Saturday, July 30, 2011

So, Which Is It?

"Autumn" Sandeen has posted another rant against a radical feminist who opposes "transgenderism."  In this rant, which seems most geared towards pushing Mr. Sandeen's favorite cause, which is censorship of anyone who disagrees with him, he includes the following quote from Sheila Jefferys:
Since transsexualism is socially constructed then it is important to consider how to counter the promotion of the practice.

...The medical profession need not direct the gender dissatisfied to surgery. Counselling is possible to encourage clients to take a more political approach to their situation and to realize that they can rebel against the constraints of a prescribed gender role, and relate to their own sex in their native bodies. Unfortunately many doctors are so convinced of the existence of a phenomenon they define as transsexualism that they do not offer any approach apart from self-mutilation.
 Now, what puzzles me is that this could just as easily be a quote from, oh say, "Monica" Helms, or "Monica" Roberts, two leaders of the "They Will Take My Penis When They Pry My Cold Dead Fingers From It" Club.  I mean, how many times have we seen transgender extremists, including Mr. Sandeen, attack transsexuals who insist that surgery is the defining issue separating transgender and transsexual?

And how many times have we seen transgender extremists attack people for having surgery, claiming that we should, in effect, learn to rebel against the constraints of a prescribed gender role while keeping our penis?  Oh, wait, that's just what Mr. Sandeen plans to do.  Remember his fraud, claiming he is having "genital reconstruction surgery" when all he is having is a castration, and then bragging about how he is going to use this to defraud the State of California into changing his birth certificate?  I can guarantee you, he will not likely tell the judge the full story.  He will present paperwork claiming he has had surgery to change his sex, and that will be a fraud.

And he will be doing just what he complains about Jefferys saying

Thursday, July 28, 2011

Can't See the Forest For the Trees..

"Autumn" Sandeen has again created a post that shows just how completely clueless he actually is.  This time he tries to connect comments made by radical feminists and right wing religious figures.  And, of course, he completely misses the bigger picture...

Now, I will grant, the people quoted are trying to paint with a very broad brush.  They are not likely to differentiate between true transsexuals, and frauds like Mr. Sandeen.  And that, for the benefit of those who question how the transgender extremists have harmed transsexuals, is yet another example.

You see, most of the quotes Mr. Sandeen provides rather accurately describe him and his behavior,  For example, he quotes Ellen Makkai, from the religious right web site WorldNetDaily:
Gender gymnastics are going on out there. Transsexuals disenchanted with their chromosomal selves are having parts lopped off or stitched on in attempts to change sexual identity. 
They hope to override male XY or female XX hardwiring - thinking a newly configured appendage or cleft re-defines gender. And they enlist a surgeon to mutilate the body accordingly.
Now,this remark is totally inaccurate when applied to a true or classic transsexual, but it perfectly describes those like Mr. Sandeen who really do believe that they can "change" their gender.  He is trying to override his clearly male brain.  Remember, this is a man who served, quite successfully in the Navy for 20 years.  While I suspect during this time he was a closeted transvestite, that is not the same as having a female brain.  In fact, it is the exact opposite.  Transvestitism is a very male behavior.

This is the problem.  Men like Mr. Sandeen think they can somehow make themselves women just by saying the magic words,, "I am a trans woman."  No, they are men.  One does not "become" a woman by choosing to be such.  It is not something one can just claim.  If you lived a good portion of your life happily and successfully as a man, even if you were sneaking off to put on a pair of panties when you got the chance, you are not a transsexual, and you are certainly not a woman.

In the meantime, Mr. Sandeen and others continue to be perfect examples of the sort that the radical feminist rant about.  As Janice Raymond said:
No man can have the history of being born and located in this culture as a woman. He can have the history of wishing to be a woman and of acting like a woman, but this gender experience is that of a transsexual, not of a woman. Surgery may confer the artifacts of outward and inward female organs but t cannot confer the history of being born a woman in this society.
This is very true of a man like Mr. Sandeen.  He lived his life as a man for many years, more specifically he successfully lived his life as a man for most of his life.  He  has never experienced the conflict that drives a transsexual.  He has chosen to behave as he does.  And that is very telling.  He provides the example that someone like Raymond, or the others can point to, and say "Well, he says he is a transsexual so therefore, he is a transsexual."  Unfortunately, they both are wrong.  And quite frankly, they both are lying.

