Highlighting The Difference, Unintentionally

The whole battle between myself and the cultists at Shame On You Transgender Edition began because I simply pointed out that I do not identify as transgender.  There are good reasons for this, and a couple of their latest posts show this about as clearly as possible.

The first was a fawning tribute to "Kristin" Beck, who apparently now styles himself as "Lady Valor."  Beck was a Navy Seal, a member of what is commonly called Seal Team Six, which was the unit that provided the men who took out Osama bin Laden.  Beck, like Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen, served twenty years, before leaving the Navy.

The second story was a rather telling piece, entitled "All You Need is Love," which states some classic transgender rhetoric (note I said transgender, not transsexual)…

As transgender women we have a tendency to dislike, or outright hate, our male sides. We loath anything that remotely reminds us that we were tragically born in the wrong body. The mirror can be an enemy because it reminds us that we are not perfect and we will always have male characteristics no matter how well we pass. What? You disagree? What is the shape of your pelvic bone?

Okay, dare I say it?  This is clearly a man, in this case, Mr. "Michelle" Spicer, speaking.  Only a transgender male would make such a statement…  This is straight out of Transvestite 101. Sorry, but this is what I make the differentiation that I am a transsexual, that I am a woman, and that yes, the kooks at Shame On You Transgender Edition are a bunch of delusional cultists.  The simple truth is, no one is perfect.  There is not a perfect man or woman, period.  Everyone has some flaws.  I had a friend who was a female to male transsexual who had a more masculine hip structure than I do.  He was short of stature, but his body shape was extremely male, and, contrary to some stereotypes, he had born a son (I remember reading a book on FTMs that basically claimed that no FTM ever would get pregnant) and had gone through some serious complications because his pelvis was too small for the child to easily fit through.  

You have to love how the more extremist transgender kooks, in order to cling to their manhood, even while proclaiming themselves to be women, love to focus on things like this. They want to beat post-ops over the head with their prostates, while ignoring the fact that women have the same gland, although it serves no purpose.  And yes, in extremely rare cases, women (and not transsexual women) can die of prostate cancer.  Of course, most doctors would not call it that…in women it is referred to as a Skene's gland, or paraurethral gland, and is, for the most part, ignored.  However, it is increasingly referred to, quite accurately, as the "female prostate gland."  Boy, are the transgender kooks going to hate that one.

No, the simple fact is, I don't have a "male side."  Then again, to be blunt, crossdressers don't really have a female side.  They have a fetish.  There is a clear difference between someone who grows up with a brain that is differentiated at odds with their body, and someone who simply wishes to play dress-up.

And this brings us back to Beck.  Beck claims to have "always" had a female gender, like Sandeen, and like Sandeen, Beck was able to not only survive in the military through basic training, all the while hiding this supposed "feminine nature" but in Beck's case, to also survive SEAL training, which is extremely intense.  And on top of all this, both Sandeen and Beck thrived in this hyper-masculine, testosterone fueled environment for the full 20 years needed to reach retirement.

No, in both cases, you have someone who was, quite probably, a very closeted cross dresser.  They are not transsexuals, they do not want SRS, and they are not really interested in being anything other than transgender.

You see, this is what underlies transsexualism.  It is not just about a desire to change one's physical sex to match one's brain, it is about wanting to be normal.  And transgender is about wanting to be different.  I have heard transgender people often express this view.  Some, such as Suzan Cooke will go so far as to attack people who are "normborns" as though that is a bad thing.  I have heard them say stuff like, "I would not want SRS, because then I would not be 'special.'"

If someone wants to choose to be "different" or "special," I suppose that is their choice, but they have to accept that society may not respect that choice.  And that brings up another major difference.  Transgender is a choice, transsexualism is not.  Although some try to make the claim that they were "born this way," transgender people choose their behavior.  Most had relatively, if not completely, normal childhoods, showing no signs of having an issue with their gender until later in life, and then beginning with, as stated above, fetishistic crossdressing.

So, the bottom line, again, is that there really is a difference between transgender (which is ultimately a highly subjective term that refers to a social/political construct that has no basis in reality) and transsexualism, which is a medical condition that is, in reality, unrelated to transgender in any meaningful way.

Why Are Some Early Transitioners So Insecure?

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...

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."

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.

Up To His Usual Tricks

There is an old cliche about, "How can you tell is lying?  His lips are moving...."  Sometimes, I feel like updating that to, "How can you tell Mr. "Cristan" Williams is lying?  He's posting on the Internet again..."  Granted, Williams, not unlike some he loves to attack, does not lie so much as he stretches the truth to a ridiculous extreme so that it is effectively a lie.  Well, that or sometimes he just outright lies.

In the latest such example, Mr. Williams greatly exaggerates the reaction of some to the recent law passed in California that I think is poorly written.  The law is intended to extend protections to students who are transsexual, though of course, political correctness insists that the term must be "transgender."

The article is classic Mr. Williams.  He exaggerates the reaction of some, linking together several diverse groups in an attempt to give a false impression.  And then he attempts to use images from popular culture to sway, so he can avoid making an actual, rational argument.

The only problem I have with the law, is the same problem many have with other, similar laws.  It is too vague.  Of course, this is how the extremists want it.  Kooks like Mr. "Cristan" William seem to have an obsession with protecting the rights of perverts like "Colleen" Francis and "Paula" Witherspoon, the registered sex offender and child molester who was cited for being in the women's room at Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas, Texas.  Now, personally, I think it rather reasonable to question whether a person such as Witherspoon actually has a legitimate "female gender identity."  The evidence seems pretty strong that he doesn't.

The problematic part of the law does not require that a student seeking protection under the law have any evidence other than, apparently, a vague claim of identity:

A pupil shall be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs and activities, including athletic teams and competitions, and use facilities consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records.

Now, consider how this is written.  Let's take a hypothetical situation that is actually not really all that hypothetical.  Now, granted, the situation I am describing happened at a local community college, not a K-12 school, and the person involved was possibly not a student, but bear with me.  A male was lurking in the women's locker room in the school's athletic facility, and attempted to attack a woman.  Now, suppose a law similar to this were in effect and he were spotted and reported before actually attempting an assault.  The police arrive, and confront the perp.  He is not dressed as a female, but, thinking quickly, states "I believe myself to be a female, so I am in the appropriate facility for my gender identity."  The police officers' hands would be tied.  They would probably not even be able to check the person's ID and see if he had any priors or warrants.  As long as he had not actually committed an act, he would be "protected," simply by telling a lie.

Now, Mr. Williams would have you believe that such things never happen.  He actually repeats a previous attempt to claim that "cisgender women" are actually more of a threat to women in restrooms than men, transgender or otherwise.  Poorly written laws put women in danger.  As in the example above, had the suspect been confronted, a poorly written law would bind the police from doing their jobs.  Now, Mr. Williams tries to imply that NO transgender person would ever engage in improper behavior, but this is simply not the case.

Now, what is likely to happen is that this law will be challenged in court.  Also, there is already a move underway to have it rescinded by a ballot initiative.  If the reaction indicated by comments on SFGate.com, the San Francisco Chronicle website, are any indication, such an initiative would very likely pass overwhelmingly.  Comments were overwhelmingly negative.  And that is in San Francisco.  There was no serious support for the law.  A few commenters tried to make the same sort of vague claims as Mr. Williams.  

If such a proposition passes, the good parts of the law will likely be thrown out with the one poorly written provision.  Personally, I would like to see the provision rewritten to require an actual diagnosis from a licensed therapist, and provisions to protect the privacy of students in situations where there is inevitable nudity.  Also, I think it would be reasonable to require that any student accessing sex-segregated areas actually be, as some say, living full time as the "gender" they claim to identify with.

Another false claim by Mr. Williams is this:

Here in TEXAS – yes, conservative TEXAS – we’ve had these California-style policies in effect for YEARS. And you know what’s happened? Nothing… Except trans kids got to go to school without having to face institutionalized bigotry.

Now, some might claim this is absolutely true.  Some might claim it is a bit of an overstatement.  But, because of a very specific phrase (" California-style policies") it is actually an outright lie.  

Here, in its entirety, is the Houston rule:

Employees of the District shall not discriminate on the basis of or engage in harassment motivated by age, race, color, ancestry, national origin, sex, handicap or disability, marital status, religion, veteran status, political affiliation, sexual orientation, gender identity, and/or gender expression. A substantiated charge of harassment against a student or employee shall result in disciplinary action.

Compare that to the wording from the California law above, keeping in mind the fact that this wording is the only real change in California law, which already had, shall we say, "Houston-style policies" on the books for years.  Whoops!  I would say that what Mr. Williams claims is an outright lie, not just clever semantics.

The bottom line is this...  Mr. Williams claims to be a woman, but he seems to have no regard for the actual feelings of women confronted with an obvious man invading their space.  He has hounded Virginia Brownworth, accusing her of terrible acts, simply because she does not support the right of men like Mr. Williams to invade places like the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival, or to force lesbians to accept them as sexual partners.

So, I suppose it is no surprise that Mr. Williams would lie about reactions to the California law.

It's Really Rather Simple

I came across this on Twitter, and I find it rather amusing....

Well, first off, I am not fixated on him at all.  He is one of several "transgender extremists" I regularly look at for source material.  I also look at the rants of Mr. "Cristan" Williams, Mr. "Monica" Roberts, Mr. "Dana" Taylor, Bilerico, Suzy Cooke, Transgender News, and others. And I get ideas from various other sources.  

Now, to be honest, I have never actually looked at how often any one person shows up in this blog.  I know others, including Cooke, Mr. Williams, and Mr. Taylor have all made similar claims.

But the reasons Mr. Sandeen has shown up so much are rather simple....

1. He is an extremely prolific blogger at times.  When he is in one of his manic phases (he is very vocal about being bipolar) he writes a lot.
2. His writings tend towards the sillier extremes of the transgender movement.  He provides some of the best of the worst of transgender silliness.
3. He really is sort of a perfect storm of insanity.  I mean, this is someone who has rather publicly boasted of his defrauding the court system in San Diego (and yes, he knows he pulled off a fraud, because he was frantically afraid that someone would let the court know he was still a male).
4. He has, on more than one occasion attempted to stalk me, and bully me.  I don't take well to such attempts.  Especially when they involve him attempting to use my daughter against me.  I would never dream of trying to track down his estranged son to obtain dirt on him.  And then he had the nerve, when he feared being reported to authorities, to try to claim he was trying to "help."
5. And, it should be noted that it was Mr. Sandeen's over the top censorship  at Pam's House Blend was what let to me deciding to blog.  Who knew it would that would lead to.  Sort of backfired on him in ways he never imagined.

I realize Mr. Sandeen, like a lot of men, does not take well to disagreement, or criticism, but hey, that's tough.

Cooke the Kooke Goes Off the Deep End

Well, Suzan Cooke has really gone loopy this time.  A person didn't even really disagree with Cooke, and Cooke still went ballistic.  Cooke actually disagreed with Mr. "Monica" Roberts, the leading gender fascist bigot, when Mr. Roberts basically demanded that everyone be "out, loud, and proud." And someone, well, actually thought they were agreeing with Cooke, but no, Cooke went off the deep end...

Here is what the person said, in response to Cooke's basically disagreeing with Mr. Robert's demand that all transgender people must be out (and remember as a fully blown gender fascists, Mr. Roberts presumes to include all transsexuals as transgender, even though he really, really hates the post-op ones, especially if they are white....okay, Cooke is an exception, because Cooke is so racked with guilt for being white, and fawns all over Mr. Roberts):

Yes more “out and proud” exultations; I get tired of being told I’m Doing It All Wrong.

And people like Dana Taylor who has seen the one true transgender light* and renounced being just another woman in favour of jumping onto a virtual Pride carnival float with all the flouncy men. How long until her new friends start tearing her apart?

Of course, "Dana" Taylor, who deluded himself into thinking he was not only a transsexual, but a separatist one, has now "seen the light" and decided he really, really loves his penis, and realized that means that lesbians don't want to have sex with him, has decided to join the transgender extremists, since they, presumably, will have sex with him, while claiming that they are really all lesbians in good standing, even if they all still have penises.

Cooke's response?

Being transsexual doesn’t require one to be an ass**** towards transgender people. HBS holes are like KKK/Nazis who think being white requires white people to be racist bigots like them. So far I haven’t met an HBSer who lived up to their bull**** standards. Most are keyboard warriors donning an imaginary avatar uniform to spread bigotry. (sorry, but I am not going to repeat Cooke's profanity)

Hmmm, this is true.  I have even said that a person can be a transsexual, and choose to identify as transgender, if that is what floats their boat, though I cannot imagine why anyone would be so stupid.  But, apparently, in Cooke's brain-damaged delusions, being transgender does require one to be an ass**** towards transsexuals.  Now, apart from the Godwin's Law violation, and the silly delusions (the only standard I have ever seen from the HBS advocates was that one either have had surgery, be living a successful life, or that they be serious seeking it.  But such details such a facts are lost on an insane person, such a Cooke.

