There Really Is A Difference

I sometimes identify myself as a "transsexual separatist," mainly to irritate the kooks like Mr. "Cristan" Williams who use that term.  But in truth, the term is something of a misnomer.  It was created as an attack on transsexuals who simply do not identify with the so-called "transgender paradigm."  The term was clearly coined by "gender fascists"  as part of a larger attempt to force those identified as "transsexual separatist" back into line.  We are actually, truth be told, more assimilationist than separatist as the goal is to assimilate into the larger society, rather than, for want of a better term, "sticking out like a sore thumb." 

This was particularly brought home to me when I happened to check out the comments made on the article by Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen (all ready discussed here) where he invents the idea that I am some sort of "activist."  The article that lead to him stalking me on Twitter, and in comments on this blog for a while, in a bizarre attempt to distract me from something I don't even do.  Amusing, but a bit of a bore after a while.

The comment was made by some guy calling himself "dawn1257" and it shows the overwhelming arrogance of some transgender extremists.

It starts off with a semi-accurate opening:

Certainly you are aware that the effectiveness of your and others activism is not what propels their dislike of all things transgender? It’s that your and others activism – they feel -publically beguiles the very term ‘transsexual’.

The use of the term "beguile" is a bit puzzling.  I would not say that that Mr. Sandeen's "activism" (I would tend to refer to it as self-aggrandizing attention seeking) charms or 
enchants anyone, and it certainly does not help time pass more pleasantly.  The term does carry an aspect of being deceptive, and in that sense is slightly accurate.  Well, actually...the deceptive part is highly accurate.

The real problems are in what comes next.  I don't know whether it is arrogantly clueless, or cluelessly arrogant....

Run-ins with Elizabeth are not unknown to me. My first was a result of her blog post entitled something like, ‘I Will Never Understand’. The premise of her writing was two-fold. First she has difficulty in maintaining understanding of why a “man” would wait twenty, thirty, or more years, get married, have children, and THEN transition. Secondly, she simply could not fathom why, after transitioning, anyone would want to remain either in that same marriage, be ‘known’ as the “Town Tranny”, and/or be open to anyone (activist) about what she perceives as only a correctable medical condition which once corrected that individual should just then ‘melt’ into society living forever as the woman, or man they know themselves to be.

Now, I admit, I did get married, for the primary purpose of getting away from my father, and I have one daughter.  I got married because, at the time, I thought I was attracted to women and because, after seriously considering transition in my early twenties, I became convinced, based on bad information, that I would not be allowed to pursue SRS.  I did some research in a university library, and the books available at the time tended to indicate that anyone who was attracted to women was not considered a viable candidate for transition and surgery.  I did not know that this was not true, and since I had no access to a competent therapist, I had no way of knowing otherwise.  And the worse part is, when I later learned that it was possible to transition and pursue surgery, I discovered I was actually a straight woman.  

But this not what we are talking about here.  We are talking about men, generally facing a mid-life crisis in the forties, fifties, even sixties, who suddenly, after showing no sign if having an issue with their "gender identity" (other than being an adult fetishistic crossdresser) suddenly decide that they are "really a woman," and as pointed out, want to stay married, and be "out, loud, and proud."  In another words, someone like, oh...say, Mr. "Sandeen" or Mr. "Cristan" Williams.  In a lot of cases, the wife has the good sense to say, "No way!," but many are financially dependent on their husbands, or feel bound by moral standards and remain in the marriage.

Now, it is not so much a matter of not understanding, as simply not seeing such a person as having any relationship to transsexualism (other than possibly suffering from the delusion that they actually are transsexual...again, we come back to the part about deception).

It is in the next paragraph where things really go off the tracks....

To a large degree her, and the others just like her, do feel animus. They feel threatened. They feel repulsed at the concept, and the coercion, and the corrupting of the term ‘transsexual’ being co-opted in sameness as transgender. It’s their sincere desire to maintain a ‘purity’ for a term that really never even existed before one prominent Psychiatrist coined it some 60+ years ago. Some of them, Elizabeth included, claim that they were in fact treated by this man. And, they may well have been. I believe they feel it to be their collective duty to protect that term with a vengeance because ‘they’ received his blessing as themselves when no one else would even consider their plight. So they have developed an aggressive desire to protect that label for only those who ascribe to, and are willing to follow the protocol enshrined from his research. In that protocol, Dr. Benjamin felt that ‘blending’ back into a normative lifestyle in the sex you believe (know) yourself to be, and have transitioned to, was paramount to being successful and ‘true’.

This shows the sort of clueless arrogance I was talking about.  First off, it is kind of ironic to have someone who I am sure clings to the term "transgender" like a drowning man grasping at a life preserver, making comments about people trying to defend a clearly defined medical term that many attempt to co-opt.  I mean, seriously, in spite of the attempted lies of Mr. "Cristan" Williams, the fact remains that "transgender" in its current usage only dates from sometime around the mid-Nineties.  The term may have occasionally cropped up prior to that, but it was not at all common.  Worse, there is the snarky comment implying that someone might make a false claim to having been treated by Harry Benjamin, and the rather false claim that we feel "threatened."  I agree, I do feel angry at the attempts to coerce me into accepting a label I do not agree with, but I also believe that Benjamin, and other experts are right that blending in is preferable...for true transsexuals.  For transvestites, like Mr. Sandeen, Mr. Williams, and I would presume "dawn1257," the very idea is anathema.  For them, it is all about being as exhibitionistic as possible.

The clueless arrogance continues...

But, the fallacy as I see it in these ‘separatists’ is that they were from a time when the science behind transsexualism, and other labeled gender variances were scattered, essentially unknown, and uncoordinated in cross-referencing. Today, like so many other physiological human conditions, much more is known -professionally. The ‘knowing’ is a resultant factor of availability of information worldwide. No longer are such issues confined for weeks, months, or even decades buried in obscure manuals, or sheltered from even public awareness.

The problem is not so much that science has advanced, it has and it has shown that the differences between transsexuals and those who might well be labeled as "gender variant" are quite wide, but that political pressure has played a major role in how things are dealt with.  A lot of therapists will now pretty much rubber stamp anyone who claims to be "trans" whatever for hormones, and if they are actually willing to give up their penis, SRS, without any real effort to determine if they are really transsexual.

He then asserts...

This is where activism comes to play. Just because something might be verified clinically as true, that doesn’t always manifest to instant recognition and acceptance of what was once thought solely as a “taboo”, a maligned, and misunderstood condition. Without the foot soldiers (activists) who in many cases are the subjects of these issues themselves, how then is a public who is ever so willing to ‘light the torches and grab the pitchforks’ instead of utilizing calm discussion and reasoned thinking on such issues going to be made known the actual truth?

The real irony here is that a lot of so-called "trans activism" involves trying to lie and make people believe that "transgender" people all are all "transsexuals" and that it is not that they are making a choice to "transgress" gender, even though that is clearly what they are doing.

Then we get to a statement that is truly clueless....

Essentially, these ‘separatists’ are and will remain ineffective in their pursuit. Some of their ‘chosen few’ will follow in their foot traffic and their mean-spirited blogging. Some of those who become transitioned will desire not to be ‘known’ publicly. Some will seek the light of determined ambition to reach out and make a difference positively in whatever manner they can. Some of us will also aid that campaign in more quiet ways, just because we can and not because we are afraid or embarrassed.

Actually, we are far more effective than he realizes.  For example, in spite of the best efforts of the transgender extremists to force us into line, including actually outright lying, we are quite able to maintain our separate identity.  In spite of their shrill claims, most simply do not buy the claim that disagreement with their extremism is hate.  Our pursuit is to blend in and live normal lives, and we do it quite well, even as they try, oh so desperately, to force us to do otherwise.

I'm not sure what this person thinks is the pursuit in which we remain ineffective.  Perhaps like Mr. Sandeen, he imagines us plotting to block their extremism.  In truth, we don't have to make such an effort.  The extremists are self-destructive, and their is a backlash coming.  Our goal is more a matter of avoiding being hurt by that backlash.

Up To His Usual Tricks

There is an old cliche about, "How can you tell is lying?  His lips are moving...."  Sometimes, I feel like updating that to, "How can you tell Mr. "Cristan" Williams is lying?  He's posting on the Internet again..."  Granted, Williams, not unlike some he loves to attack, does not lie so much as he stretches the truth to a ridiculous extreme so that it is effectively a lie.  Well, that or sometimes he just outright lies.

In the latest such example, Mr. Williams greatly exaggerates the reaction of some to the recent law passed in California that I think is poorly written.  The law is intended to extend protections to students who are transsexual, though of course, political correctness insists that the term must be "transgender."

The article is classic Mr. Williams.  He exaggerates the reaction of some, linking together several diverse groups in an attempt to give a false impression.  And then he attempts to use images from popular culture to sway, so he can avoid making an actual, rational argument.

The only problem I have with the law, is the same problem many have with other, similar laws.  It is too vague.  Of course, this is how the extremists want it.  Kooks like Mr. "Cristan" William seem to have an obsession with protecting the rights of perverts like "Colleen" Francis and "Paula" Witherspoon, the registered sex offender and child molester who was cited for being in the women's room at Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas, Texas.  Now, personally, I think it rather reasonable to question whether a person such as Witherspoon actually has a legitimate "female gender identity."  The evidence seems pretty strong that he doesn't.

The problematic part of the law does not require that a student seeking protection under the law have any evidence other than, apparently, a vague claim of identity:

A pupil shall be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs and activities, including athletic teams and competitions, and use facilities consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records.

Now, consider how this is written.  Let's take a hypothetical situation that is actually not really all that hypothetical.  Now, granted, the situation I am describing happened at a local community college, not a K-12 school, and the person involved was possibly not a student, but bear with me.  A male was lurking in the women's locker room in the school's athletic facility, and attempted to attack a woman.  Now, suppose a law similar to this were in effect and he were spotted and reported before actually attempting an assault.  The police arrive, and confront the perp.  He is not dressed as a female, but, thinking quickly, states "I believe myself to be a female, so I am in the appropriate facility for my gender identity."  The police officers' hands would be tied.  They would probably not even be able to check the person's ID and see if he had any priors or warrants.  As long as he had not actually committed an act, he would be "protected," simply by telling a lie.

Now, Mr. Williams would have you believe that such things never happen.  He actually repeats a previous attempt to claim that "cisgender women" are actually more of a threat to women in restrooms than men, transgender or otherwise.  Poorly written laws put women in danger.  As in the example above, had the suspect been confronted, a poorly written law would bind the police from doing their jobs.  Now, Mr. Williams tries to imply that NO transgender person would ever engage in improper behavior, but this is simply not the case.

Now, what is likely to happen is that this law will be challenged in court.  Also, there is already a move underway to have it rescinded by a ballot initiative.  If the reaction indicated by comments on SFGate.com, the San Francisco Chronicle website, are any indication, such an initiative would very likely pass overwhelmingly.  Comments were overwhelmingly negative.  And that is in San Francisco.  There was no serious support for the law.  A few commenters tried to make the same sort of vague claims as Mr. Williams.  

If such a proposition passes, the good parts of the law will likely be thrown out with the one poorly written provision.  Personally, I would like to see the provision rewritten to require an actual diagnosis from a licensed therapist, and provisions to protect the privacy of students in situations where there is inevitable nudity.  Also, I think it would be reasonable to require that any student accessing sex-segregated areas actually be, as some say, living full time as the "gender" they claim to identify with.

Another false claim by Mr. Williams is this:

Here in TEXAS – yes, conservative TEXAS – we’ve had these California-style policies in effect for YEARS. And you know what’s happened? Nothing… Except trans kids got to go to school without having to face institutionalized bigotry.

Now, some might claim this is absolutely true.  Some might claim it is a bit of an overstatement.  But, because of a very specific phrase (" California-style policies") it is actually an outright lie.  

Here, in its entirety, is the Houston rule:

Employees of the District shall not discriminate on the basis of or engage in harassment motivated by age, race, color, ancestry, national origin, sex, handicap or disability, marital status, religion, veteran status, political affiliation, sexual orientation, gender identity, and/or gender expression. A substantiated charge of harassment against a student or employee shall result in disciplinary action.

Compare that to the wording from the California law above, keeping in mind the fact that this wording is the only real change in California law, which already had, shall we say, "Houston-style policies" on the books for years.  Whoops!  I would say that what Mr. Williams claims is an outright lie, not just clever semantics.

The bottom line is this...  Mr. Williams claims to be a woman, but he seems to have no regard for the actual feelings of women confronted with an obvious man invading their space.  He has hounded Virginia Brownworth, accusing her of terrible acts, simply because she does not support the right of men like Mr. Williams to invade places like the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival, or to force lesbians to accept them as sexual partners.

So, I suppose it is no surprise that Mr. Williams would lie about reactions to the California law.

Breaking New Ground For Gender Fascism

First off, let me state up front, I am not interested in debating whether Manning is a hero or not.  As to whether Manning is a transsexual, transgender, or just a deeply disturbed gay man, that remains an open question.  I want to deal with something a bit more concrete.

Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen, the man for whom I first coined the term "Gender Fascist" has gone to a new extreme.  In posts in several locations, he has attacked Manning because Manning did not transition in a manner that Sandeen has declared necessary.  Seriously.

In the article, which is posted on Transadvocate, Mr. Sandeen makes it clear that he disapproves of Manning's conduct with regards to to giving secret documents to WikiLeaks.  He begins by making a rather self-aggrandizing statement about how he is going to respect Manning's desire to be referred to as "Chelsea" based on teachings he "learned as Pentecostal youth," even though he has apparently embraced atheism as an adult.  This is apparently part of his ongoing harassment and stalking of me.

Having puffed himself up in this manner, the then begins his attack on Manning:

But as I respect her name and identified gender, I’m cognizant that Chelsea didn’t respect the trans community — the trans community of which I am a part — in how she came out.

So, apparently Sandeen has appointed himself arbiter of how someone must come out, and of course Mr. Sandeen does think they have to come out.  But, apparently, he expects to be consulted first:

As I read Chelsea’s announcement, I was struck that the thrust of her statement was about her wants and needs, and that there was no mention or consideration of the impact of her statement on other trans people. For example, Chelsea mad her announcement without warning to LGB and especially T community leaders even as she put LGBT community leaders the in the position of defending her gender identity. What she did was put the responsibility of defending her chosen name and preferred pronouns on LGBT non-profits and trans community activists who weren’t fully aware of if, when, or how she was going to publicly announce she has a female gender identity.

One of my biggest problems with Mr. Sandeen, and a number of other transgender extremists, is how they show no regard for how their positions might affect transsexuals who are not interested in being linked with their perversions.  But here is Mr. Sandeen, apparently upset that he was inconvenienced by Manning's announcement.

Part of the irony here is how Mr. Sandeen has no regard for the very real problems will Manning will face if Manning really is transsexual.  Granted, Mr. Sandeen has no personal experience of such issues, but still, his arrogance is amazing.

But Mr. Sandeen goes on to make an even more outrageous statement:

To me, it’s notable that Chelsea made her announcement that she was a woman without publicly using the terms trans, trans*, transgender, or transsexual to describe herself, or acknowledge she was part of a community that were going to be defending her gender identity.

I don't know, but perhaps Manning has the good sense to not want to be associated with extremists like Mr. Sandeen.  Of course, to him, and his ilk, that is the unpardonable sin.  One must be willing to be a part of the "community."  

And the arrogance continues:

There is no honor in harming the community to which you are entering.

And, there is no honor is announcing the new name Chelsea wishes to be addressed by and her gender identity without considering how the timing of her announcement may impact efforts for open military service for trans people in the service. 

I don’t know about anyone else, but I see a pattern of behavior where she doesn’t consider the consequences of her actions…to include the impact her behavior has had and is having on others.

Finally, Mr. Sandeen goes on to attack Manning's actions in revealing having a gender identity issue prior to being arrested:

And, of course, there is the courage and commitment thing. Prior to being arrested, she reached out for help to her immediate supervisor, essentially outing herself as trans with the “My Problem” email and inclusion of a photo of her presenting as female. Courage and commitment to further identify as trans to the Army with intent to receive treatment for her gender dysphoria and a discharge could have included going to the next and the next and the next supervisor in her chain of command, or could have included contacting a military psychologist or psychiatrist — contacting anyone with the power to help her until someone in the Army acted or what she described as her problem. (I do believe there was a failure of leadership by her immediate supervisor for not passing on the information up the chain of command when it was a clear call for help, but that’s another issue.) It seems to me that she demonstrated a lack of courage and commitment in how she reached out for help…from the military and discharged from to be treated and discharged by the Army for what was then referred to under DSM-IV TR as gender identity disorder.

Simply put, it is really none of Mr. Sandeen's business when, or how, Manning chose to come out.  Mr. Sandeen should really just butt out of this one, and stop acting like he thinks he is some sort of "alpha tranny" or something.

I knew he was arrogant, but this one takes the cake.  

Political Correctness Versus Medical Accuracy

A thought occurred to me the other day...

Let's consider two scenarios....  

In the first, someone is berating a transsexual woman for wishing to have SRS and then simply get on with having a normal life as a woman, effectively just blending in and not being out, loud, and proud, as a "trans woman," but simply wishing to be normal.

In the second, someone is pointing out to a person that perhaps they should reconsider their plans after seeing where they have made this comment concerning having an orchidectomy:

Most interestingly, some people have asked whether I’ll get to keep them after they’ve been removed. And some surgeons do let you take them home! I figure we’ll preserve them in a jar, display it on our bookshelves, and use it as a weird prop for videos. (Anyone who knows what chemicals and processes are necessary to do this, hit me up.)

Now, the question is, which of these situations, if either, would you consider to be "transphobic."  Is berating someone for wanting to transition, and simply live as a woman an example of "transphobia."  Is warning someone who is clearly having some rather bizarre fantasy about what they are going to do with their testicles after having them removed that they might be making a mistake ""transphobic?"

Well, it appears that if you asked a lot of transgender extremists they would probably say that the first is not only not transphobic, but that the behavior the person is being berated for is, itself, "transphobic."

On the other hand, trying to warn someone that their planned behavior is indicative of some serious mental health issues would earn you a nice label of being "transphobic."

In addition to the seriously bizarre bit about keeping his testicles in a jar, the person in question, "Zinnia" Jones, has some other very interesting comments on his blog.  For example....

I’m comfortable with the way my genitals currently function, and SRS would alter that significantly, with a potential risk of losing sensation and the ability to orgasm. There are also a number of serious complications that can occur, and revision surgeries are often necessary. If SRS were perfect, I’d be much more willing to have it done. But as is, I personally don’t consider it worth the risk of compromising what I have now. This is just my own evaluation of my options – something that each person has to decide for themselves.

Now, this is clearly a person who is not remotely a transsexual.  During my transition, I considered the possibility of an orchidectomy as an intermediate step, in order to reduce the amount of hormones I was taking, but I learned that it is frowned upon my most SRS surgeons for certain technical reasons.  But I can state, without hesitation, that I was never "comfortable with they way my genitals currently function" prior to SRS.  I wanted that changed significantly, and while I would certainly have been unhappy with a loss of sensation (thankfully not the case) it was a risk I was willing to take.  Then again, my motivations for having SRS were neither sexual nor, more to the point fetishistic.

If we look at another statement on this person's blog, we can see more of what is going on here...

I should emphasize that I personally find the whole-body changes induced by HRT to be much more important than obtaining a vagina. People tend to reduce all of transitioning to being solely about correcting your genitals, as if that’s the entirety of what a “sex change” is. And yes, for many trans women, having a vagina is a priority. But there’s still much more to this than rearranging small pieces of flesh that most people will never even see.

Now, all of this might seem more understandable if it were written by, oh say, a person who had a lifelong history of crossdressing, and was suddenly transitioning at the ago of, say, 50. But the person in question is clearly much younger.

What we see here is clearly autogynephila.  Of that, there is no question.  These are not the words of a transsexual, but, at least originally, the primary determination of whether a person was, or was not, an autogynephile was age at transition.  If a person was below a certain age (never really clear) they were a "homosexual transsexual" and over a certain age, again, not clearly defined, they were an "autogynephile."  

The theory first put forward by Ray Blanchard, and then taken up by Michael Bailey and Anne Lawrence was intended to basically discredit transsexualism.  We are all supposed to be gay men, who are just too gay to be men, or straight men with a fetish, basically transvestites who are taking it to an extreme.  Interestingly, many in the so-called "transgender community" have somewhat taken up this line of reasoning.  

A person who is "happy with the how their genitalia functions" really should not be allowed to make permanent, and irreversible changes, including orchidectomy.  Granted, this is not as drastic as full SRS, but it is simply not medically justified.  Hopefully, this person will simply not be able to find a therapist willing to approve the surgery, or a surgeon willing to perform it.

This is just one example of the idiocy that results from the current trends in transgender extremism.  There is no concern for what is actually beneficial or harmful, just for pushing an extremist agenda.

Transgender is a essentially meaningless, highly subjective, term that describes an artificial social/political construct.  There is no objective criteria for exactly what makes someone "transgender" other than transgender extremists trying to insist that transsexuals have to identify that way, whether they wish to or not.

This is the approach pushed by extremists such as Mister "Autumn" Sandeen (yes, you got tagged again, because you said something idiotic again) such as he did in a comment on an article on Notes From the T Side.

Fifteen Years of Cyberstalking

Note:  This is probably going to be an evolving article.  The purpose is to document the behavior of someone who is engaged in harassment against me.  I have added to it several times already.  If you are interested, check back regularly.  If not, well, just ignore it.

About fifteen years ago, I was recovering from my first failed attempt at transition.  I am not going to go into a lot of detail, but I made several mistakes, mainly rushing into transition, and I had a very poor excuse for a therapist who failed to pick up on a number of issues I was struggling with.  When, as some call them, external pressures got to be too much, I fled back to, as I have put it, "the devil I knew."

It took me seven years to work through it all.  During that time, I discovered a newsgroup with the ironic name alt.support.srs.  I say ironic because it was anything but supportive.  The group was largely terrorized by a group of bullies that included a person who used the name Cheryl, and another who posted as Diane.  They were commonly referred to as "The Sisters of Transsexual Purity" because they would attack anyone who was not, in their judgement, 100% committed to SRS, and progressing at a pace that met their rather stringent standards. 

The really ironic part was, neither was post-op, as they claimed.  The truth about Cheryl came out after that person was found dead in front of their computer.  Someone from the sheriff's department used instant messaging in an attempt to get information, and the person contacted let the newsgroup know that this person had died.

Diane, aka Diane Arons, whose real name is Diane Arons Lask had a rather long history of bullying and cyberstalking that began on FidoNet, if not earlier.  For those too young to remember, FidoNet is a network of computer bulletin board systems that was sort of a predecessor of the Internet.  It is not very popular in the United States these days, but is still in existence, and is more commonly used in Russia and former republics of the USSR.  FidoNet was primarily through the phone system.  A BBS would call an uplink hub and exchange outgoing messages for incoming ones.  It might take a few days for a posting in forum to reach everyone.  It was one of several such "echo net" programs available.  

One of the features of FidoNet is forums, which were sort of like mailing lists or Usenet groups.  And one of the forums on FidoNet was for the discussion of gender issues and Lask was very much a presence there.  And was certainly one of the reasons FidoNet was jokingly called Fight-o-Net.

I didn't access the gender forum on FidoNet because I had not transitioned, and did not want friends to know my medical situation.  If you were on a BBS, it was very easy for the sysop to tell what forums you participated in.

FidoNet was where Lask first encountered a person who called himself Laura Masters (later Laura Blake).  Blake was a transgender extremist from Canada who developed quite a reputation for opposing SRS, and claiming to have "jumped the gurney" on the way to having it.  How much of this was true was never really certain, but Lask developed an major obsession with Blake that would be a driving force in his life for many years.

Now, there is no question that Blake contributed to the whole mess.  Shoot, I will admit to taking more than a few potshots at Blake, who spent a great deal of time attacking transsexuals and trying to pressure people into being "woman-males" to use his term.  Of course, now, the drivel pushed by Blake has become a large part of the transgender dogma, and ironically, Lask seems to have adopted this view as well.

Actually, to be honest, it is never really clear exactly what Lask believes.  Over the years, Lask has attacked, and then sided with, a number of people.  For example, he viciously attacked "Willow" Arune, a notorious online kook, and then took to defending him.  The same was true of a several others.  

The weird thing with Lask is I actually have met this person.  Several years ago, after he stopped harassing me, he contacted me and explained that he had been homeless for some time.  He had been staying in Nevada, and wanted to return to San Francisco and wanted to know if he could sleep on my floor for a period.  Now, I tend to be a forgiving, and compassionate person, and I agreed.  Lask stayed for several days, before moving in with a post-op who, ironically, had responded to a person ad I had placed, even though I an a straight woman.  This person was apparently some sort of trans fan, who preferred transsexuals as partners.  I was not interested, but did seek to interest that person in the research project where I was volunteering at the time.

When I met Lask, one of the more bizarre facts I learned was that this supposed paragon of transsexualism actually had a history with a group originally known as Educational TV Channel (EDTVC) in San Francisco.  It is now known as TransGender SF or TGSF.

Lask turned on me when he decided, rather suddenly, that the alt.support.srs group should be abandoned to the kooks like Arune.  I declined to agree to that idea, and Lask disappeared for a while.  Then there were suddenly someone appeared posting through an anonymous remailer and attacking me.  Those postings seemed to be Lask's styles, but at first I was not completely sure it was him.  Finally, he made reference to some things that only Lask could have known, and it was obvious that Lask had adopted me as a replacement for Blake.

Lask became increasingly abusive, and it was about this time that he suddenly began to defend Arune, and at least one other person he had rather viciously attacked.  I became the sole object of his attention, though he did occasionally check up on Blake (who had withdrawn from the Internet entirely to escape Lask) and provided "updates."  

BTW, at one time, Blake was posting claims about Lask's harassment that many took at either fiction, or delusional.  Now, I wonder, as i have been the victim of similar attacks.

A few years ago, Lask mounted a massive cyberbullying attack on me.  He sent anonymous emails to several transgender activists urging them to contact my employer in an effort to cause me grief.  He basically bragged about this on alt.support.srs.

One of Lask's main tactics is to do extensive online research on a target.  He will scour Google looking for anything he can exploit.  I have learned to be very circumspect about what I allow to be posted online, and, thankfully, Lask does not know a lot about my current life.  Of course, it can be a constant battle.  Changes in Facebook security allowed him to find my daughter, for example.  He then found a blog post she had written about ten years ago, at a time when we were estranged.  As I have said elsewhere, I will not do what Lask did, and invade my daughter's privacy by revealing details, but suffice to say, we are no longer estranged and are very close.  She was very upset at being used as a weapon against me, and was furious that Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen tried to contact her.

After finding a mention about me on my church's website, he made a similar effort to attack me through my church, mistakenly thinking I was then employed there.  I found out about this when Suzan Cooke wrote about having received one, and to Cooke's credit, declined to participate.  On the other hand, Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen was chose to take up Lask's suggestion and I wrote about it here. 

Lask has always had a tendency to come and go.  Even when he is active, there is an odd pattern of several days of almost continuous attacks, almost around the clock, followed by a period when he falls silent.  Well, he had disappeared for some time...until recently.

The first sign that Lask was back was, as is often the case, not completely obvious.  A person started posting in the comments section of Mr. Sandeen's column on LGBT Weekly under the name "Jenna."  At first this person seemed to be a "radical feminist," and even seemed to be disagreeing with Mr. Sandeen.  Then, after I made a comment in support of something he said, he attacked me.  The person's statements were very inconsistent.  Then, over time, it became obvious that this was not only a troll, but was Lask.

The person calling himself "Jenna" repeatedly denied being Lask, but then suddenly, every message where I mentioned "Diane Lask" was deleted.  Yeah, sure it wasn't Lask.  Uh huh, yeah....  Oh, and he is back at it again, trying to imply that he is another troll from Usenet.  No one ever said Lask was very bright...

Since that time, Lask has used the name "Jenna Smith" to access my LinkedIn profile, and has impersonated me on several web sites, as well as using the names of my ex, and my daughter.  He has also apparently created a twitter account using my photo.

This person is a a seriously mentally ill person, and to be honest, there obsession makes me feel rather threatened.  While he has been careful to never say anything that could be taken as a physical threat, a person who is this obsessed can easily turn violent.  So, I am taking this opportunity, knowing that he reads this blog to say to the person using the name Diane Arons Lask, that I am demanding that he cease his harassment.

I realize this is an unusual post, but the primary purpose is to go on the record concerning this person, to comply with a provision of California state law requiring that I inform the person to cease harassing me, and to insure that anyone doing a Google search for Diane Lask will see this information.

Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen Has His Widdle Feewings Hurt....

Well, for someone who claims to make a habit of ignoring me, Mr. Sandeen seems to have gone off the deep end...again.  He has posted yet another diatribe in his ongoing attempt to take control of a situation he clearly is unhappy about.

He basically repeats the comment he made on my blog along with a photo of me he found online.  That, of course, is a classic cyberbullying technique used in the hopes that someone might harass someone who prefers privacy.  Oh well, no one said Mr. Sandeen has any sense of boundaries.  Oh, and since I installed the "Live Traffic Feed" I have noticed the regular appearance of at least one person from San Diego.  Hmm...do you think it might be someone waiting for the next post?  Or to see if I responded to his comments.

After all, while he was "ignoring" me, he cyberstalked me by contacting my church, and my daughter.  It is also rumored that he is the person responsible for the outrageous blackmailing of Susan of Enough Nonsense, which basically led to her stopping comments on transgender issues.  Oh, and he seems to conveniently forget that I started this blog, in large part, because he made a lame excuse to ban me from posting on Pam's House Blend where he was known for his heavy handed censorship.  That was one of the biggest influences in my decision to not censor this blog.  It was only in response to a particular cyberstalker that I started the policy of moderating messages before allowing them to be posted.

Oh well, the fact is, I comment on transgender idiocy, and well, he is the lead idiot, so he can try all he wants.  I don't comment for his benefit, but for the benefit of those who might want a less, well, idiotic point of view.

Oh well, let the fun continue....

Oh, and a thought that did occur to me...  Mr. Sandeen has said a couple of things that led me to a theory.  We all know he is on disability for mental issues (he claims bipolar disorder that started in the Navy) and we also know that he claims he was accused of being gay during his last years in the service.  I suspect he started on hormones towards the end of his service.  He was in San Diego, and right across the border in Mexico, hormones are pretty much over-the-counter drugs. That would have certainly lead some, based on appearance and stereotyping to suspect "gay" since he would have looked slightly feminized (he still pretty much is clearly a man) and it is well documented that while estrogen has a mood elevating effect for transsexuals, it can cause depression in normal (i.e. not transsexual) males.  That sort of mood swing, which can be increased by a loss of testosterone, would very likely be viewed as "bipolar."  

A competent therapist should catch this, but then a competent therapist would have never labeled Sandeen anything other than a crossdressing male with delusions of grandeur.  Just a theory, but I bet Sandeen will be sputtering in denial.  And let me add, I make no claim of being able to diagnose someone.  I am just making an observation based on experience and study.  

Slacktivists? ROTFLLMAO!!!!!

Sometime back, I wrote about the comedy of Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen.  Well, he has come up with, perhaps, his funniest material yet.  In a post on Transadvocate, he has not only managed to prove that he is clueless, but has also managed, in response to mostly negative comments, to outdo Mr. "Cristan" Williams at abusing logical fallacies.  I do love that last bit.  I have pointed out, for some time, that the transgender kooks love to engage in logical fallacies, so now they regularly mention that concept in their posts, falsely accusing me of such, while, of course, cluelessly engagibg in them repeatedly.  They do love to imitate...

Anyway, what has set Mr. Sandeen off this time is the post I did on AB1266, the law that is supposed to protect transgender students in school, but which actually just abuses everyone else.  He is apparently (it is kind of hard tell) upset that I, and others are not actively lobbying for our point of view.  Yeah, seriously....

Call them classic transsexuals or women of operative history; call them true transsexuals or transsexual separatists — whatever you call them, you can also call them ineffectual slacktivists.

I mean, seriously?  I don't know what he is smoking, drinking, injecting, or snorting...but if it is not a controlled substance, it should be.  

The simple fact is, unlike Mr. Sandeen, Mr. Williams, and a number of other transgender kooks, I, and quite a few others that Mr. Sandeen seeks to attack in his laughably bizarre post are just not narcissistic publicity whores like they are.  We simply do not feel the need to run around Sacramento, Washington, or such, making fools of ourselves.  Can you imagine the laughter that must fill legislative offices after these fools have left?

No, my mother taught me well...."Fool's names, and fool's faces, often seen in public places."  Yes, I think AB 1266 is a bad law.  I sent a message asking Gov. Brown to veto it, and I am disappointed that he decided not to.  But, I have no desire to waste my time and money traveling to Sacramento to engage in self-aggrandizing political grandstanding.

No, there is a much simpler, and far more effective strategy.  Simply allow kooks like Sandeen to have their way.  It is interesting to note that Mr. Sandeen also posted another article where he whines about how "Progressive Talking Heads (are) Not Talking About California School Success And Opportunity Act."  Gee, did it ever occur to Mr. Sandeen that even the "progressive talking heads" might have enough sense to realize what a total train wreck this law has the potential to become?  Has he ever stopped to think that maybe, just maybe, they understand that average people think this is way too extremist?  Nah, of course not.

If Sandeen took the time, for example, to read the comments posted on SFGate, the web page for the San Francisco Chronicle, he might discover that here in the Bay Area the reaction was overwhelmingly negative.  And lest he try to make some excuse about it not really reflecting local sentiment, he should compare it to the response to the Supreme Court overturning Proposition 8.

No, AB 1266 could well be the final straw for the public's tolerance of transgender silliness.  It is bad enough that women's rooms are regularly invaded by men in dresses, but when you start talking about having boy showering with girls, provided the boys claim to be girls, people tend to say "ENOUGH!!!"

The problem with the law, simply put, is that its language is too vague.  The few who tried to defend it on SFGate kept claiming that it would not do what was claimed.  That it would take more than simply "claiming" to be transgender to get access to the girls locker room.  But the law does not say that.  I simply says that one cannot be denied access based on one's gender identity.  The claim is also made that no one would abuse such a law, but we have already seen too many examples that show otherwise.


Sandeen also, rather cluelessly links to an article from Notes From The T-Side that shows, quite conclusively, that his birth certificate is fraudulent, and that he knows that it is.  That would be the birth certificate that Mr. Sandeen has claimed shows that he is a "woman born woman."  Seriously, you can't make this stuff...not that ANYONE with a brain would want to.

Then he carries on about some crazy idea that the people at TI-SI came up with called "Transsexual Independence Day." Somehow, I managed to miss that one. Now, why Sandeen even bothers to bring this up is puzzling. As I said, he carries on in the comment section about "straw arguments," and refers to "Transsexual Independence Day" as a non sequitur, but his bringing it up is both. I had never even heard of it, and Elizabeth at Notes from the T Side basically posted an article that exposed the silliness of the who concept. It is not a surprise that it never went anywhere.

That's the problem with Mr. Sandeen's article.  It attacks me, and others, for something we don't do, have never claimed to do, links us to things we either opposed, or were not even aware of, and of course, does all of this to the glory of Mr. Sandeen.  

If he wants to go to Sacramento with other men in dresses, clomp around to various legislative offices, and get laughed at behind his back (you know they howled about his silly beret) that is his right.  Me, I will just sit back and wait for it all to blow up in his face.

Oh, and in a rather bizarre bit of absurdist theater, he posted a picture of himself, stuffing his face with Cheetos, which has a weird tag about "the blogging standard of blogging in one's PJs from one's mother's basement."  I'm not quite sure what that is supposed to imply, but my mother passed on over 25 years ago, and I live on the second floor of my building.  

As I say, whatever Mr. Sandeen is on, I do hope his friends will stage an intervention before he suffers any further brain damage.

A Very Bad Law

I'm normally a big supporter of both Tom Ammiano and Gov. Jerry Brown, but I am not happy with either of them at the moment.

Ammiano introduced, and Brown signed, AB1266, the law is meant to provide protections for "transgender" students.  Unfortunately, it contains one provision that makes it a very bad law.

A pupil shall be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs and activities, including athletic teams and competitions, and use facilities consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records.

Strictly interpreted, this would mean that a male student, upon declaring that his gender identity is female, would not only be able to play on a girl's athletic team (irregardless of his hormonal status), but would also be able to join the girls in the shower after the game.

I am sure the transgender extremists are just...well, doing what men who are sexually aroused do, over the prospect of this.

It is one thing to say that students should be treated fairly, or that students who identify as transgender should be allowed to dress and be treated as the gender they claim to identify with, but the idea that a male student should be able to be in a place where female students have a right to expect privacy, simply by making the assertion that "he feels like a girl," is absurd.

The irony is, no student who is actually transsexual would take advantage of this, so any student who actually does, and perhaps none actually will, is simply not a transsexual, but is instead a pervert.

It's Really Rather Simple

I came across this on Twitter, and I find it rather amusing....

Well, first off, I am not fixated on him at all.  He is one of several "transgender extremists" I regularly look at for source material.  I also look at the rants of Mr. "Cristan" Williams, Mr. "Monica" Roberts, Mr. "Dana" Taylor, Bilerico, Suzy Cooke, Transgender News, and others. And I get ideas from various other sources.  

Now, to be honest, I have never actually looked at how often any one person shows up in this blog.  I know others, including Cooke, Mr. Williams, and Mr. Taylor have all made similar claims.

But the reasons Mr. Sandeen has shown up so much are rather simple....

1. He is an extremely prolific blogger at times.  When he is in one of his manic phases (he is very vocal about being bipolar) he writes a lot.
2. His writings tend towards the sillier extremes of the transgender movement.  He provides some of the best of the worst of transgender silliness.
3. He really is sort of a perfect storm of insanity.  I mean, this is someone who has rather publicly boasted of his defrauding the court system in San Diego (and yes, he knows he pulled off a fraud, because he was frantically afraid that someone would let the court know he was still a male).
4. He has, on more than one occasion attempted to stalk me, and bully me.  I don't take well to such attempts.  Especially when they involve him attempting to use my daughter against me.  I would never dream of trying to track down his estranged son to obtain dirt on him.  And then he had the nerve, when he feared being reported to authorities, to try to claim he was trying to "help."
5. And, it should be noted that it was Mr. Sandeen's over the top censorship  at Pam's House Blend was what let to me deciding to blog.  Who knew it would that would lead to.  Sort of backfired on him in ways he never imagined.

I realize Mr. Sandeen, like a lot of men, does not take well to disagreement, or criticism, but hey, that's tough.

You Really Should Read This Article!

As I have said a number of times, I tend to be very moderate in my views.  I don't care for extremism, which is very common in the discussion of transgender issues.  I don't care for the idea that simply saying one is a woman (putting on a dress being sort of optional) makes it so, and allows one to invade women's spaces.  I don't care for the extremism of some radical feminists, who would deny the reality of transsexualism.  

It is rare to find a truly balanced and fair discussion of the subject.  But, an article on a web site with the rather amusing title of "The Lesbian Mafia" offers just that.  It deals with the issue of Don Ennis' transition and detransition, and it raises questions that it would be interesting to see kooks like "Autumn" Sandeen, "Cristan" Williams, and "Dana" Taylor actually respond to.  Not the usual shrill cries of "transphobia" but actually deal with honestly, and logically.  I am neither lesbian, or Mafia, but it is a great piece.

The article is:

Transgendered news editor Don Ennis detransitions from “Dawn” back to “Don” after 2-day bout of amnesia

Oh well...at least there is some hope.

More Panic

Well, it's always nice to have something affirmed, even if it is inadvertent.  Dana Beyer has a new article on Huffington Post that is a perfect example of what I wrote about in Panic in the Ranks!  The simple fact is, a few examples of "transgender" men deciding that becoming, or being, a woman was not the right path for them has them up in arms.

The problem is, in their effort to defend their house of cards, they are posting outright lies.  For example, Beyer has this to say:

Trans persons, like gay persons, are "born that way." While the younger generation is now claiming space between genders or negating gender entirely, I will focus only on what most Americans see as the trans experience: persons raised as boys who become women, and those raised as girls who become men.

Nope, not even remotely true...  Trans people, i.e. those who identify as transgender have adopted a label that is highly subjective, and pretty much meaningless.  Transsexual people, who are relatively rare, and who may, or more likely may not, identify as transsexual, are born that way.  But the vast majority of people who identify as transgender are not remotely transsexual.  And they are also not remotely born that way.  Not even everyone who engages in homosexual behavior is born that way.  For example, it is well documented that men in prison will have sex with other men, even though they have not done so prior to incarceration, and do not do so after being released.  

Then Beyer goes on to make this ridiculous claim:

The most important fact needed to understand this process of physical and gender transition is that the sense of oneself is innate. It does not suddenly transform as we grow, or change with puberty. It is not determined by clinging mothers or distant fathers. It matters not that Mom wanted a girl and got a boy, or that Dad punished his son for dancing. Our sense of self is inborn, and that is to be expected with a sexually reproducing species. Variations in sexual orientation, choices about procreation and the like are irrelevant for this discussion.

Let's consider reality, instead.  We are expected to believe that someone who has lived to the age of 40 0r 50, showing no indication of actually believing that they are a "really" a female, is married with several children, has had a successful career as a man, and then rather suddenly announces that he has a life-long history of "gender dysphoria" and has always known he was a woman, is not, perhaps, making most of it up?  Usually the only indication of gender issues in such cases is, possibly, fetishistic crossdressing.  And in rare cases, the progression from the onset of fetishistic crossdressing to "full transition" can be quite sudden.

The two example Beyer chooses to focus are poor ones:

So while we may be raised as boys, our brains have told us we're girls, and vice versa. The process of gender transition aligns the body and social life with the mind. It is, in a very profound respect, coming home. The process has been beautifully described by women such as Jenny Boylan and Joy Ladin.

Both were late transitioners who are not living as women, but as transgender people.  In the case of Joy Ladin in particularly, the ex-wife presents a very different version of the story from the one told by Ladin.

Beyer, much like Sandeen, tries to argue that the "real reason" someone might detransition is not that they realize they are not "really a woman," but is only because of external pressures:

If at any time during or after this period one chooses to stop the process, that is called detransitioning. External pressures can be intense, and it may simply be imprudent for some people to continue. For others it becomes medically or financially impossible, or the tradeoffs simply may not add up. It's unfair to consider those situations failures, though after having lived closeted for decades, mired in shame, it's extremely hard to not feel like a failure. That's why detransitioning is not a panacea and often ends up creating an emotional state worse than the one present during the difficult transition process. You cannot undo the coming-out process, just as you cannot un-ring a bell.

Or, more likely, the person simply realizes that they are not really a woman after all...  In some cases, it can come after years of living a lie.

It is amazing the lengths that Beyer will go to in an effort to avoid the truth:

This often unavoidable sense of failure may drive a person to fabricate a fantasy to explain away the transition altogether. This isn't surprising, as we are often looking to understand our actions, particularly those that cause a great deal of stress to ourselves and our loved ones. Some simply can't accept that they were "born that way," so they create narratives about having been stung by a bee or forcibly cross-dressed by Mom until puberty, or having suffered transient global amnesia. While we don't understand all the causes of gender dysphoria -- we know some cases are caused by genetic and chromosomal variations; metabolic differences in utero; environmental pollutants called endocrine disruptors, such as DES (diethylstilbestrol) and dioxin; or association with more generalized intersex conditions -- we do know that bee stings, amnesia, and parental behavior do not play a role. Claiming them to wall off shame and embarrassment only serves to minimize the truly difficult challenges faced by so many others and trivializes the success of those who make it through the gauntlet of societal resistance.

I mean, really....how silly can you get?  It is not a matter of not admitting that one is "born that way," it is a matter of it being obvious that one was not, and that one decided, for whatever reason, that being a woman would be better.  We are not talking about transsexuals here.  We are talking about delusional men.  Which are the most common form of "transgender person."  Delusional men who, in spite of privilege sufficient to insulate them from reality, still realize that being a woman is not for them.  And admitting any error is near impossible for some men.

He Said WHAT?!?!?!?

Okay, this one is just too much....

There is no question that "Dana Lane" Taylor is a man....

There is no question that "Dana Lane" Taylor has a sock puppet on Twitter as @Six of Caprica....

But I fear the poor boy slipped up and showed the true nature of transgender extremists....

In case you have trouble reading what Mr. Taylor said, it's "Can't wait to get to work so I can go pee in the ladies room."  

Really, you just can't make this sort of thing up....

Panic in the Ranks!

It is always interesting to watch what happens when a high profile "transgender" person decides that maybe, just maybe, transition was not the best choice.  The transgender extremists go into defense mode, and quite frankly, they panic.  I guess it hits just a little too close to home.  For example, Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen often takes the lead in addressing such incidents.

Recently, there have been too such cases.  The first, and the one that has received far less attention, involves Michael Wallent, a high level employee of Microsoft, who had gone as far as having facial feminization surgery and implants.  He announced that he was returning to being a male in March.  The other, much higher profile case, was that of Don Ennis of ABC News, who suddenly announced in May that he was transitioning, and who just as suddenly announced that he was returning to being a male again.

Both of these cases share things in common.  Both transitioned relatively later, after long and successful careers as males.  Bother were married to women.  Both had relatively high profile jobs.  Both made very public transitions, Ennis more than Wallent.

The Standards of Care used to have a very strong standard for at least a year of what is known as the Real Life Test (or as some prefer to water it down, the Real Life Experience) before one could undergo sex reassignment surgery.  Unfortunately, under pressure from transgender extremists, this has been watered down to a requirement of 12 continuous months of living in a gender role that is congruent with their gender identity, along with a suggestion that one be seeing a therapist during this time.  The old standard spelled out what was required for a successful Real Life Test, including maintaining employment, being in school, or at the very least doing volunteer work.  Also, it was required that one change one's name to a gender appropriate one.  It also required that the therapist verify that the person was not simply hiding away from society, waiting out the time until surgery would be approved. 

Contrary to what some tried to claim, this was not to prevent someone from having surgery, or to make them jump through hoops because the therapist was some sort of sadistic control freak (though there were abuses in rare cases), but to ensure that the patient was not going to make a tragic mistake.  But many extremists pushed for surgery on demand.  The compromise opens the door to people being able to effectively bypass protections, which greatly increases the possibility of a mistake.

Even with the old standards, mistakes happened.  Some, which are often glossed over by transgender activists, whose mantra has become "No one ever really regrets."  But that simply is not true.  In some cases, the person changes their mind before going too far, as in the case of Don Enniss.  In other cases, the realization that one is not really a woman comes too late, such as the case of "Samantha Kane."  

Born Sam Hashimi, this person was a perfect example of the classic mid-life crisis transition. He was successful, married, and a millionaire.  Iraqi born, both his business empire, and his marriage collapsed at the end of the first Gulf War, and at age 37 he announced that he was going to become a woman.  And it appeared that he had made the right choice.  He poured quite a bit of money into cosmetic surgery, and took on the appearance of being a rather attractive woman.  He had a successful interior design firm, lived a jet-set lifestyle, and had sex with a number of well to do men.  But, he was miserable.  Being a woman, even a successful woman, was simply not what he really was.  

None of the articles I have read on this person, who now calls himself "Charles Kane," indicate if he had a history of crossdressing, but I suspect he did.  Many articles about his return to being a male mention things like his "sitting like a woman," and him wearing "dusty rose moccasins" with his suit.  He  has a very androgynous appearance, probably due largely to the facial feminization surgery he had.  In 2010 he was engaged to be married, and has since dropped out of the spotlight.

A somewhat lesser known case was Dani Bunten Berry, a successful game programmer, who after a third failed marriage underwent SRS at the age of 43.  Again, this person had serious regrets before dying of lung cancer at the age of 49.  Berry did not return to being a male, but did warn others about not rushing into having surgery.

Another, much more publicized case where regrets are clearly an issue, though denials have been made, is that of Renee Richards, the famous, or perhaps better, infamous tennis player, and eye surgeon who became the face of transsexualism in the 1970's.  Richards is a classic example.  He was an eye surgeon, a crossdresser, and he had surgery after a mid-life crisis.  He has clearly expressed regrets, even though he has also written a second autobiography in which he tries to hide this fact.  Of course, it should be remembered, once you have SRS, there is really no hope of reverting to being a male, no matter how much one wishes to.  Some, such as Kane, choose to return to a "male role," but once the penis is gone, it is not coming back.

Granted, actual regrets are rare.  I imagine a lot of people begin transition, discover it is not the right path, and return to a male role without much attention.  And, in some cases, what Mr. Sandeen refers to as "external pressures."  Yes, a person transitioning may face such issues.  I did, and it resulted in a seven year delay for me.  But, I should also point out that my initial transition was hasty, and not well planned out.  I also had a very poor therapist who was pushing me to move at a faster pace than I was comfortable with, and who glossed over real concerns that I had.

And, one other factor that contributed was the fact that even though I had changed my name, and lived as a woman, on Sunday mornings I would dress as a male for church.  It was an odd experience.  It was near impossible for me to "pass" as a male, and on one memorable occasion, I remember one of the older men holding the door open for me, and saying, "There you go young lady." even though I was wearing a suit (granted, I refused to wear a tie).  By the way, it was a relatively large church, so not everyone knew me.  

I tried, very much, to convince myself that I was doing the right thing when I reverted.  I struggled to find someplace where I would be comfortable remaining a male, but it was just not possible.  In the end, for me, it was become a female, or die trying.  But ironically, it is often those who are the least suited to transition who find it the easiest, at least in terms of finances.

If you look at a lot of the most virulent of transgender activists, they tend to have transitioned late, after successful careers as men, have been married with a number of children, and to either have been able to retain well paying jobs, or to have a steady source of income from retirement and or disability (often military).  What may appear to be a successful transition is more likely, something of a sham.  They don't live as women, but as transgender.  For many, their lives do not improve, but they have sufficient resources that they are able to avoid actually being forced to face reality.  

But sometimes they cannot escape the simply truth that transition is not living up to their fantasies, and they revert back to living as their true gender.  And, if the person is high profile, the transgender activists go into a panic, because they fear that the truth might come out.  The simple fact is, most "transgender" people have a gender that matches their birth sex.  They are not "women trapped in men's bodies."  They do not have a mind that is at odds with their body.  They are simply engaging in what is, in effect, a form of anti-social behavior.

Unfortunately, the transgender extremists know this, and that is why they have an obsessive need to hide behind true transsexuals.  They want to first claim us, and then push us to the forefront and claim to be just like us.  But they are not, and this is clearly seen by anyone with a shred of common sense.

And if someone who is not a transsexual realizes this, and decides to return to their true gender they may well find themselves under pressure from their so-called friends to continue with their transition.  I know when I postponed my transition, which actually was because of external pressures, though this was not immediately obvious to myself, or anyone else, I was pressured by my therapist to not do so.  I actually had to have someone else speak to that therapist on my behalf because of the pressure I was subjected to.

This sort of behavior is outrageous.  It very likely led to the suicide of Mike Penner, also known as Christine Daniels.  Instead of letting that person sort things out, there was an attempt to "help."  Or more specifically, an attempt to force this person back into being a very public face for the transgender community.

Keep in mind, transgender dogma now holds that simply saying "I am a woman," makes one a woman.  The idea that someone might "think" they are a woman, and then realize they are not, refutes this absurd position.  If someone can realize they are making a mistake, it means that it is entirely possible that anyone could be making a mistake, and well, deep down, many know they are not really women, so this could blow their little fantasy world wide open.  It's like a loose thread.  If people notice it, and start pulling at it, the who thing comes unraveled.

I am sure that many were thrilled to have someone as high profile as Don Ennis donning a wig, and a dress, but if that was not right for him, that is his right.  Attacking him because you find his reasons for returning to his birth gender lacking is outrageous.  His story is a bit odd, but if he feels the need to hide his real reasons, that says more about the voyeurism of the transgender community than it does about Ennis.  Making such a choice can be difficult, and the person should be given space to do so.

The same is true for anyone else who feels the need to make a correction.  It may terrify those who know, deep down, that they are now living a lie, but they should deal with their own demons, and not try to drag others down with them.

Does Mr. "Cristan" Williams REALLY Think So Poorly Of His Readers

From time to time, I will run across as example of rhetoric, that is so lame, so incredibly flawed, so filled with obvious distortions, that it is apparent that the person writing it thinks the people who will be reading it, will believe anything.  Mr. Williams' reply to Mr. "Autumn" Sandeens' attempt at rational argument is just such an example.  And to be honest, it is hilariously bad.

Well, actually, what Mr. Williams is actually doing is attempting to refute the quite excellent article written by Elizabeth at "Notes From the T Side."  You might expect Mr. Williams would have posted this there, but it is obvious why he didn't.  He clearly hopes his readers won't actually compare what he claims with what the actual article says.

For example, Elizabeth quotes him as saying....

Stealth people say things like “I just want to get on with my life as the woman I am” – a sentiment that sounds rational enough on the surface. The problem with that sentiment is that it’s also a delusion. Stealth people rationalize their lies by believing that being trans was only a medical problem that was fixed – kind of like a cleft palate; purposefully pretending that there wasn’t a social transition that entailed violating numerous cultural norms. Stealth is purposefully taking away the choice of letting the people you claim to love the most decide if they are willing to take on the potential social costs (as unfair and stupid as those social costs might be) of breaking those backwards cultural norms by being with you. If you believe that it is only a medical condition, remember that I said that you’re delusional when your best friend, your husband or wife, your boyfriend or girlfriend, your adopted child, etc finds out that you lied about your social and medical history. Yes, it is a medical condition that should be treated medically, but to pretend that this medical condition is exactly like having laser eye surgery is nothing more than living in denial. Living an authentic life means having the courage to stand firmly on the ground on truth regardless of what stupid, moronic and asinine stereotypes and/or fears others may choose to cling to.

She then proceeds to tear this statement into shreds.  In seven paragraphs, she succinctly shows how totally ridiculous Mr. Williams' claims are.  I'm not going to quote them here, go read the article for yourself, the link above will take you there.

How does Mr. Williams respond to this?  Well...

Wow. I just read Elizabeth’s response. It’s nonsensical in that she does things like quote me where I say:

“Yes, it is a medical condition that should be treated medically, but to pretend that this medical condition is exactly like having laser eye surgery is nothing more than living in denial.”

And responds – in the first sentence under that quote – saying:
“CW does not believe this is a medical condition but a social condition complicated by a self perceived medical condition.”

Simply puts, he cherry picks out a small part of a much longer quote, and tries to imply that what he quoted is what she addressed.  This is not clever, it is a lie.  I mean, really....  If that was all he said, that would be different, but he said a whole lot more, and Elizabeth took it apart and showed the fallacies in what he really said.  

Not only does he ignore the fact that she said far more about his quote, which he implies was a rather short one, he misrepresents what she actually said, after saying much more, about the line he chooses to focus on...

The pathetic analogy that SRS is like a cleft palate or laser eye surgery is quite telling about CW. Anyone that has gone through SRS would never and I mean NEVER be that flip about it because it is incredibly painful and the recovery time is extensive. I doubt CW has had SRS but I could be wrong.

Well, I have had eye surgery, twice, and SRS, granted only once, and I have to agree with Elizabeth.  I've had cataracts removed from both eyes.  The first time was in 2003, the second was earlier this year.  It was certainly nice having my vision returned to relatively normal, but to compare that to the life changing experience of SRS in 2006...well, I have long believed that Mr. Williams tries to mislead people into thinking he has had it.  That he has had facial surgery is pretty obvious.  But I agree with Elizabeth, either he has not had it, or if he did, he regrets it.

He ignores what she actually said, and tries to twist it around to sound like she has distorted what he said...

Then she goes on to be deliberately obtuse so that she could claim that I believe having SRS is just like having laser eyes surgery. She uses that strawman to bolster her questioning of my surgical status to cast me as someone who’s less than a True Transsexual(TM) and who is therefore not qualified to offer a valid view.

No, she did not say that he believes SRS is just like having "laser eyes surgery," she questioned how he could make such an inane analogy.  His original point was dismissing the significance of SRS, and that is what she addresses.

Now is where things get really silly.  Mr. Williams then goes on to claim to use accusations of "logical fallacies" to counter Elizabeth's arguments, but instead, well, like Mr. Sandeen yesterday, he engages in a "logical fallacy created from a logical fallacy about a logical fallacy."  In this case, he actually does it repeatedly.

He again abuses the "True Scotsman" argument, attempting a sort of logical gymnastics that comes down to "I must be a True Transsexual because I am claiming that they are using the True Scotsman logical fallacy to show I am not."  The problem is, that is not what has been done, as I showed yesterday in responding to Mr. Sandeen.

Just to be clear, let me repeat...  For an argument to be a True Scotsman fallacy, it has to be, first and foremost, a fallacy.  That is, it lacks any basis other than a false assumption.  If you actually use evidence, and reason, to argue that someone is not what they claim they are, then it is not a logical fallacy.  Claiming it is, in order to avoid actually addressing the evidence, is itself not only a logical fallacy, but is a lie as well.

Mr. Williams is a walking textbook of logical fallacies.  From the simplest straw man, to the most vicious ad hominem, he engages in them as his stock in trade.  This bit of silliness is just one example of many.

And he concludes with a ridiculous claim...

I’m so happy that their movement – as Elizabeth knew it even 5 years ago – is dead. They had nothing to build their community upon by demonstrably false history and deep transphobic antipathy.

Our movement?  I don't know where he gets this from.  We are simply living our lives, and telling extremists like him to stop claiming we are "girls like him."  We never sought to build a community, and basically reject the idea of such.  He is the one who has tried to built a false history, and who hides behind accusations of transphobia to dismiss any valid argument against his extremist positions.