Another Example of Why I Do Not Accept the Label of "Transgender"

In the comments section of Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen's column at LGBT Weekly, another man in a dress tried to dismiss the comments of myself, and another transsexual on the basis that we were "in pain."  I was rather amused by this, and simply replied, "Nope… My pain was ended when I had SRS."

Then I got to thinking about this.  This is a common tactic among transgender extremists, one that is almost as popular as labeling any disagreement as hatred.  The words might vary, with the accusation being that we are ashamed, in denial, or fearful, etc., but the basic idea is the same.  We are to be ignored because we are not being "honest."

Of course, this is the goal.  If they can "dismiss" our point of view, they can ignore it, and not have to actually deal with it.  They don't have to address the actual points raised, which just might prove a bit difficult.  You see this tactic a lot.  It is basically a variation on the classic logical fallacy known as a "straw man argument."  Rather than address the real point that is raised, in this case the issue was open service in the military for transgender people, you create a false argument, which is easily dismissed.

The simple fact of the matter is, I don't identify as transgender.  And that is all that transgender is, an identity.  Most who identify as such are not remotely transsexual.  Yes, there are exceptions, and some have guzzled the transgender "Kool-Aid" in large quantities.  Personally, I cannot understand why anyone who is transsexual would find common ground with the transgender paradigm.

Of course, part of the problem with the term "transgender" is that it is so vague as to actual meaning, it has become, essentially, meaningless.  But, for the most part, those who do identify with transgender seem to be more inclined towards being, as some would say, "out, loud, and proud."  They feel the need to make sure people know that they are transgender.  Their very core identity seems to depend on people being aware that they are transgender.  On the other hand, I, and most other transsexuals simply desire to get on with our lives as the women, or in the case of FTMs, the men, we really are.

To me, the idea of being "openly" transgender, or even "openly" transsexual, is unacceptable.  I am simply a woman.  I have been through transition, and I have left as much of my former life behind as is possible.

In another column on for LGBT Weekly, Mr. Sandeen writes about his experiences trying to obtain a discount based on his service in the Navy.  Now, I find it interesting that he states"One of the documents that can be used to indicate one is a veteran with my phone company is a DD214 (the military’s separation of service, or discharge document)."  Now, this is a document on which the name cannot be changed.  In another words, this document has Sandeen's birth name.  But, apparently, this was not the only document that Sandeen could have used to establish that he served in the military, but it is the one he chose.  Now, I never served in the military, but I have faced situations where I could have revealed my birth name.  And, unless absolutely necessary, I will avoid doing so.  In fact, the last time I recall having to do that was when I got my California ID.  I had to provide a copy of my birth certificate, and since that was before my surgery, I had to use the original version.  But transgender people seem to revel in this.

This is the main thing that divides most who are transsexual from those who prefer to identify as "transgender."  The transgender types want to keep a connection to being their birth sex and gender.  They don't want to be what they claim they "really" are.

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

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

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

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

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

Rage, Rage, Against the Dying of the Lies

Dealing with transgender extremists, like those at Shame On You Transgender Edition can be an interesting experience.  Their latest reaction is…well, kind of bizarre…and almost incoherent mish-mash of weird rants strung together with bad grammar and poor spelling.  Yes, we all make typos, but give me a break…these people are not even trying.  But I digress.

This latest diatribe begins with a rather odd list of the trademarks they are apparently ripping off for some Japanese characters…  Then it sort of goes downhill from there in a rather confused attempt to again attack me, in another of their ironic harangues that includes lines like…

He's also the type of troll who will resort to ad-hominem attacks if he can't win an argument.

I guess when they do it, it's not ad hominems…that, or they are just hypocrites.

Okay, they claim I am "obsessed" with their "genitalia, and surgical status."  What they are actually objecting to is me simply pointing out that they are pushing the transgender agenda that preaches the bizarre notion that females have penises, and men have vaginas….at least some of the time….sort of….kind of….

The classic transgender line is "sex and gender are not the same thing."  Okay, that is, sort of, true.  If, by gender, you mean the more accurate concept of "sexual differentiation of the brain" there is some truth there, though it suddenly becomes a bit fuzzier.  What the transgender kooks mean is, actually "Sex and gender are not the same thing, and they are totally unrelated.  Which is, of course, complete and total hogwash.  

