jueves, 2 de febrero de 2017

Barmy British doctors deny that only women can get pregnant

The British Medical Association jumps on the transgender express.

Laura Perrins | Feb 2 2017 | comment

Pregnant people

If you want to see a war on science and basic biology look no further than the British Medical Association. It has issued official guidance to its 160,000 doctor members ordering them to refer to pregnant women as pregnant people instead of the crazy, offensive term “expectant mothers.” They want to also abolish the terms Mum and Dad as well as son and daughter.

Sometimes the comparison to Orwell’s 1984 is overstated, but really we have landed in dark, dark times. In its guide, it actually says “a large majority of people that have been pregnant or have given birth identify as women. However, there are some intersex men and trans men who may get pregnant.”

Just to be clear – and it is unbelievable I have to say this – only the female sex of the species can become pregnant and give birth. Not people who ‘identify as women’ but women. There are no pregnant men.

There might be tiny number of vulnerable, confused women who after they have used their female reproductive systems to give birth want to identify as men, but they are not nor will they ever be men.

So in short, those at the BMA who issued this guidance are a disgrace to the medical profession.

People do not realise that the ultimate aim of the Left is to destroy the distinction between men and women. How doctors that are trained in the medical and biological field can spin this kind of anti-science nonsense demonstrates how total the war on language, science, human dignity, women and children, and civilisation is.

So where does this shift leave our feminist friends? It is reality time now for the feminists. Are they going to stand up for women or not? Julie Bindel does, and she receives a lot of abuse for it, but there are entire swathes of the feminist movement that say transgenderism is part of the fight against the patriarchy.

Well let me ask you which is worse – taking your husband’s name upon marriage or having the term woman, the very idea of womanhood expunged, from medical records, birth records and other legal records (as already happens in Canada) and society itself?

If the majority of feminists roll over on this and say it is fine to erase women from the record and to stop referring to the female reproduction system we know, finally, it was never about woman’s rights or equality. It was about destroying the distinction between men and women and therefore civilisation itself.

Finally, I urge all our readers to resist absolutely any attempt by any individual to use inappropriate gender-neutral language when addressing you or even worse your child. You can be civil and polite. But there is no surrender on this. Otherwise we might as well pack up our gender-neutral bags and go home.

Laura Perrins is Co-Editor of The Conservative Woman, where this article was first published. Republished with permission.

- See more at: https://www.mercatornet.com/conjugality/view/barmy-british-doctors-deny-that-only-women-can-get-pregnant/19284#sthash.34ciJCBp.dpuf

Americans who bet on Donald Trump to halt the juggernaut of progressivism must be very happy this week with the President’s nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to fill the vacancy in the Supreme Court. A firm opponent of assisted suicide and euthanasia, he received a doctorate from Oxford University after studying the moral and legal issues involved under the legal philosopher John Finnis. He has written a book about it.

The leading US assisted suicide group, Compassion & Choices, is of course outraged. “A judge who is willing to allow others, including corporations, to impose their religious beliefs on individuals making personal healthcare decisions at the end of life would be a dangerous addition to the nation’s highest court,” the group’s national director of legal advocacy, Kevin Diaz, fulminated yesterday.

Actually, as today’s article by Andrew Hamm notes, Gorsuch said in the confirmation process for his earlier appointment to the Federal Court of Appeals, “that he would follow the law rather than personal convictions, and he added that in his writings he has largely defended existing precedent in these areas.”

His whole approach to the law, like that of the late Judge Antonin Scalia whom he admired, is to stick to the original meaning of the US Constitution and not to “interpret” it in the light of what various groups want in the way of social change. Changing the law is a job for lawmakers, not judges, he says.

Hooray, I say, and all the best to Judge Gorsuch. Yes, and thanks Mr President.