It's Been A While...

My last post was back in August.  To be honest, I just got tired of pointing out the never-ending insanity of the transgender kooks, and decided to spend some time on other, more productive, pursuits.  I have, however, looked in from time to time and have a laugh at how absurd it is all becoming.

And on one of those looks, I found out that, nine months later, Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen is still obsessing over me.  As is Mr. "Natalie" Reed, who, bizarrely, has apparently accused me of stabbing someone in the chest on a bus.  Uh, no...I've never stabbed anyone, anywhere.

As an interesting aside, Mr. Reed is also ranting about how increasing "gender neutral" bathrooms would serve to invalidate "trans people."  As though the obvious obsession with forcing themselves into places they are not wanted hasn't already done that.  Sort of puts the claims of just wanting to "pee in peace" in a whole new light.  Nope, they want to be able to force women to put up with men, who don't even try to actually live or act like females, invading women's spaces, and to demand that these men, who cling very strongly to their male identification (while maintaining that they are "really women") be fully accepted as women.

I have left my past behind.  I only reveal it when absolutely required, and then with an explanation that I am a transsexual, not "transgender."  And an explanation of what the difference is.  Simply put, Mr. Sandeen, Mr. Reed, and all the rest of their ilk, don't want to be women.  They just want to force people to say they are, all the while knowing that this does not jibe with reality.

Oh well, back to doing what these kooks can never do...living my life as a woman.

Lask Ups His Game

Well, my long term cyber-stalker, "Diane" Lask has upped his game.  He sent me another anonymous message, this time including a more overt threat.  I guess it will have to have a talk with the San Francisco Police Department sooner, rather than later.  Apparently Lask has taken complete leave of his senses.  His first message was enough to qualify as threatening, and will like result in his being investigated for stalking.  This one, well it will cinch such a case.  He really must be aching to be some hunky prisoner's date.  Remember, Lask is apparently non-op, and thus would end up in with men, not women.  I'm sure he will be very popular.

A Complete Load of Crap

The kooks at Shame on You Transgender Edition posted a hilarious piece by Mr. "Michelle" Spicer, entitled Dating Transwomen Does Not "Make You Gay".  While the title is bad enough, the article is worse.  It is homophobic, and inaccurate.  It starts out with an accurate, but somewhat misleading idea..

Many of you have heard the myth that dating a transgender woman if you are a heterosexual male will somehow turn you gay. This has to be the most ridiculous type of rationale that I have heard of thus far.

Okay, you cannot really turn someone gay.  Granted, under certain circumstances, men who would otherwise not do so, may engage in homosexual behavior (the classic example is men who are incarcerated) but upon release they generally return to heterosexual practices. But…but then Mr. Spicer launches into this bit of absurdity….

Our sexual orientation does not change because of who we date, we date someone because of our sexual orientation. You can make love to a body but you can only date an actual person, it's the person inside you eventually fall in love with(if there is any kind of real love there) and a transwomans spirit is a woman!

Okay, keep that first sentence in mind…it is the petard this idiot will be hoist be, but let's look at that second part.  There is so much wrong here.  But for the moment, let's look at the final assertion…"transwomans (sic) spirit is a woman!"  Nope.  A "transwoman's" spirit is not a woman.  If it was, she would not be a "transwoman," which is an oxymoron, but would just a woman…which is anathema to so-called "transwomen" who cling to their manhood with a tenacity that puts a barnacle clinging to a boat to shame….

But, let's consider the part where Mr. Spicer really goes off the deep end…

Men who are attracted to transgender women are not automatically gay in any way shape or form. That is not to say that gay men cannot be attracted to transgender women, but the attraction itself does not change their orientation. If you are a heterosexual man the chances are that you are attracted to a transwoman because of her femininity, her personality and her spirit. There are fetishists of course, but they are attracted to a fetish and not the actual transwoman that stands before them. Using someone as an object is not considered dating them and does not come from any place of respect. This article is only concerned with men who actually want to date transgender women regardless of their surgical status and not treat her like an object. There is a difference between a "chaser" and having an actual interest in dating transgender women.

Okay, it is pretty much unheard of for a straight man to actually engage in a physical relationship with a "transwoman."  Likewise, if you are a pre-op, once a guy finds out you are physically male, the best you can hope for is that he doesn't totally freak out and become violent.  The relationship will probably end, at least with regards to any hope of romance, and you will end up broken hearted.  If you are seriously surgically tracked, you have two choices…date men who claim to be straight (but clearly aren't) or be celibate.  What they claim here is delusional crap.  It is simply believing the lies of men who are either lying to themselves or to everyone else.  If a guy is attracted to you, and you are physically a male, then that man is homosexual.  He may deny being such, but he is.  End of story.  He doesn't give one whit about your spirit, your femininity, or your personality.  He simply fetishizes "chick with dicks."  I've met my share, and I found the relationships very unsatisfactory.  He may pretend to "not treat you like an object," but if you are physically male, he is almost certainly going to.  And chances are, he will drop you like a rock if you actually do have surgery.  Shoot, I dated one guy who was a very wealth contractor.  He lived in what some would call a "MacMansion," had a pool and a hot tub, and drove a Jag.  I'm not a gold digger, but I am also not stupid…but the relationship ended quickly when he said "Don't have surgery…"  

Yes, for a while, I was a bit naive, and actually believe the sort of fairy tale Mr. Spicer is spewing here.  After learning what guys meant when they asked if I was "functional" (NO!  I have been on hormones for a while, and even if I was, what part of "I'm a woman," do you not understand?) I realized that most of these guys were not straight, and were pretty screwed up to boot.

Mr. Spicer ends with this bit of comedy…

Men who date transgender women are heterosexual men dating women, period. Simply because she is a different "type" of woman makes no difference to this writer. There are men who like French women, does that make them french? Simply because a man is attracted to a "type" of woman will not change his sexual orientation any more than it could change his nationality. The myth that dating a transgender woman "makes you gay" is ridiculous, damaging and causes the men who want to date us a great deal of shame. Transwomen lose out on dating and finding love because of this and that is just a damn shame.

Sorry, but no.  Heterosexual men don't want women with penises, and they certainly don't want to be topped by one.  There is only one kind of "woman" and men who date "transgender" women, as well as men who are attracted to pre-ops and so-called "non-ops" (a misnomer…if you are not going to have surgery, you are not a transsexual, so there is no need for that qualifier) are not heterosexual, they are perverts who fetishize the idea of a woman with a penis.  And if you think otherwise, you are lying to yourself, and very possibly putting yourself in serious danger, looking for a guy who doesn't even exist.

The Transgender Kook Triple Play

There is a pattern that seems to play out repeatedly when one deals with transgender extremists.  The more they are kooks, the more precisely it plays out….  And in my recent adventures with the Trannymaniacs I wrote about last time, it has played out very precisely.

So, what is the Transgender Kook Triple Play?  Well, it works like this…

First, they try to show you the error of your ways.  They inform you that you are wrong, and that they want to show you the "right path…"  (BTW, all of the weird grammar and spelling mistakes are in the original…just consider everything to include (sic) where appropriate.) They will be firm, but that "only want to help you out."  Here is part of what this bunch's self-appointed "messiah", Ms. "Mark" Cummings had to say at the beginning...

Transgender is not meaningless it is who you are and will always be. You can run but you cannot hide. Say all you want, scream from the top of your lungs. But you don't full anyone. Now if you feel the need to think you are a woman and that gives you peace, then by all means wish away. But you are only hurting yourself in the long run. You were not a mistake from the word go, we are here to show the world the true meaning of duality, and to think you can kill who you were, is only an act of delusion.