Sorry boys and girl (they are all boys except one) but that is not remotely true.  In truth, in a normal person (and yes, I did say that dreaded word, normal), the brain and the genitalia are sexually differentiated at different times during fetal development, which means that you might wind up with male genitalia, but a female brain.  Or vice versa.  No, I imagine that so far, they are all nodding, going "Yeah, of course…."  The problem is, such occurrences are rare.  As in, they don't happen nearly as often as the TG crowd likes to claim.  

Far more common are situations where men (and on rare occasions women) far reasons that are not fully understood, develop bizarre obsessions with masquerading as members of the opposite sex.  The intensity of this desire can range from the occasional to full time.  And the intensity may grow over time.  Oddly enough, usually included in this behavior is a rather strong obsession with being "a woman with a penis." In some cases, less common, but not unheard of, you have behavior of the type that Blanchard and Bailey have labeled "autogynephilia" which is a sexual fetish centered on having SRS.  This may develop out of the desire to be "a woman with a penis," or it may be an unrelated condition that is parallel to  classic transvestitism.

Now, this brings us to the simple bottom line.  Folks like Mr. "Zierota" Slingen want people to believe that sex is not real.  That all that matters is what someone says that they are.  If you say "I am a girl…" then you are magically transformed into a full-fledged member of the female sex, no questions allowed.  Yes, it is stupid, but that is what they want to force you to accept.  Reality be damned…

Oh, and I have to note once again, that Mr. Slingen falls back on another common transgender trope…"not woman enough…"  That is a laughable concept, which shows a bit more of the transgender mindset.  Being a woman, or a man, is not a quantifiable thing.  There is no base unit of womanhood.  You can't be 70% woman, or 90% woman.  You either are, or you are not.  And well, Mr. Slingen, and most of his gang are not, "Mark" being the exception.

The simple bottom line is, sex and gender are both binary.  Basically, it really is male or female.  Contrary to common claims, there is no such thing as a person who is both.  There may be variations in aspects of sexual differentiation, and a person may have characteristics of both sexes (for example, having male genitalia, and a female brain, or genitalia that did not differentiate fully during development) but there is no in between.

Sex has three primary markers…chromosomes, genitalia, and the brain.  In terms of chromosomes, a Y mean male.  In terms of genitalia, a penis means male.  In terms of the brain, things are a bit more fuzzy, but a pretty solid indication is, you want a penis, your a male.  And the brain sex is what really determines what we call gender.

Now, the transgender crowd likes to conflate gender expression with "gender" though they are not the same thing at all.  Simply desiring to dress as a woman does not make you one.  Lots of men are crossdressers.  Most are occasional crossdressers, a few are full time.  The one thing they all have in common is a desire to keep their penises.  If you are not driven to have surgery, if you are comfortable with a penis, and most importantly, if you are able to successfully function as a man in society, then you are, well, a man.

And this, finally brings us to one of the sillier aspects of this bunch of fools attacks on me.  They just don't get it.  Yes, as a "man" I was a pretty wretched person.  I am not proud of that period of my life.  Simply put, I was a lousy man.  I was pretty lousy at things that men do.  I'm not going to share details, if only out of consideration for those affected by my failings, but yes, I was not at all successful as a man.  And yes, I face challenges now.  The same challenges a lot of middle aged women face, but I am able to deal with those challenges and my life is considerably better.  Funny, but that is sort of lost on these, well, men in dresses.  They can't see just how stupid their position is…

But then, they are men, and that is, simply put, is how they view the world….

Transgender Extremism's Second Favorite Tactic

Obviously, as previously discussed, the favorite tactic of transgender extremists is to simply accuse anyone who questions the right of men to claim to be "women" and then wave their penises in front of actual women, of hatred.  Their second favorite tactic is similar, but slightly different.  It is to obfuscate and avoid the real issue.

Mr. "Cristan" Williams, and his comrade in deception, Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen have both had a complete meltdown over some transgender man in Toronto "ogling" a woman in a YWCA locker room.  Their issue?  The reporter did not do the impossible, and verify that the story was true.  So, of course, Mr. Sandeen called YWCAs in Toronto, who stated that no such incident had been reported, and also called the police, who stated the same, and then both he, and Mr. Williams, declared the story a "HOAX!"  You can read their silly diatribes here, and here.

