Tuesday, April 26, 2011
First off, the attack was not motivated by the woman being identified as transgender. In a video by the victim, she makes it clear that the crime occurred because she innocently spoke to one o the two attacker's boyfriend. Clearly, the two who beat her were looking for a fight, and she had the misfortune to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Second, she is not at all happy with all these websites who have made a big deal out of her private medical information. Of course, not a single one has had the decency to even remotely apologize for compounding the invasion of her privacy. They have all been too busy celebrating their latest martyr. The fact that she has never openly identified herself as transgender, and clearly is not happy being labeled as such...well, we all know the drill.
No, the victim was first identified as transgender by the person at McDonald's who was busy recording the who thing with his cell phone. Now, while it is arguable that he was under no obligation to risk his own life to end the fight, at the very least he should have been calling the police, and not looking to make a hit on some web site.
Fortunately, she appears to have escaped without any permanent injuries, and it does appear that the two attackers will be fully prosecuted. But once again, the transgender extremists show their true colors. And they don't care who they hurt in the name of pushing their agenda.
And no, in spite of the silly claims, passing the Maryland bill, even if it had contained a "public accommodations" clause, would have done nothing to prevent this. Nor would it have if the motivation had of been because she was "transgender." But, as always, there is reality, and then there are the extremists, and never the twain shall they meet.
Friday, April 22, 2011
First off, let me state, for the record, that anything I say here is my personal opinion and does not represent anything other than my personal views. I do not speak for ANYONE else.
Here is the text of the email that Mr. Sandeen has sent to my church. I should add, I am NOT "out, loud, and proud" at my church, so this represents, among other things, Mr. Sandeen outing me to people who do not necessarily know my past.
Now, I find it amusing that Mr. Sandeen decides to join in a cyberstalker's illegal efforts to anonymously cyberstalk me (I know, based on a post by another blogger that he has contacted a wide list of people in an effort to recruit them to his cause) but does not want his efforts revealed.It has come to my attention that Jenifer(sic)
is on the staff and vestry of The as the Editor. I'm also aware that your church identifies itself as a welcoming congregation, being listed in the , and I would believe therefore that your congregation would subscribe to the Tips On Becoming A Welcoming Congregation.One of the statements within Tips On Becoming A Welcoming Congregation is this statement:
If you are going to say you are welcoming, be prepared to prove it.
Outside of the walls of your church building, your staff member Jennifer Usher is not being welcoming of transgender identified people like me.Specifically, Jennifer has self-identified herself as being owner of the blog called JustJenifer. She has frequently misgendered me as by male pronouns, and refers to me frequently as "Mr. Sandeen." The most recent example of this is in her post It's All About The Egos, where she also misgenders Monica Helms.It is one thing for Jennifer to vigorously disagree with transgender people's opinions, and another thing altogether for her to intentionally, with malicious intent, frequently misgender transgender identified people.Jennifer
is listed as a staff and vestry member of your congregation. What she says, and how she says it, reflects on your congregation because she is a staff member of your congregation.Frankly, I would not attend your church or belong to your congregation because you have at least one staff member who very intentionally and maliciously doesn't embrace your message of being a welcoming congregation.If you are going to say you are welcoming, be prepared to prove it.
As a staff member of your congregation, she should be required -- if she wishes to remain on your staff -- to take her blog down. That is, after making a public apology on her blog for her intentional and malicious misgendering of transgender people on her blog (since she has made her vile misgendering of transgender people in public). If she does not agree to take the malicious content down and apologize for it, then she needs to be released from your staff.
Your staff member Jennifer
reflects poorly on your status as a welcoming congregation. I know I will be talking to governing body of if the situation isn't dealt in a manner that I believe is appropriate. This situation is very significant to me.Sincerely,~~Autumn~~Info: JenniferP.S.: Please note the last line of my signature block with regards to this e-letter. I'm not agreeing to the electronic publication of this e-letter.
Now, let me point out some things. I am not a member of my church's staff. I volunteer as editor, nor am I a member of the vestry. I am not an employee of the church, but just a member who gives time to several ministries.
Further, I disagree that I misgender anyone. I do not see Mr. Sandeen as a female, nor do I see Helms as one either. They are very public about their status, and I do not share their view that simply changing clothes changes one's sex and/or gender. I refer to them as male as a political statement in opposition to their positions regard transsexuals and those who identify as transgender. This is a political position, and it is mine alone. Again, nothing I say here reflects anything other than my views. Any attempt to associate these views as remotely being those of my church would be extremely dishonest on the part of Mr. Sandeen. Of course, honesty is not a trait I necessarily associate with him.
BTW, I have been called a male on numerous occasions, including by the very cyberstalker who Mr. Sandeen is assisting (talk about irony, not to mention hypocrisy). Do I go to pieces? Do I throw a hissy fit? No, because I am a woman. I am not playing a game. If someone calls me a male, it changes nothing. It is no different from any other woman being called a male. It might be a mistake, followed by a quick apology when the person takes a better look. It might be an attempt to insult, in which case I consider the source. Or it might be a political statement, in which case I might even have a good laugh. I am not trying to force society to see me as something I am not.
This is nothing more than a blatant attempt by Mr. Sandeen to accomplish what he has previously been unable to do. And that is to censor me. He regularly blocks anyone who disagrees with him. I was banned from his blog, not for any violations of the terms of service there, but supposedly because of what I write here. Now, he attempts to censor that by appealing to my church.
As to his claiming that "The contents of this electronic communication are off the record and not for publication on any blog, web site, news site or other public internet outlet unless otherwise agreed to by the author," that carries no weight in light of the nature of said email. He has shown no regard for ethical behavior by attempting to out me, and to cyberstalk me. So, I am going to ignore his silly attempt to hide his own misbehavior.
Oh, and one final thought. Given Mr. Sandeen's obvious hatred for Christianity, it is kind of funny that he would attempt to appeal to a church to aid him in his censorship.
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Now, this is not the first such meeting. There was one early on that I learned about from a former co-worker. The incoming Obama administration met with some of the more sane leaders in the transgender movement.
But the kooks are absolutely frantic because they are not invited. "Monica" Helms is livid that his Transgender American Veterans Association is not included. I imagine it never occurs to him that this just might be because they see him as a nut case. And "Monica" Roberts is upset that him, and his massive "neo-clit" that he keeps tucked in his panties are not included as well. Of course, he is ranting that the meeting will be "as white as a GOP convention." I guess he has not noticed that Obama is black, and so are some Republicans.
Of course, it would never occur to Mr. Sandeen that chaining himself to the White House fence, wearing a female naval uniform, in blatant violation of Federal Law (it prohibits both active a retired personnel from wearing a uniform for the purpose of political statement) just might cause him to be left off the list. No, not a chance of that....
It would never occur to Mr. Helms that his rants might have the same effect. After all, he is the self-appointed spokesman for all the former military who decide they want to dress up and claim to be women.
And Mr. Roberts? Between his racism, and his attacks on post-ops....well, I can't see him being included either.
A sane person might take a step back and consider how their behavior might have effected their chances of being taken seriously as a leader. Of course, no one would ever accuse any of these of being remotely sane.