I would like to dedicate the song, I AM WOMAN to Ketanji Brown Jackson
I would like to dedicate this song to her too ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQmmM_qwG4kIf Jackson can not define what is a woman, then clearly she does not know which bathroom to use.
That's what Woke does to people. it makes people stupid.So true KC; it must be comparable to that feeling you have as a child...when you're old enough to go to the restroom by yourself, but you are still learning how to read, hoping that there are profile pics on the door, instead of words.
The Supreme Court Justice nominee was unable to define what a woman is...when asked and yet, she is the best the left can come up with for the nomination?
It wasn't just that she couldn't answer the question, she looked very confused by it.
What the heck!?!I think she recognized that, ideologically, it was a trick question and she wasn't prepared with an answer.
In today's liberal atmosphere it would be blasphemy to offer the biological definition of a woman and to the non-liberals, anything but a biological definition would be blasphemy. She was damned if she did and damned when she didn't.
I think she realized that but wasn't prepared for it. That is not a good start for a Supreme Court justice.
GAIt's all BS, political posturing, and trying to have a got'cha moment to please the base. What was she suppose to offer? A biblical answer based on a rib from Adam? An atheist feminist view? A Muslim view? How about a Buddhist saying their body is not fit to attain enlightenment.
How about.....if I may quote 'Kindergarten Cop'; boys have a p*nis and girls have a v*gina?!? Men provide the sperm, women, the egg. Women provide a protective womb and after birth, milk flows from our breasts (AS IF) by design, so that we may feed the precious new life.
She could have gone on all day long without the mention of God or a Designer or a biblical answer.
But instead, we got someone appearing stupid and confused and she may soon be standing in judgement.It appears you would prefer a biological definition? That would have sufficed? Yet, what about a hermaphrodite? I appreciate your position and view, but again I say it was pure and simple BS, political posturing, and trying to have a got'cha moment to please a base.
C'mon . . . why even ask the question in the first place. Was the aim to discover how she would rule on transgender issue, which the Supreme Court itself is hesitant of even accepting cases. If that was her intent that would please the 'religious Evangelical / Fundamentalist' being one faction of a base.C'mon....why ask? Have you heard of Lia Thomas, the biological male putting biological females out of business; as in, out of the running, out of competing, out of a career, endorsements, etc....
Women (aka biological females) who have spent a lifetime working toward all of these things.
They don't seem to matter in the least.
All concern, fret, hand-wringing, is for Lia to hold onto Lia's new found glory!
Maybe we just go back to the days of women, barefoot and pregnant (with blobs or globs) in the kitchen. Leaving the 'sporting games' for the men folk (aka biological males?)
No, on second thought, that won't do, where would that leave poor Lia?
Somebody better start asking these questions and expect honest answers in return.Not going there since it turned toward gender.
Don't forget there are three sexes - female, male, and intersex. Interestingly intersex can carry both chromosomes while both genitalia. And, usually in those cases it is the parents that decide which sex to make the child, not God. But, they can't change the chromosomes.
So, again, in my view simple BS, political posturing and seeking a got'cha moment to please a base. Now don't get me wrong both sides do it. And, both sides take note of how the candidate answer and react.The trans athlete who won one event and finished fifth and then eighth in two others. Hardly putting females 'out of business' with a success rate of 33%. It's these types of omissions that we always see from the right. Outrage without the entirety of the picture which makes their arguments a bit flawed.
Valeant,
When Will competed as a man, he always did poorly. As a trans, Lia is doing quite well although her time/speed hasn’t changed since competing as a male.
It is not fair that a transgender compete in female sports. They have a significant and unfair advantage over women, even if they are lousy swimmers/competitors.
https://www.essentiallysports.com/us-sp … -division/Women's strength is in their legs, while men's strength is in their arms.
To MY understanding there are biological advantages produced by evolution and the fact that form (and abilities) follow function.As a female swimmer I have noticed that I rely on my legs and feet to propel me quickly. In other words, my focus when swimming fast are my legs. I bet a man's focus is his arms.
Wondering.
Definitely worth looking into. Men in gyms come to mind, the one’s with well developed arms and skinny legs. Lia, however, is 6’1” and well developed from head to toe. Lia’s length alone gives her an advantage over biological women.
I have always thought that the fastest male swimmer could beat the fastest female swimmer. Take the 1st place Olympian winners: male and female and have a "gender" competition. Would any of the women win?
Wondering!The female wouldn't stand a chance. Even Caitlyn Jenner believes that men competing with women is unfair.
Jenner goes on to speak of their larger cardiovascular system, larger respiratory system, their large hands. Hormone therapy does not change those things.
https://nypost.com/2022/03/23/caitlyn-j … ens-champ/
Yves,
That whole post is false. When competing as a man, his times were inside the national top-100. Not bad for an Ivy leaguer. And he finished second in the league Championship in three different events and was an All-American coming out of high school. That is not doing poorly, as you claim.
As a woman, her time in the 500-yard freestyle, the event she won at the NCAA's was 15 seconds slower than her personal best as a man and nine seconds slower than the NCAA women's record in the event.
Yes, she moved from inside the top-100 to inside the top-8. But in her three events, eleven different women were still better than her.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lia_Thoma … thin%20theWikipedia is not a reliable source for accurate information. However, I appreciate your taking the time to find something.
The point is that whether or not Will was a good or a bad swimmer, it is not fair that Lia, who still has the biology of a male, is allowed to compete with females who have smaller respiratory systems, etc. This is ruining fair competition and is devastating for biological women.
I found this article. They stated Will was a top-tier swimmer, but never a national champion. The article also speaks to the hardship experienced by biological women who are forced to compete against biological males and how transgender athletes disallow some competitors the chance to compete in the first place.
If you had a daughter who had worked hard to achieve her dreams, only to have them dashed by a biological male I dare say you would be outraged, or you should be.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/03/ … l-scandal/In the same breath you undermine Wiki, which reported personal best times that are easily double checked elsewhere, you post a link the National Review, a far-right rag.
And no, I would not be outraged. I would have gone in with the understanding of how the governing bodies came to their conclusions on who can participate and controlled what I could control, which was supporting my own child the maximize her potential. If that potential came up short, but she gave everything she had, I'd be proud.
You see, this is what those of us who have been part of NCAA sports for the past 28 years do. And just the latest example of some conservative making false assumptions of what others should feel or what they believe.No professor would ever allow a student to use Wikipedia. Nor should any working professional. That would be absurd.
I know, as a parent, how most parents feel.
The CRT debacle wherein parents got mad as hell when they found out about the racist garbage that was being dumped on their children should tell you something.
Perhaps you do not have a child or a child in sports. I don’t know. But, for any parent to acquiesce and comply with anything that harms there children is unacceptable in every way imaginable.Glad this isn't a college course, but nice false equivalency. If you don't trust the numbers, prove them wrong. Instead of arguing the actual facts, you're arguing sourcing without actually checking to see if it is accurate. That's a pretty lazy attempt to distract from the point that you posted a lie about Lia swimming the same times. Again, lazy in not double checking your own false claims.
Perhaps I have been dealing with parents with children in sports for the past 28 years and are more of an expert about the field than you assume. I've even slept over in the NCAA offices as part of official duties.
You being a parent and knowing how most feel is akin to you assuming I would be mad when that would be the furthest from the truth since I have two family members who are in the trans community. You already made some very incorrect assumptions about how others feel, and I think you're in the minority on this as well.I don’t think anyone who uses Wikipedia as a source of “legitimate” information has the right to call others lazy. But then, I’ve noticed that “lazy” is one of your favorite words, in general.
Rather ironic.
However, I can appreciate that you have trans family members who you are sympathetic towards.
Nevertheless, trans males (who are still biological males) should never be allowed to compete with biological women. It is unfair and just plain wrong. It will destroy women’s sports if it becomes commonplace.Again, solid distraction to attack rather than have to admit that you posted false information. Just say it. You posted false information, either because your sourcing sucks and you're gullible enough to believe bad sourcing or you're too lazy to check and see if what you post to the internet is actually accurate.
Both the NCAA and the Olympic Committee disagree with your stance on allowing transgendered individuals the ability to compete.
GA said, "the gender part of your question is one of individual perception of identity."
Does Will REALLY identify as a female?
or does he just want to win at all COSTS!
"say it was pure and simple BS, political posturing, and trying to have a got'cha moment to please a base."
Transgender issues are going to be reviewed by the SCOTUS in the future. The Transgender swimmer in the NCAA is just the beginning. It IS important to know how she defines a woman to see how she will view these cases. It was an important and valid question.To me that question has as much importance, significance, and meaning as asking someone to define a pizza.
Exactly!! Especially since she would not be using her own personal opinions or beliefs to help decide cases in this realm.
How about her legal opinions? How should the law determine what is a woman and what is a man?
The U.S. Constitution is pretty silent on definition of 'woman'
In the 18th century and throughout much of the 19th, "woman" was defined by the common law doctrine of coverture, by which a married woman had no legal existence, those who married were "one person."
If a future case is decided by the Court on the basis of originalism, there will be no such thing as "woman" to define.
The originalists will have a field day with this won't they? Quite possibly the day Amy Coney Barrett's been waiting for.
I find it so odd how so many have diverted their attention to a simple question that was asked by this committee. I mean we have a shi--- load of very serious problems going on, and of well, the media is doing its job well. Look here not there.
I don't understand your reply to my reply to Mike? Yes, there are many things going on this vast world isn't there.
Just venting... I have been following the thread, and am just astounded at how much is being made about that one question. It appeared to be a question fully meant to through her off guard, and she handled it. However, social media have beaten this dead horse to ad nauseam.
Apologies for jumping in, I realize my comment was snarky."My Bad" -- I have been wrapped up in Biden's visit to Europe.In general, she could not answer or handle many questions. It is apparent to me that she does not think for herself. Not being able to say what a woman is pretty much proves it. That's all.
A woman carries eggs within her and can conceive a life.This is not always true. One of my cousins was born without ovaries and therefore without eggs. The problem wasn’t discovered until her teens. Nobody had any doubt that she was a female while we were growing up. She may have received hormone treatment once the problem was discovered, but I wasn’t told about this. She married, and she and her husband adopted a child.
Yes, there are accidents in nature. However, in this particular case she did not have a penis and most likely had the ability to experience ... deep down inside ...
"you know, the thing!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQmmM_qwG4kSo, there are always people who are born with unique circumstances. There are people born without arm or legs. People born blind. That doesn't change the definition of having sight, arms or legs.
A woman born without unique circumstances has ovaries and eggs. They are then female.
I don't know why people try to complicate something so uncomplicated.What about intersex. They are born with both chromosomes, both genitalia, and have born children.
I don't think rare exceptions of anything contradict the norms of that thing. It seems this topic demands that they do.
Your intersex thought is one example. The fact that there are exceptions doesn't mean the norms are wrong. I think Mike's thought is a valid one.
GAOf course Mike's thought is a valid one. Who here in the OP forum does not have one? Mike earlier inquired as to a legal definition of a woman and hinted toward that the way I saw it, therefore that is the presumption I took with asking him about intersex and it is a valid inquiry in my mind.
You are using the term normative. There is apparent disagreement to that wouldn't you say just based on the OP forum? Does legal stuff rely on normative? I dun'no, but I hope not.The fact remains there are three sexes. If you were a child born as intersex and as an adult how would you want to be classified? How would that person be classified legally? Shouldn't that be addressed especially regard the OP.
Like I said earlier the question to define a woman is the same as asking to define a pizza.
There are to my knowledge 2 sexes to be considered, conservatively 27 genders, and 23 types of sexuality. Using math that means there are 1,242 possible definitions of a woman. And, that does not include things like;
A woman does the house keeping
A woman does the dishes
A woman takes care of the kids
A woman doesn't work
and on and on . . .
- now, in the case of transpeople who guide themselves to the detriment of others we need to establish boundaries. Give Lia her own lane. There are exceptions but they are not typical. Generally in this world, we deal with what is typical. Not rare, rare exceptions. And even then, we are to deal with it appropriately with the human kindness and love of our hearts. You can't legislate morality, kindness and sympathy.
There are many who would disagree with you. The issue is much larger but not worth going into.
Damn. Heads would have exploded if she said that. I offered a less specific possible answer, but your's fits right in as the `inferred' message of mine.
I bet the questioner's jaw would have dropped if the nominee offered your answer. (that's an easy mental picture) ;-)
GAThe fact that "woman" can no longer be defined, without controversy, makes my head explode!
Do Supreme Court justices vote and write opinions based on their personal feelings and personally held beliefs/ definitions?
Your statement misses the mark completely on how Supreme Court justices decide cases. Just curious, are you a follower/believer of Q?
I am a follower of Jesus Christ and a believer in God.
If you mean QAnon, absolutely not, they are about as nuts as people who have a problem defining woman!For instance, the state says gay-ness should be allowed to be exposed, explained and even urged in childhood by teachers and parents.
No.
God says it is an abomination.
Since gay people are citizens they have the same rights as everyone else in the country, but not the right to push their minority agenda or indoctrinate the youth according to their preferences.Their is absolutely no state that has "urged gayness" and for teachers to expose it. Please provide citations to backup such statements.
Galatians 3:23-29: “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.”I was a substitute teacher in the public school system and saw it with my own eyes. Once, I was supposed to read a book aloud which featured a gay couple. I started to read it, as per the lesson plans, but as soon as I discovered the story dealt with the struggles of a gay couple, "coming out," I closed the book saying,"Oh, this book." I could have gotten fired for it, but apparently none of the kids complained to their parents.
Books have been published for parents to explain terms and words to familiarize them with all things, gay. There are also instructions available for teachers to present the ways gay people have sex.I have been an educator for 25 years and have never across three states experienced anything like you're describing. Again please list books that are identified in state curriculum. From actual state board of education websites.
"There are also instructions available for teachers to present the ways gay people have sex.
This statement is completely incorrect and incendiary.I taught in California. Which might explain a thing or two.
For instance I was fired after touching the elf on the shelf and then explaining to second graders, it was just a doll.Again, Please provide a reference within a state education website that includes the type of book you are describing.
There is a difference in acknowleging that gay people exist verses an advocacy of a lifestyle. Some of this stuff can go too far, even for me.
Where did God say this, exactly? Did God write the Bible? And they have the same right to push their agenda as religious people.
Well, there are certainly a lot of your people giving this Qanon credibility.
After our national confusion on the `bathroom' issue, you should have been prepared for this type of "controversy."
The nominee's non-answer is not, (to me), a ding on her judicial credentials and qualifications. Those claims are only being made by partisan opponents.
But, I think the "question" is an important one because the social issues that prompted it need to be addressed. She could have stated those obvious answers, but she didn't, so take her out of the discussion, she is just the current lightning rod. Instead, talk about why the definition of a woman is so controversial.
That conversation could start with the evolution of the word from meaning simply the female of a species to meaning the identity of a being of a species. Then one can decide which definition they are talking about. I don't think there can be any argument or confusion about defining the female woman, so it is the identity of the "being" woman that is the problem, right? Looks easy to me, just say which one you want.
Caveat: I left out all the political weaponization stuff as the driver of this apparent "confusion" . . . because we all know it, right?
GAFirst, it's a judges duty to interpret laws as written by the legislature or constitutional provisions as approved by citizens. Do they not take an oath to support those laws or in other words, promise to uphold the laws regardless of their personal beliefs?
Their personal opinions or public sentiment about the merits or morality of certain laws simply are not factors in judicial decision making. They are charged to interpret the laws and to protect the constitutional rights of all citizens.
Personal opinions or public sentiment about the merits or morality of certain laws or "definitions" simply are not factors in judicial decision making.
Judges face potential ethics issues if they express their personal opinions. Everyone is entitled to a neutral judge who has no predisposition to the facts of a case or the law. How unfair it would be if the judge in your case previously stated that she could not agree with the type of suit you had filed, even though she had not yet given you an opportunity to explain the facts of your case?
The line of questioning pursued by Marsha Blackburn was irrelevant and unfair. Also, had anyone considered that judge Jackson held back any sort of comment due to the fact that this very issue may come before her as a justice on the Supreme Court?
Again, too many senators took the precious time to enact political theater rather than get into judge Jackson's record or depth of experience.No, not "First." At least as I see the relevance to my comment. The association with the nominee, or any judicial considerations was set aside to focus on the point that the definition of a "woman" is now a controversial question.
You must have tagged the wrong comment. ;-)
GAPhilosophy does matter.
As in belief in God and nature's God.
As in He who gives us our rights.
As in God gives us our rights.
Not the State.And what of those who do not believe in God? Our country is not based on religious doctrine, but on laws. If it were the other way around, priests would sit on the Supreme Court and not judges.
... and what do you say our laws are based on?
I was wondering if you knew since you stated this:
As in belief in God and nature's God.
As in He who gives us our rights.
As in God gives us our rights.
Not the State.steady
upright
impartial
these three words give a hint, I would say. As the rest of this paper:
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontlin … ilton.htmlLooked for the word God in that link and found none. Again, what Earthly reason do you have in bringing God into the topic of judicial selection and interpretation of the law.
For instance, look at this link:
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/ancient/twelve_tables.asp
Do you suppose the belief in God was much involved in the making of these laws?Not as much as I believe in the desire to have a civilized society, which you don't need religion to do.
From the link below:
"The Declaration contains several other references to a higher power. The introduction states that the “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God” entitle the American people to a separate and equal station among the powers of the earth. In the conclusion, Congress appeals to “the Supreme Judge of the world” for the rectitude of its intentions and professes its “firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence.” In each case, reference to a deity serves to validate the assertion of independence."
This article ends with:
The Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution do not therefore represent competing views of the existence of a Supreme Being or its role in American political life. They are two sides of the same coin. When read together, the Declaration and Constitution tell us that the people’s rights are divine in origin, sacred and unalienable, while governments are human in origin, answerable to the people and dependent entirely on their consent.
https://allthingsliberty.com/2016/02/wh … stitution/A declaration for why America opted for independence is much different than the crafting of laws to live under. Where as your own link states, the Constitution does not mention God or a higher power. Again, leaning towards the point that God has no role here.
Yes it does, as the article clearly defends.
People who do not believe in God are also protected by laws and the basis of The Constitution. What about those people?
Priests would not serve as justices because they are not elected by the people and the people we elect to represent us. The person who wins the election represents the majority's values. The majority, ideally, has the best interest of the whole at heart.
Notice I use the word, "heart".
Your God, in not necessarily my God....
So, whose God gets to rule the day?God is God. We do not invent this force.
But i don't see anyone so lofty or so arrogant as to attempt to define God and His designs for this society from one point of view
Deleted
God is God. Invisible. Not seen by any one or group. Why does God stay hidden? To ensure free-will.
I would surmise.... but we do deal with evidence of God in nature and we ourselves are made in His image. Jesus said, "Know ye not that ye are gods?" I do not know, however, what he meant. because we seem far from that.
"Judges face potential ethics issues if they express their personal opinions."
What a stupendously naïve statement. How lucky you are that no one cares to challenge your lazy talking points in any serious way. Why expend the energy. Mostly, we realize it is a waste of time.
Notwithstanding, Brown-Jackson has very good credentials. As all Leftist leaning judges, she will likely vote consistently to the Left (as a Justice).
Conservative Justices, however, vote one way or another, according to their interpretation of the original Constitution.
Long story short, Conservatives strive for accuracy of the Law, though they can be influenced by personal leanings or politics on either side.Oh my are you rude.
"What a stupendously naïve statement.
My opinion is shared and much further explained by Missouri Chief Justice Mary R. Russell. Explaining the role of the judiciary. I wasn't "naively" speaking off the top of my head. I gathered my "lazy talking points" From an actual judge...
https://www.courts.mo.gov/page.jsp?id=75553
Lol I'm lucky?! I'd say you're actually the lazy one not to challenge well documented, delineated and well thought out points. I don't understand what you're offering other than insult.Surely, you must realize on some small level, that life is not that simple. Not even close. But, I also realize that the average American mentality is one of truth and innocence, myself included, in many ways. However, that viewpoint does not reflect the reality of life in most countries and even this country where politics are involved. I am thinking currently of other nations who see the complexities of life clearly, so forgive me for the word “stupendously.”
+1
I almost wrote a response to her ridiculous post thinking only left leaning judges rule based on personal experiences.No you didn't. These are words you used:
'Conservative Justices, however, vote one way or another, according to their interpretation of the original Constitution.'
I would say that statement is also a bit off based on the blanket nature of the falsity it tries to assume.
Just as all right leaning judges vote for the Right, so what else is new?
Conservatives always say that their interpretation of the law is the correct one, a legend in their own minds, are they not? I beg to differ there.
How about a true and realistic answer that doesn't have to support or deny either ideology? It would have been a good platform for her to speak to the national confusion on this matter.
Maybe something like this:
"Yes, I can define what a woman is, but first tell me what you want defined; woman as a gender or woman as a sex? Do you want me to define a woman as a thinking being or a biological being?
Thinking she spotted a fatal opening of some elitist garbage, the questioner would probably leap in with something like; It's not a trick or complicated question, what is a woman?
A Supreme Court justice might come back with something like; "Biologically, by the structure of my chromosomes, I am a female, a woman. My mind agrees and identifies as a woman. However, only the biological part of that answer is supported by accepted fact, the gender part of your question is one of individual perception of identity. For that answer, you have to ask the individual."
But, we didn't hear anything like that from the nominee.
I also saw the question as a political "gotcha," but it should have been one she was prepared for.
GAMaybe just a female view. Many of us still possess the definition of what is a woman perhaps an individual, but many of us Women could have more than answered that question.
I think it was a cheap shot to put her on the spot. Because to answer that question as an individual one might need to ponder it. And study one's thoughts to give their very best view.
Could you answer what is a man in your view?Of course I could answer what my view what a man is. But, I am not in a tribunal by individuals seeking got' cha moments to please a base. Like I said what was the purpose for asking the question based on what the panel was there for? Did she want a Constitutional definition of what a woman is?
Please note a said it was a cheap shot... But was the Senator trap her into sharing just a smidge of her personal ideologies on the subject?
It was defiantly a bit of failed trickery in my view. I was watching, and I really wanted to see her give up a bit on the subject.
After watching these hearings, I find her very suitable for the job. After listening to her answers, I feel she will keep to the laws and the Constitution.Agreed Sharlee. And that's why it really doesn't matter what her personally held beliefs are on gender. She's bound, as a judge, by precedence and guidelines. Much of some senators questioning assumed she couldn't rise above her own beliefs or opinions when she came with a lengthy track record of showing she has done just that. And that's much, much more than at least the last two justices bring to the bench. She is arguably more qualified than many on the supreme court. She was treated quite unfairly by a few and their political theater. Really never being able to finish a sentence. Nothing but political show boating by Hawley, Graham, Cruz and Blackburn. The Cruz diagram of CRT for babies was a step way too far and Hawley was speaking the straight from the Q anon script.
All of us Have beliefs and opinions. Judges need to set those aside. Judge Jackson described her methodology for doing that repeatedly. I mean where was the concern for the beliefs potentially held by Amy Coney Barrett, who belongs to quite an extremist religious sect?
I do think she'll be confirmed and I think she will be a great addition to the bench noting the wide variety of experience she has that most Supreme Court justices do not.I am not convinced, something is off with her, but then that's the way of the world these days - off!
True, I suppose she would have offended, many a WOKE, by tackling such a question as, what is a woman!!!
The deer in the headlights look, I suppose, was by design, showing solidarity with the woke and the wicked.But what does it matter in the whole scheme of things, when the intent is to eliminate God from all aspects, all reminders of our lives? Replaced with Gov is our God mantra.
KBJ is unable {or unwilling} to define, "WOMAN", why is that?
From what I have read about her, I can easily define her, without hesitation....
She is modern day P.C., a modern day leftist, WOKE and should not be anywhere near the Supreme Court of the United States of America!!!You do realize that her personal opinions and I'm sure she has many as do all of the justices have absolutely nothing to do with the way they interpret the law and constitution as they do their judicial duty.
This was judge Jackson's response
"Senator, in my work as a judge, what I do is I address disputes,” Jackson said. “If there’s a dispute about a definition, people make arguments and I look at the law and I decide. So I’m not —” and then she was cut off, as she was continually throughout the hearing.
Judge Jackson instead explained she had a three-part judicial methodology, which includes eliminating “preconceived notions,” weighing the inputs in a case, and applying the law to it.
“I am acutely aware that as a judge in our system I have limited power and I am trying in every case to stay in my lane,” Jackson noted, stressing that she tried to operate from a “position of neutrality.”
Not sure what more you could ask for.Why is this so hard? I don't understand this game.
Are You advocating for judges to base their opinions or rulings solely their own personal convictions rather than The Constitution and the laws /precedents that follow? Personally held beliefs or opinions are actually not supposed to enter into it whatsoever.
How would you define the word woman?
Why can't it be defined without controversy?
Lets face it:
A woman could be a human who was born with a penis, but will NEVER enjoy vaginal sex ... but we give this human to right to pretend. This human will never be able to conceive a child from the depths of it's being, and yet, seemingly on the surface, could. It is an illusion.
We have given humans the right to maintain and exhibit a very deceptive illusion.
Another words, if this person wants to be a woman, we let it and we go with whatever it wishes to SEEM like. The likeness is an illusion. It is not a reality, yet we agree to the illusion even to the extent of inputting the proper pronouns.
Or a woman is someone who was born with no penis. A woman is a person who can enjoy climaxing from the depths of her being, who clearly understands the lyrics sung by Robert plant of Led Zeppelin, (in the song, "Whole Lotta Love,") "Woman, You n e e d , deep down
i n s i d e ... "
... uh you know the rest.
!Now, in the cases of hermaphrodites, which do exist ... do they have the capacity (as adults) of enjoying sex both ways? Surely they end up choosing one way or the other.
Once, I worked in a school for special needs children as a swim instructor in the indoor therapy pool. A child of about four or five, was brought before me. I will refer to her/him as her/him because she/he had the face and long hair of a girl but when they changed her/his diapers, lo and behold, a penis! This child was quite non-typical and low in mental comprehension and physical abilities. It had no personality, but kept laughing and choking on water as I held her/his heavy and clumsy body on her/his back.
Mistakes do occur in nature and its very difficult to answer the question, WHY?1. Eliminating preconceived notions of each case.
2. Weighing the inputs/facts in each case.
3. Applying the law to each case.
“I am acutely aware that as a judge in our system I have limited power
and I am trying in every case to stay in my lane,”
Jackson noted, stressing that she tried to operate from a “position of neutrality.”
So her goal is staying in the neutral lane.
What is her basis of proof of innocence?
What is her basis for justice?
The Constitution or the altered/broken Constitution?
The law or the altered/broken law?
Is neutrality good enough?No. A political philosophy is also needed and we need to know what her's is.
If it is only neutrality, there is room for the exercise of sneaky abuse. As in take the side of the criminal when I can get away with it for the sheer thrill of it.
... which is what criminals do. They never think they will get caught.
Q. Why are we on board with anyone being selected based on
C O L O R and G E N D E R?
This is where we are making a mistake, yet NO ONE says so.
The founding fathers are rolling over in their graves.
They know that in the future we might as well select a vice president or a supreme court judge or a president , etc. based on a multitude of qualities other than
roll ... the drums:
M E R I TShe is arguably, one of the MOST diversely qualified among the sitting justices. She is handily, more qualified than the last 2 confirmed.
If this were truly a MERIT based society, I would rest my case.
But in this society, even what passes for and is described as MERIT based is oftentimes tainted with bias in itself, depending upon the observer.
Why don't you right winger types "put a sock in it"? You have had your Kavenaugh and Barrett appointments fully representing the rabid right. President Biden and the Democrats will see this nominee through to ascension to the highest court of the land as she is more than qualified.
And, frankly, I don't care if you object. Of course, is it, in reality, her excess of melanin that has got everyones drawers in a bunch, hmmm?
Again, I say to the right: too bad, you lose!!!!Nobody here cares about anyone’s “excess melanin.” That is a racist statement and a constant refrain of yours, and it’s not okay.
You might consider letting go of your own prejudices.Amen! Hear, hear Yves!
My concern, CRED, is for women in general {if that makes me "rabid", then you best just stay clear of me}
This sudden impulse to cancel women out and turn us into some generic, obsolete, insignificant, transformable object.....so that anyone and his brother can participate, is madness!!!
You bet your bootie, I will fight for my rights as a woman, for my daughter's, my daughter's-in-law and my grand daughter's rights from now and on into their womanhood. As long as there is breath in my body!
Check yourself!!!!!!How does allowing others to participate cancel you out exactly? Seems like your argument is the one that wants to limit the eligibility. Is more people having girl children then also canceling you out as there are now women to compete with?
Look, AB, I have a hard time with all this transgender stuff, it may be one of the few areas where may liberal credentials may be questioned.
I fight for my rights as a black male and progressive oriented people do that for me best! So, I hail Judge Jackson's ascendency to the court, now if only a right winger on the court would resign or croak, one can only hope?Clarence perhaps? Have you ever been proud of his ascent?
That OK, your side has proven its biases to me more times than I can count. No point in debating this, Judge Jackson is going to be confirmed and all the high drama and theatre from the Republicans can not prevent it.
Credence,
Judge Brown-Jackson is expected to be as equipped as any other intelligent individual to answer all kinds of questions from Senators, whether the questions are good or bad. Though I dare say, her hearing was rather softball compared to the hearings of the last two Justices.
That being said, most Republicans are not worried about her confirmation. That idea is all in your head.All in his head, eh?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ketanji-br … l-opposes/
https://www.newsweek.com/reaction-rolls … on-1692105
https://www.texastribune.org/2022/03/24 … firmation/
https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politi … 63905.html
At this point, it seems hard to find many GOP Senators willing to vote for her after the false flag issues raised in her confirmation hearings.
Integrity must be discerned.
noun: integrity
1.
the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness.
"he is known to be a man of integrity"I also was spoken sternly to by human resources after it was revealed that I stopped reading aloud from a history book which explained the terrible circumstances of the slaves, stacked upon each other with rats knawing at their feet on the American ships traveling back from Africa. These were nine year olds! I stopped reading to them saying they could read the rest of the chapter with their parents. I was told that my career would be very short if I do not follow the lesson plans exactly.
PS I am not saying there are specific books/materials issued by the state, but the philosophy of the state trickles in and can even be defended by school administrators, teachers and staff.
" ...a deity serves to validate the assertion of independence."
from the above article."We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--"
Declaration of IndependenceEvery (adult) individual possesses God-given independence, as a right.
This right is the basis of our constitution and our laws.
Independence can be seen as freedom. This freedom is for the sake of some good, not some bad. The abuse of freedom is what our laws protect us from.
For instance, child pornography is an abuse of freedom and must be stopped for obvious reasons. Giving light sentences will not stop it.Not true during the basis of our laws. Indentured servitude and slavery were still in existence when our laws were created. Freedom was clearly being abused at the formation of our laws.
There was an exit strategy. We did not invent the practice. The Africans did. They marketed slaves.
The slave market had been instituted in Africa where human rights were NOT ACKNOWLEDGED
... at all, apparently.None of that offsets the fact that freedom was not the predominant guiding principle of our laws.
Much of our founding laws were adopted from English Law.... then what were the predominant guiding principles ... in YOUR mind?
I refer to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.
What do YOU refer to?You only refer to the Declaration of Independence. You have not referred to the actual Constitution once. There is a very large difference between the two.
these documents are two sides of the same coin.
In short, the Declaration of Independence states that the United States of America is a country in its own right, independent of England, and includes a list of grievances against the king of England, while the U.S. Constitution formed our federal government and set the laws of the land.
Much of what you base your assumption on are the grievances section against the King of England.what do you think of this explanation?
"Jefferson wrote a stunning statement of the colonists' right to rebel against the British government and establish their own based on the premise that all men are created equal and have the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Through the many revisions made by Jefferson, the committee, and then by Congress, Jefferson retained his prominent role in writing the defining document of the American Revolution and, indeed, of the United States. Jefferson was critical of changes to the document, particularly the removal of a long paragraph that attributed responsibility of the slave trade to British King George III."
https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/jeffdec.htmlAgain, you are referring solely to the Declaration of Independence, which Jefferson wrote. Which stated the reasons for our break from England.
Madison is the father of the Constitution and took many principles from English Law.
Q. What were the predominant guiding principles ... in YOUR mind?
- since you say, "... freedom was not the predominant guiding principle of our laws."
You mentioned grievances against King George III, but what gave us the right to independence?Again, what does declaring independence have to do with the judiciary and Supreme Court selections? Why am I even asking? You seem unable to process the distinct differences between the Declaration and our Constitution that was written years later.
and you seem to like to argue just to argue and I am totally finished. Good bye.
Good luck to that progressive judge.
if she has a hand in destroying what makes this country great, heaven help herGood bye to you as well. And nice fearmongering. The only people destroying things that make our country great, like the peaceful transfer of power that is a hallmark of democracy, is the right.
Get real here, it was the LEFT who were destroying things. The riots were caused by the left. Man, wake up. KNOW YOUR HISTORY.
Take your own advice and come back to reality. The riots were caused because a policeman murdered someone of color in the streets and people on both sides of the aisle used those protests as opportunism.
And if your claim is that January 6 was caused by the left, you're much further brainwashed than I ever thought.
I think not being able to define what is a woman is something I find ridiculous. If that inability to define a woman makes sense to you, this meme won't make any sense.
If you have an inability to define what is a woman, this will also not make sense to you.
KH Standing corrected:
A woman, except in rare instances, carries eggs within her and can conceive a life.
She does not have a penis.
(The natural anatomy of a female does not include the penis which is characteristic of the male.)Lia Thomas and Caitlin Jenner are example of males who have penises but wish they didn't. These two men just helped themselves to what they wished and imagined they could be.
These types of people must pretend to be what they are not.
I know it (pretending for an extended period of time) is exhausting because once I met a transvestite at a concert. I was at first stuck by his feminine beauty and absolute charm. However, by the end of the evening, he was so tired of his act that even his lipstick and make-up seemed to be dripping off of his face in exhaust. This vision of fantastic feminity became a vision of rounded shoulders, drooping hair, darkening facial shadow and gleaming adams-apple. He had become a strange looking mess.
But that was not the case at the beginning of the night. Oh no!I feel sorry for Will/Lia. What pressures he must have been under to be the fastest swimmer!
Society gave him a way to fulfill his ambitions and he took it.
Maybe, meanwhile, he is enjoying taking a break from being a male person with all the stresses he must have been under.
Maybe I am completely wrong in this type of musing, but I do wonder about his home life, type of parents he has, society he grew up in, and why he is competing against girls. I mean really!
(Sorry about the improper pronouns.)
Q. "If you were a child born as intersex, (born with options)
and
as an adult, how would you want to be classified?"
"How would that person be classified LEGALLY?"
______________________________________________________________
Reincarnation is the only way to understand the anomalies, if you ask me.
It stands to reason, they were women or men in their last lives. Right before being conceived, they decided to try being the opposite.
They lived their lives as men or women, but never really adjusted and fell back to the default mode of their previous incarnations.
So, because they changed their minds, once incarnated, they have to deal with the left over appendage or lack there-of. Oh well, they don't even care.
They should be required to sign a contract: "I have changed my gender and have given up all ties to my former gender ...
until further notice."....and they and you, are all wrong!
Stay in your own lane males/boys/men! If you can't hang with the boys (no pun intended) then find something that better suits your particular skillset, that way, it's not being done at the expense of women/girls/females.They and me are not synonymous here. While I've been presenting the inclusion side of the coin, I also see an issue with fairness. As some scientists state, you can have one or the other, but not both. I would prefer to have the fairness issue as well.
"...and they and you, are all wrong." Which arguments(s) are you speaking to specifically, AB?
The issue of transgender in sports is emotionally charged, for sure.
However, does your forum question concern Judge Jackson or does it pertain to current transgender issues? Or was your question meant to be tied in together with her philosophy?She seemed to be speaking to the NCAA and Olympic Committees.
Yes I was and they will realize it eventually, perhaps as soon as the next Summer Olympics.
I hear you. The thing is, a competition is a competition. It’s not a thing of, “Let’s do our best even though we know we will lose to a man every time.”
That would mean that all women are resigned. For a woman, resignation is an abomination.My cousins tell me to this day that I was the fastest runner, none of them, boy nor girl, could ever catch me or beat me in a race. I am as competitive as they come.
I know that these girls/women will give it their all, racing to win, each and every time! It is their nature.
Lia is a massive, muscular biological male - I guess the women can hope or pray for Lia to get a severe leg muscle cramp. :l
At this level, well beyond the kid's playground...they shouldn't be forced to accept competing against biological males. Biological males shouldn't be catered to, simply because they identify as women. Where does that leave women?
We will have to disagree on this one.Perhaps you misunderstood my comment. I am in agreement with you. Men who identify as women should not be allowed to compete with biological women because they still have the biology of men.
Yes, let them compete with the other penises. I mean swimmers with those fingers of love, (as Rush used to call them.)
I am actually wondering if the chorine he has been soaking up, being in chlorinated water for extended amounts of time, has actually affected his hormone levels! He felt better with added estrogen, apparently. I wonder what the effect of excess chorine, and the other elements in city water, is.
I came down with a case of endometrial cancer after years of life-guarding and teaching swimming. I loved being in the pool and could spend up to five hours at a time swimming and teaching at the Y where I worked. A hysterectomy solved the issue.
To this day I try to spend only forty minutes at a time in any chlorinated pool. (Well, I try.) This is because I heard that after forty minutes the amount of chlorine absorbed by the body is too high.
Badder cancer is highest in swimmers. Chlorine, a known carcinogen, is absorbed through the skin and goes straight into the bloodstream and then into the bladder, rather than being filtered out by the kidneys.
P.S. This all ties together. A future Supreme Court Justice cannot/will not, define nor discuss the word "woman".....all because {Lia} and others like Lia, had a rebirth.
She didn't discuss it because her personal opinions have nothing to do with judicial decisions. How many personally held views and beliefs did Justice Barrett reveal?.
"Judge Barrett said she would not opine on contentious public policy issues.
https://www.npr.org/2020/10/15/92363737 … n-hearingsI guess my point isn't getting though. I understand all that.
But, because we are even at this point in the U.S., where "woman" is considered "contentious", we have already gone to sh*t.
How's that? Clear enough?
Any day now, my daughter will be giving birth to twin girls, identified in utero.
Is it controversial for me to be sharing this wonderful news?
Should I just say babies?
If that's not controversial or contentious today, will it be tomorrow? Next month, next year?
Where does it end?
Where do we draw the line?You really think there's some controversy there? Twins are fairly common.
What is uncommon still is people changing genders. But the hope is that one day it does become common. Much like interracial relationships or being gay. It took some time for those to become ho-hum scenarios in the public psyche.
No not at all V, the fact that I am referring to them as twin GIRLS, is what will become the next controversy. Tell me that I am wrong?
Considering around half of all children will be girls, I think it will remain non-controversial.
Only if and when people come back the their senses.
"Only if and when people come back the their senses," and resist their efforts to woke us up.
Its one thing to acknowledge the rights of people who inwardly identify with the opposite gender they were born with. Its another thing to allow them to hurt others in so identifying.
This is where appropriate boundaries are needed.
What boundaries would be appropriate for the sake of justice in the case of this transgender swimmer?
Isolating the difficulty would be to discover who suffers the greatest injustice. The many females or the one male?
gen·der
noun: gender; plural noun: genders
From internet
"1. either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones. The term is also used more broadly to denote a range of identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female.
'a condition that affects people of both genders.'"
https://www.google.com/search?client=sa … p;oe=UTF-8
From book:
" 2. the fact or condition of being a male or a female human being esp. with regard with how this affects or determines person's self image, social status, goals, etc."
Webster's New world college Dictionary, fourth edition, 2007.To go beyond the dictionary definition:
What are the 7 other genders:
Agender:
An agender person does not have a gender.
The body of an agender person does not always correspond with their lack of gender identity. They are frequently unconcerned about their physical sex but may strive to appear androgynous. An androgyne is a person who identifies as neither man nor woman and/or physically appears as neither.
Cisgender:
Many people identify as cisgender; this means that you believe your biological sex, or the one you were assigned at birth, corresponds to your gender identity or how you perceive yourself. It is a common gender in society, but it should not be assumed.
Genderfluid:
A genderfluid person does not identify as male or female but rather as one or the other depending on the day. This refers to being flexible with one's gender expression, which is distinct from one's gender identity.
Gender expression refers to a person's physical characteristics, behaviors, and appearance that are associated with masculinity or femininity. Individuals who are genderfluid may express one gender through clothing or interests one day and then identify as another the next.
Genderqueer:
This person may identify as male or female, as between or beyond genders, or as a mix of the two. These people frequently question gender stereotypes and the male-female binary system. They frequently exhibit gender fluidity. Genderqueer is another term for someone open about their sexual orientation. They may or may not identify as heterosexual or same-gender-loving. This phrase is becoming more popular in society.
Intersex:
Intersex refers to a group of medical conditions in which a person is born with chromosomes, genitalia, and/or secondary sexual characteristics that contradict the traditional definition of a male or female body. Individuals are not always aware of their condition, but it is an identity that some choose to share.
Gender nonconforming:
Gender nonconforming refers to a person who either by nature or by choice does not conform to gender-based expectations of society. This identity goes along with a lot of the ones above. Think of all gender stereotypes out there such as pink for girls or guys having muscles. This person chooses to not conform to these or may identify as the opposite sex such as transgender individuals.
Transgender (trans man, trans woman, or trans person):
Transgender is an umbrella term for people whose gender identity differs from the one assigned to their physical sex. It includes transmen, transwomen, genderqueer people, crossdressers, and drag queens/kings, among others. In general, it refers to anyone whose behavior or identity deviates from gender stereotypes. Transgender people can be straight, gay, bisexual, or of any other sexual orientation. It is sometimes abbreviated as trans. It should never be assumed that everyone who dresses like a transgender person has issues with gender identity.You forgot about those that identify as collard greens or turnips, I think it's veg-gender? something like that.
That was obviously a joke, but this getting to our children while they're young and messing with their young minds, {often times by perverted people that should be nowhere near children} confusing them, feeding them b.s. and expecting them to like it, really angers me!
If I heard any person discussing half the stuff you've posted V, with one of my grandchildren, I'd work to have them arrested.
MSM and the liberal left are currently ripping a Bill in Florida, THE PARENTS RIGHTS EDUCATION BILL....you've probably heard it referred to as the, 'Don't Say Gay' Bill....there is NO SUCH THING, there is no such bill called, the Don't Say Gay Bill....BUT that is what is supposed to stick in your head, that's how propaganda works, that's how brainwashing works.
Do you know what is at the heart of THE PARENTS RIGHTS EDUCATION BILL?
"No school employees or third parties shall give classroom instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity in Kindergarten through third grade."
There you have it folks, that's it, that's the gist of it.
But, this is what MSM and the liberal left do, they lie and they repeat the lie, until enough people begin to believe it.
I, personally, believe that it is the Parents job to discuss sex with their children and that children should be left alone to simply LEARN their ABC's, math, how to write, how to spell {without utilizing spellcheck} proper English, etc. in the classroom.
If by high school, Parents CONSENT to Sex Ed, for their children, then offer classes at that time, not in Elementary or Middle school.I don't see an issue with the general thought of keeping sexual education out of schools so early. We can be in agreement on that.
But the way the law is written has some fundamental flaws constitutionally that people have concerns with.
Sorry for the liberal-leaning link, but covers some of the constitutionalist issues and examples:
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/f … cna1293466P.S. I am not going to waste any more time on the link shared, I opened it and it starts out calling it the 'Don't Say Gay' Bill.
It begins with a lie, why would I read any further?To get to the constitutional issues further down. That's why I prepped it in saying that was the important part to look for.
Plus, they did the same thing you did in noting that 'it's been dubbed the "Don't Say Gay" bill by critics.' If I had stopped after you noted the same thing, we wouldn't be having a civilized discussion.
We can circle back to liberal media using the same words you did, but how it set you off another time. :>Once again, my point has been dismissed.
You expect me to gather valuable information from an article which begins with a lie?Ok, I guess we are circling back quicker.
What the article I posted said in their opening:
'On Monday, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed into law the Parental Rights in Education bill. Dubbed the “Don’t Say Gay” bill by its critics, HB 1557 contains a crucial provision that may seem harmless on its face — but it undermines the fundamental free speech and due process rights of Florida teachers, students and families.'
What you said in your post that got us talking about the Florida Bill:
'MSM and the liberal left are currently ripping a Bill in Florida, THE PARENTS RIGHTS EDUCATION BILL....you've probably heard it referred to as the, 'Don't Say Gay' Bill....;
Both you and them make the same claim, that critics of the bill call it something different than it's actual name. Weird how it's ok when you do it, but got really triggered when the liberal media did the exact same thing. Hopefully we can get back to the constitutional issues now.When you click on the link, the following words are the very first words seen:
"Florida's anti-gay bill is wrong. It's also unconstitutional.
The extraordinary vagueness of what critics call the "Don't Say Gay" bill could have a chilling effect on the free speech rights of LGBTQ teachers and students."
It takes a while for the writer to get around to what the bill is actually called and never gets around to what it is actually about.
If you plan to school me, get your facts straight.I'm pretty sure my facts are right. Your issue was with them calling it the 'Don't Say Gay' bill. Even with what you quoted, they simply note that critics call it that. The same exact thing you did when bringing the bill up.
Look, if all you want to do is show how you get triggered by liberal media links, congrats, mission accomplished. I was more than will to discuss ideas with you. But you devolved really quickly there into attack mode and distractions, showing once again how hard it is to have a civil discussion at this site.I understand. I am not playing this little game with you. Label it "attack mode" if you wish. Later.
Have you ever seen sex education for K-3 included in a Public school district curriculum? The authority to determine the curriculum rests with the district, not individual teachers. Teachers, as employees, must carry out that curriculum and abide by any restrictions, and they do not have a right to use whatever teaching materials and methodologies they choose if this is contrary to school policy. Where has this policy in Florida been utilized? And also, which of the top providers in textbooks that are adopted for use in school districts provides the material that a K through 3 teacher would utilize? I'm not seeing Houghton Mifflin, McGraw-Hill or Pearson showing this in their collections.
I don't really understand the purpose of this bill. It seems to be "solving" a non-existent issue- so why create a solution to non existent problem?
w h y a g a i n?I have more urgent concerns, such as why is it repeatedly being referred to as the Don't Say Gay bill?
Why on earth would the Walt Disney World Company be opposed to the language of the bill?The Walt Disney company said,
We are dedicated to standing up for the rights and safety of LGBTQ+ members of the Disney family, as well as the LGBTQ+ community in Florida and across the country.”
They are taking a stance that they believe in as a company.
