caryking said:

---

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?

---

Haven't thought through it well but I think level of competition matters much more than age.

TheStorm said:

---

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...

---

Thomas . Thompson, you knew who was meant. I didn't stop to fact check it, but thank you for your usual valuable contribution to any topic, lol

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?

---

https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/03/how-replacing-biological-sex-with-gender-identity-harms-children/

Quote:

---

Gender identity" was once just a fringe concept of postmodern philosophy. Today, it's regularly causing real-world harm to children and teenagers (particularly girls) across the country in sports, schools, and even youth camps.

One glaring example is what recently happened to fifth-grade girls from Weaver Elementary School in Los Alamitos, Calif. Without any warning to parents, two biological males were placed as counselors at Camp Pali in San Bernardino. The counselors spent three nights in the same cabins with the girls (these males instructed the girls to use they/them pronouns). When questioned about the controversial move, Emmi Teige, assistant director of Camp Pali, confirmed it. "Per California law, we place staff in cabins they identify with" was her justification.

Gender identity is taking precedence over student well-being and safety across the nation. For example, in Loudoun County, Va., a 15-year-old skirt-wearing male student who was allowed to select the school bathroom of his choosing sexually assaulted a female student. Transferred to another school, the boy sexually assaulted another girl. Adding insult to injury, not long after the incident, the National School Board Association labeled parents such as the father of one of these girls, who spoke out against transgender and other radical policies at school board meetings, "domestic terrorists."

The blatant promotion of transgenderism has infiltrated schools without parental consent and at the expense of academic learning. Gender-identity school policies and practices are becoming widespread. And curricula, books, videos, and activities promoting the transgender ideology are used with students as young as five. It's common, moreover, for these materials used with students to contain sexually explicit content.

One example of transgenderism indoctrination is the common use in lower-elementary-school classrooms of the Gender Unicorn and Genderbread Person. These resources employ an endearing character (unicorn or gingerbread man) to guide young children through self-selecting their gender identity, their gender expression, the gender they're physically attracted to, and the gender they're emotionally attracted to. Each option even their "sex assigned at birth" includes the following categories: women/men, feminine/masculine, and "other."

Parents are intentionally left in the dark by school personnel about the sexual content taught. Often, parents find out about the inappropriate content only from their children, who are confused and distressed about what they have been taught at school.

---

Perhaps you are unaware of the stealthy methods used by woke school districts to expose young children to this stuff without parental knowledge. It would help if you subscribed to a conservative magazine like National Review. They keep an eye on what is happening so you don't have to waste time on propaganda saturated entertainment news. They are not fans of Trump either, just conservative principles.

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

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?

---

Haven't thought through it well but I think level of competition matters much more than age.

---

Civ, what's a woman?

PackFansXL said:

---

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?

---

https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/03/how-replacing-biological-sex-with-gender-identity-harms-children/

Quote:

---

Gender identity" was once just a fringe concept of postmodern philosophy. Today, it's regularly causing real-world harm to children and teenagers (particularly girls) across the country in sports, schools, and even youth camps.

One glaring example is what recently happened to fifth-grade girls from Weaver Elementary School in Los Alamitos, Calif. Without any warning to parents, two biological males were placed as counselors at Camp Pali in San Bernardino. The counselors spent three nights in the same cabins with the girls (these males instructed the girls to use they/them pronouns). When questioned about the controversial move, Emmi Teige, assistant director of Camp Pali, confirmed it. "Per California law, we place staff in cabins they identify with" was her justification.

Gender identity is taking precedence over student well-being and safety across the nation. For example, in Loudoun County, Va., a 15-year-old skirt-wearing male student who was allowed to select the school bathroom of his choosing sexually assaulted a female student. Transferred to another school, the boy sexually assaulted another girl. Adding insult to injury, not long after the incident, the National School Board Association labeled parents such as the father of one of these girls, who spoke out against transgender and other radical policies at school board meetings, "domestic terrorists."

The blatant promotion of transgenderism has infiltrated schools without parental consent and at the expense of academic learning. Gender-identity school policies and practices are becoming widespread. And curricula, books, videos, and activities promoting the transgender ideology are used with students as young as five. It's common, moreover, for these materials used with students to contain sexually explicit content.

One example of transgenderism indoctrination is the common use in lower-elementary-school classrooms of the Gender Unicorn and Genderbread Person. These resources employ an endearing character (unicorn or gingerbread man) to guide young children through self-selecting their gender identity, their gender expression, the gender they're physically attracted to, and the gender they're emotionally attracted to. Each option even their "sex assigned at birth" includes the following categories: women/men, feminine/masculine, and "other."

