David Bullard turns to the bible for an answer for this riddle, wrapped in a woke enigma
OUT TO LUNCH
While Russian missiles were thudding into civilian areas in Ukraine last week and entire cities were being destroyed the people of the USA had more important matters to attend to.
As millions of displaced Ukrainians either hunkered down with their children for a fourth torturous week in the relative safety of a subway station or left their homes with a bag full of essential items for a perilous border crossing to face an uncertain future in whatever country is prepared to accept them the ‘land of the free’ was facing a threat far greater than anything Putin could ever come up with in his wildest dreams. They were trying to define what a woman is.
In one of the most bizarre displays of woke crass stupidity I have ever had the misfortune to witness a judge called Ketanji Brown Jackson (who is a candidate for the Supreme Court) was asked by Republican senator Marsha Blackburn if she could “provide a definition of a woman”.
Not the most difficult question you would think and something I am confident most Politicsweb readers would manage without too much effort. But Brown Jackson looked utterly confused and eventually mumbled that she couldn’t answer the question because she is “not a biologist”.
Since Joe Biden had already made it abundantly clear that he wanted a black woman judge on the Supreme Court bench one might have thought that Brown Jackson could have put two and two together and worked out that she ticked both of Biden’s affirmative action boxes being both black and a woman. But she simply couldn’t make the connection.
Her other faux pas, as gleefully noted by many media commentators, was conjuring up the idea that because she wasn’t a biologist she had no idea what a woman was; notwithstanding the fact that she appears to be one. The whole point of this gender fluidity mumbo-jumbo is that biology plays no part and you are the gender you choose to be. Or indeed the genders you want to be, hence the rather confusing personal pronouns ‘them/they’.
This insanity allows a tall bloke dressed in a woman’s swimming costume and with no breasts to unconvincingly pretend to be a woman and compete with women in swimming events and, not surprisingly, win them with ease. After the event, she/her, goes to the locker room with the rest of the team and walks around naked displaying male genitalia. Is it any wonder the female team-mates aren’t too happy?
But this madness even extends to the National Health Service in the UK. In hospitals there are women’s wards and men’s wards for obvious reasons. But now it’s possible for a trans-woman, still with the dangly bits, to be admitted to a women’s ward. So when this happened and someone reported that she had been raped the response was that this was impossible because there are only women in this ward. You must be hallucinating madam.
The following is from the highly regarded UnHerd website in a piece by Andrew Doyle;
“… perhaps the revelation most likely to “peak” members of the public came last week when Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne spoke in the House of Lords about a woman who had allegedly been raped on a hospital ward. Apparently, when police contacted the hospital they were told that there were no men on the single-sex ward, and “therefore the rape could not have happened”.
This kind of gaslighting is part of a policy known as “Annex B”. The NHS accommodates patients by gender identity, not biological sex, and if a female patient complains that there is a man on her ward, she is to be told that this is not true; there are no men present. As the official NHS guidelines make clear: “Views of family members may not accord with the trans person’s wishes, in which case, the trans person’s view takes priority”.
In the same NHS document, it is asserted that sex is “assigned” at birth. Everyone knows that sex is observed and recorded, often before birth, and so it is surprising to see the holy writ of this new religion find its way into an official report. For medical practitioners it is particularly important that there are records of our sex, which is why we each have a unique NHS number to store this information. Yet patients are currently able to change this number on request so that it reflects personal identity rather than biological reality”.
This is truly scary stuff, particularly for biological women, but the idea that a candidate for the Supreme Court in the US can’t even hazard a guess at a definition of a woman is even scarier. How on earth will she deal with gender violence cases if she isn’t a biologist?
I have always been pretty good at defining and identifying women. In fact I have had a 100% success rate thus far although a trip to Thailand would have presented something of a challenge from what I have heard. However, when a Supreme Court nominee has a problem with defining a woman perhaps it’s time to return to the book of Genesis for some guidance on the matter.
You will recall that the Almighty had already created the earth and all the creatures on it in addition to doing some exceptional landscaping in the garden of Eden, complete with irrigation system according to Genesis 2:6. Despite taking the seventh day off for a bit of R&R the Almighty was already back with new plans soon after and decided to create man from “the dust of the ground” and breathed life into his nostrils and, hey presto, man became a living soul. The idea of man being created from a pile of dust hasn’t gone down well with everybody which is why there are conflicting views as to the origin of the human species.
The whole point of creating man, according to the book of Genesis, was to employ a gardener to look after Eden which, judging by the description of the many rivers, animals and trees that had been created, was going to keep Adam pretty busy. The terms of employment were generous for the time. Adam could eat the fruit from whatever tree he wished except for the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (the one with the sign on) in the midst of the garden on pain of death.
When the Almighty realised that he had given Adam a heavy workload and only an hour for lunch he took pity on him and realised that no man should be alone. So he offered to make a “help meet” (take note feminists) for him.
But first he gave him rather an arduous task. According to Genesis 2:19-20 he formed every beast of the earth and fowl of the air and brought them unto Adam to be officially named; not an easy task since language had yet to be invented but Adam no doubt pressed on with the job; one grunt being a Stegosaurus, two grunts a Brontosaurus and so on and a screeching noise representing the various fowls of the air.
Obviously, the Almighty would occasionally ask what the name was of something he had created a few days earlier and Adam would have to rack his brains and try remembering the official noise for a Pterodactyl because the Almighty, being all seeing, would know if he was bluffing.
This exhausting encyclopaedic cataloguing of all the beasts of the field and fowls of the air went on for days but still no “help meet”. Then the Almighty finally relented and put Adam into a deep sleep, opened him up, took out a rib and closed up the flesh again.
From this rib the Almighty made what the book of Genesis refers to as a ‘woman’ and when Adam came round from his deep slumber he did the whole ‘bone of my bones, flesh of my flesh’ speech and officially called his help meet a ‘woman’. Not even a mention of preferred pronouns but that may have been because they were both naked and unashamed. That was soon to change though.
So there you have it Judge Brown Jackson. Unless you are made from the dust of the ground then the chances are that you are a woman. Other clues are the ability to have children, the unique ownership of certain body parts and the unwillingness to take the rubbish bin out on a Thursday.
When you do make it to the Supreme Court (as I’m sure you will) do feel free to join the rest of us in the real world because I’m sure your judgements will carry far more weight if people don’t think they come from a woke, virtue signalling nutter.