Archive | transgender RSS feed for this section

Fascism in unexpected places

29 Sep

Today I circulated an article I found amusing from a rightist site called DC Clothesline that had an article making a not original argument that Michelle Obama is transgender, with the new evidence being that her trapezius muscles are bigger than those of Serena or Venus Williams.

I mainly posted it in gay conservative groups and groups devoted to absurdist humor.  And also to one Democrat group where ANY joke about the Obama’s always produces volcanic eruptions of psychoanalysis and high dudgeon, the poor dears never realizing they are being trolled, made the figures of sadistic fun like earth worms sprinkled with salt or caterpillars burnt with a magnifying glass.

But one trannie-con also got her size 15 mules in a twist:

Top Libertarian Musings of the Week — from Free Range Libertarians (Mainly Not Paid to Muse or Be Libertarians)

7 May
Julian Hassan ·

Washington, D.C./suburban Virginia

I think the country is pretty close to dictatorship. Now I don’t see it concretely happening just yet, but the spiritual requirements are almost in place…the spiral requirements of decay and servitude. We have a candidate that the public largely perceives as untrustworthy, but she is the most popular frontrunner. Then on the sidelines, there are the socialists cooing. Outside that, radio silence. Ask yourself, what can happen to such a society? What is left on the table? If the present state of affairs continues, will America the Brave preserve itself or descend further?


All the talk about transgender issues, with Bruce Jenner’s announcement in the news, has gotten me thinking. Could it be that wanting to change gender is a reaction to buying into gender stereotypes?

Jenner says he feels “like a woman,” but how does a woman feel? Since he’s not a woman, he couldn’t possibly know, but I am a woman, and I still don’t know. I only know what it feels like to be me. Perhaps he identifies more with other woman than other men. That’s fine, but being a man doesn’t keep him from doing that. Perhaps he prefers women’s clothing. Can’t he be a man who prefers clothing styles that are marketed to women? Women (and men) are defined biologically, but in all other aspects, they are a varied group (even if there are some characteristics that most women have and most men do not, and vice-versa). Some are more feminine than others. Some love shopping and fashion. Others love sports. Most women would fall into the “Feeling” category (as opposed to the “Thinking” category, where most men fall) on the Myers-Briggs personality chart, but about a quarter of women fall into the Thinking category, and about a quarter of men fall into the Feeling category. It seems to me that Jenner’s view bolsters the idea of gender stereotypes and suggests that men who don’t identify with the mainstream “male image” must not really be men.

I have generally identified more with men throughout my life, although I identify strongest with other “Thinking” women. I was a tomboy growing up. I like sports. I hardly ever cry. I like to be comfortable and prefer men’s clothing. (I hate the women’s t-shirts, that look kind of like men’s t-shirts with the comfort removed.) But I’ve never thought that maybe I’m not really a woman. I am me, who happens to be a woman, and I’ve never shied away from being the kind of woman I am, even if some people thought it wasn’t feminine enough.

I think anyone who wants to have transgender surgery should be allowed to do so, but I feel sorry for them if it is only because they have felt so locked into the stereotypes that they think they have to “fix” themselves to fit in.


This is going to offend many people in Liberty…But ‪#‎sorrynotsorry‬
My friend Joe McKinney asked, “What’s one unpopular belief among your social circles that you have?” Most of the responses were about policies and gray areas in our ideology. However here is my response:
[I think matters less what ideas we entertain and more so how we conduct ourselves especially in pursuit of spreading those ideas. Principles matter most. I fear most of us would rather take the easy route and allow the ends to justify the means]

Here’s a few:I do not Stand with Rand, he is a hypocrite. And btw once he started caving into statist policies I deleted anything I ever posted in support of him.
I don’t like the way certain so-called “liberty organizations” exploit interns/volunteers and then toss them aside when they are done (I will not name them, but I will also never work with them)- what value is being created?

I think the Liberty movement is a facade to perpetuate the Neo-Con agenda- we are foolish to think that compromising our founding principles will allow us to further Liberty in the long run. [They are just using us as cogs in the machine.]

I think it is disgraceful how we treat women in the movement- I hate how we [women] stay silent and don’t support each other just “for the good of the movement.”

I don’t believe we should adopt leftist-statist tactics lest we become oppressors ourselves. Fuck Rules for Radicals and other methods of coercing, manipulating and transgressing against our fellow man.
***And finally….let me share with you the single MOST reprehensible thing I ever heard. [It was literally so disgusting, that although I will always be Libertarian it made me reconsider being part of this “Movement”]:
You know how there are people who are passionate and knowledgeable about Liberty, however they lack social graces? I believe we ‘endearingly’ call them “aspies”, “derpatarians”, “asperger kids.” Well I heard that when these wonderful, well intentioned and often highly intelligent people give up their time and resources to volunteer…the way we “deal” with them is to “stick them in the back and make them lick stamps.”

These things are not why I signed up to be a Liberty activist….I came here to stop bullies, not to support them or become one myself. I think we need to stop splitting hairs about pie-in-the-sky ideas and focus more on actually honoring our principles in practice.


Libertarian women’s history month: Deirdre McCloskey

28 Mar
Deirdre N. McCloskey (September 11, 1942 – ) was born in Ann Arbor, Michigan, the eldest child of Robert McCloskey, a professor of government at Harvard University, and the former Helen Stueland, a poet.  McCloskey is a Distinguished Professor of Economics, History, English, and Communication at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC). She is also adjunct professor of Philosophy and Classics there, and for five years was a visiting Professor of philosophy at Erasmus University, Rotterdam. Since October 2007 she has received six honorary doctorates. In 2013, she received the Julian L. Simon Memorial Award from the Competitive Enterprise Institute for her work examining factors in history that led to advancement in human achievement and prosperity. Her main research interests are (1) the origins of the modern world, (2) the misuse of statistical significance in economics and other sciences, and (3) the study of capitalism, among many others.

McCloskey earned her undergraduate and graduate degrees in Economics at Harvard University. Her dissertation on British iron and steel won in 1973 the David A. Wells Prize.
In 1968, McCloskey became an assistant professor of economics at the University of Chicago, where she stayed for 12 years, gaining tenure as an associate professor in economics in 1975, and an associate professorship in history in 1979.  This was during the final years of Milton Friedman’s residence at the University.   Undergraduates in McCloskey’s microeconomics classes at Chicago remember how she was scrupulously fair with students, like socialist students who wanted to question basic aspects of markets and price theory.
 Her work at Chicago is marked by her contribution to the cliometric revolution in economic history, and teaching generations of leading economists Chicago Price Theory, a course which culminated in her book The Applied Theory of Price, now a standard advanced textbook in microeconomics. In 1979, at the suggestion of Wayne Booth in English at Chicago, she turned to the study of rhetoric in economics. Later at the University of Iowa, McCloskey, the John Murray Professor of Economics and of History (1980–99), published The Rhetoric of Economics (1985) and co-founded with John S. Nelson, Allan Megill, and others “the rhetoric of inquiry,” and an institution and graduate program, the Project on Rhetoric of Inquiry. McCloskey has authored 16 books and some 360 articles in her many fields.
Her major contributions have been to the economic history of Britain (19th-century trade, modern history, and medieval agriculture) the quantification of historical inquiry (cliometrics), the rhetoric of economics, the rhetoric of the human sciences, economic methodology, virtue ethics, feminist economicsheterodox economics, the role of mathematics in economic analysis, and the use (and misuse) of significance testing in economics, and recently in her trilogy “The Bourgeois Era”, the origins of the Industrial Revolution.
She argued in the inaugural James M. Buchanan Lecture at George Mason University on April 7, 2006 that capitalism “is an ethically drenched human activity” which requires attention to all of the classical seven virtues, while economists usually focus exclusively on prudence. Her book The Bourgeois Virtues: Ethics for an Age of Commerce was the first of the trilogy, published in 2006. The second, Bourgeois Dignity: Why Economics Can’t Explain the Modern World was published in 2010, and the third, The Treasured Bourgeoisie: How Markets and Innovation Became Ethical, 1600-1848, and then Suspect was published in 2014.

Married for thirty years and the parent of two children, she transitioned from male to female in 1995, at the age of 53, writing about her experience in a New York Times Notable Book of the Year, Crossing: A Memoir (1999, University of Chicago Press). It is an account of her growing recognition (while a boy and man) of her female identity, and her transition—both surgical and social—into a woman (including her reluctant divorce from her wife). The book describes her new life, following sex-reassignment surgery, continuing her career as a female academic economist.

McCloskey advocates on behalf of the rights of persons and organizations in the LGBT community. She was also a key person in the Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory controversy and in the debate over J. Michael Bailey‘s book The Man Who Would Be Queen, both regarding the reasons why transsexuals desire a male to female transformation.  In 2015 she was a featured speaker at the International Students for Liberty conference in Washington, D.C.
McCloskey has described herself as a “literary, quantitative, postmodern, free-market, progressive Episcopalian, Midwestern woman from Boston who was once a man. Not ‘conservative’! I’m a Christian libertarian.”