packgrad said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Here’s @MarshaBlackburn asking KBJ if she can define the word woman. KBJ says she can’t. This is how broken the “party of science” is. They are so obsessed with transgenderism that they can’t even say what a woman is. pic.twitter.com/zdj2OkqppI

— Clay Travis (@ClayTravis) March 23, 2022

---

Fascinating turn of events as we've gone from #BelieveAllWomen to "What is this word you speak of?" in just four years.

— Bridget Phetasy (@BridgetPhetasy) March 23, 2022

---

That is....just wrong. Clearly an intelligent woman. This is not difficult. We should be able to agree that we will treat these people fairly w/o redefining (or frankly, just ignoring) what is defined by science.

Packchem91 said:

---

That is....just wrong. Clearly an intelligent woman. This is not difficult. We should be able to agree that we will treat these people fairly w/o redefining (or frankly, just ignoring) what is defined by science.

---

Are we all agreeing that the scenario in which it "is not difficult" is one that defines sex/gender only through a biological lens?

Because if you view gender as an identity or social construct it pretty clearly is more complicated.

Did anyone else listen to the rest of the line of questioning? Just hearing that snippet it seemed pretty obvious the framing of the question was a "gotcha" meant make Brown look like she couldn't answer a "simple" question while also calling attention to the disparate ways many on the the left and right view sex and gender.

A more forthright way to ask the question would have been, "Do you believe there can be a disparity between biological sex and gender?"

This chem character is much like my 23, 24 and 26 year old nephews...and we only have ourselves as parents to blame. Now I'm talking real collaborators.......all trained up in our universities.

The other photos of Natalie Biden are with Uncle Hunter....XXX rated and cannot be shared here.

packgrad said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

That is....just wrong. Clearly an intelligent woman. This is not difficult. We should be able to agree that we will treat these people fairly w/o redefining (or frankly, just ignoring) what is defined by science.

---

Are we all agreeing that the scenario in which it "is not difficult" is one that defines sex/gender only through a biological lens?

Because if you view gender as an identity or social construct it pretty clearly is more complicated.

Did anyone else listen to the rest of the line of questioning? Just hearing that snippet it seemed pretty obvious the framing of the question was a "gotcha" meant make Brown look like she couldn't answer a "simple" question while also calling attention to the disparate ways many on the the left and right view sex and gender.

A more forthright way to ask the question would have been, "Do you believe there can be a disparity between biological sex and gender?"

---

Nah. The question was fine. Yours sounds like a question catering to a radical leftist.

---

Obviously if you think transgenderism is a mental illness you'd think the question is fine.

High Travoltage said:

---

If its a social construct, how would being a biologist help?

---

She demurred with the biologist line because she didn't want to answer that trap of a question. You obviously don't need to be a biologist to say "a woman is a human with ovaries," if that's the answer you want to give.

Just like the "are babies racist?" and child pr0n sentencing questions, that was a sound bite question for a reelection campaign, not a legitimate judicial inquiry.

FlossyDFlynt said:

---

Civilized said:

---

High Travoltage said:

---

If its a social construct, how would being a biologist help?

---

She demurred with the biologist line because she didn't want to answer that trap of a question. You obviously don't need to be a biologist to say "a woman is a human with ovaries," if that's the answer you want to give.

Just like the "are babies racist?" and child pr0n sentencing questions, that was a sound bite question for a reelection campaign, not a legitimate judicial inquiry.

---

But answering trap questions is part of the job description of a justice on the Supreme Court. They work in the gray area of the law.

I will concede the "babies racist" question is definitely sound bite. I would say 80-90% of vetting a justice is looking for sound bites for re-election/fundraising purposes. But if you are going to pass judgement on discrimination, abortion, etc., you have to be able to definitively define a woman.

Given what states have done recently (Oklahoma, Texas, etc), you can see a challenge to Roe vs Wade is probably coming. If you cant define a what a woman is, how can you pass judgment?

All she has to say is that if you want to define a woman, its anyone born with an XX chromosome. I would be willing to wager 90% of Americans would accept that answer without any question. The other 10% should be on ignored anyway

---

Answering performative questions in front of politicians gunning for a sound bite on camera is not a proxy for delivering researched, reasoned opinions off-camera while sitting on the Court.

Again, she knows what the biological definition of a woman is. Issues surrounding transgender rights take up the debate regarding biological sex vs. gender identity. Nothing good comes of her hypothetically adjudicating transgender rights during her nomination hearings.

Packchem91 said:

---

FlossyDFlynt said:

---

Civilized said:

---

High Travoltage said:

---

If its a social construct, how would being a biologist help?

---

She demurred with the biologist line because she didn't want to answer that trap of a question. You obviously don't need to be a biologist to say "a woman is a human with ovaries," if that's the answer you want to give.

Just like the "are babies racist?" and child pr0n sentencing questions, that was a sound bite question for a reelection campaign, not a legitimate judicial inquiry.

---

But answering trap questions is part of the job description of a justice on the Supreme Court. They work in the gray area of the law.

I will concede the "babies racist" question is definitely sound bite. I would say 80-90% of vetting a justice is looking for sound bites for re-election/fundraising purposes. But if you are going to pass judgement on discrimination, abortion, etc., you have to be able to definitively define a woman.

