The Issue of Passing

Passing...it is a common concept for many who are HBS, transsexual, and even transgender. It is not uncommon, particularly in the early stages of transition, for those who suffer from HBS to speak in terms of "passing," meaning that one is perceived as being a member of their "target sex."

The actual term "passing" seems to have originated in the 1920s in reference to African-Americans who were light-skinned enough to be perceived as Caucasian. It has become something of a sociological term for the ability of a person to be regarded as a member of a combination of social groups other than his or her own.

For those born with HBS, the concept of passing may be a part of the early stages of their transition, but they usually outrgow it quickly as they become more confident. For those who are transgender it either becomes a way of life, or an anathema to be condemned at all costs.

An example of this latter attitude can be seen in the "Autumn" Sandeen's article on Pam's House Blend, "Four-Year Transactivists." One has to remember, Mr. Sandeen identifies as an out, loud, and proud "transgender activist." In the article, he bemoans the fact that many transsexuals come to realize that they are able to be accepted as women, and then decide to stop being out. And, of course. he simply cannot comprehend the simple truth that a woman simply might realize that she has no reason to continue to be seen as a man. As is typical of the gender fascists, Mr Sandeen has to spin this as a negative thing:

Welcome to the reality of how "passing" impacts individuals in the trans community; welcome to the broader concept of how there are individual members of oppressed, minority populations who don't appear to be members of their population(s), and "pass" as members of the unoppressed, majority population.

Like other "transgender" activists, he believes transsexuals are not really women, they are members of an oppressed minority population. He recoils in horror at the idea that one might actually succeed in one's transition and move on with one's life as simply a woman.

Mr. Sandeen goes on to whine about how he is treated:

Personally, I've been called Mr. Sandeen, "Autumn" Sandeen, and called by male pronouns by both people on the religious right and by people who would seem to be my natural allies. To trans people who take the public stage, I tell them "expect to be hit by a lot of lighting" -- similar names to what folk on both sides my transactivist peers are called are what they should expect to also be called.

Sadly, he simply cannot conceive of the glaring error he makes here... He simply cannot, or perhaps refuses to concede, that those who refer to him that way are not at all his natural allies. We are quite opposed to what he is trying to force on people. I share few, if any of his goals. I do not want to see gender "deconstructed." I do not believe that the criteria for being a woman should be that you say you are. I do not believe that women should have penises. (Yes, some of us are born with them, but if you want to keep it, you are not remotely a woman.) I do not believe that people should be able to change their birth certificate without having completed surgery. I do not want to see ENDA passed in a form that would acceptable to Mr. Sandeen. I do not want to be called "transgender." So where this man gets that I am his "natural ally" is beyond me.
In any case, for those of us who are HBS, and not "transgender" do move on from the concept of passing. We realize that to say that we "pass" would be to give in to the silliness of those like Mr. Sandeen who are not, and ever will be women, and who are all too aware of this. I mean, simply put, one cannot pass as what one is.

It is NOT About Class or Privilege

A common claim among transgender activists is that many people don't have surgery because they do not have sufficient class or privilege to be able to accomplish it. Therefore, they say, these poor folks (as well as those who simply don't want surgery) should be accorded the same legal status as those who have had surgery.

Now, anyone with any shred of common sense should be able to see that the purpose for most who make such claims is not to help those less fortunate, but instead to improve the standing of non-ops. But, that aside, is there any validity to these claims?

First off, the primary thing that determines who does, and does not, get surgery is how badly the person wants it. I lived for over a year on half of what I should have in order to get surgery. Ironically, my surgery was covered by insurance, but in order to keep that insurance I had to stay at a half-time job.

Another friend worked even longer at the same job, facing the same lack of money that I did to have her surgery. Now, some might want to be rather snarky and point out that I am white, and therefore privileged. My friend is Latina, from Mexico, and she comes from anything but a privileged background. And believe me, I was not that privileged either.

Now, within the same project I worked on (AIDS prevention targeting transgender people) there were several others who were also pre-op. Except for one FTM, no one else took advantage of the benefit. In another words, even when it is handed to them on the proverbial "silver platter" people who are non-op will remain non-op. It is not about class and privilege.

Now, there are a lot of transgender people who live in poverty. Many of them have other issues, such as drug abuse, alcohol abuse, lack of education, and mental and behavioral issues that keep them in poverty. Simply put, there lives are not improved by transition but are often made worse. These people do not make any attempt to assimilate into society as women. They prefer being openly identified as transgender.

Excuses can be made all anyone wishes, but the truth of the matter is, that most who don't have surgery actually don't want surgery, and would probably not have it if it was offered to them at little cost.

Absolute Insanity!

I can always count on Bilerico to regularly produce some post concerning "transgender people" that will lead to some bit of absolute insanity. A new post, entitled "Open thread: Who are the "real women"?" is no exception. Of course, as has become the pattern on Bilerico, the author is a gay man. I find it interesting how Bilerico seems to think it proper for men, gay or supposedly straight, to be telling women how to think and live. And yes, in this case, his remarks are, at least in part, aimed at women since he seems to be speaking of post-op women versus men who wish to claim to be women.

He starts out comparing a transgender person named "Rachel" Crandall (a so-called non-op) with someone named "Dallas," who from the description I strongly suspect is the infamous Dallas Denney.

Neither is a good choice for whatever point he is trying to make, unless that point is the now classic transgender claim that one has only to assert that one is a woman to become a woman. Crandall is, as I said, a non-op, and Denney had surgery, but makes no real attempt to actually be taken as a woman, choosing instead to insist that people accept him as a woman. In fact, I have been told that Denney never bothered to change his name, and that he still has an obviously male middle name..not that I know that many women named Dallas either.

But the really insane statement is in the comments. One of those commenting is a person using the user name "Paradox." This person claims to be surgery tracked, but is bragging about how the women in her gym's locker room accept her. Anonymous T-Girl has challenged her on this, leading to this bit of drivel from "Paradox:"

'Women' with penises that they have no desire to lose + intruding on women's locker and shower rooms = insanity.

An interesting question:
Suppose you discovered that there was a woman in your locker room that had a penis. How do you determine if she's
A) A woman with a penis that wants to remove it but can't afford it yet.
B) A woman with a penis that wants to remove it but can't due to medical issues.
C) A woman with a penis that wants to remove it but doesn't think its worth the surgical risks.
D) A woman with a penis that actually LIKES her penis and would never remove it.

And incidentally, which of these characters are "actually" women, and which ones are not? How do you determine this beyond just taking their word for it?

Now, the comment about women with penises invading locker rooms is from Anonymous T-Girl, and I agree 100%. When I was pre-op, I went to Curves, which is a well-known women-only gym. But, the one I went to had private, single person dressing rooms. I did not have to go into a room with other women, where there might have been any risk of anyone noticing anything. And I would never have been in any situation where someone might have had a chance to raise concerns about my presence. Nor can I imagine any pre-op who is truly a woman doing so. It is only men, masquerading as women, who care so little that they will place their own needs above those of women.

So, that is the answer to the above "interesting question." No woman would engage in such behavior. And no woman would ever identify as "a woman with a penis."

The commenter Radical Bitch puts it well:

Oh, surgery doesn't make one a woman, I've met a number of post op crossdressers. It's neurology that makes you a woman or not and a female neurology will eventually reject a male anatomy......that you can take to the bank.

A pre-operative classic transsexual is a woman. A post op autogynophile is not. 'taint rocket science.

I identified as a woman before my surgery, but I was also aware that I was undergoing a diagnostic procedure known as the "real life test." I was well aware that, as unlikely as it was, I had the choice to stop the process. I was a woman, but I was not truly female. And that is the difference that the transgender types cannot seem to grasp. It is my neurology that makes me a woman...it is my surgery that makes me a female.

For the (Hopefully) Last Time

Let me start by reiterating...

This blog does not target any particular individual. It is about issues that affect those born with Harry Benjamin Syndrome, also known as classic or true transsexualism. What I write about is determined by what is being said on other blogs, especially those that are run by frightened activists who can't stand to be disagreed with in their comment sections. In fact, one of the principal reasons I started it was because I saw so many who disagree with the "transgender party line" being kicked off of blogs for daring to speak the truth.

Now, one of the worst offenders in this regard happens to be Suzan Cooke. For example, yesterday, Cooke removed a post that took her to task for the same thing that I had written about. And that was the incredibly, unbelievabe statement that stated that people who are transgender are intersex. Now, Cooke's remark is exactly the sort of thing I write about.

In a post where Cooke whines about my writing about her remarks, she doesn't focus on the real issue (her ridiculous remark) but instead goes ballistic because I pointed out that she hates God. I stand by what I said. Cooke is a classic example of an angry atheist....someone who is mad at God and who strikes out at Him in what they believe is the worst possible way, by ceasing to believe in Him. I guess they think that will show Him.

Cooke offers up something Cooke calls the Epicurean Dilemma:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

This is a rather poetic version of what is commonly referred to as the problem of evil. It is supposed to leave Christians dumbfounded and confused. It is meant to be unanswerable. In truth, the answer is very simple. God cannot remove evil from the world without removing free will. And if God removed free will, then love could not exist, because love requires a free will. And a world without love would be the greatest evil of all.

The great Christian author, C.S. Lewis said this about the matter:

We can, perhaps, conceive of a world in which God corrected the results of this abuse of free will by His creatures at every moment: so that a wooden beam became soft as grass when it was used as a weapon, and the air refused to obey me if I attempted to set up in it the sound waves that carry lies or insults. But such a world would be one in which wrong actions were impossible, and in which, therefore, freedom of the will would be void; nay, if the principle were carried out to its logical conclusion, evil thoughts would be impossible, for the cerebral matter which we use in thinking would refuse its task when we attempted to frame them.

Now, I honestly cannot conceive of Cooke, remotely being willing to give up free will. So, Cooke, like the rest of us, is stuck with a world in which evil exists. In fact, it is that very free will that allows Cooke to not believe in the God that grants it to her.

Oh, and ironically, if Cooke had not launched this latest diatribe, I would have, as planned, written about another of Cooke's fellow transgender activists. I will save that one for tomorrow, unless something more interesting comes along.

An Amazing Error

It sometimes amazes me just how silly transgender activists can be. It is not, for example, uncommon to see claims that women can have penises, and that men can have vaginas...and worse, that they can desire to keep them. But something on neo-gender fascist Suzan Cooke's blog really floored me. Now, for those who don't remember, for years, Cooke was a major player in the effort to separate transsexuals from the transgender confusion. Then, earlier this summer, Cooke moved over to becoming transgender. Now, Cooke still claims to be "transsexual not transgender," but Cooke's views are such that it is clear that she no longer sees any significant difference.

In a rather disjointed, and rambling article in which Cooke vents her anger at God, she makes the following rather incredible statement

Because transsexuals, transgenders and other intersex people fell somewhere between or saw the potential in achieving greater oneness of self by moving from an assigned and ascribed as immutable status to a different defined as immutable status the experts viewed us as mind f**ks, the fly in the ointment.

Unbelievably, Cooke has gone further than any gender fascist has before. I honestly cannot recall ever seeing one have the audacity to actually claim that transgender people are "intersex." Yes, they claim that intersex people are "transgender," but not the other way around. A small, but important distinction as they see "transgender" as the umbrella, with individual identities drug, often screaming and kicking, under it. Claiming intersex is a form of transgender is highly offensive. Claiming transgender is intersex is....well, itis incredibly ignorant.

Transgender is not intrinsic. It is an artificial political/social construct. It does not exist apart from the imagination of those who embrace it. Intersex is a physical condition, that is not a choice.

Cooke seems to be determined to shed what few shreds of credibility she has left as she rushes to join people like "Monica" Helms and "Autumn" Sandeen in the boy's club that is transgender activism.

Nope!

I have already discussed how Suzan Cooke has tried to redefine "transgender." In that article, she basically claims that pre-op transsexuals are "transgender," becoming transsexuals after surgery. Now she goes a bit further, making the following statement:

You are misreading what I said. The point is that a fair portion of people living as transgender are economically transgender and would get SRS were it available either publicly or privately.

This is much more so in the US than in places where a National Health System covers SRS.

What I am saying is that there is a grain of truth in the claims of many transgenders when they say they are really transsexual.

Now, I was lucky...I had planned to complete a training program, and then start working and save half my income to cover my surgery. I figured a year or two would be enough. Of course, that was after I completed a training program that would take about two years. Instead, I found out about a possible job that would include surgical coverage. I jumped at the opportunity. Now, as it was, I had to work a bit over a year before I got my surgery. I was the first one who worked for this particular employer who took advantage of the benefit.

At the time, I worked for a research project that included a number of "transgender people." Three of my co-workers were post-op transsexuals (though all three identified as transgender). Six others had not had surgery. Out of seven who were MTF (including myself), only myself and one other ha have surgery. One is still actively pursuing, and I have heard that another might. Another was fired and is trying to get her current employer to cover it. I had my surgery as soon as it was available, as did the other who completed surgery, The rest took very casual approach to the issue. They expressed interest, but were in no rush.

Elsewhere in the same organization, there have been others who have not taken advantage of what is virtually free surgery (there is a co-pay, $250 with the plan that provides the fastest path), Various excuses are offered. The same is true for the City of San Francisco, which has offered coverage for SRS for years. Most "transgender" employees simply don't bother.

So, Cooke is, again, wrong. Even when it is almost free, excuses abound.

Sandeen Asks, Helms Answers

In the bizarre world of the transgender, one often has to wonder just what some people are thinking. In a recent post, "Autumn" Sandeen asks "What Does FOTF's Quotation Marks Around "Transgenderism" Mean?" Mr. Sandeen makes the usual self-serving, whiny comments about how Focus on the Family is othering and denying the existence of transgender people. No, I don't think they would deny that such people exist. But, I do doubt they see any validity to the bizarre, artificial social construct that is "transgenderism."

Consider this remark from the comments to his Bilerico article on when to tell by lead gender fascist "Monica" Helms:

"Woman" is a social construct based on a human being's gender expression that appears on the feminine side of the scale.

"Female" is a biological term based on the internal and external attributes that have been scientifically established over centuries.

All transsexual women are indeed women, so the rumors to what I believe are totally wrong. MtF crossdressers are also considered women when they present that way.

However, all, but a few transsexuals and all MtF crossdressers are NOT female. That is an undeniable truth. Do you have pelvic bone with a birth channel? It is okay to say you are a "woman," but don't try to convince people you are "female."

Now, as many have pointed out, Mr. Helms has no experience as a post-op. And, it is obvious to any honest observer, Mr. Helms also has no experience as a woman. And most important of all, it is obvious that Mr. Helms has not a clue regarding science, law, or the English language.

This is "transgenderism" in its purest form. This is a perfect example of why people with HBS and classic transsexuals reject the transgender label. And while I do not agree with everything said by groups like Focus on the Family, they do represent a view that is, in many ways, closer to what most people hold. And one of those views is that silly men who think they become women when they put on a dress are quite deranged.

People like Mr. Helms, and Mr. Sandeen fool no one when they claim to be pre-ops. A major part of transgender activism is to try to co-opt transsexuals and push them to the front as the public image of "transgenderism." They want lawmakers and the public to think that giving full protections to people who have a medical need to change their sex is is the issue. Of course, the real issue is to provide laws that say that men in dresses are fully women.

So why wouldn't someone put "transgenderism" in quotes. As a political and social philosophy, it is quite ludicrous. It exists, but then, so does the "flat earth model."