What's Wrong With Just Being Normal?

For many of us, nothing.  For some...well...  To me, there is nothing wrong with being "traditional" or " "mainstream,"  but in her most recent rant, Suzan Cooke, transgender kook, gender fascist, and pretty much increasingly a bit of a shrill joke, goes off over someone named "Purple." What did this person do that was so terrible?  Well, apparently they have extolled the virtues of being a relatively normal person.

Granted, this person does seem to also be a bit of a flake.  It is not clear if this is the person who used to post under the name, "PurpleGirl," who was a devotee of Charlotte Goiar, who started a European "Harry Benjamin's Syndrome" movement (apparently it has since dropped the incorrect use of a possessive...naming is to honor, not imply ownership) who used to post under the name "Courtney Michelle Holder."  That person, who as I recall did take some extremist views not unlike those taken by person posting as Donna Reiser, who is also a devotee of Goiar.  The HBS group that I was part of had major disagreements with Goiar, and broke with her very early on.  

Cooke never misses a chance to attack the HBS movement, apparently because the idea that a person might actually transition simply to live a normal life seems to disgust Cooke.  This Reiser is as extremist in one direction as the transgender activists, including Cooke, are in the other.  Where they want to claim that everyone who is "transsexual" is motivated by a desire to transgress gender, and must be "out, loud, and proud," Reiser claims that "true transsexuals" cannot be lesbians.  While many of the "straight men in dresses" that make up the core of the transgender extremists do claim to be lesbian, that does not mean that everyone who is transsexual, and identifies as a lesbian, is a fraud.

Let's consider that view.  Certainly some women, a certain percentage, are sexually and romantically attracted to women.  Some of them are that way, pretty much from birth.  Others are more fluid in the sexuality.  A lot of women, after a bad experience with a man, or because of abuse by a male, will, for a period, be attracted to women.  They may well return to being attracted to me, often to the dismay of their female partner.  So, to say that a "transsexual" cannot be a lesbian is to say, in effect, that transsexuals are significantly different from other women.  And this plays into the Blanchard-Bailey theory that attempts to "prove" that transsexuals are not really women at all, just excessively gay men, and straight men with a weird fetish.

This sort of thing is not uncommon.  I once had a well-known transgender kook tell me that a transsexual could not possibly be "pro-life."  I have seen others try to claim that transsexuals can't be Republicans, or conservatives, etc.  

The simple fact is, women, including transsexuals, like women in general, can have a wide range of views.  Some of us are more conservative than others.  Personally, I tend to joke that my politics are radically moderate.  I am a member of the Far Middle, the extreme center.  I pride myself on the fact that I can enter a debate between someone who is far right, and someone who is far left, and have both of them calling for my head. 

Some people, like Cooke, are very rigid in their thinking.  They are incapable of comprehending other view points.  I don't mean "agreeing" with those viewpoints, but comprehending why someone might hold them.  They cannot see that their might be arguments supporting that view that people might honestly hold.  Cooke sees the world as  black and white.  If you do not share Cooke's highly extremist left-wing view then you are wrong, end of story.  No just in error, but wrong as in "you will face the firing squad" when the revolution occurs type wrong.  Even evil, in a sense, though Cooke does not quite seem to believe in actual morality in an traditional sense.

On the other hand, while I may not agree with someone, I can often see why they think the way they do.  I can see the reasoning behind their view, and that enables me to see the flaws in their reasoning, if such exist.  I could make their arguments for them, and then explain to them why those arguments are flawed while also explaining why the extreme opposite view is equally wrong.  That is more than an extremist can handle.

A good example of this sort of thing would be the recurrent bathroom issue.  On the one hand, and extremist like Cooke will claim that there should be NO restrictions on transgender access to bathrooms.  No matter where one is on the imaginary spectrum, whether one identifies as a straight male fetishtic crossdresser who is just really turned on by the idea of slipping into the ladies room even though you know you are not going to pass and will cause major distress...which really, really turns you on, are you are a surgery-tracked transsexual who is a week away from surgery, it is all the same.  And I can see the arguments that might be made.  Everyone needs to pee.  It can be dangerous to go into the men's room if you are crossdressed.  We have to respect everyone's gender identity and gender presentation.  Now, on the far opposite extreme are those who might go so far as to say that even if one is a fully transition post-op, they have no business in the ladies room.  Their argument would be, a Y chromosome has no business in the ladies room (I would love to hear how they would deal with someone with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome, a so-called "XY female.")  Well, The first arguments are not really persuasive.  If one wishes to crossdress, that might be their right, but it does not give them license to create a public nuisance, and quite frankly, speaking as a woman, a man in the ladies, and that is what a crossdresser is, is a public nuisance.  They don't become a woman when they slip on a dress.  If they are concerned about danger, then they should take responsibility for their behavior and avoid such situations.  They do no have an absolute right to crossdress and use that as an excuse for being a nuisance.  And the term gender identity is, to a large extent, meaningless.  It is one thing to be a true transsexual, carefully screened by a qualified and competent therapist, and another to simply assert that one "feels like a woman today."  And presentation?  Give me a break.  It may be your right to present as you wish, but that does not mean I have to pander to your fantasies.  

As I say, I am a moderate.  There need to be provision made for those who have a legitimate need to enter the ladies room, even though they might be physically male.  Those who are properly diagnosed as transsexual (not some kook who manages to fool a therapist with a big rubber stamp), but also provision to protect the privacy of women.  Personally, I did not enter the ladies room until I felt reasonably sure that I would be accepted as a woman, and not cause distress.  That, simply put, was because I was a woman, and had concern for other women.  The vast, overwhelming majority of those who identify as transgender are men, and like men, they think they have privilege that they really don't.

No, there is nothing wrong with being normal and traditional.  And people have a right, within limits, to be otherwise.  But, if they make that choice, they should also take responsibility for their behavior and realize that not everyone is going to look at them and say "Aren't they so cool, being a rebel and all..."  We aren't.  We are far more likely to look at them, and at best laugh, and at worst see them as a very disturbed, and disturbing person."  

The Idiocy Continues...

Well, my response to the rather silly claims by Cristan Williams at Bilerico seems to have created a bit of a stir.  First off, Williams, who seems to be self-appointed as a new leader among the gender fascists.  Williams responds to those who disagree with ad hominem attacks and mockery.  And at the same time, in what has to be a laughable tactic, Williams demands that people present "objective evidence."  Given that transgender is a totally subjective concept, that is quite a stretch.  Simply put, Williams is all ego and a mile wide.


Now, this is a rather curious person.  The claim is made that Williams is a "post-op." transsexual.  Well, that may well be, but given the latest round of lies from Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen, one has to wonder what "post-op" means in this case.  I mean, Williams certainly does not come across as someone who is transsexual.  There is clearly no desire to be a woman.  It is possible that Williams had SRS and now has deep regrets and compensates by going heavily into gender politics.  This would not be the first such case.  It is equally possible that the op that is post for Williams is something short of full SRS.  But that doesn't really matter as we don't know the facts, and probably won't.  Sadly, among the transgender extremists, the view still holds that being "post-op" gives one more credibility.  That is why Mr. Sandeen suddenly became a "transsexual" and is now claiming that he is going to have "genital reconstruction surgery."  I mean, how is castration remote "reconstruction?"  Before you know, it Mr. Sandeen will be claiming to be a post op, even though he will remain a woman with a penis.


