FRIDAY, JUNE 26, 2026
They slime the first lady—of France! Is the UFC's Josh Hokit a racist?
Asking a slightly different question, was his pitiful statement on June 14 a racist act?
We don't know much about Josh Holit. For that reason, we aren't sure how to answer your questions.
Who the heck is this person, Josh Hokit? We direct you to these elements from the thumbnail account offered by the leading authority on the person in question:
Josh Hokit
Joshua Seth Hokit (born November 12, 1997) is an American professional mixed martial artist who currently competes in the Heavyweight division of the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC). He formerly competed in Bellator MMA. As of June 20, 2026, he is #5 in the Meta UFC heavyweight rankings.
Prior to competing in MMA, Hokit was an All-American wrestler, and played American football as a tight end and fullback in college football, at Fresno State.
[...]
Hokit has a history of controversial remarks during post-fight interviews, dating back to his tenure in Legacy Fighting Alliance (LFA). Following wins in LFA, Hokit made several controversial remarks, including labeling former first lady Michelle Obama "a man" and criticizing the participation of transgender women in sports, stating that they "belong" in the octagon with him "because you need to get your ass whooped."
This pattern continued following his TKO victory at UFC 324—the first UFC event to be streamed live on Paramount+—where Hokit responded to the idea of "losing in a fist fight" by stating, "N-word, please." During the same interview, he called out Waldo Cortes-Acosta, labeling him a "deadbeat father not to one kid, but to nine," and concluded by stating, "And P.S., Brittney Griner is a man."
The UFC 324 remarks drew laughter and cheers from the live crowd; post-fight interviewer Joe Rogan responded while laughing, "Brittney Griner catching strays. She doesn't deserve that." However, the interview was widely criticized by media outlets, and Dana White, CEO of the UFC, later expressed disapproval...
In a post-fight interview with Joe Rogan following Hokit's win at UFC Freedom 250, [Hokit] commented, "Now listen, Alex Pereira, I'm going to chama on your mama, and lastly, Michelle Obama is a man! Am I right, America?" Dana White later condemned the remarks.
Somehow, Rogan always seems to be on hand when this conduct occurs. Rogan, an influential podcaster, can be numbered among the many strange fruits which have emerged from the ongoing "democratization of media."
At any rate, the leading authority thereby offers a first draft of history regarding Hokit's attitudes and behaviors. As a source, the authority links to an opinion piece by Brian Bell at the OutSports site:
Even UFC’s Dana White didn’t like Josh Hokit’s transphobia at ‘UFC 324.’
The UFC’s debut on Paramount+ Saturday night gave the MMA promotion’s new broadcasting partner a speedrun of the peaks and valleys inherent to the UFC experience.
“UFC 324” saw a major fight pulled due to injury, a prelim fight pulled due to betting irregularities, another prelim fight cancelled after a fighter collapsed after weigh-ins, an action-packed main event that saved a fairly lackluster main card, UFC CEO Dana White seemingly throw his injured heavyweight champion under the bus during the post-show presser and the emergence of the UFC’s latest up-and-comer who substitutes try-hard transphobia and racism for having a personality.
[...]
Hokit the fighter put forth an exciting fighting style infused with a level of brashness that is like catnip to fight fans, capping things by giving Freeman the middle finger and walking away as the referee stopped the fight. It was just what the stagnant UFC heavyweight division needed: a younger, undefeated fighter with an edge in how he fights.
Then, Hokit threw all of that in the dumpster when Joe Rogan interviewed him after the fight.
Bell continues from there. He accuses Hokit of racism, but Hokit also stands accused of a second form of bigotry. Right there in the headline atop this piece, he stands accused of transphobia.
Full disclosure:
At this site, we discussed Hokit's pitiful conduct on the White House lawn the next day, on Monday, June 15. For whatever reason, Nicolle Wallace skipped the topic in her two-hour Deadline: White House program that day.
On Tuesday, June 16, Wallace discussed the UFC event with Maya Wiley and two other guests on Deadline. By then, it was clear that a consensus interpretation was forming within elite Blue America—a consensus which held that Hokit's behavior that night was an example of racism.
We're prepared to admit that we were surprised to see that consensus take shape. If memory serves, that interpretation hadn't occurred to us until we saw it emerge.
That interpretation hadn't occurred to us. In large part, that's because we try to monitor the primetime, "cable news" Gutfeld! program on a regular basis. Also, because we have a passing acquaintance with the lunacy of the MAGA underworld, as chronicled in this news report from last December:
‘Brigitte Macron Does NOT Have a Penis!’ Piers Morgan Gets Heated With Candace Owens Over Claim French First Lady ‘Pees Standing Up’
Piers Morgan became heated with Candace Owens during an interview on Wednesday after Owens insisted that French First Lady Brigitte Macron was secretly a man with a penis who “pees standing up.”
