Progress: Miss Universe Pageant Will Likely Allow Canadian Transgender to Compete

The next time Donald Trump says or does something stupid, remember that he also did this solid for transgender rights:

"The Miss Universe Organization will allow Jenna Talackova to compete in the 2012 Miss Universe Canada pageant provided she meets the legal gender recognition requirements of Canada, and the standards established by other international competitions," the organization said in a brief statement.

The New York-based organization did not specify which other competitions' standards Talackova would have to meet, leaving her entry up in the air ahead of next month's beauty pageant.

Talackova, 23, was born as a male, but has identified as a female since the age of four. She began hormone therapy at 14 and underwent gender reassignment surgery at 19, according to a 2010 interview posted on YouTube.

Trump runs the crew behind Miss Universe. Without being a cardboard libertarian on the issue, let me say that as a private organization, it should be allowed to set its own rules for its competition. And given that beauty pageants are less and less interesting to a world in which gender equality is much farther along than it used to be, it's even a good business decision not to discriminate (that's often, if not always, the case). If anything, I think Miss Universe should be more forthright in accepting whatever ladies want to compete.

Read more.

The Miss Canada competition will take place in May.

The Donald is gay-friendly though officially against gay marriage. But ready to dialogue with former Star Trekker and Apprentice contestant George Takei.

Essential reading on this topic, Reason's 1999 story, "From Donald to Deirdre: How a man became a woman - and what it says about identity." Written by Reason Contributing Editor Deirdre McCloskey, it's excerpted from her brilliant memoir Crossing. A snippet:

On a trip to New York to see a friend after my own crossing I stood in the hall of photographs at Ellis Island and wept at the courage. Crossing cultures from male to female is big; it highlights some of the differences between men and women and some of the similarities too. That's interesting. My crossing was costly and opposed, which is too bad. But my crossing has been dull, easy, and comfortable compared with Suyuan's or Giuseppi's outer migrations.

It's strange to have been a man and now to be a woman. But it's no stranger perhaps than having been a West African and now being an American, or once a priest and now a businessman. Free people keep deciding to make strange crossings, from storekeeper to monk or from civilian to soldier or from man to woman. Crossing boundaries is a minority interest, but human.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Pip||

    I think it's fucked up.

  • R C Dean||

    Dang. That's how you do gender reassignment.

  • Joe M||

    Guess that's the difference between hormones at 14 vs hormones at 40.

  • ||

    Yes, the technology has improved.

  • ||

    There's a bit more it than that, but essentially, you are correct.

  • ||

    Yeah. One of my very close friends began the transition around 25.

    More power to her, but it don't look like that.

  • JW||

    No kidding. I'd hit that.

  • AlmightyJB||

    You could put those tits on a dead fish and I'd play with them.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I wouldn't do that with STEVE SMITH's dick.

  • Randian ||

    If she just came up to you, sat on your lap, and said "take me home baby", and you had no prior knowledge of her circumstances, I would question your straightness if you turned her down.

  • Pound. Head. On. Desk.||

    I gotta say from that picture, I'd have to put aside my aversion to blondes for a night.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Upon the moment of discovery? Hell, yeah, I'd turn her down.

    I was saying what I said earlier with foreknowledge of her not always *being* a her. I'm just not that adventurous.

  • Randian ||

    I don't see any "adventure" about it. Children in prepubescence are essentially asexual until puberty comes on, and during that development, she developed as a woman.

    She wasn't even a "man". She was barely male for an irrelevant period of time.

  • Matrix||

    I dunno. I was always attracted to girls, even at 5 I liked the teenage gals.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I always liked older women (around 50), even when I was much younger.

    However, now that I'm pushing into that age bracket, it's evening-out. What a drag it is, getting old.

  • Something Pithy||

    I am not so sure about "asexual". I have three girls under 10 who are very sure that they are girls. I had to have discussions with them to the effect of "Yes, that boy is still a boy, even though he has very long hair."

  • Tonio||

    "Moment of discovery?" WTF?

    You're assuming she still has male genitalia, right? Probably not.

    I understand that the surgery yields pretty realistic results.

  • ||

    Like a functional uterus?

  • fried wylie||

    to be fair, from the context, Tonio would seem to be talking just about genital surgery. uterati aren't genitalia.

  • ||

    I will concede that point Wylie, though I would argue uteri are a defining characteristic of womanhood. BTW, about that errant medical bill...

  • fried wylie||

    I'd have to agree that uterae are a defining characteristic....ok, I'll admit it, I don't care, I just wanted an excuse to pluralize uterus incorrectly, again.

    BTW, about that errant medical bill...

    *Ninja Smoke Bomb*

  • Mr. FIFY||

    No, Tonio, I meant "upon discovery of her being a man at one time".

    Especially if I wasn't told beforehand, which would royally piss me off.

  • ||

    Upon the moment of discovery? Hell, yeah, I'd turn her down.

    I'd totally do her, knowing she was TG. It would be hot.

  • ||

    Yeah, if you could somehow discern that she had an XY chromosome, you would have to have some supernatural abilities. I couldn't.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I don't think I'm being understood here:

    Knowing she was once male - albeit briefly - is enough to sour the deal for me.

    I don't see what the big deal is here, in reference to my reticence. I will, however, admit "she" looks pretty damn good, but what's under the hood isn't the same as the bodywork.

  • ||

    I'm not dogging you, dude; if you would have a problem with it once knowing, ok, that's understandable. I just don't see how any of us would know without a gel electrophoresis test. And even then I'd be skeptical without birth records.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    That was more for Randian, Epi. My bad.

  • Pip||

    Look at her fucking wrists. I know many a tranny and honey, that's the tell.

  • ||

    Further evidence that points to Pip being the reincarnation of Ray Charles.

  • Tonio||

    You mean they all have a poofy thing with the number "11" on them? Can't see the other one...

  • ||

    As for her looks I go with Frank Booth:

    Ill fuck anything that moves!

  • Abdul||

    STEVE may be a rape-crazy forest creature, but he never discriminates. Not based on gender, weight, age, height, or species.

    He's a uniter.

  • John||

    Insert sarcasmic joke here.

  • Randian ||

    Given that she has effectively been a woman since age four, and underwent puberty as a woman with hormones, is it even relevant to talk about how she happened to have been born?

    This is a little deep into Sexual and Gender Philosophy, but she's effectively never been a male except for a happenstance of birth, which was corrected during the relevant stage of development (pubescence).

  • ||

    At least for a beauty contest I don't see why it should matter at all. I could understand for sporting events but not for this.

  • Proprietist||

    See I think she's gorgeous. But the problem is that she almost certainly needed cosmetic surgery to get there. IMHO, cosmetic surgery should probably disqualify one from a legitimate beauty contest. Of course, if they allow plastic surgery for any contestant, then I say fair game.

  • ||

    I haven't seen any claim that cosmetic surgery is banned. In any case the most important factor in her transformation is hormone therapy not cosmetic surgery. That's one reason she would be disqualified from sports as most have rules against that for everybody.

