Trans

Transgender Free Market Economist Offers Sage Advice to Bruce Jenner and the Rest of Us

Deirdre McCloskey: Love is never in excess supply.

|

JennerWheaties
Daily Beast

As all the world knows Olympian Bruce Jenner revealed in an interview two weekends ago with ABC's Diane Sawyer: "Yes, for all intents and purposes, I am a woman." While such transitions are doubtlessly significant to the folks undergoing them and to their loved ones, my response to the Jenner revelation was basically a big yawn. I don't care what gender people are; they are just people and should be treated with the respect due to any other human beings. And more Americans are coming around to this view.

Jenner's TV appearance may, indeed, have the salutary effect of further "normalizing" transgender identities and thus accelerating greater acceptance among cisgender Americans. By one very preliminary estimate, some 700,000 Americans may identify as transgender, or about 0.3 percent of the population. A recent Human Rights Campaign poll found that 22 percent of Americans now know someone who is transgender, up from 17 percent the year prior. The HRC poll also reported…

… knowing a transgender person translates powerfully into positive impressions: 66 percent of those who said they know a transgender person expressed favorable feelings toward them, compared with 13 percent who did not—a net favorability of 53 percentage points.

Although polls do show that many Americans remain somewhat uncomfortable about transgender people, others show that younger people are much more accepting. This bodes well for the future.

McCloskey
McCloskey

Free market economist and brilliant economic historian Deirdre McCloskey transitoned to presenting as a woman back in 1995. When told, her then-dean deadpanned, "Thank God! I thought you were going to tell me you were converting to socialism!" In a thoughtful op-ed in the Des Moines Register, she offers some gentle, pertinent advice to Jenner and the rest of us on staying calm:

How to stay calm? Stop thinking of gender change as being about sex, sex, sex. Stop believing the locker-room theory that gender changers are gay, and gays want to be women. Whom you love is not same thing as who you are. You can love your dog without wanting to become a dog. You can want to become an adult, as our kids do, without having much of an idea of what it's actually like to be an adult.

Stop imagining that all male-to-female gender crossers become prostitutes. Stop imagining that "men" enter the women's room to spy on born women or commit rape. Stop thinking of gender crossing as an indulgence. Believe me, I would much rather have realized at age 53 that I was gay, or wanted to ride Harleys, than to go through a dozen operations and a lot of funny and terrifying embarrassments.

But I realized in August of 1995, after 30 years of a loving and successful marriage, perfectly normal all around, that I wanted to become an old woman, not an old man. I had wanted it since age 11, but people can adjust, and I did. Captain of my high school football team. Macho economist. Pretty good father, pretty good husband. I can still change a tire — but would rather watch some man do it.

McCloskey reports that much of her family and most of her friends and colleagues rolled with the change from Donald to Deirdre, but some, sadly, did not:

Jenner can expect some surprises in how people react. The three people I love most in the world have have not spoken to me since 1995. I have three grandchildren I've never seen. But, really, no more tears. Into each life some rain must fall. Your family will have similar stories. Uncle George married a Catholic and no one spoke to him again. Aunt Louise said something unkind to Cousin Betty 20 years ago and that was it. Families act often as though love was in excess supply, as economists put it. Garbage. Throw it away with both hands.

Sage advice: Love is never in excess supply.

McCloskey is an occasional contributor to Reason. See her articles, Creative Destruction vs. the New Industrial State, and "From Donald to Deirdre."

Hat tip to Mark Lambert.

Advertisement

NEXT: Reason's Seattle Happy Hour Is Tomorrow!

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.

  1. Not gonna lie – I will never, ever understand why someone would want to change genders. On the most basic level, I guess I can’t – “I yam what I yam”. And so are they.

    I think the rarity and….”drastic” change is what makes it so interesting.

    Good news that that more people don’t give a shit about any of this, I suppose.

    1. I didn’t really understand what Jenner is trying to accomplish. He says he loves women and banged many hotties back in the day. Doesn’t sound like he wants to be a hetro-woman.

      Does he want to be a chick with a dick and still bang them? Or does he want to be a lesbian?

