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....
Showing posts with label "Autumn" Sandeen. Show all posts
Showing posts with label "Autumn" Sandeen. Show all posts
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Yet Another Example of Transgender Silliness
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:
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.....
The story was first broken by the San Diego LGBT Weekly under the completely bizarre headline:
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.
HRC trans board member marries as sex opposite of post-op gender
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.....
Friday, October 7, 2011
Interesting....
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.
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.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Comparing Apples and.....Well, People
"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.
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.
Friday, September 9, 2011
In This Case, 'F' Is For Fraud
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.
Friday, September 2, 2011
No, The Correct Pronoun Is Still "He."
"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:
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:
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:
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.
So when y’all refer to me, the correct pronoun is she — I didn’t have that gender affirmation surgery for nothing, y’know?
Friday, August 26, 2011
Hate?
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:
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.
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.
Saturday, August 20, 2011
Mr. Sandeen is Now a Eunuch
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.
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.
Sunday, August 14, 2011
A Busy Sunday...
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.
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:
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.
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.
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
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.
Saturday, August 13, 2011
Now There is No Question...
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:
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:
Yes, and now we know what Mr. Sandeen means when he says, "As always, 'The weenie tempts you!' "
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...
Saturday, July 30, 2011
So, Which Is It?
"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:
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
Since transsexualism is socially constructed then it is important to consider how to counter the promotion of the practice.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?
...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.
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
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Can't See the Forest For the Trees..
"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:
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:
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.
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.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.
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:
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.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.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
The Idiocy Continues...
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?
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?
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Facts Versus Fantasy
"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.
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.
He starts off his little trip down fantasy lane with:
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.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.
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.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
It Is Really Very Simple...
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.
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.
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.
Saturday, June 25, 2011
A Bad Idea From NCTE
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.
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 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
