Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson Declines To Define 'Woman' Because She's 'Not A Biologist,' Sparking Memes Amid Supreme Court Confirmation - Comment #5,951,934

You are rather missing the point.
If you hand someone a bit of granite, then pretty much everyone says it is a rock. What about sand that has been weted and dried? Most would reasonably say that is not a rock. Now, what of extremely brittle sandstone that crumbs to the touch? Can you clearly and explicitly tell me why that is/is not a rock? What about chalk? What about iron oxide concretions? Most people "know" what a rock is. Very few people can give a clear definition that encompasses everything that is and excludes everything that isn't.

You are acting as if defining what "is a woman" is so incredibly easy that it is laughable someone does not want to do it. However, when asked, you in fact made no attempt to define it yourself. My point is that most attempts by non-experts to define things to clearly include all of the thing intended and exclude everything not is very likely going to have Diogenees bring forth a plucked chicken. For a thought experiment that's kind of funny. For someone who deals with interpreting laws at the highest levels of government, how they say and define certain things will have impacts on people's lives for decades to come.

"…defining what "is a woman" is so incredibly easy that it is laughable someone does not want to do it.

Correct.

"If someone hands you a rock and you act like you don't know what it is you're either an idiot or you're being obtuse on purpose."

That's not what happened here though. She didn't point at a specific example and ask "is that a woman?". She asked for a definition. If you give me a rock and ask me "is this a rock?", unless I think you're trying to trick me I'll assume it probabaly is. At the same time, I definitely couldn't tell you off the top of my head with certainty what the actual definition of a rock is. All I can say is that I mostly know one when I see one.

By not answering the question, she isn't being obtuse. She's just being aware of the fact that there is currently a lot of debate over the what constitutes gender and she doesn't feel qualified to weigh in in such a public forum. Presumably you just want her to say "someone with a vagina", but that's just your opinion, which isn't an expert opinion, and not the objective fact you wish it was.

Okay, then do it like I have been asking. Provide to me said definition that includes all people who "are women" and excludes everything that is "not a women". You cannot use circuitous logic (human females). I have requested this clear definition to be provided in both posts and am still awaiting this easy definition.

With all due respect, I don't understand why you claim "human female" used in the definition of "woman" is circuitous.

An organism of the "female" sex is one which produces non-mobile gametes during sexual reproduction. Do you disagree?

A/n "X female" is an organism X of the female sex. Do you disagree?

If we define the word "woman" as equivalent to "adult human female", then a "woman" is an "adult human which produces non-mobile gametes during sexual reproduction." Is this circuitous?

Now I know a counter-argument would ask about someone who is post-menopause or who is naturally sterile. I will grant it seems unfair to say my mom, for example, is no longer a woman. We could expand the definition then as: a "woman" is an "adult human which produces, produced, or could have produced, exclusively non-mobile gametes during sexual reproduction."

I believe the issue here is you are searching for a top-down definition (having a preconceived notion of what you want to be a "woman" and so trying to find a definition to suit that preconception) rather than a bottom-up one (having set characteristics to be satisfied).

The issue with the former means to define things is that, depending on the group of things you want to find a definition for, you can result in under-constrained definitions. 1/2

For example, suppose I want to define what it means for something to be "alive". I decide animals, plants, bacteria, fungi, and viruses are all alive. I might say that to be "alive" is to have the capacity, have had the capacity, or potentially have the capacity, to reproduce. Effectively that's all these things have in common. However, such a definition then means that computer viruses would also be alive, as would stars. Rejecting the latter things as being "alive", I've come to an impasse. The group of things I want to be "alive" do not have a universal characteristic exclusive to the group, so a top-down definition is not possible. Indeed, what I've found is that at least one thing in my group is necessarily NOT alive.

As a (rather shitty) mathematician, my perspective is that top-down definitions are pleasing, but bottom-up definitions are more meaningful. 2/2

So, I do appreciate the attempt, and that is not to say that it lacks merit, far from it. But the actual purpose is somewhat glossed over.

1. The argument is mainly over Sumarios' claim "this is something easy to define, anyone who choses not to do so and defers to more qualified people is dumb". You will notice that despite this claim being the entire subject of the conversation, when requested to actually show how easy it is by defining it themselves, they also fail to do so.

2. My point is that, from any sort of legal standpoint, if you are defining something, you have to be extremely clear, as any sort of exception is going to be potentially abused, exploited, or leave people out. Both top down and bottom up have their advantages and disadvantages. Most people run on a "bottom up" definition, and most of the time in the vernacular that is fine. But when it comes to legal talk, I felt it important to instead emphasize that if one only goes with a basic "bottom up" definition, then you will inherently exclude individuals that most reasonable (yes, I realize how loaded that term is) people would say should be included. Even the definition you provide isn't without issues that some would have, but I digress.

3. Most importantly, and I can't blame you for not knowing this, but Sumarios is an alt of user "technoshaman" which they created around an hour after they were warned. Instead of just going with SOP of spambanning the alt and leave some to think that "dissenting opinions were suppressed" I decided to engage them to highlight the point that there is in fact merit to deferring to people with more knowledge instead of trying to preemptively stop Diogenes.

I see; I apologize for becoming unnecessarily focused on one facet of the discourse at the exclusion of the rest.

1. It appears to me then that Sumarios must, by their own assertion, think themself dumb lol

2. I do not disagree with the need for precise language in law- it is the same in mathematics. And I must confess, part of my second response was going to concede that very point you've made regarding the limitations of bottom-up definitions; however, I removed it when trying to condense my response down to the 1500 character limit and never reintroduced it when I realized I couldn't. And indeed my definition is lacking: trans-women would be excluded. I do hold the view that well-passing trans-women ought to be treated as women; however, I think they are just that: trans-women. My issue is finding how best to define trans-women, then defining "woman" in the legal context could be to include both "woman" in the social context as well as "trans-woman" but now I am digressing.

Actually, now that I've thought about it, that's what the cis prefix is for. I need to think about this more.

That's not only reasonable but quite respectable. Thank you for using your powers for good.