 |
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.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:19 PM. |