New in PJ Media:
More and more people are catching on every day: the simplest way to explode the entire transgender fantasy that the social media giants are trying to force us to accept is to ask, “What is a woman?” The answer has been obvious to all human beings since the dawn of time, but those who would have us believe that men can be women and women can be men can’t give a biological answer, as that is what they’re trying to subvert, and any other answer they give founders on biology. And so USA Today, trying to shore up Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson’s disastrous claim not to be able to define what a woman is since she is not a biologist, has proclaimed in a Thursday article that according to the Left’s great god, “Science,” there is “no simple answer” to the question of what is a woman.
Predictably, the article is a big load of hooey, or as Leftists like to call it (and indeed, as it is called in this very USA Today article), “nuance.” One of the representatives of “Science” who is quoted is Rebecca Jordan-Young, who is identified as “a scientist and gender studies scholar at Barnard College.” When you’re getting hooey straight from Barnard College, you know it’s the finest stuff available: the Left’s latest pet idea, all neatly wrapped up with a patina of intellectual respectability, the appearance of dispassionate thought, and the dismissal of the obvious with the claim that the reality is far more complicated than the simple-minded layman can understand.
Rebecca Jordan-Young knows more than you do: she knows that the simple and obvious biological answer is the wrong one: “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.”
Actually, there was a single biological answer to the definition of a woman, and a singular biological answer to the question of what is a female, until it became fashionable on the Left to pretend that those answers were not clear, or were changeable. Those answers are still there for anyone who wants them, but USA Today, as a reliable organ of the Leftist establishment, is doing its best to obscure them and thereby prop up two of the Left’s sagging narratives: first, that Ketanji Brown Jackson is qualified to be a justice of the Supreme Court, and second, that gender is fluid and subject to change at will.
There is more. Read the rest here.
mgoldberg says
XX Chromosomes make for a women. Yes… there are rare exceptions. Worshipping the ‘oppressed’ and anointing them, versus the ‘oppressors’ is an artifice that has now blossomed into a fait accompli that disallows any and all ‘facts’ and simply demands that all exceptional, however rare variations be anointed as oppressed, to deny the validity of fact, of science, of common sense. It is fallacious, and worse. It denies the responsibility of understanding and responsibility with a made up command that there are no such facts, only victims of facts, created by oppressors.
Infidel says
This is actually the best answer – 2 X chromosomes! There’s no need to go into penis vs vagina and all that stuff, if one wants to avoid being crude, at a level. Once one says that, the argument should end, b’cos all the gender surgeries have done nothing to alter the chromosome count
James Lincoln says
Infidel,
You are, of course, correct.
Nothing can change the XX or XY that one is born with.
Nothing.
All one can change is one’s outward appearance.
Keith O says
That’s pretty much it Infidel, there are very rare cases where the chromosome count is all messed up and the traits of both genders are present in the one body. These poor people are called Hermaphrodite’s and sometimes have fully functional equipment from both genders.
Graham Cracker says
The problem with this biological answer is that prior to the 19th century, and for millennia before Mendel, people knew what a woman is and what a man is and had no need for genetics for that.
gravenimage says
Genetics logically confirms what people in this case already knew–this is actually often the case with science. This is not a scientific flaw.
somehistory says
+10
and I agree with Infidel. And that’s a *fact.*
Infidel says
Well, Science somehow no longer includes Meteorology but not Biology, even though the latter is a lot simpler to follow compared to the former, given that there are some 43 variables that one has to deal w/, making it the realm of supercomputers. Also, Biology is routinely trashed these days: ultrasounds no longer seem to matter when determining whether there is a life inside the womb, chromosomes no longer seem to matter when determining if one is a man or woman, immune systems no longer seem to matter when determining the efficacy of certain vaccines, and so on
Right now, Matt Walsh is doing a world tour w/ the simple question: “What is a woman?” I hope things get better once he leaves our shores, if not in Europe, at least in Africa and Australia. I watched a video yesterday on Campur Reform at Georgia Tech, and apparently, college is where kids go to become morons
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBioA6KAsoc
Infidel says
Correction: Well, Science somehow
no longerincludes Meteorology but no longer Biology….somehistory says
Yes, at one time, the murdering crowd on the lookout and lurking around every corner, told young girls that what they had inside was just a “clump of cells” similar to a tumor.
