And Now Comes the Silliness...

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.

Incredible Stupidity

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.

Defending the Indefensible

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.

Missing the Point...

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.

There is Truth, and Then There is Cooke...

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."

It's Really Very Simple...

I never cease to be amazed by the obsession that the transgender crowd has for the ladies room.  And now, everyone's favorite bigot, Monica Roberts, has a new rant on Bilerico about some transgender getting caught in the women's bathroom in Houston, Texas.  Of course, this is going to create a perfect storm of trans-insanity given that this is the home of Phillip "Phyllis" Frye, who is never shy about seeking publicity.  And who often just makes things worse.


Alas, Texas conservatism is running head on into the relatively liberal nature of Houston (they have a lesbian mayor) and the end result will probably not be good.


But the fact is, it really is very simple.  Whether you are pre-op, or a transgender, if you don't assimilate as woman (I don't like the term pass when applied to a transsexual, though it is appropriate if one is talking about a transgender)  reasonably well, then avoid using the ladies room until you do.  When I was in transition, I didn't do what the transgender crowd now insists is their right.  I did not just march into the nearest women's room.  I built up slowly.  I would seek out a restroom I knew would likely be empty and hopefully as isolated as possible.  As I became more confident that I was perceived as a woman, I started using more public restrooms.  I never once has a problem in the ladies room, though the last time I went in  a men's room I freaked some poor guy out.


Simply put, if you don't care how you are perceived, and think you have some right to use the ladies room because you are dressed as a woman, you really don't belong there.  I wasn't so much scared of being caught, as I was thinking about the feelings of my fellow women.  People like Monica Roberts, and the vast majority of transgender activists, don't share that value.  And that says a lot about their true nature.


Note:  I found a video of the person in question, and this person is not credible as a "woman." Also, it should be noted that Texas has a law that specifically outlaws going into a restroom reserved for the opposite sex.  The mayor in Houston has issued an executive order that is in conflict with state law.  This is probably going to be a train wreck.

A Dog in the Manger

There is an ancient Greek fable, sometime attributed to Aesop, about a  dog lying in a manger who could not eat the hay but who nevertheless prevented the other animals from being able to eat it either.   It is used as an idiom for someone who has no use for something, but seeks to prevent another from using it as well.


"Autumn" Sandeen has established himself as a classic example of a Dog in the Manger.  In his most recent diatribe on Pam's House Blend he complains about how his ex-wife, who apparently has nothing to do with him, is seeking an annulment of their marriage from the Roman Catholic Church.


Now, for those who are not familiar with the practices of Catholicism, if one is divorced, and wishes to have their marriage sanctified by the sacrament of marriage in the Church, then the only choice is to have the previous marriage annulled.  There are certain situations where the church will hold that the previous marriage was not properly entered into, and the annulment is granted.


Most often, the grounds for the annulment is that one or both of the parties was too immature to enter into a valid sacrament of marriage.  Other grounds can include mental illness, a lack of intention to stay faithful or have children, deception and some other very technical reasons.


The simple, bottom line is, Mr. Sandeen's wife should have no problem getting such a decree.  But he is not willing for this to happen.  He intends to challenge his wife's effort.  Now, he claims that part of the reason is that he does not want his children from the marriage, who will have nothing to do with him, to be made "illegitimate."  However, a church annulment does not do that, legally, or in the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church.  He would have some claim to that if this were a legal proceeding, but not in this case.


No, the obvious reason his ex-wife would seeks an annulment is that she plans to remarry (or perhaps has already remarried) and wishes to have the church recognize the new marriage as sacramental.


And, just as obviously, Mr. Sandeen's ONLY real reason for opposing the annulment is to spite his wife, and perhaps is also a vain attempt to prevent her from being able to remarry.  Of course, there is no way that the church is going to deny the marriage.  His silly little tantrum is going to do nothing but given ignorant people another bit to use against transsexuals (though ironically, Mr. Sandeen is not remotely actually a transsexual.


Mr. Sandeen is one of those men who, sometime during puberty, developed a fetish for wearing women's clothes, with no real evidence of gender issues prior to that, who then, after a long period of living as a successful male, decides to take his little fetish to the next level, and became full time.  Then, he decided he would be a transsexual to gain higher standing as a "transgender."


Mr. Sandeen shows no desire to simply live as a woman.  He is an "out, loud, and proud" transgender.  He makes sure anyone and everyone knows his history, and in the past made it clear he had no desire to give up his penis.  He now claims to be surgery tracked, though he also tends to indicate that he will have surgery only when he can have it paid for.  In truth, I am sure if he does get it covered, he will find another excuse.


And adding to the silliness of Mr. Sandeen's claims is the comment by "Zoe Brain" the self-acclaimed "rocket scientist" who asserts, rather bizarrely that Mr. Sandeen's marriage was a "same-sex one, despite the fact that children resulted."  Now, that is ridiculous.  Mr. Sandeen had, and still has a penis.  His wife had a vagina, ovaries, and a uterus.  They had children, that were conceived from Mr. Sandeen's sperm, and his wife's eggs.  To remotely suggest such a marriage was a "same sex one" is totally false.  I guess they must have pretty low standards to be a "rocket scientist" down under.


Mr. Sandeen should be ashamed of acting so cruelly towards his ex-wife.  He should just let her seek her annulment, ignore it all, and go on with is little fantasies.  Seeking to deny her the ability to remarry is simply his being a dog in the manger.


And he should stop trying to speak for transsexuals.  

Not the Term I Would Use...

There has been a lot of buzz among the transgender radicals over the recent episode of Glee that featured the Rocky Horror Picture Show.  Apparently, they are all upset because the show modified some of the lyrics, and they had a female playing the role of "Dr. Frank-N-Furter," the "sweet transvestite from transsexual Transylvania."


Lead gender fascist, "Autumn" Sandeen is absolutely livid that they changed "transsexual" to "sensational" on the show, writing about this in an article entitled Just Call Me "Sensational".  Now, as I said, that is not the term I would use for Sandeen.  


I must say, I am puzzled.  Why would anyone who claims to be a "woman" want to be remotely associated with that movie, and especially that character?  Okay, granted, we are talking about someone like Sandeen, so maybe that does make sense.


Personally, when I saw the movie, back around 1979, I was somewhat repulsed by the whole thing.  I found it all a bit much, and found nothing to relate to.  I was pretty deep in denial about my transsexualism, but I still felt it was not remotely related to that condition.


It says a lot about the true nature of "transgender" and its complete disconnect from "transsexual" that anyone would remotely object to not being associated with this travesty.

Huh?

"Autumn" Sandeen has an article on Pam's House Blend called "Conflating Gay And Trans -- And More Religious Right Fear Mongering About It."  I have to say, I am a bit puzzled.


I mean, isn't that the whole idea?  I mean, what did the transgender extremists think would happen when they forcibly joined LGB to T?  Did they think that the Religious Right wouldn't assume that "transgender" was just another form of gay?


Oh, I know the idea is supposed to be something about "sexual minorities," which is why some try to add even more letters.  Like "I" for intersexed, and two "Q's" for queer and questioning.  And some want to add another "T" for transsexual.  And an "A" for asexual, an "O" for omnisexual, and a "P" for pansexual.  I can think of a few other "sexual minorities that would not be so welcome, so that idea sort of falls apart quickly.


But back to the point.  What did Sandeen think was going to happen when he dressed up in Navy drag and chained himself to the White House fence in support of repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."  Even he is not so extremist that he thinks that trying to get "transgender people" able to serve openly is a valid cause.  He was there is support of gays, lesbians and bisexuals.  That sort of makes it more likely that he will be perceived as a gay male by many.


And then he has the audacity to wonder why people with HBS want no part of transgender?  We simply want to live our lives as women.  Not as men who become women, not as women who used to be women, and certainly not perceived as gay men who just got carried away.  But that is exactly how the transgender movement causes us to be perceived. 

Well, duh!

I am always amused by some of the silliness of the transgender extremists, but sometimes the best stuff comes when they miss a simple point.  For example, in a rant about a professor who objects to male crossdressers in the women's room, "Autumn" Sandeen makes the following comment:

This is Prof. Stark stating that trans women aren't really women, and that she approves of discriminating against trans women because she is afraid of people she calls "men who dress as women." This too is Prof. Stark publicly stating that trans women are all potential restroom predators, and that she wants to limit the civil rights of trans people because of her unfounded fears.

I have news for Mr. Sandeen, "trans women" are NOT really women.  Women are women, if you feel the need to qualify it with a word like "trans" then no, you are not talking about women.  Mr. Sandeen is one of those who thinks that sex is meaningless, and that gender is determined by a whim.  Put on a dress, and you become a "woman," albeit a "trans woman," but in Sandeen's fantasy world, entitled to all the privileges of full womanhood, including the right to demand that women put up with your presence in the women's room and even to be able to expect people to overlook the fact that you have a penis if you are in a space where nudity is the norm.

Now, like any survivor of HBS, I went through the period of being pre-op, and yes, I had to use the women's room while still physically a male.  But, unlike the Sandeens of the world, I did not just force my way in, demanding acceptance.  At first, I would try to find a place that was the least likely to be in use by anyone else.  Then, as I became increasingly aware that I was fully accepted as a female, I started using more public facilities.  But, for a time, I was keenly aware of the feelings of other women.  The last thing I wanted was to cause a scene, both for my sake, and more importantly the sake of other women.

Sandeen shows no such sensitivity.  He only cares about his rights and those of other transgender people.  The feelings of women are of no concern to him.  They are expected to smile, and welcome men into their world.


It is completely lost on Sandeen, and his fellow men, that they are not, and will never be, women.  He is joined in his delusions by "Monica" Helms and the kook who calls himself "Dyssonance."  All three are a major cause of the problems that currently affect transsexual and HBS women.  Of course, when this is pointed out to them, they resort to denials, distortions, and insults.  Heaven help anyone who dares challenge them.  They are, after all, not only women with penises, but women with penises who are in no hurry to be rid of said organ.  I know that Sandeen and Helms have claimed to be surgery tracked, but they seem to be more excuse tracked.  They will have surgery when it is handed to them on a platter...maybe...


But in the meantime, they will be coming to a women's room near you.

Bullied to Death?

Recently, the hot topic on the LGBT blogs has been the shocking number of teenagers who have committed suicide as a result of bullying.  Of course, the focus has been on attempting to portray this as something caused by the "right wing."  But there is a problem with that.  Bullying is nothing new.  I was bullied as a child, as I imagine almost every transsexual was.  And I have been bullied as an adult.  The biggest difference is that the bullies today are "cyber-bullies" and are easily ignored.  A kill file is a wonderful thing.  They continue to rant, and I never see them.  On the rare occasion someone responds to them, and quotes them, I have learned that they want to imagine that I am really still reading their hatred, which only shows just how disturbed they really are.  But I digress.

There is no denying that there has been a rash of suicides linked to bullying.  And as I said above, the LGBT blogs have been largely trying to make it sound like this is the fault of the Right...that nebulous bogey man that includes anyone who dares disagree with even the most radical of the LGBT.  But what is really going on?  

I will be the first to admit, I don't know the specific reason for all of this.  I will start by pointing out that it is not limited to LGBT youth.  Suicides related to bullying have increased overall.  It is not an LGBT problem.  And I don't believe it is caused by an increase in bullying.  Bullying has always existed, probably as long as humans have been around.  So, why is there this increase in suicides?

It is something that needs to be studied.  It is a well established fact that suicides often seem to happen in clusters.  It can become something of, dare I say it, a fad.  I remember reading of a rash of suicides in one institution that began with someone hanging their self on a certain coat hook.  After a number of men followed suit, the hook was removed, and the suicides stopped.  In a similar manner, as teenage suicides resulting from bullying become publicized, other teenagers will feel the need to follow suit.  And the more it happens, the more it is likely to happen.

And that is scary,  What is worse, is that the LGBT blogs will probably continue to fuel this phenomena, if only because they will see this as a means to attack those they oppose.  I fear that things will get far worse before they get better...and that is only if they get better.  There have been a few attempts to fight back, but they have been rather weak.  The scary thing is, the victims become martyrs for a cause, and this may even encourage others to see suicide as not only the answer, but as sort of honorable act.  It isn't.  The honorable act would be to stand up to the bullies and refuse to give in,  And worse, the bullies don't seem to be shamed by causing someone's death.  There have been cases where they even showed up at funerals to gloat.

Something very disturbing is going on.  The most extreme of the LGBT blogs are trying to use the deaths of teenagers by suicide as a club to beat up anyone who disagrees with them.  Somewhat predictably, Suzan Cooke has attempted to rewrite the past and claim that when she started her blog she "laid down the law to the 'HBS/Classic Transsexual; that their name calling wouldn’t be permitted on this blog."  Never mind that we started her blog she tried to identify with the "HBS/Classic Transsexual."  It was only after it became obvious that Cooke had become an apologist for the worst of the gender fascists that the "HBS/Classic Transsexual" began to reject her extremist positions and that she suddenly turned on those she used to align with.

Oh, and never mind that Cooke as been known to bully people quite a bit.  I recall her attacking one post-op as a "skin transvestite" because that person stayed with her wife.  That, apparently, was before Cooke took up with another post-op and was reborn as a long-time lesbian.  But again, I digress.

Bullying happens on both sides of the political spectrum.  And the term "bully" is often used as a club word.  If they don't like it when someone speaks the truth, they just call that person a "bully."  That way they can avoid dealing with facts.  And sometimes the people quickest to call another a bully are the true bullies.  I know of one well known net-kook, who has threatened me with being "outed," and who has even made actual attempts to cause me real harm off the Internet, who loves to scream bully when I stand up to him.  And this same kook has gone after a number of others.

No, something is going on.  And it is probably going to get worse.  Part of the reason it will get worse is because others will try to take advantage of it.  Part of the reason is because there are some real problems that need to be addressed. And part of the reason is simply that these things have to run their course.  

I don't really have the answer.  I do know it will have to involve teaching kids that suicide is not the answer.  I know it will have to do with changing values.    And I know that the answer, strange as it may seem, will not be to, to silence the bullies.  First off, that won't work...and any attempt might make things worse, and second, as I said, there have always been bullies.  Something else is going on.

Finding a Problem Where None Exists...

You have to love the kooks over at Bilerico.  They tend to be one of the worst sites for censorship, but now they have a whiney article about how Google Instant is censoring certain words...

• Bilerico - Allowed (damn right)
• Gay - Allowed
• Homosexual - Allowed
• Queer - Allowed
• Dyke - Allowed
• Lesbian - blocked from Google Instant
• Transexual - blocked from Google Instant
• Transvestite - Allowed
• Tranny - blocked from Google Instant
• Faggot - blocked from Google Instant
• Fag - Allowed
• Bisexual - blocked from Google Instant

The problem is, none of those words are actually censored.  They may not show up as an "instant result," but you can still search for them.

Now, for those who don't understand how Google Instant works, it "suggests" terms you might be searching for.  For example, if you type in a T, the first word that is suggested, at least when I tried, was "target."  Add an R, and it goes to another list, etc.  The closer you get to the word you actually want, the greater the chance it will show up.  If you are searching for "tranny," it won't suggest that word, but it will allow you to search for it.  So, it is not remotely censored, it is just not a suggested word.

I mean really, are the people at Bilerico really that stupid?  There is no actual censorship at all.  Unlike, of course, Bilerico

Oh, and by the way, "transexual" is an incorrect spelling, used by some for political purposes, but technically incorrect.  You can search for it, but you mostly get links to articles on transsexualism, and a few where that particular spelling is used.

Almost, but not quite...

Suzanne Cooke, who has become a major apologist for the more extreme elements of the transgender movement sometimes comes close to having a clue, but then misses it completely. In a post yesterday she had one of those moments.  At the end of an article by Thomas Hammarberg, Commissioner for Human Rights for the Council of Europe, Cooke makes the following comment:

I swear sometimes it seems as though transgender folks are opposed to sex reassignment surgery and want to end it the same way they insist on erasing Transsexual in the name of some imagined unity of identity under the rubric of “Transgender as Umbrella”.

This is bad form and discourages people with transsexualism from acting as part of a coalition on issues that concern all.

It is a denial of our needs and has been one of the major causes of the TS/TG War that has gone on for some 20 years now.

Sometimes, I swear I would be better off devoting energy to tree hugging and general worker’s rights issues.

Class War, not just for the rich anymore.

So close, and yet so very far.  No, it is not really "sometimes" and no, it is not a matter of "seems like."  There are some major leaders of the transgender movement who have publicly spoken out against SRS and who have made very negative comments about those who seek it.  Some of these same people are good friends of Cooke.  True, some who have made such remarks now claim to be surgery-tracked, but they also never make progress towards SRS, and always have an excuse why they have not had surgery and why there is no clear plan for them to have it any time soon.

The simple fact is, transgender is not remotely the same as transsexual, but the transgender crowd wants to use transsexuals to further their own radical agenda of deconstructing gender.  This is exactly why many of us continue to openly, and loudly oppose anything remotely connected to the transgender model.  And yet, Cooke still seems torn between that agenda and her rather bizarre ideas about transsexualism.

Cooke is so determined to be a stereotypical radical that she is more comical than anything else.  It becomes really impossible to take her remotely seriously, but sadly, some still think her some oracle of transsexual truth.

Hopefully, they will eventually get a clue...

The Truth Finally Comes Out

I have written several times about the Mike Penner/Christine Daniels case, usually in response to some drivel from "Autumn Sandeen."  And Sandeen has usually written in response to an article about Penner.  But a new article in the L.A. Weekly has come out that sheds new light on what led Penner to take his life.  And yet, Sandeen is oddly quiet.  Why, all of a sudden, are we not subjected to another round of hand wringing by Sandeen.  Why is he not telling us what wonderful friend Christine Daniel was, and how sad he is over the loss of this dear friend?


Perhaps because the truth is out, and it turns out that we now know some new facts about what drove Penner to suicide.


The primary factor was one that I can understand.  Penner de-transitioned because he missed his wife.  He could not deal with the end of his marriage.  Years ago, I went through a similar time.  There were two differences.  In my case, my ex-spouse and I stayed together and I had time to work through my issues and realize that being true to myself was more important.  In the end, we remain friends.  Penner's marriage was beyond repair, and even after he returned to being "Mike" his marriage could not survive.


But the secondary factors are why I am not surprised that Sandeen has ignored this new insight into what happened.  There are some interesting quotes from Penner, made at the time he was still living as Christine.  For example, there is this one, sent to Susan Stanton who had complained about Christine's comments in a blog:

"I think what I'm doing is correct. If you've got a problem with it, it's your problem. ... I'm a real woman who loves makeup and clothes, shoes. A woman, not a trans-anything who needs to quote-unquote represent some undefined community. For the first time in my life, I'm being true to myself, and my true self loves makeup, clothes, shoes."

That is a very telling comment.  Especially in light of another comment where she said that she was:

"overwhelmed by everything and everyone. I feel as if I am being used as a pawn by the trans community (and maybe theTimes as well). I have been close to tears many times. ... I am flat-out exhausted."

This confirms what I long suspected.  Penner was used, and to a large extent abused, by the transgender crowd.  But Penner was not remotely transgender.  Penner was a late transitioning true transsexual.  He had fought his feelings as long as he could, but when he finally gave in, he had to face the loss of his wife.  That was too much for him to deal with.


In this article, we also learn, for I believe the first time anywhere, that Penner had scheduled surgery with Marcie Bowers.  In fact, the event that triggered his decline was when Bower's office contacted him about delaying his surgery for a week.  


I found Bower's comment that having surgery would have saved Penner's life to be highly questionable.  Penner needed to work things out with his ex-wife.  He needed to reach closure over the loss, or he needed to decide that his marriage was more important.  If he had reached the first, he would have moved on to surgery.  If he had decided the second, then it would indicate he was not a transsexual after all.  But until this was worked out surgery should have been out of the question.  

You Can't Have it Both Ways

It has been a while since I posted here.  LIfe has been busy.  I have someone new in my life, and that has taken up some of my time.  I also have other things going on, and besides that, there has not been much worth writing about.  Then, yesterday, I saw a post by notorious transgender activist Suzan Cooke and decided I had to say something.


Yes, I know, Cooke is adamant that she is not transgender.  She insists that she is not under the umbrella.  But, the simple fact is, Cooke has, as they say, been guzzling the Kool-Aid for sometime, and is transgender in all but name.


The latest silliness is Cooke's adamant assertion that "gender is a social construct."  That, of course, is straight out of the radical transgender playbook.  The bottom line is that it means that gender is essentially a choice, that transsexuals are not really what they say they are, and that, given enough "social construction," transsexuals can be "cured" (i.e. be beaten into accepting their birth "gender."  Of course, Cooke would probably deny all of this, but hey, facts are facts.


What we call "gender" is actually inherent, and immutable.  It is the sexual differentiation of the brain.  It is well established by science, a fact that is denied vehemently by some in the same way that religious fundamentalists deny proven science about other issues.  Of course, the more radical transgender activists don't want gender to be inherent.  They adamantly claim that gender is a choice, and not inherent.  One's sex is what one says one sex is.  


I did not choose to be a transsexual.  I chose to deal with something that as present from birth.  If one thinks that gender is a choice, they must either be blind, or have a very odd definition of gender.  Anyone who has been around a group of transgender people, observing those who are clearly men in dresses, pretending both poorly and cluelessly, to be women, would have no illusion that "choice" is involved in true transsexualism.


It is not about stereotypes.  It is about something inherent, and not easily defined.  There are obvious differences in males and females that are not affected by socialization.  Some behavior can be modified, but there are things that cannot be.  And those things are what are truly gender.  And since Cooke denies this, she sides with the transgender crowd, as well, ironically with both radical feminists who hate transsexuals and the religious right who wish to deny our reality.

Failure to Learn

Once again, the sad and tragic story of Mike Penner, aka Christine Daniels has resurfaced.  The June issue of GQ has an analysis of what happened, and why.  And, of course, "Autumn" Sandeen has engaged in a self-indulgent story about the whole thing.

Much has been written about Penner, his transition to Christine, his return to presenting as a male, and his suicide.  I have written on it myself.  But the question of what happened remains. 

The more I have read about Penner, the more I have come to wonder if, perhaps, he was the extremely rare example of a true transsexual that manages to hold out for almost fifty years with no real outward signs of gender issues.  I don't know much about his life prior to transition.

He claimed to have made the decision in order to survive.  That makes me wonder if he was legitimate.  On the other hand, he seems to have had a very successful career up to that point, which raises doubts.  If one is truly transsexual, the chances of having a successful life as a male or pretty much nil.  You might be able to fake it for short periods, but to be successful in a male dominated field like sports writing without facing serious problems seems highly unlikely.

But, if Penner was truly transsexual, then there is less question as to what happened.  If he was a true transsexual, then his death can be laid at the feet of the transgender activists who tried to use him.

Penner made a very public transition.  If he was truly transsexual, this would have been torture.  He would have wanted nothing more than to simply be a woman.  But instead, he had to face being publicly paraded about as a trophy for the transgender activists who claimed to be his friend.  They could use him, without considering the effects their use had on him.

For most transsexuals, the improvements in their life are the proof that they are transsexual.  But most transsexuals do not make public transitions.  Transgender types embrace the public.  They get what they really seek, to be "women with penises," or "women who were once men," or even "men pretending to be women."  Most have no desire to give up their penis, and none have any desire to fully give up their maleness.

So, what if Penner was a true transsexual?  If so, he should have been counseled to consider starting over.  It would not have been easy.  He might have had to walk away from a successful career.  At the very least, he might have had to move to another state, to a smaller place, and start over writing something other than sports.  It would not have been perfect.  He would be taking a risk, and it would require that someone would have to know, but it could have been done.

Or he could have simply left his old life completely behind.  He could have done what I did.  He could have found an entry level job, downsized his life, and slipped quietly into his new life.  But, of course, the transgender community would have none of that.  Penner would be their poster child.  Unfortunately, he couldn't take it.  It was not the life he wanted, even though I am sure they told him it was the only way.

But, of course, the activists and their dupes won't learn.  In truth, I doubt they even understand what they should learn.  When the next chance comes, they will do it all again.  And if that person dies as well?  Well, there is nothing the transgender community loves as much as a good martyr. 

They just refuse to learn, no matter what the damage.

A Horrible Episode

Last night's Family Guy was a terrible episode that was highly inaccurate, and very insulting to transsexuals. 

In the episode, Glen Quagmire's father,Dan, a decorated Naval officer, appears to be gay.  When Glen confronts his father, he confesses that he is not gay, he is a woman trapped in a man's body.  This is followed by several of the characters expressing opinions that basically came down to "what's the difference?"  There are also the usual references to "she/males" and such. This was not really refuted.

Then, Dan, who has so far appeared as a male, pops off to the hospital where he has a sex change.  Never mind that this is absurd.  One does not just go in, and come out looking like a woman.  No hormones, no RLT, just off to the OR, and he is a woman.  This is followed by playing Glen's confusion of pronouns for laughs, as Glen, now Ida, walks out of the OR, dressed as a female, with quite a nice figure, and a full head of long hair.  The doctor having made it sound like "he" had died during surgery, announces that "she" is doing quite well.  I can assure you, one does not walk out after such surgery.  I was not allowed out of bed for most of a week.

Then Ida visits Peter and family, again with another round of bad jokes.  Then Glen and his father fight and Ida goes to a hotel.  Finally, Brian who has been away at a web contend seminar, returns stopping at a local hotel for a drink. There he meets Ida, who he falls for.  Then, returning home, he talks to Stewie, telling him about having met the perfect woman.  Stewie then tells him about Quagmire's father. More bad jokes ensue, including Stewie talking about how it "must be a train wreck down there."   Brian is making the usual bad jokes until he discovers that Dan is now Ida.  He begins a rather prolonged round of vomiting.  Then Brian makes a comment about how when "they move to a new neighborhood they have to notify everyone, that's how it works." 

Ida comes back to Glen's house, and in about the only decent part of the show, they make up.  There is really not enough here to offset the bad that this show has featured.  Ida, who it had previously been suggested, is extremely selfish, pretty much apologizes and excuses Glen's boorish behavior.  Then Glen, while hugging Ida, apparently has an erection, saying it can't tell the difference.  Then Ida tells Glen about meeting Brian.  Glen does not take the news well.

The show ends with Glen brutally beating Brian, who has been in shower, scrubbing furiously as though he feels the need to wash away something horrible.   He tells Brian that he will blow his head off if he catches him near his house, and after he finishes, tells him to just lie there and die.  The final scene has Quagmire leaving, and Brian at the door saying to him, "I f**ked your father!" The actual word is bleeped out, but it is obvious what was said.

Why such an episode was done, and why this subject was treated so badly, will no doubt be debated online.  Already, Bil Browning at Bilerico has written a rather self-righteous article condemning it. Browning, who is gay, really does not have the standing to speak for the transsexual community.  I strongly suspect, as word gets out, that other transgender sites will express similar outrage.  And all of them will miss the point.

The reason for such ignorance is simple.  This is how transgender people present themselves.  And they insist on linking their confusion to those who are truly transsexual.  How many men, after long successful military careers, suddenly announce they are really women?  How many seek to associate gay and transgender?  How many transgender types imply that we are really still men?  As I say, the truth will be lost on them.  Especially the fact that this episode insulted transsexuals specifically, and that most of them have no business saying anything at all.

It's About Time

An interesting thing happened last week on Suzan Cooke's transgender blog, Women Born Transsexual.  She finally had her fill of "Willow" Arune, who is a well known net kook and apologist for Blanchard, Bailey and company.  What finally triggered the meltdown was the rather bizarre case of George Rekers, a well known advocate of reparative therapy for both those who are gay or lesbian and those who are transsexual.  Rekers was found to be involved with a gay prostitute who had accompanied him on a trip.  I will spare you the nasty bits, which have been posted on numerous gay blogs.

Cooke linked Rekers to Blanchard and Bailey and as would be expected, Mr. Arune rose up in defense.  Cooke, who is a major Godwin's Law violator, seemed a bit surprised, perhaps the only person who was.  The usual accusations of being a collaborator and a Nazi resulted, and Arune apparently decided to beat a hasty retreat before being toss off of another blog.  Arune has a long history of being banned from numerous groups, blogs, and other places.  Arune even managed to get banned from Yahoo after creating a mailing list to attack Andrea James.  That cost Arune not only that group, but also his infamous Autogynephilia mailing list.

Why Cooke would expect anything different from Arune is the real mystery.  Arune has a very bizarre history.  He is on disability in Canada, even though he brags about practicing law pro bono.  He traveled to Thailand, supposedly as part of some sort of business deal, and claims he was imprisoned because he was framed by Citibank.  While he was in a Thai jail, he claims he was sodomized (he uses the term rape, but that is not the appropriate term for male on male sexual assault).  Apparently, prior to this he showed no inclination towards any gender issues and he originally claimed that the idea of a sex change was suggested by a therapist, apparently in Thailand.  When he was confronted on this, he defended that claim.

After being largely rejected as a transsexual by anyone who encountered his bizarre claims, he dropped out of sight for a while, returning with a claim of being an autogynephile and major defender of Blanchard and Bailey.

Arune has a history of attacking those who have successfully transitioned.  He tries, desperately, to drag them down to his level.  He has attacked Andrea James, Calpernia Adams, Lynn Conway (he took her to take for her "Successful Transsexual Women" page, claiming that none truly existed), and anyone else who does not blindly adhere to the Blanchard theory of transsexualism.  Arune also has a history of seeking affirmation for his transsexualism.  He seems more concerned with being seen as a transsexual than anything else.  That is why he was trying to befriend Cooke.  He saw her as a major source of credibility.  As is always the case, this has basically blown up in his face.  Of course, it never occured to Arune that Cooke's imprimatur no longer has the value it was once perceived to have.

Of course, the relationship was symbiotic.  Arune provided major strokes for Cooke's massive ego.  Both seem to have a pathological need to viewed as authoritative.  Outside of their indivdual small groups of followers, neither of them is.

The bottom line?  I seriously considered naming this article, "When Kooks Collide."

The Latest TG Insanity in Texas

Let me start off by saying that I have nothing against same-sex marriage and that this is not the issue here.

Since Littleton v. Prange, the Texas case that invalidated a post-op transsexual woman's marriage because the court rule that she was still a male, TGs have occasionally pulled a very silly stunt in Texas.

Post-ops, who identify as lesbian, have applied for marriage licenses on the grounds that they are still, in the eyes of Texas law, still men.  The latest such case has become publicized. Anne Bernal, who is the County Attorney of El Paso County, Anne Bernal, has requested an opinion from Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott as to whether the county can issue a marriage license to a couple where a woman wishes to marry a post-op transsexual who was born a man.  The transsexual's original New York birth certificate still says male, but a new certified birth certificate issued in Washington State, and the driver's license, say female.

Now, I don't know any details about this person that would allow me to evaluate whether they are a classic or true transsexual.  There are claims of intersex, which are often highly questionable.

Now, there are couple of issue complicating this case:

• First off, in 2009, the Texas legislature passed a law which states that a certified birth certificate suffices to establish sex.
• Should the Washington State birth certificate be viewed as valid since that is not the state where this person was born?

Personally, I think cases such as this are a classic example of how transgender people do serious harm to transsexuals.  If this person is truly a woman, then I would not think they would want to be identified as a male.  But this person seems to be quite willing to set aside her womanhood to "beat the system."  This sort of behavior was proposed by Phillip "Phyllis" Frye, the infamous transgender kook who has a history of attempting to use outrageous acts to gain publicity,

If the couple is allowed to marry, it furthers the claim in Texas that sex reassignment surgery is invalid.  It can then be used as evidence that post-op transsexual woman are still "really men."  Of course, this is fine with transgender extremists who often push the idea that surgery is unnecessary.

UPDATE

I found out, right after posting this story, that the couple were married in San Antonio, TX.  So, yet another alleged transsexual in Texas has legally claimed to be a male, even though the person is post-op.  This sort of thing betrays all true transsexuals and should certainly not be seen as any sort of victory.  Of course, the transgender kooks will almost certainly disagree.

Whoops, Please Try Again...

Well, Suzan Cooke, who has joined the ranks of transgender has weighed in on the Sandeen debacle, and once again has shown a complete cluelessness.

Cooke asserts that:

Perhaps Autumn Sandeen enlisted thinking that doing so might make a man out of her and cure her of transsexualism or transgenderism. Of course TS or TG doesn’t work that way and isn’t cured that way.

No, Mr. Sandeen enlisted, period.  At the time I doubt he ever had a thought about being transsexual, transgender, or anything else.  He was just a man, looking for a career.  How can I be so sure?  Because he served long enough to retire with a full pension.  Sandeen likes to brag about his long, very successful career in the Navy.

True transsexuals don't have long successful careers as men.  They either transition early, or they live very miserable, and troubled lives until they do transition.  Cooke should know this, especially given all that we have heard about how she transitioned early.  Of course, I guess that is a bit difficult for Cooke to deal with since, as I understand it, her partner was a late transitioner.  Perhaps she was one of those who decided to transition after living happily as a man for years.

No, Sandeen remains a classic example of the worst of the transgender movement.  He is a man, who has every desire to keep a strong attachment to his history as a man, but who wants to play at being a woman.  He really should just to stick to what he is good at, and stop trying to be something he clearly is not.

Another Gender Fascist, Another Bad Joke

I have mentioned the person who calls himself "Dyssonance" before.  One of his silly little posts was brought to my attention when a well known kook, "Willow" Arune, quoted it on Suzan Cooke's transgender web site.  I left a comment there, but as is typical for those sort of sites, any dissent is avoided.

So, let's look at what this gender fascist has to say:

Imagine the term Transgender used as an insult.

Well, it is an insult if it is being forced on you.  I do not identify as transgender, and consider it an insult to be referred to as such.

Well, that’s what’s going on with a small group of trans people. And make no mistake, they are absolutely trans people. But they do not consider themselves trans people.

Now, isn't this interesting...  Mr. Dyssonance doesn't care how we identify.  He will tell us what we are.  It appears that he is the one using "transgender" or in this case, "trans" as an insult.

The particular group involved here is a break-away sect from the slightly larger US “TS-SI” sect, which is itelf (sic) a break away group from the “HBS” sect of Trans people.

Now, notice how he tosses out terms like "sect" and "break-away."  Neither is appropriate, but hey, truth is not an issue for gender fascists.

These people are surgical supremacists, to start with, and the fastest way to discern one is that they decide that some people are and some people aren’t transsexual based on puerile and utterly subjective personal opinions.

Mr. Dyssonance is really laying it on here.  Or perhaps I should say, he is really shoveling it.  I guess in his mind those who disagree with him are childish.  And apparently he has no idea what the term subjective means.  Those who identify as "classic transsexuals," or HBS, tend to have objective views.  For example, we reject the oxymoron "non-op transsexual."  This is why, increasingly, men who have no desire to lose their penis have started claiming to be "pre-op" but they never seem to have any real intentions of having surgery.  Just excuses.  We also look at other, very objective factors.  So no, our rejection of many is not at all subjective.

The splinter group in this case calls themselves “Classic Transsexuals”. They are seeking to gain ownership of the term transsexual. To them, a transsexual is only such if they happen to “vibe” right to them, and if they happen to have an acceptable “narrative” (personal history), and if they happen to hold acceptable views similar to them. The requirements for which change according to how they feel about the individual. 

So, now "classic transsexual" is a splinter group.  Actually, it is probably the more common term.  And I hate to break it to Mr. Dyssonance, but words do have meanings.  Actually, he, and his ilk, are the ones trying to gain ownership of the term "transsexual."  And no, it is not just about vibing.  Yes, one's personal history is a factor in deciding if one is a transsexual.  Especially if the person making the decision is a licensed professional.  As to "acceptable views," there are a lot of people I would consider to be transsexual who I strongly disagree with.  There might be some who don't consider those who disagree with them on some social or political view to be "transsexual," but such an approach is absurd, and such a claim is bogus.  It is just a bit of smoke and mirrors to avoid the truth.

And no, the requirements don't change.  Being a transsexual is not about holding any political or social views. It is about having a brain that is sexually differentiated differently from the body.  Period.

Now, I am not going to bother with the rest of the article.  It can be summed up simply as a typical attack on the idea that transsexualism is inherent, and not simply something one chooses.  Clearly, Mr. Dyssonance is one of those who knows, deep down, that he is pretending to be a woman.  So, he attacks those who have a history that indicates a biological basis.

I will note that he does make up one fact.  He claims that no "mainline scientist" supports the idea that transsexuals are "neurologically intersex."  While he might be able to maintain such a claim by insisting on using that specific term, in the broader sense, his claims is totally untrue.  It is true that the term "intersex" tends to have a very specific meaning, and is generally limited to conditions involving the genitalia and internal sex organs, the idea that transsexuals are, to use an older term, "psychic hermaphrodites" is not a new one, and has been a widely held one since Harry Benjamin first suggested it.

Or to put it more succinctly, Mr. Dyssonance simply makes stuff up as he goes.