Definition of woman: an adult female person
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/woman

Female: of, relating to, or being the sex that typically has the capacity to bear young or produce eggs.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/female

That or: an adult person with XX chromosomes, except these days, if you have XY chromosomes, and you say you feel you are a woman, genetics no longer matter and you are what you say you feel you are.

The same logic does not however apply to race.
People are assigned racial identities based upon their superficial appearance, despite the fact race has no scientific basis in reality, and apparent differences are merely superficially phenotypical, not genotypical.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/25/2022 12:14AM by schrodingerscat.

Jesus. You're still on and on about this.

She blinded him with science and hit him with technology.

bradley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> She blinded him with science and hit him with
> technology.

Au contraire.
When asked what a woman is, she declined to answer, saying, "I'm not a biologist."

caffiend, can you answer your own question? What is a woman and does that include, or not, people born with XXY chromosomes?

Secondly, is it your opinion that judges should express opinions on issues that are likely to arise in cases that come before them?

That did seem like the best answer. It showed that she could duck a cheap shot.

It's kind of relevant to Mormonism since it illustrates the social demands of "truth" meaning Boyd was right. Some truths are not useful. The problem with Mormonism today is that it's easy to see how the sausage is made, which causes one to lose one's appetite.

"The problem with Mormonism today is that it's easy to see how the sausage is made, which causes one to lose one's appetite."

I am glad that it is easy to see behind the curtain now. It was interesting watching it happen. It's amazing the things that have changed in 30 years.

Still waiting to see if caffiend will venture an answer to his own implicit question.

What is a woman and does that include, or not, people born with XXY chromosomes?

Yesterday "anybody" answered the query in a reasonable way but S-Cat chose to ignore her completely and raise the question here, yet again, as is his compulsion.

Which brings us back to anybody's concluding sentence:

"This is probably the best answer you are going to get -- if you really want one and are not just trolling."

and as I said, it gets complicated.

There are all kinds of indeterminate sex conditions, so you can't go by XX / XY and that's it.

If you have any medical friends just ask them.

I had a college friend that had MKRH, and I saw my dad's medical books (and slides!) when I was growing up and I learned that things are not so cut and dry when it comes to human sexuality.

I liked the brain versus skin framework.

I thought the Ustinov passage was off base--White versus Black/Colored was present in British consciousness long before Kipling wrote of the white man's burden; it suffuses the documents and letters of the imperial period--but that's a tangential point. You are right about the difference between race and gender as well as the trolling.

But then again, he was asked not what "race" or nationality he was, but what color -- and he might not have been used to this question in an American context. I've known a couple of people from the UK and they told me similar things. They also told me that America was obsessed with racial classification. Not that racism didn't exist in the UK, which it does of course-- just that it's not as "in your face" as much as it is in the US.


As for the rest, like I said, this isn't easy.

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


You also don't find any "panic" about testing male athletes, which is very telling.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/24/2022 11:59PM by anybody.

Nothing to add to the debate that I have never known any form from the UK having the color question on it. I was, however, glad to see mention of the late Peter Ustinov in the discussion. He is one of my all time favorite people who had many exceptional talents but I would describe him more as a humorous observer of life than a fixer of society's ills. At any rate he would be top of my list if I could choose anyone as dinner guests. Probably you would not need anyone else.

So you don’t think women are the sex that typically has the capacity to bear young or produce eggs?
Opposite of men, who produce the opposite?

As I said, I had a friend with MRKH. You don't need a womb or cervix to be a "woman." You can look this stuff up just as well as I can. Not going to waste my time.

Which is why Websters says, “typically”
You’re better at answering than the SCOTUS nominee.

I didn’t ask this question yesterday so how did ‘anybody’ answer it? It was a question Marsha Blackburn, the only woman on the judicial committee, asked the SCOTUS nominee today,”Can you define the word, ‘Woman’?

She couldn’t.

I can and did in the OP.

You have not.

A judge is supposed to be impartial, and typically they don't comment on things outside their expertise or things they might have to rule on.

If you bothered to stop and think for a moment, you might have figured that out. The senators aren't stupid, they're lawyers, and she knew what she was doing when she asked that loaded question.

Instead, you took the "bait" that the senator threw out just for people like you -- to keep you riled up and on board in the culture wars.

