What defines sex? The case of Donita Ganzon

[Alan]

Lan Barnes wrote:
> 
> This is what has made the tobacco suits so interesting. Smoking is
> commonly accepted to be a voluntary act. Why give people damages when
> they chose to do the bad thing?
> 
> Of course, this simplistic approach ignores several other factors:
> 
> 1. The tobacco industry had a multi decade collusion to dissemble and
> confuse about the effects of smoking
> 
> 2. Tobacco advertising was aimed at children and adolescents (still is,
> really)
> 
> 3. Once hooked, addiction (which the tobacco industry obscured and
> denied) makes continuing smoking a compulsion, not a choice.
> 
> This is why I can feel one way about the fast food industry and another
> about tobacco.
> 

Given the above, how do you feel about people who started smoking 
after..say..1975?
I could (almost) accept a settlement for a 70 year old guy who got his 
first cigarettes in a military care package, or even a 50 year old guy 
who started when smoking was a "harmless vice".
But anyone my age (30-ish) who claims they didn't know smoking was 
harmful should be laughed out of court.
Same with fast food lawsuits, and people who claim seatbelt kill.

So, I suppose the standard for a claim should be something like "Did the 
generally accepted wisdom of the day hold that {practice} was harmful 
when you began doing it"?
If yes, then mock incessantly and fine for wasting court's time.
If no, then proceed to trial.

On-topic - Female is XX or XXX, the presence of a Y counts you out, 
regardless of penis, or lack thereof.

-ajb
(and to add my on-topic comment