Just Jennifer

Enforcement? No Problem...

2012-01-23T19:50:00.000-08:00

"Autumn" Sandeen, the king of the boys in the women's room, has already posted another post on the "bathroom issue." This time, he is trying to argue that it would be too hard to enforce keeping men out of the women's room, so women should just put up with being overrun by men.

HOGWASH!

No one is suggesting guards at the bathroom door. The answer to enforcement is simple. If someone complains, someone responds. That is how it has always worked. In fact, that is exactly where Sandeen's argument falls apart. He is approaching this as though keeping men out of the women's room is some new idea, or as though there is going to be some sudden increase in enforcement. The answer is simple, we keep doing what we already do. For example, if a woman encounters an obvious man in the women's room, she goes and finds someone, perhaps a store employee, a security guard, a manager, etc., and complains. That person takes the appropriate course of action. Problem solved.

Yes, in extremely rare cases, some very butch lesbians may be viewed as men. Of course, we have to keep in mind, they have most likely chosen to make themselves appear to be men, so they have to take responsibility for their choices.

Mr. Sandeen also raises the straw trans man argument. That is, he raises the straw argument of "what about trans men?" If someone has been on testosterone long enough, then they should simply use the men's room. End of discussion. They look like men, sound like me, etc. They should be in the men's room. Just like those men who look like men, sound like men, even though they happen to be wearing a dress. It is a smoke screen, and a false argument.

Intersex individuals are also a false argument on the part of Sandeen. First off, most intersex people identify as one sex or the other. And most intersex people usually are credible as one sex or the other, almost always the one they identify as. So, another false argument. Mr. Sandeen is grasping at straws.

And no one is suggesting underwear checks. Another false argument by Sandeen, who certainly would not pass such a thing.

No, again, the answer is simple. If someone complains, the offending person can be approached by security. They can discretely discuss the matter with the person, explaining that a complaint has been made. If the person agrees to refrain from behavior in the future, the matter can be settled. If the person is a repeat offender, become belligerent, or refuses to cooperate, then they can be arrested on appropriate charges, and/or banned from the property. Having worked retail, I am quite familiar with store policies where shoplifters are served with papers banning them from entering the store for an extended period of time. The same can be done for men in the women's room.

Finally, Sandeen raises the ID issue. Again, the answer is simple. The rules about changing gender markers on licenses should be tightened. The law was originally intended to help those actually transitioning from male to female. Anyone who is not actually going through an RLT, and who is not actively surgery tracked, should have their license reverted to their birth sex. And if someone makes a false claim that they are surgery tracked, after a certain period of time without showing clear progress towards surgery, they should have their license reverted. They could continue to have their legal name, and current photo, but the sex marker would revert to the birth sex. And in the future, they would not be allowed to change it until after surgery is performed. The period could be reasonable, say 10 years, but that would be it. No SRS, and your license reverts.

Inclusionist? Not exactly...

2012-01-23T00:32:00.000-08:00

I have noticed that in addition to using "separatist" as a club word to beat up on those who decline to identify as "transgender," "Cristan" Williams is fond of labeling himself as being an "inclusionist." Now, I guess that might well be appropriate in one sense, as the word is pretty much made up. "Inclusionism" is primarily a theological term for a specific view of soteriology (the doctrine of salvation), but it is not a commonly used word either. So, we have someone who is more properly referred to as a "gender fascist" using a made up word, based on a concept that has nothing to do with the actual discussion, which involves an artificial, highly subjective, political/social construct. Yes, that Mr. William's for you.

Now, there are all sorts of problems with using "separatist" including the fact that it is kind of hard to separate from something you are not a part of. As I have said many times, "transgender" is an identity. This is a concept that is completely lost on Mr. Williams. In a comment he made in an argument with someone who does not identify as "transgender" he uses what is clearly a logical fallacy:

Let me pose a question to you: Does a lesbian ceases(sic) to be a homosexual (an umbrella term) if she doesn't self-identify as a homosexual?

Now, I can just imagine Mr. William's smug, self-satisfaction at what he no doubt thinks is a devastating, logical argument. There is only one small problem. It is a completely bogus argument. Yes, "homosexual" can be described, quite properly, as an "umbrella term." It is an objective term, easily defined, and is, most importantly, not an identity. And that is where the argument falls apart. Homosexual is not an identity, is is an objective fact.

Now, the term "lesbian," on the other hand, is subjective, and is an identity. Not all homosexual females identify as lesbian. In fact, there is not clear, universal agreement on what the term lesbian even means. I have seen some use it as a synonym for "homosexual female," while others have defined is as "a homosexual female who specifically has a dislike or even hatred for women," Some homosexual females identify as "gay women," declining to be called "lesbian," and they can be quite adamant about the terminology. So, the term "lesbian" is comparable to the term "transgender," not "transsexual."

Now, "transsexual" like "homosexual" is an objective term. It has a specific meaning. "Transgender" is a subjective term. There are no clear lines defining what is, and is not, "transgender." For example, are drag queens "transgender?" What about effeminate men, and butch women? I have seen some argue that all homosexuals are "transgender" because they cross gender norms. But such an argument is widely rejected. Clearly, there is no objective definition for "transgender." I was, and is, an identity...a social/political construct. One can choose to identify as "transgender," but it is not a term that should ever be imposed on anyone.

And this is where what Mr. Williams calls the "inclusionist world view" falls apart:

The Inclusionist World View:
We ALL face oppression because our history or our expression violates cultural gender stereotypes.
Our oppressors LOVE our differences and NEVER want our differences to be seen as normal differences (on par with differences which violate cultural norms, eg Look Who’s Coming For Dinner)
Our oppressors use our differences to “otherize” us so that oppression becomes a social meme.
Our oppressors oppress us because they like the power, not because they don’t like our differences.

Okay, the first point is pretty much meaningless. Anytime someone uses a term like "ALL" it is highly suspect. Mr. Williams, of course, cannot back that statement up with any real evidence. He cannot speak to the experience of ALL, but that does not stop him from doing exactly what he tries to attack others for.

The same is true for the second assertion. "NEVER?" Again, can he prove this? Of course, not. But this is, again, exactly what he accuses others of. Funny how he does not follow his own rules. But, that is exactly what one comes to expect from him.

Actually, it is generally the transgender movement itself that seeks to "otherize" (My, but Mr. Williams does like to make up word, doesn't he?) people. In fact, I have seen people attacked for not identifying as being "other."

All of this is of course, a classic example of a straw argument:

And the final assertion, again one made without any real evidence, is patently absurd. It might be true in some cases (key word: might) but otherwise, it is a broad brush assertion that cannot be backed up with objective evidence. Funny, but thus Hitchen wannabe is being sliced up by what he likes to label "Hitchen's Razor." But, that is not surprising. Mr. WIlliams likes to define the debate on his terms, which are always slanted in his favor.

Now, of course Mr. Williams would never stop there. He has rather self-servingly defined his world-view, making assertions not backed up by evidence as though they were absolute facts. So, he now presumes to define his opponent's supposed world-view.

The Separatist World View:
Transsexuals face oppression because people confuse us with crossdressers and drag queens.
Our oppressors HATE what they view as being strange and/or deviant behavior.
Transsexualism isn’t about strange and/or deviant behavior; it’s a medical condition and has nothing to do with breaking gender stereotypes in our culture.
Our oppressors will stop oppressing us if we can get them to see that we aren’t like crossdressers and that we are instead like intersex people.

This is a gross oversimplification and distortion of people's actual positions. Of course, only a fool would expect anything better from Williams.

For example, confusion with crossdressers and drag queens is not the only reason that transsexuals face oppression, but it is a factor. Those like Williams actually see themselves as the same as crossdressers and drag queens. They derive a lot of their identity and pleasure from being at odds with society, and they resent those who do not share their...well, perversions.

It can certainly be shown, from evidence, that some people do confuse transsexuals with crossdressers and drag queens, including attributing to transsexuals motivations that are unique to crossdressers.

Does Mr. Williams really want to deny that those he refers to as "oppressors" do not hate what they view as deviant behavior? That alone would pretty much render his position laughable. But then he really shows his true colors....

Clearly, Williams sees transsexualism as both strange and deviant. Of course, this is because Williams apparently himself identifies as strange and deviant and wants to look down on those he sees as denying being like him. This is part of his obsessive accusations that "transsexuals" are elitist. The simple fact is, transsexualism is a medical condition, and it is exactly the opposite of violating gender norms. (Again, Williams' use of "stereotypes" shows more about how he thinks.)

And finally, he basically tries to make an assertion that education is not going to help transsexuals when time, and time again, the opposite has proven true. In fact, it can be shown that for many years, transsexuals were often viewed more favorably before the transgender extremists started trying to co-opt them. The situation was not perfect. but it was better than it is now.

No, Williams calling himself an "inclusionist" is an attempt to hide what he really is. A much more appropriate term is "gender fascist." While he makes self-serving statements to the effect that he does not wish to force an identity on anyone, in practice, he shows the opposite. He mocks those who decline to be labeled as transsexual, tries, in vain, to argue that they are simply denying what they really are, and attacks anyone who dares stand up to his silly attempts at debate.

The Bathroom Issue, Again

2012-01-21T14:15:00.000-08:00

It should be no surprise that "Autumn" Sandeen is again ranting about how men should have the right to invade the women's room. He is bringing up the issue this time by implying that it is a civil rights issue comparable to Jim Crow laws. This, of course, should not be surprising since Mr. Sandeen sees himself as the transgender Martin Luther King, Jr.

The problem is, his views on this issue tend to prove that Sandeen is not a woman, trans or otherwise. You see, in addition to the very real danger having men free to invade women's restrooms poses, there is another issue that is totally lost on men like Sandeen.

The women's room is, for real women, one of their very few places where they can find sanctuary from men. And, of course, men like Sandeen want to invade this space. They cannot comprehend that their might be legitimate reasons they are not welcome. Ironically, it is the right to privacy, that is often cited in issues like gay rights (sex between consenting adults in private), abortion (the Roe v. Wade ruling is based on a right to privacy), and such. For women, having a right to exclude men from the women's room is a privacy issue.

The simple question, that has to be answered, is does one group's rights override another group's. In some cases, the answer is simple. Clearly, the rights of various races overrode the rights of a single race with regards to Jim Crow laws. While the laws were primarily aimed at African-Americans, they could be extended to exclude others. There were solid arguments for eliminating racial discrimination, not the least of which is that race is inherent, and not a matter of choice or behavior. Another good argument is that there was not a legitimate basis for such laws, other than simple prejudice. Some people did not like having to share space with people of another race. There was not rational basis for such a choice, so it had to be denied legal status.

Clearly, we do need to make provision for those who are legitimately transsexual, as this is an actual medical condition. But, we do not need to pander to the hobby of the transvestite, and the delusions of men like Sandeen. As I have suggested before, for most transsexuals, this is not a problem. I have never been challenged in the women's room. In fact, it is not really a problem for those who actually make an effort to credibly present as a woman. But I also waited until I was sure I would not cause a disruption in the women's room before I actually made a practice of using one. I started out going to ones that were not heavily trafficked. Then, as I became more confident, I would pretty much go in, use it, and get out as discretely as possible. Then, finally, when I knew I would not have any problems, I just joined the rest of the women in going, and when appropriate checked my hair and make up, and even rested in the lounge area some provide.

But, I did not see the women's room as something I had an absolute right to invade, nor did I see it as something of a challenge to be conquered. I got no thrill out of being there. It was simply a part of living my life, and once I was sure that my presence would not upset others, I moved on.

Sadly, those like Mr. Sandeen are more interested in deconstructing gender, destroying the binary, and otherwise eliminating societal standards that they simply don't like. And they don't care how many women are hurt in the process, as long as the boys in the transgender club get their wayA

Now, if we apply these legal standards to transgender males invading women's spaces, things begin to fall a bit short. Even if we set aside the risk of improper behavior (the fact that it is currently rare does not mean it cannot or will not increase as opportunities increase) we still have the privacy issue. Now, most women, including myself, are very uncomfortable with the idea of sharing the women's room, and other women's spaces, with men. I have no problem with someone who is a valid, surgically tracked transsexual who is undergoing the real life test being in the women's room, but I do have objections to crossdressers, and other transgender males invading my privacy.

Now, another issue that much be considered is whether or not transgender behavior should be protected by law. Well, it fails right off the bat. It is often only behavior. Clearly, a transvestite (or crossdresser if we are going to be politically correct) does not have to crossdress. They are not acting on the basis of an inherent characteristic. They may become anxious if they do not crossdress, but there is nothing that arguably justifies their imposing this behavior on others to the extent that they should be allowed to violate the rights of women. So, clearly, transvestites should not be allowed to invade the ladies room.

The next group that has to be considered is full-time crossdressers. This would include men like Sandeen, who has made it clear that he has no desire to actually change his sex, though he does want to force society to pander to his delusions and call him a female legally. Now, I wonder how the vast majority of women would feel about Mr. Sandeen being present in the women's room. His behavior is hardly female, and he is clearly male brained. Personally, I would not be comfortable sharing a rest room with him. I imagine I am hardly alone in feeling that way.

And let's consider the larger implications of the sort of laws that Sandeen others push. They are not content to have laws that address the issue of transgender people in bathrooms. They want laws that are so broad that they would effectively open up the women's room to anyone, provided that they simply make the claim that during the period that they were in the women's room they were identifying as a female. It would not matter how they were dressed, whether they were clean shave, or sporting a full beard, or whether they had a feminine hairstyle, or a crew cut. They simply have to say, even if only momentarily, I FEEL LIKE A WOMAN. and as if by magic, they are allowed to legally enter the women's room. Clearly, unless it could be shown that they engaged in some over the top behavior (i.e. they raped or killed someone, or perhaps groped a woman) they would be immune from challenge.

It would not matter how much their presence upset women. After all, we would just be unreasonably prejudiced. Of course, as I have pointed out, Sandeen is not a woman. The feelings, needs, and security of women is not his concern. All he cares about is the alleged "rights" of him and other men who engage in the same behavior as he does.

Another Perfect Example...

2012-01-20T19:41:00.000-08:00

Ah, "Cristan" William's website is the gift that keeps on giving. Even when Williams is not posting questionable claims, and suspicious evidence to back them up, his eager followers can post some pretty hilarious silliness. Here is one from a person going by the name Tess McGowan that just shows the absurdity of the transgender mindset:

I was just going to post something like this. We never get to see the faces of separatists because they live in seclusion until they get their surgeries in the hopes that they can live a “normal life”. However, once they get their vaginal surgeries, many of them will walk the earth still having masculine traits (physical and mental) because they have NO IDEA how to live as a woman. It’s quite funny and sad if you think about it, the fact that these people have such high hopes that vaginoplasty will somehow magically change their lives when it’s just one milestone.
I giggle at separatists.

Now, this shows the sort of invincible ignorance that permeates the transgender extremists. I don't know anyone who lived in seclusion before getting their surgeries. I suspect what this person means is that some live in stealth, not participating in silliness like gatherings such as "Southern Comfort" or "Fantasia Fair," and not having one's photo published on some of the sillier web sites. In another words, they simply transitioned and completed a proper Real LIfe Test. My life was pretty normal before and after surgery.

Now, the really hilarious part is some transgender person making a comment like "have NO IDEA how to live as a woman." Good grief! People like Williams have no idea how masculine they come across. He has a "win at all costs" attitude that is totally male. Others, such as the example at hand, present as silly parodies of women, "giggling" their way through life. Actually, it is the true transsexuals who see vaginoplasty as a very important milestone, but I not met one who thought it would do anything other than making them more comfortable in her own body. And while that may not be magical, it does make a big change in one's life.

I remember cringing at my last examination by my surgeons before my SRS. Having them sit their and examine that part of my body was pure torture. I never felt comfortable having it looked at. Not long after that, I was on an exam table with a rather gorgeous doctor taking out some stitches. It suddenly occurred to me that even as he had his face literally right up in my crotch, I felt no discomfort, no shame, no desire to flee. That might seem odd to some who is rather attached to his male genitals, but for me, it is was a pretty big change.

Funny though, I didn't have to learn to be a woman. I didn't have to go to support groups or silly transgender gatherings for the thrill of being taught how to walk, sit, and gesture. It came naturally to me. Which had a lot to do with being miserable for the period before transition.

The bottom line is, this foolishness sounds like the classic "more woman than you" silliness that is so popular with transgender people. They don't get it....you either or a woman, or you are not. Their is not quantification of being a woman. One is not a certain percentage of being a woman. It is not something you learn, or build up points towards. You simply are, or you are not.

Missing the Point...

2012-01-18T16:05:00.000-08:00

I love it when the gender fascists show that they really just don't get it....

In a recent post, "Cristan" Williams, everyone's favorite Hitchens wannabe, had this to say:

To me, this post represents the epitome of what’s wrong with TS Separatism. The credulity, the belief that only post-ops can have valid experience, views and/or voice and the hierarchical elitism… It’s just wrong on so many levels.

Okay... The problem is.....all together now, IT'S A STRAW ARGUMENT!!!!

Yes, it is yet another straw argument from a gender fascist. First off, the issue is not post-op versus pre-op, as all post-ops were once pre-ops... Well, DUH! The issue is men, with intact penises, which they have NO desire to be rid of, who act like men (even in some cases where they claim to be fully post-op), who show not the slightest indication that they actually have a clue what being a woman is, trying to tell true transsexuals how they have to think, what they must call themselves, how they can feel, what they are allowed to believe, etc.

