The Transgender Extremists Are Becoming a Self-Parody

When I was younger, I used to enjoy reading MAD Magazine. I always found their satires of current movies and TV shows quite amusing, especially if I had seen what was being parodied. But one in particular sticks in my mind. They took on the comedy Catch-22 which was a satirical anti-war movie about a fictional air squadron during World War II. A fried of mine, who had seen the movie, pointed out that the satire, which was entitled Catch-All-22 was pretty much simply a rehash of the plot of the movie. The movie, he said, was so absurd, that the artists and writers at MAD must have found it impossible to parody.

That is what the "transgender movement" has become, so absurd that they are a self-parody. They take offense at even the slightest, most imaginary insult, and then they launch into a frenzied effort to suppress the often imaginary insult.  In the past, these efforts were mostly limited to cyberstalking, something I have been a victim of, but now they have extended to open attacks on blog sites of radical feminists who express an opinion that is contrary to what the transgender extremists consider to be politically correct.

I often find myself in disagreement with the more extremist of the so called "radfems," but I still respect their right to free speech, just as I respect the right of the transgender extremists to spread their silliness.

For example, one of the most recent battles erupted when a blogger made an off-hand remark about women becoming angry because they cannot achieve the perfect body shape...that of a Brazilian transsexual.  That relatively innocuous remark has led to an amazing about of fury in England that has now spilled over to the United States, including attempts to suppress the freedom of speech of women ranging from those who oppose the more absurd extremes of the transgender kooks to to those who object to transsexuals.

Then there is the outrage expressed by "Autumn" Sandeen on Pam's House Blend.  Mr. Sandeen is upset that President Obama did not make a point of pandering specifically to the men in dresses during his inaugural address in which he spoke "LGBT families."  Mr. Sandeen admits that Obama has done a lot for "transgender people," but is upset that Obama did not actually, specifically mention the men in dresses crowd.  In fact, the Obama administration has, in my opinion, in some cases gone to far.  For example, the State Department allows the update of what Mr. Sandeen falsely refers to as "gender markers" on passports.  No, they are an indication of SEX, which is basically an indication of whether or not you have a penis.  Mr. Sandeen has a penis, and he wants to keep his penis. Therefore, in terms of both sex, and his precious "gender" he is a male, and a man.  Period.  But Mr. Sandeen is one of those who likes to play with gender, abuse it, and subvert it.  He was, is, and always will be a man, even if he makes the tragic mistake of deciding to have SRS to prove something.

It's a simple fact of life...not everyone is going to accept transsexualism as legitimate.  There will always be some, if they know, who will refuse to see a person who was born male as a woman.  This is even more true for the "men in dresses" crowd.  I don't see them as women either.  But hey, I can live with it.  First off, the people who do know are relatively rare in my life, and most who know are people I have told.  The ones who refuse to accept me rarely remain a part of my life.  Most people simply don't know.

But the "transgender kooks" cannot abide this.  They feel they have a privileged right to force people to acknowledge them as female, even if they have a fully functioning penis hidden in the panties.  And if someone fails to do this, they are likely to face outright bullying.  Of course, what else would one expect from a bunch of men?

The Radfems Have Some Good Points

I often state, only half-jokingly, that I am an extreme moderate, a member of the Radical Middle, the Far Center.  By that, I mean that I tend to disagree with those who are extremists. For example, I have a lot of disagreement with both extremists on both sides of the abortion issue.  I believe that abortion should be illegal except in cases of rape, incest (which I consider to be a form of rape), and to save the life of the mother.  I do not believe that women who have abortions should be prosecuted for doing so.  I believe that adoption is a superior alternative to abortion, and was once rather vulgarly attacked by someone (a note left on my windshield) because I had a bumper stick that read, "Don't Abort, I'll Adopt."  I have also been attacked by those who think I am a just too darned liberal on the issue because I don't favor executing women who have abortions, or think that abortion should be illegal, even if the mother's life is in danger (somehow it is lost on those extremists that the child will almost certainly die as well as the mother).  But, such is the nature of extremists.  I can respect your right to disagree, but I expect the same in return.

I feel the same way whenever a group of radical feminists start blindly attacking "transgender" people.  They tend to take a very broad brush approach.  But, I also find that the truth, again, falls somewhere in the middle.  The Radfems, as they are known, have some views that are, unfortunately, rooted in ignorance.  A lot of their philosophy is rooted in the rejection of a biological basis for gender.  To them, it is all nurture, and no nature.  Men and women are different because of social environment.  And yet, they also seem to take a "biology is destiny" view that rivals that of some on the extreme Right.  They push the idea that gender is oppression, but they wish to oppress those who feel their gender does not actually match their body.

Now, as I say, they have some good points.  The fact is, sadly, the vast majority of so-called "transwomen" (a term I don't care for) may be "trans" but they are not remotely women.  I am often amazed at how so many of them seem to take a surprisingly male approach to the act of "being a woman."  They seem "womanhood" as something to be taken by force, as an entitlement that they have a right to, and they attack anyone who has the audacity to challenge them on it.   

Just look at the behavior of the most extreme of transgender activists, like "Autumn" Sandeen, who decided that having himself castrated entitles him to claim that he is now a "womon born womon" (and yes, he actually used that spelling) and that he just might show up at the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival.  Look at "Colleen" Francis, and his supporters who think that a "transwoman's" right to flash his penis around a women's locker room trumps the rights of the women.  Even if young girls are involved.  Look at the style of "Cristan" Williams, and how his writing seems more that of a man trying to shove his views down women's throats than anything else.  He loves to gloat, strutting like a Banty rooster" when he imagines he has scored a victory (which is usually more imaginary than real, as he tends to present straw arguments and then ignore any refutation of his silliness).  I still get a laugh from his silly response when I refused to let him set the terms of a debate.  He refused to continue, and accused me of "the Jennifer Shuffle."  How, classically male, but not unusual.

And don't even get me started on the absurd, stereotypical way many transgender men (i.e. transwomen) think real women should behave.  Just check out a video or two of Mr. Sandeen flouncing around in one of his outfits.  It is an insult to women, period.  I remember once, a person who, in retrospect, was more likely transgender than transsexual, commented to me, "You dress like a housewife."  It was meant as a criticism, but I took it as a compliment.  I also remember, after attending a Halloween event at a local LGBT center, being told that several had wondered why a "straight woman" was there with her daughter.  Again, I took it as a compliment.    That is, after all, what I am.  Not a drag queen, not some bizarre caricature of a woman who favors the label "transwoman" because I want to hang on to my past, but simply an ordinary, run of the mill, woman.

Unfortunately, like most extremists, the Radfems paint with a broad brush.  And, unfortunately, they follow the transgender approach of lumping transsexuals in under the "umbrella" that is "transgender."  This is largely because they don't want to believe that there is a biological basis for transsexualism, which would refute their position that men and women are exactly the same emotionally and mentally, except where differentiated by nurture, even though that is clearly an invalid position.  But, when it comes to the behavior of the transgender, they are dead on.  Any woman should be offended by much of the behavior of transgender extremists, not just the Radfems, and no one should attack them for expressing such offense.  But Heaven help anyone who actually finds fault with transgender behavior.  Even if they are right on many of their points.

You're Not the Boss of Me!

Immature anarchists with the mindset of adolescent males...  That's what the "surgery on demand" crowd sounds like.  Oh, now we have a new, kinder and gentler term..."informed consent," well, actually, we have a term that is being badly misused.  Another term that is likely to be bandied about is "the Argentinian Approach."  The idea is the same...no gatekeepers, no Standards of Care, no screening of applicants for SRS, and no recourse if a mistake is made.  You don't want people telling you what to do, so do it "your way."  And if you make a mistake, well as Suzan Cooke says, "cowgirl up/cowboy up."  Hmmm, that sounds like what I heard before my transition.  "Don't transition. Just live with it."  Or the advice that some offer gays and lesbians, "Okay, so you have these feelings...  Suppress them, and be chaste."

The problem here is, not everyone who presents seeking treatment for "gender issues" is transsexual, and not everyone should be encouraged to transition.   But some misguided people, who seem to have problems with concepts like authority and morality, insist that anyone who wants sex reassignment surgery, or hormones for that matter, should be given them without having a doctor's approval.  Now, in the case of male to female patients, hormones are relatively benign.  With the exception of eventual sterility, there are few truly permanent effects.  This is not true for female to males.  On the other hand, particularly for male to females, surgery is a one way path, and if someone makes a mistake, it can be very tragic.

But for some, the appeal of being in complete control, of not having to seek the advice and consent of a medical professional who's job it is to prevent a tragic mistake, is such that they seek to circumvent the Standards of Care just for the sake of doing so.  But they don't understand that those standards are there for their protection, not as a hinderance.  They are not there to prevent transsexuals from getting the care that they need.  They are in place to prevent people who are not transsexuals from making a mistake (a fact that seems lost on Suzan Cooke who seems to think that the people who have regrets were transsexuals before surgery) and by doing so, the help insure that those who would put an end to surgery don't have an excuse to do so.

The simple fact is, human nature is such that there will always be a significant number of people who will, for any number of reasons, decide that the solution to their problems lies in gender transition.  I'm not talking about transsexuals, who are born with a brain that is sexually differentiated at odds with their body, but about people who suffer from mental illness, or who are crossdressers going through a mid-life crisis.  I am talking about, though increasingly rare in this country, gay men who think that becoming a woman will make them okay.  These are the things that doctors are supposed to screen for.

Are there abusive "gatekeepers?"  Yes, some exist.  Ray Blanchard would be one of the best examples.  But there are plenty of competent therapists.  The problems generally arise when someone goes to a therapist with no experience in dealing with transsexualism.  Unfortunately, more than a few professionals refuse to acknowledge their own limitations.  

My advice to anyone considering transition is, if you can live without it, then don't do it.  If you are just looking to go full time with your desire to crossdress, then please, spare us.  If you are ambiguous about surgery, don't even think about it.  You should only go down this path if  the only other option is suicide or some other form of self-destruction.

The bottom line is, simplistic ideas, like "cowgirl up/cowboy up" or "surgery on demand" will just result in people getting harmed.  One can expect such from extremists like Cooke.  I prefer a more sane approach.

A Truly Moronic Suggestion!

It is one of those truly stupid ideas that simply will not die.  Far too often, usually after a news story about how someone has major regrets about having undergone sex reassignment surgery, or in the most recent case, an woman who now regrets having taken male hormones, some fool will pop up and say "If you make a mistake, then live with it!"  At times, this is part of a larger demand for "surgery on demand." That is, the idea that the Standards of Care should be abandoned, and people should be allowed to have SRS on a whim.  Sadly, there are some unscrupulous surgeons who come close to that already.

The latest incarnation of this idiocy, comes, as it always does, from someone known for taking extremist positions.  In this case, not surprisingly, and not for the first time, the source is Suzan Cooke.  In a couple of articles, here, and here, Cooke has a hissy fit over the idea that doctors should actually have to be responsible for doing their jobs.

For MTF transsexuals, hormones are a major diagnostic aid.  If a man mistaken thinks he should transition it is usually sexually motivated.  A few months to a year on a proper dose of estrogen, and his sex drive is reduced, and voila, he begins to lose interest in transition...unless, of course, he is an aging transvestite, where a lowered libido is often the trigger for the sudden desire to become a woman.  In the case of an FTM, sexual issues are rarely the cause of a desire to transition, but there is also the issue of the difficultly of reversing the effects of testosterone.  For a woman, taking hormones by mistake are far worse than they are for a man.  For a man, about the worst possible outcome is permanent sterility (relatively rare, since they probably won't be on them long enough) and possibly the neat to have his breasts surgically dealt with (again, relatively rare).  

In the case in England that triggered Cooke's most recent rant, it was a woman who not only underwent testosterone treatment, but who also had a double mastectomy.  Interestingly enough, the doctor in this case is the one who replaced Dr. Russell Reid who became mired in controversy when a patient, who had clearly lied and who had suffered from some seriously delusional ideas about how life would be as a woman, had regrets after undergoing SRS.

Now, Cooke's suggestion might seem, at face value, to be reasonable.  But, in truth, it is simply wrong.  First off, doctors have a responsibility to, as the pledge in the Hippocratic Oath, to "first, do no harm."  A surgeon should require that anyone seeking SRS provide verifiable documentation from a competent therapist, as well as a second recommendation from another therapist.  The second letter is necessary because, quite frankly, there are some therapists who simply should not be allowed to practice.  I know, I saw one early in my transition, and that person contributed greatly to my transition being delayed.

I was dealing with several issues, including coming to grips with my true sexual orientation.  Instead of working with me on these issues, the therapist I was seeing simply glossed over them, and pushed me to proceed.  I clearly needed time, and she wanted me to move ahead.  This led, among other things, to a serious breakdown, and I detransitioned for seven years.  In retrospect, I wonder what might have happened if I had allowed her to pressure me into proceeding before I was ready.

I also know of a case involving a middle-aged woman who, more out of loneliness than any gender issues, started claiming to be an "FTM" so should could hang out a research study targeting "transgender" people.  She actually seemed to relate more to the MTF staff, but she was being pressured by one of the FTM staff members to "get off the fence" and start hormone therapy.  It was obvious that this was not a good idea, but he would not listen to reason.  Fortunately, she relocated to Alaska, and escaped from his efforts to get her to do something that would have caused serious problems.

Transition, hormones, and surgery are not to be taken lightly.  To suggest that someone "just live with it" is an incredibly callous view, especially coming from someone who felt the need to transition.  If you are a transsexual, imagine being told that.  Actually, you probably don't have to imagine.  I know I was, more than once.  It is not good advice.  Now, imagine having undergone surgery by mistake, and actually losing the option of dealing with one's situation. SRS is, especially for a MTF patient, irreversible.  There is no real possibility of becoming a full male again.  

Mistakes happen.  I can think of two well-known cases where the person involved has almost certainly made a mistake, but has refused to acknowledge it.  And I know of several causes where the person has made the fact that they made a mistake very well known.  In all of these cases, a competent therapist could, and should, have prevented the person from making the mistake.  Yes, the person involved lied, and for that reason, they share some of the responsibility.  But a competent therapist will do more than simply take a person's statements at face value.

If anything, the Standards of Care need to be tightened.  People who really need SRS might be a bit inconvenienced, but they will make it through the process.  Those who should not have surgery should be screened out, before a mistake is made.

Lies, Damn Lies, Statistics, and Mr. Sandeen's Birth Certificate

Well, "Autumn" Sandeen is at it again.  He has posted a blog entry over at LGBT Weekly in which he makes the completely absurd claim that he is now a "womon born womon," so to speak.  As you may recall, Mr. Sandeen had himself castrated a while back, and then perjured himself before a judge in San Diego in order to get his birth certificate changed.  Sadly, no one followed through on plans to make an appearance and challenge this action.

Now, Sandeen claims that the illegally obtained piece of paper means that he was "born a woman."  Sorry, but NO!!!  HE WAS NOT!!!  He is not, has never been, and will never be a woman.  He simply lacks, to use a term from theology, "valid matter."  Mr. Sandeen shows no sign of being a woman.  His behavior, and his inherent nature is male.

In fact, his very approach to the concept of being a "woman" is very male.  Like many "transgender" men who wish to claim to be women, he sees to see womanhood as something to be taken, demanded even.  When I began transition, it was not with an attitude of entitlement, but with a desire to be accepted.  I did not feel I had an inherent right to be a woman, even though I felt I truly was one.  I felt like I had to show that I was a woman.  If I could not do this, then I felt, perhaps I was mistaken.

Men, like Mr. Sandeen, seek to achieve their "female" status by decree.  It does not matter what the evidence says, they are women because they have a piece of paper that says they are a woman.  They demand that society submit to their delusions.  It is, after all, their entitlement.  Sorry, but that is simply wrong.

Sandeen demands that people accept that he is a woman, even though he has, and clearly intends to keep, his penis. He is no different from "Colleen" Francis, forcing himself into women's spaces, even though he has no business being there, and is really not wanted.

No one with a shred of sense would ever truly accept Sandeen as a woman. He is, at best, a very poor caricature of a very male concept of how a woman acts. A sort of a bad drag act. Sadly, this is apparently how he really sees women. Sandeen is, quite simply, a major argument for the radfem's point of view.

Some People Are Seriously Disturbed, and Others Are Just Seriously Disturbing...

Well, I ran across another blog post from some kook who seriously wants to defend "Colleen" Francis' right to expose himself to females in a women's locker room in Washington State.  The blog Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters has taken up the fight to protect his pervert's right to expose himself to women, including teenage girls. 

Their argument?  Well, they don't really seem to have one.  They just don't like the fact that Matt Barber, who I agree can be a bit over to top, well, he just doesn't like it, so there...

But the really idiotic argument is made by an anonymous commenter

If you actually read the story in question it was a 17 year old who complained, not a 6 year oldd(sic) as the bigots woulde(sic) have you believe. A woman just 12 months or less shy of being a legal adult who, let's be honest about American youth here, has probably already seen plenty of penises before this incident. If you walk into a locker room available to people in their 40s you're gonna see plenty of gross stuff even if your eye never wanders below the waist.

So, women are now, I suppose, expected to accept the idea that intact males, who are not remotely even transsexual, are allowed to expose their penises in locker rooms and showers?  We are supposed to just accept it?

Well, I am a legal adult, and if were to encounter Mr. Francis, or any other such pervert in a locker room...well, I carry pepper spray for protection and he would get a dose in the face, and an even bigger dose somewhere he would find very unpleasant.

And some wonder why I, and other transsexuals, want NOTHING to do with the label "transgender."