Op-ed views and opinions expressed are solely those of the author.
If we were playing Family Feud and the question came up as “What are the characteristics of a woman?” The question might send progressive contestants into a histrionic rage because none of them can define the word “woman,” and this includes Supreme Court nominee, Ketanji Brown Jackson. The viral clip of her refusing to define the word “woman” delineates a culture gone out of control. To decide on the characteristics of anything, one must first understand the meaning of the word that the characteristics will be attributed to, and this appears to be a major problem for woke progressives who are incapable of defining the simplest of terms.
On a Dr. Phil show, Matt Walsh caused a great deal of confusion and “emotional pain” for woke progressives who had meltdowns at being unable to define the word woman and claimed that experience caused them terrible anxiety and sleepless nights. In the past, this question wouldn’t seem to be a problem. Walsh has defined a woman in terms that even a four year old can understand: A woman is an adult female. It would seem to be quite a simple answer, but in todays gender obsessed and confused world, the definition escapes those who have taken something that is very basic and turned it into a rhetorical nightmare.
Some simple words can be difficult to define, but they are usually adjectives and adverbs. Socrates pondered for a lifetime about the meaning of the adjective “good.” However, when it comes to nouns and verbs, it’s far less complicated. We all know what a fork is, and can create a mental representation when we hear someone say, “I need a fork to eat my food.” Despite the attack on parts of speech, also initiated by progressive, with their demands of personalized pronoun use, a woman is still a noun, although, I’m sure their argumentative, illogical way of thinking will eventually put that one on their “to do” list of things to whine about.
Gender activists insist that a person can be anything that he or she wants to be because gender is a social construct. However, for something to be a social construct, according to Webster’s Dictionary, “it must be an idea that has been created and accepted by the people in society.” This presents several issues because there are many different cultures and societies, yet women live in all of them. Thus, if Americans define a “woman” with the nebulas definition of “anyone who identifies as a woman” (biology ignored) and another culture defines a woman as an adult female, or someone with female biological characteristics, then there is no universal definition for what it means to be a woman. I know, progressives believe that the rest of the world will come around to their egocentric way of thinking and they will “educate” the rest of the world and the new definition of “woman” will involve identity politics. Good luck with that!
It was reported by Science & Scholarship in Poland that a scientist at the University of Warsaw’s Institute of Archaeology found 64 skeletons in a Wari tomb in Huarmey, Peru. Most of the skeletons were determined to be women through the examination of tooth enamel, rib bones and DNA evidence of the remains. When remains are found in a crime scene investigation, it isn’t social constructs that determine whether or not someone is a man or woman, it is biological science.
With all the confusion created by a minority of individuals who deny biological facts about what a woman is and is not, and for Americans to be caught up in this delusion it is a signal of an extremely dysfunctional society that has abandoned common sense and opted for rationalization as the primary decision making process. The ability to use logic to interpret law is the defining characteristic of a qualified judge. The fact that someone who may be on the highest court in America and whose 1/9th opinion could impact significant legal cases that come before the court for many decades (since it is a lifetime appointment), and that many of these cases could hinge on how a woman is defined is significant.
Ketanji Brown Jackson’s answer to Senator Marsha Blackburn’s now infamous question displayed a great deal of political sense. For her to answer it in the traditional, definitive terms that a woman is an adult female would have been to alienate those who support her nomination, and if she answered it the way woke progressives normally answer it “it’s anything someone wants to be” it would have alienated many people who oppose the woke movement. However, her reply that she couldn’t answer the question because she is “not a biologist” is a very interesting answer for several reasons.
I’m not an accountant, but I understand the definition of “taxation.” Her words reminded me of watching the original Star Trek series, when Dr. James McCoy (on numerous shows) would shout, “I’m a Dr. not a …..” I’m not a meteorologist but understand I need an umbrella when I step outside my front door and it’s raining. However, this was an example of rhetorical ignorance for political convenience.
Jackson’s comment about not being a “biologist” was an interesting comment because it implies that she believes that sex is biological, otherwise she would have said, “I’m not a psychologist or sociologist” since it is members of those social science fields are the ones to argue that gender is a social construct. Her unwillingness to answer this simple question may have some serious underlying consequences when combined with her record of giving light sentences to pedophiles. How will she rule in cases that involve parental rights, when she seems to sympathize with those who have committed crimes against children? How will she rule when given cases where biological females bring lawsuits against biological males who are unfairly competing against them in sports? How much of an activist judge will she be, if confirmed, when it comes to cases involving traditional values?
I’ve heard many people on the left say that she has excellent credentials to be on the Supreme Court, which may be the case, however, this is a very uncharacteristic assertion made by those who always place merit behind diversity. President Biden himself, prior to her being named, said that he was committed to making his nominee a black woman. However, the color of her skin and sex (even if she can’t define what it is) played a part in getting her the nomination. Yet, if her record is what matters most, then it is imperative that it be thoroughly examined and scrutinized. It is likely that she will be confirmed, which illustrates the tragedy of partisan politics and the fact that a person who defines herself as a woman, can’t define the word “woman.”
- Liberal excuses and consequences - February 3, 2024
- You can’t change the system, so just change the population - January 30, 2024
- Descartes redefined: I believe therefore, you need to believe what I believe or else… - October 6, 2023
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.