Ketanji can’t define what a woman is

People who are not born women are not women. Your definition is the faulty one.

 

Sex is scientifically judged by physical attributes. Period! How utterly confused can you be if you are going to deny that sex is not determined by a physical existence of sex organs? Even DNA says what your sex is. Are you calling science a lie?

 

His opinions are also meaningful to common sense and science.

 

Sorry, I don't understand your questions. Males should not be allowed to destroy womens's sports. Women are entitled to have fair athletic competition. I don't care about the Lia Thomases of the world. They can behave as they like. If Thomas can't be competitive in men's swimming so be it. I am not competitive in men's swimming either but I have no interest in being a sports predator. I care about allowing women to have their sports. It is healthy and developmental for them just as it is for men.

 

I hope he learns a bit by the time he grows up.

 

Why?

 

I might very well say the same of anyone making such a statement.

 

This Nov is about returning to sanity: "Ladies, please remember on Election Day that it isn’t anyone on the Right telling you what you cannot say or what you must think about men competing in women’s sports."

https://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/202...ef-the-biggest-fraud-in-a-generation-n1585090

 

Because there are two genders with some very rare anomalies. Gender is determined at conception. It does not change because someone wishes it to change. For a man to decide to be a woman doesn't provide the ability to bear children, for instance. For a woman to decide to be a man doesn't provide the ability to inseminate an ovum naturally. It is the way it is. It is beyond the desires of people. It is nature that has developed the reality. Ignore the facts if you like but don't allow men to ruin athletic competition for women on some insane emotional view of reality. You know I'm right. You just cling to political ideology. Gender isn't about politics. It is about the natural order.

 

Sounds like he's already figured out the fundamentals. Easy peezy lemon squeezy

 

Poly, you're normally quite polite so let me return the favor: Don't attribute ideas to me that I did not express.
Its the sign of someone without an argument and its truly sad coming from a poster such as yourself who is normally quite reasonable and does not engage in putting words in people's mouths.

Lying is an ugly ugly thing and I want you to stop doing it when you're referencing ideas you claim I've expressed. It is a low thing you engage in.

 

You're arguing for justices to amend the constitution by decision rather than saying "that's not what it says if you want it to say that amend it".
I really don't think we're in agreement.

 

Alek, what about this?

 

In our system, the House/Senate and the Electoral College are all drawn from diverse parts of America and broad agreement is required to make law. Justice Scalia made the point once when he thought that the Supreme Court was improperly making law, is that in addition to all the other reasons it was unjust, it also was law making by the agreement of 5 people (at that time) drawn from two law schools and a very privileged portion of society, and, if I remember correctly they were also all drawn from one or two urban areas.

 

Not my definition of woman. See Webster dictionary for definitions. Note the plural. More than 1 definition of woman.

And if you understood my post, I said the person gave a definition gave one of a born female, not a woman.

 

Why judge? Why not use dictionary terms?

Definition of sex
(Entry 1 of 2)

1a: either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male especially on the basis of their reproductive organs and structuresIn the past, couples could hold fast to their dreams about their baby's sex until the moment of truth in the delivery room.— Jacquelyn Mitchard
b: the sum of the structural, functional, and sometimes behavioral characteristics of organisms that distinguish males and femalesDoctors can alter the physical characteristics of sex, but bodily sex does not determine gender.— Dinitia Smith
c: the state of being male or female… Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on sex.— Tamar Lewin
d: males or females considered as a groupHe gave the minister a sly look, daring him to disparage the female sex.— Evelyn Anthony
2a: sexually motivated phenomena or behavior
b: SEXUAL INTERCOURSE

...

I am not confused. I understand the world is NOT a BINARY world. Those who don't see that are the one's confused.
Notice in definition 1a: major forms of individuals. It does not say ALL individuals. Meaning 100% of the population doesn't fit the neat binary box you all want to pretend exists.

 

I doubt it.
NCAA and even the Olympics disagree with you and the others about common sense.
Doctors, phsychiatrists, others in medicine also disagree with the nonsense of a binary population when it comes to sex/gender/orientation.

 

I understood your post. I just disagree with it. Obviously you can think of women any way you want. Just don't get around any women I care about. I wasn't aware that Webster had become woke. Sad to hear.

 

No, I have not argued they should amend the constitution by decision. I stated that they have done so. There's a difference.

 

Wow, you posts have become so weak you need to make veiled threats? LOL. Good bye.

 

I don't believe a word of that. NCAA doesn't believe that men should compete with women any more than I do. They are just stupidly fearful of people like you who would cancel them if they didn't tow the line. There could be a handful of doctors that agree with you. I don't doubt that. But to make that universal in any sense is just plain ridiculous. You know these things. You must fear the same thing the NCAA fears.

 

Look up all of the events in the summer and winter Olympics.
Tell us how many there are.
Tell us how many of them have weight classes.

 

When all else fails, they fall to insult.

 

Justice Scalia was right... moreover, the Constitution says that only Congress can make laws! That's why many of us Conservatives were outraged when Chief Justice John Roberts, illegally changed Obamacare from a "mandate" to a "tax".

The SCOTUS cannot do a thing like that, but because there is no higher court in the land, he got away with it, and the libs on the court backed him up all the way, of course....

 

And I'm saying that just because they've done so is no excuse to continue the practice, nor does it make what they've done acceptable.