How about Lindsey's totally unconstitutional question about her religion? It was literally illegal as discribed in the first amendment; "the government shall have no religious test....".
@@mjr_schneider Supreme Court Justice is a government job/position... bring in an applicants religious beliefs as part of the hiring process is illegal federally... in addition... if the SENATE is asking you what your religious views are that is ABSOLUTELY the government issuing a religious test...
I did debate in high school. The first thing you're supposed to do is define terms so that the debate can even happen. It's not a rhetorical trick. It's a necessity.
You agree definitions in the context of the debate. You do not agree universal definitions of words. A judge accepts different definitions on many things in the context of a case.
@Don Doodat Because the conservatives are the ones defending traditional values. The left is trying to change the way we understand the world, so they need to explain what they are talking about before other people get on board. And if they don't know what a woman is, that's a problem for most conservatives.
@Don Doodat Conservatives aren't living by ancient history. They abide by traditional values. Take gender roles, for example. Since forever gender has been based on biology, not society. Now liberals want to change that. But since they can't define what they want gender to be, conservatives can't take them seriously.
Michael Knowles has waltzed around questions during forums numerous times. For example, when he ended debate with a progressive saying, “I identify as the correct person in this argument” while debating transgender ideology and their persecution by conservatives. He failed to make any decent argument against his opponent, and hence shut down with his ridiculous statement. He has opted for stupid responses and avoidance tactics such as this, numerous times. Michael Knowles is a phenomenal moron, who says science is mostly fake and that he thinks in “founding fathers logic”, which I guess includes beating other men for brushing their teeth…?
@an177 ROFL did we watch the same video? 4:45 - Pakman claims there is no legal definition of the word 'woman'. - Knowles points-out that the specific legal protections for women necessitate a legal definition of the word woman. - Pakman has no response and is reduced to disingenuously accusing Knowles of arguing in bad faith.
He asks people he interviews a test question. "Did trump win the 2020 election" as some sore sanity check. Then when asked if he can answer what a woman is, he just says he doesn't play the definition game. I think David is insane.
Well, he is a liberal and liberalism and insanity are completely synonymous (along with having a low IQ) so if the boot fits, he might as well wear it.
@@Michael-uv6cn well he sure doesn’t show it here. Being super arrogant and talking to your opponent like he is stupid just because you disagree with him does not prove one’s intelligence. Quite the opposite.
Meh, this is one of those areas where I agree with conservatives. You can't redefine words to mean whatever you want them to mean. Exclusionary terms that help distinguish unique characteristics are not derogatory, and should be accepted as such. Having a free license to change definitions to personal interpretation invalidates the very premise of contract law. If a judge nominated for SCOTUS fell for something this trivial, they shouldn't be working in any legal capacity.
Did the supreme court need to define the word "Black" before giving Black people in America Civil rights? Or was the definition of the word black irrelevant.
@@davidwilliams6966 access to womens shelters, access to womens jails, access to nude spa areas in California that caused a protest. Theres probably more. The question is, should womens only areas have a standard to prevent false transitioners from accessing their areas? And i am not talking about actual trans people, but domestic abusers trying to access the area that their victim went for safety.
Sorry, but your sad excuse for an argument is 100% ad hominem horseshit. Yes, it is true that words cannot be redefined whenever we want. But in the case of KBJ defining a woman, it's an irrelevant, dumb non sequitur. Even if she answered objectively, that would never satisfy the right. Also, if you cannot see the supreme, comical irony of conservatives whining about redefining terms when all they do is throw around buzzwords like "critical race theory," "socialism" and "cultural Marxism" mindlessly without any conception of their definitions, then you are not of sound mind.
6:41 Knowles did NOT backtrack. Pakman clearly saw he was losing the debate and stonewalled by calling Knowles dishonest. Love how he couldn't define woman or man but then at the end said "let's talk man-to-man." Ironic.
He didn't say he "couldn't" define a woman, he said he wouldn't. Because it's a stupid question! If you don't know gender or even biology is on a spectrum, you're quite ignorant.
I’ve watched DP repeatedly do what he accuses others of. When he feels he is losing an argument he asks the person whom he’s debating to be as specific as possible and then try to attack nuances with disingenuous straw-man attacks
David came across hostile and snarky the whole interview. I don’t know why he decided to do the interview if he was so dismissive. If he didn’t’ want to answer questions he should have proposed a topic to talk about. He says I don’t want to define woman as I want to talk about politics. Two seconds later, he says: “This is man to man!” LOL!
Pff ... he's weird, that's for sure. I think a lot of these progressives are angry at this question because it backs them into a corner. Deep down they believe in the biological definition,but then it becomes very difficult to argue for the "transwomen are women" mantra. It's a real threat for them because it distabilizes their worldview. I guess it's paintful. I don't think they expected to get so much resistance to this. You can't just refuse to define what a man and a woman are! I think they feel as if the next step is for conservatives to say "you see? I knew you would agree that a transwoman is not a real woman!" .. which would make them look homophobic.
He wouldn't sit and have a long discussion about the conservatives shiny object, so the conservative ended up repeating himself and misquoting the questions from senators. Snarky, yes, but at least he had his facts straight and was being specious.
@@rdmcabee He was being specious?! I don't know why that would be a good thing! Anyway... he should have defined the exact topic he wanted to talk about in advance of going to the podcast.. Don't show up in the opposition's den and then act snarky and dismissive. Doesn't advance a cause. Either be an honest actor, or just don't go at all. He comes across immature in these types of interactions. I've seen him a couple of others ones with conservatives. He's smart. I hope you gets the style problem under control to be more persuasive.
Spending 20 minutes on semantics because conservatives can't define "what a woman is" either is a total waste. As if any sociatal definition won't have a multiplicity of exceptions in a population of 300 million is absurd
The inability or unwillingness to provide a definition of what is a woman was exactly the point Knowles was trying to make. And Pakman walked right into the trap.
Pac Man can't define what a woman is, but calls Michael ''dishonest or ignorant''. If Pac man wants to live ina country where his ideas are accepted and celebrated, why does he stay in the US? Venezuela would welcome him with open arms.
Yep. I used to consider myself a left leaning moderate. I can’t stand Knowles. But Pakman and many other progressives have lost their minds. Especially in the LGBT realm.
@@MPR2 If you're on the left, you can't be smart AND honest. If you can't define what you mean by certaint concepts before engaging in a debate, it's pointless.
David was right. Asking that question in the hearing, and also bringing that as a subject to ask David is a waste of time. These conservatives sure do know how to waste time.
Well joe biden said that his choise will be a black woman. How did he know that she is a woman? How does She know if she cant define it? It looked pretty bad. Perfectly acceptable anwser would have been: " Well biologically a woman is a female adult human. female (in human case) means 2X chromosomes, womb, and producing eggs. Ofcourse there are edge cases but im also not an expert in the field. I see this question as a complete waste of time. Respectfully"
@@kimc5814 and if you have self awareness progressives aimlessly move about in gray areas. I rather be a ignorant black or white realist than a delusional gray area thinker.
I did all of the things that David Pakman encouraged the audience to do (re-listening to what others actually said or asked) and in every case, Pakman was wrong. Pakman has never spoken on any issue without intentionally lying. It is crazy to me that people can have confidence in their beliefs when they know they are intentionally lying and misrepresenting things.
@@paulgee521 in 6:38 he says: "from a legal perspective, constitutional perspective, philosophical perspective, whatev..." and then David interrupts him in the middle of the word "whatever". Clearly by "whatever" he meant giving definitions from whatever perspective she wants.
Uhm, yeah. he didn't say the thing he just said. And Trump won Georgia.@@fricasepolitico9271 The narrowness of the conservative is a thing of wonder. So easy to dupe them.
Yeah Michael was listing possible perspectives from which she could provided her definition - he wasn't claiming she actually said those words when posing the question. He was simply explaining the nuance of the manner in which the question was posed. But you and I both know David knew that as well and he just seized on that opportunity to derail the debate he was quickly losing - because he doesn't and never will never argue in good faith. Just like every other piece of shit leftist.@@fricasepolitico9271
Michael was correct on both counts concerning Blackwell...Michael never characterized how she was specifically asking the question. Michael was merely paraphrasing as he was describing what was asked. He was not stating that blackburn was asking for a legal perspective, constitutional perspective. He was simply giving examples of how the most unqualified Jackson could have assumed the question was being asked....sorry pakman - you failed. Context matters. And definitions of words matter.
I just hate how ALL of these reich-side pundits NEVER let anyone they don't agree with finish a sentence or complete a thought. They do the "speed talk" and interrupt and talk over everyone who has a different view. It doesn't make them look smart to anyone but their ignorant, angry base.
I really don't understand the whole "Doesn't go well" clickbait thing. It went great. It wasn't the best dialog but more then ok. I have listened to David for several years, but I have to say Michael came across allot less combative and smug then David.
"I don't do dictionary, I do politics!" I think James Brown was going to use this line but eventually went with the "I don't know karate but I do know crazy!"
While I disagree with the question even being asked of the judge during her hearing,.. it is disingenuous to suggest that laws and the legal system are blind to gender, as many laws explicitly address certain gender-specific issues and protections
People of different genders/sexes get different sentence lengths for the same crimes in court. People/the US legal system definitely judges based on sex
Why is it a good thing to say “I don’t do definitions I do politics” that’s falling into Micheal’s exact point. You shouldn’t let your political view get in the way so much that you can’t even give a vague definition of a word.
David was playing politics not facts or trying to establish common ground from which to discuss the issue. I used to like this guy, but he's shilling for the Left as much as Michael is shilling for the Right. I get the feeling that David knows the definition of "woman" is so in flux, he doesn't want to define it now and end up on the wrong side in a year when the Left changes it again.
I believe David was saying that the political discussion on substantive issues was getting sidetracked because it was too mired in irrelavancy with hyper focus on dictionary definitions. Not that his particular political leaning is the important thing. Why not discuss the nomination in a way that is germaine to her actual day to day job?
@@mistert800 Because it has nothing to do with her. It's about the state of our society. Political commentators are people who get paid to talk about stuff. It's not that deep. If commentators are unwilling to talk about something, that says a lot about our society.
@@John_Merrick its a b.s. gotcha talking point. Notice a whole segment wasted on " define woman". The same way Marsha Blackburn also was gunna take any answer and twist it. Also, what about hermaphrodites? What about a woman unable to have children? Is it just chromosomes or scondary sex characteristics? Honestly, women's rights are human rights. How about no discrimination against anybody.
I'm a fan of Pakman rather than Knowles, but this was a flop performance on Pakman's part. Knowles was being completely respectful. There's nothing wrong with defining a word for the sake of a discussion. Oftentimes words have multiple meanings or have meanings that have been misconstrued by culture that have completely lost their true meaning. Think of the word socialism for example. Socialism no longer means what it technically means to the average person. When the average (U.S.) person hears or reads the word socialism, they're more likely to think of the country's who have implemented socialism, like the USSR and Venzuela, and how it's a generally bad thing that results in a dictatorship. What socialism truly means is an economic system in which the means of production is socialized. It's important that we define words that have ambigious meanings because often times many words have multiple meanings to different people, and if we dont set out a clear defintion pf the term, any discussion regarding that term will be futile. What Knowles did was not bad faith at all.
@Jacob Craven It's a totally relevant question dude. You literally have activists claiming "transwoman are woman" as if there is no distinction between the two. The people on Dr. Phil who said a woman is whoever identifies as one. The category is literally being destroyed. You just call it bad faith because you (and Pakman) are too afraid to define it. Better say the magic phrase so your mob doesn't burn you at the stake. How sad and pathetic.
Americans did not require a court to legally define what the word "Black" meant in order to provide Black Civil Rights. The definition of the word is irrelevant. In this case, a bad faith actor attempted to subvert the rights of trans people by asserting that the word "women" needs legal definition while also implying that that definition needs to be tied to biology - of which it does not. KBJ understands that the definition of a "woman" is irrelevant legally in the context of trans civil rights.
@Jacob Craven Anyone who disagrees with reality for a political purpose is dishonest. The word for an adult female human is "woman," not uterus owner, bleeder, or pregnant person. A person who is not female is not a woman.
Knowles was trying so hard to not laugh out loud at how ridiculous Pakman's arguments were. Especially when Pakman was accusing other people of using bad-faith rhetorical techniques in a discussion in which Pakman ONLY used bad-faith rhetorical techniques.
When you don’t understand the difference between prescriptive and descriptive, You are going to feel this way. When you believe that an imaginary sky daddy makes all of the rules, Its difficult to understand reality.
That’s all he does. To be fair, that’s the only tool the Leftists have. Their religion is to control language to mean whatever they want it to mean at any given time. When words mean nothing, they “win” every argument.
so what, trangender ppl are 0.03% of the population, it's a fake issue/scapegoat used to fearmonger conservative voters. like ok a woman is a female adult human? what does this accomplish, it's completely irrelevant to politics. sad that half the country is falling for this bullshit
His argument was that the definition is not important for the judge to decide and that's why he didn't answer the question. Moreover, due to the heated argument that the right has created around this definition he knows that whatever he answers is going to be used against him, edited as a neat little clip. He sees the question:"How do you define a woman?" as a trick question, as a trap. If he sees something as a trap, why would he step into it? Conservatives are usually driven by the need to create borders, to create simple standards that best stay unchanged because they favor security over liberty since temperamentally they are a little bit more afraid than progressives. The protection of the status quo can be a very admirable goal, however civilization has been a process that over the millenia has improved life for everybody. That is called progress. It doesn't work without change. Progress, as you've probably guessed, is brought about by progressives. Having said that everybody knows that there is no such thing as a woman, there are only men, thus we call it mankind. Get it?
@@felixmidas2020 "is argument was that the definition is not important for the judge to decide and that's why he didn't answer the question. " - The judge was asked to provide their definition of the word 'woman' to prove that they have a cogent and logical understanding of what a woman is. The reason this is important is because women form ~50% of the nation and the judge will at some point almost certainly need to rule on laws pertaining to womens issues. *"Moreover, due to the heated argument that the right has created around this definition he knows that whatever he answers is going to be used against him"* - Refusing to provide an argument because you are scared of having your irrationality exposed should tell people everything they need to know about you and your lack of intellectual honesty. *"He sees the question:'How do you define a woman?' as a trick question, as a trap"* - It's not a trap: we're asking you that question because we dont think you have a cogent and logically consistent understanding of what a woman is. We're pretty upfront about this fact 🙂 *"Conservatives are usually driven by the need to create borders, to create simple standards"* - Yeh and apparently they also like to have logically consistent definitions that dont commit blatant logical fallacies (like the circular reasoning fallacy committed when leftists try to define a woman as 'anyone who self-identifies as a woman').
Saying that defining terms is pointless is about the dumbest thing i’ve heard David say. It’s basically impossible to have meaningful discussion if each side is operating on a different definition.
Ask yourself if you say that a woman is somebody that makes a baby what happens if they have menopause is she no longer a woman Definitions could mean more than one thing depending on the person that's why it's important for the Supreme Court not to be backed into definitions the answers they give or very nuanced
I find it hard to believe that "definitions don't matter" in a legal setting. So every contract ever signed would be invalid because everyone has a different definition of the words on the page.
The point Pakman is making here is that the question of "legally what is a women?" is a topic that is actively and currently being discussed nationally. For a JUDGE to come out with a PRE-JUDGEMENT is out of the question: this leads to well just give us the dictionary definition - which has nothing to do with legality - its a bad faith question that does nothing to denote ones ability to apply justice but rather qualify in the opponents argument that said person doesn't hold their values. Grow up.
@@jewpoc Frank the idea that a judge is making pre-judgement here is just absurd. Judges are allowed to lean into precedent, and in this case precedent is rooted in our biology, which is at the very foundation of our existence. People aren't arguing to establish a definition, they're arguing to change the existing ones.
@@mamezou3741 there is no case determining gender in US history for this "precedent" you speak of. There is no case at the federal level that legally rooted gender to biology nor should there be. The law should not care if you are a man or a woman.
@@jewpoc If the law should not care whether or not you are a man or a woman (a point I generally agree with), why is it so important for the left to shift the definition of these terms? You are the one arguing that the legal definition of these terms needs to be re-established.
@@mamezou3741 the left is not arguing to "shift" definitions. The left is trying to "include" trans women. No one on the left (at least the informed ones) is trying to convince anyone that a person born female, who reaches female puberty and who produces female eggs is not a women. That would be insane, right? The goal is to allow for trans individuals to be a part of the judicial world, be recognized, have a legal voice and be given the same rights that we all enjoy as americans, its really not that scary i promise.
Well, he was right about the "backtracking". He said at 6:36 "just tell me what a woman is: from a legal perspective, a constitutional perspective, a philosophical, I mean, whatever..." so he really did mean just any ("whatever") definition, not specifically a legal or philosophical one. Seems like you cut him off so you didn't hear the end of that sentence.
He was being hyper autistic and being bad faith because he was loosing. It's funny he said she didn't define it because of optics earlier, and all we see here is David playing the optics game too.
You guys are dumb Micheal at 6:37 "All Marsha Blackburn asked was, what is a women from a legal perspective, from a constitutional, from a philosophical perspective." David at 6:52 "You just asserted that she said she wanted the legal and philosophical [definition] she never said that." Michael at 6:67 in response "No no no I didnt say that."
