Seriously, Transgender and Reality Seem Incompatible

I just saw another piece on Transadvocate where there is a serious demand to simply suspend reality by the transgender kooks.

A person was murdered in Ohio, and well, a local paper reported the facts.  But, for the transgender kooks, facts are EVIL!!!  The story by, you guessed it, Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen is a rehash of Mr. "Monica" Roberts' demand that reality be suspended in reporting.  Here is Roberts' list of complaints, and why they are silly:

Misgender the person at every opportunity? Check

Sorry, but the person was a male.  It appears that he was not full time.

Use police mugshot? Check

Well, that is what police do.  Mugshots are generally what the police have available.  Would Roberts have preferred that the police provide a photo of the bloated corpse instead?

Drag old criminal record into the story? Check

The person had a fairly active, and recent criminal record.  Again, Roberts says "The facts must  be ignored."

'Deception meme' injected into story? Check

Uh, why?  Because they reported, quite accurately, that he lied to the police about his identity and true sex.

'Tragic transsexual' meme injected into this story? Check

Huh?  I think Roberts just made this one up to complete a checklist he has used before... the reporters gave no indication that he was remotely a transsexual.

Use salacious and sensationalist headlines? Check

Now, this is downright funny... There were two headlines.  The first was:

Oddly dressed body found in Olmsted Township pond identified

The article said, "The body was clad in a red Betty Boop tank top, three black bras on top of one another, and a light black hooded jacket. The body was naked from the waist down, police said at the time."  Sound to me like, and oddly dressed body was found, and the police identified it.  How is that salacious, or sensationalist?  It is simply the truth.

The second headline in question...

Brutal slaying marks the end of Clevelander's fight for acceptance

Again, not really very salacious or sensationalist.  The story talks about the person's repeated run-ins with transit police.  Apparently this person had a bad habit of not paying fares on transit as well as assault and drug possession.

Not give a rats anus about the victim's dignity and their femme presentation? Check

What dignity?  This person sounds pretty messed up to me.  Assault, drugs, and such.  I think the reporter told the truth without embellishment.  Which, of course, is what Roberts objects to.  Can't have the truth coming out...

Disrespecting another African-American transwoman? Check.

This person did not seem to have much self-respect.  Putting on a bad wig, and dressing up does not make one a woman, or entitle one to have the truth withheld. 

Of course, they also complain that they refer to the victim by his legal name.  In another words, this person had not bothered to change his name, and according to the article did not fully identify as a "transgender woman."

And finally, in a classic example of silliness, Sandeen complains that the article accurately describes the police using "it" to describe an unidentified body.  While the story does not give details, one can assume that this person could not be easily identified from appearance, as they relied on DNA.  Simply put, there was a 20 day gap between the person being declared missing and the body being found.  It is likely they may not have immediately been able to determine the sex.

But hey, this is transgender silliness, and everything has to be blown all out of proportion and complained about.  Reality has no place among transgender kooks.

 

Here We Go Again...

You know, some men just can't take a hint...  Others, well they can't take slap to the face, a knee to the groin, and a shove out the door...  Well, granted, in the case of a eunuch, a knee to the groin is kind of irrelevant....

A bit over two years ago, Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen took on Ashley Love and viciously attacked her.  He was pretty widely trashed by many, including even Suzan Cooke who was just beginning to cozy up to the transgender extremists even going so far as to refer to Sandeen's actions as cyberbulling (hmmm, where have we heard that before?).  He responded with a rather arrogant post entitled "Why Transgender Activism?"  I responded with one entitled "Why Not Transgender Activism?"  Well, Mr. Sandeen has again shown his true nature, and is looking kind of foolish.  And, well, he has resurrected that same load of crap...

If you want to see a response to his silliness, click on the link above and you can read what I wrote then.  It still stands, and I am not going to waste bandwidth cutting and pasting the whole thing here.

But I would point out one simple fact....  Mr. Sandeen does admit that transgender is "sociopolitical."  Put another way, it is pretty much imaginary.  It is not rooted in reality.  Males like Sandeen are not, and will never be, women.

As I have pointed out, the entire transgender paradigm is built on a logical fallacy.  And this logical contradiction is born out, again and again by the writings of various extremists.  For example, in another article on Transadvocate, the ever racist Mr. "Monica" Roberts put up an entire post predicated on the very idea refuted by Aunty Orthodox...

Only you should have the power to determine your self identity and you must zealously defend it. When others do it for you either because they did so by force or you ceded that power to do so willingly, you not only aren’t going to like what they come up with, but you don’t have the power to control and define your own humanity.

