If you thought Woke One was crazy, just wait'll you get a load of what the Left in America has in store for Woke Two!
Democrats still cannot answer the simplest of all questions: "What is a woman?"
But now, they are taking it a step further. Not only can they not define biological sex, not only are babies in the womb "just clumps of cells" (clumps of cells that somehow can still decide that they're "trans"), but now they want us to believe that pregnancy itself is merely a "social construct."
There is really no other way to interpret the latest pile of pure, steaming guano that The New Yorker saw fit to publish.
Pregnancy tests draw a misleading, somewhat arbitrary, binary between a state of being pregnant and not being pregnant. You can be kind of pregnant, a little bit pregnant, or almost pregnant, or maybe pregnant, and still test positive for pregnancy. Pregnancy tests, particularly… pic.twitter.com/DMQ9aQGSTQ
— The New Yorker (@NewYorker) September 16, 2026
... at-home urine tests, capture a moment in time at which an embryo has implanted and is interfacing with the uterus in some way. “We define how we understand the beginning of pregnancy based on this snapshot, but such a freeze-frame contains limited information,” Apoorva Tadepalli writes. Read more about the difficult task of determining when pregnancy actually begins:
The Party of ScienceTM, everyone!
To make this article, technically a review of a new book by Kate Clancy called Pregnancy Interrupted, even worse (if that's humanly, morally, or spiritually possible), the writer, Apoorva Tadepalli, is a pregnant woman late in her third trimester — who somehow doesn't feel like she is pregnant.
Recommended
As of this writing, I am about three weeks away from my due date. This is fairly late in a pregnancy, but I have not felt pregnant for very long at all. It was only very recently that I began thinking that I would probably actually have this baby. For most of this year, I wasn’t pregnant; I had not yet miscarried. I was pregnant for now, but who knows?
Yikes!
Can we call Child Services now to take that baby away?
I love how you pretend this process is super vague and arbitrary— just because you want to kill living babies.
— LibertyJ (@LibertyJen) September 17, 2026
We shouldn't have to point out the obvious, but because of how batpoop insane the Left has become, it seems to be necessary.
FALSE.
— LifeNews.com (@LifeNewsHQ) September 17, 2026
Human life and pregnancy begin at conception.
Every time.
And science has known this for decades, even centuries.https://t.co/djci7WgYxj pic.twitter.com/Ux6h1JoQV7
It would be one thing if the article and book were aimed at pointing out the historical inaccuracy of at-home pregnancy tests. To be fair, there is a little bit of that in the piece.
But no. That's not their point. Clancy, Tadepalli, and The New Yorker are arrogant and deluded enough to want to dispute the biological and scientific reality of pregnancy itself.
What I did not understand the first time I tested positive was that pregnancy tests draw a misleading, somewhat arbitrary, binary between a state of pregnant and not pregnant. You can be kind of pregnant, a little bit pregnant, almost pregnant, or maybe pregnant, and still test positive for pregnancy.
Umm ... that's because it IS a binary distinction. There's a reason the phrase, "You can't get a little bit pregnant" exists.
It's all fairly hilarious, but also quite terrifying.
None of these are “a little pregnant”
— Leah Libresco Sargeant (@LeahLibresco) September 17, 2026
They are pregnant with a baby who is dying or carrying a baby who has died within you.
Losing a baby does not retroactively make you only a little pregnant https://t.co/UhphjWJ4nW pic.twitter.com/3ycInzrIJC
This is still pregnant! A pregnancy that results in a loss was still a pregnancy, you can't define it away. https://t.co/9H3zaYkBgY pic.twitter.com/StcJu67xwT
— Liz Wolfe (@LizWolfeReason) September 17, 2026
The fact that leftists are even trying to define it away reveals everything about them.
Ummm no. You’re either pregnant or you’re not. There’s no weird limbo phase.
— Laura W. (@BumpstockBarbie) September 17, 2026
This is insane. https://t.co/d0XhjMX2V9
— Mark Hemingway (@Heminator) September 17, 2026
It can't be a coincidence that The New Yorker published this review so recently after the Lindsay Clancy trial.
The book itself came out on August 25, nearly a month ago.
. . . sounds like the Left is going to try to redefine pregnancy again to convince people a abortion drug isn't really an abortion drug. https://t.co/0WnNKgtoKR
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) September 17, 2026
And it's not just limited to abortion.
Toward the end of the article, Tadepalli writes about how baffled she is that her own mother still worries about her, 34 years after her birth.
