Monday, December 10, 2012

Well, At Least He DID Have A Sex Change

"Gabrielle Monika" Ludwig, a 50 year-old transgender "woman" in Fremont, CA is now playing women's college basketball.  At 6' 6", I am sure this person will be an asset to the team, but I am still appalled by the who thing.  This is just another transgender who has gone too far, but who still cannot seem to give up his life as a man.

Even though he claims to have had "life-long problems" with his gender identity, he managed to have a successful career as a male.  And based on the article I read, it appears he was able to find a surgeon who ignored the SOC and performed the surgery without the requirement of an RLT.  This is an disaster in the making.

He has been featured on the news, and complains because they made him change his birth certificate against his will in order to qualify to play as a woman.  I'm sorry, but this person did not really want to be a woman, just a public spectacle.  Something he seems to have certainly achieved.  He was openly a transvestite while in the Navy (too bad "Autumn" Sandeen didn't know about this guy).

The team, and it's coach have been criticized, and quite rightly.  This person had surgery in July of this year.  The Olympics, for example, require that an athlete wait two years after surgery before competing.  And as I said, at 6' 6" and 230 pounds, she is going to give the the team quite an advantage.

Seriously, is there no end to the silliness that transgender extremists will go to for attention and thrills? 


Black Swan said...

I would look up "Gabby Garcia BJJ" on YouTube--she is a Brazilian Jiu Jitsu champion who has hyperandrogenism albeit a bio woman. If you watch any of her interviews or matches against women she has a clear advantage. She moves and behaves in competition very masculine in her BJJ technique--and she is feared by most male competitors known as the "leg breaker." This isn't my point at all, but it does tell you gender policing, at one point in history, was alive and well with the IOCC and collegiate sports. My points is the arbitrary rules you are suggesting (Not sure is the rule is two years post op vs. two years on HRT and post-op) are clear examples of gender policing. The arbitrary rules created to exclude transsexuals and women who perform at the same level as men.

Gabby Garcia is constantly accused of dossing and pumping steriods--tuff shit she has a natural advantage, and so may Monika in your example. There is patriarchal pressure for women to perform like women with a subtext to never out perform men. This last Olympics showed us that such women who have "natural advantages" out performed men in timed sporting events automatically get called out for cheating.

In your example its obvious and a bit intellectually dishonest to do the same and barnacle the Klan Fallacy to demonize Monika for her desire to compete; cheating by proxy becasue she is transsexual. Wow, I bet if she looked like a girl your tone would change; your pretty = legitimacy politics Your condemning her for lookism and the fact she identifies as transgender than a ripe issue to debate.

Just Jennifer said...

Well, I am not particularly interested in some Brazilian Jiu Jitsu champion. I will say the woman from Africa who made the big splash, I think that people like that should not be allowed to participate in competitive sports. Sorry, but even though it is through no fault of their own (at least allegedly) they still have the same unfair advantage as someone who is taken illegal steroids. And, it should be clear in this case, are dangerous to other competitors. No sir, and yes, I did call you sir deliberately, that is not a "natural" advantage. It is simple fairness. But I know such, and I hate to use this term, but in this case it is appropriate, "freaks of nature" just thrill all you transgender kooks right down to the tip of your penises, but no, they should be restricted. It is, perhaps, a fine line between natural ability, and such exceptions, but I don't think the line is actually that fine at all. In this case, it is pretty obvious.

And no, Mr. Ludwig does not have a "natural" advantage either. He has only been free of testosterone for a few months (yes, it is two years AFTER SRS). Some transvestites take far less estrogen than transsexuals. They just get off on taking it, and are not interested in actually becoming feminized. But, I imagine you well know, that probably even first hand.

Now, all that said, let me set you straight on some things. First off, Mr. "Cristan" William's silliness doesn't carry any weight around here. I would posit that accusing someone of the Klan Fallacy is a violation of Godwin's Rule which is basically that the first one to call another a Nazi loses the argument. While you could argue that the Klan is not the same as the Nazis, I would respond that for all practical purposes, they are the same. Put another way, Mr. Williams is basically a fool and a liar. So, save it for someone who might actually be intimidated by such practices. All it gets you here is to be called a fool. Second, I said nothing about Mr. Ludwig's appearance. That is a rather lame straw argument. Of course, since you are a devotee of Mr. Williams, that is to be expected since that is is usual style. Straw, straw, and more straw combined with ad hominems. Mr. Ludwig is a transvestite, and a transgender, NOT a transsexual. Transsexuals don't go through surgery and then say, "Oh, I don't want to change my birth certificate because I don't want to give up my male past...." Women come in all shapes, sizes, and appearances. I have seen women I honest thought were men at first. Not so-called "transwomen," who are men, but real women who were physically female at birth, identify as female, and who just happen to look relatively masculine. No, I lieve the pretty=legitimate to the transgender kooks who push that, referring to someone who clearly acts male but who looks attractive after FFS and such as "legitimate." I look more at behavior, which may include how one ATTEMPTS to look. Someone who claims to be transsexual, but who doesn't even bother with electrolysis (and I have even met a post-op or two like that), someone who makes no attempt to deal with a seriously receding hairline, that sort of thing...That is the only time appearance is an issue.

