Monday, January 23, 2012

Enforcement? No Problem...

"Autumn" Sandeen, the king of the boys in the women's room, has already posted another post on the "bathroom issue."  This time, he is trying to argue that it would be too hard to enforce keeping men out of the women's room, so women should just put up with being overrun by men.


No one is suggesting guards at the bathroom door.  The answer to enforcement is simple.  If someone complains, someone responds.  That is how it has always worked.  In fact, that is exactly where Sandeen's argument falls apart.  He is approaching this as though keeping men out of the women's room is some new idea, or as though there is going to be some sudden increase in enforcement.  The answer is simple, we keep doing what we already do.  For example, if a woman encounters an obvious man in the women's room, she goes and finds someone, perhaps a store employee, a security guard, a manager, etc., and complains.  That person takes the appropriate course of action.  Problem solved.

Yes, in extremely rare cases, some very butch lesbians may be viewed as men.  Of course, we have to keep in mind, they have most likely chosen to make themselves appear to be men, so they have to take responsibility for their choices.

Mr. Sandeen also raises the straw trans man argument.  That is, he raises the straw argument of "what about trans men?"  If someone has been on testosterone long enough, then they should simply use the men's room.  End of discussion.  They look like men, sound like me, etc. They should be in the men's room.  Just like those men who look like men, sound like men, even though they happen to be wearing a dress.  It is a smoke screen, and a false argument.

Intersex individuals are also a false argument on the part of Sandeen.  First off, most intersex people identify as one sex or the other.  And most intersex people usually are credible as one sex or the other, almost always the one they identify as.  So, another false argument.  Mr. Sandeen is grasping at straws.

And no one is suggesting underwear checks.  Another false argument by Sandeen, who certainly would not pass such a thing.

No, again, the answer is simple.  If someone complains, the offending person can be approached by security.  They can discretely discuss the matter with the person, explaining that a complaint has been made.  If the person agrees to refrain from behavior in the future, the matter can be settled.  If the person is a repeat offender, become belligerent, or refuses to cooperate, then they can be arrested on appropriate charges, and/or banned from the property. Having worked retail, I am quite familiar with store policies where shoplifters are served with papers banning them from entering the store for an extended period of time.  The same can be done for men in the women's room.

Finally, Sandeen raises the ID issue.  Again, the answer is simple.  The rules about changing gender markers on licenses should be tightened.  The law was originally intended to help those actually transitioning from male to female.  Anyone who is not actually going through an RLT, and who is not actively surgery tracked, should have their license reverted to their birth sex.  And if someone makes a false claim that they are surgery tracked, after a certain period of time without showing clear progress towards surgery, they should have their license reverted.  They could continue to have their legal name, and current photo, but the sex marker would revert to the birth sex.  And in the future, they would not be allowed to change it until after surgery is performed.  The period could be reasonable, say 10 years, but that would be it.  No SRS, and your license reverts.

Inclusionist? Not exactly...

I have noticed that in addition to using "separatist" as a club word to beat up on those who decline to identify as "transgender," "Cristan" Williams is fond of labeling himself as being an "inclusionist."  Now, I guess that might well be appropriate in one sense, as the word is pretty much made up.  "Inclusionism" is primarily a theological term for a specific view of soteriology (the doctrine of salvation), but it is not a commonly used word either.  So, we have someone who is more properly referred to as a "gender fascist" using a made up word, based on a concept that has nothing to do with the actual discussion, which involves an artificial, highly subjective, political/social construct.  Yes, that Mr. William's for you.  

Now, there are all sorts of problems with using "separatist" including the fact that it is kind of hard to separate from something you are not a part of.  As I have said many times, "transgender" is an identity.  This is a concept that is completely lost on Mr. Williams.  In a comment he made in an argument with someone who does not identify as "transgender" he uses what is clearly a logical fallacy:
Let me pose a question to you: Does a lesbian ceases(sic) to be a homosexual (an umbrella term) if she doesn't self-identify as a homosexual?
Now, I can just imagine Mr. William's smug, self-satisfaction at what he no doubt thinks is a devastating, logical argument.  There is only one small problem.  It is a completely bogus argument.  Yes, "homosexual" can be described, quite properly, as an "umbrella term."  It is an objective term, easily defined, and is, most importantly, not an identity.  And that is where the argument falls apart.  Homosexual is not an identity, is is an objective fact.  

