Peggy Flanagan whacko candidate

It is not the purpose of one language to define words of other languages. No, not a win, at all when you expect seemless definitions of words among and between all languages. Each language has its own lexicon. That they may say the same thing is always possible, but not always. Nothing created by man is perfect. And God is not the original creator of my body, nor any other person who has lived on Earth in mortality, born of a man and a woman.

Debby wrote:

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

He's not going to answer me, he doesn't know why, he just hates the people Trump tells him to hate.

Is Debby ignorant of, or merely dismissive of, loyalty?

I said, "It is not the purpose of one language to define words of other languages." "One language" is DNA. No, DNA is not English, nor French, Russian, or Chinese. It is a language of four ciphers. So, no, it does not say "woman." The "words" say the DNA equivalent of "human female," or "human male" when speaking of humanity. I've not changed my mind.

Trump has never told me a bloody thing. TDH?

Trump is your President, show him some respect.

I'm guessing that you don't have any gay friends?

In a July 26, 1920, essay for the Baltimore Evening Sun, American journalist and critic H.L. Mencken famously predicted that as democracy grows more perfect, the presidency will increasingly reflect the character of the general public, writing: "On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." Trump proved him right.

As you are triggered by Anti-Trump, Peggy Flanigan and Wokeness...And women of authority, women of colour and people of colour generally.

So yes, talking about a golfers penis is intellectually exclusive and justifiably Trumpism...I'm well aware of that...And though it makes for good comedic entertainment it is nonetheless triggering to think that this guy and his regime head a once allied global super-power, whilst even closer in the East we have the ongoing typically self destructively Russian, Putinism.

Anyway, at least we have the thought of nuclear weapons and mutually assured destruction to keep us all sleeping soundly.

Along comes Trump deranged syndrome.

this is likewise false.

Based on what specific information you can cite? See below.

I am assuming you dont have experience as a translator.

Yes, you can assume whatever you like, but don't think assumptions are always correct. In this instance, you are not. I have never been professionally hired as a translator, but I am fluent in a few languages, among which I have personal translation capability. DNA is a language I do not understand as "written," but having had personal contact and discussion with one of its modern sources, I am aware that its language can be adequately understood and that DNA does, in fact, define biological sex, specifically, among other features. In that particular feature, it is "written" on chromosome #23 by the specific presence, or lack of the same, of the gene known as "SRY," which defines maleness, and creates the necessary anatomical and chemical features of that sex, or its lack, defining femaleness and its anatomy and chemistry. Take that to the bank. You can shove your "false" up your anatomy [that which is shared. In fact, about 98% of all human genes are shared between male and female, but the 2% differences are not, have not, and will not be changed by hormone, surgical, nor psychiatric treatment].

Your guess is wrong.

I couldn't care less what color women are, how powerful they may be, or Putin, Trump, or any other strawman abilities you want to throw. Assumptions make asses of us all.

But he knows what a woman is, he has been married to the same woman for over 52 years.

So because definition of word "female" and "woman" is a choice, your translation is incorrect for anyone who chooses differently.

You have ignored what I have also said, and you seem to ignore it: We cannot choose the definition of words unless it can be demonstrated that a new definition applies. Woke is not a sufficient cause for redefinition.

As for the difference between "female" and "woman," it is obvious: "woman" is a sub-set of "female" because girls from pre-birth to the age of majority are not women; "woman" is an adult-specific designation. Girls are, however, also female, or feminine. If for no other reason, we distinguish girls from women for legal conditions, but also for social reasons. Girls are a separate social status than women, but the line blurs when speaking of debutantes, which can be any female from 18 to 21, the range when a female enters a primarily adult society.

To Debby [referring to your #26 & #48]

Repetition without distinction of difference or purpose is a clear sign of something or another

Well, you do have something of a record for denigrating women of power and women of colour...So you must "care" a bit.

And when all else fails, introduce the "strawman".

And yes, the Peggy Flanigan dig was a tad asinine.

And for sure, Trump is an easy "throw" back.

You confirm what SatanLucy said above.

definition of each word is a choice.

And I have told you that word definition is NOT a matter of choice any more than the traditional definition of gender, which, before the radical 60s when psychiatry went psycho, aligned with cis gender; gender at birth. There should not be any distinction between sex, gender, and cis-gender; therefore, is just another case of adding a word to the lexicon when unnecessary. If definition is a matter of choice, we can no longer grammatically advise that one say or write what they mean, and mean what they say/write, and expect explicit understanding by others. The result of definition by choice is chaos, and that is destructive to civilization.

SergeantLynch"

you do have something of a record for denigrating women of power and women of colour...So you must "care" a bit.

Wrong. Do not put words in my mouth I have never said. I have had a habit of denigrating Kamamlala, NOT because she is black, for which I don't care, but because I've observed her as an alleged public servant [but really just Willie Brown's toy, and completely vacant, head-wise] since her days as San Francisco DA to today. I've already said this several times before. News to you. She was given power, but has never, ever used it properly. And, no, to confirm, vis-a-vie Kasmalala, I do not care one bit for those reasons.

Kamala Harris had a very successful career and then turned to politics. She is still untested in politics.

Because you say so? Yes, you can certainly believe it, but it does not make it so. I can tell you I am a flaming communist, but that is not by any means true. And if you choose to believe words can mean anything you wish, that's fine for you, but many will not understand you when you use words that do not fit logically in a string to make yourself understood, even by highly educated people whose vocabulary is vast, and understanding of grammar is well beyond sufficient fluency. No, words must have a standard to be understood in context. Otherwise, you have transed into illiteracy.

So, how did that first guy you insist was alone in his definition [and how, then, did it become the "standard?"] define "female?" I'd say more than one guy was involved. And, more to the point, what makes you think it was a guy, or guys? Allow some credit to gals.