It’s because men ask for pay raises woman work harder and expect a pay raise. And I’m being nice saying they’ll work harder. They work less hours bc family is more important as they are biologically driven to care for others and men to protect. Although you would say men are prone to violence….lol anyway. Not only that but in any case bc they are the more caring gender. Out of two genders. Lmao even when choosing a great paying job. They might still have kids. Which in terms of time worked for say a mandatory pay raise men will automatically be ahead of them. And that gap can increase with more children. So because of that they’ll have time off for giving birth. Falling behind in pay raises in the case they work a high paying job and we only compare her wages to her co workers who are men but hold the same position. That’s why she might get paid less. However over time the pay will cap and she’ll catch up. So it’s whatever shut up lmao just kidding. Dave’s alright. I guess.
Did a supreme court justice ever need to define the word "Black" in order to provide civil rights for black people? Or was the definition of the word irrelevant.
@@jerryjeromehawkins1712 so here is why it doesnt matter legally - do you have a car? or is it a truck, or is it an SUV. Is it a convertible? Maybe its an EV. All of these things, LEGALLY are called "vehicles". You go to the DMV - the V is for Vehicle. OKAY you with me? What is the definition of the word "vehicle"? 1. a thing used for transporting people or goods, especially on land, such as a car, truck, or cart. Now if I wanted to be a dick, as everyone on the right seems to want to be, I could argue that the government needs to allow me to get my pilots license at the DMV since a plane is a vehicle and the word is in the thing! But THANKFULLY - That is not how this works! Im sure you, like most people, would say the definition of a woman is "a biological female" and I dont disagree! However legally, it doesnt matter. The groups who are seeking civil rights could and do call themselves all sorts of things, it doesnt change the desired outcome of legal protections. The only thing that defining "a woman" as "a biological female" does, in this context, is push a political agenda - KBJ is a judge, not a politician. Grow up kid.
@@jewpoc Well I think you would need a legal distinction between a plane and a car. There's different insurance laws, I'd imagine flying with close to 100 people on board at any given time would subject me to some liability that I wouldn't normally have driving a car. Also why do I need a license for a car and not a motor scooter for example? What makes those 2 items different? We literally have to define terms before we can have a discussion on them. Otherwise I'm sitting here trying to ponder how you have such a loose definition of vehicle that it can apply to me carrying my wife up the stairs.
@@jm0112 Spot on! We absolutely need to define terms, from a legal perspective. And don't forget, those terms will change over time - take a OneWheel for example, or E-Bike... The point is that "vehicle" is not the distinction. Neither would be "woman" in this legal context.. Neither is "man" by the way. "Man" has many legal uses and none that I am aware of that distinguish specifically male gender. Most laws will in fact NOT distinguish gender because it is.. get this.. irrelevant! Most laws will use the legal term "Persons". The gripe the trans community has is that they tend to be seen as sub-human, othered, faking it, deviant, not human etc.. That is why the lure to define "woman" is political in nature - justice is blind my friend and if it ever becomes biased, well, thats when we start having fascism.
The "What is a woman?" question is yet another case of science out-pacing gov't. David is excellent at not letting fast-talkers bamboozle him, I'd like to see him go up against Swanson.
@@bearbryant3495 oh boy. What a waste of David’s time that would be. Tucker is best suited to talk to the morons watching Fox News, he isn’t going to dare venture out of that safe space.
Because it's not even an issue to define a woman and making that the topic of his conversation just shows how stupid the right is with this even if she could define what a woman is it's just like abortion she can't comment on something that is pending in the court duh
Pakman, "...I don't 'do' dictionary, I 'do' politics..." then Pakman has the complete lack of self-awareness to say--wait for it: "...by definition..." Yikes, and these are serious people?
Yeah, I don’t do dictionary. I make my living using words and writing material using words that I don’t know the meaning of, well, all but one word that I understood until two years ago.
The rhetorical strategy of not allowing for a definition of a word is an old Marxist strategy. THis is nothing new. New agers (progressives) today all claim to have an inner truth. But the universe doesnt care how you feel. Truth is truth. It is observable, duplicatable and easy to describe. There is a legal definition of women - one need only search online to find various similar "legal definitions" of woman, male, female, man, boy, girl, etc etc etc. And they all correspond with what we all have know since we learned our first word: A mommy and Daddy are biologically different. Progressives simple cannot speak of facts,. One day, the societal backlash against progressives will equal the damage they have wrought unto society at large.
He made his point earlier, that dictionaries are descriptive. So it doesn’t matter what any single person thinks a definition is. He deals with meaning, not with labels. It’s a very common position in philosophy, so I don’t understand this is an issue.
I have to disagree. That seemed to go very well. It was two people that have different opinions remaining cordial and polite while partaking in actual discourse. It's a shame that more people can't do this when they disagree.
The question was meant to stump. Why because what makes a woman other than being female (sex) are political, social/cultural norms and religious.... see. In some parts of the world you can be a male but perform all the roles of a woman and be considered a woman because of the role, they will come out and tell you that is women's work. Its a complex question because as society change so does the word and the person that asked her knows that.
@@My2CentsYall That comment wasn't even worth one cent. Women have babies and men make houses for them. Women have vaginas and men have penises. There, fixed it for you.
As he said 'I don't do dictionary, I do politics' which is the most honest thing he said in this video. So called 'progressives' use purposefully vague definitions as a political tool to be able to change that definition to whatever suits their purpose in whatever situation suits them. Its a smart political tactic because they can bog down an argument just over definitions, never tell you what their true position or goal is, and convince people that they are the good guys based on feelings rather than facts. It's a brilliant and nefarious strategy, and completely intellectually dishonest. He says politicians should not get bogged down with definitions, then proceeds to bog down the discussion about definitions in general. That's not a strategy for honest debate. It's a strategy for activism when you don't want an honest debate.
At what point in the last 10 years did democrats stop knowing what a woman is? I was a democrat pre 2020, and I don't remember not knowing what a woman was....
I thought the most interesting part was when Pakman referred to the 'bad faith right'. There's something very presumptuous about assuming that anyone who thinks differently from you must be acting out of bad faith. IMO, Pakman came across as very defensive in his manner, like a clever but truculent sophomore. I wouldn't call myself a fan of Knowles, but he's unfailingly polite and charitable when he engages with others.
@user-lr9mo9my6j Nah Pakman is handsome. Knowles looks like a cross between a Weasel a Rat and Charles Dahmer looking at him to long becomes uncanny and disturbing .
He's a leftist who doesn't actually know anything, but he truly does believe that he knows what he's talking about and thinks that what he's saying makes sense. Any challenge to that means that YOU are being dishonest and aren't willing to have a "good faith" conversation on topics they wish to confuse every one on. Disagree? Well, you aren't willing to discuss the matter "in good faith" and aren't being "honest". See how that works? It's 'heads I win, tails you lose.' 😉🙃😜
@@Big_Pipe70Okay, say you have a cat and someone asks you if it's a *male cat" or " female cat". What are you going to say? Because according to David you can't answer that. It's whatever the cat identifies as. 😂
6:40 Michael states that Marsha Blackburn said "Just tell me what a women is, from a legal perspective, a consitutional perspective, a philisophical perspective".
In all fairness he was right he never said that all he said was she could provide a definition formed from any basis she wanted legal philosophical etc
He quoted the “Just tell me what a woman is” then prescribed the types of definitions she can provide. It telling that this libtard grasped onto this part because he never had an answer for the actual question
Yeah lol he is asked if he has a definition of the word “woman” and that is his response. “I don’t do dictionary; I do politics”. Like does he just not use the word woman then?
@@colbymyman1487 The point Pakman is making here is that the question of "legally what is a women?" is a topic that is actively and currently being discussed nationally. For a JUDGE to come out with a PRE-JUDGEMENT is out of the question: this leads to well just give us the dictionary definition - which has nothing to do with legality - its a bad faith question that does nothing to denote ones ability to apply justice but rather qualify in the opponents argument that said person doesn't hold their values.
David said it "never" comes down to a definition in law. But he doesn't have an answer on Title IX memorized so he deflects. He is well aware that without definitions many laws are impossible to enforce. Watch other debates and you will find it is a popular tactic.
I don't understand how, even from his own argument, he can hold the stance that the definition of a woman has no bearing on her job. That definition can in certain cases be instrumental for the outcome of the case, and there are cases that are likely to become more and more frequent in the coming years. Another thing I don't understand more generally is the insistence on definitions of words being unnecessary. A word not necessitated be a definition means nothing at all, so why even have the word. If the word ‘woman’ means nothing, then why say ‘trans woman’. If ‘woman’ means nothing, then the word is completely superfluous because you’re given no more information by the presence of the word than its absence. You can argue about the definition, but not the necessity of a definition, for in the absence of a definition you lose the ability to communicate altogether
@Jacob Craven Yes, that's correct. It pertains to attributes which exist in biological women, most often pregnancy. Biological women. You might know them as birthing persons. This doesn't make individuals who don't have all of these exact characteristics not biologically female, but I Bel eve you'd be quite scientifically in the wrong to claim there's no observable difference in structure of both men and women. If we can exhume the bodies of ancient Egyptians and tell whether they were a man or a woman, I believe there's clearly a difference.
@Jacob Craven womens civil rights and transgender civil right can exist in the same world you dork. This is like saying Black Civil Rights only applies to people who are black - Guy, it applies to everyone, it protects a class of people, it doesnt matter what the definition of a black person is
By this logic, Black Civil Rights should only apply to people who are defined as black. A civil right applies to everyone you dummy, it doesn't matter what the definition of black is, it still protects a class of people from discrimination.
After rewatching Micheal Knowles say his sentence, I confirmed that you were wrong and the strawmaned him to distract from the point he was trying to make.
Wow. Trumpholes really will believe what they want regardless of truth. Michael LITERALLY said those very things then denied that he said them 15 seconds later. Yet...you. Amazed at how the limp right thinks it knows anything other than that it is dinner time.
a woman is a human (a sapient being, if we want to expand to fantasy and scifi settings) in the performance of womanhood, which is a complex, conditional, socially constructed gender role. literally no two women express womanhood exactly the same, it's a subjective element of their identities, so there is no one answer "what is a woman."
Americans did not require a court to legally define what the word "Black" meant in order to provide Black Civil Rights. The definition of the word is irrelevant.
@@jewpoc that's cause people back then didn't have to define what a black person is to know what they are. The term woman has biological and social aspects to define it such as age of what an adult is happens to be social since it can differ by country and biology by what sex organs you have
@@turtlegaminghd5406 legally this is different. In NY wine sales are different than beer sales or spirit sales. In fact, in NYC you cannot sell wine and spirits in the same store without both a wine AND spirits license, regardless of he definition of "alcohol". Legally speaking - Defining the word "alcohol" is irrelevant, even though we all agree what alcohol is biologically, chemically, socially, culturally I mean fuck it take your pick home boy, the definition of the word has almost nothing to do with the application of the laws it is involved in. "Alcohol" could be literally defined as "Ethanol derived from distillation" and that has nothing to do with how laws are written or enforced around the sales of beer, wine, spirits, restaurants, gas stations... the list goes on...
David is very defensive, as displayed by his uptick in adrenalin. Michael was talking, David interrupted him and then became aggressive when he was interrupted in turn. Replay the portion that David implores you to replay. Michael was correct. Perhaps David should focus more on the words in a conversation rather than the outcome he desires.
6:36 “All Marsha Blackburn asked was just tell me what a woman is. From a legal perspective, from a constitutional perspective, from a philosophical perspective” Michael did imply that Marsha Blackburn asked for these definitions. Imply being the key word there, if anything David listened closer to see those implications and wasn’t going to let that slide.
Nah, Pakman was the one being dishonest and not having a discussion in good faith and immediately accused michael of that.....it was a pure obvious tactic and lame. nothing to do with tactics. jsut about being a bad person. He ask when would the definition of a single word matter. said thats not what courts do....yet we all watched bill clinton and monica right? Bill used a single simple word as and it's definiton as his whole defense. Many cases brought in court that it does matter if you are awoman and based soley because you are a women. HE is such a coward as he had no legit counters he used weak tactics. Everyone can see what you did buddy....who you think you fooling? And please stop with republicans this hearing not being in good faith....because I know this pakman clown didn't have that same view with Kananuagh huh?
@@victorcamacho4860 Very strong argument. "This is what I assumed you meant, and that is the basis of my argument" Pathetic. I'm all for debates and conversations like this but if this is what progressives have to offer...no wonder
It's rather telling how quickly the constitution is tossed into any discussion of this kind, yet they simultaneously violated it by interrogating her about her religious views. "Rules for thee, not for me."
@@calvinw8133 there is a biological definition of female, but there are also multiple definitions. there are multiple dictionary definitions of "woman" One of the definitions is "belonging to the female sex" or "being an adult female person" another is "being not male" well...this is why the dictionary isn't helpful. Because now you have to go look up the definition of "male". One definition of "Male" says someone who produces gametes which a female may be fertilized with" so by this definition, a biological assigned at birth male who is incapable due to genetics of producing sperm is a WOMAN. Literally by the dictionary definition presented here, IS NOT a man. So if I use the dictionary definition "Not male" for woman then a man who can't make sperm is a woman, by default, which we clearly don't think is true for 99.9% of the US population. Plus, there is also a definition that says "an individual with distinctively feminine nature" what is feminine nature? Can you define that without using the term woman? Well...maybe? IDK sounds like a social construct to me. There are gay men who present quite feminine in their mannerisms. That doesn't mean by default they are a woman. Is Natalie Wynn a woman? If you don't know who that is...look her up. I think she is. I think legally she ought to be considered as one. There is no social utility or value in referring to her as a man, because wtf how would you justify that position? She even tweeted a while back that when she was in deep-red North Carolina at a sports bar all the macho conservative men there said "yes ma'am" and "hi miss" to her, so clearly they either thought she was a woman or a bunch of rural Republicans in NC knew who Natalie Wynn was and knew she was trans. Buck Angel had the sex on his birth certificate changed to male years ago, despite being born female and living for 29 years as a "woman". Clearly, science is fine with studying the elements of anatomical and physiological sex while also studying the effects of sociological constructs like gender. One of the reasons I hate this entire discussion is because really what we're trying to establish is "ok obviously cisgender women are women, but are trans women women". And I think the obvious answer is, we're never going to agree. Which is why asking a SCOTUS nominee what is a woman is purely a political rhetorical strategy to try to make a cheap conservative talking point win. Even Republican governors aren't signing these trans girls can't participate in girls sports bills cause they think they go against what the country stands for.
“What’s your definition of a woman?” “Well, I’m a politician - I don’t do definitions…, but speaking MAN to MAN”… Ya - he’s such a “good faith” progressive…😳
Can't believe he started the segment by saying "...in the interest of actually hearing out the other side...", then proceeds to berate David on KBJ's refusal to define a word. It's always the culture war with these people.
Exactly! That was a massive waste of time. There are genuine issues that they could have been discussing. That's one of my biggest issues with the right-wing types now. All they do is drum up outrage and fear over "culture war" issues that don't even effect the lives of any of the people that oppose them. I meant look at what they did with CRT. Most of them don't even know what it is because they think it's being taught in public schools. Now you have states that have literally banned teaching about the racist history of America because the white kids might "feel bad". It's unbelievable.
I can’t believe they peel off centrists with this crazy crap, honestly the RW are all nuts and they obsess over imaginary issues because they don’t have a single policy that would help a single working class American
@@terrystevens3998 One reason is because the right has copious amounts of money, which they're willing to throw at anyone who will spout their nonsense. Not only Fox News, but also The Daily Wire, for example, has billionaire funding.
LOL, I did not catch that. He goes into excruciating detail, not trying to define woman then he says man to man. What a complete and utter imbecile David is.
Progressives are incapable of self-reflection. What they do instead is they make reality into santa clause and state their truth is whatever they want it to be.
I was looking at the comments and there's hope for humanity! How in God's world can the definition of woman not be relevant? It has huge effects, such as Title IX, abortion, the Civil Rights Act, or the Equal Pay Act of '63. How can you with a straight face not recognize that??
“It’s the most interesting point in the country that we can’t define man and woman”. Really, that’s the most interesting, important question plaguing the country? This guy is as much of a grifter as it gets.
I think at this point in history a lot of people don't have a definition for what a woman is. The traditional definition conflicts with their politics and they really struggle to come up with a new one to replace it.
The problem is not that the issue is important or not. The right is pointing out that democrats use flawed logic to come to the conclusion that there is no definition for women and thus they can not be trusted to make decisions on running the country. Leftists attack the GOP all the time for making no sense or avoiding questions and while Democrats are better at this in my opinion, having no answer for this line of attack allows the GOP to set up a false equivalency between the two parties. Something like: “Yeah we don’t make sense when we talk, but neither do you guys.”
The definition of transgenderism relies on definitions of man and woman thus without definitions of man and woman transgenderism is just a hazy blob floating through the ethos. Yes I know transgendered people refers to anyone who doesn’t conform to the traditional ideas (definitions) of man and woman in which case I say fine. Let transgendered people be one big group along with traditional men and traditional women. Let transgendered people access to the medical utilities that they need. Do not let transgendered people compete in the same categories of sport as traditional men and women. And most importantly let all laws when possible and when applicable, be based on biological sex.
look at his page, 12/15 of his recent videos are all bashing one guy lol. Dude uses word salads to make unintelligent people believe he is the person to listen to.
As someone on the right, I really love this channel. David actually knows what he’s talking about, he cuts the bullshit and speaks using logic. Micheal just tried to trap and to lead on people and has that annoying smug on his face.
@@eggscheese2763 he could be a moderate right. Theoretically right wing can use facts n logic too but their party is just filled with bad faith actors.
That’s kind of the point. Focus on fake points like trans people in sports. But ya know massive wealth inequality, the climate catastrophe that is going to happen and woman bodily autonomy.
