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."

There Really Is A Difference...

Over the past two days, Suzan Cooke has again tried to cozy up to the gender fascists. First, Cooke posted an article that both attempted to redefine the term "transgender" and which basically claimed that transgender people can turn into transsexuals simply by having surgery. This sounds a lot like the silly, and imaginary, transgender hiearchy where one climbs the ladder. You may start out as a lowly transvestite, getting aroused by wearing your wife's panties. Then you might move up to a crossdresser, claiming that you are not really doing it for sexual reasons. Start living full time, and according to Cooke, you become a full fledged "transgender." (And here you thought that was what you were all along.) Scrape together the money, pop off to Bowers in Trinidad (she seems to take anyone) and you have now graduated to a genuine Woman Born Transsexual, even though the idea never even occured to you before you discovered the joys of your wife's panties at the age of 45. I mean really, this is just ridiculous.

Cooke even goes so far as to claim that "classic transgender people" are committed to binary gender and are not into gender transgression. Cooke has got to be kidding...

According to Cooke, the real difference between "classic transgender people" and transsexuals is simply the ablity to afford surgery. If you are lucky, you get to be a transsexual. Hit hard times, and sorry, but you are stuck being transgender. Of course, that is straight out of the transgender playbook. How often have we heard that they would have surgery, but gosh darn it, there is the mortgage, and the car payment, and the credit card bills, and the cost of popping off to all those conferences, and the Tri-Ess dues, and the donations to IFGE, and.....? Oh wait, according to Cooke, all those poor transgender types are oppressed and underprivileged.

Then, in later article Cooke seems to want to back off, and admit that maybe there is something more than luck, and classism, involved. I guess after pretty much being confronted by a round of angry comments, Cooke realizes that she is in danger of losing half of her imaginary coalition. So, Cooke now seems to say that...well, maybe some of them really don't want surgery, but....they are still poor, oppressed, and we should all still compromise and become one, big, happy family. In fact, Cooke goes so far as to begin making apologies for Charles "Virginia" Prince.

Sorry, but again, NO! We are not alike, we do not really share common goals, and let's be honest, if we give them an inch, they are going to take a mile. Personally, I am not interested in deconstructing gender, subverting the binary, or joining up with the likes of Jasper Gregory. Cooke can try will all her might to deny that this person is the very model of a transgender woman, but that is ultimately the perfect example of why I want no part of transgender or Cooke's proposed compromise.

Bilerico is at it again..

I have already written about the outrageous post by "Monica" Helms at Bilerico. In that post, Mr. Helms, an avowed non-op turned perpetual pre-op, presumes to tell post-op transsexuals when they should inform potential partners about their status. I have been following the comments, and it seems that, once again, Bilerico (and more specifically Bil Browning) are censoring those who object to the transgender silliness.

One poster in particular had her post removed for simply pointing out that Helms has not had surgery and has no business telling post-ops how to behave. Browning ignores, and actually seems to endorse, the fact that Helms (and not for the first time) is claiming that post-op transsexuals are not women.

This is not the first time that Bilerico has allowed someone, often Mr. Helms, to insult transsexuals while censoring transsexuals who object.

And I have to note that Mr. Helms new friend Suzan Cooke, who not surprisingly endorses Bilerico on her transgender web site, is absent from the debate. Instead, she is objecting to exactly the same behavior from her transgender "sister" Jasper Gregory who, ironically, engages in much the same behavior as Mr. Helms, telling transsexuals how to behave. Of course, Cooke now presumes to redefine "transgender" to suit her purposes. That allows her to ignore the simple fact that Gregory is the epitome of the transgender model. He "identifies" as a trans-woman, and according to the logic of the gender fascists, that means that he is not only a trans-woman, but is a female as well. Anyone who has seen Gregory's web site, or read his blog, or who has seen his videos, knows that he is nothing but a man. But, according to the transgender view, well...that is why they are "gender facists."

The Issue is NOT Insults

In yet another desperate attempt to save face, neo-gender fascist Suzan Cooke has posted an article going after the "umbrella model" of transgender. Cooke defends her new found affection for the transgender view as a desire to end insults. Of course, to the transgender, reality is an insult.

No, Cooke's real purpose is to reach a Faustian deal with transgender activists. Cooke seems to believe that transsexuals can cooperate and align with the transgender (as well as the rest of the LGBT community) without consequence. Past experience says otherwise.

Cooke wants to have it both ways. She wants to be a "woman born transsexual" and yet be able to associate with, and work with, the transgender. What she doesn't realize is that "woman born transsexual" is really just, effectively, the same basic concept as transgender.

Like Cooke, the transgender want it both ways. They want to retain a strong link to the history, while claiming to be something else. They want, as one infamous transgender activist once put it, to be "woman/males" or "man/females." That person, who now seems to have abandoned being transgender, attacked those seeking surgery, claiming that people should remain somewhat true to the cause. Sort of like Cooke's dear friend "Monica" Helms did for years.

The transgender desperately want the credibility they think that transsexuals can bring. They don't care that they will destroy that imagined credibility in the process of attempting to exploit it. And Cooke is more than willing to join them in self-destruction.

A "Telling" Article....

Well, leading gender fascist "Monica" Helms has a new article on Bilerico. This time, Mr. Helms deals with the subject of "When Do You Tell?" Aside from the irony of his writing on the subject (Mr. Helms is not likely to have to worry about "telling.") he takes the predictable position.

Now, as I point out, he is not going to be in a position to worry about revealing anything, unless he does make the mistake of actually having SRS, in which case he would have to explain that he is missing the expected parts.

But, this is a question that does come up, and it does affect both those with HBS or classic transsexualism and those who are transgender.

Mr. Helms, again ironically, seems to be addressing post-op women. Mr. Helms is not remotely post-op, and until recently he was admantly non-op. He has, on many occasions, viciously attacked and mocked post-op women, so he is about the last person who should be discussing this issue, and certainly has no business making pronouncements as he does. Also, it should be kept in mind that Helms is not even interested in dating men himself. In fact, it is rather obvious that he is approaching this issue as a straight man.

Now, Mr. Helms raises a series of objections to not telling. The first is trust. Granted, that can be an issue. If one is in a relationship, it is better to be honest than to keep secrets. But, for a woman who was born with HBS, there are issues that they may not wish to share. Particularly at the beginning of the relationship, when Helms rather dogmatically demands that one must tell.

Beyond that, the issue turns to the "danger" Mr. Helms sees in not telling. Now, granted, people have died when their partner found out about their history. But, that is not always the case, and it is not always the case that someone will inevitably find out.

So, what is really going on here? Is Mr. Helms really just beside himself with concern for the safety of all those post-ops because even one might be harmed or die because they fail to be out to a potential partner? Is he broken up over the chance that some marriage might not be built on perfect trust?

I seriously doubt it. Mr. Helms almost certainly is more concerned that someone might actually be able to do the one thing he will never be able to do....actually be a woman. Not that Mr. Helms actually wants to be a woman. He wants to be transgender. He clings tightly to his maleness. He wears it with pride. He cannot abide for anyone to not know that he was born a man. But worse, he hates it when someone does not share this behavior. He gets beside himself at the idea that someone might wish to, or worse, be able to, leave their past behind.

He talks of shame, and hiding, and all the other transgender silliness.

As to the original question he asks...when should you tell? The answer, quite simply, is when you wish to. I have told none of the men I have dated and had sex with since my surgery. That was my choice. If one wishes to tell early, that is their choice. The only thing that is absolutely certain is this. When you tell is most certainly none of Mr. Helms. business.

Hurt Feelings...

There were two stories, back to back, by "Autumn" Sandeen, a leading gender fascist, on Pam's House Blend. The first complained because a reporter in Washington, D.C. referred to the latest "trans martyr," Tyli'a "NaNa Boo" Mack, as a "transgender male." Nevermind that this was an accurate label. Mack was, as best can be determined, still physically a male. I could see Mr. Sandeen having a bit more of a point if Mack was referred to as a "transgender man," but that was not the case. Mr. Sandeen quotes Brian Watson, the director of Transgender Health Empowerment:

“I know both of the young ladies that were attacked, and they lived their lives
as transgender women. They looked like women. For me, there shouldn’t have been
any confusion about them being males. If you saw them on the street, you would
see they were females.”

I'm sorry, I don't care how they "appeared." If they had penises, they are still males. Changing clothes, putting on make-up, and changing your name does not change your sex.

Now, I am sorry that Mack was murdered, but Mack was not a female in any sense of the word.

The second story, which totally illustrates the silliness of the transgender movement, concerns MTV's America's Best Dance Crew, some group called Vogue Evolution, one of the judges, Lil Mama, and what Mr. Sandeen inaccurately refers to as "the female dancer in this crew -- Leiomy -."
Leiomy is, like Mack, not remotely female. To be honest, Leiomy comes off more as a drag queen than anything else. The comment made by Lil Mama was directed at Leiomy's rather dramatic hissy fit that was filmed during a rehearsal:

"Leiomy, your behavior. Come on. It's unacceptable. I just feel that you always have to remember your truth. You were born a man, and you are becoming a woman. If you're going to become a woman, act like a lady. Don't be a bird, like "oh my god, I'm not doing this." You know what I'm saying, it gets too crazy, and it gets confusing. You're doing this for America. Even though you're the face for transgenders, you're the face for America right now with this group, and it's not about anybody else, it's about y'all. So do it for the team."

Mr. Sandeen takes great offense at the "becoming a woman" remark, claiming that Leiomy is a woman. Not even close. The part about "don't be a bird" refers to the caricature of female behavior that Leiomy enaged in. I seriously doubt Leiomy is remotely transsexual, and it is very unlikely that said person is anything more than a drag queen or a crossdresser. The whole act comes across more as part of the ballroom scene.

In a bizarre twist. Mr. Sandeen asks how people would react if Lil Momma had made a similar remark about a gay dancer. Funny, I thought the mantra of the transgender movement is that sexual orientation and "gender identity" are two different things.

I do have to note that the movement to educate the gender fascists is having an effect. In the comments, Mr. Sandeen does make this remark"

...I do identify, from a very personal idenitification that describes my identity most closely, as a transsexual.

From a sociopolitical perspective though, I definitely identify as transgender -- I identify under the umbrella term. Not every transsexual identifies under the umbrella term, but I'm one who does specifically because of the broader civil rights persective of to provide protections for gender variance from societal norms, gender identity, and gender expression.

And too, I embrace diversity. Identifying myself as transgender is a way of saying that even though I don't identify by every term under the transgender umbrella, I do embrace the wide diversity of gender experience people have beyond the binary of male and female. And, I want to associate myslef with that diversity of human gender experience.

Now, as has been pointed out before, Mr. Sandeen seems to have suddenly decided he is "really" a transsexual after being an avowed non-op. This is not unusual, and it often indicates that the person thinks they can gain more credibility by claiming to be surgery tracked.

But, it is interesting to note that Mr. Sandeen, who banned me from Pam's House Blend because I pressured him to publicly disavow his insistence that transsexuals have to be transgender, now seems to admit that people do have the right to not identify that way. And more to the point, he seems to finally admit that transgender is an artificial social/political construct as I have pointed out for years.

His remark is not perfect. He still contradicts himself by referring to the "umbrella," but he seems to be finally admitting that "transgender" is not an objective concept, but is instead very subjective, representing identity and not fact.