Monday, March 31, 2008
There has been a lot of buzz in the media lately about Thomas Beatie, who is being touted as a pregnant "man." This is just the lastest example of the silliness that is the transgender paradigm. Beatie is a female to male transgender person. What Beatie is not, is a pregnant man. Beatie is a woman who, having undergone hormone therapy, and chest surgery, appears to be a man, but Beatie never had any surgery to remove the female reproductive system.
Because Beatie's partner had undergone a hysterectomy, they decided that in order to have a child, "he" would have to carry the pregnancy. So, Beatie stopped taking testosterone, and after "his" periods returned, "he" became pregnant.
Give me a break!
This is not a pregant man. Now, one of my best friends, now deceased, was an FTM who had a child from before he transitioned. He grew up in a time and place where he saw no hope of ever being able to have a normal life, and like some with HBS, he married, and tried to have a normal life. And for him, that included having a child. It should be noted that during labor, there were complications because my friend's pelvis was too small for the child to pass easily through. It was a very difficult birth. Quite literally, he was built like a man more than like a woman.
But that is different. Beatie is not someone trying to cope with things that are not fully understood. This is a person who has claimed to have dealt with "his" gender issues. But, like many who are properly classed as transgender, as opposed to HBS, Beatie wants to have it all.
Some might praise Beatie for "sacrificing" for his family. But given that Beatie is telling his story for any and all to hear, it does not appear to be that much of a sacrifice.
But all of this raises all sorts of troubling questions about the transgender paradigm.
I know many will applaud this as a great step forward in the battle to put an end to the bi-gender paradigm. They will say it represents a breakthrough in the battle for transgender rights. They will praise how this is a step forward.
Personally, I think it is a nightmare.
This is the sort of thing the Religious Right lives for. The articles are flowing from their websites. Here, they have proof that the "transgender" crowd is a bunch of kooks. This gives them something that can show that "transgender" people are just making stuff up. And, of course, the transgender crowd keeps insisting that we are all the same, so to the Religious Right, and to a lot of other people, this begins to serve as evidence that we aren't truly who, and what we know ourselves to be.
One of the biggest problems with this case is that Beatie has apparently had "his" sex legally changed on "his" birth certificate. This illustrates a major problem with such laws. This sort of thing should only be allowed where someone has actually changed their sex. In Beatie's case, "he" had chest surgery, but no modifications were made to "his" genitalia or reproductive organs. Now, in most states, this would raise some serious questions about how whether or not "he" had met the legal requirements to change "his" birth certificate. I certainly don't believe "he" should have been allowed to do so as long as "he" retains the ability to conceive and carry a child.
Men don't get pregnant. At least not in the real world. But in the fantasy world of the "transgender" such things are not only possible, but they are to be bragged about, and publicized. Beatie will have "his" 15 minutes of fame. But the damage this person is doing will last a lot longer.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Recently, I have encountered some things that remind me of those days. I have seen something that shows the same sort of hatred expressed by the worst villains of those days. A place that is dominated by the same desire to control those who would dissent as shown by Bull Connor, when he turned fire hoses on young demonstrators.
And the saddest part is, all of this is from someone who wishes to be seen as speaking in the spirit of Martin Luther King, Jr.
The place I am referring to, is another blog, run by one of the gender fascists, Monica Roberts. The following quotes are used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Here is a nice sample of Roberts' prose.
Now the above shows several characteristics of Roberts' style of writing. The first is the obsession with race. Everything for Roberts, revolves around race. A very confrontational style that includes personal attacks on anyone who has the "audacity" to disagree. A bitter hatred of anyone who is successful in their transiton. And a tendency to write in ebonics.
I've since discovered that Sue Robins is one of those white transsexual separatists that I've been tangling with in various online transgender groups since the late 90's. Before I
start the fun and festivities taking this e-mail apart and rebutting her WBT azz
(and in this case the WBT stands for weak-minded belligerent transsexual) enjoy
this music video from Jill Scott for her hit song 'Hate on Me'.
If you follow the link, which is in the original article, you find even more examples of this:
One of the things that's been a contentious issue ever since I transitioned in 1994 and have been around the transgender community is this ongoing battle between the pre-ops/non-ops and post-ops.
Frankly, that's more of a white transwoman thang that I try to stay out of, but here's my take on this asinine mess.
Again, one finds race as a central theme, along with the rather odd use of ebonics. But it gets worse:
Much of the sniping between the two groups has several elements to it. But the major bone of contention between the pre and post-ops is over the word 'transgender'.Again, we see the bitter hatred of post-ops. But this is relatively mild, compared to what comes next:
The reason a majority of people in the community use it is because it's an inclusive umbrella term for the entire diverse community of gender variant people.
The post-ops usual argument is that the pre/non-ops haven't worked hard enough to save money like 'they' did to have GRS (genital reconfiguration surgery), so don't hate on them. They can't (or won't) understand why any transsexual would want to keep that 'ugh' male organ.
Post -ops also assert that they are being lumped in with the transgender community 'against their will' and it keeps 'them' from being accepted by natal females as women. They claim that one day the 'silent majority' of post-ops will revolt against this 'oppressive' situation and not only start their own movement, but push for laws that give rights only to transgender people who have completed surgery.Here Roberts begins attacking post women in earnest. Funny, in a way, that a person who displays so much male arrogance would attack some for "White Male Privilelge." Again, we see Roberts' two favorite themes, the evils of white people and the evils of post-ops.
Yo, did y'all consider the fact that the reason y'all have problems being accepted as women is because of all that WMP that you're still clutching on to like a wino holding his last bottle of MD 20/20?
But, you haven't seen anything yet...
On the flip side, the pre/non-op argument is that the post ops are not only wrong, but are selfish, arrogant and bitter people who have not only turned their backs on their less fortunate sisters, but have forgotten where they came from. The pre/non-ops also assert that ignoring the fact that many peeps can't have GRS for medical reasons is callous, and the 'just work hard and save for GRS' argument, while I agree with it in principle, the fact that this line is almost always spouted by white post-ops and ignores the reality that transpeople of color live with. We don't have the access to the financial resources that many of these former white males did.
Again, white people who are post-op are portrayed as villans. And reality is ignored. The simple fact is, there are virtually zero cases where medical issues are a permanent bar to sex affirmation surgery. This excuse is used a lot, but it is fraudulent. It is probably rooted in the past, when such issues were real. At one time, anything from something as serious as being HIV positive, to something as trivial as being diabetic, could prevent one from having surgery. But, as medical professionals have recognized that SAS is not simply a cosmetic procedure that can be held back without problems, they have been more willing to operate on those with medical issues.
But, as Roberts gets warmed up, things from bad to worse, to so downright bad that it actually becomes comical...
One pattern I continue to see with some white post ops is that they blitz through the real life test and go straight to the table for surgery. They they wonder why and get mad because they spent $10K for a neocoochie and got 'sirred', while a non-op with five incles of neoclit in her lace panites gets treated as a female.Again, we see race as an issue. One wonders about African-American HBS women who "blitz through the real life test." Would the same be true for them? But what is really telling is Roberts' disdainful references to "neocoochie" and getting sirred and non-ops getting treated as a female. Again, Roberts either lives a very protected life, or is totally delusional. While it is true that some people rush into surgery, and have regrets, few transgenders who have an aversion to surgery are likely to be treated as females, at least outside of their own social circles. One only has to spend some time in San Francisco's Tenderloin and Polk Gulch areas to put that silliness to rest.
A major reason is that because GRS for some pre/non-ops will happen about the same time George W. Bush gets nominated for a Nobel Peace prize and they know it, the pre/non-op spends more time focusing and perfecting the internal and spiritual aspects of femininity.
Let me offer one final quote from this particular set as an example of Roberts' viewpoint:
Anybody with positive cash flow can get an improved female
body, but femininty is a learned, spiritual, constantly evolving journey. You
aren't going to master it (if you ever do) if you're more concerned about
getting the earliest possible surgery date or stressing because you didn't get
the day you wanted for your facial feminization surgery consultation.
Here Roberts is self-contradicting. After ranting about how wrong it is to point out that it is relatively easy to get surgery if you really want it, and that those who don't have it, don't want it, Roberts seems to confirm this point. This leads me to suspect that Roberts has had surgery, but has serious regrets. But the comments about how femininty is learned, and is constantly evolving journey, shows that Roberts has no real experience of having been born with a female mind in a male body. No doubt, this is at the heart of the attacks on successful transsexual women. This sort of thing is reminiscent of other such people, like "Willow Arune," who is notorious as a staunch defender of Michael Bailey and Ray Blanchard. Arune has not met anyone who hates transsexuals that Arune does not dearly love.
This article could go on for far longer, just quoting Roberts's hateful remarks, but I will offer one final one to sum up:
Actually, Roberts needs no help in looking bad, and would do well to practice, rather than preach. Roberts is filled with pride, but fears criticism. Like so many of the gender facists, Roberts will delete anything that is remotely well written. It is not the vitrolic crap that gets deleted, but well written challenges to Robert's rhetoric.
I chuckle because every time these peeps post their vitriolic crap (which I delete) in a vain attempt to quote unquote 'try to make me look bad', they're missing the mark. They need to look in the mirror (if it doesn't break first) to ascertain who this is really hurting. You're making yourselves look like the peeps that not only need Jesus, but need straitjackets and prescription medication as well.
Roberts, in many ways, reminds me of a member of the Klan I was introduced to once. The man was filled with hatred to the point that he could not think rationally. When any of his positions were challenged, he would either launch off into a rant, or make an assertion that the Bible backed him up. If you asked him to tell you where, he would begin stalling, and then say something to the effect of "I can't remember the exact chapter and verse, but it's in there...in the Psalms I believe." Just out of curiosity, I tried to find anything remotely like what he claimed to be citing, and couldn't. Like Roberts apparently does, he simply made up stuff to suit his own hateful view.