Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

NYT Article: What people will and won't say on LGBTQ+ Issues


Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, Analytics said:

You have a reasonable position here, and your argument is much stronger than the argument that if we let a transgender girl compete, the girls teams "will be almost entirely boys" at every level.

True; I think that by using "transgender" or "trans" as a prefix to "man/woman/boy/girl", the athletes project a unique and special basis for competition within a division. Even when not using these terms to identify oneself, the spectators, key drivers of sports competition, are very observant and expect no unique and special basis for meaningful competition beyond an exhibition match.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Analytics said:

But rather than castigate senator Marsha Blackburn for asking such a bad-faith, stupid question,

It was an entirely appropriate and illuminating question.  There is a legal issue pertaining to whether biological males can compete in women's sports.  Judges will need to address this issue, and Judge Jackson evaded it.  She was not asked how she would rule.  She was asked "what is a woman?"  That's a fair question.  Congress and the courts need to answer that question.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

a certain class of people mock Jackson for her answer.

And another "certain class of people" really really don't want that question to be asked.  Or answered.  

Her answer deserved to be mocked.  It was a stupid answer.  Evasive.  Dishonest.

A witness in a trial before Judge Jackson would not have been allowed to evade and equivocate as to such a question.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

@smac97 posted a bunch of memes mocking Judge Jackson.

Mocking her stupid, evasive, dishonest answer, yes.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

My comments about "uneducated" and "Fox News Watching" was directed towards that inanity--not to people who make "fairly serviceable generalizations" when it is appropriate to do so.

It was an entirely appropriate and illuminating question.  Legislators and judges are being asked to pass and enforce and interpret laws pertaining to sex.  A sitting judge refused to answer a question pretty much everyone except those in the thrall of current inane social trends could answer in an instant - and be factually correct.

She didn't answer the question not because she did not know the answer, and not because she is stupid, but because she was being evasive and dishonest.  

Take a look at this video:

A transcript:

My ridicule of Judge Jackson's facially stupid answer is, on its face, reasonably justified.  It's a political issue, so I'm quite willing and able to have the gloves come off.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Analytics said:
Quote

I think [the Rosa Parks analogy] works.

It doesn't work at all.

I think it does.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Cinepro asserted that if we let people play the sports they want to play on the teams that align with their identities, girls teams at every level "will be almost entirely boys."

I'm not sure that's true.  I don't know that there are enough boys who want to play in women's sports to numerically exclude girls.

Nevertheless, there is still a substantial problem.  Boys, being generally bigger and stronger, having more muscle mass, lung capacity, stamina, etc., will - should they choosse to play in female sports - be much more likely to dominate.  Per this article on Princeton's website:

Quote

So in absolute terms, men are much stronger than women. However, men are significantly larger and heavier than women. In terms of absolute strength, the greater body size of men gives them a decided advantage over women. When assessing gender differences in strength, then, it is important to make comparisons relative to body weight and/or composition.  When these disparities are taken into consideration, the strength differences between men and women are less appreciable. Bishop (1983), for instance, reported that the upper-body strength of women averaged 60 – 70% that of men relative to body weight.

This is so obvious and axiomatic that it borders on bad faith and irrationality to deny it.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

I was disputing that point. When I said "The actual issue is about very, very, few people here," I was saying that mathematically cinepro is wrong--if we let the two transgender athletes in Utah swim, they simply aren't going to take every spot on every team of every sport at every level on every school in the state.

But these biological males will collectively dominate the sports in which they compete.  So even though they may be numerically outnumbered by real, biological women, biologically male transgender athletes will "take over" women's sports in that sense.  They will take over slots on teams that otherwise would have gone to women.  They will receive scholarships and awards that otherwise would have gone to women.  

And there are swaths of our society who are fine with this.  Other swaths are not.

A person who is a biological male cannot change that to become biologically female.  He can adopt some affectations that give the superficial impression that he is biologically female (hormones, surgery, clothing, hair, makeup, etc.), but he remains a biological male.  His biological maleness is baked into every cell of his body.  While he may "feel" that he is female, while he may "feel" he is a woman, he is not.

I see no logical or legal differentiation between the concept of "transgender" and the concepts of "trans-species," "trans-age," or "trans-racial."

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Even if the number of transgender athletes doubled to four, that wouldn't happen.

That has nothing to do with Rosa Parks. 

Rosa Parks was a comparison.  She was just one person, but the legal ramifications flowing from what she did were significant.

Similarly, Lia Thomas is just one person, but the legal ramifications flowing from what "she" is doing will also be significant.

I reject the notion that legislators can or ought to only act when there are huge numbers of people affected by prospective legislation.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
36 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Her answer deserved to be mocked.  It was a stupid answer.  Evasive.  Dishonest.

Dr. Simón(e) Sun Ph.D. published the following in Scientific American (in June, 2019):

Quote

Nearly everyone in middle school biology learned that if you’ve got XX chromosomes, you’re a female; if you’ve got XY, you’re a male. This tired simplification is great for teaching the importance of chromosomes but betrays the true nature of biological sex. The popular belief that your sex arises only from your chromosomal makeup is wrong. The truth is, your biological sex isn’t carved in stone, but a living system with the potential for change.

Why? Because biological sex is far more complicated than XX or XY (or XXY, or just X). XX individuals could present with male gonads. XY individuals can have ovaries. How? Through a set of complex genetic signals that, in the course of a human’s development, begins with a small group of cells called the bipotential primordium and a gene called SRY.

A newly fertilized embryo initially develops without any indication of its sex. At around five weeks, a group of cells clump together to form the bipotential primordium. These cells are neither male nor female but have the potential to turn into testes, ovaries or neither. After the primordium forms, SRY—a gene on the Y chromosome discovered in 1990, thanks to the participation of intersex XX males and XY females—might be activated.*

Though it is still not fully understood, we know SRY plays a role in pushing the primordium toward male gonads. But SRY is not a simple on/off switch, it’s a precisely timed start signal, the first chord of the “male gonad” symphony. A group of cells (instrument sections) must all express SRY (notes of the chord), at the right time (conductor?). Without that first chord, the embryo will play a different symphony: female gonads, or something in between.

And there’s more! While brief and coordinated SRY-activation initiates the process of male-sex differentiation, genes like DMRT1 and FOXL2 maintain certain sexual characteristics during adulthood. If these genes stop functioning, gonads can change and exhibit characteristics of the opposite sex. Without these players constantly active, certain components of your biological sex can change.

There’s still more! SRY, DMRT1, and FOXL2 aren’t directly involved with other aspects of biological sex. Secondary sex characteristics—penis, vagina, appearance, behavior—arise later, from hormones, environment, experience, and genes interacting....

While this is a small overview, the science is clear and conclusive: sex is not binary, transgender people are real. It is time that we acknowledge this. Defining a person’s sex identity using decontextualized “facts” is unscientific and dehumanizing. The trans experience provides essential insights into the science of sex and scientifically demonstrates that uncommon and atypical phenomena are vital for a successful living system. Even the scientific endeavor itself is quantifiably better when it is more inclusive and diverse. So, no matter what a pundit, politician or internet troll may say, trans people are an indispensable part of our living reality.

