Leaderboard

Bill is dead right; the legal definition of gender, where it matters, is not necessarily the same as the biological I had a friend who was born intersex (both sets). Her parents decided they wanted a boy, so that’s what the surgery left behind. But she said she never, ever, felt like a man, even back when that was ridiculous and unacceptable. So to make herself into one, she joined the army and became a Ranger. Career, decorated, invalided in the long run because of battle-incurred injuries and agent orange. She sired children. After going back to school for a master’s and teaching college a few years, she couldn’t take it, and went for transition surgery. A lifetime of living honestly as a man wasn’t enough. Enough testosterone to sire children wasn’t enough. Because her birth certificate had the word “intersex” on it, the Army paid for her transition surgery. Her status is why the legal question is different from the biological one. And there are plenty like her. Not all intersex, but all just knowing something is wrong. How dare you assume you understand her situation in ways she doesn’t. I doubt she would judge your decision to remain male Wendy P.

You answered your own question. You would not respect their privacy. Transgender (like any other medical condition) is none of anyone else's business.

And in billvon's simile all three witnesses had the same view. what was that quote - "The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt." (Bertrand Russell) Lots of people are so proud of announcing their certainty here...

Nope. She was asked for a definition of "woman." Were they asking for "woman" as defined by the gender "female?" Then it's a question of societal definitions. We are fortunate that we have progressed to the stage where the person, rather than society, has more say in what they decide their gender is. Which means that the person being asked, not the person doing the asking, gets to answer. Is it "woman" as in genetics? Then that's straightforward. XX is female, XY is male. Is it "woman" as in phenotype? (That means 'what they look like.') Then it's a little harder. Many people are born intersex, and are effectively defined as one or the other by surgery. Is it "woman" as in a combination of both? Then it's even more complicated. What about a woman who is born with a vagina, a uterus and ovaries, but is genetically XY? Are they a woman or a man? A doctor (or biologist) is going to have an opinion on that - and they may even disagree. As a judge, she would be remiss if she just assumed one or the other without knowing all the above. Good for her for not giving the easy (and potentially) wrong answer. As a simile, consider three witnesses in a court case. They are all asked if they saw a woman at the scene of the crime. Witness 1 says "yes," Witness 2 says "I saw someone who looked like a woman." Witness 3 said "I saw the back of someone with long brown hair wearing a blue dress." Justice is most likely served when person 3 testifies.

As of March 27, 139 children were killed and more than 205 wounded amid Russia’s war against Ukraine. Mr. President, can we go now?

I guess I'm a "prominent" Dem and "prominent" Republican, if those to whom I make donations are listed. He is apparently a scumbag, but your source is a biased hit piece, and you know it.

It's the best bail system money can buy!

In 2016 Putin had a hand in regime change in the US, so I don't see why we should not return the favor.

Clearly he is a POTUS and not a diplomat. This could have been done on purpose knowing that it would then be walked back. Or it could be Joe just being angry and stating what we all feel. Either way I am not concerned that the Russian dictator's feelings may be hurt. He already knows that all the western leaders want him out of power and preferably dead. Joe's job is to lead and that is what he was doing.

This is the same verbatim argument being made in discussion forums everywhere, and highlights the black and white assumptions being made by those arguing against trans people in any sport - that a larger frame is always advantageous, and that the participant always went through a full biological male puberty. And those assumptions are wrong. A trans-woman who had puberty-blockers before transitioning, gets none of those testosterone-based growth advantages. That the examples making headlines are about people who've transitioned later, should not cause us to ignore the available variables here when making policy. If a trans-woman never had that growth advantage, on what basis now do we exclude her from participating in women's sports (if she chooses)? Second assumption - the outrage is almost always aimed at competitors in sports events where strength dominates. But what about where a large frame that no longer has its original supporting muscle mass is now a hinderance? In a gymnastics floor routine, a trans-woman who went through full puberty first is going to have a much, much harder time getting height off the floor - her frame is now a liability, not an advantage. This is a difficult problem, but not an unsolvable one. Anyone who thinks the answer is black and white though is being lazy.

I count six. No surprise you don't have a female dog.

Sex is biological. Gender is societal. Not that hard.