Parents are intentionally left in the dark by school personnel about the sexual content taught. Often, parents find out about the inappropriate content only from their children, who are confused and distressed about what they have been taught at school.

---

Perhaps you are unaware of the stealthy methods used by woke school districts to expose young children to this stuff without parental knowledge. It would help if you subscribed to a conservative magazine like National Review. They keep an eye on what is happening so you don't have to waste time on propaganda saturated entertainment news. They are not fans of Trump either, just conservative principles.

---

That sounds terrible with the camp. So if i look up Camp Pali, and under "about", it references that it is recognized as the best LGBTQ-friendly summer camp. So you have to know when you send your kids there, they are going to be mixed with people who identify differently.

Likewise, my kids have attended, and have been leaders at, YoungLife Camps....you send your kid there, you know, one, they are NOT going to allow what happened at Camp Pali, and you know, they are going to hear about Jesus. If the latter is something you wouldn't possibly want your kid exposed to, don't send them to a YL camp.

**I'm not advocating what Camp Pali did, but sometimes, you get out of something what you put into it, and two, like I'd ask for any other news source -- why did they leave that part out of the story?

Have you checked out our 24/7 conservative network? We give you the news while the main networks cover it up.

Pres. Trump: “I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and white nationalists because they should be condemned totally.”

Follow us this weekend and DL our phone app pic.twitter.com/ve6omoFILb

— Real America's Voice (RAV) (@RealAmVoice) August 10, 2019

Packchem91 said:

---

PackFansXL said:

---

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?

---

https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/03/how-replacing-biological-sex-with-gender-identity-harms-children/

Quote:

---

Gender identity" was once just a fringe concept of postmodern philosophy. Today, it's regularly causing real-world harm to children and teenagers (particularly girls) across the country in sports, schools, and even youth camps.

One glaring example is what recently happened to fifth-grade girls from Weaver Elementary School in Los Alamitos, Calif. Without any warning to parents, two biological males were placed as counselors at Camp Pali in San Bernardino. The counselors spent three nights in the same cabins with the girls (these males instructed the girls to use they/them pronouns). When questioned about the controversial move, Emmi Teige, assistant director of Camp Pali, confirmed it. "Per California law, we place staff in cabins they identify with" was her justification.

Gender identity is taking precedence over student well-being and safety across the nation. For example, in Loudoun County, Va., a 15-year-old skirt-wearing male student who was allowed to select the school bathroom of his choosing sexually assaulted a female student. Transferred to another school, the boy sexually assaulted another girl. Adding insult to injury, not long after the incident, the National School Board Association labeled parents such as the father of one of these girls, who spoke out against transgender and other radical policies at school board meetings, "domestic terrorists."

The blatant promotion of transgenderism has infiltrated schools without parental consent and at the expense of academic learning. Gender-identity school policies and practices are becoming widespread. And curricula, books, videos, and activities promoting the transgender ideology are used with students as young as five. It's common, moreover, for these materials used with students to contain sexually explicit content.

One example of transgenderism indoctrination is the common use in lower-elementary-school classrooms of the Gender Unicorn and Genderbread Person. These resources employ an endearing character (unicorn or gingerbread man) to guide young children through self-selecting their gender identity, their gender expression, the gender they're physically attracted to, and the gender they're emotionally attracted to. Each option even their "sex assigned at birth" includes the following categories: women/men, feminine/masculine, and "other."

Parents are intentionally left in the dark by school personnel about the sexual content taught. Often, parents find out about the inappropriate content only from their children, who are confused and distressed about what they have been taught at school.

---

Perhaps you are unaware of the stealthy methods used by woke school districts to expose young children to this stuff without parental knowledge. It would help if you subscribed to a conservative magazine like National Review. They keep an eye on what is happening so you don't have to waste time on propaganda saturated entertainment news. They are not fans of Trump either, just conservative principles.

---

That sounds terrible with the camp. So if i look up Camp Pali, and under "about", it references that it is recognized as the best LGBTQ-friendly summer camp. So you have to know when you send your kids there, they are going to be mixed with people who identify differently.

Likewise, my kids have attended, and have been leaders at, YoungLife Camps....you send your kid there, you know, one, they are NOT going to allow what happened at Camp Pali, and you know, they are going to hear about Jesus. If the latter is something you wouldn't possibly want your kid exposed to, don't send them to a YL camp.