Now, it get's worse.  This person had the audacity to disagree with Cooke's portrayal of her.  I mean, the nerve of some people.  Cooke has spoken, and no one should question the absolute truth of the great and powerful Cooke.

Blah, blah, blah. I’ve heard the song too many times. Learn a new one or go play in traffic. I have better things to do than sit here moderating your stupid boring posts. 

Step away from your key board and take off your dress, play time is over. 

The fantasy trannie HBS princess game bores the crap out of me.

I would say that this was the end of any respect I had for Cooke, but that happened a long time ago.  Now, I just see Cooke as basically an insane person, ranting, and trying to live out some bizarre delusion of importance.

I won't bother quoting the next person's comment, or Cooke's rather hilarious diatribe about being a pioneer and all.  If you really are interested, or just need a good laugh, and yes, it is hilarious, follow the link about.

And, one more thing....like a pit bull, Cooke can't let go of this one...  There is another post here, that is even more insane that the one I wrote about here.  Simply put, for the most part, the only person ranting about HBS is Cooke.  The rest of us have pretty much gone back to using the term "transsexual."  Not Cooke's laughable "Women Born Transsexual," just transsexual.  And nope, no one has to make up an lies about Cooke.  The truth is plenty damning enough.  Oh well....

Uh, No, That's Not Quite the Truth....

In yet another "Autumn" Sandeen story, we have a lie being perpetuated across the Internet by GLAAD.  They state that Mr. Sandeen is the first "transgender  service member to publicly have "her" (sic) gender marker changed on all military documents.  While he might well be the first transgender service member to make a complete ass of himself in public crowing like a banty rooster over having his paperwork changed to reflect a lie based on fraudulent documentation, he is not the first as was documented by several statements made in response to his posting on LGBT Weekly.

From the way this reads things have actually changed for the worst. When I changed my retired USAF ID card in 1986 all I did was go into the personnel office at the nearest facility, show my old id, court ordered name change, and letter from my therapist.

The only bump was that the clerk said “I’m sorry mam. Your husband is going to have to come in himself”. That required a few words of explanation.

All official mail comes in the right name. The VA here (Portland) is fine with my transition. There seem to be quite a few of us in the area.

And as if that lie were not enough, the article is also inaccurate in saying that ALL of Mr. Sandeen's military documents were updated.  In spite of his best efforts to rewrite history (this is the idiot who now tries to claim that his fraudulent birth certificate makes him a "woman born woman") the Navy will not retroactively change the details of his actual service.  

And, changing one’s recorded name and/or gender at the DOD won’t result in being able to obtain an updated DD214 – a servicemember’s Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty. According to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records’ Applicant’s Guide To Applying To The Army Board For Correction Of Military Records:

“If you have a name, gender, or social security number (SSN) change after discharge from the military, even if it is court ordered, the name and gender on your military records will not be changed since they are historical documents which record facts during the time you served in the military. If you need a certificate to show your current name or gender and that you served in the military under another, you can request such from the National Personnel Records Center, Military Personnel Records …”

So, bottom line, Sandeen used his fraudulent claim to have actually had SRS (he was castrated, which makes him a eunuch, not a female) to con the Navy into updating his "gender" on his documentation, which is something they have done for some time, but according to GLAAD he is not only the first, but has done something even he admits he did not really do.

Uh, yeah, that's pretty much how it goes....

Here We Go Again...

You know, some men just can't take a hint...  Others, well they can't take slap to the face, a knee to the groin, and a shove out the door...  Well, granted, in the case of a eunuch, a knee to the groin is kind of irrelevant....

A bit over two years ago, Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen took on Ashley Love and viciously attacked her.  He was pretty widely trashed by many, including even Suzan Cooke who was just beginning to cozy up to the transgender extremists even going so far as to refer to Sandeen's actions as cyberbulling (hmmm, where have we heard that before?).  He responded with a rather arrogant post entitled "Why Transgender Activism?"  I responded with one entitled "Why Not Transgender Activism?"  Well, Mr. Sandeen has again shown his true nature, and is looking kind of foolish.  And, well, he has resurrected that same load of crap...

If you want to see a response to his silliness, click on the link above and you can read what I wrote then.  It still stands, and I am not going to waste bandwidth cutting and pasting the whole thing here.

But I would point out one simple fact....  Mr. Sandeen does admit that transgender is "sociopolitical."  Put another way, it is pretty much imaginary.  It is not rooted in reality.  Males like Sandeen are not, and will never be, women.

As I have pointed out, the entire transgender paradigm is built on a logical fallacy.  And this logical contradiction is born out, again and again by the writings of various extremists.  For example, in another article on Transadvocate, the ever racist Mr. "Monica" Roberts put up an entire post predicated on the very idea refuted by Aunty Orthodox...

Only you should have the power to determine your self identity and you must zealously defend it. When others do it for you either because they did so by force or you ceded that power to do so willingly, you not only aren’t going to like what they come up with, but you don’t have the power to control and define your own humanity.

This sounds very grand, and noble, and such until you really think about it.  If I decide that my self identity is President of the United States, should I be able to take over running the country? No, and while that is an extreme example, it is the logical extension of a fallacy.  You can call yourself whatever you want, but that does not give you the right to impose your delusions on others.  Mr. Roberts can call himself a "black woman," but he remains a man, and he has no right to force others to see him as what he is not.

Mr. Roberts also wants to ignore the inner voice of common sense that keeps telling him to face reality...

But we can’t forget the work we still need to do between our ears to permanently banish the unholy trinity of shame, guilt and fear from our lives. That starts with us never forgetting that we must fight and decisively win the battle for self determination of our own identity and remember as we engage in that just battle, we have the moral high ground when we do so.

While one can become mired in false shame, fear and guilt, it should not simply be banished.  It should be examined, weighed, and if valid, heeded.  There is often a valid reason we feel guilty, and if we fail to learn from our mistakes, we will repeat them.

In another post, while claiming to defend transgender people against "transphobic tropes" Mr. Roberts links to a post that actually shows a logical paradox that renders the transgender paradigm invalid:

I’m going to start with the biggie – that trans people are “really” a [whatever gender you were assigned at birth.]

