I Wonder...

Okay, the blog Feministing has yet another whiny, and more than a little creepy, post about how those mean old lesbians will have sex with women born women, and even "trans men," but not with "trans women."

The basic gist of the whole posting, besides the obvious "those mean old lesbians won't have sex with me, and they should be forced to" thing is about how this "disrespects" the gender identity of "trans men:"

It’s incredibly undermining to frame sexuality in a way that lumps these men in with all female assigned folks instead of with cis men. It’s a failure, in the realm of sexuality, to recognize thattrans men’s male identities are just as legitimate as cis men’s. If you’re going to base sexuality on gender, better base it on people’s actual genders.

Okay... Well, first off, I find it rather odd that a "trans woman" is presuming to speak out on the idea that "trans men" are being disrespected...especially when, as far as I am aware, few, if any "trans men" are actually raising this issue.  

Second, and more to the point, where is the outrage about all those men, often referred to as "chasers" or "fans" who claim to be "straight" but who not only will only date a "trans women" who have not had surgical correction, but who insist on those "women" performing sex acts that no woman born woman could perform...at least without wearing a prosthetic phallus.

These, uh, "straight men" have been known to dump their, uh, "girl friends" if they have SRS, even after long term relationships.  Funny, but I have to wonder, where is the outrage?  Where are the cries of how this disrespects the "gender identity" of the "trans woman?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And he concludes with a ridiculous claim...

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

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

A Few Words on Surgery...

This morning, I had a thought that came to me about something that "J. Skyler" said about me.  Referring to me, this person asserted, "...she's a surgical essentialist who thinks anyone who doesn't undergo surgery is pretending/deviant. "  Of course, as is typical with the TG kooks, this is a very simplistic portrayal of a much more complex opinion.  As I pointed out in comments yesterday, I would not automatically use the term "deviant."  As to "pretending," it is also not quite the word I would use either.

So, what do I believe?  First off, I believe that sex reassignment surgery....  Well, let me pause first here, to specifically reject the absurd trend towards calling it "gender reassignment surgery."  This is part of a larger effort by the TG crowd to muddy up, somewhat ironically, the waters they themselves created.  A common meme pushed by the TG crowd is "sex is what is between your legs, gender is what is between your ears."  Of course, they also like to push the idea that gender is, somehow, both fungible, and a choice. But they also want to claim that being TG is not a choice.  In short, they are pretty much making it up as they go.  More precisely, sex is what is between your legs, and what we call "gender" is better defined as the sexual differentiation of the brain.  Simply put, you are either hard wired as a man, or as a woman.  It is, in spite of one of the sillier assertions of some TG kooks, quite related.  But it also occurs at a different time during development.  The body can go male, and the brain female, or vice versa.  Such a condition is rare, but it is what make a person a true transsexual.  So, for something to actually be "gender reassignment surgery," it would have to change the brain, not the genitals.  In short, "gender reassignment surgery" is a fictitious concept, and simply does not exist.

Now, returning to my original thought, sex reassignment surgery, or SRS, does not make a man into a woman (or vice versa) it makes a male into a female (again, or vice versa) to the extent possible with modern techniques.  A better way of putting it would be to say that it allows a true, or classic transsexual the opportunity to live a normal life, and relieves their discomfort with their body.  It corrects, as much as possible, what is, in effect, a birth defect.  It is not magic, and it does not  change who a person is, or make them something they are not.

What this "J. Skyler" person seems to suggest is that I think that the act of having surgery would do just that, and nothing could be further from the truth.  Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen whined, "...It's more than that. She even gets on post-SRS folk who she deems to not be ideologically pure."  Again, a statement that is a bit of a distortion of what I actually think.  Yes, I have encountered post-ops that I seriously believe made a mistake having SRS.  For example, there is "Willow" Arune, the notorious defending of Bailey, Blanchard, and Lawrence, who asserted that he had decided to have SRS because he was raped in a Thai prison (and supposedly had it suggested by a therapist in Thailand).  Another good example would be "Anne" Lawrence...of Bailey, Blanchard, and Lawrence.  I could name a few more, but why bother?  Some are relatively well known, and some are more obscure.  Some have openly declared that they made a mistake, and others, like Arune, just act out in ways that show that their surgery was in error...while often maintaining that they made no mistake.  

So, what is my view?  It is actually simple.  SRS, like an medical procedure, has indication and contraindications.  It is not for everyone.  Surgery is not the dividing line between "real and fake, or between pretending/deviant and...well, whatever that person imagines would be the alternative."  Nor is it about ideology.  Of course, this shows what TG is about, and why it is a flawed, and yes, very dangerous concept.  SRS, again, is a medical procedure.  Those who would undergo it should be carefully screened.  In fact, if a therapist is not rejecting people who seek it, something is very wrong.  And sadly, an increasing number of therapists will pretty much rubber stamp any request.  Mistakes are going to happen.  Some people will always be able to con even the best therapist into granting them approval.  But, therapists should be more cautious.  Surgery should never be "on demand."

For example, if they are faced with someone who is middle-aged, has had a long and successful career as a man, who has shown no prior issues with their gender identity (and no, crossdressing not only doesn't count, but should be a red flag), these things should be investigated.  People who are transsexuals have life-long problems.  When someone claims they have always "known" they were the wrong sex, but clearly had no problems coping, and then suddenly, often after something that would otherwise trigger a mid-life crisis, declare that they are transsexual, and want a sex change, something is probably amiss.  As much as possible, the therapist should interview friends, family, and when appropriate, spouses.  There are a lot of things that should be looked at.  Taking the person's word for it, is not a wise path.

Fortunately, most who should not have SRS don't seek it.  This is the other side of the coin.  I don't think, for example, That Mr. Sandeen is a man because he doesn't want surgery.  I think he doesn't want surgery because, simply put, he is a man.  If he did decide to go the full route, it would not change him into a woman.  He would still be a man, albeit one with a vagina....in effect, finally becoming a transsexual, albeit an FTM.

And that brings us back to a very simple fact.  True transsexuals are rare.  Those who, for want of a better term, can be labeled as "transgender" are far more common.  This has always been true.  Being transgender is a choice, and currently something of a fad.  It is, in many ways, the current rebellious fad.  Such things come and go.  History offers many such examples, but the ones most are familiar with are the more recent ones... In the Fifties, there was the Beat Generation. At least they gave us some interesting literature.  In the Sixties, the Hippies came along.  They gave us some decent music.  They were followed by things like Punks, and Slackers....which didn't seem to give us much of anything.  I imagine, in time, the TG fad will begin to wane as well...and some will be left badly damaged because of it.

I Must Have Struck a Nerve...

About two weeks ago, I posted about a silly bit of drivel on "cisgender privilege."  Well, the site that published that article decided to strike back....and, of course, post even more "transgender idiocy," (they don't like that term).  I have to say, I am honored.  

Granted, it is the usual sort of silliness one comes to expect.  I am accused of trying to impose a hierarchy.  Nope, not even close.  For their to be a hierarchy, there would have to be a direct relationship.  There isn't.  Transsexuals are not automatically transgender.

The person also take umbrage at my pointing out that transgender is a choice.  Of course it is.  It is an artificial social political construct with no objective basis in reality.  Period.   Now, a person who is a transsexual might choose to identify as transgender.  Some do, though I cannot for the life of me understand why.  But, transgender is a choice.  It is a chosen identity, though the more extremist of transgender activists, including über kook "Cristan" Williams, try, desperately, to force that label on people against their will. BTW, Mr. Williams was the first to praise the article.  That says a lot, right there.

In any case, this article simply serves as continuing proof of what I asserted in my previous article, and in numerous articles before, and a few since.  Transgender is about being "different."  For a person who identifies as "transgender" normal is anathema, in the sense of something to be denounced.  

I really get a chuckle out of this bit of true idiocy:

I have discovered that members of our community are policing each other and attempting to create a hierarchy of who is truly Trans or not. Many people are playing the same games of ‘normality’ that Gays and Lesbians have often pulled in an attempt to normalize themselves by othering people who are considered less normal. These situations really need to stop if we are going to strive for our goals.

Oh, this is so wrong, in so many ways....  To start, let me repeat, I am not part of the trans community.  Second, as I already pointed out, I don't believe a hierarchy can exist when there is no real relationship.  You now, the old bit about comparing apples and oranges.  Further, there is no real relationship between gays and lesbians and transsexuals, nor is there a relationship between gays and lesbians and people who choose to identify as transgender.  Yes, such a relationship may exist in the mind of some ignorant people, but in reality, there really is no connection.  People who are transsexual may be gay or lesbian, people who are transgender may be gay or lesbian, but people who are into left-handed, underwater basket weaving might also be gay or lesbian.  There is no real connection.  Further, no, this is not about "othering" people, it is about people othering themselves.  People are are transgender deliberately separate themselves from "normal."  They have no desire to be "normal."  That is what transgender is all about.  And finally, let me make clear, again,  I have no desire to further the goals of the transgender community.  I actively oppose the efforts of the transgender community.  I hope to do whatever I can to thwart the goals of the transgender community.

Now, I am taken to task for the alleged mistake of "assuming' that "Nina Ember Nova" is transgender.  Actually, whether this person is transgender or not has no bearing on the fact that what was posted is transgender idiocy.  It's still wrong, it's still bogus, regardless of how the person who wrote it chooses to identify.  And let me add that the term "privilege is, in and of itself, pretty much an example of idiocy in general.  It is used when someone feels that they are denied something they think they should be entitled to, and are envious that they don't have it.  It is what used to be called "covetousness."  In recent years, I have developed osteoarthritis in my left hip. I am not classified, at least for certain purposes, as disabled.  But I don't go around ranting about people having privilege because they are not.  Privilege is just another way of othering oneself, and trying to put down those you envy.

Ah, but the author goes on:

Ignoring that however, JustJennifer’s arguments were inherently wrapped around the notion that if a person truly needed to transition from male to female they would dress and act like a ‘normal’ woman like she apparently does. She also claims that its wrong for someone to look like a ‘man in a dress’ and also claims that some people “invite abuse” because of their gender expression. She also seems to take it upon herself to become a gatekeeper for transitioning by essentially claiming that if others do not match up to her experience, then these other people are just performing “Transgender idiocy” and are essentially fake. Her arguments are also classist and ableist in the belief that people require SRS to have safe spaces while many can not afford or medically receive care for numerous reasons. The point is, her arguments cater to the mainstream audience of society and ask people to cave under the pressure of social expectation instead of understanding that she, despite her self described medical condition, is just as much of a gender rebel to the world around her. Also, Nina and myself will be working to respond to her more in depth soon enough.

Okay, let's be clear about something here, AGAIN!!!  If you really are a transsexual, then you are essentially a normal woman (or man as the case may be).  You will not have the desire to play dress up and prance around in silly costumes like so many do, even though they claim to be "transsexuals).  And yes, if you are not to the point where you can blend in with other women, then you should have the good sense and decency to exercise discretion and show consideration for other women.  If, of course, you are a man, with a typical male personality, well....never mind.  You will act like a man, and we will react accordingly.

And yes those who really need to transition will, it is called "not making excuses."  Again, it is not easy, but one will find a way.  I did.  Others have.  But many won't.  It should also be noted that even when people have surgery handed to them on a platter, they will find excuses.  They, actually, are the ones who believe in this silly hierarchy stuff.  They think, like "Autumn" Sandeen does, that lying and claiming to be a transsexual elevates their status.  It doesn't.  It just makes then look like the liars they are.

And well, it sounds like this jerk, and "Nina" plan to take me on some more.  Good.  I like exposing foolishness.

In closing, let me offer up one last quote that shows the absurdity, and contradiction of this person's arguments:

The minute we, as Trans people, cross the gender/sex boundary, we are not considered normal any longer. We can go stealth and I certainly don’t take that away from any individual, but the mere act of having the courage to say, “Hey, I don’t belong to the group I’m assigned,” automatically introduces gender roles and the thoughts and opinions of society into the mix. It takes a certain level of internal thought and analysis to accept and understand something that much of society isn’t willing to accept as real. It is true that for some people there is a medical fix through hormones and surgery and the problem is more or less solved. Yet for others the acceptance and fight against a broken history and the narratives that are created for us as Trans People are problematic.

Now, I am accused of "othering" people.  Again, no.  I decline to be "othered,"  (BTW, there really are no such words as "othering" and "othered," but since the author uses them....)  First off, I may have crossed the "sex boundary," but no, I did not cross the "gender boundary."  My gender, or more accurately, my brains wiring, was always female.  I simply accepted that, and am living according to my correct gender.  I took steps to bring my body into alignment with my gender.  Interestingly enough, as I began the process, I actually found myself being called "ma'am" even while i was still, technically, "presenting as male."  That is, before I updated my paperwork, and specifically stopped crossdressing.  I chose not to but heads with society.  I saw no pleasure in it.  And that is what separates transsexuals, particularly true transsexual, from the transgender crowd.  We are not rebelling against our gender, or anything else.  We are simply getting on with our lives.  And many of us, like most people, might be amused by the transgender, but beyond that, we really don't understand their need to act out, and we certainly do not approve of it.

Don't blame me if you find it hard being a "trans person."  That's your choice, not mine.  I think you are acting out, and no, I am not going to pander to you, I am not going to play along, and I am not going to welcome you into women's space with open arms.

I Don't Know Why Cooke is Confused

I just wanted to post a brief article about something that just showed up on Women Born Transsexual.  Suzan Cooke seems confused that Drew Cordes has a problem with gendered pronouns. The answer is simple. If Cooke just bothered with a bit of research, she would find out that Cordes, who had SRS relatively recently, almost immediately realized that he was not really a woman, and is now, as is sometimes sadly the case, yet another who has gone off the deep end for just that reason. I had doubts about Cordes, and was more than a bit surprised when he announced he had surgery. I was not surprised, shortly afterwards, when he started expressing regrets.


Of course, this sort of thing can be expected as, more and more transgender kooks push for surgery on demand. Like Cooke did not too long ago when she was telling people to "cowgirl/cowboy up" if they make a mistake.

Oh well....

A Truly Moronic Suggestion!

It is one of those truly stupid ideas that simply will not die.  Far too often, usually after a news story about how someone has major regrets about having undergone sex reassignment surgery, or in the most recent case, an woman who now regrets having taken male hormones, some fool will pop up and say "If you make a mistake, then live with it!"  At times, this is part of a larger demand for "surgery on demand." That is, the idea that the Standards of Care should be abandoned, and people should be allowed to have SRS on a whim.  Sadly, there are some unscrupulous surgeons who come close to that already.

The latest incarnation of this idiocy, comes, as it always does, from someone known for taking extremist positions.  In this case, not surprisingly, and not for the first time, the source is Suzan Cooke.  In a couple of articles, here, and here, Cooke has a hissy fit over the idea that doctors should actually have to be responsible for doing their jobs.

For MTF transsexuals, hormones are a major diagnostic aid.  If a man mistaken thinks he should transition it is usually sexually motivated.  A few months to a year on a proper dose of estrogen, and his sex drive is reduced, and voila, he begins to lose interest in transition...unless, of course, he is an aging transvestite, where a lowered libido is often the trigger for the sudden desire to become a woman.  In the case of an FTM, sexual issues are rarely the cause of a desire to transition, but there is also the issue of the difficultly of reversing the effects of testosterone.  For a woman, taking hormones by mistake are far worse than they are for a man.  For a man, about the worst possible outcome is permanent sterility (relatively rare, since they probably won't be on them long enough) and possibly the neat to have his breasts surgically dealt with (again, relatively rare).  

In the case in England that triggered Cooke's most recent rant, it was a woman who not only underwent testosterone treatment, but who also had a double mastectomy.  Interestingly enough, the doctor in this case is the one who replaced Dr. Russell Reid who became mired in controversy when a patient, who had clearly lied and who had suffered from some seriously delusional ideas about how life would be as a woman, had regrets after undergoing SRS.

Now, Cooke's suggestion might seem, at face value, to be reasonable.  But, in truth, it is simply wrong.  First off, doctors have a responsibility to, as the pledge in the Hippocratic Oath, to "first, do no harm."  A surgeon should require that anyone seeking SRS provide verifiable documentation from a competent therapist, as well as a second recommendation from another therapist.  The second letter is necessary because, quite frankly, there are some therapists who simply should not be allowed to practice.  I know, I saw one early in my transition, and that person contributed greatly to my transition being delayed.

I was dealing with several issues, including coming to grips with my true sexual orientation.  Instead of working with me on these issues, the therapist I was seeing simply glossed over them, and pushed me to proceed.  I clearly needed time, and she wanted me to move ahead.  This led, among other things, to a serious breakdown, and I detransitioned for seven years.  In retrospect, I wonder what might have happened if I had allowed her to pressure me into proceeding before I was ready.

I also know of a case involving a middle-aged woman who, more out of loneliness than any gender issues, started claiming to be an "FTM" so should could hang out a research study targeting "transgender" people.  She actually seemed to relate more to the MTF staff, but she was being pressured by one of the FTM staff members to "get off the fence" and start hormone therapy.  It was obvious that this was not a good idea, but he would not listen to reason.  Fortunately, she relocated to Alaska, and escaped from his efforts to get her to do something that would have caused serious problems.

Transition, hormones, and surgery are not to be taken lightly.  To suggest that someone "just live with it" is an incredibly callous view, especially coming from someone who felt the need to transition.  If you are a transsexual, imagine being told that.  Actually, you probably don't have to imagine.  I know I was, more than once.  It is not good advice.  Now, imagine having undergone surgery by mistake, and actually losing the option of dealing with one's situation. SRS is, especially for a MTF patient, irreversible.  There is no real possibility of becoming a full male again.  

Mistakes happen.  I can think of two well-known cases where the person involved has almost certainly made a mistake, but has refused to acknowledge it.  And I know of several causes where the person has made the fact that they made a mistake very well known.  In all of these cases, a competent therapist could, and should, have prevented the person from making the mistake.  Yes, the person involved lied, and for that reason, they share some of the responsibility.  But a competent therapist will do more than simply take a person's statements at face value.

If anything, the Standards of Care need to be tightened.  People who really need SRS might be a bit inconvenienced, but they will make it through the process.  Those who should not have surgery should be screened out, before a mistake is made.

A Dose of Reality

Well, the City of San Francisco has announced that it will now offer SRS (though they are apparently, and quite ignorantly, calling it "gender reassignment surgery") to those covered by the City's "Health San Francisco (HSF)" health care plan.  HSF basically replaced what used to be called "Community Health Network," which provided medical for those who are uninsured and unable to pay for their own care.  It is a bit more formalized, and instead of the usual "sliding scale" used in most locations, it is more like an HMO.

The reaction to the article in the San Francisco Chronicle should act as a wake up call for the transgender extremists, but, of course, they will probably continue as cluelessly as usual.  At the time of writing this, there are 333 comments, almost all of which are negative, and many of which, including some from gay males, are downright hateful.  Granted, the comments also show an overwhelming degree of complete ignorance of the subject.

The facts are simple.  Very few people, relatively speaking, actually seek sex reassignment surgery.  Even when it is offered to them on the proverbial silver platter.  Most will find an excuse why they will "wait," even if they try to avoid coming right out and admitting that they have absolutely no desire to give up their penis.  I worked with a number of "transgender" people when I received my surgery, which was covered by insurance.  Most of the people I worked with failed to have the surgery, even though they all, initially, claimed they would rush to have it.  One other co-worker actually had the surgery, and one FTM co-worker had chest surgery.  The rest did not even seriously make an effort to check it out.  Similar results occurred when San Francisco became the first municipality to offer the surgery to its employees.  There were actually very few takers.

Some of the comments on the Chronicle's website predicted that the rush to have the surgery would bankrupt the City.  It was even suggested by a few idiots that San Francisco will fall victim to "medical tourists" who will drop in, have a sex change, and return home.  Never mind the fact that the process will probably take months, if not years, to complete.  When I had my surgery, I had already been seeing a therapist for over a year, and even then, my case had to be presented to a committee for consideration.  I was quickly approved, but it was not automatic.  I imagine a similar approach will be used by Healthy San Francisco.  In any case, I would also assume that anyone seeking coverage will be required to meet the full Standards of Care.

The comments also included the usual comments about how the surgery is "elective," "cosmetic," and "unnecessary,"  Amazingly, there were few objections raised.  I had no desire to get involved in the fight, but I doubt the vast majority of "transgender" activists even care, and many are probably, at least secretly, hoping that the naysayers will actually succeed and spare them all having to explain why they are not rushing to have the surgery now that it is suddenly "affordable.

I seriously doubt there will be any flood of transgender people to San Francisco in search of free SRS.  A few may come here, but there simply are not that many who want the surgery to begin with.  

But it will be an embarrassment for the "people would have the surgery, but they can't afford it" crowd.  And the transgender extremists who think there is widespread acceptance should read some of the comments.  They are not nearly as "accepted" as they think.  And yes, they really are doing harm to true transsexuals.  What should be a "no-brainer" is being treated as an outrage by people who have no real idea of what is going on.

It's Really Ironic...

There has been a lot of talk lately about "depathologization" of transsexualism and transgender behavior. Of course, these are two separate topics, which actually have nothing in common, thought, of course, the transgender kooks don't want you to know that.

