What Does That Have to Do with the Fight?

What Does That Have to Do with The Fight?
by Scribe Diva Ink

During a live, post-fight interview, a UFC Fighter shouted: "And lastly, Michelle Obama is a man! Am I right, America?" The rumor about Michelle Obama being a man has existed for years. It's not a critique of her work as First Lady, her initiatives, her intelligence, her leadership, or her accomplishments. It's a claim aimed at undermining her identity and dignity.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the claim is true. Then what?

If the goal is to evaluate her character, integrity, leadership, accomplishments, treatment of others, contribution to society, or values, then whether she is male, female, masculine, feminine, cisgender, transgender, or anything else does not automatically answer those questions.

If Michelle Obama had never achieved greatness…

she still deserves basic human dignity.

Furthermore, accomplishments are not what create dignity because dignity comes first. Accomplishments are separate.

Let's imagine the broader hypothetical. Suppose someone discovers a politician is gay, an athlete is transgender, a CEO is adopted, an actor changed religions, or a public figure has a disability. None of those facts, by themselves, tell us whether the person is honest, compassionate, competent, courageous, generous, or ethical. Yet some people present such revelations as though they are self-evidently disqualifying.

And what does this say about the speaker?

They may not necessarily be hateful. That is too simplistic. But it may reveal what they consider important. Think about it. If I spend my time attacking someone’s identity rather than their actions, I may be revealing that I cannot compete with their accomplishments. If I attack their existence rather than their ideas, I may be admitting that their ideas are harder to challenge. If I attack who they are rather than what they’ve done, I may be illuminating my agenda more than theirs.

Statements such as these are rarely just about the target. They are also confessions. Not intentional confessions, but revelations.

Revealing what the speaker values, fears, thinks is shameful behavior, believes should diminish a person. The accusation points outward but the assumption points inward. The target of the statement is obvious. The worldview of the speaker is often hiding in plain sight.

When people attempt to diminish others through identity, they often reveal their own hierarchy of human worth. That's a much bigger conversation than any one celebrity, politician, or public figure. That's a conversation about how we decide who deserves respect in the first place.

For example, if someone wants to critique a public figure's policies, speeches, business dealings, leadership decisions, or public statements, those are all fair game for debate. But if the conversation repeatedly returns to identity, appearance, rumors, or personal characteristics, then the discussion has shifted. It seems never to primarily be about conduct. It's about personhood.

I've seen this kind of targeting before. Not necessarily this exact rumor. Not always about Michelle Obama. There seems to be a broader phenomenon where certain people become the object of repeated, personal attacks disproportionate to whatever is supposedly being discussed. What does Michelle Obama being a man have to do with UFC fighting?

Why did a post-fight interview end with Michelle Obama’s gender status? Why not conclude with the opponent? The fight? The sport? The strategy? The outcome? Your victory was real, yet you shifted the attention elsewhere!

As a Black woman, I cannot help but notice the recurring fixation on our bodies, our appearance, even our right to exist. Whether in politics, sports, or everyday life, the scrutiny often extends beyond conduct and into personhood itself. Is it prejudice? Political gamesmanship? Celebrity culture? Whatever the answer, the fixation itself is worth examining.

People secure in their position don't usually spend enormous amounts of energy trying to diminish another person's identity. Because if someone truly believes their ideas, accomplishments, or leadership are superior, they can argue those things directly. They don't need the diversion. They don’t need a shift in focus. They don’t need to move away from substantive questions toward symbolic superficial ones.

Perhaps the more revealing question is not whether the accusation is true, but why we assume it should matter so much if it were. A person's dignity does not begin with their accomplishments, identity, popularity, politics, or public standing. Dignity precedes all of those things. And when our first instinct is to diminish a person's humanity rather than evaluate their actions, we may learn far more about ourselves than we do about them.

Email

info@cjmarieholdings.com

© 2025 CJMarie Holdings, LLC. All rights reserved.

Join Us

Stay connected with insights and updates