The Pregnancy Denial: How Elite Medical Schools Abandoned Science for Ideology
In a congressional hearing that should have been routine, one of America's most prestigious medical institutions delivered a moment that perfectly captured the ideological capture of elite academia. University of California, San Francisco Chancellor Sam Hawgood, a paediatrician and leader at a top-tier medical school, found himself unable, or unwilling, to clearly affirm that pregnancy is a biological reality exclusive to women.
The exchange, which unfolded before the House Committee on Education and Workforce, began with a straightforward question rooted in UCSF's own teaching materials. The university's "Framework for Gender and Sex Concepts in Teaching" explicitly advises against using the term "pregnant women," pushing instead for the nebulous "pregnant people." When pressed on who exactly these "pregnant people" include beyond biological women, Hawgood pivoted to discussions of patient diversity and transgender individuals. He eventually acknowledged that "the vast majority of pregnancies are in women," but the hesitation spoke volumes.
This is not a minor semantic quibble. It is a profound rejection of basic biology at the highest levels of medical education.
Biology is Not Bigotry
Pregnancy is not a social construct or a matter of personal identity. It is a biological process that requires a female reproductive system, specifically, a uterus capable of implantation, gestation, and delivery. Only biological females (women) possess this capacity. No surgical procedure, hormone regimen, or declaration of identity has ever enabled a biological male to become pregnant. Claims to the contrary are not progressive science; they are pseudoscience.
Yet here we are: a chancellor of a leading medical school, responsible for training the next generation of physicians, dancing around this foundational truth. UCSF is not alone. This linguistic sleight-of-hand: "pregnant people," "birthing persons," "people with uteruses," has spread throughout elite institutions. It is presented as kindness and inclusion, but it erodes the very foundation of women's health.
Women's medicine: obstetrics, gynaecology, maternal-foetal care, depends on sex-based realities. Conditions like endometriosis, preeclampsia, ovarian cancer, and the unique physiology of pregnancy are not experienced equally across sexes. Erasing the word "woman" from medical discourse doesn't make these realities disappear. It makes them harder to study, teach, and treat effectively.
The Cost of Ideological Capture
When medical schools rank gender ideology over biological fact, patients lose. Future doctors are trained to navigate political landmines rather than master objective science. Young women seeking care may find their specific needs diluted in the name of inclusivity. Meanwhile, the small number of individuals with gender dysphoria are not well-served by medical institutions pretending biological limits don't exist.
This is not harmless wordplay. It is the subordination of evidence-based medicine to activist demands. Public trust in elite institutions was already fraying. Moments like Hawgood's testimony accelerate that erosion. When leaders at the pinnacle of medical education cannot state plainly that only women get pregnant, it signals that ideology has overtaken reason.
Science does not bend to feelings. Sex is binary in human reproduction for excellent evolutionary reasons. Acknowledging this is not hatred, it is intellectual honesty. The refusal to do so reveals how deeply captured our most respected institutions have become.
The American and Western public deserves medical education grounded in reality, not compelled speech. Until universities like UCSF recommit to biological truth over fashionable dogma, they risk turning elite medicine into just another arena of cultural warfare, with patients paying the ultimate price.
Biology remains undefeated. It's time medical institutions stopped pretending otherwise.