Now, the term "lesbian," on the other hand, is subjective, and is an identity.  Not all homosexual females identify as lesbian.  In fact, there is not clear, universal agreement on what the term lesbian even means.  I have seen some use it as a synonym for "homosexual female,"  while others have defined is as "a homosexual female who specifically has a dislike or even hatred for women,"  Some homosexual females identify as "gay women," declining to be called "lesbian," and they can be quite adamant about the terminology.  So, the term "lesbian" is comparable to the term "transgender," not "transsexual."

Now, "transsexual" like "homosexual" is an objective term.  It has a specific meaning.  "Transgender" is a subjective term.  There are no clear lines defining what is, and is not, "transgender."  For example, are drag queens "transgender?"  What about effeminate men, and butch women?  I have seen some argue that all homosexuals are "transgender" because they cross gender norms.  But such an argument is widely rejected.  Clearly, there is no objective definition for "transgender."  I was, and is, an identity...a social/political construct.  One can choose to identify as "transgender," but it is not a term that should ever be imposed on anyone.

And this is where what Mr. Williams calls the "inclusionist world view" falls apart:
The Inclusionist World View:
  1. We ALL face oppression because our history or our expression violates cultural gender stereotypes.
  2. Our oppressors LOVE our differences and NEVER want our differences to be seen as normal differences (on par with differences which violate cultural norms, eg Look Who’s Coming For Dinner)
  3. Our oppressors use our differences to “otherize” us so that oppression becomes a social meme.
  4. Our oppressors oppress us because they like the power, not because they don’t like our differences.
Okay, the first point is pretty much meaningless.  Anytime someone uses a term like "ALL" it is highly suspect.  Mr. Williams, of course, cannot back that statement up with any real evidence.  He cannot speak to the experience of ALL, but that does not stop him from doing exactly what he tries to attack others for.

The same is true for the second assertion.  "NEVER?"  Again, can he prove this?  Of course, not.  But this is, again, exactly what he accuses others of.  Funny how he does not follow his own rules.  But, that is exactly what one comes to expect from him.

Actually, it is generally the transgender movement itself that seeks to "otherize" (My, but Mr. Williams does like to make up word, doesn't he?) people.  In fact, I have seen people attacked for not identifying as being "other."

All of this is of course, a classic example of a straw argument:

And the final assertion, again one made without any real evidence, is patently absurd.  It might be true in some cases (key word: might) but otherwise, it is a broad brush assertion that cannot be backed up with objective evidence.  Funny, but thus Hitchen wannabe is being sliced up by what he likes to label "Hitchen's Razor."  But, that is not surprising.  Mr. WIlliams likes to define the debate on his terms, which are always slanted in his favor.

Now, of course Mr. Williams would never stop there.  He has rather self-servingly defined his world-view, making assertions not backed up by evidence as though they were absolute facts. So, he now presumes to define his opponent's supposed world-view.  
The Separatist World View:
  1. Transsexuals face oppression because people confuse us with crossdressers and drag queens.
  2. Our oppressors HATE what they view as being strange and/or deviant behavior.
  3. Transsexualism isn’t about strange and/or deviant behavior; it’s a medical condition and has nothing to do with breaking gender stereotypes in our culture.
  4. Our oppressors will stop oppressing us if we can get them to see that we aren’t like crossdressers and that we are instead like intersex people.
This is a gross oversimplification and distortion of people's actual positions.  Of course, only a fool would expect anything better from Williams. 

For example, confusion with crossdressers and drag queens is not the only reason that transsexuals face oppression, but it is a factor.  Those like Williams actually see themselves as the same as crossdressers and drag queens.  They derive a lot of their identity and pleasure from being at odds with society, and they resent those who do not share their...well, perversions.

It can certainly be shown, from evidence, that some people do confuse transsexuals with crossdressers and drag queens, including attributing to transsexuals motivations that are unique to crossdressers.

Does Mr. Williams really want to deny that those he refers to as "oppressors" do not hate what they view as deviant behavior?   That alone would pretty much render his position laughable.  But then he really shows his true colors....

Clearly, Williams sees transsexualism as both strange and deviant.  Of course, this is because Williams apparently himself identifies as strange and deviant and wants to look down on those he sees as denying being like him.  This is part of his obsessive accusations that "transsexuals" are elitist.  The simple fact is, transsexualism is a medical condition, and it is exactly the opposite of violating gender norms. (Again, Williams' use of "stereotypes" shows more about how he thinks.)  

And finally, he basically tries to make an assertion that education is not going to help transsexuals when time, and time again, the opposite has proven true.  In fact, it can be shown that for many years, transsexuals were often viewed more favorably before the transgender extremists started trying to co-opt them.  The situation was not perfect. but it was better than it is now.  

No, Williams calling himself an "inclusionist" is an attempt to hide what he really is.  A much more appropriate term is "gender fascist."  While he makes self-serving statements to the effect that he does not wish to force an identity on anyone, in practice, he shows the opposite.  He mocks those who decline to be labeled as transsexual, tries, in vain, to argue that they are simply denying what they really are, and attacks anyone who dares stand up to his silly attempts at debate.

Saturday, January 21, 2012

The Bathroom Issue, Again

It should be no surprise that "Autumn" Sandeen is again ranting about how men should have the right to invade the women's room.  He is bringing up the issue this time by implying that it is a civil rights issue comparable to Jim Crow laws.  This, of course, should not be surprising since Mr. Sandeen sees himself as the transgender Martin Luther King, Jr.  

The problem is, his views on this issue tend to prove that Sandeen is not a woman, trans or otherwise.  You see, in addition to the very real danger having men free to invade women's restrooms poses, there is another issue that is totally lost on men like Sandeen.

The women's room is, for real women, one of their very few places where they can find sanctuary from men.  And, of course, men like Sandeen want to invade this space.  They cannot comprehend that their might be legitimate reasons they are not welcome.  Ironically, it is the right to privacy, that is often cited in issues like gay rights (sex between consenting adults in private), abortion (the Roe v. Wade ruling is based on a right to privacy), and such.  For women, having a right to exclude men from the women's room is a privacy issue.  

The simple question, that has to be answered, is does one group's rights override another group's.  In some cases, the answer is simple.  Clearly, the rights of various races overrode the rights of a single race with regards to Jim Crow laws.  While the laws were primarily aimed at African-Americans, they could be extended to exclude others.  There were solid arguments for eliminating racial discrimination, not the least of which is that race is inherent, and not a matter of choice or behavior.  Another good argument is that there was not a legitimate basis for such laws, other than simple prejudice.  Some people did not like having to share space with people of another race.  There was not rational basis for such a choice, so it had to be denied legal status.

Clearly, we do need to make provision for those who are legitimately transsexual, as this is an actual medical condition.  But, we do not need to pander to the hobby of the transvestite, and the delusions of men like Sandeen.  As I have suggested before, for most transsexuals, this is not a problem.  I have never been challenged in the women's room.  In fact, it is not really a problem for those who actually make an effort to credibly present as a woman.  But I also waited until I was sure I would not cause a disruption in the women's room before I actually made a practice of using one.  I started out going to ones that were not heavily trafficked.  Then, as I became more confident, I would pretty much go in, use it, and get out as discretely as possible.  Then, finally, when I knew I would not have any problems, I just joined the rest of the women in going, and when appropriate checked my hair and make up, and even rested in the lounge area some provide.  

But, I did not see the women's room as something I had an absolute right to invade, nor did I see it as something of a challenge to be conquered.  I got no thrill out of being there.  It was simply a part of living my life, and once I was sure that my presence would not upset others, I moved on.

Sadly, those like Mr. Sandeen are more interested in deconstructing gender, destroying the binary, and otherwise eliminating societal standards that they simply don't like.  And they don't care how many women are hurt in the process, as long as the boys in the transgender club get their wayA

Now, if we apply these legal standards to transgender males invading women's spaces, things begin to fall a bit short.  Even if we set aside the risk of improper behavior (the fact that it is currently rare does not mean it cannot or will not increase as opportunities increase) we still have the privacy issue.  Now, most women, including myself, are very uncomfortable with the idea of sharing the women's room, and other women's spaces, with men.  I have no problem with someone who is a valid, surgically tracked transsexual who is undergoing the real life test being in the women's room, but I do have objections to crossdressers, and other transgender males invading my privacy.

Now, another issue that much be considered is whether or not transgender behavior should be protected by law.  Well, it fails right off the bat.  It is often only behavior.  Clearly, a transvestite (or crossdresser if we are going to be politically correct) does not have to crossdress.  They are not acting on the basis of an inherent characteristic.  They may become anxious if they do not crossdress, but there is nothing that arguably justifies their imposing this behavior on others to the extent that they should be allowed to violate the rights of women.  So, clearly, transvestites should not be allowed to invade the ladies room.

The next group that has to be considered is full-time crossdressers.  This would include men like Sandeen, who has made it clear that he has no desire to actually change his sex, though he does want to force society to pander to his delusions and call him a female legally.  Now, I wonder how the vast majority of women would feel about Mr. Sandeen being present in the women's room.  His behavior is hardly female, and he is clearly male brained.  Personally, I would not be comfortable sharing a rest room with him.  I imagine I am hardly alone in feeling that way.

And let's consider the larger implications of the sort of laws that Sandeen others push.  They are not content to have laws that address the issue of transgender people in bathrooms.  They want laws that are so broad that they would effectively open up the women's room to anyone, provided that they simply make the claim that during the period that they were in the women's room they were identifying as a female.  It would not matter how they were dressed, whether they were clean shave, or sporting a full beard, or whether they had a feminine hairstyle, or a crew cut.  They simply have to say, even if only momentarily, I FEEL LIKE A WOMAN.  and as if by magic, they are allowed to legally enter the women's room.  Clearly, unless it could be shown that they engaged in some over the top behavior (i.e. they raped or killed someone, or perhaps groped a woman) they would be immune from challenge.

It would not matter how much their presence upset women.  After all, we would just be unreasonably prejudiced.  Of course, as I have pointed out, Sandeen is not a woman.  The feelings, needs, and security of women is not his concern.  All he cares about is the alleged "rights" of him and other men who engage in the same behavior as he does.

Friday, January 20, 2012

Another Perfect Example...

Ah, "Cristan" William's website is the gift that keeps on giving.  Even when Williams is not posting questionable claims, and suspicious evidence to back them up, his eager followers can post some pretty hilarious silliness.  Here is one from a person going by the name Tess McGowan that just shows the absurdity of the transgender mindset:
I was just going to post something like this. We never get to see the faces of separatists because they live in seclusion until they get their surgeries in the hopes that they can live a “normal life”. However, once they get their vaginal surgeries, many of them will walk the earth still having masculine traits (physical and mental) because they have NO IDEA how to live as a woman. It’s quite funny and sad if you think about it, the fact that these people have such high hopes that vaginoplasty will somehow magically change their lives when it’s just one milestone.
I giggle at separatists.
Now, this shows the sort of invincible ignorance that permeates the transgender extremists.  I don't know anyone who lived in seclusion before getting their surgeries.   I suspect what this person means is that some live in stealth, not participating in silliness like gatherings such as "Southern Comfort" or "Fantasia Fair," and not having one's photo published on some of the sillier web sites.  In another words, they simply transitioned and completed a proper Real LIfe Test.  My life was pretty normal before and after surgery.

Now, the really hilarious part is some transgender person making a comment like "have NO IDEA how to live as a woman."  Good grief!  People like Williams have no idea how masculine they come across.  He has a "win at all costs" attitude that is totally male.  Others, such as the example at hand, present as silly parodies of women, "giggling" their way through life.  Actually, it is the true transsexuals who see vaginoplasty as a very important milestone, but I not met one who thought it would do anything other than making them more comfortable in her own body.  And while that may not be magical, it does make a big change in one's life.

