Judge Kentaji Brown-Jackson: What’s a Woman?

During our new Supreme Court justice’s confirmation hearing, Senator Marsha Blackburn asked a simple question: please define the term “woman”. Judge Brown-Jackson appeared taken aback, but then informed us she “is not a biologist” and therefore is not qualified to answer this question.


Repeatedly using a word she says she “can’t” define is not a good look for a potential Supreme Court justice. Blackburn should ask Jackson: What did you mean by “woman” all of those times you said and wrote it?

Maybe you are not surprised by this answer, but I find it problematic. Still, I will allow the judge a bit of leeway and recognize her caucus does not permit its members to admit there are clear definitions for the terms “man” and “woman”. To provide a straightforward answer would acknowledge the simple concerns of her Republican questioners have some merit. It would mean admitting that those who believe men are actually men and women are actually women, may actually have a point. I know so many have accepted the modern “gender theory”, yet, I think scientific truth still matters.

The judge could have easily disarmed Senator Blackburn and provided one of the obvious answers, such as:

  • one of the two biological categories for the human species
  • the ones in our species endowed with two X chromosomes (males have an X and a Y)
  • the ones in our species who have the ability to reproduce.

But any such answer might make her a major disappointment for her proponents. They want her to acknowledge the new “truths” about gender. The judge is counted on to abide by the new prescribed definitions–which are not actually definitions, but simply attacks on traditional views, views which threaten the progressive intersectional agenda. The new logic that the judge tacitly espoused is that gender is a “social construct” measured along a sliding scale; individuals can move from one end of the scale to the other based on how they feel about their own identity on any given day. The new age logic tells us society is repressing an individual’s ability to change their gender identity by limiting folks to the binary options of man or woman. Conservatives, you see, just don’t understand; they don’t realize a Utopian vision cannot be constrained by anything as mundane as a biological truth. On the other hand, maybe progressives don’t understand that Utopian visions, at least the ones proposed by humans, always end in abject failure and misery?

To define “woman” as the judge was asked should lead to recognition that men and women are actually distinct, and have different (yet complementary) roles, strengths and weaknesses, and that those who say otherwise might not actually be “transphobic”. The game would unravel if someone as consequential as the new progressive Supreme Court justice would openly admit to a concrete definition. No, they tell us, a man can be a woman or a woman can be a man whenever the time is right. Recognizing the old truths, the worn-out stereotypes for biological sex (or at least what was defined as the obvious truth for thousands of years prior to today), would harm the intersectional agenda, so progressives deny the obvious to avoid losing the argument outright. It’s insane, but it is the new way.

The judge follows the progressive dictates primarily to make clear she will vote in the same manner as Justice Breyer (whom she is replacing) and the other ideological progressives on the bench. It is akin to a religious person speaking in tongues. She uses the approved phrases and the appropriate buzz words, so progressives know she is one of them. This manner of speaking makes it easy to exclude conservatives from their club. Everyone knows conservatives refuse to acknowledge the silliness of gender theory, so if the judge recognizes the emperor does indeed have clothes, she must be one of them, one who will vote as she is supposed to without actually having to make such admissions openly. There is a method to their madness.

Still, the judge’s non-answer is disappointing, disappointing to see how this gender insanity has infected people in the most powerful positions in our society. Why can’t you just be your own person and say what we all know to be true? Why deny what you yourself certainly believed in your youth (and almost certainly still secretly believe today)? We would have more respect for you if you could show you can think for yourself. For me, her answer to this question should have disqualified her.

Many buy into the new gender fantasy and some have even convinced themselves it is a legitimate scientific theory. However, not long ago, in 2008, in fact, President Obama supported the defense of marriage act (i.e. that men should marry only women and vice versa). Nobody knew anything about “gender theory” back then. Of course, President Obama abandoned his original position four years later, “coming out” in support of gay marriage during his second run for president (he changed position on marriage so many times that nobody was fooled). The president’s concession to the intersectional coalition was the camel’s nose under the tent. In the ten years since we have been inundated with the LGBTQ LMNOP ABCXYZ agenda.

