USA Today cites 'science' to claim 'there’s no simple answer' to defining a woman. Social media responds.



Critics on social media lambasted USA Today on Thursday after the newspaper cited "science" to suggest that "there is no simple answer" to the question, "What is a woman?"

What are the details?

The paper was responding to a widely publicized moment from Senate confirmation hearings earlier this week when President Biden's Supreme Court nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson told Republican Sen. Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.) she couldn't provide a definition for the word "woman" since she's "not a biologist."

The exchange quickly went viral on the internet as conservatives expressed shock and anger at the judge's absurd embrace of anti-scientific progressive gender politics. Ironically, Jackson's own womanhood was a primary reason that she was nominated for the court in the first place.

During the hearing, Blackburn spoke for much of the American populace when she chided Jackson's non-answer, saying, "The fact that you can’t give me a straight answer about something as fundamental as what a woman is underscores the dangers of the kind of progressive education" being taught in school districts across the country.

Yet, in a lengthy report published Thursday, USA Today offered a defense of the judge's answer. The headline of the report said, "Marsha Blackburn asked Ketanji Brown Jackson to define 'woman.' Science says there's no simple answer."

"Scientists, gender law scholars, and philosophers of biology said Jackson's response was commendable, though perhaps misleading," USA Today reported in the story's opening paragraphs. "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."

"Scientists agree 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," the newspaper confidently told its readers, later adding, "While traditional notions of sex and gender suggest a simple binary — if you are born with a penis, you are male and identify as a man and if you are born with a vagina, you are female and identify as a woman — the reality, gender experts say, is more complex."

To articulate its point, the paper trotted out not scientists but prominent progressive gender studies scholars such as Barnard College's Rebecca Jordan-Young, UCLA's Juliet Williams, Wheaton College's Kate Mason, and Harvard-educated "philosopher of biology" Sarah Richardson.

At one point, Jordan-Young pointed to at least six "biological markers" of sex in the body, including "genitals, chromosomes, gonads, internal reproductive structures, hormone ratios, and secondary sex characteristics" to proclaim "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,'" she added.

What was the reaction?

Not surprisingly, the article was mercilessly ridiculed on social media.

NewsBusters managing editor Curtis Houck called the report "truly insane," adding, "This isn't a column, editorial, guest op-ed, or even one of those you might see labeled as 'analysis.' This is a news article from USA Today's 'Health & Wellness' section."

This isn't a column, editorial, guest op-ed, or even one of those you might see labeled as "analysis."\n\nThis is a news article from USA Today's "Health & Wellness" section.
— Curtis Houck (@Curtis Houck) 1648162125

Conservative commentator Erick Erickson mocked USA Today's inability to determine womanhood in light of archaeologists' comparative ease in doing so on thousand-year-old skeletons.

This USA Today story is amazing. It posits that scientists cannot determine what a woman is, but we can dig up 9000 year old skeletons and make that determination. https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/health-wellness/2022/03/24/marsha-blackburn-asked-ketanji-jackson-define-woman-science/7152439001/\u00a0\u2026pic.twitter.com/Bu2GCrfgYI
— Erick Erickson (@Erick Erickson) 1648219767

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee said, "If USA Today had any credibility left (they don't), they laughably lost it in this utterly nonsensical 'story.'"

If USA Today had any credibility left (they don't), they laughably lost it in this utterly nonsensical "story." Real science has an answer.\nUSA Today: Science says there\u2019s no simple answer to the definition of \u2018woman\u2019 https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2022/03/24/usa-today-science-says-theres-no-simple-answer-to-the-definition-of-woman/\u00a0\u2026 via @twitchyteam
— Gov. Mike Huckabee (@Gov. Mike Huckabee) 1648221246

"There is no sufficient way to define what makes someone a woman, of which there are billions," Washington Examiner reporter Jerry Dunleavy quipped.

there is no sufficient way to define what makes someone a woman, of which there are billions. https://twitter.com/usatoday/status/1507093018234347520\u00a0\u2026pic.twitter.com/uRIj7V00U1
— Jerry Dunleavy (@Jerry Dunleavy) 1648163869

