Tuesday, April 30, 2013

Seriously, Transgender and Reality Seem Incompatible

I just saw another piece on Transadvocate where there is a serious demand to simply suspend reality by the transgender kooks.

A person was murdered in Ohio, and well, a local paper reported the facts.  But, for the transgender kooks, facts are EVIL!!!  The story by, you guessed it, Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen is a rehash of Mr. "Monica" Roberts' demand that reality be suspended in reporting.  Here is Roberts' list of complaints, and why they are silly:

Misgender the person at every opportunity? Check
Sorry, but the person was a male.  It appears that he was not full time.
Use police mugshot? Check
Well, that is what police do.  Mugshots are generally what the police have available.  Would Roberts have preferred that the police provide a photo of the bloated corpse instead?
Drag old criminal record into the story? Check
The person had a fairly active, and recent criminal record.  Again, Roberts says "The facts must  be ignored."
'Deception meme' injected into story? Check
Uh, why?  Because they reported, quite accurately, that he lied to the police about his identity and true sex.
'Tragic transsexual' meme injected into this story? Check
Huh?  I think Roberts just made this one up to complete a checklist he has used before... the reporters gave no indication that he was remotely a transsexual.
Use salacious and sensationalist headlines? Check
Now, this is downright funny... There were two headlines.  The first was:

Oddly dressed body found in Olmsted Township pond identified

The article said, "The body was clad in a red Betty Boop tank top, three black bras on top of one another, and a light black hooded jacket. The body was naked from the waist down, police said at the time."  Sound to me like, and oddly dressed body was found, and the police identified it.  How is that salacious, or sensationalist?  It is simply the truth.

The second headline in question...

Brutal slaying marks the end of Clevelander's fight for acceptance

Again, not really very salacious or sensationalist.  The story talks about the person's repeated run-ins with transit police.  Apparently this person had a bad habit of not paying fares on transit as well as assault and drug possession.

Not give a rats anus about the victim's dignity and their femme presentation? Check
What dignity?  This person sounds pretty messed up to me.  Assault, drugs, and such.  I think the reporter told the truth without embellishment.  Which, of course, is what Roberts objects to.  Can't have the truth coming out...
Disrespecting another African-American transwoman? Check.
This person did not seem to have much self-respect.  Putting on a bad wig, and dressing up does not make one a woman, or entitle one to have the truth withheld. 

Of course, they also complain that they refer to the victim by his legal name.  In another words, this person had not bothered to change his name, and according to the article did not fully identify as a "transgender woman."

And finally, in a classic example of silliness, Sandeen complains that the article accurately describes the police using "it" to describe an unidentified body.  While the story does not give details, one can assume that this person could not be easily identified from appearance, as they relied on DNA.  Simply put, there was a 20 day gap between the person being declared missing and the body being found.  It is likely they may not have immediately been able to determine the sex.

But hey, this is transgender silliness, and everything has to be blown all out of proportion and complained about.  Reality has no place among transgender kooks.


Here We Go Again...

You know, some men just can't take a hint...  Others, well they can't take slap to the face, a knee to the groin, and a shove out the door...  Well, granted, in the case of a eunuch, a knee to the groin is kind of irrelevant....

A bit over two years ago, Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen took on Ashley Love and viciously attacked her.  He was pretty widely trashed by many, including even Suzan Cooke who was just beginning to cozy up to the transgender extremists even going so far as to refer to Sandeen's actions as cyberbulling (hmmm, where have we heard that before?).  He responded with a rather arrogant post entitled "Why Transgender Activism?"  I responded with one entitled "Why Not Transgender Activism?"  Well, Mr. Sandeen has again shown his true nature, and is looking kind of foolish.  And, well, he has resurrected that same load of crap...

If you want to see a response to his silliness, click on the link above and you can read what I wrote then.  It still stands, and I am not going to waste bandwidth cutting and pasting the whole thing here.

But I would point out one simple fact....  Mr. Sandeen does admit that transgender is "sociopolitical."  Put another way, it is pretty much imaginary.  It is not rooted in reality.  Males like Sandeen are not, and will never be, women.

As I have pointed out, the entire transgender paradigm is built on a logical fallacy.  And this logical contradiction is born out, again and again by the writings of various extremists.  For example, in another article on Transadvocate, the ever racist Mr. "Monica" Roberts put up an entire post predicated on the very idea refuted by Aunty Orthodox...
Only you should have the power to determine your self identity and you must zealously defend it. When others do it for you either because they did so by force or you ceded that power to do so willingly, you not only aren’t going to like what they come up with, but you don’t have the power to control and define your own humanity.
This sounds very grand, and noble, and such until you really think about it.  If I decide that my self identity is President of the United States, should I be able to take over running the country? No, and while that is an extreme example, it is the logical extension of a fallacy.  You can call yourself whatever you want, but that does not give you the right to impose your delusions on others.  Mr. Roberts can call himself a "black woman," but he remains a man, and he has no right to force others to see him as what he is not.

Mr. Roberts also wants to ignore the inner voice of common sense that keeps telling him to face reality...
But we can’t forget the work we still need to do between our ears to permanently banish the unholy trinity of shame, guilt and fear from our lives. That starts with us never forgetting that we must fight and decisively win the battle for self determination of our own identity and remember as we engage in that just battle, we have the moral high ground when we do so.
While one can become mired in false shame, fear and guilt, it should not simply be banished.  It should be examined, weighed, and if valid, heeded.  There is often a valid reason we feel guilty, and if we fail to learn from our mistakes, we will repeat them.

In another post, while claiming to defend transgender people against "transphobic tropes" Mr. Roberts links to a post that actually shows a logical paradox that renders the transgender paradigm invalid:
I’m going to start with the biggie – that trans people are “really” a [whatever gender you were assigned at birth.]
This is the belief that however we identify, whatever we do to our bodies, we will always really be the gender we were born as. It is irrelevant how trans people feel about ourselves, or how we look, or how we are received by the people in our lives.

You are, supposedly, one gender once and forever. It’s immutable, and whilst you can change the outside shell, you cannot change the inside.
Okay, so the person who wrote this is claiming that transgender people can change their gender.  Okay, let's take this as valid for a moment.  According to this person, gender is a choice.  You can choose to self-identify as a woman.  Well, that takes us back to the logical fallacy which has been refuted.  And while it really does no harm to the transgender kooks (who are fighting for an invalid cause anyway) this would do serious harm to transsexuals, who, again, are the victims of the transgender extremists.

If gender is merely a choice, then there is no basis for a medical diagnosis of transsexualism, we should all respond to being "talked out of it," and if that doesn't work, harsher measures are possibly warranted.  Oh dear....  Mr. Roberts just validated the behavior that Mr. "Cristan" Williams posted about.  If you can choose your gender, then they should be able to beat the sissy out of one.  Whoops...

Just to be clear, this person, while engaging in a contradictory claim, really is claiming that he can simply choose to be a woman:

It’s nevertheless tremendously effective, because it appeals to a cis-sexist biology (one that ignores the tremendous gender variation across nature … see Joan Roughgarden’s Evolution’s Rainbow for more on this) as a way of legitimating denying trans experience.

It denies us the capacity to grow, change, to self-define, to have agency of our bodies and our lives. It denies our identities.
Actually, it is this fool who is ignoring the tremendous gender variation across nature.  Animals do not choose to self-define when they show behavior that is not typical for their sex.  It is because gender is hard-wired and is immutable.  And sometimes it is hard wired at odds with the sex.  A person can choose to vary their gender expression, and that can be at odds with their gender, but that is chosen behavior, and while it can be subject to protection from government interference, it is not a basis for protection against supposed discrimination.

And again, just to drive home what this person is saying...
Well, I am a woman, because I say I am. Because that’s how I feel. Because I live my life as a woman. Because I am seen, by those who aren’t blinded by the “really” a man argument, as a woman. There might be a biological basis to my transness, but it’s ultimately irrelevant to me.
In another words, a delusion is reality.  One is not a woman, because one says one is.  That is the false basis for transgender, and that is what this person has to fall back on.  And if one is only "seen as a woman" by people who buy into your delusion, then, well, it is a delusion.  I am seen as a woman by people who don't agree with transsexualism.  They don't know to not see me as a woman.  Now, if I choose to cease being a woman, and become a "trans" then their view might change.  But then, I am a woman, not a political fiction.

I will repeat again, what I said then...
Will transgender extremists like Mr. Sandeen that the hint? Will they stop trying to speak for transsexuals and insisting that they are working for our rights? I doubt it. They need transsexuals to hide behind. They try to claim to be transsexual in order to advance their extremist agenda, failing to recognize the damage they do. They have done nothing to actually advance our cause, and much to harm it.

Ideally, the whole transgender fad would fade. But that won't happen soon enough. In the meantime, they will continue to cause harm to women, both transsexuals, and those born women.
Maybe one of these days, but clearly, not soon enough...

Monday, April 29, 2013

Why the Obsession With HBS?

It seems that a lot of the silliness oozing out from under the transgender rock has to do with an odd creature known as an HBSer. This, of course, is another neologism from the transgender kooks. Neologisms are, along with chauvinism, and logical fallacies, one of the major exports of that group. BTW, a neologism is the correct term for what is commonly referred to as "a made up word." Well, actually, an even better term, which ironically is a bit of a neologism would be "protologism" which Wiktionary defines as a newly coined word or phrase defined in the hope that it will become common; a recently created term possibly in narrow use but not yet acknowledged. BTW, protologism is a word used mainly as jargon at the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., the parent organization of Wiktionary and other projects.

So, that brings us back to the question of, what is an HBSer?  Well, it is how the transgender kooks have taken to referring to what they were calling a transsexual separatist.  They can't really use that much anymore, since Mr. Cristan Williams rather arrogantly, and quite dishonestly, declared that movement dead.  He does that sort of thing an awful lot.

To understand this rather fanciful concept (most of those to whom the term is applied had nothing to with either of the two branches associated with HBS) I guess you would need to start with the question of what HBS is.  What horrible abuses lie within?

Well, the simple fact is, HBS refers to "Harry Benjamin Syndrome," which is a proposed term to replace "transsexualism" in medical nomenclature.  Now, why, you might ask, would a new term be needed?  There were two basic motivations.  The first was the effort by the transgender extremists to co-opt transsexualism as a sort of beard for transgender behavior, and the second was the fact that "transsexual" was, for a time, increasingly associated with a particularly disturbing form of pornography that had nothing to do with the actual transsexualism.

While the term has been used in some cases as a medical term, it has not yet, and may never, achieve widespread acceptance.  Most of the people I was associated with have lost interest in advocating for its use, and have moved on.  There is still a group in Europe, led by a person known as Charlotte Goiar whom the group I was affiliated with disassociated from over some fundamental philosophical differences.  It should be noted that the transgender extremists try to ignore these facts and conflate the two groups in their effort to create a straw man to argue against.  Interestingly enough, the Goiar originally used the improper form, Harry Benjamin's Syndrome, but has since adopted the correct usage.  When a disease or syndrome is named in honor of someone, a possessive is not proper as they neither own, or (usually) suffered from that condition.  Of course, this technicality is often ignored by the media, and thus people more often say Alzheimer's disease, instead of the technically correct Alzheimer disease.

As the term HBS began to catch on in some circles, the transgender kooks began to panic.  I rather suspect that hey feared that a term they had invested a lot of effort into co-opting would be replaced by a concept that would specifically exclude them. In other words, the truth might come out and they could not have that.  

As I say, the effort to encourage adoption of the term has waned.  It seems to be stronger in Europe, but most here lost interest.  But, the label HBSer seems more popular than ever.  And some, like Suzan Cooke seem obsessed with HBS.  Granted, Cooke originally had no problem with the term, and her earlier opposition seems more related to personalities and the fact that HBS was competing with Cooke's "Women Born Transsexual" meme, which now seems silly in light of Cooke's adoption of the transgender mindset.

So, when you see someone using "HBSer," you can safely assume that they are most likely presenting a classic straw man argument.  Then again, even if they don't use the term, that is one of several logical fallacies they are very fond of....

Sunday, April 28, 2013

This Would Be Funny If It Were Not So Infuriating

Okay, I just saw a post on Transadvocate where Dana Taylor has decided to join the transgender side.  Now, it is, of course, one's right to choose how one views the world, and who one wishes to align oneself with.  For me to say otherwise would be hypocrisy.

But when I read the reason, "The Cotton Ceiling" I had to do a bit of checking.  I knew it had something to do with the whole rad fem versus trans kerfuffle.  But I was not sure of the details.

Here is what I found...
“…the Cotton Ceiling – with reference to knickers – is the term parts of the trans community have inventively adopted for the way that, however theoretically accepting of trans people a lot of progressives may be, when it comes to actually having sex with us, they vote with their …um…feet.”
In other words, it is about complaining because someone is exercising their basic human right to choose who, and who not, to have sex with.  Now, let me be clear on several things here.  Since I completed my transition, I have had sex with several men, none of whom knew my history.  It was none of their business.  Unlike the transgender crowd, I have no need to reveal my medical history in order to get my jollies.  Had someone known, and decided to decline, I might have had my feelings hurt, but I would have seen it as their right to make that decision.  Just as it is my right to decide, for example, if I want to date someone who is an FTM.  I have done so, but I don't know that I would always make that choice.  I had one post op friend who was almost stalked by a rather obnoxious FTM.  She did not want to date him, but for a while, he was almost comical in his pursuit of her... almost, but more creepy than funny.

But according to the "cotton ceiling" crowd, lesbians should be ashamed of making a choice that it is their right to make.  Taken to its logical extreme, and I have actually seen this done, straight men should have no right to turn down a "trans woman," in other words, quite possibly, a dude in a dress, who wants to go to be with him.  Now, I had a few dates before surgery and on occasion the guy did not know when we first met. I alway was careful how I revealed my, uh, situation in order to avoid any violence.  I don't believe such violence is warranted, nor do I believe the trans panic defense should be allowed.  I also think pre-op transsexuals as well as transgender men, should exercise caution to avoid being injured or worse, murdered.  But this cotton ceiling crap is just creepy.  If you feel the need to broadcast your history, people have a right to take it into consideration when deciding if they want you as a sexual partner.  There is a word for trying to deny someone the right to make a decision based on that knowledge.  It is called rape.  If a woman does not want to have sex with you because she does not believe you are an appropriate partner, whether that woman is of trans history or not (and I have known of trans women, who identified as lesbian, who also did not want to have sex with transgender men, but you insist they do not have that right, then hey Bro' you are proving, you da man!

If anyone wants a good example of the sort of behavior that lies behind my statement that I don't "misgender" transgender men, this is one of the best....  

Saturday, April 27, 2013

A Really Dumb Question

In yet another attempt to avoid reality, Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen revisits a question he asked in an article in 2009.  The Right Way To Be LGB Or T?  Let's get past the first part quickly.  Being lesbian, gay, or bisexual is an objective state.  You either are, or you are not.  If you believe they are not a choice, then the question is even more ignorant with regards to those three states.

Transgender, of course, is an identity that is a choice.  The right way to be transgender is simply to say, "I am transgender."  And suddenly you are.

Transsexual, which is what Sandeen is not, is also not a choice.  Again, you either are, or you are not.  The real issue is, a lot of people want to lie, and claim to be transsexual, when they clearly are not.  Just as more than a few men, like Sandeen, want to lie, and claim to be women when they clearly are not.

Which brings us to a simple truth...

There is no single right way to be L, G, B, or T...or, transsexual or a woman for that matter.  But there is a very large number of ways to not be transsexual or a woman.  And at the top of that list is "Avoiding reality." And Sandeen and his ilk engage in that one all the time.

Friday, April 26, 2013

The Logical Fallacy of Transgender

In all of the silliness that has gone on today, what with Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen's complete meltdown, and Mr."Cristan" Williams comment on it, I saw something that I should have commented on.  And that was the central issue that I am trying to get people to see.

Sandeen was carrying on because I commented that he would not respond to challenges.  I have seen Williams try to use logical fallacies and intellectual dishonesty to avoid dealing with real issues.  And I realized, they have no choice.

At the core of the transgender paradigm is "self identification."  A transsexual who posts as Aunty Orthodox confronted Sandeen over this.  She was debating Sandeen about MWMF and the issue of who is and is not a woman...
After some back and forth, I asked specifically about Kirk Sneade, a college student who published a manifesto which included this bullet:
  • Kirk Sneade has self defined as a woman ever since he realised it gave him legal access to the women’s changing rooms at the Bloomsbury gym.
Does Autumn Sandeen support Kirk Sneade, a self-identified woman, as an attendee to MWMF? Seems crazy, doesn’t it? Autumn would not address the question, instead choosing to talk about equality, and yadda yadda.
Autumn avoided two pointed questions. The first is, what is a self-identified woman? Her refusal to answer suggests that we both agree that Kirk Sneade is not a woman, even though he meets the criteria for self-identifying as one.
The second is whether women can define who is allowed to be a part of women’s-only space. An organizer may want to exclude male-bodied persons, or even female-bodied trans women from their space (e.g., MWMF, Radfem 2013). That’s their right. Autumn disagrees
But what is a woman? Is Kirk Sneade a woman? See how circular this is? If Kick Sneade, a self-identified woman, can enter women’s space, who can’t? Shouldn’t women decide who gets to be included in women’s space?
I have to say, this was absolutely brilliant.  I would challenge any who wish to defend transgender politics to answer this simple paradox.  Clearly, Kirk Sneade is not a woman.  Right?  Well, if he isn't, and you claim someone like Sandeen is, how can this be?  Sandeen's ONLY claim to being a woman is, after twenty years of successful service as a man, in a man's role, in the US Navy, he decided he wanted to be a woman and started self-identifying as one.  Now, he will, of course, claim that he was always a woman, and such, but I call foul on that.  Trust me, I know.  I had a miserable life before I transitioned. I would not have lasted 20 minutes in the Navy, let alone 20 years.  

If all it takes to be a woman is to self-identify as one, then by that standard, Kirk Sneade is a woman.  But clearly Kirk Sneade is not a woman.  No one, except a true fanatic, would say he is.  But if he is not, where is the line?  And who gets to draw it?  Sandeen would not answer this, because Sandeen cannot answer this.  Would Sandeen insist that people MUST use female pronouns to refer to Kirk Sneade?  After all, Sneade says he is a woman?  That is the same standard as Sandeen claims.  Would Sandeen demand that Kirk Sneade be admitted to MWMF?  Probably...  But that is a bit different matter.  And here is the real kicker.  Would he insist that be allowed in the women's changing rooms?  If not, Sandeen's entire paradigm falls apart.  If so, then Sandeen has shown he has no concept of how women think or feel. And with that the transgender house of cards collapses...

Women, quite frankly, don't "self-identify" as women.  We just are.  Sandeen will call foul, perhaps, or someone else might, and they are welcome to do so.  But ask any woman to really explain what makes her a woman, and that is the answer you will ultimately get.  It is not an identity.  It is a reality.  A reality that Kirk Sneade, and let's be honest, Sandeen, have never, and will never, experience.  So. all they can claim is, "I self-identify" as a woman.  And I am sorry. but that just doesn't cut it.

So, what is the moral of all this?  It is simple. One is a woman, if, and really only if, one is able to actually life in society as a woman.  Not a transwoman, not as transgender, but just as a woman.  I do, and so do a lot of transsexuals who have completed transition and moved on.   

I Also Wanted To Respond to Mr. Williams

I wanted to respond to Mr. "Cristan" Williams bit of drivel...  I mean, while he is welcome to come and comment here, his blog is heavily censored...  He posted a comment to Mr. Sandeen's post...
It’s a shame that JJ is content to spend so much time stalking and harassing people like the huge internet creep (with a misgendering fetish) she’s become. Had she instead applied that drive to actual research, she could have added to the world’s knowledge. Instead, she seems obsessed with negative attention and the price she’s paid is that her opinion doesn’t get to count… Which is a shame because it’s painfully obvious to practically everyone that she needs it to count so badly. She’s relegated herself to being a simple internet troll – something any child can do. She has a great command of the English language and she’s tenacious; she could have done something productive with that.
Well. let's see...  First off, I have to giggle at the childish way that Mr. Williams starts with name calling, but then tries to slide over to sounding almost reasonable...  I guess by "actual research" he means stuff like claiming that Janice Raymond, who is not a person I really like having to defend, actually caused the death pf 50,000 transsexuals.  Yeah, made up numbers like that, unsupported by evidence...is his idea of "solid research."  Of course, in the egotistical mind of Mr. Williams, anything that challenges his world view can simply be dismissed.  This is a man who lacks a shred of intellectual integrity.  I love how he tries, in a classic bit of verbal slight of hand, to simply dismiss what I say.  A bit of argumentum ad ignorantiam.  He just sort of asserts things without evidence as though they are fact.  Oh, I have no doubt that Mr. Williams desperately wants to believe that what I say doesn't matter, but if it didn't, he would not have wasted time trying to dismiss it.

Oh, and to repeat, I don't "misgender"... First off, there is no such word outside of the argot of the transgender subculture.  Secondly, if I honestly, sincerely believe that someone's "gender" that is the wiring of their brain, is male, I will call them male...and vice versa.  It is not based on whether or not I agree with their politics, but on how they actually come across.  It is simply absurd to demand that people suspend reality in order to comply with some imaginary standard of political correctness.  When you have a man, acting like a bad parody of a woman, but are forced by some imaginary social convention to refer to him as "her" and "she," something is wrong.  I simply refuse to play along and pander to deception or delusions because someone wants to "deconstruct gender."
For about 20 years now, she’s wasted her time targeting people who’re actually doing something…
 ROTFL!  Yes, actually doing something...wrong.  Another argumentum ad ignorantiam.  I hope to stop an effort to establish rights based on offensive and harmful behavior. A man wearing a dress might be offensive, but it is not harmful.  A man forcing his way into women's space and demanding the right to expose his penis, because it is really a "big 'ol clit" is offensive, and harmful.  You want to play dress up?  Fine.  You want to parade around naked in women's spaces, sorry, but well, there's an app for that...it's called pepper spray.
[I will be enjoying the fact that I got under Williams skin]
I will admit, I do enjoy taking down a pompous pseudo-intellectual fool.  And yes, the Internet is quite full of them...
She obviously feels good when she gets one of her targets to respond. I don’t think that she gets that most folk view her behavior as just being sad. How many hours has she spent over the past decade making herself into an irrelevant creepy troll?
When I or others respond, it’s because we all have within us the need to swat a fly. She’s mistaking annoyance with interest. That she’s so willingly traded her talents for such a pathetic substitution for interest and actual engagement is just… well, sad. When her name is mentioned on the internet, people just roll their eyes and shake their heads. I can hear her now telling herself that she doesn’t care what other people think while planning her next humdinger of a response thinking it will really put her target in their place.
 Actually, I feel good when I get someone to think.  People like Mr. Williams, are simply a source amusement.  As he leaps from argumentum ad hominem, to petitio principi (i.e. begging the question), to yet another non sequitur, followed by a some post hoc ergo propter hoc before throwing in a bit of bandwagoning (assuming everyone agrees), some card stacking (selective facts), before wrapping it all up in false generalizations, it is sort of like watching a cat chasing the dot from a laser pointer.  Amusing for a while, but you do kind of have a guilty laugh when they misjudge and wind up looking foolish...though they will always pretend they don't.
She doesn’t grasp that I feel sadness, not anger, when someone sends me a link to see what she’s up to. Such waste of talent and such a pale imitation of discourse. How many hours do you think she’s spent involved in her trolling drama? 100? 1000? 2000? More? How many words do you think she’s written while caught up in her drama over the past 10 or 15 years? How many books could that have been?
Such a pathetic damn waste.
Yes, such lofty words, but again, not at all backed up by facts.  Yes, Mr. Williams is so sad...  So, he resorts to an argumentum ad hominem to cheer himself up.  And when he imagines he has scored some point, his self-congratulatory "Booyah!" is just a desperate attempt to hide the heartbreak. All that desperate, win at all costs, intellectual dishonesty coupled with egotistical self-congratulatory aggrandizement merely masks the tears he sheds....

Some might actually believe him... Then again, some people think the earth is flat.  I may mock Mr. Williams, but I mock him with facts.  He mocks with innuendo and insults.  That says more than all his clever attempts to deceive.

Mr. Sandeen Has A Complete Meltdown

Well, I can't say I am totally surprised, but Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen has finally had a complete breakdown online.  In the past, his kook has cyberstalked me, in an attempt to censor what I say about transgender extremists.  This morning, he went off the deep end and posted a rather interesting article on Transadvocate.

Now, Sandeen starts off by claiming to have been cyberbullied, and cyberstalked three times and offers links (note, links as in plural) to document this.  Oddly enough, they are all the same link.  I don't know if he had simply become so angry he was not thinking, or if he thinks his readers are that ignorant.  He then says something that shows just how insane he really is...

I now understand that people I’ve never met in the brick-and-mortar world actually have despised me enough to have seriously planned, and in one case actually accomplishing, real harm to me in the brick-and-mortar world.
Okay...  Well, what actually happened was there was discussion of preventing Sandeen from attempting to, and then actually committing a criminal fraud that he had bragged he was going to do.  He basically lied to a court and claimed he had changed his physical sex.  He has not.  But having said the above, he goes on to tell, in detail, how he tried to cause me real harm.  He wanted, in his mind, to have me fired from a position he imagined I had.  Actually, I was never a "staff member" of my church.  I was, for a while, the editor of the church newsletter.  I did my turn, and now it is someone else.  Sandeen's little harrassment had nothing to do with that.

Hmmm, let's look at that definition of cyberstalking he posted.
Sending multiple e-mails, often on a systematic basis, to annoy, embarrass, intimidate, or threaten a person or to make the person fearful that she or a member of her family or household will be harmed. Also called e-mail harassment.
In another words, exactly what Sandeen brags about doing.  And what Sandeen is clearly hoping others will follow his example and do.  And again, Sandeen admits to this...

I wanted the ministers at her church to know how one of their lay leaders was acting outside of the church towards people the church was supposed to be welcoming towards, so I wrote the church — and as I said before, I cc’d her on that email. I did nothing behind her back.
Sounds like he wanted to make sure I was annoyed, embarrassed, and/or intimidated.

Let's compare here...  I write a blog about issues affecting transsexuals, which includes the silliness pushed by transgender extremists like Sandeen, among others.  Sandeen is very active in pushing an agenda that I rather vehemently oppose.  I express my opinion on these issues.  Further, my blog welcomes anyone who wants to comment, and has only one rule...respect privacy.  The only people I have ever blocked have been those who attempt to engage in the sort of harassment that Sandeen is guilty of.  Granted, the one time that Sandeen attempted to comment here, his post went to spam, which I was not even aware had been added in an update, and I did not see it until long past the day it was sent.  Sandeen tends to prefer posting drivel of the sort we see here, from blogs that are heavily censored.

Now, Sandeen goes on to try to defend another of his attempts to intimidate me.  He threatened to use some photos that were obtained by "Willow" Arune through deceit and provided to a vicious cyberstalker, the one who prompted Sandeen to contact my church.  This person also contacted Suzan Cooke.  To Cooke's credit, she declined to engage in such behavior, having more ethics than Sandeen.  Ironically, Cooke does not brag about how she is so like Martin Luther King, Jr.  

Jennifer claims I don’t own the copyright of my image; she claims it’s owned by the Huffington Post.
Actually, no.  Sandeen wrote me, and demanded I remove the photo.  I declined to be censored by Sandeen (do you think Sandeen, or Mr. "Cristan" Williams, would agree if I demanded that they take down the private information that Sandeen has posted?).  I pointed out that the photo had no copyright, and besides, Sandeen himself had made it public.  Mr. Williams has copied content from my blog, without permission (not just quotes, but graphics as well).  It is called, "fair use."  Sandeen, by the way, has gone far beyond that here.  He pointed out that the web page said "Copyright, Huffington Post" and I responded, "You are not the Huffington Post."  I never said that the items where owned by them.  In fact, I said the opposite.

Now, for example, I have no idea how Sandeen got the photo he used in his post.  It is one taken of me some years ago, by a guy I dated a couple of time, and was used by me in various places.  It is not one of the one's Arune stole (hey, unlike some people I prefer truth). 

Now, as to Sandeen's "meat puppeting" (funny, given I never mentioned that term...) that is kind of obvious.  His columns rarely rate more than a few comments.  Rather suddenly, there seemed to be a chorus of very similar remarks, including a number from a supposed radical feminist who attacked me and another transsexual, including as Sandeen puts it, misgendering us (funny, Sandeen never said a word) but this person defended Sandeen who has also cyberstalked a number of lesbian women.  Perhaps I am mistaken, but I will go with Occam's Razor on this one...

A few final thoughts...

I am supposedly obsessed with Sandeen, but which of us put what was obviously quite a bit of time and effort into searching the Internet for detailed information on someone?  What I write about Sandeen is based on reading his posts on LGBT Weekly, and Pam's House Blend.  And more recently, Twitter.  Hmm, folks be warned...reading Sandeen's public writings is stalking him in his twisted mind.  I actually started my blog, largely in reaction to his, and other transgender extremists efforts to hide dissent.

I would welcome anyone to my church, and in fact, we have had transgender people visit.  Funny thing...I generally don't take political issues to church with me.  And that is, really, what this eventually is.  A political disagreement.  Sandeen wants to rend asunder the fabric of society.  I oppose his efforts to subvert gender.  He just takes it a bit too personally.  And that is just his reaction to my speaking out against his ridiculous demands for society.  As to what else I might do, that is none of his business as it does not directly involve him.  Suffice to say, I won't be donning a uniform I am not entitled to wear (he mocked women, and the US Navy) and chaining myself to the White House fence.  Or otherwise making a public fool of myself.  Unlike him, I do not seek, or appreciate attention.

I will no more pander to Sandeen's delusions than I would those of the gentleman who I had the misfortune to have sit next to me on the bus the other day.  He started ranting, to anyone who would listen, about some person on the bus who he imagined was his enemy.  I'm not sure which passenger it was, but he was quite agitated.  I tried as best as possible to ignore him, but I also made sure the driver was aware (we were both sitting in the front) and I very discretely made sure my pepper spray was in my hand...just in case.  He finally exited the bus without incident.  Both he, and Sandeen, have lost touch with reality.  Fortunately, as someone who knows Sandeen pointed out this morning, Sandeen is 350 miles away.

What I will do is continue to speak out, and draw attention to Sandeen's foolishness.  And that foolishness includes the fantasy that he can control me.

Update:  Well, it seems that Mr. Sandeen chose to update his article, so I guess I should correct his new lies:
I think I need to make a point one more time because Jennifer is still imagining that I’m conspiring with others to cause her harm. Specifically, I’ve never conspired with someone named Willow to take any coordinated action against Jennifer. In general, I’ve never done any conspiring with anyone at all at any time whatsoever in any matter that relates to Jennifer Usher. As much as she may believe I have engaged in some coordinated conspiracy to cause her harm, she’s absolutely wrong in that belief.
This, of course, is a classic straw man argument.  I did not say that Sandeen was "conspiring" with anyone.  To repeat, some time back, a particularly nasty cyberstalker sent messages to several bloggers trying to get people to attack me by contacting my church.  He was hiding behind anonymous servers, and would not do his own dirty work.  I suspect he feared legal action.  Suzan Cooke posted about this,and how she would not go along,  Only Sandeen actually, as far as I know, was the only person stupid enough to actually do what was asked.  The person cyberstalking me was not Willow Arune, though Arune was a supporter of that person's efforts.  It was hardly coordinated, more of a clumsy scheme by a person who had previously been obsessed someone in Canada.  The person has apparently since disappeared.  I don't know if they have died, been imprisoned (there is reason to believe this person had a history of criminal behavior in Nevada, or perhaps finally got on some serious anti-psychotics.  

Thursday, April 25, 2013

More Cisphobic Silliness From Mr. "Cristan" Williams

Mr. "Cristan" Williams is continuing his crusade against women with an attack on someone for pointing out a rather significant truth...that women do sometimes lack the privilege that men like Mr. Williams enjoyed before he began his masochistic quest to impersonate a woman.  

In the article, Mr. Williams tries, again, to argue that cis people have great privilege....while ignoring the fact that what he considers a lack of privilege on the part of transgender people is basically of their own making.  Now, keep in mind, we are talking about "transgender" and NOT transsexual. 

Mr. Williams provides a list to make his case.  When looked through the lens of reality, it is a different matter...
Examples of cis-privilege as reported by the trans community: 
You can use public restrooms without fear of verbal abuse, physical intimidation, or arrest.
In another words, people who are not trying to pretend to be members of the opposite sex can go to the bathroom without violating social norms, or the law.  Oh, and I notice that Mr. Williams conveniently removed the one that was next in the original, about going into locker room and store changing rooms.  I guess even he knows that is a losing idea....
Strangers don’t assume they can ask you what your genitals look like and how you have sex.
Funny, but the only people who ever asked me that were transgender kooks.
If you are murdered (or have any crime committed against you), your gender expression will not be used as a justification for your murder (“gay panic”) nor as a reason to coddle the perpetrators.
I agree, no one should be murdered period.  But I do find it disgusting how the transgender community is more interested in praising martyrs than promoting safety.  Gay panic, which is also, surprise, surprise, used against gays, should not be a valid defense.  But pushing the idea that people should take chances is often what gets them killed.
You have the ability to walk through the world and generally blend-in, not being constantly stared or gawked at, whispered about, pointed at, or laughed at because of your gender expression.
Yeah, you tell 'em bro!  You guys have the right to dress up and look hilarious while impersonating a caricature of a woman, and anyone who laughs at you is wrong....  Seriously, do they ever look in the mirror?  Yesh, some of them are NEVER going to blend in, and let's be honest, a lot of them want to be stared at, gawked at, whispered about, pointed at, and laughed at.  If they don't want this, they should stop dressing like they do.
Strangers call you by the name you provide, and don’t ask what your “real name” [birth name] is and then assume that they have a right to call you by that name.
Or, they can realize that they are not now, nor will they ever really be perceived as women.  What they really want is the right to force everyone to ignore reality, and accept them as something they are not, and will never really be.
You have the ability to flirt, engage in courtship, or form a relationship and not fear that your biological status may be cause for rejection or attack, nor will it cause your partner to question their sexual orientation.
Ever wonder just how ridiculous the transgender kooks are?  Here it is!  They are demanding the right to force themselves on people.  Let's see...  If a cis person finds another cis person unattractive, that is, well, normal...  But, if a cis person is not attracted to a trans person, which most are not going to be, if say, a man does not want his girlfriend to be packing a penis, or perhaps even better, a woman is not thrilled to have some male pervert trying to get a date because he considers himself to be a lesbian, then they are somehow wrong?  That they have no right to reject such a person?  I mean, really, this is just how incredibly insane these people are.  I guess they might want affirmative action for male lesbians, or something.
If you end up in the emergency room, you do not have to worry that your gender will keep you from receiving appropriate treatment, or that all of your medical issues will be seen as a result of your gender.
Well, I have never been denied medical care, even while pre-op.  And let's face reality, in some cases, hormones and other drugs used in transition can cause medical issues.  But Mr. Williams wants doctors to ignore reality.
Your identity is not considered a mental pathology (“gender identity disorder” in the DSM IV) by the psychological and medical establishments.
Well, the therapist who referred me for SRS specifically declined to put a diagnosis for GID, stating that she did not think my "gender identity" was disordered at all.  That she saw my gender as female, and since that was my "identity," there was no disorder.  Now, if you have someone like Mr. Williams, who clearly has a male gender (or better a male brain) but wants to pretend he is a woman, then yeah, there is definitely something disordered going on....
You are not required to undergo an extensive psychological evaluation in order to receive basic medical care.
Giving someone hormones that are not appropriate to his or her sex, and which may cause major changes, or performing sex reassignment surgery on someone, is not basic medical care.  If it is not the right treatment, the results can be tragic.  
[You are] able to assume that everyone you encounter will understand your identity, and not think you’re confused, misled, or hell-bound when you reveal it to them.
I doubt anyone is likely to understand someone like Mr. Williams' identity.  Again, he is clearly a man, but he wants to pretend to be a woman.  He is, quite frankly, a walking contradiction.  Confused?  Perhaps.  Misled?  More like he is trying to mislead others.  Hell-bound?  I would leave that to God to decide.  But, understandable?  Hardly.

Again, we see what the transgender kooks want is nothing short of license to behave in an antisocial manner.  They are men who want to force people to ignore basic reality and pretend they are something they never will be.

Hypocrisy and Beyond....

Well, it was an interesting morning....

As I announced in my post yesterday, I decided to create a Twitter account for my blog.  I did this, in part, because Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen had been attacking me on Twitter, and I figured...I would fight fire, with fire.  Or in this case, tweets with tweets.  Actually, this story really starts a bit earlier...  Now, I have been on Twitter a bit longer...but under a different account, and no, I am not giving out that information.  This blog, and transsexual issues is actually a very small part of my life, and I keep things private.  

Now, anyone can look at someone's tweets simply by going to Twitter and putting in that person's user name if known.  You don't have to join Twitter unless you want to post.  In fact, you don't have to be logged in at all.  Sort of like reading a blog....  A person can mark their Tweets as private, but that prevents people who are not following them from reading them, and Sandeen actually took this approach for about a day after I published several of his more embarrassing statements.  But Sandeen is nothing, if not attention seeking, and he went back public

I had started looking at what Sandeen was saying, after seeing various reposts of some of his more obnoxious behavior against various women who have had the audacity to stand up to the jerk.  He can be very abusive, and has a nasty reputation for stalking radical feminist women in Twitter...

When I set my Twitter account up, I followed several people, including Mr. Sandeen.  Later, so I added him again.  Then, I got a message saying he had blocked me.  Okay, I figured...that is his right, and not really surprising.  I mean, he is a bit of a hypocritical jerk.  I am not going to lose sleep over it.  Which I didn't.  This morning, I woke up, and went online to check email and such, and a bit to my surprise, I discovered that I now had two followers... Mr. Sandeen, and more laughably, his cat.  Yes, Sandeen, apparently in a rather clueless attempt to hide, has an account in his cat's name.  So, I figured, okay, I don't censor people, and I followed him again.  I also had picked up another follower.   I then out up my earlier post today, tweeted about it, and added a couple of tweets mentioning that Sandeen...and his cat were no following me.
About an hour or so later, I went to check Twitter again...and discovered that my account had been suspended for "abuse."  Now, this is where it gets interesting.  I am not sure how Sandeen managed to pull such a stunt off.  I had made all of four tweets.  My first was a retweet of something from Cathy Brennan, who I am disappointed to say also blocked me.  I am not sure why, as I have not attacked her, and in fact, have defended her. 
 But hey, again, it is her right.  If I somehow offended her, I apologize.

Anyway,  had to go through checking off a couple of boxes promising not to do whatever it was I was accused of (which doesn't make any sense, since I looked at the Twitter rules and cannot see what, if anything I violated) and my account is back.  Sandeen has, again, blocked me, and was not "following me" but, as unbelievable as this might seem, his cat was still following me.  I mean really, is he THAT ignorant?  Does he REALLY think he is fooling anyone?  In any case, I filed a complaint against him, pointing out that he has attacked me as well (which does not actually appear to be against the rules) and pointing out that he appears to have somehow abused Twitter's abuse procedures.  Oh well...it is all very strange, but it is also very typical of Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen and the Transgender Kooks in general.  They think nothing of attacking people, insulting them, stalking them, etc...but they react in outrage when they are subjected to mere disagreement.

Yes, I admit, I take great delight in tweaking Mr. Sandeen's rather enormous ego.  But, he deserves it.  I have no sought to harm him in any way.  I do wish someone had filed with the court in San Diego to challenge his fraudulent birth certificate, but that is a bit different.  There, he was committing a crime and should have been stopped.  

If I ever met Mr. Sandeen in person, I would certain be a bit alarmed.  He has admitted to engaging in violence, I would certainly be on guard, and would consider taking steps to protect myself as necessary, just as I would with any man who is known to be violent.  But, I would take no steps to harm him unless absolutely necessary.

But one thing is for certain.  Sandeen is a hypocrite, and a kook.

Update:  Okay, I just got an email from Twitter informing me that "Transadvocate" (I assume that would be Mr. "Cristan" Williams himself, had mentioned me in a tweet.  He was complaining to Sandeen and Mr. "Monica" Roberts, the notorious "Trangriot" bigot, that I was "stalking" him.  So, now, he is trying to claim that following someone on Twitter is stalking them?   So, I guess that would mean that his comrade Mr. Sandeen was stalking me this morning?  As was his cat?  Well, actually, the cat thing was sort of stalking, but that is another matter....   Weird how the mind of these kooks works.  Well, I guess he blocked me...

I Guess the TG Kooks Don't Believe They Should Have Such Standards

Well, if anyone ever wondered just how big a sleaze bag Mr. "Cristan" Williams is, or how low Suzan Cooke could stoop, we have a new answer.  In what has to be one of the most ironic twists in a while, there is a new article over at Transadvocate called Standards of Decency for the Press Regarding Transsexual and Transgender People. Okay...when I saw the tweet from Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen about this, I thought it might be worth a laugh. It was, but not for the reasons expected. It is actually Suzan Cooke's rather hilarious attempt to attack me that I have already written about.

If the TG crowd is getting that desperate to smear me, I must be doing something right. It's nice to know they are that scared of what I have to say. And I don't even have to post fake headlines to sucker people into reading stuff to accomplish this.

Really, boys...that is truly lame. Even for you.

Update:  Having been caught with their pants down, the boys have now corrected the title with no explanation or apology, though they did not correct the URL, so the above link, which includes the original, and very misleading, title still works. Go figure....

Wednesday, April 24, 2013

In The Middle....

Well, first off, this post marks the 300th on this blog! It was just over a year ago, I posted the 200th, and now we are up by another hundred. Hmmm, I wonder if Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen will want to make another smart remark about that....for those who don't know, he has been whining about the amount I post...not the first man to claim a woman has too much to say.

Another big announcement....this blog now has a presence on Twitter. I am there as @_JustJennifer_. Feel free to follow me. And I should note, Sandeen has blocked me from following him. Oh well....that is easily gotten around....

Now, on to the topic at hand... I have stated many times that I am a moderate politically. I often joke that I am a member of the Radical Middle, the Far Center....that I am a Extreme Moderate. But it is, in many ways, more than a joke. I do take a very moderate approach to most issues. And I am often amused by the more extremist views that others take.

To start with an easy example...there is Suzan Cooke. Her politics are pretty much off the deep end on the Left. She seems to want to relive her "glory days" as a hanger-on with the Weather Underground. When someone is that far out there, it is hard to take them seriously. On gender issues, Cooke used to be closer to the center, but has recently become almost as extreme as Mr. Sandeen.

Now, Mr. Sandeen may not be the craziest, or the most radical, but he is pretty much a kook among kooks. He is, quite frankly, is the gift that keeps on giving. I am still laughing at the bit about he pounding the table and telling Cathy Brennan that he wanted to carry "his balls around in a jar..." As she told him, that is not female. I guess we should all be thankful that the rules do not allow doctors to return such items to patients. The world is safe from Mr. Sandeen's testicles...though his penis is apparently still at large.

Over on a blog called "Gender Trender," there is a rather amusing exchange between Mr. Sandeen and someone who posts as "Gallus Mag." Basically, he is trying to get this person to reveal her name to him, and she is trying to get him to understand that a woman might not want certain people, including a kook like him, having that sort of information. Sandeen has repeated shown that he is incapable of comprehending how women feel, and this is a perfect example. Towards the end of the exchange, he refers to Gallus Mag as a "girl," and she objects. Instead of acting in a mature manner, Sandeen tries to defend this very male condescension...
I call women “women”. You’re not brave; you’re not a grown-up. You are a girl, “girl”, b/c you’re a hit and run coward. Seriously, not even brave enough to email me? Truly a height of effeminacy—a brave feminist you just ain’t. L and G done with us?
This, as much as anything, shows how male his brain is. What an incredible bit of drivel, from someone who is not only a man, but more than a bit of chauvinistic pig at that. Oh, and a clue for Mr. Sandeen....he should look up the definition of effeminate...


(of a man) having or showing characteristics regarded as typical of a woman; unmanly.

Hmmm, "of a man." And Sandeen is tossing that insult at a woman. Yeah, talk about completely clueless. I suppose one could call Sandeen, "effeminate," and technically, that is what he is, but only in the sense that he is a very bad caricature of a woman. Sort of in the vein of various comedians who have dressed up and minced around in what many women would consider to be a highly insulting parody. Except he thinks he is actually fooling people.

On the opposite side of the coin, you have this mostly excellent response to Mr. Sandeen from Marie-France Lease
You know what, Sandeen. If I had been born in the middle of an aboriginal forest — without so much as a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of — everyone who met me in that forest would have NO DOUBT that I am a woman because I am, in fact, a woman.

I don’t need one or three or fifty sheets of gub’mint paper to “prove” I’m a woman. I AM a woman. For me and for half the human race, it really is just that simple.

While you’re bleating and foaming and tilting about demanding that everyone agree with you? Half the human race? We’re just going about our business trying to survive from cradle to grave as actual, authentic females.

If you were an actual, authentic female, you’d be nodding along with me and thinking, “Truth.” For us, it’s not a game. It’s not an achievement. It’s not a contest. It’s not “fake it till you make it.” It’s not a hobby, an avocation, an obsession, something we do to entertain ourselves — or get ourselves off.

We’re living it from the first sex-identifying ultrasound until we draw our last breath.

So to hell with you and the penis you road in on. We don’t care about your stupid little pieces of paper or your falsies or your pink eye-shades. We’re just trying to make it till the next payday, till retirement, till the Goddess draws us back into Mother Earth for our long sleep.

Go take up another hobby. We’re sick to death of being hounded by delusional dudes.
Most of this I can honestly relate to. I don't buy into the "Goddess" stuff, and shoot, when I was in my mother's womb, they didn't have ultrasound...but yes, I understand whshe is saying, and I know, just as well, that it is all lost on kooks like Sandeen.

Another,Becky Green had this to say....

Buffalo Sandeen,
You’re a man with a man’s height, body frame and a man’s rage. You have an imposing figure and no woman could physically beat you. Who’s to say you won’t start stalking Gallus in person or that you won’t show up at her door and pummel her unconscious? With your words alone, we can see you’re pushy, aggressive, fond of intimidation and all MALE. No woman should ever divulge her personal information to a delusion, emotionally unstable man-child such as yourself.
So take your big, lumbering, hulky body with fake tits and size 13 shoes down to your local strip club and get a beer with the bros while you ogle the gyrating women, because that’s what “real” wo-men, like you, enjoy doing.
A bit heavy handed, but in Mr. Sandeen's case, still dead on.  Granted, some women are tall, have a heavier frame, and can exhibit some serious rage.  But, given what has been said about Mr. Sandeen, by himself, and others, this is pretty dead-on.  He himself has bragged about having a fit of rage because he was called a man.  There is a lot of overlap between men in women in terms of size, so this is a bit extremist.

Then, into this argument, a voice of reason appears... Cassandraspeaks has this to say...
If anyone needs a piece of paper to prove their sex they certainly are NOT that sex. The men like Autumn Sandeen are an insult of the worst order. He is everything GM says he is and more. The list of those like him is as long as your arm. I’ve been fighting those like Sandeen in a verbal and philosophical war for over 25 years. They take advantage of the ignorance about what transsexuality really is in order to obtain their own perverted desires. Good luck in dealing with this freak.
Cassandra is a transsexual, and one would hope that this would add some balance to this discussion, but now we see the other side of the extremist coin rear its ugly head...  someone calling herself, Cynical Cynthia tosses this out...
Yes, Cassandra, your definitions of this arbitrary concept are the most correctest ever; menzes like Sandeen will never understand. You, because of the things you say and think about the arbitrary concept of transsexualism, are completely different to him.
Now, if she had only stopped there, we would have reached a good middle ground.  We could come together, shake hands, and join forces to defend women...  Sadly, she continues with this silliness...
*yawn* – Same shit, different day. Females have vaginas and give birth; males have penises and fertilise eggs which causes females to get pregnant and give birth. Your thoughts on arbitrary principles or identification with either sex will not make you a member of that sex no matter how different you supposedly are to Mr Sandeen. At least, I imagine that your supreme ideas have not given you ovaries, fallopian tubes and a uterus with which to give birth, but do correct me if I am wrong.
What a nasty thing to say, not just because of transsexuals, but because a small, but not non-zero group of women are born without uteruses, fallopian tubes, or ovaries.  They are still women, in many cases, of XX phenotype, but with some other condition.  I can understand that, and can certainly relate to them.  Other women lose these things to disease.  And they grieve for their loss.  Men like Sandeen could care less.  Some of use actually do feel a sense of real loss for what we, sadly, never had, and never will.  I have heard similar remarks from some transgender creeps, but hearing such a flippant remark, from a woman, is just nasty.  

But here we get into the realm of the more extreme of the radical feminists.  Here a person recognizes that someone actually gets it, but then, purely on ideological grounds, turns a deaf ear.  Cynical Cynthia effectively says, "Hey, your right, your different, but I am going to stop thinking because I have to stay true to a point of view that say I have to reject anything you say."  How absurd.

This is at the heart of the radical feminist's arguments with transsexuals.  While they are quite accurate in their assessment of the transgender crowd, which for the most part act like men, they have to fall back on ideology when faced with transsexuals.  Someone like Sandeen is easily dismissed as the man he is.  He makes it oh, so easy.  He waves his paperwork and say "I am a woman," and everyone pretty much laughs and says "Nope, you're not..."  He flounces around in a ridiculous outfit that no real women would wear and says, "Hey, don't you just love #girlslikeus," and everyone sort of snickers, and he gets mad and makes threats.  He chains himself to the White House fence, and says, "I am like Martin Luther King, Jr.," and every grimaces and says, "Well, only in the sense you both were men..."

But, they attack transsexuals on very theoretical basis, claiming that gender is a "social construct," and dismissing legitimate brain studies by lying about them...a tactic that has also been used by some transgender types who know that such studies expose them for the frauds they are.  They make claims like biology is destiny, while effectively denying the only basis on which such a claim can be made.

The radical feminist view is based on the notion that gender is all about socialization, which is, often the same idea claimed by feminists.  We are supposed to believe that it is all about how we are raised.  In the radical feminist view, children born with a penis are raised to be men, and told all the things that seem to come to men so naturally.  And yet, they ignore the fact that even when parents try to raise their children more neutrally, they still exhibit gender typical behavior.  Parents who try to raise their boys to be more gentle are shocked when things don't work out as they expect.  Try to raise a girl to be more masculine, and she might shock you.  And do they really think that they can just ignore situations like mine, where my father made very effort to "beat and/or shame the sissy out of me?"  Now, sure, someone like Sandeen, who spent twenty years in the military, proudly, and successfully serving, as a man, in a very male environment, before, as he neared the time he would retire, only then began to show some signs of what was to come.  Sandeen is a typical of the sort of man who hides a fetish for a long time, and then has it come out late in life.  He is able to easily assimilate as a male, before finally deciding he is going to enjoy his little hobby. 

 I, on the other hand, like many, never fit in as a man.  I always stood out.  I was seen, as I have said, as a "defective male."  I was like the classic comedy trope...the woman who dresses up as a man, to infiltrate some group of men, and who is either immediately spotted, and subjected to  playful torment, or for even more laughs, initially succeeds in her disguise, but keeps slipping up, creating more and more humor.  In short, I stuck out like a sore thumb, and often had people people comment on that fact.  I learned to laugh it off, but I knew people wondered what was going on.

On a website called Transgender Tropes, which sets out to refute said "tropes," there is this comment:
“Transgenderism is based on the idea that gender traits, characteristics, emotions and behaviors ARE inherently tied to one’s biological sex (Biology IS destiny), and they seek to reconcile their own diversity from gender norms by altering their biology to match the traits they view as incongruent with their physical sex. This is actually a REVERSAL of the idea that biology isn’t destiny. What they are saying is that gender IS biologically determined. And if they fail to conform to sex based gender norms they must alter their biology as much as possible to at least conform cosmetically to their gender essentialist beliefs. This is opposite to the idea of transgressing biological imperative (nature) with socialization and free will (nurture).”
Actually, this is rather odd, and quite inaccurate statement.  First off, it is not remotely accurate to attribute this to the transgender crowd.  They tend to claim that sex and what they call gender, are so separate as to be completely unrelated.  In fact, they often claim that gender is, effectively not only a choice, but is almost a mood.  That one can be a woman one day, and a man the next, and perhaps even none of the above on yet another day.  And that each whim must be accepted as totally and equally valid.

Ironically, even as the radical feminist reject the idea of "brain sex" (as, ironically do many of the more radical transgender extremists) they actually seem to adhere to exactly such an idea with a tenacity that matches that of some among the religious right.  And, in complete ignorance of scientific studies that show otherwise.

Of course, for the transgender crowd, it is really all about the trappings.  Like most women, I enjoy getting dressed up for certain occasions.  But, day to day, I dress like, well like what I am, a geeky woman.  Most days that means what I guess you would call "mom jeans," a t-shirt (unisex, since I kind of like them loose) with something clever on it (One of my favorites says "There are 10 kind of people in the world, those who understand binary, and those who don't.") , flats or sneakers, no jewelry, and no make up.  I don't need to dress like Barbara Billingsley in Leave it to Beaver in order to "feel like a woman."  Someone, who was quite transgender, once commented that I dressed like a house wife.  He meant it as a bit of a correction.  I took it as a complement.  Then again, one of my best friends, who is a born woman, is never seen in anything but a skirt.  I used to dress that way more, but I was also working in a an office.  BTW, I don't know if she knows my history or not, but she has never brought it up, and even if she does know, she treats me as a woman.  In fact, I had a doctor a few years ago, who would occasionally make some comment, and realize she had actually forgotten my history, catch herself, and then realize that oh, yeah, it really didn't matter.  

I have, or had, a cousin who well, I have often wondered if she was possibly transsexual.  She was very masculine, always preferred things like cars, and ham radio to the things her mother would have preferred.  She generally dressed in what certainly looked like men's clothes, and she never married.  I don't know if she was a closeted lesbian, or simply repressed her feelings.  She lived in a time, and place, where being a lesbian would not have been acceptable.  I have lost touch with her.  I imagine she has heard about me, and it would be interesting to find out her reaction.  Most of that part of my family has effectively disowned me.  At least as far as I know.  The last time I saw her was at the 70th anniversary of one an aunt and uncle of ours.  She was there, in a dress, looking quite odd.  At the 75th, I was told I would not be welcome after informing people of my transition.  Not long after than, both that aunt and uncle had died.  I haven't had contact with any of them since.  But, I digress...

What I honestly wish the radical feminist could accept is that, yes, one is born a woman, but that what makes one a woman really is in the brain, and it really is determined by hormone levels during development, and that yes, something can go wrong.  In a sense, they do accept transsexual women.  Many of us simply do not wish to be "out, loud, and proud."  We don't wear our histories on our sleeve, and we don't tell people our past, and, perhaps this might surprise some of the radical feminists, they would never guess.  The vast, overwhelming majority of my friends in the real world are what they would call "women born women."  I have friends who are straight, and I have friends who are lesbians.  Some know my past, most don't.  I interact with them, and I am accepted by them, as a woman.  I live as stealth as possible.  If I did not love San Francisco so much, and if I did not have such good friends here, I would possibly consider relocating somewhere and starting over...again.  I lived for a year in small town, where literally no one knew.  It was heaven, but it did not last for reasons that had nothing to do with being transsexual, and I wound up moving 2,000 miles to San Francisco.  To most people who know me, I am simply a very smart, very geeky, middle aged woman.  I have nothing to do with the transgender community.  I occasionally will see someone I know from when I did outreach work, a job I stumbled into somewhat by accident, but which paid reasonably well, and had good benefits.  As soon as possible, I moved to a position that had little to do with the transgender community.  It paid even better, but unfortunately, like a lot of government-funded research work, funding dries up, and you end up being cut.  So, shortly afterwards, was my boss.  I have moved on, and I am in a completely different field.  And no, it really isn't anyone's business.

My point in all this is, we need to find a middle ground.  There are people who actually do have a medical condition that is known, for want of a better term, as transsexualism.  They are rare.  Sandeen and that ilk, are not transsexuals.  They are a lot more people who get off on dressing up and pretending.  As long as they don't cause harm, who cares?  But they really need to learn their limits.  Invading women's space is causing harm, and they need to either voluntarily stop it, or they need to be stopped.  They have a choice.  Transsexuals don't.  They should not receive special rights, and yes, things like access to women's spaces, and being allowed to change their birth certificates while keeping their penises are special rights.

It is time to return some sanity to this whole mess.  It is not likely to happen easily, but I do suspect it will eventually happen.  They are pushing for too much, and the backlash is beginning.  And all the while, I will be here, in the middle, watching it all, and doing what I can to help restore a least some reason before it is too late.