The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: BannedFromDU on March 23, 2022, 09:24:39 AM
-
Star Member bigtree (80,686 posts)
"I'm not a biologist"
Manu Raju @mkraju 10:02 PM · Mar 22, 2022
“Can you provide a definition for the word, woman?” Blackburn asks.
Jackson: “Can I provide a definition? No, I can’t.”
Blackburn: “You can’t?”
Jackson: “Not in this context - I’m not a biologist. … In my work as a judge what I do is I address disputes.”
See, DUmmies, She Just Invalidated Your Entire Delusion (https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216513908)
What I heard is, "I am not a biologist, so I cannot define woman."
Um, ok. But she DID just say that the definition is a matter of biology, and not whatever freaky, weird-assed, social-media-influenced, attention-seeking process liberals now use to assign and assume gender.
So a woman you have assured us is above critique and whose judgment is unassailable has shown the way to identify gender, once and for all.
Thanks for playing, you circus freaks.
On a related note: if no one can define what a woman is, how can Joe Biden be sure he nominated one? Seems like he assumed her gender and hung it on her. What's preventing me from doing the same? I don't think she's a woman. I think she's a 68-year-old white man.
-
For millennia, humans have known the difference between a man and a woman, sometimes lovingly, sometimes violently. But Prog "leaders" and "intellectuals" suddenly do not. :mental: :mental: :mental: :mental: :mental:
-
For millennia, humans have known the difference between a man and a woman, sometimes lovingly, sometimes violently. But Prog "leaders" and "intellectuals" suddenly do not. :mental: :mental: :mental: :mental: :mental:
I am amazed that the most powerful force in the United States, by a large margin, is a loose, anonymous group of a few thousand insane people on Twitter. Fear of getting savaged by Twitter pink and blue haired people rules a lot of the culture.
-
It is a good thing that she was not asked "what is 2+2?" seeing how she is not a mathematician either.
-
Words just fail me. A geriatric dementia addled floor $hitting fool picking a Supreme count nominee. :banghead:
-
How about a human being with two X chromosomes?
She's straddling the fence with this answer in order not to offend the alphabet people. I guarantee you she has an opinion of what a woman is so her statement is perjurous.
-
I will guarantee you there are rooms full of liberals furiously trying to think of some clever way to "define a woman" with words that will fill them with pride in being so super smart, and the words will be like listening to Joe or Kamala.
You know it's eating them up they haven't figured out some clever way to answer a basic question that sane people can answer in an instant.
KC
-
FunkyLeprechaun is all over that thread with post like these:
FunkyLeprechaun (2,381 posts)
7. Imagine that SC Judge Brown
has to deal with cases surrounding women’s rights (such as abortion), how does she deal with it if she cannot define what a “woman” is?
Didn’t she answer a question about abortion with “it’s a woman’s right to choose.”?
We women, no matter who we are, are often discriminated on the “basis of sex” (RBG’s own words).
FunkyLeprechaun (2,381 posts)
11. It's not a gotcha
How can one begin to even discuss women’s rights when you cannot define what a woman is?
She will most likely deal with cases that affect women’s rights, such as Roe v. Wade.
Pro-choice, equal pay, female representation, women’s prisons, women’s sport, women’s refuges. How can one discuss any of these groups when one cannot define what a woman is?
Which led to this moronic exchange:
WhiskeyGrinder (15,893 posts)
14. A case about abortion is decided on abortion, not on the definition of "woman." Besides,
men get abortions too.
FunkyLeprechaun (2,381 posts)
16. Which
Sex is it that can get pregnant and choose to have abortions?
WhiskeyGrinder (15,893 posts)
17. Having helped all sorts of pregnant people access the abortion care they want, I know it truly
doesn't matter, in the end, how they're defined -- legally, socially, biologically or otherwise. I meet someone who wants an abortion, I help them get one, they get one, the end.
Men get abortions? No, women who identify as men can get pregnant and can get an abortion. It doesn't matter how you are defined biologically? The ability to get pregnant is independent of biology? How extreme are they going to get to avoid offending the transsexuals? Do they really want to put forth the idea that if a man identifies as a female all of a sudden he gains the ability to get pregnant?
