Wednesday, May 30, 2012

A Bit Cranky...

In scholarly circles, the term "crank" is used to refer to those people, usually with little or no actual academic training, who claim to have solved some classic math problem, or to have discovered some new "theory" in physics, or such.  They are, of course, inevitably wrong, and in many cases, their "discovery" is quite imaginative.  Here is what Wikipedia has to say about these people:

  1. Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of acknowledged experts.
  2. Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important.
  3. Cranks rarely, if ever, acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial.
  4. Cranks love to talk about their own beliefs, often in inappropriate social situations, but they tend to be bad listeners, being uninterested in anyone else's experience or opinions.

Well, "Cristan" Williams has now earned that title.  He has dismissed quite a bit of scholarly research in favor of his clearly biased ideas concerning the origins of the term "transgender."  He claims that someone, vaguely referred to as "Dr. Rawson," travelled across the country, to view the Houston transgender archives.  I would assume, following a bit of quick research on Google, that this is "K.J Rawson," who lectures at the University of Kentucky, and who seems to like the word "queer" an awful lot.  While my original impression was that Rawson probably identifies as "genderqueer," I have been informed that the correct identity is "female to male transgender person."

Anyone who has dealt with Williams can tell you that the four points above are dead on with regards to his behavior.  

So, we have a kook who thinks he knows more than real academics now claiming that his research trumps that published in peer reviewed journals.  Oh well...

I would strongly urge Dr. Rawson to take anything found in the archives created by Mr. Williams with a very large grain of salt.

Thursday, May 24, 2012

Not a Woman, But Possibly a Sociopath

Well, now that he has pulled off his "legal" fiction "Autumn" Sandeen is now whining about how he was "cyberbullied".  Now, first off, that is basically a complete load of crap, and second, it shows that Sandeen is not only not a woman, and certainly not remotely a female, but is quite frankly a sociopath, someone who suffers from Antisocial Personality Disorder.  I told in the past how Sandeen actually did cyberstalk me.  What happened with Sandeen was simply a completely appropriate discussion of what, at the time, would have been appropriate steps to challenge an attempted fraud.

ICD-10 defines Antisocial Personality Disorder as someone showing at least three of the following criteria:
  1. Callous unconcern for the feelings of others.
  2. Gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, rules, and obligations.
  3. Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships, though having no difficulty in establishing them.
  4. Very low tolerance to frustration and a low threshold for discharge of aggression, including violence.
  5. Incapacity to experience guilt or to profit from experience, particularly punishment.
  6. Markedly prone to blame others or to offer plausible rationalizations for the behavior that has brought the person into conflict with society.
There is no question that Sandeen clearly appears to meets criteria 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6.  Not enough is known to conclusively state he might meet criteria 3.

Sandeen repeatedly ignores the fact that many do not wish to be lumped in with "transgender, and gender nonconforming people," and yet he continues to use the term "transgender, transsexual, and gender nonconforming people" as though they belong together.  He also has shown little regard for people's feelings in a number of ways, including his cyberstalking of myself.

The second one pretty much speaks for itself.  For example, Sandeen has claimed that his "legal change of gender" would allow him to legally marry a man, even though Sandeen still has his penis and is not remotely a female, or a woman.

Sandeen has exhibited, and bragged about violent acts against people who questioned his being a woman.

He shows no guilt for his actions against me, but is outraged that something for less serious was aimed at him.

And again, he is blaming others for objecting to his previous plan to commit would would, at the time, have been a legal fraud.

Sandeen was able to obtain a "legal change of gender" because transgender extremists have managed to con the state legislature into rewriting state law vaguely enough that there appears to be a legal loophole that would allow a physician to fraudulently imply that a patient has undergone sex reassignment when they actually have not, and more importantly for Sandeen, have disallowed challenges to such a claim.

This last is at the heart of Sandeen's complaint about being cyberbullied.  He bragged online about how he planned to perpetuate such a fraud, and he objected when people discussed taking legal steps to prevent it.  He then stated that he planned to wait until the new law was in effect, to avoid such a legal challenge.

Interesting...Sandeen attempts to do real harm, but thinks HE is being cyberstalked when someone discusses trying to prevent him from committing what would have been a crime.  Well, of course that does certainly fit criteria 2 above.

