I Don't Know Why Cooke is Confused

I just wanted to post a brief article about something that just showed up on Women Born Transsexual.  Suzan Cooke seems confused that Drew Cordes has a problem with gendered pronouns. The answer is simple. If Cooke just bothered with a bit of research, she would find out that Cordes, who had SRS relatively recently, almost immediately realized that he was not really a woman, and is now, as is sometimes sadly the case, yet another who has gone off the deep end for just that reason. I had doubts about Cordes, and was more than a bit surprised when he announced he had surgery. I was not surprised, shortly afterwards, when he started expressing regrets.


Of course, this sort of thing can be expected as, more and more transgender kooks push for surgery on demand. Like Cooke did not too long ago when she was telling people to "cowgirl/cowboy up" if they make a mistake.

Oh well....

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

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

Over on the "Sec of Labor Issues Statement for Transgender Day of Remembrance" post, Lisa McDonald decided to use the topic - a day set aside to honor transgender people murdered because of their gender expression - to reiterate her dislike for LGBT people:

What about the rights of anyone that is included in the Transgender umbrella living or murdered? You know those who don't wish to be labeled Transgender or that might take offense to gay politics? I suppose their rights don't matter as long as those who are happy being labeled Transgender and the LGBT gets from free press from their loss of life.I will be openly protesting the Transgender Day of Remembrance on their behalf and to point to the injustice of forced transgender inclusion. As for the Obama administration shame on them for bowing to queer politics and Mara Kiesling.

I'll be damned if I give any space to someone who apparently wants to wrap themselves in the Fred Phelps flag and piss on someone's grave. If that's the type of person you are, you don't belong here.

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


This is shown by his next remark:

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

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


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


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

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....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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?

What Bilerico Thinks is "Tasteful"

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

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

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

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

It Is Really Very Simple...

Females don't have penises.  


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


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


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

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

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

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


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

Gnat Gagging, and Camel Swallowing....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


The second example comes from Bilerico.  

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

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

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

The Other Pile of Idiocy From Bilerico

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


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


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


Okay, I see three problems with this article:

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

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

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

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

A Double Load of Idiocy From Bilerico

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


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

The Litmus Test List

(Both personally overheard and collected from friends)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is just silly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would be more suspect if you do...

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

I know some who claim just the opposite.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A silly claim.

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

Again, very absurd.

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

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

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

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

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

No, but you are possibly very luck.

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

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

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

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

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

Nope....

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

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

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

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

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

Again, no, but why would you want to?

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

No, but it would be a bit odd.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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