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I didn’t ask this question yesterday so how did
> ‘anybody’ answer it?

Really, S-Cat? Is this not basically the same question? Did you forget having written it?

https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2422004,2422004#msg-2422004


---------------
> It was a question Marsha
> Blackburn, the only woman on the judicial
> committee, asked the SCOTUS nominee today,”Can
> you define the word, ‘Woman’?

You mean the Marsha Blackburn on the judiciary [note the spelling] committee who thought "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is in the US Constitution? That ball o' intellectual fire?


-------------------
> She couldn’t.

She absolutely could--just not in a sense that would require her to recuse herself from cases going forward, for that would violate the canons of her profession. I guess that nuance escaped your keen powers of observation?


---------------------
> You have not.

Why should I?

What purpose is there in discussing a substantive topic with someone who 1) keeps asking the same damned questions for years, 2) thinks Blackburn is intelligent, and 3) claims McWhorter and Hughes, despite their express statements to the contrary, disapprove of affirmative action?

Nyet, the game's not worth the candle.

And You still can’t answer a simple question because woke cult group think has twisted your mind into a pretzel.

Weren't you also going on and on about how you can't really define "life" because it all depends on definitions and, well, biology?

Do you understand that now you are taking an opposite stance than you did for other biological and issues with the same definition problems?

Hint: neither your or Marsha's definitions would be universal which the judge understands.

dagny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Weren't you also going on and on about how you
> can't really define "life" because it all depends
> on definitions and, well, biology?

No. I just disagree with NASA’s definition of “life”, which is too limited, since it excludes viruses, which poses all the instructions for life in their RNA/DNA and they are the world champions of reproduction, they just depend upon bacteria to reproduce.
>
> Do you understand that now you are taking an
> opposite stance than you did for other biological
> and issues with the same definition problems?
>
> Hint: neither your or Marsha's definitions would
> be universal which the judge understands.

Marsha didn’t define the word. She asked if KBJ could define the word. My definition is Webster’s definition and I think it defines the word accurately. I know it’s not absolute, which is why they use the word ‘typically’ in the definition. A Woman is a person who belongs to the sex that ‘typically’ bears offspring or produces eggs. (And has XX chromosomes)

Of course there are rare exceptions and mutants, but they’re atypical, hence the word ‘typically’ in the definition.

Woman is mutant to you. Ah, now I understand. Makes sense now a lot of your stuff here.

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And You still can’t answer a simple question
> because woke cult group think has twisted your
> mind into a pretzel.

Either that or I don't respect you.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/25/2022 02:01PM by Lot's Wife.

"Either that or I don't respect you."

Well, I respect you. Of course, my standards are practically non-existent. Your posts provoke a response at least, but you aren't in Maca's league.

Now let's hold hands and sing Kumbaya.

If you want to criticize wokeness, we can do that. Semantic games aren't the problem. Destruction of free speech is the problem because the destruction of free thought follows, which makes it a prelude to totalitarianism. We should not be welcoming that with open arms.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/25/2022 04:07PM by bradley.

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> . . . genetics no longer matter and you are what you say you feel you are.



Sometimes you feel like a nut ...

Legal terminology & street (common, everyday language) are sometimes not identical

GNPE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Legal terminology & street (common, everyday
> language) are sometimes not identical

Legal definition: All the females of the human species.

https://thelawdictionary.org/women/

Female: a person who is of the female gender.

https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/female#:~:text=Female%20means%20a%20person%20who,is%20of%20the%20female%20gender.

I like Webster’s definition better, since it doesn’t rely upon the word ‘female’ to define the word, ‘female’.

Cat, you keep saying "she can't answer the question", which you have repeated ad nauseam, as per usual.

She wouldn't answer the question. Not the same as "can't"

Judicial confirmation hearings, especially in recent years, have been kabuki theater where everyone knows the outcome before it even starts. Judges have one job in such hearings, to say as little of substance as possible. She was doing her job.

So you can give this whole "can't" thing a rest. It's "wouldn't"

agree.

Agree. Agree. Agree.

I take her at her word when she was asked,
‘Can you define the word,’woman’.
And replied,”No”
“You can’t?”
‘No I can’t. Not in this context. I’m not a biologist.”