I remember cringing at my last examination by my surgeons before my SRS.  Having them sit their and examine that part of my body was pure torture.  I never felt comfortable having it looked at. Not long after that, I was on an exam table with a rather gorgeous doctor taking out some stitches.  It suddenly occurred to me that even as he had his face literally right up in my crotch, I felt no discomfort, no shame, no desire to flee.  That might seem odd to some who is rather attached to his male genitals, but for me, it is was a pretty big change.

Funny though, I didn't have to learn to be a woman.  I didn't have to go to support groups or silly transgender gatherings for the thrill of being taught how to walk, sit, and gesture.  It came naturally to me.  Which had a lot to do with being miserable for the period before transition.

The bottom line is, this foolishness sounds like the classic "more woman than you" silliness that is so popular with transgender people.  They don't get either or a woman, or you are not.  Their is not quantification of being a woman.  One is not a certain percentage of being a woman.  It is not something you learn, or build up points towards.  You simply are, or you are not.

Wednesday, January 18, 2012

Missing the Point...

I love it when the gender fascists show that they really just don't get it....

In a recent post, "Cristan" Williams, everyone's favorite Hitchens wannabe, had this to say:
To me, this post represents the epitome of what’s wrong with TS Separatism. The credulity, the belief that only post-ops can have valid experience, views and/or voice and the hierarchical elitism… It’s just wrong on so many levels.
Okay...  The problem is.....all together now, IT'S A STRAW ARGUMENT!!!!

Yes, it is yet another straw argument from a gender fascist.  First off, the issue is not post-op versus pre-op, as all post-ops were once pre-ops... Well, DUH!  The issue is men, with intact penises, which they have NO desire to be rid of, who act like men (even in some cases where they claim to be fully post-op), who show not the slightest indication that they actually have a clue what being a woman is, trying to tell true transsexuals how they have to think, what they must call themselves, how they can feel, what they are allowed to believe, etc.

Now, there are those who claim to be "pre-op" but who are clearly non-op.  "Autumn" Sandeen went from being an avowed non-op to claiming to be pre-op (and desperately trying to deny ever being a non-op) to falsely claiming to be "fully" post-op (by redefining the meaning of post-op) after becoming a eunuch.  He now sort of, kind of, tries to suggest that he might have further surgery...after making it clear that he had no plans to.  Another good example is former avowed non-op "Monica" Helms who decided to claim to be surgery tracked (well, if the stars all aligned correctly, and he could get the VA to pay for it, and well, I guess if Hell froze over, and pigs start flying....whatever)  Of course, in all this, he attacked post-ops repeatedly.  Oh, and so did Sandeen...  Yeah, sure, and Mr. Williams wonder why people don't give them any credence?

And hierarchy?  Hardly.  How can there be a hierarchy when there is nothing in common.  It is those, like Sandeen, Helms, and other members of the boy's club, who feel the need to lie in order to gain some sort of imaginary credibility.  

And finally, there is no elitism.  Just a simple observation that there really is a difference in men and women.  And that some ho wish to claim to be women are simply delusional at best, and seriously insane at worst.

Tuesday, January 17, 2012

Now This is Kind of Weird....

On the one hand, we have "Autumn" Sandeen....  He is just all upset because RuPaul made some nasty remarks about how transgender people should just get over their objection to being called a "Tranny."  In fact, Mr. Sandeen is so upset that he insists on spelling it "Tr**y."  Ironically, that bit of absurd theater sort of plays into RuPaul's arguments. 

On the other hand, we have none other than "Cristan" Williams defending the word.  Which is actually not that surprising since more often than not, Mr. Williams acts more like a misogynistic male than anything else.

Now, the word is an insult.  It is a diminutive for several words that begin with "trans."  I don't care for it personally, when it is used to refer to transsexuals.  I don't care for the way that many transgender kooks want to demand the right to use it to refer to themselves, but expect everyone else to not use it.  I also don't care for the tendency among African-Americans to use a certain term commonly referred to as the "N-word" to refer to each other.  I grew up in the South, and I saw the pain that word can cause.  Using it, whether you are white, black, or any other race, is not cute.  It is not clever.  It is not empowering.  It is just nasty.  It is a hateful word.

"Tranny" is not in the same class as the "N-word."  It is an insult, but it does not carry the long history that some insults do.  I don't like, I don't think people should use it, but I also think that transgender people should stop trying to play the victim.

