KBJ Should be Rejected by Any Self Respecting Woke Democrat

[code1211]

She's not a white conservative?



What's your definition of "woman"?

Your racist indoctrination appears to be complete.

My definition of a woman? An adult human with 2 X Chromosomes in their DNA.

 

[Cardinal]

Your racist indoctrination appears to be complete.

My definition of a woman? An adult human with 2 X Chromosomes in their DNA.

What’s your definition of “racist”?

 

[code1211]

Who gives a shit?

Then why even ask the question?

You're wasting effort in defense of what was a stupid and inappropriate question that has nothing to do with the candidate's qualification to sit on the Supreme Court. So .... WTF?? You didn't like her answer? Well - boo-hoo.

No matter how long you beat this partisan horse, it's still dead, so your efforts to ride it wont keep her off the court. Get over it.

Why is the definition of the word "Woman" a political issue in anyone's consideration?

 

[code1211]

From this very much self respecting and very much woke Democrat I find your lines of reasoning and attempt to pigeon hole folks like me with such flawed reasoning for rejecting Jackson to be quite hilarious and eminently deserving of the mocking I have given it above.

I have no idea what point yo might be trying to make.

 

[code1211]

Your post contained talking points of what stupid RepubliKKKans think democrats believe. She didn't say those beliefs. Some idiot RepubliKKKan did.

She did not refuse to offer a definition saying that she was not a biologist and was therefore not qualified to offer a definition?

You've got a scoop!

Here is the transcript of the exchange:

“Can you provide a definition for the word ‘woman’?” Blackburn asked Jackson

“Can I provide a definition?" Jackson replied, after which Blackburn confirmed that was the question.

"No," Jackson said. "I can’t."

“You can’t?” Blackburn inquired.

“Not in this context," Jackson replied, smiling and gently laughing. "I’m not a biologist."

VIDEO: Ketanji Brown Jackson says she can't define the word 'woman' because she's 'not a biologist' | Blaze Media

U.S. Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson said during confirmation hearings Tuesday that she can't define the word "woman" because she's "not a biologist." What are the details? Republican U.S. Sen. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee raised the question to Jackson in light of the growing...

www.theblaze.com

 

[MamboDervish]

Why is the definition of the word "Woman" a political issue in anyone's consideration?

?? You should ask the person who asked for the definition. If they're honest - which is unlikely - then they'd tell you what their followup questions would be, and how they're designed to discredit any answer by the nominee. Questions by the opposition party that have nothing to do with the law, and nothing to do with the qualifications of the candidate, are designed set traps for the candidate. Such questions are best sidestepped.

 

[code1211]

Use her name.

*sigh*

 

[code1211]

We don't take advice from our enemies.

Thanks anyway.

As someone who asserts that gender is a thing defined by biology, is this nominee not what you seem to define as an enemy of yours?

 

[craig]

I've been waiting for some expert somewhere on one of the Democrat Propaganda outlets to call out the obvious short coming of KBJ.

When asked if she could define the word "woman", she said that she could not because she was not a biologist.

BIOLOGIST? Seriously? Are genders defined based on biology? C'mon, KBJ! 1950 called and they want their thinking back.

Any good Democrat in 2022 understands that gender identification has NOTHING to do with biological considerations and everything to do psychological considerations.

Should be a slam dunk for Democrats to reject this heretic. Next thing you know, she'll be talking about X chromosomes and the age of adulthood.

This is blasphemy against Democrat Party Dogma and the Democrat Party High Priests need to step in and make things right!

Direct from Putin's mouth through your brain.

 

[Luce]

As someone who asserts that gender is a thing defined by biology, is this nominee not what you seem to define as an enemy of yours?

Gender is a construct. Sex is a thing defined by biology.

And again, I don't take advice from my enemies.

 

[LouC]

I have no idea what point yo might be trying to make.

Of course you don't.

 

[What if...?]

I've been waiting for some expert somewhere on one of the Democrat Propaganda outlets to call out the obvious short coming of KBJ.

When asked if she could define the word "woman", she said that she could not because she was not a biologist.

BIOLOGIST? Seriously? Are genders defined based on biology? C'mon, KBJ! 1950 called and they want their thinking back.

Any good Democrat in 2022 understands that gender identification has NOTHING to do with biological considerations and everything to do psychological considerations.

Should be a slam dunk for Democrats to reject this heretic. Next thing you know, she'll be talking about X chromosomes and the age of adulthood.

This is blasphemy against Democrat Party Dogma and the Democrat Party High Priests need to step in and make things right!

So you really do just believe everything you’re told by your media.

It does sound stupid when y’all improvise though.

Stick with the script. It’s why they gave it to you.

 

[What if...?]

Are you saying, then, that facts from biology are all that should determine what is a woman and what is not a woman?

Psychology is also biology. All brain activity is chemical responses to electrical signals. As brain imaging has grown more sophisticated they can watch the brain work in real-time. And lo and behold, people with similar conditions exhibit similar brain activity.

 

[Jay59]

Your indoctrination is funny. That you seem to not understand that your opinion(s) on this are the result of indoctrination is odd.

It is my opinion that it is my opinion and not someone else's. I go to considerable effort to sort the facts before I reach the opinion.

To paraphrase Gertrude Stein, a woman is a woman is a woman.

What Gertrude Stein has to do with legal definitions is a mystery.

