What "I'm not a biologist" Revealed In The Sideband

[osan]

https://iamtherabbithole.substack.co...t-revealed?s=w


During her confirmation hearing, Jackson tried to evade the question of the definition of a "woman" by citing that she's "not a biologist", in an attempt to be clever, when in fact she was ever so insufficient to the task.

Stay with me now, ignoring for the moment her embarrassingly transparent attempt at evasion, thus revealing her corrupt self for what she really is.

By responding with "I'm not a biologist", she inadvertently admitted that the broader and far more significant question is in fact one of biology. She openly conceded by direct implication that “gender” is based in biology, while clearly attempting to evade the issue entirely by refusing to define “woman”. Hoisted by her own petard, she has exposed herself as a very weak tactician who knows the truth, endeavors to conceal it, but has not the chops to do so competently. This is SCOTUS material? I think not nearly.

She comes off as just another "minority" who got into law school by virtue of status conferred solely by morphology, and nothing to do with innate capacity, much as we see with Obama. There is precious small doubt that she made it through law school by the skin of her skin, and only through the intercession of hands invisible, which doled passing grades sufficient to give her the degree without raising eyebrows. One can only wonder what chicanery might have been employed to get her past the BAR examination.

Jackson strikes as just another flailing under-achiever whose position is gifted, not earned. Being placed on the high court, not on the merits of ability and character, but by mere dint of biological specifications that have no relevance, all for the purposes of some dishonest and deleterious political expediency, will serve long and well to further the ruin of American life. Compare with Justice Clarence Thomas, who is a scholarly man of a dignified and credible bearing, and we see how dangerously corrupted the motivations must be, which underpin this nomination.

Sadly, none of the right people are likely to notice Jackson’s error and the opportunity it presents for exposing the truth, much less putting that factuality of it to good and proper use, which would be to corner and further expose this candidate as wholly and dangerously unequal to the tasks the position demands. Why not just confirm an average sixth-grader? We might at least then expect some measure of honesty and personal integrity.

Lastly, consider this: the situation is a win-win for Democrats. If confirmed, they get their resident obedient on the high-court. If not, they get to shriek and howl "RACIST!" day and night, right into November.

But since we're all living on planet Bizarro, Jackson will likely be confirmed, to the delight of those who love evil, and the furthered ruin of the rest.

Until next time, please accept my best wishes.

[Invisible Man]

By responding with "I'm not a biologist", she inadvertently admitted that the broader and far more significant question is in fact one of biology. She openly conceded by direct implication that “gender” is based in biology, while clearly attempting to evade the issue entirely by refusing to define “woman”. Hoisted by her own petard, she has exposed herself as a very weak tactician who knows the truth, endeavors to conceal it,

I keep seeing people say this. But how do you know she did this "inadvertently," or that she "conceded" anything," or was somehow, "hoisted on her own petard"? I think the simpler explanation is that of course she thinks womanhood is defined by biology. She spent her whole life thinking that and probably like the rest of us never heard anyone question that until doing so became a fad for people of a younger generation than hers just within the past few years. Ninety percent of the population of America thinks that it comes down to biology, and 99 percent of the population of most other countries do. I've seen troubling things about her, but I haven't seen any reason to think that she's a pusher of the pro-transgender agenda so far. Maybe she just isn't.

[osan]

I keep seeing people say this. But how do you know she did this "inadvertently," or that she "conceded" anything," or was somehow, "hoisted on her own petard"? I think the simpler explanation is that of course she thinks womanhood is defined by biology. She spent her whole life thinking that and probably like the rest of us never heard anyone question that until doing so became a fad for people of a younger generation than hers just within the past few years. Ninety percent of the population of America thinks that it comes down to biology, and 99 percent of the population of most other countries do. I've seen troubling things about her, but I haven't seen any reason to think that she's a pusher of the pro-transgender agenda so far. Maybe she just isn't.

Everything in her demeanor and behavior bespeaks it. She has obviously been coached and part of that has been to evade giving answers to almost all questions. This is more or less boilerplate for such events, most particularly for the Democrats. The people of the so-called "left" are clearly on an agenda that has strong elements of psywar in it. Part of what they are attempting to do (and the right has its measure of same, though they come at it from a very different direction) is right out of 1984, Rules For Radicals, and Cloward and Piven: Normalize the absurd. As idiocy drives ever more deeply into the minds of "normal" and presumably sensible people, it becomes normalized after a fashion. This is basic cognitive psychology 001. As the proportion of absurdity grows, those with funny business on their minds are able to get away with ever greater crime and folly. No rocket surgery there.