Ten years ago, the talking point was that gays just wanted the same rights and opportunities as everyone else. Why shouldn’t everyone have the same marriage privileges? they asked. Actually, I can understand that appeal, but that wasn’t the actual goal. The goal posts have moved considerably since that time. The game has changed completely. Now, it seems you can be whatever gender you want–if you just believe, whether it was what you have always wanted or what you just decided upon yesterday. Furthermore, the whole progressive caucus will cower others into affirming your view (“gender affirmation” is one of the new terms we have to accept these days). During the last couple years new strains of sexuality are thrust upon us regularly (demi-sexual, pan-sexual, bi-sexual, minor attracted person, bi-romantic asexual, on and on); we are told all are equally good choices among an ever expanding list. Here is another question Senator Blackburn could have asked: how many genders are there? Ask that question of ten progressives and you will probably get twenty different answers.

What’s wrong with all this after all? Why can’t I pretend to be something, so I can fulfill my true identity? That’s a tempting offer for many who are disappointed in their own lives. Who are you to deny my wish? What’s it to you? Why should I have to live within the arbitrary bounds of biology? Well, I thought it was normal to eventually abandon our unreachable dreams and stick to what is actually possible, but progressives ask: why should we limit ourselves in such a way? Ok. I will play along. I would like to be taller, stronger, and faster so I can play in the NBA and make millions of dollars. If I sincerely believe it so, why do you discriminate against me and my beliefs? There should be a mandate to force the NBA to accept more ordinary people like me. It’s only fair. If you deny me this new imagined reality, you are the evil person, and probably a racist, to boot.

Ten years ago, marriage was to be expanded by the addition of gays; more were to be included in this exclusive club, but in the ten years since Obama’s watershed moment, marriage is less popular than ever. Fewer and fewer want into the club. More people are waiting longer to marry, or they are not marrying at all, whether gay or straight. Nothing was gained by expanding the definition of marriage, but something very significant was lost instead. Ask yourself: how better to destroy a society than to diminish the natural roles of women as the species procreators? This has to be one of Screwtape’s fantasies. A power vital to the survival of our species is now under attack; this perversion of biology is more of an existential threat to us than the climate ever will be. Yet, Judge Brown-Jackson wants to avoid being drug into the fray, wants to avoid commenting on a trend that is signaling the end of our culture. Who knows what a woman really is, after all? Why–after all these years–does it matter, in any case?

Back when I was in school (when dinosaurs roamed the earth), the definition of boy and girl, man and woman, was clear to all. Sure, even then a few folks believed otherwise and acted out, but they were the rare exceptions, exceptions that most of us never encountered and didn’t contemplate much. Today, on the other hand, millions have bought in to the new “gender fluidity” theory and believe there is something sincere and genuine to changing genders. They sneer at those of us who object; those of us who deny others their passion for changing genders, are the true problems. I would like to point out that problems arise when we ignore the bounds of reality. I think it is compassionate to help someone who is confused by their gender status, but it is not compassionate to assure them there are no limits to reality.

I went to the doctor’s office this week and put my gender on the form the receptionist handed me: male, female, or transgender? These new choices are becoming more common. I live in rural North Carolina, not New York City or LA, where such new “truths” about transgenderism are taken for granted. These notions of transgenderism, that it is liberating and good to be whatever you want, have pervaded the entire culture.

Obstetricians used be the first ones to tell mom the baby’s sex. Today, they are being forbidden from making such a life changing pronouncement. Who is the doctor to assume a baby’s sex? Doctors are not biologists, so should not be permitted to make this determination. Does any of this make sense to you?

I don’t believe in only reproductive freedom, I believe in reproductive justice. All women — and that includes the trans community — have the right to an abortion. #DemDebate— Julián Castro (@JulianCastro) June 27, 2019

Last July, I wrote about more of this misguided reality with regard to other types of escapes from reality: https://seek-the-truth.com/2021/07/15/more-on-transgenderism-it-is-not-about-hate/

I would like to point out that in our local high schools there are kids who act out being dogs during the school day. They wear dog collars to school and act in ways befitting a dog throughout the day. They even have a name for themselves: furries. I couldn’t believe this was a thing when I first heard of it, yet there are actually groups of kids who support each other in this endeavor and the schools tolerate it and don’t counsel these kids in any way–I suppose because they believe it is part of their identity. These kids need to be told no. They do not need affirmation. This is an escape from reality and they adult administrators should not give their imprimaturs. We have created a society that is so tolerant of every behavior, even behavior that is bizarre and aberrant because we don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings, or some such nonsense. Every such group demands our tolerance along with our affirmation or they say we don’t care about their feelings. These kids will grow up thinking this type of behavior is okay and normal–and when they realize later how silly they have appeared for all these years, they will eventually blame the mentors in their lives for not pointing this out sooner. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitchener-waterloo/furry-furries-research-sharon-roberts-just-like-you-1.3885048

Just be whatever you want. The rest must accommodate your fantasy.

