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?


Not your friend said...

This is a blatant attempt at revisionist history. None of the articles are referenced to newspaper, newsletter or magazine issues.

If this was evidence to be used in a court case that case would not only fail but the evidence wouldn't pass the small test.

Liars and the liars who support them.

idappaccayata said...

I got a kick out of this post! I think you're just adorable!

BTW - trans marriage has always been only sometimes legal in some states. Remember, Christine Jorgensen was not allowed to marry while Hedy Jo Star was.

If you want to go back to the 1800s, there are numerous examples of "trans" people having their marriages annulled. At the same time, Lawrence Payne, a Virginian transman from 1880 was allowed to marry.

Laying the marriage woes of all transsexuals at the feet of the trans community is about as interesting as any of the other things you've shared in this post.

Just Jennifer said...

Again, you are really nowhere near as clever as you wish to believe. All you silly little snips show is that you have no real arguments and are playing to those who share your bizarre views.

As I recall, Christine Jorgensen never desired to marry. As to the 1800s, are you really that daft? In the 1800s there would have have been no "trans marriages." They would have been same sex marriages, which were, of course, not remotely legal. There was no medical treatment for transsexuals.

And while there were cases of lesbians who were able to pass as men, and get married (Billy Tipton comes to mind) these were not legal marriages, and they were not "allowed" to marry. They married by means of fraud. And, it seems odd that Google returns not a single mention of this person you claim was "allowed" to marry.

Too bad, but...Thanks for playing, and we have some lovely parting gifts for you....

taryn said...

saying that we shouldnt be called anything is the idea of the century isnt it..who wants to be called out or verbally and optically violated..noone i agree let people decide on each case by case basis what they wanna be noted' as and never use the term trans anything for thats just an expression of a process.
i also dont agree with the seperation of transgender and transexual as it brings a problems of contraversy to one or the other being out in the open alone...also...u have to be one to get to the other and this itself will cause problems if they seperate for those who wanna get to the other .

idappaccayata said...

So, to be clear... You're stating as fact that:

1.) Christine never "wanted to marry" (therefore she was never prevented from marrying).

2.) There was never an FTM in 1880 that underwent a procedure and was allowed to marry; I just made that up.


Just Jennifer said...

Again, you are not as clever as you think. I do stand corrected...Jorgensen did try to marry. I seem to recall, and I could be mistaken, that she said in her autobiography that she never wished to marry. But yes, she was denied a marriage license, because her finance could not prove he was divorced. See

I also found a statement that she was issued a marriage license on two occasions, but never followed through.

As to someone having a sex change in 1800s and getting married....well, that does not seem to turn up under a Google search for the name you claim. That is all I said, but I do find it interesting that you are, again, attempting the dishonest tactic of trying to have someone prove a negative. Not surprising, but really, that is terribly, terribly lame.

I do have to are trying to imitate Dyssonance, though you are marginally more rational. Not much, but it would be hard not to be such.

Just Jennifer said...

Taryn, one does not have to be transgender in order to be transsexual, and while some who are transsexual may identify as transgender, one certainly does not have to be transsexual to identify as transgender. Simply put, transsexual is a medical condition. Transgender is an identity. It is an artificial, highly subjective label that should be completely a choice, not something forced on people.

idappaccayata said...

[But yes, she was denied a marriage license, because her finance could not prove he was divorced.]

Well, I suppose that narrative certainly does support your version of history. How long did you search for that particular picture?

Q: Did you bother checking wikipedia?

"After her vaginoplasty, Jorgensen planned to marry John Traub, a labor-union statistician, but the engagement was called off. In 1959, she announced her engagement to Howard J. Knox, a typist, in Massapequa, New York, where her father had built her a house after her reassignment surgery. The couple was unable, however, to obtain a marriage license because Jorgensen's birth certificate still listed her as male. In a report about the broken engagement, The New York Times noted that Knox had lost his job in Washington, D.C., when his engagement to Jorgensen became known."

However, we both know that Wikipedia might not be the best place to find facts, so I've uploaded a copies of the actual newspapers:

Start of the problems: 4/1959

Problems continue: 7/1959

"CHRISTINE'S IN THE NEWS AGAIN—Christine Jorgensen, 33-year-old ex-GI who underwent sex-switch operations, shows her diamond engagement ring as her fiance, Howard J. Knox, 38, holds her hand in New York marriage bureau. Christine was refused a license to wed because her birth certificate listed her as a male."

