US Supreme Court nominee KBJ asked to define "woman"

[HelenaRavenclaw]

Ketanji Brown Jackson, who is on track to become the first Black female US Supreme Court justice, responded: "I'm not a biologist."

Is this a good thing? As in, she believes that biologists are the ones who can truly define women, which therefore implies women are defined by biology alone. Or is it yet another denial to obfuscate the simple truth, as in "It's too complicated for an ordinary (non-biologist) person to tell who is a woman".

Shameful US woke media claiming that science has no simple answer to "what is a woman?" : www.usatoday.com/story/life/health-wellness/2022/03/24/marsha-blackburn-asked-ketanji-jackson-define-woman-science/7152439001/

But has the same question been asked of them. Especially the recent white female judge. Why are you only interested in her.

But look, I don’t expect any of you to take a moment to reflect on the double standards you have or why this concerns you more than the racism she is facing. Frankly, it’s a waste of my time.

Well done Judge Ketanji.

'But has the same question been asked of them. Especially the recent white female judge. Why are you only interested in her'

We're not. I would be interested in the answer from anyone in her position.

If the question is only being asked of her then I agree that's wrong. It doesn't negate the importance of the answer.

@Why2why

But has the same question been asked of them. Especially the recent white female judge. Why are you only interested in her.

But look, I don’t expect any of you to take a moment to reflect on the double standards you have or why this concerns you more than the racism she is facing. Frankly, it’s a waste of my time.

Well done Judge Ketanji.

It is a waste of your time. You are simply not listening to what is being said here.

@tabbycatstripy

'But has the same question been asked of them. Especially the recent white female judge. Why are you only interested in her'

We're not. I would be interested in the answer from anyone in her position.

If the question is only being asked of her then I agree that's wrong. It doesn't negate the importance of the answer.

It should have been asked of the white female nominee, too. Maybe this was a racist difference, maybe it was because this topic was not in the news at the time of her hearings. It should be asked of all the justices on the Supreme Court, but we are not allowed to do that in the same open way as can be done in the hearings.

It matters what they think as they could ultimately decide what 'woman' legally is in the United States. T

hat decision could mean that pregnancy discrimination would become legal (until the underlying laws were changed) to give one example, because it is today not legal based on it affecting the two sexes differently.

If 'sex' is replaced by 'gender identity' in the relevant laws, no identity would be particularly singled out in pregnancy discrimination. So there is some interest in learning what justices on the bench think.

'If 'sex' is replaced by 'gender identity' in the relevant laws, no identity would be particularly singled out in pregnancy discrimination. So there is some interest in learning what justices on the bench think.'

Indeed there is. Nobody who wants to be in public office should be exempt from those questions.

Is it really racist to wonder why a Supreme Court Judge won't define a woman? All of our politicians are being asked the same thing no matter the colour of their skin.
I can absolutely understand why republicans are asking the questions to their rivals as it makes people look stupid to the general public when they can't or wont answer. The papers are doing the same thing here.
As for not asking others the same question, was this subject as much in the public eye as now? Not too long ago no one would have reused to answer because the answer is so damn obvious.

I bet if it was Donald Trump (or similar) a couple of years ago, refusing to define something obvious, there would have been uproar.

I just checked out Lipstick Alley to see what they say and mostly it doesn't seem to be hugely different to here, I've no idea which way that forum leans politically. I haven't finished reading the full thread yet, here's a link -
www.lipstickalley.com/threads/judge-ketanji-brown-jackson-says-she-cannot-define-what-a-woman-is-at-confirmation-hearing.4848255/

I think it would have been asked whoever was the Dem nominated pick right now.

The reason it wasn't asked of Amy Coney Barrett is because at that time the issue hadn't hit mainstream America with force yet. Also Barrett is conservative so unlikely to believe that men are women.

I believe Barrett was questioned on things like abortion and homosexuality because people rightly wanted to know her position on these issues. Likewise gender ideology is widely considered the Left's thorny issue so questions like this are likely to be asked.

The short answer to the question why was she asked is (Lia) Thomas. Thomas is reason this issue has blown up and the main reason Judge Ketanji was asked at this point in time.

Just to add to that, the issue of women's sports is likely to wind up in the Supreme Court before very long as a discrimination case so I think people want to get an idea of what this Judge believes.

FWIW I think she tried to give a diplomatic answer that side stepped ire from left wingers but also meant she wasn't outright denying reality. Once a judge is sworn onto the court they are there for life and answerable to nobody in their judgements so she may well turn out to be level headed as you would hope an accomplished judge to be.

@Why2why

But you fail to notice why she is being grilled and questioned with all sorts of irrelevant questions?

You fail to see why some of these irrelevant questions are being aimed at her?

Funny that!

Remember the very inexperienced white woman handed the job by Trump who was never asked irrelevant questions in an attempt to discredit her. Yet this black woman must be held to a different standard.

EXACTLY THIS.

@tabbycatstripy

My concern is that there might be a US Supreme Court justice who doesn't know what a woman is. Her race is irrelevant to that concern. I know she is a woman; why doesn't she know I am?

"Her race is irrelevant to that concern"

You're a joke.

@Rainbowlaceshelp

If racism really was your concern why2why, you would be focused on that. Not patrolling Mumsnet. I mean you're right, it's a distraction. Imagine all the other things we could do instead if we didn't have to keep going back to first principles.

We wouldn't need to expend energy on defending women's rights if you reserved your energy for fighting racism rather than attacking sex based rights.

Your first sentence is completely out of order.

So because why2why is in your words "patrolling mumsnet", racism isn't a concern of hers?

Jesus Christ.

@Why2why

But has the same question been asked of them. Especially the recent white female judge. Why are you only interested in her.

