• Content

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback


Everything posted by metalslug

  1. How is that relevant? It's your scenario so fill in whatever fabrication is missing from it. 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.
  2. In the same way that you might struggle to find US legislation that defines a grape, a giraffe or a pencil, and yet legal scholars can reasonably be expected to know what these are. You're making my argument for me.
  3. That is not the OP of the thread or the question that was asked to KBJ. Regardless, to entertain your question; I would say only the 'XY woman'. The answer is already implicit in the phrase itself. A medical doctor is not someone who is "halfway through becoming a doctor" or "just begun the training to be a doctor" or "intends to be a doctor" or "living as a doctor". Of more importance here is not whether my opinion on this is either 'correct' or popular, but more significantly that I've offered one at all under questioning. As did you (IIRC). Should other more prominent public figures be so bold...
  4. You're not aware that US law includes Women's legal rights ? m'kay.... Still your turn. You expected me to answer and yet you've clammed up? Figures.
  5. Unless otherwise stipulated in the specific legislation; I believe it defaults to being the same as the grammatical definition; an adult human female. It would apply to any case in which gender impacts the application of the laws in question. (See, it is possible to give some kind of opinion, albeit generalised, without knowing case specifics). Your turn.
  6. It's fair to have that opinion but mine disagrees; I believe it would only be relevant in determining if particular individuals in the case concerned were men or women and not the actual definition of a woman. Perhaps similar to knowing specific case details to decide whether fraud was committed, rather than to decide what fraud is. Legal statutes already exist for that definition.
  7. And yet people here have been trying to do exactly that. Does that make them foolish? Much less smart than KBJ? OK. I'll bite. What's telling about it? Is it easier to define a man? Is the definition any clearer? In the link I posted previously the Australian senator involved did actually ask for either definition and received neither. It's rather clairvoyant of you to claim that nobody has been asked to define a man.
  8. That's rather my point. Either they don't know, or they do know and lack the courage to make statements in that regard with eloquence matching yours. What's remarkable is failing to give any answer at all.
  9. I agree that it was a 'gotcha' question, but it's only a gotcha question when faced by woke lefties and therein lies the cowardice in failing to answer. I've chosen that word because I don't believe KBJ to be either unintelligent or ignorant. I believe she simply lacked the courage to state what defined English grammar, the vast mainstream and indeed even herself has always known a woman to be, for fear of backlash from the woke mob. In another potential 'gotcha' moment; a similar incident played out at an Australian senate estimates session in which neither the Workplace Gender Equality Agency nor the Health Secretary, a professor of medicine, were willing to provide a definition, despite gender specific legislation being under discussion at the time. By contrast; some woke-aligned members in this forum have at least offered up their preferred definitions. Regardless of whether I might agree with such definitions or not, such members at least had the conviction to offer up something, perhaps because none of us here are prominent public figures on camera in the broad media.
  10. They are not ovaries. Period. What they 'present as' on cursory examination has no relevance at all. (I can present as Santa Claus). You wrote nonsense and were caught on it. 'make them'? that your preferred parenting style? I would encourage them to identify as female, as the closest approximation of what they are and have familiarity with. I have certainly never stated that women are strictly XX as I'm familiar enough with the difference between DSD and transgender. I'll even do you one better; I'd be willing to call a XY born male, after fully transitioned , a woman.
  11. The scenario above can never happen. Neither AIS (Morris) or Swyer syndrome can result in ovaries. Also; DSD or intersex should not be confused with transgender, not mutually inclusive at all. The former occurs in approx. 1 in 15000 women with XY and the latter around 2% who self-identify as trans or some variation thereof. Arguing the case of one group to explain another is dishonest.
  12. Heey.. wait a second;[]/0 Were they working on the theory that if they go from right to left then they would end up in the center? If they switched from Fox to CNN then they were never exposed to the 'real danger' of unbiased media.
