When Extremists Collide

Well, it seems that the kooks at "Transadvocate," well Mr. "Cristan" Williams and Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen decided to put on a performance by having a protest at the offices of the Pacific Justice Institute.  Clearly, Mr. Williams was anticipating a massive protest judging from his rather optimistic bit of artwork that accompanied the announcement of the event...

Instead...well, instead there was a total of 10 protestors, including Mr. Williams and Mr. Sandeen....

Quite a contrast...

So, we have an extremist religious right group, that has no real understanding of transsexualism being picketed by an extremist transgender group (somehow, I am not sure 10 people would exactly qualify as much of a group) who, well, have no real understanding of transsexualism.

I did get a real laugh out of Mr. Williams' enthusiastic prose....

Those who chose to call out PJI’s obdurate behavior were trans allies, parents, youth, war veterans, clergy and attorneys as well as 100s of virtual protesters who used the #JD4PJI tag to draw attention to PJI’s bullying.

Well, let's see....  The, uh, "trans allies" part sort of goes without saying...Mr. Sandeen and Mr. Williams would both qualify as parents....Mr. Sandeen could sort of, kind of, be called a "war veteran" if you stretch the meaning and I suppose at least one other might have served in the military, though that is not certain....there are a couple kids there, no doubt when they should have been in school....one of the people was a theology professor who decided she is really a "dude" so I guess that would qualify as "clergy" singular...If more than one of these is actually an attorney, I would be surprised (actually, none of them look likely to be) so that whole spiel is a bit of obvious spin.  I wonder if PJI even knew they were out there?  I seriously doubt they cared.

I can imagine both Mr. Sandeen and Mr. Williams eagerly anticipating the massive crowd that would show up.  I also would suspect they were quite disappointed that it turned out to be a total bust.  I wonder how many news organizations they contacted, only to have, quite obviously, no one show up to cover this momentous event.  I wonder if they contacted the LAPD to warn them that there would be a huge rally that day?  Seriously, this is more than a little hilarious.

Oh, and I checked, and apparently Pacific Justice Institute did not care enough to even mention this event....I guess even they thought it beneath notice.

Has the Backlash Against the Transgender Extremists Begun?

A while back, I wrote about what is now referred to as the School Success and Opportunity Act, which is a very innocuous sounding name for what is a potentially bad law.  I know some disagree, and I admit, after reading Elizabeth's two excellent articles, (here and here)  on the law at Notes From the T Side, I am not quite as opposed as I originally was, but I still think the law needs, at the very least, to be rewritten.

I have no problem with there being a law to protect and assist students who are transsexual. Such a law might well have made my life a lot better when I was in school, though that is a hard concept to wrap my mind around because at that time, there were some many other things that would have been issues that the ones addressed by this law would have been relatively minor.  

I do know that I had learned to hide my feelings, and I have a very clear memory of answering a question asked by a psychiatrist in a way that was not truthful.  I was asked, "If you had three wishes, what would they be?"  I knew what the first would be, "To be able to change into a girl." and I also knew that it would not be a wise thing to admit.  Instead, I gave what I thought were "safe" answers.  Given how badly those were twisted, I still shudder to think how that woman would have reacted to the truth.

But this law is, as I pointed out, poorly written.  It is the sort of law that only a transgender extremists could truly love.  It is so vague, it pretty much amounts to "anything goes" with regards to students claiming to be "transgender."  There are no standards for what constitutes a valid claim.  It is strictly "name it, and claim it."  There is no requirement that the student have even spoken to a therapist.  

In theory, at least, a jock could walk into the principals office with a grin on his face, announce that he feels like a girl, and insist on being allowed to enter the girls locker rooms and bathrooms, and there is nothing that could be done to stop him.  Now, maybe this will never happen, but it could.  A more likely scenario is that some student who  has a fetish will take advantage of the law to, and gain access to such spaces even though his gender, and gender identity are still quite male.

And all of this brings us to the present.  Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen latest diatribe is about how the Capitol Resource Institute is leading a coalition that has begun gathering signatures to overturn the law.  I imagine they will have no problem getting the law on the ballot.  And chances are very good that it will pass.

The problem is rather obvious.  As Mr. Sandeen points out in the article:

The California School Boards Association (CSBA) describes the School Success and Opportunity Act as requiring “districts to permit transgender students to participate in gender-segregated school programs and activities – including athletic teams, sports competitions and field trips – consistent with their gender identity and to use facilities consistent with their gender identity.

The only problem is, the term should be sex-segregated.  What the law does is require schools, with no qualifications or limits, to allow male-bodied students in girl's locker rooms, showers, and bathrooms with no real restrictions as regards issues like "inevitable nudity."  As I said, the law is very poorly written.

A real irony is, Mr. Sandeen quotes a press release from the leader of, which states :

“AB 1266 mandates San Francisco values on all California schools.”

That's the problem...  It actually doesn't.  Here in San Francisco, the rules concerning access to showers and locker rooms require that access only be given as long as "inevitable nudity" is not a problem, and that a facility must, if feasible, take steps to prevent such from happening, or provided separate but equal facilities.  In another words, you have provide separate, enclosed stalls for showers and changing if that can be reasonably done.  This law, does not seem to allow for such restrictions.

Now, maybe schools have such facilities.  When I was in high school, the only showers were for the athletes (my senior year, it was decided that they would be available to others during PE, though it was optional and most did not take advantage) and they was zero privacy.  I don't know if the girls locker room was the same or not.  I also recall from my college days that the showers in the dorms originally built for male students also had open showers.  I only spent one semester in such a dorm, and the rest of the time I was in a dorm originally built for female students but "converted" to half of what was rather jokingly referred to as the co-ed dorm.  We shared a common building, but it consisted of two wings separated by the cafeteria with a gate separating the two sides that was locked at night.  The showers in that building had separate stalls.  No really "co-ed." but it was provided as a response for demand for such a co-ed dorm.

No, the simple solution would be to quickly amend the law to add a few simple provisions:

Require students wishing to make such a claim to be seeing a qualified therapist and have a written statement that provides a diagnosis.  

Further, students wishing to make such claims would have to present completely as the gender they claim to identify as.  In another words, the would have, as they walk, the walk, and not just talk the talk.  

