What is a woman?

[metalslug 31]

6 hours ago, kallend said:

Education.

That's a curious graphic. Are you aware of a reason why only 'white' people were considered for that poll?  ...or was it your preference to not seek one with more representation?   If I were a US voter, I wouldn't vote for Trump either. DeSantis maybe. Much has happened since 2020...

[wmw999 2,114]

6 hours ago, metalslug said:

An interview for a judicial position is in the context of law and if you believe that jurisprudence is not tightly integrated with basic language and grammar then good luck to you.

Which law? And the validity of that law might be exactly what the Supreme Court is being asked to rule on. Is she really supposed to announce how she's expecting to rule on cases that might happen in the future?

[sfzombie13 307]

12 hours ago, billvon said:

In fact, fully 25% of republicans either believe or mostly believe three tenets of the Qanon thing:

1) The government, media, and financial worlds in the U.S. are controlled by a group of Satan-worshipping pedophiles who run a global child sex-trafficking operation.

2) There is a storm coming soon that will sweep away the elites in power and restore the rightful leaders.

3) True American patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save our country.

So it's not a fringe belief.

 

 

except it's not just q anons that believe them, i believe all three of them, except they are applied to the gop.  the gop is known for projection, so why would they not be the ones in #1?  as for #2, maybe, maybe not.  it is definitely needed, but i would hesitate to ask for it as the corporations would be the ones to choose for us, and convince us with propaganda, much as they are doing now with lobbyists and purchasing politicians on both sides.  #3 for sure, except the ones claiming to be patriots are the enemies, not patriots.  they are very misguided for sure, and i fear for the direction our country is headed, much like a runaway freight train with nothing that can be done to stop it except derail the train.  good luck with that.

[sfzombie13 307]

....

Edited April 10, 2022 by sfzombie13
stupid website double posting crap

[metalslug 31]

1 hour ago, wmw999 said:

Which law? And the validity of that law might be exactly what the Supreme Court is being asked to rule on. Is she really supposed to announce how she's expecting to rule on cases that might happen in the future?

US law, potentially including women's rights law.  "Senators question the nominee on his or her qualifications, judgment, and philosophy".  Assessments of vocabulary are therefore relevant. Were you planning to 'do a bill' and move the goalposts?

[wolfriverjoe 1,339]

8 hours ago, metalslug said:

I rather suspect I'm the only one getting it. An interview for a judicial position is in the context of law and if you believe that jurisprudence is not tightly integrated with basic language and grammar then good luck to you. There's little point in debating further if you have no interest in the OP of the thread. The 'wiggle and squirm' has been all yours.

If you think that jurisprudence isn't heavily dependent on the facts of each and every individual situation, then good luck to you.

As was alluded to, this is a woman who's going to be a Supreme Court Justice.(or is one, confirmed and sworn in but not yet seated - not sure of her actual status).
She won't get to see 'easy' cases. Those get decided well below here position.

So, for each and every case she hears that involve women, the definition of 'woman' will (not 'might', will) have subtleties and nuances that will be critical to the decision.

A long, long time ago I had a law professor tell me that there is a very simple and short answer to EVERY legal question:

"It depends".

And if you are in a debate with a reasonable large group of people and you are the only one holding a particular position, you might want to rethink the idea that you are the 'only one who gets it'.

[metalslug 31]

3 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

And if you are in a debate with a reasonable large group of people and you are the only one holding a particular position, you might want to rethink the idea that you are the 'only one who gets it'.

I don't consider the handful that replied on this thread to be a reasonably large group. If you attended any kind of right-wing sub-forum, there's a fair chance you'd feel like the only one there who 'gets it'.

[Stumpy 254]

3 hours ago, metalslug said:

any kind of right-wing sub-forum

That's a pretty low bar.

[wolfriverjoe 1,339]

4 hours ago, metalslug said:

I don't consider the handful that replied on this thread to be a reasonably large group. If you attended any kind of right-wing sub-forum, there's a fair chance you'd feel like the only one there who 'gets it'.

Well, if you're talking about something like "Truth Social", I'd be more along the lines of the "only one" period.

And if you're talking about the alt-right idiots who claim that Trump really won, the vax contains microchips (and Covid is a hoax), or that Biden wants to destroy the US and make us all commies, then yes, I'd be the 'only one who got it'.

[billvon 2,379]

16 hours ago, metalslug said:

I rather suspect I'm the only one getting it. An interview for a judicial position is in the context of law and if you believe that jurisprudence is not tightly integrated with basic language and grammar then good luck to you.

Again, yes it is!  Exactly!  And if KBJ gave the same sort of sloppy answers that her detractors gave, you would have a good argument that she was unqualified.