“I don’t do dictionary I do politics” well you can’t have a political debate or any kind of conversation if words don’t have meanings behind them. For example if I say I went to the store today but your internal definition of store is a swimming pool, we are not even talking about the same issue so no real conversation or debate can even happen. That’s why all words need to have a specific definition or meaning nationally understood so we can actually communicate with each other.
“What a woman is, is a rhetorical black hole….” Ummm, what? Forgive me; I am paraphrasing. But good on KBJ for….NOT being able to explain what a woman is? Next thing you know, people will start asking what gravity is. Gravity is just a social construct.
Re: Marsha Blackburn - Judge Jackson should have responded, ‘If you want to give me a dictionary, I can look it up for you. However, in my role as a judge, the definition is irrelevant, because everyone is treated equally, so I prefer to look at everyone as humans.”
The draft is one- although the House voted to include women last year, but it didn’t make it through the Senate. If the draft is involved in a court case, then they can pull out their dictionaries. What happens for hermaphrodites?
I enjoyed this. I wish David had thought to ask “did senators ask Amy Comeu Barrett what her definition of a “baby” is? Or “human being” is?” Because those are trick questions too. Conservatives want to say that fetus are babies and human beings. But ACB couldn’t say that because that brings on whole other legal issues, and it would also show her hand on her abortion rulings that might come up. And If a fetus is human or a baby, is that from the point of conception? Can a woman who is one month pregnant get life insurance for her baby and collect if she miscarries? As far a “woman”, ignoring trans issues for a bit, there are many intersex people born who are biologically both male and female.
Or how about this? Why is the murderer of a pregnant woman not charged with double murder in all 50 states in the USA? Some only charge for the woman. Some only charge double murder when the pregnancy is a certain number of months along. Why is that?
@@sickandtiredofbeingsickand Because they changed the law to better fit the definitions provided by planned Parenthood and the abortion advocates in deep blue states. Margaret Sanger was a malevolent woman who strategically put planned parenthoods in urban areas to target black mothers to depopulate the black community. There's your pro choice savior, a racist, genocidal eugenicist.
I am a Canadian in his late sixties and don’t remember a young man that is so well versed on the subjects he discusses. He is poised rational and as non-judgemental as you can be in this climate. Enjoy his take in issues.
He literally said that she's not more qualified in all those ways that she's more qualified, simply because she didn't define something. That is the weakest argument I've ever heard
@TheLuigiLightning The guest, David, stated that Jackson is more qualified than any of the current Supreme Court justices. It is easily demonstrable and not really a matter of opinion but rather a matter of fact. The host of the show then said, "Well, that's not really true because she can't define what a woman is." Essentially, he discounted all of the legitimate ways in which Jackson is far more qualified than any of the current justices, simply because she chose not to give a definition of a word.
@Jody Owen OK then, Einstein, how exactly would you prefer we judge qualifications if not by relevant career experience and by education, which is all stated here?
Yeah he is basically just a troll, not interested in having an actual discussion. At one point he started to give what the opposite sides definition of a "woman" is but then acts like it's too confusing for him or something and just stops. Like acting too dumb to understand relatively simple concepts makes him more correct.
You can watch debate night. I don't know if Charlie Kirk still does that but after Ben Burgis and Ben Gleib went there i think Charlie will think twice before having any non right winger there.
Yup he accused Michael of debating in bad faith, because he didn’t hear the full sentence, Because he interrupted Michael. Disgusting behaviour to assume that, if you don’t understand something, the other party is debating in bad faith. Tells you all you really need to know about Pakman
Michael was right about the fact that David misrepresented what he said. David needs to learn to listen and learn something when he's sitting down with people that are much more intelligent than he is
right about what? he couldn't get his quotes correct and refused to be gracious and simply correct his mistake about what words a senator used in their question
@@rdmcabee he did correct himself. And then the socialist libtard went on a rant. Did you not watch the same video to see how cheap and pathetic his debate tactics were?
@@rdmcabee Michael was just saying that an open ended question was asked by the senator which allowed for any definition to be given. You misheard, you are wrong.
Michael: "The definition of a woman is a person who is not a man." ... okay, what's a man then Michael? a person who isn't a woman? is a young boy then a man, a woman, or a non-person? what about an intersex person? coorporations have some of the legal rights of people, but they certainly aren't men ... so I guess they are part woman?
A man is a biological male, has or will grow male reproductive parts. A female has the biological parts to eventually carry a child. Gender is different, but should not matter on title 9 issues
@@cjp1599 that’s not totally true.. there are intersex people, people with male chromosomes that have female genitalia, and people with female chromosomes that develop male genitalia it’s called Sawyer syndrome. Biological males are men but not all men are biological males.. if the right is so caught up on a definition being important shouldn’t it be precise
@@terrystevens3998 1 in 1000 people born are intersex. I don't see why they screech about individual freedom and not having government tell people what to do then spend their entire lives thinking about and wanting to inspect everyone's genitals and use the government to control people's individual right to self identify who they are. Those people have severe brain rot. Someone says they're a woman and if they disagree they want to control that person's identity? Okay, well first, let that person decide your gender and let them control your identity. Its a two way street. How about let people have their individual right to be in control of themselves.why is that so hard? Oh that's right, the right are pro-authoritarian, that's why they sat on the right in the first place, to conserve an authoritarian hierarchy and to be anti-democracy and anti-self-determinism, their current beliefs show no deviation from the very beginning of the left vs right dichotomy was born into existence.
@@Otembe Totally agree. Even when you outline that you want a good faith discussion you get the runaround and a cheesy smirk. I agree with David that this is a giant waste of time.
HAHAHA! Exactly, Klutterkicker! A lot of people define things in terms of what they are not. Simple. You could say "Day is not night" or "up is not down" or "a lion is not a domestic cat." I sometimes envy those who live life on such simple terms.
@@Spincat08 If either of them do choose to offer a definition of woman, unlike Michael's "old definition of woman" which the transgender movement allegedly ruined, I'm pretty sure it won't include among other things all young boys.
The absolute irony of a man who literally just said “I don’t do definitions” to avoid saying what a woman is only to say “we’re talking man to man” 30 seconds later…. So we can define man, but not woman? 🤨
@Shoshon I'm sorry, you said they identify as one. Identify as what? If we don't know what "man" means, we can just make it a blank. He may have just said "blank to blank." ... Then again, blank has more meaning than man or woman now. At least we know what that is.
@Kirby Smart everyone knows that session was a theatrical event for those senators that said they didn't want to make it political, but made everything political. All those politicians are worms. Let's stop voting for party line scumbags and start voting for people that actually care about bettering America instead of fake culture wars.
How can she uphold article 3 if she's not able to define what a woman is? How can she uphold your precious Roe V Wade if she can't define what a woman is? What if she hears a case on the supposed gender pay gap? How can she rule on a case like that if she doesn't even know the difference between men and women?
@@onlyme2579 Gender pay gap could be an interesting thing to bring up, but you really did it a disservice by forcing Roe V Wade into it. As far as I know only those born as a female can get pregnant soo how could this be possibly affected by this? Do you honestly think she wont acknowledge a pregnant woman as a woman? Come on you know that wouldnt happen. The issue people are worried about is ADDING people to this group, there is no threat of females being REMOVED from the category of female. I know some people like to take this to "but genders won't mean anything anymore" but that's not true, the vast majority of humans are totally content with the gender they were born as, just like me & you are. Come on man trans male to females cant get pregnant, it's a non issue & you're acting like something major will happen to it because of the trans issue. It could be overturned by Republicans but that will have nothing to do with the trans issue, that's a pro life/pro choice issue. I'd bet you money Roe Vs Wade wont ever be affected by the trans issue because trans people cant get pregnant after surgery. If it was me I'd have given the definition of a biological female to show the right I'm not denying reality while also bringing up the gender dysphoria issue & state maybe theres a need to address the social definition including current gender beliefs. I wouldnt want to look like I cant define what a woman is, I think you could find the nuance of that position more respectable. But both david & the guy from the daily wire agreed it was a strategically sound position so it is what it is I guess.
@@lMobiuscidl You obviously have no clue what the far left is. AOC and Bernie are barely left of center. Far left is actual Socialism, not just some policies to help the average American.
I don't feel like approaching this from a "it doens't go well for them" sort of way just further troubles the problem of the left and right not being able to have discussions. From what I observed, it was a reasonable discussion between two people that disagreed. I think Michael Knowles was perfectly fine in his approach and he was open minded by conceding points and agreeing, it felt like he was really there to discuss rather than debate. I think David came in a little too aggressive, perhaps because he expected that from Michael.
This is how this works so well on people. We should all have a nice discussion and treat each others opinions with respect apart from donald trump said he won an election then his mob tried to steal it. You can have a debate and furiously disagree and choose not to do more than debate but I don't want to see a lot of agreements as the right have used this to state we need 'balance' but just like here in the UK all this means is one side lies and it goes unchallenged. David was not aggressive he just had no tolerance for the nonsense spouted over definitions which matter not to the judges role. He then says rewind the tape that's wrong, play the clip of her saying that it's wrong... He did neither and just ploughed on regardless and when challenged he has decided that Samuel Johnson didn't write the first dictionary and it came pre prepared when man was made by God presumably
This Pakman guy is a complete moron; hence, why he's never been offered a serious contract and posts clickbait on YT. The Left definitely has better to offer. This guy is dumb (like low IQ, stupid) and arrogant. He just needs lazy to be the deadly trifecta. Complete pseudo-intellectual and Dunning-Kruger. He's incredibly petulant.There's no way people listen to this clown.
Without language aka words/definitions, then we can’t do laws aka politics. Saying you don’t do “definitions you do politics” makes about as much sense as a chef saying, I don’t do recipes, I do cooking.. it’s Just an obvious cop out.
You're speaking to Michael, by making sounds, in understandable, communicably consistent structure, called words, that can be further structured into sentences/statements to convey ideas, concepts via each word conveying it's DEFINED meaning between individuals. Functional speech REQUIRES definitions to matter and be consistent. Definitions are a fundamental prerequisite for communication. "I'm not about definitions, I'm about politics" is INHERENTLY bad faith, it necessarily implies 'I will say whatever I need to to in order to get power' since honest speech with consistent meanings behind the word is not important, only the acquisition of political power is.
The brief answer to what is a women is that “That’s a fascinating question that we are all now dealing with given the recently recognized legitimacy of transgenderism.” In the same way that What is a human being? would have been answered differently by most white people 200 years ago compared to today. Or the term “marriage” is defined differently now by most rational, thoughtful people than it was just a few years ago. The Right has gradually revealed its dark side, which is the idea that any form of deceit and manipulation is allowed to get what they want. Michael is just a congenial and clever purveyor of the same toxic ideas. I support calling out the lies whether told by liberals or conservatives. But there is no longer even an attempt by Republicans by and large to hold their own accountable. We can thank Trump for pulling back the curtain and revealing the contempt most Republicans have for honesty, integrity and civility.
Ok, I've seen a number of these kind of comments, and I am genuinely confused. Do a lot of liberal/left leaning people not believe in biological facts that are undisputed in the scientific community.? I'm not asking this question as a backhand insult. Some conservatives don't accept evolution or climate change science. Do some liberals really not believe in sex?
Pakman knows he is getting the worst in this exchange and decides to make disparaging remarks toward Knowles rather than concede the points that were made in this discussion.
@@TomFoolery0077 No I think he mean qualified as in her experiences. I mean I believe there is a chart comparing her qualifications and experience to the others and quite frankly it’s not even close.
@@TomFoolery0077 I think they're referring to her years of experience as a judge, having presided over many cases, as well as her academic achievements and myriad accolades and letters of recommendation from her peers and superiors. But yeah, her being a black woman also adds an important perspective to the Supreme Court that we've been severely lacking
Fantastic job by David. Held him to the fire. Didn't let the BS slip by. This guy is clearly not being honest in this engagement, the smirk says it all. The question is a wild waste of time, and grifters like Michael love it.
He was being completely honest. Its a valid legal question as to what a woman is. Women have special protections under law and benefits such as sba loans for women and minorities.
@@DonkeyLips-gj9uq there is no legal definition of it. It’s judged on a case by case basis and many things are taken into account (most scientists know we can’t even clearly define it absolutely) and the definition has changed multiple times (remember when women with darker skin weren’t considered human even)? I’d also love for you to give me a legal definition or biological definition of minority 🤣
@@daniellogansa8101 Wow U actually make a good point regarding minority standing.. people usually self-certify on college admissions, sba business loans, surveys, census etc. or they are categorized by law enforcement during arrests. Many claim race has virtually no genetic component but there are many mixed raced people with 50%, 25%, etc based upon parents, grandparents, etc and that certainly muddies the waters with regard to race. But can u change ur race on a dime? And sex is completely genetically determined and visible by doctors at birth by genetalia and by xx or xy chromosomes by birth. Opposite sex is requires for reproduction in humans and other mammals. And that is incontrivertible. It does not occur otherwise. Ever. So u could self-certify but that would not change your xx or xy chromosome. Ever.
@@daniellogansa8101 There is no legal definition because for all of humanity, whether humans were dehumanized for racial, ethnic, or religious reasons, we still all had an unspoken agreement that there were clear and undeniably natural differences between the sexes. That’s why “women” and “no discrimination based on sex” are mentioned in our laws, if never defined. Just like they didn’t define what happiness or life was when our founders recognized them as inalienable rights. The issue is that now we have a growing portion of the country that wants to alter this unspoken agreement to become far more fluid than intended when these words were written into our laws. We have people wanting to allow and encourage young children to question the sex/gender. We have parents who’ve lost parental rights of their children and even been held in contempt of court and put in jail for refusing to use the pronouns the court deemed legally necessary. We have people born as male as male could be being awarded woman of the year, and others who went through male puberty entering into female sports and dominating... taking away college scholarships, careers and pride from women. I’ve even read about men convicted of assault and rape against women claiming to be women to force the legal justice system to house them in a women’s prison. These are relatively new phenomenon in the US, and it is very likely that in the near future we will start to see a lot of very controversial court cases... some of which will make it to the Supreme Court. Soon to be Justice Jackson will have the job of reading the laws that contain words like “women” and “sex” and make judgement calls about what those words mean. That will help set the legal precedent for future decisions. So it’s a critically important question for her to consider. And for her to simply smile, shrug her shoulders and say she doesn’t know like it’s something silly is much more alarming than had she simply given an answer that half the country disagrees with. Because it shows that she actually hasn’t spent time thinking about these current issues and what they mean for society and law, or that she has but is treating this hearing like a politician as opposed to a justice. To go back to your comment about darker skin women not being human... that’s true... but I don’t believe they didn’t feel they were women. That’s why they separated out men from women from children... because these definitions transcend even racial and ethnic bigotry. A good question to ask yourself is... During the civil war, when we didn’t consider slaves fully legal human/adult/citizen/person... Don’t you think that it would have been an important question for justice nominees to ask them to define “person” and whether or not that definition included slaves? Everyone knew the country was at a critical pivot point and new laws would be written or old ones re-interpreted. Wouldn’t you have been happy to hear that question and anxious to hear the potential justice explain the meaning of that word through which they would interpret the law for generations to come.
@@joeschneider3894 your first point is true for some cultures, not true for others (ancient Egypt is the first prominent example I can think of). Hell, certain cultures considered certain humans gods. There is simply more evidence that there is more nuance to it than an “unspoken” strict definition. There isn’t a strict definition for minority or white or black either, despite many people thinking there is an unspoken rule to it. It sounds like you have a large number of examples of legal rulings favoring trans people (some of them seem realistic and some of them seem completely made up, like the going to prison for not using pronouns one). I’m happy to discuss each one separately if you provide me with articles and details, but most of it sounds like stuff you’ve “heard of” aka prolly not the full truth. About The paragraph where you mention darker skinned women and the denial of humanity: I think you’re conflating slave owners considering them female subhumans with considering them women. Aka, they were still considered (by bigots) to be something they weren’t, and something they didn’t identify as. During the civil war, there weren’t any rebels on the Supreme Court (because they were rebels), so any nominee wouldn’t have to toe the line to get bigots to confirm them (unlike today where in order to get confirmed you have to play political chess with transphobic gotcha questions because the majority of the Supreme Court is conservative). If she said trans women were women (which most scientists agree on nowadays), things would not be easy for her, but I would respect her more if she just said it and used the science to back up her reasoning (I mean they don’t believe in climate change or modern medicine, might as well throw gender and brain chemistry in there too and take the heat).
At 6:28, Michael Knowles says *Marsha Blackburn didn’t ask for the biological definition or the dictionary definition. That’s what KJ added. She said “I’m not a biologist” But all Marsha Blackburn asked was “Just tell me what a woman is* After this, Knowles goes on to list any definition that could have been given that would have sufficed as an answer to Blackburn’s question i.e. philosophical, legal, constitutional etc. Knowles was trying to point out to David that Blackburn wasn't asking for the legal definition. He had clearly stopped quoting her at this point. When David jumped on him for it, Knowles quickly tried to clarify that he wasn't saying she said that, just that those were sufficient answers to the question because the question was simply "What is a woman" and left open to interpretation from there. Let's try to understand what people are saying at not call people "clowns" simply because you don't understand what they are saying.
@@TKK0812 your comment is ignorant maybe he should choose his words carefully instead of just spouting irrelevant nonsense just like Jesse Peterson you invite someone on your show and you don’t talk about any substantial policies you’re caught on defining what a woman is? Lol WHAT!? He clearly asserted what she said and than tried to back track that statement I’m sure you will see what you wanna see but saying you didn’t say something when you clearly did and than lying about it is just weak. Own it! but he tried to play like he never said it at all. …come on man! Lol
@@TKK0812 You made a perfectly valid point. But it doesn’t matter. After Michael thanked and welcomed him to the show to offer his opinion on the matter and ensure that Michael’s show didn’t ignore the alternative perspective or present a straw man to argue against... David’s first comment was to suggest that Michael is either a liar or ignorant. It’s to be expected that any follower of his would react and speak the same way.