Wednesday, July 27, 2011

The Idiocy Continues...

Well, my response to the rather silly claims by Cristan Williams at Bilerico seems to have created a bit of a stir.  First off, Williams, who seems to be self-appointed as a new leader among the gender fascists.  Williams responds to those who disagree with ad hominem attacks and mockery.  And at the same time, in what has to be a laughable tactic, Williams demands that people present "objective evidence."  Given that transgender is a totally subjective concept, that is quite a stretch.  Simply put, Williams is all ego and a mile wide.

Now, this is a rather curious person.  The claim is made that Williams is a "post-op." transsexual.  Well, that may well be, but given the latest round of lies from Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen, one has to wonder what "post-op" means in this case.  I mean, Williams certainly does not come across as someone who is transsexual.  There is clearly no desire to be a woman.  It is possible that Williams had SRS and now has deep regrets and compensates by going heavily into gender politics.  This would not be the first such case.  It is equally possible that the op that is post for Williams is something short of full SRS.  But that doesn't really matter as we don't know the facts, and probably won't.  Sadly, among the transgender extremists, the view still holds that being "post-op" gives one more credibility.  That is why Mr. Sandeen suddenly became a "transsexual" and is now claiming that he is going to have "genital reconstruction surgery."  I mean, how is castration remote "reconstruction?"  Before you know, it Mr. Sandeen will be claiming to be a post op, even though he will remain a woman with a penis.

And even having surgery does not make one a woman.  If one does not have a female brain before surgery, one will not afterwards.  But I digress....

Williams again is pushing the idea that transsexuals have to be a part of the transgender community based on questionable history.  Of course, when I raised some questions about this, Williams went ballistic.  I have merely pointed out that the information is questionable.  I have pointed out that Williams cites sources that are at best, not widely available, and which might, possibly, be fraudulent.  So, how does Williams respond?  With ad hominem attacks and straw arguments.  I didn't say that the sources were fake, I said they were questionable.

This time around, Williams appeals mostly to sources like Tapestry, which started as part of a transvestite club.  And I find it especially funny that Williams cites Roger E. Peo, "Ph.D."  Peo was a major fan of transvestites.  Oh, and that "Ph.D."  It is from the the Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality.  This, uh, institute operates out of a storefront in San Francisco.  It is not accredited, a subject it tries to side step in its FAQ on the web site.  It has actually moved up in the world, having relocated from a rather run down building in Folsom Street area South of Market, to a slightly less seedy area near the Tenderloin.  It claims to be the "Harvard" of the study of Human Sexuality.  If I were Harvard, I would sue for defamation.  This is the sort of people Williams appeals to for this round of rhetoric.  Oh, and Williams, no my head has not exploded, though I did laugh quite a bit at it all.

Now, let's take a step back, and look at the bigger picture.  Let's say that Williams is completely honest.  So what?  Williams takes a few isolated comments, and tries to use this to demand compliance from people who, quite simply, want no part of the transgender extremism.  So, why is Williams so adamant about this?  Well, first off, the transgender movement is terrified of the idea that transsexuals might actually separate.  If we did, transgender is exposed for what it actually is...a bunch of men trying to force society to call them women.  

Without transsexuals, transgender is nothing but a group of men in dresses.  Like Mr. Sandeen, they want to keep their penises.  Like "Monica" Roberts, they want to brag about that big old "neo-clit" they are packing in their panties.  They know that suddenly, they will not have transsexuals to hide behind.  

