In March 2022, Ketanji Brown Jackson said something rather unexpected during her confirmation hearings: She has no idea what a woman is. Last week, in a newly released opinion, Brown Jackson kept using feminine pronouns (she/her) to describe a biological man. She is either profoundly stupid or as intent as any other leftist on destroying Western culture by denying reality.

You probably remember Brown Jackson’s remarkable confession of ignorance:

When asked to define “woman” by Republican Senator Marsha Blackburn, she replied, “I can’t…I’m not a biologist.” Blackburn shot back, “The meaning of the word woman is so unclear and controversial that you can’t give me a definition?”

“Senator, in my work as a judge, what I do is I address disputes. If there’s a dispute about a definition, people make arguments and I look at the law and I decide,” Jackson added, reiterating the methodical judicial approach she has historically applied.

From time immemorial, all human beings over the age of three have been able to define a woman, although they may use common, even childish, language to do so. Significantly Western culture was built on a nuclear family model that revolves around the male-female binary.

Image: Ketanji Brown Jackson, who may not even be clear that she is a woman. YouTube screen grab.

For Brown Jackson, all that was irrelevant. She’s like the French Revolutionaries who, in 1793, abandoned the Gregorian calendar (too religious) in favor of their own calendar. Sure, they’d still have twelve months, but they’d consist of three weeks per month, with ten days in a week, ten hours in a day, 100 minutes in an hour, and 100 seconds in a minute. Yes, decimals are easier to calculate, but the whole system wouldn’t work, given that it abandoned the reality of Earth’s elliptical rotation around the sun:

The [Gregorian] calendar establishes a year as the time it takes for the earth to revolve around the sun. In practical terms, that is 365.2425 days, or rather 365 days 1 day every leap year.

So while it sounded logical for the French to have 10 days per week, and 3 weeks per month for 12 months, that only gave the Revolutionaries 360 days.

That same “denial of reality” madness characterizes Brown Jackson and other leftists who resist the immutability of the gender binary. The problem is that Brown Jackson has a very powerful position in American politics and culture—and she used (or, more accurately, abused) that position to place gender madness directly into American law, via Santos-Zacarioa v. Garland.

The case’s facts are simple. An illegal alien who challenges a removal order must exhaust administrative remedies. The question before the Court was whether the administrative remedies at issue were applied appropriately. That’s standard fare for Supreme Court cases that don’t make headlines.

In this instance, the headline comes, not from the holding, but from the first paragraph:

Petitioner Leon Santos-Zacaria (who goes by the name Estrella) fled her native Guatemala in her early teens. She has testified that she left that country, and fears returning, because she suffered physical harm and faced death threats as a transgender woman who is attracted to men. (Emphasis mine.)

(The gender madness continues throughout the opinion.)

In other words, a homosexual man named Leon thinks he is a woman and does not want to return to Guatemala, because he may be harmed there.

Before even getting to the point about Brown Jackson’s abuse of the English language and reality, it’s worth noting that America is a haven for people suffering from this particular mental illness. That contradicts the narrative from the so-called “transgender” crowd that they require special accommodations and courtesies because they are at perpetual risk here.

Rather disappointingly, none of the conservative justices took a stand against this madness. Perhaps they felt silenced because of Justice Gorsuch’s foul decision holding that the 1964 Civil Rights Act, by using the term “sex,” encompasses homosexuality and gender dysphoria, something Congress never contemplated at the time. In this regard, Gorsuch is not a conservative. His textualism (looking only at the words and not their meaning when enacted) means that he is every bit as much a judicial activist as those leftists who rely on the made-up concept of “substantive due process” (which means, “we rewrite the Constitution without bothering with amendments”).

Last week, Joe Biden spoke at Howard University’s graduation ceremony. Many have noted that he did his best to sow racial discord by insisting that the worst threat these privileged, credentialed students face in life is white people. What was less remarked upon was his saying that Brown Jackson is “brighter than the rest [of the Supreme Court justices].”

Maybe he’s right. I’ve thought her remarkably stupid but, in a single decision, she has attempted to bootstrap so-called transgenderism into the canon of American law.