↓
 
Home » It takes a biologist to define “woman”…

It takes a biologist to define “woman”…

The New Neo Posted on by

…according to Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Duly noted.

Of course, you might say that’s at least a somewhat more conservative point of view than the usual leftist “you’re a woman if you merely call yourself one” standard.

Quite a while ago we reached the point of the left redefining common words that have had an accepted definition for however long those words have existed, and coming up with new “woke” definitions that deny both common sense and even the idea that there is an objective truth to things.

Comments

It takes a biologist to define “woman”… — 48 Comments

  1. The Babylon Bee is on the case: “WASHINGTON, D.C.—The Supreme Court confirmation hearing for Ketanji Brown Jackson experienced a delayed start this morning after Ms. Jackson had trouble locating the women’s room. . . . Kentanji Jackson was found an hour later staring at two doors with strange misshapen stick figures on them. ‘I’m not an Egyptologist,’ she said. ‘I can’t interpret the meaning of these symbols.’ The hearing started shortly thereafter once Jackson realized she could use the room with the triangle person.”

    https://babylonbee.com/news/senate-hearing-delayed-as-kentanji-brown-has-trouble-locating-the-womens-room

  2. It is approaching “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin” territory. Within the internal logic of the debate it sort of makes sense, but to everybody else it is ludicrous.

  3. When I saw that yesterday, I thought Blackburn missed a great opportunity. I would have immediately asked, “So are you a woman?” If the answer was “yes”, then I would have followed with “How do you know if you can’t define it?” All sorts of ways to get KBJ totally pretzeled in her logic and position. It was already embarrassing enough, but Blackburn could have made even more so, and could have been the defining moment of the hearings.

  5. Her unwillingness to speak honestly about the issue of the inculcation of young children with the pernicious and racialized ideology contained in all BLM/CRT/1619 propaganda (when she sits on the very board of a school in DC permeated with this “woke” poison!) should be reason enough for her to be disqualified, but there is no reason to doubt that perhaps the most radical justice ever nominated will soon be welcomed by SCOTUS, given the current makeup of the Senate and the fecklessness of far too much of GOPe.

  6. physicsguy, according to “Best of the Web” at the WSJ today, Sen. Cruz asked Jackson, today, how she could determine a plaintiff’s status in a gender-related lawsuit if she doesn’t know what a woman is. She replied that she knows she’s a woman, that Sen. Blackburn is one, and that her mother is. But she didn’t provide a definition. Sen. Cruz asked if he could claim to be a woman or an Asian man for the purposes of a lawsuit, but she wouldn’t answer.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/judge-jackson-and-the-biology-of-gender-11648069148?mod=djemBestOfTheWeb

  7. When Jackson says that she doesn’t know what a woman is, she is saying that there really is no way for anyone to objectively define what a woman is. She is forcing people to deny reality. She is saying 2 plus 2 equals 5 unless someone wants it to equal 6. We really can’t be a nation of laws if this nonsense is accepted by the majority of the court.

    This bizarre position that there is no such thing as biological sex is accepted by such a small minority of people yet it seems to have a strangle hold on the Democrat party. Every Republican running for office should ask their opponent if they know what a woman is and watch as they twist and squirm.

  8. Gregory Harper:

    She is saying that she doesn’t know what a woman is but a biologist would know. So she’s saying there is supposedly some sort of objective expert who would know.

  9. Griffen, that tweet thread is great. I especially liked the one with the shark. Much needed laugh.

  10. Neo,

    It is an interesting gaffe on her part that she implies that only a biologist could determine sex. Kind of undermines all the ‘gender has nothing to do with body parts’ folks who jabber endlessly about their pronouns.

  12. I’m watching MSNBC re the KBJ hearings. Bizarre. Dishonest. Propaganda. Few facts. Misrepresentation of the facts.

  14. Beautiful!

    “Certainly ironic to have a full day of encomia to Jackson being the first black woman nominated for the job, capped by Jackson saying she doesn’t know what a woman is.” – Dan McLaughlin

  15. physicsguy,

    Is it not the rare for a politician to ask relevant followup questions?

    Griffin,

    Perfect indeed.

    j e,

    Given the fecklessness of far too much of the GOPe, she is just the tip of the left’s judicial spear.

    Grgory Harper,

    All collectivist ideologies require the denial of human nature and objective reality.

    neo,

    I’m confident that once ratified, she’ll have an epiphany that satifies the left.

    Cornhead,

    You’re a better man than I for I haven’t the stomach for it.

  16. Again, the left as a subculture is composed of other-directed, fad-driven people. There are those who occupy fixed positions. Some are wonks defending their research program and some are on Substack. So, we have masses of people pretending and harassing those who refuse to pretend. (Another starboard pundit has been banned from Twitter for telling the truth – that actual gender dysphoria addles just a fraction of 1% of the population).

