@Mott-The-Hoople saidThis Arktuso,,, a shill of some sort? Peculiar
LOL jumped straight from judge to president...
@AverageJoe1 saidDo you have a working vagina and uterus?
Comment? Like I said, write to sonhouse. You a child?
@AverageJoe1 saidI imagine your excuse for behaving the way you do is that your ancestors were never slaveholders, only bigots.
you write like a liberal. yes she is familiar with the law. I don't know why you said that, except usual lib smartass,....
but she SAID.."It requires too much boring legal-ese to analyze the law".
She ALSO said "it requires 'too much techincal query".
She is a lazy good-for -nothing, so now because of this Biden minion, we have a court where the other 8 judges w ...[text shortened]... e knows it, but that she knows it...no one gives a damn.
Pick it up. Don't be like these others.
@Arkturos saidWouldn’t this also go for trans men on the many ways they claim, think, wish to be an actual woman not a kit car version?
If you ever become capable of pregnancy, perhaps you would then have understanding and proper legal standing to comment on this issue.
Also: if that does somehow occur, please be careful not to wade among the roe -- no telling what might happen.
@mike69 said"Then we're agreed."
Wouldn’t this also go for trans men on the many ways they claim, think, wish to be an actual woman not a kit car version?
People who do not have working vaginas and uteruses have less standing than those who do to make laws to inhibit our natural or God-given liberties and freedoms in that domain, although of course they still have their full expressive rights putatively guaranteed by our First Amendment, no matter how ill-informed, oppressive, or doofusy they might present themselves.
And on a side-note: no, @Suzianne, I'm not writing this way now because of your prior creepy misinterpretations and misunderstandings, but because this is what I independently would like to write at this moment.
Adding that in case it might expand your understanding a little when it comes to you dealing with your future patients/clients.
@Arkturos saidYou are assuming a lot about a lot of people rather by personal experience or prejudice. Many men and women differ on this subject.
"Then we're agreed."
People who do not have working vaginas and uteruses have less standing than those who do to make laws to inhibit our natural or God-given liberties and freedoms in that domain, although of course they still have their full expressive rights putatively guaranteed by our First Amendment, no matter how ill-informed, oppressive, or doofusy they might pre ...[text shortened]... t expand your understanding a little when it comes to you dealing with your future patients/clients.
@mike69 saidIt seems that a lot of men think of women as baby ovens, and maybe even less than human, and therefore subordinate to male desires and laws.
Again? Do only certain genders get to vote on certain gender, man, woman effecting laws or are we all able to vote and have individual feelings and rights on all subjects? Are men a part of this condition of pregnancy also?
@mike69 saidPerhaps it could be said that a lot of people assume a lot about everything.
You are assuming a lot about a lot of people rather by personal experience or prejudice. Many men and women differ on this subject.
If that is the case: if individual mental models eventually result in some kind of mental blur, wouldn't it be better to try to observe the blur directly instead of some kind of second-hand result?
1 edit
@Arkturos saidBut the blurs are individualized by personal experiences, or where you live/are born. This is also why we have judges, a legal system that we hope aren’t biased, but honest and logical, and fair to all involved. Our country is failing us in this are for the most part.
Perhaps it could be said that a lot of people assume a lot about everything.
If that is the case: if individual mental models eventually result in some kind of mental blur, wouldn't it be better to try to observe the blur directly instead of some kind of second-hand result?