← Back to Videos
This content has been automatically translated. View original in Arabic
The dialogue began with a direct question about whether men can become pregnant. The speaker (a physician) hesitated to answer, justifying this by stating that the purpose of the question or the direction of the conversation was unclear. The physician explained that he provides care to patients of different identities, including many women and individuals with diverse identities, which made him pause before responding.
The questioner, in turn, emphasized that the goal is to reach pure truth, stressing the necessity for science and evidence to guide the discussion, free from political influences. He asked again, "Can men become pregnant?" considering this test a measure of commitment to scientific logic.
The debate continued over whether science supports the possibility of "biological men" becoming pregnant. The physician argued that questions requiring a "yes" or "no" answer in such complex matters are merely political tools. The questioner, however, rejected this characterization, affirming that these questions pertain to fundamental facts that impact people’s real lives, not mere theoretical hypotheses.
The questioner sharply criticized the physician, attempting to test his credibility as a medical professional and scientist. He said, "This isn’t complicated. I’m trying to get an answer and test your credibility... Can men become pregnant?" He pointed to a fundamental biological difference between males and females, which should be evident in medical certifications.
At the end of the dialogue, the questioner emphasized that women are the ones who become pregnant, not men, deeming this a biological fact beyond dispute. He referred to the issue as one concerning women’s safety, citing data on the side effects of certain medications that may exceed officially reported figures.
The questioner strongly criticized the physician’s refusal to acknowledge the biological differentiation between the sexes, arguing that this stance:
For his part, the physician insisted that he represents "the complex experiences of patients," believing that polarizing language does not serve the American people. However, the questioner concluded by affirming that recognizing biological facts is not polarizing but rather the foundation for the legal and scientific protection of women in society.