Monday, October 28, 2013

Now This IS Interesting

After reading yet another bit of drivel from Mr. "Cristan" Williams, in which he goes on about allegations of rapes in Oakland Schools, I got curious and did a bit of checking.  I had noticed that Mr. Williams mentioned an email from the Oakland California School District, and in that email it mentioned that they have attached a copy of their school policy, which it was stated was "largely similar" to the new state law.  Now, that struck me as rather curious.  Largely similar is not quite the same as the claims made by Mr. Williams and other activists about the nature of these school policies and how they relate to AB 1266.  So, I looked online, and I found the Oakland School District policy that covers transgender students

Yes, it could certainly be called "largely similar," or it could be called significantly different....

Here is what it says:

• Names/Pronouns
Students shall have the right to be addressed by a name and pronoun conesponding to their gender identity that is exclusively and consistently asserted at school.

• Official Records
The District shall change a student's official records to reflect a change in legal name or gender upon receipt of documentation that such legal name and/or gender have been changed pursuant to California legal requirements.

• Restroom Accessibility
Students shall have access to the restroom that conesponds to their gender identity exclusively and consistently at school.

• Locker Room Accessibility
Transgender stud ents shall not be forced to use the locker room corresponding to their gender assigned at birth.

• Sports and Gym Class
Transgender students shall not be denied the opportunity to participate in sports and gym
• Dress Codes
Students shall have the right to dress in accordance with their gender identity that is exclusively and consistently asserted at school, within the constraints of the dress codes adopted at their school site.

• Gender Segregation in Other Areas
As a general rule, in any other circumstances where students are separated by gender in school activities, students shall be permitted to participate in accordance with their gender identity exclusively and consistently asserted at school.
Notice anything that is clearly missing from the state law?  Like the words "exclusively and consistently asserted at school."  Notice that it does not say that students would be allowed to use locker rooms with members of the opposite sex?  This is a reasonable approach.

Now, what about San Francisco?  Long thought of as the home of the extremes of such would expect they would have a policy more in keeping with the desires of kooks like Mr. Williams and company....:  
Students shall have the right to be addressed by a name and pronoun corresponding to their gender identity that is exclusively and consistently asserted at school. Students are not required to obtain a court ordered name and/or gender change or to change their official records as a prerequisite to being addressed by the name and pronoun that corresponds to their gender identity. This directive does not prohibit inadvertent slips or honest mistakes, but it does apply to an intentional and persistent refusal to respect a student’s gender identity. The requested name shall be included in the SIS system in addition to the student’s legal name, in order to inform teachers of the name and pronoun to use when addressing the student. 
Official Records
The District is required to maintain a mandatory permanent pupil record which includes the legal name of the pupil, as well as the pupil’s gender. 5 Cal. Code Reg. 432(b)(1)(A), (D). The District shall change a student’s official records to reflect a change in legal name or gender upon receipt of documentation that such legal name and/or gender have been changed pursuant to California legal requirements. 
Restroom Accessibility
Students shall have access to the restroom that corresponds to their gender identity exclusively and consistently asserted at school. Where available, a single stall bathroom may be used by any student who desires increased privacy, regardless of the underlying reason. The use of such a single stall bathroom shall be a matter of choice for a student, and no student shall be compelled to use such bathroom. 
Locker Room Accessibility
Transgender students shall not be forced to use the locker room corresponding to their gender assigned at birth. In locker rooms that involve undressing in front of others, transgender students who want to use the locker room corresponding to their gender identity exclusively and consistently asserted at school will be provided with the available accommodation that best meets the needs and privacy concerns of all students involved. Based on availability and appropriateness to address privacy concerns, such accommodations could include, but are not limited to: 
Use of a private area in the public area (i.e., a bathroom stall with a door, an area separated by a curtain, a PE instructor’s office in the locker room);A separate changing schedule (either utilizing the locker room before or after the other students); or 
Use of a nearby private area (i.e., a nearby restroom, a nurse’s office).
Sports and Gym Class 
Transgender students shall not be denied the opportunity to participate in physical education, nor shall they be forced to have physical education outside of the assigned class time. Generally, students should be permitted to participate in gender-segregated recreational gym class activities and sports in accordance with the student’s gender identity that is exclusively and consistently asserted at school. Participation in competitive athletic activities and contact sports will be resolved on a case by case basis. 
Dress Codes
School sites can enforce dress codes that are adopted pursuant to Education Code 35291. Students shall have the right to dress in accordance with their gender identity that is exclusively and consistently asserted at school, within the constraints of the dress codes adopted at their school site. This regulation does not limit a student’s right to dress in accordance with the Dress/Appearance standards articulated in the Student and Parent/Guardian Handbook, page 23. 
Gender Segregation in Other Areas
As a general rule, in any other circumstances where students are separated by gender in school activities (i.e., class discussions, field trips), students shall be permitted to participate in accordance with their gender identity exclusively and consistently asserted at school. Activities that may involve the need for accommodations to address student privacy concerns will be addressed on a case by case basis. In such circumstances, staff shall make a reasonable effort to provide an available accommodation that can address any such concerns.
Well, what do you know...San Francisco's policy is not only more detailed, it is actually quite well written.  It even makes provision for students who might object to using the bathroom with someone who is transgender, though it does this in somewhat subtle manner.  Notice the detailed policy concerning locker rooms.

Notice that phrase "the available accommodation that best meets the needs and privacy concerns of all students involved."  Now, keep in mind...the state law was pretty much written with the guidance of the Transgender Law Center.  This is a San Francisco based organization that undoubtedly is well aware of the San Francisco Unified School District transgender policy, which is above.  

They basically wrote a policy that avoids addressing real issues, the ones I have raised and been attacked by people for raising.  They wrote a policy that removes protections for students who are uncomfortable with the provisions of the new law.  They wrote a policy that would, in effect, actually prohibit protections for students who are not transgender, but who might be forced to share a locker room with those that are.  And, sadly, which also fails to provide real protections for students who are actually transsexual.

Oh, and in case someone wants to make some silly claim, notice that there are links to the San Francisco and Oakland policies above.  Unlike Mr. Williams, I back up what I say with actual facts, instead of spinning stuff in an attempt to make it say something it doesn't.

Again, while I have no doubt that the Pacific Justice Institute would still oppose the law if it was modified to include provisions like those above, such an improved law would far less likely to be overturned by the voters of California.  One that that is clear, though...Mr. Williams and company have lied when they claim the new state law matches school district policies.  It doesn't, and I suspect they know quite well that it doesn't.

And I bet you good money that Mr. Williams and company will have a fit if there is an attempt to modify the law to include the above provisions.

Going Off the Deep End

Sometimes, sadly, you just can't reason with some people.  You try to present your point of view, calmly, and rationally.  Perhaps you even admit you made an error.  But they are not going to be happy unless you totally give in to their position, and when you don't, they go off with insults.  Sad, but it happens.  I admit, I've done it myself, but I try to learn from that mistake.

It usually happens with deeply held beliefs are challenged, and the person has no real answer, and they don't want to consider that they might be wrong.  Even if you try to calmly respond, they simply get angrier, and angrier.  Usually, you see this sort of response in religious discussions, but it can also happen when the topic is politics, or just something deeply personal to the person.

Recently, I made some remarks about the student in a Colorado high school that I regret.  I did not have all the facts, and I jumped to some conclusions I should not have.  Elizabeth, at Notes From the T Side took me to task for that, and I admitted my mistake, but that turned out to not be good enough.  Apparently I was expected to blindly agree that the "rights" of a transsexual or even a transgender student completely trump those of others.  I won't do that, because that is, well, absurd.  

Legal rights generally have to be balanced.  I have stated, I believe that the controversial law that is intended to assist "transgender" students in California is poorly written.  It is very likely that a challenge to this law will be on the ballot next year, and it may well pass.  I have made suggestions as to how that law can be modified to deal with issues, that may or may not be legitimate, that will be raised, and which, if not answered, will almost certainly lead to the law being tossed.

Okay, I realize that some might not agree with this.  Some want those issues in place, because they really do think that "trans women" have an absolute right to expose themselves in women's spaces.  Some seem incapable of seeing that this is part of a bigger effort.  Some have naive ideas about "transkids."  

I would love to see laws in place to protect transsexual children.  I don't want to see transsexual children used to push through the transgender agenda, which includes the idea that simply saying one feels female, even if only temporary, validly establishes one as female.  Some apparently can't accept, in their blind rush to help kids, that this is the real agenda of some.

Some apparently cannot accept that some people have SRS who should not have.  I guess they are so insecure in their own identity that any suggestion that someone completely the process is no 100% a woman is terrifying.  

For whatever reason, and in spite of attempts to make peace, Elizabeth went off the deep end.  Unfortunately, the debate attracted the attention of the notorious troll "Diane" Lask.  Lask, who it turns out is non-op like her late partner in terror, Cheryl Mullins, develops obsessions over people.  As I pointed out, in the past, it was a Canadian transgender activist that Lask harassed for years.  When that person withdrew from the net, and apparently returned to living as a male, Lask had to find a new target.  Sadly, I became that target.

Now, anyone with a shred of sense, who bothered to look at some of Lask's more absurd posts harassing me, would realize that Lask is nuts.  But, as I say, people can choose to be blind.

I finally reached my limit.  It basically came to the point of either lowering myself to the level that Elizabeth had chosen, or simply walking away.  I have chosen the latter.  I am sure Lask, who has no real grasp on reality, will think he drove me off.  Not even close.  I simply realized that further discussion was futile, and decided not to waste more time on someone who cannot accept disagreement.

It's sad.  I respected Elizabeth, though I admit, as with others, the constant reminder of how she was a "transkid" gets a bit old.  Not all of us had the good fortune to have that choice.  The air of superiority that some who did, adopt, gets really old, really fast.  Elizabeth kept telling me I could not understand what it is like for someone like that.  The truth is, Elizabeth can't understand what it was like for someone who did not have the opportunity to get help that early.  I'm honestly happy for her that she had the good fortune that she did.  But I am saddened that she cannot comprehend what like was like for someone who did not have that chance.

In any case, I have removed "Notes From the T Side" from my blog list and she can rant all she wants, but it's not worth commenting any further.

Saturday, October 26, 2013

A Bit of Clarification

Early on in the now endless stream of silliness over a single student in Colorado, I made an assumption I should not have made, and asserted that the person in question was not making an effort to assimilate as female.  I now realize that I simply do not have enough information to say that.  Simply put, I don't know what the situation is.

What I do know is that most of the information in this case has either come through Pacific Justice Institute, or Mr. "Cristan" Williams.  They represent two opposite extremes, and I consider both to be about equally reliable.  Which is to say, I would not take what either of them says as absolute truth without some serious verification from a more reliable source, and in this case, there have been none.

Some people, who I respect, or at least did respect, have viciously attacked me for not following them in lockstep.  I'm sorry, but first off, I refuse to suspend thinking just because someone tells me to.  If that leads to the person attacking me, insulting me, trying to shame me, and thus trying to bully me into accepting their view that tends to make me wonder why they can't accept that someone might not see things their way.

I am saying, for the record, I don't know what the situation is.  If someone wants to blindly follow a proven liar in this matter, that is their choice.  I made that sort of mistake early on, when I was not aware of the source, and I regret it.  But I won't be bullied by people, even people I considered to be friends, into rushing to the opposite extreme either.

If I make a mistake, I own up to up.  If someone points that out to me, and offers legitimate arguments, I reconsider.  If someone tries to shove bad information down my throat, and then insults me because I don't swallow it, well...that doesn't work so well.  It says a lot more about them, than it does about me.  

And just so people know where I am coming from...I identify as a woman, not a "trans woman" or a "transsexual woman" or any other such term.  I try to consider the feelings of others who are also women a lot more than I consider the feelings of just those who might share a similar history to mine.  Yes, our situation is different.  I recognize that.  But, it is not the only thing that defines me.  And quite frankly, I get really sick of "identity politics" no matter who is trying to push it.

Oh, and I notice Suzan Cooke has again attacked me for speaking up.  I really do pity her.  She clearly has some serious insecurities.  I don't demand that people agree with me, and contrary to repeated claims, I don't use male pronouns just because someone disagrees with me.  I use male pronouns when I honestly feel that they are justified.  People like Mr. Williams, and Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen are so clearly men, it almost hurts.  Cooke, as bad as she much as she has become, to go with the analogy she was so smitten with, Locutus of Borg, is a woman.  A deeply disturbed, nut case but still a woman.  So no, I don't call people men because I disagree.  I call them men because they show no sign of remotely being women.

Friday, October 25, 2013

Separating Facts From Total and Complete Fabrication

As I said yesterday, the "trans panic" continues, and to be honest, it is getting pretty deep.  Mr. "Cristan" Williams is in overdrive pumping out the lies, straw man arguments, and such, and the sad thing is, he is just making the whole mess at the worse.

His latest bit of drivel would be hilarious if it were not so serious.  He has posted another straw man argument that seems to raise some serious questions about what really is going on in Florence, CO.  In his latest opinion piece masquerading as "news" he seems to claim that the police are investigating Pacific Justice Institute for "bullying."  What is actually said is very disturbing, if true.  Of course, like pretty much everything in this case, this bit of information comes from a biased source... Apparently Pacific Justice Institute has alleged that Superintendent Rhonda Vendetti has warned that "that the complaining families were now subject to having their social media monitored by police." Okay, there are basically three possibilities here...PJI has fabricated this claim, the superintendent is lying, or the police actually are engaged in outrageous, and illegal acts intended to repress free speech.  The one thing that is very clear is, well, as usual, Mr. Williams is lying again.  The parents are not Pacific Justice Institute, and the Florence Police would have no jurisdiction to investigate them for bullying (PJI Is located in California).  

Now, let's look at several facts, some of which have nothing to do with the Colorado case anyway:

First, in spite of what some want to believe, none of this is really about transsexuals.  Mr. Williams pretty much has shown outright disdain for transsexuals.  He is very focused on "transgender rights" which is an entirely different subject.  He is simply desiring to use a teenage student in Colorado to further a far more extreme political agenda, and apparently will use any sleazy trick he can dream up, including now attempting to buy the support of the parents.  Mr. Williams has started a fund raising drive to provide them with money.  I guess they have to be rewarded for allowing him to use their child.

The real issue is also not a high school student in Colorado.  It is about preserving a rather poorly written law in California.  Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen posted a rather telling comment.  He quotes the AB 1266's author who speaks of how various school districts have instituted "common sense" policies.  That is true.  For example, I did a little research, and found a news article from a local paper, The Canon County Daily Record, in Colorado about the case.  It provided a bit of information about Colorado's law concerning transgender rights:
The Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies Civil Rights Commission states under Rule 81.11 - Gender-Segregated Facilities ( that nothing in the Colorado Antidiscrimination Act prohibits segregation of facilities on the basis of gender; all covered entities shall allow individuals the use of gender-segregated facilities that are consistent with their gender identity, including but not limited to restrooms, locker rooms, dressing rooms and dormitories; and in gender-segregated facilities where undressing in the presence of others occurs, covered entities shall make reasonable accommodations to allow access consistent with an individual's gender identity. (emphasis mine)
BTW, while Mr. Williams has written an increasing number of articles on this case, that was the ONLY story in the local paper.  

Okay, that is not terribly different from the regulations here in San Francisco.  Here they use the term "inevitable nudity" but otherwise the policy is pretty much the same.  They have to make modifications, if reasonable, otherwise they have to provide access to equivalent facilities.  For example, if there are showers, they have to provide separate stalls, and curtains.  That sort of thing.  They do NOT have to allow a "Colleen" Francis situation, like Mr. Williams wants.  

And that brings us to "Colleen" Francis and what that pervert tells us about what is really going on.  Some years ago, when the push for transgender rights really took off...when it was decided that the status quo, which was that transsexuals, perhaps with what were called "carry letters" were pretty much allowed access to restrooms, and other facilities, was not enough, and that crossdressers and such should be allowed access as well, some raised the concern that it would not stop there.  That these men would want to force their way into more private spaces.  We were told that this was absurd, that it would never happen....

Yeah, "Colleen" Francis...  BTW, Mr. Williams's response to that case was laughable.  He actually tried, in an absurd post, to claim that women were a greater threat than men.  Of course, this is a man who has pushed the "cotton ceiling" meme, and who has pretty much show clear disdain for women who, uh, well....don't have penises.  Suddenly, it is not only okay for men (sorry, but if you are willing to wave your penis around in a women's locker room or shower, you are a MAN, BABY!) to invade women's spaces, but to do so nude.

AB 1266 does not contain a provision that addresses "inevitable nudity."  It does not allow for provisions that address "inevitable nudity."  It does not contain clauses that allow schools to set "common sense" policies.  I imagine that the extremists at Transgender Law Center argued against such provisions.  The law, and that is part of the problem, it is a law, not a school policy, is going to be enforced by judges, who will be constrained by what the law actually says.  And by what it does not say.

What the law says on the matter is a bit too simple:
A pupil shall be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs and activities, including athletic teams and competitions, and use facilities consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records.
It can, and no doubt will, be argued that the law does not allow a school to make provisions for dealing with inevitable nudity.  That would be a "restriction."  The law does not provide any provision for determining a student's gender identity.  What if a student claims that it "fluctuates."  

I sincerely believe that some "common sense" is needed...

The law should be modified to address "inevitable nudity."

The law should be modified to include a provision requiring some form of medical documentation that the student has been diagnosed as transsexual by a qualified, licensed therapist with experience in the treatment of that condition.  And presentation would have to be consistent, not periodic.

Rules that would address issues of fairness in athletics.  Even if the claims of "gender identity" are true, imagine, for example, girl's basketball teams fielding male students with height and strength advantages that would otherwise be illegal.  It would, in effect, be the equivalent of allowing students to take steroids.  Not to mention, track and field, volleyball, and other sports. 

Those provisions would go a long way towards addressing legitimate concerns.  Yes, groups like PJI would still object...but so, probably, would kooks like Mr. Williams and Mr. Sandeen, who suddenly would be losing their extremist agenda.

Bottom line, it is really sad that a student in Colorado is being used by either side to further political gain.  It is especially sad that this student is reported to be on "suicide watch."  You know, I almost predicted in my article that would be the next development.  I decided that would have been in poor taste, and didn't add it.  I honestly hope it is not true.  But, given that the child might actually believe what Mr. Williams, and Mr. Sandeen have lied about having been said, I don't know if it is true or not.  

Would I put it past Mr. Williams to make such a claim if it were not true?  Not at all.  He has already shown he lies as easily as he breathes.  He has already shown that he is more than willing to pay for the use of this child.  He has already shown little actual regard for the child's  privacy.  

And no, I don't hate Mr. Williams.  I find his behavior to be reprehensible but no, I do not wish him harm.  I wish he would show some decency and stop using a child for his political goals. But, I don't hate him.  And I don't appreciate people making such claims in an attempt to use "club words" to beat me into submission.

Thursday, October 24, 2013

The "Trans Panic" Continues...

No, I don't mean "trans panic" in the sense of the rather nasty defense used when someone is murdered because they are discovered to be transsexual, or more likely, transgender.  I mean the frantic attempts to gain attention by writing about the case of the Colorado high school student.  The transgender extremists can't seem to get enough of it.

Mr. "Cristan" Williams has repeatedly written on the subject, and now Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen has taken up the cause, having produced at least three four articles(they come so fast it is hard to keep up), two three on Transadvocate, and another on LGBT Weekly.  Well, technically, the latest article on Transadvocate is more about AB 1266, which is at the heart  of the panic.

I suspect, AB 1266, a law that takes an extremist approach to protecting "transgender" students in California public schools will be overturned next year.  I have said, repeatedly, that the smart move would be to have it amended to take out the excessive features (in particular sharing locker rooms) or at least include provisions concerning privacy (i.e. something similar to rules in San Francisco that address "inevitable nudity").  Now, I don't even know what the situation is in school locker rooms.  It has been a very long time since I was in one, and that may not even be an issue.  But, whether it is, or not, addressing it would defuse the objections to the law.

But, given that this has not once been addressed in anything I have seen, I suspect that it may well be a issue.  And I also strongly suspect that transgender extremists have no problem with the issue, even though I have no doubt it would cause even more upset for students who are legitimately transsexual (who are really not a concern for the kooks like Sandeen and Williams).

I do find it amusing that, while the Pacific Justice Institute has made the claim that the Colorado student was harassing female students, the only ones who has applied terms like "attacking," "predator," and "monster," have been trans extremists attempting, desperately, to create straw man arguments.

Now, honest people can disagree on whether or not what has occurred in that Colorado high school amounts to harassment.  Arguments can be made both ways.  But the simple truth is, no one, not even the Pacific Justice Institute has actually referred to that child using words like "predator" or "monster" except the trans extremists.  The really bad thing is, I can imagine this child reading some of the articles in support, and actually believing that people have used those terms...when they haven't.

I have been attacked by people I would normally support because I have declined to accept extremists positions on this case.  I am saddened that this child is being used by either side to further a political agenda.  I am saddened that this child's privacy has been invaded by having photos posted online.  It seems odd...much has been made about people making death threats, and yet, something that might lead to someone spotting the child and attacking has been posted.  Without the photos being posted, the chances of someone identifying the child are much less.  But, anyone who is obsessive enough to actually carry out such an attack now has more information to use.

In spite of what some, in fits of irrational rage, have suggested, I don't want this child harmed.  Sadly, if it does happen, it may well be more the fault of the trans extremists than those they try to smear while pushing their agenda.

Friday, October 18, 2013

Let's Be Honest, Folks....

As I have pointed out, several times, there has been a lot said about the case of the transgender male in a Colorado high school who has been accused of harassing female students.  Much has been made about how "inaccurate" the news stories were.  I disagree.  I think they raised valid points, and that the reaction from the transgender extremists simply illustrates the true nature of the problem.

The Pacific Justice Institute issued a statement in which they said, "a trans person in the restroom is 'inherently intimidating and harassing.'"  I think that statement, as written, is somewhat flawed.  First off, the words "trans person" are very vague.  I imagine they might well, for example, include me in that, and yet, I use the restroom regularly without intimidating or harassing anyone.  Further, I do not identify as a "trans person."

And, some who might properly be identified as a "trans person" and who might self-identify as such would also be able to use the restroom without being "intimidating and harassing."  But, I would completely agree if it were reworded as, "a trans person in the restroom can be inherently intimidating and harassing."  

What would make a difference? Why is this true in a case like the one in Colorado, but not, perhaps in other cases?  The answer is simple.  In the case in Colorado, there has been no real attempt on the part of the student to assimilate as a female.  He is, as they say, "out, loud, and proud."  This is a continuing problem with the transgender extremists.  They not only are out, they make sure everyone knows their history.  They don't attempt to fit in as women...they force their situation in everyone's face.

And that is how some, like Mr. "Cristan" Williams, Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen," Mr. "Dana" Taylor and others want it.  They not only don't care that they are making women uncomfortable, they seem to take delight in it.  And this is just wrong.

When I transitioned, I went to great lengths to make sure that I was not causing a problem in using the women's room.  The thought never occurred to me to see it as an inherent right.  If I had not been able to assimilate, I am not sure what I would have done.  But, I seriously doubt  I would have been able to continue my transition.

Now, we have kooks like Mr. Williams and Mr. Sandeen who go out of their way to not assimilate.  They seem to treasure the shock value of being known as "transgender."  It is the focus of their sad little lives, and if that makes women uncomfortable, they are all the happier, claiming it as some sort of "teaching moment."

I believe it is time for a return to sanity in this area.  If someone is not going to make an effort to actually assimilate as a woman, then they should stay out of women's spaces.  If you have not had surgery, then you should not be in a place where a woman might see you nude.  And if you are told you are making women uncomfortable, then you should take corrective steps to prevent this.  Otherwise....well, you are just acting like man, and a rather nasty one at that.

I Screwed Up...

In a post yesterday, I misattributed a position to Cathy Brennan.  I apologize for that.  I said, "...she simply points out a simple fact, that "a trans person in the restroom is 'inherently intimidating and harassing.' " "  This not a position she has taken, and I should not have attributed it to her.  This was a position that was stated by the Pacific Justice Institute, and I misunderstood Ms. Brennan's views concerning.

In short, dear readers, I did the sort of thing that Mr. "Cristan" Williams does regularly, though in this case, my purpose was not to attack Cathy Brennan.  Nevertheless, I did attribute a position to her that she does not hold, and that was wrong.  Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

I will also correct the post from yesterday to remove the error.

Thursday, October 17, 2013

Hey! Who's the Naked Dude?

[Updated to correct an error in which I misattributed a position to Cathy Brennan.  For that, I apologize.]

I am sure most are familiar with the "Emperor's New Clothes."  It is the story of a very vain but gullible emperor of an imaginary land who is sold a set of "special" garments.  The thing is, he is told that they are made from a fabric invisible to anyone who is unfit for his position or "hopelessly stupid".    Of course, the garments  are not real, and he is being tricked into paying for nothing.  

So, when his new "clothes" are delivered, he is shocked to discover that he, the emperor, is apparently "unfit," but not willing to admit this, he makes a great fuss over how fine they are and after being assisted in dressing by the con artists who have tricked him, and having his ministers also discover they they too are not "unfit" (and of course no one admits this) he goes out in public where the crowds, again wishing to avoid embarrassment, make a great fuss over how fine the garments are.  Until, finally, a young child says, "Why does the emperor have no clothes?"

Well, many, like the emperor, are being sold an illusion.  And some are beginning to ask questions, and that is causing panic among transgender extremists.  Over the past several days, a number of them, led by Mr. "Cristan'  Williams, have tried to counter an article that first appeared on Christian Broadcasting Networks website about a transgender male in Colorado, who has invaded the girls bathroom, and the fact that this has caused distress for female students.

Mr. Williams has posted at least five (now up to six) stories on Transadvocate, plus one on his personal web page, and has further made efforts to hound any news site that has dared repeat the story.  All of his posts have included outright lies, in an attempt to stem what is clearly the beginning of a coming backlash.

The latest post on Transadvocate is just absurd.  Headlined, "Anti-gay activist group admits trans school “harassment” is fake," it is basically just one big lie. The group in question, Pacific Justice Institute did not make an admission, and the whole thing is Mr. Williams putting words in their mouth in an attempt to create another of his trademark straw man arguments.

Mr. Williams starts off:
Okay. Maybe the Pacific Justice Institute (PJI) doesn’t think that they’re admitted their charge of “harassment” is fake, but I’ll let you be the judge.
Okay, there is so much wrong here, it is laughable.  First off, it is kind of hard to make an admission without intending to actually do so.  Second, well, let's be honest, Mr. Williams is not going let anyone be the judge.  He is going to tell you what to think, and demand that you accept it.

What is really going on becomes a bit more obvious later in the post.  He attacks one of his favorite targets, attorney Cathy Brennan, because, well she simply quoted a statement from Pacific Justice Institute.  This is not even a position taken by her/  That post points out their view that "a trans person in the restroom is 'inherently intimidating and harassing.'"  Now, to be specific, what is referenced, is having someone who is male, who makes it clear that he is male, but who i claiming to be "a girl," insisting on using the women's restroom.  We are not talking about someone who has a medical condition, who is seeking to assimilate as a female.  We are talking about someone who wants to be "out, loud, and proud," as a transgender.

Williams goes on to attack Brennan for "outing" an FTM transgender teenager, while glossing over the fact that what Brennan actually did was notify school authorities about this person posting harassing messages on Tumblr, including some about women and rape.  The student was making the posts from a school account.  Of course, in the fantasy world of the transgender activist, such behavior as that committed by the student is protected and Brennan should have simply accepted it without complaint.  I guess "ordinary women" don't count...only trans women.

All of this serves to further expose what terrifies kooks like Mr. Williams.  If people actually stop and consider what is really going on, the entire transgender house of cards will come crashing down.  They are not interested in helping the rare person who actually is transsexual, who simply wants to get on with their life, avoiding publicity.  In fact, if you do wish this, they are very likely to show what hypocrites they really are, and attempt to out you, especially if you don't wish to follow them in lockstep.

No, the truth must remain hidden.  The focus must be kept off of the fact that they are trying to force people to accept that women have penises, and that simply claiming womanhood magically grants it in total.

And people are finding that increasingly hard to swallow....  And noticing that not only is the emperor quite naked, but that he is trying to be such in women's locker room....

Wednesday, October 16, 2013

More Lies From Mr. Williams....

Well, as is his style, Mr. "Cristan" Williams is strutting about and crowing about how he has "forced" several news organizations to pull the story about the transgender student who harassed girls at his Colorado high school.  Part of this stems from the vagueness of the term "harass."  I would not be at all surprised if the claim was made on the basis of the unquestionable fact that a male student, now claiming to be transgender, and therefore "female" insisted on his right to enter the girls restroom.  Is this harassment?  Well, if you are a female, and you have someone you know to be a male, who is not even trying to make a secret of that, quite publicly insisting on sharing the restroom with you, and this makes you uncomfortable...then yes, I would call that harassment.

This is the problem with the whole transgender extremist approach.  These people are not trying to actually be women.  Men like Mr. "Cristan" Williams, and Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen, and Mr. "Dana" Taylor are not remotely attempting to be women.  The very idea is foreign, and even repulsive to them.  They are trying to be "transgender."  They cannot imagine not being, as they would say, "out, loud, and proud."  The idea that someone might simply mistake them for an actual female would be terribly upsetting.

No, what they are all about is forcing people to suspend reality, suppress their clear knowledge, and basically accept a lie...namely that they are "women," and even "female" even though they have penises, and would rather die than give then up.

So yes, Fox News is right...this male student is harassing the girls at his high school.  He is not some poor innocent just trying to deal with a medical condition...he is actively forcing his chosen behavior on girls who, I have no doubt, are not at all happy.  And yes, that is pretty much  textbook case of harassment.

And I am not even going to bother ripping apart his rather obvious abuse of statistics to bolster absurd claims, like how "half of the transgender population" are victims of rape.  That is totally bogus.  Well, okay...that one is too good to pass up.  It is based on some surveys conducted in places like here in San Francisco.  I am familiar with these kinds of studies, and the population is not "all transgender people" or even a representative portion of "all transgender people."  The participants are largely transgender sex workers, who have a very high rate of things like sexual do sex workers in general.  So, while a study might show that half of the participants were sexually assaulted, that does not remotely translate into the outrageous claims made by Mr. Williams.

But hey, Mr. Williams wouldn't know the truth if it slapped him in the face (which, quite frankly, it does regularly).

Monday, October 14, 2013

Mr. "Cristan" Williams Lies, Again....and Again....and Again...

In an article of the type that Mr. "Cristan" Williams is notorious for, he shows, once more, that he is a pathological liar.  The article, entitled Trans Student Attacking Girls in School Restroom! Or, you know… not, is classic Mr. Williams. The title is the first lie. No one has actually said that a trans student is attacking girls. This is a classic "Cristan" Williams straw argument. What has been alleged is that the male student is harassing girls, which would include forcing himself into the girls rooms when it is well known that he is a male-bodied student. Mr. Williams, being a male-brained man has no concept of the idea that female students might no want a man in their bathroom. Mr. Williams is the sort of pervert who thinks they should just "get over it."

He then goes on to crank out even more of his typical straw arguments... He asserts that the right wing is claiming:
Florence High School is supposedly part of a trans conspiracy to assault school girls in the restroom.
ROTFL!  No one has made such a claim, but that doesn't stop Mr. Williams...  He is on a roll, and has no sense of ethics.

He then goes on to attack the journalist who has written about this.  What David McCain of "the examiner" (funny how Mr. Williams doesn't provide links to the stories he quotes..., using images instead, which allows him to control what people do, and do not, see).  The story can be found here.  Clearly, this story has Mr.  Williams in a full-blown panic.  He has brought in back-ups to try to dominate the comments...

No, he misrepresents what was reported.  No one suggested that anyone was "assaulted," or "attacked."  The word used was "harassed, which would describe how girls might feel about having a boy in their presence.

Mr. Williams also lies when he claims:

I challenged David about his facts and he admitted that he abdicated his responsibility to conduct due diligence for a story concerning a trans kid. Let’s be honest here, this is a case where ADULTS are targeting a trans KID, asserting that the kid is preditor. Apparently, for people like David, what he’s knowingly doing to this kid is acceptable as long as he has his juicy headline that plays well for his audience.
Actually, Mr. Williams has harrassed David McCain, and McCain most certainly made no such admission.  So, Mr. Williams lies again.  Further, no one has used the term "predator" or even "predator" to describe the student.

And finally, Mr. Williams posts a comment from what he claims is a female student at the high school in question, without citing the source.  It is not as it would appear, a comment on the article in question...

So, again, Mr. Williams, who has an established record for lying, has done it again.

Friday, October 4, 2013

Has the Backlash Against the Transgender Extremists Begun?

A while back, I wrote about what is now referred to as the School Success and Opportunity Act, which is a very innocuous sounding name for what is a potentially bad law.  I know some disagree, and I admit, after reading Elizabeth's two excellent articles, (here and here)  on the law at Notes From the T Side, I am not quite as opposed as I originally was, but I still think the law needs, at the very least, to be rewritten.

I have no problem with there being a law to protect and assist students who are transsexual. Such a law might well have made my life a lot better when I was in school, though that is a hard concept to wrap my mind around because at that time, there were some many other things that would have been issues that the ones addressed by this law would have been relatively minor.  

I do know that I had learned to hide my feelings, and I have a very clear memory of answering a question asked by a psychiatrist in a way that was not truthful.  I was asked, "If you had three wishes, what would they be?"  I knew what the first would be, "To be able to change into a girl." and I also knew that it would not be a wise thing to admit.  Instead, I gave what I thought were "safe" answers.  Given how badly those were twisted, I still shudder to think how that woman would have reacted to the truth.

But this law is, as I pointed out, poorly written.  It is the sort of law that only a transgender extremists could truly love.  It is so vague, it pretty much amounts to "anything goes" with regards to students claiming to be "transgender."  There are no standards for what constitutes a valid claim.  It is strictly "name it, and claim it."  There is no requirement that the student have even spoken to a therapist.  

In theory, at least, a jock could walk into the principals office with a grin on his face, announce that he feels like a girl, and insist on being allowed to enter the girls locker rooms and bathrooms, and there is nothing that could be done to stop him.  Now, maybe this will never happen, but it could.  A more likely scenario is that some student who  has a fetish will take advantage of the law to, and gain access to such spaces even though his gender, and gender identity are still quite male.

And all of this brings us to the present.  Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen latest diatribe is about how the Capitol Resource Institute is leading a coalition that has begun gathering signatures to overturn the law.  I imagine they will have no problem getting the law on the ballot.  And chances are very good that it will pass.

The problem is rather obvious.  As Mr. Sandeen points out in the article:
The California School Boards Association (CSBA) describes the School Success and Opportunity Act as requiring “districts to permit transgender students to participate in gender-segregated school programs and activities – including athletic teams, sports competitions and field trips – consistent with their gender identity and to use facilities consistent with their gender identity.
The only problem is, the term should be sex-segregated.  What the law does is require schools, with no qualifications or limits, to allow male-bodied students in girl's locker rooms, showers, and bathrooms with no real restrictions as regards issues like "inevitable nudity."  As I said, the law is very poorly written.

A real irony is, Mr. Sandeen quotes a press release from the leader of, which states :
“AB 1266 mandates San Francisco values on all California schools.”
That's the problem...  It actually doesn't.  Here in San Francisco, the rules concerning access to showers and locker rooms require that access only be given as long as "inevitable nudity" is not a problem, and that a facility must, if feasible, take steps to prevent such from happening, or provided separate but equal facilities.  In another words, you have provide separate, enclosed stalls for showers and changing if that can be reasonably done.  This law, does not seem to allow for such restrictions.

Now, maybe schools have such facilities.  When I was in high school, the only showers were for the athletes (my senior year, it was decided that they would be available to others during PE, though it was optional and most did not take advantage) and they was zero privacy.  I don't know if the girls locker room was the same or not.  I also recall from my college days that the showers in the dorms originally built for male students also had open showers.  I only spent one semester in such a dorm, and the rest of the time I was in a dorm originally built for female students but "converted" to half of what was rather jokingly referred to as the co-ed dorm.  We shared a common building, but it consisted of two wings separated by the cafeteria with a gate separating the two sides that was locked at night.  The showers in that building had separate stalls.  No really "co-ed." but it was provided as a response for demand for such a co-ed dorm.

No, the simple solution would be to quickly amend the law to add a few simple provisions:

Require students wishing to make such a claim to be seeing a qualified therapist and have a written statement that provides a diagnosis.  

Further, students wishing to make such claims would have to present completely as the gender they claim to identify as.  In another words, the would have, as they walk, the walk, and not just talk the talk.  

There should also be provisions allowing schools to make accommodations when facilities do not provide adequate privacy in situations that involve inevitable nudity.  We don't need any teenage "Colleen" Francis types exposing themselves.

And a provision should be made to prevent students from repeatedly switching back and forth.  

Changes like that would likely short-circuit a proposition that will likely end all protections, even those for students who actually need them.

But I doubt the transgender extremists will have the good sense to compromise, preferring a glorious defeat instead.