Ketanji Brown Jackson, her refusal to define a ‘woman,’ and what it tells us about the condition of our culture

With Biden nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson likely to be confirmed to the Supreme Court, it’s a good time to revisit the exchange that both defined her confirmation hearings and gave us a glimpse of what our future holds now that we have abandoned any sense of objective truth.

On March 22, Sen. Marsha Blackburn questioned Jackson about gender issues. In light of current cultural conversations, that line of questioning should be expected. Issues related to gender and biology are being argued in every institution in the nation, making it inevitable that cases will land in the Supreme Court.

Blackburn moved from general inquiries to specific, targeted questions. Blackburn quoted Jackson’s own words, and even Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, as she sought Jackson’s position on whether “physical differences between men and women are enduring.”

Like most potential justices that have sat in that seat, Jackson was careful not to paint herself into a corner. That’s typical. In many cases, legal opinion can be tricky.

But then again, some things are just obvious. Or at least, they should be.

Not willing to define the word “woman”

Blackburn pressed her, and Jackson’s position started to emerge. Senator Blackburn asked, “Do you interpret Justice Ginsburg’s meaning of men and women as male and female?”

Jackson said nothing.

So, the senator asked an even more direct question, “Can you provide a definition for the word ‘woman?’”

“Can I provide a definition? No,” Jackson responded. “I can’t.”

“You can’t?” Blackburn asked.

“Not in this context, I’m not a biologist,” the judge replied.

“Do you believe the meaning of the word woman is so unclear and controversial that you can’t give me a definition?” Blackburn pressed.

“Senator, in my work as a judge, what I do is I address disputes. If there’s a dispute about a definition, people make arguments, and I look at the law, and I decide,” Jackson said.

That’s true. But it masks the real question. If a biologist can answer the question, then why is it in dispute in the first place?

Is it really that complicated?

Notice that Jackson supplied two reasons that she was unwilling to provide a definition for the word “woman.” “Not in this context” and “I’m not a biologist.”

Many commentators derided Jackson’s unwillingness to provide a definition of the word “woman.” But progressives and “gender studies scholars” rallied to her defense. Her supporters claimed that the answer to the senator’s question is “complicated.”

But it’s only “complicated” when you replace facts with feelings. Objectivity with preference. Reality with fantasy.

Jackson’s non-answer represents an alarming trend that is progressing in our culture. When a potential Supreme Court judge refuses to state the facts, what is happening in our culture and legal system? And what should we be concerned about?

Let’s break it down:

• “Not in this context.”

When a jurist in serious contention to serve on the Supreme Court admits her definitions for terms relevant to cases will be based on “context,” it reveals how far removed we are as a culture from actual, objective truth.

Of course, sometimes a definition can be in dispute, especially in the courtroom. But some things are indisputably defined in advance of the discussion. We know what the words mean because that’s what they have always meant.

For instance, when the Bible condemns lying, the assumption is that truth is a real fact that all people define the same way (Col. 3:9, John 8:32, 8:44). That means falsehood is definable, too. When the Bible speaks of murder, the assumption is that murder is a real act that all people acknowledge to have a common definition (Ex. 20:13). The context doesn’t define the law. The law is applied in the context.

And if we don’t agree on these fundamental, objective truths, we have no basis for a common law to guide our decisions. Without that, the law will not apply to all people, at all times, and in all circumstances. The application of the law will be overrun by feelings and preferences in the moment.

So when Jackson equivocated, “not in this context,” we should be alarmed. The law exists to ensure that some things are always true and right for all people at all times and in every context.

• “I’m not a biologist.”

After Jackson’s response, I would like to have heard a different follow up, one that went something like this:

Blackburn: “You can’t define what a woman is?”

Jackson: “Not in this context, I’m not a biologist.”

Blackburn: “Are you a biological woman?”

Jackson: “Umm…”

Blackburn: “Because if so, how do you know? And, if not, why are you here?”

And that last question is critically important. Remember, Joe Biden promised to appoint “a woman of color to the Supreme Court.” It’s fair to assume he meant a biological woman. But how could he make that promise if the definition of a woman is not a fixed biological fact? And why did she accept the nomination unless she fit that profile?

Perhaps Jackson means that she is only a woman in the context of the Supreme Court? But if so, what was she before the nomination? And how does she know?

See, science, like the judicial system, assumes a certain ability to reason about objective facts. That, in part, makes us human (Gen. 1:27). And the ability to reason is the foundation for civil discourse and the application of our laws. God wired us that way, the Bible affirms it, and our Founders based our laws on this idea. By that, we can reach reasonable conclusions in our pursuit of the truth (Is. 1:18, 1 Peter 3:15).

So, when we abdicate truth, we jettison the ability to reason together and reach truthful conclusions. What’s left? Nothing but our feelings.

And we end up with a justice sitting on the highest court in the nation who is comfortable affirming that she is a woman while, at the same time, denying she has any idea what a woman actually is.

So, why not just say so?

“I’m not a biologist,” Jackson declared. Clearly. But if you are going to admit that the answer to gender and sex is biological, why not just go ahead and state the obvious? After all, don’t we all learn in high school that biology is pretty much the same for everyone?

But no. That is not the world we live in. Jackson is perfectly comfortable both appealing to science and denying it at the same time. She invoked biology and simultaneously refused to admit a biological fact. Why do that?

Because feelings rule. And when feelings rule, then inconsistency, contradiction, and irrationality are the law of the land.

And because the only fact accepted now is that there are no facts. And because Jackson knows that, when it comes down to it, her decisions about sex and gender will not be based on objective facts, law, or science. Her decisions will be based on her feelings, preferences, and her personal opinions.

And this is a person who is about to serve on the highest court in the land.

So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

Gen. 1:27