The big high-court gender non-reveal

I am might be woman, hear me roar! — Helen Reddy

It just hit the Head Groundskeeper! Maybe because he’s a little slow like Uncle Joe at the Junction, Petticoat Junction. It is the most important question to come out of the confirmation hearing. Ketanji Brown Jackson, nominated for the U.S. Supreme Court, can’t define what is a woman — because s/he’s not a biologist!

Don’t know much biology, or the French I took!— Sam Cooke and Herman’s Hermits.

Perhaps the President will fill the next court vacancy with a board-certified biologist. In history (apparently another elective at Harvard University) heroes were known by sobriquets like “Great Emancipator” and “The Great Compromiser.” Ketanji Brown Jackson may go down as the “Great Equivocater.” (“Great Pretender” is already taken, by the Platters.) Small price to pay for getting the Democrats’ vote but don’t expert her them to join Ali Muldrow’s quest for menstrual equity.

Austin Powers that's a man, baby!

When we could still laugh

From our side of the aisle, the lady’s answer (Oops, there we go again!) is symptomatic of today’s progressive gender dysphasia. The woman (Oops, squared!) is now a hero(ine) to millions of Woke progressives.

President Biden said one of the reasons he nominated her them was that s/he was female — a black woman. (The third, unspoken, is that s/he’s progressive as Bernie Sanders in a wet Ché tee shirt.)

National Lampoon cartoon: Black man in sunglasses begging on a street corner. His hand-lettered sign reads: “Please help me. I am blind and I think I may be black.”

The Werkes surmises that Kentanji Brown Jackson thinks s/he may be female — is almost positive — but doesn’t want to diss the BIPOCs, a key constituency of “the base.” Not with Lia Thomas on a winning streak in women’s swim meets! Which is the kind of case that may very well work its way up to the high court.

In which case, Ketanji Brown Jackson is one smart, non-cisgendered cookie. Undoubtedly, was a very effective public defender — a proclivity s/he seems to have retained on the bench, given the consideration shown to child pornographers.

Lia Thomas wins women's swim meet

Ghislaine Maxwell hasn’t killed herself, yet

And no, raising the issue is not QAnon, thank you very much MSNBC. We repeat Ruy Teixeira’s “Fox News Fallacy.” The idea that “if Fox News criticizes the Democrats for X, then there must be absolutely nothing to X and the job of Democrats is to assert that loudly and often.” Crime being one example; gender bendering being another. On that issue, we think Sen. Hawley has the nominee by the … short hairs. Ketanji is Chicago “prosecutor” Kim Fox, but in judicial robes.

“I’m a man, yes I am, and I can’t help but love you so.” — Spencer Davis Group.

At this point, the Werkes begs forgiveness from Woke spirts attempting to cancel Mel Brooks. We really do empathize with the suffering a transgender person must go through. Identify as what you will. We’re not asking, please don’t tell. But we get off the bus at drag queen story hour.

“Hey, teachers! Leave the kids alone.” — Pink Floyd.

Blaska’s Bottom LineWe hope Sen. Marsha Blackburn be permitted a follow-up question to ask the nominee: Can you write your name in cursive in the snow without using a pencil?

Well, can YOU?

About David Blaska

Madison WI
This entry was posted in Critical Race Theory / Identity politics, Progressives, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to The big high-court gender non-reveal

  1. Bill Rock says:

    Another classic effort Mr. Blaska.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. pANTIFArts says:

    Since the dawn of civilization, society has been faced with two concerns. Sometimes these concerns conflict, and sometimes not, but they are not mutually exclusive.

    The first is some form of compassion, protecting the “few” from the “many”, shielding marginalized groups from oppression by society at large.

    The second is social order, protecting the “many” from the “few”, preventing any destructive proclivities of small groups from being directed toward the general populace, and inciting fear within it.

    Woke Progressivism has taken “compassion” and morphed it into something I would call “Socio-Normative Oppression Theory” (SNOT). In this school of thought, any restraint imposed by society upon the desires of an individual constitutes OPPRESSION.

    CRIMINALS, who enjoy all the perks that society offers, yet desire to prey upon that society, must be allowed to do so. This instills a fear of crime in the vulnerable population.

    MISCREANT STUDENTS, given the luxury of a modern education free of charge, yet desiring to bully and antagonize staff and fellow students, must be allowed to do so. This instills fear of physical violence in staff and fellow students.

    TRANS-GENDER ATHLETES, for whom every concession is made (save one, “trans-competition”) in order “to live their dream”, MUST NOT be denied this final victory. This instills fear in biological women for loss of privacy, and nullification of personal accomplishments.

    I could continue, this list is far from complete, but I want you to see the pattern here.

    Each and every “compassionate”, seemingly altruistic, “woke action” targets a vulnerability in our civilization. Every (divisive) act of EQUITY seeks to make another “rip in the fabric of society”, eventually to see it in tatters. I may have simply made-up the above term SNOT, but I did not make up the term ANARCHISM.

    The “woke” may claim that it is compassion, but “itSNOT”.

