I Wonder...

Okay, the blog Feministing has yet another whiny, and more than a little creepy, post about how those mean old lesbians will have sex with women born women, and even "trans men," but not with "trans women."

The basic gist of the whole posting, besides the obvious "those mean old lesbians won't have sex with me, and they should be forced to" thing is about how this "disrespects" the gender identity of "trans men:"

It’s incredibly undermining to frame sexuality in a way that lumps these men in with all female assigned folks instead of with cis men. It’s a failure, in the realm of sexuality, to recognize thattrans men’s male identities are just as legitimate as cis men’s. If you’re going to base sexuality on gender, better base it on people’s actual genders.

Okay... Well, first off, I find it rather odd that a "trans woman" is presuming to speak out on the idea that "trans men" are being disrespected...especially when, as far as I am aware, few, if any "trans men" are actually raising this issue.  

Second, and more to the point, where is the outrage about all those men, often referred to as "chasers" or "fans" who claim to be "straight" but who not only will only date a "trans women" who have not had surgical correction, but who insist on those "women" performing sex acts that no woman born woman could perform...at least without wearing a prosthetic phallus.

These, uh, "straight men" have been known to dump their, uh, "girl friends" if they have SRS, even after long term relationships.  Funny, but I have to wonder, where is the outrage?  Where are the cries of how this disrespects the "gender identity" of the "trans woman?"

Dr. Keith Ablow Makes Some Good Points

The transgender community was renting their clothes, and wearing sackcloth and ashes over the comments of Dr. Keith Ablow about Chaz Bono's appearance on Dancing With the Stars.  Dr. Ablow suggested that seeing Bono on TV might cause "impressionable" children to question their own gender identity.  While I think that is a bit overblown, he does make a few good points when he suggests that there should be an examination of the current trends in therapy for "transgender" people.


Dr. Ablow has also been roundly attacked for saying that Bono is "not a man." Now, of course that is a mortal sin according to the transgender extremists.  After all, their approach to "sex" is that people can claim to be something, and they automatically are.  But, is he a man?  Well, not according to his own words.  After being booted from DWTS Bono made the comment that he wanted to show America, "...a different kind of man."  In this context, that means, quite simply, that he is not really a man.  Being a man, like being a woman, is a very binary thing.  You either are, or you are not.  There are not degrees of being a man.


Now, I really doubt that kids are going to watch Bono and decide they too are transsexual.  It might plant the idea that being transgender is a way to "rebel," which is another issue.  But that is not really the point.  One problem is that there are problems with celebrating what is, in reality, a serious medical issue.


I mean, if Chaz Bono were truly a transsexual and actually wanted to simply live his life as a man, then why would he make such a big deal out of shoving his issues into everyone's face.  It drastically reduces the chance that he will be seen as a man, and instead insures that he will be seen as, well, "transgender."  No, I realize that it might be difficult for someone who is a celebrity to transition quietly, but quite honestly, Chaz Bono was not that well know before his very public transition.  He made a somewhat unsuccessful attempt at a musical career, but after becoming an LGBT activist, he became a bit more prominent.


I am sure that Dr. Ablow and I would find a lot to disagree on.  But, we would at least have common ground for dialog.  For the transgender crowd, there is no common ground.  He has some valid issues, and they, well they simply don't.  They are upset because he is actually speaking the truth, albeit in a rather forceful, and flawed manner.  He clearly leans away from acceptance of the validity of transsexualism, but apparently he does not reject it completely.  Ironically, some of the more extremist transgender activists do.

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.

Is It Complete Idiocy or Just Bad Journalism at Pam's House Blend?

In what has to be one of the most ridiculous pieces I have read in a long time, "Autumn" Sandeen attacks Seventeen Magazine in an article entitled "Is It Transphobia Or Just Bad Journalism At Seventeen Magazine?" The short answer to Mr. Sandeen's question is, "neither," though, of course, he does not see it that way.

The subject of the article is a piece in Seventeen entitled, "My Boyfriend Turned Out To Be A Girl." It is about a teenage girl who became involved with someone she thought was her first true love, and he turned out to be an FTM transsexual. The article is actually very well written, and even includes the disclosure that had he been truthful, she would have stayed with him. In truth, the young FTM was quite a jerk, and treated the girl rather badly.

So, why is Mr. Sandeen all hot and bothered, especially given that he admits this person was a jerk?

The gist of the article, from the article headline to the bolded and highlighted text, seemed to be that female-to-male transsexuals are really females who are deceiving others.

Well, since this person is a pre-op female to male, and since he did deceive this young woman, I think that is pretty much what the article would have to be about unless it was fiction. It says nothing about FTMs or transsexuals in general. It only deals with this one person, and this one relationship and the experience of this one young lady.

In addition, Mr. Sandeen seems upset that they did not, instead, write about how terrible transgender people have it.

The simple fact is, if one is pre-op, then one should be upfront as soon as possible in a relationship. In this case, the deception, and I am sorry, but that is what it was, goes on for a long time. It became revealed with the young FTM became abusive and was arrested by the police.

I mean really, Mr. Sandeen is so distraught over things like the Angie Zapata case, but at the same time wants encourage the very behavior that leads to such tragedies. In this case, there was no violence, except on the part of the FTM. And that lead to his being outed. If the situation had been the reverse, and it had of been another young MTF, it could have ended differently.

No, Mr. Sandeen would rather see another beloved trans martyr than to fail to push the latest transgender myth...that one changes sex by simply saying one is the new sex. I shall deal with that in depth in an upcoming article. But for now....

To answer my question....I would have to go with complete idiocy.