Some of the comments are interesting for just how ridiculous a position some can take...
Let's start off with one of the more bizarre character who shows up on the various blogs. Now, this fellow is a man who identifies as a "Goth" crossdresser and who goes by the name "Battybattybats." He is always good for something ridiculous...but this really takes the cake:
Cause the fact is the 'transgender movement' is not a crossdresser movement as the seperatists are always painting it.Now, first off, the whole idea of being "in the closet" or "out" is foreign to the concept of being a transsexual. Transsexualism is about having a birth condition that is corrected and then one gets on with one's life. It is not about being "different," which is, of course, a distinction that would probably be lost on someone who considers theirself to be "Goth."
It IS a transsexual movement!
Because the majority of out folk are TSs.
The majority of politically active folk are TSs!
Thats the worst part of their whole framing of this.
CDs are almost totally closetted fighting with their own selves. They are like the G and L folk were back in the 50's and 60's.
But the TG groups include them partly because one day when enough do come out they will be a large population. And this inclusion of Cds and other non-binary folk is framed as if the CDs were running the whole thing.
Well how many CDs are there openly running organisations with Transgender in the name? How many openly CD people are there in office?
It's not a CD movement.
Of course, Battybattybats has his own ideas about transsexuals, and seeks to redefine the term to suit his own views:
Yes, 'classic transsexual' and the other oft-used 'true transsexual' are very demeaning and invalidating of many other transsexuals.
And I see that for some transsexuals they reject the term transgender because they see it as invalidating. These Cisgender transsexuals could just call themselves that, cisgender transsexuals, It seems an accurate descriptor, or some other such term could be coined without invalidating others with terms like 'classic' or 'true' and without attempting to rob those transsexuals who do support the term transgender of it.
Now, the term "true transsexual" was coined by Harry Benjamin to differentiate them from those who might appear to be transsexual, but are not. The term "classic transsexual" came about, in part exactly because of, shall we say, "bat-brained" people who seek to redefine "transsexual" to include people who are not really transsexual. So now, according to Battybattybats, not calling someone something they are not is insulting. Seriously, he says basically this exact thing:
But if Transgender must be redefined to take into account the feellings and issues and self-identity of others then so must 'classic' transsexual.
So, it is really very simple...Battybattybats will set us free of the term "transgender" provided we abandon the our identities in such a way that his is still allowed to muddy the waters and associate us with those we don't wish to be linked to. If that doesn't show what a lot of this is about, then I don't know what could.
Now, Battybattybats is not just content to try to redefine transsexuals, he wants to argue that we really are just the same as crossdressers. When someone pointed out that there are numerous studies that show that transsexualism (or preferably, HBS) has a neurological basis, he says this:
Oh it's NARTH time now is it?
The question is not whether there is biological evidence for biological causation of TS.
There is, neurological and so far at least one gene.
BUT WHERE ARE THE STUDIES DONE ON CROSSDRESSERS FOR THESE SAME AND DEGREES AND VARIANT CAUSES THAT FIND A TOTAL ABSENCE OF THEM?
Did I mention earlier that insults are only moderated if they are made against those pushing the transgender party line? Imagine the outrage if someone compared one of the gender fascists to the kooks over at NARTH...but someone got moderated. and apparently banned, for suggesting that Battybattybats was illogical
But, I digress. The basic reason such studies are not done is that no one with any real knowledge remotely thinks that crossdressing is anything other than a chosen behavior. It is not inherent. I does not appear until quite a bit later in life, often well after puberty. Simply put, there is no scientific basis to think that such studies would show anything now already known. Also, it should be considered that there has been research that shows that crossdressers lose interest in crossdressing if they take estrogen. Simply put, the estrogen reduces their sex drive, and the desire to crossdress goes away. And another study has shown that selective serotonin uptake inhibitor (usually used to treat depression) can also reduce the desire to crossdress. Some scientists believe this is similar to their use to treat obsessive-compulsive disorders. Of course, given that some SSRIs reduce the sex drive, it may also be related to the same effect as estrogen.
Now Battybattybats is not the only one who is spreading misinformation and insults in the comments on the Bilierco post. Of course, one of the leading gender fascists, "Monica" Helms has to jump in:
67 comments and I haven't said a word . . . until now. It's interesting to see those who support Don and his article dance around those who only come out to hijack yet another discussion on trans issues. I'm sure it amuses some people to watch this new round of Trans WWF, a fight to the death, which always seems one-sided around here. Personally, I got better things to do with my time.Now, Mr. Helms stars right off with an attack. In Helms' view, anyone who does not toe the transgender line is out to "highjack" the discussion. In another words, Helms simply dismisses contrary views as not worthy of consideration. Of course, such an attack is okay with Bilerico.
Even though Mr. Helms claims to be surgery tracked (after many years of admantly claiming to be a non-op he has said he now wants the surgery...if he can get his employer to cover it under health insurance). Nevertheless, he really has nothing but contempt for transsexuals. And his ignorance of the facts is truly astounding:
"Classic transsexual" was created by transsexuals who wanted to be separate from trans men, pre-op and non-op transsexuals, lesbian post-op trans women and crossdressers. There's nothing wrong with that need to be separate.
However, no non-classic-transsexual scientist, doctor or biologist has validated their claims and no real scientific proof exists that it is a biological condition, no matter how people tend to stretch other studies to fit their beliefs. It's only a label and a mindset. Nothing more. Viva la labels!
It is really hard to tell if Mr. Helms is really this incredibly ignorant, or if he is just being absurdly dishonest. I mean, there is so much here that is so incredibly wrong. First off, those of us who identify as "classic transsexuals," or as I prefer, "survivors of HBS" have no desire to be separate from FTMs who are also classic transsexuals. Also, we were all pre-ops at one time, though I admit, we might well wish to be separate from those who are claim to be post-ops but who are clearly making no moves towards surgery. As to "non-ops," there is no such thing. They are not transsexuals. The term "non-op transsexual" is an oxymoron," And we have nothing in common with crossdressers.
Further, his assertion that there is "no non-classic-transsexual scientist, doctor or biologist has validated their claims and no real scientific proof exists that it is a biological condition" is just unbelievable. He knows better, and in this case is clearly lying...or incredibly delusional. There are a large number of such studies, and Mr. Helms has been told this time after time. But, like Battybattybats, he just plows on, invincibly ignorant.
And to simply dismiss "classic transsexual" as "just a label" shows where Mr. Helms is coming from. For him, it is all about "identity." As the old saying goes, "When you are a hammer, all the world looks like a nail." For Mr. Helms, since his being "transgender" is just a label, so our birth condition must be as well.
But, at the same time, he tries to claim to be the same as us:
Transexualism is indeed a birth condition. Most all of us knew we were "built wrong" when we were little. For me, 1955 (age 4.) Did I know in 1955 that I would also accept the word "transgender" in 1995? However, "classic" transsexualism is not a different and separate birth condition. It's the same condition with a different label.
Now, didn't Mr. Helms just say that transsexualism does not have a biological cause? Hmmm, so I guess he must be claiming that, while he was in the womb, he just up and decided he was going to be a "girl," even though he had that penis between his legs.
Now, even though Helms claims he knew, at age four, that he was "built wrong," he has lived to be 58 year-old without having a really serious need to be corrected. In fact, for most of those 58 years, he was a happy, content male. He not only served in the Navy, he was in the submarine service. This is not something that someone does without passing some pretty intense examinations to make sure they are mentally and emotionally stable enough. Someone who, from the age of four, had known they were built wrong, would not be able to fake it that well.
And you have to remember, Helms, until very recently was not only a happy content male, he was adamant that he had no need, or desire for corrective surgery. In fact, he has attacked post-op HBS women, and continues to do so, mocking them for their need to have surgery.
So, here we have another nasty battle on Bilerico. The gender fascists get to make nasty remarks about anyone who does not accept their radical views. HBS survivors and classic transsexuals get moderated, and often shown the door. Typical.