There should also be provisions allowing schools to make accommodations when facilities do not provide adequate privacy in situations that involve inevitable nudity.  We don't need any teenage "Colleen" Francis types exposing themselves.

And a provision should be made to prevent students from repeatedly switching back and forth.  

Changes like that would likely short-circuit a proposition that will likely end all protections, even those for students who actually need them.

But I doubt the transgender extremists will have the good sense to compromise, preferring a glorious defeat instead.

In The Middle....

Well, first off, this post marks the 300th on this blog! It was just over a year ago, I posted the 200th, and now we are up by another hundred. Hmmm, I wonder if Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen will want to make another smart remark about that....for those who don't know, he has been whining about the amount I post...not the first man to claim a woman has too much to say.

Another big announcement....this blog now has a presence on Twitter. I am there as @_JustJennifer_. Feel free to follow me. And I should note, Sandeen has blocked me from following him. Oh well....that is easily gotten around....

Now, on to the topic at hand... I have stated many times that I am a moderate politically. I often joke that I am a member of the Radical Middle, the Far Center....that I am a Extreme Moderate. But it is, in many ways, more than a joke. I do take a very moderate approach to most issues. And I am often amused by the more extremist views that others take.

To start with an easy example...there is Suzan Cooke. Her politics are pretty much off the deep end on the Left. She seems to want to relive her "glory days" as a hanger-on with the Weather Underground. When someone is that far out there, it is hard to take them seriously. On gender issues, Cooke used to be closer to the center, but has recently become almost as extreme as Mr. Sandeen.

Now, Mr. Sandeen may not be the craziest, or the most radical, but he is pretty much a kook among kooks. He is, quite frankly, is the gift that keeps on giving. I am still laughing at the bit about he pounding the table and telling Cathy Brennan that he wanted to carry "his balls around in a jar..." As she told him, that is not female. I guess we should all be thankful that the rules do not allow doctors to return such items to patients. The world is safe from Mr. Sandeen's testicles...though his penis is apparently still at large.

Over on a blog called "Gender Trender," there is a rather amusing exchange between Mr. Sandeen and someone who posts as "Gallus Mag." Basically, he is trying to get this person to reveal her name to him, and she is trying to get him to understand that a woman might not want certain people, including a kook like him, having that sort of information. Sandeen has repeated shown that he is incapable of comprehending how women feel, and this is a perfect example. Towards the end of the exchange, he refers to Gallus Mag as a "girl," and she objects. Instead of acting in a mature manner, Sandeen tries to defend this very male condescension...

I call women “women”. You’re not brave; you’re not a grown-up. You are a girl, “girl”, b/c you’re a hit and run coward. Seriously, not even brave enough to email me? Truly a height of effeminacy—a brave feminist you just ain’t. L and G done with us?

This, as much as anything, shows how male his brain is. What an incredible bit of drivel, from someone who is not only a man, but more than a bit of chauvinistic pig at that. Oh, and a clue for Mr. Sandeen....he should look up the definition of effeminate...

effeminate 
adjective

(of a man) having or showing characteristics regarded as typical of a woman; unmanly.

Hmmm, "of a man." And Sandeen is tossing that insult at a woman. Yeah, talk about completely clueless. I suppose one could call Sandeen, "effeminate," and technically, that is what he is, but only in the sense that he is a very bad caricature of a woman. Sort of in the vein of various comedians who have dressed up and minced around in what many women would consider to be a highly insulting parody. Except he thinks he is actually fooling people.

On the opposite side of the coin, you have this mostly excellent response to Mr. Sandeen from Marie-France Lease

You know what, Sandeen. If I had been born in the middle of an aboriginal forest — without so much as a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of — everyone who met me in that forest would have NO DOUBT that I am a woman because I am, in fact, a woman.

I don’t need one or three or fifty sheets of gub’mint paper to “prove” I’m a woman. I AM a woman. For me and for half the human race, it really is just that simple.

While you’re bleating and foaming and tilting about demanding that everyone agree with you? Half the human race? We’re just going about our business trying to survive from cradle to grave as actual, authentic females.

If you were an actual, authentic female, you’d be nodding along with me and thinking, “Truth.” For us, it’s not a game. It’s not an achievement. It’s not a contest. It’s not “fake it till you make it.” It’s not a hobby, an avocation, an obsession, something we do to entertain ourselves — or get ourselves off.

We’re living it from the first sex-identifying ultrasound until we draw our last breath.

So to hell with you and the penis you road in on. We don’t care about your stupid little pieces of paper or your falsies or your pink eye-shades. We’re just trying to make it till the next payday, till retirement, till the Goddess draws us back into Mother Earth for our long sleep.

Go take up another hobby. We’re sick to death of being hounded by delusional dudes.

Most of this I can honestly relate to. I don't buy into the "Goddess" stuff, and shoot, when I was in my mother's womb, they didn't have ultrasound...but yes, I understand whshe is saying, and I know, just as well, that it is all lost on kooks like Sandeen.

Another,Becky Green had this to say....

Buffalo Sandeen,

You’re a man with a man’s height, body frame and a man’s rage. You have an imposing figure and no woman could physically beat you. Who’s to say you won’t start stalking Gallus in person or that you won’t show up at her door and pummel her unconscious? With your words alone, we can see you’re pushy, aggressive, fond of intimidation and all MALE. No woman should ever divulge her personal information to a delusion, emotionally unstable man-child such as yourself.

So take your big, lumbering, hulky body with fake tits and size 13 shoes down to your local strip club and get a beer with the bros while you ogle the gyrating women, because that’s what “real” wo-men, like you, enjoy doing.

A bit heavy handed, but in Mr. Sandeen's case, still dead on.  Granted, some women are tall, have a heavier frame, and can exhibit some serious rage.  But, given what has been said about Mr. Sandeen, by himself, and others, this is pretty dead-on.  He himself has bragged about having a fit of rage because he was called a man.  There is a lot of overlap between men in women in terms of size, so this is a bit extremist.

Then, into this argument, a voice of reason appears... Cassandraspeaks has this to say...

