All Together, Forward March, in Lockstep....Or ELSE!!!!

After the silliness of comparing TERFs to Westboro Baptist Church, the kooks at Transadvocate have come up with another idiotic post.  This time, they are again attacking Andrea James for the unforgivable sin of not adhering to the transgender party line.  This is not the first time Transadvocate has gone after her, they also attacked her viciously for daring to disagree with them over Jared Leto playing a "transgender" person in Dallas Buyers Club, which is kind of interesting since the movie was set at a time that 'transgender" was not a commonly used term.  More accurately, Leto played a drag queen who was HIV positive.

So, what did Andrea James do to incur the more recent wrath of the transgender extremists? She had the audacity to suggest that GLAAD is becoming too dominated by transgender extremists. And worse, she has supported the appointment of Megan McCain, who is the daughter of Arizona Senator and former presidential candidate John McCain. Gasp, she is even a Republican. This is about as far from being in lockstep as you can get, and the Transadvocate crowd will have no part of it.

Never mind that Andrea James has done for more for transsexuals than all the transgender kook combined.  Her contributions far outweigh those of men like "Cristan" Williams, "Autumn" Sandeen, and others.

This of course, has become the standard approach of the transgender extremists.  For them, it is all about controlling comments and language.  Even if the person making the comment is someone they would tend to forcibly label as "transgender."  Step of of line, and you will be attacked.  It's that simple.  You want to get along with the transgender kooks, just repeat the party line, never disagree with them, and above all, never, ever, think for yourself.

A New Low, Even For the Transadvocate

First off, I want to apologize for being away for a while.  Real life intervened, and I have been very busy...in a good way.  Also, to be honest, there has been little worth writing about.  After a while, it gets tiresome writing about the same old silliness from the radical TG crowd.  There just hasn't been much new stuff...until now.

In an article by Fallon Fox, a pseudo-transsexual man who likes to beat up on other women, we are informed that the "TERFs" (i.e. Trans Exclusive Radical Feminists) are "the new Westboro Baptist Church."    Of course, this is the same bunch that has repeatedly tried to get the Southern Poverty Law Center to declare TERFs to be a certified hate group.  I guess since that hasn't worked, they have decided to take on a new approach.

The whole idea is ludicrous.  Worse, Mr. Fox comes up with some rather strained (to say the  very least) reasons for his claim.

Who in the hell would go through years of hormone replacement therapy, electrolysis, doctor’s appointments, psychological therapy, loss of thousands and thousands of dollars, loss of family and friends, possible loss of one’s job, put themselves in harm’s way by being a prime target for physical violence at the hands of men? And most importantly, why would some so called “men” elect to have an operation on their genitals that would remove their ability to use their sexual organ in penetrating fashion in the act of rape? Most rational adults are not ignoramuses to the degree that they would believe such rhetoric especially after hearing the counter argument.

Uh, sorry fellow, but we are constantly told how one does not need SRS to be a woman, how women have penises, how "most transgender people don't have surgery," etc.  So, don't come along and try to use claims about having SRS to argue a transgender position.  It's a bit disingenuous to say the least.

And really, why would someone who claims to be a "woman" spend so much time insuring that everyone, and anyone is fully aware that they were born a man, and expose their self to endless rounds of publicity, seeking out the spotlight?

Sorry, what you try to describe are transsexuals, who are not, automatically, transgender.  

And let's look at what the transgender extremists have pushed.  A lot of the controversy has arose because:

1. Transgender males generally refuse to respect reasonable boundaries.  They demand to be allowed to invade women's spaces, no matter how personal and private they are.
2. Transgender males introduced the idea of the "cotton ceiling" in an attempt to shame lesbians into accepting sex with them.
3. An increasing number of transgender males demand the right to be in place where nudity is inevitable, even though they have no had corrective surgery.  And they adamantly defend men who have been caught in such situations.
4. These men, Mr. Fox being a particular example, belittle the very real concerns that women have about men committing aggressive acts.

I don't agree with everything the Radical Feminists say, but I also do not believe they remotely deserve the crap spewed by kooks like Mr. Fox.

Great Moments In Transgender Silliness

I have spent so much time focusing on the kooks over at Shame On You Transgender Edition that I haven't had time to comment on some of the other silliness that has been going on.

First off, there has been the extreme silliness surrounding the movie Dallas Buyers Club, and Jared Leto winning Best Supporting Actor for his role as "Rayon," who is basically a drag queen.  But, we are told by the kooks, "Rayon" is a transgender woman, even though the term transgender was not remotely in common usage until years later than the period portrayed in the film.  And besides that, the character is completely fictional, added to the film  for "dramatic purposes."  

Now, the irony is, the same people who complained bitterly when Felicity Huffman portrayed a transsexual (who by the way, is very clear that she is a transsexual) in the film Transamerica, are now complaining that a man portrayed "Rayon," and that this gives "the wrong idea about transgender people.  Hmmm, I just don't see that, since, as pointed out many times, "transgender" is such a vague and meaningless term.

The complaints really took off when Jared won the Academy Award, and failed to "thank the transgender community."  Now, why he should, is beyond me.  For what?  For not even being around during the time portrayed in the film?  The whole thing is just incredibly silly.

And of course, Mr. "Cristan" Williams' Transadvocate blog continues to be a constant source of comedy, including:

• One blogger complaining that people actually think "Boys have penises, and girls have vaginas!"  The horror!
• Another blogger has realized that "Jerry Springer exploits trans women for ratings…"  Really?  I wonder why no one has ever noticed that before? (For those too dumb to really…that SARCASM!!!!)
• The surprising admission (for them) that Jan Morris, a well known transsexual, is not a "transgender" since they have an article about some dude who wants to be the "first trans person to climb Mount Everest."  For those who are not aware, Morris did it in 1953, before her transition.  Granted Morris, did not go to the summit, but was part of the expedition, and was the one who reported the news that Edmund Hillary had made it to the top.
• And an absurdly whiny post by Mr. "Dana Lane" Taylor complaining about Cathy Brennan's supposed harassment of him.  Actually, someone really should seriously intervene in Mr. Taylor's mental health crisis….

And of course, the boys, and girl, at Shame On You Transgender haven't failed to provide a few moments of silliness themselves.  They provided what would, otherwise, have been solid advice on make-up for transgender men looking to impersonate women (Seriously guys, are you trying to look like women…or clowns?) but then they had to act like idiots and include…

Remember that as a transgender person you are an ambassador for all of us. The first impression you give people can be the most important so take your time and do the make-up right. Too much make-up, well that's just a shame.

