B.B. Hemingway

1 minute ago, Lorewarn said:

 

 

 

You're beginning to sound an awful lot like Judge Thomas  

That was the joke!

13 minutes ago, Lorewarn said:

 

 

Okay so then define it.

I’m not a biologist.

5 minutes ago, Lorewarn said:

 

 

So now you need to define what being born male/female means, which based on 'biological truths' is not always exactly clear.

I don’t need to define that, because we all know exactly what it means. It’s pretty clear, in almost every case.

I’ve never heard of much confusion at the ultrasounds or when a baby is born.

1 minute ago, BigRedBuster said:

So, if the person is born a female but isn't able to birth a child, they aren't a woman.

I was listing female characteristics that males are naturally incapable of. It wasn’t a ‘must check all boxes’ statement…. But you knew that.

3 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Then it's totally BS question.

I don’t think it was. I didn’t like all the BS surrounding the question, but the question itself was fair, given the current ridiculousness surrounding gender/sex.

7 minutes ago, Lorewarn said:

 

I'm struggling to imagine a ruling dependent on if a trans person is a woman or not. 

 

What would be an example of that? 

 

 

 

How would you define men in this case? Or, I guess a better question is if you were in her shoes what would your answer have been?

Competing in sports, is a current example.

If you were born a male, you are a man. Full stop.

I would of leaned on the biological truths. A woman is someone born a female, and is physically capable of birthing children, etc. 

2 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

So, it's a litmus test.

 

Something that both sides claim the don't do.  

It’s pretty clear that’s what these things actually are, yes.

2 hours ago, JJ Husker said:

The problem with the question is, in the current day climate, she cannot give an answer that won’t trigger somebody. Therefore it is not fair. On top of that it is not important no matter how topical in society. I cannot think of a single legal issue that would involve the SC and that it would matter if it was a man or woman or any of the myriad possibilities of genders or sexual preferences. What a person is or isn’t should not matter one iota to a SC justice.

 

Maybe I could be persuaded to change my opinion if you gave me an example of a case they might hear in which it does matter.

 

I will agree her answer was not optimal, seeking a biologist. She could have shut them down on the line of questioning a little better but she shouldn’t have to. The thing is, that is much more of problem for the people asking the loaded question. Like I said, no answer she could give would satisfy everyone.

You don’t think the Supreme Court might eventually  be involved in deciding if men can continue to compete against women in athletic competition?

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

What was the purpose of the question?

Lol. Come on. The answer to that question at least hints to where you might lean on future cases involved with trans people, etc. Suggesting that it’s a question that shouldn’t of been asked is ridiculous. If you want to argue that you didn’t like how it was asked, fine.

19 minutes ago, Lorewarn said:

 

 

Regardless of how you answer the question, her answer was refusing to participate in the gamesmanship of these partisan sound byte charades. There's nothing ridiculous about that, in fact it's exactly what judges should strive to do imo.

What would of been controversial about saying that she did know what a woman was? What could of Republicans possibly done with that answer? Pretending that it takes a biologist to define a woman is absolutely ridiculous. By pretending she doesn’t know what a woman is, she’s just playing the charade game with the other side of the aisle.

4 minutes ago, ColoradoHusk said:

Just started listening to this, but Sharp & Benning put together a quick podcast to discuss Betts' status.  It's just over 15 minutes.  Sounds like Betts is having doubts about him being cut out for this type of football environment.

 

https://post.futurimedia.com/koznam/playlist/34/listen-4568.html?cb=1648141386.227357

 

 

Well, if that’s the case, it’s best he quits wasting the time of all involved.

3 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

No matter what her answer is or was, this question is meaningless in the grand scheme of things.  She has proven to be more than qualified for the position and people just need to move on.

 

Republicans used the question for nothing more than a....a ha....gotcha.  Well, congrats, they got what they wanted....even though it's stupid and meaningless.

She’s an impressive woman, no doubt. I’m not going to be one to hold it against her that she was chosen because she’s a black woman, because she is definitely qualified from what I can tell. We’ll have to agree to disagree on the woman question. I think it had to be asked. She gave them the answer they wanted, but that doesn’t make her answer any less ridiculous.

5 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

I agree about the hypocrisy on both sides. But I’ll disagree with ‘define a woman’ being a fair question. We both know that’s a loaded gotcha question and really is not pertinent to being an impartial judge no matter what side a person takes on the issue. She could share our definition of a woman or she could have a wilder definition than anything we’ve been seeing lately. Neither one should have any effect on her doing her job properly.

