Why in the world is Ketanji Brown Jackson allowed to judge a case involving gender, as she has Tuesday?

Remember, she testified under oath during her confirmation hearing that she doesn’t know what a woman is.

Of course, that means one of two things. Either:

• She really doesn’t know what a woman is, in which case she knows less than a toddler about the subject and is therefore disqualified from deciding the matter.

Or:

• She lied under oath, in which case she’s a perjurer and therefore disqualified from sitting as a small-town municipal judge, much less as an esteemed justice on the highest court in the land.

This is not a merely a matter of minutia: The issue of gender is at the very heart of the two cases argued at the Supreme Court on Tuesday – about whether states and other jurisdictions can restrict girls’ and women’s sports, as well as intensely personal bathrooms and locker rooms, to girls and women alone.

This is a simple but profound question over whether biology means anything at all – whether womanhood is an objective biological fact or a subjective, fungible, imperceptible state of mind. Whether sex is determined by one’s actual makeup or one’s arbitrary mindset.

Jackson utterly and everlastingly disqualified herself from such a discussion, much less such a nationally binding ruling, when she dubiously claimed under oath not to have any idea what a woman is.

“Can you provide a definition for the word ‘woman’?” asked Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tennessee, in the March 2022 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.

“Can I provide a definition?” a stumbling Jackson responded. “No. I can’t.”

“You can’t?” said a surprised Blackburn.

“Not in this context,” Jackson replied, bemusedly appearing to think it was a silly or unanswerable question, though she quickly followed up with, “I mean, I’m not a biologist” – as if it takes one to differentiate between the two, count ‘em, two genders.

“The meaning of the word woman,” Blackburn said, “is so unclear and controversial that you can’t give me a definition?”

In short, yes.

This exchange, had it been part of an entrance exam at a law school, should’ve kept her out. Instead, she’s on the Supreme Court of these United States.

And now, she is one of nine people who will decide what a woman is under Title IX of federal law, which was instituted to protect “people from discrimination based on sex in all education programs or activities that receive federal financial assistance.”

In both cases before the court Tuesday – Little v. Hecox out of Idaho and West Virginia v. B.P.J. – appeals courts have blocked state laws banning males from female sports.

And since more than half the states, 27, have such laws, this issue could not get to the Supreme Court fast enough – especially after the chaos and confusion of the Biden administration’s not only allowing males in female sports but trying to mandate it.

It’s a question that cannot wait for an answer.

Yet, should someone who can’t distinguish between the sexes have a vote as to whether one of them deserves protection from the other?

Of course not. Ketanji Brown Jackson helping decide these cases is arguably more ludicrous as her claiming not to know what a woman is, for the simple reason that now she has the power to preside over the issue.

It’s ridiculous the court even has to rule on this question.

It’s beyond absurd that we would ask it of someone who doesn’t know what a woman is.