I saw a coffee creamer at the restaurant the other day that was labeled, "Non-dairy Creamer...Contains Milk".
So, I showed it to the waitress and said, "If you can figure this out, you probably know what a woman is.". Luckily, she laughed.
We are truly whatever our DNA says we are...the same way the creamer actually did have milk in its composition...despite its claim to be be non-dairy. A male choosing to live as a woman is a choice, not a truth. It is his presentation and marketing...his claim, like the non-dairy creamer. Still, claiming to be a woman and being one are not the same thing.
But, although it will always be a falsehood when a male claims to be a woman (because of his DNA), there are varying degrees of genetic feminine and masculine traits. So, the lie seems bigger or smaller depending on these traits, just like a non-dairy creamer can be mostly non-dairy or blatantly full of dairy.
Unfortunately, it is not always defined by genetics. For instance, people with Swyer's syndrome will pass any "looks female" examination, whether dressed or not, but will nonetheless have XY chromosomes.
So, while it is easy to be right most of the time is is almost impossible to be right all the time.,
We do not change laws based on fringe cases.
True. I remember learning about how genetic males, who are missing testosterone in the womb, will form female organs internally. Then, when they hit puberty, they menstrate. At that point, they need to choose a gender.
But, these rare cases are accepted by us all. My post was mostly referring to the nonsensical narrative of the left that even influences a supreme court judge to say she does not know how to define a woman.
Sometimes, a person is born with no hair. So what? That does not change the fact that they are human and either male or female.
A testosterone deficiency does not determine sex. You even said, "genetic males." Well how was that determined? Certainly not based on testosterone.
Y chromosome or not. Period.
True.
So how do you think a supreme court judge would see the people in the photograph I included in my previous reply: Men or women?
I support these people in the picture, wishing a happy life for them...however they want to live it... as long as our Constitutional laws are followed and the rights of others are respected. I like the motto, "self-actualize, respectfully".
Unfortunately, the movement through which we are suffering is very divisive, imposing, and illogical (for the most part). I know someone who got fired for not calling her boss the correct pronoun. The rights and safety of many are being taken away in the name of this movement. (Men playing in women's sports, boys being allowed in girls' bathrooms, kids being educated in perverseness, women in the army having to shower with transgender men, on and on).
I know. The Left enjoy wordplay. Look at all the weasely things the so-called fact checkers spout. Same with the climate scam. Someone asks you if you believe in "climate change" and you can't answer because you don't know whether they mean just man-made climate change or natural climate change.
In the case of the women's definition debate lefties seem to thrive on cognitive dissonance. I remember the advert for some LGBTQ+ themed T-shirts that extolled all the virtues of the 150 genders or however many they think we have this week. Then at the end it asked you to specify the style of fitting: M or F.
Well, I would hope she would always support these individuals with respect and justice, based on the Constitution.
Hahahahahahaha ...
That was funny.
Does it really matter what a delusional person thinks?