LOL - only you would have issues with her response.
1. There was no reason to have that question ASKED.
2. Why wasn't there a request to define 'man'?
3. What IS the definition of 'woman'?
2SLGBTQQIA+
- Thread starter B00Mer
- Start date
LOL - only you would have issues with her response.
1. There was no reason to have that question ASKED.
2. Why wasn't there a request to define 'man'?
3. What IS the definition of 'woman'?
Lots of reasons.. as a judge she has let several pedophiles off.. maybe she doesn’t get a lot of stuff about women. Like you don’t
No, there wasn't.
Where's your outrage that she wasn't asked what a man was defined as?
As for the pedophile thing, more outrage from you without knowing all the backstory/facts of it.
You want pedophiles to serve more time (hell, I'd rather see any convicted pedo have more than 'served time' happen to them) then work to change the system the judges have to work within.
There’s a lot of adult males that I wouldn’t call men…some are just larger children…but I think I’m branching off on a totally different tangent.
A 4 year old can tell you the difference between male or female..
A female, a person able to give birth to a child.
So the women who can't give birth to children aren't women?
Got'cha.
(see, not so simple)
BTW, what is a man?
Not as simple an answer as what it might as first appear to be.
“An adult, male, who tries to protect those around him, while not actively harming others, while improving his little slice of the world for himself and those in his circle, whatever that may be, to the benefit of all.”
Not a biological definition, but it’s my own.
And you have precisely lain your finger upon the problem. "Man" and "woman," like most short words (and some long ones) are multifunctional, with context-dependent meanings. Sen. Blackburn was trying to trap Judge Jackson into a context-free meaning, so that she could declare Judge Jackson a liar whenever, in the past or future, she used a different meaning, connotation, or context.
It was an adolescent trick, consistent with what I have seen of Sen. Blackburn's intelligence and maturity. Small wonder it went over so big on this board.
The entire hearing process is a dog-and-pony show, getting the senators on the committee their TV time, which they value higher than the lives of their children. It is neither required by the Constitution nor mandated anywhere else. For the majority of the history of the U.S., they did not occur. The first was 1916, Justice Louis Brandeis. And the purpose was exactly the same as the purpose in Judge Jackson's hearing, for the committee members to show off their Party orthodoxy in veiled terms (Brandeis was the first Jewish justice).
Last edited:
It's not bad, as far as it goes, though it still doesn't really define what a man is and it could raise the question what happens when a 'male' isn't the one to fulfill the example, but say, a 'female'.
IMO that's why it's such a slippery slope; the definition of man/woman has changed, or it's no longer as 'narrow' as it once was because that narrow definition doesn't fit anymore. It actually never did, just society (predominantly European/Christian/Religious society) forced the definition to be that one narrow view.
If a 'woman' is just a 'female that gives birth', then what about someone like me, who hasn't given birth? Am I no longer a woman? What about a female that can't give birth? Then there's the whole "A woman is an XX person", that means that a) to prove who is a woman you need a DNA/genetic test and b) what if the woman shows XXY, XYX or other variant?
This is why the judge couldn't answer what a woman is, nor why you can't answer what a man is, either.