His Own Worst Enemy

The man who would be king, well at least of the transgender fascists has been very busy lately.  Yes, Mr. "Cristan" Williams, who spends his time trying to prove that the modern transgender movement has been around a lot longer than it actually has is at it again, and he is doing a pretty good job of proving the things he has devoted himself to disproving.

In three recent articles, he has shown exactly the reasons true transsexuals want no part of the movement he attempts to force us into, and even ignores it a major leader's somewhat sage advice.

In the first article, he carries on about how Phillip Frye (not the character from Futurama, but Houston's best known transvestite) who was one of those who created a movement that no sane transsexual would want a part of was a major force in the early gay rights movement, and worked diligently to force the LGB to tack on the T.  Frye has done more than his share of damage to transsexuals.  He was one of the louder voices carrying the mantle of Arnold Lowman, aka Charles "Virginia" Prince that surgery was not necessary, and even undesirable.  He also pulled some absurd stunts that did more than a little to discredit transsexuals legitimacy, such as seeking out post-op "lesbians" in relationships with biological women to have them get "legally" married in Texas as a response to the Littleton case.  In another words, a woman was supposed to legally marry another woman.  But all the Texas authorities did was grin a stupid grin, and say, "Yep, as we all said, they're men, and they are jus' marryin' some woman...no problem."

Then he posts about Lee Brewster, a gay drag queen/transvestite who ran a specialty boutique for drag queens and transvestites in New York City until his death.  Brewster, like Frye was basically a transvestite who got a bit carried away, but who had no desire to actually be a woman.

Then he writes about Leslie Feinberg, someone who is really more butch lesbian than anything else, who played a major role in creating the modern transgender movement, the one he tries to claim existed long before, in the mid-Nineties.  But I have to love the fact that he quotes Feinberg in the following exchange from 1993:

Would you consider anyone who is a butch woman or an effeminate man to be transgendered?

Leslie: I think the point is not whether I would, but whether they would. What I think is that the gender community is forming a movement and starting to be visible and that more and more people will decide whether they are or are not gender oppressed.

So, Feinberg, a founder of the movement acknowledges that people have a right to be "separatists."  It was, is, and should be about "identity" not being forced to accept a label.  The only people I feel "gender oppressed" by are people like Williams, who try to tell me how I can view my "gender."

Ah, but there's more...

Some transsexuals regard being transsexual and being transgendered a being very different from each other and don’t really consider the term “transgendered” as being appropriate to their situation. Do you see there being a fundamental difference between being transgendered and being transsexual? 

Leslie: Well, in the literal sense, we’re talking about ether people crossing the lines of the sex they were mandated at birth and people who are crossing the lines of gender. So, of course, I do think there’s a very real difference between the lives of transsexuals and those who are transgendered, but that’s in the ten(sic) literal sense of the word. I also think that transsexuals who are read very easily on the street have very different lives than those who aren’t, but there’s becoming another use of the word “transgender” which is not so literal, which seems to me to be a kind of umbrella term to unite a very diverse population, and that’s the sense in which I use “transgendered.”

Now, I’m also very aware that language changes and that struggle shapes language, but it may be that there will be specific terms – the “transsexual/transgender” community or a term that we haven’t even heard yet, maybe “trans people” will come to mean anyone who crosses any sex or gender lines. So what I like about uniting us under this broad umbrella term is that it unites a group who share more in common than we differ.

Even from the beginnings of what Williams tries, falsely, to claim was around when it wasn't, Feinberg acknowledges that there are differences.  She wants to create a "community" but one born of identity, not forced assimilation.  And, quite frankly, it has pretty much failed.  Feinberg was wrong.  We don't share that much in common after all.

I agree that there needs to be an umbrella term for all of us, but the reason that some transsexuals don’t like that term — and I tend to agree with this — is that it at least has the implication that transsexuals don’t really change sex. So, do you acknowledge that that term at least has the potential to be used in that way?

Leslie: Certainly I’m not using the term to define anybody for themselves or to impose upon them a term that strips them of an important part of their identity, I think that frequently language doesn’t suit the needs of all the individuals of a community. I remember after the Stonewall Rebellion when the word “gay” first came into use that a lot of people were very angered because they felt it trivializes our oppression. Now the word “gay” has become very accepted. For some of us the word “lesbian” was very difficult to say because it sounded so close to slurs that had been used against us. So I think that the more that we grow as a movement and mature, the more our Ianguage will reflect accuracy and more of what each group within that community feels most expresses their identities.

So, there you have it, Mr. Williams hoist by his own petard.  The very actions he has engaged in, repeatedly, condemned by one of the founders of the movement he tries now to force down people's throats.  Even in 1993, the same issues were around.  One of the people most responsible for the modern use of "transgender" acknowledges the possibility of misuse, exactly the misuse that people like "Cristan" Williams and "Autumn" Sandeen, following in the footsteps to Phillip Frye and Arnold Lowman, engage in.

Two Perfect Examples of What is Wrong With Transgender

Well, two of the more extremist of the transgender nut cases have offered up posts that both show the serious flaws in their goals, and the contradictory nature of their logic.

Both "Autumn" Sandeen and "Cristan" Williams have, quite cluelessly, shot themselves in the foot.  Well, Mr. Williams more than Mr. Sandeen.  Sandeen has simply shown the anti-social nature of his desires.  Williams has shown that his claims about the origins of "transgender" are not true.

First off, Sandeen has posted in response to Jillian Page, who he describes as a "wonderful friend" even as he takes Page to task for stating what Sandeen no doubt considers the ultimate heresy against transgender doctrine.  

As I discussed in my last post, Sandeen is ranting against stealth by "trans people," and I can imagine his outrage that someone he considers a fellow traveler has the audacity to actually disagree with him.  I mean, how dare anyone but Sandeen presume to state what the primary goal of transgender people "should be?"

Page states:

The ultimate goal of trans people is to blend in with society, and not to draw any special attention to themselves. I think we are getting to the point where the less said to the media, the better, especially about such personal things like having babies. I mean, whose business is it, anyway?

Now I don't identify as "trans" anything, but I see merit in this comment.  I have a lot less problem with those who are trying to blend in with society.  And I do wish "trans people" would learn some discretion when it comes to the media.  The example that Page gives is classic, a transgender "man" who has given birth in England.  At least in this case the masculinized woman had the good sense not to allow her name to be used.  No, men do not have babies.  And I don't care what the British tabloids want to claim, this person was not a "male mother," first, second, or otherwise.  

Of course, Sandeen is aghast at the suggestion that trans people primary goal is anything other than the complete destruction of certain societal standards.  And this is what is wrong with the transgender movement in general.  It is not about being who you really are, but instead is about rebelling against gender norms and imposing an unpopular view on society.

I think part of this is because, as certain behavior becomes more acceptable, the transgender need more and more outrageous behavior to fuel their fetishes.  It used to be that appearing in public dressed as a woman could quickly land a man in jail.  That sort of law has disappeared, so now there is less "thrill" in being publicly crossdressed.  There is little shock value in just being a crossdresser, so they have to push the envelope.

Now, a commenter on Sandeen's site suggests that he is pushing this agenda because he is not able to "pass."  And yes, in Sandeen's case, "pass" is the appropriate term, as he is not now, and never will be a woman.  The best he can hope for is to fool someone into thinking he is not a man,though that is extremely unlikely.

The other post that shows what is wrong with the transgender movement, as I said, comes from none other than lead gender fascist "Cristan" WIlliams.  Williams, who has made a name for himself by posting obscure citations that are supposed to prove that "transgender" really does apply to transsexuals, and that separatists are wrong.  The problem, for him, is that they prove nothing remotely like that.  At best, assuming that all of the claimed posts are remotely legitimate (still an open question since Williams basically demands that people prove a negative, which is a classic false argument) they show that a variety of people put "trans" and "gender" together, sometimes in reference to transsexuals, and other times in reference to other groups.  

In one recent post he even cites C.S. Lewis using the term "trans-sexual."  The problem for Williams is that Lewis was referring to marriages in Heaven.  A classic question from theology, which Lewis answers with the idea that people will "beyond sex," not that the saints will have their sex changed upon arrival at the Pearly Gates.  Granted, that was a plot line a rather silly bit of transvestite fiction that was cited in one scholarly book on the subject of transvestites.

And therein lies the problem for Williams' basic argument.  The fact that various people, at various times, may have used a word does not equate to them holding to the current concept which is attached to that word.  And it is actually the concept, not the word that those Williams likes to label as separatists reject.  But that requires actual logic and thought, not one of Williams' strengths.  He prefers what he perceives, usually erroneously, as clever arguments.

And Phillip Frye, who is, as shown by the very history that Williams posts, a heterosexual transvestite who was quite determined to force his little hobby on society serves as a perfect example of why many transsexuals want no part of "transgender."  Frye has, in the past, attacked transsexuals, and has made statements to the effect that people should not have surgery, claim that 50% are dissatisfied after surgery.  This, of course, is clearly a lie.  Of course, Frye is not the first transgender extremist to make such a claim.  Many of them vehemently oppose surgery for anyone.
  
Frye has attempted any number of legal frauds, such as suggesting that people claim to suffer from ectopic ovaries and a hyperthrophied clitoris in order to get their birth certificate changed.  And he then suggested that such a birth certificate could be used to obtain a fraudulent same sex marriage.  Now, I support same sex marriage, but not through fraud.  That accomplishes nothing.  

And Frye is one who is often credited with the creation of the modern transgender movement.  Of course, what is repeatedly denied by Williams is the simple truth that originally, transgender was presented as an alternative to transsexualism.  It started when some crossdressers, such as Frye, "Holly" Boswell, and yes,  Arnold Lowman (aka Charles "Virginia" Prince).  For example, Dallas Denny (no use in using what some refer to as "scare quotes" here, as Denny was named "Dallas" at birth, and as I understand, never changed his name.  In fact, as I understand it, his legal name remains Dallas Henry Denny) wrote in a review of a book from the earlier days of the transgender movement:

To their everlasting credit, a few courageous souls, notably Virginia Prince, Linda Phillips, Phyllis Randolph Frye, and Holly Boswell, realized the absurdity of this type of thinking, and began asking, quietly at first, and then with increasing force and volume, “Why is it necessary to have a surgery I don’t want in order to live the life I desire?” Once posed, this question had but one logical answer, and that was that the rigidly dichotomous gender roles of our society had made us blind to the possibility, and that of course, they and other transgendered persons could function in society as women without offering their genitals up to the surgeons.

Yes, contrary to what Williams tries so hard to claim, it really did start out as an anti-transsexual movement.  And part of the irony is, Denny rushed into surgery, even though many who knew him felt he was not a good candidate.  For the record, there is no joy in being right about such a thing.

The concept of "transgender" that we have today (as opposed to some obscure use of the term that Williams happened to possibly turn up) was first conceived as an alternative to transsexual.  It originated when some aging transvestites decided that they wanted to be full-time crossdressers, but did not remotely want to give up their penises.  Then, because of the transgender hierarchy that they often try to deny exists, they decided that they were "really" transsexuals....except, well, they still didn't want to give up their penises, but hey, they liked calling themselves transsexuals because, well, it sounded better than admitting that they were still crossdressers, just full time.

But how could they claim to be transsexuals if transsexuals were not "transgender."  Thus the movement that began as an alternative to being transsexual began to claim to be about being transsexual, and the term was morphed into the vague, confusing mess we have today, and they wonder why transsexuals want no part of their silliness.

And, of course, Williams continues to try to force people to accept the label transgender, whether they like it or not.  And, of course, we continue to laugh at his silliness.

And Now We Know....the Rest of the Story!

Well, there was a very interesting post on Bilerico today. It seems that the history of the "transgender movement" is not much different from what most people have said. Oh, we had "Cristan" Williams trying to muddy the waters, but Mr. Williams just got hoist by his own petard. The truth is out...

Dr. Jillian T. Weiss has posted an article about Yvonne Cook-Riley, who has admitted to being a major force in the creation of the modern transgender movement. Now, Cook-Riley is a bit of an arrogant gender fascist, telling those of us who want no part of the transgender movement to "just grow up." This is so typical of the gender fascists. In their mind, there is simply no right to not willing be a member of their little "community." If you decline, you are belittled and attacked.

Well, now the truth is out. It was all about the sublimation of those pesky transsexuals. The crossdressers wanted to take over, and they never even considered how offensive their point of view might be for transsexuals. Of course, this is not surprising since two of the people who joined in the creation of the transgender community were Charles "Virginia" Prince (real name Arnold Lowman) and Phillip Frye, the rather nasty crossdresser from Houston who has attacked transsexuals on more than one occasion.

Cook-Riley uses the term "gender variant." This term is extremely offensive to transsexuals, who do not see themselves as gender variant, but as simply women, or men in the case of FTMs. Of course, at the time the "transgender movement" was gearing up, it was all about the boys who liked wearing dresses.

Funny thing, as another points out, not once does Cook-Riley use the word "women." And they wonder why we want no part of it all?

Again, a simple suggestion....just apply "transgender" to those who wish to identify with this political concept and leave the rest of us alone.  Is that really too much to ask?