Williams is fond of challenging people about what harm has been done to transsexuals by association with transgender extremism.  Well, first off, as a classic example, there is the loss of the right to marry.  Funny how this was not an issue in the United States until transgender people started making noise.  Suddenly, transsexual marriages is tied into same-sex marriages.  Yes, I know exactly what Williams will bring up....April Ashley, but that was in England and things did not become an issue in this country until relatively recently.  Now, things are rough.  

Another example of damage is the growing idea that surgery is not needed.  Because of those who belong to the "They Will Take My Penis When They Pry My Cold Dead Fingers From It" club, who also claim to be fully women, fully female, some people raise issues as to why transsexuals need, or should have, surgery.  After all, others do quite well without it.  This undercuts efforts to obtain insurance coverage for example.  Of course, those who don't want surgery love to claim their reasons are economic.  Insurance coverage would expose their lies.

Now, Williams is anti-stealth, spewing the usual crap about shame.  Williams dismisses the very real desire to simply live as a woman, not as a "trans whatever."  Again, clearly, Williams does not really wish to be a woman.  Williams, like others, transitioned to be "trans."  As I have said before, I prefer not being a "woman, but...."  I don't care for people to say, "Oh, she is a nice woman, know she was once a man," or "she is "really a man," or whatever. I don't want people saying, "You know how men are....oh, yes, of course you do."  No, I don't know.  I never understood why they act like they do, thank you.  I felt like an outsider.  I don't know what life is like on both side, and really, neither does anyone else.  If you were perfectly happy as a man, then sorry, you are not really a woman.  I am amazed at people who had long, successful careers as men who suddenly decide they are really women.  And then they wonder why people don't really accept them as "real women."

All is this is fine for Williams, but clearly, Williams is not happy just living the life that Williams chooses.  Williams, like many gender fascists feels the need to dictate how others can life and identify, casting aspersions on "separatists," transsexuals who do not wish to identify as transgender.

So that brings us back to the simple bottom line.  Transgender is a highly subjective, artificial social and political construct.  It has no basis outside the minds of those who dreamed it up.  In truth, the very concept has changed over the years.  There is no objective definition of who is, and who is not, transgender except that one is transgender if that is what one calls oneself. Unlike "transsexual," which is an objective term, "transgender" is an identity and nothing more.  I am not transgender.  I did not change my gender, as it has always been female.  I changed my sex.  In fact, transgender is an oxymoron as one cannot really change one's gender.  You cannot make yourself into a woman by choice.  You can change your gender presentation, and I an willing to accept a definition that is worded in that way, though it would still not properly apply to me.  And others speak of "transcending" gender.  I don't do that either.  I simply am what I am, a middle aged woman.  I am not a trans woman, just a woman, thank you.  And please, don't even think about calling me gender variant.  If people want to rebel against their true gender, that is their right, I suppose.  But if they want to claim me as part of their rebellion, they have a fight on their hands.

Once again, a modest proposal, which, of course will be rejected.  Let people identify as they please.  Stop imposing the term transgender on people.  Make it a rule that it never be used unless someone chooses to be called that.  If someone says, I am not transgender, that should be the end of it.  If someone says, they are transgender, that is their right.  But don't force your terms on others.  It is just not right.

As to Williams, that person can get bent out of shape all they want.  They are not going to silence me.  So far, all Williams has shown is how weak a position Williams has taken.  Arguments like "face plants" may seem clever to Williams, and Williams' followers, but really, is that the best you've got?

Sunday, July 24, 2011

Facts Versus Fantasy

"Autumn" Sandeen has announced that he is having "genital reconstruction surgery."  Except, well, he isn't.  Not even close.  He is lying, at the very least to himself, and really to anyone foolish enough to believe his bizarre fantasy.  You see, what Mr. Sandeen is having is, not "genital reconstruction surgery" but instead, is simply an orchidectomy.  He is not becoming a complete female.  He is becoming an eunuch, a castrated male.  

He starts off his little trip down fantasy lane with:
There are women of color and there are disabled women; there are lesbians and there are women of faith; there are mothers and there are servicewomen; there are women veterans and bisexual women -- and that's hardly an exhaustive list of the subcategories of women. Women's experience intersects with multiple labels and multiple identities; each woman's experience is complex, and not solely described within the confines of the "female" and "woman" found within western society's binary sex and gender norms.
I guess what he is trying to say is "There are women with penises."  Because that is what he believes he is, and what he believes he will be after his imaginary "Genital Reconstruction Surgery."  Many years ago, one of the first books I read on issues of transsexualism and transvestitism was Robert Stoller's Sex and Gender: On the Development of Masculinity and Femininity.  It has been a number of years since I looked at this book, but one of the things I remember from it was Stoller talking about how transvestites have fantasies about being a woman with a penis.  At the time, this seemed to me to be a quite absurd idea.  Stoller based this, in part, on a review of pornography of the variety that features images of what, at first, appears to be a quite attractive woman...until you notice the penis that is exposed. 

Over the years, I rejected Stoller's ideas as just another example of the silliness of Freudian analysis which often seems to seek absurd causes for various mental illness and condition that seem absurd.  Another of Stoller's claims, which is quite silly, is that all transvestites were dressed as girls by their mothers or other females as a child.  While this may be true in some cases, I doubt it is true in all cases.  This plays into the kind of "forced femininity" fantasies that some transvestites show.

While much of Stoller's ideas seem a bit absurd, I have begun to realize there is some accuracy in the concept of men having fantasies of being "women with penises."  You see this in those who plot to get their birth certificates changed to declare themselves to be "legally" female while remaining physically male.  And you see this in someone like Mr. Sandeen claiming to be having "genital reconstruction surgery" when all he is really doing is getting castrated and becoming a eunuch.

Now, don't get me wrong.  I am not remotely suggesting that Mr. Sandeen should have sex reassignment surgery.  That would be a tragic mistake.  Clearly, he is not a woman, and losing his penis would be emotionally traumatic.  What I am suggesting is that Mr. Sandeen start facing reality.  Calling himself a woman just because he likes to play dress up is dishonest at best, or at worst delusional.  Calling castration "genital reconstruction surgery" is an insult to real transsexuals who have worked and suffered to get the real thing.  And claiming to be a woman with a penis is just silly.

Friday, July 22, 2011

Missing the Bigger Picture

My recent post on the silliness at Bilerico about the attempt to claim quite a history for the term "transgender" caused a bit of a stir.  Both the article of the original article, and Zoe Brain weighed in.  But the bigger picture is being lost in all the rhetoric....

I just doesn't matter...

A lot of this is an attempt to cover up the fact that the term "transgender," or more specifically, "transgenderist" originated with Arnold Lowman, better known as Charles "Virginia" Prince.  Yes, Prince came up with the term to describe those who crossdress full time.  It was specifically meant to be exclusive of transsexuals.

Of course, by the mid-Nineties, extremists began adopting "transgender" as the umbrella term for their artificial political construct uniting transvestites, crossdressers, drag queens and kings, gender queers, and, whether they liked it, or not, transsexuals.

Actually, at first, transsexuals made the mistake and went along.  I first encountered "transgender" used this way on Usenet in the form of "alt.transgender."  For a while, that was about the only place on Usenet where issues concerning transsexualism were discussed.  Granted, a lot of people there were more akin to transgender extremists than true transsexuals, but that was not true of all there.  I argued with more than a few that linking to the LGB movement was a mistake, but I was shouted down.  

Then a newsgroup for transsexuals was split off, along with groups for crossdressers.  But over the next few years, the transgender extremists would grow more and more outlandish in their demands, true transsexuals would begin to realize they were being linked to a crowd they really had nothing substantive in common with, and as I predicted, many gays and lesbians proved more than willing to sell out transsexuals in the name of  furthering their own cause,

Which brings us back to the topic at hand.  Even IF some of what is claimed is true, even if all of it was true, it would make no difference,  The fact that someone, somewhere, sometime, even someone as "iconic" as Christine Jorgensen, actually said she preferred "transgender" to transsexual, which seems unlikely since the concept of gender had not really caught on at that time, it makes no different,  The kook, extremists, and radicals that have taken over the transgender movement are reason enough for transsexuals to demand to be left out of their little club.

Once again, NO ONE should ever be labeled as transgender unless they willing choose to be labeled as such.  Period, end of discussion.

What Bilerico Thinks is "Tasteful"

It is usually a pretty good bet that any given day will bring at least one clueless remark about transsexuals from someone at Bilerico.  But today's is a whopper.  Some guy named Austen Crowder mentioned that a video game called Street Fighter x Tekken now has a "playable trans character."  Apparently he is really, really excited about this,  But he is also excited that some comic strip called Manly Guys Doing Manly Things has what he calls "really, really tasteful."  Now, here is a comment made by the author of that strip that Crowder thinks is "really, really, tasteful."
The way I’ve heard the story told, Poison has possibly the most politically incorrect origin of any mainstream video game character I’ve heard of in my day. From what I understand it went something like this; 
“So we made this girl bad guy character for Final Fight.”
“No way! Unacceptable! We can’t have our macho hero dudes hitting women!”
“Well… What if she was a transexual? It’s okay to punch trannies, right?”
“Yeah, that sounds okay”
Now, what makes this all the more strange is the fact that it appears that Austen Crowder claims to be a transwoman.  This, of course, is classic Bilerico.  Crowder does not appear to make any real effort to remotely appear female.  His name is Austen.  He apparently is really into violent, macho video games about fighting and wrestling, and really loves that they have a trans character.  And he thinks it is really, really tasteful to suggest that hitting a transsexual is "okay."  I mean, this is the perfect transgender blogger for Bilerico.  He fits right in.

Tuesday, July 19, 2011

It Is Really Very Simple...

Females don't have penises.  

Of course, the transgender extremists don't like this.  They think women have penises.  Two examples of this have cropped up recently.  First, "Autumn" Sandeen is upset that the Veterans Administration will not change his "gender" marker to indicate that he is a female.  They want him to prove he has had a sex change, which of course he hasn't.  Mr. Sandeen claims he is pre-op transsexual.  More likely, he is a member of the "They Will Take My Penis When They Pry It From My Cold Dead Fingers" Club.  He somehow never seems to progress towards surgery.  He has suggested that he "might" have it when the VA will pay for it, but clearly he is not that interested.

Another example of this silliness comes from Alaska where the ACLU has decided to claim that not issuing a license to a transgender person who has not had surgery is unconstitutional.  I have no idea where in the constitution it says that males, with penises, have a right to be labeled as females, but apparently they think it does.

Now, in both of these cases, what is being requested is, in some locations, granted as a courtesy for those seriously pursuing sex reassignment surgery.  Well, at least that is the theory.  But Alaska is not one of those states.  Like several others, it only changes licenses when surgery is complete.

Jillian T. Weiss who has become the house transgender at the Bilerico Project  had this to say:

Of course, there are many types of sex reassignment surgery, and "complete" is a relative term.
Actually, no, There are really only two primary kinds of sex reassignment surgery...male to female, and female to male. Now, in the context of this article, the above statement is even more clueless. It might be arguable that if it were a female to male that "complete" is a relative term, but for a male to female, complete means you no longer have a penis, and testicle, and you now have a vagina. End of discussion. It does not mean you have only had an orchidectomy, or breast augmentation surgery, or facial feminization surgery. You have a penis, you are still a male.

If a state wishes to allow pre-op, surgery tracked classic transsexuals the right to change their licenses to facilitate their Real Life Test, they have my full support.  But that is not enough for the transgender extremists.  They will not be happy until society accepts that women have penises.  And that is just not right.

Friday, July 15, 2011

Gnat Gagging, and Camel Swallowing....

One of the classic characteristics of the transgender extremist is a tendency to focus on silly things while ignoring bigger issues.  I have encountered two examples of that this week.
The first comes from Gwen Smith, who writes a column for the Bay Area Reporter, an LGBT paper produced in San Francisco.  Smith's latest column is a rant about a Newsweek article on Brazilian model Lea T.   Smith is complaining because the Newsweek article contains the line:
As the bleachers erupt in wolf whistles, who’d have figured that the hottest new face from Brazil is not a she at all?
Lea is getting ready to undergo sex reassignment surgery, but has been very public about being transgender.  If fact, this has been a major part of Lea's appeal.  Apparently, "gender bending" is something of a fad in the fashion industry of late.  Another quote from the article:
...and that was her again on Oprah, in February, when she detailed how to flaunt the scantiest women’s gear without spilling secrets.
And yet, Smith is upset that Newsweek simply points out a fact.  Lea T. has a penis, and therefore to say, " not a she at all," is not a completely inaccurate statement.  For a pre-op transsexual, especially one who is flaunting being physically male, using "proper" pronouns is a courtesy, not a requirement carved in stone and handed by by the Almighty.

Is it possibly offensive?  Yes, but in the context is to make a point, which the article does in a lot more explicit language.  I mean really, I find it a bit odd that someone who has a female gender would be comfortable going on Oprah to talk about how to hide one's penis.

Truth be told, this person seems to be transgender identified, not truly female.  Again, from Newsweek:
“I want to send a message that transsexuals do not have to be prostitutes or hide their identities to be part of society,” she says. “The day I am no longer identified as a transsexual is the day my career is over.”
In another words, being a woman is not really that important to Lea T.  But don't you dare refer to Lea as "not a she," or Gwen Smith will get very upset.

The second example comes from Bilerico.  

Dr. Jillian T. Weiss is upset that Jeff Lewis, the openly gay host of Bravo's "Flipping Out" TV series is quoted in an article on Curbed that refers to a "transgender crack addict:"

Normally when you buy a house, the house is delivered vacant. I thought it was delivered vacant, but when I started the demo I realized there was this basement that I didn’t see during the inspection, and there was a transgender crack addict. A lot of times when you buy a house you inherit a feral cat or a raccoon or something, but in this particular case I inherited a crack addict—no joke! It took me a couple of weeks to get rid of he/she. But I didn’t even know he/she was living there. It was pretty crazy—I didn’t know until demo day!
Weiss is upset that the term "transgender" is attached to "crack addict." Apparently, Weiss would like to keep the fact that some people who identify as transgender, or who might be identified as transgender, actually use crack. I mean, this is the height of politically correct silliness. In the bizarre mindset of the transgender extremists, it is encouraged that people shove being transgender in everyone's face, but it is wrong for someone to use this term as a description of someone else if that use might make transgender people look bad. I have news for Weiss, some transgender people use drugs. They break into people's basements and take up residence. They also commit other crimes. They are not all paragons of virtue, above reproach.

Wednesday, July 13, 2011

The Other Pile of Idiocy From Bilerico

Yesterday, I mentioned that there were two loads of idiocy on Bilerico.  Well, after writing about the first, I decided to wait before tackling the second.  So, here it is.....

A transgender identified transsexual named Cristan Williams made some claims about the term "transgender."  Now, the gist of this article is that the term "transgender" was used as early as 1970.  The claim is also made that the word was embraced by none other than Christine Jorgensen who, it is also  asserted, supposedly preferred it to "transsexual."

The purpose of all this seems to be to counter the fact that the term is attributed to Arnold Lowman, aka Charles "Virginia" Prince, who was the spokesperson for transvestites for years, and a person who bitterly despised transsexuals.