The problem is, the journalist in Toronto did nothing wrong, while both Mr. Sandeen, and Mr. Williams are, again, lying through their teeth.  Calling this a hoax is a lie, as they have no evidence of that.  The lack of evidence proves nothing.  In this case, they are claiming that the fact that this was not reported to the YWCA, or the police proves it did not happen.  That is simple ignorance.  The simple fact is, at best, it would be an open question.

Why do they do this?  Because they know, deep down, it almost certainly did happen, but they can't deal with that.  So, they make it go away.  They hide it.  As they always try to hide these things.

They want to create an illusion that all transgender people are good, and pure, and innocent.  Because let's face it, the truth is not their friend.

Did a transgender male, parading around in the nude, with a full on erection, really ogle a woman changing in YWCA locker room in Toronto?  Possibly, even probably.  Do such things happen?  Yes, though Mr. Williams and Mr. Sandeen wish to lie and claim that they NEVER happen.

Perhaps a more important question is, why do perverts like Mr. Sandeen, and Mr. Williams want to force women to have to face even the possibility of such things being forced on them?

A Few Minor Points...

I screwed up yesterday...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The "Trans Panic" Continues...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. "Cristan" Williams Lies, Again....and Again....and Again...

In an article of the type that Mr. "Cristan" Williams is notorious for, he shows, once more, that he is a pathological liar.  The article, entitled Trans Student Attacking Girls in School Restroom! Or, you know… not, is classic Mr. Williams. The title is the first lie. No one has actually said that a trans student is attacking girls. This is a classic "Cristan" Williams straw argument. What has been alleged is that the male student is harassing girls, which would include forcing himself into the girls rooms when it is well known that he is a male-bodied student. Mr. Williams, being a male-brained man has no concept of the idea that female students might no want a man in their bathroom. Mr. Williams is the sort of pervert who thinks they should just "get over it."

He then goes on to crank out even more of his typical straw arguments... He asserts that the right wing is claiming:

Florence High School is supposedly part of a trans conspiracy to assault school girls in the restroom.

ROTFL!  No one has made such a claim, but that doesn't stop Mr. Williams...  He is on a roll, and has no sense of ethics.

He then goes on to attack the journalist who has written about this.  What David McCain of "the examiner" (funny how Mr. Williams doesn't provide links to the stories he quotes..., using images instead, which allows him to control what people do, and do not, see).  The story can be found here.  Clearly, this story has Mr.  Williams in a full-blown panic.  He has brought in back-ups to try to dominate the comments...

No, he misrepresents what was reported.  No one suggested that anyone was "assaulted," or "attacked."  The word used was "harassed, which would describe how girls might feel about having a boy in their presence.

Mr. Williams also lies when he claims:

I challenged David about his facts and he admitted that he abdicated his responsibility to conduct due diligence for a story concerning a trans kid. Let’s be honest here, this is a case where ADULTS are targeting a trans KID, asserting that the kid is preditor. Apparently, for people like David, what he’s knowingly doing to this kid is acceptable as long as he has his juicy headline that plays well for his audience.

Actually, Mr. Williams has harrassed David McCain, and McCain most certainly made no such admission.  So, Mr. Williams lies again.  Further, no one has used the term "predator" or even "predator" to describe the student.

And finally, Mr. Williams posts a comment from what he claims is a female student at the high school in question, without citing the source.  It is not as it would appear, a comment on the article in question...

So, again, Mr. Williams, who has an established record for lying, has done it again.

Mr. "Cristan" Williams, the Cotton Ceiling, and a Big Pile of Straw

It would be tempting, having read Mr. "Cristan" Williams latest round of misdirection and straw arguments entitled "Cotton Ceiling: Uncovering the trans conspiracy to rape lesbians" to just roll one's eyes, and say "Well, he is an idiot..."  But no, this article actually took quite a bit of thought to come up with.  You don't build up that kind of deception without putting at least some effort into it.  No, I think he really knows better.

Or not...  Maybe he is really is that blind to what women actually experience and think that he really does believe his own lies.  Either way, the bottom line is, he is putting up his usual arrogant straw arguments.

In this latest travesty of a post, he actually tries to defend the "cotton ceiling" silliness pushed by men pretending to be lesbians.  What he ignores is the simple fact that rape not only involves force, but can also involve coercion.  And quite frankly, coercion is what the cotton ceiling is really about.

Mr. Williams, in his typical fashion, presents several straw arguments, and attempts a rather clumsy bit of misdirection.  He first bases his argument, quite laughably, on the fact that the matter began with only seven participants in the original workshop where, apparently, the term was coined.

The problem is classic.  How many times have we heard it?  All together now, let's repeat it for the benefit of men like Mr. Williams....  

NO MEANS NO!

As in, end of discussion...the matter is closed....go away and leave the women alone.  But, as is so typical, they won't take no for an answer.  They have to "identify barriers" (i.e. THEY DON'T WANT TO HAVE SEX WITH YOU AND HAVE SAID NO!" and then "strategize ways to overcome them" (i.e. "We find a way to get them to have sex with us, or die trying..." and then these idiots think this will "build community?"  I think the message is pretty clear....they are not wanted in the community they are trying to, quite frankly, force their way into, and this effort is pretty much just going to make that worse.  In fact, it clearly has, but these are men, and men don't believe in retreat.

Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I am a straight woman, so my only interest here is a general one in the bigger picture of how other women are treated.  I am not interested in having sex with lesbians, and I am certainly not interested in a "man in a dress."  I like my men a bit more, well, masculine.  Sure, it would be easy to just ignore the whole mess, and let them duke it out.  But I am not one to ignore someone trying to bully another.  

Mr. Williams then goes on and pulls the old trick of putting words in other's mouthes...a classic variant of the straw argument:

TERF: Teh cotton ceiling is all about teaching trans people how to rape lesbians!1!!

Dupe: LOLWUT

TERF: Yeah, Planned Parenthood gave a workshop to teach trans people how to rape lesbians! No means no!

Dupe: That sounds a little strange to me…

TERF: Don’t believe me? Google any of the many, many, many TERF blogs that freaked over the Planned Parenthood workshop! #rapeculture

Dupe: Well, I did hear about how transwomen want to hang out in the women’s restroom…

TERF: Yup, it’s all about rapey rape culture!

Dupe: Yeah, I guess tranwomen are kinda rapey…

TERF: I KNOW, RIGHT?!?! Spread the word!

Dupe: I’m totally blogging about this!

This is typical of Mr. Williams.  He isn't quoting anyone in particular, and the one example he offers simply proves he is misquoting it. 

Even when faced with facts, he tries to "spin" it to sound like women are being unreasonable...

Original workshop description:  Participants will work together to identify barriers, strategize ways to overcome them, and build community. 

TERF Petition to stop the workshop:Planned Parenthood Toronto is helping to sponsor a March 31 conference in Toronto that includes a workshop inviting participants to discuss and strategize ways they might be able to“overcome” women’s objections to these participants’ sexual advances.

I mean, it is more than a bit obvious that the only barrier to overcome is women's objections to these participants sexual advances.  Whether you are male, female, transgender, transsexual, or a woman born woman....NO MEANS NO!  End of discussion.  Back off.  Go away.  Stop trying to have sex with that person.  But, some, particularly men, don't seem to get this.

He goes on in this vein, attempting, quite lamely, to make transgender men the victim of a "TERF" conspiracy.  Funny, but he just can't seem to accept that simple fact...

NO MEANS NO!

 End of discussion.

Who Really Hates Who?

I'm sure many, if not most are familiar with the ongoing conflict between Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen and me.  Or, for that matter, between Mr. "Cristan" Williams and those he labels as "TERFs," or between any transsexual who dares challenge transgender dogma and various transgender extremists.  The one common thread among all of these things is accusations of hatred.

For example, Mr. Sandeen has accused me of hatred because I have mentioned him, according to his claims, over 130 times.  Now, let's consider this.  I write a blog dealing with issues of interest primarily to those who identify as true or classic transsexuals.  Mr. Sandeen has largely positioned himself as a major blogger among a faction that pretty much opposes the concept of true or classic transsexualism.  So, it is natural that I would comment on much of what he writes.  What he is objecting to is the analysis and refutation of the positions he, and others, take on those issues.

One of the factors that led me to start this blog was the often heavy handed censorship I found on "transgender" blogs.  Simply disagreeing with transgender dogma could get a person quickly banned, especially if they were effective in making their points.  Mr. Sandeen in particular became well known for his severe censorship on Pam's House Blend.  You didn't even have to violate the rules there.  I was banned because of stuff I wrote on my blog here.  

Now, I don't tell Mr. Sandeen what he can, and cannot write.  I have never censored his comments here, and I have not tried to dictate to him what he can write, but he has done that to me, repeatedly...and has begun resorting to threats in his attempts to make me submit to his will.

