Monday, August 31, 2009

A Little Housekeeping....

I just want to touch on some odds and ends that have come up of late. First off, "Anonymous T-Girl," a person who tends to comment on a lot of the blogs I respond to made this comment on Suzan Cooke's "Women Born Transgender...uh Transsexual" blog:

i can’t stand Jennifer, because out of pure contempt for others, she misgenders people. i don’t know anyone else who does that

Now, this person is entitled to her opinion, but she should at least have her facts straight. First off, she is wrong to assume I act out of "pure contempt for others." Not true at all. Second, I would contend that I am not "misgendering" anyone. No, first off, I don't buy into the transgender silliness that one is automatically entitled to be referred to with certain pronouns simply because they claim to be a certain "gender," or more accurated because they purport to be presenting as a certain gender. Words have meanings, and if I honestly believe someone is not a woman, I am not going to use female pronouns to refer to them out of some hypocritical adherence to political correctness. If I refer to someone with female pronouns, it is because I accept that person as a woman, not because they simply claim to be one.

So, no, I am not misgendering people. I am just being honest. I think it is silly to refer to a crossdresser with female pronouns, just because they are "en femme" (the silly term they seem to prefer) or to call someone who lived most of his life quite comfortably as a successful man by female pronouns just because he decided that "just" crossdressing is not enough, and now he wants to do it all the time.

The ironic thing is, except for being a bit puzzled at why anyone who seems to be otherwise quite transsexual would ever call their self a "T-girl," we generally seem to be on the same page.

Now, I would also like to remind people that, unlike most of the transgender blogs, I generally do not engage in censorship. Pretty much anyone is welcome to come and post here. The only real rule I have is that people not make personal attacks on others. Disagreement is fine, and is welcomed for that matter. But please don't attack people. So, even the gender fascists and transgenders are welcome. Even if they have blocked me from posting on their web sites. I don't play those silly games. Unlike them, I am not afraid of disagreement.

And finally, I have to say, it really gets amusing watching Suzan Cooke obsessing about me. Cooke really needs to:
  1. Admit that she has pretty much turned into a transgender. Calling herself a "Woman Born Transsexual" is getting sillier and sillier.
  2. Drop by and comment here. Her hiding behind her ban on my posting so she doesn't actually have to face having her silliness challenged is really lame.
  3. Wake up and realize that the Sixties have been over for almost forty years. They are never really coming back.
  4. Realize that I am not targetting her. I post about any transgender silliness. She just happens to crank out more of it than some others, especially of late.
  5. Finally, she really should get a life.

And remember folks, you are welcome to comment. Seriously.

Saturday, August 29, 2009

More Lies

The author of A Gender Variance Who's Who is at it again. In the comments of the article I wrote about before, the lies are just being piled on. This person is obsessed with HBS, and like most gender fascists, will do anything to discredit the concept. Unfortunately, the only thing this person can come up with is outright lies:
In addition to being internet trolls, most HBS women seem to be gynephilic late transitioners, some having had multiple wives before deciding to be transsexual.

I suppose, like most gender fascists, this kook things anyone who disagrees is somehow evil trolls, but beyond that, the rest of the claim is just patently absurd. Clearly this person is just making things up. The author should know better, but hey, this person has never shown any interest in facts. Of coure, facts would not serve this author's purpose.

In the past, this person has shown no respect for people's privacy. If the person's birth name is known, it is used. If it is not known, this person will make one up. And if the person is someone this nut case disagrees with, then lies will be employed to denigrate the person.

Even more interesting is the fact that this person has found an ally in Suzan Cooke, who is a gender facist wannabe. Cooke has not quite won over the rest, as they would still prefer to force everyone under the umbrella. But Cooke is trying. Cooke is really pushing for compromise, but just cannot grasp that compromise is just not acceptable.

Friday, August 28, 2009

Term Limits

It was two years ago today that the first post in this blog appeared. Originally, I thought I would probably produce one or two posts a month. Things have increased considerably. This month I have posted as many posts as I did in the previous year. Of course, I could post more, but I write each post, as opposed to reposting stuff from other sources just so I can produce several posts a day.

In honor of this milestone, here is a special post looking at some terms the gender fascists seem to love....

From Through The Looking-Glass And What Alice Found There by Lewis Carroll:

When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean— neither more nor less.’

‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master - - that’s all.'

Anyone who has dealt with the transgender community might well feel as though they have gone down the rabbit hole and joined Alice in talking with Humpty Dumpty. Much of the terminology used seems to bear little resemblance to anything that can be called reality.

In this posting, I would like to look at some of the terms one encounters and discuss both what they mean, and what the gender fascists want them to mean.

Well, as they say, the first place to start is at the beginning.