Transgender humans represent the complexity and diversity that are fundamental features of life, evolution and nature itself. That is a fact.

I wonder if you think everyone who is aware of the science and defers to scientists on this issue are stupid and dishonest.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Analytics said:

It doesn't work at all. Cinepro asserted that if we let people play the sports they want to play on the teams that align with their identities, girls teams at every level "will be almost entirely boys." I was disputing that point. When I said "The actual issue is about very, very, few people here," I was saying that mathematically cinepro is wrong--if we let the two transgender athletes in Utah swim, they simply aren't going to take every spot on every team of every sport at every level on every school in the state. Even if the number of transgender athletes doubled to four, that wouldn't happen.

 

Let me clarify my assertion.

If biological sex isn't a reliable or valid criteria on which to separate athletic competition, then we should not be doing it. Again, this is what was claimed in the TED Talk:

Quote

This binary, this false male-female facade is something we constructed, we built ourselves.


If that is true, then boy/girl sports are reinforcing the false facade.

Instead, we should do what you've pointed out. Simply allow all humans, regardless of their genitalia, compete at the level for which they are most well-suited.

So there won't be a problem with trans-athletes anymore. They simply compete on the teams for which they qualify, as will everyone else.

But the new problem will be that people born with female genitalia will almost certainly perform, on average, at a lower level than people born with male genitalia. So high schools, colleges, private leagues, and professional leagues will no longer have these false "male" and "female" teams. They'll simply have their "Varsity" and "JV", or other divisions based on skill alone. But those teams will be vastly dominated by people with male genitalia. You may have a few extremely high-performing people with female genitalia who qualify for the more competitive teams, but for the most part, they'll play on the lower skilled teams, if at all. For example, I didn't make my highly contested high school basketball team, but I'm fairly confident I could outperform most the people with female genitalia on the varsity girl's basketball team (based on matchups in our co-ed PE classes etc.) And there were a lot of people with male genitalia that didn't make the boy's basketball team.

At the collegiate and professional level, where spots on the roster are much more contested, I doubt there would be few, if any, biologically female athletes on any D1 or professional sports team. Even if you doubled the number of roster spots by combining the existing false male/female programs, there are probably enough biological males to outperform the biological females and take those spots. Good bye Title IX!

It is ultimately a choice. Do we prioritize fairness to the individual, or fairness to the group as a whole? If we prioritize fairness to the individual, then we should combine everyone into one big group and everyone competes at the skill level for which they are suited, regardless of their genitalia. That's the most fair to the individual.

If we want to be fair to the group of biological females as a whole (assuming we're willing to admit such a group even exists), then we separate people based on biological sex and it's unfair to some individuals who have male biology but identify as female, while being much more fair to the group.

That's the choice.
 

Edited by cinepro
Link to comment
51 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think it does.

You've obviously lost track of what we're talking about. We are talking about the validity of my reasoning on a specific point.

You said, "By your reasoning, nothing should have been done when Rosa Parks refused to change seats on the bus. She was only one person 'in the entire state,' after all.This was in response to me saying "The actual issue is about very, very, few people here."

The reason I said  "The actual issue is about very, very, few people here" was to dispute Cinepro's claim that if we let people play on the teams that align with their identities, girls teams at every level "will be almost entirely boys." 

I didn't argue nothing should be done because very, very, few people are involved. I argued girls teams would not be be overtaken by boys, because very, very few people are involved.

Applying my actual point to Rosa Parks would require changing the situation to something like this:

There are two black bus riders in all of Alabama. Two. The law says black people need to sit in the back of the bus. I argue that this is a violation of their civil rights. Cinepro responds that if we let blacks sit where they want, there will be no room for white people on any bus anywhere in Alabama. I respond to that strange argument by saying "No, there will still be plenty of room for white people on the buses. There are only two black bus riders in the entire state. Two. We're talking about very, very few people here."

I never said the issue should be ignored because we're talking about very, very few people. I said cinepro's argument that girls teams at every level "will be almost entirely boys" is silly because we're talking about very, very few people.

51 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I reject the notion that legislators can or ought to only act when there are huge numbers of people affected by prospective legislation.

I reject that notion too. 

And that notion has nothing to do with position or my reasoning to defend my position.

Edited by Analytics
Link to comment
30 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Let me clarify my assertion....

Thanks for the clarification. I thought you were arguing that if we let transgender girls compete with cisgender girls in girl leagues, basically all cisgender girls would be displaced.

I'm glad you don't believe that and I apologize for the misunderstanding.

Link to comment
On 4/21/2022 at 11:58 AM, Analytics said:

That wasn't my reasoning at all, and the Rosa Parks issue isn't the least bit comparable. 

I think it is.  Rosa Parks acted against an unjust and wrong law.  Legislatures and judges thereafter acted in response to what she did.

I think it is unjust for biological males to compete in sports against biological females.  Legislatures and judges are now acting in response to what we are seeing: biological males competing in women's sports.

On 4/21/2022 at 11:58 AM, Analytics said:

It evolved into a legal issue when the Republican state legislatures thought this would be a useful wedge issue and created possibly-illegal laws that weren't actually needed.

Actually, it evolved fairly organically.  Society began to notice that biological males were competing in women's sports.  It became a big news item.  Then legislators began to take notice.

State legislatures were downstream.  They didn't create this issue, they are responding to it.  That's their job. 

On 4/21/2022 at 11:58 AM, Analytics said:

If they would have followed the advice of the Deseret News's editorial board and let Governor Cox's veto stand, it wouldn't be a legal issue anymore.

Sure it would.

On 4/21/2022 at 11:58 AM, Analytics said:

That's what the fearmongers want people to imagine.

Oh, malarky.  Nobody is mongering fear.  Plenty of people can have reasoned and principled disagreement with and opposition to biological males competing in women's sports, going into women's bathrooms, being housed in women's prisons, and so on.  

On 4/21/2022 at 11:58 AM, Analytics said:

The truth is there aren't legions of transgender girls who want to completely take over girls sports.

But the (relatively) few biological males who are competing are dominating.  And as with so many other trends, it's likely to get bigger.

On 4/21/2022 at 11:58 AM, Analytics said:

There is no camel.

That is exactly what I would expect to hear from folks who are trying to quietly and surreptitiously and gradually - but nonetheless radically - transform society as to matters of sex/gender.

Yes, there is a camel with its nose in the tent.  No doubt about it, IMO.

On 4/21/2022 at 11:58 AM, Analytics said:

Yes, whenever the government uses its heavy hand to deal with fake problems, it is a bad thing.

It's not a fake problem.  It's quite real.

On 4/21/2022 at 11:58 AM, Analytics said:

Actually, it will be a moment that will vindicate her, because "what is a woman" is a complicated biological question.

Uh-oh.  You just tied "woman" to biology.  That's . . . bad.  You're straying from the narrative.

The party line is that a "woman" is "{a} person, who regardless of their sex assigned at birth, identifies as a woman."

Right.  And a "bear" is anyone or anything that "identifies as" a bear.

And a "minor child" is a person who, regardless of their date of birth and chronological age, "identifies" as a minor child.

A definition that folds back in on itself.  This . . . does not work.  It is logically incoherent.  It is factually and scientifically false.

On 4/21/2022 at 11:58 AM, Analytics said:

A woman is an adult human female, sure.

