What is a Woman?

[rogue06]

I do not believe her response to the questions reflects at all on her intelligence one way or the other. It is you and the others in this thread that are trying to make that correlation.

What I believe is that given the underhanded hostility and smear tactics used by many of her GOP interviewers, she did quite well.

I certainly don't know anyone that is not committed till death do they part to the Trump led form of the GOP that views the line of questioning from the GOP wrt the child porn cases as anything other than a smear campaign.

This question people would wonder why she wasn't a bit more savvy with her deferral, but given the hostile environment and the fact judges on the Supreme Court are not paid to perform well before cameras, but rather to think accurately in their chambers and in writing their decisions, I think it Irrelavent.

What matters is that she understood that to offer her opinion on that matter could affect her apparent impartiality when it came time to weigh in on the inevitable cases that will explore that issue.

Her answer made clear a willingness to be disingenuous at best, dishonest at worst.

And I can't help but notice that you ignored my request for why you think that being asked questions that other SCOTUS picks have been asked, and given the present climate of the country should have been anticipated, is a "relentless and underhanded attack" but rather just repeated that mischaracterization instead.

What her wise ass answer should mean is that she should be required to recuse herself on any issues involving gender or sexuality that come before the court since she has declared that, in effect, she is absolutely ignorant on these matters and can not make any sort of intelligent determination regarding them.

[rogue06]

Really?



… says the modern Republican intellectual

Let me know when she issues a legal decision like Jackson will be doing

[rogue06]

I thought her explanation was quite reasonable: That as a justice, she is used to hearing the evidence presented by both sides and thinking about it and then ruling on it, rather than knowing the answer in advance herself.

When it comes to controversial and evolving social issues that seems a much better answer than someone wrongly assuming themselves an expert on the matter because they did one biology class at high school.

So if asked if its raining she should just say how should I know, I'm not a meteorologist?

If she has to duck and dodge the softballs, then how will she be able to cope with making legal determinations if she needs her hand held while every single thing gets spelled out for her.

In any case, Gond is correct, her response eliminated her from being part of any decision on Title IX as well as LGBTQ++++++ and women's issues because just figuring out what is a woman is well above her pay grade.

[seer]

Like I said, there is on the left an unrealistic expectation that cis == trans on every level.

However, you are acting as if the sorts of mockery that fills this thread is of no consequence. Or the declarations you will never use their pronouns. You probably don't care, but the simple reality is if you ever have a trans child and you want to increase the likelyhood they will become suicidal, refuse to use their preferred pronouns. That isn't just orooaganda, or what 'liberals' want you to believe, it is the simple reality of what trans is

Trans people are most importantly people. And as people, even if Christians struggle to reconcile what science has to say about what trans is wrt OT injunctions not to allow cross dressing, they still deserve the basics of respect and kindness and love from Christian people. We are not here as judges of people in the world. We are here to hold out the Gospel, the hope of eternal life in Christ.

And refusing to use their pronouns as they ask or mocking them is the opposite of respect, love, or kindness.

You don't have to join in their delusion to love them. Just the opposite, and it is propaganda when you attempt to bring this ideology into the class room. And there is nothing to reconcile with science - biological males can't become women or vice versa - period. No matter a person's psychological state of mind that is a fact.

[Cerebrum123]

I wouldn't use the incorrect pronoun (false) - but neither would I use the correct pronoun (confrontational) - although referring to people of either gender as "he" can be grammatically correct.

A friend of mine will not listen to me on that rule of grammar. Apparently it is because people have "corrected" him when he has used "he" in referring to a female.

[tabibito]

A friend of mine will not listen to me on that rule of grammar. Apparently it is because people have "corrected" him when he has used "he" in referring to a female.

Technically: "he" should only be used where the referent noun is either male or undeclared. Thus "postman" (despite common claims to the contrary) or "manager" being undeclared gender, take "he" (unless the antecedent is a declared or known female). "Actress" should not take "he." If there was any logic to the push for gender neutral pronouns, "he" should be retained as gender neutral and something else introduced for gender specific male ... "ghe" might work.

[Cerebrum123]

Technically: "he" should only be used where the referent noun is either male or undeclared. Thus "postman" (despite common claims to the contrary) or "manager" being undeclared gender, take "he" (unless the antecedent is a declared or known female). "Actress" should not take "he." If there was any logic to the push for gender neutral pronouns, "he" should be retained as gender neutral and something else introduced for gender specific male ... "ghe" might work.

That's what I was trying to tell him. He was arguing that Mjolnir's* inscription "Whosoever holds this hammer, if he be worthy, shall possess the power of Thor." rules out females from being "worthy". I argued that grammatically anyone who is worthy can hold the hammer and gain Thor's power, not just males.

*The Marvel Comics version.

[tabibito]

That's what I was trying to tell him. He was arguing that Mjolnir's* inscription "Whosoever holds this hammer, if he be worthy, shall possess the power of Thor." rules out females from being "worthy". I argued that grammatically anyone who is worthy can hold the hammer and gain Thor's power, not just males.

*The Marvel Comics version.

Yes - no gender is implied by "whosoever" so "he" is the gender neutral "he."

Oxford Dictionary
pronoun
pronoun: he

• used to refer to a man, boy, or male animal previously mentioned or easily identified.
  "everyone liked my father—he was the perfect gentleman"
  • used to refer to a person or animal of unspecified sex (in modern use, now chiefly replaced by ‘he or she’ or ‘they’): see usage note below).
    "every child needs to know that he is loved"
  • any person (in modern use, now chiefly replaced by ‘anyone’ or ‘the person’: see usage note below).
    "he who is silent consents"

1974 Dictionary makes no reference to "chiefly replaced."

[oxmixmudd]

Quite often in this thread I have found myself in agreement with at least some of what you say (as with the above.) Then there are comments such as the one below



Affirming that the false is true doesn't achieve any good outcome.

this would be misunderstanding the why. Why do trans people need others, especially those that are close to them, to use pronouns that are not consistent with their physical sex? Is it because they want you to pretend they are not physically what they are? Nope, that is not it.

