The Transgender Movement's Dirty Little Secret

I've been thinking about this post for quite some time.  It is about something that is quite obvious, but which is kind of easy to overlook in all the rhetoric that spews out of the "transgender movement."  But, an article at LGBT Weekly by Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen, one of the leading voices of that movement finally pushed me to write it.

In the article, titled "Fourteen years ago and now," Mr. Sandeen says

"I remember coming out in early 2003 as a transsexual – that’s what we called ourselves back then. When those of us who called ourselves transsexual also called ourselves transgender, it was actually kind of political – we were also identifying ourselves as falling under a transgender umbrella of gender nonconforming people."

This quote pretty much sums up what the transgender movement is really all about.  First off, it is not about being "transsexual."  Mr. Sandeen may have called himself a "transsexual," but he is not, and never was remotely a transsexual.  He may have even been able to find some doctor who is willing to rubber stamp his fantasies, but he has been a life long member of the "They Will Take My Penis When They Pry it From My Cold Dead Fingers" club.  He occasionally flirts with the idea of SRS, but has made no real move in that direction.  Even during the period when the VA was supposedly going to cover it.  He has had an orchidectomy, rendering him an eunuch, and has tried to pass this off as sex reassignment surgery, but he still retains his penis.

Next he states that he also called himself "transgender" he connects that with being "gender non-conforming."  This is where the truth really begins to come out.  First off, being transsexual is NOT remotely about being "gender non-conforming."  It is quite the opposite. It is about being fully the gender, and sex, that you really are.  Here Mr. Sandeen is letting the secret out.  Transgender is really all a scam.

The transgender movement has tried, for some time, to use transsexualism as, in effect, their "beard."  That is, they have claimed to be "transsexual" to justify their demands.  But they are not transsexual, and in fact, have no desire to be anything other than what they were born as.  They only want to be "gender non-conforming."  In order to be that, they must remain their birth gender.  They may claim to "really" be a gender different from what they were assigned at birth, but this is simply not the case.

Take Mr. Sandeen, for example.  He served about 20 years in the United States Navy.  If his "true" gender had been female, he would have probably not made it through one tour of duty.  He would have not been able to fit in to the male culture that military service requires of men.  He would not have been able to tolerate being forced to dress and shower with other men.  I remember how much I dreaded changing during high school PE.  I went out of my way to avoid showering when others were present during the one semester I lived in a dorm with communal showers.  The rest of the time, I lived in what was either a dorm with "suites" where you had the bathroom to yourself, or in a dorm that was originally a women's dorm, where the showers had individual stalls.

All of this brings us to the big secret.  Transgender people, for the most part, do not really want to be what they claim.  They want to retain their birth gender, and more often than not, their birth sex.  In many cases, when they do change their sex, they seem to regret, and they go out of their way to make sure that others know their birth sex.  For them, it is not about actually being "their true gender and proper sex," but is about forcing people to "accept" them as something they work very hard to not actually be.  

People who identify a transgender seem to have this compulsion to force people to both see them as their birth sex and gender, but treat them as the opposite.  They want to invade spaces where they really don't belong, and increasingly, to expose their bodies while demanding people pretend that their genitals are something that they are not.

Transsexuals are disgusted by the idea of having someone see them naked before their surgery.  I remember having to endure being examined by the surgeons who performed my SRS.  It was excruciating.  But when I went in for a follow-up, and had a rather handsome young doctor removing stitches, his face right up in my privates, I suddenly realized that it did not bother me at all.

SRS does make a world of different for those who actually need it.  For those who don't. it just makes them rather miserable.

Can Someone Buy the Transgender Kooks a Clue?

In a recent article in LGBT Weekly. Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen again advocates for "access to bathrooms."  And in this particular article, he exhibits an appalling lack of having a clue.  He launches into one of his favorite themes...feminists sharing similar views to conservative Christians.  And yet, in complaining about this, he misses a very big clue.

Here we have two groups that are, for the most part, polar opposites.  One would expect little common ground between them.  And yes, both stridently oppose unrestricted access to women's spaces, in particular restrooms, by men who claim to be women.  

Now, it is an interesting fact that, for many years, pre-op transsexuals were able to easily access the women's room.  The problem affects those who are more inclined to identify as "transgender."  Now, I have given quite a bit of thought to term, and I have come to the conclusion that the vast, overwhelming majority of those who prefer to be labeled "transgender" tend to retain a considerable amount of identification as "male."  Unlike the classic transsexual, they seem to want people to be forced to "see" them as women, while be totally aware that the person was born male.  Actually being a woman, in a real, meaningful way, is outside their interests.  They want to be women, but male.  They want to adopt a female identify, persona, and dress, but to remain a male.  Some may go so far as to have surgery, but they still insist on being "out, loud, and proud."  They reject the concept of stealth, and have no desire to enter the women's room and only be seen as a woman.

