In the comments section of Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen's column at LGBT Weekly, another man in a dress tried to dismiss the comments of myself, and another transsexual on the basis that we were "in pain." I was rather amused by this, and simply replied, "Nope… My pain was ended when I had SRS."
Then I got to thinking about this. This is a common tactic among transgender extremists, one that is almost as popular as labeling any disagreement as hatred. The words might vary, with the accusation being that we are ashamed, in denial, or fearful, etc., but the basic idea is the same. We are to be ignored because we are not being "honest."
Of course, this is the goal. If they can "dismiss" our point of view, they can ignore it, and not have to actually deal with it. They don't have to address the actual points raised, which just might prove a bit difficult. You see this tactic a lot. It is basically a variation on the classic logical fallacy known as a "straw man argument." Rather than address the real point that is raised, in this case the issue was open service in the military for transgender people, you create a false argument, which is easily dismissed.
The simple fact of the matter is, I don't identify as transgender. And that is all that transgender is, an identity. Most who identify as such are not remotely transsexual. Yes, there are exceptions, and some have guzzled the transgender "Kool-Aid" in large quantities. Personally, I cannot understand why anyone who is transsexual would find common ground with the transgender paradigm.
Of course, part of the problem with the term "transgender" is that it is so vague as to actual meaning, it has become, essentially, meaningless. But, for the most part, those who do identify with transgender seem to be more inclined towards being, as some would say, "out, loud, and proud." They feel the need to make sure people know that they are transgender. Their very core identity seems to depend on people being aware that they are transgender. On the other hand, I, and most other transsexuals simply desire to get on with our lives as the women, or in the case of FTMs, the men, we really are.
To me, the idea of being "openly" transgender, or even "openly" transsexual, is unacceptable. I am simply a woman. I have been through transition, and I have left as much of my former life behind as is possible.
In another column on for LGBT Weekly, Mr. Sandeen writes about his experiences trying to obtain a discount based on his service in the Navy. Now, I find it interesting that he states"One of the documents that can be used to indicate one is a veteran with my phone company is a DD214 (the military’s separation of service, or discharge document)." Now, this is a document on which the name cannot be changed. In another words, this document has Sandeen's birth name. But, apparently, this was not the only document that Sandeen could have used to establish that he served in the military, but it is the one he chose. Now, I never served in the military, but I have faced situations where I could have revealed my birth name. And, unless absolutely necessary, I will avoid doing so. In fact, the last time I recall having to do that was when I got my California ID. I had to provide a copy of my birth certificate, and since that was before my surgery, I had to use the original version. But transgender people seem to revel in this.
This is the main thing that divides most who are transsexual from those who prefer to identify as "transgender." The transgender types want to keep a connection to being their birth sex and gender. They don't want to be what they claim they "really" are.
Showing posts with label birth certificates. Show all posts
Showing posts with label birth certificates. Show all posts
Thursday, September 25, 2014
Monday, April 14, 2014
The Real Face of Transgender Extremism
The whole transgender paradigm is built on lies. It is based on ideas like "Women have penises," and "I someone says they are a woman, then you have to accept, without question, that they are a woman, and grant them all rights and privileges of being a woman." In short, it is pretty much an absurd pile of absurdities. And deep down, I believe its leadership knows this. For example, Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen, who has tried to style himself as the "Martin Luther King, Jr" of the transgender movement, said this on Twitter....
Mr. Sandeen likes to compare the imagined plight of "transgender people" with that of African-Americans. Of course, this is absurd. The movement to end racial discrimination was based on people lacking rights based on a criteria that had no basis in reason, and which was rooted simply in appearance. As hard as it is to believe in retrospect, African-Americans were considered to be "inferior" simply because of the color of the skin. Nothing more. Of course, in order to justify that, people made up false claims, which only the truly ignorant would remotely accept today.
On the other hand, the issues concerning transgender people, particularly the one that is so near and dear to Mr. Sandeen's heart...the right to invade sexually segregated places, are rooted in reality. Women simply don't want their privacy invaded by men. Transsexuals have long used the women's room without incident, but it is the increasing invasion of those who are not transsexual, who are increasingly told they have an absolute right to go into women's spaces, provided they simply "identify" as a woman, that are the problem.
