Ketanji can’t define what a woman is

I once said I was a millionaire. It was a delusional statement.

 

Why would I need counter arguments? I have a penis, an actual penis not a plastic surgery mock up I had shaped out of a vagina and some ratcheting plastic and a pump. I was born with this penis. I am an adult human male ergo I am a man. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/man
There is a literal dictionary definition, and its part of a basic science curriculum taught at all ages. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/woman?utm_campaign=sd&utm_medium=serp&utm_source=jsonld
There's a defintion for "woman" as well and its rather straightforward: adult human female.
The general consensus is if someone doubts you have physical genitalia you offer to whip it out. At least that's how men do it. I suppose women are different in that they'd have to pull their pants all the way down and kinda spread out to show it and that takes more effort than just pulling your dick out.

 

I suppose I simply cannot relate to a person making a claim that someone might disbelieve their statements on their physical sex.
I suppose that could be because I don't claim to be other than my physical sex. I suppose if I were trying to claim I was in fact a woman that I might have a real hard time backing that up since its easily falsifiable.

 

Yes women's rights are whatever they say they are.

 

I think you're confusing the principles of scientific experimentation with policy. Policy must be applied to people who are inherently emotional, sometimes irrational, and diverse in their experiences and preferences. We are not talking about solving a physics problem.

Given how I just described people, logic would dictate that the maxim of policy is the effect of policy (not intent). The more difficult part is what is defined as a desirable effect.

Your approach may suggest that Christians/transsexuals are delusional in their own ways, but is it logical policy to attempt to force them to abandon their alleged delusions? What purpose would it serve? To satisfy somebody's sense for the authenticity of others? I would argue that even if I am correct that Christians are delusional, and even if you're correct that transsexuals are delusional, enforcing our notions of authenticity on them will do more harm than good. Let the law respect people's preferences to live their life as they see fit so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others to do the same. And where it does, find a policy solution that respects all parties. See I've already been dealing with this my whole life. I am sure Christians are wrong, but I must respect their beliefs anyway in terms of getting along with people at work and being respectful in public.

 

I'm tax exempt.

 

What if they say they have the right to turn you into a slave and come and take all of your property and you will serve them?

 

Unless they have the power to enforce it, nothing happens.

 

I generally believe in the freedom of every person to chose his own path, so we seem to be in agreement. However I also believe that is a mutual obligation; that your path must not impose on or create problems for others. I don't mean the problem of them not liking your path; that is an emotion generated by the individual holding the view. But when a path deviates to the point it disrupts society and the pursuit of progress, safety, quality of life, etc- then it becomes the business of others. All religions set out guidelines to live by. When a religion decides that it has the power to destroy others or force compliance with it's beliefs, it has in my opinion- crossed the line. At some point in history, most all religions have done this.

People generally are uncomfortable in the company of people unlike themselves. There is a tendency to either stay with their own kind, or- attempt to insist society change it's view of them to make them comfortable or even become like them. We see this every day is many ways and places; people not content with who they are, seeking a place they will feel right, and insisting the rest of society make life comfortable for them. This perception does not care how that accommodation makes life uncomfortable for others.

This is the denial of a fundamental principle of life, which simply stated is that you are responsible for everything you think, say, do or feel- all being things which only you can control. Accepting that gives people power- and freedom from dependence on any other person or group for their self acceptance and self-respect. Few people have that kind of freedom, but that is a choice they make, without understanding it is a choice. The same principle implies that others have the same responsibility as you- and you have no right to interfere with theirs, nor they with yours. Most people do not live by that principle; I do. To me, that principle is not "policy", it's the way nature built all life. Follow it, and it works for you. Ignore it, and you create your own problems. So long as you don't try to make your problems my problems- we're OK.

 

But you just sat right here and told us that women's rights are whatever they say they are..

You going back on that already?

 

Nope, they still are.

 

Not without the power to enforce it, according to your own words.

Might equals right! To the victor go the spoils and all that....

 

Are men's rights whatever they say they are?

 

..... Vapid one-liner incoming...

 

Nope, might makes rights irrelevant.

 

Them too.

 

@FatBack called it!

 

So how do women plan to make their rights whatever they say they are

 

They have to enforce them.

 

Take time to educate yourself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klinefelter_syndrome

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XXYY_syndrome

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XYY_syndrome

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex

She far more qualified that Amy Coney Barrett.

 

First they have to figure what a woman is and who qualifies to be one. That could take a long time because they keep changing the rules.

 

How does saying that women''s rights are human rights relate to the MeToo movement?

 

It doesn't matter if a human is a woman or a man or a non-binary, they are still a human and their rights should be the same.

 

Yeah, sure they are.

Idaho cares: https://abcnews.go.com/US/idaho-governor-signs-bill-banning-abortion-weeks-modeled/story?id=83629542

 

So you don't think there is really such a thing as "women's rights?"