And the problems went on until they gave up.

Do you think their problems with being blackballed were caused by the transgender community also? Betcha do ;)

While I'm fairly certain you won't be able to accept these facts, I did want to post them just to set the record straight for the folks I sent to this post for some chuckles.

Just Jennifer said...

Obviously you do not take well to being contradicted. My, you must live a miserable life...

It took me about two minutes to find that photo. It was near the top of the list on Google when I searched for "Christine Jorgensen marriage." And yes, I saw the article on Wikipedia. You do realize that Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source since anyone can edit it and make it say whatever they wish.

Oh, and are you saying that the caption on the photo is wrong? Or are you just trying to avoid the fact that there might be more to the story than what you want?

Now, I do wonder why you seem to rely on obscure sources. I mean, Wikipedia cites the New York Times, but you go with papers from Utah and Long Beach. Again, you seem to rely on sources that would be difficult, if not impossible to verify.

Now, to answer you absurd comments...I could hardly think that the transgender community had ANYTHING to do with her issues since, at that time, there was no "transgender community." Or are you now going to claim that it existed in 1959. Around that time, I think Prince was possibly publishing "Heel and Hose" for boys who liked to dress like women and....well, I am sure you know quite well what they were doing.

Now, all that aside, it really means nothing. Christine Jorgensen was not the be all, end all of transsexuals. She is well know, erroneously for being the "first." The key point being "well known." After Christine, for many years, post-op transsexual women were able to marry without issue. Then, after "transgender" became part of the larger LGBT, suddenly people started objecting to such marriages. We have several cases that have gone badly for post-op transsexuals. Of course, it doesn't help that in the most recent case, the person had not even had surgery when the marriage took place.

In fact, there are now efforts to simply deny post-op transsexuals the right to marry, period. They would not be able to marry a person with the same chromosomes and they would not be able to marry someone with the same genitalia. Funny, but stuff like that was not even dreamed of before the transgender freak show started waving their penises around.

Oh, and I suppose, for example, you are familiar with the fact that Louisiana specifically passed a law correcting birth certificates, specifically so transsexuals could legally marry.

Now, I do hope you can come up with real arguments. Your childish comments are really lame. Again, you are simply proving you have no real arguments.

Just Jennifer said...

To follow up on my previous appears that the situation is not quite as idappaccayata wishes it to be. The main reason Christine did not marry was not being denied a marriage license, but because the engagement ended shortly after problems were encountered. So, the implication that Christine was denied a marriage license and that caused her to never marry is patently false. It would have probably been a temporary setback, but she chose to not pursue the issue after the engagement was called off. See the book "How Sex Changed" for further details. Oh, and apparently the first denial was because her fiance did not have his divorce papers. That would have been on March 31 as indicated in the Corbus photo archives. It appears that the denial over the birth certificate occurred on April 3, since that is the date cited by the New York Times.

So, as previously stated, Christine Jorgensen is hardly a good example to use in this situation. She presented a unique conundrum for authorities in 1959 and there was no real effort to resolve the matter. After that, most transsexuals had little trouble marrying, a situation that existed until relatively recently.

So the fact remains, association with the transgender silliness has harmed transsexuals.

Oh, and if we are going to look to Christine as the standard for transsexuals, then we must all be homophobic and should all be labeled as "transvestites." Both were true of Christine Jorgensen. She was very decidedly homophobic, and in the first scholarly article on her surgery she was labeled a transvestite.

Now, I agree, for some who claim to be "transsexual," transvestite is more accurate. But that is another discussion.

idappaccayata said...

[The main reason Christine did not marry was not being denied a marriage license, but because the engagement ended shortly after problems were encountered. ]

If you didn't like that syndicated newspaper, would you like me to provide you with another one? I have quite a number of them from small town papers to metropolis papers.

She was either denied the ability to marry a man based upon her birth sex or she was allowed to marry him when she requested a marriage cert. Which is it?

I mean, if I provided you with 3... or 4... or 5... or 6 papers which all reported the same basic fact, would you consider conceding this one... just this one little bitty single solitary point... that yes, she was denied the right to marry when she requested a marriage cert?

Also, search for:

1.) Anonymous v. Weiner (1966)
2.) Hartin v. the Director of Bureau of Records (1973)
3.) Anonymous v. Mellon (1977)

Just Jennifer said...

Let's see....

Are you that desperate?
That stupid?
That stubborn?
Or do you really think you can ignore details and simply force things to be as simple as you need them to be?

Every article on this subject says her attorney was going to push the matter. But he didn't. She broke up with her fiance, and did not try to get a marriage license with him. So, whether or not she could have remains an unanswered question. And again, it is moot. After her, transsexuals had little trouble getting marriage licenses for years. It was generally accepted that once someone had surgery, they had changed their sex, and they could marry. Then transgender extremists started talking about being part of the LGBT community, and some tried lying to enter into effectively same sex marriages, and things got downright nasty. Those are the facts. You are using Christine Jorgensen to build a very weak straw argument. And you keep pounding on the Jorgensen case because it allows you to avoid the real issue. I do love how you keep accusing others of such behavior. It helps cover your own behavior.

Now, as I said, it appears that things are a lot more complex. Would she have ultimately succeeded? We will never know, though she had some pretty strong arguments if she had of pressed the issue. She decided not to marry the guy (which may well be what I was thinking of when I said she chose to never marry). Of course, there was at least one web site that said she was able to get a license on two other occasions, but never followed through.

I am presenting the full picture, which does not serve your claim very well. You keep ignoring the facts, and focusing on one small aspect, trying to build a case on a very minor point as compared to the larger picture.

Why did she call off the engagement? Who knows. I seriously doubt it was because she hit a small snag getting a license. Perhaps her fiance turned out to be a jerk. Maybe she realized he was trying to make a name for himself. Maybe he was an early chaser. Or maybe she had another reason. The simple fact remains, she did not pursue the matter even though her lawyers felt they had a very strong case.

Again, to answer your question, the matter was unresolved. And again, in the bigger scheme of things, it was irrelevant. She was one unique individual who cannot be used to argue anything except her situation. And even then, you haven't a real argument.

Just Jennifer said...

Now, you bring up three cases that all pretty much deal with one simple fact. Until relatively recently, New York City had a policy against changing birth certificates for transsexuals after surgery. Over time, the policy changed from one of not changing the birth certificate at all, to one where the sex designation was left blank. I am not sure how you think this supports your position. The State of New York allowed such changes, but New York City has an independent record system. There are three states that still will not change birth certificates for post-ops. And sadly, this is being threatened by transgender extremists who are trying to lie and get their birth certificates changed without meeting the legal requirements. And, of course, bragging about it. Old Phil Frye down in Houston even offered advice on how to lie and get your birth certificate changed without having surgery at all. I don't know if he actually found anyone willing to try, but it would have required serious fraud. Oh wait,didn't they take away the right to easily change one's birth certificate in Texas? They are listed as one of the states that does not allow changes.

Simply put, we want no part of your idiocy. And ask yourself, do you really want transsexuals telling courts they disagree with your goals even as you are trying to claim we are part of your movement? You really might want to think this through.

Now, let's see...three cases of extremely limited jurisdiction (a city, not even a state) plus a small number (well, one I found) cases where a marriage was overturned, versus innumerable marriages that were legally recognized.

Of course, now we have stuff like the judge in Ohio who added a specific question, "Are you a transsexual?" to the marriage license application. Funny how that sort of thing just didn't happen before the transgender extremists started making noise, and claiming transsexuals are the same as they are.

idappaccayata said...

Nope, I guess you are unable to concede the fact that for the year she and her lawyers tried, she was prevented from marrying an man due to her her birth cert sex.

[And again, it is moot. After her, transsexuals had little trouble getting marriage licenses for years.]

Interesting. I'm guessing you didn't look up the 3 court cases then. It wasn't possible until at least 1976 with the JT case.

[I am presenting the full picture, which does not serve your claim very well.]

Actually, I'm pressing this point because you made the following blanket statement:

[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.]

Either she didn't encounter issues and the above assertion is 100% correct or she did encounter issues and the above assertion isn't 100% correct. How about it? Is the above statement the absolute 100% perfect representation of the facts or is it something perhaps just a little less that the absolute 100% perfect representation of the facts?

You've already come tantalizingly close to actually conceding that CJ encountered an issue when you wrote this:

[Every article on this subject says her attorney was going to push the matter.]

and this...

[And again, it is moot. After her, transsexuals had little trouble getting marriage licenses for years.]

Except you used the word "trouble" instead of "issue".

For a second time I will ask you - in reference to your blanket statement that marriage issues only appeared for transsexuals after the rise of the transgender community - will you now concede that CJ did in fact experience an issue getting married in the 1950s? She either did or didn't and if she didn't, why did she hire a lawyer after not being issues a marriage cert when she requested it and why did you admit that she had "trouble"?

The only way your statement "Funny how this was not an issue in the United States until transgender people started making noise" can be 100% true is if CJ never experienced issues getting married in the 1950s.

If she did experience an issue, then the blanket statement isn't 100% in agreement with CJ's experience in the 1950s. Correct?

Just Jennifer said...

Year? She dropped the issue in a matter of weeks. There was no effort for a year. Sorry, but that is simply making stuff up. She made no effort at all once she broke up with her fiance. So, no I am not about to "concede" an non-existent "fact."

Now, I am not remotely interested in playing your semantical games. Let's see... You demand I "concede" terribly arrogant. Obviously Christine Jorgensen encountered a problem. Whether or not that problem could have been overcome will forever remain unknown because, contrary to your rather false claim, she made no real effort to do so.

And as I have pointed out, you have tried to build a major case based on nothing. As I have said, what happened with Christine Jorgensen, and in a very small number of isolated cases pales in comparison to the larger picture. Overwhelmingly, transsexuals had their surgery, and if they desired, got married and lived normal lives. Now, I know that absolutely disgusts the transgender extremists. But that is what they did, and in many cases, still do.

Now, you try another dishonest approach. You want 100%. That, of course, is absurd. The issue is not was there an occasional, isolated case, but instead the issue is the larger view. For many years, the overwhelming majority of jurisdictions did not see this as an issue. Lawyers rarely raised the issue. Now, possibly, the overwhelming majority of transsexual marriages were successful and never ended in divorce...or, it was not seen as an issue in most cases...until relatively recently. Now, suddenly, transsexual marriages are challenged as "same-sex" marriages. Right about the same time that it became common practice to speak of LGBT.

Now, since I have never once said that there were NO issues, just that there were very rare. So, please try to keep up. It gets tiresome having to correct your attempts to pull such goofy little tricks. Really, you are not at all clever.

Again, too bad, but thanks for playing...

idappaccayata said...

A few weeks? They broke off the engagement in Sept. 1959. But, hey... for arguments sake, lets pretend that the engagement was only 5 days... no... 5 hours long. My question had been and continues to be: Did CJ experience an "issue" when she attempted to obtain an marriage cert? Yes or no.

[The issue is not was there an occasional, isolated case, but instead the issue is the larger view.]

But that's not the assertion you made... is it? You claimed that:

[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.]

The above statement is either true or it's not. Which is it? You've just admitted that "there [was] an occasional, isolated case".

And if it is an overstatement, how many other overstatements have you made that you just can't bring yourself to acknowledge? I mean... My god, just getting you to say that - in the face of demonstrable facts - CJ had an "issue" when she attempted to get her marriage cert is like pulling teeth. Let me remind you of your original position:

[As I recall, Christine Jorgensen never desired to marry]

which then became...

[she was denied a marriage license, because her finance could not prove he was divorced.]

which later became...

[Every article on this subject says her attorney was going to push the matter.]

Which is a contradiction of your absolutist claim that transsexuals had didn't face marriage issues prior to transgender people "making noise."

And this is contradiction #2:

[The issue is not was there an occasional, isolated case, but instead the issue is the larger view.]

Now I just want you to to take that last step and use the word "issue" to define CJ's - again, to use your term - "trouble" getting a marriage license.

But you won't do that. I know that's asking too much of you. I'm just happy that you've moved away from your original absolutism - which was my only goal in the first place.

Boxing you in to just acknowledge that she had - as you said, "trouble" - is like wrestling a bi-polar bear.

Damn girl; when they made you they broke the mold! Arguing on the internets can sometimes be fun, but this felt almost like dragging you kicking and screaming away from your original absolutist position.

Just Jennifer said...

Your question is a silly attempt to frame the issue dishonestly. Sorry, but again, I am not playing along with your silly semantical games.

