Sunday, January 16, 2011

Why Not Transgender Activism?

Gender Fascist "Autumn" Sandeen has been on a tear lately...  First, he viciously attacked transsexual activist Ashley Love.  I considered doing a post on that disaster, but so many others covered so well, I didn't really feel the need.  Then Mr. Sandeen followed up with a post asking, "Why Transgender Activism?" in which he rather pompously claims the right to speak for post-op transsexuals, whether we like it, or not.


I guess Mr. Sandeen learned nothing from the angry responses to his attacks on Ashley Love, who had the unmitigated gall to actually question the infallibility of kooks like Mr. Sandeen.  He was seriously taken to task, even by some of his allies.


So, what is wrong with what Mr. Sandeen calls "transgender activism?"


First off, it is largely unwelcome.  Mr. Sandeen claims, in another post, that the rights of transsexuals is a major focus of transgender activism.  And yet, a majority of those who are transgender identified are not remotely transsexual, and worse, many, if not most, of them actively attack transsexuals as elitist, irrelevant, essentialist, and separatist.  To their mind, we have sold out.  We have given in to the "binary paradigm."  In another time, we would have been called "counter revolutionary."  So why would we want these people speaking for us?  


Mr. Sandeen claims a commonality amongst crossdressers, transvestites, drag queens, transgender people and transsexuals.  He says this commonality is a violation of the gender norms of Western Society.  But that is where his analogy fails.  Transsexuals, by and large, as already pointed out, don't wish to deconstruct the binary.  We are attempting to fit into gender norms, not to violate them.  This is what separates transsexuals and the transgender.  They want to be known, and seen, as men who are pretending to be women, or perhaps as they will claim, as women with penises.  They want to flaunt their behavior.  And this leads into the next point.


Second, it is harmful to the interests of transsexuals.  Transsexuals want to simply correct their bodies, and their lives, and move on.  We are seeking normality.  The transgender movement is about being "different."  They don't want to live quiet lives as their appropriate sex.  They want to live as a gender at odds with their correct one.  They want to be women with penises, or men with vaginas.  They want to be at odds with society, unless they can bend society to their way of thinking.  That is certainly their right, but it is not their right to force this paradigm on those who don't desire it.  And when they do, gains that transsexuals have made become endangered because of backlash.  Years ago, every state made provisions for the correction of driver's licenses for post-ops.  All but about three allow birth certificates to be corrected.  Post-ops rarely had problems with marriage.  But, because of transgender activists this is all being threatened in some locations.  


Will transgender extremists like Mr. Sandeen that the hint?  Will they stop trying to speak for transsexuals and insisting that they are working for our rights?  I doubt it.  They need transsexuals to hide behind.  They try to claim to be transsexual in order to advance their extremist agenda, failing to recognize the damage they do.  They have done nothing to actually advance our cause, and much to harm it.


Ideally, the whole transgender fad would fade.  But that won't happen soon enough.  In the meantime, they will continue to cause harm to women, both transsexuals, and those born women.

13 comments:

Heroic Muse said...

.Transsexuals haven't "sold out' any more than gender variant persons -- whether transgender or transsexual -- have "betrayed" gays and lesbians. However, whether a person is pre-op, post-op, or non-op, they have a right to their gender identity.

To call those women who do not or cannot have surgery "men pretending to be women" is harmful to the rights of ALL gender variant persons. It denies the gender of those who identify as female and supports the idea that gender = genitalia. It is a short step from there to gender = birth genitalia, thus supporting laws like those in Texas, which states that your gender is determined by your chromosomes and recently denied a transsexual woman the right to benefit from her late husband's life insurance policy.

Furthermore, your stance here denies pre-op transsexuals their rights. You are no doubt aware that a person must live as their gender for at least one year prior to having surgery. Yet that person is legally their gender of birth. This means that they can be denied the right to have a name that matches their gender identity, the right to travel freely on airlines because of a mismatch between their name or gender and their appearance, and so forth.

Transvestites who are just pretending to be the opposite gender for fun are not in the same category as those who have not yet had or will not have surgery. However, the majority of transgender persons face the same struggles as transsexuals, so rather than calling them a fad or claiming they do not deserve the same rights as you do, you should have some empathy.

Delphi said...

PART III/III

Until the U.S. creates a 3rd (different) legal gender as some countries have, we can identify only as either male or female. A transgender process is exactly what it says it is: a transition toward the "opposite" birth gender.

A non-medical 24/7 "opposite birth-gender" expression, by definition requires no transition phase---without legal or medical sanctification a successful argument that it is not "cross dressing" would be very difficult to make.

I stand in agreement that there is a clear and distinct difference between "trans-entertainment" and legitimate GRT. We all know what is meant by "entertainment" and it has its separate role in society. As a GRT female, I am 99% acknowledged as female, even without makeup. I loathe "maleness" and always will---except for my partner. If some wish to remain "locked into" a permanent state of transition that is their prerogative---by definition therefore they are not "transgender" since their is no state of transition---their transition is complete. Medically speaking, we are all a composite of male/female hormones anyway.

In closing, as I review this article and its closing statement that gives ownership of the word "women" only to natal-born women or men (no malicious intent here) who have undergone an authorized castration (again no malicious intent), it is beyond possibility for me not to draw a comparison with someone who has made the "big time" as a celebrity and subsequently disowned his/her past. At the risk of sounding argumentative which is not my intent, I can think of nothing else that comes close to demonstrating by example the meaning of "self-actualized arrogance."

As a transgender female with law enforcement service at 3 levels (military, state, and county) I have been and will forever be a peacekeeper both by schooling and natal propensity. I am here at the "scene" of this "domestic" incident and "demand" that all parties cease, desist, recover. I insist that we get back to the "counseling" table, with the stark realization that we all face a common foe. I am aghast at the level of intelligence demonstrated, this article excepted with all due respect, and equally aghast that this brilliant energy is being wasted as a result of this internecine "domestic" incident.

Indeed all these labels serve only to confuse and intoxicate rather than shed clarity and maintain sanity---we can continue this domestic "incident" that is creating a "trans" implosion leading to an inevitable and common demise, or we can stop the self-delusion of the reality that we were all once "men". This is one umbrella that like our race, casts an immutable shadow from which none of us can ever escape.

'nuf said. You are hereby released from detainment. Now lean forward while I remove the 'cuffs.

Delphi said...

PART III/III

Until the U.S. creates a 3rd (different) legal gender as some countries have, we can identify only as either M or F. A transgender process is exactly what it says it is: a transition toward the "opposite" birth gender.

A non-medical 24/7 "opposite birth-gender" expression, by definition requires no transition phase---without legal or medical sanctification a successful argument that it is not "cross dressing" would be nearly impossible to achieve.

I stand in agreement that there is a clear and distinct difference between "trans-entertainment" and legitimate GRT. We all know what is meant by "entertainment" and it has its separate role in society. As a GRT female, I am 99% acknowledged as female, even without makeup. I loathed my "maleness" and always will---except for my partner. If some wish to remain "locked into" a permanent state of transition that is their prerogative---by definition therefore they are not "transgender" since their is no state of transition---their transition is complete. Medically speaking, we are all a composite of male/female hormones anyway.

In closing, as I review this article and its closing statement that gives ownership of the word "women" only to natal-born women or men (no malicious intent here) who have undergone an authorized castration (again no malicious intent), it is beyond possibility for me not to draw a comparison with someone who has made the "big time" as a celebrity and subsequently disowned his/her past. At the risk of sounding argumentative which is not my intent, I can think of nothing else that comes close to demonstrating by example the meaning of "self-actualized arrogance."

As a transgender female with peace officer service at 3 levels (military, state, and county) I have been and will forever be a peacekeeper both by schooling and natal propensity. I am here at the "scene" of this "domestic" incident and "demand" that all parties cease, desist, recover. I insist that we get back to the "counseling" table, facing the stark realization that we all have a common foe. I am aghast at the level of intelligence demonstrated, this article excepted with all due respect, and equally aghast that this brilliant energy is being wasted as a result of this internecine "domestic" incident.

Indeed all these labels serve only to confuse and intoxicate rather than shed clarity and sanity---we can continue this domestic "incident" that will inevitably lead to everyone's demise or stop the self-delusion of the reality that we "were all once men". This is one umbrella that like our race, casts an immutable shadow from which none of us can ever escape, at least covertly. We are all in possession of agape love---now let's express it. This is NOT a request. It is a COMMAND. :)

'nuf said. You are now released from detainment. Now lean forward while I remove the 'cuffs.

Delphi said...

PART III/III

In closing, as I review this article and its closing statement that gives ownership of the word "women" only to natal-born women or men (no malicious intent here) who have undergone an authorized castration (again no malicious intent), it is beyond possibility for me not to draw a comparison with someone who has made the "big time" as a celebrity and subsequently disowned his/her past. At the risk of sounding argumentative which is not my intent, I can think of nothing else that comes close to demonstrating by example the meaning of "self-actualized arrogance."

As a transgender female with peace officer service at 3 levels (military, state, and county) I have been and will forever be a peacekeeper both by schooling and natal propensity. I am here at the "scene" of this "domestic" incident and "demand" that all parties cease, desist, recover. I insist that we get back to the "counseling" table, facing the stark realization that we all have a common foe. I am aghast at the level of intelligence demonstrated, this article excepted with all due respect, and equally aghast that this brilliant energy is being wasted as a result of this internecine "domestic" incident.

Indeed all these labels serve only to confuse and intoxicate rather than shed clarity and sanity---we can continue this domestic "incident" that will inevitably lead to everyone's demise or stop the self-delusion of the reality that we "were all once men". This is one umbrella that like our race, casts an immutable shadow from which none of us can ever escape, at least covertly. We are all in possession of agape love---now let's express it. This is NOT a request. It is a COMMAND. :)

'nuf said. You are now released from detainment. Now lean forward while I remove the 'cuffs.

Delphi said...

PART II/III

Having said the above, clearly these "ground rules" were not honored by either party. By not engaging in such infantile behavior, I retain the right to reprimand any and everyone on any side of the issue as I am so doing here. This is a peripheral argument---the object of my acute discontent is the author of this article AND all persons on both sides of this issue who are engaged in internecine behavior---intelligent, civilized discourse has yielded to elementary and uncivilized comments.

I am flushed with embarrassment with what this unfolding and evolving saga is demonstrating to "outsiders". Whether trans/gender or trans/sexual, and despite outward appearance as measured on a "passing" scale, the fact that both parties are equally represented here self-demonstrates how much we actually have in common and not different. Don't believe me---ask "straight" folk.

I am undergoing gender reassignment transition (GRT)and will consider undergoing SRS only when it becomes financially viable. Legally my gender is female, my CA ID says so because an M.D. said so---any challenges to my gender are now immediately labeled "opinion only" and sent to the shredder bin never to be given credence again. We are all entitled to our opinion and likewise entitled to refutation---especially as supported by legal documentation. As I have stated earlier, anatomy or alteration thereof is not subject to discussion as it remains locked in a safe marked "medical record"---self-revelation notwithstanding.

Delphi said...

PLEASE DISREGARD MY MULTIPLE POSTINGS...GOOGLE CHROME KEPT GIVING ME AN ERROR RATHER THAN A POP-UP STATING "YOUR COMMENT HAS BEEN POSTED". THIS IS A 3 PART POSTING.

Delphi said...

PART I/III

Anger---that is justified anger need not be expressed disrespectfully and laced with vitriol as I see it expressed in this article. If in fact, the object of one's anger has so egregiously crossed the line as accused, then such egregious behavior will be self-evident. By engaging in name-calling and disrespecting a person's legal gender by focusing on anatomy as is the case here, is not by any means the way to either maintain the high ground or remain legitimate in terms of credibility. One's anatomy as implied by the unwise choice of "Mr" and "he", is as personal and confidential as a medical record---it is beyond shameful to even go there.

At this very moment, I am seething in almost unbridled anger after reading this article for the reasons mentioned above; however as you can see I am able to articulate my points without having to resort to disparaging and libellous remarks. If in fact the object of anger is legally not the gender expressed here, it would be wise to correct this---proof of libel couldn't be easier. This is not say that the other party is or isn't equally culpable---I came into this fray in the 9th inning.

I must also say that "claiming the right" to represent any group without being in an appointed role as such need not have been dignified as apparently it has been based on the participants and the volume of comments. Such dignification serves only to bolster any notoriety already present.

Clearly, Mrs. Sandeen already possessed sufficient notoriety and credibility to warrant such a barrage of comments---someone lacking significance would have simply been ignored. It therefore follows that any attempt to discredit Mrs. Sandeen's credibility or significance will only backfire for the reasons already mentioned.

Just Jennifer said...

Heroic Muse, first off, let me state that I do not at all appreciate the term "gender variant." This term is highly insulting to true transsexuals who are not in any sense trying to rebel against, play with, or otherwise mess around with, their gender. It is a term that might properly be applied to transgender people who wish to be known as "women with penises," or such, but never to a transsexual.

Second, you raise the silly claim about those who "cannot have surgery." Such cases are so rare as to be virtually non-existent. There was a time when any number of conditions were a bar to surgery, but this is no longer true. People with heart conditions, diabetes, and who are HIV positive have all had surgery with no problems. The only reason people do not have surgery is that they want to keep their birth sex. And if that is the case, then they have no right to call themselves "women," And there is quite a large step from genitals to chromosomes. Genitals have always been the accepted criteria. It was only after transgender extremists started associating transsexuals with their own perversities, and attempts to circumvent societal standards that such a backlash occurred.

And no, I have zero desire to deny TRUE pre-op women any rights. I do object to so-called "no-ops" (an oxymoron) their attempts to misuse such legal protections under false pretenses. They should be required to have proper certification of pre-op status, and any doctor misrepresenting a patient's status should be charged with perjury. No more fudging on documents to allow full time crossdressers to play dress up.

And no, transgender people share nothing substantive in common with transsexuals. They choose to behave as they do, and in many cases, come to choose to stop behaving in that manner.

denisenorris said...

