What is a woman?

[GeorgiaDon 340]

On 4/11/2022 at 9:21 AM, kallend said:

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

The same can be said if you are transgender, or anywhere on the LGBTQ spectrum.

[JoeWeber 2,294]

1 hour ago, GeorgiaDon said:

The same can be said if you are transgender, or anywhere on the LGBTQ spectrum.

I'd like to know just what they hope society gains if their confounding exercise comes to fruition. I get fully what their own narrow, tight assed world view gains but what betterment for all can they see ahead? That simply mystifies me.

[kallend 1,621]

1 hour ago, GeorgiaDon said:

The same can be said if you are transgender, or anywhere on the LGBTQ spectrum.

Yes, but this thread is about women.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

1 hour ago, kallend said:

Yes, but this thread is about women.

Yes, and no.  This thread is also about the gotcha question that was an attempt to get Justice Jackson to "commit" to a narrow definition that would support the Republican goal of dehumanizing everyone who doesn't fit into their antiquated evangelical Christian square boxes.

Edited April 12, 2022 by GeorgiaDon

[JoeWeber 2,294]

4 minutes ago, GeorgiaDon said:

Yes, and no.  This thread is also about the gotcha question that was an attempt to get Justice Jackson to "commit" to a narrow definition that would support the Republican goal of dehumanizing everyone who doesn't fit into their antiquated evangelical Christian square boxes.

Yep. And that's where we aren't supposed to go if we're gentle persons. We're supposed to be chill and only kind of address the real problem. 

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

I'd like to know just what they hope society gains if their confounding exercise comes to fruition. I get fully what their own narrow, tight assed world view gains but what betterment for all can they see ahead? That simply mystifies me.

They don't give one single fuck about 'all'.

Or 'society' as a whole.

They don't think 'those people should have any rights.

If there's one thing I've learned in the past 2+ years, it's that the 'conservative' types give exactly ZERO fucks about anyone but themselves.

[gowlerk 1,903]

2 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

I'd like to know just what they hope society gains if their confounding exercise comes to fruition.

Similarly I wonder if they fully understand what is going to happen in America if individual states are suddenly allowed to make abortion illegal. Do they not see that as soon as people start having to go to jail there will be a gigantic backlash?

[JoeWeber 2,294]

37 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Similarly I wonder if they fully understand what is going to happen in America if individual states are suddenly allowed to make abortion illegal. Do they not see that as soon as people start having to go to jail there will be a gigantic backlash?

Got me, brother. Maybe it's just that some of us aren't just looking down the street but are also wondering what's around the corner.

[billvon 2,384]

3 hours ago, gowlerk said:

Similarly I wonder if they fully understand what is going to happen in America if individual states are suddenly allowed to make abortion illegal. Do they not see that as soon as people start having to go to jail there will be a gigantic backlash?

I don't think so.  Abortion has been legal for so long that they really think that all they are doing is "saving the babies" from all the evil promiscuous women who use abortion as birth control because they are so lazy they can't be bothered to think ahead.  And who cares what bitches like that think?

Then when their mistress gets pregnant, they will rationalize this as "well, she's not like all the whores and sluts, we just made a mistake" and push her into flying to a blue state to get an abortion.  Consider GOP anti-abortion stalwart Scott Lloyd who once blocked a 17 year old girl from getting an abortion after she was raped.  When his ex got pregnant, though, not only did he drive her to the clinic - he paid for half.

Or Elliot Broidy, the former RNC finance chairman who was staunchly anti-abortion, then paid his Playboy Playmate mistress $1.6m to get an abortion and keep quiet about it.  Or Tim Murphy, the pro-life Pennsylvania Republican who tried to force his mistress to get an abortion.  Or Scott DesJarlais, who not only agreed with his wife to get two abortions, he also pushed his 24 year patient who he had sex with to get an abortion.  After he supplied her with prescription opioids and marijuana. (And she was only one of six patients he had sex with.)

Needless to say, Scott still claims to have a “100% pro-life voting record" and is still serving - and is very popular with republicans in his home district in Tennessee.  He has stated that "God has forgiven me."

None of this will change.  The only thing that will change is that republican politicians will have to shell out more to fly their mistresses to California.  Maybe they can deduct the airfare?

[wmw999 2,116]

7 hours ago, billvon said:

they will rationalize this as "well, she's not like all the whores and sluts, we just made a mistake" and push her into flying to a blue state to get an abortion.

This, a thousand times this. The mature/intellectually honest ones will then realize that others might make mistakes just as honestly, and withdraw their active fighting against abortion rights. They’ll probably never be hard-fire pro-choice because it feels so wrong, but they’ll be more pro birth control, and will begin to understand what the real purpose of Planned Parenthood is.

The immature etc will just keep going and hope no one learns of the abortion they’ve participated in, or they’ll blame the other, or God will forgive them (pro tip: if you believe in God, that’s kind of what He does). They want to think they have privileges above hoi polloi  

I’ve had personal friends go down this path. None of them doubled down on the anti-abortion thing after their (or their kid’s) experience.

Wendy P. 

