Florida Democrat leader Nikki Fried says “I’m not a doctor” when asked whether transgender women (males) can give birth or have an abortion.

Let's see your unbreakable definition of a woman. If there is one case it doesn't fit it is a failed definition.
That's an odd concept.

If one case does not fit a definition fails.

Sort of the opposite of the age-old principle that "the exception proves the rule."

By that logic it would seem impossible to define anything without some exception making it a failed definition.

Hm. It's almost as if there is a set of political beliefs that relies on never being tied to a single definition of anything, in order for the set of beliefs itself not to fail.
 
Well I'm not a Dem but I can tell you that here every person is legally qualified to define themselves however they wish.
Is that a blanket statement for all ways one might define oneself, or do you only apply that to gender?

When you say "legally qualified," do you mean that having defined oneself, one is then entitled to all legal rights and protections that are afforded to whoever you have defined your self as?

Ask me any question you like, BTW, I'll answer them. But I ask that you answer mine in return.
 
Cuz the Left loves science.

Datz what dey sez.

Reality says otherwise.


The correct answer, if you asked a doctor, is "yes".

Just as a deaf person can hear, and a blind person can see, with the aid of medicine and technology.

I know that's hard to puzzle out, for the slow kids in the class.
 
Niche doesn't mean non existent. I didn't say it was common for males to get pregnant, did I?
Niche cases, which most likely represent tenths or hundredths of 1 percent is a pretty weak argument .. you're marginalizing that group (which is super small) to prove a very very rare point. Science (biology) already states that "transgender women" can't get pregnant, no matter how much they feel like women. Their fantasy is not a reality. Be glad to share the birds and bees biology session if you need help in that area.
 
  • Funny
Reactions: cnm
That's either an ignorant or mischaracterization of what is meant by possible in this context. Take the existence of God. It's certainly possible he exists but there is no objective evidence to support that he exists. Then there's something like the possibility of an atomic bomb starting a chain reaction that ignites the atmosphere. Possible according to the math but highly improbable. Then there's situations like this where there's no reason to suspect a functioning womb wouldn't operate as its functioned to do, even in a biological male even though it's yet to be tested.
Nothing ignorant or mis characterizing about pointing out something that has not been confirmed. There are many hypotheses from the science community; anything is possible!

Your issue is you feel entitled to a position of intellectual authority on the topic yet all you can do is point to “what could be possible.”
 
Niche cases, which most likely represent tenths or hundredths of 1 percent is a pretty weak argument .. you're marginalizing that group (which is super small) to prove a very very rare point. Science (biology) already states that "transgender women" can't get pregnant, no matter how much they feel like women. Their fantasy is not a reality. Be glad to share the birds and bees biology session if you need help in that area.
:lmao:

Ignoring the small percentage of males who have the biological capability of getting pregnant so that you can pretend liberals are ridiculous for not stating emphatically that they can't, is exactly what marginalization is, Moron.
 
Nothing ignorant or mis characterizing about pointing out something that has not been confirmed. There are many hypotheses from the science community; anything is possible!
Sure there is. Some things, according to science and by extension, objective observation, are a lot more possible than others. For instance, given the available objective evidence it's highly unlikely that God exists. Given the objective evidence of having a biologically working womb it's highly likely that males with this biological condition can be impregnated and thus become pregnant.
Your issue is you feel entitled to a position of intellectual authority on the topic yet all you can do is point to “what could be possible.”
No. You're simply trying to mix all possibilities together on the same probability scale.
 
:lmao:

Ignoring the small percentage of males who have the biological capability of getting pregnant so that you can pretend liberals are ridiculous for not stating emphatically that they can't, is exactly what marginalization is, Moron.
LOL .. you just keep relying on the .001% or .0001% of niche cases to prove your point .. great job! This rare condition has nothing to do with men that feel they are women.
 
LOL .. you just keep relying on the .001% or .0001% of niche cases to prove your point .. great job! This rare condition has nothing to do with men that feel they are women.
I didn't say it does. Try to following along, Retard.

What I'm saying is that .0001% of males being able to get pregnant means that males can get pregnant. Real hard argument for you to grasp huh? :lmao:
 
I didn't say it does. Try to following along, Retard.

What I'm saying is that .0001% of males being able to get pregnant means that males can get pregnant. Real hard argument for you to grasp huh? :lmao:
It's okay Mr. Passive Aggressive .. deep breath. :itsok:
 
Yes she said it. The Democrats in Florida are just as stupid as Democrats in other states.

Democrats don't know anymore about Biology than they know about Economics, History, Climate Science, Ethics or the Constitution.
 

Forum List

Back
Top