What Sound Does A Duck Make, Doc, When It Calls Men Women?

What Sound Does A Duck Make, Doc, When It Calls Men Women?

The story is that a still-sane med student conducted an anonymous interview about how gender madness, a.k.a. gender fiction, a.k.a. emasculated masculinity, a.k.a. funked-up femininity, and so on, has cucked classes and has created a sniveling mass of physician instructors to lick the dirty scalpels of students.

The physicians, training this fresh crop of students, cower and apologize for non-crimes lest they be yelled at by their ignorant mind-addled charges. The brats’ ignorance is certain. These demented ideologues would not be in school if they already memorized the names of all the bones.

The sane med student said, “I have been told multiple times in several classes that biological sex is a social construct — not just gender.”

Those telling him this falsity are licensed physicians. A doctor who says sex is social construct is a quack, by definition. The students of these doctors, if they believe this falsity, and pass the rest of their training, become quacks in turn.

They will, however, be licensed quacks. If you are unlucky, one of them will do you a disservice someday. And charge you for it.

Robert Woolley @RandomlyBob asks: “Do any of the required textbooks also avoid using those words? If not, might you ask those professors if they think the books are either inaccurate or offensive?”

Our curriculum is constantly subject to revision. Around two-thirds of our written materials have been updated with this new language. For the one-third that has remained out-of-date, our class has received multiple apologetic, itemized emails from course instructors in which they provide corrections, beg for forgiveness and patience, and avow to “do better”. In class, we have been given multiple histories in which the patient’s sex has been deleted, even for cases involving disorders which can manifest differently between the sexes. The words “female” and “male” are being erased and replaced…

A vocal minority of students are loudly in favor of the most extreme aspects of gender ideology, while the majority seem to be vaguely supportive in a nonspecific way. I think that this comes from a mixture of naive goodwill and fear — they are trying to be good allies, and this is the only way they know how. Additionally, it is heavily implied that to ask critical questions, even in a way which is ultimately patient-centered and supportive, is perpetuating bigotry, so they just nod along. A silent minority seems to be secretly skeptical…

The still-sane student later mentions what we already know, that many medical procedures and medicine doses depend on knowing the sex of the patient, information that is deemed “false”.

Can you spell iatrogenic?

We have had petitions circulated (drafted by few, signed by many) to name, shame, and “hold accountable” various lecturers who used the “wrong” language, to the point of humiliation. One professor broke down crying after a genetics lecture which relied heavily on the use of “male” and “female” by necessity….Another professor referred to “pregnant women” rather than “pregnant people” and spent a very uncomfortable few minutes after class abjectly apologizing for having caused offense “by implying that only women can get pregnant”.

That these students have had one too many objects inserted in their rectums, which they self-identify or mistook as their craniums, is not the point. Nor is it really important to us today how similar these cretins are to Mao’s Red Guard, forcing professors to wear dunce caps and the like.

What concerns me is that utter cowardice of the professors themselves.

Undoubtedly, if these groveling blobs were to tell the truth, and do so lightly with a quaver in their voices, the inverted rectums would run crying to the Dean, or Diversity officer, or some such authority. And these figures, who rose to their positions by being even yellower and vastly more craven than the professors, would sacrifice the professors, and thus Truth, Reality and Sanity, to save their own skins.

Doctors, now quacks, had a chance to stop this. Those still holding with Reality certainly outnumber the zealots, should tell the brats to stuff it. It won’t happen.

Those in authority—the Deans, professors, and working docs, not the Diversity zampolit, whose souls are lost—are almost all cowards. If they were not, they’d speak out, publicly and loudly, about the spreading madness.

Because they cannot, the zealots will take power over all institutions. They might not ever outnumber Reality-based docs. But quackery will be the law.

Addendum It’s not only med schools. I received an email from a senior figure in the hard sciences, what we considered the old-fashioned STEM, who said the organizers of a conference were focused on everybody announcing their pronouns.

Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card or PayPal click here


  1. Shecky R

    I’ve forgotten, when will your concern for “utter cowardice” apply to the Republican Party’s abject acquiescence to Vladimir Putin… or perhaps to your Church’s utter fear of allowing non-child-abusing women to be priests?

  2. @Shecky – No, we on the Right only address reality. Not the made-up nonsense you anti-civilizational Leftists espouse (like sheep). You see, we believe that words have meaning, and that God’s laws (which include natural laws) must be obeyed.

    The Bible outlaws, in no uncertain terms, the very idea of women serving as priests or deacons in the Church.
    1 Timothy 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.
    1 Corinthians 14:34 The women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says.

