Biden's Supreme Court nominee doesn't know what a woman is. here is the answer

Ketanji Brown Jackson

Ketanji Brown Jackson, nominated by Joe Biden to be a US Supreme Court Justice, in Washington, D.C., USA, 2021 of April 2021: “I am not biologist”| Photo: EFE/EPA/Tom Williams

Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, appointed by President Joe Biden to the US Supreme Court on the day 25 of February, is being discussed in the country’s Senate before a possible confirmation. Praised by progressives as a competent academic and a brilliant career judge, she faces skepticism from Republicans, many of whom think she was nominated primarily for being a black woman and scoring identity points.

Fox News anchor Tucker Carlson asked her to reveal her academic grades to prove that identity factors did not tell more than their history of competence.

The Senator Ted Cruz thinks she was too lenient with pedophile cases, for example convicting a pedophile of 03 years who had possession of child pornography to only three months in detention, below the recommended by the prosecution and the law. The judge would have been lenient in seven such cases. She justifies herself by saying that, with the advent of the internet, acquiring thousands of images of this nature has become easier and the volume of effort is not the same as before, not justifying a penalty of “03,

or 768 years in jail”.

“I cannot define what a woman is”

What drew more attention, however, was the way in which the magistrate responded to Republican Senator Marsha Blackburn, who asked for a hearing last Wednesday ( )) that she would define the word “woman”. “I can’t,” Jackson said. “Not in this context, I’m not a biologist.”

Senator Cruz pressed her on the issue: “As a judge, how would you determine if an applicant a gender-based norm, regulation or policy without being able to determine what a woman is?” Jackson responded that “I know I’m a woman, I know Senator Blackburn is a woman, and the woman I most admire in the world is here today, my mother.”

Cruz was not satisfied: “According to modern leftist sensibilities, if I decide now that I am a woman, so apparently I’m a woman. Does that mean I would be entitled to [acionar] a gender-based restriction?” Jackson replied that “this type of matter is being processed by the courts and I am not able to comment on it”.

The judge’s performative ignorance of what a woman is is reminiscent of what is happening on the other side of the Atlantic, in the UK. In September 2021, LBC London broadcaster Nick Ferrari asked MP Rachel Reeves “if it is transphobic to say that only women have a uterus”, in reference to the statement by another Labor Party MP, the same as Reeves, who had to stay out of the party conference for making this statement. Visibly disconcerted and stuttering, Reeves twice tried to change the subject, finally replying that “if someone identifies as female or male, they should be entitled to do so no matter what their body parts are.”

Adult human female

The political theater around the definition of the word “woman” reflects the conflict of the rise of the identitarianism, which seeks to change the meaning of fundamental words like this for its purposes of moral inequality between human groups, and common sense wisdom, if not scientific knowledge. “What is a woman” should be answered as “adult human female” as this is the case for the overwhelming majority of people who call themselves women. If we were to give up definitions that cover the vast majority of cases and leave out exceptions, we would have no science and barely have language.

While Judge Jackson reveals herself to be committed to the new dogmas of identity by refusing to answer this question as it would have been answered in saner times, it is interesting that, almost in a careless moment, she assigns the task of defining what a woman is to biology. This goes against the radicalism of the identitarians themselves, who are biophobes and intend to close the question of gender and sex by claiming that one or both are “social construction” (an ambiguous term behind which they hide a hope of establishing sociocultural determinism above biological biology). ). While the complete task should not be left in the hands of biologists, they do have a lot of relevant things to say about it.

As well as people with congenital problems with the formation of the legs who are autonomous people would not be offended to hear that the human being is a bipedal being, transsexual women (born boys) well-resolved women should not be offended to hear that “woman” is defined as an adult human female and that there are limits to interventions in their own bodies to resemble them. Biology is a science that looks for patterns to which there are usually exceptions. To forbid her to generalize from central tendencies would kill her. And the central tendency is that women are adult human females, men are adult human males, and the human being follows the pattern observed in other animals.

Rhetorical questions that embarrass Supreme Court candidates or congressmen with tails tied with identity progressivism can also sin by ignoring the complexity of the more specific issue ” Are trans women women?”.

The most The honest truth is that we don’t know, because the knowledge of what it means to be male or female in the brain is still under construction. Closing one’s head to the possibility that at least some trans women are women where it matters most, which are brain regions important for personal identity, is to attack curiosity for commitments that run the risk of treating human beings with disrespect.

For more than ten years, in the magazine Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology, the Chinese Ai -Min Bao and Dutchman Dick Swaab proposed that transsexuals are more similar to women in certain hypothalamic nuclei than to men. But there are also studies that indicate certain brain structures in which transsexuals resemble men. The question is open and depends on the role of each structure in sexual identity, research that is hampered by identity activism and its influence within universities.

Biological Sexology

In a sense, the question “are trans women women?” it is a non-issue, as many transsexuals will pass for women on most occasions without arousing suspicion or disrespect. Knowing what transsexual people are is healthy to make decisions that are respectful to them and also to biological and traditional knowledge.

Sexologist Ray Blanchard proposes a dichotomy of female transsexuals between “homosexual transsexuals”, who were different and more effeminate boys since childhood, and “autogynephiles”, who were boys. typical of their sex in behavior and often follow typically male careers, but manifest a sexual preference for female presentation—autogynephiles prefer sex with women. What will be valid in the study of the brain for homosexual transsexuals will probably not be valid for autogynephiles.

The issue is further complicated by the proposition that there is a new type of alleged transsexuality that is socially contagious especially among chromosomal female adolescents. This appears to be the case with Yaeli Martinez, who killed herself years after her family lost her custody to the State of California because her mother thought that Yaeli was looking to gender confusion for an explanation for her pre-existing depression.

The politically correct identity exaggerates what is “respect”, demanding that let us throw away biological knowledge with its hypothesis testing and accept radical and radically implausible theses that try to establish “gender” as a “social construction”, asking, for example, that we ignore the biological advantages of trans athletes in women’s sport, fully predictable by the fact that went through masculinizing puberty. Escaping into ignorance is not a form of respect. Pretending that a fundamental science has nothing to offer about a phenomenon connected with reproduction is insanity. Scientific knowledge is an ally of the search for a good social life, not an enemy.

Back to top button