This is another example of why I want nothing to do with the transgender community.  I didn't transition to be an "ambassador."  Seriously, I guess the idea of simply being a woman is completely lost on Mr. "Michelle" Spicer.  It's all about being a man in a dress, and making sure everyone knows you are a man in a dress…

And Ms. "Mark" Cummings wrote another egotistical rant, including this bit of narcissism…

The truth can be hurtful and many will not accept it, they will turn around and create all sorts of justification, and make the truth barer a monster. Well guess what, pier pressure has never worked with me. I beat my own drum and couldn't careless if the message is not popular or rings right with many. I have my own mind and have never been a follower. So if what is written on this blog offends you, there might be a reason, and possibly something that you need to look into. What rubs you the wrong way, usually has a message or lesson for you. I know you are not going to agree and that is fine to, I am just stating my views and opinion as are all the writers on this blog.

It wouldn't be nearly as funny…if the didn't effectively contradict himself.  On the one hand, she admits she is self-promoting, but then she comes across as condescending…if you don't like what she says, it's because you are the one who is wrong, and you are just not getting the message she is trying to force down your throat…but hey, she is okay with you disagreeing, because she is just presenting "her views and opinions."  

It is one thing to suggest that people should read critically.  I hope anyone reading my blog does just that.  If you blindly accept everything I say, well…that is not a wise approach to ANYTHING you read.  Think about it, question it, challenge it, and then, if it stands up, accept it.  Of course, so often (and Ms. Cummings is a classic example) if they can't refute it, they get angry, and resort to insults.  Yes, I am blunt with people.  I don't play games and pander to delusions.  I point out that people are frauds, con artists, grifters, stalkers, perverts, and yes…even men (or women) when they claim to be otherwise.  I don't do this to insult.  I do this because some people need to be confronted with the truth.

The transgender community remains a regular source of truly silly positions.  While I keep hoping they will come to their senses…I'm not holding my breath.

"You can't handle the truth!"

When I saw that the Toronto Star had, unsurprisingly, confirmed the likely veracity of the incident involving a naked (and quite erect) transgender man harassing a woman in a YMCA locker room, I wondered how Mr. "Cristan" Williams would react.  After all, Mr. Williams has frantically tried to deny that the story happened, labeling it as a lie, a hoax, etc.  Oh, he had to admit, somewhat reluctantly, that there was a possibility that the story was true, but even then he buried it under so many "weasel" words, it could easily be missed…

The Toronto Star has published this claim – without noting that the claim is a hoax, or at the very least is an anonymous and unverified claim – twice now. 

This is actually a repeat of what is said in an earlier paragraph that referred, quite contradictorily, to the entire story as a HOAX, in a story that repeatedly used the term "hoax" to refer to the entire claim.

Of course, this came after I pointed out that Mr. Williams had no real basis to show that the story was actually false, and was simply making them claim without any real basis.  Now, it turns out that the Toronto Star has been able to contact the author…that the YMCA has admitted receiving complaints…and that, it is much more likely that the story is true.

So, how has Mr. Williams reacted?  Has he admitted his error?  Has he admitted engaging in what basically amounts to a cover-up?  Has he faced reality, and dealt with the very real likelihood that a transgender male was parading around a Toronto YMCA, with a full erection, harassing females?

Are you kidding?  Of course NOT!

To use his own words, he has "doubled down" on his attempted cover-up.  

Of course, Mr. Williams, along with his comrade in lies, Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen, know that the truth is not their friend.  They have to hide the truth.  They have to perpetuate the illusion that "transgender people" never act in improper ways.  Because, quite frankly…

They can't handle the truth!!!!

Mr. "Cristan" Williams is Lying Again

It hardly qualifies as news, it happens so much, but Mr. "Cristan" Williams has come up with another of his signature whoppers.  He is whining because Cathy Brennan contacted OutSmart Magazine, and LGBT publication in Houston, to complain about an article Williams wrote on what he likes to call "Transgender Exclusionary Radical Feminists," or TERFs.  Williams has repeated a lie he created, claiming that Ms. Brennan is affiliated with the Pacific Justice Institute.  She isn't, and his entire basis for this claim is the fact that she apparently posted a link to something they published.  Hmm, based on that logic, I would hate to see what Mr. Williams would claim about me….

Mr. Williams plays fast and loose with the facts quite often.  Then when confronted with the truth, he simply lies more.  In this case, only a fool would would begin to believe this flimsy lie.

Unfortunately, Mr. Williams personally imposed himself into the case of the Colorado teen that became the focus of so much controversy.  Elizabeth at Notes From the T-Side is closer to see the problem here, but I suspect does not want to admit that her enthusiastic endorsement of Mr. Williams was in error.

Elizabeth writes, quite accurately, about how being labeled transgender hurts the cases of someone like the student referred to by Mr. Williams as "Jane Doe," but still refuses to admit that Williams' motivations, and actions, have nothing to do with helping the child, and everything to do with pushing the radical transgender agenda of full and unfettered access to women's spaces for men pretending to be women.

BTW, in spite of the best efforts of the transgender kooks, it appears that the implementation of AB 1266 will not be quite what they planned.  News articles have talked about schools making plans to provide privacy in dressing areas, so the kook's vision of "transgender" males waving penises around the girls is not going to happen after all.

Of course, knowing the kooks, and their agenda, I am wondering when the first lawsuit challenging such an approach will appear?  And how quickly things will blow up in their face?

When Extremists Collide

Well, it seems that the kooks at "Transadvocate," well Mr. "Cristan" Williams and Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen decided to put on a performance by having a protest at the offices of the Pacific Justice Institute.  Clearly, Mr. Williams was anticipating a massive protest judging from his rather optimistic bit of artwork that accompanied the announcement of the event...

Instead...well, instead there was a total of 10 protestors, including Mr. Williams and Mr. Sandeen....

Quite a contrast...

So, we have an extremist religious right group, that has no real understanding of transsexualism being picketed by an extremist transgender group (somehow, I am not sure 10 people would exactly qualify as much of a group) who, well, have no real understanding of transsexualism.

I did get a real laugh out of Mr. Williams' enthusiastic prose....

Those who chose to call out PJI’s obdurate behavior were trans allies, parents, youth, war veterans, clergy and attorneys as well as 100s of virtual protesters who used the #JD4PJI tag to draw attention to PJI’s bullying.

Well, let's see....  The, uh, "trans allies" part sort of goes without saying...Mr. Sandeen and Mr. Williams would both qualify as parents....Mr. Sandeen could sort of, kind of, be called a "war veteran" if you stretch the meaning and I suppose at least one other might have served in the military, though that is not certain....there are a couple kids there, no doubt when they should have been in school....one of the people was a theology professor who decided she is really a "dude" so I guess that would qualify as "clergy" singular...If more than one of these is actually an attorney, I would be surprised (actually, none of them look likely to be) so that whole spiel is a bit of obvious spin.  I wonder if PJI even knew they were out there?  I seriously doubt they cared.

I can imagine both Mr. Sandeen and Mr. Williams eagerly anticipating the massive crowd that would show up.  I also would suspect they were quite disappointed that it turned out to be a total bust.  I wonder how many news organizations they contacted, only to have, quite obviously, no one show up to cover this momentous event.  I wonder if they contacted the LAPD to warn them that there would be a huge rally that day?  Seriously, this is more than a little hilarious.

Oh, and I checked, and apparently Pacific Justice Institute did not care enough to even mention this event....I guess even they thought it beneath notice.

The "Trans Panic" Continues...

No, I don't mean "trans panic" in the sense of the rather nasty defense used when someone is murdered because they are discovered to be transsexual, or more likely, transgender.  I mean the frantic attempts to gain attention by writing about the case of the Colorado high school student.  The transgender extremists can't seem to get enough of it.

Mr. "Cristan" Williams has repeatedly written on the subject, and now Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen has taken up the cause, having produced at least three four articles(they come so fast it is hard to keep up), two three on Transadvocate, and another on LGBT Weekly.  Well, technically, the latest article on Transadvocate is more about AB 1266, which is at the heart  of the panic.

I suspect, AB 1266, a law that takes an extremist approach to protecting "transgender" students in California public schools will be overturned next year.  I have said, repeatedly, that the smart move would be to have it amended to take out the excessive features (in particular sharing locker rooms) or at least include provisions concerning privacy (i.e. something similar to rules in San Francisco that address "inevitable nudity").  Now, I don't even know what the situation is in school locker rooms.  It has been a very long time since I was in one, and that may not even be an issue.  But, whether it is, or not, addressing it would defuse the objections to the law.

But, given that this has not once been addressed in anything I have seen, I suspect that it may well be a issue.  And I also strongly suspect that transgender extremists have no problem with the issue, even though I have no doubt it would cause even more upset for students who are legitimately transsexual (who are really not a concern for the kooks like Sandeen and Williams).

I do find it amusing that, while the Pacific Justice Institute has made the claim that the Colorado student was harassing female students, the only ones who has applied terms like "attacking," "predator," and "monster," have been trans extremists attempting, desperately, to create straw man arguments.

Now, honest people can disagree on whether or not what has occurred in that Colorado high school amounts to harassment.  Arguments can be made both ways.  But the simple truth is, no one, not even the Pacific Justice Institute has actually referred to that child using words like "predator" or "monster" except the trans extremists.  The really bad thing is, I can imagine this child reading some of the articles in support, and actually believing that people have used those terms...when they haven't.

I have been attacked by people I would normally support because I have declined to accept extremists positions on this case.  I am saddened that this child is being used by either side to further a political agenda.  I am saddened that this child's privacy has been invaded by having photos posted online.  It seems odd...much has been made about people making death threats, and yet, something that might lead to someone spotting the child and attacking has been posted.  Without the photos being posted, the chances of someone identifying the child are much less.  But, anyone who is obsessive enough to actually carry out such an attack now has more information to use.

In spite of what some, in fits of irrational rage, have suggested, I don't want this child harmed.  Sadly, if it does happen, it may well be more the fault of the trans extremists than those they try to smear while pushing their agenda.

Hey! Who's the Naked Dude?

[Updated to correct an error in which I misattributed a position to Cathy Brennan.  For that, I apologize.]

I am sure most are familiar with the "Emperor's New Clothes."  It is the story of a very vain but gullible emperor of an imaginary land who is sold a set of "special" garments.  The thing is, he is told that they are made from a fabric invisible to anyone who is unfit for his position or "hopelessly stupid".    Of course, the garments  are not real, and he is being tricked into paying for nothing.  

So, when his new "clothes" are delivered, he is shocked to discover that he, the emperor, is apparently "unfit," but not willing to admit this, he makes a great fuss over how fine they are and after being assisted in dressing by the con artists who have tricked him, and having his ministers also discover they they too are not "unfit" (and of course no one admits this) he goes out in public where the crowds, again wishing to avoid embarrassment, make a great fuss over how fine the garments are.  Until, finally, a young child says, "Why does the emperor have no clothes?"

Well, many, like the emperor, are being sold an illusion.  And some are beginning to ask questions, and that is causing panic among transgender extremists.  Over the past several days, a number of them, led by Mr. "Cristan'  Williams, have tried to counter an article that first appeared on Christian Broadcasting Networks website about a transgender male in Colorado, who has invaded the girls bathroom, and the fact that this has caused distress for female students.

Mr. Williams has posted at least five (now up to six) stories on Transadvocate, plus one on his personal web page, and has further made efforts to hound any news site that has dared repeat the story.  All of his posts have included outright lies, in an attempt to stem what is clearly the beginning of a coming backlash.

The latest post on Transadvocate is just absurd.  Headlined, "Anti-gay activist group admits trans school “harassment” is fake," it is basically just one big lie. The group in question, Pacific Justice Institute did not make an admission, and the whole thing is Mr. Williams putting words in their mouth in an attempt to create another of his trademark straw man arguments.

Mr. Williams starts off:

Okay. Maybe the Pacific Justice Institute (PJI) doesn’t think that they’re admitted their charge of “harassment” is fake, but I’ll let you be the judge.

Okay, there is so much wrong here, it is laughable.  First off, it is kind of hard to make an admission without intending to actually do so.  Second, well, let's be honest, Mr. Williams is not going let anyone be the judge.  He is going to tell you what to think, and demand that you accept it.

What is really going on becomes a bit more obvious later in the post.  He attacks one of his favorite targets, attorney Cathy Brennan, because, well she simply quoted a statement from Pacific Justice Institute.  This is not even a position taken by her/  That post points out their view that "a trans person in the restroom is 'inherently intimidating and harassing.'"  Now, to be specific, what is referenced, is having someone who is male, who makes it clear that he is male, but who i claiming to be "a girl," insisting on using the women's restroom.  We are not talking about someone who has a medical condition, who is seeking to assimilate as a female.  We are talking about someone who wants to be "out, loud, and proud," as a transgender.

Williams goes on to attack Brennan for "outing" an FTM transgender teenager, while glossing over the fact that what Brennan actually did was notify school authorities about this person posting harassing messages on Tumblr, including some about women and rape.  The student was making the posts from a school account.  Of course, in the fantasy world of the transgender activist, such behavior as that committed by the student is protected and Brennan should have simply accepted it without complaint.  I guess "ordinary women" don't count...only trans women.

All of this serves to further expose what terrifies kooks like Mr. Williams.  If people actually stop and consider what is really going on, the entire transgender house of cards will come crashing down.  They are not interested in helping the rare person who actually is transsexual, who simply wants to get on with their life, avoiding publicity.  In fact, if you do wish this, they are very likely to show what hypocrites they really are, and attempt to out you, especially if you don't wish to follow them in lockstep.

No, the truth must remain hidden.  The focus must be kept off of the fact that they are trying to force people to accept that women have penises, and that simply claiming womanhood magically grants it in total.

And people are finding that increasingly hard to swallow....  And noticing that not only is the emperor quite naked, but that he is trying to be such in women's locker room....

Thank You Mr. Taylor

Seriously, I want to thank Mr. "Dana Lane" Taylor for his article on Transadvocate entitled "On 'Passing' As A Woman."  In this article, you have made very clear the difference between transgender and transsexual.  Even though you have turned against "transsexual separatism" you have made the case for it beyond question.

Of course, this is not what was intended.  The article rather cluelessly expresses what transgender is REALLY about.  Or, perhaps, more to the point, what it clearly isn't.  

Now, Mr. Taylor bases the article on the term "passing," which I also disdain, but for very different reasons.  I have said, more than once, "I don't pass."  I don't mean, as they say, that "get clocked," or that "I get read," quite the opposite in fact.  I simply mean that I am accepted as what I am, simply a woman.  What Mr. Taylor means is, in fact, just the opposite.  Like many transgender males (and yes, he is a male), he does not wish to be seen as a woman, because if he is seen as a woman, he cannot force to acknowledge him as a "woman."  And forcing people to accept him as what he is not, and never will be, is what it is all about for men like him.  And yes, Mr. Taylor is also really a man...socially, and emotionally.

For a transsexual, this is all about being who, and what, we really are....women.  For transgender males, it is about forcing people to abandon reality and acknowledge them as "woman," even though their personalities are clearly masculine, and they retain their penises.

Mr. Taylor tries to dress his garbage up in a false patina of pseudo-feminism, talking about defying "stereotypes."  But, stereotypes exist, quite simply, because they reflect reality.  But the issue here is not about how people dress...when I was approaching beginning my real life test, I could not "pass" as a male.  I had some very bizarre experiences, including being told I was going into the wrong restroom when trying to use the men's room.  I avoided going to lunch with my boss for fear of being called "ma'am" by wait staff.

Mr. Taylor talks about the "harm" that encouraging passing might cause to someone, like him, who is never really going to be accepted as a woman (I suspect that the "male" characteristics he speaks of are not so much appearance as his personality...) but I want to present the other side of the coin, so to speak.

The transgender community has been all aflutter over the fact that a "transgender teenager" has been elected homecoming queen in Southern California.  Great news?  Nope.  This poor child, no doubt influenced by men like Mr. Taylor, Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen, and Mr. "Christan" Williams, has been "out, loud, and proud."  Cassidy Lynn Campbell was even featured in a photo spread, including shots that gave the impression more of someone who still appears very male with a wig, and quite a bit of make-up.  Now, I realize that this person has just begun attending school as a "girl" this school year, and it is still very early.  Presumably, this person was presenting as a male most of the time, until very recently.  But, what really happens when someone tries to take this path?  

Well, here is a link to what this person posted on You Tube after being brought face to face with reality.  Compare this to other videos where this person self-identifies as a "teenage drag queen."  The video might be a bit of theater, or it may be the honest heartbreak of a transsexual who could have avoided this by actually making an effort to be a female, rather than trying to be a "transgender."  I am certainly leaning towards sincere, but I honestly can't say for sure.

Gee, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Sandeen, Mr. Williams, if it is real, I bet you can feel real proud of what your crap really results in.  Sure, for you, and many others, it is really all a game.  But your game, and your trying to force it on others, has real world consequences.  But you don't care about that, as long as you have your "thrills." If you REALLY cared, you would be working to help young transsexuals assimilate, but that does not fit your agenda, does it?

There Really Is A Difference

I sometimes identify myself as a "transsexual separatist," mainly to irritate the kooks like Mr. "Cristan" Williams who use that term.  But in truth, the term is something of a misnomer.  It was created as an attack on transsexuals who simply do not identify with the so-called "transgender paradigm."  The term was clearly coined by "gender fascists"  as part of a larger attempt to force those identified as "transsexual separatist" back into line.  We are actually, truth be told, more assimilationist than separatist as the goal is to assimilate into the larger society, rather than, for want of a better term, "sticking out like a sore thumb." 

This was particularly brought home to me when I happened to check out the comments made on the article by Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen (all ready discussed here) where he invents the idea that I am some sort of "activist."  The article that lead to him stalking me on Twitter, and in comments on this blog for a while, in a bizarre attempt to distract me from something I don't even do.  Amusing, but a bit of a bore after a while.

The comment was made by some guy calling himself "dawn1257" and it shows the overwhelming arrogance of some transgender extremists.

It starts off with a semi-accurate opening:

Certainly you are aware that the effectiveness of your and others activism is not what propels their dislike of all things transgender? It’s that your and others activism – they feel -publically beguiles the very term ‘transsexual’.

The use of the term "beguile" is a bit puzzling.  I would not say that that Mr. Sandeen's "activism" (I would tend to refer to it as self-aggrandizing attention seeking) charms or 
enchants anyone, and it certainly does not help time pass more pleasantly.  The term does carry an aspect of being deceptive, and in that sense is slightly accurate.  Well, actually...the deceptive part is highly accurate.

The real problems are in what comes next.  I don't know whether it is arrogantly clueless, or cluelessly arrogant....

Run-ins with Elizabeth are not unknown to me. My first was a result of her blog post entitled something like, ‘I Will Never Understand’. The premise of her writing was two-fold. First she has difficulty in maintaining understanding of why a “man” would wait twenty, thirty, or more years, get married, have children, and THEN transition. Secondly, she simply could not fathom why, after transitioning, anyone would want to remain either in that same marriage, be ‘known’ as the “Town Tranny”, and/or be open to anyone (activist) about what she perceives as only a correctable medical condition which once corrected that individual should just then ‘melt’ into society living forever as the woman, or man they know themselves to be.

Now, I admit, I did get married, for the primary purpose of getting away from my father, and I have one daughter.  I got married because, at the time, I thought I was attracted to women and because, after seriously considering transition in my early twenties, I became convinced, based on bad information, that I would not be allowed to pursue SRS.  I did some research in a university library, and the books available at the time tended to indicate that anyone who was attracted to women was not considered a viable candidate for transition and surgery.  I did not know that this was not true, and since I had no access to a competent therapist, I had no way of knowing otherwise.  And the worse part is, when I later learned that it was possible to transition and pursue surgery, I discovered I was actually a straight woman.  

