Which brings us to Obama's latest and supposedly enlightened appointment at the Commerce department. Just don't call Amanda Simpson a "token" appointee. After all, gender or identity politics had absolutely nothing to do with the selection, at all. Nope. Nothing to see here folks. Out of 300 million Americans who could serve as Senior Commerce Advisor, the single most qualified for the job just happened to be among the infinitesimal fraction of Americans who also happened to have had their gender re-assigned. And incidentally Ms. Simpson, who for most of her career worked either for the government or as a military contractor for the government (read: little actual private sector commerce experience), is on the board of the National Center for Transgender Equality. But again, this is not identity politics at all! And if you believe that, email me as I have some can't-lose investment opportunities for you.
I know the Perez Hiltons out there will come out in full force and call for this Neanderthal's head for suggesting such anti-gay and insensitive points of view. Yet, even putting aside the obvious play by the Obama administration to the GLTB community (yes Amanda, you ARE a token, a mere effort to quell the GLTB masses), why shouldn't we question a transgendered individual's mental state? Can anyone tell me what the difference is between the psyche of those who have undergone extreme voluntary plastic surgery such as Michael Jackson, Jocelyn Wildenstein, and Joan Rivers, who are routinely characterized as a bit insane, versus the psyche of those voluntarily undergoing much more invasive sexual reassignment surgery such as Chaz Bono or Amanda Simpson? I'm not suggesting those undergoing gender reassignment are evil, and perhaps Ms. Simpson is perfectly well-adjusted. For me, the personal choices made by Simpson raise concerns as to whether she'd be fit for a cabinet level position in any administration. I'd hope we'd ask the same questions about any appointee who's made extreme personal choices resulting in permanent and major bodily modification, or any extreme behavior for that matter. This would seem to me to be true equality and even common sense.
"A sinister cabal of superior writers."
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Ruvy
I can't put my finger on exactly what it is, OA, but there is something about this article that stinks.
Does going through an identity changing crisis automatically bar one from high government service or from holding a responsible position?
We know of another person dying to undergo a sex change - a big guy who dreams of being a woman. Were this operation successful, would it prohibit him/her from holding a responsible position? Your article seems to suggest so.
Further, not all identity changing crises involve genital mutilation of one sort or another. Heck, the acquisition of faith (or loss of it) can be an identity changing crisis. Does that mean that a convert to a religion is debarred from responsible positions in business or government?
2 - Tom Carter
Come on, Ruvy. Are you really equating someone who has a religious conversion with a weirdo who shoots up megahormones to grow boobs and has his tallywhacker whacked off, all to become a tall, ugly woman?
Of course, as Jerry Seinfeld might say, "Not that there's anything wrong with that!"
If you were talking about an Arab Muslim country, though, you might be right. Not only are those who convert from Islam discriminated against in hiring for government jobs, they sometimes get their heads whacked off, too.
But to the point -- anyone who thinks that his/her weirdo status wasn't part of the "merit" consideration is living in la-la land. And note that this person's qualifications would more appropriately be used in the Defense Department, but the Commerce Department was the lucky recipient of this appointment. I wonder why?
OA, let me know which corner you're sentenced to stand in, and I'll keep you company.
3 - Ruvy
Tom, if you were reading carefully, you would note the following, "I can't put my finger on exactly what it is, OA, but there is something about this article that stinks."
The rest of my comment is question, and I raise the point that not all identity changing crises require genital mutilation - though young Muslim girls are often forced to undergo this - and it does change their identity, though they may not want to admit it. A burqa can hide more than merely a husband's abuse of his wife.
You have labeled those who are so uncomfortable in their own sexual identities as "weirdos". I leave you to to tender mercies of the LGBT crowd out there; make sure you have you fire-retardant asbestos suit on - and don't breathe in the asbestos!!
I find something very discomforting about this article. Both the author and I view Obama with contempt. But is this merely identity politics, merely designed to shut up the trans-gender crowd and split it off from the homosexuals who are pissed off at the lack of the Obama administration doing something for them - like getting rid of the "Don't ask, don't tell" crap in the US Armed Services? Or is this an actual "merit" appointment - so far as merit goes in this pack of would-be fascist dictators?
I don't know. But dragging poor Chastity Bono into the limelite over it is in poor taste.
Like I say, there is something in this article that stinks, and I cannot put my finger on it.
4 - Jeannie Danna
Darn right it REEKS! & what dose President Obama have to do with this poorly written opinion?
5 - Jeannie Danna
Hi Ruvy!
6 - Jeannie Danna
where is everyone? I miss you guys!
7 - Ruvy
Hi, Jeannie!
