The Fundamental Theorem of Transgender

It's funny, but a lot of times I will have an idea brewing, and then an article will come along that fits that idea so perfectly, it is frightening.  That happened recently with an article on GenderTrender about a review of Julia Serano’s “Excluded” by lesbian Kit Van Cleave was published by Houston’s OutSmart.  Hmmmm...Houston....I wonder if noted transgender kook, and Houston resident, Mr. "Cristan" Williams is involved?

In any case, the review, which was very even handed, was pounced upon by the transgender extremists and OutSmart caved, and pulled it.  The problem is, from the rhetoric, you would think this review was some "Janice Raymond" type attack piece...instead, as I said, it is very even handed.  What it does not do is specifically pander to the TG mindset.

Here is this highly offensive article.  Decide for yourself:

”All that aside, some books I just can’t get through, even with sustained effort, like a pair sent to the OutSmart offices. I’ve had to struggle to grasp the authors intentions, and examine why I found these books impenetrable. Sometimes it’s just style- long sentences covering half a page without ceasing, terms created without definition or juxtaposed to other terms so that the two don’t make sense: lack of logic; inability to support an argument; unclear overall goals; ambiguity.
In Julia Serano’s “Excluded”, for example, the first twenty pages is given over to redefining terms, making up new terms, and wrestling terms about the various available “lifestyles” in the gay community. As Serano puts it, “I call myself a woman and transsexual…because I feel those words best describe some parts of my person.” Okay, fair enough, until this comment follows immediately after: “ I do not believe that there is some magical underlying quality all musicians, or all bird people, or all women, or all transsexuals have in common.” Huh?

Another puzzlement is the prefix cis. “It is difficult to discuss trans people without also having langage to describe the majority of people who are not trans.” Serano writes, continuing, so “transactivists often use the word cisgender as a synonym for non-transgender and cissexual as a synonym for non-transsexual.” And that’s all the definiton of cis we’re going to get from Serano. According to other sources, the word actually stands for people happy with the gender and sexuality they feel they were born with. I know gay people reject being called abnormal, but that’s no reason to come up with a new word for “normal”.

Wikipedia attributes “Cisgender” to Carl Buijs, a transsexual from the Netherlands. In April 1996, Buijs wrote in a Usenet posting, “I just made [the word] up.”

As Serano’s book is also a bit of a memoir, I found in Part One, Chapter 2, that this writer, who calls herself a woman, has made the decision to still retain his penis. As a matter of fact, Serano went to a summer camp specifically to protest people with penises not being allowed to attend the Michigan Women’s Music Festival (the sponsors were apparently avoiding “male energy” with this fest.)
I believe I’m lost. If we’re going with the idea that semantics is dead (i.e. “transsexual” doesn’t mean what it means), or no longer useful, then throw out the dictionaries. Until then, I expect writers to try to stay within the agreed meaning of the words we all use. Otherwise, I can call myself a puppy, but no one will know what I’m talking about when I describe my life.”

Now, I am left to wonder what they find so objectionable?  The fact that the author speaks the truth?  Serano may claim to identify as a transsexual, but clearly is not.  Transsexuals seek to have surgery.  When one declares that one is not planning to have surgery, one is declaring that one is not a transsexual.  The person doing so may come to find that they are mistaken, but that is not that common.

The idea that I was thinking about addressing is how transgender extremist react to anything that does not specifically endorse their questionable logic by instantly screaming, at the top of their lungs, that it is an obvious example of transphobic hate speech, and must be censored, banned, and the author soundly humiliated in public.  And I realized that the very simple reason they take this approach is obvious.  They really can't defend their views in a reasonable manner.

If people make reasonable points, and it happens quite often, the transgender extremists go into panic mode, scream "transphobia" and hate, and use those terms, which I have previously labeled "club words" to beat down the truth.

And then there is the latest from Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen, where he starts whining about some issues he doesn't want to face as well.

So, therefore, it is obvious that the "fundamental theorem of transgenderism" is to hide from the facts, present a false front, and scream like crazy to avoid having to actually justify their unreasonable demands.

Another Rather Blatant Lie From Transadvocate

Well, I guess it should not come as a surprise, but Mr. "Cristan" Williams has posted another blatant lie on Transadvocate.  And not also not surprising is that it is targeted at "TERFs," his favorite term for Trans Exclusive Radical Feminists.  This time around, it is the form of a cartoon that claims that they are blaming "transgender people" for any violence inflicted on them.

The cartoon shows a highly insulting caricature of a rather butch looking female pointing at the grave of Angie Zapata.  Ironically, that is the murder case that resulted in the former editor of Transadvocate exposing Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen's rather atrocious behavior during the coverage of the trial.  I should add, it appears that one of the articles linked to in Abernathy's article has been removed from Pam's House Blend, but that is why we can be thankful for the Internet Archive, also known as the Way Back Machine.

Anyway, the cartoon completely distorts what has been said, which is simply the truth.  When someone who is transgender is murdered, it is usually because of homophobia, not "transphobia."  In fact, with the possible example of Brandon Teena, I cannot think of a single case where such a claim would be valid.  And, as Mr. Williams, and the rather silly cartoonist, try to avoid, homophobia is pretty much male violence, and it is most certainly not something that can be validly referred to as "transphobia,"  

Not that Mr. Williams ever shows much regard for the truth.

A Whopper of a Lie

In a typically bizarre and disjointed post, Mr. "Cristan" Williams has again created a "big lie." And this time, it is a whopper.  Apparently the "next big thing" from the transgender extremist is to claim that "trans excluding radical feminists," or TERFs, are responsible for the "transphobia that causes "trans women" to be killed.  POPPYCOCK!!!!

In the article, Mr. Williams makes this assertion:

The real Trans Day of Remembrance gives trans people a chance to honor the memory of those whose lives were cut short through anti-trans violence. Remembrance affords members of the trans community an opportunity to publicly acknowledge our humanity, our loss and our strength as a community. The TERF DOR site attempts to use the death of trans people to promote the TERF belief that it is not the confluence of cis-privilege and transphobia which leads to the slaughter of trans people, but rather something they call “male violence” – that is, the belief that men are inherently violent by virtue of their maleness. 

Paradoxically, TERFs believe, assert and promote that transwomen are men.

First off, it is NOT transphobia, or "anti-trans violence" that leads to the murder in most cases.  It is HOMOPHOBIA.  Of course, "transphobia" is a neologism that was cooked up by the transgender extremist in what was originally a rather silly bit of plagiarism of the term "homophobia," and which now is apparently being used to cover-up the fact that it really is homophobia that gets so--called "trans women" murdered.

The simple fact of the matter, which the transgender extremists seem to have decided to cover up, is that so-called "trans women" are not murdered because they are "trans," and certainly not because they are "women," and without question not because of the "transphobia" of the TERFs, but for the simple, undeniable fact that they are....MEN!  MALES!  HUMAN BEINGS WITH PENISES!!!  Wow, what a shocker that must be for some.

Seriously.  Transgender people most often get killed because some guys suddenly realizes that what he thought was a woman, turns out to be a man, and he is suddenly confronted with a horrible, though often somewhat irrational, thought.  He was attracted, sexually, to a man.  And that would mean he is, gay.  So, he freaks out.  Now, if he stopped and thought for a moment, he might realize that he was attracted to a woman, but that it turns out that what he thought was a woman...what he was attracted to, is actually a male, and well, he is no longer attracted, and thus is not remotely gay, and so he has nothing to worry about in that regard, and it was all a simple misunderstanding, and he should just move on.

But, he we are talking about men here.  They are not always going to stop and think things through.  They are going to react, irrationally, and violently, not because of some imaginary "transphobia," but because of good, old-fashioned, homophobia. Which is actually a pretty accurate use of the term in this case.

Now, the transgender community is being confronted with this fact by the radical feminists.  They are pointing out that men can be, and often are, quite violent.  The transgender extremists, who are of course, men, are upset by this.  It is quite telling that a bunch of men, who claim to "really" be women, can't seem to grasp something most women learn early on.  Men can be, and often are, violent.  Yes, women can be violent.  But not nearly as much as men.  It would be interesting to know, out of all the so-called "trans women" killed in a given year, and honored as the fallen martyrs at each year's Transgender Day of Remembrance, were actually killed by a woman.

The claim is made in a post that Mr. Williams links to, that "1 in 12" transgender persons is murdered.  The claim is never backed up, but the author goes out of his way to avoid admitting that someone simply made this number up.  Quite simply, it is absurd on the face of it.  But this is the sort of bad "evidence" that is used by the transgender extremists to cover their lies.

Sorry, but the idea that "trans women" are killed because of "cis-privilege" is a new low, even for Mr. Williams, who can come up with some pretty stupid claims.

Transphobia? Or Just Common Sense?

Way back in the earliest days of this blog, I wrong a post about what I call "club words," the sort of words that people, especially extremist activists, use to beat people into submission.  And of course, the favorite of the transgender kooks is "transphobia."  

The most common definition of "transphobia" is:

An irrational fear of, and/or hostility towards, people who are transgender or who otherwise transgress traditional gender norms.

This rather silly term was made up by the transgender kooks as a sort of parallel for "homophobia."  Now, the term homophobia started out as a bit of a slam against men who had issues with homosexuality, based on the suggestion that such men were actually frightened of their own "latent homosexuality."  Over time, as it became more widely applied, it tended to lose this original meaning, and now stands as a sort of bizarre term that has a root meaning that is largely unrelated to how it is actually used.  Few would now suggest that people actually fear homosexuals as much as they simply dislike their behavior which some see as immoral.

But, as more and more transgender activists decided that they wanted to align themselves with the LGBT community, even though they actually share little in common (especially given the idea that sexual orientation is inherent, while much of what defines transgender is clearly chosen behavior, they decided to plagiarize the term homophobia and modify it into "transphobia."  

Increasingly, the term is used to attack anything that the transgender kooks dislike, even if it is actually quite reasonable, and totally rational.  For example, in the article that inspired this column, Mr. "Cristan" Williams calls the idea that a person who was a male for the majority of his life, but who has in relatively recent time, undergone sex reassignment surgery, should not be allowed to beat up women in mixed martial arts competitions, transphobia.  He cites a claim by "Marci" Bowers, the infamous transgender surgeon who took over Biber's practice in Trinidad, CO before bolting to San Mateo, CA as stating:

Most measures of physical strength minimize, muscle mass decreases, bone density decreases, and they become fairly comparable to women in their musculature. After as much time as has passed in her case, if tested, she would probably end up in the same muscle mass category as her biologically born female counterpart.

 Now, this is the standard set of arguments made whenever the issue of a post-op transsexual who desires to enter women's sports comes up.  Even if one sets aside questions about why they would even want to do such a thing (If they do win, it will be attributed to their having been born a male, and if they don't win, well...one wonders why they even bother?) I find it interesting that Bowers uses a lot of "weasel" words...like "most," "fairly,"and "probably."  Nothing definite, just a bunch of dancing around the facts.  In another words, this person "might" not have an advantage, but Bowers is not going to make a definitive statement.

Another doctor that Mr. Williams cites takes a similar "weaselly" approach:

She’s been doing that [HRT] for so many years, that she probably does not have a significant advantage, if any at all. Especially because she wasn’t a big man when she lived as a male. She’s 5’7 and slight of build, and basically the size of an average female.

She "probably" doesn't have "significant" advantage.  Hmm, based on his statements, I guess a 5'7" man with a "slight build" could fairly fight a woman as well...

The bottom line is, no one really knows.  Personally, I have questions about anyone who has a history as a male engaging in women's sports. and I find it hard to justify such.  Being a transsexual involves trade-offs.  But some, in a classically male manner, want to have their care and eat it too.  Again, if they prevail, they will be seen as having done so because they were born male, and if they don't, well...if one is not in it, to win, why bother?  And in should be noted, in the case of the person being discussed, they have two wins, and no losses, so the question of an unfair advantage remains legitimate.

In the case of a person who was born a man, who is going to actually be engaged in a sport that involves actually trying to beat up a woman, the sane and rational thing would be to err on the side of caution.  But that does not set well with the transgender kooks, who think that a person's right to claim to be a woman trumps all.  Now, even allowing that the person in question might actually be a transsexual woman, which I find a bit difficult to accept when someone decides to out their self (that, at least to me, raises serious questions as to their motivations, should women be subjected to such a situation?  Isn't it funny who women who were born female always seem to come out on the short end of the stick where the TG crowd is concerned?

Likewise, we have a store in Idaho taking the quite reasonable step of telling someone, who is not a woman, and who quite clearly was not really even trying to act like a woman, who was in the women's room, to no longer come into their store.  This person was creating an uncomfortable situation for people who had every right to be there, specifically by standing to pee.  This is not a transsexual woman, who is concerned about fitting in with other women.  This was a man, who just didn't care.  And let's be honest, this person is not even really attempting to look like a woman, but instead is a typical TG parody of a woman.  I was very cautious until I was quite certain that I would not cause a scene in the women's room.  But the TG crowd could care less about women, even though that is what they claim to be.

And the list of such examples could go on, and on...like the response of the TG crowd to the case of "Colleen" Francis, the pervert who was exposing himself to young girls in the women's dressing room at a college.  Or how they think that first grade girls should be forced to share the bathroom with a male child, simply because he says he is a girl, no matter how uncomfortable they are.  Don't like the idea of seeing some man's naked body in the women's shower at your spa Then you are transphobic.  Do you think women have a right to gather together without  men who claim to be women invading?  Well,  you are not only transphobic, but they will call you are TERF as well. Even if you are not a radical feminist, but just think people have a right to decide who to associate with at a private event.  Don't want some guy in the ladies room, just because he put on a dress?  Yes, they would say you are definitely transphobic.  Don't want some boy being assigned to share a dorm room with your daughter...at an women's college?  Transphobic?  Have common sense?  Yeah, you're probably a transphobe.

You know, I think perhaps we should start pointing out instances of "cisphobia," which would be defined as:

An irrational fear of, and/or hostility towards, people who are not transgender or who otherwise fail to transgress traditional gender norms. 

I mean seriously, that seems a reasonable and sane response to some of the silliness engaged in by the TG crowd.  

Game of Thrones...

No, I am not talking about the popular series on HBO, which I have never watched, but about a, well, a different sort of, uh...throne.  Yes, it is time to take another look at the goal that the transgender kooks obsess over....yes, that sort of throne.

Between a bit over the top reaction by a lawmaker in Arizona, and the case of a child in Massachusetts who claims to be a girl, in spite of having been born male, and who wants to use the girls bathroom, bathrooms, we have scores of men who want to invade the one reserved for women back in the news.

So, let's take a rational look at the issue....

The first question has to be, is there a valid rationale for having sex-segregated restrooms?  The obvious answer is, of course, a resounding YES!  Both men and women are extremely uncomfortable at the idea of sharing the intimacy of the bathroom.  While some will try to argue that this is an archaic idea, born of sex-based discrimination, designed to keep women in their place, the simple response is "poppycock!"  Yes, a bit of research, where I was trying to find out what the history of sex-segregated bathrooms is, led to a number of law journal articles where some left-wing kook was trying to argue that sex-segregated bathrooms were discriminatory, and not because of the "transgender" issue, but simply on the face of it.  None were remotely persuasive, and they all were just obvious attempts at academic silliness.

So, given that sex-segregated restrooms are legitimate and justified, the question arises as to what exceptions should exist to such a rule?  That is, when should a person be able to enter a bathroom that does not match their physical sex?  Of course, some exceptions are obvious, such as entry by law enforcement and other public safety officials in an emergency. And traditionally exceptions are made for very young children accompanying a parent of the opposite sex.  But what other exceptions should exist?  As best I recall, the last time I went in a men's room was to help a friend, who was male, and who was confined to a wheelchair.  It was in a gas station/convenience store.  It felt a bit weird, but it was one of those situations where there was really not a choice, since the bathroom was not equipped for a person who was disabled.  Some places now offer facilities for just such situations, but that was not the case here.

So, that brings us to the heart of the matter...what about "transgender people" and what is truly a separate issue, those who are legitimate transsexuals during the Real LIfe Test?  Let's start with the transgender crowd.  Ideally, they should use the bathroom that matches their physical sex.  Of course, I can already hear the screams of "transphobia!!!!"  Poppycock.  There is simply no rational basis for them to claim that changing clothes gives them the right to violate bathroom rules.  And that, quite frankly, is what they are demanding. That the simple act of changing clothes, or theoretically, simply making the assertion that they "feel like the opposite sex" would eliminate any barriers to them using the wrong restroom.  Of course, they try to hide all this behind euphemisms like "trans women" and such.  But for the vast, overwhelming majority of transgender people, they are simply demanding exactly this.  And they are demanding it, irregardless of the feelings of those legitimately in the rest room.  If a man, with a heavy beard shadow, and clearly male features, puts on a dress, we are told, he has the right to swagger his way into the ladies room, no matter how upsetting it is.  Oh, we are told, he is not really a threat, as he is a "trans woman."

And this brings us to one of the favorite tactics of both sides of the debate...the topic of male predators in the women's room.  While this is a legitimate issue, it really should not be the primary one for either side, as both sides have weak arguments.  Both the radical RIght, and radical feminists tend to rightfully point out that giving into to the demands of the transgender extremist would open women's restrooms up to the presence of predators.  This, quite frankly, is quite true.  But, so far it has proven to be a relatively rare issue.  We have had cases like the one in Texas where a registered sex offender was found to be, or at least claimed, to be, a transgender person in transition.  Having such a person in a women's rest room is outrageous.  And then there is the well known pervert "Colleen" Francis who was exposing his privates in a women's sauna in Oregon.  He didn't even have the decency to try to be discrete.

Now, the problem here is, the transgender extremists are not asking for the right to discretely use the rest room that matches their, uh, gender expression.  They are demanding the right to force their way into the ladies room, with all those present being fully aware that this person is a "trans woman."  They don't want discretion, they demand full license.  And worse, they now want to go beyond the bathroom and to indiscreetly invade places like showers, locker rooms. sauna. spas, etc., where nudity is common, and women will be forced to share space with naked males.  Said women are, of course, supposed to fully accept these naked men as "transwomen."

The sad thing is, for years, we had a workable compromise that, while not perfect, was pretty much acceptable.  If you were passable, you could pretty much take advantage of that, and discretely use the bathroom.  This, in fact, is still the model that, by and large, works for transgender women (i.e FTMs who are no hormones but have no intention of having surgery).  As long as one is discrete, i.e. you are not making sure that everyone knows your history either by telling, or by obvious behavior. and you don't do anything stupid, you were allowed, and even, I suppose, welcome in the bathroom opposite your sex.  But again, that is not good enough for the transgender extremists.  Like in the Colorado case, the child, who has a clearly male name (have you every heard of a girl named Coy?) everyone has to have their nose rubbed in it.

And you have to love the insane arguments that the transgender extremists come up with.  One of my favorites is the specter of "trans men" in the ladies room.  The only problem is, that is absurd.  After a bit of testosterone, they can enter the men's room with no problem, and there is no need for them to be "forced" into the ladies room.  No, the problem is, and remains, men, who look like men, invading the women's room and forcing themselves on those who belong there.

You also have to love the way the transgender kooks cannot seem to even try to muster empathy for those they claim to be "just like."  They think that women, who might be offended by their presence in the women's room, should "just get over it."  In another words, typical male behavior and attitude, on full display, and they wonder why people have a problem.  Alas, it is so obvious sometimes that kooks like "Autumn" Sandeen, and "Cristan" Williams are simply delusional men, it is almost funny.  The only "women" they have anything in common with are their fellow transvestites.

It should also be noted that claims of discrimination, and being forbidden the right to use the bathroom are totally bogus.  What is being denied is a license to invade a place they don't belong where they would cause discomfort to those who have a right to be there.  In fact, what they are demanding is, in and of itself, discriminatory.  They are not being told they cannot use the restroom, just that they have to take responsibility for their behavior and face the consequences.  They can either choose to not go out dressed en femme if they fear going into the men's room, or they can "man up" and face what awaits them.  They are also, as they point out to the women whose rest rooms they would invade, still protected by laws against assault.

So, this brings us back to the central question.  How should this situation be dealt with for those who are possibly legitimately transsexual, and in the process of the Real Life Test?  The answer, as I have suggested before, is simple.  It is the same answer that has existed for some time.  Once a person is ready, in consultation with a qualified therapist,  to consider living full time in their target sex, they would be issued a statement that would allow them to access the appropriate rest room.  If someone is challenged, and they cannot show such documentation, they would be subject to whatever penalties the local law provides.  Any therapist caught issuing statements inappropriately would be subject to sanctions.

I realize that such an approach would not go over well with the transgender extremists, who demand unfettered access.  And it would probably not go over well with the radical feminists who claim that there is no such thing as a "legitimate transsexual."  And I am sure that extremist conservatives would also blanch at the idea.  Which probably means that my idea is a good compromise.

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. 

Invincible Ignorance

When one is dealing with the transgender community, one of the most important things to remember is that you are dealing with people who have no real grasp on reality.  They live in an imaginary world where women have penises, men have vaginas, and such.  This was especially brought home to me by a post from "Cristan" Williams, who, at least at times, seems to have no grasp on reality, and a response from "Autumn" Sandeen, who is perhaps one person with even less of a grasp on reality than Willams.

Williams is engaged in one of his favorite activities, taunting Dana Lane Taylor, who Williams has an obsession with, over a response Taylor made on Facebook.  What did Taylor say that has Williams in such a rage?  Why she had the audacity to point out to Williams that she does not completely disagree with certain actions taken by the government that Williams decided to strut and crow about like a Banty Rooster.  This, of course, pretty much puts the lie to Williams claims, but naturally, he cannot have that.  After all, he is never wrong...at least in his imagination.

Amazingly clueless as ever, Williams drags out an argument that shows that both he, and apparently certain forces within the Obama administration, have their heads so far up their....well, lets say that where they have their heads stuck, the sun never shines (unless, of course, your doctor is using a solar powered proctoscope, and the smell is not very pleasant...at least not for those who are remotely normal) that they are completely oblivious to the fact that they are exceedingly misogynistic.

The example that Williams uses, and one which it is implied is taken from a government presentation, involves a man showing up at a shelter in women's clothing, sporting a full beard, and asking to be admitted.   Now, the government slide does not specify exactly what is, and is not permissible.  The obvious implication is that such a person cannot be denied shelter.  Williams tries to imply that such a person would have to be housed with women, irregardless of how much discomfort this might cause.  In fact, one senses that Williams is delighting in the very idea that such a person would make the women extremely uncomfortable.

This is an extremely misogynistic position, implying that the rights of women are not as important as those of men who engage in crossdressing.  Let's be honest, such a person does not have a female gender identity.  Period, end of discussion.  This person is engaged in the behavior know as "gender queer."  They are mocking societal norms, almost certainly with a desire to upset other people.  I cannot remotely see why such a person should be allowed to do such a thing to women who are already in an extremely unpleasant situation.  But hey, Williams is not a woman, has no sense of what women feel, and I suspect, probably has some innate hatred of women.

The bottom line is, Williams hates Dana Taylor because Taylor has effectively refuted William's silly attempts to force women to accept men in women's restrooms.  Williams supports a law that provides no restrictions on men invading women's spaces.  All one has to do is say that one's "gender identity" is female, even if only temporarily, and one has no restrictions on entering the women's room.

But this lack of reality does not stop with Williams.  Sandeen gets in on the fun as well.  He decided to comment on Dana Taylor in one of his more bizarre rants in some time.  He starts off by complaining that Taylor has "functionally defined" him as a male because of his "surgery," which of course, consisted of being castrated.  Sandeen has a penis, wishes to keep his penis, and is, therefore, functionally a male.  That is pretty obvious to anyone with a shred of intelligence.  Then Sandeen goes on to make the complaint that Taylor has "implicitly defined me as a 'eunuch' in the comment thread for my recent column"  Actually, if you read the column, you will find that Sandeen is the one who cites Matthew 19:12 in a rather bizarre attempt to claim that the Bible mentions transgender people.  This passage refers to eunuchs, so it is not Dana Taylor who has defined Sandeen as a eunuch.  Of course, Sandeen, being a eunuch, might be a bit sensitive about this.  

Sandeen goes on to attack Dana Taylor through a series of bizarre non sequiturs.  The first is Sandeen's objection to a very reasonable statement by Taylor that any transsexual who identifies as transgender is fighting against our rights as women.  Of course, this logic is lost on a man like Sandeen.  He does not identify as a woman.  He identifies as a transgender.  This means he wishes to hang on to his penis (literally in his case), though some transgender people who actually have surgery do so figuratively.  Identifying as transgender implies a lack of desire to move on and become fully a woman.

The next is a statement that simply shows that Sandeen is not remotely a transsexual.  He takes offense at Dana Taylor's response to his bizarre post that claims that "transgender people are the cool kids."  That was a post where Sandeen appeared, flouncing about like a horrible misogynistic caricature of a woman in a costume that was not remotely something a real woman would would wear, particularly one of Sandeen's age.  It was amusing in a very creepy sort of way.  Taylor makes the statement:

I don’t find being transsexual cool one bit. It is a horrible condition. It is a crime against humanity. How can that be celebrated as being cool?

Sandeen tries to claim that this indicates that Taylor "loathes" being a transsexual.  I don't think I have ever met anyone who would have chosen to actually be a transsexual.  Many people choose to be "transgender," often deciding to claim to be transsexual, but no one who is actually transsexual would remotely think it is cool.  This just proves what I have said about Sandeen for a long time.  He has no actual history as a transsexual.  He was clearly a transvestite who decided, in his later years, to take his hobby full time.  Keep in mind, this is someone who loves to brag about his 20 years of service in the Navy.  Twenty years of being a man in a very masculine environment.  This is not a transsexual.  

And then Sandeen, goes on to claim that Dana Taylor will not answer the question, "Do you consider non-op transsexuals to be women?"  Now, given how Sandeen chooses to spin this, the use of "non-op" seems odd.  Perhaps Sandeen actually meant "pre-op," or perhaps Sandeen is just trying to scam people.

For me, the answer is simple.  Anyone who claims to be a "non-op transsexual" is delusional. There is no such thing.  It is an oxymoron.  That is someone, like Sandeen, who is saying "I have a penis, I want to keep my penis, but I am a woman."  No, such a person is not a woman.  And Dana Taylor is not a "non-op," so why Sandeen would claim, "If she answers that question with a yes, then she denies that she’s a woman at this point in your life. If she answers it with a no, then she’s forced to embrace that she isn’t a woman until she has a vaginoplasty — a vaginoplasty we know she needs to be comfortable in her own skin and to fully be complete as the woman we know she is."  It means nothing of the sort.  A pre-op transsexual is working to correct their birth defect, unlike Sandeen, who is nothing but a man with a fetish for pretending to be a "woman with a penis."

Sandeen actually saying something even more incredibly ignorant to the realities of transsexualism, adding, "To answer the question means she has to acknowledge the loathing she has for a body part that she was born with one that separates her from the rest of the community of women — in a sense she has to fully embrace that she’s one of the transsexual people she loathes being. I believe the term for what she’s feeling is referred to as 'internalized transphobia.' "

Simply put, and I realize this would be completely lost on Sandeen, part of being a transsexual is having a loathing for one's male genitalia.  Again, Sandeen's statement prove he is not remotely a transsexual.  He has no understanding of what transsexuals feel.  He cannot comprehend that one would choose to be a transsexual if such a thing were possible, and that wishing one had not suffered through what transsexuals suffer through is not "internalized transphobia."  What Sandeen actually means is that the fact that Dana Taylor is a true transsexual, who has felt things that Sandeen has never felt, threatens Sandeen's delusions and fantasies, and must be attacked.

Ironically, Sandeen is deep in the closet.  He is hiding from the fact that he is a transvestite, who will never be more than a transvestite, and he actually believes he must "advance" up the imaginary transgender hierarchy, even though he really doesn't want to.  He has sacrificed his testicles to this goal, even as he is terrified at the idea of losing his precious penis.

Rather than embrace what he really is, he lies and tries to be what he is not.

Sandeen, and Williams are deeply mired in "Invincible ignorance."  They simply refuse to learn, even as they demand to teach everyone and further that ignorance.

Update:  I have to admit, I was really taken in by Taylor.  This person was a self-deceiving fraud who has decided, after some soul-searching, that his is really "transgender" and is now Mr. Cristan Williams latest BFF...  And a full-fledged transgender kook to boot.

The Curious Case of Amanda Simpson

Much has been written in the TG blogosphere about Amanda Simpson, the former test pilot that President Obama appointed to be Senior Technical Advisor For The U.S. Bureau Of Industry And Security. Of course, they all focus on the fact that Simpson is "transgender." The first articles celebrated this as a major triumph. Then there was a lot of reaction to the negative comments that were made by various groups.Much has been written in the TG blogosphere about Amanda Simpson, the former test pilot that President Obama appointed to be Senior Technical Advisor For The U.S. Bureau Of Industry And Security. Of course, they all focus on the fact that Simpson is "transgender." The first articles celebrated this as a major triumph. Then there was a lot of reaction to the negative comments that were made by various groups.

But something written by Gwen Smith, a columnist for several LGBT newspapers made me wonder about all this:

For myself, I applaud Simpson for all the facets of her life and all the skills that have allowed her this opportunity – and I look forward to the day when one's transgender status is simply another part of the rich fabric of one's life.

This got me to wondering...how did people find out that Simpson is "transgender?" Ironically, it appears that it is possible that Simpson was simply appointed to the position, and just happens to be transgender. I mean, as far as I can tell, the Obama administration was not the source of this bit of information. So, who spilled the beans?

Well, it seems that the story became national news after it appeared in the blog Political Punch on the ABC News website. So, how did they find out that Simpson was "transgender?" The answer, quite simply, is that Simpson announced this on the National Center for Transgender Equality website:

In a statement, Simpson, a member of the National Center for Transgender Equality's board of directors, said that "as one of the first transgender presidential appointees to the federal government, I hope that I will soon be one of hundreds, and that this appointment opens future opportunities for many others.

Simpson is the one who drew attention to Obama having appointed someone who was "transgender." Of course, this is Simpson't right to do, but it is also classic "transgender" behavior. Simpson clearly has no real desire to simply be a woman. Simpson, instead feels the need to be known as someone who was born a male, and who had a long and successful career as a man.

While I don't agree with some of the nastier remarks made by some, I cannot help but note that once again, someone who identifies as "transgender" feels the need to be "in your face" about who they used to be. And that makes it hard to defend them from the attacks they receive.

Transgender Myths...#2 Transphobia

The next transgender myth I want to examine is a very popular one, transphobia.

Now I am sure that some are already thinking, "What?!?!" The term "transphobia" has become so common we tend to take it for granted. But let's take a closer look at this term and consider where it comes from, and what it is supposed to mean.

Now, let me begin by saying that I am not denying that there are people who are have very strong negative opinions about those who are transgender, as well as those who are transsexual or who suffer from Harry Benjamin Syndrome. But, does this concept that has come to be labeled "transphobia" really exist?

Well, as they say, the beginning is the best place to begin. Before there was "transphobia" there was "homophobia." Originally, "homophobia" was a legitimate term which referred to cases where someone was so fearful of their own possible feelings of being attracted to someone of the same sex that they would react violently to anyone who was perceived as being homosexual. Something like what is know commonly referred to as the "gay panic defense," or the "trans panic defense" when it is raised during a criminal trial.

People started using the term "homophobia" as a bit of a taunt. Anyone who did not agree with the gay rights agenda might be accused of being secretly homosexual and making a big show to cover up that fact. Then, over time, the original meaning was lost and "homophobic" simply became a sort of short hand term for anyone who did not agree with the gay political agenda. Soon, it was being used as a way of silencing opponents much as some use the terms "bigot" and "racist."

Then, as the effort to add "transgender" to Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual started in earnest, some transgender activists started trying to imitate the tactics of the LGB movement. So, suddenly a new word, "transphobia" was made up, and it was used much as "homophobia" was being used...as a club word that could be used to attack people who did not share a particular political view. It is especially common to use this against transsexuals and those with HBS, by accusing them of "internalized transphobia."

So, the bottom line is, "transphobia" is a misnomer. It is not an irrational fear, and therefore it is not a phobia. It is simply a made up word that is, first and foremost, a rather silly attempt to copy the word "homophobia," which is a concept that has lost its original meaning. "Transphobia" is nothing more than a word used to attack those who either do not agree 100% with the gender fascists, or who have the misfortune to incur their wrath. Simply put, it does not really exist. As I said, there certainly is real prejudice against transgender people. Some of it is justified, much of it is not. Just as there is real prejudice against transsexual, though there, quite frankly, legitimate justification is harder, if not impossible, to find.

Transgender Myths...#1 Association with the LGBT Has Not Hurt Transsexuals

I am starting a new series of articles that will look at various "myths" perpetuated by the transgender community. By "myths" I mean those false beliefs that they cling to desperately, even in the face of evidence to the contrary.

I'm going to start with a common one. Many will claim that being associated with lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgender people has not caused harm to those who are HBS, true transsexuals, or classic transsexuals. This is based on the argument that "transphobia" existed before the "T" (which they insist includes transsexuals) was added to the LG and B. The oft cited example is Janice Raymond's nasty book, The Transsexual Empire.

Now. there are several problems with this argument. First, it is simply a straw argument. No one would deny that what they term "transphobia" (a silly term that will be dealt with at another time) existed before the rise of the modern transgender movement. That is not the point. The issue is whether or not being associated with transgender, and thus the LGBT has mad things worse for transsexuals.

And the answer to this is a quite resounding yes!

The ways in which transsexuals have been harmed are numerous. First off, the nature of transsexualism has become distorted by association with both homosexuality and with the various factions that comprise the "transgender." Transsexualism, or preferably HBS, is not about sexual orientation. A person with HBS might well be straight, lesbian, gay, or bisexual. But, because of the association with the LGBT, many see transsexualism as just an advanced form of homosexuality.

The next way that the association has harmed us, is the fact that we become connected to behaviors that have nothing at all to do with true transsexualism or HBS, such as transvestism, crossdressing, drag queens, genderqueer, etc. These share nothing in common with transsexualism.

We are also harmed by often being associated with political and social views that we may strongly disagree with. For example, transgender is increasingly associated with ideas like gender deconstruction and that gender can be changed at will. These are not only false, but are harmful to transsexual seeking their rights. If gender is meaningless, and can be changed at will, then it can be argued that transsexuals should either just express their gender without seeking surgery (thus countering the argument that the surgery should be covered by insurance) or that we should simply just choose to go back to being the gender associate with our birth sex. One has to wonder if people even think before they spout off some of this silliness?

Finally, transsexuals are harmed by the forcible denial of their identities by many transgender activists, or by having their experiences co-opted by those who wish to falsely claim to be "the same as transsexuals," or who even make such silly claims as being "non-op" transsexuals, which is basically an oxymoron.

So, yes, in spite of the claims of transgender mythology, those who are transsexual, or who have HBS, are harmed by being associate with the LGBT.

Club Words

During an on-going debate in the comment section of a post on Enough Nonsense, a transgender from South Africa started engaging in the usual round of insults that result when they start to lose the argument. And included in the insults were what I call "club words."

Club words, are terms that are used to "club" someone into submission during a debate. They have a long and sordid history. When I was younger, one of the most popular club words was the dreaded Communist. If someone wanted to put someone in their place, all they had to do was say, "That's communism!" and nine times out of ten the person they said it to would be reduced to backtracking and trying defend their self from such a horrible accusation.

Now, the important thing to remember about club words is that they don't rely on truth, but merely stand on their own as a way of cowing the person they are used on. Another, that no longer seems as popular was "secular humanist." Oh yes, that was very popular one for a while.

Now, you might, at this point, have the impression that the use of club words is reserved to conservatives. Far from it. One of the biggest consumer of club words is the "transgender community." Here are some of their favorites:

• Bigot - It has been said that the defintion of a bigot is "A conservative winning an argument against a liberal. Or, in some cases, a transsexual winning an argument against a transgender activist. The logic is, this is such a horrible insult that the person it is thrown at will backtrack to avoid it.
• Transphobic - This one is a bit odd. While the word is derived from another club word, "homophobic," it sort of loses its meaning along the way. Originally homophobic was meant to imply that someone feared their own "latent homosexuality." Now it is has morphed into a term for hatred for homosexuals. When it is used against transsexuals by the transgender it is, well, it is just plain silly.
• Self-loathing = This, of course, is related to "transphobic." The idea here is that we hate what we are, and so we attack those like us. Ironically, it is often those who use it who seem to be self-loathing, but that is another discussion,
• Elitist - This is one that always gives me a chuckle. As soon as one asserts that they do not wish to be associated with people they have nothing in common with, this is thrown at them. If you don't wish to be linked with men who get their kicks from dressing up and pleasuring themselves, you are an elitist. Go figure.
• Shame - This is another fun one. If you identify as a woman, and have no desire to rub people's noses in your past, then it must be because you are ashamed. The fact that you might, just possibly, simply wish to live your life as who, and what, you feel yourself to actually be is irrelevant.
• Fearful - This goes hand in hand with shame. If you don't make sure that every single person you encounter knows you were born a male, and that, perhaps, you still are in spite of your outward appearance, it must be because you are afraid.
• Closeted - The problem with this one is the fact that, for classic transsexuals and those with Harry Benjamin Syndrome, the "closet" has no real meaning. The closet is a gay paradigm. In a real sense, I came out of the closet when I started living as a woman. For me to hide that behind a facade of being "transgender" would be a return to a closet I have left behind.
• Hypocrite - This one is used by those who refuse to allow anyone the right to not identify as "transgender." The fallacy is that you are benefiting from all of their hard work, but are not supporting them in their efforts. The simple fact that one might not believe they have accomplished anything, and that what they are trying to accomplish is just plain wrong, is lost on them.
• Coward - Another club word that combines concepts like fear, shame, and self-loathing.
• Defeatist - This one is trotted out when you make it clear that you do not share their goals. The idea that they might actually be wrong is avoided. Obviously, you must think they simply cannot achieve those lofty goals (such as destroying the binary paradigm) instead of finding such ideas to be outrageous.

The best defense against club words is to recognize them for what they are, and to remember that they are rarely, if ever, remotely accurate.

The Stupidity Spreads...

In our last posting, we talked about the case in New York where a couple defrauded the authorities in order to obtain a marriage license and have a ceremony performed. Or, more specifically, we talked about "Autumn" Sandeen's silly rant about how the Advocate covered the story. Now, Tobi Hill-Meyer has written about the same story on Bilerico.

This is turning into a ridiculous farce. Now, just because someone puts on a dress, claims to be a female, and maybe, just maybe, sort of, kind of, hopes to have surgery one day, does not make them a female. And if they still have a penis, and they marry a man, who has a penis, that is a same sex marriage. No amount of wishing, and hoping, and just plain BS is going to change that.

The gender fascists may wish to push the idea that just saying you want to have surgery makes you a female (or a male if you are an FTM), and they may suggest, as one fool does in the comments, that a new birth certificate and change of legal sex should occur as soon as a doctor certifies that you have begun transition, but that sort of thing is insane. They are just digging a deeper and deeper hole, and accomplishing nothing. That is not going to be accepted, and deep down, I think they know it. But, the days when a guy could put on a dress and shock the neighbors are fading. Now, they have to say really stupid things to get that same shock value.

And once and for all, pointing out that a person who has a penis, is not a female is not transphobia. Sadly, that word is becoming badly abused. It is used as what I have called a "club word," a word used to beat up on another. When I was younger, the most common club word was "communism." If people didn't like something, it was called "communism." Of course, that word was popular with the Right. But, the Left loves club words just as much. "Racist" is an oldy, but a goodie, ironically now used by both sides. In truth, all they show is that people don't have real arguments, so they bring out words, and they use them to club the opposition into submission.

And, that is the height of stupidity.