As I said, a bit firm, but after all, she has to set me straight…  But, he tries a somewhat softer approach after I pointed out to him that, no, I really didn't buy into his crap, and was not going to accept his advice…

You can repeat it all you want and believe it. It is your choice, your life, but the world knows otherwise. My life is amazing and I am so at peace, before I use to think like you, and I woke up. You are no more of a woman than a transgender woman who still has her penis. Your penis has been inverted but it still has male written all over it. It is fake, it does not lubricate, it does not self dilate. It is a wound at best, having that does not make you a woman. You were born a guy. You and all of us have a hormonal imbalance that makes us feel, in your case feminine and in my case masculine, but that does not make us the gender we claim we are. No matter what surgery, no matter what procedure. You are not a mistake, you don't need to prove to the world one thing. You were fine the way you were. Now I have nothing against transitioning but knowing why we are doing this and why we have been placed here on earth.

Now, she drags out some classic transgender tropes, but she also tries to be a bit condescending, but also tries to gently set me on the proper path…  And I decline to accept her correction…

At this point, Ms. Cummings' "husband," Mr. "Jessica" Cummings joins the discussion…

Actually Jennifer I am post op and had my surgery in April of 2013 just FYI. I identify as a woman but I am proud to be Transgender so your fetish theory holds no water with me. We are all equal unfourtunately some of us that are proud of who we are post real pictures of ourselves and those of us that are ashamed hide behind fake photos such as a cartoon character.

Now, I had pretty much told Ms. Cummings that I was not buying into their crap in no uncertain terms.  I was already seeing a bit of what was going on, but I hadn't read enough to know the depths of insanity this group holds..  For example, while I would come to suspect something was amiss, I did not yet know for certain that Mr. Cummings was lying through his teeth when he claimed to be "post-op."  Yes, he, like Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen is a post-op eunuch, not a transsexual.  And I had not made the connection that he was the "husband" of Ms. Cummings.

Now, he drags out some classic transgender tropes, but he also tries to be a bit condescending, but also tries to gently set me on the proper path…  More classic transgender silliness…"shame," "hiding," etc.  In their mind, someone who is leading a normal, quiet, and happy life as a woman is somehow actually miserable, ashamed, hiding, and in need of correction.

Of course, when this approach fails to work, the second stage of the Transgender Kook Triple Play is to start insulting the person they are arguing with.  As sure as the sun rises, the insults will come out.  The break is not always clearly defined, and there is usually some mixing of the two…

I don't care if you agree or disagree with me, I don't need your validity or anyone elses. I am speaking my mind and that I am entitled to do. And yes I have walked my life in both genders as have you and as all other trans people. Glad we provided you with amusement since your lonely ass has nothing else better to do. I am sure dilating gets boring after awhile and since you have not been able to use that expensive man made vagina, I wonder how much regret you actually have and need to boost yourself by saying you are better than us trannies who won't put ourselves through that unnecessary procedure that at best won't be able to satisfy anyone, not even yourself. You did come and throw the first stone, by saying transgender is meaningless therefore, you must understand that we don't take very lightly to snobby transsexual women who are uptight due to lack of sexual pleasure and filled with regrets.

Actually, she clearly does care, and she clearly needs my validity.  Now, keep in mind the irony of the statement that she is "speaking my mind and that I am entitled to do," given that she repeatedly informed me that I have no right to not identify as transgender.  Now, it should be noted, I never said I was better, and actually said there was no basis for comparison.  My position throughout this discussion, including what started the whole mess, was simply to point out that the idea of a "transgender hierarchy" was bogus, in part, because the ones supposedly at the top are not necessarily transgender.  

And yes, I said "transgender is meaningless" because, well, it is.  It is an artificial, social/political construct that is highly subjective and which has no objective basis.  In reality, the only criteria for being "transgender" is if one chooses, of one's own volition, to identify as transgender.  Of course, this offends the extremists, who, as much as anything, need numbers.  And they wish to use transsexuals as their "beards" to hide behind. 

Now, when things really get rough, they bring out their favorite insult, and violate Godwin's Law…

I can't believe these HBS nazis have to be just like the TERF is today. Because that's why their scientific theories are not being taken serious and the proposal of having the term transsexual changed to HBS is thus rejected.
There is a page dedicated to debunking the entire series of claims made by HBS nazis who tried to get a page up on Wikipedia.

Now, at this point, they have effectively lost the argument…but, hey, the funs only starting.  I will spare you the endless back and forth of nasty insults.  I admit, I was not exactly kind in my responses, but as I have said many times, I don't suffer fools, or bigots, well.  And when you are dealing with she extremely foolish bigots…it is not going to be pretty.  But the main thing I did was meet their stupidity with facts, and that, of course, just made them madder, and madder, which brings us to the final stage of the transgender triple play…the inevitable end of battle.  But first, we should look at a bit of irony…

This band of kooks chose to use the image I have on this blog in their attacks on me.  Now, the content of this blog is copyright, by me, and as they say, all rights are reserved.  I don't object to "fair use," but copying my artwork and using it as they did is not fair use.  Quoting is fair use, but taking an image is not (ironically, because of this, I did find out that some bizarre plastic surgery blog, which is not in English, has actually stolen my image as well.  Not much I can do, as I assume it is hosted in China, which does not recognize copyright as a rule…but sort of weird…and a little creepy…).  When I notified them of this, they went totally loopy, claiming I was trying to censor them.  No, I simply said, "Remove the image you stole."  I did not say, "Take down the silly insults you have thrown at me…" or "Remove the outrageous claims you make on your blog…" or even "Stop lying about having had surgery you haven't had…"  No, I did not try to censor them…BUT….

Yes, in the classic endgame for a transgender kook, they played the censorship card.  Mr. Cummings has this to say...

@ Jennifer we have Sat back and entertained your childish actions on every article. It is getting old. We have yet to censor you and shut you up but if it keeps up much longer I will personally start deleting everyone of your comnents from this point forward. So you can waste your time babbling your hypocritical, disrespectful, and manly comments and I will simply make then disappear. Poof =)

And, after I pointed out the irony of this, in light of them doing an entire blog post on their false claim of being censored (Really, this people have NO sense of irony, no sense of humor, and well, no sense, period….) one of them replied:

Well you getting blocked won't be determined by the amount of farm animals you've f****d, but by the amount of stupidity and hate you put into pixels in these commentsections. I take it you've blocked people on your blog too since you're so privacy sensitive about things you've put into the public domain! Ouch! That had to hurt. (And yes, I did censor the profanity in this one…)

My reply to this one was, quite simply, factual…

ROTFL! Well, I guess you should block me then, since I would never match you on the first (since, as I said, I don't engage in your sexual practices, sir…and if you actually thought, about it, you would realize just how incredibly ignorant AND impossible such a suggestion is) and I am also not going to make stupid remarks, since I clearly disagree with your idiocy. But, as you point out, Blogger (alas) does not have a blocking function. And again, your understanding of "public domain" versus copyright is laughable. Hurt, only in the sense that it always hurts to see someone so completely, and woefully lacking in knowledge.

And I still love the irony of you all whining about censorship, and then threatening it because you realize you are actually losing the argument. Classic transgender mentality.

And, of course, they removed my post…along with another, earlier one, where I pointed out, in response to a similar childish remark suggesting that I live in Texas, and well, engage in what I can only assume is a sexual practice this person is quite obsessed with…he keeps mentioning it) along with the suggest that I should therefore "copyright animals"…

Well, first off, I don't live in Texas, nor do I engage in your sexual practices. I do however understand the difference between copyright law, and patent law. You see, copyright applies to creative works, like writing, art, photographs, and movies. It would not apply to an animal. Patent law would, but only if you invent something sufficiently new. Now, genetic modifications are covered, so it would be possible to patent an animal, but one has to keep in mind that patents are in effect a much shorter time than a copyright. Now, sir, it is obvious that your statement was, as usual, mind numbingly ignorant, but that is to be expected.

Anyway, this has all been fun…I admit a certain guilty pleasure in giving kooks fits…and I could sort of see how it would end…it almost always does, unless someone higher up the food chain prevents it (as has happened at LGBT Weekly where Mr. Sandeen is not allowed to censor like he would like to).  I will probably occasionally monitor these kooks, and bring you response to anything truly insane, as I do with other kooks.

Gagging on Gnats and Swallowing Camels

Those who have been following the strange tale of AB 1266 might remember that I pointed out, back in October, that places like San Francisco and Oakland had actually addressed some of the more extreme problems that might occur with AB 1266.  In fact, over at LGBT Weekly I confronted Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen about these issues, and strongly suggested that the transgender extremists might want to urge the state legislature to amend AB 1266 to include such provisions in an effort to head off the possibility of that law being overturned.

Well, it is now January, the petition to overturn AB 1266 is still very much alive, in spite of overly optimistic predictions by transgender extremists (and some clearly underhanded efforts by the Secretary of State to stop it) and, well, things have taken a slightly surprising turn.

The extremists from Pacific Justice Institute have embraced the approach taken by San Francisco.  

Think about that for a minute.  We were told, over and over, by kooks like Mr. Sandeen, and his fearless leader, Mr. "Cristan" Williams, that there was nothing wrong with AB 1266, that is only implemented the polices already in place like San Francisco, and that there had been no problems.  Of course, both of them were, as usual, lying through their teeth.  AB 1266 was intended to do exactly what was feared, such as allow students to arbitrarily choose what gender they feel like on a given day, and force female students to put up with males parading around nude in girl's locker rooms.

It seems that Mr. Sandeen is now eating his words, and is actually upset that PJI is taking the reasonable approach to dealing with this issue….

Mr Sandeen is straining out a gnat over the fact that not everyone on the right is willing to embrace "San Francisco" values, and swallowing the camel that, well, transgender males have superior rights to females.

And he is, as has become his practice, badly twisting Scripture to do it.

The article at Transadvocate is laughable, at best.

The whole thing started because PJI has suggest that Florence High School, which is at the center of the controversy over the "Jane Doe" case, adopt the San Francisco Unified School District's approach to dealing with transgender students.

How could Mr. Sandeen possibly find fault with this?  Well, simple…Mr. Sandeen latches on to the fact that another, separate, group that is part of the Privacy For All Students coalition that opposes AB 1266 does not share exactly the same view as PJI.  That group, Capital Resource Institute, apparently takes a bit more of a hard line on the issue.

Hmmm, so, rather than show a shred of common sense, Mr. Sandeen digs his heels in and has a hissy fit because someone actually is willing to compromise, and well, take a position that Mr. Sandeen should fully accept.

Mr. Sandeen tosses out a bit of Scripture…

The integrity of the upright guides them, but the unfaithful are destroyed by their duplicity. Proverbs 11:3 

I think he might want to think long and hard about that one.  He is the one being duplicitous here.  But then, who would expect anything different?

A Very Bad Law

I'm normally a big supporter of both Tom Ammiano and Gov. Jerry Brown, but I am not happy with either of them at the moment.

Ammiano introduced, and Brown signed, AB1266, the law is meant to provide protections for "transgender" students.  Unfortunately, it contains one provision that makes it a very bad law.

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

Strictly interpreted, this would mean that a male student, upon declaring that his gender identity is female, would not only be able to play on a girl's athletic team (irregardless of his hormonal status), but would also be able to join the girls in the shower after the game.

I am sure the transgender extremists are just...well, doing what men who are sexually aroused do, over the prospect of this.

It is one thing to say that students should be treated fairly, or that students who identify as transgender should be allowed to dress and be treated as the gender they claim to identify with, but the idea that a male student should be able to be in a place where female students have a right to expect privacy, simply by making the assertion that "he feels like a girl," is absurd.

The irony is, no student who is actually transsexual would take advantage of this, so any student who actually does, and perhaps none actually will, is simply not a transsexual, but is instead a pervert.

The Truth Begins to Slip Out, and It is NOT Pretty

Well, the invasion of the women's room by the boys in dresses continues.  And the more it drags on, the clearer it becomes just how disturbing the transgender kooks real agenda is.  The official party line remains, "We just want to go in, do our business, and get out..." while the truth is, "We just want to force ourselves on women..."  Yes, there, I said it, and I stand by it.  A couple of items that have come out prove this.

Two men in dresses...

First off, there is the leader of the attempt to undermine our national defense by forcing the military to deal with transgender fellows wanting to be "female" soldiers (and presumably be assigned to women's units and be allowed to crossdress like Mr. Sandeen loves to), "Allyson" Robinson (seen here with Mr. Sandeen, himself...imagine having this pair in the ladies room with you. Mr. Robinson, who is one of those straight male crossdressers who had a long career as a man, before deciding he wants to pretend to be a girl full time (and who certainly looks like a guy in a dress) decided to "count coup" in the women's room in the Phoenix airport. He left this note, to make sure that the women knew that their privacy had been violated. So much, for "we just want to pee in private. No, they want to invade the women's room, make sure that the women know that men are in there, and in case anyone missed it, rub their noses in it.

But it get's worse. In Arizona, State Rep. John Kavanagh, the author of the so-called "Papers to Pee" bill, spoke up in defense of his actions. He explained, not unreasonably, that he was not so much concerned with men in women's bathrooms, but was instead concerned with locations like locker rooms and showers, where there is a greater expectation of privacy, and as the law here in San Francisco puts it, there is a possibility of "inevitable nudity."  In another words, here in San Francisco, you cannot force women to take showers with pre-op transsexuals (something which any pre-op transsexual would have a problem with anyway), or more to the point "non-op transgender people."  In another words, no penises in the women's shower.  If a place does not have private shower stalls, then transgender people have to be given a specific time they can use the shower, or an alternative location.  The same goes for areas like dressing rooms without individual stalls, or spas and such.  A quite reasonable approach, and one set up with the input of "transgender people."

But this is increasingly unacceptable to the transgender extremist kooks.  For example, there is this bit of drivel from ThinkProgress:

Consider the lived experience of the transgender woman, who identifies, presents, and lives as a woman in every aspect of her life. She may have undergone hormone therapy, electrolysis/laser hair removal, and other procedures to bring her body and gender into alignment, but she may have elected not to undergo surgery on her genitals — a costly, invasive procedure that would likely permanently sterilize her, depriving her of her reproductive rights. If she were to enter a men’s restroom or locker room, she would look entirely out of place, and as Signorile pointed out, would face a heightened risk for violence and harassment. The women’s room is the correct room for her to use. According to Kavanagh, however, the mere fact that she might still happen to have a penis that another girl in the locker room might just happen to see is such a safety risk to the girl that discrimination against all trans people is thus justified. It’s absurd, belittling, and just plain bigoted.

Now, clearly the person described here does not live as a "woman" in every aspect of his life.  She still has a penis.  Women don't willingly have penises.  If he elects to forego having it removed, he is indicating, without question, that he is a man.  Now, this person has NO business in any area that is for women only, especially if nudity is likely.  He has no business being there to see women, or to be seen by women.  As I have pointed out, if I encountered such a person in such an area, I would take action involving pepper spray...in the face, and then in the crotch.  I think he would get the message.

And if there is any question that they think it is perfectly acceptable for a man, who claims to be a female, but who has, and wants to keep his penis (a true transsexual would avoid such a situation at all costs) then this quote from the same article makes it clear how they view the matter:

It’s absurd to conclude that all girls would experience psychological harm by simply seeing another person’s body, and such an assertion suggests that trans people’s bodies are somehow dangerous to others.

So, there you have it.  If you are a woman, who does not want to see a man's penis in the locker room or shower...or a parent who does not want your daughter exposed to such a sight, then you are a bigot.  Still don't get that?  They make that completely clear:

Kavanagh tried to obfuscate responsibility for his position by referring to a case at Evergreen College where a trans woman’s use of the locker room raised concern with a young girl’s family. He neglected to mention that it’s the very anti-LGBT Alliance Defending Freedom that is responsible for raising the controversy in the first place.

Whether one agrees with the Alliance Defending Freedom, or not, does not change the fact that the pervert "Colleen" Francis was exposing himself to young girls at the college.  But hey, its okay because a group that is "anti-LGBT" objected.

Hoist by Her Own Petard

Let me preface this by saying that I personally have no problem with same-sex marriages, though I do believe it is up to individual states to decide the issue, and I believe that unless a state approves of such a marriage, one should be bound by the law in a given state.  That said, this is an interesting turn of events in a story that I have written on before.

"Thomas" Beatie, the infamous "pregnant man" has been told that she cannot divorce her wife of nine years because the judge cannot determine that they were married to begin with.  Now, it should be noted that the judge did not base the ruling on it being a same sex marriage, just that Beatie, who kept his reproductive organs intact, and who has born children will claiming to be a man, failed to establish that she was a transsexual man at the time of the marriage.  Well, DUH!!!!!

Oh, and the worst part...she wants to compete to get pregnant with her new girlfriend, commenting that perhaps both will be pregnant at the same time...

Here is a link to the story.

You're Not the Boss of Me!

Immature anarchists with the mindset of adolescent males...  That's what the "surgery on demand" crowd sounds like.  Oh, now we have a new, kinder and gentler term..."informed consent," well, actually, we have a term that is being badly misused.  Another term that is likely to be bandied about is "the Argentinian Approach."  The idea is the same...no gatekeepers, no Standards of Care, no screening of applicants for SRS, and no recourse if a mistake is made.  You don't want people telling you what to do, so do it "your way."  And if you make a mistake, well as Suzan Cooke says, "cowgirl up/cowboy up."  Hmmm, that sounds like what I heard before my transition.  "Don't transition. Just live with it."  Or the advice that some offer gays and lesbians, "Okay, so you have these feelings...  Suppress them, and be chaste."

The problem here is, not everyone who presents seeking treatment for "gender issues" is transsexual, and not everyone should be encouraged to transition.   But some misguided people, who seem to have problems with concepts like authority and morality, insist that anyone who wants sex reassignment surgery, or hormones for that matter, should be given them without having a doctor's approval.  Now, in the case of male to female patients, hormones are relatively benign.  With the exception of eventual sterility, there are few truly permanent effects.  This is not true for female to males.  On the other hand, particularly for male to females, surgery is a one way path, and if someone makes a mistake, it can be very tragic.

But for some, the appeal of being in complete control, of not having to seek the advice and consent of a medical professional who's job it is to prevent a tragic mistake, is such that they seek to circumvent the Standards of Care just for the sake of doing so.  But they don't understand that those standards are there for their protection, not as a hinderance.  They are not there to prevent transsexuals from getting the care that they need.  They are in place to prevent people who are not transsexuals from making a mistake (a fact that seems lost on Suzan Cooke who seems to think that the people who have regrets were transsexuals before surgery) and by doing so, the help insure that those who would put an end to surgery don't have an excuse to do so.

The simple fact is, human nature is such that there will always be a significant number of people who will, for any number of reasons, decide that the solution to their problems lies in gender transition.  I'm not talking about transsexuals, who are born with a brain that is sexually differentiated at odds with their body, but about people who suffer from mental illness, or who are crossdressers going through a mid-life crisis.  I am talking about, though increasingly rare in this country, gay men who think that becoming a woman will make them okay.  These are the things that doctors are supposed to screen for.

Are there abusive "gatekeepers?"  Yes, some exist.  Ray Blanchard would be one of the best examples.  But there are plenty of competent therapists.  The problems generally arise when someone goes to a therapist with no experience in dealing with transsexualism.  Unfortunately, more than a few professionals refuse to acknowledge their own limitations.  

My advice to anyone considering transition is, if you can live without it, then don't do it.  If you are just looking to go full time with your desire to crossdress, then please, spare us.  If you are ambiguous about surgery, don't even think about it.  You should only go down this path if  the only other option is suicide or some other form of self-destruction.

The bottom line is, simplistic ideas, like "cowgirl up/cowboy up" or "surgery on demand" will just result in people getting harmed.  One can expect such from extremists like Cooke.  I prefer a more sane approach.

Surgery for Kosilek? No WAY!!!!

Up until now, I have pretty much ignored that case of "Michelle" Kosilek, who is the infamous prisoner in Massachusetts who a Federal judge has rule is entitled to sex reassignment surgery (and yes, it is SEX reassignment surgery, not "gender reassignment surgery as there is no way to change gender) even though he is serving life without parole for the murder of his wife. And yes, I said "he" because there is no way this person is a woman (trans or otherwise), no way he is a transsexual, and really simply because, "It's a MAN, baby!"

Kosilek murdered his wife, and the claim is made that he started his transition though at the time he of the murder though he had not changed is name, nor did he start hormones until he was in prison. Most likely, at the time, he was a crossdresser. He coldly strangled her, and left her body in a parking lot. Hardly an act consistent with his claim of being a woman. Yes, women murder, but his act was not typical of a woman, but is a very male style of murder. He tried to claim that he killed her in self-defense following an argument, no doubt over his crossdressing.

There is also evidence that Kosilek functions quite well, and does not actually need the operation, which would, of course, no doubt result in his transfer to a women's prison.

Kosilek killed his wife, and as such he gave up quite a bit of his rights, including, I believe, the right to force the state to pay for SRS. Even though he is serving a life sentence, there is no valid reason for him to have the surgery. It would be different if there was more evidence that he was a true transsexual. But this is just another case of a man, with a history of crossdressing, deciding, suddenly, to pursue SRS.

I have seen nothing that indicates that Mr. Kosilek had any history of childhood gender identity issues. Everything in this case indicates that he is a crossdresser who, having aged, wants to "ake it to the next level." The taxpayers of his state should not be burdened with the cost, and any competent therapist would deny his request for surgery. Unfortunately, competence is increasingly being replaced by political correctness.

