Biden admin agencies refuse to answer, 'What is a woman?'

[roguenuke]

It’s in the name of safety like all other assaults we allow.

That's not safety, it's sexual assault and violation of rights. You have no right to know what is under someone's pants.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Doesn't matter. You said that basically she doesn't count as a woman because she has XY chromosomes. Doesn't matter how abnormal her condition is. She is considered a woman, despite having XY chromosomes.

How nature builds the body is natural, even when there are flaws.

 

[roguenuke]

How nature builds the body is natural, even when there are flaws.

Then why do we fix a number of other "flaws" through surgeries and all sorts of treatments? That argument really doesn't work very well in reality.

 

[RealityNow]

Biden admin agencies refuse to answer, 'What is a woman?'


Woke ideology has created a conundrum where actual women are being pushed aside.

Now anyone can identify as a woman and receive preferential consideration for federal job opportunities and contracts.

This actually diminishes the very purposes and equality it was designed to create. The playing field has been tilted away from women.

Bullshit "Spin"... It sounds more like the slave owner in the Movie, "Roots", beating Kunta because he did not want to give up his name to be called Toby.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Doesn't matter. You said that basically she doesn't count as a woman because she has XY chromosomes. Doesn't matter how abnormal her condition is. She is considered a woman, despite having XY chromosomes.

And it's due to a genetic defect. I'm not disagreeing with that. The science is clear on it. Those changing visible gender using surgery and hormones, are a different class yet.

 

[roguenuke]

And it's due to a genetic defect. I'm not disagreeing with that. The science is clear on it. Those changing visible gender using surgery and hormones, are a different class yet.

Doesn't matter. The science isn't clear at all what actually makes a person a woman vice a man, and that has nothing to do with gender. That is why asking someone to define a woman is stupid and politically motivated, not serious at all.

 

[Chillfolks]

That's not safety, it's sexual assault and violation of rights. You have no right to know what is under someone's pants.

Sure you do especially if you are talking about something that is gender specific. The public’s right to safety above all else is how these infringements into our rights are validated. The ship has sailed long ago

 

[Lord of Planar]

Doesn't matter. The science isn't clear at all what actually makes a person a woman vice a man, and that has nothing to do with gender. That is why asking someone to define a woman is stupid and politically motivated, not serious at all.

Well, we disagree.

Do you think trans-women in sports, don't have an advantage to genetic women?

 

[roguenuke]

Sure you do especially if you are talking about something that is gender specific. The public’s right to safety above all else is how these infringements into our rights are validated. The ship has sailed long ago

No, it isn't, regardless how many times you repeat this absolute nonsense. The public has no right to know what's between anyone's legs. If you try that, you should not only be charged, but put in jail.

 

[roguenuke]

Well, we disagree.

Do you think trans-women in sports, don't have an advantage to genetic women?

Depends on the levels of hormones. I'm fine with separating all sports into hormone ranges rather than sex. That would certainly make things interesting. Overall, I simply don't care about rules regarding private sport competition.

 

[Chillfolks]

No, it isn't, regardless how many times you repeat this absolute nonsense. The public has no right to know what's between anyone's legs. If you try that, you should not only be charged, but put in jail.

Do what’s you want in private respect the norms of society in public.

 

[roguenuke]

Do what’s you want in private respect the norms of society in public.

This makes no sense.

The public has no right to sexually assault people simply for "norms" that aren't really normal at all but the beliefs or fearmongering of a very small part of the public.

 

[Indydave]

anyone with half a brain can see this is a gotcha question......whatever one answers makes them look like a fool.....it's third grade childish bs.....only a third grade childish half wit would ask such a question

 

[Schism]

What is your definition of a "women"?

Would you definition hold up in court?

Yes, this would hold up in court.

woman​

noun

wom·an | \ ˈwu̇-mən , especially Southern ˈwō- or ˈwə- \
plural women\ ˈwi-mən \

Definition of woman​

1a: an adult female person

 

[Schism]

More fake culture war dumbassery?

Pass.

You didn't pass at all, you posted to confess your inability to define words that the world agreed upon centuries ago.

 

[Chillfolks]

This makes no sense.

The public has no right to sexually assault people simply for "norms" that aren't really normal at all but the beliefs or fearmongering of a very small part of the public.

Again as long as they label it in he name of safety is considered an ok infringement. That ship left port years ago. It was great when it benefited your views but not so much when it doesn’t.

 

[roguenuke]

Again as long as they label it in he name of safety is considered an ok infringement. That ship left port years ago. It was great when it benefited your views but not so much when it doesn’t.

Nope, again, not how that would work, especially not for some fringe group who wants such intrusion. Would not pass constitutional muster as you have no right to assault someone for something that has nothing to do with safety. Your fearmongering does not override others' rights.

 

[roguenuke]

Yes, this would hold up in court.

woman​

noun

wom·an | \ ˈwu̇-mən , especially Southern ˈwō- or ˈwə- \
plural women\ ˈwi-mən \

Definition of woman​

1a: an adult female person

Nope. Courts care mainly in fact about legal definitions. Compare legal definitions and see how much they would leave out from your vague definition given.

 

[Chillfolks]

Nope, again, not how that would work, especially not for some fringe group who wants such intrusion. Would not pass constitutional muster as you have no right to assault someone for something that has nothing to do with safety. Your fearmongering does not override others' rights.

Promote general welfare it’s in the preamble