Given what states have done recently (Oklahoma, Texas, etc), you can see a challenge to Roe vs Wade is probably coming. If you cant define a what a woman is, how can you pass judgment?

All she has to say is that if you want to define a woman, its anyone born with an XX chromosome. I would be willing to wager 90% of Americans would accept that answer without any question. The other 10% should be on ignored anyway

---

I was watching ABC National News last night, and the reporter, Rachel Scott, several times used the words "attacked" about the line of questioning and then spent a minute refuting the claims of the questioners herself.

I'm too lazy to go back and look, but I don't recall reporters, at least not on ABC News defending the two previous SC nominees when they went thru "attacks" from the Dem Congressmen. I'm sure they did though. From day 2 of questioning on, I'm sure the reporter found facts that refuted the stated numbers in the questions, etc. Surely.

---

I'm frustrated that since Bork, these nomination proceedings have become theatre instead of probing what the jurisprudence of the nominee actual is. All of the questioning from the Republicans on pedophile case sentencing is a red herring in my opinion. Marsh Blackburn continues to look clueless. And now today you have Corey Booker grandstanding to take it over the top.

The questioning I'd really like to dive into are the decisions that she handed down that were reversed by a liberal appellate court and if she would apply the law rather than try to make new law from the bench. But we're not going to do that anymore it appears.

For Republicans it's always going to be an audition to the base for them to run for president. For Democrats, it's going to be about dirty political tricks and smear campaigns.

High Travoltage said:

---

Civilized said:

---

High Travoltage said:

---

If its a social construct, how would being a biologist help?

---

She demurred with the biologist line because she didn't want to answer that trap of a question. You obviously don't need to be a biologist to say "a woman is a human with ovaries," if that's the answer you want to give.

Just like the "are babies racist?" and child pr0n sentencing questions, that was a sound bite question for a reelection campaign, not a legitimate judicial inquiry.

---

Its the answer. She knows she cant answer it the way she knows to be true her whole life cause 3 years ago we allowed this to become a thing. Zero chance you felt this way your whole life; this is brand new stupidity. Its either say what is obvious or be cancled by morons.

I know I shouldnt prseume how you feel but you seem to understand the inner workings of the SCJs thought process so I thought I would too.

---

We allowed what to become a thing?

hokiewolf said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

FlossyDFlynt said:

---

Civilized said:

---

High Travoltage said:

---

If its a social construct, how would being a biologist help?

---

She demurred with the biologist line because she didn't want to answer that trap of a question. You obviously don't need to be a biologist to say "a woman is a human with ovaries," if that's the answer you want to give.

Just like the "are babies racist?" and child pr0n sentencing questions, that was a sound bite question for a reelection campaign, not a legitimate judicial inquiry.

---

But answering trap questions is part of the job description of a justice on the Supreme Court. They work in the gray area of the law.

I will concede the "babies racist" question is definitely sound bite. I would say 80-90% of vetting a justice is looking for sound bites for re-election/fundraising purposes. But if you are going to pass judgement on discrimination, abortion, etc., you have to be able to definitively define a woman.

Given what states have done recently (Oklahoma, Texas, etc), you can see a challenge to Roe vs Wade is probably coming. If you cant define a what a woman is, how can you pass judgment?

All she has to say is that if you want to define a woman, its anyone born with an XX chromosome. I would be willing to wager 90% of Americans would accept that answer without any question. The other 10% should be on ignored anyway

---

I was watching ABC National News last night, and the reporter, Rachel Scott, several times used the words "attacked" about the line of questioning and then spent a minute refuting the claims of the questioners herself.

I'm too lazy to go back and look, but I don't recall reporters, at least not on ABC News defending the two previous SC nominees when they went thru "attacks" from the Dem Congressmen. I'm sure they did though. From day 2 of questioning on, I'm sure the reporter found facts that refuted the stated numbers in the questions, etc. Surely.

---

I'm frustrated that since Bork, these nomination proceedings have become theatre instead of probing what the jurisprudence of the nominee actual is. All of the questioning from the Republicans on pedophile case sentencing is a red herring in my opinion. Marsh Blackburn continues to look clueless. And now today you have Corey Booker grandstanding to take it over the top.

The questioning I'd really like to dive into are the decisions that she handed down that were reversed by a liberal appellate court and if she would apply the law rather than try to make new law from the bench. But we're not going to do that anymore it appears.

For Republicans it's always going to be an audition to the base for them to run for president. For Democrats, it's going to be about dirty political tricks and smear campaigns.

---

Agreed.....the process has been turned --- by all the involved Congressmen, into disgusting theater. They all need the 15 second gotcha moment to put on their social media pages.

Civilized said:

---

FlossyDFlynt said:

---

Civilized said:

---

High Travoltage said:

---

If its a social construct, how would being a biologist help?

---

She demurred with the biologist line because she didn't want to answer that trap of a question. You obviously don't need to be a biologist to say "a woman is a human with ovaries," if that's the answer you want to give.

Just like the "are babies racist?" and child pr0n sentencing questions, that was a sound bite question for a reelection campaign, not a legitimate judicial inquiry.

---

But answering trap questions is part of the job description of a justice on the Supreme Court. They work in the gray area of the law.