But look, I don’t expect any of you to take a moment to reflect on the double standards you have or why this concerns you more than the racism she is facing. Frankly, it’s a waste of my time.

Well done Judge Ketanji.

I find it patronizing and racist that in this thread you refer to Judge Jackson repeatedly by her first name, as though she were a TV celebrity like “Judge Judy.”

@GrinitchSpinach

Whilst I get your point about why2why using Judge followed by her first name, which isn't the proper use of address when using Judge...

I'm not sure that it is racist , I say this because I got the impression from her comments and stance that why2why is black..

I'm a black woman , and noticed she said "let black woman breathe" which informs why I say this.

I could be wrong. But doubt it

It may be American racism- but as has been pointed out in the UK it is asked of white men and white women as well.

If Americans aren’t doing the same then the issue is racists in America, not UK women on MN who are used to the question being posed to those in power.

It may be asked of a more diverse collection of people in the US soon. Maybe it won’t. But the question is being posed in the UK to many politicians, it’s certainly not unreasonable to discuss how it is answered. There’s a new thread here every time someone like Kier Starmer (white male) is asked.

If women in the UK don’t automatically assume it’s down to racism there is a reason that is NOT bigotry.

And what really would it matter what the Queen answered, where she to be asked (she won’t be asked) because we don’t get to vote for our monarchy. She’s head of state and her opinions are not widely known, unless it’s non controversial subjects, because that’s how it works.

@Deliriumoftheendless

It may be American racism- but as has been pointed out in the UK it is asked of white men and white women as well.

If Americans aren’t doing the same then the issue is racists in America, not UK women on MN who are used to the question being posed to those in power.

It may be asked of a more diverse collection of people in the US soon. Maybe it won’t. But the question is being posed in the UK to many politicians, it’s certainly not unreasonable to discuss how it is answered. There’s a new thread here every time someone like Kier Starmer (white male) is asked.

If women in the UK don’t automatically assume it’s down to racism there is a reason that is NOT bigotry.

Don't think you can speak or say that for all women in the uk .

It's quite clear (or maybe not to you but there are) that many women here in the UK who have watched, find the behaviour towards Ketanji racist.

It's not quite correct to assume that "women in the Uk" don't feel this way.

I don’t as not all women in the UK post on MN. You are commenting on the women here who are regularly saying these things on other threads about all politicians who are asked this question.

Whilst I can’t speak for them I have read enough of their words to gauge the general feeling.

Remember the very inexperienced white woman handed the job by Trump who was never asked irrelevant questions in an attempt to discredit her. Yet this black woman must be held to a different standard

Correct me if I am wrong but were the Democrats not able to question Trump's nominee, just as the Republicans are able to question Biden's nominee.

@Deliriumoftheendless

I don’t as not all women in the UK post on MN. You are commenting on the women here who are regularly saying these things on other threads about all politicians who are asked this question.

Whilst I can’t speak for them I have read enough of their words to gauge the general feeling.

Your point doesn't even make sense and is actually contradictory.

Like you've said not all women post on MN, but yet you've used comments from a few here who have said their views to say "women in the Uk" despite the fact that other women also in the uk have commented and have said it is racist.

You can't "gage a general feeling" from a few posts here and generalise it to "women in the UK" . I stand by that.

You are the one who is generalising and I have opposed it

Yes, I’m generalising about the women posting here, on Mumsnet.

[quote SantaCarlaCalifornia]Is it really racist to wonder why a Supreme Court Judge won't define a woman? All of our politicians are being asked the same thing no matter the colour of their skin.
I can absolutely understand why republicans are asking the questions to their rivals as it makes people look stupid to the general public when they can't or wont answer. The papers are doing the same thing here.
As for not asking others the same question, was this subject as much in the public eye as now? Not too long ago no one would have reused to answer because the answer is so damn obvious.

I bet if it was Donald Trump (or similar) a couple of years ago, refusing to define something obvious, there would have been uproar.

I just checked out Lipstick Alley to see what they say and mostly it doesn't seem to be hugely different to here, I've no idea which way that forum leans politically. I haven't finished reading the full thread yet, here's a link -
www.lipstickalley.com/threads/judge-ketanji-brown-jackson-says-she-cannot-define-what-a-woman-is-at-confirmation-hearing.4848255/[/quote]
Lipstick alley is a Black/African American mostly left leaning Democrat voting forum and like you say is saying much of what is being said here. It is nothing to do with race, the Democrat leaning MSM media is trying to frame it as a "race issue" because her sentencing records show that she has been overly lenient in her sentencing of child sex predators (some of whom went on to re-offend). One of the excuses during questioning this week she gave was that the offender was close to the age of the victim. He was 18 the victim was 8. Many Black people are not supporting her as the protection of children is far more important.
www.lipstickalley.com/threads/josh-hawley-points-out-ketanji-brown-jackson-has-a-record-of-defending-pedos.4841802/

The same question has been asked of both male and female politicians in the UK of all political persuasions and ethnicities. As a general rule, the Conservatives adhere to a biological definition while the Labour party ties itself up in knots and comes across as ridiculous.

I am glad that this question is now being asked of senior figures in the US. For too long this issue has been ignored over there.

its pathetic as a woman she is most qualified to answer that question, she knows exactly what a woman is, its not a mans job to define us, thats called oppression. and you certainly dont need a biologist, biology is the study of life, she's had plenty of time to study her life, how she has grown up, how her puberty affected her, how her cycle affects her, how society treats her for her sex. she qualified to define her own existence and biological identity.

why is she too chicken to do so (and why doesnt she know what biology mean?).

if we cant define ourselves we are stuffed no one else is going to stand up for us and defend our existence.

Deleted for that? Oh come on…