Many Americans justifiably are mocking and criticizing Biden Supreme Court nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson for her childish claim Tuesday that she could not define the word “woman.”
But if one really digs into its logical implications, that moment of interaction with Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) of the Senate Judiciary Committee, kinda imploded the woke identity politics of the last 100-plus years.
Well, sure, people are laughing at this latest nadir of wokeism, a dark landscape populated by groveling leftists who are so “sensitive” to – and accepting of -- the psycho-pathological identity-crises of others that they change their own behavior and their own thinking.
But we also know that this ridiculous pandering has real policy implications, and hints at the fact that wokeism and “identity politics” – longstanding weapons in the collectivist arsenal to demonize opponents and gain political power – end up eating each other when put into collectivist policy practice.
As Spencer Brown writes for TownHall, Blackburn asked Brown Jackson a simple question:
‘Can you provide a definition for the word woman?’ Blackburn asked.
‘Can I provide a definition?’ Judge Jackson responded somewhat surprised.
‘Mhmm, yeah,’ Blackburn responded.
‘I can't,’ Jackson said.
‘You can't?’ Blackburn responded.
‘Mmm, not in this context — I'm not a biologist,’ Judge Jackson said.
Mockery commenced, as justified critics made memes such as the Babylon Bee’s, showing a small child pointing at a sketch of a female stick-figure, captioned with, “Kindergartner Granted PhD In Biology After Correctly Distinguishing Boy From Girl.”
Others pointed out that Joe Biden had promised to nominate a black woman to the bench (because, evidently, it’s not in the least racist or sexist for a politician to imply that gender and skin color control or heavily influence a person’s work ethic, cognitive ability, or ability to read the Constitution) – and that, so far, Brown Jackson’s comments mean Biden hasn’t kept his promise.
But this has much deeper implications.
It means that, by her own admission, Brown Jackson cannot sit on any case pertaining to Title Nine of the “Education Amendments” to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, nor on any other cases pertaining to statistical or aggregated accountings of men and women or any policy that differentiates between male and female.
Judge Jackson can’t even define what a woman is. pic.twitter.com/G6OKMYR3Iy— Sen. Marsha Blackburn (@MarshaBlackburn) March 23, 2022
If these statutes specifically are imposed in order to facilitate some form of state-defined “equity” based on a quota of population subsets, and she is incapable of knowing the differences between those subsets, then, in the future, she cannot claim to understand the enumerations and de facto quotas. She can't identify the "kinds" of people required by things like Title Nine’s mandate of gender uniformity in college sports.
And the implications are even larger than that.
If one steps away from Brown Jackson, and takes her silly “gender is fluid” concept to its logical conclusion, any and all government “policies” that use gender as an identifying factor become non-functional. Thus, through their groveling attempt to pander to wokeism, where gender is completely malleable, leftists have negated “Identity Politics.”
After all, how can one have any “group identity” on which politicians can shower favored status if, as Brown Jackson’s answer implies, it’s impossible to define any of those favored groups?
How can the government continue to impose sexism-elevating, gender-based statutes if gender defies definition?
In the political world, everyone is pitted against each other. As a result, it’s only natural that those who want power try to claim “victimized” status, or claim to help the “Davids” against the “Goliaths.”
But, even if one were to accept the leftist view of the state as the answer to what they see as injustice and “inequality,” the system clearly becomes unmanageable when no one can pick out “David.”
Thus, because Brown Jackson could be on the SCOTUS bench, we’ve been given more to consider than the absurdity of sentimental wokeism.
With this revelation, more Americans can see how counterproductive and downright unworkable it is to embrace the identity confusion of troubled others and turn their personal pathology into socio-political pathology, i.e. to willingly adopt the mental disorder and force it onto others through the aggressive power of the state. If anyone can identify as anything, then no people-labeling, human-separating, quota-enforcing statute can apply to them.
John 1:1 tells us, “In the beginning, was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
Politicians cannot play God. As much as they might try, over and over, to “make things equal,” the more they try, the more they engage in aggressive force – and the further and further away they move from God’s laws for peace and free will.