Sen Hawley asks Khiara Bridges: "You've referred to 'people with a capacity for pregnancy.' Would that be women?"...she tells him he's transphobic

[BackAgain]

In order to become pregnant, a person must be equipped with a functioning uterus.

Men (as in biological males) don’t have uteruses.

Therefore, there is no such thing as a pregnant male.

 

[hadit]

Well if men can get pregnant I guess men justifiably can address the issue of abortion and not pretend only women can decide such things.

View attachment 669388

I have noticed that men are allowed to voice only ONE opinion about abortion. I'll leave it to the class to figure out which one it is.

 

[Ralph Norton]

In order to become pregnant, a person must be equipped with a functioning uterus.

Men (as in biological males) don’t have uteruses.

Therefore, there is no such thing as a pregnant male.

Don't confuse the liberals by citing facts.

 

[BackAgain]

Don't confuse the liberals by citing facts.

If it confuses them maybe one or two may start trying to think things through.

 

[Votto]

In order to become pregnant, a person must be equipped with a functioning uterus.

Men (as in biological males) don’t have uteruses.

Therefore, there is no such thing as a pregnant male.

When Justice Brown was asked, "What is a woman?" and she responded, "I don't know, I'm not a biologist", it was not that she did not know what a woman was. In fact, asking a biologist would be a mistake as well, since a biologist would point to the XY and XX chromosomes and the fact that they either have a uterus or they do not. Brown refused to answer because this is the response of a biologist, or should be, but she did not want to give it because her political constituency is now trying to define what a woman was and did not want to offend them.

If truthful, she would have said, "Ask a psychologist". This is because, the whole gender new identity movement is all about appeasing people who think they are the opposite sex, but instead of forcing them back to reality by telling them they have a mental disorder, which may lead to suicide, it is better to go along with their mental disorder than try to fix something that can't be fixed. But if Justice Brown should have said, "Ask a mental health professional what a woman is", that would be wrong as well because that would acknowledge where the problem lies.

As with all liberal positions, it it one based on raw emotion and lies, and not logic or the facts, much like the recent claim that a 10 year old girl was denied an abortion. No such girl exists, just like there is no biological way to convert to the opposite sex.

 

[Missourian]

I'll do better than that. I just placed in the the say goodnight Gracie file.

Your concession is duly accepted.

This is what leftists do...they can't accept facts, so they run away and stick their heads in the sand.

 

[BackAgain]

When Justice Brown was asked, "What is a woman?" and she responded, "I don't know, I'm not a biologist", it was not that she did not know what a woman was. In fact, asking a biologist would be a mistake as well, since a biologist would point to the XY and XX chromosomes and the fact that they either have a uterus or they do not. Brown refused to answer because this is the response of a biologist, or should be, but she did not want to give it because her political constituency is now trying to define what a woman was and did not want to offend them.

If truthful, she would have said, "Ask a psychologist". This is because, the whole gender new identity movement is all about appeasing people who think they are the opposite sex, but instead of forcing them back to reality by telling them they have a mental disorder, which may lead to suicide, it is better to go along with their mental disorder than try to fix something that can't be fixed. But if Justice Brown should have said, "Ask a mental health professional what a woman is", that would be wrong as well because that would acknowledge where the problem lies.

As with all liberal positions, it it one based on raw emotion and lies, and not logic or the facts, much like the recent claim that a 10 year old girl was denied an abortion. No such girl exists, just like there is no biological way to convert to the opposite sex.

I agree. In fact, I previously suggested that it isn’t a trick question; but that she perceived it as a politically “loaded” question. I believe she could rather easily have defined a biological female. She chose not to because the politically correct mob would become upset if she were to dare speak the truth to their fiction.

I see what happened to the Harry Potter series author, JK Rowling, when she dared to speak on the topic of transgenders. It’s bizarre. I like her writings. I don’t care for her politics. She’s a lib’s lib. BUT she dared to speak outside the orthodox “woke”-permitted rules. Therefore, the lib community has turned on her.

Maybe Judge (now Justice) Brown was simply being clever enough to avoid the “snare” of being fooled into giving an honest answer. Smart, I guess. But not very courageous.

 

[Missourian]

Dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge.

Run away little girl, run away.

This Easter egg did not go unnoticed.

 

[TNHarley]

Hawley is a fruitcake who will say anything to stay in the limelight.

Hawley is, but not that retarded professor he was questioning? REALLY?

 

[Missourian]

not at all. but the underlying issue is that we can't call women WOMEN anymore but "birthing people" because the left says men can get pregnant also.

which is impossible because they identify as a woman to have the body parts needed to do this. so, calling them a "woman" would be according to their identity UNLESS the left needs to make up another issue and stop calling men who identify as women, women, because they are in fact now men that can get pregnant.

it's fucking absurd tail chasing with no hope of logic to be found.

Transgender Pregnancy | WINFertility | WIN

An estimated 0.6 percent of the U.S. population identifies as transgender. Despite misconceptions and sensationalism, it is possible for transgender men to have a baby. Learn more.

www.winfertility.com

0.6% of the population identifies as "transgender". why do we force 99.4% of the population to live by their terms?

That's exactly what I'm saying.

I can say "that's a nice pair of shoes" without offending the amputee community.

Nor does the one footed coalition expect every person to change there speech patterns to accommodate them.

This is no different.

And I suspect the Trans Dude who is pregnant doesn't give a flyin' flute about some virtue signalling dipstick demanding everyone say "birthing people".

I think they have a pretty good idea that if they still have working woman parts, that they are biologically a woman.

 

[surada]

I agree. In fact, I previously suggested that it isn’t a trick question; but that she perceived it as a politically “loaded” question. I believe she could rather easily have defined a biological female. She chose not to because the politically correct mob would become upset if she were to dare speak the truth to their fiction.

I see what happened to the Harry Potter series author, JK Rowling, when she dared to speak on the topic of transgenders. It’s bizarre. I like her writings. I don’t care for her politics. She’s a lib’s lib. BUT she dared to speak outside the orthodox “woke”-permitted rules. Therefore, the lib community has turned on her.

Maybe Judge (now Justice) Brown was simply being clever enough to avoid the “snare” of being fooled into giving an honest answer. Smart, I guess. But not very courageous.

The question is an asinine waste of time.

 

[martybegan]

That's exactly what I'm saying.

I can say "that's a nice pair of shoes" without offending the amputee community.

Nor does the one footed coalition expect every person to change there speech patterns to accommodate them.

This is no different.

And I suspect the Trans Dude who is pregnant doesn't give a flyin' flute about some virtue signalling dipstick demanding everyone say "birthing people".

I think they have a pretty good idea that if they still have working woman parts, that they are biologically a woman.

Actually they are performing "doublethink", where they acknowledge they have their female parts when needed, but ignore them the rest of the time.

 

[BackAgain]

The question is an asinine waste of time.

No. It was a perfectly smart and useful question and she showed her hand in the way she chose (stupidly) to duck it.

 

[Missourian]

Actually they are performing "doublethink", where they acknowledge they have their female parts when needed, but ignore them the rest of the time.

That's scary.

 

[martybegan]

That's scary.

It's why so many of us refer to Orwell when it comes to this SJW stuff, he predicted it.

 

[surada]

No. It was a perfectly smart and useful question and she showed her hand in the way she chose (stupidly) to duck it.

She's too intelligent to be drawn in to such stupidity.

 

[martybegan]

She's too intelligent to be drawn in to such stupidity.

She can't say women are the ones who get pregnant, she's a fucking educated idiot.

 

[Billy_Bob]

...and if you disagree, you are 'transphobic' and responsible for violence," he [Republican Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri] tweeted.

____________


"After Bridges referred to "people with a capacity for pregnancy," Hawley asked if she meant women. When the professor stated that some women cannot get pregnant and that some transgender men and non-binary people can, Hawley questioned whether abortion is really a women's rights issue, as it has historically been presented. This led the professor to accuse Hawley of creating a dangerous situation with his question."

Hawley, law prof clash in heated exchange over who can get pregnant: 'Is this how you run your classroom?'

Hawley, law prof clash in heated exchange over who can get pregnant: 'Is this how you run your classroom?'

Sen. Josh Hawley and Berkeley Law Professor Khiara Bridges got into a heated exchange Tuesday during a Senate hearing over whether people other than women can get pregnant.

www.foxnews.com

Mac1958 ... You want to know "why"?

This is why. [Link to thread]

Voltaire said it best when he was describing the way a culture is destroyed from within. "If they can make you believe absurdities, they can make you commit atrocities". When the moral compas of any culture is destroyed so goes the culture. This WOMAN is an idiot and a traitor to the United States. This is aimed directly at what makes America great, the nuclear family unit guided by religious belief and morals.

A dictator cannot tolerate God being more powerful than they are.

 

[BackAgain]

She's too intelligent to be drawn in to such stupidity.

Wrong. She may be smart. But she allowed herself to be drawn into abiding by some nonsense and in the process made a fool of herself.

 

[surada]

Wrong. She may be smart. But she allowed herself to be drawn into abiding by some nonsense and in the process made a fool of herself.

I don't think so. She just wasn't going to play their games.