After Morgan accused his guest of “weaponizing deliberate lies for money,” Owens claimed, “Brigitte Macron has a penis. I really want you to know that, Piers.”
“No, Brigitte Macron does not have a penis!” shouted Morgan.
“Brigitte Macron has a penis. I’m sorry,” replied Owens.
Sad.
Pathetically, the discussion continued from there. Owens, a high-profile player, is also numbered among the strange fruits of the democratization of media.
If you watch the (heavily watched) Gutfeld! show, you know that the termagant host of that transgressive program routinely traffics in insinuations to this effect:
Michelle Obama is secretly a man, and Barack Obama is gay.
That said, you've also seen him trash the AFT's Randi Weingarten as a man with a great deal of frequency. It's one of the many plays in his long list of standard insults
Beyond that, you may have been watching on the night when the Fox News kingpin and his guests devoted an entire segment to Candace Owens's insistence that Mme. Macron is a man. In short, you're aware of the fact that, within the MAGA universe, a great many people, Hokit apparently included, are deeply invested in cries and whispers about the existence of people who are transgender.
(In fairness to that Gutfeld! panel, they explicitly decided that night that Owens is mentally ill.)
Within this flailing universe, the French first lady is said to be a man. So is our own (very popular) former first lady.
In the disordered halls of the Gutfeld! show, Weingarten is also a man. Two of these women are white. One of these women is Black.
In our view, the disorder displayed on the Gutfeld! program is relentless and never-ending. It's astounding to see Blue America's journalistic elites refuse to report the highly unusual conduct which is the lifeblood of this influential "cable news" program.
We try to stay away from standard verbal bombs at this site, but any sane person could see that the very strange host of this disordered program seems to be misogyny-adjacent. As with much of incel and manosphere culture, an undisguised contempt for women seems to animate his show.
That said, there's nothing which seems to disturb the show's host more than the idea that transgender people really exist.
At this site, we rarely see the host behave in ways which suggest a racist orientation. His contempt for women is unmistakable—but more than anything else, he's enraged by current Blue American views concerning transgender issues.
We're saddened by the strange behavior of this furious, 61-year-old man. But largely because we monitor his show, it had never occurred to us that his persistent jibes at Michelle and Barack Obama should be regarded as racist:
To appearances, it's contemporary gender issues which trigger the ugly fury to which he gives voice each night. He suggests that a lot of people are gay, and that several women are men.
After Hokit's stupid performance, the power elite in Blue America turned to "racism" as its instant interpretation. Provisionally, we think of what Shakespeare once jotted:
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
We also think of the somewhat younger Dylan, on one of the albums where major parts of his earlier attitude had plainly seemed to darken. We don't recommend the contempt which was voiced in this song, but we do recommend the larger suggestion:
Ballad of a Thin Man
[...]
You’ve been with the professors
And they’ve all liked your looks
With great lawyers you have
Discussed lepers and crooks
You’ve been through all of
F. Scott Fitzgerald’s books
You’re very well read, it’s well known
But something is happening here
And you don’t know what it is
Do you, Mr. Jones?
We don't recommend the fury. We do recommend the idea that lurks all through that song.
Is it possible? Is something happening in MAGA America that our Blue elites don't understand? Do they fail to understand what's happening here because they haven't been willing to pay attention to what's actually goin' on?
We'd say that's a real possibility, and we'd say it's politically dangerous.
When Hokit staged his pathetic performance, Blue elites turned to racism as the explanation. Is it possible that we're enabling our own tribal demise when we insist on familiar themes which may no longer capture what's happening?
In our view, we Blues were possibly failing to keep up with the times when we insisted on the "racism" explanation. We've had a similar reaction to the way official Blue America has reacted to those recent Supreme Court decisions about congressional districting procedures.
Next week, we'll return to those decisions. In closing today, we'll say this:
In his final interviews, the late Barney Frank seemed to suggest that Blue America has moved in ways which haven't been politically wise concerning transgender issues—in ways which the larger society wasn't prepared to understand or accept.
Transgender panic—transgender loathing—lies at the heart of a great deal of MAGA fury. So does "masculinism," the latest form of pushback against modern feminism.
Is there something happening here which Blue elites may not understand? And when we fall back on familiar theories which may not be accurate, is it true that thousands of wavering MAGA adherents decide to hang onto their wings?
Termagant is a gendered term that applies to women. Applying it to men is misgendering just as much as calling Michelle Obama a man. It is sexist to ascribe female traits to men as a form of insult. That makes Somerby's insults today sexist. He may think he is being sly by pretending to defend women (or Michelle Obama) by himself misgendering the man he is criticizing, but that is just ugly, not clever or witty. At worst, Somerby is making an in-your-face whattaya gonna do about it response to women's concerns about right wing attacks intended to diminish the Obamas, by using the same tactic himself.
ReplyDeleteNo one needs this kind of mean-spirited pretense at defense of women from Somerby. We already know that he is not a nice person and not particularly supportive of Democrats in general and Michelle Obama specifically.