  • Pound. Head. On. Desk.||

    Jenna Talackova is proof there are some real artists out there, but Tula Cossey proved that first as a Bond girl.

  • strat||

    True. Then Maud Adams made everybody wonder even though there wasn't an issue.

  • ||

    -ová is a slavic female ending. In Czech and Slovak it is added to the surname for women. It's added for foreign names as well, so it is written Julia Robertsová in Czech.

    Did this Canadian guy add the -ova ending when he became a she?

    Fun fact: -ová is the case equivalent of the male possessive, so Ivana Trumpová literally means Trump's Ivana.

  • Ice Nine||

    Did this Canadian guy add the -ova ending when he became a she?

    I think he did everything but add the ova.

  • Velcro Bootstraps||

    do ho hooo

  • ||

    Nice.

  • ||

    lulz

  • Appalachian Australian||

    Google Chrome + Windows 7 default Aero theme + 1366x768 display results in the break being, um, "strategically" placed.

    Nice job, H&R.

  • ||

    I think it's a type of fraud, personally.

    XX and XY cannot be changed, no matter how much beni hana is applied.

    Particularly if Miss Talackova negated to mention this. Personally, I do think this is germane.

    It's one thing to get plastic facial surgery and still be an XX; it's quite another to get the bonus plan and banana split while still remaining an XY.

    Sorry, genes matter and there's enough blurring of the sexes as it is.

  • John||

    But unlike athletics, it doesn't give her an unfair advantage. So what is the difference?

  • ||

    I suppose I'm thinking slippery slope here (no jokes please).

    I didn't say she shouldn't compete, but I do think that the initial gender matters.

    I suppose it's similar to men in Asian countries where women have been sued and divorced because they had plastic surgery (blepharoplasty) to correct their eyelids. And their children reflected this fact that the mom had surgery and didn't tell the husband.

    It just strikes me as fraudulent.

  • heller||

    it doesn't give her an unfair advantage

    I don't see anyone claiming it did, what I do see

    I think it's a type of fraud, personally.

    Is a discussion of fraud.

    From a philosophical standpoint, it's quite possible to make the argument that reassignment surgery, while extreme, is still just cosmetic.

    In fact, the argument is frequently that the surgery just brings the outside appearance in line with the inside feelings.

    In that case, it's difficult not to accept reassignment as a cosmetic procedure.

    And at that point, the fact that it's extreme doesn't change that it's dolling oneself up to look like a woman.

  • Killazontherun||

    In fact, the argument is frequently that the surgery just brings the outside appearance in line with the inside feelings.

    That is where I disagree. Your feelings don't mean shit in terms of biology. The fact is realignment surgery is a cosmetic change, and nothing else. I'm all for people living out their dream of whom they want to be; hell, I want to be a cyborg, but just don't bullshit me about the depth of change in a person's being. We are not that deep. We convince ourselves of the craziest things about ourselves and the world, and that is the norm, not the exception. You are telling me hormone therapy and gender reassignment surgery are exceptions to the rule? Again, those are good things, traits that define humanity. I only hope the best for her and everyone. Hustler gives her a few million to spread that artisan crafted gash, more power to her.

  • Bam!||

    How do you figure?

    He was doped up on unnatural hormones since a young age. Hormones determine facial and body shape, skin quality, and personality as much as anything else. It's just like giving steroids to a baseball player.

    How exactly did this end up on a libertarian site anyway? It's Trump's contest, he can exclude anyone he wants for any reason he wants.

  • Zeb||

    I don't know. There are XY people who have thought they were female for their whole lives until they had some genetic test for some reason or other. Should such a person be forced to change their identity to a male one?

  • Pound. Head. On. Desk.||

    Forced? No. Bad things happen. Let people choose what to do to make their lives better, but don't expect me to vote for a man (however well photoshopped) to win Miss Universe.

  • Appalachian Australian||

    There are a number of disorders which result in an XY chromosome person appaering quite female.

    Exactly what little box do you want to put them in? Beauty pageants ask for "women", not "people with XX chromosomes". What comprises a "woman" has not, historically, been based on chromosomes, and I have no idea what someone's chromosomes are upon meeting them.

    You're free to start your own beauty pageant of XX chromosome people, but you might not get very many applicants.

  • John||

    Doesn't Jamie Lee Curtis have one of those disorders? I seem to remember reading somewhere that her chromosomes are not quite like everyone else.

  • ||

    Total urban myth, John. Come on. You could do a little internet research before posting; it's not like it's hard.

  • Randian ||

    No, wait, I thought (and snopes backs me up) that this was undetermined.

  • ||

    Correct, Epi. That one is total bogus. It's been floating around for long time though.

    She was rumored to be a XXX aneuploidy.

  • lafe.long||

    after wearing out my "Trading Places" vhs tape by rewinding and pausing that scene, I always *wished* for some XXX Jamie Lee.

  • Abdul||

    Jamie Lee has Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome.

    Don't ask how I know. I just know.

  • ||

    Ok Abdul. Makes sense though. I won't take it as gospel, but I can see it.

  • ||

    Kleinfleter's IIRC. Has an aneuploidy of XXY.

    There are a number of disorders which result in an XY chromosome person appearing quite female.

  • ||

    Reverse the Italics, please.

  • Pound. Head. On. Desk.||

    Beauty pageants ask for "women", not "people with XX chromosomes". What comprises a "woman" has not, historically, been based on chromosomes, and I have no idea what someone's chromosomes are upon meeting them.

    I think you take for granted that a woman's chromosomes match her appearance, or you'd never try to reproduce with one. Anyway, she doesn't exactly fit the dictionary definition:

    wom·an [woom-uhn] noun
    1. the female human being ( distinguished from man).
    2. an adult female person.

    fe·male [fee-meyl] noun
    1. a person bearing two X chromosomes in the cell nuclei and normally having a vagina, a uterus and ovaries, and developing at puberty a relatively rounded body and enlarged breasts, and retaining a beardless face; a girl or woman.
    2. an organism of the sex or sexual phase that normally produces egg cells.

  • heller||

    2 statements

    "Jenna Talackova is a woman"

    "Jenna Talackove is a man who has mutilated his genitalia and recieved implants"

    I find the second one is true, without qualification, while the first one requires acceptance of a debated gender identity point of view.

  • ||

    I find myself in agreement with heller.

    The truth value are inarguable.

    It would require a total and fundamental redefinition of what a woman is.

    Based on a genetic construct, this is impossible to do. Socially speaking, it would require a redefining of social norms; anthropologically speaking from a Darwinian point of view, these organisms fail as they by biological definition, from birth, cannot birth progeny.

    Let me put it another way: How valid is the Pregnant Man nonsense Oprah was peddling a few years back?

  • Tonio||

    Socially speaking, it would require a redefining of social norms

    Modernity just called...it wants you to turn in your smartphone and computers.

  • heller||

    Would you like to try again without being insulting?

    I thought registration was supposed to deal with you.