If anyone needs a piece of paper to prove their sex they certainly are NOT that sex. The men like Autumn Sandeen are an insult of the worst order. He is everything GM says he is and more. The list of those like him is as long as your arm. I’ve been fighting those like Sandeen in a verbal and philosophical war for over 25 years. They take advantage of the ignorance about what transsexuality really is in order to obtain their own perverted desires. Good luck in dealing with this freak.

Cassandra is a transsexual, and one would hope that this would add some balance to this discussion, but now we see the other side of the extremist coin rear its ugly head...  someone calling herself, Cynical Cynthia tosses this out...

Yes, Cassandra, your definitions of this arbitrary concept are the most correctest ever; menzes like Sandeen will never understand. You, because of the things you say and think about the arbitrary concept of transsexualism, are completely different to him.

Now, if she had only stopped there, we would have reached a good middle ground.  We could come together, shake hands, and join forces to defend women...  Sadly, she continues with this silliness...

*yawn* – Same shit, different day. Females have vaginas and give birth; males have penises and fertilise eggs which causes females to get pregnant and give birth. Your thoughts on arbitrary principles or identification with either sex will not make you a member of that sex no matter how different you supposedly are to Mr Sandeen. At least, I imagine that your supreme ideas have not given you ovaries, fallopian tubes and a uterus with which to give birth, but do correct me if I am wrong.

What a nasty thing to say, not just because of transsexuals, but because a small, but not non-zero group of women are born without uteruses, fallopian tubes, or ovaries.  They are still women, in many cases, of XX phenotype, but with some other condition.  I can understand that, and can certainly relate to them.  Other women lose these things to disease.  And they grieve for their loss.  Men like Sandeen could care less.  Some of use actually do feel a sense of real loss for what we, sadly, never had, and never will.  I have heard similar remarks from some transgender creeps, but hearing such a flippant remark, from a woman, is just nasty.  

But here we get into the realm of the more extreme of the radical feminists.  Here a person recognizes that someone actually gets it, but then, purely on ideological grounds, turns a deaf ear.  Cynical Cynthia effectively says, "Hey, your right, your different, but I am going to stop thinking because I have to stay true to a point of view that say I have to reject anything you say."  How absurd.

This is at the heart of the radical feminist's arguments with transsexuals.  While they are quite accurate in their assessment of the transgender crowd, which for the most part act like men, they have to fall back on ideology when faced with transsexuals.  Someone like Sandeen is easily dismissed as the man he is.  He makes it oh, so easy.  He waves his paperwork and say "I am a woman," and everyone pretty much laughs and says "Nope, you're not..."  He flounces around in a ridiculous outfit that no real women would wear and says, "Hey, don't you just love #girlslikeus," and everyone sort of snickers, and he gets mad and makes threats.  He chains himself to the White House fence, and says, "I am like Martin Luther King, Jr.," and every grimaces and says, "Well, only in the sense you both were men..."

But, they attack transsexuals on very theoretical basis, claiming that gender is a "social construct," and dismissing legitimate brain studies by lying about them...a tactic that has also been used by some transgender types who know that such studies expose them for the frauds they are.  They make claims like biology is destiny, while effectively denying the only basis on which such a claim can be made.

The radical feminist view is based on the notion that gender is all about socialization, which is, often the same idea claimed by feminists.  We are supposed to believe that it is all about how we are raised.  In the radical feminist view, children born with a penis are raised to be men, and told all the things that seem to come to men so naturally.  And yet, they ignore the fact that even when parents try to raise their children more neutrally, they still exhibit gender typical behavior.  Parents who try to raise their boys to be more gentle are shocked when things don't work out as they expect.  Try to raise a girl to be more masculine, and she might shock you.  And do they really think that they can just ignore situations like mine, where my father made very effort to "beat and/or shame the sissy out of me?"  Now, sure, someone like Sandeen, who spent twenty years in the military, proudly, and successfully serving, as a man, in a very male environment, before, as he neared the time he would retire, only then began to show some signs of what was to come.  Sandeen is a typical of the sort of man who hides a fetish for a long time, and then has it come out late in life.  He is able to easily assimilate as a male, before finally deciding he is going to enjoy his little hobby. 

 I, on the other hand, like many, never fit in as a man.  I always stood out.  I was seen, as I have said, as a "defective male."  I was like the classic comedy trope...the woman who dresses up as a man, to infiltrate some group of men, and who is either immediately spotted, and subjected to  playful torment, or for even more laughs, initially succeeds in her disguise, but keeps slipping up, creating more and more humor.  In short, I stuck out like a sore thumb, and often had people people comment on that fact.  I learned to laugh it off, but I knew people wondered what was going on.

On a website called Transgender Tropes, which sets out to refute said "tropes," there is this comment:

“Transgenderism is based on the idea that gender traits, characteristics, emotions and behaviors ARE inherently tied to one’s biological sex (Biology IS destiny), and they seek to reconcile their own diversity from gender norms by altering their biology to match the traits they view as incongruent with their physical sex. This is actually a REVERSAL of the idea that biology isn’t destiny. What they are saying is that gender IS biologically determined. And if they fail to conform to sex based gender norms they must alter their biology as much as possible to at least conform cosmetically to their gender essentialist beliefs. This is opposite to the idea of transgressing biological imperative (nature) with socialization and free will (nurture).”

Actually, this is rather odd, and quite inaccurate statement.  First off, it is not remotely accurate to attribute this to the transgender crowd.  They tend to claim that sex and what they call gender, are so separate as to be completely unrelated.  In fact, they often claim that gender is, effectively not only a choice, but is almost a mood.  That one can be a woman one day, and a man the next, and perhaps even none of the above on yet another day.  And that each whim must be accepted as totally and equally valid.

Ironically, even as the radical feminist reject the idea of "brain sex" (as, ironically do many of the more radical transgender extremists) they actually seem to adhere to exactly such an idea with a tenacity that matches that of some among the religious right.  And, in complete ignorance of scientific studies that show otherwise.

