Kobach is considering running for election again. Out of the frying pan, into the fire.
8 Likes
I didnt read it as “having fun” as much as “Christ not this shit again”, and using all the patience she could muster not to knock Hawleys face in.
16 Likes
He wanted to look like a scumbag with cognitive limitations?
Mission Accomplished!
13 Likes
Whatever he’s doing, it isn’t dogwhistling. Dogwhistling is avoiding saying something directly by using words which everyone will understand. He is openly stating his views, hoping his audience will agree with him.
2 Likes
“Senator, are you interested in hearing the answer to my question, or are you simply posturing? Because the fact that you keep interrupting me instead of listening to what I have to say makes me think that you are more interested in taking an opportunity to put on a performance for your supporters and scoring what you imagine to be points against someone who disagrees with you. While you may believe that this is an appropriate use of the Senate’s time, I suggest that many of your colleagues and the American people as a whole probably do not.”
15 Likes
And if he were not simply posturing he would not have asked “… I’m causing violence by asking…??” but would have asked “HOW does my asking this question lead to violence?”
And she would have told him (as she tried to) in some detail, exactly HOW. But he would never want to listen to that.
So he didn’t ask ‘how’. Because it was all nothing more than a performance for the cameras, to be edited to suit his ends.
That is why I wish I had more likes to give for your comment. It ought to be a standard text given to all such people before any such committee, that they have ready to use whenever needed. The more it would be used, the better - more people would see their posturing for what it is, and being challenged like that would seriously piss them off. If she’d said that, he’d have been spluttering with outrage, and perhaps backed into the corner of having to hear (if not listen).
6 Likes
Brava to Bridges!
More like her, please.
Hawley can suck it.
As if rights to bodily autonomy don’t effect everyone and rights to abortion in particular don’t effect everyone who can become pregnant very directly.
It doesn’t matter what we’re called, we want control of our uteri.
20 Likes
I’m gonna ask a question and please excuse my ignorance and my use of pronouns in asking the question.
We have a relative that we love very much, have known her her whole life. We knew around high school that she was gay. She had girlfriends in high school. We always supported her.
At some point in her 20s she decided she was going to be a man and went through therapy and medical treatment that involved, I believe hormones. He now considers himself a man and changed his name.
I know consider is the wrong word but it’s all new to me. We do use his new name, although after 30 years we sometimes forget but we try hard and he understands that.
My question is, if he did not have surgery is he a man or transgender that can still have a baby? Is that what this professor was referring to?
If I said any of that wrong I apologize. I just want to better understand so I can shut people down and I don’t want to be as ignorant as the people making the argument.
Thanks
This is the first erroneous part of this story. He was a man, there was no “deciding.” He decided to let the rest of the world know what he already knew. This has been studied. There are anatomical differences in male and female brains, and trans men have male brains. It’s not a decision, they really are born that way. Surgery, medication, transition of what ever sort or none, he was a man regardless. If he has not had surgical measures, yes, he can still become pregnant. This is why you will so frequently hear the term “pregnant people” rather than “pregnant women,” to acknowledge this population does, in fact, exist.
(Also kinda off topic for this thread. There are trans-specific threads that would be more appropriate for a discussion of this sort.)
18 Likes
I thought this was a good place because I thought that’s what the professor was trying to answer.
Thanks for the response, like I said I know I may have phrased it wrong but I asked to learn.
If the professor would have been allowed to answer I probably wouldn’t have asked the question.
Thanks
1 Like
To give you a different example: those born intersex often have their earliest documentation – e.g. original birth certificates – disappeared and re-written, but depending on how much surgery is done to them as babies, their internal organs may not match with their newly assigned sex/gender. So you can have someone who was ‘assigned male at birth’ who in fact has a fully working internal system of ovaries, fallopian tubes, uterus, etc.
19 Likes
Why my ex-wife was in law school, she took classes he was teaching at UMKC (IIRC).
Yeah, Kansas has its problems (coughBrownbackcough), but I’ve always felt Missouri was just more… icky… on most issues.
I just registered to vote so hopefully that goes through and I can vote in the primary where abortion is on the ballot. MO had a trigger law on that. 
1 Like
Biological sex <> gender <> sexuality. That being said, I agree with the others: there’s far better Topics on the BBS for these kind of discussions.
5 Likes
Indifference and cruelty is the point when winning a culture war is at stake.
2 Likes
Just from the clip, my take is the professor was responding to a very divisive and cruel line of questioning in a very thoughtful way.
Hawley is being an ass. Instead of accepting that rights around pregnancy affect all of us, but most directly those of us who might actually become pregnant, he’s trying to peg it as a “women’s” issue and unnecessarily narrow the definition of “women.”
None of that is really relevant.
The labels are important for personal expression, but not for discussions related to bodily autonomy. He’s tr0lling.
15 Likes
FTFY…
9 Likes
And despite the love they supposedly have for the Constitution, they’re making America a conduit for their right wing, “Christian”, evangelical beliefs. Praying with someone before they decided on a case that “someone” was involved with. Of course she won. One guy who belongs to some “Satanic” Church is challenging his hometown to let him pray to his Satanic gods after the game is over and people can choose to leave or stay. Gee, wonder how the Extreme COTUS would rule on that one!
6 Likes
Absolutely.
4 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
