JK Rowling Goes Where Ketanji Brown Jackson Would Not: Defines “Woman”
“I believe a woman is a human being who belongs to the sex class that produces large gametes.”
It was a moment that defined the now-Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson nomination hearing, an iconic cultural moment.
Do you remember where you were when KBJ was asked: “Can you provide a definition for the word ‘woman’?”
KBJ refused to answer, saying “I’m not a biologist.” But that wasn’t the problem, and she knew it. KJB didn’t want to answer because acknowledging that there are fundamental and unchangeable biological differences between men and women would be to take on the trans ideology that “transwomen are women, period.”
We covered it here, Ketanji Brown Jackson Can’t Define What A Woman Is: “I’m Not A Biologist”
SEN. BLACKBURN: "Can you provide a definition of the word 'woman'?"
JACKSON: "No, I can't"
BLACKBURN: "You can't?"
JACKSON: "I'm not a biologist" pic.twitter.com/i7Rg83z5Y4
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) March 23, 2022
BLACKBURN: "Do you agree with Justice Ginsburg that there are physical differences between men and women?"
Jackson refuses to answer. pic.twitter.com/rCN7H4KjBj
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) March 23, 2022
J.K. Rowling, who also is not a biologist but understands (like 99%+ of people) that there are biological differences between women and men, answered a similar question on X (Twitter) today. Rowling answered in response to this challenge:
Here was her answer:
You’ve asked me several questions on this thread and accused me of avoiding answering, so here goes.
I believe a woman is a human being who belongs to the sex class that produces large gametes. It’s irrelevant whether or not her gametes have ever been fertilised, whether or not she’s carried a baby to term, irrelevant if she was born with a rare difference of sexual development that makes neither of the above possible, or if she’s aged beyond being able to produce viable eggs. She is a woman and just as much a woman as the others.
I don’t believe a woman is more or less of a woman for having sex with men, women, both or not wanting sex at all. I don’t think a woman is more or less of a woman for having a buzz cut and liking suits and ties, or wearing stilettos and mini dresses, for being black, white or brown, for being six feet tall or a little person, for being kind or cruel, angry or sad, loud or retiring. She isn’t more of a woman for featuring in Playboy or being a surrendered wife, nor less of a woman for designing space rockets or taking up boxing. What makes her a woman is the fact of being born in a body that, assuming nothing has gone wrong in her physical development (which, as stated above, still doesn’t stop her being a woman), is geared towards producing eggs as opposed to sperm, towards bearing as opposed to begetting children, and irrespective of whether she’s done either of those things, or ever wants to.
Womanhood isn’t a mystical state of being, nor is it measured by how well one apes sex stereotypes. We are not the creatures either porn or the Bible tell you we are. Femaleness is not, as trans woman Andrea Chu Long wrote, ‘an open mouth, an expectant asshole, blank, blank eyes,’ nor are we God’s afterthought, sprung from Adam’s rib.
Women are provably subject to certain experiences because of our female bodies, including different forms of oppression, depending on the cultures in which we live. When trans activists say ‘I thought you didn’t want to be defined by your biology,’ it’s a feeble and transparent attempt at linguistic sleight of hand. Women don’t want to be limited, exploited, punished, or subject to other unjust treatment because of their biology, but our being female is indeed defined by our biology. It’s one material fact about us, like having freckles or disliking beetroot, neither of which are representative of our entire beings, either. Women have billions of different personalities and life stories, which have nothing to do with our bodies, although we are likely to have had experiences men don’t and can’t, because we belong to our sex class.
Some people feel strongly that they should have been, or wish to be seen as, the sex class into which they weren’t born. Gender dysphoria is a real and very painful condition and I feel nothing but sympathy for anyone who suffers from it. I want them to be free to dress and present themselves however they like and I want them to have exactly the same rights as every other citizen regarding housing, employment and personal safety. I do not, however, believe that surgeries and cross-sex hormones literally turn a person into the opposite sex, nor do I believe in the idea that each of us has a nebulous ‘gender identity’ that may or might not match our sexed bodies. I believe the ideology that preaches those tenets has caused, and continues to cause, very real harm to vulnerable people.
I am strongly against women’s and girls’ rights and protections being dismantled to accommodate trans-identified men, for the very simple reason that no study has ever demonstrated that trans-identified men don’t have exactly the same pattern of criminality as other men, and because, however they identify, men retain their advantages of speed and strength. In other words, I think the safety and rights of girls and women are more important than those men’s desire for validation.
I sincerely hope that answers your questions. You may still disagree, but as I hope this shows, I’m more than happy to have this debate.
Concise explanation, if it were needed, of what we all used to instinctively know by the age of 4.
— Craig Travis (@CraigTravissimo) April 6, 2024
It's a BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE, and that's a FACT.
JK says it far better than i ever could..
Born a Male
Die a Male
The Skeletons of the Male and Female bodies ARE different.. you can NOT change that..