**I'm not advocating what Camp Pali did, but sometimes, you get out of something what you put into it, and two, like I'd ask for any other news source -- why did they leave that part out of the story?

---

Chem, I actually agree with you…

A precedent has been set. pic.twitter.com/E4adDVjcfZ

— Heather Mullins - Real America’s Voice (RAV-TV) (@TalkMullins) March 22, 2022

Packchem91 said:

---

PackFansXL said:

---

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?

---

https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/03/how-replacing-biological-sex-with-gender-identity-harms-children/

Quote:

---

Gender identity" was once just a fringe concept of postmodern philosophy. Today, it's regularly causing real-world harm to children and teenagers (particularly girls) across the country in sports, schools, and even youth camps.

One glaring example is what recently happened to fifth-grade girls from Weaver Elementary School in Los Alamitos, Calif. Without any warning to parents, two biological males were placed as counselors at Camp Pali in San Bernardino. The counselors spent three nights in the same cabins with the girls (these males instructed the girls to use they/them pronouns). When questioned about the controversial move, Emmi Teige, assistant director of Camp Pali, confirmed it. "Per California law, we place staff in cabins they identify with" was her justification.

Gender identity is taking precedence over student well-being and safety across the nation. For example, in Loudoun County, Va., a 15-year-old skirt-wearing male student who was allowed to select the school bathroom of his choosing sexually assaulted a female student. Transferred to another school, the boy sexually assaulted another girl. Adding insult to injury, not long after the incident, the National School Board Association labeled parents such as the father of one of these girls, who spoke out against transgender and other radical policies at school board meetings, "domestic terrorists."

The blatant promotion of transgenderism has infiltrated schools without parental consent and at the expense of academic learning. Gender-identity school policies and practices are becoming widespread. And curricula, books, videos, and activities promoting the transgender ideology are used with students as young as five. It's common, moreover, for these materials used with students to contain sexually explicit content.

One example of transgenderism indoctrination is the common use in lower-elementary-school classrooms of the Gender Unicorn and Genderbread Person. These resources employ an endearing character (unicorn or gingerbread man) to guide young children through self-selecting their gender identity, their gender expression, the gender they're physically attracted to, and the gender they're emotionally attracted to. Each option even their "sex assigned at birth" includes the following categories: women/men, feminine/masculine, and "other."

Parents are intentionally left in the dark by school personnel about the sexual content taught. Often, parents find out about the inappropriate content only from their children, who are confused and distressed about what they have been taught at school.

---

Perhaps you are unaware of the stealthy methods used by woke school districts to expose young children to this stuff without parental knowledge. It would help if you subscribed to a conservative magazine like National Review. They keep an eye on what is happening so you don't have to waste time on propaganda saturated entertainment news. They are not fans of Trump either, just conservative principles.

---

That sounds terrible with the camp. So if i look up Camp Pali, and under "about", it references that it is recognized as the best LGBTQ-friendly summer camp. So you have to know when you send your kids there, they are going to be mixed with people who identify differently.

Likewise, my kids have attended, and have been leaders at, YoungLife Camps....you send your kid there, you know, one, they are NOT going to allow what happened at Camp Pali, and you know, they are going to hear about Jesus. If the latter is something you wouldn't possibly want your kid exposed to, don't send them to a YL camp.

**I'm not advocating what Camp Pali did, but sometimes, you get out of something what you put into it, and two, like I'd ask for any other news source -- why did they leave that part out of the story?

---

IMHO, if you are not concerned about anything in the linked article, you are trying way to hard to be open-minded. There were many examples of hidden intentions in the school system and you have chosen to defend the inclusion of older males in close proximity through the night with 5th grade girls. I certainly wouldn't have sent my kids to that camp, but I think they owe those parents some understanding that they have Trans counselors who will be sleeping in the same cabins while actively promoting their lifestyle choices.

Are you not a little concerned about what is going on at these schools?

ANy ideas on what Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Mitt Romney, Lindsey Graham & Company want WW3 for?

PackFansXL said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

PackFansXL said:

---

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?

---

https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/03/how-replacing-biological-sex-with-gender-identity-harms-children/

Quote:

---

Gender identity" was once just a fringe concept of postmodern philosophy. Today, it's regularly causing real-world harm to children and teenagers (particularly girls) across the country in sports, schools, and even youth camps.