I will concede the "babies racist" question is definitely sound bite. I would say 80-90% of vetting a justice is looking for sound bites for re-election/fundraising purposes. But if you are going to pass judgement on discrimination, abortion, etc., you have to be able to definitively define a woman.

Given what states have done recently (Oklahoma, Texas, etc), you can see a challenge to Roe vs Wade is probably coming. If you cant define a what a woman is, how can you pass judgment?

All she has to say is that if you want to define a woman, its anyone born with an XX chromosome. I would be willing to wager 90% of Americans would accept that answer without any question. The other 10% should be on ignored anyway

---

Answering performative questions in front of politicians gunning for a sound bite on camera is not a proxy for delivering researched, reasoned opinions off-camera while sitting on the Court.

Again, she knows what the biological definition of a woman is. Issues surrounding transgender rights take up the debate regarding biological sex vs. gender identity. Nothing good comes of her hypothetically adjudicating transgender rights during her nomination hearings.

---

Civ, her answer to define a women from Marsha Blackburn is extremely important!!! No where near performative!!! It is going to be exactly what we all should expect, from her, for the next 30+ years.

Remember, we have a big issue, in this country, regarding transgenders winning different sporting events around the country. So, this is a big issue for a lot of people, who care about their daughters in sports. For them, this may be enough to call their elected Senators asking them to vote NO!!!!

BTW, She is clearly intellectual and extremely intelligent. That doesn't completely qualify her as being a Supreme Court Justice. Ideologically, I would not vote for her (based on what I've seen). That said, the Senate does have a different budget for research on Supreme Court Justices as opposed to Federal Judges. So, I can see where the due-diligence is more in-depth than her previous appointments.

I could be wrong; however, this vote might be more difficult than one thinks. Mark Kelly, Senator in Arizona, could lose his race, in November, because of this vote.

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

FlossyDFlynt said:

---

Civilized said:

---

High Travoltage said:

---

If its a social construct, how would being a biologist help?

---

She demurred with the biologist line because she didn't want to answer that trap of a question. You obviously don't need to be a biologist to say "a woman is a human with ovaries," if that's the answer you want to give.

Just like the "are babies racist?" and child pr0n sentencing questions, that was a sound bite question for a reelection campaign, not a legitimate judicial inquiry.

---

But answering trap questions is part of the job description of a justice on the Supreme Court. They work in the gray area of the law.

I will concede the "babies racist" question is definitely sound bite. I would say 80-90% of vetting a justice is looking for sound bites for re-election/fundraising purposes. But if you are going to pass judgement on discrimination, abortion, etc., you have to be able to definitively define a woman.

Given what states have done recently (Oklahoma, Texas, etc), you can see a challenge to Roe vs Wade is probably coming. If you cant define a what a woman is, how can you pass judgment?

All she has to say is that if you want to define a woman, its anyone born with an XX chromosome. I would be willing to wager 90% of Americans would accept that answer without any question. The other 10% should be on ignored anyway

---

Answering performative questions in front of politicians gunning for a sound bite on camera is not a proxy for delivering researched, reasoned opinions off-camera while sitting on the Court.

Again, she knows what the biological definition of a woman is. Issues surrounding transgender rights take up the debate regarding biological sex vs. gender identity. Nothing good comes of her hypothetically adjudicating transgender rights during her nomination hearings.

---

Civ, her answer to define a women from Marsha Blackburn is extremely important!!! No where near performative!!! It is going to be exactly what we all should expect, from her, for the next 30+ years.

Remember, we have a big issue, in this country, regarding transgenders winning different sporting events around the country. So, this is a big issue for a lot of people, who care about their daughters in sports. For them, this may be enough to call their elected Senators asking them to vote NO!!!!

BTW, She is clearly intellectual and extremely intelligent. That doesn't completely qualify her as being a Supreme Court Justice. Ideologically, I would not vote for her (based on what I've seen). That said, the Senate does have a different budget for research on Supreme Court Justices as opposed to Federal Judges. So, I can see where the due-diligence is more in-depth than her previous appointments.

I could be wrong; however, this vote might be more difficult than one thinks. Mark Kelly, Senator in Arizona, could lose his race, in November, because of this vote.

---

Not sure I would call one swimmer a "big problem", but I agree it questions title IX protections.

Hokie, would you call one POTUS a "big problem"?

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

FlossyDFlynt said:

---

Civilized said:

---

High Travoltage said:

---

If its a social construct, how would being a biologist help?

---

She demurred with the biologist line because she didn't want to answer that trap of a question. You obviously don't need to be a biologist to say "a woman is a human with ovaries," if that's the answer you want to give.

Just like the "are babies racist?" and child pr0n sentencing questions, that was a sound bite question for a reelection campaign, not a legitimate judicial inquiry.

---

But answering trap questions is part of the job description of a justice on the Supreme Court. They work in the gray area of the law.

I will concede the "babies racist" question is definitely sound bite. I would say 80-90% of vetting a justice is looking for sound bites for re-election/fundraising purposes. But if you are going to pass judgement on discrimination, abortion, etc., you have to be able to definitively define a woman.

Given what states have done recently (Oklahoma, Texas, etc), you can see a challenge to Roe vs Wade is probably coming. If you cant define a what a woman is, how can you pass judgment?

All she has to say is that if you want to define a woman, its anyone born with an XX chromosome. I would be willing to wager 90% of Americans would accept that answer without any question. The other 10% should be on ignored anyway

---

Answering performative questions in front of politicians gunning for a sound bite on camera is not a proxy for delivering researched, reasoned opinions off-camera while sitting on the Court.

Again, she knows what the biological definition of a woman is. Issues surrounding transgender rights take up the debate regarding biological sex vs. gender identity. Nothing good comes of her hypothetically adjudicating transgender rights during her nomination hearings.

---

Civ, her answer to define a women from Marsha Blackburn is extremely important!!! No where near performative!!! It is going to be exactly what we all should expect, from her, for the next 30+ years.

Remember, we have a big issue, in this country, regarding transgenders winning different sporting events around the country. So, this is a big issue for a lot of people, who care about their daughters in sports. For them, this may be enough to call their elected Senators asking them to vote NO!!!!

BTW, She is clearly intellectual and extremely intelligent. That doesn't completely qualify her as being a Supreme Court Justice. Ideologically, I would not vote for her (based on what I've seen). That said, the Senate does have a different budget for research on Supreme Court Justices as opposed to Federal Judges. So, I can see where the due-diligence is more in-depth than her previous appointments.

I could be wrong; however, this vote might be more difficult than one thinks. Mark Kelly, Senator in Arizona, could lose his race, in November, because of this vote.

---

Not sure I would call one swimmer a "big problem", but I agree it questions title IX protections.

---

Do you have daughters competing against a biological male in any sport? If not, and when you do, it will become a big problem for your daughters, I'll bet…

I don't have daughters competing in sports; however, they have expressed concerns for this trend…. It's not just the one swimmer, btw. Look for additional examples.

Oldsouljer said:

---

Any Senator voting for this Supreme Court disaster in the making ought to get their DC career revoked, but if Kelly loses, I suspect it will be more because of inflation and the border crisis. There's a reason why south Texas Hispanic residents are going GOP and may well pick up four of the Rio Grande valley congressional districts for the first time in recent history. Any border state voter would be insane to ever vote socialist again but of course, we know how that goes.

---

I understand; however, this could put a nail in the coffin. So, what does he do?

Former CIA Officer Kevin Shipp gives another of his hundreds of presentations that he has done around country over the years. I first watched a show of his in about 2015 or thereabouts. It began the process of connecting the dots for me.........Shadow Govt - Council on Foreign Relations - CIA, etc. There have been a couple of unsuccessful attempts on his life.

https://rumble.com/vvs5pr-part-2-kevin-shipp-cia-officer-exposes-shadow-government.html

Everything he said back in 2015-2016 has fit the puzzle over the last 5-6 years.

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

FlossyDFlynt said:

---

Civilized said:

---

High Travoltage said:

---

If its a social construct, how would being a biologist help?

---

She demurred with the biologist line because she didn't want to answer that trap of a question. You obviously don't need to be a biologist to say "a woman is a human with ovaries," if that's the answer you want to give.

Just like the "are babies racist?" and child pr0n sentencing questions, that was a sound bite question for a reelection campaign, not a legitimate judicial inquiry.

---

But answering trap questions is part of the job description of a justice on the Supreme Court. They work in the gray area of the law.

I will concede the "babies racist" question is definitely sound bite. I would say 80-90% of vetting a justice is looking for sound bites for re-election/fundraising purposes. But if you are going to pass judgement on discrimination, abortion, etc., you have to be able to definitively define a woman.

Given what states have done recently (Oklahoma, Texas, etc), you can see a challenge to Roe vs Wade is probably coming. If you cant define a what a woman is, how can you pass judgment?

All she has to say is that if you want to define a woman, its anyone born with an XX chromosome. I would be willing to wager 90% of Americans would accept that answer without any question. The other 10% should be on ignored anyway

---

Answering performative questions in front of politicians gunning for a sound bite on camera is not a proxy for delivering researched, reasoned opinions off-camera while sitting on the Court.

Again, she knows what the biological definition of a woman is. Issues surrounding transgender rights take up the debate regarding biological sex vs. gender identity. Nothing good comes of her hypothetically adjudicating transgender rights during her nomination hearings.

---

Civ, her answer to define a women from Marsha Blackburn is extremely important!!! No where near performative!!! It is going to be exactly what we all should expect, from her, for the next 30+ years.

Remember, we have a big issue, in this country, regarding transgenders winning different sporting events around the country. So, this is a big issue for a lot of people, who care about their daughters in sports. For them, this may be enough to call their elected Senators asking them to vote NO!!!!

BTW, She is clearly intellectual and extremely intelligent. That doesn't completely qualify her as being a Supreme Court Justice. Ideologically, I would not vote for her (based on what I've seen). That said, the Senate does have a different budget for research on Supreme Court Justices as opposed to Federal Judges. So, I can see where the due-diligence is more in-depth than her previous appointments.

I could be wrong; however, this vote might be more difficult than one thinks. Mark Kelly, Senator in Arizona, could lose his race, in November, because of this vote.

---

Not sure I would call one swimmer a "big problem", but I agree it questions title IX protections.

---

First, i dont think Thompson should be allowed to swim with the women. With men -- yes. Would that make that person any more uncomfortable because having to swim with men...heck, I cant imagine they are real comfortable in either scenario.

But do we think this is going to become a trend that we need to start fearing (and there is a WHOLE lot of fear-mongering going on here)? In college sports or in youth sports our kids participate in?

I worry about slippery slope as much as the next person....but are parents really signing up willingly to flaunt this for their kids? I'd think if they get to that point, they've already been thru a whole lot of pain in trying to figure out how to accommodate their kids w/o embarrassing the you know what out of them?

It’s hard to fathom the speed at which we went from “Believe all women” to “some women” to “I don’t know what a woman is” pic.twitter.com/tXs5EgCLSd

— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) March 24, 2022

Packchem91 said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

FlossyDFlynt said:

---

Civilized said:

---

High Travoltage said:

---

If its a social construct, how would being a biologist help?

---

She demurred with the biologist line because she didn't want to answer that trap of a question. You obviously don't need to be a biologist to say "a woman is a human with ovaries," if that's the answer you want to give.

Just like the "are babies racist?" and child pr0n sentencing questions, that was a sound bite question for a reelection campaign, not a legitimate judicial inquiry.

---

But answering trap questions is part of the job description of a justice on the Supreme Court. They work in the gray area of the law.

I will concede the "babies racist" question is definitely sound bite. I would say 80-90% of vetting a justice is looking for sound bites for re-election/fundraising purposes. But if you are going to pass judgement on discrimination, abortion, etc., you have to be able to definitively define a woman.

Given what states have done recently (Oklahoma, Texas, etc), you can see a challenge to Roe vs Wade is probably coming. If you cant define a what a woman is, how can you pass judgment?

All she has to say is that if you want to define a woman, its anyone born with an XX chromosome. I would be willing to wager 90% of Americans would accept that answer without any question. The other 10% should be on ignored anyway

---

Answering performative questions in front of politicians gunning for a sound bite on camera is not a proxy for delivering researched, reasoned opinions off-camera while sitting on the Court.

Again, she knows what the biological definition of a woman is. Issues surrounding transgender rights take up the debate regarding biological sex vs. gender identity. Nothing good comes of her hypothetically adjudicating transgender rights during her nomination hearings.

---

Civ, her answer to define a women from Marsha Blackburn is extremely important!!! No where near performative!!! It is going to be exactly what we all should expect, from her, for the next 30+ years.

Remember, we have a big issue, in this country, regarding transgenders winning different sporting events around the country. So, this is a big issue for a lot of people, who care about their daughters in sports. For them, this may be enough to call their elected Senators asking them to vote NO!!!!

BTW, She is clearly intellectual and extremely intelligent. That doesn't completely qualify her as being a Supreme Court Justice. Ideologically, I would not vote for her (based on what I've seen). That said, the Senate does have a different budget for research on Supreme Court Justices as opposed to Federal Judges. So, I can see where the due-diligence is more in-depth than her previous appointments.

I could be wrong; however, this vote might be more difficult than one thinks. Mark Kelly, Senator in Arizona, could lose his race, in November, because of this vote.

---

Not sure I would call one swimmer a "big problem", but I agree it questions title IX protections.

---

First, i dont think Thompson should be allowed to swim with the women. With men -- yes. Would that make that person any more uncomfortable because having to swim with men...heck, I cant imagine they are real comfortable in either scenario.

But do we think this is going to become a trend that we need to start fearing (and there is a WHOLE lot of fear-mongering going on here)? In college sports or in youth sports our kids participate in?

I worry about slippery slope as much as the next person....but are parents really signing up willingly to flaunt this for their kids? I'd think if they get to that point, they've already been thru a whole lot of pain in trying to figure out how to accommodate their kids w/o embarrassing the you know what out of them?

---

What did the NCAA say about this? Serious question as I think I heard something and can't find it..

Packchem91 said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

FlossyDFlynt said:

---

Civilized said:

---

High Travoltage said:

---

If its a social construct, how would being a biologist help?

---

She demurred with the biologist line because she didn't want to answer that trap of a question. You obviously don't need to be a biologist to say "a woman is a human with ovaries," if that's the answer you want to give.

Just like the "are babies racist?" and child pr0n sentencing questions, that was a sound bite question for a reelection campaign, not a legitimate judicial inquiry.

---

But answering trap questions is part of the job description of a justice on the Supreme Court. They work in the gray area of the law.

I will concede the "babies racist" question is definitely sound bite. I would say 80-90% of vetting a justice is looking for sound bites for re-election/fundraising purposes. But if you are going to pass judgement on discrimination, abortion, etc., you have to be able to definitively define a woman.

Given what states have done recently (Oklahoma, Texas, etc), you can see a challenge to Roe vs Wade is probably coming. If you cant define a what a woman is, how can you pass judgment?

All she has to say is that if you want to define a woman, its anyone born with an XX chromosome. I would be willing to wager 90% of Americans would accept that answer without any question. The other 10% should be on ignored anyway

---

Answering performative questions in front of politicians gunning for a sound bite on camera is not a proxy for delivering researched, reasoned opinions off-camera while sitting on the Court.

Again, she knows what the biological definition of a woman is. Issues surrounding transgender rights take up the debate regarding biological sex vs. gender identity. Nothing good comes of her hypothetically adjudicating transgender rights during her nomination hearings.

---

Civ, her answer to define a women from Marsha Blackburn is extremely important!!! No where near performative!!! It is going to be exactly what we all should expect, from her, for the next 30+ years.

Remember, we have a big issue, in this country, regarding transgenders winning different sporting events around the country. So, this is a big issue for a lot of people, who care about their daughters in sports. For them, this may be enough to call their elected Senators asking them to vote NO!!!!

BTW, She is clearly intellectual and extremely intelligent. That doesn't completely qualify her as being a Supreme Court Justice. Ideologically, I would not vote for her (based on what I've seen). That said, the Senate does have a different budget for research on Supreme Court Justices as opposed to Federal Judges. So, I can see where the due-diligence is more in-depth than her previous appointments.

I could be wrong; however, this vote might be more difficult than one thinks. Mark Kelly, Senator in Arizona, could lose his race, in November, because of this vote.

---

Not sure I would call one swimmer a "big problem", but I agree it questions title IX protections.

---

First, i dont think Thompson should be allowed to swim with the women. With men -- yes. Would that make that person any more uncomfortable because having to swim with men...heck, I cant imagine they are real comfortable in either scenario.

But do we think this is going to become a trend that we need to start fearing (and there is a WHOLE lot of fear-mongering going on here)? In college sports or in youth sports our kids participate in?

I worry about slippery slope as much as the next person....but are parents really signing up willingly to flaunt this for their kids? I'd think if they get to that point, they've already been thru a whole lot of pain in trying to figure out how to accommodate their kids w/o embarrassing the you know what out of them?

---

Thompson? LOL.

Shows your level of investment I suppose...

Steve Videtich said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

FlossyDFlynt said:

---

Civilized said:

---

High Travoltage said:

---

If its a social construct, how would being a biologist help?

---

She demurred with the biologist line because she didn't want to answer that trap of a question. You obviously don't need to be a biologist to say "a woman is a human with ovaries," if that's the answer you want to give.

Just like the "are babies racist?" and child pr0n sentencing questions, that was a sound bite question for a reelection campaign, not a legitimate judicial inquiry.

---

But answering trap questions is part of the job description of a justice on the Supreme Court. They work in the gray area of the law.

I will concede the "babies racist" question is definitely sound bite. I would say 80-90% of vetting a justice is looking for sound bites for re-election/fundraising purposes. But if you are going to pass judgement on discrimination, abortion, etc., you have to be able to definitively define a woman.

Given what states have done recently (Oklahoma, Texas, etc), you can see a challenge to Roe vs Wade is probably coming. If you cant define a what a woman is, how can you pass judgment?

All she has to say is that if you want to define a woman, its anyone born with an XX chromosome. I would be willing to wager 90% of Americans would accept that answer without any question. The other 10% should be on ignored anyway

---

Answering performative questions in front of politicians gunning for a sound bite on camera is not a proxy for delivering researched, reasoned opinions off-camera while sitting on the Court.

Again, she knows what the biological definition of a woman is. Issues surrounding transgender rights take up the debate regarding biological sex vs. gender identity. Nothing good comes of her hypothetically adjudicating transgender rights during her nomination hearings.

---

Civ, her answer to define a women from Marsha Blackburn is extremely important!!! No where near performative!!! It is going to be exactly what we all should expect, from her, for the next 30+ years.

Remember, we have a big issue, in this country, regarding transgenders winning different sporting events around the country. So, this is a big issue for a lot of people, who care about their daughters in sports. For them, this may be enough to call their elected Senators asking them to vote NO!!!!

BTW, She is clearly intellectual and extremely intelligent. That doesn't completely qualify her as being a Supreme Court Justice. Ideologically, I would not vote for her (based on what I've seen). That said, the Senate does have a different budget for research on Supreme Court Justices as opposed to Federal Judges. So, I can see where the due-diligence is more in-depth than her previous appointments.

I could be wrong; however, this vote might be more difficult than one thinks. Mark Kelly, Senator in Arizona, could lose his race, in November, because of this vote.

---

Not sure I would call one swimmer a "big problem", but I agree it questions title IX protections.

---

Do you have daughters competing against a biological male in any sport? If not, and when you do, it will become a big problem for your daughters, I'll bet…

I don't have daughters competing in sports; however, they have expressed concerns for this trend…. It's not just the one swimmer, btw. Look for additional examples.

---

Everybody's worried about the rights of the trans athlete, but what about the rights of all the female athletes to take part in a fair competition? Do their rights not matter?

---

There are obviously people worried about the rights of biological female athletes also, it's why we're having a big conversation in this country about the issue.

I'm for inclusion in youth/recreational sports but at some point between youth/rec and college sports there needs to be a transition to requiring same-biological-sex competition. I think that's where this issue ultimately lands but it will be interesting to see at what age/level of competition that line gets drawn in different sports and settings.

BREAKING: Russia has announced the arrest warrant of George Soros. George is allegedly the main promoter of the Ukraine war and also the sponsor of the riot that ousted Yanukovych in 2014. China has equally declared him a Financial Terrorist. So, both countries ask for his head. pic.twitter.com/qkqj21NSW8

— Joseph C. Okechukwu (@jcokechukwu) March 24, 2022

Some of my questions about the overall picture may be answered here....