I stand by what I said. Overwhelmingly, transsexuals married without issue. We are not talking about absolutes here. Yes, there were rare problems, with mixed results. But by and large, such marriages were not questioned to any major degree. Now we have several well-known cases, and we have legislators looking at specifically forbidding such marriages.

Again, I stand by what I said. You are trying, rather lamely, to take an isolated, and somewhat unique situation (A new issue that had not arisen before.) and ignore the larger picture, which, of course, contradicts your claim.

And I am not going to play along, no matter how much you try to bully, cajole, insult, etc.

Again, you are not nearly as clever as you think.

And no, my position is not absolutist, just realistic. You, I fear, are the one who is absolutist as you are trying to argue that a single exception destroys any argument contrary to your silly position. Now, if you want to talk about amusing, look in the mirror.

idappaccayata said...

I've not claimed that legal battles over trans marriage haven't increased, decreased or stayed the same. I'm not offered ANY commentary on the frequency. You claimed that it didn't happen before transgender people "began to make noise" - I challenged that point and you now agree with me that issues did, in fact, arise prior to transgender people making "noise". That was my only goal.

Goal accomplished.

I am NOT arguing that it may have been rare, infrequent or proportionally smaller than it is today. That's not my argument and I'm not commenting on that.

You said it didn't happen, I said that it did - a fact that you initially disputed, and now you agree with me. That's good enough for me.

Offering honest commentary on the frequency of the of problems faced by transsexual woman who marry would be an incredible undertaking, IMHO.

What year was it that transgender people "began to make noise"?

How many transsexuals were getting married prior to that? Of those transsexuals seeking marriage, what proportion were able to get married when officials were aware of their medical condition? I'm thinking that one would need some knowledge of these metrics in order to make an intellectually honest assertion either way. Since I've not researched that info, I'm agnostic to that question. I can't honestly claim to know. It may be proportionally larger today; you may be correct - I can't certainty about the frequency of something that neither of us has offered objective metric data about.

However, I can honestly claim that transsexuals did, in fact, experience issues getting married decades before transgender people began "making noise."

Just Jennifer said...

ROTFL! Well, I guess when all else fails, you can simply try to claim a new straw argument and then claim victory. How trite... Clearly, what it really comes down to is that you cannot refute what I have said, so you now claim that you simply don't know.

You were the one who created the original straw argument of claiming I was absolutist, when I was not. I never once said that there were never problems. I simply observed, and it is quite well documented, that problems have arisen because of transgender activism. Now, you made quite a few claims that were never backed up. I was confused about what Jorgensen said. As it is, she was not always consistent, or honest, in her remarks. At one point, she denied ever engaging in "homosexual behavior" and then later admitted she did. And even then, she was basically homophobic. And yet, you have tried to imply that she was an early example of someone who was "transgender." I wonder who she would react to being associated with the LGB part. Oh well....

As to what you can "honestly" claim...well you can claim a victory where none exists, but I am still have a good laugh at your behavior. Of course, that is usually the nature of a straw argument. Instead of addressing the real issue, you avoid it, find something you can honestly claim, and then try to make that the issue. Of course, that only works if the person you are arguing with allows it. Really, you should know better.

idappaccayata said...

[I never once said that there were never problems.]

So, you didn't write...

[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.]

Are you saying that when you wrote...

[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.]

... that you really meant something like:

'Funny how this was an issue in the United States both before and after transgender people started making noise.'

... or...

'It is my opinion that it seems to me that transsexual people encounter more problems now in the United States after transgender people started making noise.'

I only ask because neither of the above examples carry the same meaning as the following evidence-free, demonstrably fallacious decoration:

[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.]

Just Jennifer said...

Well, there you go again. Sorry, but I really do not appreciate you trying to put words in my mouth. Once more, with feeling, I stand by what I said.

As to it being "evidence-free, demonstrably fallacious decoration," well, first off you admitted you don't know enough to even discuss the subject, so you can hardly demonstrate that it is fallacious, and the evidence is quite overwhelming. Oh, and it is not a "decoration." What it is, actually, is a statement you asked for, and which you are trying to turn into a straw argument. I never said there was not a single incident of a transsexual having a problem getting a marriage license. I said it was not an issue. It was quite rare. Now, it is an increasingly difficult issue. And that is because of the transgender extremists.

Again, thanks for playing....