So no, Sandeen is not remotely a woman, and never will be, but he clearly appears to meet the criteria for being a sociopath.  Of course, I am not a licensed professional, and would not presume to make a diagnosis, but that is certainly how it appears to me.

Tuesday, May 22, 2012

A "Legal" Fiction

Let me start off by saying that I have no objections to same-sex marriage.  I have friends who are married to members of the same-sex, and I was even the photographer at one such wedding.  

But, the law is the law, and "Autumn" Sandeen, who has taken advantage of a loophole in California law to perpetuate what is, effectively, a fraud, is making a claim that is, at best, untested, and is probably a complete load of crap.  Sandeen, who is now claiming to be "legally female" claims that he can enter into a "heterosexual" marriage with a man.  First off, either Sandeen has gone completely delusional, is completely ignorant, or is just plain dishonest.  If Sandeen was able to find some poor fool willing to marry him, it would not be a heterosexual marriage (Sandeen still has a penis, and two people with penises do not a heterosexual couple make.) and I honestly wonder, if such a marriage occurred, if it would be remotely legal in California, or any other state that currently does not recognize same-sex marriages.

I mean seriously, does Sandeen really think a piece of paper changes anything?  If he died, I seriously doubt his death certificate would record him as a female.  If he is arrested, his piece of paper is not going get him a bunk in a women's prison.  He is still a male, no matter what him, his delusions, or a judge in San Diego might say.  And no, his piece of paper is not going to get him admission to women's only space.  

Nope, Sandeen is still a male, and he is still a man.  Even if he decides, at some future point, to go further and have full SRS, he will still be a man.  You can't change the brain, and in Sandeen's case, that is 100% all-American male.  No matter what he wants to claim.

About all Sandeen's silliness accomplishes is an increase in the possibility of backlash against transsexuals who actually are post-op.   

Oh, and apparently kudos to Cathy Brennan, who it appears made an effort to talk some sense to the court, though sadly, she was unsuccessful.

Monday, May 21, 2012

Another Example of Diversity and Inclusion

Transgender kooks like "Autumn" Sandeen" and "Cristan" Williams want to force women with a history of transsexualism to accept being forced into the transgender paradigm, with the latest tactic being to try to sound very reasonable...claiming they just want inclusion and diversity.  Well, here, from a crossdressing web site, is a perfect example of what they want to force us to accept as our, uh..."sisters."
I met a lot of nice friendly people at the IFGE convention, both transsexual and non-transsexual, but the attitude of the Trans-Nazis in attendance was a turn-off.

Did they think they were better women than me because they cut off their penises and ingested hormones?

The Trans-Nazi phenomena was an eye-opener. I always thought we were all sisters in the same boat and should help each other traveling through troubled waters, but some of our sisters would just as soon dump some of us off the side without a life preserver.
There is so much here that is just repulsive.  Uh, first off, womanhood is not quantifiable.  There is no such thing as being "a better woman."  You either are, or you are not...and the person writing here..definitely not.

No, I did not "cut off my penis."  It was skillfully dissected by a group of surgeons, and the result is a very functional, and quite normal looking set of female genitalia.  That, is what makes me a woman.

I am not, in any sense, this person's "sister," and he is most assuredly not mine.  I have nothing in common with this person, and we are not in the same boat.  And if I found myself in such a sad state, I would be the one going overboard, and swimming for shore.

So, no, I don't want inclusion, and I don't want this sort of diversity.

Sunday, May 20, 2012

A Predictable Result

Well, the Miss Universe Canada pageant was held last night, and two things that could have been easily predicted have occurred.  The first is that Jenna Talackova, who made headlines for being a transsexual was among the 12 semifinalists, but she did not win, nor was she among the five finalists.  In another words, she was treated with political correctness in a very predictable manner.  She was also, of course, given that most common of beauty pageant consolation prizes...she was tied with three other contestants for the title of Miss Congeniality.

The other predictable result?  The usual bloggers are already starting to spin the story as having been a great victory.  No, it was "handled."  I strongly suspect that she was allowed to compete simply to avoid a nasty and protracted legal fight that would have possibly been very costly for the pageant.  And, having been allowed to compete, she was given the honor of being a semifinalist, but not a finalist.  Close, but not too close.  

I see no great gains in her having competed.  She essentially sacrificed her claim to true womanhood when she entered a "transsexual" beauty pageant in Thailand, and completely gave it up when she decided to enter the Miss Universe Canada Pageant.  

It is, perhaps, not fair, but all who have been through the process of transition from one sex to another face a choice.  We can live our lives as who we really are, or we can cling so tenaciously to our past that we effectively give up our claim to be anything other than our birth gender.  Sometimes we have to avoid things we might otherwise wish because people might well connect us to our past, and label us as transsexual, or worse, as transgender, because of it.

In the end, Jenna Talackova has accomplished nothing.  She got her fifteen minutes of fame, which she may, or may not parlay into a future career.  But she really didn't break down any barriers, or win some great victory for "trans women."  She was simply handled, and moved out of the way.

Thursday, May 17, 2012

Uh, Not Even Remotely Right....

I wonder sometimes where the transgender kooks come up with some of their ideas.  Take, for example, this bit of insanity from "Autumn" Sandeen over on LGBT Weekly:
Somewhere in between the extremes of people who demand no trans people should have surgery, and those who demand all trans people have surgery there is middle ground that recognizes that no group of trans people really should dictate what trans experience is the universal trans experience.
Huh?  "Those who demand all trans people have surgery...?"  Now, I realize this is in the context of Mr. Sandeen trying to cover up the fact that he is darn close to one who claims that no one needs surgery (he has denigrated those who have the surgery, and implied that we still have penises, etc.) but really, even he can't be that completely ignorant, can he?

First off, I think anyone who identifies as a "trans" person probably ought to serious question the wisdom of having surgery.  If you are that attached to your past, well then you just might miss certain parts when they are gone.  For example, let me be very clear on this...I would never suggest that Mr. Sandeen have surgery.  By beef with Mr. Sandeen is not that he has not had surgery, or that he does not need surgery, but that he has taken to claiming to be a transsexual, and that he claims to be a female.  He is neither, and even if he had surgery, it would not make him a woman.  It would simply make him a man with a vagina.  Like several other transgender kooks who made the mistake of going too far.

No, there are a lot of "trans" people who really, REALLY, REALLY should never have surgery, and more than a few who should not have done it who already have.  Some publicly regret it, others regret it while denying they regret it, but acting in ways that harm true transsexuals.

I know of no one who remotely demands that anyone should have surgery.  Yes, I believe that surgery, including vaginoplasty, should be a requirement for changing a birth certificate in the case of a male to female transsexual.  I think that male to females should at the very least have to have upper surgery, a complete hysterectomy and removal of the ovaries, and the vagina closed before being allowed to change their birth certificate.  I understand the limitations of FTM surgery, and am sympathetic to their plight.

Retaining the physical genitals of one sex, while claiming to be a member of the other is simply dishonest.  But then so is a lot of things Mr. Sandeen tries to pass off on society.

What Sandeen Means by Diversity

In a fawning response to Mr. "Cristan" Williams silly attempt to sound reasonable, his fellow gender fascist, "Autumn" Sandeen replied "Yay for the diversity model of trans experience!" So, the question is, what exactly does Mr. Sandeen mean by "diversity model?" The answer to that can be found in his rather nasty response to Suzan Cooke over at Women Born Transsexual:
Suzan, you talk about being nearly sixty-five, and you talk about idolizing April Ashley.
The type of black and white transsexualism you espouse is basically a form of cognitive distortion.; the type of transsexualism you espouse has been diversified by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) — the organization formerly known as the Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association (HBIGDA) — you might want to read WPATH’s seventh version of the Standards Of Care.
Susan, there’s now way to say agreeably state this: you’ve become an anachronism. The transsexualism you espouse is no longer sustained in the current version of the standards of care for transsexual, transgender, and gender nonconforming people. Whereas pervious versions of the Harry Benjamin Standards of Care were focused on those who needed vaginoplasties or phalloplasties to align their bodies with their gender identities, the current understanding of trans experience is one of acknowledging the diversity of trans experiences; the diversity of treatments needed for trans people to be comfortable in their own skins. But at the same time, these standards of care recognize that those who need genital reconstruction surgeries, to include vaginoplasties, aren’t requiring cosmetic surgeries, but necessary surgeries.
It’s not that many trans people need vaginoplasties or phalloplasties to align their bodies with their gender identities, but instead that not all trans people need vaginoplasties or phalloplasties to align their bodies with their gender identities. In your anachronistic view of transsexual experience, you fail to recognize that your personal trans experience of needing a vaginoplasty to align your body with your gender identity isn’t the universal trans woman experience.
California and Vermont now recognize this in their laws regarding gender identity and changing one’s legal sex. They have embraced the model the State Department uses for changing one’s gender marker on one’s passport as thestandard for changing one’s legal sex.
So does Argentina in their recent change regarding changing legal sex. And at the same time, Argentinean law now recognizes that a very significant number of trans people need genital reconstruction surgery as medical treatment for their gender dysphoria, and their laws now require that trans people who need genital reconstruction surgeries, to include vaginoplasties, will receives those surgeries as a legal right.
What you are espousing, Suzan, appears to me to be a black-and-white, highly defended version of trans experience. What you are espousing is a viewpoint that attempts to take your personal trans experience of needing a vaginoplasty and require it be the universal trans experience for all transsexual people — even when the currently accepted viewpoint of WPATH that treatment for gender dysphoria in individual treatment for trans individuals requires shades of gray thinking in determining what treatments are appropriate for individual transsexual, transgender, and gender nonconforming people.
I’m quite aware that pointing this out isn’t going to change your point of view on transsexual experience. But I believe it’s important to again point out that your community viewpoint on genital reconstruction surgeries/sex reassignment surgeries are anachronistic viewpoints belonging to the sixties and seventies versions of HBIGDA’s standards of care.
And, don’t expect me and a significant numbers of our peers to embrace your black-and-white, highly defended viewpoint of transsexual experience. Call our viewpoints “bullshit” all you want, but at the same time realize your black-and-white, highly defended viewpoints are no longer in the trans mainstream — your viewpoints are no longer what HBIGDA’s follow-on organization WPATH embraces.. 
I identify, for the record, as transgender, transsexual, trans, and female. My legal sex will be changed by California the end of the month, despite what you believe about the importance of the ability for transsexual women to have vaginoplasties to have the ability to experience vaginal sex. 
And, I can comfortably live with that.
Well, this certainly seems to contradict what Mr. Williams is trying to claim.  In Sandeen's "diversity," there is really no place for classic transsexuals.  And yet, he tries to demand that we  accept the label of "transgender."  What he overlooks is the fact that, among other things, WPATH was taken over by kooks like himself.  Several years ago, when the name change was foisted on the organization, they moved away from their original purpose, and became more of an advocacy group for "transgender issues."  That does not make Sandeen's position the correct one, it is just part of the larger political battle.

The fact remains, Sandeen can identify as whatever he wishes, but he is neither a transsexual or a female.  As any number of people have pointed out, he is a rather delusion former enlisted MAN who is viewed by the U.S. Navy as mentally disturbed who has a fetish for wearing women's clothes.  His attempts to desexualize "transgender" are rather amusing, since he himself has an obsession with being "a woman with a penis," which is, quite frankly, something of a sexual perversion.

In fact, it is odd that Sandeen appeals to the Standards of Care in making his argument, as they state specifically "Gender nonconformity Is not the same as gender dysphoria."  While I don't particularly like the term "gender dysphoria," it is the one that was traditionally used by what was know as the Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association, or HBIGDA before they went off the deep end and become "WPATH."  But even still, even they acknowledge that there is a difference between someone like Sandeen, who has neither the need, or the desire to correct their body, and someone like myself, or Suzan Cooke, who does. No, we are not anachronistic.  We are simply not anything like Sandeen, who, it should be pointed out again, wishes to be "a woman with a penis."  Sandeen in a recent posting even goes so far as to try to impose the view on women with a history of transsexualism that they "still have a penis."  And he wonders why transsexuals dislike him so much...

No, this is the face of what Sandeen calls diversity and Williams calls "inclusionism."  

The New York Times Did Nothing Wrong

The transgender kooks have been out in force, blogging about how the New York Times is transphobic for simply telling the truth about a "trans woman" who died in a fire.  They are upset because the Times, according to them, was disrespectful.  The most absurd comment comes from the GLAAD Blog:
Unfortunately, the problem with the Times’ article on the death of Lorena Escalera, a transgender woman of color, is bigger than their “choice of words” or with their attempt to “capture” her story. It’s their failure to recognize trans women as women.
I hate to break it to GLAAD, and all the other "name it, and claim it" kooks out there, but no, Lorena Escalera was not a woman.  This person was someone who wore women's clothes, presented to the world as a woman, probably took hormones, but who was, essentially, a transgender male.  I have seen nothing that indicates that this person had undergone surgery, or that they had any plans to.

This person worked as an entertainer, and as an escort.  In another words, they made their living off of the fact that they were really a male who dressed as a woman.  Sorry, but that does not make one a woman anywhere, except possibly, the fantasy world that kooks like "Autumn" Sandeen, and "Cristan" Williams.

It is sad that this person died, and I am sure that family and friends are grieving, but it is also sad that this person is being used to further an extremist political agenda that seeks to completely subvert reality in the name of some bizarre form of political correctness.

What the New York Times did was the present facts about this person, and their death.  They did not hide the raw truth about how this person lived.  That this upsets the same transgender kooks who attack transsexuals who want no part of their freak show is a bit hypocritical.  Here was a person who was the living embodiment of "transgender."  And they are upset that this is being exposed.  And yet, they complain that transsexual women often desire stealth.  We are attacked for trying to simply live normal lives. 

Once again, this exposes the transgender extremist's real agenda.  It is not about "being who they really are," but about forcing society to accept an absurd view of sex and gender.

Sunday, May 13, 2012

Thanks, But No Thanks!

"Cristan" Williams has put up another post where he tries to sound very reasonable, claiming to only want to be "inclusionist" as opposed to us nasty separatists.  Well, again, the answer is "No thanks."  What Mr. WIlliams keep trying to gloss over is that there are substantial differences in the political and social views that are inherent in the "transgender movement" that he wishes to "include" people in, and those of us who he insists on labeling "separatists."  We simply do not share his political and social views.  We differ from him on major issues, and there is simply no common ground on which we can meet.

Why, he and other gender fascists (a much more accurate term than "inclusionists") cannot accept this is beyond me.  We don't view things the same way, and we want no part of his movement.  Period.  End of story.

And no amount of trying to paint himself as reasonable is going to change that.  Especially when all he is really doing is posting his usual straw arguments...

Thursday, May 10, 2012

A Right Strawy Post...

Martin Luther did not care for the Epistle of James, and once referred to it as a "right strawy epistle."  Well, when I saw gender fascist's "Cristan" Williams' latest attack on Ashley Love, those words came to mind.  Not exactly in the way that Luther meant them, but because Mr. Williams is up to his usual trick of positing straw arguments.  BTW, didn't he declare the transsexual separatist movement dead?  So, why is he still so obsessed with it?  

Anyway, Mr. Williams makes his usual ad hominem attacks, and then issues the following challenge to Ashley Love:
  1. Produce objective evidence proving that Virginia Prince used the word “transgender” in the 1960s or 70s.
  2. Produce objective evidence proving that Virginia Prince used the term “transgenderist” before 1978.
  3. Produce the objective evidence which led Love to conclude that the historical record has been faked.
  4. Produce objective evidence proving that “transgender” wasn’t used in its modern usage back in 1974.
  5. Produce objective evidence proving that the term “transgender” is only 20 years old instead of at least 42 years old.
I suspect that Ashley Love will again, quite properly, decline to engage Mr. Williams.  But, what the heck, I am more than willing to expose him for the fraud that he really is.  This is the same straw arguments he has  made before, and here again are some responses dealing with this drivel:

  1.  An irrelevant, and dishonest question.  The issue is not a person, nor a word, but is a concept.   In the 1960's and 70's Prince was pushing his anti-homosexual and anti-transsexual views.  He wanted to protect his followers from their wives, who would he knew would be upset if they thought their husbands might be attracted to men, or worse, interested in changing sex.  
  2. Prince's use of the term "transgenderist" was a major contributing factor in the rise of the silliness we now know as "transgender."  He began pushing the idea that men who had fantasies of being women could live "en femme" full time.
  3. The so-called "historic" record seems to only exist for Mr. Williams.  His sources are almost all obscure publications that are not readily available.  That, in and of itself, does not provide objective proof.  But then again, Mr. Williams has not really provided anything that could remotely be called "objective" or "proof."  He has provided links to PDFs of what he claims are scans of documents.  The problem is, there does not seem to be any independent objective confirmation of the originals.  Now, this leads to Mr. Williams engaging in a classic dishonest tactic in debating....effectively demanding that his opponents "prove a negative."  He never really proves his claims, but instead relies on demanding that his opponents prove that they do not exist.  That, of course, is both impossible, and dishonest. 
  4. In this one, we actually see him demand that someone prove a negative.  Again, highly dishonest.  He has never proven that it was used in that manner.  Of course, this completely obscures the fact that his point is completely irrelevant.  It is possible, though not remotely proven, that there might have been some who used the term in some manner that resembles the current use.  So what?  That is not remotely a relevant issue to the debate, which is actually about a movement that began to really take hold in the 1990's, and which has, quite honestly, resulted in exactly what Ashley Love has asserted.
  5. Language rarely springs into use suddenly.  Whether or not someone used a word in an isolated context 42 years ago has nothing to do with how it is used today.  42 years ago, the accepted view was that homosexuality was totally a choice.  Even longer in the past, the phrase "woman trapped in a man's body" was used to describe homosexuals.  But no one would insist that either of these are remotely accurate today.  Again, the issue is not about when a word was coined, or how it was used 42 years ago, but is instead about people being forced to accept a label that they are presently uncomfortable with and being forced to agree with concepts that they presently find objectionable.
Once again, Mr. Williams shows that he is dishonest, and has no respect for the rights of others.

Monday, May 7, 2012

A Darn Good Question!

In response to "Autumn" Sandeen's rather absurd post on "trans women's shame" a person who goes by the name of "Miz Know It All" has posed a rather fascinating question for Mr. Sandeen....
Autumn I want to thank you for opening my eyes!
Before this I was a deluded fool. I had these clearly erroneous thoughts that I was somehow just a female when I clearly am not! Thank you Thank you Thank you! Now that my eyes are open I am going to shed my shame and start proclaiming my trans-enss to the world! But before I do… would you mind telling me how do you think should we should refer to you Autumn Sandeen? Should we follow your Gladd Media Guide and refer to you as the “gender” you identify as, though all our senses say otherwise? ” Do we say Yes Ma’am! No Ma’am” to your face, with a wink wink nudge nudge titter titter the moment your back is turned? Or should we just go with what is clearly there for the sake of “trans-honesty… “”Hey Buddy! Yeah you! You over there in the dress with the ratty hair and the goofy beret! Get a job!”
I mean, the ONLY reason I would even bring that up is that by your rather comprehensive postulations on trans-shame. Shouldn’t you, as the activist and a leader in the community be proud of your being a man! After all Autumn, you still have a functioning god given phallus, you fathered children, you were married in the Catholic Church to the woman who bore your children and you passed Navy medicals for twenty years as a man. So it stands to reason that as you have been recognized as such by pretty much every social structure there is, you are indeed a man!
So why is that not part of your trans-shame list? Why is it that my wanting to be a normal woman, an act of such intense shame, when your pretending that you are something you clearly are not (female) is an act of strength and courage? Get real Autumn You really can’t have it both ways you know. If we are as you say never to be ‘real” women, then as the morphology is rather limiting we are men. And in that same vein, if you and we are the same as you say we are, then ergo. you too ARE male! So why not go with it? Fess up! Be a man! Stand up and be loud and proud of your proclivity for gender f*****g as a dude! Well albeit a ball-less one these days! I mean why not march yourself into the nearest men’s room and proclaim loudly your right to use these facilities as a man in a dress! A man who has every right to dress and act however he wants and to pee freely when he needs to!
Oh but that is not going to happen is it? If you use the mens room dude then your fantasy would be broken. You couldn’t as a man then stand behind Janet Mock, or Jenna Talackovaand saying I am just like “Her” because, well according to you she ain’t a she! She’s a he, you know, just another dude, dude!
 Darn, and it was such a grand idea too! C’est la vie!
Now, I seriously doubt this question will actually be answered by Mr. Sandeen, and to be honest, I also doubt it will be around for very long.  I rather strongly suspect that the post will quickly disappear, and the person who posted it will quickly disappear.

But this raises questions that should be answered.  More than anything I have seen, this really exposes the nasty things crawling around when you turn over the rock called "the transgender movement."  And still, some fools actually wonder why we don't want to be associated with that label...

Postscript:  Some kook calling him/herself "Penny G" posted a comment on Mr. Sandeen's blog claiming that I posted this "full nine minutes before it was ever viewable" on Pam's House Blend and then goes on to reach the incorrect conclusion that I am Miz Know It All.  Nope, I am not said person.  I read the comment on Mr. Sandeen's blog, and copied and pasted it into mine.  I suspect this person is a rather vicious cyberstalker who has been attempting to harass me for years, and is doing this as part of his obsession with me.  But no, I don't post comments on Pam's House Blend, and unlike "Penny G" I don't post as sock puppet.  If I am not mistaken, that person also tried to harass me when I commented on Mr. Sandeen's column at "LGBT Weekly."  In fact, I think that person got himself moderated there for a rather nasty comment that attempted to "out" me.  

In any case, as someone else pointed out, it could (and in this case is, due to differences in time zones).

Post-postscript:  Well, as predicted, Mr. Sandeen has censored Miz Know It All's comment, and coward that he is, he did it without even offering an explanation.  It simply "disappeared."  Of course, he can't answer her question.  And irony of ironies, he left the kook Penny G's comment, which now stands without context, but which does still contain a link to here, so anyone can still see the question Mr. Sandeen is so afraid of.

Oh, and a reminder...unlike most, if not all, transgender kook blogs, I don't censor messages unless they involve privacy violations, or, perhaps, involve unwarranted attacks on other people commenting.  Which is why most of the kooks will bother answering stuff here.  They are terrified of dealing with an even playing field.  If they can't control the debate, they know they will lose.  

Thursday, May 3, 2012

Hoist By Her Own Petard

Suzan Cooke, who can't seem to make up her mind whether she wants to be a "transsexual separatist" or a "transgender apologist" posted a story yesterday about a "transsexual" woman who was cited for using the women's room at Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas, Texas.  To make matters worse, Cooke included a taunt aimed at the "HBS Sisters of Transsexual Purity:"
Do the HBS Sisters of Transsexual purity who side with the radical feminists and the ultra right wing Christo-Fascists want people in treatment, with Doctor’s letters stating they are on hormones and in transition to be denied restroom access.
The short answer, of course, is "No."  The long answer is, "Whoops, someone got hoist by her own petard...."

It seems that this person's story has turned out to be more than a bit questionable.  Now, first off, I have to point out that it is highly curious that this person is initially identified as "transsexual" instead of the usual "transgender."  Given what has come out, that raises some questions.

Well, right off the bat, at least one commenter to Cooke's blog smelled a rat.  Cooke continued to try to defend the story, but then the details began to roll in...  The first clue was the fact that this "transsexual's" carry letter was dated after the citation was given.  In another words, this person did not have a letter at the time they were cited.

Another issue was the fact that this person claims to be in transition for six years but they have not had a name change.  And it should be noted, getting one's name change is not at all difficult in Texas.  This person, who is both legally, and physically male, claimed to be at the hospital with "her" husband.  Uh, that's just not possible in Texas.

Up to this point, Cooke was making every effort to keep defending this person...then things got really interesting.

It turns out that that the person involved is on the sex crime registry for molesting under-age girls.  Isn't this the sort of thing that the transgender kooks claim never happens.   So, the bottom line is this:

A person who has made questionable claims about being in transition for six years, falsely claimed a husband, and who is a registered sex offender was caught using the ladies room.  This person lied about having a carry letter, producing one obtained after the citation was issued.  

So, no, as I have said before, I have no problem with someone who is legitimately in transition using the ladies room.  But, I do have a problem with someone who is clearly a fraud doing so. 

Wednesday, May 2, 2012

You Really Can't Make This Stuff Up...

This has to be one of the silliest things I have read in quite some time. If there was any question that "Autumn" Sandeen is a man, this puts it to rest... He has put up a
"A Shopping List Of Trans Women’s Shame."  That is, a list of things that Mr. Sandeen thinks that "transwomen should be ashamed of.  Now, as I have pointed out many times, the term "transwoman" is an oxymoron.  That is, it is a contradiction of terms.  You can be a woman, or you can be "trans" but you cannot be both...  So here are some highlights from the list:

1. When someone says to us they’d no idea that we’re trans, we feel complimented.

     Well, of course one feels complimented.  Why would this be a "shame?"  Unless, like Mr. Sandeen, you actually are a man....

2. When someone says to us they’d guessed we’re trans, we’re heartbroken.
     Again, why bother transitioning if you are just going to be seen as a man?

7.  We avoid discussing our dicks.
     Why do I suspect that this is one of Mr. Sandeen's favorite topics to discuss?

8. We avoid discussing taking hormones with nontranssexual people.
     Perhaps because they are really not that interested?

9. We avoid discussing our operative status with nontranssexual people because we don’t want to be thought of as men — no matter what our operative status.
      don't know about you, but I am beginning to suspect that Mr. Sandeen wants to be seen as a man....

10. If we haven’t had a vaginoplasty at this snapshot in time, we avoid discussing our operative status with our post-operative trans peers because we feel obligated to justify why we haven’t had a vaginoplasty.
     Well, in Mr. Sandeen's case, it is simple.  They will take his penis when they pry it from his cold, dead fingers....

11. If we have had a vaginoplasty, we grade the shape of our genitalia by how “normal” and nontranssexual these look.
     So, in Mr. Sandeen's mind, having a messed up vagina is a plus?  Really?

12. If we’ve had a vaginoplasty, we don’t discuss dilating and surgery with nontranssexual people.
     Again, mostly because they REALLY, REALLY DON'T WANT TO HEAR THE DETAILS!!!!!  Seriously, Mr. Sandeen, of course, knows nothing about such things, as he is not a transsexual, has not had, and if he is smart, never will have, a vaginoplasty.

13. We convince ourselves after our vaginoplasties that we no longer have dicks.
     Well, simply put, WE (a term which specifically excludes Mr. Sandeen) do not have dicks.  And why we would want to imagine we still do is beyond me.

14. We convince ourselves after vaginoplasties that we’re “normal” women — even though our vaginas have no possibility of lubricating like nontranssexual women’s vaginas do.
15. We convince ourselves after vaginoplasties we’re “normal” women — even though our vaginas have to be stretched with dilator to make the depth as close to nontranssexual women’s vaginas as possible.
16. We convince ourselves after vaginoplasties we’re “normal” women — even though our vaginas will never be capable of passing a newborn through them.
     In these three, we see classic Sandeen.  He hates post-op women, and does his best to belittle us, and loves to denigrate our vaginas.

17.  When we see nontranssexual women who are pregnant, we feel defective.
     I cannot speak for all women of transsexual history, but I know I have the same urges and desires as any other woman.  And yes, it hurts to know that I will never bear a child.  Now, I realize this is foreign to Mr. Sandeen, who is clearly not remotely a woman, and this sort of remark is typical of him.

18. We use “normal” to describe ourselves.
     I would never use "normal" to describe Mr. Sandeen.

27.  We choose to be stealth so that we personally don’t experience employment and housing discrimination.
28.  We choose to be stealth, even knowing trans people who come after us will experience the same discrimination we did early in our transitions — and we do nothing to make their transitions easier than our own transitions were.
     The only real reason to choose to be stealth is so one can actually experience life as a woman, not as a "transgender."  I realize this is a concept completely foreign to Mr. Sandeen.

Seriously, this is the real face of the transgender kook.  This is what they are really thinking, and this is so completely foreign to real transsexuals that I honestly cannot accept "Autumn" Sandeen, and his ilk, as anything other than men impersonating women.