Bury a bloke in a dress, dig him up in 100 years, his Skeleton will tell us… pic.twitter.com/NSgdV5SwZR
— Sarah Doyle (@1962Marston) April 6, 2024
They know what the answer is. They just hate the answer.
— Charlene Foxtrot ♀️🐯 (@bornabroad) April 6, 2024
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Anyone who doesn’t know what a woman is definitely belongs in a sex class.
They know. It’s like the Emperors’ New Clothes, the left demands their followers believe things that are obviously untrue and absurd. People literally brainwash themselves to believe what the powers that be want them to believe.
I think it’s this … but I think it may be more than just this.
They did the whole Covid thing to us. Lockdowns, job losses, church’s close , prevented access to hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. Mandates. —-> and people died. Unnecessarily. Careers ruined. Families destroyed.
And then they came up with this men-are-women thing.
Convenient
They just do not let up.
It’s one awful thing after another
Keeps the Sane on defensive , constantly on the defensive.
I think it’s their modus operandi to keep their enemies constantly walking on eggshells, constantly on the defensive
I think it lets them get away with all kinds of things — some that we don’t even know about
I recall reading an interesting description of old Soviet propoganda. It was obviously false. Everyone who read it knew it was false.
To exclaim that it was false was a death sentence. To not vocally agree with it, enthusiastically was a death sentence. Eventually, as it was put in the series, Chernobyl, people forgot what the truth really was. This is the point of the Soviet propaganda, to de-anchor the viewers from reality, such that they could be more easily manipulated. Same as what’s being done now.
“I recall reading an interesting description of old Soviet propoganda. It *[the propaganda]* was obviously false. …”
I think everyone would get it from my original post, but just in case…..
I don’t think that belief even matters to the Democrats. Only obedience. Jackson knows what a woman is. She is one, after all, and her answer was designed to carefully thread the needle. She can’t say the truth out loud because she might set off the mob that makes up the far-left base of the Democrat party. They are the ones who believe in this incoherent, bizarre ideology, and they’re barely under control. The slightest thing can outrage them.
The left is engaged in outright denial of physical reality, and the Democrats have chosen to cater to them in the hopes that the mob won’t turn on them.
“Running on Empty” is the most Moronic being to be nominated and selected as a Supreme Court Justice.
Ze/Zer/Zim/They/Them/Thim is a mentally deficient member of the human race. She is an embarrassment to anyone who every thought about going to law school, let alone getting the “I am black hear me roar” affirmative action selection.
Wow you must feel so much better now.
Point out where he’s wrong, Thud.
If every cell in your body had two X chromosomes, you’re a woman.
XY, or rarely one or more extra Y chromosomes, and you’re a man.
No surgeries or pharmaceuticals can ever change that.
JK’s explanation is more relatable and n a human level though.
Tell me again which Party is “anti-science”?
What of those with Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (CAIS)? They’re born female, grow into womanhood, and without a genetic test revealing they’re genetically male (XY chromosomes) or an internal scan showing they lack a uterus etc, are unaware they’re significantly different to other women.
Is such an individual a women, or a man in a woman’s body? It’s only thanks to modern science that the question of are they a woman even arises!
Similarly it looks like there are XX males, again very rare, and often it is only with genetic testing that the issue can be discovered.
None of these chromosomal abnormalities are trans issues however.
Aberrations that occur in nature do not change the norm. If someone is born with 1 arm or an extra appendage that approximates a third arm.., that does not mean that the number of arms human have must now be considered as on a spectrum. They are simply aberrations
And it’s certainly no basis for urgent public policy to upend society.
Aberrations don’t change the norm, but they do prove that Aarradin’s definition is false. The existence of even one XY female proves that while Y chromosomes cause maleness, and are strongly associated with it, they don’t define it. Because if they did, then a biological female with XY chromosomes would by definition be male! Since she is not, her existence, or even the hypothetical possibility of her existence means sex can’t be defined by chromosomes. Sex is defined, not by the chromosomes that cause it, but by actual anatomical reality. A woman is a woman, regardless of what chromosomes she may have. And regardless of what she thinks she is, or how she feels about what she is, or what she wishes she were.
No. A male who suffers from CAIS is still a male.
They’re not ‘born female’, they do not ‘grow into womanhood’
They’re male. With a sexual defect.
And you can’t alter that simply by saying so.
This–
“. Because if they did, then a biological female with XY chromosomes would by definition be male! Since she is not, her existence, or even the hypothetical possibility of her existence means sex can’t be defined by chromosomes.”
–no matter how good it might make you feel, is scientifically inaccurate. Further, it stands in the way of figuring the disease out and finding a cure.
The thing is, despite strongly presenting as the opposite sex, they still are not that because they don’t generate the requisite gametes. I wouldn’t be surprised that most of them are discovered when they try to have kids and discover they cannot.
All intersex people really prove is that generalizing from corner cases make bad law.