One of the most telling aspects of the whole bathroom issue is the arrogant disregard that these so-called "transwomen," have for the feelings and concerns of women. The basic response is, "get over it." In their mind, it is their right and privilege to enter women's private spaces, even those involving actual nudity.
Sandeen, having falsely obtained a California birth certificate by fraudulently claiming to have completed a sex change (he is a eunuch) once made a rather arrogant remark about how he was considering going to the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival, claiming that he was now, "legally" a woman born woman.
Like many transgender extremists, Mr. Sandeen's arrogance knows no bounds. Just over a year ago, he tweeted this bit of arrogant silliness to Aunty Orthodox, another one of us horrible transsexual separatists....
No, the arrogance of transgender extremists is astounding. Sandeen is just one example, but he is a major one. He is complaining again that I am targeting him, and I admit, I do right about him a lot, because a) he is such a perfect example of transgender stupidity and arrogance, and b) he is a very prolific writer, so he is a rich source of material.
My job is not to make you love me. It's instead.....to control the extent people can publicly express antitrans sentiments -- A Rustin thought.Notice that Mr. Sandeen does not say, "influence" but instead says, "control." He does't say something like "My job is to "refute false antitrans sentiments..." For Mr. Sandeen, it is about "control." One might ask, why is this? The answer is simple, he is a man, and men like to be in total control.
Mr. Sandeen likes to compare the imagined plight of "transgender people" with that of African-Americans. Of course, this is absurd. The movement to end racial discrimination was based on people lacking rights based on a criteria that had no basis in reason, and which was rooted simply in appearance. As hard as it is to believe in retrospect, African-Americans were considered to be "inferior" simply because of the color of the skin. Nothing more. Of course, in order to justify that, people made up false claims, which only the truly ignorant would remotely accept today.
On the other hand, the issues concerning transgender people, particularly the one that is so near and dear to Mr. Sandeen's heart...the right to invade sexually segregated places, are rooted in reality. Women simply don't want their privacy invaded by men. Transsexuals have long used the women's room without incident, but it is the increasing invasion of those who are not transsexual, who are increasingly told they have an absolute right to go into women's spaces, provided they simply "identify" as a woman, that are the problem.
One of the most telling aspects of the whole bathroom issue is the arrogant disregard that these so-called "transwomen," have for the feelings and concerns of women. The basic response is, "get over it." In their mind, it is their right and privilege to enter women's private spaces, even those involving actual nudity.
Sandeen, having falsely obtained a California birth certificate by fraudulently claiming to have completed a sex change (he is a eunuch) once made a rather arrogant remark about how he was considering going to the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival, claiming that he was now, "legally" a woman born woman.
Like many transgender extremists, Mr. Sandeen's arrogance knows no bounds. Just over a year ago, he tweeted this bit of arrogant silliness to Aunty Orthodox, another one of us horrible transsexual separatists....
I am a woman. I'm among those who define the space. Trans women are women, and are among those who define the space.Uh, no. Mr. Sandeen is a male, who has a penis (which he wishes to keep) but not his testicles...by definition, a eunuch at best, but in no sense a woman. He fraudulently obtained a California birth certificate by lying to a judge, but that does not make him a female, and certainly not a woman. And he certainly has no business telling women how to define their space.
No, the arrogance of transgender extremists is astounding. Sandeen is just one example, but he is a major one. He is complaining again that I am targeting him, and I admit, I do right about him a lot, because a) he is such a perfect example of transgender stupidity and arrogance, and b) he is a very prolific writer, so he is a rich source of material.
Saturday, August 17, 2013
Slacktivists? ROTFLLMAO!!!!!
Sometime back, I wrote about the comedy of Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen. Well, he has come up with, perhaps, his funniest material yet. In a post on Transadvocate, he has not only managed to prove that he is clueless, but has also managed, in response to mostly negative comments, to outdo Mr. "Cristan" Williams at abusing logical fallacies. I do love that last bit. I have pointed out, for some time, that the transgender kooks love to engage in logical fallacies, so now they regularly mention that concept in their posts, falsely accusing me of such, while, of course, cluelessly engagibg in them repeatedly. They do love to imitate...
Anyway, what has set Mr. Sandeen off this time is the post I did on AB1266, the law that is supposed to protect transgender students in school, but which actually just abuses everyone else. He is apparently (it is kind of hard tell) upset that I, and others are not actively lobbying for our point of view. Yeah, seriously....
The simple fact is, unlike Mr. Sandeen, Mr. Williams, and a number of other transgender kooks, I, and quite a few others that Mr. Sandeen seeks to attack in his laughably bizarre post are just not narcissistic publicity whores like they are. We simply do not feel the need to run around Sacramento, Washington, or such, making fools of ourselves. Can you imagine the laughter that must fill legislative offices after these fools have left?
No, my mother taught me well...."Fool's names, and fool's faces, often seen in public places." Yes, I think AB 1266 is a bad law. I sent a message asking Gov. Brown to veto it, and I am disappointed that he decided not to. But, I have no desire to waste my time and money traveling to Sacramento to engage in self-aggrandizing political grandstanding.
No, there is a much simpler, and far more effective strategy. Simply allow kooks like Sandeen to have their way. It is interesting to note that Mr. Sandeen also posted another article where he whines about how "Progressive Talking Heads (are) Not Talking About California School Success And Opportunity Act." Gee, did it ever occur to Mr. Sandeen that even the "progressive talking heads" might have enough sense to realize what a total train wreck this law has the potential to become? Has he ever stopped to think that maybe, just maybe, they understand that average people think this is way too extremist? Nah, of course not.
If Sandeen took the time, for example, to read the comments posted on SFGate, the web page for the San Francisco Chronicle, he might discover that here in the Bay Area the reaction was overwhelmingly negative. And lest he try to make some excuse about it not really reflecting local sentiment, he should compare it to the response to the Supreme Court overturning Proposition 8.
No, AB 1266 could well be the final straw for the public's tolerance of transgender silliness. It is bad enough that women's rooms are regularly invaded by men in dresses, but when you start talking about having boy showering with girls, provided the boys claim to be girls, people tend to say "ENOUGH!!!"
The problem with the law, simply put, is that its language is too vague. The few who tried to defend it on SFGate kept claiming that it would not do what was claimed. That it would take more than simply "claiming" to be transgender to get access to the girls locker room. But the law does not say that. I simply says that one cannot be denied access based on one's gender identity. The claim is also made that no one would abuse such a law, but we have already seen too many examples that show otherwise.
Sandeen also, rather cluelessly links to an article from Notes From The T-Side that shows, quite conclusively, that his birth certificate is fraudulent, and that he knows that it is. That would be the birth certificate that Mr. Sandeen has claimed shows that he is a "woman born woman." Seriously, you can't make this stuff...not that ANYONE with a brain would want to.
Then he carries on about some crazy idea that the people at TI-SI came up with called "Transsexual Independence Day." Somehow, I managed to miss that one. Now, why Sandeen even bothers to bring this up is puzzling. As I said, he carries on in the comment section about "straw arguments," and refers to "Transsexual Independence Day" as a non sequitur, but his bringing it up is both. I had never even heard of it, and Elizabeth at Notes from the T Side basically posted an article that exposed the silliness of the who concept. It is not a surprise that it never went anywhere.
Anyway, what has set Mr. Sandeen off this time is the post I did on AB1266, the law that is supposed to protect transgender students in school, but which actually just abuses everyone else. He is apparently (it is kind of hard tell) upset that I, and others are not actively lobbying for our point of view. Yeah, seriously....
Call them classic transsexuals or women of operative history; call them true transsexuals or transsexual separatists — whatever you call them, you can also call them ineffectual slacktivists.I mean, seriously? I don't know what he is smoking, drinking, injecting, or snorting...but if it is not a controlled substance, it should be.
The simple fact is, unlike Mr. Sandeen, Mr. Williams, and a number of other transgender kooks, I, and quite a few others that Mr. Sandeen seeks to attack in his laughably bizarre post are just not narcissistic publicity whores like they are. We simply do not feel the need to run around Sacramento, Washington, or such, making fools of ourselves. Can you imagine the laughter that must fill legislative offices after these fools have left?