However, she was smarter than that - and asked what the context was.  The questioner refused to provide it - and thus she could not answer the question without that context.  Just as you could not.  You took EXACTLY the same approach she did.

And yet you still seem to think that was wrong.  Ask yourself why you are claiming what she did was wrong when you did exactly the same thing.

You keep making my arguments for me, then reply "oh you're wiggling and squirming."  You are looking in a mirror when you say that, since all the recent arguments I have used are your own.

[kallend 1,618]

45 minutes ago, billvon said:

 

You keep making my arguments for me, then reply "oh you're wiggling and squirming."  You are looking in a mirror when you say that, since all the recent arguments I have used are your own.

I refer you to post #137

 

[gowlerk 1,901]

11 hours ago, metalslug said:

US law, potentially including women's rights law.  "Senators question the nominee on his or her qualifications, judgment, and philosophy".  Assessments of vocabulary are therefore relevant. Were you planning to 'do a bill' and move the goalposts?

There are no separate women's rights. Women are people and they have the rights of people. There is no legal definition of female, so why was the soon to be Justice asked this question? Not to find out her views, but to grandstand at a Senate committee hearing with wide media coverage. She didn't bite. That's all, nothing more.

[brenthutch 383]

26 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

There are no separate women's rights. Women are people and they have the rights of people. There is no legal definition of female, so why was the soon to be Justice asked this question? Not to find out her views, but to grandstand at a Senate committee hearing with wide media coverage. She didn't bite. That's all, nothing more.

It is when woman people are pitted against man-women people, in the arena of sport, that we run into some complications.  Title 9 goes right out the window.

Edited April 11, 2022 by brenthutch

[metalslug 31]

4 hours ago, billvon said:

However, she was smarter than that - and asked what the context was.  The questioner refused to provide it - and thus she could not answer the question without that context.  Just as you could not.  You took EXACTLY the same approach she did.

You keep saying that and you know it's untrue. I did answer the question without context (#113) to which you even quoted me on it and replied with 'Yep'. Doesn't get much clearer than that.   KBJ was asked the same question and declined to give any answer at all except to defer it to biological expertise and an inference that future cases (not present fact) might dispute the definition. You can keep saying that's exactly the same but that's on you.

If KBJ or anyone here had said, for example; "A woman is anyone who identifies as such." or "The present contemporary definition would be adult human female although the individual merits of the cases or laws concerned would be considered". Both reasonable answers by lefty standards and likely true to their convictions, therefore should have had the courage to say as much.

We can keep banging on about this (as we know your side has to 'win') but it's not going anywhere.

[lippy 764]

19 minutes ago, metalslug said:

I did answer the question without context (#113) to which you even quoted me on it and replied with 'Yep'. Doesn't get much clearer than that.   

Maybe it’s just‘cause I’m up past my bedtime, but I don’t think that post makes any relevant points like you think it does 

[billvon 2,379]

31 minutes ago, metalslug said:

You keep saying that and you know it's untrue. I did answer the question without context

Nope, the question about the giraffe.  Let's review:

You brought up giraffes, said legal types could be expected to know what a giraffe was.  So I asked you what a giraffe was in the context of a legal dispute.  You could not answer.  You refused to answer until I provided context - specifically until I would "fill in whatever fabrication is missing from it."  This is exactly what KBJ did.  When she was asked to define a woman, she said she couldn't - "not in this context."

Two other people asked you why you didn't answer.  You continued to refuse to supply a definition, even though you claimed that legal types could be expected to know what one was.  You said "I avoid inventing new language unnecessarily" without defining what a giraffe was, and you said "if the word has ambiguity then one is not 'wrong' to defer to that."  So three times you were asked and refused to answer.

So even though you knew what the usual definition of a giraffe was - at least we can hope you do! - you refused to answer because you felt the question had a fabricated premise.  (Which it did not.)  KBJ was asked a similar loaded question.  She refused to answer as well.

Again, you did exactly what she did.  You may now wish you hadn't done that, but it's right there in black and white.

Quote

If KBJ or anyone here had said, for example; "A woman is anyone who identifies as such" . . . 

. . . then Ted Cruz would have said "KBJ claims that a woman in a coma is NOT A WOMAN since she can't identify what gender she is!  Her hatred for the disabled and sick should disqualify her immediately!"

Quote

"The present contemporary definition would be adult human female although the individual merits of the cases or laws concerned would be considered".

Then Marjorie Taylor Greene would have said "KBJ claims that trans women are NOT WOMEN!  So much for the lib woke fantasies that gender is different than sex!"

