Bil Browning Strikes Out Again...

It has been a while since he has made a complete ass of himself, but Bil Browning is at it again. Browning, who runs the hilariously over the top gay blog site Bilerico decided to trash Ashley Love, a post-op transsexual woman who has had the audacity to be both highly successful, and to disagree with the transgender party line.  Bil is quite disgusted with the simple fact that Ms. Love will not meekly accept the label of "transgender," which he arrogantly goes out of his way to impose on Ms. Love.  She does not identify that way, but Browning doesn't care.  Of course the fact that she is quite articulate and is someone who is able to get her voice heard clearly sends Browning into fits of rage.  How dare she disagree with him!!!!


Ms. Love speaks the truth, and this is just something that Browning will not abide.  She refutes the party line, and that angers the transgender extremists, including others, such as "Autumn" Sandeen, "Monica" Helms" and "Antonia D'orsay Dyssonance."  In another words, she is hated by the worst of the transgender kooks.  Sounds to me like she is doing a pretty good job.  About the only major transgender kook who has not viciously attacked Ms. Love is "Monica" Roberts, who has expressed issues, but is unwilling to go after her like the others because, well, Ashley is African-American.  So, she only gets a little hate from Roberts.  The rest of the boys are not so kind.  It would be interesting to see if Ms. Love agrees with Roberts' racist rants.


But the real fun in a Bilerico post is usually in the comments, and this one is no exception.  They open with a woman taking on Browning for his nastiness.  A couple of transgender kooks jump her case because, like Ms. Love, she doesn't parrot the party line, and then Mr. Dyssonance himself jumps her case and tries to slam her hard.  Typical.  He really puts the kook in transgender kook.  When dealing with that one, you simply have to remember, he is not sane, so trying to make sense of his rhetoric will only give you a headache.


After the woman who started us off puts Dyssonance in his place, one of the kooks comes back after her, shocked that she actually supports Ms. Love (it is always funny watching someone who simply cannot comprehend that anyone would not swallow the transgender party line without question).


Then another wannabe chimes in that he just can't understand why some distinguish between transgender and transsexual.  He can't even muster the courage to "transition" (i.e. I would assume he means he can't bring himself to actually start crossdressing full time).  There is no so blind....


Now, things start to really get interesting...  Another nutcase (ironic, isn't it?) suggests that Ms. Love might be mentally ill and is just trying to get attention.  Now, hold that thought....we are going to come back to it quickly.  Anyway, things go back and forth about whether this person was attacking Ms. Love for being transsexual, or for not adhering to the appropriate party line.


Okay, another person takes Browning to task of his nastiness and actually does a pretty good job of putting him in his place.  This brings the wrath of "Monica" Helms, one of the most extreme of the extremists.  Now, Helms lets us know that he does not like Ms. Love, but he also takes a swat at Browning, who has actually put him him his place for acting the fool.  Helms is too nasty for even Browning.


Things continue in this manner for a bit, and someone speaks up for Ms. Love, pointing out that she speaks for transsexuals, who are being somewhat oppressed by the transgender extremists which angers Mr. Dyssonance,  He is not going to tolerate anyone trying to slip the yoke of being labeled as a transgender.  In another words, he is a classic gender fascist.  A few comments later, he attacks someone for pointing out that Ms. Love is not transgender, and that calling her such is "misgendering" her.  In this case, I would have to agree.  Of course, Mr. Dyssonance is having none of that.


A few comments later, things take a surreal turn.  Helms, who has one of the most overinflated egos among the transgender kooks, picks up on the idea that Ms. Love is trying to get attention, making a comment about how she "is trying to force herself into the spotlight."  Now, given both Helms' behavior, and that of his brother-in-arms "Autumn" Sandeen, that is downright hilarious.  Talk about the pot calling the kettle black...


And so it goes....  I am a little surprised that Browning had the good sense to stay out of the comments.  It must have been hard for him to refrain from moderating all those people taking him to task for being such a jerk....

A Busy Sunday...

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


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


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

Yeah, right!

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

I'm ready for my card, Autumn.

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

So, Which Is It?

"Autumn" Sandeen has posted another rant against a radical feminist who opposes "transgenderism."  In this rant, which seems most geared towards pushing Mr. Sandeen's favorite cause, which is censorship of anyone who disagrees with him, he includes the following quote from Sheila Jefferys:

Since transsexualism is socially constructed then it is important to consider how to counter the promotion of the practice.

...The medical profession need not direct the gender dissatisfied to surgery. Counselling is possible to encourage clients to take a more political approach to their situation and to realize that they can rebel against the constraints of a prescribed gender role, and relate to their own sex in their native bodies. Unfortunately many doctors are so convinced of the existence of a phenomenon they define as transsexualism that they do not offer any approach apart from self-mutilation.

 Now, what puzzles me is that this could just as easily be a quote from, oh say, "Monica" Helms, or "Monica" Roberts, two leaders of the "They Will Take My Penis When They Pry My Cold Dead Fingers From It" Club.  I mean, how many times have we seen transgender extremists, including Mr. Sandeen, attack transsexuals who insist that surgery is the defining issue separating transgender and transsexual?


And how many times have we seen transgender extremists attack people for having surgery, claiming that we should, in effect, learn to rebel against the constraints of a prescribed gender role while keeping our penis?  Oh, wait, that's just what Mr. Sandeen plans to do.  Remember his fraud, claiming he is having "genital reconstruction surgery" when all he is having is a castration, and then bragging about how he is going to use this to defraud the State of California into changing his birth certificate?  I can guarantee you, he will not likely tell the judge the full story.  He will present paperwork claiming he has had surgery to change his sex, and that will be a fraud.


And he will be doing just what he complains about Jefferys saying

We're Laughing At You, Not With You....

In a comment to a post by "Autumn" Sandeen on Pam's House Blend, "Monica" Helms made this insulting comment:

Funny Bone

I understand that there have been several trans women who have been unwilling victims of unscrupulous SRS/GRS doctors.  While they were under getting surgery, the doctors also took out their funny bone, leaving them with no sense of humor or an understanding of when sarcasm has been thrown their way.I heard that like hip replacements and joint replacements, they can now have their funny bone replaced.  Maybe then, they will lighten up and actually enjoy life and what the SRS doctor gave them.  

Now, first off, Mr. Helms shows his typical disdain for true transsexuals.  Mr. Helms is a charter member of the "They Will Take My Penis When They Pry My Cold Dead Fingers From It" Club.  Second, he shows his cluelessness by insisting on adding the modifier "trans" to "women."  You can be a woman, or you can be trans, but "trans woman" is just a PC way of saying, "Hey, I am really a dude...."

Now, what Mr. Helms is really saying is, "Hey, when I make fun of you, I expect you to laugh along with me."  Uh, yes, we do understand that he is throwing "sarcasm" our way, and to be honest, we find it insulting.  I know he approaches all of this with a classic male sense of entitlement, but is he really so clueless that he thinks we should actually appreciate his making such remarks?  Apparently he is.

Things would be a lot more peaceful if extremists like Mr. Helms, and Mr. Sandeen would simply accept the fact that transsexuals want no part of their "freak show."  They seek to demand that society accept them, and their penises, as female.  Such is, of course, their right. But they should do it without trying to drag true transsexuals down to their level.


Until then, Mr. Helms should realize, while we don't appreciate his insults, he can, occasionally be good for a laugh when he makes some of his more outrageous remarks.

The "Empire" Strikes Out

In 1979 a former nun turned radical lesbian-feminist named Janice Raymond wrote a book called "The Transsexual Empire."  In it, she viciously attacked transsexuals, and in particular, those who claimed to be lesbians.  Raymond, who was a lesbian-separatist considered them to be invading "women's space."  And ever since, some, particularly those who themselves identify as "transsexual lesbians" have been obsessed with Raymond and her views.


Personally, I find Raymond to be a bit of a bad joke.  Her book was ludicrous.  She has no understanding of the true nature of transsexualism, coming at the subject from the classic radical feminist position that socialization is the only factor differentiating men and women.  Raymond ignores the role that biology plays.  And, quite simply, Raymond was terrified that she might encounter a transsexual and not know they were born male.  For want of a better term, Raymond was terribly "heterophobic."  Sort of the lesbian equivalent of a man who loses it when he finds out the woman he is with was born male.  


Now, "Autumn" Sandeen, a pseudo-transsexual kook who pretty much fits the stereotypes that Raymond attributed to all transsexuals, is dragging up Raymond's diatribe again.  And, ironically, Mr. Sandeen is using it to attack true transsexuals.


At the heart of Mr. Sandeen's latest diatribe is his same tired insistence that he is a woman, albeit, a transwoman.  Of course, the problem is, "transwoman" is, at the very least, an oxymoron.  There is really no such creature.  Transgender, by its very nature, precludes someone who was born male from actually claiming womanhood.  It is an open repudiation of actually being a woman, and certainly of actually being a transsexual.  Those who identify as transgender tend to cling to their histories.  They want to claim to be women, while keeping one foot in their maleness.  And worse, they show utter contempt for anyone who does not wish to share in their bizarre behavior.


In the article, Mr. Sandeen quotes Sandy Stone, who was attacked by Janice Raymond in her book.  Stone was a sound engineer with Olivia Records, a music company specializing in women's music.  Stone was a post-op who, at the time, identified as a lesbian.  Stone has since married a man and is now a professor at an university in Texas.  A few years after Raymond's book, Stone wrote a diatribe entitled "The Empire Strikes Back: A Posttranssexual Manisfesto."


Now, in Stone's essay, there is a section where Stone seems to attack those who "pass."  This is something, of course, that Mr. Sandeen wholeheartedly embraces:

To "read oneself aloud" -- I embrace the concept for myself. It is a posttranssexual experience for me to embrace a transgender experience as my own, diversity-minded experience. I know that reading myself aloud, this being out and proud as both transsexual and transgender, has been defining for who I've developed into. I certainly will not pay the extremely high price of silence for personal acceptance within any portion of our broad society.

There are a couple of problems with the above statement.  First off, Mr. Sandeen is not remotely a transsexual, and secondly, for him to speak of being "postranssexual" is completely absurd.  You can't be "post" something you are not to begin with.  And clearly, Mr. Sandeen is not a transsexual.  If he is "posttranssexual," then he is, in effect, saying that he has completed his transition.  Since he is an intact male, he is effectively declaring himself, again, to be non-op.  A year or so ago, he had begun claiming he was surgery tracked, though he showed no apparent need to move ahead with any plans for surgery.  That seemed fishy at the time, and now he again seems to be taking a non-op position.


Likewise, another transgender extremist, "Monica" Helms, who was also, for a period, claiming to be surgery tracked, not only appears to have returned to the "they will take my penis when they pry my cold, dead fingers from it" camp, but also appears to be frantically opposed to the very idea of surgery being a covered benefit under insurance.


Mr. Helms launches into a bizarre, and completely dishonest diatribe about how insurance coverage for surgery would not make any difference.  First off, if it is covered by health insurance, it is covered like any other necessary surgery.  The claim that one has to pay up front, and is then reimbursed is an outright lie.  I know.  I had my surgery paid for by insurance, and my main out of pocket expenses where a $250 co-pay, and the cost of my dilators.  Everything else was paid for.  Now, not all medical coverage is as good.  If I had another plan, I would have paid more.  But if I had that other plan, I would pay more for any medical procedure.  If, say, I needed bypass surgery, I would have paid the same amounts.  


Why does Mr. Helms make these silly claims?  Because if his health insurance actually covered the costs of surgery, he would lose an excuse for keeping his penis.  He needs to maintain that illusion that he would have surgery, except it costs too much.  Never mind the fact that he bought a house, rather than seek surgery.  For a true transsexual nothing is more important than corrective surgery.  For someone like Mr. Helms, nothing is more important than finding an excuse to keep his penis.


Mr. Helms also raises the ridiculous claim about people being "non-ops" for health reasons.  This is also not remotely legitimate.  Yes, there was a time when people were denied surgery for reasons such as being diabetic (which I am), or being HIV positive (which I am not),  or other conditions.  As surgery for true transsexuals is increasingly recognized as medically necessary and not just elective doctors are more willing to take risks, and in most cases any contraindication is only a temporary situation.  People are "non-ops" because they are not transsexuals.  They want to keep their penises.  I had a friend who was a brittle diabetic.  Her blood sugar was very poorly controlled.  She had been denied surgery for years, but before she died, she convinced a doctor to remove her penis and testicles and complete everything except creating a vagina.  She didn't live much longer after that, and died of unrelated causes, but she was a transsexual.  Mr. Helms, is not.


As one commenter points out, by claiming to be transsexual, but rejecting surgery, they are undermining those who really do need it.  They either do not care that they hurt true transsexuals, or more likely, that is their goal.  They know they are not really transsexuals and they hate those who are.


So, why do they so desperately cling to the claim that they are transsexual?  Because they want the benefits that they believe transsexuals have.  They want to force society to grant them legal status as females, even though they have no intentions of giving up their penises.


It is ironic that people like Mr, Sandeen, and Mr. Helms, claim that being "out, loud, and proud" is about being honest, and yet they are anything but honest.  They want to claim the status of being something they are not.  They want to claim to be transsexuals when they have no desire to change their sex.  They want to change their birth certificates to indicate that they are female, while retaining their penises.  They want to change their passports, again without giving up their penis.  They want to claim to women, even though they are clearly, and happily, men.


They cannot possibly fool people into thinking they are really women, so they dig in and demand that people suspend reality and go along with their delusions.  And, again, they attack those who can successfully live as women.  And no, it is not about appearances.  It is about behavior.  I have met many who looked quite convincing, but who had such totally male attitudes that the illusion that they are actually women quickly fades.


This is why Raymond bothers them so much.  They are exactly the sort of men that Raymond saw all transsexuals as.  I would be willing to bet there were probably transsexuals that Raymond did not know were transsexuals.  Of course, the very idea of actually being a woman is lost on people like Mr. Sandeen and Mr. Helms.  They are men playing a game of dress up.


One of the issues that Raymond makes a big fuss over is privilege.  I always find this somewhat amusing.  For a classic transsexual, male privilege is as unknown as it is for any other woman.  We grew up being seen as, for want of a better term, "defective males."  We were labeled as "sissies" and while we were not, perhaps, treated exactly like females, we were not treated as normal males either.  Our status was, quite often, not unlike that that many women experience, but at the same time, lacking in many of the advantages that they had.  For example, we certainly lacked the protection from violence that, at least in the past, extended to females.  But we also were denied the sort of status that leads to privilege.  On the other hand, men like Mr. Sandeen, and Mr. Helms, were leading successful and happy lives in the military.  Apparently, they were crossdressers, and as sometimes happens, they have decided to take their "hobby" to the next level.


The bottom line to all of this is that it seems truly odd that some are so obsessed with being accepted by the tiny handful of kooks who make up radical separatist feminism (the sort who think all heterosex is rape and that men should be eliminated).  This is a group that is at the far extreme, and yet some waste an incredible amount of time worrying about the fact that they do not accept "transgender" people as "real women."  So what?  There are always going to be people who don't accept the concept of sex reassignment.  And shoot, I seriously doubt that the vast majority of people really accept kooks like Mr. Sandeen and his ilk as "real women."  I mean, seriously...a bunch of men, playing dress up, while making it clear that they were born men, that they intend to keep their penises, acting in a very masculine manner (and blissfully unaware of that behavior in most cases), and demanding that they be called women?  Granted, they are as looney as the extremist feminists that they obsess over.  Maybe that explains it all...

Sandeen Goes Cyberstalking

Well, it appears that "Autumn" Sandeen has decided to join the effort by a certain Usenet kook to cyberstalk me.  I have not mentioned it here, but a person on Usenet has been engaged in a vendetta against me, that has, among other things, included sending messages attacking me to what they presume are members of my church.  Now, Mr. Sandeen has joined this effort.


First off, let me state, for the record, that anything I say here is my personal opinion and does not represent anything other than my personal views.  I do not speak for ANYONE else.


Here is the text of the email that Mr. Sandeen has sent to my church.  I should add, I am NOT "out, loud, and proud" at my church, so this represents, among other things, Mr. Sandeen outing me to people who do not necessarily know my past.  

It has come to my attention that Jenifer(sic) is on the staff and vestry of The  as the  Editor. I'm also aware that your church identifies itself as a welcoming congregation, being listed in the, and I would believe therefore that your congregation would subscribe to the Tips On Becoming A Welcoming Congregation.

 

One of the statements within Tips On Becoming A Welcoming Congregation is this statement:

 

If you are going to say you are welcoming, be prepared to prove it. 

Outside of the walls of your church building, your staff member Jennifer Usher is not being welcoming of transgender identified people like me.

 

Specifically, Jennifer has self-identified herself as being owner of the blog called JustJenifer. She has frequently misgendered me as by male pronouns, and refers to me frequently as "Mr. Sandeen." The most recent example of this is in her post It's All About The Egos, where she also misgenders Monica Helms.

 

It is one thing for Jennifer to vigorously disagree with transgender people's opinions, and another thing altogether for her to intentionally, with malicious intent, frequently misgender transgender identified people.

 

Jennifer is listed as a staff and vestry member of your congregation. What she says, and how she says it, reflects on your congregation because she is a staff member of your congregation.

 

Frankly, I would not attend your church or belong to your congregation because you have at least one staff member who very intentionally and maliciously doesn't embrace your message of being a welcoming congregation.

 

If you are going to say you are welcoming, be prepared to prove it. 

As a staff member of your congregation, she should be required -- if she wishes to remain on your staff -- to take her blog down. That is, after making a public apology on her blog for her intentional and malicious misgendering of transgender people on her blog (since she has made her vile misgendering of transgender people in public). If she does not agree to take the malicious content down and apologize for it, then she needs to be released from your staff.

Your staff member Jennifer reflects poorly on your status as a welcoming congregation. I know I will be talking to governing body of if the situation isn't dealt in a manner that I believe is appropriate. This situation is very significant to me.

 

Sincerely,

~~Autumn~~

 

Info: Jennifer

 

P.S.: Please note the last line of my signature block with regards to this e-letter. I'm not agreeing to the electronic publication of this e-letter.

Now, I find it amusing that Mr. Sandeen decides to join in a cyberstalker's illegal efforts to anonymously cyberstalk me (I know, based on a post by another blogger that he has contacted a wide list of people in an effort to recruit them to his cause) but does not want his efforts revealed.


Now, let me point out some things.  I am not a member of my church's staff.  I volunteer as editor, nor am I a member of the vestry.  I am not an employee of the church, but just a member who gives time to several ministries.


Further, I disagree that I misgender anyone.  I do not see Mr. Sandeen as a female, nor do I see Helms as one either.  They are very public about their status, and I do not share their view that simply changing clothes changes one's sex and/or gender.  I refer to them as male as a political statement in opposition to their positions regard transsexuals and those who identify as transgender.  This is a political position, and it is mine alone.  Again, nothing I say here reflects anything other than my views.  Any attempt to associate these views as remotely being those of my church would be extremely dishonest on the part of Mr. Sandeen.  Of course, honesty is not a trait I necessarily associate with him.


BTW, I have been called a male on numerous occasions, including by the very cyberstalker who Mr. Sandeen is assisting (talk about irony, not to mention hypocrisy).  Do I go to pieces?  Do I throw a hissy fit?  No, because I am a woman.  I am not playing a game.  If someone calls me a male, it changes nothing.  It is no different from any other woman being called a male.  It might be a mistake, followed by a quick apology when the person takes a better look.  It might be an attempt to insult, in which case I consider the source.  Or it might be a political statement, in which case I might even have a good laugh.  I am not trying to force society to see me as something I am not.


This is nothing more than a blatant attempt by Mr. Sandeen to accomplish what he has previously been unable to do.  And that is to censor me.  He regularly blocks anyone who disagrees with him.  I was banned from his blog, not for any violations of the terms of service there, but supposedly because of what I write here.  Now, he attempts to censor that by appealing to my church.


As to his claiming that "The contents of this electronic communication are off the record and not for publication on any blog, web site, news site or other public internet outlet unless otherwise agreed to by the author," that carries no weight in light of the nature of said email.  He has shown no regard for ethical behavior by attempting to out me, and to cyberstalk me.  So, I am going to ignore his silly attempt to hide his own misbehavior. 


Oh, and one final thought.  Given Mr. Sandeen's obvious hatred for Christianity, it is kind of funny that he would attempt to appeal to a church to aid him in his censorship.

It's All About the Egos

It is really hard to miss the fact that the worst extremes of the transgender movement are driven by massive egos.  But this has never been as apparent as the recent reaction to news that has leaked out about an alleged secret meeting between the Obama White House and transgender leaders.  "Autumn" Sandeen is absolutely having a hissy fit because such a meeting is being kept secret, and besides, he wasn't invited.


Now, this is not the first such meeting.  There was one early on that I learned about from a former co-worker.  The incoming Obama administration met with some of the more sane leaders in the transgender movement.


But the kooks are absolutely frantic because they are not invited.  "Monica" Helms is livid that his Transgender American Veterans Association is not included.  I imagine it never occurs to him that this just might be because they see him as a nut case.  And "Monica" Roberts is upset that him, and his massive "neo-clit" that he keeps tucked in his panties are not included as well.  Of course, he is ranting that the meeting will be "as white as a GOP convention."  I guess he has not noticed that Obama is black, and so are some Republicans. 


Of course, it would never occur to Mr. Sandeen that chaining himself to the White House fence, wearing a female naval uniform, in blatant violation of Federal Law (it prohibits both active a retired personnel from wearing a uniform for the purpose of political statement) just might cause him to be left off the list.  No, not a chance of that....


It would never occur to Mr. Helms that his rants might have the same effect.  After all, he is the self-appointed spokesman for all the former military who decide they want to dress up and claim to be women.


And Mr. Roberts?  Between his racism, and his attacks on post-ops....well, I can't see him being included either.


A sane person might take a step back and consider how their behavior might have effected their chances of being taken seriously as a leader.  Of course, no one would ever accuse any of these of being remotely sane.

Update

It turns out that Mr. Sandeen over reacted.  This meeting is routine, part of a regular series, though this one does specifically focus on "transgender" issues.  An update to the article is buried, below the fold.  It appears that Mr. Sandeen does not want anyone who might have already read the original article to notice that he was mistaken.

And Now Comes the Silliness...

Yesterday, Congress finally voted to begin the process of ending the ban on people who are openly gay, lesbian, or bisexual serving in the military.  Since such people have served over the years, usually while hiding their sexuality, this will hopefully be a reasonable change.  But, now comes the cries from the transgender extremists to also be allowed to serve.  Hopefully, they will  never succeed.


Imagine the disaster that allowing openly transgender people to serve in the military.  Imagine the nightmare of having men demanding to wear female uniforms, and to be allowed to reside in women's quarters.  Or vice versa.  Not to mention that more than a few people who identify as transgender often suffer from mental health issues ranging from relatively mild to extremely severe,


I figured this was coming.  Even though in the past, even the most extreme would admit that doing away with DADT would do nothing for transgender people who wanted to serve, I suspected that once things change for gays and lesbians, the kooks would start demanding more.


I see nothing wrong with transsexuals who have completed transition, including full genital surgery, possibly being allowed to serve if otherwise qualified, but allowing transgender people to serve openly is outrageous, and would bring serious disruption to the military.


Two of the most extremist of the transgender activists, "Monica" Helms, and "Autumn" Sandeen, are now demanding that men be allowed to serve while pretending to be women.  This is an absurd effort, but as has long been obvious, there is no restraint on their silliness.

Well, duh!

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

The Arrogance of Some

There was a recent posting on Bilerico entitled "What Barack Obama really said about transgender rights." It was in reference to his recent speech to the Human Right Campaign. The bottom line is, he didn't really say much of anything, but that is not really what this article is about.

Like many Bilerico postings, what is really interesting shows up in the comments. And like just about any comments on an issue involving those who are transgender, the most aggressive of the gender fascists, "Monica" Helms is sure to show up. And he did.

And as is often the case with any discussion on Bilerico, someone who does not adhere to the official party line, and who has not been tossed off of Bilerico for actually making valid arguments against that party line, will show up, and ask something like:

I do not understand the intentional conflation of these two very different states, one a medical condition, requiring medical treatment, and the other an adopted identity that, there seems to be general agreement, does not require medical treatment.

I don't understand why it is necessary to say both are the same, why it is demeaning to one or the other just to point out the differences, and the different needs, and why the emphatic response that this differentiation is politically imprudent.

Now, that seems pretty straightforward. A lot of us don't understand these things, or more to the point simply do not agree with these positions, but we are open to discussing them rationally with those who do push these positions. So, are they willing to engage in such a discussion? Let's see what Mr. Helms has to say on the matter:

You don't "understand," because you refuse to understand. SOP.

Now, quite frankly, that strikes me as a pretty dismissive and arrogant response. Mr. Helms seem to expect everyone to just blindly accept his "transgender dogma," without question. But of course, some don't:

I don't understand because I don't subscribe to your ideology.

And it angers you that you can't impose it on me--and others.

Your ideology is fading.

Too true. Helms cannot see that people just might disagree with him. Worse, he simply cannot accept that disagreement. But he is not the only one, here is what "Angela Brightfeather," born Jim Sheedy, who spent most of his life as a successful businessman after a seven year stint in the Army as a drill instructor, has to say:

"And it angers you that you can't impose it on me--and others.

Your ideology is fading."

And now you understand why we are divided and will continue to be so. People like yourself continue to create rungs on the ladder that you climb at the expense of leaving others behind. Very similar to what HRC wanted to do to "Transgender people" in ENDA.

That makes it very difficult to take you seriously since your willing to do to some people in your own community, exactly what your fighting against someone else doing to you.

Now, first off you have to understand, this fellow is Mr. Helm's partner in founding Trangender American Veteran Association. Now, notice how he insists on referring to "people in your own community." Again, no one gets a choice from the gender fascists. You are part of their community, whether you like it, or not. But, then what else would one expect from a drill instructor?

And then Helms chimes in with this final bit of arrogance:

She's from Canada. I can't understand why she even cares what happens here in our country. She doesn't have a dog in this hunt. I think you pinpointed the real reason she commented here.

When all else fails, he tries to find some excuse for just dimissing this person's comments as otherwise invalid. As Mr. Helms would say, I guess that SOP, Standard Operating Procedure.

Quite simply, many of us are tired of being used as the transgender community's "beard." We are tired of them trying to hide their fetishtic behavior behind those of us who actually have a medical problem. And we will continue speaking out.