Do yourself a favor and read this article again - slowly - so you can understand what OA is getting at here. This article is more a swipe at Obama than anything else. And until you guys lose that incompetent, you will hear little else out of OA. His articles will seem more and more obnoxious to you. To me, they are just repetitive. Some articles will be good and some will be bad, but they will harp on one theme - Obama and what is wrong with him. Since I generally agree with what is wrong with him, I tend to agree. But there is something bad about this piece - like rancid cheese - and I can't quite put my finger on it.
I gotta grab a bite and go shopping.
Later!
8 - The Obnoxious American
Nothing stinks about this article. It's just that it presents a point of view that most people are afraid to offer. And I'm not saying that someone undergoing gender reassignment is barred from government, but would be nice to have a discussion about it, instead of the PC rich, question poor environment we have now.
9 - STM
Ruvy: "I gotta grab a bite and go shopping."
Lol. Well, don't get the cheese, old boy.
Fair dinkum, OA, this is some of your best work.
You've got some balls doing it though.
10 - The Obnoxious American
Ruvy
Just wanted to say that the only reason I bring up Chastity Bono is to show the media treatment of her decision. Her decision is conveyed in a celebratory and enabling fashion. But the reality of a transgendered person is much much more dark - like a bad tatoo transgendered people need to live with this body modification till they are old and living on Miami Beach (or where ever). And I do point out some history of Chaz (drugs and sex) not to attack her (we're all guilty of the above) but to show that perhaps she's not making this decision on the right basis. She's set herself up as a poster child for the GLTB community, a freak show. How much of her decision is based on peer cheer versus a deep analysis of her true self (which if she engaged in, would probably make her gender reassignment moot).
11 - The Obnoxious American
STM,
Apologies, but are you being sarcastic? If not all I can say is wow that was unexpected.
12 - STM
Nah, not being sarcastic, OA. Don't agree with it all, though, but you are raising valid questions. This is democracy, after all.
I might have lots of left-leaning ideas, but they're of the working-man kind, not the chardonnay socialist type.
Too much latte seems to alter the brain IMO.
Which means there'll always be something we agree on. I still believe in America's right to defend itself and in George W.Bush's war on terror, for instance, even if I don't like the name.
You can believe in universal health care and still want to see lunatics getting new arseholes torn for them.
I realise there's more polarisation in the US on many issues between the left and right, so some of what I say might get lost in the fog of cultural exchange.
I believe in anyone's right to gender-reassigment, though.
I just don't agree with all the PC nonsense that goes with identity politics, sexual or otherwise.
And I hate the (often inaccurate) black-armband view of history that seems to permeate academic thinking in this country.
I realise it's a tad different given the history of the states, but it still doesn't help us all not to move on.
These days, no one can say the glass isn't half full, rather than empty.
That Nike ad's a beauty: "Just do it".
13 - The Obnoxious American
STM,
Make note of the time and date and alert the media - I agree with everything you said! By the same token, I'm not a down the line republican (no affliation actually) and there are many right wing positions that I disagree with. These disagreements just don't typically drive me to write a piece as much as the disagreements I tend to have with the extreme left.
14 - STM
Lol. I know we haven't always seen eye to eye, OA, but I do remember that we've agreed on the odd thing in the past.
They might be few and far between, but still ...
15 - lady luck
Knowing many people that have gone through this operation, I must agree with OA. I question the mental state of most (not all) of the people going through this. I do think that there is a lot of confusion in their mind and we don't need someone that can't keep their personal life in order to be in charge of a government position.
16 - Baronius
I don't see a problem with Amanda Simpson's appointment. Just don't play games and call him "she". He's someone who got his name legally changed, and suffers from some form of body dysmorphic disorder. If he can do his job (which by the way doesn't sound remotely close to Cabinet-level) then he was a good appointment.
17 - The Obnoxious American
Baronius,
I think you're right about this not being an actual cabinet level appointment. I was using the term "Obama's Cabinet" fairly loosely and I suppose incorrectly (a better term would be "all the president's men." I mean men and women. Er, wait, I think you know what I mean :> In any case, thanks for pointing that out.
However, as I noted in the article, on Ms. Simpson's merits, she is not a good pick for this position. I think Tom Carter had it right, she would have been better suited somewhere in Defense.
When you look at many of Obama's picks, it's clear Obama has a list of names of people he wants to appoint, and he has a list of positions he can appoint for, trying his best to find the right fit between the two. I'd suggest a much better approach, such as appointing the best person possible to each position rather than having appointments rooted completely in paybacks and identity politics. Not sure this type of scratch my back system was the type of change people signed on to in November 2008.
18 - Glenn Contrarian
Frankly, this whole discussion isn't about identity politics - it's about Affirmative Action, and conservatives hate Affirmative Action. They proclaim that AA is legal and politically-correct discrimination...
