Monday, March 31, 2014

Fred Who?

Well, it has been a less than stellar week for me.  A week ago, my computer suffered a hard drive failure, and well, I just didn't really feel like messing with my back-up PC that much.  Besides, I had the week off, and I figured, might as well rest up a bit...  But, as my vacation draws to a close, and my Mac is back among the living, I am ready to get back to posting.

Of course, by now everyone knows that a certain infamous person died.  Fred Phelps, the leader of Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas died on March 19, 2014.  Phelps, and his, uh, "church" (it was more like a compound where his family lived, as most, if not all of the members were his immediate family) were known for traveling about, protesting against various groups they considered sinful, in particular gays and lesbians.  I first heard of Phelps when he started picketing the funerals of AIDS victims back in the 1990's, and quite frankly I was appalled at the idea that someone would do such a thing.  Over time, the protests increased, and eventually included those of military personnel killed in the line of duty, which, it was claimed, was part of God's judgement on the United States for allowing homosexual behavior. 

Phelps and his cult have spent a number of years spewing what can only be called hatred.  They have misrepresented Biblical teachings, and have, behave like those the Apostle Peter described as "the untaught and unstable (who) distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction."  Phelps probably did more, in the long run, to further gay rights than to hinder them, but he still caused a lot of pain for the loved ones of those whose funerals he, and his followers, picketed.

There was briefly some talk of having protests at his funeral, but thankfully enough people were smart enough to point out how counter productive such an act would be.  When it became obvious that his death would not result in people lowering themselves to his level, it was quickly announced that there would be no funeral.  I rather suspect that no one showing up would have been an embarrassment.

In the end, Fred went out with more of a whimper than a bang.  His death resulted in a brief flurry of attention, and then quickly faded.  Many publications didn't even mention his death. And I was somewhat surprised that there was not some sort of celebration in the Castro District.  In short, this rather nasty little man got the attention he deserved.

Friday, March 21, 2014

A Complete Load of Crap

The kooks at Shame on You Transgender Edition posted a hilarious piece by Mr. "Michelle" Spicer, entitled Dating Transwomen Does Not "Make You Gay".  While the title is bad enough, the article is worse.  It is homophobic, and inaccurate.  It starts out with an accurate, but somewhat misleading idea..
Many of you have heard the myth that dating a transgender woman if you are a heterosexual male will somehow turn you gay. This has to be the most ridiculous type of rationale that I have heard of thus far.
Okay, you cannot really turn someone gay.  Granted, under certain circumstances, men who would otherwise not do so, may engage in homosexual behavior (the classic example is men who are incarcerated) but upon release they generally return to heterosexual practices. But…but then Mr. Spicer launches into this bit of absurdity….
Our sexual orientation does not change because of who we date, we date someone because of our sexual orientation. You can make love to a body but you can only date an actual person, it's the person inside you eventually fall in love with(if there is any kind of real love there) and a transwomans spirit is a woman!
Okay, keep that first sentence in mind…it is the petard this idiot will be hoist be, but let's look at that second part.  There is so much wrong here.  But for the moment, let's look at the final assertion…"transwomans (sic) spirit is a woman!"  Nope.  A "transwoman's" spirit is not a woman.  If it was, she would not be a "transwoman," which is an oxymoron, but would just a woman…which is anathema to so-called "transwomen" who cling to their manhood with a tenacity that puts a barnacle clinging to a boat to shame….

But, let's consider the part where Mr. Spicer really goes off the deep end…
Men who are attracted to transgender women are not automatically gay in any way shape or form. That is not to say that gay men cannot be attracted to transgender women, but the attraction itself does not change their orientation. If you are a heterosexual man the chances are that you are attracted to a transwoman because of her femininity, her personality and her spirit. There are fetishists of course, but they are attracted to a fetish and not the actual transwoman that stands before them. Using someone as an object is not considered dating them and does not come from any place of respect. This article is only concerned with men who actually want to date transgender women regardless of their surgical status and not treat her like an object. There is a difference between a "chaser" and having an actual interest in dating transgender women.
Okay, it is pretty much unheard of for a straight man to actually engage in a physical relationship with a "transwoman."  Likewise, if you are a pre-op, once a guy finds out you are physically male, the best you can hope for is that he doesn't totally freak out and become violent.  The relationship will probably end, at least with regards to any hope of romance, and you will end up broken hearted.  If you are seriously surgically tracked, you have two choices…date men who claim to be straight (but clearly aren't) or be celibate.  What they claim here is delusional crap.  It is simply believing the lies of men who are either lying to themselves or to everyone else.  If a guy is attracted to you, and you are physically a male, then that man is homosexual.  He may deny being such, but he is.  End of story.  He doesn't give one whit about your spirit, your femininity, or your personality.  He simply fetishizes "chick with dicks."  I've met my share, and I found the relationships very unsatisfactory.  He may pretend to "not treat you like an object," but if you are physically male, he is almost certainly going to.  And chances are, he will drop you like a rock if you actually do have surgery.  Shoot, I dated one guy who was a very wealth contractor.  He lived in what some would call a "MacMansion," had a pool and a hot tub, and drove a Jag.  I'm not a gold digger, but I am also not stupid…but the relationship ended quickly when he said "Don't have surgery…"  

Yes, for a while, I was a bit naive, and actually believe the sort of fairy tale Mr. Spicer is spewing here.  After learning what guys meant when they asked if I was "functional" (NO!  I have been on hormones for a while, and even if I was, what part of "I'm a woman," do you not understand?) I realized that most of these guys were not straight, and were pretty screwed up to boot.

Mr. Spicer ends with this bit of comedy…
Men who date transgender women are heterosexual men dating women, period. Simply because she is a different "type" of woman makes no difference to this writer. There are men who like French women, does that make them french? Simply because a man is attracted to a "type" of woman will not change his sexual orientation any more than it could change his nationality. The myth that dating a transgender woman "makes you gay" is ridiculous, damaging and causes the men who want to date us a great deal of shame. Transwomen lose out on dating and finding love because of this and that is just a damn shame.
Sorry, but no.  Heterosexual men don't want women with penises, and they certainly don't want to be topped by one.  There is only one kind of "woman" and men who date "transgender" women, as well as men who are attracted to pre-ops and so-called "non-ops" (a misnomer…if you are not going to have surgery, you are not a transsexual, so there is no need for that qualifier) are not heterosexual, they are perverts who fetishize the idea of a woman with a penis.  And if you think otherwise, you are lying to yourself, and very possibly putting yourself in serious danger, looking for a guy who doesn't even exist.

Wednesday, March 19, 2014

Highlighting The Difference, Unintentionally

The whole battle between myself and the cultists at Shame On You Transgender Edition began because I simply pointed out that I do not identify as transgender.  There are good reasons for this, and a couple of their latest posts show this about as clearly as possible.

The first was a fawning tribute to "Kristin" Beck, who apparently now styles himself as "Lady Valor."  Beck was a Navy Seal, a member of what is commonly called Seal Team Six, which was the unit that provided the men who took out Osama bin Laden.  Beck, like Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen, served twenty years, before leaving the Navy.

The second story was a rather telling piece, entitled "All You Need is Love," which states some classic transgender rhetoric (note I said transgender, not transsexual)…
As transgender women we have a tendency to dislike, or outright hate, our male sides. We loath anything that remotely reminds us that we were tragically born in the wrong body. The mirror can be an enemy because it reminds us that we are not perfect and we will always have male characteristics no matter how well we pass. What? You disagree? What is the shape of your pelvic bone?
Okay, dare I say it?  This is clearly a man, in this case, Mr. "Michelle" Spicer, speaking.  Only a transgender male would make such a statement…  This is straight out of Transvestite 101. Sorry, but this is what I make the differentiation that I am a transsexual, that I am a woman, and that yes, the kooks at Shame On You Transgender Edition are a bunch of delusional cultists.  The simple truth is, no one is perfect.  There is not a perfect man or woman, period.  Everyone has some flaws.  I had a friend who was a female to male transsexual who had a more masculine hip structure than I do.  He was short of stature, but his body shape was extremely male, and, contrary to some stereotypes, he had born a son (I remember reading a book on FTMs that basically claimed that no FTM ever would get pregnant) and had gone through some serious complications because his pelvis was too small for the child to easily fit through.  

