Why can't democrats define a woman?

Attached: 1578963025206.png (236x214, 74.09K)

I don't think she has, which begs the question why is it taking so long?
I swear Republicans got their nominees sworn in the same week they were approved

Why are you so concerned about other people's junk?

Dems decided to play nice.

well my mistake for speculating then, I don't play the partisan shit I just thought that'd be a hell of a coincidence.

They swore her in to replace Breyer, which is still a sitting Justice. I can't wait til Trump nominates like 39 Justices to replace all the Justices that are still sitting and have no plans of retirement or dying.

Those idiots always do, knowing full well Republicans jump through every loophole to get their way.

Because the guy she is replacing hasn't retired yet.

What has that ever been a thing?

Attached: 1492743665760.jpg (567x567, 75.71K)

wait are you serious? how is this allowed?

Why have conservatives never been able to argue against this pasta I made and posted in multiple threads?

Sex is a collection of various attributes determined moments after conception. Your chromosomes, sex organs, hormones, etc are seen together and you're placed into a sex based on what they are. But you can be born with female sex organs and male chromosomes and vice versa, without knowing at all, until you get a blood test. Because these various attributes that contribute to sex are only largely correlated, not intrinsically tied to each other. This is why biologists say sex is bimodal, not binary.

Gender is also correlated to sex, but not intrinsically linked. Gender is a collection of social attributes, like sex is physical/genetic attributes. Gender includes what clothes you wear, what professions you do, how you style your hair, your intonation when you speak, etc. In the past, certain collections of clothes, professions, hairstyles, intonations, etc were seen as female, and certain were seen as male. Therefore, you could say a woman is anyone who dresses like this, just like you could say, a female is anyone with a vagina. You can't do that anymore because the gender roles for both men and women have expanded so much that they include all social roles for all humans. Men can present masculine (chads) or feminine (femboys) and same with women. Therefore, since there is no social distinction between man attributes and woman attributes, all that differentiates them is identification.

We can't say a woman is anyone who wears a skirt, just like we can't say a female is anyone with a vagina. Because women can wear pants and people with vaginas can have xy chromosomes. All that seperates the genders now is identification.

Therefore, a man is anyone who identifies as one, and a woman is anyone who identifies as one.

to be cont.

how is this allowed?
I don't know. Look it up.
blogs.loc.gov/law/2022/02/president-biden-nominates-judge-ketanji-brown-jackson-to-the-united-states-supreme-court/

k I will

cont.

Being a trans woman, doesn't change your sex, just your gender... which is just your social role... similar to a profession. You can change certain attributes of your sex, like sex organs, to align more with the sex that's more correlated with your gender, but you can't change your whole sex, you can't change chromosomes. No one says trans people are changing chromosomes, no one says trans people are changing sex. They are fully in line with scientific consensus and conservatives who say trans people reject biology don't know what they're talking about.

He's being facetious, user. That said Trump would 100% create a justice queue so a liberal justice would never see that bench

This is a hell of lot of typing just to say "I don't get it".

I meant the nominating of someone for a justice that hasn't retired or died yet....
>

Attached: 1651892017486.gif (412x229, 1.76M)

can be

so you think a little pussy in a prison who gets fucked is a "man"? a man is a moment you grow with and earn, being a man is not handed out to everyone. 2 types of people in the world. those who mature and those who just get older.

>Why have conservatives never been able to argue against this pasta I made and posted in multiple threads?
Question remains unanswered. Don't post if you have nothing to say.

Yeah, I posted a link up there. You can easily find more. I'm not going to pretend that I know the ins and outs of the system enough to say it's retarded or not.

Because they aren't biologists, duh.

Attached: 1646427127776.png (680x680, 802.41K)

>Don't post if you have nothing to say.
Sage advise, user. Are you drunk?

Attached: shazam.jpg (800x450, 416.1K)

No

>Why have conservatives never been able to argue against this pasta
Because it's delusional and nothing to argue against. Gender and sex are the same, one is just derivative of the other. Just because you make up definitions doesn't make it so.

i dont no

Attached: 1651513005730.jpg (936x960, 65.65K)

>Gender and sex are the same
Why do you believe this? Make arguments like I did.