    Regarding unmarried priests, the Catholic Church is obviously wrong.
    1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

  3. Dr. Bruce A. Wineman

    I am of the same mind as yourself. I am semi-retired but continue to maintain my license in order to be able to get supplies and perform appropriate services for those that I treat, pro-bono. What seems to be coming down the pike is an attack through the “Licensure” Laws (the same thing used against small businesses to close them down). I find myself standing alone and making a decision on how to attack a system organized against myself and others or like mind. I do not see an easy, or Just, way around or out of this. I know at some time I will have to stand up and be heard but must time that so there is the least compromise of what my place in my profession requires. I begin to see what those that opposed Adolph, Joe and Mao were forced to acknowledge.

  4. Jackie Pratt

    What is wrong with Vlad? Is it because he defends his country? Why make a perfectly good nun have to be a priest?

  5. Dean Ericson

    Funnily enough, the “still sane med student”, holds views on sex, as described in the article, that would have been considered progressive ten years ago. Now those same views are considered reactionary enough to get you canceled. Progressing along this trajectory are gulags and summary executions and the full horror of revolutionary madness.

    ”Doctors, now quacks, had a chance to stop this. Those still holding with Reality certainly outnumber the zealots, should tell the brats to stuff it. It won’t happen.”

    Personal bravery is a fine quality, but in this situation, as you note, it’s insufficient. It is also necessary to locate the revolution’s source and neutralize it. A source with big money, big megaphone, and big malice.

  6. Kip Hansen

    When asked to list one’s pronouns, use “Me, My, Mine”

  7. Sander van der Wal

    In the newsparesover here there was this complaint that the Covid-19 vaccines were only tested on men. Apparently the men self-identifying as women really are sissies, and not keen on getting weird particles injected.

  8. Dennis

    Doctors now being taught that basic biology doesn’t exist, and that thinking it does is a crime. Beyond insane, and extremely dangerous. This ideology will endanger the health of many patients, and inevitably lead to deaths – all to uphold an insane “gender” ideology that is in fact the most “anti-science” position imaginable.

  9. Dr. Bruce A. Wineman

    I believe that the real issue here is that the “true” LGBTQ population, prior to the emphasis put on the subject that started to recruit the young, who have no idea what this is all about, was approx. 2.6% of the population. This is close to the extreme at the 95th percentile, if I understand this statistical approach. The Good Dr. Briggs can add any correction and I will accept that critique. There is something that borders on Schizophrenia in the way this is presented. I was listening approx 15 yrs ago to a radio program discussing the topic and a Lesbian Female called in to comment. I believe she was/is a teacher. Her comment was “We have no business putting this ‘adult’ centered issue on ‘children'”, and was very critical of the move back then. This manipulation must stop or we must resist it!

  10. john b()

    Sander van der Wal

    I know a woman who says she took part in a Pfizer test
    It turned out she was in the “control group” so she got the pleasure of a third and fourth innoculation after it was all done


    We need to rework the joke about the man walking into the doctor with a duck on his head

  11. Ann Cherry

    Oops, I’ll try re-posting:

    Briggs and friends, these medical providers are Xenofeminists, or “XF” for short. That’s a thing now.

    We’re going to be seeing more problems blamed on “Gender Norms” and Xenofeminists think they have the solution: if nature is unjust, it must be eliminated, beginning with the abolition of gender.

    That is a clarion call, to most medical doctors! They can be like gods! They can change boys into girls, and vice-versa, simply by clicking their heels together and deeming it so. Heel-clicking optional, as are surgical add-ons. Just deeming or identifying as thus and so, makes it thus and so. Presto, Nature annihilated!


    Some quotes from the American Thinker article:

    “Today’s revolutionaries have taken the principle of destruction of hierarchies, including religious hierarchies, even further than the most ardent advocates of the Terror. In the name of liberty, equality, and fraternity, they have pronounced Nature itself, including the biological distinction between men and women, as inherently unjust. 

    “As the collective “Laboria Cuboniks” posted on Twitter, “If nature is unjust, change nature.”

    “The annihilation of Nature itself, including the abolition of gender is a goal: “XF is vehemently anti-naturalist.  Essentialist naturalism reeks of theology — the sooner it is exorcised, the better.”

    Briggs and readers, “essentialist naturalism” is not only a thing, it’s a pejorative, right up there with racism. I tried to “look it up” but the definers are all over the page on this one. Even THEY don’t understand their own gobbledygook.

    “Essentialist naturalism” may tell us, for example, that the reason the average gay male doesn’t live past their fifties, and the reason that 700K people died of AIDS last year, was because of the unhealthy practice of sodomy.

    That’s what’s known as a misinformed opinion, which “reeks of theology”. Turns out, according to “HIV Plus Magazine” AIDs deaths are because of “Gender Norms” (and of course, inequality.)


  12. GamecockJerry

    I saw a commercial for an AIDS medication that mentioned ‘persons identified as female at birth’. Crazy.

