Eli Erlick (she/her) is a Ph.D. candidate at UC Santa Cruz researching political philosophy, social movements, and trans studies. We don’t know if she was trying to make Supreme Court nominee Katanji Brown Jackson look like an idiot, but she succeeded. Jackson famously could not define “woman” because she’s “not a biologist.” Erlick, who’s not even studying biology came up with the definition with no problem:

That’s it? So if, say, Matt Walsh decides to identify as a woman, then he’s a woman, right? Boom. Done.

Wait, we thought this was, boom, done. But now we’re getting into semantics. We can define “woman,” but not without defining “identifies” first.

This reminds us of Matt Yglesias’ take earlier, what definitions change with time. And now we’re being told that womanhood is a historical category that has shifted with time. Tell us, how much has it shifted over the last, say, couple of millennia vs. the last couple of years?

Erlick has limited replies, so let’s see how the quote-tweets are coming along:

This is a doctoral candidate specializing in trans studies and she still hasn’t convincingly defined “woman” for us.


Recommended Twitchy Video