@@tonybankse I'd appreciate if you just actually engaged with what I am saying instead of calling me ignorant and using "lol" to try and emphasize your supposed incredulity. I don't follow Jesse Peterson so that's irrelevant. Maybe this is all too much to ask. I quoted Knowles for himself and then made a reasoned argument. You responded with "He clearly asserted what she said and than tried to back track that statement" which is just you restating your opinion and simply amounts to a "nuh uh!" I'll try again. Knowles started his comment by saying *Marsha Blackburn didn't ask for a biological or dictionary definition* So right off the bat, Knowles says definitively that she did not qualify her statement, she simply asked "What is a woman?". Obviously then, when Knowles said "philosophical, biological, legal", it's easy to see that he has stopped quoting her and is simply listing possible answers. How do I know this? Because as I said already, Knowles started his comment by explicitly stating that Blackburn *did not say these things* mere seconds earlier. It's OK to admit when you are wrong. It's a sign of maturity, and this isn't actually a big deal. The reason I have chosen to respond is because we need to all be more charitable in how we speak of people as well as how we listen to others, and calling them "clowns" because of a misunderstanding on your part, is poor form.
That's not what I heard at all. Knowles seemed to be listing a variety of contexts someone might use to give an answer. I didn't get why Pakman tried to "gotcha moment" that bit in the least.
lmao Pakman got owned XD 4:45 - Pakman claims there is no legal definition of the word 'woman'. - Knowles points-out that the specific legal protections for women necessitate a legal definition of the word woman. - Pakman has no response and is reduced to disingenuously accusing Knowles of arguing in bad faith.
"A woman is a person who is not a man." I am so proud of my 8 year old woman. He did so well in class today. He grows so fast; it wont be long until this woman grows into a man and will be off to college.
Legal definitions do not always align with standard dictionary definitions. Take the word 'person': normal dictionary definition is a human being whereas the legal definition includes corporations (a fictional entity).
Not the greatest comparison, as it points to some of the horseshit of legal definitions - companies being classified as "a person" grants them certain benefits as a company-whole that a private citizen would be allowed. Ironically enough, of course, the same types of career congresspeople asking such a pointless question would simultaneously not present "companies are people" to anywhere close to the degree of horseshit that it truly is.
The Honorable Ketanji Brown Jackson is NOT playing politics. The US Supreme Court is NOT a political theater. There is NOTHING political about fulfilling the duties and responsibilities as US Supreme Court Justice. She is NOT an editor for Webster’s dictionary and as a US SupremeCourt Justice she does not decide defining criteria however she as US Justice may decide if webster use of specific terms and/or language are legal and constitutional. But on to the real question. This is the question republicans seem to have great difficulty understanding. This is a difficult topic, with far reaching impact and implications. All right then i'll say it first but you are all wondering and wrestling with these ideas as well…, of course NOT! No one should be making definitive statements about what it means to identify as being female or male and anyone who assumes to make that distinction can only speak for themselves at most. The Honorable Ketanji Brown Jackson is NOT interviewing for a position as a litigator. She is being vetted for the position of Supreme Court Justice, her responsibilities as a Supreme Court Judge is to decide on LEGAL questions and Constitutionality, she will research its legal history, legal standing and precedent and make a decision based on her findings…, she may offer an explanation/opinion after the fact describing the criteria by which she developed her opinion. The republicans needed to add specific legal criteria with questions and expect to wait weeks or months for an answer after allowing The Honorable Ketanji Brown Jackson time researching history, precedent etc. not social standing nor social merits… Onto the real question we all struggle with…, hoping to remain always fair and respectful. Because ideas of sexual identity are inn a state of flux with many new thoughts and questions both new and controversial The Honorable Ketanji Brown Jackson should NOT have an opinion with regard to republican attempts to create controversy and stir innuendo. It will be her job to decide if/when a case of sexual prejudice brought before the Supreme Court is legal or illegal only. Back to the real question…, as far as defining what it means to be female and/or male, feminine and/or masculine or somewhere/anywhere in between or on a spectrum of defining characteristics all with varying interpretations/uses this question remains in flux these days. Because sexual stereotyping and identity is in such a state of disarray even memes and symbols and especially sarcasm are useless as indicators of sexual orientation. I will be incredible disappointed if we allow our discomfort with hearing and speaking about sexuality lead us to accept an overly simplistic new criteria for defining sexuality. We need to think logically and especially think respectfully. Relating in a way that leads to clear understanding and insight. If we were to begin to discuss this logically we might first begin with mandating four (4) restrooms be included in new and remodeled public buildings. One for men and one for women and one for individuals who identify as male and one for individuals who identify as female. This will at least indicate a willingness to begin to understand sexuality and identity concerns. Who knows what this simple first step might reveal about the human condition. Maybe, after 250,000yrs we are finally able to admit, some men are created with higher amounts of estrogen in their system while some women are created with higher amounts of testosterone in their system. Life is a gamble…, what are the odds? I believe this year’s Winter Olympics Judges are deciding on an issue/concern of the later biological system, since a female Speed-skater was found to possess naturally high levels of Testosterone. It is ironic that until this year men and women were giving their best to compete in Olympic competitions…, but now being born a woman with high levels of testosterone is an unfair advantage…, in this line of thinking then, insightful practice before competing might be an unfair advantage. Blah, Blah Blah…, When I watch Olympic Competitions I am excited/hoping to watch Men and Women offering their best in direct competition. As for The Honorable Ketanji Brown Jackson and the law, we might finally decide as a people that it is best to simply mind our own business. But, there is always one or two who make personal judgements or stereotype without the benefit of Webster or legal precedent and next what do we do…, what can we say? If you want the Judges opinion “know the legal history and legal precedent” and present your case. A judge is not bound by opinion she is bound to the law Definitions change with popular usage and through time in fact definitions change with the times. Language is in a constant state of evolution. As old words find new uses and develop a following and popularity with a narrower or broader focus of defining criteria old words will take on new meaning altogether. In attempts to begin to identify parameters and characteristics of sexual types Webster should NOT offer definitions before societal norms have shown a developmental preference/inclination that contributes to this discovery phase of, “how do we define sexuality today?” Not only do dictionaries add new words, phrases and new criteria to old definitions, editors of dictionaries may add all new criteria and do away with old defining criteria except as vague references. For example: Webster once defined Politics as the “Ideals of Social Organizational Structures.” Whereas today webster’s definition of politic, is characterized as mostly about power and control over groups of people. Though definitions do vary by editor and/or publisher.
You're conflating the idea of being female with the idea of being a woman. The word woman back then was used differently than it is now. This is why you are confused.
@@leonthethird7494 lol i have to hear this. Please give me an example of how the word woman used to be used differently. The trans thing is a just an excuse for you guys to be sexual deviants out in the open. A man cannot become a woman. Trans people are either mentally ill or sexual deviants. Thats it. I'm not saying it should be illegal but dont expect me to participate in your perverted fantasy.
@@leonthethird7494 You’re right. The word woman back then was used differently. That is, it was used CORRECTLY. This is why YOU’RE confused. Also, did you really just saw “…conflating the idea of being female with the idea of being a woman”? 😂🤣
Please keep these discussions going!!! I don’t even care if I agree with either of you. Having you speak respectfully to one another even though you vastly differ on worldviews is wonderful! I know the conversation didn’t get far, but it was something, at least to me.
"My unbridled pleasure to provide you these insights." Hell of a burn on your way out. He could do nothing but laugh because he has no way of arguing against that. 😂
@@lobiqpidol818 A woman is a human born female OR someone who sexually transitioned from man to woman surgically which is why I’m for trans rights unlike these socially conservative fucks lol
Yea, I caught that too. David knows that answering the question of what a woman is, is a lost cause. However, his man to man statement says how he really feels about the topic.
African here and I can’t be happier seeing so called civilized society trying to ponder “what is a woman?” A SCJ can answer this in these civilized societies. Madness. I hope we will never get to this point of civilization. Keep your civilization
How about Lindsey's totally unconstitutional question about her religion? It was literally illegal as discribed in the first amendment; "the government shall have no religious test....".
Ok it may have been a dumb question but it wasn't literally illegal because it wasn't an official religious test by the government
@@mjr_schneider Supreme Court Justice is a government job/position... bring in an applicants religious beliefs as part of the hiring process is illegal federally... in addition... if the SENATE is asking you what your religious views are that is ABSOLUTELY the government issuing a religious test...
@@mjr_schneider Tax Churches
@@mjr_schneider Graham is a member of Congress who will be deciding on if she is hired so, yes it's a religious test.
Grubby Graham..along with Raffael Cancoon Cruiser..and Fist Pump Hawley were all desperately clutching at straws
I did debate in high school. The first thing you're supposed to do is define terms so that the debate can even happen. It's not a rhetorical trick. It's a necessity.
You agree definitions in the context of the debate. You do not agree universal definitions of words. A judge accepts different definitions on many things in the context of a case.
@@daviebananas1735 all the more reason he has to clarify what definitions he is using
@Don Doodat Because the conservatives are the ones defending traditional values. The left is trying to change the way we understand the world, so they need to explain what they are talking about before other people get on board. And if they don't know what a woman is, that's a problem for most conservatives.
@Don Doodat No. I edited a typo
@Don Doodat Conservatives aren't living by ancient history. They abide by traditional values. Take gender roles, for example. Since forever gender has been based on biology, not society. Now liberals want to change that. But since they can't define what they want gender to be, conservatives can't take them seriously.
The dismissive avoidance tactic is used often by David. That is not debating in good faith.
He wasn't avoiding anything.
Michael Knowles has waltzed around questions during forums numerous times. For example, when he ended debate with a progressive saying, “I identify as the correct person in this argument” while debating transgender ideology and their persecution by conservatives. He failed to make any decent argument against his opponent, and hence shut down with his ridiculous statement. He has opted for stupid responses and avoidance tactics such as this, numerous times. Michael Knowles is a phenomenal moron, who says science is mostly fake and that he thinks in “founding fathers logic”, which I guess includes beating other men for brushing their teeth…?
@an177 ROFL did we watch the same video?
4:45
- Pakman claims there is no legal definition of the word 'woman'.
- Knowles points-out that the specific legal protections for women necessitate a legal definition of the word woman.
- Pakman has no response and is reduced to disingenuously accusing Knowles of arguing in bad faith.
@user-ui5bo5um8m it doesn't go bad what was David talking about in this video?
It’s literally the only tactic he has to defend leftist ideas/policies. Just being condescending and avoiding the actual argument
He asks people he interviews a test question. "Did trump win the 2020 election" as some sore sanity check. Then when asked if he can answer what a woman is, he just says he doesn't play the definition game. I think David is insane.
David is extremely dishonest because he is personality-disordered.
He's always been insane lol. I've been watching David for many years.
Typical Jew.
Pakman is a deceiver - he uses litmus tests and then stands outraged or aghast when he is subject to a litmus test.
Well, he is a liberal and liberalism and insanity are completely synonymous (along with having a low IQ) so if the boot fits, he might as well wear it.
David’s entire debate strategy: “Maybe If I am EXTREMELY dismissive, arrogant, condescending, and disrespectful, my audience will think I’m smart!”
Nailed it 💯
He is smart. Highly intelligent
I think you nazis are confusing confidence with arrogance
@@Michael-uv6cn well he sure doesn’t show it here. Being super arrogant and talking to your opponent like he is stupid just because you disagree with him does not prove one’s intelligence. Quite the opposite.
@@bengrohmann9529 well it seems like everyone is intolerant of others’ viewpoints.
She's not a "politician" -- she's a judge. And she's very fair and intelligent.
@@TomFoolery0077👈 🤡
Looks who is talking, Dead Lee.
@@TomFoolery0077 Ohhhh So You Like Dictators?
Exactly
@@13juju you’re asking me that....?didn’t you vote for Biden?? I think maybe you should answer that question.
Meh, this is one of those areas where I agree with conservatives. You can't redefine words to mean whatever you want them to mean. Exclusionary terms that help distinguish unique characteristics are not derogatory, and should be accepted as such.
Having a free license to change definitions to personal interpretation invalidates the very premise of contract law.
If a judge nominated for SCOTUS fell for something this trivial, they shouldn't be working in any legal capacity.
Did the supreme court need to define the word "Black" before giving Black people in America Civil rights? Or was the definition of the word black irrelevant.
@@davidwilliams6966 access to womens shelters, access to womens jails, access to nude spa areas in California that caused a protest.
Theres probably more. The question is, should womens only areas have a standard to prevent false transitioners from accessing their areas? And i am not talking about actual trans people, but domestic abusers trying to access the area that their victim went for safety.
@@davidwilliams6966 what protections do you think biological men should have that they don't already?
Sorry, but your sad excuse for an argument is 100% ad hominem horseshit. Yes, it is true that words cannot be redefined whenever we want. But in the case of KBJ defining a woman, it's an irrelevant, dumb non sequitur. Even if she answered objectively, that would never satisfy the right.
Also, if you cannot see the supreme, comical irony of conservatives whining about redefining terms when all they do is throw around buzzwords like "critical race theory," "socialism" and "cultural Marxism" mindlessly without any conception of their definitions, then you are not of sound mind.
What definition of “woman” are you referencing?
6:41 Knowles did NOT backtrack. Pakman clearly saw he was losing the debate and stonewalled by calling Knowles dishonest. Love how he couldn't define woman or man but then at the end said "let's talk man-to-man." Ironic.
He didn't say he "couldn't" define a woman, he said he wouldn't. Because it's a stupid question! If you don't know gender or even biology is on a spectrum, you're quite ignorant.
Pakman is a dumb liar lol
I’ve watched DP repeatedly do what he accuses others of. When he feels he is losing an argument he asks the person whom he’s debating to be as specific as possible and then try to attack nuances with disingenuous straw-man attacks
How can asking for specifics ever be an attack or disingenuous? Be specific.@@countrymorgan2942
Why is this so hard? A woman is a adult human female with XX chromosomes and a Man is a adult human male with XY chromosomes...How did we get here??
David came across hostile and snarky the whole interview. I don’t know why he decided to do the interview if he was so dismissive. If he didn’t’ want to answer questions he should have proposed a topic to talk about. He says I don’t want to define woman as I want to talk about politics. Two seconds later, he says: “This is man to man!” LOL!
The guys a manchild, that's why he got canceled and yt algo just helped his shitty channel again
Pff ... he's weird, that's for sure. I think a lot of these progressives are angry at this question because it backs them into a corner. Deep down they believe in the biological definition,but then it becomes very difficult to argue for the "transwomen are women" mantra. It's a real threat for them because it distabilizes their worldview. I guess it's paintful. I don't think they expected to get so much resistance to this. You can't just refuse to define what a man and a woman are! I think they feel as if the next step is for conservatives to say "you see? I knew you would agree that a transwoman is not a real woman!" .. which would make them look homophobic.
He wouldn't sit and have a long discussion about the conservatives shiny object, so the conservative ended up repeating himself and misquoting the questions from senators. Snarky, yes, but at least he had his facts straight and was being specious.
@@rdmcabee He was being specious?! I don't know why that would be a good thing! Anyway... he should have defined the exact topic he wanted to talk about in advance of going to the podcast.. Don't show up in the opposition's den and then act snarky and dismissive. Doesn't advance a cause. Either be an honest actor, or just don't go at all. He comes across immature in these types of interactions. I've seen him a couple of others ones with conservatives. He's smart. I hope you gets the style problem under control to be more persuasive.
Spending 20 minutes on semantics because conservatives can't define "what a woman is" either is a total waste. As if any sociatal definition won't have a multiplicity of exceptions in a population of 300 million is absurd
The inability or unwillingness to provide a definition of what is a woman was exactly the point Knowles was trying to make. And Pakman walked right into the trap.
Pac Man can't define what a woman is, but calls Michael ''dishonest or ignorant''.
If Pac man wants to live ina country where his ideas are accepted and celebrated, why does he stay in the US? Venezuela would welcome him with open arms.
Exactly
Yep. I used to consider myself a left leaning moderate. I can’t stand Knowles. But Pakman and many other progressives have lost their minds. Especially in the LGBT realm.
No trap! David is too smart to answer such a stupid question. 🙄
@@MPR2 If you're on the left, you can't be smart AND honest. If you can't define what you mean by certaint concepts before engaging in a debate, it's pointless.
David was right. Asking that question in the hearing, and also bringing that as a subject to ask David is a waste of time. These conservatives sure do know how to waste time.
To be fair, black and white thinking is the conservative wheelhouse. Gray areas scare them.
Well joe biden said that his choise will be a black woman. How did he know that she is a woman?
How does She know if she cant define it?
It looked pretty bad.
Perfectly acceptable anwser would have been:
" Well biologically a woman is a female adult human. female (in human case) means 2X chromosomes, womb, and producing eggs. Ofcourse there are edge cases but im also not an expert in the field. I see this question as a complete waste of time. Respectfully"
@@kimc5814 and if you have self awareness progressives aimlessly move about in gray areas. I rather be a ignorant black or white realist than a delusional gray area thinker.
@@UnknownUnknown-tu3be And so you are!
@@UnknownUnknown-tu3be I think you got the ignorant non-thinker part down.
I did all of the things that David Pakman encouraged the audience to do (re-listening to what others actually said or asked) and in every case, Pakman was wrong. Pakman has never spoken on any issue without intentionally lying. It is crazy to me that people can have confidence in their beliefs when they know they are intentionally lying and misrepresenting things.
