If you haven't been keeping track, we have reached the point of late-stage Republic collapse where our highest-ranking judicial authorities are literally incapable of quantifying the absolute most rock-bottom basic uncomplicated definitions of the human species.
This kind of deranged mendaciousness boggles the mind. It is almost literally beyond parody. It's like a bad skit from MadTV or something.
In any event, Judge Jackson's own befuddled gyrations aside, you do not actually need to be "a biologist" to define what a woman is (and by extension what a man is). These are actually very easy, direct, non-technical concepts that are very accessible to even the most uneducated and uninformed among us (such as, apparently, Ketanji Brown Jackson).
In brief, to define men and women, one is required simply and only to qualify them thusly:
A woman is a member of the human species whose reproductive system is ordered toward being impregnated, gestating and giving birth. A man is a member of the human species whose reproductive system is ordered toward impregnating.
That really is it! It's no more or less complicated than that.
Congratulations: By learning this absolutely basic scientific fact, you just ran like eight laps around a Harvard graduate and Supreme Court nominee!
If you want to expand outside the purely biological data, however, and get into more about what it means to be human on a spiritual level, Erik Reed has a pretty good definition too.
Now, because we live in a society where it has become commonplace to deny bare-bones, inarguable facts such as these ones, there are bound to be a few people who note biological anomalies such as being "intersex" or lacking certain components to reproduce.
Looking at it, again, purely from the biological sense and not the spiritual understanding of the Imago Dei, just because you take away one constituent function of a thing does not mean the thing itself ceases to be, or else fundamentally changes.
Suppose you commission a contractor to build you a house. He does it entirely to your specifications except he leaves out a critical component of the house—the storm windows, say. You would understandably ask for your money back.
What you would not do is declare that the house was not actually a house by dint of its lacking windows. Indeed, you would say exactly the opposite: "This house does not have windows!" But it's still a house.
A man or woman who lacks reproductive functions is still a man or woman per the literal biological definition. This is quite easy and not at all complicated. There is no need to act as if it is a difficult question in need of a specialist to answer it.
Hope this helps, Your Honor!
P.S. Now check out our latest video 👇