A woman running for state attorney general in Michigan says people should vote for her because she doesn’t have a penis (http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Vote-for-me-I-have-no-penis-says-Mich-candidate-12395907.php).
Uh, can’t we nail her for transphobia? Aren’t all The Smartest People in the World always telling us that not all men have penises, and not all women have vaginas?
To presume, as this candidate does, that every human being, man or women, equipped with a penis will use it to harass women–well, fry my hide, what do you suppose Brad “Chelsea” Manning would say to that? Well, okay, he had his willy cut off so he could call himself a woman and run for U.S. Senator from Maryland. But certainly by the standard being used here, he would be a viable candidate. Crikey, what if these two were running against each other? “Yeah, well, I don’t have one, either!” What an edifying debate that would be.
If lack of a penis is all it takes to be Michigan’s attorney general, that makes deciding who to vote for pretty easy. But what if a woman runs against a woman?
This discussion is fast turning into a kind more commonly encountered in a busy tavern.