It is always interesting to watch what happens when a high profile "transgender" person decides that maybe, just maybe, transition was not the best choice. The transgender extremists go into defense mode, and quite frankly, they panic. I guess it hits just a little too close to home. For example, Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen often takes the lead in addressing such incidents.
Recently, there have been too such cases. The first, and the one that has received far less attention, involves Michael Wallent, a high level employee of Microsoft, who had gone as far as having facial feminization surgery and implants. He announced that he was returning to being a male in March. The other, much higher profile case, was that of Don Ennis of ABC News, who suddenly announced in May that he was transitioning, and who just as suddenly announced that he was returning to being a male again.
Both of these cases share things in common. Both transitioned relatively later, after long and successful careers as males. Bother were married to women. Both had relatively high profile jobs. Both made very public transitions, Ennis more than Wallent.
The Standards of Care used to have a very strong standard for at least a year of what is known as the Real Life Test (or as some prefer to water it down, the Real Life Experience) before one could undergo sex reassignment surgery. Unfortunately, under pressure from transgender extremists, this has been watered down to a requirement of 12 continuous months of living in a gender role that is congruent with their gender identity, along with a suggestion that one be seeing a therapist during this time. The old standard spelled out what was required for a successful Real Life Test, including maintaining employment, being in school, or at the very least doing volunteer work. Also, it was required that one change one's name to a gender appropriate one. It also required that the therapist verify that the person was not simply hiding away from society, waiting out the time until surgery would be approved.
Contrary to what some tried to claim, this was not to prevent someone from having surgery, or to make them jump through hoops because the therapist was some sort of sadistic control freak (though there were abuses in rare cases), but to ensure that the patient was not going to make a tragic mistake. But many extremists pushed for surgery on demand. The compromise opens the door to people being able to effectively bypass protections, which greatly increases the possibility of a mistake.
Even with the old standards, mistakes happened. Some, which are often glossed over by transgender activists, whose mantra has become "No one ever really regrets." But that simply is not true. In some cases, the person changes their mind before going too far, as in the case of Don Enniss. In other cases, the realization that one is not really a woman comes too late, such as the case of "Samantha Kane."
Born Sam Hashimi, this person was a perfect example of the classic mid-life crisis transition. He was successful, married, and a millionaire. Iraqi born, both his business empire, and his marriage collapsed at the end of the first Gulf War, and at age 37 he announced that he was going to become a woman. And it appeared that he had made the right choice. He poured quite a bit of money into cosmetic surgery, and took on the appearance of being a rather attractive woman. He had a successful interior design firm, lived a jet-set lifestyle, and had sex with a number of well to do men. But, he was miserable. Being a woman, even a successful woman, was simply not what he really was.
None of the articles I have read on this person, who now calls himself "Charles Kane," indicate if he had a history of crossdressing, but I suspect he did. Many articles about his return to being a male mention things like his "sitting like a woman," and him wearing "dusty rose moccasins" with his suit. He has a very androgynous appearance, probably due largely to the facial feminization surgery he had. In 2010 he was engaged to be married, and has since dropped out of the spotlight.
A somewhat lesser known case was Dani Bunten Berry, a successful game programmer, who after a third failed marriage underwent SRS at the age of 43. Again, this person had serious regrets before dying of lung cancer at the age of 49. Berry did not return to being a male, but did warn others about not rushing into having surgery.
Another, much more publicized case where regrets are clearly an issue, though denials have been made, is that of Renee Richards, the famous, or perhaps better, infamous tennis player, and eye surgeon who became the face of transsexualism in the 1970's. Richards is a classic example. He was an eye surgeon, a crossdresser, and he had surgery after a mid-life crisis. He has clearly expressed regrets, even though he has also written a second autobiography in which he tries to hide this fact. Of course, it should be remembered, once you have SRS, there is really no hope of reverting to being a male, no matter how much one wishes to. Some, such as Kane, choose to return to a "male role," but once the penis is gone, it is not coming back.
Granted, actual regrets are rare. I imagine a lot of people begin transition, discover it is not the right path, and return to a male role without much attention. And, in some cases, what Mr. Sandeen refers to as "external pressures." Yes, a person transitioning may face such issues. I did, and it resulted in a seven year delay for me. But, I should also point out that my initial transition was hasty, and not well planned out. I also had a very poor therapist who was pushing me to move at a faster pace than I was comfortable with, and who glossed over real concerns that I had.
And, one other factor that contributed was the fact that even though I had changed my name, and lived as a woman, on Sunday mornings I would dress as a male for church. It was an odd experience. It was near impossible for me to "pass" as a male, and on one memorable occasion, I remember one of the older men holding the door open for me, and saying, "There you go young lady." even though I was wearing a suit (granted, I refused to wear a tie). By the way, it was a relatively large church, so not everyone knew me.
I tried, very much, to convince myself that I was doing the right thing when I reverted. I struggled to find someplace where I would be comfortable remaining a male, but it was just not possible. In the end, for me, it was become a female, or die trying. But ironically, it is often those who are the least suited to transition who find it the easiest, at least in terms of finances.
If you look at a lot of the most virulent of transgender activists, they tend to have transitioned late, after successful careers as men, have been married with a number of children, and to either have been able to retain well paying jobs, or to have a steady source of income from retirement and or disability (often military). What may appear to be a successful transition is more likely, something of a sham. They don't live as women, but as transgender. For many, their lives do not improve, but they have sufficient resources that they are able to avoid actually being forced to face reality.
But sometimes they cannot escape the simply truth that transition is not living up to their fantasies, and they revert back to living as their true gender. And, if the person is high profile, the transgender activists go into a panic, because they fear that the truth might come out. The simple fact is, most "transgender" people have a gender that matches their birth sex. They are not "women trapped in men's bodies." They do not have a mind that is at odds with their body. They are simply engaging in what is, in effect, a form of anti-social behavior.
Unfortunately, the transgender extremists know this, and that is why they have an obsessive need to hide behind true transsexuals. They want to first claim us, and then push us to the forefront and claim to be just like us. But they are not, and this is clearly seen by anyone with a shred of common sense.
And if someone who is not a transsexual realizes this, and decides to return to their true gender they may well find themselves under pressure from their so-called friends to continue with their transition. I know when I postponed my transition, which actually was because of external pressures, though this was not immediately obvious to myself, or anyone else, I was pressured by my therapist to not do so. I actually had to have someone else speak to that therapist on my behalf because of the pressure I was subjected to.
This sort of behavior is outrageous. It very likely led to the suicide of Mike Penner, also known as Christine Daniels. Instead of letting that person sort things out, there was an attempt to "help." Or more specifically, an attempt to force this person back into being a very public face for the transgender community.
Keep in mind, transgender dogma now holds that simply saying "I am a woman," makes one a woman. The idea that someone might "think" they are a woman, and then realize they are not, refutes this absurd position. If someone can realize they are making a mistake, it means that it is entirely possible that anyone could be making a mistake, and well, deep down, many know they are not really women, so this could blow their little fantasy world wide open. It's like a loose thread. If people notice it, and start pulling at it, the who thing comes unraveled.
I am sure that many were thrilled to have someone as high profile as Don Ennis donning a wig, and a dress, but if that was not right for him, that is his right. Attacking him because you find his reasons for returning to his birth gender lacking is outrageous. His story is a bit odd, but if he feels the need to hide his real reasons, that says more about the voyeurism of the transgender community than it does about Ennis. Making such a choice can be difficult, and the person should be given space to do so.
The same is true for anyone else who feels the need to make a correction. It may terrify those who know, deep down, that they are now living a lie, but they should deal with their own demons, and not try to drag others down with them.
Showing posts with label Real Life Test. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Real Life Test. Show all posts
Thursday, August 8, 2013
Monday, January 7, 2013
A Truly Moronic Suggestion!
It is one of those truly stupid ideas that simply will not die. Far too often, usually after a news story about how someone has major regrets about having undergone sex reassignment surgery, or in the most recent case, an woman who now regrets having taken male hormones, some fool will pop up and say "If you make a mistake, then live with it!" At times, this is part of a larger demand for "surgery on demand." That is, the idea that the Standards of Care should be abandoned, and people should be allowed to have SRS on a whim. Sadly, there are some unscrupulous surgeons who come close to that already.
The latest incarnation of this idiocy, comes, as it always does, from someone known for taking extremist positions. In this case, not surprisingly, and not for the first time, the source is Suzan Cooke. In a couple of articles, here, and here, Cooke has a hissy fit over the idea that doctors should actually have to be responsible for doing their jobs.
For MTF transsexuals, hormones are a major diagnostic aid. If a man mistaken thinks he should transition it is usually sexually motivated. A few months to a year on a proper dose of estrogen, and his sex drive is reduced, and voila, he begins to lose interest in transition...unless, of course, he is an aging transvestite, where a lowered libido is often the trigger for the sudden desire to become a woman. In the case of an FTM, sexual issues are rarely the cause of a desire to transition, but there is also the issue of the difficultly of reversing the effects of testosterone. For a woman, taking hormones by mistake are far worse than they are for a man. For a man, about the worst possible outcome is permanent sterility (relatively rare, since they probably won't be on them long enough) and possibly the neat to have his breasts surgically dealt with (again, relatively rare).
In the case in England that triggered Cooke's most recent rant, it was a woman who not only underwent testosterone treatment, but who also had a double mastectomy. Interestingly enough, the doctor in this case is the one who replaced Dr. Russell Reid who became mired in controversy when a patient, who had clearly lied and who had suffered from some seriously delusional ideas about how life would be as a woman, had regrets after undergoing SRS.
Now, Cooke's suggestion might seem, at face value, to be reasonable. But, in truth, it is simply wrong. First off, doctors have a responsibility to, as the pledge in the Hippocratic Oath, to "first, do no harm." A surgeon should require that anyone seeking SRS provide verifiable documentation from a competent therapist, as well as a second recommendation from another therapist. The second letter is necessary because, quite frankly, there are some therapists who simply should not be allowed to practice. I know, I saw one early in my transition, and that person contributed greatly to my transition being delayed.
I was dealing with several issues, including coming to grips with my true sexual orientation. Instead of working with me on these issues, the therapist I was seeing simply glossed over them, and pushed me to proceed. I clearly needed time, and she wanted me to move ahead. This led, among other things, to a serious breakdown, and I detransitioned for seven years. In retrospect, I wonder what might have happened if I had allowed her to pressure me into proceeding before I was ready.
I also know of a case involving a middle-aged woman who, more out of loneliness than any gender issues, started claiming to be an "FTM" so should could hang out a research study targeting "transgender" people. She actually seemed to relate more to the MTF staff, but she was being pressured by one of the FTM staff members to "get off the fence" and start hormone therapy. It was obvious that this was not a good idea, but he would not listen to reason. Fortunately, she relocated to Alaska, and escaped from his efforts to get her to do something that would have caused serious problems.
Transition, hormones, and surgery are not to be taken lightly. To suggest that someone "just live with it" is an incredibly callous view, especially coming from someone who felt the need to transition. If you are a transsexual, imagine being told that. Actually, you probably don't have to imagine. I know I was, more than once. It is not good advice. Now, imagine having undergone surgery by mistake, and actually losing the option of dealing with one's situation. SRS is, especially for a MTF patient, irreversible. There is no real possibility of becoming a full male again.
Mistakes happen. I can think of two well-known cases where the person involved has almost certainly made a mistake, but has refused to acknowledge it. And I know of several causes where the person has made the fact that they made a mistake very well known. In all of these cases, a competent therapist could, and should, have prevented the person from making the mistake. Yes, the person involved lied, and for that reason, they share some of the responsibility. But a competent therapist will do more than simply take a person's statements at face value.
If anything, the Standards of Care need to be tightened. People who really need SRS might be a bit inconvenienced, but they will make it through the process. Those who should not have surgery should be screened out, before a mistake is made.
The latest incarnation of this idiocy, comes, as it always does, from someone known for taking extremist positions. In this case, not surprisingly, and not for the first time, the source is Suzan Cooke. In a couple of articles, here, and here, Cooke has a hissy fit over the idea that doctors should actually have to be responsible for doing their jobs.
For MTF transsexuals, hormones are a major diagnostic aid. If a man mistaken thinks he should transition it is usually sexually motivated. A few months to a year on a proper dose of estrogen, and his sex drive is reduced, and voila, he begins to lose interest in transition...unless, of course, he is an aging transvestite, where a lowered libido is often the trigger for the sudden desire to become a woman. In the case of an FTM, sexual issues are rarely the cause of a desire to transition, but there is also the issue of the difficultly of reversing the effects of testosterone. For a woman, taking hormones by mistake are far worse than they are for a man. For a man, about the worst possible outcome is permanent sterility (relatively rare, since they probably won't be on them long enough) and possibly the neat to have his breasts surgically dealt with (again, relatively rare).
