Finally, a Bit of Common Sense!

I just saw a news report that the murderer Robert "Michelle" Kosilek's appeal to have sex reassignment surgery paid for by the Massachusetts' Department of Corrections has been denied by the Supreme Court.  Basically, the High Court simply declined to hear the appeal, allowing the lower court's ruling denying the surgery to stand.

Kosilek had brutally murdered his wife, and then claimed he had started transition, though there was no evidence that he had.  He had previously had a court order that he immediately receive the surgery, but thankfully sanity has resulted in it being finally, and for the foreseeable future, denied.

This case, among others, has been a major cause for a number of transgender extremists, who will no doubt be heartbroken that Mr. Kosilek will not be rewarded for having murdered his wife.

 

Surgery for Kosilek? No WAY!!!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Curious Discovery

While dealing with the unfortunate incident with the autogynephile who calls himself Dev (and no I am not using male pronouns because he disagree with me, but because he showed himself to be classically male) I discovered that I had "spam" comments in my spam filter.  I had never even bothered checking, since I did not expect anything to be there.

Much to my further surprise, I discovered that a number of them were repeats of a single comment from none other than "Autumn" Sandeen, the noted gender fascist and eunuch.  The comments were in response to my challenge to his attempt to obtain a passport as a "female" by taking advantage of an outrageous loophole provided by the Obama administration that allows men who can get a doctor to write a note to fraudulently claim to be females.

Mr. Sandeen proceeded to whine about how he was just following the new rules, and was not claiming to have actually completed changing his sex.

Now, I admit, he has a point...as well as a "pointer" but that comment now seems awfully ironic in light of his actual fraudulent act of obtaining a California birth certificate as a female.  Unlike Federal regulations (which can, and probably will be changed by a future administation, California law does not really allow a man, with a penis, to claim to be a woman.  In fact, here in San Francisco, where you would expect the rules to be the loosest, the paperwork specifically states that you must have completed sex reassignment surgery,  None of this "completed transition" silliness that Sandeen's fraud involved.

So, he not only did what he denied he was doing with the passport application, he bragged about it online.  I wonder...if Sandeen is ever arrested and prosecuted for his perjury, will he claim that his birth certificate entitles him to serve his time in a women's prison?

A "Legal" Fiction

Let me start off by saying that I have no objections to same-sex marriage.  I have friends who are married to members of the same-sex, and I was even the photographer at one such wedding.  


But, the law is the law, and "Autumn" Sandeen, who has taken advantage of a loophole in California law to perpetuate what is, effectively, a fraud, is making a claim that is, at best, untested, and is probably a complete load of crap.  Sandeen, who is now claiming to be "legally female" claims that he can enter into a "heterosexual" marriage with a man.  First off, either Sandeen has gone completely delusional, is completely ignorant, or is just plain dishonest.  If Sandeen was able to find some poor fool willing to marry him, it would not be a heterosexual marriage (Sandeen still has a penis, and two people with penises do not a heterosexual couple make.) and I honestly wonder, if such a marriage occurred, if it would be remotely legal in California, or any other state that currently does not recognize same-sex marriages.


I mean seriously, does Sandeen really think a piece of paper changes anything?  If he died, I seriously doubt his death certificate would record him as a female.  If he is arrested, his piece of paper is not going get him a bunk in a women's prison.  He is still a male, no matter what him, his delusions, or a judge in San Diego might say.  And no, his piece of paper is not going to get him admission to women's only space.  


Nope, Sandeen is still a male, and he is still a man.  Even if he decides, at some future point, to go further and have full SRS, he will still be a man.  You can't change the brain, and in Sandeen's case, that is 100% all-American male.  No matter what he wants to claim.


About all Sandeen's silliness accomplishes is an increase in the possibility of backlash against transsexuals who actually are post-op.   


Oh, and apparently kudos to Cathy Brennan, who it appears made an effort to talk some sense to the court, though sadly, she was unsuccessful.

The Issue of Rape

I read a lot of blogs. Sometimes I find new ones as links on other blogs. One I found this way is "Bird of Paradox," which is listed on Suzan Cooke's blog roll at "Women Born Transsexual." Now, there was a recent article there that dealt with the case in England where a "pre-op transsexual" who is serving a life sentence was moved from a men's prison to a women's one. Part of the reasoning was that being in a men's prison prevented this person from completing the real life test in order to have sex reassignment surgery.

Now, this is the sort of thing that might seem worthy of celebration as an enlightened view of the medical necessity of medical treatment for those with HBS. It might, but the facts of the case actually show that it is outrageous.

You see, the prisoner in question was convicted of manslaughter and attempted rape. Now, under English law, manslaughter has a different meaning than it does in the United States. The exact details of the case are not clear, but it is entirely possible that the death occurred in the process of attempting the rape, and that the rape is "attempted" only because the victim died before actually being violated. Such a case would be considered "involuntary manslaughter" if the death was not intended, but could still result in a life sentence given the seriousness of the crime in process when the death occurred. This seems the most likely scenario given that the court decision refers to a conviction, not convictions.

Now, the author of Bird of Paradox was quite thrilled at the decision. I tried to post a comment pointing out that it seems questionable that a man who is capable of such a violent act is actually a transsexual, and that such a person should definitely not be allowed to be present in a women's prison while still an intact male. My comment was not allowed because I was "ungendering" this person. In a follow-up email, the author pointed out that "Prisoner B" "has been granted a Gender Recognition Certificate which makes her legally a woman." The author simply cannot see that there might be a danger to the women this person might be incarcerated with.

Now, as bad as the above is, a newer post on Bird of Paradox serves to show the true absurdity of the transgender mindset. It seems that there is a "Feminism in London 09 event." The author expresses concern that this event might not be welcoming to "trans women."

Any trans woman seeing that will surely already hear the alarm bells ringing. It shouldn’t need restating that the word “woman” defaults to meaning “cis woman” and excludes trans women as a consequence. And “pro-feminist man”? I wonder if that includes trans men?

Now, I identify as a woman, not a "trans woman," so I would not be disturbed by such a remark. If there was something that interested me, I would have no qualms about attending.

But what really upsets the author of Bird of Paradox is the fact that a "Rape and sexual violence workshop is for "women born women" only.

Now first off, it is just possible that this is simply because it avoids the sticky issue of determining who might, or might not, have a penis. After all, in the transgender mindset, "women can have penises, and even wish to keep those penises." And it is just possible that a group of women discussing an issue like rape and sexual violence might not wish to have men who are capable of engaging in that behavior present simply because they are wearing a dress.

Or, just possibly these women see a very simple fact that is obvious to me. Given that the author of "Bird of Paradox" claims to be a spokesperson for "trans women," and given the cluelessness of this person with regards to putting an intact male, convicted of manslaughter and attempted rape in a women's prison, it is just possible that they might possibly view "trans women" as not being welcome in such a discussion. I know I would certainly not want someone with that sort of mentality present.

Just to make it clear...rape is not a sexual crime. It is a crime of violence. A rapist uses his penis as a weapon against a woman. It is not about sexual desire, but about a desire for the ultimate domination and humiliation of a woman. In an intimate discussion of this issue, I doubt many women would want someone who is incapable of understanding this to be present.

The Reason Why...

The issue has been raised over why many who identify as HBS or classic transsexuals object so strongly to the efforts of transgender activists. The implication is often made that we are somehow elitist and hateful to the efforts to of what I have termed the gender fascists. Well, as story out of England is the perfect example of what is truly wrong with the efforts of the transgender types. Here is one version:

'Prisoner A' is legally female, and being held in a men's prison
A trans woman, serving a life-sentence for manslaughter and attempted
rape claims the court denying her application for residence in a
women's prison violates her human rights.

The prisoner, who for legal reasons can only be identified as
'Prisoner A,' placed an application to a UK court to be relocated to a
women's prison but had her request declined.

Prisoner A has already successfully had her gender officially
recognisd by law, having her birth certificate updated under the
Gender Recognition Act 2004. She has had laser hair removal on her
face and legs as well as developeing breasts following hormone
treatment.

Addressing the High Court, the woman's lawyer stated that 'keeping her
in a men's prison was a violation of the right to respect for her
private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human
Rights.' Prisoner A watched the proceedings from prison via video
link.

The lawyer told the court Prisoner A was desperate to get her gender
reassignment surgery, but that medics refused to perform the procedure
until she had lived as a woman for a significant amount of time, which
would only be possible in a women's prison.

'A' has been forbidden from wearing any female clothing such as skirts
or blouses, and anything more than 'subtle makeup', even though she is
being held in the vulnerable prisoner's wing.

Prison staff and authorities argue that she will be no better off in a
women's prison and that, if moved, she would have to spend long
periods in segregation at an extra cost of £80,000 per year

The hearing has been adjourned to a later date.

This is exactly the sort of thing that the gender fascists would love to impose on the United States. Thankfully, they have been largely unsuccessful in their radical attempts to pressure states to allow pre-ops or even those who have no intention of ever seeking sex reassignment to change their birth certificates. To say that "Prisoner A" is legally a woman is an outrage. First off, this person is physically a male. And quite obviously, in spite of claims to the contrary, this person is also mentally a man. Women might commit murder, but the idea that someone who would commit a rape, which is a violent crime where a man seeks the ultimate domination over a woman, might be mentally a female is absurd. This person is obviously in need of serious help, but sex reassigment is not what is needed.

And worse, to even suggest that such a person should be allowed to be placed in a women's prison is totally beyond the pale. Beyond the fact that he is still physically a male, there is also the fact that he would clearly be a danger to those incarcerated there. But, I have little doubt that, if this case were in the United States, many, if not most, of the gender fascists would be fighting for his right to claim to be a woman.

And that is why it is important to continue to oppose them and their efforts to redefine concepts that no one has seriously doubted since mankind began.

.
.