Defining ‘woman’ is complicated for everyone, including Supreme Court nominees | The Grammarian

On the surface, it seems it should be the easiest dictionary question in the world. That’s what makes it so dangerous.

“Can you provide a definition for the word woman?”

Until recently, Tennessee Sen. Marsha Blackburn would never have dreamed of asking such a question in a Supreme Court confirmation hearing, as she did last week of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson. But in 2022, Blackburn properly deduced that she could score a few right-wing culture-warrior points by leaning into GOP anxieties over gender and shifting popular perceptions of it.

Jackson’s response — “No, I can’t. … Not in this context. I’m not a biologist” — sent many Republicans into predictable fits of apoplexy.

Fox News sent out a push alert. Lookups of woman on Merriam-Webster spiked. Tucker Carlson proudly displayed his science-fair drawing of a uterus.

By definition, I’m a definitions guy. Dictionaries are invaluable tools in our inexorable quest to be as precise and concise as possible. But as I’ve written previously, dictionaries are an ideal place to start your search and a terrible place to stop.

The definition of woman, which Blackburn faux-pretended was the easiest question she could ask, is a case in point.

» READ MORE: The disrespect Ketanji Brown Jackson faced was intentional — and all too common | Helen Ubiñas

Look up the noun woman in Merriam-Webster and the first definition reads, “an adult female person.” Look up the noun female and its definition is: “a female person: a woman or a girl.”

The logic is as circular as Tucker Carlson’s illustrated fallopian tubes.

The adjective female definition is just as problematic: “of, relating to, or being the sex that bears young or produces eggs.” Plenty of women don’t produce eggs. But, to Jackson’s point, that’s why biology textbooks are more than just medical dictionaries.

Matters are even murkier in the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines woman as: “An adult female human being. The counterpart of man.”

Surely the man definition is almost identical? No such luck: “An adult male human being. Contrasted with a woman.” You read that right: Men are “contrasted” with women, whereas women are man’s “counterpart.” Oof.

The OED defines female, meanwhile, as: “That belongs to the sex which can bear offspring” — ignoring, of course, that many women cannot bear offspring.

But as problematic as these dictionary definitions are, when one becomes mired in them — that is, when you attempt to answer Blackburn’s asinine question — you’ve already lost the battle. Blackburn wasn’t interested in the judge’s definition; she wanted to see how the judge answered the question. Any response would be unsatisfactory … even the dictionary definition, which is profoundly incomplete.

It’s easy to see why lookups for woman skyrocketed. People want answers, but they want those answers to be simple — which the truth rarely is. You can look up the definitions of brick and mortar, but that doesn’t mean you know how to build a house. Merriam and Webster don’t forgo complete definitions because they think you can’t handle it; they simply know the dictionary isn’t the place to find what you’re looking for. The dictionary is a reference and a tool — not a compendium, and definitely not a weapon.

Anyone willing to weaponize the dictionary to score cheap political points amid a manufactured culture war over gender? That’s the definition of a bigot.

The Grammarian, otherwise known as Jeffrey Barg, looks at how language, grammar, and punctuation shape our world, and appears biweekly. Send comments, questions, and inductive antonomasia to jeff@theangrygrammarian.com.

Do some speak more kindly about war in Ukraine because the victims are white?

The racism of anti-vaxxers claiming discrimination and segregation

‘Abbott Elementary’ brings ‘jawn,’ ‘boul,’ and other Philly words to network TV