I think it's fair to say none of us saw this one coming... certainly not Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Yesterday, during Jackson's first full day of Senate confirmation hearings, one of the progressive left's major dogmas related to transgender ideology and politics was torn asunder by none other than the good judge herself. Ironically, the destruction of this basic tenet of transgenderism (if it is an -ism) occurred as Jackson was attempting to be too clever and too politically correct by half when she was asked to perform the simple task of defining "woman."
Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) asked the good judge to perform the simple task that most pre-schoolers can accomplish. The exchange reflects a level of intellectual stupidity that only can be attained at America's leading graduate schools... in this case, Harvard.
Senator Blackburn: "Can you provide a definition for the word woman?"
— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) March 23, 2022
Judge Jackson: "No. I can't...I'm not a biologist." pic.twitter.com/TRlqUeDGs6
Blackburn asked, "Can you provide a definition for the word woman?" Jackson responded, "No. I can't...I'm not a biologist."
That last addendum, "I'm not a biologist," was a gratuitous little insight into a nasty little attitude that Jackson holds for the likes of Blackburn, who would dare to presuppose that such a thing as defining a woman could be glibly achieved in such a vulgar setting as this.
"You need to be an expert to venture into such complicated areas as defining a woman, you hillbilly senator from the middle of nowhere," seemed to be the attitude from the DC-born, Harvard-educated, carefully crafted SCOTUS nominee.
It was a completely unnecessary rejoinder. She could have easily left it at "No, I can't," but she had to flex her intellectual heft and left-splain to the conservative Republican that it takes a trained scientist to handle such an impossible task.
Recommended
And by trying to dunk on the good senator, Jackson has exposed the most vulnerable contradiction in the grand, transgender lie: That gender is a social construct.
We've been told for several years that there is no real biological definition of men and women because the idea, distinction, and identity of men and women is merely a social construct having to do with societal norms, traditions, and bigotry that is assigned at birth and must be reexamined if not totally reconstructed based on the internal feelings and instincts of any given individual regardless of their physical or genetic composition.
In other words, the transgenderists would have us all convinced that one's biology has little if nothing to do with the distinction between men and women.
So... if this highly educated, sophisticated person on the verge of a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States needs a biologist to define what makes a woman, does it logically follow that this is a matter of biology?
Here's the biological answer to Senator Blackburn's question: Generally speaking, a person born with two "X" chromosomes, with internal organs like ovaries and a uterus, and is capable of conceiving and giving birth to offspring, is a female human and by adulthood will be a woman.
How is this relevant in a SCOTUS confirmation hearing?
Oh, I don't know... maybe it's possible that at some point in the not-too-distant future, the court will have to make a determination about Title IX protections for women's sports.
If women's sports are supposed to be carved out and protected for the participation of women, at some point, the definition of "woman" will be necessary.
I'll cut to the chase: Lia Thomas, biologically, is not a woman. Judge Jackson just confirmed that biology is integral to the definition of "woman." Lia Thomas should not be allowed to compete in women's sports.
Thanks, Judge.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member