Posted on 03/27/2022 5:07:46 AM PDT by Beckwith
Last week, a candidate, standing for appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States of America, who was under consideration specifically because she is a woman, refused to provide a definition for the word, "woman," when asked for one.
(Excerpt) Read more at database39.com ...
See what the definition of a woman is in Biology 101.
I might have answered...First of all...a woman doesn't have "oo"s.
“Political Science” can. Whatever liberals say it is.
There is no reason to excerpt a blog.
Can science answer the question, “what is a woman?”
Last week, a candidate, standing for appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States of America, who was under consideration specifically because she is a woman, refused to provide a definition for the word, “woman,” when asked for one.
Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson refused to define the word, “woman,” saying she isn’t qualified to answer the question because she isn’t a biologist.
Jackson’s non-answer has blown up in the national conversation and has now reached such a pinnacle of stupidity that it may never be answered, as the glib outglib one another on social media.
What Jackson really means is she won’t answer the question and if someone won’t say, in public, what he or she thinks a woman is, then you really can’t trust them. She should have answered in some way.
“A woman is like a man, but not a man,” is better than, “I’m not a biologist.”
What is a woman?
Perhaps, the answer might be found if we flip the question and ask, “what is not a woman?”
Well, right away, Joe Biden’s “admiral” comes to mind. Rachel (nee: Richard) Levine worked “her” balls off to become one of USA Today’s “Women Of The Year.” Rachel went to work as “Richard” for 40 years, and is most definitely not a woman, no matter how may people Twitter censors for saying so.
Admiral Rachel is now responsible for the nation’s health.
Richard Levine
Another Biden home run is Samuel Brinton. Biden placed Sam in chrge of our nuclear waste a couple of months ago. Sam is not what most folks think of when they hear the words, “nuclear engineer.” Brinton is married (not to a woman) and he and his spouse are big animal roleplay enthusiasts.
Sam Brinton
Sam thinks he’s a woman — but Sam also thinks he is a pony — and he’s in charge of our nuclear waste. Good call, Joe!
When the discussion of “what is not woman” comes up, Bill “Lia” Thomas’s name is sure to pop up. Lia, as Bill, was an also ran when “she” was swimming with the boys, but thanks to the Ivy League and NCAA, “Lia” is a national champion and is being considered for the women’s Olympic swimming team.
What is a woman?
None of these guys are woman, no matter how much the lunatics on the Left pretend — which brings us back to the question, “what is a woman?”
Naturally, the world turns to science for the answer, but now we have competing sciences — real science and “gender” science — and, oddly enough, they don’t agree.
Scientific American says the traditional medical concept of two sexes is overly simplistic, and Nature.com agrees, arguing that the Health and Human Services proposal to classify people on the basis of anatomy or genetics should be abandoned because it “is a terrible idea that should be killed off. It has no foundation in science and would undo decades of progress on understanding sex.”
Gender science is the science of a tiny minority, the 1% or 2% of people in the country, that have anomalies — are physically abnormal — not normal. That doesn’t make them bad people. It makes them different.
Diversity is our strength, remember, so let’s not turn everything inside-out and upside-down for 1% or 2% of the population. Most people have issues, but they press on, and that’s what makes them noble. Accommodations could be made, but genderism’s goal is to make the normal, abnormal and the abnormal, normal and ther is nothing noble about that. It is simply a lie.
The media is a reliable handmaiden to the Left and is comfortable with promoting their lies. USA Today has always been an early promoter of the Left’s latest bullsh!t.
What is a woman?
If anybody has the temerity to contradict, or worse, ridicule the Left’s fantasies, the social media barons censor them. Guys, like Twitter boss, Parag Agrawal, contend free speech has no place on his “private” platform — and screw you anyway.
What is a woman?
Two years ago, the Australian Academy of Science defined a woman as, “anyone who identifies as a woman, including cisgender (personal gender identity corresponds with sex assigned at birth), transgender (personal gender identity does not correspond with sex assigned at birth), non-binary and intersex persons who identify as a woman (or girl).