Today, pretending to criticize Gutfeld, Somerby advances the attack on Brigitte Macron by repeating the slander coming from Candace Owens and the right wing.
The right thinks that if we on the left love trans so much, we shouldn't object to them misgendering random women such as Brigitte Macron or Michelle Obama. But the point is not whether anyone has a penis or not, but the right of each person to live their lives as their authentic selves, without being forced to conform to gender demands issued by others. We on the left see this as encompassed by the pursuit of happiness guaranteed by our Constitution, just as marriage, pursuit of education, choice of work, and other aspects of living a free life are governed by our rights as citizens.
We each make our own choices, which is part of what is meant by "My body, my choice." Nazis rewrite this to say "Your body, my choice."
"The hostile slogan "Your body, my choice" was popularized by far-right internet personality and white supremacist Nick Fuentes. He first posted the phrase on social media on election night, deliberately co-opting the iconic feminist rallying cry "My body, my choice".
Somerby is oblivious to this as he repeats right wing talking points about bodily autonomy. He is also oblivious to the fact that racism and sexism and transphobia all arise from the same sources of hatred, a person's desire to limit the opportunities of another person based on an inborn trait they have defined as unacceptable or inferior. That applies whether the bigotry is transphobia, dislike of women or hatred of black people (or other people of color). It applies to xenophobia, to religious bigotry, to fear of homeless or poor people. These all go together and often reside together in a single individual as in the right wing as a political movement.
Somerby is trying to say that Gutfeld is not being racist when he describes Michelle Obama as a woman, but Somerby refuses to think about why Michelle Obama has been singled out as a target of the right. It is because she and her husband are black, not because of anything specific that Michelle Obama ever did as First Lady or as a person. Those who hate black people see her as a symbol of stepping above her class -- she should be less than, not an example to women everywhere, as she is. So those who hate black people attempt to reduce her status with insults arising from hate. So does Gutfeld. So does Somerby when he calls Stormy Daniels a con artist and grifter for embarrassing the president by making public his bad behavior. Brigitte Macron has committed no crime attracting the right wing's attention.
ReplyDeleteWhy does Somerby evade the meanings inherent in the right wing's actions when they misgender others (or laugh at Hokit's attack)? He clearly doesn't want to deal with the facts of racism, sexism and the other bigotries. He shares some of them and wishes to remain unconscious of his own motives here, which are apparent to others. But ignoring the obvious permits Somerby to advance right wing memes while pretending to be horrified! Horrified and outraged! While he participates in the same behavior as Gutfeld, Hokit, et al. He only fools his fanboys with these essays where he pretends to stand on the good side of a line he crosses too regularly.
That requires Somerby to accept that Michelle Obama is being targeted not because of racism (Somerby thinks racism is over), but because she did something else to attract negative attention. But he cannot say what that is. Why does the right hate the Obamas? Where is the factual, rational reason for their hate? Until Somerby grapples with that, he has nothing to say that makes any sense about race, and he cannot excuse Gutfeld for joining the chorus of racist bile hurled at our first and so-far only black president.
By Somerby's sloppy reasoning, if they slime the First Lady of another country, who is white, by misgendering her, then the attack on Michelle Obama cannot be motivated by racism. These are independent events that have no connection to each other.
ReplyDeleteSomeone can dislike cats because they are too aloof while disliking dogs because they were once bitten as a child. There does not have to be a unifying theme when it comes to disliking animals.
The misgendering comes from hatred of transpeople, which makes it seem like a negative and thus a form of attack for a bigoted person. But that doesn't mean the choice of target of who to misgender must arise from the same source for both targets, Brigitte and Michelle. Both are women, yes, and that sexism can exist for both because they are the same in that way (despite the misgendering, which is fake and not arising from any confusion for either of them). But Brigitte can be targeted because she and her husband have opposed Trump, embarrassing Trump with his awkward handshakes and disrespecting him at the G7, whereas Michelle is targeted because she is black and getting way too much positive attention for her station in life. Or it could be she too embarrassed Trump by having her husband be a better president than Trump when he was supposed to be inferior because he is black -- and that is racist.
The racism is part of the choice of target to attack, not the choice of insult to hurl at her (which is obviously not part of her identity but arises from the hater's own psyche).
There are a lot of guys on the right who hate women because of their own inadequacies and will be irritated at the sight of any woman being happy, prosperous, succeeding, being acknowledge by society as special. But those same guys also hate black people and feel the same bile and gorge when they encounter a black person doing well. This motivates them to take their objects of hate down a peg. Somerby's belief that hate of blacks and hate of women must be one or the other, not both, is wrong. Gutfeld may focus on hating women, especially Democratic women, more often than on hating blacks on his show, but that doesn't excuse him from making this particular anti-black joke -- in which he has chosen an otherwise blameless person to malign because she is black, not solely because she is female.