Sunday, September 29, 2013

Mr. "Cristan" Williams, the Cotton Ceiling, and a Big Pile of Straw

It would be tempting, having read Mr. "Cristan" Williams latest round of misdirection and straw arguments entitled "Cotton Ceiling: Uncovering the trans conspiracy to rape lesbians" to just roll one's eyes, and say "Well, he is an idiot..."  But no, this article actually took quite a bit of thought to come up with.  You don't build up that kind of deception without putting at least some effort into it.  No, I think he really knows better.

Or not...  Maybe he is really is that blind to what women actually experience and think that he really does believe his own lies.  Either way, the bottom line is, he is putting up his usual arrogant straw arguments.

In this latest travesty of a post, he actually tries to defend the "cotton ceiling" silliness pushed by men pretending to be lesbians.  What he ignores is the simple fact that rape not only involves force, but can also involve coercion.  And quite frankly, coercion is what the cotton ceiling is really about.

Mr. Williams, in his typical fashion, presents several straw arguments, and attempts a rather clumsy bit of misdirection.  He first bases his argument, quite laughably, on the fact that the matter began with only seven participants in the original workshop where, apparently, the term was coined.

The problem is classic.  How many times have we heard it?  All together now, let's repeat it for the benefit of men like Mr. Williams....  
As in, end of discussion...the matter is closed....go away and leave the women alone.  But, as is so typical, they won't take no for an answer.  They have to "identify barriers" (i.e. THEY DON'T WANT TO HAVE SEX WITH YOU AND HAVE SAID NO!" and then "strategize ways to overcome them" (i.e. "We find a way to get them to have sex with us, or die trying..." and then these idiots think this will "build community?"  I think the message is pretty clear....they are not wanted in the community they are trying to, quite frankly, force their way into, and this effort is pretty much just going to make that worse.  In fact, it clearly has, but these are men, and men don't believe in retreat.

Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I am a straight woman, so my only interest here is a general one in the bigger picture of how other women are treated.  I am not interested in having sex with lesbians, and I am certainly not interested in a "man in a dress."  I like my men a bit more, well, masculine.  Sure, it would be easy to just ignore the whole mess, and let them duke it out.  But I am not one to ignore someone trying to bully another.  

Mr. Williams then goes on and pulls the old trick of putting words in other's mouthes...a classic variant of the straw argument:

TERF: Teh cotton ceiling is all about teaching trans people how to rape lesbians!1!!
TERF: Yeah, Planned Parenthood gave a workshop to teach trans people how to rape lesbians! No means no!
Dupe: That sounds a little strange to me…
TERF: Don’t believe me? Google any of the many, many, many TERF blogs that freaked over the Planned Parenthood workshop! #rapeculture

Dupe: Well, I did hear about how transwomen want to hang out in the women’s restroom…

TERF: Yup, it’s all about rapey rape culture!

Dupe: Yeah, I guess tranwomen are kinda rapey…

TERF: I KNOW, RIGHT?!?! Spread the word!

Dupe: I’m totally blogging about this!
This is typical of Mr. Williams.  He isn't quoting anyone in particular, and the one example he offers simply proves he is misquoting it. 

Even when faced with facts, he tries to "spin" it to sound like women are being unreasonable...

Original workshop description:  Participants will work together to identify barriers, strategize ways to overcome them, and build community. 
TERF Petition to stop the workshop:Planned Parenthood Toronto is helping to sponsor a March 31 conference in Toronto that includes a workshop inviting participants to discuss and strategize ways they might be able to“overcome” women’s objections to these participants’ sexual advances.
I mean, it is more than a bit obvious that the only barrier to overcome is women's objections to these participants sexual advances.  Whether you are male, female, transgender, transsexual, or a woman born woman....NO MEANS NO!  End of discussion.  Back off.  Go away.  Stop trying to have sex with that person.  But, some, particularly men, don't seem to get this.

He goes on in this vein, attempting, quite lamely, to make transgender men the victim of a "TERF" conspiracy.  Funny, but he just can't seem to accept that simple fact...

 End of discussion.

Wednesday, September 25, 2013

Who Really Hates Who?

I'm sure many, if not most are familiar with the ongoing conflict between Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen and me.  Or, for that matter, between Mr. "Cristan" Williams and those he labels as "TERFs," or between any transsexual who dares challenge transgender dogma and various transgender extremists.  The one common thread among all of these things is accusations of hatred.

For example, Mr. Sandeen has accused me of hatred because I have mentioned him, according to his claims, over 130 times.  Now, let's consider this.  I write a blog dealing with issues of interest primarily to those who identify as true or classic transsexuals.  Mr. Sandeen has largely positioned himself as a major blogger among a faction that pretty much opposes the concept of true or classic transsexualism.  So, it is natural that I would comment on much of what he writes.  What he is objecting to is the analysis and refutation of the positions he, and others, take on those issues.

One of the factors that led me to start this blog was the often heavy handed censorship I found on "transgender" blogs.  Simply disagreeing with transgender dogma could get a person quickly banned, especially if they were effective in making their points.  Mr. Sandeen in particular became well known for his severe censorship on Pam's House Blend.  You didn't even have to violate the rules there.  I was banned because of stuff I wrote on my blog here.  

Now, I don't tell Mr. Sandeen what he can, and cannot write.  I have never censored his comments here, and I have not tried to dictate to him what he can write, but he has done that to me, repeatedly...and has begun resorting to threats in his attempts to make me submit to his will.
As I said, if keep up your behavior you should be prepared for escalation. The status quo is not acceptable to me now. I'm done with you being comfortable in your bigotry and hate.
So, exercising my free speech and responding to what he says, while exercising his free speech rights, is bigotry and hated?

Sandeen has a history of violence.  He has admitted to harassing women online.  Here is a link to what he was forced to apologize for.  And yet, he has the audacity to question why I would object to meet him in person?  He has a history of cyberstalking me, and has escalated the efforts over time.  I don't think my reaction to his demand to meet face-to-face is at all unreasonable.  And when I made it clear that such would not be tolerated, he tried to suggest, with no basis, that I was the one threatening violence because I said I would take legal steps if he tried to make contact.
You, Jennifer, can threaten me all you want. Does your threat mean that if I attended a service at your church you'd hit me? Is violence what you're threatening?
I found this just a bit disingenuous, as I have repeatedly pointed out to Mr. Sandeen that my purpose was not to threaten, but simply to avoid personal contact, and that I would take only take legal steps if he tried to approach me.  I suspect he knows better, but is trying to make himself look like a martyr.

Mr. Sandeen takes great umbrage at what he calls "misgendering" (the transgender kooks do love their neologisms) but he has no problem at all with people forcing the label "transgender" on people who reject it.  As I have pointed out, I refuse to call someone "female" who clearly is not.  I do not buy into the magical, "name it, and claim it" approach that the transgender extremists push.  But, at the same time, I do not demand that anyone refer to their self in any particular manner, or that they refrain from referring to their self in any particular manner.  I may not see Mr. Sandeen as a woman, and I may firmly make this clear, but I have never insisted that Mr. Sandeen must call himself a "man."  Or that he can't refer to himself as "transgender."  I have called him on the fact that he falsely claims to be a transsexual, but I would never insist that he refrain from using that term.  But, Mr. Sandeen is closely aligned with those who try to insist that people must accept the label "transgender," even if they find it offensive to be called such.  And he continues to impose such a label on people against their will.

For example, in spite of my disdain, for being linked with "transgender" Mr. Sandeen, in an effort at self-promotion still insists on "including" me in a group I want no part of.  Has blogged:

@terfherder @danaequality @transadvocate I'm with you on community. But we fail when we eat our own -- & irritatingly JJ is one or our own.
Personally, I find it extremely insulting for him to claim that I am part of a community with these three men.  I strongly suspect that @terfherder is none other than long time stalker "Diane" Lask.  He would appear, at first glance, to just be a creepy "admirer," that is a man who is obsessed with "trans women" as sex objects, but the style of his writing is that of Lask, who has a history of "sockpuppeting" (hiding behind fake names).  Same tired insults, same basic style.  If it is not Lask, it is someone closely linked to Lask.

I  can present objective arguments as to why Mr. Sandeen is both male, and a man.  He cannot, however, present objective arguments as to why anyone is "transgender" unless the person in question has unequivocally stated that this is how they identity, and how they wish to be referred to.  I have. repeatedly, done just the opposite, and yet he insists on calling me a member of his imaginary community.

I have also made it abundantly clear that I value my privacy.  Unfortunately, that is not always  possible to maintain on the Internet.  For example, my name was linked to this blog simply because I was not aware that WordPress allows bloggers to see information about the email addresses of people posting comments.  Blogger, which I use, does not allow this.  Early on, I posted a comment on Suzan Cooke's blog, and Cooke "outed" me, linking my "pen name" to my legal name.

In spite of this, I have made it clear that I would prefer that my privacy be respected as much as possible.  But transgender extremists will have no part of this.  For example, Mr. Sandeen has repeatedly used my legal name in commenting about things I have written here.  In fact, he repeatedly attacks transsexuals who wish to maintain their privacy, attacking them as cowards.

There are two, quite legitimate, reasons we wish to retain our privacy.  The first, is that many transgender extremists have shown a very real bent towards violence.  Numerous women, both those born women, and those of a transsexual history, have been subjected to calls for violence by these kooks.

The second reason, is simple.  The vast majority of those who truly are transsexual have no desire to be "out, loud, and proud."  We prefer to keep our history private, for the simple purpose of being able to live our lives as women, not as "former men," that is, as "trans women," transwomen," "women of the second kind," or whatever other term becomes in vogue.  Put in other words, we simply don't desire to be "other."  This, of course, is the driving motivation of the transponder extremists.

I find it ironic that, Mr. "Cristan" Williams, in one of his more recent diatribes, "You might be a TERF if…" includes:
2.) Out transpeople to employers.
Now, I am not a "transperson" but then neither is the person who Mr. Williams uses in his example, but the irony here is, Mr. Sandeen has engaged in just such behavior.  As I documented in my article, "Sandeen Goes Cyberstalking" I documented how Mr. Sandeen mistakenly believed I was employed by my church, and attempted to out me.  Now, some in my church are aware of my history, and others are not.  Mr. Sandeen, in his classic male arrogance, showed no regard for my privacy, but was concerned only with his petty attempts at revenge.

And he engaged in exactly the behavior that Mr. Williams finds so "reprehensible" if done by someone he would label a "TERF."

So, in spite of Mr. Sandeen's claims, it is just as arguable that he is the one guilty of hatred.

Sunday, September 22, 2013

Thank You Mr. Taylor

Seriously, I want to thank Mr. "Dana Lane" Taylor for his article on Transadvocate entitled "On 'Passing' As A Woman."  In this article, you have made very clear the difference between transgender and transsexual.  Even though you have turned against "transsexual separatism" you have made the case for it beyond question.

Of course, this is not what was intended.  The article rather cluelessly expresses what transgender is REALLY about.  Or, perhaps, more to the point, what it clearly isn't.  

Now, Mr. Taylor bases the article on the term "passing," which I also disdain, but for very different reasons.  I have said, more than once, "I don't pass."  I don't mean, as they say, that "get clocked," or that "I get read," quite the opposite in fact.  I simply mean that I am accepted as what I am, simply a woman.  What Mr. Taylor means is, in fact, just the opposite.  Like many transgender males (and yes, he is a male), he does not wish to be seen as a woman, because if he is seen as a woman, he cannot force to acknowledge him as a "woman."  And forcing people to accept him as what he is not, and never will be, is what it is all about for men like him.  And yes, Mr. Taylor is also really a man...socially, and emotionally.

For a transsexual, this is all about being who, and what, we really are....women.  For transgender males, it is about forcing people to abandon reality and acknowledge them as "woman," even though their personalities are clearly masculine, and they retain their penises.