Of course, for the transgender crowd, it is really all about the trappings.  Like most women, I enjoy getting dressed up for certain occasions.  But, day to day, I dress like, well like what I am, a geeky woman.  Most days that means what I guess you would call "mom jeans," a t-shirt (unisex, since I kind of like them loose) with something clever on it (One of my favorites says "There are 10 kind of people in the world, those who understand binary, and those who don't.") , flats or sneakers, no jewelry, and no make up.  I don't need to dress like Barbara Billingsley in Leave it to Beaver in order to "feel like a woman."  Someone, who was quite transgender, once commented that I dressed like a house wife.  He meant it as a bit of a correction.  I took it as a complement.  Then again, one of my best friends, who is a born woman, is never seen in anything but a skirt.  I used to dress that way more, but I was also working in a an office.  BTW, I don't know if she knows my history or not, but she has never brought it up, and even if she does know, she treats me as a woman.  In fact, I had a doctor a few years ago, who would occasionally make some comment, and realize she had actually forgotten my history, catch herself, and then realize that oh, yeah, it really didn't matter.  

I have, or had, a cousin who well, I have often wondered if she was possibly transsexual.  She was very masculine, always preferred things like cars, and ham radio to the things her mother would have preferred.  She generally dressed in what certainly looked like men's clothes, and she never married.  I don't know if she was a closeted lesbian, or simply repressed her feelings.  She lived in a time, and place, where being a lesbian would not have been acceptable.  I have lost touch with her.  I imagine she has heard about me, and it would be interesting to find out her reaction.  Most of that part of my family has effectively disowned me.  At least as far as I know.  The last time I saw her was at the 70th anniversary of one an aunt and uncle of ours.  She was there, in a dress, looking quite odd.  At the 75th, I was told I would not be welcome after informing people of my transition.  Not long after than, both that aunt and uncle had died.  I haven't had contact with any of them since.  But, I digress...

What I honestly wish the radical feminist could accept is that, yes, one is born a woman, but that what makes one a woman really is in the brain, and it really is determined by hormone levels during development, and that yes, something can go wrong.  In a sense, they do accept transsexual women.  Many of us simply do not wish to be "out, loud, and proud."  We don't wear our histories on our sleeve, and we don't tell people our past, and, perhaps this might surprise some of the radical feminists, they would never guess.  The vast, overwhelming majority of my friends in the real world are what they would call "women born women."  I have friends who are straight, and I have friends who are lesbians.  Some know my past, most don't.  I interact with them, and I am accepted by them, as a woman.  I live as stealth as possible.  If I did not love San Francisco so much, and if I did not have such good friends here, I would possibly consider relocating somewhere and starting over...again.  I lived for a year in small town, where literally no one knew.  It was heaven, but it did not last for reasons that had nothing to do with being transsexual, and I wound up moving 2,000 miles to San Francisco.  To most people who know me, I am simply a very smart, very geeky, middle aged woman.  I have nothing to do with the transgender community.  I occasionally will see someone I know from when I did outreach work, a job I stumbled into somewhat by accident, but which paid reasonably well, and had good benefits.  As soon as possible, I moved to a position that had little to do with the transgender community.  It paid even better, but unfortunately, like a lot of government-funded research work, funding dries up, and you end up being cut.  So, shortly afterwards, was my boss.  I have moved on, and I am in a completely different field.  And no, it really isn't anyone's business.

My point in all this is, we need to find a middle ground.  There are people who actually do have a medical condition that is known, for want of a better term, as transsexualism.  They are rare.  Sandeen and that ilk, are not transsexuals.  They are a lot more people who get off on dressing up and pretending.  As long as they don't cause harm, who cares?  But they really need to learn their limits.  Invading women's space is causing harm, and they need to either voluntarily stop it, or they need to be stopped.  They have a choice.  Transsexuals don't.  They should not receive special rights, and yes, things like access to women's spaces, and being allowed to change their birth certificates while keeping their penises are special rights.

It is time to return some sanity to this whole mess.  It is not likely to happen easily, but I do suspect it will eventually happen.  They are pushing for too much, and the backlash is beginning.  And all the while, I will be here, in the middle, watching it all, and doing what I can to help restore a least some reason before it is too late.

A Likely Fraud About Voter Fraud

Since I registered to vote when I turned 18, I have only missed voting twice.  Once was a very minor race where I didn't know anything about the two people running, and honestly had no idea which I should vote for.  It was a special election, with only one office on the ballot, and well, to be honest, I completely forgot about it until it was too late.  The other time was during a presidential primary, and I was a poll watcher.  I had not planned on doing it, but the person we had assigned to a particular location turned out to be a complete kook, and we had to get him out of there before things got out of hand.  He was claiming voter fraud repeatedly, and without good cause.  The funny thing was, there was real voter fraud during that election, but it was of a completely different nature.  I believe strongly in the right to vote, and I also believe that voter fraud should be dealt with severely.

That said, I have been amused by the hysterics coming out of the National Center for Transgender Equality.  They have been claiming that the above image from the cover of a training guide put out by a right wing group proves that they plan to target transgender voters.    At least three of the kookiest transgender blogs have featured this story.  Now, let me say, right off the bat, that I have no idea what the training material actually says.  I can't find a copy of it online.  But, I also suspect that the NCTE also does not know, OR, if they do know they might be engaged in a bit of fraud themselves.  Funny, but I have seen no one provide anything other than this cover image as proof of their allegations.  If the guide includes specific instructions to target transgender men, you would think they would want to quote it in  detail...

Now, what I see is a suggestion, perhaps meant to be humorous, perhaps meant to be serious, that some man might dress up as a woman, so he could vote fraudulently, possibly using the name of a person who is deceased.  That seems a lot more reasonable than some alleged plot to prevent transgender men from voting.  Let's face it, they're not that big a voter bloc, and it would not be worth the effort.

But truth rarely serves the purposes of extremists, so a silly claim is made, based on a humorous image.  If they don't have full access to the content of the training material, they should not be making a claim based on an assumption.  And if they do have full access, and it does not say what they claim, then they are guilty of fraud themselves.

But I do suspect this is making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Bottom line, regardless of how you lean, you should get out and vote.  

Transition Versus Transgression

I have been working on this post for a while.  During that time I have learned that, as some would say, "Great minds think alike.  There was a post at TS-SI that says almost the exact same thing I do in this post.  Scary in a way...my first reaction was, "How did they know what I was saying?"  Of course, it is just coincidence, but still, it gives one pause.


Then, there was this response to a post by "Autumn" Sandeen at LGBT Weekly:

Living in the real world instead of some sub culture where what is freaky is normal, I have never seen any of the issues transgenders have seen.If only they would ether stay in the closet or have SRS and become real legal women instead of living some life that is a legal fiction all would be good.
There are lots of less than perfect looking women in the world, so Autumn and the rest, why don’t you live your life as legitimate females instead of some other.

And there was this rather frightening response to a question posed by same person making the above comment:

“why force your way into female spaces while still being male bodied?”

for the same reason you choose to attempt to ‘change’ who we are… BECAUSE WE CAN!

I would not want to encounter that person in ladies room.

There have been a lot of words devoted to the battle over "transgender" versus "transsexual."  On one side, you have those I refer to as "gender fascists" who demand that transsexuals accept the label "transgender."  On the other side, you have those that the gender fascists like to label as "transsexual separatists" in their attempts to force transsexuals back into line.  But the real question is, what is it that really divides these two groups?  That can be summed up in two words...."transition" and "transgression."


For me, and other true transsexuals, it is all about simply being who, and what, we really are.    After spending a portion of our lives in the wrong body, dealing with the public perception of how we should be, and struggling with all the problems this leads to, we finally take the steps necessary to correct things, and get on with a normal life.  We see ourselves as simply women, or in the case of FTMs, simply men.  We simply want to live the life we feel we have been cheated out of.


On the other hand, you have people who seem more interested in transgressing gender norms.  They have no desire to simply live their lives as normal men or women, but instead identify as "trans people."  At the far extreme, they go out of their way to insure that they do not even come close t fitting within gender norms.  Others seem to have no concept of how normal men and women act.  They may not go out of their way to completely transgress gender norms, but they often appear more as caricatures than anything else.


Those who are of the transgressive variety are usually very "out" about their past.  They not only have no desire to simply live as members of their "target" gender, they feel a strong need to be extremely open our being transgender.  And, they generally insist that others have an obligation to also be "out, loud, and proud."  They attack those who do not share their desire to be in other's faces as being ashamed, scared, closeted, etc.  They cannot grasp the simple concept that some might simply wish to live normal lives.l


Anyone who disagrees with the "transgender" paradigm, especially those who wish no part of the transgender label are viciously attacked.  We are accused of hatred, bigotry, and trying to tell others how to live their lives.  Actually, none of this is true.  The charge that we try to tell others how to live their lives is particularly absurd.  I would never insist that someone must, or even should, have sex reassignment surgery.  In fact, quite the opposite is true.  I would say that those who are adamantly "non-op" are making absolutely the correct decision for their selves.  I would have serious disagreements with those extremists who try to insist that everyone should forego surgery and simply accept living in their "chosen gender role" without surgery, but no, I would never insist that anyone "must" have surgery.


Now, I do not believe that those who are "non-op" are transsexuals.  I consider the term "non-op transsexual" to be an oxymoron.  If you do not have the absolute desire to change your sex, you are not a transsexual, and under no circumstances should you ever consider having irreversible surgery.  The results would be unsatisfactory, and possibly, even probably tragic.  Unfortunately, there really is a "transgender" hierarchy, and many see "transsexual" as the apex.  This is why some, such as "Autumn" Sandeen, insist on demanding the label "transsexual" even though hey have no desire to change sex.  They believe that calling themselves "transsexuals" increases their credibility, even though just the opposite is actually true.


I cannot relate to the desire of some for transgression.  I have no desire to be seen as anything other than simply a woman.  I take no pleasure in being identified as anything else. I do realize that people are driven by any variety of desires and motives, but that does not mean I accept them as proper.  Some people enjoy variant sexual practices, but I have no interest in them, and I find some highly disturbing.  The drive towards gender transgression often seems linked to this same behavior.  Many males who are drawn to "transgender" seem to have desires that are related to masochism.  They delight in the idea of forced feminization, and they often show belief in the idea of women being lower in status than men.  Some might choose to call me judgmental, but I find such attitudes to be distasteful.  I have actually seen some take delight in being treated poorly by chauvinistic males, claim such as affirmation of their femaleness.  Personally, I think it simply affirms their inherent misogyny., 


Of course, it is this misogyny that has led the radical feminists to attack the transgender movement.  And while I have serious disagreements with much of radical feminism, I can understand some of their views on this issue.  It is also what has brought vicious attacks from conservatives and the religious right.  Claiming that these attacks are rooted in "transphobia," hatred, and bigotry is a bit disingenuous. Much of it is simply an all too natural reaction to what is, quite frankly, often outrageous behavior.  I realize that is, to many who identify as transgender, or even transsexual, outright heresy.  But when you choose to go against societal norms, you have to take responsibility for the reactions, even if you disagree.


Of course, the great irony here is that the transgender extremists actually engage in pretty much the same behavior as those who so vehemently oppose them.  They have a world view, and they expect others to conform to that view.  Part of their problem, however, is that their view is very much a minority view, so they are not going to find the sympathy that they demand.  And when they don't get what they want, they react in anger and often resort to insults and attacks.


I have been taken to task by several transgender extremists, including Suzan Cooke, for refusing to conform to to the demanded "courtesy" of referring to anyone who claims to be a woman with female pronouns.  I hated to break it Cooke, but if I ever had the misfortune to meet "Autumn" Sandeen or "Monica" Roberts in person, I would still refuse to refer to them using female pronouns.  At best, if the situation required it, I would avoid using pronouns, but no, under no circumstances would I refer to either of these fellows as females, as they are not, and I am not going to lie just to make them feel better.  Cooke can toss out as many vulgar insults as she wants, but to be quite honest, I long ago realize that Cooke was basically a bad joke clinging to a conflated past that makes her think she is still way more important than she ever was in reality.


Sadly, while Cooke claims to oppose the use of "transgender" as an umbrella term, Cooke takes an unacceptable middle position, suggesting that "trans" be used instead.  Personally, I don't want to be identified as "transgender," "trans," or any other such term.  I am a woman, period.  Not a trans-woman.


Sadly, some simply cannot comprehend the idea that it is this concept of being "other" that we reject.  We do not identify with transgressive behavior, and we do not view ourselves as "transgressing" anything.  We have simply corrected our bodies, or in the case of pre-op "true transsexuals" in the process of doing so.  We are not seeking to become something we are not.  Quite the opposite in fact.  This is what makes is so absurd when a kook like "Cristan" Williams expends so much bandwidth trying to prove some silliness like his claims that, at some obscure point in time, some obscure person decided that "transsexual" was an umbrella term to be used like "transgender" is now, or that they decided to use "transgender" instead of "transsexual." So what?  At one point in time, someone who was a homosexual male described himself, and other homosexual men, as "women trapped in men's bodies."  Now, I seriously doubt that one could find very many, if any, gay men who would remotely identify that way now.


Sadly, the process of transition often brings us into contact with those who are motivated by desires born of transgression, and even more sadly, some have trouble shaking off that association.  And some, for whatever reason, find themselves drawn to it, embracing it as part of their personality. They don't realize that it actually divides them from the community of women that they worked so hard to be a part of.

Well,DUH!!!!!!

Sometimes the invincible ignorance of certain transgender extremists proves to be surprising.  For example, "Autumn" Sandeen, who cannot tolerate anyone actually making valid and logical arguments against his silliness, has come out with a real doozy!


He is carrying on about the fact that some among the Religious Right think that transsexual women are "super gay."  Hmmm.....and this surprises Mr. Sandeen, why?


After all, Sandeen is a leader among those who wish to tightly going "transgender" which he falsely claims includes transsexuals, to lesbians, gays, and bisexuals.  So, what does he expect?  For extremists on the Right to have more sense that extremists on the left and somehow realize that this is all a silly political construct?  Oh wait, not even Sandeen fully understands that.


Of course, the Religious Right now sees transsexuals as "super gay."  Why wouldn't they, when fools like Sandeen are effectively telling them that transsexuals are, well, part of the LGBT community?


Oh, and Sandeen tries to argue that the Bible supports transgender people because  Matthew 19:12 says:

“For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it.”

Now, Sandeen, who is himself a eunuch, who has tried to falsely claim that having his testicles removed was "genital reconstruction surgery," actually makes the completely absurd argument that since this was the "only genital reconstruction surgery available in Biblical times," it means that God approves of transsexuals.

Now, I wrote a paper that was presented at an HBIGDA meeting concerning the religious aspects of Harry Benjamin Syndrome (aka transsexualism) and I did not need to resort to silliness like this.  I mean, this is a completely bogus argument.  This has nothing to do with gender identity, transsexualism, or silly men like Sandeen who want to be women with penises.

It is about eunuchs, men who have been castrated.  Under Jewish law, such men were excluded from the Temple, though this was later changed under the Prophets.  Jesus was just reiterating something mentioned elsewhere in the Bible.

And I cannot help but notice that Sandeen has finally persuaded the powers that be at LGBT Weekly in San Diego to block me from commenting there.  As I say, he cannot abide anyone actually countering his silliness.

Yet Another Example of Transgender Silliness

The audacity of transgender activists never fails to amaze me.  But the recent actions of "Megan" Stabler really takes the cake.  Stabler, who is the current token "trannie" at the Human Rights Campaign married a woman in Texas by claiming to be a man, even though Stabler has had sex reassignment surgery.  I normally, with certain specific exceptions, treat post-ops as their target sex, but I will respect Mr. Stabler's apparent wishes, and refer to him as a male.


The story was first broken by the San Diego LGBT Weekly under the completely bizarre headline:

HRC trans board member marries as sex opposite of post-op gender

This, of course, is typical TG double-talk.  It always amuses me that while the TG extremists make a big deal about how "sex is between the legs, gender is between the ears," they also attempt to imply that gender "changes" with transition."  Gender is immutable.  You are born with a brain wired male, or one wired female.  You can change your gender expression, and your sex, to match your gender, or to be contrary.  Transgender people change their gender expression to the opposite of their inherent gender, and transsexuals move to conform to their true gender.  Transgender generally wish to remain their birth sex, as this enhances their transgression of gender, but their are exceptions.  Stabler appears to be one of those cases.


The fact that Stabler is with HRC goes a long way towards explaining this travesty.  There is a common, but erroneous belief among transgender people that a hierarchy exists with post-ops at the pinnacle.  Of course, this is based, in part, on the insistence that transsexuals must accept assimilation under the transgender umbrella.  While some true transsexuals do identify as transgender, many, perhaps most, do not.


Stabler has made a choice, and it will be the policy of this blog to refer to him with male pronouns.  He has legally identified as male, and that is how he will be referred to.  I generally refer, with very rare exceptions to post-op MTF transsexuals as women.  Stabler will be one of those exceptions.


I should also note that "Autumn" Sandeen is defending Stabler's outrageous behavior as something done in support of "marriage equality."  Of course, ultimately, it is not.  It harms both the cause of same-sex marriage, and that of true transsexuals.  It makes a mockery of changes to birth certificates, and it provide ammunition to the Religious Right.


Oh well, as I say, transgender idiocy knows no limits.....

Interesting....

In his unique style of cluelessness, "Autumn" Sandeen seems to have "discovered" that transgender people have incurred the wrath of the Religious Right.  It is not clear of Mr. Sandeen has just just discovered this, or if he was desperate for something to write about.  I mean, "transgender" people have been, as he puts it, "...On The Religious Right’s/Social Conservative’s Radar" for some years.  This is nothing new.  


The primary reason for this is the insistence of those, like Mr. Sandeen, that "transgender" has to be linked to "Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual," even though it really has little in common, and is not a sexual orientation.  But, given the Religious Right's obsession with homosexuality, that they have "noticed" transgender should come as no surprise.


Truth be told, for many years, the vast majority of the Religious Right tended to largely ignore the whole issue.  Oh, if the question came up, they would certainly disapprove of cross dressing, but it was not something they paid much attention to outside of the association with "drag queens."  And while it has nothing to actually do with transgender, transsexualism was, with some exceptions, largely ignored and even accepted, especially if people were educated about the medical nature of the condition.  Even now, the Religious Right finds it easier to attack transsexualism  by linking it to transgender and homosexuality.


And a very good question would be if Mr. Sandeen is really that upset by getting attention from the Religious Right.  I suspect he is actually not upset at all.  In fact, I think he craves the attention.

Can't See the Forest For the Trees..

"Autumn" Sandeen has again created a post that shows just how completely clueless he actually is.  This time he tries to connect comments made by radical feminists and right wing religious figures.  And, of course, he completely misses the bigger picture...


Now, I will grant, the people quoted are trying to paint with a very broad brush.  They are not likely to differentiate between true transsexuals, and frauds like Mr. Sandeen.  And that, for the benefit of those who question how the transgender extremists have harmed transsexuals, is yet another example.


You see, most of the quotes Mr. Sandeen provides rather accurately describe him and his behavior,  For example, he quotes Ellen Makkai, from the religious right web site WorldNetDaily:

Gender gymnastics are going on out there. Transsexuals disenchanted with their chromosomal selves are having parts lopped off or stitched on in attempts to change sexual identity. 

They hope to override male XY or female XX hardwiring - thinking a newly configured appendage or cleft re-defines gender. And they enlist a surgeon to mutilate the body accordingly.

Now,this remark is totally inaccurate when applied to a true or classic transsexual, but it perfectly describes those like Mr. Sandeen who really do believe that they can "change" their gender.  He is trying to override his clearly male brain.  Remember, this is a man who served, quite successfully in the Navy for 20 years.  While I suspect during this time he was a closeted transvestite, that is not the same as having a female brain.  In fact, it is the exact opposite.  Transvestitism is a very male behavior.


This is the problem.  Men like Mr. Sandeen think they can somehow make themselves women just by saying the magic words,, "I am a trans woman."  No, they are men.  One does not "become" a woman by choosing to be such.  It is not something one can just claim.  If you lived a good portion of your life happily and successfully as a man, even if you were sneaking off to put on a pair of panties when you got the chance, you are not a transsexual, and you are certainly not a woman.


In the meantime, Mr. Sandeen and others continue to be perfect examples of the sort that the radical feminist rant about.  As Janice Raymond said:

No man can have the history of being born and located in this culture as a woman. He can have the history of wishing to be a woman and of acting like a woman, but this gender experience is that of a transsexual, not of a woman. Surgery may confer the artifacts of outward and inward female organs but t cannot confer the history of being born a woman in this society.

This is very true of a man like Mr. Sandeen.  He lived his life as a man for many years, more specifically he successfully lived his life as a man for most of his life.  He  has never experienced the conflict that drives a transsexual.  He has chosen to behave as he does.  And that is very telling.  He provides the example that someone like Raymond, or the others can point to, and say "Well, he says he is a transsexual so therefore, he is a transsexual."  Unfortunately, they both are wrong.  And quite frankly, they both are lying.

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.

Club Words

During an on-going debate in the comment section of a post on Enough Nonsense, a transgender from South Africa started engaging in the usual round of insults that result when they start to lose the argument. And included in the insults were what I call "club words."

Club words, are terms that are used to "club" someone into submission during a debate. They have a long and sordid history. When I was younger, one of the most popular club words was the dreaded Communist. If someone wanted to put someone in their place, all they had to do was say, "That's communism!" and nine times out of ten the person they said it to would be reduced to backtracking and trying defend their self from such a horrible accusation.

Now, the important thing to remember about club words is that they don't rely on truth, but merely stand on their own as a way of cowing the person they are used on. Another, that no longer seems as popular was "secular humanist." Oh yes, that was very popular one for a while.

Now, you might, at this point, have the impression that the use of club words is reserved to conservatives. Far from it. One of the biggest consumer of club words is the "transgender community." Here are some of their favorites:

• Bigot - It has been said that the defintion of a bigot is "A conservative winning an argument against a liberal. Or, in some cases, a transsexual winning an argument against a transgender activist. The logic is, this is such a horrible insult that the person it is thrown at will backtrack to avoid it.
• Transphobic - This one is a bit odd. While the word is derived from another club word, "homophobic," it sort of loses its meaning along the way. Originally homophobic was meant to imply that someone feared their own "latent homosexuality." Now it is has morphed into a term for hatred for homosexuals. When it is used against transsexuals by the transgender it is, well, it is just plain silly.
• Self-loathing = This, of course, is related to "transphobic." The idea here is that we hate what we are, and so we attack those like us. Ironically, it is often those who use it who seem to be self-loathing, but that is another discussion,
• Elitist - This is one that always gives me a chuckle. As soon as one asserts that they do not wish to be associated with people they have nothing in common with, this is thrown at them. If you don't wish to be linked with men who get their kicks from dressing up and pleasuring themselves, you are an elitist. Go figure.
• Shame - This is another fun one. If you identify as a woman, and have no desire to rub people's noses in your past, then it must be because you are ashamed. The fact that you might, just possibly, simply wish to live your life as who, and what, you feel yourself to actually be is irrelevant.
• Fearful - This goes hand in hand with shame. If you don't make sure that every single person you encounter knows you were born a male, and that, perhaps, you still are in spite of your outward appearance, it must be because you are afraid.
• Closeted - The problem with this one is the fact that, for classic transsexuals and those with Harry Benjamin Syndrome, the "closet" has no real meaning. The closet is a gay paradigm. In a real sense, I came out of the closet when I started living as a woman. For me to hide that behind a facade of being "transgender" would be a return to a closet I have left behind.
• Hypocrite - This one is used by those who refuse to allow anyone the right to not identify as "transgender." The fallacy is that you are benefiting from all of their hard work, but are not supporting them in their efforts. The simple fact that one might not believe they have accomplished anything, and that what they are trying to accomplish is just plain wrong, is lost on them.
• Coward - Another club word that combines concepts like fear, shame, and self-loathing.
• Defeatist - This one is trotted out when you make it clear that you do not share their goals. The idea that they might actually be wrong is avoided. Obviously, you must think they simply cannot achieve those lofty goals (such as destroying the binary paradigm) instead of finding such ideas to be outrageous.

The best defense against club words is to recognize them for what they are, and to remember that they are rarely, if ever, remotely accurate.

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.

Oh the irony!

The Illinois Family Institute decided to weigh in on the rather bizarre situation in Illinois where those who have had sex reassignment surgery are allowed to change their birth certificates only if the surgery was performed in the United States, thus preventing those who go to place like Thailand or Canada that privilege. Here is a section from their article:

In the Jan. 28, 2009 edition of the Chicago Tribune, there is a story about the two sexual amputees who are suing the state over the refusal of the state to change the "gender" designation on their birthcertificates from "male" to "female." Several important points must be made. First, it's utterly reprehensible that anyone in the medical community would be complicit in facilitating a psychological disorder by amputating healthy body parts. There is a condition known as either apotemnophilia or Body Integrity Identity Disorder (BIID) that is characterized by the desire to amputate a healthy limb. It is useful for comparison in that it is thought by many to be closely related to Gender Identity Disorder (i.e., transsexualism), which society is increasingly accepting as a valid identity that emerges from biological influences and whose behavioral manifestations are morally legitimate. Apotemnophiles, as they are referred to in some circles, identify with amputees and seek to align their bodies with their psychological identities through amputation of healthy body parts. Dr. Anne Lawrence explains the condition:

Desire for amputation of a healthy limb has usually been regarded as a paraphilia (apotemnophilia), but some researchers propose that it may be a disorder of identity, similar to Gender Identity Disorder (GID) or transsexualism. Similarities between the desire for limb amputation and nonhomosexual male-to-female (MtF) transsexualism include profound dissatisfaction with embodiment.

She further explores the similarities between Male-to-Female (MtF)transsexuals and those who seek limb amputation:

Persons who want to undergo limb amputation typically experience an intense desire or overwhelming compulsion to change their bodies to match their idealized images of themselves as amputees. . . . They usually describe their feelings as developing early in life, often before puberty. . . . most emphasize that they are primarily seeking a sense of wholeness or completeness or are attempting to correct a mismatch between their bodies and their identities.

Now, the irony here is that Dr. Anne Lawrence is what the Illinois Family Institue would describe as a "sexual amputee." And yet, while citing this rather questionable source, they refer to Lawrence as "she." Anne Lawrence is well known as part of the infamous "Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence" often abbreviated as "BB&L" who have built their careers around attacking HBS women. Even more ironic is the fact that Lawrence self-identifies as a sexual fetishist, claiming to be an autogynephile, which BB&L define as "a man with a fetishtic desire to be feminized."

Ah yes, irony at its best. Once again, BB&L are the darlings of the religious right, who contradict their own erroneous beliefs in an effort to attack those with HBS.

The Bathroom Issue....Again

The dreaded "bathroom issue" has reared its ugly head again, this time in Gainsville, Florida. About a year ago, the city council there passed an ordinance that, among other things, granted "transgender people" the right to use whatever bathroom they choose. Now, a conservative group has started an effort to repeal the law. As part of this effort, they have put out a very controversial commercial. The thing is, the conservative group raises a vaild point.

Now, I know that is remark is going to be taken as heresy by the transgender crowd, but that is just another example of how short sighted they can be. This ad exposes a very real problem with this law, but it is one that the transgender activists want to ignore, or perhaps pretend is not really there, but it is there, and it needs to be addressed.

The law simply states that access to facilities cannot be prohibited on the basis of, among other things, gender identity. It does include an exception where nudity is unavoidable, such as dressing rooms and showers.

The problem is, the conservative groups have targeted the very obvious flaw in this law. It is simply too vague. Now, it is very possible, even probable, that this is not their actual purpose, but it is still true. The transgender activists have, of course, been raising a howl. They are complaining that they are being portrayed as "sexual predators." But the strange thing is, that is not what is happening at all. I really don't see where they are remotely suggesting that "transgender people" are going to be doing something wrong. What they are pointing out, and quite rightly so, is that as the law is written, it allows anyone to enter any bathroom, and simply claim that at the moment they did so, they have a certain gender identity. And that is obviously a problem.

The commercial that has everyone up in arms does not even remotely portray a transgender person, at least not obviously. It shows a man, clearly presenting as a man, entering a women's room. I certainly don't think that is what the law was intended to protect. But, it is exactly what this poorly written law would allow.

So, what is the answer to this sort of problem? Some would simply say that anyone born male should be forced to use the men's room. That would do serious, and grevious harm to those born with HBS. So, as is often the case, we are caught between two extremes. Obviously a compromise is needed.

The proper answer is quite simple. The law should simply put reasonable restrictions on who is, and is not, allowed to use a bathroom that does not match their anatomic sex. It should be restricted to those who are undergoing treatment for HBS or transsexualism, who have started the real life test and are thus living full time as a female. Tranvestites, so-called non-ops, and those who identify as gender queer would either use the restroom appropriate to their birth sex, or else need to find a unisex restroom (which are increasingly provided in public places for situations where assistance is needed, and the care provider my not be the same sex).

This would solve the problem for everyone. The religious right would have less to complain about, those who really need to have this right would receive it, and it should reallty do no harm to those who wish to identify as women while retaining their penises. In fact, it would give those who are gender rebels a chance to be very "out, loud, and proud." And most importantly, it would remove a defense that could be used by those who might abuse it.

Would this make everyone happy? No, of course not. But it would do what is right, and accomplish what was probably originally intended,

Fake ID

San Francisco, where I live, has decided that it will join some other cities in issuing ID cards, mainly to aid illegal immigrants. I am not completely happy with that idea. I mean, I favor the idea of helping people who wish to come here to work, but there do need to be some controls. This is the sort of thing that could be exploited by those whose purpose is not benign.

Because of pressure from the "transgender" they have decided to leave "gender" off of the cards . Just another reason I am really getting tired of their politics. Now, when I got my California ID (I don't currently have a driver's license, since I don't currently need one) it had my legal name, and listed my sex as female. This is in accordance with state rules that allow one to get a license with the sex changed if one is in transition towards surgery. Of course, that rule gets bent a lot, but that is another issue.

What I found extremely interesting is that someone from the Family Research Council objected to the new policy because it perpetuates the idea that "gender is a social construct." I bet he would be very surprised to discover that I, a person with HBS, who he would probably reject if he knew that, totally agrees with him on that particular issue.

I don't believe that at all. I believe that gender is inherent, intrinsic, and immutable. One is born with a brain that is wired either male, or female, and nothing can change that. If the brain does not match the body, then the proper term is Harry Benjamin Syndrome. Otherwise, while one might choose to behave in a manner that is inconsistent with both one's birth sex, and gender, that does not change one's gender.

Of course, I believe people have the right to live their life as they please, as long as they don't do anything that harms, or has the potential to harm, another. But I also believe in being honest.