No, my mother taught me well...."Fool's names, and fool's faces, often seen in public places." Yes, I think AB 1266 is a bad law. I sent a message asking Gov. Brown to veto it, and I am disappointed that he decided not to. But, I have no desire to waste my time and money traveling to Sacramento to engage in self-aggrandizing political grandstanding.
No, there is a much simpler, and far more effective strategy. Simply allow kooks like Sandeen to have their way. It is interesting to note that Mr. Sandeen also posted another article where he whines about how "Progressive Talking Heads (are) Not Talking About California School Success And Opportunity Act." Gee, did it ever occur to Mr. Sandeen that even the "progressive talking heads" might have enough sense to realize what a total train wreck this law has the potential to become? Has he ever stopped to think that maybe, just maybe, they understand that average people think this is way too extremist? Nah, of course not.
If Sandeen took the time, for example, to read the comments posted on SFGate, the web page for the San Francisco Chronicle, he might discover that here in the Bay Area the reaction was overwhelmingly negative. And lest he try to make some excuse about it not really reflecting local sentiment, he should compare it to the response to the Supreme Court overturning Proposition 8.
No, AB 1266 could well be the final straw for the public's tolerance of transgender silliness. It is bad enough that women's rooms are regularly invaded by men in dresses, but when you start talking about having boy showering with girls, provided the boys claim to be girls, people tend to say "ENOUGH!!!"
The problem with the law, simply put, is that its language is too vague. The few who tried to defend it on SFGate kept claiming that it would not do what was claimed. That it would take more than simply "claiming" to be transgender to get access to the girls locker room. But the law does not say that. I simply says that one cannot be denied access based on one's gender identity. The claim is also made that no one would abuse such a law, but we have already seen too many examples that show otherwise.
Sandeen also, rather cluelessly links to an article from Notes From The T-Side that shows, quite conclusively, that his birth certificate is fraudulent, and that he knows that it is. That would be the birth certificate that Mr. Sandeen has claimed shows that he is a "woman born woman." Seriously, you can't make this stuff...not that ANYONE with a brain would want to.
That's the problem with Mr. Sandeen's article. It attacks me, and others, for something we don't do, have never claimed to do, links us to things we either opposed, or were not even aware of, and of course, does all of this to the glory of Mr. Sandeen.
If he wants to go to Sacramento with other men in dresses, clomp around to various legislative offices, and get laughed at behind his back (you know they howled about his silly beret) that is his right. Me, I will just sit back and wait for it all to blow up in his face.
Oh, and in a rather bizarre bit of absurdist theater, he posted a picture of himself, stuffing his face with Cheetos, which has a weird tag about "the blogging standard of blogging in one's PJs from one's mother's basement." I'm not quite sure what that is supposed to imply, but my mother passed on over 25 years ago, and I live on the second floor of my building.
As I say, whatever Mr. Sandeen is on, I do hope his friends will stage an intervention before he suffers any further brain damage.
Saturday, June 1, 2013
Uh, No, That's Not Quite the Truth....
In yet another "Autumn" Sandeen story, we have a lie being perpetuated across the Internet by GLAAD. They state that Mr. Sandeen is the first "transgender service member to publicly have "her" (sic) gender marker changed on all military documents. While he might well be the first transgender service member to make a complete ass of himself in public crowing like a banty rooster over having his paperwork changed to reflect a lie based on fraudulent documentation, he is not the first as was documented by several statements made in response to his posting on LGBT Weekly.
From the way this reads things have actually changed for the worst. When I changed my retired USAF ID card in 1986 all I did was go into the personnel office at the nearest facility, show my old id, court ordered name change, and letter from my therapist.
The only bump was that the clerk said “I’m sorry mam. Your husband is going to have to come in himself”. That required a few words of explanation.
All official mail comes in the right name. The VA here (Portland) is fine with my transition. There seem to be quite a few of us in the area.And as if that lie were not enough, the article is also inaccurate in saying that ALL of Mr. Sandeen's military documents were updated. In spite of his best efforts to rewrite history (this is the idiot who now tries to claim that his fraudulent birth certificate makes him a "woman born woman") the Navy will not retroactively change the details of his actual service.
