Kansas City Star Attacks Missouri Senator Hawley Over Lady Parts

Credit where it's due . . . This scathing rebuke from the Kansas City Star takes aim at Missouri Senator over a clumsy definition of womanhood but FAILS to offer any alternative. 

Not so strangely . . . Our libertarian friends remind us that anything other than simple XX vs. XY chromosome difference (and then neither always nor completely) can offer a true differentiation betwixt males & females . . . Everything else is merely cultural distinctions which have always been subject to societal evolution . . . And none of that is to say that societies don't have A RIGHT TO OPENLY DEBATE how (or if) we define gender. 

Sadly, a real debate which respects the humanity of everyone involved has become elusive. The issue is merely another culture war slap fight cynically aimed at leveraging votes.

Accordingly . . .

Check the Kansas City Star fleshing out their arguments . . .

"He told the HuffPost that “someone who can give birth to a child, a mother, is a woman. Someone who has a uterus is a woman. It doesn’t seem that complicated to me.” After a hysterectomy, would that person still be a woman? “Yeah. Well, I don’t know, would they?” 

In the view he laid out, no. If fecundity is all there is to womanhood, then no young or old or sick or celibate or infertile woman is a woman at all."

Read more via www.TonysKansasCity.com link . . .

Josh Hawley doesn't know it, but women are more than the sum of their parts

OPINION AND COMMENTARY First, Josh Hawley told us what it means to be a man: "A man is a father. A man is a husband. A man is somebody who takes responsibility," he said last fall. By this definition, Jesus was not a man.