  • ||

    I get it Tonio, you have an axe to grind.

  • Tonio||

    Perhaps so, GM, but no more so than you. And I'm not misrepresenting the viewpoints of others, as you did at 12:31 PM.

    Hello, heller.

  • ||

    Fine, I will completely apologize for the remark.

    Would you be so gun ho private property and freedom of association if they ejected Miss Tackalova from the competition?

    Or would you go full metal Act Up berserk?

  • Proprietist||

    Supporting Miss Universe's legal right to discriminate against her (him?) is not incompatible with thinking they are assholes.

  • Tonio||

    I will accept your apology for misrepresenting my comments.

    Please see my 1:08 PM posting, below, which addresses the concerns you raise in your second paragraph. Please note that I posted this before you raised the issue.

  • ||

    Since you clarified (though the equivalent of damning with faint praise), now I have indeed misrepresented your stance. I will take your statements below at face value and I apologize sincerely.

  • Tonio||

    And I accept your apology, and will overlook the "full metal act up beserk" dig.

  • ||

    Is this the part where we kiss and make up? Not too much tongue, I don't want you to think I'm trampy. :-)

  • donkey show||

    Correction; she was a man.

  • donkey show||

    Correction; she was a man.

  • heller||

    "Exactly what little box do you want to put them in?"

    I don't believe that's the question here, the question is

    "Does she fit in the box she labeled for herself?"

  • ||

    Hi Mary!

  • ||

    There are a number of disorders which result in an XY chromosome person appaering quite female.

    The default is that everyone winds up with female genitalia, regardless of XX or XY, unless some specificly timed massive doses of testosterone hit the developing fetus to cause the clit to develop as a penis, the sperm ducts to become fallopian tubes, etc.

    The Y chromosome usually causes those precisely timed surges of testosterone to happen, but shit happens.

  • Torontonian||

    Is that why men have nipples but no boobs?

  • Pound. Head. On. Desk.||

    I think it's a type of fraud, personally.

    Extreme Photoshop for real life, huh? I agree she's still a man.

  • Randian ||

    I agree she's still a man.

    On what basis? This seems to attach a certain kind of mysticism to microscopic identifiers. Is XX a necessary, though not sufficient, criteria for being a woman? If so, why? And what about Kleinfelter's syndrome - are those people just freaks for life with no identity?

  • ||

    Kleinfelter's have a Y chromosome, therefore male.

    Sorry Sloop, it matters.

    If we have to throw out the most basic of genetic identifiers, at what point is a norm established and disease processes and conditions begin?

  • Zeb||

    You don't have to throw them out. But you also don't have to use them in all cases to determine how someone will identify socially. There is no reason why, for medical and scientific purposes where the X/Y chromosomes are relevant, we shouldn't use that to determine gender and in other circumstances use other criteria.

  • Zeb||

    "Kleinfelter's have a Y chromosome, therefore male."

    Why does a Y chromosome make you male, but 2 X chromosomes doesn't make you female?

  • ||

    Y or the absence of Y determines gender. Simply put.

  • Zeb||

    Well, I will defer to you until I have better information as you seem to be some kind of medical doctor. But it seems to me that the line is not so clear in some cases that I have heard of.

  • Zeb||

    But here's another question, if you feel like answering. How do you think that people with mosaicism with some XX cells and some XY cells should be classified?

  • fried wylie||

    How do you think that people with mosaicism with some XX cells and some XY cells should be classified?

    "Dressed All Over" or "X/Y Swirl"

  • ||

    But here's another question, if you feel like answering. How do you think that people with mosaicism with some XX cells and some XY cells should be classified?

    There is admittedly a taxonomical head scratcher, right that. From a genetics POV, if I was running geno and phenotypes I would be more inclined to classify according to both the prevalence of XX v. XY, germline of the organism, and phenotypical appearance.

    Also keep in mind, such individuals are very unlikely to look like Miss Tackalova, whether with or without hormonal and surgical intervention.

  • ||

    They're classified as having a disorder. It's abnormal. That doesn't make them less of a person, but you don't base policy on edge cases.

    This is similar to how gun control arguments eventually end up with the supporter of gun control asking if the right to bear arms means everybody can have a nuke.

  • ||

    Yes, but the difference between a nuke and gun is clearly delineated.

    A DX of Turner's syndrome is a clear delineation from someone with no known genetic abnormalities of such a scope (barring random mutations and such).

  • Pip||

    This is my nuke,
    This is my gun.
    The first one's for genocide,
    The second's for fun.

  • strat||

    Those people in Megaton deserved it.

  • Tonio||

    I agree she's still a man.

    Then why are you not referring to the individual as "he"?

  • Tonio||

    there's enough blurring of the sexes as it is

    Oh, someone's comfortable assumptions have been threatened...

  • ||

    Hardly. It's a true statement. At what point has it been reached that gender is irrelevant, except for procreation?

    When it is assumed that any person is not as they seem, yet is irrelevant?

    When you say "threatened", if Miss Tackalova walked up and gave me a big sloppy kiss, I wouldn't mind, because I assumed she was a woman.

    If she then said afterward "I used to be a man," I;m going to be angry for being deceived. I expect things on listed on the tin to be as advertised.

    If she mentioned beforehand, I may not mind as much, and may even give her a big ole sloppy kiss.

    It's the fraud that bothers me.

  • Tonio||

    Thanks for the lulz.

  • Proprietist||

    I know I'm upset every time a girl gives me a big sloppy kiss and later I find out she doesn't look as good as I thought she did without any makeup on.

  • ||

    I know, then you marry the girl, and wondering why she isn't getting pregnant after riding bareback thirty eight days straight, and come to find out your strumpet is lacking a baby bag and two eggsacs. Nope, no fraud there.

    Incidentally, it would also apply if a woman had a tubal and claimed otherwise, or if a man claimed he had a vasectomy, and nature proved otherwise.

  • Randian ||

    I didn't know a total disclosure of what body parts are present was required in order to take "fraud" out of social relationships.

  • ||

    When I want to start a family with the reasonable expectation of my wife giving birth, or at least the capability of doing so, I would like to know before tying the knot.

    There are also, in the absence of children, other medical factors not only as a Dr., but as a husband/spouse that should be known, not to mention spousal intimacy and trust.

    For example, I would like to know from both a medical and economic POV why my wife is taking a buttload of hormonal replacements. Is there a larger medical condition present?

  • Proprietist||

    Well, if you've never asked her, her not coming out and telling you she was born a man is not necessarily fraud any more than marrying a lady who knows she's barren and doesn't tell you for fear of scaring you off.

    Of course, I'd be more incensed that she'd think I'd leave her because I couldn't accept her for who she is than the fact that she didn't or couldn't tell me her every dark secret.

  • ||

    True, but during the course of courtship, and I daresay pre-courtship butt sniffing, we should be finding out this stuff to determine rudimentary compatibility.

