[From "What’s a Woman?"]

As has been widely reported, Supreme Court nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson was asked at her confirmation hearing if she “could provide a definition for the word ’woman.’”

“No, I can’t,” she eventually said. “Not in this context. I’m not a biologist”

What to make of this?

The first thing to make of it is that the answer is false. Judge Jackson of course knows full well what a woman is (namely, a person with xx chromosomes; males have xy). The idea that a functioning adult, much less a Supreme Court candidate, doesn’t know what a woman is is preposterous. So why the claim of ignorance?

Here’s my theory. Judge Jackson denies knowing because, for good reason, she suspects that the next question is going to be about biological males competing (and predictably dominating) women’s sports. Like so many woke-adjacent liberals, she has no problem with this domination — or at least no problem she can admit out loud — because having no problem is what Woke Wisdom demands. She can’t cross Woke Wisdom because it’s ingrained in her base political support. Ergo, it’s actually better for her to make the absurd claim that she doesn’t know what a woman is.

Only in a very, very unserious country does this count as a qualification for the Supreme Court. But what were we expecting?[…]
Fare thee well, women’s sports. We hardly knew ye. And fare thee well any notion that Supreme Court confirmation hearings are headed anywhere other than becoming a Twilight Zone version of street theater

P.S. The person who nominated Judge Jackson has absolutely no problem knowing who a woman is, as he repeatedly and in unqualified language promised to nominate one (as opposed to a man) for Justice Breyer’s seat