Mr. "Cristan" Williams, the Cotton Ceiling, and a Big Pile of Straw

It would be tempting, having read Mr. "Cristan" Williams latest round of misdirection and straw arguments entitled "Cotton Ceiling: Uncovering the trans conspiracy to rape lesbians" to just roll one's eyes, and say "Well, he is an idiot..."  But no, this article actually took quite a bit of thought to come up with.  You don't build up that kind of deception without putting at least some effort into it.  No, I think he really knows better.

Or not...  Maybe he is really is that blind to what women actually experience and think that he really does believe his own lies.  Either way, the bottom line is, he is putting up his usual arrogant straw arguments.

In this latest travesty of a post, he actually tries to defend the "cotton ceiling" silliness pushed by men pretending to be lesbians.  What he ignores is the simple fact that rape not only involves force, but can also involve coercion.  And quite frankly, coercion is what the cotton ceiling is really about.

Mr. Williams, in his typical fashion, presents several straw arguments, and attempts a rather clumsy bit of misdirection.  He first bases his argument, quite laughably, on the fact that the matter began with only seven participants in the original workshop where, apparently, the term was coined.

The problem is classic.  How many times have we heard it?  All together now, let's repeat it for the benefit of men like Mr. Williams....  

NO MEANS NO!

As in, end of discussion...the matter is closed....go away and leave the women alone.  But, as is so typical, they won't take no for an answer.  They have to "identify barriers" (i.e. THEY DON'T WANT TO HAVE SEX WITH YOU AND HAVE SAID NO!" and then "strategize ways to overcome them" (i.e. "We find a way to get them to have sex with us, or die trying..." and then these idiots think this will "build community?"  I think the message is pretty clear....they are not wanted in the community they are trying to, quite frankly, force their way into, and this effort is pretty much just going to make that worse.  In fact, it clearly has, but these are men, and men don't believe in retreat.

Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I am a straight woman, so my only interest here is a general one in the bigger picture of how other women are treated.  I am not interested in having sex with lesbians, and I am certainly not interested in a "man in a dress."  I like my men a bit more, well, masculine.  Sure, it would be easy to just ignore the whole mess, and let them duke it out.  But I am not one to ignore someone trying to bully another.  

Mr. Williams then goes on and pulls the old trick of putting words in other's mouthes...a classic variant of the straw argument:

TERF: Teh cotton ceiling is all about teaching trans people how to rape lesbians!1!!

Dupe: LOLWUT

TERF: Yeah, Planned Parenthood gave a workshop to teach trans people how to rape lesbians! No means no!

Dupe: That sounds a little strange to me…

TERF: Don’t believe me? Google any of the many, many, many TERF blogs that freaked over the Planned Parenthood workshop! #rapeculture

Dupe: Well, I did hear about how transwomen want to hang out in the women’s restroom…

TERF: Yup, it’s all about rapey rape culture!

Dupe: Yeah, I guess tranwomen are kinda rapey…

TERF: I KNOW, RIGHT?!?! Spread the word!

Dupe: I’m totally blogging about this!

This is typical of Mr. Williams.  He isn't quoting anyone in particular, and the one example he offers simply proves he is misquoting it. 

Even when faced with facts, he tries to "spin" it to sound like women are being unreasonable...

Original workshop description:  Participants will work together to identify barriers, strategize ways to overcome them, and build community. 

TERF Petition to stop the workshop:Planned Parenthood Toronto is helping to sponsor a March 31 conference in Toronto that includes a workshop inviting participants to discuss and strategize ways they might be able to“overcome” women’s objections to these participants’ sexual advances.

I mean, it is more than a bit obvious that the only barrier to overcome is women's objections to these participants sexual advances.  Whether you are male, female, transgender, transsexual, or a woman born woman....NO MEANS NO!  End of discussion.  Back off.  Go away.  Stop trying to have sex with that person.  But, some, particularly men, don't seem to get this.

He goes on in this vein, attempting, quite lamely, to make transgender men the victim of a "TERF" conspiracy.  Funny, but he just can't seem to accept that simple fact...

NO MEANS NO!

 End of discussion.

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?"

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.

Mr. Sandeen Get's Desperate

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

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

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

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

Why Are So Many Transgender Kooks Also Bullies?

As I have recounted, I have again been subjected to a round of attempted cyberbullying by Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen.  But, this i only the tip of the iceberg.  If you don't adhere to the approved "transgender kook party line," watch out.  I have mentioned the attacks that Mr. Sandeen has leveled at Cathy Brennan, who has also been attacked by numerous other transgender kooks.  And now, another of the bully boys, Mr. "Cristan" Williams is having another hissy fit because he, and other boys, are not allowed to visit the infamous Michigan Womyn Who Can't Spell Women Music Festival.  Now, let me disclose, right off, I have no real interest in ever going to such an event.  Like the vast majority of women, it simply does not appeal to me.  But, this has become the Holy Grail for the Men in Dresses crowd.  They have fits at the very thought that they are not welcome in that place.  And speak of Mr. Sandeen, I recall that he claims that they have to let him into the MWMF because his fraudulently obtained birth certificate proves that he is, and I am not making this up, a "woman born woman."

Yes, the latest to take on this issue is Mr. Cristan Williams, who posted a rant on TransAdvocate, which he now runs.  In it, he tries to link the policies at MWMF to transsexuals being denied medical care.  This follows an earlier article (that I planned on commenting on, but couldn't stop laughing at whenever I saw it), where one of the kookiest of the kooks, Zoe Brain (who presumably did not need such medical care since he claims he just sort of magically turned into a woman) claims that Janice Raymond caused the deaths of 50,000 transgender people because they committed suicide after being denied SRS, or something like that.

Personally, if some group has an exclusionary policy that, well, excludes me, that's fine.  I have no desire to invade, for example, the Pacific-Union Club here in San Francisco.  It is a men's only club, and while I will admit to a mild curiosity about what might go on there, I would not remotely consider trying to force my way in.  The same goes for the Bohemian Club, and a few others.  Sure, it would be interesting to have some insight into the mysterious and supposed conspiracies that are hatched out in the woods up near Monte Rio, California, but trying to force them to let me in does not haunt me like invading the MWMF does the transgender kooks.

Sure, a lot of post-op transsexuals, and maybe even a few men with intact penises manage to sneak in every years, but that is not what the boys are after. They want, as always, to be able to "openly" invade the place. That is, to force the women there to "acknowledge" them as full-fledged women with penises, or in some cases, former women with penises...or whatever.

Why, the very fact that there are a few women up there in the woods in Michigan who have not been beaten into submission to the transgender party line gives these poor boys a case of the vapors... Here is what, Nancy Burkholder, the person who apparently started the who thing has to say about it:

My mind was blank, my body absolutely still as I became aware of the emotional devastation that I felt inside. The events that were going down seemed totally unreal. Nevertheless I found a place of calm inside myself. I found acceptance for my situation, and I could feel the emotional devastation without the devastation overwhelming me.

Now, I will grant, Burkholder claims to have not been aware of the policy, and apparently it was not mentioned in the literature until this person showed up.  But seriously, you would think this person had been raped, rather than simply denied admission to a music festival.  No, it is not pleasant having one's identity challenged, especially if one really is transsexual, but even if that is the case here, it seems to represent some pretty massive insecurities.  I can't speak for everyone, but I am secure enough in terms of who I am that I don't let such things throw me for this big of a loop.

My advice to Mr. Williams, and all the others who whine about this every years is simple.  Get over yourselves.  Lisa Vogel and her crew don't want you at their private party, and you need to accept that.  They don't think you are really women (yeah, she thinks the same about me, but I really could care less) and well, in the case of those most obsessed with the whole thing, I suspect she is probably right.  So, go find a bunch of girls who will play with you.  I am sure you can find a few who will swallow the lie that women have, and want to keep, penises.  But Lisa isn't one of them, and I don't think she is going to give in to your bullying.

Mr. Sandeen Is Cyberstalking Again

I have pointed out, more than once, that "Autumn" Sandeen is a kook, who has engaged in cyberstalking me, sending emails attacking me to my church.  Well, he is up to it again, this time trying to harass some lesbian he has it in for;

Check out this article.

I mean, seriously.  Sandeen is literally out of touch with reality.  He apparently believes, as indicated by his remark on Twitter, that he is "now" a "Woman Born Woman" because he committed a fraud and lied to a judge to get his birth certificate changed.  No, he is not a woman, legal or otherwise.  And is certainly not a female.  FEMALES DO NOT HAVE PENISES.  WOMEN DO NOT HAVE A PENIS AND A DESIRE TO KEEP IT.

Again, you can't make this stuff up.

The Boy's Club Closes Ranks

Well, well...since Suzan Cooke, aka "Locutus of Borg" has gone off the deep end in defense of "Colleen" Francis, the pervert who has been forcing himself on young girls, the men in dresses club has had to rally to Cooke's defense.  Yes, no less gender fascist than Mr. "Cristan" Williams has rallied to the defense of Cooke, and Mr. Francis.  Can't leave a fellow pervert to stand alone...

Let's be clear here.  This pervert in Washington state is not a pre-op transsexual.  He has made clear that he has a penis, and he wants to keep it.  And he loves showing it to teenage girls.  He is a classic transvestite, who is turned on by the idea of being a "woman with a penis," and goes to the extreme of forcing his penis on others and then suggests that they should "just get over it."  And, Williams, a fellow pervert, thinks that anyone who disagrees with this sickening behavior is "under a Klan Fallacy."

Now, let me remind people here of a common tactic of extremists.  You compare your opponent to some great evil.  If you are right wing, you call your enemy a "Communist."  It doesn't matter if they have a connection to communism, or not.  You just throw that accusation out there.  The idea is they will be so embarrassed they will either fold, and go away, or be caught up in refuting the outrageous accusation.  If you are left wing, you compare your enemy to the Nazis (also works for the right wing in some cases), or better yet, the Klan.  And that is the dishonest tactic that Mr. Williams has resorted to in his desperation.

Now, here is a man, who claims to be a woman, attacking women, for not wanting to have a man, with a penis, who claims to be a woman, forcing that penis on them.  Pervert Francis is engaged in the same basic sort of violence against women that rapist engage in...using his penis as a weapon.  Williams, a man, is defending this behavior.  What Mr. Francis is doing is an act of violence, albeit a bit less than an outright rape, buy still an act of violence.  Just like a "flasher," he is imposing his penis on women.  And Mr. Williams, thinks this is just fine, and anyone who doesn't see it their way is a member of the Klan.

Now, in defense, yes, I said defense, of RAPISTS, yes I said RAPISTS, Mr.  Williams offers thirty, count them, thirty examples of women who have engaged, according to Mr. Williams, in rape.  This is supposed to "prove" that men are no more of a danger to women than,  "womym born womyn."  Seriously...give me a break.  This is the sort of argument that only a man could possibly imagine making.  For those who have come here and question why I have the audacity to refer to "Cristan" Williams with male pronouns, and have refused to acknowledge HIS "womanhood"....well, there you have your answer.  

Thirty women, compared to how many hundreds, even thousands of men?  Yes, one can find examples of anything.  I could, no doubt, easily find thirty transvestites who are guilty of any crime, and claim that proves that transvestites are a danger.  Shoot, I would be I could find more, say, 300.  I could find some arbitrary number of any group, and claim it proves something, and like Mr. Williams, I would be intellectually dishonest.

The fact is, rapists, exhibitionists, child molesters, and such tend to be men.  For those thirty women, I would venture that there are thousands of men guilty of rape.  Does this mean that all transvestites are rapists?  No, of course not.  Does this mean that all men are rapists?  No, how absurd!  Does this mean that women have every right to be uneasy at the presence, of an obvious man, in a place where women have good reason to expect to feel relatively secure, and free from the presence of men?  Yes, absolutely.  Does Mr. Williams, a man, with no real evidence of actually having a feminized brain remotely understand this?  Not remotely.  He is "transgender" and he thinks as a transgender, he is above women.  They should bow to his demands...

Cooke, I suspect, is more a classic bigot.  She has a hatred, an irrational hatred, of a certain class of people, and that clouds her thinking.  But Williams goes beyond this. Williams tries to claim that a woman being uncomfortable with the presence of a man in a women's room is comparable to a white woman being uncomfortable with a black woman in the women's room.  Now, this might seem, to some, on face value to be a valid argument.  It is, however, both dishonest, and without any basis in reality.  Being a particular race is based strictly, without question, on genetics.  While is it possible, in theory, to alter one's skin tone to appear darker, and even to undergo cosmetic surgery to appear to be another race, this is a bit extreme.  But any man can, if it suits him, simply dress as a woman.  And for a significant number of men, this is basically what happens.  Put another way, we are discussing something reasonably assumed to be congenital and unalterable, with something it is equally reasonable to assume is simply chosen behavior.

Perverts like Mr. Francis, and Mr. Williams choose to behave as they do.  A woman who is black, or Asian, or even white, did not likely make a choice.  A man, choosing to engage in a certain behavior, such as Mr. Francis, or Mr. Williams, should not be automatically allowed to force himself on women.  But, Mr. Williams says if you don't think they should be able to, you are a victim of the "Klan fallacy."

Mr. Williams, simply put, is full of crap.  Laughably, absurdly, and totally, full of crap.  Seriously, if you take his arguments seriously, you are an idiot.  End of story.  This is comparable to people who claim that perpetual motion exists, but the government is covering it up.  This is comparable to people who claim to have solved some unsolvable math problem.  Williams, is, well, a bad joke, and the sad thing is, he is not alone. 

Oh, and I am going to call it....  By invoking the Klan, Mr. Williams has, effectively, committed a technical violation of Godwin's Law, and has, simply put, lost the argument on that basis alone.  So, the fact that he is a total moron is somewhat irrelevant.  

Hit A Nerve...Again

Well, in my article on depathologization I mentioned Suzan Cooke, and somewhat predictably, Cooke has responded with another rant.  Well, I can always tell when I really hit a nerve.  The angrier Cooke is, the more rambling Cooke's rant becomes.  This one is especially bizarre.

As I have observed, Cooke does not like any criticism.  Cooke seems to be afraid of her ideas being challenged, and goes to serious lengths to avoid actually having to defend them.  Simply put, Cooke apparently fears the truth.

What really disturbs Cooke, though she will deny it vehemently, is that some of us see through her silliness.  Cooke has serious issues, and hides behind a facade of radical chic
to avoid facing them.  Cooke was a cradle Roman Catholic, which must have been hard.  Of course, Rome teaches that it holds absolute authority in spiritual matters.  If Rome says you are a sinner, well, you are supposed to accept it without question.  Cooke couldn't, and so Cooke rebelled.  But rebelling is not always so easy. 

Cooke could not reconcile her feelings with the teachings of the Church, so Cooke simply rejected God, who in Cooke's mind is at fault, and did the worst thing she could think of.  She told Him she no longer believes in Him.  I guess that is supposed to show Him who's boss...  I always feel sorry for the angry atheist, shaking a fist in God's face, and screaming "I don't believe in You!  So, there!!!"  And yes, I see the contradiction...they try not to.

I think part of Cooke's problem is, she doesn't realize that I see her as more of a clown than anything else.  A sad clown, granted, but a self-parody that becomes more and more irrelevant with each rant.

Cooke has always tried, somewhat successfully, to cultivate a cult of personality.  Years ago, Cooke was a terror on Usenet, sitting in judgement on those she deemed less worthy.  I recall her referring to transssexuals who remained married to spouses as "skin transvestites."  One in particular, was regularly tormented by Cooke.  Years later, that same sad case still clings to Cooke's every word.  A crumb of approval from Cooke is all she seeks...

I admit, I feel prey to this a bit myself.  Then I realized Cooke is, well, more Kook than anything else.  A sad, insecure soul, trying to relive some imagined glory from the past.  And facing the fact that more and more realize that she is not so wise after all.

The real irony in this latest post is Cooke's attempt to link me to the Tea Party.  Now, that is a real hoot for one simple reason.  I see Cooke, and the Tea Party in much the same way.  Two extremes, both wrong.  You see, in politics, the truth is in the middle, not at the extremes.  Cooke is at one erroneous extreme, and the Tea Party is at the other.  And worse, the extremes are often closer to each other than to the Center.

I remember a guy I knew in the mid-Seventies.  He was a bit of a hanger-on during the Jimmy Carter campaign.  A lot like Cooke, he fancied himself an uber-radical, and bragged about his radical history.  He used to go hang out at the John Birch Society headquarters where he discussed the Illuminati with the Right Wing kooks.  They were coming from opposite extremes, but they were both so far gone that they actually had a lot in common.

So no, I am not Tea Party, or anywhere near Cooke politically.

But i am more than a bit amused...and now awaiting Cooke's next angry rant...but no, I will not be silenced.

Just Call Her Locutus, Because She Has Been Assimilated!

I have noticed for a while now that Suzan Cooke has a tendency to oscillate between being virulently anti-transgender, and sounding pretty much like a card-carry member of what she likes to label the "Borg."  Well, it appears that, like Captain Picard, she has been assimilated...


For one thing, "Cristan" Williams, a leading kook among the more extreme faction of the gender fascists has given his imprimatur to Cooke, saying that "Suzan Cooke Nails It" and singing her praises because he claims that Cooke has begun adopting some of his rather odd views of trans-history.  He seems very determined to hide the embarrassment that was wrought upon his kind by Arnold Lowman, better known as Charles "Virginia" Prince.  Oh well, now he is claiming Cooke as something of a covert.  Perhaps she is....  But he mainly is delighted that she seems to share his obsession with being "transgressive."  He cannot stand the idea that anyone would actually transition and then get on with a normal life.  He tries to force transgression on others, much as Cooke is coming around to doing.  I believe they come at this from different directions, but the result is the same...


Personally, I wish that those who are caught up in the pretend world of gender transgression would just leave the rest of us be, but they don't seem capable of that.  And now, Cooke is starting to spread some false claims...


In a recent post Cooke claims:

Transsexuals have the HBS/Classic Transsexuals who tried to take over the label Women Born Transsexual, but were rebuffed from that action back when the meme represented a mailing list and not a blog. They managed to pollute the meme because some people insisted on associating WBT with the HBS/Classic Transsexuals set, even though we opposed the transphobia and homophobia as well as the right wing rhetoric that is the stock and trade of the HBS/CT set.
When I started this blog I was denounced for being supported by Andrea James by people Andrea James had exposed as trolls and frauds. I was denounced for supporting the efforts of Andrea James and Calpernia Addams.
I made it clear from the start that I did not like the HBS movement, particularly since it was originally and quite appropriately titled the “BS Movement.”

Actually, the HBS group that I was part of (there were at least two) had no desire to be linked with the label "Women Born Transsexual," which we largely considered a rather silly attempt to sound like the even sillier "Womyn Born Women" meme of Lesbian Separatists.  Now, after my surgery, I joined Cooke's mailing list, where I made the unforgivable faux pas of actually having an idea that Cooke hadn't thought up first.  If one expressed a view that Cooke disapproved of, and then actually defended that view, you were seen as a "threat" and attacked.  In my case, it was repeating a suggestion a friend of mine had once made that transsexuals should hire someone, a non-transsexual woman, to serve as a spokesperson.  Cooke went postal over the idea, and when I defended it, well things got nasty.  Tina, Cooke's partner, decided I was a threat, and well even though I actually went so far as to apologize, I was kicked out of the group.  


I thought Cooke had mellowed and matured from here rather silly behavior back on Usenet, but no...she was moving back towards behaving like a bad caricature of a Sixties radical.  This, of course, is the Cooke we all know and well, have a good laugh at.  I really can't take here all that serious any more.  Some still buy the idea that Cooke has some standing as an elder in the tribe, but actually, she is just a very insecure person trying to be somebody.  Oh well, Cooke has a few followers who tremble in fear of her disapproval.  


And for the record, it was Cooke who tried to link to HBS, not the other way around.  She linked WBT with HBS on her blog until she realized that we were not going to march in lockstep with here silliness on certain points of view.  And there was an early suggestion that the term be "Benjamin Syndrome" until it was discovered that this was already used for another condition involving mental retardation.  It was never referred to as "BS."

Hoist By Her Own Petard

Suzan Cooke, who can't seem to make up her mind whether she wants to be a "transsexual separatist" or a "transgender apologist" posted a story yesterday about a "transsexual" woman who was cited for using the women's room at Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas, Texas.  To make matters worse, Cooke included a taunt aimed at the "HBS Sisters of Transsexual Purity:"

Do the HBS Sisters of Transsexual purity who side with the radical feminists and the ultra right wing Christo-Fascists want people in treatment, with Doctor’s letters stating they are on hormones and in transition to be denied restroom access.

The short answer, of course, is "No."  The long answer is, "Whoops, someone got hoist by her own petard...."


It seems that this person's story has turned out to be more than a bit questionable.  Now, first off, I have to point out that it is highly curious that this person is initially identified as "transsexual" instead of the usual "transgender."  Given what has come out, that raises some questions.


Well, right off the bat, at least one commenter to Cooke's blog smelled a rat.  Cooke continued to try to defend the story, but then the details began to roll in...  The first clue was the fact that this "transsexual's" carry letter was dated after the citation was given.  In another words, this person did not have a letter at the time they were cited.


Another issue was the fact that this person claims to be in transition for six years but they have not had a name change.  And it should be noted, getting one's name change is not at all difficult in Texas.  This person, who is both legally, and physically male, claimed to be at the hospital with "her" husband.  Uh, that's just not possible in Texas.


Up to this point, Cooke was making every effort to keep defending this person...then things got really interesting.


It turns out that that the person involved is on the sex crime registry for molesting under-age girls.  Isn't this the sort of thing that the transgender kooks claim never happens.   So, the bottom line is this:


A person who has made questionable claims about being in transition for six years, falsely claimed a husband, and who is a registered sex offender was caught using the ladies room.  This person lied about having a carry letter, producing one obtained after the citation was issued.  


So, no, as I have said before, I have no problem with someone who is legitimately in transition using the ladies room.  But, I do have a problem with someone who is clearly a fraud doing so. 

Why Not Transgender Activism?

Gender Fascist "Autumn" Sandeen has been on a tear lately...  First, he viciously attacked transsexual activist Ashley Love.  I considered doing a post on that disaster, but so many others covered so well, I didn't really feel the need.  Then Mr. Sandeen followed up with a post asking, "Why Transgender Activism?" in which he rather pompously claims the right to speak for post-op transsexuals, whether we like it, or not.


I guess Mr. Sandeen learned nothing from the angry responses to his attacks on Ashley Love, who had the unmitigated gall to actually question the infallibility of kooks like Mr. Sandeen.  He was seriously taken to task, even by some of his allies.


So, what is wrong with what Mr. Sandeen calls "transgender activism?"


First off, it is largely unwelcome.  Mr. Sandeen claims, in another post, that the rights of transsexuals is a major focus of transgender activism.  And yet, a majority of those who are transgender identified are not remotely transsexual, and worse, many, if not most, of them actively attack transsexuals as elitist, irrelevant, essentialist, and separatist.  To their mind, we have sold out.  We have given in to the "binary paradigm."  In another time, we would have been called "counter revolutionary."  So why would we want these people speaking for us?  


Mr. Sandeen claims a commonality amongst crossdressers, transvestites, drag queens, transgender people and transsexuals.  He says this commonality is a violation of the gender norms of Western Society.  But that is where his analogy fails.  Transsexuals, by and large, as already pointed out, don't wish to deconstruct the binary.  We are attempting to fit into gender norms, not to violate them.  This is what separates transsexuals and the transgender.  They want to be known, and seen, as men who are pretending to be women, or perhaps as they will claim, as women with penises.  They want to flaunt their behavior.  And this leads into the next point.


Second, it is harmful to the interests of transsexuals.  Transsexuals want to simply correct their bodies, and their lives, and move on.  We are seeking normality.  The transgender movement is about being "different."  They don't want to live quiet lives as their appropriate sex.  They want to live as a gender at odds with their correct one.  They want to be women with penises, or men with vaginas.  They want to be at odds with society, unless they can bend society to their way of thinking.  That is certainly their right, but it is not their right to force this paradigm on those who don't desire it.  And when they do, gains that transsexuals have made become endangered because of backlash.  Years ago, every state made provisions for the correction of driver's licenses for post-ops.  All but about three allow birth certificates to be corrected.  Post-ops rarely had problems with marriage.  But, because of transgender activists this is all being threatened in some locations.  


Will transgender extremists like Mr. Sandeen that the hint?  Will they stop trying to speak for transsexuals and insisting that they are working for our rights?  I doubt it.  They need transsexuals to hide behind.  They try to claim to be transsexual in order to advance their extremist agenda, failing to recognize the damage they do.  They have done nothing to actually advance our cause, and much to harm it.


Ideally, the whole transgender fad would fade.  But that won't happen soon enough.  In the meantime, they will continue to cause harm to women, both transsexuals, and those born women.

I Don't Need Permission to be a Woman

On the English transgender web site, Bird of Paradox, the author is again having a hissy fit over the "Reclaim the Night" march that will be held by the London Feminist Network next month. Now, this march, which is a protest against violence against women, is specifically "women only."

What I find absolutely hilarious in all of this it the fact that LFN says it is open to women, including the phrase “women of all backgrounds.” Now, as a post-op survivor of HBS I would have no problems with that. It says women only, and I am a woman. But that is not good enough for some transgender activists. It does not specifically state that it is trans-inclusive.

I notice specifically it says nothing like “women born women,” which is, of course, the “nice,” politically correct, way of saying “no transsexuals.” So, the fact that they don’t single out transsexuals, and specifically say, “transsexuals are welcome too,” in effect saying that you might not really be women, but are welcome anyway, offends the author? Go figure. I would be more offended at the suggestion that because I had HBS that I had to be specifically told that it was okay for me to identify as a woman.

Now, personally, I would not join them because I don’t agree with all of their views, but it would not be because I am not really a woman and feel I need a special invitation to come.

Term Limits

It was two years ago today that the first post in this blog appeared. Originally, I thought I would probably produce one or two posts a month. Things have increased considerably. This month I have posted as many posts as I did in the previous year. Of course, I could post more, but I write each post, as opposed to reposting stuff from other sources just so I can produce several posts a day.

In honor of this milestone, here is a special post looking at some terms the gender fascists seem to love....

From Through The Looking-Glass And What Alice Found There by Lewis Carroll:

When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean— neither more nor less.’

‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master - - that’s all.'

Anyone who has dealt with the transgender community might well feel as though they have gone down the rabbit hole and joined Alice in talking with Humpty Dumpty. Much of the terminology used seems to bear little resemblance to anything that can be called reality.

In this posting, I would like to look at some of the terms one encounters and discuss both what they mean, and what the gender fascists want them to mean.

Well, as they say, the first place to start is at the beginning.

Transgender - Of course, this path has been trod before, but let's review...The gender fascists would have us believe that "transgender" is an objective term that refers to a specific, identifiable group. They would include transvestites, crossdressers, drag queens, drag queens, transgenderists, butch women, femme men, gender queers, two spirits, bois, gurls, sissy maids....oh, and of course, transsexuals. (Now, why any true or classic transsexual would want to be lumped in with stuff like crossdressers and sissy maids is beyond me.)

The problem is, "transgender" is not an objective term. It never has been, and never will be. It is an artificial social/political construct and it has too many different definitions, most of which are often in conflict with one another. Also, many of those who some would force the term on do not wish to be defined that way.

It is often used to imply that one can "change one's gender." This of course is not true, and is an absurd thing to suggest. If it were possible, then transsexuals could simply choose to change their gender to match their bodies, and no one would need to have surgery. Contrary to the claims of many, gender is not fluid. Ironically, most who are "transgender" were actually born with a gender that matches their body, and are actually trying to present as a gender other than their true one.

Transgender is, plain and simple, an identity. It is a label that one can adopt, but which, likewise, one should be free to reject. It should never be forced on someone against their will, and it should never be used to describe someone unless they themselves have indicated a willingness to be called that. Of course, this sort of concept infuriates the gender fascists who feel free to label people as they see fit, but who become furious if someone does not pander to their silly delusions.

Now, one of the bigger problems with "transgender" is the fact that many feel their gender is not the issue. For example, my gender has always been female. I did not decide to change my gender. I decided to accept my gender, and instead to change my sex. Gender, it appears, is immutable. But the transgender paradigm holds that gender is a social construct and is therefore a choice.

Some define "transgender" in terms of either transgressing or transcending gender. Most who identify as having Harry Benjamin Syndrome do not see themselves as doing either. I certainly do not transgress gender. My gender is female, and that is how I dress and behave. The idea of appearing in public dressed as a man strikes me as absurd. Nor did I transcend gender. I simply accepted the gender I truly am, and got on with my life.

Gender Variant - Gender variant is becoming an increasingly popular replacement for "transgender." Of course, this, as much as anything, shows just how clueless some people are. They think "gender variant" is a more benign term than "transgender." In truth, for most, it is even more offensive. First off, there is nothing variant about my gender. I have a female gender, and I simply conform to societies standards for that gender. Of course, I am sure there are those who would love to see this replace "transgender" as it will set them even more apart from normal society.

Transgenderist - Transgenderist was the term first coined by Charles "Virginia" Prince to describe those, like himself, who chose to live full time as the opposite sex without seeking SRS. Prince was adamantly opposed to sex reassignment surgery. It has been suggested that this was because Prince was denied surgery when he attempted to get it. It has largely been replaced by the oxymoron "non-op transsexual."

Cis-whatever - In scientific terms, "cis" is the opposite of "trans" so someone came up with the bright idea of using "cisgender" to refer to people who are, in effect, normal. That was silly enough, but now the term has become something of an insult. Other variations include things like "cissexual." It's use led to a major meltdown on Pam's House Blend. Personally, I don't see why a special term is needed for people who are not transgender or transsexual.

Normborn - This is a relatively new term, which has appeared on a few blogs, especially on Women Born Transsexual where, like "cisgender" it is used as something of an insult. Again, this speaks loads about the transgender mindset...and what is says is not at all favorable. It has to be kept in mind, being transgender is all about being different...being "other," simply being at odds with normal, decent society. This is why some gender fascists seem to hate the HBS concept. They don't want to be normal, and they can't seem to stand the idea that anyone else would want to be either. Of course, they want to force society to accept them, and the idea that there might be transsexuals who don't share their desire to rebel against norms works against that.

The transgender attitude is summed up best by a quote from Gwen Smith concerning a couple of cases that have received attention lately:

A cadre of experts – right or wrong – will be attempting to decide if Semenya is male or female, and that will determine if she will be able to continue to compete on the world stage. Meanwhile, Manpower Inc. will not get to ogle Blatt's genitals to determine if others will be magically comfortable around her.

No one should get that power. The only people who can truly say if we are men or women are ourselves.

In the case of Semenya, the issue is one of simple fairness. If she has some medical condition that gives her an unfair advantage, then the officials have a right to know this. And of course, given that she has higher than normal levels of testosterone, and that her coach is a former East German with a history of cheating, it is not unreasonable for them to investigate.

As to Blatt, this person was in a position that involved being in the locker room with women who might be nude. There is good reason to believe that Blatt has not had corrective surgery, and given that some doctors will provide documentation that falsely implies that surgery has taken place, when it is not actual SRS, it is not unreasonable that her employer require additional documentation. The request for a photograph of her genitalia was not the most reasonable approach, but it would deal with the possibility of fraud. A better approach would have been to simply request an examination by a doctor that Manpower could trust.

No, whether or not we are men or women is not our choice, and there are situations where simply taking someones word for it is not a reasonable demand.

Women Born Transsexual - This term was dreamed up by Suzan Cooke. Cooke was trying to counter the "women born women" concept that some extremist lesbian-separatists have used to dismiss transsexuals as being "not really women." Of course, those who think in terms of "women born women" are a very small minority that are largely insignificant to the lives of most women.

This term was originally supposed to differentiate between transsexual and transgender, but increasingly Cooke has adopted transgender views, and is now transgender in all but name. Cooke's latest effort is to add another T to LGBT, creating LGBT/T for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender/Transsexual. Cooke simply does not get it. Those who do not wish to identify as transgender are not going to want to compromise in this manner either.

So, as this blog begins its third year, I look back at all the changes. More and more, people are speaking up and saying "No!" to the gender fascists. We may be small, but we are not going to roll over and play dead for the gender fascists.

So What?

In a recent post, Suzan Cooke, who has increasingly moved towards the transgender view, rejects the idea of Harry Benjamin Syndrome. I suppose that is supposed to be a slam against those who support that term, but actually as I have said before I would just as soon that Cooke not try to subvert the HBS movement. I am more than happy to not have her endorsement, as are many other people I know.

Of course, Cooke is never content to just reject something. She has to tell us how important she is. Of course, she doesn't always have her facts straight:

When the proposal was first floated by some one from Spain it was put forth as Benjamin Syndrome. Given my working class earthiness and anarcha-feminist streak I responded, “Bullshit!”. They went huh. I then pointed out that Benjamin Syndrome produced the acronym BS which in common American slang meant bulls**t. (expletive deleted)

Now the con artist floating this one pled that in Spanish it was Sindrome Benjamin. But I still wasn’t buying.

It then morphed in to Harry Benjamin Syndrome or HBS and I remained stoically unimpressed.

She sort of has her facts half-way correct. When the term was first discussed, Benjamin Sydrome was considered. And yes, some jokes have been made about the acronym, but the actual facts are that Benjamin Syndrome is already a medical term. It was changed, not because Cooke pointed out what the abbreviation was, but because the term is already taken.

Now, I find it interesting that Cooke will say something like:

I honestly never saw transsexualism as a contest. Although class differences mean that those with the money have access to more and better surgeries. Sometime when I listen to the list of all the surgeries I have to wonder about the quest for the Mercedes Benz of pussies styled and shaped as though with Photoshop. Now I know that women born female get these customized pussy jobs too but still it seems a tad obsessive even considering I too had a labiaplasty way back when.

The whole game of I am more woman than you is pretty tiresome and evolving in a direction that has started sounding actually disturbed.

And then Cooke makes statements like:

I mean he said all the right things that I would get used to doctors saying, “Like you are one of the most perfect cases of transsexualism I have ever seen. and I’m sure that with you there is something physical.

And:

I looked like a girl before I ever started hormones so I may well have not processed testosterone very well but I don’t feel a need to obsess on all sorts of different forms of intersex conditions to stake my claim on realness because realness is a way of life and not a genetic condition.

Funny, for someone who claims to not see transsexualism as a competition, Cooke is awfully persistent in letting us know how she looked like a girl even before hormones, and how Harry Benjamin told her how perfect she was.

Now, I have observed many times that the whole "more woman than you" concept is very male. I mean, how does one quantify womanhood? What is the base unit? It is really silly. Either you are a woman, or you are not. And if you feel the need to qualify your womandhood, with terms like "trans woman," "Woman Born Transsexual," or even "Woman Born Woman," then it really raises some questions. As one commenter said in response to Cooke:

Good. You stick with transsexualism or whatever it is you’re calling yourself today and I’ll use HBS. Better still, I’ll just stick to calling myself a woman, because that’s what I am and how I see myself, no dashes required.

HBS refers to a medical condition that I have that was treated. It is not an identity, like transgender, or WBT. I also have diabetes, but I don't identify as a Woman With Diabetes. It is just something I have, that requires treatment, and which would result in unpleasant consequences if I ignore it...just like HBS.

Now, if there is any question about what is going on in some people's minds, just consider the comment made by Cooke's partner, Tina, who is also a transsexual:

In its own way, HBS merely describes a syndrome to be treated. It does not in any way describe the person treated.

Someone treated for HBS can personally describe themselves as TG, TS, etc.

WBT on the other hand describes a WOMAN who was BORN transsexual. It speaks to the very antithesis of TG.

WBT cannot BE transgender. At the same time, WBT does not have to denigrate others. It is not a zero sum game.

Her first two sentences are quite accurate. Her second two are not. Cooke is, as has been observed several times, transgender in all but name. Tina is pretty much the same. So, her claim that WBT cannot be transgender is simply false. WBT, like transgender, is an identity game. It is a an artificial construct. It is not something objective, i.e. it does not "merely describe a syndrome to be treated." Instead, it is something one calls oneself...a sort of club one joins. Yes, a person with HBS might choose to join the TG club, or the WBT club, or even both. But as many have observed, you need both Cooke's and Tina's permission to be a "Woman Born Transsexual."

And no, HBS is not about denigrating anyone. Contrary to the mythology of the transgender types, disagreeing with then is not denigrating. Pointing out the silliness of their claims is not denigrating. And not wishing to embrace the concept of identity politics is also not denigration,

Oh, and I have noticed, while some transgender types are coming to embrace WBT, it does seem to drive the TG crowd into fits of panic and anger.

Compromise? No thanks!

In a recent post on her Women Born Transsexual, Suzan Cooke writes about "compromises." For fsome time now, I have watched as Cooke has come closer and closer to a alignment with the gender fascists. The first major sign was when Cooke became friends with one of the lead gender fascists, Monica Helms. Since then, Cooke has moved closer and closer to accepting transgender, even those she continues to deny it.

Now, Cooke has finally stopped sipping the "transgender Kool-Aid" and started downing it by the gallon. She talks about "acknowledging our differences" but the end result is the same. She wants to join the transgender movement, provided she can pretend to maintain the illusion of separation. Sorry, but "No thanks!"

Part of the problem is, Cooke has long been "transgender" in all but name. She has always had a tendency to embrace her differences. In a way, this is not surprising. Cooke's attitude reminds me of the famous quote from the Marlon Brando movie. When Brando's character is asked, "What are you rebelling against, Johnny?" he replies, "Whaddya got?" That pretty much sums up Cooke, who mostly fills her blog with self-aggrandizing stories of her glory days as a revolutionary.

Cooke, and her partner who is also a transsexual, take credit for coming up with the term "Women Born Transsexual," which apparently was meant to play off of "Women Born Women." Originally, it seemed to serve as a strong denunciation of the transgender model, but that has begun to change. Shortly after she started her blog, Cooke began increasingly to embrace transgender activism, calling for transsexuals to join her in fighting for the goals of the the TG community.

Further, Cooke has increasingly adopted the transgender model of identifying as being out side the binary paradigm. For example, in her blog she states:

When I started this blog the first thing that happened is that a few people made snide remarks about Andrea James and Lynn Conway. They wanted me to embrace things like “HBS” and “Classic Transsexual”. I probably disappointed a number of fplks (sic)when I embraced neither.

Actually, I was not disappointed at all. In fact, I would be quite alarmed if Cooke were to try to co-opt the Harry Benjamin Syndrome movement. Now, while I do not agree with everything that Andrea James and Lynn Conway say, I don't have the animosity towards them that some have. But it does seem that Cooke is actually drawn to then for the same reasons many disagree.

Cooke, in her next statement, solidly aligns herself with what is, essentially, the transgender model:

I actually like the term “Transsexual” for the name of what I was born. Not so much as an identity but it gives clarity to the oppression I endured as a transkid and it doesn’t hide the reality of my life journey behind a bunch of jargon aimed at obscuring.

In another words, she wishes to embrace her "special status" and separate from those she has derisively referred to as "normborns." And, ironically, by adopting the term "transkid" she actually seems to be, perhaps inadvertently, aligning herself with the Blanchard-Bailey model. This term is widely used by their supporters to describe those who Blanchard would term "homosexual transsexuals."

Or perhaps Cooke is just insecure in her own identity. This would explain this rather odd remark:

As for “classic transsexual” I recognize it for what it is, a post-moderning term for heterosexual transsexual. as such I tend to see it as both homophobic and as a slam against sisters who come out later in life. It goes against my theories that the root cause of transsexualism is the same for almost all transsexuals and the truth can be found in the narrative. Reading biography after biography leads me to this conclusion that actual people with TS knew as early as their first conscious memories.

What makes this all very strange is that Cooke feels it necessary to denounce the term "classic transsexual" because she fears, quite erroneously, that it is linked to sexual orientation. "Classic transsexual" is not a synonym for "homosexual transsexual." Quite the opposite, it is part of the overall rejection of Blanchard's model. What makes all of this even stranger is Cooke's assertion that she has always identified as "bisexual," given Cooke's history of cruelly attacking post-op transsexuals who had been married as "skin transvestites." But then again, as I have observed, Cooke is now partnered with another transsexual, apparently one who was a later transitioner.

Then again, perhaps Cooke simply longs for her glory days when she was a major leader in a movement that had not yet become know as "transgender." It does appear she wants to be one of the big dogs again.

Whatever Cooke's motivations might be, what she proposes is simply unacceptable. She tries to compare her "compromise" to that she claims resulted from the rise of Anita Bryant, when it was decided that the term "gay" was not appropriate to describe both male homosexuals and lesbians, which resulted in the adoption of "gay and lesbian" to describe the community. Cooke suggests something similar:

A similar compromise would be Transsexual and Transgender Communities. LGBT/T or TS/TG and putting those into usage.

The problem with such a suggestion is that it still results in the appearance that those with a legitimate medical issue (HBS or classic transsexualism) are in common with those who choose to subvert the binary.

Personally, I think Cooke should just drop the pretense and admit that she is effectively "transgender." I suspect she will be much more comfortable with herself, and perhaps no longer feel the need to try to deny her true feelings in order to maintain an identity that is not legitimate.