Okay, I see three problems with this article:
  • The claims in the article are questionable.  I honestly find it a bit hard to believe that the references are credible.  It seems a bit suspicious that, just when the concept of "transgender" is on the ropes, there is this "sudden" and "convenient" discovery of the term being used to refer to transsexuals dating back to 1970.  It also seems just a wee bit fishy that images of the articles are provided, not just quotes.  That, of course, reduces the likelihood that someone would bother to actually check out the citations, which are almost all from obscure sources.  I am not saying that they are fake, but it certainly seems possible, perhaps even likely.
  • In most of the instances where the term is used (there are three exceptions) it is applied specifically to transsexuals.  That does not really support the current "umbrella" model.
  • It really changes nothing.  Even if the citations are accurate...even if Christine Jorgensen actually preferred the term....even if some reporter, and some doctor actually used the term to refer to transsexuals on a couple of occasions, the term has taken on meanings that are still counter to the interests of transsexuals.
It appears that transgender activists are getting desperate.  The umbrella is falling apart, and it is increasingly obvious that transsexuals do not belong in the same group as a bunch of men in dresses.  But that does not mean they will give up...

Tuesday, July 12, 2011

A Double Load of Idiocy From Bilerico

I regularly check out Bilerico to see what idiocy is posted there.  Most of it does not rise to the level of being worth commenting on, but occasionally it produces a real gem.  Today there are two...  The first is an article by "Tobi" Hill-Meyer, a young gender queer person who seems more interested in being shocking than in actually being a woman.

Hill-Meyer presents a list of supposed Litmus Tests used to determine someone is "really" transsexual.  Some of them are legitimate, some are just absurd:

The Litmus Test List

(Both personally overheard and collected from friends)
  • You're not a real transsexual woman if you haven't had vaginoplasty (the more generous version allows for women who haven't had vaginoplasty so long as they never give up on pursuing it)
This one, which Hill-Meyer chooses to start off with is dead on.  If you are not pursuing vaginoplasty, that is, if you like your penis, and you want to keep it, then no, you are not a transsexual, period.

  • You're not a real transsexual woman if you don't pass as a cis woman 100% of the time

Nope...  Now, if you don't try to pass, or worse, if you try to not pass, then that would be an issue.

  • You're not a real transsexual woman if you transitioned after 45 (or 35, or 25, or 18 depending on who you ask)

The age one transitions can be affected by many things.  It proves little.  The age when you became aware that something was wrong is what is important.

  • You're not a real transsexual woman if you ascribe to feminist gender deconstruction theory

No, but if you do ascribe to such idiocy, you are probably trying to compensate for something.

  • You're not a real transsexual woman if you buy clothes in the men's department

I would say it depends on why.  Some women do buy clothes in the men's department.  

  • You're not a real transsexual woman if mainstream transphobes wouldn't respect your gender if they somehow found out everything about your body and medical history

Huh?  There are a lot of people who have NO respect for anyone's gender if they know their history.  I would say it is more like, "You are not a transsexual if the majority of people who know you have no respect for your claimed gender."  That is, if you act like a man, but claim to be a woman.  Several excellent examples spring to mind....

  • You're not a real transsexual woman if you didn't know - with certainty - from birth

No, on the other hand, if you had NO serious indications of gender issues until you were, oh say, 45....yeah, then in that case, you are full of crap if you claim to be transsexual.

  • You're not a real transsexual woman if you don't have a GI/GID diagnosis or can't afford the process to get one

Another load of crap.  It is more like, "If you don't have the motivation to seek out a doctor for help."  It is pretty hard to find a place where there are not free mental health clinics for those who cannot afford to pay, so "can't afford" is bogus.

  • You're not a real transsexual woman if you don't fit your therapist's definition of a "real" woman (no exceptions even if the only therapist in your area is incredibly sexist)
This is just silly.

  • You're not a real transsexual woman if you are caught without makeup on

This sounds like someone has been hanging out with some transgender types.

  • You're not a real transsexual woman if you have facial or body hair that you don't shave

That does raise some questions.  Yes, some women don't share their leg or body hair.  But, on the other hand, if you have facial hair, and you don't shave it, and are not trying to have it permanently removed, then you are clearly more interested in being "gender queer" and just freaking people out with you weird behavior.

  • You're not a real transsexual woman if you have facial or body hair that you have to shave

Another silly claim.  It is true that a lot of transsexuals don't have heavy body hair, but that is not a diagnostic criteria.

  • You're not a real transsexual woman if you don't wear dresses and skirts all the time

I would be more suspect if you do...

