One of the realizations that emerge once you have children is that things we understand intuitively can be hard to articulate when asked. Emotions are classic examples, certainly, but even things like colors involve simply introducing more and more refined demonstrations of the category. As philosophers will tell us, language is necessarily imprecise, but it’s our only way of describing the world.
So I ask you, in that context: What is a woman?
You know intuitively, certainly. And, depending on how much time you want to spend on it, you can come up with a broadly bounded answer. But then uncertainty creeps in. When does womanhood begin? 13? 18? Is it dependent on the presence of body parts like a uterus? Does it derive from hormone levels? Chromosomal markers? There’s something called Turner syndrome in which people have only one X chromosome. Are such individuals women?
ADVERTISING
It seems a simple question, and it can be answered simply, but it can also be complicated. “Red” is the absorption of a certain wavelength of light. It is also the color of hearts on Valentine’s Day. What definition do you want?
Sometimes, answers depend very specifically on why the question is being asked. As in legal cases. And that’s why the effort by Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) to pin down President Biden’s Supreme Court nominee, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, on her definition of “woman” at the Senate Judiciary Committee’s confirmation hearing on Tuesday was such an obvious bad-faith ploy.
Sign up for How To Read This Chart, a weekly data newsletter from Philip Bump
In the hours since Blackburn posed the question on Tuesday night, it has become a celebrated example on the political right of how beholden Jackson purportedly is to leftist subjectivism. Fox News sent out a push alert about Jackson’s response; the exchange was one of the few things about the hearing highlighted on the network’s website on Wednesday morning. A phalanx of right-wing voices pointed to Jackson’s response as disqualifying or a component of doom for any Democrats who might want to support her nomination.
It was a cascade of bad faith, from Blackburn’s question to the coverage of the response. So it’s worth doing two things. First, explaining why the question — particularly in the context of the moment — was so bad and, second, explaining how this tactic has gained ground in recent months.
First, the context.
Blackburn has leaned into her role of elevating any sketchy anti-Jackson talking point that emerges in right-wing media. Her question about womanhood came at the end of a section that began with an obvious attempt to create some guilt-by-association with — wait for it — a D.C.-area private school.
Jackson sits on the board of Georgetown Day School, something that served as a jumping-off point for efforts to intertwine her philosophy with “critical race theory.” But Blackburn took it in a different direction.
“With Georgetown Day School, I found it astounding that it teaches kindergartners — 5-year-old children, and I’ve got grandchildren — and they teach them that they can choose their gender,” Blackburn claimed. “So is this what you were praising when you applauded the, and I’m quoting you, ‘transformative power of Georgetown Day School’s progressive education’? Do you agree that our schools should teach children that they can choose their gender?”
See that switch? Jackson praised the school and, so, she’s necessarily praising every decision Blackburn alleges it has made. Alleges; a reporter’s efforts to determine whether this is true came up short, including after asking Blackburn’s office.
“Senator, I’m not remembering exactly what quote you’re referencing,” Jackson replied, “but Georgetown Day School is —”
Blackburn interrupted. “It was in a book and you gave the quote,” she said. After another brief back-and-forth, Blackburn asked Jackson if she agreed that “schools should teach children that they can choose their gender?” Jackson declined to answer.
So Blackburn continued on the same path.
So I ask you, in that context: What is a woman?
You know intuitively, certainly. And, depending on how much time you want to spend on it, you can come up with a broadly bounded answer. But then uncertainty creeps in. When does womanhood begin? 13? 18? Is it dependent on the presence of body parts like a uterus? Does it derive from hormone levels? Chromosomal markers? There’s something called Turner syndrome in which people have only one X chromosome. Are such individuals women?
ADVERTISING
It seems a simple question, and it can be answered simply, but it can also be complicated. “Red” is the absorption of a certain wavelength of light. It is also the color of hearts on Valentine’s Day. What definition do you want?
Sometimes, answers depend very specifically on why the question is being asked. As in legal cases. And that’s why the effort by Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) to pin down President Biden’s Supreme Court nominee, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, on her definition of “woman” at the Senate Judiciary Committee’s confirmation hearing on Tuesday was such an obvious bad-faith ploy.
Sign up for How To Read This Chart, a weekly data newsletter from Philip Bump
In the hours since Blackburn posed the question on Tuesday night, it has become a celebrated example on the political right of how beholden Jackson purportedly is to leftist subjectivism. Fox News sent out a push alert about Jackson’s response; the exchange was one of the few things about the hearing highlighted on the network’s website on Wednesday morning. A phalanx of right-wing voices pointed to Jackson’s response as disqualifying or a component of doom for any Democrats who might want to support her nomination.
It was a cascade of bad faith, from Blackburn’s question to the coverage of the response. So it’s worth doing two things. First, explaining why the question — particularly in the context of the moment — was so bad and, second, explaining how this tactic has gained ground in recent months.
First, the context.
Blackburn has leaned into her role of elevating any sketchy anti-Jackson talking point that emerges in right-wing media. Her question about womanhood came at the end of a section that began with an obvious attempt to create some guilt-by-association with — wait for it — a D.C.-area private school.
Jackson sits on the board of Georgetown Day School, something that served as a jumping-off point for efforts to intertwine her philosophy with “critical race theory.” But Blackburn took it in a different direction.
“With Georgetown Day School, I found it astounding that it teaches kindergartners — 5-year-old children, and I’ve got grandchildren — and they teach them that they can choose their gender,” Blackburn claimed. “So is this what you were praising when you applauded the, and I’m quoting you, ‘transformative power of Georgetown Day School’s progressive education’? Do you agree that our schools should teach children that they can choose their gender?”
See that switch? Jackson praised the school and, so, she’s necessarily praising every decision Blackburn alleges it has made. Alleges; a reporter’s efforts to determine whether this is true came up short, including after asking Blackburn’s office.
“Senator, I’m not remembering exactly what quote you’re referencing,” Jackson replied, “but Georgetown Day School is —”
Blackburn interrupted. “It was in a book and you gave the quote,” she said. After another brief back-and-forth, Blackburn asked Jackson if she agreed that “schools should teach children that they can choose their gender?” Jackson declined to answer.
So Blackburn continued on the same path.