And, changing one’s recorded name and/or gender at the DOD won’t result in being able to obtain an updated DD214 – a servicemember’s Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty. According to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records’ Applicant’s Guide To Applying To The Army Board For Correction Of Military Records:
“If you have a name, gender, or social security number (SSN) change after discharge from the military, even if it is court ordered, the name and gender on your military records will not be changed since they are historical documents which record facts during the time you served in the military. If you need a certificate to show your current name or gender and that you served in the military under another, you can request such from the National Personnel Records Center, Military Personnel Records …”So, bottom line, Sandeen used his fraudulent claim to have actually had SRS (he was castrated, which makes him a eunuch, not a female) to con the Navy into updating his "gender" on his documentation, which is something they have done for some time, but according to GLAAD he is not only the first, but has done something even he admits he did not really do.
Uh, yeah, that's pretty much how it goes....
Thursday, May 9, 2013
Actually, Forcing People To Lie Is the REAL Issue
One of the more insane transgender bloggers, "Toni" D'orsay, aka Dyssonance, has a post up that sort of admits that the TG kooks are really, really obsessed with pronouns. But what is really the issue is not pronouns, but is the ongoing obsession with forcing people to accept outright lies... Like "women have penises" and "men can get pregnant." I guess they would really be over the top if a "man" was made pregnant by a "woman."
Among the topics that Mr. D'Orsay hits on are:
Among the topics that Mr. D'Orsay hits on are:
- The Michigan Womyn's Music Festival (the boys in dresses won't be happy until they force their way in).
- Forcing women to accept men in the ladies room.
- Forcing states to change the sex birth certificates without the person actually having to change their sex. (as another blogger has pointed out, they hide behind "sterilization."
Then he goes on to push the current "transgender meme" about how the radfems are all about murdering "trans people." Yes, some extremists kooks have made comments suggesting such, but extremist kooks are extremist kook. The myth that Janice Raymond is responsible for the deaths of a large number of transsexuals (or even one, for that matter) has already been addressed. This is a classic example of the sort of silliness that passes for "scholarship" in some circles. You start out with a fact (Janice Raymond made some comments) and then extrapolate it into a conspiracy theory of epic proportions (Janice and the RadFems killed 50,000 people). Mr. D'orsay is repeating this lie as fact.
He then goes on to make a statement that is at the heart of the transgender fallacy:
Mr. D'orsay has thus to say:
He then goes on to make a statement that is at the heart of the transgender fallacy:
Other people do not get to police how one person’s existence is genuine or not. You do not get to decide if I am enough of a woman, or if I have “female energy”, or if I am the right sort or the proper kind.It sounds great, doesn't it? But let's consider the reality of it. No, I don't allow people to define who, or what I am. When I transitioned, and certain relatives tried to tell me I was not legitimate, I told them that I was not going to be responsible for their bigotry...but I also went on, an lived my life as a woman authentically not as a "transwoman," or any of the other things that transgender people call themselves. Mr. D'orsay does not live as a woman, he lives as an out, loud, and pretty darned obnoxious transgender kook. So, yes, people do get to decide that he is not a woman. "Enough of a woman," is another version of that transgender silliness that womanhood is quantifiable...very male concept at best. One either is a woman, or one is not. There is no such thing as a base unit of womanhood, that can be expressed as a measurement.
Mr. D'orsay has thus to say:
The problem is people not thinking that trans people are what they really are. The problem is people policing trans people’s lives. The problem is f******g a**holes who call trans women men and male, and trans men women and female.
IF you know someone who does that — no matter what their justifications are for it — you know someone who is actively contributing to the problem, who is part of it, and who is fighting against the solution.Yes, exactly. I am fighting Mr. D'orsay's absurd "solution" because, well, it is the real problem. He, among others, is trying to destroy a major part of our society's structure, for no reason other than his own selfish desires.
Saturday, April 13, 2013
It's Really Very Simple...
I occasionally take a look at Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen's Twitter feed. Some of his best comedic work is there... For example, today he got into a debate with a woman who posts as Aunty Orthodox. Here, with my comments, are some of the sillier moments...
Now, particularly enjoyed this next exchange. First let me set it up by providing a little background about the person mentioned....
Kirk Sneade is an undergraduate at University College, London (UCL), who, along with his "campaign team" were branded as being"misogynist pricks" by other students after he made a controversial run for a campus office.
First, he uploaded a video of a woman being punched by a man and a photo with the slogan "memes are gay". Then, Sneade, who has the audacity to claim he is the victim of discrimination, compared his situation to the persecution of communists in Nazi Germany.
This is his original manifesto:
Now, with that in mind, consider this next bit:
But that is only half of what is going on here. Now, no one would ever, seriously, suggest that Snead is a "transgender." He is clearly a misogynistic man, who has a serious delusion as to how funny he is. Simply put, he isn't remotely.... But the problem that Sandeen tap dances around is, "If the transgender extremist have their way, who do you keep someone like Snead out of women's spaces?" He states that he self-identifies as a woman. Even though he clearly does not, how do you "prove" this? How can you seriously differentiate between him, and Sandeen? That is a problem for Sandeen.
And it is not solved by straw arguments like "the Klan Fallacy." There are serious differences between "skin color" and "sex." They are not comparable. That is why we have different laws to deal with the two. There is NO rational basis for discrimination based on skin color, but there is for discriminating, in certain limited situations, on the basis of sex. It is irrational to claim that one has a right to be "uncomfortable" sharing a rest room with someone of another race, but it is not irrational to desire to keep someone of the opposite sex out of the restroom, or more importantly, locker rooms and showers.
As to the "Klan Fallacy," that is simply a straw argument tossed about by kooks like Mr. "Cristan" Williams, and Sandeen. It has no application here.
Here is another interesting exchange...
A couple of interesting points... Disagree with Mr. Sandeen, and he instantly calls you a bigot. Even if what you are doing is simply defining women's space as not including men. I mean, really, Mr. Sandeen's only claim to being a woman is basically "because I say so." That is one of those issues he keeps avoiding. And then there is his classic fallback to violent language. He has to "crush" Aunty Orthodox's belief system. Crush... Kind of scary. And I should point out, nowhere in any of this debate does Aunty Orthodox come across as a radical feminist. Perhaps she is, but I see no evidence of it.
The bottom line to this whole thing is summed up in this exchange....
Aunty OrthodoxI thought that one was particularly silly. Sandeen, and other transgender extremists really are trying to destroy women's space. They cannot stand the idea that there are places that "women with penises" are not allowed. Sandeen needs to understand, women don't have penises, at least not that they want to keep. I would argue that transsexual woman is a woman, even before surgery, but that is not the case with Sandeen. When he first burst onto the seen, he was an avowed non-op. Then, he became a "surgery-tracked transsexual." Then, he decided that having his testicles removed was enough. He is back to being a Arnold Lowman-style, "woman with a penis," or more precisely, a transvestite. But, he is apparently quite delusional, or terribly dishonest...
@AutumnSandeen Alright, go for it. More power to you, to Camp Trans and so forth. But from my POV, you're working to destroy women's space.
Autumn Sandeen
@auntyorthodox No. I'm working to expand women's space to include all women.
Autumn SandeenSandeen also needs to understand that he is NOT and never will be a woman, no matter what his fraudulent birth certificate says. And you have to love that male attitude that say, "I don't care, the rules don't apply to me...." He is going to decide what criteria applies in his case.
@auntyorthodox My birth certificate says I was born female - therefore for attendance purposes I'm going to consider my gender identity.
Now, particularly enjoyed this next exchange. First let me set it up by providing a little background about the person mentioned....
Kirk Sneade is an undergraduate at University College, London (UCL), who, along with his "campaign team" were branded as being"misogynist pricks" by other students after he made a controversial run for a campus office.
First, he uploaded a video of a woman being punched by a man and a photo with the slogan "memes are gay". Then, Sneade, who has the audacity to claim he is the victim of discrimination, compared his situation to the persecution of communists in Nazi Germany.
This is his original manifesto:
- Kirk Sneade has self defined as a woman ever since he realised it gave him legal access to the women's changing rooms at the Bloomsbury gym.
- Kirk wants to make clear his desire to attend all Women's forums to talk about Important Woman Issues such as hair dressing, shopping and walking sassily away from confrontations with your exes.
- Kirk understands the need for equality. He wants to campaign to encourage women of UCL to wear leggings, jeggings and summer-time denim hot-pants.
