The article is by Monica Hesse, who writes:
And this is where I got the poor OED editor involved, just to make sure I understood exactly what Cawthorn was talking about. She explained that “tallywhacker” is likely an Americanism, a variant of the word “tallywag,” which means “the testicles; the male genitals,” though Merriam-Webster dictionary defines it as “a sea bass of the Atlantic Coast.”
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) was asked by a HuffPost reporter to define “woman,” and replied, “Someone who can give birth to a child, a mother, is a woman. Someone who has a uterus is a woman. It doesn’t seem that complicated to me.”
When the reporter asked him whether a woman whose uterus was removed via hysterectomy was still a woman, he appeared uncertain: “Yeah. Well, I don’t know, would they?”
[W]hen these lawmakers attempted to show how much smarter they were on gender science than a judge who takes things seriously for a living, what came out was gobbledygook.
Anyway, congratulations to Ketanji Brown Jackson for getting through the hazing process. I had to avert my eyes. I knew she'd make it, and so did everyone else who knows the game. Spare me the part of the game where you assert that your party had to do it because the other party did it that other time.
Posts
119 comments:
I doubt Hawley answered that question about a woman with a hysterectomy as if he'd never thought about it before.
Our press are idiots who think they are clever.
"Spare me the part of the game where you assert that your party had to do it because the other party did it that other time."
Tell me you know nothing about game theory without saying you know nothing about game theory.
By the way, it really is simple. XX chromosomes, you are a woman. XY you are a man. Anything else is truly "intersex" and is extremely rare. Rare outliers do not invalidate useful categories.
Woman: You think if you got no uterus... ...and no breasts... ...you're still technically a woman?
Julia Roberts: Sure you are.
Woman: Yeah, you just--
Julia Roberts: You're actually a happier woman. No need to worry about maxi-pads and underwire.
- Erin Brockovich (2000)
I'm sick and tired of the games progressives play. Just goes to show that Democrats don't care about children. No skin off my nose, as I don't have any, but don't be surprised when it backfires on them. She was handled with KID GLOVES compared to how the Republican nominees were treated. I'm sorry, but her non answer about gender was posed to protect the trans movement the Progressives are shoving down our throats. We aren't as dumb as they think we are.
In the left corner, Judge "affirmative action" Jackson! She'll be affirmatin' and pedopoligizin'! Come on down to the SCOTUS dome this Sunday Sunday Sunday!
We need more judges like Janice Rodgers Brown and less like Ketanji Brown Jackson
I was pretty sure tallywacker was in there somewhere but apparently not
Down came a jumbuck to drink at that billabong,
Up jumped the swagman and grabbed him with glee,
And he sang as he shoved that jumbuck in his tucker bag,
"You'll come a-waltzing Matilda, with me."
Here are a couple of links for those needing an education on game theory and the broadly optimal "tit-for-tat" strategy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat
https://taylorpearson.me/bookreview/tit-for-tat/
https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/courses/soco/projects/1998-99/game-theory/index.html
What is a woman depends on whether you're talking of at a distance or up close. They're almost opposites.
I’m supposed to take seriously someone who never heard the term tallywhacker before?
Spare me the part where you compare this anodyne criticism of her actual positions and rulings to completely false accusations of felonies.
If you can go to the dictionary for tallywhacker, why can't you go to it for woman?
"wom·an
[ˈwo͝omən]
NOUN
an adult female human being"
Anyway, it's not a question of what the definition is. It's a question of who fits the definition.
The fact that she refused to answer “what is a woman” is worrying.She either fears the woke faction, or is herself woke. Either way… weeeellll…
20 Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness;
Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes,
There are mysteries on this subject.
Averting one's eyes from an unpleasant truth is often a useful techique. The Germans found it very convenient in the 1933-1945 period.
Welcome aboard Associate Groomer Jackson!
Having to do things because the other party does them is something like the essence of politics. It's what happens whether you happen to like it or not. The question is whether you are scrutinizing someone's record or indulging in wild rumors.
It's also whether you are doing it because you feel you have to do it or because you really enjoy it and get into it. Looking into Jackson's record was doing due diligence. Slurring Kavanaugh as a teenage rapist was pure delight for some people.
So they teach the children so theyre good and ready to go at 10 and now they have their judge to help make it all possible to further along that agenda.
Republicans place everyone into one of two boxes, male or female. There are no other options. But the Democrats counter that not everyone fits comfortably into one of these two boxes. So whose right?
Obviously, the Democrats are right. Some tiny percentage of the population is transgender. But so what? We don't need to destroy the gender binary for 99.9% of the population.
https://freebeacon.com/courts/ketanji-brown-jackson-granted-covid-release-to-defendants-in-serious-crimes/
Supreme Court nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson said in the early days of the pandemic it would be "reasonable" to release "each and every" person in District of Columbia jails, and she went on to grant COVID-related releases to defendants and inmates implicated in serious crimes. In the early days of the pandemic, Judge Jackson made a passionate appeal on behalf of inmates in Washington, D.C., jails and said pandemic conditions could justify releasing them. "The obvious increased risk of harm that the COVID-19 pandemic poses to individuals who have been detained in the District’s correctional facilities reasonably suggests that each and every criminal defendant who is currently in D.C. DOC custody—and who thus cannot take independent measures to control their own hygiene and distance themselves from others—should be released," she wrote. She went on to urge Congress to take action to help.
In one instance, Jackson granted pretrial release to a defendant allegedly involved in a deadly fentanyl-trafficking ring, requiring only that he comply with a 10 p.m. curfew. In another case, she released an inmate with multiple bank robbery convictions. Prosecutors opposed both moves. This is the cost of identity politics – putting someone with those views on the Supreme Court. But the Democrats are so proud.
She is all for Criminals and Pedophiles. Great pick Progressives.
Hesse isn't really interested in resolving issues - she wants to obfuscate. If one has basic philosophy training, it's not hard to reason. See Aristotle's categories. She argues "if a woman had a hysterectomy, is she still a woman?" Aristotle would note that a broken tire is still a tire - just because it is broken in some way, it does not lose it's "tire-ness."
And this is what was disappointing to me with the future justice - she lacks the ability to do basic reasoning. I hope that she will learn to do so in office.
p.s. - this was part of the reason I posted that link to the Ojibiway "case," summarized by Justice Shepard of the Idaho Supreme Court in a dissent: "I cannot but recall the unreported case of Regina v. Ojibway, 8 Crim.L.Q. 137 (Toronto 1965), wherein the court converted a pony, fortuitously saddled with a feather stuffed blanket, into a small bird, thus falling within the provisions of the Ontario Small Birds Act."
-University of Utah Hospital and Medical Center v. Bethke, 611 P.2d 1030, 1034; 101 Idaho 245 (Idaho, 1980)
The fictitious case may be read here: https://www.futilitycloset.com/2012/02/13/regina-v-ojibway/
Two sets of X chromosomes provide the growth instructions for a human female body. A set of X plus Y chromosomes provides the instructions for a human male body. If both are functional per hundreds of thousands of years of evolutionary generation-to-generation success, then a fertile embryo can be created. These embryos evolved to grow within a female uterus.
Any other NATURAL variation reflects a mutation (i.e., a first move to a non-human species; e.g., kangaroo pouches), or an infertile evolutionary dead end. All of the fancy dancing on the left follows from ignorance and/or denial of this core reproductive imperative. (The left does this following a couple generations of fixation on pro-choice, free-love, anti-population-growth-save-the-environment politics. They lost the script.)
Reproduction truly is simple for actual "progressive" thinkers who incorporate biology and science in their ideologies. Bees do it. Birds do it. Even educated fleas do it. It is hard only for blind partisans who wish away determinism in favor of a dead-end outcome.
Oh, honestly. The idea that saying "what about a woman who's had her uterus removed" shows how difficult it is to define a woman is like arguing that you can't call dogs four-legged animals because there are some dogs that, because of birth defects or accidents, only have three.
Well, at least now that she's a Supreme the high reversal rate on her decisions will go to zero.
AA wrote, "Anyway, congratulations to Ketanji Brown Jackson for getting through the hazing process."
It wasn't hazing. During the questioning we learned much of KBJ's judicial philosophy and that she shouldn't be confirmed although we all knew she had the votes. Sunlight!
We learned:
1. Soft on crime and child porn in particular.
2. Doesn't believe in natural rights and natural law.
3. Believes in CRT but was so dishonest she wouldn't admit it.
4. She's a liar. She knows what a woman is but dodged the question. Some odd gender thing going on there.
During the Mamet interview on Rogan, Joe said that the Brit intellectual has written that every time a civilization collapses, there is mass confusion about sex and gender. We are there now.
female == XX
I think the only time I've heard "tallywacker" was from the uptight female? coach in the movie Porky's. That was an old movie on late night cable when Cawthorn was born, but I suspect he's seen it.
Anyway, congratulations to Ketanji Brown Jackson for getting through the hazing process. I had to avert my eyes.
Wow. Just wow.
After the way you reacted to Kavanaugh?
Please spare us the cruel neutrality bullshit in the future.
Blogger Bitter Clinger said..."By the way, it really is simple. XX chromosomes, you are a woman. XY you are a man. Anything else is truly "intersex" and is extremely rare. Rare outliers do not invalidate useful categories."
Yes. The people who look stupid are the ones claiming it's a complicated question.
Once again, the issue is not that nominees are closely questioned, or 'hazed' if you want to term it that. It's that the basis for the hazing in the case of many Republican nominees is based on false testimony or hypocritical positions taken by Democrats.
Read this and understand the whole sophistry espoused by this WaPo item is easily demolished.
A woman who had lost her sexual organs to surgery, disease, or misadventure is still a woman, just as a man who has lost his sexual organs is still male. Such a man is known as a eunuch, though the word has gone out of fashion. By the same token, a similarly affected woman could be called a eunuch if all-encompassing sexual equality is your thing. (I recall a piece of feminist drivel written by the gnomish Germaine Greer called The Female Eunuch.) Loss of reproductive organs often entails the loss of sexual hormones, consequently, eunuchs of both sexes are typically given hormone supplements to combat the distortion of secondary sexual characteristics -- beards on women, breasts on men, etc. Modern voluntary eunuchs who pretend to be a sex they are not, also receive hormone cocktails to retain their disguises.
Astounding that Hesse thinks this is a winning issue for her side.
Addendum: Brit intellectual is Douglas Murray, per Joe Rogan.
"You ain't changed what God put in you – that DNA," the lieutenant governor preached. "You can't transcend God's creation. I don't care how hard you try."
"It's time for grownups and time for Christians to start standing up and being unafraid to tell the truth," Robinson contended. "Come after me if you want to. I don't care. You want my head – here it is right here. Come on, come get it."
"I don't care because it's time for us to stand up," Robinson declared. "Now I'm not afraid to stand up tell the truth about that issue."
"They dragging our kids down into the pit of hell trying to teach them that mess in our schools," he continued. "Tell you like this: That ain't got no place at no school. Two plus two don't equal transgender – it equals four. We need to get back to teaching them how to read instead of teaching them how to go to hell." (NC Lt. Governor Mark Robinson April 9, 2022)
"Tell me you know nothing about game theory without saying you know nothing about game theory."
Presumably, you're a fan of tit for tat.
Or as we call it in America, uterus for tallywhacker.
Dave Begley writes, "During the Mamet interview on Rogan, Joe said that the Brit intellectual has written that every time a civilization collapses, there is mass confusion about sex and gender. We are there now."
In the case of Rome, the empire was replaced by cultures unashamedly masculine snd virile -- German, Huns, Goths, Vandals, etc. Unless the unconfused peoples of the West reject this gender sophistry being imposed by a tiny but influential minority we will be similarly replaced, probably by the Muslims. If you are doubtful, examine the birth records in Sweden.
(BTW, this also explains the gender grooming encouraged by Disney, Hollywood, and the NEA. Eunuchs don't reproduce, thus their desire for changlings.)
"I was pretty sure tallywacker was in there somewhere but apparently not..."
Me, I had to review the lyrics of "knick-knack paddywhack, give a dog a bone..."
Or as we call it in America, uterus for tallywhacker.
Lame.
No, we call it politics. One way to discourage bad political behavior is to repay it in kind.
Groomers will now have a Supreme Court justice to look out for their interests.
Addendum: Brit intellectual is Douglas Murray, per Joe Rogan.
Camille Paglia has made the same observation.
"And this is what was disappointing to me with the future justice - she lacks the ability to do basic reasoning...."
You didn't visualize the reasoning in her head before she declined to give an answer. Isn't that a failure of "basic reasoning" on your part?
Meanwhile, Hawley and Cawthorn just blurted out embarrassing nonsense. It's easy to see that they didn't do the in-your-head part of reasoning. They just went ahead with the thinking-out-loud and it showed how little thought they'd put into it.
"Astounding that Hesse thinks this is a winning issue for her side."
Isn't that what this is all about? What's a winning issue for our side? This is why I averted my eyes. It's better for one side than the other and both sides are so vain they believe they've got the winner. It's embarrassing, and no one seems to care about actual people with problems of the sort that belong in the purview of government.
Hesse is disingenuous when she exaggerates her confusion with the word 'tallywhacker.' Even if she didn't know the word, that doesn't mean it or the overall point is complex. Running to a dictionary editor doesn't change that. That's an argument in bad faith.
As a side note, her jokes are more painfully unfunny than a Liberty Mutual commercial. To be clear, that has nothing to do with the shallowness of her arguments.
"Spare me the part of the game where you assert that your party had to do it because the other party did it that other time.
"My party" had to do what? My party didn't stop her. The usual GOPers supported a lefty.
In the abstract, my party has to do it, since we know that voting for a nominee is just a vote for a vote: prog or non-prog. Allowing for GOP candidates who "grow in office," always in one direction. And my party has to do it because we need to play the actual game, not act out Althusian nomination fantasies. But the GOP can't even do that.
I've heard tallywhacker since at least the 60s and probably in the 50s
I believe it is more common in the south than elsewhere
John LGBTQBNY Henry
It's cute the way HuffPo and its ilk think they're making some great point, "things that make you go hmm...". Nobody actually thinks it's hard to tell the difference between a man and a woman and there's nothing they can do about that no matter how many times they shout "neener neener!"
I think it's a bit disingenuous to compare the Conservative opposition's behavior during the Jackson confirmations to the well-orchestrated sh*t show that the Kavanaugh hearings were, from the Progressive side. Which questions were unfair? And then to admonish people who have something to say, that they are somehow exhibiting small-minded 'tit-for-tat' mentalities. But what would be some alternative strategies that are more apropos and not tit-for-tat? How many conservative operatives were standing outside the hearings handing out cash to hire disruptive protest actors, for instance, which was unchallenged behavior from the Kavanaugh hearings? It's always 'turn the other cheek' piousness that has Conservatives digging their own grave. They should stop being nice, and start playing for keeps because the Progressives have been for years.
"Judge Jackson, do you believe a woman can have a ding-a-ling-a-ling?"
Professora shows a nice touch calling USA Senators fratboys hazing a black woman!
"Spare me the part of the game where you assert that your party had to do it because the other party did it that other time."
I'll gladly give Althouse this one because other than both being objections to each nominee, the two "it"s are so radically different as ro not be compatible.
Isn't it cute that she is okay with Pedophilia, at the same time as Disney?? And who knew that Disney had Ghislaine Maxwell hosting family day in 1985, and the Disney Cruise line brought you to Epsteins Pedophilia Island to snorkle?? They are all in bed together. THIS is why Conservatives are against this judge that thinks this is all okay. https://emeralddb3.substack.com/p/why-was-ghislaine-maxwell-doing-fundraisers?s=r
"Two sets of X chromosomes provide the growth instructions for a human female body. A set of X plus Y chromosomes provides the instructions for a human male body. If both are functional per hundreds of thousands of years of evolutionary generation-to-generation success, then a fertile embryo can be created. These embryos evolved to grow within a female uterus."
The question is: is a person's gender only a matter of the physical body? What about the mind, about a person's fundamental internal sense of who and what they are? Our bodies are simply the physical exterior that carries around our brains, where we exist as something more than meat.
We still do not know why some people are born homosexual, and we do not know how one's internal sense of being male or female is determined. If one's internal sense of being male or female is determined during development in the womb, isn't it possible that the brain and body can develop in opposition to each other?
Brett Kavenaugh WISHES he was treated the way KBJ was.
RE: Humperdink @ 9:00 am:
Thank god we're not a Christian nation.
I don't like the tit for tat of today's politics and most of the criticisms of Jackson seemed at least a little out of bounds. I also find people like Senator Durbin praising Republicans who reached across the aisle when AFAIK he's never voted for a Republican Supreme Court nominee himself annoying. Meh, he's a politician - that's what they do, I suppose.
On the other hand, if one is going to complain about how Jackson was treated and not how the last several Republican nominees (and near nominees) were treated, that in itself is disingenuous. That's how the game is played, I get it, but arguing for unilateral "disarmament" when you won't get credit for it in today's political environment seems kind of lame.
No republican should EVER vote for a democrat judge. That is just the way it is done. If you don't have the votes, you don't get to get your judge confirmed.
Blogger Aggie said..."I think it's a bit disingenuous to compare the Conservative opposition's behavior during the Jackson confirmations to the well-orchestrated sh*t show that the Kavanaugh hearings were, from the Progressive side."
More than a bit. It's dishonest.
"
Blogger Aggie said...
I think it's a bit disingenuous to compare the Conservative opposition's behavior during the Jackson confirmations to the well-orchestrated sh*t show that the Kavanaugh hearings were, from the Progressive side. "
A "BIT" disingenuous. It's absolutely ridiculous.
It's embarrassing, and no one seems to care about actual people with problems of the sort that belong in the purview of government.
=============
I am confused >>> to belong in the purview of government don't problems have to process through politics?
unless one is champion of 9A and 10A
The normal distribution of biological sex and sex-correlated gender attributes (e.g. sexual orientation) make the man and woman.
The transgender spectrum from trans/homo to trans/neo are considered separately with social progress as political congruences ("=").
Isn't that what this is all about? What's a winning issue for our side? This is why I averted my eyes. It's better for one side than the other and both sides are so vain they believe they've got the winner.
Now explain why you believe in criticizing and condemning one side while participating with the other.
Ann Althouse: "Presumably, you're a fan of tit for tat."
Yes, of course, because it works. Turn-the-other-cheek strategies lose bigly. Tit-for-tat has been shown to be the best strategy, many, many times.
Moreove, the questioning of Jackson was nothing like what the dems have done repeatedly in the past (Bork, Thomas, Kavanaugh) so this isn't even properly TFT. But even if we pretend that it is, how many times must the republicans be abused by the dems before it is fair to respond in kind? How many times must the abused spouse take a beating before acting in self-defense?
XX marks the chromosome spot, woman-wise. XY is a man. There are those that are both XX and XY, but they are rare, and they usually find a spot to land.
Now, make that complicated. I can't.
Also, do you believe, Althouse, that Jackson knew nothing about the VMI case, given that she was a third-year student at Harvard when it was argued and was supervising editor of the Harvard Law Review that year? Wasn't that a rather important and visible case in 1996? Why did she tell Senator Blackburn that she knew nothing about the case when Blackburn read her excerpts from Justice Ginsburg's opinion, which was widely celebrated by feminist lawyers and academics at the time?
We are taking disingenuousness to a new level here. Jackson just didn't want to get in trouble with the gender-bender Democrats, so she lied...obviously.
Ann Althouse: "Isn't that what this is all about? What's a winning issue for our side?"
No, for some of us this is about the truth. Forcing people to tell lies (or face repercussions, e.g., cancellation) is a dominance move. Some of us are unwilling to lie down for the leftist bullies. Some of us don't want our children to live in a society where they have to watch everything they say and do. We don't want them to have to pretend a man is a woman or place a particular sign in their window like Havel's greengrocer.
Do doctors now say, "Congratulations, it's a baby"?
"You didn't visualize the reasoning in her head before she declined to give an answer. Isn't that a failure of "basic reasoning" on your part?"
That is probably a fair point, but this is what she was reasoning- "Shit! Now I have to pretend that I don't what a woman is and look like a moron."
It's funny to watch you people running around like chickens without heads over these stupid silly libtard woke memes. Does the name Pavlov sound familiar?
Fine. Let's make it simple. Let's just abolish the words of male, female, man, woman, boy, girl, etc. Happy everyone?
Next, let's come up with words to characterize that class of humans with XX chromosomes who by nature are capable of producing ova and carrying and giving birth to offspring.
Then, let's come up with words to characterize that class of humans with XY chromosomes who by nature are capable of producing procreative cells that can fertilize ova and who, for convenience of the process, have a protruding organ that is capable of reaching deep into the XX people's reproductive tract.
What should we call each of these two classes of humans?
Mitt is a disgrace. He recently voted against her and now he votes for her with no new info except that which is damning.
What a tool he turned out to be...
I like Billy Joel careful definition: “She’s Always a woman to me”… hinting that she was born a woman and stayed a woman.
“ Do doctors now say, "Congratulations, it's a baby"?”
🦊: actually, we like to say, “Congratulations it's a baby fox!”
'What about the mind, about a person's fundamental internal sense of who and what they are?'
I'm convinced that I'm Napoleon and that I can fly by flapping my arms.
So what?
"Forcing people to tell lies (or face repercussions, e.g., cancellation) is a dominance move."
I believe this to be true. I wish I could remember exactly where I saw this, but it was someone from a totalitarian country discussing lies they were forced to tell. In essence, it was: 'They know it's a lie, and they know that you know. That's the whole point.'
Spare me the part of the game where you assert that your party had to do it because the other party did it that other time.
How about the part where the nominee does not support Natural Rights?
Jackson is fundamentally opposed to the most important principle this country is founded on.
She needs to be shipped to another country.
Robert Cook said... What about the mind, about a person's fundamental internal sense of who and what they are?
Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. (Phillip K Dick)
Will Thomas can wish he didn't have a John Thomas (if he really does. I have my doubts.) all he wants but until a surgeon gets out a knife, it isn't going away. Your mind does not change your physical anatomy, either at the level of chromosomes or organs.
Ann Althouse said...
"Astounding that Hesse thinks this is a winning issue for her side."
Isn't that what this is all about? What's a winning issue for our side? This is why I averted my eyes. It's better for one side than the other and both sides are so vain they believe they've got the winner. It's embarrassing, and no one seems to care about actual people with problems of the sort that belong in the purview of government.
You avert your eyes because you don't want to deal with the actual underlying differences.
We are taking disingenuousness to a new level here. Jackson just didn't want to get in trouble with the gender-bender Democrats, so she lied...obviously.
And Ann thinks it is all politics.
"Isn't that what this is all about? What's a winning issue for our side?"
The question is: is a person's gender only a matter of the physical body?
The human person is a unified whole - body, mind, spirit. What the spirit is is revealed in the body. So, no one does not have a male body and a female soul - or a sexless soul - or vice versa. We are male or we are female through and through.
When a person's mind diverges from what is revealed by the body or other objective reality, that is called schizophrenia or some other mental disorder.
“By the way, it really is simple. XX chromosomes, you are a woman. XY you are a man. Anything else is truly "intersex" and is extremely rare. Rare outliers do not invalidate useful categories”
My understanding is that the key is the presence or absence of a Y chromosome. It acts as a master switch for the rest of the chromosomes, but doesn’t really do that much else all by itself. And having a Y plus 2, 3 X chromosomes mostly presents as male, except for often having significant mental issues. My understanding is that putting an XXY in an XX prison population is worse than putting an XY there, in terms of security for the XXs.
I wonder if KBJ continues with her DC Circuit duties between now and July when Breyer retires. He continues to hear arguments for cases to be decided before then.
Blogger Andrew said...
"Judge Jackson, do you believe a woman can have a ding-a-ling-a-ling?"
Have you ever seen pictures of wrestler Chyna's of Porn actress Vanessa del Rio's lady parts?
It's pretty darn close to a man's ding-a-ling.
Florence King once wrote about a girlfriend who had a clitoris bigger than her thumb.
JOhn LGBTQBNY Henry
We still do not know if some people are born homosexual,
FIFY
I'm concerned regarding her understanding of the concept of "inherit rights." Apparently, she may believe that rights are granted by Government, not God. Troubling.
Robert Cook: isn't it possible that the brain and body can develop in opposition to each other?
Indeed, and anorexia is one obvious example. More broadly, I can certainly understand some kind of generalized dysmorphia as a feeling of not being at home in your own body and thinking there is something wrong with it.
What I find genuinely hard to understand is the feeling that one actually belongs to the other sex. I have no idea what it means to feel female. For that matter, I have no idea what it means to feel male. It's just what I've always been.
The question is: is a person's gender only a matter of the physical body? What about the mind, about a person's fundamental internal sense of who and what they are? Our bodies are simply the physical exterior that carries around our brains, where we exist as something more than meat.“
You are essentially arguing that personal feelings should trump biology. Sure, put a guy in a woman’s restroom, changing room, or prison, who is looking for a Lesbian relationship, just because he claims to feelz that way. What could go wrong? One of the big reasons that we offer separate spaces for women is for their protection against male sexual aggression. And now they are being taken away because some guys want to think that they are girls. Wake up. Probably more often, it’s guys trying to sneak into the harem. Similar, women’s ability to compete in sports against others who haven’t had the advantages of testosterone since they were In utero. That has been lost too.
My problem here is that those with sexual identity problems are foisting their mental health issues on the rest of us. Nobody cares if you cross dress in the privacy of your own home, but we do care, a lot, when men claiming that they are really women at heart (or in their minds) are allowed to intrude into women’s private spaces, just because they want to. To the extent that there is really a significant number of adults who are sexually confused like this, the answer is not to impose their mental issues on the rest of us, but rather to get mental health treatment.
But it’s worse than that, because sex roles and sexual identity often don’t fully firm up until brain maturity. I am not talking heterosexuality/homosexuality, because that involves sexual attraction, which, at least with guys, can be measured. Rather we are talking about internal feelings about gender identity. For many, the solution is easy - just wait until full brain maturation, in your early to mid 20s, and the bulk of these issues will have worked their way out through acceptance of the reality of your gender identity based on your actual gender. So, against this, what do the gender warriors, the groomers, do? They attempt to convert kids to the trans movement long before they have lived with their physical sexual identity long enough to be accustomed to it. They are moving towards introducing preadolescents to this, well before they experience the gender defining effects of sexual hormones released after puberty. This is why calling them “groomers” is so accurate, and so disliked by those pushing it.
Lost in the divisive discussion is that of course we want to teach our children tolerance, kindness, and acceptance of people despite differences. Be they physical disabilities, skin color, nationality, even politics. right? Children are naturally tolerant.
Normal Parents do not want schools to focus on age-inappropriate subjects. This is not hard.
Sadly - the far left and the right start bickering and the conversation goes to hell.
"I knew she'd make it, and so did everyone else who knows the game."
If it was a game, and we all knew who was going to win, which we did, given the existence of Romney, Murkowski and Collins, was it really necessary for her to pretend that there is some difficulty in defining what a woman is? What was she concerned about? That one of the fucking Democrats was going to get pissed off and vote against her, because she failed to demonstrate a willingness to aver that 2 + 2 = 5? Could happen, I suppose. Certainly, we're headed that way.
You've come a long way baby, but where did you start?
"Our bodies are simply the physical exterior that carries around our brains, where we exist as something more than meat."
Feeling that you are a particular sex will not change the biological reality of the sex you actually are. In most instances, the difference between what you feel and what you are won't matter much. The problem is, there are instances when it will. Insisting it doesn't when it does can get people hurt.
As an example, I worked with a young lady who identified as a man and insisted on being called John. She looked and acted like a teenaged boy and that's how we interacted with her. In the office it was no big deal and cost us nothing to go along.
Had John ever found herself on the wrong side of the law for some reason, her divergence from reality (if taken seriously by society) could have led her to some serious trouble. Throwing a young woman in a jail cell with men (who wouldn't really care what she identified as) is a real world negative effect of denying physical reality.
"Spare me the part of the game where you assert that your party had to do it because the other party did it that other time."
******************
OK, IF you will spare us the part of the game where you conveniently ignore the "consent" part of "advice and consent".
Deal?
"You didn't visualize the reasoning in her head before she declined to give an answer. Isn't that a failure of "basic reasoning" on your part?"
Here's some basic reasoning: "Visualizing" the reasoning in someone else's head is called "making s**t up". You can only address the reasoning they express. People can't read minds, and while you might make some sort of guess as to the other person's reasoning, you cannot reasonably expect that you got it right without some form of them communicating their thought process.
Since Jackson showed no evidence of reasoning in her inability answer the simple question of "what is a woman?", we can discard the idea that we have any idea what she was thinking.
Tit for tat? Like Zelensky?
"You didn't visualize the reasoning in her head before she declined to give an answer. Isn't that a failure of "basic reasoning" on your part?"
Sounds a lot like the "Trump is playing 20 dimensional chess" thing.
Here's a meme that rings very true:
https://tinyurl.com/6jkj2xju
Cook: "The question is: is a person's gender only a matter of the physical body?"