      1. I think it is worth repeating part of what McCloskey wrote:

        Stop thinking of gender change as being about sex, sex, sex. Stop believing the locker-room theory that gender changers are gay, and gays want to be women. Whom you love is not same thing as who you are. You can love your dog without wanting to become a dog. You can want to become an adult, as our kids do, without having much of an idea of what it’s actually like to be an adult.

        1. Okay… so back to my dick question…

          I truly don’t care. But if I have to pay attention, that is my question.

        2. If it’s not about sex, sex, sex, then what is it about? “Gender” just means “kind”. Jean Shepherd used to say the world was divided into 2 types, & then went on to indicate the division line?a different division line every time, such as owners of Fords vs. owners of other makes of vehicles?& the division was always of just as much importance as any of the other ways it would cut.

    2. Imagine you are who you are, but with the body of a woman. All jokes aside, don’t you think you would pine for the body your brain expects you to have?

      1. Yeah, I’m saying I can’t even imagine having those thoughts. It’s so….foreign to me.

        Yeah, intellectually I can agree with you – but I literally can’t imagine actually thinking that….I dunno. My hard wiring’s….pretty hard wired, I guess.

      2. I pine for many women’s bodies, it’s true.

          1. He’s not joking, Fist

        1. You got a woodie, then?

      3. My brain “expects” me today to have the body w the sex it had yesterday. I don’t think it “expects” a body on any other basis. If I had a limb cut off, my brain would expect it still to be there; if I lost a finger, I’m sure I’d be phantom finger-pressing the keyboard with the finger according to the way I learned to touch-type.

      4. Nope. Not even a little. That’s why I don’t really grok transsexuality: it just isn’t that important to me.

        Incidentally, try asking a woman what she would do if she woke up and was in a man’s body. What would she do? Every woman, if she is honest, will admit it: first thing she would do, pee on stuff.

    3. “I yam what I yam”.

      “Popeye,no!”
      /olive oil catching Popeye in a dress

      1. “Do ya like my little spinach-k colored number? Ahhhgagagagagaga!!”

    4. I don’t expect anyone really understands it unless they live it. As someone for whom my body and sex seem completely natural, I can’t even conceive what transgender feelings would be.

      It’s like asking a colorblind person what the world looks like to them.

    5. Not gonna lie – I will never, ever understand why someone would want to change genders. On the most basic level, I guess I can’t

      That’s pretty much where I am too. I guess I’m just a cis-hetero male shitlord through and through. As such, I can’t understand what someone with gender identity issues goes through, but I don’t have to understand it in order to recognize that it’s their right to do what they want and be who they feel they should be.

      1. [Yawn.] Yeah, that right’s going to be so controversial here.

        Let’s discuss the phenomenon, not the legalities. That’s for Volokh.

  2. Jenner’s TV appearance may, indeed, have the salutary effect of further “normalizing” transgender identities

    Unlikely, and for the worst possible reason, really:

    He is still obviously a dude, which makes for a pretty unattractive female.

    1. But not really exceptionally unattractive for a 65 year old.

  3. I don’t get it, but the nice thing is that I don’t need to get it. Shine on you, crazy diamonds.

    1. Right the fuck on, o lumpy one.

    2. It’s a bloody shame when progressives take up a banner. It’s not so much “let us share your burden” as it is “sit down, this is our cause now,” and then everyone is soooo surprised when political advocacy elicits political opposition…

    3. You said it better than I

    4. Warty, err, nails it?

      That’s where I am. My comment above is directed at whether Jenner, who looks more like a failed tranny, is going to improve PR for trannies generally. I just don’t see the general public looking at Jenner and going “Oh, that seems legit, and not weird at all.”

      1. To be fair, Jenner was kind of weird-lookin’ as a dude, too.

  4. There’s a difference between shrugging your shoulders at the eccentricities of loved ones – “oh, well, that’s Uncle Bob for you – oops, I mean Aunt Bernice…”

    And agreeing with the eccentricity as if its “salutary,” and adopting the ridiculous “cis” jargon.

    Fortunately, you don’t have to agree with someone to love them, so if a loved one is a Democrat or thinks they’re a different sex you can still get along with them without agreeing that Bernie Sanders is a noble champion of the poor who ought to be President, or that a woman can have a penis.

