The True Facts Behind the Maryland MacDonald's Beating

You have probably read about the horrible beating a woman received at a McDonald's in Maryland.  And you have possibly seen some of the silliness posted on various blogs about how this was a vicious crime motivated by the fact that this woman was "transgender."  But some facts have come out that show both the insanity and unethical behavior of those who are at the extremes of the transgender confusion.


First off, the attack was not motivated by the woman being identified as transgender.  In a video by the victim, she makes it clear that the crime occurred because she innocently spoke to one o the two attacker's boyfriend.  Clearly, the two who beat her were looking for a fight, and she had the misfortune to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.


Second, she is not at all happy with all these websites who have made a big deal out of her private medical information.  Of course, not a single one has had the decency to even remotely apologize for compounding the invasion of her privacy.  They have all been too busy celebrating their latest martyr.  The fact that she has never openly identified herself as transgender, and clearly is not happy being labeled as such...well, we all know the drill.


No, the victim was first identified as transgender by the person at McDonald's who was busy recording the who thing with his cell phone.  Now, while it is arguable that he was under no obligation to risk his own life to end the fight, at the very least he should have been calling the police, and not looking to make a hit on some web site.


Fortunately, she appears to have escaped without any permanent injuries, and it does appear that the two attackers will be fully prosecuted.  But once again, the transgender extremists show their true colors.  And they don't care who they hurt in the name of pushing their agenda.


And no, in spite of the silly claims, passing the Maryland bill, even if it had contained a "public accommodations" clause, would have done nothing to prevent this.  Nor would it have if the motivation had of been because she was "transgender."  But, as always, there is reality, and then there are the extremists, and never the twain shall they meet.

Sandeen Goes Cyberstalking

Well, it appears that "Autumn" Sandeen has decided to join the effort by a certain Usenet kook to cyberstalk me.  I have not mentioned it here, but a person on Usenet has been engaged in a vendetta against me, that has, among other things, included sending messages attacking me to what they presume are members of my church.  Now, Mr. Sandeen has joined this effort.


First off, let me state, for the record, that anything I say here is my personal opinion and does not represent anything other than my personal views.  I do not speak for ANYONE else.


Here is the text of the email that Mr. Sandeen has sent to my church.  I should add, I am NOT "out, loud, and proud" at my church, so this represents, among other things, Mr. Sandeen outing me to people who do not necessarily know my past.  

It has come to my attention that Jenifer(sic) is on the staff and vestry of The  as the  Editor. I'm also aware that your church identifies itself as a welcoming congregation, being listed in the, and I would believe therefore that your congregation would subscribe to the Tips On Becoming A Welcoming Congregation.

 

One of the statements within Tips On Becoming A Welcoming Congregation is this statement:

 

If you are going to say you are welcoming, be prepared to prove it. 

Outside of the walls of your church building, your staff member Jennifer Usher is not being welcoming of transgender identified people like me.

 

Specifically, Jennifer has self-identified herself as being owner of the blog called JustJenifer. She has frequently misgendered me as by male pronouns, and refers to me frequently as "Mr. Sandeen." The most recent example of this is in her post It's All About The Egos, where she also misgenders Monica Helms.

 

It is one thing for Jennifer to vigorously disagree with transgender people's opinions, and another thing altogether for her to intentionally, with malicious intent, frequently misgender transgender identified people.

 

Jennifer is listed as a staff and vestry member of your congregation. What she says, and how she says it, reflects on your congregation because she is a staff member of your congregation.

 

Frankly, I would not attend your church or belong to your congregation because you have at least one staff member who very intentionally and maliciously doesn't embrace your message of being a welcoming congregation.

 

If you are going to say you are welcoming, be prepared to prove it. 

As a staff member of your congregation, she should be required -- if she wishes to remain on your staff -- to take her blog down. That is, after making a public apology on her blog for her intentional and malicious misgendering of transgender people on her blog (since she has made her vile misgendering of transgender people in public). If she does not agree to take the malicious content down and apologize for it, then she needs to be released from your staff.

