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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here We Go Again

Oh well, Mr. "Zierota" Slingen wasted no time in responding to my article on his latest diatribe, and boy, is the new one a mess…

He starts out by taking me to task for violating the imaginary "first rule" of the imaginary "transgender community."  That is, according to him, I misgendered him.  Now, where to begin?  Where to begin…?  

Well, let's see, first off, I am not a member of his imaginary community.  I am not, as I have stated more than once, "transgender."  So, that's his first problem.  The second, and it's a trivial one, is that "misgender" is not a real word.  Oh, he offers up a definition from the Wiktionary, but that is not exactly an authoritative source.  So, some transgender kook put it up there…that does not make it a real word.  And finally, and more to the point, I did not "misgender" him.  I actually, simply, pointed of a fact.

Now he makes the assertion, that, I am "probably going to continue calling me mr. Slingen even if I do get SRS or start being nice to him again with the "correct" gender pronouns."  No, I will call him "Mr. Slingen."  I know how to properly use the English language, including the rules of capitalization.  And I could care less what he calls me, as it changes nothing,  But, more to the point is the little slip he makes here…"even if I do get SRS…"  He is probably not going to, "even if he does," which I honestly would urge him not to, it would be a mistake.  No transsexual would ever use such a phrase, but many crossdressers treat SRS as a fantasy.  If he did have surgery, it would be a mistake, and the results could well be tragic.

He goes on to argue…

I am a transwoman but I am also a woman. I know this because of my medical profile. I also feel that I am female, and people around me treat me like one as well. It feels right as much as it is right.

Well, "transwoman" is an oxymoron.  It is a silly word, coined by crossdressing men as a way of hanging on to their manhood.  They don't really want to be women, so they call themselves "transwomen" to remind themselves, and others, that they are really still men.  No Mr. Slingen, you have a penis, you cannot "feel" that you are female.  You might be able to con, force, bully, seduce, or otherwise persuade people to pander to your fantasies, but that is all they will ever be.  This is shown in your next statement…

I get a lot of responses from cis females who say things like "you're more of a woman than I am".

This is something women say to "men in dresses" sometimes, if they are trying to be nice.  It is a little white lie they say, rather than saying, "Good grief, you are such a pathetic joke…"  I mean, first off, they clearly know you are not a woman.  They are saying, "Hey man, you do a pretty good imitation of a woman…but…"  And the fact that they know you are a woman shows, if nothing else, you have let them know you are not a woman, because deep down, you don't really want to be one.

After this, Mr. Slingen goes off on a rant for a bit, but he is right…if you are a "non-op," that is, if you want to keep your penis, yes, I consider you to be a man.  I simply don't buy into the silliness of "women with penises."  You can believe what you want, but I am not going to be bullied into playing along.

Now, Mr. Slingen accuses me of using a "straw man argument" because I point out that his position is one that does away with any serious meaning for sex.  I never stated that he has said he does not believe in sex, but I have shown that his position is, effectively, that sex is is not real.  If a female can have a penis, or a man can have a baby (and both of these are solid platforms of the transgender paradigm), then sex becomes meaningless.  And clearly, that is Mr. Slingen's position, and clearly, Mr. Slingen is delusional.  No, I did not make a straw man argument…though, Mr. Slingen did just that in his accusation.

From there, he launches off into another incoherent rant, including such gems as accusing me of going to "thousands" of forums to convince people I have had SRS (huh?)  and that I called him illiterate.  Uh, first off, I have posted on hundreds of forums, let alone thousands.  Second, I would never say that he is illiterate (an absurd suggestion) but I did point out that his, and pretty much everyone else at Shame On You Transgender Edition seems to have a very poor grasp of grammar.

Now, to recap…if you have a penis, and you want to keep it, you are, simply put, a man.  You are not a woman, you are not a transsexual, you are a man.  You may be a crossdresser, you can identify as transgender, you can call yourself whatever you want, but you are, and always will be a man.  And if you have a male brain, you will still be a man, even if you have SRS.  How you look, how you talk, how you walk, have nothing to do with being a woman.  I have seen some incredible looking drag queens, I have known men (who identify as men) with voices that would fool anyone, and I have seen some sashay about a room with a walk that would put any exotic dancer to shame.  But they will tell you in a heartbeat, that they are men.  And I have seen some pretty ugly women, who are most assuredly women, born women, who have given birth to children.

BTW, that is another common trait of the classic transgender.  They love to make a big deal out of attractiveness.  I make no claim of being a great beauty.  I'm a fairly plain woman.  Once, just for laughs, I posted my picture on a site called "Hot, Or Not?"  There you could be rated on a 1 to 10 scale.  I scored about 7, with it ranging from 3 to even an 8 or 9.  I got an occasional insult, and more than a few guys showing interest (sadly none near enough to be worth following up with.  But I am perfectly okay being a plain woman.  Most women are.  I would be okay with being an ugly woman, rather than being a drop dead gorgeous crossdresser…not, of course, that anyone on Shame On You Transgender is.  They really have no business throwing stones at anyone…  But, I would expect nothing better.  After all, I imagine Forrest Gump's mamma would have said, "Transgender is, as transgender does…."

Out, Loud, Proud, and Yet...Making Excuses

I always get a bit of a chuckle when a "non-op" starts making excuses and trying to explain how they are "just as much of a woman" as a post-op, and how having a penis does not make them a man, and how they would have the surgery, but...

I mean, they tell us how "out, loud, and proud" they are, but then they start up with lame excuses.  The simple face is, they are not transsexuals (transsexuals change their sex), they are really not women (women don't want to have a penis attached to their body), and they are apparently not really all that proud (since they have to make an excuse for not being a transsexual or a woman...

The latest example of this comes from one of the kooks at Shame on You Transgender Edition in the guise of a rant about bathrooms.  Yes, another member of the "NPA" (the National Penis Association whose motto is "You will take my penis when you pry my cold dead fingers from it...." who is trying to tell us how he is "not really a man," has every right to invade the ladies room (in spite of being quite obviously male...and unable to pass by his own admission) and that he does not need surgery.  He even tries to shame anyone who would point out this fact...

Yes, a person who calls himself "Jacqueline" Waters has posted a rant about bathrooms.  In it, he drags out the usual lame tropes...and shows the usual lack of understanding so common among transgender extremists...

You see there is a whole faction of people (even within our own community) that think that GENDER and SEX are the same thing, when clearly they are NOT the same thing.

We all know the problem, but what I don't understand is the reasoning. You see there is one camp that thinks that gender is based on parts. Well that gets a bit crazy when you start looking at just the cis gender group now doesn't it? Are you telling me that a woman who has had a hysterectomy is no longer a female?

Uh, no one is remotely claiming such a thing...  This, of course, is a classic straw man argument.  Make up something no one has said, and then "refute" it.  Just wait, he will repeat this again... 

What about someone who has had cancer and has had a double mastectomy? Is she suddenly NOT a woman? You know since the qualification is on parts.

  And again... 

On the other hand what about that soldier who was deployed and ran across an IED (Improvised Explosive Device) who managed to survive but has lost everything below the waist? Yes, such persons exist. Is this person now no longer a man because he lost his male sex organs to shrapnel? Is he now a woman? 

 And again...

What about a victim of Lorena Bobbit? If a man gets his unit cut off is he now a woman suddenly? See, when you start looking at this the whole notion that parts= gender becomes quite silly now doesn't it?

And again...

And each time, he misses several important points.  First off, he is trying to claim that sex and gender are not the same thing.  Most agree on this...  Sex is, as they say, what is between your legs, and gender is what is between your ears.  Except, well, in both cases it is about sexual differentiation, and it is based on hormones.  And, it is related.  You see, if your brain really is female, you will not feel comfortable with male genitalia.  You like your penis...you want to keep your penis...you are not driven by a strong need to be rid of your penis....you are a man, baby!

This, of course, is why women who lose their breasts, and men who lose their penises, don't suddenly "change sex."  Their brain is still what it was before.  And, more importantly, this is why the men in dresses crowd, like Mr. Waters here, and his compadres at Shame on You Transgender Edition will never be women (well, except for Ms. "Mark" Cummings, who will never be a man...  They have male brains, and they show it, over and over, and over...

And then he drags out the next transgender trope...

Then there is this unfounded notion that a bunch of men will slap on dresses just so they can take a peek at ladies in the restroom. Really?

Yes, really...

 A man is under arrest accused of violently attacking a woman inside a Clairemont Big Lots store. 

The attack took place Saturday. The woman says she was in the store's bathroom when the suspect, wearing a pink Barbie costume, attacked her.

That was in Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen's hometown, San Diego...I wonder if it was one of his buddies?

Perhaps he might want to rethink his position...

do you really think sexual predators are stopped because the sign says women? Do you think they would go through the trouble and embarrassment of going out in public in a dress just to take a peek at your vajayjay? Come on now, what fantasy world do you live in and btw what is stopping them from doing exactly that right now and how many cases has this happened in?

And there are other cases, such as the pervert "Colleen" Francis, registered sex offender "Paula" Witherspoon in Dallas, Texas just to name two more. 

Sexual predators aside, there is also the simple question of privacy.  Women don't want men in the bathroom with them.  And if, like Mr. Waters here, you have a penis, and you want to keep it, and especially if you are going to be SEEN as a man, you should just stay the hell out.

The reality is in every single instance that I have been misgendered not a single one of those people know what is or what is not in my undies. Nobody has ever sir's me one time based on what may or may not be between my legs..nobody has ever asked to see it before making up in their mind whether or not I am male or female....go figure.

Of course, in reality, "misgendering" Mr. Waters would mean calling him a "female," but I realize that he is not interested in reality.  Obviously, he is not going to, shall we say, "fit in" while visiting the ladies room...  But, he then goes on to make this absurdly clueless remark...

Another absurd idea is that Trans women who are non operative are suddenly going to be slinging out their dongs in semi private places like dressing rooms and bathrooms? REALLY?

Well, I hate to break it to him, but yes, he has happened, as in the case of the pervert "Colleen" Francis, and another well documented case from Canada, where a "trans woman" with a full on erection was bothering an older woman.  A case that, in spite of Mr. "Cristan" Williams' attempts to cover it up, has proven quite true.

Now, having made all these arguments, lame as they are, he finally gets down to the nitty-gritty of it.  He has a penis, he wants to keep it, and well, there are excuses to be made.

Also it is not always due to the cost as many have mentioned some would not have the surgery even if it were free. This is true..because often times it is not NECESSARY. Often people who have the surgery only do it because of these old laws and pressure from others in the community or society, not because they personally have that big of a problem having the extra appendage.

Okay, let's be clear on some things here...  Anyone who has SRS because "of these old laws and pressure from others in the community or society, not because they personally have that big of a problem having the extra appendage," is a fool.  Actually, while such a thing is possible, I would not remotely say it is often.  I agree, Mr. Waters should not have SRS.  He clearly does not need it or want it, and even if he had it, it would not make him a woman.  It would make him a very miserable man, albeit one with a vagina. 

And then he goes on to make more excuses...

These surgeries are life threatening like any other surgery, it is major and evasive and not to be taken lightly. Over 50% of the people who have the surgery can never ever orgasm again for the rest of their lives and the results typically (sometimes it is ok) rarely are satisfactory as far as appearance as well. There is still a LONG way to go before it is perfected if it ever will be and the risks are still extremely high. 

No, they are not life-threatening.  Yes, death is a risk with ANY surgery, even something simple.  Yes, there is a small risk of losing the ability to orgasm (nowhere NEAR 50%), and the claim that the results are rarely satisfactory as far as appearance is totally a lie.  We get it, Mr. Waters, you don't want surgery, and again, I agree, you SHOULDN'T HAVE SURGERY!!!!  You are a man, and having it would be a disaster for you.  But please, cut the crap...and stop lying.  Clearly, you don't want, don't need it, but deep down, you also know, you are not really a woman, and you can't stand that others, who you see as the same, are.

Get over it...

Separating Facts From Total and Complete Fabrication

As I said yesterday, the "trans panic" continues, and to be honest, it is getting pretty deep.  Mr. "Cristan" Williams is in overdrive pumping out the lies, straw man arguments, and such, and the sad thing is, he is just making the whole mess at the worse.

His latest bit of drivel would be hilarious if it were not so serious.  He has posted another straw man argument that seems to raise some serious questions about what really is going on in Florence, CO.  In his latest opinion piece masquerading as "news" he seems to claim that the police are investigating Pacific Justice Institute for "bullying."  What is actually said is very disturbing, if true.  Of course, like pretty much everything in this case, this bit of information comes from a biased source... Apparently Pacific Justice Institute has alleged that Superintendent Rhonda Vendetti has warned that "that the complaining families were now subject to having their social media monitored by police." Okay, there are basically three possibilities here...PJI has fabricated this claim, the superintendent is lying, or the police actually are engaged in outrageous, and illegal acts intended to repress free speech.  The one thing that is very clear is, well, as usual, Mr. Williams is lying again.  The parents are not Pacific Justice Institute, and the Florence Police would have no jurisdiction to investigate them for bullying (PJI Is located in California).  

Now, let's look at several facts, some of which have nothing to do with the Colorado case anyway:

First, in spite of what some want to believe, none of this is really about transsexuals.  Mr. Williams pretty much has shown outright disdain for transsexuals.  He is very focused on "transgender rights" which is an entirely different subject.  He is simply desiring to use a teenage student in Colorado to further a far more extreme political agenda, and apparently will use any sleazy trick he can dream up, including now attempting to buy the support of the parents.  Mr. Williams has started a fund raising drive to provide them with money.  I guess they have to be rewarded for allowing him to use their child.

The real issue is also not a high school student in Colorado.  It is about preserving a rather poorly written law in California.  Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen posted a rather telling comment.  He quotes the AB 1266's author who speaks of how various school districts have instituted "common sense" policies.  That is true.  For example, I did a little research, and found a news article from a local paper, The Canon County Daily Record, in Colorado about the case.  It provided a bit of information about Colorado's law concerning transgender rights:

The Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies Civil Rights Commission states under Rule 81.11 - Gender-Segregated Facilities (http://bit.ly/18jzRRz) that nothing in the Colorado Antidiscrimination Act prohibits segregation of facilities on the basis of gender; all covered entities shall allow individuals the use of gender-segregated facilities that are consistent with their gender identity, including but not limited to restrooms, locker rooms, dressing rooms and dormitories; and in gender-segregated facilities where undressing in the presence of others occurs, covered entities shall make reasonable accommodations to allow access consistent with an individual's gender identity. (emphasis mine)

BTW, while Mr. Williams has written an increasing number of articles on this case, that was the ONLY story in the local paper.  

Okay, that is not terribly different from the regulations here in San Francisco.  Here they use the term "inevitable nudity" but otherwise the policy is pretty much the same.  They have to make modifications, if reasonable, otherwise they have to provide access to equivalent facilities.  For example, if there are showers, they have to provide separate stalls, and curtains.  That sort of thing.  They do NOT have to allow a "Colleen" Francis situation, like Mr. Williams wants.  

And that brings us to "Colleen" Francis and what that pervert tells us about what is really going on.  Some years ago, when the push for transgender rights really took off...when it was decided that the status quo, which was that transsexuals, perhaps with what were called "carry letters" were pretty much allowed access to restrooms, and other facilities, was not enough, and that crossdressers and such should be allowed access as well, some raised the concern that it would not stop there.  That these men would want to force their way into more private spaces.  We were told that this was absurd, that it would never happen....

Yeah, "Colleen" Francis...  BTW, Mr. Williams's response to that case was laughable.  He actually tried, in an absurd post, to claim that women were a greater threat than men.  Of course, this is a man who has pushed the "cotton ceiling" meme, and who has pretty much show clear disdain for women who, uh, well....don't have penises.  Suddenly, it is not only okay for men (sorry, but if you are willing to wave your penis around in a women's locker room or shower, you are a MAN, BABY!) to invade women's spaces, but to do so nude.

AB 1266 does not contain a provision that addresses "inevitable nudity."  It does not allow for provisions that address "inevitable nudity."  It does not contain clauses that allow schools to set "common sense" policies.  I imagine that the extremists at Transgender Law Center argued against such provisions.  The law, and that is part of the problem, it is a law, not a school policy, is going to be enforced by judges, who will be constrained by what the law actually says.  And by what it does not say.

What the law says on the matter is a bit too simple:

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

It can, and no doubt will, be argued that the law does not allow a school to make provisions for dealing with inevitable nudity.  That would be a "restriction."  The law does not provide any provision for determining a student's gender identity.  What if a student claims that it "fluctuates."  

I sincerely believe that some "common sense" is needed...

The law should be modified to address "inevitable nudity."

The law should be modified to include a provision requiring some form of medical documentation that the student has been diagnosed as transsexual by a qualified, licensed therapist with experience in the treatment of that condition.  And presentation would have to be consistent, not periodic.

Rules that would address issues of fairness in athletics.  Even if the claims of "gender identity" are true, imagine, for example, girl's basketball teams fielding male students with height and strength advantages that would otherwise be illegal.  It would, in effect, be the equivalent of allowing students to take steroids.  Not to mention, track and field, volleyball, and other sports. 

Those provisions would go a long way towards addressing legitimate concerns.  Yes, groups like PJI would still object...but so, probably, would kooks like Mr. Williams and Mr. Sandeen, who suddenly would be losing their extremist agenda.

Bottom line, it is really sad that a student in Colorado is being used by either side to further political gain.  It is especially sad that this student is reported to be on "suicide watch."  You know, I almost predicted in my article that would be the next development.  I decided that would have been in poor taste, and didn't add it.  I honestly hope it is not true.  But, given that the child might actually believe what Mr. Williams, and Mr. Sandeen have lied about having been said, I don't know if it is true or not.  

Would I put it past Mr. Williams to make such a claim if it were not true?  Not at all.  He has already shown he lies as easily as he breathes.  He has already shown that he is more than willing to pay for the use of this child.  He has already shown little actual regard for the child's  privacy.  

And no, I don't hate Mr. Williams.  I find his behavior to be reprehensible but no, I do not wish him harm.  I wish he would show some decency and stop using a child for his political goals. But, I don't hate him.  And I don't appreciate people making such claims in an attempt to use "club words" to beat me into submission.

Hey! Who's the Naked Dude?

[Updated to correct an error in which I misattributed a position to Cathy Brennan.  For that, I apologize.]

I am sure most are familiar with the "Emperor's New Clothes."  It is the story of a very vain but gullible emperor of an imaginary land who is sold a set of "special" garments.  The thing is, he is told that they are made from a fabric invisible to anyone who is unfit for his position or "hopelessly stupid".    Of course, the garments  are not real, and he is being tricked into paying for nothing.  

So, when his new "clothes" are delivered, he is shocked to discover that he, the emperor, is apparently "unfit," but not willing to admit this, he makes a great fuss over how fine they are and after being assisted in dressing by the con artists who have tricked him, and having his ministers also discover they they too are not "unfit" (and of course no one admits this) he goes out in public where the crowds, again wishing to avoid embarrassment, make a great fuss over how fine the garments are.  Until, finally, a young child says, "Why does the emperor have no clothes?"

Well, many, like the emperor, are being sold an illusion.  And some are beginning to ask questions, and that is causing panic among transgender extremists.  Over the past several days, a number of them, led by Mr. "Cristan'  Williams, have tried to counter an article that first appeared on Christian Broadcasting Networks website about a transgender male in Colorado, who has invaded the girls bathroom, and the fact that this has caused distress for female students.

Mr. Williams has posted at least five (now up to six) stories on Transadvocate, plus one on his personal web page, and has further made efforts to hound any news site that has dared repeat the story.  All of his posts have included outright lies, in an attempt to stem what is clearly the beginning of a coming backlash.

The latest post on Transadvocate is just absurd.  Headlined, "Anti-gay activist group admits trans school “harassment” is fake," it is basically just one big lie. The group in question, Pacific Justice Institute did not make an admission, and the whole thing is Mr. Williams putting words in their mouth in an attempt to create another of his trademark straw man arguments.

Mr. Williams starts off:

Okay. Maybe the Pacific Justice Institute (PJI) doesn’t think that they’re admitted their charge of “harassment” is fake, but I’ll let you be the judge.

Okay, there is so much wrong here, it is laughable.  First off, it is kind of hard to make an admission without intending to actually do so.  Second, well, let's be honest, Mr. Williams is not going let anyone be the judge.  He is going to tell you what to think, and demand that you accept it.

What is really going on becomes a bit more obvious later in the post.  He attacks one of his favorite targets, attorney Cathy Brennan, because, well she simply quoted a statement from Pacific Justice Institute.  This is not even a position taken by her/  That post points out their view that "a trans person in the restroom is 'inherently intimidating and harassing.'"  Now, to be specific, what is referenced, is having someone who is male, who makes it clear that he is male, but who i claiming to be "a girl," insisting on using the women's restroom.  We are not talking about someone who has a medical condition, who is seeking to assimilate as a female.  We are talking about someone who wants to be "out, loud, and proud," as a transgender.

Williams goes on to attack Brennan for "outing" an FTM transgender teenager, while glossing over the fact that what Brennan actually did was notify school authorities about this person posting harassing messages on Tumblr, including some about women and rape.  The student was making the posts from a school account.  Of course, in the fantasy world of the transgender activist, such behavior as that committed by the student is protected and Brennan should have simply accepted it without complaint.  I guess "ordinary women" don't count...only trans women.

All of this serves to further expose what terrifies kooks like Mr. Williams.  If people actually stop and consider what is really going on, the entire transgender house of cards will come crashing down.  They are not interested in helping the rare person who actually is transsexual, who simply wants to get on with their life, avoiding publicity.  In fact, if you do wish this, they are very likely to show what hypocrites they really are, and attempt to out you, especially if you don't wish to follow them in lockstep.

No, the truth must remain hidden.  The focus must be kept off of the fact that they are trying to force people to accept that women have penises, and that simply claiming womanhood magically grants it in total.

And people are finding that increasingly hard to swallow....  And noticing that not only is the emperor quite naked, but that he is trying to be such in women's locker room....

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.

Why the Obsession With HBS?

It seems that a lot of the silliness oozing out from under the transgender rock has to do with an odd creature known as an HBSer. This, of course, is another neologism from the transgender kooks. Neologisms are, along with chauvinism, and logical fallacies, one of the major exports of that group. BTW, a neologism is the correct term for what is commonly referred to as "a made up word." Well, actually, an even better term, which ironically is a bit of a neologism would be "protologism" which Wiktionary defines as a newly coined word or phrase defined in the hope that it will become common; a recently created term possibly in narrow use but not yet acknowledged. BTW, protologism is a word used mainly as jargon at the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., the parent organization of Wiktionary and other projects.

So, that brings us back to the question of, what is an HBSer?  Well, it is how the transgender kooks have taken to referring to what they were calling a transsexual separatist.  They can't really use that much anymore, since Mr. Cristan Williams rather arrogantly, and quite dishonestly, declared that movement dead.  He does that sort of thing an awful lot.

To understand this rather fanciful concept (most of those to whom the term is applied had nothing to with either of the two branches associated with HBS) I guess you would need to start with the question of what HBS is.  What horrible abuses lie within?

Well, the simple fact is, HBS refers to "Harry Benjamin Syndrome," which is a proposed term to replace "transsexualism" in medical nomenclature.  Now, why, you might ask, would a new term be needed?  There were two basic motivations.  The first was the effort by the transgender extremists to co-opt transsexualism as a sort of beard for transgender behavior, and the second was the fact that "transsexual" was, for a time, increasingly associated with a particularly disturbing form of pornography that had nothing to do with the actual transsexualism.

While the term has been used in some cases as a medical term, it has not yet, and may never, achieve widespread acceptance.  Most of the people I was associated with have lost interest in advocating for its use, and have moved on.  There is still a group in Europe, led by a person known as Charlotte Goiar whom the group I was affiliated with disassociated from over some fundamental philosophical differences.  It should be noted that the transgender extremists try to ignore these facts and conflate the two groups in their effort to create a straw man to argue against.  Interestingly enough, the Goiar originally used the improper form, Harry Benjamin's Syndrome, but has since adopted the correct usage.  When a disease or syndrome is named in honor of someone, a possessive is not proper as they neither own, or (usually) suffered from that condition.  Of course, this technicality is often ignored by the media, and thus people more often say Alzheimer's disease, instead of the technically correct Alzheimer disease.

As the term HBS began to catch on in some circles, the transgender kooks began to panic.  I rather suspect that hey feared that a term they had invested a lot of effort into co-opting would be replaced by a concept that would specifically exclude them. In other words, the truth might come out and they could not have that.  

As I say, the effort to encourage adoption of the term has waned.  It seems to be stronger in Europe, but most here lost interest.  But, the label HBSer seems more popular than ever.  And some, like Suzan Cooke seem obsessed with HBS.  Granted, Cooke originally had no problem with the term, and her earlier opposition seems more related to personalities and the fact that HBS was competing with Cooke's "Women Born Transsexual" meme, which now seems silly in light of Cooke's adoption of the transgender mindset.

So, when you see someone using "HBSer," you can safely assume that they are most likely presenting a classic straw man argument.  Then again, even if they don't use the term, that is one of several logical fallacies they are very fond of....

Up To Our Eyeballs in Straw

Well, let's continue examining the latest complete idiocy from Mr. Cristan Williams.  He has rallied to the defense of noted pervert "Colleen" Francis, and as is typical for Mr.  Williams, the straw arguments are coming fast and furiously.

Let's start at the beginning, always a good place to start, and in this case, Mr. Williams pull out a whopper....

It’s happened. The H-BSers, the RadPhlems and the people who DEFENDED Prop 8 have untied as one to proclaim that pre/non-op transwomen as a group are 1.) icky because 2.) they’re actually men, and therefore 3.) a danger to cisgender women.

Ah, so many lies...  and no real arguments (hence the childish name calling and insults).  First off, no one has "untied" nor have we even "united."  Second, where does Mr. Williams get stuff like suggesting that I, or anyone else who supports the HBS paradigm has ever remotely suggested that "pre-op transsexuals" are men (I would never refer to someone as a pre-op transwoman since I find the word "transwomen" to be offensive)?  That is classic straw, a lie imposed on an opponent since it is easier to refute than the truth.  Yes, I consider non-ops to be men.  They are men, born with penises, who want to keep their penises.  How you get "woman" in any sense out of that is, well, beyond me.  Nor have I ever said that all, or even most, men are a threat to women, cisgender or otherwise.  Seriously, what we have here is a classic straw argument.  Not surprising, since this is Mr. Williams typical style.

So, what is the real issue?  That's simple.  Privacy.  Women, real women, whether or not they have a history of transsexualism, have a right to feel secure in women's spaces.  They should not have obvious men forcing themselves into that space, and they certainly should not have to contend with men (i.e. an avowed non-op, or someone who claims to be a pre-op but who lacks the simple ability to empathize with those he claims to be like) forcing their penises on them.

Let's be clear here...there is no real question that "Colleen" Francis was taking steps to ensure that his penis was in full view.  It was not accidental.  He was engaging in exhibitionism, a very male behavior under the circumstances.

Now, I would honestly hope that Mr. Francis is an exception.  I have no reason to believe that  all, or most, or even a significant subset of transgender people are perverts who would, at the first opportunity, flash their penises at young girls.  Of course, Mr. Williams has to suggest that I would, because he knows that the truth is not going to be kind to him.  Mr. Williams takes a very extremist view of so-called "rights" for those who identify as transgender.  In Mr. Williams view, Mr. Francis' fantasies trump reality.  

Let me spell this out.  Mr. Francis, who is attending a college in Washington State, masquerading as a woman (no, I really don't buy his claims), and because some people are so "open-minded" that their brains fell out, got kicked under and cabinet, and have turned to dust, he has been allowed to have more rights than real women.  If he wants to invade the women's locker room, wave his penis around, and upset everyone else, then the college says that is just fine.  Any woman who objects has to use a lesser facility (now, why, if they are actually going to be insane enough to actually pander to this pervert, they can't tell him to use the smaller facility as I strongly suspect he will have it to himself).  This just tickles Mr. Williams pink.  He could care less if women get dumped on, as long as one of his fellow transgender kooks gets special rights.  And yes, in this case, there is no avoiding that this is special rights.

Now, Mr. Williams tries to argue that a "ciswoman's," i.e. a woman's (Mr. Williams lives in a fantasy world where claiming one is a woman automagically makes one a full fledged woman) right to be comfortable in women's space does not trump the right of a man who has some fantasy about dressing up and pretending to be a woman to invade that women's space.  Oh, he words it a bit differently, but that is really what he is arguing.  And this supposed superior right of the transgender man is based on what?  

Let me recap here...  When I was early in my transition, and the time came to face the bathroom issue, I approached it cautiously.  First, I did not even attempt to enter a women's bathroom until I was reasonably sure that my appearance had sufficiently feminized that I would not cause a scene.  Then, I would try to find an out of the way restroom where it was, hopefully, unlikely that I would encounter anyone.  As time went on, and it became more and more obvious that I was not seen as a man, I became more comfortable and did not feel the need to "get in, get out as quickly as possible."  Still, I was always careful to make sure there was not a chance of someone seeing something they should not (not really hard to do) and I would have never have dreamed of entering any area where nudity would be an issue.  

But, the more extreme of the transgender kooks want to be able to walk into women's space no matter who much distress it will cause, and without regard to the feelings of the women using that space.  As I have pointed out before, such attitudes and behavior shows, beyond any doubt, that such a person is not and never will be a woman.

The simple bottom line is this...unless someone is a transsexual, and is in the process of the RLT (or at least preparing for it) they really should not enter women's spaces, including the restroom.  If you are a crossdresser, engaged in your hobby, which includes so-called "non-ops" then you really have no moral claim to use of the women's room.  Yes, you can possibly get away with it, and under such circumstances, you have little to actually worry about, but that does not, and will never make it right.

Now, I would be remiss if I did not mention yet another straw man argument that Mr. WIlliams makes.  And this one is another whopper:

There is a real difference between a transwomen going into a private area to change, pee, etc. and some sick f***-up of any flavor (cis or trans) walking into a room to parade their genitalia around.  If a cisgender woman goes into the locker room and exposes herself, then there’s laws to deal with her behavior. Claiming that those laws somehow magically evaporate if the person is trans instead of cis is a bigoted lie and those who propagate that lie should be called out at every turn.

 Now, aside from the fact that this comment actually makes little actual sense since using a locker room for a woman (Mr. William goes out of his way to try to avoid this issue...to him a man with a penis who calls himself a woman is just as much of a woman someone born female) would very possible involve acceptance of nudity, especially one like Mr. Francis invaded that features a sauna and hot tubs, which is hardly "exposing oneself" when an actual woman does it.  Now, maybe he means if a woman enters a men's locker to "expose" herself.  Seriously, I don't think I have ever heard of a woman "exposing" herself to another woman in this manner.  I did have the experience once of having a neighbor pull down her pants to show me a skin rash and ask my opinion.  She did it rather suddenly, and without asking if I minded.  Of course, she did not know I was pre-op or anything other than just another woman,  And when I worked at a department store selling lingerie, I had a few women who asked my opinion of how something it, but again, I guess we have to keep in mind, Mr. WIlliams has no way of understanding actual women's behavior, including being relatively comfortable with seeing other women nude.  Women don't have the homophobic hang-ups that men do, nor are they generally turned on by the sight of other women's nudity. Men are very visually oriented in their sexuality, women are not.  But as I say, Mr, Williams would have no experience of this.

Now, all that said, let's examine the real falsehood in his statement.  Mr. Francis invaded women's space, demanding the right to use a women's locker room, and to be their nude, in spite of the fact that women would be present, and would be forced to see his penis....which he has made clear he plans to keep.  It has been shown, by testimony as to his behavior, recorded in a campus police report, that he positioned himself in such a manner as to make his penis very obvious.  When complaints were made, Mr. Williams suggested that the teenage girls needed to be educated about "trans women," and the women were told, by the college that Mr. Francis' rights were superior to theirs and that they could use a smaller facility.  To repeat, the pervert deliberately exposes himself, women rightfully complain, and are told they have no right to do so.  So, what Mr. Williams claims is provably false, across the board.  The laws have evaporated, which is actually what Mr. Williams actually demands.  After all, in Mr. William's mind Mr. Francis is a full-fledged woman, penis and all.  I fear Mr. Williams is the one propagating a lie.  But again, this is not unusual for Mr. Williams, who has a long history of making up facts that only he seems privy to.

It should also be pointed out that a classic tactic in some circles is to someone, falsely, of being a bigot, in the hopes that it will intimidate their into silence.  This is not unlike what is referenced by Godwin's Law, which specifically relates to the use of the term "Nazi."  But, as I pointed out, by accusing those who disagree with him of being "Klan," Mr. Williams has, effectively, violated Godwin's Law, and has lost the argument on that basis.  Not, I might add, that he has any real arguments to begin with.  The whole thing is quite ludicrous.

Of course, kooks like Mr. Williams don't believe in "morals" and such.  They have no concern other than their own pleasure and such.  They don't care who is upset, or even harmed.  It is really all about them, and those they consider to be superior to women.  And when they don't get their way, including blind acceptance, they resort to silliness like claiming those who disagree with them are aligned with the Klan.  Of course, ultimately, their "argument" simply shows the fact that they really have no argument.  Just a big old pile of straw men that they engage in ripping to shreds, while crowing like a rooster and claiming victory.