Sunday, October 16, 2011

Yet Another Example of Transgender Silliness

The audacity of transgender activists never fails to amaze me.  But the recent actions of "Megan" Stabler really takes the cake.  Stabler, who is the current token "trannie" at the Human Rights Campaign married a woman in Texas by claiming to be a man, even though Stabler has had sex reassignment surgery.  I normally, with certain specific exceptions, treat post-ops as their target sex, but I will respect Mr. Stabler's apparent wishes, and refer to him as a male.


The story was first broken by the San Diego LGBT Weekly under the completely bizarre headline:

HRC trans board member marries as sex opposite of post-op gender

This, of course, is typical TG double-talk.  It always amuses me that while the TG extremists make a big deal about how "sex is between the legs, gender is between the ears," they also attempt to imply that gender "changes" with transition."  Gender is immutable.  You are born with a brain wired male, or one wired female.  You can change your gender expression, and your sex, to match your gender, or to be contrary.  Transgender people change their gender expression to the opposite of their inherent gender, and transsexuals move to conform to their true gender.  Transgender generally wish to remain their birth sex, as this enhances their transgression of gender, but their are exceptions.  Stabler appears to be one of those cases.


The fact that Stabler is with HRC goes a long way towards explaining this travesty.  There is a common, but erroneous belief among transgender people that a hierarchy exists with post-ops at the pinnacle.  Of course, this is based, in part, on the insistence that transsexuals must accept assimilation under the transgender umbrella.  While some true transsexuals do identify as transgender, many, perhaps most, do not.


Stabler has made a choice, and it will be the policy of this blog to refer to him with male pronouns.  He has legally identified as male, and that is how he will be referred to.  I generally refer, with very rare exceptions to post-op MTF transsexuals as women.  Stabler will be one of those exceptions.


I should also note that "Autumn" Sandeen is defending Stabler's outrageous behavior as something done in support of "marriage equality."  Of course, ultimately, it is not.  It harms both the cause of same-sex marriage, and that of true transsexuals.  It makes a mockery of changes to birth certificates, and it provide ammunition to the Religious Right.


Oh well, as I say, transgender idiocy knows no limits.....

10 comments:

Ariel said...

I totally agree with you. This whole thing makes me sick.

Not your friend said...

Notice how the gays and lesbians are being tight lipped about this.

I get the feeling the gay and lesbian activists do not approve of this action.

In the back of my mind I have to wonder if this really happened or if it was a trial balloon to test GLBT reaction.

Not your friend said...

http://lgbtweekly.com/2011/10/27/wherefore-art-thou-america/

More silliness.

Molly said...

Was SHE given the opportunity to marry her partner as female in Texas? If so, I can agree with you, if not, I'm dismissing the post as another angry HB rant.

Zoe Brain said...

FWIW I strongly disagree. She used one insane, inhuman law to subvert another insane, inhuman law.

Her marriage is no-one's plaything, for others to dictate to her. No, you have no right to comment on it. It's her marriage, not yours.

Be careful how you treat others, or you'll be treated the same way, with others demanding the right to veto any marriage you may wish to enter into, to satisfy their own political ideology.

They're wrong. So are you.

indi X said...

I'm with Zoe, transgender silliness indeed

Just Jennifer said...

Molly, whether HE was offered that choice, or not, is beside the point. HE engaged in exercising HIS MALE privilege. HE doesn't care who HE hurts. HE has simply helped insure that women of a transsexual history who are straight will continue to be denied marriage in Texas, and possibly has taken an action that could lead to ALL transsexuals in Texas being denied the right to marry.

And again, I refer to HIM with MALE pronouns because HE chose to legally identify HIMSELF as MALE. HIS choice, HE has to deal with the consequences.

You are, of course, completely free to disagree, but i stand by what I said in my post.

Just Jennifer said...

Well, Zoe, you are, of course, entitled to your opinion, even though you are completely full of crap, as usual. HE chose to exercise HIS MALE privilege at the expense of women of a transsexual history, HE did nothing to help anyone other than HIMSELF. And HE knows this. HE tried to keep the whole thing quiet, but fortunately it got out. This is exactly the sort of idiocy that one can expect from transgender extremists, and a perfect example of why I want no part of their insanity.

And I have an absolute right to comment on this. If HE were not a public figure, the house tranny for HRC in this case, you MIGHT have a point, but this person wants to speak for me to a group I actually wish would keep its nose out of my business, so yes, I have have an absolute right to comment, and to call HIM on HIS silliness.

indi X said...

Ashley, as per usual I find your ideology and motives misguided and dangerous. For everyone's sake quite trans activism. Your not helping.

Just Jennifer said...

I don't know who "Ashley" is, but if your comment is directed towards me, then let me be clear...YOU APPARENTLY DON'T GET IT....I am not a "trans" activist, and quite frankly, I generally oppose the vast, overwhelming majority of "so-called" trans activism. And even where I might agree with a specific goal, I seriously wish that the idiots pushing "trans" activism would stay out of things.