    I think a big problem arises when someone – either a bigot or a “tolerance” fascist – says you have to agree with someone and if you don’t you must hate them. What a narrow worldview such an attitude implies!

    1. …and how revealing of the attitude of the tolerance-promoter, who is basically admitting to hating those (s)he disagrees with and projecting that onto others.

      1. Bingo. Tolerance =/= Acceptance =/= Celebration.

        In the mind of a SJW, they are all the same. There is no room for dissent. Either there is “enthusiastic consent” or you’re a bigot.

  5. It’s sick that we celebrate and encourage this form of mental illness.

    1. It’s sick that you think I should care what someone does with their own body or should behave as if it has any kind of negative impact on me.

      McCloskey became a woman back in 1995 and doesn’t appear to be expressing any regrets about doing so and I don’t understand why I know better about what she wants than she does.

      1. I don’t care what they do with there own body.

        Mutilate yourself to your hearts content.

        But don’t expect me, or anyone else to think that it’s anything other than a form of insanity, let alone celebrate your doing so.

        1. I get the mental disease view point. There are people who view their limbs as alien and eventually they amputate the alien limb. The good news is that it is not progressive and people are generally happy after the amputation. Trans could be related, but the cure is the transition and then they are happy. I mean no one cares if you have your appendix out, why would they care if you transition?

          1. Yeah, my arm keeps giving me the finger. I’ll show it!

        2. That’s the thing. In the prog mind, there is a binary reaction, either you love something, or you’re against it.

          There’s no room for neutrality, begrudging acceptance, or even dislike but tolerance.

        3. VGZ: No one is asking that you “celebrate” anything. Just leave people alone and go your grumpy way. Tolerance properly understood is the ability to abide speech and other non-violent life choices one dislikes.

          1. The zeitgeist is not one of tolerance Ron. It’s enforced celebration.

            1. Who is forcing you to do anything? Social pressure is not force.

              1. Fair enough.

                The social pressure to celebrate a person’s mental illness is the sign of a sick society.

                Better?

                1. Yes, but still wrong. See my comment below.

                2. Better?

                  No, because you’re still calling someone’s quest for self identity, which we generally consider the ability to do so a vital component of liberty, a mental illness.

              2. “Emotional hurt” versus “physical hurt.” I think that’s a thin distinction.

        4. “I don’t care what they do with there own body.”

          Well, good, except this seems to say the exact opposite:

          “It’s sick that we celebrate and encourage this form of mental illness.”

          If you don’t care what other people do with their own body, then why do you care if other people choose to celebrate it and why do you take the time to whine about it being a mental illness?

          That doesn’t seem like evidence that you ‘don’t care.’

          1. I’m sick of hearing about this bullshit.

            1. I’m sick of hearing about this bullshit.

              The wonderful thing about the internet is that if you are sick of hearing about something, you can simply scroll past and ignore. Instead of making a half dozen comments on it.

          2. If Bruce Jenner had come out as a reincarnation of Napoleon or a dolphin would he be celebrated for his bravery in the media? With the implicit expectation that we should all celebrate his honesty and encourage other trans speciest to come out of the closet?

            No, we’d never hear about it and his friends and family would quietly deal with his illness.

            1. The thing is, why would you assume that transgender is just another delusion, equal to all others? Indulging someone’s delusion that they are Napoleon is going to be disruptive in ways that allowing someone to live as the other sex is not.
              And why should you quietly and privately deal with an illness if dealing with it is not harmful or significantly disruptive to anyone? Transgender people are not raving lunatics. They just look a little funny.

              1. That’s easy: Because it’s as easy to establish that Bruce Jenner is male as it is that he’s not Napoleon or a dolphin.

            2. You remind me of people who comment on a blog article that it is too boring and should never have been included and why does anyone care?

              When obviously they cared enough to take the time to complain.

              If you really didn’t care, you wouldn’t even have left the first comment, let alone all the followups. You’re just another know-it-all telling everybody else how to be moral.

              Fuck off, slaver.

          3. There’s a difference between not caring (“tolerance”) and not celebrating and encouraging.

            I hope these folks find happiness. But I’m not going to go out and encourage anyone, anyone at all, to go full tranny.

        5. If it’s a form of insanity that doesn’t hurt anyone and makes a person happier, should you even call it insanity or mental illness? While the underlying feelings may be properly described as a disorder of some sort, the cross-dressing and hormone treatments or surgery are attempts to deal with the underlying problem. Supporting people’s attempts to deal with a mental disorder is not celebrating mental illness.

          I think there are valid questions about how best to deal with transgenderism. It really is a much more problematic thing than being gay or being into some kind of unusual sexual practices. And based on what evidence I have seen, it would be a terrible idea to just start making sex change surgeries a standard practice for transgender people. If it is possible to do so, I would think that changing people’s minds rather than their bodies would be far preferable. But that seems to be quite difficult to do for many transgender people.

          You can and should say whatever you want about these people. That doesn’t mean you aren’t being a dick.

          1. Supporting people’s attempts to deal with a mental disorder is not celebrating mental illness.

            That is not what’s going on. The progressive SJWs don’t recognize it as a disorder, nor do they support attempts to deal with it. Rather, they tote it as another example of diversity, and are attempting to get transgenderism shoved in with LG and B as a protected class.

            If there was a push for privacy in the lives of transgender folk and their families, I could take your words as true. As it is, your claim that things like gender-neutral bathroom legislation are just “supporting people’s attempts to deal with a mental disorder” rings hollow.

            1. Obviously I’m not for legal requirements for gender neutral bathrooms (though I am for gender neutral bathrooms for other reasons). I’m talking about personal support, or at least acceptance of people trying to deal with a problem.

              I don’t give a fuck what progressive SJWs think. I’m saying what I think. I most definitely don’t think we need a bunch of laws or to jump to the conclusion that everyone with transgender feelings should just live as the other gender and that will solve everything.

            2. The irony, which I’m far from the only 1 to point out, is that changing one’s sex to match superficial stereotypes reduces apparent diversity, and signals that diversity is a bad thing.

              1. No, Robert, you’re not the only one?there’s me, too. But as far as I know, you and I are the only ones who get that.

                1. No, someone else pointed it out in a comment thread on a YouTube, or maybe it was PopSugar, or maybe someplace else.

      2. My only problem with all this is that “I’m happy that you’re happy” doesn’t seem to be enough. I don’t know if it’s a majority of the LGBTQWERTY community or just a very active and vocal minority, but as others have pointed out, “live and let live” doesn’t pass their litmus test. I must accept what they believe and embrace it wholeheartedly otherwise I’m a bigot and the state must deal with me accordingly.

        Personally, I think – barring certain genetic quirks – biology determines your sex. I’m left then with psychology. I’m not gonna go so far as to call someone insane but I’m pretty sure my belief that environmental conditions create this as opposed to predetermined genetic ones gets me placed in the black book of hate, even when I’m completely cool with someone doing what they want with their own body.

        1. ^^This.

        2. Of course biology determines your sex. But biology is extremely complicated and still not all that completely understood.
          Pretty much all sex linked traits, male and female, are on the X chromosome which everyone has. The Y chromosome doesn’t do much besides make you male. So it really shouldn’t be so hard to believe that because of whatever developmental factors, a person might develop with the body of a man but a mind that is more like that of a woman in some ways. Saying that XX or XY determines everything about your sexual characteristics is far too simplistic a way to look at it, I think. Even if you say that your genes determine you sex, each man has a copy of every gene that makes a woman a woman. So you really can’t rule anything out on that basis.

          The genetic quirks you speak of are something different, I think. There are actual intersex conditions where a person has physical attributes of both sexes. But that is rather different from transgenderism where the body is normal, but the mind doesn’t match up.

          1. … the body of a man but a mind that is more like that of a woman…

            So, there is only one type of mind that is appropriate for a man? There are thoughts and feelings that a woman may have but a man may not, and so, having the wrong thoughts and feelings should cause intolerable discomfort? Didn’t we used to call that “sexism”?

    2. If it’s an “illness”, assuming you mean that metaphorically & not as referring to actual disease (For if it were an actual disease, how could it be “encouraged”? You either get sick or you don’t.), it’s not one of individuals, but of society.