This sounds very grand, and noble, and such until you really think about it.  If I decide that my self identity is President of the United States, should I be able to take over running the country? No, and while that is an extreme example, it is the logical extension of a fallacy.  You can call yourself whatever you want, but that does not give you the right to impose your delusions on others.  Mr. Roberts can call himself a "black woman," but he remains a man, and he has no right to force others to see him as what he is not.

Mr. Roberts also wants to ignore the inner voice of common sense that keeps telling him to face reality...

But we can’t forget the work we still need to do between our ears to permanently banish the unholy trinity of shame, guilt and fear from our lives. That starts with us never forgetting that we must fight and decisively win the battle for self determination of our own identity and remember as we engage in that just battle, we have the moral high ground when we do so.

While one can become mired in false shame, fear and guilt, it should not simply be banished.  It should be examined, weighed, and if valid, heeded.  There is often a valid reason we feel guilty, and if we fail to learn from our mistakes, we will repeat them.

In another post, while claiming to defend transgender people against "transphobic tropes" Mr. Roberts links to a post that actually shows a logical paradox that renders the transgender paradigm invalid:

I’m going to start with the biggie – that trans people are “really” a [whatever gender you were assigned at birth.]

This is the belief that however we identify, whatever we do to our bodies, we will always really be the gender we were born as. It is irrelevant how trans people feel about ourselves, or how we look, or how we are received by the people in our lives.

You are, supposedly, one gender once and forever. It’s immutable, and whilst you can change the outside shell, you cannot change the inside.

Okay, so the person who wrote this is claiming that transgender people can change their gender.  Okay, let's take this as valid for a moment.  According to this person, gender is a choice.  You can choose to self-identify as a woman.  Well, that takes us back to the logical fallacy which has been refuted.  And while it really does no harm to the transgender kooks (who are fighting for an invalid cause anyway) this would do serious harm to transsexuals, who, again, are the victims of the transgender extremists.

If gender is merely a choice, then there is no basis for a medical diagnosis of transsexualism, we should all respond to being "talked out of it," and if that doesn't work, harsher measures are possibly warranted.  Oh dear....  Mr. Roberts just validated the behavior that Mr. "Cristan" Williams posted about.  If you can choose your gender, then they should be able to beat the sissy out of one.  Whoops...

Just to be clear, this person, while engaging in a contradictory claim, really is claiming that he can simply choose to be a woman:

It’s nevertheless tremendously effective, because it appeals to a cis-sexist biology (one that ignores the tremendous gender variation across nature … see Joan Roughgarden’s Evolution’s Rainbow for more on this) as a way of legitimating denying trans experience.

It denies us the capacity to grow, change, to self-define, to have agency of our bodies and our lives. It denies our identities.

Actually, it is this fool who is ignoring the tremendous gender variation across nature.  Animals do not choose to self-define when they show behavior that is not typical for their sex.  It is because gender is hard-wired and is immutable.  And sometimes it is hard wired at odds with the sex.  A person can choose to vary their gender expression, and that can be at odds with their gender, but that is chosen behavior, and while it can be subject to protection from government interference, it is not a basis for protection against supposed discrimination.

And again, just to drive home what this person is saying...

Well, I am a woman, because I say I am. Because that’s how I feel. Because I live my life as a woman. Because I am seen, by those who aren’t blinded by the “really” a man argument, as a woman. There might be a biological basis to my transness, but it’s ultimately irrelevant to me.

In another words, a delusion is reality.  One is not a woman, because one says one is.  That is the false basis for transgender, and that is what this person has to fall back on.  And if one is only "seen as a woman" by people who buy into your delusion, then, well, it is a delusion.  I am seen as a woman by people who don't agree with transsexualism.  They don't know to not see me as a woman.  Now, if I choose to cease being a woman, and become a "trans" then their view might change.  But then, I am a woman, not a political fiction.

I will repeat again, what I said then...

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.

Maybe one of these days, but clearly, not soon enough...

Why the Obsession With HBS?

It seems that a lot of the silliness oozing out from under the transgender rock has to do with an odd creature known as an HBSer. This, of course, is another neologism from the transgender kooks. Neologisms are, along with chauvinism, and logical fallacies, one of the major exports of that group. BTW, a neologism is the correct term for what is commonly referred to as "a made up word." Well, actually, an even better term, which ironically is a bit of a neologism would be "protologism" which Wiktionary defines as a newly coined word or phrase defined in the hope that it will become common; a recently created term possibly in narrow use but not yet acknowledged. BTW, protologism is a word used mainly as jargon at the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., the parent organization of Wiktionary and other projects.

So, that brings us back to the question of, what is an HBSer?  Well, it is how the transgender kooks have taken to referring to what they were calling a transsexual separatist.  They can't really use that much anymore, since Mr. Cristan Williams rather arrogantly, and quite dishonestly, declared that movement dead.  He does that sort of thing an awful lot.

To understand this rather fanciful concept (most of those to whom the term is applied had nothing to with either of the two branches associated with HBS) I guess you would need to start with the question of what HBS is.  What horrible abuses lie within?

Well, the simple fact is, HBS refers to "Harry Benjamin Syndrome," which is a proposed term to replace "transsexualism" in medical nomenclature.  Now, why, you might ask, would a new term be needed?  There were two basic motivations.  The first was the effort by the transgender extremists to co-opt transsexualism as a sort of beard for transgender behavior, and the second was the fact that "transsexual" was, for a time, increasingly associated with a particularly disturbing form of pornography that had nothing to do with the actual transsexualism.

While the term has been used in some cases as a medical term, it has not yet, and may never, achieve widespread acceptance.  Most of the people I was associated with have lost interest in advocating for its use, and have moved on.  There is still a group in Europe, led by a person known as Charlotte Goiar whom the group I was affiliated with disassociated from over some fundamental philosophical differences.  It should be noted that the transgender extremists try to ignore these facts and conflate the two groups in their effort to create a straw man to argue against.  Interestingly enough, the Goiar originally used the improper form, Harry Benjamin's Syndrome, but has since adopted the correct usage.  When a disease or syndrome is named in honor of someone, a possessive is not proper as they neither own, or (usually) suffered from that condition.  Of course, this technicality is often ignored by the media, and thus people more often say Alzheimer's disease, instead of the technically correct Alzheimer disease.

As the term HBS began to catch on in some circles, the transgender kooks began to panic.  I rather suspect that hey feared that a term they had invested a lot of effort into co-opting would be replaced by a concept that would specifically exclude them. In other words, the truth might come out and they could not have that.  

As I say, the effort to encourage adoption of the term has waned.  It seems to be stronger in Europe, but most here lost interest.  But, the label HBSer seems more popular than ever.  And some, like Suzan Cooke seem obsessed with HBS.  Granted, Cooke originally had no problem with the term, and her earlier opposition seems more related to personalities and the fact that HBS was competing with Cooke's "Women Born Transsexual" meme, which now seems silly in light of Cooke's adoption of the transgender mindset.

So, when you see someone using "HBSer," you can safely assume that they are most likely presenting a classic straw man argument.  Then again, even if they don't use the term, that is one of several logical fallacies they are very fond of....

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....  

A Really Dumb Question

In yet another attempt to avoid reality, Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen revisits a question he asked in an article in 2009.  The Right Way To Be LGB Or T?  Let's get past the first part quickly.  Being lesbian, gay, or bisexual is an objective state.  You either are, or you are not.  If you believe they are not a choice, then the question is even more ignorant with regards to those three states.

Transgender, of course, is an identity that is a choice.  The right way to be transgender is simply to say, "I am transgender."  And suddenly you are.

Transsexual, which is what Sandeen is not, is also not a choice.  Again, you either are, or you are not.  The real issue is, a lot of people want to lie, and claim to be transsexual, when they clearly are not.  Just as more than a few men, like Sandeen, want to lie, and claim to be women when they clearly are not.

Which brings us to a simple truth...

There is no single right way to be L, G, B, or T...or, transsexual or a woman for that matter.  But there is a very large number of ways to not be transsexual or a woman.  And at the top of that list is "Avoiding reality." And Sandeen and his ilk engage in that one all the time.

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.   

I Also Wanted To Respond to Mr. Williams

I wanted to respond to Mr. "Cristan" Williams bit of drivel...  I mean, while he is welcome to come and comment here, his blog is heavily censored...  He posted a comment to Mr. Sandeen's post...

It’s a shame that JJ is content to spend so much time stalking and harassing people like the huge internet creep (with a misgendering fetish) she’s become. Had she instead applied that drive to actual research, she could have added to the world’s knowledge. Instead, she seems obsessed with negative attention and the price she’s paid is that her opinion doesn’t get to count… Which is a shame because it’s painfully obvious to practically everyone that she needs it to count so badly. She’s relegated herself to being a simple internet troll – something any child can do. She has a great command of the English language and she’s tenacious; she could have done something productive with that.

Well. let's see...  First off, I have to giggle at the childish way that Mr. Williams starts with name calling, but then tries to slide over to sounding almost reasonable...  I guess by "actual research" he means stuff like claiming that Janice Raymond, who is not a person I really like having to defend, actually caused the death pf 50,000 transsexuals.  Yeah, made up numbers like that, unsupported by evidence...is his idea of "solid research."  Of course, in the egotistical mind of Mr. Williams, anything that challenges his world view can simply be dismissed.  This is a man who lacks a shred of intellectual integrity.  I love how he tries, in a classic bit of verbal slight of hand, to simply dismiss what I say.  A bit of argumentum ad ignorantiam.  He just sort of asserts things without evidence as though they are fact.  Oh, I have no doubt that Mr. Williams desperately wants to believe that what I say doesn't matter, but if it didn't, he would not have wasted time trying to dismiss it.

Oh, and to repeat, I don't "misgender"... First off, there is no such word outside of the argot of the transgender subculture.  Secondly, if I honestly, sincerely believe that someone's "gender" that is the wiring of their brain, is male, I will call them male...and vice versa.  It is not based on whether or not I agree with their politics, but on how they actually come across.  It is simply absurd to demand that people suspend reality in order to comply with some imaginary standard of political correctness.  When you have a man, acting like a bad parody of a woman, but are forced by some imaginary social convention to refer to him as "her" and "she," something is wrong.  I simply refuse to play along and pander to deception or delusions because someone wants to "deconstruct gender."

For about 20 years now, she’s wasted her time targeting people who’re actually doing something…

 ROTFL!  Yes, actually doing something...wrong.  Another argumentum ad ignorantiam.  I hope to stop an effort to establish rights based on offensive and harmful behavior. A man wearing a dress might be offensive, but it is not harmful.  A man forcing his way into women's space and demanding the right to expose his penis, because it is really a "big 'ol clit" is offensive, and harmful.  You want to play dress up?  Fine.  You want to parade around naked in women's spaces, sorry, but well, there's an app for that...it's called pepper spray.

[I will be enjoying the fact that I got under Williams skin]

I will admit, I do enjoy taking down a pompous pseudo-intellectual fool.  And yes, the Internet is quite full of them...

She obviously feels good when she gets one of her targets to respond. I don’t think that she gets that most folk view her behavior as just being sad. How many hours has she spent over the past decade making herself into an irrelevant creepy troll?
When I or others respond, it’s because we all have within us the need to swat a fly. She’s mistaking annoyance with interest. That she’s so willingly traded her talents for such a pathetic substitution for interest and actual engagement is just… well, sad. When her name is mentioned on the internet, people just roll their eyes and shake their heads. I can hear her now telling herself that she doesn’t care what other people think while planning her next humdinger of a response thinking it will really put her target in their place.

 Actually, I feel good when I get someone to think.  People like Mr. Williams, are simply a source amusement.  As he leaps from argumentum ad hominem, to petitio principi (i.e. begging the question), to yet another non sequitur, followed by a some post hoc ergo propter hoc before throwing in a bit of bandwagoning (assuming everyone agrees), some card stacking (selective facts), before wrapping it all up in false generalizations, it is sort of like watching a cat chasing the dot from a laser pointer.  Amusing for a while, but you do kind of have a guilty laugh when they misjudge and wind up looking foolish...though they will always pretend they don't.

She doesn’t grasp that I feel sadness, not anger, when someone sends me a link to see what she’s up to. Such waste of talent and such a pale imitation of discourse. How many hours do you think she’s spent involved in her trolling drama? 100? 1000? 2000? More? How many words do you think she’s written while caught up in her drama over the past 10 or 15 years? How many books could that have been?
Such a pathetic damn waste.

Yes, such lofty words, but again, not at all backed up by facts.  Yes, Mr. Williams is so sad...  So, he resorts to an argumentum ad hominem to cheer himself up.  And when he imagines he has scored some point, his self-congratulatory "Booyah!" is just a desperate attempt to hide the heartbreak. All that desperate, win at all costs, intellectual dishonesty coupled with egotistical self-congratulatory aggrandizement merely masks the tears he sheds....

Some might actually believe him... Then again, some people think the earth is flat.  I may mock Mr. Williams, but I mock him with facts.  He mocks with innuendo and insults.  That says more than all his clever attempts to deceive.