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.