What is the definition of a "Woman"?

[Spiderman]

The new supreme court nomination of Biden Ketanji Brown Jackson can not answer this question.

If a person identifies as the opposite gender, and they follow the golden rule better than me, and follow their conscience, who am I to tell them they shouldn't do that?

I have to get the timber out of my eye before I can remove a speck of wood in some one else's eye.

My personal opinion is, on a birth certificate, the gender the person is assigned , based on certain organs they have, decides if they are female, therefore a woman.

If a person on their birth certificate is identified as female, because they lack male organs, and have organs that are intrinsically female in their essence and nature, that person is a woman.

To me that seems obvious, but that is my opinion. If it doesn't seem obvious to others, I should respect their view on it, because I have views a lot of people don't share.

If I want people to respect my beliefs that I cherish (despite disagreeing), then it is right that I should respect theirs.

 

[David Young]

Post #89: A concrete, named case I might not be able to give but I can show you where such a person has been cited:
Intersex: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia

An article where the cascade model might be a better definer of 'female' than genetics is the interesting case here:
Report of Fertility in a Woman with a Predominantly 46,XY Karyotype in a Family with Multiple Disorders of Sexual Development
Before any knowledge of genetics came to light, I believe this person would have been regarded as female in any case. It's the XY nature which is what makes it more significant, not so much in the definition of sex but more in finding out how chromosomes actually affect what kind of people we become.

 

[F1fan]

This whole thing is all about people wanting to be something they are not.

And you totally ignore what these individuals feel and want because you want them defined by your narrow definition. Why are you opposed to their liberty?

 

[ppp]

The strictly biological definition you quoted doesn't account for transgendered people, since it equates sex with gender. Such a definition is both scientifically incorrect and too simplistic in the context of state law that is supposed to encompass different demographics among the population.

Not only is it scientifically incorrect to equate gender and sex, it is also practically incorrect. We have spent the last 200 years(at least) learning that our traditions around sex and gender are harmful and often stupid. How is this debate any different from the debate over gay sex or whether people with uteruses can wear pants, vote and own property or have a career? It looks the same to me.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Right, the question was vague and could have numerous answers. It's like asking someone how much a car costs. How do you answer? Toyota or Ferrari?

It seems fairly clear that it was a trick question intended to solicit controversy and appeal to a specific audience.

I would ask a SCOTUS nominee about things relating to, say, her interpretation of the First or Second Amendment, not about her personal definition of a woman.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

And you totally ignore what these individuals feel and want because you want them defined by your narrow definition. Why are you opposed to their liberty?

A goldfish may feel like or want to be a shark but it ain't going to happen. Has nothing to do with my view. Has to do with facts.

 

[David Young]

Having a personal definition of a woman is like having a personal definition of an oscilloscope.

 

[Debater Slayer]

The difference between a man and a woman, in the wise words of Keith and Kevin Hodge:

“You either got **** and balls or sugarwalls”

There you go... You have an answer! She did not!

No answer is better than an incorrect and unscientific answer given by YouTube comedians/ideologues.

When it comes to difficult and complex questions, there are two possible approaches: to realize that we have no one-size-fits-all answer or to assume that we already have the answer figured out even if it's oversimplified and inaccurate.

I think it's a good sign that the SCOTUS nominee adopted the former approach in this case.

 

[F1fan]

A goldfish may feel like or want to be a shark but it ain't going to happen. Has nothing to do with my view. Has to do with facts.

The fact is you are ignoring biological facts, and looking at this issue from a superficial and obsolete view. You would be correct in 1959, but it's 2022.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Having a personal definition of a woman is like having a personal definition of an oscilloscope.

Which is why asking for one is pointless. If someone wants an evidence-based, scientific answer to such a question, they should ask scientists, not a judge.

If they just want a traditional answer that aligns with their worldview, they might as well give their own personal definition, since any purely subjective answer to that question won't have any more rigorous basis than another purely subjective answer.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Good.

What's good about being confused?
It's really not hard to understand that men and women have genetic differences.

 

[Wildswanderer]

We're more sophisticated here in Ameristan.
Tis not as simple as checking someone's drawers for shapes.

I don't think sophisticated is the right word... Maybe depraved.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I don't think sophisticated is the right word... Maybe depraved.

What's "depraved" here, exactly?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

There may be threads but try saying something they do not agree with and they will shoot you down. No such thing as free speech.

So it's not so much it's disallowed, it's more that people disagree with what you believe is the truth so debate it?

 

[Wildswanderer]

When it comes to difficult and complex questions, there are two possible approaches: to realize that we have no one-size-fits-all answer or to assume that we already have the answer figured out even if it's oversimplified and inaccurate.

Gooblygook.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Gooblygook.

Feel free to address what I said if you have an argument against it, then. One-word answers don't constitute such.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Feel free to address what I said if you have an argument against it, then. One-word answers don't constitute such.

It's pretty hard to address gooblygook, because it's a whole bunch of words strung together with no meaning.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

The fact is you are ignoring biological facts, and looking at this issue from a superficial and obsolete view. You would be correct in 1959, but it's 2022.

I did not see a goldfish become a shark 50 years ago and I still do not see one today. You are ignoring science.

 

[Debater Slayer]

It's pretty hard to address gooblygook, because it's a whole bunch of words strung together with no meaning.

Then you probably need to either read the post again or ask what I meant there.

The point, which I believe was clear enough in that post, is that some questions within science are complicated and far from easy to answer, and we can either acknowledge this or (mistakenly) assume that we have the answers to them all figured out.

The issue of how to define "man" and "woman" is an example of such a complicated question, since 1) current scientific consensus is that gender and sex are different things, and 2) there's no clear-cut, rigorous evidence as to which traits exactly define each gender. We can either acknowledge this complexity or rush to an oversimplified answer in the vein of "a woman is someone with a vagina" while ignoring that gender is different from biological sex.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I did not see a goldfish become a shark 50 years ago and I still do not see one today. You are ignoring science.

Your example is different from variations in gender identity among humans, which are indeed confirmed to exist by science:

Science Says: Sex and gender aren't the same