The China-NWO connection has been a question

Civilized said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

FlossyDFlynt said:

---

Civilized said:

---

High Travoltage said:

---

If its a social construct, how would being a biologist help?

---

She demurred with the biologist line because she didn't want to answer that trap of a question. You obviously don't need to be a biologist to say "a woman is a human with ovaries," if that's the answer you want to give.

Just like the "are babies racist?" and child pr0n sentencing questions, that was a sound bite question for a reelection campaign, not a legitimate judicial inquiry.

---

But answering trap questions is part of the job description of a justice on the Supreme Court. They work in the gray area of the law.

I will concede the "babies racist" question is definitely sound bite. I would say 80-90% of vetting a justice is looking for sound bites for re-election/fundraising purposes. But if you are going to pass judgement on discrimination, abortion, etc., you have to be able to definitively define a woman.

Given what states have done recently (Oklahoma, Texas, etc), you can see a challenge to Roe vs Wade is probably coming. If you cant define a what a woman is, how can you pass judgment?

All she has to say is that if you want to define a woman, its anyone born with an XX chromosome. I would be willing to wager 90% of Americans would accept that answer without any question. The other 10% should be on ignored anyway

---

Answering performative questions in front of politicians gunning for a sound bite on camera is not a proxy for delivering researched, reasoned opinions off-camera while sitting on the Court.

Again, she knows what the biological definition of a woman is. Issues surrounding transgender rights take up the debate regarding biological sex vs. gender identity. Nothing good comes of her hypothetically adjudicating transgender rights during her nomination hearings.

---

Civ, her answer to define a women from Marsha Blackburn is extremely important!!! No where near performative!!! It is going to be exactly what we all should expect, from her, for the next 30+ years.

Remember, we have a big issue, in this country, regarding transgenders winning different sporting events around the country. So, this is a big issue for a lot of people, who care about their daughters in sports. For them, this may be enough to call their elected Senators asking them to vote NO!!!!

BTW, She is clearly intellectual and extremely intelligent. That doesn't completely qualify her as being a Supreme Court Justice. Ideologically, I would not vote for her (based on what I've seen). That said, the Senate does have a different budget for research on Supreme Court Justices as opposed to Federal Judges. So, I can see where the due-diligence is more in-depth than her previous appointments.

I could be wrong; however, this vote might be more difficult than one thinks. Mark Kelly, Senator in Arizona, could lose his race, in November, because of this vote.

---

Not sure I would call one swimmer a "big problem", but I agree it questions title IX protections.

---

Do you have daughters competing against a biological male in any sport? If not, and when you do, it will become a big problem for your daughters, I'll bet…

I don't have daughters competing in sports; however, they have expressed concerns for this trend…. It's not just the one swimmer, btw. Look for additional examples.

---

Everybody's worried about the rights of the trans athlete, but what about the rights of all the female athletes to take part in a fair competition? Do their rights not matter?

---

There are obviously people worried about the rights of biological female athletes also, it's why we're having a big conversation in this country about the issue.

I'm for inclusion in youth/recreational sports but at some point between youth/rec and college sports there needs to be a transition to requiring same-biological-sex competition. I think that's where this issue ultimately lands but it will be interesting to see at what age/level of competition that line gets drawn in different sports and settings.

---

Why?

Werewolf said:

---

BREAKING: Russia has announced the arrest warrant of George Soros. George is allegedly the main promoter of the Ukraine war and also the sponsor of the riot that ousted Yanukovych in 2014. China has equally declared him a Financial Terrorist. So, both countries ask for his head. pic.twitter.com/qkqj21NSW8

— Joseph C. Okechukwu (@jcokechukwu) March 24, 2022

Some of my questions about the overall picture may be answered here....

The China-NWO connection has been a question

---

Good. We should arrest him and send him and his son over to Russia.

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

FlossyDFlynt said:

---

Civilized said:

---

High Travoltage said:

---

If its a social construct, how would being a biologist help?

---

She demurred with the biologist line because she didn't want to answer that trap of a question. You obviously don't need to be a biologist to say "a woman is a human with ovaries," if that's the answer you want to give.

Just like the "are babies racist?" and child pr0n sentencing questions, that was a sound bite question for a reelection campaign, not a legitimate judicial inquiry.

---

But answering trap questions is part of the job description of a justice on the Supreme Court. They work in the gray area of the law.

I will concede the "babies racist" question is definitely sound bite. I would say 80-90% of vetting a justice is looking for sound bites for re-election/fundraising purposes. But if you are going to pass judgement on discrimination, abortion, etc., you have to be able to definitively define a woman.

Given what states have done recently (Oklahoma, Texas, etc), you can see a challenge to Roe vs Wade is probably coming. If you cant define a what a woman is, how can you pass judgment?

All she has to say is that if you want to define a woman, its anyone born with an XX chromosome. I would be willing to wager 90% of Americans would accept that answer without any question. The other 10% should be on ignored anyway

---

Answering performative questions in front of politicians gunning for a sound bite on camera is not a proxy for delivering researched, reasoned opinions off-camera while sitting on the Court.

