• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Brown Jackson ties womanhood to biology

jotathought said:
I'd like to read the reviews from these experts in biology stating that identifying as something makes them that something.
Click to expand...
Go for it. That has nothing with what I am discussing though. My discussion point is the negative corollary to your point, which is sexual organs do not necessarily mean someone is a certain biological sex.
 
vegas giants said:
She wasnt asked to define it for herself but in the context of the law
Click to expand...
Sure she was .. she was asked by Senator Blackburn and responded she couldn't and wasn't a biologist. Her interpretation of "woman" or "man" would influence her decision in law, yet, she doesn't know what it is.
 
jotathought said:
Sure she was .. she was asked by Senator Blackburn and responded she couldn't and wasn't a biologist. Her interpretation of "woman" or "man" would influence her decision in law, yet, she doesn't know what it is.
Click to expand...
And she would have to use expert testimony as it applies to that case.

She answered perfectly
 
tacomancer said:
The significance of my links is that they explain that sex and gender are not the same thing. Therefore it disproves your assertion that biologists define women (or men) down to a set of sexual organs. The secondary significance is that it exposes your scientific illiteracy for the forum to see.
Click to expand...
Nice strawman. But I never claimed biologists define women (or men) down to a set of sexual organs.

It seems I am not the ignorant one here that can't read.

See I..... was ....keeping it civil as I always do until someone starts with the flaming. But you seem to want a mud fight.
 
tacomancer said:
Go for it. That has nothing with what I am discussing though. My discussion point is the negative corollary to your point, which is sexual organs do not necessarily mean someone is a certain biological sex.
Click to expand...
Yes .. yes .. because these "expert biologist" say so in their research. My guess is you're focusing on the minority of individuals born as hermaphrodites, and this represents less than 1.5-1.7% of the overall population.
 
vegas giants said:
And she would have to use expert testimony as it applies to that case.

She answered perfectly
Click to expand...
Expert testimony .. they can call on my 12 year old daughter to help if needed or my friends 10 year old son.
 
Simpletruther said:
Nice strawman. But I never claimed biologists define women (or men) down to a set of sexual organs.

It seems I am not the ignorant one here that can't read.

See I..... was ....keeping it civil as I always do until someone starts with the flaming. But you seem to want a mud fight.
Click to expand...
There is no other way to assert biology then to boil it down to sex organs. So, you are telling me you have some other definition for your assertion of biology here?
 
jotathought said:
Yes .. yes .. because these "expert biologist" say so in their research. My guess is you're focusing on the minority of individuals born as hermaphrodites, and this represents less than 1.5-1.7% of the overall population.
Click to expand...
Hermaphrodite is one possible state, another one is having something like fragile x, another is turner syndrome, another is XXY syndrome, and there is also swyer syndrome. Outside of genetics, there are cases where gender expression does not match dna (an xx person develops a penis in utero), outside of that there is differences in brain development where there may be a mail brain configuration in a female expressed body, etc.

Its complicated and that's why Judge Jackson was wise to admit that its complicated.
 
If this is the best they "got "...........she must be a damn fine pick! Congrats on your choice President Biden!!!
 
tacomancer said:
There is no other way to assert biology then to boil it down to sex organs. So, you are telling me you have some other definition for your assertion of biology here?
Click to expand...
So if biology can only answer the question of woman by sex organs, then why did Jackson refer to biology form the answer?
 
Simpletruther said:
So if biology can only answer the question of woman by sex organs, then why did Jackson refer to biology form the answer?
Click to expand...
I already provided three links to where biologists admit its complicated, keep up with the conversation.
 
tacomancer said:
I already provided three links to where biologists admit its complicated, keep up with the conversation.
Click to expand...
And yet you made this statement:
There is no other way to assert biology then to boil it down to sex organs.
 
Simpletruther said:
And yet you made this statement:
There is no other way to assert biology then to boil it down to sex organs.
Click to expand...
That statement is correct in the context of defining your argument. Do you have a better way to define your argument or are you just looking for a cheap way out since this whole discussion is clearly not going your way?
 
tacomancer said:
That statement is correct in the context of defining your argument. Do you have a better way to define your argument or are you just looking for a cheap way out since this whole discussion is clearly not going your way?
Click to expand...
I clearly was speaking of biology (in whatever way it defines). See!s it was you assuming sex organs were the only way. Not me.
 
Simpletruther said:
The standard definitions you will find from authors give sources are fine with me, which I assume also of brown Jacksons vague reference.
Click to expand...
I have given four links with definitions, by your reasoning, gender includes things like brain chemistry and shows a case where transgender has a potential biological basis as shown in the links I provided.

So given that gender has a basis where transgender can be considered in the mix, I fail to see where one could consider Jackson to be wrong about deferring to expertise to define a very complicated topic.
 
vegas giants said:
I'm glad she is smart enough not to get sucked in by that question


She is sharp
Click to expand...
You’re seriously impressed by someone claiming they don’t know what a woman is?

Honestly woke Democrats need to get out of their bubble more. Vast majorities of Americans are the opposite of impressed by this. I’m starting to wonder if maybe Democrats would be better off listening to voters instead of suppressing their speech.
 
diz said:
You’re seriously impressed by someone claiming they don’t know what a woman is?

Honestly woke Democrats need to get out of their bubble more. Vast majorities of Americans are the opposite of impressed by this. I’m starting to wonder if maybe Democrats would be better off listening to voters instead of suppressing their speech.
Click to expand...
I speak for all of America

Democrats listened to voters. That's how we got


President


Senate



House.


Lol
 
vegas giants said:
I speak for all of America

Democrats listened to voters. That's how we got


President


Senate



House.


Lol
Click to expand...
ok, well good luck with keeping that.

I suggest even more wokeness. Given how well it’s working.
 
diz said:
Yes, it bothers me. She wasn‘t even able to craft an ambiguous answer.

ok, well good luck with that.
Click to expand...
I heard you lost an election. Lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom