Tuesday, March 12, 2013

If You Can't Beat Them, Co-Opt Them...

Well, it appears that Mr. "Cristan" Williams has decided to co-opt those he has vainly claimed victory over.  Mr. Williams, who has spent quite a bit of time telling us that the transsexual separatists movement is dead, and that we all must accept that our true motivation is really gender transgression, has suddenly decided to embrace the very positions he has fought so hard against.

It appears that he is trying to be a "born again HBSer."  On the Transadvocate site that he apparently inherited, he has posted a link to a video entitled Intersex Conditions Within The Transsexual Brain.  Of course, Mr. Williams, never one to leave things well enough alone has added to the title, making it out to be "Gender Orientation: Intersex Conditions Within The Transsexual Brain," which sort of implies that the video is an endorsement of Mr. Williams' attempts to explain transgender behavior.  Actually, the mishmash of psychobabble that Mr. Williams came up with has nothing to do with the topic of the video, which is simple statement that transsexualism can be thought of as a type of intersex condition.  Not a new idea, actually...it was suggested by a long line of scientists both before, and including, Dr. Harry Benjamin.  In fact, some actually coined the term "psychic hermaphrodites" to describe what would become know as transsexuals.  The idea being that transsexuals have brains that actually female.  Hmmm, what some have suggested as the basis for the concept of Harry Benjamin Syndrome.  Could Williams suddenly have decided to "co-opt" this idea he has hated so much?  Possibly.  He has certainly taken a video from Stanford, added a new "title page" that makes it look like it is an endorsement of the crap he dreamed up, and posted it to YouTube.  Classic Williams....

Another transgender blogger who has jumped on Williams' bandwagon is none other than Suzan Cooke, who reposted Williams link to the video.

Now, in the video, nothing new is really presented.  It is simply a rehash of information on several scientific discoveries that led some of us to suggest the idea of reclassifying transsexualism as a medical condition and not a mental illness.  Gender identity disorder could, and probably should, remain as a classification those cases where a mental, or at least behavioral disorder diagnosis it appropriate.

Funny, but this is the very stuff that Williams, and others, have rejected, but now seem to want to claim for themselves....maybe they realize, they are actually about to face a major backlash.

They haven't much of a leg to stand on.  They have tried to claim status as transsexuals, but when compared to true transsexuals they look, well, like the kooks they really are.  So, maybe they think they can claim the stuff they have rejected.  This could be interesting....

13 comments:

Rosenkreuz said...

So wait wait, gender is back to being a neurological construct? I don't know much about this guy (but I'm reading the relevant tags on your blog as we speak) but why on earth would a gender deconstructionist post material that fundamentally refutes him?


Just Jennifer said...

Good question. Again, this is a person who transsexuals are motivated by a desire to transgress gender. Something is weird in all this. He may be up o something. We shall see.

zemkat said...

Your serious attitude problem makes it hard to attend to the points you're trying to make. What's worse is how you purposefully use incorrect pronouns for Cristan. It's hurtful when cisgender people do this sort of thing......I never thought I'd see people in our own community stooping that low.

Just Jennifer said...

Wow, a comedian.... Let's see, first off, you don't have the standing to tell me I have an "attitude problem," serious or otherwise. I realize that is just your way of compensating for the fact that you don't have the mental faculties to address the points of my post, but no, you don't get to tell me I have ANY sort of problem. Second, no, I don't remotely use incorrect pronouns for Mr. Williams. HE is a man, not a woman. No ifs, ands, or buts... Worse, I am cisgender. Got that? CIsgender. My body and my gender align, as does my gender and my gender expression. And finally, I am NOT part of your community, I am not transgender, and I have NOTHING in common with freaks like you and Mr. Williams. Any questions?

Clarissa Hollar said...

Sounds like another Hater that hates Trans people. Get over it Jennifer. They have not done anything wrong to you.

And for the records .. You are NOT a Ciswoman. You are Trans as well. EVERYONE and their dogs KNOW who you really are. So do us a favor and stop lying to yourself.

Just Jennifer said...

