In their desire to defend Ketanji Brown Jackson, the press keeps embarrassing themselves.
This week has been both amazing and unsurprising in the way journalists have chucked away all manner of objectivity in order to defend and prop up Joe Biden’s Supreme Court nominee, Ketanji Brown Jackson. We knew the charges of racism would arrive, and items such as asking about past rulings and school test scores were charged as being just that. Then there was the wave of outlets claiming Republicans peering into the judicial record of KBJ was the worst behavior ever seen in a confirmation hearing.
But the press went even beyond these expectations. On consecutive days, we saw the bulk of the press complex parroting the exact words delivered by the White House regarding the nominee. When it comes to the fact-checkers, they have been busy – debunking the questions from Republicans, but hardly any interest in Jackson’s record. CNN even went so far to say her filing charges of war crimes against the U.S. was not her calling anyone a war criminal…somehow.
Now it is USA Today’s turn, as the paper arrives to address one of the more embarrassing moments in the hearing. Senator Marsha Blackburn asked Jackson at one point if she could define what constitutes a woman. KBJ deferred on the question, and social media lit up as a result. The jokes were immediate, the memes cropped up all over, and the phrase “I’m not a biologist” went from being a critique to a punchline, and then to a worn-out gag within a matter of hours. Well, it is USA Today to the rescue.
At the paper, writer Alia Dastagir delivers a treatise in defense of Jackson by cobbling together experts to come out and declare that there is no black-and-white definition of femininity, and therefore Jackson was not embarrassingly evasive but 100 percent accurate. The headline is a marvel of obfuscation: Marsha Blackburn asked Ketanji Brown Jackson to define ‘woman.’ Science says there’s no simple answer. Seriously, the paper stipulates that science says there is no clear definition for “woman.”
In the 13th hour of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s confirmation hearing, Sen. Marsha Blackburn asked: “Can you provide a definition for the word ‘woman’?” https://t.co/Ikgkqxj83h
— USA TODAY (@USATODAY) March 24, 2022
Here is where the paper goes in order to clear the air and clear Jackson’s name.
Scientists, gender law scholars and philosophers of biology said Jackson’s response was commendable, though perhaps misleading. It’s useful, they say, that Jackson suggested science could help answer Blackburn’s question, but they note that a competent biologist would not be able to offer a definitive answer either.
First off, there is a dodge employed by Dastagir. She uses the plural when she, in truth, spoke to one individual from each of those disciplines. So the claim that “Science” has no simple answer for what is a woman is based on her speaking to a lone scientist. (Dr. Anthony Fauci may become upset to learn someone else has appropriated his title of being the embodiment of science.) “Scientists agree,” says the writer, using the old consensus declaration for, again, ONE scientist’s opinion, “there is no sufficient way to clearly define what makes someone a woman, and with billions of women on the planet, there is much variation.”
READ RELATED: How A Psychic Helped Solve Ashley Howley’s Cold Case
Her scientist further takes things into an area I do not think they actually want to explore. Here is the summation of how science proves…I don’t know, how there is no such thing as a true woman, I suppose?
“I don’t want to see this question punted to biology as if science can offer a simple, definitive answer,” said Rebecca Jordan-Young, a scientist and gender studies scholar at Barnard College whose work explores the relationships between science and the social hierarchies of gender and sexuality. There isn’t one single ‘biological’ answer to the definition of a woman. There’s not even a singular biological answer to the question of ‘what is a female,’” Jordan-Young said.
Well, you just presented a problem for yourselves, ladies. (Can I even use that term anymore??) To start, if there is no clear way of defining what a woman is, how do you accurately state that there are billions of women? This very approach undermines all of the activism we have been subjected to about gender. Sexism cannot firmly exist if we cannot declare who is male or female. You cannot tell us women are underpaid in the workforce when they cannot be accurately categorized.
And this also undercuts all of the KBJ celebrations this week. How exactly is Jackson celebrated today as the first black female to be nominated, when we cannot accurately define her as a woman?!
To further muddy the waters, USA Today turns to a “philosopher of biology,” which sounds like a remarkable contradiction while invoking science. This strikes as someone who studies interpretational mathematics. She is described as someone, “who focuses on the sciences of sex and gender and their policy dimensions,” and who states, “While U.S. law remains an unsettled arena for the conceptualization and definition of sex, it frequently grounds sex categorization in biological evidence and reasoning.” Then we get this word salad, tossed with some contextual croutons.
“As is so often the case, science cannot settle what are really social questions,” she said. “In any particular case of sex categorization, whether in law or in science, it is necessary to build a definition of sex particular to context.”
Unsurprisingly, things are made even less clear by roping in a lawyer. Dastagir turns to one who brings up issues like the 19th Amendment, which only allowed white women to vote, and Jim Crow laws which are said to have denied the existence of black females. The irony is this is all an effort to erase definitions of womanhood while attempting to celebrate the nomination of a black female at the same time.
The ludicrous lengths this goes to exonerate Jackson’s refusal or inability to define the word “woman” is almost impressive. This just adds to the series of gender-bending news items from the past couple of weeks. Rachel Levine is dubbed “Woman of the Year,” Michaela Jaé Rodriguez was on Time’s WOY list, Lia Thomas is celebrated for college championships, and now we are debating the science of females.
It’s been a hell of a Women’s History Month.
Source:
