Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Now, DID is a highly controversial diagnosis. If it does exist, it is rare. A more likely explanation for all this is that the person involved was exposed as a fraud and is now trying to engage in a bit of CYA. Tobi Hill-Meyer over at Bilireco disagrees, but then that person was the last hold out trying to make the story true.
In any case, this has been yet another weird episode in the fantasy world of the transgender.
Monday, June 22, 2009
The question I want to examine here is "Why did this story spread so quickly?" The answer is simple, the transgender community loves nothing so much as a fresh martyr. As I pointed out before there are those who want to glorify anyone who has the misfortune to get themselves killed. Yes, they see it as a tragedy, but they also seem to thrive on this sort of thing.
You can almost sense the disappointment that this is not another glorious death that can be used to promote the cause. What is missing in most reports admitting that this is a fraud is a sense of relief that no one has actually died.
Andrea James has a very interesting piece on spotting such frauds on TS Roadmap. And that is exactly what it appears that this story is...a very elaborate fraud that was over a year in the making. Apparently "Rachel Roo" is the latest in a long line of fake transsexuals. It appears that someone took the time to create a character, build up trust, and then came the final bit of fraud. A truly sad situation.
It should also be noted that fraudulent hate crimes are not unheard of. There have been several incidents in the LGBT community where people have faked attacks, claiming to be the victims of hate crimes that never occured. Such incidents only serve to give ammunition to those who oppose hate crime laws.
Thankfully, no real transsexuals were harmed in the making of this fraud. A few transgender activists wound up with egg on their face, but one would think they would be used to that sort of thing by now.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
I am having a very difficult time right now. I am a moderator on another site and we have a Forum and we have a Chat. Raychel ‘Roo’ was 18 in March. She died in intensive care last night. One of our teen Moderators, she lived in New York and was a post op teenage girl, and a dancer. She was headed to the Juliette School in the Fall. Now she is dead.
Her father was killed and her mother lost her arm in a terrible car crash last month. At one of the trials on this, one of the lawyers outed her. Her town had a very negative reaction.
She had life threats, she and her mother. The police had them under protective surveillance. The police left at noon yesterday. By two o’clock she was assulted. Last night she died.
She rode her bike to go to the store. She never came home. They found her bike in a dumpster. Late that evening they found her. She had been assaulted with a sledge hammer, they think, judging from the bruises all over her body. Her knee caps had been broken. She had been gang raped. They buried her alive.
She worked her way out of the almost grave and crawled for three hours to get help. She was put in the ICU and given little chance to survive. Last night she died.
The facts are skimpy, speculation reigns. Supposedly kids from a nearby school came after her in a van. There were no fingerprints. She had no semen after the rapes so it shows premeditation as they used condoms. She was so beat-up her organs just went into shock and she died.
Our whole group is sick and horrified. I am having a difficult time just writing this. I need to for two reasons, to tell her story and to say ‘please be careful!’ Last night we lost a sister, and one of our own.
I first saw the story on Bilerico and I immediately suspected that something was amiss. For one thing, there was the fact that the story had not appeared in any news reports. In spite of the suggestion by Tobi Hill-Meyer that the media migh ignore such a story, that was the first problem I had with the the report. Second, was the suggestion that an 18 year old might be a post-op. That is possible, but somewhat unlikely. Then finally, there was the over the top part about her digging her way out of her "almost grave" and crawling for three hours. The whole thing just did not ring true.
Well, apparently it isn't. Laura's Playground has pulled the story, admitting that it is almost certainly a hoax. Other transgender sites, including Woman Born Transsexual have also admitted to being duped. Tobi Hill-Meyer seems to be the lone hold-out, admitting that there are questions, but refusing to admit that it is a hoax, reasserting the silly claim that such a story might be deliberately ignored by the media.
If, by some chance, any part of the story is true, it would, of course, be a complete tragedy. On the other hand, if as appears to be very likely, it is a hoax, then it is a truly sick one. In any case, this is an example of the sort of problems that can arise. A hoax can be spread quickly. People can easily be sucked in by the most outrageous of stories. Anytime you see something like this, you need to stop and question it.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
This is turning into a ridiculous farce. Now, just because someone puts on a dress, claims to be a female, and maybe, just maybe, sort of, kind of, hopes to have surgery one day, does not make them a female. And if they still have a penis, and they marry a man, who has a penis, that is a same sex marriage. No amount of wishing, and hoping, and just plain BS is going to change that.
The gender fascists may wish to push the idea that just saying you want to have surgery makes you a female (or a male if you are an FTM), and they may suggest, as one fool does in the comments, that a new birth certificate and change of legal sex should occur as soon as a doctor certifies that you have begun transition, but that sort of thing is insane. They are just digging a deeper and deeper hole, and accomplishing nothing. That is not going to be accepted, and deep down, I think they know it. But, the days when a guy could put on a dress and shock the neighbors are fading. Now, they have to say really stupid things to get that same shock value.