Personally, I agree with the policy that says that a person who is transsexual who enters prison should be frozen at the state of transition they were at the time of incarceration. If one is pre-transition, you stay there. On hormones, they are continued. And such. In the case of someone like Kosilek, where the sentence is life, well. tough. Killing someone has consequences. He should have thought about his future before he deprived his wife of hers.

Oh Dear...Poor Little "Suzy" is Upset Again

Alas, I guess the truth hurts...  Suzan Cooke has posted another rant about me over at "Women Born Transsexual."  Oh well...  I know Cooke hates having faults pointed out, but it is going to happen from time to time.  Not that anyone takes Cooke all that seriously anymore.  Except those few transgenders who are eating it up now that Cooke has become one of their staunchest defenders. 

In fact, in a bit of irony, the kook who was the first of two recent abusive posters is, so far, the only one who has responded to Cooke's post.  I suspect he may also be the fool that was trying to attack me here.  I always figured he would be back.  Or, it could be a rather nasty troll who has been stalking around the Internet for years.  

No, Cooke is, if nothing else, a bit of a coward.  Cooke will only respond from a position where Cooke controls the discussion.  I have made it clear that Cooke is welcome to post here, but I doubt it will ever happen.  Cooke really can't stand up in a fair fight.  Unless the odds are stacked in Cooke's favor, Cooke shies away.  When Cooke started "Women Born Transsexual," I posted a comment welcoming Cooke to the Blogosphere.  Cooke's response was anything but polite.  After that, for quite some time, I pretty much ignored what was said there, though I did read it for the occasional laugh out loud moment.  Cooke is nothing, if not absurdly funny at times.

Well, I will continue pointing out when Cooke makes some absurd remark.  I am really not interested in engaging in a tit for tat with Cooke, but I can tell when something I have said has hit a nerve.  As I said, Cooke has gone from being extremely nasty (once calling a post-op who had chosen to stay with her wife a "skin transvestite") to close to being effectively a member of the transgender extremists I refer to as "gender fascists."  Granted, Cooke hasn't quite reached the point of insisting that people accept the label of "transgender."  But it is getting close.  Hey, I am sure Cooke will finally reach the goal of becoming the Alpha Tranny yet.

Oh, and I notice that Cooke hated Aria Blue, and the person who wrote "Enough Nonsense."  Granted, the person at "Enough Nonsense" apparently had the goods on Cooke, and pretty much confirmed what I always suspected...that Cooke has some major issues, particularly with insecurity.  But I also notice that Cooke did not mention that the person who wrote "Enough Nonsense" was basically blackmailed into shutting down.  I wonder if the same thing happened to Aria.  And now I wonder, did Cooke perhaps have something to do with it?  Probably not, but Cooke apparently has no problem with REAL bullying.  

Anyway, it is good to know that I hit a nerve.  Cooke is the type who needs to be brought down a notch occasionally.  And when Cooke starts slinging nasty insults, you know Cooke has been.....  I mean really, "Classic Trannie Skanks?" That is, no pun intended, a real classic. As I said, Cooke is nothing, if not good for a laugh. But, then again, this is the fool who gave the world the silliness of "Women Born Transsexual...," the only term that might top "Womyn Born Womym" as truly absurd.
UPDATE:

I checked in and was not particularly to find that Gender Fascist and Cyberstalker "Autumn" Sandeen has add his two cents worth (and vastly over priced at that) on the subject.  Sandeen, who spent TWENTY years in the Navy is claiming he "never really passed as a man."  Gee, I wonder where he got that from?  It certainly was not a part of his story in the past.  In fact, when he first posted photos of himself in his Navy drag costume, he bragged about his twenty years worth of stripes showing "good conduct."  Yeah, like he would have lasted 20 minutes in the military if he did not pass as 100% all-American macho male.  Uh huh...  No, Sandeen clearly picked up on something I have pointed out...that us hated classic transsexuals, who were not lucky enough to have found the means to transition early, did lead horrible lives until we did.  Sandeen was a happy go lucky crossdresser.  Oh, I am sure he slipped into something frilly when he got the chance, but the rest of the time, you know he was all man, or he would have been run out of the service, and not in the official way.  They wouldn't have given him the chance.  He would have been begging for a discharge instead of waiting 20 years and then, at the last minute, claiming disability.

Oh, and now Sandeen is trying to play the victim, claiming having someone respond to his stupidity causes him to "trigger."  Good grief...  We can only hope he actually does do everyone a favor and crawls under a rock and shuts up.  Though I admit, I would miss the humor...

Yes, Sandeen and Cooke...two peas in a pod.

More idiocy from Mr. Sandeen...

Well, about a week ago, "Autumn" Sandeen was back whining about the supposed "cyberharassment" he claims he was subjected to surrounding his effort to get a fraudulent birth certificate that indicates that he is "female."  Of course this is just silliness.  He let everyone know that he planned to effectively defraud a court by claiming to have had SRS when he has only been castrated.  He seems to expect that he should be able to commit a fraud and not be challenged.


He made a very questionable claim concerning the documentation he received from the doctor who castrated him, and when some contacted that doctor and asked if he really considered castration to be "full SRS" he said he did not.  This of course led to Sandeen waiting until a change in the law took effect which simply makes it easier for people to fraudulently claim to have changed their sex.  Sandeen has tried to claim that the law allows for men to become "legally female," but that is not the case.  It just lowers the standards for what documentation is required, making it easier for a doctor to facilitate a fraud.  I am sure Sandeen did not tell the court that he still has his penis.


Sandeen has tried to claim that the doctor violated HIPPA when all that really happened is that the doctor's office made a general statement about their policies without reference to Sandeen.  But the way that Sandeen tells it, they violated his privacy, which is basically a self-serving bit of drama on his part.


And of course, as previously documented here, Sandeen has done his share of cyber harassment himself.  


Now, Sandeen has published what anyone could easily find.  He has revealed that his birth name is Stephen Mark Sandeen.  It is kind of funny how he was so secretive about it.  I have known his birth name for some time.  All you have to do is search the court records for "Sandeen" and name changes in San Diego.  I guess Sandeen figured it was only a matter of time before someone bothered to do it.  I choose not to reveal what I found out.  It would have just given Sandeen another reason to play the martyr.  


I am sure for Sandeen, it is a bit of a thrill.  I am honestly surprised he did not do it sooner.  He is clearly more interested in being a "woman with a penis" than anything remotely resembling a real female.  This latest bit of theater, which I suspect was triggered by the realization that his birth name is no big secret, is somewhat akin to the classic end to a drag act, where the queen would whip his wig off, so there is no question that he is really a man, and that his act is all an illusion.


The bottom line is, Sandeen is not a transsexual, is not a woman, and never will be.  He is another male crossdresser who, after a long career as a man, has decided to take up his "hobby," or more correctly, fetish, in his retirement.  He shows no sign of actually being a woman, and seems clueless about what women actually think or feel.  Sadly, he desperately needs and seeks attention, which means he pushes him forward as the face of transgender, which he misrepresents as including transsexuals.

Cathy Brennan and Elizabeth Hungerford Are Right!

The transgender blogosphere is all abuzz about the submission that  Cathy Brennan and Elizabeth Hungerford made to the United Nations Entity· for Gender Equality and Empowerment of Women's call for communications.  Based on the reactions, you would think that Brennan and Hungerford called for "transgender people" to be outlawed, and for them to be rounded up and sent to reeducation centers where they would be forced to adhere to their birth gender.  Instead, they have raised some very legitimate issues about the more extremists views that have become the norm for the "transgender community."