Now, there are those who claim to be "pre-op" but who are clearly non-op. "Autumn" Sandeen went from being an avowed non-op to claiming to be pre-op (and desperately trying to deny ever being a non-op) to falsely claiming to be "fully" post-op (by redefining the meaning of post-op) after becoming a eunuch. He now sort of, kind of, tries to suggest that he might have further surgery...after making it clear that he had no plans to. Another good example is former avowed non-op "Monica" Helms who decided to claim to be surgery tracked (well, if the stars all aligned correctly, and he could get the VA to pay for it, and well, I guess if Hell froze over, and pigs start flying....whatever) Of course, in all this, he attacked post-ops repeatedly. Oh, and so did Sandeen... Yeah, sure, and Mr. Williams wonder why people don't give them any credence?

And hierarchy? Hardly. How can there be a hierarchy when there is nothing in common. It is those, like Sandeen, Helms, and other members of the boy's club, who feel the need to lie in order to gain some sort of imaginary credibility.

And finally, there is no elitism. Just a simple observation that there really is a difference in men and women. And that some ho wish to claim to be women are simply delusional at best, and seriously insane at worst.

Now This is Kind of Weird....

2012-01-17T21:29:00.000-08:00

On the one hand, we have "Autumn" Sandeen.... He is just all upset because RuPaul made some nasty remarks about how transgender people should just get over their objection to being called a "Tranny." In fact, Mr. Sandeen is so upset that he insists on spelling it "Tr**y." Ironically, that bit of absurd theater sort of plays into RuPaul's arguments.

On the other hand, we have none other than "Cristan" Williams defending the word. Which is actually not that surprising since more often than not, Mr. Williams acts more like a misogynistic male than anything else.

Now, the word is an insult. It is a diminutive for several words that begin with "trans." I don't care for it personally, when it is used to refer to transsexuals. I don't care for the way that many transgender kooks want to demand the right to use it to refer to themselves, but expect everyone else to not use it. I also don't care for the tendency among African-Americans to use a certain term commonly referred to as the "N-word" to refer to each other. I grew up in the South, and I saw the pain that word can cause. Using it, whether you are white, black, or any other race, is not cute. It is not clever. It is not empowering. It is just nasty. It is a hateful word.

"Tranny" is not in the same class as the "N-word." It is an insult, but it does not carry the long history that some insults do. I don't like, I don't think people should use it, but I also think that transgender people should stop trying to play the victim.

Let's be blunt. Transgender people, like Sandeen, and Williams, and any number of others, are trying to act in a way that they know is contrary to societal norms. They are not expressing their true gender, but are trying to force people to accept them as something they are not. They have NO desire to leave their pasts behind, and simply move into society as women. They want to be transgender, not simply women. They take delight in society's discomfort with their behavior, and enjoy nothing more than forcing people to smile, and act like they are really women, even as they look, act, and, let's be honest, identify as males.

True transsexuals are rare. Transgender men who want to flaunt their behavior in society's face are dime a dozen. They need to fact facts. Their behavior is contrary to societal norms, and they are not making an effort to fit in. If they insist on acting out, they should accept that a majority of people are not going to be comfortable with it.

A Perfect Example

2012-01-17T06:15:00.000-08:00

Well, well, well.... This person who calls himself "Marlene" went running back to "Cristan" Williams complaining about all the nasty things I said about him. Here is the comment he left:

As usual, the separatists hare having a hissy fit, love. The Just Jennifer blog’s whining and kvetching as if she’s ready to clutch her pearls and have a case of the vapors!
The part that pisses me off the most is referring to you and Autumn and others as “Mr.” because you don’t follow the rules and immediately get SRS.
I’m as transsexual as *that* bitch, but try saving up for surgery when you’re getting $200/mo in food assistance, a $400+ Section 8 voucher, and NO income whatsoever!
This classism has me mad enough to spit in these women’s faces and demand to know now many years they spent in the closet until they could afford their surgery? I can tell you that I was *never* in the closet as an adult, and I paid for it.
These bitches who hide for 30-40 years then suddenly tell their wives and kids “Guess what? I’m having a sex change!”, then have the fucking balls to criticize US because we didn’t to what *they* did? Cowards, bullies and hypocrites!

Now, first off, this sounds more like an overwrought gay male than a woman. I mean, really...lines like "clutch her pearls," and referring to another as "love." Oh, and "a case of the vapors. " It is a very male idea of how women actually talk.

Now, again, this fellow just does not get it. I don't criticize anyone for "not immediately getting surgery," I criticize them for claiming to be women with penises, and making it clear that they intend to keep their penises. Or worse, for lying about having had surgery when they haven't. "Autumn" Sandeen, as is well documented, claimed that being castrated was the same as full SRS. It is not.

And it is rather odd. This person seems to have some knowledge of Mr. Williams' surgical status that seems to contradict his claim of being "post-op." I have questioned Mr. Williams' claim and now it appears I may be quite correct in doing so.

No, this person is clearly another person who identifies as "transsexual" and not as a woman. The attitude is clearly misogynistic, and the writing style shows contempt for women. Further, I am always amused by someone who claims to be a transsexual whose life is a complete disaster. I was miserable for many years. And my life improved when I transitioned. So many of these "transgender" types seem to think that their life falling apart is "proof" that they are making the right choice.

When I began my transition I took a day to do my name change, a day to get my paperwork changed, and on the third day I found a job. I have been through rough times, but I have also had the ability to work things out. Instead of feeling sorry for myself, I went from "no income" to getting my surgery quickly.

And as to "the closet," this is a LGBT paradigm which has no meaning for transsexuals. We want to be who, and what, we really are. People who speak of the closet in relation to being transsexuals are those who want to be something they are not. They want people to know that they are transgender. They want to mess with people's minds. I am simply a woman. They are simply rebelling against society.

Credit, Where Credit is NOT Remotely Due

2012-01-15T23:05:00.000-08:00

Well, a I pretty much expected, the ABC comedy Work It didn't last long. Yes, the show that the LGBT community made a big fuss over has been canceled. And I wonder how long it will be before some extremist tries to claim a victory? A couple of transgender oriented blogs, including Mr. Cristan Williams' silliness, and Suzan Cooke's Women Born Transsexual, have made reference to its cancellation, but so far no one has claimed it was done to appease the transgender extremists who rose up in anger.

And, if they are honest, or well if they are smart, or well... Yeah, chances are pretty good that there will be an attempt to spin this as a flexing of transgender muscle. Except, it isn't. The show was brought in to replace a show with horrible ratings (something called Man Up) and wound up with even worse ratings. So, the reason it only lasted a couple of weeks is that it was just not a very appealing show.

I am still very much amused that the transgender extremists, especially those who claim to be women (after all, they have declared themselves to be women, so by hang, they are women and they will kick your keester if you suggest otherwise) seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that the show was far more insulting to women, than to transgender men dressed as women.

Well, it has been an interesting chance to observe them making fools of themselves, fighting a show that was not going to last very long, just so they could flex some muscle. In the end, they ended up looking rather weak, and the show that they were so bent out of shape over was watched by only a few people, and now it is gone. If they really cared about the show, all they had to do was wait a couple of weeks. Instead, they clearly tried to bully ABC, and wound up looking rather weak. If they try to spin this as a victory...well, they will just look even more foolish.

Too Funny!!!

2012-01-14T10:40:00.000-08:00

Well, "Autumn" Sandeen has his panties in a wad over the possibility that a law might be passed in Tennessee that would forbid "trans people" from using public bathrooms. The problem is, Mr. Sandeen did not read the actual law. It would forbid people from using a bathroom the is designated for a sex other than the one on their birth certificate in state buildings. It has nothing to do with the boys invading the ladies room at the local mall.

In another words, it is a rather silly bill, with limited effect, that affects a state about 2,000 miles from where Mr. Sandeen lives, but he was in a complete snit.

Mr. Sandeen raises the usual "transgender" crap. How will this law be enforced? Well, I imagine that men, who look like men, in dresses, will have a problem. Those who are credible as women won't. What about "FTMs" who will be forced into the ladies room? Uh, does Mr. Sandeen ever think rationally? If an FTM has been on hormones for very long, chances are there will be NO problems. Otherwise, using the ladies room would be the more discrete choice.

Again, I believe the simple answer is to pass a simple law that would ban going into a bathroom designated for the opposite sex with the exception of those who are surgery tracked transsexuals. Therapists would issue a carry letter for those who need it, and there would be severe penalties for abuse. (i.e. If someone is not surgery tracked, no letter would be allowed) Men playing dress up would just have to make arrangements.

And the truly funny part of all this is, while Tennessee is one of the few states that will not change birth certificates, post-op transsexuals visiting from other states would not have a problem.

Here We Go Again...

2012-01-13T21:13:00.000-08:00

Well, "Cristan" Williams, who is vying for the crown of "King of the Gender Fascists" is at it again. This time around, he is attacking Dana Lane Taylor for, well, for telling the truth. Of course, Mr. Williams, as is his habit, is playing fast and loose with the truth.

In a post entitled Dana Lane Taylor: I Rise to Your Challenge Mr. Williams ignores what Dana actually said, and proceeds to create his usual brand of straw arguments. Here is what was actually said:

The Transgender Leadership consists mostly of those who claim a female identity. I haven’t seen a single male crossdresser take a leadership role by lobbying for transgender rights. Almost every one of those who are in these roles identify as women. Now, why would this be? I think it is something a lot of people don’t think about but I bet those leaders know very well why.

And here is what Mr. Williams claims was said:

Today I found that I was the subject of yet another Dana Lane Taylor gauntlet throw-down. Dana is an opinion leader in the TS Separatist group and in this post she seems to claim complete ignorance of any crossdresser leadership within the trans community except for the evil Virginia Prince. Well, as with the last time Taylor threw out a challenge, I accept!

Now, I have highlighted a couple of things. Dana says "mostly." This is certainly a defensible position. Mr. Williams, in another of his straw arguments (unlike him, I am using the term correctly) says that Dana seems to claim "complete ignorance." Hmmm, now, if Dana had said there were "no" male crossdressers in leadership roles, Mr. Williams might have a point. Dana does say she has not seen a single cross dresser take a leadership role in lobbying for transgender rights. While we could quibble over the true nature of some of the leadership, she does have a point. Lobbying is a very specific activity, which involves going and talking to legislators. And while it can certainly be argued that some of the leadership of the transgender extremists are, for all practical purposes, male crossdressers I have to concede that is not how they claim to identify. In fact, there seems to be some tendency, as they move into more prominent leadership roles, to claim identities as "transsexuals," and even surgery tracked while always making excuses why they are not actively pursuing surgery.

And that, quite frankly, is a major problem for Mr. Williams' argument. It is odd that people who were card carrying members of the "They Will Take My Penis When They Pry My Cold Dead Fingers From It" Club, such as, oh, "Autumn" Sandeen, and "Monica" Helms, rather suddenly decided they are transsexuals, and are seeking SRS....even as they make excuse after excuse about why they are not actually going to have surgery anytime soon. And no, Mr. Sandeen's highly publicized castration does not count. He has maintained a touching attachment to his penis. In fact, Mr. Sandeen's behavior is another blow to Mr. Williams' argument. Why this need to deceive about the nature of one's standing if being a crossdressing male is really okay.

Dana speaks the truth, and as usual, Mr. Williams tries to obfuscate, create arguments of straw, and generally avoid the truth. The overwhelming, vast majority of people who identify as transgender are male crossdressers. They are not people who actually have any real female gender, and who mostly want to play dress up and get off on being in women's clothes. But, Mr. Williams is a classic gender fascist who tends to insist that transsexuals must accept the label of transgender. When this is pointed out, he tries to hide behind the straw argument that he is not telling transsexuals that they cannot identify as transsexual. Of course he doesn't. He just insists that they must also accept the label "transgender," which is, of course, the original issue.

All of this rancor could be avoided Transgender extremists would just accept:

That some people are not, and do not wish to be identified as transgender.
That transsexuals by and large have NO desire to subvert, transgress, or transcend gender.
That terms like "gender variant" and "non-cisgender" are often highly offensive to people who are transsexual.
That just because they don't really identify as something other than their birth sex and gender, does not mean that others also don't identify that way.
That in most cases they are not as clever as they think they are.

Well, I Watched "Work It."

2012-01-04T12:30:00.000-08:00

I watched Work It the new ABC show that has been viciously attacked by the LGBT community as being prejudicial to transgender. Over all, it was pretty silly. It plays off of the idea that men suffer because women get special treatment, and of course the humor of men dressing up as women. It had a few funny moments, but I would be surprised if it becomes a major hit. Simply put, it is basically a one joke show, and they tend to run out of steam quickly.

One has to wonder why transgender extremists object to this show, as it has nothing to do with "transgender." It is about a couple of men who, in order to get jobs, impersonate women, while hiding this fact from their friends and families. The seem to think that women have it easier. They are clearly very chauvinistic. They are clearly clueless about how women actually think, and are constantly acting in ways that make it obvious that they are really men. Of course, this being TV, the people around them seem totally oblivious to the fact that men dressed as women are in their presence, and they are very happy with this fact.

I mean, really, this is clearly not about transgender people. Transgender people want those around them to know that they are not the sex they are trying to impersonate.

Well, maybe it is not so odd that the transgender extremists are up in arms. This show, for them, has to be like looking in the mirror. The characters are clearly men parodying women. Just like "trans women." They are clearly men, with male brains, thinking they can fool people. Just like a "trans women." But they are not supposed to be "trans women." They are supposed to be men, victimized by women getting jobs that they can't.

It would be nice if the transgender extremists who have wasted time and energy ranting about this show used this as a learning moment, and gained some insight into their own absurdity, but that is clearly not going to happy. Then again, if they did, it would put an end to one of the funnier aspects of human behavior, and all we would have left is a rather dumb TV show that will run out of jokes in a very short time.

Stick and Stones May Break My Bones....

2011-12-29T20:25:00.001-08:00

We all grew up learning that rhyme... We know the rest. "But words will never hurt me...." Well, most of us did, anyway. The basic idea is that insults are not as harmful as actual, physical attacks. Unless, of course, you live in the fantasy world of the transgender crazies. There, you start talking about "violence of spirit." Or, at least you do if you are "Autumn" Sandeen and you are trying to elevate yourself as the transgender Martin Luther King, Jr. again. Yes, Mr. Sandeen is at it again.

In another example of his attempts to look saintly, he has taken on the issue of the transgender fellow who, to quote "Monica" Roberts, "opened a can of whoop ass." Yes, the same Mr. Sandeen who just about a month and a "two-thirds full cup of an iced, decaffeinated hammerhead." Do you ever get the feeling that Mr. Sandeen is a bit obsessed about coffee? I mean, really, do we need that much detail? Including, I might add, the link to the definition of a "hammerhead?" And let me digress her, and ask why anyone would want a decaffeinated version of such a drink?

Here is how Sandeen describes his assault:

I have no idea whether this young man “read” me as trans, or recognized me from my being publicly visible as trans in the local media; and it didn’t really matter which of the two it was. What mattered to me is the very fact that he used an anti-transgender pejorative toward me that’s on par with the anti-gay f-word pejorative.
At the moment I heard and felt the sting of those words, I flashed red. I took the lid off my iced coffee and threw it in his face. While doing that, I said, “That’s for calling me thing.” Then I walked past – having noticed the young man had a stunned look on his face as I turned my back on him. I guess he expected me to lower my head in shame, obviously not knowing that I identify myself as being “Trans and Proud.” I felt good about my behavior until I realized I’d given into aggression and retaliation. I did the man no real harm, and I didn’t engage in behavior that the young man didn’t on some level deserve … but that’s not the way I want to behave when confronted with hate.

…In each of those two situations, I saw that I’m not always the moral person I see myself as being, but instead am someone who, in flashes of anger, doesn’t live up to her own standards of tolerance, patience, love and understanding. For me, I need to stop weaponizing my coffee and start thinking before I act in anger. Darkness can’t drive out darkness – only light can do that. I want to be a light.

First off, given the details he provided, I have to wonder if Sandeen's real regret is that he lost his precious coffee. Second, it apparently never occurs to Sandeen that he should be glad that the "young man" didn't open his own can of whoop ass. Clearly, Sandeen acted like a male, and escalated the situation, because, after all, he is "Trans and Proud....and apparently not very bright." In the original version of this, he included one other detail...there were three young men standing there. Now, a woman would be more cognizant of her safety. A man, and Sandeen is all man, wouldn't think about that. He is lucky he didn't become a martyr for this years "Day of Remembrance."

Well, Mr. Sandeen has apparently seen the light! He goes on to say:

Thinking through how I’ll respond when I’m intentionally misgendered or called a pejorative in the future — as I’m absolutely sure I’ll be intentionally misgendered or called a pejorative in the future — I’ve decided that I’ll turn to person who engages in violence of the spirit and say “May God bless you, and may your days be filled with peace.”

Setting aside, for the moment, the fact that misgendering Sandeen would be to refer to him using female pronouns, I suppose this is an improvement over his previous actions, which included cyber-stalking me. Funny how he has not owned up to that one. I guess that wasn't bad enough to tarnish his "halo."

If you read the original article by Sandeen, entitled "I’ve got coffee; and I’m not afraid to use it," you will find that it reads less like a mea culpa, and more like a boast. If nothing else, the title shows he really doesn't get it...

The simple bottom line is, no insult justifies violence, even if you are silly enough to call the insult "violence of spirit." As I have said many times, I don't take responsibility for other people's bigotry. Shoot, I am tired of men like Sandeen trying to co-opt the experience of true transsexuals. I don't care to be referred to as transgender, and find it highly insulting....but I am not going to go out and "open a can of whoop ass" because someone calls me that. And I have been actually misgendered, and almost every time it has been deliberate and malicious, it has been by a member of the "transgender" community. The one exception? A guy I had met, and broke up with. When I told him I didn't want to see him again, he tossed that at me. And? And, I just walked away laughing.

Yes, there is one other point that needs to be made. I am secure in my identity. I am a woman, and like any woman who gets called a man, my response is to consider the source, and realize that the person is not worth bothering with.

My, How Butch!

2011-12-27T13:04:00.000-08:00

The Huffington Post is all a twitter over a story out of New York about a "transwoman" beating up a man who call him a woman. In another words, the dude goes ballistic and acts like a man because, well, some guy called him a man while he was decked out in his feminine finery. Okay....

This is a perfect example of the bizarre transgender mindset that imagines that they are perfect examples of the finest examples of female behavior, while in reality they act just as they did as men. It reminds me of the story I read once about some contractor in Texas who announced to his employees that he would be "transitioning" to become a woman. The next day, he came in dressed as a woman, sat down at his desk, plopped his size 14 pumps up on the desk as he always did, and pulled out his usual cigar.

Of course, this criminal act has found considerable favor in the transgender community. None other than "Monica" Roberts, of TransGriot is thrilled over this act of male bravado. Yes, he of the massive "neoclit," his term for his penis, had this to say:

It's not a good idea to get someone pissed off at you who not only has a little more strength than the average cis female, but is an estrogen based lifeform to boot.

Roberts forgets to mention that this person also has the mind of a man. The reference to estrogen shows Roberts' cluelessness. In a true transsexual, estrogen has a calming effect. In a man, it causes other effects, which may lead to problems like depression.

You see a male brain is wired for testosterone. A female brain is wired for estrogen. In a true transsexual, the brain reacts well to the estrogen. In a male brain, the estrogen mostly causes depression. It does not have as much of calming effect, though it is probably not going to cause aggression. I am not sure what Roberts is trying to claim, but in any case, he is, as usual, blowing smoke.

And, it should be kept in mind that many transgender people adjust their hormone intake to avoid losing the ability to have an erection. "Functional" transgender prostitutes are in high demand among men with a desire to be penetrated by a "woman." Yes, it is all rather bizarre, and does not completely make sense. But there are men who seek out men who crossdress who are willing to engage in active anal sex. And a man willing to perform such a sex act would probably also be inclined to react violently to an insult.

Sadly, the LGBT community seems to be embracing this criminal act. This will probably result in more such incidents. We already had "Autumn" Sandeen bragging about throwing coffee at at someone who called him a man. Well, it was supposed to be an apology because Sandeen was not acting like Martin Luther King, Jr. but it was really more about bragging. And now this. One has to wonder, again, do these people think they are above the law?

More Gender Facist Crap

2011-12-26T23:12:00.000-08:00

"Christan" Williams is at it again. This time he seems to have cobbled together a post he claims is from a "separatist." In the past, Williams has claimed to have discovered heretofore unknown articles "proving" that the term "transgender" was was used long before anyone knew, and was even favored by Christine Jorgensen. I have already noted that the sources cited are all extremely obscure, and difficult, if not impossible to locate. Now, without providing a citation, Williams provides a supposed essay by a separatist (i.e. someone like myself, who does not identify as transgender, in defiance of Williams' demands). Odd, but I searched Google for the first line from this supposed posting, but the only thing that showed up was Williams' article. Curious....

Granted, Williams does not claim that what he refers to as a "sad little rant" is from a blog site, or a web posting. But the fact that no citation is given seems, at best, curious.

Williams posts the usual "gender fascist" silliness about "elitism," "shame," and "transphobia." One of the more interesting bits of illogic is when Williams tries to link the case of Peter Oiler, a transvestite who was fired by Winn Dixie, and who repeatedly lost in court, to transsexuals. Rather odd logic for someone who claims to be a post-op. Of course, as we have seen with cases like "Autumn" Sandeen, some transgender definitions of "post-op" are simply lies. I don't know if Williams actually had SRS, but I increasingly doubt it.

Then Williams tries to inject racism into the discussion (well, he is a big fan of "Monica" Roberts) who hates post-op transsexuals and white people with equal passion) when he refers to "separatists" as "our down-low community."
Williams shows where he is really coming from when he states this:

When it comes down to it, here’s the basic, broad-brush world view differences between Separatists and Inclusionists…
The Inclusionist World View:
We ALL face oppression because our history or our expression violates cultural gender stereotypes.
Our oppressors LOVE our differences and NEVER want our differences to be seen as normal differences (on par with differences which violate cultural norms, eg Look Who’s Coming For Dinner)
Our oppressors use our differences to “otherize” us so that oppression becomes a social meme.
Our oppressors oppress us because they like the power, not because they don’t like our differences.
The Separatist World View:
Transsexuals face oppression because people confuse us with crossdressers and drag queens.
Our oppressors HATE what they view as being strange and/or deviant behavior.
Transsexualism isn’t about strange and/or deviant behavior; it’s a medical condition and has nothing to do with breaking gender stereotypes in our culture.
Our oppressors will stop oppressing us if we can get them to see that we aren’t like crossdressers and that we are instead like intersex people.
Since Williams takes it upon himself to define people's views, why not return the favor. Here is his real view:

I get a kick out of facing oppression. I really don't want to be anything other than "weird." I hate the idea of remotely being a part of "normal" society, but I want to force everyone to pretend I am normal. Knowing I am really upsetting people is a large part of the fun in this little game I play.
I love engaging in strange and/or deviant behavior, and I really, really love forcing it down people's throats, knowing they really hate it.
How dare transsexuals refuse to accept the labels I put on myself, and on them. They will be strange and deviant because, well because I say they are. They have no right to disagree with me.
I'm going to shove my behavior down everyone's throat. This is all about power, and I want it all. Anyone who disagrees with me will be insulted, belittled, and attacked until they submit.

Yes, kind of redundant, but that is how Williams seems to be. He is a one note opera, and it is all about how he is right, and everyone is wrong.

The real irony in all of this is Williams' claim that he is not demanding that people identify as he wishes. He even goes so far as to say:

If the down-low guy doesn’t want to identify as being gay, then fine. If the stealth lesbian doesn’t want to identify as being a lesbian, then fine. If the TS Separatist doesn’t want to identify as being trans, then fine. HOWEVER, do not demand that the entire trans community rework its culture to suit your whims and unsubstantiated statements of fact.

Those are strange words coming from someone who spends an entire post attacking people who don't identify as transgender. His bottom line, "I have a right to my views, and I demand that you respect my identity, but I am not going to respect yours. You can call yourself whatever you want, but I will call you whatever I want, but I will absolutely go ballistic if you call me anything other than what I demand."

Oh well, I would call Williams a bad joke. As to what he calls me, well, who cares? I just consider the source. And I have a good laugh.

Why Is the Transvestite Sandeen So Upset Over a Transvestite Fantasy?

2011-12-21T10:25:00.000-08:00

Well, it appears that "Autumn" Sandeen, has his panties in a wad over what is, essentially, a transvestite fantasy. In his latest post at Pam's House Blend, he is in hysterics over a new ABC TV show called "Work It." The show is about two men who pretend to be women so they can get jobs as pharmaceutical representatives for a company that is apparently in total violation of Federal law. I wonder how they will explain the company getting away with a policy of hiring "only women?" But I digress....

The show, which seems to basically be a rehash of the old plot concept from Bosom Buddies and Tootsie. The idea is, a straight male is "forced" by some circumstance beyond his control to dress up as a woman. He may be doing this to get a job, or to obtain some other benefit. And even though it goes against his very nature, he succeeds, and perhaps, comes to be a better man because of it. Oh, and he finds that he enjoys being a woman, if only for a while. In another words, it is a classic transvestite fantasy of forced feminization.

So, why is Mr. Sandeen so upset? Well, it appears that LGBT activists have declare war on this show because it "trivializes" the experiences of transgender people, and well, it makes fun of the idea of men wearing dresses. In another words, this is a safe issue for them to use to "prove" that they are really, really aware of, and concerned about, transgender issues and they are doing something about it,

Of course, the whole thing is just ridiculous. This is a show about two straight men disguising themselves as women to get jobs. They are "pretending" to be women in order to get a job they would otherwise be denied (again, how is this company getting away with a clear violation of Federal law?). That is totally unrelated to "real" transgender people who ae pretending to be women because they think it is a fun and cool thing to be a "woman with a penis." And, it is unrelated to true transsexuals who are women, who are in the process of putting they lives on track.

The claim is made that in "real life" transgender people face problems:

In the brick-and-mortar world, most of us late-transitioning trans women didn’t have the benefit of make-up and wardrobe departments to facilitate our transitions. Many of us started our transitions with deep voices, heavy beards, and bone structures that didn’t say “woman.” Many of us were — many of us are — visibly trans, not “passing” in our target sex of female.

Of course, Mr. Sandeen fails to mention that he, and other transgender people generally attack anyone attempting to be actually "pass." The whole idea for people like him is to be visibly transgender. They are not interested in actually being female, but derive their identity from being "women with penises." So, a show about two straight men who somehow manage to overcome obvious problems and succeed in passing, is just too much for them. They think, how dare these men actually work as women, and not "trans women." It appears that they are upset with this show for much the same reason that they hate those who identify as transsexuals, but not transgender. They hate anyone who is successful at being a woman.

Sandeen attempts to feign ignorance of the whole concept of stealth:

In the brick-and-mortar world, the two crossdressers in Work Itwould be having uncomfortable discussions with the HR department of their new employer about transitioning in the workplace, including negotiating restroom use. They would likely at least face workplace harassment, and if they lived in the 35 states without employment protections based on gender identity, they might not have been hired — or if already hired might have been fired — specifically for being trans…and without much legal recourse.

I live in the brick and mortar world, as he puts it. I have never had an uncomfortable discussion with the HR department. In all of my jobs, except one, I was not remotely out. I did work at a position as an outreach worker for a research project that targeted people who identified as transgender or transsexual. I had participated in the project at the request of my therapist at the time, and I sought the position because it provided me with both an income and health insurance benefit that would cover my sex reassignment survey. I later moved on to another position that was not directly related to transgender issues. But even there, there were no such discussion.

No, most jobs I have had since transition have been held simply as a woman. I never seriously considered "transitioning" on the job. Even in the outreach position, I had been in transition for years, and was simply listed as a female. In fact, I ignored requests sent out to all employees in the organization to, "be out." Every year, during Pride Month, they would distribute posters featuring employees who were willing to publicly identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender. I had no desire to do so.

I lived in one of those 35 states. In my first job after transition, I was hired as as a woman, and assigned to the lingerie department. In my job, among other duties, I had to assist other women in the dressing room. No one ever questioned whether whether I was a woman. Granted, unlike those Sandeen describes, I had undergone electrolysis, had been on hormones for years, and well, I admit I am blessed with relatively good bone structure. But, more importantly, I did not begin transition until i was ready. This was not a silly fantasy for me. It was about being who, and what, I really was. Not engaging in dress-up and forcing people to indulge my delusions. I was not interested in being transgender, or even transsexual. I was simply living as the woman I already was.

The only connection this show has to transgender is the fact that it is essentially a clean version of transvestite fiction. You would think that someone like Sandeen would be excited to have this presented weekly. But, the LGBT activists have spoken, and so he must rush to front of the mob, and help lead the charge. After all, if they get this show cancelled, they will have shown their power and TV executives will be under their control.

Personally, I think the show is a rather silly idea. The answer to sex discrimination is to take the employer to court, not to pretend to be the sex they are willing to hire. But that would not make a very good TV show. Another objection to this show is that it uses the idea of men dressed as women for humor. Funny, but I would think they would start by making an effort to shut down every drag show, and to force every drag queen, to stop performing. Of course, men dressed as women is humorous. And yes, that is a problem for transgender people. After all, that is exactly what they essentially identify as.

GLAAD has the following to say about the show:

GLAAD has seen the pilot and while the show’s pilot does not explicitly address transgender people, many home viewers unfamiliar with the realities of being transgender will still make the connection. Work It invites the audience to laugh at images of men trying to adopt a feminine appearance, thereby also making it easier to mock people whose gender identity and expression are different than the one they were assigned at birth. Said GLAAD’s Acting President Mike Thompson, “Transphobia is still all too prevalent in our society and this show will only contribute to it. It will reinforce the mistaken belief that transgender women are simply ‘men pretending to be women,’ and that their efforts to live their lives authentically as women are a form of lying or deception.”

These problems are even more pronounced in the show’s printed ad, which depicts the two main characters dressed as women while standing at men’s room urinals. Not only does it inadvertently further notions that transgender identities are humorous or artificial, but imagery like this are one of the first things anti-LGBT activists resort to when trying to deny transgender people protections against discrimination. As Mark Snyder from the Transgender Law Center said in a recent article, a printed image like this in magazines or the sides of city buses will “make it more difficult for transgender people to gain full equality — including the important right to access public accommodations appropriate to their gender identity.”

GLAAD clearly has no grasp of transgender reality. When you have men, who are intent of being "trans women," i.e. retaining their identity as men, while attempting to force society to accept them as women, simply, and only, because they claim to be women, it is really kind of hard to argue that they are not engaged in a form of lying or deception. Granted, the deception is not the one that GLAAD is thinking of, but it is, at best, a shaky position. And the issue is not the right to access public accommodation appropriate to theyr "gender identity," but quite the opposite. It is about men, who are quite happy as men, getting into women's spaces.

As to the print ad, I grant, it is a bit absurd. Transgender people don't walk up to urinals like that. No, they stand to pee in the stalls of women's room. After all, as I said, forcing their way into women's rooms is a major part of their agenda, though I do suppose they would welcome forcing women's rooms to include urinals. But that is a whole new discussion.

At Bilerico, It's Agree With Bil's Way or the Highway

2011-11-21T21:38:00.000-08:00

It has long been obvious that Bil Browning is an LGBT extremist who has no respect for the opinions of anyone who does not share his radical view of how the world should operate, but he has really gone off the deep end... In a recent diatribe, he said the following:

Over on the "Sec of Labor Issues Statement for Transgender Day of Remembrance" post, Lisa McDonald decided to use the topic - a day set aside to honor transgender people murdered because of their gender expression - to reiterate her dislike for LGBT people:
What about the rights of anyone that is included in the Transgender umbrella living or murdered? You know those who don't wish to be labeled Transgender or that might take offense to gay politics? I suppose their rights don't matter as long as those who are happy being labeled Transgender and the LGBT gets from free press from their loss of life.I will be openly protesting the Transgender Day of Remembrance on their behalf and to point to the injustice of forced transgender inclusion. As for the Obama administration shame on them for bowing to queer politics and Mara Kiesling.
I'll be damned if I give any space to someone who apparently wants to wrap themselves in the Fred Phelps flag and piss on someone's grave. If that's the type of person you are, you don't belong here.

Good grief! The only one acting remotely like Fred Phelps is Bil Browning himself. He is showing the same sort of blind adherence to a point of view that Phelps does. He is right, and damn anyone who disagrees with him. Sad in a way, but not surprising. Extremists tend to be more alike than different, even if the target of their extremism is radically different. Simply put, the reason I consider Fred Phelps to be a nut case whose views are not really worth anything is why I feel the same about Bil Browning. Intolerance is intolerance, period.

This is shown by his next remark:

If you regularly write complaints about how much you hate being lumped in with the gays and lesbians and the "transgenders," feel free to haul your ass right out of here.* Seriously. If it bothers you that much that people refer to themselves as they wish, go somewhere other than our comments section where they're free to do so.

I don't know when I have ever seen anyone complain "that people refer to themselves as they wish," unless it was someone taking the officially approved "Bil Browning position" and insisting that transsexuals must obediently accept the label "transgender." The issue is not people calling themselves "transgender," but instead is people forcing that term on others. Sadly, Browning not only insists on forcing his views on others, he lies about other's views in a pathetic attempt to justify his outrageous attitude.

Bil Browning, like a lot of extremists, cannot abide dissent. The sad thing is that so many of his followers are more than willing for him to silence those who do not share a particular viewpoint. This approach is quite common among transgender blogs. More often than not, they hold comments pending moderation, so they insure that no view contrary to the party line slips through. Others will quickly ban anyone who provides a coherent argument against the transgender position.

As always, my blogs welcomes those who disagree. I only censor comments that invade people's privacy. Beyond that, I take on all comers.

Remembering Their Dead

2011-11-20T10:29:00.000-08:00

Well, here we are...another November 20th, and another round of posts on all the transgender blogs about how this is the "Transgender Day of Remembrance." Yes, it is time to celebrate all the honored dead, who sadly, in most cases, did something really stupid.

Now, don't get me wrong. I am not engaging in blaming the victim. No one deserves to die, but in most of the cases of those who are honored and even near worshipped each year the victim could have, and yes, should have, taken steps to avoid being murdered. It is just common sense.

And every year, the transgender extremists seem to go out of their way to discourage people from showing said common sense. After all, they believe it is their absolute right to act as they wish, and expect people to, well, suck it up. Unfortunately, no matter how much they believe in such a right, and no matter how much such a right might exist, reality says if you are not careful, you may end up dead.

If you are a pre-op, or you are a crossdressing male who belongs to the "They Will Take My Penis When They Pry My Cold Dead Fingers From It" club, and you become involved with a man who does not know your situation, and you let him "discover" your little secret without warning, then you run a significant rise of violence. It may be wrong, and hey, you may even live in a jurisdiction where the "trans panic" defense is not allowed, but what does that matter if you wind up seriously injured or dead? But hey, you will be honored on the next Nov. 20th.

I do wonder if some of those who die are not subconsciously looking for release. I do wonder if they are suicidal. I understand the temptation that one might feel to seek out companionship. But one has to be careful. Taking chances is stupid. Letting a man discover your penis without warning is very likely to end badly. He is probably not going to be delighted to discover you are a male, no matter how often you call it a "neo-clit." He is likely, at best, to reject you, and at worst, to engage in violence.

If you have to reveal, do it in a public place, but one where there is enough privacy that he is not going to be shamed. Remember, no matter how "out, loud, and proud," you are, he may not share you beliefs.

And also ask yourself, is it worth your life to engage in sex work? There are other options. It is NEVER your only option. It may seem an appealing choice, but is it worth your life? Most who engage in sex work wind up using drugs to dull the pain, and then they find that they have to do more sex work to afford the drugs, which leads to more pain, that requires more drugs....well, it just gets worse and worse. Is it really what you want?

If you are truly transsexual, it is a matter of transition or die. If you are transgender, if you want to hang on to your maleness while pretending to be a woman, you really need professional health, and you really need to consider if your little hobby is worth dying for.

But seriously, those who do die are not martyrs, and while they should be mourned, they don't deserve the near worship they receive. They should be seen as tragic examples of what not to do.

Should Little Bobby Be Allowed To Be A Girl Scout?

2011-11-04T10:48:00.000-07:00

The latest round of transgender insanity comes from Colorado where a seven year-old male asked to join a Girl Scout troop, and was initially denied. Bobby Montoya appears to identify as a girl, and is allowed to dress as one by his mother.

Now, this issue hit home for me. When I was around 10, I too wanted to join the Girl Scouts. Of course, at the time, it was completely out of the question. I did borrow my friend's Girl Scout Handbooks, and pretty much devoured everything in it. I dreamed of being allowed to be a Girl Scout, and even had a membership card that I found in a friend's basement. His mother had been a troop leader, and she had dumped a bunch of stuff there.

Now, I think it is wonderful that the Girl Scouts are willing to be more open-minded these days, but I think there need to be some limits on this sort of thing as well. It is not clear from the articles that I have read whether Bobby actually identifies as a girl, or if he identifies as a boy who wants to be a girl. His mother refers to him with male pronouns, and he has a male name.

And, in fact, it appears there are some such limits. Here is the statement from the Girl Scouts of Colorado:

“Girl Scouts is an inclusive organization and we accept all girls in Kindergarten through 12th grade as members. If a child identifies as a girl and the child’s family presents her as a girl, Girl Scouts of Colorado welcomes her as a Girl Scout. Our requests for support of transgender kids have grown, and Girl Scouts of Colorado is working to best support these children, their families and the volunteers who serve them. In this case, an associate delivering our program was not aware of our approach. She contacted her supervisor, who immediately began working with the family to get the child involved and supported in Girl Scouts.”

The key point here is, "presents her as a girl." While I would disagree with the use of the term "transgender," this is a reasonable start to a sane policy. What I am concerned about is the entire way this case has been handled. It appears the mother is more interested in pushing an agenda than in what is right for both Bobby and the Girl Scouts that will be affected by this whole mess.

It appears that Bobby dresses as a girl, and is allowed to engage in girlish behavior, but it is also clear that he, and his parents, are presenting him as a boy. While, of course, in such a case it would be prudent and proper that the troop leader and other adults be informed that the child is transsexual, I would expect that a child in such a circumstance would be effectively stealth. This is clearly not the case here. Stories have, for example, reported on Bobby being bullied at school.

If this child actually identifies as a girl, and actually wishes to be a girl, then why is he, and his family, not making an actual effort to allow him to live as such? Why is his situation so well known?

This is the transgender extremist's dirty little secret. It is really not about being who they claim to be. It is about being a male who is presenting as a female. It is about subverting gender, it is about transgressing societal norms, and it is about forcing themselves on others.

If one claims to be a woman, or a girl, then one should be that. And if one is a transgender, then one should simply accept that one is at odds with the majority of society, and accept that people are going to wish to set reasonable limitations. Bobby, and his family, do not have a right to disrupt a Girl Scout troop, just so he can play dress up. If he wants to be a Girl Scout, then he needs to be a girl first, not a boy playing so bizarre game of make believe.

Bil Browning Strikes Out Again...

2011-10-27T20:58:00.000-07:00

It has been a while since he has made a complete ass of himself, but Bil Browning is at it again. Browning, who runs the hilariously over the top gay blog site Bilerico decided to trash Ashley Love, a post-op transsexual woman who has had the audacity to be both highly successful, and to disagree with the transgender party line. Bil is quite disgusted with the simple fact that Ms. Love will not meekly accept the label of "transgender," which he arrogantly goes out of his way to impose on Ms. Love. She does not identify that way, but Browning doesn't care. Of course the fact that she is quite articulate and is someone who is able to get her voice heard clearly sends Browning into fits of rage. How dare she disagree with him!!!!

Ms. Love speaks the truth, and this is just something that Browning will not abide. She refutes the party line, and that angers the transgender extremists, including others, such as "Autumn" Sandeen, "Monica" Helms" and "Antonia D'orsay Dyssonance." In another words, she is hated by the worst of the transgender kooks. Sounds to me like she is doing a pretty good job. About the only major transgender kook who has not viciously attacked Ms. Love is "Monica" Roberts, who has expressed issues, but is unwilling to go after her like the others because, well, Ashley is African-American. So, she only gets a little hate from Roberts. The rest of the boys are not so kind. It would be interesting to see if Ms. Love agrees with Roberts' racist rants.

But the real fun in a Bilerico post is usually in the comments, and this one is no exception. They open with a woman taking on Browning for his nastiness. A couple of transgender kooks jump her case because, like Ms. Love, she doesn't parrot the party line, and then Mr. Dyssonance himself jumps her case and tries to slam her hard. Typical. He really puts the kook in transgender kook. When dealing with that one, you simply have to remember, he is not sane, so trying to make sense of his rhetoric will only give you a headache.

After the woman who started us off puts Dyssonance in his place, one of the kooks comes back after her, shocked that she actually supports Ms. Love (it is always funny watching someone who simply cannot comprehend that anyone would not swallow the transgender party line without question).

Then another wannabe chimes in that he just can't understand why some distinguish between transgender and transsexual. He can't even muster the courage to "transition" (i.e. I would assume he means he can't bring himself to actually start crossdressing full time). There is no so blind....

Now, things start to really get interesting... Another nutcase (ironic, isn't it?) suggests that Ms. Love might be mentally ill and is just trying to get attention. Now, hold that thought....we are going to come back to it quickly. Anyway, things go back and forth about whether this person was attacking Ms. Love for being transsexual, or for not adhering to the appropriate party line.

Okay, another person takes Browning to task of his nastiness and actually does a pretty good job of putting him in his place. This brings the wrath of "Monica" Helms, one of the most extreme of the extremists. Now, Helms lets us know that he does not like Ms. Love, but he also takes a swat at Browning, who has actually put him him his place for acting the fool. Helms is too nasty for even Browning.

Things continue in this manner for a bit, and someone speaks up for Ms. Love, pointing out that she speaks for transsexuals, who are being somewhat oppressed by the transgender extremists which angers Mr. Dyssonance, He is not going to tolerate anyone trying to slip the yoke of being labeled as a transgender. In another words, he is a classic gender fascist. A few comments later, he attacks someone for pointing out that Ms. Love is not transgender, and that calling her such is "misgendering" her. In this case, I would have to agree. Of course, Mr. Dyssonance is having none of that.

A few comments later, things take a surreal turn. Helms, who has one of the most overinflated egos among the transgender kooks, picks up on the idea that Ms. Love is trying to get attention, making a comment about how she "is trying to force herself into the spotlight." Now, given both Helms' behavior, and that of his brother-in-arms "Autumn" Sandeen, that is downright hilarious. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black...

And so it goes.... I am a little surprised that Browning had the good sense to stay out of the comments. It must have been hard for him to refrain from moderating all those people taking him to task for being such a jerk....

Dr. Keith Ablow Makes Some Good Points

2011-10-27T10:54:00.000-07:00

The transgender community was renting their clothes, and wearing sackcloth and ashes over the comments of Dr. Keith Ablow about Chaz Bono's appearance on Dancing With the Stars. Dr. Ablow suggested that seeing Bono on TV might cause "impressionable" children to question their own gender identity. While I think that is a bit overblown, he does make a few good points when he suggests that there should be an examination of the current trends in therapy for "transgender" people.

Dr. Ablow has also been roundly attacked for saying that Bono is "not a man." Now, of course that is a mortal sin according to the transgender extremists. After all, their approach to "sex" is that people can claim to be something, and they automatically are. But, is he a man? Well, not according to his own words. After being booted from DWTS Bono made the comment that he wanted to show America, "...a different kind of man." In this context, that means, quite simply, that he is not really a man. Being a man, like being a woman, is a very binary thing. You either are, or you are not. There are not degrees of being a man.

Now, I really doubt that kids are going to watch Bono and decide they too are transsexual. It might plant the idea that being transgender is a way to "rebel," which is another issue. But that is not really the point. One problem is that there are problems with celebrating what is, in reality, a serious medical issue.

I mean, if Chaz Bono were truly a transsexual and actually wanted to simply live his life as a man, then why would he make such a big deal out of shoving his issues into everyone's face. It drastically reduces the chance that he will be seen as a man, and instead insures that he will be seen as, well, "transgender." No, I realize that it might be difficult for someone who is a celebrity to transition quietly, but quite honestly, Chaz Bono was not that well know before his very public transition. He made a somewhat unsuccessful attempt at a musical career, but after becoming an LGBT activist, he became a bit more prominent.

I am sure that Dr. Ablow and I would find a lot to disagree on. But, we would at least have common ground for dialog. For the transgender crowd, there is no common ground. He has some valid issues, and they, well they simply don't. They are upset because he is actually speaking the truth, albeit in a rather forceful, and flawed manner. He clearly leans away from acceptance of the validity of transsexualism, but apparently he does not reject it completely. Ironically, some of the more extremist transgender activists do.

Yet Another Example of Transgender Silliness

2011-10-16T10:30:00.000-07:00

The audacity of transgender activists never fails to amaze me. But the recent actions of "Megan" Stabler really takes the cake. Stabler, who is the current token "trannie" at the Human Rights Campaign married a woman in Texas by claiming to be a man, even though Stabler has had sex reassignment surgery. I normally, with certain specific exceptions, treat post-ops as their target sex, but I will respect Mr. Stabler's apparent wishes, and refer to him as a male.

The story was first broken by the San Diego LGBT Weekly under the completely bizarre headline:

HRC trans board member marries as sex opposite of post-op gender

This, of course, is typical TG double-talk. It always amuses me that while the TG extremists make a big deal about how "sex is between the legs, gender is between the ears," they also attempt to imply that gender "changes" with transition." Gender is immutable. You are born with a brain wired male, or one wired female. You can change your gender expression, and your sex, to match your gender, or to be contrary. Transgender people change their gender expression to the opposite of their inherent gender, and transsexuals move to conform to their true gender. Transgender generally wish to remain their birth sex, as this enhances their transgression of gender, but their are exceptions. Stabler appears to be one of those cases.

The fact that Stabler is with HRC goes a long way towards explaining this travesty. There is a common, but erroneous belief among transgender people that a hierarchy exists with post-ops at the pinnacle. Of course, this is based, in part, on the insistence that transsexuals must accept assimilation under the transgender umbrella. While some true transsexuals do identify as transgender, many, perhaps most, do not.

Stabler has made a choice, and it will be the policy of this blog to refer to him with male pronouns. He has legally identified as male, and that is how he will be referred to. I generally refer, with very rare exceptions to post-op MTF transsexuals as women. Stabler will be one of those exceptions.

I should also note that "Autumn" Sandeen is defending Stabler's outrageous behavior as something done in support of "marriage equality." Of course, ultimately, it is not. It harms both the cause of same-sex marriage, and that of true transsexuals. It makes a mockery of changes to birth certificates, and it provide ammunition to the Religious Right.

Oh well, as I say, transgender idiocy knows no limits.....

Interesting....

2011-10-07T17:56:00.000-07:00

In his unique style of cluelessness, "Autumn" Sandeen seems to have "discovered" that transgender people have incurred the wrath of the Religious Right. It is not clear of Mr. Sandeen has just just discovered this, or if he was desperate for something to write about. I mean, "transgender" people have been, as he puts it, "...On The Religious Right’s/Social Conservative’s Radar" for some years. This is nothing new.

The primary reason for this is the insistence of those, like Mr. Sandeen, that "transgender" has to be linked to "Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual," even though it really has little in common, and is not a sexual orientation. But, given the Religious Right's obsession with homosexuality, that they have "noticed" transgender should come as no surprise.

Truth be told, for many years, the vast majority of the Religious Right tended to largely ignore the whole issue. Oh, if the question came up, they would certainly disapprove of cross dressing, but it was not something they paid much attention to outside of the association with "drag queens." And while it has nothing to actually do with transgender, transsexualism was, with some exceptions, largely ignored and even accepted, especially if people were educated about the medical nature of the condition. Even now, the Religious Right finds it easier to attack transsexualism by linking it to transgender and homosexuality.

And a very good question would be if Mr. Sandeen is really that upset by getting attention from the Religious Right. I suspect he is actually not upset at all. In fact, I think he craves the attention.

A Classic Example of the Harm Transgender Extremists Do to Transsexuals

2011-10-02T17:57:00.000-07:00

There was a momentary possibility that Medicaid in the State of New York would cover sex reassignment surgery. That quickly disappeared. Now, there are a number of good reasons that such surgery should be covered. For one, it is medically necessary for transsexuals. Unfortunately, the surgery was mislabeled as "transgender" surgery, and the usual kooks and extremists came out of the wood work and started pushing for it.

The opens the door for conservatives to start in about how we should not be indulging these disturbed people, and how limited resources should not be wasted.

Now, the truth is, those pushing for such coverage would likely never take advantage of it. The overwhelming majority are life-time members of the "They Will Take My Penis When They Pry My Cold Dead Fingers From It" Club. Oh, they will whine about how they "would" have the surgery if only it was not so expensive, and how they wish it was covered, but let's be serious...they often have had numerous chances to have the surgery, and even when such people have it offered they rarely take advantage.

When San Francisco approved providing surgery for city workers, the number taking advantage was surprisingly low. The same thing was the result when the University of California made it part of their medical benefits. The truth is, transsexuals are actually very rare. Transgender people don't want to change their sex. That would spoil the fun.

But, they are quick to come out of the woodwork and scare authorities into declining to provide them with a benefit they demand, but will never use, thus denying it to those who really need it.

Much Ado About Nothing

2011-09-20T10:29:00.000-07:00

It was with some degree of amusement that I watched "Cristan" Williams' hissy fits about Dr. Keith Ablow's comments about Chaz Bono's appearance on "Dancing With the Stars." Now, let me start by saying I don't particularly agree with Ablow. I did find it interesting that he seems to concede that he might well fail in his attempts to "cure" Chaz, and that if it came to it, he would support Chaz in seeking surgery.

That, of course, is a rather extreme version of how therapists should approach the treatment of transsexuals. They certainly should not rubber stamp requests for SRS. When they do, you end up with a very serious possibility of someone making a tragic error. I have seen it happen. SRS is not something to be rushed into,

But there is a bigger issue here. Mr. Williams is infuriated that Dr. Ablow would dare disagree with transgender dogma. The result has been an almost comedic attempt to destroy Ablow's career. Now, as I said, I don't particularly agree with Ablow, and even less so with Paul McHugh, who Ablow has apparently quoted in support of his positions.

Ablow has expressed some opinions I find a bit amusing, like suggesting that parents should not allow their children to watch "Dancing With the Stars" because it might cause them to decide they are "transgender." And he has made some nasty comments where he conflates transsexualism with transgender (that is probably what I would find most disturbing), but to suggest, as Mr. Williams does, that Ablow has violated medical ethics is, well, laughable.

Ablow is entitled to his views. He is not the only doctor to disagree with surgical treatment for transsexuals. So what? Does Mr. Williams really imagine that someone might mistakenly choose Ablow as their therapist in pursuit of surgery? Ironically, if that person was a true transsexual, Ablow has indicated that he would ultimately support them in pursuing SRS. That is better than many therapists, who firmly oppose anyone ever having surgery.

The problem here is simple. Some, especially those who made a poor choice, are so insecure that even the most minor of challenge to "transgender dogma" sends them into fits. Ablow is one opinion among many. Those inclined to think transsexuals in error will continue to do so. Those who understand the needs of true transsexuals will not be persuaded by his rants. And those like Mr. Williams, who feel the need to demand ideological purity with continue to have hissy fits about any disagreement. And they will continue to engage in behavior that will make themselves look foolish, like filing silly ethics complaints in desperate attempts to be noticed and feel important.

Comparing Apples and.....Well, People

2011-09-13T08:43:00.000-07:00

"Autumn" Sandeen is complaining that we don't have an acceptable word that covers everyone that he wants to be covered by transgender. Apparently, he is now throwing in the towel on forcing everyone under the transgender umbrella and is hoping to coin a new term.

Unfortunately, Mr. Sandeen misses the bigger picture. We do not need such a term. There is nothing that connects these diverse groups. Crossdressers are not the same as drag queens, who have nothing common with transsexuals, who are completely unrelated to gender queers....etc. The only ones who really want such a term are those like Mr. Sandeen who have some bizarre need to identify as something they clearly are not.

Mr. Sandeen has a desperate need to identify as a transsexual even though he clearly has no desire to actually change his sex, seeking instead to perpetuate a bizarre fantasy of being a woman with a penis...well, more specifically, "a legal female with a penis." This is absurd. But it is Mr. Sandeen's goal.

No, we don't need a new term. The old one has proven to be a failure. Mr. Sandeen should take a lesson from that, but I don't see that happening.

In This Case, 'F' Is For Fraud

2011-09-09T21:51:00.000-07:00

Well, "Autumn" Sandeen, the freshly minted male eunuch is again bragging about how he is defrauding everyone he can in a post entitled F Is For Female:Part One Of Many. Now, an interesting thought occurs to me. If, perhaps even when, Mr. Sandeen gets caught in his little lies, and someone decides to prosecute him for fraud (a lot of what he is doing requires basically swearing that something is true until penalty of perjury) does he realize that no amount of lying about the nature of his surgery is going to cause him to be placed anywhere except in a men's jail or prison. Likewise, if he gets arrested in another protest, like the one he loves to brag about, he will not be viewed as a female, no matter what his birth certificate claims. They will take one look at his penis, and pop him over to the male side. I can almost see him being dragged into a male cell, all the while crying out that he is really a female, while waving his birth certificate for all to see.

No, in Mr. Sandeen's case, 'F' is for fraud, fake, fibber, but most definitely not female.

No, The Correct Pronoun Is Still "He."

2011-09-02T10:24:00.000-07:00

"Autumn" Sandeen posted again about his castration. At least he seems to have stopped referring to his becoming a male eunuch as being "genital reconstruction surgery." He is now calling it "gender affirmation surgery," which is, in his case, an accurate term. The problem is, the gender he is affirmed as having by this surgery, is, contrary to his delusional/dishonest claim, male. Simply put, he has proven he is a man,

He made it clear in his past article that he was unwilling to part with his penis. At that point, he was claiming he was going to have "genital reconstruction surgery," but after numerous people pointed out that nothing was being reconstructed, he seems to have abandoned that false claim. Now, it is true that some transsexuals have an orchidectomy in advance of full SRS. They do this to reduce the amount of hormones they take. Mr. Sandeen has made it clear that this is the only surgery he plans to have.

Worse, he has made it clear that the reason he had this surgery is so he can perpetuate a fraud against the State of California in an attempt to change his birth certificate. Hopefully, someone will raise objections to this, and he will be blocked, and perhaps even prosecuted for perjury. For those who are interested the calendar for the San Diego court which will likely be hearing this case can be found here. Providing copies of Mr. Sandeen's blog posts to the court should prove interesting.

In his latest, and according to him, last post on the subject he makes the statement:

Quite a number of transsexual women believe vaginoplasties are a requirement to fully transition from man to woman. I believe instead that I was female before my orchiectomy, female afterwards, and female still should I ever have a vaginoplasty. Genital surgery is used by many transsexuals to affirm gender, but it doesn’t create male or female gender in the first place.

No, all transsexual women believe vaginoplasties are a requirement to fully transition from man to woman. Women do not have penises. That is common sense for the vast majority of the human race. But not for the delusional extremists of the transgender movement. And no, it is clear that Mr. Sandeen has never been female in any sense, and will never be female since one cannot change one's gender by changing one's mind.

Mr. Sandeen served successfully, as a male, in the Navy for twenty years. No transsexual would be able to accomplish this. It is bad enough when someone has had a long, successful career as a male, with no significant problems, and then claims to be a transsexual. It is completely laughable when that career was in the military. Yes, women serve in the military, but they serve in a different environment than men. The culture is significantly different.

So, I, and I am sure many others, have to disagree when Mr. Sandeen says:

So when y’all refer to me, the correct pronoun is she — I didn’t have that gender affirmation surgery for nothing, y’know?

No, the correct pronoun remains "he." And hopefully, his fraud will be exposed in court, it will be shown that he has affirmed his gender as male.

Cathy Brennan and Elizabeth Hungerford Are Right!

2011-08-31T07:12:00.000-07:00

The transgender blogosphere is all abuzz about the submission that Cathy Brennan and Elizabeth Hungerford made to the United Nations Entity· for Gender Equality and Empowerment of Women's call for communications. Based on the reactions, you would think that Brennan and Hungerford called for "transgender people" to be outlawed, and for them to be rounded up and sent to reeducation centers where they would be forced to adhere to their birth gender. Instead, they have raised some very legitimate issues about the more extremists views that have become the norm for the "transgender community."

A lot of the noise has centered around three quotes from the document which runs to six rather dense pages:

The bill violates the privacy rights of every Maryland citizen.
Behavior that would normally be considered criminal will now be protected as a civil right.
The definition of “gender identity” trivializes the significance of biological sex.

The cry has gone up from the transgender extremists, "Horrors! To the ramparts! We are under attack, and our very existence is in danger!" At EHIPASSIKO, "Christan" Williams' rather silly blog, Williams refers to the letter as "exterminationist." Of course, this is more than a bit silly, but one would expect nothing less from Mr. Williams, who tends to be a bit hysterical (in more than one sense of the word). Well, in a sense, I guess they are right...they have demanded such ridiculous and radical changes that anything else probably seems unacceptable to them. But they face one little problem....the above is true. All three things are quite true.

In fact, these very things are at the core of the demands of the transgender extremists. They assert that:

Their rights to express their "gender identity" trump all other rights.
That their rights trump even the rights of women to be safe.
That biological sex doesn't, that one becomes fully female simply by making the claim that one is female.

While I generally do not care for some to the sillier policies of the radical fringe of feminism, in this case they are raising good points, while showing consideration for those who actually have legitimate needs.

For example, in discussing one state's laws they make the following assertion (emphasis mine):

This definition of "gender identity" does not require any objective proof. Rather, It merely requires the person. seeking protection to assert that he or she identifies as the sex opposite his or her sex at birth.Further, because.Title 11 only permits discrimination in sex-segregated facilities based on sex) a person asserting gender rdentiry as a basis to avoid "discrimination" must be permitted to use the rest room or bath house of their chosen "gender identity') ...... without regard to any action taken on the part of that individual to change their physiology to "become female" (Le., sex reassignment surgery.)

Clearly, they are not attacking true transsexuals, but instead the rising tide of men who think that putting on a dress makes them women. Since these "wannabe" women generally act, and quite often look, like men, it is understandable why women would be upset at the idea of them being able to force their way into women's room. Add in the fact that they make it clear that they have no desire to give up their penises, and it is clear that this is an invasion of privacy,

Therein lies the irony here, We are talking about men, claiming to be women, who have no concept of why women might not wish them in women's space. The very nature of their demands, and their attitudes are perhaps one of the strongest arguments against them. They show, by their behavior and attitudes, that they are not women, and have no concept of how women think.

Now, let's take a small step back, and consider exactly what is at stake here. As I pointed out, to hear the rhetoric from the transgender extremists, the radical feminists are demanding their extermination (Mr. Williams has said as much, actually) but in truth, this is about a simple issue, that we all know so well...men in women's space. The transgender extremists demand it, even to the point, in some cases, where nudity will be inevitable, and women oppose it.

And unlike some extremists, these radical feminists are not even demanding a total ban. They are simply asking for the reasonable standard that access be granted on the basis of proof of medical transition. That is, the weekend warriors, the cross dressers, the transvestites, and such would not be allowed access to women's spaces just on the basis of a claim of being a woman. And even there, what they are asking for is not panty checks. The bottom line, what they are asking for that has the transgender extremists going so far as to take of "extermination" (I am really having a good laugh at Mr. Williams' complete idiocy over this...) is that they simply want this standard imposed when there is litigation.

In another words, if someone is not demonstrably in transition, under medical supervision, and they sue for the right to access to use the women's room at work, they would not have a case.

Wow! Can you believe that such a simple, and reasonable request has led to claims of proposed genocide? There you have it. This is the transgender movement in a nutshell, which is where I suppose these nuts belong. They are so obsessed with access to women's restrooms that even the most reasonable of restraints, imposed to prevent a very real threat, is deemed outrageous.

And they wonder why those of us who really are women, those of us who knew early on, who struggled through life as women forced to live as men, who finally understand, who finally take the steps to put our lives right, simply don't want to be a part of their movement, oppose their silliness, and want to distance ourselves as far from their insanity as possible. It is not that we are elitist. It is simply that we are sane.

Hate?

2011-08-26T17:31:00.000-07:00

A while back, I wrote a post where I coined the term "club words" to describe things that transgender activists use to beat up on their opponents. Well, there was a very important one I missed, though it was implied in some of the others...hate.

In a response to "Cristan" Williams' post about what he termed "The Jennifer Shuffle," which could basically be described as me out-arguing him (he got mad because I would not let him limit the terms of the discussion) someone posted this in reference to me:

Isn't it funny how so many people in the trans community have mental and emotional issues? Self-hatred is the root cause of why those people hate others.

Well, I do have to agree with the first statement, to a point. Yes, there are some seriously mentally ill people in the "trans community." Of course, this person completely ignores the fact that I am not a member of that community. But that is just typical transgender. In their view, you will be forced under the umbrella whether you like it, or not.

Beyond that, it just gets worse. First off, I certainly don't hate myself. I got over my self-hatred when I began transition. Of course, when someone, such as the person here, Kalina Isato, is a full time cross dresser (even though the person claims to be a transsexual, it is clear that they are not) I would imagine they would not really understand this. And that brings us to the heart of the matter.

This person accuses me of hating others. Now, let me say, I don't hate anyone. I may dislike some people, but I don't hate them. I tend to view "hate" in a very specific manner. If you hate someone, you, at the very least, wish them undeserved harm, and at the most extreme wish them to be destroyed. Now, I say undeserved harm. I don't believe it is necessarily hate to desire for someone to be punished for a crime, or denied something they are not legally entitled to. For example, I do not wish for "Autumn" Sandeen to be denied his desired change to his birth certificate out of hatred, but simply because he is seeking to engage in a legal fraud.

I don't wish anyone undeserved harm. I do not, for example, want to see someone get bashed by someone. I do not wish to see anyone murdered, or such. I also do not wish anyone to be persecuted by their employer. I would not out someone who stealth, just because I disagree with them, On the other hand, I have been the victim of some who have sought such things. And yet, I am the one who is accused of hatred.

So, what do transgender extremists mean when they say "hate." What is so horrible that it warrants this term? What does a group have to do to earn the label "hate group" from these people? That's simple...you just have to disagree with their extremist views. It can be as simple as saying "I am not transgender." Or it may be expressing disdain for "men in dresses."

It is really that simple. If you don't buy into their silliness... If you don't totally agree with even the most extreme demands of the transgender activists... If you don't believe that a man becomes a woman simply because he says, "I am a woman now"... If you don't believe that the simple act of cross dressing allows one to invade women's space... If you don't pander to their delusions... Well, then you must be a hater.

So, no, I don't hate anyone, though I am no doubt hated by some. And that is really the bottom line. They have to accuse others of hatred, so they can excuse their own hatred.

Mr. WIlliams Throws in the Towel

2011-08-22T17:41:00.000-07:00

Over the past few weeks, I have been in a battle of wits with a gender fascist who goes by the name "Cristan" Williams. Mr. Williams first popped up on Bilerico with some pretty silly claims about how "transgender" had been around a long time. When he was challenged on this, he began using some rather silly, and dishonest, debating techniques. Now, most people are not that familiar with forensics, so this sort of behavior can quickly deteriorate into a bit of a brawl. And when someone is using such techniques dishonestly, this is even worse. Suffice to say, the battle of wits was quite one sided. It was me against someone who was essentially witless.

In the latest round, I stated:

"For someone to say, "I am a woman, and I have a penis that I plan to keep," is completely insane. "

To which another person responded"

Oh please. What's so magical about a penis that makes it define sex?

Now, this is just the sort of silliness one often encounters from the more extreme of the transgender extremists. Mr. Williams immediately rallied to this kook's defense, and I challenged Mr. Williams on the topic. Now, Mr. Williams response was to accuse me of making a straw argument (not a particularly bright move, since he uses them repeatedly, as I had pointed out). This is sort of the debating equivalent of saying "Same to you, but more of it." I made the statement that, if he did not share that view, he was welcome to denounce it, and I would gladly admit my error. He quickly tried to change the subject a bit by resorting to an ad hominem attack, accusing me of something he labeled "the Jennifer Shuffle." What this means, is that I would not let him define the limits and terms of the debate. Put in simpler terms, I would not allow him to try to goad me into saying something he could twist into yet another straw argument.

Now, let me pause here to say that the main reason I have, as some would put it, "misgendered" Mr. Williams is this constant, rather masculine tendency to try to goad people into making statements that he can twist. His debating style reminds me more of Sen. Joseph McCarthy more than anything else. I can just picture Mr. Williams, bug-eyed and red faced, screaming "Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party?!?!?!?" Or in Mr. Williams case, I suppose it would be, "Are you now, or have you ever been, a transsexual separatist?!?!?!?!?"

In any case, I made the statement:

Let me put this in simple terms...a penis does not belong on a woman.

And Mr. Williams came back with:

BUT IS IT THE ONLY FACTOR IN DETERMINING SEX?

Now. this is a classic example of a dishonest question. It has no context, and there is no simple answer. It is clearly meant to be answered, "Yes" or "No." Which is just plain silly. It is not much better than the classic, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" If you have never beaten your wife, or if you are not even married, then the "true" answer would "No," implying that you still beat your wife. And of course, if you answer yes, you are are admitting to having beaten your wife. Of course, that is kind of silly, but Mr. Williams' question is not much better.

The problem is, he give no indication of what he means by sex. Does he mean legal sex? Perceived sex? Chromosomal sex? Genital sex? Brain sex? Gonadal sex? Reproductive sex? Or perhaps he means sex, as in who you are going to engage in intercourse with, though I doubt it. Without context, there is no answer to the question. In some of the above contexts, the answer is yes, in others, no. And in a couple, the answer is "It depends."

My answer stands. If you claim to be a woman, and you have a penis, and you plan to keep it, then something is just not right....

Well, apparently he knows he is not going to back me into a corner, and that I am on to his semantical games, so he resorted to silly ad hominem attacks, and finely, when I pointed out that he clearly has no real arguments, he has stated that he is banning me. And that, of course, is the last refuge of a transgender scoundrel. When they can't win...when the argument is lost....when they know they are being made to look the fool....they ban you.

This is why I don't moderate comments before posting. I don't ban people except under the most extreme of circumstances. And that, so far, has not really happened. Bottom line, Mr. Williams is still welcome to comment here. As are most others. There are a couple of people I would not allow, simply because I have them blocked in other forums. But that is because of privacy issues more than anything else. In fact, that is probably the one thing that would get someone banned. Violating my, or someone else's, privacy.

Mr. Sandeen is Now a Eunuch

2011-08-20T11:27:00.000-07:00

Well, "Autumn" Sandeen has announced that he has completed his "gender affirmation surgery." Actually, that is an interesting choice of terms. He was, fraudulently, calling it genital reconstruction surgery, but nothing was being reconstructed. He just had his testicles removed. He is trying to spin this by carrying on about how traumatic this would be for a man. But in his case, it is "gender affirmation surgery." It affirms he is a man, and a male. He is no closer to being a woman than he was before. He has retained his penis, and that is what is really important to him.

Now, a lot of transsexuals have an orchidectomy as a prelude to SRS. It reduces the amount of estrogen one has to take, and eliminates the need for testosterone blockers. But that is not what is happening with Mr. Sandeen. He is not planning further surgery. He does not want a vagina. He wants to be a "woman with a penis."

He now plans to petition to have his birth certificate changed. I seriously hope the courts block this fraud, and ideally he should be prosecuted for attempting to do so. Then he can be a martyr for the cause, and write about another experience in jail.

And Now We Know....the Rest of the Story!

2011-08-16T19:32:00.000-07:00

Well, there was a very interesting post on Bilerico today. It seems that the history of the "transgender movement" is not much different from what most people have said. Oh, we had "Cristan" Williams trying to muddy the waters, but Mr. Williams just got hoist by his own petard. The truth is out...

Dr. Jillian T. Weiss has posted an article about Yvonne Cook-Riley, who has admitted to being a major force in the creation of the modern transgender movement. Now, Cook-Riley is a bit of an arrogant gender fascist, telling those of us who want no part of the transgender movement to "just grow up." This is so typical of the gender fascists. In their mind, there is simply no right to not willing be a member of their little "community." If you decline, you are belittled and attacked.

Well, now the truth is out. It was all about the sublimation of those pesky transsexuals. The crossdressers wanted to take over, and they never even considered how offensive their point of view might be for transsexuals. Of course, this is not surprising since two of the people who joined in the creation of the transgender community were Charles "Virginia" Prince (real name Arnold Lowman) and Phillip Frye, the rather nasty crossdresser from Houston who has attacked transsexuals on more than one occasion.

Cook-Riley uses the term "gender variant." This term is extremely offensive to transsexuals, who do not see themselves as gender variant, but as simply women, or men in the case of FTMs. Of course, at the time the "transgender movement" was gearing up, it was all about the boys who liked wearing dresses.

Funny thing, as another points out, not once does Cook-Riley use the word "women." And they wonder why we want no part of it all?

Again, a simple suggestion....just apply "transgender" to those who wish to identify with this political concept and leave the rest of us alone. Is that really too much to ask?

A Response to Jennifer Boylan

2011-08-14T17:56:00.000-07:00

Jennifer Boylan wrote the following in an Op-Ed in the New York Times:

..But if transgender people are sometimes at odds with their gay and lesbian allies, they're also at odds with themselves. The community is rife with disagreements about whether transsexuals (individuals who change, or wish to change, their gender via medical intervention, and whom some define as simply having a "birth challenge" like, say, a cleft palate) even ought to be grouped, politically, with "transgenders" (an umbrella term that includes cross-dressers and drag queens).
Whenever I hear about groups splintering into smaller factions, it's hard for me not to think of John Cleese in Monty Python's "Life of Brian," protesting that he's not with the Judean People's Front; he's with the People's Front of Judea. In short, infighting seems to guarantee that whatever progress is made for gay men and lesbians, transgender people will continue to lag behind.
We can't afford that. It is painful that the pressing issues of trans-rights seem forgotten beneath the din of wedding bells, but progress in civil rights can only come with the numbers and resources found in unity. Gay men and lesbians, for their part, ought to remember, on the way home from Niagara Falls, that it was drag queens and transsexuals at Stonewall who began this fight...

Let me put this as gently as possible.... While I consider myself to be a straight woman who supports gay rights, I do not particularly agree with many, if not most of the goals of the transgender movement. I'm sorry, but I do not support things like:

Transvestites being allowed to force employers to let them dress however the mood strikes them...showing up as a man one day, and a woman the next.

The ability to change one's birth certificate without having undergone sex reassignment surgery.

The idea that one's sex is simply a choice. Put on a dress, and you are a woman, provided that is how you "identify.

The deconstruction of binary gender. Personally, I happen to like the binary view of gender and sex.

Simply put, I don't share much of the political goals of the transgender movement, and as I have stated before, I consider much of their efforts to be prejudicial and harmful to the needs and rights of transsexuals.

So, no, the community is not necessarily "rife with disagreements." There are disagreements between those who choose to identify with transgender, and those who do not. To state things as Boylan does is to simply ignore the fact that some do not accept the label of transgender.

A Busy Sunday...

2011-08-14T17:32:00.000-07:00

Wow, so many issues, so little time...

No, seriously, there are some trivial things that all merit a response, but none of which are really so major as to warrant an individual post. So, let's begin....

First, we have the silliness that has erupted around A. G. Casebeer's violent threats that were posted on uber-bigot "Monica" Robert's Facebook Page. Mr. Roberts pulled the page as soon as the controversy began, but fortunately it was preserved for posterity by Dana Lane Taylor. Well, "Autumn" Sandeen has now posted about how Casebeer and Mr. Roberts have apologized for the nasty remarks. Well, actually, they appear to have posted some rather insincere sounding remarks that sound more like they are sorry they got caught. But the real story is about how "Monica" Helms reacted to a comment from CathrynP, a transsexual who has long been a major thorn in the side of the transgender extremists. Mr. Helms, as only he can do, goes off.

Yeah, right!
Whine, whine, whine. You have hated Monica for as long as you have hated me, because she sees you for what you really are, and have pointed out your lies on several occasions. You can't stand it when people see right through you. You have even threaten her and Dawn Wilson to the point where they had to report YOU to the authorities. You are the last person on the planet to call for stripping someone of anything. You need only to look in the mirror to see the one person who has spread more hate then the other Cathy, Monica and AC could ever do together. I may get called out for this comment, but someone has to point out your blatant hypocrisy.
I'm ready for my card, Autumn.

by: MonicaHelms @ Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 08:13:20 AM CDT

Now, CathrynP replied very calmly, pointing out that Mr. Helms is basically lying. So, how does Mr. Sandeen react? Well, as usual, he "drops a card," but warns both Mr. Helms (who regularly violates the rules at Pam's House Blend without any real fear of ever being booted, and CathrynP who didn't really violate any reasonable rule. Another example of Mr. Sandeen's efforts to censor those he disagrees with, while allowing the worst sort of behavior from friends like Mr. Helms. And of course, a later nasty remark by Mr. Roberts, who seems incapable of much else, doesn't even seem to warrant notice.

Our next minor issue is yet another hilarious post by "Cristan" Williams. Mr. Williams is all upset because his silliness is being exposed and ridiculed both here and elsewhere...in spite of his stupid "facepalm" attacks. I guess we are supposed to be so devastated by those that we just curl up and fade away.

Now, Mr. Williams claims he has never tried to force "separatists" to join the TG movement. I suppose in his usual style of debate this claim can be supported, but an examination of his posts show just how silly that claim really is. He has attacked what he calls "TS separatists," mocked them, and tried, desperately, to refute their positions. Not really the actions of someone who doesn't "care if they don’t want to identify as being part of any specific community." A simple suggestion....at least for those who haven't drank the same "Flavor-Aid" (it wasn't Kool-Aid they drank at Jonestown). Read his remarks, and ask yourself where he is coming from. If you don't agree with me, that is fine. If you do...well, then join me in a good laugh at his absolute silliness.

This, of course, is typical of the semantical games that Mr. Williams engages in. He thinks himself far more clever than he remotely is.

Then, having hit Dana with yet another "facepalm" (Dana, I feel your pain) he goes on to attack me again, accusing me of lying about his comments about bathrooms. Apparently when he talked about how many women have attacked other women in the ladies room he wasn't really suggesting that women are just as much of a threat, if not more of a threat, as men...uh, I mean transgender "women."

Let me make three points here in response to Mr. WIlliams' silliness:

I have made it clear that I think pre-op transsexuals should be allowed access to women's restrooms, provided that they actually are pursing surgery, taking hormones, and that they are sufficiently feminized that they can enter a women's bathroom without looking like a man in a dress. And provided that they conduct themselves in a proper manner. I would not extend this privilege to transvestites(both part-time and full-time), gender queers, drag queens, so-called non-ops, etc. Put another way, unless you are actively pursuing the removal of your penis, and the creation of a vagina, stay out of the ladies room.
The real issue with men in women's space is not so much safety, as privacy. Men, as in transvestites, are unwelcome. The vast majority of women see the restroom as a place they can go and get away from men. This is sort of ironic, since "privacy" is the basis for many arguments made by people like Mr. Williams. The right to privacy is what prevents states from going after gays for engaging in sex, and it is the basis for abortion rights. Personally, I agree with the first, but not the second. Privacy is an important right, but life trumps privacy.
Mr. Williams tries the silly ploy of suggesting that "trans men" would be forced into the ladies room. What a load of crap. First off, after about six months of hormones the average FTM has no problem passing as a man. Second, men do not have the issue with privacy that women do. They are not likely to feel threatened by a sufficiently transitioned FTM. In the relatively short period that they are changing, it is not too much to ask that they use reasonable discretion and try not to freak people out too much.

No, if Mr. Williams wasn't suggesting that women are as much of a threat as men, I would love to know what he was trying to suggest.... Oh, he does throw the 14th Amendment around a lot, clearly having absolutely no idea what it means.

The final issue this Sunday is the silliness out of Cuba. In a very bizarre story, we are told that a gay man has married a transsexual woman. Now, granted, there are some cultural differences with regard to sexuality between Anglo and Latino cultures. Many passive gay males in such cultures can avoid some stigma by adopting a feminine persona and presentation, but it is extremely rare for them to actually go so far as surgery. Now, it is possible that the "bride" in this case succumbed to pressure from society and had the surgery. I knew one person who was clearly ambivalent about surgery, but who stated that her family wanted her to have it, so she was going to. I recently heard that she had the operation. It will be interesting to see what comes of this.

It is also possible that the gay community in Cuba is simply using this as a ploy to get attention. The "bride" arrived holding a gay pride flag. And the groom has AIDS, so I suspect he does not expect it to be long before death.

The simple bottom line is, gay men do not generally marry transsexuals, at least not for love. I suppose if one felt pressured to marry that might be preferable to a natal woman, but this whole thing seems very questionable to me.

Now There is No Question...

2011-08-13T23:09:00.000-07:00

Many have raised questions about "Autumn" Sandeen's rather bizarre "Wiener Story of the Day" that occasionally appears in his "This and That" posts. What was the significance of this? Was Mr. Sandeen just a major fan of hot dogs, or was this meant as some sort of perverse pun? It seemed even more of a question when Mr. Sandeen falsely claimed that he was having "genital reconstruction surgery." He is having a castration, and is becoming a male eunuch, not a female.

Well, now there is no question. In a new post, any question is removed. Here is what Mr. Sandeen has to say about wiener's this time:

Our Wiener Story Of The Day: the Arizona Republic's Police urge holster use after man shoots his own penis:
As Chandler residents Joshua Seto, 27, and his fiancée, Cara Christopher, walked over to a Fry's Food Store for refreshments, he tried securing her pink handgun in the front waistband of his pants.
The gun fired, striking Seto's penis and continuing through his left thigh. The bleeding started immediately and was heavy, according to police dispatch recordings released Sunday.
"He is still conscious, there is just a lot of blood," Christopher , 26, told 9-1-1 operators and dispatchers.
One operator told Christopher to apply direct pressure to the wound with a dry towel or T-shirt, but to avoid looking at the wound...

Yes, and now we know what Mr. Sandeen means when he says, "As always, 'The weenie tempts you!' "

Battle of the Legends (Well, At Least Legends In Their Own Minds)

2011-08-11T17:30:00.000-07:00

When asked about my politics, I often joke that I am a member of the Radical Middle, the Extreme Center... I say this because I find that politics is often driven by the extremes, which I do believe is unfortunate. Granted, living in San Francisco I have to avoid the term "moderate" which is code for "conservative." You see, conservative is a bad word here. Instead of Left and Right, we have "progressives" and "moderates." Basically, a progressive is someone who believes in treating human beings with a modicum of decency and respect, and a moderate is someone who wants to punish people for having the audacity to be poor in San Francisco. But they both, strongly, support gay rights. But I digress... Oh, and I guess the above makes me a progressive...

Recently a war has erupted between two of the radical extremes of the online world. "Cristan" Williams, the radical gender fascist who posts at "EHIPASSIKO" and "Woman Born Transsexual" Suzan Cooke are going at it. This is all very interesting given that about two years ago, Cooke was making a major effort to cozy up to the transgender crowd, suggesting something of a truce where "transsexual and transgender" would coexist in a cozy separate but equal utopia. Things went sour a few months ago, and Cooke now rants about the "Transgender Borg" and "Transgender, Inc." Williams, on the other hand, makes silly jokes about the Swedish Chef..."Borg, Borg, Borg."

Truth be told, I obviously come closer to agreeing with Cooke, but I find both of them to be rather amusing. Cooke is so far left in terms of politics that she has become something of a caricature. It is really hard to take much of anything she says seriously. And she clearly has some issues with insecurity, so I admit, I feel a bit sorry for her.

Williams on the other hand, while also amusing in the same way that "Dyssonance" is (they are very similar in style), is also more than a bit obnoxious...well, in the same way that "Dyssonance" is. They both think if they just keep forcing their points of view, they will wear people down. And, of course, Williams seems to be a close friend of "Monica" Roberts, who has recently become embroiled in a controversy over some violent threats which he seemed to encourage. Roberts, of course, is well known for being an extreme bigot. Ironically, Cooke has been known to kowtow to Roberts as well. In fact, if I am not mistaken, Cooke used to link to Roberts' blog.

Watching these two go at each other is rather amusing. Neither is going to give an inch, and both are stubborn as mules. Neither is above lowering themselves to personal attacks at the slightest provocation. I suspect we will hear more from them in future.

You Can't Make This Stuff Up!

2011-08-08T20:42:00.000-07:00

Over at "EHIPASSIKO" the blog site of "Cristan" Williams, there is a new post that is, well, it is just unbelievable. Williams tries to argue that, in the context of the bathroom, women are in as much danger, if not more, from other women, as they are from men. That is, this "transwoman" is trying to say that men pose no more of a danger than other women. Unbelievable! And, of course, this is done with very questionable evidence.

Now, clearly, anything is possible. The issue is not, "Are women totally and completely safe from possible assault and even rape if men are never allowed into a women's bathroom?" That would be absurd. The issue is, "Will women's safety, and their comfort, be affected negatively by the presence of men in dresses in the women's room." This, of course, is completely lost on a gender fascist like Williams who wishes to assert that the moment a man puts on a dress, he becomes completely and fully a female with all attendant rights and privileges. Williams joins with fellow kook "Monica" Roberts in proclaiming that they now have a "neo-clit" in their panties and that they are thus superior to natal women, and must be given special privilege.

Now, Williams offers as evidence for this assertion a series of articles involving assaults, one rape, and a rather bizarre case (cited twice) of a pair of women engaging in sex in a bathroom, apparently in front of a child. Unfortunately for Williams, the rape case is not a very good argument as the case was later dismissed. It may well have never even happened. Or at least not have been an actual rape (it involved digital penetration).

Now, it seems incredible to me that anyone claiming to be a woman would ever make an argument that other, uh, natal women are as much of a threat as men are. Of course women fight with each other. And of course such fights might even occur in the ladies room. But that is not really the issue; The issue is sexual violence, which overwhelming involves men, whether it is rape, or some other form including voyeurism.

As I say, you can't make this stuff up...not that I would want to.

Oh, and a simple solution to the bathroom issue. Access to the women's room should be available only to those who are in transition, seeking surgery, on hormones, and who are living full time, It could be linked to changes of identification, which should be time limited. If the person is not making progress towards surgery, they would revert to an 'M' on their ID and be banned from the women's room. Simple. And fair. If you are a crossdresser, find a family room or a place with a single, one person bathroom and stay out of places you don't belong. And this includes full time crossdressers with "neo-clits" like "Monica" Roberts.

So, Which Is It?

2011-07-30T11:33:00.000-07:00

"Autumn" Sandeen has posted another rant against a radical feminist who opposes "transgenderism." In this rant, which seems most geared towards pushing Mr. Sandeen's favorite cause, which is censorship of anyone who disagrees with him, he includes the following quote from Sheila Jefferys:

Since transsexualism is socially constructed then it is important to consider how to counter the promotion of the practice.

...The medical profession need not direct the gender dissatisfied to surgery. Counselling is possible to encourage clients to take a more political approach to their situation and to realize that they can rebel against the constraints of a prescribed gender role, and relate to their own sex in their native bodies. Unfortunately many doctors are so convinced of the existence of a phenomenon they define as transsexualism that they do not offer any approach apart from self-mutilation.

Now, what puzzles me is that this could just as easily be a quote from, oh say, "Monica" Helms, or "Monica" Roberts, two leaders of the "They Will Take My Penis When They Pry My Cold Dead Fingers From It" Club. I mean, how many times have we seen transgender extremists, including Mr. Sandeen, attack transsexuals who insist that surgery is the defining issue separating transgender and transsexual?

And how many times have we seen transgender extremists attack people for having surgery, claiming that we should, in effect, learn to rebel against the constraints of a prescribed gender role while keeping our penis? Oh, wait, that's just what Mr. Sandeen plans to do. Remember his fraud, claiming he is having "genital reconstruction surgery" when all he is having is a castration, and then bragging about how he is going to use this to defraud the State of California into changing his birth certificate? I can guarantee you, he will not likely tell the judge the full story. He will present paperwork claiming he has had surgery to change his sex, and that will be a fraud.

And he will be doing just what he complains about Jefferys saying

Can't See the Forest For the Trees..

2011-07-28T21:38:00.000-07:00

"Autumn" Sandeen has again created a post that shows just how completely clueless he actually is. This time he tries to connect comments made by radical feminists and right wing religious figures. And, of course, he completely misses the bigger picture...

Now, I will grant, the people quoted are trying to paint with a very broad brush. They are not likely to differentiate between true transsexuals, and frauds like Mr. Sandeen. And that, for the benefit of those who question how the transgender extremists have harmed transsexuals, is yet another example.

You see, most of the quotes Mr. Sandeen provides rather accurately describe him and his behavior, For example, he quotes Ellen Makkai, from the religious right web site WorldNetDaily:

Gender gymnastics are going on out there. Transsexuals disenchanted with their chromosomal selves are having parts lopped off or stitched on in attempts to change sexual identity.

They hope to override male XY or female XX hardwiring - thinking a newly configured appendage or cleft re-defines gender. And they enlist a surgeon to mutilate the body accordingly.

Now,this remark is totally inaccurate when applied to a true or classic transsexual, but it perfectly describes those like Mr. Sandeen who really do believe that they can "change" their gender. He is trying to override his clearly male brain. Remember, this is a man who served, quite successfully in the Navy for 20 years. While I suspect during this time he was a closeted transvestite, that is not the same as having a female brain. In fact, it is the exact opposite. Transvestitism is a very male behavior.

This is the problem. Men like Mr. Sandeen think they can somehow make themselves women just by saying the magic words,, "I am a trans woman." No, they are men. One does not "become" a woman by choosing to be such. It is not something one can just claim. If you lived a good portion of your life happily and successfully as a man, even if you were sneaking off to put on a pair of panties when you got the chance, you are not a transsexual, and you are certainly not a woman.

In the meantime, Mr. Sandeen and others continue to be perfect examples of the sort that the radical feminist rant about. As Janice Raymond said:

No man can have the history of being born and located in this culture as a woman. He can have the history of wishing to be a woman and of acting like a woman, but this gender experience is that of a transsexual, not of a woman. Surgery may confer the artifacts of outward and inward female organs but t cannot confer the history of being born a woman in this society.

This is very true of a man like Mr. Sandeen. He lived his life as a man for many years, more specifically he successfully lived his life as a man for most of his life. He has never experienced the conflict that drives a transsexual. He has chosen to behave as he does. And that is very telling. He provides the example that someone like Raymond, or the others can point to, and say "Well, he says he is a transsexual so therefore, he is a transsexual." Unfortunately, they both are wrong. And quite frankly, they both are lying.

The Idiocy Continues...

2011-07-27T20:36:00.000-07:00

Well, my response to the rather silly claims by Cristan Williams at Bilerico seems to have created a bit of a stir. First off, Williams, who seems to be self-appointed as a new leader among the gender fascists. Williams responds to those who disagree with ad hominem attacks and mockery. And at the same time, in what has to be a laughable tactic, Williams demands that people present "objective evidence." Given that transgender is a totally subjective concept, that is quite a stretch. Simply put, Williams is all ego and a mile wide.

Now, this is a rather curious person. The claim is made that Williams is a "post-op." transsexual. Well, that may well be, but given the latest round of lies from Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen, one has to wonder what "post-op" means in this case. I mean, Williams certainly does not come across as someone who is transsexual. There is clearly no desire to be a woman. It is possible that Williams had SRS and now has deep regrets and compensates by going heavily into gender politics. This would not be the first such case. It is equally possible that the op that is post for Williams is something short of full SRS. But that doesn't really matter as we don't know the facts, and probably won't. Sadly, among the transgender extremists, the view still holds that being "post-op" gives one more credibility. That is why Mr. Sandeen suddenly became a "transsexual" and is now claiming that he is going to have "genital reconstruction surgery." I mean, how is castration remote "reconstruction?" Before you know, it Mr. Sandeen will be claiming to be a post op, even though he will remain a woman with a penis.

And even having surgery does not make one a woman. If one does not have a female brain before surgery, one will not afterwards. But I digress....

Williams again is pushing the idea that transsexuals have to be a part of the transgender community based on questionable history. Of course, when I raised some questions about this, Williams went ballistic. I have merely pointed out that the information is questionable. I have pointed out that Williams cites sources that are at best, not widely available, and which might, possibly, be fraudulent. So, how does Williams respond? With ad hominem attacks and straw arguments. I didn't say that the sources were fake, I said they were questionable.

This time around, Williams appeals mostly to sources like Tapestry, which started as part of a transvestite club. And I find it especially funny that Williams cites Roger E. Peo, "Ph.D." Peo was a major fan of transvestites. Oh, and that "Ph.D." It is from the the Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality. This, uh, institute operates out of a storefront in San Francisco. It is not accredited, a subject it tries to side step in its FAQ on the web site. It has actually moved up in the world, having relocated from a rather run down building in Folsom Street area South of Market, to a slightly less seedy area near the Tenderloin. It claims to be the "Harvard" of the study of Human Sexuality. If I were Harvard, I would sue for defamation. This is the sort of people Williams appeals to for this round of rhetoric. Oh, and Williams, no my head has not exploded, though I did laugh quite a bit at it all.

Now, let's take a step back, and look at the bigger picture. Let's say that Williams is completely honest. So what? Williams takes a few isolated comments, and tries to use this to demand compliance from people who, quite simply, want no part of the transgender extremism. So, why is Williams so adamant about this? Well, first off, the transgender movement is terrified of the idea that transsexuals might actually separate. If we did, transgender is exposed for what it actually is...a bunch of men trying to force society to call them women.

Without transsexuals, transgender is nothing but a group of men in dresses. Like Mr. Sandeen, they want to keep their penises. Like "Monica" Roberts, they want to brag about that big old "neo-clit" they are packing in their panties. They know that suddenly, they will not have transsexuals to hide behind.

Williams is fond of challenging people about what harm has been done to transsexuals by association with transgender extremism. Well, first off, as a classic example, there is the loss of the right to marry. Funny how this was not an issue in the United States until transgender people started making noise. Suddenly, transsexual marriages is tied into same-sex marriages. Yes, I know exactly what Williams will bring up....April Ashley, but that was in England and things did not become an issue in this country until relatively recently. Now, things are rough.

Another example of damage is the growing idea that surgery is not needed. Because of those who belong to the "They Will Take My Penis When They Pry My Cold Dead Fingers From It" club, who also claim to be fully women, fully female, some people raise issues as to why transsexuals need, or should have, surgery. After all, others do quite well without it. This undercuts efforts to obtain insurance coverage for example. Of course, those who don't want surgery love to claim their reasons are economic. Insurance coverage would expose their lies.

Now, Williams is anti-stealth, spewing the usual crap about shame. Williams dismisses the very real desire to simply live as a woman, not as a "trans whatever." Again, clearly, Williams does not really wish to be a woman. Williams, like others, transitioned to be "trans." As I have said before, I prefer not being a "woman, but...." I don't care for people to say, "Oh, she is a nice woman, but....you know she was once a man," or "she is "really a man," or whatever. I don't want people saying, "You know how men are....oh, yes, of course you do." No, I don't know. I never understood why they act like they do, thank you. I felt like an outsider. I don't know what life is like on both side, and really, neither does anyone else. If you were perfectly happy as a man, then sorry, you are not really a woman. I am amazed at people who had long, successful careers as men who suddenly decide they are really women. And then they wonder why people don't really accept them as "real women."

All is this is fine for Williams, but clearly, Williams is not happy just living the life that Williams chooses. Williams, like many gender fascists feels the need to dictate how others can life and identify, casting aspersions on "separatists," transsexuals who do not wish to identify as transgender.

So that brings us back to the simple bottom line. Transgender is a highly subjective, artificial social and political construct. It has no basis outside the minds of those who dreamed it up. In truth, the very concept has changed over the years. There is no objective definition of who is, and who is not, transgender except that one is transgender if that is what one calls oneself. Unlike "transsexual," which is an objective term, "transgender" is an identity and nothing more. I am not transgender. I did not change my gender, as it has always been female. I changed my sex. In fact, transgender is an oxymoron as one cannot really change one's gender. You cannot make yourself into a woman by choice. You can change your gender presentation, and I an willing to accept a definition that is worded in that way, though it would still not properly apply to me. And others speak of "transcending" gender. I don't do that either. I simply am what I am, a middle aged woman. I am not a trans woman, just a woman, thank you. And please, don't even think about calling me gender variant. If people want to rebel against their true gender, that is their right, I suppose. But if they want to claim me as part of their rebellion, they have a fight on their hands.

Once again, a modest proposal, which, of course will be rejected. Let people identify as they please. Stop imposing the term transgender on people. Make it a rule that it never be used unless someone chooses to be called that. If someone says, I am not transgender, that should be the end of it. If someone says, they are transgender, that is their right. But don't force your terms on others. It is just not right.

As to Williams, that person can get bent out of shape all they want. They are not going to silence me. So far, all Williams has shown is how weak a position Williams has taken. Arguments like "face plants" may seem clever to Williams, and Williams' followers, but really, is that the best you've got?

Facts Versus Fantasy

2011-07-24T20:41:00.000-07:00

"Autumn" Sandeen has announced that he is having "genital reconstruction surgery." Except, well, he isn't. Not even close. He is lying, at the very least to himself, and really to anyone foolish enough to believe his bizarre fantasy. You see, what Mr. Sandeen is having is, not "genital reconstruction surgery" but instead, is simply an orchidectomy. He is not becoming a complete female. He is becoming an eunuch, a castrated male.

He starts off his little trip down fantasy lane with:

There are women of color and there are disabled women; there are lesbians and there are women of faith; there are mothers and there are servicewomen; there are women veterans and bisexual women -- and that's hardly an exhaustive list of the subcategories of women. Women's experience intersects with multiple labels and multiple identities; each woman's experience is complex, and not solely described within the confines of the "female" and "woman" found within western society's binary sex and gender norms.

I guess what he is trying to say is "There are women with penises." Because that is what he believes he is, and what he believes he will be after his imaginary "Genital Reconstruction Surgery." Many years ago, one of the first books I read on issues of transsexualism and transvestitism was Robert Stoller's Sex and Gender: On the Development of Masculinity and Femininity. It has been a number of years since I looked at this book, but one of the things I remember from it was Stoller talking about how transvestites have fantasies about being a woman with a penis. At the time, this seemed to me to be a quite absurd idea. Stoller based this, in part, on a review of pornography of the variety that features images of what, at first, appears to be a quite attractive woman...until you notice the penis that is exposed.

Over the years, I rejected Stoller's ideas as just another example of the silliness of Freudian analysis which often seems to seek absurd causes for various mental illness and condition that seem absurd. Another of Stoller's claims, which is quite silly, is that all transvestites were dressed as girls by their mothers or other females as a child. While this may be true in some cases, I doubt it is true in all cases. This plays into the kind of "forced femininity" fantasies that some transvestites show.

While much of Stoller's ideas seem a bit absurd, I have begun to realize there is some accuracy in the concept of men having fantasies of being "women with penises." You see this in those who plot to get their birth certificates changed to declare themselves to be "legally" female while remaining physically male. And you see this in someone like Mr. Sandeen claiming to be having "genital reconstruction surgery" when all he is really doing is getting castrated and becoming a eunuch.

Now, don't get me wrong. I am not remotely suggesting that Mr. Sandeen should have sex reassignment surgery. That would be a tragic mistake. Clearly, he is not a woman, and losing his penis would be emotionally traumatic. What I am suggesting is that Mr. Sandeen start facing reality. Calling himself a woman just because he likes to play dress up is dishonest at best, or at worst delusional. Calling castration "genital reconstruction surgery" is an insult to real transsexuals who have worked and suffered to get the real thing. And claiming to be a woman with a penis is just silly.

Missing the Bigger Picture

2011-07-22T17:39:00.000-07:00

My recent post on the silliness at Bilerico about the attempt to claim quite a history for the term "transgender" caused a bit of a stir. Both the article of the original article, and Zoe Brain weighed in. But the bigger picture is being lost in all the rhetoric....

I just doesn't matter...

A lot of this is an attempt to cover up the fact that the term "transgender," or more specifically, "transgenderist" originated with Arnold Lowman, better known as Charles "Virginia" Prince. Yes, Prince came up with the term to describe those who crossdress full time. It was specifically meant to be exclusive of transsexuals.

Of course, by the mid-Nineties, extremists began adopting "transgender" as the umbrella term for their artificial political construct uniting transvestites, crossdressers, drag queens and kings, gender queers, and, whether they liked it, or not, transsexuals.

Actually, at first, transsexuals made the mistake and went along. I first encountered "transgender" used this way on Usenet in the form of "alt.transgender." For a while, that was about the only place on Usenet where issues concerning transsexualism were discussed. Granted, a lot of people there were more akin to transgender extremists than true transsexuals, but that was not true of all there. I argued with more than a few that linking to the LGB movement was a mistake, but I was shouted down.

Then a newsgroup for transsexuals was split off, along with groups for crossdressers. But over the next few years, the transgender extremists would grow more and more outlandish in their demands, true transsexuals would begin to realize they were being linked to a crowd they really had nothing substantive in common with, and as I predicted, many gays and lesbians proved more than willing to sell out transsexuals in the name of furthering their own cause,

Which brings us back to the topic at hand. Even IF some of what is claimed is true, even if all of it was true, it would make no difference, The fact that someone, somewhere, sometime, even someone as "iconic" as Christine Jorgensen, actually said she preferred "transgender" to transsexual, which seems unlikely since the concept of gender had not really caught on at that time, it makes no different, The kook, extremists, and radicals that have taken over the transgender movement are reason enough for transsexuals to demand to be left out of their little club.

Once again, NO ONE should ever be labeled as transgender unless they willing choose to be labeled as such. Period, end of discussion.

What Bilerico Thinks is "Tasteful"

2011-07-22T17:27:00.000-07:00

It is usually a pretty good bet that any given day will bring at least one clueless remark about transsexuals from someone at Bilerico. But today's is a whopper. Some guy named Austen Crowder mentioned that a video game called Street Fighter x Tekken now has a "playable trans character." Apparently he is really, really excited about this, But he is also excited that some comic strip called Manly Guys Doing Manly Things has what he calls "really, really tasteful." Now, here is a comment made by the author of that strip that Crowder thinks is "really, really, tasteful."

The way I’ve heard the story told, Poison has possibly the most politically incorrect origin of any mainstream video game character I’ve heard of in my day. From what I understand it went something like this;

“So we made this girl bad guy character for Final Fight.”
“No way! Unacceptable! We can’t have our macho hero dudes hitting women!”
“Well… What if she was a transexual? It’s okay to punch trannies, right?”
“Yeah, that sounds okay”

Now, what makes this all the more strange is the fact that it appears that Austen Crowder claims to be a transwoman. This, of course, is classic Bilerico. Crowder does not appear to make any real effort to remotely appear female. His name is Austen. He apparently is really into violent, macho video games about fighting and wrestling, and really loves that they have a trans character. And he thinks it is really, really tasteful to suggest that hitting a transsexual is "okay." I mean, this is the perfect transgender blogger for Bilerico. He fits right in.

It Is Really Very Simple...

2011-07-19T18:16:00.000-07:00

Females don't have penises.

Of course, the transgender extremists don't like this. They think women have penises. Two examples of this have cropped up recently. First, "Autumn" Sandeen is upset that the Veterans Administration will not change his "gender" marker to indicate that he is a female. They want him to prove he has had a sex change, which of course he hasn't. Mr. Sandeen claims he is pre-op transsexual. More likely, he is a member of the "They Will Take My Penis When They Pry It From My Cold Dead Fingers" Club. He somehow never seems to progress towards surgery. He has suggested that he "might" have it when the VA will pay for it, but clearly he is not that interested.

Another example of this silliness comes from Alaska where the ACLU has decided to claim that not issuing a license to a transgender person who has not had surgery is unconstitutional. I have no idea where in the constitution it says that males, with penises, have a right to be labeled as females, but apparently they think it does.

Now, in both of these cases, what is being requested is, in some locations, granted as a courtesy for those seriously pursuing sex reassignment surgery. Well, at least that is the theory. But Alaska is not one of those states. Like several others, it only changes licenses when surgery is complete.

Jillian T. Weiss who has become the house transgender at the Bilerico Project had this to say:

Of course, there are many types of sex reassignment surgery, and "complete" is a relative term.

Actually, no, There are really only two primary kinds of sex reassignment surgery...male to female, and female to male. Now, in the context of this article, the above statement is even more clueless. It might be arguable that if it were a female to male that "complete" is a relative term, but for a male to female, complete means you no longer have a penis, and testicle, and you now have a vagina. End of discussion. It does not mean you have only had an orchidectomy, or breast augmentation surgery, or facial feminization surgery. You have a penis, you are still a male.

If a state wishes to allow pre-op, surgery tracked classic transsexuals the right to change their licenses to facilitate their Real Life Test, they have my full support. But that is not enough for the transgender extremists. They will not be happy until society accepts that women have penises. And that is just not right.

Gnat Gagging, and Camel Swallowing....

2011-07-15T12:14:00.000-07:00

One of the classic characteristics of the transgender extremist is a tendency to focus on silly things while ignoring bigger issues. I have encountered two examples of that this week.
The first comes from Gwen Smith, who writes a column for the Bay Area Reporter, an LGBT paper produced in San Francisco. Smith's latest column is a rant about a Newsweek article on Brazilian model Lea T. Smith is complaining because the Newsweek article contains the line:

As the bleachers erupt in wolf whistles, who’d have figured that the hottest new face from Brazil is not a she at all?

Lea is getting ready to undergo sex reassignment surgery, but has been very public about being transgender. If fact, this has been a major part of Lea's appeal. Apparently, "gender bending" is something of a fad in the fashion industry of late. Another quote from the article:

...and that was her again on Oprah, in February, when she detailed how to flaunt the scantiest women’s gear without spilling secrets.

And yet, Smith is upset that Newsweek simply points out a fact. Lea T. has a penis, and therefore to say, "...is not a she at all," is not a completely inaccurate statement. For a pre-op transsexual, especially one who is flaunting being physically male, using "proper" pronouns is a courtesy, not a requirement carved in stone and handed by by the Almighty.

Is it possibly offensive? Yes, but in the context is to make a point, which the article does in a lot more explicit language. I mean really, I find it a bit odd that someone who has a female gender would be comfortable going on Oprah to talk about how to hide one's penis.

Truth be told, this person seems to be transgender identified, not truly female. Again, from Newsweek:

“I want to send a message that transsexuals do not have to be prostitutes or hide their identities to be part of society,” she says. “The day I am no longer identified as a transsexual is the day my career is over.”