I discussed a similar topic last March when it was Merrick Garland being confirmed as U.S. Attorney General.


During Garland’s confirmation hearing on Monday, Republican Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana pressed the judge on the issue, asking him if he agreed that “allowing biological males to compete in an all-female sport deprives women of the opportunity to participate fully and fairly in sports and is fundamentally unfair to female athletes.”

Garland, however, responded with a non-answer, claiming it is a “very difficult societal question.”

It is too bad that Senator McConnell held up Judge Garland’s nomination to the Supreme Court in 2016. He could have been the first black woman nominated to the Supreme Court six years earlier. Of course, you may scoff and say Garland is not actually a black woman. Who knows you may even say that’s a racist comment from me, but if ordinary folks like us are not permitted to define terms like “woman”, how do we actually know Merrick Garland isn’t a woman, and a black woman at that? There are even “trans-racial” people as I discussed in an earlier post.

The story of Peter Pan is not real, as nice as it would be to live in our imaginations. Instead, I prefer a simpler reality like the one on display by this kindergartener as he concisely defines gender. The kid is certainly not a biologist; he probably hasn’t even had his first biology course yet, yet he lands upon the definitive definition. Of course, remember this movie is from thirty years ago before any of this gender changing mania came upon us and one could state obvious truths without being attacked:

Folks today would say the kid in the movie has been corrupted by his parents, which is why they need to take parents out of the equation and why we should let the schools, backed by an interventionist government, raise your kids. More on that later.

Why Pick Judge Brown-Jackson?

Wait a minute! Didn’t the president pick Judge Brown-Jackson precisely because she is a black woman? Isn’t she being touted as the first of her kind? Doesn’t the president brag that picking the first black woman for the Supreme Court is one of his significant accomplishments?

“Our process is going to be rigorous,” Mr. Biden said. “I will select a nominee worthy of Justice Breyer’s legacy of excellence and decency. While I’ve been studying candidates’ backgrounds and writings, I have made no decision except one. The person I will nominate will be someone with extraordinary qualifications, character, experience and integrity. And that person will be the first Black woman ever nominated to the United States Supreme Court. It’s long overdue, in my view. I made that commitment during the campaign for president, and I will keep that commitment.” 

How can both the president and the judge herself use the term woman repeatedly (as we all do) and how can they tell us how proud they are to finally have a black woman on the Supreme Court, yet at the same time, we are told not to define “woman” or acknowledge the value and importance of being a woman? How can the president say he selected a woman when that term supposedly can be defined only by a biologist and most people, even Harvard educated Supreme Court justices, have no idea what a woman truly is? You can’t have it both ways, sir. The judge says she is a woman, and everyone else (including many non-biologists) tell us that is so, so why can’t you and them tell us what it means to be a woman? Furthermore, how can all of us non-biologists be certain that Judge Brown-Jackson is even a woman when we are told the term cannot be defined?

I acknowledge this is all silly talk, but I am simply following the logic our progressive friends have provided us. Don’t let them lead you astray.

It’s Not a Dream. It is Who They Really Are

Of course, critics will say there are exceptions to the rule, and tell us we ignore science when we overlook exceptions. Some people do indeed have abnormal chromosome structures, some people are born with both male and female genitals, some women have masculine traits, and some men have feminine traits. All this is true. But do exceptions justify changing a definition? Don’t we say that humans walk on two legs and animals walk on four? We make these generalizations despite the fact some are born without legs or some lose their legs in accidents. Biologists, who Judge Brown-Jackson reminds us are a very special authority, define humans as bipeds and our furry pets as quadrapeds despite the many exceptions to those rules. We don’t stop to qualify all the exceptions when speaking of species general characteristics, so we also shouldn’t rewrite the meaning of man and woman based on rare exceptions.

Critics will also say folks cannot help what they are. They are born this way and they are just following their natural instincts. I will grant there are certainly folks who are following their natural instincts, but also grant that there are trends that influence decisions like these. As I like to do, let’s look at the numbers.

When I was growing up, I assure you, transgenders were a rarity. It was a rarity to know a transgender as well. Maybe they were all in hiding and afraid to “come out”, but nobody believed such a thing back then.