A lot of the noise has centered around three quotes from the document which runs to six rather dense pages:

1. The bill violates the privacy rights of every Maryland citizen.
2. Behavior that would normally be considered criminal will now be protected as a civil right.
3. The definition of “gender identity” trivializes the significance of biological sex.

The cry has gone up from the transgender extremists, "Horrors!  To the ramparts!  We are under attack, and our very existence is in danger!"  At EHIPASSIKO, "Christan" Williams' rather silly blog, Williams refers to the letter as "exterminationist."  Of course, this is more than a bit silly, but one would expect nothing less from Mr. Williams, who tends to be a bit hysterical (in more than one sense of the word).  Well, in a sense, I guess they are right...they have demanded such ridiculous and radical changes that anything else probably seems unacceptable to them.    But they face one little problem....the above is true.  All three things are quite true.

In fact, these very things are at the core of the demands of the transgender extremists.  They assert that:

1. Their rights to express their "gender identity" trump all other rights.
2. That their rights trump even the rights of women to be safe.
3. That biological sex doesn't, that one becomes fully female simply by making the claim that one is female.

While I generally do not care for some to the sillier policies of the radical fringe of feminism, in this case they are raising good points, while showing consideration for those who actually have legitimate needs.

For example, in discussing one state's laws they make the following assertion (emphasis mine):

This definition of "gender identity" does not require any objective proof. Rather, It merely requires the person. seeking protection to assert that he or she identifies as the sex opposite his or her sex at birth.Further, because.Title 11 only permits discrimination in sex-segregated facilities based on sex) a person asserting gender rdentiry as a basis to avoid "discrimination" must be permitted to use the rest room or bath house of their chosen "gender identity') ...... without regard to any action taken on the part of that individual to change their physiology to "become female" (Le., sex reassignment surgery.) 

Clearly, they are not attacking true transsexuals, but instead the rising tide of men who think that putting on a dress makes them women.  Since these "wannabe" women generally act, and quite often look, like men, it is understandable why women would be upset at the idea of them being able to force their way into women's room.  Add in the fact that they make it clear that they have no desire to give up their penises, and it is clear that this is an invasion of privacy,

Therein lies the irony here,  We are talking about men, claiming to be women, who have no concept of why women might not wish them in women's space.  The very nature of their demands, and their attitudes are perhaps one of the strongest arguments against them.  They show, by their behavior and attitudes, that they are not women, and have no concept of how women think.


Now, let's take a small step back, and consider exactly what is at stake here.  As I pointed out, to hear the rhetoric from the transgender extremists, the radical feminists are demanding their extermination (Mr. Williams has said as much, actually) but in truth, this is about a simple issue, that we all know so well...men in women's space.  The transgender extremists demand it, even to the point, in some cases, where nudity will be inevitable, and women oppose it.  


And unlike some extremists, these radical feminists are not even demanding a total ban.  They are simply asking for the reasonable standard that access be granted on the basis of proof of medical transition.  That is, the weekend warriors, the cross dressers, the transvestites, and such would not be allowed access to women's spaces just on the basis of a claim of being a woman.  And even there, what they are asking for is not panty checks.  The bottom line, what they are asking for that has the transgender extremists going so far as to take of "extermination" (I am really having a good laugh at Mr. Williams' complete idiocy over this...) is that they simply want this standard imposed when there is litigation.


In another words, if someone is not demonstrably in transition, under medical supervision, and they sue for the right to access to use the women's room at work, they would not have a case.


Wow!  Can you believe that such a simple, and reasonable request has led to claims of proposed genocide?  There you have it.  This is the transgender movement in a nutshell, which is where I suppose these nuts belong.  They are so obsessed with access to women's restrooms that even the most reasonable of restraints, imposed to prevent a very real threat, is deemed outrageous.


And they wonder why those of us who really are women, those of us who knew early on, who struggled through life as women forced to live as men, who finally understand, who finally take the steps to put our lives right, simply don't want to be a part of their movement, oppose their silliness, and want to distance ourselves as far from their insanity as possible.  It is not that we are elitist.  It is simply that we are sane.

A Bad Idea From NCTE

A major policy goal for the transgender extremists is to effectively eliminate legal distinctions between sexes.  A major part of this attempt is to make it legal for someone to change their birth certificate without having to actually change their sex.  They want the law to say that women can have penises and men can get pregnant.


The latest attempt at this was written up by "Autumn" Sandeen in a post on Pam's House Blend.  The National Center for Transgender Equality (NCTE) has issued proposed changes for the model law that most, but not all, states use for their laws regarding such matters:

The revised Model Law should allow people to change the sex designation on their birth certificate by submitting the required documentation directly to the vital statistics agency, rather than requiring a court proceeding. This will eliminate the unnecessary costs and other obstacles sometimes associated with going through the state court systems.

The revised Model Law should not require proof of specific medical procedures in order to amend birth certificates. Instead, the Model Law should reflect contemporary standards of care, and require only that an individual's physician certify that the individual has completed the treatment the physician deems necessary to achieve gender transition. This change would recognize that different people have different medical needs, and avoid disclosure of any confidential medical information.

The revised Model Law should make clear that a new birth certificate should be issued after an individual presents the proper documentation, rather than a birth certificate that shows the original gender designation or states that the gender has been changed.

The first and the last suggestions are actually not bad ideas.  It is someone silly to require a court order instead of simply allowing the person to submit documentation to appropriate agency, and issuing a proper birth certificate is also a good idea.  It is the second suggestion that is outrageous.


The simple fact is, birth certificates record the sex of the person, not the gender.  They indicate whether the person is a male (i.e. having a penis) or a female (i.e. having a vagina).  They have nothing to so with how a person likes to dress, or how they behave.  To suggest that this should be changed without permanent, physical changes is simply absurd.


Sadly, this sort of insanity from the transgender movement is not unusual.  And as is often the case, it is pursued without consideration for the harm it will bring to true transsexuals.  It is highly unlikely that the changes will be accepted, but it will very possibly cause a backlash that will lead to efforts to increase restrictions on birth certificate changes.  And it can add fuel to claims that SRS is not medically necessary.

Absolute Insanity!

I can always count on Bilerico to regularly produce some post concerning "transgender people" that will lead to some bit of absolute insanity. A new post, entitled "Open thread: Who are the "real women"?" is no exception. Of course, as has become the pattern on Bilerico, the author is a gay man. I find it interesting how Bilerico seems to think it proper for men, gay or supposedly straight, to be telling women how to think and live. And yes, in this case, his remarks are, at least in part, aimed at women since he seems to be speaking of post-op women versus men who wish to claim to be women.

He starts out comparing a transgender person named "Rachel" Crandall (a so-called non-op) with someone named "Dallas," who from the description I strongly suspect is the infamous Dallas Denney.

Neither is a good choice for whatever point he is trying to make, unless that point is the now classic transgender claim that one has only to assert that one is a woman to become a woman. Crandall is, as I said, a non-op, and Denney had surgery, but makes no real attempt to actually be taken as a woman, choosing instead to insist that people accept him as a woman. In fact, I have been told that Denney never bothered to change his name, and that he still has an obviously male middle name..not that I know that many women named Dallas either.

But the really insane statement is in the comments. One of those commenting is a person using the user name "Paradox." This person claims to be surgery tracked, but is bragging about how the women in her gym's locker room accept her. Anonymous T-Girl has challenged her on this, leading to this bit of drivel from "Paradox:"

'Women' with penises that they have no desire to lose + intruding on women's locker and shower rooms = insanity.

An interesting question:
Suppose you discovered that there was a woman in your locker room that had a penis. How do you determine if she's
A) A woman with a penis that wants to remove it but can't afford it yet.
B) A woman with a penis that wants to remove it but can't due to medical issues.
C) A woman with a penis that wants to remove it but doesn't think its worth the surgical risks.
D) A woman with a penis that actually LIKES her penis and would never remove it.

And incidentally, which of these characters are "actually" women, and which ones are not? How do you determine this beyond just taking their word for it?

Now, the comment about women with penises invading locker rooms is from Anonymous T-Girl, and I agree 100%. When I was pre-op, I went to Curves, which is a well-known women-only gym. But, the one I went to had private, single person dressing rooms. I did not have to go into a room with other women, where there might have been any risk of anyone noticing anything. And I would never have been in any situation where someone might have had a chance to raise concerns about my presence. Nor can I imagine any pre-op who is truly a woman doing so. It is only men, masquerading as women, who care so little that they will place their own needs above those of women.

So, that is the answer to the above "interesting question." No woman would engage in such behavior. And no woman would ever identify as "a woman with a penis."

The commenter Radical Bitch puts it well:

Oh, surgery doesn't make one a woman, I've met a number of post op crossdressers. It's neurology that makes you a woman or not and a female neurology will eventually reject a male anatomy......that you can take to the bank.

A pre-operative classic transsexual is a woman. A post op autogynophile is not. 'taint rocket science.

I identified as a woman before my surgery, but I was also aware that I was undergoing a diagnostic procedure known as the "real life test." I was well aware that, as unlikely as it was, I had the choice to stop the process. I was a woman, but I was not truly female. And that is the difference that the transgender types cannot seem to grasp. It is my neurology that makes me a woman...it is my surgery that makes me a female.

An Amazing Error

It sometimes amazes me just how silly transgender activists can be. It is not, for example, uncommon to see claims that women can have penises, and that men can have vaginas...and worse, that they can desire to keep them. But something on neo-gender fascist Suzan Cooke's blog really floored me. Now, for those who don't remember, for years, Cooke was a major player in the effort to separate transsexuals from the transgender confusion. Then, earlier this summer, Cooke moved over to becoming transgender. Now, Cooke still claims to be "transsexual not transgender," but Cooke's views are such that it is clear that she no longer sees any significant difference.

In a rather disjointed, and rambling article in which Cooke vents her anger at God, she makes the following rather incredible statement

Because transsexuals, transgenders and other intersex people fell somewhere between or saw the potential in achieving greater oneness of self by moving from an assigned and ascribed as immutable status to a different defined as immutable status the experts viewed us as mind f**ks, the fly in the ointment.

Unbelievably, Cooke has gone further than any gender fascist has before. I honestly cannot recall ever seeing one have the audacity to actually claim that transgender people are "intersex." Yes, they claim that intersex people are "transgender," but not the other way around. A small, but important distinction as they see "transgender" as the umbrella, with individual identities drug, often screaming and kicking, under it. Claiming intersex is a form of transgender is highly offensive. Claiming transgender is intersex is....well, itis incredibly ignorant.

Transgender is not intrinsic. It is an artificial political/social construct. It does not exist apart from the imagination of those who embrace it. Intersex is a physical condition, that is not a choice.

Cooke seems to be determined to shed what few shreds of credibility she has left as she rushes to join people like "Monica" Helms and "Autumn" Sandeen in the boy's club that is transgender activism.

Sickening....Oh give me a break!

The whole Raychel Roo-Transkid-Murder Hoax story has now taken on a even more bizarre twist. In an "apology" posted on Laura's Playground, a person who uses the name "edeyn blackeney" now admits to being Rachel Roo. But that is not the bizarre part..."edeyn" also claims to have Disassociative Identity Disorder...what was formerly known as Multiple Personality Disorder and that Raychel was one of her "alters."

Now, DID is a highly controversial diagnosis. If it does exist, it is rare. A more likely explanation for all this is that the person involved was exposed as a fraud and is now trying to engage in a bit of CYA. Tobi Hill-Meyer over at Bilireco disagrees, but then that person was the last hold out trying to make the story true.

In any case, this has been yet another weird episode in the fantasy world of the transgender.

The Stupidity Spreads...

In our last posting, we talked about the case in New York where a couple defrauded the authorities in order to obtain a marriage license and have a ceremony performed. Or, more specifically, we talked about "Autumn" Sandeen's silly rant about how the Advocate covered the story. Now, Tobi Hill-Meyer has written about the same story on Bilerico.

This is turning into a ridiculous farce. Now, just because someone puts on a dress, claims to be a female, and maybe, just maybe, sort of, kind of, hopes to have surgery one day, does not make them a female. And if they still have a penis, and they marry a man, who has a penis, that is a same sex marriage. No amount of wishing, and hoping, and just plain BS is going to change that.

The gender fascists may wish to push the idea that just saying you want to have surgery makes you a female (or a male if you are an FTM), and they may suggest, as one fool does in the comments, that a new birth certificate and change of legal sex should occur as soon as a doctor certifies that you have begun transition, but that sort of thing is insane. They are just digging a deeper and deeper hole, and accomplishing nothing. That is not going to be accepted, and deep down, I think they know it. But, the days when a guy could put on a dress and shock the neighbors are fading. Now, they have to say really stupid things to get that same shock value.

And once and for all, pointing out that a person who has a penis, is not a female is not transphobia. Sadly, that word is becoming badly abused. It is used as what I have called a "club word," a word used to beat up on another. When I was younger, the most common club word was "communism." If people didn't like something, it was called "communism." Of course, that word was popular with the Right. But, the Left loves club words just as much. "Racist" is an oldy, but a goodie, ironically now used by both sides. In truth, all they show is that people don't have real arguments, so they bring out words, and they use them to club the opposition into submission.

And, that is the height of stupidity.

Is Anyone Really This Stupid????

I honestly did not expect "Autumn" Sandeen to provide another opportunity for an article so soon after the idiocy we reported on yesterday....but he did, and this one is a doozy.

Now Sandeen has his nose out of joint because of how the Advocate reported on a fraudulent marriage in New York. Now, the facts are really quite simple...here is the article from the Advocate that set Sandeen off:

Two men fooled the New York City Clerk's office into certifying what is believed to be the first same-sex marriage performed in the state, reports the New York Post, which published the couple's photo on its front page on Sunday.
Hakim Nelson and Jason Stenson were married in a ceremony at the clerk's office on May 26, 10 days after obtaining a marriage license at the office. Same-sex marriage is illegal in New York, although the state recognizes same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.

Nelson, 18, and Stenson, 21, said that when they applied in person for the license, Nelson used a state benefit card that lists his sex as female. The clerk did not ask him about the male-sounding first name -- Hakim -- that appears on his identification. He wore an orange dress and white leggings, with his hair falling at his shoulders.

Nelson goes by the name "Kimah" and hopes to have transition surgery one day. Stenson views Nelson as a woman, and does not consider himself gay.

So, the the story is very simple. Two people, one of whom may be a pre-op transsexual (though that is questionable), but who are both males, show up and apply for a marriage license. One of them lies, and claims to be a female. They get the license, and a marriage ceremony is performed. The "groom" says he is not gay, even though his new bride has a penis and testicles. If this all sounds familiar, there was a similar case just recently in Texas.

Well, the bottom line in all this is that Sandeen goes off on a tear about how the Advocate should not haver referred to this as a "same sex marriage," (yes, I know that's what it is, but we are talking about Sandeen here....reality is not a factor) and then he takes the Advocate to task for referring to a person who is legally a male, with a penis, and who's legal name is a male name, as a man. In this case, that is exactly what this person is. Under other circumstances, I agree, it would be improper to refer to a pre-op transsexual as a man, but in this case it is appropriate to make sure the story is easily understood. Nelson is not a woman, and it is highly questionable that this person is a transsexual.

What is so incredibly stupid here is the fact that Sandeen seems to think that everyone should have just ignored the fact that this pair was knowingly breaking the law by engaging in a fraud, and just accepted them as an opposite sex couple.

This is the sort of idiocy that provides those who wish to put an end to the treatment of transsexuals ample ammunition. And Sandeen's response is the sort of stupidity that provides them with with something akin to a weapon of mass destruction,

Is anyone really this stupid? The answer, sadly, is yes....more than a few are.

Mara Keisling speaks sense, Sandeen throws a fit...

Lead gender fascist "Autumn" Sandeen has gone off on another of his bizarre rants. And this one is a doozy....

National Center For Transgender Equality's (NCTE) executive Director Mara Keisling had the following to say in response to a question about Cher's daughter, Chastity Bono announcing plans to transition to male, "The whole media fixation on surgery is kind of misplaced, almost no transgender people ever have surgery. We don't have any idea how many do." No argument there...at least from me, and any one else who is not married to the idea that transsexuals are part of the "transgender community." I mean, that is pretty much what a lot of us have been saying for some time.

So, how does a gender fascist like Sandeen respond to this? Why they simply blow and fuse and go on a rant! The horror! Sandeen had the following to say:

At a time when trans folk and our allies want to see health care benefits provided by the workplace increased for trans people -- including genital reconstruction surgery that has been determined to be good for the health and wellbeing of many transsexuals -- Mara's phrasing for CNN seems at best unfortunate, and at worst actually damaging for increasing health benefits for those of us trans folk who actually identify as transsexual.

First off, Sandeen shows his invincible ignorance by referring to people who "identify as transsexual. Being transsexual is not an identity. It is a state of being that one is born with. You cannot "identify as a transsexual" which would imply that being a transsexual is simply a matter of choice. There might well be people who really, really, really want to be transsexuals, because in the insanity that is known as the "transgender community" there is this silly idea that being a transsexual is "better" than just being a crossdresser, but that does not change anything. In fact, that pretty much pushes one into the world of autogynephila.

Now you have to remember, Sandeen, who for many years was an avowed "non-op" (granted, that is an oxymoron) has become a "born-again transsexual." That is, in an attempt to gain some crediblity, Sandeen has announced that he is now going to have surgery...on of these day...in the far, far distant future...if someone else pays for it...and he can't come up with an excuse not to. In fact, Sandeen basically indicates this:

In other words, for me it would be nice for me if the Veterans Administration would do genial (sic) reassignment surgeries, but her comment "Almost no transgender people ever have surgery" makes it sound like my peers and I don't want those surgeries for ourselves -- so in the personal sense it sounds like she's saying to the general public that I don't want or need the VA to cover it.

Now I agree, it would be nice if the VA could do some surgery, any surgery, that would make Sandeen more genial, but such miraculous surgery is still beyond the abilities of modern medicine.

But seriously, while I would completely agree if that was what Keisling was saying, I think what Keisling might hopefully be trying to say, or perhaps slipped up and actually admitted, is that most transsexuals, or better, people with HBS, simply do not identify as transgender. And that those who identify as transgender are not, with some exceptions, transsexual or HBS.

Transgender is an identity. It is a subjective social construct that has no objective definition. Transsexual is a medical condition that one is born with. One cannot adopt it as an identity.

But as I said, Sandeen, for a very long time, denied any interest in surgery, seeming to suddenly decide to pursue it as a means of gaining credibility. You have to remember, Sandeen spent 20 years in the United States Navy, serving very successfully as a man, before deciding he was really
"transgender." And then, years after that, suddenly becomes a transsexual when he realizes that no one is willing to accept him as having any crediblity concerning transsexuals.

And it is clear that he still, really doesn't get it:

The reality is that insurance doesn't often cover genital
reconstruction surgeries, so most transsexuals can't afford the $15,000 to
$60,000 for male-to-female genital reconstruction surgery, or the $30,000 to
$150,000 for female-to-male genital reconstruction surgery out of their own
pockets. Economics are often the main reason why the transgender people who
identify as transsexual don't have genital reconstruction surgery. Some
transsexuals actually do identify as non-operative transsexuals, but my
experiece is that those folk aren't how most transsexuals identify -- most who
haven't had genital reconstruction surgery identify as pre-operative even if
they anticipate never being able to afford surgery on their genitalia.

Now, this sort of silliness is typical of the gender fascists, especially those who wish to claim a desire for surgery, but who don't really want it. No, surgery is not cheap. It can be a major financial impact. And yet, people who have HBS somehow manage to find a way. I myself got by for several years on less than half what I should have had in order to pay for it. And mine was paid for by insurance. But, in order to keep that insurance, I worked half-time, living far below what was reasonable. Ironically, my plan, prior to getting that job, was to do pretty much the same thing. And I know others who have followed very similar paths, struggling to save money. The cost of SRS can be compared to that of a relatively low-end automobile. Many borrow the money. But, for those like Sandeen, who always seem to have an excuse, money is a favorite.

And what about those transsexuals who truly believe that they will never have the money? A lot of them simply cannot face going on as the are, and the results are tragic. They don't identify as "non-ops." There is no such thing. That is an imaginarly concept for people like Sandeen who want to claim to be women, but are really not willing to give up their penises.

And then, Sandeen goes on to make a statement that is at the heart of the transgender paradigm. The sort of thing that truly separates those who identify as transgender from those who truly are transsexual or HBS, and from any grasp of reality:

I believe that what Mara was trying to say was that for transsexuals, when we are born what's between our ears doesn't match the genitalia usually associated with that gender. However, having genitalia that doesn't match one's gender identity shouldn't be used by media or politicians to say that trans men aren't really men, or trans women aren't really women -- Genitals don't trump identity.

That pretty much sums it up. The true agenda for the transgender is to claim that one can be a woman with a penis, or a man without one. And that is just silly. Yes, one's gender is between the brains, but gender will drive the desire to be correct. Simply put, if you are comfortable with having a penis, then you are not a woman. If you are comfortable not having a penis, then you are not a man. Yes, genitals do, ultimately, trump identity. You can claim to be a woman all you want, but the moment people find out you have a penis, especially if you want to keep it, the vast majority is never going to see you as truly a woman.
Finally, Sandeen gets things completely backwards:

And too, not everyone who identifies as a transgender person is a transsexual person -- there are crossdressers, genderqueers, and such that may identify as transgender, but not as transsexuals.

Sandeen simply refuses to allow that one might be a transsexual and not identify as transgender. Again, transsexual is an objective fact, transgender is an identity. But, Sandeen wants to reverse things. But in Sandeen's fantasy world, he wants to make the opposite true.

When I challenged Sandeen to admit that transgender was an identity, and should not be forced on anyone, he lied and said he never did that. Here he goes beyond that. He tries to reduce transsexual to an identity and imply that transgender is the reality. Simply put, he just doesn't have a clue.