Transgender - Of course, this path has been trod before, but let's review...The gender fascists would have us believe that "transgender" is an objective term that refers to a specific, identifiable group. They would include transvestites, crossdressers, drag queens, drag queens, transgenderists, butch women, femme men, gender queers, two spirits, bois, gurls, sissy maids....oh, and of course, transsexuals. (Now, why any true or classic transsexual would want to be lumped in with stuff like crossdressers and sissy maids is beyond me.)

The problem is, "transgender" is not an objective term. It never has been, and never will be. It is an artificial social/political construct and it has too many different definitions, most of which are often in conflict with one another. Also, many of those who some would force the term on do not wish to be defined that way.

It is often used to imply that one can "change one's gender." This of course is not true, and is an absurd thing to suggest. If it were possible, then transsexuals could simply choose to change their gender to match their bodies, and no one would need to have surgery. Contrary to the claims of many, gender is not fluid. Ironically, most who are "transgender" were actually born with a gender that matches their body, and are actually trying to present as a gender other than their true one.

Transgender is, plain and simple, an identity. It is a label that one can adopt, but which, likewise, one should be free to reject. It should never be forced on someone against their will, and it should never be used to describe someone unless they themselves have indicated a willingness to be called that. Of course, this sort of concept infuriates the gender fascists who feel free to label people as they see fit, but who become furious if someone does not pander to their silly delusions.

Now, one of the bigger problems with "transgender" is the fact that many feel their gender is not the issue. For example, my gender has always been female. I did not decide to change my gender. I decided to accept my gender, and instead to change my sex. Gender, it appears, is immutable. But the transgender paradigm holds that gender is a social construct and is therefore a choice.

Some define "transgender" in terms of either transgressing or transcending gender. Most who identify as having Harry Benjamin Syndrome do not see themselves as doing either. I certainly do not transgress gender. My gender is female, and that is how I dress and behave. The idea of appearing in public dressed as a man strikes me as absurd. Nor did I transcend gender. I simply accepted the gender I truly am, and got on with my life.

Gender Variant - Gender variant is becoming an increasingly popular replacement for "transgender." Of course, this, as much as anything, shows just how clueless some people are. They think "gender variant" is a more benign term than "transgender." In truth, for most, it is even more offensive. First off, there is nothing variant about my gender. I have a female gender, and I simply conform to societies standards for that gender. Of course, I am sure there are those who would love to see this replace "transgender" as it will set them even more apart from normal society.

Transgenderist - Transgenderist was the term first coined by Charles "Virginia" Prince to describe those, like himself, who chose to live full time as the opposite sex without seeking SRS. Prince was adamantly opposed to sex reassignment surgery. It has been suggested that this was because Prince was denied surgery when he attempted to get it. It has largely been replaced by the oxymoron "non-op transsexual."

Cis-whatever - In scientific terms, "cis" is the opposite of "trans" so someone came up with the bright idea of using "cisgender" to refer to people who are, in effect, normal. That was silly enough, but now the term has become something of an insult. Other variations include things like "cissexual." It's use led to a major meltdown on Pam's House Blend. Personally, I don't see why a special term is needed for people who are not transgender or transsexual.

Normborn - This is a relatively new term, which has appeared on a few blogs, especially on Women Born Transsexual where, like "cisgender" it is used as something of an insult. Again, this speaks loads about the transgender mindset...and what is says is not at all favorable. It has to be kept in mind, being transgender is all about being different...being "other," simply being at odds with normal, decent society. This is why some gender fascists seem to hate the HBS concept. They don't want to be normal, and they can't seem to stand the idea that anyone else would want to be either. Of course, they want to force society to accept them, and the idea that there might be transsexuals who don't share their desire to rebel against norms works against that.

The transgender attitude is summed up best by a quote from Gwen Smith concerning a couple of cases that have received attention lately:

A cadre of experts – right or wrong – will be attempting to decide if Semenya is male or female, and that will determine if she will be able to continue to compete on the world stage. Meanwhile, Manpower Inc. will not get to ogle Blatt's genitals to determine if others will be magically comfortable around her.

No one should get that power. The only people who can truly say if we are men or women are ourselves.

In the case of Semenya, the issue is one of simple fairness. If she has some medical condition that gives her an unfair advantage, then the officials have a right to know this. And of course, given that she has higher than normal levels of testosterone, and that her coach is a former East German with a history of cheating, it is not unreasonable for them to investigate.

As to Blatt, this person was in a position that involved being in the locker room with women who might be nude. There is good reason to believe that Blatt has not had corrective surgery, and given that some doctors will provide documentation that falsely implies that surgery has taken place, when it is not actual SRS, it is not unreasonable that her employer require additional documentation. The request for a photograph of her genitalia was not the most reasonable approach, but it would deal with the possibility of fraud. A better approach would have been to simply request an examination by a doctor that Manpower could trust.

No, whether or not we are men or women is not our choice, and there are situations where simply taking someones word for it is not a reasonable demand.

Women Born Transsexual - This term was dreamed up by Suzan Cooke. Cooke was trying to counter the "women born women" concept that some extremist lesbian-separatists have used to dismiss transsexuals as being "not really women." Of course, those who think in terms of "women born women" are a very small minority that are largely insignificant to the lives of most women.

This term was originally supposed to differentiate between transsexual and transgender, but increasingly Cooke has adopted transgender views, and is now transgender in all but name. Cooke's latest effort is to add another T to LGBT, creating LGBT/T for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender/Transsexual. Cooke simply does not get it. Those who do not wish to identify as transgender are not going to want to compromise in this manner either.

So, as this blog begins its third year, I look back at all the changes. More and more, people are speaking up and saying "No!" to the gender fascists. We may be small, but we are not going to roll over and play dead for the gender fascists.

Thursday, August 27, 2009

Unclear on the Concept....

Let me begin by saying again that this blog is not targeted at any individual, regardless of what some may wish to believe. This blog began as a means to comment on issues related to HBS, also known as true or classic transsexualism. On my occasions, the biggest issues related to these are raised by the transgender communities. So, people who are part of the transgender community are going to be mentioned. Of course, one of the common traits of the transgender communit is to view an disagreement as an attack. Personally, if they would simply leave transsexuals out of their model, I would gladly ignore them.

That said, discovered this morning that Suzan Cooke, who has effectively abandoned transsexualism in favor of a more transgender viewpoint, now objects to the term "classic transsexual." This is not, of course, surprising for someone who has embraced the transgender view, but as is all too common, Cooke doesn't seem to understand the concept...or perhaps doesn't wish to, preferring instead to simply make straw arguments.

For example, Cooke makes this statement:

Embracing “Classic Transsexual” is sort like embracing autogynephilia. Indeed Bailey uses it as a synonym for androphilic or homosexual transsexual. I was sort of amused to discover this one because the other couple of people I banned were self identified autogynephilics. Neither set particularly strike me as folks I would want to hang out with.

Now, this statement is a bit puzzling. I know of no one who uses the term "classic transsexual" who remotely embraces Bailey's ideas. Blanchard, who created the idea of their being only two kinds of transsexuals, homosexual transsexuals and autogynephiles, did so as an attempt to discredit the concept of classic or true transsexuals. Blanchard's model was designed to show that all transsexuals are actually men, either those who are "too gay to be men," or who are men with a fetishtic desire to be feminized.

Now, there is really no question that autogynephiles exist. But, the concept as created by Blanchard is flawed. But this is not the subject we are dealing with today.

Cooke seems to wish to claim ignorance, even as she attacks the concept of classic transsexualism:
They also displayed a propensity for obfuscation when asked for a definition.
That is an odd statement, given that Cooke has link to several blogs that support the concept on her own blog site. But, just so there is no mistake, the definition of "classic transsexual" is simple. It refers to someone who has had a lifelong knowledge that they were different. Someone who has show indications of having a brain that is sexually differentiated at odds with their body from a very early age. It precludes those who suddenly, at some point after puperty, discover that they enjoy crossdressing and who then "progress" to claiming to be a transsexual. Classic transsexuals will have serious problems coping with their situation prior to transition, but will show significant improvement afterwards.
Being a classic transsexual has nothing to do with sexual orientation, the age at which one transitions, or the age at which one has surgery. It only has to do with having a lifelong history of showing a brain that is sexually differentiated at odds with the body.

Further, those who are classically transsexual will, in the vast majority of cases, have a strong desire to simply get on with their life as who they really are. This is probably because their life prior to transition is nothing they wish to hold on to.

I have met young transitioners who were clearly not classic transsexuals, and those transitioning later in life who clearly were. Granted, both are relatively rare. I have met classic transsexuals who are gay, lesbian, or bisexual. I have even seen a few tragic cases where they wind up "drinking the transgender Kool-Aid." Transgender is an identity, not an objective state of being. Most who identify that way are not classic transsexuals. A few do. And when they do, they effectively give up what they have worked so hard to achieve, and often do a great deal of harm to other classic transsexuals.

Wednesday, August 26, 2009

So What?

In a recent post, Suzan Cooke, who has increasingly moved towards the transgender view, rejects the idea of Harry Benjamin Syndrome. I suppose that is supposed to be a slam against those who support that term, but actually as I have said before I would just as soon that Cooke not try to subvert the HBS movement. I am more than happy to not have her endorsement, as are many other people I know.

Of course, Cooke is never content to just reject something. She has to tell us how important she is. Of course, she doesn't always have her facts straight:

When the proposal was first floated by some one from Spain it was put forth as Benjamin Syndrome. Given my working class earthiness and anarcha-feminist streak I responded, “Bullshit!”. They went huh. I then pointed out that Benjamin Syndrome produced the acronym BS which in common American slang meant bulls**t. (expletive deleted)

Now the con artist floating this one pled that in Spanish it was Sindrome Benjamin. But I still wasn’t buying.

It then morphed in to Harry Benjamin Syndrome or HBS and I remained stoically unimpressed.

She sort
of has her facts half-way correct. When the term was first discussed, Benjamin Sydrome was considered. And yes, some jokes have been made about the acronym, but the actual facts are that Benjamin Syndrome is already a medical term. It was changed, not because Cooke pointed out what the abbreviation was, but because the term is already taken.

Now, I find it interesting that Cooke will say something like:

I honestly never saw transsexualism as a contest. Although class differences mean that those with the money have access to more and better surgeries. Sometime when I listen to the list of all the surgeries I have to wonder about the quest for the Mercedes Benz of pussies styled and shaped as though with Photoshop. Now I know that women born female get these customized pussy jobs too but still it seems a tad obsessive even considering I too had a labiaplasty way back when.

The whole game of I am more woman than you is pretty tiresome and evolving in a direction that has started sounding actually disturbed.

And then Cooke makes statements like:
I mean he said all the right things that I would get used to doctors saying, “Like you are one of the most perfect cases of transsexualism I have ever seen. and I’m sure that with you there is something physical.

I looked like a girl before I ever started hormones so I may well have not processed testosterone very well but I don’t feel a need to obsess on all sorts of different forms of intersex conditions to stake my claim on realness because realness is a way of life and not a genetic condition.
Funny, for someone who claims to not see transsexualism as a competition, Cooke is awfully persistent in letting us know how she looked like a girl even before hormones, and how Harry Benjamin told her how perfect she was.

Now, I have observed many times that the whole "more woman than you" concept is very male. I mean, how does one quantify womanhood? What is the base unit? It is really silly. Either you are a woman, or you are not. And if you feel the need to qualify your womandhood, with terms like "trans woman," "Woman Born Transsexual," or even "Woman Born Woman," then it really raises some questions. As one commenter said in response to Cooke:

Good. You stick with transsexualism or whatever it is you’re calling yourself today and I’ll use HBS. Better still, I’ll just stick to calling myself a woman, because that’s what I am and how I see myself, no dashes required.

HBS refers to a medical condition that I have that was treated. It is not an identity, like transgender, or WBT. I also have diabetes, but I don't identify as a Woman With Diabetes. It is just something I have, that requires treatment, and which would result in unpleasant consequences if I ignore it...just like HBS.

Now, if there is any question about what is going on in some people's minds, just consider the comment made by Cooke's partner, Tina, who is also a transsexual:

In its own way, HBS merely describes a syndrome to be treated. It does not in any way describe the person treated.

Someone treated for HBS can personally describe themselves as TG, TS, etc.

WBT on the other hand describes a WOMAN who was BORN transsexual. It speaks to the very antithesis of TG.

WBT cannot BE transgender. At the same time, WBT does not have to denigrate others. It is not a zero sum game.

Her first two sentences are quite accurate. Her second two are not. Cooke is, as has been observed several times, transgender in all but name. Tina is pretty much the same. So, her claim that WBT cannot be transgender is simply false. WBT, like transgender, is an identity game. It is a an artificial construct. It is not something objective, i.e. it does not "merely describe a syndrome to be treated." Instead, it is something one calls oneself...a sort of club one joins. Yes, a person with HBS might choose to join the TG club, or the WBT club, or even both. But as many have observed, you need both Cooke's and Tina's permission to be a "Woman Born Transsexual."

And no, HBS is not about denigrating anyone. Contrary to the mythology of the transgender types, disagreeing with then is not denigrating. Pointing out the silliness of their claims is not denigrating. And not wishing to embrace the concept of identity politics is also not denigration,

Oh, and I have noticed, while some transgender types are coming to embrace WBT, it does seem to drive the TG crowd into fits of panic and anger.

Monday, August 24, 2009

The Latest Fad in TG Land

I suspect it started with Chloe Prince. Part of that story is the claim that Prince has Klinefelter syndrome. Now, Klinefelter syndrome occurs when a male is born with a XXY chromosomes instead of the normal XY. Now having XXY occurs about once in every male 500 births, but only half of those actually develop Klinefelter syndrome.

Klinefelter syndrome may have any of the following symptoms:

  • Developmental delay
  • Undescended testicles (cryptorchidism)
  • Pea-sized testicles
  • Hypospadias
  • Tall stature
  • Knock-knees (genu valgum)
  • High arches (pes cavus)
  • Protruding lips
  • Projecting jaw (prognathism)
  • Very widely-spaced eyes (hypertelorism)
  • If he is Caucasian or Black, epicanthal skin folds on his upper eyelids at the inner corner, giving him an oriental look
  • Poor coordination
  • Fused bones inhis forearms that make it difficult for him to rotate his arms (radioulnar synostosis)
  • Quiet, tractable personality with occasional tantrums and aggression
  • Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD)
  • Learning disability (especially dyslexia, reading difficulty, and data retrieval problems)
  • Mental retardation (IQ drops 15 points for each additional X chromosome)
  • Poor expressive and receptive language skills
  • Poor short term memory
  • Osteoporosis (bone thinning)
  • Lack of sporting ability
  • High-pitched voice
  • Sparse beard and body hair
  • Gynecomastia (enlarged breasts)
  • Feminine fat distribution
  • Taurodontism (enlarged molar teeth)
  • Breast cancer or germ cell tumors from elevated estradiol
  • Inability to deal with stress
  • Psychological problems, like anxiety, neurosis, depression, or psychosis

Now, Klinefelter syndrome is sometimes classified as an "intersex" condition, but unlike most, it is not caused by hormonal imbalances in utero. Now, there is a lot of controversy about referring to intersex conditions as "Disorders of Sexual Development," but in a sense that would be a more accurate term. Klinefelter syndrome does not, for example, actually result in one having any significant intersex characteristics with regards to the genitalia. In fact, the only actual symptom that would be considered intersex would be the hypospadia, which does not always occur, and which is considered the mildest of intersex conditions.

I mention all of this because in a recent post at Pam's House Blend, lead gender fascist "Autumn" Sandeen claims to have decided that he might have Klinefelter syndrome. Worse, he wants to use this to gain some boost in his credibility:

To say it doesn't weigh on me though would be an understatement. Let's face it: Even though there is mounting evidence that transsexual people's brains are literally cross-gendered or bi-gendered, there is a perception among many that transsexual people have a "bad" mental health disorder, whereas the apparently cross-gender identities of intersexuals are allowed for.

The problem for Mr. Sandeen is that Klinefelter syndrome is not that kind of intersex condition. Notice that in the list above, taken from a web site that provides information for the parents of children who might have the condition, that there is NO mention of cross-gender identity. That is because, with a few rare exceptions, those with Klinefelter Syndrome are not transsexual. Of course, now that Chloe Prince has claimed Klinefelter as an excuse to transition, it may become a popular condition to try to claim.

Mr. Sandeen then goes on to claim, quite erroneously, the following,

Well. Then I go from someone many will see as a parody of a woman to someone who has a verifiable medical condition that "explains" what at first blush appeared to be my transsexuality. Nothing will have actually changed, except for how others perceive me.

No, Mr. Sandeen will continue to be a parody of a woman. Having Klinefelter syndrome will not change that, but it might give him seom special cachet in the imaginary hierarchy of the trangender world. Being sort of, kind of intersex will, presumably, making him even higher than a transsexual in their imaginations.

He continues on:

For me, the consequences of found to be intersexual instead of being found to be transsexual would mean there are many more who would accept me as female than accept me as female now. And, being painfully honest with myself, I would want that; it would change everything -- and nothing -- both at the same time.

Again, this is simply not the case. At best, Mr. Sandeen would still be an autogynephile. More likely, he will still be simply a transgender who has become carried away. His comments make it ever more clear that surgery is not a good choice for him.

I experience having my gender questioned all the time. For those of us trans women who have throughout our lives have never been fully allowed to doubt that we were male, the criteria that folk like Germaine Greer apply to us seems equally bizarre. We know we think like women, and we have psychologists and psychiatrists out there daring to distinguish our thought processes as female.

What Mr. Sandeen does not grasp is that the question is not whether or not he imagines himself to think like a woman, but whether or not women agree that he thinks like a woman. What some refer to as "vibing as a woman." He clearly does not. For example, as pointed out in a previous post, he admits to preferring to stand to pee. Mr. Sandeen imagines he can just claim womanhood, and it becomes his by some inherent right.
So, is it any wonder that when I examine the feelings in the deepest recesses of my soul, I find I deeply hope that my recent genetic test comes back "Klinefelter's Syndrome"; I have a certain amount of internalized transphobia. Everything and nothing, it appears, rides on how my genetic test comes back; whether or not I'm perceived as a ghastly parody by Ms. Greer and her ilk appears to ride on how my genetic test comes back.

No, Mr. Sandeen's latest fantasy is just that, a fantasy, nothing more. Even if he is able to claim that he is XXY, he will still be a man. It will change nothing, period. He will still be transgender. He will still have a male brain. He will still be making a mistake if he actually pursues surgery. He has not advanced to "transsexual," and he cannot really climb up his imaginary ladder to "intersex."

No, when Mr. Sandeen realizes that he is never going to accepted by those who are HBS, classic transsexuals, or women, and when he accepts this fact, he will be a lot happier.

Friday, August 21, 2009

What's Wrong With Being Normal?

One of the most basic differences between those with Harry Benjamin Syndrome (also referred to as classic or true transsexuals) and those who are transgender is the desire to simply be normal. And by normal, I mean to be seen as the sex that is normal for us. Those who are transgender seem to have an obsessive need to be "different." They seem to be happiest when they are flaunting their status as having been born a different sex than the one they present as.

It is certainly the right of those who identify as transgender to present themselves as they wish. If they wish to be seen as men in any shape form or fashion, even if it is as former men, that is their choice to make. But, many of them do not stop there.

Some of the more extreme transgender types, the ones referred to as "gender fascists" try to impose their own self-image on others. They either do this directly, telling post-ops that they are not really women, but are actually men, or they do it indirectly, making stupid comments like this one from "Autumn" Sandeen:

So are you're saying it's shape of genitalia only that makes one male or female?

If you are, you're by inference then calling me a man as I've outed myself as being preoperative.

Yes, Mr. Sandeen, that is exactly what is being said. No amount of fantasy is going to change that. At one time, even the most extreme of the transgender seemed to understand the idea that one's "gender" or better, one's sexual differentiation of the brain, is separate from one's physical sex. Now they have tried to completely muddy the waters.

The common cry from the transgender is that physical sex doesn't matter. Women can have penises, and me can give birth (remember the "pregnant man.") They glory in the abnormal, and attack those who wish to simply correct their birth defect and move on with their lives.

Even Suzan Cooke, who coined the phrase "Women Born Transsexual" has adopted the transgender ideal of being "different.." In response to comments about how someone prefered to simply get on with their life, and being normal, Cooke had this to say:

Why? What is so great about being part of the dull gray straight world? Seriously?

By the way I do not thank imaginary sky fairies.

Too many of those touting their place in the straight world were straight CDs married to women and still married to them.

I’d much rather run in the boho world of interesting people than in the straight world among boring conservative people.

But on another level your snotty comment smacks of jealousy. I’d be willing to bet Calpernia is a lot better looking than you are.

Now, Cooke certainly has a right to live her life as she pleases. No one should question that. But Cooke's comments were in the context of someone questioning whether those who choose to be "professional transsexuals" should be held up as role models for others. This is not so much Cooke defending her choices as it is Cooke attacking those who might make a different choice. And I do find it interesting that, like most transgender types, Cooke seems to equate attractiveness as a woman with one's value.

Cooke, like others who are transgender, just doesn't get it. Calpernia is a lovely person, who went through a horrible experience, but because of choices she has made, she will never be able to simply live her life as a woman. She will always be, at best, a trans woman. At worst, she will be seen as something more akin to a drag a man pretending to be a woman. That might not be fair to Calpernia, but it is how things work, and again, no amount of fantasy or political activism, is really likely to change that.

Increasingly, those who do wish to simply get on with their lives are viciously attacked by the transgender types. On one board, a TG went to great lengths to tell people that it was no use, you could not "hide." While it is possible for people to find out about one's past, it does not happen that often. If, for example, someone were to know my name, and they were to check the right court records, they could discover my old name. But how often does anyone bother with such? If someone has your Social Security number, they can, in theory, access your employment history, but that cannot legally do so without your permission. But if someone has your Social Security number who is in a position to misuse it, you have a lot more problems than just that.

No, there is nothing wrong with being normal. If one chooses otherwise, that is their right, but it is not their right to tell others how to live their lives.

Tuesday, August 18, 2009

Gender Facism in Action

In a comment to a post on Bilerico about a Florida representative who supposedly said he would support ENDA if "gender identity" was removed, gender fascist "Monica" Helms said the following:

I spoke with the LGBT Legislative Aid in his office in DC and he said that his was a totally false rumor. He supports a fully inclusive ENDA, that protects gay, lesbian, bisexual and TRANSGRENDER people from employment discrimination, which includes crossdressers, pre-op, non-op, post op, intersex, genderqueer and classical transsexuals, whether they want protection or not.

Now, like the diehard gender fascist that he is, Mr. Helms once against ignores the wishes of classic transsexuals who do not identify as transgender, rubs our noses in it, and then goes on to assert that this "protection" will be forced on us whether we like it or not.

As I said, this is gender fascism in action. Because of his stupid remark, I now actively oppose an inclusive ENDA. The law that Mr. Helms desires is harmful to women, including post-op classic transsexuals and survivors of HBS. If Mr. Helms has his way, women will lose any right to privacy from men like him.

