Sunday, August 25, 2013

Breaking New Ground For Gender Fascism

First off, let me state up front, I am not interested in debating whether Manning is a hero or not.  As to whether Manning is a transsexual, transgender, or just a deeply disturbed gay man, that remains an open question.  I want to deal with something a bit more concrete.

Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen, the man for whom I first coined the term "Gender Fascist" has gone to a new extreme.  In posts in several locations, he has attacked Manning because Manning did not transition in a manner that Sandeen has declared necessary.  Seriously.

In the article, which is posted on Transadvocate, Mr. Sandeen makes it clear that he disapproves of Manning's conduct with regards to to giving secret documents to WikiLeaks.  He begins by making a rather self-aggrandizing statement about how he is going to respect Manning's desire to be referred to as "Chelsea" based on teachings he "learned as Pentecostal youth," even though he has apparently embraced atheism as an adult.  This is apparently part of his ongoing harassment and stalking of me.

Having puffed himself up in this manner, the then begins his attack on Manning:
But as I respect her name and identified gender, I’m cognizant that Chelsea didn’t respect the trans community — the trans community of which I am a part — in how she came out.
So, apparently Sandeen has appointed himself arbiter of how someone must come out, and of course Mr. Sandeen does think they have to come out.  But, apparently, he expects to be consulted first:
As I read Chelsea’s announcement, I was struck that the thrust of her statement was about her wants and needs, and that there was no mention or consideration of the impact of her statement on other trans people. For example, Chelsea mad her announcement without warning to LGB and especially T community leaders even as she put LGBT community leaders the in the position of defending her gender identity. What she did was put the responsibility of defending her chosen name and preferred pronouns on LGBT non-profits and trans community activists who weren’t fully aware of if, when, or how she was going to publicly announce she has a female gender identity.
One of my biggest problems with Mr. Sandeen, and a number of other transgender extremists, is how they show no regard for how their positions might affect transsexuals who are not interested in being linked with their perversions.  But here is Mr. Sandeen, apparently upset that he was inconvenienced by Manning's announcement.

Part of the irony here is how Mr. Sandeen has no regard for the very real problems will Manning will face if Manning really is transsexual.  Granted, Mr. Sandeen has no personal experience of such issues, but still, his arrogance is amazing.

But Mr. Sandeen goes on to make an even more outrageous statement:
To me, it’s notable that Chelsea made her announcement that she was a woman without publicly using the terms trans, trans*, transgender, or transsexual to describe herself, or acknowledge she was part of a community that were going to be defending her gender identity.
I don't know, but perhaps Manning has the good sense to not want to be associated with extremists like Mr. Sandeen.  Of course, to him, and his ilk, that is the unpardonable sin.  One must be willing to be a part of the "community."  

And the arrogance continues:
There is no honor in harming the community to which you are entering.
And, there is no honor is announcing the new name Chelsea wishes to be addressed by and her gender identity without considering how the timing of her announcement may impact efforts for open military service for trans people in the service. 
I don’t know about anyone else, but I see a pattern of behavior where she doesn’t consider the consequences of her actions…to include the impact her behavior has had and is having on others.
Finally, Mr. Sandeen goes on to attack Manning's actions in revealing having a gender identity issue prior to being arrested:
And, of course, there is the courage and commitment thing. Prior to being arrested, she reached out for help to her immediate supervisor, essentially outing herself as trans with the “My Problem” email and inclusion of a photo of her presenting as female. Courage and commitment to further identify as trans to the Army with intent to receive treatment for her gender dysphoria and a discharge could have included going to the next and the next and the next supervisor in her chain of command, or could have included contacting a military psychologist or psychiatrist — contacting anyone with the power to help her until someone in the Army acted or what she described as her problem. (I do believe there was a failure of leadership by her immediate supervisor for not passing on the information up the chain of command when it was a clear call for help, but that’s another issue.) It seems to me that she demonstrated a lack of courage and commitment in how she reached out for help…from the military and discharged from to be treated and discharged by the Army for what was then referred to under DSM-IV TR as gender identity disorder.
Simply put, it is really none of Mr. Sandeen's business when, or how, Manning chose to come out.  Mr. Sandeen should really just butt out of this one, and stop acting like he thinks he is some sort of "alpha tranny" or something.

I knew he was arrogant, but this one takes the cake.  


Nicky said...

Just like Mr "Dana" Lane Taylor, Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen is a control freak. He's showing is true male behavior and his arrogance.

Black Swan said...

Jennifer, if I disagree with you I may post something. If I agree with you there isn't much to be said. In this instance I'm a bit pissed at Autumn for declaring herself police, judge and jury of transition protocol, which I think is the transgender agenda manifested here. You are correct if Manning is transsexual he will be entering a new kind of hell in a male military prison. Sandeen cleaely has no regard for this transsexual reality. I am also withholding my jusgement of Manning as whether he ia a hero or traitor. You hit the nail on the head. Good post.

Autumn Sandeen said...

The fascism reference in this post appears to be commentary that invokes Godwin's law (definitions and here) commentary in invoking fascism.

The lines that seems to apply most from the original info FAQ pate are "[W]hoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress" and "If someone brings up Nazis in general conversation when it was vaguely related but is basically being used as an insult, the speaker can be considered to be flaming and not debating."

Y'know, the only name I've ever called you is "flame troll," and this commentary's use of the fascist reference is another example of why that's the only name I've ever called you. This post isn't serious debating, it's just more flaming from you.

And, of course, you're going to respond to this thread comment because you just can't leave a comment about you alone without responding. Giving you any attention, even if it's negative, is still an effective way of keeping you busy and ineffectual.

Just Jennifer said...

Godwin applies to comparisons to Nazis and Hitler, not fascism. Another example of your grasping at straws.

And of course I took the 60 seconds to answer your silliness. Now back to more important things...