You've stepped in it again:

Quote

fe·male /ˈfēˌmāl/

adjective
of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes.
"a herd of female deer"

noun
a female animal or plant.
"females may lay several hundred eggs in two to four weeks"

Is Caitlyn Jenner a "woman?"  By your reckoning . . . no.  A "woman" is an "adult human female," and "female" denotes "the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs," and is "distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova)."

Caitlyn Jenner is not a member of the "sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs" and cannot produce "ova."

The same goes for Lia Thomas and most of the other "transgender" folks under discussion.

Your misstep here is, I think, admitting what Judge Jackson - to her discredit - refused to admit.

On 4/21/2022 at 11:58 AM, Analytics said:

But what is a female? Is that defined by your anatomy? By your genetics? By your hormone levels? By what your birth certificate says? Those things are typically in alignment, but not always.

An argument from the margins.  And virtually none of these "what ifs" apply to folks like Lia Thomas and Caitlyn Jenner.  Anatomically, genetically, birth certificatally, they are men.  They are biological males with some superficial affectations that make them look, to an extent, like they are biological females, women.

On 4/21/2022 at 11:58 AM, Analytics said:

If a certain legal right is given to "women," how do you tell if somebody who is sexually ambiguous is female-enough to be entitled to the benefit? 

Well, on April 4 Valerie Hudson had this piece published in the Deseret News: Perspective: Why we need a Women’s Bill of Rights

An excerpt:

Quote

According to many, it is the inalienable rights of women that now need explicit protection. Perhaps, as with the original Bill of Rights, hardly anyone thought such a thing would be needed. But three groups argue that a Women’s Bill of Rights is now needed as an additional course correction.

The Women’s Bill of Rights, introduced last week, contains nine articles. Omitting all the “whereas” clauses, which are well worth reading, these articles affirm that:

  • For purposes of state/federal law, a person’s “sex” is defined as his or her biological sex (either male or female) at birth.
  • For purposes of state/federal law, a “female” is an individual whose biological reproductive system is developed to produce ova; a “male” is an individual whose biological reproductive system is developed to fertilize the ova of a female.
  • For purposes of state/federal law, “woman” and “girl” refer to human females, and the terms “man” and “boy” refer to human males.
  • For purposes of state/federal law, the word “mother” is defined as a parent of the female sex and ‘‘father’’ is defined as a parent of the male sex.
  • When it comes to sex, “equal” does not mean “same” or “identical.”
  • When it comes to sex, separate is not inherently unequal.
  • There are legitimate reasons to distinguish between the sexes with respect to athletics, prisons and other detention facilities, domestic violence shelters, rape crisis centers, locker rooms, restrooms and other areas where biology, safety and/or privacy are implicated.
  • Policies and laws that distinguish between the sexes are subject to intermediate constitutional scrutiny, which forbids unfair discrimination against similarly situated males and females but allows the law to distinguish between the sexes where such distinctions are substantially related to important governmental objectives.
  • Any public school or school district and any federal/state/local agency, department or office that collects vital statistics for the purpose of complying with anti-discrimination laws or for the purpose of gathering accurate public health, crime, economic or other data shall identify each individual who is part of the collected data set as either male or female at birth.

Signatories include Abigail Shrier and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, among others. Intrigued, I contacted several of the ideologically diverse sponsoring organizations to understand better the rationale behind this initiative.

Lauren Adams, legal director of the Women’s Liberation Front, said a Women’s Bill of Rights is needed because “women are being targeted for erasure in policy and law.”

“We are losing single-sex spaces and resources including locker rooms, athletics and even prisons and DV shelters. And these things are happening largely away from the public eye, without the benefit of debate and transparency. ... The Women’s Bill of Rights will ensure we have a common set of definitions with which to create policies that impact women and reaffirm that long-standing laws that permit female-only spaces are in fact allowed to remain female-only.” 

Much of the concern that prompted the initiative is over the definition of the word “woman.” Interestingly, while some have begun replacing the word “woman” with a collection of body parts (“cervix-havers,” “menstruators) and terms like “pregnant people,” the definition of “man” has not been similarly changed. No one speaks of “prostate-havers,” for example.

It is the question “What is a woman?” that has stumped politicians and, most recently, a candidate for the U.S. Supreme Court.

For women, the stakes of this definitional dispute are high. Jennifer Braceras, director of the Independent Women’s Law Center, told me in an email, “Over the past several years, there has been a deliberate effort to redefine what it means to be a woman — to define womanhood as a subjective state — and to conflate the word sex (which refers to the two biological categories, male and female, into which human beings fall) with gender (which is a sociological term that refers to cultural expectations or one’s personal feelings regarding male and female behavior, appearance, interests and lifestyle).

“This not only causes legal confusion, it has significant real world consequences. When ‘sex’ is misconstrued to mean ‘gender’ or ‘gender identity,’ it allows biological males to self-identify into women’s spaces. This isn’t a hypothetical threat.”

She’s right, of course. California and other states have begun moving biological males into female prisons, and there have been assaults on women as a result. And Lia Thomas is not the only athlete who has bumped women off the podium in their own sports; there is a long list now.

Statistics also become corrupted, as crimes committed by some biological males are logged as crimes committed by females, and medical data can no longer be realistically sex-disaggregated. Women are losing the ability to accurately describe their reality, as in the case of a woman in the U.K. who was raped by a transgender woman and forced by the court to use female pronouns when describing her attacker’s male genitalia.

To most effectively address these issues, Braceras says the Women’s Bill of Rights would require legislators to acknowledge that sex and gender/gender identity are distinct categories, and force them to consider the ways in which gender-identity laws might conflict with sex-based rights.

“Most importantly, it would ensure that women have the language they need to advocate for themselves in law and in policy without having to pretend that sex distinctions don’t exist,” she said. “If we don’t clarify what it means to be a woman and codify the definition of common sex-based terms, laws that prohibit sex discrimination will cease to mean anything at all. A justice system that does not recognize biological sex cannot fully defend the legal rights of women.”

Sometimes in the course of human events, it becomes necessary to plant a boundary marker, not only for the current generation, but for the sake of generations to come. James Madison saw the need in his time and gave us a lasting legacy of freedom. Perhaps the time has come for visionary women to do the same. I’m signing the Women’s Bill of Rights.

That seems like a very good framework.  It may need to be tweaked here and there to address the teeny-tiny percentage of "what about..." situations you reference.  But otherwise, this Women's Bill of Rights would go a long way in addressing legal questions pertaining to biological males participating in women's sports and such questions because we will have, per the article, "a common set of definitions with which to create policies that impact women and reaffirm that long-standing laws that permit female-only spaces are in fact allowed to remain female-only."

On 4/21/2022 at 11:58 AM, Analytics said:

As an example, consider Emily Quinn.

An example of what?  Are you seriously conflating intersex and gender dysphoria?  Are you suggesting that Lia Thomas is "intersex?"  What are you saying here?

Are you equivocating on purpose or accidentally?

On 4/21/2022 at 11:58 AM, Analytics said:

She has balls and she has XY chromosomes. So is Emily really a man? Before you answer, note she also has a female birth certificate and a vagina.

