An Amazing Error

It sometimes amazes me just how silly transgender activists can be. It is not, for example, uncommon to see claims that women can have penises, and that men can have vaginas...and worse, that they can desire to keep them. But something on neo-gender fascist Suzan Cooke's blog really floored me. Now, for those who don't remember, for years, Cooke was a major player in the effort to separate transsexuals from the transgender confusion. Then, earlier this summer, Cooke moved over to becoming transgender. Now, Cooke still claims to be "transsexual not transgender," but Cooke's views are such that it is clear that she no longer sees any significant difference.

In a rather disjointed, and rambling article in which Cooke vents her anger at God, she makes the following rather incredible statement

Because transsexuals, transgenders and other intersex people fell somewhere between or saw the potential in achieving greater oneness of self by moving from an assigned and ascribed as immutable status to a different defined as immutable status the experts viewed us as mind f**ks, the fly in the ointment.

Unbelievably, Cooke has gone further than any gender fascist has before. I honestly cannot recall ever seeing one have the audacity to actually claim that transgender people are "intersex." Yes, they claim that intersex people are "transgender," but not the other way around. A small, but important distinction as they see "transgender" as the umbrella, with individual identities drug, often screaming and kicking, under it. Claiming intersex is a form of transgender is highly offensive. Claiming transgender is intersex is....well, itis incredibly ignorant.

Transgender is not intrinsic. It is an artificial political/social construct. It does not exist apart from the imagination of those who embrace it. Intersex is a physical condition, that is not a choice.

Cooke seems to be determined to shed what few shreds of credibility she has left as she rushes to join people like "Monica" Helms and "Autumn" Sandeen in the boy's club that is transgender activism.

Sandeen Asks, Helms Answers

In the bizarre world of the transgender, one often has to wonder just what some people are thinking. In a recent post, "Autumn" Sandeen asks "What Does FOTF's Quotation Marks Around "Transgenderism" Mean?" Mr. Sandeen makes the usual self-serving, whiny comments about how Focus on the Family is othering and denying the existence of transgender people. No, I don't think they would deny that such people exist. But, I do doubt they see any validity to the bizarre, artificial social construct that is "transgenderism."

Consider this remark from the comments to his Bilerico article on when to tell by lead gender fascist "Monica" Helms:

"Woman" is a social construct based on a human being's gender expression that appears on the feminine side of the scale.

"Female" is a biological term based on the internal and external attributes that have been scientifically established over centuries.

All transsexual women are indeed women, so the rumors to what I believe are totally wrong. MtF crossdressers are also considered women when they present that way.

However, all, but a few transsexuals and all MtF crossdressers are NOT female. That is an undeniable truth. Do you have pelvic bone with a birth channel? It is okay to say you are a "woman," but don't try to convince people you are "female."

Now, as many have pointed out, Mr. Helms has no experience as a post-op. And, it is obvious to any honest observer, Mr. Helms also has no experience as a woman. And most important of all, it is obvious that Mr. Helms has not a clue regarding science, law, or the English language.

This is "transgenderism" in its purest form. This is a perfect example of why people with HBS and classic transsexuals reject the transgender label. And while I do not agree with everything said by groups like Focus on the Family, they do represent a view that is, in many ways, closer to what most people hold. And one of those views is that silly men who think they become women when they put on a dress are quite deranged.

People like Mr. Helms, and Mr. Sandeen fool no one when they claim to be pre-ops. A major part of transgender activism is to try to co-opt transsexuals and push them to the front as the public image of "transgenderism." They want lawmakers and the public to think that giving full protections to people who have a medical need to change their sex is is the issue. Of course, the real issue is to provide laws that say that men in dresses are fully women.

So why wouldn't someone put "transgenderism" in quotes. As a political and social philosophy, it is quite ludicrous. It exists, but then, so does the "flat earth model."

Bilerico is at it again..

I have already written about the outrageous post by "Monica" Helms at Bilerico. In that post, Mr. Helms, an avowed non-op turned perpetual pre-op, presumes to tell post-op transsexuals when they should inform potential partners about their status. I have been following the comments, and it seems that, once again, Bilerico (and more specifically Bil Browning) are censoring those who object to the transgender silliness.

One poster in particular had her post removed for simply pointing out that Helms has not had surgery and has no business telling post-ops how to behave. Browning ignores, and actually seems to endorse, the fact that Helms (and not for the first time) is claiming that post-op transsexuals are not women.

This is not the first time that Bilerico has allowed someone, often Mr. Helms, to insult transsexuals while censoring transsexuals who object.

And I have to note that Mr. Helms new friend Suzan Cooke, who not surprisingly endorses Bilerico on her transgender web site, is absent from the debate. Instead, she is objecting to exactly the same behavior from her transgender "sister" Jasper Gregory who, ironically, engages in much the same behavior as Mr. Helms, telling transsexuals how to behave. Of course, Cooke now presumes to redefine "transgender" to suit her purposes. That allows her to ignore the simple fact that Gregory is the epitome of the transgender model. He "identifies" as a trans-woman, and according to the logic of the gender fascists, that means that he is not only a trans-woman, but is a female as well. Anyone who has seen Gregory's web site, or read his blog, or who has seen his videos, knows that he is nothing but a man. But, according to the transgender view, well...that is why they are "gender facists."

The Issue is NOT Insults

In yet another desperate attempt to save face, neo-gender fascist Suzan Cooke has posted an article going after the "umbrella model" of transgender. Cooke defends her new found affection for the transgender view as a desire to end insults. Of course, to the transgender, reality is an insult.

No, Cooke's real purpose is to reach a Faustian deal with transgender activists. Cooke seems to believe that transsexuals can cooperate and align with the transgender (as well as the rest of the LGBT community) without consequence. Past experience says otherwise.

Cooke wants to have it both ways. She wants to be a "woman born transsexual" and yet be able to associate with, and work with, the transgender. What she doesn't realize is that "woman born transsexual" is really just, effectively, the same basic concept as transgender.

Like Cooke, the transgender want it both ways. They want to retain a strong link to the history, while claiming to be something else. They want, as one infamous transgender activist once put it, to be "woman/males" or "man/females." That person, who now seems to have abandoned being transgender, attacked those seeking surgery, claiming that people should remain somewhat true to the cause. Sort of like Cooke's dear friend "Monica" Helms did for years.

The transgender desperately want the credibility they think that transsexuals can bring. They don't care that they will destroy that imagined credibility in the process of attempting to exploit it. And Cooke is more than willing to join them in self-destruction.

A "Telling" Article....

Well, leading gender fascist "Monica" Helms has a new article on Bilerico. This time, Mr. Helms deals with the subject of "When Do You Tell?" Aside from the irony of his writing on the subject (Mr. Helms is not likely to have to worry about "telling.") he takes the predictable position.

Now, as I point out, he is not going to be in a position to worry about revealing anything, unless he does make the mistake of actually having SRS, in which case he would have to explain that he is missing the expected parts.

But, this is a question that does come up, and it does affect both those with HBS or classic transsexualism and those who are transgender.

Mr. Helms, again ironically, seems to be addressing post-op women. Mr. Helms is not remotely post-op, and until recently he was admantly non-op. He has, on many occasions, viciously attacked and mocked post-op women, so he is about the last person who should be discussing this issue, and certainly has no business making pronouncements as he does. Also, it should be kept in mind that Helms is not even interested in dating men himself. In fact, it is rather obvious that he is approaching this issue as a straight man.

Now, Mr. Helms raises a series of objections to not telling. The first is trust. Granted, that can be an issue. If one is in a relationship, it is better to be honest than to keep secrets. But, for a woman who was born with HBS, there are issues that they may not wish to share. Particularly at the beginning of the relationship, when Helms rather dogmatically demands that one must tell.

Beyond that, the issue turns to the "danger" Mr. Helms sees in not telling. Now, granted, people have died when their partner found out about their history. But, that is not always the case, and it is not always the case that someone will inevitably find out.

So, what is really going on here? Is Mr. Helms really just beside himself with concern for the safety of all those post-ops because even one might be harmed or die because they fail to be out to a potential partner? Is he broken up over the chance that some marriage might not be built on perfect trust?

I seriously doubt it. Mr. Helms almost certainly is more concerned that someone might actually be able to do the one thing he will never be able to do....actually be a woman. Not that Mr. Helms actually wants to be a woman. He wants to be transgender. He clings tightly to his maleness. He wears it with pride. He cannot abide for anyone to not know that he was born a man. But worse, he hates it when someone does not share this behavior. He gets beside himself at the idea that someone might wish to, or worse, be able to, leave their past behind.

He talks of shame, and hiding, and all the other transgender silliness.

As to the original question he asks...when should you tell? The answer, quite simply, is when you wish to. I have told none of the men I have dated and had sex with since my surgery. That was my choice. If one wishes to tell early, that is their choice. The only thing that is absolutely certain is this. When you tell is most certainly none of Mr. Helms. business.

Gender Facism in Action

In a comment to a post on Bilerico about a Florida representative who supposedly said he would support ENDA if "gender identity" was removed, gender fascist "Monica" Helms said the following:

I spoke with the LGBT Legislative Aid in his office in DC and he said that his was a totally false rumor. He supports a fully inclusive ENDA, that protects gay, lesbian, bisexual and TRANSGRENDER people from employment discrimination, which includes crossdressers, pre-op, non-op, post op, intersex, genderqueer and classical transsexuals, whether they want protection or not.

Now, like the diehard gender fascist that he is, Mr. Helms once against ignores the wishes of classic transsexuals who do not identify as transgender, rubs our noses in it, and then goes on to assert that this "protection" will be forced on us whether we like it or not.

As I said, this is gender fascism in action. Because of his stupid remark, I now actively oppose an inclusive ENDA. The law that Mr. Helms desires is harmful to women, including post-op classic transsexuals and survivors of HBS. If Mr. Helms has his way, women will lose any right to privacy from men like him.

Let me be clear. I have no problem with ENDA protecting gays, lesbians, and bisexuals. I object to a law that will protect men who wish to engage in the behavior of crossdressing like Mr. Helms. I object to a law that will force women to share the bathroom with such men. I object to a law that will force employers to allow me to dress as women when the mood strikes them. And I object to a law that will effectively remove legal distinctions between the sexes and redefine sex as being what one wants it to be.

I would also support a law that protects post-ops and, that would provide very narrowly defined protections for pre-ops. Anyone who is discovered to have abused said law by lying about their plans for surgery would be subject to prosecution.

It's Not About You...

I really had to laugh when I read this comment by Suzan Cooke on Woman Born Transsexual:

As for outing her. she uses her name in posts to the Advocate and else where and is currently making her blog pretty much about me.

I bash back

First off, I don't know why Cooke would think I would write posts to a gay publication like the Advocate and second, it really isn't about Cooke, or any other individual.

My blog is about issues that affect those with Harry Benjamin Syndrome, including the crap that spews from the transgender activists, particularly those who are referred to as the "gender fascists." Cooke has decided to cozy up to the likes of "Monica" Helms and "Autumn" Sandeen and so, she gets mentioned.

I realize that in the bizarre world of the transgender any disagreement is tantamount to "bashing." Oh well, they can think what they want. Personally, I think it all rather silly.

There is Truth, and Then There is Bilerico`

It has been a while, but yet another heated debate over transsexualism versus trangender has broken out on Bilerico. This one started with a post in which a "straight" male purports to set us all straight on gender identity. The actual post is basically a rehash of the same tired silliness that we have heard many times from the gender fascists. It is the comments where things get interesting. As is often the case, things get heated, insults are hurled, and people get banned. And, as is typical at Bilerico, the ones hurling the insults are not the ones who get banned. The policy at Bilerico seems to be that anyone daring to challenge the transgender party line will be heavily moderated, and those of the gender fascist ilk will be excused.

Some of the comments are interesting for just how ridiculous a position some can take...

Let's start off with one of the more bizarre character who shows up on the various blogs. Now, this fellow is a man who identifies as a "Goth" crossdresser and who goes by the name "Battybattybats." He is always good for something ridiculous...but this really takes the cake:

Cause the fact is the 'transgender movement' is not a crossdresser movement as the seperatists are always painting it.

It IS a transsexual movement!

Because the majority of out folk are TSs.

The majority of politically active folk are TSs!

Thats the worst part of their whole framing of this.

CDs are almost totally closetted fighting with their own selves. They are like the G and L folk were back in the 50's and 60's.

But the TG groups include them partly because one day when enough do come out they will be a large population. And this inclusion of Cds and other non-binary folk is framed as if the CDs were running the whole thing.

Well how many CDs are there openly running organisations with Transgender in the name? How many openly CD people are there in office?

It's not a CD movement.

Now, first off, the whole idea of being "in the closet" or "out" is foreign to the concept of being a transsexual. Transsexualism is about having a birth condition that is corrected and then one gets on with one's life. It is not about being "different," which is, of course, a distinction that would probably be lost on someone who considers theirself to be "Goth."

Of course, Battybattybats has his own ideas about transsexuals, and seeks to redefine the term to suit his own views:

Yes, 'classic transsexual' and the other oft-used 'true transsexual' are very demeaning and invalidating of many other transsexuals.

And I see that for some transsexuals they reject the term transgender because they see it as invalidating. These Cisgender transsexuals could just call themselves that, cisgender transsexuals, It seems an accurate descriptor, or some other such term could be coined without invalidating others with terms like 'classic' or 'true' and without attempting to rob those transsexuals who do support the term transgender of it.

Now, the term "true transsexual" was coined by Harry Benjamin to differentiate them from those who might appear to be transsexual, but are not. The term "classic transsexual" came about, in part exactly because of, shall we say, "bat-brained" people who seek to redefine "transsexual" to include people who are not really transsexual. So now, according to Battybattybats, not calling someone something they are not is insulting. Seriously, he says basically this exact thing:

But if Transgender must be redefined to take into account the feellings and issues and self-identity of others then so must 'classic' transsexual.

So, it is really very simple...Battybattybats will set us free of the term "transgender" provided we abandon the our identities in such a way that his is still allowed to muddy the waters and associate us with those we don't wish to be linked to. If that doesn't show what a lot of this is about, then I don't know what could.

Now, Battybattybats is not just content to try to redefine transsexuals, he wants to argue that we really are just the same as crossdressers. When someone pointed out that there are numerous studies that show that transsexualism (or preferably, HBS) has a neurological basis, he says this:

Oh it's NARTH time now is it?

The question is not whether there is biological evidence for biological causation of TS.

There is, neurological and so far at least one gene.

BUT WHERE ARE THE STUDIES DONE ON CROSSDRESSERS FOR THESE SAME AND DEGREES AND VARIANT CAUSES THAT FIND A TOTAL ABSENCE OF THEM?

Did I mention earlier that insults are only moderated if they are made against those pushing the transgender party line? Imagine the outrage if someone compared one of the gender fascists to the kooks over at NARTH...but someone got moderated. and apparently banned, for suggesting that Battybattybats was illogical

But, I digress. The basic reason such studies are not done is that no one with any real knowledge remotely thinks that crossdressing is anything other than a chosen behavior. It is not inherent. I does not appear until quite a bit later in life, often well after puberty. Simply put, there is no scientific basis to think that such studies would show anything now already known. Also, it should be considered that there has been research that shows that crossdressers lose interest in crossdressing if they take estrogen. Simply put, the estrogen reduces their sex drive, and the desire to crossdress goes away. And another study has shown that selective serotonin uptake inhibitor (usually used to treat depression) can also reduce the desire to crossdress. Some scientists believe this is similar to their use to treat obsessive-compulsive disorders. Of course, given that some SSRIs reduce the sex drive, it may also be related to the same effect as estrogen.

Now Battybattybats is not the only one who is spreading misinformation and insults in the comments on the Bilierco post. Of course, one of the leading gender fascists, "Monica" Helms has to jump in:

67 comments and I haven't said a word . . . until now. It's interesting to see those who support Don and his article dance around those who only come out to hijack yet another discussion on trans issues. I'm sure it amuses some people to watch this new round of Trans WWF, a fight to the death, which always seems one-sided around here. Personally, I got better things to do with my time.

Now, Mr. Helms stars right off with an attack. In Helms' view, anyone who does not toe the transgender line is out to "highjack" the discussion. In another words, Helms simply dismisses contrary views as not worthy of consideration. Of course, such an attack is okay with Bilerico.

Even though Mr. Helms claims to be surgery tracked (after many years of admantly claiming to be a non-op he has said he now wants the surgery...if he can get his employer to cover it under health insurance). Nevertheless, he really has nothing but contempt for transsexuals. And his ignorance of the facts is truly astounding:

"Classic transsexual" was created by transsexuals who wanted to be separate from trans men, pre-op and non-op transsexuals, lesbian post-op trans women and crossdressers. There's nothing wrong with that need to be separate.

However, no non-classic-transsexual scientist, doctor or biologist has validated their claims and no real scientific proof exists that it is a biological condition, no matter how people tend to stretch other studies to fit their beliefs. It's only a label and a mindset. Nothing more. Viva la labels!

It is really hard to tell if Mr. Helms is really this incredibly ignorant, or if he is just being absurdly dishonest. I mean, there is so much here that is so incredibly wrong. First off, those of us who identify as "classic transsexuals," or as I prefer, "survivors of HBS" have no desire to be separate from FTMs who are also classic transsexuals. Also, we were all pre-ops at one time, though I admit, we might well wish to be separate from those who are claim to be post-ops but who are clearly making no moves towards surgery. As to "non-ops," there is no such thing. They are not transsexuals. The term "non-op transsexual" is an oxymoron," And we have nothing in common with crossdressers.

Further, his assertion that there is "no non-classic-transsexual scientist, doctor or biologist has validated their claims and no real scientific proof exists that it is a biological condition" is just unbelievable. He knows better, and in this case is clearly lying...or incredibly delusional. There are a large number of such studies, and Mr. Helms has been told this time after time. But, like Battybattybats, he just plows on, invincibly ignorant.

And to simply dismiss "classic transsexual" as "just a label" shows where Mr. Helms is coming from. For him, it is all about "identity." As the old saying goes, "When you are a hammer, all the world looks like a nail." For Mr. Helms, since his being "transgender" is just a label, so our birth condition must be as well.

But, at the same time, he tries to claim to be the same as us:

Transexualism is indeed a birth condition. Most all of us knew we were "built wrong" when we were little. For me, 1955 (age 4.) Did I know in 1955 that I would also accept the word "transgender" in 1995? However, "classic" transsexualism is not a different and separate birth condition. It's the same condition with a different label.

Now, didn't Mr. Helms just say that transsexualism does not have a biological cause? Hmmm, so I guess he must be claiming that, while he was in the womb, he just up and decided he was going to be a "girl," even though he had that penis between his legs.

Now, even though Helms claims he knew, at age four, that he was "built wrong," he has lived to be 58 year-old without having a really serious need to be corrected. In fact, for most of those 58 years, he was a happy, content male. He not only served in the Navy, he was in the submarine service. This is not something that someone does without passing some pretty intense examinations to make sure they are mentally and emotionally stable enough. Someone who, from the age of four, had known they were built wrong, would not be able to fake it that well.

And you have to remember, Helms, until very recently was not only a happy content male, he was adamant that he had no need, or desire for corrective surgery. In fact, he has attacked post-op HBS women, and continues to do so, mocking them for their need to have surgery.

So, here we have another nasty battle on Bilerico. The gender fascists get to make nasty remarks about anyone who does not accept their radical views. HBS survivors and classic transsexuals get moderated, and often shown the door. Typical.

Compromise? No thanks!

In a recent post on her Women Born Transsexual, Suzan Cooke writes about "compromises." For fsome time now, I have watched as Cooke has come closer and closer to a alignment with the gender fascists. The first major sign was when Cooke became friends with one of the lead gender fascists, Monica Helms. Since then, Cooke has moved closer and closer to accepting transgender, even those she continues to deny it.

Now, Cooke has finally stopped sipping the "transgender Kool-Aid" and started downing it by the gallon. She talks about "acknowledging our differences" but the end result is the same. She wants to join the transgender movement, provided she can pretend to maintain the illusion of separation. Sorry, but "No thanks!"

Part of the problem is, Cooke has long been "transgender" in all but name. She has always had a tendency to embrace her differences. In a way, this is not surprising. Cooke's attitude reminds me of the famous quote from the Marlon Brando movie. When Brando's character is asked, "What are you rebelling against, Johnny?" he replies, "Whaddya got?" That pretty much sums up Cooke, who mostly fills her blog with self-aggrandizing stories of her glory days as a revolutionary.

Cooke, and her partner who is also a transsexual, take credit for coming up with the term "Women Born Transsexual," which apparently was meant to play off of "Women Born Women." Originally, it seemed to serve as a strong denunciation of the transgender model, but that has begun to change. Shortly after she started her blog, Cooke began increasingly to embrace transgender activism, calling for transsexuals to join her in fighting for the goals of the the TG community.

Further, Cooke has increasingly adopted the transgender model of identifying as being out side the binary paradigm. For example, in her blog she states:

When I started this blog the first thing that happened is that a few people made snide remarks about Andrea James and Lynn Conway. They wanted me to embrace things like “HBS” and “Classic Transsexual”. I probably disappointed a number of fplks (sic)when I embraced neither.

Actually, I was not disappointed at all. In fact, I would be quite alarmed if Cooke were to try to co-opt the Harry Benjamin Syndrome movement. Now, while I do not agree with everything that Andrea James and Lynn Conway say, I don't have the animosity towards them that some have. But it does seem that Cooke is actually drawn to then for the same reasons many disagree.

Cooke, in her next statement, solidly aligns herself with what is, essentially, the transgender model:

I actually like the term “Transsexual” for the name of what I was born. Not so much as an identity but it gives clarity to the oppression I endured as a transkid and it doesn’t hide the reality of my life journey behind a bunch of jargon aimed at obscuring.

In another words, she wishes to embrace her "special status" and separate from those she has derisively referred to as "normborns." And, ironically, by adopting the term "transkid" she actually seems to be, perhaps inadvertently, aligning herself with the Blanchard-Bailey model. This term is widely used by their supporters to describe those who Blanchard would term "homosexual transsexuals."

Or perhaps Cooke is just insecure in her own identity. This would explain this rather odd remark:

As for “classic transsexual” I recognize it for what it is, a post-moderning term for heterosexual transsexual. as such I tend to see it as both homophobic and as a slam against sisters who come out later in life. It goes against my theories that the root cause of transsexualism is the same for almost all transsexuals and the truth can be found in the narrative. Reading biography after biography leads me to this conclusion that actual people with TS knew as early as their first conscious memories.

What makes this all very strange is that Cooke feels it necessary to denounce the term "classic transsexual" because she fears, quite erroneously, that it is linked to sexual orientation. "Classic transsexual" is not a synonym for "homosexual transsexual." Quite the opposite, it is part of the overall rejection of Blanchard's model. What makes all of this even stranger is Cooke's assertion that she has always identified as "bisexual," given Cooke's history of cruelly attacking post-op transsexuals who had been married as "skin transvestites." But then again, as I have observed, Cooke is now partnered with another transsexual, apparently one who was a later transitioner.

Then again, perhaps Cooke simply longs for her glory days when she was a major leader in a movement that had not yet become know as "transgender." It does appear she wants to be one of the big dogs again.

Whatever Cooke's motivations might be, what she proposes is simply unacceptable. She tries to compare her "compromise" to that she claims resulted from the rise of Anita Bryant, when it was decided that the term "gay" was not appropriate to describe both male homosexuals and lesbians, which resulted in the adoption of "gay and lesbian" to describe the community. Cooke suggests something similar:

A similar compromise would be Transsexual and Transgender Communities. LGBT/T or TS/TG and putting those into usage.

The problem with such a suggestion is that it still results in the appearance that those with a legitimate medical issue (HBS or classic transsexualism) are in common with those who choose to subvert the binary.

Personally, I think Cooke should just drop the pretense and admit that she is effectively "transgender." I suspect she will be much more comfortable with herself, and perhaps no longer feel the need to try to deny her true feelings in order to maintain an identity that is not legitimate.

Wrong?

Several of the gender facist blogs are all a flutter over this Boost Mobile ad...


Of course, they are concerned that it portrays "transgender women" in a bad light. Monica Helms had this to say, "As you can see, this commercial just looks plane dumb on the visual level, but it also uses men in women’s clothes in a negative context. Trans people who saw this commercial went ballistic. Even though the commercial does not specifically make fun of trans people, out of the 300 million Americans, many will use this as another excuse to discriminate and hold back quality for Transgender Americans."

Perhaps even sillier is this remark from Autumn Sandeen, "Are you saying, Boost Mobile, that being visibly transgender a 'very visual wrong'? What does your anti-discrimination policies look like regarding 'gender identity or expression'? -- do your internal business policies tell you anything about this?"

I mean, really...if this ad is an example of what Sandeen thinks the results of his efforts to push his radical agenda should look like...well, that pretty much says for more against him than I ever could.

Personally, I think the whole Boost Mobile ad campaign is a bit silly. But the fact that people like Helms and Sandeen want to claim that this ad somehow insults "transgender people" offers an excellent example of why people might want to reconsider being lumped into that umbrella term.

Stuck on himself...

As I have said before, when I started this blog, it was not with the intention of spending so much time commenting on the silliness posted on so very many "transgender" blogs. But, because there is so much silliness, and because the gender fascists go to such great pains to censor any dissenting views, I often find myself doing just that.


One of the most outspoken of the gender fascists is Monica Helms. Helms, like some many of those determined to impose their views on people, seems a bit confused. For some time, Helms was an avowed non-op, but has recently started claiming to be surgery tracked. This is odd, given the number of times that Helms has viciously attacked those who have had surgery.

About a month or so ago, Helms started his "Stuck" series, one of which I have already commented on. Apparently, the series was supposed to be three articles, but now Helms has added a fourth that is on a common theme for many who are transgender, "fear." Of course, they are not the ones who are afraid. They project this emotion onto others.

As is typical of Helms, he uses this concept to slam what he sees as improper behavior for those he drags into his "community." For example, he speaks of those who are fearful of being seen with other "trans people." This he attributes to the idea that the chances of being clocked increase with the number of trans people in a group. Now, there is some truth to that concept, but I doubt it is a fear that Helms has to worry about. Helms has little choice in the matter of being clocked.

Then Helms goes on to suggest that some "transsexuals" fear "crossdressers." He attributes this to the fact that many object to the hateful statements made by Arnold Lowman, aka "Virginia Prince." In raising this point, Helms makes the following statement:

They fear the words that came from Virginia in 1959 as if they pertain to the world in 2009. I say this is fear, because there has never been a good explanation why her fifty-year-old words remain relevant in the 21st Century.

Now, this statement leaves me wondering if Helms is really that ignorant of "Prince" and his ongoing diatribes and the fact that they continue to used to attack transsexuals and people with HBS. "Prince" not only never renounced those positions that were first taken in "1959" but continued to express them to anyone who would listen.

Now, I would say that "Prince's" words were never really "relevant" but they did form the basis for much of the harm done to transsexuals and people. For example, Blanchard's pseudo-science can be directly traced to "Prince."

Here are some of the misconceptions that can be directly traced to "Prince:"

• The idea that transsexuals study the biographies of other transsexuals in order to create our stories. This allows researchers to ignore the fact that we share common experiences because. And that allows them to dismiss the legitimacy of our claims. This has led directly to Blanchard's approach of simply labeling as a liar anyone who does not fit his theories.
  
• The concept that sex and gender are so totally separate as to be effectively unrelated. This means that, given the tendency of some to define gender strictly in terms of "social construct," some claim that one can simply choose one's gender.


• The idea that crossdressers are motivated by something other than erotic desire. This view was pushed by "Prince" even as he was telling Robert Stoller how he did find crossdressing erotic.


• The idea that transsexuals can be divided on the basis of sexual orientation, and that they are either men who are just super gay, or that they are men with a fetish.

Helms goes on to discuss how some fear discovery. Now, like many gender fascists, Helms equates not being "out, loud, and proud" with being fearful. It simply does not enter his mind that some might simply wish to live their lives as women, and not "transgender women." If someone knows your past then they are very unlikely to ever fully accept you as a woman, but instead, their views will always be colored by the fact that you were born a male. For some, this is not a good thing. Of course, for a transgender like Helms, it is the whole thing.

Finally, we have this from Helms, which is what lead to the tiltle of this article:

Through all of this, I cannot understand why some trans people fear me, the
things I do, or how I live my life. They try to come across one way, but it
boils down to nothing more than fear. Trapped animals growl, show their teeth
and scream when faced with a supposed threat, all to cover up their fear. Humans
are no different. I try to extend the olive branch to those who fear me because
I have made many friends from those who may not have liked me in the past. I am
never afraid to make a new friend, yet it is another fear that many in the trans
community have.

Now, first off, the people who Helms is attempting to slam here would be insulted by his referring to them as "trans people." I personally do not care to have the adjective "trans" appended to anything referring to me. Now, I suppose Helms idea of a trying to "extend the olive branch" is to attack post-op women, as he has done many times. Granted, Helms was able to find a kindred spirit in Suzan Cooke, but that would be a good subject for another whole article. Simply put, Cooke may identify as a "Woman Born Transsexual," but increasingly Cooke sounds like a transgender in all but name.

No, the bottom line is, no one fears Helms, or how he lives his life. Like many of the gender fascists, he thinks himself more than he really is. No, we simply do not appreciate his attacks, though we do find that he does continually expose himself for what he really is. And, that, simply put, is more, perhaps, to be pitied, not feared.

Arnold Lowman is dead...

Now I imagine you might be asking, "Who was Arnold Lowman?" You probably knew him better as the infamous crossdresser "Virginia Prince," aka "Charles Prince." His real name was Arnold Lowman. Or, at least that was his name at birth. Quite frankly, I have never seen anything that says whether he changed it, or not. But, he is much better known as "Virginia Prince," the founder of the Heel and Hose Club that later became Tri Ess, the "sorority" for heterosexual crossdressers. I think the original name says a lot about what "Prince" was really all about, but he made a career out of denying that transvestitism, which he later insisted be called "crossdressing" was not erotic in nature. To which I say, "POPPYCOCK!"

While "Prince" was telling the world that he was a "femniphile" and crossdressed out of a love of the feminine, he was admitting to Robert Stoller, a researcher at UCLA who specialized in gender identity issues, that he really was motivated by erotic desires. And he was also telling Stoller, and anyone else who would listen, that transsexuals were all just crossdressers, or gay men, who were just getting carried away. Hmmm, sounds like the same pseudoscience that Blanchard spews now.

One problem was, "Prince" had no standing to be making such pronouncements, and yet he had papers published as though he did. His degree was in Pharmacy, not Psychology.

"Prince" is also credited with coining the term "transgender." Some question this, as the term that he actually coined was "transgenderist," to describe full time crossdressers such as himself. Now, it appears that "Prince" did take female hormones, and it is claimed that he had breast implants, but he was completely unwilling to give up his manhood, though some claim his response to the news of Christine Jorgensen was, if I had $5000 I would catch the next boat to Denmark. Of course, it is has also been said that he was, quite wisely, denied surgery.

Now, even though they were somewhat slow to react to the news, some of the transgender fascists have begun to sing the praises of their fallen hero. Both Sandeen and Helms have weighed in. And Sandeen has not taken that kindly to those who would point out "Prince's" shortcomings. For example, one person was took to task for referring to "Prince" with male pronouns. Of course, this is a big no-no in the fantasy world of the transgender." A big part of the transgender fascist's paradigm is that one gets to simply declare what one is, and everyone else has to follow in lockstep agreement. Never mind that "Prince" was clearly not a woman, given that his motivation was admittedly erotic. In his later days, he was known for having a taste for "she male" pornography.

Now, Helms raises the question about why anyone would care about "Prince's" 50-year old remarks. Well, Helms has never been known for paying much attention to facts, and apparently he glosses right over the fact that "Prince's" ideas are still being used by those, like Blanchard, Bailey, Zucker, Docter, and others, who would discredit transsexuals.

So, "Prince" is dead, and for the most part, few have actually paid much attention. Even in places where you would sort of expect this to be a major story, it has been ignored. There is no mention on either the Tri Ess web site, or at the IFGE web site. I would be a bit surprised if TG Tapestry doesn't dedicate the next issue to "Prince," but then again, he was a bit of an embarassment to those who want to claim that "transsexuals" are really "transgender." But, at the same time, IFGE did name one of their awards (since dropped) for "Prince." So, who knows?

As Shakespeare said:

The evil that men do lives after them;

The good is oft interred with their bones;

Not that "Prince" actually did anything that was that good, but there is no question, his evil will definitely live on for a while longer. Especially for those who suffer from Harry Benjamin Syndrome.

Excuses, excuses....

When I started this blog it was not my original intention to wind up commenting on other blogs, but I do seem to do that a lot...well, here we go again.

In a recent blog entry, lead gender facist Monica Helms writes about transition. Well, he (sorry, but I honestly cannot see Helms as anything other than a man) starts out talking about transition, and actually managing to raise some interesting issues, but then he goes off on a tangent about how some get "stuck." Or, more correctly, he starts defending the classic TG excuses used to show that they are really "transsexuals" and not just men who don't want to give up their manhood.

Now, I think most who are survivors of HBS such as myself would say that transition is a finite period that ends when one has completed surgery and is successfully living as their appropriate sex.

But, as I say, the real purpose of Helm's post is to justify not transitioning...or more specifically, to make excuses. But, that should not be surprsing to those who are familiar with Helms who has always tended to be strongly anti-surgery, even though he now claims to be surgery tracked. Sure, and the Easter Bunny will be bringing us all eggs on Sunday. No, Helms just wants to claim silence critics who have pointed out that he has no business commenting on transsexuals, as he is not one. Nothing has changed, and he should still stay out of matters he has no real knowledge of.

But, let's look at the excuses Helms offers:

Financial:

Helms wants to claim that some simply cannot afford surgery. In truth, few can actually afford surgery. I mean really....how many have $20,000+ just sitting around? And $20,000 is kind of the cheap side, and does not include other expenses. For almost anyone, paying for surgery is a struggle. But, if one really needs surgery, one will find a way. Some max out credit cards, others take out a loan, and some simply save the money. Once I was in a position to begin, my plan was simple. I knew how much I needed in terms of income. If I worked for a given period, saved half of that income, and lived on the other half, I could make it in a year to a year and a half, provided I had my surgery in Thailand. Ironically, things worked out a bit different. I got a job with insurance that covered my surgery. There was one small problem. It was a half-time job. So, for about a year and a half I lived on half of what I should be making. Interestingly enough, after my surgery, I was able to move to a better job and now am doing quite well. But that is another story. Finances might slow one down, but it will not stop a true transsexual or someone with HBS. But, for someone like Helms, it does make a good excuse.

Medical:

Another common excuse that some hide behind is "medical problems." Now, there was a time when this was sort of true. It was not that many years ago that conditions like diabetes or being HIV positive could be pretty much a permanent bar to surgery. Now, that is no longer the case. Unless one is probably going to be dead soon, surgery can be had. You might have to lose some weight (I did.), or bring your blood sugar under better control (I also had to do this.), or even shop around a bit to find a surgeon willing to take the chance. But, few are permanently barred from surgery, and those who are are probably going to be dead soon...if not from their condition then from their own hand. Unless, of course, they don't really want surgery after all..,

Personal:

Now, this is the only area where Helms is sort of, kind of, honest. Not about himself, as he is still trying to pretend to be surgery tracked, but about the motives of others. He admits that some just don't want surgery. Well duh!

And for many, surgery is not a proper choice, But the term that Helms uses, "non-op" is bogus. There is no such thing as a "non-op transsexual." If you don't want surgery, you are not a transsexual. If you don't want surgery, you don't want to change your sex, and you are not a transsexual. What could be simpler? Well, if you are trying to co-opt the experience of others....well, then things like the truth are not going to be very high on your list of priorities.

But having admitted that some simply don't want surgery, Helms still insists on making excuses, offering up things like jobs, family, and marriage. Of course almost all transsexuals have to deal with at least one of these, most are going to have to deal with two, and many face all three. It is only those who want to play pretend who actually use these as an excuse.

And then there is the really silly stuff, like being afraid of surgery... Trust me, I knew the risks, I probably knew them better than most. But I knew I would rather die trying than continue to live as a I was.

No, Helms is a classic gender fascist, He wants to push his silliness on those who want no part of it, and to force them under his umbrella. But the truth is, he has never been, is not, and will never be a transsexual. He is a man who, for whatever reason, decided he wanted to play pretend. He had a successful career as a man, serving in the Navy, and apparently had no serious difficulties during that part of his life. Now, he likes having a foot on both side of the fence.

He is a classic "gender outlaw" of the same variety as Kate Bornstein. In a follow-up column he shows this when he again trashes the binary paradigm. He even shows basic ignorance of human biology. Simply put, there are really only two sexes. Now, how sex is determined might be a bit more complex, but chromosonal sex comes in only two varieties. No Y chromosome, and you are considered female, in terms of chromosomes One or more Y chromosome and you are consider male in terms of chromosomes. That is only part of the overall picture, but in terms of chromosomes, it is really that simple. Of course, Helms doesn't like that, so he tosses out the facts and makes up his own. But then, Helms is one of those idiots who thinks that having a penis is perfectly normal for a "woman." So nothing else should surprise anyone.

No, Helms should not have surgery. He should hang on to his penis for dear life. We don't need yet another case of a transgender who made a mistake and now regrets having had surgery. And who spends his days trashing those who do need surgery. Well, Helms, like some others, already does that, but at least he doesn't do so as a post-op. And hopefully he never will.