Hilarity Ensues When Former Dem. Gov Says He Can Define What a Woman Is, Then Tries and Utterly Fails

Republican Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina has carved out a reputation as a principled but occasionally flawed advocate for women's rights.

In contrast, former Democratic Gov. Martin O’Malley of Maryland, who briefly served as Social Security Commissioner under President Joe Biden and is remembered by political enthusiasts as a marginal 2016 Democratic presidential candidate, has emerged as yet another example of the woke left's inability—or unwillingness—to clarify the distinction between a man and a woman.

During a House Oversight Committee hearing on the remote federal workforce on Wednesday, Mace confronted O’Malley with a pointed line of questioning. This included asking for a definition of a woman, a request the former governor answered in a manner seemingly designed to appease progressive ideologies.

“Madam, er, Congresswoman — ” O’Malley began, smiling, only for Mace to cut him off and set the tone for their exchange.

“Can you define what a woman is?” she asked.

“Oh, yes.”

“What is a woman?”

“You’re going to ask me to define what a woman is?”

“Yes, I am right now.”

“Well, I’m talking — ”

“You just said you could. Explain it to me.”

“I’m talking to a woman right now — distinguished woman — elected representative.”

Mace repeated her question multiple times. O’Malley deflected, eventually claiming that Mace had “denigrated” the hearing.

When Mace began transitioning to a related set of questions, O’Malley reiterated his evasive reasoning.

“I’m married to a woman. I have two daughters who are women,” he said.

The back-and-forth continued in a similar vein, with Mace probing issues such as the definition of a man, fears of rape, and the Democratic Party’s broader stance on gender, particularly in light of their 2024 election losses.

Readers can watch the full exchange on YouTube, starting at the 2:05 mark.

Throughout, Mace resembled a Democratic senator during a confirmation hearing — asking pointed questions but seeming uninterested in the answers.

It’s worth noting that Mace has displayed moments of undisciplined behavior that sometimes overshadow her well-founded arguments.

She once openly referenced fornication while addressing a Christian audience — an act that, while not unforgivable in today’s context, reflected a certain lack of rhetorical caution. Similarly, her self-focused demeanor has made her prone to public clashes, such as with Democratic Rep. Jasmine Crockett of Texas, whose abrasive personality has also drawn scrutiny.

Still, Mace’s efforts to shield women from what she sees as the excesses of transgender activism deserve recognition.

When Democratic Rep. Sarah McBride of Delaware—a biological man identifying as a woman—was elected in 2024, Mace introduced a resolution to bar men from women’s bathrooms on Capitol Hill. Predictably, transgender activists responded with hostility.

Above all, Mace has succeeded in compelling Democrats to reveal their hesitancy—or outright refusal—to define basic biological truths.

O’Malley’s approach in the hearing epitomized this avoidance. While he acknowledged Mace as a woman and referenced his wife and daughters, he relied on examples rather than offering a clear definition.

For woke Democrats, defining a woman has become akin to affirming that “two plus two equals five.”

In George Orwell’s 1984, the oppressive regime of Oceania demanded total submission by forcing citizens to accept that two plus two could equal five. Similarly, modern Democrats seem to find common ground with Orwell’s fictional authoritarian rulers.

Perhaps the Democratic Party itself should be relegated to the realm of historical fiction.

For Mace and her Republican colleagues, the solution is straightforward: let Democrats continue to speak for themselves.