    And my pronouns are xhe, oink, splat.

  13. Gail Finke

    A doctor (specialist) I spoke with recently told me that parents now bring children they ask to have referred to as “they.” The doctor’s solution to asking about sex was to ask the parents “XX or XY?” I said I thought this was child abuse and asked how doctors could accept this kind of thing without saying anything. The doctor’s response: “I have my own opinion, but I am not in a position to give it.” I don’t know whether that means the hospital / medical practice this doctor works with is all for “gender acceptance,” or the profession as a whole, because I didn’t get to talk about it any longer. But I’m sure a lot of doctors are not allowed to say anything — just look at what happened to Dr. Paul Church, and diseases of the rectum were part of his practice and so his recommendations were not a matter of “opinion,” but they jettisoned him as “anti-LGBTQ.”

  14. Codex

    Here is an opportunity to introduce yourself with the honorific Mr. or Mrs. Last name. Women have the luxury of choosing Miss First name as well.

    Complaints may be reacted to with outrage at being micro-agressed and one’s native culture being erased by entitled colonizers. Bonus if you have a Latin (or other similar-ordered ancestral) background, in which first-naming strangers is presumptious.

  15. Dennis

    Gail: If I were that doctor, I’d look around room and say to the parents, “They? I didn’t realize you have twins. There appears to be only one child here at the moment.”

    Then I’d refer the parents to a psychiatrist and call Child Protective Services for the kid.

  16. Forbes

    Parody has been put down and buried, while satire might still be drawing breath, but surely looks to have both feet in its grave.

  17. Johnno

    McChuck – You’re wrong.

    The Catholic Church has it right about unmarried priests.

    The early Christian priests were picked out of a culture of overwhelmingly married men who – and this is important – had to cease having sex with their wives. They obviously had to still keep and look after their wives , but they had to now perform their ritual duty in imitation of the Levite priests of ritual purity to abstain from sexual relations before service in the temple. But considering the important nature of what Christ does with the Sacraments, this reached a whole new level where the Christians understood this need for ritual purity to be permanent.

    A bishop therefore had to have only one wife – aka – he could NEVER remarry after being ordained.

    Therefore many of the early priests were elderly men who had already married and sired children and had no issue ceasing sexual relations after ordination.

    Many young men could still have the discipline to do it too. As St Paul wished all could be celibate like him. And as Christ said that there are those who (eunuchs) practice this discipline for the Kingdom of God. Therefore do not stand in their way. It is not a calling for everyone. It requires men with actual balls.

    Many problems in life are because people tend to think with their dicks. Luther was one of them who couldn’t cut it. And naturally what the Sheckies of the world ignore is that a large part of the problems that occurred in the Catholic Church were because of dimwits like her who were put in charge of new liberal paradigms that ignored Catholic morality and screened good men out of the seminaries whilst allowing in all manner of weak effiminates and fags.

    What is affecting the colleges and universities was a plague first field tested on the priesthood by all manner of heretics and liberal morons.

  18. Jorge

    @Johno good try explaining Catholic Church philosophy. Surely problems originate because “some” people tend to think with their dicks “all the time” – and the trouble with the errant priests was because they were allowed to act on such thoughts and left to wreck harm on innocent kids by the Church management.
    Why? I don’t think that occurred because of liberal views. I think instead that the singular focus of the Catholic Church on the “celibate qualification” encouraged homosexuals to choose to hide behind a cassock, when coming out was so disfavored by a society hell bent on quoting scriptures out of context – afraid of some liberal onslaught on their Christian values. I believe there are MANY more good Catholic priests than child molester priests. And my guess is – if we had statistics on the occurrence of child molestation in society it would make the percentages made visible in the Catholic Church look low.

    Calling schecky a dimwit exposes the limits of your own conservative “feel good” attitude.
    Her main question was about why the republicans pay homage to Putin. Trump bosided his own “puppy attitude” saying “every country including the US does what Putin does”. And this is a debate on its own – the difference between deep state sponsored actions and dictator behavior that maybe similar and equal in damage. – one more visibly than other.
    However I feel Briggs could elaborate on… Schecky’s original question – explaining statistically the percentages of “republicans” veering outside of traditional conservative norms – which is very large but NOT an anomaly. Hammering liberals does not justify their opponents. Her calling it cowardice was accurate – because eventually the Catholic Church did admit it own cowardice in the tragedy – long after the damage had been done.

  19. @Johno – Hilariously counterfactual. I understand why the Catholic Church demanded unmarried priests, since they were all about the wealth and power. But it is still against Biblical teachings, and has been shown to have been a really, really bad idea. (The Left took over the seminaries first, back in the 1800’s, and transformed them into gay brothels full of power-seeking atheists.)

