I really liked Judge Jackson's answer on the definition of a "woman."

[Seymour Flops]

Taking a quote out of context and complaining that I didn't link you directly to the study is not an intellectual refutation of what the study found with regards to brain patterns in trans individuals, it's just another version of an ad-hominem attack.

Again, you didn't link to any study.

The quote was the quote. If there were some context that changes its plain meaning, please provide it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I don't live on the fringe Cuck, my ideas are socially dominant. Transgendered individuals are being welcomed from the fringes like gays were a decade before them while bigots like you are being pushed to the fringes. The backwaters and trailer parks are exactly where you and yours belong. And we don't simply demand these changes, we force them through political power and social pressure. Through laws that protect gays and transgendered people and social justice movements to shame, ridicule and cancel people with deplorable beliefs. That's how societal change comes about.

You didn't explain shit. You complained that I linked to a report on a study and not the study itself (you certainly didn't offer any intellectual critique of the study) and asked a question about neural plasticity. Neither of those things are counter arguments.

Why am I not surprised that your "cutting" riposte is to hurl an insult at me that has no relevance to me whatsoever? After all, you've proven that you're an illiterate dunce who doesn't grasp the concept of language and words having meaning.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Except it's not the truth. You can't even clearly define what a man is.

What's wrong with pushing around bigots?

No one is dictating to you how you should behave other than laws insisting you keep your hands to yourself. What we are doing instead is using shame and ridicule to push the Overton Window. I don't care if you choose to live on the fringe, in fact that's where I'd prefer your kind, I'm more concerned about whether or not your ideas are fringe and in that regard they are.

Of course we can clearly define what a man is. The fact that you will immediately pretend you never heard it and/or start bloviating on about people who have nothing whatsoever to do with the topic doesn't change the fact that we can and do define it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It's actually not but go ahead and tell us what biological factors you think determine whether or not someone is a man or woman.

If science was on your side you'd be relying on that for your arguments rather than the constant personal attacks.

No, sorry, Sparkles. YOU are the one making the claims, YOU get to provide evidence to defend the claims. You don't get to come in and declare, "THIS is the truth because I say so. If you don't like it, prove me wrong."

 

[Cecilie1200]

I thought so. "There's no point in trying to explain..." on a debate board is as good as an admission as any that you don't actually know what the fuck you're talking about.

This from someone whose only piece of "evidence" is a biased article making the same blank assertions you do.

 

[scruffy]

She gave the dopiest answer I've ever heard since "it depends on what your meaning of 'is' is"

You want to know what I really think?

Here's what I really think:

If she was confident in her answer, this is what she would have said:

"I'm sorry Senator, that is not a Constitutional question. The Constitution has no opinion on that issue, and neither do I".

But instead she was evasive. Made an excuse. "I'm not a biologist".

Well lady, no one cares if you're a biologist. You don't have to be a biologist to sit in the Court.

But you have to be able to uphold and defend the Constitution, which means you have to be able to call out Senators and Congressmen for their fucktardry.

 

[Colin norris]

She said that she was unable to define the term "woman" because she is not a biologist. She is the current flavor of the week for liberal Democrats, so now the official stance of the liberal Democrats is that it is biologists who are the experts to be consulted on who is and is not a woman.

This is much better than what they said last week, which is that we have to listen to the science on that question. More correctly, what they do is to accuse anyone who disagrees with them of "not following the science." When they say "the science" about defining gender, they mean that gender studies professor who was interviewed on NPR the other day.

People such as Lia Thomas and Rachel Levine are not "women," by any biological definition, so it is good that it is biologists who are again recognized as the experts on that. I don't object if Lia and Rachel prefer to be called "transwomen," but I don't see what is wrong with the formerly widely accepted terms, "cross-dressers," and "ladyboys."

That would solve a lot of problems, since the NCAA Women's swimming competition is for "women," not "transwomen." If transwomen, and transmen are truly as ubiquitous as the left clams, they are deserving of their own categories in sports. I doubt that the swim meets for transwomen and transmen would draw much of a fanbase, but then neither does college swimming in general, as far as I know. Most of the audience are parents and friends, and I'm sure Lia's parents and friends would be just as proud, or even more proud, of Lia if he were the true champion of the transwomen swimmers category, and not the best cheater in the Women's category.

