(04-07-2022 10:56 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(04-07-2022 10:51 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-07-2022 08:06 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(04-07-2022 07:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-07-2022 07:38 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  People commonly cannot state the intuitively obvious as a precise definition, because it has never been necessary for them to verbalize it.

I think it's very reasonable for this question to be a lot harder to answer than it seems on the surface - just look at how quickly Hawley was tripped up.

Yet for some reason, it was considered a major issue by Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee and conservative posters here that Jackson responded that she wasn't a biologist so she couldn't offer a definition. I wish your reasonable response would have been made to those here who felt Jackson was unreasonable when she didn't offer a definition.

I will note that, I don't think this question is as intuitive as you and others might think. I think it's actually one that seems rather simple on the surface but is a lot more complex. I mean, look at Cruz reciting the formal definition - an adult female human. That really doesn't help at all in how to identify someone as a man or woman with respect to the law.

As in any job interview, the way the question is fielded is as important as the answer given. She simply punted, which is not encouraging given that cases concerning this subject will very likely make their way to the Supreme Court.

It's only as complex as those who wish to obfuscate the obvious want to make it.

And it’s only as simple as those who wish to remove all nuance and reality to push an agenda.

Just look at the difficulty or unwillingness to answer that many Republican legislators exhibited when the script was turned. The question was clearly meant to be a gotcha, not an attempt to understand what Jackson’s understanding of the issue was.

But since Red Team asked it and Blue Team responded, look at where all or the Red Team falls.

What agenda is Red Team pushing?

I repeat, people commonly cannot state the intuitively obvious as a precise definition, because it has never been necessary for them to verbalize it.

The agenda being pushed is to completely revise the common understanding of male and female for the last 400,000 years.

Yes, some people aren't prepared to debate something as obvious as 2+2=4.

What agenda is red team pushing? It’s obvious to anyone with ears and eyes.

They’re trying to stoke another culture war predicated on an imaginary idea that this answer is always so easy and obvious to answer that blanket legislation is needed. As soon as someone pipes up and says, maybe it’s a bit more complicated, they’re slandered with the statements like yours - that this is akin to 2+2 = 4.

If the answer was as straight forward as 2+2 = 4, then you wouldn’t see Republican Senators fumbling over their words.

The issue at hand is not as prevalent and widespread as Red Team makes it out to be, but it sure froths up the base (see here). I wish more Republicans managed this issue as the Utah governor has. I wonder if anyone here has read about his actions.