And even having surgery does not make one a woman.  If one does not have a female brain before surgery, one will not afterwards.  But I digress....


Williams again is pushing the idea that transsexuals have to be a part of the transgender community based on questionable history.  Of course, when I raised some questions about this, Williams went ballistic.  I have merely pointed out that the information is questionable.  I have pointed out that Williams cites sources that are at best, not widely available, and which might, possibly, be fraudulent.  So, how does Williams respond?  With ad hominem attacks and straw arguments.  I didn't say that the sources were fake, I said they were questionable.


This time around, Williams appeals mostly to sources like Tapestry, which started as part of a transvestite club.  And I find it especially funny that Williams cites Roger E. Peo, "Ph.D."  Peo was a major fan of transvestites.  Oh, and that "Ph.D."  It is from the the Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality.  This, uh, institute operates out of a storefront in San Francisco.  It is not accredited, a subject it tries to side step in its FAQ on the web site.  It has actually moved up in the world, having relocated from a rather run down building in Folsom Street area South of Market, to a slightly less seedy area near the Tenderloin.  It claims to be the "Harvard" of the study of Human Sexuality.  If I were Harvard, I would sue for defamation.  This is the sort of people Williams appeals to for this round of rhetoric.  Oh, and Williams, no my head has not exploded, though I did laugh quite a bit at it all.


Now, let's take a step back, and look at the bigger picture.  Let's say that Williams is completely honest.  So what?  Williams takes a few isolated comments, and tries to use this to demand compliance from people who, quite simply, want no part of the transgender extremism.  So, why is Williams so adamant about this?  Well, first off, the transgender movement is terrified of the idea that transsexuals might actually separate.  If we did, transgender is exposed for what it actually is...a bunch of men trying to force society to call them women.  


Without transsexuals, transgender is nothing but a group of men in dresses.  Like Mr. Sandeen, they want to keep their penises.  Like "Monica" Roberts, they want to brag about that big old "neo-clit" they are packing in their panties.  They know that suddenly, they will not have transsexuals to hide behind.  


Williams is fond of challenging people about what harm has been done to transsexuals by association with transgender extremism.  Well, first off, as a classic example, there is the loss of the right to marry.  Funny how this was not an issue in the United States until transgender people started making noise.  Suddenly, transsexual marriages is tied into same-sex marriages.  Yes, I know exactly what Williams will bring up....April Ashley, but that was in England and things did not become an issue in this country until relatively recently.  Now, things are rough.  


Another example of damage is the growing idea that surgery is not needed.  Because of those who belong to the "They Will Take My Penis When They Pry My Cold Dead Fingers From It" club, who also claim to be fully women, fully female, some people raise issues as to why transsexuals need, or should have, surgery.  After all, others do quite well without it.  This undercuts efforts to obtain insurance coverage for example.  Of course, those who don't want surgery love to claim their reasons are economic.  Insurance coverage would expose their lies.


Now, Williams is anti-stealth, spewing the usual crap about shame.  Williams dismisses the very real desire to simply live as a woman, not as a "trans whatever."  Again, clearly, Williams does not really wish to be a woman.  Williams, like others, transitioned to be "trans."  As I have said before, I prefer not being a "woman, but...."  I don't care for people to say, "Oh, she is a nice woman, but....you know she was once a man," or "she is "really a man," or whatever. I don't want people saying, "You know how men are....oh, yes, of course you do."  No, I don't know.  I never understood why they act like they do, thank you.  I felt like an outsider.  I don't know what life is like on both side, and really, neither does anyone else.  If you were perfectly happy as a man, then sorry, you are not really a woman.  I am amazed at people who had long, successful careers as men who suddenly decide they are really women.  And then they wonder why people don't really accept them as "real women."


All is this is fine for Williams, but clearly, Williams is not happy just living the life that Williams chooses.  Williams, like many gender fascists feels the need to dictate how others can life and identify, casting aspersions on "separatists," transsexuals who do not wish to identify as transgender.


So that brings us back to the simple bottom line.  Transgender is a highly subjective, artificial social and political construct.  It has no basis outside the minds of those who dreamed it up.  In truth, the very concept has changed over the years.  There is no objective definition of who is, and who is not, transgender except that one is transgender if that is what one calls oneself. Unlike "transsexual," which is an objective term, "transgender" is an identity and nothing more.  I am not transgender.  I did not change my gender, as it has always been female.  I changed my sex.  In fact, transgender is an oxymoron as one cannot really change one's gender.  You cannot make yourself into a woman by choice.  You can change your gender presentation, and I an willing to accept a definition that is worded in that way, though it would still not properly apply to me.  And others speak of "transcending" gender.  I don't do that either.  I simply am what I am, a middle aged woman.  I am not a trans woman, just a woman, thank you.  And please, don't even think about calling me gender variant.  If people want to rebel against their true gender, that is their right, I suppose.  But if they want to claim me as part of their rebellion, they have a fight on their hands.


Once again, a modest proposal, which, of course will be rejected.  Let people identify as they please.  Stop imposing the term transgender on people.  Make it a rule that it never be used unless someone chooses to be called that.  If someone says, I am not transgender, that should be the end of it.  If someone says, they are transgender, that is their right.  But don't force your terms on others.  It is just not right.


As to Williams, that person can get bent out of shape all they want.  They are not going to silence me.  So far, all Williams has shown is how weak a position Williams has taken.  Arguments like "face plants" may seem clever to Williams, and Williams' followers, but really, is that the best you've got?

The Return of Gender Fascism

For a while, it has looked like the gender fascists were on the retreat. Sure, they still tended to include classic transsexuals and people with HBS under the "umbrella" at times, but they would also speak of "identifying" as transgender, and even some of the worst, like "Autumn" Sandeen, while still falsely claiming to be "transsexual," would acknowledge their being transgender was a matter of political and social identification. But "Mercedes" Allen, another of those "former" non-ops who has decided that want the "fully monty" now has decided fight back.

In piece, Rocky Horror and the Holy Grail, or: The Problem with Defining to Exclusion, on that bastion of gender fascism, The Bilerico Project, Allen wants to bring all those who wish to escape the transgender umbrella back into line. And, as is typical with the gender fascists, at least tries to pretend to just not get it.

The article is primarily a rehash of the classic transgender party line that those who do not wish to be classified as transgender are elitist. That is not remotely the truth.

What Allen is really trying to perpetuate is the erasure of HBS and classic transsexualism, which, by its very nature is going to not be inclusive when compared with the transgender model. And that, quite simply is because it has nothing in common with the transgender model.

And a side note, Allen lumps "Women Born Transsexual" in with classic transsexuals, and those with HBS. That is actually wrong. While WBT was originated as a term to differentiate from those who are 'transgender," it has now become an assimilationist term that links transsexuals with transgender.

But Allen, like so many transgender types, cannot stand this. It is not that they feel that transsexuals think themselves better than those who are transgender, but that those who are transgender fear that they are inferior to those who are transsexual or HBS.