  • a 2020 poll finds an ever increasing percentage identifying as something in the LGBT spectrum. If you are born this way, why is it more common to identify this way today, but it wasn’t common a few years ago? Why is it more common among the younger generations? This has all the characteristics of a fad not the unearthing of some hidden scientific fact:

Self-Identification as LGBT, by Generation

GenerationLGBTStraight/HeterosexualNo opinion
Generation Z (born 1997-2002)15.978.95.2
Millennials (born 1981-1996)
Generation X (born 1965-1980)3.888.67.6
Baby boomers (born 1946-1964)
Traditionalists (born before 1946)1.389.98.9
GALLUP, 2020

LGBT Identification Not Uncommon Among Younger Generations

One of the main reasons LGBT identification has been increasing over time is that younger generations are far more likely to consider themselves to be something other than heterosexual. This includes about one in six adult members of Generation Z (those aged 18 to 23 in 2020).

LGBT identification is lower in each older generation, including 2% or less of Americans born before 1965 (aged 56 and older in 2020).

One more poll from 2021:

The point is simply that the rising numbers indicate that coming out as LGBTQ or LMNOP or ABCXYZ isn’t simply about who you truly are. Surely, some indeed belong to this group, as always, but there are massive numbers caught up in a fad. At least twelve times (possibly twenty-four times) more of today’s generation identify as LGBTQ than the “traditionalist” generation. That’s a massive increase in a very short period of time, one that indicates most who identify this way probably aren’t actually LGBTQ after all. How much good are we doing folks when most of them now identifying as LGBTQ probably weren’t born that way? I’m sure they believe they were born this way, just as millions of American teenage girls believed they were in love with Elvis fifty years ago.

Here’s the real (and mostly cynical) reason for the increase: the politicians want to increase the numbers in this group for the same reason they want open borders; they see the folks in these demographics as swing voters. They could not care less about the voters themselves; they just want a locked in voting block who are so opposed to their opposition’s traditional views.

Can there be any doubt the number identifying among the various gender categories is increasing? There are more choices open to people today than ever before. More choices may seem like a good thing, but it often means more bad choices or more wrong choices. Too many are not following who they really are; they are following someone else’s vision of who they should be or following a trend that is popular among friends or public figures they follow, and that does them a disservice.

Judge Brown-Jackson, who is now in a position of great authority, is just adding to this confusion. Stand up and speak the truth, don’t pat people on the head for following the trends. Tell them the truth, truth that many may not want to hear.

Don’t Say Gay

There are two ways progressives fight the transgender battle. First, they refuse to be pinned down to their own beliefs, as Judge Brown-Jackson demonstrated, and secondly, they lie about the beliefs of their opponents.

Around the same time as Judge Brown-Jackson’s confirmation process was the debate over Florida’s so-called “Don’t Say Gay” Bill. The one thing to remember about this bill is that the phrase: “Don’t Say Gay” is not part of the bill. It never was.

We have seen so much outrage over this bill, but the bill itself is really weak sauce. The bill supports parental rights and restricts sexual education for kids in third grade and below. Ask yourself why kids in these grades need sexual education from their schools? How about schools teach reading, writing, and arithmetic? Let parents teach the rest. Parents should pass on values, not schools; that’s the real issue being debated. I would be fine if the bill prohibited any kind of sex education for kids through grade twelve, but as it stands it is only for the youngest of kids. Here is the heart of this bill:


You know politicians are desperate when they believe they can win only by lying about their own agenda. The stars at the Oscars were so “brave” to say the word “gay” ten times over, but that has nothing to do with the Florida bill. I don’t care if you use the word “gay”. I’ve used it several times in this post. Live your life as a gay person if you wish. I can’t stop you. I won’t try to dissuade you unless you want to hear my point of view.

When Americans are shown the actual text of the Florida bill it is supported overwhelmingly, including a majority of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents.

You should want to know: what’s the real game? What’s the real goal? Your children are the goal. The government wants your kids to be indoctrinated in its political ideology. Many teachers and schools openly say they aren’t your kids; they belong to all of us. The schools want to teach them values, mainly liberal values. Increasingly parents are being excluded from objecting (read the shocking truth about this in one of my earlier posts on the topic: https://seek-the-truth.com/2021/07/03/transgender-delusion/).

Don’t be fooled. They believe it takes a village to raise kids. Parents are the problem in their view. They are more openly objecting to parents because they see parents are the ones who are keeping this new gender ideology from being propagated. Parents are also the ones who pushed back and threw out the Democrats in Virginia in 2021. They will do it again if not stopped. This is their biggest fear.