She did it inadvertently because she is rotten. Being rotten, she would never accede to giving a straight answer to such a question because it would set a precedent of her recognition of of something correct. That can never be done because it closes doors, or forces them to break a precedent they themselves have set. This is significant because even though the average man is a functional idiot, even the most apparently Stoopid among the humans tends to have a keen, midbrain-centered sense of hypocrisy that, when violated, tends to cause stirrings of the unfriendly sort. Theye are keenly sensitive to this and seem to avoid it when to do so serves no strong purpose.

I guaRONtee that this woman (ironic, no?) went into the hearing viewing almost everyone questioning her as a "cracker". She is hard-left, and this is revealed loudly in her sentencing record, not to mention that the Dick "I'm a real dick" Durbin refused to release her pre-sentencing records. This is all indicative of the desire to evade and conceal.

Look at her any way you like. I see just another low-rent crook to be installed into a seat where it will be able to very directly bring yet more tyranny into your life.

[Invisible Man]

Everything in her demeanor and behavior bespeaks it. She has obviously been coached and part of that has been to evade giving answers to almost all questions.

Of course she was coached to evade giving answers. As all SCOTUS nominees are. Trump's nominees did the same thing, and they were also coached to do it. But to the extent that she revealed anything about her views, what she revealed was that she is not on the side of the transgender agenda. I'm not sure what she said or did that bespoke otherwise. But as the OP pointed out, she said clearly enough that she believes it's a matter of biology. Her answer to that question did not fall within the acceptable views of those on that side of things. Those who are seriously committed to that ideology would not have said what she did.

And this shouldn't come as a huge surprise. Biden restricted his pool of potential nominees to black women. Restricting himself this way constrained his ability to pick someone who would toe the right ideological line to the degree he otherwise would have been able to do.

[Snowball]

Guys, it just doesn't matter. She wouldn't listen to a biologist anyway.

We're past the point of absurdity, and nobody should listen to or respect the court.

It is an institution to be ignored.

[acptulsa]

That's about it.

"I don't know if that person's a raccoon or not, I'm not a biologist."

"Biologists are no longer allowed to differentiate people and racoons, only a psychiatrist can determine if someone genuinely identifies as a furry animal. Therefore you're too stupid to maintain the new narrative. You'll give the game away."

"So? Nobody buys into the game anyway, but they're too invested, or too wimpy, or too whatever to stand up and fight us. So..."

[TheTexan]

Guys, it just doesn't matter. She wouldn't listen to a biologist anyway.

We're past the point of absurdity, and nobody should listen to or respect the court.

It is an institution to be ignored.

Yep. This. Enjoy the clown show for your own amusement, if you like, but remember, they aren't even professional clowns. They have no idea what they are doing

[Brian4Liberty]

Yep. This. Enjoy the clown show for your own amusement, if you like, but remember, they aren't even professional clowns. They have no idea what they are doing

They know exactly what they are doing...

Jason Whitlock reacts to Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson not defining what a woman is

[Anti Federalist]

They know exactly what they are doing...

That's what jogged my memory to update my sig line.

[Anti Globalist]

Being unable to answer a simple question of defining what a woman is, should automatically disqualify you for the Court.

[CaptUSA]

What color is the sky? I'm not a meteorologist.
What is a cat? I'm not a veterinarian.
What is a rock? I'm not a geologist.
What is a vaccine? I'm not a virologist.

See? Only credentialed experts can answer common sense questions.

[osan]

"So? Nobody buys into the game anyway, but they're too invested, or too wimpy, or too whatever to stand up and fight us. So..."

BINGO.

[nobody's_hero]

I would have broken out in song:

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

Madam judge let me rephrase that question. Are you a man or a woman?

[osan]

I would have broken out in song:

What's stopping you?

[osan]

Madam judge let me rephrase that question. Are you a man or a woman?

In a better world, that would have been a correct question to ask. In this world, however, it is a vain pursuit because the empty-headed animal is just clever enough to vomit for an response that you think says one thing, when upon closer scrutiny we see that it might mean any of several other things, including nothing at all.