It was a trap question.  She knew it.  And thus she gave the only completely accurate answer - which is that she could not define it without context.  The reason the right is so mad is that she didn't fall for the trap; they are outraged that they didn't get what they wanted.

You did exactly the same thing with the giraffe question.  No matter how much you try to deny it.  Again, it's right there for anyone to see, so you're not going to be able to credibly deny it.

[metalslug 31]

3 minutes ago, billvon said:

Nope, the question about the giraffe.  Let's review:

You brought up giraffes, said legal types could be expected to know what a giraffe was.  So I asked you what a giraffe was in the context of a legal dispute.  You could not answer.  You refused to answer until I provided context - specifically until I would "fill in whatever fabrication is missing from it."  This is exactly what KBJ did.  When she was asked to define a woman, she said she couldn't - "not in this context."

An outright lie. I declined to answer even after the context was provided because that scenario with context was irrelevant to the OP or the KBJ question. "Filling in whatever fabrication" was a suggestion that you should answer your own question. And then...

Quote

OTOH if you'd like to ask me for the definition of a giraffe then go ahead and ask. I'll be answering with some version of an English dictionary definition.

I even offered to provide a definition without context, which you declined. More wiggle and squirm on your end....

[gowlerk 1,901]

26 minutes ago, metalslug said:

Both reasonable answers by lefty standards and likely true to their convictions, therefore should have had the courage to say as much.

"Lefty standards" are not as set in stone as you think they are. Like human sexuality and gender there is fluidity in the views of those who would allow for more acceptance and latitude to be given to those who feel they don't fit into the roles that are traditional. In the battle to gain more rights for more people (the very heart of what liberalism is) it is difficult to give up any ground to conservatives because many of them want to suppress those freedoms. But I can certainly say for myself that I view having elite female athletes having to compete against persons that are partially or mostly male with the strength advantages that delivers is unfair. The problem is that it also unfair to deny people their right to choose their identity. Both sides need to acknowledge that there is a genuine conflict here. 

[billvon 2,379]

18 minutes ago, metalslug said:

I even offered to provide a definition without context, which you declined. 

Nope.  I didn't decline anything.

You're just making shit up now.  Good luck with your Chewbacca defense!

[metalslug 31]

2 minutes ago, billvon said:

Nope.  I didn't decline anything.

You're just making shit up now.  Good luck with your Chewbacca defense!

You declined to ask me for a definition of a giraffe after I offered one, presumably because I had already indicated what sort I would provide. I had not meant to imply that you declined to provide your definition of a giraffe.  Better?  I do agree though that this debate is going nowhere.

[kallend 1,618]

4 hours ago, metalslug said:

An outright lie. I declined to answer even after the context was provided because that scenario with context was irrelevant to the OP or the KBJ question. "Filling in whatever fabrication" was a suggestion that you should answer your own question. And then...

I even offered to provide a definition without context, which you declined. More wiggle and squirm on your end....

I suggest you stop digging.

[tkhayes 123]

On 4/8/2022 at 1:58 PM, Bigfalls said:

Females are XX, Males are XY.  They can act, dress, identify, transition how ever they like.  Other X, Y combinations have their own definitions.

They are all people and should have equal rights, opportunities, respect and treatment under the law.

 

 

as already discussed, females and males are NOT always XY or XX... that is NOT actually a fact as you might see it.  your view of the reality of the world is incorrect.  there are people born with genitalia that do not match their XY or XX chromosomes.  hence part of the discussion here.  now try again to define a woman or a man that fits all members of society

[kallend 1,618]

2 hours ago, tkhayes said:

as already discussed, females and males are NOT always XY or XX... that is NOT actually a fact as you might see it.  your view of the reality of the world is incorrect.  there are people born with genitalia that do not match their XY or XX chromosomes.  hence part of the discussion here.  now try again to define a woman or a man that fits all members of society

A woman is a human being denied autonomy over her own body by Republican politicians.

[TriGirl 268]

On 4/8/2022 at 12:38 PM, kallend said:

On 4/8/2022 at 12:35 PM, SkyDekker said:

So I ask you then, what the is the legal definition of a woman and in what case would it be relevant?

And why would it be relevant in questioning KJB or any other candidate for Justice?

I'm glad I waited to respond to the replies to my post three pages ago.  Thanks for having my back, friends. This was exactly my point (just catching up)

[JoeWeber 2,294]

12 minutes ago, TriGirl said:

I'm glad I waited to respond to the replies to my post three pages ago.  Thanks for having my back, friends. This was exactly my point (just catching up)

You haven't missed much. All we are now is better prepared to argue with our drunk uncles at next holiday gathering.