metalslug

You keep saying that and you know it's untrue. I did answer the question without context (#113) to which you even quoted me on it and replied with 'Yep'. Doesn't get much clearer than that. KBJ was asked the same question and declined to give any answer at all except to defer it to biological expertise and an inference that future cases (not present fact) might dispute the definition. You can keep saying that's exactly the same but that's on you. If KBJ or anyone here had said, for example; "A woman is anyone who identifies as such." or "The present contemporary definition would be adult human female although the individual merits of the cases or laws concerned would be considered". Both reasonable answers by lefty standards and likely true to their convictions, therefore should have had the courage to say as much. We can keep banging on about this (as we know your side has to 'win') but it's not going anywhere.

I don't consider the handful that replied on this thread to be a reasonably large group. If you attended any kind of right-wing sub-forum, there's a fair chance you'd feel like the only one there who 'gets it'.

US law, potentially including women's rights law. "Senators question the nominee on his or her qualifications, judgment, and philosophy". Assessments of vocabulary are therefore relevant. Were you planning to 'do a bill' and move the goalposts?

That's a curious graphic. Are you aware of a reason why only 'white' people were considered for that poll? ...or was it your preference to not seek one with more representation? If I were a US voter, I wouldn't vote for Trump either. DeSantis maybe. Much has happened since 2020...

I rather suspect I'm the only one getting it. An interview for a judicial position is in the context of law and if you believe that jurisprudence is not tightly integrated with basic language and grammar then good luck to you. There's little point in debating further if you have no interest in the OP of the thread. The 'wiggle and squirm' has been all yours.

I don't care to answer it in an irrelevant and fabricated context. Again you've absolutely missed it. Both the OP and question put to KBJ was devoid of context. Your 'Baker House at MIT' did have context. Not the same thing. When kallend's students are asking him about atoms so you think he would first get them remove the context of a racing car before agreeing to answer? It's utterly asinine to bang on about "but.. but... context !" in the obvious settings in which the question is asked.

I avoid inventing new language unnecessarily. To recite a 'textbook definition' of something that I agree with does not imply physically referencing a book in the moment. A career academic such as yourself should know that.

In the absence of explicitly specified conditions, new information and perspective then the definition defaults to the originalist meaning. Not? If the word has ambiguity then one is not 'wrong' to defer to that. To now obfuscate the question with additional but incomplete context therefore has no relevance to the OP or the question put to KBJ. To my earlier post in that regard, even bill replied with 'Yep' in his subsequent post. 'Being right (correct)' , in this forum, appears to be subjective opinion too.

How is that relevant? It's your scenario so fill in whatever fabrication is missing from it. OTOH if you'd like to ask me for the definition of a giraffe then go ahead and ask. I'll be answering with some version of an English dictionary definition.

In the same way that you might struggle to find US legislation that defines a grape, a giraffe or a pencil, and yet legal scholars can reasonably be expected to know what these are. You're making my argument for me.

That is not the OP of the thread or the question that was asked to KBJ. Regardless, to entertain your question; I would say only the 'XY woman'. The answer is already implicit in the phrase itself. A medical doctor is not someone who is "halfway through becoming a doctor" or "just begun the training to be a doctor" or "intends to be a doctor" or "living as a doctor". Of more importance here is not whether my opinion on this is either 'correct' or popular, but more significantly that I've offered one at all under questioning. As did you (IIRC). Should other more prominent public figures be so bold...

You're not aware that US law includes Women's legal rights ? m'kay.... Still your turn. You expected me to answer and yet you've clammed up? Figures.

Unless otherwise stipulated in the specific legislation; I believe it defaults to being the same as the grammatical definition; an adult human female. It would apply to any case in which gender impacts the application of the laws in question. (See, it is possible to give some kind of opinion, albeit generalised, without knowing case specifics). Your turn.

It's fair to have that opinion but mine disagrees; I believe it would only be relevant in determining if particular individuals in the case concerned were men or women and not the actual definition of a woman. Perhaps similar to knowing specific case details to decide whether fraud was committed, rather than to decide what fraud is. Legal statutes already exist for that definition.