...and it certainly is just that. In this case, an openly transgendered person was chosen for a government post. To me, this does smack of AA, of 'identity politics'.
Don't get me wrong - in this case I'm ambivalent at best, because I don't think anyone should get special treatment due to their sexual issues; but neither should LGBT's be treated as anything less than a regular human being. LGBT's are much, much more accepted than they were twenty years ago, and the trend towards full legal and social acceptance will proceed apace - this is all but inevitable, given the fact that the overwhelming majority of today's youth readily accept LGBT's as normal...and see those who don't accept LGBT's as hypocritical bigots (which fact bodes ill for conservative politics in the decades to come).
I remember seeing a poster in a middle-school advertising scholarships for gay and lesbian students. Boy, the world has changed indeed. I guess such privately-funded scholarships are legal. I guess what I'm getting at is that everyone has sexual issues of some sort, some worse than others. But the acceptance of LGBT's is proceeding quickly enough that I don't think that AA is needed for them.
That said, I strongly, strongly support AA for ethnic groups, for they have faced (and still face) much discrimination due to the color of their skin or the country of their heritage. Races that have been in the position of an underclass, once that race is given the identical legal status of the majority race, does NOT automatically integrate itself into all levels of society...they remain largely an underclass, making it very difficult at best to rise above their traditional station. Even worse, their situation breeds corruption and crime and violence and addiction. AA enables some to rise above, to succeed...and when the younger members of that race see a successful member of their race, those younger members feel empowered, and know that they themselves can succeed. As time goes on, there is no more need of AA.
AA can take a generation or more to succeed...but AA was absolutely necessary to combat the racism that was endemic throughout America, particularly in the strongly-conservative South.
In summary, AA is a very good thing for minority races and certain ethnic groups...but I don't think it is necessary for LGBT's, because the situation for LGBT's is different than that of minority races. My opinion is probably not in line with progressive thought...but as I keep saying, one must insist that facts determine his beliefs, rather than allowing his beliefs to determine the facts.
19 - The Obnoxious American
Glenn,
I hope you don't think I was suggesting that we treat GLTB folks as less than equal either. In an equal world, we'd question anyone who lopped off parts of their body to acheive inner piece and that's my point here - PC mores forbid any such question. The only thing that is allowed is full, unquestioning acceptance, otherwise, expect to be labled a homophobe. Yet you can never be equal if you are above analysis - the same analysis the rest of us are subject to.
I'll also say that I think you have the conservative view a bit wrong. There is a religious view against homosexuality, and since a part of the conservative coalition is comprised of what we refer to as the "religious right" some in the party are against things like redefining marriage to include gays. This isn't quite the same thing as equality and has absolutely nothing to do with conservatism - which is all about conserving the framers vision of America. And the framers vision of America has gays as equal as all men, hence the conservative view is fully in support of gays being equal.
What the religious right objects to in terms of gay marriage, is the redefinition of marriage itself. I agree with this. After all, marriage is an institution based in religion, a religion that forbids homosexuality. What role should the government play in that? And why wouldn't civil unions - the state's answer to religious marriage, repleat with the same rights - suffice to resolve the issue? Why does the GLTB community insist on government intervention into the rules of religion itself? Don't forget that the framers noted that the creator endowed us with rights, and yet the left wants government to endow the creator with politically correct bs. Seems the left is all for mixing Church and State when they want the state to tell the church what to do.
Lastly, you're way off on the whole AA thing. I agree that ethnic groups have been discriminated against and still face hurdles in corporate America. But AA isn't the solution at all and just keeps the divide between races growing. Obama has promoted a very AA approach in his appointees and it's set race relations almost all the way back to the 60s.
A better choice is one forbidden by the left. Fixing the school systems in urban areas so that these kids can get the education that they need to compete equally. Since the left is obsessed with a broken, unionized public education system, this problem won't get resolved. Notice the end of DC school vouchers to wit. Another generation of kids who won't be able to compete equally, thanks in part to Obama. AA can't fix that.
20 - Baronius
Obama lackey that I am, I went online and looked up Simpson's experience. He's a former test pilot and defense contractor, who's now in charge of making sure that firms comply with our anti-proliferation laws. Sounds like a good match.
The irony is that someone who cut off his own penis may be in charge of eliminating missile systems.
21 - The Obnoxious American
Glenn,
One other point about AA (which is off topic of the article but worth the diversion in any case). The left sees government as the solution to everything, hence AA to fix the problems with equality for ethnic people.
