The assault on language and reality

Let's start by recogizing a biological reality:
There is only a certain group of people who can bear offspring by becoming pregnant and delivering a child.
This group is determined by their biology, not by their thought processes or by what they "identify with."

Are we allowed to have a word that identifies this biologically-defined group?
I would certainly hope so.
The long-established name for this biologically-defined group of course is "women."

But now we have a person at Harvard who opposes the very use of the phrase "pregnant woman", 
demanding it be replaced by the phrase "pregnant person."
See the news article
From the New York Post article:
<blockquote>The whole thing didn’t sit well with Laura Simone Lewis, the Director of the Diversity and Inclusion Task Force at Harvard’s Department of Human Evolutionary Biology.

Lewis, who identifies on Twitter as a “Blewish feminist mermaid,” called Hooven’s defense of science “dangerous.”</blockquote>

For what the complaining Lewis herself (or himself, or itself, or whatever) wrote, see


In a series of follow-up tweets Lewis wrote:

<blockquote>Let’s be clear: if you respect diverse gender identities & aim to use correct pronouns, then you would know that   <b>people with diverse genders/sexes can be pregnant</b> incl Trans men, intersex people & gender nonconforming people. That isn't too hard for medical students to understand.

Inclusive language like “pregnant people” demonstrates respect for EVERYONE who has the ability to get pregnant, not just cis women. It is vital to teach med students gender inclusive language, as they will certainly interact with people that identify outside the gender binary.

I respect Carole as a colleague & scientist. But this dangerous language perpetuates a system of discrimination against non-cis people within the med system. It directly opposes our Task Force work that aims to create a safe space for scholars of ALL gender identities and sexes.</blockquote>

Back to my original point:

Hopefully Lewis recognizes that only some people can become pregnant, 

and that this group is determined by biology, not by "gender identification."

But she doesn't want us to use the well-established word for thst group?

Lewis wants us to avoid reality.

A very strange notion of "Veritas."


Key facts about a COVID outbreak the CDC ignores

Here is an excerpt from a CDC report: 
<blockquote>On July 27 [2021], CDC released recommendations that 
<b>all persons</b>, including those who are fully vaccinated, 
should wear masks in indoor public settings 
in areas where COVID-19 transmission is high or substantial.  
Findings  from  this  investigation  suggest  that  even jurisdictions without substantial or high COVID-19 transmission  might consider expanding prevention strategies, including 
masking in indoor public settings regardless of vaccination status, 
given the potential risk of infection during <b>attendance at</b> large public gatherings that include travelers from many areas with differing levels of transmission.</blockquote>

Note what the CDC says increases your risk factor: mere "attendance at" large public gatherings.

The above was a quote from this CDC report, dated July 30, 2021:
Outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 Infections, Including COVID-19 Vaccine Breakthrough Infections, Associated with Large Public Gatherings — Barnstable County, Massachusetts, July 2021

This recommendation was based on a specific outbreak.
However, there were very key facts about that outbreak that definitely do not apply in the more general setting of the recommendation.

Let's go back to the CDC report and see some of those facts:

<blockquote>Persons with COVID-19 reported attending densely packed indoor and outdoor events 
at venues that included bars, restaurants, <b>guest houses, and rental homes</b>.
Most cases occurred in males (85%); median age was 40 years 
demographics of cases likely reflect those of attendees at the public gatherings, as events were marketed to adult male participants</blockquote>

Further, the outbreak was not merely in Barnstable County, but in Provincetown:

Finally, Provincetown is known as being a mecca for gay tourists:

As to what gay visitors find so attractive about Provincetown, if you Google the phrase
gay sex in Provincetown
you will quite a few entries on that subject.

Also see

What is a "bear" in this context?
I don't know, and I am not willing to Google it to find out.
But I would bet it has something to do with male-male sex.

So what are all those gay tourists doing in the CDC's "guest houses and rental homes"?
The answer to that question seems rather certain.
Surely there is a non-trivial amount of mouth-to-mouth kissing, involving the exchange of saliva.
Which surely increases greatly the probability of transmission of the COVID virus, 
as compared to the probability of aerosol transmission.

That the CDC generalized 
from the transmission rate in such a unique situation, people promiscuously having sex with each other,
to more general situations of people being merely adjacent to each other,
seems utterly irresponsible to me.