Now, what is ironic is, depathologization of transsexualism is not really that new of an idea. It has been around for several years, and was previously known as "Harry Benjamin Syndrome." Yes, that horrible thing that makes transgender kooks like Suzan Cooke and "Autumn" Sandeen rent their clothes and cry out was really about moving transsexualism from being a "mental illness" to recognizing it as a medical condition. Well, actually, at first, Cooke kind of embraced the idea until she realized it was competition for her "Women Born Transsexual" silliness.

Oh, and note, I said Harry Benjamin Syndrome, not "Harry Benjamin's Syndrome," the phrasing preferred by a separate, and eventually unrelated movement that originated more in Europe, and which became somewhat extremist in certain views. Some dishonest "historians" attempt to conflate the two movements in order to discredit the Harry Benjamin Syndrome movement.

So, why do the kooks hate it so much? Well, in some cases, it is because it competed with the kooks own little patch of turf, and a lot of the people who endorsed Harry Benjamin Syndrome did not necessarily agree with this, or that, kook's own agenda. For example, we did not embrace the idea that "transgression" was a valid reason to claim to be another sex.

Worse, those who endorsed Harry Benjamin Syndrome made it clear that they wanted nothing to do with transgender activism and that we rejected the transgender paradigm. That, of course, was too much for the gender fascists to accept.

The approach was simple, and straight forward. We asked that medical profession simply acknowledge that a small number of people are born with what is, in effect, a congenital condition where the brain is sexually differentiated at odds with at least part of the body. This condition resulted in an overwhelming desire to correct one's body to the extent that science allows. In another words, what some would call a true, or classic transsexual.

HBS, as it has come to be known, would have provided a basis for insurance coverage, which some are more than willing to sacrifice in their demands that doctors no longer consider people who think that simply claiming to be a different sex effectively changes their sex to be mentally ill. Uh, yes, that sounds crazy to me...but hey, most crazy people will tell you they are really the sane ones.

Another problem people had with the HBS movement was that we would not embrace the insanity of "surgery on demand," and actually endorsed tightening the criteria. While it is fortunate that most who should not have surgery now embrace the non-op paradigm, there is room for mistakes, particularly in cases where surgery is more easily obtained because of insurance or socialized medicine. For example, Natalie Reed, who recently admitted what I had already surmised, that he is a "pre-op" wrote a post in which he discusses his ambivalence towards SRS, but indicates that he will pursue it anyway. Reed is a mistake in the making. If one can live without surgery, then they should. Just because it is, effectively free, and just because one is able to talk a therapist into rubber stamping your request (far too many therapists are afraid to "just say NO!" to be people who are poor candidates, does not mean one should hope on the table thinking that surgery will somehow make it all right.

We have enough screwed up "post-ops" already. We don't need another who will either become a virulently anti-transsexual TG activist, or worse, decide that God does not approve of SRS because they made a mistake.

So, now we have yet another attempt to get transgender people out of the DSM. Of course, most could care less if transsexual are harmed, and for some, harming transsexuals would probably be a desirable side effect.

Surgery for Kosilek? No WAY!!!!

Up until now, I have pretty much ignored that case of "Michelle" Kosilek, who is the infamous prisoner in Massachusetts who a Federal judge has rule is entitled to sex reassignment surgery (and yes, it is SEX reassignment surgery, not "gender reassignment surgery as there is no way to change gender) even though he is serving life without parole for the murder of his wife. And yes, I said "he" because there is no way this person is a woman (trans or otherwise), no way he is a transsexual, and really simply because, "It's a MAN, baby!"

Kosilek murdered his wife, and the claim is made that he started his transition though at the time he of the murder though he had not changed is name, nor did he start hormones until he was in prison. Most likely, at the time, he was a crossdresser. He coldly strangled her, and left her body in a parking lot. Hardly an act consistent with his claim of being a woman. Yes, women murder, but his act was not typical of a woman, but is a very male style of murder. He tried to claim that he killed her in self-defense following an argument, no doubt over his crossdressing.

There is also evidence that Kosilek functions quite well, and does not actually need the operation, which would, of course, no doubt result in his transfer to a women's prison.

Kosilek killed his wife, and as such he gave up quite a bit of his rights, including, I believe, the right to force the state to pay for SRS. Even though he is serving a life sentence, there is no valid reason for him to have the surgery. It would be different if there was more evidence that he was a true transsexual. But this is just another case of a man, with a history of crossdressing, deciding, suddenly, to pursue SRS.

I have seen nothing that indicates that Mr. Kosilek had any history of childhood gender identity issues. Everything in this case indicates that he is a crossdresser who, having aged, wants to "ake it to the next level." The taxpayers of his state should not be burdened with the cost, and any competent therapist would deny his request for surgery. Unfortunately, competence is increasingly being replaced by political correctness.

Personally, I agree with the policy that says that a person who is transsexual who enters prison should be frozen at the state of transition they were at the time of incarceration. If one is pre-transition, you stay there. On hormones, they are continued. And such. In the case of someone like Kosilek, where the sentence is life, well. tough. Killing someone has consequences. He should have thought about his future before he deprived his wife of hers.

You Really Can't Make This Stuff Up...

This has to be one of the silliest things I have read in quite some time. If there was any question that "Autumn" Sandeen is a man, this puts it to rest... He has put up a
"A Shopping List Of Trans Women’s Shame."  That is, a list of things that Mr. Sandeen thinks that "transwomen should be ashamed of.  Now, as I have pointed out many times, the term "transwoman" is an oxymoron.  That is, it is a contradiction of terms.  You can be a woman, or you can be "trans" but you cannot be both...  So here are some highlights from the list:

1. When someone says to us they’d no idea that we’re trans, we feel complimented.

     Well, of course one feels complimented.  Why would this be a "shame?"  Unless, like Mr. Sandeen, you actually are a man....

