{"id":5729,"date":"2022-03-25T21:52:25","date_gmt":"2022-03-26T01:52:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/coldfury.com\/?p=5729"},"modified":"2022-03-25T23:43:30","modified_gmt":"2022-03-26T03:43:30","slug":"obscuring-the-issue","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/coldfury.com\/wp\/obscuring-the-issue\/","title":{"rendered":"Obscuring the issue"},"content":{"rendered":"

USA Today<\/em> rides the Shitlib Express along the hot rails to Hell<\/a>.<\/p>\n

In the 13th hour of Judge\u00a0Ketanji Brown Jackson’s\u00a0confirmation hearing Tuesday, Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)\u00a0asked the Supreme Court nominee: \u201cCan you provide a definition for the word \u2018woman\u2019?\u201d<\/p>\n

Jackson, appearing confused, responded, “I\u2019m not a biologist.\u201d<\/p>\n

Scientists, gender law scholars and philosophers of biology said Jackson’s response was commendable, though perhaps misleading. It’s useful, they say, that Jackson suggested science could help answer Blackburn’s question, but they note that a competent biologist would not be able to offer a definitive answer either. Scientists agree there is no sufficient way to clearly define what makes someone a woman, and with billions of women on the planet, there is much variation.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

“No sufficient way to clearly define what makes someone a woman”? Bullshit, claptrap, tommyrot, PC balderdash. Defining a woman, as any real scientist could tell you, is simplicity itself. What makes someone a woman: two, count ’em, two (2) X chromosomes. That’s all, that’s it. If you’re sportin’ a set of XY’s, then like it or not, you’re a fucking male<\/em>. Take whatever hormones you want, in whatever quantities you like; mutilate yourself surgically to your heart’s content, “identify” as a baleen whale, a slab of granite, or Henry V—you will never be any sex other than the one you were born as. Biology is sometimes harsh that way, and science—REAL science, actual science, not whatever it is the ones pimping Leftist moonshine for USA Today<\/em> are practicing—can be a cold, uncaring bitch<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Update!<\/span class=\"ud\"> Robert Spencer tells it like it is<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Predictably, the article is a big load of hooey, or as Leftists like to call it (and indeed, as it is called in this very USA Today article), \u201cnuance.\u201d One of the representatives of \u201cScience\u201d who is quoted is Rebecca Jordan-Young, who is identified as \u201ca scientist and gender studies scholar at Barnard College.\u201d When you\u2019re getting hooey straight from Barnard College, you know it\u2019s the finest stuff available: the Left\u2019s latest pet idea, all neatly wrapped up with a patina of intellectual respectability, the appearance of dispassionate thought, and the dismissal of the obvious with the claim that the reality is far more complicated than the simple-minded layman can understand.<\/p>\n

This\u00a0USA Today<\/em>\u00a0piece is actually just one example of what the Left does to us all the time. Biden\u2019s war on the domestic oil industry didn\u2019t cause gas prices to skyrocket; these are \u201cPutin\u2019s price hikes.\u201d There is\u00a0no crisis\u00a0at the border. The economy is\u00a0booming, and job numbers are\u00a0increasing. You can file these claims and others with \u201cwar is peace,\u201d \u201cfreedom is slavery,\u201d and \u201cignorance is strength,\u201d the three Big Lies that the totalitarian regime in Orwell\u2019s\u00a01984\u00a0forced upon its people.<\/p>\n

USA Today<\/em>\u00a0is playing the role of Obrien, demanding that we Winston Smiths break with reality and agree that 2 + 2 equals 5. We must hold firm, our eyes clear, seeing what is and what isn\u2019t, no matter what they threaten us with.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Not any great hardship for me, since the very idea of cooperating with them, accepting their premises, or acting in any way as if I gave a damp fart about their thoughts and feelings is utterly repulsive to me. I’m with Picard:<\/p>\n


\n