So, Has Ketanji Brown Jackson Consulted With a Biologist Yet?

Due to circumstances that have mostly been beyond my control, I’ve had to be offline for much of this week and haven’t had too many opportunities to catch much of the Ketanji Brown Jackson confirmation hearings.

But like most people, including even those who aren’t political junkies, I heard about the exchange between Judge Jackson and Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) where Blackburn asked Jackson “Can you provide a definition for the word ‘woman’?”

Before I’d had a chance to actually watch the video clip, I thought surely Jackson’s answer had been somehow misinterpreted or cut off in some way. Or maybe it was just a bad attempt at a joke to lighten the mood of the hearings a bit. It was just inconceivable to me that someone who is in line to be the first black female Supreme Court Justice – a “historic first,” as the media and Democrats breathlessly remind us at the top of every hour – would not be able to give an answer to one of the most vitally important questions ever asked at these confirmation hearings.

Then I watched the clip and knew that it wasn’t taken out of context. It wasn’t a joke. Ketanji Brown Jackson really claimed she could not define what a woman was, with her stated reason why being that she was “not a biologist.” For those who missed the infamous moment, watch below:

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

Like many others, I was horrified at her answer. I mean biologists determined what a “woman” was a long, long time ago, so there is no need to consult one, though perhaps in light of her answer perhaps Jackson should for further clarification. As our sister site Townhall explained in a spot-on editorial, the meaning of the word “woman” is intrinsically linked to her lady parts:

Merriam-Webster defines “woman” as “an adult female person.” To make sense of that definition, it requires us to define another word, “female.” Merriam-Webster defines “female” as “of, relating to, or being the sex that typically has the capacity to bear young or produce eggs.”

In simplified terms, a “woman” is a human being capable of giving birth to another human being.

If that definition is still too confusing or not thorough enough, here are four scientific ways to know if a person is a woman:

– They have XX chromosomes

– They were born with a uterus and ovaries

– They have menstrual / ovarian cycles

– They can give birth to another human being

Jackson knows this. Every woman who was born a woman who is currently walking the face of the earth knows this. But instead of giving a direct answer, Jackson chose the “woke” way out and in the process, it told us everything we need to know about her and whether or not she’s fit to serve on the Supreme Court.

She isn’t, for the very simple reason noted by my colleague Nick Arama, which bears repeating here:

“How does she stand up for women’s rights if she can’t even define what a woman is?”

The even sadder part about all this is that the so-called “feminist” groups who have been rejoicing over Jackson’s nomination since day one have acted fauxfended that people would take issue with Jackson’s very dangerous answer. So in essence, groups that purport to exist for the advancement of women are toeing the line for a woman who refuses to define the word, a woman who very likely will be the next Justice on the Supreme Court – where future cases on women’s rights will undoubtedly be decided.

The word “sellout” doesn’t even come close to describing these types of “feminists,” but it’s the best I’ve got right now.

Ketanji Brown Jackson doesn’t belong anywhere near the Supreme Court, but she’ll eventually make it there, because wrong is right and up is down, and because leftists in this country and their lunatic media enablers have gone batsh*t crazy.