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?

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...