Your staff member Jennifer reflects poorly on your status as a welcoming congregation. I know I will be talking to governing body of if the situation isn't dealt in a manner that I believe is appropriate. This situation is very significant to me.

 

Sincerely,

~~Autumn~~

 

Info: Jennifer

 

P.S.: Please note the last line of my signature block with regards to this e-letter. I'm not agreeing to the electronic publication of this e-letter.

Now, I find it amusing that Mr. Sandeen decides to join in a cyberstalker's illegal efforts to anonymously cyberstalk me (I know, based on a post by another blogger that he has contacted a wide list of people in an effort to recruit them to his cause) but does not want his efforts revealed.


Now, let me point out some things.  I am not a member of my church's staff.  I volunteer as editor, nor am I a member of the vestry.  I am not an employee of the church, but just a member who gives time to several ministries.


Further, I disagree that I misgender anyone.  I do not see Mr. Sandeen as a female, nor do I see Helms as one either.  They are very public about their status, and I do not share their view that simply changing clothes changes one's sex and/or gender.  I refer to them as male as a political statement in opposition to their positions regard transsexuals and those who identify as transgender.  This is a political position, and it is mine alone.  Again, nothing I say here reflects anything other than my views.  Any attempt to associate these views as remotely being those of my church would be extremely dishonest on the part of Mr. Sandeen.  Of course, honesty is not a trait I necessarily associate with him.


BTW, I have been called a male on numerous occasions, including by the very cyberstalker who Mr. Sandeen is assisting (talk about irony, not to mention hypocrisy).  Do I go to pieces?  Do I throw a hissy fit?  No, because I am a woman.  I am not playing a game.  If someone calls me a male, it changes nothing.  It is no different from any other woman being called a male.  It might be a mistake, followed by a quick apology when the person takes a better look.  It might be an attempt to insult, in which case I consider the source.  Or it might be a political statement, in which case I might even have a good laugh.  I am not trying to force society to see me as something I am not.


This is nothing more than a blatant attempt by Mr. Sandeen to accomplish what he has previously been unable to do.  And that is to censor me.  He regularly blocks anyone who disagrees with him.  I was banned from his blog, not for any violations of the terms of service there, but supposedly because of what I write here.  Now, he attempts to censor that by appealing to my church.


As to his claiming that "The contents of this electronic communication are off the record and not for publication on any blog, web site, news site or other public internet outlet unless otherwise agreed to by the author," that carries no weight in light of the nature of said email.  He has shown no regard for ethical behavior by attempting to out me, and to cyberstalk me.  So, I am going to ignore his silly attempt to hide his own misbehavior. 


Oh, and one final thought.  Given Mr. Sandeen's obvious hatred for Christianity, it is kind of funny that he would attempt to appeal to a church to aid him in his censorship.

It's All About the Egos

It is really hard to miss the fact that the worst extremes of the transgender movement are driven by massive egos.  But this has never been as apparent as the recent reaction to news that has leaked out about an alleged secret meeting between the Obama White House and transgender leaders.  "Autumn" Sandeen is absolutely having a hissy fit because such a meeting is being kept secret, and besides, he wasn't invited.


Now, this is not the first such meeting.  There was one early on that I learned about from a former co-worker.  The incoming Obama administration met with some of the more sane leaders in the transgender movement.


But the kooks are absolutely frantic because they are not invited.  "Monica" Helms is livid that his Transgender American Veterans Association is not included.  I imagine it never occurs to him that this just might be because they see him as a nut case.  And "Monica" Roberts is upset that him, and his massive "neo-clit" that he keeps tucked in his panties are not included as well.  Of course, he is ranting that the meeting will be "as white as a GOP convention."  I guess he has not noticed that Obama is black, and so are some Republicans. 


Of course, it would never occur to Mr. Sandeen that chaining himself to the White House fence, wearing a female naval uniform, in blatant violation of Federal Law (it prohibits both active a retired personnel from wearing a uniform for the purpose of political statement) just might cause him to be left off the list.  No, not a chance of that....


It would never occur to Mr. Helms that his rants might have the same effect.  After all, he is the self-appointed spokesman for all the former military who decide they want to dress up and claim to be women.


And Mr. Roberts?  Between his racism, and his attacks on post-ops....well, I can't see him being included either.


A sane person might take a step back and consider how their behavior might have effected their chances of being taken seriously as a leader.  Of course, no one would ever accuse any of these of being remotely sane.

Update

It turns out that Mr. Sandeen over reacted.  This meeting is routine, part of a regular series, though this one does specifically focus on "transgender" issues.  An update to the article is buried, below the fold.  It appears that Mr. Sandeen does not want anyone who might have already read the original article to notice that he was mistaken.

Sandeen Crashes and Burns

The extremely massive ego of "Autumn" Sandeen has finally caught up with him.  He has finally pushed it too far.  Mr. Sandeen, is well known for his exhibitionistic behavior at the White House fence (he joined 12 protesters against "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"  who chained themselves to the White House fence...with Mr. Sandeen wearing a female naval uniform, even though he served as a man, and remains quite male).  


Well, in his latest post, he tries to compare himself to Martin Luther King, Jr. and Cesar Chavez. Oh, and he tries to beg people to help provide money so he, and his fellow protesters, can afford to fly back to Washington for their trial.  After all, he says, he has already paid a heavy human cost, having gone to jail for his action.  Well, at least having been held for a short period, like any political protester.  I doubt he was there more than a few hours.


I find it interesting that he whines about how he, and his fellow protesters, are all being charged under the the Code of Federal Regulations rather than the usual local law used in these cases.  Mr. Sandeen does not specify what the actual charge is, but complains that it will result in the protesters having a "Federal conviction."  I have to wonder...  It is against Federal law to wear a military uniform unless one is a member of the military, or a properly retired member of the military.  And even then, it is illegal to wear it for the purpose of political protest  Nevermind what the law would say about a male wearing a female Naval uniform, even if said male is retired (Mr. Sandeen claims a service related mental disability).


Of course, at the time that Mr. Sandeen joined the protest, he made a lot of statements about how he knew that repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell would not affect transgender people who want to "serve openly."  As soon as the repeal was approved, he started demanding that it be extended to include transgender people.  Which, of course, is an outrageous proposal.


But the truly funny part of the whole thing is the fact that after Mr. Sandeen's self-aggrandizing post, he has only had one response...telling him that the person responding would consider supporting the protesters, except for the fact that Mr. Sandeen was one of them.  As the person said, they will not be supporting Mr. Sandeen's narcissism.

A Simple Solution to the Bathroom Issue

The transgender blogosphere has been abuzz over the removal of "public accommodations"  from a Maryland civil rights law that covers "gender identity."  They are screaming because this change does not allow the "men in dresses" crowd to invade the women's bathroom.  


Of course, this seems at times to be the primary goal of the transgender community.  They seem obsessed with bathrooms.  Of course, so do the people opposed to extending rights to them.  One of the latest rounds is a post by "Mercedes" Allen on Bilereco.  This person's idea is to have people take stickers to be left in bathrooms indicating that a transgender person has used the bathroom and that "nothing bad happened."  Of course, the obvious problem with this is, the fact that a transgender person was in bathroom will be seen by many as something bad happening.  The cluelessness of the "men in dresses" crowd is astounding.


This is a classic male attitude.  A form of "counting coup" it allows them to make sure that people know they were there.  I am sure it appeals to their exhibitionistic nature.  Rubbing people's noses in their presence in the bathroom.  It would not make things better.


I have a simpler solution...

• If you are not a properly diagnosed surgery-tracked transsexual (i.e. you were honest with yourself and with your therapist, stay out of the bathroom in public while you are crossdressed.  That includes those who are full time crossdressers.  Yes, it is inconvenient, but you made your lifestyle choice, live with the consequences.

• If you are a properly diagnosed surgery-tracked transsexual, then wait until you have reached the point where you can enter the bathroom without causing a major scandal.  Or, at least until you can't go into the bathroom corresponding to your birth sex without upsetting people.

When I began transition, one of my primary concerns was that I not cause discomfort for other women.  I could understand how offensive a "man" in the ladies room might be.  I didn't want to be the one causing that upset.  As I became confident that I was accepted as a woman, I began to use the ladies room.  Of course, like most, I went through a period where I was living a duel life.  I remember all too well that last trip to the men's room.  Some poor guy almost had a heart attack when he saw me at the sink washing my hands.  I knew it was time to official begin my transition.

Another Bit of Ignorance From Bilerico

Bil Browning has done it again.  He has posted an article on Bilerico about a person who claims to be transsexual who appeared on a Thai reality show.  I don't know enough about the contestant to really comment, but during the performance, the song features both a female and a male part, with the singer doing both parts, changing voice while doing so.


Okay, that's bad enough.  It is one of those classic moments, like when the extremely credible looking drag performer whips off the wig, revealing that "she" is really a man.  It kind of reminds me of a bar here in San Francisco called Asia-SF where the servers are referred to as "gender illusionists."  I cannot understand how anyone who is actually transsexual could put up with such an insulting term.  


In the video which Browning includes with the post, the contestant is told by the judge that he assumed this person was actually a female until he heard the male part.  Then he realized it was a transsexual, and urges that the "deception" continue.  Browning seems oblivious to how insulting such a remark would be to a transsexual.  Of course, to an "out, loud, and proud" transgender, it would probably be taken as a compliment.  


Browning has shown strong animosity for those who wish to simply complete their transition and get on with their lives.  He is the sort who would accuse a transsexual who engages in what is commonly referred to as "stealth" of being deceptive.  So, I guess a man telling a person who might be a transsexual to "keep on deceiving us" is perfectly fine with him.  For the rest of us, it is a horrific insult.


This is the idiocy of the transgender paradigm.  You have to accept a man, who wants to hang on to his male history, and in most cases, his male parts, as a woman if that is what he claims to be....but a transsexual, who simply wants to transition and be the woman she really is, well she is being deceptive and should be attacked.

A Classic Example of What is Wrong With the Transgender Mindset

An article on Bilerico shows a perfect example of what is wrong with the thinking of many transgender activists.  In this article, a post-op by the name of Sera Wohldmann goes into a major rant because of being turned away from selling blood plasma.


Said person is sexually involved with another transgender "woman" and has been since before surgery.  Now, this would be, in the eyes of the blood bank, and example of a male who has had sex with a male since 1977, and therefore someone who is ineligible to give blood.  It may not be a fair rule, but it is the current law as required by the FDA.


The issue here is not whether the rule is right, which I believe it is not, but that this person seems to think that it simply should not apply.  The issue, instead, is the mindset that holds that the law should somehow give someone who identifies as transgender a special pass, simply because they identify a transgender.


Worse, in this person's case, there was a deliberate attempt to be dishonest by trying to claim a "transwoman" as a fiance, implying that they because of being a lesbian there was no possibility of having had sex with a man.  Since the "fiance" was apparently not passable, that made it obvious that there was not only a violation, but a deliberate attempt to be deceitful.


Perhaps the saddest part of the whole story is how, upon finally departing, this person decides to give them "the finger."


No, people who are transgender are not entitled to special treatment.  Again, I don't agree with the idea that gay men should be permanently banned from giving blood, but they are not alone.  I have a friend, totally straight, who cannot give blood because he served in the military and was stationed in Europe.  The concern in his case is that he might have been exposed to Mad Cow Disease.  


On the other hand, I have regularly donated blood on numerous occasions.  In fact, I am regularly contacted when I am again eligible.  I am listed as a female at the blood bank, and I have no problems.