Let me be clear. I have no problem with ENDA protecting gays, lesbians, and bisexuals. I object to a law that will protect men who wish to engage in the behavior of crossdressing like Mr. Helms. I object to a law that will force women to share the bathroom with such men. I object to a law that will force employers to allow me to dress as women when the mood strikes them. And I object to a law that will effectively remove legal distinctions between the sexes and redefine sex as being what one wants it to be.

I would also support a law that protects post-ops and, that would provide very narrowly defined protections for pre-ops. Anyone who is discovered to have abused said law by lying about their plans for surgery would be subject to prosecution.

Monday, August 17, 2009

Overly sensitive?

Sometimes, the silliness of the gender fascists is really amazing. They can't seem to make up their minds. A perfect example of this is a post on Pam's House Blend by leading gender fascist Autumn Sandeen.

So what has Mr. Sandeen's panties in a wad? He is upset about a segment of The Tonight Show in which Conan O'Brien stages fake embarrasing situations. The idea behind the joke is that he will sell then to tabloids. In a recent episode of Conan's Tabloid Moment he supposedly goes to a stripper bar. He then decides to make the situation even more embarrassing, so a neon sign reading "Trannies" drops down, and the female strippers slap on fake mustaches. A silly joke, admittedly, but I do have to wonder why Mr. Sandeen would be so upset?

After all, this is a man who spares no effort to tell the world that he still has his penis, and that, after all, women can have penises. So, why, in his weird world view, can't women also have mustaches? And doesn't Mr. Sandeen's beloved transgender umbrella not also include "gender queers?" Shouldn't the idea of women with mustaches not set Mr. Sandeen's hard to going pitter-patter? Or is just the idea of women with penises that he is so hung up on?

And he wonders why we want no part of the transgender umbrella.

Personally, I think Conan, perhaps inadvertently, has exposed the true absurdity of "transgender" in a way no one else has.

Friday, August 14, 2009

Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics

The concept of Harry Benjamin Syndrome seems to set off a lot of transgender people. They will go out of their way to try to dismiss it. One of the most common tactics is to suggest that HBS is just some sort of identity.

One of the latest such efforts comes on A Gender Variance Who's Who which used to be Gender Variant Biography:

Previously I had commented that it was particularly rude of HBS persons to pretend that non-HBS transsexuals do not exist when non-HBS are over 99% of transsexuals. I received a couple of replies that my figures were way off, but now I see that Charlotte Goiar agrees with me. She has revamped her web site and now says that HBS is “an extremely rare condition [1:100,000]”. (She previously used the now discredited 1:30,000.)

Let us spell this out.

I am assuming that transsexuals are 1:500, a cautious ratio from the Conway-Olyslager study.

A transsexual is someone who has sexual affirmation surgery and does not regret it afterwards.

1:100,000 is 10 in a million.

1:500 is 2000 in a million.

Thus there are 200 transsexuals for every HBS if Goiar is right (although she gives no rational for her number). HBS are only a fraction of 1% of transsexuals.

Now, there is so much wrong here, it is hard to decide exactly where to begin. First off, I should point out that Charlotte Goiar does not speak for the entirety of the HBS community. Goiar is a very controversial figure from Spain who insists on the incorrect form "Harry Benjamin's Syndrome." In naming a syndrome, it is considered improper to use a possessive. Harry Benjamin neither had the condition, nor did he own it.

Now, it should be noted that the entire concept behind HBS is simply to suggest this as a new label for what is otherwise known as "true transsexualism" or "classic transsexualism." In another words, it would be applied to those who have had a lifelong knowledge that their internal sense of what their sex should be did not match their body, and a desire to correct it as much as possible.

Now, the way the author of A Gender Variance Who's Who defines transsexualism is a less common one. It is also not the definition that Conway uses. Conway herself that only counting those who have actually had surgery will result in a lower number.

Now, I have not idea where Goiar gets her number from. A figure of 1:100,000 is pretty silly. I also think that 1:500 is too far in the opposite direction.

No, the bottom line is, HBS is synonymous with true or classic transsexualism. Yes, there are people who have sex affirmation surgery who are not HBS, but they are also not really transsexual. For example, there are autogynephiles. There are also those who make mistakes, but who refuse to openly admit this.

The article on A Gender Variance Who's Who is just another attempt, and not the first by that author, to discredit the idea of HBS. For something they want to claim is rather rare, they seem to fear it a lot.

Wednesday, August 12, 2009

It's Not About You...

I really had to laugh when I read this comment by Suzan Cooke on Woman Born Transsexual:

As for outing her. she uses her name in posts to the Advocate and else where and is currently making her blog pretty much about me.

I bash back

First off, I don't know why Cooke would think I would write posts to a gay publication like the Advocate and second, it really isn't about Cooke, or any other individual.