As if the question wasn't a wannabe gotcha moment for republicans.
She handled it beautifully.
Cruz and the other haters got sat on their arses.
That in itself implies she is suitable for the sc.

 

[scruffy]

Cruz and the other haters got sat on their arses.

No, they didn't. That's the whole problem. They might have been, if Ms Jackson had answered confidently. But as you can see, her evasive answer set off a shit storm of controversy, and even gave the right some red meat to chew on.

 

[Colin norris]

No, they didn't. That's the whole problem. They might have been, if Ms Jackson had answered confidently. But as you can see, her evasive answer set off a shit storm of controversy, and even gave the right some red meat to chew on.

Do you really believe she didn't know?
I believe she cleverly showed them what bloody ignorant fools they are.
They asked a judge to define a woman????
Really?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

No, they didn't. That's the whole problem. They might have been, if Ms Jackson had answered confidently. But as you can see, her evasive answer set off a shit storm of controversy, and even gave the right some red meat to chew on.

From either side, it was a bad answer.

To those of us who possess basic sanity and understanding of human biology, her feigned inability to define what a woman is is very disturbing, and casts serious doubt on her intellect and integrity. No sane person has any difficulty at all defining what a woman is, and how a woman is distinguished from a man.

On the other hand, her “I'm not a biologist.” excuse ought to be offensive to those mentally- and morally-defective freaks to whom she was apparently trying to pander, who deny the biological distinction between men and women.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I don't live on the fringe Cuck, my ideas are socially dominant. Transgendered individuals are being welcomed from the fringes like gays were a decade before them while bigots like you are being pushed to the fringes. The backwaters and trailer parks are exactly where you and yours belong. And we don't simply demand these changes, we force them through political power and social pressure. Through laws that protect gays and transgendered people and social justice movements to shame, ridicule and cancel people with deplorable beliefs. That's how societal change comes about.

You didn't explain shit. You complained that I linked to a report on a study and not the study itself (you certainly didn't offer any intellectual critique of the study) and asked a question about neural plasticity. Neither of those things are counter arguments.

After "Michelle" it's safe to say teansgenders are front and center. That still does not make Big Mikey a woman, but a RuPaul contestant. No vagina, no uterus, but I hear "Michelle" was in men-o-pause.

When you wrote that were you a man or a woman?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You want to know what I really think?

Here's what I really think:

If she was confident in her answer, this is what she would have said:

"I'm sorry Senator, that is not a Constitutional question. The Constitution has no opinion on that issue, and neither do I".

But instead she was evasive. Made an excuse. "I'm not a biologist".

Well lady, no one cares if you're a biologist. You don't have to be a biologist to sit in the Court.

But you have to be able to uphold and defend the Constitution, which means you have to be able to call out Senators and Congressmen for their fucktardry.

The Constitution does not specify that humans are "the People" either, so do sheep and turtles have Constitutional rights, because I know they currently vote democrat

 

[Curried Goats]

Of course we can clearly define what a man is. The fact that you will immediately pretend you never heard it and/or start bloviating on about people who have nothing whatsoever to do with the topic doesn't change the fact that we can and do define it.

No, sorry, Sparkles. YOU are the one making the claims, YOU get to provide evidence to defend the claims. You don't get to come in and declare, "THIS is the truth because I say so. If you don't like it, prove me wrong."

I've proven my claims you hilarious moron, the claim that you guys made, that you can easily define what a man and woman are so far have gone unanswered because you obviously can't.

 

[Woodznutz]

The problem is that she didn't give an answer at all, and she made herself look like a dolt in doing so.

Also, where was this "doesn't have to answer politicized questions" standard when Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed, or Brett Kavanaugh? Or Clarence Thomas, for that matter? And while we're on the subject, what is the point of having confirmation hearings at all if you two-faced partisans are going to declare all "politicized questions" to be off-limits? They're ALL politicized, you twit! It's a political process.

