I noticed that Elizabeth is still puffing up her claim of an early transition. In all honesty, I am happy for anyone who was lucky enough to have escaped the literal Hell that I went through, but I have to ask...Why do some have to be such insufferable jerks about it? As I have said, the classic example is Suzan Cooke, but I am seeing that same sort of silliness from Elizabeth, and it is really sad.
First off, I have taken a, shall we say, agnostic stance on the Colorado case. I have not said that the person involved is, or is not, transsexual. Now, I don't know if Elizabeth has problems with reading comprehension, or if she just wants to pick a fight, but I have not denied that this person is a transsexual. I have said, repeatedly, that I honestly don't know. And unless Elizabeth has information from a reliable source, I.e. one that is not Mr."Cristan" Williams, I would assert that she does not know either, though clearly she thinks she does.
Am I blinded? No, I am just engaging in critical thinking. In fact, just the opposite. I am not blindly accepting something I do not know is fact, simply because I want it to be true. I don't hate Mr. Williams. I don't care for his extremism, and I think he does a lot of harm. I think he believes he can pretty much claim whatever he wishes, and fool people into buying into it. So, excuse me if I choose not to accept what he claims as the truth without question.
To be honest, I get very much disgusted by people who choose to sit on others when they do not know all the facts. Elizabeth knows a little of what I went through, but only a very little. And that is how it will remain because I am not going to share stuff that is, quite simply any of her business.
Elizabeth claims to have faced the same issues I did. Sorry, but that is pure and complete POPPYCOCK. She has no way of knowing what issues I faced. Nor do I have any way of knowing what issues she faced. She throws out a few straw men, like therapists or money (yes, I have talked about a "bad therapist" thought that is a very simplistic version of a story that I am not about to share the details of. There was a lot of pain involved, and there I other people's privacy that I will not violate. Elizabeth seems to think she has some right to know more than is her business. Or perhaps she simply doesn't care that some would desire to us that to harass me.
There are things I shared with my therapist who did not share Elizabeth's skepticism. She will just have to accept that I think they as having a lot more validity than her opinions. The simple fact, and it may be more than she can deal with, but I really don't need her approval or validation.
The really sad thing is, Elizabeth is simply doing a bad imitation of the same crap that Bailey and Blanchard spew. No, I did not transition as early as I would have liked. Yes, I made choices that caused me problems. I suffered a lot of pain, but hey, I have daughter and three lovely grandchildren. I have wondered...what if my life had taken a different path? I can't say that I would change things if I could. I certainly wouldn't just to please someone like Elizabeth.
What Elizabeth should realize is that it's not just when you transitioned, it is what your life was life before you transitioned. People like Lask, and Mr. Sandeen, and quite a few others had rather nice careers as men. They often showed no sign of any real dysphoria before they finally decided to transition instead. Yeah, I got delayed along the path, and I suffered quite a bit because of it. But, I also learned a lot, and I have some people in my life I would not trade for anything. I may not have "transitioned" at an age that Elizabeth deems acceptable, but I also did not have a successful life as a male. But, some people can't see beyond their own insecurities.
Yes, it's funny how things work out. I am quite secure in my womanhood, and I have a lovely daughter, and three lovely grandchildren, one of whom turned six yesterday. Elizabeth transitioned early, and seems to have so much insecurity, she feels the need to surround herself with sycophants who try to gain her imprimatur as being good transsexuals. Oh well, life if funny that way.
Oh, and I love how Lask tries to play dumb in his attempt to cover his tracks. He knows I have not claimed he is from Canada, but if he thinks that fools anyone, well he is pretty foolish...
Showing posts with label Notes From the T Side. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Notes From the T Side. Show all posts
Monday, November 18, 2013
Apparently, Lask is Feeling Some Heat
I just noticed that Mr. "Diane" Lask is trying, rather vainly, to cover his tracks by claiming to be posting from England...
Nice try, but I'm not buying it. If he thinks I will simply accept his claims, well he is a fool. He can pop in anytime, and check out where people have posted from, and claim to be any one of them. Hardly clever at all.... And, of course, it is not that hard to fake an IP address and appear to be posting from somewhere else as well. I have a suspicion that Lask may have pulled a stunt like that.... In any case, there are serious holes in his story, if you just bother to look.
I have been harassed by Lask for years, and his style is pretty obvious. Yes, I know that more than a few men in dresses don't care for me, but as I say, Lask sticks out like a sore thumb.... The holes in the story, and the writing style? Yeah, it's Lask!
Too funny!
Nice try, but I'm not buying it. If he thinks I will simply accept his claims, well he is a fool. He can pop in anytime, and check out where people have posted from, and claim to be any one of them. Hardly clever at all.... And, of course, it is not that hard to fake an IP address and appear to be posting from somewhere else as well. I have a suspicion that Lask may have pulled a stunt like that.... In any case, there are serious holes in his story, if you just bother to look.
I have been harassed by Lask for years, and his style is pretty obvious. Yes, I know that more than a few men in dresses don't care for me, but as I say, Lask sticks out like a sore thumb.... The holes in the story, and the writing style? Yeah, it's Lask!
Too funny!
The Return of the Idiot Troll...
In my last posting, I talked about my error of thinking Elizabeth at Notes From the T-Side might have gotten over her little snit about the Colorado high school case. Among other aspects of all that, I wondered how long it would be before the nasty stalker, "Diane" Lask would pop back up. Well, it didn't take that long….
As he tends to do, this person, who I used to refer to as an "idiot troll" back in the waning days of my regular involvement on Usenet, made another round of nasty, and quite false, claims.
The funny part in all of this, is how this whole episode seems to sum up a lot that is wrong with how both transsexuals and those who make up the quite separate "transgender community" tend to act out online.
As I have pointed out, there is often a tendency of some to elevate themselves to a sort of self-aggrandized status as a "pioneer" of sorts. Suzan Cooke has made an online career of this sort of silliness, and Elizabeth has adopted the same sort of approach. The story is always the same. They were an early transitioner. They had no doubts, no insecurities, their transition was flawless, and anyone who does not agree with their every infallible pronouncement is, at best, suspect.
And they tend to surround themselves with a bunch of sycophants who provide a chorus of ego strokes that allows them to hide some very obvious insecurities. I will give Elizabeth credit for one thing…she tends to not be as inclined to censorship as Cooke, who apparently can't deal with disagreement at all. And, so far, Elizabeth has resisted the urge to completely abandon all principles and pledge her troth to Mr. "Cristan" Williams and the transgender extremists.
The truly funny part is, for a group, including Elizabeth herself, who seem to be inclined to question others intelligence, they seem to have seriously impaired reading comprehension. My final words there, albeit a bit garbled when my fingers slipped and I missed what the spell checker produced, were "I should have gone with my first instinct and ignored you. I won't make that mistake again."
That after ignoring quite a bit of drivel that preceded the post I responded to. But, both Elizabeth, and several in her sycophant chorus, chimed in like fools, to suggest I should go elsewhere. Hmmm, now perhaps they are simply posturing like childish fools, trying to boost their own egos, by telling themselves that they "bested" me. When, as I said, I don't post there again, they can tell themselves that it was their doing.
But, back to Lask, and his latest round of garbage. This is the classic example of what people like Elizabeth surround themselves with. Lask postures about how he is a "A true TS misidentified by JJ." Actually, Lask, as I have pointed out, turns out to have never had SRS. For quite some time, Lask hid behind a claim of his surgery having "failed." Of course when one considers that Lask also used to brag about his great successes as a well paid programmer (including claiming to have owned a Corvette) one also has to wonder why Lask never had corrective surgery. Now, Lask simply hides behind fake names, and anonymous remailers to lash out at imagined enemies.
Lask likes to make a big deal out of some poorly chosen words I put on a website I threw together back when having a vanity web site was "the thing." (Now, that would be having a blog instead.) The funny part is, Lask not only strongly identified as a transvestite at one time, he was a very active member of a group originally known as Educational TV Channel, which morphed into Transgender San Francisco, or more commonly, TGSF. Yes, Mr, "true transsexual" was an active member of a transvestite social group. And he wants to accuse others of being autogynephilic. Even funnier, Lask likes to parrot Michael Bailey, and point out that I am a "techie." Well, Lask spent years as a programmer and as a very active transvestite. Hmmm….
Lask, along with a few others, is the reason there are parts of my past I simply don't disclose. Yes, that leads to, as some claim, my backstory lacking "consistency." And if someone wants to attempt to exploit that, that is certainly their privilege. Lask's backstory lacks quite a bit of veracity, but Lask sticks to simple lies, leaving out major details such as his military career (he certainly was NOT an early transitioner) and his involvement with a transvestite social club. But hey, some people are just very skilled liars. That is typical of what psychologists would label a "sociopath."
As he tends to do, this person, who I used to refer to as an "idiot troll" back in the waning days of my regular involvement on Usenet, made another round of nasty, and quite false, claims.
The funny part in all of this, is how this whole episode seems to sum up a lot that is wrong with how both transsexuals and those who make up the quite separate "transgender community" tend to act out online.
As I have pointed out, there is often a tendency of some to elevate themselves to a sort of self-aggrandized status as a "pioneer" of sorts. Suzan Cooke has made an online career of this sort of silliness, and Elizabeth has adopted the same sort of approach. The story is always the same. They were an early transitioner. They had no doubts, no insecurities, their transition was flawless, and anyone who does not agree with their every infallible pronouncement is, at best, suspect.
And they tend to surround themselves with a bunch of sycophants who provide a chorus of ego strokes that allows them to hide some very obvious insecurities. I will give Elizabeth credit for one thing…she tends to not be as inclined to censorship as Cooke, who apparently can't deal with disagreement at all. And, so far, Elizabeth has resisted the urge to completely abandon all principles and pledge her troth to Mr. "Cristan" Williams and the transgender extremists.
The truly funny part is, for a group, including Elizabeth herself, who seem to be inclined to question others intelligence, they seem to have seriously impaired reading comprehension. My final words there, albeit a bit garbled when my fingers slipped and I missed what the spell checker produced, were "I should have gone with my first instinct and ignored you. I won't make that mistake again."
That after ignoring quite a bit of drivel that preceded the post I responded to. But, both Elizabeth, and several in her sycophant chorus, chimed in like fools, to suggest I should go elsewhere. Hmmm, now perhaps they are simply posturing like childish fools, trying to boost their own egos, by telling themselves that they "bested" me. When, as I said, I don't post there again, they can tell themselves that it was their doing.
But, back to Lask, and his latest round of garbage. This is the classic example of what people like Elizabeth surround themselves with. Lask postures about how he is a "A true TS misidentified by JJ." Actually, Lask, as I have pointed out, turns out to have never had SRS. For quite some time, Lask hid behind a claim of his surgery having "failed." Of course when one considers that Lask also used to brag about his great successes as a well paid programmer (including claiming to have owned a Corvette) one also has to wonder why Lask never had corrective surgery. Now, Lask simply hides behind fake names, and anonymous remailers to lash out at imagined enemies.
Lask likes to make a big deal out of some poorly chosen words I put on a website I threw together back when having a vanity web site was "the thing." (Now, that would be having a blog instead.) The funny part is, Lask not only strongly identified as a transvestite at one time, he was a very active member of a group originally known as Educational TV Channel, which morphed into Transgender San Francisco, or more commonly, TGSF. Yes, Mr, "true transsexual" was an active member of a transvestite social group. And he wants to accuse others of being autogynephilic. Even funnier, Lask likes to parrot Michael Bailey, and point out that I am a "techie." Well, Lask spent years as a programmer and as a very active transvestite. Hmmm….
Lask, along with a few others, is the reason there are parts of my past I simply don't disclose. Yes, that leads to, as some claim, my backstory lacking "consistency." And if someone wants to attempt to exploit that, that is certainly their privilege. Lask's backstory lacks quite a bit of veracity, but Lask sticks to simple lies, leaving out major details such as his military career (he certainly was NOT an early transitioner) and his involvement with a transvestite social club. But hey, some people are just very skilled liars. That is typical of what psychologists would label a "sociopath."
Monday, October 28, 2013
Going Off the Deep End
Sometimes, sadly, you just can't reason with some people. You try to present your point of view, calmly, and rationally. Perhaps you even admit you made an error. But they are not going to be happy unless you totally give in to their position, and when you don't, they go off with insults. Sad, but it happens. I admit, I've done it myself, but I try to learn from that mistake.
It usually happens with deeply held beliefs are challenged, and the person has no real answer, and they don't want to consider that they might be wrong. Even if you try to calmly respond, they simply get angrier, and angrier. Usually, you see this sort of response in religious discussions, but it can also happen when the topic is politics, or just something deeply personal to the person.
Recently, I made some remarks about the student in a Colorado high school that I regret. I did not have all the facts, and I jumped to some conclusions I should not have. Elizabeth, at Notes From the T Side took me to task for that, and I admitted my mistake, but that turned out to not be good enough. Apparently I was expected to blindly agree that the "rights" of a transsexual or even a transgender student completely trump those of others. I won't do that, because that is, well, absurd.
Legal rights generally have to be balanced. I have stated, I believe that the controversial law that is intended to assist "transgender" students in California is poorly written. It is very likely that a challenge to this law will be on the ballot next year, and it may well pass. I have made suggestions as to how that law can be modified to deal with issues, that may or may not be legitimate, that will be raised, and which, if not answered, will almost certainly lead to the law being tossed.
Okay, I realize that some might not agree with this. Some want those issues in place, because they really do think that "trans women" have an absolute right to expose themselves in women's spaces. Some seem incapable of seeing that this is part of a bigger effort. Some have naive ideas about "transkids."
I would love to see laws in place to protect transsexual children. I don't want to see transsexual children used to push through the transgender agenda, which includes the idea that simply saying one feels female, even if only temporary, validly establishes one as female. Some apparently can't accept, in their blind rush to help kids, that this is the real agenda of some.
Some apparently cannot accept that some people have SRS who should not have. I guess they are so insecure in their own identity that any suggestion that someone completely the process is no 100% a woman is terrifying.
For whatever reason, and in spite of attempts to make peace, Elizabeth went off the deep end. Unfortunately, the debate attracted the attention of the notorious troll "Diane" Lask. Lask, who it turns out is non-op like her late partner in terror, Cheryl Mullins, develops obsessions over people. As I pointed out, in the past, it was a Canadian transgender activist that Lask harassed for years. When that person withdrew from the net, and apparently returned to living as a male, Lask had to find a new target. Sadly, I became that target.
Now, anyone with a shred of sense, who bothered to look at some of Lask's more absurd posts harassing me, would realize that Lask is nuts. But, as I say, people can choose to be blind.
I finally reached my limit. It basically came to the point of either lowering myself to the level that Elizabeth had chosen, or simply walking away. I have chosen the latter. I am sure Lask, who has no real grasp on reality, will think he drove me off. Not even close. I simply realized that further discussion was futile, and decided not to waste more time on someone who cannot accept disagreement.
It's sad. I respected Elizabeth, though I admit, as with others, the constant reminder of how she was a "transkid" gets a bit old. Not all of us had the good fortune to have that choice. The air of superiority that some who did, adopt, gets really old, really fast. Elizabeth kept telling me I could not understand what it is like for someone like that. The truth is, Elizabeth can't understand what it was like for someone who did not have the opportunity to get help that early. I'm honestly happy for her that she had the good fortune that she did. But I am saddened that she cannot comprehend what like was like for someone who did not have that chance.
In any case, I have removed "Notes From the T Side" from my blog list and she can rant all she wants, but it's not worth commenting any further.
It usually happens with deeply held beliefs are challenged, and the person has no real answer, and they don't want to consider that they might be wrong. Even if you try to calmly respond, they simply get angrier, and angrier. Usually, you see this sort of response in religious discussions, but it can also happen when the topic is politics, or just something deeply personal to the person.
Recently, I made some remarks about the student in a Colorado high school that I regret. I did not have all the facts, and I jumped to some conclusions I should not have. Elizabeth, at Notes From the T Side took me to task for that, and I admitted my mistake, but that turned out to not be good enough. Apparently I was expected to blindly agree that the "rights" of a transsexual or even a transgender student completely trump those of others. I won't do that, because that is, well, absurd.
Legal rights generally have to be balanced. I have stated, I believe that the controversial law that is intended to assist "transgender" students in California is poorly written. It is very likely that a challenge to this law will be on the ballot next year, and it may well pass. I have made suggestions as to how that law can be modified to deal with issues, that may or may not be legitimate, that will be raised, and which, if not answered, will almost certainly lead to the law being tossed.
Okay, I realize that some might not agree with this. Some want those issues in place, because they really do think that "trans women" have an absolute right to expose themselves in women's spaces. Some seem incapable of seeing that this is part of a bigger effort. Some have naive ideas about "transkids."
I would love to see laws in place to protect transsexual children. I don't want to see transsexual children used to push through the transgender agenda, which includes the idea that simply saying one feels female, even if only temporary, validly establishes one as female. Some apparently can't accept, in their blind rush to help kids, that this is the real agenda of some.
Some apparently cannot accept that some people have SRS who should not have. I guess they are so insecure in their own identity that any suggestion that someone completely the process is no 100% a woman is terrifying.
For whatever reason, and in spite of attempts to make peace, Elizabeth went off the deep end. Unfortunately, the debate attracted the attention of the notorious troll "Diane" Lask. Lask, who it turns out is non-op like her late partner in terror, Cheryl Mullins, develops obsessions over people. As I pointed out, in the past, it was a Canadian transgender activist that Lask harassed for years. When that person withdrew from the net, and apparently returned to living as a male, Lask had to find a new target. Sadly, I became that target.
Now, anyone with a shred of sense, who bothered to look at some of Lask's more absurd posts harassing me, would realize that Lask is nuts. But, as I say, people can choose to be blind.
I finally reached my limit. It basically came to the point of either lowering myself to the level that Elizabeth had chosen, or simply walking away. I have chosen the latter. I am sure Lask, who has no real grasp on reality, will think he drove me off. Not even close. I simply realized that further discussion was futile, and decided not to waste more time on someone who cannot accept disagreement.
It's sad. I respected Elizabeth, though I admit, as with others, the constant reminder of how she was a "transkid" gets a bit old. Not all of us had the good fortune to have that choice. The air of superiority that some who did, adopt, gets really old, really fast. Elizabeth kept telling me I could not understand what it is like for someone like that. The truth is, Elizabeth can't understand what it was like for someone who did not have the opportunity to get help that early. I'm honestly happy for her that she had the good fortune that she did. But I am saddened that she cannot comprehend what like was like for someone who did not have that chance.
In any case, I have removed "Notes From the T Side" from my blog list and she can rant all she wants, but it's not worth commenting any further.
Saturday, October 26, 2013
A Bit of Clarification
Early on in the now endless stream of silliness over a single student in Colorado, I made an assumption I should not have made, and asserted that the person in question was not making an effort to assimilate as female. I now realize that I simply do not have enough information to say that. Simply put, I don't know what the situation is.
What I do know is that most of the information in this case has either come through Pacific Justice Institute, or Mr. "Cristan" Williams. They represent two opposite extremes, and I consider both to be about equally reliable. Which is to say, I would not take what either of them says as absolute truth without some serious verification from a more reliable source, and in this case, there have been none.
Some people, who I respect, or at least did respect, have viciously attacked me for not following them in lockstep. I'm sorry, but first off, I refuse to suspend thinking just because someone tells me to. If that leads to the person attacking me, insulting me, trying to shame me, and thus trying to bully me into accepting their view that tends to make me wonder why they can't accept that someone might not see things their way.
I am saying, for the record, I don't know what the situation is. If someone wants to blindly follow a proven liar in this matter, that is their choice. I made that sort of mistake early on, when I was not aware of the source, and I regret it. But I won't be bullied by people, even people I considered to be friends, into rushing to the opposite extreme either.
If I make a mistake, I own up to up. If someone points that out to me, and offers legitimate arguments, I reconsider. If someone tries to shove bad information down my throat, and then insults me because I don't swallow it, well...that doesn't work so well. It says a lot more about them, than it does about me.
And just so people know where I am coming from...I identify as a woman, not a "trans woman" or a "transsexual woman" or any other such term. I try to consider the feelings of others who are also women a lot more than I consider the feelings of just those who might share a similar history to mine. Yes, our situation is different. I recognize that. But, it is not the only thing that defines me. And quite frankly, I get really sick of "identity politics" no matter who is trying to push it.
Oh, and I notice Suzan Cooke has again attacked me for speaking up. I really do pity her. She clearly has some serious insecurities. I don't demand that people agree with me, and contrary to repeated claims, I don't use male pronouns just because someone disagrees with me. I use male pronouns when I honestly feel that they are justified. People like Mr. Williams, and Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen are so clearly men, it almost hurts. Cooke, as bad as she acts...as much as she has become, to go with the analogy she was so smitten with, Locutus of Borg, is a woman. A deeply disturbed, nut case but still a woman. So no, I don't call people men because I disagree. I call them men because they show no sign of remotely being women.
What I do know is that most of the information in this case has either come through Pacific Justice Institute, or Mr. "Cristan" Williams. They represent two opposite extremes, and I consider both to be about equally reliable. Which is to say, I would not take what either of them says as absolute truth without some serious verification from a more reliable source, and in this case, there have been none.
Some people, who I respect, or at least did respect, have viciously attacked me for not following them in lockstep. I'm sorry, but first off, I refuse to suspend thinking just because someone tells me to. If that leads to the person attacking me, insulting me, trying to shame me, and thus trying to bully me into accepting their view that tends to make me wonder why they can't accept that someone might not see things their way.
I am saying, for the record, I don't know what the situation is. If someone wants to blindly follow a proven liar in this matter, that is their choice. I made that sort of mistake early on, when I was not aware of the source, and I regret it. But I won't be bullied by people, even people I considered to be friends, into rushing to the opposite extreme either.
If I make a mistake, I own up to up. If someone points that out to me, and offers legitimate arguments, I reconsider. If someone tries to shove bad information down my throat, and then insults me because I don't swallow it, well...that doesn't work so well. It says a lot more about them, than it does about me.
And just so people know where I am coming from...I identify as a woman, not a "trans woman" or a "transsexual woman" or any other such term. I try to consider the feelings of others who are also women a lot more than I consider the feelings of just those who might share a similar history to mine. Yes, our situation is different. I recognize that. But, it is not the only thing that defines me. And quite frankly, I get really sick of "identity politics" no matter who is trying to push it.
Oh, and I notice Suzan Cooke has again attacked me for speaking up. I really do pity her. She clearly has some serious insecurities. I don't demand that people agree with me, and contrary to repeated claims, I don't use male pronouns just because someone disagrees with me. I use male pronouns when I honestly feel that they are justified. People like Mr. Williams, and Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen are so clearly men, it almost hurts. Cooke, as bad as she acts...as much as she has become, to go with the analogy she was so smitten with, Locutus of Borg, is a woman. A deeply disturbed, nut case but still a woman. So no, I don't call people men because I disagree. I call them men because they show no sign of remotely being women.
Sunday, September 15, 2013
Not Only a Liar, But An Arrogant One
You can tell when someone has successfully refuted Mr. "Cristan" Williams lies...he makes an immediate response. For example, Elizabeth at Notes From the T Side posted an excellent article entitled Cis-Privilege or The New Transgender Lie in which she proceeds to refute on of Mr. Williams most persistent lies...that "transgender" is the appropriate term for those who are transsexual. She provides the following quote, which is typical of Mr. Williams' rhetoric:
No, the term was not in common usage in the 1970's among transsexuals, or anyone else. There are a few very isolated occurrences, that Mr. Williams tries to conflate into "common usage." This is one of his favorite "complete and absolute" lies. He does the same thing he tries to accuse others of doing, taking an isolated usage of a word, and making it into something it is not. Williams is fond of pointing out that Arnold Lowman, aka "Virginia Prince" used the term "transgenderal" in 1969, and then claiming that this is the source of what he likes to label the "Virginia Prince Fountainhead Myth." But, his entire premise is built on rare, isolated usage of the term, which it can clearly be shown did not come into anything remotely resembling "common usage" until the 1990's.
Mr. Williams blissfully ignores the first hand testimony of people who were actually transsexuals during this period, and falls back on isolated occurences of the term to show it was in common usage, but then dismisses the use of the term by Lowman as the origin of its current use. Uh, okay....
In the early 1990's, some time after when Williams claims the term was commonly used, I was introduced to the term "transgenderist" while attending meetings of a support group in Atlanta. The group was led by none other than Dallas Denny, who would go on to become a major figure in pushing transgender as an umbrella term. But, at the time, Denny was was still identifying as a transsexual, and explained that "transgenderist" was a term for someone who lived full-time as the opposite sex, but who did not desire SRS. Transgender was not being used at all. And there was still a clear division between crossdressers and transsexuals. This, at a time when Mr. Williams would have us believe "transgender" was in "common usage" as an umbrella term.
When Mr. Williams gets caught in a lie, he tends to dig himself deeper. He falls back on the same lame tactics, like falsely accusing his opponent of using "straw man" arguments, while doing so with impunity.
For example, in response to Elizabeth's post, he combines the two tactics...
Mr. Williams then claims:
Just one problem for Mr. Williams...he is not even mentioned again. So...he is the one who is lying. And he uses a blatant straw argument by making the comparison to creationism.
There is no straw man here, or even a "stwarman," on the part of Elizabeth Just a simple statement concerning the demands that Mr. Williams, and other transgender extremists, push.
And that is really what Mr. Williams is about. It is clear that he makes no attempt to actually live as a woman. He is completely, as they say, "out, loud, and proud." Just like his cohort Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen, he clearly has NO desire to be seen as a woman, but wishes to be seen as transgender. He wants people to know he was not born a woman, and then wants to force them to acknowledge him as a woman, even if it is contrary to what their senses tell them. It is not about being a woman, but is about control.
They want to control how people are allowed to use language. As soon as a man says the magic words, "I feel like a woman," in their view, he becomes not just a "woman," but a female, with all the rights and privileges thereof, and must be fully accepted as such, including the right to enter any, and all sexually segregated area, even those involving nudity.
If a woman is uncomfortable with the presence of this other "woman" then the woman is, in their view, a bigot, and she must be forced into compliance. Even if that woman is a convicted rapist and registered sex offender. In a debate with Representative John Kavanagh, he pull out one of his favorite dodges...are transgender people immune from laws regarding rape, sexual assault, and exposing themselves. Unfortunately he ignores the fact that the pervert "Colleen" Francis was doing just that. he made no attempt to be discrete, and when people complained, they were told that the laws protecting said pervert trumped the laws that should have protected the children involved.
So, bottom line...once again Mr. Williams is caught lying like a cheap rug.
Transgender (AKA: trans, trans*, TG) is an umbrella term that encompasses a variety of people including transsexuals, crossdressers, drag kings and queens, as well as bigender and androgynous individuals.1 Transgender that came into common usage during the 1970s, but was popularized as early as 1965 as a way to refer to transsexuals who wanted genital reconstructive surgery. Today, the term transgender is used to refer to individuals who are not cisgender.Now, Elizabeth, who transitioned and had surgery before Mr. Williams was, as my mother used say, "not even a gleam in his father's eye," points out, quite correctly, that this is "complete and absolute lie." This is something I showed almost a year ago, much to Mr. Williams chagrin.
No, the term was not in common usage in the 1970's among transsexuals, or anyone else. There are a few very isolated occurrences, that Mr. Williams tries to conflate into "common usage." This is one of his favorite "complete and absolute" lies. He does the same thing he tries to accuse others of doing, taking an isolated usage of a word, and making it into something it is not. Williams is fond of pointing out that Arnold Lowman, aka "Virginia Prince" used the term "transgenderal" in 1969, and then claiming that this is the source of what he likes to label the "Virginia Prince Fountainhead Myth." But, his entire premise is built on rare, isolated usage of the term, which it can clearly be shown did not come into anything remotely resembling "common usage" until the 1990's.
Mr. Williams blissfully ignores the first hand testimony of people who were actually transsexuals during this period, and falls back on isolated occurences of the term to show it was in common usage, but then dismisses the use of the term by Lowman as the origin of its current use. Uh, okay....
In the early 1990's, some time after when Williams claims the term was commonly used, I was introduced to the term "transgenderist" while attending meetings of a support group in Atlanta. The group was led by none other than Dallas Denny, who would go on to become a major figure in pushing transgender as an umbrella term. But, at the time, Denny was was still identifying as a transsexual, and explained that "transgenderist" was a term for someone who lived full-time as the opposite sex, but who did not desire SRS. Transgender was not being used at all. And there was still a clear division between crossdressers and transsexuals. This, at a time when Mr. Williams would have us believe "transgender" was in "common usage" as an umbrella term.
When Mr. Williams gets caught in a lie, he tends to dig himself deeper. He falls back on the same lame tactics, like falsely accusing his opponent of using "straw man" arguments, while doing so with impunity.
For example, in response to Elizabeth's post, he combines the two tactics...
A stwarman (sic) argument is when you want to attack a position, have no logical reason to attack it, and so instead lie about what the other person said. Simply compare what I actually said (blue quote) and what this person claims I said (the first sentence after my quote).Sounds reasonable, until you look at what Mr. Williams is quoted as saying:
Cis-Privilege (AKA, transphobia, heterosexism, cisgenderism) refers to a set of unearned advantages that individuals who identify as the gender they were assigned at birth accrue solely due to being cisgender.And what he falsely claims is a straw argument:
CW claims somehow that the privileges women have and those of us that live as women without being open, out, and proud are not earned but given. Here is a list of cis privileges that are easily identified as the complaints men in dresses have about their transvestite fantasies as women. It is directly aimed at the few rights we women have that provide us comfort or safety or that define us as females and women. What it all comes down to is they as men have the right to do whatever they want, wherever they want, and however they want when they are playing girl in fantasy mode.Now, let's take this step by step... Is that what Mr. Williams said? Yes, as "accrued" means "be received by someone in regular or increasing amounts over time..." and he says this is solely due to their being cisgender, so clearly these things are "not earned." Is the rest of Elizabeth's statement true? Look at the list that is linked to, and you will see that the rest is dead on as well.
Mr. Williams then claims:
The post drones on and on, creating one fake position for me to take after another, so that she could (presumably) enjoy attacking absurd ideas I’ve never promoted. Apparently lies are the only rhetoric folks like this have left to cling to. IMHO, these folks are the young earth creationists of the trans experience. They seem to have no argument to make that isn’t laughable and yet, their place in this world seems to be predicated upon their fantasy being true:
- A lesbian transsexual was targeted for not being non-transsexual; cisprivilege isn’t real.
- Prince didn’t coin or pioneer trans terms; Prince is where transgender comes from.
Just one problem for Mr. Williams...he is not even mentioned again. So...he is the one who is lying. And he uses a blatant straw argument by making the comparison to creationism.
There is no straw man here, or even a "stwarman," on the part of Elizabeth Just a simple statement concerning the demands that Mr. Williams, and other transgender extremists, push.
And that is really what Mr. Williams is about. It is clear that he makes no attempt to actually live as a woman. He is completely, as they say, "out, loud, and proud." Just like his cohort Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen, he clearly has NO desire to be seen as a woman, but wishes to be seen as transgender. He wants people to know he was not born a woman, and then wants to force them to acknowledge him as a woman, even if it is contrary to what their senses tell them. It is not about being a woman, but is about control.
They want to control how people are allowed to use language. As soon as a man says the magic words, "I feel like a woman," in their view, he becomes not just a "woman," but a female, with all the rights and privileges thereof, and must be fully accepted as such, including the right to enter any, and all sexually segregated area, even those involving nudity.
If a woman is uncomfortable with the presence of this other "woman" then the woman is, in their view, a bigot, and she must be forced into compliance. Even if that woman is a convicted rapist and registered sex offender. In a debate with Representative John Kavanagh, he pull out one of his favorite dodges...are transgender people immune from laws regarding rape, sexual assault, and exposing themselves. Unfortunately he ignores the fact that the pervert "Colleen" Francis was doing just that. he made no attempt to be discrete, and when people complained, they were told that the laws protecting said pervert trumped the laws that should have protected the children involved.
So, bottom line...once again Mr. Williams is caught lying like a cheap rug.
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
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:
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....
If we look at another statement on this person's blog, we can see more of what is going on here...
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