The answer is that whatever causes trans causes them great distress when they are referred to according to their biological sex.

Consider it from another perspective. If you are dealing with an alzheimers patient and they start saying things that just are not true. What is best, to try to correct them, or to just acknowledge them without trying to correct them? The answer is that you should NOT try to fix their misunderstanding. It just causes them great distress and makes things worse.

Trying to force a trans person to live in the realm of their biological sex rather than their psychological gender identification is a lot like that. It is not that they don't know what they are, or that they are wanting you to 'pretend', it is that it tortures them, it creates great anxiety and stress. The compassionate thing to do is to understand they didn't make this up, they are not faking, and they can't fix it just by wishing it so. So just call them by their preferred pronouns. That is what is best for them and it really is no skin off your back if you have a correct understanding of why it is important to do so.

[Starlight]

Conservatives can be unrealistic in their view on the issue too, but they are not the only ones downplaying the psychological aspect.

Conservatives downplay the psychological effects that their negative attitudes towards trans people have on trans people.

My position is closer to yours regarding transgender individuals than many on this board. Gender Dysphoria is terrible for your mental health. The only treatment said to relieve it is transitioning. For those not willing to do that there isn't much they can do.

Agreed, but even for people who transition there can still be negative psychological effects if they feel bullied by people in society for being trans.

[Terraceth]

btw...


quote-supreme-court-brown-jackson-do-not-hold-position-natural-rights.jpg

It is inconceivable that ANYONE voted to put her on the Supreme Court after that

Why?

[Starlight]

Affirming that the false is true doesn't achieve any good outcome.

If that is what you think is occurring, I would say it reflects a lack of understanding on your part as to what gender is. I would encourage you to read a bit about how different human cultures have allowed more than 2 genders. Some resources I have found helpful include, wikipedia's discussion of some historical cultures that recognized more than 2 genders, reading about the 5 genders in Bugis culture in Indonesia, and this anthropological book surveying sexuality and gender among cultures in Africa.

What I have learned from that is that numerous societies and cultures in history, perhaps the majority, have had ways of categorizing people's gender that allowed people to opt out of the traditionally defined 'male' and 'female' gender roles they were born into. How societies have chosen to structure this has been rather varied and arbitrary. But what is abundantly clear to me from all this is that how any given society choses to categorize people is somewhat arbitrary and is not necessarily identical to biological sex.

People emphasizing that 'gender' (the society categorization) isn't the same thing as 'sex' (the physical biological truth) have a totally valid point - for most societies in human history these two things seem to have been different and it is Western society that has been the outlier in conflating these two things. If you think that a person who is trans and who is wanting to be part of a different social gender categorization to the one they were born into is "Affirming that the false is true" then you are making a basic category error. It is not about false claims about biological sex, it is about arbitrary social customs and conventions as to how people are grouped and socially recognized.

[Starlight]

KBJ: "I do not hold a position on whether individuals possess natural rights."

It is inconceivable that ANYONE voted to put her on the Supreme Court after that

Why?

IMO, the words 'natural' and 'rights' are both so potentially varied in their meanings that a person could easily write a book exploring potential interpretations of either one of those terms. If someone asked me whether I believed individuals possessed natural rights, I don't think I could answer that question without them explaining their question at length in a way that used neither of those terms. So I thought KBJ's answer was a good one and I would give a similar one.

[oxmixmudd]

You don't have to join in their delusion to love them. Just the opposite, and it is propaganda when you attempt to bring this ideology into the class room. And there is nothing to reconcile with science - biological males can't become women or vice versa - period. No matter a person's psychological state of mind that is a fact.

So far, im not talking about what is appropriate to teach on the topic at a given age. But your characterisation of the issue as a delusion shows ignorance of what has been learned about severe gender dysforia which drives a person to become trans.

As I've already said - those that wish to push an agenda that says cis-gender is the comple and total eqivalent of trans-gender simply are not facing reality. OTOH, neither are those that insist on taking the position that trans is a fabrication or mere delusion. Even more to the point, those that are willing to hurt them, possibly drive them to suicide, by refusing to acknowledge in any compassionate way the conflict that is within them.

And again, the issue is not what they are physically. The issue is how to deal with a significant and potentially fatal internal conflict with who they are psychologically and what they are physically. And the SCIENCE is that in the more severe cases the only resolution of that conflict that works is to pursue living AS the gender which they identify with psychologically. All othe approaches, including the 'just face reality dude' approach advocated here don't (or perhaps only extremely rarely ) work. And not only don't they work, they lead to significantly greater incidences of suicide or other self-destructive behaviors.

[oxmixmudd]

Her answer made clear a willingness to be disingenuous at best, dishonest at worst.

And I can't help but notice that you ignored my request for why you think that being asked questions that other SCOTUS picks have been asked, and given the present climate of the country should have been anticipated, is a "relentless and underhanded attack" but rather just repeated that mischaracterization instead.

You seem to have become confused about my comment.

Relentless underhanded attack refers to the smear campaign associated with her rulings in the child porn cases.

What her wise ass answer should mean is that she should be required to recuse herself on any issues involving gender or sexuality that come before the court since she has declared that, in effect, she is absolutely ignorant on these matters and can not make any sort of intelligent determination regarding them.

No, that is not what it means. What it means is that she recognizes that wrt this controversial issue, she will first want the expert input from both biologists and psychologists before making any statements that can be used as political fodder in an election campaign.