Did you ever wonder about the real reason liberals call people with penises women? I’ve thought about it and the only thing I’ve come up with is so that liberal men can enjoy what they like without identifying as gay. If men who dress in skirts are the same as biological women, then women who identify as men are the same as people who were born men. So, how many women are dominating men’s sports?
USA Today on Thursday cited “science” to suggest that “there is no simple answer” to the question of what a woman is. Sounds like they are sexually confused. It seems pretty simple to me. A woman is a person who was not born with a penis and can give birth. The paper was trying to provide cover for SCOTUS nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, who said she couldn’t define what a woman is because she is not a biologist. It was one of the dumbest answers she provided to the Senate.
I think it would be hilarious if Joe Biden would yank her nomination and give it to a transgender woman. After all, a transgender who was born male was selected as a Woman of the Year and the female swimmer of the year isn’t someone who was born a woman either. So either biological men have an advantage or we have the poorest crop of women in history.
“Scientists agree 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,” the newspaper confidently told its readers, later adding, “While traditional notions of sex and gender suggest a simple binary — if you are born with a penis, you are male and identify as a man and if you are born with a vagina, you are female and identify as a woman — the reality, gender experts say, is more complex.”
To articulate its point, the paper trotted out not scientists but prominent progressive gender studies scholars such as Barnard College’s Rebecca Jordan-Young, UCLA’s Juliet Williams, Wheaton College’s Kate Mason, and Harvard-educated “philosopher of biology” Sarah Richardson.
Here are some reactions to this story:
NewsBusters managing editor Curtis Houck called the report “truly insane,” adding, “This isn’t a column, editorial, guest op-ed, or even one of those you might see labeled as ‘analysis.’ This is a news article from USA Today’s ‘Health & Wellness’ section.”
This — from USA Today — is truly insane.
"Marsha Blackburn asked Ketanji Brown Jackson to define 'woman.' Science says there's no simple answer." https://t.co/b4LzJg3y1b
— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) March 24, 2022
Conservative commentator Erick Erickson mocked USA Today’s inability to determine womanhood in light of archaeologists’ comparative ease in doing so on thousand-year-old skeletons.
This USA Today story is amazing. It posits that scientists cannot determine what a woman is, but we can dig up 9000 year old skeletons and make that determination. https://t.co/OmBbF19bL4 pic.twitter.com/Bu2GCrfgYI
— Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) March 25, 2022
If USA Today had any credibility left (they don't), they laughably lost it in this utterly nonsensical "story." Real science has an answer.
USA Today: Science says there’s no simple answer to the definition of ‘woman’ https://t.co/8XiqO851Ot via @twitchyteam
— Gov. Mike Huckabee (@GovMikeHuckabee) March 25, 2022
— Jerry Dunleavy (@JerryDunleavy) March 24, 2022
I guess science is a social construct. pic.twitter.com/70a7hDW0l4
— Jay Caruso (@JayCaruso) March 24, 2022