  19. She is saying 2 plus 2 equals 5 unless someone wants it to equal 6.

    2+2 politically congruent (“=” or democratic/dictatorial consensus) 5 or 6 or 7, when the mood should strike.

    To be fair, she probably subscribes to the Pro-Choice “ethical” religion. She also could not, on principle, distinguish between a baby and a fetal technical term of art, between granny and a “burden” in planned parent/hood. #NoJudgment #NoLabels

    That said, during women’s history month, let’s hold a pride parade, less the lions, lionesses, and their unPlanned cubs… for the first man to brake the glass ceiling… more woman than woman.

    And a proper response h/t NIN:

    Head like a hole
    Black as your soul
    I’d rather die than give you control

  20. She must have skipped biology class as a sophomore in high school. The definition of male and female is the composition of the 23rd chromosome in our DNA. That has been explained in those classes for decades.

    What other classes did she skip?

    By the way, I carry two $2 bills with me. In case someone says 2+2=5, I offer the $2 bills in exchange for a $5 bill.

  21. What was that about history not exactly repeating itself, but it rhymes?

    Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart in 1964, on determining what is and what isn’t hard-core pornography: “I know it when I see it.”

    Come to think of it, what is and what isn’t hard-core pornography has changed quite a bit since 1964, n’est-ce pas?

    So, what is and what isn’t a woman, circa 2022?

  22. I had the same reaction that physicsguy had. Like shooting fish in a barrel. This is supposed to be one of our country’s great legal minds. And they say despair is a sin.

    Q: Are you a woman?
    A: Yes
    Q: Are you a biologist?
    A: No
    Q: How do you know that you’re a woman?

  24. Since she has admitted that she isn’t qualified to consider even simple issues in any field that isn’t related to the law, than I would suggest this implicitly proves that she is not qualified to sit as a justice on any subject except court cases pertaining to only the law. She just doesn’t have the depth to be a Supreme Court Justice, by her own admission; unable to contemplate and render intelligently on any other complex subject on the human condition – like voting rights, abortion, election integrity, environmental law, climate change, education. May I respectfully nominate my cleaning lady, who can tell you what a woman is?

    Too bad it’s only going to take a simple majority to say ‘yes’. Does anyone want to start a pool on which Republicans bend over?

  25. I think you have to pair the “I’m not a biologist” comment with Jackson’s view that because computer technology makes it so much easier for people to receive and distribute child porn, judges have to reduce the penalty for the crime to be fair.

    That’s literally the argument she, and apparently a great deal of the legal community, are making. A guy in 1974 who had to use the mail could only traffick in child porn four times a week but a guy in 2022 can use a computer to traffick in child porn 400 times a minute. And since it wouldn’t be FAIR to punish the 2022 guy 100 times more than the 1974 guy, we have to reduce the sentence for the 2022 guy.

    What unites them, and runs through a great deal of political establishment thinking nowadays, is a legitimately pathological refusal to grapple with or even acknowledge the downside of the accepted conventional wisdom. The healthy way to make a decision is to balance the good and the bad. These people keep doing such terrible things and making such terrible statements because they don’t accept there IS anything negative to their point of view.

    Mike

  26. I was going to comment on this in a certain way, and then I re-read Neo’s post. Oh, that’s more or less what she said at the top.

    To take it a half-step further, by using the BS quip “I’m not a biologist” KBJ is essentially negating the now standard left-wing understanding of “sex” or womanhood. A biologist understands the nuts and bolts of carbon based organisms, but the left tells us it has nothing to do with that. Lia Thomas has male genitalia and and a Y chromosome. But that’s irrelevant to the question of her “gender,” or so they say.

    I supposed one could argue that KBJ was tailoring her response to the conservative frame of mind of the questioner. But almost certainly it was just a dodge. And not a very good one.

  27. If KBJ is on the cusp being the next justice, well, I suppose it ain’t that hard then. Life goals! All you gotta be is a minority who got their degrees from an Ivy League or similar institution! Renders you immune to almost everything!

  30. }}} Quite a while ago we reached the point of the left redefining common words that have had an accepted definition for however long those words have existed

    They are Marxists. This is a standard Marxist tactic. Remember, the official name for East Germany was Deutsche Demokratische Republik — The “German Democratic Republic” — when it was really really blatantly neither democratic nor a republic.

    So, nothing new on that side of things whatsoever.

  31. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) said in an interview Wednesday that KBJ knows what a woman is, she just wouldn’t say so because of the woke credo in her party.

  32. At least the statement is an acknowledgment that it’s biologically determined. Not so bright. Also Durbin whitemansplaining her answers based on interpretations helpfully provided by the NYT is a terrible look.

  34. Perfect question by Blackburn.

    No follow-up to the reply required.

    KBJ’s glib answer hung in the air like elephantine flatulence.

  35. “How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg?
    Four.
    Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.”

    Abe Lincoln

  36. It’s even more concerning to me that her response demonstrates a lack of independence and character. If she can’t give an honest answer here, why should anyone expect differently if she’s seated at the court? Do we really want someone whose opinion is impacted by loud voices to be a tenured part of one of the most powerful institutions in our republic? Something to ask clueless friends.

  37. I think Ted Cruz asked the followup question about sex discrimination cases. If she can’t define “woman,” how does she know the standing of the plaintiff?

  39. At some point soon a biological woman athlete denied a scholarship because some of them are going to biological men, is going to sue under Title IX, saying that too many scholarships are going to men. Let’s hope there’s time for our new Justice to figure out how to tell the difference between men and women before that case comes.

  40. Her pathetic attempt to dodge the question only serves to undermine the transgender advocacy arguments. If biology, and biologists, is what defines women and men then it doesn’t matter what Will/Lia Thomas calls himself.

  41. I don’t think that her “I’m not a biologist” points to some sort of objectivity at least accessible to experts.
    Given her cultural affiliation, I suppose that it’s more a case of leftist “groupthinking”, so the intended meaning would be: “the consensus among socially acceptable, identity-politics-aware people studying such matter will say what we should accept as a woman”. Don’t expect some politically neutral principle whose verification tells us we are in presence of a woman.

  42. At least she didn’t say ‘birthing people’ like the other two liberal morons, Xavier Bacerra & Cori Bush–I’ll assume that’s coming later. She does come across a bit disingenuous in several other instances.

  45. It makes more sense to me that the most divisive issue among Democrats is the WAR that THAT party has declared on parents regarding the latter’s right to make decisions regarding their children’s education…a war that the Democrats, and their corrupt media allies, are doing their absolute best to try to conceal.

    And lie about. (Even the current nominee for SCOTUS is in on the gig! Though in her favor, a country that “elected” the most corrupt presidential candidate in its history can surely learn to weather the lies of a SCOTUS nominee…)

    It’s merely another iteration of Democratic Party insanity followed by the need to massively cover up the major crisis they’ve created—this particular crisis delivered directly into the homes of scores of millions of Americans by Democratic Party depravity, dishonesty and treachery.

  46. Scott Johnson demonstrates that her confusion over woman-ness*, whether feigned or authentic, is not a one-off example of poor qualifications for the job.

    https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2022/03/judge-jackson-in-brief.php

    The Washington Free Beacon has compiled videos with “All The Must-See Moments from Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Confirmation Hearings.” The compilation misses a few moments of interest, but it is far less painful than taking in the whole thing …

    Judge Jackson is easy to read. Her tone of voice in response to unfriendly questions is insufferable. She talks down to the unenlightened. She looks down on conservatives.

    She buys every chapter and verse of the rapidly evolving progressive dogma. The rapidly evolving progressive dogma is to be incorporated into the Constitution as the opportunity presents itself. She can’t define a woman. Not anymore.

    Her merits are entirely superficial. She makes a good appearance if you don’t look too closely.
    …
    No Republican member should vote to confirm a nominee such as Judge Jackson unless doing so serves some imperative political interest.

    This might satisfy Scott’s criterion, although possibly less imperative than not approving ANY Democrat nominee – can we hold out to the midterms?

    @ Aesop > “Well, if Ketanji Brown Jackson is confirmed (let it not be so), at least Justice Sotomayor will no longer be stuck with being the dumbest justice on the Supreme Court.”

    However, we might consider what someone else suggested (I don’t remember who): it is to the benefit of the Right to have stupid justices of the Left, because a smart Leftist would make better arguments and their decisions would have more weight.
    Does anyone take Sotomayor seriously?

    *I guess we can strike these from the cultural archives.

    “How To Handle a Woman” (Camelot)
    “Why Can’t a Woman be more like a Man?” (My Fair Lady)
    “Bess, You Is My Woman Now” (Porgy and Bess)
    “What Do Women Want?” (Freud IIRC – and many others)

    However, Democrats seem to still be okay with this one, in a kind of creepy way (and it would have been creepy back then too, except it was sung by Maurice Chevalier).
    “Thank Heaven for Little Girls” (Gigi)

  47. Even a majority of stupid people on the Supreme Court can turn a decision into the Law of the Land

  48. Even a transgender knows what a woman is. That’s why they put on dress, changer their name a moniker that is feminine and go to a biologist to help them modify the body they have to emulate a woman’s.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

↑