Monday, July 27, 2009

The Reason Why...

The issue has been raised over why many who identify as HBS or classic transsexuals object so strongly to the efforts of transgender activists. The implication is often made that we are somehow elitist and hateful to the efforts to of what I have termed the gender fascists. Well, as story out of England is the perfect example of what is truly wrong with the efforts of the transgender types. Here is one version:

'Prisoner A' is legally female, and being held in a men's prison
A trans woman, serving a life-sentence for manslaughter and attempted
rape claims the court denying her application for residence in a
women's prison violates her human rights.

The prisoner, who for legal reasons can only be identified as
'Prisoner A,' placed an application to a UK court to be relocated to a
women's prison but had her request declined.

Prisoner A has already successfully had her gender officially
recognisd by law, having her birth certificate updated under the
Gender Recognition Act 2004. She has had laser hair removal on her
face and legs as well as developeing breasts following hormone

Addressing the High Court, the woman's lawyer stated that 'keeping her
in a men's prison was a violation of the right to respect for her
private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human
Rights.' Prisoner A watched the proceedings from prison via video

The lawyer told the court Prisoner A was desperate to get her gender
reassignment surgery, but that medics refused to perform the procedure
until she had lived as a woman for a significant amount of time, which
would only be possible in a women's prison.

'A' has been forbidden from wearing any female clothing such as skirts
or blouses, and anything more than 'subtle makeup', even though she is
being held in the vulnerable prisoner's wing.

Prison staff and authorities argue that she will be no better off in a
women's prison and that, if moved, she would have to spend long
periods in segregation at an extra cost of £80,000 per year

The hearing has been adjourned to a later date.
This is exactly the sort of thing that the gender fascists would love to impose on the United States. Thankfully, they have been largely unsuccessful in their radical attempts to pressure states to allow pre-ops or even those who have no intention of ever seeking sex reassignment to change their birth certificates. To say that "Prisoner A" is legally a woman is an outrage. First off, this person is physically a male. And quite obviously, in spite of claims to the contrary, this person is also mentally a man. Women might commit murder, but the idea that someone who would commit a rape, which is a violent crime where a man seeks the ultimate domination over a woman, might be mentally a female is absurd. This person is obviously in need of serious help, but sex reassigment is not what is needed.

And worse, to even suggest that such a person should be allowed to be placed in a women's prison is totally beyond the pale. Beyond the fact that he is still physically a male, there is also the fact that he would clearly be a danger to those incarcerated there. But, I have little doubt that, if this case were in the United States, many, if not most, of the gender fascists would be fighting for his right to claim to be a woman.

And that is why it is important to continue to oppose them and their efforts to redefine concepts that no one has seriously doubted since mankind began.


Saturday, July 25, 2009


Again, I have no desire to engage in a war with Suzan Cooke. In her latest post she does admit what a number of people have known all along. The problem is not those who identify as HBS or Classic Transsexuals, but is the ones who identify as transgender and who insist that everyone else must as well.

Beyond that, Cooke still shows behavior that would make any gender fascist quite proud. She still assumes that she knows who I am, and attempts to use that information in a desperate attempt to discredit me. When I started this blog, I was well aware of how the transgender crowd operates, and I have chosen to remain anonymous. Several people assume that I am a certain person, when they really have no idea who I am. This is typical of the TG mentality. They cannot stand not being able to control people.

Cooke is a classic example of the sort of mentality I was referring to in my post on "club words." For Cooke, her club of choice is religious faith. I mean, we all get it. Cooke is an atheist, and she hates Christians. She also continues to spout the classic TG rhetoric that those who decline to to compromise with the gender fascists are elitist or bullies. Quite silly, really, but such is the mindset of some.

Cooke wants something that is simply not acceptable to the gender fascists...for them to acknowledge that transsexuals are not part of the transgender umbrella. But Cooke also wants something that is unacceptable to many who are "classic transsexuals," "true transsexuals," or "HBS." That is to compromise and to join the LGBT alphabet soup. Again, I have friends who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, and yes, even in a few cases transgender identified. But I have no desire to be identified as part of the LGBT. I consider myself a straight ally.