If there was a government benefit offered to women and whether Emily is entitled to that benefit made it to the Supreme Court, would it be unreasonable to call in some biologists as expert witnesses to address the issue of what a woman actually is? Of course not.

While people who get their news from Fox News think that the question "what is a woman?" is an easy question, people who get their news from NPR know it's actually a difficult question. The question of which group is more educated is obvious.

Here is an NPR transcript from an interview with Emily Quinn.

https://www.npr.org/transcripts/852199410

If you prefer, here is her Ted Talk:

From Wikipedia

Quote

The number of births where the baby is intersex has been reported differently depending on who reports and which definition of intersex is used. Anne Fausto-Sterling and her co-authors suggest that the prevalence of ″nondimorphic sexual development″ might be as high as 1.7%. Leonard Sax says that this figure includes conditions which most clinicians do not recognize as intersex, and that in those "conditions in which chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female", the prevalence of intersex is about 0.018%.

We can certainly discuss legislative approaches to the people who comprise this .018% to 1.7% of the population.  But I think it's inaccurate and misleading to bring it up in the context of biological males competing in women's sports.  AFAIK, there is no question that Lia Thomas, for example, is biologically male.  Lia Thomas is not claiming to have any medical/scientific "intersex" issue.  Instead, Lia Thomas is a biological male who apparently suffers from gender dysphoria.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
51 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Thanks for the clarification. I thought you were arguing that if we let transgender girls compete with cisgender girls in girl leagues, basically all cisgender girls would be displaced.

I'm glad you don't believe that and I apologize for the misunderstanding.

Under the current situation, I agree that the actual harm or unfairness would be limited to the few biological females that either don't make a team or place as highly in a competition due to competition from a trans-female athlete. Likewise, it could be argued that there are so few trans-female athletes that excluding them from biological female sports teams would only hurt a few trans-female athletes.

Given the choice between hurting the feelings of the trans-woman or the biological woman that is being displaced, I give preference to the biological woman since she was born with a general speed/strength disadvantage.

Quote

To me, those terms refer to things that don't fit on the distribution. Her point is that intersex people do fit on the distribution. 

The distribution of what?

If we're talking about all of humanity, then obviously intersex people are humans. But if you divide humanity up by biological males, biological females, and intersex/other, even if the 2% number is valid that is definitely an exception, anomaly and outlier. Those words don't meant they're inferior, or diseased, or unworthy, or that we should treat them as second class citizens or put them in camps. I have some physical things that make me an exception, anomaly and outlier to the human norm. In some ways we all do.

When I see someone that has one arm or one leg, I recognize that they are part of humanity, but that they are an exception, anomaly and outlier. I don't think less of them, but that's just what those words mean.

And can you clarify if you agree with this claim from the TED Talk?
 

Quote

And the truth is that nobody actually fits in a box, because they don't exist. This binary, this false male-female facade is something we constructed, we built ourselves.

Do you believe the human male-female "boxes" that we divide people into don't exist, and they are false? That no human objectively fits inside the "male" box, or the "female" box? Those distinctions are all made up?

Edited by cinepro
Link to comment
3 hours ago, Analytics said:

Thank you for reading it.

You bet. It didn't cover any new ground for me personally, but that's okay.

And thank you for providing a link to a transcript. I strongly prefer reading to watching videos, even when they are relatively short.

 

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

Interesting. It reminds me of "The Good Fight" on Paramount+.

Is that the one with Master Chief? ;)

 

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

Episode 6 of Season 4 is called "The Gang Offends Everyone." It features a young woman who is suing because she didn't make the U.S. Olympic team due to being edged out by a transgender woman. The episode ends up having an ironic ending: in the show, they come up with an "objective" standard for delimiting who may swim on the women team. According to this standard, the cisgender woman who was suing ends up being disqualified because although she is a woman by any objective standard, she happens to naturally have the testosterone levels of a man. 

Ironic indeed. In fact, it's the kind of ending you can only get by (literally) making it up.

In real life, if someone really is a woman "by any objective standard," it would be impossible for her to have the testosterone levels of a man. Biological females aren't even remotely close to men on that scale - the bell curves don't even come close to touching.

Typical total testosterone levels in adults
image.png.6ccfef1f8b9d5a49d8862ce35f318df7.png

Still, I'm sure it made for a good twist ending.

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I think it is.  Rosa Parks acted against an unjust and wrong law.  Legislatures and judges thereafter acted in response to what she did.

Maybe that is your argument now, but it has nothing to do with your accusation that "by [my] reasoning, nothing should have been done when Rosa Parks refused to change seats on the bus.  She was only one person 'in the entire state,' after all."

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Uh-oh.  You just tied "woman" to biology.  That's . . . bad.  You're straying from the narrative.

The party line is that a "woman" is "{a} person, who regardless of their sex assigned at birth, identifies as a woman."

Let me get this straight. I tied "woman" to biology, which is "bad," because you think I'm supposed to say that it isn't a biological question.

Yet with Judge Jackson ties "woman" to biology, she is being stupid, evasive, and dishonest.

What is your party line? Is the definition of "woman" related to biology or not?

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Right.  And a "bear" is anyone or anything that "identifies as" a bear.

And a "minor child" is a person who, regardless of their date of birth and chronological age, "identifies" as a minor child.

A definition that folds back in on itself.  This . . . does not work.  It is logically incoherent.  It is factually and scientifically false.

You've stepped in it again:

You literally just said I goofed up by saying "woman" is a biological question. You then provided a link to something that contradicts what I said and insist that I should have said that. You then provide a link under the heading "you've just stepped in it again" that precisely agrees with what I actually said. How am I stepping in it when your link proves my point?

I've never seen such a blatant straw man argument. Wow.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Is Caitlyn Jenner a "woman?"  By your reckoning . . . no.  A "woman" is an "adult human female," and "female" denotes "the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs," and is "distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova)."

Caitlyn Jenner is not a member of the "sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs" and cannot produce "ova."

The same goes for Lia Thomas and most of the other "transgender" folks under discussion.

Your misstep here is, I think, admitting what Judge Jackson - to her discredit - refused to admit.

My alleged misstep is I "tied 'woman' to biology." And you say Judge Jackson "refused to admit" this. Man, your brain is in a fog. Judge Jackson didn't "refuse to admit" that woman is a biological question. She said it was a biological question and suggested that a precise, technical definition should be answered by a biologist! Get your story straight! Did she refuse to admit that the definition of "woman" is a biological question? Or is she stupid, evasive, and dishonest for saying it is a biological question? You are wrong either way, but at least be internally consistent with your attacks.

If she would have answered the question by saying, "I can't provide a definition, I'm not a postmodern sociologist" I would understand what your beef is. But she didn't say that. She said she isn't a biologist.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

An argument from the margins.  And virtually none of these "what ifs" apply to folks like Lia Thomas and Caitlyn Jenner.

When dealing with technical definitions, the margins matter. We aren't talking about Lia Thomas or Caitlyn Jenner. We are talking about the definition of woman, and why you think Judge Jackson was being stupid, evasive, and dishonest for claiming it is a technical biological question.

Your assertion that it has to do with "the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs," and is "distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova)" doesn't support your case that it isn't a complex biological question.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

We can certainly discuss legislative approaches to the people who comprise this .018% to 1.7% of the population.  But I think it's inaccurate and misleading to bring it up in the context of biological males competing in women's sports.

I didn't bring this up in the context of women's sports. I brought this up in the context of your stupid argument that it is stupid, evasive, and dishonest to think that in the context of Supreme Court cases, the definition of "woman" can be a complex biological question. 

You are the one that decided to derail this thread with your stupid rant about Judge Jackson. Not me. Don't confuse me replying to your derailment with the topic of this thread.

Link to comment
33 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Is that the one with Master Chief? ;)

I love Seal Teams. Do you think it will come back? The last season ended on a real cliff hanger. Anyway...

33 minutes ago, Amulek said:

In real life, if someone really is a woman "by any objective standard," it would be impossible for her to have the testosterone levels of a man. Biological females aren't even remotely close to men on that scale...

I may have sloppily misspoken about the plot. I think the point was that the person who was arguing for the purity of women sports found out that she was intersex and didn't know it. She thought she was a 100% woman, but found out she was not.

Link to comment
41 minutes ago, Amulek said:

In real life, if someone really is a woman "by any objective standard," it would be impossible for her to have the testosterone levels of a man. Biological females aren't even remotely close to men on that scale - the bell curves don't even come close to touching.

Funny anecdote about that. I had a full endocrine exam a few years ago (lots of vials of blood drawn). When we were going over the results, the doctor seemed confused and worried. After a few minutes, I asked if something was wrong. He said, "Nothing --- except you should be dead." Your testosterone is off the charts." I deepened my voice, and joked, "Yeah, I get that a lot." :)  Then he smiled and said he knew what had happened. The lab had listed me as a female. A female with T levels that high would have very serious health problems. For a male, my results were on the higher end, but within acceptable range.

We were on the way to the temple, and the doctor also asked why we were dressed up. We told him, and he told us that he was LDS, but had been inactive for a long time. We left and encouraged him to come back. I joked that it might do wonders for his T levels. :) 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, cinepro said:

Under the current situation, I agree that the actual harm or unfairness would be limited to the few biological females that either don't make a team or place as highly in a competition due to competition from a trans-female athlete. Likewise, it could be argued that there are so few trans-female athletes that excluding them from biological female sports teams would only hurt a few trans-female athletes.

Given the choice between hurting the feelings of the trans-woman or the biological woman that is being displaced, I give preference to the biological woman since she was born with a general speed/strength disadvantage.

Ironically, most women would choose to give preference to the trans-female because of her social disadvantages. Go figure.

I'll state for the record that you are being quite reasonable and coherent in what you are saying here. Compared to some other posts, this is quite refreshing to read.

2 hours ago, cinepro said:

The distribution of what?

If we're talking about all of humanity, then obviously intersex people are humans. But if you divide humanity up by biological males, biological females, and intersex/other, even if the 2% number is valid that is definitely an exception, anomaly and outlier. Those words don't meant they're inferior, or diseased, or unworthy, or that we should treat them as second class citizens or put them in camps. I have some physical things that make me an exception, anomaly and outlier to the human norm. In some ways we all do.

I think that is the point--if everybody is an outlier, then nobody is.

2 hours ago, cinepro said:

And can you clarify if you agree with this claim from the TED Talk?

Do you believe the human male-female "boxes" that we divide people into don't exist, and they are false? That no human objectively fits inside the "male" box, or the "female" box? Those distinctions are all made up?

It depends upon how you think about it. If you deconstruct the biology, males and females are almost completely identical in every way. Quoting from the Scientific American article I referenced above:

Quote

 

A newly fertilized embryo initially develops without any indication of its sex. At around five weeks, a group of cells clump together to form the bipotential primordium. These cells are neither male nor female but have the potential to turn into testes, ovaries or neither. After the primordium forms, SRY—a gene on the Y chromosome discovered in 1990, thanks to the participation of intersex XX males and XY females—might be activated.

Though it is still not fully understood, we know SRY plays a role in pushing the primordium toward male gonads. But SRY is not a simple on/off switch, it’s a precisely timed start signal, the first chord of the “male gonad” symphony. A group of cells (instrument sections) must all express SRY (notes of the chord), at the right time (conductor?). Without that first chord, the embryo will play a different symphony: female gonads, or something in between.

And there’s more! While brief and coordinated SRY-activation initiates the process of male-sex differentiation, genes like DMRT1 and FOXL2 maintain certain sexual characteristics during adulthood. If these genes stop functioning, gonads can change and exhibit characteristics of the opposite sex. Without these players constantly active, certain components of your biological sex can change.

 

Dividing people into male/female boxes is a very good model. But its just a model. As Stephen Covey would say, the map is not the territory. In reality, we are all human beings that have the genes SRY, DMRT1, and FOXL2 that express themselves in different patterns (as well as some other more subtle stuff mentioned in the article, plus the details of it we don't know about yet). Across human beings, how these genes express themselves determines what male characteristics you'll have and what female characteristics you have. Those characteristics aren't necessarily static over time. They can change.

So yes, in a sense the majority of us can either be clearly boxed as male or female. But in another sense, we all have characteristics of both, and the amount of each can change depending upon the activation of different genes.

Edited by Analytics
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Let me get this straight. I tied "woman" to biology, which is "bad," because you think I'm supposed to say that it isn't a biological question.

Yet with Judge Jackson ties "woman" to biology, she is being stupid, evasive, and dishonest.

What is your party line? Is the definition of "woman" related to biology or not?

It is.  Two points:

First, Judge Jackson didn't tie "woman" to biology.  She refused to answer a question that does not require a degree in biology to answer.  That is why her answer was stupid, evasive, and dishonest.

If a lay witness responded to "Are dogs mammals" with "I don't know, I'm not a biologist or a veterinarian," that would be evasive and dishonest because you don't need to be a biologist or a vet to answer that question.

Second, I was being ironic with you.  You were being more candid that Judge Jackson.  But since you apparently align with her in your views, I was suggesting that your candor was a mistake.  The "party line" is to equivocate and be evasive and obfuscatory.  Like this:

Holy cow.  What an exercise in evasion and equivocation.  From participants in a "women's'" march.

Several say something along the lines of that a "woman" is "anyone who identifies as a woman."  That, I think, is the "party line" these days.  It is inherently incoherent.  It is meaningless.  It is scientifically and medically absurd.  But prevailing trendy notions about "trans" issues require folks of a particular political bent to equivocate.  To evade.  To say stupid things like "a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman" and "I don't know {what a woman is because} I'm not a biologist."

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

My alleged misstep is I "tied 'woman' to biology." And you say Judge Jackson "refused to admit" this. Man, your brain is in a fog. Judge Jackson didn't "refuse to admit" that woman is a biological question. She said it was a biological question and suggested that a precise, technical definition should be answered by a biologist!

Baloney.  Whether a dog is a mammal is also a "biological question," but that doesn't mean a person of Judge Jackson's experience, education and intelligence is incapable of answering "are dogs mammals."

The transcript:

Quote

Blackburn: Do you agree with Justice Ginsburg that there are physical differences between men and women that are enduring?

