skip to main |
skip to sidebar
"In a comment to a recent post, "Autumn" Sandeen, one of the point men for the extremist wing of the transgender movement made a blatantly false statement. In fact, he even contradicted himself to do it.
While attacking "true transsexuals, classic transsexuals,women of operative history, and women of transsexual history -- as well as some associating with Harry Benjamin Syndrome..." he makes this assertion:
Well, many (if not most) these true transsexul women believe that late transitioning transsexual people, non-operative transsexual people, many-if-not-all pre-operative transsexual people, genderqueer people, drag performers, and crossdressers are fetishists.
This, of course is a basic straw argument. It contains a grain of truth, and then adds quite a bit of falsehood. It would, of course, be accurate to say that we see some late transitioning non-transsexuals as fetishists. The same can be said of crossdressers. Drag performers are generally not fetishists, and I know of no one who claims they are. Gender queer would be considered to be more of a social/political form of extremism. There is, of course, no such thing as a non-operative transsexual person. They probably are fetishists, as they are essentially another form of crossdresser. And finally, the most egregious lie is the addition of "many-if-not-all pre-operative transsexual people."
Has Mr. Sandeen taken leave of his senses...well, more than he clearly already has? Or is this simply a deliberate lie? Clearly, it is the latter. He knows better than this. It does not even make sense. Earlier in the same comment, he lumps those close to surgery in with those who are post-op. Well, if these people, who by his own words, include "all" pre-ops, that would mean that those close to surgery see themselves as being fetishists, and those who are post-op as having been fetishists.
Simply put.....HUH?!?!?!?!?
What an incredibly stupid attempt to discredit people he knows are correct. He can't refute us with facts, so he has to appeal to fear. Obviously we were all pre-ops at one time. We may see people, such as Mr. Sandeen, who were avowed non-ops, who suddenly declare that one day, in the far distant future, if all the stars align, and they win the lottery, etc., that they will have surgery, but who clearly have no imperative to undergo the operation, and have more excuses than actual plans, as frauds, and yes, even fetishists. But Mr. Sandeen is not, and never will be a transsexual. He just wants to improve his status.
And he proves this by lying.
Gender Fascist "Autumn" Sandeen has been on a tear lately... First, he viciously attacked transsexual activist Ashley Love. I considered doing a post on that disaster, but so many others covered so well, I didn't really feel the need. Then Mr. Sandeen followed up with a post asking, "Why Transgender Activism?" in which he rather pompously claims the right to speak for post-op transsexuals, whether we like it, or not.
I guess Mr. Sandeen learned nothing from the angry responses to his attacks on Ashley Love, who had the unmitigated gall to actually question the infallibility of kooks like Mr. Sandeen. He was seriously taken to task, even by some of his allies.
So, what is wrong with what Mr. Sandeen calls "transgender activism?"
First off, it is largely unwelcome. Mr. Sandeen claims, in another post, that the rights of transsexuals is a major focus of transgender activism. And yet, a majority of those who are transgender identified are not remotely transsexual, and worse, many, if not most, of them actively attack transsexuals as elitist, irrelevant, essentialist, and separatist. To their mind, we have sold out. We have given in to the "binary paradigm." In another time, we would have been called "counter revolutionary." So why would we want these people speaking for us?
Mr. Sandeen claims a commonality amongst crossdressers, transvestites, drag queens, transgender people and transsexuals. He says this commonality is a violation of the gender norms of Western Society. But that is where his analogy fails. Transsexuals, by and large, as already pointed out, don't wish to deconstruct the binary. We are attempting to fit into gender norms, not to violate them. This is what separates transsexuals and the transgender. They want to be known, and seen, as men who are pretending to be women, or perhaps as they will claim, as women with penises. They want to flaunt their behavior. And this leads into the next point.
Second, it is harmful to the interests of transsexuals. Transsexuals want to simply correct their bodies, and their lives, and move on. We are seeking normality. The transgender movement is about being "different." They don't want to live quiet lives as their appropriate sex. They want to live as a gender at odds with their correct one. They want to be women with penises, or men with vaginas. They want to be at odds with society, unless they can bend society to their way of thinking. That is certainly their right, but it is not their right to force this paradigm on those who don't desire it. And when they do, gains that transsexuals have made become endangered because of backlash. Years ago, every state made provisions for the correction of driver's licenses for post-ops. All but about three allow birth certificates to be corrected. Post-ops rarely had problems with marriage. But, because of transgender activists this is all being threatened in some locations.