Now, in some cases, this is connected to the sexual arousal that many feel.  Being in the women's room, or shower, or locker room, or other places that they are not really welcome, is part of the thrill.

But, it never occurs to the kooks like Sandeen that perhaps the reason two groups can find common ground in this issue is that it actually is a serious issue that should not be brushed aside so quickly.  That, perhaps, some common sense is called for.  That honestly considering one's appearance, demeanor, and likelihood of being accepted as female, should be considered instead of just barging in, and expecting to be accepted.

Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen Plays the Censorship Card....AGAIN!!!

Well, Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen, who hates the idea of people having privacy, and who has falsely claimed that GallusMag has been outed, has pulled one of his favorite tricks and gotten the comments on his column at LGBT Weekly totally stripped of comments.  Funny, he seemed to have no problem with it when people are viciously attacking people who disagree with him.  In fact, none of the previous comments have been removed.  Just the ones from the current article, where a number of people had pointed out the problems with Mr. Sandeen's phony claims.

Anyone visiting his current article will be met with this bit of silliness from the "Associate Editor":

Dear San Diego Community:
It is unfortunate that LGBT Weekly is forced to suspend the ability of those who are engaged with our Trans Progressive columnist Autumn Sandeen and the transgender community. LGBT Weekly has provided a forum for the transgender community since our first print edition in 2010. In fact, LGBT Weekly’s commitment to the transgender community is also represented by the inclusion of transgender in the name of our publication.Some members of the San Diego community have forgotten or do not understand the meaning of civil discourse; to engage in a discussion to enhance understanding. While most of the public comments have been civil, some have taken advantage of LGBT Weekly’s desire to balance civil discourse and free speech within a discussion forum.Many in our community are still in the closet and do not want to use their real names in discussion forums. This creates a situation where some hide behind anonymous names and email addresses to spew hateful, derisive comments. If LGBT Weekly were to implement a policy where all comments must have a person’s real name, those who are not out are excluded from the discussion. LGBT Weekly’s global view is more speech is better than less.Let us be clear, LGBT Weekly provides the transgender discussion forum at our sole discretion. We will work with the transgender community to try to arrive at a solution to protect the identities of those in the community who are not out, to provide a forum for civil discourse, as well one that protects free speech. Until that time, all commentary in this discussion forum is suspended.

Of course, in trans-speak, hateful and derisive means "effectively refuting someone who adheres to the transgender party line."  In truth, no one commenting in that forum uses their real name.  But, there are a number who regularly whine about others not doing so, as well as regularly remarks, including this rather outrageous statement by Mr. Sandeen about GallusMag:

GallusMag’s identity is now known – she now has the opportunity before her own speech under her own name, with all the positive and negative consequences that can occur from writing under one’s own name. My thoughts, my prayers, is that violence of any sort isn’t part of the consequences of her being fully doxxed.

Besides being totally false, this comment shows Mr. Sandeen's total disregard for the rights of others.  GallusMag has chosen to write anonymously, and Mr. Sandeen needs to respect her right to do so.  Just because Mr. Sandeen ignores the advice, "Fool's names, and fool's faces are often seen in public places," does not mean that everyone wants their privacy invaded.  Given that more than a few transgender kooks have made violent threats against those who disagree with them, including some by Mr. Sandeen himself, it is not surprising that many women want to maintain distance from them.

Oh, and one more curious fact...LGBT Weekly does not list an associate editor.  So, one has to wonder who actually pulled this stunt.  There is no question that Mr. Sandeen had a role.  He has a long history of censoring critics, having done so in the past at Pam's House Blend (he once banned me from there for something I wrote here) but also at LGBT Weekly.  I imagine he probably pitched a hissy fit and demanded they remove the comments this time, as they were largely against him.  Even his meat puppets were getting drowned out.

Another Example of Why I Do Not Accept the Label of "Transgender"

In the comments section of Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen's column at LGBT Weekly, another man in a dress tried to dismiss the comments of myself, and another transsexual on the basis that we were "in pain."  I was rather amused by this, and simply replied, "Nope… My pain was ended when I had SRS."

Then I got to thinking about this.  This is a common tactic among transgender extremists, one that is almost as popular as labeling any disagreement as hatred.  The words might vary, with the accusation being that we are ashamed, in denial, or fearful, etc., but the basic idea is the same.  We are to be ignored because we are not being "honest."

Of course, this is the goal.  If they can "dismiss" our point of view, they can ignore it, and not have to actually deal with it.  They don't have to address the actual points raised, which just might prove a bit difficult.  You see this tactic a lot.  It is basically a variation on the classic logical fallacy known as a "straw man argument."  Rather than address the real point that is raised, in this case the issue was open service in the military for transgender people, you create a false argument, which is easily dismissed.

The simple fact of the matter is, I don't identify as transgender.  And that is all that transgender is, an identity.  Most who identify as such are not remotely transsexual.  Yes, there are exceptions, and some have guzzled the transgender "Kool-Aid" in large quantities.  Personally, I cannot understand why anyone who is transsexual would find common ground with the transgender paradigm.

Of course, part of the problem with the term "transgender" is that it is so vague as to actual meaning, it has become, essentially, meaningless.  But, for the most part, those who do identify with transgender seem to be more inclined towards being, as some would say, "out, loud, and proud."  They feel the need to make sure people know that they are transgender.  Their very core identity seems to depend on people being aware that they are transgender.  On the other hand, I, and most other transsexuals simply desire to get on with our lives as the women, or in the case of FTMs, the men, we really are.

To me, the idea of being "openly" transgender, or even "openly" transsexual, is unacceptable.  I am simply a woman.  I have been through transition, and I have left as much of my former life behind as is possible.

In another column on for LGBT Weekly, Mr. Sandeen writes about his experiences trying to obtain a discount based on his service in the Navy.  Now, I find it interesting that he states"One of the documents that can be used to indicate one is a veteran with my phone company is a DD214 (the military’s separation of service, or discharge document)."  Now, this is a document on which the name cannot be changed.  In another words, this document has Sandeen's birth name.  But, apparently, this was not the only document that Sandeen could have used to establish that he served in the military, but it is the one he chose.  Now, I never served in the military, but I have faced situations where I could have revealed my birth name.  And, unless absolutely necessary, I will avoid doing so.  In fact, the last time I recall having to do that was when I got my California ID.  I had to provide a copy of my birth certificate, and since that was before my surgery, I had to use the original version.  But transgender people seem to revel in this.

This is the main thing that divides most who are transsexual from those who prefer to identify as "transgender."  The transgender types want to keep a connection to being their birth sex and gender.  They don't want to be what they claim they "really" are.

Gagging on Gnats and Swallowing Camels

Those who have been following the strange tale of AB 1266 might remember that I pointed out, back in October, that places like San Francisco and Oakland had actually addressed some of the more extreme problems that might occur with AB 1266.  In fact, over at LGBT Weekly I confronted Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen about these issues, and strongly suggested that the transgender extremists might want to urge the state legislature to amend AB 1266 to include such provisions in an effort to head off the possibility of that law being overturned.

Well, it is now January, the petition to overturn AB 1266 is still very much alive, in spite of overly optimistic predictions by transgender extremists (and some clearly underhanded efforts by the Secretary of State to stop it) and, well, things have taken a slightly surprising turn.

The extremists from Pacific Justice Institute have embraced the approach taken by San Francisco.  

Think about that for a minute.  We were told, over and over, by kooks like Mr. Sandeen, and his fearless leader, Mr. "Cristan" Williams, that there was nothing wrong with AB 1266, that is only implemented the polices already in place like San Francisco, and that there had been no problems.  Of course, both of them were, as usual, lying through their teeth.  AB 1266 was intended to do exactly what was feared, such as allow students to arbitrarily choose what gender they feel like on a given day, and force female students to put up with males parading around nude in girl's locker rooms.

It seems that Mr. Sandeen is now eating his words, and is actually upset that PJI is taking the reasonable approach to dealing with this issue….

Mr Sandeen is straining out a gnat over the fact that not everyone on the right is willing to embrace "San Francisco" values, and swallowing the camel that, well, transgender males have superior rights to females.

And he is, as has become his practice, badly twisting Scripture to do it.

The article at Transadvocate is laughable, at best.

The whole thing started because PJI has suggest that Florence High School, which is at the center of the controversy over the "Jane Doe" case, adopt the San Francisco Unified School District's approach to dealing with transgender students.

How could Mr. Sandeen possibly find fault with this?  Well, simple…Mr. Sandeen latches on to the fact that another, separate, group that is part of the Privacy For All Students coalition that opposes AB 1266 does not share exactly the same view as PJI.  That group, Capital Resource Institute, apparently takes a bit more of a hard line on the issue.

Hmmm, so, rather than show a shred of common sense, Mr. Sandeen digs his heels in and has a hissy fit because someone actually is willing to compromise, and well, take a position that Mr. Sandeen should fully accept.

Mr. Sandeen tosses out a bit of Scripture…

The integrity of the upright guides them, but the unfaithful are destroyed by their duplicity. Proverbs 11:3 

I think he might want to think long and hard about that one.  He is the one being duplicitous here.  But then, who would expect anything different?

The "Trans Panic" Continues...

No, I don't mean "trans panic" in the sense of the rather nasty defense used when someone is murdered because they are discovered to be transsexual, or more likely, transgender.  I mean the frantic attempts to gain attention by writing about the case of the Colorado high school student.  The transgender extremists can't seem to get enough of it.