Wow... what a rant! I am awed by the short-sightedness of your world-view. Our fight, and I am 20 years post-op, should NOT be against each other, but together against society's discrimination and social injustices against us because violate their conceptions of gender expression.

Shamefully, the neo-cons in the LBG regularly sell out transsexuals and gender non-conformists for respectability and acceptance by society. Transsexuals are JUST as shameful for selling out the rest of the gender non-conformists (and trust me, Jennifer, society sees you as a non-conformist and will mostly continue to do so for the rest of your life) in pursuit of respectability and acceptance.

I have no doubt you are trapped in the clinic model make-believe that transsexuals should go quietly into the stealth of the opposite gender binary and thus avoid all the day-to-day issues of being a gender non-conformist.

But what happens when you are outted by intent or accident? You want laws to protect you, but it is the TRANSGENDER ACTIVISTS who have been the ones fighting for those laws you seek to hide behind.

Don't worry, we will go on fighting for you, even if you don't like it.

Just Jennifer said...

Ah, Denise I am sorry you find my "rant" so disturbing, and I am sorry you are so miserable with your transition, That is obvious from your complaints. You see, I am not "gender non-conforming,"nor am I trapped "the clinic model make-believe..." I am simply someone born with what was, in effect, a debilitating birth defect, who had it corrected, and who now simply lives her life as a normal woman. My transition and surgery was not an act of rebellion against gender or society, and I see no reason to support people who are engaged in such bizarre behavior.

And yes, I have been outed, both by accident, and on occasion by vicious little creeps who hate anyone who does not adhere to their transgender party line. The results, generally, have been for people to express surprise, and then to say, it doesn't really matter as you still seem a woman to me. It may come as a surprise to you, but if you act like a woman, people tend to see you that way. If you act like a man in a dress, then you might find life a bit more difficult and feel the need to make silly demands that your lifestyle choice and misbehavior be protected.

As to your threat to continue fighting for me...well, I will go on opposing you. For example, the latest outrage is the demand that so-called non-ops be allowed to change birth certificates, Of course, they don't care that this may well trigger a backlash that will cost post-ops the rights they already have. So, not, please DON'T me any favors.

Liz said...

I agree with pretty much everything you said. However, pre-op transsexual women still face one giant barrier to surgery: cost.

Unfortunately, crossdressers, transvestites, and "bi-gender" people demanding free access to surgery (which *for them* is cosmetic) will probably preclude actual transsexuals from gaining equal rights to health insurance.

aron20 said...

This was one of the more hateful pieces I've read toward gender non-conforming people. Wow. How disturbing to see you using quotation marks around a trans persons chosen name and referring to them by the wrong pronoun (you could attack someone's politics but you attack them personally instead, hmmm), to claim GNC people "want to be known, and seen, as men who are pretending to be women," using the term "appropriate sex," the terms "women with penises" or "men with vaginas," the term "transgender fad." Disturbing and disgusting in fact. How dare you question the lived realities of other peoples gender identities and sexes? You certainly don't speak for the transsexual community nor understand the transgender community, you have very little knowledge or understanding of human variation and possibility and your ideas are garbage. The same boring bigotry we've all seen before.

Just Jennifer said...

No, not hateful at all. Of course, this is the classic dodge of the transgender kooks...confront them with the truth, and you are "hateful." And no, I am not referring to them by the wrong pronouns at all. Sandeen is about as male as it gets in everything except his dress. But you are right, he is gender non-conforming. His gender, without question, is 100% male, and yet he chooses to act like he is female. So, yes, he is pretending to be a woman. You see, my gender is female, and that is what I conform to, so no, I am not "gender non-conforming." I am a woman, and I act like a woman. Sandeen is a man, and he acts like an insulting parody of a woman (Have you ever seen a video of him? He reminds me more than anything else, of a white guy in blackface. It is that bad.) No, I don't claim to speak for anyone other than myself. Now, if I were like one of the transgender kooks, I would censor you and ban you for life for disagreeing with me. Shoot, I don't ban people for being nasty little twits.

I will just say that you are entitled to your position, but you are also full of crap. Bigotry no, just reality, which I realize you cannot handle.

Of course "gender nonconforming people" want to be seen as "men in dresses." What do you think gender non-conforming means? Oh, but part of the fun is making people grit their teeth and call them women... You get off on forcing people to abandon reality. You like messing with people's minds, and making them highly uncomfortable, and you call me disgusting? Really, could you be any sillier?

But thanks for showing that you have no real arguments, just a load of insults. People like you just served to confirm the validity of what I say. Now, I challenge you to offer real arguments. Or you can come back, throw another childish tantrum, and give me even more to laugh at.

No, I don't censor idiots like you. I just let them show their ass, and then laugh at them.