Bil Browning Strikes Out Again...

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....

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.

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.

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

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!

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?

"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

It's All About the Egos

It is really hard to miss the fact that the worst extremes of the transgender movement are driven by massive egos.  But this has never been as apparent as the recent reaction to news that has leaked out about an alleged secret meeting between the Obama White House and transgender leaders.  "Autumn" Sandeen is absolutely having a hissy fit because such a meeting is being kept secret, and besides, he wasn't invited.


Now, this is not the first such meeting.  There was one early on that I learned about from a former co-worker.  The incoming Obama administration met with some of the more sane leaders in the transgender movement.


But the kooks are absolutely frantic because they are not invited.  "Monica" Helms is livid that his Transgender American Veterans Association is not included.  I imagine it never occurs to him that this just might be because they see him as a nut case.  And "Monica" Roberts is upset that him, and his massive "neo-clit" that he keeps tucked in his panties are not included as well.  Of course, he is ranting that the meeting will be "as white as a GOP convention."  I guess he has not noticed that Obama is black, and so are some Republicans. 


Of course, it would never occur to Mr. Sandeen that chaining himself to the White House fence, wearing a female naval uniform, in blatant violation of Federal Law (it prohibits both active a retired personnel from wearing a uniform for the purpose of political statement) just might cause him to be left off the list.  No, not a chance of that....


It would never occur to Mr. Helms that his rants might have the same effect.  After all, he is the self-appointed spokesman for all the former military who decide they want to dress up and claim to be women.


And Mr. Roberts?  Between his racism, and his attacks on post-ops....well, I can't see him being included either.


A sane person might take a step back and consider how their behavior might have effected their chances of being taken seriously as a leader.  Of course, no one would ever accuse any of these of being remotely sane.

Update

It turns out that Mr. Sandeen over reacted.  This meeting is routine, part of a regular series, though this one does specifically focus on "transgender" issues.  An update to the article is buried, below the fold.  It appears that Mr. Sandeen does not want anyone who might have already read the original article to notice that he was mistaken.