In another words, being a woman is not really that important to Lea T. But don't you dare refer to Lea as "not a she," or Gwen Smith will get very upset.

The second example comes from Bilerico.

Dr. Jillian T. Weiss is upset that Jeff Lewis, the openly gay host of Bravo's "Flipping Out" TV series is quoted in an article on Curbed that refers to a "transgender crack addict:"

Normally when you buy a house, the house is delivered vacant. I thought it was delivered vacant, but when I started the demo I realized there was this basement that I didn’t see during the inspection, and there was a transgender crack addict. A lot of times when you buy a house you inherit a feral cat or a raccoon or something, but in this particular case I inherited a crack addict—no joke! It took me a couple of weeks to get rid of he/she. But I didn’t even know he/she was living there. It was pretty crazy—I didn’t know until demo day!

Weiss is upset that the term "transgender" is attached to "crack addict." Apparently, Weiss would like to keep the fact that some people who identify as transgender, or who might be identified as transgender, actually use crack. I mean, this is the height of politically correct silliness. In the bizarre mindset of the transgender extremists, it is encouraged that people shove being transgender in everyone's face, but it is wrong for someone to use this term as a description of someone else if that use might make transgender people look bad. I have news for Weiss, some transgender people use drugs. They break into people's basements and take up residence. They also commit other crimes. They are not all paragons of virtue, above reproach.

The Other Pile of Idiocy From Bilerico

2011-07-13T19:39:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, I mentioned that there were two loads of idiocy on Bilerico. Well, after writing about the first, I decided to wait before tackling the second. So, here it is.....

A transgender identified transsexual named Cristan Williams made some claims about the term "transgender." Now, the gist of this article is that the term "transgender" was used as early as 1970. The claim is also made that the word was embraced by none other than Christine Jorgensen who, it is also asserted, supposedly preferred it to "transsexual."

The purpose of all this seems to be to counter the fact that the term is attributed to Arnold Lowman, aka Charles "Virginia" Prince, who was the spokesperson for transvestites for years, and a person who bitterly despised transsexuals.

Okay, I see three problems with this article:

The claims in the article are questionable. I honestly find it a bit hard to believe that the references are credible. It seems a bit suspicious that, just when the concept of "transgender" is on the ropes, there is this "sudden" and "convenient" discovery of the term being used to refer to transsexuals dating back to 1970. It also seems just a wee bit fishy that images of the articles are provided, not just quotes. That, of course, reduces the likelihood that someone would bother to actually check out the citations, which are almost all from obscure sources. I am not saying that they are fake, but it certainly seems possible, perhaps even likely.

In most of the instances where the term is used (there are three exceptions) it is applied specifically to transsexuals. That does not really support the current "umbrella" model.

It really changes nothing. Even if the citations are accurate...even if Christine Jorgensen actually preferred the term....even if some reporter, and some doctor actually used the term to refer to transsexuals on a couple of occasions, the term has taken on meanings that are still counter to the interests of transsexuals.

It appears that transgender activists are getting desperate. The umbrella is falling apart, and it is increasingly obvious that transsexuals do not belong in the same group as a bunch of men in dresses. But that does not mean they will give up...

A Double Load of Idiocy From Bilerico

2011-07-12T19:15:00.000-07:00

I regularly check out Bilerico to see what idiocy is posted there. Most of it does not rise to the level of being worth commenting on, but occasionally it produces a real gem. Today there are two... The first is an article by "Tobi" Hill-Meyer, a young gender queer person who seems more interested in being shocking than in actually being a woman.

Hill-Meyer presents a list of supposed Litmus Tests used to determine someone is "really" transsexual. Some of them are legitimate, some are just absurd:

The Litmus Test List

(Both personally overheard and collected from friends)

You're not a real transsexual woman if you haven't had vaginoplasty (the more generous version allows for women who haven't had vaginoplasty so long as they never give up on pursuing it)

This one, which Hill-Meyer chooses to start off with is dead on. If you are not pursuing vaginoplasty, that is, if you like your penis, and you want to keep it, then no, you are not a transsexual, period.

You're not a real transsexual woman if you don't pass as a cis woman 100% of the time

Nope... Now, if you don't try to pass, or worse, if you try to not pass, then that would be an issue.

You're not a real transsexual woman if you transitioned after 45 (or 35, or 25, or 18 depending on who you ask)

The age one transitions can be affected by many things. It proves little. The age when you became aware that something was wrong is what is important.

You're not a real transsexual woman if you ascribe to feminist gender deconstruction theory

No, but if you do ascribe to such idiocy, you are probably trying to compensate for something.

You're not a real transsexual woman if you buy clothes in the men's department

I would say it depends on why. Some women do buy clothes in the men's department.

You're not a real transsexual woman if mainstream transphobes wouldn't respect your gender if they somehow found out everything about your body and medical history

Huh? There are a lot of people who have NO respect for anyone's gender if they know their history. I would say it is more like, "You are not a transsexual if the majority of people who know you have no respect for your claimed gender." That is, if you act like a man, but claim to be a woman. Several excellent examples spring to mind....

You're not a real transsexual woman if you didn't know - with certainty - from birth

No, on the other hand, if you had NO serious indications of gender issues until you were, oh say, 45....yeah, then in that case, you are full of crap if you claim to be transsexual.

You're not a real transsexual woman if you don't have a GI/GID diagnosis or can't afford the process to get one

Another load of crap. It is more like, "If you don't have the motivation to seek out a doctor for help." It is pretty hard to find a place where there are not free mental health clinics for those who cannot afford to pay, so "can't afford" is bogus.

You're not a real transsexual woman if you don't fit your therapist's definition of a "real" woman (no exceptions even if the only therapist in your area is incredibly sexist)

This is just silly.

You're not a real transsexual woman if you are caught without makeup on

This sounds like someone has been hanging out with some transgender types.

You're not a real transsexual woman if you have facial or body hair that you don't shave

That does raise some questions. Yes, some women don't share their leg or body hair. But, on the other hand, if you have facial hair, and you don't shave it, and are not trying to have it permanently removed, then you are clearly more interested in being "gender queer" and just freaking people out with you weird behavior.

You're not a real transsexual woman if you have facial or body hair that you have to shave

Another silly claim. It is true that a lot of transsexuals don't have heavy body hair, but that is not a diagnostic criteria.

You're not a real transsexual woman if you don't wear dresses and skirts all the time

I would be more suspect if you do...

You're not a real transsexual woman if you never crossdressed before transitioning

I know some who claim just the opposite.

You're not a real transsexual woman if you have ever identified as a crossdresser

People tend to identify with terms that may not apply until they learn better. Now, if you were an enthusiastic member of Tri-Ess or some other such group, well that would be a red flag. The first word I ever came across was "transvestite." But the more I learned about the term, the less it seemed to apply.

You're not a real transsexual woman if you become sexually aroused while wearing women's clothing (Does this mean those who present as women all the time can never be sexually aroused? Probably not, but it's not clear where that crossover happens)

The issue is, are you sexually aroused BY wearing women's clothes. Put another way, what is your motivation for crossdressing?

You're not a real transsexual woman if you have sex with men

No, the question is, how do you see yourself when you are having sex with a man. Do you want him to see you as a man? Are you willing to be the active partner during sex? That is the real issue.

You're not a real transsexual woman if you have sex with women

The same question arises here. Do you enjoy using your penis when having sex with a woman?

You're not a real transsexual woman if you are not sexually available to men

No, though you might be a slut....just kidding.

You're not a real transsexual woman if you have sex using a strap on

That would be pretty questionable. Why would you want to???

You're not a real transsexual woman if you have sex with your genitals before vaginoplasty or anything that others might consider a penis

If you are actively seeking to have sex using your penis, then it does raise some questions.

You're not a real transsexual woman if you masturbate involving your genitals before vaginoplasty or anything else others may consider a penis

A silly claim.

You're not a real transsexual woman if you have sex

Again, very absurd.

You're not a real transsexual woman if you allow yourself to be seen naked before vaginoplasty or with anything others might consider a penis

No, but if you are comfortable being seen without clothes, then it certainly raises questions.

You're not a real transsexual woman if you have ever done sex work

No, lots of transsexuals do sex work. Now, if you specialize in being a top with men, that is another matter.

You're not a real transsexual woman if you haven't considered suicide

No, but you are possibly very luck.

You're not a real transsexual woman unless your only alternative to transition is suicide

I would say yes, this is very true. If transition is not that important to you, then why would you want to claim to be a transsexual? Because you think it is really cool?

You're not a real transsexual woman if you're still attending Southern Comfort

No, but why would you ever want to go to such an event?

You're not a real transsexual woman if you didn't keep up with your dilation

Nope....

You're not a real transsexual woman if you are not stealth

This one has some merit. If you are "out, loud, and proud" then it seems more likely you don't really want to be seen as a woman, but instead have some other issues.

You're not a real transsexual woman if you are stealth

No, but you are hanging out with some transgender nutcases.

You're not a real transsexual woman if you've been to camp trans

Again, no, but why would you want to?

You're not a real transsexual woman if you perform as a drag king

No, but it would be a bit odd.

You're not a real transsexual woman if you have ever performed as a drag queen

Again, no....but if you really embrace drag it would raise questions.

You're not a real transsexual woman if you have ever yelled "suck my dick" (even if you are only referring to a metaphysical dick)

No, we all do things in efforts to try to fit in before we start transition. Now, if you yell this after you have transitioned, or especially after surgery, then yes, it would raise questions.

You're not a real transsexual woman if you ever pee standing up

If you do this after beginning transition, then it would again raise some very serious questions.

You're not a real transsexual woman if you play sports (no exceptions for being on the women's rugby team, but maybe for softball)

If you play sports as a woman, no... If you are playing as a man, after transition, then yeah, something is possibly wrong.

Well, there you have it. Clearly, this is a list put together by someone who is not transsexual, in an effort to slam true transsexuals. I would say that some of these are probably figments of Hill-Meyer's imagination. They are just too silly. Others are legitimate issues that Hilly-Meyer is quick to dismiss.

I will touch on the other silliness from Bilerico in another article.

A Bad Idea From NCTE

2011-06-25T11:51:00.000-07:00

A major policy goal for the transgender extremists is to effectively eliminate legal distinctions between sexes. A major part of this attempt is to make it legal for someone to change their birth certificate without having to actually change their sex. They want the law to say that women can have penises and men can get pregnant.

The latest attempt at this was written up by "Autumn" Sandeen in a post on Pam's House Blend. The National Center for Transgender Equality (NCTE) has issued proposed changes for the model law that most, but not all, states use for their laws regarding such matters:

The revised Model Law should allow people to change the sex designation on their birth certificate by submitting the required documentation directly to the vital statistics agency, rather than requiring a court proceeding. This will eliminate the unnecessary costs and other obstacles sometimes associated with going through the state court systems.

The revised Model Law should not require proof of specific medical procedures in order to amend birth certificates. Instead, the Model Law should reflect contemporary standards of care, and require only that an individual's physician certify that the individual has completed the treatment the physician deems necessary to achieve gender transition. This change would recognize that different people have different medical needs, and avoid disclosure of any confidential medical information.

The revised Model Law should make clear that a new birth certificate should be issued after an individual presents the proper documentation, rather than a birth certificate that shows the original gender designation or states that the gender has been changed.

The first and the last suggestions are actually not bad ideas. It is someone silly to require a court order instead of simply allowing the person to submit documentation to appropriate agency, and issuing a proper birth certificate is also a good idea. It is the second suggestion that is outrageous.

The simple fact is, birth certificates record the sex of the person, not the gender. They indicate whether the person is a male (i.e. having a penis) or a female (i.e. having a vagina). They have nothing to so with how a person likes to dress, or how they behave. To suggest that this should be changed without permanent, physical changes is simply absurd.

Sadly, this sort of insanity from the transgender movement is not unusual. And as is often the case, it is pursued without consideration for the harm it will bring to true transsexuals. It is highly unlikely that the changes will be accepted, but it will very possibly cause a backlash that will lead to efforts to increase restrictions on birth certificate changes. And it can add fuel to claims that SRS is not medically necessary.

We're Laughing At You, Not With You....

2011-06-19T09:54:00.000-07:00

In a comment to a post by "Autumn" Sandeen on Pam's House Blend, "Monica" Helms made this insulting comment:

Funny Bone
I understand that there have been several trans women who have been unwilling victims of unscrupulous SRS/GRS doctors. While they were under getting surgery, the doctors also took out their funny bone, leaving them with no sense of humor or an understanding of when sarcasm has been thrown their way.I heard that like hip replacements and joint replacements, they can now have their funny bone replaced. Maybe then, they will lighten up and actually enjoy life and what the SRS doctor gave them.

Now, first off, Mr. Helms shows his typical disdain for true transsexuals. Mr. Helms is a charter member of the "They Will Take My Penis When They Pry My Cold Dead Fingers From It" Club. Second, he shows his cluelessness by insisting on adding the modifier "trans" to "women." You can be a woman, or you can be trans, but "trans woman" is just a PC way of saying, "Hey, I am really a dude...."

Now, what Mr. Helms is really saying is, "Hey, when I make fun of you, I expect you to laugh along with me." Uh, yes, we do understand that he is throwing "sarcasm" our way, and to be honest, we find it insulting. I know he approaches all of this with a classic male sense of entitlement, but is he really so clueless that he thinks we should actually appreciate his making such remarks? Apparently he is.

Things would be a lot more peaceful if extremists like Mr. Helms, and Mr. Sandeen would simply accept the fact that transsexuals want no part of their "freak show." They seek to demand that society accept them, and their penises, as female. Such is, of course, their right. But they should do it without trying to drag true transsexuals down to their level.

Until then, Mr. Helms should realize, while we don't appreciate his insults, he can, occasionally be good for a laugh when he makes some of his more outrageous remarks.

There Is None So Blind...

2011-06-14T19:56:00.000-07:00

Well, Pam's House Blend has updated their TOS, apparently in an attempt to look a bit less fascist in their attempts to censor. Among other things, they are specifically codifying the right of transsexuals to self-identify as "not transgender" while still, rather actively, forcing the label on them.

And in order to justify this, "Autumn" Sandeen resorts to his cherished GLAAD Media Reference Guide (emphasis is his):

Transgender: An umbrella term (adj.) for people whose gender identity and/or gender expression differs from the sex they were assigned at birth. The term may include but is not limited to: transsexuals, cross-dressers and other gender-variant people. Transgender people may identify as female-to-male (FTM) or male-to-female (MTF). Use the descriptive term (transgender, transsexual, cross-dresser, FTM or MTF) preferred by the individual. Transgender people may or may not decide to alter their bodies hormonally and/or surgically.
Transsexual: An older term which originated in the medical and psychological communities. While some transsexual people still prefer to use the term to describe themselves, many transgender people prefer the term transgender to transsexual. Unlike transgender, transsexual is not an umbrella term, as many transgender people do not identify as transsexual. It is best to ask which term an individual prefers.

Now, I don't know about you, but I personally consider it a very serious insult to be referred to as Gender Variant. Worse even than having the "transgender" label forced on me. And, since they chose to use the word "and" to link transsexuals to that term, that is exactly what the bigots over at GLAAD are doing. Clueless? Yes, they are...

Of course, this is all completely lost on Mr. Sandeen. While he is patting himself on the back because the GLAAD Guide to Insulting Transsexuals for Fame and Profit actually says you should ask how people identify, it still effectively forces two labels on us. Of course, in his mind, along with being a legend, he is also Mr. Politically Correct. But, he remains deliberately blind/

Sandeen Proves Himself a Bigot

2011-05-28T12:16:00.000-07:00

One has to hand it to "Autumn" Sandeen, the man just doesn't have good judgement. His latest post really shows him for what he is...a "classist, sexist, racist, lookist, and otherwise judgmental and xenophobic" bigot. He has posted a video called The People of Walmart in a bizarre attempt to attack what he terms the "Homophobia Industrial Complex."

The bizarre thing is, some of the people in the video appear to be rather outrageous transgender types. Sandeen is trying to attack people who oppose the idea of some man in a dress teaching kindergarten. I assume he is thinking about the controversy in Oakland where a group of extremist transgender activists were allowed to attempt to indoctrinate a first grade class on the deconstruction of gender.

I know it probably seems that I pick on Mr. Sandeen a lot, but he invites it. He posts garbage like this, and then seems amazed that even some of his supporters are outraged.

UPDATE:

Since I first posted this, the comments on Mr. Sandeen's blog have been almost universally negative. And, in a somewhat surprising move, Suzan Cooke, who had previously, and rather surprisingly, embraced him as a friend has now turned on Mr. Sandeen due to the attack on people who shop at Walmart, and his column yesterday where he presumed to advise Janet Mock.

YET ANOTHER UPDATE:

Well, it is the Monday after Sandeen's bigotry was posted on Saturday. He is finally back from wherever he was hiding, and he has issued what will have to pass for his apology. He claims he had no idea that the video might be offensive and that the saw it as celebrating "diversity." Now, given that this is pretty much lifted from one of the few comments that did not condemn him for posting that piece of garbage, it is pretty obvious that he was waiting for someone to offer him something he could use to bail himself out. I don't, for one nanosecond, believe that Sandeen did not see that video for what it was, an attack on people that was, as Pam Spaulding put it, "classism, sexism, racism, and fatphobia, to name a few." Of course, it appears that Spaulding is not going to take Mr. Sandeen to the woodshed. No surprise....