"You can't handle the truth!"

When I saw that the Toronto Star had, unsurprisingly, confirmed the likely veracity of the incident involving a naked (and quite erect) transgender man harassing a woman in a YMCA locker room, I wondered how Mr. "Cristan" Williams would react.  After all, Mr. Williams has frantically tried to deny that the story happened, labeling it as a lie, a hoax, etc.  Oh, he had to admit, somewhat reluctantly, that there was a possibility that the story was true, but even then he buried it under so many "weasel" words, it could easily be missed…

The Toronto Star has published this claim – without noting that the claim is a hoax, or at the very least is an anonymous and unverified claim – twice now. 

This is actually a repeat of what is said in an earlier paragraph that referred, quite contradictorily, to the entire story as a HOAX, in a story that repeatedly used the term "hoax" to refer to the entire claim.

Of course, this came after I pointed out that Mr. Williams had no real basis to show that the story was actually false, and was simply making them claim without any real basis.  Now, it turns out that the Toronto Star has been able to contact the author…that the YMCA has admitted receiving complaints…and that, it is much more likely that the story is true.

So, how has Mr. Williams reacted?  Has he admitted his error?  Has he admitted engaging in what basically amounts to a cover-up?  Has he faced reality, and dealt with the very real likelihood that a transgender male was parading around a Toronto YMCA, with a full erection, harassing females?

Are you kidding?  Of course NOT!

To use his own words, he has "doubled down" on his attempted cover-up.  

Of course, Mr. Williams, along with his comrade in lies, Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen, know that the truth is not their friend.  They have to hide the truth.  They have to perpetuate the illusion that "transgender people" never act in improper ways.  Because, quite frankly…

They can't handle the truth!!!!

We Don't Want Special Rights….Except When We Want Special Rights

I've been wondering when one of the extremist transgender bloggers would take on the case of the transgender boy at a Bay Area high school who got himself in trouble for attacking a group of girls he claims were bullying him.  Of course, Mr. "Cristan" Williams decided to weigh in, and as might be expected, he is demanding "special rights" for this fellow….

The case is really a simple one.  A student, who claims to be a "girl" but who is male, and who is well known in his high school, claims he was bullied by female students for years.  (And here we have been led to believe that female students have no problems with boys invading the girl's room in school…whoops.)  The boy, who calls himself "Jewlyes" Gutierrez, physically assaulted the girls, leading to a rather nasty altercation that was caught on someone's cell phone.  And because Gutierrez decided to use violence in response to verbal harassment, he was charged with battery.

Those are the simple facts.  A male student, who claims to be transgender, is verbally harassed, and uses physical violence against the female students who object to his presence in their bathroom.  Pretty simple.  Now, of course, in the eyes of the extremist transgender crowd, the girls have no rights, and Gutierrez has all the rights.  He gets to force himself on them, and when they react, he gets to use violence to "correct" them.

But, he cry will go up, "No, we don't want special rights!  We just want to be treated like everyone else…."  But when push comes to shove, no, they want special rights.  When they are treated like everyone else, they cry foul.

No one should be bullied, but being bullied does not justify violence.  That is the real issue here.  A male (sorry, but he is) physically attacks females who are calling him names.  Sorry, but no, that is not excusable.  If he was defending himself from a physical assault, it would be different.  But they were not hitting him.  He is the one who resorted to violence.  And he was a male, hitting a female.  Reality may not suit the transgender extremists, but it is past time for them to be brought face to face with it.

Transgender Extremism's Second Favorite Tactic

Obviously, as previously discussed, the favorite tactic of transgender extremists is to simply accuse anyone who questions the right of men to claim to be "women" and then wave their penises in front of actual women, of hatred.  Their second favorite tactic is similar, but slightly different.  It is to obfuscate and avoid the real issue.

Mr. "Cristan" Williams, and his comrade in deception, Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen have both had a complete meltdown over some transgender man in Toronto "ogling" a woman in a YWCA locker room.  Their issue?  The reporter did not do the impossible, and verify that the story was true.  So, of course, Mr. Sandeen called YWCAs in Toronto, who stated that no such incident had been reported, and also called the police, who stated the same, and then both he, and Mr. Williams, declared the story a "HOAX!"  You can read their silly diatribes here, and here.

The problem is, the journalist in Toronto did nothing wrong, while both Mr. Sandeen, and Mr. Williams are, again, lying through their teeth.  Calling this a hoax is a lie, as they have no evidence of that.  The lack of evidence proves nothing.  In this case, they are claiming that the fact that this was not reported to the YWCA, or the police proves it did not happen.  That is simple ignorance.  The simple fact is, at best, it would be an open question.

Why do they do this?  Because they know, deep down, it almost certainly did happen, but they can't deal with that.  So, they make it go away.  They hide it.  As they always try to hide these things.

They want to create an illusion that all transgender people are good, and pure, and innocent.  Because let's face it, the truth is not their friend.

Did a transgender male, parading around in the nude, with a full on erection, really ogle a woman changing in YWCA locker room in Toronto?  Possibly, even probably.  Do such things happen?  Yes, though Mr. Williams and Mr. Sandeen wish to lie and claim that they NEVER happen.