I support rights legislation for lesbians, gays, and bisexuals. I support gay marriage. I don't believe people should be denied jobs for reasons that have nothing to do with their job performance. But I do have many reservations about the more radical demands of transgender extremists. I don't buy into the deconstruction of gender. I do not accept that one can change their sex simply by making a choice. And I see no reason to compromise with those who do.

And if Cooke thinks that makes one a "Christo-Facist," well that is Cooke's right. At least it means I am not a gender fascist.

Thursday, July 23, 2009

Compromise? Still, not thanks!

Suzan Cooke has posted a follow-up to her previous post I commented on. Quite frankly, I see no reason to modify my position. I am sorry that Cooke takes legitimate criticism as ad hominem attacks. I'm not surprised, as that seems to be Cooke's usual approach to anyone who disagrees.

I also read the comments made on the original post. The only thing interesting there is that, like some other transgender types, Cooke assumes she knows who I am. She doesn't. I always find it interesting that the gender fascists have an almost obsessive need to identify anyone who does not wish to share personal information. I guess they think they can use that to control others.

Other than that, and to say that I am really not interested in a fight with Cooke, there is not much to add. Cooke certainly has a right to her opinion, just as anyone else. Granted, like most who are transgender, Cooke does not extend this to others.

Again, I am really not interested in compromise.

The Sad Story of Chloe and Rene

On Tuesday, I decided to check out the latest story on ABC’s Prime Time: Family Secrets. The episode, "‘He’ Becomes ‘She’: Husband’s Transformation Into a Woman" is about Chloe Prince, a transgender person who has had what she refers to as "gender reassignment surgery." Now, I generally avoid most such "documentaries." They usually just make me regret the time wasted watching.

I have to admit, I found this one a surprisingly interesting story. Granted, parts of it sounded a bit contrived....the intersex stuff especially. But overall, it was, interesting.

In may ways, it was a typical transgender biography. For many years, Chloe was a run of the mill crossdresser. Lots of clothes, but transition was more fantasy than serious desire. Chloe had been in a relationship that ended. Chloe met Rene, fell in love, and they got married. Before they married, Chole revealed her, uh, hobby to Rene, who married her anyway. They have two sons. Now, this is where the story gets kind of weird. Chloe claims that, after having blood work related to an allergy to be stings, she was informed that she has "47 XXY 'Mosaic' Klinefelter's syndrome." (Actually, the proper term is Klinefelter syndrome, as Dr. Harry Klinefelter neither had the condition, nor did he own it. He just discovered it. But such mistakes are common.) Kilinefelter Syndrome occurs when a male is born with a karotype of XXY instead of the normal XY. It is considered a form of intersex, though it should be noted that most with Klinefelter have no gender identity issues. Chloe, however, uses the claim of having Klinefelter Syndrome as the excuse for the decision to transition.

Now, the vast majority, though not 100%, of those with Klinefelter Syndrome are sterile. Chloe claims that because of being "mosaic" this is not the case. Mosaic would mean that not all cells are XXY, but that some are XY. This however, makes the story even more bizarre, as this variant of Klinefelter Syndrom is extremely rare. There are only 10 cases recorded in medical literature.

It is not unusual for those who are transgender to claim some form of intersex in order to gain some added degree of credibility. That is not to say that all such claims are false. In fact, a lot of HBS women have some history of documented intersex issues. This should not surprise anyone, as the same sort of hormonal issues that are believed to cause HBS also cause intersex conditions. But, as I said, Klinefelter Syndrome is not normally linked to gender identity issues.

As to Renée, I honestly felt sorry for her. I'll be blunt. I would like to see her kick Chloe to the curb, and take her for all she is worth in divorce court. I mean really, it is obvious that the poor woman was not involved in her husband's choices. Chloe cleaned out the 501(K) and took off for Thailand, leaving her behind to worry about what to expect. I seriously doubt she is at all happy with Chloe being "Mommy."

