Peggy Flanagan whacko candidate

Peggy Flanigan whacko candidate.

Donald Trump whacko President...Such is the current state of US politics.

At least I gave you a solid example of Flanagan's whackiness, but you cannot give me a commensurate example of Trump? You just make the claim and expect that to be sufficient? Fail.

Only by being woke, which is dead, can definition be by choice. If definition is by choice, no one needs a dictionary to offer a standard. Are you opposed to standards?

No, a woman is defined by DNA in 99.99999993% of humanity. The small percentage, called by science [once upon a time] as "intersex," express additional chromosomes beyond XX and XY, number, as tested, less than 600 individuals worldwide, as best as can be estimated [and it is absolutely identifiable if tested]. That small number does not account for sex by choice, but then, the "choice" does not express the physical features defined by XX and XY, [or XXY, XYY, etc], and does not prove that the "choice" is accurate. And choice, alone, cannot change the physical characteristics expressed uniquely by XX and XY. Curious, too, is that the assumed "all-inclusive" [which is DEI, after all, isn't it?] assumption made by those who fly the LBGTQ+ flag do not account for the F and M that define 99.999...% of humanity. Why not?

No, a woman is defined by DNA in 99.99999993% of humanity. The small percentage, called by science [once upon a time] as "intersex," express additional chromosomes beyond XX and XY, number, as tested, less than 600 individuals worldwide, as best as can be estimated [and it is absolutely identifiable if tested].

So you're saying sex is not binary? Agreed. Your nimber are whack though. The lowest estimate of intersex I've seen is .018% which equates to ~1.5 million people.

That is utter nonsense. DNA does not use any spoken/written language of the type typical of human use. It is humans who have suggested the letter symbols of the four essential amino acids used to "write" DNA language, but the language does, in its vernacular, define very succinctly, "female." and "male" much more accurately than. any politician of Justice ever thought or hoped to do.

So you're saying sex is not binary?

By standard expected DNA process, yes, sex is binary. I acknowledge that normal, expected DNA process in very limited, multi-decimal consequences; "normal" results in variation from the standard. But in the obvious actual results, the variation is much, much smaller than even the standard deviation, statistically.

So no definitions of "woman" anywhere in it.

If you ignore the rest of my post. But, as a reader, ignorance cannot ignore the rest of my post as if I did not post it.

Yes, DNA defines exactly what a human woman is. Don't play fucking word games with the language just to think you're making a point. You're not, have not, and will not.

You forget that I have had a sentient conversation with James Watson in 1966, and have posted it on this platform. Nothing better than being able to speak in-person with the horse's mouth in regard to the modern understanding of DNA, and its properties and abilities. He predicted this very nonsense to me, and he was dead-on.

Yes, DNA defines exactly what a human woman is.

Except when it doesn't. Jackie Blakenship (former Mrs America) has XY chromosomes.

By standard expected DNA process, yes, sex is binary.

"Expected" is an arbitrary qualification and excludes the full breadth of humanity...as seen above.

According to the OED:

n. An adult female human being. The counterpart of man.

"ask a stupid question..."

Oh yeah, the good old times.

Some things do not change. Here's an example:

Eternity: a past-eternal universe bypasses the need for a first cause; therefore, a starting premise is unnecessary. Logic only demands an explanation for things that begin to exist, but eternity implies no beginning and no end. Therefore, logic is not capable, on its own, of demonstrating eternity unless one is able to shift from a sequential proof to a timeless necessary existence.

Except when it doesn't.

Given the population of Earth, valid statistics demand that the sample size be just a little larger than 0.00000007% of that population, and, out of a decent six-sigma sample, the definition of woman is sufficiently demonstrated by DNA. The percentage I've indicated, according to the U.S. Library of Medicine, is the estimated number of true intersex individuals in the world. "Estimated" because such assurance comes only by DNA testing a significant sample size of the population. At 8B, the population is statistically considered as an infinite population, and there are separate considerations of test sampling in that range. At a strict six-sigma level, where Z = 6.0 yields a sample size of 10,000 individuals. Not out of the realm of possibility, but no one has yet signed up to perform the test. Are we afraid the estimate is either way too low or too high?

However, re: Jackie Blakenship, if her DNA indicates XY chromosomes, she is not a biological woman, in spite of appearance. Appearance, alone, does not define sex. We do not use clothing, or even hormones, to define our sex, regardless of what we "choose." A DNA test does if we have not figured it out, yet, on our own.

if her DNA indicates XY chromosomes, she is not a biological woman, in spite of appearance.

You have a very simplistic definition of sex, and folks like Jackie Blakenship demonstrate the incoherence of it. You've taken the position a former Mrs. America is a man in spite of a completely natural body with a vagina and breasts. In actuality, biological sex isnt JUST chromosomes - that is an incomplete understanding. Bioligical sex is determined by chromosomes, hormones, organs, external genitalia, etc.

"Gender" is no more or less a modern controversy than vaccination is...And you and I will probably have similarly conditioned personal views on such issues and others will have other views.

Though how many Presidents do you know that have alluded to the size of a golfers penis in their speeches.

fauxlaw wrote:

Peggy Flanagan, current Lt. Gov of MN [and as whacko as her milktoast Governor], and wannabe DSA Governor, went through a litany of questions about her political platform. Asked if healthcare ought to be universally applied to all, she replied in the affirmative, using the example of gender fluidity, that the choice of gender was a trans right and part of healthcare.

Is gender choice healthcare? Why? If gender choice is healthcare, then hair color choice is also healthcare, because hair color is also a feature that can be changed daily at personal whim. But gender [should really be called sex, like it was until psychiatry went woke] choice, no matter how whacked it is to claim, is not a personal choice.

Once again, I get it that there is a Pavlovian response to the Trans bell, but beside the distraction value, please share with us how this has personally affected your life? I have met maybe a handful of trans people in my entire life, none of them gave me a reason to hate them, as far as I can tell, they have had no influence on my life whatsoever, there is certainly no reason to make them a political issue that determines how I vote.

To be blunt about it, what is it to you, why do you give a damn about something that I see as an irrelevant non-issue. In what way have trans people affected you personally? Is there a reason for the hatred?

He has known only one woman his wife during his entire life.

That Trump uses words to trigger the media because they have an unhealthy mandate to bury him, and that he knows what triggers them, and will do so at his whim, is not news to anyone. So, why be triggered by him as well? What does the wokism afflicting Peggy Flanagan have to do with Trump other than that she, too, is triggered by him?

DNA is not written in English, my friend, Surely, you know that.

"Woman" is the lead word in the dictionary, even the OED, for every word in it. I truncated to just the definition. I knew your response would be something like this if I did add "Woman" at the front.

Stop being a petulant child. You're better than this.

I don’t think he will quit that easily.