Perhaps a more important question is, why do perverts like Mr. Sandeen, and Mr. Williams want to force women to have to face even the possibility of such things being forced on them?

The REAL Transgender Agenda

Well, Mr. "Cristan" Williams is at it again...  

This time, he has gone so far as to defend "Colleen" Francis, who exposed himself to a group of teenage girls at Evergreen College in Washington State.  Perhaps defend is not the proper term.  As is typical with Mr. Williams, he has confabulated a rather fanciful tale in a desperate attempt to deny what actually happened.

Mr. Williams is trying to claim that the whole affair is really all an "urban legend," by, well, trying to cook up an urban legend.  I find it kind of interesting that Mr. Williams has waited over a year to come up with the bit of drivel.  Apparently he thinks it has been long enough that people might actually believe his lies.

But the real question is why?  Is it because, well, the "Colleen" Francis affair is so far-fetched that we should all believe that such a thing could never happen?  Or is it because, well, if the transgender extremists like Mr. Williams have their way, things like this will become routine?

If you guessed the former, sorry, but you are wrong.  If you guessed the latter, congratulations!

You see, very central to the REAL transgender agenda is an effort to force women to accept, shall we say, nude intact males in areas where there is an expectation of privacy.  Put a bit less delicately, these, uh, "women" are supposed to be free to wave their, uh, neo-clits around.  And if you don't like it?  TOUGH!  Just ask Transadvocate contributor Mr. "Zinnia" Jones:

"Cis people’s bathroom fears do not matter"

And then there is this outright lie from Mr. "Mara" Kiesling, in which he actually admits to the fact that part of the agenda is forcing women to accept nude men in the showers and dressing rooms:

The most significant change for transgender people is that we fought for and won removal of language that clarified use of showers and locker rooms "where being seen unclothed would be unavoidable." None of the states that have passed and successfully implemented a gender identity anti-discrimination law includes such a provision, and neither should ENDA.

This is not true, as 11 of the 17 states with such laws have separate provisions that protect privacy in such areas.  And as I showed in my previous post, this is a part of those schools policies that Mr. Williams has been lying and saying were "identical" to the new transgender school law that is currently being challenged in California.  That law specifically leaves out any provision that would allow for such protections.  It is important to remember that an omission can be as significant as an inclusion.

No, bottom line, this is the real transgender agenda.  Mr. Williams wants you to believe that what happened at Evergreen College is a myth.  He wants you to not demand protections until it is too late...

And I do appreciate Elizabeth at Notes From the T Side having the decency to acknowledge that I was right when I predicted that this would happen.  As I said, I was not interested in attacking a young transsexual.  I'm simply opposed to Mr. Williams and his ilk using a child to push their agenda. 

Let's Be Honest, Folks....

As I have pointed out, several times, there has been a lot said about the case of the transgender male in a Colorado high school who has been accused of harassing female students.  Much has been made about how "inaccurate" the news stories were.  I disagree.  I think they raised valid points, and that the reaction from the transgender extremists simply illustrates the true nature of the problem.

The Pacific Justice Institute issued a statement in which they said, "a trans person in the restroom is 'inherently intimidating and harassing.'"  I think that statement, as written, is somewhat flawed.  First off, the words "trans person" are very vague.  I imagine they might well, for example, include me in that, and yet, I use the restroom regularly without intimidating or harassing anyone.  Further, I do not identify as a "trans person."

And, some who might properly be identified as a "trans person" and who might self-identify as such would also be able to use the restroom without being "intimidating and harassing."  But, I would completely agree if it were reworded as, "a trans person in the restroom can be inherently intimidating and harassing."  

What would make a difference? Why is this true in a case like the one in Colorado, but not, perhaps in other cases?  The answer is simple.  In the case in Colorado, there has been no real attempt on the part of the student to assimilate as a female.  He is, as they say, "out, loud, and proud."  This is a continuing problem with the transgender extremists.  They not only are out, they make sure everyone knows their history.  They don't attempt to fit in as women...they force their situation in everyone's face.

And that is how some, like Mr. "Cristan" Williams, Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen," Mr. "Dana" Taylor and others want it.  They not only don't care that they are making women uncomfortable, they seem to take delight in it.  And this is just wrong.

When I transitioned, I went to great lengths to make sure that I was not causing a problem in using the women's room.  The thought never occurred to me to see it as an inherent right.  If I had not been able to assimilate, I am not sure what I would have done.  But, I seriously doubt  I would have been able to continue my transition.

Now, we have kooks like Mr. Williams and Mr. Sandeen who go out of their way to not assimilate.  They seem to treasure the shock value of being known as "transgender."  It is the focus of their sad little lives, and if that makes women uncomfortable, they are all the happier, claiming it as some sort of "teaching moment."

I believe it is time for a return to sanity in this area.  If someone is not going to make an effort to actually assimilate as a woman, then they should stay out of women's spaces.  If you have not had surgery, then you should not be in a place where a woman might see you nude.  And if you are told you are making women uncomfortable, then you should take corrective steps to prevent this.  Otherwise....well, you are just acting like man, and a rather nasty one at that.

Hey! Who's the Naked Dude?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Williams starts off:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More Lies From Mr. Williams....

Well, as is his style, Mr. "Cristan" Williams is strutting about and crowing about how he has "forced" several news organizations to pull the story about the transgender student who harassed girls at his Colorado high school.  Part of this stems from the vagueness of the term "harass."  I would not be at all surprised if the claim was made on the basis of the unquestionable fact that a male student, now claiming to be transgender, and therefore "female" insisted on his right to enter the girls restroom.  Is this harassment?  Well, if you are a female, and you have someone you know to be a male, who is not even trying to make a secret of that, quite publicly insisting on sharing the restroom with you, and this makes you uncomfortable...then yes, I would call that harassment.

This is the problem with the whole transgender extremist approach.  These people are not trying to actually be women.  Men like Mr. "Cristan" Williams, and Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen, and Mr. "Dana" Taylor are not remotely attempting to be women.  The very idea is foreign, and even repulsive to them.  They are trying to be "transgender."  They cannot imagine not being, as they would say, "out, loud, and proud."  The idea that someone might simply mistake them for an actual female would be terribly upsetting.

No, what they are all about is forcing people to suspend reality, suppress their clear knowledge, and basically accept a lie...namely that they are "women," and even "female" even though they have penises, and would rather die than give then up.

So yes, Fox News is right...this male student is harassing the girls at his high school.  He is not some poor innocent just trying to deal with a medical condition...he is actively forcing his chosen behavior on girls who, I have no doubt, are not at all happy.  And yes, that is pretty much  textbook case of harassment.

And I am not even going to bother ripping apart his rather obvious abuse of statistics to bolster absurd claims, like how "half of the transgender population" are victims of rape.  That is totally bogus.  Well, okay...that one is too good to pass up.  It is based on some surveys conducted in places like here in San Francisco.  I am familiar with these kinds of studies, and the population is not "all transgender people" or even a representative portion of "all transgender people."  The participants are largely transgender sex workers, who have a very high rate of things like sexual assault...as do sex workers in general.  So, while a study might show that half of the participants were sexually assaulted, that does not remotely translate into the outrageous claims made by Mr. Williams.

But hey, Mr. Williams wouldn't know the truth if it slapped him in the face (which, quite frankly, it does regularly).

Mr. "Cristan" Williams Lies, Again....and Again....and Again...

In an article of the type that Mr. "Cristan" Williams is notorious for, he shows, once more, that he is a pathological liar.  The article, entitled Trans Student Attacking Girls in School Restroom! Or, you know… not, is classic Mr. Williams. The title is the first lie. No one has actually said that a trans student is attacking girls. This is a classic "Cristan" Williams straw argument. What has been alleged is that the male student is harassing girls, which would include forcing himself into the girls rooms when it is well known that he is a male-bodied student. Mr. Williams, being a male-brained man has no concept of the idea that female students might no want a man in their bathroom. Mr. Williams is the sort of pervert who thinks they should just "get over it."

He then goes on to crank out even more of his typical straw arguments... He asserts that the right wing is claiming:

Florence High School is supposedly part of a trans conspiracy to assault school girls in the restroom.

ROTFL!  No one has made such a claim, but that doesn't stop Mr. Williams...  He is on a roll, and has no sense of ethics.

He then goes on to attack the journalist who has written about this.  What David McCain of "the examiner" (funny how Mr. Williams doesn't provide links to the stories he quotes..., using images instead, which allows him to control what people do, and do not, see).  The story can be found here.  Clearly, this story has Mr.  Williams in a full-blown panic.  He has brought in back-ups to try to dominate the comments...

No, he misrepresents what was reported.  No one suggested that anyone was "assaulted," or "attacked."  The word used was "harassed, which would describe how girls might feel about having a boy in their presence.

Mr. Williams also lies when he claims:

I challenged David about his facts and he admitted that he abdicated his responsibility to conduct due diligence for a story concerning a trans kid. Let’s be honest here, this is a case where ADULTS are targeting a trans KID, asserting that the kid is preditor. Apparently, for people like David, what he’s knowingly doing to this kid is acceptable as long as he has his juicy headline that plays well for his audience.

Actually, Mr. Williams has harrassed David McCain, and McCain most certainly made no such admission.  So, Mr. Williams lies again.  Further, no one has used the term "predator" or even "predator" to describe the student.

And finally, Mr. Williams posts a comment from what he claims is a female student at the high school in question, without citing the source.  It is not as it would appear, a comment on the article in question...

So, again, Mr. Williams, who has an established record for lying, has done it again.

Has the Backlash Against the Transgender Extremists Begun?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Very Bad Law

I'm normally a big supporter of both Tom Ammiano and Gov. Jerry Brown, but I am not happy with either of them at the moment.

Ammiano introduced, and Brown signed, AB1266, the law is meant to provide protections for "transgender" students.  Unfortunately, it contains one provision that makes it a very bad law.

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

Strictly interpreted, this would mean that a male student, upon declaring that his gender identity is female, would not only be able to play on a girl's athletic team (irregardless of his hormonal status), but would also be able to join the girls in the shower after the game.

I am sure the transgender extremists are just...well, doing what men who are sexually aroused do, over the prospect of this.

It is one thing to say that students should be treated fairly, or that students who identify as transgender should be allowed to dress and be treated as the gender they claim to identify with, but the idea that a male student should be able to be in a place where female students have a right to expect privacy, simply by making the assertion that "he feels like a girl," is absurd.

The irony is, no student who is actually transsexual would take advantage of this, so any student who actually does, and perhaps none actually will, is simply not a transsexual, but is instead a pervert.

He Said WHAT?!?!?!?

Okay, this one is just too much....

There is no question that "Dana Lane" Taylor is a man....

There is no question that "Dana Lane" Taylor has a sock puppet on Twitter as @Six of Caprica....

But I fear the poor boy slipped up and showed the true nature of transgender extremists....

In case you have trouble reading what Mr. Taylor said, it's "Can't wait to get to work so I can go pee in the ladies room."  

Really, you just can't make this sort of thing up....

Another Clueless Man in a Dress

I sometimes get taken to task for referring to, uh, "trans women," as men, using male pronouns, and what some refer to as "scare quotes."  (Hmm, does that quotes around scare quotes make them scarier?)  But, here is another example of complete cluelessness and total disregard for the rights of members of the same group that they want to claim member ship in.

The story, by a transgender man who calls himself "Zinnia" Jones, concerns complaints at a women's shelter in Maine about two men who the women believe are posing as women simply to get into the shelter.  Hmmm, don't the transgender extremists claim that no man would ever do anything like that?  Or have they stopped since the number of such cases has been climbing?

Mr. Jones, in classic transgender style, attempts to dismiss the very real concerns of the women in the shelter.  Here is how he presents a quote from this article.

But the women who complained said they believe that in at least one case, it was a ruse. They believe one of the people in question is a man who occasionally dresses as a woman to get into the shelter, perhaps for voyeuristic reasons. That person did not have any feminine mannerisms and often dresses in a T-shirt and jeans, sporting a 5 o’clock shadow of male facial hair, they said.“If they’re really living as a woman, I think they have every right to be there,” said one of the women who complained. “But he wasn’t wearing makeup or wearing eyeliner or anything. Just a man wearing a skirt. It was just odd.”
Now, here in San Francisco, the local shelters admit, uh, "trans women," as well as transsexuals. In fact, it is required by City law, so there are few, if any complaints made, though believe me, there are complaints. I know of what I speak...

The emphasis was not in the original article.  But I find it curious that Mr. Jones seems to focus on the part about how they were dressed and makeup, but glosses over the part about facial hair.    Now, I realize that someone living in a shelter might not be able to afford electrolysis, but I find it hard to imagine anyone who truly identifies as a woman being comfortable being seen with a beard shadow.  Shoot, I often dress in a t-shirt and jeans, so I agree, that is silly.  But I suspect that the real issue for the women was probably more the beard shadow, and the mannerisms.

Ten years ago, when I first arrived in San Francisco, I spent some time in the shelter system. Even though I was pre-op, I did not openly identify as transsexual except to a few close friends.  On one occasion, when I assumed that someone who was, well, quite frankly transgender, probably had read me, I was shocked to heae that person state that they had thought about it, and finally decided I was not a transsexual, but had been born female.

At this particular shelter, one was initially given an overnight bed.  Theoretically, beds were assigned by lottery.  If there were openings for a long-term bed, they were assigned to the first people on that night's list.  After that, the overnight beds were assigned until they ran out.  Anyone left over was taken to whatever shelter had space.  Of course, there was not really a lottery.  It was rare that they didn't have enough beds, at least in the women's section, so most nights everyone got in.  And on most nights, a few people got a long term bed.  What was really going on was that they observed people, and decided who to admit.  Most people waited about a week.  And some people never got anything except overnight beds, like one woman who would show up with a cart full of junk.  She was there, night after night, week after week, but never anything but an overnight bed.  One of the staff told me, off the record, that she never would get one either.

When I was admitted to a king term bed, there was an uncomfortable moment when the person doing my paperwork looked at me, paused, seemed to ponder a few things, and then, without asking, marked my paperwork as female (male, female, and transgender were the options).  I knew he was thinking about the fact that I am a bit tall, at 5'10".  

But, there were occasions when we did have, uh, "trans women." who were problems.  There was one, rather obvious man, who would show up wearing absolutely clownish lipstick sort of smear around his mouth.  I mean, there was no effort to even try to put it on properly.  And his behavior was extremely male.  He made a lot of us uncomfortable.  He also never got more than an overnight bed.

There was another, uh, "trans woman," very obvious, who did get into a long term bed.  And who, very publicly, and rather disturbingly, proceeded to lie on top of his bunk and masturbate.  Yeah, another example of the sort of thing the transgender kooks claims, never happens.

The bottom line?  There needs to be some balance.  Like requiring evidence that the person is seeing a therapist, is on hormones, and that they behave appropriately.  But, of course, the extremists will never go for that.  And that is why the extremists really are, just "clueless men in dresses."

This Would Be Funny If It Were Not So Infuriating

Okay, I just saw a post on Transadvocate where Dana Taylor has decided to join the transgender side.  Now, it is, of course, one's right to choose how one views the world, and who one wishes to align oneself with.  For me to say otherwise would be hypocrisy.

But when I read the reason, "The Cotton Ceiling" I had to do a bit of checking.  I knew it had something to do with the whole rad fem versus trans kerfuffle.  But I was not sure of the details.

Here is what I found...

“…the Cotton Ceiling – with reference to knickers – is the term parts of the trans community have inventively adopted for the way that, however theoretically accepting of trans people a lot of progressives may be, when it comes to actually having sex with us, they vote with their …um…feet.”

In other words, it is about complaining because someone is exercising their basic human right to choose who, and who not, to have sex with.  Now, let me be clear on several things here.  Since I completed my transition, I have had sex with several men, none of whom knew my history.  It was none of their business.  Unlike the transgender crowd, I have no need to reveal my medical history in order to get my jollies.  Had someone known, and decided to decline, I might have had my feelings hurt, but I would have seen it as their right to make that decision.  Just as it is my right to decide, for example, if I want to date someone who is an FTM.  I have done so, but I don't know that I would always make that choice.  I had one post op friend who was almost stalked by a rather obnoxious FTM.  She did not want to date him, but for a while, he was almost comical in his pursuit of her... almost, but more creepy than funny.

But according to the "cotton ceiling" crowd, lesbians should be ashamed of making a choice that it is their right to make.  Taken to its logical extreme, and I have actually seen this done, straight men should have no right to turn down a "trans woman," in other words, quite possibly, a dude in a dress, who wants to go to be with him.  Now, I had a few dates before surgery and on occasion the guy did not know when we first met. I alway was careful how I revealed my, uh, situation in order to avoid any violence.  I don't believe such violence is warranted, nor do I believe the trans panic defense should be allowed.  I also think pre-op transsexuals as well as transgender men, should exercise caution to avoid being injured or worse, murdered.  But this cotton ceiling crap is just creepy.  If you feel the need to broadcast your history, people have a right to take it into consideration when deciding if they want you as a sexual partner.  There is a word for trying to deny someone the right to make a decision based on that knowledge.  It is called rape.  If a woman does not want to have sex with you because she does not believe you are an appropriate partner, whether that woman is of trans history or not (and I have known of trans women, who identified as lesbian, who also did not want to have sex with transgender men, but you insist they do not have that right, then hey Bro' you are proving, you da man!

If anyone wants a good example of the sort of behavior that lies behind my statement that I don't "misgender" transgender men, this is one of the best....  

The Logical Fallacy of Transgender

In all of the silliness that has gone on today, what with Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen's complete meltdown, and Mr."Cristan" Williams comment on it, I saw something that I should have commented on.  And that was the central issue that I am trying to get people to see.

Sandeen was carrying on because I commented that he would not respond to challenges.  I have seen Williams try to use logical fallacies and intellectual dishonesty to avoid dealing with real issues.  And I realized, they have no choice.

At the core of the transgender paradigm is "self identification."  A transsexual who posts as Aunty Orthodox confronted Sandeen over this.  She was debating Sandeen about MWMF and the issue of who is and is not a woman...

After some back and forth, I asked specifically about Kirk Sneade, a college student who published a manifesto which included this bullet:

• Kirk Sneade has self defined as a woman ever since he realised it gave him legal access to the women’s changing rooms at the Bloomsbury gym.

Does Autumn Sandeen support Kirk Sneade, a self-identified woman, as an attendee to MWMF? Seems crazy, doesn’t it? Autumn would not address the question, instead choosing to talk about equality, and yadda yadda.

Autumn avoided two pointed questions. The first is, what is a self-identified woman? Her refusal to answer suggests that we both agree that Kirk Sneade is not a woman, even though he meets the criteria for self-identifying as one.

The second is whether women can define who is allowed to be a part of women’s-only space. An organizer may want to exclude male-bodied persons, or even female-bodied trans women from their space (e.g., MWMF, Radfem 2013). That’s their right. Autumn disagrees

But what is a woman? Is Kirk Sneade a woman? See how circular this is? If Kick Sneade, a self-identified woman, can enter women’s space, who can’t? Shouldn’t women decide who gets to be included in women’s space?

I have to say, this was absolutely brilliant.  I would challenge any who wish to defend transgender politics to answer this simple paradox.  Clearly, Kirk Sneade is not a woman.  Right?  Well, if he isn't, and you claim someone like Sandeen is, how can this be?  Sandeen's ONLY claim to being a woman is, after twenty years of successful service as a man, in a man's role, in the US Navy, he decided he wanted to be a woman and started self-identifying as one.  Now, he will, of course, claim that he was always a woman, and such, but I call foul on that.  Trust me, I know.  I had a miserable life before I transitioned. I would not have lasted 20 minutes in the Navy, let alone 20 years.  

If all it takes to be a woman is to self-identify as one, then by that standard, Kirk Sneade is a woman.  But clearly Kirk Sneade is not a woman.  No one, except a true fanatic, would say he is.  But if he is not, where is the line?  And who gets to draw it?  Sandeen would not answer this, because Sandeen cannot answer this.  Would Sandeen insist that people MUST use female pronouns to refer to Kirk Sneade?  After all, Sneade says he is a woman?  That is the same standard as Sandeen claims.  Would Sandeen demand that Kirk Sneade be admitted to MWMF?  Probably...  But that is a bit different matter.  And here is the real kicker.  Would he insist that be allowed in the women's changing rooms?  If not, Sandeen's entire paradigm falls apart.  If so, then Sandeen has shown he has no concept of how women think or feel. And with that the transgender house of cards collapses...

Women, quite frankly, don't "self-identify" as women.  We just are.  Sandeen will call foul, perhaps, or someone else might, and they are welcome to do so.  But ask any woman to really explain what makes her a woman, and that is the answer you will ultimately get.  It is not an identity.  It is a reality.  A reality that Kirk Sneade, and let's be honest, Sandeen, have never, and will never, experience.  So. all they can claim is, "I self-identify" as a woman.  And I am sorry. but that just doesn't cut it.

So, what is the moral of all this?  It is simple. One is a woman, if, and really only if, one is able to actually life in society as a woman.  Not a transwoman, not as transgender, but just as a woman.  I do, and so do a lot of transsexuals who have completed transition and moved on.   

It's Really Very Simple...

I occasionally take a look at Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen's Twitter feed.  Some of his best comedic work is there...  For example, today he got into a debate with a woman who posts as Aunty Orthodox.  Here, with my comments, are some of the sillier moments...

Aunty Orthodox 
@AutumnSandeen Alright, go for it. More power to you, to Camp Trans and so forth. But from my POV, you're working to destroy women's space.

Autumn Sandeen
@auntyorthodox No. I'm working to expand women's space to include all women.

I thought that one was particularly silly.  Sandeen, and other transgender extremists really are trying to destroy women's space.  They cannot stand the idea that there are places that "women with penises" are not allowed.  Sandeen needs to understand, women don't have penises, at least not that they want to keep.  I would argue that  transsexual woman is a woman, even before surgery, but that is not the case with Sandeen.  When he first burst onto the seen, he was an avowed non-op.  Then, he became a "surgery-tracked transsexual."  Then, he decided that having his testicles removed was enough.  He is back to being a Arnold Lowman-style, "woman with a penis," or more precisely, a transvestite.  But, he is apparently quite delusional, or terribly dishonest...

Autumn Sandeen


‪@auntyorthodox My birth certificate says I was born female - therefore for attendance purposes I'm going to consider my gender identity.

Sandeen also needs to understand that he is NOT and never will be a woman, no matter what his fraudulent birth certificate says.  And you have to love that male attitude that say, "I don't care, the rules don't apply to me...."  He is going to decide what criteria applies in his case.

Now, particularly enjoyed this next exchange.  First let me set it up by providing a little background about the person mentioned....



Kirk Sneade is an undergraduate at University College, London (UCL), who, along with his  "campaign team" were branded as being"misogynist pricks" by other students after he made a controversial run for a campus office.

First, he uploaded a video of a woman being punched by a man and a photo with the slogan "memes are gay". Then, Sneade, who has the audacity to claim he is the victim of discrimination, compared his situation to the persecution of communists in Nazi Germany.

This is his original manifesto:

• Kirk Sneade has self defined as a woman ever since he realised it gave him legal access to the women's changing rooms at the Bloomsbury gym.
• Kirk wants to make clear his desire to attend all Women's forums to talk about Important Woman Issues such as hair dressing, shopping and walking sassily away from confrontations with your exes.
• Kirk understands the need for equality. He wants to campaign to encourage women of UCL to wear leggings, jeggings and summer-time denim hot-pants.
• Kirk would also like to formally change the name of the Print-Room Cafe to the Pretty-Girl Cafe, and launch an official enquiry into why there are so many pretty girls in the cafe compared to the rest of UCL and what can be done about it.
• More speculatively, Kirk also suggests perhaps herding up the pretty girls you see around campus and keeping them ready for emergency transport to the Roxy later on when things start to get a little dry.
• Kirk is worried that people may see this manifesto as sexist. Kirk wants to make clear that while it is sexier than most, you should probably have a look at the others because some of them are pretty sexy as well.
• Kirk also wants to campaign for reinstatement of the Varsity rugby match, campaign against student politics being full of students who are out of touch with the student body and start the dissolution of the Women's officer position as it an inherently sexist and outmoded position of power within the union.

Now, with that in mind, consider this next bit:

Aunty Orthodox ‏ @AutumnSandeen "self-identified" doesn't seem like an adequate condition for actually gaining access to women's-only space.
 

Autumn Sandeen ‏‪@auntyorthodox Well, who -- in the broad sense of who -- decides how to police women's space, and who polices it?
 

Aunty Orthodox ‏‪ @AutumnSandeen I'd think it should be the organizers of the space, right?


Autumn Sandeen 

‪@auntyorthodox As I said - yes, they get to decide. But, trans community, of which I'm a part, get to engage in free speech & action too.
 

Aunty Orthodox @AutumnSandeen If you were in a women's-only space, would you welcome Kirk Sneade? 

Autumn Sandeen@auntyorthodox Now who's personalizing? Btw, that argument is the example of the KKK fallacy. ‪http://ht.ly/k2p6s 
 



‪Aunty Orthodox
@AutumnSandeen You're evading my question, and now you're bringing up the KKK? Please be serious.
 

Autumn Sandeen @auntyorthodox No no no. There is a logical fallacy called the KKK fallacy. It's in essence one that claims that...
 

Autumn Sandeen ‏‪ 

‪@auntyorthodox ...that are a number of black criminals, then all black people are dangerous and should be discriminated against..a fallacy.
 

Autumn Sandeen @auntyorthodox No no no. There is a logical fallacy called the KKK fallacy. It's in essence one that claims that...
 

Autumn Sandeen ‏‪ 

‪@auntyorthodox ...that are a number of black criminals, then all black people are dangerous and should be discriminated against..a fallacy.
 

Autumn Sandeen ‏‪

‪@auntyorthodox ...that are a number of black criminals, then all black people are dangerous and should be discriminated against..a fallacy.


Okay, there is so much silliness here....  First off, Sandeen tries, again, to avoid the real question, which is basically, by what right does he claim to be a woman?  While the most extreme of radical feminists take an extremist position that basically ignores science....well, so does Sandeen.  The feminists say that it is all about socialization.  They very much adhere to the "blank slate" theory.  That we all start out as blank slates, and our "gender" is written upon us based on socialization.  And that since we are all socialized based on what is between our legs at birth, that determines whether we are truly men or women.  That is, men are men because they are raised to be men, and women are women, because they are raised to be women.  Of course, science has proven this completely false.  The transgender extremists claim that simply because they claim to be women, and in some cases, claim to have "female brains," we have to take their word for it, even if they also state that they want to keep their male genitalia intact.  Science has also proven them to be wrong as well.  Those, like Sandeen, who claim to be "women with penises," expect people to take their word for it, even when they clearly, and unequivocally, act like men.

But that is only half of what is going on here.  Now, no one would ever, seriously, suggest that Snead is a "transgender."  He is clearly a misogynistic man, who has a serious delusion as to how funny he is.  Simply put, he isn't remotely....  But the problem that Sandeen tap dances around is, "If the transgender extremist have their way, who do you keep someone like Snead out of women's spaces?"  He states that he self-identifies as a woman.  Even though he clearly does not, how do you "prove" this?  How can you seriously differentiate between him, and Sandeen?  That is a problem for Sandeen.

And it is not solved by straw arguments like "the Klan Fallacy."  There are serious differences between "skin color" and "sex."  They are not comparable.  That is why we have different laws to deal with the two.  There is NO rational basis for discrimination based on skin color, but there is for discriminating, in certain limited situations, on the basis of sex.  It is irrational to claim that one has a right to be "uncomfortable" sharing a rest room with someone of another race, but it is not irrational to desire to keep someone of the opposite sex out of the restroom, or more importantly, locker rooms and showers.

As to the "Klan Fallacy," that is simply a straw argument tossed about by kooks like Mr. "Cristan" Williams, and Sandeen.  It has no application here.

Here is another interesting exchange...

Aunty Orthodox@AutumnSandeen Alright, go for it. More power to you, to Camp Trans and so forth. But from my POV, you're working to destroy women's space.


Autumn Sandeen ‏‪

‪@auntyorthodox ...is by intention defining women's space as not including of one kind of woman. Just as evil as it would be to exclude..


Aunty Orthodox ‏‪@AutumnSandeen It's not evil. If there is evil, it is forcing women to lose their safe space to people who only "claim" to be women.
 




Autumn Sandeen ‏‪@auntyorthodox ...and I can see now you're one of the bigots. I actually pity you...you're now on the wrong side of history.
 




Aunty Orthodox ‏‪‪@AutumnSandeen And trans activists who refuse to acknowledge womens' rights to create exclusive spaces are actually harming women.


Autumn Sandeen ‏‪‪@auntyorthodox ..your beliefs. To be true to my belief on how to combat antitrans sentiment, I must see your belief system crushed.

A couple of interesting points...  Disagree with Mr. Sandeen, and he instantly calls you a bigot.  Even if what you are doing is simply defining women's space as not including men.  I mean, really, Mr. Sandeen's only claim to being a woman is basically "because I say so."  That is one of those issues he keeps avoiding.  And then there is his classic fallback to violent language.  He has to "crush" Aunty Orthodox's belief system.  Crush...  Kind of scary. And I should point out, nowhere in any of this debate does Aunty Orthodox come across as a radical feminist.  Perhaps she is, but I see no evidence of it.

The bottom line to this whole thing is summed up in this exchange....

Aunty Orthodox @Autumn Sandeen This isn't about equality though. It's about women having the power to establish safe spaces, however they define that.
 

Autumn Sandeen ‏‪@auntyorthodox Ordinary equality means trans women are treated as other women..white, black, Hispanic, disabled, veteran..fill in the blank.


Sandeen could care less about safe spaces for women, as he is not one.  He is a man, and he thinks like a man, including the belief that he what he wants is all that matters.  And, more to the point, "trans women" are not remotely women.  To compare "trans" to things like "white, black, Hispanic, disabled, veteran" is absurd.  By its very nature, "trans" indicates that  they are men, and they want to continue to identify as men.  I am a woman, not a "trans woman."  Yes, I am a white woman, I am a Christian woman, I am a disabled woman...but those do not directly address my being a woman.  To say one is a "trans woman," on the other hand, is to make a statement that expands to "Well, I am really a man, who identifies as being a woman, but I cling to my identity as a man while still claiming to 'really be a woman.'"  Yeah, well, that's nice, now please, stay out of women's spaces....because you don't belong there.

Why Are So Many Transgender Kooks Also Bullies?

As I have recounted, I have again been subjected to a round of attempted cyberbullying by Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen.  But, this i only the tip of the iceberg.  If you don't adhere to the approved "transgender kook party line," watch out.  I have mentioned the attacks that Mr. Sandeen has leveled at Cathy Brennan, who has also been attacked by numerous other transgender kooks.  And now, another of the bully boys, Mr. "Cristan" Williams is having another hissy fit because he, and other boys, are not allowed to visit the infamous Michigan Womyn Who Can't Spell Women Music Festival.  Now, let me disclose, right off, I have no real interest in ever going to such an event.  Like the vast majority of women, it simply does not appeal to me.  But, this has become the Holy Grail for the Men in Dresses crowd.  They have fits at the very thought that they are not welcome in that place.  And speak of Mr. Sandeen, I recall that he claims that they have to let him into the MWMF because his fraudulently obtained birth certificate proves that he is, and I am not making this up, a "woman born woman."

Yes, the latest to take on this issue is Mr. Cristan Williams, who posted a rant on TransAdvocate, which he now runs.  In it, he tries to link the policies at MWMF to transsexuals being denied medical care.  This follows an earlier article (that I planned on commenting on, but couldn't stop laughing at whenever I saw it), where one of the kookiest of the kooks, Zoe Brain (who presumably did not need such medical care since he claims he just sort of magically turned into a woman) claims that Janice Raymond caused the deaths of 50,000 transgender people because they committed suicide after being denied SRS, or something like that.

Personally, if some group has an exclusionary policy that, well, excludes me, that's fine.  I have no desire to invade, for example, the Pacific-Union Club here in San Francisco.  It is a men's only club, and while I will admit to a mild curiosity about what might go on there, I would not remotely consider trying to force my way in.  The same goes for the Bohemian Club, and a few others.  Sure, it would be interesting to have some insight into the mysterious and supposed conspiracies that are hatched out in the woods up near Monte Rio, California, but trying to force them to let me in does not haunt me like invading the MWMF does the transgender kooks.

Sure, a lot of post-op transsexuals, and maybe even a few men with intact penises manage to sneak in every years, but that is not what the boys are after. They want, as always, to be able to "openly" invade the place. That is, to force the women there to "acknowledge" them as full-fledged women with penises, or in some cases, former women with penises...or whatever.

Why, the very fact that there are a few women up there in the woods in Michigan who have not been beaten into submission to the transgender party line gives these poor boys a case of the vapors... Here is what, Nancy Burkholder, the person who apparently started the who thing has to say about it:

My mind was blank, my body absolutely still as I became aware of the emotional devastation that I felt inside. The events that were going down seemed totally unreal. Nevertheless I found a place of calm inside myself. I found acceptance for my situation, and I could feel the emotional devastation without the devastation overwhelming me.

Now, I will grant, Burkholder claims to have not been aware of the policy, and apparently it was not mentioned in the literature until this person showed up.  But seriously, you would think this person had been raped, rather than simply denied admission to a music festival.  No, it is not pleasant having one's identity challenged, especially if one really is transsexual, but even if that is the case here, it seems to represent some pretty massive insecurities.  I can't speak for everyone, but I am secure enough in terms of who I am that I don't let such things throw me for this big of a loop.

My advice to Mr. Williams, and all the others who whine about this every years is simple.  Get over yourselves.  Lisa Vogel and her crew don't want you at their private party, and you need to accept that.  They don't think you are really women (yeah, she thinks the same about me, but I really could care less) and well, in the case of those most obsessed with the whole thing, I suspect she is probably right.  So, go find a bunch of girls who will play with you.  I am sure you can find a few who will swallow the lie that women have, and want to keep, penises.  But Lisa isn't one of them, and I don't think she is going to give in to your bullying.

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.