You don’t have to be a biologist to know that a woman is a person who belongs to the sex that typically bears offspring.

"Not in this context" means the hearing. She "can't" in the context of the rabid people asking her questions in a SCOTUS hearing.

That doesn't mean she "can't" in other situations. It also doesn't mean she has to pick the definitions you deem correct. She is smart enough to acknowledge exceptions and grey areas that are not universally agreed upon by saying she can't define in that context.

What if God is defined as a mutant?

And she is adept at evading trick questions for which there is currently no right answer on a game stacked against her.

That makes her a wise woman the way I define it. And I am right.

But it wasn't a question. It was a riddle.

'The Job'of a holder of a national office is to serve & protect All the citizens of the country, not just pander to a group of supporters, no matter what proportion of the total population.

Unfortunately, this concept seems to have 'left the building', in my memory as far back as R. Reagan, perhaps even further back...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/25/2022 03:31PM by GNPE.

you have just seen a textbook example.

I hate that 'religious' and 'fundy' go together.

But they do. Demonstrably so.

That is all.

Guy, gender is more complex than reproductive organs, as anybody pointed out. And I try to treat folks as they want to be treated, so my treatment of someone who identifies as female, male or non-binary is based on what they identify as and how they treat me. It's called "basic decency;" try it sometime, schrodingserscat, you might get better responses from the board.

As for sex organs, my personal view is "you should only care about what's in someone's pants if you're a doctor, nurse, or interested in getting in them."

And, let me guess, you're going to tell me I'm stupid and brainwashed by the woke mob responsible for your butt not receiving enough kisses while you risk dislocating your shoulder patting yourself on the back.

I have no doubt she was able to answer the question but deftly avoided the gotcha trap Crux was trying to spring.

I agree, she did great. And I was impressed that she didn't really make any huge mistakes.

It's not insulting to her to say that she couldn't answer the question. It's just in fact, what she said.

I disagree with her. I think she could have said something like the dictionary definition, with weasel words like, "typically".

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I agree, she did great. . .

. . .

> I disagree with her.

It doesn't bother me.
I'm just wondering if anybody else can answer that question, or if it's verboten to ask a question the in this forum that the judiciary committee asked KBJ. I thought she did a great job of answering their questions, except that one, where I thought she could have just given an answer. You don't have to be a biologist to answer what's the definition of a woman.

and she was smart enough to avoid that trap.

Can't you see that the senator was doing that just to folks like you riled up about nothing?

I doubt the Senator gives a shit about people like me getting riled up, so no I can’t see that’s why she asked a simple question.
I think she asked the question as a trap.
KBJ fell for the trap.
If you think only biologists are qualified to offer a definition of what makes a woman different from a man, why would we want you ruling on anything more complicated?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/26/2022 11:17AM by schrodingerscat.

Abraham Lincoln once asked an audience, "If you call a dog's tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?"

The consensus answer was, "Five."

"Wrong," said Mr. Lincoln. "Call the tail whatever you want, the dog still has four legs."

How does your irrelevance matter ?

Third time: "What is a woman and does that include, or not, people born with XXY chromosomes?"

Or using Lincoln's metaphor, is someone with XXY chromosomes a male or a female?

Do you have any folksy wisdom that answers that question?

Damn. Just lost a substantive reply.

I wish caffiend had not added that superfluous nonsense at the end of the post. We were getting somewhere.

Just pulling a bunch of currently trendy "sexualities" and "gender identities" into a "ghoulosh" to demonstrate how bizarre these concepts can be.

More:

"How much is 2+2?"
"I don't know. I'm not a mathematician."

Well, I had agreed with several of your points and merely challenged your strawman portrayal of liberals. For many of us think that it is possible to respect the individual without vitiating the rights of the majority, as evidenced in our debate with anybody the other day. I understand, however, that you feel more comfortable in a binary world and would therefore like it if we liberals forswore our differences and got with the program.

I guess we are back to the usual blaming of the Capitol Insurrection on all those African American BLM activists who were passing as White extremists on January 6th, the regurgitated Russian propaganda, and your retweets from that stable genius, Donald, Jr.

Okay, minus the sarcasm:

Men have penises and XY chromosomes.
Women have vaginas and XX chromosomes.
That is the majority of cases.

Klinefelter Syndrome is rare, 1/100 occurrences. An exception to the norm. Policy for the general population should not be determined because of rare exceptions. When exceptions occur, individual determination should be made--on an individual basis.

"Children with Klinefelter syndrome may have low muscle tone (hypotonia) and problems with coordination that may delay the development of motor skills, such as sitting, standing, and walking. Affected boys often have learning disabilities, resulting in mild delays in speech and language development and problems with reading. Boys and men with Klinefelter syndrome tend to have better receptive language skills (the ability to understand speech) than expressive language skills (vocabulary and the production of speech) and may have difficulty communicating and expressing themselves.

Individuals with Klinefelter syndrome tend to have anxiety, depression, impaired social skills, behavioral problems such as emotional immaturity and impulsivity, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and limited problem-solving skills (executive functioning). About 10 percent of boys and men with Klinefelter syndrome have autism spectrum disorder."

Source: https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/condition/klinefelter-syndrome/

Considering the array of issues facing Klinefelter persons, I doubt the question of boys/girls teams ranks high. Rather, this is an attempt to use an exception to create new norms. And what new "norms" will be "discovered" (i.e. created) after this? Funny how Mankind has been so tragically ill-informed about this for thousands and thousands of years, only to be awokened by erudite First World progressives in the last five or ten years.

Thank you.


-------------------
> Men have penises and XY chromosomes.
> Women have vaginas and XX chromosomes.
> That is the majority of cases.

True. The vast majority.


--------------------
> Policy for the general
> population should not be determined because of
> rare exceptions. When exceptions occur, individual
> determination should be made--on an individual
> basis.

Kleinefelter syndrome is but one form of statistically "abnormal" gender; there are many. But your point is correct. Exceptions should be accommodated exceptionally.


-----------------
> Rather, this is an attempt to use an
> exception to create new norms.

Incorrect. All we are saying is that the government and society should respect the statistically "abnormal" person. As I said the other day, that should generally not be done at the expense of the "normal." In the vast majority of cases there is no conflict between the two categories.


-----------------------
> And what new
> "norms" will be "discovered" (i.e. created) after
> this?

You are confusing the normal with the normative. Few here would argue that accommodating the exceptional human being requires an adjustment of moral codes--other than if your moral code requires the subjugation of others.


---------------------
> Funny how Mankind has been so tragically
> ill-informed about this for thousands and
> thousands of years, only to be awokened by erudite
> First World progressives in the last five or ten
> years.

Not at all. For thousands of years people believed the earth was flat and the stars (paradoxically) revolved around it. Before science illuminated the facts, there was no reason that anyone should have been expected to understand the complexity of astrophysics or human genetics.

It wasn't progressives who did that. It was science, uncovering the workings of your Creator's creation.


------------------------
You argue that the exceptional individual's rights should not trump those of the majority. That was the view I expressed about transgendered people competing in women's sports just the other day. But the fact remains that such insuperable contradictions arise only rarely--unless your moral code requires the unnecessary suffering of others.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/26/2022 01:55AM by Lot's Wife.

as "women" in your "all or nothing" world?

They are more common than you think.

A well-known conservative female author and TV commentator is rumored to be XY androgen intolerant with CAIS.

Most are unaware of the condition until they reach the age of menarche and don't have periods and they can't have children .



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/26/2022 09:21AM by anybody.

And you are smarter than a biologist.

The repubs are making the hearing å circus with very little about her overall quals, they're just sounding lots of Dog Whistles to pander to their supporters.

"Dog whistles" called out quite a few dogs as I recall.

And trumps witch hunts have caught quite a few witches.

Whatabout games are easy to play and rarely give either side a superiority, except amongst those who are already convinced that they have the truth.

A defensive reply like this one is likely just a narcissistic deflection -- a sort of security blanket to keep one's personal thought errors at bay. It's an indication that one's mind is at least a little bit owned by a party other than the self.

Breaking free from the chains of indoctrination, whether applied by religious, political, or criminal manipulations, is part of being able to see outside the shadows of the cave. It's part of ensuring a free mind.

but more about men who want to be able to "define" who is or who is not "worthy" of being female.

If you have the power to define something, you also have the power to control it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/26/2022 11:25AM by anybody.