You have to love how the more extremist transgender kooks, in order to cling to their manhood, even while proclaiming themselves to be women, love to focus on things like this. They want to beat post-ops over the head with their prostates, while ignoring the fact that women have the same gland, although it serves no purpose.  And yes, in extremely rare cases, women (and not transsexual women) can die of prostate cancer.  Of course, most doctors would not call it that…in women it is referred to as a Skene's gland, or paraurethral gland, and is, for the most part, ignored.  However, it is increasingly referred to, quite accurately, as the "female prostate gland."  Boy, are the transgender kooks going to hate that one.

No, the simple fact is, I don't have a "male side."  Then again, to be blunt, crossdressers don't really have a female side.  They have a fetish.  There is a clear difference between someone who grows up with a brain that is differentiated at odds with their body, and someone who simply wishes to play dress-up.

And this brings us back to Beck.  Beck claims to have "always" had a female gender, like Sandeen, and like Sandeen, Beck was able to not only survive in the military through basic training, all the while hiding this supposed "feminine nature" but in Beck's case, to also survive SEAL training, which is extremely intense.  And on top of all this, both Sandeen and Beck thrived in this hyper-masculine, testosterone fueled environment for the full 20 years needed to reach retirement.

No, in both cases, you have someone who was, quite probably, a very closeted cross dresser.  They are not transsexuals, they do not want SRS, and they are not really interested in being anything other than transgender.

You see, this is what underlies transsexualism.  It is not just about a desire to change one's physical sex to match one's brain, it is about wanting to be normal.  And transgender is about wanting to be different.  I have heard transgender people often express this view.  Some, such as Suzan Cooke will go so far as to attack people who are "normborns" as though that is a bad thing.  I have heard them say stuff like, "I would not want SRS, because then I would not be 'special.'"

If someone wants to choose to be "different" or "special," I suppose that is their choice, but they have to accept that society may not respect that choice.  And that brings up another major difference.  Transgender is a choice, transsexualism is not.  Although some try to make the claim that they were "born this way," transgender people choose their behavior.  Most had relatively, if not completely, normal childhoods, showing no signs of having an issue with their gender until later in life, and then beginning with, as stated above, fetishistic crossdressing.

So, the bottom line, again, is that there really is a difference between transgender (which is ultimately a highly subjective term that refers to a social/political construct that has no basis in reality) and transsexualism, which is a medical condition that is, in reality, unrelated to transgender in any meaningful way.

Thursday, March 13, 2014

A Few Thoughts On Suicide

A couple of recent developments have led me to say a few words on this rather touchy subject.  The first is the rather silly claim by Mr. "Michelle" Spicer on Shame On You Transgender Edition that I have threatened suicide.  I don't know exactly where he got that silly idea.  It is possible that he is just lying, or it is possible that he is trying, rather desperately, to stretch my pointing out that his cult leader, Ms. "Mark" Cummings tried to nudge me in that direction.  I made it quite clear that Ms. Cummings' lame attempt was not remotely going to work.  Suicide is not remotely something I would consider.  But it was, quite obviously, what Ms. Cummings was suggesting.

In fact, I seem to recall some of the, uh, "investigative reporters" (it's hard to type that without laughing) at Shame On You Transgender Edition suggesting that my shining the harsh light of reality might "trigger" someone towards suicide.

And, of course, there is the kerfuffle about Mr. "Dana Lane" Taylor threatening suicide, and then getting bent out of shape when it was brought to the attention of his employer.  Apparently this has resulted in him being put on "disability" by his employer.  He was harassing various women online, and they called him on it.

Well, a lot is made about how so many transgender people supposedly attempt suicide.  Now, I can understand how a person who is a transsexual might be tempted towards suicide if they are thwarted in their need to transition.  But if a person has transitioned, and is facing issues that cause them to consider suicide, then perhaps they need to rethink their decision to transition.  Perhaps they need to consider if transition is working for them.  If transitioning does not make your life better, and it does not give you the ability to handle problems, then you are probably headed for disaster.

And if you are feeling suicidal, get help!

Wednesday, March 12, 2014

Great Moments In Transgender Silliness

I have spent so much time focusing on the kooks over at Shame On You Transgender Edition that I haven't had time to comment on some of the other silliness that has been going on.

First off, there has been the extreme silliness surrounding the movie Dallas Buyers Club, and Jared Leto winning Best Supporting Actor for his role as "Rayon," who is basically a drag queen.  But, we are told by the kooks, "Rayon" is a transgender woman, even though the term transgender was not remotely in common usage until years later than the period portrayed in the film.  And besides that, the character is completely fictional, added to the film  for "dramatic purposes."  

Now, the irony is, the same people who complained bitterly when Felicity Huffman portrayed a transsexual (who by the way, is very clear that she is a transsexual) in the film Transamerica, are now complaining that a man portrayed "Rayon," and that this gives "the wrong idea about transgender people.  Hmmm, I just don't see that, since, as pointed out many times, "transgender" is such a vague and meaningless term.

The complaints really took off when Jared won the Academy Award, and failed to "thank the transgender community."  Now, why he should, is beyond me.  For what?  For not even being around during the time portrayed in the film?  The whole thing is just incredibly silly.

And of course, Mr. "Cristan" Williams' Transadvocate blog continues to be a constant source of comedy, including:
  • One blogger complaining that people actually think "Boys have penises, and girls have vaginas!"  The horror!
  • Another blogger has realized that "Jerry Springer exploits trans women for ratings…"  Really?  I wonder why no one has ever noticed that before? (For those too dumb to really…that SARCASM!!!!)
  • The surprising admission (for them) that Jan Morris, a well known transsexual, is not a "transgender" since they have an article about some dude who wants to be the "first trans person to climb Mount Everest."  For those who are not aware, Morris did it in 1953, before her transition.  Granted Morris, did not go to the summit, but was part of the expedition, and was the one who reported the news that Edmund Hillary had made it to the top.
  • And an absurdly whiny post by Mr. "Dana Lane" Taylor complaining about Cathy Brennan's supposed harassment of him.  Actually, someone really should seriously intervene in Mr. Taylor's mental health crisis….
And of course, the boys, and girl, at Shame On You Transgender haven't failed to provide a few moments of silliness themselves.  They provided what would, otherwise, have been solid advice on make-up for transgender men looking to impersonate women (Seriously guys, are you trying to look like women…or clowns?) but then they had to act like idiots and include…
Remember that as a transgender person you are an ambassador for all of us. The first impression you give people can be the most important so take your time and do the make-up right. Too much make-up, well that's just a shame.
This is another example of why I want nothing to do with the transgender community.  I didn't transition to be an "ambassador."  Seriously, I guess the idea of simply being a woman is completely lost on Mr. "Michelle" Spicer.  It's all about being a man in a dress, and making sure everyone knows you are a man in a dress…

And Ms. "Mark" Cummings wrote another egotistical rant, including this bit of narcissism…
The truth can be hurtful and many will not accept it, they will turn around and create all sorts of justification, and make the truth barer a monster. Well guess what, pier pressure has never worked with me. I beat my own drum and couldn't careless if the message is not popular or rings right with many. I have my own mind and have never been a follower. So if what is written on this blog offends you, there might be a reason, and possibly something that you need to look into. What rubs you the wrong way, usually has a message or lesson for you. I know you are not going to agree and that is fine to, I am just stating my views and opinion as are all the writers on this blog.
It wouldn't be nearly as funny…if the didn't effectively contradict himself.  On the one hand, she admits she is self-promoting, but then she comes across as condescending…if you don't like what she says, it's because you are the one who is wrong, and you are just not getting the message she is trying to force down your throat…but hey, she is okay with you disagreeing, because she is just presenting "her views and opinions."  