No sir, I do not hate anyone. But hey, thanks for playing...but the correct answer is, I strongly oppose certain radical political and social views held by certain transgender extremists and do not hesitate to point out the fallacies of those views. The issue is not so much someone doing something wrong to me (though Mr. Williams has on more than one occasion done just that) but one of opposition and refutation of a political view. In another words, you and Mr. Williams are full of crap, and I am pointing that out.

Apparently I must have really hit a nerve, as it appears that Mr. Williams has called out his troops. Yes, I am a woman (ciswoman would be redundant) and yes, I am cisgender. Again, my body and my gender match, as does my gender and my gender expression. Further, I would again point out that, contrary to gender fascist doctrine, the term "trans," as you are using it, is a subjective identity that I do not hold. I find it offensive for you to refer to me that way.

And, as you are veering very close to a violation of the sole rule concerning comments on this blog, I would remind you of that rule and suggest you reconsider the path you are taking if you want your views posted. If you just want to attack me, knock yourself out. But you will be subject to being ignored, and laughed at.

zemkat said...

Okay, this is just getting downright bizarre. I was under the impression from this blog that you were born M and are now female, but you don't identify as transgender. That's fine and nobody really cares what you are and what you call yourself. But in your response, you call transgender people "freaks." Are you one of those ultra conservative/way too religious LGBT-bashing kinds of people? I mean, putting aside your own medically history, do you really hate people who have undergone sex/gender/genital reassignment? If this is the case, why do you have a blog that addresses gender issues? Shouldn't you be on one of the godhatesfags blogs instead?

Just Jennifer said...

Ah, I see that you have trouble with basic reading comprehension. Really, major problems in that regard. Let me see if I can make this clear to you, with words that you can make sense of. I do not hate. (Wow, it is hard to keep this that clear for you....) I guess I will have to assume that words with more than one syllable are not beyond you.... (Look then up, if need be...)

Seriously, you apparently are trying to just play stupid. I don't hate anyone. I have strong political disagreements with the so-called "transgender movement." That has little, if anything to do with people who have sex reassignment surgery except in cases where it was clearly a major mistake. (Gender reassignment is impossible, and is a term created to mislead, and genital reassignment is sort of an attempt to compromise.) I do not agree with extremists views, right wing or left. As I have said many times, I am an extreme moderate. Clearly, you are simply so far to one extreme as to have no grasp of reality. Not surprising really,

Yes, a lot of transgender people are freaks, perverts, extremists, etc. Don't like that? Tough. My blog, my words. The people I am talking about would mostly flee from the very idea of surgical correction. They want to be "women with penises." In the rare case that they do have surgery, they still feel a strong need to cling to their manhood. They miss their penis, and come to hate those who have had a successful transition.

I strongly oppose the nonsense promoted by extremists like Mr. "Crisian" Williams, Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen, and even Suzan Cooke, who used to have some sense, but who seems to have lost the last shreds of that in recent years.

I also strongly oppose extremists on the other side, like Fred Phelps. Funny thing, in the long run, I don't really see that much difference in extremists of either stripe. The ultimate goals may be at odds, but teh overall effect is just as bad in either case.

And no, unless you violate the one rule concerning privacy, you won't get censored, just mocked, and laughed at. So have fun. You are just proving one of my points. You really are as intolerant as Fred and the rest at Westboro Baptist.

Anoner55 said...

I found this gem today:

http://www.eastbayexpress.com/SevenDays/archives/2013/03/04/how-did-kayla-moore-die

"Paige-Moore was understandably devastated when she heard that Moore, who was transgender and paranoid schizophrenic, died in Berkeley Police custody in her home on the night of February 12."

Oh, really? Sounds like another trans nut.

Just Jennifer said...

I saw that as well. Naturally, a bunch of kooks are claiming that the police murdered this person even though they have no information to base it on, like cause of death... It is always sad that someone has died, but until more information comes out, making claims, like "murder at the hands of the police" is absurd.

Rosenkreuz said...

Well, well well, looks like the haters are out in force. Well, while I'm sure our esteemed host is more than capable of defending herself from the slings and arrows of butthurt "social justice" warriors, what man will sit by and let a pack of rogues and brigands and paid shills gang up on a lady?

Even though I hate the whole "cisgendered" thing, as does my girlfriend, because it's yet another gender qualifier, with the added pretentiousness of it being Latin-derived, since Jennifer sees fit to use it, so shall I.

"In gender studies, cisgender and cissexual are two words used to describe related types of gender identity where an individual's self-perception of their gender matches their sex.["

Well, seeing that Jennifer has, as she already stated above

[x] a female self-perception
[x] a female gender expression
[x] a female genital, hormone and neurological sex (albeit without reproductive capability, which is not an excluding factor for female sex)

I guess Jennifer seems to fit the bill of "Cissexual!" Because unlike most of the eternally buttfrustrated people commenting here, she doesn't need to identify with the socio-political category of "trans" to gain validation, let alone force other people into it.

Why does it bother you that Jennifer does not choose to identify as "trans" despite her transsexual history? And no, it's not out of a feeling of superiority - it's the fact that "trans" encompasses a large-scale ideological movement aimed at "deconstructing" gender identity, among other things, and people like Jennifer want no part of it. Also featuring a bunch of creepy guys who dress in female clothing, want to fuck lesbians with their penises, er, neoclits, and hide behind political correctness (and no, keeping your dick for longer than the time it takes to get it removed means that you don't get to be transsexual, because what transsexual would correct other male sex characteristics but not THAT one?)


Anyway, I think the whole thing is just a bunch of mediocre personages that want to make themselves important by becoming social justice warriors. So they rally around a label like "trans" so they can always be non-assimilative and always transgressive.

Just Jennifer said...

Thank you, kind sir...

I actually don't care for the term either, and don't use it normally, but it was a rare chance to toss it back in their face. And yes, in my case a more proper term would be "cissexual."

And as to the rest, well put....thank you.

Rosenkreuz said...

Well as you said the cis prefix is redundant; it's just another stupid divider that seeks to divide transsexual people from non-transsexual people while casting non-transsexual people as oppressors.

Btw, I'm not sure how relevant this is but a note on what I said about "reproductive sex": it is ALREADY possible for women of transsexual history to become pregnant. While they can't use natural female mechanisms to bear children, with certain treatments, one can create a fertilized egg using genetic material from the transsexual mother and a chosen father, then with a transplanted womb, have the mother carry the child to term, and then be delivered through c-section. In the future, we will use stem cells to produce wombs, ovaries and even eggs for women of transsexual history. It is possible right this minute, and has been possible for a while. The only thing stopping it is research funding and religious sensibilities.

Why do I mention this - because it drives home the point that transsexual females will eventually, after medical correction, be functionally identical to non-transsexual females (at least if corrected early enough). The only difference will be chromosomal makeup (irrelevant), menstruation (and only the physical aspect, not the underlying hormonal cycles) and fallopian tubes (unneeded in this case, though it may require future women of transsexual history to disclose to their potential mates or think of a nifty excuse while normal sex isn't producing babies). Why is this important to the present discussion? Because the Professional Trans Class needs to trump up perceived differences between "cis" and "trans" in order to keep themselves relevant as the voice of an oppressed population, as opposed to a population that needs to be treated medically. That's the larger political meaning of non-op "transsexuals" - sure they want to keep their penises to bust some cotton ceilings open, but the point of it is to say that medical correction cannot "unother" a transsexual woman, because it can't make her every bit as functional as a non-transsexual woman. Same thing with "passing privilege" - every transsexual who really wants to can pass and assimilate as a normal, even if it may be harder for some due to age, money, etc. Well, science is pushing the extent of that functionality closer and closer.

Once transsexual women can have babies safely and reliably without too much cost compared to that of non-transsexual women, it's game over for the Professional Trans Movement. The final leg for which to block cultural assimilation will be cut off from under the Professional Trans Class. Medical correction of HBS will effectively be 100%, and there will be no reason for them to exist. I find it difficult to think that society would have trouble assimilating transsexual women who have carried and given birth to their own children.

In short, the "Cis" and "Trans" divide only exists in order to make transsexual women different from non-transsexual women so that they cannot assimilate. The fewer functional differences between the two there are, the more difficult this becomes.

Also, uh, I'm not sure if this is appropriate but I've actually started a tumblr blog related to similar issues (if you're unfamiliar with the tumblr community, just know, the TG/TV/gender deconstructionist line rules that place like Marxism-Leninism ruled in the Soviet Union), so if you let me post the link, you could follow it? I dunno lol.