Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s courtroom dance around basic biology is back in the spotlight as the Supreme Court grapples with transgender athletes competing in women’s sports. Remember 2022? During her confirmation hearings, when pressed by Sen. Marsha Blackburn to define woman, Jackson demurred with that now-infamous line: I’m not a biologist. Fast-forward to today’s oral arguments in cases challenging Biden’s Title IX expansions, and she’s still sidestepping, fumbling questions on sex-based distinctions like they’re quantum physics. It’s not just a gotcha moment—it’s a glaring symptom of judicial relativism where facts bow to ideology, and it should send chills down the spine of every 2A advocate.

This isn’t some abstract philosophy debate; it’s a masterclass in how activist judges erode objective truth, the same slippery slope that’s gunning for our Second Amendment rights. If Jackson can’t—or won’t—pin down woman as an adult human female (a definition rooted in immutable biology, not feelings), what’s stopping her from redefining arms to exclude AR-15s or militia to mean only government-approved forces? We’ve seen it before: Heller affirmed individual rights grounded in historical reality, but postmodern justices like Jackson treat the Constitution as a vibe check. Her biology blind spot mirrors the left’s assault on 2A, where assault weapons become whatever scares the right people, ignoring facts like how rifles are used in a tiny fraction of crimes (FBI stats: under 3% of murders).

For the 2A community, this is a rallying cry—demand judges who grasp reality, not word salads. If SCOTUS can’t define woman, how can we trust them to defend shall not be infringed? Arm up, stay vigilant; the battle for clarity in law is as critical as the one at the range.