo, it does rather call into question your credibility in any number of areas.
Nobody told her we aren’t doing that any more.
Like turning up to a party in unfashionable shoes. “I must dash home and change into some other opinions.”
Perhaps it is time for Western civilisation to die.
That this headline is even possible.
The article in question.
Via Mick Hartley
From the NP article:
Lotsa luck with that.
Forget it Jake, it’s Canada
When the alien mothership arrives, this is going to take some explaining.
Bless you – i feared this might be about cross dressing. Or Lycra. Or both.
For use of non-lethal beanbag that they want to call lethal because, wth? They lie all the time anyway. Where are the Back The Blue people? Where are many of the LEOs themselves? Why are they afraid to speak up? How many have been compromised by BS like this?
Boundaries.
Not bad for two old bangers with fifty year old technology.
Too much suicidal idiocy already filters down to its Southerly neighbours.
As an American, you’re probably not aware of the Gladue Standard, which is binding legal principle in Canada. In short, it says “Painted savages are not legally responsible for any criminal act, including the s*x*al torture and murder of children.” He’ll be sent to a “healing lodge” and given early release (assuming he plays along – the note about “re-engaging” with Indigenous Services means he hasn’t been up until now)
I saw a comment opining that this looked like the bastard child of Star Trek and a CW show, and I responded that Smallville/Arrow/Flash/Supergirl all got 5-10 seasons each out of that structure.
The problem here, I think, is our old friend the Lego sex preferences study. The CW superhero shows managed to get an effective mix of lore and pandering to teenage girls. Star Trek: Academy appears to be pandering to middle-aged millennial women.
Speaking of middle-aged millennial women, here’s the ST:A showrunner. Impressive filmography, wouldn’t you say? https://www.imdb.com/name/nm7054168/
(Aside: it is not lost on me that SFX and cast budgets for the CW shows were minuscule compared to a Paramount Star Trek production, but that’s part of the strategic error that’s been made here).
I have no idea who it’s for. I do, however, have a pretty strong sense that it’s not for me and that prolonged exposure would likely result in irritation, the smashing of priceless vases, etc.
I briefly considered the possibility that it’s an age thing or that I’m just not engaged by the general premise any more, having absorbed so many iterations of it. But I recently rewatched a handful of old episodes of TNG and Voyager and was adequately entertained. (The Voyager episode Scorpion is still a belter.)
Well of course – can’t find a more devoted fan base of quasi-science fiction than middle-aged millennial women (with or without quote marks).
I would not have the patience to deal with this shit.
Heh. Well think of her students. She is of a type. From the comments…several saying essentially the same thing…which of course is…well…
Her husband seems no better.
the professionals call tasers and beanbags “less-lethal”, because there is a non-zero risk of death.
She has degrees in psychology. Stereotype confirmed.
Asking for an appointment to talk to the police chief–i.e., waste the chief’s limited time–shows an amazing sense of entitlement. They couldn’t just quietly accept that she’d screwed up and learn a lesson.
“I believe in the 1st Amendment.”
Most of these liberals only believe in free speech for the left: They turn out to be very comfortable with infringements on the free speech rights of conservatives.
Yes. This is another aspect of the problem. “Professionals”, aka experts, who fall for semantic BS. If everything is lethal then the word has no meaning.
What struck me was the unrelenting nature of her self-righteousness, the endless dishonesty, even after the judgement and with everything on video. Because the correct response to her own behaviour – shame – was apparently unthinkable.
Because she’s an academic, a college professor, don’t you know.
[ Added: ]
Think I’ll copy that one to the latest thread, in case anyone missed it.
It’s not “semantic BS” to describe tasers as “less lethal” rather than “non-lethal”, because the electric shock does sometimes kill people.
This correlates with the academic tendency to embrace totalitarian systems which promise to give academics unlimited access to power, status, and wealth.
Yet it is because this line of reasoning eventually makes the word ‘lethal’ meaningless. It’s postmodern deconstruction BS. The whole reason bean bag weapons exist is because they themselves won’t kill an otherwise healthy person. Tasers are slightly different but notice how tasers must be brought into a discussion regarding bean bags in order to make the point. They’re bean bags, FFS. I may be inclined to agree that tasers are “less lethal” but the design and intended implementation of either one is not to kill. Unlike a gun. Or the use of a knife.
Sigh. Me, postmodern? And you’re incapable of politely saying “I think you are mistaken” but instead start throwing insults like the early precursor to a bar fight. So much provocative, insulting BS. But I’ll try one more time before resuming my policy of not responding: It is valuable to say “less lethal” rather than “non-lethal” because it reminds the general public that these are weapons with a non-zero risk of causing death. And because law officers are trained to be aware that the use of these weapons is not risk-free. And everyone above moron level knows that these weapons do get used on people in less-than-good-health.
Nah. You are the one doing the passive-aggressive thing by making the prissy argument, simping for the status quo, or whatever that calling a…bean bag…a lethal weapon, in the longer tradition meaning of the word ‘lethal’, is not stilted nonsense. Either your animus towards me or your brainwashing..likely more the former than the latter because…well I don’t believe you’re that stupid…won’t allow you to see how silly your point is. You’re the one picking this fight. Especially by dragging tasers into the discussion. A cop being persecuted over BS is all I wanted to point out. You have some other driving factor.
You’re being a dick. The reason they’re using the term “less-lethal” is legal liability, and you know it.
Ah, yes, that too. Thank you.
Yes. I made a post supporting a LEO who is clearly being persecuted for using, while under attack via projection of truly deadly missiles, or as so described in actual police reports, one protester was caught with a Molotov cocktail, using a “lethal” weapon of a beanbag. A weapon that didn’t kill anyone when even he used it. Someone lost a finger. That’s it. And it wasn’t even a protester. They didn’t die. They were not remotely likely to die. Now if I may…from the link that I posted from a group of…lawyers:
So yes. Time to sidetrack and detract from my comment, from the original purpose. Because legal liability. Tell it to the lawyers. Not the bloody point but…And then of course…tasers somehow entered the picture. But I am the one being a dick. So be it. I hurt your feelz in the past. No apologies. Get over it. Meanwhile, the LEO I referenced is being lawfared into poverty and is still under threat of being imprisoned for 99 years . Because a bean bag. Lethal weapon bean bag. If you find that the least bit acceptable you’re a big part of the problem. Simping for the status quo.
How to handle unwelcome visitors. Not saying it will work.
You are the one who keeps dialing up the rhetoric when people disagree with you. You have a history of doing that.
I was content to make a small point about the tech,
Ah hah! The source of your anger is revealed: You mistook my minor point about less-lethal weapons as somehow intended to undermine what you said about the anti-ICE leftist loonies. In fact, I said nothing about your wider point because I agreed but had nothing further to add.
You are far too quick to take offense. You need to find a way to deal with that magma chamber of anger so that it does not explode so quickly and easily.
Do you enjoy being an asshole to people who are on your side?
Dude. Get help.