Can Someone Buy the Transgender Kooks a Clue?

In a recent article in LGBT Weekly. Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen again advocates for "access to bathrooms."  And in this particular article, he exhibits an appalling lack of having a clue.  He launches into one of his favorite themes...feminists sharing similar views to conservative Christians.  And yet, in complaining about this, he misses a very big clue.

Here we have two groups that are, for the most part, polar opposites.  One would expect little common ground between them.  And yes, both stridently oppose unrestricted access to women's spaces, in particular restrooms, by men who claim to be women.  

Now, it is an interesting fact that, for many years, pre-op transsexuals were able to easily access the women's room.  The problem affects those who are more inclined to identify as "transgender."  Now, I have given quite a bit of thought to term, and I have come to the conclusion that the vast, overwhelming majority of those who prefer to be labeled "transgender" tend to retain a considerable amount of identification as "male."  Unlike the classic transsexual, they seem to want people to be forced to "see" them as women, while be totally aware that the person was born male.  Actually being a woman, in a real, meaningful way, is outside their interests.  They want to be women, but male.  They want to adopt a female identify, persona, and dress, but to remain a male.  Some may go so far as to have surgery, but they still insist on being "out, loud, and proud."  They reject the concept of stealth, and have no desire to enter the women's room and only be seen as a woman.

Now, in some cases, this is connected to the sexual arousal that many feel.  Being in the women's room, or shower, or locker room, or other places that they are not really welcome, is part of the thrill.

But, it never occurs to the kooks like Sandeen that perhaps the reason two groups can find common ground in this issue is that it actually is a serious issue that should not be brushed aside so quickly.  That, perhaps, some common sense is called for.  That honestly considering one's appearance, demeanor, and likelihood of being accepted as female, should be considered instead of just barging in, and expecting to be accepted.

Who Is REALLY Obsessed With Bathrooms?

One of the most common memes among the transgender kooks is "The Christian Right is obsessed with bathrooms."  Of course, you can also substituted "TERFs," "Republicans," "Social Conservatives,"  or any other term that refers to some group that the transgender kooks want to object to.  The idea is to paint such groups as being out of touch, and desirous of violating some inalienable right that the kooks imagine they have to invade women's spaces.  But, simply put, this is not actually the case.

While some of the more extreme measures to come out of this issue are outrageous (like the suggestion in Florida that access to bathrooms be based on chromosomes) they are just another example of the very real harm that the transgender movement has caused for transsexuals.

No, the ones who are really obsessed with bathrooms are the transgender kooks themselves.  The men in dresses like Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen, Mr. "Cristan" Williams, Mr. "Dana" Taylor, and others too numerous to mention.

When I first transitioned over 20 years ago (24 to be precise) I took a very careful approach to the "bathroom issue."  I did not do what is now seen as the "norm" and charge into the women's room, with total disregard for the feelings of other women.  I started out cautiously, at first seeking out toilets that were less likely to be crowded.  I was very aware of how people reacted to me, and as it became clear that I was not causing a disturbance, I became more confident in my visits.

What I didn't do, was assert an absolute right to be present in women's space, and certainly not in a place where nudity would be an issue.  Now, the transgender kooks expect women to not even object to pre-ops (not really an issue if the person is a true transsexual) and, more to the point, transgender people who belong to the "They'll take my penis when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers" club, walking into showers and locker rooms with their manhood flapping about for all to see.

The transgender community is obsessed with being able to enter any women's space, anytime, anywhere, regardless of their anatomy, appearance, or any problems it might cause.  Anyone who objects is painted as the one with a problem.  In short, they have created the situation that has led to extremists trying to pass laws that would not only affect transgender people (the vast, overwhelming majority of which will remain physically male to the day they die) but also transsexuals (far worse than any effect it might have on the men in dresses crowd) and even worse, those who are intersex or who have the condition known as complete androgen insensitivity syndrome (women who have XY chromosomes, but who are born physically female because their bodies do not react to testosterone).

A classic example of this sort of silliness is unfolding on Twitter, where Mr. Sandeen is attacking a transsexual woman for having the audacity to take the side of a woman who was booted from Planet Fitness because she had the courage to speak up about a man being in the women's locker room.  In typical form, Mr. Sandeen, who mistakenly thinks I cannot read his tweets, goes after her for not adhering to the "party line."

Here is a link to an article my Gallus Mag, on which, Zoey Tur, the transsexual that Mr. Sandeen is attacking commented.  Mr. Sandeen is just having a hissy fit because, well, Zoey spoke the truth:

So, as the nation deals with this confusing issue we’re going to have unfortuante situations like a woman having her membership revoked at Planet Fitness for complaining about a “man” in the women’s dressing room. The transgender person at the center of this controversy is a cross dresser that took advantage of Planet Fitness’ no discrimination policy to push the envelope at the gym. No hormones, no surgeries, no transition, just $12 leggings and a baggy sweatshirt. Not fair for anyone.Apologizes to the trans community, but situations like this invariably lead to well meaning fools taking action. Take for example anti-transgender bathroom laws being proposed, and even passed in progressive states, like Florida and Texas where I could face serious jail time for using the women’s room.

Interestingly enough, I had started working on this post before I discovered what Zoey wrote.  It's nice to see that I am not the only one who sees this.  What Zoey writes about is Mr. Sandeen's vision for America.   He sees no problem with, and actually pushes for, men to have the right to invade women's spaces with their penises wagging about, ala Mr. "Colleen" Francis.  I'm sure he will feel quite righteous when even post-op transsexuals are barred from the women's room in states like Texas and Florida.  Sadly, he doesn't have the sense to see the damage he does.

  Of course, being men, they want to hide behind the women, and push us out there as they fight for their right to invade our space.  This obsession has, quite naturally, triggered a reaction, and now, an over-reaction from people at the opposite extreme.  And neither side is remotely willing to accept a reasonable middle. And unless that happens, it will end very badly for those who are truly transsexual.  Either we will face prosecution because we will be associated with kooks like Sandeen and Williams, or we, along with other women, will have to put up with men invading our private space, exposing their penises, and demanding that we "acknowledge" them as fully female.

Another Example of Transgender Extremists Just NOT Getting It

Recently, I learned about the suicide of someone named Essay Anne Vanderbilt.  Vanderbilt was the developer of a rather bizarre looking putter that was apparently quite revolutionary.  It could help golfers sink putts, and it had attracted the attention of a golfing writer who became someone obsessed with tracking down the inventor.

As he investigated the story, he found more and more inconsistencies.  Suspecting some sort of possible fraud, he dug deeper, but what he eventually found was that Vanderbilt was a post-op transsexual who was quite stealth.  When he made it clear that he planned to expose her, she committed suicide.  Naturally, a few transgender kooks have jumped on this to cluelessly blather about how rough it is for transgender people…mostly completely missing the simple fact that she was almost certainly not one of their ilk.

