Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson was stumped when Sen. Marsha Blackburn asked her to define what a woman is, but USA Today claimed scientists and people it identified as "philosophers of biology" all agree that it's an impossible question to answer.

While science has long taught that a woman is an adult human with two X chromosomes instead of the X and Y that defines males, the new theory of gender fluidity embraced by the Left holds that people born as biological males can choose to be considered female. That seemed to be what the Tennessee lawmaker was getting at when she asked Jackson if she could “provide a definition for the word ‘woman.’”

“No, I can’t,” Jackson answered.

“You can’t?” Blackburn asked.

“Not in this context," Jackson replied. "I’m not a biologist.”


According to USA Today, it was a good try by Jackson, but even a biologist would have been flummoxed.

"Scientists, gender law scholars and philosophers of biology said Jackson's response was commendable, though perhaps misleading," a news article on the back-and-forth reported. "It's useful, they say, that Jackson suggested that 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 that 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."

Like Jackson's original answer, the USA Today article drew relentless mockery on Twitter.

"When two people have sex it's basically a coin-flip as to which one gets pregnant," tweeted a user who goes by OccasionalBrainiac.

"WTF is a 'philosopher of biology?'” asked another Twitter user under the handle AutoCarbine556.

"Wait, how do we know there are billions of women on the planet if we can't say what they are?" asked ModerateFormerDemocrat. "What if... there are no women at all?"

Sarcasm aside, some critics, including Sen. Ted Cruz, said buying into the idea that gender is a social construct could have serious implications for Jackson's role as a Supreme Court justice. Not having a working definition of gender could make it difficult, if not impossible, to rule on cases revolving around women's rights, they said.


"Under the modern leftist sensibilities, if I decide right now that I'm a woman and apparently I'm a woman, does that mean that I would have Article 3 standing to challenge a gender-based restriction?" Cruz asked Jackson on Wednesday.

Jackson replied that this is or could soon be the subject of litigation and that she could not comment on them.