      There are certain things about sex that are practically 100% gnomonic. Leaving aside intersexes, who are few enough among humans that I don’t believe they bear on this question, there are physical characteristics that make out pretty unmistakably what sex we are. All the rest of the differences between the sexes are statistical, not gnomonic. More men than women, more girls than boys, have certain tendencies, properties, likes & dislikes, etc. Some of these tendencies are transparently arbitrary & changeable, such as whether blue is for boys & pink for girls or vice versa, while others are not.

      What’s bizarre (& unreasonable IMO) is for individuals instead of accepting their being in the statistical minority for their sex when it comes to these tendencies decide that their gnomonic sex characteristics are “wrong”.

      [broken here]

      1. [cont’d]

        I coach children’s tackle football. About 99% of kids who want to play football are boys. I think this tendency is partly sociologic, but mostly biologic. (Usually the effect of the sociologic tendencies is to exaggerate the biologic tendencies, so what starts out 60:40 in some cases may wind up 90:10 or even 99:1) I want kids to have fun, and I wish we had more girls playing just as I want more boys playing. But I don’t think at all that we should try to even out this disparity rather than accepting that that’s the way things are for reasons we don’t fully understand. And I especially don’t think the girls who play are in some way “really” boys.

        It’s just variation. You’ve probably also known cats that were more like dogs than the avg. cat is. You may say this one is “really” a dog, but you know you’re just joking, & that there’s no doubt it’s a cat rather than a dog.

        I’m for keeping our minds open about what girls & boys are “like”, not for reinforcing stereotypes. Why couldn’t Don McCloskey be an atypical man rather than altering his body to be a her, in an effort to be less atypical for his sex? We’re each atypical in some ways.

        1. I can give another example that was of pecuniary interest to me: foam (bubble) baths. In at least much of the world, once people reach their teens, far fewer males than females take these. If there’s a biologic reason for the market to shake out that way, it’s obscure, but that doesn’t rule out some possibility of an underlying physiologic or genetic reason why men don’t tub-bathe as much, or use such a variety of toiletries, as women. A reason implied by Heinlein was that showers from above leave vulva stinky, which is ironic because some now advise giving bubble baths only to boys, not girls, because of the latter’s propensity to vulvovaginitis from soap. A sociologic reason posited for the difference was that foam baths were publicized in the movies when the Hays code required women’s breasts to be covered while bathing, and a layer of foam allowed the impression of nudity in an otherwise realistic bathroom scene. Whatever, sociologically-mediated tendencies such as this self-accelerate, i.e. exhibit positive feedback, as a lot of societal sorting does, so what might’ve started as a slight tendency was magnified; but it didn’t apply much in childhood.

          Back when I was promoting what you see at http://users.bestweb.net/~robgood/lather.html , I’d’ve appreciated popularizing the practice with men, not because I was interested in breaking down “sex roles”, but just to expand the market any way conceivable.

  6. “I can still change a tire ? but would rather watch some man do it.”

    I don’t know if this is the sort of comment that infuriates radfems or actually supports their position.

    1. McCloskey is a free-market advocate, so it would infuriate them.

      1. True. But the sentiment – unless I’m misreading it – could be seen as “I am totally capable of this activity associated with ‘manhood’ but I’d rather we have a chain-gang of men do it because, quite frankly, it’s beneath me…oh, but equality, yada, yada…”

        1. Doesn’t seem to be an uncommon attitude among women. Maybe it is evidence that she really does have the mind of a woman.

        2. Maybe she thinks it’s sexy watching a man do it?

          1. Streams of profanity are sexy?

        3. There is something about watching a man chop wood with an ax that is very compelling. It’s not that I think it’s beneath me – it’s just nice to watch.

  7. “Deidre McCloskey”

    I had no idea McCloskey was transgendered. That’s actually kind of funny given that she wrote a book called ‘Bourgeois Dignity’ about how Bourgeois values are one of the primary drivers of success and economic growth.

    I would not have expected someone who wrote a book w/ that thesis to be trans.

    1. I’m what doctors call “dumb” so can you summarize why bourgeois and trans are incompatible?

      1. Bourgeoisie values generally implies sort of middle class, conventional values. Transitioning to live as a woman doesn’t exactly seem conventional.

