Welcome To aBlackWeb

Register

Macy Gray speaks on transsexual (women)

Bow to Royalty said:
That's what I'm saying. It's wack she didn't answer the question, just like it's wack when other people don't. Not gonna knock other politicians for it, but make excuses for her when she's doing the same thing.
Click to expand...

She's not a politician. She's a judge. She was in a position where she had to play the game. You're suggesting that she risk not accomplishing her goal just to answer a question that was a clear trap. That doesn't make sense. She can do more good as a sitting justice than she would as a rejected candidate.

ALLBUILDINGSMATTER! said:
Crazy you rather take shots at me before holding her accountable.

It’s even crazier when you realize they went around pointing out the fact she was the first black WOMAN ever nominated to this position.

But she doesn’t even know what a woman is.
Click to expand...

Take shots at her for what? For handling herself in the best way she could given her circumstances. I dislike political games as much as anyone, but I'm not really sure why you guys feel like she should be criticized taking what was given to her and making the right decision. Her goal was not to make you guys happy with her answer to a dumb question. Her goal was to be on the supreme court.
 
The Lonious Monk said:
She's not a politician. She's a judge. She was in a position where she had to play the game. You're suggesting that she risk not accomplishing her goal just to answer a question that was a clear trap. That doesn't make sense. She can do more good as a sitting justice than she would as a rejected candidate.



Take shots at her for what? For handling herself in the best way she could given her circumstances. I dislike political games as much as anyone, but I'm not really sure why you guys feel like she should be criticized taking what was given to her and making the right decision. Her goal was not to make you guys happy with her answer to a dumb question. Her goal was to be on the supreme court.
Click to expand...

She's sitting in front of a group of politicians trying to say what it takes to get their votes... doesn't seem much different then a politician to me.

"You're suggesting that she risk not accomplishing her goal just to answer a question that was a clear trap. That doesn't make sense. She can do more good as a sitting justice than she would as a rejected candidate."

You're just defending who you like. That statement could be used to defend any politician that lies and plays the game. If you hate it so much, why defend people that do it? It's wack when other people do it AND when she does it.
 
Bow to Royalty said:
She's sitting in front of a group of politicians trying to say what it takes to get their votes... doesn't seem much different then a politician to me.

"You're suggesting that she risk not accomplishing her goal just to answer a question that was a clear trap. That doesn't make sense. She can do more good as a sitting justice than she would as a rejected candidate."

You're just defending who you like. That statement could be used to defend any politician that lies and plays the game. If you hate it so much, why defend people that do it? It's wack when other people do it AND when she does it.
Click to expand...

Bruh I don't like any of these people. I'm just not hating her for going in there doing what she was required to do. Her falling into that trap wouldn't have changed the system. It may have just cause her the opportunity. Maybe you would have been happier with the answer, but what would have been accomplished. It's not her job to change the shitty political system. She's a judge. Her job is to get the role and push for the right judgements.
 
The Lonious Monk said:
Bruh I don't like any of these people. I'm just not hating her for going in there doing what she was required to do. Her falling into that trap wouldn't have changed the system. It may have just cause her the opportunity. Maybe you would have been happier with the answer, but what would have been accomplished. It's not her job to change the shitty political system. She's a judge. Her job is to get the role and push for the right judgements.
Click to expand...

We may be going back and forth because I made an assumption.

Do you hold it against politicians when they just say what they have to say to get elected? Like when other politicians duck answering a question to not lose any votes, instead of giving an honest answer.
 
Bow to Royalty said:
We may be going back and forth because I made an assumption.

Do you hold it against politicians when they just say what they have to say to get elected? Like when other politicians duck answering a question to not lose any votes, instead of giving an honest answer.
Click to expand...

I do, but there is a difference.

Like if Joe Biden comes out and says he's going to pass 10 EOs on day one when he knows that he probably won't do that. I think that's fucked up. He should just be honest about what he really wants to do and he things he can do.

Now if Jackson was asked a substantive question about how she plans to vote on things and she says what she thinks the panel wants to hear even though she plans on voting in a completely different direction when that topic comes up, then yeah she's doing the same political shit that Biden did and that I hate.

What I'm saying on this topic is that the thing that you guys are complaining about is not the same. She didn't receive a substantive question that was meant to get at the actual job she will be doing. She was given a question that was meant to be a trap, and she avoided the trap. In that regard, I have no problem with what she did. Same way if Biden was out on the campaign circuit trying to talk about real issues, and someone asked him a stupid question trying to get a soundbite. I'd want him to bypass that shit as fast as possible and get back to what really matters.
 
Do y’all really care about how she answered that type of question? Like cmon now. I get it this trans thing is new and a lot folks feel it’s a mental disorder forced in society and that Shaq son gonna join the WNBA. But I feel like this ain’t that deep in day yo day life. Then again I’m not a woman and I think their experience is different
 
ALLBUILDINGSMATTER! said:
That’s the problem.