It is one thing to suggest that people should read critically.  I hope anyone reading my blog does just that.  If you blindly accept everything I say, well…that is not a wise approach to ANYTHING you read.  Think about it, question it, challenge it, and then, if it stands up, accept it.  Of course, so often (and Ms. Cummings is a classic example) if they can't refute it, they get angry, and resort to insults.  Yes, I am blunt with people.  I don't play games and pander to delusions.  I point out that people are frauds, con artists, grifters, stalkers, perverts, and yes…even men (or women) when they claim to be otherwise.  I don't do this to insult.  I do this because some people need to be confronted with the truth.

The transgender community remains a regular source of truly silly positions.  While I keep hoping they will come to their senses…I'm not holding my breath.

Monday, March 10, 2014

Well, At Least He Tried

Well, I have challenged Ms. "Mark" Cummings, the leader of the Shame On You Transgender Edition cult of loser bloggers to post something beside his usual insults, and well, so far she hasn't post much except the same repetitive crap, usually along with a statement that she is tired of dealing with me, and is going to stop…  Oh well,..

But, I will give "investigative reporter Mr. "Zierota" Slingen credit…at least he has tried to post a coherent argument.  Sort of…kind of….

He asks, "How Objective is Transgender?"  He is clearly attempting to answer my assertion that "transgender" is a meaningless, subjective term that is an artificial social/political construct dreamed up by some crossdressers in the 1990s.  Sadly, for him at least, he falls quite a bit short.  

The primary basis for his argument is, "if the definition is accurate then there is ground for meaning."  Now, besides being vague, and pretty much circular reasoning, (sort of like saying, "The sky is blue because it is, well, blue in color….") it has no real bearing on the discussion, if only because there is no accurate definition of "transgender."  He then goes on, curiously enough, to use the terms "good and evil" which are certainly "subjective" as an example…of what, I am not sure…but okay.

He then offers this gem…
Transgender is a very objective word that can go into many directions for each person while the basis remains the same. Every direction of its meaning holds the same two words. Trans and gender. So what's the best way to explain the objectivity of this? Let's try an image!
Well, aside from effectively admitting that term is subjective (a "word that can go into many directions for each person while the basis remains the same") he offers as an illustration, this:

Here we have a mish-mash of terms, and a definition that is, by its very nature, totally subjective.  

Even worse, different people, and different groups, and even members of some of the groups listed in the illustration, would argue that they are not transgender.  For example, a lot of people who identify strongly as transgender would exclude crossdressers, transvestites, drag queens, and drag kings because, well, they are sort of embarrassing and they don't want people "getting the wrong idea."  On the other hand, a lot of interest people would violent object to being labeled transgender, and would argue that including them under the imaginary umbrella is simply an effort to co-opt their condition for cynical purposes.

And quite frankly, I and a lot of other transsexuals would argue that we do not fit that silly definition (not the lamest, but close…) in that we do not cross over from our true gender, and we do not challenge traditional gender roles or expressions.  Simply put, unlike Mr. Slingen, I am a woman, and that is the gender I express.

What is even sillier is what he posted about that diagram above….
Goodness gracious! That's a lot of labels!
Uh, yes, and that is part of what makes the whole thing HIGHLY SUBJECTIVE.

He then goes on to assert…
So, how objective is Transgender when you know the entire meaning? Simple. It's objective enough to know what gender means as opposed to sex. We also know that in a traditional society, the majority of people are cis gendered and they only recognize two extreme ends of the gender spectrum which is male and female as absolutes in a binary system.
He is just digging a deeper and deeper hole, since it has become common practice among transgender extremists to conflate "gender" and "sex."  They insist on using terms like "Gender Reassignment Surgery" while also asserting that "gender is what is between your ears, and sex is what is between your legs."  So, are they talking brain surgery?  Seriously…they do this a lot, referring to changing the "gender" on a birth certificate.  Or the "gender marker" on a driver's license.  So, talking about transgender being "objective" because we know what "gender" is, well that's another nail in the coffin for Mr. Slingen's argument.

Oh, and another example he attempts to use is that of the term "atheist."  Now, atheist is a clearly defined term.  He tries to compare my assertion that I am not transgender to someone who asserts that they do not believe in "god or gods"  saying they do not "identify" as an atheist.  Well, that is sort of like Mr. Slingen saying he is not a man…it doesn't quite work that way.  As I said, the term is clearly defined…unlike "transgender."  It is not about "identity," is is about fact.  Mr. Slingen could say, "I do not identify as a human being," but that would not make him a dog."  But, transgender is, quite frankly, meaningless as anything other than as an identity.  Trying to make it an objective label fails miserably.

But, of course, the transgender extremists need to make it appear to be an objective label for political reasons.  Which is, again, part of what makes it so subjective, and, quite frankly, meaningless.  In many ways, it comes down to numbers.  More "transgender people" means more political clout.  Now, given that I rather strongly oppose their political agenda, that is another reason I flatly refuse to accept the label.

So, Mr. Slingen can pout, through a fit, sputter, and spew, but he can't force me to be transgender, no matter how badly he wants to.

The Real Agenda

Yesterday, during her obsessive round of commenting on my blog, Ms. "Mark" Cummings posted one comment that contained a violation of the single rule I have, and so got deleted.  But I wanted to share the bulk of that content with you, because it reveals, quite clearly, the real nature of this person…
Learn this everyone hates you including your own family. You are a delusional low life tranny an ugly one at that. Do the world a favor.
Now, the first line is not remotely true.  It is based on something my daughter wrote on what was intended to be a very private online journal she shares with her friends.  And it was written during a very difficult time for both of us, that is long past.  I am not going to share the details of that time, because I am not going to violate my daughter's privacy.  But, since then, we talk regularly, and have spent time together on a number of occasions.  I also have three lovely grandchildren, who love me very much.  So, Ms. Cummings can lie all she wants, as I have reality.

The second line is laughable, and well, typical of Ms. Cummings' writing style.  She claims six years of college…obviously not one that had very high standards for grammatical skills.  As to whether or not I am "ugly," well that is a matter of individual taste, but I know more than a few who would disagree…  

But it is that last line that I wanted to focus on.  It's meaning is quite clear.  This comes from a person who tries, quite desperately at times, to present a facade of being a leader in the all too imaginary transgender community.  She pontificates regularly on what she perceives as the various faults of support groups, and individuals.  The current header on their joke of a blog states…
We are a collaboration of bloggers exposing shameful events, topics, and people that are affecting the entire LGBT Community. Stay up to date with the latest shameful news reports by following us.
Not only is this more than a bit presumptuous, it could certainly be argued that much of he shame is their own behavior…  Ms. Cummings has this to say concerning herself
What we say may not always be the popular consensus, but we speak from our hearts and shed light. Sometimes the light can be bright and not always welcoming. You may not like me, But as I have always said at the end of every video, I love you but remember to love yourself too.
I suppose she should append, "Unless, of course, you have the audacity to disagree with me…in which case, you should just do the world a favor and…"

What this favor is, of course, is suicide.  Yes, this sick person is actually suggesting that I take my own life.  He has engaged in an ongoing campaign of harassment (which fortunately is laughably lame…) in an attempt, quite obviously, to push me into a suicidal depression.   Now, I don't know if this is entirely a creation of his own disturbed psyche, or if he has been urged in that direction by Mr. "Diane" Lask, who has engaged in similar behavior towards those he disagrees with in the past.

But Ms. Cummings should be exposed for the sick person she is...

Sunday, March 9, 2014

Dealing With Transgender Idiots Is Hard Sometimes

As I have observed, clearly the kooks at Shame on You Transgender Edition really don't like reality.  Take, for example, Mr. "Zierota" Slingen, one of the most classic transgender kooks I have seen in some time.  He just keeps spewing his nonsense…

I'm just going to respond to a couple of the stupider things he said in his latest post…

First off, he questions why I posted a photo on the Hot or Not site…  Mainly as a hoot.  Actually, I discovered it when a rather absurd looking transgender kook mentioned it on a blog.  I posted a photo, and as I said, I scored towards the middle.  A bit better than I would have expected.  I did not do it because I was a narcissist like some I could name.  On the other hand, a classic trope of the transgender kooks is equating "attractiveness" and "passing."  Of course, that brings up the whole issue of passing, which is appropriate for the transgender kooks as they are not women, but might, in some cases, fool people and thus "pass."

Now, Mr.  Slingen spends a lot of time carrying about his female friends reassure him that he is "really a woman."  He even went to one of them to ask them if they were lying.  What a hoot.  Does he really expect them to say, to his face, "Yes, dude, you are clearly a man…"  They are being nice.  They know he is a guy, and they feel pressured to pander to his delusions.  It is, after all, the nice thing to do.

The only real test, and it is one Mr. Slinger indicates is not available to him, is to live as a woman, and observe how you are actually treated.  Can you walk in the women's room without causing a scene?  Or do you have to make sure you only go where you know women will be forced to put up with you?  Do you get funny looks?  Do people go out of their way to make sure you know that they know?  I have known enough transgender people who don't pass, both in terms of appearance, and behavior.  I know how people react to them.  I've heard the stories about how people insult them to their faces.  

The funny thing is, I have met women who, based on appearance, you might think were possibly men.  But, it was obvious that they are women.  And I have met more than a few men who are very convincing as women, in terms of appearance.  But five minutes of conversation leaves no doubt that they are men.  They simply don't have a woman's mind, and they can't fake it.

Finally, Mr. Slingen made a statement that leaves no doubt in my mind that he hasn't a clue.  He makes the assertion that my statement that I was a failure as a man indicates that I transitioned for a bad reason.  What a load of crap.  If you can live a live successfully as a man, but you claim lifelong gender dysphoria, well, sorry sir, but you are full of crap.  I get a kick out of men who had long, successful careers before deciding, always after years of being a fetishistic crossdresser to "suddenly" transition and become women.  Some even had long enough military careers to retire. Twenty years of supposedly hiding their true self, in an environment like the military.  Really?  Hogwash!

I should have transitioned when I first realized that it was an option.  The problem was, after a childhood of being abused for being a sissy, I had some serious issues with the idea of being intimate with a man, and it was pretty much dogma at the time, that you would not be accepted for surgery if you were not "homosexual."  I buried my feelings, thinking I had no choice, and moved on with a very unhappy life.  I was constantly seen by men as a "defective male."  They knew something was off, but they were not sure what.  And I felt like a fraud.  I didn't fit in with men.  I knew I was not one of them, but I had to pretend, and I did a lousy job of it.

I'll leave it at that…  Mr. Slingen apparently thinks you had to be a success as a man to make it as a woman.  What a load of complete crap.  Yes, I will repeat, I was a failure as a man, because, well, I wasn't a man.  Clearly, the same cannot be said for most Mr. Slingen.

And I do find it amusing that one of the boys at Shame On You Transgender Edition is again carrying on about this imaginary hierarchy in their made up little group.  Funny…they claim there is no hierarchy, but they carry on about how they have an absolute right to dictate that one has to accept the label of transgender, because, well, they have a right to tell others how they can identify.  I guess in their mind, everyone is equal…but they are just a bit more equal.

A simple point that is lost on Mr. Slingen…again.  Transgender is not objective.  It is a completely subjective term, and if, and ONLY IF, someone identifies as transgender, are they transgender.  One is not automatically transgender because they are transsexual, just as they are not automatically transsexual because they identify as transgender.  

Transsexual is a medical condition, albeit one that increasingly is falsely applied to someone simply because the transgender kooks have pressured therapists politically.  Pretty much anyone can doctor shop and find someone who will tell they what they want to hear.  Competent therapists are increasingly rare, but can still be found.  A good question to ask is what percentage of patients does you doctor find are not actually transsexual.  If it is not a majority, at the very least, you have a quack.  If it is none, then you have a very dangerous quack.  But, I will bet they are very popular, and very rich.

When Obsessive Cyberstalkers Unite

Truth be told, the gang at Shame On You Transgender Edition has basically switched over from bloggers to cyberstalkers and have joined forces with Mr. "Diane" Lask, who has been obsessed with me for some time.  Ms. "Mark" Cummings slipped up and revealed this when he mentioned that someone had sent him the current set of photos he has posted.  These photos are from a collection that Lask assembled some time back, and which he likes to trot out.  

Now, I have written about Mr. Lask in the case, including the warning that anyone encountering this person should tread cautiously.  Lask stalked a person from Canada for years, tormenting him at every opportunity, simply because they had a disagreement on Fidonet years ago.  Lask was still going after him as recently as two or three years ago even though that person had actually fled the Internet to escape Lask.

Now, clearly, the truth hurts, and Ms. Cummings and her husband, "Jessica" are feeling a lot of pain.  Ms. Cummings tries to claim I am obsessed with them.  Yes, I admit, I have posted quite a bit on them.  This is a blog that deals, among other things, with the idiocy of transgender extremists.  And lately, they have been a primary example of this.  Granted, a somewhat obscure example that its creators want to imagine is more a factor than it really is, but still, a perfect example of the genre.  Other blogs have been relatively quiet.  

I mean, really, why wouldn't I write about their ridiculous garbage?  They went totally ballistic because I simply pointed out that I do not identify as "transgender."  I haven't seen such a complete overreaction in some time.  The results have been hilarious.

I admit, I can be harsh.  I don't mince words.  But at the core of everything I write is logical and objective arguments.  What do they have?  The same tired lies from an obsessive cyberstalker who, quite fortunately, has nothing new to offer….

Ten years ago, Lask and I met, when I offered him the opportunity to sleep on my floor for a few days when he was, quite literally, homeless.  I was living, at the time, in an SRO, because I was trying to get back on my feet after a relationship ended, and I chose to move to San Francisco to start over.  Lask, it turned out, had been homeless for years.  I have suspicions of how that came to be, and I suspect it might have involved some improper behavior when he was working in Nevada, but that is just speculation.

Some time after that, when Lask became angry with me because I would not comply with a request of his, he began targeting me.  At first, I thought it was someone else, but then Lask made some comments that let me know it was him.  Simply put, he said some things that only he would have known to say.  I don't appreciate betrayal, especially when it involves lies added on to truth.  The game was on.

Now, one of the stunts Mr. Lask has pulled for years, is to post photos from an unfortunate article published in the SF Weekly about the SRO I lived in.  That article was, well, a rather odd piece of journalism that still puzzles me a bit.  While the place I lived was not perfect, it was also nothing like the article described.  In fact, parts of the article, rather bizarrely included accusations apparently made by the organization that operated the building,  They were fighting with the person they hired to manage the building and in an attempt to fire him (he was protected by a union) they made false claims about him being a member of a gang, and some other silliness.  He eventually ended up receiving quite a bit of money from them in a settlement.

The photos in the article, which are supposedly rooms in the building, are often presented as showing my room.  Nope.  To be honest, I'm not sure whose room they show, or if they are even from the building where I lived.  The room where I lived looked quite different.  Then again, the place described in the article seemed quite far removed from what I experienced there as well.  I never, for example, saw people lined up to buy drugs.  I have no doubt that drugs were used by some residents.  Shoot, this is San Francisco.  I don't care where you live, chances are good, that at least some of your neighbors are using some sort of recreational drug.  The question is not if, but what…

But, times change…  I no longer live there.  Mr. Lask has no idea where I live now.  He has lost track of me.  He has only his old lies that he keep repeating every chance he gets, rather obsessively.  He has created an entire fantasy life for me that has little resemblance to reality.  If he does know anything current, he has the good sense to keep quiet about it, as revealing it might prove a bit costly.  Stalking is a crime, and if he has current information, it would certainly lead to charges.

Mr. Lask also has some photos, including one he doctored up, from an even I attended.  I did not want my photo taken, and mugged at the camera a couple of times.  Not photos I would choose to have published, but one which show, as one person said, "A middle aged woman, enjoying herself."  But, hey, the tactic is simple.  Publish a photo, and make fun of it.  People see what they want to see.  Mr. "Jessica" Cummings makes a snarky, and rather bizarre comment about "pigtails."  Which is kind of weird, since I have NEVER worn my hair in that style, and am not in any of the photos.  He also makes some remark about me being 59 at the time.  Nope, not even close.  But, I guess Mr. Cummings finds ageism funny, even if it is imaginary.

Ms. Cummings and her husband apparently don't like having the truth exposed.  I do find it very telling that they offer nothing in the way of rational argument.  They can't counter the actual arguments I make.  When their "investigative reporters" try to, they wind up falling back on an argument that amounts to "You disagree with me.  So, that means you are spewing… Hate.  Transphobia.  Hate. Transphobia."  Talk about a broken record.  They can't defend their absurd positions, and they have to resort to truly lame cyberstalking tactics.  They are typical transgender poseurs, and they simply repeat the same crap they have learned from other transgender poseurs.  Granted, it is easier to just repeat the same mantra than to actually stop and examine their lives and deal with real issues.  If they did, they might realize that they are making a mistake, and seek help getting their lives back on track.

A hint people:  Building your entire life on crossdressing fantasies does not work.  Eventually the fad will run out, and people will get tired of pandering to your fantasies, and you will have to face reality.  And it won't be pleasant.

Saturday, March 8, 2014

Here We Go Again

Oh well, Mr. "Zierota" Slingen wasted no time in responding to my article on his latest diatribe, and boy, is the new one a mess…

He starts out by taking me to task for violating the imaginary "first rule" of the imaginary "transgender community."  That is, according to him, I misgendered him.  Now, where to begin?  Where to begin…?  

Well, let's see, first off, I am not a member of his imaginary community.  I am not, as I have stated more than once, "transgender."  So, that's his first problem.  The second, and it's a trivial one, is that "misgender" is not a real word.  Oh, he offers up a definition from the Wiktionary, but that is not exactly an authoritative source.  So, some transgender kook put it up there…that does not make it a real word.  And finally, and more to the point, I did not "misgender" him.  I actually, simply, pointed of a fact.

Now he makes the assertion, that, I am "probably going to continue calling me mr. Slingen even if I do get SRS or start being nice to him again with the "correct" gender pronouns."  No, I will call him "Mr. Slingen."  I know how to properly use the English language, including the rules of capitalization.  And I could care less what he calls me, as it changes nothing,  But, more to the point is the little slip he makes here…"even if I do get SRS…"  He is probably not going to, "even if he does," which I honestly would urge him not to, it would be a mistake.  No transsexual would ever use such a phrase, but many crossdressers treat SRS as a fantasy.  If he did have surgery, it would be a mistake, and the results could well be tragic.

He goes on to argue…
I am a transwoman but I am also a woman. I know this because of my medical profile. I also feel that I am female, and people around me treat me like one as well. It feels right as much as it is right.
Well, "transwoman" is an oxymoron.  It is a silly word, coined by crossdressing men as a way of hanging on to their manhood.  They don't really want to be women, so they call themselves "transwomen" to remind themselves, and others, that they are really still men.  No Mr. Slingen, you have a penis, you cannot "feel" that you are female.  You might be able to con, force, bully, seduce, or otherwise persuade people to pander to your fantasies, but that is all they will ever be.  This is shown in your next statement…
I get a lot of responses from cis females who say things like "you're more of a woman than I am".
This is something women say to "men in dresses" sometimes, if they are trying to be nice.  It is a little white lie they say, rather than saying, "Good grief, you are such a pathetic joke…"  I mean, first off, they clearly know you are not a woman.  They are saying, "Hey man, you do a pretty good imitation of a woman…but…"  And the fact that they know you are a woman shows, if nothing else, you have let them know you are not a woman, because deep down, you don't really want to be one.

After this, Mr. Slingen goes off on a rant for a bit, but he is right…if you are a "non-op," that is, if you want to keep your penis, yes, I consider you to be a man.  I simply don't buy into the silliness of "women with penises."  You can believe what you want, but I am not going to be bullied into playing along.

Now, Mr. Slingen accuses me of using a "straw man argument" because I point out that his position is one that does away with any serious meaning for sex.  I never stated that he has said he does not believe in sex, but I have shown that his position is, effectively, that sex is is not real.  If a female can have a penis, or a man can have a baby (and both of these are solid platforms of the transgender paradigm), then sex becomes meaningless.  And clearly, that is Mr. Slingen's position, and clearly, Mr. Slingen is delusional.  No, I did not make a straw man argument…though, Mr. Slingen did just that in his accusation.

From there, he launches off into another incoherent rant, including such gems as accusing me of going to "thousands" of forums to convince people I have had SRS (huh?)  and that I called him illiterate.  Uh, first off, I have posted on hundreds of forums, let alone thousands.  Second, I would never say that he is illiterate (an absurd suggestion) but I did point out that his, and pretty much everyone else at Shame On You Transgender Edition seems to have a very poor grasp of grammar.

Now, to recap…if you have a penis, and you want to keep it, you are, simply put, a man.  You are not a woman, you are not a transsexual, you are a man.  You may be a crossdresser, you can identify as transgender, you can call yourself whatever you want, but you are, and always will be a man.  And if you have a male brain, you will still be a man, even if you have SRS.  How you look, how you talk, how you walk, have nothing to do with being a woman.  I have seen some incredible looking drag queens, I have known men (who identify as men) with voices that would fool anyone, and I have seen some sashay about a room with a walk that would put any exotic dancer to shame.  But they will tell you in a heartbeat, that they are men.  And I have seen some pretty ugly women, who are most assuredly women, born women, who have given birth to children.

BTW, that is another common trait of the classic transgender.  They love to make a big deal out of attractiveness.  I make no claim of being a great beauty.  I'm a fairly plain woman.  Once, just for laughs, I posted my picture on a site called "Hot, Or Not?"  There you could be rated on a 1 to 10 scale.  I scored about 7, with it ranging from 3 to even an 8 or 9.  I got an occasional insult, and more than a few guys showing interest (sadly none near enough to be worth following up with.  But I am perfectly okay being a plain woman.  Most women are.  I would be okay with being an ugly woman, rather than being a drop dead gorgeous crossdresser…not, of course, that anyone on Shame On You Transgender is.  They really have no business throwing stones at anyone…  But, I would expect nothing better.  After all, I imagine Forrest Gump's mamma would have said, "Transgender is, as transgender does…."

Rage, Rage, Against the Dying of the Lies

Dealing with transgender extremists, like those at Shame On You Transgender Edition can be an interesting experience.  Their latest reaction is…well, kind of bizarre…and almost incoherent mish-mash of weird rants strung together with bad grammar and poor spelling.  Yes, we all make typos, but give me a break…these people are not even trying.  But I digress.

This latest diatribe begins with a rather odd list of the trademarks they are apparently ripping off for some Japanese characters…  Then it sort of goes downhill from there in a rather confused attempt to again attack me, in another of their ironic harangues that includes lines like…
He's also the type of troll who will resort to ad-hominem attacks if he can't win an argument.
I guess when they do it, it's not ad hominems…that, or they are just hypocrites.

Okay, they claim I am "obsessed" with their "genitalia, and surgical status."  What they are actually objecting to is me simply pointing out that they are pushing the transgender agenda that preaches the bizarre notion that females have penises, and men have vaginas….at least some of the time….sort of….kind of….

The classic transgender line is "sex and gender are not the same thing."  Okay, that is, sort of, true.  If, by gender, you mean the more accurate concept of "sexual differentiation of the brain" there is some truth there, though it suddenly becomes a bit fuzzier.  What the transgender kooks mean is, actually "Sex and gender are not the same thing, and they are totally unrelated.  Which is, of course, complete and total hogwash.  

Sorry boys and girl (they are all boys except one) but that is not remotely true.  In truth, in a normal person (and yes, I did say that dreaded word, normal), the brain and the genitalia are sexually differentiated at different times during fetal development, which means that you might wind up with male genitalia, but a female brain.  Or vice versa.  No, I imagine that so far, they are all nodding, going "Yeah, of course…."  The problem is, such occurrences are rare.  As in, they don't happen nearly as often as the TG crowd likes to claim.  

Far more common are situations where men (and on rare occasions women) far reasons that are not fully understood, develop bizarre obsessions with masquerading as members of the opposite sex.  The intensity of this desire can range from the occasional to full time.  And the intensity may grow over time.  Oddly enough, usually included in this behavior is a rather strong obsession with being "a woman with a penis." In some cases, less common, but not unheard of, you have behavior of the type that Blanchard and Bailey have labeled "autogynephilia" which is a sexual fetish centered on having SRS.  This may develop out of the desire to be "a woman with a penis," or it may be an unrelated condition that is parallel to  classic transvestitism.

Now, this brings us to the simple bottom line.  Folks like Mr. "Zierota" Slingen want people to believe that sex is not real.  That all that matters is what someone says that they are.  If you say "I am a girl…" then you are magically transformed into a full-fledged member of the female sex, no questions allowed.  Yes, it is stupid, but that is what they want to force you to accept.  Reality be damned…

Oh, and I have to note once again, that Mr. Slingen falls back on another common transgender trope…"not woman enough…"  That is a laughable concept, which shows a bit more of the transgender mindset.  Being a woman, or a man, is not a quantifiable thing.  There is no base unit of womanhood.  You can't be 70% woman, or 90% woman.  You either are, or you are not.  And well, Mr. Slingen, and most of his gang are not, "Mark" being the exception.

The simple bottom line is, sex and gender are both binary.  Basically, it really is male or female.  Contrary to common claims, there is no such thing as a person who is both.  There may be variations in aspects of sexual differentiation, and a person may have characteristics of both sexes (for example, having male genitalia, and a female brain, or genitalia that did not differentiate fully during development) but there is no in between.

Sex has three primary markers…chromosomes, genitalia, and the brain.  In terms of chromosomes, a Y mean male.  In terms of genitalia, a penis means male.  In terms of the brain, things are a bit more fuzzy, but a pretty solid indication is, you want a penis, your a male.  And the brain sex is what really determines what we call gender.

Now, the transgender crowd likes to conflate gender expression with "gender" though they are not the same thing at all.  Simply desiring to dress as a woman does not make you one.  Lots of men are crossdressers.  Most are occasional crossdressers, a few are full time.  The one thing they all have in common is a desire to keep their penises.  If you are not driven to have surgery, if you are comfortable with a penis, and most importantly, if you are able to successfully function as a man in society, then you are, well, a man.

And this, finally brings us to one of the sillier aspects of this bunch of fools attacks on me.  They just don't get it.  Yes, as a "man" I was a pretty wretched person.  I am not proud of that period of my life.  Simply put, I was a lousy man.  I was pretty lousy at things that men do.  I'm not going to share details, if only out of consideration for those affected by my failings, but yes, I was not at all successful as a man.  And yes, I face challenges now.  The same challenges a lot of middle aged women face, but I am able to deal with those challenges and my life is considerably better.  Funny, but that is sort of lost on these, well, men in dresses.  They can't see just how stupid their position is…

But then, they are men, and that is, simply put, is how they view the world….

Friday, March 7, 2014

Disagreement is NOT Hatred

One of the classic tactics of the transgender extremist kooks is to scream "hate" if someone so much as even slightly disagrees with them.  It happens all, the time, and yesterday, it popped up in a comment that got blocked for a violation of the one rule I have about commenting on this blog.  But I did want to address the foolishness expressed by Mr. "Jacqueline" Waters.

He starts off with an incredibly stupid bit of drivel…
If you look like a woman and you go in the mens room you are going to get harrassed and possibly abused and raped. I realize you hate transgender people just like many Jews hate jews.
Let's see…  Stupidity, mixed with lies, tossed with a nice Godwin's Law violation.  Yes, we have a classic bit of transgender silliness here.  Actually, you are going to get some shocked looks, and possibly someone trying to be helpful and tell you "Ma'am, you are in the wrong rest room."  Maybe in a bit of panic on the part of some poor guy who wonders just which of you made the mistake.  I know, from personal experience.  The last time I visited a men's room before I began living as myself full time, some poor gentleman looked absolutely aghast that a woman was in the men's room.  Not too long before that incident, I had a helpful employee on another occasion stop me and say, "Ma'am, your going into the wrong restroom…"  Fun times…

Now, quite frankly, Mr. Waters might be harassed because he looks a bit effeminate, but that is another matter.  No one is going to mistake him for a woman in either the men's room, or the women's room.  Of course, I realize he does face a dilemma and is going to cause problems in either.  Of course, causing problems is one of the thrills that transgender kooks seek.

Now, I don't appreciate garbage like what Mr. Waters spewed.  I had a dear friend who was a Holocaust survivor, and I don't like it when people toss around comments like that.  Besides, I honestly don't hate anyone.  I don't wish anyone to suffer harm, including rape.  But if one is engaged in deviant behavior, and pretending to be a member of the wrong gender, which is at the heart of the transgender lifestyle (i.e. men pretending to be women, or women pretending to be men) one does risk upsetting the wrong people.

He then goes on to make the false claim that I am "an advocate for rape of transgender people," and that I am one who "applauds for every name read on TDOR you now since you find we are not 'real women'…"  Uh, all I can say is, "Wow, talk about delusional…"  Actually, again, I don't delight in anyone's death.  And I have never advocated anyone getting raped.  People who are close to me have been victims of rape, and I find such comments highly offensive.  Mr. Waters is simply one sick fool to even suggest such a thing, but this does show the silliness of the transgender mindset.

And finally, he shows his complete ignorance, and blind believe in the rants of Mr. "Diane" Lask when he makes a comment about "the so called surgery you claim you have had with no break in posting for long enough to ever have a surgery like that and recover."  I would suggest he pop over to Google Groups, take a look at the newsgroup postings for February of 2006, and he might notice that I talked about my surgery coming up, and that I didn't post for some time.  I was in the hospital for a week, without Internet access (I asked before I went in…) and then because I had moved to a new unit in the building where I lived at the time on the day before I went in for surgery, it was another couple of weeks before my Internet was back up.  I got some support, and more than a bit of crap from the usual trolls at that time.  Oh well…it was something I did for myself, and no one else.  It is kind of amusing to go back and read some of the crap posted back then.  According to the trolls, I died (several times apparently), was on suicide watch, and "jumped the gurney."  It is kind of ironic that it is now claimed that I was posting the whole time people were asking where I was…

Actually, having SRS is a very profound experience.  I took a while before I felt up to dealing with both hooking up my Internet connection, and reading the crap I knew some would post.  When I was ready, I found it all quite laughable, then, and even more so now.

My advice to Mr. Waters, and the rest of the kooks at Shame On You Transgender Edition is to simply face the fact that you are not transsexuals, you are not "women," you will never be transsexual, you will always be transvestites (at best), and be proud of what you are, and stop trying to force your silliness on others.

And a footnote:  This is the 400th article on my blog…  A minor milestone, I suppose, but one worth a brief mention...

Wednesday, March 5, 2014

Of Grifters and Drifters and Other Scam Artists….

Ms. "Mark" Cummings, in a comment that got blocked for a rules violation brags about how she and her husband have been covered by National Geographic.  And how they have been featured in the New York Post, as well as in international publications ranging from Germany, Netherlands,England to India.  Well, it turns out that National Geographic Channel has produced a show called Taboo USA, and as I suspected, this pair of freaks were on it…  Here is how the show is described…
Taboo USA goes behind the closed doors and picket fences of America’s most normal looking homes to find a fringe few that can only be described as... taboo. And we're showcasing those willing to push the boundaries of taste, societal acceptance; those obsessive about their hobbies, their relationships, and their lifestyles.
In another words, this is a show, not far removed from the realm of Jerry Springer, that features kooks who haven't the good sense to maintain privacy, but who like to exhibit their for the those who get off on this sort of thing.  As my mother used to say, "Fools names, and fools faces, often seen in public places."  BTW, Ms. Cummings has also been on Maury Povish…which says a lot.

The particular episode that these "reality show wannabes" were featured on was called "Strange Bonds," also featured a polyamorous couple, and a black guy who befriended a bunch of KKK members.  Uh, yeah…some people will do anything for attention.

Now, the New York Post…well, let's just say that it is, maybe, a step up from the National Enquirer…maybe.  Produced by Rupert Murdoch, it is known for tabloid sensationalism.  The  more lurid, the more bizarre, the more titillating, the better.  Being featured there is hardly something to brag about…

I can only imagine about the other publications that this kook brags about being featured in…

What we have here, as I have pointed out before, is a couple of grifters.  Currently, uh, hiding out, in a backwater town in Florida, and a rather decrepit looking trailer park, they are apparently effectively homeless, and unemployed.  

Now, the latest article on their web site is a bit interesting…  Here are some of the things mention in regard to "transgender narcissists"..
No detail of their life in unimportant, especially to you. They post everything from the latest pictures of themselves(usually bikini or muscle shots, up to and including everything in their wardrobe) and keeping everyone updated on their lives no matter how small the event.
Sure sounds an awful lot like Mr. "Mark" and Mr. "Jessica."
Have you ever seen a picture of them that is not perfect or looks doctored. Chances are it is, leaving your self esteem in the gutter over an imaginary person. Look close, very close for flaws and imperfections. If there are none the it may be a doctored photograph. Usually their photographs will be them on a beach or in front of a mirror because they love to show you how good their body looks, and it's always an Olympian or Goddess physique, further grinding your average transgender woman’s self esteem into the ground. It is bad enough that most if not all the advertising, Hollywood movies or TV shows use cisgender women as models or actors. Establishing an unreachable goal for most transgender women.
Pretty much every photo of Mr. "Jessica" Cummings fits the above description.  Soft focus, heavily Photoshopped, and obviously quite fake.  And Ms. "Cummings" has a few that fit these descriptions as well.  Yes, they are certainly narcissists.  Funny that they let their "Investigative Reporters" trash them on their own blog…or are they so narcissistic that they don't even realize it?

Oh, and speaking of their blog…they do seem to have a bad habit of stealing copyrighted material.  Purely by accident, I came across a link to the site they stole their "Shame On You" logo from.  And it is, of course, copyrighted…  Some people have no shame.

Tuesday, March 4, 2014

A Quick Recap...

Well, after a lovely evening with friends, I returned home to find several interesting developments….

First, before taking off, I had listened to Mr. and Ms. Cummings, uh, "radio" show (basically a rather lame podcast on a web site).  They couldn't even seem to agree on exactly where they stood on crap like the silliness at the Academy Awards, with Mr. Cummings wanting to take a bit more extremist stand than Ms. Cummings.  Then, they were no doubt a bit pissed to discover a post on their blog from one of their comrades in insanity that contradicted everything that Ms. Cummings tried to push.  That post was removed….

Mr. Waters posted a rather silly rant in response to my article on his absurd article on bathrooms, and even was so silly as to try to cover up his obvious admission he is non-op.  Yes, it is clear he is non-op, but when confronted with it, he realizes the truth and tries to weasel out.  

Worse, he shows he is not remotely a transsexual, making remarks about how he assumes I was "upset about having a small (sic) clitoris).  Actually, I was rather thankful, prior to SRS, that I had a very small penis.  I hated what I had, and would have been a lot more dysphoric had I been well endowed.  I wasn't.  I imagine, based on his remarks, Mr. Waters is rather fond, and proud of his manhood.  I hated mine, and got rid of it, rather than clinging to it for dear life, and yes, as a matter of fact, that is part of what makes me a woman.  And what indicates Mr. Waters is a man.

Mr. Waters tries to make me feel bad, but again shows how he doesn't get it.  I am NOT a part of his "community."  So, I could care less if a bunch of kooks, like him, hate me, I have a lot of friends in the real world.  And he obviously hasn't followed me on Twiiter….which might prove very enlightening to him.  Actually, I am one of those people who is very hard to label, which drives simple minded fools like Mr. Waters, and his friends, a bit crazy.  Feminist?  Not in the sense he imagines…  Certainly NOT transgender…. Conservative?  No…  Liberal?  Again, not really…  He can't pin me down, pigeon hole me, and that makes him confused, and angry.  

He tries to make an issue out of an imaginary sexual assault that happened locally…(yes, imaginary…the truth has come out, it was all a LIE) and well, I guess he looks kind of foolish.  

And no, Mr. Slingen, I haven't had any problem reading the blog….  No problem at all.

Caught in a Lie and Looking Foolish

Well, there has been an interesting turn of events among the fools at Shame On You Transgender Edition.  Mr. "Jessica" Cummings, in a rather odd post reiterating the fact that are censoring me (kind of moot, since I have intentions of commenting there), posted some pretty bogus claims about me.  According to Mr. Cummings, I have posted a comment that "confirms" that I have not had SRS, and also my daughter has posted information that confirms I have not had surgery.  Of course, both of these claims are outright fabrications.and someone, I honestly don't know who, asked him for a link to the alleged site where the bogus information was posted.  I kind of suspect it was Mr. Lask, no doubt in a panic that someone found some information he missed.

I wondered how they would react to that question, since they could not possibly have such a link, and well, Mr. Cummings is scrambling to cover his…uh, posterior.  He is claiming that I am the anonymous poster, that he won't provide the (non-existent) information until the poster identifies who they are, and so on.  Of course, since these posts don't actually exist, and he therefore cannot remotely post a link to them, it all becomes rather humorous.  I mean, why would it matter if I were the person asking the question?  If it were me, and it is isn't, I would certainly not ask that question if the information did exist.  And let's be blunt here…if the information did exist, they would have not only posted a link in the article, they would have posted a screen capture as well.  These are not the brightest bulbs in the string.