I used to think that, if I could just make it to the end of my pregnancy with a safe and healthy baby, I would be able to breathe easy. But I was born safe and healthy, and I am now thirty-four years old, and my own mother still doesn’t breathe easy.
Yes, that's called being a parent, and it doesn't create various imaginary states of pregnancy.
And now we are even more worried about the child she is carrying.
Tell us you don’t value human life without telling us you don’t value human life.
— Michelle🍊 (@Montchelle66_2) September 17, 2026
That's a giant BINGO right there.
That is exactly what they are saying. And they want other people to believe this, too.
Look at that knots thay're tying themselves into here. https://t.co/DqLiGANPmR
— Fusilli Spock (@awstar11) September 17, 2026
That's the entire article. A convoluted series of convoluted and arcane knots designed to normalize killing children — in or out of the womb.
what on God's green earth is "almost pregnant" or "a little bit pregnant" other than a propagandized excuse to normalize killing your own baby, @NewYorker? 🤔 https://t.co/xVHoahMjM2 pic.twitter.com/4QsQNEHPhg
— Isabel Brown (@theisabelb) September 17, 2026
If you have two minutes to spare, the video above is worth every second.
It’s amazing how much word salad they have to puke out to make themselves feel better about dehumanizing babies so they can kill them https://t.co/RRfjM5p9lF
— Jay 🕋☪️✈️ (@jay_kobbe) September 17, 2026
Amazing and, sadly, entirely unsurprising.
I have read a lot of stupid crap on this platform, but this may be one of the stupidest. https://t.co/tjc3w3WIdJ
— Chicks On The Right (@chicksonright) September 17, 2026
It could easily earn a spot in the Twitchy Hall of Shame.
The New Yorker just found a new and creative way to demote the value of life, “only kind of pregnant.”
— TimOnPoint (@TimOnPoint) September 17, 2026
My goodness these people are evil. https://t.co/ja7OtWkSYt
You can be kind of retarded, a little bit retarded, or almost retarded, or maybe fully retarded, and still test positive for being retarded https://t.co/DqLiGANPmR
— Fusilli Spock (@awstar11) September 17, 2026
HA!
Can we simply agree that The New Yorker is all of the above?
Pregnancy isn't Schrodinger's cat, people. The existence of the baby is not determined by the test. The margin of error on the test does not impact the reality of the thing being tested for. You either are pregnant or you're not. It's not a state of flux, you morons. https://t.co/NYa0riYwSa
— Abby Libby (@abbythelibb_) September 17, 2026
There's no such thing as a Schrödinger's pregnancy, which we're sure comes much to the dismay of horrible women like Clancy and Tadepalli.
Please explain the difference, in scientific terms, between “kind of pregnant” and “a little bit pregnant” https://t.co/a9YxHaPVty
— Vanessa (@Nessakins_) September 17, 2026
They can't explain themselves. They just expect everyone to fall in line with their latest bastardization of science.
Okay, yeah, enough. Repeal the 19th. https://t.co/DemyvjySuC
— jimtreacher.substack.com (@jtLOL) September 17, 2026
And they have the nerve to think that Sydney Sweeney is the one who is "setting feminism back"?
lol WHAT https://t.co/xpPLSrmmUf
— J.R. Holmsted (@JHolmsted) September 17, 2026
You have never… AND I MEAN NEVER EVER… read something as stupid as what is written here below. https://t.co/uUMvuNquIF
— Tandy (@dantypo) September 17, 2026
In the words of Homer Simpson, it's the stupidest thing we have ever read ... SO FAR.
If we know the Left — as we unfortunately do, all too well — they'll come up with something even more deranged by tomorrow.
But make no mistake. As many pointed out, it's not merely stupid; the ideology behind the stupidity is pure evil.
We would say that everyone involved should be ashamed of themselves, but as Tadepalli's own words reveal, leftists and feminists know no shame.
Clearly, however, we need to open up the asylums again.
============================================
Related:
Insane: X Puts Abi Spanberger on Blast After Report of yet ANOTHER Illegal Alien Murderer in VA
Chalk Up Another Massive L for Newsom: TMZ Reports That Paramount Is Ditching California
'This You?' Scott Jennings NUKES David Axelrod for Phony Outrage About SCOTUS Criticism
JD Vance Provides the PERFECT Response After James Talarico Names His 'Favorite' Drag Queen
Kick Her Out! Ilhan Omar's Repugnant Remarks About Charlie Kirk Should Be the Last Straw
Editor's Note: Do you enjoy Twitchy's conservative reporting exposing the radical left and woke media? Support our work so we can keep bringing you the truth.
Join Twitchy VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member