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.

Now This IS Interesting

After reading yet another bit of drivel from Mr. "Cristan" Williams, in which he goes on about allegations of rapes in Oakland Schools, I got curious and did a bit of checking.  I had noticed that Mr. Williams mentioned an email from the Oakland California School District, and in that email it mentioned that they have attached a copy of their school policy, which it was stated was "largely similar" to the new state law.  Now, that struck me as rather curious.  Largely similar is not quite the same as the claims made by Mr. Williams and other activists about the nature of these school policies and how they relate to AB 1266.  So, I looked online, and I found the Oakland School District policy that covers transgender students. 

Yes, it could certainly be called "largely similar," or it could be called significantly different....

Here is what it says:

• Names/Pronouns
Students shall have the right to be addressed by a name and pronoun conesponding to their gender identity that is exclusively and consistently asserted at school.

• Official Records
The District shall change a student's official records to reflect a change in legal name or gender upon receipt of documentation that such legal name and/or gender have been changed pursuant to California legal requirements.

• Restroom Accessibility
Students shall have access to the restroom that conesponds to their gender identity exclusively and consistently at school.

• Locker Room Accessibility
Transgender stud ents shall not be forced to use the locker room corresponding to their gender assigned at birth.

• Sports and Gym Class
Transgender students shall not be denied the opportunity to participate in sports and gym

• Dress Codes
Students shall have the right to dress in accordance with their gender identity that is exclusively and consistently asserted at school, within the constraints of the dress codes adopted at their school site.

• Gender Segregation in Other Areas
As a general rule, in any other circumstances where students are separated by gender in school activities, students shall be permitted to participate in accordance with their gender identity exclusively and consistently asserted at school.

Notice anything that is clearly missing from the state law?  Like the words "exclusively and consistently asserted at school."  Notice that it does not say that students would be allowed to use locker rooms with members of the opposite sex?  This is a reasonable approach.

Now, what about San Francisco?  Long thought of as the home of the extremes of such policies...you would expect they would have a policy more in keeping with the desires of kooks like Mr. Williams and company....:  

Names/Pronouns
Students shall have the right to be addressed by a name and pronoun corresponding to their gender identity that is exclusively and consistently asserted at school. Students are not required to obtain a court ordered name and/or gender change or to change their official records as a prerequisite to being addressed by the name and pronoun that corresponds to their gender identity. This directive does not prohibit inadvertent slips or honest mistakes, but it does apply to an intentional and persistent refusal to respect a student’s gender identity. The requested name shall be included in the SIS system in addition to the student’s legal name, in order to inform teachers of the name and pronoun to use when addressing the student. 

Official Records
The District is required to maintain a mandatory permanent pupil record which includes the legal name of the pupil, as well as the pupil’s gender. 5 Cal. Code Reg. 432(b)(1)(A), (D). The District shall change a student’s official records to reflect a change in legal name or gender upon receipt of documentation that such legal name and/or gender have been changed pursuant to California legal requirements. 

Restroom Accessibility
Students shall have access to the restroom that corresponds to their gender identity exclusively and consistently asserted at school. Where available, a single stall bathroom may be used by any student who desires increased privacy, regardless of the underlying reason. The use of such a single stall bathroom shall be a matter of choice for a student, and no student shall be compelled to use such bathroom. 

Locker Room Accessibility
Transgender students shall not be forced to use the locker room corresponding to their gender assigned at birth. In locker rooms that involve undressing in front of others, transgender students who want to use the locker room corresponding to their gender identity exclusively and consistently asserted at school will be provided with the available accommodation that best meets the needs and privacy concerns of all students involved. Based on availability and appropriateness to address privacy concerns, such accommodations could include, but are not limited to: 

Use of a private area in the public area (i.e., a bathroom stall with a door, an area separated by a curtain, a PE instructor’s office in the locker room);A separate changing schedule (either utilizing the locker room before or after the other students); or 

Use of a nearby private area (i.e., a nearby restroom, a nurse’s office).
Sports and Gym Class 

Transgender students shall not be denied the opportunity to participate in physical education, nor shall they be forced to have physical education outside of the assigned class time. Generally, students should be permitted to participate in gender-segregated recreational gym class activities and sports in accordance with the student’s gender identity that is exclusively and consistently asserted at school. Participation in competitive athletic activities and contact sports will be resolved on a case by case basis. 

Dress Codes
School sites can enforce dress codes that are adopted pursuant to Education Code 35291. Students shall have the right to dress in accordance with their gender identity that is exclusively and consistently asserted at school, within the constraints of the dress codes adopted at their school site. This regulation does not limit a student’s right to dress in accordance with the Dress/Appearance standards articulated in the Student and Parent/Guardian Handbook, page 23. 

