DeeGeesLifeBlog ~ Life as Art ~ Or is it Heart?

Supremes: When is a woman not a woman? Life through the Texas heartbeat law…

For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the LORD, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an expected end. Then shall ye call upon me, and ye shall go and pray unto me, and I will hearken unto you. ~ Jeremiah 29: 11-12

Chris Banescu, American Thinker: What is a Woman? During day three of the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson, a disturbing exchange occurred between Judge Jackson and Senator Marsha Blackburn. Sen. Blackburn asked the nominee to define the word “woman.” Judge Jackson refused, then stated that she’s “not a biologist” as a justification.

Jackson’s ridiculous response is a brazen gaslighting attempt, concocted to dupe the Senate committee and all of America. We’re not buying it. She’s not fooling anyone. Here’s the relevant exchange from the confirmation hearings: “Can you provide a definition for the word woman?” Blackburn asked. “Can I provide a definition? No. I can’t,” Jackson responded.

“You can’t?” Blackburn replied. “Not in this context. I’m not a biologist,” Jackson said.

********************

DGH: According to Jeannie DeAngelis [linked below], in an age where “follow the science” has become the mantra of those who do just the opposite, the “science” surrounding biological sex and gender has also become a topic whose accepted definition is now based solely on subjective feeling; personal philosophy; and, of late, “politicians — and judges” who support all manner of absurdity, aka “trans swimmers!” Supremes: When is a woman not a woman?

********************

Chris Banescu: We are supposed to believe that Judge Jackson, a highly educated woman and a mother herself, doesn’t have a clue about what it means to be a woman. Of course she knows. She’s a woman. She is a wife. She’s been married for 25 years. She’s also a mother. She gave birth to and raised two children. She was also picked for the Supreme Court position specifically because she is a woman.

She knows exactly what a woman is. The “I’m not a biologist” explanation is preposterous. It’s an insult to our intelligence. [Coupled] under that line of reasoning only veterinarians [would be able to] describe the characteristics of a cat or dog, only mathematicians can provide the solution to 2+2, and only meteorologists can tell us whether it’s raining outside.

So why didn’t Judge Jackson answer the question? Why did she pretend she didn’t know? Why did she use such a ridiculous excuse to avoid answering a direct and simple inquiry?

********************

DGH: Based on her record, and likely in support of “expansive abortion rights”, when asked by Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana, “When does life begin, in your opinion?,” while interviewing for a job to issue opinions, Jackson had no opinion at all.  Instead, before laughing, the all-knowing judge responded, “Senator, I don’t know.”

********************

Supremes: When is a woman not a woman? An irrelevant God is a true danger…

Chris Banescu: I suspect that Jackson did this because answering the question truthfully would undermine her entrenched leftist ideological belief system; upset her supporters; and contradict the transgender dogmas that currently dominate American culture, the left, and the Democrat party. Jackson is beholden to the left and the Democrats.

She cannot challenge the insanity of the transgender propagandists and expose their anti-woman agenda. She does not want to alienate them. She does not want to deviate from the party line. Providing an accurate description of a woman would destroy the fiction that a man could ever transform himself into a woman.

Defining womanhood truthfully would reaffirm the biological reality and scientific truth encoded within DNA and the XX chromosomes of every single cell of a woman’s body. Properly describing a woman would contradict the transgender delusion that men with breast implants wearing dresses and high-heeled shoes are actually “women.”

********************

DGH: Furthermore, if biological certitudes like life at conception and chromosomal sex characteristics can no longer be defined, can “biological bases, phenotypic or physical characteristics, and cultural bases” still determine race?  And if not, is it fair to describe Judge Ketanji Jackson Brown as the first black female nominee for the highest court in the land?

********************

Chris Banescu: In refusing to answer what defines a woman, Judge Jackson shows herself to be an Orwellian leftist. Like most radicals, she believes that reality is whatever she decides it must be, truth, biology, and common sense be damned. We know this because during these same hearings, Jackson defended her decisions to drastically reduce the jail time of convicted pedophiles. She justified her outrageous actions by claiming that the speed of internet access made it too simple and convenient for these monsters to view and share pictures of horrifically abused children.

Yet she herself is a mother! We already have several current U.S. Supreme Court justices who have abandoned truth and common sense. Their decision to define “marriage” as whatever the state says it is and give “gay marriage” the same legal standing as real marriage set the stage for greater destruction of individual freedom and the increasing assaults on marriage. I wrote back in 2011 that if marriage can mean anything, it will ultimately mean nothing.

If “woman” can be defined as anything that Judge Jackson or any other judge wants it to be — regardless of biology, truth, and science — then womanhood will ultimately mean nothing. The addition of another Supreme Court justice who’s willing to defy reality and undermine our legal system to suit her left-wing ideology would be catastrophic. America would move farther way from sanity, morality, justice, and truth, and more rapidly devolve into an Orwellian nightmare. [end]

********************

DGH: Be it ending life in the womb or biological sex, Ketanji Jackson Brown is the embodiment of the disingenuous dichotomy that the left finds itself in when the clever response to questions they say only a biologist can answer involves an answer none of them agrees with. Doesn’t the left believe that “politicians — and judges” are assigned the job of determining the answer to that exact question? Supremes: When is a woman not a woman?

********************

And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart. And I shall be found of you, saith the LORD: and I will turn away your captivity, and I will gather you from all the nations, and from all the places whither I have driven you, saith the LORD; and I will bring you again into the place whence I caused you to be carried away captive. ~ Jeremiah 29: 13-14

********************

• Chris Banescu, American Thinker: What is a Woman? Better not Ask the Supreme Court
• Also Jeannie DeAngelis, American Thinker: Biology for thee but not for me

********************

Soli Deo Gloria!