Will transgender extremists like Mr. Sandeen that the hint? Will they stop trying to speak for transsexuals and insisting that they are working for our rights? I doubt it. They need transsexuals to hide behind. They try to claim to be transsexual in order to advance their extremist agenda, failing to recognize the damage they do. They have done nothing to actually advance our cause, and much to harm it.
Ideally, the whole transgender fad would fade. But that won't happen soon enough. In the meantime, they will continue to cause harm to women, both transsexuals, and those born women.
Yesterday, Congress finally voted to begin the process of ending the ban on people who are openly gay, lesbian, or bisexual serving in the military. Since such people have served over the years, usually while hiding their sexuality, this will hopefully be a reasonable change. But, now comes the cries from the transgender extremists to also be allowed to serve. Hopefully, they will never succeed.
Imagine the disaster that allowing openly transgender people to serve in the military. Imagine the nightmare of having men demanding to wear female uniforms, and to be allowed to reside in women's quarters. Or vice versa. Not to mention that more than a few people who identify as transgender often suffer from mental health issues ranging from relatively mild to extremely severe,
I figured this was coming. Even though in the past, even the most extreme would admit that doing away with DADT would do nothing for transgender people who wanted to serve, I suspected that once things change for gays and lesbians, the kooks would start demanding more.
I see nothing wrong with transsexuals who have completed transition, including full genital surgery, possibly being allowed to serve if otherwise qualified, but allowing transgender people to serve openly is outrageous, and would bring serious disruption to the military.
Two of the most extremist of the transgender activists, "Monica" Helms, and "Autumn" Sandeen, are now demanding that men be allowed to serve while pretending to be women. This is an absurd effort, but as has long been obvious, there is no restraint on their silliness.
Well, it seems that "Autumn" Sandeen has decided to abuse the changes to the rules concerning passports, while playing dumb (or is he really that stupid) about why his new passport will be limited to two years.
Simply put, the government has had a long standing policy that allows those who are traveling overseas for SRS to obtain a temporary two year passport for the purpose of obtaining that surgery. Apparently, the rules have been loosened a bit to remove the specific requirement that one be traveling for surgery, but still there remains a two year limit for those who have not yet had SRS, clearly to allow them to easily travel for that purpose.
Well, of course the radical transgender crowd, like Sandeen, think this gives them license to obtain an ID that is often allowed in place of a birth certificate. So, now Mr. Sandeen can pretend to be a natal woman, while remaining an intact man.
In response to a question, he claims to not know why his deceptive passport will be limited to two years. The answer is simple...it is to allow him to travel to a place like Thailand to have SRS. But, of course, that is not what Mr. Sandeen plans to do. He just wants to have something that falsely claims he is a woman...another chance to revel in his transgender status, imagining himself to be a real woman....with a penis.
Mr. Sandeen needs to realize that a passport that claims he is a female will not make him a woman. It will just make him a man who is lying. And when his two years are up, his passport will end, and he will very possibly find that is it. That he will have had his little fun, but there will be no more.
I fully support the idea of allowing a temporary change to allow for travel for surgery, but all Mr. Sandeen's abuse of this will do is give conservatives more ammunition to oppose even that small favor.
Then again, Mr. Sandeen refuses to see that his antics hurt the chances for repeal of "don't ask. don't tell." Some of the extremists are even starting to push for the repeal of the ban on transgender people being allowed to openly serve. That is an absurd suggestion. While I can where people who have completed transition, and have had full surgery, might be able to serve, the idea of someone like Sandeen demanding to be allowed to serve as a female, while retaining his penis, is absurd. There really are limits, though extremists like Sandeen and his ilk refuse to acknowledge them.
UPDATE
It appears that Mr. Sandeen has decided that he misread the new law. He now plans to fraudulently claim that he has completed his transition, and that he is fully female. Apparently the kooks at NCTE talked to Obama administration into wording things vaguely enough that people can claim that they are fully transitioned when they are not. Never mind that such a change will almost certainly result in a nasty backlash that will wind up hurting true transsexuals when a more conservative president is elected. They will have had their short season of fun pretending to be women, and real women will, again, suffer.
Sometimes the radical extremists go just a bit too far. A perfect example of this is Bil Browning's latest absurd rant on Bilerico. He has his nose out of joint because a couple of pedophiles, who dressed up as women and tried to seduce a teenage boy, were referred by their actual names and called "perverts." Well, duh!
One of the men was charged with rape, and the other was charged with unlawful sexual conduct with a minor.
Bil states that it is not clear whether they were "transgender women." It really doesn't matter. They are both pedophiles, and are both criminals. They will, hopefully, go to prison, and will, again hopefully, serve long, and probably very unpleasant, sentences. When they get out, they will have to register as sexual predators.
Yes, these men are perverts. I cannot think of a better term for someone engaging in such behavior. What they did is inexcusable. Even if they are, by some incredible stretch of the imagination, actually transsexuals, what they did is outrageous. They are not deserving of anything other than a long stretch in prison. Being held up to public ridicule is the least of their problems,
The real irony in all of this is the picture that accompanies the article. It is a rabbit covering his ears, and it says "make the stupid people shut up."
Bil should take that advice.
In what seems like a blast from the past, there is a new controversy over an attack on "transwomen" by a "radical feminist/lesbian separatist." The controversy started with an article at a site called the "Magazine Project. That article, entitled "Transwomen" are Merely Castrated Men was attacked by ultra bigot Monica Roberts. Roberts' rant became fodder for an article by transgender activist Suzan Cooke.
Now, on the one hand, the original article is pretty nasty, and the author, as is typical of extremists, paints with a very broad brush. But that does not mean that she is completely wrong. The sad thing is, there is a lot of truth in the article.
For one thing, some transgender people cannot understand why many, if not most, women are put off by them. They simply cannot grasp that they really are acting like men, and have no real female essence. But they want to call themselves "lesbians," and they cannot understand why real lesbians are not lining up to enjoy their, well, as Roberts would put, neoclits. Well, duh....
Of course, these same kooks can't quite seem to grasp that some men are going to lose it when they find that their new girlfriend is physically a male. Now, I don't excuse the violence that results, but I also think people need to use some simple common sense. I mean, really, women learn to avoid certain situations, but men think they have some sort of privilege.
The problem with the original article is that the author ignores science and relies on feminist myth. Yes, there are a lot of "transwomen" of the sort she describes. But they are not representative of transsexuals. Of course, the author, as a I said, paints with a broad brush. I suspect, like some men, she fears having sex with someone who was once physically a male. But, this person, like Roberts, and Cooke, is an extremist. For her, the world is simple, and well, she is completely right, and everyone she disagrees with is completely wrong.
Likewise, Cooke and Roberts are so insecure that the very idea that there is someone out there who just might seem them differently than the way they see themselves sends them into fits of outrage. Does it bother me if someone attacks my identity? Of course. But I also consider the source. I could care less what some radical feminist/lesbian feminist, who has never met me, thinks about me. Trust me, there are far more reasons for her to dislike me than my history. There is little in her narrow minded philosophy that I would not find reprehensible. There is little of my world view that would not send her into fits of outrage. So why should I care if she is even more bigoted?
I tend to ignore people like her. She is not even worth addressing, except that she does make some good points, that are lost on the other kooks. They only focus on the hatred, to avoid the truth. It's sad. They all have something to learn, but none what to see it.
I have to say, I was rather amused to discover that Suzan Cooke is ranting about me again. I seem to be one of her favorite obsessions sometimes. Granted, I have taken her on more than a few times myself.
But, I want to correct a few errors in her post....
First off, she brings up an unfortunate throw-away line I posted on a web site I threw together some years ago...
It was there that I first encountered someone who considers herself to be “True/Classic Transsexual” and can always be depended upon to trash TG folks,. Only in those days she wasn’t so certain about herself. Indeed. Her self description was, “More than a transvestite and less than a transsexual.”
First off, it was actually my therapists who considered me to be a "True/Classic Transsexual." Second, it is true that I disagree strongly with the TG view. And I am not shy about speaking out against it. Now, as I said, I did use that line on a web site I threw together. It was back in the earlier days of the web, when vanity sites were all the rage. And it was also during a difficult time i in my life.
I had actually transitioned a few years earlier. I met with a therapist, who quickly diagnosed me as a "transsexual." I was treated by a endocrinologist who had studied with Harry Benjamin. And a couple of years into my transition, for reasons that actually had little to do with my transition, or with whether or not I was transsexual, I came very close to what could be called a nervous breakdown. At that time, some issues related to my transition, along with the other problems (most financial) pushed me to the breaking point.
I could not deal with everything, and one morning, in something of a panic, I decided to de-transition, primarily to find some amount of relief from what was overwhelming me. Quite simply, at that time it was the only thing I had control over. I quickly convinced myself that it was the right thing to do, and over the next seven years I struggled to find myself.
At first, I tried to deny true self completely. That did not last long. Then I tried to convince myself that I could find a middle ground. That was the point at which I wrote that inane comment. The modern transgender silliness had not quite caught on, though there were early bits of it online. I actually tended to argue with the more extreme proponents, who were just beginning to formulate their efforts to "deconstruct gender."
Simply put, I knew I was not a transvestite, but I didn't want to admit that I really was a transsexual. I knew what admitting I was transsexual would mean. But, as I looked inward, the truth became clear. I sought out a new therapist (my previous one had contributed to my near breakdown) and I began to deal with who, and what, I was. I also took my time. My first transition had been a bit spontaneous, and I rushed into it with no planning.
I took my time. I planned. And then I made my move. I changed my name on a Monday, spent Tuesday getting my paperwork in order, and on Wednesday I went out and found a job. I was prepared for the changes that would come, and I survived. It was not easy, but I was focused. Over time, I came to grips with issues like my sexuality (I am a straight woman) and I moved across country to San Francisco. I found a good job here, got my surgery, and my life is vastly improved.
No, it has not been with problems. But, and this is what is really important, I have been able to handle things without falling apart. When I was pretending to be a male, I could not do that. The least obstacle seemed insurmountable. I would often go to pieces over things that I would now laugh off. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding.
Another thing that needs to be corrected.... I hate no one. I object to the silliness that is spewed by transgender extremists, including Suzan Cooke, but I had no one. That would be contrary to my faith, which I am not ashamed of.
Also, I would like to remind people that I do not censor comments unless they contain personal attacks, usually against others. I won't tolerate the invasion of my privacy, or that of anyone else, but beyond that I am not afraid of what someone might have to say. In fact, the vast majority of comments censored here have been ads for Asian porn sites. That is not acceptable, and will be removed.
And let me address one final error. Cooke makes the following statement:
As a result I have several people who devote an inordinate amount of time to trashing me for not wanting to be part of their “Classic Transsexual/HBS” club.
No, that is not really the case at all. First off, I would be absolutely appalled if Cooke suddenly chose to embrace such a view. Cooke's doing so would be one of the worst things that could happen. Cooke is, quite honestly, an egotistical kook who thinks that she is remotely relevant in the world today. Sadly, she has a few who share that delusion, and who continue to stroke her ego because they imagine she is some arbiter of veracity. I will admit, at one time I shared that delusion myself. Then I realized Cooke is to be pitied, rather than feared. She is clinging to a largely imagined past where she was the alpha transsexual. Now, she is trying to relive those glory days, and failing miserably.
No, I, and others, speak out against Cooke because she has embraced the silliness of the transgender extremists. It really isn't about Cooke, but is about the idiocy that Cooke has come to endorse. Most of the time I just have a sad laugh at Cooke's extremist rants. The Sixties are past, the Weathermen are gone, and for good or bad, the country is going back to the Right.
Extremism, of any sort, tends to wind up being an effort in futility. Demanding outrageous concessions is only going to end in valiant defeat. Unfortunately, some prefer that to accomplishing something through concession.
Oh well, Cooke has always been a "legend in her own mind."
.jpg)