Ultrasound proved them wrong…what they already knew, but lied about…so they had to come up with other lies and crookedness to continue the killing spree.
And, they cannot disprove the Truth in other areas, so they must just yell loud and long until others yell along. An ultrasound of their brains might show some serious abnormalities.
somehistory says
Well, it is true that the lying fauci claims to be *science* and he doesn’t know anything except how to take taxpayer money and give it to people who like to torture and kill babies and little kids, torture dogs and monkeys and make horrible things to kill everyone except the ones making the poison. fauci may not even know if he is a man or woman at this point, since he’s so corrupted.
And:
It is being reported in the “news” today, that the wife of Justice Thomas will be questioned by the Jan. 6 committee. His wife is active, evidently, in some circles that don’t concern him. I smell a rat…trying to get to the man through questioning his wife. He has been ill, and some have wished him to die.
This nation’s “government” and its society, those who want it to continue as it is, are all rats…with few, very few, exceptions. Justice Thomas and Dr. Rand Paul are two of the few that come to my mind.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/january-6-committee-members-may-subpoena-justice-clarence-thomas-wife/ar-
Westman says
Do we understand this correctly? President Biden has nominated a, “Woman of color to serve on the Supreme Court”, who cannot list characteristics that define a woman. And we thought Lia Thomas was confused about gender!
Biden should keep looking since his first nomination can’t explain why its gender identity should be, “woman”.
George Orwell had the right idea about mob society by formulating it in the government demands of 2 + 2 = 5, which Oceanians were required to believe. He can be excused for not foreseeing that, “The Ministry Of Truth”, would erase gender along with history.
Brave New World, a novel, envisioned future government promoting drug use and the sexuality of young children. Now we have an education system that wants to be a, “sexuality influencer”, of children in the early years of elementary school.
Maybe our central problem is that we can, no longer, as a society, define EVIL. If our behavior only excludes what is outlawed then what are we becoming?
somehistory says
Perhaps he should retract this nomination and find the person who sang, “I Am Woman, Hear Me Roar.”
Helen Reddy: “And I know too much to go back an’ pretend”
Infidel says
Yeah, but she’s White!!! An absolute no-no!
gravenimage says
There’s actually a whole meme now saying that wanting equal rights for women is “racist” because so many early feminists were White. No, I’m not making this up.
somehistory says
She could claim to be Black. If the ugly richard what’s-his-face can say he’s a woman and the swimmer can make the claim, Reddy can be Black.
Infidel says
Somehistory is right: why can’t Katy Perry claim to be Black?
gravenimage says
Somehistory and Infidel, I’m sure you heard about the head of Rachel Dolezal some years back, the completely White former NAACP leader who said “I identify as black”. She eventually got called out for this, but it took years. No one wanted to be considered racist for questioning whether she was really African American.
somehistory says
Yes, g. Her parents even said she was wrong. Of course, things have “progressed” past that and someone might just get away with it…if they had the powerful people behind them.
Of course, White people are not even allowed by those who have been elected…by themselves, of course, to decide such things…to wear clothing, or style hair, etc. in any way that might be claimed by a minority as their “culture.”
somehistory says
TY, Infidel. I like to be told that now and then. 🙂
Infidel says
I originally thought that her nomination was a shoo-in. But after that gem of an answer that she gave to Marsha Blackburn, I would think that not only would he have lost Mitt, Lisa and Susan, but that she’d also have started losing the likes of Sinema and Manchin
gravenimage says
Sadly, I’m not sure even insanity like this makes any difference now. Boy, do I hope I’m wrong.
Wait–is saying “boy” sexist or “cisgenderist” now?
gravenimage says
True, Westman–it is somehow crucial that Ketanji Brown Jackson be an African-American woman, yet she cannot even define what a woman is, let alone say whether she “identifies” as one…
Crazy times…
Dan says
The way to sort a lot of the wheat from the chaff is to first define what is “NOT” a woman.