Another author, again completely missing the point, has taken a slightly different approach…but still misses the point entirely.  "Dana" Beyer, one of several transgender extremists who have found a home at the Huffington Post, has written an article whining about  Vanderbilt being in the closet.  Of course, Mr. Beyer is quick to point out that Vanderbilt had a history of being suicidal, and had a history of "emotional struggles."  He also makes the obvious error of referring to her as a "trans woman."  Vanderbilt was nothing like Mr. Beyer and the rest of the cadre of kooks who pontificate at the Huffington Post.  Vanderbilt clearly had no desire to be anything other than simply a woman…something the transgender crowd blanches at the thought of.

This is one several things that are lost on the transgender crowd in their rush to force transsexuals under their umbrella.  We are not the same.  Transsexuals have an absolute need to correct their bodies, and an equally absolute need to simply live as the women (or men, in the case of FTM transsexuals) that we really are.  Transgender people have a need to be, well, "transgender."  For them, the idea of not being "out, loud, and proud" is as equally offensive as the idea of being such is to a true transsexual.  They want people to know their history.  It is central to their identity, just as being simply a woman is to mine.

And that brings us to the core of what this article is about….Mr. Beyer's clueless drivel…  For example, he utters this ridiculous bit:

When any life is lost, it is a tragedy. When it is lost because of unbearable social pressures, it is an unnecessary tragedy. Her story is, unfortunately, still way too common.

Obviously, this poor woman killed herself because she feared something kooks like Mr. Beyer embrace with total enthusiasm.  While I believe that Vanderbilt overreacted to the situation, I can understand what she felt.  She would have been outed in, at least from her view, a very public manner.  Now, in truth, the situation might well have been ultimately manageable, it would have been difficult.  She no doubt had a lot invested in the product she had invented, and her future income probably depended on building on that success.  Simply picking up and moving somewhere she was not known would not have been an option.  

How one deals with being outed depends, in part, on the nature of the outing, and on where one lives.  For some, it can be hard to escape public scrutiny.  For others, it can be as simple as packing up and moving to a new town, or even a new part of town.  What she was threatened with (as best I can tell, she was not actually outed until after her death, but she should have been assured that her private life would remain private.  And, it is possible, if she had simply explained her situation to the person planning the article, that would have been respected.

But, I suspect that kooks like Mr. Beyer, and a long litany of others I won't bother naming, contributed to her death by pushing the concept that "transgender" people have no problem being "outed."  After all, I suspect some of them should probably be more likely to be suicidal if people didn't know their history.  After all, where is the fun in bullying people into ignoring reality and referring to you as a woman, if they are not fully, and unquestioningly aware that you were, and in many cases, still are, a male.

Some of the crap spewed by Mr. Beyer is just incredible…  For example, he exhibits both the cluelessness of a man, and a complete disregard for the safety, perhaps, of those who don't share his love of the spotlight:

Leaving the closet of her pre-transition male life, she created a new closet, with a narrative that clearly was flawed when she presented as a highly successful engineer and inventor. I'm amazed that her story didn't immediately raise eyebrows, as she was a middle-aged 6-foot-3 woman with a low-pitched voice, degrees from MIT and Penn, and a résumé of work on the stealth bomber and Bluetooth technology. Maybe we've progressed sufficiently that many are no longer aware of the profound sexism that infected the realm of science and technology back in the '70s and '80s. Few women received those degrees and worked on those projects. The ignorance evinced by the author and his editor tell me we still have a long way to go.

First off, Mr. Beyer would have kicked Vanderbilt right back into that first closet, where he still resides.  Mr. Beyer continues to, effectively exist as a man.  He may demand, and even force people to "acknowledge" him as a female, but they do it only by suspending reality.  He continues to exist as, in effect, a man.

Second, he ignores the fact that, yes, some women, not many, but some, did manage to have careers in those fields.  But he also makes sure to emphasize things that might clue his readers in on how to play "spot the tranny."  Yes, folks, that tall woman, with a voice that is perhaps not quite as high pitched as you think it should be…she just might be a man, so don't hesitate to make that assumption.  Especially if she has the "wrong" degree…  Talk about ignorance…Mr. Beyer exhibits it in bulk.

Worse, Mr. Beyer goes on to not only absolve the author of any guilt, but to actually suggest that he was justified in what he put Vanderbilt through…

The LGBT community pounced on the writer and his editor, blaming them for causing her death, even though she had killed herself before the story had been published. There were complaints that she should never have been outed, even though her gender history was clearly pertinent to the mystery that was her life. It was implied that there was no compassion for her, a claim we have no way of evaluating. Causation was implied where there was only correlation, and the trans community lashed out at what it saw as a miscarriage of justice and vicious cyber bullying.

After all, how dare she choose stealth.  She must join behind those like Mr. Beyer, in transgender lockstep.  Anything else is unacceptable.  Besides, what Vanderbilt was subjected to was not unlike what many, including myself, have been subjected to by transgender extremists seeking to punish those who refuse to be assimilated.  One blogger was literally driven into hiding because she dared speak out.

The question that haunts me is how we, as trans persons, can become full and equal citizens as long as we keep our true selves from our friends and neighbors. How can we overcome the need to reinvent ourselves in a manner others might consider deceptive when those others create such pressures that some trans persons see no way out? How can we be free as long as we stay in the closet or create new closets?

What Mr. Beyer really wants to do is force people into the closet of being what they are not, because, quite frankly, he can never be what they are. Mr. Beyer would deny to those who are truly transsexual the life they seek, because he finds it "deceptive."  What he actually demands is deception, not the other way around.  What he really means is, if the truth gets out that transsexuals are not transgender, and that the idiocy spewed by the extremists is, well, idiocy, then he might not be able to successfully bully people into ignoring reality.

My answer is that we simply must come out. The risks may be great, and the act of coming out may be fraught with peril, but as our gay allies have learned, the only way to acceptance and affirmation is to first accept and affirm yourself.

Mr. Beyer is a classic "gender fascist."  He thinks he has a right to dictate what is right for me, and those like me.  I do accept and affirm myself…as the woman I am, not a man in a dress like Mr. Beyer would have me be.

A Few Minor Points...

I screwed up yesterday...

After noticing Elizabeth's post on Notes From the T Side I made the mistake of thinking she had gotten over her little snit fit, and might be willing to put stuff behind us.  Not even close.  I don't know what it is, but some early transitioning transsexuals, at least ones who transitioned back in the Sixties, seem to have some major insecurities.  The classic example, of course, is Suzan Cooke.  Granted Cooke has gone full tilt as a transgender apologist, apparently deciding the ego strokes she gets from the men in dresses bunch is worth it.

I can understand having some identification with a possible early transitioning transsexual such as might be the case in Colorado.  Now, I say might be simply because we really have pretty much zero valid information.  Almost everything published has been filtered through either the Pacific Justice Institute, or Mr. "Cristan" Williams.  Simply put, this means it is highly probable that the facts have been lost in their attempts to "spin" the story to fit their extremist agendas.  

I tried to explain this to Elizabeth, but she is the sort of person who sees things as you either totally accept her extremely rigid viewpoint, or well, you can expect a vicious and rather nasty attack.  

And yes, I know some of the extremists would accuse me of the same thing, but well, they would be wrong.  I don't have a lot of patience when others do such things, and when they do, I will generally give them a full dose of reality.  But if someone is willing to engage in a rational, and reasonable discussion, I can be quite pleasant about it.  I have a lot of friends with whom I may disagree on some points.  We are able to discuss this, and if necessary, agree to disagree, without resorting to accusations of bigotry, hatred, and intolerance, or the need to toss insults, profanity, or profane insults.

I'm sorry, but I won't be bullied into agreeing to something I don't believe.  And if that causes someone to resort to ridiculous attacks in an attempt to do so, I will generally either confront them with their own failures, or, possibly just walk away if the area of disagreement is relatively narrow.  In the case of extremist kooks like Mr. Williams, or Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen, I will generally expose their lies, and take apart their illogical arguments.  In the case of Elizabeth, I am more disappointed than anything else.

I mean seriously...  She seems to have some need to act like a character out of some bad teen flick.  She seems to want to play the "mean girl."  Between impugning my intelligence, and questioning my validity as a transsexual, she pretty much went off on some ridiculous tangents.

Her principle argument that the person who has been labeled "Jane Doe" by Mr. Williams must be a transsexual amounted to "no kid that age would subject themselves to the abuse and ridicule" unless they really were.  Well, I obviously did not agree with that position, and a recent situation here in the Bay Area, where a teenage boy who has chosen to act out by claiming to be "agender" and wearing skirts, was set on fire when he fell asleep on a bus.  I was a little surprised that the trans kooks were a bit slow picking up on the story, but they seem to have finally discovered it.  But, as horrible as this crime is (NO ONE SHOULD EVER BE SET ON FIRE FOR ANY REASON) it does expose the fact that, well, Elizabeth was simply wrong.  

Instead of saying, "Okay, I don't agree, but I can see your point," she slings more insults and tries to claim it is two different things.  Well, I agree, clearly claiming to be "agender" is not exactly the same as claiming to be transgender, or perhaps transsexual, but it is also not really that much different in terms of possible stigma, and in fact, claiming to be "agender" is probably going to invite even more stigma.

Bottom line, the argument that no teenager would claim to be a transsexual, who is not actually one, is totally without merit.  So, without more accurate information, I am going to withhold judgement.

The other area where Elizabeth showed extremely poor reasoning was first off, adding to something I said in a comment so she could attack me (i.e. a straw man argument), and then using a "No True Scotsman" fallacy based on that.

I mentioned a very personal, and largely private period in my life.  There is a lot about that time I simply am not going to talk about publicly, and which I have only discussed, in detail with a few very close and trusted friends.  I usually some it up, in a very over-simplified manner, by saying it was triggered, in part. because of a very poor therapist.  The bottom line is, I went through an emotional crisis, and detransitioned for about seven years.  Elizabeth seized on that small bit of information, and claimed I had "failed at transition."  That is not even remotely accurate.  I delayed my transition because I decided, for deeply personal reasons that are really not any of her business, to attempt to find a lesser path. 

Now, some might argue that I should reveal all, but I am not going to do so for several reasons.  First, doing so would invade the privacy of other people.  Second, there was a lot of pain involved in that period of my life.  And third, as I have discussed here before, there are people who spend a lot of time online stalking others, and I am not going to give them information they would gladly abuse.  

If Elizabeth really needs to look down on others to feel better, that is her failing, not mine.  If she wants to imagine things, based on a small amount of knowledge, and a large amount of insecurity, well...that is her problem.  I really don't need her permission or her imprimatur to be a woman.  If she wants to set some absurd criteria to judge someone's validity, she can join the kooks like Bailey and Blanchard who have made a career of doing such.  

Again, I have pointed out that some, such as Mr. Williams and Mr. Sandeen, are neither transsexuals, or women.  This is  based on arguable facts, not whether or not they followed the exact same path I did, or whether or not they adhere to some political viewpoint.

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?

Political Correctness Versus Medical Accuracy

A thought occurred to me the other day...

Let's consider two scenarios....  

In the first, someone is berating a transsexual woman for wishing to have SRS and then simply get on with having a normal life as a woman, effectively just blending in and not being out, loud, and proud, as a "trans woman," but simply wishing to be normal.

In the second, someone is pointing out to a person that perhaps they should reconsider their plans after seeing where they have made this comment concerning having an orchidectomy:

Most interestingly, some people have asked whether I’ll get to keep them after they’ve been removed. And some surgeons do let you take them home! I figure we’ll preserve them in a jar, display it on our bookshelves, and use it as a weird prop for videos. (Anyone who knows what chemicals and processes are necessary to do this, hit me up.)

Now, the question is, which of these situations, if either, would you consider to be "transphobic."  Is berating someone for wanting to transition, and simply live as a woman an example of "transphobia."  Is warning someone who is clearly having some rather bizarre fantasy about what they are going to do with their testicles after having them removed that they might be making a mistake ""transphobic?"

Well, it appears that if you asked a lot of transgender extremists they would probably say that the first is not only not transphobic, but that the behavior the person is being berated for is, itself, "transphobic."

On the other hand, trying to warn someone that their planned behavior is indicative of some serious mental health issues would earn you a nice label of being "transphobic."

In addition to the seriously bizarre bit about keeping his testicles in a jar, the person in question, "Zinnia" Jones, has some other very interesting comments on his blog.  For example....

I’m comfortable with the way my genitals currently function, and SRS would alter that significantly, with a potential risk of losing sensation and the ability to orgasm. There are also a number of serious complications that can occur, and revision surgeries are often necessary. If SRS were perfect, I’d be much more willing to have it done. But as is, I personally don’t consider it worth the risk of compromising what I have now. This is just my own evaluation of my options – something that each person has to decide for themselves.

Now, this is clearly a person who is not remotely a transsexual.  During my transition, I considered the possibility of an orchidectomy as an intermediate step, in order to reduce the amount of hormones I was taking, but I learned that it is frowned upon my most SRS surgeons for certain technical reasons.  But I can state, without hesitation, that I was never "comfortable with they way my genitals currently function" prior to SRS.  I wanted that changed significantly, and while I would certainly have been unhappy with a loss of sensation (thankfully not the case) it was a risk I was willing to take.  Then again, my motivations for having SRS were neither sexual nor, more to the point fetishistic.

If we look at another statement on this person's blog, we can see more of what is going on here...

I should emphasize that I personally find the whole-body changes induced by HRT to be much more important than obtaining a vagina. People tend to reduce all of transitioning to being solely about correcting your genitals, as if that’s the entirety of what a “sex change” is. And yes, for many trans women, having a vagina is a priority. But there’s still much more to this than rearranging small pieces of flesh that most people will never even see.

Now, all of this might seem more understandable if it were written by, oh say, a person who had a lifelong history of crossdressing, and was suddenly transitioning at the ago of, say, 50. But the person in question is clearly much younger.

What we see here is clearly autogynephila.  Of that, there is no question.  These are not the words of a transsexual, but, at least originally, the primary determination of whether a person was, or was not, an autogynephile was age at transition.  If a person was below a certain age (never really clear) they were a "homosexual transsexual" and over a certain age, again, not clearly defined, they were an "autogynephile."  

The theory first put forward by Ray Blanchard, and then taken up by Michael Bailey and Anne Lawrence was intended to basically discredit transsexualism.  We are all supposed to be gay men, who are just too gay to be men, or straight men with a fetish, basically transvestites who are taking it to an extreme.  Interestingly, many in the so-called "transgender community" have somewhat taken up this line of reasoning.  

A person who is "happy with the how their genitalia functions" really should not be allowed to make permanent, and irreversible changes, including orchidectomy.  Granted, this is not as drastic as full SRS, but it is simply not medically justified.  Hopefully, this person will simply not be able to find a therapist willing to approve the surgery, or a surgeon willing to perform it.

This is just one example of the idiocy that results from the current trends in transgender extremism.  There is no concern for what is actually beneficial or harmful, just for pushing an extremist agenda.

Transgender is a essentially meaningless, highly subjective, term that describes an artificial social/political construct.  There is no objective criteria for exactly what makes someone "transgender" other than transgender extremists trying to insist that transsexuals have to identify that way, whether they wish to or not.

This is the approach pushed by extremists such as Mister "Autumn" Sandeen (yes, you got tagged again, because you said something idiotic again) such as he did in a comment on an article on Notes From the T Side.

A Really Dumb Question

In yet another attempt to avoid reality, Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen revisits a question he asked in an article in 2009.  The Right Way To Be LGB Or T?  Let's get past the first part quickly.  Being lesbian, gay, or bisexual is an objective state.  You either are, or you are not.  If you believe they are not a choice, then the question is even more ignorant with regards to those three states.

Transgender, of course, is an identity that is a choice.  The right way to be transgender is simply to say, "I am transgender."  And suddenly you are.

Transsexual, which is what Sandeen is not, is also not a choice.  Again, you either are, or you are not.  The real issue is, a lot of people want to lie, and claim to be transsexual, when they clearly are not.  Just as more than a few men, like Sandeen, want to lie, and claim to be women when they clearly are not.

Which brings us to a simple truth...

There is no single right way to be L, G, B, or T...or, transsexual or a woman for that matter.  But there is a very large number of ways to not be transsexual or a woman.  And at the top of that list is "Avoiding reality." And Sandeen and his ilk engage in that one all the time.

In The Middle....

Well, first off, this post marks the 300th on this blog! It was just over a year ago, I posted the 200th, and now we are up by another hundred. Hmmm, I wonder if Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen will want to make another smart remark about that....for those who don't know, he has been whining about the amount I post...not the first man to claim a woman has too much to say.

Another big announcement....this blog now has a presence on Twitter. I am there as @_JustJennifer_. Feel free to follow me. And I should note, Sandeen has blocked me from following him. Oh well....that is easily gotten around....

Now, on to the topic at hand... I have stated many times that I am a moderate politically. I often joke that I am a member of the Radical Middle, the Far Center....that I am a Extreme Moderate. But it is, in many ways, more than a joke. I do take a very moderate approach to most issues. And I am often amused by the more extremist views that others take.

To start with an easy example...there is Suzan Cooke. Her politics are pretty much off the deep end on the Left. She seems to want to relive her "glory days" as a hanger-on with the Weather Underground. When someone is that far out there, it is hard to take them seriously. On gender issues, Cooke used to be closer to the center, but has recently become almost as extreme as Mr. Sandeen.

Now, Mr. Sandeen may not be the craziest, or the most radical, but he is pretty much a kook among kooks. He is, quite frankly, is the gift that keeps on giving. I am still laughing at the bit about he pounding the table and telling Cathy Brennan that he wanted to carry "his balls around in a jar..." As she told him, that is not female. I guess we should all be thankful that the rules do not allow doctors to return such items to patients. The world is safe from Mr. Sandeen's testicles...though his penis is apparently still at large.

Over on a blog called "Gender Trender," there is a rather amusing exchange between Mr. Sandeen and someone who posts as "Gallus Mag." Basically, he is trying to get this person to reveal her name to him, and she is trying to get him to understand that a woman might not want certain people, including a kook like him, having that sort of information. Sandeen has repeated shown that he is incapable of comprehending how women feel, and this is a perfect example. Towards the end of the exchange, he refers to Gallus Mag as a "girl," and she objects. Instead of acting in a mature manner, Sandeen tries to defend this very male condescension...

I call women “women”. You’re not brave; you’re not a grown-up. You are a girl, “girl”, b/c you’re a hit and run coward. Seriously, not even brave enough to email me? Truly a height of effeminacy—a brave feminist you just ain’t. L and G done with us?

This, as much as anything, shows how male his brain is. What an incredible bit of drivel, from someone who is not only a man, but more than a bit of chauvinistic pig at that. Oh, and a clue for Mr. Sandeen....he should look up the definition of effeminate...

effeminate 
adjective

(of a man) having or showing characteristics regarded as typical of a woman; unmanly.

Hmmm, "of a man." And Sandeen is tossing that insult at a woman. Yeah, talk about completely clueless. I suppose one could call Sandeen, "effeminate," and technically, that is what he is, but only in the sense that he is a very bad caricature of a woman. Sort of in the vein of various comedians who have dressed up and minced around in what many women would consider to be a highly insulting parody. Except he thinks he is actually fooling people.

On the opposite side of the coin, you have this mostly excellent response to Mr. Sandeen from Marie-France Lease

You know what, Sandeen. If I had been born in the middle of an aboriginal forest — without so much as a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of — everyone who met me in that forest would have NO DOUBT that I am a woman because I am, in fact, a woman.

I don’t need one or three or fifty sheets of gub’mint paper to “prove” I’m a woman. I AM a woman. For me and for half the human race, it really is just that simple.

While you’re bleating and foaming and tilting about demanding that everyone agree with you? Half the human race? We’re just going about our business trying to survive from cradle to grave as actual, authentic females.

If you were an actual, authentic female, you’d be nodding along with me and thinking, “Truth.” For us, it’s not a game. It’s not an achievement. It’s not a contest. It’s not “fake it till you make it.” It’s not a hobby, an avocation, an obsession, something we do to entertain ourselves — or get ourselves off.

We’re living it from the first sex-identifying ultrasound until we draw our last breath.

So to hell with you and the penis you road in on. We don’t care about your stupid little pieces of paper or your falsies or your pink eye-shades. We’re just trying to make it till the next payday, till retirement, till the Goddess draws us back into Mother Earth for our long sleep.

Go take up another hobby. We’re sick to death of being hounded by delusional dudes.

Most of this I can honestly relate to. I don't buy into the "Goddess" stuff, and shoot, when I was in my mother's womb, they didn't have ultrasound...but yes, I understand whshe is saying, and I know, just as well, that it is all lost on kooks like Sandeen.

Another,Becky Green had this to say....

Buffalo Sandeen,

You’re a man with a man’s height, body frame and a man’s rage. You have an imposing figure and no woman could physically beat you. Who’s to say you won’t start stalking Gallus in person or that you won’t show up at her door and pummel her unconscious? With your words alone, we can see you’re pushy, aggressive, fond of intimidation and all MALE. No woman should ever divulge her personal information to a delusion, emotionally unstable man-child such as yourself.

So take your big, lumbering, hulky body with fake tits and size 13 shoes down to your local strip club and get a beer with the bros while you ogle the gyrating women, because that’s what “real” wo-men, like you, enjoy doing.

A bit heavy handed, but in Mr. Sandeen's case, still dead on.  Granted, some women are tall, have a heavier frame, and can exhibit some serious rage.  But, given what has been said about Mr. Sandeen, by himself, and others, this is pretty dead-on.  He himself has bragged about having a fit of rage because he was called a man.  There is a lot of overlap between men in women in terms of size, so this is a bit extremist.

Then, into this argument, a voice of reason appears... Cassandraspeaks has this to say...

If anyone needs a piece of paper to prove their sex they certainly are NOT that sex. The men like Autumn Sandeen are an insult of the worst order. He is everything GM says he is and more. The list of those like him is as long as your arm. I’ve been fighting those like Sandeen in a verbal and philosophical war for over 25 years. They take advantage of the ignorance about what transsexuality really is in order to obtain their own perverted desires. Good luck in dealing with this freak.

Cassandra is a transsexual, and one would hope that this would add some balance to this discussion, but now we see the other side of the extremist coin rear its ugly head...  someone calling herself, Cynical Cynthia tosses this out...

Yes, Cassandra, your definitions of this arbitrary concept are the most correctest ever; menzes like Sandeen will never understand. You, because of the things you say and think about the arbitrary concept of transsexualism, are completely different to him.

Now, if she had only stopped there, we would have reached a good middle ground.  We could come together, shake hands, and join forces to defend women...  Sadly, she continues with this silliness...

*yawn* – Same shit, different day. Females have vaginas and give birth; males have penises and fertilise eggs which causes females to get pregnant and give birth. Your thoughts on arbitrary principles or identification with either sex will not make you a member of that sex no matter how different you supposedly are to Mr Sandeen. At least, I imagine that your supreme ideas have not given you ovaries, fallopian tubes and a uterus with which to give birth, but do correct me if I am wrong.

What a nasty thing to say, not just because of transsexuals, but because a small, but not non-zero group of women are born without uteruses, fallopian tubes, or ovaries.  They are still women, in many cases, of XX phenotype, but with some other condition.  I can understand that, and can certainly relate to them.  Other women lose these things to disease.  And they grieve for their loss.  Men like Sandeen could care less.  Some of use actually do feel a sense of real loss for what we, sadly, never had, and never will.  I have heard similar remarks from some transgender creeps, but hearing such a flippant remark, from a woman, is just nasty.  

But here we get into the realm of the more extreme of the radical feminists.  Here a person recognizes that someone actually gets it, but then, purely on ideological grounds, turns a deaf ear.  Cynical Cynthia effectively says, "Hey, your right, your different, but I am going to stop thinking because I have to stay true to a point of view that say I have to reject anything you say."  How absurd.

This is at the heart of the radical feminist's arguments with transsexuals.  While they are quite accurate in their assessment of the transgender crowd, which for the most part act like men, they have to fall back on ideology when faced with transsexuals.  Someone like Sandeen is easily dismissed as the man he is.  He makes it oh, so easy.  He waves his paperwork and say "I am a woman," and everyone pretty much laughs and says "Nope, you're not..."  He flounces around in a ridiculous outfit that no real women would wear and says, "Hey, don't you just love #girlslikeus," and everyone sort of snickers, and he gets mad and makes threats.  He chains himself to the White House fence, and says, "I am like Martin Luther King, Jr.," and every grimaces and says, "Well, only in the sense you both were men..."

But, they attack transsexuals on very theoretical basis, claiming that gender is a "social construct," and dismissing legitimate brain studies by lying about them...a tactic that has also been used by some transgender types who know that such studies expose them for the frauds they are.  They make claims like biology is destiny, while effectively denying the only basis on which such a claim can be made.

The radical feminist view is based on the notion that gender is all about socialization, which is, often the same idea claimed by feminists.  We are supposed to believe that it is all about how we are raised.  In the radical feminist view, children born with a penis are raised to be men, and told all the things that seem to come to men so naturally.  And yet, they ignore the fact that even when parents try to raise their children more neutrally, they still exhibit gender typical behavior.  Parents who try to raise their boys to be more gentle are shocked when things don't work out as they expect.  Try to raise a girl to be more masculine, and she might shock you.  And do they really think that they can just ignore situations like mine, where my father made very effort to "beat and/or shame the sissy out of me?"  Now, sure, someone like Sandeen, who spent twenty years in the military, proudly, and successfully serving, as a man, in a very male environment, before, as he neared the time he would retire, only then began to show some signs of what was to come.  Sandeen is a typical of the sort of man who hides a fetish for a long time, and then has it come out late in life.  He is able to easily assimilate as a male, before finally deciding he is going to enjoy his little hobby. 

 I, on the other hand, like many, never fit in as a man.  I always stood out.  I was seen, as I have said, as a "defective male."  I was like the classic comedy trope...the woman who dresses up as a man, to infiltrate some group of men, and who is either immediately spotted, and subjected to  playful torment, or for even more laughs, initially succeeds in her disguise, but keeps slipping up, creating more and more humor.  In short, I stuck out like a sore thumb, and often had people people comment on that fact.  I learned to laugh it off, but I knew people wondered what was going on.

On a website called Transgender Tropes, which sets out to refute said "tropes," there is this comment:

“Transgenderism is based on the idea that gender traits, characteristics, emotions and behaviors ARE inherently tied to one’s biological sex (Biology IS destiny), and they seek to reconcile their own diversity from gender norms by altering their biology to match the traits they view as incongruent with their physical sex. This is actually a REVERSAL of the idea that biology isn’t destiny. What they are saying is that gender IS biologically determined. And if they fail to conform to sex based gender norms they must alter their biology as much as possible to at least conform cosmetically to their gender essentialist beliefs. This is opposite to the idea of transgressing biological imperative (nature) with socialization and free will (nurture).”

Actually, this is rather odd, and quite inaccurate statement.  First off, it is not remotely accurate to attribute this to the transgender crowd.  They tend to claim that sex and what they call gender, are so separate as to be completely unrelated.  In fact, they often claim that gender is, effectively not only a choice, but is almost a mood.  That one can be a woman one day, and a man the next, and perhaps even none of the above on yet another day.  And that each whim must be accepted as totally and equally valid.

Ironically, even as the radical feminist reject the idea of "brain sex" (as, ironically do many of the more radical transgender extremists) they actually seem to adhere to exactly such an idea with a tenacity that matches that of some among the religious right.  And, in complete ignorance of scientific studies that show otherwise.

Of course, for the transgender crowd, it is really all about the trappings.  Like most women, I enjoy getting dressed up for certain occasions.  But, day to day, I dress like, well like what I am, a geeky woman.  Most days that means what I guess you would call "mom jeans," a t-shirt (unisex, since I kind of like them loose) with something clever on it (One of my favorites says "There are 10 kind of people in the world, those who understand binary, and those who don't.") , flats or sneakers, no jewelry, and no make up.  I don't need to dress like Barbara Billingsley in Leave it to Beaver in order to "feel like a woman."  Someone, who was quite transgender, once commented that I dressed like a house wife.  He meant it as a bit of a correction.  I took it as a complement.  Then again, one of my best friends, who is a born woman, is never seen in anything but a skirt.  I used to dress that way more, but I was also working in a an office.  BTW, I don't know if she knows my history or not, but she has never brought it up, and even if she does know, she treats me as a woman.  In fact, I had a doctor a few years ago, who would occasionally make some comment, and realize she had actually forgotten my history, catch herself, and then realize that oh, yeah, it really didn't matter.  

I have, or had, a cousin who well, I have often wondered if she was possibly transsexual.  She was very masculine, always preferred things like cars, and ham radio to the things her mother would have preferred.  She generally dressed in what certainly looked like men's clothes, and she never married.  I don't know if she was a closeted lesbian, or simply repressed her feelings.  She lived in a time, and place, where being a lesbian would not have been acceptable.  I have lost touch with her.  I imagine she has heard about me, and it would be interesting to find out her reaction.  Most of that part of my family has effectively disowned me.  At least as far as I know.  The last time I saw her was at the 70th anniversary of one an aunt and uncle of ours.  She was there, in a dress, looking quite odd.  At the 75th, I was told I would not be welcome after informing people of my transition.  Not long after than, both that aunt and uncle had died.  I haven't had contact with any of them since.  But, I digress...

What I honestly wish the radical feminist could accept is that, yes, one is born a woman, but that what makes one a woman really is in the brain, and it really is determined by hormone levels during development, and that yes, something can go wrong.  In a sense, they do accept transsexual women.  Many of us simply do not wish to be "out, loud, and proud."  We don't wear our histories on our sleeve, and we don't tell people our past, and, perhaps this might surprise some of the radical feminists, they would never guess.  The vast, overwhelming majority of my friends in the real world are what they would call "women born women."  I have friends who are straight, and I have friends who are lesbians.  Some know my past, most don't.  I interact with them, and I am accepted by them, as a woman.  I live as stealth as possible.  If I did not love San Francisco so much, and if I did not have such good friends here, I would possibly consider relocating somewhere and starting over...again.  I lived for a year in small town, where literally no one knew.  It was heaven, but it did not last for reasons that had nothing to do with being transsexual, and I wound up moving 2,000 miles to San Francisco.  To most people who know me, I am simply a very smart, very geeky, middle aged woman.  I have nothing to do with the transgender community.  I occasionally will see someone I know from when I did outreach work, a job I stumbled into somewhat by accident, but which paid reasonably well, and had good benefits.  As soon as possible, I moved to a position that had little to do with the transgender community.  It paid even better, but unfortunately, like a lot of government-funded research work, funding dries up, and you end up being cut.  So, shortly afterwards, was my boss.  I have moved on, and I am in a completely different field.  And no, it really isn't anyone's business.

My point in all this is, we need to find a middle ground.  There are people who actually do have a medical condition that is known, for want of a better term, as transsexualism.  They are rare.  Sandeen and that ilk, are not transsexuals.  They are a lot more people who get off on dressing up and pretending.  As long as they don't cause harm, who cares?  But they really need to learn their limits.  Invading women's space is causing harm, and they need to either voluntarily stop it, or they need to be stopped.  They have a choice.  Transsexuals don't.  They should not receive special rights, and yes, things like access to women's spaces, and being allowed to change their birth certificates while keeping their penises are special rights.

It is time to return some sanity to this whole mess.  It is not likely to happen easily, but I do suspect it will eventually happen.  They are pushing for too much, and the backlash is beginning.  And all the while, I will be here, in the middle, watching it all, and doing what I can to help restore a least some reason before it is too late.

A Few Words on Surgery...

This morning, I had a thought that came to me about something that "J. Skyler" said about me.  Referring to me, this person asserted, "...she's a surgical essentialist who thinks anyone who doesn't undergo surgery is pretending/deviant. "  Of course, as is typical with the TG kooks, this is a very simplistic portrayal of a much more complex opinion.  As I pointed out in comments yesterday, I would not automatically use the term "deviant."  As to "pretending," it is also not quite the word I would use either.

So, what do I believe?  First off, I believe that sex reassignment surgery....  Well, let me pause first here, to specifically reject the absurd trend towards calling it "gender reassignment surgery."  This is part of a larger effort by the TG crowd to muddy up, somewhat ironically, the waters they themselves created.  A common meme pushed by the TG crowd is "sex is what is between your legs, gender is what is between your ears."  Of course, they also like to push the idea that gender is, somehow, both fungible, and a choice. But they also want to claim that being TG is not a choice.  In short, they are pretty much making it up as they go.  More precisely, sex is what is between your legs, and what we call "gender" is better defined as the sexual differentiation of the brain.  Simply put, you are either hard wired as a man, or as a woman.  It is, in spite of one of the sillier assertions of some TG kooks, quite related.  But it also occurs at a different time during development.  The body can go male, and the brain female, or vice versa.  Such a condition is rare, but it is what make a person a true transsexual.  So, for something to actually be "gender reassignment surgery," it would have to change the brain, not the genitals.  In short, "gender reassignment surgery" is a fictitious concept, and simply does not exist.

Now, returning to my original thought, sex reassignment surgery, or SRS, does not make a man into a woman (or vice versa) it makes a male into a female (again, or vice versa) to the extent possible with modern techniques.  A better way of putting it would be to say that it allows a true, or classic transsexual the opportunity to live a normal life, and relieves their discomfort with their body.  It corrects, as much as possible, what is, in effect, a birth defect.  It is not magic, and it does not  change who a person is, or make them something they are not.

What this "J. Skyler" person seems to suggest is that I think that the act of having surgery would do just that, and nothing could be further from the truth.  Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen whined, "...It's more than that. She even gets on post-SRS folk who she deems to not be ideologically pure."  Again, a statement that is a bit of a distortion of what I actually think.  Yes, I have encountered post-ops that I seriously believe made a mistake having SRS.  For example, there is "Willow" Arune, the notorious defending of Bailey, Blanchard, and Lawrence, who asserted that he had decided to have SRS because he was raped in a Thai prison (and supposedly had it suggested by a therapist in Thailand).  Another good example would be "Anne" Lawrence...of Bailey, Blanchard, and Lawrence.  I could name a few more, but why bother?  Some are relatively well known, and some are more obscure.  Some have openly declared that they made a mistake, and others, like Arune, just act out in ways that show that their surgery was in error...while often maintaining that they made no mistake.  

So, what is my view?  It is actually simple.  SRS, like an medical procedure, has indication and contraindications.  It is not for everyone.  Surgery is not the dividing line between "real and fake, or between pretending/deviant and...well, whatever that person imagines would be the alternative."  Nor is it about ideology.  Of course, this shows what TG is about, and why it is a flawed, and yes, very dangerous concept.  SRS, again, is a medical procedure.  Those who would undergo it should be carefully screened.  In fact, if a therapist is not rejecting people who seek it, something is very wrong.  And sadly, an increasing number of therapists will pretty much rubber stamp any request.  Mistakes are going to happen.  Some people will always be able to con even the best therapist into granting them approval.  But, therapists should be more cautious.  Surgery should never be "on demand."

