A Likely Fraud About Voter Fraud

Since I registered to vote when I turned 18, I have only missed voting twice.  Once was a very minor race where I didn't know anything about the two people running, and honestly had no idea which I should vote for.  It was a special election, with only one office on the ballot, and well, to be honest, I completely forgot about it until it was too late.  The other time was during a presidential primary, and I was a poll watcher.  I had not planned on doing it, but the person we had assigned to a particular location turned out to be a complete kook, and we had to get him out of there before things got out of hand.  He was claiming voter fraud repeatedly, and without good cause.  The funny thing was, there was real voter fraud during that election, but it was of a completely different nature.  I believe strongly in the right to vote, and I also believe that voter fraud should be dealt with severely.

That said, I have been amused by the hysterics coming out of the National Center for Transgender Equality.  They have been claiming that the above image from the cover of a training guide put out by a right wing group proves that they plan to target transgender voters.    At least three of the kookiest transgender blogs have featured this story.  Now, let me say, right off the bat, that I have no idea what the training material actually says.  I can't find a copy of it online.  But, I also suspect that the NCTE also does not know, OR, if they do know they might be engaged in a bit of fraud themselves.  Funny, but I have seen no one provide anything other than this cover image as proof of their allegations.  If the guide includes specific instructions to target transgender men, you would think they would want to quote it in  detail...

Now, what I see is a suggestion, perhaps meant to be humorous, perhaps meant to be serious, that some man might dress up as a woman, so he could vote fraudulently, possibly using the name of a person who is deceased.  That seems a lot more reasonable than some alleged plot to prevent transgender men from voting.  Let's face it, they're not that big a voter bloc, and it would not be worth the effort.

But truth rarely serves the purposes of extremists, so a silly claim is made, based on a humorous image.  If they don't have full access to the content of the training material, they should not be making a claim based on an assumption.  And if they do have full access, and it does not say what they claim, then they are guilty of fraud themselves.

But I do suspect this is making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Bottom line, regardless of how you lean, you should get out and vote.  

A Bad Idea From NCTE

A major policy goal for the transgender extremists is to effectively eliminate legal distinctions between sexes.  A major part of this attempt is to make it legal for someone to change their birth certificate without having to actually change their sex.  They want the law to say that women can have penises and men can get pregnant.


The latest attempt at this was written up by "Autumn" Sandeen in a post on Pam's House Blend.  The National Center for Transgender Equality (NCTE) has issued proposed changes for the model law that most, but not all, states use for their laws regarding such matters:

The revised Model Law should allow people to change the sex designation on their birth certificate by submitting the required documentation directly to the vital statistics agency, rather than requiring a court proceeding. This will eliminate the unnecessary costs and other obstacles sometimes associated with going through the state court systems.

The revised Model Law should not require proof of specific medical procedures in order to amend birth certificates. Instead, the Model Law should reflect contemporary standards of care, and require only that an individual's physician certify that the individual has completed the treatment the physician deems necessary to achieve gender transition. This change would recognize that different people have different medical needs, and avoid disclosure of any confidential medical information.

The revised Model Law should make clear that a new birth certificate should be issued after an individual presents the proper documentation, rather than a birth certificate that shows the original gender designation or states that the gender has been changed.

The first and the last suggestions are actually not bad ideas.  It is someone silly to require a court order instead of simply allowing the person to submit documentation to appropriate agency, and issuing a proper birth certificate is also a good idea.  It is the second suggestion that is outrageous.


The simple fact is, birth certificates record the sex of the person, not the gender.  They indicate whether the person is a male (i.e. having a penis) or a female (i.e. having a vagina).  They have nothing to so with how a person likes to dress, or how they behave.  To suggest that this should be changed without permanent, physical changes is simply absurd.


Sadly, this sort of insanity from the transgender movement is not unusual.  And as is often the case, it is pursued without consideration for the harm it will bring to true transsexuals.  It is highly unlikely that the changes will be accepted, but it will very possibly cause a backlash that will lead to efforts to increase restrictions on birth certificate changes.  And it can add fuel to claims that SRS is not medically necessary.

Incredible Stupidity

Well, it seems that "Autumn" Sandeen has decided to abuse the changes to the rules concerning passports, while playing dumb (or is he really that stupid) about why his new passport will be limited to two years.


Simply put, the government has had a long standing policy that allows those who are traveling overseas for SRS to obtain a temporary two year passport for the purpose of obtaining that surgery.  Apparently, the rules have been loosened a bit to remove the specific requirement that one be traveling for surgery, but still there remains a two year limit for those who have not yet had SRS, clearly to allow them to easily travel for that purpose.


Well, of course the radical transgender crowd, like Sandeen, think this gives them license to obtain an ID that is often allowed in place of a birth certificate.  So, now Mr. Sandeen can pretend to be a natal woman, while remaining an intact man.  


In response to a question, he claims to not know why his deceptive passport will be limited to two years.  The answer is simple...it is to allow him to travel to a place like Thailand to have SRS.  But, of course, that is not what Mr. Sandeen plans to do.  He just wants to have something that falsely claims he is a woman...another chance to revel in his transgender status, imagining himself to be a real woman....with a penis.


Mr. Sandeen needs to realize that a passport that claims he is a female will not make him a woman.  It will just make him a man who is lying.  And when his two years are up, his passport will end, and he will very possibly find that is it.  That he will have had his little fun, but there will be no more.


I fully support the idea of allowing a temporary change to allow for travel for surgery, but all Mr. Sandeen's abuse of this will do is give conservatives more ammunition to oppose even that small favor.


Then again, Mr. Sandeen refuses to see that his antics hurt the chances for repeal of "don't ask. don't tell."  Some of the extremists are even starting to push for the repeal of the ban on transgender people being allowed to openly serve.  That is an absurd suggestion.  While I can where people who have completed transition, and have had full surgery, might be able to serve, the idea of someone like Sandeen demanding to be allowed to serve as a female, while retaining his penis, is absurd.  There really are limits, though extremists like Sandeen and his ilk refuse to acknowledge them.


UPDATE


It appears that Mr. Sandeen has decided that he misread the new law.  He now plans to fraudulently claim that he has completed his transition, and that he is fully female.  Apparently the kooks at NCTE talked to Obama administration into wording things vaguely enough that people can claim that they are fully transitioned when they are not.  Never mind that such a change will almost certainly result in a nasty backlash that will wind up hurting true transsexuals when a more conservative president is elected.  They will have had their short season of fun pretending to be women, and real women will, again, suffer.

The Curious Case of Amanda Simpson

Much has been written in the TG blogosphere about Amanda Simpson, the former test pilot that President Obama appointed to be Senior Technical Advisor For The U.S. Bureau Of Industry And Security. Of course, they all focus on the fact that Simpson is "transgender." The first articles celebrated this as a major triumph. Then there was a lot of reaction to the negative comments that were made by various groups.Much has been written in the TG blogosphere about Amanda Simpson, the former test pilot that President Obama appointed to be Senior Technical Advisor For The U.S. Bureau Of Industry And Security. Of course, they all focus on the fact that Simpson is "transgender." The first articles celebrated this as a major triumph. Then there was a lot of reaction to the negative comments that were made by various groups.

But something written by Gwen Smith, a columnist for several LGBT newspapers made me wonder about all this:

For myself, I applaud Simpson for all the facets of her life and all the skills that have allowed her this opportunity – and I look forward to the day when one's transgender status is simply another part of the rich fabric of one's life.

This got me to wondering...how did people find out that Simpson is "transgender?" Ironically, it appears that it is possible that Simpson was simply appointed to the position, and just happens to be transgender. I mean, as far as I can tell, the Obama administration was not the source of this bit of information. So, who spilled the beans?

Well, it seems that the story became national news after it appeared in the blog Political Punch on the ABC News website. So, how did they find out that Simpson was "transgender?" The answer, quite simply, is that Simpson announced this on the National Center for Transgender Equality website:

In a statement, Simpson, a member of the National Center for Transgender Equality's board of directors, said that "as one of the first transgender presidential appointees to the federal government, I hope that I will soon be one of hundreds, and that this appointment opens future opportunities for many others.

Simpson is the one who drew attention to Obama having appointed someone who was "transgender." Of course, this is Simpson't right to do, but it is also classic "transgender" behavior. Simpson clearly has no real desire to simply be a woman. Simpson, instead feels the need to be known as someone who was born a male, and who had a long and successful career as a man.

While I don't agree with some of the nastier remarks made by some, I cannot help but note that once again, someone who identifies as "transgender" feels the need to be "in your face" about who they used to be. And that makes it hard to defend them from the attacks they receive.

Mara Keisling speaks sense, Sandeen throws a fit...

Lead gender fascist "Autumn" Sandeen has gone off on another of his bizarre rants. And this one is a doozy....

National Center For Transgender Equality's (NCTE) executive Director Mara Keisling had the following to say in response to a question about Cher's daughter, Chastity Bono announcing plans to transition to male, "The whole media fixation on surgery is kind of misplaced, almost no transgender people ever have surgery. We don't have any idea how many do." No argument there...at least from me, and any one else who is not married to the idea that transsexuals are part of the "transgender community." I mean, that is pretty much what a lot of us have been saying for some time.

So, how does a gender fascist like Sandeen respond to this? Why they simply blow and fuse and go on a rant! The horror! Sandeen had the following to say:

At a time when trans folk and our allies want to see health care benefits provided by the workplace increased for trans people -- including genital reconstruction surgery that has been determined to be good for the health and wellbeing of many transsexuals -- Mara's phrasing for CNN seems at best unfortunate, and at worst actually damaging for increasing health benefits for those of us trans folk who actually identify as transsexual.

First off, Sandeen shows his invincible ignorance by referring to people who "identify as transsexual. Being transsexual is not an identity. It is a state of being that one is born with. You cannot "identify as a transsexual" which would imply that being a transsexual is simply a matter of choice. There might well be people who really, really, really want to be transsexuals, because in the insanity that is known as the "transgender community" there is this silly idea that being a transsexual is "better" than just being a crossdresser, but that does not change anything. In fact, that pretty much pushes one into the world of autogynephila.

Now you have to remember, Sandeen, who for many years was an avowed "non-op" (granted, that is an oxymoron) has become a "born-again transsexual." That is, in an attempt to gain some crediblity, Sandeen has announced that he is now going to have surgery...on of these day...in the far, far distant future...if someone else pays for it...and he can't come up with an excuse not to. In fact, Sandeen basically indicates this:

In other words, for me it would be nice for me if the Veterans Administration would do genial (sic) reassignment surgeries, but her comment "Almost no transgender people ever have surgery" makes it sound like my peers and I don't want those surgeries for ourselves -- so in the personal sense it sounds like she's saying to the general public that I don't want or need the VA to cover it.

Now I agree, it would be nice if the VA could do some surgery, any surgery, that would make Sandeen more genial, but such miraculous surgery is still beyond the abilities of modern medicine.

But seriously, while I would completely agree if that was what Keisling was saying, I think what Keisling might hopefully be trying to say, or perhaps slipped up and actually admitted, is that most transsexuals, or better, people with HBS, simply do not identify as transgender. And that those who identify as transgender are not, with some exceptions, transsexual or HBS.

Transgender is an identity. It is a subjective social construct that has no objective definition. Transsexual is a medical condition that one is born with. One cannot adopt it as an identity.

But as I said, Sandeen, for a very long time, denied any interest in surgery, seeming to suddenly decide to pursue it as a means of gaining credibility. You have to remember, Sandeen spent 20 years in the United States Navy, serving very successfully as a man, before deciding he was really
"transgender." And then, years after that, suddenly becomes a transsexual when he realizes that no one is willing to accept him as having any crediblity concerning transsexuals.

And it is clear that he still, really doesn't get it:

The reality is that insurance doesn't often cover genital
reconstruction surgeries, so most transsexuals can't afford the $15,000 to
$60,000 for male-to-female genital reconstruction surgery, or the $30,000 to
$150,000 for female-to-male genital reconstruction surgery out of their own
pockets. Economics are often the main reason why the transgender people who
identify as transsexual don't have genital reconstruction surgery. Some
transsexuals actually do identify as non-operative transsexuals, but my
experiece is that those folk aren't how most transsexuals identify -- most who
haven't had genital reconstruction surgery identify as pre-operative even if
they anticipate never being able to afford surgery on their genitalia.

Now, this sort of silliness is typical of the gender fascists, especially those who wish to claim a desire for surgery, but who don't really want it. No, surgery is not cheap. It can be a major financial impact. And yet, people who have HBS somehow manage to find a way. I myself got by for several years on less than half what I should have had in order to pay for it. And mine was paid for by insurance. But, in order to keep that insurance, I worked half-time, living far below what was reasonable. Ironically, my plan, prior to getting that job, was to do pretty much the same thing. And I know others who have followed very similar paths, struggling to save money. The cost of SRS can be compared to that of a relatively low-end automobile. Many borrow the money. But, for those like Sandeen, who always seem to have an excuse, money is a favorite.

And what about those transsexuals who truly believe that they will never have the money? A lot of them simply cannot face going on as the are, and the results are tragic. They don't identify as "non-ops." There is no such thing. That is an imaginarly concept for people like Sandeen who want to claim to be women, but are really not willing to give up their penises.

And then, Sandeen goes on to make a statement that is at the heart of the transgender paradigm. The sort of thing that truly separates those who identify as transgender from those who truly are transsexual or HBS, and from any grasp of reality:

I believe that what Mara was trying to say was that for transsexuals, when we are born what's between our ears doesn't match the genitalia usually associated with that gender. However, having genitalia that doesn't match one's gender identity shouldn't be used by media or politicians to say that trans men aren't really men, or trans women aren't really women -- Genitals don't trump identity.

That pretty much sums it up. The true agenda for the transgender is to claim that one can be a woman with a penis, or a man without one. And that is just silly. Yes, one's gender is between the brains, but gender will drive the desire to be correct. Simply put, if you are comfortable with having a penis, then you are not a woman. If you are comfortable not having a penis, then you are not a man. Yes, genitals do, ultimately, trump identity. You can claim to be a woman all you want, but the moment people find out you have a penis, especially if you want to keep it, the vast majority is never going to see you as truly a woman.
Finally, Sandeen gets things completely backwards:

And too, not everyone who identifies as a transgender person is a transsexual person -- there are crossdressers, genderqueers, and such that may identify as transgender, but not as transsexuals.

Sandeen simply refuses to allow that one might be a transsexual and not identify as transgender. Again, transsexual is an objective fact, transgender is an identity. But, Sandeen wants to reverse things. But in Sandeen's fantasy world, he wants to make the opposite true.

When I challenged Sandeen to admit that transgender was an identity, and should not be forced on anyone, he lied and said he never did that. Here he goes beyond that. He tries to reduce transsexual to an identity and imply that transgender is the reality. Simply put, he just doesn't have a clue.