As to why it has been dubbed the don't say gay bill? Although Bills almost always seem to get nicknames, it has been dubbed by critics the "Don't Say Gay" bill because it seeks to ban discussion of gender and sexuality issues with younger students. Which I'm fairly certain is not happening in any systematic way in any public school district across this country. This Florida bill will put teachers in some potentially difficult situations. The bill will not prevent children bringing the topic into the classroom. It won't prevent them from drawing pictures of their two moms or two dads. It won't prevent them from adding their home dynamics during discussion periods. What it will make way for is parents suing schools because their child brings home language or ideas of classmates that will never be muzzled. Florida teachers will be facing a lot of tricky situations.
this bill is not only a waste of taxpayer dollars, it’s insulting to teachers because it’s addressing topics absent from state curriculum. This is pure political pandering on the governor's part." it has been dubbed by critics the "Don't Say Gay" bill because it seeks to ban discussion of gender and sexuality issues with younger students. Which I'm fairly certain is not happening in any systematic way in any public school district across this country. "
why are you" fairly certain." I am sure it is!
Sadly, we seem to have a problem of overly-yakkedy teachers and we all disagree as to what to do about THEM!
Common decency would leave those discussions concerning modern day gender issues OUT OF THE CLASS ROOM (classrooms, K-12 )
... but they AREN'T!
W H Y N O T ? ? ? ? ? ?why are you" fairly certain." I am sure it is!
If you are sure that it is, Please provide the curriculum resource adopted by any public school district in this country. I can tell you with exact certainty that not one of the top publishers (Houghton Mifflin, McGraw-Hill, Pearson) utilized by the largest majority of districts has no such curriculum set. You will not find sex education/gender education for K-3 anywhere.
Again, you're focusing on a non-existent curriculum and on teachers but you're leaving out the largest part of the equation... Children who will come to the classroom with their own experiences, questions, issues and as an educator of 25 years, I can testify that they have never and will never keep their thoughts, ideas and home dynamics to themselves.... and this overstepping is what it so disturbing.
WHY ARE THEY????Is it fair to children in various phases of child-development?
N O !
You are baselessly grouping an entire profession as having some sort of ulterior motive to teach 5-year-olds about gender identity. Teachers plan their lessons directly from the approved curriculum of their district.
If anyone wants to do something that's actually useful for the children being educated in our public schools, advocate for cutting edge curriculum, technology and tools that will give our children the ability to compete with the rest of the world. Lower our classroom sizes, fix our crumbling buildings and bring in innovative programs with proven results.
Stop wasting taxpayer money trying to solve nonexistent issues like this and CRT that do not exist in our public schools.
If anything makes our country look ridiculous it is these culture wars especially in education. Do you think these issues exist in the world's most highly educated countries? No. Because they're focusing on actual education. That seems to be lost here. You know math and science?
Education defines and determines both an individuals' and a nation's future success."You are baselessly grouping an entire profession as having some sort of ulterior motive to teach 5-year-olds about gender identity. Teachers plan their lessons directly from the approved curriculum of their district."
There is evidence this overstepping of the curriculum is happening these days. Teachers have a lot of leeway and, traditionally, we have trusted them to respect the inner lives of children and facilitate their positive psychological development.
When it is evident that we cannot trust them we have to make Bills.
Apparently.
what else?Come on Faye, there are all types of videos circulating of woke Teachers, bragging about participating in gender studies and sexual orientation in their classrooms, with their very young students.
I can share them!?
Sadly, there's also stories of children who have become so gender confused by their teachers...not their parents, that they have committed suicide.
There's stories of young children being groomed {in their school} to switch genders, it is happening without the consent of Parents! Let's not pretend it isn't happening.Just came across this, quite by accident. Profound wisdom!!
https://www.facebook.com/22795396721651 … /?sfnsn=moThat's absolutely ridiculous to generalize about teachers in that manner. Why on earth would teachers want to "groom" young children to switch genders? Is someone behind the scenes organizing teachers to do this or is there just something inherent in the nature of a teacher to want to do this? Who is orchestrating this great gender switch and why?
Videos on the internet aren't really credible sources as to the curriculum choices individual public school districts have made. Again, Please point me to the website of any district in this country that has enacted such a curriculum. Start with the school district you live within, go to their website and browse their curriculum for each grade and the textbooks and materials that are used. Let me know which book they are using to teach kindergarteners about gender identification.I never said all Teachers participate in it; I know many amazing teachers. My daughter-in-law is a Teacher. But, sadly and unfortunately, many activists with agendas have classrooms and young minds to manipulate. It is happening, whether you are willing to admit it or not.
Mr and Mrs. Do-Gooders sometimes unknowingly pave the way to hell.
There are stories and incidents regarding this issue all over the internet.
Who could doubt the phenomena?
In Ukraine, Transgender women aren't being treated as women. They're being told to stay and fight for their country. I completely agree. When the enemy is in your country, the game associated with saying you are a woman go right out the window.
"Ukraine is refusing to let men aged 18-59 flee the country, demanding that they stay and fight the invading Russian forces.
Transgender in Ukraine are now reporting they are being banned from leaving the country, with officials demanding they stay and fight like the men their documents and chromosomes say they are."
https://newsrescue.com/stay-and-fight-l … -outraged/Transgender in Ukraine are now reporting they are being banned from leaving the country, with officials demanding they stay and fight like the men their documents and chromosomes say they are."
what else?
Related Discussions
- 26
Justice Amy Coney Barret's Confirmation
by ga anderson 3 years ago
If you, (can), put aside all the political charges and machinations against her nomination, what is your opinion of the qualifications of our newest Supreme Court Justice? I think she is exactly the kind of person we should want to sit on our Supreme Court.To be clear, I strongly support her...
- 52
Ketanji Brown Jackson Made 'Mathematically Absurd Claim
by Sharlee 9 months ago
Ketanji Brown Jackson made 'mathematically absurd claim' on Black newborns: WSJ op-edSupreme Court Justice argued affirmative action 'saves lives'"Even Supreme Court justices are known to be gullible. In a dissent from last week’s ruling against racial preferences in college admissions,...
- 148
Is Biden the real danger to Democracy?
by Readmikenow 13 days ago
To suppress Americans who disagree with biden he is currently fighting in the Supreme Court to continue having the power to violate Americans' 1st Amendment rights & censor them online. Supreme Court frowns at limiting biden administration’s contact with tech companiesThe high court...
- 94
Progressives: Don't be fooled, the GOP wants a national abortion ban
by Credence2 106 minutes ago
Republicans always want to take a mile when they are given an inch. Conservatives cheer with the overturn of Roe vs Wade, saying it was a victory for States Rights. So the Red States double down creating a Handsmaiden's Tale environment for its residents. But that has not been enough. Trump remains...
- 27
Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg Condemns U.S. Constitution
by Reality Bytes 12 years ago
Appearing on Egyptian television before concluding a four-day trip in Egypt, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg extolled the virtues of the U.S. Constitution but urged Egyptians to look to other countries' newer constitutions for guidance as they craft their own in the coming months.The U.S. Embassy in...
- 427
The Disatorous Ramifications of the Deadly Reversal of Roe vs Wade.
by Scott Belford 30 hours ago
The Conservatives on the Supreme Court stuck a knife in the back of all Americans with their decision to ignore stare decises and overturn Roe. Besides stripping women of a fundemental right to control their own body (now, in some states, a 13-year old rape victim with be FORCED to carry the...