It is obvious, Renée is at Chloe's mercy. She is scared to be on her on, and Chloe takes advantage of that. Simply put, she is "codependent." I try to avoid using that term, as it has become trivialized by its abuse as a form of psychobabble, but in this case it is entirely appropriate.

Yes, Chloe got her money's worth out of her FFS, but really, I honestly did not feel she vibed as a woman. I mean, the line about not being able to decide if she wanted to be a girl, or be with a girl...I bet that one made Michael Bailey's heart go pitter-patter. The whole thing was a farce. I find it funny that the only reason some transgender types hated it is because it emphasized surgery. Well, I'm sorry, but that is how the real world works. No, surgery doesn't make you a woman. I think Chloe illustrates that very well. But not wanting surgery indicates that you don't really want to be a woman in my opinion. I don't buy into the deconstructionist view. Chloe is another exception that proves the rule.

Beyond that, I felt that Chloe is a poster child for the transgender view. And a good example of why I don't accept that identity. Really, if someone has problems with the fact that Chloe had surgery, they are missing the point. Granted, the day may come when this person's world crashes in on them. But right now, the real problem is the damage Chloe has left in her wake. She has likely ruined the lives of three people, and worse, she continues to victimize them.

Monday, July 20, 2009

Missing the point...

Anyone who spends any time observing transgender extremists knows that they have a singular obsession with bathrooms. One of their persistent demands is free access based solely on a person's claimed state of mind at any particular moment. In another words, if you say, for the period of time that one wishes to enter a bathroom that is not consistent with your physical sex, you only have to say that your mental gender is appropriate and barge on in.

This point was brought home by a post by lead gender fascist "Autummn" Sandeen on Pam's House Blend. Sandeen is having a major hissy fit because the Society for Human Resource Management has come out in favor of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) but does not include "gender identity" in its endorsement. This is their statement from their FAQ on the topic:

While most SHRM members who participated in the development of our sexual orientation statement believed people should not be discriminated against based on their gender identity, there was universal concern expressed over the process to accommodate individuals in transgender situations. Since these accommodation challenges raised so many concerns among supporters and opponents alike, “gender identity” was not included in the SHRM statement.

Now, that seems pretty straightforward to me. I can certainly think of a number of issues that might arise in accomodating the wide range of behaviors that are covered by the transgender label. Remember, this law will also apply to people who are not in transition, but who might claim some issue with gender identity. Apparently Sandeen can see only one issue:
I'm guessing their apparent fretting about the "challenges" that businesses could have trying to "accommodate" gender variant/trans people is code for saying that they're worrying about gender variant/trans people using workplace restrooms -- why give direct voice to their biased prejudgments and illiberality when one can use code words and phrases instead?

Nevermind that all sorts of issues come up that have nothing to do with bathrooms. Issues like how to accomodate crossdressers who demand the right to express their feminine side whenever the mood strikes them. Imagine the effect on the workplace when you are never sure if one of the staff is going to show up as "John" or "Mary" on any given day. Worse, imagine that such a person is a postion where he has to deal with the public! What about having to deal with an employee who is militantly gender queer, whose appearance and behavior is totally disruptive.

No, bathrooms are not the sole issue for those who have to deal with transgender employees, or even the most important. But for those like Sandeen, they are a nice smoke screen to hide behind.

Saturday, July 18, 2009

Compromise? No thanks!

In a recent post on her Women Born Transsexual, Suzan Cooke writes about "compromises." For fsome time now, I have watched as Cooke has come closer and closer to a alignment with the gender fascists. The first major sign was when Cooke became friends with one of the lead gender fascists, Monica Helms. Since then, Cooke has moved closer and closer to accepting transgender, even those she continues to deny it.

Now, Cooke has finally stopped sipping the "transgender Kool-Aid" and started downing it by the gallon. She talks about "acknowledging our differences" but the end result is the same. She wants to join the transgender movement, provided she can pretend to maintain the illusion of separation. Sorry, but "No thanks!"