One glaring example is what recently happened to fifth-grade girls from Weaver Elementary School in Los Alamitos, Calif. Without any warning to parents, two biological males were placed as counselors at Camp Pali in San Bernardino. The counselors spent three nights in the same cabins with the girls (these males instructed the girls to use they/them pronouns). When questioned about the controversial move, Emmi Teige, assistant director of Camp Pali, confirmed it. "Per California law, we place staff in cabins they identify with" was her justification.

Gender identity is taking precedence over student well-being and safety across the nation. For example, in Loudoun County, Va., a 15-year-old skirt-wearing male student who was allowed to select the school bathroom of his choosing sexually assaulted a female student. Transferred to another school, the boy sexually assaulted another girl. Adding insult to injury, not long after the incident, the National School Board Association labeled parents such as the father of one of these girls, who spoke out against transgender and other radical policies at school board meetings, "domestic terrorists."

The blatant promotion of transgenderism has infiltrated schools without parental consent and at the expense of academic learning. Gender-identity school policies and practices are becoming widespread. And curricula, books, videos, and activities promoting the transgender ideology are used with students as young as five. It's common, moreover, for these materials used with students to contain sexually explicit content.

One example of transgenderism indoctrination is the common use in lower-elementary-school classrooms of the Gender Unicorn and Genderbread Person. These resources employ an endearing character (unicorn or gingerbread man) to guide young children through self-selecting their gender identity, their gender expression, the gender they're physically attracted to, and the gender they're emotionally attracted to. Each option even their "sex assigned at birth" includes the following categories: women/men, feminine/masculine, and "other."

Parents are intentionally left in the dark by school personnel about the sexual content taught. Often, parents find out about the inappropriate content only from their children, who are confused and distressed about what they have been taught at school.

---

Perhaps you are unaware of the stealthy methods used by woke school districts to expose young children to this stuff without parental knowledge. It would help if you subscribed to a conservative magazine like National Review. They keep an eye on what is happening so you don't have to waste time on propaganda saturated entertainment news. They are not fans of Trump either, just conservative principles.

---

That sounds terrible with the camp. So if i look up Camp Pali, and under "about", it references that it is recognized as the best LGBTQ-friendly summer camp. So you have to know when you send your kids there, they are going to be mixed with people who identify differently.

Likewise, my kids have attended, and have been leaders at, YoungLife Camps....you send your kid there, you know, one, they are NOT going to allow what happened at Camp Pali, and you know, they are going to hear about Jesus. If the latter is something you wouldn't possibly want your kid exposed to, don't send them to a YL camp.

**I'm not advocating what Camp Pali did, but sometimes, you get out of something what you put into it, and two, like I'd ask for any other news source -- why did they leave that part out of the story?

---

IMHO, if you are not concerned about anything in the linked article, you are trying way to hard to be open-minded. There were many examples of hidden intentions in the school system and you have chosen to defend the inclusion of older males in close proximity through the night with 5th grade girls. I certainly wouldn't have sent my kids to that camp, but I think they owe those parents some understanding that they have Trans counselors who will be sleeping in the same cabins while actively promoting their lifestyle choices.

Are you not a little concerned about what is going on at these schools?

---

Of course I'm concerned about agenda's taught in schools. So I guess where I question is -- are these schools promoting and indoctrinating, or informing? I think kids should be taught to treat others equally and to accept that not everyone is going to be like them.....and may in fact, look and act "really weird".

I 100% think lesbianism and perhaps homosexuality in general is much more pronounced in schools today certainly than when you and I went to UC schools, lol....but is that because schools are promoting it, or is it because we see it in Hollywood and entertainment magazines, and commercials, which often make it "glamorous". I don't for that promotion at all. But is it the schools, or those other influences?

As for the assaults....can we agree all assaults are bad? I think its pretty clear.....boys with boy parts shouldn't be allowed into girls bathrooms. At that tender age where hormones and fitting in and peer pressure and all mix....it just shouldn't happen.
But all this venom about the one in Loudon -- do we KNOW it was because this kid had access, or because it was just another sexual assault that happened in a HS, and this time invovled a cross-dressing boy? Myers Park HS has had a number of boy-on-girl assaults over the past few years....do we get less worked up about that because its "traditional"?

Quote:

---

Parents are intentionally left in the dark by school personnel about the sexual content taught. Often, parents find out about the inappropriate content only from their children, who are confused and distressed about what they have been taught at school.

---

That doesn't sound like innocent curiosity to me.

caryking said:

---

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?

---

He hopes turncoats like our very own Thom Tillis vote for her and gives him "bi-partisan" cover.

Oldsouljer said:

---

caryking said:

---

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?

---

He hopes turncoats like our very own Thom Tillis vote for her and gives him "bi-partisan" cover.

---

Well… that's probably true.

It's a foregone conclusion that she's going to get confirmed... that's just the way it works.

TheStorm said:

---

It's a foregone conclusion that she's going to get confirmed... that's just the way it works.

---

Hey, Mitch came out and said he was a "No" vote… whatever that means…

This article, while interesting, would have been so much better if Fox had taken the time to relate similar comments when either of Trump's SCJ candidates were being grilled. They surely published lots of stories back then complaining about the treatment, and most of these players were around then....so show the hypocrisy by comparing the quotes.

MSNBC, CNN, others flip out over GOP questioning of Ketanji Brown Jackson | Fox News

caryking said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

It's a foregone conclusion that she's going to get confirmed... that's just the way it works.

---

Hey, Mitch came out and said he was a "No" vote… whatever that means…

---

Manchin has said he's voting to approve. Haven't heard about Sinema.

REMEMBER: Clarence Thomas was the ONLY “no” vote in an 8-1 decision to allow the release of Trump’s 1/6 documents showing plans to order the military to seize voting machines.

Now, texts show his wife was encouraging Trump to take “unrelenting efforts” to steal the election.

— No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen (@NoLieWithBTC) March 24, 2022

This could be a problem for Thomas.

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

It's a foregone conclusion that she's going to get confirmed... that's just the way it works.

---

Hey, Mitch came out and said he was a "No" vote… whatever that means…

---

Manchin has said he's voting to approve. Haven't heard about Sinema.

---

If a true America First candidate would run in WV, they could beat Manchin. WV may be the biggest America First state in the US. I hope they do as he is too much of a wildcard in National politics.

caryking said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

It's a foregone conclusion that she's going to get confirmed... that's just the way it works.

---

Hey, Mitch came out and said he was a "No" vote… whatever that means…

---

It means he can tell the homefolk that he opposed her. Left unsaid is that he didn't scorch the earth with every means at his disposal to kill her nomination. And the homefolk fall for that crap every time.

Civilized said:

---

REMEMBER: Clarence Thomas was the ONLY “no” vote in an 8-1 decision to allow the release of Trump’s 1/6 documents showing plans to order the military to seize voting machines.

Now, texts show his wife was encouraging Trump to take “unrelenting efforts” to steal the election.

— No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen (@NoLieWithBTC) March 24, 2022

This could be a problem for Thomas.

---

This is the epitome of Informational Warfare!! Everyone, in the media, knows the hearings for Brown were not real good. So, what happens? They drop this nugget to move the conversation elsewhere…

I'll have to say… they are good at what they do because people don't recognize what's going on.

There're no coincidences!!

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

It's a foregone conclusion that she's going to get confirmed... that's just the way it works.

---

Hey, Mitch came out and said he was a "No" vote… whatever that means…

---

Manchin has said he's voting to approve. Haven't heard about Sinema.

---

If a true America First candidate would run in WV, they could beat Manchin. WV may be the biggest America First state in the US. I hope they do as he is too much of a wildcard in National politics.

---

I wouldn't be so sure about that.

That may be true in Arizona with Sinema but Manchin enjoys broad support in West Virginia.

We need more Joe Manchin's that put constituents and their own moral compass over party. Politicians like him moderate the party extremes.

Isn't that guy tweeting the one behind the PAC that got exposed several months back?

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

It's a foregone conclusion that she's going to get confirmed... that's just the way it works.

---

Hey, Mitch came out and said he was a "No" vote… whatever that means…

---

Manchin has said he's voting to approve. Haven't heard about Sinema.

---

If a true America First candidate would run in WV, they could beat Manchin. WV may be the biggest America First state in the US. I hope they do as he is too much of a wildcard in National politics.

---

I wouldn't be so sure about that.

That may be true in Arizona with Sinema but Manchin enjoys broad support in West Virginia.

We need more Joe Manchin's that put constituents and their own moral compass over party. Politicians like him moderate the party extremes.

---

Politicians like him create 30T in debt!

That's not incorrect but plenty of West Virginians are almost certainly are going to be looking at him in a different light if he is responsible for putting this anti-American on the high court.

