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?

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.

A Very Good Question...

This week brings yet another post on Bilerico. Interestingly enough, this one, which was posted in reaction to Bil Browning's heavy handed attempt to silence those who endorse the HBS model raises an interesting question, "Should We Scrap the Word "Transgender"?"

Actually, that is not really the real question addressed in this article. It would have better worded as, "Should we continue to impose the term transgender on those who object?" The author, Dr. Jillian T. Weiss (Dr. Weiss is a law professor) makes the following comment:

Some transsexuals argue that biological studies indicate some differences between the brains of transsexuals and the sex attributed to them at birth. "Classic" or "true" transsexuals is sometimes a term used to refer to people who feel gender variant from a very young age, exhibit behavior and characteristics stereotypically attributed to the opposite sex from a young age (3-6 yrs), and who see to live as the opposite sex as soon as possible. When sex reassignment surgery was in its infancy, these were the only people allowed to access it.

Now, while I find the term "gender variant" to be highly insulting, I otherwise agree with this definition. This is a pretty good description of what many of us experienced.

But then, Dr. Weiss goes on off in a very disturbing direction:

At this point in time, however, many people have come to the realization that one does not necessarily need to exhibit these very specific circumstances in order to be a good candidate for sex reassignment surgery. Others have also expressed the feeling that, even though they do have these characteristics, they do not want or need sex reassignment surgery. They are happy to live part-time or full-time in a different gender role without such surgical intervention. They may or may not take cross-gender hormones. They are perfectly happy the way they are.

I am not sure who these "people" are, but I fear that they are seriously mistaken. I have encountered more than a few of these supposedly good candidates for surgery, both on-line and off. They tend, in many cases, to be anything but successful in their transitions. And while there are some, who may have been somewhat effeminate or butch as a child, if they do not have an overwhelming desire to pursue transition and surgical correction then, as was pointed out in an excellent article on this same subject at Enough Non-Sense, they have nothing in common with true or classic transsexuals.

Dr. Weiss does seem to understand, and acknowledge, that many do not like to be labeled as transgender. I am one of those who objects strongly to that term. But scrapping "transgender" is not the answer, unless one is going to return to more specific terms for everyone. I have no problem with those who identify as "transgender" calling themselves that. While I think it is a seriously flawed term, as I do not believe that gender can be changed, since I personally do not identify that way it is not my place to dictate what they can call themselves.

What is needed is to simply leave transsexuals or people with HBS alone. Stop trying to drag us into the political schemes of those who are transgender. They can demand the right to be able to claim to be a different sex without surgery...and I, and others can loudly disagree. Shoot, they can even argue that they should have rights, but not true transsexuals for all I care. I doubt they will win. Let them make all their silly claims, but leave transsexuals out of it. As one commenter puts it:

I only see two solutions to change the public perception:

1) Convince the public that anatomical males who "feel female inside" are ordinary women who should have access to women's spaces and legal status

or

2) Allow only anatomical females access to female spaces and legal status, and make sure the public is aware of this restriction when passing bills, etc.

I have little hope for #1.

Ultimately, that is what this comes down to. While I do believe that provision should be made for those seriously pursuing surgical correction, who have a legitimate diagnosis of true transsexualism or HBS during the Real Life Test, I do not support the first option.