Comments by "D. San" (@DSan-kl2yc) on "David Pakman Tries To Pull Michael Knowles Out Of His Weird Obsession" video.

Smart answer by pakman. That question isn't related to being a judge. It's basically asking her what her preferred definition is. Which isn't the job. Truthfully they just want to harass her.
121
@samuelmerkel2888 there's no legal definition because they don't make the definition. They use the existing, or generally understood idea of it to interpret a law. How is that question relevant? It isn't. They're just asking her what her preferred definition. More specifically they're asking to smear her if she doesn't say their preferred definition. And why do they care about that? Because some rightwingers are, sorry to say, transphobic. Because all it would do is either include or exclude, trans women. But anti discrimination laws already should imply that they can't be excluded. It's just one of those vapid culture war issues at the political level, that shouldn't have the weight to become so vitriolic. Some extra bit: if the question is what the gov views is a woman, they would know the answer. If the question is legally, or documented it's whatever it says on a paper(barring any exceptions I don't know about). Which wouldn't be a definition but about individual documentation. But judges wouldn't base it on individual documents(like a birth cert) because like I said it is about how it would be understood generally, to interpret a law. And because of anti discrimination.
2
@Sunset1705 David Doel gave a second definition. you can add a person who transitioned as well. So that's 3 right there. And neither contradicts the other. Definitions aren't like a fact about a single thing. They're about language, as it changes. The same goes inverse too. A newer one doesn't mean the other is overwritten. Sometimes they just stack up for awhile.
2