Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
All the people whining on hear about her not giving a definition of what a woman is fail to realize there's a difference between sexuality and gender and that there's a wide sociological and biological spectrum on what that means. It's not uncommon for chromosomes to say one thing but physical presentation to be another. It's not as black and white as it may seem, but it doesn't surprise me because conservatives tend to not understand nuance. In a legal context it's important to take that into consideration depending on the case.
We are born with different body parts and chromosomes that define the gender of our bodies. But that is our body. Our minds control our body and our minds decide who we are not our body parts. Many believe they were born in the wrong body. They are not mentally ill like some accuse them of. Asking the definition of a women was all about transgenders. So why not just ask that question.
I have no doubt there are some that can find a physiological difference that makes them more male/female than their biology (sex organs, hormone levels, brain activity).
I have no doubt that there's a significant % - could be 20%, could be 80% - of the incredibly small % of people (0.3%) that IDENTIFY as transgender that do not have that physiological difference, and thus it's merely choice.
Hawley, Blackburn, Graham, Cruz were mor interested in partisan politics than intelligent legal questions, it was as if this was the campaign with CRT, transgender, soft on crime and all the other election issues. Graham was especially childish with his his hissy fits leaving the room twice in his temper tantrum. Great speech by Booker and very touching although it had little do with her qualifications.
so...how was it a great speech? Are you talking about his opening remarks....which then wouldn't have been about qualifications or judicial temperament, or philosophy? Or his other 20 minute segments when he didn't ask any questions those things either?
All the people whining on hear about her not giving a definition of what a woman is fail to realize there's a difference between sexuality and gender and that there's a wide sociological and biological spectrum on what that means. It's not uncommon for chromosomes to say one thing but physical presentation to be another. It's not as black and white as it may seem, but it doesn't surprise me because conservatives tend to not understand nuance. In a legal context it's important to take that into consideration depending on the case.
Before we go down this rabbit hole, can we agree that no matter how sexuality and gender is defined or is assigned by biology or society that no one should be discriminated against in any way and that talking about it with children should be just as natural as we do when talking about cisgendered people?
The entire line of questioning by GOP senators was trying to set a trap about something that should be inconsequential in her qualifications for the job.
so...how was it a great speech? Are you talking about his opening remarks....which then wouldn't have been about qualifications or judicial temperament, or philosophy? Or his other 20 minute segments when he didn't ask any questions those things either?
No not his opening speech, his praise for her near the end.
Before we go down this rabbit hole, can we agree that no matter how sexuality and gender is defined or is assigned by biology or society that no one should be discriminated against in any way and that talking about it with children should be just as natural as we do when talking about cisgendered people?
The entire line of questioning by GOP senators was trying to set a trap about something that should be inconsequential in her qualifications for the job.
What was the trap the GOP senators were trying to set for her?
What is "something," and why should it be inconsequential -- or consequential -- for her job qualifications?
I'm not trying to bait you; these are honest questions.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
