Who Is REALLY Obsessed With Bathrooms?

One of the most common memes among the transgender kooks is "The Christian Right is obsessed with bathrooms."  Of course, you can also substituted "TERFs," "Republicans," "Social Conservatives,"  or any other term that refers to some group that the transgender kooks want to object to.  The idea is to paint such groups as being out of touch, and desirous of violating some inalienable right that the kooks imagine they have to invade women's spaces.  But, simply put, this is not actually the case.

While some of the more extreme measures to come out of this issue are outrageous (like the suggestion in Florida that access to bathrooms be based on chromosomes) they are just another example of the very real harm that the transgender movement has caused for transsexuals.

No, the ones who are really obsessed with bathrooms are the transgender kooks themselves.  The men in dresses like Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen, Mr. "Cristan" Williams, Mr. "Dana" Taylor, and others too numerous to mention.

When I first transitioned over 20 years ago (24 to be precise) I took a very careful approach to the "bathroom issue."  I did not do what is now seen as the "norm" and charge into the women's room, with total disregard for the feelings of other women.  I started out cautiously, at first seeking out toilets that were less likely to be crowded.  I was very aware of how people reacted to me, and as it became clear that I was not causing a disturbance, I became more confident in my visits.

What I didn't do, was assert an absolute right to be present in women's space, and certainly not in a place where nudity would be an issue.  Now, the transgender kooks expect women to not even object to pre-ops (not really an issue if the person is a true transsexual) and, more to the point, transgender people who belong to the "They'll take my penis when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers" club, walking into showers and locker rooms with their manhood flapping about for all to see.

The transgender community is obsessed with being able to enter any women's space, anytime, anywhere, regardless of their anatomy, appearance, or any problems it might cause.  Anyone who objects is painted as the one with a problem.  In short, they have created the situation that has led to extremists trying to pass laws that would not only affect transgender people (the vast, overwhelming majority of which will remain physically male to the day they die) but also transsexuals (far worse than any effect it might have on the men in dresses crowd) and even worse, those who are intersex or who have the condition known as complete androgen insensitivity syndrome (women who have XY chromosomes, but who are born physically female because their bodies do not react to testosterone).

A classic example of this sort of silliness is unfolding on Twitter, where Mr. Sandeen is attacking a transsexual woman for having the audacity to take the side of a woman who was booted from Planet Fitness because she had the courage to speak up about a man being in the women's locker room.  In typical form, Mr. Sandeen, who mistakenly thinks I cannot read his tweets, goes after her for not adhering to the "party line."

Here is a link to an article my Gallus Mag, on which, Zoey Tur, the transsexual that Mr. Sandeen is attacking commented.  Mr. Sandeen is just having a hissy fit because, well, Zoey spoke the truth:

So, as the nation deals with this confusing issue we’re going to have unfortuante situations like a woman having her membership revoked at Planet Fitness for complaining about a “man” in the women’s dressing room. The transgender person at the center of this controversy is a cross dresser that took advantage of Planet Fitness’ no discrimination policy to push the envelope at the gym. No hormones, no surgeries, no transition, just $12 leggings and a baggy sweatshirt. Not fair for anyone.Apologizes to the trans community, but situations like this invariably lead to well meaning fools taking action. Take for example anti-transgender bathroom laws being proposed, and even passed in progressive states, like Florida and Texas where I could face serious jail time for using the women’s room.

Interestingly enough, I had started working on this post before I discovered what Zoey wrote.  It's nice to see that I am not the only one who sees this.  What Zoey writes about is Mr. Sandeen's vision for America.   He sees no problem with, and actually pushes for, men to have the right to invade women's spaces with their penises wagging about, ala Mr. "Colleen" Francis.  I'm sure he will feel quite righteous when even post-op transsexuals are barred from the women's room in states like Texas and Florida.  Sadly, he doesn't have the sense to see the damage he does.

  Of course, being men, they want to hide behind the women, and push us out there as they fight for their right to invade our space.  This obsession has, quite naturally, triggered a reaction, and now, an over-reaction from people at the opposite extreme.  And neither side is remotely willing to accept a reasonable middle. And unless that happens, it will end very badly for those who are truly transsexual.  Either we will face prosecution because we will be associated with kooks like Sandeen and Williams, or we, along with other women, will have to put up with men invading our private space, exposing their penises, and demanding that we "acknowledge" them as fully female.

Oh MY! The Men in Dresses Are Having a Hissy Fit!!!!

Since I basically shredded Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen's puff pieces in support of Mr. "Cristan" Williams', and Mr. "Dana" Taylor's claims that they have uncovered the true name of GallusMag, they have been frantic.  I have been subjected to regular cyberstalking on Twitter, by those three, the comments on Mr. Sandeen's column at LGBT Weekly have been removed, and in general they are beside themselves with anger and hate.

The cyberstalking on Twitter has ranged from the hilarious (Mr. Taylor's remark about my blog getting no comments...perhaps he hasn't noticed that the same is true for most of the latest drivel at Transadvocate) to the downright hateful (Mr. Sandeen has again tried to drag my daughter into this).  This is nothing new, and before, Mr. Taylor was heavily involved.  When all this started a bit over a year ago, my daughter was very upset at what these creeps were up to.  Of course, they could care less about how some mere woman feels.  They have shown that, time and time again.

Again, they have taken a comment that my daughter made at a time when we were estranged.  What caused this is really none of their business, and I refuse to violate my daughter's privacy.  Simply put, we have a disagreement, and we did not speak for a while.  Then, she contacted me, and we patched things up.  End of story.  Contrary to some of the crap they have tried to read into this, we are very close.  I speak to her regularly on the phone, and since that time, I have visited her, and my grandchildren a number of times.  I am also, contrary to some rather outrageous claims, on good terms with my ex.

As to the rest of their claims, they have made quite a bit out of stuff they have no capacity to understand.  As I have pointed out many times, none of these three are transsexuals (well, Mr. Williams is a possible exception, having possibly become what would be, effectively an FTM).  All three are basically fetishistic crossdressers who have crossed over to full time.

The stuff my daughter made reference to, again at a time when she was angry with me, was from the time before I made my transition.  I was, quite frankly, non-functional as a "man."  Yes, my ex supported us.  When you are basically living a lie, it can be hard to keep a job.  Like other transsexuals, I had to basically create a false shell to hide inside of.  That was true from childhood.  I remember having to pretend to care about things I was expected to like, and having to hide what I really wanted.  For example, I learned to tell people that my favorite baseball player was Roger Maris.  Now, I could not have told anyone what position he played, any thing about his record, or probably even what team he played for.  But, I could simply give that as an answer to a common question, and people were satisfied.  In truth, I hated sports, and considered them a nuisance because they kept me from getting to watch what I wanted on TV.

I also learned that being honest about other interests would, at best, cause me to be mocked by my peers, and my father, and at worst could result in my suffering abuse.  When I was in elementary school, I regularly hid what I really wanted, or felt, because otherwise, I would have received regular beatings for being a sissy.  Actually, on more than one occasion, I got them anyway.  On rare occasions, when I trusted someone, I usually found it to be a mistake.

These three clowns understand none of this.  They had no problems being men.  Mr. Sandeen, for example, served for TWENTY years in the U.S. Navy, as a man, without any real problems.  Truth be told, I would not have lasted 20 days.  Now, I know, some will argue that many women serve in the Navy, and this is quite true.  But, they are serving as women, and what they go through is radically different.  Of course, I doubt Mr. Sandeen can even comprehend something like that.

Likewise, Mr. Taylor had a relatively successful career as a man, as did Mr. Williams.  In fact, a photo of Mr. Williams in a full beard was recently published on Gender Identity Watch.  I find that rather interesting, since when I hit puberty, I rather obsessively tried to hide the fact that I was sprouting facial hair, and tweezed them out until there was too many, and then secretly shaved to avoid having to go through the time-honored ritual of having my father teach me to shave.  In fact, my parents were rather puzzled that I didn't seem to shave even after I was married.  And I could never, ever, imagine actually growing a beard or even a mustache. 

No, before I transitioned, I was not a very pleasant person to be around.  I was often very angry at the world, and suffered from depression, and self-hatred.  Unlike these three, who seem to have had no problem being men, and still don't.  And they have no idea what actually being a transsexual actually is...though they still keep trying to claim that transsexual, and transgender men like them, are really all the same.

How Much Sillier Can Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen Get?

In the latest chapter of the battle between women and the "men in dresses" crowd, Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen has come up with an even sillier post over on Transadvocate.  In previous articles we have discussed his first post, in which he first made the claim that GallusMag has been "outed."  In that article, we showed that, by his own standards, the claim was bogus.  Mr. "Cristan" Williams, and Mr. "Dana" Taylor, yes, the "Milk-Man" himself, have claimed to have found out who GallusMag really is.  And, they cling to this, at best, flimsy claim desperately.  Mr. Sandeen has become point man for their position.

In this article, he attempts to back up that claim with some of the most laughable evidence ever presented.  Now, keep in mind that what GallusMag has done is not, as Mr. Sandeen claims, "doxxing" which is "l33t-speak" for uncovering information on someone.  What GallusMag has done is simply shine a light on some of the sillier things that men in dresses have put up on the Internet.  Her sources are all quite public.  She just exposes them to the ridicule they deserve.  Her subject matter ranges from outright threats of violence, to men in dresses just acting silly.  So, naturally, they hate her with a passion.

On the other hand, they have to claim she has been "doxxing" them to excuse their attempts to invade her privacy.  

Mr. Sandeen's case is ridiculous.  He refers to vague claims, that he declines to provide details of, and then proceeds to back those claims up with some rather hilarious "facts" that add up to nothing.

For example, he claims that GallusMag denied the claim too quickly and therefore it must be true.  Of course, the fact of the matter is, what was actually denied was a claim by Mr. Williams that he had discovered that GallusMag was wealthy, and lives in a "luxurious home."  That is what was denied.  Once again, facts are twisted to make something appear to be different than it really is...

From there, it just gets even sillier.  Someone found a MySpace page for the person who has been mis-identified as GallusMag.  Mr. Sandeen makes a big deal out of the fact that this person, who is an artist, has a piece that depicts GallusMag.  Now, considering that GallusMag is a historical figure, and well known in certain circles, that proves...well, nothing.  But even sillier is an attempt to claim that the image depicts the artist as GallusMag.  A rather silly claim, but presented as though it is conclusive.

The rest of the article, apparently the actual "facts" needed padding, consists of Mr. Sandeen critiquing the rest of this person's art.  Which, of course, has no real bearing on the claims made.  The funniest part is Mr. Sandeen's attempt to accuse a woman of objectifying women, in defense of so-called "transwomen" objectifying women.  Of course, Mr. Sandeen, who is quite male in both body and mind, has no idea what he is blathering about.

The bottom line is, the men in dresses crowd is more obsessed with the idea that they have struck a blow against someone they violently hate, than with any concern for the truth.  They have their "trophy," and they are not going to give it up without a fight.

The Stalking of GallusMag

One of the blogs I regularly read is Gendertrender.  It is edited by a person who goes by the pseudonym of "GallusMag" which was the nickname of a 6-foot-tall female bouncer at a New York City Water Street bar called The Hole in the Wall in the early 19th century, who figures prominently in New York City folklore.  Her real name is not known

Herbert Asbury, in his book The Gangs of New York wrote:

"It was her custom, after she’d felled an obstreperous customer with her club, to clutch his ear between her teeth and so drag him to the door, amid the frenzied cheers of the onlookers. If her victim protested she bit his ear off, and having cast the fellow into the street she carefully deposited the detached member in a jar of alcohol behind the bar…. She was one of the most feared denizens on the waterfront and the police of the period shudderingly described her as the most savage female they’d ever encountered."

The modern day GallusMag, who's real name is also unknown, is a radical feminist who is giving the transgender kooks fits because she regularly exposes some of their sillier moments.  On her blog, she writes about many of the same issues that I cover here.  And because she has done so well at it, her real name is highly sought after by the nastier of the transgender extremists, especially Mr. "Cristan" Williams, who has a long history of attempting to harass anyone who dares disagree with his extremist views.

Recently, Mr. Williams, among others, thought they had reached their goal.  He even bragged about it on Twitter. 

GallusMag was supposedly identified as a particular woman, who I will not name, but once again, a denial was quickly issued.  Ironically, Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen, Mr. William's faithful lapdog, published the claim that this time they had GallusMag, for sure, including the claim that no denial had been made, thus proving that this was the one, true name of their sworn enemy.  Of course, facts are not really the friend of kooks like Mr. Sandeen and Mr. Williams.

The sad thing is, this sort of behavior is common among the transgender kooks.  GallusMag, contrary to Mr. Sandeen's claims, does not "doxx" transgender men. No, I am not going to use Mr. Sandeen's term, and refer to them as "trans women," because, quite frankly, the people GallusMag tends to expose are most assuredly not women.

I don't agree with everything that GallusMag says, and I am sure we would have much to disagree about, but I do respect her right to both freedom of speech, and privacy.  In his article, Mr. Sandeen, who likes to style himself as the transgender "Martin Luther King, Jr." goes into a spiel about how no one should threaten violence against GallusMag.  Perhaps he is sincere, or perhaps he is hoping to be ignored.  I do know that such threats are a regular tactic by some of the nastier of the men-in-dresses crowd.

Nevertheless, this sort of behavior is nothing short of sick.  Posting the name of someone who wishes to remain private is inexcusable.  Some, like Mr. Sandeen are extremist in their believe that everyone should be "out, loud, and proud," to the point that Mr. Sandeen has zero respect for privacy rights.  Of course, Mr. Sandeen has no real desire to be a woman, and certainly not female.  He just wishes to force people to accept his false claims, and pretend he is both.  And he wants to force his rather bizarre situation on others.

All Together, Forward March, in Lockstep....Or ELSE!!!!

After the silliness of comparing TERFs to Westboro Baptist Church, the kooks at Transadvocate have come up with another idiotic post.  This time, they are again attacking Andrea James for the unforgivable sin of not adhering to the transgender party line.  This is not the first time Transadvocate has gone after her, they also attacked her viciously for daring to disagree with them over Jared Leto playing a "transgender" person in Dallas Buyers Club, which is kind of interesting since the movie was set at a time that 'transgender" was not a commonly used term.  More accurately, Leto played a drag queen who was HIV positive.

So, what did Andrea James do to incur the more recent wrath of the transgender extremists? She had the audacity to suggest that GLAAD is becoming too dominated by transgender extremists. And worse, she has supported the appointment of Megan McCain, who is the daughter of Arizona Senator and former presidential candidate John McCain. Gasp, she is even a Republican. This is about as far from being in lockstep as you can get, and the Transadvocate crowd will have no part of it.

Never mind that Andrea James has done for more for transsexuals than all the transgender kook combined.  Her contributions far outweigh those of men like "Cristan" Williams, "Autumn" Sandeen, and others.

This of course, has become the standard approach of the transgender extremists.  For them, it is all about controlling comments and language.  Even if the person making the comment is someone they would tend to forcibly label as "transgender."  Step of of line, and you will be attacked.  It's that simple.  You want to get along with the transgender kooks, just repeat the party line, never disagree with them, and above all, never, ever, think for yourself.

Transgender Extremists Have Completely Lost It

The latest "feature article" on Mr. "Cristan" Williams' Transadvocate site is so absurd, even I was embarrassed for the poor fool who wrote it.  Talk about not getting…

It is basically a hissy fit about a video that was featured on the Huffington Post's Gay Voices section.  The headline of the article shrilly claims…

Transmisogyny masquerading as parody: HuffPo’s Gay Voices promotes disturbing video from former Drag Race contestant

There is a warning…

Trigger warning: video linked portrays a trans woman being murdered

And then the lead paragraph…

A trans woman activist portrayed with a moustache and a bad wig being murdered by a drag queen is the kind of imagery that would come with a trigger warning on most sensible online information outlet, not hailed as “hilarious” by one it’s editors. But, it would appear that Huffington Post editor James Nichols believes that the death of trans activist at the hands of an angry drag queen is a laugh-out-loud situation.

You can watch the video for yourself here but unfortunately you can't read the article on Huffington Post because they decided to cave to the protests of outraged transgender kooks who took it all too seriously.  Update: I have learned that it was preserved as a PDF here.

Now, let me start by saying that personally, I find a lot of "drag" offensive, not because of the issues raised by the humorless transgender kooks, but for a reason that is totally lost on the men in dresses crowd…it is insulting to women.  Drag is often comparable to the blackface performers that were often a major part of the minstrel shows that were so popular in the 1800s.  In fact, as people grew tired of blackface, it was replaced by female impersonators.  Now, I have seen some drag acts that are quite good, but much of drag involves insulting examples of the worst stereotypes of "bitchy women." 

Yeah, the foolish men who whine constantly about "transmisogyny" (their favorite neologism) could care less about real misogyny.

But, the growing tension between drag queens, like RuPaul, and the transgender nut cases, like Mr. "Cristan" Williams, Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen, Mr. "Dana" Taylor, and most significantly,  Mr. Parker "Marie" Malloy who started this who thing with his article on the Advocate website, and worse, his Twitter post in which he expressed his outright hatred of RuPaul in rather vulgar terms (See Andrea James' excellent response here.  BTW, the transgender kooks have now turned on Andrea James and Calpernia Adams for the unforgivable crime of actually disagreeing with them, and, well, pointing out some of their absurd positions.)

The video is over the top, but the obvious point is completely lost on the humorless men in dresses crowd.  It is not, as one commenter on Williams' site claims, a threat of violence, implied or otherwise.  It really not about "murdering a transwoman."  It is a humorous slap at a self-righteous little man who has started hormones, and suddenly thinks he knows it all, and is going to set everyone else straight.

I mean, seriously, the supposed murderer uses a BLOW DRYER.  It is over the top satire.  After attempting, several times, to modify his language to satisfy the transactivist complaints, he becomes frustrated and opens fires…again, with a BLOW DRYER.  The people offended by this are the same sort of people who actually think Jonathan Swift actually advocated eating poor children when he was really mocking heartless attitudes towards the poor.  It is called hyperbole, and the message is actually that some of these humorless fools should get a life.  Not, of course, that there is any chance of that.

I Can't Wait To See the Transgender Kooks Try To Spin This One

Ironically, right on the heels of another absurd article by Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen, in which he attacks Roseanne Barr for speaking out against certain behaviors by transgender males (just to be clear, I am talking about males who claim to be women), there comes a story that is going to be a real headache for those who try to claim that transgender males are not potentially a threat to women.  The award for most clueless headline has to go to the San Francisco Chronicle, which had:

S.F. women's rights advocate accused of raping wife

Okay, at first glance, you might assume that some man, who was known for advocating for women's rights, had been accused of raping his wife. But the lead paragraph is very confusing...

While attorneys for a women's rights advocate and prominent Twitter engineer accused of raping her estranged wife say the accuser is "out for revenge," a friend who says she was present after the incident said Friday that the wife just wants to teach her children that criminals must face justice.Now, this is where things start to get very strange...  You see, under California law, a woman cannot commit rape, which is defined on the basis of "sexual intercourse," and which later sections of the law make clear involves penetration by a penis...  The rapist is a transgender male, who has not had surgery (and presumably does not plan to have said surgery, as there should be little doubt that this dude could easily afford any SRS surgeon since he works in a very well paid position, and I would be surprised if Twitter does not cover SRS).  In California, you pretty much have to be a male (i.e. have a penis) to commit a rape (including spousal rape).  Otherwise, it is covered under a different statute. 

So, to be completely clear here, a 31 year-old male who goes by the by the name of Dana McCallum was arrested back on Jan. 26 on suspicion of rape. According to the San Francisco district attorney's office, he was charged with five felonies. Specifically, he has been charged with three counts of spousal rape, one count of false imprisonment and one count of domestic violence. As a curious aside, his legal name is given as "Dana Contreras"  In fact, two years ago, he was featured, under his legal name in an article, in The Advocate entitledThe Ten Most Innovative Companies and the LGBTs Who Got Them to the Top.  Sadly, you would not quite get that from the San Francisco Chronicle article, which goes out of its way to avoid mentioning that Contreas is transgender, or that he is a male.

Oh, and it should be noted that about a year ago, Contreas, in a speech he gave to at his high school, pulled the classic stunt of misleading people into thinking he had surgery.  Clearly, he has not, as if he had, it would impossible for him to be charged with rape.

Now, I will point out, in all fairness, at this point in time, Contreas has been charged, but not convicted.  On the other hand, it does not really look good for him.  His defense is a classic male tactic, of claiming it is all about "money," that his spouse, who he had served with divorce papers the day before, was hoping to cash in on his stock options.  Now, what that would have to do with "rape" is, of course, ignored by the attorneys.  California law would probably grant her a share in them anyway.  So, this so-called "women's rights activist" falls back on a classic dodge in an attempt to claim he didn't commit rape.  Sad...

It will be interesting to see how the likes of Mr. "Cristan" Williams and Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen deal with this embarrassment.  Of course, for the time being, I would not be surprised if they hammer the "not convicted" meme.  But, if this Contreas is convicted, and I would not be at all surprised if that occurs, it will be much harder for them to explain away.

Stay tuned...this could get very interesting.

Great Moments In Transgender Silliness

I have spent so much time focusing on the kooks over at Shame On You Transgender Edition that I haven't had time to comment on some of the other silliness that has been going on.

First off, there has been the extreme silliness surrounding the movie Dallas Buyers Club, and Jared Leto winning Best Supporting Actor for his role as "Rayon," who is basically a drag queen.  But, we are told by the kooks, "Rayon" is a transgender woman, even though the term transgender was not remotely in common usage until years later than the period portrayed in the film.  And besides that, the character is completely fictional, added to the film  for "dramatic purposes."  

Now, the irony is, the same people who complained bitterly when Felicity Huffman portrayed a transsexual (who by the way, is very clear that she is a transsexual) in the film Transamerica, are now complaining that a man portrayed "Rayon," and that this gives "the wrong idea about transgender people.  Hmmm, I just don't see that, since, as pointed out many times, "transgender" is such a vague and meaningless term.

The complaints really took off when Jared won the Academy Award, and failed to "thank the transgender community."  Now, why he should, is beyond me.  For what?  For not even being around during the time portrayed in the film?  The whole thing is just incredibly silly.

And of course, Mr. "Cristan" Williams' Transadvocate blog continues to be a constant source of comedy, including:

• One blogger complaining that people actually think "Boys have penises, and girls have vaginas!"  The horror!
• Another blogger has realized that "Jerry Springer exploits trans women for ratings…"  Really?  I wonder why no one has ever noticed that before? (For those too dumb to really…that SARCASM!!!!)
• The surprising admission (for them) that Jan Morris, a well known transsexual, is not a "transgender" since they have an article about some dude who wants to be the "first trans person to climb Mount Everest."  For those who are not aware, Morris did it in 1953, before her transition.  Granted Morris, did not go to the summit, but was part of the expedition, and was the one who reported the news that Edmund Hillary had made it to the top.
• And an absurdly whiny post by Mr. "Dana Lane" Taylor complaining about Cathy Brennan's supposed harassment of him.  Actually, someone really should seriously intervene in Mr. Taylor's mental health crisis….

And of course, the boys, and girl, at Shame On You Transgender haven't failed to provide a few moments of silliness themselves.  They provided what would, otherwise, have been solid advice on make-up for transgender men looking to impersonate women (Seriously guys, are you trying to look like women…or clowns?) but then they had to act like idiots and include…

Remember that as a transgender person you are an ambassador for all of us. The first impression you give people can be the most important so take your time and do the make-up right. Too much make-up, well that's just a shame.

This is another example of why I want nothing to do with the transgender community.  I didn't transition to be an "ambassador."  Seriously, I guess the idea of simply being a woman is completely lost on Mr. "Michelle" Spicer.  It's all about being a man in a dress, and making sure everyone knows you are a man in a dress…

And Ms. "Mark" Cummings wrote another egotistical rant, including this bit of narcissism…

The truth can be hurtful and many will not accept it, they will turn around and create all sorts of justification, and make the truth barer a monster. Well guess what, pier pressure has never worked with me. I beat my own drum and couldn't careless if the message is not popular or rings right with many. I have my own mind and have never been a follower. So if what is written on this blog offends you, there might be a reason, and possibly something that you need to look into. What rubs you the wrong way, usually has a message or lesson for you. I know you are not going to agree and that is fine to, I am just stating my views and opinion as are all the writers on this blog.

It wouldn't be nearly as funny…if the didn't effectively contradict himself.  On the one hand, she admits she is self-promoting, but then she comes across as condescending…if you don't like what she says, it's because you are the one who is wrong, and you are just not getting the message she is trying to force down your throat…but hey, she is okay with you disagreeing, because she is just presenting "her views and opinions."  

It is one thing to suggest that people should read critically.  I hope anyone reading my blog does just that.  If you blindly accept everything I say, well…that is not a wise approach to ANYTHING you read.  Think about it, question it, challenge it, and then, if it stands up, accept it.  Of course, so often (and Ms. Cummings is a classic example) if they can't refute it, they get angry, and resort to insults.  Yes, I am blunt with people.  I don't play games and pander to delusions.  I point out that people are frauds, con artists, grifters, stalkers, perverts, and yes…even men (or women) when they claim to be otherwise.  I don't do this to insult.  I do this because some people need to be confronted with the truth.

The transgender community remains a regular source of truly silly positions.  While I keep hoping they will come to their senses…I'm not holding my breath.

Out, Loud, Proud, and Yet...Making Excuses

I always get a bit of a chuckle when a "non-op" starts making excuses and trying to explain how they are "just as much of a woman" as a post-op, and how having a penis does not make them a man, and how they would have the surgery, but...

I mean, they tell us how "out, loud, and proud" they are, but then they start up with lame excuses.  The simple face is, they are not transsexuals (transsexuals change their sex), they are really not women (women don't want to have a penis attached to their body), and they are apparently not really all that proud (since they have to make an excuse for not being a transsexual or a woman...

The latest example of this comes from one of the kooks at Shame on You Transgender Edition in the guise of a rant about bathrooms.  Yes, another member of the "NPA" (the National Penis Association whose motto is "You will take my penis when you pry my cold dead fingers from it...." who is trying to tell us how he is "not really a man," has every right to invade the ladies room (in spite of being quite obviously male...and unable to pass by his own admission) and that he does not need surgery.  He even tries to shame anyone who would point out this fact...

Yes, a person who calls himself "Jacqueline" Waters has posted a rant about bathrooms.  In it, he drags out the usual lame tropes...and shows the usual lack of understanding so common among transgender extremists...

You see there is a whole faction of people (even within our own community) that think that GENDER and SEX are the same thing, when clearly they are NOT the same thing.

We all know the problem, but what I don't understand is the reasoning. You see there is one camp that thinks that gender is based on parts. Well that gets a bit crazy when you start looking at just the cis gender group now doesn't it? Are you telling me that a woman who has had a hysterectomy is no longer a female?

Uh, no one is remotely claiming such a thing...  This, of course, is a classic straw man argument.  Make up something no one has said, and then "refute" it.  Just wait, he will repeat this again... 

What about someone who has had cancer and has had a double mastectomy? Is she suddenly NOT a woman? You know since the qualification is on parts.

  And again... 

On the other hand what about that soldier who was deployed and ran across an IED (Improvised Explosive Device) who managed to survive but has lost everything below the waist? Yes, such persons exist. Is this person now no longer a man because he lost his male sex organs to shrapnel? Is he now a woman? 

 And again...

What about a victim of Lorena Bobbit? If a man gets his unit cut off is he now a woman suddenly? See, when you start looking at this the whole notion that parts= gender becomes quite silly now doesn't it?

And again...

And each time, he misses several important points.  First off, he is trying to claim that sex and gender are not the same thing.  Most agree on this...  Sex is, as they say, what is between your legs, and gender is what is between your ears.  Except, well, in both cases it is about sexual differentiation, and it is based on hormones.  And, it is related.  You see, if your brain really is female, you will not feel comfortable with male genitalia.  You like your penis...you want to keep your penis...you are not driven by a strong need to be rid of your penis....you are a man, baby!

This, of course, is why women who lose their breasts, and men who lose their penises, don't suddenly "change sex."  Their brain is still what it was before.  And, more importantly, this is why the men in dresses crowd, like Mr. Waters here, and his compadres at Shame on You Transgender Edition will never be women (well, except for Ms. "Mark" Cummings, who will never be a man...  They have male brains, and they show it, over and over, and over...

And then he drags out the next transgender trope...

Then there is this unfounded notion that a bunch of men will slap on dresses just so they can take a peek at ladies in the restroom. Really?

Yes, really...

 A man is under arrest accused of violently attacking a woman inside a Clairemont Big Lots store. 

The attack took place Saturday. The woman says she was in the store's bathroom when the suspect, wearing a pink Barbie costume, attacked her.

That was in Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen's hometown, San Diego...I wonder if it was one of his buddies?

Perhaps he might want to rethink his position...

do you really think sexual predators are stopped because the sign says women? Do you think they would go through the trouble and embarrassment of going out in public in a dress just to take a peek at your vajayjay? Come on now, what fantasy world do you live in and btw what is stopping them from doing exactly that right now and how many cases has this happened in?

And there are other cases, such as the pervert "Colleen" Francis, registered sex offender "Paula" Witherspoon in Dallas, Texas just to name two more. 

Sexual predators aside, there is also the simple question of privacy.  Women don't want men in the bathroom with them.  And if, like Mr. Waters here, you have a penis, and you want to keep it, and especially if you are going to be SEEN as a man, you should just stay the hell out.

The reality is in every single instance that I have been misgendered not a single one of those people know what is or what is not in my undies. Nobody has ever sir's me one time based on what may or may not be between my legs..nobody has ever asked to see it before making up in their mind whether or not I am male or female....go figure.

Of course, in reality, "misgendering" Mr. Waters would mean calling him a "female," but I realize that he is not interested in reality.  Obviously, he is not going to, shall we say, "fit in" while visiting the ladies room...  But, he then goes on to make this absurdly clueless remark...

Another absurd idea is that Trans women who are non operative are suddenly going to be slinging out their dongs in semi private places like dressing rooms and bathrooms? REALLY?

Well, I hate to break it to him, but yes, he has happened, as in the case of the pervert "Colleen" Francis, and another well documented case from Canada, where a "trans woman" with a full on erection was bothering an older woman.  A case that, in spite of Mr. "Cristan" Williams' attempts to cover it up, has proven quite true.

Now, having made all these arguments, lame as they are, he finally gets down to the nitty-gritty of it.  He has a penis, he wants to keep it, and well, there are excuses to be made.

Also it is not always due to the cost as many have mentioned some would not have the surgery even if it were free. This is true..because often times it is not NECESSARY. Often people who have the surgery only do it because of these old laws and pressure from others in the community or society, not because they personally have that big of a problem having the extra appendage.

Okay, let's be clear on some things here...  Anyone who has SRS because "of these old laws and pressure from others in the community or society, not because they personally have that big of a problem having the extra appendage," is a fool.  Actually, while such a thing is possible, I would not remotely say it is often.  I agree, Mr. Waters should not have SRS.  He clearly does not need it or want it, and even if he had it, it would not make him a woman.  It would make him a very miserable man, albeit one with a vagina. 

And then he goes on to make more excuses...

These surgeries are life threatening like any other surgery, it is major and evasive and not to be taken lightly. Over 50% of the people who have the surgery can never ever orgasm again for the rest of their lives and the results typically (sometimes it is ok) rarely are satisfactory as far as appearance as well. There is still a LONG way to go before it is perfected if it ever will be and the risks are still extremely high. 

No, they are not life-threatening.  Yes, death is a risk with ANY surgery, even something simple.  Yes, there is a small risk of losing the ability to orgasm (nowhere NEAR 50%), and the claim that the results are rarely satisfactory as far as appearance is totally a lie.  We get it, Mr. Waters, you don't want surgery, and again, I agree, you SHOULDN'T HAVE SURGERY!!!!  You are a man, and having it would be a disaster for you.  But please, cut the crap...and stop lying.  Clearly, you don't want, don't need it, but deep down, you also know, you are not really a woman, and you can't stand that others, who you see as the same, are.

Get over it...

Madly Spinning….

I don't remember which presidential election it was, but I do recall, after a debate between two candidates, the news commentators started talking about "spin doctors."  "Spin" had entered our lexicon to describe a type of propaganda that is attempted by providing an interpretation of an event or campaign to sway public opinion in favor or against a certain organization, idea, situation or public figure.  It usually involves a heavily biased portrayal of an event or situation.  Sometimes it is just plain lies.

There has been more than a bit of spin being tossed out in the wake of Janet Mock's appearance on the show Piers Morgan Live on CNN.  Mock, who now apparently openly identifies as transgender was the victim of an attempt by Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen to co-opt her experiences as a transsexual when she chose to participate in Dan Savage's It Get's Better video series.

At the time she went public, I expressed the hope that she would return to being a private figure, but unfortunately, she seems to be embracing the role of being publicly "trans."  I do note that she prefers the term "trans" over "transgender" or "transsexual."  For myself, I reject the term "transgender" completely, preferring to simply refer to myself as a woman.  I recognize that "transsexual" is the medical term for the condition I was successfully treated for, but I don't wear it as my identity either.  But the fact remains, Mr. Sandeen has no business giving anyone advice, and he certainly does to need to be, again, trying to, again, puff himself up by association with someone who has become something of a celebrity.

In his recent attempt to spin things regarding her appearance on CNN, Mr. Sandeen refers to himself as "being a minor public figure – a 'sublebrity…'"  That is more than a bit of an exaggeration.  At best, Mr. Sandeen is the perfect example of my mother's advice that "fool's names, and fool's faces are often seen in public places."  Mr. Sandeen is the epitome of a "wannabe."

Sadly, Mock seems to have chosen a very public, and political, path following her decision to  participate in Savage's video series.  I am not going to judge her motivations, though it does make me wonder about her.  Granted, she chose to live stealth for a period, and perhaps, having made that first choice, found it difficult to undo what she had done.  Once the genie is out of the bottle, as they say, it can be hard to put it back.

I will grant, Mock did not start out choosing the path that Mr. Sandeen has, of openly being a clown, imagining himself the transgender Martin Luther King, Jr.  On the other hand, Mock did create the silly, and rather offensive "#girlslikeus" that was immediately, and enthusiastically embraced by the "men in dresses" crowd.  Mr. Sandeen doesn't use that one quite as much, but still does occasionally.

I have no reason to think that Mock is not truly transsexual, but she has clearly decided to follow the transgender "party line."  That is a shame.  She is not only hurting other transsexuals like herself, but is also, ultimately harming her own interests.

As to how Janet Mock was treated by Piers Morgan, well what did she expect?  Well, of course, the answer to that is clear…she expected to be pandered to, because she was there as a transgender, which is the current hot item in "identity politics."  The expectation is that they will be given special treatment, and not asked "hard questions."  Look at the silliness about Katie Couric's interview with "Carmen" Carrera and "Laverne" Cox.  Now, here were two men, who claim to "really" be women, with Cox referring to the two them as "possibility models" (I don't even want to think about what possibility she has in mind…), and they went ballistic because Couric asked them about their bodies.  I guess reality is off-limits when you are a "possibility models."  The facts are simple.  They put on nice dresses, and they may look like attractive women, but as Austin Powers said, "It's a man, baby."  And in this case, it's the truth…  These two have penises, and like the vast majority of "transgender women" (i.e. men in dresses) they want to keep their penises.  But they insist that they have to be accepted as "female."  Uh, "females with penises…"   Uh, no…

Now comes Mr. Sandeen, who complains that Mock is being defined by her transition.  One problem that Mr. Sandeen is so quick to ignore…Mock is the one defining herself by her transition.  In the article he wrote at the time, Mr. Sandeen predicted:

"Among those new realities she will experience will be a partial loss of membership in the ‘club’ of women.  There are now going to be a large number of women who will forever now look at her not as a woman, but as a man in a dress. Those will include less than accepting coworkers who will smile to her face, and then viciously rip into her behind her back. And, members of the religious right will likely soon be calling Mock a ‘mutilated man’ too, and identify her relationship with her boyfriend as a ‘homosexual’ relationship.”

There is a measure of truth here.  Of course, a lot of this is caused by people by Mr. Sandeen serving as the public face of 'transgender."  When you have kooks like Mr. Sandeen, and Mr. "Cristan" Williams, and such as the public face of transgender, and insisting that they are "just like transsexuals," or worse, that they are actually transsexuals themselves, that is going to lead people to thing that is what being transsexual is about.  And by identifying with "transgender," Mock is basically associating herself with the men in dresses crowd, not with women.  She can protest all she wants, but she has made her bed, and has no business complaining that she now finds it uncomfortable.

The transgender crowd, including any transsexual insane enough to align with it, needs to realize that once they go public, their history becomes fair game.  They have no right to demand to have it both ways.  If they want privacy, they need to keep their private life, private.  If they want to be be exhibitionistic, and that seems to be a major part of being transgender, they need to accept that people are going to ask questions they may not like.  And if someone is a transsexual, but decides to join the transgender crowd, they need to be ready to accept that their are, perhaps permanently, forfeiting any chance of being truly accepted as a member of their true sex.  Like Esau, they are selling their birthright for a "mess of pottage."  And no amount of spin will ever really change that.

"You can't handle the truth!"

When I saw that the Toronto Star had, unsurprisingly, confirmed the likely veracity of the incident involving a naked (and quite erect) transgender man harassing a woman in a YMCA locker room, I wondered how Mr. "Cristan" Williams would react.  After all, Mr. Williams has frantically tried to deny that the story happened, labeling it as a lie, a hoax, etc.  Oh, he had to admit, somewhat reluctantly, that there was a possibility that the story was true, but even then he buried it under so many "weasel" words, it could easily be missed…

The Toronto Star has published this claim – without noting that the claim is a hoax, or at the very least is an anonymous and unverified claim – twice now. 

This is actually a repeat of what is said in an earlier paragraph that referred, quite contradictorily, to the entire story as a HOAX, in a story that repeatedly used the term "hoax" to refer to the entire claim.

Of course, this came after I pointed out that Mr. Williams had no real basis to show that the story was actually false, and was simply making them claim without any real basis.  Now, it turns out that the Toronto Star has been able to contact the author…that the YMCA has admitted receiving complaints…and that, it is much more likely that the story is true.

So, how has Mr. Williams reacted?  Has he admitted his error?  Has he admitted engaging in what basically amounts to a cover-up?  Has he faced reality, and dealt with the very real likelihood that a transgender male was parading around a Toronto YMCA, with a full erection, harassing females?

Are you kidding?  Of course NOT!

To use his own words, he has "doubled down" on his attempted cover-up.  

Of course, Mr. Williams, along with his comrade in lies, Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen, know that the truth is not their friend.  They have to hide the truth.  They have to perpetuate the illusion that "transgender people" never act in improper ways.  Because, quite frankly…

They can't handle the truth!!!!

Gagging on Gnats and Swallowing Camels

Those who have been following the strange tale of AB 1266 might remember that I pointed out, back in October, that places like San Francisco and Oakland had actually addressed some of the more extreme problems that might occur with AB 1266.  In fact, over at LGBT Weekly I confronted Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen about these issues, and strongly suggested that the transgender extremists might want to urge the state legislature to amend AB 1266 to include such provisions in an effort to head off the possibility of that law being overturned.

Well, it is now January, the petition to overturn AB 1266 is still very much alive, in spite of overly optimistic predictions by transgender extremists (and some clearly underhanded efforts by the Secretary of State to stop it) and, well, things have taken a slightly surprising turn.

The extremists from Pacific Justice Institute have embraced the approach taken by San Francisco.  

Think about that for a minute.  We were told, over and over, by kooks like Mr. Sandeen, and his fearless leader, Mr. "Cristan" Williams, that there was nothing wrong with AB 1266, that is only implemented the polices already in place like San Francisco, and that there had been no problems.  Of course, both of them were, as usual, lying through their teeth.  AB 1266 was intended to do exactly what was feared, such as allow students to arbitrarily choose what gender they feel like on a given day, and force female students to put up with males parading around nude in girl's locker rooms.

It seems that Mr. Sandeen is now eating his words, and is actually upset that PJI is taking the reasonable approach to dealing with this issue….

Mr Sandeen is straining out a gnat over the fact that not everyone on the right is willing to embrace "San Francisco" values, and swallowing the camel that, well, transgender males have superior rights to females.

And he is, as has become his practice, badly twisting Scripture to do it.

The article at Transadvocate is laughable, at best.

The whole thing started because PJI has suggest that Florence High School, which is at the center of the controversy over the "Jane Doe" case, adopt the San Francisco Unified School District's approach to dealing with transgender students.

How could Mr. Sandeen possibly find fault with this?  Well, simple…Mr. Sandeen latches on to the fact that another, separate, group that is part of the Privacy For All Students coalition that opposes AB 1266 does not share exactly the same view as PJI.  That group, Capital Resource Institute, apparently takes a bit more of a hard line on the issue.

Hmmm, so, rather than show a shred of common sense, Mr. Sandeen digs his heels in and has a hissy fit because someone actually is willing to compromise, and well, take a position that Mr. Sandeen should fully accept.

Mr. Sandeen tosses out a bit of Scripture…

The integrity of the upright guides them, but the unfaithful are destroyed by their duplicity. Proverbs 11:3 

I think he might want to think long and hard about that one.  He is the one being duplicitous here.  But then, who would expect anything different?

We Don't Want Special Rights….Except When We Want Special Rights

I've been wondering when one of the extremist transgender bloggers would take on the case of the transgender boy at a Bay Area high school who got himself in trouble for attacking a group of girls he claims were bullying him.  Of course, Mr. "Cristan" Williams decided to weigh in, and as might be expected, he is demanding "special rights" for this fellow….

The case is really a simple one.  A student, who claims to be a "girl" but who is male, and who is well known in his high school, claims he was bullied by female students for years.  (And here we have been led to believe that female students have no problems with boys invading the girl's room in school…whoops.)  The boy, who calls himself "Jewlyes" Gutierrez, physically assaulted the girls, leading to a rather nasty altercation that was caught on someone's cell phone.  And because Gutierrez decided to use violence in response to verbal harassment, he was charged with battery.

Those are the simple facts.  A male student, who claims to be transgender, is verbally harassed, and uses physical violence against the female students who object to his presence in their bathroom.  Pretty simple.  Now, of course, in the eyes of the extremist transgender crowd, the girls have no rights, and Gutierrez has all the rights.  He gets to force himself on them, and when they react, he gets to use violence to "correct" them.

But, he cry will go up, "No, we don't want special rights!  We just want to be treated like everyone else…."  But when push comes to shove, no, they want special rights.  When they are treated like everyone else, they cry foul.

No one should be bullied, but being bullied does not justify violence.  That is the real issue here.  A male (sorry, but he is) physically attacks females who are calling him names.  Sorry, but no, that is not excusable.  If he was defending himself from a physical assault, it would be different.  But they were not hitting him.  He is the one who resorted to violence.  And he was a male, hitting a female.  Reality may not suit the transgender extremists, but it is past time for them to be brought face to face with it.

Transgender Extremism's Second Favorite Tactic

Obviously, as previously discussed, the favorite tactic of transgender extremists is to simply accuse anyone who questions the right of men to claim to be "women" and then wave their penises in front of actual women, of hatred.  Their second favorite tactic is similar, but slightly different.  It is to obfuscate and avoid the real issue.

Mr. "Cristan" Williams, and his comrade in deception, Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen have both had a complete meltdown over some transgender man in Toronto "ogling" a woman in a YWCA locker room.  Their issue?  The reporter did not do the impossible, and verify that the story was true.  So, of course, Mr. Sandeen called YWCAs in Toronto, who stated that no such incident had been reported, and also called the police, who stated the same, and then both he, and Mr. Williams, declared the story a "HOAX!"  You can read their silly diatribes here, and here.

The problem is, the journalist in Toronto did nothing wrong, while both Mr. Sandeen, and Mr. Williams are, again, lying through their teeth.  Calling this a hoax is a lie, as they have no evidence of that.  The lack of evidence proves nothing.  In this case, they are claiming that the fact that this was not reported to the YWCA, or the police proves it did not happen.  That is simple ignorance.  The simple fact is, at best, it would be an open question.

Why do they do this?  Because they know, deep down, it almost certainly did happen, but they can't deal with that.  So, they make it go away.  They hide it.  As they always try to hide these things.

They want to create an illusion that all transgender people are good, and pure, and innocent.  Because let's face it, the truth is not their friend.

Did a transgender male, parading around in the nude, with a full on erection, really ogle a woman changing in YWCA locker room in Toronto?  Possibly, even probably.  Do such things happen?  Yes, though Mr. Williams and Mr. Sandeen wish to lie and claim that they NEVER happen.

Perhaps a more important question is, why do perverts like Mr. Sandeen, and Mr. Williams want to force women to have to face even the possibility of such things being forced on them?

Mr. "Cristan" Williams is Lying Again

It hardly qualifies as news, it happens so much, but Mr. "Cristan" Williams has come up with another of his signature whoppers.  He is whining because Cathy Brennan contacted OutSmart Magazine, and LGBT publication in Houston, to complain about an article Williams wrote on what he likes to call "Transgender Exclusionary Radical Feminists," or TERFs.  Williams has repeated a lie he created, claiming that Ms. Brennan is affiliated with the Pacific Justice Institute.  She isn't, and his entire basis for this claim is the fact that she apparently posted a link to something they published.  Hmm, based on that logic, I would hate to see what Mr. Williams would claim about me….

Mr. Williams plays fast and loose with the facts quite often.  Then when confronted with the truth, he simply lies more.  In this case, only a fool would would begin to believe this flimsy lie.

Unfortunately, Mr. Williams personally imposed himself into the case of the Colorado teen that became the focus of so much controversy.  Elizabeth at Notes From the T-Side is closer to see the problem here, but I suspect does not want to admit that her enthusiastic endorsement of Mr. Williams was in error.

Elizabeth writes, quite accurately, about how being labeled transgender hurts the cases of someone like the student referred to by Mr. Williams as "Jane Doe," but still refuses to admit that Williams' motivations, and actions, have nothing to do with helping the child, and everything to do with pushing the radical transgender agenda of full and unfettered access to women's spaces for men pretending to be women.

BTW, in spite of the best efforts of the transgender kooks, it appears that the implementation of AB 1266 will not be quite what they planned.  News articles have talked about schools making plans to provide privacy in dressing areas, so the kook's vision of "transgender" males waving penises around the girls is not going to happen after all.

Of course, knowing the kooks, and their agenda, I am wondering when the first lawsuit challenging such an approach will appear?  And how quickly things will blow up in their face?

The Fundamental Theorem of Transgender

It's funny, but a lot of times I will have an idea brewing, and then an article will come along that fits that idea so perfectly, it is frightening.  That happened recently with an article on GenderTrender about a review of Julia Serano’s “Excluded” by lesbian Kit Van Cleave was published by Houston’s OutSmart.  Hmmmm...Houston....I wonder if noted transgender kook, and Houston resident, Mr. "Cristan" Williams is involved?

In any case, the review, which was very even handed, was pounced upon by the transgender extremists and OutSmart caved, and pulled it.  The problem is, from the rhetoric, you would think this review was some "Janice Raymond" type attack piece...instead, as I said, it is very even handed.  What it does not do is specifically pander to the TG mindset.

Here is this highly offensive article.  Decide for yourself:

”All that aside, some books I just can’t get through, even with sustained effort, like a pair sent to the OutSmart offices. I’ve had to struggle to grasp the authors intentions, and examine why I found these books impenetrable. Sometimes it’s just style- long sentences covering half a page without ceasing, terms created without definition or juxtaposed to other terms so that the two don’t make sense: lack of logic; inability to support an argument; unclear overall goals; ambiguity.
In Julia Serano’s “Excluded”, for example, the first twenty pages is given over to redefining terms, making up new terms, and wrestling terms about the various available “lifestyles” in the gay community. As Serano puts it, “I call myself a woman and transsexual…because I feel those words best describe some parts of my person.” Okay, fair enough, until this comment follows immediately after: “ I do not believe that there is some magical underlying quality all musicians, or all bird people, or all women, or all transsexuals have in common.” Huh?

Another puzzlement is the prefix cis. “It is difficult to discuss trans people without also having langage to describe the majority of people who are not trans.” Serano writes, continuing, so “transactivists often use the word cisgender as a synonym for non-transgender and cissexual as a synonym for non-transsexual.” And that’s all the definiton of cis we’re going to get from Serano. According to other sources, the word actually stands for people happy with the gender and sexuality they feel they were born with. I know gay people reject being called abnormal, but that’s no reason to come up with a new word for “normal”.

Wikipedia attributes “Cisgender” to Carl Buijs, a transsexual from the Netherlands. In April 1996, Buijs wrote in a Usenet posting, “I just made [the word] up.”

As Serano’s book is also a bit of a memoir, I found in Part One, Chapter 2, that this writer, who calls herself a woman, has made the decision to still retain his penis. As a matter of fact, Serano went to a summer camp specifically to protest people with penises not being allowed to attend the Michigan Women’s Music Festival (the sponsors were apparently avoiding “male energy” with this fest.)
I believe I’m lost. If we’re going with the idea that semantics is dead (i.e. “transsexual” doesn’t mean what it means), or no longer useful, then throw out the dictionaries. Until then, I expect writers to try to stay within the agreed meaning of the words we all use. Otherwise, I can call myself a puppy, but no one will know what I’m talking about when I describe my life.”

Now, I am left to wonder what they find so objectionable?  The fact that the author speaks the truth?  Serano may claim to identify as a transsexual, but clearly is not.  Transsexuals seek to have surgery.  When one declares that one is not planning to have surgery, one is declaring that one is not a transsexual.  The person doing so may come to find that they are mistaken, but that is not that common.

The idea that I was thinking about addressing is how transgender extremist react to anything that does not specifically endorse their questionable logic by instantly screaming, at the top of their lungs, that it is an obvious example of transphobic hate speech, and must be censored, banned, and the author soundly humiliated in public.  And I realized that the very simple reason they take this approach is obvious.  They really can't defend their views in a reasonable manner.

If people make reasonable points, and it happens quite often, the transgender extremists go into panic mode, scream "transphobia" and hate, and use those terms, which I have previously labeled "club words" to beat down the truth.

And then there is the latest from Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen, where he starts whining about some issues he doesn't want to face as well.

So, therefore, it is obvious that the "fundamental theorem of transgenderism" is to hide from the facts, present a false front, and scream like crazy to avoid having to actually justify their unreasonable demands.

When Extremists Collide

Well, it seems that the kooks at "Transadvocate," well Mr. "Cristan" Williams and Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen decided to put on a performance by having a protest at the offices of the Pacific Justice Institute.  Clearly, Mr. Williams was anticipating a massive protest judging from his rather optimistic bit of artwork that accompanied the announcement of the event...

Instead...well, instead there was a total of 10 protestors, including Mr. Williams and Mr. Sandeen....

Quite a contrast...

So, we have an extremist religious right group, that has no real understanding of transsexualism being picketed by an extremist transgender group (somehow, I am not sure 10 people would exactly qualify as much of a group) who, well, have no real understanding of transsexualism.

I did get a real laugh out of Mr. Williams' enthusiastic prose....

Those who chose to call out PJI’s obdurate behavior were trans allies, parents, youth, war veterans, clergy and attorneys as well as 100s of virtual protesters who used the #JD4PJI tag to draw attention to PJI’s bullying.

Well, let's see....  The, uh, "trans allies" part sort of goes without saying...Mr. Sandeen and Mr. Williams would both qualify as parents....Mr. Sandeen could sort of, kind of, be called a "war veteran" if you stretch the meaning and I suppose at least one other might have served in the military, though that is not certain....there are a couple kids there, no doubt when they should have been in school....one of the people was a theology professor who decided she is really a "dude" so I guess that would qualify as "clergy" singular...If more than one of these is actually an attorney, I would be surprised (actually, none of them look likely to be) so that whole spiel is a bit of obvious spin.  I wonder if PJI even knew they were out there?  I seriously doubt they cared.

I can imagine both Mr. Sandeen and Mr. Williams eagerly anticipating the massive crowd that would show up.  I also would suspect they were quite disappointed that it turned out to be a total bust.  I wonder how many news organizations they contacted, only to have, quite obviously, no one show up to cover this momentous event.  I wonder if they contacted the LAPD to warn them that there would be a huge rally that day?  Seriously, this is more than a little hilarious.

Oh, and I checked, and apparently Pacific Justice Institute did not care enough to even mention this event....I guess even they thought it beneath notice.

A Few Minor Points...

I screwed up yesterday...

After noticing Elizabeth's post on Notes From the T Side I made the mistake of thinking she had gotten over her little snit fit, and might be willing to put stuff behind us.  Not even close.  I don't know what it is, but some early transitioning transsexuals, at least ones who transitioned back in the Sixties, seem to have some major insecurities.  The classic example, of course, is Suzan Cooke.  Granted Cooke has gone full tilt as a transgender apologist, apparently deciding the ego strokes she gets from the men in dresses bunch is worth it.

I can understand having some identification with a possible early transitioning transsexual such as might be the case in Colorado.  Now, I say might be simply because we really have pretty much zero valid information.  Almost everything published has been filtered through either the Pacific Justice Institute, or Mr. "Cristan" Williams.  Simply put, this means it is highly probable that the facts have been lost in their attempts to "spin" the story to fit their extremist agendas.  

I tried to explain this to Elizabeth, but she is the sort of person who sees things as you either totally accept her extremely rigid viewpoint, or well, you can expect a vicious and rather nasty attack.  

And yes, I know some of the extremists would accuse me of the same thing, but well, they would be wrong.  I don't have a lot of patience when others do such things, and when they do, I will generally give them a full dose of reality.  But if someone is willing to engage in a rational, and reasonable discussion, I can be quite pleasant about it.  I have a lot of friends with whom I may disagree on some points.  We are able to discuss this, and if necessary, agree to disagree, without resorting to accusations of bigotry, hatred, and intolerance, or the need to toss insults, profanity, or profane insults.

I'm sorry, but I won't be bullied into agreeing to something I don't believe.  And if that causes someone to resort to ridiculous attacks in an attempt to do so, I will generally either confront them with their own failures, or, possibly just walk away if the area of disagreement is relatively narrow.  In the case of extremist kooks like Mr. Williams, or Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen, I will generally expose their lies, and take apart their illogical arguments.  In the case of Elizabeth, I am more disappointed than anything else.

I mean seriously...  She seems to have some need to act like a character out of some bad teen flick.  She seems to want to play the "mean girl."  Between impugning my intelligence, and questioning my validity as a transsexual, she pretty much went off on some ridiculous tangents.

Her principle argument that the person who has been labeled "Jane Doe" by Mr. Williams must be a transsexual amounted to "no kid that age would subject themselves to the abuse and ridicule" unless they really were.  Well, I obviously did not agree with that position, and a recent situation here in the Bay Area, where a teenage boy who has chosen to act out by claiming to be "agender" and wearing skirts, was set on fire when he fell asleep on a bus.  I was a little surprised that the trans kooks were a bit slow picking up on the story, but they seem to have finally discovered it.  But, as horrible as this crime is (NO ONE SHOULD EVER BE SET ON FIRE FOR ANY REASON) it does expose the fact that, well, Elizabeth was simply wrong.  

Instead of saying, "Okay, I don't agree, but I can see your point," she slings more insults and tries to claim it is two different things.  Well, I agree, clearly claiming to be "agender" is not exactly the same as claiming to be transgender, or perhaps transsexual, but it is also not really that much different in terms of possible stigma, and in fact, claiming to be "agender" is probably going to invite even more stigma.

Bottom line, the argument that no teenager would claim to be a transsexual, who is not actually one, is totally without merit.  So, without more accurate information, I am going to withhold judgement.

The other area where Elizabeth showed extremely poor reasoning was first off, adding to something I said in a comment so she could attack me (i.e. a straw man argument), and then using a "No True Scotsman" fallacy based on that.

I mentioned a very personal, and largely private period in my life.  There is a lot about that time I simply am not going to talk about publicly, and which I have only discussed, in detail with a few very close and trusted friends.  I usually some it up, in a very over-simplified manner, by saying it was triggered, in part. because of a very poor therapist.  The bottom line is, I went through an emotional crisis, and detransitioned for about seven years.  Elizabeth seized on that small bit of information, and claimed I had "failed at transition."  That is not even remotely accurate.  I delayed my transition because I decided, for deeply personal reasons that are really not any of her business, to attempt to find a lesser path. 

Now, some might argue that I should reveal all, but I am not going to do so for several reasons.  First, doing so would invade the privacy of other people.  Second, there was a lot of pain involved in that period of my life.  And third, as I have discussed here before, there are people who spend a lot of time online stalking others, and I am not going to give them information they would gladly abuse.  

If Elizabeth really needs to look down on others to feel better, that is her failing, not mine.  If she wants to imagine things, based on a small amount of knowledge, and a large amount of insecurity, well...that is her problem.  I really don't need her permission or her imprimatur to be a woman.  If she wants to set some absurd criteria to judge someone's validity, she can join the kooks like Bailey and Blanchard who have made a career of doing such.  

Again, I have pointed out that some, such as Mr. Williams and Mr. Sandeen, are neither transsexuals, or women.  This is  based on arguable facts, not whether or not they followed the exact same path I did, or whether or not they adhere to some political viewpoint.