Mr. "Cristan" Williams has repeatedly written on the subject, and now Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen has taken up the cause, having produced at least three four articles(they come so fast it is hard to keep up), two three on Transadvocate, and another on LGBT Weekly.  Well, technically, the latest article on Transadvocate is more about AB 1266, which is at the heart  of the panic.

I suspect, AB 1266, a law that takes an extremist approach to protecting "transgender" students in California public schools will be overturned next year.  I have said, repeatedly, that the smart move would be to have it amended to take out the excessive features (in particular sharing locker rooms) or at least include provisions concerning privacy (i.e. something similar to rules in San Francisco that address "inevitable nudity").  Now, I don't even know what the situation is in school locker rooms.  It has been a very long time since I was in one, and that may not even be an issue.  But, whether it is, or not, addressing it would defuse the objections to the law.

But, given that this has not once been addressed in anything I have seen, I suspect that it may well be a issue.  And I also strongly suspect that transgender extremists have no problem with the issue, even though I have no doubt it would cause even more upset for students who are legitimately transsexual (who are really not a concern for the kooks like Sandeen and Williams).

I do find it amusing that, while the Pacific Justice Institute has made the claim that the Colorado student was harassing female students, the only ones who has applied terms like "attacking," "predator," and "monster," have been trans extremists attempting, desperately, to create straw man arguments.

Now, honest people can disagree on whether or not what has occurred in that Colorado high school amounts to harassment.  Arguments can be made both ways.  But the simple truth is, no one, not even the Pacific Justice Institute has actually referred to that child using words like "predator" or "monster" except the trans extremists.  The really bad thing is, I can imagine this child reading some of the articles in support, and actually believing that people have used those terms...when they haven't.

I have been attacked by people I would normally support because I have declined to accept extremists positions on this case.  I am saddened that this child is being used by either side to further a political agenda.  I am saddened that this child's privacy has been invaded by having photos posted online.  It seems odd...much has been made about people making death threats, and yet, something that might lead to someone spotting the child and attacking has been posted.  Without the photos being posted, the chances of someone identifying the child are much less.  But, anyone who is obsessive enough to actually carry out such an attack now has more information to use.

In spite of what some, in fits of irrational rage, have suggested, I don't want this child harmed.  Sadly, if it does happen, it may well be more the fault of the trans extremists than those they try to smear while pushing their agenda.

Uh, No, That's Not Quite the Truth....

In yet another "Autumn" Sandeen story, we have a lie being perpetuated across the Internet by GLAAD.  They state that Mr. Sandeen is the first "transgender  service member to publicly have "her" (sic) gender marker changed on all military documents.  While he might well be the first transgender service member to make a complete ass of himself in public crowing like a banty rooster over having his paperwork changed to reflect a lie based on fraudulent documentation, he is not the first as was documented by several statements made in response to his posting on LGBT Weekly.

From the way this reads things have actually changed for the worst. When I changed my retired USAF ID card in 1986 all I did was go into the personnel office at the nearest facility, show my old id, court ordered name change, and letter from my therapist.

The only bump was that the clerk said “I’m sorry mam. Your husband is going to have to come in himself”. That required a few words of explanation.

All official mail comes in the right name. The VA here (Portland) is fine with my transition. There seem to be quite a few of us in the area.

And as if that lie were not enough, the article is also inaccurate in saying that ALL of Mr. Sandeen's military documents were updated.  In spite of his best efforts to rewrite history (this is the idiot who now tries to claim that his fraudulent birth certificate makes him a "woman born woman") the Navy will not retroactively change the details of his actual service.  

And, changing one’s recorded name and/or gender at the DOD won’t result in being able to obtain an updated DD214 – a servicemember’s Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty. According to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records’ Applicant’s Guide To Applying To The Army Board For Correction Of Military Records:

“If you have a name, gender, or social security number (SSN) change after discharge from the military, even if it is court ordered, the name and gender on your military records will not be changed since they are historical documents which record facts during the time you served in the military. If you need a certificate to show your current name or gender and that you served in the military under another, you can request such from the National Personnel Records Center, Military Personnel Records …”

So, bottom line, Sandeen used his fraudulent claim to have actually had SRS (he was castrated, which makes him a eunuch, not a female) to con the Navy into updating his "gender" on his documentation, which is something they have done for some time, but according to GLAAD he is not only the first, but has done something even he admits he did not really do.

Uh, yeah, that's pretty much how it goes....

Mr. Sandeen Has A Complete Meltdown

Well, I can't say I am totally surprised, but Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen has finally had a complete breakdown online.  In the past, his kook has cyberstalked me, in an attempt to censor what I say about transgender extremists.  This morning, he went off the deep end and posted a rather interesting article on Transadvocate.

Now, Sandeen starts off by claiming to have been cyberbullied, and cyberstalked three times and offers links (note, links as in plural) to document this.  Oddly enough, they are all the same link.  I don't know if he had simply become so angry he was not thinking, or if he thinks his readers are that ignorant.  He then says something that shows just how insane he really is...

I now understand that people I’ve never met in the brick-and-mortar world actually have despised me enough to have seriously planned, and in one case actually accomplishing, real harm to me in the brick-and-mortar world.

Okay...  Well, what actually happened was there was discussion of preventing Sandeen from attempting to, and then actually committing a criminal fraud that he had bragged he was going to do.  He basically lied to a court and claimed he had changed his physical sex.  He has not.  But having said the above, he goes on to tell, in detail, how he tried to cause me real harm.  He wanted, in his mind, to have me fired from a position he imagined I had.  Actually, I was never a "staff member" of my church.  I was, for a while, the editor of the church newsletter.  I did my turn, and now it is someone else.  Sandeen's little harrassment had nothing to do with that.

Hmmm, let's look at that definition of cyberstalking he posted.

Sending multiple e-mails, often on a systematic basis, to annoy, embarrass, intimidate, or threaten a person or to make the person fearful that she or a member of her family or household will be harmed. Also called e-mail harassment.

In another words, exactly what Sandeen brags about doing.  And what Sandeen is clearly hoping others will follow his example and do.  And again, Sandeen admits to this...

I wanted the ministers at her church to know how one of their lay leaders was acting outside of the church towards people the church was supposed to be welcoming towards, so I wrote the church — and as I said before, I cc’d her on that email. I did nothing behind her back.

Sounds like he wanted to make sure I was annoyed, embarrassed, and/or intimidated.

Let's compare here...  I write a blog about issues affecting transsexuals, which includes the silliness pushed by transgender extremists like Sandeen, among others.  Sandeen is very active in pushing an agenda that I rather vehemently oppose.  I express my opinion on these issues.  Further, my blog welcomes anyone who wants to comment, and has only one rule...respect privacy.  The only people I have ever blocked have been those who attempt to engage in the sort of harassment that Sandeen is guilty of.  Granted, the one time that Sandeen attempted to comment here, his post went to spam, which I was not even aware had been added in an update, and I did not see it until long past the day it was sent.  Sandeen tends to prefer posting drivel of the sort we see here, from blogs that are heavily censored.

Now, Sandeen goes on to try to defend another of his attempts to intimidate me.  He threatened to use some photos that were obtained by "Willow" Arune through deceit and provided to a vicious cyberstalker, the one who prompted Sandeen to contact my church.  This person also contacted Suzan Cooke.  To Cooke's credit, she declined to engage in such behavior, having more ethics than Sandeen.  Ironically, Cooke does not brag about how she is so like Martin Luther King, Jr.  

Jennifer claims I don’t own the copyright of my image; she claims it’s owned by the Huffington Post.

Actually, no.  Sandeen wrote me, and demanded I remove the photo.  I declined to be censored by Sandeen (do you think Sandeen, or Mr. "Cristan" Williams, would agree if I demanded that they take down the private information that Sandeen has posted?).  I pointed out that the photo had no copyright, and besides, Sandeen himself had made it public.  Mr. Williams has copied content from my blog, without permission (not just quotes, but graphics as well).  It is called, "fair use."  Sandeen, by the way, has gone far beyond that here.  He pointed out that the web page said "Copyright, Huffington Post" and I responded, "You are not the Huffington Post."  I never said that the items where owned by them.  In fact, I said the opposite.

Now, for example, I have no idea how Sandeen got the photo he used in his post.  It is one taken of me some years ago, by a guy I dated a couple of time, and was used by me in various places.  It is not one of the one's Arune stole (hey, unlike some people I prefer truth). 

Now, as to Sandeen's "meat puppeting" (funny, given I never mentioned that term...) that is kind of obvious.  His columns rarely rate more than a few comments.  Rather suddenly, there seemed to be a chorus of very similar remarks, including a number from a supposed radical feminist who attacked me and another transsexual, including as Sandeen puts it, misgendering us (funny, Sandeen never said a word) but this person defended Sandeen who has also cyberstalked a number of lesbian women.  Perhaps I am mistaken, but I will go with Occam's Razor on this one...

A few final thoughts...

I am supposedly obsessed with Sandeen, but which of us put what was obviously quite a bit of time and effort into searching the Internet for detailed information on someone?  What I write about Sandeen is based on reading his posts on LGBT Weekly, and Pam's House Blend.  And more recently, Twitter.  Hmm, folks be warned...reading Sandeen's public writings is stalking him in his twisted mind.  I actually started my blog, largely in reaction to his, and other transgender extremists efforts to hide dissent.