But this not what we are talking about here.  We are talking about men, generally facing a mid-life crisis in the forties, fifties, even sixties, who suddenly, after showing no sign if having an issue with their "gender identity" (other than being an adult fetishistic crossdresser) suddenly decide that they are "really a woman," and as pointed out, want to stay married, and be "out, loud, and proud."  In another words, someone like, oh...say, Mr. "Sandeen" or Mr. "Cristan" Williams.  In a lot of cases, the wife has the good sense to say, "No way!," but many are financially dependent on their husbands, or feel bound by moral standards and remain in the marriage.

Now, it is not so much a matter of not understanding, as simply not seeing such a person as having any relationship to transsexualism (other than possibly suffering from the delusion that they actually are transsexual...again, we come back to the part about deception).

It is in the next paragraph where things really go off the tracks....

To a large degree her, and the others just like her, do feel animus. They feel threatened. They feel repulsed at the concept, and the coercion, and the corrupting of the term ‘transsexual’ being co-opted in sameness as transgender. It’s their sincere desire to maintain a ‘purity’ for a term that really never even existed before one prominent Psychiatrist coined it some 60+ years ago. Some of them, Elizabeth included, claim that they were in fact treated by this man. And, they may well have been. I believe they feel it to be their collective duty to protect that term with a vengeance because ‘they’ received his blessing as themselves when no one else would even consider their plight. So they have developed an aggressive desire to protect that label for only those who ascribe to, and are willing to follow the protocol enshrined from his research. In that protocol, Dr. Benjamin felt that ‘blending’ back into a normative lifestyle in the sex you believe (know) yourself to be, and have transitioned to, was paramount to being successful and ‘true’.

This shows the sort of clueless arrogance I was talking about.  First off, it is kind of ironic to have someone who I am sure clings to the term "transgender" like a drowning man grasping at a life preserver, making comments about people trying to defend a clearly defined medical term that many attempt to co-opt.  I mean, seriously, in spite of the attempted lies of Mr. "Cristan" Williams, the fact remains that "transgender" in its current usage only dates from sometime around the mid-Nineties.  The term may have occasionally cropped up prior to that, but it was not at all common.  Worse, there is the snarky comment implying that someone might make a false claim to having been treated by Harry Benjamin, and the rather false claim that we feel "threatened."  I agree, I do feel angry at the attempts to coerce me into accepting a label I do not agree with, but I also believe that Benjamin, and other experts are right that blending in is preferable...for true transsexuals.  For transvestites, like Mr. Sandeen, Mr. Williams, and I would presume "dawn1257," the very idea is anathema.  For them, it is all about being as exhibitionistic as possible.

The clueless arrogance continues...

But, the fallacy as I see it in these ‘separatists’ is that they were from a time when the science behind transsexualism, and other labeled gender variances were scattered, essentially unknown, and uncoordinated in cross-referencing. Today, like so many other physiological human conditions, much more is known -professionally. The ‘knowing’ is a resultant factor of availability of information worldwide. No longer are such issues confined for weeks, months, or even decades buried in obscure manuals, or sheltered from even public awareness.

The problem is not so much that science has advanced, it has and it has shown that the differences between transsexuals and those who might well be labeled as "gender variant" are quite wide, but that political pressure has played a major role in how things are dealt with.  A lot of therapists will now pretty much rubber stamp anyone who claims to be "trans" whatever for hormones, and if they are actually willing to give up their penis, SRS, without any real effort to determine if they are really transsexual.

He then asserts...

This is where activism comes to play. Just because something might be verified clinically as true, that doesn’t always manifest to instant recognition and acceptance of what was once thought solely as a “taboo”, a maligned, and misunderstood condition. Without the foot soldiers (activists) who in many cases are the subjects of these issues themselves, how then is a public who is ever so willing to ‘light the torches and grab the pitchforks’ instead of utilizing calm discussion and reasoned thinking on such issues going to be made known the actual truth?

The real irony here is that a lot of so-called "trans activism" involves trying to lie and make people believe that "transgender" people all are all "transsexuals" and that it is not that they are making a choice to "transgress" gender, even though that is clearly what they are doing.

Then we get to a statement that is truly clueless....

Essentially, these ‘separatists’ are and will remain ineffective in their pursuit. Some of their ‘chosen few’ will follow in their foot traffic and their mean-spirited blogging. Some of those who become transitioned will desire not to be ‘known’ publicly. Some will seek the light of determined ambition to reach out and make a difference positively in whatever manner they can. Some of us will also aid that campaign in more quiet ways, just because we can and not because we are afraid or embarrassed.

Actually, we are far more effective than he realizes.  For example, in spite of the best efforts of the transgender extremists to force us into line, including actually outright lying, we are quite able to maintain our separate identity.  In spite of their shrill claims, most simply do not buy the claim that disagreement with their extremism is hate.  Our pursuit is to blend in and live normal lives, and we do it quite well, even as they try, oh so desperately, to force us to do otherwise.

I'm not sure what this person thinks is the pursuit in which we remain ineffective.  Perhaps like Mr. Sandeen, he imagines us plotting to block their extremism.  In truth, we don't have to make such an effort.  The extremists are self-destructive, and their is a backlash coming.  Our goal is more a matter of avoiding being hurt by that backlash.

Does Mr. "Cristan" Williams REALLY Think So Poorly Of His Readers

From time to time, I will run across as example of rhetoric, that is so lame, so incredibly flawed, so filled with obvious distortions, that it is apparent that the person writing it thinks the people who will be reading it, will believe anything.  Mr. Williams' reply to Mr. "Autumn" Sandeens' attempt at rational argument is just such an example.  And to be honest, it is hilariously bad.

Well, actually, what Mr. Williams is actually doing is attempting to refute the quite excellent article written by Elizabeth at "Notes From the T Side."  You might expect Mr. Williams would have posted this there, but it is obvious why he didn't.  He clearly hopes his readers won't actually compare what he claims with what the actual article says.

For example, Elizabeth quotes him as saying....

Stealth people say things like “I just want to get on with my life as the woman I am” – a sentiment that sounds rational enough on the surface. The problem with that sentiment is that it’s also a delusion. Stealth people rationalize their lies by believing that being trans was only a medical problem that was fixed – kind of like a cleft palate; purposefully pretending that there wasn’t a social transition that entailed violating numerous cultural norms. Stealth is purposefully taking away the choice of letting the people you claim to love the most decide if they are willing to take on the potential social costs (as unfair and stupid as those social costs might be) of breaking those backwards cultural norms by being with you. If you believe that it is only a medical condition, remember that I said that you’re delusional when your best friend, your husband or wife, your boyfriend or girlfriend, your adopted child, etc finds out that you lied about your social and medical history. Yes, it is a medical condition that should be treated medically, but to pretend that this medical condition is exactly like having laser eye surgery is nothing more than living in denial. Living an authentic life means having the courage to stand firmly on the ground on truth regardless of what stupid, moronic and asinine stereotypes and/or fears others may choose to cling to.

She then proceeds to tear this statement into shreds.  In seven paragraphs, she succinctly shows how totally ridiculous Mr. Williams' claims are.  I'm not going to quote them here, go read the article for yourself, the link above will take you there.

How does Mr. Williams respond to this?  Well...

Wow. I just read Elizabeth’s response. It’s nonsensical in that she does things like quote me where I say:

“Yes, it is a medical condition that should be treated medically, but to pretend that this medical condition is exactly like having laser eye surgery is nothing more than living in denial.”

And responds – in the first sentence under that quote – saying:
“CW does not believe this is a medical condition but a social condition complicated by a self perceived medical condition.”

Simply puts, he cherry picks out a small part of a much longer quote, and tries to imply that what he quoted is what she addressed.  This is not clever, it is a lie.  I mean, really....  If that was all he said, that would be different, but he said a whole lot more, and Elizabeth took it apart and showed the fallacies in what he really said.  

Not only does he ignore the fact that she said far more about his quote, which he implies was a rather short one, he misrepresents what she actually said, after saying much more, about the line he chooses to focus on...

The pathetic analogy that SRS is like a cleft palate or laser eye surgery is quite telling about CW. Anyone that has gone through SRS would never and I mean NEVER be that flip about it because it is incredibly painful and the recovery time is extensive. I doubt CW has had SRS but I could be wrong.

Well, I have had eye surgery, twice, and SRS, granted only once, and I have to agree with Elizabeth.  I've had cataracts removed from both eyes.  The first time was in 2003, the second was earlier this year.  It was certainly nice having my vision returned to relatively normal, but to compare that to the life changing experience of SRS in 2006...well, I have long believed that Mr. Williams tries to mislead people into thinking he has had it.  That he has had facial surgery is pretty obvious.  But I agree with Elizabeth, either he has not had it, or if he did, he regrets it.

He ignores what she actually said, and tries to twist it around to sound like she has distorted what he said...

Then she goes on to be deliberately obtuse so that she could claim that I believe having SRS is just like having laser eyes surgery. She uses that strawman to bolster her questioning of my surgical status to cast me as someone who’s less than a True Transsexual(TM) and who is therefore not qualified to offer a valid view.

No, she did not say that he believes SRS is just like having "laser eyes surgery," she questioned how he could make such an inane analogy.  His original point was dismissing the significance of SRS, and that is what she addresses.

Now is where things get really silly.  Mr. Williams then goes on to claim to use accusations of "logical fallacies" to counter Elizabeth's arguments, but instead, well, like Mr. Sandeen yesterday, he engages in a "logical fallacy created from a logical fallacy about a logical fallacy."  In this case, he actually does it repeatedly.

He again abuses the "True Scotsman" argument, attempting a sort of logical gymnastics that comes down to "I must be a True Transsexual because I am claiming that they are using the True Scotsman logical fallacy to show I am not."  The problem is, that is not what has been done, as I showed yesterday in responding to Mr. Sandeen.

Just to be clear, let me repeat...  For an argument to be a True Scotsman fallacy, it has to be, first and foremost, a fallacy.  That is, it lacks any basis other than a false assumption.  If you actually use evidence, and reason, to argue that someone is not what they claim they are, then it is not a logical fallacy.  Claiming it is, in order to avoid actually addressing the evidence, is itself not only a logical fallacy, but is a lie as well.

Mr. Williams is a walking textbook of logical fallacies.  From the simplest straw man, to the most vicious ad hominem, he engages in them as his stock in trade.  This bit of silliness is just one example of many.

And he concludes with a ridiculous claim...

I’m so happy that their movement – as Elizabeth knew it even 5 years ago – is dead. They had nothing to build their community upon by demonstrably false history and deep transphobic antipathy.

Our movement?  I don't know where he gets this from.  We are simply living our lives, and telling extremists like him to stop claiming we are "girls like him."  We never sought to build a community, and basically reject the idea of such.  He is the one who has tried to built a false history, and who hides behind accusations of transphobia to dismiss any valid argument against his extremist positions.

He's Not Against Stealth, He's Just Against Anyone Actually Being a Woman

Well, it appears after several rounds of vicious nastiness that that Transadvocate is attempting to make something resembling a logical argument.  For that they are to be commended.  Most of the drivel from that site has been the rants of Mr. "Cristan" Williams, Mr. "Monica" Roberts, and Mr. "Dana" Taylor.  But now, Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen, the self-style "Martin Luther King" of transgender extremism, is attempting to push the transgender extremist agenda.  And he has failed miserably.

I also find it interesting that Mr. Sandeen, and Transadvocate in general, seem to have finally admitted that Elizabeth's excellent blog "Notes From the T Side" actually exists.  Shoot, she does a much better job than me of exposing the silliness of the transgender extremists, and it is about time they acknowledge that by attempting, vainly of course, to refute her.

He starts out by quoting Harvey Milk.  Here Mr. Sandeen engages in his first mistake.  He equates being transgender, which he always insists includes transsexuals, with being gay.  This is wrong on so many levels, it is hard to decide where to begin.  First off, being transsexual does not make one transgender.  Second, being transgender is an identity, not an object state of being, like gay or lesbian.  Third, being transgender, is a choice. Fourth, much of what Mr. Sandeen is trying to address here is unrelated to being transgender, as it deals with primarily transsexual issues, which Mr. Sandeen has no experience or knowledge of.

And then he makes a truly clueless statement...

The T is part of the LGBT community. I believe what Milk said about gay and lesbian people is just as applicable to trans people: trans people are hurt both in the voting booth and within the halls of state and federal legislatures because society doesn’t know us.

Actually, the worst thing that can happen to the transgender extremists, and hopefully, something that will happen as soon as possible, is for people to REALLY get to know them.  Imagine how people would react if they they knew, for example, that transgender men think they have a right to force lesbians to have sex with them?  How do they thing people would react if they knew that they actually reject the simple concept that "no means no," and that anyone has the right to decline to have sex with another without having to give a reason?  Do they really think that people would be "impressed" with some pervert getting off on taking unapproved drugs, illegally obtained, to induce lactation, just so he can get off on producing milk like his fantasy of a "real woman?"  Would they be just thrilled at the idea of them defending the right of a convicted rapist and child molester putting on a dress and hanging out in a ladies room in a hospital?  But when these things are brought up, they try to silence the discussion with bogus cries of "transphobia."

Next, Mr. Sandeen moves on to rather arrogantly critique "transsexual separatists."  The biggest problem here is, it is not his place to do so.  If he wants to insist that transgender people should be "out, loud, proud, and in people's faces," that is certainly his right.  But he has no business trying to impose his views on transsexuals who do no wish to be subsumed under the "umbrella."  But, of course, Mr. Sandeen is just another arrogant male who, like Mr. Williams, has no concept of boundaries with regards to others.

Mr. Sandeen summarizes by saying this...

Elizabeth writes from the place of rejecting the idea of belonging herself to any public trans community, and looks to her wants as a woman that are served by not being out to coworkers and society as having a gender identity that doesn’t match the gender that was assigned to her at birth.

Here again, we see how the transgender extremists don't have a clue.  It is not about our "wants as a woman," but about simply being a woman.  This is something Mr. Sandeen has never experienced, and will never experience, and apparently is determined to never experience.  If you are "out" to people, you will not truly be seen as a woman, especially if you are constantly reminding them of your pass.

Then, in a move that I find rather amusing, Mr. Sandeen brings up logical fallacies.  Now, I find it amusing that many will, perhaps without realizing it, start copying something I might say.  I have pointed out numerous examples of Mr. Williams' use of logical fallacies, and now Mr. Sandeen is attempting to parrot that.  Unfortunately, again, he is clueless.  He attempts to accuse Elizabeth of using the "True Scotsman" argument.  Unfortunately, Mr. Sandeen, in doing so, not only fails to understand that logical fallacy, he creates another, in that he is engaging in a "Straw Man Argument."  Hmmm, a logical fallacy created from a logical fallacy about a logical fallacy.  

For something to be a "True Scotsman" argument, there has to be a clear definition of the group pointed to.  An example would be to say that "No real American hates baseball."  Absurd, of course, as many who can clearly be shown to be Americans (by birth or by naturalization) hate baseball.  That is a "True Scotsman" argument.  It is not a "True Scotsman" argument if you cannot establish, clearly, that someone, or something is clearly a part of a defined group.  And that is where Mr. Sandeens mistake occurs.  His reasoning is circular, and he is begging the question.  Mr. Sandeen states...

Elizabeth holds this as hers and her likeminded peers truth about those who they consider No True Transsexuals: “[W]e do not buy the man in a dress is a woman because he says he is.”

Mr. Sandeen is assuming, rather bizarrely, that because something sounds similar, "No True Scotsman" versus "No True Transsexual" then it must be the same.  But, again, you cannot dismiss something as a "True Scotsman" argument until you have shown that the argument makes a false claim that someone who really is a true Scotsman, isn't.  Mr, Sandeen is presuming that someone is a true transsexual without providing a valid basis.  If I were to say that I am a true Scotsman, that could be easily refuted.  I am not, as far as I am aware, of Scottish heritage, I was not born in Scotland, and well, I'm not a man.  It can be shown, though he might disagree, that Mr. Sandeen is not a true transsexual.  The same is true of the vast, overwhelming majority of those who identify as transsexual.  They simply are not transsexuals, true, or otherwise.

No, there is no logical fallacy on our part.  We are putting forth objective positions.  Mr. Sandeen is trying to play semantical games.  We are presenting a clear definition of terminology.  Mr. Sandeen is saying, "If I call myself something, I become it."  That is what some call "magical thinking."  Does Mr. Sandeen think if he calls himself an automobile, he will be able to consume gasoline rather than food?  I doubt it, and if he does, he will soon find he is quickly mistaken if he tries.  Yes, his position really is that absurd.  

The simple fact of the matter is, and this may shock some readers, laws based on gender identity are bogus.  They should not be passed, and they should be removed from the books where they are.  These laws are based on something that is vague, unprovable, and are easily abused.  Discrimination laws should be based on immutable, and verifiable criteria.  Race, national origin, sex, are things that fit this criteria.  Yes, sex can be changed, but not easily.  On the other hand, anyone, including a rapist and child molester like Paul Ray Witherspoon aka “Paula Witherspoon” can claim to have a female gender identity and use that to invade the women's room.  Now, think about that.  This man, who raped two teenage girls, and as recently a 20011 was arrested for sending nude photos (while still on probation), now claims to be a woman?  But if I would rather no share a restroom with him, I'm in the wrong?

Mr. Sandeen continues in this vein, then comes up with this bit of silliness...

The trans activists who work on those issues are generally out as trans. They prepare society for the reality that many people whose gender identity doesn’t match the gender assigned to them at birth are members of families (such as being children, parents, aunts and uncles), hold down jobs (such as lawyers, nurses, and fast food workers), go to primary and secondary schools, and not only vote but have friends, family, and allies that vote too.

The same is also true of many rapists, child molesters, child abusers, bank robbers, murderers, drug addicts, alcoholics,  etc...  Being a family member, parent, aunt, uncle, having a job, attending school, and voting does not negate bad behavior.  And yes, some of the behavior of these "trans activists" is bad, such as pushing the idea that lesbians are obligated to have sex with them.

And again, he makes this absurd remark...

I don’t make the case against stealth — if one doesn’t want to be out to one’s friends, family, coworkers, and legislators, then no one, in my opinion, should force you to be. There are real social and financial costs due to stigma that can result from being out to one’s coworkers, friends, families, and or society as a whole.

What a silly statement.  And again, so clueless.  People do not choose stealth because they are ashamed, or cowardly, or greedy, as Mr. Sandeen implies.  People choose stealth because they wish to live their lives honestly, rather than being seen as something they are not.  I have said many times, you can be trans, or you can be a woman, but you can't be both.  The moment you reveal your past, you are no longer seen as actually a woman, but, at best, as a woman who used to be a man....or as a man who became a woman, or to many people, as a man pretending to be a woman.  Granted, for someone like Mr. Sandeen, that last one IS being honest.

The Sad Case of Dana Lane Taylor

Dana Lane Taylor, who at one time identified as a "transsexual separatist" has now embraced the transgender cause, and is Mr. "Cristan" Williams' latest BFF.  A lot of people are amazed at this turn around.  

Taylor is concerned about now being attacked by former friends.  Nope, though I do feel pity for this sad individual.  Clearly Taylor has a very fragile self-identity.  Taylor apparently embraced both "transsexual separatism" and "radical feminists" in order to feel like a "real woman."  The key word there is "feel like."  

You either are a real woman, or you are not.  Mr. "Cristan" Williams, Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen, Mr. "Monica" Helms, Mr. "Monica" Roberts, and others are not.  They really don't identify as women, but as some odd creature they call a "transwoman."  Oh, they say, "Transwomen are real women," but that is simply laughable at best.  Women are women.  No qualifiers.  They don't want to be women, they want to be "women with penises."  Even if they make the mistake of having SRS, they have an overwhelming need to cling to their maleness.