  20. William M. Briggs, and many commenters here, why pump out yet more disingenuous, anti scientific bovine faeces, pretending that scientific consensus somehow must automatically conform unequivocally to a dyadic view of human sex, when the clear majority view amongst those who have studied the topic professionally suggest human genetic sex lies on a spectrum?

    The Six Most Common Karyotypes. The six biological karyotype sexes that do not result in death to the fetus are:

    X – Roughly 1 in 2,000 to 1 in 5,000 people (Turner’s )
    XX – Most common form of female
    XXY – Roughly 1 in 500 to 1 in 1,000 people (Klinefelter)
    XY – Most common form of male
    XYY – Roughly 1 out of 1,000 people
    XXXY – Roughly 1 in 18,000 to 1 in 50,000 births


    And here’s the abstract of one of many papers (2018) showing that human sex genetics is NOT binary, however much you wave you arms in the air insisting the world is a black or white place where grey does not exist.

    The molecular biology that underlies gender identity, the development of gonadal and genital anatomy, and the factors that define sexual behaviour is proving unexpectedly complex and is still incompletely understood. It is now evident that humans cannot be characterized as member of 1 of 2 clearly defined units: male or female. In fact, individuals exist on a continuum: those who do not conform unequivocally to the dyadic view of human sex in terms of anatomy, gender identity, and/or sexual behaviour should be characterized as having variations in rather than disorders of sexual development. Such individuals can no longer be regarded as anomalies to be rejected, condemned, and, if possible, “corrected” either psychologically or anatomically.


    You can do also your own research so you don’t read like an ignorant fool.

    India has a long history of recognising a third gender – Hijras were well-respected and revered in ancient India, and since 2014 legally recognised in India without causing its society and culture to implode into doom.

    Native American cultures for thousands of years before Europeans murdered most of them encouraged their children to chose their own gender roles.

  21. Dennis

    Utterly absurd to try to present chromosomal anomalies and defects as mere “alternate sexes” (or “genders” that much misused term these days) as part of some “non-binary spectrum.”

    Let’s take a look at what Turner Syndrome actually is. Far from being some trendy “alt gender,” according to Mayo Clinic, “Turner syndrome can cause a variety of medical and developmental problems, including short height, failure of the ovaries to develop and heart defects. Girls and women with Turner syndrome need ongoing medical care from a variety of specialists.” The list of chronic health complications caused by Turner’s is extensive, and includes, heart, vision, hearing, and blood pressure problems, autoimmune disorders, and generally an inability to have children without reproductive technology.”

    How about Klinefelter Syndrome? Again from Mayo, “Klinefelter syndrome may adversely affect testicular growth, resulting in smaller than normal testicles, which can lead to lower production of testosterone. The syndrome may also cause reduced muscle mass, reduced body and facial hair, and enlarged breast tissue. The effects of Klinefelter syndrome vary, and not everyone has the same signs and symptoms. Most men with Klinefelter syndrome produce little or no sperm, but assisted reproductive procedures may make it possible for some men with Klinefelter syndrome to father children.” Also a long list of potential health risk, including heart, lung problems, autoimmune disorders, etc. But sure, sounds like just a trendy and fun, “alternate gender” eh?

    As for “Native American cultures for thousands of years before Europeans murdered most of them encouraged their children to chose their own gender roles.” Well most of the Indians who died in post-Columbian American died of various illnesses that happened to be brought along with Europeans to which they had no immunity, not from any deliberate action, much less “murder” or “genocide” (And they did plenty of warmaking and murder among themselves). And pre-Columbian North America was rather sparsely populated to being with – Indian advocates greatly exaggerate numbers, just as many blacks wildly exaggerate the number of slaves brought from Africa (about 4 million, vs. the 60 million of myth – most of whom supposedly died and were thrown overboard). The Indians, of course, also gave new illnesses to European in return – ever heard of syphilis? It happens…way of the world…there are always losers in history. But the idea that pre-Columbian American was full of “proto-woke” Indians embracing “gender fluidity” really takes the cake! The so-called “two-spirit” is a term invented by activists in the ’90s. According to NPS.gov, “Research indicates well over 100 instances of diverse gender expression in Native American tribes at the time of early European contact” Wow, a whole 100! I can probably find 100 instances of crazy people who think they are “non-binary” or “transgender” and/or genetically defective or anomalous people in a short trip around town. Pre-historic tribes trying to find ways to deal with genetic anomalies or mental disturbance in their own ranks which they can’t explain scientifically, does not mean they believed that sex was “non-binary” or that there were “multiple genders” (the use of the word “gender” in that way – a purely linguistic term much abused these days, though obscured by English speakers who don’t have gendered nouns, that has nothing to do with sex or sex roles – would not even have occurred to them. But, thanks for a good laugh.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *