Ketanji can’t define what a woman is

But they are. Lia is an example.

 

pedophiles trading images pedophiles.

Further do you think people just do this for free? Acquire children for someone to sex acts record it with your photograph for video camera all for nothing?

I disagree with you they are child predators. Just because the image is into person doesn't mean the person in the image isn't a person and they are praying on that person. So yes they absolutely are child predators.

just because they're only caught one time and you didn't catch him doing other things doesn't mean it's the first time it typically isn't.

Child predators are a scourge I don't care if it's the first time they were caught.

if that were true you could prove it but you didn't so it's not a fact you just lied.

oh I'm really swayed by an editor's opinion that's the gold standard of hard evidence.

False she is a soft on child predators. You just excuse some child predators for their disgusting behavior that has nothing to do with Jackson.

 

You can't, ergo its not without doubt. Thanks for playing dear.

 

Oh there's doubt of everything. Gravity may be wrong but I'll leave jumping off buildings to Neo, thanks much.

 

Lia defeats men? or is defeated?

 

First time offenders of crimes of certainly a pedophilic nature but which neither can be proven to have produced the material themselves and therefore be linked to actual harm to a child, who the statutes congress wrote which authorizes the Court's judgment and jurisdiction says should be given a SLIGHT leniency weighted against the guidelines. That means they end up with 5-10 rather than 20-50.
As pedos in the fed pen. That's not a soft sentence by any means for a first offense in which no person can be shown to have been harmed by the defendant.
To be clear: These offenses can be as simple as the kid who sent nudes of himself and was later charged with possession of child porn IE His own photographs he took of his own weiner. They can also be nefarious adults trading their profligate degeneracy in chat rooms. And all points in between.

Do people do it for free? Yeah man, people do ****ed up **** all the time and tape it for free. But here? In the cases that Judge Brown-Jackson ruled in and Cotton etc complained of? None of those persons 1) produced any material themselves or 2) received any compensation.


A predator hunts and kills. When applied to child rapists, it means they go out and seek minors to kidnap and rape. A person guilty of a first time, non production offense does not fit that definition.
Guess what: You only get to punish them for what you have before the Court in evidence BARD. You don't get to punish them for what you assume they have done. That's not how that works, and Protip: If you want to seem like you have the interests of justice at heart, don't talk about prosecutions for facts never brought in to evidence.

Child predators are a scourge, which is why they catch 20-50 in the fed pen and tend to not survive those runs because they get butt ****ed to death or simply killed. First time non-production pedophiles of the kind mentioned in Judge Brown-Jackson's cases complained of are likewise a scourge, but a far lesser one. Additionally apparently they're one that can be fixed and according to the data have a 3% rate of recidivism.

I don't believe you've asked me to prove anything. You certainly haven't offered any evidence of your own claim that first time non production pedophiles recidivise at a rate far in excess of more normal crimes. Make you a deal: You show me yours, and I'll show you mine.

When even the national review doesn't think it can spin it that way, you might try to take notice.

No, she's in the standard for the vast majority of the federal bench (bipartisan here too) and in compliance with the law congress wrote which gives her authority to adjudicate the case in the first place.
I'm not excusing anything, I'm pointing out facts and law.

 

I don't care if you think pedophilia is okay the first time I don't.

 

I am not confused at all.
I don't make NCAA rules either. And I doubt the NCAA rules committee are confused.
They deal with this type of issues all the time.
However, they can change their rules anytime. In fact, I thought they had done so, but I guess not.

But at this time, Thomas is a transgendered female and meets NCAA guidelines to compete.

And mine nor your opinion is considered in their decision.

 

Knock it off. Don't worry about things you can't control. That's the reality. Join it.
Thomas is a transgendered female, no matter how much you complain. It's not going to change it.

 

And I only responded to a poster giving a definition, which wasn't a definition of a woman. But of a born female.

So, I am not sidestepping.

 

You and I are in agreement. So I don't see how you have points against me.

Restrictions on arms ownership SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. I agree with that, even though we have many restrictions against the actual written words of the 2A.

 

Men's history month is every month of the year.

A woman can't choose all birth control options available. Abortion is one issue. In some cases, maybe the morning after pill.

A trans female. Not a male, anymore
I suspect all your names will be trans people, so I again ask, what male(s) are competing in womens sports.

Even better, what sports organization allows men to compete against women?

 

Your opinions are only meaningful to you.
Certainly not to the sports organizations that allow trans athletes at this time.

 

Marsha Blackburn
Ketanji Jackson Brown

Webster defines woman as below.

Definition of woman


1a : an adult female person
b : a woman belonging to a particular category (as by birth, residence, membership, or occupation) —usually used in combination councilwoman
2 : womankind
3 : distinctively feminine nature : womanliness
4 : a woman who is a servant or personal attendant
5a chiefly dialectal : wife
b : mistress
c : girlfriend sense 2
6 : a woman who is extremely fond of or devoted to something specified

 

See, that wasn’t hard. No where do I see a man being defined as a woman.

 

Who claimed a man was any part of a woman definition?

But, a man could be part of definition 3 from webster.
There are some very feminine males.

 

So the NCAA gets to define what a women is. What? are they biologists? So the NCCA guidelines cater to the woke. Sounds to me like you and a few others have altered your definitions as well. What does up mean? How does it relate to down? Can one be altered to be the other? Just trying to get in your head.

 

So the NCAA gets to define what a women is. What? are they biologists? So the NCCA guidelines cater to the woke. Sounds to me like you and a few others have altered your definitions as well. What does up mean? How does it relate to down? Can one be altered to be the other? Just trying to get in your head.

With ovaries?

 

So a trans woman is still be a male, you’re aware of that. Which makes it solely a mental state.

 

Guess in the "woke " world they could always make that decision when convenient. They might get tired of playing peekaboo in women's restrooms.

 

The NCAA determines who qualifies to compete in their competition. They are not a dictionary defining terms.


Ovaries were not in any single definition of woman from their dictionary

 

I don't think so, I think they are a trans female.
If it's a male to female trans. But male, if female to male trans.

I have no idea if it's solely a mental state. I am not trans nor have I ever talked to a trans.

 

Chris Rock is no biologist:

​

 

Once again I will suggest that being a woman is NOT simply a question of biology, either natural of imposed.
That is the MALE response.
It is the response of men or transwomen but completely ignores what differentiates men from women...the emotional approach and reactions to life, the appreciation of the abstract over the up front practical, the prominence of the emotional over the hard headed visual reality.
These things are "of the brain" and come from natural hormonal hookups and expressions. That which is shown by, after equal rearing, boys pick up tools and girls pick up dolls.
You cannot inject, replace or pretend these gender markers.
I used to think men should be respected for their personal decisions and to a large extent, still do.
But they do not become women by changing the physical plumbing or receiving hormones to create feminine physical characteristics.
IMO any doctor involved in counselling trannies should be a woman.
No man knows what being a woman feels like so cannot decide on the merits of cases. Likewise no born male can fully become a woman.
They can only look like one.
The process is called "gender disphoria".
For a real reason.

 

Future biologist;