I would welcome anyone to my church, and in fact, we have had transgender people visit.  Funny thing...I generally don't take political issues to church with me.  And that is, really, what this eventually is.  A political disagreement.  Sandeen wants to rend asunder the fabric of society.  I oppose his efforts to subvert gender.  He just takes it a bit too personally.  And that is just his reaction to my speaking out against his ridiculous demands for society.  As to what else I might do, that is none of his business as it does not directly involve him.  Suffice to say, I won't be donning a uniform I am not entitled to wear (he mocked women, and the US Navy) and chaining myself to the White House fence.  Or otherwise making a public fool of myself.  Unlike him, I do not seek, or appreciate attention.

I will no more pander to Sandeen's delusions than I would those of the gentleman who I had the misfortune to have sit next to me on the bus the other day.  He started ranting, to anyone who would listen, about some person on the bus who he imagined was his enemy.  I'm not sure which passenger it was, but he was quite agitated.  I tried as best as possible to ignore him, but I also made sure the driver was aware (we were both sitting in the front) and I very discretely made sure my pepper spray was in my hand...just in case.  He finally exited the bus without incident.  Both he, and Sandeen, have lost touch with reality.  Fortunately, as someone who knows Sandeen pointed out this morning, Sandeen is 350 miles away.

What I will do is continue to speak out, and draw attention to Sandeen's foolishness.  And that foolishness includes the fantasy that he can control me.

Update:  Well, it seems that Mr. Sandeen chose to update his article, so I guess I should correct his new lies:

I think I need to make a point one more time because Jennifer is still imagining that I’m conspiring with others to cause her harm. Specifically, I’ve never conspired with someone named Willow to take any coordinated action against Jennifer. In general, I’ve never done any conspiring with anyone at all at any time whatsoever in any matter that relates to Jennifer Usher. As much as she may believe I have engaged in some coordinated conspiracy to cause her harm, she’s absolutely wrong in that belief.

This, of course, is a classic straw man argument.  I did not say that Sandeen was "conspiring" with anyone.  To repeat, some time back, a particularly nasty cyberstalker sent messages to several bloggers trying to get people to attack me by contacting my church.  He was hiding behind anonymous servers, and would not do his own dirty work.  I suspect he feared legal action.  Suzan Cooke posted about this,and how she would not go along,  Only Sandeen actually, as far as I know, was the only person stupid enough to actually do what was asked.  The person cyberstalking me was not Willow Arune, though Arune was a supporter of that person's efforts.  It was hardly coordinated, more of a clumsy scheme by a person who had previously been obsessed someone in Canada.  The person has apparently since disappeared.  I don't know if they have died, been imprisoned (there is reason to believe this person had a history of criminal behavior in Nevada, or perhaps finally got on some serious anti-psychotics.  

Reality versus Fantasy...

Well, it appears, at least for the moment, that another Internet flame war is over.  As some may know, I occasionally comment in Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen's posts on LGBT Weekly, the local LGBT magazine in San Diego. Mr. Sandeen seems to be their token transgender kook (most major LGBT publications have one, usually posted online, but not in the actual publication).  This week, he did another whiny post about the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival.  Apparently, the "men in dresses" crowd is determined to force themselves on the lesbians separatists who attend this event.

Usually, Mr. Sandeen tends to ignore comments made to his posts on that site. For a while, they were supporting his usual heavy handed censorship, but something changed. It appears that they decided that pretty much anything goes. A few commenters have actually, and quite accurately, referred to him using male pronouns without being banned. Now it appears that Mr. Sandeen decided to take advantage of this in order to, shall we say, "fight back."

The problem, of course, is that Mr. Sandeen wants to be the "transgender MLK." He regularly, including in this week's article, tries to make that connection, and of course, winds up making a mockery of Dr. King and his philosophy. But in order to maintain his "facade" he has to avoid showing his true nature as much as possible. So, apparently, Mr. Sandeen brings in support. That, or he has more than a few sock puppets.

Oh, and a couple of other points that should be addressed.  Sandeen tries to claim that I am obsessed with him.  Actually, he posts more than most, so he gets written about more than most.  Of course, Suzan Cooke has made the same claim...  And Sandeen has commented about the difference in word counts between me and him, as well as the number of comments I posted.  I simply responded to every bit of silliness thrown at me.  I have no doubt that had I ignored even one of them, the claim would be made that I was "bested."

One of those he called upon, is Mr. "Cristan" Williams, who repeated the outrageous claim made on Transadvocate that Janice Raymond is responsible for at least 50,000 deaths. That article was written by Zoe Brain, who is infamous for claiming that he spontaneously, without medical intervention changed from a male to a female. A rather insane claim, to say the least. Mr. Williams seemed to be trying to argue that the "radfems" have to be beaten into submission to prevent further deaths, or something like that.. Here is part of my response to his comment:

Now, beyond that, we slip the bounds of reality, and well….I love a good conspiracy theory….but this not one. I mean, really….this bit of histrionics, which is a recent invention of Williams, and a certain person from Australia who claims to have “spontaneously” changed from a man to a woman (seriously folks, I am NOT making this up) is quite hysterically funny. Funny, I never once encountered this force reparative therapy, nor have I ever heard of such an effort. Perhaps it was super, duper top secret and known only to the secret lesbian separatist cabal…. Known racists? Funny, but since the 1950′s, transsexuals have been accessing medical care without that much trouble. I know when I started in the early 1990′s, I had no trouble at all, and I was in the Deep South (any deeper, and you would be in way over your head). Yeah, I suppose it is possible that a group of extremists might have advocated legislating “trans folk” out of existence. I remember a lot of radical groups that have advocated a lot of laughable ideas. Let’s see, at one time or the other, I have heard of groups who want to give the country back to Native Americans, of a group that wanted to force all white people out of the states that formed the Confederacy and create an exclusively African-American nation, of people who want to ban the consumption of meat, of people who want to execute anyone who is gay, that men should be allowed to invade women’s shower and locker rooms and that women should accept then as “women with penises”…the list could go on, and on. For the most part, sane, rational people learn about such ideas, recognize them for what they are…the rants of crackpots, hope the person does not become violent (like the guy who got it in his head that there is a black market in human body parts and then possibly sent ricin laced letters to a senator and Obama) and get on with our lives. Oh, we might speak up if the person gets a bit of attention, but we generally seem them as the kooks that they are. 

Anyway, thanks for a good laugh….

I guess Mr. Williams had no answer to reality, as his next response was to fall back on an argumentum ad hominem, the logical fallacy of attacking the person and not their position. That is Mr. Williams' standard practice when he cannot defend a position (which is not at all uncommon).  

I could be wrong, but the whole mess that resulted from one comment had the feel of a very organized effort. I suspect Sandeen invited some people (he has already done that on a smaller scale) hoping to bury me in comments. Didn't quite work very well for him.... As it was, he pulled just about every trick in the book... I imagine he thought I would whither in the face of a massive load of absurd rhetoric. When that did not work, the insults started. As I have pointed out, my identity is quite secure thank you. Repeating lies started by a cyberstalker is not going to scare me off. Anyone I care about, knows better, and anyone who believes that crap...well, I could care less.
Of course, the hilarity continues....  Sandeen was having a hissy fit on Twitter...and she brought in some old faces...

Monica Roberts ‏
@AutumnSandeen @cristanwilliams She was hatin' on me for a while until she discovered I don't play with pseudo cisprivilege chasing fools

Truth be told, I pretty much stopped reading Mr. "Monica" Roberts crap because I realized it was a bad combination of Ebonics, racism, and pretty much the same rants repeated over, and over, and over, and over....occasionally punctuated with his self-aggrandizement about some award he got.  In short.  BORING!

And a new face....who has some incredibly stupid things to say....

J. Skyler @AutumnSandeen @transgriot Im sure she was the one on Wired's interview w/ @GailSimone on Batgirl saying "transgender" is a slur.

Nope, not me.  I hadn't seen the article, and when I took a quick look, and saw the number of comments, I lost interest quickly.  But yeah, Mr. Sandeen is quite correct.  I do agree.  I, personally, would consider it a slur if applied to me.  For those who identify that way, no.  Of course, the subtlety of that is lost on fools like Mr. Sandeen, and company.  Then there was this particular bit of cluelessness...

J. Skyler ‏@
@AutumnSandeen @gailsimone @transgriot also misidentifying as cisgender knowing that's not the intended use of the term, which is hysterical

 Oh dear, I forgot to ask the gender fascists for permission before "identifying."  Actually, it has nothing to do with identity.  My gender matches my physical sex, so, according to the definition, I am cisgender.  Of course, the same, technically, could be said of Mr. Sandeen, and Mr. Roberts, among others.  They are clearly male, and clearly men.  So, by definition, they would be "cisgender" as well.  I do, by the way, I think this J. Skyler person is more than a bit cisphobic.

J. Skyler ‏@jskylerinc
@GailSimone @autumnsandeen @transgriot she's a surgical essentialist who thinks anyone who doesn't undergo surgery is pretending/deviant. 

For those who don't speak "tranny" that means I don't believe women have penises and want to keep them.  Now, I suppose that "pretending" would be pretty accurate, but I would not call most "deviants."  I reserve that term for specific cases, like the guy who was exposing his junk to young girls.  But Mr. Sandeen came back just as cluelessly...

Autumn Sandeen
@jskylerinc @GailSimone @TransGriot It's more than that. She even gets on post-SRS folk who she deems to not be ideologically pure.

Nope, it has nothing to do with "ideology," pure, or otherwise....

Autumn Sandeen ‏@transgriot @cristanwilliams I've feed the troll too many times, I fear.

Actually, except for occasionally cyberstalking me, Sandeen has pretty much avoided responding to my posts. I guess being humiliated as much as he has been will do that to a fellow.

So, let's see....

If they can't refute an argument.....

They will try to bury you in comments....

If that doesn't work.....

They resort to insults....

And when that fails.....

They call you a troll.

Yes, such is the classic transgender approach to reality.

Update:  And then they resort to word count flames...

Yeah, go figure...Sandeen is now comparing the number of words I have posted, versus the number he has posted.  Hmmm, doesn't he know, women tend to be more verbal than men.  Perhaps he might take that into consideration!  Well, in any case, he can update his word count, and whine even more....   ROTFL!

Update:  It appears that Sandeen went a bit too far.  This morning, he had posted two more comments on his post, basically postings of two tweet he had made, which were attacks on me, and which mentioned me by name (which I prefer to keep private).  I responded, and pointed out that he has a habit of attempting to out women against their will.  Both posts, and my responses were removed afterwards.  I kind of wonder if Sandeen did it, to cover his tracks, of if the people at LGBT Weekly didn't like his behavior. Most curious....

Mr. Sandeen Get's Desperate

Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen is well known for his love of censorship.  At Pam's House Blend, he once banned me for something I said on my blog here.  As soon as he starts losing an argument, which is pretty much anytime he is challenged on some point by someone, he likes to go with a ban.  But something odd seems to have happened with his column at LGBT Weekly.  While it is not certain, it appears that they must have told him "No more..."  I mean, he was regularly putting people on moderation, and blocking commenters for relatively minor offensives, primarily for making mincemeat out of his positions.  Then, suddenly, it all stopped.

So, what is a egotistical gender fascist like Sandeen to do?  Apparently, you bring in a ringer.  It is not clear if the person who has been running a bizarre bit of interference for Mr. Sandeen is a troll or a sock puppet, but it is obviously a scam.  A commenter identified as "Jenna" appeared recently, and promptly proceeded to attack two commenters who were giving Mr. Sandeen fits.  This person, at first, appeared to be a garden variety radfem, but then some strange things started happening.  The first clue that something was amiss was when this person defended drag queens against a remark comparing them to minstrel show performers in "blackface."  That was odd...at least for a radfem.  Then it was noted that this person seemed to only go after the two transsexuals.  Somehow, Mr. Sandeen was off limits.  Also, even though one of the commenters has not revealed a name, this person identified them as "Jennifer," an obvious reference to myself.

Finally, when it was pointed out that not only was this person engaged in behavior that would, at least previously, have resulted in immediate bans (at least if aimed at Mr. Sandeen or other transgender types) but was also seeming to spare Mr. Sandeen, this person actually defended Mr. Sandeen.  With this, the lie is exposed.  A "radfem" who is attacking post-op transsexuals, but who has no problem with Mr. Sandeen, who still has his penis, claiming to be a full fledged, woman born woman because he obtained a fraudulent birth certificate?  Yeah, like that is remotely reasonable.

Clearly, this is a scam, born of Mr. Sandeen's desperation.  Really, too funny....

Mr. Sandeen Can't Hide From the Truth

Well. apparently the man who loves censorship has convinced LGBT Weekly to again let him hide from the truth. For a while, they seemed to be preventing him from his usual tricks. Then he posted a self-aggrandizing piece called A decade of Autumn. When challenged on the fact that he clearly engaged in fraud when he obtained a falsified birth certificate, Mr. Sandeen first tried avoiding the issue, then finally published a link to a fact sheet from the Transgender Law Center on the law that streamlined the process.  Then, when certain facts, like the fact that the doctor who castrated him (the full extent of his surgery) was contacted, and without making reference to any specific patient, stated that anyone claiming that he had said that castration was a basis for claiming a change of sex was mistaken, and that he remains a male physically, he started having comments removed.  In another words, Mr. Sandeen conned his doctor, and lied to the courts, and does not want the truth to come out at LGBT Weekly.  

Then, the real irony is, the site flagged for moderation a post that quotes the San Francisco Superior Court as saying:

In order to ask the Court for a gender change, you have to give the Court an affidavit from your physician documenting the sex change. You must have undergone gender reassignment surgery in order to ask for a gender change order. 

This contradicts Mr. Sandeen's claims.  There are not specifics on the San Diego Superior Court site, but since this is based on State law, it has to be assumed that the standards are the same.  Mr. Sandeen has not had "gender reassignment surgery" (an absurd term pushed by TG extremists) and his sex has not been changed.

Apparently, Mr. Sandeen is getting all comments blocked without approval now.  Typical.  He hates the truth, and lies when he claims that he is a transsexual.  He is not a transsexual, not a woman, and most assuredly not a female.