This is the belief that however we identify, whatever we do to our bodies, we will always really be the gender we were born as. It is irrelevant how trans people feel about ourselves, or how we look, or how we are received by the people in our lives.

You are, supposedly, one gender once and forever. It’s immutable, and whilst you can change the outside shell, you cannot change the inside.

Okay, so the person who wrote this is claiming that transgender people can change their gender.  Okay, let's take this as valid for a moment.  According to this person, gender is a choice.  You can choose to self-identify as a woman.  Well, that takes us back to the logical fallacy which has been refuted.  And while it really does no harm to the transgender kooks (who are fighting for an invalid cause anyway) this would do serious harm to transsexuals, who, again, are the victims of the transgender extremists.

If gender is merely a choice, then there is no basis for a medical diagnosis of transsexualism, we should all respond to being "talked out of it," and if that doesn't work, harsher measures are possibly warranted.  Oh dear....  Mr. Roberts just validated the behavior that Mr. "Cristan" Williams posted about.  If you can choose your gender, then they should be able to beat the sissy out of one.  Whoops...

Just to be clear, this person, while engaging in a contradictory claim, really is claiming that he can simply choose to be a woman:

It’s nevertheless tremendously effective, because it appeals to a cis-sexist biology (one that ignores the tremendous gender variation across nature … see Joan Roughgarden’s Evolution’s Rainbow for more on this) as a way of legitimating denying trans experience.

It denies us the capacity to grow, change, to self-define, to have agency of our bodies and our lives. It denies our identities.

Actually, it is this fool who is ignoring the tremendous gender variation across nature.  Animals do not choose to self-define when they show behavior that is not typical for their sex.  It is because gender is hard-wired and is immutable.  And sometimes it is hard wired at odds with the sex.  A person can choose to vary their gender expression, and that can be at odds with their gender, but that is chosen behavior, and while it can be subject to protection from government interference, it is not a basis for protection against supposed discrimination.

And again, just to drive home what this person is saying...

Well, I am a woman, because I say I am. Because that’s how I feel. Because I live my life as a woman. Because I am seen, by those who aren’t blinded by the “really” a man argument, as a woman. There might be a biological basis to my transness, but it’s ultimately irrelevant to me.

In another words, a delusion is reality.  One is not a woman, because one says one is.  That is the false basis for transgender, and that is what this person has to fall back on.  And if one is only "seen as a woman" by people who buy into your delusion, then, well, it is a delusion.  I am seen as a woman by people who don't agree with transsexualism.  They don't know to not see me as a woman.  Now, if I choose to cease being a woman, and become a "trans" then their view might change.  But then, I am a woman, not a political fiction.

I will repeat again, what I said then...

Will transgender extremists like Mr. Sandeen that the hint? Will they stop trying to speak for transsexuals and insisting that they are working for our rights? I doubt it. They need transsexuals to hide behind. They try to claim to be transsexual in order to advance their extremist agenda, failing to recognize the damage they do. They have done nothing to actually advance our cause, and much to harm it.

Ideally, the whole transgender fad would fade. But that won't happen soon enough. In the meantime, they will continue to cause harm to women, both transsexuals, and those born women.

Maybe one of these days, but clearly, not soon enough...

Why the Obsession With HBS?

It seems that a lot of the silliness oozing out from under the transgender rock has to do with an odd creature known as an HBSer. This, of course, is another neologism from the transgender kooks. Neologisms are, along with chauvinism, and logical fallacies, one of the major exports of that group. BTW, a neologism is the correct term for what is commonly referred to as "a made up word." Well, actually, an even better term, which ironically is a bit of a neologism would be "protologism" which Wiktionary defines as a newly coined word or phrase defined in the hope that it will become common; a recently created term possibly in narrow use but not yet acknowledged. BTW, protologism is a word used mainly as jargon at the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., the parent organization of Wiktionary and other projects.

So, that brings us back to the question of, what is an HBSer?  Well, it is how the transgender kooks have taken to referring to what they were calling a transsexual separatist.  They can't really use that much anymore, since Mr. Cristan Williams rather arrogantly, and quite dishonestly, declared that movement dead.  He does that sort of thing an awful lot.

To understand this rather fanciful concept (most of those to whom the term is applied had nothing to with either of the two branches associated with HBS) I guess you would need to start with the question of what HBS is.  What horrible abuses lie within?

Well, the simple fact is, HBS refers to "Harry Benjamin Syndrome," which is a proposed term to replace "transsexualism" in medical nomenclature.  Now, why, you might ask, would a new term be needed?  There were two basic motivations.  The first was the effort by the transgender extremists to co-opt transsexualism as a sort of beard for transgender behavior, and the second was the fact that "transsexual" was, for a time, increasingly associated with a particularly disturbing form of pornography that had nothing to do with the actual transsexualism.

While the term has been used in some cases as a medical term, it has not yet, and may never, achieve widespread acceptance.  Most of the people I was associated with have lost interest in advocating for its use, and have moved on.  There is still a group in Europe, led by a person known as Charlotte Goiar whom the group I was affiliated with disassociated from over some fundamental philosophical differences.  It should be noted that the transgender extremists try to ignore these facts and conflate the two groups in their effort to create a straw man to argue against.  Interestingly enough, the Goiar originally used the improper form, Harry Benjamin's Syndrome, but has since adopted the correct usage.  When a disease or syndrome is named in honor of someone, a possessive is not proper as they neither own, or (usually) suffered from that condition.  Of course, this technicality is often ignored by the media, and thus people more often say Alzheimer's disease, instead of the technically correct Alzheimer disease.

As the term HBS began to catch on in some circles, the transgender kooks began to panic.  I rather suspect that hey feared that a term they had invested a lot of effort into co-opting would be replaced by a concept that would specifically exclude them. In other words, the truth might come out and they could not have that.  

As I say, the effort to encourage adoption of the term has waned.  It seems to be stronger in Europe, but most here lost interest.  But, the label HBSer seems more popular than ever.  And some, like Suzan Cooke seem obsessed with HBS.  Granted, Cooke originally had no problem with the term, and her earlier opposition seems more related to personalities and the fact that HBS was competing with Cooke's "Women Born Transsexual" meme, which now seems silly in light of Cooke's adoption of the transgender mindset.

So, when you see someone using "HBSer," you can safely assume that they are most likely presenting a classic straw man argument.  Then again, even if they don't use the term, that is one of several logical fallacies they are very fond of....

Mr. Sandeen Has A Complete Meltdown

Well, I can't say I am totally surprised, but Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen has finally had a complete breakdown online.  In the past, his kook has cyberstalked me, in an attempt to censor what I say about transgender extremists.  This morning, he went off the deep end and posted a rather interesting article on Transadvocate.

Now, Sandeen starts off by claiming to have been cyberbullied, and cyberstalked three times and offers links (note, links as in plural) to document this.  Oddly enough, they are all the same link.  I don't know if he had simply become so angry he was not thinking, or if he thinks his readers are that ignorant.  He then says something that shows just how insane he really is...

I now understand that people I’ve never met in the brick-and-mortar world actually have despised me enough to have seriously planned, and in one case actually accomplishing, real harm to me in the brick-and-mortar world.

Okay...  Well, what actually happened was there was discussion of preventing Sandeen from attempting to, and then actually committing a criminal fraud that he had bragged he was going to do.  He basically lied to a court and claimed he had changed his physical sex.  He has not.  But having said the above, he goes on to tell, in detail, how he tried to cause me real harm.  He wanted, in his mind, to have me fired from a position he imagined I had.  Actually, I was never a "staff member" of my church.  I was, for a while, the editor of the church newsletter.  I did my turn, and now it is someone else.  Sandeen's little harrassment had nothing to do with that.

Hmmm, let's look at that definition of cyberstalking he posted.

Sending multiple e-mails, often on a systematic basis, to annoy, embarrass, intimidate, or threaten a person or to make the person fearful that she or a member of her family or household will be harmed. Also called e-mail harassment.

In another words, exactly what Sandeen brags about doing.  And what Sandeen is clearly hoping others will follow his example and do.  And again, Sandeen admits to this...

I wanted the ministers at her church to know how one of their lay leaders was acting outside of the church towards people the church was supposed to be welcoming towards, so I wrote the church — and as I said before, I cc’d her on that email. I did nothing behind her back.

Sounds like he wanted to make sure I was annoyed, embarrassed, and/or intimidated.

Let's compare here...  I write a blog about issues affecting transsexuals, which includes the silliness pushed by transgender extremists like Sandeen, among others.  Sandeen is very active in pushing an agenda that I rather vehemently oppose.  I express my opinion on these issues.  Further, my blog welcomes anyone who wants to comment, and has only one rule...respect privacy.  The only people I have ever blocked have been those who attempt to engage in the sort of harassment that Sandeen is guilty of.  Granted, the one time that Sandeen attempted to comment here, his post went to spam, which I was not even aware had been added in an update, and I did not see it until long past the day it was sent.  Sandeen tends to prefer posting drivel of the sort we see here, from blogs that are heavily censored.

Now, Sandeen goes on to try to defend another of his attempts to intimidate me.  He threatened to use some photos that were obtained by "Willow" Arune through deceit and provided to a vicious cyberstalker, the one who prompted Sandeen to contact my church.  This person also contacted Suzan Cooke.  To Cooke's credit, she declined to engage in such behavior, having more ethics than Sandeen.  Ironically, Cooke does not brag about how she is so like Martin Luther King, Jr.  

Jennifer claims I don’t own the copyright of my image; she claims it’s owned by the Huffington Post.

Actually, no.  Sandeen wrote me, and demanded I remove the photo.  I declined to be censored by Sandeen (do you think Sandeen, or Mr. "Cristan" Williams, would agree if I demanded that they take down the private information that Sandeen has posted?).  I pointed out that the photo had no copyright, and besides, Sandeen himself had made it public.  Mr. Williams has copied content from my blog, without permission (not just quotes, but graphics as well).  It is called, "fair use."  Sandeen, by the way, has gone far beyond that here.  He pointed out that the web page said "Copyright, Huffington Post" and I responded, "You are not the Huffington Post."  I never said that the items where owned by them.  In fact, I said the opposite.

Now, for example, I have no idea how Sandeen got the photo he used in his post.  It is one taken of me some years ago, by a guy I dated a couple of time, and was used by me in various places.  It is not one of the one's Arune stole (hey, unlike some people I prefer truth). 

Now, as to Sandeen's "meat puppeting" (funny, given I never mentioned that term...) that is kind of obvious.  His columns rarely rate more than a few comments.  Rather suddenly, there seemed to be a chorus of very similar remarks, including a number from a supposed radical feminist who attacked me and another transsexual, including as Sandeen puts it, misgendering us (funny, Sandeen never said a word) but this person defended Sandeen who has also cyberstalked a number of lesbian women.  Perhaps I am mistaken, but I will go with Occam's Razor on this one...

A few final thoughts...

I am supposedly obsessed with Sandeen, but which of us put what was obviously quite a bit of time and effort into searching the Internet for detailed information on someone?  What I write about Sandeen is based on reading his posts on LGBT Weekly, and Pam's House Blend.  And more recently, Twitter.  Hmm, folks be warned...reading Sandeen's public writings is stalking him in his twisted mind.  I actually started my blog, largely in reaction to his, and other transgender extremists efforts to hide dissent.

I would welcome anyone to my church, and in fact, we have had transgender people visit.  Funny thing...I generally don't take political issues to church with me.  And that is, really, what this eventually is.  A political disagreement.  Sandeen wants to rend asunder the fabric of society.  I oppose his efforts to subvert gender.  He just takes it a bit too personally.  And that is just his reaction to my speaking out against his ridiculous demands for society.  As to what else I might do, that is none of his business as it does not directly involve him.  Suffice to say, I won't be donning a uniform I am not entitled to wear (he mocked women, and the US Navy) and chaining myself to the White House fence.  Or otherwise making a public fool of myself.  Unlike him, I do not seek, or appreciate attention.

I will no more pander to Sandeen's delusions than I would those of the gentleman who I had the misfortune to have sit next to me on the bus the other day.  He started ranting, to anyone who would listen, about some person on the bus who he imagined was his enemy.  I'm not sure which passenger it was, but he was quite agitated.  I tried as best as possible to ignore him, but I also made sure the driver was aware (we were both sitting in the front) and I very discretely made sure my pepper spray was in my hand...just in case.  He finally exited the bus without incident.  Both he, and Sandeen, have lost touch with reality.  Fortunately, as someone who knows Sandeen pointed out this morning, Sandeen is 350 miles away.

