Cathy Brennan and Elizabeth Hungerford Are Right!

The transgender blogosphere is all abuzz about the submission that  Cathy Brennan and Elizabeth Hungerford made to the United Nations Entity· for Gender Equality and Empowerment of Women's call for communications.  Based on the reactions, you would think that Brennan and Hungerford called for "transgender people" to be outlawed, and for them to be rounded up and sent to reeducation centers where they would be forced to adhere to their birth gender.  Instead, they have raised some very legitimate issues about the more extremists views that have become the norm for the "transgender community."


A lot of the noise has centered around three quotes from the document which runs to six rather dense pages:

1. The bill violates the privacy rights of every Maryland citizen.
2. Behavior that would normally be considered criminal will now be protected as a civil right.
3. The definition of “gender identity” trivializes the significance of biological sex.

The cry has gone up from the transgender extremists, "Horrors!  To the ramparts!  We are under attack, and our very existence is in danger!"  At EHIPASSIKO, "Christan" Williams' rather silly blog, Williams refers to the letter as "exterminationist."  Of course, this is more than a bit silly, but one would expect nothing less from Mr. Williams, who tends to be a bit hysterical (in more than one sense of the word).  Well, in a sense, I guess they are right...they have demanded such ridiculous and radical changes that anything else probably seems unacceptable to them.    But they face one little problem....the above is true.  All three things are quite true.

In fact, these very things are at the core of the demands of the transgender extremists.  They assert that:

1. Their rights to express their "gender identity" trump all other rights.
2. That their rights trump even the rights of women to be safe.
3. That biological sex doesn't, that one becomes fully female simply by making the claim that one is female.

While I generally do not care for some to the sillier policies of the radical fringe of feminism, in this case they are raising good points, while showing consideration for those who actually have legitimate needs.

For example, in discussing one state's laws they make the following assertion (emphasis mine):

This definition of "gender identity" does not require any objective proof. Rather, It merely requires the person. seeking protection to assert that he or she identifies as the sex opposite his or her sex at birth.Further, because.Title 11 only permits discrimination in sex-segregated facilities based on sex) a person asserting gender rdentiry as a basis to avoid "discrimination" must be permitted to use the rest room or bath house of their chosen "gender identity') ...... without regard to any action taken on the part of that individual to change their physiology to "become female" (Le., sex reassignment surgery.) 

Clearly, they are not attacking true transsexuals, but instead the rising tide of men who think that putting on a dress makes them women.  Since these "wannabe" women generally act, and quite often look, like men, it is understandable why women would be upset at the idea of them being able to force their way into women's room.  Add in the fact that they make it clear that they have no desire to give up their penises, and it is clear that this is an invasion of privacy,

Therein lies the irony here,  We are talking about men, claiming to be women, who have no concept of why women might not wish them in women's space.  The very nature of their demands, and their attitudes are perhaps one of the strongest arguments against them.  They show, by their behavior and attitudes, that they are not women, and have no concept of how women think.


Now, let's take a small step back, and consider exactly what is at stake here.  As I pointed out, to hear the rhetoric from the transgender extremists, the radical feminists are demanding their extermination (Mr. Williams has said as much, actually) but in truth, this is about a simple issue, that we all know so well...men in women's space.  The transgender extremists demand it, even to the point, in some cases, where nudity will be inevitable, and women oppose it.  


And unlike some extremists, these radical feminists are not even demanding a total ban.  They are simply asking for the reasonable standard that access be granted on the basis of proof of medical transition.  That is, the weekend warriors, the cross dressers, the transvestites, and such would not be allowed access to women's spaces just on the basis of a claim of being a woman.  And even there, what they are asking for is not panty checks.  The bottom line, what they are asking for that has the transgender extremists going so far as to take of "extermination" (I am really having a good laugh at Mr. Williams' complete idiocy over this...) is that they simply want this standard imposed when there is litigation.


In another words, if someone is not demonstrably in transition, under medical supervision, and they sue for the right to access to use the women's room at work, they would not have a case.


Wow!  Can you believe that such a simple, and reasonable request has led to claims of proposed genocide?  There you have it.  This is the transgender movement in a nutshell, which is where I suppose these nuts belong.  They are so obsessed with access to women's restrooms that even the most reasonable of restraints, imposed to prevent a very real threat, is deemed outrageous.


And they wonder why those of us who really are women, those of us who knew early on, who struggled through life as women forced to live as men, who finally understand, who finally take the steps to put our lives right, simply don't want to be a part of their movement, oppose their silliness, and want to distance ourselves as far from their insanity as possible.  It is not that we are elitist.  It is simply that we are sane.

Hate?

A while back, I wrote a post where I coined the term "club words" to describe things that transgender activists use to beat up on their opponents.  Well, there was a very important one I missed, though it was implied in some of the others...hate.  


In a response to "Cristan" Williams' post about what he termed "The Jennifer Shuffle," which could basically be described as me out-arguing him (he got mad because I would not let him limit the terms of the discussion) someone posted this in reference to me:

Isn't it funny how so many people in the trans community have mental and emotional issues? Self-hatred is the root cause of why those people hate others.

Well, I do have to agree with the first statement, to a point.  Yes, there are some seriously mentally ill people in the "trans community."  Of course, this person completely ignores the fact that I am not a member of that community.  But that is just typical transgender.  In their view, you will be forced under the umbrella whether you like it, or not.

Beyond that, it just gets worse.  First off, I certainly don't hate myself.  I got over my self-hatred when I began transition.  Of course, when someone, such as the person here, Kalina Isato, is a full time cross dresser (even though the person claims to be a transsexual, it is clear that they are not) I would imagine they would not really understand this.  And that brings us to the heart of the matter.


This person accuses me of hating others.  Now, let me say, I don't hate anyone.  I may dislike some people, but I don't hate them.  I tend to view "hate" in a very specific manner.  If you hate someone, you, at the very least, wish them undeserved harm, and at the most extreme wish them to be destroyed.  Now, I say undeserved harm.  I don't believe it is necessarily hate to desire for someone to be punished for a crime, or denied something they are not legally entitled to.   For example, I do not wish for "Autumn" Sandeen to be denied his desired change to his birth certificate out of hatred, but simply because he is seeking to engage in a legal fraud.


I don't wish anyone undeserved harm.  I do not, for example, want to see someone get bashed by someone.  I do not wish to see anyone murdered, or such.  I also do not wish anyone to be persecuted by their employer.  I would not out someone who stealth, just because I disagree with them,  On the other hand, I have been the victim of some who have sought such things.  And yet, I am the one who is accused of hatred.


So, what do transgender extremists mean when they say "hate."  What is so horrible that it warrants this term?  What does a group have to do to earn the label "hate group" from these people?  That's simple...you just have to disagree with their extremist views.  It can be as simple as saying "I am not transgender."  Or it may be expressing disdain for "men in dresses."


It is really that simple.  If you don't buy into their silliness...  If you don't totally agree with even the most extreme demands of the transgender activists... If you don't believe that a man becomes a woman simply because he says, "I am a woman now"...  If you don't believe that the simple act of cross dressing allows one to invade women's space... If you don't pander to their delusions...  Well, then you must be a hater.


So, no, I don't hate anyone, though I am no doubt hated by some.  And that is really the bottom line.  They have to accuse others of hatred, so they can excuse their own hatred.  

Mr. WIlliams Throws in the Towel

Over the past few weeks, I have been in a battle of wits with a gender fascist who goes by the name "Cristan" Williams.  Mr. Williams first popped up on Bilerico with some pretty silly claims about how "transgender" had been around a long time.  When he was challenged on this, he began using some rather silly, and dishonest, debating techniques.  Now, most people are not that familiar with forensics, so this sort of behavior can quickly deteriorate into a bit of a brawl.  And when someone is using such techniques dishonestly, this is even worse.  Suffice to say, the battle of wits was quite one sided.  It was me against someone who was essentially witless.


In the latest round, I stated:

"For someone to say, "I am a woman, and I have a penis that I plan to keep," is completely insane. " 

To which another person responded"

Oh please. What's so magical about a penis that makes it define sex? 

 Now, this is just the sort of silliness one often encounters from the more extreme of the transgender extremists.  Mr. Williams immediately rallied to this kook's defense, and I challenged Mr. Williams on the topic.  Now, Mr. Williams response was to accuse me of making a straw argument (not a particularly bright move, since he uses them repeatedly, as I had pointed out).  This is sort of the debating equivalent of saying "Same to you, but more of it."  I made the statement that, if he did not share that view, he was welcome to denounce it, and I would gladly admit my error.  He quickly tried to change the subject a bit by resorting to an ad hominem attack, accusing me of something he labeled "the Jennifer Shuffle."  What this means, is that I would not let him define the limits and terms of the debate.  Put in simpler terms, I would not allow him to try to goad me into saying something he could twist into yet another straw argument.


Now, let me pause here to say that the main reason I have, as some would put it, "misgendered" Mr. Williams is this constant, rather masculine tendency to try to goad people into making statements that he can twist.  His debating style reminds me more of Sen. Joseph McCarthy more than anything else.  I can just picture Mr. Williams, bug-eyed and red faced, screaming "Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party?!?!?!?"  Or in Mr. Williams case, I suppose it would be, "Are you now, or have you ever been, a transsexual separatist?!?!?!?!?"


In any case, I made the statement:

Let me put this in simple terms...a penis does not belong on a woman.

And Mr. Williams came back with: 

BUT IS IT THE ONLY FACTOR IN DETERMINING SEX?

Now. this is a classic example of a dishonest question.  It has no context, and there is no simple answer.  It is clearly meant to be answered, "Yes" or "No."  Which is just plain silly.  It is not much better than the classic, "Have you stopped beating your wife?"  If you have never beaten your wife, or if you are not even married, then the "true" answer would "No," implying that you still beat your wife.  And of course, if you answer yes, you are are admitting to having beaten your wife.  Of course, that is kind of silly, but Mr. Williams' question is not much better.


The problem is, he give no indication of what he means by sex.  Does he mean legal sex? Perceived sex?  Chromosomal sex?  Genital sex?  Brain sex? Gonadal sex?  Reproductive sex?  Or perhaps he means sex, as in who you are going to engage in intercourse with, though I doubt it.  Without context, there is no answer to the question.  In some of the above contexts, the answer is yes, in others, no.  And in a couple, the answer is "It depends."


My answer stands.  If you claim to be a woman, and you have a penis, and you plan to keep it, then something is just not right....


Well, apparently he knows he is not going to back me into a corner, and that I am on to his semantical games, so he resorted to silly ad hominem attacks, and finely, when I pointed out that he clearly has no real arguments, he has stated that he is banning me.  And that, of course, is the last refuge of a transgender scoundrel.  When they can't win...when the argument is lost....when they know they are being made to look the fool....they ban you.  


This is why I don't moderate comments before posting.  I don't ban people except under the most extreme of circumstances.  And that, so far, has not really happened.  Bottom line, Mr. Williams is still welcome to comment here.  As are most others.  There are a couple of people I would not allow, simply because I have them blocked in other forums.  But that is because of privacy issues more than anything else.  In fact, that is probably the one thing that would get someone banned.  Violating my, or someone else's, privacy.

Mr. Sandeen is Now a Eunuch

Well, "Autumn" Sandeen has announced that he has completed his "gender affirmation surgery."  Actually, that is an interesting choice of terms.  He was, fraudulently, calling it genital reconstruction surgery, but nothing was being reconstructed.  He just had his testicles removed. He is trying to spin this by carrying on about how traumatic this would be for a man.  But in his case, it is "gender affirmation surgery."  It affirms he is a man, and a male.  He is no closer to being a woman than he was before.  He has retained his penis, and that is what is really important to him.


Now, a lot of transsexuals have an orchidectomy as a prelude to SRS.  It reduces the amount of estrogen one has to take, and eliminates the need for testosterone blockers.  But that is not what is happening with Mr.  Sandeen.  He is not planning further surgery.  He does not want a vagina.   He wants to be a "woman with a penis."  


He now plans to petition to have his birth certificate changed.  I seriously hope the courts block this fraud, and ideally he should be prosecuted for attempting to do so.  Then he can be a martyr for the cause, and write about another experience in jail.

And Now We Know....the Rest of the Story!

Well, there was a very interesting post on Bilerico today. It seems that the history of the "transgender movement" is not much different from what most people have said. Oh, we had "Cristan" Williams trying to muddy the waters, but Mr. Williams just got hoist by his own petard. The truth is out...

Dr. Jillian T. Weiss has posted an article about Yvonne Cook-Riley, who has admitted to being a major force in the creation of the modern transgender movement. Now, Cook-Riley is a bit of an arrogant gender fascist, telling those of us who want no part of the transgender movement to "just grow up." This is so typical of the gender fascists. In their mind, there is simply no right to not willing be a member of their little "community." If you decline, you are belittled and attacked.

Well, now the truth is out. It was all about the sublimation of those pesky transsexuals. The crossdressers wanted to take over, and they never even considered how offensive their point of view might be for transsexuals. Of course, this is not surprising since two of the people who joined in the creation of the transgender community were Charles "Virginia" Prince (real name Arnold Lowman) and Phillip Frye, the rather nasty crossdresser from Houston who has attacked transsexuals on more than one occasion.

Cook-Riley uses the term "gender variant." This term is extremely offensive to transsexuals, who do not see themselves as gender variant, but as simply women, or men in the case of FTMs. Of course, at the time the "transgender movement" was gearing up, it was all about the boys who liked wearing dresses.

Funny thing, as another points out, not once does Cook-Riley use the word "women." And they wonder why we want no part of it all?

Again, a simple suggestion....just apply "transgender" to those who wish to identify with this political concept and leave the rest of us alone.  Is that really too much to ask?

A Response to Jennifer Boylan

Jennifer Boylan wrote the following in an Op-Ed in the New York Times:

..But if transgender people are sometimes at odds with their gay and lesbian allies, they're also at odds with themselves. The community is rife with disagreements about whether transsexuals (individuals who change, or wish to change, their gender via medical intervention, and whom some define as simply having a "birth challenge" like, say, a cleft palate) even ought to be grouped, politically, with "transgenders" (an umbrella term that includes cross-dressers and drag queens).

Whenever I hear about groups splintering into smaller factions, it's hard for me not to think of John Cleese in Monty Python's "Life of Brian," protesting that he's not with the Judean People's Front; he's with the People's Front of Judea. In short, infighting seems to guarantee that whatever progress is made for gay men and lesbians, transgender people will continue to lag behind.  

We can't afford that. It is painful that the pressing issues of trans-rights seem forgotten beneath the din of wedding bells, but progress in civil rights can only come with the numbers and resources found in unity. Gay men and lesbians, for their part, ought to remember, on the way home from Niagara Falls, that it was drag queens and transsexuals at Stonewall who began this fight...

Let  me put this as gently as possible....  While I consider myself to be a straight woman who supports gay rights, I do not particularly agree with many, if not most of the goals of the transgender movement.  I'm sorry, but I do not support things like:

• Transvestites being allowed to force employers to let them dress however the mood strikes them...showing up as a man one day, and a woman the next.

  

• The ability to change one's birth certificate without having undergone sex reassignment surgery.

 

• The idea that one's sex is simply a choice.  Put on a dress, and you are a woman, provided that is how you "identify.

 

•  The deconstruction of binary gender.  Personally, I happen to like the binary view of gender and sex.

Simply put, I don't share much of the political goals of the transgender movement, and as I have stated before, I consider much of their efforts to be prejudicial and harmful to the needs and rights of transsexuals.


So, no, the community is not necessarily "rife with disagreements."  There are disagreements between those who choose to identify with transgender, and those who do not.  To state things as Boylan does is to simply ignore the fact that some do not accept the label of transgender.

A Busy Sunday...

Wow, so many issues, so little time...


No, seriously, there are some trivial things that all merit a response, but none of which are really so major as to warrant an individual post.  So, let's begin....


First, we have the silliness that has erupted around A. G. Casebeer's violent threats that were posted on uber-bigot "Monica" Robert's Facebook Page.  Mr. Roberts pulled the page as soon as the controversy began, but fortunately it was preserved for posterity by Dana Lane Taylor.  Well, "Autumn" Sandeen has now posted about how Casebeer and Mr. Roberts have apologized for the nasty remarks.  Well, actually, they appear to have posted some rather insincere sounding remarks that sound more like they are sorry they got caught.  But the real story is about how "Monica" Helms reacted to a comment from CathrynP, a transsexual who has long been a major thorn in the side of the transgender extremists.  Mr. Helms, as only he can do, goes off.

Yeah, right!

Whine, whine, whine.  You have hated Monica for as long as you have hated me, because she sees you for what you really are, and have pointed out your lies on several occasions.  You can't stand it when people see right through you.  You have even threaten her and Dawn Wilson to the point where they had to report YOU to the authorities.  You are the last person on the planet to call for stripping someone of anything.  You need only to look in the mirror to see the one person who has spread more hate then the other Cathy, Monica and AC could ever do together.  I may get called out for this comment, but someone has to point out your blatant hypocrisy.

I'm ready for my card, Autumn.

by: MonicaHelms @ Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 08:13:20 AM CDT

Now, CathrynP replied very calmly, pointing out that Mr. Helms is basically lying.  So, how does Mr. Sandeen react?  Well, as usual, he "drops a card," but warns both Mr. Helms (who regularly violates the rules at Pam's House Blend without any real fear of ever being booted, and CathrynP who didn't really violate any reasonable rule.  Another example of Mr. Sandeen's efforts to censor those he disagrees with, while allowing the worst sort of behavior from friends like Mr. Helms.  And of course, a later nasty remark by Mr. Roberts, who seems incapable of much else, doesn't even seem to warrant notice.

Our next minor issue is yet another hilarious post by "Cristan" Williams.  Mr. Williams is all upset because his silliness is being exposed and ridiculed both here and elsewhere...in spite of his stupid "facepalm" attacks.  I guess we are supposed to be so devastated by those that we just curl up and fade away.

Now, Mr. Williams claims he has never tried to force "separatists" to join the TG movement.  I suppose in his usual style of debate this claim can be supported, but an examination of his posts show just how silly that claim really is.  He has attacked what he calls "TS separatists," mocked them, and tried, desperately, to refute their positions.  Not really the actions of someone who doesn't "care if they don’t want to identify as being part of any specific community."  A simple suggestion....at least for those who haven't drank the same "Flavor-Aid" (it wasn't Kool-Aid they drank at Jonestown).  Read his remarks, and ask yourself where he is coming from.  If you don't agree with me, that is fine.  If you do...well, then join me in a good laugh at his absolute silliness.


This, of course, is typical of the semantical games that Mr. Williams engages in.  He thinks himself far more clever than he remotely is.


Then, having hit Dana with yet another "facepalm" (Dana, I feel your pain) he goes on to attack me again, accusing me of lying about his comments about bathrooms.  Apparently when he talked about how many women have attacked other women in the ladies room he wasn't really suggesting that women are just as much of a threat, if not more of a threat, as men...uh, I mean transgender "women."   


Let me make three points here in response to Mr. WIlliams' silliness:

1. I have made it clear that I think pre-op transsexuals should be allowed access to women's restrooms, provided that they actually are pursing surgery, taking hormones, and that they are sufficiently feminized that they can enter a women's bathroom without looking like a man in a dress.  And provided that they conduct themselves in a proper manner.  I would not extend this privilege to transvestites(both part-time and full-time), gender queers, drag queens, so-called non-ops, etc.  Put another way, unless you are actively pursuing the removal of your penis, and the creation of a vagina, stay out of the ladies room.
2. The real issue with men in women's space is not so much safety, as privacy.  Men, as in transvestites, are unwelcome.  The vast majority of women see the restroom as a place they can go and get away from men.  This is sort of ironic, since "privacy" is the basis for many arguments made by people like Mr. Williams.  The right to privacy is what prevents states from going after gays for engaging in sex, and it is the basis for abortion rights.  Personally, I agree with the first, but not the second.  Privacy is an important right, but life trumps privacy.
3. Mr. Williams tries the silly ploy of suggesting that "trans men" would be forced into the ladies room.  What a load of crap.  First off, after about six months of hormones the average FTM has no problem passing as a man.  Second, men do not have the issue with privacy that women do.  They are not likely to feel threatened by a sufficiently transitioned FTM.  In the relatively short period that they are changing, it is not too much to ask that they use reasonable discretion and try not to freak people out too much.

No, if Mr. Williams wasn't suggesting that women are as much of a threat as men, I would love to know what he was trying to suggest....  Oh, he does throw the 14th Amendment around a lot, clearly having absolutely no idea what it means.

The final issue this Sunday is the silliness out of Cuba.  In a very bizarre story, we are told that a gay man has married a transsexual woman.  Now, granted, there are some cultural differences with regard to sexuality between Anglo and Latino cultures.  Many passive gay males in such cultures can avoid some stigma by adopting a feminine persona and presentation, but it is extremely rare for them to actually go so far as surgery.  Now, it is possible that the "bride" in this case succumbed to pressure from society and had the surgery.   I knew one person who was clearly ambivalent about surgery, but who stated that her family wanted her to have it, so she was going to.  I recently heard that she had the operation. It will be interesting to see what comes of this.

It is also possible that the gay community in Cuba is simply using this as a ploy to get attention.  The "bride" arrived holding a gay pride flag.  And the groom has AIDS, so I suspect he does not expect it to be long before death.  

The simple bottom line is, gay men do not generally marry transsexuals, at least not for love.  I suppose if one felt pressured to marry that might be preferable to a natal woman, but this whole thing seems very questionable to me.

Now There is No Question...

Many have raised questions about "Autumn" Sandeen's rather bizarre "Wiener Story of the Day" that occasionally appears in his "This and That" posts.  What was the significance of this?  Was Mr. Sandeen just a major fan of hot dogs, or was this meant as some sort of perverse pun?  It seemed even more of a question when Mr. Sandeen falsely claimed that he was having "genital reconstruction surgery."  He is having a castration, and is becoming a male eunuch, not a female.


Well, now there is no question.  In a new post, any question is removed.  Here is what Mr. Sandeen has to say about wiener's this time:

Our Wiener Story Of The Day: the Arizona Republic's Police urge holster use after man shoots his own penis:
As Chandler residents Joshua Seto, 27, and his fiancée, Cara Christopher, walked over to a Fry's Food Store for refreshments, he tried securing her pink handgun in the front waistband of his pants.

The gun fired, striking Seto's penis and continuing through his left thigh. The bleeding started immediately and was heavy, according to police dispatch recordings released Sunday.

"He is still conscious, there is just a lot of blood," Christopher , 26, told 9-1-1 operators and dispatchers.

One operator told Christopher to apply direct pressure to the wound with a dry towel or T-shirt, but to avoid looking at the wound...

Yes, and now we know what Mr. Sandeen means when he says, "As always, 'The weenie tempts you!' "

Battle of the Legends (Well, At Least Legends In Their Own Minds)

When asked about my politics, I often joke that I am a member of the Radical Middle, the Extreme Center...  I say this because I find that politics is often driven by the extremes, which I do believe is unfortunate.  Granted, living in San Francisco I have to avoid the term "moderate" which is code for "conservative."  You see, conservative is a bad word here.  Instead of Left and Right, we have "progressives" and "moderates."  Basically, a progressive is someone who believes in treating human beings with a modicum of decency and respect, and a moderate is someone who wants to punish people for having the audacity to be poor in San Francisco.  But they both, strongly, support gay rights.  But I digress...  Oh, and I guess the above makes me a progressive...


Recently a war has erupted between two of the radical extremes of the online world.  "Cristan" Williams, the radical gender fascist who posts at "EHIPASSIKO" and "Woman Born Transsexual" Suzan Cooke are going at it.  This is all very interesting given that about two years ago, Cooke was making a major effort to cozy up to the transgender crowd, suggesting something of a truce where "transsexual and transgender" would coexist in a cozy separate but equal utopia.  Things went sour a few months ago, and Cooke now rants about the "Transgender Borg" and "Transgender, Inc."  Williams, on the other hand, makes silly jokes about the Swedish Chef..."Borg, Borg, Borg."  


Truth be told, I obviously come closer to agreeing with Cooke, but I find both of them to be rather amusing.  Cooke is so far left in terms of politics that she has become something of a caricature.  It is really hard to take much of anything she says seriously.  And she clearly has some issues with insecurity, so I admit, I feel a bit sorry for her.


Williams on the other hand, while also amusing in the same way that "Dyssonance" is (they are very similar in style), is also more than a bit obnoxious...well, in the same way that "Dyssonance" is.  They both think if they just keep forcing their points of view, they will wear people down.  And, of course, Williams seems to be a close friend of "Monica" Roberts, who has recently become embroiled in a controversy over some violent threats which he seemed to encourage.  Roberts, of course, is well known for being an extreme bigot.  Ironically, Cooke has been known to kowtow to Roberts as well.  In fact, if I am not mistaken, Cooke used to link to Roberts' blog.


Watching these two go at each other is rather amusing.  Neither is going to give an inch, and both are stubborn as mules.  Neither is above lowering themselves to personal attacks at the slightest provocation.  I suspect we will hear more from them in future.

You Can't Make This Stuff Up!

Over at "EHIPASSIKO" the blog site of "Cristan" Williams, there is a new post that is, well, it is just unbelievable.  Williams tries to argue that, in the context of the bathroom, women are in as much danger, if not more, from other women, as they are from men.  That is, this "transwoman" is trying to say that men pose no more of a danger than other women.  Unbelievable!  And, of course, this is done with very questionable evidence.


Now, clearly, anything is possible.  The issue is not, "Are women totally and completely safe from possible assault and even rape if men are never allowed into a women's bathroom?"  That would be absurd.  The issue is, "Will women's safety, and their comfort, be affected negatively by the presence of men in dresses in the women's room."  This, of course, is completely lost on a gender fascist like Williams who wishes to assert that the moment a man puts on a dress, he becomes completely and fully a female with all attendant rights and privileges.  Williams joins with fellow kook "Monica" Roberts in proclaiming that they now have a "neo-clit" in their panties and that they are thus superior to natal women, and must be given special privilege. 


Now, Williams offers as evidence for this assertion a series of articles involving assaults, one rape, and a rather bizarre case (cited twice) of a pair of women engaging in sex in a bathroom,  apparently in front of a child.  Unfortunately for Williams, the rape case is not a very good argument as the case was later dismissed.  It may well have never even happened.  Or at least not have been an actual rape (it involved digital penetration).


Now, it seems incredible to me that anyone claiming to be a woman would ever make an argument that other, uh, natal women are as much of a threat as men are.  Of course women fight with each other.  And of course such fights might even occur in the ladies room.  But that is not really the issue;  The issue is sexual violence, which overwhelming involves men, whether it is rape, or some other form including voyeurism.


As I say, you can't make this stuff up...not that I would want to. 


Oh, and a simple solution to the bathroom issue.  Access to the women's room should be available only to those who are in transition, seeking surgery, on hormones, and who are living full time,  It could be linked to changes of identification, which should be time limited.  If the person is not making progress towards surgery, they would revert to an 'M' on their ID and be banned from the women's room.  Simple.  And fair.  If you are a crossdresser, find a family room or a place with a single, one person bathroom and stay out of places you don't belong.  And this includes full time crossdressers with "neo-clits" like "Monica" Roberts.