    I guess this is what makes me so horrible, that since I see woman I naturally assume she is a factory original. I guess that makes me "hetero-normative" and considered by some to be worse than a child molester for that inherent belief system.

  • ||

    I know, then you marry the girl, and wondering why she isn't getting pregnant after riding bareback thirty eight days straight, and come to find out your strumpet is lacking a baby bag and two eggsacs. Nope, no fraud there.

    If a woman knows she can't have kids, whether it is due to XY chromosomes or something else, and she knowingly marries a man who wants to have kids and has told her so, she deserves all the relationship grief that that non-disclosure is likely to bring.

    If you can't talk about important shit like that, a marriage is likely doomed.

  • Proprietist||

    I don't see it as fraud any more than someone who dies their hair as something other than their natural color, or uses makeup or fake bronzer is a fraud - they don't naturally look the way they look walking across the stage. Not really seeing a legitimate difference. However, they probably have rules against plastic surgery, so that is that.

    I'd actually be kind of interested to watch a beauty pageant where makeup, etc. is banned.

  • Kroneborge||

    yes because hair dye and a sex change are the same thing.

  • Proprietist||

    They're both representing yourself in a way you aren't by nature. If one is fraud, the other must be as well. It may be a question of degree, but I find it impossible to accuse someone who wants to change their appearance of fraud (which was the discussion at hand), and I find it undesireable for government to determine what gender people identify should with. Like race, gender shouldn't matter much in a world that sees people as individuals with a huge degree of variation.

  • fried wylie||

    banana split

    thanks a lot. Now I'll never be able to eat any variety of ice cream sunday ever again. jerk.

  • ||

    Love ya, Wylie!

    (big sloppy kisses!)

  • ||

    I think it's a type of fraud, personally.

    I agree with this to a certain extent, although I also think that finding out about past plastic surgery can be grounds for divorce if a stated purpose of the marriage was to pass on specific desirable genes.

    However, everything that is done by pageant contestants is done to enhance their chances of winning: makeup; flattering clothing; hell, even curling or straightening hair could be construed as misrepresenting the contestant's credentials. The reason these things have rules is so that you give everyone a similar amount of flexibility with their natural assets.

    TL;DR: the contract and rules matter, even if the cutoffs are arbitrary. I happen to think Ms Talackova should have as much chance to compete as anyone else who underwent plastic surgery.

  • fried wylie||

    if a stated purpose of the marriage was to pass on specific desirable genes

    Hold Up....you can do that?

  • ||

    I don't see why not, in a contractual society. Not that we really have one of those at the mo', but if you draw up a contract stating that a major driving force behind the union is the expectation of certain physical features being inheritable, then you should damn well be able to terminate the contract when you find out that such is not the case.

  • ||

    What woman would agree to a marriage where the pre-nup says that if the kids don't meet the man's subjective idea of physical beauty, he gets to call the whole thing off?

    Genetics is tricky. I know some couples who have had some kids who are really good looking, and others who look ugly.

  • fried wylie||

    "expectation of certain physical features being inheritable"

    does not equal

    "expectation of certain physical features being inherited"

  • affenkopf||

    Would.

  • Zeb||

    So, can you legally change your gender in Canada? I'm pretty sure that in the US you can't.

    I haven't thought through this much, so I am interested in what anyone else thinks. Would there be any bad consequences of simply getting rid of all legal definitions and considerations of gender? It would certainly solve the gay marriage debate.

  • Appalachian Australian||

    The U.S. is a federation of states, each of which set their own laws on topics like this.

    Although I'm sure someone could spin this as interstate commerce.

  • Zeb||

    Yes, and as far as I know, none lets you legally change gender. But would it be bad if the law ignored gender entirely?

  • Proprietist||

    Yes, why should gender even be important? I get it for census purposes. Otherwise, I'm not seeing why it should matter.

  • strat||

    For what it's worth, a colleague of mine who made the change once told me that you eventually get mail from the "Bureau of Entity Affairs" at the IRS after embarking on that adventure.

    It's not clear how much of that related to the name change, but I get the impression that they wanted to know a lot more than what the name change papers looked like.

  • Tonio||

    Do more reasearch, then, Zeb.

  • Zeb||

    I do not claim to be particularly well informed on the subject and woudl be quite happy to be enlightened if I am mistaken.

  • Tonio||

    Suggest you start with wikipedia, then.

  • Zeb||

    FWIW, I think people ought to identify as whatever they want.

  • donkey show||

    You can definitely do that here if you have a complete reassignment.

  • fresno dan||

    I have to see her ("him") naked to render an informed opinion. Actually, I would have to see all the contestants naked to render an informed opinion....actually, I think I would have to have f*ck 'em all to render an informed opinion....

  • ||

    I'm pretty sure we can still say "fuck" around here. Yep. Fuck.

  • Pip||

    Eeew!

    Really?

    That's so gross.

  • fried wylie||

    I could get into beauty pageants if fresno dan was running the show.

  • Soc Indv Sparky||

    No homo?

  • fried wylie||

    I'm not sure what you mean, since on re-reading my post it reads like i'm talking about getting into a pageant as a participant. I meant getting into pageants as a spectator.

    eh, either way, yeah, No Homo.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "transgender rights"

    What rights might those be? To take part in a contest sponsored by a private organization?

    "Rights" suggests a claim you can assert against someone else, something you can go into court and demand - or at least something that you *ought* to be able to go into court and demand.

    Unless "rights" are defined as "the ability to do what I want and conscript others into helping me even if they don't want to."

  • jacob||

    Agreed

    I fail to see how this is an issue of liberty. It does make for interesting conversation, though.

  • Tonio||

    Wow, Eddie, you sure know how to manufacture those straw men.

  • ||

    I don't think he's wrong, but he is expressing it badly. Movements toward the acceptance of lifestyle choices are not, by in large, movements about negative rights at this point in our culture.

    Jenna Talackova has no right to be included into the activities of a private organization that wishes to exclude her, but it does increase tolerance and exposure for transgendered individuals for them to do so.

    Someone excluding you from something that has no impact on your right of self-ownership is an expression of their self-ownership.

  • Randian ||

    This is what happens when people assume libertarianism is the whole of one's ethical identity. We should be able to have a philosophical discussion without stating the Standard Libertarian Disclaimer every time.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I was addressing the use of the term "rights" in connection with this whole thing.

  • ||

    What strawman?

  • Proprietist||

    It's too bad the line between public and private has been so blurred by government subsidy. GE got a bailout, GE owns NBC, NBC owns Miss Universe. Donald Trump gets subsidized for his developments by taxpayers, Trump co-owns Miss Universe. If an organization receives one cent of taxpayer money, in my opinion they should lose the right to discriminate on the basis of gender/sexuality/etc. In this case (like many these days), the source of funding is obviously gray.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "lose the right to discriminate on the basis of gender/sexuality/etc."

    Pardon my concern-trolling, but does this mean that a Miss Universe pageant should treat male applicants and female applicants equally?

    Or do they get to make a distinction between male and female, but defer to the government on how to define that distinction?

