The REAL Transgender Agenda

Well, Mr. "Cristan" Williams is at it again...  

This time, he has gone so far as to defend "Colleen" Francis, who exposed himself to a group of teenage girls at Evergreen College in Washington State.  Perhaps defend is not the proper term.  As is typical with Mr. Williams, he has confabulated a rather fanciful tale in a desperate attempt to deny what actually happened.

Mr. Williams is trying to claim that the whole affair is really all an "urban legend," by, well, trying to cook up an urban legend.  I find it kind of interesting that Mr. Williams has waited over a year to come up with the bit of drivel.  Apparently he thinks it has been long enough that people might actually believe his lies.

But the real question is why?  Is it because, well, the "Colleen" Francis affair is so far-fetched that we should all believe that such a thing could never happen?  Or is it because, well, if the transgender extremists like Mr. Williams have their way, things like this will become routine?

If you guessed the former, sorry, but you are wrong.  If you guessed the latter, congratulations!

You see, very central to the REAL transgender agenda is an effort to force women to accept, shall we say, nude intact males in areas where there is an expectation of privacy.  Put a bit less delicately, these, uh, "women" are supposed to be free to wave their, uh, neo-clits around.  And if you don't like it?  TOUGH!  Just ask Transadvocate contributor Mr. "Zinnia" Jones:

"Cis people’s bathroom fears do not matter"

And then there is this outright lie from Mr. "Mara" Kiesling, in which he actually admits to the fact that part of the agenda is forcing women to accept nude men in the showers and dressing rooms:

The most significant change for transgender people is that we fought for and won removal of language that clarified use of showers and locker rooms "where being seen unclothed would be unavoidable." None of the states that have passed and successfully implemented a gender identity anti-discrimination law includes such a provision, and neither should ENDA.

This is not true, as 11 of the 17 states with such laws have separate provisions that protect privacy in such areas.  And as I showed in my previous post, this is a part of those schools policies that Mr. Williams has been lying and saying were "identical" to the new transgender school law that is currently being challenged in California.  That law specifically leaves out any provision that would allow for such protections.  It is important to remember that an omission can be as significant as an inclusion.

No, bottom line, this is the real transgender agenda.  Mr. Williams wants you to believe that what happened at Evergreen College is a myth.  He wants you to not demand protections until it is too late...

And I do appreciate Elizabeth at Notes From the T Side having the decency to acknowledge that I was right when I predicted that this would happen.  As I said, I was not interested in attacking a young transsexual.  I'm simply opposed to Mr. Williams and his ilk using a child to push their agenda. 

Political Correctness Versus Medical Accuracy

A thought occurred to me the other day...

Let's consider two scenarios....  

In the first, someone is berating a transsexual woman for wishing to have SRS and then simply get on with having a normal life as a woman, effectively just blending in and not being out, loud, and proud, as a "trans woman," but simply wishing to be normal.

In the second, someone is pointing out to a person that perhaps they should reconsider their plans after seeing where they have made this comment concerning having an orchidectomy:

Most interestingly, some people have asked whether I’ll get to keep them after they’ve been removed. And some surgeons do let you take them home! I figure we’ll preserve them in a jar, display it on our bookshelves, and use it as a weird prop for videos. (Anyone who knows what chemicals and processes are necessary to do this, hit me up.)

Now, the question is, which of these situations, if either, would you consider to be "transphobic."  Is berating someone for wanting to transition, and simply live as a woman an example of "transphobia."  Is warning someone who is clearly having some rather bizarre fantasy about what they are going to do with their testicles after having them removed that they might be making a mistake ""transphobic?"

Well, it appears that if you asked a lot of transgender extremists they would probably say that the first is not only not transphobic, but that the behavior the person is being berated for is, itself, "transphobic."

On the other hand, trying to warn someone that their planned behavior is indicative of some serious mental health issues would earn you a nice label of being "transphobic."

In addition to the seriously bizarre bit about keeping his testicles in a jar, the person in question, "Zinnia" Jones, has some other very interesting comments on his blog.  For example....

I’m comfortable with the way my genitals currently function, and SRS would alter that significantly, with a potential risk of losing sensation and the ability to orgasm. There are also a number of serious complications that can occur, and revision surgeries are often necessary. If SRS were perfect, I’d be much more willing to have it done. But as is, I personally don’t consider it worth the risk of compromising what I have now. This is just my own evaluation of my options – something that each person has to decide for themselves.

Now, this is clearly a person who is not remotely a transsexual.  During my transition, I considered the possibility of an orchidectomy as an intermediate step, in order to reduce the amount of hormones I was taking, but I learned that it is frowned upon my most SRS surgeons for certain technical reasons.  But I can state, without hesitation, that I was never "comfortable with they way my genitals currently function" prior to SRS.  I wanted that changed significantly, and while I would certainly have been unhappy with a loss of sensation (thankfully not the case) it was a risk I was willing to take.  Then again, my motivations for having SRS were neither sexual nor, more to the point fetishistic.

If we look at another statement on this person's blog, we can see more of what is going on here...

I should emphasize that I personally find the whole-body changes induced by HRT to be much more important than obtaining a vagina. People tend to reduce all of transitioning to being solely about correcting your genitals, as if that’s the entirety of what a “sex change” is. And yes, for many trans women, having a vagina is a priority. But there’s still much more to this than rearranging small pieces of flesh that most people will never even see.

Now, all of this might seem more understandable if it were written by, oh say, a person who had a lifelong history of crossdressing, and was suddenly transitioning at the ago of, say, 50. But the person in question is clearly much younger.

What we see here is clearly autogynephila.  Of that, there is no question.  These are not the words of a transsexual, but, at least originally, the primary determination of whether a person was, or was not, an autogynephile was age at transition.  If a person was below a certain age (never really clear) they were a "homosexual transsexual" and over a certain age, again, not clearly defined, they were an "autogynephile."  

The theory first put forward by Ray Blanchard, and then taken up by Michael Bailey and Anne Lawrence was intended to basically discredit transsexualism.  We are all supposed to be gay men, who are just too gay to be men, or straight men with a fetish, basically transvestites who are taking it to an extreme.  Interestingly, many in the so-called "transgender community" have somewhat taken up this line of reasoning.  

A person who is "happy with the how their genitalia functions" really should not be allowed to make permanent, and irreversible changes, including orchidectomy.  Granted, this is not as drastic as full SRS, but it is simply not medically justified.  Hopefully, this person will simply not be able to find a therapist willing to approve the surgery, or a surgeon willing to perform it.

This is just one example of the idiocy that results from the current trends in transgender extremism.  There is no concern for what is actually beneficial or harmful, just for pushing an extremist agenda.

Transgender is a essentially meaningless, highly subjective, term that describes an artificial social/political construct.  There is no objective criteria for exactly what makes someone "transgender" other than transgender extremists trying to insist that transsexuals have to identify that way, whether they wish to or not.

This is the approach pushed by extremists such as Mister "Autumn" Sandeen (yes, you got tagged again, because you said something idiotic again) such as he did in a comment on an article on Notes From the T Side.

Another Clueless Man in a Dress

I sometimes get taken to task for referring to, uh, "trans women," as men, using male pronouns, and what some refer to as "scare quotes."  (Hmm, does that quotes around scare quotes make them scarier?)  But, here is another example of complete cluelessness and total disregard for the rights of members of the same group that they want to claim member ship in.

The story, by a transgender man who calls himself "Zinnia" Jones, concerns complaints at a women's shelter in Maine about two men who the women believe are posing as women simply to get into the shelter.  Hmmm, don't the transgender extremists claim that no man would ever do anything like that?  Or have they stopped since the number of such cases has been climbing?

Mr. Jones, in classic transgender style, attempts to dismiss the very real concerns of the women in the shelter.  Here is how he presents a quote from this article.

But the women who complained said they believe that in at least one case, it was a ruse. They believe one of the people in question is a man who occasionally dresses as a woman to get into the shelter, perhaps for voyeuristic reasons. That person did not have any feminine mannerisms and often dresses in a T-shirt and jeans, sporting a 5 o’clock shadow of male facial hair, they said.“If they’re really living as a woman, I think they have every right to be there,” said one of the women who complained. “But he wasn’t wearing makeup or wearing eyeliner or anything. Just a man wearing a skirt. It was just odd.”
Now, here in San Francisco, the local shelters admit, uh, "trans women," as well as transsexuals. In fact, it is required by City law, so there are few, if any complaints made, though believe me, there are complaints. I know of what I speak...

The emphasis was not in the original article.  But I find it curious that Mr. Jones seems to focus on the part about how they were dressed and makeup, but glosses over the part about facial hair.    Now, I realize that someone living in a shelter might not be able to afford electrolysis, but I find it hard to imagine anyone who truly identifies as a woman being comfortable being seen with a beard shadow.  Shoot, I often dress in a t-shirt and jeans, so I agree, that is silly.  But I suspect that the real issue for the women was probably more the beard shadow, and the mannerisms.

Ten years ago, when I first arrived in San Francisco, I spent some time in the shelter system. Even though I was pre-op, I did not openly identify as transsexual except to a few close friends.  On one occasion, when I assumed that someone who was, well, quite frankly transgender, probably had read me, I was shocked to heae that person state that they had thought about it, and finally decided I was not a transsexual, but had been born female.

At this particular shelter, one was initially given an overnight bed.  Theoretically, beds were assigned by lottery.  If there were openings for a long-term bed, they were assigned to the first people on that night's list.  After that, the overnight beds were assigned until they ran out.  Anyone left over was taken to whatever shelter had space.  Of course, there was not really a lottery.  It was rare that they didn't have enough beds, at least in the women's section, so most nights everyone got in.  And on most nights, a few people got a long term bed.  What was really going on was that they observed people, and decided who to admit.  Most people waited about a week.  And some people never got anything except overnight beds, like one woman who would show up with a cart full of junk.  She was there, night after night, week after week, but never anything but an overnight bed.  One of the staff told me, off the record, that she never would get one either.

When I was admitted to a king term bed, there was an uncomfortable moment when the person doing my paperwork looked at me, paused, seemed to ponder a few things, and then, without asking, marked my paperwork as female (male, female, and transgender were the options).  I knew he was thinking about the fact that I am a bit tall, at 5'10".  

But, there were occasions when we did have, uh, "trans women." who were problems.  There was one, rather obvious man, who would show up wearing absolutely clownish lipstick sort of smear around his mouth.  I mean, there was no effort to even try to put it on properly.  And his behavior was extremely male.  He made a lot of us uncomfortable.  He also never got more than an overnight bed.

There was another, uh, "trans woman," very obvious, who did get into a long term bed.  And who, very publicly, and rather disturbingly, proceeded to lie on top of his bunk and masturbate.  Yeah, another example of the sort of thing the transgender kooks claims, never happens.

The bottom line?  There needs to be some balance.  Like requiring evidence that the person is seeing a therapist, is on hormones, and that they behave appropriately.  But, of course, the extremists will never go for that.  And that is why the extremists really are, just "clueless men in dresses."