The mockery only continued from there:

Those quotation marks need to be taken off the word, woman, and put around the word, science
— Gavin \ud83c\udff4\udb40\udc67\udb40\udc62\udb40\udc65\udb40\udc6e\udb40\udc67\udb40\udc7f\ud83c\uddec\ud83c\udde7 (@Gavin \ud83c\udff4\udb40\udc67\udb40\udc62\udb40\udc65\udb40\udc6e\udb40\udc67\udb40\udc7f\ud83c\uddec\ud83c\udde7) 1648162880

Tulsi Gabbard points out  'absurdity' of Biden SCOTUS nominee refusing to define 'woman.' Her womanhood was a key reason she was nominated.



Former Democratic U.S. House Rep. Tulsi Gabbard slammed Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson this week for refusing to define what a "woman" is during her Senate confirmation hearings — and, in doing so, elucidated an interesting point.

That is, Jackson's own womanhood is one of the primary reasons that President Biden nominated her to the Supreme Court, along with her ethnicity.

During his presidential campaign in 2020, Biden vowed to appoint a black womanto the Supreme Court should a vacancy arise. And this year, when Justice Stephen Breyer announced his retirement, supporters held the president to his word.

What did Gabbard say?

On Thursday, Gabbard reminded the president and his nominee of the pledge.

"In order to have a Supreme Court committed to protecting the rights of all Americans, including women, every justice needs to understand there is such a thing as a woman, as distinct from a man," Gabbard tweeted. "Yet when asked to define the word 'woman,' Supreme Court nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson said, 'I don’t know.'"

"The hypocrisy and absurdity of this is that she was nominated by President Biden in large part because she is a woman," the Democrat aptly pointed out.

(2/2) \u2026 Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson said, \u201cI don\u2019t know.\u201d The hypocrisy and absurdity of this is that she was nominated by President Biden in large part because she is a woman.
— Tulsi Gabbard \ud83c\udf3a (@Tulsi Gabbard \ud83c\udf3a) 1648116888

What's the background?

During hearings on Tuesday, Jackson responded to a pointed question from Republican Sen. Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.) by claiming that she can't define the word "woman" because she's "not a biologist."

"Can you provide a definition for the word ‘woman’?" Blackburn asked Jackson.

"Can I provide a definition?" the judge replied, adding, "No, I can’t."

"You can’t?" Blackburn shot back.

"Not in this context," Jackson said, laughing. "I’m not a biologist."

"So you believe the meaning of the word ‘woman’ is so unclear and controversial that you can’t give me a definition?" Blackburn later pressed.

"Senator, in my work as a judge, what I do is I address disputes," Jackson answered, still deflecting. "If there's a dispute about a definition, people make arguments, and I look at the law, and I decide."

Why does it matter?

The issue of sexual orientation and gender identity has become a hot-button one of late amid the left's anti-scientific embrace of transgenderism and gender fluidity in general.

The left's balancing act between staunchly supporting women's causes and the transgender agenda has proved difficult, especially when the two appear to clash — as in the case of transgender biological male University of Pennsylvania swimmer Lia Thomas competing against women.

It has put many progressives in a bind, making them unable to explain their perspective with any logical coherence. It seems the best option when confronted on the matter is to refuse to say anything at all, as Jackson herself demonstrated.

But Gabbard wasn't keen to let Jackson off the hook that easily.

Neither was BlazeTV host Jason Whitlock, who wrote this in a Wednesday column for TheBlaze: "Jackson does not lack common sense. She can define the word woman. If she can’t, she should ask President Biden. He made it clear he picked Jackson because she’s a black woman."

"Jackson’s flaw is that her commitment to truth is fungible based on how truth impacts her politics," Whitlock continued. "She’s a politician; not a judge, not an arbiter of truth. Her particular brand of politics — left-wing — requires her to eschew a biblical worldview that values truth above all else."