 |
And Jackson replied that she is not a biologist in that context.
“Not in this context. I’m not a biologist."
She continued, "Senator, in my work as a judge, what I do is I address disputes. If there is a dispute about a definition, people make arguments, and I look at the law, and I decide. So I'm not---"
At that point, Blackburn rudely interrupted.
How do you think Jackson should have answered?
Nailed it.
"You will simply respond with a question of some sort or an unrelated statement. It's what you always do. That is not at all intended to be an ugly or disrespectful comment. It simply reflects what I have encountered here. I sincerely hope you will prove me wrong at this point."
Dictionary.com. "An adult female person." It sure seems to work well.
And STILLLLLLL the unanswered question. "If one can't define what a ‘woman’ is, how can one protect ‘women’ from discrimination?"
I don’t know what snow is because I’m not a meteorologist.
Very true. You cannot explain in detail the entire process of how snow comes to exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Quote:
Very true. You cannot explain in detail the entire process of how snow comes to exist.
Not difficult at all to explain .Warm, moist air rises from the Earth's surface into colder layers of the atmosphere. Clouds form . Ice crystals start to form once cloud temperatures reach about 14 degrees Fahrenheit or lower. Ice crystals in clouds bond until they become heavy enough for gravity to do it's thing.
No, he isn't. (Throughout history, non-medical people have delivered babies.) The external sex organs are the visual sign of gender. But there are internal indicators as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Not specific enough. Also, please tighten up your punctuation.Quote:
Not difficult at all to explain
What don't you understand about how snow happens? I gave you the science; something the transformer advocates ignore .
All of the "context" nonsense is just a smokescreen. Context does not change the definition of "woman". Ms. Jackson just sensed that giving an accurate definition of the word was going to put her in a corner on TG issues, so she chickened out.
Read the entire context!!! She said she'd do the correct, legal thing, what should be done once the details are known.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Smokescreen. The average sixth grader knows what a "woman" is. She was just fearful to answer. The definition of "woman" is a "detail" that must be known? What a strange world you live in.
Truly, she seems to be a lot like you, which is to say unwilling to engage in a serious discussion by answering a serious question such as, "If one can't define what a ‘woman’ is, how can one protect ‘women’ from discrimination?" And no, that is not a mean comment. As I've said before, I fervently hope you will prove me wrong. Alas, that seems unlikely considering that you had a half-dozen or so opportunities yesterday and passed on all of them.
Apparently, you don't know what a woman is.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I have both given you my definition in post 66 and given a dictionary definition later, so your comment really has the appearance of lying. I sincerely hope that is not the case. Perhaps you just forgot???
To make matters worse, it is actually YOU who has been fearful of answering this question ("If one can't define what a ‘woman’ is, how can one protect ‘women’ from discrimination?") and has, as best as I recall, not given her own definition of what "woman" means. Wonder why?
And please don't respond with a silly counter-accusation that I have been lying. We both know that is not true. Perhaps simply answering the question I posed above would be a good start to a serious, adult discussion?
She wasn't "fearful to answer"! Each court case is different as to details. All those details must be known before a decision can be made.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Medical science now accepts the possibility that a fetus developing in the womb can, with the flow of estrogen and progesterone, form a female brain. Yet at six weeks or so a surge of testosterone would cause the development of male genitals. Result: a binary problem and the gender dysphoria experienced by women beginning when they were children.
Neither you nor I have any real knowledge of why she did not answer, but we do know that she DID NOT answer.
And STILLLLLLL there remains this unanswered question. "If one can't define what a ‘woman’ is, how can one protect ‘women’ from discrimination?" And I wonder why YOU HAVE NOT ANSWERED!!
I wonder what Jen Psaki meant by this? " 'The president has stated and reiterated his commitment to nominating a black woman to the Supreme Court and certainly stands by that,' she said, declining to offer more details until the public heard from Breyer."
Did anyone have any trouble understanding what that meant?
Jackson herself said why she didn't answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Why are you obsessing over protecting women from discrimination? Each and every human being should be protected from discrimination!Quote:
And STILLLLLLL there remains this unanswered question. "If one can't define what a ‘woman’ is, how can one protect ‘women’ from discrimination?" And I wonder why YOU HAVE NOT ANSWERED!!
Why are you afraid to answer a simple question? "If one can't define what a ‘woman’ is, how can one protect ‘women’ from discrimination?"
As you well know by now, I delight in pointing out here the many questions that you liberals on this site simply refuse to answer. It is a hesitancy and seeming fearfulness that I find amazing. I rarely encounter that any place but here.
Jackson did not say why she declined to answer other than a silly, lame appeal to context and an equally lame statement about not being a biologist. It was an absurd, evasive reply. There was no context. It was a simple, straightforward question.
Why don't I? Because it's a stupid question.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
You stomp on any and every comment or answer you don't like/agree with/understand.Quote:
Jackson did not say why she declined to answer other than a silly, lame appeal to context and an equally lame statement about not being a biologist. It was an absurd, evasive reply. There was no context. It was a simple, straightforward question.
Stupid question? In Title IX, a female can file a legal claim regarding alleged discrimination due to her being a woman. Is that stupid to you?
Jackson's reply was ridiculous, but you can have a chance to redeem it. What context was she appealing to? And already I know you will not answer that question either. It's your way of avoiding a true discussion that might challenge your beliefs.
Now you've changed the question.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I'm not a judge or a lawyer. Ask me a library question, a question about a book or movie or Dewey number, and I'll be happy to help you.Quote:
Jackson's reply was ridiculous, but you can have a chance to redeem it. What context was she appealing to? And already I know you will not answer that question either. It's your way of avoiding a true discussion that might challenge your beliefs.
Hypocrite Clueless Joe filibustered Janice Rogers Brown when she was up for the DC Circus ;and said he would do the same if she was nominated for SCOTUS .Quote:
I wonder what Jen Psaki meant by this? " 'The president has stated and reiterated his commitment to nominating a black woman to the Supreme Court and certainly stands by that,' she said, declining to offer more details until the public heard from Breyer."
Then why are you commenting on a legal matter? It's just a dodge. Sad. I've really never encountered anyone at anytime so reluctant to engage in a serious discussion. Very strange, but I do wish you and the hubster the best. I'll let you and Tom discuss this. He has more patience for which I commend him.Quote:
Now you've changed the question.
I'm not a judge or a lawyer. Ask me a library question, a question about a book or movie or Dewey number, and I'll be happy to help you.
I'm NOT commenting on a legal matter. It's a moral matter: discrimination.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Btw, is Caitlyn Jenner a woman? Are Chaz Bono and Elliot Page men? Guess what I am, where I fit in the LGBTQ+ community.
No, no, and no. As for you, since you have already told us you have borne children, then you are a woman.
See how simple that is? However, you cannot comment on that since, as you said, "Ask me a library question, a question about a book or movie or Dewey number, and I'll be happy to help you." So you are out in the cold on this one. And you should not have commented on a moral matter either since it is not a "library question". Strange how you paint yourself into corners.
Enough of this silliness. You now are in Tom's domain.
Maybe. Depends on the definition of a woman. As I just added above, I'm part of the LGBTQ+ community.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Exactly. It's why the question was asked, and it shows that it is far from being a stupid one.Quote:
Depends on the definition of a woman.
A woman can sleep with five different women every week, and yet she is still a woman. That is not under debate. She is sadly deceived and afflicted, but she is still a woman.
A "woman" can have the sex organs of a female yet can be psychologically and hormonally male. Thus, gender dysphoria. Is she a woman or a man?
A theory with very little support. It's like saying a person can have the organs and body of a human and yet be psychologically a dog or cat.
And your contention about women being "hormonally" male has no support that I know of unless, of course, they are taking male hormones in which case it is hardly valid.
I'm saying that FtM TG persons have not proven to be hormonally different from other women unless, as I said, they choose to take male hormones. If you know of any valid data to the otherwise, then I'd love to see it.
Have you ever done an honest study of this?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Before birth. Thus, the testosterone "bath" at six or so weeks of pregnancy.Quote:
And your contention about women being "hormonally" male has no support that I know of unless, of course, they are taking male hormones in which case it is hardly valid.
First of all, there is no "testosterone bath". Implantation has already taken place and so there is no "bath" at all other than amniotic fluid, or at least not that I know of. If you have any support for that (sigh), then please share it. But even at that, it would be true for ALL women, not just for TG individuals. So you have no point there at all.
Secondly, I have studied the TG matter. But the question I asked which you, as usual, dodged, is whether or not FtM TG persons have a different hormonal makeup than other women. You provided no support at all, so that pretty much answers the question.
If you are not willing to provide support for you assertions, then please just drop it. It gets tiring. It always becomes you having unsupported opinions. You are welcome to them, but you are not welcome to expect others to believe them just because you do.
For all pregnant women.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17074984/
I can provide immediate support from transgender females, but you spit on that. Read the link I posted above.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Anecdotal information means essentially nothing, and they certainly can have no testimony about what happened in their sixth week of development.Quote:
I can provide immediate support from transgender females...
As to your article, there was no mention at all of a "testosterone bath", and nothing of any real substance as to what happens in the sixth week to promote TG development, so I'm not sure what you believe your article supports.
Did you read the entire article, or only the abstract? If you read the article, did you see this?
"Despite the influences of testosterone on childhood play behaviour, and to a lesser extent on sexual orientation and core gender identity in adulthood, prenatal levels of testosterone do not appear to influence mathematical abilities or visuospatial abilities that normally show sex differences. These findings imply that sexual differentiation of human behaviour is a complicated process, and that aetiological factors differ between different psychosexual outcomes."
In other words, they can't say anything for sure. And as has become utterly predictable, you completely ignored my question. "...whether or not FtM TG persons have a different hormonal makeup than other women." The answer, of course, is that they do not.
I am not trying to cause you any emotional distress on this issue. I really don't know what part of the LGxxxxx community you belong to, and it's none of my business other than to hope you successfully navigate your way through that difficulty.
Exactly! And that's why they have lost a huge amount of muscle mass.Quote:
"...whether or not FtM TG persons have a different hormonal makeup than other women." The answer, of course, is that they do not.
No difficulty at all! It has saved my self esteem on many occasions and helped me immensely in school, sports, and marriage.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Uhm...FtM means female to male. You read it backwards. The females who want to become males have, initially, no different hormonal makeup than other women, so it is not a hormonally driven issue.
And that's why they have gained a huge amount of muscle mass. Oh, that testosterone!
Quote:
Exactly! And that's why they have lost a huge amount of muscle mass.
Or something like that.Quote:
And that's why they have gained a huge amount of muscle mass.
I corrected my verb. Husband had been talking to me about Brussels sprouts while I was posting.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:06 AM. |