For example, if they are faced with someone who is middle-aged, has had a long and successful career as a man, who has shown no prior issues with their gender identity (and no, crossdressing not only doesn't count, but should be a red flag), these things should be investigated.  People who are transsexuals have life-long problems.  When someone claims they have always "known" they were the wrong sex, but clearly had no problems coping, and then suddenly, often after something that would otherwise trigger a mid-life crisis, declare that they are transsexual, and want a sex change, something is probably amiss.  As much as possible, the therapist should interview friends, family, and when appropriate, spouses.  There are a lot of things that should be looked at.  Taking the person's word for it, is not a wise path.

Fortunately, most who should not have SRS don't seek it.  This is the other side of the coin.  I don't think, for example, That Mr. Sandeen is a man because he doesn't want surgery.  I think he doesn't want surgery because, simply put, he is a man.  If he did decide to go the full route, it would not change him into a woman.  He would still be a man, albeit one with a vagina....in effect, finally becoming a transsexual, albeit an FTM.

And that brings us back to a very simple fact.  True transsexuals are rare.  Those who, for want of a better term, can be labeled as "transgender" are far more common.  This has always been true.  Being transgender is a choice, and currently something of a fad.  It is, in many ways, the current rebellious fad.  Such things come and go.  History offers many such examples, but the ones most are familiar with are the more recent ones... In the Fifties, there was the Beat Generation. At least they gave us some interesting literature.  In the Sixties, the Hippies came along.  They gave us some decent music.  They were followed by things like Punks, and Slackers....which didn't seem to give us much of anything.  I imagine, in time, the TG fad will begin to wane as well...and some will be left badly damaged because of it.

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....

Perhaps We Should Thank Sandeen

I imagine some of my regular readers, seeing that title, might think I have slipped a cog...  That I might have blown a fuse...  That I might suddenly have taken leave of my senses...  That I might now be a few French fries short of a Happy Meal...  That I might just plain have lost my mind!

But!  There is something we might well thank "Autumn" Sandeen for.  He is, quite frankly, the exception that proves the rule.  That is always an interesting phrase.  It is hard to explain, until an example happens along.  And then one suddenly realizes, "Here is just such an exception."  Of course, that is not completely accurate.  The "exceptions" are not really exceptions, but why quibble over such details.  For example, in Sandeen's case, he is not a transsexual, or a woman.  But he claims to be both.  Worse, he tries to force transsexuals under the "transgender umbrella."  He is a constant source of bad information, and seems to do his best to make transsexuals look as bad as possible.

But, in doing so, he provides us with a unique opportunity.  On very rare occasions I find myself in a debate with someone who is trying to argue that I am "not really a woman."  Such a person is usually approaching this from, to at least some degree, a rather bizarre mix of religious and pseudo-scientific arguments.  That is where someone like Sandeen comes into the picture.

Sandeen is such a bad parody of both a woman, and a transsexual, who claims to be both.  He provides a perfect example of something that can be pointed to and shown as a counterpoint to true transsexualism.  One can offer up Sandeen and say, "Now here is a classic example of what you are accusing me of being, and here, quite frankly, is where Ihe  differ from such a person."  And more to the point, it would be near-impossible to find any meaningful areas where I, or any other true transsexual, has anything in common with Sandeen.  Aside from the relatively superficial argument that we were both "identified as male birth" there really isn't anything else.  In that sense, Sandeen becomes the example of a person who identifies as transgender, but who is lying when he claims to be either a transsexual or a woman.  Clearly, he is neither, and as such is the exception that proves that we are different.  His counter-example provides evidence for our veracity.

Think of it as having a known standard to compare something fake against.  Looked at alone, it might be hard to tell if something is real or not.  If, for example, you don't have a real Rolex, you might be fooled by a good fake.  If it looks well made, if it is heavy enough, and there is nothing obvious to give it away, you might be fooled.  But next to the real thing, the fake becomes more obvious.  This is also true of any number of other things that are often copied.  In isolation, the fake may, or may not, look pretty convincing.  But compared to the real thing, the fake quickly shows it flaws.

Sandeen, I will admit, is pretty obviously flawed.  He is more like a cheap imitation.  No one seeing a video of him flouncing about in an outfit that no real woman his age (or probably any real woman, period) would ever where, acting like a bad caricature of how women act, or in a classic, explaining the virtues of a device that allows women to pee standing, would ever think...well, that might be a real woman.  But put him next to a real woman, and the differences are all the more apparent.

So, perahps, we should thank Sandeen for giving us a strong argument for the veracity of our experiences.

There Really Is a Difference!

It's funny how sometimes I will be kicking an idea for an article around in my head, and then suddenly one of the transgender kooks will say something that is exactly the thing I was thinking about addressing.  Well, Suzan Cooke, who has become a leading apologist for the Transgender Borg, so much so that I have more than once suggested we should just start calling her Locutus, has done just that.

In her ongoing attempts to attack people she once basically agreed with (her revisionist history of her reaction to Harry Benjamin Syndrome is pretty much fiction) she has published a new post called Sex Reassignment Surgery Does Make a Difference, Just Not the Ones the HBS Folks Claim.

The bit of inane drivel from Cooke that tied in with the article I have been considering, was this:This is because a few assholes have made SRS into this thing that is almost like a trophy they can wave in the faces of those who can’t afford surgery or don’t have the same level of discomfort within their own skins as to require SRS.

Now, this, of course, is straight out of "Transgender 101."  We are all exactly, absolutely the same, but...many cannot afford surgery, or simply do not feel the need for surgery, but aside from that, we are all exactly, absolutely the same.

And it is, of course, complete and total 

HORSEFEATHERS! 

Yes, I can think of another term for it, but hey, I really don't care for that kind of language.  But, seriously, this is complete and utter silliness, and it establishes, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Cooke is completely and totally given over to the transgender point of view.

First off, the simple truth is, very few people who are truly transsexual...that is, people who are truly born with a brain that is sexually differentiated at odds with their body, and who are not actually some man who has a fetish as a hobby that involves fantasizing about being a woman, is likely to be able to deal with various issues that are going to interfere with the ability to accumulate sufficient wealth to be able to afford SRS without something of a struggle.

I know in my case, it interfered with my educational plans, and I wound up dropping out of school and actually spent a good deal of my life, pre-transition, as a homemaker.  My former spouse worked, and I stayed home.  We both agreed that I was more suited to keeping house, and my attempts to "earn the living" generally resulted in financial disasters.  That left me lacking in job experience I needed to find a good paying job when I finally came to full grips with what I needed to do.  

I was lucky that I was able, as more and more are, to find a job where my health insurance covered SRS.  Now, of course a kook like Cooke will probably throw some minor rant about privilege and how relatively rare this is.  And I will, of course, counter with a few facts.  First, the job I had at the time of my surgery was in a research project dealing with AIDS prevention for people who are transgender. Now, the definition of "transgender," was "politically correct" and included transsexuals, as well as the other categories that the "transgender paradigm" attempts to link with transsexuals.  In fact, much of my views of 'transgender" come from my experiences in that project.

The staff I worked with was rather varied.  Our executive director was a post-op transsexual who would have been close to being a contemporary of Cooke's.  We had a couple of other post-ops women, and an assortment ranging from one other true pre-op through various varieties of what turned out to be, pretty much non-ops as well as a few FTMs, and a couple of females who identified as "gender queer."  