Let's be blunt.  Transgender people, like Sandeen, and Williams, and any number of others, are trying to act in a way that they know is contrary to societal norms.  They are not expressing their true gender, but are trying to force people to accept them as something they are not.  They have NO desire to leave their pasts behind, and simply move into society as women.  They want to be transgender, not simply women.  They take delight in society's discomfort with their behavior, and enjoy nothing more than forcing people to smile, and act like they are really women, even as they look, act, and, let's be honest, identify as males.

True transsexuals are rare.  Transgender men who want to flaunt their behavior in society's face are dime a dozen.  They need to fact facts.  Their behavior is contrary to societal norms, and they are not making an effort to fit in.  If they insist on acting out, they should accept that a majority of people are not going to be comfortable with it.

A Perfect Example

Well, well, well....  This person who calls himself "Marlene" went running back to "Cristan" Williams complaining about all the nasty things I said about him.  Here is the comment he left:
As usual, the separatists hare having a hissy fit, love. The Just Jennifer blog’s whining and kvetching as if she’s ready to clutch her pearls and have a case of the vapors!
The part that pisses me off the most is referring to you and Autumn and others as “Mr.” because you don’t follow the rules and immediately get SRS.
I’m as transsexual as *that* bitch, but try saving up for surgery when you’re getting $200/mo in food assistance, a $400+ Section 8 voucher, and NO income whatsoever!
This classism has me mad enough to spit in these women’s faces and demand to know now many years they spent in the closet until they could afford their surgery? I can tell you that I was *never* in the closet as an adult, and I paid for it.
These bitches who hide for 30-40 years then suddenly tell their wives and kids “Guess what? I’m having a sex change!”, then have the fucking balls to criticize US because we didn’t to what *they* did? Cowards, bullies and hypocrites!
Now, first off, this sounds more like an overwrought gay male than a woman.  I mean, really...lines like "clutch her pearls," and referring to another as "love."  Oh, and "a case of the vapors. "  It is a very male idea of how women actually talk.

Now, again, this fellow just does not get it.  I don't criticize anyone for "not immediately getting surgery,"  I criticize them for claiming to be women with penises, and making it clear that they intend to keep their penises.  Or worse, for lying about having had surgery when they haven't.  "Autumn" Sandeen, as is well documented, claimed that being castrated was the same as full SRS.  It is not.

And it is rather odd.  This person seems to have some knowledge of Mr. Williams' surgical status that seems to contradict his claim of being "post-op."  I have questioned Mr. Williams' claim and now it appears I may be quite correct in doing so.

No, this person is clearly another person who identifies as "transsexual" and not as a woman.  The attitude is clearly misogynistic, and the writing style shows contempt for women.  Further, I am always amused by someone who claims to be a transsexual whose life is a complete disaster.  I was miserable for many years.  And my life improved when I transitioned.  So many of these "transgender" types seem to think that their life falling apart is "proof" that they are making the right choice.

When I began my transition I took a day to do my name change, a day to get my paperwork changed, and on the third day I found a job.  I have been through rough times, but I have also had the ability to work things out.  Instead of feeling sorry for myself, I went from "no income" to getting my surgery quickly.  

And as to "the closet," this is a LGBT paradigm which has no meaning for transsexuals.  We want to be who, and what, we really are.  People who speak of the closet in relation to being transsexuals are those who want to be something they are not.  They want people to know that they are transgender.  They want to mess with people's minds.  I am simply a woman.  They are simply rebelling against society.

Sunday, January 15, 2012

Credit, Where Credit is NOT Remotely Due

Well, a I pretty much expected, the ABC comedy Work It didn't last long.  Yes, the show that the LGBT community made a big fuss over has been canceled.  And I wonder how long it will be before some extremist tries to claim a victory?  A couple of transgender oriented blogs, including Mr. Cristan Williams' silliness, and Suzan Cooke's Women Born Transsexual, have made reference to its cancellation, but so far no one has claimed it was done to appease the transgender extremists who rose up in anger.

And, if they are honest, or well if they are smart, or well...  Yeah, chances are pretty good that there will be an attempt to spin this as a flexing of transgender muscle.  Except, it isn't.  The show was brought in to replace a show with horrible ratings (something called Man Up) and wound up with even worse ratings.  So, the reason it only lasted a couple of weeks is that it was just not a very appealing show.

I am still very much amused that the transgender extremists, especially those who claim to be women (after all, they have declared themselves to be women, so by hang, they are women and they will kick your keester if you suggest otherwise) seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that the show was far more insulting to women, than to transgender men dressed as women.

Well, it has been an interesting chance to observe them making fools of themselves, fighting a show that was not going to last very long, just so they could flex some muscle.  In the end, they ended up looking rather weak, and the show that they were so bent out of shape over was watched by only a few people, and now it is gone.  If they really cared about the show, all they had to do was wait a couple of weeks.  Instead, they clearly tried to bully ABC, and wound up looking rather weak.  If they try to spin this as a victory...well, they will just look even more foolish.

Saturday, January 14, 2012

Too Funny!!!

Well, "Autumn" Sandeen has his panties in a wad over the possibility that a law might be passed in Tennessee that would forbid "trans people" from using public bathrooms.  The problem is, Mr. Sandeen did not read the actual law.  It would forbid people from using a bathroom the is designated for a sex other than the one on their birth certificate in state buildings.  It has nothing to do with the boys invading the ladies room at the local mall.

In another words, it is a rather silly bill, with limited effect, that affects a state about 2,000 miles from where Mr. Sandeen lives, but he was in a complete snit.   

Mr. Sandeen raises the usual "transgender" crap.  How will this law be enforced?  Well, I imagine that men, who look like men, in dresses, will have a problem.  Those who are credible as women won't.  What about "FTMs" who will be forced into the ladies room?  Uh, does Mr. Sandeen ever think rationally?  If an FTM has been on hormones for very long, chances are there will be NO problems.  Otherwise, using the ladies room would be the more discrete choice.

Again, I believe the simple answer is to pass a simple law that would ban going into a bathroom designated for the opposite sex with the exception of those who are surgery tracked transsexuals.  Therapists would issue a carry letter for those who need it, and there would be severe penalties for abuse.  (i.e. If someone is not surgery tracked, no letter would be allowed) Men playing dress up would just have to make arrangements.

And the truly funny part of all this is, while Tennessee is one of the few states that will not change birth certificates, post-op transsexuals visiting from other states would not have a problem.

Friday, January 13, 2012

Here We Go Again...

Well, "Cristan" Williams, who is vying for the crown of "King of the Gender Fascists" is at it again.  This time around, he is attacking Dana Lane Taylor for, well, for telling the truth.  Of course, Mr. Williams, as is his habit, is playing fast and loose with the truth.

In a post entitled Dana Lane Taylor: I Rise to Your Challenge Mr. Williams ignores what Dana actually said, and proceeds to create his usual brand of straw arguments.  Here is what was actually said:
The Transgender Leadership consists mostly of those who claim a female identity. I haven’t seen a single male crossdresser take a leadership role by lobbying for transgender rights. Almost every one of those who are in these roles identify as women. Now, why would this be? I think it is something a lot of people don’t think about but I bet those leaders know very well why.

And here is what Mr. Williams claims was said:
Today I found that I was the subject of yet another Dana Lane Taylor gauntlet throw-down. Dana is an opinion leader in the TS Separatist group and in this post she seems to claim complete ignorance of any crossdresser leadership within the trans community except for the evil Virginia Prince. Well, as with the last time Taylor threw out a challenge, I accept!
Now, I have highlighted a couple of things.  Dana says "mostly."  This is certainly a defensible position.  Mr. Williams, in another of his straw arguments (unlike him, I am using the term correctly) says that Dana seems to claim "complete ignorance."  Hmmm, now, if Dana had said there were "no" male crossdressers in leadership roles, Mr. Williams might have a point.  Dana does say she has not seen a single cross dresser take a leadership role in lobbying for transgender rights.  While we could quibble over the true nature of some of the leadership, she does have a point.  Lobbying is a very specific activity, which involves going and talking to legislators.  And while it can certainly be argued that some of the leadership of the transgender extremists are, for all practical purposes, male crossdressers I have to concede that is not how they claim to identify.  In fact, there seems to be some tendency, as they move into more prominent leadership roles, to claim identities as "transsexuals," and even surgery tracked while always making excuses why they are not actively pursuing surgery.

And that, quite frankly, is a major problem for Mr. Williams' argument.  It is odd that people who were card carrying members of the "They Will Take My Penis When They Pry My Cold Dead Fingers From It" Club, such as, oh, "Autumn" Sandeen, and "Monica" Helms, rather suddenly decided they are transsexuals, and are seeking SRS....even as they make excuse after excuse about why they are not actually going to have surgery anytime soon.  And no, Mr. Sandeen's highly publicized castration does not count.  He has maintained a touching attachment to his penis.  In fact, Mr. Sandeen's behavior is another blow to Mr. Williams' argument.  Why this need to deceive about the nature of one's standing if being a crossdressing male is really okay.

Dana speaks the truth, and as usual, Mr. Williams tries to obfuscate, create arguments of straw, and generally avoid the truth.  The overwhelming, vast majority of people who identify as transgender are male crossdressers.  They are not people who actually have any real female gender, and who mostly want to play dress up and get off on being in women's clothes.   But, Mr. Williams is a classic gender fascist who tends to insist that transsexuals must accept the label of transgender.  When this is pointed out, he tries to hide behind the straw argument that he is not telling transsexuals that they cannot identify as transsexual.  Of course he doesn't.  He just insists that they must also accept the label "transgender," which is, of course, the original issue.

All of this rancor could be avoided Transgender extremists would just accept:

  1. That some people are not, and do not wish to be identified as transgender.
  2. That transsexuals by and large have NO desire to subvert, transgress, or transcend gender.
  3. That terms like "gender variant" and "non-cisgender" are often highly offensive to people who are transsexual.
  4. That just because they don't really identify as something other than their birth sex and gender, does not mean that others also don't identify that way.
  5. That in most cases they are not as clever as they think they are.
Update:  I have to admit, I was really taken in by Taylor.  This person was a self-deceiving fraud who has decided, after some soul-searching, that his is really "transgender" and is now Mr. Cristan Williams latest BFF...  And a full-fledged transgender kook to boot.  And yes, Mr. Taylor is now a full-fledged member of the "They Will Take My Penis When They Pry My Cold Dead Fingers From It" Club as well.

Wednesday, January 4, 2012

Well, I Watched "Work It."

I watched Work It the new ABC show that has been viciously attacked by the LGBT community as being prejudicial to transgender.  Over all, it was pretty silly.  It plays off of the idea that men suffer because women get special treatment, and of course the humor of men dressing up as women.  It had a few funny moments, but I would be surprised if it becomes a major hit.  Simply put, it is basically a one joke show, and they tend to run out of steam quickly. 

One has to wonder why transgender extremists object to this show, as it has nothing to do with "transgender."  It is about a couple of men who, in order to get jobs, impersonate women, while hiding this fact from their friends and families.  The seem to think that women have it easier.   They are clearly very chauvinistic.  They are clearly clueless about how women actually think, and are constantly acting in ways that make it obvious that they are really men.  Of course, this being TV, the people around them seem totally oblivious to the fact that men dressed as women are in their presence, and they are very happy with this fact.

I mean, really, this is clearly not about transgender people.  Transgender people want those around them to know that they are not the sex they are trying to impersonate.

Well, maybe it is not so odd that the transgender extremists are up in arms.  This show, for them, has to be like looking in the mirror.  The characters are clearly men parodying women.  Just like  "trans women."  They are clearly men, with male brains, thinking they can fool people.  Just like a "trans women."  But they are not supposed to be "trans women."  They are supposed to be men, victimized by women getting jobs that they can't.

It would be nice if the transgender extremists who have wasted time and energy ranting about this show used this as a learning moment, and gained some insight into their own absurdity, but that is clearly not going to happy.  Then again, if they did, it would put an end to one of the funnier aspects of human behavior, and all we would have left is a rather dumb TV show that will run out of jokes in a very short time.