According to Jackson, it is. After all, it is up to biologists to tell us. If internal sense determines womanhood, she could have easily said that.
Of course, she was really trying to avoid proclaiming prog gospel so as not to scandalize common sense. But in the process she committed the faux pas of the appeal to biology. Entirely disingenuous, of course, and no trans activist has called her on it, knowing she was not serious and will do their bidding soon enough.
“Don't give up! I believe in you all. A person's a person, no matter how small! And you very small persons will not have to die. If you make yourselves heard! So come on, now, and TRY!”
It doesn’t matter anymore, anyway.
Nobody counts in the womb.
Don't let all that cruel neutrality start to chafe on whatever it is you want to call what you've got down there...
Althouse wrote: "Spare me the part of the game where you assert that your party had to do it because the other party did it that other time."
Why? The Democrats started this war on judicial nominees a long long time ago. Senator Joe Biden in particular was a sorry SOB during his time on the Judiciary committee. And the Democrats went to new lows with Kavanaugh.
Are Republicans suppose to just say, oh, well, that's just the Democrats. They can't help themselves, but we sure won't go where they routinely go?
While I think both sides should stop the demonization of judicial nominees, I'm not in favor of unilateral disarmament.
"Obviously, the Democrats are right. Some tiny percentage of the population is transgender. But so what? We don't need to destroy the gender binary for 99.9% of the population."
So the answer is to destroy 99.9% of the population for the gender binary. This is being done to a certain childrens' author. The rest of us will come shortly.
I can't imagine how, but if I were put in prison, I would of course be a transsexual, so I could go to the womens prison and be safe from being killed by the weird men prisoners. Why would you not do that? But Bobo the runt muncher may transition too!
"My problem here is that those with sexual identity problems are foisting their mental health issues on the rest of us. Nobody cares if you cross dress in the privacy of your own home, but we do care, a lot, when men claiming that they are really women at heart (or in their minds) are allowed to intrude into women’s private spaces, just because they want to."
If someone identifies as a vegetable, Xhe does not have the right to lay in the refrigerator rack at Marianos. There was a joke about this in Harvard Lampoon ca. 1974 concerning something lost during a crowded 2 for one sale.
Yesterday AceofSpadeshq published this: it apparently was a comment from some unknown thread.
**********
Laura Wiley Haynes @haynes_wiley
Attn: Democrats!
We are not in reality about "trans kids."
I am a CASA (Leftie/ Dem/atheist). I am neck deep in the population who is declaring this ID. And I know too much!
THREAD ON 'trans' kids:
1. It is important to know that as recently as 15 years ago, ALL kids claiming to be in wrong body were given therapeutic support and time, to address the MORE LIKELY issues that often underlie a child feeling miserable/ out of place in their body.
2. 90% of kids given this approach OUTGREW their GD with no meds. 2/3 of them were GAY in adulthood.
Rapid 'affirmation' tells youth they *need* hormones and surgery because they *ARE* trans. Given the above, 'affirming' is basically GAY conversion therapy.
3. 80% of trans IDd ALSO have **two or more** mental health disorders, on top of Gender Dysphoria. Common: ASD, PTSD, Depression & Anxiety....& these conditions PRECEDE idea of "being trans." Kids who have these disorders are very unhappy, impulsive & seeking relief. Some are abused and abandoned.
Foster youth ID as trans at FIFTEEN TIMES the % of kids at large.
This demands we DO NOT reify the presenting 'gender' problem but look at the whole child and their mental health needs prior to labeling them/medicalizing them.
4. "Affirmation" supposes that kids are NEVER Wrong about their 'gender identity.'
That's opposite of reality! Kids make mistakes!
5. Affirmation = "You're actually a boy! ok!" = Step 1 in cementing this as 'reality.' Step 2 is puberty blockers, and Step 3 is cross-sex hormones.
1+2+3 = A STERILE child. One who may never orgasm! With ruined physical health!
UNJUSTIFIABLE, when 90% **outgrow** this!
6. The suicide fears used to browbeat parents into unquestioning support are LIES.
When control group has AS MANY MH DISORDERS as the 'trans ID ' group, the suicide risks are identical.
EG the risk is from the depression/PTSD/Trauma history not the Trans ID.
The moment Trans is affirmed, these OTHER issues (which DO cause suicidal thoughts) get IGNORED. They get attributed to 'how hard it is to BE trans.' BS!!
This is rank dereliction of duty of care to struggling kids. It is indefensible and negligent.
7. Puberty blockers + cross sex hormones not only sterilize child. They leave boys with micro penis. They often cause girls to need hysterectomies in 20's. Bones do not get stronger, brain development is affected. Cancer and heart risks rise. They need hormones for life.
8. Long term effects are not well-known, but in the countries in Europe who have begun to track them, they have pulled back from medicalizing children due to significant issues, such as osteopenia in 11 year olds!
This is EXPERIMENTAL and UNPROVED Tx!
NOT BENIGN!"
The presumption once was that we were moving away from narrowly-defined sex roles and stereotypes. Now we seem to have embraced them with a vengeance and gone back to very narrow views of what men and women can do and be. It was as though we didn't want to give up our ideas of what male and female personalities were and decided to alter our vital statistics by and bodies to conform to the stereotypes we couldn't get rid of.
From the standpoint of the thinking of the 1970s, we've gone backwards, and transexualism is a reactionary movement.
Maybe the future will think so too. For the pansexual and gender-fluid young, transsexualism is still far too binary.
"I'm convinced that I'm Napoleon and that I can fly by flapping my arms.
"So what?"
A sophomoric utterance that avoids the fundamental question: who are we to ourselves in our lives and in the world and what makes us that way?
"Your mind does not change your physical anatomy, either at the level of chromosomes or organs."
No one says so, but who says one's anatomy is the essence of who one is? Our anatomy is simply our physical exterior...just meat.
"The human person is a unified whole - body, mind, spirit. What the spirit is is revealed in the body. So, no one does not have a male body and a female soul - or a sexless soul - or vice versa. We are male or we are female through and through."
Who says? How do you know?
"When a person's mind diverges from what is revealed by the body or other objective reality, that is called schizophrenia or some other mental disorder."
At one time people sick with schizophrenia were thought to be demon-possessed. We tend to simply make up facile explanations when we do not understand the inexplicable phenomena around us.
Obviously, no one really wants to take seriously the question of gender identity and of how, when or where it is formed, and all prefer to (or are only capable of) providing superficial or disdainful or circular arguments that satisfy their own comfortable assumptions. Not surprising, that.
Blogger Robert Cook said...
Obviously, no one really wants to take seriously the question of gender identity and of how, when or where it is formed, and all prefer to (or are only capable of) providing superficial or disdainful or circular arguments that satisfy their own comfortable assumptions. Not surprising, that.
I assume that some day you are going to need a doctor. Would you prefer one that does not know what a woman is?
"I assume that some day you are going to need a doctor. Would you prefer one that does not know what a woman is?"
Again, you insist on focusing on the physical being; the question is whether the physical being is and must always be consonant with the interior being, and, if not, why not? Is it or can it only be a delusion or mental illness, or might it suggest there are aspects to personal identify that are independent of the body in which the person resides.
Our anatomy is simply our physical exterior...just meat.
Where and what are "we" then? At what point do "we" come into existence? Where do "we" come from? What happens to "us" when our body dies?
There is a cultural concept to what it means to act out womanhood. That's what transgender people are claiming for themselves.
But they aren't women.
A woman has mammary glands, a uterus, and pelvic structure wider than a man's. These things aren't hard to determine. When you get down to genetics, there are chromosomes, but it's not like we needed to define DNA or even a pelvis before deciding what a woman is. We've all seen kindergarten cop, where the little boy tells Arnie that boys have a penis and girls have a vagina.
What was a punchline years ago is now a controversial dispute in the United States Senate.
None of this goes out the window because of accident, surgery, or genetic defect. Those are not rules that define the category.
This isn't complicated. No need to make it so.
"She needs to be shipped to another country."
Achilles lays it out nice and clear sometimes what he thinks of other citizens.
Claims to defend freedom, but truly intolerant and eager to disenfranchise and deport those who do not share his group think.
Have to give him credit for saying what people like Michael K think.
"Where and what are 'we' then? At what point do 'we' come into existence? Where do 'we' come from? What happens to 'us' when our body dies?"
Good questions, asked by common folks and philosophers over the ages. There are still no certain answers.
Robert Cook- I don’t give one flying diddlysquat about gender identity, something new in human history. I care about sex, which is biological, and determined solely by XX or XY, with a minuscule number of genetic mistakes/mutations that are something else.
I don’t want someone with male parts in a locker room with my female daughter or granddaughters. If you don’t care then there’s something psychologically wrong with you.
What do we do with the genetic mistakes? Not with laws. One by one, literally depending on how they develop. Or we could resort to the Viking method, putting them out on a snowbank. Or I understand there are now states that permit abortion up to 7 days post birth.
Or we could deal with them the way China deals with Downs Syndrome births. A live child never leaves the delivery room. Anyone who thinks that doesn’t also apply to other visible at birth birth defects is delusional.
A woman whose uterus was removed via hysterectomy is a handicapped woman.
You can't remove a man's uterus, because he hasn't one; you can remove a woman's uterus, because she has one. If she hasn't a healthy one, but she has the female chromosomes, it's a genetic defect or some malady to be cured. And 2+2 still equals 4, even if that makes leftists' sad.
Arrogant stubbornness is not enlightenment.
Spare me the convenient diversion for the sake of the "take it easy on pedos" issue. But..oh those Republicans and there silly womyn definitions!
It's Kavanaugh all over again frm the other side, darnit!
"I don’t give one flying diddlysquat about gender identity, something new in human history."
Just as with those who assert there is no homosexuality in the (non-human) animal kingdom, you are incorrect...gender identity (and those who identify as transgender) is not new at all.
Post a Comment