The aid package consists of highly skilled technical educators and training materials on a variety of fundamental topics—indeed, topics so fundamental that such training ought not be necessary, but that may not come intuitively to developing countries.
If their civic leaders are any barometer of the American public's knowledge of life sciences, then a staggering number of Americans do not know what a woman is. As much has been gleaned from Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson’s testimony at her March 22 confirmation hearing. When Senator Marsha Blackburn asked Jackson to define "woman," Jackson responded: "I can't… Not in this context. I'm not a biologist."
In fairness, the senator's question was outside the ambit of Jackson's professional expertise. Jackson only holds a degree from Harvard Law School, and thus cannot be expected to opine on vexing scientific quandaries facing the world today. It also should not be held against Jackson that she might ignorant of whether she herself is a woman. This latter opinion cannot be confirmed or denied because, as of this writing, no one appears to have asked her which of the t̶w̶o̶ twenty-three genders she believes herself to be.
Another sign of the failure of American science education is found in Xavier Becerra, secretary of U.S. Health and Human Services. During the fiscal year 2022 Senate Finance Committee hearing, Becerra used the curious term "birthing persons" to refer to human beings biologically equipped to become pregnant and sustain a human fetus through to its eventual birth. A graduate of Stanford Law School, Becerra, like Jackson, is also not a biologist. As a result, Becerra appears to lack the technical expertise necessary to grasp complex scientific ideas, much less communicate them intelligently. When pressed for additional comment, Becerra offered: "But I think if we're talking about those who give birth, I think we're talking about… I don't know how else to explain it to you…"
In support of the view that not just women can be "birthing persons," the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL) issued a statement claiming that: "…it's not just cis-gender women that can get pregnant and give birth. Reproductive freedom is for every body." NARAL's remark is perceived as an effort toward expanding the customer base of those whom NARAL represents. Why should reproductive healthcare of the sort NARAL's constituents provide be limited to just the feminine gender? Offering these services to any of the ̶t̶w̶e̶n̶t̶y̶-̶t̶h̶r̶e̶e̶ forty-six genders that either can or desire to become pregnant translates to increased financial profits.
All this talk of reproductive rights would not be complete without discussing the tiny elephant in the room; that is to say, the human infants at the center of the American reproductive rights controversy. Isermno will dispatch thirty experienced gynecologists and midwives to instruct Americans on lessons they appear to have forgotten: that such tiny humans were historically referred to as "children" (singular: "child"), though it appears the Walt Disney Company would have Americans break from this tradition.
For context, Disney is a mass-media conglomerate. It holds interests in ABC, ABC News, the FX Networks, and 20th Century Fox. Aside from its library of classic animation and live action productions, Disney also controls hot intellectual properties like Marvel Entertainment and Lucasfilm. A large percentage, if not the majority of Americans have been exposed to Disney media products. It should go without saying that Disney is a cultural juggernaut in the U.S.
Lucasfilm is the company originally behind production of the Star Wars line of films. When Disney bought Lucasfilm, not only did it gain access to Lucasfilm's library of Star Wars content, Disney also obtained the right to produce future Star Wars themed products.
This move is what has permitted Disney to produce The Mandalorian, a series set in the Star Wars universe. Early in the series, the titular character encounters a creature that fans have called "Baby Yoda," ostensibly to the chagrin of show writers and intellectual property lawyers. Disney officially dubbed this character "the child." It was not revealed until thirteen episodes in that this character's name is "Grogu."
Shifting for a moment to Disney's behavior in the political arena, March 28 saw Florida Governor Rick DeSantis sign House Bill 1557 into law, a measure which Disney hotly contested. The law's express purpose was to forbid instruction on sexual orientation and gender identity in kindergarten through third grade. Officially known as the Parental Rights in Education bill, it was called the "Don't Say Gay" law by nobody but its opponents—among them, Disney, in an egregious sleight of hand that produced more strawman than at a Wizard of Oz convention.
If Disney were to openly oppose the Parental Rights in Education bill, then they could be pinned as being opposed to what it stood for. Had they done so, they might have been viewed as in favor of sending children to watch creepy men in drag striptease for an underage audience, or sending children to listen to creepy men in drag read books about sexual fetishes. This would spell disaster for any company struggling to keep hold of its family-friendly image. Theoretically, such opposition to the bill could expose Disney to being thought of as anti-family; or worse, pro-groomer: defined colloquially as someone who builds relationships with children in order to abuse them. Those who sided with Disney dodged this criticism by calling the bill what it is not—the "Don't Say Gay" bill, a buzzword-worthy slogan if ever there was one, which bore no connection at all to the substance of the proposed law and proved that no one who opposed the law actually read it.
Putting it all together, Disney would have Americans believe that a fictional, long-eared, wrinkly, green (and ugly) creature that went nameless for thirteen episodes is a "child" its viewing audience should care about, not flesh and blood actual human children at risk of being preyed upon by creeps.
What is more, the global community owes it to Americans to inform them that intercourse between two adult humans resulting in pregnancy will not produce Disney's "the child" (though if it did, Disney lawyers no doubt would sue for infringement).
Since no one else in the international community appears to care, it falls to Isermno to lead these humanitarian efforts, sharing our prosperity (and common sense) with the less developed nations of the world.