Political Correctness Versus Medical Accuracy

A thought occurred to me the other day...

Let's consider two scenarios....  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Sandeen Can't Hide From the Truth

Well. apparently the man who loves censorship has convinced LGBT Weekly to again let him hide from the truth. For a while, they seemed to be preventing him from his usual tricks. Then he posted a self-aggrandizing piece called A decade of Autumn. When challenged on the fact that he clearly engaged in fraud when he obtained a falsified birth certificate, Mr. Sandeen first tried avoiding the issue, then finally published a link to a fact sheet from the Transgender Law Center on the law that streamlined the process.  Then, when certain facts, like the fact that the doctor who castrated him (the full extent of his surgery) was contacted, and without making reference to any specific patient, stated that anyone claiming that he had said that castration was a basis for claiming a change of sex was mistaken, and that he remains a male physically, he started having comments removed.  In another words, Mr. Sandeen conned his doctor, and lied to the courts, and does not want the truth to come out at LGBT Weekly.  

Then, the real irony is, the site flagged for moderation a post that quotes the San Francisco Superior Court as saying:

In order to ask the Court for a gender change, you have to give the Court an affidavit from your physician documenting the sex change. You must have undergone gender reassignment surgery in order to ask for a gender change order. 

This contradicts Mr. Sandeen's claims.  There are not specifics on the San Diego Superior Court site, but since this is based on State law, it has to be assumed that the standards are the same.  Mr. Sandeen has not had "gender reassignment surgery" (an absurd term pushed by TG extremists) and his sex has not been changed.

Apparently, Mr. Sandeen is getting all comments blocked without approval now.  Typical.  He hates the truth, and lies when he claims that he is a transsexual.  He is not a transsexual, not a woman, and most assuredly not a female.

 

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.

Well,DUH!!!!!!

Sometimes the invincible ignorance of certain transgender extremists proves to be surprising.  For example, "Autumn" Sandeen, who cannot tolerate anyone actually making valid and logical arguments against his silliness, has come out with a real doozy!


He is carrying on about the fact that some among the Religious Right think that transsexual women are "super gay."  Hmmm.....and this surprises Mr. Sandeen, why?


After all, Sandeen is a leader among those who wish to tightly going "transgender" which he falsely claims includes transsexuals, to lesbians, gays, and bisexuals.  So, what does he expect?  For extremists on the Right to have more sense that extremists on the left and somehow realize that this is all a silly political construct?  Oh wait, not even Sandeen fully understands that.


Of course, the Religious Right now sees transsexuals as "super gay."  Why wouldn't they, when fools like Sandeen are effectively telling them that transsexuals are, well, part of the LGBT community?


Oh, and Sandeen tries to argue that the Bible supports transgender people because  Matthew 19:12 says:

“For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it.”

Now, Sandeen, who is himself a eunuch, who has tried to falsely claim that having his testicles removed was "genital reconstruction surgery," actually makes the completely absurd argument that since this was the "only genital reconstruction surgery available in Biblical times," it means that God approves of transsexuals.

Now, I wrote a paper that was presented at an HBIGDA meeting concerning the religious aspects of Harry Benjamin Syndrome (aka transsexualism) and I did not need to resort to silliness like this.  I mean, this is a completely bogus argument.  This has nothing to do with gender identity, transsexualism, or silly men like Sandeen who want to be women with penises.

It is about eunuchs, men who have been castrated.  Under Jewish law, such men were excluded from the Temple, though this was later changed under the Prophets.  Jesus was just reiterating something mentioned elsewhere in the Bible.

And I cannot help but notice that Sandeen has finally persuaded the powers that be at LGBT Weekly in San Diego to block me from commenting there.  As I say, he cannot abide anyone actually countering his silliness.

Facts Versus Fantasy

"Autumn" Sandeen has announced that he is having "genital reconstruction surgery."  Except, well, he isn't.  Not even close.  He is lying, at the very least to himself, and really to anyone foolish enough to believe his bizarre fantasy.  You see, what Mr. Sandeen is having is, not "genital reconstruction surgery" but instead, is simply an orchidectomy.  He is not becoming a complete female.  He is becoming an eunuch, a castrated male.  

He starts off his little trip down fantasy lane with:

There are women of color and there are disabled women; there are lesbians and there are women of faith; there are mothers and there are servicewomen; there are women veterans and bisexual women -- and that's hardly an exhaustive list of the subcategories of women. Women's experience intersects with multiple labels and multiple identities; each woman's experience is complex, and not solely described within the confines of the "female" and "woman" found within western society's binary sex and gender norms.

I guess what he is trying to say is "There are women with penises."  Because that is what he believes he is, and what he believes he will be after his imaginary "Genital Reconstruction Surgery."  Many years ago, one of the first books I read on issues of transsexualism and transvestitism was Robert Stoller's Sex and Gender: On the Development of Masculinity and Femininity.  It has been a number of years since I looked at this book, but one of the things I remember from it was Stoller talking about how transvestites have fantasies about being a woman with a penis.  At the time, this seemed to me to be a quite absurd idea.  Stoller based this, in part, on a review of pornography of the variety that features images of what, at first, appears to be a quite attractive woman...until you notice the penis that is exposed. 


Over the years, I rejected Stoller's ideas as just another example of the silliness of Freudian analysis which often seems to seek absurd causes for various mental illness and condition that seem absurd.  Another of Stoller's claims, which is quite silly, is that all transvestites were dressed as girls by their mothers or other females as a child.  While this may be true in some cases, I doubt it is true in all cases.  This plays into the kind of "forced femininity" fantasies that some transvestites show.


While much of Stoller's ideas seem a bit absurd, I have begun to realize there is some accuracy in the concept of men having fantasies of being "women with penises."  You see this in those who plot to get their birth certificates changed to declare themselves to be "legally" female while remaining physically male.  And you see this in someone like Mr. Sandeen claiming to be having "genital reconstruction surgery" when all he is really doing is getting castrated and becoming a eunuch.


Now, don't get me wrong.  I am not remotely suggesting that Mr. Sandeen should have sex reassignment surgery.  That would be a tragic mistake.  Clearly, he is not a woman, and losing his penis would be emotionally traumatic.  What I am suggesting is that Mr. Sandeen start facing reality.  Calling himself a woman just because he likes to play dress up is dishonest at best, or at worst delusional.  Calling castration "genital reconstruction surgery" is an insult to real transsexuals who have worked and suffered to get the real thing.  And claiming to be a woman with a penis is just silly.