56 Comments
Jun 24, 2022·edited Jun 24, 2022

That is a circular non-sensical definition.

“Someone who transitioned into a woman”

Ok, but what is this “woman” that this person transitioned into?

We are right back at the original question again.

Walsh specifically challenges people to define women without using the term woman.

That’s how real definitions work.

Otherwise it’s circular and question begging.

Expand full comment

That is a circular non-sensical definition.

“Someone who transitioned into a woman”

Ok, but what is this “woman” that this person transitioned into?

We are right back at the original question again.

Expand full comment
Jun 7, 2022·edited Jun 7, 2022

That argument is inherently flawed. We do know what woman is from biological standpoint, we do know that other conditions such as intersex are DEFECTS.

We do know that transgenders have a health issue and are in fact, not a woman. We do not know the cause.

So that way, we created an institution of transitioning so they have a way to cope with their mental problems and do not kill themselves. But the activits totally exploited the situation.

Using the same logic, one could argue that racism as a theory is valid and justifiable because there was an social institution of racism and supported by law.

Or patriarchy, LGBT discrimination etc.

No, they are not women. They DO NOT MIMIC SOCIAL NORMS. IN FACT, they do mimic primary and secondary sex charateristic and augment their bodies to LOOK LIKE A FEMALE.

Gender theory is a nonsense, it was entirely coined by the feminists to explain the oppression of women and does not align with psychology, biology, evolutionary psychology and biology. We are not blank slates and simply speaking, the more primitive society, the worse societal standing of the weaker sex due to environmental, biological factors which do then translate into societal norms.

The woman category EXISTS because of biological reality behind it. And please, do not use argument that other primitive cultures had more genders, that is literally superstition, believing that if I wear fur of killed animal or women apparel, I turn into women or gain certain abilities. They thought that because their scientific knowledge was literally zero and knew nothing about biology and were associating things with magic power.

Is this the path we are going?

Expand full comment

As medicine begins to use DNA sequences for determining treatments for some medical problems, it will be essential to know whether the patient is a man or a woman based on the 23rd chromosome. Transitioning does not change the genome (DNA).

Expand full comment

Perhaps this might be helpful for Dr. Pielke (and others): https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/the-dangerous-denial-of-sex?s=w

Expand full comment

Im sorry, I stopped reading at your definition of "what is a woman". I can't believe this.

Expand full comment

"But wishes do not change reality." Your comment is correct however it is applied in the wrong paragraph.

Expand full comment

"A woman also is an individual who was not assigned female at birth, but transitioned to a woman at some point before today."

What defines 'transitioned'? Fake vulva, fake hair, fake hormones, fake boobs, fake facial structure, fake thyroid cartilage?

Expand full comment

I am eagerly awaiting trans racial, trans species and trans age. I am sure we can define them into existence.

Expand full comment

The effect of allowing males to participate in "women's sports" will be to destroy "women's sports." You're erasing women, not protecting their rights.

Expand full comment

By definition, isn't a trans woman a man? I mean, a woman can't be a trans woman, right? Or am I just naive?

Expand full comment

The reason we horrids in the Far Right Conspiracy challenged Jackson with "What is a woman," was to make her reveal her politics. She is a woke activist, and will 'actively' promote "anyone who wants to be one." That would be fine in the privacy of her acquaintance. However, she is charged with declaring laws to be Constitutional or not. She will 'actively' support woke fluidity over fact of reality. In laws.

Expand full comment

You are a scientist?

You can't say what "X" is, and then use that term in the body of the definition! That is fundamental to reason and science.

This threatens your credibility as a scientist.

Expand full comment

I read your comment on the 12th and thought "OK that's fair". But it

It has noodled on my thoughts all week. It is fair and somewhat logical, but it is just wrong!

It reminds me of the small boy in the movie Christmas Story who is forced to say "sorry" by the big bully twisting the small boy's arm.

I think you may be saying what the social bullies are forcing you to say....

Expand full comment
Apr 14, 2022·edited Apr 14, 2022

It’s a thoughtful piece. Serious question. Can I be black?

Can I be vaccinated?

Can I be 15?

And to the sports question which is actually the only thing I care about because I don’t care how anyone identifies it doesn’t impact me - but should I be able to play on the LPGA tour because I consider myself a woman and use my 6’3 frame to hit the ball 330 yards and tear up their courses?

I’m the words of Boosie Badazz “we let that shit go down and in five, 10 years, they gin’ have kids raising their children to be big, strong muthafuckas, then turn into women and take over the spot and get million-dollar contracts. Watch. ‘Cause muthafuckas think money. Go get a muthafucka 7 foot 5 and turn him into a woman.” Yep. I agree.

Expand full comment

Et tu, Roger?

If laws can reverse biological fact, why not chemistry too? Let’s pass a law that says combustion produces no CO2.

Expand full comment