They cannot argue that they have any reason for their behavior other than choices that they make, so they wish to erase those who have a biological basis, making us all the result of choices.

But those of us who are HBS and classic transsexual are not willing to be erased. Not because we are better, but simply because, we exist.

Is It Complete Idiocy or Just Bad Journalism at Pam's House Blend?

In what has to be one of the most ridiculous pieces I have read in a long time, "Autumn" Sandeen attacks Seventeen Magazine in an article entitled "Is It Transphobia Or Just Bad Journalism At Seventeen Magazine?" The short answer to Mr. Sandeen's question is, "neither," though, of course, he does not see it that way.

The subject of the article is a piece in Seventeen entitled, "My Boyfriend Turned Out To Be A Girl." It is about a teenage girl who became involved with someone she thought was her first true love, and he turned out to be an FTM transsexual. The article is actually very well written, and even includes the disclosure that had he been truthful, she would have stayed with him. In truth, the young FTM was quite a jerk, and treated the girl rather badly.

So, why is Mr. Sandeen all hot and bothered, especially given that he admits this person was a jerk?

The gist of the article, from the article headline to the bolded and highlighted text, seemed to be that female-to-male transsexuals are really females who are deceiving others.

Well, since this person is a pre-op female to male, and since he did deceive this young woman, I think that is pretty much what the article would have to be about unless it was fiction. It says nothing about FTMs or transsexuals in general. It only deals with this one person, and this one relationship and the experience of this one young lady.

In addition, Mr. Sandeen seems upset that they did not, instead, write about how terrible transgender people have it.

The simple fact is, if one is pre-op, then one should be upfront as soon as possible in a relationship. In this case, the deception, and I am sorry, but that is what it was, goes on for a long time. It became revealed with the young FTM became abusive and was arrested by the police.

I mean really, Mr. Sandeen is so distraught over things like the Angie Zapata case, but at the same time wants encourage the very behavior that leads to such tragedies. In this case, there was no violence, except on the part of the FTM. And that lead to his being outed. If the situation had been the reverse, and it had of been another young MTF, it could have ended differently.

No, Mr. Sandeen would rather see another beloved trans martyr than to fail to push the latest transgender myth...that one changes sex by simply saying one is the new sex. I shall deal with that in depth in an upcoming article. But for now....

To answer my question....I would have to go with complete idiocy.

Defending the Indefensible

Some people cannot seem to comprehend why those who have HBS or who are true or classic transsexuals might not wish to be included under the "transgender" umbrella. A perfect example of this can be found in "Autumn" Sandeen's posting on Pam's House Blend entitled "Georgia's North Cobb HS Sees Gender Conformity As More Important Than Educating Students."

This article concerns a Georgia high school student who "chooses to wear clothes that express himself." Jonathan Escobar wears, among other things, skinny jeans, wigs, "vintage" clothing and makeup. Escobar has an interesting take on how he dresses:

"I don't consider myself a cross-dresser. This is just who I am."

Now, according to remarks from a video linked to from Mr. Sandeen's article, Escobar sees himself as making some sort of artistic statement.Escobar, choose to leave school after being told by an assistant principal that he should dress more "manly" or consider being home-schooled. This came after a fight broke out when one student chose to defend Escobar after another student made derogatory remarks.

The school's dress code contains the following provision:

Administrators and teachers shall enforce the dress code Rule, and the principal or designee shall be the final judge as to the appropriateness, neatness and cleanliness of the wearing apparel, or whether or not apparel is disruptive, unsafe, or in violation of the dress code.

Now, obviously, Escobar's "artistic expressions" are intended to garner attention. I don't think anyone can seriously argue otherwise. And it would be impossible to argue that a student who presents as a male, dressed in such style, would not be disruptive.

The situation might be different if Escobar identified as a female. If he were transsexual, and was planning to complete transition, and wished to present as a girl, then then I would defend his right to do so. I would hope that such a student would work hard on being as presentable as possible, and would not be "out, loud, and, proud," and quite frankly would be far less inclined to be supportive if such was the situation, as that would raise questions as to actual motivation.

No, Escobar simply wants to force an issue...in this case, that students have a right to be different. Rhe problem is, like all rights, that one is limited. I certainly believe students have a right to be individuals. I support student's rights to free speech. I oppose overly restrictive dress codes, though I do see merit in some school's decision to impose a uniform policy. My daughter attended two public schools that had such policies, and the effect was generally positive. In her case, the rules were simple. white or oxford blue tops, and navy or khaki bottoms. There were also, as I recall, some restrictions on footwear to prevent students from expressing gang affiliation in that manner.

And, I would like to add, the issue would be the same if a student chose to attend school in any other sort of outlandish costume. For example, if a student decided to attend school dressed in some sort of costume, or period dress.

Of course, Mr. Sandeen is beside himself. How dare the school try to insist on some sort of gender conformity! What is lost in this discussion is the fact that schools are specialized institiutions. Some restrictions are necessary to ensure good order to facilitate the learning process. Escobar is not being denied an education. He is simply being denied the right to interrupt other students efforts to learn.

I've Got to Ask....

What is the deal with "Autumn" Sandeen and "weiners?" I mean, several times a week, Mr. Sandeen does an article he calls "This and That," and everyone of them has his "Wiener story of the day." Some of them seem to be pretty boring stuff that he digs up to fit the theme, while others seem to play off of the sexual innuendo that one can derive from the subject.

Now, Mr. Sandeen claims to be a "lesbian," so I would not think that he has any intererest in male genitalia as, shall we say, a "consumer." So, again, what is the deal?

I suspect this is just some immature humor on the part of an autogynephile who is getting all giggly, and perhaps a bit nervous at the idea of actually giving up a certain body part. In any case, it is a rather bizarre thing, but not really that surprising. I remember one author taking delight in his fellow "transgender" hosting a weiner roast right before his surgery. A truly sick joke that only a man who is making something of a mistake might find joy in.

The Issue of Passing

Passing...it is a common concept for many who are HBS, transsexual, and even transgender. It is not uncommon, particularly in the early stages of transition, for those who suffer from HBS to speak in terms of "passing," meaning that one is perceived as being a member of their "target sex."

The actual term "passing" seems to have originated in the 1920s in reference to African-Americans who were light-skinned enough to be perceived as Caucasian. It has become something of a sociological term for the ability of a person to be regarded as a member of a combination of social groups other than his or her own.

For those born with HBS, the concept of passing may be a part of the early stages of their transition, but they usually outrgow it quickly as they become more confident. For those who are transgender it either becomes a way of life, or an anathema to be condemned at all costs.

An example of this latter attitude can be seen in the "Autumn" Sandeen's article on Pam's House Blend, "Four-Year Transactivists." One has to remember, Mr. Sandeen identifies as an out, loud, and proud "transgender activist." In the article, he bemoans the fact that many transsexuals come to realize that they are able to be accepted as women, and then decide to stop being out. And, of course. he simply cannot comprehend the simple truth that a woman simply might realize that she has no reason to continue to be seen as a man. As is typical of the gender fascists, Mr Sandeen has to spin this as a negative thing:

Welcome to the reality of how "passing" impacts individuals in the trans community; welcome to the broader concept of how there are individual members of oppressed, minority populations who don't appear to be members of their population(s), and "pass" as members of the unoppressed, majority population.