>Just because you make up definitions
All definitions are made up. There is utility in differentiating between biological and social aspects of human dimorphism. What is the utility in rejecting this distinction?

dey noy biolgisht

Attached: biol.jpg (474x316, 18.48K)

Also
>one is just derivative of the other
What about xy chromosomes and penises make men wear suits over skirts?

seems he is planning to retire at the end of his term but funnily enough they didn't say when that term was going to end lol. he is 83 so even if he doesn't retire and dies 10 years from now, she still gets the spot. so it's only because he announced he was planning to retire that they could hold a vote. seems like a strange situation but she's got it one way or another. looked up her credentials and she's undoubtedly qualified, but undoubtedly very left wing. so it will remain a 6-3 conservative to liberal bench when he does die or retire

Oh no, it's a pretty thorough breakdown of the question and an indepth answer. The answer just happens to be in two parts.

penis? male
vagina? female
that's it. it's that simple. that's my facts worth your bullshit in about 1/100th of the words

>Why do you believe this?
Because nothing ever said otherwise. This is merely an invention of the Left, like climate change or child hunger (in the US).

>All definitions are made up.
This is very true, but just because I give "pussy" a new definition, alone in my treefort, doesn't make it a widely accepted term.

Yes, we all know there are rare exceptions, as with everything. They don't get to hijack definitions. They can use the established ones or they can make new ones that don't interfere with the original ones.

>seems he is planning to retire at the end of his term but funnily enough they didn't say when that term was going to end lol.

Because the Supreme Court has set terms/schedules. They don't hear shit year round. He is retiring at the end of the 2021/22 term.

>Because nothing ever said otherwise.
Go back and read my two posts. Also read any study published by any reputed scientific, medical, biological, psychiatric or psychological institution or professional in the last two decades.

>This is merely an invention of the Left
The studies and scientific consensus came before the left's position on this issue.

>like climate change or child hunger (in the US).
Kek.

>doesn't make it a widely accepted term.
Yeah your acceptance doesn't matter. The scientist's acceptance does. And since they came up with the current definitions, I think they've accepted it.

>she's undoubtedly qualified
Not really. I mean, she couldn't even define a woman and she has a long history of letting pedos and rapists go free or sentenced far below the minimum. The thing about Justices is you need a strong foundation. Even the Lefty Justices often rule in favor of the law, not ideology.

By your logic a man who losses his reproductive organs in an accident is no longer a man.

Yeah, maybe if you want to be a degenerate in that way. I keep it in the bedroom though and dress and act how I want. I also try my hardest to not impose or inconvenience anyone. If the people around me do not like it, they don't have to and I can move on with my life. I make exceptions for the things that are beneficial to me, just like everyone else. Trans people are not beneficial to me, so you get my best effort but I'm not going to outright disrespect anyone in public, but I'll laugh about it here and when you're out of earshot. I'm sure people have done that about me, but I don't care. Why do you care?

I'm also not mentally ill though, so, there's that.

Attached: 1451241745495.jpg (570x587, 43.5K)

sounds like your vagina is itchy because you've run a dirty puss in the past

>that's my facts

>earth is flat
>that's my facts
Kek. Make an argument like in those two posts.

> there are rare exceptions, as with everything.
And science always expands/modifies current theories to explain the existence of exceptions, it doesn't ignore exceptions like conservatives do.

>They don't get to hijack definitions.
The left's positions on this came after scientific consensus shifted.

>They can use the established ones or they can make new ones that don't interfere with the original ones.
No words have ever worked like this. Gravity was once defined as the "attractive force of objects". That same gravity is now defined as "the effect of objects warping space time".

>Go back and read my two posts
>Also read any study published
No, Don't have to.

>The studies and scientific consensus
No such thing as a "scientific consensus". There is no vote, only evidence.

>Kek.
Show the repeatable experiment that shows CO2 has an effect on temperature.
"Child hunger" has been debunked 100s of times. The real number is something like 1/100,000. Not 1/8.

>Yeah your acceptance doesn't matter
No shit. Neither does yours. Science does not back you up.

Does he have XY chromosomes?
Should I have said "born with male reproductive organs"?
There, is that better?

stop projecting your degeneracy onto everyone else user.

your side of the table is wayyyy more akin to the flat earth bullshit than mine. I learned in school that the earth is round, just like I learned the difference between men and women.

Attached: HeMad.jpg (370x300, 19.46K)

u sad faggot

Because DemonCrats aren't human beings.

>science always expands/modifies current theories
Sure, but it didn't in this case.

>scientific consensus
Still, not a thing.