Part of the problem is, Cooke has long been "transgender" in all but name. She has always had a tendency to embrace her differences. In a way, this is not surprising. Cooke's attitude reminds me of the famous quote from the Marlon Brando movie. When Brando's character is asked, "What are you rebelling against, Johnny?" he replies, "Whaddya got?" That pretty much sums up Cooke, who mostly fills her blog with self-aggrandizing stories of her glory days as a revolutionary.

Cooke, and her partner who is also a transsexual, take credit for coming up with the term "Women Born Transsexual," which apparently was meant to play off of "Women Born Women." Originally, it seemed to serve as a strong denunciation of the transgender model, but that has begun to change. Shortly after she started her blog, Cooke began increasingly to embrace transgender activism, calling for transsexuals to join her in fighting for the goals of the the TG community.

Further, Cooke has increasingly adopted the transgender model of identifying as being out side the binary paradigm. For example, in her blog she states:

When I started this blog the first thing that happened is that a few people made snide remarks about Andrea James and Lynn Conway. They wanted me to embrace things like “HBS” and “Classic Transsexual”. I probably disappointed a number of fplks (sic)when I embraced neither.

Actually, I was not disappointed at all. In fact, I would be quite alarmed if Cooke were to try to co-opt the Harry Benjamin Syndrome movement. Now, while I do not agree with everything that Andrea James and Lynn Conway say, I don't have the animosity towards them that some have. But it does seem that Cooke is actually drawn to then for the same reasons many disagree.

Cooke, in her next statement, solidly aligns herself with what is, essentially, the transgender model:

I actually like the term “Transsexual” for the name of what I was born. Not so much as an identity but it gives clarity to the oppression I endured as a transkid and it doesn’t hide the reality of my life journey behind a bunch of jargon aimed at obscuring.
In another words, she wishes to embrace her "special status" and separate from those she has derisively referred to as "normborns." And, ironically, by adopting the term "transkid" she actually seems to be, perhaps inadvertently, aligning herself with the Blanchard-Bailey model. This term is widely used by their supporters to describe those who Blanchard would term "homosexual transsexuals."

Or perhaps Cooke is just insecure in her own identity. This would explain this rather odd remark:

As for “classic transsexual” I recognize it for what it is, a post-moderning term for heterosexual transsexual. as such I tend to see it as both homophobic and as a slam against sisters who come out later in life. It goes against my theories that the root cause of transsexualism is the same for almost all transsexuals and the truth can be found in the narrative. Reading biography after biography leads me to this conclusion that actual people with TS knew as early as their first conscious memories.

What makes this all very strange is that Cooke feels it necessary to denounce the term "classic transsexual" because she fears, quite erroneously, that it is linked to sexual orientation. "Classic transsexual" is not a synonym for "homosexual transsexual." Quite the opposite, it is part of the overall rejection of Blanchard's model. What makes all of this even stranger is Cooke's assertion that she has always identified as "bisexual," given Cooke's history of cruelly attacking post-op transsexuals who had been married as "skin transvestites." But then again, as I have observed, Cooke is now partnered with another transsexual, apparently one who was a later transitioner.

Then again, perhaps Cooke simply longs for her glory days when she was a major leader in a movement that had not yet become know as "transgender." It does appear she wants to be one of the big dogs again.

Whatever Cooke's motivations might be, what she proposes is simply unacceptable. She tries to compare her "compromise" to that she claims resulted from the rise of Anita Bryant, when it was decided that the term "gay" was not appropriate to describe both male homosexuals and lesbians, which resulted in the adoption of "gay and lesbian" to describe the community. Cooke suggests something similar:
A similar compromise would be Transsexual and Transgender Communities. LGBT/T or TS/TG and putting those into usage.
The problem with such a suggestion is that it still results in the appearance that those with a legitimate medical issue (HBS or classic transsexualism) are in common with those who choose to subvert the binary.

Personally, I think Cooke should just drop the pretense and admit that she is effectively "transgender." I suspect she will be much more comfortable with herself, and perhaps no longer feel the need to try to deny her true feelings in order to maintain an identity that is not legitimate.

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Things that make a gender fascist go hmm....

While checking out the latest silliness from Mr. Sandeen over at Pam's House Blend I found a post about the Endocrine Society releasing guidelines for treatment of transsexuals. These guidelines include recommendations for hormone therapy, surgery and long-term care for all ages.:

New guidelines from the Endocrine Society call for close and continued collaboration between endocrinologists and mental health professionals for the treatment of transsexual people.

The twentieth century marked the beginning of a social awakening for men and women whose bodies imprisoned them in the wrong gender," a task force of Endocrine Society-appointed experts wrote.

The guidelines include recommendations for safe and effective hormone regiments, genital sex reassignment surgery and long-term care for adolescents to adults.

The evidence-based guidelines were developed using the Grading of recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). The quality of evidence was generally low or very low.

"Prior to 1975, few peer reviewed articles were publishing concerning endocrine treatment of transsexual persons. Since that time, more than 800 articles about various
aspects of transsexual care have appeared," the task force wrote...

Now, this is all very significant. I have downloaded a copy of the 72 page article, and plan to read it in depth as soon as I have time. So, what was Sandeen's response to all of this?

Hmm. Just hmm.
I guess he was upset that, like most medical articles dealing with transition, makes reference to "transsexuals," not "transgender people." Sadly, such distinctions are lost on gender fascists like Sandeen who insist that everyone has to accept the label of "transgender" whether they identify that way, or not.

Sunday, July 12, 2009


For the past week or so the transgender blogs have all been covering the story about Lu’s: A Pharmacy for Women which was recently opened by the Vancouver Women’s Health Collective in Canada. They have taken notice of this new pharmacy because it has a policy of only providing services to "women born women." So, of course the transgender types are absolutely livid.

Now let me begin by saying that I do think this is a silly rule for this pharmacy to have. Here is the reasoning behind it from Caryn Duncan:

“We are an organization that has for almost 40 years supported
women around their battle with breast cancer or unwanted pregnancy or delivering
a baby with a midwife, [and] celebrating or dealing with menopause,” Duncan
said. “It’s about bleeding—or wanting to bleed or not bleed. It’s about being a
woman, and the physiology of being a woman.”
Further, Duncan claimed that the pharmacy doesn’t have the expertise or capacity to serve transgender women, stating “I think we’re being very reasonable.”

Now, as I said, all of this is pretty silly. But, I also believe that this group has a right to choose who they are willing to serve. Just as I believe that the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival has the right to exclude those that they do not consider "womyn born womyn." That does not mean that I do not consider such attitudes to be rather reprehensible. I also believe that groups like the Ku Klux Klan have a right to say who can, and cannot join, dress up in silly costumes, and march around a burning cross even though I find the Klan's beliefs to also be completely reprehensible.

Of course, the gender fascists don't see things that way. They are unwilling to extend to others the sort of rights they would demand for themselves. For years, they have tried to demand admission to -othe Michigan's Womyn's Music Festival. And, in another example, there was an effort to demand that those who had not had surgery be admitted to a bisexual women's group even though there was quite a bit of nudity involved.

Now, all of this is typical transgender behavior. Any suggestion that simply stating one is a woman does not immediately, and completely, change one's sex is met with outrage and shrill cries of "Prejudice, bigotry, and dicrimination!" It does not matter how one might be perceived by others, the gender fascists demand that the world bend to their delusions. So what it their presence causes discomfort to women seeking a safe space? That is not as important as their right to pretend to be a woman.

Most of those with Harry Benjamin Syndrome seem sensitive to these sort of things, and would actually avoid such a situation. Not only would they be concerned about how they might be perceived, they would also not wish to cause other women distress. But the larger transgender community increasingly tosses such concerns aside. They could care less if others might perceive them as "men in dresses invading women's space." All that matters is their right to claim an identity, no matter how absurd that might be.

And what makes this thing even sillier is the fact that many of those screaming the loudest are unlikely to remotely be affected by this situation. The pharmacy is located in Vancouver, Canada and yet among those who have been the most shrill are bloggers in places like San Diego and Texas.