And once and for all, pointing out that a person who has a penis, is not a female is not transphobia. Sadly, that word is becoming badly abused. It is used as what I have called a "club word," a word used to beat up on another. When I was younger, the most common club word was "communism." If people didn't like something, it was called "communism." Of course, that word was popular with the Right. But, the Left loves club words just as much. "Racist" is an oldy, but a goodie, ironically now used by both sides. In truth, all they show is that people don't have real arguments, so they bring out words, and they use them to club the opposition into submission.
And, that is the height of stupidity.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Now Sandeen has his nose out of joint because of how the Advocate reported on a fraudulent marriage in New York. Now, the facts are really quite simple...here is the article from the Advocate that set Sandeen off:
Two men fooled the New York City Clerk's office into certifying what is believed to be the first same-sex marriage performed in the state, reports the New York Post, which published the couple's photo on its front page on Sunday.
Hakim Nelson and Jason Stenson were married in a ceremony at the clerk's office on May 26, 10 days after obtaining a marriage license at the office. Same-sex marriage is illegal in New York, although the state recognizes same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.
Nelson, 18, and Stenson, 21, said that when they applied in person for the license, Nelson used a state benefit card that lists his sex as female. The clerk did not ask him about the male-sounding first name -- Hakim -- that appears on his identification. He wore an orange dress and white leggings, with his hair falling at his shoulders.
Nelson goes by the name "Kimah" and hopes to have transition surgery one day. Stenson views Nelson as a woman, and does not consider himself gay.
So, the the story is very simple. Two people, one of whom may be a pre-op transsexual (though that is questionable), but who are both males, show up and apply for a marriage license. One of them lies, and claims to be a female. They get the license, and a marriage ceremony is performed. The "groom" says he is not gay, even though his new bride has a penis and testicles. If this all sounds familiar, there was a similar case just recently in Texas.
Well, the bottom line in all this is that Sandeen goes off on a tear about how the Advocate should not haver referred to this as a "same sex marriage," (yes, I know that's what it is, but we are talking about Sandeen here....reality is not a factor) and then he takes the Advocate to task for referring to a person who is legally a male, with a penis, and who's legal name is a male name, as a man. In this case, that is exactly what this person is. Under other circumstances, I agree, it would be improper to refer to a pre-op transsexual as a man, but in this case it is appropriate to make sure the story is easily understood. Nelson is not a woman, and it is highly questionable that this person is a transsexual.
What is so incredibly stupid here is the fact that Sandeen seems to think that everyone should have just ignored the fact that this pair was knowingly breaking the law by engaging in a fraud, and just accepted them as an opposite sex couple.
This is the sort of idiocy that provides those who wish to put an end to the treatment of transsexuals ample ammunition. And Sandeen's response is the sort of stupidity that provides them with with something akin to a weapon of mass destruction,
Is anyone really this stupid? The answer, sadly, is yes....more than a few are.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
National Center For Transgender Equality's (NCTE) executive Director Mara Keisling had the following to say in response to a question about Cher's daughter, Chastity Bono announcing plans to transition to male, "The whole media fixation on surgery is kind of misplaced, almost no transgender people ever have surgery. We don't have any idea how many do." No argument there...at least from me, and any one else who is not married to the idea that transsexuals are part of the "transgender community." I mean, that is pretty much what a lot of us have been saying for some time.
So, how does a gender fascist like Sandeen respond to this? Why they simply blow and fuse and go on a rant! The horror! Sandeen had the following to say:
At a time when trans folk and our allies want to see health care benefits provided by the workplace increased for trans people -- including genital reconstruction surgery that has been determined to be good for the health and wellbeing of many transsexuals -- Mara's phrasing for CNN seems at best unfortunate, and at worst actually damaging for increasing health benefits for those of us trans folk who actually identify as transsexual.
First off, Sandeen shows his invincible ignorance by referring to people who "identify as transsexual. Being transsexual is not an identity. It is a state of being that one is born with. You cannot "identify as a transsexual" which would imply that being a transsexual is simply a matter of choice. There might well be people who really, really, really want to be transsexuals, because in the insanity that is known as the "transgender community" there is this silly idea that being a transsexual is "better" than just being a crossdresser, but that does not change anything. In fact, that pretty much pushes one into the world of autogynephila.
Now you have to remember, Sandeen, who for many years was an avowed "non-op" (granted, that is an oxymoron) has become a "born-again transsexual." That is, in an attempt to gain some crediblity, Sandeen has announced that he is now going to have surgery...on of these day...in the far, far distant future...if someone else pays for it...and he can't come up with an excuse not to. In fact, Sandeen basically indicates this:
In other words, for me it would be nice for me if the Veterans Administration would do genial (sic) reassignment surgeries, but her comment "Almost no transgender people ever have surgery" makes it sound like my peers and I don't want those surgeries for ourselves -- so in the personal sense it sounds like she's saying to the general public that I don't want or need the VA to cover it.
Now I agree, it would be nice if the VA could do some surgery, any surgery, that would make Sandeen more genial, but such miraculous surgery is still beyond the abilities of modern medicine.