Oldsouljer said:

---

That's not incorrect but plenty of West Virginians are almost certainly are going to be looking at him in a different light if he is responsible for putting this anti-American on the high court.

---

Come again?

"anti-American?" How's that?

And regardless I don't think a single Manchin vote to approve nomination of a SC Justice would even make the top-10 of things WV voters care most about.

It definitely wouldn't make the top-5.

This is a good read about actions that have happened recently…

https://tommullen.net/featured/are-the-u-s-and-nato-as-prepared-for-economic-war-as-russia-china-and-india/

TheStorm said:

---

Isn't that guy tweeting the one behind the PAC that got exposed several months back?

---

No idea but the facts are being widely reported and don't seem to be in dispute.

Ginni Thomas and White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows attempted to overturn a free election, while Clarence Thomas sat on Supreme Court, reviewing cases that could overturn the election.

That's a huge problem.

Civilized said:

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

That's not incorrect but plenty of West Virginians are almost certainly are going to be looking at him in a different light if he is responsible for putting this anti-American on the high court.

---

Come again?

"anti-American?" How's that?

And regardless I don't think a single Manchin vote to approve nomination of a SC Justice would even make the top-10 of things WV voters care most about.

It definitely wouldn't make the top-5.

---

Civ, everyone has an opinion on what makes a person un-American or not. I would just let that one go…

Regarding this vote and voters in WV… I think you have to look at the people of WV and understand them culturally. Now, I'm not saying I understand the people of WV culturally; however, neither do you, I bet. They only thing I have heard is that they are culturally very conservative. If true, this vote can definitely impact the WV people.

Just think about how a commercial on TV, online, or any other means can present this vote. It can be very impactful!

Civilized said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

Isn't that guy tweeting the one behind the PAC that got exposed several months back?

---

No idea but the facts are being widely reported and don't seem to be in dispute.

Ginni Thomas and White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows attempted to overturn a free election, while Clarence Thomas sat on Supreme Court, reviewing cases that could overturn the election.

That's a huge problem.

---

Again, I say…

This is the epitome of Informational Warfare!! Everyone, in the media, knows the hearings for Brown were not real good. So, what happens? They drop this nugget to move the conversation elsewhere…

I'll have to say… they are good at what they do because people don't recognize what's going on.

There're no coincidences!!

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

Isn't that guy tweeting the one behind the PAC that got exposed several months back?

---

No idea but the facts are being widely reported and don't seem to be in dispute.

Ginni Thomas and White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows attempted to overturn a free election, while Clarence Thomas sat on Supreme Court, reviewing cases that could overturn the election.

That's a huge problem.

---

Again, I say…

This is the epitome of Informational Warfare!! Everyone, in the media, knows the hearings for Brown were not real good. So, what happens? They drop this nugget to move the conversation elsewhere…

I'll have to say… they are good at what they do because people don't recognize what's going on.

There're no coincidences!!

---

I'm not seeing the connection.

SC nominations aren't general elections.

The Brown nomination is coming down to Manchin and Sinema as per usual. How does the timing of this text release tangibly impact their vote?

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

Isn't that guy tweeting the one behind the PAC that got exposed several months back?

---

No idea but the facts are being widely reported and don't seem to be in dispute.

Ginni Thomas and White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows attempted to overturn a free election, while Clarence Thomas sat on Supreme Court, reviewing cases that could overturn the election.

That's a huge problem.

---

Again, I say…

This is the epitome of Informational Warfare!! Everyone, in the media, knows the hearings for Brown were not real good. So, what happens? They drop this nugget to move the conversation elsewhere…

I'll have to say… they are good at what they do because people don't recognize what's going on.

There're no coincidences!!

---

I'm not seeing the connection.

SC nominations aren't general elections.

The Brown nomination is coming down to Manchin and Sinema as per usual. How does the timing of this text release tangibly impact their vote?

---

Civ, I don't think you are a dumb person, misguided? Yea.

My point is the media is creating a deflection with the Thomas information because they all know that the Brown hearings didn't go well. BTW, Mark Kelly, in Arizona, is up for an election this year, as well…

You need to look at the senate seats up for election, in November, and see which ones could flip…. That is why the media needs to drop a nugget like this.

Do you really think they just got that information and released it? Remember, there are no coincidences…

Prima facie.

caryking said:

---

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?

---

Not only to sports but any permanent trans change should happen after an individual is 25.