No, I am not going to attack Taylor, though I will speak out if Taylor starts saying stupid stuff in support of the transgender cause.  It would just be cruel right now.  This person clearly needs serious help, and I fear all creeps like Williams and Sandeen will do is take advantage and make things worse.

I don't need people's acceptance to be a woman.  That is why Taylor fell into a trap.  Taylor cozied up to the radical feminists, who I consider to often be as extremist, in their own right, as the transgender kooks, and then, on discovering that they were not fully accepting, had an emotional crisis.  

Funny how that works.  You tell a bunch of people, who basically hate men, "Hey, I 'was' a guy," and then you get upset because the say, "Sorry, but we don't see you as a woman."  If you are a woman, fine.  But it is not an "identity" you adopt.  I fear Taylor has discovered, the hard way.

Mr. "Cristan" Williams Hits a New Low, Even For Him

Well, in his never ending battle to make the world safe for men in dresses, Mr. "Cristan" Williams has hit a new low.  He has drug up a story from six years ago, written by a journalist named Victoria Brownworth, who Mr. Williams has labeled a TERF (i.e. a Trans Exclusive Radical Feminist), apparently because she doesn't want Mr. Williams and the other men in dresses to invade the Michigan Womyn's (who can't spell Women) Music Festival.  I mean, we all know how Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen is just dying to go there and wave his "Woman Born Woman" penis in their faces.

The story is about transgender youth who are being exploited as sex workers, and boy is Mr. Williams upset...not that these children are being exploited as sex workers, but that Ms. Brownworth looked at the genitals of a young FTM.  It not only doesn't bother him that these kids are being exploited, in another article on Transadvocate, where Mr. Williams is the editor, it is described as "Trans Survival Sex Work," a phrase often used to justify such behavior.

So, let's see, Mr. Williams is outraged at a female journalist looking at, and describing a young FTM sex worker's genitals, but doesn't seem to have a problem with someone using him as a prostitute.  That, I suppose is okay, since the creep actually have sex with this child is not, a dreaded "TERF."  Such is the wonder world of Mr. Williams' bizarre ethics. Here, is how Mr. Williams describes his moral outrage:

Lets be clear about this:
1. It doesn’t appear that 15 year olds can consent to give random adults access to their genetalia(sic) under the law.
2. Brownworth clearly states that she believed that she was dealing with a 15 or 16 year old kid.
3. Given the opportunity, she – an adult – states that she asked to gawk at this transkid’s genitalia.4. The transkid complied and Brownworth took a good look.5. Brownworth then described – in detail – to the Philadelphia Gay News’ audience what this transkid’s genitalia looked like.6. Nobody – until now – thought that perhaps this was inappropriate.

Isn't it interesting that the ONLY thing Mr. Williams is concerned with is the opportunity to imply that Mr. Brownworth has somehow violated the law. Not a word of concern for the fact that what she did is nothing compared to the real abuse this child suffered.  Oh, but those were just good old boys, not dreaded TERFs.  And the child was just engaging in harmless "Trans Survival Sex Work."  Uh, the sort of "Trans Survival Sex Work" that results in quite a few murders that feed the orgy of outrage known as the "Transgender Day of Remembrance" each year.  I guess Mr. Williams would be heartbroken if he didn't have his yearly supply of martyrs.

Ms. Brownworth was actually trying to shed some light on a very real problem.  Mr. Williams just wants to walk around naked, waving his penis in front of a bunch of lesbians, who he wants to make pretend he is just "one of the girls."

Oh, and it should be noted, Mr. Williams takes advantage of the fact that the original story by Ms. Brownworth is noy available, so we cannot read her words in context.

Sad, when you actually thing about it.  Of course, that is the one thing Mr. Williams doesn't want you to do.

Seriously, Transgender and Reality Seem Incompatible

I just saw another piece on Transadvocate where there is a serious demand to simply suspend reality by the transgender kooks.

A person was murdered in Ohio, and well, a local paper reported the facts.  But, for the transgender kooks, facts are EVIL!!!  The story by, you guessed it, Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen is a rehash of Mr. "Monica" Roberts' demand that reality be suspended in reporting.  Here is Roberts' list of complaints, and why they are silly:

Misgender the person at every opportunity? Check

Sorry, but the person was a male.  It appears that he was not full time.

Use police mugshot? Check

Well, that is what police do.  Mugshots are generally what the police have available.  Would Roberts have preferred that the police provide a photo of the bloated corpse instead?

Drag old criminal record into the story? Check

The person had a fairly active, and recent criminal record.  Again, Roberts says "The facts must  be ignored."

'Deception meme' injected into story? Check

Uh, why?  Because they reported, quite accurately, that he lied to the police about his identity and true sex.

'Tragic transsexual' meme injected into this story? Check

Huh?  I think Roberts just made this one up to complete a checklist he has used before... the reporters gave no indication that he was remotely a transsexual.

Use salacious and sensationalist headlines? Check

Now, this is downright funny... There were two headlines.  The first was:

Oddly dressed body found in Olmsted Township pond identified

The article said, "The body was clad in a red Betty Boop tank top, three black bras on top of one another, and a light black hooded jacket. The body was naked from the waist down, police said at the time."  Sound to me like, and oddly dressed body was found, and the police identified it.  How is that salacious, or sensationalist?  It is simply the truth.

The second headline in question...

Brutal slaying marks the end of Clevelander's fight for acceptance

Again, not really very salacious or sensationalist.  The story talks about the person's repeated run-ins with transit police.  Apparently this person had a bad habit of not paying fares on transit as well as assault and drug possession.

Not give a rats anus about the victim's dignity and their femme presentation? Check

What dignity?  This person sounds pretty messed up to me.  Assault, drugs, and such.  I think the reporter told the truth without embellishment.  Which, of course, is what Roberts objects to.  Can't have the truth coming out...

Disrespecting another African-American transwoman? Check.

This person did not seem to have much self-respect.  Putting on a bad wig, and dressing up does not make one a woman, or entitle one to have the truth withheld. 

Of course, they also complain that they refer to the victim by his legal name.  In another words, this person had not bothered to change his name, and according to the article did not fully identify as a "transgender woman."

And finally, in a classic example of silliness, Sandeen complains that the article accurately describes the police using "it" to describe an unidentified body.  While the story does not give details, one can assume that this person could not be easily identified from appearance, as they relied on DNA.  Simply put, there was a 20 day gap between the person being declared missing and the body being found.  It is likely they may not have immediately been able to determine the sex.

But hey, this is transgender silliness, and everything has to be blown all out of proportion and complained about.  Reality has no place among transgender kooks.

 

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...