And this whole discussion pokes another hole in their position on trannies participating in women's sports. Their argument has been that hormonal treatments affect men's chemistry to the point where they lose the physical benefits of being born men. Of course this argument ignores the reality of the situation. And if you point out that the handful of case studies, where athletic performance can be compared before and after a man transitions to a women, show that these individuals go from mediocre male athletes to elite female athletes you're ignored. Apparently, DUmmies believe the science only when discussing COVID. So, the current argument is that if a man's hormonal balance is sufficiently altered they can be defined as a woman in order to participate in women's sport. If their hormonal balance is not sufficiently altered they aren't eligible to be defined as a woman.
Women who transition to men take estrogen-blockers and testosterone which make them unable to conceive. In the handful of cases where these women decided they wanted to have a baby they had to stop taking these drugs and in some cases take fertility drugs to jump start their ovaries. At this point, are the DUmmies arguing this individual is still defined as a man? Doesn't that conflict with their hormone balance argument for women's sports?
The pretzel logic has gotten so convoluted that EarlG has put forward the simple edict that, if a person identifies as a woman, then they are a woman. And any disagreement is a bannable offence. He's been shutting down all discussions about trannies participating in women's sports because some posters are putting forward reasonable arguments about why it shouldn't be allowed. The position that it discriminates against real women is forbidden. He's apparently more afraid of the trannies than the feminists.
-
WhiskeyGrinder (15,893 posts)
17. Having helped all sorts of pregnant people access the abortion care they want, I know it truly
doesn't matter, in the end, how they're defined -- legally, socially, biologically or otherwise. I meet someone who wants an abortion, I help them get one, they get one, the end.
Translation: "Bitch, you're getting an abortion."
This view may not be popular even here, but the fact that there are biologically mature people exist in the United States who believe this shit means we could sorely use a nuclear strike or two. Something to jolt lunatics back toward reality.
-
Here's something that occurred to me that Ketanji may have to think about when it comes to defining a woman.
A man who owns a company that wants to do a huge contract with the federal government that is worth literally billions. He wakes up one morning and changes his company to a woman owned business and says he's feeling like he's misgendered. He gets awarded the huge contract and it gets challenged in court by a business owned by someone who lost the contract.
That could land in the Supreme Court.
KC
-
It's amazing to me how the leftists are stubbornly gripping this narrative they've come up with, like Whiskygrinder. They are choosing to throw an entire gender under the bus for the sake of .3% or whatever it is, of the population. The talking points came down, and man are they sticking with it, no matter what.
-
Whether intentionally pointing out the stupidity underlying Jackson's evasion or just being a @#$%-stirring contrarian, FunkyLeprechaun asks a good question. If Judge Jackson doesn't know how to define "woman" or "man", how can she rule in cases involving laws regarding women or homosexuals? She should be asked to define "is".
-
It's amazing to me how the leftists are stubbornly gripping this narrative they've come up with, like Whiskygrinder. They are choosing to throw an entire gender under the bus for the sake of .3% or whatever it is, of the population. The talking points came down, and man are they sticking with it, no matter what.
As I said elsewhere, almost all of pop culture, which now unfortunately overlaps with politics, is run by trannies and other weirdos, and they probably number in the tens of thousands at most. They wield their influence on Twitter and Tiktok, and that's it. So somehow a massive chunk of influence and power has been relinquished to this group of freaks for no reason whatsoever. Somehow, some way, "I don't want to be yelled at on Twitter" is the primary motivator for some pretty powerful (but cowardly) people.
-
They can't put two and two together. Shit like this is why the RNC is growing and the DNC is dwindling. I called this YEARS ago, on THIS SITE AND CU, the DNC will wind up eating itself. Too many opposing blocs. All those women being screwed over in sports? College-aged women? Guarantee most are liberal. Now they have a DUDE kicking their asses and taking their scholarships and accolades. Let them kill their party off. shhhhhhh :popcorn:
-
LMAO! Right on cue, watching Shannon Bream. This idiot NY Mayor exempted all "performers" from vaccinations, but all government workers still required. Not AS pertinent to the topic I was referencing, but it's a small example. :rofl:
DeSantis didn't mandate shit. LuvMyGuv
-
:popcorn: It's wryly amusing to see the Gender-Victim status built over 5+ decades by Old-Prog feminists being dismantled in a mere few years by New-Prog LGBTQ-ists. :popcorn: