Quote:Marsha Blackburn asked Ketanji Brown Jackson to define 'woman.' Science says there's no simple answer.

Alia E. Dastagir
USA TODAY

• When Marsha Blackburn asked Ketanji Brown Jackson to define "woman," she said "I'm not a biologist."
• Blackburn was displeased, but experts say Jackson's answer was scientifically sound.
• There is no sufficient way to clearly define what makes someone a woman.
  

In the 13th hour of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson's confirmation hearing Tuesday, Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) asked the Supreme Court nominee: “Can you provide a definition for the word ‘woman’?” 

Jackson, appearing confused, responded, "I’m not a biologist.” 

Blackburn chided Jackson, claiming that "the fact that you can’t give me a straight answer about something as fundamental as what a woman is underscores the dangers of the kind of progressive education that we are hearing about."

Senators on both sides of the aisle have used Jackson's confirmation hearing to air issues that have less to do with Jackson's qualifications and more to do with their respective parties. The exchange reflects the current state of gender politics in the U.S., as transgender swimmer Lia Thomas' recent NCAA win sparked a fierce debate over trans athletes, as a flurry of bills have sought to ban gender-affirming health care for trans youth, and as other bills have banned trans girls from participating in K-12 girls' sports. If Jackson is confirmed, it's inevitable she will preside over cases involving trans rights.

Scientists, gender law scholars and philosophers of biology said Jackson's response was commendable, though perhaps misleading. It's useful, they say, that Jackson suggested science could help answer Blackburn's question, but they note that a competent biologist would not be able to offer a definitive answer either. Scientists agree there is no sufficient way to clearly define what makes someone a woman, and with billions of women on the planet, there is much variation. 


"I don't want to see this question punted to biology as if science can offer a simple, definitive answer," said Rebecca Jordan-Young, a scientist and gender studies scholar at Barnard College whose work explores the relationships between science and the social hierarchies of gender and sexuality. "The rest of her answer was more interesting and important. She said 'as a judge, what I do is I address disputes. If there's a dispute about a definition, people make arguments, and I look at the law, and I decide.' In other words, she said context matters – which is true in both biology and society. I think that's a pretty good answer for a judge."

'There isn't one single 'biological' answer to the definition of a woman'
Blackburn tweeted after the exchange that "this is a simple question," and called Jackson's response "a major red flag." 

But Jordan-Young said she sees Jackson's answer, particularly the second half, reflecting the necessity of nuance. While traditional notions of sex and gender suggest a simple binary –  if you are born with a penis, you are male and identify as a man and if you are born with a vagina, you are female and identify as a woman –  the reality, gender experts say, is more complex. 


"There isn't one single 'biological' answer to the definition of a woman. There's not even a singular biological answer to the question of 'what is a female,'" Jordan-Young said. 

There are at least six different biological markers of “sex” in the body: genitals, chromosomes, gonads, internal reproductive structures, hormone ratios and secondary sex characteristics. None of the six is strictly dichotomous, Jordan-Young said, and the different markers don’t always align. 

Sarah Richardson, a Harvard scholar, historian and philosopher of biology who focuses on the sciences of sex and gender and their policy dimensions, said Jackson's answer accurately reflects legal practice. While U.S. law remains an unsettled arena for the conceptualization and definition of sex, it frequently grounds sex categorization in biological evidence and reasoning. 

But like Jordan-Young, Richardson emphasized that biology does not offer a simple or singular answer to the question of what defines a woman.  

"As is so often the case, science cannot settle what are really social questions," she said. "In any particular case of sex categorization, whether in law or in science, it is necessary to build a definition of sex particular to context."

Experts say the category of 'woman' has always been in dispute
Juliet Williams, a professor of gender studies at UCLA who specializes in gender and the law, said it's important to note this isn't an entirely new debate.