Mr. Taylor tries to dress his garbage up in a false patina of pseudo-feminism, talking about defying "stereotypes."  But, stereotypes exist, quite simply, because they reflect reality.  But the issue here is not about how people dress...when I was approaching beginning my real life test, I could not "pass" as a male.  I had some very bizarre experiences, including being told I was going into the wrong restroom when trying to use the men's room.  I avoided going to lunch with my boss for fear of being called "ma'am" by wait staff.

Mr. Taylor talks about the "harm" that encouraging passing might cause to someone, like him, who is never really going to be accepted as a woman (I suspect that the "male" characteristics he speaks of are not so much appearance as his personality...) but I want to present the other side of the coin, so to speak.

The transgender community has been all aflutter over the fact that a "transgender teenager" has been elected homecoming queen in Southern California.  Great news?  Nope.  This poor child, no doubt influenced by men like Mr. Taylor, Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen, and Mr. "Christan" Williams, has been "out, loud, and proud."  Cassidy Lynn Campbell was even featured in a photo spread, including shots that gave the impression more of someone who still appears very male with a wig, and quite a bit of make-up.  Now, I realize that this person has just begun attending school as a "girl" this school year, and it is still very early.  Presumably, this person was presenting as a male most of the time, until very recently.  But, what really happens when someone tries to take this path?  

Well, here is a link to what this person posted on You Tube after being brought face to face with reality.  Compare this to other videos where this person self-identifies as a "teenage drag queen."  The video might be a bit of theater, or it may be the honest heartbreak of a transsexual who could have avoided this by actually making an effort to be a female, rather than trying to be a "transgender."  I am certainly leaning towards sincere, but I honestly can't say for sure.

Gee, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Sandeen, Mr. Williams, if it is real, I bet you can feel real proud of what your crap really results in.  Sure, for you, and many others, it is really all a game.  But your game, and your trying to force it on others, has real world consequences.  But you don't care about that, as long as you have your "thrills." If you REALLY cared, you would be working to help young transsexuals assimilate, but that does not fit your agenda, does it?

Monday, September 16, 2013

I Wonder...

Okay, the blog Feministing has yet another whiny, and more than a little creepy, post about how those mean old lesbians will have sex with women born women, and even "trans men," but not with "trans women."

The basic gist of the whole posting, besides the obvious "those mean old lesbians won't have sex with me, and they should be forced to" thing is about how this "disrespects" the gender identity of "trans men:"
It’s incredibly undermining to frame sexuality in a way that lumps these men in with all female assigned folks instead of with cis men. It’s a failure, in the realm of sexuality, to recognize thattrans men’s male identities are just as legitimate as cis men’s. If you’re going to base sexuality on gender, better base it on people’s actual genders.
Okay... Well, first off, I find it rather odd that a "trans woman" is presuming to speak out on the idea that "trans men" are being disrespected...especially when, as far as I am aware, few, if any "trans men" are actually raising this issue.  

Second, and more to the point, where is the outrage about all those men, often referred to as "chasers" or "fans" who claim to be "straight" but who not only will only date a "trans women" who have not had surgical correction, but who insist on those "women" performing sex acts that no woman born woman could least without wearing a prosthetic phallus.

These, uh, "straight men" have been known to dump their, uh, "girl friends" if they have SRS, even after long term relationships.  Funny, but I have to wonder, where is the outrage?  Where are the cries of how this disrespects the "gender identity" of the "trans woman?"

Sunday, September 15, 2013

Not Only a Liar, But An Arrogant One

You can tell when someone has successfully refuted Mr. "Cristan" Williams lies...he makes an immediate response.  For example, Elizabeth at Notes From the T Side posted an excellent article entitled Cis-Privilege or The New Transgender Lie in which she proceeds to refute on of Mr. Williams most persistent lies...that "transgender" is the appropriate term for those who are transsexual.  She provides the following quote, which is typical of Mr. Williams' rhetoric:
Transgender (AKA: trans, trans*, TG) is an umbrella term that encompasses a variety of people including transsexuals, crossdressers, drag kings and queens, as well as bigender and androgynous individuals.1 Transgender that came into common usage during the 1970s, but was popularized as early as 1965 as a way to refer to transsexuals who wanted genital reconstructive surgery. Today, the term transgender is used to refer to individuals who are not cisgender.
Now, Elizabeth, who transitioned and had surgery before Mr. Williams was, as my mother used say, "not even a gleam in his father's eye," points out, quite correctly, that this is "complete and absolute lie."  This is something I showed almost a year ago, much to Mr. Williams chagrin.

No, the term was not in common usage in the 1970's among transsexuals, or anyone else.  There are a few very isolated occurrences, that Mr. Williams tries to conflate into "common usage."  This is one of his favorite "complete and absolute" lies.  He does the same thing he tries to accuse others of doing, taking an isolated usage of a word, and making it into something it is not.  Williams is fond of pointing out that Arnold Lowman, aka "Virginia Prince" used the term "transgenderal" in 1969, and then claiming that this is the source of what he likes to label the "Virginia Prince Fountainhead Myth."  But, his entire premise is built on rare, isolated usage of the term, which it can clearly be shown did not come into anything remotely resembling "common usage" until the 1990's.  

Mr. Williams blissfully ignores the first hand testimony of people who were actually transsexuals during this period, and falls back on isolated occurences of the term to show it was in common usage, but then dismisses the use of the term by Lowman as the origin of its current use.  Uh, okay....

In the early 1990's, some time after when Williams claims the term was commonly used, I was introduced to the term "transgenderist" while attending meetings of a support group in Atlanta.  The group was led by none other than Dallas Denny, who would go on to become a major figure in pushing transgender as an umbrella term.  But, at the time, Denny was was still identifying as a transsexual, and explained that "transgenderist" was a term for someone who lived full-time as the opposite sex, but who did not desire SRS.  Transgender was not being used at all.  And there was still a clear division between crossdressers and transsexuals.  This, at a time when Mr. Williams would have us believe "transgender" was in "common usage" as an umbrella term.

When Mr. Williams gets caught in a lie, he tends to dig himself deeper.  He falls back on the same lame tactics, like falsely accusing his opponent of using "straw man" arguments, while doing so with impunity.

For example, in response to Elizabeth's post, he combines the two tactics...
A stwarman (sic) argument is when you want to attack a position, have no logical reason to attack it, and so instead lie about what the other person said. Simply compare what I actually said (blue quote) and what this person claims I said (the first sentence after my quote).
Sounds reasonable, until you look at what Mr. Williams is quoted as saying:
Cis-Privilege (AKA, transphobia, heterosexism, cisgenderism) refers to a set of unearned advantages that individuals who identify as the gender they were assigned at birth accrue solely due to being cisgender.
And what he falsely claims is a straw argument: 
CW claims somehow that the privileges women have and those of us that live as women without being open, out, and proud are not earned but given. Here is a list of cis privileges that are easily identified as the complaints men in dresses have about their transvestite fantasies as women. It is directly aimed at the few rights we women have that provide us comfort or safety or that define us as females and women. What it all comes down to is they as men have the right to do whatever they want, wherever they want, and however they want when they are playing girl in fantasy mode.
Now, let's take this step by step... Is that what Mr. Williams said?  Yes, as "accrued" means "be received by someone in regular or increasing amounts over time..." and he says this is solely due to their being cisgender, so clearly these things are "not earned."  Is the rest of Elizabeth's statement true? Look at the list that is linked to, and you will see that the rest is dead on as well.  

Mr. Williams then claims:
The post drones on and on, creating one fake position for me to take after another, so that she could (presumably) enjoy attacking absurd ideas I’ve never promoted. Apparently lies are the only rhetoric folks like this have left to cling to. IMHO, these folks are the young earth creationists of the trans experience. They seem to have no argument to make that isn’t laughable and yet, their place in this world seems to be predicated upon their fantasy being true: 

  • A lesbian transsexual was targeted for not being non-transsexual; cisprivilege isn’t real. 
  • Prince didn’t coin or pioneer trans terms; Prince is where transgender comes from.

Just one problem for Mr. Williams...he is not even mentioned again.  So...he is the one who is lying.  And he uses a blatant straw argument by making the comparison to creationism.

There is no straw man here, or even a "stwarman," on the part of Elizabeth Just a simple statement concerning the demands that Mr. Williams, and other transgender extremists, push.  

And that is really what Mr. Williams is about.  It is clear that he makes no attempt to actually live as a woman.  He is completely, as they say, "out, loud, and proud."  Just like his cohort Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen, he clearly has NO desire to be seen as a woman, but wishes to be seen as transgender.  He wants people to know he was not born a woman, and then wants to force them to acknowledge him as a woman, even if it is contrary to what their senses tell them.  It is not about being a woman, but is about control. 

They want to control how people are allowed to use language.  As soon as a man says the magic words, "I feel like a woman," in their view, he becomes not just a "woman," but a female, with all the rights and privileges thereof, and must be fully accepted as such, including the right to enter any, and all sexually segregated area, even those involving nudity.

If a woman is uncomfortable with the presence of this other "woman" then the woman is, in their view, a bigot, and she must be forced into compliance.  Even if that woman is a convicted rapist and registered sex offender.  In a debate with Representative John Kavanagh, he pull out one of his favorite dodges...are transgender people immune from laws regarding rape, sexual assault, and exposing themselves.  Unfortunately he ignores the fact that the pervert "Colleen" Francis was doing just that.  he made no attempt to be discrete, and when people complained, they were told that the laws protecting said pervert trumped the laws that should have protected the children involved.

So, bottom line...once again Mr. Williams is caught lying like a cheap rug.

Thursday, September 12, 2013

From Cyberstalker to Just a Stalker

Well, it appears that Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen decided to up his game from simply cyberstalking to actual threats.  In a round of tweets, he asked what I would say during a face to face meeting.  I made it clear that this is not desired, and that if it happened, I would be calling the police and report him.  He then began pushing for such a meeting.  This crossed the line.  

I have blocked Mr. Sandeen, who has a record of cyberstalking me, and have reported him to Twitter for harassment.  I had no problem with online sparring, but I have NO desire for physical contact with him, whether another is present or not.

Of course, in typical fashion, Mr. "Cristan" Williams and Mr. Sandeen are trying to spin this and "blame the victim."  The bottom line remains...Mr. Sandeen tried to push for contact, I decline, he persisted.  That feels very threatening, especially in light of various threats made against women by a number of "transgender extremists."  Again, a man refuses to take "No!" for an answer.

I will continue to document his lies and distortions.  I will not allow him to bully me into silence.  

What's the Difference?

I am often attacked by the "gender fascists," i.e. the transgender extremists like Mr. "Cristan" Williams, Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen, Mr. "Dana" Taylor, and others because I don't care for the term "transgender," refuse to accept it, and especially because I am constantly challenging the silliness that they spew...  Silliness like claiming that simply saying one is a woman magically makes it so.

On those occasions, for example when dealing with a medical provider where I have to reveal my history, I am sometimes asked, "What's the difference?" when I explain that I am transsexual, not transgender.  That's a good question, and while I usually respond with a relatively technical answer, of late other differences have become obvious.

For example, there was the rather silly article posted by Mr. Williams that asks "What are the top 3 things you like about being trans?"  I cannot think of a better illustration of the difference between actually being a transsexual, and being some kook who identifies as "transgender."  For me, there was NOTHING I liked about being "transsexual."  If I had a choice, it would certainly not to have been born transsexual.  My first choice would have been to be born a normal female.  If not that, then my second choice would have been to have been a normal male.   I certainly would not have chosen to be born transsexual.  If I liked "being trans" I would certainly not have put so much effort into having SRS.

Of course, the person asking this question is a man, who either has not had SRS, or if he has, regrets it.  He revels in being "transgender."  It is his entire purpose in life.  For him, it is a choice, not a medical condition.  I would no more choose to be transsexual, than I would choose to be diabetic.  I would not more find something good in being transsexual as I would find something good about being diabetic.

No, I haven't gotten to see life from "both sides."  I never had "the best of both worlds."  I was miserable for much of my life.  I hurt people I care about. 

Another difference that has become very obvious is how we deal with disagreement.  I recognize that a lot of radical; feminists would reject the idea that I am a woman.  Shoot, I have known that since I first read Janice Raymond's The Transsexual Empire back around the time I began transition.  I certainly did agree with Raymond's extremist views, but I also did not feel the apparent blind rage that seems to consume transgender extremists who cannot seem to deal with such disagreement.  The Internet is becoming filled with their calls for the rape and murder of women who simply don't wish to sleep with them.  

I do find it interesting that I can get along with many of those women, even if I don't agree with everything they say.  Then again, I seriously doubt that the kooks like Mr. Sandeen, Mr. Williams, and Mr. Taylor have much in the way of friendship with women born women.  They certainly spend a lot of time attacking them online.

Even if I don't agree with what someone writes, I am willing to listen, and try to find common ground.  I consider Victory Brownworth a friend.  Mr. Williams seems to have become obsessed with destroying her.  As best I can tell, the real motivation for this is the simple fact that Ms. Brownworth does not think men like Mr. Williams should be able to attend the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival.  Mr. Williams, really does not like being told no.  So, Mr. Williams has repeated attack her, accused her of horrible crimes, and then he wonders why people think him something of a kook.

When I began transition, a major concern fo me was to not cause discomfort to other women.  For the kooks like Mr. Williams, Mr. Sandeen, an Mr. Taylor, the feelings of women are inferior to their fetish-driven desires.  If a woman is upset at the idea of sharing a shower or other space with a "transwoman" with an intact penis, she is at fault and she must submit to the tyranny of the transgender kooks.  Before my surgery, the idea of exposing myself to a woman like that would have been horrifying.

Yes, there are major differences.

Friday, September 6, 2013

How Arrogant Can One Transgender Extremist Get?

I have seen Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen post some pretty arrogant stuff.  I mean, he loves to style himself as the "transgender" equivalent of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.  But he has reached a new low...  He is now comparing himself to Private Manning.

Now, I am not interested in debating whether Private Manning is a hero, or a villain.  That is not the purpose of this blog.  But I will note that Sandeen, before Manning expressed the desire to now be know as "Chelsea" was pretty much on the villain side, and it should be noted, he took a lot of flack for it.  Now, he wants to elevate himself to the same level.

In his most recent post on LGBT Weekly, Mr. Sandeen engages in absurd self-aggrandizement as he boasts of how he took what he implies were great personal risks during his exhibitionistic performance at the White House fence in protest of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."  Well, at least that is what he thought he was saying when he posted this delightful Freudian slip:
But, having my belief about my own actions regarding those protests I participated in, I had no illusion that what I was doing was violating the explicit direction of Navy uniform regulations. That regulation states “Members of the Navy and Marine Corps, including retired members and members of reserve components are prohibited from wearing uniforms of the naval service while attending or participating in a demonstration, assembly or activity knowing that a purpose of the demonstration, assembly or activity supports personal or partisan views on political, social, economic or religious issues.” And, I knew there could be serious consequences to violating military law.
I assume what he meant to claim was that he was "aware" that his actions might well result in serious consequences, though what he actually says is the clearly more truthful idea that he knew, quite well, that they simply wouldn't.  Simply put, there is no way that the Obama administration was going to send Mr. Sandeen to military prison, or worse, strip him of his military pension.  It simply would not be a very smart move politically. 

Mr. Sandeen goes on to puff himself up by talking about how he would have faced the same problems as Private Manning, had he gone to military prison (like that was even a remote chance).

To be honest, at this point, I really have to pity Mr. Sandeen.  He clearly is desperate to puff himself up, and has reached the point where he is now more than willing to engage in the most ridiculous of self contradictory claims.  Two weeks ago, he trashed Private Manning, and now he compares himself to that same person in an obvious attempt to ride the wave of publicity.