The Transgender Movement's Dirty Little Secret

I've been thinking about this post for quite some time.  It is about something that is quite obvious, but which is kind of easy to overlook in all the rhetoric that spews out of the "transgender movement."  But, an article at LGBT Weekly by Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen, one of the leading voices of that movement finally pushed me to write it.

In the article, titled "Fourteen years ago and now," Mr. Sandeen says

"I remember coming out in early 2003 as a transsexual – that’s what we called ourselves back then. When those of us who called ourselves transsexual also called ourselves transgender, it was actually kind of political – we were also identifying ourselves as falling under a transgender umbrella of gender nonconforming people."

This quote pretty much sums up what the transgender movement is really all about.  First off, it is not about being "transsexual."  Mr. Sandeen may have called himself a "transsexual," but he is not, and never was remotely a transsexual.  He may have even been able to find some doctor who is willing to rubber stamp his fantasies, but he has been a life long member of the "They Will Take My Penis When They Pry it From My Cold Dead Fingers" club.  He occasionally flirts with the idea of SRS, but has made no real move in that direction.  Even during the period when the VA was supposedly going to cover it.  He has had an orchidectomy, rendering him an eunuch, and has tried to pass this off as sex reassignment surgery, but he still retains his penis.

Next he states that he also called himself "transgender" he connects that with being "gender non-conforming."  This is where the truth really begins to come out.  First off, being transsexual is NOT remotely about being "gender non-conforming."  It is quite the opposite. It is about being fully the gender, and sex, that you really are.  Here Mr. Sandeen is letting the secret out.  Transgender is really all a scam.

The transgender movement has tried, for some time, to use transsexualism as, in effect, their "beard."  That is, they have claimed to be "transsexual" to justify their demands.  But they are not transsexual, and in fact, have no desire to be anything other than what they were born as.  They only want to be "gender non-conforming."  In order to be that, they must remain their birth gender.  They may claim to "really" be a gender different from what they were assigned at birth, but this is simply not the case.

Take Mr. Sandeen, for example.  He served about 20 years in the United States Navy.  If his "true" gender had been female, he would have probably not made it through one tour of duty.  He would have not been able to fit in to the male culture that military service requires of men.  He would not have been able to tolerate being forced to dress and shower with other men.  I remember how much I dreaded changing during high school PE.  I went out of my way to avoid showering when others were present during the one semester I lived in a dorm with communal showers.  The rest of the time, I lived in what was either a dorm with "suites" where you had the bathroom to yourself, or in a dorm that was originally a women's dorm, where the showers had individual stalls.

All of this brings us to the big secret.  Transgender people, for the most part, do not really want to be what they claim.  They want to retain their birth gender, and more often than not, their birth sex.  In many cases, when they do change their sex, they seem to regret, and they go out of their way to make sure that others know their birth sex.  For them, it is not about actually being "their true gender and proper sex," but is about forcing people to "accept" them as something they work very hard to not actually be.  

People who identify a transgender seem to have this compulsion to force people to both see them as their birth sex and gender, but treat them as the opposite.  They want to invade spaces where they really don't belong, and increasingly, to expose their bodies while demanding people pretend that their genitals are something that they are not.

Transsexuals are disgusted by the idea of having someone see them naked before their surgery.  I remember having to endure being examined by the surgeons who performed my SRS.  It was excruciating.  But when I went in for a follow-up, and had a rather handsome young doctor removing stitches, his face right up in my privates, I suddenly realized that it did not bother me at all.

SRS does make a world of different for those who actually need it.  For those who don't. it just makes them rather miserable.

It's Been A While...

My last post was back in August.  To be honest, I just got tired of pointing out the never-ending insanity of the transgender kooks, and decided to spend some time on other, more productive, pursuits.  I have, however, looked in from time to time and have a laugh at how absurd it is all becoming.

And on one of those looks, I found out that, nine months later, Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen is still obsessing over me.  As is Mr. "Natalie" Reed, who, bizarrely, has apparently accused me of stabbing someone in the chest on a bus.  Uh, no...I've never stabbed anyone, anywhere.

As an interesting aside, Mr. Reed is also ranting about how increasing "gender neutral" bathrooms would serve to invalidate "trans people."  As though the obvious obsession with forcing themselves into places they are not wanted hasn't already done that.  Sort of puts the claims of just wanting to "pee in peace" in a whole new light.  Nope, they want to be able to force women to put up with men, who don't even try to actually live or act like females, invading women's spaces, and to demand that these men, who cling very strongly to their male identification (while maintaining that they are "really women") be fully accepted as women.

I have left my past behind.  I only reveal it when absolutely required, and then with an explanation that I am a transsexual, not "transgender."  And an explanation of what the difference is.  Simply put, Mr. Sandeen, Mr. Reed, and all the rest of their ilk, don't want to be women.  They just want to force people to say they are, all the while knowing that this does not jibe with reality.

Oh well, back to doing what these kooks can never do...living my life as a woman.

I Must Have Struck a Nerve...

About two weeks ago, I posted about a silly bit of drivel on "cisgender privilege."  Well, the site that published that article decided to strike back....and, of course, post even more "transgender idiocy," (they don't like that term).  I have to say, I am honored.  

Granted, it is the usual sort of silliness one comes to expect.  I am accused of trying to impose a hierarchy.  Nope, not even close.  For their to be a hierarchy, there would have to be a direct relationship.  There isn't.  Transsexuals are not automatically transgender.

The person also take umbrage at my pointing out that transgender is a choice.  Of course it is.  It is an artificial social political construct with no objective basis in reality.  Period.   Now, a person who is a transsexual might choose to identify as transgender.  Some do, though I cannot for the life of me understand why.  But, transgender is a choice.  It is a chosen identity, though the more extremist of transgender activists, including über kook "Cristan" Williams, try, desperately, to force that label on people against their will. BTW, Mr. Williams was the first to praise the article.  That says a lot, right there.

In any case, this article simply serves as continuing proof of what I asserted in my previous article, and in numerous articles before, and a few since.  Transgender is about being "different."  For a person who identifies as "transgender" normal is anathema, in the sense of something to be denounced.  

I really get a chuckle out of this bit of true idiocy:

I have discovered that members of our community are policing each other and attempting to create a hierarchy of who is truly Trans or not. Many people are playing the same games of ‘normality’ that Gays and Lesbians have often pulled in an attempt to normalize themselves by othering people who are considered less normal. These situations really need to stop if we are going to strive for our goals.

Oh, this is so wrong, in so many ways....  To start, let me repeat, I am not part of the trans community.  Second, as I already pointed out, I don't believe a hierarchy can exist when there is no real relationship.  You now, the old bit about comparing apples and oranges.  Further, there is no real relationship between gays and lesbians and transsexuals, nor is there a relationship between gays and lesbians and people who choose to identify as transgender.  Yes, such a relationship may exist in the mind of some ignorant people, but in reality, there really is no connection.  People who are transsexual may be gay or lesbian, people who are transgender may be gay or lesbian, but people who are into left-handed, underwater basket weaving might also be gay or lesbian.  There is no real connection.  Further, no, this is not about "othering" people, it is about people othering themselves.  People are are transgender deliberately separate themselves from "normal."  They have no desire to be "normal."  That is what transgender is all about.  And finally, let me make clear, again,  I have no desire to further the goals of the transgender community.  I actively oppose the efforts of the transgender community.  I hope to do whatever I can to thwart the goals of the transgender community.

Now, I am taken to task for the alleged mistake of "assuming' that "Nina Ember Nova" is transgender.  Actually, whether this person is transgender or not has no bearing on the fact that what was posted is transgender idiocy.  It's still wrong, it's still bogus, regardless of how the person who wrote it chooses to identify.  And let me add that the term "privilege is, in and of itself, pretty much an example of idiocy in general.  It is used when someone feels that they are denied something they think they should be entitled to, and are envious that they don't have it.  It is what used to be called "covetousness."  In recent years, I have developed osteoarthritis in my left hip. I am not classified, at least for certain purposes, as disabled.  But I don't go around ranting about people having privilege because they are not.  Privilege is just another way of othering oneself, and trying to put down those you envy.

Ah, but the author goes on:

Ignoring that however, JustJennifer’s arguments were inherently wrapped around the notion that if a person truly needed to transition from male to female they would dress and act like a ‘normal’ woman like she apparently does. She also claims that its wrong for someone to look like a ‘man in a dress’ and also claims that some people “invite abuse” because of their gender expression. She also seems to take it upon herself to become a gatekeeper for transitioning by essentially claiming that if others do not match up to her experience, then these other people are just performing “Transgender idiocy” and are essentially fake. Her arguments are also classist and ableist in the belief that people require SRS to have safe spaces while many can not afford or medically receive care for numerous reasons. The point is, her arguments cater to the mainstream audience of society and ask people to cave under the pressure of social expectation instead of understanding that she, despite her self described medical condition, is just as much of a gender rebel to the world around her. Also, Nina and myself will be working to respond to her more in depth soon enough.

Okay, let's be clear about something here, AGAIN!!!  If you really are a transsexual, then you are essentially a normal woman (or man as the case may be).  You will not have the desire to play dress up and prance around in silly costumes like so many do, even though they claim to be "transsexuals).  And yes, if you are not to the point where you can blend in with other women, then you should have the good sense and decency to exercise discretion and show consideration for other women.  If, of course, you are a man, with a typical male personality, well....never mind.  You will act like a man, and we will react accordingly.

And yes those who really need to transition will, it is called "not making excuses."  Again, it is not easy, but one will find a way.  I did.  Others have.  But many won't.  It should also be noted that even when people have surgery handed to them on a platter, they will find excuses.  They, actually, are the ones who believe in this silly hierarchy stuff.  They think, like "Autumn" Sandeen does, that lying and claiming to be a transsexual elevates their status.  It doesn't.  It just makes then look like the liars they are.

And well, it sounds like this jerk, and "Nina" plan to take me on some more.  Good.  I like exposing foolishness.

In closing, let me offer up one last quote that shows the absurdity, and contradiction of this person's arguments:

The minute we, as Trans people, cross the gender/sex boundary, we are not considered normal any longer. We can go stealth and I certainly don’t take that away from any individual, but the mere act of having the courage to say, “Hey, I don’t belong to the group I’m assigned,” automatically introduces gender roles and the thoughts and opinions of society into the mix. It takes a certain level of internal thought and analysis to accept and understand something that much of society isn’t willing to accept as real. It is true that for some people there is a medical fix through hormones and surgery and the problem is more or less solved. Yet for others the acceptance and fight against a broken history and the narratives that are created for us as Trans People are problematic.

Now, I am accused of "othering" people.  Again, no.  I decline to be "othered,"  (BTW, there really are no such words as "othering" and "othered," but since the author uses them....)  First off, I may have crossed the "sex boundary," but no, I did not cross the "gender boundary."  My gender, or more accurately, my brains wiring, was always female.  I simply accepted that, and am living according to my correct gender.  I took steps to bring my body into alignment with my gender.  Interestingly enough, as I began the process, I actually found myself being called "ma'am" even while i was still, technically, "presenting as male."  That is, before I updated my paperwork, and specifically stopped crossdressing.  I chose not to but heads with society.  I saw no pleasure in it.  And that is what separates transsexuals, particularly true transsexual, from the transgender crowd.  We are not rebelling against our gender, or anything else.  We are simply getting on with our lives.  And many of us, like most people, might be amused by the transgender, but beyond that, we really don't understand their need to act out, and we certainly do not approve of it.

Don't blame me if you find it hard being a "trans person."  That's your choice, not mine.  I think you are acting out, and no, I am not going to pander to you, I am not going to play along, and I am not going to welcome you into women's space with open arms.

His Own Worst Enemy

The man who would be king, well at least of the transgender fascists has been very busy lately.  Yes, Mr. "Cristan" Williams, who spends his time trying to prove that the modern transgender movement has been around a lot longer than it actually has is at it again, and he is doing a pretty good job of proving the things he has devoted himself to disproving.

In three recent articles, he has shown exactly the reasons true transsexuals want no part of the movement he attempts to force us into, and even ignores it a major leader's somewhat sage advice.

In the first article, he carries on about how Phillip Frye (not the character from Futurama, but Houston's best known transvestite) who was one of those who created a movement that no sane transsexual would want a part of was a major force in the early gay rights movement, and worked diligently to force the LGB to tack on the T.  Frye has done more than his share of damage to transsexuals.  He was one of the louder voices carrying the mantle of Arnold Lowman, aka Charles "Virginia" Prince that surgery was not necessary, and even undesirable.  He also pulled some absurd stunts that did more than a little to discredit transsexuals legitimacy, such as seeking out post-op "lesbians" in relationships with biological women to have them get "legally" married in Texas as a response to the Littleton case.  In another words, a woman was supposed to legally marry another woman.  But all the Texas authorities did was grin a stupid grin, and say, "Yep, as we all said, they're men, and they are jus' marryin' some woman...no problem."

Then he posts about Lee Brewster, a gay drag queen/transvestite who ran a specialty boutique for drag queens and transvestites in New York City until his death.  Brewster, like Frye was basically a transvestite who got a bit carried away, but who had no desire to actually be a woman.

Then he writes about Leslie Feinberg, someone who is really more butch lesbian than anything else, who played a major role in creating the modern transgender movement, the one he tries to claim existed long before, in the mid-Nineties.  But I have to love the fact that he quotes Feinberg in the following exchange from 1993:

Would you consider anyone who is a butch woman or an effeminate man to be transgendered?

Leslie: I think the point is not whether I would, but whether they would. What I think is that the gender community is forming a movement and starting to be visible and that more and more people will decide whether they are or are not gender oppressed.

So, Feinberg, a founder of the movement acknowledges that people have a right to be "separatists."  It was, is, and should be about "identity" not being forced to accept a label.  The only people I feel "gender oppressed" by are people like Williams, who try to tell me how I can view my "gender."

Ah, but there's more...

Some transsexuals regard being transsexual and being transgendered a being very different from each other and don’t really consider the term “transgendered” as being appropriate to their situation. Do you see there being a fundamental difference between being transgendered and being transsexual? 

Leslie: Well, in the literal sense, we’re talking about ether people crossing the lines of the sex they were mandated at birth and people who are crossing the lines of gender. So, of course, I do think there’s a very real difference between the lives of transsexuals and those who are transgendered, but that’s in the ten(sic) literal sense of the word. I also think that transsexuals who are read very easily on the street have very different lives than those who aren’t, but there’s becoming another use of the word “transgender” which is not so literal, which seems to me to be a kind of umbrella term to unite a very diverse population, and that’s the sense in which I use “transgendered.”

Now, I’m also very aware that language changes and that struggle shapes language, but it may be that there will be specific terms – the “transsexual/transgender” community or a term that we haven’t even heard yet, maybe “trans people” will come to mean anyone who crosses any sex or gender lines. So what I like about uniting us under this broad umbrella term is that it unites a group who share more in common than we differ.

Even from the beginnings of what Williams tries, falsely, to claim was around when it wasn't, Feinberg acknowledges that there are differences.  She wants to create a "community" but one born of identity, not forced assimilation.  And, quite frankly, it has pretty much failed.  Feinberg was wrong.  We don't share that much in common after all.

I agree that there needs to be an umbrella term for all of us, but the reason that some transsexuals don’t like that term — and I tend to agree with this — is that it at least has the implication that transsexuals don’t really change sex. So, do you acknowledge that that term at least has the potential to be used in that way?

Leslie: Certainly I’m not using the term to define anybody for themselves or to impose upon them a term that strips them of an important part of their identity, I think that frequently language doesn’t suit the needs of all the individuals of a community. I remember after the Stonewall Rebellion when the word “gay” first came into use that a lot of people were very angered because they felt it trivializes our oppression. Now the word “gay” has become very accepted. For some of us the word “lesbian” was very difficult to say because it sounded so close to slurs that had been used against us. So I think that the more that we grow as a movement and mature, the more our Ianguage will reflect accuracy and more of what each group within that community feels most expresses their identities.

So, there you have it, Mr. Williams hoist by his own petard.  The very actions he has engaged in, repeatedly, condemned by one of the founders of the movement he tries now to force down people's throats.  Even in 1993, the same issues were around.  One of the people most responsible for the modern use of "transgender" acknowledges the possibility of misuse, exactly the misuse that people like "Cristan" Williams and "Autumn" Sandeen, following in the footsteps to Phillip Frye and Arnold Lowman, engage in.

What's Wrong With Just Being Normal?

For many of us, nothing.  For some...well...  To me, there is nothing wrong with being "traditional" or " "mainstream,"  but in her most recent rant, Suzan Cooke, transgender kook, gender fascist, and pretty much increasingly a bit of a shrill joke, goes off over someone named "Purple." What did this person do that was so terrible?  Well, apparently they have extolled the virtues of being a relatively normal person.

Granted, this person does seem to also be a bit of a flake.  It is not clear if this is the person who used to post under the name, "PurpleGirl," who was a devotee of Charlotte Goiar, who started a European "Harry Benjamin's Syndrome" movement (apparently it has since dropped the incorrect use of a possessive...naming is to honor, not imply ownership) who used to post under the name "Courtney Michelle Holder."  That person, who as I recall did take some extremist views not unlike those taken by person posting as Donna Reiser, who is also a devotee of Goiar.  The HBS group that I was part of had major disagreements with Goiar, and broke with her very early on.  

Cooke never misses a chance to attack the HBS movement, apparently because the idea that a person might actually transition simply to live a normal life seems to disgust Cooke.  This Reiser is as extremist in one direction as the transgender activists, including Cooke, are in the other.  Where they want to claim that everyone who is "transsexual" is motivated by a desire to transgress gender, and must be "out, loud, and proud," Reiser claims that "true transsexuals" cannot be lesbians.  While many of the "straight men in dresses" that make up the core of the transgender extremists do claim to be lesbian, that does not mean that everyone who is transsexual, and identifies as a lesbian, is a fraud.

Let's consider that view.  Certainly some women, a certain percentage, are sexually and romantically attracted to women.  Some of them are that way, pretty much from birth.  Others are more fluid in the sexuality.  A lot of women, after a bad experience with a man, or because of abuse by a male, will, for a period, be attracted to women.  They may well return to being attracted to me, often to the dismay of their female partner.  So, to say that a "transsexual" cannot be a lesbian is to say, in effect, that transsexuals are significantly different from other women.  And this plays into the Blanchard-Bailey theory that attempts to "prove" that transsexuals are not really women at all, just excessively gay men, and straight men with a weird fetish.

This sort of thing is not uncommon.  I once had a well-known transgender kook tell me that a transsexual could not possibly be "pro-life."  I have seen others try to claim that transsexuals can't be Republicans, or conservatives, etc.  

The simple fact is, women, including transsexuals, like women in general, can have a wide range of views.  Some of us are more conservative than others.  Personally, I tend to joke that my politics are radically moderate.  I am a member of the Far Middle, the extreme center.  I pride myself on the fact that I can enter a debate between someone who is far right, and someone who is far left, and have both of them calling for my head. 

Some people, like Cooke, are very rigid in their thinking.  They are incapable of comprehending other view points.  I don't mean "agreeing" with those viewpoints, but comprehending why someone might hold them.  They cannot see that their might be arguments supporting that view that people might honestly hold.  Cooke sees the world as  black and white.  If you do not share Cooke's highly extremist left-wing view then you are wrong, end of story.  No just in error, but wrong as in "you will face the firing squad" when the revolution occurs type wrong.  Even evil, in a sense, though Cooke does not quite seem to believe in actual morality in an traditional sense.

On the other hand, while I may not agree with someone, I can often see why they think the way they do.  I can see the reasoning behind their view, and that enables me to see the flaws in their reasoning, if such exist.  I could make their arguments for them, and then explain to them why those arguments are flawed while also explaining why the extreme opposite view is equally wrong.  That is more than an extremist can handle.

A good example of this sort of thing would be the recurrent bathroom issue.  On the one hand, and extremist like Cooke will claim that there should be NO restrictions on transgender access to bathrooms.  No matter where one is on the imaginary spectrum, whether one identifies as a straight male fetishtic crossdresser who is just really turned on by the idea of slipping into the ladies room even though you know you are not going to pass and will cause major distress...which really, really turns you on, are you are a surgery-tracked transsexual who is a week away from surgery, it is all the same.  And I can see the arguments that might be made.  Everyone needs to pee.  It can be dangerous to go into the men's room if you are crossdressed.  We have to respect everyone's gender identity and gender presentation.  Now, on the far opposite extreme are those who might go so far as to say that even if one is a fully transition post-op, they have no business in the ladies room.  Their argument would be, a Y chromosome has no business in the ladies room (I would love to hear how they would deal with someone with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome, a so-called "XY female.")  Well, The first arguments are not really persuasive.  If one wishes to crossdress, that might be their right, but it does not give them license to create a public nuisance, and quite frankly, speaking as a woman, a man in the ladies, and that is what a crossdresser is, is a public nuisance.  They don't become a woman when they slip on a dress.  If they are concerned about danger, then they should take responsibility for their behavior and avoid such situations.  They do no have an absolute right to crossdress and use that as an excuse for being a nuisance.  And the term gender identity is, to a large extent, meaningless.  It is one thing to be a true transsexual, carefully screened by a qualified and competent therapist, and another to simply assert that one "feels like a woman today."  And presentation?  Give me a break.  It may be your right to present as you wish, but that does not mean I have to pander to your fantasies.  

As I say, I am a moderate.  There need to be provision made for those who have a legitimate need to enter the ladies room, even though they might be physically male.  Those who are properly diagnosed as transsexual (not some kook who manages to fool a therapist with a big rubber stamp), but also provision to protect the privacy of women.  Personally, I did not enter the ladies room until I felt reasonably sure that I would be accepted as a woman, and not cause distress.  That, simply put, was because I was a woman, and had concern for other women.  The vast, overwhelming majority of those who identify as transgender are men, and like men, they think they have privilege that they really don't.

No, there is nothing wrong with being normal and traditional.  And people have a right, within limits, to be otherwise.  But, if they make that choice, they should also take responsibility for their behavior and realize that not everyone is going to look at them and say "Aren't they so cool, being a rebel and all..."  We aren't.  We are far more likely to look at them, and at best laugh, and at worst see them as a very disturbed, and disturbing person."  

Lies, Damn Lies, Statistics, and Mr. Williams

Well, as I sort of expected, Mr. Williams did not take kindly to having his theories...well, proven to be total fiction.  And, as I expected, he has made a rather pitiful attempt to lie his way out of it.  There is not much else he can do....

He begins with his usual ad hominem (he refers to anyone he disagrees with as a troll) and then, well, he really blows it.

He produced a laughable graph that he attempts to claim trumps mine.  What he has actually done is resort to such a dishonest tactic that he has destroyed any hope of credibility.  You see, he is trying a bit of misdirection.  He produced a graph, that shows big values for transgender, but which, because of the way it is constructed, is actually deceptive and then he attempts to pull the wool over people's eyes (and some will reach up and help him move it into place, I am sure) by calling on people to compare to graphs that are not really comparable.

What he has done is sort of like comparing a map that has a scale of one inch to one hundred miles, that shows the Eastern Seaboard and another map, that has a scale of one inch for one thousand miles miles of the entire United States, and claiming that that they show the second shows that New York is closer to Los Angeles than it is to Washington, D.C.  You cannot make the comparison he is making.

My graph shows the relationship between three words over a longer period.  His compares several different words, over a much shorter period.  Because his graph has a different set of words, and a different time range, difference between the occurrence of the words are more exaggerated.  This makes it look like "transgender" shows up quite often.  But in truth, it just shows that it shows up more often than the other words, and in particular, he compares "transgender" with "Transgender."  That alone would render the results invalid since the program is case sensitive.

Here is a more accurate version of what he produced:

 It compares the two words from my chart, which is not what he used.  And it has smoothing of zero, which is more accurate for a smaller time period.  Simply put, there is a very tiny blip in 1974, but relatively speaking, the word "transgender" is non-existent during this period compared to "transsexual."  Oh, and yes, I could have set smoothing to 3, which would have showed an absolute flat graph for "transgender."  

It should also be noted that he took a comment out of context.  As I pointed out, later in the article, which he conveniently ignores, the word occurs in a few isolated sources.  But it was not of any significance until around 1990.

Sorry Mr. Williams, but you cannot lie your way out of this one.  You can only make yourself look more foolish.

A Dose of Reality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Another Great Moment in Gender Fascist History

I have, on more than one occasion, commented on the gender fascists who become oh so upset at the idea that a transsexual might decline to be called "transgender."  These people insist that we have to adopt a label that many of us are very uncomfortable with.  As I have pointed out, "transgender" is most often associated with the concept of "transgressing gender," which is not how I see myself, how I behave, or what motivates me.  

One of the worst offenders in this regard, perhaps the single worst offenders in this regard, is "Cristan" Williams, a very disturbed man out in Texas who clearly made a mistake having SRS.  Mr.Williams is obviously unhappy being a woman, and puts a lot of effort into making sure that he is seen as actually being a man in drag.  That is, assuming that Williams has actually had surgery.  We do, after all, have others like "Autumn" Sandeen who try to lie and claim to have had surgery when they have only being castrated, and have no intentions of giving up that which marks them as male.

Well, now Mr. Williams has gone and had a hissy fit over something in Whipping Girl: A Transsexual Woman on Sexism and the Scapegoating of Femininity by Julia Serano. Mr. Williams is beside himself over this passage:

While “MTF” may be useful as an adjective, as it describes the direction of my transition, using it as a noun – i.e., literally referring to me as a male-to-female” – completely negates the fact that I identify and live as a woman. Personally, I believe that popular use of “MTF” or “FTM” over “trans woman” or “trans man” (which are more respectful, easier to say, and less easily confused with one another) reflects either a conscious or unconscious desire on the part of many cissexuals to distinguish transsexual women and men from their cissexual counterparts.

Apparently, Mr. Williams now wishes to tell people that, not only can they not object to being labeled as transgender, they must now accept the label "MTF" even if they don't care for that either.  I bet he would really go ballistic over the fact that I also object to being labeled a "transwoman," or "trans woman."  I identify as a woman.  No qualifiers, no apologies, no excuses.  I did not go through all I have gone through to have the albatross of my past forever hung round my neck.

I am not interested in being viewed as what I came to refer to as a "Woman, but..." as in, "Oh yes she is a very nice woman, but you know she is really a man..." or, "She is a woman, but she used to be a man..." or, "I think you make a pretty good woman for someone who was a man..."

Nope, just a woman is fine with me.  If Mr. Williams wants to be a man, that is his right, but he should respect the wishes of others.  Not that he is ever likely to actually do so.

A Blast From the Past

As I have said before, I am originally from Birmingham, Alabama, so I was a bit surprised when I saw that location mentioned on Suzan Cooke's web site. At first, I thought it might be an article about a friend of mine who was a post-op FTM who happened to have been the star witness in the trial of his uncle who was convicted for the 16th Street Church bombing that killed four girls in 1963. He was featured in the book "Transgender Warriors."

But I was even more surprised when I realized the article was about a person most commonly known in Birmingham as "Ms. Sid," the "notorious" transsexual... Cooke had linked to a story from Birmingham's past, and as is typical for Cooke, missed the real facts in favor of a bit of political drivel...

Born Sidney McFerrin Ford, Jody Suzanne Ford became something of a local scandal when the hairdresser known as "Mr. Sid" revealed plans to become a woman. The sign outside the shop was changed to "Ms. Sid's" and tongues began wagging. About this time, I was struggling with my own issues, though I had not yet fully realized that I was transsexual. In my mind, the term had some rather negative associations. I was first aware that such a thing was even possible when I saw an episode of a TV show hosted by Joe Pyne where he profiled Christian Jorgensen. It was presented so sordidly that the concept failed to fully resonate with me. Not long after that, when I read the book "Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex..." the description of sex change surgery was so horrifying that I was totally repulsed by the idea. Thankfully that description was not remotely close to reality.

About this same time, Renee Richards was in the news, having created a scandal in women's tennis when it was revealed that she had been Dr. Richard Raskin.  So, curiosity drove me to pay a visit to "Ms. Sid's."  Fortunately, it was also a boutique, so I had an excuse to wonder in and have a look without having a haircut I would have had to explain.

The shop was located in Five Point's South, which ironically, was a neighborhood I would later live in for about ten years.  I remember, walking in, and starting to look at the clothes while trying to discretely see if I could spot Ms. Ford.  I remember a very tall woman at one of the stations, who I assumed must be the object of my curiosity.  Other than being rather tall, I noticed nothing out of the ordinary.  I honestly was not sure if this was really her, but I saw no one else that might have been.

On at least two other occasions I saw her (I now know it was her I saw), once getting into her car, and once at a bank.  Of course, I was too shy to actually approach her and ask questions.

A few years later, she was killed in an incident at a local motel.  It was only through the article that Cooke linked to that I learned, as Paul Harvey would have said, "...the rest of the story."  

Sadly, she died when she reacted to some nasty comments made by Larry Maddox, the owner of the Vestavia Hills Motor Lodge.  She was at Brookwood Mall with her former wife, when Maddox made some anti-gay slurs.  Ms. Ford chased him up the highway in her car and confronted him outside the motel.  He went in, and came out with shotgun and fired.  He claimed self-defense, and was found not guilty.

Based on details in the story that Cooke linked to, I wonder if she was truly transsexual.  For example there was an incident, before transition, where this person is described as being seen in heels, a woman's suit, and full beard.  Before transition, this person was also a member of the gay community, though she had been married twice, and had a child.  She played basketball at a college affiliated with the Church of Christ, and played semi-professional football for a time.  All in all, it is a history more typical of some who are better described as "transgender" than transsexual.  And the act of chasing someone down and confronting them as she did seems more male than female.

It is hard to say, but Cooke, and the author of the original article, try to spin it as a hate crime. I had previously thought that Ms. Ford died when a romantic encounter turned nasty.  I was not aware that she had chased her killer and confronted him after an altercation.  

That is the problem with mixing legitimate transsexual issues with politics.  Cautionary tales get lost in the rush to make someone a martyr.  This person died, sadly, because she acted like a man.  Maddox should have faced manslaughter, not murder, as he started the incident, but Ms. Ford might still be with us if she had not made a stupid choice.  A fact, tragically lost on those who have adopted the transgender mindset as Cooke clearly has.

Absolute Silliness

Early in my transition, I came up with the phrase "I will not accept responsibility for other people's bigotry."  By that, I meant that I would not beat myself up because certain people had an issue with my transition.  I had a brother-in-law, for example, who was a bit of a celebrity in certain religious circles who rather stubbornly refused to use my proper name.  He offered the compromise that he would refer to me as "J" which I declined, because "Jay" is a boy's name, and besides, my name is Jennifer, not an initial.  I actually found it kind of amusing watching him stumble over language trying to avoid using either a name, or pronouns to refer to me.  And this was after he had to admit that he could not actually show, from Scripture, that I was doing something wrong.  It was clear that his concern about his image trumped any decency he might have shown me.


I simply refused to compromise my life for his, or anyone else's convenience.  I realized that he, and some others, did not recognize my transition as legitimate.  I simply considered the source and got on with my life.  Why should I let their ignorance, or prejudice, define who, or what I really am?


Well, of late, the transgender blogs have been going crazy over the "radfem's," i.e. radical feminists, mostly lesbian separatists, alleged bigotry against transgender people.  You would think the "radfems" were advocating murder the way the extremists are carrying.  And, in the expected return swing of the pendulum, Suzan Cooke has added her voice to the chorus.  Cooke, in her usual shrill hysteria, had compared the "radfems" to the Religious Right who Cooke hates with a passion.  Cooke, who recently seemed to have returned to a position in opposition to the silliness of the transgender extremists now sounds, again, like a clone of "Autumn" Sandeen and "Cristan" Williams.    


Now, personally, there is a lot that I would disagree with radical feminists over.  But, I can see some of their points specifically concerning "transgender" issues.  I mean, look at the transgender extremists who are now claiming that a man can become a woman simply by saying he is a woman.  Many are the radical feminists are far more comfortable with those who have undergone sex-reassignment surgery than those who simply change their wardrobe and then claim that also changes their sex.  I also can see some of their views concerning men who grew up enjoying male privilege who now claim to be fully women.  Those who most often identify as transgender, and those who tend to be the most radical proponents of that movement, are men who were rather late in life when they showed any inclination towards claiming to be a woman.  Prior to that, they were often transvestites, but they showed no real issues with their gender identity.  In fact, as crossdressers, they often identified as a man who was wearing women's clothes.  


I had gender issues from early on.  I did not have words to express what I felt, because I went through much of it during a time when such issues were well known.  I certainly never enjoyed male privilege, basically being seen as something of a "defective male."  People sensed that I was "different," and I was often accused of being a sissy.  I fought to avoid such a label at times, always unsuccessfully, simply because such a label generally led to being bullied.  But it was hard to hide the real me, and so I suffered.


But then there are those like "Autumn" Sandeen, who served for twenty years in the U.S. Navy, as a male, in a male-only position.  He had no problems, which, had he been transsexual, would have been impossible.  He likes to claim that in his last years he was harassed because he was perceived as "gay."  It is obvious that as his retirement approached, he was beginning to think of becoming a full-time crossdresser, rather than the part-time one he had been to that point.  And I am sure he began acting a bit effeminate.


I can certainly understand why the radical feminists would not want someone like Sandeen at their meetings.  He seems to fluctuate between acting very male and acting like a bad parody of a woman.  Likewise, other transgender extremists often come off as more male than anything else.  For example, check out "Cristan" Williams recent post where he puff himself up like a strutting peacock and postures in a very male manner about how he has "rewritten transgender history" in a year.  But that's a topic for another post.


No, I may not agree with the radical feminists, but I do understand at least some of where they are coming from.  They don't want men invading their space.  And their definition of men is a bit broad, including not only the men in dresses like Sandeen, but also post-op transsexual women.  Of course, I imagine more than a few post-op women might be among them without them knowing.  True transsexuals rarely have trouble assimilating in such situations.  They don't come across as men in dresses, and unless they choose to be open about their past, no one would know.


But, even some post-ops are going ballistic over the issue.  As I said, Suzan Cooke is in a complete snit over the issue.  Which is sort of surprising, but Cooke cannot seem to make up her mind which side she is on.  She has even apparently joined the chorus of transgender extremists who think that CeCe MacDonald should be placed in a women's prison, even those said person is physically a male.  In short, Cooke would negate the rights of every woman in a state prison in favor of a male criminal, simply because said person claims a female gender identity.  That surprises me.


The CeCe MacDonald case is a perfect example of why radical feminists would take such a dim view of "transgender."  Here is a person who committed a crime, and plead guilty.  Yes, it is argued that it was self-defense, but I have to wonder.  The case occurred in Minnesota, which is not exactly an anti-transgender stronghold, being the first state to pass a state-wide rights bill that included gender identity.  But, like pretty much anywhere else, those rights are tempered by common sense.  You don't put a man in a women's prison.  If you have a penis, you are male for certain purposes, no matter how you dress, what your ID says, or even if you live in a state that is insane enough to change your birth certificate like Sandeen has take advantage of.


The transgender extremists are trying to claim not only that MacDonald should get a pass on killing someone because of being black and transgender, but should also be allowed to be in a women's prison.  What a load of crap.  This represents an attack on women, not support for them.


Likewise, when transgender people attack radical feminists for wanting to maintain their vision of "women's space," I think it represents the inherent misogynistic tendencies of many in the transgender extremist movement.  And the same is true when radical feminists are attacked as viciously as they have been recently.  I don't agree with them, but I respect their right to hold views that are not the same as my own.


But then, transgender has never really been about rights...it has always been about a bunch of men wanting their way at the expense of women.

Misusing MLK...again.

It is no secret that "Autumn" Sandeen believes himself to be the transgender extremist version of Martin Luther King, Jr., an affectation that is both false, and insulting to the legacy of King.  But in his latest bit of silliness, he not only abuses what King actually meant, he pretty exposes  the real nature of transgender extremism, and again affirms why real transsexuals both disavow Sandeen, and want no part of his silliness.


When King said that the Civil Rights movement did not make "the white man feel comfortable" he was talking about people's conscience, their sense of right and wrong.  I grew up in Birmingham, AL, and I remember well the Civil Rights movement.  It worked because it was about doing the right thing.  People were mistreated simply because of the color of their skin.  If you were black, or as it was termed then, "colored," you had to use separate restrooms, separate water fountains, had to sit in the back of the bus, and in many cases, were not allowed to enter many restaurants.  People who challenged these laws were subjected to violence in the form of vicious dogs and fire hoses.  King himself was jailed simply for non-violent civil disobedience.  And the laws changed, and because people were effectively confronted with their bigotry, they changed as well.


What made people uncomfortable was their own behavior, their own prejudices that had no basis in anything real, but were simply born of what some would call human depravity.  King, who was a Christian minister, confronted this as, quite literally, the sinful behavior that it was.


But, when Sandeen talks about making people uncomfortable, he is talking about being the one doing things that are wrong.  He is talking about men such as himself, forcing themselves into women's spaces where he does not belong.  He is talking about forcing society to change the very rules that have guided humanity to this point.  He is not seeking to right a wrong, but instead is trying to force society to accept lies such as that women have penises, and that simply saying one is a female makes it so.


King's goal was not to make society uncomfortable, he was seeking to improve society for the benefit of all.  Sandeen is seeking to force society to accept things that are simply wrong.  People like Sandeen are not trying to persuade society to stop being bigoted against human beings for absurd reasons, but are trying to force society to accept behavior that is, quite frankly, unacceptable.  They are not seeking rights, but instead are seeking license to misbehave.


No, the transgender extremists derive their identity, and their pleasure, from making people uncomfortable.  That is their reason for existing.  Not to make society better, but to simply make society accept their own misbehavior.

A "Legal" Fiction

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


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


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


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


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


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

A Predictable Result

Well, the Miss Universe Canada pageant was held last night, and two things that could have been easily predicted have occurred.  The first is that Jenna Talackova, who made headlines for being a transsexual was among the 12 semifinalists, but she did not win, nor was she among the five finalists.  In another words, she was treated with political correctness in a very predictable manner.  She was also, of course, given that most common of beauty pageant consolation prizes...she was tied with three other contestants for the title of Miss Congeniality.


The other predictable result?  The usual bloggers are already starting to spin the story as having been a great victory.  No, it was "handled."  I strongly suspect that she was allowed to compete simply to avoid a nasty and protracted legal fight that would have possibly been very costly for the pageant.  And, having been allowed to compete, she was given the honor of being a semifinalist, but not a finalist.  Close, but not too close.  


I see no great gains in her having competed.  She essentially sacrificed her claim to true womanhood when she entered a "transsexual" beauty pageant in Thailand, and completely gave it up when she decided to enter the Miss Universe Canada Pageant.  


It is, perhaps, not fair, but all who have been through the process of transition from one sex to another face a choice.  We can live our lives as who we really are, or we can cling so tenaciously to our past that we effectively give up our claim to be anything other than our birth gender.  Sometimes we have to avoid things we might otherwise wish because people might well connect us to our past, and label us as transsexual, or worse, as transgender, because of it.


In the end, Jenna Talackova has accomplished nothing.  She got her fifteen minutes of fame, which she may, or may not parlay into a future career.  But she really didn't break down any barriers, or win some great victory for "trans women."  She was simply handled, and moved out of the way.

Uh, Not Even Remotely Right....

I wonder sometimes where the transgender kooks come up with some of their ideas.  Take, for example, this bit of insanity from "Autumn" Sandeen over on LGBT Weekly:

Somewhere in between the extremes of people who demand no trans people should have surgery, and those who demand all trans people have surgery there is middle ground that recognizes that no group of trans people really should dictate what trans experience is the universal trans experience.

Huh?  "Those who demand all trans people have surgery...?"  Now, I realize this is in the context of Mr. Sandeen trying to cover up the fact that he is darn close to one who claims that no one needs surgery (he has denigrated those who have the surgery, and implied that we still have penises, etc.) but really, even he can't be that completely ignorant, can he?


First off, I think anyone who identifies as a "trans" person probably ought to serious question the wisdom of having surgery.  If you are that attached to your past, well then you just might miss certain parts when they are gone.  For example, let me be very clear on this...I would never suggest that Mr. Sandeen have surgery.  By beef with Mr. Sandeen is not that he has not had surgery, or that he does not need surgery, but that he has taken to claiming to be a transsexual, and that he claims to be a female.  He is neither, and even if he had surgery, it would not make him a woman.  It would simply make him a man with a vagina.  Like several other transgender kooks who made the mistake of going too far.


No, there are a lot of "trans" people who really, REALLY, REALLY should never have surgery, and more than a few who should not have done it who already have.  Some publicly regret it, others regret it while denying they regret it, but acting in ways that harm true transsexuals.


I know of no one who remotely demands that anyone should have surgery.  Yes, I believe that surgery, including vaginoplasty, should be a requirement for changing a birth certificate in the case of a male to female transsexual.  I think that male to females should at the very least have to have upper surgery, a complete hysterectomy and removal of the ovaries, and the vagina closed before being allowed to change their birth certificate.  I understand the limitations of FTM surgery, and am sympathetic to their plight.


Retaining the physical genitals of one sex, while claiming to be a member of the other is simply dishonest.  But then so is a lot of things Mr. Sandeen tries to pass off on society.

Thanks, But No Thanks!

"Cristan" Williams has put up another post where he tries to sound very reasonable, claiming to only want to be "inclusionist" as opposed to us nasty separatists.  Well, again, the answer is "No thanks."  What Mr. WIlliams keep trying to gloss over is that there are substantial differences in the political and social views that are inherent in the "transgender movement" that he wishes to "include" people in, and those of us who he insists on labeling "separatists."  We simply do not share his political and social views.  We differ from him on major issues, and there is simply no common ground on which we can meet.


Why, he and other gender fascists (a much more accurate term than "inclusionists") cannot accept this is beyond me.  We don't view things the same way, and we want no part of his movement.  Period.  End of story.


And no amount of trying to paint himself as reasonable is going to change that.  Especially when all he is really doing is posting his usual straw arguments...

A Darn Good Question!

In response to "Autumn" Sandeen's rather absurd post on "trans women's shame" a person who goes by the name of "Miz Know It All" has posed a rather fascinating question for Mr. Sandeen....

Autumn I want to thank you for opening my eyes!
Before this I was a deluded fool. I had these clearly erroneous thoughts that I was somehow just a female when I clearly am not! Thank you Thank you Thank you! Now that my eyes are open I am going to shed my shame and start proclaiming my trans-enss to the world! But before I do… would you mind telling me how do you think should we should refer to you Autumn Sandeen? Should we follow your Gladd Media Guide and refer to you as the “gender” you identify as, though all our senses say otherwise? ” Do we say Yes Ma’am! No Ma’am” to your face, with a wink wink nudge nudge titter titter the moment your back is turned? Or should we just go with what is clearly there for the sake of “trans-honesty… “”Hey Buddy! Yeah you! You over there in the dress with the ratty hair and the goofy beret! Get a job!”
I mean, the ONLY reason I would even bring that up is that by your rather comprehensive postulations on trans-shame. Shouldn’t you, as the activist and a leader in the community be proud of your being a man! After all Autumn, you still have a functioning god given phallus, you fathered children, you were married in the Catholic Church to the woman who bore your children and you passed Navy medicals for twenty years as a man. So it stands to reason that as you have been recognized as such by pretty much every social structure there is, you are indeed a man!
So why is that not part of your trans-shame list? Why is it that my wanting to be a normal woman, an act of such intense shame, when your pretending that you are something you clearly are not (female) is an act of strength and courage? Get real Autumn You really can’t have it both ways you know. If we are as you say never to be ‘real” women, then as the morphology is rather limiting we are men. And in that same vein, if you and we are the same as you say we are, then ergo. you too ARE male! So why not go with it? Fess up! Be a man! Stand up and be loud and proud of your proclivity for gender f*****g as a dude! Well albeit a ball-less one these days! I mean why not march yourself into the nearest men’s room and proclaim loudly your right to use these facilities as a man in a dress! A man who has every right to dress and act however he wants and to pee freely when he needs to!
Oh but that is not going to happen is it? If you use the mens room dude then your fantasy would be broken. You couldn’t as a man then stand behind Janet Mock, or Jenna Talackovaand saying I am just like “Her” because, well according to you she ain’t a she! She’s a he, you know, just another dude, dude! Darn, and it was such a grand idea too! C’est la vie!
MKIA

Now, I seriously doubt this question will actually be answered by Mr. Sandeen, and to be honest, I also doubt it will be around for very long.  I rather strongly suspect that the post will quickly disappear, and the person who posted it will quickly disappear.


But this raises questions that should be answered.  More than anything I have seen, this really exposes the nasty things crawling around when you turn over the rock called "the transgender movement."  And still, some fools actually wonder why we don't want to be associated with that label...


Postscript:  Some kook calling him/herself "Penny G" posted a comment on Mr. Sandeen's blog claiming that I posted this "full nine minutes before it was ever viewable" on Pam's House Blend and then goes on to reach the incorrect conclusion that I am Miz Know It All.  Nope, I am not said person.  I read the comment on Mr. Sandeen's blog, and copied and pasted it into mine.  I suspect this person is a rather vicious cyberstalker who has been attempting to harass me for years, and is doing this as part of his obsession with me.  But no, I don't post comments on Pam's House Blend, and unlike "Penny G" I don't post as sock puppet.  If I am not mistaken, that person also tried to harass me when I commented on Mr. Sandeen's column at "LGBT Weekly."  In fact, I think that person got himself moderated there for a rather nasty comment that attempted to "out" me.  


In any case, as someone else pointed out, it could (and in this case is, due to differences in time zones).


Post-postscript:  Well, as predicted, Mr. Sandeen has censored Miz Know It All's comment, and coward that he is, he did it without even offering an explanation.  It simply "disappeared."  Of course, he can't answer her question.  And irony of ironies, he left the kook Penny G's comment, which now stands without context, but which does still contain a link to here, so anyone can still see the question Mr. Sandeen is so afraid of.


Oh, and a reminder...unlike most, if not all, transgender kook blogs, I don't censor messages unless they involve privacy violations, or, perhaps, involve unwarranted attacks on other people commenting.  Which is why most of the kooks will bother answering stuff here.  They are terrified of dealing with an even playing field.  If they can't control the debate, they know they will lose.