[Serious] That Trans Thread

[Angrboda]

Does anyone have any opinion about the supreme court nominee declining to define the word woman because she's not a biologist?

That's what arguments are for.  It's no more the place of a supreme court justice, or any justice for that matter, to stake out a position on a controversial subject ahead of the matter coming before them.  From what I recall other judges have declined to state how they would rule on abortion or religious freedom.  I see this as no different.  My only problem with it is that framing her deferral as she did was not particularly artful given how well she addressed other controversial subjects.

I'd like to add to my previous comment because it appears that I was misinformed. Jimmy Kimmel played the clip of senator Blackburn asking the justice if she could provide a definition of the word woman and there's a crucial part of that exchange which the right wing jerkoffs have been omitting. Justice Brown qualified her "no" by adding that she couldn't do so, "in this context." That's a very different statement than what the right has been representing her as saying, where they imply that she couldn't provide a definition, period. That's false and a misrepresentation of Jackson's answer. (Big shock that the right is telling falsehoods.) The context in this case is the official duties of a U.S. justice and what Ketanji Brown Jackson's views on that subject are, and how she would behave as a justice. In that context, no she cannot give a definition; that role belongs to experts and witnesses, not the justice. Is anybody surprised that this little nuance has been omitted from right-wing talk about this?