What I will do is continue to speak out, and draw attention to Sandeen's foolishness.  And that foolishness includes the fantasy that he can control me.

Update:  Well, it seems that Mr. Sandeen chose to update his article, so I guess I should correct his new lies:

I think I need to make a point one more time because Jennifer is still imagining that I’m conspiring with others to cause her harm. Specifically, I’ve never conspired with someone named Willow to take any coordinated action against Jennifer. In general, I’ve never done any conspiring with anyone at all at any time whatsoever in any matter that relates to Jennifer Usher. As much as she may believe I have engaged in some coordinated conspiracy to cause her harm, she’s absolutely wrong in that belief.

This, of course, is a classic straw man argument.  I did not say that Sandeen was "conspiring" with anyone.  To repeat, some time back, a particularly nasty cyberstalker sent messages to several bloggers trying to get people to attack me by contacting my church.  He was hiding behind anonymous servers, and would not do his own dirty work.  I suspect he feared legal action.  Suzan Cooke posted about this,and how she would not go along,  Only Sandeen actually, as far as I know, was the only person stupid enough to actually do what was asked.  The person cyberstalking me was not Willow Arune, though Arune was a supporter of that person's efforts.  It was hardly coordinated, more of a clumsy scheme by a person who had previously been obsessed someone in Canada.  The person has apparently since disappeared.  I don't know if they have died, been imprisoned (there is reason to believe this person had a history of criminal behavior in Nevada, or perhaps finally got on some serious anti-psychotics.  

Aw, Poor Suzy Must Be Jealous She Hasn't Gotten Any Attention Lately

Even though I haven't had much to say about kooky Suzan Cooke lately, she has decided to go after me, and Ben Girl (who did tear into Cooke quite justifiably about her outrageously hateful post after Rick Warren's son took his own life...establish Cooke as a true bigot of the worst sort) in her latest post.  And it is a really twisted piece of work, even by Cooke's standards.  Actually, I have largely ignored Cooke for the simple reason that Cooke rarely publishes anything original anymore.  Most of Cooke's blog is simply rehashing stuff from the looney Left press, and from the Transgender News mailing list.  In fact, a few weeks ago, when Transgender News did not post for a few days, Cooke's blog went silent as well. Unlike Cooke, I prefer quality over quantity.  Granted, I had planned to speak out about Cooke's piece on Rick Warren, but Ben Girl did such an excellent job, I saw no need to.  Which I guess has been eating at Cooke for a while....

Now, in Cooke's latest bit of insanity, she makes this assertion:

I do know I have a couple of people who make slamming me and a number of other TS/TG folks the main focus of their blogs. Jennifer ***** and Ben Girl to name names.

As I have said many times, I prefer to not use my name here.  Even though a lot of people know it, and jerks like Cooke have no morals, I stand by my policy...  Now, that said, I would point out that Ben Girl has posted about Cooke all of 4 time out of 213 posts.  On this blog, Cooke has been a significant enough topic to rate a label in 60 out of 299 posts (including this one).  She is certainly not the "main focus" of either of our blogs.  Of course, Cooke is one of those people who simply cannot abide disagreement.  

Of course, Cooke, who has an ego as big as her adopted state of Texas, is not really ranting about me speaking out against her.  She is rallying to the defense of her compadres, and fellow transgender kooks, Mr. "Cristan" Williams, and Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen.  Somewhere along the line, Cooke went over the deep end, and decided to become a major port of what she used to label the "Transgender Borg."  Shoot, Cooke is now the "Borg Queen."  Sandeen is upset because he can't censor me.  And, ironically, because I am doing the very thing he calls Cathy Brennan a coward for, he claims, not doing...answering his crap.  He attacks Brennan for not emailing him, which would supply him with an email address he can use to harass her.  Or, worse, supply to others for the same purpose.  

Now, some might get the impression that Cathy Brennan is some virulent hater of men, by reading some of the crap Sandeen has written about her.  It turns out that a) she actually worked with Sandeen to try to get the Maryland transgender bill passed, and b) had met with Sandeen where she had the unfortunate experience of finding out, first hand, just how totally insane Sandeen is....  Here is a quote from a comment that Cathy Brennan made to Sandeen on Pretendbians...

You are not female. You might be legal status female, but you are not female. Remember when my ex gf and I met you for coffee? You pounded the table and told us how you wanted to put your balls in a jar after you got them cut off so you could bring them to meetings and say you brought your balls with you. You also asked my ex gf if she would cast your balls for you.

That’s not female.

BTW, I thought you were disgusting then, but I was working on HB 235 because I have trans friends I care about, so I held my nose and worked with you. But please do not ever state that we were friends. I would never be friends with someone so crass that they talk about their balls for 45 minutes at a political meeting.

I have to say, I knew Sandeen was a kook, but I had no idea that Sandeen was THAT  big of a kook.  No, that is NOT female, those are not the words of a woman...shoot, those are not the words of  sane person.  They are, however the words of someone Cooke apparently wishes to align herself with.

Cooke's post is really just bizarre.  In it, Cooke tries to compare me and Ben Girl to house slaves, like some character in a movie.  In it, Cooke, again, attacks me for having been a part of the move to adopt the term "Harry Benjamin Syndrome."  Ironically, in the early days of her blog, Cooke herself embrace the term.  I don't know if Cooke's objection was based on my involvement (Cooke has had a bitter hatred for me since I made a suggestion on her blog that she did not agree with, and her partner Tina somehow decided I was a threat) or because she realized it was competition for her own label, "Women Born Transsexual."  Oh, BTW, that suggestion I made was relatively innocuous.  It was simply that transsexuals might consider getting a born female to serve as a spokesperson, the idea being that it would allow us to better advance our case while protecting our privacy.  Unlike Cooke and the rest of the Transgender Borg, some of us don't wish to be seen as anything other than women.

The simple fact is, what has Cooke in such a state is the that I, and Ben Girl, are not interested in being transgender but prefer just being women.  Cooke, like the rest of her kind, seem to thrive on that identification as "other."  They would, simply put, but transgender than be women.  Cooke, again, exhibits what I am now labeling, in a sort of "ha, ha only serious" manner, cisphobia...the fear of, or animosity towards, being normal.  In fact, Cooke actually has the audacity, and the hypocrisy, to try to force the label "transgender" on us, when we have clearly rejected it.  I should note, by the way, that Cooke has effectively embraced it, so no, I am not forcing it on her.

Ultimately, that is what HBS was all about.  Interestingly enough, the cisphobic crowd seems more married to the term than those of us who advanced it.  While it has been used on occasion, it probably won't catch on.  I can live with the term transsexual, as it appears, thankfully, that its use as a label for a particularly nasty form of pornography has faded.  In fact, that had a lot to do with the development of the term.  We did not want to be labeled as transgender, which had become associated with kooks like Sandeen who want to play dress up and pretend...and with the term "transsexual" being linked to pornography, we felt that a new term was needed.  And Harry Benjamin Syndrome was chosen, not because of the fact that Benjamin Syndrome would be abbreviated as BS, as Cooke claims to have pointed out, but instead because Benjamin Syndrome is already used to refer to a a type of multiple congenital anomaly/mental retardation (MCA/MR) syndrome.  

I honestly don't know what emotional trauma haunts Cooke so badly, and drives her to such bizarre extremes.  I do know Cooke had a long history of substance abuse, and emotional problems.  I know that Cooke has long exhibited bizarre and unstable behavior.  I know that Cooke has some serious emotional needs that she cannot seem to satisfy. One of these obviously is rooted in the fact that some lesbians do not accept transsexual as actually being women.  This is illustrated by this remark...

No matter how far up the bigots assholes you have your tongue in the end you are still a transsexual/transgender person. You can play the role of an extermination camp Sonder Commando, but all it does is postpone the inevitable.

I have three things to say to this.  First, back early on in my transition, when some of my relatives exhibited problems with my situation, my reaction, "That is there problem.  I will not take responsibility for their ignorance and bigotry."  I feel the same way now.  If someone has a problem with transsexuals. that is their problem, not mine.  Second, I find that life is a whole lot easier if you don't spend all your time shoving the fact that you are a transsexual in other people's faces.  And third, that brings me back to a point I have already made.  I am not transgender because I don't have that need to shove my history in people's faces.  Cooke clearly does.

Cooke is one of those people who is truly invincibly ignorant.  No matter what is said, Cooke has this bizarre idea that she knows, and everyone else is wrong.  She says...

I’ve pissed off the HBS holes because I don’t buy their purity crap. I also don’t buy their hatred of every transsexual/transgender person who stands up for their rights and by extension for the rights of all.

My problem with Cooke is the same problem I have with every other transgender extremist kook.  It has nothing to do with "purity."  I realize that Cooke picked that term up back in the days of Usenet, when there were some who tried to define transsexuals based on a very narrow standard.  Cooke even harks back to that by bringing up my unfortunate remark about being "more than a transvestite, less than a transsexual."  When I first began transition I hit some rough spots.  Many do, and I did what many do, and I reverted.  According to the real purists, and Cooke I should add, was one of them, that marked me as "not pure."  I struggled.  I tried to find a middle ground.  I found there was not one.  And I moved on with my transition again.

Oh, and one one bit of information for Cooke.  I generally don't refer to myself as a "girl."  I leave that bit of silliness for the "men in dresses" crowd.  It has always struck me as a silly affectation.  And the term was Harry Benjamin Syndrome to honor him for his pioneering work, not to identify anyone as one of his "girls."  In fact, because of harassment from a cyberstalker, I thought it wise to not reveal my surgeon as I suspect he would have been harassed as well.  Seriously, Cooke need to get a clue...and a life.

Put simply, well, I guess my view of Cooke is the same as my view of any other bigot.  I'm not going to take responsibility for her ignorance and hatred.  But I will go on speaking out against transgender stupidity, whether from Cooke, or her comrades Mr. Sandeen, Mr. Williams, and others.  And if Cooke doesn't like that...tough.  

Update:  Cooke has posted another disjointed, and rather bizarre rant about HBS (a term which has largely fallen out of use).  It really doesn't warrant much of a response.  I honestly hope Cooke will either realize the need, or someone else will care enough to push her into seeking the serious mental health treatment she so clearly needs.  Oh well...  She rants about others living in a fantasy, while posting an edited version of her own history....  Sad, really, but not all that unexpected.

And a thought....if I am such a fraud, or self-loathing, then why do I allow anyone to comment here, and say pretty much whatever they want, provided they don't violate the privacy rule, while Cooke censors with a heavy hand, and blocks pretty much any post that disagrees with her extremely narrow viewpoints?  Why shoot, even Cooke herself would be welcome...

If You Can't Beat Them, Co-Opt Them...

Well, it appears that Mr. "Cristan" Williams has decided to co-opt those he has vainly claimed victory over.  Mr. Williams, who has spent quite a bit of time telling us that the transsexual separatists movement is dead, and that we all must accept that our true motivation is really gender transgression, has suddenly decided to embrace the very positions he has fought so hard against.

It appears that he is trying to be a "born again HBSer."  On the Transadvocate site that he apparently inherited, he has posted a link to a video entitled Intersex Conditions Within The Transsexual Brain.  Of course, Mr. Williams, never one to leave things well enough alone has added to the title, making it out to be "Gender Orientation: Intersex Conditions Within The Transsexual Brain," which sort of implies that the video is an endorsement of Mr. Williams' attempts to explain transgender behavior.  Actually, the mishmash of psychobabble that Mr. Williams came up with has nothing to do with the topic of the video, which is simple statement that transsexualism can be thought of as a type of intersex condition.  Not a new idea, actually...it was suggested by a long line of scientists both before, and including, Dr. Harry Benjamin.  In fact, some actually coined the term "psychic hermaphrodites" to describe what would become know as transsexuals.  The idea being that transsexuals have brains that actually female.  Hmmm, what some have suggested as the basis for the concept of Harry Benjamin Syndrome.  Could Williams suddenly have decided to "co-opt" this idea he has hated so much?  Possibly.  He has certainly taken a video from Stanford, added a new "title page" that makes it look like it is an endorsement of the crap he dreamed up, and posted it to YouTube.  Classic Williams....

Another transgender blogger who has jumped on Williams' bandwagon is none other than Suzan Cooke, who reposted Williams link to the video.

Now, in the video, nothing new is really presented.  It is simply a rehash of information on several scientific discoveries that led some of us to suggest the idea of reclassifying transsexualism as a medical condition and not a mental illness.  Gender identity disorder could, and probably should, remain as a classification those cases where a mental, or at least behavioral disorder diagnosis it appropriate.

Funny, but this is the very stuff that Williams, and others, have rejected, but now seem to want to claim for themselves....maybe they realize, they are actually about to face a major backlash.

They haven't much of a leg to stand on.  They have tried to claim status as transsexuals, but when compared to true transsexuals they look, well, like the kooks they really are.  So, maybe they think they can claim the stuff they have rejected.  This could be interesting....

Some People Are Just TOO Ignorant to Not Be Funny

I always get a kick out of people who are so bigoted that they can't see just how bigoted they are, and therefore think everyone else is bigoted and they are, well, sane.

From Suzan Cooke, who is almost always good for a laugh...

What the hell is wrong with these sick evil f**king Christians? The world would be a much better place without their hatred in the name of some imaginary invisible magic sky daddy.

Let's see...  You have a group of people who hold a view that is different from the one Cooke holds, but who are motivated by honest concern for the well-being of someone they sincerely believe is on the wrong path, and who are acting in a manner that does not actually harm the person in question...versus a profane and hateful bigot who would deny them the basic right to exist, and who uses what basically amounts to outright lies to attack them.

Funny...and sad, but really, just absolutely amazingly ignorant.  But that is what true bigotry is, absolute, amazing ignorance.  What is truly ironic...I would still defend Cooke's right to be an absolutely, amazingly ignorant bigot....  

I Don't Know Why Cooke is Confused

I just wanted to post a brief article about something that just showed up on Women Born Transsexual.  Suzan Cooke seems confused that Drew Cordes has a problem with gendered pronouns. The answer is simple. If Cooke just bothered with a bit of research, she would find out that Cordes, who had SRS relatively recently, almost immediately realized that he was not really a woman, and is now, as is sometimes sadly the case, yet another who has gone off the deep end for just that reason. I had doubts about Cordes, and was more than a bit surprised when he announced he had surgery. I was not surprised, shortly afterwards, when he started expressing regrets.


Of course, this sort of thing can be expected as, more and more transgender kooks push for surgery on demand. Like Cooke did not too long ago when she was telling people to "cowgirl/cowboy up" if they make a mistake.

Oh well....

Extreme Transgender Silliness

Sometimes a transgender kook will publish something that is so incredibly silly it seems beyond belief.  This mornings round of silliness over at Women Born Transsexual brought just such an example.  Now, as you may know, Suzan Cooke mostly republishes stuff from other sites.  There is very little original content, and today is no exception.  One of Cooke's favorite sources of late has been the Huffington Post, which seems to have become a major mouthpiece for the transgender extremists.

This morning there was an article entitledTrans* Invisibility, by "JamieAnn" Meyers that has to be one of the best examples of what makes "transgender" completely distinct from both transsexualism, and well, from sanity as well.  The second paragraph pretty much sets the stage for this:

My wife and I were visiting with a cisgender heterosexual couple, and our conversation began to focus on personal relationships. Because we wanted to be authentic about our life experiences, we came out to them as a couple, and I came out as a trans* woman. Almost immediately, both of them said, "That doesn't matter to us." The intent of their statement was to be affirming, but the statement's impact on me was profoundly different. Though it's important to know that people respect and accept you, it's also important that they honor the lifelong struggle that you have faced as a trans* person.

Now, think about this.  The normal couple, and yes, relative to to the kook writing here, they are normal, basically says "Okay, no problem..."  Sounds reasonable, at least to a sane person,  But this is a transgender kook.  No!  Of course that is not example.  They have to honor the struggle of someone choosing to play dress-up and pretend to be a woman.  This is wrong on some many levels.  It is insulting to women who often face very real struggles.  It is insulting to gay and lesbian couples who have had to deal with discrimination.  Simply put, it is outrageously insulting to anyone who has faced real discrimination for something that was not, quite literally, a lifestyle choice.  

This person shows the true nature of transgender.  It is not, as we are so often told, about being who you really are.  It is about being transgressive.  It is about being at odds with societal norms, and it is about rubbing society's nose in your misbehavior.

Seriously, this person is complaining about people being accepting.  He, and yes, this is another person I refuse to pander to and call by female pronouns, is complaining because they are not making a big fuss over him being transgender.  Give me a break.

I have a few friends who know my history.  I have more who I am not sure know or not, and then quite a few whom as far as I know, have no idea.  Out of the friends who know, there is basically one who I discuss it with much,  And even then, he pretty much understands not to bring it up.  He might rarely ask a question, but I am generally the one who broaches the subject.  For example, on Monday night, we were talking and I suddenly realized something. asked what the date was.  He thought and said, "I'm not sure, why?"  I pulled out my smartphone, and saw it was the 11th.  I realized that the day before had been the 7th anniversary of my SRS.  I hadn't even thought about it.  Not that is not a significant day for me, but as time has passed, surgery has ceased to be a major focus for me.  Before I had it, getting to that point was very significant.  Now, looking back, it simply marks the point where my life got a lot better.  

Somewhat ironically, four days before that was the "anniversary" of "Autumn" Sandeen's showing up for work in drag.  A day he makes a big deal of, especially this year because it marked 10 years of him pretending to be a woman.  He has no idea, of course, what being a woman is like, and he never will.  Ironically, his making a big deal out his "anniversary" is one of the indications of this.

But for me, the past becomes more and more distant.  When I first started dealing with my problem (as opposed to making up an excuse like Sandeen and other transgender kooks have) I wondered if there would come a time when it would be easy to forget.  The answer is yes.  Outside of this blog, and the occasional conversation with my friend, being transsexual is not a major part of my life.

Funny, but I find it highly offensive when someone tries to remind me that they know that I am  transsexual.  It is not something I care to discuss with most people.  The one person I do discuss it with holds a special place in my life, as my spiritual director.  But in most cases, no, I don't like to talk about it.

And I find it rather silly that the original author makes a big deal out of comparing all this to "race."  Now, just think about this for a second.  A lot of humor has been made out of how people react to having the fact that they are a certain race pointed out.  If you are a complete fool, you might feel it necessary to let someone know you are okay with them being black, or Asian, or Native American, etc., but most of us would consider that a bit gauche.  And we would also consider it odd if someone got made because we didn't make an issue out of their race or ethnicity.

If you meet someone who is gay, do you feel it appropriate to make an issue out of it?  Do you go out of your way to "affirm" that you accept their gayness?  Not very likely.  I find it amazing that the Huffington Post would publish such an absurd article, but then again, this is about the idiocy know as "transgender," where making sure everyone knows you are a "man in dress" is part of the fun.