As I said, if keep up your behavior you should be prepared for escalation. The status quo is not acceptable to me now. I'm done with you being comfortable in your bigotry and hate.

So, exercising my free speech and responding to what he says, while exercising his free speech rights, is bigotry and hated?

Sandeen has a history of violence.  He has admitted to harassing women online.  Here is a link to what he was forced to apologize for.  And yet, he has the audacity to question why I would object to meet him in person?  He has a history of cyberstalking me, and has escalated the efforts over time.  I don't think my reaction to his demand to meet face-to-face is at all unreasonable.  And when I made it clear that such would not be tolerated, he tried to suggest, with no basis, that I was the one threatening violence because I said I would take legal steps if he tried to make contact.

You, Jennifer, can threaten me all you want. Does your threat mean that if I attended a service at your church you'd hit me? Is violence what you're threatening?

I found this just a bit disingenuous, as I have repeatedly pointed out to Mr. Sandeen that my purpose was not to threaten, but simply to avoid personal contact, and that I would take only take legal steps if he tried to approach me.  I suspect he knows better, but is trying to make himself look like a martyr.

Mr. Sandeen takes great umbrage at what he calls "misgendering" (the transgender kooks do love their neologisms) but he has no problem at all with people forcing the label "transgender" on people who reject it.  As I have pointed out, I refuse to call someone "female" who clearly is not.  I do not buy into the magical, "name it, and claim it" approach that the transgender extremists push.  But, at the same time, I do not demand that anyone refer to their self in any particular manner, or that they refrain from referring to their self in any particular manner.  I may not see Mr. Sandeen as a woman, and I may firmly make this clear, but I have never insisted that Mr. Sandeen must call himself a "man."  Or that he can't refer to himself as "transgender."  I have called him on the fact that he falsely claims to be a transsexual, but I would never insist that he refrain from using that term.  But, Mr. Sandeen is closely aligned with those who try to insist that people must accept the label "transgender," even if they find it offensive to be called such.  And he continues to impose such a label on people against their will.

For example, in spite of my disdain, for being linked with "transgender" Mr. Sandeen, in an effort at self-promotion still insists on "including" me in a group I want no part of.  Has blogged:

@terfherder @danaequality @transadvocate I'm with you on community. But we fail when we eat our own -- & irritatingly JJ is one or our own.

Personally, I find it extremely insulting for him to claim that I am part of a community with these three men.  I strongly suspect that @terfherder is none other than long time stalker "Diane" Lask.  He would appear, at first glance, to just be a creepy "admirer," that is a man who is obsessed with "trans women" as sex objects, but the style of his writing is that of Lask, who has a history of "sockpuppeting" (hiding behind fake names).  Same tired insults, same basic style.  If it is not Lask, it is someone closely linked to Lask.

I  can present objective arguments as to why Mr. Sandeen is both male, and a man.  He cannot, however, present objective arguments as to why anyone is "transgender" unless the person in question has unequivocally stated that this is how they identity, and how they wish to be referred to.  I have. repeatedly, done just the opposite, and yet he insists on calling me a member of his imaginary community.

I have also made it abundantly clear that I value my privacy.  Unfortunately, that is not always  possible to maintain on the Internet.  For example, my name was linked to this blog simply because I was not aware that WordPress allows bloggers to see information about the email addresses of people posting comments.  Blogger, which I use, does not allow this.  Early on, I posted a comment on Suzan Cooke's blog, and Cooke "outed" me, linking my "pen name" to my legal name.

In spite of this, I have made it clear that I would prefer that my privacy be respected as much as possible.  But transgender extremists will have no part of this.  For example, Mr. Sandeen has repeatedly used my legal name in commenting about things I have written here.  In fact, he repeatedly attacks transsexuals who wish to maintain their privacy, attacking them as cowards.

There are two, quite legitimate, reasons we wish to retain our privacy.  The first, is that many transgender extremists have shown a very real bent towards violence.  Numerous women, both those born women, and those of a transsexual history, have been subjected to calls for violence by these kooks.

The second reason, is simple.  The vast majority of those who truly are transsexual have no desire to be "out, loud, and proud."  We prefer to keep our history private, for the simple purpose of being able to live our lives as women, not as "former men," that is, as "trans women," transwomen," "women of the second kind," or whatever other term becomes in vogue.  Put in other words, we simply don't desire to be "other."  This, of course, is the driving motivation of the transponder extremists.

I find it ironic that, Mr. "Cristan" Williams, in one of his more recent diatribes, "You might be a TERF if…" includes:

2.) Out transpeople to employers.

Now, I am not a "transperson" but then neither is the person who Mr. Williams uses in his example, but the irony here is, Mr. Sandeen has engaged in just such behavior.  As I documented in my article, "Sandeen Goes Cyberstalking" I documented how Mr. Sandeen mistakenly believed I was employed by my church, and attempted to out me.  Now, some in my church are aware of my history, and others are not.  Mr. Sandeen, in his classic male arrogance, showed no regard for my privacy, but was concerned only with his petty attempts at revenge.

And he engaged in exactly the behavior that Mr. Williams finds so "reprehensible" if done by someone he would label a "TERF."

So, in spite of Mr. Sandeen's claims, it is just as arguable that he is the one guilty of hatred.

Not Only a Liar, But An Arrogant One

You can tell when someone has successfully refuted Mr. "Cristan" Williams lies...he makes an immediate response.  For example, Elizabeth at Notes From the T Side posted an excellent article entitled Cis-Privilege or The New Transgender Lie in which she proceeds to refute on of Mr. Williams most persistent lies...that "transgender" is the appropriate term for those who are transsexual.  She provides the following quote, which is typical of Mr. Williams' rhetoric:

Transgender (AKA: trans, trans*, TG) is an umbrella term that encompasses a variety of people including transsexuals, crossdressers, drag kings and queens, as well as bigender and androgynous individuals.1 Transgender that came into common usage during the 1970s, but was popularized as early as 1965 as a way to refer to transsexuals who wanted genital reconstructive surgery. Today, the term transgender is used to refer to individuals who are not cisgender.

Now, Elizabeth, who transitioned and had surgery before Mr. Williams was, as my mother used say, "not even a gleam in his father's eye," points out, quite correctly, that this is "complete and absolute lie."  This is something I showed almost a year ago, much to Mr. Williams chagrin.

No, the term was not in common usage in the 1970's among transsexuals, or anyone else.  There are a few very isolated occurrences, that Mr. Williams tries to conflate into "common usage."  This is one of his favorite "complete and absolute" lies.  He does the same thing he tries to accuse others of doing, taking an isolated usage of a word, and making it into something it is not.  Williams is fond of pointing out that Arnold Lowman, aka "Virginia Prince" used the term "transgenderal" in 1969, and then claiming that this is the source of what he likes to label the "Virginia Prince Fountainhead Myth."  But, his entire premise is built on rare, isolated usage of the term, which it can clearly be shown did not come into anything remotely resembling "common usage" until the 1990's.  

Mr. Williams blissfully ignores the first hand testimony of people who were actually transsexuals during this period, and falls back on isolated occurences of the term to show it was in common usage, but then dismisses the use of the term by Lowman as the origin of its current use.  Uh, okay....

In the early 1990's, some time after when Williams claims the term was commonly used, I was introduced to the term "transgenderist" while attending meetings of a support group in Atlanta.  The group was led by none other than Dallas Denny, who would go on to become a major figure in pushing transgender as an umbrella term.  But, at the time, Denny was was still identifying as a transsexual, and explained that "transgenderist" was a term for someone who lived full-time as the opposite sex, but who did not desire SRS.  Transgender was not being used at all.  And there was still a clear division between crossdressers and transsexuals.  This, at a time when Mr. Williams would have us believe "transgender" was in "common usage" as an umbrella term.

When Mr. Williams gets caught in a lie, he tends to dig himself deeper.  He falls back on the same lame tactics, like falsely accusing his opponent of using "straw man" arguments, while doing so with impunity.

For example, in response to Elizabeth's post, he combines the two tactics...

A stwarman (sic) argument is when you want to attack a position, have no logical reason to attack it, and so instead lie about what the other person said. Simply compare what I actually said (blue quote) and what this person claims I said (the first sentence after my quote).

Sounds reasonable, until you look at what Mr. Williams is quoted as saying:

Cis-Privilege (AKA, transphobia, heterosexism, cisgenderism) refers to a set of unearned advantages that individuals who identify as the gender they were assigned at birth accrue solely due to being cisgender.

And what he falsely claims is a straw argument: 

CW claims somehow that the privileges women have and those of us that live as women without being open, out, and proud are not earned but given. Here is a list of cis privileges that are easily identified as the complaints men in dresses have about their transvestite fantasies as women. It is directly aimed at the few rights we women have that provide us comfort or safety or that define us as females and women. What it all comes down to is they as men have the right to do whatever they want, wherever they want, and however they want when they are playing girl in fantasy mode.

Now, let's take this step by step... Is that what Mr. Williams said?  Yes, as "accrued" means "be received by someone in regular or increasing amounts over time..." and he says this is solely due to their being cisgender, so clearly these things are "not earned."  Is the rest of Elizabeth's statement true? Look at the list that is linked to, and you will see that the rest is dead on as well.  

Mr. Williams then claims:

The post drones on and on, creating one fake position for me to take after another, so that she could (presumably) enjoy attacking absurd ideas I’ve never promoted. Apparently lies are the only rhetoric folks like this have left to cling to. IMHO, these folks are the young earth creationists of the trans experience. They seem to have no argument to make that isn’t laughable and yet, their place in this world seems to be predicated upon their fantasy being true: 

• A lesbian transsexual was targeted for not being non-transsexual; cisprivilege isn’t real. 
• Prince didn’t coin or pioneer trans terms; Prince is where transgender comes from.

Just one problem for Mr. Williams...he is not even mentioned again.  So...he is the one who is lying.  And he uses a blatant straw argument by making the comparison to creationism.

There is no straw man here, or even a "stwarman," on the part of Elizabeth Just a simple statement concerning the demands that Mr. Williams, and other transgender extremists, push.  

And that is really what Mr. Williams is about.  It is clear that he makes no attempt to actually live as a woman.  He is completely, as they say, "out, loud, and proud."  Just like his cohort Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen, he clearly has NO desire to be seen as a woman, but wishes to be seen as transgender.  He wants people to know he was not born a woman, and then wants to force them to acknowledge him as a woman, even if it is contrary to what their senses tell them.  It is not about being a woman, but is about control. 

They want to control how people are allowed to use language.  As soon as a man says the magic words, "I feel like a woman," in their view, he becomes not just a "woman," but a female, with all the rights and privileges thereof, and must be fully accepted as such, including the right to enter any, and all sexually segregated area, even those involving nudity.

If a woman is uncomfortable with the presence of this other "woman" then the woman is, in their view, a bigot, and she must be forced into compliance.  Even if that woman is a convicted rapist and registered sex offender.  In a debate with Representative John Kavanagh, he pull out one of his favorite dodges...are transgender people immune from laws regarding rape, sexual assault, and exposing themselves.  Unfortunately he ignores the fact that the pervert "Colleen" Francis was doing just that.  he made no attempt to be discrete, and when people complained, they were told that the laws protecting said pervert trumped the laws that should have protected the children involved.

So, bottom line...once again Mr. Williams is caught lying like a cheap rug.

What's the Difference?

I am often attacked by the "gender fascists," i.e. the transgender extremists like Mr. "Cristan" Williams, Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen, Mr. "Dana" Taylor, and others because I don't care for the term "transgender," refuse to accept it, and especially because I am constantly challenging the silliness that they spew...  Silliness like claiming that simply saying one is a woman magically makes it so.

On those occasions, for example when dealing with a medical provider where I have to reveal my history, I am sometimes asked, "What's the difference?" when I explain that I am transsexual, not transgender.  That's a good question, and while I usually respond with a relatively technical answer, of late other differences have become obvious.

For example, there was the rather silly article posted by Mr. Williams that asks "What are the top 3 things you like about being trans?"  I cannot think of a better illustration of the difference between actually being a transsexual, and being some kook who identifies as "transgender."  For me, there was NOTHING I liked about being "transsexual."  If I had a choice, it would certainly not to have been born transsexual.  My first choice would have been to be born a normal female.  If not that, then my second choice would have been to have been a normal male.   I certainly would not have chosen to be born transsexual.  If I liked "being trans" I would certainly not have put so much effort into having SRS.

Of course, the person asking this question is a man, who either has not had SRS, or if he has, regrets it.  He revels in being "transgender."  It is his entire purpose in life.  For him, it is a choice, not a medical condition.  I would no more choose to be transsexual, than I would choose to be diabetic.  I would not more find something good in being transsexual as I would find something good about being diabetic.

No, I haven't gotten to see life from "both sides."  I never had "the best of both worlds."  I was miserable for much of my life.  I hurt people I care about. 

Another difference that has become very obvious is how we deal with disagreement.  I recognize that a lot of radical; feminists would reject the idea that I am a woman.  Shoot, I have known that since I first read Janice Raymond's The Transsexual Empire back around the time I began transition.  I certainly did agree with Raymond's extremist views, but I also did not feel the apparent blind rage that seems to consume transgender extremists who cannot seem to deal with such disagreement.  The Internet is becoming filled with their calls for the rape and murder of women who simply don't wish to sleep with them.  

I do find it interesting that I can get along with many of those women, even if I don't agree with everything they say.  Then again, I seriously doubt that the kooks like Mr. Sandeen, Mr. Williams, and Mr. Taylor have much in the way of friendship with women born women.  They certainly spend a lot of time attacking them online.

Even if I don't agree with what someone writes, I am willing to listen, and try to find common ground.  I consider Victory Brownworth a friend.  Mr. Williams seems to have become obsessed with destroying her.  As best I can tell, the real motivation for this is the simple fact that Ms. Brownworth does not think men like Mr. Williams should be able to attend the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival.  Mr. Williams, really does not like being told no.  So, Mr. Williams has repeated attack her, accused her of horrible crimes, and then he wonders why people think him something of a kook.

When I began transition, a major concern fo me was to not cause discomfort to other women.  For the kooks like Mr. Williams, Mr. Sandeen, an Mr. Taylor, the feelings of women are inferior to their fetish-driven desires.  If a woman is upset at the idea of sharing a shower or other space with a "transwoman" with an intact penis, she is at fault and she must submit to the tyranny of the transgender kooks.  Before my surgery, the idea of exposing myself to a woman like that would have been horrifying.

Yes, there are major differences.

Up To His Usual Tricks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another false claim by Mr. Williams is this:

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

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

Here, in its entirety, is the Houston rule:

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

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

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

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

Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen Has His Widdle Feewings Hurt....

Well, for someone who claims to make a habit of ignoring me, Mr. Sandeen seems to have gone off the deep end...again.  He has posted yet another diatribe in his ongoing attempt to take control of a situation he clearly is unhappy about.

He basically repeats the comment he made on my blog along with a photo of me he found online.  That, of course, is a classic cyberbullying technique used in the hopes that someone might harass someone who prefers privacy.  Oh well, no one said Mr. Sandeen has any sense of boundaries.  Oh, and since I installed the "Live Traffic Feed" I have noticed the regular appearance of at least one person from San Diego.  Hmm...do you think it might be someone waiting for the next post?  Or to see if I responded to his comments.

After all, while he was "ignoring" me, he cyberstalked me by contacting my church, and my daughter.  It is also rumored that he is the person responsible for the outrageous blackmailing of Susan of Enough Nonsense, which basically led to her stopping comments on transgender issues.  Oh, and he seems to conveniently forget that I started this blog, in large part, because he made a lame excuse to ban me from posting on Pam's House Blend where he was known for his heavy handed censorship.  That was one of the biggest influences in my decision to not censor this blog.  It was only in response to a particular cyberstalker that I started the policy of moderating messages before allowing them to be posted.

Oh well, the fact is, I comment on transgender idiocy, and well, he is the lead idiot, so he can try all he wants.  I don't comment for his benefit, but for the benefit of those who might want a less, well, idiotic point of view.

Oh well, let the fun continue....

Oh, and a thought that did occur to me...  Mr. Sandeen has said a couple of things that led me to a theory.  We all know he is on disability for mental issues (he claims bipolar disorder that started in the Navy) and we also know that he claims he was accused of being gay during his last years in the service.  I suspect he started on hormones towards the end of his service.  He was in San Diego, and right across the border in Mexico, hormones are pretty much over-the-counter drugs. That would have certainly lead some, based on appearance and stereotyping to suspect "gay" since he would have looked slightly feminized (he still pretty much is clearly a man) and it is well documented that while estrogen has a mood elevating effect for transsexuals, it can cause depression in normal (i.e. not transsexual) males.  That sort of mood swing, which can be increased by a loss of testosterone, would very likely be viewed as "bipolar."  

A competent therapist should catch this, but then a competent therapist would have never labeled Sandeen anything other than a crossdressing male with delusions of grandeur.  Just a theory, but I bet Sandeen will be sputtering in denial.  And let me add, I make no claim of being able to diagnose someone.  I am just making an observation based on experience and study.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And he concludes with a ridiculous claim...

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

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