    And if they defer to the government, why can't they defer to what it says on the person's govt-issued birth certificate?

  • Proprietist||

    Sure. No funds for discriminatory programs. Taxes don't discriminate on biological factors, why should the programs they pay for?

    Of course, this rule would only lead to less unnecessary garbage being funded by government - like beauty pageants.

  • ||

    Whether the pageant needs to establish specific criteria, from XX/XY to surgery or whatever measures the cool thing about all this, so far, is that it was public pressure, not one of Canada ridiculous Human Rights Tribunals, that fostered this change.

    Of course there is always the threat of government stepping in in the background.

  • R C Dean||

    You would think these pageants would bar anyone who has had plastic surgery. Period. Full stop.

    Now, I have no idea if Ms. Talackova has had implants (with hormone therapy beginning at puberty, for all I know, those are, well, if not "natural", at least not silicone). You would probably then have an interesting argument over whether installing after-market genitalia is plastic surgery.

  • Zeb||

    I hear that some of the contestants use appearance enhancing cosmetics too.

  • ||

    Yes, and they often wear outfits designed to flatter their figures!

  • Zeb||

    All beauty contests should be makeup free and totally nude from now on. Who's with me?

  • fresno dan||

    I am!
    I am!!!

  • fried wylie||

    All beauty contests should be makeup free and totally nude from now on. Who's with me?

    I think Amateur Internet Porn beat you to the punch.

  • ||

    Threadwinner.

  • ||

    Yeah, I was about to go there too. You'd think that surgical augmentation was an automatic disqualifier, regardless of the reason.

  • Tonio||

    So, no burn victims, eh? And I agree upfront that those individuals are unlikely to pass the initial cut for these contests, but still...

  • heller||

    "So, no burn victims, eh? "

    No. Next.

  • ||

    Hi Mary!

  • fried wylie||

    Alien/Human hybrids that sprout tentacles and drain men of their life essence, permissible?

  • Tonio||

    Also, no post-cancer breast reconstructions or women who've had breast reduction.

  • AuH2O||

    Breast... reduction?

    Sometimes, I don't understand you at all Tonio.

  • heller||

    "it was public pressure, not one of Canada ridiculous Human Rights Tribunals, that fostered this change."

    I would argue that the existence of the tribunal and its past decisions are at least partly to blame for legitimizing the opinions of those exerting pressure.

  • ||

    Hi Mary!

  • heller||

    Ultimately, the real question I think is

    "Why isn't the pageant allowed to politely decline because she doesn't meet their criteria?"

    Isn't it a private organization?

  • Zeb||

    They are allowed to, aren't they?

  • heller||

    This is Canaduhduhduhduhduh. I would be willing to bet Section 13 says they aren't, or at least, can and has been used to punish people for doing so in the past.

  • ||

    Hi Mary!

  • ||

    they tried to but got weak in the knees

  • ||

    HI MISS RECTAL

    GOODBYE NOW FOREVER

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: OK,

    You totally miss the point, and the point is boobs.


    I take my boobs al dente.

  • ||

    I take my boobs al dente.

    I hope to be as half as cool as you when I reach Old Groovus age, OM.

    That was simply awesome! Classic! LOL

  • AuH2O||

    Once again, just imagine Old Mex as the most interesting man in the world.

    "I do not always eat breasts, but when I do, I eat them al dente"

  • ||

    Isn't it a private organization?

    According to Tonio, this is irrelevant.

  • Tonio||

    No. Show where I wrote that.

  • heller||

    And if he does, will you say "thanks for the lulz" and insult him some more?

  • ||

    Hi Mary!

  • heller||

    How much spamming of "Hi Mary" does it take to get banned for spam?

  • ||

    Let's find out: Hi Mary!

  • ||

    heller -- you could, you know, * ignore * comments you think are obnoxious, instead of bitching about it and thus making Epi want to screw with your head even more.

    Just a thought.

  • fried wylie||

    jeez protefeed, why bother having internet at all then?

  • Proprietist||

    Is it? Is anything truly private in this subsidized, corporatized world?

  • heller||

    As I posted up there, Section 13 of the CHRA seems to make the distinction irrelevant.

  • ||

    HI MISS RECTAL

    Everyone, be aware that our scumwhore Mary has figured out that she can use a leading space to spoof a username. I would suggest that you use a regular expression to filter all usernames that begin with a space.

  • heller||

    What?

  • ||

    Don't play dumb, Mary, you stupid whore.

    Everyone who's not Mary, put this in the regex Name field, without the quotes: "\s\w*"

  • Proprietist||

    I'm not seeing any spacing or characters before his name. Are you using an extension or something?

  • ||

    Yep, install reasonable. And we confirmed off-board that heller hasn't posted in two hours.

  • Joe M||

    Oh! I was wondering why heller was automatically added to the ignore list.

  • ||

    HTML rendering engines must strip leading and trailing whitespace (even double+ spaces), otherwise websites would be almost impossible to manage. But if you look at the text content of a node programmatically, you can see it.

  • ||

    Sorry, "^\s\w*"

  • heller||

    I'd like to thank you for interrupting a conversation you hard no part of to crap all over everything.

    The only people misbehaving here are you and Epi.

  • ||

    Oh, this is hilarious.

  • heller||

    quality input, much better than "Hi Mary"

    there was a discussion taking place, that you seem to dislike those involved doesn't give you a right to crap on it.

  • ||

    And you're not heller, you stupid douchebag, seeing as I just talked to him.

    Hi Mary!

  • ||

    I'd like to thank you for interrupting a conversation you hard no part of to crap all over everything.

    The only people misbehaving here are you and Epi.

    I think heller would object. This is why Reason went to the trouble of all this registration.

    Come to think of it, heller never posted w/o an email link.

    It's like P Brooks threading comments.

    NEVER HAPPENS.

  • heller||

    I think heller would object.

    I don't particularly care, he doesn't own the name or the combination of characters.

    Come to think of it, heller never posted w/o an email link

    A distinction that should be obvious, and thus, moot your complaints.

    Congrats Epi and HPV, you accomplished nothing.

  • ||

    I don't particularly care, he doesn't own the name or the combination of characters.

    It matters to me. I wanted to discuss with hellerj@brandeis.edu. I should have been more observant.

    This conversation is over.

  • ||

    BTW, you only need a partial match for regex. So you can do (regex + name):

    ^\s

  • ||

    Can you add the leading space into your default blacklist? It would be helpful.

  • Joe M||

    Update:

    Use

    \s+\w*

    Instead

  • Joe M||

    Oops forgot the caret ^ in front.

  • ||

    Done. Should add itself automatically for anyone who doesn't have it.

  • Joe M||

    Or ^\s+

  • fried wylie||

    anyone know offhand of a good reg exp tutorial? I did a brief bit of googling for one the other day and didn't find anything helpful enough for my lamebrain.

  • Joe M||

    Maybe this?

  • Randian ||

    Fake Heller, you seem capable of having a rational conversation. Handle-stealing makes you less credible. Why not change it and boost your credibility?