If you were born with a penis, you are NOT a woman.
If you weren’t born with a womb, you are NOT a woman.
If you weren’t born with the mammalian tissues that produce milk to nurse a baby, you are NOT a woman.
If any of the aforementioned conditions apply to you, shut up. We don’t want to hear from you, MAN, because you’re delusional.
With what’s left, then we can go into chromosomal aberrations and birth defects.
Infidel says
Dan
Just make it about chromosomes. As long as it is about penises and the like, there will be those stupid attempts to alter those. But chromosomes can’t be altered, which is the point!
James Lincoln says
I remember when the USA Today came out in 1982.
It was originally priced at $0.25 per copy, and I was a halfway decent newspaper that gave you a thumbnail sketch of state, national, and international news. And it was in color!
40 years since its inception, it has turned into a useless leftist rag.
Keith O says
There are two genders. Male and Female. Then there are 54 mental disorders.
Having a mental disorder does not change the gender you were born with.
gravenimage says
Think You Know What A Woman Is? USA Today Says ‘Science’ Should Make You Think Again
………………..
I remember when USA Today was a sane newspaper. Never terribly prestigious, but sane.
Note that this article goes even further than the moronic and pandering Ketanji Brown Jackson, claiming that *even biologists* have no idea and would be unable to answer this question:
“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.”
https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/health-wellness/2022/03/24/marsha-blackburn-asked-ketanji-jackson-define-woman-science/7152439001/
Which “scientists” say this? This article gives the impression that scientists have all thrown up their hands at this. We are wandering deeper into an ugly fantasy land all the time.
Egor says
While Biology might study all life, I would have thought physiology would more likely tell you what a woman is or was, or even might be.
gravenimage says
Related idiocy:
“Is mother an offensive word?”
https://www.affinity.org.uk/news/news-stories/post/941-is-mother-an-offensive-word
somehistory says
The lying, drunk idiot, pelosi, made a House rule that no one is allowed to use the words “mother, father, brother, sister,”…any word that shows that there are two genders. And she said these words might offend those who are it, they, them,…
I was called on the phone by a skip-tracing company due to the former owner of the phone number given to me. I kept telling the callers that I was not the person they were after, but they didn’t believe me. After so many calls and being called a liar, one morning when I was getting ready to leave for work, a woman called. I said, “You people…” and she slammed the phone down.
so, I called them and got the same woman. I said, “You slammed the phone down,” and she replied, “You said ‘you people.” and then went on to explain how that was offensive cause she was Black.
I said, “By you people, I meant your company people.” So, “people” was offensive to her. That was several years ago when I had a landline only phone.
It’s a sick time we are living in.
gravenimage says
Yes–just ridiculous.
Aussie Infidel says
Ketanji Brown Jackson’s inability to answer the question, “What is a woman”? was a pathetic display of the sort of dystopia that has become the hallmark of the ‘woke left’. Brown was clearly embarrassed and left searching for an appropriate politically correct reply to what was essentially a simple question. Of course the question was loaded politically to evoke just such a response from someone already deeply indoctrinated and committed – with her cognitive ability largely suppressed by woke ideology – it succeeded brilliantly.
However, “the Left’s great god” is not “science”, but “scientism”. The former is the body of theories, evidence and practice that underpins all advanced civilizations; while the latter is a misrepresentation of science in the pursuit of some ideology. I too try to base my ideas and beliefs on science wherever possible – because no other means of investigation into the world about us has proved as reliable and successful. But that does not mean that science has the answer to all our questions – or ever will. The world is far too complex for that.
However, the Marxists – in their attempt to discredit religion – have thrown the baby out with the bath water, and replaced it with scientism, which they worship as a substitute new-age religion. And the result is the epidemic of wokism that has now infected sections of politics and academia – and as it would seem, even the judiciary.
In my view, Ketanji Brown Jackson is not a fit person to serve as a judge on the US Supreme Court. May saner heads prevail.