    Liked by 2 people

    • pANTIFArts says:

      The mention in the column of Drag Queen Story Hour points to another probable effort to weaponize an unusual, yet seemingly innocuous, behavior. Most “Drag Queens” are probably homosexual males, some may be truck drivers with an odd hobby, I don’t know. Their main interest seems to be dressing in a garish manner and performing to audiences with an appetite for that sort of entertainment. Taking the show to children, depending on the performer’s manner of dress, is probably harmless. (A fellow commenter once said the children would see them as a type of “clown”, for NO woman dresses like that) Story Hour, in itself, with voluntary attendance, is just another “performance”. But, I suspect that the agenda is to “normalize” this activity until it can be imposed upon the children of parents who disapprove of, or fear their child’s exposure to it. In this case, Fear and Outrage are the goals rather than actual harm, with children as useful pawns.

      Another “rip in the fabric”.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Cornelius_Gotchberg says:

        “Drag Queen Story Hour”

        A Drag Queen is the ultimate form of cultural appropriation.

        Since the Wokerati possesses absolutely no ability to recognize nuance, exercise imagination, perform analysis, or summon critical/independent thought, this falls to the lucid to explain to the Great Unwashed.

        The Gotch


    • Rollie says:

      This is quite interesting in the context of an American culture that indeed claims to value individual freedom. The boogy-man “woke” you speak of are defined more by the imagination of the right than by actual humans. Your description of “their” objectives are clearly alive in your imagination, and definitely fueled by media, but not particularly accurate among any of “the woke” I’ve ever met. I’m sure you can dig up some crazy person whom you’ll be convinced represents millions of people. I’m happy that you have an enemy to hate, I’m sure this provides meaning for you.

      Speaking for myself, and not as an official representative of “the woke”: Oppression occurs when an individual gains from another’s labor, or when a group restricts any individual freedom that does not negatively impact another person’s freedom. Oppression also occurs when humans are restricted from access to food and water sources. I literally can’t imagine what a world without oppression would be like, as it is so deeply ingrained in human culture (so far).

      To me, rethinking criminal justice isn’t an effort to let criminals take over, but rather an effort to actually reduce crime by not unquestioningly “doing it the way we always did”.

      So yes, as you say, “any restraint imposed by society upon the desires of an individual constitutes OPPRESSION.” And in our democracy we are to determine where the line shall be be; there will always be some degree of oppression in any large, cohesive society. I welcome, and do not fear, a vigorous debate and diverse viewpoint on this important issue.


  3. richard lesiak says:

    Grandstanding nonsense by the gop. “Can’t define a woman”? If that’s all you got to ask this lady then yo don’t deserve to be asking any questions. That’s something a 7 year old child would ask a mother. Bunch of dumb-asses.


    • georgessson says:

      “Richard-the-short-minded-Dick…” A 7 year old kid askin’ mom to define a woman deserves a sincere answer, as does this question directed at the SC nominee. Why always deflect or conflate the issue at hand. Wait, never mind -it’s summed up in my salutation….

      Liked by 2 people

    • One eye says:

      The question is better put to Biden. He promised to nominate a black woman to SCOTUS.
      So what was his criteria for determining that Jackson is a woman? He would likely answer with the highly scientific “C’mon man!”. It’s actually not a bad answer.


  4. Bill Cleary says:

    Tucker Carlson did a great segment on this called: “What is a woman? “located here:

    The one thing that cracked me up was the part where one person asks another person how can she say that the guy swimming in the woman’s NCAA race is a guy. The person asking the question then asks her is she a biologist to which she replies that she is not a veterinarian but she knows what a dog is.

    I think that we have come to the intersection in the road where the book 1984 is coming more and more real.

    How many fingers am I holding up.

    Liked by 3 people

  5. Montgomery Scott says:

    Don’t know much biology, or the French I took!— Sam Cooke and Herman’s Hermits.

    Hey, Head Groundskeeper! You forgot to list the version of “Wonderful World” done by Paul Simon, Art Garfunkel, and James Taylor. It hit #17 in the Top 40 in the middle of the Disco Insanity era in 1978. A bit of sunshine in the middle of the disco blight of my high school years…


  6. Rollie says:

    Things are so simple until they’re not. There are actual humans born naturally intersex, having elements of both male and female sexual organs. In those cases it isn’t quite as straight forward to determine a binary gender, and surgical choices are often made to put the individual into one side or the other, but those are not always medically necessary but rather socially influenced. So someone smart enough to know the actual complexity of life might not wish to off handedly define gender. Someone ignorant will often jump to the chance to proudly demonstrate ignorance.


    • pANTIFArts says:

      Your last sentence is profound. Now read it slowly, and think about it.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Rollie says:

        Thou whom think themselves informed and rational, engage in the debate and point out the false statements. Illuminate. Defend your position. I’ll defend mine to the point where rational thinking ends and faith begins. It’s a fact that there are those born intersex. What logically follows from that fact? In my mind it is the subjectivity of gender. Yours?


  7. Madtownforsure says:

    Wonder if the Metoo movement people know what a woman is? If not then why did they put up such a fuss? Movement is dead now anyway.


Comments are closed.