Random Items

There have been a few interesting things that don't quite rate individual articles, but which are at least worth mentioning...

The first comes from Mr. "Dana" Taylor, who has whole-heartedly embraced gender fascism, and the worst of transgender idiocy....

In his exceeding autogynephilic post Quick Update On My Breast Development, along with a photo of his "breast milk," and details about his medication, which includes a drug banned in the United States, he includes the following:

Not bad for a crossdresser, eh Mr. Jennifer Usher? Had to throw that dig in. I am done paying attention to the bigot and hate monger.

He then goes on to make me the subject of his next three posts, as well as adding a note to a comment on that particular article that identifies someone I have never heard of as Just Jennifer follower.  And I get accused of being obsessive?

Over at Transadvocate, Mr. "Cristan" Williams seems to be determined to prove what I said about him to be absolutely accurate.  I do believe he simply cannot control himself.  He is again obsessing about Victoria Brownworth.  His verbiage is downright hilarious...

And be warned, if you’re trans and point out any flaws in her logic, Brownworth will lie and publicly claim that you just want to rape and murder her. If you point out her fallacies on a blog, she’ll publicly lie and claim that her employer is in the process of suing you. If you’re not immediately silenced, she’ll again publicly lie and claim that she’s filed a police report against you. She might even trymisgendering you.

The only problem is, Mr. Williams is kind of short on facts here.  He hasn't pointed out any flaws in Ms. Brownworth's logic, he dismisses threats as false (without any evidence that they are other than his denials), he hasn't pointed out any fallacies, and he hasn't really provided any evidence that she did not file a police report.  As to "misgendering," I am sure that if Ms. Brownworth ever referred to him using female pronouns, she is certainly not doing it any longer.

But seriously, as if there were any doubt as to what his vendetta against Ms. Brownworth was about, he provides a lovely quote to remind us all...

If I were running MWMF, this is what I would say: No penises. No male privilege. No oppression of women. Just fun, music, dancing, celebration. Solidarity…. But if you can’t set your male privilege aside, as well as your penis, then MWMF is not the place for you, and your presence will harm other women… But Michigan isn’t about transphobia—it’s about maintaining a safe space for lesbians. - Victoria A. Brownworth, July 2013, Curve magazine

What really makes it all so funny is, this is not an unreasonable position, and actually seems to be far more moderate than hardline.  Now, I wonder what Mr. Williams has a problem with?  No penises?  No male privilege?  No oppression of women?  Clearly, Ms. Brownworth is open to those who are post-op attending MWMF.  But, that is not enough for Mr. Williams.  To him, it is women's space, and he wants in.  The real irony is, this reminds me of something from the Transsexual Empire, by Janice Raymond...

Transsexually constructed les­bian-feminists may be the first men to realize that “if you can’t fight them, join them.” In a short story entitled “The Women’s Restaurant,” by T. C. Boyle, which appeared recently in Penthouse, this point is well made.

The story begins by setting the scene in and around Grace & Rubie’s Restaurant and is written from the point of view of the voyeuristic narrator. “It is a women’s res­ taurant. Men are not permitted.. . . What goes on there, precisely, no man knows. I am a man. I am burning to find out.” The narrator then proceeds to caricature Grace and Rubie as butch and femme, as well as to relate his several attempts to gain entrance. After two unsuccessful endeavors, he goes to a department store, buys a pink polyester pantsuit, a bra, pantyhose, and cosmetics with which he makes himself up to pass as a woman. He gains entrance and is able to experience what he has been missing.

Here I was, embosomed in the very nave, the very omphalos of fur­ tive femininity—a prize patron of the women’s restaurant, a member, privy to its innermost secrets.. . . There they were—women—chew­ ing, drinking, digesting, chatting, giggling, crossing, and uncrossing their legs. Shoes off, feet up. Smoking cigarettes, flashing silverware, tapping time to the music. Women among women. I bathed in their soft chatter, birdsong, the laughter like falling coils of hair. I lit a cigarette and grinned. No more fairybook-hero thoughts of rescuing Rubie—oh no, this was paradise.

Having drunk six tequila sunrises and a carafe of dinner wine, the male intruder/narrator finds it necessary to re­ lieve himself, but forgets to sit down when he urinates in the rest room, at which point he is discovered by Grace. The story ends with his savoring of the triumph of temporary infiltration and a plan for permanent invasion.

I have penetrated the women’s restaurant, yes, but in actuality it was little more than a rape.... I am not satisfied. The obsession grows in me, pregnant, swelling, insatiable with the first taste of ful­ fillment. Before I am through, I will drink it to satiety. I have plans. . . . The next time I walk through those curtained doors at Grace & Rubie’s there will be no dissimulation.... There are surgeons who can assure it.

The first time I saw this story, I thought it rather odd.  I saw it in a copy of Penthouse that a friend had.  It seemed pretty outlandish, and I remember wondering why that magazine would print such a thing.  Granted, I always saw Penthouse more as trash than anything having any real literary quality.  But the idea that a man, who clearly is not being represented as actually transsexual, would undergo SRS, just so he could visit a women's restaurant, seemed, at the very least, to be quite laughable.

Then, I saw it again, when I first read Raymond's book.  Again, I thought it an absurd story, and its inclusion only served to further discredit the excesses of Raymond's views.  

Then, in more recent years, I have come to experience the idiocy of people like Mr. "Dana" Taylor, Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen, and Mr. "Cristan" Williams.  Back in the 1970's, when I first read this, I had never met (as far as I was aware) another transsexual at all.  In the 1990's, when I began my transition, I knew several, but none (at that time) were anything like this.  One, Mr. Dallas Denny (again, that is his birth name) turned out to be a very bad example of this, but he was keeping that aspect of his personality well hidden at the time.  

I now wonder, were people like this around in 1978?  Were they more hidden, without the Internet to amplify their perversions?  Were they kept in check by the more rigid system of gender clinics that were the primary gateway to surgery?  Well, there was one good example, Renee Richards.  But now, they seem to be a growing phenomena.

Sorry, I guess that was enough for a separate article after all....

Anyway, moving on along...

I got into a rather nasty flame war (well, at least that is what it deteriorated to) on Twitter with someone who calls himself @AliceAnneRipley.  At first, I actually thought this person might be legit, though somewhat caught up in transgender silliness, but after a few exchanges in which I tried to get them to actually think, rather than spout the TG party line, they finally got angry and the truth came out.  The last I saw, he was still a bit obsessed two days later.  On top of that, I got a phishing message from him, that tried to steal my password.  At first I thought it was a really stupid move, but I have noticed that his account is being used as a spambot, so I suspect he has had his account compromised.

Finally, I want to call your attention to an excellent post at Notes from the T side entitled 
Transgender Activists and Stealth.  I had been considering a post on that topic myself, but hey, Elizabeth's is excellent, and I don't know that there is anything more that needs to be said.  If you haven't seen it, take a look.  

Finally, Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen, has posted another hilarious post over at LGBT Weekly.  This one, entitled Sex appears to be easily definable, but it’s not is an attempt to argue the transgender doctrine that sex and gender are totally and completely separate.  If that were true, then half of all males would have what we currently would call a female gender, and half of all females would have what we call a male gender.  Simple statistics.  Clearly, gender and sex may be two different things, in the sense that sexual differentiation of the body and sexual differentiation of the brain are two separate events that take place at different times during development, but they are still closely linked.  The vast majority of males have a male gender, and the vast majority of females have a female gender.  And, the wiring of one's brain is essentially immutable, as shown by people like Mr. Williams who has a clearly male psyche, even though he claims to be a "woman," or more properly, a "trans woman,"  You can change your clothes, you can change your name, you might even get carried away and change your body, but if your brain is male, it will remain male.  

Well, that wraps up this look at some random bits from various sources.  I hope you find them interesting, and maybe have learned something.