  • You're not a real transsexual woman if you never crossdressed before transitioning

I know some who claim just the opposite.  

  • You're not a real transsexual woman if you have ever identified as a crossdresser

People tend to identify with terms that may not apply until they learn better.  Now, if you were an enthusiastic member of Tri-Ess or some other such group, well that would be a red flag.  The first word I ever came across was "transvestite."  But the more I learned about the term, the less it seemed to apply.  

  • You're not a real transsexual woman if you become sexually aroused while wearing women's clothing (Does this mean those who present as women all the time can never be sexually aroused? Probably not, but it's not clear where that crossover happens)

The issue is, are you sexually aroused BY wearing women's clothes.  Put another way, what is your motivation for crossdressing?

  • You're not a real transsexual woman if you have sex with men

No, the question is, how do you see yourself when you are having sex with a man.  Do you want him to see you as a man?  Are you willing to be the active partner during sex?  That is the real issue.

  • You're not a real transsexual woman if you have sex with women

The same question arises here.  Do you enjoy using your penis when having sex with a woman?  

  • You're not a real transsexual woman if you are not sexually available to men

No, though you might be a slut....just kidding.

  • You're not a real transsexual woman if you have sex using a strap on

That would be pretty questionable.  Why would you want to???

  • You're not a real transsexual woman if you have sex with your genitals before vaginoplasty or anything that others might consider a penis

If you are actively seeking to have sex using your penis, then it does raise some questions.

  • You're not a real transsexual woman if you masturbate involving your genitals before vaginoplasty or anything else others may consider a penis

A silly claim.

  • You're not a real transsexual woman if you have sex

Again, very absurd.

  • You're not a real transsexual woman if you allow yourself to be seen naked before vaginoplasty or with anything others might consider a penis

No, but if you are comfortable being seen without clothes, then it certainly raises questions.

  • You're not a real transsexual woman if you have ever done sex work

No, lots of transsexuals do sex work.  Now, if you specialize in being a top with men, that is another matter.

  • You're not a real transsexual woman if you haven't considered suicide

No, but you are possibly very luck.

  • You're not a real transsexual woman unless your only alternative to transition is suicide

I would say yes, this is very true.  If transition is not that important to you, then why would you want to claim to be a transsexual?  Because you think it is really cool?

  • You're not a real transsexual woman if you're still attending Southern Comfort

No, but why would you ever want to go to such an event?

  • You're not a real transsexual woman if you didn't keep up with your dilation


  • You're not a real transsexual woman if you are not stealth

This one has some merit.  If you are "out, loud, and proud" then it seems more likely you don't really want to be seen as a woman, but instead have some other issues.

  • You're not a real transsexual woman if you are stealth

No, but you are hanging out with some transgender nutcases.

  • You're not a real transsexual woman if you've been to camp trans

Again, no, but why would you want to?

  • You're not a real transsexual woman if you perform as a drag king

No, but it would be a bit odd.

  • You're not a real transsexual woman if you have ever performed as a drag queen

Again, no....but if you really embrace drag it would raise questions.

  • You're not a real transsexual woman if you have ever yelled "suck my dick" (even if you are only referring to a metaphysical dick)

No, we all do things in efforts to try to fit in before we start transition.  Now, if you yell this after you have transitioned, or especially after surgery, then yes, it would raise questions.

  • You're not a real transsexual woman if you ever pee standing up

If you do this after beginning transition, then it would again raise some very serious questions.

  • You're not a real transsexual woman if you play sports (no exceptions for being on the women's rugby team, but maybe for softball)
If you play sports as a woman, no...  If you are playing as a man, after transition, then yeah, something is possibly wrong.

Well, there you have it.  Clearly, this is a list put together by someone who is not transsexual, in an effort to slam true transsexuals.  I would say that some of these are probably figments of Hill-Meyer's imagination.  They are just too silly.  Others are legitimate issues that Hilly-Meyer is quick to dismiss.  

I will touch on the other silliness from Bilerico in another article.