Monday, April 14, 2014

The Real Face of Transgender Extremism

The whole transgender paradigm is built on lies.  It is based on ideas like "Women have penises," and "I someone says they are a woman, then you have to accept, without question, that they are a woman, and grant them all rights and privileges of being a woman."  In short, it is pretty much an absurd pile of absurdities.  And deep down, I believe its leadership knows this.  For example, Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen, who has tried to style himself as the "Martin Luther King, Jr" of the transgender movement, said this on Twitter....
My job is not to make you love me. It's instead.....to control the extent people can publicly express antitrans sentiments -- A Rustin thought.
Notice that Mr. Sandeen does not say, "influence" but instead says, "control."  He does't say something like "My job is to "refute false antitrans sentiments..."  For Mr. Sandeen, it is about "control."  One might ask, why is this?  The answer is simple, he is a man, and men like to be in total control.

Mr. Sandeen likes to compare the imagined plight of "transgender people" with that of African-Americans.  Of course, this is absurd.  The movement to end racial discrimination was based on people lacking rights based on a criteria that had no basis in reason, and which was rooted simply in appearance.  As hard as it is to believe in retrospect, African-Americans were considered to be "inferior" simply because of the color of the skin.  Nothing more.  Of course, in order to justify that, people made up false claims, which only the truly ignorant would remotely accept today.  

On the other hand, the issues concerning transgender people, particularly the one that is so near and dear to Mr. Sandeen's heart...the right to invade sexually segregated places, are rooted in reality.  Women simply don't want their privacy invaded by men.  Transsexuals have long used the women's room without incident, but it is the increasing invasion of those who are not transsexual, who are increasingly told they have an absolute right to go into women's spaces, provided they simply "identify" as a woman, that are the problem.

One of the most telling aspects of the whole bathroom issue is the arrogant disregard that these so-called "transwomen," have for the feelings and concerns of women.  The basic response is, "get over it."  In their mind, it is their right and privilege to enter women's private spaces, even those involving actual nudity.  

Sandeen, having falsely obtained a California birth certificate by fraudulently claiming to have completed a sex change (he is a eunuch) once made a rather arrogant remark about how he was considering going to the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival, claiming that he was now, "legally" a woman born woman.  

Like many transgender extremists, Mr. Sandeen's arrogance knows no bounds.  Just over a year ago, he tweeted this bit of arrogant silliness to Aunty Orthodox, another one of us horrible transsexual separatists....
I am a woman. I'm among those who define the space. Trans women are women, and are among those who define the space.
Uh, no.  Mr. Sandeen is a male, who has a penis (which he wishes to keep) but not his testicles...by definition, a eunuch at best, but in no sense a woman.  He fraudulently obtained a California birth certificate by lying to a judge, but that does not make him a female, and certainly not a woman.   And he certainly has no business telling women how to define their space.

No, the arrogance of transgender extremists is astounding.  Sandeen is just one example, but he is a major one.  He is complaining again that I am targeting him, and I admit, I do right about him a lot, because a) he is such a perfect example of transgender stupidity and arrogance, and b) he is a very prolific writer, so he is a rich source of material.

Saturday, April 12, 2014

I Can't Wait To See the Transgender Kooks Try To Spin This One

Ironically, right on the heels of another absurd article by Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen, in which he attacks Roseanne Barr for speaking out against certain behaviors by transgender males (just to be clear, I am talking about males who claim to be women), there comes a story that is going to be a real headache for those who try to claim that transgender males are not potentially a threat to women.  The award for most clueless headline has to go to the San Francisco Chronicle, which had:

S.F. women's rights advocate accused of raping wife

Okay, at first glance, you might assume that some man, who was known for advocating for women's rights, had been accused of raping his wife. But the lead paragraph is very confusing...

While attorneys for a women's rights advocate and prominent Twitter engineer accused of raping her estranged wife say the accuser is "out for revenge," a friend who says she was present after the incident said Friday that the wife just wants to teach her children that criminals must face justice.
Now, this is where things start to get very strange...  You see, under California law, a woman cannot commit rape, which is defined on the basis of "sexual intercourse," and which later sections of the law make clear involves penetration by a penis...  The rapist is a transgender male, who has not had surgery (and presumably does not plan to have said surgery, as there should be little doubt that this dude could easily afford any SRS surgeon since he works in a very well paid position, and I would be surprised if Twitter does not cover SRS).  In California, you pretty much have to be a male (i.e. have a penis) to commit a rape (including spousal rape).  Otherwise, it is covered under a different statute. 