If there is a woman who prefers to behave in ways that are not what society has defined to feminine, then that woman is a woman that has chosen to behave in ways that are not what society has defined to feminine.

I have no problem with that. The limit is where they start claiming access to things and places reserved for men, and vice versa.

While in school, a friend has a 280Z that he used to transport paint, drop clothes, brushes and roller and so forth. He wanted it licensed as a truck since he used it as a truck in his side hustle of painting. The state would not license it as a truck. Even though he wanted the state to believe it was a truck, it was, in the real world, a 280Z that was performing actions and jobs of a truck. But it was not a truck.

This makes perfect sense. In the old British sense, the law was predictable but inflexible while equity was flexible but unpredictable.

You call a Great Dane a Poodle, but it's still a Great Dane.

Isn't Cadbury doing commercials about chickens and bunnies?

 

[code1211]

I love me some trumpist hate speech in the morning. "Democrat propaganda outlets".. LOL

Someone just finished watching reruns of Tucker

Who was watching Tucker?

Why do you consider the words "Democrat Propaganda Outlets" to be hate speech?

 

[code1211]

What’s your definition of “racist”?

Any person that views the world using race as their primary filter.

 

[code1211]

?? You should ask the person who asked for the definition. If they're honest - which is unlikely - then they'd tell you what their followup questions would be, and how they're designed to discredit any answer by the nominee. Questions by the opposition party that have nothing to do with the law, and nothing to do with the qualifications of the candidate, are designed set traps for the candidate. Such questions are best sidestepped.

I FEEL that this is an actual question since the folks who consider it to be an issue consider it to be an issue.

Democrats have decided that this is an issue. They have used this issue as a cudgel to abuse people.

The point that is at question in this thread is pretty simple:

KBJ implied that only a biologist could define what a "woman" is.

IF being educated and accredited as a biologist is the only qualification that enables this determination, THEN, obviously, in her eyes, only biological determinations may be applied to make this determination.

An adult male, that is an adult person with an x and y chromosome in their DNA, is a male regardless of whether or not THEY are dressed up like a girl or approved to swim in the girl's division.

 

[code1211]

Direct from Putin's mouth through your brain.

Did Putin recently issue a statement on this topic?

Link?

 

[lurchadams]

Who was watching Tucker?

Why do you consider the words "Democrat Propaganda Outlets" to be hate speech?

Because it is.

 

[BlueTex]

I FEEL that this is an actual question since the folks who consider it to be an issue consider it to be an issue.

Democrats have decided that this is an issue. They have used this issue as a cudgel to abuse people.

The point that is at question in this thread is pretty simple:

KBJ implied that only a biologist could define what a "woman" is.

IF being educated and accredited as a biologist is the only qualification that enables this determination, THEN, obviously, in her eyes, only biological determinations may be applied to make this determination.

An adult male, that is an adult person with an x and y chromosome in their DNA, is a male regardless of whether or not THEY are dressed up like a girl or approved to swim in the girl's division.

Why are you so hostile to the idea of allowing transgender people to live their lives free from persecution and discrimination? Why is it any of your business how people live their lives?

 

[code1211]

Gender is a construct. Sex is a thing defined by biology.

And again, I don't take advice from my enemies.

Sex can be many things. Among them, a verb. Gender is a descriptive word that indicates actual things.

Masking clarity with confused definitions seems to be a tool of Leftists trying to misdirect.

 

[code1211]

Of course you don't.

You seem pleased.

 

[code1211]

So you really do just believe everything you’re told by your media.

It does sound stupid when y’all improvise though.

Stick with the script. It’s why they gave it to you.

I was discussing what the nominee stated and considering what the Leftists in the forum seem to assert.

Has this particular thought been addressed in our media?

 

[code1211]

Psychology is also biology. All brain activity is chemical responses to electrical signals. As brain imaging has grown more sophisticated they can watch the brain work in real-time. And lo and behold, people with similar conditions exhibit similar brain activity.

Can you link to a source that says that psychology is biology? The whole nature vs nurture debate seems o to pivot on this question.

I would assume that they are related as they occur within the body and there is likely an interaction between the two, but it seems likely that they are not the same thing.

 

[code1211]

It is my opinion that it is my opinion and not someone else's. I go to considerable effort to sort the facts before I reach the opinion.


What Gertrude Stein has to do with legal definitions is a mystery.


I have no problem with that. The limit is where they start claiming access to things and places reserved for men, and vice versa.


This makes perfect sense. In the old British sense, the law was predictable but inflexible while equity was flexible but unpredictable.


Isn't Cadbury doing commercials about chickens and bunnies?

With regard to the two highlighted ideas in your thought here, Cadbury and Gertrude Stein are both rarely cited as sources of legal definition.

Cadbury, though, presents the bunny and the chicken to show that one is NOT the other. The message they offer is that one is trying to fool people to believe that which is not real. So... There's that.

I have no problem with anyone doing anything that is not hurtful to anyone else.

I saw a picture of a person who appeared to be a biological male wearing a skirt short enough to leave his buttocks exposed along with stiletto heels and a tank top. Facebook is stunning at times.

Fashion sense aside, if he is a biological male wearing women's clothes, is he a female or is he a man wearing women's clothes? Do actual facts have any bearing on any conclusion regarding gender rising from this?

If being a biologist is the only accreditation that allows recognized differentiation of genders, then it would seem to follow that this differentiation be based on biological considerations.