I haven’t been following the Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Ketanji Brown Jackson (CNN) closely, but it seems that nobody could apply for the job unless he/she/ze/they identified as a “Black woman”. From state-sponsored NPR:
PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: The person I will nominate will be someone with extraordinary qualifications, character, experience and integrity. And that person will be the first Black woman ever nominated to the United States Supreme Court. It’s long overdue in my view.
A person who switches racial identity from white to Black may be condemned (see Nkechi Amare Diallo, formerly “Rachel Dolezal”), but we celebrate those who change gender identity from “man” to “woman” (see Rachel Levine, for example).
If a Black judge who previously identified as a “man” had, after Dr. Biden’s husband announced his hiring policy, said “I identify as a woman and am proud to be a member of the 2SLGBTQQIA+ community”, would that judge then have become eligible for the Supreme Court position?
William Thomas, for example, who was nominated by President Obama (see “Rubio Withdraws Support for Gay Black Judge’s Nomination to the Federal Bench” (NYT)) and who continues to serve as a judge in a Florida state court. Judge Thomas was already identified by the newspaper of record as “Black” and, under our prevailing theories of gender, only Judge Thomas can pick his/her/zir/their gender ID. What would have stopped Judge Thomas from being considered for the Supreme Court job as a “Black woman”?
Related:
- “Just Two Native American Federal Judges Serve—Lauren King May Be The Third” (Forbes 2021) proves that diversity is not a positive value when hiring people who whose job includes interpreting treaties with Native American nations
How can anyone identify as a woman, when even a supreme ct nominee can’t define what a woman is? (the esteemed KBJ said she couldn’t define “woman” because she is not a biologist – so did she imply that being a woman is based on biology and not a social construct?)
The conservative sites are mocking Brown for not being able to define a woman without the help of a biologist, but I suspect that the liberal are more unhappy with her for saying that biologists define who is a woman. The politically correct answer should have been that woman is defined by one’s chosen gender identity.
https://nypost.com/2022/03/23/sen-blackburn-slams-judge-jackson-on-definition-of-woman/
is interesting. But maybe it doesn’t matter. Although Uncle Joe is apparently free to practice race-based and sex-based discrimination when hiring (by saying that he will hire only people whom he deems to be “Black women”), the law is supposed to be gender ID-neutral, right? So should there be any cases that hinge on whether someone is a “woman”?
Merriam Webster: “an adult female person”, which raises the question “What’s female?” Their second definition is “having a gender identity that is the opposite of male”. So we just need to know what the elements of male gender identity are and then invert them to figure out what is “female”. But, of course, the dictionary is not helpful for this because “male” is simply “the opposite of female.”
This is a GREAT idea.
wiki says Jackson has Harvard and Harvard Law education. And still not sure what a man or woman is. Impressive education. Maybe that should be an SAT question. It’s possible there is too much birth control getting excreted into the drinking water that is hazing the boundaries.
Supreme Court nominees that attended Harvard may have difficulty identifying men / women / they / zir / ze but at least one branch of Fed Gov knows the difference,
https://www.sss.gov/
“Federal Law requires nearly all-male US citizens and male immigrants, 18 through 25, register with Selective Service.
philg:
You posit a hypothetical and then ask: “would that judge then have become eligible for the Supreme Court position?”
The answer is clearly yes!
(Since He/She is a Harvard Law grad. Yale would have been ok too, but anything less is too deplorable.)
And she would have had a higher intersectionality points score too.
To play it safe (Biden could still get a 2nd appointment) this judge should immediately become gender fluid with a short enough ttl so that it regardless of what gender box Biden chooses to check next (s)he/xir/them can qualify for during the time a vacancy (actual or future) is announced & when Dr. Jill tells him who to pick.
I think Judge Thomas should start with “she/her (ttl = 1 fortnight)” pronouns for starters.
What’s interesting about identity politics is that in many if not most cases race, which has the least basis in biology, is the case where it is the least acceptable for people to redefine themselves. Where gender, which has a very clear biological basis, is apparently a social construct and it is really up to people to decide for themselves.
Rachel Dolezal defining herself as a black person is almost criminal, even though I do not think there is any accepted biological definition of what black is or isn’t.
Whereas a white man can go from being at the peak of the social privilege pyramid, and therefore at the bottom of the victimhood olympics, and simply declare themselves a transgender woman, and ascend to the top podium position of the victimhood games.
As more and more transgender women, that is biologically male athletes, take over women’s sports, I assume that this charade will collapse.
Since the social justice machinations are all about economics and power, the woke have developed the concept of “good faith” and “bad faith”, which always overrides the rules that our esteemed host tries to understand.
Therefore, if the real goal of the tyrants was to install a Black birthing person, any attempt of a Black non-birthing person to pose as a “woman” would have been deemed as “in bad faith”, which results in the offender’s excommunication.
The woke and their globalist handlers make up the rules as they go along.
Photo of Ketanji Brown Jackson, when she was a contestant on the tv show “Wheel of Fortune”, and was unable to solve the puzzle: https://imgur.com/a/URgTWLG
Off topic, but another good reason to move your family to Florida and have your kids educated in Florida:
New Florida Law Makes Financial Literacy Class a Requirement for High School Graduation
https://www.theepochtimes.com/new-florida-law-makes-financial-literacy-class-a-requirement-for-high-school-graduation_4354547.html?utm_source=partner&utm_campaign=ZeroHedge
GermanL: It sounds like a great goal, but they didn’t make the school day longer so it raises the question of what will NOT be taught in order to make room for this financial literacy class. Same question when schools in the Northeast and California teach anti-racism, 2SLGBTQQIA+ doctrine, etc.
(Also, will this be real financial literacy or a false narrative like students are fed regarding the American Revolution? For example, will students learn that collecting welfare in Maskachusetts leads to a higher spending power than working full time at the median wage? Will they learn that, assuming the state is chosen competently, having sex with two mid-career dentists leads, via child support, to roughly the same spending power as working as a dentist? Will they learn that real estate speculation can pay far more than working 16 hours/day at two jobs? (see https://www.zillow.com/research/home-value-appreciation-incomes-30862/ “Home value appreciation in 2021 was higher than median wages in 25 of 38 major metropolitan areas, with appreciation reaching higher than $100,000 in 11 of them.”))
@philg, you answered your first question: time taken from indoctrinating kids which recent Florida law prohibited could be used for financial education.
Other questions maybe, but in the right real world context that shows cost of lifestyle choice.
You should suggest your real world divorce as one of the materials to be used in the class. Maybe with projects to re-enact it. As far as I know MA school neither teach relying on public/dental spouse support for life as an occupation.