Michelle Obama’s ring fingers


The Body Builder Girl By Gamer1606 (Own work) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons


Various Americans have been examining parts of Michelle Obama’s anatomy in search of evidence to support the theory expounded by Joan Rivers and others, that she was born a biological man.  One thing they cite as “evidence” is that her ring fingers are longer than her index fingers. 

In fact, my own ring fingers are longer than my index fingers, and yet I don’t think anyone  would describe me as remotely masculine.  (Well, come to think of it, as a teenager my piano teacher told me I play the piano like a man!  So now I know the reason:  the relative length of my ring to index fingers!)  Moreover, I very recently saw the film “The Hundred-Foot Journey” – twice, in fact – (which I loved, despite the bad reviews it has garnered), and noticed that the ring fingers of the actress, Charlotte Le Bon, who similarly could not be described as remotely masculine, are also longer than her index fingers. 

Seekers of anatomical evidence of Michelle Obama’s alleged biological masculinity also propose evidence based on her muscular definition, the width of her shoulders, her facial features, and even signs of a protuberence in the region of her genitalia.  Really they should mind their own business!  Whether or not Michelle Obama is a transexual (which would not, if it were the case, exclude her from the category of “woman”), we can know from The Great Wall of Vagina Panels that there are women with clitorises that protrude and can be shaped like small penises.   Also, there seems to be a failure here to acknowledge that women come in all shapes, sizes and builds.  There are women, as well as men, who are natural athletes.  Who, even with minimal exercise, are naturally muscular and powerful, and who, with intense and sustained load-bearing exercise or exercise using resistance, will easily develop a bulky musculature.  Professional athletes of the bulky variety must belong to this category.  There are women with very broad shoulders, and women with no shoulders.  We do not all have exactly the same proportions of width of shoulders to width of head, as the “Michelle-as-man” proponents are maintaining.  And very many women have quite masculine faces, and yet are no less “woman”!

Personally, I find (though it’s none of my business) that her wrists are slender, and her decolletage is feminine.  The fact, as it seems, that Barack has referred to her as “Michael” is the most compelling evidence, to my mind, that she is biologically originally anything other than a woman.  I wonder how he might explain that one away! 

But then, how to define gender?  Even biologically, it seems that various men have been reported in the news to have gone to hospital with kidney stones and other reported disorders, only to discover from blood tests that they are in fact women.  But there are other ways of defining gender – most notably, social gender.

Looking at the various relevant posts on the matter on the internet, it does seem that those most concerned with the matter of Michelle Obama’s gender are anti-gay – even virulently so, or politically motivated.  But apparently a revelation by Michelle herself is on its way.  We will find out what she has to say.