No, as I say, this person is simply looking for attention and getting tons of it. He is making NO attempt to actually live as simply a normal woman, and that is what makes him just another transvestite that went way too far. After all, if non one KNOWS his past, the trill is gone. He needs that thrill to keep it all going. That is why people like Mr. Williams, and Mr. Sandeen are out, loud, proud and in people's faces. They get mad if they are called "men" not because they are not, not because it actually denies who they are, but because the person calling them that is not being properly submissive and subjugated to their demands.

Black Swan said...

Dear Jennifer:

This is as easy as flicking MM's off a glass table--like arguments that don't stick. Your use of a childish thought stopping meme like "Godwin's Law" forces me to invoke Cohen's Law: Whoever resorts to the argument "whoever resorts to the that (Godwin's Law) ... has automatically lost the debate" has automatically lost the debate. See the circular logic. It's hilarious when people use Godwin's Law like a mythical symbol of safety. Like a child saying Cooties. Its not a get out of thinking card you can use "Godwin's Law... I win."

Survey said, "BUZZZZZ!" {X}

First off Cristen Williams didn't invent the reasoning behind the "Klan Fallacy" however it is used properly in her essay. I just did that to see if your my intellectual equivalent and I can tell I'm dealing with someone who ain't got game. So, let me break your concentration camp!

So far based on what I'm seeing with your comparison of: "Gabrielle Monika" Ludwig is automatically guilty of....

Being 50?
Being Transgender (being post-op)?
Being Resistant to changing specific (arbitrary) records, Suppressive Correlative?
Being Tall?
Being Formally male?
Gone too far!?
Attention and Thrill seeking!?

I'm not seeing your argument other than what is left over; The first five are factual and inescapable by Ludwig and innocent because of them. The last two are your unsupported opinions-(!?)-ecological fallacy's.

None of what your doing can escape your reasoning from the assumption of "guilt by association with a group (or Klan) you are prejudice to." The rest is BS and conjecture.

Just Jennifer said...

Ah, I am now wondering if you are not a sock puppet for Williams. You certainly sound exactly like him. Same very male style, same silly arguments, same arrogance... Oh well. Godwin's law is only dismissed by those caught by it. You have no real arguments so you resort to accusing someone of being a Nazi, or in this case, Klan. It is, of course, absurdity and the reasons behind Godwin's Law, beyond the obvious of pointing out that the person violating really does have no arguments, is that it trivializes a very real, and horrible period of history. Of course, a vain fellow like you would not even think about something like that. I doubt you have ever come face to face with the Klan. I have.

Now, I personally don't care if Mr. Williams invented the phrase, or he plagiarized it from someone else. In any case, I see that you have close to zero reading comprehension. That, or you are again falling back on straw arguments. It really doesn't matter, either way, you are a fool, so I will treat you as a fool, lest you think yourself wise.

The ONLY that this fellow is guilty of is looking to draw attention to himself, and his history. Age? I mentioned like pretty much any article has. You try to make an argument out of it. Rather silly, but hey, as I said, a fool. Being transgender? Yes, he is. I find it interesting that you seem to think this is a negative thing. But hey, he is, and he identifies as such. No argument there. Just a matter of fact. Now, I suspect you mentioned those first two things as straw arguments so you could try to gloss over the real issue. Mr. Ludwig, as i pointed out, is not interested in being a woman. He is interested in being a public spectacle. That is called BEING A TRANSVESTITE. He is saying, "Look at me, the big tall dude pretending to be a woman. I even had my penis inverted! Whew HOO! I am such a girly girl. See how a flaunt the rules of gender! Pay attention to me!" Just like Sandeen, and Williams.... Being tall. Well, 6' 6" is well beyond the norm for a woman, but oh, yeah, he is not a woman. He wants to draw attention to himself, and what better way to do it than play basketball. No, not really formerly male. more like being a male without a penis. He didn't so much change his sex, as he just upped his crossdressing. Gone too far? This is the sort that, in a few years, will either be making the rounds whining about how he should never have done it, killing himself, or turning into another kook who is constantly trashing transsexuals like few other post-ops with serious regrets. And I think the fact that he is attention seeking, and clearly getting his thrills from it, pretty much speaks for itself.

So, what we have here is another kook, drawing attention, and giving transsexuals a bad name, and he isn't even a transsexual, except in the sense of being a man-made FTM.

Guilt by association? Not even an argument, except one you have crafted, rather poorly, from straw. So, again, a fool! Thanks for the laugh.

So, thanks for playing. Sorry, no parting gifts. Just me having a good laugh.

Black Swan said...

Writing on the wall.

Just Jennifer said...

Lordy, Lordy, transgender kooks sure love censorship! Yes, just another example of how you like to throw your weight around and force people to submit.

Sorry sir, but you don't get to do that here...

But that picture does speak volumes about how inappropriate it is for this dude to be on the court with your women. Now wonder his teammates are smiling. They have no fear of losing.

Black Swan said...

Hate speech deserves censorship.

BTW Cohen's Law invalidates your use of Godwin's Law.


Just Jennifer said...

Ah, foolish boy, Cohen's Law is self-contradictory, a logical fallacy, and a lame attempt to avoid the fact that you have NO arguments.

And only a fool seeks to censor any thing. Oh wait, we have already established that you are a fool. And yes, your comment is BS.

Black Swan said...

Dear Jennifer:

Running to hide behind the talisman thought stopper of Godwin's Law, "Oh, Please protect me Godwin's Law" in Tinker Bell Tones (((Sniff-Sniff))). Here's an issue that will require some tissues for you. Sorry to take your pet HATE from you---you'll get over it.

The puerile insane rely upon such denials of fact. Just because you agree with the particular hate message doesn't abrogate the fact of hate speech in this case. Bullets and bad words cause damage at different speeds like fire, rust and explosion are the same process at different speeds. Let me break it down for the dullards: Hate speech kills.

Nor do those that agree with the hate speech impose any obligation on the publishers to publish hate speech, which is your insanity. They get to change there minds as human do as autonomous beings, making a new decision based on new information. You see there is a thing called public messaging and PR. Out with the bad hate words and in with the good true words.

"[F]eminists taught us since the 1960s, often, the personal is political. Personal hate, when made so public, is hate speech."

Educate yourself:

"Reagan-Bush PC" tropes to discredit nearly any critique of ageism, racism, sexism, homo-transphobia shows your antediluvian interlocutor. Trust me the world isn't flat anymore.

The author's of hate speech are just going to have to find venues that everyone calls hate groups and their publications--that no one reads... like this blog :)

Thank you for your smile,


Just Jennifer said...

Actually one of the main reasons for Godwin's Law is to answer fools who yell Nazi because they have no real points to argue. It i realize e that is lost on a fool like you.

And funny, if no one reads this, what are you doing here, besides acting the fool. And calling anyone who disagrees with you a hate group is another lame dodge. As I said, BS is all you post.

And no, you won't wear me down, and unless you break The Rule, you won't get banned. You will just continue to be humiliated.

Black Swan said...

Sorry Jennifer:

Its already been put to a vote and your on the losing side. Your being a poor loser, rant away--I'm done with this. The news organization self regulated after being called out on it; employees are suspended--teaching them a lesson. Tuff shit if you don't like it.

BTW your relying on a false equivalency again; The reasoning behind the Klan Fallacy does not equal Reduction to Hitlerism. Both are unrelated and cliche' except for their dove tail sililarites their base point are completely different. Unless you can post an authority proving so Cohen's Law holds.

Just Jennifer said...

Sorry, I don't buy into that silliness. Most people would see you as a man. I am a woman, socially and physically. That is the only vote that matters. The transgender kooks are self-destructing. Your boy in Washington State is your future. Keep pushing the idea that you can force your penises on women and watch thins return to sanity. Do you really think most people accept this dude as a woman? Probsbly, you do, as you are a fool.

Ah, foolish boy, Cohen's Law is self-contradictory, a logical fallacy, and a lame attempt to avoid the fact that you have NO arguments.

And Cohen's Law is a joke, literally. It contradicts itself, so it is a fallacy. But I realize that is lost on you.

Black Swan said...

How do you know I am a man? As you I'm physically female all identification changed. Or was this the only bullet you have left?

Just Jennifer said...

ROTFL! The only person you are fooling is yourself. Like many, you are not really aware of your own behavior. You are so male. Surgery, if you had it, was wasted.

You are no more a woman than "Autumn" Sandeen is.

Elizabeth Mitchell said...

I'm aware that this article is over a year old but I just found this blog this morning.

I'm not getting in on this argument here, at least not as far as the basketball player goes.

I will, however, inquire what your credentials are in identifying the gender of a person you have never met. The profile says female and the first verification that it wasn't always that way was given after you declared gender.

Is it the point of view espoused or the syntax or a psychic premonition?

There really are no such things as "male" and "female" views or ideas. A good friend of mine prides herself on being able to go to an anonymous chat site and figure out the gender of the other person without being told. I put her to the test.

I compiled lists of quotes from both genders. The bulk of the female quotes were word for word quotations from my mother. Most of the male quotes came from my brothers and nephew.

When she'd identify a quote as "male" I would ask her the logic. It always came down to "only a man would think that way."

She was 50/50 on the quotes from the actual men. She identified every one of my mother's quotes as male. Based on the views she holds.

A caesarian scar verifies that I spent 9 months in her, too. I wasn't adopted by a man and a "man in a dress," as you call them (which I don't deny you are correct to use it sometimes but you're a little quick to break it out).

Just Jennifer said...

First off, I totally disagree with your assertion about male and female views. That is simply wrong.

To answer your question, I rely on something sorely lacking in most such discussions...COMMON SENSE.