The category of woman has long been politically contested. Black women, she said, were not always welcomed in the category. For example, while the 19th Amendment granted women the right to vote, for decades many Black women were excluded from exercising it. During Jim Crow, there would be bathrooms labeled "men," "women" and "colored." The longstanding view of white supremacy denied recognition as women to Black women and women of color. 

Williams said one can also look to the era of Phyllis Schlafly, an attorney and activist and the face of conservative women in the 1970s who argued against the Equal Rights Amendment, which would make discrimination on the basis of sex unconstitutional. Williams said Schlafly believed women's roles as homemakers were fundamental to how the category of woman was defined.  

"There was an effort to define womanhood in very specific ways around roles of mothering and nurture, and to suggest that a society in which women's rights and opportunities were equal to men would essentially lead to a genderless, gender-neutral society," she said. "In other words, if women ceased acting like women, they would cease being women."

A fierce debate over trans women in sports
Blackburn's questions reflect the current debate over Thomas, a transgender woman and member of the University of Pennsylvania swimming team who made history this month when she won an NCAA swimming competition in Division I. 

Gender scholars and trans activists argue that critics are focused on Thomas' assignment as male at birth as the sole reason for her excellence. Thomas began transitioning in 2019 with hormone therapy, and while her swim times slowed, she remained a top competitor.  

"Lots of people are assigned male at birth, have higher testosterone levels ... and could never make a Division I swimming team," said Kate Mason, a gender studies professor at Wheaton College who studies social inequality. "Why do we attribute her current success to her assigned sex, rather than to her long record as an elite swimmer?"

Experts say there can be standards for legal sex classification, but no one can legislate science
Gender scholars say there can be standards for legal sex classification, but no one can legislate science. 

"I do think that judges and justices sometimes have to make determinations about who is meant by 'man' or 'woman' in written statutes – and they may have to acknowledge the reality that sex and gender are not binary," Mason said. "I think Blackburn would prefer a world in which reality was much simpler."

Jordan-Young said some politicians have work to do on the issue of "fairness" for women. 

"When Blackburn and the rest of her caucus support women’s full reproductive justice, when they aggressively try to solve the inequality of investment in girls’ and women’s sports – still true 50 years after Title IX made it illegal – when they take meaningful action on the persistent wage discrimination against women, especially women of color, then maybe it will make sense to engage their questions about who can count as a woman."

(03-25-2022, 01:02 PM)GMDino Wrote: Three replies.

Two go after the poster rather than reading the provided information and commenting on the topic.

I guess "2.0" didn't change some things.

Wonder why this forum doesn't get the activity it used to? 

(03-25-2022, 01:02 PM)GMDino Wrote: Three replies.

Two go after the poster rather than reading the provided information and commenting on the topic.

I guess "2.0" didn't change some things.

Wonder why this forum doesn't get the activity it used to? 

(03-25-2022, 01:02 PM)GMDino Wrote: Three replies.

Two go after the poster rather than reading the provided information and commenting on the topic.

I guess "2.0" didn't change some things.

Wonder why this forum doesn't get the activity it used to? 

(03-25-2022, 01:25 PM)Stewy Wrote: So are you looking for outrage at the injustice of the questioning?  You're not going to get it.

These hearings are nothing but circus' for Congressmen to flagellate their ego's, while furthering their political goals through false outrage.  The Congresswoman asked an idiot and unimportant question, and she was mad when it got deflected not because the judge didn't answer it, but because she couldn't make political hay off it.

Oh and both sides do the same, so it isn't about what's best for the country, but about politics and self promotion.

And since most everyone in these forums understand this, then all you're getting is *shoulder shrugs*.  You had to know this wouldn't get you outrage, so why post it?

(02-04-2022, 08:07 PM)GMDino Wrote: How hard is it to condemn Nazis?  

Apparently quite hard when you need their votes.

https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-695348

(02-05-2022, 12:09 PM)GMDino Wrote: Thinking about it a little more this morning it really is funny that DeSantis couldn't even say "I disagree with the message and wish they were not in my state".  He just played the victim, accusing others of trying to make it "political".

(03-25-2022, 02:49 PM)GMDino Wrote: Generally I post things FOR discussion.  Naturally there are those who think they know me more than I know myself (not saying you) who can't discuss anything without "other siding it".  Or better yet, claiming I am the problem when they won't say the same about others.  That doesn't bother me, though I will point it out because..."hypocrisy"...lol.

If a Democrat asked a stupid question and someone posted an article discussing the correct answer I would discuss it whether a republican did the same or not.

(03-10-2022, 08:20 PM)basballguy Wrote: I can only imagine how frustrating it has become for politicians, athletes, and people in general dealing with the antics of press or other humans that make a big deal out of what a person won't say or do.  It's a ridiculous tactic by the media and I commend either side for not falling for it.

"Trump won't denounce white supremacy"  "Obama won't say Islamic terrorism"

So f'n what.  It's not a story.  

However,

I agree with you in the sense of if you have aspirations for the highest office in the land, you might just want to swallow your pride and do it to make the jackals satisfied.  

(03-25-2022, 06:00 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I’m sorry, but this whole ordeal was really embarrassing. Super snowflakes graham and Cruz crying about things this lady has nothing to do with. Traitor ass Hawley lying and trying to make this all about the most inflammatory issue there is. I mean come on.

Really pitiful partisan hackery.

(03-25-2022, 06:08 PM)StoneTheCrow Wrote: Wasn’t Cruz asking her about pattern of handing out lenient sentences, essentially legislating from the bench, to pedophiles and consumers of child pornography?

(03-25-2022, 06:08 PM)StoneTheCrow Wrote: Wasn’t Cruz asking her about pattern of handing out lenient sentences, essentially legislating from the bench, to pedophiles and consumers of child pornography?

(03-25-2022, 06:58 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Ted went to law school, he could be a judge right now handing out severe sentences to sex offenders instead of whining about Dr. Seuss books and fleeing to Cancun, but that's what politics gets ya.

Being lenient on pedophiles seems like career suicide that pleases no one, but hell...I don't know...maybe she was. 

(03-25-2022, 06:51 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: No idea. I haven’t watched any of it. I’ve only seen headlines.

But yes that’s the GOP attack plan that was drawn up and spearheaded by Hawley that I referenced.

Do I think GOP head of the senate judiciary Graham along with GOPers Collins and murkowski voted to put a pedophile friendly judge on the appeals court last year when they voted for her? Do I think it is realistic that a judge has made it all the way through all these vetting processes and has advanced her career far enough to be considered for scotus while flagrantly going soft on child sexual predators in her rulings? Do I think 83 former state AGs would come out in support of a judge who is soft on child sexual predators? No, no, and no,

Do I think a party whose base includes Qanon, insurrectionists, and trumpets would lie and make something out of nothing to control the narrative and inflame their base? Yes

(03-25-2022, 06:51 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: No idea. I haven’t watched any of it. I’ve only seen headlines.

But yes that’s the GOP attack plan that was drawn up and spearheaded by Hawley that I referenced.

Do I think GOP head of the senate judiciary Graham along with GOPers Collins and murkowski voted to put a pedophile friendly judge on the appeals court last year when they voted for her? Do I think it is realistic that a judge has made it all the way through all these vetting processes and has advanced her career far enough to be considered for scotus while flagrantly going soft on child sexual predators in her rulings? Do I think 83 former state AGs would come out in support of a judge who is soft on child sexual predators? No, no, and no,

Do I think a party whose base includes Qanon, insurrectionists, and trumpets would lie and make something out of nothing to control the narrative and inflame their base? Yes

(03-25-2022, 08:53 PM)basballguy Wrote: Off topic….I’m fascinated by how Ted Cruz is Hispanic but takes a white name to relate to conservative voters…and Beto o’rorke is a white dude taking a Hispanic name to relate to liberal voters.

(03-25-2022, 08:59 PM)basballguy Wrote: Responses like this are why nobody takes opinions on this forum seriously