Now, I became involved in the project because I was seeing a counselor who specialized in transsexual and transgender people, in anticipation of having surgery.  I was about three years into my transition when I came to San Francisco, and I was assigned to her by the City's health care system.  She was working with the research program I would be employed by, and I was asked if was willing to participate in a survey they were doing.  I agreed, and was interviewed by the person who I would later learn was the executive director.  As part of the survey process, I was invited to participate in various classes (part of the research project) and through that, I was invited to volunteer.  I had been attending college, considering a career in nursing, and  during the summer I had no classes.  Unfortunately, the nursing program was very impacted, and admission was by lottery.  I found myself in a difficult position.  The program that was supporting my college studies had a time limit, and it was very likely that it would run out before I could even get admitted.  The volunteering, which was presented to the program as an "internship" led to a job offer, and since I already knew that surgery was going to be covered soon, I jumped at the opportunity.

Now, the bottom line in all of this, is in an office with a number of supposedly "pre-op transsexual," only myself, and one other, actually took advantage of the surgical benefit.  A couple of the FTMs had top surgery, but I, and one other, were the only two who had SRS. 

The rest found a variety of excuses why they didn't really want surgery.  Some went on to other positions with the same university when the program we were in was disbanded after the principal investigator turned out to have been mishandling money, among other issues.  But they did not take advantage of the benefit.  

My point in telling this story is simple.  If someone really needs the surgery, if their body is at odds with their brain, they will find a way.  My plan had been to find a job that would pay enough that I could live on half my income, and put the other half into savings.  Right before coming to San Francisco, I thought I had reached that point, but other issues in my life led to that falling apart.  The job I had with the university was half-time, providing enough for me to live on, and the surgical benefit meant I didn't have to worry about actually saving money, but ironically my time frame worked out about the same.  If I had been working full time, at the same pay rate, I would have reached the point where I could have afforded the surgery about the same time I actually had it.  And, I did have the added benefit of note having the possibility of a financial disaster wiping out part, or all of my savings.  So, I suffered pretty much the same as I would have either way.  Even though my surgery was covered by insurance, the impact was the same as if I had worked for that time and saved the money.  The downside is, I didm't get to travel to Thailand, which is probably where I would have had the surgery otherwise.

As I pointed out in my last post, San Francisco will now cover SRS for those who cannot afford it.  If nothing else, any who claim they would have it, but cannot afford it, could consider relocating to San Francisco.  But, of course, few actually will.  And while I doubt it will become widespread, it is increasingly likely that other places that provide medical care for the less fortunate will be forced to consider such coverage.  And coverage under health insurance is quickly becoming widely accepted.  Soon the "I would, but I can't afford it," excuse will be gone completely.

This brings us to the second part of Cooke's silly statement.  There are "don’t have the same level of discomfort within their own skins as to require SRS."  Simply put, these people are not transsexuals.  They are people who have a desire, born of a fetish, or a sense of rebellion, or  who knows what, who have chosen to transgress societal norms.  They thrive on the conflict and controversy their behavior leads to.  It may not be politically correct to point this out, but they are, quite simply, basically anti-social in terms of personality.  They don't want to fit in.  They crave being at odds with the norm.  They are unhappy with the idea of being "normal."  They don't want to be a normal woman, or a normal man.  They want to be, as one kook once put it, "a woman-male."  That is, they want to force society to pander to their behavior, treating them as a "woman" while forcing the fact that they are male on people.  Or vice versa in the terms of some who are born female.  Some in this group, such as Mr. "Cristan" Williams, claim to have had surgery, but they still retain a strong link to their maleness.  Others, such as Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen actually engage in fraud to get their birth certificate change, openly bragging about their deception.  It is unclear if the judge in San Diego who granted Mr. Sandeen's request to change his birth certificate to falsely indicate that he is "female" was aware of his true surgical status (i.e. that he is a eunuch, retaining his penis) but in San Francisco the courts instructions make it clear that this is NOT acceptable.

It is not about being "special" as Cooke tries to claim, but it is more about actually not being special.  You see, I don't believe there is a basis for real comparison, so there is nothing to make a transsexual "better" or even "less" than someone who is transgender.  It would be like comparing the proverbial apple and orange.  Both share common traits, living beings, of the vegetable kingdom, and both fruits, but there the comparison largely ends.  Likewise, a transgender person and a transsexual are both human beings, and they may share a few other common traits (such as both having been assigned male at birth), but again, there the comparison ends.  Comparing the two is, in effect, comparing a man to a woman.  Same species, but very different in many ways.

And this is where Cooke's silliness falls apart.  Cooke simply does not get it.  Most of us never shared her past obsessions, and we have no need to purge ourselves of her feelings of guilt.  I did not transition to become a transsexual, I transitioned to become a woman.  But kooks like Cooke seem determined to make that as difficult as possible.  By engaging in anti-social behavior, and then trying to basically insist that this is "typical" of transsexuals, and worse, by, insisting on linking us to the even more anti-social behavior of some who push the transgender paradigm, when our past is revealed, either inadvertently, or because of necessity (my primary care doctor knows, but I don't share it, for example, with my ophthalmologist") we face forms of discrimination that are not necessarily overt, but are ore subtle, such as being perceived as thinking and feeling differently than we actually do.  No, I don't want to wear my past on my sleeve like some do.  No, I don't particularly want to talk about it.  No, I really don't appreciate it when you tell me how moved you are by the fact that it is the "Transgender Day of Remembrance."  What I want, is to be treated as you would any other woman, period.

The simple bottom line is this.  If Cooke wants to call a bunch of "men in dresses" sisters, because it makes Cooke feel all transgressive and revolutionary, and just oh so politically correct, that is certainly Cooke's right.  But hey, I don't, I want, and if Cooke wants to get her panties in a wad because of it, then well, Cooke is probably not going to be happy with what I have to say about it.  But hey, that's life.  Cooke has as much of a right to be wrong as anyone else. But I'm still not buying the insanity she is peddling.  And what little respect I once had for Cooke as an pioneer has long been laid to rest.  Who knows, maybe Cooke is right, and these people are closer to being Cooke's siblings than not.  But in that case, "sister" is really not remotely the appropriate term in either direction.

Yes, one way, or the other, SRS makes a difference.  For some, like myself, it makes a major improvement in one's life.  I have faced things that would have previously devastated me, but which I was able to handle because I no longer carry the baggage i once did.  For others, it is itself devastating.  It is a mistake for them, and it accomplishes nothing of value, and may even lead them to take their own life.  Or, it may just lead them to dedicate their lives to attempting to make life miserable for anyone for who surgery was the right choice.

Bottom line, I and others who fit the classification of "classic transsexual" are women socially, and as female as is possibly with current medicine.  There are a lot of people who have no real desire to be both, or in some cases, either.  I would appreciate it if both they, and their apologists, would stop trying to insist that they are "just like me."  They are not.  I'm not better, or lesser.  There is really no basis for comparison, and perhaps that is the biggest difference that SRS makes.  Whether you have it, or not, it makes clear the difference between those who desperately need it, and those who really don't.