Like other "transgender" activists, he believes transsexuals are not really women, they are members of an oppressed minority population. He recoils in horror at the idea that one might actually succeed in one's transition and move on with one's life as simply a woman.

Mr. Sandeen goes on to whine about how he is treated:

Personally, I've been called Mr. Sandeen, "Autumn" Sandeen, and called by male pronouns by both people on the religious right and by people who would seem to be my natural allies. To trans people who take the public stage, I tell them "expect to be hit by a lot of lighting" -- similar names to what folk on both sides my transactivist peers are called are what they should expect to also be called.

Sadly, he simply cannot conceive of the glaring error he makes here... He simply cannot, or perhaps refuses to concede, that those who refer to him that way are not at all his natural allies. We are quite opposed to what he is trying to force on people. I share few, if any of his goals. I do not want to see gender "deconstructed." I do not believe that the criteria for being a woman should be that you say you are. I do not believe that women should have penises. (Yes, some of us are born with them, but if you want to keep it, you are not remotely a woman.) I do not believe that people should be able to change their birth certificate without having completed surgery. I do not want to see ENDA passed in a form that would acceptable to Mr. Sandeen. I do not want to be called "transgender." So where this man gets that I am his "natural ally" is beyond me.
In any case, for those of us who are HBS, and not "transgender" do move on from the concept of passing. We realize that to say that we "pass" would be to give in to the silliness of those like Mr. Sandeen who are not, and ever will be women, and who are all too aware of this. I mean, simply put, one cannot pass as what one is.

An Amazing Error

It sometimes amazes me just how silly transgender activists can be. It is not, for example, uncommon to see claims that women can have penises, and that men can have vaginas...and worse, that they can desire to keep them. But something on neo-gender fascist Suzan Cooke's blog really floored me. Now, for those who don't remember, for years, Cooke was a major player in the effort to separate transsexuals from the transgender confusion. Then, earlier this summer, Cooke moved over to becoming transgender. Now, Cooke still claims to be "transsexual not transgender," but Cooke's views are such that it is clear that she no longer sees any significant difference.

In a rather disjointed, and rambling article in which Cooke vents her anger at God, she makes the following rather incredible statement

Because transsexuals, transgenders and other intersex people fell somewhere between or saw the potential in achieving greater oneness of self by moving from an assigned and ascribed as immutable status to a different defined as immutable status the experts viewed us as mind f**ks, the fly in the ointment.

Unbelievably, Cooke has gone further than any gender fascist has before. I honestly cannot recall ever seeing one have the audacity to actually claim that transgender people are "intersex." Yes, they claim that intersex people are "transgender," but not the other way around. A small, but important distinction as they see "transgender" as the umbrella, with individual identities drug, often screaming and kicking, under it. Claiming intersex is a form of transgender is highly offensive. Claiming transgender is intersex is....well, itis incredibly ignorant.

Transgender is not intrinsic. It is an artificial political/social construct. It does not exist apart from the imagination of those who embrace it. Intersex is a physical condition, that is not a choice.

Cooke seems to be determined to shed what few shreds of credibility she has left as she rushes to join people like "Monica" Helms and "Autumn" Sandeen in the boy's club that is transgender activism.

Sandeen Asks, Helms Answers

In the bizarre world of the transgender, one often has to wonder just what some people are thinking. In a recent post, "Autumn" Sandeen asks "What Does FOTF's Quotation Marks Around "Transgenderism" Mean?" Mr. Sandeen makes the usual self-serving, whiny comments about how Focus on the Family is othering and denying the existence of transgender people. No, I don't think they would deny that such people exist. But, I do doubt they see any validity to the bizarre, artificial social construct that is "transgenderism."

Consider this remark from the comments to his Bilerico article on when to tell by lead gender fascist "Monica" Helms:

"Woman" is a social construct based on a human being's gender expression that appears on the feminine side of the scale.

"Female" is a biological term based on the internal and external attributes that have been scientifically established over centuries.

All transsexual women are indeed women, so the rumors to what I believe are totally wrong. MtF crossdressers are also considered women when they present that way.

However, all, but a few transsexuals and all MtF crossdressers are NOT female. That is an undeniable truth. Do you have pelvic bone with a birth channel? It is okay to say you are a "woman," but don't try to convince people you are "female."

Now, as many have pointed out, Mr. Helms has no experience as a post-op. And, it is obvious to any honest observer, Mr. Helms also has no experience as a woman. And most important of all, it is obvious that Mr. Helms has not a clue regarding science, law, or the English language.

This is "transgenderism" in its purest form. This is a perfect example of why people with HBS and classic transsexuals reject the transgender label. And while I do not agree with everything said by groups like Focus on the Family, they do represent a view that is, in many ways, closer to what most people hold. And one of those views is that silly men who think they become women when they put on a dress are quite deranged.

People like Mr. Helms, and Mr. Sandeen fool no one when they claim to be pre-ops. A major part of transgender activism is to try to co-opt transsexuals and push them to the front as the public image of "transgenderism." They want lawmakers and the public to think that giving full protections to people who have a medical need to change their sex is is the issue. Of course, the real issue is to provide laws that say that men in dresses are fully women.

So why wouldn't someone put "transgenderism" in quotes. As a political and social philosophy, it is quite ludicrous. It exists, but then, so does the "flat earth model."

Hurt Feelings...

There were two stories, back to back, by "Autumn" Sandeen, a leading gender fascist, on Pam's House Blend. The first complained because a reporter in Washington, D.C. referred to the latest "trans martyr," Tyli'a "NaNa Boo" Mack, as a "transgender male." Nevermind that this was an accurate label. Mack was, as best can be determined, still physically a male. I could see Mr. Sandeen having a bit more of a point if Mack was referred to as a "transgender man," but that was not the case. Mr. Sandeen quotes Brian Watson, the director of Transgender Health Empowerment:

“I know both of the young ladies that were attacked, and they lived their lives
as transgender women. They looked like women. For me, there shouldn’t have been
any confusion about them being males. If you saw them on the street, you would
see they were females.”

I'm sorry, I don't care how they "appeared." If they had penises, they are still males. Changing clothes, putting on make-up, and changing your name does not change your sex.

Now, I am sorry that Mack was murdered, but Mack was not a female in any sense of the word.

The second story, which totally illustrates the silliness of the transgender movement, concerns MTV's America's Best Dance Crew, some group called Vogue Evolution, one of the judges, Lil Mama, and what Mr. Sandeen inaccurately refers to as "the female dancer in this crew -- Leiomy -."
Leiomy is, like Mack, not remotely female. To be honest, Leiomy comes off more as a drag queen than anything else. The comment made by Lil Mama was directed at Leiomy's rather dramatic hissy fit that was filmed during a rehearsal:

"Leiomy, your behavior. Come on. It's unacceptable. I just feel that you always have to remember your truth. You were born a man, and you are becoming a woman. If you're going to become a woman, act like a lady. Don't be a bird, like "oh my god, I'm not doing this." You know what I'm saying, it gets too crazy, and it gets confusing. You're doing this for America. Even though you're the face for transgenders, you're the face for America right now with this group, and it's not about anybody else, it's about y'all. So do it for the team."

Mr. Sandeen takes great offense at the "becoming a woman" remark, claiming that Leiomy is a woman. Not even close. The part about "don't be a bird" refers to the caricature of female behavior that Leiomy enaged in. I seriously doubt Leiomy is remotely transsexual, and it is very unlikely that said person is anything more than a drag queen or a crossdresser. The whole act comes across more as part of the ballroom scene.

In a bizarre twist. Mr. Sandeen asks how people would react if Lil Momma had made a similar remark about a gay dancer. Funny, I thought the mantra of the transgender movement is that sexual orientation and "gender identity" are two different things.

I do have to note that the movement to educate the gender fascists is having an effect. In the comments, Mr. Sandeen does make this remark"

...I do identify, from a very personal idenitification that describes my identity most closely, as a transsexual.

From a sociopolitical perspective though, I definitely identify as transgender -- I identify under the umbrella term. Not every transsexual identifies under the umbrella term, but I'm one who does specifically because of the broader civil rights persective of to provide protections for gender variance from societal norms, gender identity, and gender expression.

And too, I embrace diversity. Identifying myself as transgender is a way of saying that even though I don't identify by every term under the transgender umbrella, I do embrace the wide diversity of gender experience people have beyond the binary of male and female. And, I want to associate myslef with that diversity of human gender experience.

Now, as has been pointed out before, Mr. Sandeen seems to have suddenly decided he is "really" a transsexual after being an avowed non-op. This is not unusual, and it often indicates that the person thinks they can gain more credibility by claiming to be surgery tracked.

But, it is interesting to note that Mr. Sandeen, who banned me from Pam's House Blend because I pressured him to publicly disavow his insistence that transsexuals have to be transgender, now seems to admit that people do have the right to not identify that way. And more to the point, he seems to finally admit that transgender is an artificial social/political construct as I have pointed out for years.

His remark is not perfect. He still contradicts himself by referring to the "umbrella," but he seems to be finally admitting that "transgender" is not an objective concept, but is instead very subjective, representing identity and not fact.

The Latest Fad in TG Land

I suspect it started with Chloe Prince. Part of that story is the claim that Prince has Klinefelter syndrome. Now, Klinefelter syndrome occurs when a male is born with a XXY chromosomes instead of the normal XY. Now having XXY occurs about once in every male 500 births, but only half of those actually develop Klinefelter syndrome.

Klinefelter syndrome may have any of the following symptoms:

• Developmental delay
  
• Undescended testicles (cryptorchidism)
  
• Pea-sized testicles
  
• Hypospadias
  
• Tall stature
  
• Knock-knees (genu valgum)
  
• High arches (pes cavus)
  
• Protruding lips
  
• Projecting jaw (prognathism)
  
• Very widely-spaced eyes (hypertelorism)
  
• If he is Caucasian or Black, epicanthal skin folds on his upper eyelids at the inner corner, giving him an oriental look
  
• Poor coordination
  
• Fused bones inhis forearms that make it difficult for him to rotate his arms (radioulnar synostosis)
  
• Quiet, tractable personality with occasional tantrums and aggression
  
• Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD)
  
• Learning disability (especially dyslexia, reading difficulty, and data retrieval problems)
  
• Mental retardation (IQ drops 15 points for each additional X chromosome)
  
• Poor expressive and receptive language skills
  
• Poor short term memory
  
• Osteoporosis (bone thinning)
  
• Lack of sporting ability
  
• High-pitched voice
  
• Sparse beard and body hair
  
• Gynecomastia (enlarged breasts)
  
• Feminine fat distribution
  
• Taurodontism (enlarged molar teeth)
  
• Breast cancer or germ cell tumors from elevated estradiol
  
• Inability to deal with stress
  
• Psychological problems, like anxiety, neurosis, depression, or psychosis

Now, Klinefelter syndrome is sometimes classified as an "intersex" condition, but unlike most, it is not caused by hormonal imbalances in utero. Now, there is a lot of controversy about referring to intersex conditions as "Disorders of Sexual Development," but in a sense that would be a more accurate term. Klinefelter syndrome does not, for example, actually result in one having any significant intersex characteristics with regards to the genitalia. In fact, the only actual symptom that would be considered intersex would be the hypospadia, which does not always occur, and which is considered the mildest of intersex conditions.

I mention all of this because in a recent post at Pam's House Blend, lead gender fascist "Autumn" Sandeen claims to have decided that he might have Klinefelter syndrome. Worse, he wants to use this to gain some boost in his credibility:

To say it doesn't weigh on me though would be an understatement. Let's face it: Even though there is mounting evidence that transsexual people's brains are literally cross-gendered or bi-gendered, there is a perception among many that transsexual people have a "bad" mental health disorder, whereas the apparently cross-gender identities of intersexuals are allowed for.

The problem for Mr. Sandeen is that Klinefelter syndrome is not that kind of intersex condition. Notice that in the list above, taken from a web site that provides information for the parents of children who might have the condition, that there is NO mention of cross-gender identity. That is because, with a few rare exceptions, those with Klinefelter Syndrome are not transsexual. Of course, now that Chloe Prince has claimed Klinefelter as an excuse to transition, it may become a popular condition to try to claim.

Mr. Sandeen then goes on to claim, quite erroneously, the following,

Well. Then I go from someone many will see as a parody of a woman to someone who has a verifiable medical condition that "explains" what at first blush appeared to be my transsexuality. Nothing will have actually changed, except for how others perceive me.

No, Mr. Sandeen will continue to be a parody of a woman. Having Klinefelter syndrome will not change that, but it might give him seom special cachet in the imaginary hierarchy of the trangender world. Being sort of, kind of intersex will, presumably, making him even higher than a transsexual in their imaginations.

He continues on:

For me, the consequences of found to be intersexual instead of being found to be transsexual would mean there are many more who would accept me as female than accept me as female now. And, being painfully honest with myself, I would want that; it would change everything -- and nothing -- both at the same time.

Again, this is simply not the case. At best, Mr. Sandeen would still be an autogynephile. More likely, he will still be simply a transgender who has become carried away. His comments make it ever more clear that surgery is not a good choice for him.

I experience having my gender questioned all the time. For those of us trans women who have throughout our lives have never been fully allowed to doubt that we were male, the criteria that folk like Germaine Greer apply to us seems equally bizarre. We know we think like women, and we have psychologists and psychiatrists out there daring to distinguish our thought processes as female.

What Mr. Sandeen does not grasp is that the question is not whether or not he imagines himself to think like a woman, but whether or not women agree that he thinks like a woman. What some refer to as "vibing as a woman." He clearly does not. For example, as pointed out in a previous post, he admits to preferring to stand to pee. Mr. Sandeen imagines he can just claim womanhood, and it becomes his by some inherent right.

So, is it any wonder that when I examine the feelings in the deepest recesses of my soul, I find I deeply hope that my recent genetic test comes back "Klinefelter's Syndrome"; I have a certain amount of internalized transphobia. Everything and nothing, it appears, rides on how my genetic test comes back; whether or not I'm perceived as a ghastly parody by Ms. Greer and her ilk appears to ride on how my genetic test comes back.

No, Mr. Sandeen's latest fantasy is just that, a fantasy, nothing more. Even if he is able to claim that he is XXY, he will still be a man. It will change nothing, period. He will still be transgender. He will still have a male brain. He will still be making a mistake if he actually pursues surgery. He has not advanced to "transsexual," and he cannot really climb up his imaginary ladder to "intersex."

No, when Mr. Sandeen realizes that he is never going to accepted by those who are HBS, classic transsexuals, or women, and when he accepts this fact, he will be a lot happier.

What's Wrong With Being Normal?

One of the most basic differences between those with Harry Benjamin Syndrome (also referred to as classic or true transsexuals) and those who are transgender is the desire to simply be normal. And by normal, I mean to be seen as the sex that is normal for us. Those who are transgender seem to have an obsessive need to be "different." They seem to be happiest when they are flaunting their status as having been born a different sex than the one they present as.

It is certainly the right of those who identify as transgender to present themselves as they wish. If they wish to be seen as men in any shape form or fashion, even if it is as former men, that is their choice to make. But, many of them do not stop there.

Some of the more extreme transgender types, the ones referred to as "gender fascists" try to impose their own self-image on others. They either do this directly, telling post-ops that they are not really women, but are actually men, or they do it indirectly, making stupid comments like this one from "Autumn" Sandeen:

So are you're saying it's shape of genitalia only that makes one male or female?

If you are, you're by inference then calling me a man as I've outed myself as being preoperative.

Yes, Mr. Sandeen, that is exactly what is being said. No amount of fantasy is going to change that. At one time, even the most extreme of the transgender seemed to understand the idea that one's "gender" or better, one's sexual differentiation of the brain, is separate from one's physical sex. Now they have tried to completely muddy the waters.

The common cry from the transgender is that physical sex doesn't matter. Women can have penises, and me can give birth (remember the "pregnant man.") They glory in the abnormal, and attack those who wish to simply correct their birth defect and move on with their lives.

Even Suzan Cooke, who coined the phrase "Women Born Transsexual" has adopted the transgender ideal of being "different.." In response to comments about how someone prefered to simply get on with their life, and being normal, Cooke had this to say:

Why? What is so great about being part of the dull gray straight world? Seriously?

By the way I do not thank imaginary sky fairies.

Too many of those touting their place in the straight world were straight CDs married to women and still married to them.

I’d much rather run in the boho world of interesting people than in the straight world among boring conservative people.

But on another level your snotty comment smacks of jealousy. I’d be willing to bet Calpernia is a lot better looking than you are.

Now, Cooke certainly has a right to live her life as she pleases. No one should question that. But Cooke's comments were in the context of someone questioning whether those who choose to be "professional transsexuals" should be held up as role models for others. This is not so much Cooke defending her choices as it is Cooke attacking those who might make a different choice. And I do find it interesting that, like most transgender types, Cooke seems to equate attractiveness as a woman with one's value.

Cooke, like others who are transgender, just doesn't get it. Calpernia is a lovely person, who went through a horrible experience, but because of choices she has made, she will never be able to simply live her life as a woman. She will always be, at best, a trans woman. At worst, she will be seen as something more akin to a drag queen...as a man pretending to be a woman. That might not be fair to Calpernia, but it is how things work, and again, no amount of fantasy or political activism, is really likely to change that.

Increasingly, those who do wish to simply get on with their lives are viciously attacked by the transgender types. On one board, a TG went to great lengths to tell people that it was no use, you could not "hide." While it is possible for people to find out about one's past, it does not happen that often. If, for example, someone were to know my name, and they were to check the right court records, they could discover my old name. But how often does anyone bother with such? If someone has your Social Security number, they can, in theory, access your employment history, but that cannot legally do so without your permission. But if someone has your Social Security number who is in a position to misuse it, you have a lot more problems than just that.

No, there is nothing wrong with being normal. If one chooses otherwise, that is their right, but it is not their right to tell others how to live their lives.

Overly sensitive?

Sometimes, the silliness of the gender fascists is really amazing. They can't seem to make up their minds. A perfect example of this is a post on Pam's House Blend by leading gender fascist Autumn Sandeen.

So what has Mr. Sandeen's panties in a wad? He is upset about a segment of The Tonight Show in which Conan O'Brien stages fake embarrasing situations. The idea behind the joke is that he will sell then to tabloids. In a recent episode of Conan's Tabloid Moment he supposedly goes to a stripper bar. He then decides to make the situation even more embarrassing, so a neon sign reading "Trannies" drops down, and the female strippers slap on fake mustaches. A silly joke, admittedly, but I do have to wonder why Mr. Sandeen would be so upset?

After all, this is a man who spares no effort to tell the world that he still has his penis, and that, after all, women can have penises. So, why, in his weird world view, can't women also have mustaches? And doesn't Mr. Sandeen's beloved transgender umbrella not also include "gender queers?" Shouldn't the idea of women with mustaches not set Mr. Sandeen's hard to going pitter-patter? Or is just the idea of women with penises that he is so hung up on?

And he wonders why we want no part of the transgender umbrella.

Personally, I think Conan, perhaps inadvertently, has exposed the true absurdity of "transgender" in a way no one else has.

It's Not About You...

I really had to laugh when I read this comment by Suzan Cooke on Woman Born Transsexual:

As for outing her. she uses her name in posts to the Advocate and else where and is currently making her blog pretty much about me.

I bash back

First off, I don't know why Cooke would think I would write posts to a gay publication like the Advocate and second, it really isn't about Cooke, or any other individual.

My blog is about issues that affect those with Harry Benjamin Syndrome, including the crap that spews from the transgender activists, particularly those who are referred to as the "gender fascists." Cooke has decided to cozy up to the likes of "Monica" Helms and "Autumn" Sandeen and so, she gets mentioned.

I realize that in the bizarre world of the transgender any disagreement is tantamount to "bashing." Oh well, they can think what they want. Personally, I think it all rather silly.

Wrong Again!

Transgender apologist Suzan Cooke is at it again. This time she has rallied to the cause of lead gender fascist "Autumn" Sandeen because a right wing group has used Mr. Sandeen's picture on a web page suggesting that Obama's health care plan will provide coverage for sex affirmation surgery. Well, actually they use the term "gender reassignment surgery," showing that are about as ignorant of things as the gender fascists.

Now, Cooke, who appears to be trying to suck up to Sandeen in the same way she has sucked up to Monica Helms, misses a couple of points here. First off, Sandeen does not seem to be the least bit upset at being targeted. In fact, Sandeen, who has has one of the most massive egos of any gender fascist, seems quite delighted to be the poster child for this issue. Sandeen nver complains about having his name or picture used...except possibly where someone is actually showing him for the bad joke that he is.

Second, and very closely related, Cooke seems to miss the fact that Sandeen has actively sought this sort of attention. Sandeen is not at all shy about making sure his picture is available to anyone seeking an image of a transgender person.

And yet, Cooke is just beside herself over the imminent danger she imagines that Sandeen is facing. Cooke, like many transgender activists, seeks to imply that any disagreement with their viewpoint is tantamount to violence. Such a view is simply a way of seeking to restrict disagreement.

The actual bottom line is, this is just another example of the damage that the transgender crowd causes those HBS and/or true or classic transsexuals. Sandeen was for many years an avowed non-op, and if he ever does have SAS it will probably be another disaster. He is not respresentative of those for who surgery is medically indicated. Proper candidates are seeking to correct their bodies and to get on with their lives with some sense of normality. Someone like Sandeen, who simply seeks attention is remotely comparable.

Missing the point...

Anyone who spends any time observing transgender extremists knows that they have a singular obsession with bathrooms. One of their persistent demands is free access based solely on a person's claimed state of mind at any particular moment. In another words, if you say, for the period of time that one wishes to enter a bathroom that is not consistent with your physical sex, you only have to say that your mental gender is appropriate and barge on in.

This point was brought home by a post by lead gender fascist "Autummn" Sandeen on Pam's House Blend. Sandeen is having a major hissy fit because the Society for Human Resource Management has come out in favor of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) but does not include "gender identity" in its endorsement. This is their statement from their FAQ on the topic:

While most SHRM members who participated in the development of our sexual orientation statement believed people should not be discriminated against based on their gender identity, there was universal concern expressed over the process to accommodate individuals in transgender situations. Since these accommodation challenges raised so many concerns among supporters and opponents alike, “gender identity” was not included in the SHRM statement.

Now, that seems pretty straightforward to me. I can certainly think of a number of issues that might arise in accomodating the wide range of behaviors that are covered by the transgender label. Remember, this law will also apply to people who are not in transition, but who might claim some issue with gender identity. Apparently Sandeen can see only one issue:

I'm guessing their apparent fretting about the "challenges" that businesses could have trying to "accommodate" gender variant/trans people is code for saying that they're worrying about gender variant/trans people using workplace restrooms -- why give direct voice to their biased prejudgments and illiberality when one can use code words and phrases instead?

Nevermind that all sorts of issues come up that have nothing to do with bathrooms. Issues like how to accomodate crossdressers who demand the right to express their feminine side whenever the mood strikes them. Imagine the effect on the workplace when you are never sure if one of the staff is going to show up as "John" or "Mary" on any given day. Worse, imagine that such a person is a postion where he has to deal with the public! What about having to deal with an employee who is militantly gender queer, whose appearance and behavior is totally disruptive.

No, bathrooms are not the sole issue for those who have to deal with transgender employees, or even the most important. But for those like Sandeen, they are a nice smoke screen to hide behind.

Things that make a gender fascist go hmm....

While checking out the latest silliness from Mr. Sandeen over at Pam's House Blend I found a post about the Endocrine Society releasing guidelines for treatment of transsexuals. These guidelines include recommendations for hormone therapy, surgery and long-term care for all ages.:

New guidelines from the Endocrine Society call for close and continued collaboration between endocrinologists and mental health professionals for the treatment of transsexual people.

The twentieth century marked the beginning of a social awakening for men and women whose bodies imprisoned them in the wrong gender," a task force of Endocrine Society-appointed experts wrote.

The guidelines include recommendations for safe and effective hormone regiments, genital sex reassignment surgery and long-term care for adolescents to adults.

The evidence-based guidelines were developed using the Grading of recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). The quality of evidence was generally low or very low.

"Prior to 1975, few peer reviewed articles were publishing concerning endocrine treatment of transsexual persons. Since that time, more than 800 articles about various
aspects of transsexual care have appeared," the task force wrote...

Now, this is all very significant. I have downloaded a copy of the 72 page article, and plan to read it in depth as soon as I have time. So, what was Sandeen's response to all of this?

Hmm. Just hmm.

I guess he was upset that, like most medical articles dealing with transition, makes reference to "transsexuals," not "transgender people." Sadly, such distinctions are lost on gender fascists like Sandeen who insist that everyone has to accept the label of "transgender" whether they identify that way, or not.

The Stupidity Spreads...

In our last posting, we talked about the case in New York where a couple defrauded the authorities in order to obtain a marriage license and have a ceremony performed. Or, more specifically, we talked about "Autumn" Sandeen's silly rant about how the Advocate covered the story. Now, Tobi Hill-Meyer has written about the same story on Bilerico.

This is turning into a ridiculous farce. Now, just because someone puts on a dress, claims to be a female, and maybe, just maybe, sort of, kind of, hopes to have surgery one day, does not make them a female. And if they still have a penis, and they marry a man, who has a penis, that is a same sex marriage. No amount of wishing, and hoping, and just plain BS is going to change that.

The gender fascists may wish to push the idea that just saying you want to have surgery makes you a female (or a male if you are an FTM), and they may suggest, as one fool does in the comments, that a new birth certificate and change of legal sex should occur as soon as a doctor certifies that you have begun transition, but that sort of thing is insane. They are just digging a deeper and deeper hole, and accomplishing nothing. That is not going to be accepted, and deep down, I think they know it. But, the days when a guy could put on a dress and shock the neighbors are fading. Now, they have to say really stupid things to get that same shock value.

And once and for all, pointing out that a person who has a penis, is not a female is not transphobia. Sadly, that word is becoming badly abused. It is used as what I have called a "club word," a word used to beat up on another. When I was younger, the most common club word was "communism." If people didn't like something, it was called "communism." Of course, that word was popular with the Right. But, the Left loves club words just as much. "Racist" is an oldy, but a goodie, ironically now used by both sides. In truth, all they show is that people don't have real arguments, so they bring out words, and they use them to club the opposition into submission.

And, that is the height of stupidity.

Is Anyone Really This Stupid????

I honestly did not expect "Autumn" Sandeen to provide another opportunity for an article so soon after the idiocy we reported on yesterday....but he did, and this one is a doozy.

Now Sandeen has his nose out of joint because of how the Advocate reported on a fraudulent marriage in New York. Now, the facts are really quite simple...here is the article from the Advocate that set Sandeen off:

Two men fooled the New York City Clerk's office into certifying what is believed to be the first same-sex marriage performed in the state, reports the New York Post, which published the couple's photo on its front page on Sunday.
Hakim Nelson and Jason Stenson were married in a ceremony at the clerk's office on May 26, 10 days after obtaining a marriage license at the office. Same-sex marriage is illegal in New York, although the state recognizes same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.

Nelson, 18, and Stenson, 21, said that when they applied in person for the license, Nelson used a state benefit card that lists his sex as female. The clerk did not ask him about the male-sounding first name -- Hakim -- that appears on his identification. He wore an orange dress and white leggings, with his hair falling at his shoulders.

Nelson goes by the name "Kimah" and hopes to have transition surgery one day. Stenson views Nelson as a woman, and does not consider himself gay.

So, the the story is very simple. Two people, one of whom may be a pre-op transsexual (though that is questionable), but who are both males, show up and apply for a marriage license. One of them lies, and claims to be a female. They get the license, and a marriage ceremony is performed. The "groom" says he is not gay, even though his new bride has a penis and testicles. If this all sounds familiar, there was a similar case just recently in Texas.

Well, the bottom line in all this is that Sandeen goes off on a tear about how the Advocate should not haver referred to this as a "same sex marriage," (yes, I know that's what it is, but we are talking about Sandeen here....reality is not a factor) and then he takes the Advocate to task for referring to a person who is legally a male, with a penis, and who's legal name is a male name, as a man. In this case, that is exactly what this person is. Under other circumstances, I agree, it would be improper to refer to a pre-op transsexual as a man, but in this case it is appropriate to make sure the story is easily understood. Nelson is not a woman, and it is highly questionable that this person is a transsexual.

What is so incredibly stupid here is the fact that Sandeen seems to think that everyone should have just ignored the fact that this pair was knowingly breaking the law by engaging in a fraud, and just accepted them as an opposite sex couple.

This is the sort of idiocy that provides those who wish to put an end to the treatment of transsexuals ample ammunition. And Sandeen's response is the sort of stupidity that provides them with with something akin to a weapon of mass destruction,

Is anyone really this stupid? The answer, sadly, is yes....more than a few are.

Mara Keisling speaks sense, Sandeen throws a fit...

Lead gender fascist "Autumn" Sandeen has gone off on another of his bizarre rants. And this one is a doozy....

National Center For Transgender Equality's (NCTE) executive Director Mara Keisling had the following to say in response to a question about Cher's daughter, Chastity Bono announcing plans to transition to male, "The whole media fixation on surgery is kind of misplaced, almost no transgender people ever have surgery. We don't have any idea how many do." No argument there...at least from me, and any one else who is not married to the idea that transsexuals are part of the "transgender community." I mean, that is pretty much what a lot of us have been saying for some time.

So, how does a gender fascist like Sandeen respond to this? Why they simply blow and fuse and go on a rant! The horror! Sandeen had the following to say:

At a time when trans folk and our allies want to see health care benefits provided by the workplace increased for trans people -- including genital reconstruction surgery that has been determined to be good for the health and wellbeing of many transsexuals -- Mara's phrasing for CNN seems at best unfortunate, and at worst actually damaging for increasing health benefits for those of us trans folk who actually identify as transsexual.

First off, Sandeen shows his invincible ignorance by referring to people who "identify as transsexual. Being transsexual is not an identity. It is a state of being that one is born with. You cannot "identify as a transsexual" which would imply that being a transsexual is simply a matter of choice. There might well be people who really, really, really want to be transsexuals, because in the insanity that is known as the "transgender community" there is this silly idea that being a transsexual is "better" than just being a crossdresser, but that does not change anything. In fact, that pretty much pushes one into the world of autogynephila.

Now you have to remember, Sandeen, who for many years was an avowed "non-op" (granted, that is an oxymoron) has become a "born-again transsexual." That is, in an attempt to gain some crediblity, Sandeen has announced that he is now going to have surgery...on of these day...in the far, far distant future...if someone else pays for it...and he can't come up with an excuse not to. In fact, Sandeen basically indicates this:

In other words, for me it would be nice for me if the Veterans Administration would do genial (sic) reassignment surgeries, but her comment "Almost no transgender people ever have surgery" makes it sound like my peers and I don't want those surgeries for ourselves -- so in the personal sense it sounds like she's saying to the general public that I don't want or need the VA to cover it.

Now I agree, it would be nice if the VA could do some surgery, any surgery, that would make Sandeen more genial, but such miraculous surgery is still beyond the abilities of modern medicine.

But seriously, while I would completely agree if that was what Keisling was saying, I think what Keisling might hopefully be trying to say, or perhaps slipped up and actually admitted, is that most transsexuals, or better, people with HBS, simply do not identify as transgender. And that those who identify as transgender are not, with some exceptions, transsexual or HBS.

Transgender is an identity. It is a subjective social construct that has no objective definition. Transsexual is a medical condition that one is born with. One cannot adopt it as an identity.

But as I said, Sandeen, for a very long time, denied any interest in surgery, seeming to suddenly decide to pursue it as a means of gaining credibility. You have to remember, Sandeen spent 20 years in the United States Navy, serving very successfully as a man, before deciding he was really
"transgender." And then, years after that, suddenly becomes a transsexual when he realizes that no one is willing to accept him as having any crediblity concerning transsexuals.

And it is clear that he still, really doesn't get it:

The reality is that insurance doesn't often cover genital
reconstruction surgeries, so most transsexuals can't afford the $15,000 to
$60,000 for male-to-female genital reconstruction surgery, or the $30,000 to
$150,000 for female-to-male genital reconstruction surgery out of their own
pockets. Economics are often the main reason why the transgender people who
identify as transsexual don't have genital reconstruction surgery. Some
transsexuals actually do identify as non-operative transsexuals, but my
experiece is that those folk aren't how most transsexuals identify -- most who
haven't had genital reconstruction surgery identify as pre-operative even if
they anticipate never being able to afford surgery on their genitalia.

Now, this sort of silliness is typical of the gender fascists, especially those who wish to claim a desire for surgery, but who don't really want it. No, surgery is not cheap. It can be a major financial impact. And yet, people who have HBS somehow manage to find a way. I myself got by for several years on less than half what I should have had in order to pay for it. And mine was paid for by insurance. But, in order to keep that insurance, I worked half-time, living far below what was reasonable. Ironically, my plan, prior to getting that job, was to do pretty much the same thing. And I know others who have followed very similar paths, struggling to save money. The cost of SRS can be compared to that of a relatively low-end automobile. Many borrow the money. But, for those like Sandeen, who always seem to have an excuse, money is a favorite.

And what about those transsexuals who truly believe that they will never have the money? A lot of them simply cannot face going on as the are, and the results are tragic. They don't identify as "non-ops." There is no such thing. That is an imaginarly concept for people like Sandeen who want to claim to be women, but are really not willing to give up their penises.

And then, Sandeen goes on to make a statement that is at the heart of the transgender paradigm. The sort of thing that truly separates those who identify as transgender from those who truly are transsexual or HBS, and from any grasp of reality:

I believe that what Mara was trying to say was that for transsexuals, when we are born what's between our ears doesn't match the genitalia usually associated with that gender. However, having genitalia that doesn't match one's gender identity shouldn't be used by media or politicians to say that trans men aren't really men, or trans women aren't really women -- Genitals don't trump identity.

That pretty much sums it up. The true agenda for the transgender is to claim that one can be a woman with a penis, or a man without one. And that is just silly. Yes, one's gender is between the brains, but gender will drive the desire to be correct. Simply put, if you are comfortable with having a penis, then you are not a woman. If you are comfortable not having a penis, then you are not a man. Yes, genitals do, ultimately, trump identity. You can claim to be a woman all you want, but the moment people find out you have a penis, especially if you want to keep it, the vast majority is never going to see you as truly a woman.
Finally, Sandeen gets things completely backwards:

And too, not everyone who identifies as a transgender person is a transsexual person -- there are crossdressers, genderqueers, and such that may identify as transgender, but not as transsexuals.

Sandeen simply refuses to allow that one might be a transsexual and not identify as transgender. Again, transsexual is an objective fact, transgender is an identity. But, Sandeen wants to reverse things. But in Sandeen's fantasy world, he wants to make the opposite true.

When I challenged Sandeen to admit that transgender was an identity, and should not be forced on anyone, he lied and said he never did that. Here he goes beyond that. He tries to reduce transsexual to an identity and imply that transgender is the reality. Simply put, he just doesn't have a clue.