[brenthutch 383]

On 3/26/2022 at 2:29 PM, billvon said:

Sex is biological.  Gender is societal.  Not that hard.

What about race?  Race is 100% societal.  

[wmw999 2,116]

16 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

What about race?  Race is 100% societal.  

It is. And it’s society that has institutions — you know, the source of institutional discrimination.

Wendy P. 

[brenthutch 383]

1 hour ago, wmw999 said:

It is. And it’s society that has institutions — you know, the source of institutional discrimination.

Wendy P. 

Example please 

[billvon 2,384]

2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

What about race?  Race is 100% societal.  

Race is biological.  Racism - how we treat other races - is societal.

[brenthutch 383]

3 minutes ago, billvon said:

Race is biological.  Racism - how we treat other races - is societal.

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/06/16/how-fluid-is-racial-identity/race-and-racial-identity-are-social-constructs

[billvon 2,384]

23 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/06/16/how-fluid-is-racial-identity/race-and-racial-identity-are-social-constructs

Again, race is biological.

If someone has a heart attack, their doctor will prescribe different drugs for them based on whether they are African-American or not.  That's because there is a biological difference.

If someone is out in the sun a lot, their doctor will have different recommendations for sunscreen based on the pigmentation of their skin, which is largely due to race.  Again, that is due to a biological difference.

[JoeWeber 2,294]

51 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/06/16/how-fluid-is-racial-identity/race-and-racial-identity-are-social-constructs

From 2015 but updated in 2016? Got anything newer on a floppy you can slip into your Commodore? 

[JoeWeber 2,294]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/06/16/how-fluid-is-racial-identity/race-and-racial-identity-are-social-constructs

To be a sport I read the article for you. There were actually a couple of interesting ideas that might not be visible in the conservative light spectrum.  For example, the idea that you might feel your race shift in reaction to wrongs done to a loved one of another race. Well, obviously that's not happening. What is happening is called sympathy and empathy, the essence of simpatico. So, for some folks it might indeed cause them to feel somewhat more aligned with another humans circumstance. Seems to me that's a good thing. The other bit was how someone might feel if they were discriminated against because they had a name that sounded African American, or perhaps, just happened to live in Cabrini-Green or Harlem. Maybe it wouldn't bother you because it didn't count because you aren't African American but I do believe it would leave me damn angry and feeling as if I were discriminated against racially even though I'm Caucasian. Hmm..

[wmw999 2,116]

4 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

There were actually a couple of interesting ideas that might not be visible in the conservative light spectrum.

I love that sentence. It's absolutely perfect.

Wendy P.

[brenthutch 383]

 

[jakee 1,254]

On 4/11/2022 at 4:09 AM, metalslug said:

KBJ was asked the same question and declined to give any answer at all except to defer it to biological expertise

Why is it so important to you that she said that? Why do you treat it as such an argument ending 'gotcha' moment?

Do you think she's always exactly and completely right about everything she says?

[wmw999 2,116]

Because “woman” only has one meaning to him. But that meaning is biological, cultural, legal, behavioral, and temporal, and to mix them up is to use people for one’s own ends, rather than to treat others as they would be treated.

Consider how someone 150 years ago might have described a woman; how someone in Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia would describe one, how a Southern Baptist would describe one, and how an American lawyer in their legal capacity would describe one. Only the lawyer would want to know the context — because to the others, women don’t have enough agency to completely define themselves. That doesn’t eliminate others from assuming women have complete agency, it’s just some examples, with religious and national assumptions stroked broadly  

Wendy P. 

[billvon 2,384]

2 hours ago, wmw999 said:

Because “woman” only has one meaning to him.

When a new jumper gets their license, starts to jump and gets to about 100 jumps, often they decide they know everything. 

"Pilot chute in tow?  You cut that shit away!  That's how I learned, that's how everyone learned, and if you don't do it you're an idiot."

"Well of course I use one hand per handle.  Do you really want to be fumbling for your reserve handle?  If you ever find yourself at 800 feet with a malfuinction and you don't do it via my method, you'll DIE.  Do you want to DIE?"

They know everything.

Some of them then start really learning about skydiving.  They will hear about someone who went in because they spent time trying to cut away what they THOUGHT was a PC in tow.  Or someone who died jumping the same canopy they are jumping - but who was a better canopy pilot.  And if they are lucky, they learn from that.

These people can often finally get to the stage where they say "I don't know; there's no one ideal answer."  And those are the people I worried a lot less about when I was teaching.  Because they realized that this stuff is hard - and that meant they would dedicate the resources to learn about it.  Bertrand Russel had a quote about this, talking about how "the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt."  Another way to look at it is the classic skill/confidence curve, shown below.

Some skydivers (and some people) get to the point where they realize they don't know everything.  That's an important stage for the more intelligent people out there - to get to the right side of that graph.

 

[wmw999 2,116]

And note that the final point is still lower than the cocksure — because of the awareness that there’s always more.

Wendy P. 

[kallend 1,621]

2 hours ago, wmw999 said:

And note that the final point is still lower than the cocksure — because of the awareness that there’s always more.

Wendy P. 

Drs. Dunning and Kruger had something to say about this.