And let me reiterate, I did not have SRS for anyone other than myself.  I had it because I had a need to have, and nothing else.  If someone honestly wishes to believe I didn't have it, that is their delusion to believe it.  It does not change the fact that I have had SRS, it does not make me magically change back into a male, and it does not make Mr. Cummings any less of a male eunuch, or into any semblance of a woman.  It only means that a person believes in something false.

Now clearly, they are not at all happy that I am commenting on them here, since Mr. Cummings is boasting that he plans to prevent me from reading their "blog."  Well, if he thinks he can do that, he is in for a very major surprise.  Another transgender kook tried the same thing.  Mr. "Dana Lane" Taylor, the "Milk Man" himself, though he could block me, and yet, I was able to read his blog at will…  Actually, there are a several ways, one relatively obvious, others not so obvious.  I won't say how….that would be spoilers, but it is trivial.  

Stay tuned for more updates on the insanity at Shame on You Transgender Edition, a new low in transgender kookiness on the Internet.

Monday, March 3, 2014

Out, Loud, Proud, and Yet...Making Excuses

I always get a bit of a chuckle when a "non-op" starts making excuses and trying to explain how they are "just as much of a woman" as a post-op, and how having a penis does not make them a man, and how they would have the surgery, but...

I mean, they tell us how "out, loud, and proud" they are, but then they start up with lame excuses.  The simple face is, they are not transsexuals (transsexuals change their sex), they are really not women (women don't want to have a penis attached to their body), and they are apparently not really all that proud (since they have to make an excuse for not being a transsexual or a woman...

The latest example of this comes from one of the kooks at Shame on You Transgender Edition in the guise of a rant about bathrooms.  Yes, another member of the "NPA" (the National Penis Association whose motto is "You will take my penis when you pry my cold dead fingers from it...." who is trying to tell us how he is "not really a man," has every right to invade the ladies room (in spite of being quite obviously male...and unable to pass by his own admission) and that he does not need surgery.  He even tries to shame anyone who would point out this fact...

Yes, a person who calls himself "Jacqueline" Waters has posted a rant about bathrooms.  In it, he drags out the usual lame tropes...and shows the usual lack of understanding so common among transgender extremists...
You see there is a whole faction of people (even within our own community) that think that GENDER and SEX are the same thing, when clearly they are NOT the same thing.

We all know the problem, but what I don't understand is the reasoning. You see there is one camp that thinks that gender is based on parts. Well that gets a bit crazy when you start looking at just the cis gender group now doesn't it? Are you telling me that a woman who has had a hysterectomy is no longer a female?
Uh, no one is remotely claiming such a thing...  This, of course, is a classic straw man argument.  Make up something no one has said, and then "refute" it.  Just wait, he will repeat this again... 
What about someone who has had cancer and has had a double mastectomy? Is she suddenly NOT a woman? You know since the qualification is on parts.
  And again... 
On the other hand what about that soldier who was deployed and ran across an IED (Improvised Explosive Device) who managed to survive but has lost everything below the waist? Yes, such persons exist. Is this person now no longer a man because he lost his male sex organs to shrapnel? Is he now a woman? 
 And again...
What about a victim of Lorena Bobbit? If a man gets his unit cut off is he now a woman suddenly? See, when you start looking at this the whole notion that parts= gender becomes quite silly now doesn't it?
And again...

And each time, he misses several important points.  First off, he is trying to claim that sex and gender are not the same thing.  Most agree on this...  Sex is, as they say, what is between your legs, and gender is what is between your ears.  Except, well, in both cases it is about sexual differentiation, and it is based on hormones.  And, it is related.  You see, if your brain really is female, you will not feel comfortable with male genitalia.  You like your want to keep your are not driven by a strong need to be rid of your are a man, baby!

This, of course, is why women who lose their breasts, and men who lose their penises, don't suddenly "change sex."  Their brain is still what it was before.  And, more importantly, this is why the men in dresses crowd, like Mr. Waters here, and his compadres at Shame on You Transgender Edition will never be women (well, except for Ms. "Mark" Cummings, who will never be a man...  They have male brains, and they show it, over and over, and over...

And then he drags out the next transgender trope...
Then there is this unfounded notion that a bunch of men will slap on dresses just so they can take a peek at ladies in the restroom. Really?

Yes, really...
 A man is under arrest accused of violently attacking a woman inside a Clairemont Big Lots store. 
The attack took place Saturday. The woman says she was in the store's bathroom when the suspect, wearing a pink Barbie costume, attacked her.
That was in Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen's hometown, San Diego...I wonder if it was one of his buddies?

Perhaps he might want to rethink his position...
do you really think sexual predators are stopped because the sign says women? Do you think they would go through the trouble and embarrassment of going out in public in a dress just to take a peek at your vajayjay? Come on now, what fantasy world do you live in and btw what is stopping them from doing exactly that right now and how many cases has this happened in?
And there are other cases, such as the pervert "Colleen" Francis, registered sex offender "Paula" Witherspoon in Dallas, Texas just to name two more. 

Sexual predators aside, there is also the simple question of privacy.  Women don't want men in the bathroom with them.  And if, like Mr. Waters here, you have a penis, and you want to keep it, and especially if you are going to be SEEN as a man, you should just stay the hell out.

The reality is in every single instance that I have been misgendered not a single one of those people know what is or what is not in my undies. Nobody has ever sir's me one time based on what may or may not be between my legs..nobody has ever asked to see it before making up in their mind whether or not I am male or female....go figure.
Of course, in reality, "misgendering" Mr. Waters would mean calling him a "female," but I realize that he is not interested in reality.  Obviously, he is not going to, shall we say, "fit in" while visiting the ladies room...  But, he then goes on to make this absurdly clueless remark...
Another absurd idea is that Trans women who are non operative are suddenly going to be slinging out their dongs in semi private places like dressing rooms and bathrooms? REALLY?
Well, I hate to break it to him, but yes, he has happened, as in the case of the pervert "Colleen" Francis, and another well documented case from Canada, where a "trans woman" with a full on erection was bothering an older woman.  A case that, in spite of Mr. "Cristan" Williams' attempts to cover it up, has proven quite true.

Now, having made all these arguments, lame as they are, he finally gets down to the nitty-gritty of it.  He has a penis, he wants to keep it, and well, there are excuses to be made.

Also it is not always due to the cost as many have mentioned some would not have the surgery even if it were free. This is true..because often times it is not NECESSARY. Often people who have the surgery only do it because of these old laws and pressure from others in the community or society, not because they personally have that big of a problem having the extra appendage.
Okay, let's be clear on some things here...  Anyone who has SRS because "of these old laws and pressure from others in the community or society, not because they personally have that big of a problem having the extra appendage," is a fool.  Actually, while such a thing is possible, I would not remotely say it is often.  I agree, Mr. Waters should not have SRS.  He clearly does not need it or want it, and even if he had it, it would not make him a woman.  It would make him a very miserable man, albeit one with a vagina. 

And then he goes on to make more excuses...
These surgeries are life threatening like any other surgery, it is major and evasive and not to be taken lightly. Over 50% of the people who have the surgery can never ever orgasm again for the rest of their lives and the results typically (sometimes it is ok) rarely are satisfactory as far as appearance as well. There is still a LONG way to go before it is perfected if it ever will be and the risks are still extremely high. 
No, they are not life-threatening.  Yes, death is a risk with ANY surgery, even something simple.  Yes, there is a small risk of losing the ability to orgasm (nowhere NEAR 50%), and the claim that the results are rarely satisfactory as far as appearance is totally a lie.  We get it, Mr. Waters, you don't want surgery, and again, I agree, you SHOULDN'T HAVE SURGERY!!!!  You are a man, and having it would be a disaster for you.  But please, cut the crap...and stop lying.  Clearly, you don't want, don't need it, but deep down, you also know, you are not really a woman, and you can't stand that others, who you see as the same, are.

Get over it...