Under questioning from Senator Marsha Blackburn from Tennessee, Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson said she could not define what a woman is because she (Ketanji Jackson) is not a biologist. This was among the most revealing of some of her muddled answers.

This was obvious pandering to the Transgender Lobby and is disqualifying on a number of levels.

She will have cases pertaining to this social controversy and she already is prejudiced herself. We cannot afford to have such a confused brain sitting on the Supreme Court.

Likewise disqualifying is the cowardice displayed, in that she could have answered the question as a reasonable person would, but chose to be evasive because she either thinks the question is very complicated or she is more a politician with her finger in the wind than a judge. Both positions are disqualifying.

She also pandered to the credentialed crowd and the idiotic notion that one has to have a degree to think. We have to possess a degree in biology now to know the difference between a man and a woman? Good grief, humans had that figured out long before universities were formed and degrees granted. They had to have known the difference or all of us wouldn’t be here!

So now a stallion has to have a degree in biology to recognize a mare? A degree as a veterinarian is necessary to recognize a dog? A degree in geology is necessary to identify a rock? A degree in law is necessary to know this candidate is not worthy of a seat on the Supreme Court?

What condescending drivel!

Since the case of Rachel Dolezal, a white woman who “identified” as being black and became the head of the Seattle area NAACP a few years back, some felt a person’s race can be changed by mere declaration or affirmation. Interestingly, the NAACP was not among those that felt that way as they fired her promptly.

Senator Elizabeth Warren at least did not “identify” as a Native American, she simply lied about her family background in order to advance her academic and political career. She may have actually believed her family stories about the origins of high cheekbones.

Those positions are less breathtaking than the idea that sex can be “changed” by a simple declaration. Progressives seem to believe this can be done, while Conservatives generally believe that one’s sex is biological and genetic makeup, is not a function of self-declaration.

The genetic difference between one white female and one black female is very slight.  But the difference between a man and a woman is much greater.  But in neither case can one’s internal identification and later public declaration change the facts of sexual organs, the hormones they produce, and DNA.

But thanks to “Gender Studies” at universities, we find ourselves as a society questioning our own sanity.

If I declare that I now identify as Peter Pan, does that mean I can fly? Does it mean I can remain a child for the rest of my life? This is fairy tale stuff, not reality. Need proof?  Let our newly identified Peter Pan jump off a building and see if gravity cares one wit about personal identification.

Thus, if a person’s self-declaration of what they are determines their sex, how would being a biologist help? If anything, a biologist would be confused because the physical evidence and DNA could conflict with the declaration of the person being examined. As a biologist, you are not trained to weigh psychotic statements any better than the rest of us. So, why does Judge Brown even make that argument?

Joe Biden says he wants to appoint a black woman to the Supreme Court. This should not be the criteria for such an important appointment, but Biden has made his political calculations and made his choice based on the idea that he can find a black female for the job. How can that be done if the President is unable to define what both a black and a woman are? Moreover, if he is able to determine what a black woman is, but his candidate for the Supreme Court cannot, what does that tell you about the process? Perhaps the President is a biologist?

Either the President is terribly wrong or the judicial nominee is mistaken. You can’t have it both ways.

It is time, well past time, for both women and men to stand up and say to the transgendered advocates that your declarations or affirmations do not change reality. It is not prejudiced in any form to resist being sucked into another person’s mental illness. Delusional behavior is bad enough on the individual level, without elevating it to the societal level. None of us are under any moral or ethical requirement to join in this dangerous fiction. Rather, we have a moral and ethical obligation to resist it.

Our position should be as follows: We are sorry for your sexual confusion and we hope you get help. But your psychosis is damaging to the rest of us, our families, our children, and we will not accept as fact your emotional outbursts, no matter how sincerely felt.  You may do what you wish with your own life, but we will not change our laws, customs, and manners, just to accommodate your psychosis.

The transgendered have the rights to be treated as a human beings and be free of violence and coercion. But we also have the right not to share their mental illness. We also have the right to be free of violence and coercion from the transgendered. Seen any videos lately of campus behavior among this crowd?

If one cannot determine what a woman is even for the purposes of sport, how is this inability going to influence the functioning of the law?

We have Title 9 and other laws creating opportunities for women in sport and education. But if women cannot be identified, then how do these benefits get allocated?

What the heck does “women’s rights” even mean, if there is no ready way to know what a woman is?

Equal pay for men and women?  How could you possibly know how to apply such a concept if you cannot determine who is male and who is female?

Sexual harassment of women? How can one harass something that does not exist, except in the mind of whomever? Only biologists can know it would seem and thus be guilty or not.

Generally, women get benefits from marriage and justified or not, get additional economic support in divorce, and usually child custody. Well, how can that be accomplished if you don’t know the difference between the man and the woman?

If a Federal judge cannot define what is a man or a woman, how are the rest of us supposed to enforce those employment and family laws that apply particularly to either men or women?

So, do today’s feminists have any idea how damaging this embracing of transgenderism is to their cause?

On an even more prosaic level, if a Federal judge cannot define what is a man or a woman, how are we supposed to describe a criminal to the police if we cannot either determine their sex or race? Kind of hard to provide a description, would it not? We could not know unless we interviewed the perp and got to know how they identified.

If it is impossible to know the difference between a man and a woman, who will be eligible for the draft, should that be needed again?

Besides her inability to answer a simple question, it would appear the candidate selected by President Biden is very soft on crime, particularly sexual crimes involving children, and very much has bought into the sexual insanity in vogue at universities. On other matters, she seems to side with criminals embracing the fashionable left-wing notions that society is at fault and thus, no one is really a criminal.

Our Senators should vote NO on her nomination.

Republicans will no doubt waver, afraid as always, they might in any way confirm the racist calumny Democrats have hung on them.

This really has nothing to do with the race of the candidate. This is a clear-cut case of poor judicial judgment, activism, and temperament.