  • ||

    The reason that I don't use the + is that it doesn't matter. We're happy to match the first space and the rest is just icing on the cake. Neither's wrong but I'd try to keep these as tight as possible since they're running against all comment names.

    As for tutorials, I don't think they're necessary. Just fiddle around with something like regexpal, which has a quick reference.

  • Joe M||

    Hm, it didn't look like it was working with just ^\s for me. Adding the + got rid of the other spoofs. But I just switched it back and it seems to still be working.

  • Joe M||

    And +1 on regexpal. I forgot about that site, but I've used it for work before.

  • fried wylie||

    definitely bookmarked. thx

  • Zeb||

    I shouldn't think that it woudl be too hard for Reason to eliminate names with a leading space.

  • R C Dean||

    Is it? Is anything truly private in this subsidized, corporatized Commerce Clause world?

    Nope. Thanks for asking, though.

  • Proprietist||

    Girls will be boys and boys will be girls
    It's a mixed up, muddled up, shook up world

  • Old Mexican||

    The next time Donald Trump says or does something stupid, remember that he also did this solid for transgender rights[...]


    Which presumably are different from your normal, everyday rights, like Liberty, Life and Property.

    "The Miss Universe Organization will allow Jenna Talackova to compete in the 2012 Miss Universe Canada pageant provided she meets the legal gender recognition requirements of Canada[...]


    "[...] recognition that she will keep as long as s/he keeps pumping the massive dossages of hormones into the body lest the "woman" starts showing a five-o'clock shadow."

  • ||

    No meatspin jokes. How disappointing.

  • Kroneborge||

    Sorry couldn't do it.

  • Tonio||

    The New York-based organization did not specify which other competitions' standards Talackova would have to meet, leaving her entry up in the air ahead of next month's beauty pageant.

    While fully supportive of this private organization's being able to set whatever qualifications it wishes for contestants, I suspect that Trump is cynically stating a ND policy for his organization knowing full well that she'll be disqualified because of the rules of the other pageants.

  • H. Reardon||

    May I remind everyone debating the pros and cons of whether Miss Trans should or should not be eligible to compete in a beauty contest, the extent of 'enhancement' that should be permitted, etcetera, ad nauseum, that you're arguing about a fucking beauty contest.

  • Randian ||

    It's an extended dialogue on Gender Identity. Some people ascribe mystical qualities to genetic identifiers, for reasons I cannot understand.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    And some people ascribe mystical qualities to an people's mental view of themselves.

  • amelia||

    I can't believe anyone is naive enough to expect that beauty pageants would ban cosmetic surgery. How would they find contestants to meet their evermore unnatural standards of beauty without cosmetic surgery? Recall that the Miss California Pageant paid for that Prejean woman's implants - and then sued to get the money back after they fired her! http://articles.cnn.com/2009-1.....PM:SHOWBIZ

  • Copernicus||

    I heard "she" has a 6-inch clitoris.

  • ||

    Did anyone else see the Chyna porno? If she can remain a woman after she grew that...thing with andogenic drugs, then this little Slavic lady can be a woman too.

  • ||

    I heard about it. I was told it was pretty much vomit inducing. Something about tentacle porn.

    Chynna could still give birth, as frightening as that would be. I would like to apply the same standard to Miss Talackova.

    If that's the case Warty, what exactly, and biologically is a woman? Is it a matter of genetics or whimsy?

  • ||

    i fapped it a few times. Whats wrong with a large clit anyway? easier to find. All shapes and sizes.

    Plus you can clash swords without another dude.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Hey everyone, I've decided that I'm actually a black dude.

  • Randian ||

    I knew this was going to be a "point" eventually.

    There are times where it is OK to tell someone who self-identifies as something that said identification is ridiculous (i.e. Maher as libertarian). This is not one of those times.

  • ||

    Actually, Auric has somewhat of a point.

    Was Micheal Jackson black when he died?

  • Randian ||

    Well, yeah Groovus...was he?

  • Proprietist||

    And what does it matter if he was or wasn't? As far as I'm concerned, if Michael Jackson wants to be white, I have no problem with him changing the legal status of his race (if there needs to be such a status at all, which I don't think there does). The increase in interracial families will render such concepts archaic someday. Hopefully.

  • Randian ||

    I mean, there is a difference between Bill Maher calling himself a libertarian and Jenna Talackova calling herself a woman. The first is transparently wrong; the second is, without a genetic test, obviously correct.

    There's a continuum between Absurdity and common sense.

  • Proprietist||

    Anybody can call themselves whatever they want. I'm talking about what they are considered legally. And frankly I think (like marriage and state incorporation) individual gender, race, sexuality and other biological statuses should go out the window, as there's no compelling reason to have them other than for census stats, maybe.

  • Zeb||

    Are albinos with black parents black?

    While I think that people ought to be able to reassign their gender, I can see the arguments for a more firm line based on genetics. For race, I don't think there is any such line to be drawn. An awful lot of African Americans have a whole lot of European genes. So Michael Jackson probably was white to some extent.
    Actually, it would be great in certain ways if you could legally change your race. It would certainly do a number on affirmative action.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Are you suggesting my self-identification as a black man is ridiculous?

  • Randian ||

    Well, do you have any physical characteristics that could reasonably approximate what we think of as "black"?

  • ||

    Well, do you have any physical characteristics that could reasonably approximate what we think of as "black"?

    Why do those matter? If Auric wants to be black, he is black by proxy of whimsy. And should not matter to anyone from Jesse Jackson to Chris Rock to Dr. Marc LaMont Hill.

    But I betcha it with the last few.

  • Randian ||

    That's a total strawman of my position, and it disappoints me that you didn't read my post addressing that exact Strawman before you asserted it.

    There is a difference between "I can say I am whatever I say I am, and you have to accept the definition" and saying "Microscopic characteristics render your self-identification and all social norms irrelevant."

    You do see that's different, right?

  • ||

    I apologize sloop, that was kinda crappy of me. But strawman or not, it's not far off and demonstrates the absurdity of Racial/Identity politcs.

    In this case, with Miss Talackova, I fail to see the difference.

    She went to great lengths to change was determined at birth. She changed it, fine. But she is asking you to disregard that accepted biological definition and conflating both of your quotation statements.

    Is SugarFree still a diabetic when he is regularly taking his insulin?

  • Randian ||

    The absurdity, to me, is ascribing Magical Social Powers to the presence of a "Y" chromosome.

    But she is asking you to disregard that accepted biological definition

    She is asking me to reject an accepted genetic definition, not a biological one. Anatomically, she is undoubtedly female.

  • ||

    Anatomically, she is undoubtedly female.

    Where is the factory original ovaries and uterus? Where are those fallopian tubes? The Hysteroophro-salpingjectomic trifecta that makes woman, woman. Heck, I'll even take one out of three.

  • Proprietist||

    If doctors could translant said things and make them functional, would you move the goalposts again?

