What's the Difference?

I am often attacked by the "gender fascists," i.e. the transgender extremists like Mr. "Cristan" Williams, Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen, Mr. "Dana" Taylor, and others because I don't care for the term "transgender," refuse to accept it, and especially because I am constantly challenging the silliness that they spew...  Silliness like claiming that simply saying one is a woman magically makes it so.

On those occasions, for example when dealing with a medical provider where I have to reveal my history, I am sometimes asked, "What's the difference?" when I explain that I am transsexual, not transgender.  That's a good question, and while I usually respond with a relatively technical answer, of late other differences have become obvious.

For example, there was the rather silly article posted by Mr. Williams that asks "What are the top 3 things you like about being trans?"  I cannot think of a better illustration of the difference between actually being a transsexual, and being some kook who identifies as "transgender."  For me, there was NOTHING I liked about being "transsexual."  If I had a choice, it would certainly not to have been born transsexual.  My first choice would have been to be born a normal female.  If not that, then my second choice would have been to have been a normal male.   I certainly would not have chosen to be born transsexual.  If I liked "being trans" I would certainly not have put so much effort into having SRS.

Of course, the person asking this question is a man, who either has not had SRS, or if he has, regrets it.  He revels in being "transgender."  It is his entire purpose in life.  For him, it is a choice, not a medical condition.  I would no more choose to be transsexual, than I would choose to be diabetic.  I would not more find something good in being transsexual as I would find something good about being diabetic.

No, I haven't gotten to see life from "both sides."  I never had "the best of both worlds."  I was miserable for much of my life.  I hurt people I care about. 

Another difference that has become very obvious is how we deal with disagreement.  I recognize that a lot of radical; feminists would reject the idea that I am a woman.  Shoot, I have known that since I first read Janice Raymond's The Transsexual Empire back around the time I began transition.  I certainly did agree with Raymond's extremist views, but I also did not feel the apparent blind rage that seems to consume transgender extremists who cannot seem to deal with such disagreement.  The Internet is becoming filled with their calls for the rape and murder of women who simply don't wish to sleep with them.  

I do find it interesting that I can get along with many of those women, even if I don't agree with everything they say.  Then again, I seriously doubt that the kooks like Mr. Sandeen, Mr. Williams, and Mr. Taylor have much in the way of friendship with women born women.  They certainly spend a lot of time attacking them online.

Even if I don't agree with what someone writes, I am willing to listen, and try to find common ground.  I consider Victory Brownworth a friend.  Mr. Williams seems to have become obsessed with destroying her.  As best I can tell, the real motivation for this is the simple fact that Ms. Brownworth does not think men like Mr. Williams should be able to attend the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival.  Mr. Williams, really does not like being told no.  So, Mr. Williams has repeated attack her, accused her of horrible crimes, and then he wonders why people think him something of a kook.

When I began transition, a major concern fo me was to not cause discomfort to other women.  For the kooks like Mr. Williams, Mr. Sandeen, an Mr. Taylor, the feelings of women are inferior to their fetish-driven desires.  If a woman is upset at the idea of sharing a shower or other space with a "transwoman" with an intact penis, she is at fault and she must submit to the tyranny of the transgender kooks.  Before my surgery, the idea of exposing myself to a woman like that would have been horrifying.

Yes, there are major differences.

Random Items

There have been a few interesting things that don't quite rate individual articles, but which are at least worth mentioning...

The first comes from Mr. "Dana" Taylor, who has whole-heartedly embraced gender fascism, and the worst of transgender idiocy....

In his exceeding autogynephilic post Quick Update On My Breast Development, along with a photo of his "breast milk," and details about his medication, which includes a drug banned in the United States, he includes the following:

Not bad for a crossdresser, eh Mr. Jennifer Usher? Had to throw that dig in. I am done paying attention to the bigot and hate monger.

He then goes on to make me the subject of his next three posts, as well as adding a note to a comment on that particular article that identifies someone I have never heard of as Just Jennifer follower.  And I get accused of being obsessive?

Over at Transadvocate, Mr. "Cristan" Williams seems to be determined to prove what I said about him to be absolutely accurate.  I do believe he simply cannot control himself.  He is again obsessing about Victoria Brownworth.  His verbiage is downright hilarious...

And be warned, if you’re trans and point out any flaws in her logic, Brownworth will lie and publicly claim that you just want to rape and murder her. If you point out her fallacies on a blog, she’ll publicly lie and claim that her employer is in the process of suing you. If you’re not immediately silenced, she’ll again publicly lie and claim that she’s filed a police report against you. She might even trymisgendering you.

The only problem is, Mr. Williams is kind of short on facts here.  He hasn't pointed out any flaws in Ms. Brownworth's logic, he dismisses threats as false (without any evidence that they are other than his denials), he hasn't pointed out any fallacies, and he hasn't really provided any evidence that she did not file a police report.  As to "misgendering," I am sure that if Ms. Brownworth ever referred to him using female pronouns, she is certainly not doing it any longer.

But seriously, as if there were any doubt as to what his vendetta against Ms. Brownworth was about, he provides a lovely quote to remind us all...

If I were running MWMF, this is what I would say: No penises. No male privilege. No oppression of women. Just fun, music, dancing, celebration. Solidarity…. But if you can’t set your male privilege aside, as well as your penis, then MWMF is not the place for you, and your presence will harm other women… But Michigan isn’t about transphobia—it’s about maintaining a safe space for lesbians. - Victoria A. Brownworth, July 2013, Curve magazine

What really makes it all so funny is, this is not an unreasonable position, and actually seems to be far more moderate than hardline.  Now, I wonder what Mr. Williams has a problem with?  No penises?  No male privilege?  No oppression of women?  Clearly, Ms. Brownworth is open to those who are post-op attending MWMF.  But, that is not enough for Mr. Williams.  To him, it is women's space, and he wants in.  The real irony is, this reminds me of something from the Transsexual Empire, by Janice Raymond...

Transsexually constructed les­bian-feminists may be the first men to realize that “if you can’t fight them, join them.” In a short story entitled “The Women’s Restaurant,” by T. C. Boyle, which appeared recently in Penthouse, this point is well made.

The story begins by setting the scene in and around Grace & Rubie’s Restaurant and is written from the point of view of the voyeuristic narrator. “It is a women’s res­ taurant. Men are not permitted.. . . What goes on there, precisely, no man knows. I am a man. I am burning to find out.” The narrator then proceeds to caricature Grace and Rubie as butch and femme, as well as to relate his several attempts to gain entrance. After two unsuccessful endeavors, he goes to a department store, buys a pink polyester pantsuit, a bra, pantyhose, and cosmetics with which he makes himself up to pass as a woman. He gains entrance and is able to experience what he has been missing.

Here I was, embosomed in the very nave, the very omphalos of fur­ tive femininity—a prize patron of the women’s restaurant, a member, privy to its innermost secrets.. . . There they were—women—chew­ ing, drinking, digesting, chatting, giggling, crossing, and uncrossing their legs. Shoes off, feet up. Smoking cigarettes, flashing silverware, tapping time to the music. Women among women. I bathed in their soft chatter, birdsong, the laughter like falling coils of hair. I lit a cigarette and grinned. No more fairybook-hero thoughts of rescuing Rubie—oh no, this was paradise.

Having drunk six tequila sunrises and a carafe of dinner wine, the male intruder/narrator finds it necessary to re­ lieve himself, but forgets to sit down when he urinates in the rest room, at which point he is discovered by Grace. The story ends with his savoring of the triumph of temporary infiltration and a plan for permanent invasion.

I have penetrated the women’s restaurant, yes, but in actuality it was little more than a rape.... I am not satisfied. The obsession grows in me, pregnant, swelling, insatiable with the first taste of ful­ fillment. Before I am through, I will drink it to satiety. I have plans. . . . The next time I walk through those curtained doors at Grace & Rubie’s there will be no dissimulation.... There are surgeons who can assure it.

The first time I saw this story, I thought it rather odd.  I saw it in a copy of Penthouse that a friend had.  It seemed pretty outlandish, and I remember wondering why that magazine would print such a thing.  Granted, I always saw Penthouse more as trash than anything having any real literary quality.  But the idea that a man, who clearly is not being represented as actually transsexual, would undergo SRS, just so he could visit a women's restaurant, seemed, at the very least, to be quite laughable.

Then, I saw it again, when I first read Raymond's book.  Again, I thought it an absurd story, and its inclusion only served to further discredit the excesses of Raymond's views.  

Then, in more recent years, I have come to experience the idiocy of people like Mr. "Dana" Taylor, Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen, and Mr. "Cristan" Williams.  Back in the 1970's, when I first read this, I had never met (as far as I was aware) another transsexual at all.  In the 1990's, when I began my transition, I knew several, but none (at that time) were anything like this.  One, Mr. Dallas Denny (again, that is his birth name) turned out to be a very bad example of this, but he was keeping that aspect of his personality well hidden at the time.  

I now wonder, were people like this around in 1978?  Were they more hidden, without the Internet to amplify their perversions?  Were they kept in check by the more rigid system of gender clinics that were the primary gateway to surgery?  Well, there was one good example, Renee Richards.  But now, they seem to be a growing phenomena.

Sorry, I guess that was enough for a separate article after all....

Anyway, moving on along...

I got into a rather nasty flame war (well, at least that is what it deteriorated to) on Twitter with someone who calls himself @AliceAnneRipley.  At first, I actually thought this person might be legit, though somewhat caught up in transgender silliness, but after a few exchanges in which I tried to get them to actually think, rather than spout the TG party line, they finally got angry and the truth came out.  The last I saw, he was still a bit obsessed two days later.  On top of that, I got a phishing message from him, that tried to steal my password.  At first I thought it was a really stupid move, but I have noticed that his account is being used as a spambot, so I suspect he has had his account compromised.

Finally, I want to call your attention to an excellent post at Notes from the T side entitled 
Transgender Activists and Stealth.  I had been considering a post on that topic myself, but hey, Elizabeth's is excellent, and I don't know that there is anything more that needs to be said.  If you haven't seen it, take a look.  

Finally, Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen, has posted another hilarious post over at LGBT Weekly.  This one, entitled Sex appears to be easily definable, but it’s not is an attempt to argue the transgender doctrine that sex and gender are totally and completely separate.  If that were true, then half of all males would have what we currently would call a female gender, and half of all females would have what we call a male gender.  Simple statistics.  Clearly, gender and sex may be two different things, in the sense that sexual differentiation of the body and sexual differentiation of the brain are two separate events that take place at different times during development, but they are still closely linked.  The vast majority of males have a male gender, and the vast majority of females have a female gender.  And, the wiring of one's brain is essentially immutable, as shown by people like Mr. Williams who has a clearly male psyche, even though he claims to be a "woman," or more properly, a "trans woman,"  You can change your clothes, you can change your name, you might even get carried away and change your body, but if your brain is male, it will remain male.  

Well, that wraps up this look at some random bits from various sources.  I hope you find them interesting, and maybe have learned something.

Mr. Williams' War on Women

Well, the man who wants to be the world's leading gender fascist continues his war on women.  I do not, repeat, do not agree with a lot of the extremism that comes from the Radical Feminists, but when I see the sort of crap that Mr. "Cristan" Williams is trying to pull, it actually makes me feel sorry for them.  Williams apparently has no clue as to how he comes across, or more likely, just doesn't care.

It started when, born of his anger that Victoria Brownworth does not support the right of men who claim to be women to force themselves on the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival.  Williams is also heavily involved in the "Cotton Ceiling" silliness, where "male lesbians" attempt to demand that real lesbians must have sex with them.  They cannot seem to accept the pretty much absolute right of someone to decline another as a sexual partner.  This really does begin to come very close to rape.

Well, Williams dug up a five year old article Brownworth did about pumping parties, which mentioned a young FTM, including the appearance of his genitals. Williams tried to accuse Brownworth of pedophilia and went so far as to contact authorities in an attempt to have charges filed.  Since then, Brownworth has alleged that she has been subjected to threats of violence and rape.  

Now, there is no way of easily ascertaining if Brownworth's allegations are true, but Mr. Williams' claims have been pretty much laughed away by everyone he has contacted.  If Brownworth's allegations are true, and it is very probably that they are, it would not be unreasonable to suspect that Williams might be responsible.  That does not mean that he is, just that he would be a reasonable suspect.

Williams now claims to have contacted the police and is alleging that statements by Brownworth, that she has contacted the police, are not true.  It should be noted that what he has specifically claimed is that a police report has not been filed against him.  While Brownworth did allude to Williams when mentioning filing a report, in reality, under such circumstances, unless Brownworth can show, objectively, that Williams is the culprit, the police would not have a report that "names" Williams.  Further, while the police might tell someone that they do not have a specific report on them (as in, no we are not looking to request you be arrested at this time) that does not mean that a report has not been filed.  Williams considers himself a master of spin, and this would not be the first time he has, in effect, lied like a cheap rug.  

I do know Mr. Williams can be quite obsessive about those he sees as an enemy.  He has very little respect for boundaries, unless he is the one setting them.  His behavior in this matter is outrageous, and his contempt for real women is highly disturbing.  And he actually wonders why transsexuals want no part of his little "movement."

How Low Can He Go?

Well, like a true bully, Mr. "Cristan" Williams is at it again, still trying to go after  Victoria A. Brownworth, not because she actually did anything wrong, but because she is "a self-identifed radical feminist" who recognizes the reality that Mr. Williams, and his ilk has no business trying to force himself on lesbians.

First he goes after her because of her response to a transgender motorcycle gang who have threatened her.  Oh, but according to Mr. Williams, the letter was "respectful."  He really hasn't a clue...

He then actually went so far as to try to have her prosecuted for the article she wrote five years ago that he has been harping on.  Mr. Williams really does not take disagreement well at all.

Fortunately, the authorities in Philadelphia has declined to do Mr. Williams dirty work.

Mr. "Cristan" Williams Hits a New Low, Even For Him

Well, in his never ending battle to make the world safe for men in dresses, Mr. "Cristan" Williams has hit a new low.  He has drug up a story from six years ago, written by a journalist named Victoria Brownworth, who Mr. Williams has labeled a TERF (i.e. a Trans Exclusive Radical Feminist), apparently because she doesn't want Mr. Williams and the other men in dresses to invade the Michigan Womyn's (who can't spell Women) Music Festival.  I mean, we all know how Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen is just dying to go there and wave his "Woman Born Woman" penis in their faces.

The story is about transgender youth who are being exploited as sex workers, and boy is Mr. Williams upset...not that these children are being exploited as sex workers, but that Ms. Brownworth looked at the genitals of a young FTM.  It not only doesn't bother him that these kids are being exploited, in another article on Transadvocate, where Mr. Williams is the editor, it is described as "Trans Survival Sex Work," a phrase often used to justify such behavior.

So, let's see, Mr. Williams is outraged at a female journalist looking at, and describing a young FTM sex worker's genitals, but doesn't seem to have a problem with someone using him as a prostitute.  That, I suppose is okay, since the creep actually have sex with this child is not, a dreaded "TERF."  Such is the wonder world of Mr. Williams' bizarre ethics. Here, is how Mr. Williams describes his moral outrage:

Lets be clear about this:
1. It doesn’t appear that 15 year olds can consent to give random adults access to their genetalia(sic) under the law.
2. Brownworth clearly states that she believed that she was dealing with a 15 or 16 year old kid.
3. Given the opportunity, she – an adult – states that she asked to gawk at this transkid’s genitalia.4. The transkid complied and Brownworth took a good look.5. Brownworth then described – in detail – to the Philadelphia Gay News’ audience what this transkid’s genitalia looked like.6. Nobody – until now – thought that perhaps this was inappropriate.

Isn't it interesting that the ONLY thing Mr. Williams is concerned with is the opportunity to imply that Mr. Brownworth has somehow violated the law. Not a word of concern for the fact that what she did is nothing compared to the real abuse this child suffered.  Oh, but those were just good old boys, not dreaded TERFs.  And the child was just engaging in harmless "Trans Survival Sex Work."  Uh, the sort of "Trans Survival Sex Work" that results in quite a few murders that feed the orgy of outrage known as the "Transgender Day of Remembrance" each year.  I guess Mr. Williams would be heartbroken if he didn't have his yearly supply of martyrs.

Ms. Brownworth was actually trying to shed some light on a very real problem.  Mr. Williams just wants to walk around naked, waving his penis in front of a bunch of lesbians, who he wants to make pretend he is just "one of the girls."

Oh, and it should be noted, Mr. Williams takes advantage of the fact that the original story by Ms. Brownworth is noy available, so we cannot read her words in context.

Sad, when you actually thing about it.  Of course, that is the one thing Mr. Williams doesn't want you to do.