Ben Weir proposed and Andrew Watkins turned into an LNC motion an amendment to the Policy Manual, a dress code for the LPUS National Conventions. The proposal appears to refer primarily to male attendees.It is not clear what the author and mover of the motion think their phrase ‘biological males’ means. The proposal reads:
Proposed Policy Manual Addition — Convention Decorum and Attire Standards
Section X.X — Delegate and Speaker Attire Requirements
In order to preserve a professional atmosphere during all official sessions of the Libertarian Party National Convention, the following minimum attire standards shall apply to all delegates, alternates, speakers, candidates, and individuals addressing the convention body from a microphone during official business sessions:
-Men shall wear collared shirts or equivalent business casual attire.
-Closed-toe shoes shall be required for all participants engaging in convention floor business.
-Business casual attire shall be considered acceptable minimum dress.
-Neatly groomed facial hair shall be permitted.
-Attire commonly understood to be intentionally disruptive, overtly theatrical, fetish-oriented, or materially inconsistent with the professional conduct of convention proceedings shall not be permitted during official business sessions.
-Biological males shall not wear dresses, skirts, or attire traditionally recognized as women’s wear while participating in official convention business or addressing the body.
The Chair, or any officer designee, shall have authority to deny microphone privileges, voting privileges, or floor participation to individuals not meeting these minimum standards until compliance is achieved.
These standards shall apply only during official convention business sessions and shall not govern private social events, hospitality functions, or unofficial gatherings associated with convention activities.”
This is an anti Starchild rule. It will not work anymore than a similar proposal established by a previous California chair. Starchild showed up at a state convention dressed as always and there was not a thing the Party Chair could do about it.
Roberts Rule of Order makes it clear someone disrupting a meeting, conference, etc. can be asked to leave if he or she disrupts the event by doing things such as taking off their clothes, wearing a t-shirt with a swastika on it, etc. Obviously I am talking about most meetings, conferences, etc. At a American Nazi Party convention a t-shirt with a swastika will probably be welcomed and at a nudist convention being naked would probably be welcomed. At a Libertarian Party convention someone taking of their clothes, wearing a t-shirt with a swastika, etc. will not be welcomed or tolerated. We do not need a rule against disruptions.
Correct. It is just control-freak nonsense. And for those brining up the naked dancing man that was already against the rules. He was up there on false pretenses and stripping is de facto disruptive.
You are taking sense. That proposal is the republican wing who needs to find their way back to the GOP.
I’m quite certain Starchild would not be in agreement with this! Many times his attire was fun and generally made a point. Boo to this idea! I cannot imagine trying to dictate anything like this to Libertarians.
LINOs who need to go back to the GOP.
Weir is running as a Republican which disqualifies him from the LNC. If he had honor, he would resign.
Convention rules must be approved by the convention.
It is *absolutely* clear what they mean by “biological males”. The phrase is a right-wing dog-whistle referring to transgender women, which they refuse to recognize.
1) Delegates are NOT bound by the Policy Manual – it would need to be a bylaw under the convention rules. 2) I think sh-t like this actually encourages some libertarians to “dress down” if you know what I mean! Kind of like those “helpful” signs in Reno! Go ahead list EVERYTHING you do NOT want libertarian to do – & wait & see what they do!
Exactly.
Idk who needs to hear this and hasn’t been paying attention during their term on the LNC, but even if this was timely and had support, the LNC Policy Manual is not the place for a dress code covering delegates at the convention. The LNC Policy Manual covers the …LNC.
Seems oddly timed with a comment made over on Ballot Access News a few days ago. Starchild has been known to dress non-traditionally at conventions, and was targeted in the comments of the following post over on BAN because of that:
https://ballot-access.org/2026/05/11/steve-maviglio-files-paperwork-to-begin-circulating-a-california-initiative-to-repeal-top-two/
This seems directly targeted at Starchild.
Now I’m starting to wonder if the shitposters on BAN are Weir, Martin, Watkins and their ilk.
Ben is ignorant as is each of the co-sponsors. The LNC has no authority to impose convention standing rules.
A likely answer to what the authors think biological male means is cleverly suggested by the section number, at least in its common chromosomal counterpart pairing, which doesn’t lend itself to Roman numeralization as readily.
The way this is written, it would ban members from wearing t-shirts or even jeans, as those are not “business casual”. A lot of people aren’t going to be happy about that if somehow it passes.
But even if it somehow does get the requisite number of sponsors, given how little time is left until the end of the term, Evan can and should pocket veto it by simply waiting the full 48 hours to post it, at which point the ballot wouldn’t expire until after the LNC term does, essentially terminating it unfinished.