  • ||

    If doctors could translant said things and make them functional, would you move the goalposts again?

    In some cases, we can, but requires a XX, factory original woman (an identical twin actually).

    Which also begs the question with identical twins, if one of the identical female twins gets a sex change, are they now fraternal twins?

  • ||

    The absurdity, to me, is ascribing Magical Social Powers to the presence of a "Y" chromosome.

    It's more than social, and you know it. You know all too well, and I'm trying to be polite, sloop, that your gender had a huge bearing on a legal aspect of your life, and I think you know what I mean. Do you accept in toto the concept of Oprah's Pregnant Man?

    Also this:

    She is asking me to reject an accepted genetic definition, not a biological one.

    Genetics is a subset of biology proper, and a formal discipline in its own right. You cannot have one without the other.

  • ||

    I only take insulin because it's hip and cool.

  • ||

    I only take insulin because it's hip and cool.

    I wish I could cure you, SF. I mean that with all sincerity.

  • Joe M||

    If you had your skin pigmentation changed, it wouldn't be so ridiculous.

  • Randian ||

    Yes, exactly.

    She sexually developed as a woman. Identified as a female for as long as she can remember. Has female parts. Looks like a female.

    But because invisible letters that are normally associated with a "male" are testable, she must...something other than female? This is borderline incoherent to me.

  • ||

    She sexually developed as a woman. Identified as a female for as long as she can remember. Has female parts. Looks like a female.

    Though without factory original parts. If someone thinks they are Superman since as long as they can remember, are they? Was she born with a uterus? Does well buffed pyrite mean it's really high ore gold?

    Biology is a bitch. The old standby of "If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, then it is a duck" would assume a platypus is a bird with feet and claws.

  • Proprietist||

    If I take car parts and build a boat with some other parts, is it a boat or a car?

  • fried wylie||

    If I take car parts and build a boat with some other parts, is it a boat or a car?

    I dunno. But it's got a good chance of being Awesome.

  • db||

    It's good for at least two episodes of Top Gear.

  • Mickey Rat||

    It is likely something that does not do very well at being either a boat or a car.

  • donkey show||

    sounds like a boat.

  • Randian ||

    Though without factory original parts.

    So you can say that she is genetically male. That isn't what I would call a useful social concept.

    Was she born with a uterus?

    If an XX baby was born without one, does that make her less female?

    You attribute a lot of power to the presence of an invisible genetic marker. I don't understand it.

  • Proprietist||

    That isn't what I would call a useful social concept.

    Is a woman with bleached-blond hair a blond or a brunette just because brown is her natural color? I'd consider her a blond, genetics aside - as would 99% of people.

  • Randian ||

    I agree with you, Proprietist. She looks like a blonde, says she's a blonde: she's blonde.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    I'd consider her a blond, genetics aside - as would 99% of people.

    I'm pretty sure you're entirely wrong on that.

  • Randian ||

    Without prior knowledge, they most certainly would.

    It must be tiring to insist on full disclosures of any and all alterations in order to deal with people as they come.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    If you ignore the first part of the scenario where it's mentioned her hair is naturally brown, then yes, people will think she's blond. If you ask them with that information the response rate will be vastly different.

    People would tend to think I meant US dollars if I gave them an envelope and it said $50. If they opened it and got new information that it was actually Canadian dollars, they wouldn't insist on calling it US dollars because that's what it looked like to them at first.

  • Proprietist||

    Even if you know that information, you're not going to start calling her the "brunette by the pool" when she's obviously blonde. If you do, people are going to be confused.

    Likewise, I don't think you'd call Jenna Talackova "that dude over there" if asked to identify her in a crowd.

  • ||

    It must be tiring to insist on full disclosures of any and all alterations in order to deal with people as they come.

    Ever fill out a H&P/Health HX, sloop? I do it all the time. Yes, it does get tiring, and will have a bearing on how I interact with them.

    Dealing with people on a personal level is one thing, a professional, vastly different. Miss Talackova is certainly a high level competitor, and could be considered a professional. It is a female competition. Miss Talackova has XY chromosomes, therefore not female.

    Referring to Miss Talackova in a feminine way does not a female make.

  • ||

    If an XX baby was born without one, does that make her less female?

    XX - female, by biological and genetic definition, albeit sterile.

    Congenital sterility in a man or woman does not preclude XX or XY, barring aneuploidy.

    Also, an extremely low percentage of live births, and it's been suggested outliers should not define the rule.

  • ||

    If an XX baby was born without one, does that make her less female?

    XX - female, by biological and genetic definition, albeit sterile.

    Congenital sterility in a man or woman does not preclude XX or XY, barring aneuploidy.

    Also, an extremely low percentage of live births, and it's been suggested outliers should not define the rule.

    You attribute a lot of power to the presence of an invisible genetic marker. I don't understand it.

    Doctor, sloop. I'm going to have a different perspective than you and will look through the lens of biological development with a specific, discernable, and measurable inception.

  • Mickey Rat||

    "She sexually developed as a woman."

    No, he sexually developed as a male taking a cocktail of female hormones.

    "Identified as a female for as long as she can remember."

    One's feelings are irrelevent biologically.

    "Has female parts."

    No, has male parts surgically altered to appear female.

    "But because invisible letters that are normally associated with a "male" are testable, she must...something other than female?"

    Because that is the real truth. "She" is a male. It is not something that can be altered fundamentally no matter how much "she" desires it, and no one is obligated to indulge "her" feelings on this.

  • donkey show||

    It is most definitely something that can be altered. Socially she is considered a female by most everyone she meets, and she can legally change her gender in the United States to female. For example, here is how she could get a female US passport.

    http://travel.state.gov/passpo....._5100.html

  • ||

    IMO it depends on how you're treated. And that should be that.

    I remember this girl in my freshman dorm who would continually assert that she wasn't white she was Greek (she had some weird hangups about white privilege or something). She was whiter than sour cream. And likewise, even if a guy is half-black or sometimes a quarter-black, he can be treated as though he's black.

    If she's treated as a woman, lives as a woman and is legally regarded as a woman, that's different than merely declaring yourself something else.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    I don't treat him as a woman. So that mean's he's not?

  • ||

    I don't think anyone here "treats" her. Nor would it matter if you were one of those genderblind or colorblind folks. All I'm saying is that how society regards a person is more important than that person's unilateral declaration that he's now black or a chick or has smart children.

  • Randian ||

    That would make you an asshole. No offense, but it would, because you have very little basis to violate social norms other than a happenstance of genetics that isn't even visible to you.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Social norms are defined by what people think.

  • Randian ||

    Yes, and I and most people would think you were an ass for insisting on treating her like a man when there's no reasonable basis to do so.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Scientific facts are unreasonable when determining an individual's sex?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Randian, are you sure you're not a Democrat? Only you sound like one on this issue...

  • DWC||

    Man, do I feel dirty.

  • R C Dean||

    Glad we settled that.

  • fried wylie||

    CONSENSUS, BITCHES!