2. When someone says to us they’d guessed we’re trans, we’re heartbroken.

     Again, why bother transitioning if you are just going to be seen as a man?

7.  We avoid discussing our dicks.

     Why do I suspect that this is one of Mr. Sandeen's favorite topics to discuss?

8. We avoid discussing taking hormones with nontranssexual people.

     Perhaps because they are really not that interested?

9. We avoid discussing our operative status with nontranssexual people because we don’t want to be thought of as men — no matter what our operative status.

      don't know about you, but I am beginning to suspect that Mr. Sandeen wants to be seen as a man....

10. If we haven’t had a vaginoplasty at this snapshot in time, we avoid discussing our operative status with our post-operative trans peers because we feel obligated to justify why we haven’t had a vaginoplasty.

     Well, in Mr. Sandeen's case, it is simple.  They will take his penis when they pry it from his cold, dead fingers....

11. If we have had a vaginoplasty, we grade the shape of our genitalia by how “normal” and nontranssexual these look.

     So, in Mr. Sandeen's mind, having a messed up vagina is a plus?  Really?

12. If we’ve had a vaginoplasty, we don’t discuss dilating and surgery with nontranssexual people.

     Again, mostly because they REALLY, REALLY DON'T WANT TO HEAR THE DETAILS!!!!!  Seriously, Mr. Sandeen, of course, knows nothing about such things, as he is not a transsexual, has not had, and if he is smart, never will have, a vaginoplasty.

13. We convince ourselves after our vaginoplasties that we no longer have dicks.

     Well, simply put, WE (a term which specifically excludes Mr. Sandeen) do not have dicks.  And why we would want to imagine we still do is beyond me.

14. We convince ourselves after vaginoplasties that we’re “normal” women — even though our vaginas have no possibility of lubricating like nontranssexual women’s vaginas do.
15. We convince ourselves after vaginoplasties we’re “normal” women — even though our vaginas have to be stretched with dilator to make the depth as close to nontranssexual women’s vaginas as possible.

16. We convince ourselves after vaginoplasties we’re “normal” women — even though our vaginas will never be capable of passing a newborn through them.

     In these three, we see classic Sandeen.  He hates post-op women, and does his best to belittle us, and loves to denigrate our vaginas.

17.  When we see nontranssexual women who are pregnant, we feel defective.

     I cannot speak for all women of transsexual history, but I know I have the same urges and desires as any other woman.  And yes, it hurts to know that I will never bear a child.  Now, I realize this is foreign to Mr. Sandeen, who is clearly not remotely a woman, and this sort of remark is typical of him.

18. We use “normal” to describe ourselves.

     I would never use "normal" to describe Mr. Sandeen.

27.  We choose to be stealth so that we personally don’t experience employment and housing discrimination.
28.  We choose to be stealth, even knowing trans people who come after us will experience the same discrimination we did early in our transitions — and we do nothing to make their transitions easier than our own transitions were.

     The only real reason to choose to be stealth is so one can actually experience life as a woman, not as a "transgender."  I realize this is a concept completely foreign to Mr. Sandeen.

Seriously, this is the real face of the transgender kook.  This is what they are really thinking, and this is so completely foreign to real transsexuals that I honestly cannot accept "Autumn" Sandeen, and his ilk, as anything other than men impersonating women.

Just A Might Bit Arrogant

I have to say, little that the gender fascist who calls himself "Cristan" Williams says or does would surprise me.  But he has really pushed the envelope with his latest post in which he arrogantly takes it upon himself to declare the transsexual separatist movement dead.  This is a new extreme of male arrogance for even him.


In a move that is reminiscent of George W. Bush's appearing on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln to declare "Mission Accomplished," Mr. Williams has effectively declare victory.  Now, granted, in response to one comment, in one of his classic straw arguments, he asserts that he never said he had "won."  Yes, and Bush did not say the war was "over."  Uh huh, yeah....


Mr. Williams asserts that he has shown a series of memes, i.e. straw arguments he has created, have been refuted.  Actually, all he has done is try to bury the truth under an avalanche of fuzzy claims, and questionable citations.  For example, he tries to claim that Christine Jorgensen "identified" as a transgender woman based on a questionable citation that includes an isolated quote she once made.  I have yet to see that she said it more than once, if then.  And certainly it is highly unlikely that she identified with the word as it is now used.


In fact, this brings up another of his straw arguments.  He claims that transsexuals claim that "transgender" did not exist until the mid-Ninties, and that it was invented by a bunch of crossdressers.  Now, some may have come to understand the facts in that manner, but what Williams says is, again, a straw argument that hides the truth.  It is not clear how early the first use of "transgender" or some variant of that term first occurred.  That is certainly not helped by Mr. Williams rather odd collections of alleged citations.  Funny how they always come from obscure and difficult to locate sources.  This of course leads to the highly dishonest practice by him of demanding that people prove a negative.  This, of course, is a classic dodge used by any number of scoundrels.


In truth, it doesn't matter.  Even if all of Mr. Williams claims are true, they would make zero difference in the debate, since the fact remains that the transgender movement as it now exists, and the one that many do not wish to be associated or identified with, did begin in the mid-Nineties, and it was invented by a group of crossdressers.  The evidence for this really is overwhelming.  The only evidence for Mr. Williams claims are some vague incidents where someone might have used transgender, though not in the sense that it is now used.


Mr. Williams wants everyone to pretend that language never changes, unless of course such a change supports his position.  


As to the claim that the transsexual separatist movement actually being dead, well he really offers nothing to actually back that up.  Granted, he did post this story on April Fool's Day, so maybe he thinks it a clever joke.  Or maybe he was just tired of getting zero comments on his blog, as he certainly opened a hornet's nest.  No, his entire argument is based on that series of memes he claims to have busted:

• The colonization of transsexuals meme

This, of course is exactly what he is engaged in.

• The transgender was an invention of the 1990s meme

As pointed out, "The transgender" (sic) might not be an invention of the 1990s, but the moder transgender movement clearly is.

• The transgender was coined by Virginia Prince meme

Arnold Lowman, who called himself  Charles "Virginia" Prince, is credited with inventing the phrase "transgenderal" perhaps coined and certainly popularized the term "transgenderist" and was a major leader of the overall movement that the modern transgender movement grew out of.  BTW, exactly this argument has been made by more than one scholar.  Whether it is true or not is largely a matter of perspective.

• The transgender came from transgenderist meme

What is with this "The transgender" silliness.  The first one I could see as a typo, but the continued use is just bizarre.  Are we talking about "community," "movement," "silliness?"  What?  In any case, in a very real sense, it did come out of a group that, for a while, identified as transgenderist.

• The transgender originally meant crossdresser meme

I don't know of anyone who claims this.  Up until the 1990s it was a rarely used term, and largely meant nothing.  Thus, a straw argument....

• The there was no trans community before the 1990s meme

This is another of his classic straw arguments.  Were there support groups and and communication between groups of transsexuals. and between groups of transvestites?  Yes. Was there the "transgender community" that Mr. Williams attempts to force people into against their will?  Not remotely.  Another straw argument.

• The as long a transgender exists, progress can’t be made meme

And yet another straw argument.  Progress has been made in spite of the attempts of transgender extremists, but they do make things difficult, and in some cases impossible.  Further, what Mr. Williams, and others. like to gloss over, is the problem of what transgender extremists want.  What he calls progress, I would call a nightmare.

• The before the 1990s, transsexuals lived a problem-free life meme

This has to be one of the most pitiful attempts to create a straw argument I have ever seen.  I don't know anyone who could claim this.  At least not anyone who is transsexual.

• The umbrella terms were an invention of the 1990s meme

Actually, the transgender movement as we know it was born of the idea of transgender as an umbrella term.  Certainly, before the 1990s some tended to associate transgender and transsexual, though nothing like the current movement's gender fascists do today.

• The transgender was invented by a Commie in the 1990s meme

As I understand it, one of the leaders of the movement has, at least in the past, identified as Communist.  Another straw man argument.

• The there’s no such thing as a non-op transsexual meme

Ah, a semantical straw argument.  Since the term "transsexual" clearly refers to someone changing sex, and since the only way to change one's sex is to have surgery, then there are no non-op transsexuals...just delusional people who claim they are non-op transsexuals.  Of course, Mr. Williams bases this on out-dated information that was written in 1966 and which has been abandoned long ago.  Oh, and that information came from Harry Benjamin, who he usually seems quite fond of trashing anyway

• The Non-transsexual trans folk pose a rape risk to women in the restroom and/or Gender Identity protections make women unsafe meme

And he ends his list of grand, but none existent "bustings" with, of course, another straw argument.  The issue is not that "transgender" people will be a threat to women in restrooms.  The argument is that the way the transgender movement insists that laws be written would result in males, including ones who are not even transgender, being able to enter women's space by simply claiming, if only momentarily, that they identify as female.  That does present a very real danger, and that is what most, including myself, oppose.

Well, once again, Mr. Williams lies, obfuscates, and generally makes silly arguments in an attempt to claim some small amount of victory where none remotely exists.

Suffice to say, those who want no part of "transgender" are alive, and healthy.

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.

Two Perfect Examples of What is Wrong With Transgender

Well, two of the more extremist of the transgender nut cases have offered up posts that both show the serious flaws in their goals, and the contradictory nature of their logic.

Both "Autumn" Sandeen and "Cristan" Williams have, quite cluelessly, shot themselves in the foot.  Well, Mr. Williams more than Mr. Sandeen.  Sandeen has simply shown the anti-social nature of his desires.  Williams has shown that his claims about the origins of "transgender" are not true.

First off, Sandeen has posted in response to Jillian Page, who he describes as a "wonderful friend" even as he takes Page to task for stating what Sandeen no doubt considers the ultimate heresy against transgender doctrine.  

As I discussed in my last post, Sandeen is ranting against stealth by "trans people," and I can imagine his outrage that someone he considers a fellow traveler has the audacity to actually disagree with him.  I mean, how dare anyone but Sandeen presume to state what the primary goal of transgender people "should be?"

Page states:

The ultimate goal of trans people is to blend in with society, and not to draw any special attention to themselves. I think we are getting to the point where the less said to the media, the better, especially about such personal things like having babies. I mean, whose business is it, anyway?

Now I don't identify as "trans" anything, but I see merit in this comment.  I have a lot less problem with those who are trying to blend in with society.  And I do wish "trans people" would learn some discretion when it comes to the media.  The example that Page gives is classic, a transgender "man" who has given birth in England.  At least in this case the masculinized woman had the good sense not to allow her name to be used.  No, men do not have babies.  And I don't care what the British tabloids want to claim, this person was not a "male mother," first, second, or otherwise.  

Of course, Sandeen is aghast at the suggestion that trans people primary goal is anything other than the complete destruction of certain societal standards.  And this is what is wrong with the transgender movement in general.  It is not about being who you really are, but instead is about rebelling against gender norms and imposing an unpopular view on society.

I think part of this is because, as certain behavior becomes more acceptable, the transgender need more and more outrageous behavior to fuel their fetishes.  It used to be that appearing in public dressed as a woman could quickly land a man in jail.  That sort of law has disappeared, so now there is less "thrill" in being publicly crossdressed.  There is little shock value in just being a crossdresser, so they have to push the envelope.

Now, a commenter on Sandeen's site suggests that he is pushing this agenda because he is not able to "pass."  And yes, in Sandeen's case, "pass" is the appropriate term, as he is not now, and never will be a woman.  The best he can hope for is to fool someone into thinking he is not a man,though that is extremely unlikely.

The other post that shows what is wrong with the transgender movement, as I said, comes from none other than lead gender fascist "Cristan" WIlliams.  Williams, who has made a name for himself by posting obscure citations that are supposed to prove that "transgender" really does apply to transsexuals, and that separatists are wrong.  The problem, for him, is that they prove nothing remotely like that.  At best, assuming that all of the claimed posts are remotely legitimate (still an open question since Williams basically demands that people prove a negative, which is a classic false argument) they show that a variety of people put "trans" and "gender" together, sometimes in reference to transsexuals, and other times in reference to other groups.  

In one recent post he even cites C.S. Lewis using the term "trans-sexual."  The problem for Williams is that Lewis was referring to marriages in Heaven.  A classic question from theology, which Lewis answers with the idea that people will "beyond sex," not that the saints will have their sex changed upon arrival at the Pearly Gates.  Granted, that was a plot line a rather silly bit of transvestite fiction that was cited in one scholarly book on the subject of transvestites.

And therein lies the problem for Williams' basic argument.  The fact that various people, at various times, may have used a word does not equate to them holding to the current concept which is attached to that word.  And it is actually the concept, not the word that those Williams likes to label as separatists reject.  But that requires actual logic and thought, not one of Williams' strengths.  He prefers what he perceives, usually erroneously, as clever arguments.

And Phillip Frye, who is, as shown by the very history that Williams posts, a heterosexual transvestite who was quite determined to force his little hobby on society serves as a perfect example of why many transsexuals want no part of "transgender."  Frye has, in the past, attacked transsexuals, and has made statements to the effect that people should not have surgery, claim that 50% are dissatisfied after surgery.  This, of course, is clearly a lie.  Of course, Frye is not the first transgender extremist to make such a claim.  Many of them vehemently oppose surgery for anyone.
  
Frye has attempted any number of legal frauds, such as suggesting that people claim to suffer from ectopic ovaries and a hyperthrophied clitoris in order to get their birth certificate changed.  And he then suggested that such a birth certificate could be used to obtain a fraudulent same sex marriage.  Now, I support same sex marriage, but not through fraud.  That accomplishes nothing.  

And Frye is one who is often credited with the creation of the modern transgender movement.  Of course, what is repeatedly denied by Williams is the simple truth that originally, transgender was presented as an alternative to transsexualism.  It started when some crossdressers, such as Frye, "Holly" Boswell, and yes,  Arnold Lowman (aka Charles "Virginia" Prince).  For example, Dallas Denny (no use in using what some refer to as "scare quotes" here, as Denny was named "Dallas" at birth, and as I understand, never changed his name.  In fact, as I understand it, his legal name remains Dallas Henry Denny) wrote in a review of a book from the earlier days of the transgender movement:

To their everlasting credit, a few courageous souls, notably Virginia Prince, Linda Phillips, Phyllis Randolph Frye, and Holly Boswell, realized the absurdity of this type of thinking, and began asking, quietly at first, and then with increasing force and volume, “Why is it necessary to have a surgery I don’t want in order to live the life I desire?” Once posed, this question had but one logical answer, and that was that the rigidly dichotomous gender roles of our society had made us blind to the possibility, and that of course, they and other transgendered persons could function in society as women without offering their genitals up to the surgeons.

Yes, contrary to what Williams tries so hard to claim, it really did start out as an anti-transsexual movement.  And part of the irony is, Denny rushed into surgery, even though many who knew him felt he was not a good candidate.  For the record, there is no joy in being right about such a thing.

The concept of "transgender" that we have today (as opposed to some obscure use of the term that Williams happened to possibly turn up) was first conceived as an alternative to transsexual.  It originated when some aging transvestites decided that they wanted to be full-time crossdressers, but did not remotely want to give up their penises.  Then, because of the transgender hierarchy that they often try to deny exists, they decided that they were "really" transsexuals....except, well, they still didn't want to give up their penises, but hey, they liked calling themselves transsexuals because, well, it sounded better than admitting that they were still crossdressers, just full time.

But how could they claim to be transsexuals if transsexuals were not "transgender."  Thus the movement that began as an alternative to being transsexual began to claim to be about being transsexual, and the term was morphed into the vague, confusing mess we have today, and they wonder why transsexuals want no part of their silliness.

And, of course, Williams continues to try to force people to accept the label transgender, whether they like it or not.  And, of course, we continue to laugh at his silliness.