So, to be completely clear here, a 31 year-old male who goes by the by the name of Dana McCallum was arrested back on Jan. 26 on suspicion of rape. According to the San Francisco district attorney's office, he was charged with five felonies. Specifically, he has been charged with three counts of spousal rape, one count of false imprisonment and one count of domestic violence. As a curious aside, his legal name is given as "Dana Contreras"  In fact, two years ago, he was featured, under his legal name in an article, in The Advocate entitledThe Ten Most Innovative Companies and the LGBTs Who Got Them to the Top.  Sadly, you would not quite get that from the San Francisco Chronicle article, which goes out of its way to avoid mentioning that Contreas is transgender, or that he is a male.

Oh, and it should be noted that about a year ago, Contreas, in a speech he gave to at his high school, pulled the classic stunt of misleading people into thinking he had surgery.  Clearly, he has not, as if he had, it would impossible for him to be charged with rape.

Now, I will point out, in all fairness, at this point in time, Contreas has been charged, but not convicted.  On the other hand, it does not really look good for him.  His defense is a classic male tactic, of claiming it is all about "money," that his spouse, who he had served with divorce papers the day before, was hoping to cash in on his stock options.  Now, what that would have to do with "rape" is, of course, ignored by the attorneys.  California law would probably grant her a share in them anyway.  So, this so-called "women's rights activist" falls back on a classic dodge in an attempt to claim he didn't commit rape.  Sad...

It will be interesting to see how the likes of Mr. "Cristan" Williams and Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen deal with this embarrassment.  Of course, for the time being, I would not be surprised if they hammer the "not convicted" meme.  But, if this Contreas is convicted, and I would not be at all surprised if that occurs, it will be much harder for them to explain away.

Stay tuned...this could get very interesting.

Monday, April 7, 2014

It Is Really Getting Out of Hand

You know, up to a point, one can almost laugh at the silliness of the transgender kooks.  They flounce around, claiming to be women, when they clearly are not.  But it ceases to be funny when they start encroaching on the security of others.  It is bad enough that they believe they have an absolute entitlement to invade women's spaces, even those involving nudity, while waving their penises….excuse me, their big old "neoclits" in the women's faces. It gets worse when they think they have the right to expose themselves in front of young girls, as was he case with  "Colleen" Francis.  But more and more, they openly threaten actual violence against anyone who dares even disagree with their insane demands.
For example…there was this tweet…
I can do dialog in real life as long as I have something heavy to kill the with
This sort of things is simply unacceptable. Now, to Cecilia Chung's credit, she did take the person to task…
violence is not helpful
But this person, calling himself "Jessica" is clearly dangerous. He doesn't back down from his violence, but instead tries to excuse it…
these people want my friends not to exist and they don't think I exist.
I am not sure what he means by "they don't think I exist…." Clearly, he does exist…and I guess what he really means is, "They don't think I'm really a woman." And hey, I think they are right…he isn't. He is a violent, and dangerous man, who is threatening women because he is not getting his way.

It actually gets worse…(tweets quoted in the order they were apparently posted, not actually displayed on Twitter)
if they are not dealt with we run the risk of more violence or deaths.

This is not the time to debate with those so predisposed, it is long past time that they were

dealt with, be that via the law, as I am pushing for or by duct tape
Now, obviously what you have here is the classic, "over the top rhetoric of blaming someone for violence, simply because the don't "approve" of you. I am not aware of a single case of any of these women that Mr. Ottowell has such vitriol for ever committing a single act of violence. In fact, they have pointed out that the violence is committed by men.

In another bit display of male arrogance, Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen has apparently offered money (could it really be $10,000?) to anyone who will supply him with the identity of the person who posts as Gallus Mag. Seriously….
She's confusing someone putting a call out to discover Gallus Mag's identity with a "bounty" as in violence.