I realize these guys are scientists and have degrees up the ying-yang, but they could have stopped after the word, “anyone.” The remaining words are just gibberish and that gibberish is what passes for “science” in the 21st century.
The Australian Academy of Science says so.
The real point of this insanity is, if men can be women, why can’t anybody be anything. For example, a scholar who’s lived in China for more than two decades says “anybody can be Chinese.”
Then there’s Ja Du, part of a small but growing number of people who call themselves transracial. Ja Du used to be a white guy named Adam. Ja Du now considers himself Filipino, and even drives a Tuk Tuk, an Asian-derived vehicle used for public transit in the Philippines.
The actor, Laurence Fox, claimed that he is now a “trans-racial actress of colour” and that he is looking to finally win an Oscar for portraying the widow of Nelson Mandela.
And that is why Jackson refused to answer what appeared as a simple question. When the Left wants anybody to be able to be anything, the last thing they need is a definition of a woman, or anything else, floating about — especially from a future justice. So, instead of laughing and saying, “I’m a woman,” she was deceitful and evaded the question.
Jackson was dishonest. That’s not a good characteristic for a judge.
I gotta go, but remember, it’s OK to say someone or something is “not normal.” It won’t make you a bad person. It will make you a realist. Pink guy has every right in the world to be whatever it is “she” is, but I’m quite comfortable saying this ain’t normal . . .
What is a woman?
. . . and I know what a woman is.
Science is based on observation of reality. Science seeks to report on the world as it is, not as some would like it to be. So, there are two types of human, male and female. The male has a chromosome that the female doesn’t have. The chromosome is present in every cell of the body.
This is observed science, and has been proven many times over. Denial of this is denial of reality, and of human nature.
But there is a powerful group with the characteristics of a fanatical religious cult that denies the science and has arranged things so that people who affirm the conclusions of science are fired, blocked from communicating their ideas, ostracized, demonized and thrown in the gutter to die.
The politicians in control have allied themselves with the cult, and promote and defend the cancellation of those who speak the truth.
Liberals follow a politicized, group-think science that is dependent on the “progressive” point of view. If she had said “A woman is a human female with a double x chromosome, and produces an egg rather than sperm”, she would have lost support among self-described “progressives”. So it is the politics that takes precedence, not the science.
jackson outed herself as a tyrant
she is willing to force lies on society
First, her answer is an outright lie. Everyone has an opinion on what is a woman. Even if it is not well formed, even if it has changed recently or is undergoing change - everyone has an opinion. Her refusal to answer, implying you need to be a biologist to answer that, is BS. She is lying. She has an opinion. I don't care what her opinion is re: what is a woman. I care very much that she is willing to lie to the American public and elected leaders. To me that is an instant disqualification to be a judge any where, at any level.
Two, what her real answer is, in-effect, is: "I don't want to say, you won't like the answer." Or, that about half the people who might eventually hear her answer wouldn't, including the decision makers. That's because her real answer, if she were to give it, would be so obviously political it would alienate a fair portion of the people who heard it. That is bad. A judge is supposed to be impartial not swayed by personal political beliefs or, worse yet, the ever-changing political agenda of the group he/she identifies with. (eg. the left) Her non-answer tells us she very much would issue rulings/opinions based on political ideology not impartial interpretation of the law. She knows it, recognizes it, knows it is wrong, and is intentionally concealing it. All pathetic, disgusting characteristics for a judge. All disqualifying characteristics.
This "judge" has so many character flaws she ought to be stripped of not only any positions as a judge she may currently hold, her law license should be pulled too. She is a lying POS political animal trying to scam her way into a position of power. A position from which she will do real damage to the Country. Yes, the Country, not just to one side or the other in politics, she will erode the very foundations this Country was built on.
Did a “woman” win the Decathlon in the 1976 Montreal Olympics?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.