Again, she knows what the biological definition of a woman is. Issues surrounding transgender rights take up the debate regarding biological sex vs. gender identity. Nothing good comes of her hypothetically adjudicating transgender rights during her nomination hearings.

---

Civ, her answer to define a women from Marsha Blackburn is extremely important!!! No where near performative!!! It is going to be exactly what we all should expect, from her, for the next 30+ years.

Remember, we have a big issue, in this country, regarding transgenders winning different sporting events around the country. So, this is a big issue for a lot of people, who care about their daughters in sports. For them, this may be enough to call their elected Senators asking them to vote NO!!!!

BTW, She is clearly intellectual and extremely intelligent. That doesn't completely qualify her as being a Supreme Court Justice. Ideologically, I would not vote for her (based on what I've seen). That said, the Senate does have a different budget for research on Supreme Court Justices as opposed to Federal Judges. So, I can see where the due-diligence is more in-depth than her previous appointments.

I could be wrong; however, this vote might be more difficult than one thinks. Mark Kelly, Senator in Arizona, could lose his race, in November, because of this vote.

---

Not sure I would call one swimmer a "big problem", but I agree it questions title IX protections.

---

Do you have daughters competing against a biological male in any sport? If not, and when you do, it will become a big problem for your daughters, I'll bet…

I don't have daughters competing in sports; however, they have expressed concerns for this trend…. It's not just the one swimmer, btw. Look for additional examples.

---

Everybody's worried about the rights of the trans athlete, but what about the rights of all the female athletes to take part in a fair competition? Do their rights not matter?

---

There are obviously people worried about the rights of biological female athletes also, it's why we're having a big conversation in this country about the issue.

I'm for inclusion in youth/recreational sports but at some point between youth/rec and college sports there needs to be a transition to requiring same-biological-sex competition. I think that's where this issue ultimately lands but it will be interesting to see at what age/level of competition that line gets drawn in different sports and settings.

---

Why?

---

Because testosterone is a helluva drug.

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

FlossyDFlynt said:

---

Civilized said:

---

High Travoltage said:

---

If its a social construct, how would being a biologist help?

---

She demurred with the biologist line because she didn't want to answer that trap of a question. You obviously don't need to be a biologist to say "a woman is a human with ovaries," if that's the answer you want to give.

Just like the "are babies racist?" and child pr0n sentencing questions, that was a sound bite question for a reelection campaign, not a legitimate judicial inquiry.

---

But answering trap questions is part of the job description of a justice on the Supreme Court. They work in the gray area of the law.

I will concede the "babies racist" question is definitely sound bite. I would say 80-90% of vetting a justice is looking for sound bites for re-election/fundraising purposes. But if you are going to pass judgement on discrimination, abortion, etc., you have to be able to definitively define a woman.

Given what states have done recently (Oklahoma, Texas, etc), you can see a challenge to Roe vs Wade is probably coming. If you cant define a what a woman is, how can you pass judgment?

All she has to say is that if you want to define a woman, its anyone born with an XX chromosome. I would be willing to wager 90% of Americans would accept that answer without any question. The other 10% should be on ignored anyway

---

Answering performative questions in front of politicians gunning for a sound bite on camera is not a proxy for delivering researched, reasoned opinions off-camera while sitting on the Court.

Again, she knows what the biological definition of a woman is. Issues surrounding transgender rights take up the debate regarding biological sex vs. gender identity. Nothing good comes of her hypothetically adjudicating transgender rights during her nomination hearings.

---

Civ, her answer to define a women from Marsha Blackburn is extremely important!!! No where near performative!!! It is going to be exactly what we all should expect, from her, for the next 30+ years.

Remember, we have a big issue, in this country, regarding transgenders winning different sporting events around the country. So, this is a big issue for a lot of people, who care about their daughters in sports. For them, this may be enough to call their elected Senators asking them to vote NO!!!!

BTW, She is clearly intellectual and extremely intelligent. That doesn't completely qualify her as being a Supreme Court Justice. Ideologically, I would not vote for her (based on what I've seen). That said, the Senate does have a different budget for research on Supreme Court Justices as opposed to Federal Judges. So, I can see where the due-diligence is more in-depth than her previous appointments.

I could be wrong; however, this vote might be more difficult than one thinks. Mark Kelly, Senator in Arizona, could lose his race, in November, because of this vote.

---

Not sure I would call one swimmer a "big problem", but I agree it questions title IX protections.

---

Do you have daughters competing against a biological male in any sport? If not, and when you do, it will become a big problem for your daughters, I'll bet…

I don't have daughters competing in sports; however, they have expressed concerns for this trend…. It's not just the one swimmer, btw. Look for additional examples.

---

Everybody's worried about the rights of the trans athlete, but what about the rights of all the female athletes to take part in a fair competition? Do their rights not matter?

---

There are obviously people worried about the rights of biological female athletes also, it's why we're having a big conversation in this country about the issue.

I'm for inclusion in youth/recreational sports but at some point between youth/rec and college sports there needs to be a transition to requiring same-biological-sex competition. I think that's where this issue ultimately lands but it will be interesting to see at what age/level of competition that line gets drawn in different sports and settings.

---

Why?

---

Because testosterone is a helluva drug.

---

At what age should this transition happen in sports?