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/

The fact that she is receiving a grilling from republicans with an axe to grind because she is seen as a democrat pick is to be expected. The fact that there is increased hostility towards her because she is a black woman is a great pity but also (unfortunately) to be expected.
What is remarkable however, is that she knows, and will have been coached beforehand, that if she were to answer that question honestly she would be torn apart BY HER OWN SIDE (and I know in theory she doesn't have a side but in reality she is a Democrat pick). The shame here comes from the left of the political spectrum - in order to avoid getting ripped to shreds a presumably extremely intelligent accomplished woman has to do a "oh well, I don't know silly little me I'm not a scientist" reply.
And for what its worth I think in lots of ways the answer she gave was the best answer in the circumstances - and what an indictment that is!

The question is being asked right now because it's suddenly become very obvious to many Americans that this is an issue that could have significant legal implications. That wasn't the case in the US even 6 months ago.

And anyone who thinks that it's only black women nominees that are grilled doesn't know what they are talking about. They are all grilled with difficult, and sometimes rather idiotic questions, especially by those with affiliation to the other party.

The idea that they would have no-go areas for black nominees, or women, is pretty patronizing. If you get to that level in your professional life, where you are going to be a judge in the court that has the final say in interpreting the laws of the country, the congress who represent the people gets the right to grill you. Anyone not willing to put up with that, you don't get the privilege of shaping the law to a degree that almost no one, no matter what their race or sex, ever comes close to.

The other issue is that someone's political opponents will always go for the weak spot - that's what politics is! So someone with a corruption scandal hanging over them will be asked about that, a republican who previously said being gay is sinful will be asked about that, someone who doesn't believe in evolution with be asked about it (to make them look ridiculous). Which is why its so frustrating that the left in the US and UK are determined to create these massive open goals for the other side. If I was a Republican/Tory politician I'd be going for the jugular too.