        1. I see where I was confused. I was thinking bohemian when you said bourgeoisie. Thanks.

          1. Isn’t it time someone wrote a Bourgeoisie Rhapsody?

            1. I’d say past time.

    2. Did you know that Robert Young, the father in Father Knows Best – one of the most stereotypically bourgeois shows in history – was actually born Roberta Haskins?

  8. You can love your dog cat without wanting to become a dog cat.

    Stop oppressing me!

    1. Goddamned cis-pet scum.

  9. OT:

    Is this the ever illusive peak derp?

    White Privilege Training

    I see blatant racism on sale as thinly disguised fight against racism.

    1. “But what had to change was that belief that these children could learn at high levels of expectations.”

      WOW.

      1. No shit. This is maybe the most racist thing I’ve ever seen promoted right out in the open and it’s being promoted as some sort of social justice. If I were a minority with children in these schools, I would be infuriated. But they apparently think that minorities are so unintelligent that they can’t even comprehend what this is about, let alone be able to question their divine wisdom.

        The mask is really coming off now.

    2. If ‘white privilege’ is a real thing, then wouldn’t the best way for schools to ensure their students success be teach minorities to ‘pass as white’, and thereby enjoy the privilege?

      Which wouldn’t be that hard, as the white privilege seems to be triggered by behavior and not skin color.

      1. The whole notion of white privilege gets it all backwards. The problem isn’t white privilege. The problem is that for a long time, non-whites were systematically discriminated against and screwed over by various governmental and social institutions and various minorities are still suffering from the damage to their cultures and economic lives. The solution isn’t to cure whites of their privilege. It is to get everyone else to realize that they have exactly the same rights and privileges as anyone and break down what barriers remain to their success.

        Of course, this would require examining aspects of the culture that contribute to the problem. And that would be mean and racist or something.

      2. If you can change your “marriage tackle” you can change the color of your skin (or at least, identify as White) – and so, gain all the privileges of white privilege without the crippling white guilt that comes with it.

    3. Holy shit. That’s beyond mask slipping. That’s ripping the mask off, throwing it in a trashcan, dousing it with lighter fluid and tossing in a lit match. Wow, just… wow.

  10. my response to the Jenner revelation was basically a big yawn.

    Then you may as well be dragging Bruce Jenner behind your pickup truck, because the only way to support transgendered people is to be fanatically obsessive about their lives.

  11. http://www.nationalreview.com/…..-ed-whelan

    What the market wants won’t matter. This entire thing is about the leftist desire to transform people into something better. We can now expect anyone who does business with the public to be forced to have “gender neutral bathrooms”. If we are lucky maybe churches will get away with not doing so under that evil, racist first amendment thing but no one else.

    1. I wonder how long even the churches will be able to hold out. I suspect that pressure will develop to force ministers to do gay weddings, on the grounds that they are licensed by the state to perform weddings. I can well imagine a similar approach being taken on the bathroom thing (e.g. don’t church building have to conform to safety codes, etc.?).

      1. Time will tell. I think it will backfire. The reason why people in this country are just soft believers is mostly because we have it so easy. We really do live in a free country and you can act by your beliefs and rarely face any real sanction over it. Well, that is about to change. And oppression tends to harden people’s beliefs more than soften them. The Progs are demented retards who honestly think they can rid the country of religious belief or worst case neuter any belief that remains. They are sadly mistaken in that.

        1. We really do live in a free country and you can act by your beliefs and rarely face any real sanction over it. Well, that is about to change. And oppression tends to harden people’s beliefs more than soften them. The Progs are demented retards who honestly think they can rid the country of religious belief or worst case neuter any belief that remains. They are sadly mistaken in that.

          I pray you’re right. We live in a country where people are free to celebrate the fantasy in Bruce Jenner’s head, live blissfully unaware of Edward Snowden’s sacrifice to bring us a behind-the-scenes look at the NSA, and others actively denounce the realities that Chris Kyle acknowledged and faced head on. Hopefully, it doesn’t land us in a situation where the U.S. is, effectively, more statist and with less socio-economic ability or will than China, Russia, or any one of a dozen other hellholes around the world that got there by clinging to fantasies of social equality.

    2. It’s bullshit like this that will electorally destroy the democrat party for a generation.

      1. “I’ll have them ________ voting republican for the next 200 years!”

        1. I don’t think that a generation was that long even in genesis.

          1. It’s a LBJ quote. I was hoping for a fill in the blank thread.

              1. Thank you.

  12. How can there only be 700,000 transgendered people but 22% of the country “knows” someone who is transgendered? that seems like a stretch.

    1. Six Degrees of Separationg? Sis Degrees of Kevin Bacon?

      Hitler??

      1. Cis degrees of Kevin Bacon

        CB

    2. Maybe people included celebrities they knew were trans.

      1. LEAVE FLIP WILSON ALONE!!!

      2. Makes sense. Basically all this does is gives me more evidence pointing to the that polls are dumb.

        1. If I were a Millennial I would be SO offended right now.

          Not even specifically at your comment. Just generally offended. At everything.

    3. If I know one, s/he, whatever, is hiding it very well.

        1. Mx, please

          1. No, no. Mx is the title, Xe is the pro-noun. Jesus where is Nicole when I need her.

          2. “He or she or it”, abbreviated as h’or’sh’it.

    4. They get around? Quit slut-shaming, you tansphobic shitlord.

      1. Mx-shaming, you cis-centric poopmaster!

        1. CURSES!

          *hangs head in shame, proceeds to compassion education center*

    5. There are around 300 million people in this country. For 22% of them to “know” a transsexual means that 66 million people know one. If there are 700,000 transsexuals, that would mean every one of them knows 94 people on average. That does seem like a lot.

      1. Does it? Seems pretty reasonable to me. Knowing someone doesn’t mean you are good friends or anything. I’m pretty sure I know that many people. And I’m not all that social outside of close friends.

        1. Depends on how you define “know”. If you take it to mean “know of” or “acquainted with”, then no it is not. If you take it to mean “a part of their family or social group”, then yes it is very large.

    6. 700,000 is what, 1 in 500 or so? (if we are talking US population)

      If everyone knows 125 people then 25% would know a transgender person. Doesn’t seem unreasonable. Is there anything wrong with my arithmetic?

      1. Knows, or knows-knows?

        1. I would guess that the people responding would include casual acquaintances in “knows”. I know 2 or 3 transgender people in that way, though only one of them I am at all likely to ever see socially.

  13. Is it alright if I simply don’t care one way or the other, and simply mind my own business? Sometimes I get the feeling that the answer from the LGBTQWERTY folks is “hell no!” I get the same totalitarian vibe that Notorious alludes to above: that you’re either an enthusiastic loud proud supporter or you’re a “hater”. Simply tending to my own life doesn’t seem to be an option.

    1. I don’t care either. They only make me care by trying to use the force of law to make people accommodate them. I am perfectly happy to leave them alone if they would do the same for everyone else.

    2. We used to call this “keeping your head down” back in the day….:)

      1. Us old-school Yankees called it “minding our own business”.

        1. Yeah, that’s what Sammich said 🙂 I’m with you

    3. I’m not an ‘enthusiastic supporter’ either, I just don’t know why anyone should care what someone else does with their own body. There’s no harm here that needs to be rectified, so it makes no sense to attack people who decide they want to live as a woman.

      1. But that’s what I’m saying. I don’t care and I don’t attack anybody. I ignore them, and that apparently still qualifies as “bigotry”, “microaggression”, etc.

      2. The problem comes when such a person concludes “I think I am a woman, therefore women’s clubs, gyms and sports must include me. If they do not, I will sic the law on them.”

  14. If Transgender is a thing, why isn’t Transracial?

    Personally, I identify as whatever race will provide me with an advantage at any given moment.
    And you’re just a fucking hater if you don’t go along with feelingz.

    1. It worked for Fauxcahontas, and how!

    2. If Transgender is a thing, why isn’t Transracial?

      Any Trailer Park Boys viewer knows it’s totally a real thing. Shine on, J-Roc!

    3. Because gender is something that applies universally to all people and race is a vague and poorly defined category based mostly on superficial characteristics.

      Or do you think men and women’s minds are exactly the same and gender is just a social construction?

      1. Transecual seems to directly contradict the idea of gender as a social construction. How can someone have an innate, immutable identification with a mere social construct?