Bolshevik Jewish behavior.
Sons of Israel are constantly protected by the shield of their ancestors. He is divinely wise
By encouraging folks to fact check himself-he blew himself up! 💣
But they DON'T know that! They worship at the altar of George Castanza: "Remember, it's not a lie if YOU believe it." 🤪
@@jessebryant9233 Jewish philosophy.
Michael Knowles was right, he did not specify "legal definition"
go back to 6:38 of the video. He did say that.
@@paulgee521 in 6:38 he says: "from a legal perspective, constitutional perspective, philosophical perspective, whatev..." and then David interrupts him in the middle of the word "whatever". Clearly by "whatever" he meant giving definitions from whatever perspective she wants.
Uhm, yeah. he didn't say the thing he just said. And Trump won Georgia.@@fricasepolitico9271 The narrowness of the conservative is a thing of wonder. So easy to dupe them.
Yeah Michael was listing possible perspectives from which she could provided her definition - he wasn't claiming she actually said those words when posing the question. He was simply explaining the nuance of the manner in which the question was posed. But you and I both know David knew that as well and he just seized on that opportunity to derail the debate he was quickly losing - because he doesn't and never will never argue in good faith. Just like every other piece of shit leftist.@@fricasepolitico9271
Michael was correct on both counts concerning Blackwell...Michael never characterized how she was specifically asking the question. Michael was merely paraphrasing as he was describing what was asked. He was not stating that blackburn was asking for a legal perspective, constitutional perspective. He was simply giving examples of how the most unqualified Jackson could have assumed the question was being asked....sorry pakman - you failed. Context matters. And definitions of words matter.
I think David did a great job as a good humored representative of the progressive left. Well done.
“Progressive left” …those two words could be replaced with one…”normal”
Like when he said "it's been my unbridled pleasure to bring you these insights" lol that was pretty good.
He definitely did a good job.
I just hate how ALL of these reich-side pundits NEVER let anyone they don't agree with finish a sentence or complete a thought. They do the "speed talk" and interrupt and talk over everyone who has a different view. It doesn't make them look smart to anyone but their ignorant, angry base.
@@based_yeoman9138 oh yeah definitely lol
I really don't understand the whole "Doesn't go well" clickbait thing. It went great. It wasn't the best dialog but more then ok. I have listened to David for several years, but I have to say Michael came across allot less combative and smug then David.
You do understand it. It's clickbait. You just said it lol.
There's nobody more smug and combative than Michael Knowles.
@@crispincoque are you joking?
@@pepeteriyaki3779 His pic tells you everything you need to know about his ill-thought opinion...sadly.
@@pepeteriyaki3779 No, I'm not joking. Although Ben Shapiro is a contender.
I’m embarrassed for my country … I can’t believe this is even a debate
Agreed
Indeed, people have lost their minds.
Me too
Worst thing is this terrible idea from America has invaded the rest of the western world
I am embarrased we have a Republican Party that is now a party of bigots.
"I don't do dictionary, I do politics!" I think James Brown was going to use this line but eventually went with the "I don't know karate but I do know crazy!"
I know karate AND crazy, what now Jimmy
This should have been the comment of the day....
You should probably read a dictionary 🤣
Fucking hilarious
@@mgarcia8878 Yes, correct!
It’s just fascinating because by having this conversation in the first place, Michael misses the very point right out of the gate.
@TheLuigiLightning i believe it's the relevance of asking the definition of a woman.
He does it on purpose
So. What is a woman to you??
@TheLuigiLightning Clearly you missed it too
He himself cannot really provide such definition, it's hilarious, but it's also telling.
Justice is blind. Since people can't be judged based on sex, what diference does it make?
Precisely!
Culture gets gop voters mad and they need them mad to vote
While I disagree with the question even being asked of the judge during her hearing,.. it is disingenuous to suggest that laws and the legal system are blind to gender, as many laws explicitly address certain gender-specific issues and protections
exactly what I was thinking
People of different genders/sexes get different sentence lengths for the same crimes in court. People/the US legal system definitely judges based on sex
This is crazy that pakman thinks he got the better of this.
You mean besides the Theocrat lying and playing the Walrus
?
Liberals lie all the time to themselves.
He did
@@goblin6587 nope he didn't. And ironically everyone here thinks the same....and it's on Pakman's own video.
Lmao
@@goblin6587hahahahahahahahanohedidnthahahahaha
Why is it a good thing to say “I don’t do definitions I do politics” that’s falling into Micheal’s exact point. You shouldn’t let your political view get in the way so much that you can’t even give a vague definition of a word.
David was playing politics not facts or trying to establish common ground from which to discuss the issue. I used to like this guy, but he's shilling for the Left as much as Michael is shilling for the Right. I get the feeling that David knows the definition of "woman" is so in flux, he doesn't want to define it now and end up on the wrong side in a year when the Left changes it again.
I believe David was saying that the political discussion on substantive issues was getting sidetracked because it was too mired in irrelavancy with hyper focus on dictionary definitions. Not that his particular political leaning is the important thing. Why not discuss the nomination in a way that is germaine to her actual day to day job?
@@mistert800 Because it has nothing to do with her. It's about the state of our society. Political commentators are people who get paid to talk about stuff. It's not that deep. If commentators are unwilling to talk about something, that says a lot about our society.
@@John_Merrick its a b.s. gotcha talking point. Notice a whole segment wasted on " define woman". The same way Marsha Blackburn also was gunna take any answer and twist it. Also, what about hermaphrodites? What about a woman unable to have children? Is it just chromosomes or scondary sex characteristics? Honestly, women's rights are human rights. How about no discrimination against anybody.
Idk it mind boggles me that this is the type of stuff that conservatives freak out over.
I'm a fan of Pakman rather than Knowles, but this was a flop performance on Pakman's part. Knowles was being completely respectful. There's nothing wrong with defining a word for the sake of a discussion. Oftentimes words have multiple meanings or have meanings that have been misconstrued by culture that have completely lost their true meaning. Think of the word socialism for example. Socialism no longer means what it technically means to the average person. When the average (U.S.) person hears or reads the word socialism, they're more likely to think of the country's who have implemented socialism, like the USSR and Venzuela, and how it's a generally bad thing that results in a dictatorship. What socialism truly means is an economic system in which the means of production is socialized. It's important that we define words that have ambigious meanings because often times many words have multiple meanings to different people, and if we dont set out a clear defintion pf the term, any discussion regarding that term will be futile. What Knowles did was not bad faith at all.
@Jacob Craven It's a totally relevant question dude. You literally have activists claiming "transwoman are woman" as if there is no distinction between the two. The people on Dr. Phil who said a woman is whoever identifies as one. The category is literally being destroyed. You just call it bad faith because you (and Pakman) are too afraid to define it.
Better say the magic phrase so your mob doesn't burn you at the stake. How sad and pathetic.
Americans did not require a court to legally define what the word "Black" meant in order to provide Black Civil Rights. The definition of the word is irrelevant. In this case, a bad faith actor attempted to subvert the rights of trans people by asserting that the word "women" needs legal definition while also implying that that definition needs to be tied to biology - of which it does not. KBJ understands that the definition of a "woman" is irrelevant legally in the context of trans civil rights.
@Jacob Craven A woman is an adult female human. A trans woman is a man (adult male human) who wants to be a woman. The two are not the same.
@Jacob Craven An honest biologist who is not worried about being cancelled would agree.
@Jacob Craven Anyone who disagrees with reality for a political purpose is dishonest.
The word for an adult female human is "woman," not uterus owner, bleeder, or pregnant person.
A person who is not female is not a woman.
Knowles was trying so hard to not laugh out loud at how ridiculous Pakman's arguments were. Especially when Pakman was accusing other people of using bad-faith rhetorical techniques in a discussion in which Pakman ONLY used bad-faith rhetorical techniques.
When you don’t understand the difference between prescriptive and descriptive, You are going to feel this way.
When you believe that an imaginary sky daddy makes all of the rules, Its difficult to understand reality.
That’s all he does. To be fair, that’s the only tool the Leftists have. Their religion is to control language to mean whatever they want it to mean at any given time. When words mean nothing, they “win” every argument.
2 grifters 🤦♀
@@asdfjkl5713 do you believe in any objective realities, and if so, what would you base your assessment on?
Typical Bolshevik Jew.
Interesting that David refuses to be definitive while attempting to stubbornly define his position.
Great point
Do you have any studies to defend that?
so what, trangender ppl are 0.03% of the population, it's a fake issue/scapegoat used to fearmonger conservative voters. like ok a woman is a female adult human? what does this accomplish, it's completely irrelevant to politics. sad that half the country is falling for this bullshit
His argument was that the definition is not important for the judge to decide and that's why he didn't answer the question. Moreover, due to the heated argument that the right has created around this definition he knows that whatever he answers is going to be used against him, edited as a neat little clip. He sees the question:"How do you define a woman?" as a trick question, as a trap. If he sees something as a trap, why would he step into it? Conservatives are usually driven by the need to create borders, to create simple standards that best stay unchanged because they favor security over liberty since temperamentally they are a little bit more afraid than progressives. The protection of the status quo can be a very admirable goal, however civilization has been a process that over the millenia has improved life for everybody. That is called progress. It doesn't work without change. Progress, as you've probably guessed, is brought about by progressives. Having said that everybody knows that there is no such thing as a woman, there are only men, thus we call it mankind. Get it?
@@felixmidas2020
"is argument was that the definition is not important for the judge to decide and that's why he didn't answer the question. "
- The judge was asked to provide their definition of the word 'woman' to prove that they have a cogent and logical understanding of what a woman is. The reason this is important is because women form ~50% of the nation and the judge will at some point almost certainly need to rule on laws pertaining to womens issues.
*"Moreover, due to the heated argument that the right has created around this definition he knows that whatever he answers is going to be used against him"*
- Refusing to provide an argument because you are scared of having your irrationality exposed should tell people everything they need to know about you and your lack of intellectual honesty.
*"He sees the question:'How do you define a woman?' as a trick question, as a trap"*
- It's not a trap: we're asking you that question because we dont think you have a cogent and logically consistent understanding of what a woman is. We're pretty upfront about this fact 🙂
*"Conservatives are usually driven by the need to create borders, to create simple standards"*
- Yeh and apparently they also like to have logically consistent definitions that dont commit blatant logical fallacies (like the circular reasoning fallacy committed when leftists try to define a woman as 'anyone who self-identifies as a woman').
Saying that defining terms is pointless is about the dumbest thing i’ve heard David say. It’s basically impossible to have meaningful discussion if each side is operating on a different definition.
Context - Context!
It's pointless in that context!
Ask yourself if you say that a woman is somebody that makes a baby what happens if they have menopause is she no longer a woman
Definitions could mean more than one thing depending on the person that's why it's important for the Supreme Court not to be backed into definitions the answers they give or very nuanced
@@billrodweller9432 I never defined a woman as someone that makes a baby
@@Seethi_C you do understand being a woman is more complicated then just having a penis
@Kyle Potter the problem is you guys can't even agree on what the definition of a woman is
I find it hard to believe that "definitions don't matter" in a legal setting. So every contract ever signed would be invalid because everyone has a different definition of the words on the page.
The point Pakman is making here is that the question of "legally what is a women?" is a topic that is actively and currently being discussed nationally. For a JUDGE to come out with a PRE-JUDGEMENT is out of the question: this leads to well just give us the dictionary definition - which has nothing to do with legality - its a bad faith question that does nothing to denote ones ability to apply justice but rather qualify in the opponents argument that said person doesn't hold their values. Grow up.
@@jewpoc Frank the idea that a judge is making pre-judgement here is just absurd. Judges are allowed to lean into precedent, and in this case precedent is rooted in our biology, which is at the very foundation of our existence. People aren't arguing to establish a definition, they're arguing to change the existing ones.
@@mamezou3741 there is no case determining gender in US history for this "precedent" you speak of. There is no case at the federal level that legally rooted gender to biology nor should there be. The law should not care if you are a man or a woman.
@@jewpoc If the law should not care whether or not you are a man or a woman (a point I generally agree with), why is it so important for the left to shift the definition of these terms? You are the one arguing that the legal definition of these terms needs to be re-established.
@@mamezou3741 the left is not arguing to "shift" definitions. The left is trying to "include" trans women. No one on the left (at least the informed ones) is trying to convince anyone that a person born female, who reaches female puberty and who produces female eggs is not a women. That would be insane, right? The goal is to allow for trans individuals to be a part of the judicial world, be recognized, have a legal voice and be given the same rights that we all enjoy as americans, its really not that scary i promise.
Well, he was right about the "backtracking". He said at 6:36 "just tell me what a woman is: from a legal perspective, a constitutional perspective, a philosophical, I mean, whatever..." so he really did mean just any ("whatever") definition, not specifically a legal or philosophical one. Seems like you cut him off so you didn't hear the end of that sentence.
One examples is that a woman has a vagina and is born with it
It's true. If anyone was being dishonest there, it was David.
Pakman is the king of bad faith. And he’s too smart to not know what he’s doing
He was being hyper autistic and being bad faith because he was loosing. It's funny he said she didn't define it because of optics earlier, and all we see here is David playing the optics game too.
You guys are dumb
Micheal at 6:37 "All Marsha Blackburn asked was, what is a women from a legal perspective, from a constitutional, from a philosophical perspective." David at 6:52 "You just asserted that she said she wanted the legal and philosophical [definition] she never said that." Michael at 6:67 in response "No no no I didnt say that."
So when women say "We want equal pay" the answer is " What is a woman".
Nah,the answer is do your job better or just go make us a sandwich 😂😂😂😂😂
Actually yes.... for you leftists guys... because you don't know what it is jajajaja
@@enriquevilla5374 hey! Stop it! That woman is a professional victim! Dont you dare insult her delusion! 😂😂😂😂
You guys don’t understand the point, the reason men get more money then women is because men do the harder jobs
It’s because men ask for pay raises woman work harder and expect a pay raise. And I’m being nice saying they’ll work harder. They work less hours bc family is more important as they are biologically driven to care for others and men to protect. Although you would say men are prone to violence….lol anyway. Not only that but in any case bc they are the more caring gender. Out of two genders. Lmao even when choosing a great paying job. They might still have kids. Which in terms of time worked for say a mandatory pay raise men will automatically be ahead of them. And that gap can increase with more children. So because of that they’ll have time off for giving birth. Falling behind in pay raises in the case they work a high paying job and we only compare her wages to her co workers who are men but hold the same position. That’s why she might get paid less. However over time the pay will cap and she’ll catch up. So it’s whatever shut up lmao just kidding. Dave’s alright. I guess.
“I don’t spend time defining words”. That way I can manipulate the definition to whatever I want and whenever I what. SMH
Did a supreme court justice ever need to define the word "Black" in order to provide civil rights for black people? Or was the definition of the word irrelevant.
@@jewpoc
"BELIEVE ALL WOMEN!"
Also from the Left:
"What is a Woman??"
That's some serious mental gymnastics you've got going on there Franky.
@@jerryjeromehawkins1712 so here is why it doesnt matter legally - do you have a car? or is it a truck, or is it an SUV. Is it a convertible? Maybe its an EV. All of these things, LEGALLY are called "vehicles". You go to the DMV - the V is for Vehicle. OKAY you with me? What is the definition of the word "vehicle"?
1. a thing used for transporting people or goods, especially on land, such as a car, truck, or cart.
Now if I wanted to be a dick, as everyone on the right seems to want to be, I could argue that the government needs to allow me to get my pilots license at the DMV since a plane is a vehicle and the word is in the thing!
But THANKFULLY - That is not how this works!
Im sure you, like most people, would say the definition of a woman is "a biological female" and I dont disagree! However legally, it doesnt matter. The groups who are seeking civil rights could and do call themselves all sorts of things, it doesnt change the desired outcome of legal protections.
The only thing that defining "a woman" as "a biological female" does, in this context, is push a political agenda - KBJ is a judge, not a politician.
Grow up kid.
@@jewpoc Well I think you would need a legal distinction between a plane and a car. There's different insurance laws, I'd imagine flying with close to 100 people on board at any given time would subject me to some liability that I wouldn't normally have driving a car. Also why do I need a license for a car and not a motor scooter for example? What makes those 2 items different? We literally have to define terms before we can have a discussion on them. Otherwise I'm sitting here trying to ponder how you have such a loose definition of vehicle that it can apply to me carrying my wife up the stairs.
@@jm0112 Spot on! We absolutely need to define terms, from a legal perspective. And don't forget, those terms will change over time - take a OneWheel for example, or E-Bike... The point is that "vehicle" is not the distinction. Neither would be "woman" in this legal context.. Neither is "man" by the way. "Man" has many legal uses and none that I am aware of that distinguish specifically male gender. Most laws will in fact NOT distinguish gender because it is.. get this.. irrelevant! Most laws will use the legal term "Persons". The gripe the trans community has is that they tend to be seen as sub-human, othered, faking it, deviant, not human etc.. That is why the lure to define "woman" is political in nature - justice is blind my friend and if it ever becomes biased, well, thats when we start having fascism.
The "What is a woman?" question is yet another case of science out-pacing gov't. David is excellent at not letting fast-talkers bamboozle him, I'd like to see him go up against Swanson.
Who is Swanson?
This is just a dumb question ⁉️
@@TheAudioman15 Tucker Swanson McNear Carlson, heir to the Swanson Foods fortune, filthy rich.
@@bearbryant3495 oh boy. What a waste of David’s time that would be. Tucker is best suited to talk to the morons watching Fox News, he isn’t going to dare venture out of that safe space.
@@TheAudioman15 Tucker Carlson
Repubs said this will not be a circus. Immediately it went full three rings.
Everything is with them. That's all they have.
Full exposure to their true egos. They are weak.
Because it's not even an issue to define a woman and making that the topic of his conversation just shows how stupid the right is with this even if she could define what a woman is it's just like abortion she can't comment on something that is pending in the court duh
What a spectacle it was!! With Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham leading the parade!!
Not as bad as yous guys last time! - the sheer, vapid, hypocritical irony!
Pakman, "...I don't 'do' dictionary, I 'do' politics..." then Pakman has the complete lack of self-awareness to say--wait for it: "...by definition..." Yikes, and these are serious people?
Yeah, I don’t do dictionary. I make my living using words and writing material using words that I don’t know the meaning of, well, all but one word that I understood until two years ago.
He's the kind of person who says things like "it's my truth".
The rhetorical strategy of not allowing for a definition of a word is an old Marxist strategy. THis is nothing new. New agers (progressives) today all claim to have an inner truth. But the universe doesnt care how you feel. Truth is truth. It is observable, duplicatable and easy to describe. There is a legal definition of women - one need only search online to find various similar "legal definitions" of woman, male, female, man, boy, girl, etc etc etc. And they all correspond with what we all have know since we learned our first word: A mommy and Daddy are biologically different. Progressives simple cannot speak of facts,. One day, the societal backlash against progressives will equal the damage they have wrought unto society at large.
He made his point earlier, that dictionaries are descriptive. So it doesn’t matter what any single person thinks a definition is. He deals with meaning, not with labels. It’s a very common position in philosophy, so I don’t understand this is an issue.
Exactly
I have to disagree. That seemed to go very well. It was two people that have different opinions remaining cordial and polite while partaking in actual discourse. It's a shame that more people can't do this when they disagree.
Hey look its one of Dave Rubin's alts
Best take of this I've seen
The question was meant to stump. Why because what makes a woman other than being female (sex) are political, social/cultural norms and religious.... see. In some parts of the world you can be a male but perform all the roles of a woman and be considered a woman because of the role, they will come out and tell you that is women's work. Its a complex question because as society change so does the word and the person that asked her knows that.
@@My2CentsYall That comment wasn't even worth one cent.
Women have babies and men make houses for them. Women have vaginas and men have penises. There, fixed it for you.
@@douglaslangley9251 why on earth would you view this comments sentiment negatively?
It amazes me that Pakman can say what he says with a straight face. I believe that he might actually believe the things he says.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
As he said 'I don't do dictionary, I do politics' which is the most honest thing he said in this video. So called 'progressives' use purposefully vague definitions as a political tool to be able to change that definition to whatever suits their purpose in whatever situation suits them. Its a smart political tactic because they can bog down an argument just over definitions, never tell you what their true position or goal is, and convince people that they are the good guys based on feelings rather than facts. It's a brilliant and nefarious strategy, and completely intellectually dishonest. He says politicians should not get bogged down with definitions, then proceeds to bog down the discussion about definitions in general. That's not a strategy for honest debate. It's a strategy for activism when you don't want an honest debate.
He's a smug snake who believes the noble lie. Giant ego, frequently outclassed.
pakman is such a clown.
@@ThoughtPoliceChief you wouldn’t last 2 minutes in a debate with him, you’d probably start drooling after the first 20 seconds tbh
At what point in the last 10 years did democrats stop knowing what a woman is? I was a democrat pre 2020, and I don't remember not knowing what a woman was....
He said “man to man” with a straight face. 😂
😂😂
After refusing to define woman.. he’s such a weasel
You said with a “straight” face.
@@josephcoon5809 sooo?? What’s your point?
@@chadly19 Like anybody thinks he is straight…
That title hits the nail on the head. This did not go well for David.
I thought the most interesting part was when Pakman referred to the 'bad faith right'. There's something very presumptuous about assuming that anyone who thinks differently from you must be acting out of bad faith. IMO, Pakman came across as very defensive in his manner, like a clever but truculent sophomore. I wouldn't call myself a fan of Knowles, but he's unfailingly polite and charitable when he engages with others.
I tried watching his show, doesn't make me feel good. Didn't know these shows were around
To be honest, Knowles seemed more concise and respectful than he usually appears
He generally conducts himself with extreme respect when he has a guest on. He is very good at having conversations with oppositional view holders.
I think he has a crush on David lol!
@user-lr9mo9my6j Nah Pakman is handsome. Knowles looks like a cross between a Weasel a Rat and Charles Dahmer looking at him to long becomes uncanny and disturbing .
Nope , Sleazy, Back Handedly Snide, And utterly disingenuous in every way imaginable.
@@NyssaOwens No he is not
David Packman is like that annoying know it all kid who just won't go away even after being exposed.
💯💯💯💯💯
He's a leftist who doesn't actually know anything, but he truly does believe that he knows what he's talking about and thinks that what he's saying makes sense. Any challenge to that means that YOU are being dishonest and aren't willing to have a "good faith" conversation on topics they wish to confuse every one on. Disagree? Well, you aren't willing to discuss the matter "in good faith" and aren't being "honest". See how that works? It's 'heads I win, tails you lose.' 😉🙃😜
😆 unreal how many of you just can't grasp what Packman was saying
@@Big_Pipe70Okay, say you have a cat and someone asks you if it's a *male cat" or " female cat". What are you going to say? Because according to David you can't answer that. It's whatever the cat identifies as. 😂
Because like a child, ANY attention is better than NO attention.
6:40 Michael states that Marsha Blackburn said "Just tell me what a women is, from a legal perspective, a consitutional perspective, a philisophical perspective".
He is basically saying that Marsha Blackburn wanted any definition, from any of those perspectives.
Yup. He _was_ trying to say *ANY* definition. He should've let him explained
Yeah I think David steered into this because there isn't a great defense here in this debatem
In all fairness he was right he never said that all he said was she could provide a definition formed from any basis she wanted legal philosophical etc
He quoted the “Just tell me what a woman is” then prescribed the types of definitions she can provide. It telling that this libtard grasped onto this part because he never had an answer for the actual question
his whole face goes blank every time David starts tearing down his weak angle. Well Done, Sir !
What weak angle? David can’t even say what a woman is. Is he really that stupid? Are you really that stupid???
@@TomFoolery0077
Says you with the name Foolery.
It's not that he can't, it's that he won't.
@@TomFoolery0077 Define chair.
Better than Tucker-face, I guess.
@@TomFoolery0077 Well, what is a woman? Tell us.
"I don't do dictionary; I do politics." This is one of my biggest problems with political actors. It's all just sophistry and rhetoric.
Yeah lol he is asked if he has a definition of the word “woman” and that is his response. “I don’t do dictionary; I do politics”. Like does he just not use the word woman then?
Can he define politics?
@@colbymyman1487 The point Pakman is making here is that the question of "legally what is a women?" is a topic that is actively and currently being discussed nationally. For a JUDGE to come out with a PRE-JUDGEMENT is out of the question: this leads to well just give us the dictionary definition - which has nothing to do with legality - its a bad faith question that does nothing to denote ones ability to apply justice but rather qualify in the opponents argument that said person doesn't hold their values.
@@vuka-ja-hm6864 Define what a man is, legally.
@@jewpoc Please provide an example of where and why the legal definition of a man/woman should need to deviate from the biological definition.
David said it "never" comes down to a definition in law. But he doesn't have an answer on Title IX memorized so he deflects. He is well aware that without definitions many laws are impossible to enforce. Watch other debates and you will find it is a popular tactic.
David always shines in these discussions. That's why I watch him.
Pakman is a yappity yap. Can’t answer a simple kindergartner grade question. Just insults. Typical leftist.
@@cockroachv Take your cuckoo pills Ricky. Nice one. Have a good day now
What is an adult human female?
The Right and language don't mix very well. They cannot intellectualise
Can you define what a man is biologicaly?
Within half a minute, the conservative says "straw man". It's straw PERSON ffs.
What is a woman to you??
@@TomFoolery0077 A straw woman is something built from a box of straws as an art project. Am I doing this right? 🤣
@@TomFoolery0077 I'll answer if you answer this question, in what context?
What is a chair?
@@TomFoolery0077 Much rather hear someone define a hermaphrodite. I mean, I can, to a degree, but it would throw their perfect world into a disarray
I don't understand how, even from his own argument, he can hold the stance that the definition of a woman has no bearing on her job. That definition can in certain cases be instrumental for the outcome of the case, and there are cases that are likely to become more and more frequent in the coming years. Another thing I don't understand more generally is the insistence on definitions of words being unnecessary. A word not necessitated be a definition means nothing at all, so why even have the word. If the word ‘woman’ means nothing, then why say ‘trans woman’. If ‘woman’ means nothing, then the word is completely superfluous because you’re given no more information by the presence of the word than its absence. You can argue about the definition, but not the necessity of a definition, for in the absence of a definition you lose the ability to communicate altogether
very true. I think it was sort of a non-answer from Pakman that he didn't think through all the way before saying
@Jacob Craven If there's no legal definition of a woman, how can it be a protected class
@Jacob Craven Yes, that's correct. It pertains to attributes which exist in biological women, most often pregnancy. Biological women.
You might know them as birthing persons. This doesn't make individuals who don't have all of these exact characteristics not biologically female, but I Bel eve you'd be quite scientifically in the wrong to claim there's no observable difference in structure of both men and women. If we can exhume the bodies of ancient Egyptians and tell whether they were a man or a woman, I believe there's clearly a difference.
@Jacob Craven womens civil rights and transgender civil right can exist in the same world you dork. This is like saying Black Civil Rights only applies to people who are black - Guy, it applies to everyone, it protects a class of people, it doesnt matter what the definition of a black person is
By this logic, Black Civil Rights should only apply to people who are defined as black. A civil right applies to everyone you dummy, it doesn't matter what the definition of black is, it still protects a class of people from discrimination.
After rewatching Micheal Knowles say his sentence, I confirmed that you were wrong and the strawmaned him to distract from the point he was trying to make.
Wow. Trumpholes really will believe what they want regardless of truth. Michael LITERALLY said those very things then denied that he said them 15 seconds later. Yet...you. Amazed at how the limp right thinks it knows anything other than that it is dinner time.
Some people miss the point on purpose or oversimplify and miss the point just to win the exchange.
Language was created to convey an idea clearly and straight forward thousands of years ago. Today language hoops to avoid saying what's a woman.
a woman is a human (a sapient being, if we want to expand to fantasy and scifi settings) in the performance of womanhood, which is a complex, conditional, socially constructed gender role. literally no two women express womanhood exactly the same, it's a subjective element of their identities, so there is no one answer "what is a woman."
Americans did not require a court to legally define what the word "Black" meant in order to provide Black Civil Rights. The definition of the word is irrelevant.
Genuine question: have you read about Supreme Court cases throughout American history?
@@jewpoc that's cause people back then didn't have to define what a black person is to know what they are. The term woman has biological and social aspects to define it such as age of what an adult is happens to be social since it can differ by country and biology by what sex organs you have
@@turtlegaminghd5406 legally this is different. In NY wine sales are different than beer sales or spirit sales. In fact, in NYC you cannot sell wine and spirits in the same store without both a wine AND spirits license, regardless of he definition of "alcohol".
Legally speaking - Defining the word "alcohol" is irrelevant, even though we all agree what alcohol is biologically, chemically, socially, culturally I mean fuck it take your pick home boy, the definition of the word has almost nothing to do with the application of the laws it is involved in. "Alcohol" could be literally defined as "Ethanol derived from distillation" and that has nothing to do with how laws are written or enforced around the sales of beer, wine, spirits, restaurants, gas stations... the list goes on...
Man I love David. He’s so confident in his judgement, and he’s right to, is just beautiful. We can see his education and upbringing.
You’re delusional 🤦🏼♂️
David is very defensive, as displayed by his uptick in adrenalin. Michael was talking, David interrupted him and then became aggressive when he was interrupted in turn. Replay the portion that David implores you to replay. Michael was correct. Perhaps David should focus more on the words in a conversation rather than the outcome he desires.
6:36 “All Marsha Blackburn asked was just tell me what a woman is. From a legal perspective, from a constitutional perspective, from a philosophical perspective” Michael did imply that Marsha Blackburn asked for these definitions. Imply being the key word there, if anything David listened closer to see those implications and wasn’t going to let that slide.
Nah, Pakman was the one being dishonest and not having a discussion in good faith and immediately accused michael of that.....it was a pure obvious tactic and lame. nothing to do with tactics. jsut about being a bad person.
He ask when would the definition of a single word matter. said thats not what courts do....yet we all watched bill clinton and monica right? Bill used a single simple word as and it's definiton as his whole defense. Many cases brought in court that it does matter if you are awoman and based soley because you are a women. HE is such a coward as he had no legit counters he used weak tactics. Everyone can see what you did buddy....who you think you fooling? And please stop with republicans this hearing not being in good faith....because I know this pakman clown didn't have that same view with Kananuagh huh?
@@victorcamacho4860 Very strong argument. "This is what I assumed you meant, and that is the basis of my argument" Pathetic. I'm all for debates and conversations like this but if this is what progressives have to offer...no wonder
There is no “constitutional definition” of a women.
It's rather telling how quickly the constitution is tossed into any discussion of this kind, yet they simultaneously violated it by interrogating her about her religious views.
"Rules for thee, not for me."
@@AlwaysANemesis exactly 💯
Yet their is a biological definition of a women
@@calvinw8133 biological definitions are not the same as legal definitions
@@calvinw8133 there is a biological definition of female, but there are also multiple definitions.
there are multiple dictionary definitions of "woman"
One of the definitions is "belonging to the female sex" or "being an adult female person"
another is "being not male" well...this is why the dictionary isn't helpful. Because now you have to go look up the definition of "male". One definition of "Male" says someone who produces gametes which a female may be fertilized with" so by this definition, a biological assigned at birth male who is incapable due to genetics of producing sperm is a WOMAN. Literally by the dictionary definition presented here, IS NOT a man. So if I use the dictionary definition "Not male" for woman then a man who can't make sperm is a woman, by default, which we clearly don't think is true for 99.9% of the US population.
Plus, there is also a definition that says "an individual with distinctively feminine nature" what is feminine nature? Can you define that without using the term woman? Well...maybe? IDK sounds like a social construct to me. There are gay men who present quite feminine in their mannerisms. That doesn't mean by default they are a woman.
Is Natalie Wynn a woman? If you don't know who that is...look her up. I think she is. I think legally she ought to be considered as one. There is no social utility or value in referring to her as a man, because wtf how would you justify that position? She even tweeted a while back that when she was in deep-red North Carolina at a sports bar all the macho conservative men there said "yes ma'am" and "hi miss" to her, so clearly they either thought she was a woman or a bunch of rural Republicans in NC knew who Natalie Wynn was and knew she was trans. Buck Angel had the sex on his birth certificate changed to male years ago, despite being born female and living for 29 years as a "woman". Clearly, science is fine with studying the elements of anatomical and physiological sex while also studying the effects of sociological constructs like gender.
One of the reasons I hate this entire discussion is because really what we're trying to establish is "ok obviously cisgender women are women, but are trans women women".
And I think the obvious answer is, we're never going to agree. Which is why asking a SCOTUS nominee what is a woman is purely a political rhetorical strategy to try to make a cheap conservative talking point win. Even Republican governors aren't signing these trans girls can't participate in girls sports bills cause they think they go against what the country stands for.
“What’s your definition of a woman?”
“Well, I’m a politician - I don’t do definitions…, but speaking MAN to MAN”…
Ya - he’s such a “good faith” progressive…😳
Good catch. Typical progressive -- talking a lot and never really saying anything.
100% lmfao ... i don't even know if he has the intellect to see the irony
@@OxygenBeats spoiler alert... he doesnt! Neither does anyone on the left
Can't believe he started the segment by saying "...in the interest of actually hearing out the other side...", then proceeds to berate David on KBJ's refusal to define a word. It's always the culture war with these people.
Exactly! That was a massive waste of time. There are genuine issues that they could have been discussing. That's one of my biggest issues with the right-wing types now. All they do is drum up outrage and fear over "culture war" issues that don't even effect the lives of any of the people that oppose them. I meant look at what they did with CRT. Most of them don't even know what it is because they think it's being taught in public schools. Now you have states that have literally banned teaching about the racist history of America because the white kids might "feel bad". It's unbelievable.
and david caught him in lie after lie
I can’t believe they peel off centrists with this crazy crap, honestly the RW are all nuts and they obsess over imaginary issues because they don’t have a single policy that would help a single working class American
💯
@@terrystevens3998 One reason is because the right has copious amounts of money, which they're willing to throw at anyone who will spout their nonsense. Not only Fox News, but also The Daily Wire, for example, has billionaire funding.
We can't protect or empower women either by laws or whatever if we don't know what a woman is... Definitions are important
But they’re not trying to protect or empower women. Nice try.
What’s your definition?
And yet he said “we’re talking man to man, Michael.”
LOL, I did not catch that. He goes into excruciating detail, not trying to define woman then he says man to man. What a complete and utter imbecile David is.
Progressives are incapable of self-reflection. What they do instead is they make reality into santa clause and state their truth is whatever they want it to be.
youre not talking to a man david is not a man
I don't think we can know if that's true...
@bigkahuna3061 I pretty sure David could barely open a jar of strawberry jam....
I would just like to apologise to the world that I was on the left for the first 33 years of my life. 🤦♂️
I was looking at the comments and there's hope for humanity! How in God's world can the definition of woman not be relevant? It has huge effects, such as Title IX, abortion, the Civil Rights Act, or the Equal Pay Act of '63. How can you with a straight face not recognize that??
"I was hoping we could have a good faith, productive conversation." Touché!
It's funny that those who most often talk about good faith are the least likely to show it.
“It’s the most interesting point in the country that we can’t define man and woman”. Really, that’s the most interesting, important question plaguing the country? This guy is as much of a grifter as it gets.
I think at this point in history a lot of people don't have a definition for what a woman is. The traditional definition conflicts with their politics and they really struggle to come up with a new one to replace it.
@@maxaluta3618 Does it matter? I don't get this questioning. Aren't there better things out there to ask about?
Yes. As far as interesting questions, yes. How come you all can't even define the term Woman?
The problem is not that the issue is important or not. The right is pointing out that democrats use flawed logic to come to the conclusion that there is no definition for women and thus they can not be trusted to make decisions on running the country.
Leftists attack the GOP all the time for making no sense or avoiding questions and while Democrats are better at this in my opinion, having no answer for this line of attack allows the GOP to set up a false equivalency between the two parties. Something like: “Yeah we don’t make sense when we talk, but neither do you guys.”
The definition of transgenderism relies on definitions of man and woman thus without definitions of man and woman transgenderism is just a hazy blob floating through the ethos.
Yes I know transgendered people refers to anyone who doesn’t conform to the traditional ideas (definitions) of man and woman in which case I say fine. Let transgendered people be one big group along with traditional men and traditional women. Let transgendered people access to the medical utilities that they need. Do not let transgendered people compete in the same categories of sport as traditional men and women. And most importantly let all laws when possible and when applicable, be based on biological sex.
How David Pakman STILL has a show after all these years reminds me that we have a never ending supply of dumb voters.
he actually thinks he's great. And he is pretty successful, too!
look at his page, 12/15 of his recent videos are all bashing one guy lol. Dude uses word salads to make unintelligent people believe he is the person to listen to.
bro i was watching his videos to compare and its crazy how his followers praise him and biden ignoring all the corruption they've done
processing information requires a brain. when the dumb call the educated dumb, its obvious what these folks lack. a brain.
Like dumb voters that would vote for a dictator that said on truth social he wants to terminate the constitution?
As someone on the right, I really love this channel. David actually knows what he’s talking about, he cuts the bullshit and speaks using logic. Micheal just tried to trap and to lead on people and has that annoying smug on his face.
so you are on the left
@@eggscheese2763 No, he is on the right. He said that. He gets to define and identify what his position is, not you.
Are there any "right wing" talking heads that you think present good faith arguments and don't straw man?
@@eggscheese2763 he could be a moderate right. Theoretically right wing can use facts n logic too but their party is just filled with bad faith actors.
Come on over to the Left. Grass is greener my friend!
So long as these people continue to be so obsessed with talking points, we’re always going to have much bigger issues being ignored.
That’s kind of the point. Focus on fake points like trans people in sports. But ya know massive wealth inequality, the climate catastrophe that is going to happen and woman bodily autonomy.
Exactly, which is what these Republicans and some Democrats want.
Uhhh, yeah, that's pretty much the goal
The left is delusional. They will assert that the meaning of words do not matter... using words.
@@Spincat08 the right projects the things they are doing onto the left. Like this gentlethem here
“I don’t do dictionary I do politics” well you can’t have a political debate or any kind of conversation if words don’t have meanings behind them. For example if I say I went to the store today but your internal definition of store is a swimming pool, we are not even talking about the same issue so no real conversation or debate can even happen. That’s why all words need to have a specific definition or meaning nationally understood so we can actually communicate with each other.
Your comment is too smart for the “progressives” they don’t do words and book learning
“What a woman is, is a rhetorical black hole….”
Ummm, what?
Forgive me; I am paraphrasing. But good on KBJ for….NOT being able to explain what a woman is?
Next thing you know, people will start asking what gravity is. Gravity is just a social construct.
Re: Marsha Blackburn - Judge Jackson should have responded, ‘If you want to give me a dictionary, I can look it up for you. However, in my role as a judge, the definition is irrelevant, because everyone is treated equally, so I prefer to look at everyone as humans.”
But laws do treat men and women differently.
Excellent!
@@alejandrogangotena9033 police, prosecutors, and judges do yes… But they shouldn’t buy their job descriptions and training.
@@eviliswhereevilthinks9617 no no, there are laws that specifically treat men and women differently, like the draft.
The draft is one- although the House voted to include women last year, but it didn’t make it through the Senate.
If the draft is involved in a court case, then they can pull out their dictionaries. What happens for hermaphrodites?
I enjoyed this. I wish David had thought to ask “did senators ask Amy Comeu Barrett what her definition of a “baby” is? Or “human being” is?” Because those are trick questions too. Conservatives want to say that fetus are babies and human beings. But ACB couldn’t say that because that brings on whole other legal issues, and it would also show her hand on her abortion rulings that might come up. And If a fetus is human or a baby, is that from the point of conception? Can a woman who is one month pregnant get life insurance for her baby and collect if she miscarries? As far a “woman”, ignoring trans issues for a bit, there are many intersex people born who are biologically both male and female.
"When does life start" is a question that actually has moral and legal implications when it comes to laws but Republicans didn't ask her that
It was already widely known that she was pro-life before she was nominated.
Or how about this? Why is the murderer of a pregnant woman not charged with double murder in all 50 states in the USA? Some only charge for the woman. Some only charge double murder when the pregnancy is a certain number of months along. Why is that?
@@sickandtiredofbeingsickand Because they changed the law to better fit the definitions provided by planned Parenthood and the abortion advocates in deep blue states. Margaret Sanger was a malevolent woman who strategically put planned parenthoods in urban areas to target black mothers to depopulate the black community. There's your pro choice savior, a racist, genocidal eugenicist.
@Only Me swing & a miss. Lol
I am a Canadian in his late sixties and don’t remember a young man that is so well versed on the subjects he discusses. He is poised rational and as non-judgemental as you can be in this climate. Enjoy his take in issues.
David Pakman did great. Republicans would say otherwise. It was a political question, and she took a political sidestep. Duh
He literally said that she's not more qualified in all those ways that she's more qualified, simply because she didn't define something. That is the weakest argument I've ever heard
Knowles is a weak, insecure, phony, so it's not surprising.
@TheLuigiLightning Maybe that's why you support lunatics and traitors because you just don't understand.
@TheLuigiLightning The guest, David, stated that Jackson is more qualified than any of the current Supreme Court justices. It is easily demonstrable and not really a matter of opinion but rather a matter of fact. The host of the show then said, "Well, that's not really true because she can't define what a woman is." Essentially, he discounted all of the legitimate ways in which Jackson is far more qualified than any of the current justices, simply because she chose not to give a definition of a word.
@Jody Owen LMAO you think he made that chart? How do you figure?
@Jody Owen OK then, Einstein, how exactly would you prefer we judge qualifications if not by relevant career experience and by education, which is all stated here?
The smirk/smile/sneer on his face when he describes "a woman" is says everything.
Yeah, it’s like he is just constitutionally unable to NOT be a smarmy ass.
It's all a grift by a failed actor.
Yeah he is basically just a troll, not interested in having an actual discussion.
At one point he started to give what the opposite sides definition of a "woman" is but then acts like it's too confusing for him or something and just stops. Like acting too dumb to understand relatively simple concepts makes him more correct.
@@Ricklyplinth The Tucker Principle.
When you saw that awkward smile he knew he had lost the debate.
David should star in a TV show called "It Didn't Go Well" where each week he debates somebody on the right.
"It didn't go well ... for you!"
You can watch debate night. I don't know if Charlie Kirk still does that but after Ben Burgis and Ben Gleib went there i think Charlie will think twice before having any non right winger there.
Lol great idea, They’re always his best interviews you’re right
... and fails miserably, like he did here.
@@alethein359 Have you accepted CHRIST JESUS into your heart as your personal savior?
David was unnecessarily truculent and misrepresented Micheal on a point as a result of interrupting his sentence
Yup he accused Michael of debating in bad faith,
because he didn’t hear the full sentence,
Because he interrupted Michael.
Disgusting behaviour to assume that, if you don’t understand something, the other party is debating in bad faith.
Tells you all you really need to know about Pakman
Michael was right about the fact that David misrepresented what he said. David needs to learn to listen and learn something when he's sitting down with people that are much more intelligent than he is
😂😂😂😂
right about what? he couldn't get his quotes correct and refused to be gracious and simply correct his mistake about what words a senator used in their question
@@rdmcabee he did correct himself. And then the socialist libtard went on a rant. Did you not watch the same video to see how cheap and pathetic his debate tactics were?
@@rdmcabee Michael was just saying that an open ended question was asked by the senator which allowed for any definition to be given. You misheard, you are wrong.
dude Michael literally said "Marcia asked for the legal and philosophical definition" at 6:36, what do you mean?
Michael: "The definition of a woman is a person who is not a man."
... okay, what's a man then Michael? a person who isn't a woman?
is a young boy then a man, a woman, or a non-person? what about an intersex person?
coorporations have some of the legal rights of people, but they certainly aren't men ... so I guess they are part woman?
He gave a better definition seconds later.
A man is a biological male, has or will grow male reproductive parts. A female has the biological parts to eventually carry a child.
Gender is different, but should not matter on title 9 issues
😂😅😂
@@cjp1599 that’s not totally true.. there are intersex people, people with male chromosomes that have female genitalia, and people with female chromosomes that develop male genitalia it’s called Sawyer syndrome.
Biological males are men but not all men are biological males.. if the right is so caught up on a definition being important shouldn’t it be precise
@@terrystevens3998 1 in 1000 people born are intersex. I don't see why they screech about individual freedom and not having government tell people what to do then spend their entire lives thinking about and wanting to inspect everyone's genitals and use the government to control people's individual right to self identify who they are. Those people have severe brain rot. Someone says they're a woman and if they disagree they want to control that person's identity? Okay, well first, let that person decide your gender and let them control your identity. Its a two way street. How about let people have their individual right to be in control of themselves.why is that so hard? Oh that's right, the right are pro-authoritarian, that's why they sat on the right in the first place, to conserve an authoritarian hierarchy and to be anti-democracy and anti-self-determinism, their current beliefs show no deviation from the very beginning of the left vs right dichotomy was born into existence.
You”d have to lobotomize me before I’d be able to “debate” one of this right wing clownshows who inevitably say nothing and stand for nothing.
Yeah, it's really hard to interact with someone, much less debate them, when they inherently aren't acting in good faith.
@@Otembe Totally agree. Even when you outline that you want a good faith discussion you get the runaround and a cheesy smirk. I agree with David that this is a giant waste of time.
@@MrMusashiMusashi so 11 minutes is a giant waste of time?
@@victorbergman9169 Yes
@@MrMusashiMusashi where do we put the limit on what is and is not a waste of time (is it 5 minutes, 10 minutes etc.)
David packman has the striking ability to speak with so much confidence while saying incredibly stupid thoughts! He’s amazing! 😂
"A woman is a person who is not a man" is probably the worst definition of a woman I've ever heard.
Perhaps David can explain it to you. After all, he did say to Michael that they were talking "man to man".
HAHAHA! Exactly, Klutterkicker! A lot of people define things in terms of what they are not. Simple. You could say "Day is not night" or "up is not down" or "a lion is not a domestic cat." I sometimes envy those who live life on such simple terms.
You don't have a definition of woman so how would you know?
@@lifecloud2 Define woman....after all you're complex. It should be easy for a genius like yourself. So, what is a woman?
@@Spincat08 If either of them do choose to offer a definition of woman, unlike Michael's "old definition of woman" which the transgender movement allegedly ruined, I'm pretty sure it won't include among other things all young boys.
The absolute irony of a man who literally just said “I don’t do definitions” to avoid saying what a woman is only to say “we’re talking man to man” 30 seconds later…. So we can define man, but not woman? 🤨
DING DING DING!!!!!! 🤣 Oh, the irony.
well they both identify as men, and want to and are seen in society as men
@Shoshon But what is a man?
@Shoshon I'm sorry, you said they identify as one. Identify as what? If we don't know what "man" means, we can just make it a blank. He may have just said "blank to blank." ... Then again, blank has more meaning than man or woman now. At least we know what that is.
@Shoshon Nobody can easily infer anything anymore, but thanks anyway.
Right-wing propagandists: We need to focus on important things like inflation and gas prices.
Also right-wing propagandists: What's a woman?
They literally dont focus on any policy, only on social or cultural issues. Tax cuts for the rich & OH NO CANCEL CULTURE! OMG CRITICAL RACE THEORY
Potajoe: We need a woman candidate!
Candidate: what’s a woman?
🤣
@Kirby Smart everyone knows that session was a theatrical event for those senators that said they didn't want to make it political, but made everything political. All those politicians are worms. Let's stop voting for party line scumbags and start voting for people that actually care about bettering America instead of fake culture wars.
How can she uphold article 3 if she's not able to define what a woman is? How can she uphold your precious Roe V Wade if she can't define what a woman is? What if she hears a case on the supposed gender pay gap? How can she rule on a case like that if she doesn't even know the difference between men and women?
@@onlyme2579 Gender pay gap could be an interesting thing to bring up, but you really did it a disservice by forcing Roe V Wade into it. As far as I know only those born as a female can get pregnant soo how could this be possibly affected by this? Do you honestly think she wont acknowledge a pregnant woman as a woman? Come on you know that wouldnt happen. The issue people are worried about is ADDING people to this group, there is no threat of females being REMOVED from the category of female. I know some people like to take this to "but genders won't mean anything anymore" but that's not true, the vast majority of humans are totally content with the gender they were born as, just like me & you are. Come on man trans male to females cant get pregnant, it's a non issue & you're acting like something major will happen to it because of the trans issue. It could be overturned by Republicans but that will have nothing to do with the trans issue, that's a pro life/pro choice issue. I'd bet you money Roe Vs Wade wont ever be affected by the trans issue because trans people cant get pregnant after surgery.
If it was me I'd have given the definition of a biological female to show the right I'm not denying reality while also bringing up the gender dysphoria issue & state maybe theres a need to address the social definition including current gender beliefs. I wouldnt want to look like I cant define what a woman is, I think you could find the nuance of that position more respectable. But both david & the guy from the daily wire agreed it was a strategically sound position so it is what it is I guess.
I don't have a horse in this race but the progressive guy is incorrect in their little tiff. It's right there on the tape.
David makes me proud to be progressive. He represented well.
David is to the right of Progressives but he still a good ally.
@@why-even-try-brotendo he is a progressive. He is not a far-lefter, which I'm glad.
@@lMobiuscidl You obviously have no clue what the far left is. AOC and Bernie are barely left of center. Far left is actual Socialism, not just some policies to help the average American.
I have to disagree. He came off as condescending, and purposely misconstrued what Michael was saying at 6:35.
@@cameronwilliams3599 David's entire shtick is to be condescending. I love it personally.
I don't feel like approaching this from a "it doens't go well for them" sort of way just further troubles the problem of the left and right not being able to have discussions. From what I observed, it was a reasonable discussion between two people that disagreed. I think Michael Knowles was perfectly fine in his approach and he was open minded by conceding points and agreeing, it felt like he was really there to discuss rather than debate. I think David came in a little too aggressive, perhaps because he expected that from Michael.
This is also as I observed it.
This is how this works so well on people. We should all have a nice discussion and treat each others opinions with respect apart from donald trump said he won an election then his mob tried to steal it.
You can have a debate and furiously disagree and choose not to do more than debate but I don't want to see a lot of agreements as the right have used this to state we need 'balance' but just like here in the UK all this means is one side lies and it goes unchallenged. David was not aggressive he just had no tolerance for the nonsense spouted over definitions which matter not to the judges role. He then says rewind the tape that's wrong, play the clip of her saying that it's wrong... He did neither and just ploughed on regardless and when challenged he has decided that Samuel Johnson didn't write the first dictionary and it came pre prepared when man was made by God presumably
This Pakman guy is a complete moron; hence, why he's never been offered a serious contract and posts clickbait on YT. The Left definitely has better to offer. This guy is dumb (like low IQ, stupid) and arrogant. He just needs lazy to be the deadly trifecta. Complete pseudo-intellectual and Dunning-Kruger. He's incredibly petulant.There's no way people listen to this clown.
The whole "it doens't go well for them" is just Pakman's somewhat unique approach to the click-bait nature and culture of UA-cam
Without language aka words/definitions, then we can’t do laws aka politics. Saying you don’t do “definitions you do politics” makes about as much sense as a chef saying, I don’t do recipes, I do cooking.. it’s Just an obvious cop out.
Well said, Parkman is behaving like a typical dubious con man
Furthermore look at the videos on his channel. None of them are about political issues, its ALL Orange Man Bad or GOP Bad.
David is good at that. He has no spine.
You're speaking to Michael, by making sounds, in understandable, communicably consistent structure, called words, that can be further structured into sentences/statements to convey ideas, concepts via each word conveying it's DEFINED meaning between individuals. Functional speech REQUIRES definitions to matter and be consistent. Definitions are a fundamental prerequisite for communication.
"I'm not about definitions, I'm about politics" is INHERENTLY bad faith, it necessarily implies 'I will say whatever I need to to in order to get power' since honest speech with consistent meanings behind the word is not important, only the acquisition of political power is.
“I don’t do dictionaries, I do politics.” Very clever David, but if we can’t agree on definitions, it is very hard to have a conversation.
Such a good point. Nothing means anything and everything is fluid at all times
Ok, define “reasonable”
This issue is that definitions can change.
There already are definitions, the right just refuses to accept them either from a position of ignorance, or a position of idiocy.
How do you define "conversation"?
Huge respect for appearing on Micheal's show!!
this needs to happen more often
@Mr averige . huh?
@@robertsilva68 Yea, "Huh?" is what David was saying the whole interview
@Mr averige . ok, so what is YOUR definition of a woman?
@@adrianrr18 there’s only 1 correct definition somehow it’s become “bad faith”
@@NixonThr336ix (with extreme sarcasm) Oh, really? So what is that definition?
The brief answer to what is a women is that “That’s a fascinating question that we are all now dealing with given the recently recognized legitimacy of transgenderism.” In the same way that What is a human being? would have been answered differently by most white people 200 years ago compared to today. Or the term “marriage” is defined differently now by most rational, thoughtful people than it was just a few years ago. The Right has gradually revealed its dark side, which is the idea that any form of deceit and manipulation is allowed to get what they want. Michael is just a congenial and clever purveyor of the same toxic ideas. I support calling out the lies whether told by liberals or conservatives. But there is no longer even an attempt by Republicans by and large to hold their own accountable. We can thank Trump for pulling back the curtain and revealing the contempt most Republicans have for honesty, integrity and civility.
This right here!
Ok, I've seen a number of these kind of comments, and I am genuinely confused.
Do a lot of liberal/left leaning people not believe in biological facts that are undisputed in the scientific community.?
I'm not asking this question as a backhand insult. Some conservatives don't accept evolution or climate change science. Do some liberals really not believe in sex?
@Frank Spence - very well put.
Pakman knows he is getting the worst in this exchange and decides to make disparaging remarks toward Knowles rather than concede the points that were made in this discussion.
It's just a useless conversation, avoiding the fact that Brown is actually pretty qualified.
By qualified, you mean black....and a woman...?
@@TomFoolery0077 Rent free lol. Cope
@@TomFoolery0077 No I think he mean qualified as in her experiences. I mean I believe there is a chart comparing her qualifications and experience to the others and quite frankly it’s not even close.
@@TomFoolery0077 I think they're referring to her years of experience as a judge, having presided over many cases, as well as her academic achievements and myriad accolades and letters of recommendation from her peers and superiors. But yeah, her being a black woman also adds an important perspective to the Supreme Court that we've been severely lacking
@@TheFunGun5 what’s a woman to you?
Fantastic job by David. Held him to the fire. Didn't let the BS slip by. This guy is clearly not being honest in this engagement, the smirk says it all. The question is a wild waste of time, and grifters like Michael love it.
He was being completely honest.
Its a valid legal question as to what a woman is.
Women have special protections under law and benefits such as sba loans for women and minorities.
@@DonkeyLips-gj9uq there is no legal definition of it. It’s judged on a case by case basis and many things are taken into account (most scientists know we can’t even clearly define it absolutely) and the definition has changed multiple times (remember when women with darker skin weren’t considered human even)? I’d also love for you to give me a legal definition or biological definition of minority 🤣
@@daniellogansa8101
Wow U actually make a good point regarding minority standing.. people usually self-certify on college admissions, sba business loans, surveys, census etc. or they are categorized by law enforcement during arrests.
Many claim race has virtually no genetic component but there are many mixed raced people with 50%, 25%, etc based upon parents, grandparents, etc and that certainly muddies the waters with regard to race.
But can u change ur race on a dime?
And sex is completely genetically determined and visible by doctors at birth by genetalia and by xx or xy chromosomes by birth.
Opposite sex is requires for reproduction in humans and other mammals.
And that is incontrivertible. It does not occur otherwise. Ever.
So u could self-certify but that would not change your xx or xy chromosome. Ever.
@@daniellogansa8101 There is no legal definition because for all of humanity, whether humans were dehumanized for racial, ethnic, or religious reasons, we still all had an unspoken agreement that there were clear and undeniably natural differences between the sexes. That’s why “women” and “no discrimination based on sex” are mentioned in our laws, if never defined. Just like they didn’t define what happiness or life was when our founders recognized them as inalienable rights.
The issue is that now we have a growing portion of the country that wants to alter this unspoken agreement to become far more fluid than intended when these words were written into our laws. We have people wanting to allow and encourage young children to question the sex/gender. We have parents who’ve lost parental rights of their children and even been held in contempt of court and put in jail for refusing to use the pronouns the court deemed legally necessary. We have people born as male as male could be being awarded woman of the year, and others who went through male puberty entering into female sports and dominating... taking away college scholarships, careers and pride from women. I’ve even read about men convicted of assault and rape against women claiming to be women to force the legal justice system to house them in a women’s prison.
These are relatively new phenomenon in the US, and it is very likely that in the near future we will start to see a lot of very controversial court cases... some of which will make it to the Supreme Court. Soon to be Justice Jackson will have the job of reading the laws that contain words like “women” and “sex” and make judgement calls about what those words mean. That will help set the legal precedent for future decisions. So it’s a critically important question for her to consider. And for her to simply smile, shrug her shoulders and say she doesn’t know like it’s something silly is much more alarming than had she simply given an answer that half the country disagrees with. Because it shows that she actually hasn’t spent time thinking about these current issues and what they mean for society and law, or that she has but is treating this hearing like a politician as opposed to a justice.
To go back to your comment about darker skin women not being human... that’s true... but I don’t believe they didn’t feel they were women. That’s why they separated out men from women from children... because these definitions transcend even racial and ethnic bigotry. A good question to ask yourself is...
During the civil war, when we didn’t consider slaves fully legal human/adult/citizen/person...
Don’t you think that it would have been an important question for justice nominees to ask them to define “person” and whether or not that definition included slaves? Everyone knew the country was at a critical pivot point and new laws would be written or old ones re-interpreted. Wouldn’t you have been happy to hear that question and anxious to hear the potential justice explain the meaning of that word through which they would interpret the law for generations to come.
@@joeschneider3894 your first point is true for some cultures, not true for others (ancient Egypt is the first prominent example I can think of). Hell, certain cultures considered certain humans gods. There is simply more evidence that there is more nuance to it than an “unspoken” strict definition. There isn’t a strict definition for minority or white or black either, despite many people thinking there is an unspoken rule to it.
It sounds like you have a large number of examples of legal rulings favoring trans people (some of them seem realistic and some of them seem completely made up, like the going to prison for not using pronouns one). I’m happy to discuss each one separately if you provide me with articles and details, but most of it sounds like stuff you’ve “heard of” aka prolly not the full truth.
About The paragraph where you mention darker skinned women and the denial of humanity: I think you’re conflating slave owners considering them female subhumans with considering them women. Aka, they were still considered (by bigots) to be something they weren’t, and something they didn’t identify as.
During the civil war, there weren’t any rebels on the Supreme Court (because they were rebels), so any nominee wouldn’t have to toe the line to get bigots to confirm them (unlike today where in order to get confirmed you have to play political chess with transphobic gotcha questions because the majority of the Supreme Court is conservative). If she said trans women were women (which most scientists agree on nowadays), things would not be easy for her, but I would respect her more if she just said it and used the science to back up her reasoning (I mean they don’t believe in climate change or modern medicine, might as well throw gender and brain chemistry in there too and take the heat).
What an clown lol when he tried to backtrack he knew he got caught and tried so hard to deflect. Classic!
At 6:28, Michael Knowles says *Marsha Blackburn didn’t ask for the biological definition or the dictionary definition. That’s what KJ added. She said “I’m not a biologist” But all Marsha Blackburn asked was “Just tell me what a woman is*
After this, Knowles goes on to list any definition that could have been given that would have sufficed as an answer to Blackburn’s question i.e. philosophical, legal, constitutional etc. Knowles was trying to point out to David that Blackburn wasn't asking for the legal definition. He had clearly stopped quoting her at this point. When David jumped on him for it, Knowles quickly tried to clarify that he wasn't saying she said that, just that those were sufficient answers to the question because the question was simply "What is a woman" and left open to interpretation from there.
Let's try to understand what people are saying at not call people "clowns" simply because you don't understand what they are saying.
@@TKK0812 your comment is ignorant maybe he should choose his words carefully instead of just spouting irrelevant nonsense just like Jesse Peterson you invite someone on your show and you don’t talk about any substantial policies you’re caught on defining what a woman is? Lol WHAT!?
He clearly asserted what she said and than tried to back track that statement
I’m sure you will see what you wanna see but saying you didn’t say something when you clearly did and than lying about it is just weak. Own it!
but he tried to play like he never said it at all. …come on man! Lol
@@TKK0812 You made a perfectly valid point.
But it doesn’t matter. After Michael thanked and welcomed him to the show to offer his opinion on the matter and ensure that Michael’s show didn’t ignore the alternative perspective or present a straw man to argue against... David’s first comment was to suggest that Michael is either a liar or ignorant.
It’s to be expected that any follower of his would react and speak the same way.
@@tonybankse I'd appreciate if you just actually engaged with what I am saying instead of calling me ignorant and using "lol" to try and emphasize your supposed incredulity. I don't follow Jesse Peterson so that's irrelevant. Maybe this is all too much to ask. I quoted Knowles for himself and then made a reasoned argument. You responded with "He clearly asserted what she said and than tried to back track that statement" which is just you restating your opinion and simply amounts to a "nuh uh!"
I'll try again. Knowles started his comment by saying *Marsha Blackburn didn't ask for a biological or dictionary definition* So right off the bat, Knowles says definitively that she did not qualify her statement, she simply asked "What is a woman?". Obviously then, when Knowles said "philosophical, biological, legal", it's easy to see that he has stopped quoting her and is simply listing possible answers. How do I know this? Because as I said already, Knowles started his comment by explicitly stating that Blackburn *did not say these things* mere seconds earlier.
It's OK to admit when you are wrong. It's a sign of maturity, and this isn't actually a big deal. The reason I have chosen to respond is because we need to all be more charitable in how we speak of people as well as how we listen to others, and calling them "clowns" because of a misunderstanding on your part, is poor form.
That's not what I heard at all. Knowles seemed to be listing a variety of contexts someone might use to give an answer. I didn't get why Pakman tried to "gotcha moment" that bit in the least.
lmao Pakman got owned XD
4:45
- Pakman claims there is no legal definition of the word 'woman'.
- Knowles points-out that the specific legal protections for women necessitate a legal definition of the word woman.
- Pakman has no response and is reduced to disingenuously accusing Knowles of arguing in bad faith.
Big fan of the pack man, but this was embarrassing for him.
Happens a lot to him though. This is far from the first time.
I agree. He got exposed for being a bull$hitter. That's rare.
"A woman is a person who is not a man."
I am so proud of my 8 year old woman. He did so well in class today. He grows so fast; it wont be long until this woman grows into a man and will be off to college.
👍👍👍👍👍
What 🤔
😆😆😆
Actually you meant spaghetti, moose and torpedo. You can’t correct me unless you’re a biologist/helicopter!
Nailed it.
Legal definitions do not always align with standard dictionary definitions. Take the word 'person': normal dictionary definition is a human being whereas the legal definition includes corporations (a fictional entity).
Not the greatest comparison, as it points to some of the horseshit of legal definitions - companies being classified as "a person" grants them certain benefits as a company-whole that a private citizen would be allowed. Ironically enough, of course, the same types of career congresspeople asking such a pointless question would simultaneously not present "companies are people" to anywhere close to the degree of horseshit that it truly is.
Man,woman person camera tv! Let's ask trump
The Honorable Ketanji Brown Jackson is NOT playing politics. The US Supreme Court is NOT a political theater. There is NOTHING political about fulfilling the duties and responsibilities as US Supreme Court Justice.
She is NOT an editor for Webster’s dictionary and as a US SupremeCourt Justice she does not decide defining criteria however she as US Justice may decide if webster use of specific terms and/or language are legal and constitutional.
But on to the real question. This is the question republicans seem to have great difficulty understanding. This is a difficult topic, with far reaching impact and implications. All right then i'll say it first but you are all wondering and wrestling with these ideas as well…, of course NOT!
No one should be making definitive statements about what it means to identify as being female or male and anyone who assumes to make that distinction can only speak for themselves at most. The Honorable Ketanji Brown Jackson is NOT interviewing for a position as a litigator. She is being vetted for the position of Supreme Court Justice, her responsibilities as a Supreme Court Judge is to decide on LEGAL questions and Constitutionality, she will research its legal history, legal standing and precedent and make a decision based on her findings…, she may offer an explanation/opinion after the fact describing the criteria by which she developed her opinion. The republicans needed to add specific legal criteria with questions and expect to wait weeks or months for an answer after allowing The Honorable Ketanji Brown Jackson time researching history, precedent etc. not social standing nor social merits…
Onto the real question we all struggle with…, hoping to remain always fair and respectful. Because ideas of sexual identity are inn a state of flux with many new thoughts and questions both new and controversial The Honorable Ketanji Brown Jackson should NOT have an opinion with regard to republican attempts to create controversy and stir innuendo. It will be her job to decide if/when a case of sexual prejudice brought before the Supreme Court is legal or illegal only.
Back to the real question…, as far as defining what it means to be female and/or male, feminine and/or masculine or somewhere/anywhere in between or on a spectrum of defining characteristics all with varying interpretations/uses this question remains in flux these days. Because sexual stereotyping and identity is in such a state of disarray even memes and symbols and especially sarcasm are useless as indicators of sexual orientation.
I will be incredible disappointed if we allow our discomfort with hearing and speaking about sexuality lead us to accept an overly simplistic new criteria for defining sexuality. We need to think logically and especially think respectfully. Relating in a way that leads to clear understanding and insight.
If we were to begin to discuss this logically we might first begin with mandating four (4) restrooms be included in new and remodeled public buildings. One for men and one for women and one for individuals who identify as male and one for individuals who identify as female. This will at least indicate a willingness to begin to understand sexuality and identity concerns. Who knows what this simple first step might reveal about the human condition. Maybe, after 250,000yrs we are finally able to admit, some men are created with higher amounts of estrogen in their system while some women are created with higher amounts of testosterone in their system. Life is a gamble…, what are the odds? I believe this year’s Winter Olympics Judges are deciding on an issue/concern of the later biological system, since a female Speed-skater was found to possess naturally high levels of Testosterone. It is ironic that until this year men and women were giving their best to compete in Olympic competitions…, but now being born a woman with high levels of testosterone is an unfair advantage…, in this line of thinking then, insightful practice before competing might be an unfair advantage. Blah, Blah Blah…,
When I watch Olympic Competitions I am excited/hoping to watch Men and Women offering their best in direct competition.
As for The Honorable Ketanji Brown Jackson and the law, we might finally decide as a people that it is best to simply mind our own business. But, there is always one or two who make personal judgements or stereotype without the benefit of Webster or legal precedent and next what do we do…, what can we say? If you want the Judges opinion “know the legal history and legal precedent” and present your case. A judge is not bound by opinion she is bound to the law
Definitions change with popular usage and through time in fact definitions change with the times. Language is in a constant state of evolution. As old words find new uses and develop a following and popularity with a narrower or broader focus of defining criteria old words will take on new meaning altogether.
In attempts to begin to identify parameters and characteristics of sexual types Webster should NOT offer definitions before societal norms have shown a developmental preference/inclination that contributes to this discovery phase of, “how do we define sexuality today?”
Not only do dictionaries add new words, phrases and new criteria to old definitions, editors of dictionaries may add all new criteria and do away with old defining criteria except as vague references.
For example: Webster once defined Politics as the “Ideals of Social Organizational Structures.” Whereas today webster’s definition of politic, is characterized as mostly about power and control over groups of people. Though definitions do vary by editor and/or publisher.
Why did women have to fight for the right to vote if there is no legal definition of who a woman is?!
You're conflating the idea of being female with the idea of being a woman. The word woman back then was used differently than it is now. This is why you are confused.
@@leonthethird7494 lol i have to hear this. Please give me an example of how the word woman used to be used differently. The trans thing is a just an excuse for you guys to be sexual deviants out in the open. A man cannot become a woman. Trans people are either mentally ill or sexual deviants. Thats it. I'm not saying it should be illegal but dont expect me to participate in your perverted fantasy.
@@leonthethird7494 You’re right. The word woman back then was used differently. That is, it was used CORRECTLY. This is why YOU’RE confused. Also, did you really just saw “…conflating the idea of being female with the idea of being a woman”? 😂🤣
@@aidanoneill3730 We've always had a concept of gender separate from sex though. Pink, high heels, etc.
@@leonthethird7494 but there’s more to womanhood than simply wearing pink and high heels
Please keep these discussions going!!! I don’t even care if I agree with either of you. Having you speak respectfully to one another even though you vastly differ on worldviews is wonderful! I know the conversation didn’t get far, but it was something, at least to me.
"My unbridled pleasure to provide you these insights." Hell of a burn on your way out. He could do nothing but laugh because he has no way of arguing against that. 😂
Give me the insights bro. What is a woman?
@@lobiqpidol818 A woman is a human born female OR someone who sexually transitioned from man to woman surgically which is why I’m for trans rights unlike these socially conservative fucks lol
@@lobiqpidol818 a particular breed of human that obviously wants nothing to do with you lol
@@MrBigshot87 what type of human beings are those? Are they the ones with vaginas or penises? Are you allowed to say?
@@MrBigshot87 lmao
David: “I want to talk man to man now.” Oh, the irony.
Yea, I caught that too. David knows that answering the question of what a woman is, is a lost cause. However, his man to man statement says how he really feels about the topic.
How can he even be sure he’s having a man to man discussion though?
@@adamcramm Well said!
@@adamcramm ...because he's sure that he and Knowles both identify as men.
@@canadagoose8543 but what is a man? How can he be sure he’s identifying himself and Knowles correctly?
African here and I can’t be happier seeing so called civilized society trying to ponder “what is a woman?” A SCJ can answer this in these civilized societies. Madness. I hope we will never get to this point of civilization. Keep your civilization