Jackson: Um, Senator. Respectfully, I’m not familiar with that particular quote or case, so it’s hard for me to comment as to whether…

Blackburn: Okay… Do you interpret Justice Ginsburg’s meaning of “men” and “women” as male and female?

Jackson: Again, because I don’t know the case, I don’t know how I’d interpret it. I need to read the whole…

Blackburn: Okay. Can you provide a definition for the word woman?

Jackson: Can I provide a definition? No.

Blackburn: Yeah.

Jackson: I can’t.

Blackburn: You can’t?

Jackson: Mm. Not in this context. I’m not a biologist.

Evasive.  Equivocation.  Dishonest.

That's all this is.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Get your story straight! Did she refuse to admit that the definition of "woman" is a biological question?

She refused to admit what a woman is: an adult human female.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Or is she stupid, evasive, and dishonest for saying it is a biological question?

She refused to answer the question.  That refusal was stupid, evasive, and dishonest.  

FWIW, I think she refused to answer because she feels beholden to radical trans activists who are insisting that biological males can "become" women through hormone, surgeries, clothing and makeup, etc.  This, of course, requires a radical re-definition of "woman" remove its biological essence and foundation.

Does this work?  I don't think so.  I can no more become a woman than I can become a six-year-old, or a ten-foot-tall person.  I can tell myself that I am these things.  I can reallyreally want to be these things, but I am not.  And I think it would be pretty tragic for society to lie to me and tell me that by "identifying" as a six-year-old giant I can actually become one.  

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

You are wrong either way, but at least be internally consistent with your attacks.

I don't think I'm wrong either way.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

If she would have answered the question by saying, "I can't provide a definition, I'm not a postmodern sociologist" I would understand what your beef is. But she didn't say that. She said she isn't a biologist.

And that is a stupid, evasive and dishonest answer.

Again, if she were asked "what is a dog," answering with "I don't know, I'm not a biologist or a veterinarian," that would be evasive and dishonest because you don't need to be a biologist or a vet to answer that question.

So it is with answering "What is a woman."  Suggesting that only a biologist is situated to answer that question is stupid, evasive and dishonest.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

When dealing with technical definitions, the margins matter.

She didn't say that.  She refused to answer at all.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

We aren't talking about Lia Thomas or Caitlyn Jenner. We are talking about the definition of woman, and why you think Judge Jackson was being stupid, evasive, and dishonest for claiming it is a technical biological question.

She didn't "claim" that.  She refused to answer it at all.  

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Your assertion that it has to do with "the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs," and is "distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova)" doesn't support your case that it isn't a complex biological question.

"What is a dog" can also be characterized as "a complex biological question," I suppose.  But I think most people would find that to be equivocation.  Dishonest.  Evasive.

Judge Jackson equivocated and evaded.  That's the "party line" when discussing stuff like the Lia Thomas and Caitlyn Jenner.  To equivocate and evade.  Because the only way to shoehorn Lia Thomas into women's sports is to A) deny or ignore the basic biology of "women" and B) instead re-define "woman" to mean "a person who identifies as a woman" (a statement so absurd and inane I find it amazing that a person of your intellect can manage to tolerate and endorse it - assuming that you do).

From a biological standpoint, there is no "marginal" question as to the sex of Lia Thomas.  So evasions about "woman" being "a complex biological question" are precisely that: an evasion.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
54 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I love Seal Teams. Do you think it will come back? The last season ended on a real cliff hanger. Anyway...

David Boreanaz is getting a bit long in the tooth (53) to portray an active-duty Navy Seal.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Ironically, most women would choose to give preference to the trans-female because of her social disadvantages. Go figure.

 

My guess (and back to the point of the article in the OP) is that most women choose to give preference to the trans-female because they are scared out of their minds about what will happen to them if they express otherwise.

Also, as with many such decisions, the biological females that get disadvantaged are largely invisible. The focus is almost entirely on the trans-female athlete.

If people were also shown a picture of the biological woman who will lose her spot on the team and be replaced by the trans-woman, and the answers would be kept confidential, I wonder if the statistics would change. Maybe include a description of how hard the biological female has also worked to reach that level of skill in the sport.

Quote

Dividing people into male/female boxes is a very good model. But its just a model. As Stephen Covey would say, the map is not the territory.

Here's where we disagree. Biological sex is the territory, not the map.

Male/female boxes aren't something that culture and people made up to randomly sort people. They are terms we give to describe reality (i.e. the territory). Even if we called them something else, or nothing at all, the biological reality would continue to exist. About half the people would be distinctly biologically male, about half would be distinctly biologically female, and a very small percentage would be intersex or not distinctly one or the other.

And i know it's probably rude to say it, but intersex is more of a mutation than a new biological sex. I have a genetic mutation that makes some of my organs work a little differently than most other humans, but that doesn't make me a new kind of human. I'm just a regular human with a genetic mutation.

Link to comment
54 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Ironically, most women would choose to give preference to the trans-female because of her social disadvantages. Go figure.

I'll state for the record that you are being quite reasonable and coherent in what you are saying here. Compared to some other posts, this is quite refreshing to read.

I think that is the point--if everybody is an outlier, then nobody is.

It depends upon how you think about it. If you deconstruct the biology, males and females are almost completely identical in every way. Quoting from the Scientific American article I referenced above:

Dividing people into male/female boxes is a very good model. But its just a model. As Stephen Covey would say, the map is not the territory. In reality, we are all human beings that have the genes SRY, DMRT1, and FOXL2 that express themselves in different patterns (as well as some other more subtle stuff mentioned in the article, plus the details of it we don't know about yet). Across human beings, how these genes express themselves determines what male characteristics you'll have and what female characteristics you have. Those characteristics aren't necessarily static over time. They can change.

So yes, in a sense the majority of us can either be clearly boxed as male or female. But in another sense, we all have characteristics of both, and the amount of each can change depending upon the activation of different genes.

By this reasoning, ice, water, steam and vapor are more so; identical in every way. The only difference in the macro is the motion of the molecules, and typically all phases exist in the same body, though it behaves in the macro. When the macro is affected in some way, ice cannot continue to perform as ice or vapor as vapor. So, the same would be so for the two genders – identical in every way excepting that phase-changing, gender-specific factor that changes the athletic body’s behavior in the macro.

Link to comment
52 minutes ago, cinepro said:

And i know it's probably rude to say it, but intersex is more of a mutation than a new biological sex. I have a genetic mutation that makes some of my organs work a little differently than most other humans, but that doesn't make me a new kind of human. I'm just a regular human with a genetic mutation.

My undergrad was in microbiology. I took many courses in genetics. In fact, in one of my labs in college we induced mutations in bacterial cultures to get desired changes. My view is that mutations are neither good or bad, they just are. They are natures way of testing out the waters and advancing changes. Most are never even noticed, and others have devastating effects. Eventually a positive mutation (for the species) will make a big enough impact to evolve whatever species received that mutation. We all have mutations, but most never even make a difference. Intersex mutations are neither good, nor bad, but they are usually self-limiting (sterility). There is not a way for nature to pass that mutation through offspring. It is natures way of testing change, while still maintaining equilibrium.

It is our perception of mutation that makes it relative to us. And many intersex people will suffer in regards to our perception of it as society as a result.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

It is.  Two points:

First, Judge Jackson didn't tie "woman" to biology.  She refused to answer a question that does not require a degree in biology to answer.

I think that is a hard question to answer if you are being verbally interrogated by a hostile senator who is asking you a question that has nothing to do with your expertise and the job you are applying for.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

If a lay witness responded to "Are dogs mammals" with "I don't know, I'm not a biologist or a veterinarian,"

That is terrible analogy, because you are comparing a hard question to an easy question. "Are dogs mammals" is an easy question. "Is Nancy Pelosi a woman?" is an easy question. "Can you define mammal?" is a hard question. "Can you define woman?" is a hard question.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Holy cow.  What an exercise in evasion and equivocation.  From participants in a "women's'" march.

Do you know how easy it would be to go to a Trump rally, ask random people to define "woman", and make a compilation of the most embarrassing responses?

Descending to your level would be easy, in case you're wondering.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

She refused to admit what a woman is: an adult human female.

Don't misconstrue the conversation. She wasn't asked, "the dictionary defines woman as 'an adult human female.' Do you admit that is the definition?"

That is different than blindsiding a judge with a question about biology.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

She didn't say that.  She refused to answer at all.

She clearly indicated that biologists are the people who are qualified to provide technical definitions of such things. You really ought to admit that this implies she thinks "woman" is a classification of biology and not a personal preference. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

"What is a dog" can also be characterized as "a complex biological question," I suppose.  But I think most people would find that to be equivocation.  Dishonest.  Evasive.

Are you kidding? Do you really think anybody who wants to be accurate and precise with definitions is being evasive and dishonest if they don't happen to know off of the top of their head that a dog is "a domesticated canid, Canis familiaris, or any carnivore of the dog family Canidae, having prominent canine teeth and, in the wild state, a long and slender muzzle, a deep-chested muscular body, a bushy tail, and large, erect ears."

It was a stupid, irrelevant question asked in bad faith. And I'm surprised you fell for it.

In contrast, consider the following quote:

“After reviewing Judge Jackson’s record and testimony, I have concluded that she is a well-qualified jurist and a person of honor. While I do not expect to agree with every decision she may make on the Court, I believe that she more than meets the standard of excellence and integrity. I congratulate Judge Jackson on her expected confirmation and look forward to her continued service to our nation.”

- Mitt Romney

Do you think Romney was just pandering to the middle here, or do you think he really believes Jackson really is "a well-qualified jurist and a person of honor" who "meets the standard of excellence and integrity"? 

Edited by Analytics
Link to comment
8 hours ago, Analytics said:

But rather than castigate senator Marsha Blackburn for asking such a bad-faith, stupid question, a certain class of people mock Jackson for her answer. @smac97 posted a bunch of memes mocking Judge Jackson. My comments about "uneducated" and "Fox News Watching" was directed towards that inanity--not to people who make "fairly serviceable generalizations" when it is appropriate to do so.

The practice of having the relatively uneducated Senators quiz nominees is a stupid practice. It started because a brilliant and incorruptible pro-labor Jew interested in social justice was nominated and the Senate went into hysterics. It was a circus then and it is a circus now. Televising them made it worse as now the Senators are all mugging for the camera and trying to get a ten second clip of them on the news. It is pathetic.

Also, that Supreme Court Justice was awesome: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Brandeis

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Analytics said:

I think that is a hard question to answer if you are being verbally interrogated by a hostile senator who is asking you a question that has nothing to do with your expertise and the job you are applying for.

She's a sitting judge.  I think she has sufficient mental acuity and stamina to handle the question.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

That is terrible analogy, because you are comparing a hard question to an easy question. "Are dogs mammals" is an easy question. "Is Nancy Pelosi a woman?" is an easy question. "Can you define mammal?" is a hard question.

She wasn't asked that.  

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

"Can you define woman?" is a hard question.

Not really.  A woman is an adult human female.  Except for people who are in the thrall of sociopolitical efforts to radically re-define the term, it's a pretty easy question.

"Can you provide a definition for the word dog?"

"Can you provide a definition for the word moon?"

"Can you provide a definition for the word child?"

"Can you provide a definition for the word woman?"

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

That is different than blindsiding a judge with a question about biology.

She wasn't blindsided.  Look at the transcript.

And she repeated her evasions and equivocations the next day:

Quote

Texas Senator Ted Cruz brought up the issue during his 20-minute questioning after Jackson said during her exchange with Senator Marsha Blackburn Tuesday that she couldn't define 'woman' because she isn't a biologist.

Cruz, however, went one step further to question how she decide if an individual was a woman if it came to gender discrimination cases.

'Yesterday under questioning from Senator Blackburn, you told her that you couldn't define what a woman is, that you are not a biologist, which I think you are the only Supreme Court nominee in history who has been unable to answer the question, 'What is a woman?'' Cruz asked Jackson.

Before letting her answer, he expanded on the question.

'Let me ask you as a judge, how would you determine if a plaintiff had Article 3 standing to challenge a gender based rule, regulation, policy without being able to determine what a woman was?' he questioned.

'I know that I am a woman, I know that Senator Blackburn is a woman,' she said.

'And the woman who I admire most in the world is in the room today – my mother,' still not giving a definition of the word 'woman.'

'But let me ask, under the modern leftist sensibilities, if I decide right now that I'm a woman then apparently I'm a woman. Does that mean that I would have Article 3 to challenge a gender based restriction?' he pushed.

When the nominee still refused to give a straight answer, Cruz presented another hypothetical.

He asked if he would be able to sue Harvard if although he is a Hispanic male, he decided to identify as Asian. Both Cruz and Jackson attended Harvard Law School.

Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. sued Harvard for discriminating in their affirmative action practices against Asian American admissions. In January 2022, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, consolidating it with a similar case related to admissions practices at the University of North Carolina.

Jackson vowed that if confirmed she would recuse herself from the Supreme Court case regarding Havard admissions that claims Asian applicants were rejected because of race. 

Here's the vid:

This is hugely evasive.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

She clearly indicated that biologists are the people who are qualified to provide technical definitions of such things. You really ought to admit that this implies she thinks "woman" is a classification of biology and not a personal preference. 

"Can you provide a definition for the word dog?" - "I can't.  I'm not a veterinarian."

"Can you provide a definition for the word moon?" - "I can't.  I'm not an astronomer."

"Can you provide a definition for the word child?" - "I can't.  I'm not a pediatrician."

"Can you provide a definition for the word cheese?" - "I can't.  I'm not a food scientist."

And on and on and on.

A witness in a trial who was as evasive as Judge Jackson would be admonished by the judge.  Ironic.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:
Quote

"What is a dog" can also be characterized as "a complex biological question," I suppose.  But I think most people would find that to be equivocation.  Dishonest.  Evasive.

Are you kidding?

I am not.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Do you really think anybody who wants to be accurate and precise with definitions is being evasive and dishonest if they don't happen to know off of the top of their head that a dog is "a domesticated canid, Canis familiaris, or any carnivore of the dog family Canidae, having prominent canine teeth and, in the wild state, a long and slender muzzle, a deep-chested muscular body, a bushy tail, and large, erect ears."

I think a person who refuses to answer the question at all, and instead suggesting that only a biologist or a vet can answer, is being deliberately evasive and dishonest.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

It was a stupid, irrelevant question asked in bad faith. And I'm surprised you fell for it.

The question was neither stupid nor irrelevant.  Sen. Cruz the next day provided clear context for why this sort of thing matters.

But even assuming you are correct, it does not matter.  People under oath are obligated to answer questions they don't like.  

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

In contrast, consider the following quote:

“After reviewing Judge Jackson’s record and testimony, I have concluded that she is a well-qualified jurist and a person of honor. While I do not expect to agree with every decision she may make on the Court, I believe that she more than meets the standard of excellence and integrity. I congratulate Judge Jackson on her expected confirmation and look forward to her continued service to our nation.”

- Mitt Romney

Do you think Romney was just pandering to the middle here,

Yes.  But I also think he was substantively correct.  Judge Jackson was sufficiently qualified, notwithstanding the overt and explicit race-and-gender-based preference underlying her nomination.

See here:

Quote

Nobody ‘Implied’ Ketanji Brown Jackson Was Nominated Because Of Her Race. Biden Stated It Proudly

MARCH 22, 2022
 
Biden, not the GOP, is responsible for reducing Jackson’s qualifications to the color of her skin and the pairing of her chromosomes.
 

During opening statements of the Senate confirmation hearings for Biden Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson, which began on Monday, Democrats (one in particular) went into spin mode by testing out a talking point that went a little something like this: Republicans are saying you were nominated because of your race.

It was Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, who said it most plainly:

“My Republican colleagues and public figures have attempted to undermine your qualifications through their pejorative use of the term ‘affirmative action,’ and they have implied you were solely nominated due to your race. … Let me be clear: Your nomination is not about filling a quota.”

...

It’s an odd basket of claims: that it’s Republicans who made Jackson’s nomination all about race, that anything was “implied,” that describing the race-based selection as “affirmative action” is out of bounds, and that this has nothing to do with tokenism.

They’re strange claims because most Americans are old enough to remember just two months ago when President Joe Biden himself stated clearly and plainly that his pick would be “the first Black woman ever nominated to the United States Supreme Court,” after making a similar promise on the campaign trail. It was the Democrat president, not Republican cynics, who announced that race and sex were deciding factors in the selection. “Y” chromosomes and fair skin were disqualifying attributes before any merits could be considered.

Try as they might to turn Jackson criticism on Republicans, this one is on Biden. He’s the one who announced in other terms that Jackson is an affirmative action pick, just as he did with his vice president (and we’ve seen how that’s turned out). He’s the one who invited intensified scrutiny of Jackson’s merits and ideology. He reduced Jackson’s qualifications to the color of her skin and the pairing of her chromosomes.

Nobody “implied” that Jackson was nominated because of her race. The president announced it proudly.

There were no doubt many other qualified candidates for the position.  It is an unassailable fact, though, the Pres. Biden promised, and later followed through, to nominate based on A) skin color and B) sex.

This is perhaps the primary reason I find affirmative action so troubling, particularly when it is as obvious and overt as what we saw here.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

or do you think he really believes Jackson really is "a well-qualified jurist and a person of honor" who "meets the standard of excellence and integrity"? 

I will not reduce the question of Justice Jackson's competency or integrity to how she handled a very tough (and very partisan) grilling in the Senate.  I think less of her for her evasions and equivocations to Sen. Blackburn and Sen. Cruz, but in the end this was not disqualifying, nor does it outweigh the years of impressive experience she has had.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
4 hours ago, Analytics said:

I love Seal Teams. Do you think it will come back? The last season ended on a real cliff hanger. Anyway...

Hmm...seems I was thinking of a different Master Chief. Never watched Seal Team; might need to look into it at some point. 

 

4 hours ago, Analytics said:

I may have sloppily misspoken about the plot. I think the point was that the person who was arguing for the purity of women sports found out that she was intersex and didn't know it. She thought she was a 100% woman, but found out she was not.

Ah, so not impossible then - just unrealistically implausible. 

 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, cinepro said:

My guess (and back to the point of the article in the OP) is that most women choose to give preference to the trans-female because they are scared out of their minds about what will happen to them if they express otherwise.

Yes, that is a very reasonable guess.  

Look at these comments from a teammate of Lia Thomas:

Quote

A member of the University of Pennsylvania women’s swim team said some team members are uncomfortable changing in the locker room with transgender swimmer Lia Thomas, according to a teammate.
...

“It’s definitely awkward because Lia still has male body parts and is still attracted to women,” the swimmer said. Thomas has reportedly told her teammates that she dates women.

The swimmer told the outlet that other team members have spoken to the team’s coaches about possibly getting Thomas to change elsewhere from the rest of the team, but those discussions haven’t gone anywhere

“Multiple swimmers have raised it, multiple different times,” she said. “But we were basically told that we could not ostracize Lia by not having her in the locker room and that there’s nothing we can do about it, that we basically have to roll over and accept it, or we cannot use our own locker room.”

She added, “It’s really upsetting because Lia doesn’t seem to care how it makes anyone else feel. The 35 of us are just supposed to accept being uncomfortable in our own space and locker room for, like, the feelings of one.”

“The school was so focused on making sure Lia was okay, and doing everything they possibly could do for her, that they didn’t even think about the rest of us,” the teammate told the Daily Mail.

The swimmer said that Thomas “seems like she enjoys” all the attention the controversy has brought to her.

“It’s affected all of us way more than it’s affected her,” Thomas’ teammate said.

The swimmer told the outlet that most of the team is scared to speak out about their discomfort for fear of being labeled “transphobic.”

“If this gets a little bit bigger, I might go on the record, but I’m definitely a little afraid,” she said. “What I’m afraid of is that potential employers will Google my name and see commentary about things I said and think, ‘Oh, this person’s transphobic.'”

It's not an unreasonable concern.  The threat to one's reputation, livelihood, etc. is quite real.

3 hours ago, cinepro said:

If people were also shown a picture of the biological woman who will lose her spot on the team and be replaced by the trans-woman, and the answers would be kept confidential, I wonder if the statistics would change. Maybe include a description of how hard the biological female has also worked to reach that level of skill in the sport.

That would be a very interesting exercise.

3 hours ago, cinepro said:

Here's where we disagree. Biological sex is the territory, not the map.

Male/female boxes aren't something that culture and people made up to randomly sort people. They are terms we give to describe reality (i.e. the territory). Even if we called them something else, or nothing at all, the biological reality would continue to exist. About half the people would be distinctly biologically male, about half would be distinctly biologically female, and a very small percentage would be intersex or not distinctly one or the other.

That's a pretty good analogy.  I wish I had thought it up.

3 hours ago, cinepro said:

And i know it's probably rude to say it, but intersex is more of a mutation than a new biological sex.  I have a genetic mutation that makes some of my organs work a little differently than most other humans, but that doesn't make me a new kind of human. I'm just a regular human with a genetic mutation.

I think that's accurate. 

Frank Lentini, a Sicilian-American sideshow performer who toured with numerous circuses, was born with a parasitic twin and had three legs.  This condition, Polymelia, does not mean that people who have it are separate from the bipedal primate species H. Sapiens.

Moreover, Lia Thomas is not intersex.  She instead purportedly has gender dysphoria.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...