        1. That was the point I was trying to make. Unless you think that gender is a complete social construction, why is it so hard to believe that some people happen to have minds that aren’t quite in accord with their physical/biological sex?

          Believing that you belong to another race is different because the state of mind of being of a certain race really is just a social construction.

      2. That’s the trick, Zeb.

        The people who demand that we celebrate their LGBTQWERTY obsessions believe that gender is a social construction, and is a vague and poorly defined category, etc.

        Look at their proliferations of nano-categories for gender, and tell me it ain’t so.

        By their own logic, then, race should also be something that people can opt in and out of.

        1. The people who demand that we celebrate their LGBTQWERTY obsessions believe that gender is a social construction

          Well, those people are idiots. It doesn’t even make sense. If it is all a social construction, how can they claim that “I was born this way, deal with it”. Seems like a direct contradiction.

          I think that there is actually some significant disagreement about the social constructedness of gender identity. It’s easy to fall into the assumption that groups that agree on many things are all of one mind on every issue. Even among hive-minded progressives that isn’t always the case.

        2. Gender is a social construct, usu. a language term, while sex is not. In French the word for key is feminine, while the word for lock is masculine (my friend Nadine always brings this up to illustrate the non-sexuality of gender), while in Spanish it’s vice versa.

          What’s going on is that progressives are equivocating, using the word “gender” deliberately so they have the excuse that it’s not the same as sex, & then later sneaking back to the idea that it is. I’m disgusted that surveys & forms always ask for gender now when they mean sex.

      3. Because gender is something that applies universally to all people and race is a vague and poorly defined category based mostly on superficial characteristics.

        Ummm..no. It isn’t. A human’s race can be determined by looking at nothing more than a bare femur, –as can things like gender, and age. I’ve seen a pathologist friend do it.

        I can do it with a skull. And that’s just with anatomy I learned sculpting.

        Transracial is on it’s way.

        1. Will transBlacks be allowed to say the N-word?

    4. Wow. I am SO claiming this… I used to select “Native American” on census-type questions, since I am… (I was born here… my parents were born here… their parents were born here) until they stopped putting that on the form. Now the forms say “Inuit” or some such… and I could never justify claiming to be an Inuit… or an African American… but now…

      I AM TRANSRACIAL!

      Thanks VGZ!

      CB

    5. You know, I think that people should start identifying as other races. That’s what I do on census forms and other things that ask for race. Race is a stupid idea anyway.

      It would be a good way to get rid of or make meaningless stupid affirmative action policies and racial quotas.

  15. Is this the ever illusive peak derp?

    The derp laws are like the laws of thermodynamics forever inviolate. We will never reach Peak Derp!

    1. Leave the derp science to the derpetologists

  16. Miss Swan says, “He….looka like a man…”

  17. So if some guy honestly believes that he’s a unicorn that shits gold bricks, do I have to agree and celebrate? Or can I just say “no, you’re not, but I don’t give a damn?”

  18. Well, I’m not the world’s most physical guy,
    But when she squeezed me tight she nearly broke my spine
    Oh my Lola, lo lo lo lo Lola

    Well, I’m not dumb but I can’t understand
    Why she walk like a woman and talk like a man
    Oh my Lola, lo lo lo lo Lola, lo lo lo lo Lola

  19. I was hoping for a fill in the blank thread.

    Nancys.

  20. We live in a world where gluten and gmos are going to kill us, but strong drugs and surgery can turn us into a healthy member of the opposite sex.

  21. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link,
    Go to tech tab for work detail ??????????????? http://www.jobsfish.com

  22. Why do we hear from D. McCloskey only when there’s a transgender news hook? Back when Deirdre was Don, s/he used to have good articles in Reason. Now it’s like you need this angle or gimmick for Prof McCloskey to come up, & in this case only as an interviewee rather than under hir own byline.

    I haven’t even read the piece yet, but this reinforces my belief that transgenderism is a silly artifact of our time, a distraction from real issues, & an expensive & body-mutilating way of trying to lower the river instead of raising the bridge. I’ve no interest in whatever hubbub there is about Bruce Jenner, but am willing to read about D. McCloskey because s/he’s D. McCloskey. I’m just afraid I’ll be disappointed.

  23. The name is Deirdre, with two r’s, not Deidre.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.