Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
She was being questioned about her politics not her scientific knowledge. Recall that she framed her (non) answer within the 'context' of the question, which was clearly political.
I believe the guys from SW Missouri who thinks bulls are cows has reached yet another level of abject stupidity.Show me in the laws of the 14th and 19th Amendments where it codifies sex.
If you must be ignorant at least research before inserting foot in mouth.
EEOC enforces two laws that protect you from sex discrimination at work (including when you apply for a job): Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits an employer from treating you differently, or less favorably, because of your sex, which is defined to include pregnancy, sexual orientation, and gender identity.
Sex Discrimination - US Equal Employment Opportunity ...
The thing about Libtards is that they don't know any more about Biology than they know about Economics, History, Climate Science, Ethics or the Constitution.Really? Then post these thoughts of "biologists" on sex and gender because I don't they find either notions as binary as you stunted clowns present them.
What about a person with xy chromosomes, a vagina and testicles instead of ovaries? Again, real life isn't as binary as you frightened clowns desperately need to pretend it is.The thing about Libtards is that they don't know any more about Biology than they know about Economics, History, Climate Science, Ethics or the Constitution.
A Biologist would know that man has a penis and a woman a vagina, just like a kindergarten kid. Only Libtards are confused about things like that.
Why would she give a scientific answer to a political question?
The context that she alluded to was a yet-to-be adjudicated hot potato. I'm sure she was prepared for it. She also seemed to be amused by it.Why didn't Ms. Jackson answer the question about her politics then? Isn't it relevant whether she is going to be fair on the bench to all parties- or if she is going to be a political animal doing what's expedient for the Leftist Cause?
What the.... that made absolutely no sense whatsoever.Laws are written against discrimination based on sex which is why describing a woman is unnecessary since there is no direct definition by the law on discrimination, it is no discrimination period. I know the right wants to discriminate based on sex but unfortunately, the law doesn't signify sex as either a man or a woman.
Laws are written against discrimination based on sex which is why describing a woman is unnecessary since there is no direct definition by the law on discrimination, it is no discrimination period. I know the right wants to discriminate based on sex but unfortunately, the law doesn't signify sex as either a man or a woman.
Interesting that the Right is all clutching their pearls over this.She said that she was unable to define the term "woman" because she is not a biologist. She is the current flavor of the week for liberal Democrats, so now the official stance of the liberal Democrats is that it is biologists who are the experts to be consulted on who is and is not a woman.
This is much better than what they said last week, which is that we have to listen to the science on that question. More correctly, what they do is to accuse anyone who disagrees with them of "not following the science." When they say "the science" about defining gender, they mean that gender studies professor who was interviewed on NPR the other day.
People such as Lia Thomas and Rachel Levine are not "women," by any biological definition, so it is good that it is biologists who are again recognized as the experts on that. I don't object if Lia and Rachel prefer to be called "transwomen," but I don't see what is wrong with the formerly widely accepted terms, "cross-dressers," and "ladyboys."
That would solve a lot of problems, since the NCAA Women's swimming competition is for "women," not "transwomen." If transwomen, and transmen are truly as ubiquitous as the left clams, they are deserving of their own categories in sports. I doubt that the swim meets for transwomen and transmen would draw much of a fanbase, but then neither does college swimming in general, as far as I know. Most of the audience are parents and friends, and I'm sure Lia's parents and friends would be just as proud, or even more proud, of Lia if he were the true champion of the transwomen swimmers category, and not the best cheater in the Women's category.
Having been married one can not believe everything a woman says.
Wouldn't that mean that "Women's" sports are open to all biological men, not just to biological men who are transwomen? If there is no discrimination period allowed based on sex, then a "women's" sporting even is no less discriminatory than a "White's" sporting event.Laws are written against discrimination based on sex which is why describing a woman is unnecessary since there is no direct definition by the law on discrimination, it is no discrimination period. I know the right wants to discriminate based on sex but unfortunately, the law doesn't signify sex as either a man or a woman.
They can't explain why Jesus never made it with a chick.Interesting that the Right is all clutching their pearls over this.
Recall the judge that once said that he couldn't define pornography, but that "I know it when I see it."My biology professor (who BTW decided he was bored with biology and taught us organic chemistry instead whittling the summer class from 35 down to 4 by the end) actually was never particularly concise about this answer. He would raise the question periodically. Some would say the gender that produced the offspring which apparently isn't always the case. Some would say the gender that was the smaller for the particular organism which apparently isn't always the case. Some would say chromosomes, which apparently isn't always the case. My only conclusion is that it must be done in some arbitrary way.
Yes, just like men's sports are open to women there is a female kicker on a college football team. I don't hear you town criers crying over her playing on a men's sports team.Wouldn't that mean that "Women's" sports are open to all biological men, not just to biological men who are transwomen? If there is no discrimination whatsoever allowed based on sex, then a "women's" sporting even is no less discriminatory than a "White's" sporting event.
Was it discrimination for Biden to announce that his SCOTUS nominee would be a black woman?
Did you just call that person a toilet flusher?A person that is so hateful like yourself doesn't have degrees they have an agenda. Are you just a generalized engineer like the ones, they have at hotels?
Jackson perceived that the question was political, so she gave a political answer. Pretty smart actually.
Jesus was sent for a specific purpose and he accomplished it.They can't explain why Jesus never made it with a chick.
To show how a deity dies?Jesus was sent for a specific purpose and he accomplished it.
