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.

Stick and Stones May Break My Bones....

We all grew up learning that rhyme...  We know the rest.  "But words will never hurt me...."  Well, most of us did, anyway.  The basic idea is that insults are not as harmful as actual, physical attacks.  Unless, of course, you live in the fantasy world of the transgender crazies.  There, you start talking about "violence of spirit."  Or, at least you do if you are "Autumn" Sandeen and you are trying to elevate yourself as the transgender Martin Luther King, Jr. again.  Yes, Mr. Sandeen is at it again.


In another example of his attempts to look saintly, he has taken on the issue of the transgender fellow who, to quote "Monica" Roberts, "opened a can of whoop ass."  Yes, the same Mr. Sandeen who just about a month and a "two-thirds full cup of an iced, decaffeinated hammerhead."  Do you ever get the feeling that Mr. Sandeen is a bit obsessed about coffee?  I mean, really, do we need that much detail?  Including, I might add, the link to the definition of a "hammerhead?"  And let me digress her, and ask why anyone would want a decaffeinated version of such a drink?  


Here is how Sandeen describes his assault:

I have no idea whether this young man “read” me as trans, or recognized me from my being publicly visible as trans in the local media; and it didn’t really matter which of the two it was. What mattered to me is the very fact that he used an anti-transgender pejorative toward me that’s on par with the anti-gay f-word pejorative.
At the moment I heard and felt the sting of those words, I flashed red. I took the lid off my iced coffee and threw it in his face. While doing that, I said, “That’s for calling me thing.” Then I walked past – having noticed the young man had a stunned look on his face as I turned my back on him. I guess he expected me to lower my head in shame, obviously not knowing that I identify myself as being “Trans and Proud.” I felt good about my behavior until I realized I’d given into aggression and retaliation. I did the man no real harm, and I didn’t engage in behavior that the young man didn’t on some level deserve … but that’s not the way I want to behave when confronted with hate.

…In each of those two situations, I saw that I’m not always the moral person I see myself as being, but instead am someone who, in flashes of anger, doesn’t live up to her own standards of tolerance, patience, love and understanding. For me, I need to stop weaponizing my coffee and start thinking before I act in anger. Darkness can’t drive out darkness – only light can do that. I want to be a light.

First off, given the details he provided, I have to wonder if Sandeen's real regret is that he lost his precious coffee.  Second, it apparently never occurs to Sandeen that he should be glad that the "young man" didn't open his own can of whoop ass.  Clearly, Sandeen acted like a male, and escalated the situation, because, after all, he is "Trans and Proud....and apparently not very bright."  In the original version of this, he included one other detail...there were three young men standing there.  Now, a woman would be more cognizant of her safety.  A man, and Sandeen is all man, wouldn't think about that.  He is lucky he didn't become a martyr for this years "Day of Remembrance."

Well, Mr. Sandeen has apparently seen the light!  He goes on to say:

Thinking through how I’ll respond when I’m intentionally misgendered or called a pejorative in the future — as I’m absolutely sure I’ll be intentionally misgendered or called a pejorative in the future — I’ve decided that I’ll turn to person who engages in violence of the spirit and say “May God bless you, and may your days be filled with peace.” 

Setting aside, for the moment, the fact that misgendering Sandeen would be to refer to him using female pronouns, I suppose this is an improvement over his previous actions, which included cyber-stalking me.  Funny how he has not owned up to that one.  I guess that wasn't bad enough to tarnish his "halo."


If you read the original article by Sandeen, entitled "I’ve got coffee; and I’m not afraid to use it," you will find that it reads less like a mea culpa, and more like a boast.  If nothing else, the title shows he really doesn't get it...


The simple bottom line is, no insult justifies violence, even if you are silly enough to call the insult "violence of spirit."  As I have said many times, I don't take responsibility for other people's bigotry.  Shoot, I am tired of men like Sandeen trying to co-opt the experience of true transsexuals.  I don't care to be referred to as transgender, and find it highly insulting....but I am not going to go out and "open a can of whoop ass" because someone calls me that.  And I have been actually misgendered, and almost every time it has been deliberate and malicious, it has been by a member of the "transgender" community.  The one exception?  A guy I had met, and broke up with.  When I told him I didn't want to see him again, he tossed that at me.  And?  And, I just walked away laughing.


Yes, there is one other point that needs to be made.  I am secure in my identity.  I am a woman, and like any woman who gets called a man, my response is to consider the source, and realize that the person is not worth bothering with.

 

Mr. Sandeen is a LIAR!!!

"In a comment to a recent post, "Autumn" Sandeen, one of the point men for the extremist wing of the transgender movement made a blatantly false statement.  In fact, he even contradicted himself to do it. 


While attacking "true transsexuals, classic transsexuals,women of operative history, and women of transsexual history -- as well as some associating with Harry Benjamin Syndrome..." he makes this assertion:

Well, many (if not most) these true transsexul women believe that late transitioning transsexual people, non-operative transsexual people, many-if-not-all pre-operative transsexual people, genderqueer people, drag performers, and crossdressers are fetishists.

This, of course is a basic straw argument.  It contains a grain of truth, and then adds quite a bit of falsehood.  It would, of course, be accurate to say that we see some late transitioning non-transsexuals as fetishists.  The same can be said of crossdressers.  Drag performers are generally not fetishists, and I know of no one who claims they are.  Gender queer would be considered to be more of a social/political form of extremism.  There is, of course, no such thing as a non-operative transsexual person.  They probably are fetishists, as they are essentially another form of crossdresser.  And finally, the most egregious lie is the addition of "many-if-not-all pre-operative transsexual people."


Has Mr. Sandeen taken leave of his senses...well, more than he clearly already has?  Or is this simply a deliberate lie?  Clearly, it is the latter.  He knows better than this.  It does not even make sense.  Earlier in the same comment, he lumps those close to surgery in with those who are post-op.  Well, if these people, who by his own words, include "all" pre-ops, that would mean that those close to surgery see themselves as being fetishists, and those who are post-op as having been fetishists.


Simply put.....HUH?!?!?!?!?


What an incredibly stupid attempt to discredit people he knows are correct.  He can't refute us with facts, so he has to appeal to fear.  Obviously we were all pre-ops at one time.  We may see people, such as Mr. Sandeen, who were avowed non-ops, who suddenly declare that one day, in the far distant future, if all the stars align, and they win the lottery, etc., that they will have surgery, but who clearly have no imperative to undergo the operation, and have more excuses than actual plans, as frauds, and yes, even fetishists.  But Mr. Sandeen is not, and never will be a transsexual.  He just wants to improve his status.


And he proves this by lying.

Nope!

I have already discussed how Suzan Cooke has tried to redefine "transgender." In that article, she basically claims that pre-op transsexuals are "transgender," becoming transsexuals after surgery. Now she goes a bit further, making the following statement:

You are misreading what I said. The point is that a fair portion of people living as transgender are economically transgender and would get SRS were it available either publicly or privately.

This is much more so in the US than in places where a National Health System covers SRS.

What I am saying is that there is a grain of truth in the claims of many transgenders when they say they are really transsexual.

Now, I was lucky...I had planned to complete a training program, and then start working and save half my income to cover my surgery. I figured a year or two would be enough. Of course, that was after I completed a training program that would take about two years. Instead, I found out about a possible job that would include surgical coverage. I jumped at the opportunity. Now, as it was, I had to work a bit over a year before I got my surgery. I was the first one who worked for this particular employer who took advantage of the benefit.

At the time, I worked for a research project that included a number of "transgender people." Three of my co-workers were post-op transsexuals (though all three identified as transgender). Six others had not had surgery. Out of seven who were MTF (including myself), only myself and one other ha have surgery. One is still actively pursuing, and I have heard that another might. Another was fired and is trying to get her current employer to cover it. I had my surgery as soon as it was available, as did the other who completed surgery, The rest took very casual approach to the issue. They expressed interest, but were in no rush.

Elsewhere in the same organization, there have been others who have not taken advantage of what is virtually free surgery (there is a co-pay, $250 with the plan that provides the fastest path), Various excuses are offered. The same is true for the City of San Francisco, which has offered coverage for SRS for years. Most "transgender" employees simply don't bother.

So, Cooke is, again, wrong. Even when it is almost free, excuses abound.