Well, true enuf. I live under my name, take the heat & past death threats under my name. Gallus doesn't; she should.
Now, Mr. Sandeen can't quite seem to grasp why this might be upsetting. Apparently, after a bit of research, it turns out that not only is Mr. Sandeen involved, but, not surprisingly, so is ├╝ber kook Mr. "Dana Lane" Taylor. While they might only be hoping to embarrass and humiliate said person (uh, yeah…sure) even that is over the top. I have been on the receiving end of Mr. Sandeen's harassment, and I know he is supposed to be the person who blackmailed one blogger into leaving the Internet. This sort of thing is just sick.

I clearly do not agree with the goals of the "transgender" extremists, and I am not shy about stating that. I have been harassed more than once by them.

Wednesday, April 2, 2014

Trapped in a Loop

A "time loop" is common device in science fiction.  The characters find themselves repeating the same experience, over and over, seemingly doomed to forever repeat the same period repeatedly for eternity.  Sometimes, looking at the crap from transgender extremists feels much the same.  I keep having the experience of reading stuff, shaking my head, and thinking "They don't get it, and they can't see that they don't get it."

The latest version of this comes from, of course, the kooks at Shame on You Transgender Edition.  "Michelle" Spicer, who seems to have become he most prolific poster among those spewing ignorance on that blog starts off with this bit of drivel…
Have you ever noticed that when you are talking to a transgender woman that she is always 100% sure beyond doubt that she is making the right decision. She very well may be making the right decision, but it is not possible to be 100% sure about anything. We are humans and we have doubts, it's just part of human nature. Yet in order to toe the line in the transgender community, she is forced to maintain an impossibility to secure her position in the transgender hierarchy.
Now, I cannot speak to the experience of that non-existent entity known as a "transgender woman," but I would assume that, as usual, Mr, Spicer is referring to some random transsexual he has encountered.  Now, by the time a transsexual has reached the point of beginning transition, he or she has struggled through years of self-doubt, misery, and even self-hatred in some cases.  Most of us have suffered at least some form of abuse at the hands of others.  By the time we finally transition, we are generally quite sure we are doing the right thing.  But, something that has been lost along the way is the concept that transition is a trial period.  That is why it is, or at least should be, called the Real Life Test.  If it turns out to  not be the right choice, there is always the possibility to go back.  Of course, now, many kooks attack anyone making that decision.  Simply put, you have doubts, or if you don't need to transition to survive…then don't.

And again with this stupid "hierarchy" stuff.  Bunch of guys finding something to compete over.  There are no degrees of being a woman, and if you are a transsexual, then don't worry about the imaginary "transgender hierarchy," unless, of course, you really do want to link yourself to a bunch of guys in dresses…in which case, well, maybe you should think long and hard before you decide to have surgery after all…because there is no going back.

But then Mr. Spicer takes off on a really stupid tangent that should leave no doubt that he is not remotely transsexual…
I recently posted an article about hormones and I mentioned that hormone replacement therapy does not always cause sexual dysfunction. There was no end of transwomen ready to swear that they lost sexual function not only from the first time they took hormones, they lost sexual function on the way home from the pharmacy! Loss of sexual function happens over time and there are many transwomen who remain functional right up until the surgery. But you won't hear any of them standing up to say so, they are simply not allowed too. Not unless they want to risk losing face in a community that has little cohesion and offers even less help. Why do we have to keep up these pretenses? Why do transwoman have to argue about stealing the pink blanket from another baby hours after they were born in an effort to "out trans" the next transgender woman. The arguments are ridiculous and can make us look like delusional fools.
Okay, this bit of tripe is bad enough…but I checked out the article he refers to, and who led to the above is even worse….
Estrogen will kill your sexual function. More often than not this is certainly not the case. Your sex drive may change over time but your actual sexual function should not be affected until such time as you chose(or not) to have Gender Reassignment Surgery.
Okay, first off, it does not happen instantly.  That much is correct.  In my case, when I started out, I was on .5 mg of Estinyl (Ethinyl estradiol) which would be about the equivalent of 7.5 mg of Premarin, plus an injection of Depo Estradiol once a month.  It took about 6 weeks for my, uh, sexual function as Mr. Spicer puts it, to cease.  Oh, and after two to three months I asked my doctor to move me to more regular injections of Depo Estradiol, so he switched me to every two weeks.  Now, whether or not you lose the ability to have an erection and ejaculate (orgasms never went way) is dose dependent.  I imagine, like most male crossdressers, Mr. Spicer wants to keep having erections.  I was overjoyed that they were gone.  That is one of those significant differences that separates transsexuals and those who are "transgender."  Most men in dresses want to keep their penis, uh, fully functional.