And yet people here have been trying to do exactly that. Does that make them foolish? Much less smart than KBJ? OK. I'll bite. What's telling about it? Is it easier to define a man? Is the definition any clearer? In the link I posted previously the Australian senator involved did actually ask for either definition and received neither. It's rather clairvoyant of you to claim that nobody has been asked to define a man.

That's rather my point. Either they don't know, or they do know and lack the courage to make statements in that regard with eloquence matching yours. What's remarkable is failing to give any answer at all.

I agree that it was a 'gotcha' question, but it's only a gotcha question when faced by woke lefties and therein lies the cowardice in failing to answer. I've chosen that word because I don't believe KBJ to be either unintelligent or ignorant. I believe she simply lacked the courage to state what defined English grammar, the vast mainstream and indeed even herself has always known a woman to be, for fear of backlash from the woke mob. In another potential 'gotcha' moment; a similar incident played out at an Australian senate estimates session in which neither the Workplace Gender Equality Agency nor the Health Secretary, a professor of medicine, were willing to provide a definition, despite gender specific legislation being under discussion at the time. By contrast; some woke-aligned members in this forum have at least offered up their preferred definitions. Regardless of whether I might agree with such definitions or not, such members at least had the conviction to offer up something, perhaps because none of us here are prominent public figures on camera in the broad media.

They are not ovaries. Period. What they 'present as' on cursory examination has no relevance at all. (I can present as Santa Claus). You wrote nonsense and were caught on it. 'make them'? that your preferred parenting style? I would encourage them to identify as female, as the closest approximation of what they are and have familiarity with. I have certainly never stated that women are strictly XX as I'm familiar enough with the difference between DSD and transgender. I'll even do you one better; I'd be willing to call a XY born male, after fully transitioned , a woman.

The scenario above can never happen. Neither AIS (Morris) or Swyer syndrome can result in ovaries. Also; DSD or intersex should not be confused with transgender, not mutually inclusive at all. The former occurs in approx. 1 in 15000 women with XY and the latter around 2% who self-identify as trans or some variation thereof. Arguing the case of one group to explain another is dishonest.

Heey.. wait a second; https://adfontesmedia.com/product/media-bias-chart-latest-edition/#iLightbox[]/0 Were they working on the theory that if they go from right to left then they would end up in the center? If they switched from Fox to CNN then they were never exposed to the 'real danger' of unbiased media.

Read it again carefully and then put away your strawman. Not 'people'. 'Americans'. Do you see what's wrong with it yet? For Joe to assert that votes against Harris would be based exclusively on race and gender is as absurd as asserting that votes against Trump would be based on the same.

Did it occur to you how your own racism and sexism shows in that statement? You've asserted that a particular race and gender are superior, on their own merits, irrespective of other character faults. Compare your statement to this example; "...disturbing number of Americans would choose a giggling, insincere buffoon over a white man as our President?" Are you able to see what's wrong with this?

So long as they are facts, it would seem irrelevant where they come from in this case. It's not as though 'the Post' would publish anything that embarrasses their narratives. Feel free to dispute that any of those quotes are accurate.

Nothing that hasn't already been covered by previous posts, unless it helps you if I add a "So what ?"

Allow me to spell it out then; I had 'corrected' it to read as "people who only read their own sources", as in the context of exclusively referencing typically biased media sources who decline to publish anything that disturbs a left (or right) world view narrative; Righties: "The lefties are only reading left-wing biased media." Lefties: "Not true! I read widely from sources A, B, C, D ...." Righties: "Really? The you've missed this factual event reported in source C" Lefties: <silence> To be fair, both sides do this, so neither can be sanctimonious about it. There are regular news events that would make lefty politics feel awkward to discuss that never make it into SC, it's rather surprising that the 'trolling' is actually so limited considering the abundance of available material. It's then also automatic that none of these events would be posted by the lefties themselves as they are likely never even reported in their focused media of choice.