Wednesday, August 31, 2011

Cathy Brennan and Elizabeth Hungerford Are Right!

The transgender blogosphere is all abuzz about the submission that  Cathy Brennan and Elizabeth Hungerford made to the United Nations Entity· for Gender Equality and Empowerment of Women's call for communications.  Based on the reactions, you would think that Brennan and Hungerford called for "transgender people" to be outlawed, and for them to be rounded up and sent to reeducation centers where they would be forced to adhere to their birth gender.  Instead, they have raised some very legitimate issues about the more extremists views that have become the norm for the "transgender community."


A lot of the noise has centered around three quotes from the document which runs to six rather dense pages:

  1. The bill violates the privacy rights of every Maryland citizen.
  2. Behavior that would normally be considered criminal will now be protected as a civil right.
  3. The definition of “gender identity” trivializes the significance of biological sex.
The cry has gone up from the transgender extremists, "Horrors!  To the ramparts!  We are under attack, and our very existence is in danger!"  At EHIPASSIKO, "Christan" Williams' rather silly blog, Williams refers to the letter as "exterminationist."  Of course, this is more than a bit silly, but one would expect nothing less from Mr. Williams, who tends to be a bit hysterical (in more than one sense of the word).  Well, in a sense, I guess they are right...they have demanded such ridiculous and radical changes that anything else probably seems unacceptable to them.    But they face one little problem....the above is true.  All three things are quite true.

In fact, these very things are at the core of the demands of the transgender extremists.  They assert that:
  1. Their rights to express their "gender identity" trump all other rights.
  2. That their rights trump even the rights of women to be safe.
  3. That biological sex doesn't, that one becomes fully female simply by making the claim that one is female.
While I generally do not care for some to the sillier policies of the radical fringe of feminism, in this case they are raising good points, while showing consideration for those who actually have legitimate needs.

For example, in discussing one state's laws they make the following assertion (emphasis mine):
This definition of "gender identity" does not require any objective proof. Rather, It merely requires the person. seeking protection to assert that he or she identifies as the sex opposite his or her sex at birth.Further, because.Title 11 only permits discrimination in sex-segregated facilities based on sex) a person asserting gender rdentiry as a basis to avoid "discrimination" must be permitted to use the rest room or bath house of their chosen "gender identity') ...... without regard to any action taken on the part of that individual to change their physiology to "become female" (Le., sex reassignment surgery.) 
Clearly, they are not attacking true transsexuals, but instead the rising tide of men who think that putting on a dress makes them women.  Since these "wannabe" women generally act, and quite often look, like men, it is understandable why women would be upset at the idea of them being able to force their way into women's room.  Add in the fact that they make it clear that they have no desire to give up their penises, and it is clear that this is an invasion of privacy,

Therein lies the irony here,  We are talking about men, claiming to be women, who have no concept of why women might not wish them in women's space.  The very nature of their demands, and their attitudes are perhaps one of the strongest arguments against them.  They show, by their behavior and attitudes, that they are not women, and have no concept of how women think.


Now, let's take a small step back, and consider exactly what is at stake here.  As I pointed out, to hear the rhetoric from the transgender extremists, the radical feminists are demanding their extermination (Mr. Williams has said as much, actually) but in truth, this is about a simple issue, that we all know so well...men in women's space.  The transgender extremists demand it, even to the point, in some cases, where nudity will be inevitable, and women oppose it.  


And unlike some extremists, these radical feminists are not even demanding a total ban.  They are simply asking for the reasonable standard that access be granted on the basis of proof of medical transition.  That is, the weekend warriors, the cross dressers, the transvestites, and such would not be allowed access to women's spaces just on the basis of a claim of being a woman.  And even there, what they are asking for is not panty checks.  The bottom line, what they are asking for that has the transgender extremists going so far as to take of "extermination" (I am really having a good laugh at Mr. Williams' complete idiocy over this...) is that they simply want this standard imposed when there is litigation.


In another words, if someone is not demonstrably in transition, under medical supervision, and they sue for the right to access to use the women's room at work, they would not have a case.


Wow!  Can you believe that such a simple, and reasonable request has led to claims of proposed genocide?  There you have it.  This is the transgender movement in a nutshell, which is where I suppose these nuts belong.  They are so obsessed with access to women's restrooms that even the most reasonable of restraints, imposed to prevent a very real threat, is deemed outrageous.


And they wonder why those of us who really are women, those of us who knew early on, who struggled through life as women forced to live as men, who finally understand, who finally take the steps to put our lives right, simply don't want to be a part of their movement, oppose their silliness, and want to distance ourselves as far from their insanity as possible.  It is not that we are elitist.  It is simply that we are sane.



18 comments:

Dana Lane Taylor said...

Jennifer, the transgender community is mad because the right's of men are being violated here.

I am PROUD to have been included in this document that was sent to the U.N. I am proud to have been included in an important document that addresses protections for WOMEN. Men are not women. So you have to raise an eyebrow to anyone who would object to this document. They CLEARLY state women born transsexual are included.

Just Jennifer said...

Yes, Dana I agree completely. The objections to this document is some of the clearest evidence for the nature of the transgender concept. They are, as they say, "hoist by their own petard."

Beth Elliott (yes, that one) said...

I'm with you about the daytrippers, Jennifer. However, I have to disagree that the Brennan-Hungerford petition simply asks for medical verification, or that it includes women born transsexuals. Oh, there's a kind of boilerplate footnote to that effect. However, as written, it is, on its face, a request that an international body declare ALL anti-discrimination laws a human rights violation.

Now, the bulk of the anti-discrimination laws, as written, are vague and overbroad with their "self-reported" clauses. These, however, will not stand. Under U.S. jurisprudence, anti-discrimination laws are not violated where there the accused discriminator has a legitimate reason for the allegedly discriminatory acts ... such as, say, barring someone with a penis from a women's sauna. When a plausible legitimate reason is shown, the burden shifts to the accuser to prove that this reason is not mere pretext.

You can read more about this in the rebuttal I submitted to the UN, which I have up at gerinettick.com. My analysis of the Brennan-Hungerford petition is that it is seriously flawed, a sledge hammer being swung to swat a fly.

I'm with them on keeping PWPs (People With Penises) out of women's venues where public nudity is customary and necessary. I drafted a brief to submit to the San Francisco Human Rights Commission when the women's Japanese-style communal bath, Osento, was being threatened by TG fundies in league with the Lesbian Avengers(!). Cooler heads prevailed, fortunately.

Espi, Lydia said...

There is in fact a big difference between those who are pre-op but are in the process of transition and those who are simply cross dressers. For some pre-op TS women the only difference between pre and post op is economic privilege and access to the finances in whip to access such an operation. Furthermore, some may have a medical condition that prevents transition and in some states the medical contion that may prevent surgery due to complications is enough to have your birth certificate changed if you are documented as being diagnosed by the proper medical professionals as having GID. I don't believe that part time cross dressers should be put into the same category as any transsexual. Even with in the category of pre-op transsexuals there are primary and secondary transsexuals. Primary transsexuals are the ones who knew at an early age that they were born into the wrong body and secondary transsexuals discovered these feelings later on. Some transsexuals go their entire life trying to get enough money together to afford the operation but being part of an economic underclass can't afford it.

Just Jennifer said...

Okay, once more.... People who claim they cannot have surgery for financial reasons, or because of health reasons, are generally speaking, liars. Few, if any, true transsexuals can afford surgery without considerable struggle. Those who plead financial reasons often end up spending money on other things that could be used for surgery. For example, one well known transgender nut case brags how he bought a house. What he spent for that could have paid for excellent work in Thailand. As to health reasons, they are pretty much non-existent. I have heard that one too many times, and have discovered too many times that it is just a smoke screen. Like a certain kook who claims he couldn't have "full" gender reassignment surgery because he was too bipolar to properly dilate. Yeah...sure. That, and he loves his penis too much.

I have known people, including myself, who sacrificed a lot to have surgery. So please, don't give that silliness. I'm not buying it at all. If you don't want surgery that badly, you are not a transsexual, period.

Katelyn Jecmen said...

Ok I gotta call ya on that one, I have been out and living for 6 years and been on mones for 3, but barely scraping by with a bit of help to pay for all that as I have been unemployed since coming out, it has been a constant struggle to even keep surviving, thankfully I have a roomate who is particularly patient and helps as much as he can because if not I would be living on the street, this economy sucks, and being in the hated class of people tends to make it even harder, trust me, if I had the chance to go under the knife to get this taken care of I would be on it faster than you can believe, but until things turn around I am stuck, so to say that ALL of us who havent been agressively pursuing surgery are fakes is kind of a generalization and inaccurate because again IF i had an income I would be saving it up to do the surgery.

Just Jennifer said...

Okay, I have to wonder about a few things. You speak of being "out." Do you mean you are "out, loud, and proud" as a transgender person? Are you making an attempt to pass? Do you actually try to fit in as a woman? If not, then I'm sorry, you are making your own problems. Yes, the economy is bad.

Are you aware that, if you really want surgery, you can relocate to San Francisco and have it covered? Even if unemployed? It won't be easy, and you might have to struggle for a few months until you can get into housing, but even without a job, you can have your surgery.

I didn't say it would be easy, but I'm sorry, I have heard a lot of "I would have the surgery in a heartbeat," from people who suddenly find a dozen excuses when it does become available.

mea said...

Who is performing the surgery for these uninsured San Francisco residents?

Just Jennifer said...

That is a good question, mea. The short answer is, I don't know. I would think the most likely option would be to use one of the local facilities, which is an option under the City's health plan, that provides SRS for patients covered by their insurance. Several local employers offer SRS as a benefit, including the City and County of San Francisco, as well as the University of California system. These all offer several insurance plans that have options for SRS, and at least one has a surgeon who has been trained to do SRS. I know, because I was his first patient for that surgery. Or, they might decide to start training surgeons in that procedure at UCSF, which provides the physicians for the City's hospital. The third option, which I think would be the worst, would be to send them to Marci Bowers, who has relocated to the Bay Area.

Sarah Kumagai said...

I identify as a straight woman. I need someone to explain to me what the problem with transgender women is.
Is it that they're not "real women" unless they have decided on surgery? Now, is that top surgery or bottom surgery, or both?
I don't understand the problem with "weekend warriors" who live as a man during the work week and on their off time dress as a woman. Please explain to me why this is wrong.

I also don't understand the safety issue. Are there Transgender women attacking non-transgender women in bathrooms?

I operate on a "free to be" policy. So all of this is very confusing to me.

Just Jennifer said...

Okay, let make this as simple as possible. If you have a penis, and you want to keep it, you ARE a man. As to "weekend warriors," they have NO business being in women only spaces. Putting on women's clothing does not make you a woman.

I'm sorry this is confusing far you. Most of us figure this out before we are about three.

Sarah Kumagai said...

I must admit I'm really shocked by this attitude. As an LGBT ally, I strive to create safe space and acceptance for all people.

I don't recognize your authority to define who a woman is or isn't. Just like it's not my place to define you as a woman. If you feel that you are a woman, as far as I'm concerned that's good enough for me.

I don't understand this snobbish attitude that someone must be willing to risk surgery (which is always dangerous) to be able to validate their gender identity.

This kind of hate (because let's face it: that's what it is) is especially disturbing from someone within the community.

Your entire blog seeths with anger. It will be the last time I visit it. I came here looking for some resources for a friend of mine who is considering having bottom surgery. I will forward this to HER with a reminder that no matter if she decides to remove her penis or not, I will always treat her with the basic respects and kindness all people deserve...But that not everyone thinks that way. And she can expect to have hate spewed at her from all types of people.

I assume you won't be allowing this comment to be published. But I'm disappointed with you. You do not deserve the megaphone the internet gives you.

Just Jennifer said...

Unlike most " transgender extremist" blogs, I have a no censorship policy. If you want to come here and say something stupid, I let you.

And you have said some incredibly stupid things. Reality, and truth, are not "hate." Based on your logic, or more to the point, lack of logic, you are a hater, since you disagree with me. Or do you claim absolute truth? I have stated my view, which is based on science and reason. And you accuse me of hate? Sorry, but to put it bluntly, you are a fool. Women do not have, and want penises. If you think they do, well, we used to put people with such delusions away. Now, we let them roam free. But, it is still a delusion. I am open minded, but not to the point where my brain has fallen out

Sarah Kumagai said...

No, I'm not a hater because I disagree with you. I'm disappointed in your lack of acceptance and awareness and I'm shocked by your attitude.

My friend absolutely does not want her penis. She has all her life felt trapped and victimized by the fact that she was born with it.

But you're saying that until she has it removed, she will continue to be a HE. Which is very, very disturbing.

What will we say to the transgender children? Well Miranda. I'm sorry that you feel trapped in your body. You'll have to be Randy though until you are old enough to afford bottom surgery. You won't be a woman until you get it. So please be miserable until then.

You also need to be aware of the fact that people from other countries read this blog too. What is and isn't covered by Canada's socialized healthcare alters from Provence to Provence. BC for example allows you to have top and bottom surgery if you are a MtF, but not if you are FtM. In my Provence though on 11 April 2012, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario ruled that genital surgery isn't required to recognize a change in sex designation. In its decision, the Tribunal ordered that the Ontario government "shall cease requiring transgendered persons to have 'transsexual surgery' in order to obtain a change in sex designation on their registration of birth" and has 180 days to "revise the criteria for changing sex designation on a birth registration. This makes Ontario the first jurisdiction in Canada to allow transgendered people to change the gender on their birth certificates without sex reassignment surgery.

So as far as I'm concerned, your position is denying people human rights. Which is the definition of hate.

To any persons reading this: please know that not everyone feels this level of contempt for you if you do not get top and or bottom surgery. Please do not let the author of this blog in any way influence you.

If in your heart or mind feel you that your gender and the nature of your plumbing are not in concert with each other, do not think there is anything wrong with you. If you do not yet feel comfortable presenting yourself as the gender you feel yourself to be when outside your private space, do not let the words "weekend warrior" bring you shame.

No matter where you are in the process of understanding and achieving your personal gender, you are valued as you are. You have the right to explore this aspect of your life however you feel comfortable.

I am sorry that not everyone shares this attitude. Please, remember that women's right's do not trump HUMAN rights and that there will always be people standing behind you, fighting for these rights. Even if you cannot hear or see us. We are here, we love you and we want you to be happy, safe and fulfilled as people.

Just Jennifer said...

Ah, but you call me a hater because I disagree with you? So, I assume you are claiming absolute knowledge. That you are right, and I am wrong. Or are you just engaging in the stupidity of the extremists and calling anyone who calls them on their idiocy, a hater?

And no, I said no such thing. I said if a person has a penis, and they want to keep it, that person is a man, period. End of story. I would not call your friend a man UNLESS your friend was clearly only paying lip service to wanting to be rid of it. Oh, how many have I seen...

"I would have the surgery, but it costs too much..."

"I would have the surgery, but I have to consider my career..."

"I would have the surgery, but it would upset my family...

In those cases, they are just making excuses. And I have heard them all. I have seen people, handed surgery on a silver platter, so to speak, fully covered by insurance, start making all sorts of excuses. They can't have the doctor they really want , but can't afford...or they are afraid of the pain, or well, if they are honest, they didn't want it to begin with.

No, if your friend really wants surgery, is really making an effort to obtain it, and is not some crossdresser who has had a long successful career as a man, but now is having a mid-life crisis, I would accept that person is a woman.

But such people are exceedingly rare.

What we should say to transsexuals (who are not transgender unless, for some idiotic reason they decide to identify that way, is "Don't worry, your insurance will cover the surgery..."

And no, I am not violating human rights. Men do not have a inherent right to play dress-up and invade women-only spaces. They do not have a right to demand that people suspend reality and pander to their perverted delusions. They do not have a right to thumb their nose at social norms and not have people be at the very least, a bit perturbed. And no, I do not believe they have a right to engage in the fraud of having a birth certificate changed to indicate that a person with a penis is really a "female." Such is insanity.

Now, if some place will cover MTF surgery, and not FTM, that is just wrong. That IS a violation of human rights. At the very least, they should cover medioplasty. I can see where they might argue that a full phalloplasty is too iffy, but a medioplasty is a proven technique, and the cost is not that great.

Again, you are quite welcome to express any opinions here, including your delusions. Quite frankly, most people are not going to see a man who wants to keep his penis as anything other than, well a man, even if he is wearing a dress.

fleurblack said...

if becoming a lesbian or homosexual is a 'natural' variation of humans then logically that same variation must include the reality that there will be some transsexuals althought there are so many people who are non-genderconforming that the whole issue is very muddy. lesbians and homosexuals are nongender conforming and nonsex conforming - but their samesex sexual activities exposes them to mental ailmenst that demand they be transphobic.

fleurblack said...

pander to social norms?
excuse me but isn't the social norm being a woman being heterosexual and having kids and the man being heterosexual and not homosexual?
can't have your cake and at it too?

Just Jennifer said...

No, this is not about pandering to social norms. This is about protecting women from abuse by men. I am not sure exactly where you are coming from, but it appears, at least at first glance, to be completely a load of crap...