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.