Gender Segregation in Other Areas
As a general rule, in any other circumstances where students are separated by gender in school activities (i.e., class discussions, field trips), students shall be permitted to participate in accordance with their gender identity exclusively and consistently asserted at school. Activities that may involve the need for accommodations to address student privacy concerns will be addressed on a case by case basis. In such circumstances, staff shall make a reasonable effort to provide an available accommodation that can address any such concerns.

Well, what do you know...San Francisco's policy is not only more detailed, it is actually quite well written.  It even makes provision for students who might object to using the bathroom with someone who is transgender, though it does this in somewhat subtle manner.  Notice the detailed policy concerning locker rooms.

Notice that phrase "the available accommodation that best meets the needs and privacy concerns of all students involved."  Now, keep in mind...the state law was pretty much written with the guidance of the Transgender Law Center.  This is a San Francisco based organization that undoubtedly is well aware of the San Francisco Unified School District transgender policy, which is above.  

They basically wrote a policy that avoids addressing real issues, the ones I have raised and been attacked by people for raising.  They wrote a policy that removes protections for students who are uncomfortable with the provisions of the new law.  They wrote a policy that would, in effect, actually prohibit protections for students who are not transgender, but who might be forced to share a locker room with those that are.  And, sadly, which also fails to provide real protections for students who are actually transsexual.

Oh, and in case someone wants to make some silly claim, notice that there are links to the San Francisco and Oakland policies above.  Unlike Mr. Williams, I back up what I say with actual facts, instead of spinning stuff in an attempt to make it say something it doesn't.

Again, while I have no doubt that the Pacific Justice Institute would still oppose the law if it was modified to include provisions like those above, such an improved law would far less likely to be overturned by the voters of California.  One that that is clear, though...Mr. Williams and company have lied when they claim the new state law matches school district policies.  It doesn't, and I suspect they know quite well that it doesn't.

And I bet you good money that Mr. Williams and company will have a fit if there is an attempt to modify the law to include the above provisions.

Has the Backlash Against the Transgender Extremists Begun?

A while back, I wrote about what is now referred to as the School Success and Opportunity Act, which is a very innocuous sounding name for what is a potentially bad law.  I know some disagree, and I admit, after reading Elizabeth's two excellent articles, (here and here)  on the law at Notes From the T Side, I am not quite as opposed as I originally was, but I still think the law needs, at the very least, to be rewritten.

I have no problem with there being a law to protect and assist students who are transsexual. Such a law might well have made my life a lot better when I was in school, though that is a hard concept to wrap my mind around because at that time, there were some many other things that would have been issues that the ones addressed by this law would have been relatively minor.  

I do know that I had learned to hide my feelings, and I have a very clear memory of answering a question asked by a psychiatrist in a way that was not truthful.  I was asked, "If you had three wishes, what would they be?"  I knew what the first would be, "To be able to change into a girl." and I also knew that it would not be a wise thing to admit.  Instead, I gave what I thought were "safe" answers.  Given how badly those were twisted, I still shudder to think how that woman would have reacted to the truth.

But this law is, as I pointed out, poorly written.  It is the sort of law that only a transgender extremists could truly love.  It is so vague, it pretty much amounts to "anything goes" with regards to students claiming to be "transgender."  There are no standards for what constitutes a valid claim.  It is strictly "name it, and claim it."  There is no requirement that the student have even spoken to a therapist.  

In theory, at least, a jock could walk into the principals office with a grin on his face, announce that he feels like a girl, and insist on being allowed to enter the girls locker rooms and bathrooms, and there is nothing that could be done to stop him.  Now, maybe this will never happen, but it could.  A more likely scenario is that some student who  has a fetish will take advantage of the law to, and gain access to such spaces even though his gender, and gender identity are still quite male.

And all of this brings us to the present.  Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen latest diatribe is about how the Capitol Resource Institute is leading a coalition that has begun gathering signatures to overturn the law.  I imagine they will have no problem getting the law on the ballot.  And chances are very good that it will pass.

The problem is rather obvious.  As Mr. Sandeen points out in the article:

The California School Boards Association (CSBA) describes the School Success and Opportunity Act as requiring “districts to permit transgender students to participate in gender-segregated school programs and activities – including athletic teams, sports competitions and field trips – consistent with their gender identity and to use facilities consistent with their gender identity.

The only problem is, the term should be sex-segregated.  What the law does is require schools, with no qualifications or limits, to allow male-bodied students in girl's locker rooms, showers, and bathrooms with no real restrictions as regards issues like "inevitable nudity."  As I said, the law is very poorly written.

A real irony is, Mr. Sandeen quotes a press release from the leader of, which states :

“AB 1266 mandates San Francisco values on all California schools.”

That's the problem...  It actually doesn't.  Here in San Francisco, the rules concerning access to showers and locker rooms require that access only be given as long as "inevitable nudity" is not a problem, and that a facility must, if feasible, take steps to prevent such from happening, or provided separate but equal facilities.  In another words, you have provide separate, enclosed stalls for showers and changing if that can be reasonably done.  This law, does not seem to allow for such restrictions.

Now, maybe schools have such facilities.  When I was in high school, the only showers were for the athletes (my senior year, it was decided that they would be available to others during PE, though it was optional and most did not take advantage) and they was zero privacy.  I don't know if the girls locker room was the same or not.  I also recall from my college days that the showers in the dorms originally built for male students also had open showers.  I only spent one semester in such a dorm, and the rest of the time I was in a dorm originally built for female students but "converted" to half of what was rather jokingly referred to as the co-ed dorm.  We shared a common building, but it consisted of two wings separated by the cafeteria with a gate separating the two sides that was locked at night.  The showers in that building had separate stalls.  No really "co-ed." but it was provided as a response for demand for such a co-ed dorm.

No, the simple solution would be to quickly amend the law to add a few simple provisions:

Require students wishing to make such a claim to be seeing a qualified therapist and have a written statement that provides a diagnosis.  

Further, students wishing to make such claims would have to present completely as the gender they claim to identify as.  In another words, the would have, as they walk, the walk, and not just talk the talk.  

There should also be provisions allowing schools to make accommodations when facilities do not provide adequate privacy in situations that involve inevitable nudity.  We don't need any teenage "Colleen" Francis types exposing themselves.

And a provision should be made to prevent students from repeatedly switching back and forth.  

Changes like that would likely short-circuit a proposition that will likely end all protections, even those for students who actually need them.

But I doubt the transgender extremists will have the good sense to compromise, preferring a glorious defeat instead.

Slacktivists? ROTFLLMAO!!!!!

Sometime back, I wrote about the comedy of Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen.  Well, he has come up with, perhaps, his funniest material yet.  In a post on Transadvocate, he has not only managed to prove that he is clueless, but has also managed, in response to mostly negative comments, to outdo Mr. "Cristan" Williams at abusing logical fallacies.  I do love that last bit.  I have pointed out, for some time, that the transgender kooks love to engage in logical fallacies, so now they regularly mention that concept in their posts, falsely accusing me of such, while, of course, cluelessly engagibg in them repeatedly.  They do love to imitate...

Anyway, what has set Mr. Sandeen off this time is the post I did on AB1266, the law that is supposed to protect transgender students in school, but which actually just abuses everyone else.  He is apparently (it is kind of hard tell) upset that I, and others are not actively lobbying for our point of view.  Yeah, seriously....

Call them classic transsexuals or women of operative history; call them true transsexuals or transsexual separatists — whatever you call them, you can also call them ineffectual slacktivists.

I mean, seriously?  I don't know what he is smoking, drinking, injecting, or snorting...but if it is not a controlled substance, it should be.  

The simple fact is, unlike Mr. Sandeen, Mr. Williams, and a number of other transgender kooks, I, and quite a few others that Mr. Sandeen seeks to attack in his laughably bizarre post are just not narcissistic publicity whores like they are.  We simply do not feel the need to run around Sacramento, Washington, or such, making fools of ourselves.  Can you imagine the laughter that must fill legislative offices after these fools have left?

No, my mother taught me well...."Fool's names, and fool's faces, often seen in public places."  Yes, I think AB 1266 is a bad law.  I sent a message asking Gov. Brown to veto it, and I am disappointed that he decided not to.  But, I have no desire to waste my time and money traveling to Sacramento to engage in self-aggrandizing political grandstanding.

No, there is a much simpler, and far more effective strategy.  Simply allow kooks like Sandeen to have their way.  It is interesting to note that Mr. Sandeen also posted another article where he whines about how "Progressive Talking Heads (are) Not Talking About California School Success And Opportunity Act."  Gee, did it ever occur to Mr. Sandeen that even the "progressive talking heads" might have enough sense to realize what a total train wreck this law has the potential to become?  Has he ever stopped to think that maybe, just maybe, they understand that average people think this is way too extremist?  Nah, of course not.

If Sandeen took the time, for example, to read the comments posted on SFGate, the web page for the San Francisco Chronicle, he might discover that here in the Bay Area the reaction was overwhelmingly negative.  And lest he try to make some excuse about it not really reflecting local sentiment, he should compare it to the response to the Supreme Court overturning Proposition 8.

No, AB 1266 could well be the final straw for the public's tolerance of transgender silliness.  It is bad enough that women's rooms are regularly invaded by men in dresses, but when you start talking about having boy showering with girls, provided the boys claim to be girls, people tend to say "ENOUGH!!!"

The problem with the law, simply put, is that its language is too vague.  The few who tried to defend it on SFGate kept claiming that it would not do what was claimed.  That it would take more than simply "claiming" to be transgender to get access to the girls locker room.  But the law does not say that.  I simply says that one cannot be denied access based on one's gender identity.  The claim is also made that no one would abuse such a law, but we have already seen too many examples that show otherwise.


Sandeen also, rather cluelessly links to an article from Notes From The T-Side that shows, quite conclusively, that his birth certificate is fraudulent, and that he knows that it is.  That would be the birth certificate that Mr. Sandeen has claimed shows that he is a "woman born woman."  Seriously, you can't make this stuff...not that ANYONE with a brain would want to.

Then he carries on about some crazy idea that the people at TI-SI came up with called "Transsexual Independence Day." Somehow, I managed to miss that one. Now, why Sandeen even bothers to bring this up is puzzling. As I said, he carries on in the comment section about "straw arguments," and refers to "Transsexual Independence Day" as a non sequitur, but his bringing it up is both. I had never even heard of it, and Elizabeth at Notes from the T Side basically posted an article that exposed the silliness of the who concept. It is not a surprise that it never went anywhere.

That's the problem with Mr. Sandeen's article.  It attacks me, and others, for something we don't do, have never claimed to do, links us to things we either opposed, or were not even aware of, and of course, does all of this to the glory of Mr. Sandeen.  

If he wants to go to Sacramento with other men in dresses, clomp around to various legislative offices, and get laughed at behind his back (you know they howled about his silly beret) that is his right.  Me, I will just sit back and wait for it all to blow up in his face.

Oh, and in a rather bizarre bit of absurdist theater, he posted a picture of himself, stuffing his face with Cheetos, which has a weird tag about "the blogging standard of blogging in one's PJs from one's mother's basement."  I'm not quite sure what that is supposed to imply, but my mother passed on over 25 years ago, and I live on the second floor of my building.  

As I say, whatever Mr. Sandeen is on, I do hope his friends will stage an intervention before he suffers any further brain damage.

In The Middle....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

effeminate 
adjective

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Buffalo Sandeen,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Avoiding the Real Issue

A week or so ago, "Cristan" Williams, self-appointed alpha gender fascist, was crowing about how he had been asked to take over as managing editor of Transadvocate by Marti Abernathey. Well, now Mr. Williams has posted one of his typical bits of drivel...and it is certainly destined to be a classic example of his skill at avoiding the real issue.

Titled Insidious: Extreme Pressures Faced by Trans People, it starts off with this rather ominous sounding lead paragraph:

Studies show that the trans population lives under extreme psychological pressures unseen in even active military personnel. Fifty-five percent of trans people [1,2] were found to live with social anxiety. Within the general American population, similar types of anxiety are experienced by only 6.8% [3] of the population while these levels of anxiety were found to exist at a rate of 8.2% among military personal.

Wow, sounds horrible, doesn't it?  Those poor, oppressed "trans people"...  What Mr. Williams does not mention is the fact that the vast, overwhelming majority of "trans people," who are living with this terrible social anxiety, choose to be "trans people," and are, as a matter of choice, acting in a manner that they know is contrary to social norms.  In another words, it is their own fault.

In fact, I would venture to say that the percentage of so-called "trans people" who actually suffer from social anxiety is actually higher, as it is possible that the statistics cited my well include more than a few transsexuals who might not actually share the same issues as "transgender" people.

Think about it.  The people Mr. Williams is talking about are overwhelmingly men, who choose to engage in behavior that is offensive to a majority of society, and which is actually intended, by choice, to offend others.  These are not innocent victims.  Their identity is rooted in transgressive behavior.  They could easily avoid much of the problems they face, if they chose to, but for various reasons they prefer engaging in the very behavior that results in their social anxiety.  Worse, people like Mr. Williams refuse to compromise to protect the safety and comfort of women.  They prefer a world where the ladies restroom is wide open to men, with no regard for privacy or safety of women, even though the boys in dresses like Mr. Williams demand to be accepted, and treated, as "women," well at least as "trans women."

Now, these are not people who are actually trying to become women.  Their identity is as "trans women" which means that they have to hang on to their identify as men, in addition to their supposed identity as women.  They are, more often than not, demanding that society accept them as "women with penises."  I remember reading about this in Robert Stoller's book Sex and Gender: On the Development of Masculinity and Femininity. At the time, I thought the idea was absurd, but I have come to realize that there is at least some truth there. I mean, there is really no other way to explain the behavior of kooks like "Autumn" Sandeen, "Monica" Roberts, and others. They revel in their penises even as they claim, quite humorously, to be women.

 And yet, we are supposed to believe that these perverts are victims of discrimination. Again, they choose to engage in behavior that most people will find disturbing, but they are the victims. And yes, in spite of denials, like one posted on Transadvocate, for the transgender crowd, it is a choice. The denials are billed as "humor" and perhaps they are, because they are certainly not related to reality. The first talks about trying to achieve passability.  

Seriously, so many transgender types may imagine that they actually pass, but they are often mistaken. And even the ones who look reasonably credible lose any hope of "passing" the moment they start talking. It does not take long to realize that they are not women mentally. Their thoughts and behavior are 100% male.

The next reason given is cost. Of course, this does not remotely apply to transgender people who have no plans to actually transition. And for many, the costs of things like hormones are relatively negligible.

The third reason is "success." That transgender people lose out on jobs and such. Of course, again, this is not true for those not full time. And the number of transgender activists who are on disability, usually for mental health issues, speaks for itself.

The next two have to do with being forced to "explain" and being "gossiped" about. Hello? Look at the behavior we are talking about. This is what they are LOOKING FOR!!! They want the attention being "transgender" attracts.

The sixth reason speaks of having exhausted reasonable options. This of course is typical transgender co-opting of transsexual's experiences. Yes, for those of us who are transsexual, this is true. We reach our limit, after having led very miserable lives. For the men in dresses crowd, after long, successful careers, during which their crossdressing is a part time hobby, they decide to go full bore. They were not desperate. They just decide that the thrills need to be upped.

In the seventh reason, the person whines about how much harder it is to be a woman. This, of course, is also part of the motivation. For a transgender, the "lower status" is part of the game. Ever notice how transgender types seem to be very chauvinistic men? They think being at a lower status make them more "womanly" and they delight in it.

The eighth reason has to do with being alone. Again, a transgender trying to co-opt something that some transsexuals experience. Yes, dating can be hard. Then again, since my surgery, I have never revealed my past to anyone I dated. Now, if you are "out, loud, and proud" you might well attract chasers, of which their are plenty. But most of the men in dresses crowd are into women, and unless they can find someone who is as perverted as they are, or who has such low self-esteem that they will put up with a boyfriend who calls himself a woman, they are generally out of luck. But then again, they are the woman of their own dreams. For them, this is about sex, and well...I really don't want to go there. Disgusting.

The final reason is pain. Again, if you are a transsexual, yes, you may go through some pain. Surgery does hurt. Electrolysis is no fun. But for the men in dresses crowd, surgery is not a serious option, and increasingly, they don't bother with electrolysis. I mean, why give up that option of really freaking people out?

Interestingly, I worked with some of the people involved with one of the studies Mr. Williams cites. I conducted surveys, and I know the sort of people who were questioned. A lot of my opinions on "transgender" silliness came out of that experience. I saw first hand the sort of people Mr. Williams is trying to claim are "really women." Interestingly enough, you don't see the same sort of thing with FTM transsexuals. Most of them simply transition, and get on with their lives. There are a few rare exceptions, but most of them can easily assimilate and move on with their lives. Those who choose otherwise tend to openly identify as "gender queer" and tend to claim a "none of the above" type of gender identity...insisting on silliness like "gender neutral" pronouns.

No, the "social stresses" are not because they are victims, it is largely because they are transgressing societal norms and experiencing the resistance that naturally follows such behavior.

The Radfems Have Some Good Points

I often state, only half-jokingly, that I am an extreme moderate, a member of the Radical Middle, the Far Center.  By that, I mean that I tend to disagree with those who are extremists. For example, I have a lot of disagreement with both extremists on both sides of the abortion issue.  I believe that abortion should be illegal except in cases of rape, incest (which I consider to be a form of rape), and to save the life of the mother.  I do not believe that women who have abortions should be prosecuted for doing so.  I believe that adoption is a superior alternative to abortion, and was once rather vulgarly attacked by someone (a note left on my windshield) because I had a bumper stick that read, "Don't Abort, I'll Adopt."  I have also been attacked by those who think I am a just too darned liberal on the issue because I don't favor executing women who have abortions, or think that abortion should be illegal, even if the mother's life is in danger (somehow it is lost on those extremists that the child will almost certainly die as well as the mother).  But, such is the nature of extremists.  I can respect your right to disagree, but I expect the same in return.

I feel the same way whenever a group of radical feminists start blindly attacking "transgender" people.  They tend to take a very broad brush approach.  But, I also find that the truth, again, falls somewhere in the middle.  The Radfems, as they are known, have some views that are, unfortunately, rooted in ignorance.  A lot of their philosophy is rooted in the rejection of a biological basis for gender.  To them, it is all nurture, and no nature.  Men and women are different because of social environment.  And yet, they also seem to take a "biology is destiny" view that rivals that of some on the extreme Right.  They push the idea that gender is oppression, but they wish to oppress those who feel their gender does not actually match their body.

Now, as I say, they have some good points.  The fact is, sadly, the vast majority of so-called "transwomen" (a term I don't care for) may be "trans" but they are not remotely women.  I am often amazed at how so many of them seem to take a surprisingly male approach to the act of "being a woman."  They seem "womanhood" as something to be taken by force, as an entitlement that they have a right to, and they attack anyone who has the audacity to challenge them on it.   

Just look at the behavior of the most extreme of transgender activists, like "Autumn" Sandeen, who decided that having himself castrated entitles him to claim that he is now a "womon born womon" (and yes, he actually used that spelling) and that he just might show up at the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival.  Look at "Colleen" Francis, and his supporters who think that a "transwoman's" right to flash his penis around a women's locker room trumps the rights of the women.  Even if young girls are involved.  Look at the style of "Cristan" Williams, and how his writing seems more that of a man trying to shove his views down women's throats than anything else.  He loves to gloat, strutting like a Banty rooster" when he imagines he has scored a victory (which is usually more imaginary than real, as he tends to present straw arguments and then ignore any refutation of his silliness).  I still get a laugh from his silly response when I refused to let him set the terms of a debate.  He refused to continue, and accused me of "the Jennifer Shuffle."  How, classically male, but not unusual.

And don't even get me started on the absurd, stereotypical way many transgender men (i.e. transwomen) think real women should behave.  Just check out a video or two of Mr. Sandeen flouncing around in one of his outfits.  It is an insult to women, period.  I remember once, a person who, in retrospect, was more likely transgender than transsexual, commented to me, "You dress like a housewife."  It was meant as a criticism, but I took it as a compliment.  I also remember, after attending a Halloween event at a local LGBT center, being told that several had wondered why a "straight woman" was there with her daughter.  Again, I took it as a compliment.    That is, after all, what I am.  Not a drag queen, not some bizarre caricature of a woman who favors the label "transwoman" because I want to hang on to my past, but simply an ordinary, run of the mill, woman.

Unfortunately, like most extremists, the Radfems paint with a broad brush.  And, unfortunately, they follow the transgender approach of lumping transsexuals in under the "umbrella" that is "transgender."  This is largely because they don't want to believe that there is a biological basis for transsexualism, which would refute their position that men and women are exactly the same emotionally and mentally, except where differentiated by nurture, even though that is clearly an invalid position.  But, when it comes to the behavior of the transgender, they are dead on.  Any woman should be offended by much of the behavior of transgender extremists, not just the Radfems, and no one should attack them for expressing such offense.  But Heaven help anyone who actually finds fault with transgender behavior.  Even if they are right on many of their points.

A Dose of Reality

Well, the City of San Francisco has announced that it will now offer SRS (though they are apparently, and quite ignorantly, calling it "gender reassignment surgery") to those covered by the City's "Health San Francisco (HSF)" health care plan.  HSF basically replaced what used to be called "Community Health Network," which provided medical for those who are uninsured and unable to pay for their own care.  It is a bit more formalized, and instead of the usual "sliding scale" used in most locations, it is more like an HMO.

The reaction to the article in the San Francisco Chronicle should act as a wake up call for the transgender extremists, but, of course, they will probably continue as cluelessly as usual.  At the time of writing this, there are 333 comments, almost all of which are negative, and many of which, including some from gay males, are downright hateful.  Granted, the comments also show an overwhelming degree of complete ignorance of the subject.

The facts are simple.  Very few people, relatively speaking, actually seek sex reassignment surgery.  Even when it is offered to them on the proverbial silver platter.  Most will find an excuse why they will "wait," even if they try to avoid coming right out and admitting that they have absolutely no desire to give up their penis.  I worked with a number of "transgender" people when I received my surgery, which was covered by insurance.  Most of the people I worked with failed to have the surgery, even though they all, initially, claimed they would rush to have it.  One other co-worker actually had the surgery, and one FTM co-worker had chest surgery.  The rest did not even seriously make an effort to check it out.  Similar results occurred when San Francisco became the first municipality to offer the surgery to its employees.  There were actually very few takers.

Some of the comments on the Chronicle's website predicted that the rush to have the surgery would bankrupt the City.  It was even suggested by a few idiots that San Francisco will fall victim to "medical tourists" who will drop in, have a sex change, and return home.  Never mind the fact that the process will probably take months, if not years, to complete.  When I had my surgery, I had already been seeing a therapist for over a year, and even then, my case had to be presented to a committee for consideration.  I was quickly approved, but it was not automatic.  I imagine a similar approach will be used by Healthy San Francisco.  In any case, I would also assume that anyone seeking coverage will be required to meet the full Standards of Care.

The comments also included the usual comments about how the surgery is "elective," "cosmetic," and "unnecessary,"  Amazingly, there were few objections raised.  I had no desire to get involved in the fight, but I doubt the vast majority of "transgender" activists even care, and many are probably, at least secretly, hoping that the naysayers will actually succeed and spare them all having to explain why they are not rushing to have the surgery now that it is suddenly "affordable.

I seriously doubt there will be any flood of transgender people to San Francisco in search of free SRS.  A few may come here, but there simply are not that many who want the surgery to begin with.  

But it will be an embarrassment for the "people would have the surgery, but they can't afford it" crowd.  And the transgender extremists who think there is widespread acceptance should read some of the comments.  They are not nearly as "accepted" as they think.  And yes, they really are doing harm to true transsexuals.  What should be a "no-brainer" is being treated as an outrage by people who have no real idea of what is going on.

A Likely Fraud About Voter Fraud

Since I registered to vote when I turned 18, I have only missed voting twice.  Once was a very minor race where I didn't know anything about the two people running, and honestly had no idea which I should vote for.  It was a special election, with only one office on the ballot, and well, to be honest, I completely forgot about it until it was too late.  The other time was during a presidential primary, and I was a poll watcher.  I had not planned on doing it, but the person we had assigned to a particular location turned out to be a complete kook, and we had to get him out of there before things got out of hand.  He was claiming voter fraud repeatedly, and without good cause.  The funny thing was, there was real voter fraud during that election, but it was of a completely different nature.  I believe strongly in the right to vote, and I also believe that voter fraud should be dealt with severely.

That said, I have been amused by the hysterics coming out of the National Center for Transgender Equality.  They have been claiming that the above image from the cover of a training guide put out by a right wing group proves that they plan to target transgender voters.    At least three of the kookiest transgender blogs have featured this story.  Now, let me say, right off the bat, that I have no idea what the training material actually says.  I can't find a copy of it online.  But, I also suspect that the NCTE also does not know, OR, if they do know they might be engaged in a bit of fraud themselves.  Funny, but I have seen no one provide anything other than this cover image as proof of their allegations.  If the guide includes specific instructions to target transgender men, you would think they would want to quote it in  detail...

Now, what I see is a suggestion, perhaps meant to be humorous, perhaps meant to be serious, that some man might dress up as a woman, so he could vote fraudulently, possibly using the name of a person who is deceased.  That seems a lot more reasonable than some alleged plot to prevent transgender men from voting.  Let's face it, they're not that big a voter bloc, and it would not be worth the effort.

But truth rarely serves the purposes of extremists, so a silly claim is made, based on a humorous image.  If they don't have full access to the content of the training material, they should not be making a claim based on an assumption.  And if they do have full access, and it does not say what they claim, then they are guilty of fraud themselves.

But I do suspect this is making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Bottom line, regardless of how you lean, you should get out and vote.  

Hit A Nerve...Again

Well, in my article on depathologization I mentioned Suzan Cooke, and somewhat predictably, Cooke has responded with another rant.  Well, I can always tell when I really hit a nerve.  The angrier Cooke is, the more rambling Cooke's rant becomes.  This one is especially bizarre.

As I have observed, Cooke does not like any criticism.  Cooke seems to be afraid of her ideas being challenged, and goes to serious lengths to avoid actually having to defend them.  Simply put, Cooke apparently fears the truth.

What really disturbs Cooke, though she will deny it vehemently, is that some of us see through her silliness.  Cooke has serious issues, and hides behind a facade of radical chic
to avoid facing them.  Cooke was a cradle Roman Catholic, which must have been hard.  Of course, Rome teaches that it holds absolute authority in spiritual matters.  If Rome says you are a sinner, well, you are supposed to accept it without question.  Cooke couldn't, and so Cooke rebelled.  But rebelling is not always so easy. 

Cooke could not reconcile her feelings with the teachings of the Church, so Cooke simply rejected God, who in Cooke's mind is at fault, and did the worst thing she could think of.  She told Him she no longer believes in Him.  I guess that is supposed to show Him who's boss...  I always feel sorry for the angry atheist, shaking a fist in God's face, and screaming "I don't believe in You!  So, there!!!"  And yes, I see the contradiction...they try not to.

I think part of Cooke's problem is, she doesn't realize that I see her as more of a clown than anything else.  A sad clown, granted, but a self-parody that becomes more and more irrelevant with each rant.

Cooke has always tried, somewhat successfully, to cultivate a cult of personality.  Years ago, Cooke was a terror on Usenet, sitting in judgement on those she deemed less worthy.  I recall her referring to transssexuals who remained married to spouses as "skin transvestites."  One in particular, was regularly tormented by Cooke.  Years later, that same sad case still clings to Cooke's every word.  A crumb of approval from Cooke is all she seeks...

I admit, I feel prey to this a bit myself.  Then I realized Cooke is, well, more Kook than anything else.  A sad, insecure soul, trying to relive some imagined glory from the past.  And facing the fact that more and more realize that she is not so wise after all.

The real irony in this latest post is Cooke's attempt to link me to the Tea Party.  Now, that is a real hoot for one simple reason.  I see Cooke, and the Tea Party in much the same way.  Two extremes, both wrong.  You see, in politics, the truth is in the middle, not at the extremes.  Cooke is at one erroneous extreme, and the Tea Party is at the other.  And worse, the extremes are often closer to each other than to the Center.

I remember a guy I knew in the mid-Seventies.  He was a bit of a hanger-on during the Jimmy Carter campaign.  A lot like Cooke, he fancied himself an uber-radical, and bragged about his radical history.  He used to go hang out at the John Birch Society headquarters where he discussed the Illuminati with the Right Wing kooks.  They were coming from opposite extremes, but they were both so far gone that they actually had a lot in common.

So no, I am not Tea Party, or anywhere near Cooke politically.

But i am more than a bit amused...and now awaiting Cooke's next angry rant...but no, I will not be silenced.

Cooke Joins the Borg

Suzan Cooke created a silly term known as "Women Born Transsexual."  It is silly, because it is rooted in radical feminist "Womyn Born Womyn" meme.  Cooke was clearly trying to suck up to what are now referred to commonly as "radfems."  I think Cooke should start using "Dudes Born Transgender" because that is what Cooke seems, more and more, to be a part of.

I mean seriously, Cooke is attacking Ashley Love now.  I always wondered if Cooke had some sort of need to be the Alpha Transsexual, and now I know.  Cooke would rather be adored and worshipped than be right.  Cooke originally accepted the term "Harry Benjamin Syndrome," but then turned on it when it became a serious challenge to the WBT meme.  Cooke does not like competition.

Cooke generally has been lashing out at anyone who staunchly defends transsexuals against the silliness of what Cooke labeled the "Transgender Borg."  Now, Cooke has created a "Transsexual Borg," to attack, while increasingly defending the "Transgender Borg?"  Why might this be?

Because no one with a shred of intelligence can possibly Cooke seriously anymore.  Oh, Cooke has a few followers, but I have to wonder why they would take anything Cooke says seriously.  Cooke's politics are what some would term "loony Left."  Cooke has lost all sense of reality, and espouses politics that make little real sense. 

I actually kind of pity Cooke.  Cooke claims to have done certain things, and I have no real reason to question them, but I do suspect that the memories a bit more grandiose than the reality.  Cooke's ego needs a regular boost, and it appears that Cooke is finding that from the transgender crowd, and as this happens, and transsexuals distance themselves from Cooke (well, at least the real ones) Cooke turns more and more into the Borg Queen, which I suppose, is what Cooke actually craves.  

Cooke is so obsessed with radical politics, so determined to be at odds with anything that might remotely be seen as acceptable to the mainstream, that Cooke has become, in effect, if not completely, a transgender person.  Cooke is no longer about having a need to transition, and get on with one's life. Instead, Cooke is coming to embrace the transgression model that is pushed by the likes of "Cristan" Williams, and "Autumn" Sandeen.

It's sad in a way...I could laugh off, and at, Cooke's ridiculous political views.  But Cooke's views on transsexualism, that is another matter...  And all, so Cooke can be the Alpha Tranny.  

But I do want to think Cooke for the lovely compliment, connecting me to Ashley Love. Ashley, of course, is welcome to comment here whenever she wants.  Then again, Cooke is as well, though I know Cooke never plays in a playground that Cooke doesn't have control over, or at least where Cooke knows the moderator will prevent anyone from seriously challenging Cooke's views.

A quick update:  When I first saw Cooke's post, I got the impression that Ashley had said something about one of Cooke's new friends over in the Dude Born Transsexual group.  Instead, it appears that Ashley actually stood up to Cooke, and took Cooke to task for some nasty things Cooke had said (Note:  Cooke's Rule is "Do what I say, not what I do.  I insult whoever I wish, but woe to the person who insults me!"  Since Cooke did not let the comment through, I have no idea what was actually said...but I imagine it was more a minor disagreement than an actual insult.  Cooke's ego is extremely fragile, and the slightest challenge is more than Cooke can handle.

I know this personally.  I was a member of Cooke's Women Born Transsexual mailing list.  I made the mistake of unknowingly making a suggestion that Cooke would go ballistic over (the idea of hiring a non-transsexual woman as a spokesperson for transsexuals.  Cooke blew up, I didn't immediately beg forgiveness, but allowed that some might disagree, and the next thing I knew, it was like something out the Cultural Revolution.  I was summarily found guilty of, I guess, being counter-revolutionary, and booted from the group.  It was a bit surreal, but I moved on, and put it behind me.  Then, when Cooke started the "Women Born Transsexual" blog, I extended a welcome, and was promptly told, rather profanely, what Cooke thought of me.  That pretty much sums up why no one with a working brain cell should ever take Cooke seriously.  Extreme is one thing, but Cooke went off the deep end a long time ago, and seems to like it there.