The Editor in Chief of Reason Magazine is pretty upset with conservatives pointing out liberal hypocrisy about transgender.
Here’s the thing about gender and race: If anything is a social construction rather than a fact of nature it is race. If you lined up everyone from darkest to lightest, or by some other physical feature, you wouldn’t get all the African Americans on one side and all the Anglo-Saxon on the other. There would be no cutoff point. Race is a fiction as far as biology is concerned.
That’s why we can all intermarry and have healthy children.
Nick Gillespie, the Editor in Chief of Reason Magazine, has joined the mindless zombie apocalypse in calling sane people uncouth for recognizing the absurdity and pointing out a simple news story that easily shows the absurdity. The absurdity really requires no demonstration but since the Rachel Dolezal story landed in our laps, we will use it.
Behold the horrible behavior of social conservatives according to Gillespie:
Between the ritual unwillingness to use female pronouns in relation to Jenner to exhortations that she is clearly deranged, it’s fairer to say that cons lost their sh–.
We’re all required to pretend that Jenner is female and to claim her behavior is perfectly normal or else we can be regarded as having lost …it.
A person who loathes his own healthy body is disturbed by definition. Anyone who has found a daughter or granddaughter following social media sites that encourage her to starve herself, or vomit her meals to get thin, or cut herself understands that lauding and extolling self-harm as some kind of individual salvation is sick and dangerous to others. It is no mystery why people who want others to be healthy and happy would be horrified to see a sixty-five-year-old male make himself a eunuch to try to pass himself off as a young female pinup model. The people referring to him by the pronouns that belong to him are more respectful of Jenner than Gillespie is.
The problem with Nick Gillespie is that he is no libertarian. He doesn’t want liberty above all else; he just wants to believe that everyone’s choices are right.
If Libertarian means anything at all it means the freedom for people to wreck their lives (and seriously damage the lives of those they influence). It also means the right to point out such people and warn those we love to not be like them.
Gillespie boasts that Reason Magazine was pushing this transgender “sexual reassignment” insanity back in the nineties. Quite true. When they published the testimony of a man who claimed to have become a woman, they framed it not as something that should be legal under the Libertarian non-aggression principle but sold it as the essence of human freedom and self-expression:
On the eve of the “Biological Century”—an era in which individuals will be increasingly free to choose how to live their lives and on what terms—McCloskey’s experience speaks eloquently to the larger social, political, and moral implications raised by such possibilities.
Reason Magazine always had a perverse science fiction fixation. I remember reading the Rothbard-Rockwell Report about their issue that covered a convention of people who wanted to kill themselves and freeze their bodies for future immortality (or else just cut their heads off and freeze them). Another triumph for people wanting to be “free to choose how to live their lives and on what terms.”
Reason can still do valuable things, but the bottom line is that they are more interested in justifying choices as good rather than restricting government from judging whether or not decisions are good or evil.
And, while I don’t think they will actually justify government censorship, it is clear from Gillespie’s rant that the Reason group will do everything they can to stop the voice of social conservatives from being heard. They like their delusion and they don’t want to listen to anyone trying to reason with them.