My blog is about issues that affect those with Harry Benjamin Syndrome, including the crap that spews from the transgender activists, particularly those who are referred to as the "gender fascists." Cooke has decided to cozy up to the likes of "Monica" Helms and "Autumn" Sandeen and so, she gets mentioned.

I realize that in the bizarre world of the transgender any disagreement is tantamount to "bashing." Oh well, they can think what they want. Personally, I think it all rather silly.

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

Ironic, Isn't It?

A quick note just to say that I find it incredibly ironic that transgender apologist Suzan Cooke is so upset that "Autumn" Sandeen got his photo posted, even though Sandeen invites such exposure, but Cooke thinks nothing of trying to "out" me. Cooke is quite convinced that she knows who I am, even though she doesn't. This behavior is typical of the transgender. They cannot stand the idea that someone might actually be stealth, and they have an obsessive need to link a name with anyone who opposes them.

As I have said before, I am a very private person, and therefore I chose to not give my name out. A lot of people have tried to link me to someone named "Jennifer" who is involved with HBS, but they are just making guesses. I choose to speak out while maintaining my privacy. It would be nice if people respected that, but instead, they won't, so they try to put a name on me even though they don't have a clue.

As I say, I have seen this behavior repeated several times. It is always done by those who either choose to be out, or more often, simply cannot be stealth. For whatever reason, it is very bad behavior, and it just shows that some can't handle the truth, so rather than answering issues raised, they resort to personal attacks, even if the person they are attacking is imaginary.

Monday, August 10, 2009

Wrong Again!

Transgender apologist Suzan Cooke is at it again. This time she has rallied to the cause of lead gender fascist "Autumn" Sandeen because a right wing group has used Mr. Sandeen's picture on a web page suggesting that Obama's health care plan will provide coverage for sex affirmation surgery. Well, actually they use the term "gender reassignment surgery," showing that are about as ignorant of things as the gender fascists.

Now, Cooke, who appears to be trying to suck up to Sandeen in the same way she has sucked up to Monica Helms, misses a couple of points here. First off, Sandeen does not seem to be the least bit upset at being targeted. In fact, Sandeen, who has has one of the most massive egos of any gender fascist, seems quite delighted to be the poster child for this issue. Sandeen nver complains about having his name or picture used...except possibly where someone is actually showing him for the bad joke that he is.

Second, and very closely related, Cooke seems to miss the fact that Sandeen has actively sought this sort of attention. Sandeen is not at all shy about making sure his picture is available to anyone seeking an image of a transgender person.

And yet, Cooke is just beside herself over the imminent danger she imagines that Sandeen is facing. Cooke, like many transgender activists, seeks to imply that any disagreement with their viewpoint is tantamount to violence. Such a view is simply a way of seeking to restrict disagreement.

The actual bottom line is, this is just another example of the damage that the transgender crowd causes those HBS and/or true or classic transsexuals. Sandeen was for many years an avowed non-op, and if he ever does have SAS it will probably be another disaster. He is not respresentative of those for who surgery is medically indicated. Proper candidates are seeking to correct their bodies and to get on with their lives with some sense of normality. Someone like Sandeen, who simply seeks attention is remotely comparable.

Thursday, August 6, 2009

There is Truth, and Then There is Bilerico`

It has been a while, but yet another heated debate over transsexualism versus trangender has broken out on Bilerico. This one started with a post in which a "straight" male purports to set us all straight on gender identity. The actual post is basically a rehash of the same tired silliness that we have heard many times from the gender fascists. It is the comments where things get interesting. As is often the case, things get heated, insults are hurled, and people get banned. And, as is typical at Bilerico, the ones hurling the insults are not the ones who get banned. The policy at Bilerico seems to be that anyone daring to challenge the transgender party line will be heavily moderated, and those of the gender fascist ilk will be excused.

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.

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.

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."

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.


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.

Monday, August 3, 2009

A thought....

While looking at yet another round of arguing on yet another pro-transgender blog, I had a thought. A common argument made by the gender fascists is that they outnumber those who are HBS, classic transsexuals, or true transsexuals (note that I do not include "WBT" since that term is quickly becoming associated with the transgender crowd).

Now, that is an interesting argument. I mean, is that not the same argument that has been used to oppress for ages? African-Americans were out numbered by the segregationists in the South...Chinese workers were outnumbered by those who sought to oppress them during the buiding of the Western United States...well, the list could go on and on.

I'm sorry, but who I am is not subject to a majority vote. There may be more "transgender" than those who are classic transsexuals. As a matter of fact, that is exactly the point. HBS or classic transsexualism, is rare. It is not a condition that one simply decides to have. Just because there are fewer of us does not give the gender fascists the right to try to drag us under their umbrella