Jackson’s Ongoing Struggle to Define Basic Realities
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who famously dodged defining “woman” during her 2022 confirmation by claiming, “I’m not a biologist,” appears no closer to clarity nearly four years later.
Her recent questioning during oral arguments in two pivotal women’s sports cases—West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox—highlights a troubling reluctance to acknowledge straightforward biological distinctions.
In these cases, the ACLU is challenging state laws in Idaho and West Virginia that safeguard women’s athletics by excluding males, arguing such measures unconstitutionally discriminate based on s-x and gender identity.
She pressed West Virginia Solicitor General Michael Williams on perceived unfairness, stating: “For cisgender girls, they can play consistent with their gender identity, [for transgender girls] they can’t.”
Williams countered that this actually proves the law isn’t targeting transgender status but rather ensuring males don’t compete in women’s sports, explaining: “That’s useful evidence as to the lack of a transgender-based discrimination, because if the legislature were just sort of unsettled by the notion of transgender athletes, I think the answer would have been to bar them” from sports.
Flawed Inquiries Expose Jackson’s Disconnect in Key Exchanges
Delving deeper, Jackson challenged Idaho Solicitor General Alan Hurst on why the law doesn’t amount to discrimination based on gender identity, asking: “The law expressly aims to ensure that transgender women can’t play on women’s sports teams, so why is that not a classification on the basis of [transgender status]?”
Hurst clarified the focus is on biological s-x, not identity, noting: “The question is whether the application of the law turns on transgender status, and it doesn’t. It turns on s-x. The legislature did not want to exclude transgender people from sports, it wanted to keep women’s sports women-only and exclude [males from women’s sports].”
Undeterred, Jackson continued: “But with respect to two individuals, a cis woman and a trans woman, who both want to play on a team that reflects their gender identity, this law operates differently based on their s-x, right?”
Hurst affirmed it differentiates by s-x, adding: “The law does operate differently based on their s-x, as your honor just said. It does not operate differently based on their transgender identity.”
She persisted: “But it treats transgender women differently than cisgender women, doesn’t it?”
Ideological Wordplay Clouds Judgment on Women’s Rights
Throughout the arguments, Jackson employed terms like “cisgender girls,” “transgender girls,” and “girl assigned at birth,” which critics argue serve to blur undeniable biological truths and advance a fringe ideology at the expense of fairness.
While not a biologist herself, her approach risks entertaining dissents that prioritize activism over judicial impartiality in safeguarding women’s opportunities.
Do you think Jackson is a solid Supreme Court Justice? Comment with your thoughts down below!