It’s fair question, because it’s a very topical and dividing in this country at the moment. I don’t think the Republicans handled it appropriately (though as expected), but her answer was also poor. It’s very clear what a woman is and isn’t. Her answer was about keeping her nose clean, and pandering to a small segment of the population. She may not be a biologist but she knows what a woman is.

7 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

So, Republicans complaining about the other nominations and then acting like this means nothing.

What part of both sides being hypocritical are you not understanding?

4 minutes ago, Xmas32 said:

I, for one am putting the finishing touches on my Damon Benning cryptic sayings bingo card.  

uh oh, what’d DB have to say.

5 minutes ago, ColoradoHusk said:

Spring Break at UNL was last week, so Betts might have gone home for a few days, and thought "man, I don't think I'm cut out for this under the new coach" and didn't report back to the team this week.

 

Hopefully, Betts can get some good advice from Coach Huffman at Bellevue West or other mentors, and he can return back to the team this summer.  The good thing is that Joseph brought in some good talent in the WR room.  This position group isn't thin, just needs development.

Agreed. Not all that worried about it with the room under Joeseph’s watch, but thought that Betts had 1st team All-B1G (or better) potential under him. It’s too bad.

It’s also very possible that Betts just isn’t cut out for life under the coaching of Mickey Joseph. Joesph doesn’t appear to have much patience for bulls#!t.

Just now, BigRedBuster said:

There were people complaining about it then too.

From the other side of the aisle. Like I said, hypocrisy. Both sides.

3 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

There should always be pushback and people complaining about congress when they act like this.

 

So....by your comment, you're upset at the people complaining about congress instead of being upset at our elected officials acting like idiots?

Im not upset at all, I just find it humorous that they weren’t all the worried about the charades during the last few of these processes. Like I said, they’re a s#!t show. But, hypocrisy can be found aplenty on both sides of this, so….

Though, I do think the ‘define a woman’ question was a fair question. The answer to that matters.

7 minutes ago, ColoradoHusk said:

I think it takes a different type of coach to handle college rosters and knowing how to "work with" the talent.  I know the players need to uphold their end of the bargain, as well.

 

Also, this type of stuff could have been happening all along historically, I just think there is so much more media attention around every little detail now.  From the focus and attention to recruiting, to the 24-7 news cycle focused on these teams and every move on the rosters.

For sure. Frost doesn’t deserve the benefit of doubt, but you’d think his luck would change at some point.

24 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

I agree that Supreme Court hearings are a joke.  Just look at the two previous ones.   They were abominations.  I mean, one person actually called himself Spartacus, another 80 yr old falsely  accused a nominee of serial rape as a last ditch effort to derail the process.   Cruz looked silly during this process.  

Thats been the most annoying part of this process. All the whining and shock of how she has been treated. These things have been a disaster for a while.

I know a lot of what’s happened to the program under Frost is his own doing, but man,  he can’t catch a break.

4 minutes ago, teachercd said:

Because they are not a man anymore.  They no longer accept what society has said they have to be.

You spelled science wrong.

2 hours ago, Lorewarn said:

 

Unrelated to the topic of athletic competition, is this how you sum up trans people? Pretending to be women? 

Not to be too brash, but if they are men and they’re partaking in activities designed and/or limited to women, and undergoing procedures to make themselves appear more like women, is that not what they’re doing?

And I should say, I’m all for them expressing themselves in anyway they desire. It’s when there’s an expectation of societal cooperation, and infringement on other people’s rights and/or societal norms that I start taking some issue with it.

1 hour ago, teachercd said:

I think you should be able to pick your gender.  I am all for it.  I don't care if they play sports and dominate.  

 

I think you should also be able to pick your age.  I pick...75 and want to start collecting my SS benefits.  

It wouldn’t be any less absurd.

2 hours ago, funhusker said:

But...but....Iowa is going to put all their men on the womens' basketball team!!!  

Keep telling yourself that’s what everyone is suggesting will happen, if it makes you feel better. 
 

3 hours ago, Lorewarn said:

 

 

Good article. Also especially good to be reminded of just how slippery this slope really is (which is, pretty much a dry flat surface):

 

 

 

It isn’t a slippery slope at all. It’s literally as simple as this: If you were born a male, you don’t get to compete in female sports. Trans people can pretend they are women all they want, but competing in athletics isn’t a right. People get told they aren’t allowed to compete on teams (or in leagues) all the time, and not being the correct sex can go right in there with reasons like not being talented enough, etc.

14 minutes ago, teachercd said:

 

 

I know it sound stupid and it is but what do you do?  Do you say "Nooooo, you are not girls"

That’s exactly what you do. Because if you’re a man, you can’t be a woman.