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 â 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 â 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 â 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 âsexâ 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 donât 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."
What's A Woman? GOP Senators Stumble On Their Own Question To Ketanji Brown Jackson.
And by saying that I can't answer that question where the answer is obvious is a lie in itself. It is, to me at least if no one else here, that after eons on this planet that defining a woman is suddenly an impossible task. And this is a SCOTUS justice. If she can't, who can ? Can you ? Asking for a friend ...
I can't. I'm not a biologist either.
If everyone for eons has insight into the definition (minus myself and Ms. Jackson), then why is someone asking the question?
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Sep 21, 2023 - 5:28am
kurtster wrote:
At least I brought up an actual definition to be considered as opposed to guess what Steeler's actual meaning of "success" since he never clearly defined it.
. . .
That is so wrong. I asked you why you thought Trumpâs appointments were successes. After a few exchanges, you said the success was that Trump did what he said he was going to do in terms of appointing Justices. When I asked what that was, you never answered. By contrast, I explained in some detail why I thought a successful appointment could not be divorced from the subsequent performance of the Justice. You did not address that. Now, you characterize our exchanges as you being straightforward and my being evasive. Anyone reading our exchanges can see that is false, if not delusional.
It's pretty funny to watch you twist yourself in knots to avoid the obvious and ignore the facts presented. Read your link... since you're bringing your own definition (as was the person asking the question of her), the argument you're making that she "fostered a misconception" would render your understanding of the term wrong.
At least I brought up an actual definition to be considered as opposed to guess what Steeler's actual meaning of "success" since he never clearly defined it.
And by saying that I can't answer that question where the answer is obvious is a lie in itself. It is, to me at least if no one else here, that after eons on this planet that defining a woman is suddenly an impossible task. And this is a SCOTUS justice. If she can't, who can ? Can you ? Asking for a friend ...
It's pretty funny to watch you twist yourself in knots to avoid the obvious and ignore the facts presented.
Read your link... since you're bringing your own definition (as was the person asking the question of her), the argument you're making that she "fostered a misconception" would render your understanding of the term wrong.
How do you define "woman"? Her not correcting you... would be lying by omission.
So were you wrong to use the term "lying by omission"...or are you incorrectly using the term "woman"?
Lying for isn't the same as not answering... but close enough for your "whatabout" world I guess. Land of the free...separation of church and state... silly ideas for sure.
The vacancy was filled, just not within Obamaâs term. That it was not filled within Obamaâs term was due to the machinations of McConnell. It did allow Trump to fill that vacancy. And then McConnell continued his maneuvering when RBG died in fall of 2020, reversing himself on not filling a vacancy during an election year, giving Trump another vacancy to fill.
As I said, your analogy to Obama and the immigration bill is not apt.
If you scroll back 2 days...I pointed out the McConnell maneuvering that lead to frat boy and cult lady... which he ignored in favor of focusing on my characterizations. He also ignored the Thomas family ethics shortage.
If fairness to the language... they will always be noted as "Trump appointees"... but getting 3 was not his doing... he'd have had to have won in 2020... oh, wait a minute...
Kurt absolutely claimed that 3 justices as a Trump success...just like Donnie does. You can tell they were his... they lied about their position on abortion to get through the hearing.
The vacancy was filled, just not within Obamaâs term. That it was not filled within Obamaâs term was due to the machinations of McConnell. It did allow Trump to fill that vacancy. And then McConnell continued his maneuvering when RBG died in fall of 2020, reversing himself on not filling a vacancy during an election year, giving Trump another vacancy to fill.
As I said, your analogy to Obama and the immigration bill is not apt.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Sep 20, 2023 - 8:29am
kurtster wrote:
Yes they are always filled, but ...
You're memory is faulty. How about Obama and Garland ?
My memory is fine.
The vacancy was filled, just not within Obamaâs term. That it was not filled within Obamaâs term was due to the machinations of McConnell. It did allow Trump to fill that vacancy. And then McConnell continued his maneuvering when RBG died in fall of 2020, reversing himself on not filling a vacancy during an election year, giving Trump another vacancy to fill.
As I said, your analogy to Obama and the immigration bill is not apt.
If there had been no vacancies for Trump to fill, would that be a failure for him? Of course not. Four Presidents had no vacancies to fill, the last being Carter. Vacancies get filled. Sometimes, a nominee is rejected by the Senate or the nomination withdrawn by the President before it is rejected. In the end, though, the vacancy is always filled.
Yes they are always filled, but ...
You're memory is faulty. How about Obama and Garland ?
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Sep 20, 2023 - 7:18am
kurtster wrote:
You may have asked a legitimate question but you initially framed it with restrictions for a response. And then kept going focused on why it was or was not a "success" and nothing else under the premise of determining what makes a Justice a success or failure over the duration of their terms and how could I know at such an early point of the Trump appointees. Did I miss something ?
Did I imply that your inquiry was motivated by a blind hatred of all things Trump ? I don't think so. I just gave you what you wanted in order to dismiss this circular pursuit and move on forgetting that my initial comment was a response to a trolling meme and nothing else. You and everyone else ignored (and continue to ignore) my actual point about the Clinton / Trump - Biden / Trump comparison which is most germane in regards to the justification for the continued support of Biden in the coming election.
You want to talk about how Trump's promise of appointments to the courts was no major accomplishment because he got them through the Senate ? Then let's talk about one of Obama's centerpieces which was immigration reform which he failed to deliver with a democrat super majority in Congress. That would make that one of Obama's greatest failures which we are now presently suffering the consequences of his failure. This is an apples to apples comparison using your premise. Are you up for that since the context you offered is the same ?
It appears you are saying one of Trumpâs greatest successes was getting three Justices appointed to the Supreme Court â independent of whether those appointees are good or bad, great or terrible. Under that quixotic reasoning, it would not matter who the nominees were. All that matters is that Trump got them through the Senate. If they were to turn out to be terrible Justices, that would have no bearing upon his accomplishment. To me, that is absurd.
If there had been no vacancies for Trump to fill, would that be a failure for him? Of course not. Four Presidents had no vacancies to fill, the last being Carter. Vacancies get filled. Sometimes, a nominee is rejected by the Senate or the nomination withdrawn by the President before it is rejected. In the end, though, the vacancy is always filled. Therefore, your analogy to Obama not getting an immigration bill through the Senate is not an apt one. If any of Trumpâs first choices to fill any of the three vacancies had been rejected, he would have nominated another one. Trump did consider withdrawing Kavanaughâs nomination. Getting those first choices appointed matters only because of the individual worth or importance of each nominee. To argue otherwise does not make sense to me.
Your last post to me before this one ended with âSo to complete this and move on . . . Trump is evil. There.â Now you say you did not imply that my exchanges with you on this topic have been motivated by a blind hatred of all things Trump? Hard to understand or believe.