  • Mickey Rat||

    "The next time Donald Trump says or does something stupid..."

    It likely will not be nearly as stupid as this.

  • db||

    I wouldn't care if she still had a penis, she's a beautiful woman.

  • QueerLibertarian||

    I skimmed through the comments and didn't see anything like this posted, forgive me if it was.

    It’s typically assumed that sex and gender are the same thing. They’re not. Please everyone do yourself a favor and read this:

    http://www.scarleteen.com/arti.....der_primer

    I identified as a liberal/progressive for a while and I've just recently begun to convert to libertarianism. You guys should really do a better job of being accepting to LGBT folk (specifically the T here). I think libertarians have some great potential to convert many liberals who are dissatisfied with democrats. But reading through this thread I couldn't help but get really turned off. Seriously, if you aren't going to educate yourself on sexuality/gender, then at least be more respectful of her and all trans people if you want a chance at winning over some progressives.

    Disclaimer: I acknowledge the fact that someone has the right to say disrespectful/fetishizing/offensive things about whoever they want, that's free speech. All I'm arguing is that you shouldn't say stuff like that for the good of your movement.

  • db||

    As I see it, there's no need for me to "educate [my]self on sexuality/gender" because if I respect individuals and their choices about their lives, then I by default respect those who choose alternatives.

    Please understand that there are those who have spent their whole lives exposed to conventional mores and who find it very difficult to get around them. Ms. Talackova has been fortunate in that she has been able to identify both psychologically and physically with her transgender self from a relatively early age. This is a situation not unlike being a cisgender person from birth. Those of us who are very comfortable in our birth genders may find it uncomfortable to be confronted with transgendered persons because we may not really understand the nature of their problems/concerns.

    In short, the transgendered do need to consider the needs and limitations of the cisgendered; for we have never been confronted with such identity issues. LGBT people need to understand that shock is probably not the best tool for the job.

  • QueerLibertarian||

    "Please understand that there are those who have spent their whole lives exposed to conventional mores and who find it very difficult to get around them."

    Yeah, I guess I overreacted a little. I'm so used to spending time in extremely LGBT friendly spaces (online at least) that I wasn't used to hearing reactions of people who haven't been around that stuff much. I just wanted to post that link to provide a resource for people.

  • GILMORE||

    All I'm arguing is that you shouldn't say stuff like that for the good of your movement.

    Ahh, and here you miss the point of libertarians (small L) =

    We dont really give a fuck about 'movements' (personal bowels aside), so much as retaining the dignity of having a personal point of view uncircumscribed by conventional 'wisdom'.

    That said... I'm cool with trans-whatshername. Maybe too much so. Ouch.

  • QueerLibertarian||

    "We dont really give a fuck about 'movements'"

    Hmm. I guess that was directed at Big L Libertarians then. Which ones are all these evangelical Ron Paul supporters I keep running into?

    I'm just thinking about all the people like myself who voted for Obama but are dissatisfied with his performance on civil liberties. We can't help but notice Paul and Johnson having way more balls than democrats when discussing stuff like legalizing marijuana, prostitution, etc. People like me could potentially vote libertarian, but won't if libertarians come off as too homophobic or transphobic.

    But that being said, those fears are somewhat natural to have, I probably was a little harsh in my first post.

  • Suellington||

    I wouldn't get too put off by it. The conversation can get a bit raw on these boards, but most anyone who considers themself libertarian would be completely okay with someone using their own resources to have sex reassignment surgery or choosing to live their life as whatever gender they decided. Having self-ownership is pretty basic libertarianism by any measure.

    That said, she is stunning. Of course since the pagaent is a private entity it should be able to exclude her if they want, but the Donald would be beyond stupid to not have her. In the US you can legally change your gender, even on a passort, I don't know if it's the same for Canada.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    QL, you might want to consider that you can't pigeonhole everyone who isn't willing to have sex with a post-op is "homophobic or transphobic".

  • QueerLibertarian||

    Oh no, sorry if I wasn't clear, but I didn't mean that. Everyone has their own unique sexuality and not everyone is attracted to transgender people, that's fine. Not being attracted to transgender people doesn't automatically mean that a person is transphobic, just like not being attracted to women doesn't mean a gay guy is sexist against women.

    I was just referring to comments that are disrespectful in general. For example, calling her "him" when she clearly identifies as a woman and has for a long time. It's kind of like calling a professor "Jim" instead of Dr. Smith. Of course people have the right to do it, but it's disrespectful.

  • strat||

    QL. I like your style. As some other folks have said, these boards can be a bit raw, but in between shocking moments are some real insights. (Isn't it always that way...)

    db pretty much said it. I think what you'd find from most self-identified Libertarians is that they really wouldn't care much one way or the other.

    I think what puts some people off is that in "libertopia," a lot of people who are used to being treated specially or receiving a lot of attention (be it "positive" or "negative") probably just wouldn't.

    I have this experience with some friends who are about as San Francisco feminist as one can get. I actually admire them for standing up for their beliefs, but when they cast out assertions about how the world works, I would challenge them just as quickly as I would any representative of an archetypal patriarchy.

    This forum may be one of the few places where people disregard political correctness without much of an expressed desire to attack some "PC" foe. My experience is that people aren't used to that and often lump them in with whatever statist kneejerk reactionaries they're used to dealing. Don't worry, we're used to it. Now where's my monocle?

  • QueerLibertarian||

    "people aren't used to that and often lump them in with whatever statist kneejerk reactionaries they're used to dealing"

    Yeah, I've been a little guilty of that. It seems to be like this:

    Liberals: "LGBT people are awesome and special and we should celebrate their existence."

    Conservatives: "LGBT people are destructing the moral fabric of society and will burn in hell."

    Libertarians: "I don't really give a fuck, do whatever the hell you want."

    Ok maybe that's oversimplifying it a little, lol, but coming from the liberal camp I sometimes am quick to assume that everyone else is some kind of "statist kneejerk reactionary".

    I know just what you mean about challenging liberals. One of the things that has pushed me away from them is that they can be just as dogmatic as conservatives. They are often very surprised when I question them with the same amount of skepticism as I do with conservatives.

  • strat||

    Well I learned early on that there was a difference between sex and gender. The mnemonic I've always used is that "words (or languages) have gender, people have sex."

    In short there doesn't seem to be a consensus on the use of the term gender to apply to people.

  • LP||

    I don't really care what people do to their body or how involved private organizations allow them to be, but my own personal opinion is that there is something mentally off with someone who is preoccupied with their "gender identity". I do not buy for a minute the idea of someone "feeling like the wrong gender". That is utter hokum. I have no idea what my gender feels like compared to the other gender. You would have to live your exact life, but as the other gender from beginning to end to know the differences in how genders feel. Ugh, it's stupid. I also hate the people who insist on controlling everyone else's casual mention of their gender. For example, by demanding to be called "Z" instead of he or she. /rant

  • strat||

    I hadn't heard "Z," but I could never get past "tey" back in the 80s.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement