Platner’s Phony War Grievance: Volunteered for Combat, Ignored His Parents, Then Blamed Su...
What Happened to the Man Who Built CNN Should Terrify Every American Over...
Maria Shriver Fears for Future of 'Free Press' (Translation: The Dem Propaganda Machine...
Symone Sanders Slams DNC's F-Bomb Social Media Meltdown — And the Defenders Pile...
Anti-ICE Rioters Arrested As Loser Dems Roasted Outside Detention Center
Clay Travis Uses Ken Paxton Ad and a Sideways Jasmine Crockett 'Compliment' to...
Obama's 'Pod Save Bros' Laugh As Jill Biden Admits She Thought Joe Was...
BRO, Do You Even History?! Ro Khanna SCHOOLED After Comparing Nazi Tat Democrat...
'You're BOTH Commies'! Kennedy SAVAGES Karen Bass for Bragging About Hanoi Jane's Endorsem...
Tantrum-Throwing Bulwarker Thinks Defining the Word 'Vegan' Somehow HELPS James Talarico a...
Hillary Clinton Trips Over Fellow Libs (One Named Bill) While Ranting About Trump...
Mary Katharine Ham's Mockery of No Kings Losers Protesting on Trump's Birthday Is...
SO MANY Idiot Dems Are Trying to Dunk on Susan Collins for 'Sending...
Buzzkill Alert! Dem Account's Celebration of Houston Chronicle's Talarico Endorsement Gets...
Receipt-Filled Post Taking Democrats' Fake Narrative About Ken Paxton APART Is a Brutally...

USA Today: Science says there's no simple answer to the definition of 'woman'

Wow, it’s not that we didn’t expect it, but the mainstream media is going above and beyond to do some repair work on some of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s stumbles during her confirmation hearing. Jackson’s claim that she couldn’t define what a woman is because she’s “not a biologist” was just embarrassing, but it’s touched off two days of hot takes on why that question wasn’t fair and it’s not so simple to answer.

Advertisement

It took USA Today a couple of days to put together, but they finally published a piece Thursday explaining that “science” says there’s no simple answer to the question, “What is a woman?” We’ve already seen once-reputable science journals trash their credibility over the reality of biological sex, so what does USA Today have to offer?

Alia E. Dastagir looked to “gender scholars,” trans activists, and more to put together a really, really lengthy piece to tackle this seemingly impossible to answer question. She writes:

Scientists, gender law scholars and philosophers of biology said Jackson’s response was commendable, though perhaps misleading. 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.

Advertisement

So the headline said according to science there was no simple answer, and yet Dastagir is interviewing “philosophers of biology” and “gender law scholars.”

Just as an aside, this editor is a man, but if he were a woman, he’d be pretty pissed right now.

Advertisement

This article has to be a couple of thousand words and it still doesn’t give us a definition, only this woke crap from a gender studies scholar:

“When Blackburn and the rest of her caucus support women’s full reproductive justice, when they aggressively try to solve the inequality of investment in girls’ and women’s sports – still true 50 years after Title IX made it illegal – when they take meaningful action on the persistent wage discrimination against women, especially women of color, then maybe it will make sense to engage their questions about who can count as a woman.”

Advertisement

Related:

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Twitchy Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement