What is a woman?

[billeisele 130]

I'm still wondering about using the "ask a biologist" line with the game warden if I mistakenly shoot a deer of the wrong sex. Don't suspect it will work.

It's been said before, politics is a messy business and there are bad actors on both sides of the fence. It's not good that quality people get caught up in political messes. IMO that applies to the current nominee and at least the last four nominees.

It's interesting to note that prior to 2005 most were confirmed with wide support from both sides. In 2005 it started to shift. The vote margins got tighter, some nominees were withdrawn, Garland was cheated, and the last 3 barely got in. Since that time a total of 10 were hotly contested (one denied a chance) and now Jackson is #11.

Prior to 2005 the recent most contentious votes were under HW Bush in 1991 when Thomas was barely confirmed 52-48, and under Reagan in 1987 when Bork was rejected 42-58. After that you have to go back to 1970 and 1969 when Nixon had two nominees rejected.

The total are: 120 C-confirmed and served, 7 D-declined to serve, 10 N-no action, 12 R-rejected, 12 W-withdrawn, and 3 P-postponed. 

Garland was an N (victim of politics) in 2016. The next most recent N was Harlan in Nov 1954. Don't know the history but suspect a procedural issue because he was elected 2 months later in Jan 1955 with only 11 dissenting votes. The next was Butler in 1922 but the same thing occurred, he was N then C. That occurred again in 1881 with Matthews. One has to go back to 1866 to find an N that was never confirmed. There wasn't another vote until 1869 so something was occurring in that time period.

This is the link to the full article.   https://www.senate.gov/legislative/nominations/SupremeCourtNominations1789present.htm

 

Supreme Court Nominations (1789-Present)

 

---

The Constitution requires the president to submit nominations to the Senate for its advice and consent. Since the Supreme Court was established in 1789, presidents have submitted 165 nominations for the Court, including those for chief justice. Of this total, 127 were confirmed (7 declined to serve). This chart lists nominations officially submitted to the Senate.

Nominee To Replace Nominated* Vote** Result & Date*** President Biden, Joseph R., Jr. Jackson, Ketanji Brown Breyer Feb 28, 2022       President Trump, Donald Barrett, Amy Coney Ginsburg Sep 29, 2020 52-48  No.  224 C Oct 26, 2020 Kavanaugh, Brett Kennedy Jul 10, 2018 50-48  No.  223 C Oct 6, 2018 Gorsuch, Neil M. Scalia Feb 1, 2017 54-45  No.  111 C Apr 7, 2017 President Obama, Barack Garland, Merrick B. Scalia Mar 16, 2016   N   Kagan, Elena Stevens May 10, 2010 63-37  No.  229 C Aug 5, 2010 Sotomayor, Sonia Souter Jun 1, 2009 68-31  No.  262 C Aug 6, 2009 President Bush, George W. Alito, Samuel A., Jr. O'Connor Nov 10, 2005 58-42  No.  2 C Jan 31, 2006 Miers, Harriet O'Connor Oct 7, 2005   W Oct 28, 2005 Roberts, John G., Jr.1 Rehnquist Sep 6, 2005 78-22  No.  245 C Sep 29, 2005 Roberts, John G., Jr. O'Connor Jul 29, 2005   W Sep 6, 2005 President Clinton, Bill Breyer, Stephen G. Blackmun May 17, 1994 87-9  No.  242 C Jul 29, 1994 Ginsburg, Ruth Bader White Jun 22, 1993 96-3  No.  232 C Aug 3, 1993

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

6 hours ago, billeisele said:

I'm still wondering about using the "ask a biologist" line with the game warden if I mistakenly shoot a deer of the wrong sex. Don't suspect it will work.

 

I know antlered does exist.

I don't know the exact rules, but I would find it hard to believe that a hunter would be prosecuted for shooting one.

[metalslug 36]

21 hours ago, billvon said:

OK.  If you have a child, and at birth that child has a vagina, ovaries and (later) breasts, and tests as XY - what are they?  In Winsor's reality?  What will you make them identify as?

The scenario above can never happen. Neither AIS (Morris) or Swyer syndrome can result in ovaries. Also; DSD or intersex should not be confused with transgender, not mutually inclusive at all. The former occurs in approx. 1 in 15000 women with XY and the latter around 2% who self-identify as trans or some variation thereof. Arguing the case of one group to explain another is dishonest.

[billvon 2,991]

8 minutes ago, metalslug said:

The scenario above can never happen. Neither AIS (Morris) or Swyer syndrome can result in ovaries.

They result in organs in the same place as ovaries that look like ovaries and, on exam, present like ovaries.  If you asked her doctor about her ovaries, they would likely check and say "they're fine - why?"

The only way to know would be to do a chromosome check, and then later see if she is ovulating.  Which you cannot do when she is a child.

So I'll pose the same question to you.  You have a child.  At birth - as far as you can tell - that child has a vagina, ovaries and (later) breasts.  They grow up as a girl.  At age 15 they test as XY.  What sex are they?  What will you make them identify as?

[metalslug 36]

2 minutes ago, billvon said:

They result in organs in the same place as ovaries that look like ovaries and, on exam, present like ovaries.  If you asked her doctor about her ovaries, they would likely check and say "they're fine - why?"

They are not ovaries. Period. What they 'present as' on cursory examination has no relevance at all.  (I can present as Santa Claus). You wrote nonsense and were caught on it.

7 minutes ago, billvon said:

So I'll pose the same question to you.  You have a child.  At birth - as far as you can tell - that child has a vagina, ovaries and (later) breasts.  They grow up as a girl.  At age 15 they test as XY.  What sex are they?  What will you make them identify as?

'make them'?   that your preferred parenting style?  I would encourage them to identify as female, as the closest approximation of what they are and have familiarity with.  I have certainly never stated that women are strictly XX as I'm familiar enough with the difference between DSD and transgender. I'll even do you one better; I'd be willing to call a XY born male, after fully transitioned , a woman.

[wmw999 2,445]

23 minutes ago, metalslug said:

They are not ovaries. Period. What they 'present as' on cursory examination has no relevance at all.  (I can present as Santa Claus). You wrote nonsense and were caught on it.

It is when a baby is examined at birth, and gender is determined. Outie-pokie, boy. Innie-goey, girl. Up until the last few years, doubtful cases went to a parental decision. In big hospitals there might be experience; in the more rural ones, without the tools that are available now, what else was there?

Those kids are young adults now. There were almost 3.5 million births last year — that’s over 600 likely intersex alone. Each year.

Wendy P. 

[billvon 2,991]

1 hour ago, metalslug said:

They are not ovaries. Period. What they 'present as' on cursory examination has no relevance at all.

So your doctor saying "they are ovaries" to you has no relevance to you at all?  Interesting.  I would think that you would consider that opinion relevant.  I mean, hopefully you would consider other things your doctor tells you about your child's medical state relevant, even if there's a possibility that they are wrong.

Quote

I would encourage them to identify as female

Great!  I would lean towards more what they wanted to identify as, but I agree that that's _probably_ going to be female.

That's an example of a woman who identifies as a woman, who has the anatomy of a woman, but is genetically male.  None of the three have to match to be healthy/sane.

[kallend 2,026]

1 hour ago, metalslug said:

They are not ovaries. Period. What they 'present as' on cursory examination has no relevance at all.  (I can present as Santa Claus). You wrote nonsense and were caught on it.

'make them'?   that your preferred parenting style?  I would encourage them to identify as female, as the closest approximation of what they are and have familiarity with.  I have certainly never stated that women are strictly XX as I'm familiar enough with the difference between DSD and transgender. I'll even do you one better; I'd be willing to call a XY born male, after fully transitioned , a woman.

So if the birth certificate says "Female" on account of external appearance at birth (and all subsequent medical exams) but in later life they test as XY, what is your position?

[JoeWeber 2,720]

2 hours ago, billvon said:

They result in organs in the same place as ovaries that look like ovaries and, on exam, present like ovaries.  If you asked her doctor about her ovaries, they would likely check and say "they're fine - why?"

The only way to know would be to do a chromosome check, and then later see if she is ovulating.  Which you cannot do when she is a child.

So I'll pose the same question to you.  You have a child.  At birth - as far as you can tell - that child has a vagina, ovaries and (later) breasts.  They grow up as a girl.  At age 15 they test as XY.  What sex are they?  What will you make them identify as?

Seems to me we should start teaching Critical Gender Theory around the 3rd grade to end all of the confusion. Surely everyone would agree to that.

[billvon 2,991]

Here's a thread about "what it means to be female/male" by a biologist on Twitter.  It's a good read.  (And makes it clear that, when you are a Supreme Court justice trying to determine the definitiion of "female" for legal purposes, you REALLY want to talk to a biologist first.)

(Props to Kallend for finding this)
 

 

[TriGirl 318]

I think we're really all missing the point, though.  What do these definitions have to do with the role of a Supreme Court Justice?   We already have amended the Constitution to state that everyone, regardless of race, religion, sex, etc., enjoys the same rights in this country.  Isn't that enough for a SC Justice to be able to render a decision?

[billvon 2,991]

30 minutes ago, TriGirl said:

I think we're really all missing the point, though.  What do these definitions have to do with the role of a Supreme Court Justice? 

Not much, really.  The issue came about because of a "gotcha" question posed by one of the republicans interviewing KBJ.  And now the meme they have generated from her answer is "she doesn't even know what a woman is."

[TriGirl 318]

17 minutes ago, billvon said:

Not much, really.  The issue came about because of a "gotcha" question posed by one of the republicans interviewing KBJ.  And now the meme they have generated from her answer is "she doesn't even know what a woman is."

yes, I know.  Which is why that's my point.  Marsha Blackburn's question during a Senate committee hearing over whether Judge Jackson is qualified for the SC is not in line with the job.  Want to ask a question about ethics, experience, legal matters?  Okay.  I'm not a lawyer, so maybe I just don't see how this is an appropriate interview question for this particular job.  

I'll even concede that the questions over her judicial record -- however misleading and based on faulty premise -- are within bounds. 

[SkyDekker 1,465]

39 minutes ago, TriGirl said:

yes, I know.  Which is why that's my point.  Marsha Blackburn's question during a Senate committee hearing over whether Judge Jackson is qualified for the SC is not in line with the job.  Want to ask a question about ethics, experience, legal matters?  Okay.  I'm not a lawyer, so maybe I just don't see how this is an appropriate interview question for this particular job.  

I'll even concede that the questions over her judicial record -- however misleading and based on faulty premise -- are within bounds. 

Because all the questions, like any "performance" in Congress, are about the ability to fundraise.

[kallend 2,026]

Well, she's confirmed despite the GOP smears and misinformation (Red meat for the base, though). 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/07/jackson-confirmation-vote-senate/

 

Edited April 7, 2022 by kallend
Wow, long link fixed!

[brenthutch 444]

[JoeWeber 2,720]

34 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

In your glee you probably didn't notice that your hero has long hair and bangs. But maybe it just makes him feel a little better. Nothing wrong with that, seems to me.

[BartsDaddy 7]

1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

In your glee you probably didn't notice that your hero has long hair and bangs. But maybe it just makes him feel a little better. Nothing wrong with that, seems to me.

Did you just assume thats a man? Are you a biologist?

[wmw999 2,445]

Yeah, I don't see an Adam's apple on that neck, after all...

Wendy P.

[Stumpy 284]

Agreed. His/her name seems to be overcompensatory

[tkhayes 348]

On 3/25/2022 at 3:03 PM, brenthutch said:

I say an adult female human.  What say you?

then you have to define 'female'

Women are sometimes born with the wrong chromosomes.  Men as well.  People are both with some, parts of, parts of both, none or both sets of genitalia.  

For anyone to say that you are either 'one or the other' is a denial of the reality of the world. And rather narrow minded.  So if you then attempt to write policy and legislation based on 'one or the other' then you will eventually exclude parts of society

That only addresses the biology, i.e. 'sex'.  Someone said earlier that it has nothing to do with 'gender', which I agree is societal.

Perhaps government (nor society) should be in the business of defining sex or gender, or marriage, or a whole bunch of other things....

Oh that's right, then we would be insulting the christians, who I believe are the primary drivers behind all this bullshit anyway.

[tkhayes 348]

22 hours ago, billvon said:

Not much, really.  The issue came about because of a "gotcha" question posed by one of the republicans interviewing KBJ.  And now the meme they have generated from her answer is "she doesn't even know what a woman is."

and the gotcha question pretty much backfired as a bunch of reporters started asking Republicans to define a woman, and as expected, that turned into an infantile shitshow of bullshit and nonsense and contradiction

[metalslug 36]

22 hours ago, billvon said:

The issue came about because of a "gotcha" question posed by one of the republicans interviewing KBJ.  

I agree that it was a 'gotcha' question, but it's only a gotcha question when faced by woke lefties and therein lies the cowardice in failing to answer. I've chosen that word because I don't believe KBJ to be either unintelligent or ignorant. I believe she simply lacked the courage to state what defined English grammar, the vast mainstream and indeed even herself has always known a woman to be, for fear of backlash from the woke mob. 

In another potential 'gotcha' moment; a similar incident played out at an Australian senate estimates session in which neither the Workplace Gender Equality Agency nor the Health Secretary, a professor of medicine, were willing to provide a definition, despite gender specific legislation being under discussion at the time.

By contrast; some woke-aligned members in this forum have at least offered up their preferred definitions. Regardless of whether I might agree with such definitions or not, such members at least had the conviction to offer up something, perhaps because none of us here are prominent public figures on camera in the broad media.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

1 minute ago, metalslug said:

but it's only a gotcha question when faced by woke lefties 

Bullshit. It is a difficult question for anybody who understands there is more to male and female than dick and pussy.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

3 minutes ago, metalslug said:

By contrast; some woke-aligned members in this forum have at least offered up their preferred definitions.

I think it is telling enough that people are being asked to define woman, but nobody has been asked to define man.