Why it’s a mistake to ask Jackson if she can define a woman

I had this discussion with my two teenage daughters. It’s been shortened for easy reading. 

Dad: A Supreme Court justice nominee (Jackson) was asked if she can define a woman. She answered that she can’t. What do you think?

Kid1: I agree. 

Kid2: A woman is someone who identifies as a woman. 

Dad: Let me explain why the question is bad to begin with. We should always start a discussion with a problem to solve. This one doesn’t start with a problem and instead asks for a definition. Definitions should only be discussed in the context of a discussion about a problem. For example, suppose we’re talking about who should be allowed in women’s sports and women’s bathrooms. Do you think it’s ok for a biological male who identifies as a woman to be allowed in women’s bathrooms? 

Kids: no. 

Dad: right. There have been cases where biological males raped women in a women’s bathroom. What about women’s sports?

Kid1: A biological male who recently transitioned to female should not be allowed because they’ve physically developed for decades with male hormones. So their bones and muscles are more like a man than a woman. 

Dad: I agree. 

Kid2: what about someone that transitioned a long time ago? 

Dad: they still have a biological advantage over women. Don’t allow them in woman’s sports. 

Dad: This idea of only arguing over definitions in the context of a discussion about a problem is something that Karl Popper taught us in abstract. But it’s something that courts already do. I think that’s why Jackson said she can’t define a woman. It’s like she was saying, “I can’t define a woman outside the context of a particular legal issue.”