Clearly, Mr. Spicer did not like being confronted with the truth.  He no doubt has a doctor with enough savvy to put him on an appropriate dosage for a crossdresser.  Of course, you probably wouldn't tell the patient that, since many crossdresser, while easy to spot, are not always willing to give up that fantasy that they are "really" a transsexual, even though they want to keep their penis.  Then again, he may even have one of those doctors who follows the ridiculously low dosing regimen of the Clarke Institute, which basically puts patients on low dose birth control pills, and then claims that hormones have little, if any, actual effect on male patients.  Uh…yeah, and I imagine some of them are quite happy with that.  But no the transsexual ones.

If you take a proper dose of estrogen, you will see changes over time.  You will have breast development, which can be as variable as that of women born women.  Some have more than others.  You will see some changes in facial features.  Again, this is variable.  It depends a lot on what you had to start with.  In the case of Mr. Spicer, I don't know how long he has been on hormones, but the pictures I have seen of him are not promising.  You will also see some fat redistribution, and you body will take on a more feminine shape.  Again, variable.  I know one very well known transgender extremist who sports a beer belly any redneck could be quite proud of.  What some would call Dunlap's syndrome.  (My belly, done lapped over my jeans…) I don't know how much of that is how that person dresses, and how much is hormones (or the lack thereof), and how much is simply genetics, but that person does look kind of odd.

The bottom line is, hey, if you want to identify as "transgender" fine…be transgender.  Just stop claiming stuff like how you are just as much a woman as anyone else, and how you are just like a transsexual….  Just stop trying to tell transsexuals they are transgender, because I got news for you…if you buy into the crap Mr. Spicer spews, you almost certainly aren't.



Monday, March 31, 2014

Fred Who?

Well, it has been a less than stellar week for me.  A week ago, my computer suffered a hard drive failure, and well, I just didn't really feel like messing with my back-up PC that much.  Besides, I had the week off, and I figured, might as well rest up a bit...  But, as my vacation draws to a close, and my Mac is back among the living, I am ready to get back to posting.

Of course, by now everyone knows that a certain infamous person died.  Fred Phelps, the leader of Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas died on March 19, 2014.  Phelps, and his, uh, "church" (it was more like a compound where his family lived, as most, if not all of the members were his immediate family) were known for traveling about, protesting against various groups they considered sinful, in particular gays and lesbians.  I first heard of Phelps when he started picketing the funerals of AIDS victims back in the 1990's, and quite frankly I was appalled at the idea that someone would do such a thing.  Over time, the protests increased, and eventually included those of military personnel killed in the line of duty, which, it was claimed, was part of God's judgement on the United States for allowing homosexual behavior. 

Phelps and his cult have spent a number of years spewing what can only be called hatred.  They have misrepresented Biblical teachings, and have, behave like those the Apostle Peter described as "the untaught and unstable (who) distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction."  Phelps probably did more, in the long run, to further gay rights than to hinder them, but he still caused a lot of pain for the loved ones of those whose funerals he, and his followers, picketed.

There was briefly some talk of having protests at his funeral, but thankfully enough people were smart enough to point out how counter productive such an act would be.  When it became obvious that his death would not result in people lowering themselves to his level, it was quickly announced that there would be no funeral.  I rather suspect that no one showing up would have been an embarrassment.

In the end, Fred went out with more of a whimper than a bang.  His death resulted in a brief flurry of attention, and then quickly faded.  Many publications didn't even mention his death. And I was somewhat surprised that there was not some sort of celebration in the Castro District.  In short, this rather nasty little man got the attention he deserved.

Friday, March 21, 2014

A Complete Load of Crap

The kooks at Shame on You Transgender Edition posted a hilarious piece by Mr. "Michelle" Spicer, entitled Dating Transwomen Does Not "Make You Gay".  While the title is bad enough, the article is worse.  It is homophobic, and inaccurate.  It starts out with an accurate, but somewhat misleading idea..
Many of you have heard the myth that dating a transgender woman if you are a heterosexual male will somehow turn you gay. This has to be the most ridiculous type of rationale that I have heard of thus far.
Okay, you cannot really turn someone gay.  Granted, under certain circumstances, men who would otherwise not do so, may engage in homosexual behavior (the classic example is men who are incarcerated) but upon release they generally return to heterosexual practices. But…but then Mr. Spicer launches into this bit of absurdity….
Our sexual orientation does not change because of who we date, we date someone because of our sexual orientation. You can make love to a body but you can only date an actual person, it's the person inside you eventually fall in love with(if there is any kind of real love there) and a transwomans spirit is a woman!
Okay, keep that first sentence in mind…it is the petard this idiot will be hoist be, but let's look at that second part.  There is so much wrong here.  But for the moment, let's look at the final assertion…"transwomans (sic) spirit is a woman!"  Nope.  A "transwoman's" spirit is not a woman.  If it was, she would not be a "transwoman," which is an oxymoron, but would just a woman…which is anathema to so-called "transwomen" who cling to their manhood with a tenacity that puts a barnacle clinging to a boat to shame….

But, let's consider the part where Mr. Spicer really goes off the deep end…
Men who are attracted to transgender women are not automatically gay in any way shape or form. That is not to say that gay men cannot be attracted to transgender women, but the attraction itself does not change their orientation. If you are a heterosexual man the chances are that you are attracted to a transwoman because of her femininity, her personality and her spirit. There are fetishists of course, but they are attracted to a fetish and not the actual transwoman that stands before them. Using someone as an object is not considered dating them and does not come from any place of respect. This article is only concerned with men who actually want to date transgender women regardless of their surgical status and not treat her like an object. There is a difference between a "chaser" and having an actual interest in dating transgender women.
Okay, it is pretty much unheard of for a straight man to actually engage in a physical relationship with a "transwoman."  Likewise, if you are a pre-op, once a guy finds out you are physically male, the best you can hope for is that he doesn't totally freak out and become violent.  The relationship will probably end, at least with regards to any hope of romance, and you will end up broken hearted.  If you are seriously surgically tracked, you have two choices…date men who claim to be straight (but clearly aren't) or be celibate.  What they claim here is delusional crap.  It is simply believing the lies of men who are either lying to themselves or to everyone else.  If a guy is attracted to you, and you are physically a male, then that man is homosexual.  He may deny being such, but he is.  End of story.  He doesn't give one whit about your spirit, your femininity, or your personality.  He simply fetishizes "chick with dicks."  I've met my share, and I found the relationships very unsatisfactory.  He may pretend to "not treat you like an object," but if you are physically male, he is almost certainly going to.  And chances are, he will drop you like a rock if you actually do have surgery.  Shoot, I dated one guy who was a very wealth contractor.  He lived in what some would call a "MacMansion," had a pool and a hot tub, and drove a Jag.  I'm not a gold digger, but I am also not stupid…but the relationship ended quickly when he said "Don't have surgery…"  

Yes, for a while, I was a bit naive, and actually believe the sort of fairy tale Mr. Spicer is spewing here.  After learning what guys meant when they asked if I was "functional" (NO!  I have been on hormones for a while, and even if I was, what part of "I'm a woman," do you not understand?) I realized that most of these guys were not straight, and were pretty screwed up to boot.

Mr. Spicer ends with this bit of comedy…
Men who date transgender women are heterosexual men dating women, period. Simply because she is a different "type" of woman makes no difference to this writer. There are men who like French women, does that make them french? Simply because a man is attracted to a "type" of woman will not change his sexual orientation any more than it could change his nationality. The myth that dating a transgender woman "makes you gay" is ridiculous, damaging and causes the men who want to date us a great deal of shame. Transwomen lose out on dating and finding love because of this and that is just a damn shame.
Sorry, but no.  Heterosexual men don't want women with penises, and they certainly don't want to be topped by one.  There is only one kind of "woman" and men who date "transgender" women, as well as men who are attracted to pre-ops and so-called "non-ops" (a misnomer…if you are not going to have surgery, you are not a transsexual, so there is no need for that qualifier) are not heterosexual, they are perverts who fetishize the idea of a woman with a penis.  And if you think otherwise, you are lying to yourself, and very possibly putting yourself in serious danger, looking for a guy who doesn't even exist.

Wednesday, March 19, 2014

Highlighting The Difference, Unintentionally

The whole battle between myself and the cultists at Shame On You Transgender Edition began because I simply pointed out that I do not identify as transgender.  There are good reasons for this, and a couple of their latest posts show this about as clearly as possible.

The first was a fawning tribute to "Kristin" Beck, who apparently now styles himself as "Lady Valor."  Beck was a Navy Seal, a member of what is commonly called Seal Team Six, which was the unit that provided the men who took out Osama bin Laden.  Beck, like Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen, served twenty years, before leaving the Navy.

The second story was a rather telling piece, entitled "All You Need is Love," which states some classic transgender rhetoric (note I said transgender, not transsexual)…
As transgender women we have a tendency to dislike, or outright hate, our male sides. We loath anything that remotely reminds us that we were tragically born in the wrong body. The mirror can be an enemy because it reminds us that we are not perfect and we will always have male characteristics no matter how well we pass. What? You disagree? What is the shape of your pelvic bone?
Okay, dare I say it?  This is clearly a man, in this case, Mr. "Michelle" Spicer, speaking.  Only a transgender male would make such a statement…  This is straight out of Transvestite 101. Sorry, but this is what I make the differentiation that I am a transsexual, that I am a woman, and that yes, the kooks at Shame On You Transgender Edition are a bunch of delusional cultists.  The simple truth is, no one is perfect.  There is not a perfect man or woman, period.  Everyone has some flaws.  I had a friend who was a female to male transsexual who had a more masculine hip structure than I do.  He was short of stature, but his body shape was extremely male, and, contrary to some stereotypes, he had born a son (I remember reading a book on FTMs that basically claimed that no FTM ever would get pregnant) and had gone through some serious complications because his pelvis was too small for the child to easily fit through.  

You have to love how the more extremist transgender kooks, in order to cling to their manhood, even while proclaiming themselves to be women, love to focus on things like this. They want to beat post-ops over the head with their prostates, while ignoring the fact that women have the same gland, although it serves no purpose.  And yes, in extremely rare cases, women (and not transsexual women) can die of prostate cancer.  Of course, most doctors would not call it that…in women it is referred to as a Skene's gland, or paraurethral gland, and is, for the most part, ignored.  However, it is increasingly referred to, quite accurately, as the "female prostate gland."  Boy, are the transgender kooks going to hate that one.

No, the simple fact is, I don't have a "male side."  Then again, to be blunt, crossdressers don't really have a female side.  They have a fetish.  There is a clear difference between someone who grows up with a brain that is differentiated at odds with their body, and someone who simply wishes to play dress-up.

And this brings us back to Beck.  Beck claims to have "always" had a female gender, like Sandeen, and like Sandeen, Beck was able to not only survive in the military through basic training, all the while hiding this supposed "feminine nature" but in Beck's case, to also survive SEAL training, which is extremely intense.  And on top of all this, both Sandeen and Beck thrived in this hyper-masculine, testosterone fueled environment for the full 20 years needed to reach retirement.

No, in both cases, you have someone who was, quite probably, a very closeted cross dresser.  They are not transsexuals, they do not want SRS, and they are not really interested in being anything other than transgender.

You see, this is what underlies transsexualism.  It is not just about a desire to change one's physical sex to match one's brain, it is about wanting to be normal.  And transgender is about wanting to be different.  I have heard transgender people often express this view.  Some, such as Suzan Cooke will go so far as to attack people who are "normborns" as though that is a bad thing.  I have heard them say stuff like, "I would not want SRS, because then I would not be 'special.'"

If someone wants to choose to be "different" or "special," I suppose that is their choice, but they have to accept that society may not respect that choice.  And that brings up another major difference.  Transgender is a choice, transsexualism is not.  Although some try to make the claim that they were "born this way," transgender people choose their behavior.  Most had relatively, if not completely, normal childhoods, showing no signs of having an issue with their gender until later in life, and then beginning with, as stated above, fetishistic crossdressing.

So, the bottom line, again, is that there really is a difference between transgender (which is ultimately a highly subjective term that refers to a social/political construct that has no basis in reality) and transsexualism, which is a medical condition that is, in reality, unrelated to transgender in any meaningful way.