Monday, April 14, 2014

The Real Face of Transgender Extremism

The whole transgender paradigm is built on lies.  It is based on ideas like "Women have penises," and "I someone says they are a woman, then you have to accept, without question, that they are a woman, and grant them all rights and privileges of being a woman."  In short, it is pretty much an absurd pile of absurdities.  And deep down, I believe its leadership knows this.  For example, Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen, who has tried to style himself as the "Martin Luther King, Jr" of the transgender movement, said this on Twitter....
My job is not to make you love me. It's control the extent people can publicly express antitrans sentiments -- A Rustin thought.
Notice that Mr. Sandeen does not say, "influence" but instead says, "control."  He does't say something like "My job is to "refute false antitrans sentiments..."  For Mr. Sandeen, it is about "control."  One might ask, why is this?  The answer is simple, he is a man, and men like to be in total control.

Mr. Sandeen likes to compare the imagined plight of "transgender people" with that of African-Americans.  Of course, this is absurd.  The movement to end racial discrimination was based on people lacking rights based on a criteria that had no basis in reason, and which was rooted simply in appearance.  As hard as it is to believe in retrospect, African-Americans were considered to be "inferior" simply because of the color of the skin.  Nothing more.  Of course, in order to justify that, people made up false claims, which only the truly ignorant would remotely accept today.  

On the other hand, the issues concerning transgender people, particularly the one that is so near and dear to Mr. Sandeen's heart...the right to invade sexually segregated places, are rooted in reality.  Women simply don't want their privacy invaded by men.  Transsexuals have long used the women's room without incident, but it is the increasing invasion of those who are not transsexual, who are increasingly told they have an absolute right to go into women's spaces, provided they simply "identify" as a woman, that are the problem.

One of the most telling aspects of the whole bathroom issue is the arrogant disregard that these so-called "transwomen," have for the feelings and concerns of women.  The basic response is, "get over it."  In their mind, it is their right and privilege to enter women's private spaces, even those involving actual nudity.  

Sandeen, having falsely obtained a California birth certificate by fraudulently claiming to have completed a sex change (he is a eunuch) once made a rather arrogant remark about how he was considering going to the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival, claiming that he was now, "legally" a woman born woman.  

Like many transgender extremists, Mr. Sandeen's arrogance knows no bounds.  Just over a year ago, he tweeted this bit of arrogant silliness to Aunty Orthodox, another one of us horrible transsexual separatists....
I am a woman. I'm among those who define the space. Trans women are women, and are among those who define the space.
Uh, no.  Mr. Sandeen is a male, who has a penis (which he wishes to keep) but not his definition, a eunuch at best, but in no sense a woman.  He fraudulently obtained a California birth certificate by lying to a judge, but that does not make him a female, and certainly not a woman.   And he certainly has no business telling women how to define their space.

No, the arrogance of transgender extremists is astounding.  Sandeen is just one example, but he is a major one.  He is complaining again that I am targeting him, and I admit, I do right about him a lot, because a) he is such a perfect example of transgender stupidity and arrogance, and b) he is a very prolific writer, so he is a rich source of material.


Marianne Davids said...

I have been using female public bathrooms for some years now. As a transsexual woman, such a thing was, in many ways, a rite of passage. After being told all of my life to use the male bathrooms, it was something to finally walk into, what I had always considered the correct one.

The advice I received was to enter, do what you came to do, wash your hands and leave. In the years since, I have followed that advice and not had a single incident. Some staring sure (I am very tall), but no more than that.

The understanding and acceptance we have begun to enjoy in recent years (regardless of whether we pass well visually or not) has been endangered by the recent bathroom campaign. Its effect has been to alienate the public. Demanding that any biological male, transsexual or not, can go into the female bathroom by simply declaring themselves female (with the minimal of effort to present as female), was always likely to do that.

Sadly, this demand has become so clearly associated with transsexual needs as well, not just the 'transgender' proponents of it, that we are all lumped in together in the society's eyes as having the same aims.

Not all of the public are against us. In fact, in the advanced countries, most are keen to accept us, yet remain uneasy about the bathroom proposals. The concurrent demand for gender neutral bathrooms has been seized upon as a compromise.

Unfortunatley, If that idea does catch on, we will all be pressured to use them. Thus dividing us from other females (males in the case of FtM) whether we like it or not and undoing all that we have strived for in achieving acceptance as our true gender.

Many of the current 'transgender' lexicon are happy to be considered non-binary. Thats their choice and gender neutral bathrooms might suit them I suppose. However, I think most transsexuals do believe in the binary and would prefer to continue to use the appropriate, male or female, bathrooms.

I do believe that, at the very least, one should present as the apprpriate gender to the bathroom you intend to use. Also, I believe that that presentation should be part of either a full time life or a transtioning lifestyle. Not a weekend hobby, or an impulse.

Transitioning and transitioned females and males make every effort to do that anyway, because it is fundamentally important to them.

It is, after all, what we always strived for.

Just Jennifer said...

Thank you for some good insights into the problem.

Just Jennifer said...

Okay, I am going to call you on this load of crap. First off, the state law is vague. For example, in San Francisco, the court still requires FULL SRS (GRS? Seriously? It is a SEX change, not a gender change) Second, regardless of what the law says, it was still fraudulent. Mr. Sandeen is not a female, in any sense of the word. He is 100% American male. He is not a transsexual, he is a crossdresser who become a bit carried away. And if you NEED the surgery (and NEED is the ONLY reason one should ever have it), you WILL find a way. And quite frankly, if you are sincere about needing the surgery, the idea of changing your birth certificate before you complete the surgery will probably be somewhat repugnant. This "I would have it, but I can't afford it…" crap is completely bogus. I have seen people make such a claim, right up until they get insurance coverage. Then they find "other" excuses. So, don't try to feed me that party lines about this. I know better.

Dianne said...

Ok, SRS it is then. California requires a physician's affidavit that “clinically appropriate treatment” has been undergone. I can't judge what is clinically appropriate and I've never met Sandeen so I don't really feel comfortable deciding if transsexual does or does not fit. And I'm sorry to ask this but, how many transsexuals have you met and talked to in depth? There is a wide range of circumstances and situations. People who have done sex work to try to get surgery and people who have tried dodgy "surgeons" in Mexico and had horrible complications. Lucky people who have had financial help or who have been able to work hard and save up or who have had windfalls. In the mean time many of us are just trying to live our lives quietly and safely. Finish college, get jobs, keep jobs, stay out of locker rooms and saunas, and pee every now and then. So what more should we do? Are we that different the day after surgery? Should we have an arm band that shows that we are on the waiting list for SRS? Is living full time enough, or a bad sign? Should we use the single stall toilet downstairs in the coffee shop for a few years? I really want to know because it affects my daily safety and dignity. Does that make me an extremist, or a pragmatist? Because I don't know better.

Just Jennifer said...

Anyone with a shred of common sense (or honesty) can easily see that since what is being changed on the birth certificate is the SEX marker, that having one's sex physically changed to the extent possible with current medical science is "clinically appropriate treatment". To put it in simpler terms, if you have a penis, you are a male…period, end of story, and saying you are a female is a flat out fraud.

Sandeen spent TWENTY years in the military, by his own words, serving quite successfully. If he were really a transsexual, he would not have lasted 20 minutes, at least not successfully. Yes, women serve in the military, as women. Serving as a man is quite different, both physically and emotionally. Further, Sandeen has made numerous statements that reveal he is not a transsexual, and is clearly not a woman.

I have met a very large number of transsexual, and a lot more "transgender" people. And yes, there really is a difference.

If someone is seriously surgery tracked, they can carry a letter from a therapist, or even a small card. I had one with I first started transition. I never had to use it, and only came close to using it once, when I was stopped for a license check. Staying out of saunas, showers, and locker rooms is quite reasonable, and it is also something that kooks like Sandeen are increasingly objecting to (another bit of proof that he is NOT a transsexual). Before my surgery, the idea of being in a shower with another woman was horrifying. On the other hand, if you are a weekend warrior, or a member of the "They will take my penis when they pry my cold dead fingers from it," club, then quite frankly, you should stay out of the ladies room. The RLT test for those actually seeking surgery requires you live fully, 24/7 as your target sex, and yes, that includes going to restroom. Obviously, discretion is needed in some circumstances, and that discretion, I believe, is part of the test. The men who insist they have a right to wave their penis around in showers and locker rooms are clearly not women.

Kawaii Quilter said...

Whether or not you undergoes a genital mutilation procedure, you will always be your birthsex. Let's not forget that the entire Transgender movement is bull shit. These people are all on the spectrum, and just happen to be fixated on their gender. Fact of the matter is, they are different, bit being in the wrong sex body is not what is wrong with them. They don't figure this out until after they transition. After they have completed the genital mutilation, they feel regret, the only way they can overcome their grief is by encouraging others to join them, with false hopes of it being the cure, false promises. Transgender can't justify its existence without using outdated fashion/makeup/hair/nails definition of womanhood. Being of the sex that is able to give birth, raise children, etc is what makes us women, not fancy dresses and makeup. So these men can dress up like "women" all they like, but they can never ever be women. They can never experience the hardship and struggle of raising children, the damage giving birth causes to our bodies, the hormonal changes we go through, the discrimination we face in employment. They will never ever be able to even remotely proximate these experiences or understand them. That is why Trans women is a false concept, eningeered by sick profit hungry plastic surgeons and now pediatricians, and is fueled by a perverted Eugenics movement that is attempting to sterilize our Autistic children that are highly susceptible to suggestion.

Just Jennifer said...

There is so much that is wrong here, it is almost difficult to know where to start. First off, calling it "genital mutilation" is absurd. Now, I personally do not identify as "transgender," and generally oppose the "transgender movement." But to suggest transgender is a form of autism is about as silly a thing as I have seen in some time. Further, by your rather seriously flawed logic, one is not a woman if she does not give birth? Or face discrimination? Oh well...not much use arguing with you, as you don't have a remotely valid position.