EXCLUSIVE: Connecticut school nurse, 77, is suspended over ‘transphobic’ Facebook post revealing that student, 11, was on puberty blockers, 12 others were non-binary, and that teachers were helping some keep it secret.


Second-grade students in New Jersey public schools will receive lessons in gender identity and climate change beginning this fall.

“Analyze the influences of peers, family, media, social norms and culture on the expression of gender, sexual orientation, and identity,” the public school guidance states. “Advocate for school and community policies and programs that promote dignity and respect for people of all genders, gender expressions, gender identities, and sexual orientations.”


Yesterday, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki accused Republican lawmakers of “engaging in a disturbing, cynical trend of attacking vulnerable transgender kids,” and exploiting them. “Instead of focusing on critical kitchen table issues like the economy, COVID, or addressing the country’s mental health crisis,” she said, “Republican lawmakers are currently debating legislation that, among many things, would target transgender youth with tactics that threaten to put pediatricians in prison if they provide medically necessary, life-saving care for the kids they serve.”

Life-saving care? Surely she must mean insulin or antibiotics?

No, she means “gender affirming care” that devilish euphemism for puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and experimental surgeries whose benefits are unproven, but whose risks—permanent sexual dysfunction, infertility, cardiac event and endometrial cancer are a few—ought to nudge any doctor toward soul searching. As I’ve written many times, these treatments are often recklessly administered, of questionable benefit to children, and attended by forbidding risks.

Just one more word on this topic (because I always have one more thing I want to say about every topic). I heard the following on a podcast; it is quote from from an article in the magazine Touchstone (S.M. Hutchins). It highlights what’s wrong with our culture and the unfortunate end we appear to be heading towards:

The Liberal has reason to believe himself intellectually superior to the Conservative, reason to sneer and strut if he is so inclined, because he, in fact, does know, to be what he is, he must know more than the plain man. He has learned something the Conservative has not. The Liberal has learned there is no God. The Liberal has learned that debt is the pathway to national prosperity. Gender overrules sex and is a matter of personal choice. Eternal presence and authority are not necessary for a healthy family life whereas government agency is and that women, smaller, weaker, slower, and the bearers of the next generation, should be put into the armed forces to fight alongside men. These and like propositions must be taught. You have to learn them precisely because they are unnatural . Common sense needs to be supplanted with an artificial ideological, “educated” world view, and above all, pride in this learning and disdain for those who don’t possess this learning must be inculcated, not only to mock those who refuse to accept it, but also to secure the Liberal in chains of madness that only an arch-angel could break.

For more on my transgender posts: https://seek-the-truth.com/category/trans/ There is more to come as well as the tendrils of this topic abound.

9 thoughts on “Judge Kentaji Brown-Jackson: What’s a Woman?

    1. What grey am I missing? It is clear Judge Brown-Jackson doesn’t want to answer the question: What’s a woman? It is clear folks are deluding themselves that someone not a woman can have a baby. It is clear that the number of folks identifying as LGBTQ+ is increasing rapidly. Bill Maher joked we will all be LGBTQ in 50 years. It is clear the Florida “Don’t Say Gay” Bill was misrepresented. Please tell what nuances I am missing here.

      Matt Walsh in his movie “What is a Woman” asked the same question of many. He went to Kenya and told the folks there how Western thought has progressed. They laughed and clearly couldn’t imagine such a world. Who are the clear thinking ones in this picture? We are trying to “normalize delusion” in the West and the folks in Africa at least can still easily see through it. Why is our technologically advanced, ever-so-progressive society having such trouble defining and living within the bounds of reality?


      1. Why would Ms Jackson bother to answer such an insulting question. I certainly would not. Nor, I think, would most normal people. You call it simple. I call it loaded! No matter how anyone answers the question, the questioner will attack the answer. Ms Jackson took the best route possible. And, in my opinion, the person who asked the question was the stupid one. You said the answer is obvious? It is so obvious the question should never have been asked in the first place. The question is a biological question, not a legal question. Ms Jackson was being questioned to be a Justice on the Supreme Court, not a doctor. Show me where in the Constitution or any law in the United States that involves the question, “What is a woman?” It has no place in jurisprudence. It has no place in determining who should or should not be a Supreme Court Justice. And I am surprised you could not recognize that fact.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: