It's
a fun question with several answers. Biologically, on a chromosomal
level, a woman is XX and a man XY...
Bible freaks should love that --
since you can make a woman from a man by taking and duplicating the male
X... but you cannot pull a Y chromosome from a woman. (Adams "rib", or
genetic source, is biologically logical).
Women can have babies, men
cannot ... therefore the creator deemed it important to have women and make them superior to men and the only ones capable of fulfilling the commandment to "go forth and multiply".
Or, we can say a woman is not a man... and the definition
then falls to what a man is... Don't we have an estemed document that states:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident,
ALL MEN are created equal."
Does that mean women are excluded?
Or is
Man simply an alternative term for the human species? Thus encompassing both genetic variations...regardless, we know from the statement that MEN are created equal, so there is no racial difference between "men" -- all races of men are created equal.
If a MAN has
cosmetic surgery to appear to be a woman... does that make him a woman
even though his chromosomes say he is a man? Thus, is "Woman" simply a
matter of cosmetic appearance without any regard for the biological
component?
Given the possibilities, a woman who cannot have a baby is a
man... and might want to consider undergoing cosmetic surgery so as to
be "EQUAL" to a Man.
Shall l we continue to have fun with the
possibilities...or simply admit that Congress is too stupid to clarify
the term...and that is why it turned to Judge Jackson for an answer --
they know she is far smarter than they are.
Men might be created equal, but women are not equal...some are superior -- like Judge Jackson (which is why she was asked a question Congress has failed to address or answer).
Or they are clearly inferior -- like the Female Senator who posited the question to Judge Jackson.
