Perhaps it's time to define what a woman is.....

Blackburn interrupted Jackson's answer.

 

Give it up.

 

What answer? Quote it. Because from what I've watched I can see her full answer to if she can define woman and she clearly said no. Then pause.

 

You got nothing.

 

It's not his logic it is yours and no a person of one sex cannot transform themselves into the other sex.

 

Hence the term, TRANSGENDER!!!

 

Blackburn interrupted Jackson's answer.

Senator Blackburn: Okay, can you provide a definition for the word "woman?"

Judge Jackson: Can I provide a definition for the word "woman?" No.

Senator Blackburn: Um hum. Yeah.

Judge Jackson: No, I can't.

Senator Blackburn: You can't?

Judge Jackson: Not in this context? I'm not a biologist.

Senator Blackburn: [Interrupting] So the meaning of the word "woman" is so unclear and controversial you can't give me a definition?

Judge Jackson: Senator, in my work as a judge, what I do is address disputes. If there is a dispute about a definition, people make arguments and I look at the law, and I decide. So I'm not...

Senator Blackburn: [Interrupting] The fact you can't give me a straight answer about something as fundamental as what a woman is underscores […]​

Try watching the video.

​

 

A woman is any human being who self-identifies as one. Their assigned sex at birth is irrelevant.

Women's rights are human rights, as are men's and non-binaries

People who disagree with this are people who should mind their own business. I truly don't understand why so many conservatives seem to have such a problem with this simple idea.

 

There's no amount of "thinking" that can turn a male into a female or vice versa.... Only magical thinking can make that happen.

 

What happens throughout history is that powers seek to splinter human beings into labelled groups and then legislate against those minorities they don't like by passing laws that affect them adversely.
Just wait. The supreme court, now they have the bit between their teeth, will start to peck away at LGBGTQ+ rights through some "interpretation of the constitution" all of their own.
They want an obedient, homogenised population which is easy to control and where deviation is clearly evident and punishable.
Like Germany in the 30's
Like Russia.
Like China
Like North Korea.
It is the technique of the oppressor where individuality is denied.
It must be resisted, this obvious huge overreach of government. Personal freedom demands it.

 

Ok you seem to be confused here.shw clearly states as you have quoted that she can't. And then uses a modifier to the definition "not in this context". And then proceeds to explain why she can't. She was at no point trying to define the term woman. She was explaining why she couldn't define the term woman.

And I would still say her thought for that excuse was fully fleshed out. Meaning, the excuse was fully realized. She's not a biologist.

Ok. So... No. The answer to the question "can you define the meaning of the word woman" was clearly answered.

Nobody cares in this thread about her dipshit excuse as to why. We all know why.

 

To be honest she missed the obvious answer which would be:
I am a woman.
You are not.
So you tell me what you think a woman is and I'll decide if I think you are right.
From the personal experience you don't have.
Because if I tell you what I think a woman is, you won't know if I am right or wrong.

 

It's only the English language and defining what things are. You do not get to redefine things because they make you sad.

That's not how language works.

 

Because it's retarded. And anybody who argues it isn't has shown themselves to be beyond any reason or to be not living in reality.

 

No, you're the one who's confused. Blackburn interrupted Jackson who may have been trying to explain why she couldn't, or perhaps shouldn't, define "woman."

I don't think you do.

 

You haven’t been paying attention. A person with a uterus who identifies as a man is no longer a woman according to Democrats, since being a woman has NOTHING to do with having a uterus or bearing children. Have you NOT been paying attention to the words Democrat leaders are using?

Our future SCJ couldn’t answer the ****ing question. You know that right? She couldn’t answer the most basic question any 3 year old can answer.

 

Care to explain what gotcha moment there is to defining what a woman is? Seems the only people who think there’s a gotcha are the mentally ill who can’t answer a very simple question. And mental illness is pandemic.

 

None of that matters because those are all issues dealing with transgenderism. That's a separate issue, and one rife with stupidity for sure, but completely unrelated to abortion. No matter what you want to call yourself or how you want to define a woman, only a female with a functional uterus will ever be affected by abortion legislation and the denial of their right to healthcare. What the woman in the OP did was try to tie this very straight-forward issue in with something unrelated entirely to try and score gotcha points. In reality it just made her look boorish and petty, which I suspect she probably is based on the caliber of her comment here.

 

Oh, please.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kimelsesser/2021/07/27/what-makes-an-athlete-female-heres-how-the-olympics-decide/?sh=5a85bcc54f9c

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25160863/

Protecting women from unfair competition isn't as simple as checking body parts.

 

You are incorrect. Bad teachers make as much as good teachers. If increasing pay worked, LAUSD would not rank with the lowest in the country as they do now. We need competition. I grew up here in Los Angeles and went through the LAUSD meat grinder. (I did have 3 great teachers) I raised 5 kids here. I knew their teachers and worked with the PTSA. They threatened to hold 2 of my kids back a grade. They told me that my kids needed to be on medication for ADHD. I put them in a charter school and both graduated early.

Why shouldn't those working hard for their money expect a return on their investment in education?

As of now, poor parents have no choice but to send their kids to the school assigned to them based on their location. If they use their freinds address to get their kids into a better, safer school, they have committed enrollment fraud and face criminal charges. Don't tell me that unions and politicians give a damn about the kids.

 

Which rights are you referring to?

 

I can't say I've ever heard of there being a racial equivalent to gender dysphoria. This might be due to how one develops their understanding of gender vs ethnicity. Medical studies show that one doesn't begin to understand the concept of gender until about 18 to 24 months old, and for ethnicity they don't understand the concept until about 4 or 6 years old, I would also imagine the developmental process of how we understand these things are very difference. Whatever the case, I wouldn't rule out the possibility of it's existence, and if that is the case, I would say that someone who might live under those conditions as a dysphoria shouldn't be misunderstood to be someone who does those things out of a desire to mock one's culture, or that it's something they do simply because they find it fashionable.

To address your question, I do think there needs to be mutual respect and understanding between people with dysphoria and people who do not have dysphoria. There are struggles biological women might experience that transwomen do not, and vice versa. For example, transwomen aren't a group that might experience forced pregnancy, and that's something that should be understood and respect between the two groups. In regards to race, it should be understood that ethnicity isn't merely a matter of skin color, but is also something that is related to culture, community, and experience. I don't believe anyone should be forced to agree that a person with a dysphoria is a part of another group of people, but also think there is a respectful way to handle said disagreement. I wouldn't support anyone losing their job over their disagreement, unless they crossed a certain line in handling that disagreement

Interesting rationale

So if I should only consider people I would have sex with women, does that mean I should consider all people I wouldn't have sex with men?

Also, what should the standard be for trans men?

 

Not sure about your point because she was asked by a woman Senator.

 

Isn't though You dodge the question, as simplistic as it was! We all consider at some point if we are to have sex with any of our partners/relationship.. The question is, would you have sex with a Woman after finding out He/She has a penis?

A simple yes or no will suffice

 

The California greaseball said men can’t get pregnant and some people politely disagree.

Gavin Newsom savagely mocked as ‘disgusting transphobe’ for claiming men can’t get pregnant at abortion rally


https://www.foxnews.com/media/gavin...ing-transphobe-men-cant-get-pregnant-abortion