Can You Define “Woman”? Let’s Try.

During the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, Senator Marsha Blackburn asked a now-infamous question:

"Can you provide a definition for the word ‘woman’?"

Jackson’s response was simple: “No, I can’t.”

Blackburn was fishing for a gotcha moment, trying to push the idea that defining a woman is simple—biological, black and white. But the reality is, it’s not. And trying to pin it down with one rigid definition excludes and erases millions of women.

Can I provide a definition for the word woman? No. And neither can you.

But let’s give it a shot.

Imagine I have a little jar, and I’m going to fill it with all the things that supposedly make a woman.

• Reproduction

• Gender Stereotypes

• Anatomy

• DNA

Is this what you consider a woman?

Now let’s start taking things out.

• What if I remove the ability to reproduce? Still a woman?

• What about someone who has a hysterectomy? Still a woman?

• What if we take away gender stereotypes? Still a woman?

• What if the DNA is a little different? Still a woman?

The minute you try to define womanhood by one single thing, you start erasing every woman who doesn’t fit into your definition.

Women are more than their bodies. More than biology. More than gender roles.

A woman is a woman—because she says she is.