Sometimes a non-answer is the right political choice. Politicians have made this an art form.

Perhaps Jackson preferred to "be thought of as a fool", rather than to "remove all doubt".

I have no doubt that she will eventually answer the question, but in a more favorable environment for her.

 

[Woodznutz]

Oh, noes! I'm shocked - SHOCKED, I tell you - that a hearing in front of a Congressional committee might be political instead of being a scientific symposium. How is this allowed?!

You're getting warm. All questions are political if examined closely, even the one about gender.

 

[Woodznutz]

Hey, thanks for sharing that insight from the Ozzie and Harriet Show.

Just for the record, the re-imposition of shallow, outdated stereotypes from dimwits like you is EXACTLY why women like me object so strongly to your push to have our sex taken over and redefined by a bunch of men. Also for the record, my daughter earned money for school by working for Habitat for Humanity, building and remodeling houses. Welcome to the 21st century, dumbass.

Women around the world are hanging pictures on walls (fulfilling their roles) that men built, and will continue to do so. Pictures are nice.

Hanging pictures/wearing makeup/dressing sexy. (It's a metaphor.)

 

[Woodznutz]

A judge isn't supposed to be political. Playing political games is bad moral character for a judge

And just the fact this question even needed to be brought up shows she isn't fit to be a judge because if you have to ask a judge, a supreme court judge, to define what a woman is there are some serious fucking issues going on. It's a bit scary that she is the type that would require asking this at all to begin with.

And if you can't look someone in the eye and tell them something that is a fact known around the world since the dawn of man then you need to get the fuck out. Even a 4 year old has some rudimentary basic concept of men and women. If you can't state facts that are universal truths then you aren't fit to be anyone with any authority or influence.

I think she was prepared for the question, and chose to dodge it. She will no doubt answer the question later at a time and place of her choosing.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Sometimes a non-answer is the right political choice. Politicians have made this an art form.

Perhaps Jackson preferred to "be thought of as a fool", rather than to "remove all doubt".

I have no doubt that she will eventually answer the question, but in a more favorable environment for her.

You mean like on The View? I'm sure you're right.

Kudos to Senator Marsha Blackburn for asking that question. Just my personal opinion, but her picture could be used as an example to answer the question "What is a woman?"

I like the way she talks, mm hmm.

And of course she was "accused of racism." What else? Of course she is "mocked." That is the media's new favorite way to say they don't like someone by claiming that other people don't like them. Taylor Swift is attacking her now. Marsha Blackburn is being nice about it now, but Taylor would be best off getter her ass back to the auto-tuner where she belongs. Unlike Blackburn, Swift's looks won't last, so she better cash in now, instead of lecturing her elders on right and wrong.

But whether you agree Senator Blackburn is a GILF or not, she exposed, once again, the absurdity of the left's bumbling and stumbling rhetorical gymnastics. If I were advising her, I would have suggested that she first ask a series of questions such as "was it hard to be a woman in the male-dominated criminal justice system," "how do you feel when you see a homeless woman," "when you see a woman who is berated by a male boss, how do you respond," etc. The answers will show that Judge Jackson does know what a woman is even if the woman is a stranger. Then hit her with the definition of a woman.

How did the White House not think to pose that questions in the lengthy preparation they gave her? I think that they are caught up in their own echo chamber in which the "enemy's" views are never thoughtfully considered but only spoken of in mocking paraphrases. They should hire one or two normal people as consultants about how normal people think.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Sometimes a non-answer is the right political choice. Politicians have made this an art form.

Perhaps Jackson preferred to "be thought of as a fool", rather than to "remove all doubt".

I have no doubt that she will eventually answer the question, but in a more favorable environment for her.

In other words, you're applauding her for the "brilliant" decision of trying to mislead the American people about who she is, what she believes, and what she's going to do if they hire her.

I have no idea why you leftists are so excited about being lied to.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You're getting warm. All questions are political if examined closely, even the one about gender.

Uh, duhhh. I just said that. Which begs the question, why are YOU trying to pretend that "political" releases her from any obligation to answer and do so truthfully?