When I read about stuff like this, it means little to me. Personally, I would have no desire to go to such a place. I have absolutely no interest in associating with those who hold views like this, nor do the vast majority of women. Places such as this, and the Michigan festival cater to a tiny, relatively isolated group of extremists. Most women are probably not even aware that such exists, and if they are, they have no interest in using such services.

But, to the gender fascists, this is all a serious threat to their carefully constructed delusions and as such, they must be fought. It really is all terribly funny in a very sad sort of way.

Monday, July 6, 2009

Club Words

During an on-going debate in the comment section of a post on Enough Nonsense, a transgender from South Africa started engaging in the usual round of insults that result when they start to lose the argument. And included in the insults were what I call "club words."

Club words, are terms that are used to "club" someone into submission during a debate. They have a long and sordid history. When I was younger, one of the most popular club words was the dreaded Communist. If someone wanted to put someone in their place, all they had to do was say, "That's communism!" and nine times out of ten the person they said it to would be reduced to backtracking and trying defend their self from such a horrible accusation.

Now, the important thing to remember about club words is that they don't rely on truth, but merely stand on their own as a way of cowing the person they are used on. Another, that no longer seems as popular was "secular humanist." Oh yes, that was very popular one for a while.

Now, you might, at this point, have the impression that the use of club words is reserved to conservatives. Far from it. One of the biggest consumer of club words is the "transgender community." Here are some of their favorites:

  • Bigot - It has been said that the defintion of a bigot is "A conservative winning an argument against a liberal. Or, in some cases, a transsexual winning an argument against a transgender activist. The logic is, this is such a horrible insult that the person it is thrown at will backtrack to avoid it.
  • Transphobic - This one is a bit odd. While the word is derived from another club word, "homophobic," it sort of loses its meaning along the way. Originally homophobic was meant to imply that someone feared their own "latent homosexuality." Now it is has morphed into a term for hatred for homosexuals. When it is used against transsexuals by the transgender it is, well, it is just plain silly.
  • Self-loathing = This, of course, is related to "transphobic." The idea here is that we hate what we are, and so we attack those like us. Ironically, it is often those who use it who seem to be self-loathing, but that is another discussion,
  • Elitist - This is one that always gives me a chuckle. As soon as one asserts that they do not wish to be associated with people they have nothing in common with, this is thrown at them. If you don't wish to be linked with men who get their kicks from dressing up and pleasuring themselves, you are an elitist. Go figure.
  • Shame - This is another fun one. If you identify as a woman, and have no desire to rub people's noses in your past, then it must be because you are ashamed. The fact that you might, just possibly, simply wish to live your life as who, and what, you feel yourself to actually be is irrelevant.
  • Fearful - This goes hand in hand with shame. If you don't make sure that every single person you encounter knows you were born a male, and that, perhaps, you still are in spite of your outward appearance, it must be because you are afraid.
  • Closeted - The problem with this one is the fact that, for classic transsexuals and those with Harry Benjamin Syndrome, the "closet" has no real meaning. The closet is a gay paradigm. In a real sense, I came out of the closet when I started living as a woman. For me to hide that behind a facade of being "transgender" would be a return to a closet I have left behind.
  • Hypocrite - This one is used by those who refuse to allow anyone the right to not identify as "transgender." The fallacy is that you are benefiting from all of their hard work, but are not supporting them in their efforts. The simple fact that one might not believe they have accomplished anything, and that what they are trying to accomplish is just plain wrong, is lost on them.
  • Coward - Another club word that combines concepts like fear, shame, and self-loathing.
  • Defeatist - This one is trotted out when you make it clear that you do not share their goals. The idea that they might actually be wrong is avoided. Obviously, you must think they simply cannot achieve those lofty goals (such as destroying the binary paradigm) instead of finding such ideas to be outrageous.

The best defense against club words is to recognize them for what they are, and to remember that they are rarely, if ever, remotely accurate.