No, XY women are women, not men. That they can’t have children is irrelevant; lots of women can’t have children. They are physically and functionally and in every other way indistinguishable from normal infertile women. There is no reason at all, for instance, why such an XY female should not play on a women’s sports team, or shower and change in a women’s locker room. It is to be expected that most of them will marry men and have normal if childless marriages.
You buried the lede at the bottom.
Also, XX males have an SRY gene. It just translocated to an X chromosome during their father’s spermatogenesis.
That which will not be pinned down by truth is, in truth, feminine. It is the man that has foolish hopes of nailing it down.
Rowling, pretending to be a man, reduces a woman to fetishes.
“I fear that women who have grown old are more skeptical in the secret recesses of their heats than any of the men; they believe in the superficiality of existence as in its essence, and all virtue and profundity is to them only the disguising of this truth, the very desirable disguising of a pudendum – an affair, therefore, of decency and modesty and nothing more. – Nietzsche
Feminism wants a castrated woman, not a castrated man.
The actual trans problem here is that women’s minds are not like men’s, and are women are tricked into trying to be like men as a defense of womanhood.
The biologically male trans still has the mind of a man – comfortable with abstracting from feelings rather than multiplying them.
This post is a museum-worthy monument to the pretentious pseudo-intellectual jackass,
Someone stating they cannot define what is a woman because they’re not a biologist is a de facto confession that sex is a matter of biology. You’re welcome.
You noticed that, too.
The silly people might note: When you can’t state your nonsense take without appealing to the other thing, your take might be nonsense.
(Again, I struggle mightily to avoid directly quoting that proto-Vulcan who wrote that big book about trains and tunnels.)
I can’t argue with anything Rowling said, but I still think Hillary is actually a reptile.
An EVIL reptile…
An adult evil FEMALE reptile..
Well she hates men but at least she knows what she is and what isn’t what she is despite claiming to be.
Are you saying that Rowling hates men? Where did you get that from?
“Your just a woman with a small brain. With a brain a third the size of us. It’s science”
In all my years of schooling, never did I ever come across this equation and have its merit debated.
1+1=maybe
Ah, but you’re not in school now. There are supposed intellectuals (always of the leftist variety) who are questioning whether simple mathematics are true. Give it a few years.
Is ketanji transitioning? Why can’t she answer the question?
Difference is KBJ is a Cultural Marxist so will not go against the narrative.
JK Rowling has more FU money than most humans could dream about, she at least isn’t stuck holding up lies.
Rowling is billionaire, most successful author in world now, and has always been strong advocate for protecting children.
Pro tip for the woke: Never ask someone who has FU money and can properly use the English language a stupid question like “what is a woman? “
Rowling’s argument is a waste of time in this sense: she is attempting to reason with those who have no basic intellectual capacity beyond a rudimentary ability to echo what the Joseph Goebbels media and self-important “intellectuals” that infest academia order them to believe. Rowlings lays out an intellectual case; her opponents are likely to respond by picking up a brick and try to bash her head in.
The Left does not argue with anyone for any reason. Instead, their normal response to any challenge to their claims to absolute power is to bully, threaten, rape, burn, loot and murder.
Here’s where I get off the fan wagon. Men do not have a “pattern of criminality”, and more than black people do. The fact that criminals are more common among men than among women does not tell us anything about those men who are not criminals, any more than the fact that criminals are more common among black people tells us anything about those black people who are not criminals, or the fact that multiple sclerosis is more common among women than among men, and color blindness is more common among men than among women, tells us anything about those men and women who are neither color blind nor have MS.
It is incredible that this is even a question. Male/female is as basic as gravity.
Anyone who cannot define a woman certainly cannot make lawful and thoughtful legal opinions. KBJ is a national disgrace diversity hire. Being in the Supreme Court ain’t like working on money-losing woke Disney movies, or being the incompetent president of Harvard, the Supreme Court actually matters.
Just another Salieri, celebrated for their position, not their music.
Q — “Define what is a woman?”
A — “Well, there are three responses to that,
Q — ?!?
A — “Personally, I have a take, which isn’t very relevant otherwise; legally, the constitution touches on sex with the legal understanding encoded in current laws and decisions — I haven’t investigated that thoroughly; if we need to know biologically, we’d access relevant expert witnesses, which I’m not,”
Q — ??!?Not relevant?!??
A — “Well, some people act like their personal take decides, BUT I think our job — The Judiciary — is to apply and interpret the law and precedent. Enacting your particular opinions is advocacy, or legislating, or, in the end, the people’s prerogative.”
Of course, she couldn’t go there within her entirely political elevation. You’d hope she was smart enough to respond better if it fit politically. I suspect, however, that like the Name-Brand-U Prezzies, we saw the best she could do, with the best coaching money could buy. Sad,
when looking at the header photo of jackson cannot help but looking around in that photo for charlton heston