Wait a second. Ethnic people? Last I checked, Indians, Chinese, and even most hispanics seem to do fine when they come here. This isn't an ethnic problem, it's a black problem. And while America's history with slavery is the root cause for blacks in America losing their culture (which is the element that I'd argue is missing and results in all of the problems we see today), we've already addressed that root cause. Yet the victim mentality seems so ingrained in so many in the black community. Bill Cosby and even Barack Obama have mentioned this. Parenting starts at home and black kids growing up in bad urban neighborhoods will forever be behind other ethnic groups until they can fix their own communities, drop the victimology and start taking real responsibility for their lives, as opposed to say, "Obama money."
With that, I've probably succeeded at offending everyone. Enjoy!
22 - The Obnoxious American
Baronious,
You, an Obama Lackey? I doubt that.
Perhaps you're right. But as per Wikipedia:
The organization's mission
The mission of the department is to "promote job creation and improved living standards for all Americans by creating an infrastructure that promotes economic growth, technological competitiveness, and sustainable development." Among its tasks are gathering economic and demographic data for business and government decision-making, issuing patents and trademarks, and helping to set industrial standards.
Maybe her role is in limiting dual use technology, but can we be sure of that? And is there really no one else in the defense community more capable or is this just identity politics?
Incidentally, thought this next paragraph from wiki kind of answers the question I just raised:
Administration
The Department of Commerce is administerred by the United States Secretary of Commerce, the office of which is currently held by Gary Locke. Locke is the first Chinese American Secretary of Commerce, and the third Asian American in President Barack Obama's cabinet, joining Energy Secretary Steven Chu and Veteran Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki, the most of any administration in United States history. From 1903 to 1913, it was administered by the United States Secretary of Commerce and Labor.
23 - Glenn Contrarian
Baronius -
I'm still laughing at #20. That's the funniest comment I've read all week....
OA -
While you and I will have to agree to disagree on AA, you didn't offend me with your comment in #21 - I'm a huge fan of Bill Cosby and have been since I was growing up in the Delta. However, it's not just a "black problem". It's an Hispanic problem, a Hmong problem, a Russian problem...and I saw firsthand the reaction among minorities in the military how their attitudes would usually (but not always) change for the better when they saw someone of their own color or ethnic group wearing gold.
You can't just tell someone that they're equal now, that their success is now totally up to them. You also have to prove to them that they can succeed...and the best way to do this is to show them someone successful who DID walk a mile in their shoes. That, OA, is what AA does, and does well.
It took a generation for the African-American community to start coming round after the passage of the Civil Rights Act. Why? Because (1) they had centuries of prejudice and persecution to overcome, (2) they still faced great prejudice and discrimination, particularly in the South, for at least twenty years after the passage of the CRA, and (3) they had very, very few examples of real professional success other than a few entertainers and preachers. They needed a leg up, a helping hand, a way to provide to themselves proof that they could succeed...and that was what AA provided.
When it comes to education, btw, there's a reason I use 'contrarian'. The teacher's union is far too powerful, and is detrimental to our students. I still haven't decided on school vouchers because I suspect that this is a back door to economic segregation of our schools...and I've attended an 'economically-segregated' school before. The blacks couldn't afford it, so the school was all white...and I saw and heard much more racism there than I did in the 96% black school I attended the next year.
But to get rid of the teacher's union while significantly increasing teacher pay...I'd enthusiastically vote for that. Progressive I may be, but I am also contrarian.
24 - Dr Dreadful
I think the intangible aroma Ruvy detects coming from this article is a few unwarranted assumptions.
Is Obnox privy to Chastity Bono's medical records, his/her psychological history, his/her reasons for undergoing the surgery? If not, how does he know he/she has come to this pass because his/her parents fucked him/her up?
Secondly, how does he know Amanda Simpson was not selected for her position simply on merit? (Baronius's research certainly indicates that she's well-qualified.)
And the analogy of the arm is not a good fit. Gender is just a bit more fundamental to one's identity than the number of limbs one possesses. Rick Allen without his left arm is still Rick Allen.
25 - Glenn Contrarian
OA -
On #22, I suggest you check the qualifications of those three Asians before you claim that Obama was playing 'identity politics'. Gary Locke was quite popular as governor of Washington state and did pretty well with our economy. Steven Chu is a nobel-prize-winning physicist...which I think is a doggone good qualification for an Energy Secretary. And Shinseki is a retired four-star general, a combat veteran who had one of his feet blown off by a land mine, and is now in charge of Veterans' Affairs.
Frankly, I think you need to step back and ask yourself if this is identity politics...or choosing the best people for the job and the best people just so happened to be Asian. Or you could take the traditional Conservative viewpoint of, "Well, why didn't he pick an equally-qualified white guy? Weren't there any white guys as qualified? This must be discrimination!"
I recommend you ask yourself if this is 'identity politics'...or perhaps if it's the Conservatives' growing desire for Affirmative Action for whites.