In the case in England that triggered Cooke's most recent rant, it was a woman who not only underwent testosterone treatment, but who also had a double mastectomy. Interestingly enough, the doctor in this case is the one who replaced Dr. Russell Reid who became mired in controversy when a patient, who had clearly lied and who had suffered from some seriously delusional ideas about how life would be as a woman, had regrets after undergoing SRS.
Now, Cooke's suggestion might seem, at face value, to be reasonable. But, in truth, it is simply wrong. First off, doctors have a responsibility to, as the pledge in the Hippocratic Oath, to "first, do no harm." A surgeon should require that anyone seeking SRS provide verifiable documentation from a competent therapist, as well as a second recommendation from another therapist. The second letter is necessary because, quite frankly, there are some therapists who simply should not be allowed to practice. I know, I saw one early in my transition, and that person contributed greatly to my transition being delayed.
I was dealing with several issues, including coming to grips with my true sexual orientation. Instead of working with me on these issues, the therapist I was seeing simply glossed over them, and pushed me to proceed. I clearly needed time, and she wanted me to move ahead. This led, among other things, to a serious breakdown, and I detransitioned for seven years. In retrospect, I wonder what might have happened if I had allowed her to pressure me into proceeding before I was ready.
I also know of a case involving a middle-aged woman who, more out of loneliness than any gender issues, started claiming to be an "FTM" so should could hang out a research study targeting "transgender" people. She actually seemed to relate more to the MTF staff, but she was being pressured by one of the FTM staff members to "get off the fence" and start hormone therapy. It was obvious that this was not a good idea, but he would not listen to reason. Fortunately, she relocated to Alaska, and escaped from his efforts to get her to do something that would have caused serious problems.
Transition, hormones, and surgery are not to be taken lightly. To suggest that someone "just live with it" is an incredibly callous view, especially coming from someone who felt the need to transition. If you are a transsexual, imagine being told that. Actually, you probably don't have to imagine. I know I was, more than once. It is not good advice. Now, imagine having undergone surgery by mistake, and actually losing the option of dealing with one's situation. SRS is, especially for a MTF patient, irreversible. There is no real possibility of becoming a full male again.
Mistakes happen. I can think of two well-known cases where the person involved has almost certainly made a mistake, but has refused to acknowledge it. And I know of several causes where the person has made the fact that they made a mistake very well known. In all of these cases, a competent therapist could, and should, have prevented the person from making the mistake. Yes, the person involved lied, and for that reason, they share some of the responsibility. But a competent therapist will do more than simply take a person's statements at face value.
If anything, the Standards of Care need to be tightened. People who really need SRS might be a bit inconvenienced, but they will make it through the process. Those who should not have surgery should be screened out, before a mistake is made.
Saturday, January 21, 2012
The Bathroom Issue, Again
It should be no surprise that "Autumn" Sandeen is again ranting about how men should have the right to invade the women's room. He is bringing up the issue this time by implying that it is a civil rights issue comparable to Jim Crow laws. This, of course, should not be surprising since Mr. Sandeen sees himself as the transgender Martin Luther King, Jr.
The problem is, his views on this issue tend to prove that Sandeen is not a woman, trans or otherwise. You see, in addition to the very real danger having men free to invade women's restrooms poses, there is another issue that is totally lost on men like Sandeen.
The women's room is, for real women, one of their very few places where they can find sanctuary from men. And, of course, men like Sandeen want to invade this space. They cannot comprehend that their might be legitimate reasons they are not welcome. Ironically, it is the right to privacy, that is often cited in issues like gay rights (sex between consenting adults in private), abortion (the Roe v. Wade ruling is based on a right to privacy), and such. For women, having a right to exclude men from the women's room is a privacy issue.
The simple question, that has to be answered, is does one group's rights override another group's. In some cases, the answer is simple. Clearly, the rights of various races overrode the rights of a single race with regards to Jim Crow laws. While the laws were primarily aimed at African-Americans, they could be extended to exclude others. There were solid arguments for eliminating racial discrimination, not the least of which is that race is inherent, and not a matter of choice or behavior. Another good argument is that there was not a legitimate basis for such laws, other than simple prejudice. Some people did not like having to share space with people of another race. There was not rational basis for such a choice, so it had to be denied legal status.
Clearly, we do need to make provision for those who are legitimately transsexual, as this is an actual medical condition. But, we do not need to pander to the hobby of the transvestite, and the delusions of men like Sandeen. As I have suggested before, for most transsexuals, this is not a problem. I have never been challenged in the women's room. In fact, it is not really a problem for those who actually make an effort to credibly present as a woman. But I also waited until I was sure I would not cause a disruption in the women's room before I actually made a practice of using one. I started out going to ones that were not heavily trafficked. Then, as I became more confident, I would pretty much go in, use it, and get out as discretely as possible. Then, finally, when I knew I would not have any problems, I just joined the rest of the women in going, and when appropriate checked my hair and make up, and even rested in the lounge area some provide.
But, I did not see the women's room as something I had an absolute right to invade, nor did I see it as something of a challenge to be conquered. I got no thrill out of being there. It was simply a part of living my life, and once I was sure that my presence would not upset others, I moved on.
Sadly, those like Mr. Sandeen are more interested in deconstructing gender, destroying the binary, and otherwise eliminating societal standards that they simply don't like. And they don't care how many women are hurt in the process, as long as the boys in the transgender club get their wayA
Now, if we apply these legal standards to transgender males invading women's spaces, things begin to fall a bit short. Even if we set aside the risk of improper behavior (the fact that it is currently rare does not mean it cannot or will not increase as opportunities increase) we still have the privacy issue. Now, most women, including myself, are very uncomfortable with the idea of sharing the women's room, and other women's spaces, with men. I have no problem with someone who is a valid, surgically tracked transsexual who is undergoing the real life test being in the women's room, but I do have objections to crossdressers, and other transgender males invading my privacy.
Now, another issue that much be considered is whether or not transgender behavior should be protected by law. Well, it fails right off the bat. It is often only behavior. Clearly, a transvestite (or crossdresser if we are going to be politically correct) does not have to crossdress. They are not acting on the basis of an inherent characteristic. They may become anxious if they do not crossdress, but there is nothing that arguably justifies their imposing this behavior on others to the extent that they should be allowed to violate the rights of women. So, clearly, transvestites should not be allowed to invade the ladies room.
The next group that has to be considered is full-time crossdressers. This would include men like Sandeen, who has made it clear that he has no desire to actually change his sex, though he does want to force society to pander to his delusions and call him a female legally. Now, I wonder how the vast majority of women would feel about Mr. Sandeen being present in the women's room. His behavior is hardly female, and he is clearly male brained. Personally, I would not be comfortable sharing a rest room with him. I imagine I am hardly alone in feeling that way.
And let's consider the larger implications of the sort of laws that Sandeen others push. They are not content to have laws that address the issue of transgender people in bathrooms. They want laws that are so broad that they would effectively open up the women's room to anyone, provided that they simply make the claim that during the period that they were in the women's room they were identifying as a female. It would not matter how they were dressed, whether they were clean shave, or sporting a full beard, or whether they had a feminine hairstyle, or a crew cut. They simply have to say, even if only momentarily, I FEEL LIKE A WOMAN. and as if by magic, they are allowed to legally enter the women's room. Clearly, unless it could be shown that they engaged in some over the top behavior (i.e. they raped or killed someone, or perhaps groped a woman) they would be immune from challenge.
It would not matter how much their presence upset women. After all, we would just be unreasonably prejudiced. Of course, as I have pointed out, Sandeen is not a woman. The feelings, needs, and security of women is not his concern. All he cares about is the alleged "rights" of him and other men who engage in the same behavior as he does.
The problem is, his views on this issue tend to prove that Sandeen is not a woman, trans or otherwise. You see, in addition to the very real danger having men free to invade women's restrooms poses, there is another issue that is totally lost on men like Sandeen.
The women's room is, for real women, one of their very few places where they can find sanctuary from men. And, of course, men like Sandeen want to invade this space. They cannot comprehend that their might be legitimate reasons they are not welcome. Ironically, it is the right to privacy, that is often cited in issues like gay rights (sex between consenting adults in private), abortion (the Roe v. Wade ruling is based on a right to privacy), and such. For women, having a right to exclude men from the women's room is a privacy issue.
The simple question, that has to be answered, is does one group's rights override another group's. In some cases, the answer is simple. Clearly, the rights of various races overrode the rights of a single race with regards to Jim Crow laws. While the laws were primarily aimed at African-Americans, they could be extended to exclude others. There were solid arguments for eliminating racial discrimination, not the least of which is that race is inherent, and not a matter of choice or behavior. Another good argument is that there was not a legitimate basis for such laws, other than simple prejudice. Some people did not like having to share space with people of another race. There was not rational basis for such a choice, so it had to be denied legal status.
Clearly, we do need to make provision for those who are legitimately transsexual, as this is an actual medical condition. But, we do not need to pander to the hobby of the transvestite, and the delusions of men like Sandeen. As I have suggested before, for most transsexuals, this is not a problem. I have never been challenged in the women's room. In fact, it is not really a problem for those who actually make an effort to credibly present as a woman. But I also waited until I was sure I would not cause a disruption in the women's room before I actually made a practice of using one. I started out going to ones that were not heavily trafficked. Then, as I became more confident, I would pretty much go in, use it, and get out as discretely as possible. Then, finally, when I knew I would not have any problems, I just joined the rest of the women in going, and when appropriate checked my hair and make up, and even rested in the lounge area some provide.
But, I did not see the women's room as something I had an absolute right to invade, nor did I see it as something of a challenge to be conquered. I got no thrill out of being there. It was simply a part of living my life, and once I was sure that my presence would not upset others, I moved on.
Sadly, those like Mr. Sandeen are more interested in deconstructing gender, destroying the binary, and otherwise eliminating societal standards that they simply don't like. And they don't care how many women are hurt in the process, as long as the boys in the transgender club get their wayA
Now, if we apply these legal standards to transgender males invading women's spaces, things begin to fall a bit short. Even if we set aside the risk of improper behavior (the fact that it is currently rare does not mean it cannot or will not increase as opportunities increase) we still have the privacy issue. Now, most women, including myself, are very uncomfortable with the idea of sharing the women's room, and other women's spaces, with men. I have no problem with someone who is a valid, surgically tracked transsexual who is undergoing the real life test being in the women's room, but I do have objections to crossdressers, and other transgender males invading my privacy.
Now, another issue that much be considered is whether or not transgender behavior should be protected by law. Well, it fails right off the bat. It is often only behavior. Clearly, a transvestite (or crossdresser if we are going to be politically correct) does not have to crossdress. They are not acting on the basis of an inherent characteristic. They may become anxious if they do not crossdress, but there is nothing that arguably justifies their imposing this behavior on others to the extent that they should be allowed to violate the rights of women. So, clearly, transvestites should not be allowed to invade the ladies room.
The next group that has to be considered is full-time crossdressers. This would include men like Sandeen, who has made it clear that he has no desire to actually change his sex, though he does want to force society to pander to his delusions and call him a female legally. Now, I wonder how the vast majority of women would feel about Mr. Sandeen being present in the women's room. His behavior is hardly female, and he is clearly male brained. Personally, I would not be comfortable sharing a rest room with him. I imagine I am hardly alone in feeling that way.
And let's consider the larger implications of the sort of laws that Sandeen others push. They are not content to have laws that address the issue of transgender people in bathrooms. They want laws that are so broad that they would effectively open up the women's room to anyone, provided that they simply make the claim that during the period that they were in the women's room they were identifying as a female. It would not matter how they were dressed, whether they were clean shave, or sporting a full beard, or whether they had a feminine hairstyle, or a crew cut. They simply have to say, even if only momentarily, I FEEL LIKE A WOMAN. and as if by magic, they are allowed to legally enter the women's room. Clearly, unless it could be shown that they engaged in some over the top behavior (i.e. they raped or killed someone, or perhaps groped a woman) they would be immune from challenge.
It would not matter how much their presence upset women. After all, we would just be unreasonably prejudiced. Of course, as I have pointed out, Sandeen is not a woman. The feelings, needs, and security of women is not his concern. All he cares about is the alleged "rights" of him and other men who engage in the same behavior as he does.
Friday, January 20, 2012
Another Perfect Example...
Ah, "Cristan" William's website is the gift that keeps on giving. Even when Williams is not posting questionable claims, and suspicious evidence to back them up, his eager followers can post some pretty hilarious silliness. Here is one from a person going by the name Tess McGowan that just shows the absurdity of the transgender mindset:
Now, the really hilarious part is some transgender person making a comment like "have NO IDEA how to live as a woman." Good grief! People like Williams have no idea how masculine they come across. He has a "win at all costs" attitude that is totally male. Others, such as the example at hand, present as silly parodies of women, "giggling" their way through life. Actually, it is the true transsexuals who see vaginoplasty as a very important milestone, but I not met one who thought it would do anything other than making them more comfortable in her own body. And while that may not be magical, it does make a big change in one's life.
I remember cringing at my last examination by my surgeons before my SRS. Having them sit their and examine that part of my body was pure torture. I never felt comfortable having it looked at. Not long after that, I was on an exam table with a rather gorgeous doctor taking out some stitches. It suddenly occurred to me that even as he had his face literally right up in my crotch, I felt no discomfort, no shame, no desire to flee. That might seem odd to some who is rather attached to his male genitals, but for me, it is was a pretty big change.
Funny though, I didn't have to learn to be a woman. I didn't have to go to support groups or silly transgender gatherings for the thrill of being taught how to walk, sit, and gesture. It came naturally to me. Which had a lot to do with being miserable for the period before transition.
The bottom line is, this foolishness sounds like the classic "more woman than you" silliness that is so popular with transgender people. They don't get it....you either or a woman, or you are not. Their is not quantification of being a woman. One is not a certain percentage of being a woman. It is not something you learn, or build up points towards. You simply are, or you are not.
I was just going to post something like this. We never get to see the faces of separatists because they live in seclusion until they get their surgeries in the hopes that they can live a “normal life”. However, once they get their vaginal surgeries, many of them will walk the earth still having masculine traits (physical and mental) because they have NO IDEA how to live as a woman. It’s quite funny and sad if you think about it, the fact that these people have such high hopes that vaginoplasty will somehow magically change their lives when it’s just one milestone.Now, this shows the sort of invincible ignorance that permeates the transgender extremists. I don't know anyone who lived in seclusion before getting their surgeries. I suspect what this person means is that some live in stealth, not participating in silliness like gatherings such as "Southern Comfort" or "Fantasia Fair," and not having one's photo published on some of the sillier web sites. In another words, they simply transitioned and completed a proper Real LIfe Test. My life was pretty normal before and after surgery.
I giggle at separatists.
Now, the really hilarious part is some transgender person making a comment like "have NO IDEA how to live as a woman." Good grief! People like Williams have no idea how masculine they come across. He has a "win at all costs" attitude that is totally male. Others, such as the example at hand, present as silly parodies of women, "giggling" their way through life. Actually, it is the true transsexuals who see vaginoplasty as a very important milestone, but I not met one who thought it would do anything other than making them more comfortable in her own body. And while that may not be magical, it does make a big change in one's life.
I remember cringing at my last examination by my surgeons before my SRS. Having them sit their and examine that part of my body was pure torture. I never felt comfortable having it looked at. Not long after that, I was on an exam table with a rather gorgeous doctor taking out some stitches. It suddenly occurred to me that even as he had his face literally right up in my crotch, I felt no discomfort, no shame, no desire to flee. That might seem odd to some who is rather attached to his male genitals, but for me, it is was a pretty big change.
Funny though, I didn't have to learn to be a woman. I didn't have to go to support groups or silly transgender gatherings for the thrill of being taught how to walk, sit, and gesture. It came naturally to me. Which had a lot to do with being miserable for the period before transition.
The bottom line is, this foolishness sounds like the classic "more woman than you" silliness that is so popular with transgender people. They don't get it....you either or a woman, or you are not. Their is not quantification of being a woman. One is not a certain percentage of being a woman. It is not something you learn, or build up points towards. You simply are, or you are not.
Friday, September 25, 2009
Absolute Insanity!
I can always count on Bilerico to regularly produce some post concerning "transgender people" that will lead to some bit of absolute insanity. A new post, entitled "Open thread: Who are the "real women"?" is no exception. Of course, as has become the pattern on Bilerico, the author is a gay man. I find it interesting how Bilerico seems to think it proper for men, gay or supposedly straight, to be telling women how to think and live. And yes, in this case, his remarks are, at least in part, aimed at women since he seems to be speaking of post-op women versus men who wish to claim to be women.
He starts out comparing a transgender person named "Rachel" Crandall (a so-called non-op) with someone named "Dallas," who from the description I strongly suspect is the infamous Dallas Denney.
Neither is a good choice for whatever point he is trying to make, unless that point is the now classic transgender claim that one has only to assert that one is a woman to become a woman. Crandall is, as I said, a non-op, and Denney had surgery, but makes no real attempt to actually be taken as a woman, choosing instead to insist that people accept him as a woman. In fact, I have been told that Denney never bothered to change his name, and that he still has an obviously male middle name..not that I know that many women named Dallas either.
But the really insane statement is in the comments. One of those commenting is a person using the user name "Paradox." This person claims to be surgery tracked, but is bragging about how the women in her gym's locker room accept her. Anonymous T-Girl has challenged her on this, leading to this bit of drivel from "Paradox:"
So, that is the answer to the above "interesting question." No woman would engage in such behavior. And no woman would ever identify as "a woman with a penis."
The commenter Radical Bitch puts it well:
I identified as a woman before my surgery, but I was also aware that I was undergoing a diagnostic procedure known as the "real life test." I was well aware that, as unlikely as it was, I had the choice to stop the process. I was a woman, but I was not truly female. And that is the difference that the transgender types cannot seem to grasp. It is my neurology that makes me a woman...it is my surgery that makes me a female.
He starts out comparing a transgender person named "Rachel" Crandall (a so-called non-op) with someone named "Dallas," who from the description I strongly suspect is the infamous Dallas Denney.
Neither is a good choice for whatever point he is trying to make, unless that point is the now classic transgender claim that one has only to assert that one is a woman to become a woman. Crandall is, as I said, a non-op, and Denney had surgery, but makes no real attempt to actually be taken as a woman, choosing instead to insist that people accept him as a woman. In fact, I have been told that Denney never bothered to change his name, and that he still has an obviously male middle name..not that I know that many women named Dallas either.
But the really insane statement is in the comments. One of those commenting is a person using the user name "Paradox." This person claims to be surgery tracked, but is bragging about how the women in her gym's locker room accept her. Anonymous T-Girl has challenged her on this, leading to this bit of drivel from "Paradox:"
Now, the comment about women with penises invading locker rooms is from Anonymous T-Girl, and I agree 100%. When I was pre-op, I went to Curves, which is a well-known women-only gym. But, the one I went to had private, single person dressing rooms. I did not have to go into a room with other women, where there might have been any risk of anyone noticing anything. And I would never have been in any situation where someone might have had a chance to raise concerns about my presence. Nor can I imagine any pre-op who is truly a woman doing so. It is only men, masquerading as women, who care so little that they will place their own needs above those of women.'Women' with penises that they have no desire to lose + intruding on women's locker and shower rooms = insanity.
An interesting question:
Suppose you discovered that there was a woman in your locker room that had a penis. How do you determine if she's
A) A woman with a penis that wants to remove it but can't afford it yet.
B) A woman with a penis that wants to remove it but can't due to medical issues.
C) A woman with a penis that wants to remove it but doesn't think its worth the surgical risks.
D) A woman with a penis that actually LIKES her penis and would never remove it.
And incidentally, which of these characters are "actually" women, and which ones are not? How do you determine this beyond just taking their word for it?
So, that is the answer to the above "interesting question." No woman would engage in such behavior. And no woman would ever identify as "a woman with a penis."
The commenter Radical Bitch puts it well:
Oh, surgery doesn't make one a woman, I've met a number of post op crossdressers. It's neurology that makes you a woman or not and a female neurology will eventually reject a male anatomy......that you can take to the bank.
A pre-operative classic transsexual is a woman. A post op autogynophile is not. 'taint rocket science.
I identified as a woman before my surgery, but I was also aware that I was undergoing a diagnostic procedure known as the "real life test." I was well aware that, as unlikely as it was, I had the choice to stop the process. I was a woman, but I was not truly female. And that is the difference that the transgender types cannot seem to grasp. It is my neurology that makes me a woman...it is my surgery that makes me a female.
Monday, March 30, 2009
The Insanity that is the "Transgender Community."
Recently, we have seen a few more examples of the silliness that regularly erupts from the so-called "Transgender Community." The first such example is the ongoing mess about restrooms. Every chance it gets, the Religious Right trots out the "bathroom issue" and every time, transgender activists go ballistic and start raising their usual howl of protest. And everytime, the transgender activists simply ignore the fact that, in many cases, the Religious Right is raising perfectly legitimate issues.
This has happened twice in the past two weeks, with two different outcomes. In the first case, an attempt was made to put an end to a gay rights bill in Gainesville, FL by using the "bathroom issue" as a reason to do away with the current law. And, sadly, the Religious Right has a perfectly good point that was totally ignored by the transgender activists as they ranted against the effort.
Now, this could have been a perfect opportunity for the "transgender community" (which in truth is pretty much an illusion) to show some common sense, and the disarm the Religious Right. Instead, they acted in their usual silly way, and pretty much confirmed that they really don't care if men invade the womens rooms.
The way the law is currently written, prettty much any man (or woman) can enter pretty much any bathroom, and, if confronted, simply claim that, at that moment, their gender identity is at odds with their physical sex. Now, they may be a perfectly normal man (or woman) one second before they walk into the wrong bathroom, and they may be a perfectly normal man (or woman) one second after they walk out, and quite frankly, they may be a perfectly normal man (or woman) the whole time they are in the wrong bathroom, but as long as they claim that their gender identity "matches" the bathroom that they have entered, they are off the hook. They don't even have to be "crossdressed."
This is, of course, totally absurd, but it is what the law effectively allows. And it could easily be rectified by simply providing that anyone entering a restroom that does not match their physical sex has to be in the process of changing their physical sex and be undergoing the RLT. This could be shown by having a "carry letter" as used to be the normal procedure, or even by having therapists issue small ID cards that would serve the same purpose. Yes, this leaves the crossdressers and the so-called non-ops out in the cold, so to speak, but that is really where they belong.
Further, any such law should make provisions dealing with so-called "unavoidable nudity." That is, in areas where there is a very real chance of someone being seen in the nude, pre-ops would either be banned, or if it is not unreasonable, privacy would need to be provided. This would mean in areas like showers and changing rooms. Either they would need to provide individual shower stalls and changing areas (if the cost would not be too great) or pre-ops would just have to wait until after surgery to go into them.
Of course, such a law would never be acceptable to most transgender activists...which shows that their agenda is not what they claim it to be.
And it should be noted that while the amendment that would have rolled back protections in Gainesville was defeated, an attempt to pass "transgender" protections was defeated in New Hampshire.
Another area where some have shown their true silliness has been the issue of "disclosure." Or at least, the issue of "disclosure as it relates to dating." Now, some of the more extreme gender fascists want to insist that everyone be "out, loud, and proud." They shove their transgender state in people's faces. They rant against the idea of stealth, and attack anyone who prefers to live their life normally. They tend to think that disclosure should be made by all, including post-ops.
Another extreme are those who want to ignore the fact that a pre-op (or a so-called non-op) who does not disclose is, unfortunately, at risk of serious bodily harm when a sudden discovery is made. Now, let me state, up front, that I do not believe that such a discovery is EVER an excuse for someone to do anything violent to another person. If a man discovers that his date is, as some like to put it, "a girl with something extra," then he should walk away...period, end of story! That said, I am also a realist that knows that this is rarely going to happen.
The simple, sad fact is, if a pre-op does not disclose, she is risking her life. That does not mean that this is the way it should be, or that she is "asking for it," or that she "gets what she deserves." But it does mean that she needs to use some common sense. Now, I think the men who killed Gwen Arajuao should have all been convicted of murder, and that they all should have been given life sentences. But, I also wish Gwen had of avoided the entire situation to begin with. I would much prefer that she be alive.
Simply put, the victim is not to blame, but we all need to use good sense. Yes, I played with fire a few times. And I was lucky. I never got burned. But, that was pretty much dumb luck and nothing more.
The problem is, many of the more extreme "transgender activists" are telling people that they should be able to expect people to act in a certain way, when, unfortunately, that is not how people are going to act. In another words, they are encouraging pre-ops (and non-ops) to engage in risky behavior, and are in effect setting them up to become possible martyrs. Even if the laws are changed, as they should be, and the so-called trans-panic defense is banned, people will still get killed. The only thing that will change is that the law will be able to deal with them without them finding that one, lone idiot on a jury who will vote not guilty, resulting in another hung jury, and a mistrial, and some prosecutor deciding to play it safe and allow for some ridiculous plea bargain that lets them get away with murder.
In an ideal world, this would not be a problem. But when the idiot chorus starts accusing people of "blaming the victim" because they try to warn people to avoid dangerous situations, the ultimate result is going to be someone getting hurt.
Pointing out simple truths is not "blaiming the victim." It is trying, desperately, and perhaps a bit in vain, to avoid someone becoming a victim. I am sure some welcome martyrs like Gwen Arajuao. Shoot, there is a day set aside every year when they honor them (the Day of Remembrance). And for all of the noble speeches about how it would be great if we could stop having that day each year, the simple truth is, many are probably secretly glad for increased numbers.
If you want some idea of this, just go to the web page for the event and look at the rather horrid bit of drivel that old Phil Frye of Texas came up with. It is song, to be sung to the tune of "Danny Boy" that glorifies those who had the misfortune to be murdered. I must say, I am thankful I have never actually had to hear this one performed. I think the song can be summed up in the line that goes "And come next year when fall’s again up- on us, if more are killed and killed, more well may be. We’ll honor them and the places they are lying. and loudly say, 'We will re- member you'. And you will hear as we pro- claim a- bove you, and your spirits will warmer, sweeter be."
No, this is typical of transgender silliness. I am sure there are those who get all choked up from such. But really, this is the sort of idiocy that gets people killed. Those who die should be mourned, but they are not really martyrs, nor have they done anything to be honored for. They were simply in the wrong place, at the wrong time, and in many cases doing the wrong thing.
This has happened twice in the past two weeks, with two different outcomes. In the first case, an attempt was made to put an end to a gay rights bill in Gainesville, FL by using the "bathroom issue" as a reason to do away with the current law. And, sadly, the Religious Right has a perfectly good point that was totally ignored by the transgender activists as they ranted against the effort.
Now, this could have been a perfect opportunity for the "transgender community" (which in truth is pretty much an illusion) to show some common sense, and the disarm the Religious Right. Instead, they acted in their usual silly way, and pretty much confirmed that they really don't care if men invade the womens rooms.
The way the law is currently written, prettty much any man (or woman) can enter pretty much any bathroom, and, if confronted, simply claim that, at that moment, their gender identity is at odds with their physical sex. Now, they may be a perfectly normal man (or woman) one second before they walk into the wrong bathroom, and they may be a perfectly normal man (or woman) one second after they walk out, and quite frankly, they may be a perfectly normal man (or woman) the whole time they are in the wrong bathroom, but as long as they claim that their gender identity "matches" the bathroom that they have entered, they are off the hook. They don't even have to be "crossdressed."
This is, of course, totally absurd, but it is what the law effectively allows. And it could easily be rectified by simply providing that anyone entering a restroom that does not match their physical sex has to be in the process of changing their physical sex and be undergoing the RLT. This could be shown by having a "carry letter" as used to be the normal procedure, or even by having therapists issue small ID cards that would serve the same purpose. Yes, this leaves the crossdressers and the so-called non-ops out in the cold, so to speak, but that is really where they belong.
Further, any such law should make provisions dealing with so-called "unavoidable nudity." That is, in areas where there is a very real chance of someone being seen in the nude, pre-ops would either be banned, or if it is not unreasonable, privacy would need to be provided. This would mean in areas like showers and changing rooms. Either they would need to provide individual shower stalls and changing areas (if the cost would not be too great) or pre-ops would just have to wait until after surgery to go into them.
Of course, such a law would never be acceptable to most transgender activists...which shows that their agenda is not what they claim it to be.
And it should be noted that while the amendment that would have rolled back protections in Gainesville was defeated, an attempt to pass "transgender" protections was defeated in New Hampshire.
Another area where some have shown their true silliness has been the issue of "disclosure." Or at least, the issue of "disclosure as it relates to dating." Now, some of the more extreme gender fascists want to insist that everyone be "out, loud, and proud." They shove their transgender state in people's faces. They rant against the idea of stealth, and attack anyone who prefers to live their life normally. They tend to think that disclosure should be made by all, including post-ops.
Another extreme are those who want to ignore the fact that a pre-op (or a so-called non-op) who does not disclose is, unfortunately, at risk of serious bodily harm when a sudden discovery is made. Now, let me state, up front, that I do not believe that such a discovery is EVER an excuse for someone to do anything violent to another person. If a man discovers that his date is, as some like to put it, "a girl with something extra," then he should walk away...period, end of story! That said, I am also a realist that knows that this is rarely going to happen.
The simple, sad fact is, if a pre-op does not disclose, she is risking her life. That does not mean that this is the way it should be, or that she is "asking for it," or that she "gets what she deserves." But it does mean that she needs to use some common sense. Now, I think the men who killed Gwen Arajuao should have all been convicted of murder, and that they all should have been given life sentences. But, I also wish Gwen had of avoided the entire situation to begin with. I would much prefer that she be alive.
Simply put, the victim is not to blame, but we all need to use good sense. Yes, I played with fire a few times. And I was lucky. I never got burned. But, that was pretty much dumb luck and nothing more.
The problem is, many of the more extreme "transgender activists" are telling people that they should be able to expect people to act in a certain way, when, unfortunately, that is not how people are going to act. In another words, they are encouraging pre-ops (and non-ops) to engage in risky behavior, and are in effect setting them up to become possible martyrs. Even if the laws are changed, as they should be, and the so-called trans-panic defense is banned, people will still get killed. The only thing that will change is that the law will be able to deal with them without them finding that one, lone idiot on a jury who will vote not guilty, resulting in another hung jury, and a mistrial, and some prosecutor deciding to play it safe and allow for some ridiculous plea bargain that lets them get away with murder.
In an ideal world, this would not be a problem. But when the idiot chorus starts accusing people of "blaming the victim" because they try to warn people to avoid dangerous situations, the ultimate result is going to be someone getting hurt.
Pointing out simple truths is not "blaiming the victim." It is trying, desperately, and perhaps a bit in vain, to avoid someone becoming a victim. I am sure some welcome martyrs like Gwen Arajuao. Shoot, there is a day set aside every year when they honor them (the Day of Remembrance). And for all of the noble speeches about how it would be great if we could stop having that day each year, the simple truth is, many are probably secretly glad for increased numbers.
If you want some idea of this, just go to the web page for the event and look at the rather horrid bit of drivel that old Phil Frye of Texas came up with. It is song, to be sung to the tune of "Danny Boy" that glorifies those who had the misfortune to be murdered. I must say, I am thankful I have never actually had to hear this one performed. I think the song can be summed up in the line that goes "And come next year when fall’s again up- on us, if more are killed and killed, more well may be. We’ll honor them and the places they are lying. and loudly say, 'We will re- member you'. And you will hear as we pro- claim a- bove you, and your spirits will warmer, sweeter be."
No, this is typical of transgender silliness. I am sure there are those who get all choked up from such. But really, this is the sort of idiocy that gets people killed. Those who die should be mourned, but they are not really martyrs, nor have they done anything to be honored for. They were simply in the wrong place, at the wrong time, and in many cases doing the wrong thing.
Monday, March 9, 2009
A Cautionary Tale...
A few weeks ago, there was another story about another man who had a "sex change" and who now regrets it. This story, like some previously, came out of Australia. This is not the first such story to make the headlines, and it probably won't be the last. But this one should serve as a warning sign for both therapists, and those who might be considering such surgery.
Given the details of the story, it is not that surprising that the man has regrets. Of course, a lot of transgender activists are scrambling to try to control the damage. The idea that someone might actually make a mistake is one of the biggest secrets of the "transgender community." But this is exactly the sort of thing that happens when "transgender people" get carried away and proceed with surgery.
First off, the man, now 66, came to regret the surgery five years after having it. Now, that would seem to indicate that he was 61 when he had the surgery. Now, age alone is not an indicator of surgical outcome, but it should be considered. I mean, why did he wait so long? What was his life like before he transitioned?
One of the statements made by him seems to indicate that he did not have a childhood history of issues with his sex being contrary to his gender. That alone is the single major red flag in a case like this. It is entirely possible for someone to encounter delays before actually achieving surgery, so a person might, in rare cases actually have HBS but be relatively old at the time they finally have their body corrected. But if there was no history from childhood, then surgery is almost certainly not advisable.
Perhaps the biggest warning flag was the fact that this man did not find his genitals abhorrent. In a person with HBS that is a major symptom. Of course, this is a common refrain among transgender people, who will often say, "I don't my penis. I would not be terribly concerned if it were to suddenly disappear, but I don't hate it." That sort of statement should raise concerns for a therapist. Once it is gone, it is gone for good. After surgery is not the time to suddenly realize that you miss it.
It is also interesting that this person claims that a previous therapist advised against surgery. In a sense, it seems to come down to a question of who was the most at fault? The doctors who clearly failed to adequately evaluated this patient? Or the patient himself, who clearly failed to make these things known to his therapist.
I know, early on in my transition, I saw one therapist who seemed more interested in chalking up another patient referred for surgery than in actually helping me deal with issues I was struggling with. If I had been a bad candidate for surgery, I don't know that she would have caught it.
Another case that sent the TG activists into a tizzy became known in October of last year. Mike Penner, a sportswriter for the Los Angeles Times announced in April, 2007 that he was going to begin transition and would now be known as Christine Daniels. He began writing a column featured on that paper's web site about his experiences. Then, in October, with little fanfare, Christine disappeared, and Mike returned to the sports pages.
The transgender world was shocked. They rushed to make excuses for why someone might decide to not go forward with transition. And the one reason they wanted to downplay the most was that it might ust have been the right thing. They seemed to want to avoid admitting that not everyone who thinks that transition is the right path is going to succeed. That is why the Standards of Care requires a Real Life Test that lasts a minimum of one year. In many cases, one year is probably not enough. There are two many examples of people who rushed through without considering if they were doing the right thing, and who wind up with the rest of their life to regret it. I know of two for whom this is clearly the case, though neither would be likely to publically admit it. Still, it is clear that their transition has been less than successful.
It is possible that Mike Penner will go on to transition. Many people, myself included, have backed off from transition and returned later. This can be caused by a number of factors such as pressure from family, lack of proper preparation, and even a bad therapist. All three of those played a role in my case. But it can just as easily be that the person realizes that their gender really does match their body.
The bottom line is, this is not a game. A mistake can be tragic. There is no going back...which is a source of joy for those with HBS, but a nightmare for someone who is not. One's transition should not be delayed any longer than necessary, but it should also not be rushed. Therapists need to make sure that the person is not making a mistake.
Given the details of the story, it is not that surprising that the man has regrets. Of course, a lot of transgender activists are scrambling to try to control the damage. The idea that someone might actually make a mistake is one of the biggest secrets of the "transgender community." But this is exactly the sort of thing that happens when "transgender people" get carried away and proceed with surgery.
First off, the man, now 66, came to regret the surgery five years after having it. Now, that would seem to indicate that he was 61 when he had the surgery. Now, age alone is not an indicator of surgical outcome, but it should be considered. I mean, why did he wait so long? What was his life like before he transitioned?
One of the statements made by him seems to indicate that he did not have a childhood history of issues with his sex being contrary to his gender. That alone is the single major red flag in a case like this. It is entirely possible for someone to encounter delays before actually achieving surgery, so a person might, in rare cases actually have HBS but be relatively old at the time they finally have their body corrected. But if there was no history from childhood, then surgery is almost certainly not advisable.
Perhaps the biggest warning flag was the fact that this man did not find his genitals abhorrent. In a person with HBS that is a major symptom. Of course, this is a common refrain among transgender people, who will often say, "I don't my penis. I would not be terribly concerned if it were to suddenly disappear, but I don't hate it." That sort of statement should raise concerns for a therapist. Once it is gone, it is gone for good. After surgery is not the time to suddenly realize that you miss it.
It is also interesting that this person claims that a previous therapist advised against surgery. In a sense, it seems to come down to a question of who was the most at fault? The doctors who clearly failed to adequately evaluated this patient? Or the patient himself, who clearly failed to make these things known to his therapist.
I know, early on in my transition, I saw one therapist who seemed more interested in chalking up another patient referred for surgery than in actually helping me deal with issues I was struggling with. If I had been a bad candidate for surgery, I don't know that she would have caught it.
Another case that sent the TG activists into a tizzy became known in October of last year. Mike Penner, a sportswriter for the Los Angeles Times announced in April, 2007 that he was going to begin transition and would now be known as Christine Daniels. He began writing a column featured on that paper's web site about his experiences. Then, in October, with little fanfare, Christine disappeared, and Mike returned to the sports pages.
The transgender world was shocked. They rushed to make excuses for why someone might decide to not go forward with transition. And the one reason they wanted to downplay the most was that it might ust have been the right thing. They seemed to want to avoid admitting that not everyone who thinks that transition is the right path is going to succeed. That is why the Standards of Care requires a Real Life Test that lasts a minimum of one year. In many cases, one year is probably not enough. There are two many examples of people who rushed through without considering if they were doing the right thing, and who wind up with the rest of their life to regret it. I know of two for whom this is clearly the case, though neither would be likely to publically admit it. Still, it is clear that their transition has been less than successful.
It is possible that Mike Penner will go on to transition. Many people, myself included, have backed off from transition and returned later. This can be caused by a number of factors such as pressure from family, lack of proper preparation, and even a bad therapist. All three of those played a role in my case. But it can just as easily be that the person realizes that their gender really does match their body.
The bottom line is, this is not a game. A mistake can be tragic. There is no going back...which is a source of joy for those with HBS, but a nightmare for someone who is not. One's transition should not be delayed any longer than necessary, but it should also not be rushed. Therapists need to make sure that the person is not making a mistake.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