But seriously, while I would completely agree if that was what Keisling was saying, I think what Keisling might hopefully be trying to say, or perhaps slipped up and actually admitted, is that most transsexuals, or better, people with HBS, simply do not identify as transgender. And that those who identify as transgender are not, with some exceptions, transsexual or HBS.
Transgender is an identity. It is a subjective social construct that has no objective definition. Transsexual is a medical condition that one is born with. One cannot adopt it as an identity.
But as I said, Sandeen, for a very long time, denied any interest in surgery, seeming to suddenly decide to pursue it as a means of gaining credibility. You have to remember, Sandeen spent 20 years in the United States Navy, serving very successfully as a man, before deciding he was really
"transgender." And then, years after that, suddenly becomes a transsexual when he realizes that no one is willing to accept him as having any crediblity concerning transsexuals.
And it is clear that he still, really doesn't get it:
The reality is that insurance doesn't often cover genital
reconstruction surgeries, so most transsexuals can't afford the $15,000 to
$60,000 for male-to-female genital reconstruction surgery, or the $30,000 to
$150,000 for female-to-male genital reconstruction surgery out of their own
pockets. Economics are often the main reason why the transgender people who
identify as transsexual don't have genital reconstruction surgery. Some
transsexuals actually do identify as non-operative transsexuals, but my
experiece is that those folk aren't how most transsexuals identify -- most who
haven't had genital reconstruction surgery identify as pre-operative even if
they anticipate never being able to afford surgery on their genitalia.
Now, this sort of silliness is typical of the gender fascists, especially those who wish to claim a desire for surgery, but who don't really want it. No, surgery is not cheap. It can be a major financial impact. And yet, people who have HBS somehow manage to find a way. I myself got by for several years on less than half what I should have had in order to pay for it. And mine was paid for by insurance. But, in order to keep that insurance, I worked half-time, living far below what was reasonable. Ironically, my plan, prior to getting that job, was to do pretty much the same thing. And I know others who have followed very similar paths, struggling to save money. The cost of SRS can be compared to that of a relatively low-end automobile. Many borrow the money. But, for those like Sandeen, who always seem to have an excuse, money is a favorite.
And what about those transsexuals who truly believe that they will never have the money? A lot of them simply cannot face going on as the are, and the results are tragic. They don't identify as "non-ops." There is no such thing. That is an imaginarly concept for people like Sandeen who want to claim to be women, but are really not willing to give up their penises.
And then, Sandeen goes on to make a statement that is at the heart of the transgender paradigm. The sort of thing that truly separates those who identify as transgender from those who truly are transsexual or HBS, and from any grasp of reality:
I believe that what Mara was trying to say was that for transsexuals, when we are born what's between our ears doesn't match the genitalia usually associated with that gender. However, having genitalia that doesn't match one's gender identity shouldn't be used by media or politicians to say that trans men aren't really men, or trans women aren't really women -- Genitals don't trump identity.
That pretty much sums it up. The true agenda for the transgender is to claim that one can be a woman with a penis, or a man without one. And that is just silly. Yes, one's gender is between the brains, but gender will drive the desire to be correct. Simply put, if you are comfortable with having a penis, then you are not a woman. If you are comfortable not having a penis, then you are not a man. Yes, genitals do, ultimately, trump identity. You can claim to be a woman all you want, but the moment people find out you have a penis, especially if you want to keep it, the vast majority is never going to see you as truly a woman.
Finally, Sandeen gets things completely backwards:
And too, not everyone who identifies as a transgender person is a transsexual person -- there are crossdressers, genderqueers, and such that may identify as transgender, but not as transsexuals.
Sandeen simply refuses to allow that one might be a transsexual and not identify as transgender. Again, transsexual is an objective fact, transgender is an identity. But, Sandeen wants to reverse things. But in Sandeen's fantasy world, he wants to make the opposite true.
When I challenged Sandeen to admit that transgender was an identity, and should not be forced on anyone, he lied and said he never did that. Here he goes beyond that. He tries to reduce transsexual to an identity and imply that transgender is the reality. Simply put, he just doesn't have a clue.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Of course, they are concerned that it portrays "transgender women" in a bad light. Monica Helms had this to say, "As you can see, this commercial just looks plane dumb on the visual level, but it also uses men in women’s clothes in a negative context. Trans people who saw this commercial went ballistic. Even though the commercial does not specifically make fun of trans people, out of the 300 million Americans, many will use this as another excuse to discriminate and hold back quality for Transgender Americans."
Perhaps even sillier is this remark from Autumn Sandeen, "Are you saying, Boost Mobile, that being visibly transgender a 'very visual wrong'? What does your anti-discrimination policies look like regarding 'gender identity or expression'? -- do your internal business policies tell you anything about this?"
I mean, really...if this ad is an example of what Sandeen thinks the results of his efforts to push his radical agenda should look like...well, that pretty much says for more against him than I ever could.
Personally, I think the whole Boost Mobile ad campaign is a bit silly. But the fact that people like Helms and Sandeen want to claim that this ad somehow insults "transgender people" offers an excellent example of why people might want to reconsider being lumped into that umbrella term.