  13. Read it again carefully and then put away your strawman. Not 'people'. 'Americans'. Do you see what's wrong with it yet? For Joe to assert that votes against Harris would be based exclusively on race and gender is as absurd as asserting that votes against Trump would be based on the same.
  14. Did it occur to you how your own racism and sexism shows in that statement? You've asserted that a particular race and gender are superior, on their own merits, irrespective of other character faults. Compare your statement to this example; "...disturbing number of Americans would choose a giggling, insincere buffoon over a white man as our President?" Are you able to see what's wrong with this?
  15. So long as they are facts, it would seem irrelevant where they come from in this case. It's not as though 'the Post' would publish anything that embarrasses their narratives. Feel free to dispute that any of those quotes are accurate.
  16. Nothing that hasn't already been covered by previous posts, unless it helps you if I add a "So what ?"
  17. Allow me to spell it out then; I had 'corrected' it to read as "people who only read their own sources", as in the context of exclusively referencing typically biased media sources who decline to publish anything that disturbs a left (or right) world view narrative; Righties: "The lefties are only reading left-wing biased media." Lefties: "Not true! I read widely from sources A, B, C, D ...." Righties: "Really? The you've missed this factual event reported in source C" Lefties: <silence> To be fair, both sides do this, so neither can be sanctimonious about it. There are regular news events that would make lefty politics feel awkward to discuss that never make it into SC, it's rather surprising that the 'trolling' is actually so limited considering the abundance of available material. It's then also automatic that none of these events would be posted by the lefties themselves as they are likely never even reported in their focused media of choice.
  18. Then perhaps... without folks like myself, brent, winsor, & whoever.. then members here might experience the same echo chamber monotone.
  19. Utter nonsense and deflection. This was a questioning for a judicial position, she was quite logically being asked her legal opinion on a legal definition and did not offer any definition at all, other than to assert that only a biologist could possibly provide a definition. There's no amount of woke spin you can put on that. Nope. Witness #3 would be the most useless as they had the worst view, from behind. The witness with the best view gets the higher regard. Did they all see a man in drag? It's not the witnesses' obligation to make that determination, the courts and the investigators do. They should hope their presiding judge knows what a woman or a man is.
  20. And yet an actual legal expert, on questioning for a judiciary position, deferred the question in it's entirety to expertise in biology. Absurd sporting outcomes by trans participants , non-transitioned men using women's public facilities. 'knowing that something is wrong' does not only apply in the context that you've used it. I would agree that it doesn't seem fair to permanently deny such participants the ability to ever compete in sports again and there may yet be a method to include these participants fairly, it's just not happening reliably enough yet.
  21. Hmm.. we might require a special qualification to know the answer. It's a hard question ! According to at least one member of the judiciary; one needs to be a biologist to know (to their credit they thereby acknowledge that gender is biological), in the same way that only a veterinarian or zoologist would know what a horse is and only a botanist could define an apple...
  22. Perhaps I'm a little naïve but I'd still like to believe that the US justice system still works on the presumption of innocence and that courts of law can prevail over courts of public opinion. How many cases have we already seen, against defendants on the left and right, in which the prosecutors had stated that they had 'overwhelming evidence' only to be undone by insufficient evidence or a failure to properly understand the actual law. For this reason I'll take any politically tainted claims of 'overwhelming evidence' with a pinch of salt. Therefore, in these future cases too, vs Trump and now vs Hillary, I'd be keen to see how both would fare. Bragg wont have his position forever and unless there's a statute of limitations on the charges then there will surely be opportunities later for it ?
  23. Forgive my previous acerbic comment to you. Is this perhaps better? Now compare that to "Hunter didn't deny that Putin ordered Trump to try to discredit his father". With all the effort from the left in attempting to debunk the laptop it would be really easy for Hunter to deny the laptop as his, would indeed be one of the strongest testimonies per his personal knowledge of it. By comparison; I didn't deny it was my laptop and you didn't deny it was yours. Yet if either of us were asked the same question it would be an unequivocal response easily proven. Yet Hunter doesn't, keeping his options open for when it awkwardly comes clean.