(03-24-2022 09:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-24-2022 06:44 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(03-24-2022 08:55 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-23-2022 08:24 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I didn't come here to defend her. I started on this to call out YOUR absurd statement: "But she is not saying why."

IS it absurd? I gave some very specific and legitimate responses, as did you I might add... things she could have or should have said... but I heard none of that (though I'm not following it THAT closely... I'd still like a few questions answered.... and I think the 'how do you LEGALLY define a woman today, as a prospective member of the group of people who decide such things as it relates to discrimination and other 'equality' issues." is a great start.... and that 'I'm not a biologist' is WORSE than just non-responsive.... it's political hackery... from someone who isn't supposed to be political (not that they don't have a side, but that they don't engage in political double speak)

My answer If I were trying to avoid the question would be similar to what I said... that the legal definition seems to have changed over the years and we'd have to address these new perceptions... and the specifics would matter. The point of women's athletics is to give respect and a platform to a subset of the population... and we need to find some way to do this 'fairly' to everyone involved... not defeating the purpose of women's athletics. When you throw academic scholarship in there, it becomes even more of an issue. Issues like Title IX and numerous other laws and mandates can create an extremely complicated situation, where it isn't as simple as one or even 100 people, but instead impacts potentially tens and even hundreds of millions of people. I don't know how I'd decide as there isn't a case before me, but I am sympathetic to the issues of those who don't feel comfortable in their skin, while at the same time aware that women have been discriminated against for centuries as well.

That's off the top of my head... I'd expect her, especially with preparation to do even better. Instead it seems she prepared to make political theatre of the question.

If I'm wrong and she said otherwise, I'll accept that she did better than I've heard... but the only place I've heard ANYTHING is from here... and from the two posters on 'her side'.

You may be mixing up comments here (we’ve all done it). My comment was in reference to sentencing criminals for child porn. I have yet to participate in the discussion on gender.

Yep - that was me.

The entire premise was political hackery. Maybe it’s because I work in a profession where, if you’re on the record and being asked something technical that is outside of your area of expertise, you don’t over extend your reach. I don’t see a single issue with the answer. It wasn’t a focused question or legal in nature.

The whole confirmation process is political hackery, every time, regardless of the party of the nominator. Has been since Bork, at the least.