>No words have ever worked like this
They usually do, just not to you. You don't twist "yak" to include "cow", even though the cow is a human modified yak. You make new definitions to differentiate things. Language is how you think. You can't have something representative of an object suddenly mean a different object. You can refine the definition, as in gravity, but they don't usually change, unless it's slang.

That's some serious 5-D Chess there, nigger. lol

>No, Don't have to
Then admit you don't care about the facts.

>No such thing as a "scientific consensus".
Kek.

>only evidence.
And what does the evidence say I wonder? What is scientific consensus based on, I wonder?

>Show the repeatable experiment that shows CO2 has an effect on temperature.
Why would I attempt to debunk your conspiracy theories when you've already admitted you don't care about facts?

> Neither does yours
I'm not saying it does. I'm saying my acceptance mirrors that of the scientists'.

>Science does not back you up.

>Also read any study published
>No, Don't have to.

LOL this. Perfectly summed it up. Xe walked right into that with xis stupid comparison. KEK

>earth is flat
>that's my facts
Also a Lefty thing. It's actually what AGW is built on.
pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1908198116

When you're a swinger and last night your wife blew the tranny.

Attached: DoItFaggot.jpg (348x355, 19.79K)

>the facts
You haven't posted any.

>"scientific consensus"
Srsly, you just look dumb. There is no such thing. Consensus is actually the antithesis of science. It's religion.

>more shit I didn't read after you doubled down on consensus
Make a point with actual facts instead of repeating what TV told you and you'll have a stronger argument.

What about instances of people born with crazy chromosomes and/or wack ass genitals? Like that Chinese guy who was XXY and was burn with just testicles but no penis. Like... Would you classify him as a man still?

It’s over. The streets are going to be overrun and controlled by hand to hand combat trained milking squads. There an army coming.. China is flooding the countries of their enemies with armies of hormone adjusted body augmented face adjusted lady bois…Thousands of them. Millions. they are coming for your cock and balls to drain you of your semen to attack our countries population. they will milk you so frequently that you will never have a family and our countries GDP and fighting ability will plummet. They have millions of lady bois on ships and planes right now. They are fighting and fucking on their way here for fun. They were genetically modified for this purpose. some areas will be so heavily saturated that there will be two three or four lady bois per man. many of you won’t have a chance to get away. If you’re lucky you’ll never get taken to the breeding dojos or the egg roll pleasure domes..

That's just it. I think Trannies are the only ones that care. Good luck on the other side.

Attached: 1457158031406.png (598x395, 354.17K)

> I learned in school that the earth is round, just like I learned the difference between men and women.
>Everything was already known at the exact moment I went to school you guys, science does not make progress, nothing can ever change from how I knew it in middle school

No user. You're comfortable thinking you know things, and are uncomfortable with the thought that you might not know things. So you disregard everything that's been discovered after you were a kid, because you like to think you know things. Unfortunately, facts don't care about your feelings.

You dumb. But it's ok.

>Sure, but it didn't in this case.
Name one single reputed scientific, medical, biological, psychological or psychiatric institution or professional that doesn't support everything I said. Cite one reputed study that proves your point.

>Still, not a thing.
Kek.

>You don't twist "yak" to include "cow", even though the cow is a human modified yak.
Go back and read what I said about gravity. Was a new word made to describe the new concept? Or was the old word fitted to the new concept because the old concept was proven false? We know more about sex and gender and how they're distinct, now. We have new concepts. We use old words to fit new concepts. What the fuck is the point of using words to describe concepts that are false?

It's just debate user. Not my fault it's too high iq for conservatives.

>You haven't posted any.
Go back and read my two posts and tell me what wasn't factual. Also cite any reputed study proving it's not factual.

>There is no such thing
Kek.

>Make a point
The irony.

Weak bait.
see This shit happens all the time, plants cross-pollinate funny, a landmass is formed unexpectedly. we observe something in space that we didn't understand, etc. There's always exceptions and they get their own designations or they get bumped in to different categories. Look at Pluto.

The thing is we don't usually broaden definitions, we go more granular, breaking things down into infinite subclasses.

I do not recall

Attached: ap22112558456391_custom-d28cdb7e698cc85d0655b4f51caf4af1f4bab8fa-s1100-c50.jpg (1100x692, 59.24K)

>You dumb.
Tranny Nigger!

Attached: 1456451364016.png (249x396, 65.55K)

That's like some Jewish lawyer tactic. Blurt-out an assload of nebulous, confusing shit, then accuse your opposition of not being 'smart enough' to decipher the gibberish. lol