无情的妇科冲突:难道我们不应该和睦相处吗?

Joseph Miller
{"title":"无情的妇科冲突:难道我们不应该和睦相处吗?","authors":"Joseph Miller","doi":"10.33425/2639-9342.1088","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Purists Over the past twenty-five years, a rupture has emerged between what I will term ‘gynecological purists’ and ‘gynecological futurists’. Members of the orthodox camp (the ‘purists’) maintain the existence of the uterus, the reality of oophorectomy, and, ultimately, the hope that we shall all one day die and be admitted to the RCOG. The futurists reject each of these three claims, offering instead the vision of a bleak universe in which there is no uterus, no possibility of oophorectomy, and nothing on the other side of death. In this paper, I will argue that the purists and the futurists represent two sides of the same coin, though they fail to recognise the fact. While gynecologists have spent the past two-and-a-half decades debating the eternal, I have been constructing a new branch of gynecology which returns to more central questions: how are we to live? Is there such a thing as truth? And, if so, can we know it?","PeriodicalId":12828,"journal":{"name":"Gynecology & reproductive health","volume":"62 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Unrelenting Gynecological Conflict: Isn't It Time We All Got Along?\",\"authors\":\"Joseph Miller\",\"doi\":\"10.33425/2639-9342.1088\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Purists Over the past twenty-five years, a rupture has emerged between what I will term ‘gynecological purists’ and ‘gynecological futurists’. Members of the orthodox camp (the ‘purists’) maintain the existence of the uterus, the reality of oophorectomy, and, ultimately, the hope that we shall all one day die and be admitted to the RCOG. The futurists reject each of these three claims, offering instead the vision of a bleak universe in which there is no uterus, no possibility of oophorectomy, and nothing on the other side of death. In this paper, I will argue that the purists and the futurists represent two sides of the same coin, though they fail to recognise the fact. While gynecologists have spent the past two-and-a-half decades debating the eternal, I have been constructing a new branch of gynecology which returns to more central questions: how are we to live? Is there such a thing as truth? And, if so, can we know it?\",\"PeriodicalId\":12828,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Gynecology & reproductive health\",\"volume\":\"62 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Gynecology & reproductive health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.33425/2639-9342.1088\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gynecology & reproductive health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33425/2639-9342.1088","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

在过去的25年里,我称之为“妇科纯粹主义者”和“妇科未来主义者”之间出现了裂痕。正统阵营的成员(“纯粹主义者”)坚持子宫的存在,坚持卵巢切除的现实,并最终希望我们都有一天会死去,并被允许进入RCOG。未来主义者拒绝接受这三种说法中的任何一种,取而代之的是一个黯淡的宇宙,在那里没有子宫,没有卵巢切除的可能性,死亡的另一边什么也没有。在本文中,我将论证纯粹主义者和未来主义者代表同一枚硬币的两面,尽管他们没有认识到这一事实。当妇科医生在过去的25年里一直在争论永恒的问题时,我一直在构建一个妇科的新分支,它回归到更核心的问题:我们该如何生活?有真理这种东西吗?如果是这样,我们能知道吗?
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Unrelenting Gynecological Conflict: Isn't It Time We All Got Along?
The Purists Over the past twenty-five years, a rupture has emerged between what I will term ‘gynecological purists’ and ‘gynecological futurists’. Members of the orthodox camp (the ‘purists’) maintain the existence of the uterus, the reality of oophorectomy, and, ultimately, the hope that we shall all one day die and be admitted to the RCOG. The futurists reject each of these three claims, offering instead the vision of a bleak universe in which there is no uterus, no possibility of oophorectomy, and nothing on the other side of death. In this paper, I will argue that the purists and the futurists represent two sides of the same coin, though they fail to recognise the fact. While gynecologists have spent the past two-and-a-half decades debating the eternal, I have been constructing a new branch of gynecology which returns to more central questions: how are we to live? Is there such a thing as truth? And, if so, can we know it?
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信