You say the question doesn’t have substance..the question has nothing to do with the actual job..

The very next day she was asked about it again.. she declined to give her opinion because the court was currently dealing with cases on the subject.

She herself admitted the court is dealing with this subject while you are saying it has nothing to do with the job. Your PERSONAL opinion doesn’t remove the facts.


:cont:
Click to expand...

The question didn't have substance and the askers didn't want a real answer. The topic of trans rights might come to the courts, but Ketanji Jackson will not have to personally develop a definition for what a woman is. That's not her job and that's not how courts work. The fact is that the question was meant to trip her up, and I'm not sure why you're so proud of being the only person on earth that didn't know that.
 
The Lonious Monk said:
I do, but there is a difference.

Like if Joe Biden comes out and says he's going to pass 10 EOs on day one when he knows that he probably won't do that. I think that's fucked up. He should just be honest about what he really wants to do and he things he can do.

Now if Jackson was asked a substantive question about how she plans to vote on things and she says what she thinks the panel wants to hear even though she plans on voting in a completely different direction when that topic comes up, then yeah she's doing the same political shit that Biden did and that I hate.

What I'm saying on this topic is that the thing that you guys are complaining about is not the same. She didn't receive a substantive question that was meant to get at the actual job she will be doing. She was given a question that was meant to be a trap, and she avoided the trap. In that regard, I have no problem with what she did. Same way if Biden was out on the campaign circuit trying to talk about real issues, and someone asked him a stupid question trying to get a soundbite. I'd want him to bypass that shit as fast as possible and get back to what really matters.
Click to expand...

I guess we just view the question differently. I think a SCJ's opinion on what a woman is and how transgender people are classified will impact decisions they'll have to make during their time in the position. Question seemed legit to me.
 
Bow to Royalty said:
I guess we just view the question differently. I think a SCJ's opinion on what a woman is and how transgender people are classified will impact decisions they'll have to make during their time in the position. Question seemed legit to me.
Click to expand...

The question was not legit because, again, that's not how the court works. Ketanji wouldn't have to come up with a definition herself. People would make arguments that might include proposed definitions, and she would have to weigh-in on those arguments. From that standpoint, her just throwing out a definition would actually be detrimental because, as a judge, she's supposed to be objective. She's not supposed to go into a case firmly set on a stance. She's supposed to be able to listen to the arguments made and judge accordingly.

If they were asking genuine questions, they would have asked her about what she thought the court's role in the transgender debate would be and what she believed she needed to see to weigh-in. They didn't ask that because they don't care. They were trying to set her up, and again, everybody knows that.

ALLBUILDINGSMATTER! said:
I posted the clip of her declining to answer if a man can say he’s a woman and file a GENDER based lawsuit. She declined to speak on it because the court is dealing with that right now.

The court will have to determine if men can become women or if women can become men to answer that question. There’s no other way around it.
Click to expand...

Again, it's not Ketanji's job to define woman or man. It's her job to hear the arguments presented and make a judgement based on established laws and precedents. Yes, in deciding which argument is more compelling, she may have to settle on a definition, but at no point will she just be presenting her own definition of a woman and sticking to that no matter what evidence she's presented. If that's what she does, then she's not fulfilling her job correctly, and we already have that with the majority of the other justices in the court. That's why we keep getting these rulings that are basically universally panned.
 
ALLBUILDINGSMATTER! said:
She would have to agree with one of those arguments. If she was on the majority side that argument would be translated to law.

I’m not sure what’s hard to understand. You keep making this about trick questions and her handling herself right in the moment. Cool. I’ve done the same during job interviews. My jobs have never impacted 300+ million people. My job was never to help determine the law of the land.

The very next day she acknowledged herself, her mother, and the senator who questioned her as women. She obviously knows what a woman is. Her supporters stressed the fact that she was first black WOMAN.

My issue is that she did it. I don’t care how or why she did it. Your argument is irrelevant. You have went from saying she won’t define what a woman is as a judge. To saying she will hear arguments and weigh in on those arguments. So she will use her interpolation of the law to what? Define what a woman is.:think2:
Click to expand...

We can agree to disagree and stop beating a dead horse here. Peace.
 
Like she said u can dress up do all the surgery you want but u never will be a women
 
Last edited:
Allah_U_Akbar said:
www.vanityfair.com

Macy Gray Has “Learned A Lot” After Backlash Following Her Controversial Comments About Gender and Trans Identity

The singer said she “never meant to hurt anybody.”
www.vanityfair.com www.vanityfair.com



View attachment 880927
Click to expand...

backpedal-dog.gif
 
honestly been a weird western culture trend, this ‘gender identity and inclusive’ thing …

The entire farmaceutical industry behind it and lack of real peer reviewed science behind it all need to brought inti limelight tho, what the doctors (and ‘parents’ ) are doing to these children is absolutely criminal
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top