You Don’t Need To Be A Biologist To Define “Woman,” As Judge Jackson Claims

In an incredible exchange, SCOTUS nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson was asked a simple, straightforward question by Senator Blackburn. But for Judge Jackson, it was literally a head scratcher. Here’s the exchange.

SEN. BLACKBURN: “Can you provide a definition of the word ‘woman’?”

JACKSON: “No, I can’t”

BLACKBURN: “You can’t?”

JACKSON: “I’m not a biologist” pic.twitter.com/i7Rg83z5Y4

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) March 23, 2022

The party of science, ladies and gentlemen. She cannot provide a definition of the word “woman.”

But here’s the thing about this obvious non-answer. If we’re talking about actual biology, as she claims by stating that she is not a biologist and thus cannot provide a definition, then the definition of a “woman” is actually super clear and scientific. It’s an easy answer, in terms of biology. A woman is an organism in a species that produces ova, or eggs, and which bears the species offspring. My second grader is learning this as part of her study of life cycles, so surely a judge with years of education would know this basic biological fact and wouldn’t need to be an actual biologist in order to provide a basic biological definition.

But if we’re talking about the leftist ideology that gender labels are social constructs where “woman” can actually be whatever you feel like it should be at any given time and in any given set of circumstances or lived experiences, then you can define “woman” however you want to because it would have nothing to do with the actual biology of the individual and everything to do with how you personally feel. And if biology has nothing to do with it then you still don’t need to be a biologist in order to provide a definition.

Either way, she doesn’t need to be a biologist to give a definition. That’s just a dodge.

But the real issue is why she didn’t want to answer the question. She dodged the question because it was a lose-lose situation for her. If she answers with the biological definition of a woman, then all the leftists supporting her would start screeching about how she’s a bigot and a transphobe and hates the LGBT community and is probably just a white supremacist. But if she answers with the leftist ideological non-biological definition of a woman, then all the conservatives who were already skeptical of nominating an activist would call this proof of her a critical gender theory activism to promote gender fluidity, destroy families, and indoctrinate children with critical gender theory ideology.

So, instead of giving an answer, she claimed she couldn’t give an answer because she’s not a biologist. But… by saying that, isn’t she actually admitting that she thinks biology is what determines whether an individual is a woman?

And we can’t forget that Joe Biden pledged to nominate a black woman to the Supreme Court. So if Judge Jackson can’t even give a definition for “woman,” then how do we know that Joe Biden actually nominated a woman? Did an expert biologist make a determination and confirm that she is biologically a woman, as Judge Jackson seems to think is the requirement? But then, isn’t that bigoted to base a nomination on the actual biology of an individual? It’s all just so confusing, probably because the rules keep changing to fit the leftist narrative or agenda of the moment.