- Kirk would also like to formally change the name of the Print-Room Cafe to the Pretty-Girl Cafe, and launch an official enquiry into why there are so many pretty girls in the cafe compared to the rest of UCL and what can be done about it.
- More speculatively, Kirk also suggests perhaps herding up the pretty girls you see around campus and keeping them ready for emergency transport to the Roxy later on when things start to get a little dry.
- Kirk is worried that people may see this manifesto as sexist. Kirk wants to make clear that while it is sexier than most, you should probably have a look at the others because some of them are pretty sexy as well.
- Kirk also wants to campaign for reinstatement of the Varsity rugby match, campaign against student politics being full of students who are out of touch with the student body and start the dissolution of the Women's officer position as it an inherently sexist and outmoded position of power within the union.
Now, with that in mind, consider this next bit:
Aunty Orthodox @AutumnSandeen "self-identified" doesn't seem like an adequate condition for actually gaining access to women's-only space.
Autumn Sandeen @auntyorthodox Well, who -- in the broad sense of who -- decides how to police women's space, and who polices it?
Aunty Orthodox @AutumnSandeen I'd think it should be the organizers of the space, right?
Autumn Sandeen @auntyorthodox As I said - yes, they get to decide. But, trans community, of which I'm a part, get to engage in free speech & action too.
Aunty Orthodox @AutumnSandeen If you were in a women's-only space, would you welcome Kirk Sneade?
Autumn Sandeen@auntyorthodox Now who's personalizing? Btw, that argument is the example of the KKK fallacy. http://ht.ly/k2p6s
Aunty Orthodox
@AutumnSandeen You're evading my question, and now you're bringing up the KKK? Please be serious.
Autumn Sandeen @auntyorthodox No no no. There is a logical fallacy called the KKK fallacy. It's in essence one that claims that...
Autumn Sandeen @auntyorthodox ...that are a number of black criminals, then all black people are dangerous and should be discriminated against..a fallacy.
Autumn Sandeen @auntyorthodox No no no. There is a logical fallacy called the KKK fallacy. It's in essence one that claims that...
Autumn Sandeen @auntyorthodox ...that are a number of black criminals, then all black people are dangerous and should be discriminated against..a fallacy.
Autumn Sandeen @auntyorthodox ...that are a number of black criminals, then all black people are dangerous and should be discriminated against..a fallacy.Okay, there is so much silliness here.... First off, Sandeen tries, again, to avoid the real question, which is basically, by what right does he claim to be a woman? While the most extreme of radical feminists take an extremist position that basically ignores science....well, so does Sandeen. The feminists say that it is all about socialization. They very much adhere to the "blank slate" theory. That we all start out as blank slates, and our "gender" is written upon us based on socialization. And that since we are all socialized based on what is between our legs at birth, that determines whether we are truly men or women. That is, men are men because they are raised to be men, and women are women, because they are raised to be women. Of course, science has proven this completely false. The transgender extremists claim that simply because they claim to be women, and in some cases, claim to have "female brains," we have to take their word for it, even if they also state that they want to keep their male genitalia intact. Science has also proven them to be wrong as well. Those, like Sandeen, who claim to be "women with penises," expect people to take their word for it, even when they clearly, and unequivocally, act like men.
But that is only half of what is going on here. Now, no one would ever, seriously, suggest that Snead is a "transgender." He is clearly a misogynistic man, who has a serious delusion as to how funny he is. Simply put, he isn't remotely.... But the problem that Sandeen tap dances around is, "If the transgender extremist have their way, who do you keep someone like Snead out of women's spaces?" He states that he self-identifies as a woman. Even though he clearly does not, how do you "prove" this? How can you seriously differentiate between him, and Sandeen? That is a problem for Sandeen.
And it is not solved by straw arguments like "the Klan Fallacy." There are serious differences between "skin color" and "sex." They are not comparable. That is why we have different laws to deal with the two. There is NO rational basis for discrimination based on skin color, but there is for discriminating, in certain limited situations, on the basis of sex. It is irrational to claim that one has a right to be "uncomfortable" sharing a rest room with someone of another race, but it is not irrational to desire to keep someone of the opposite sex out of the restroom, or more importantly, locker rooms and showers.
As to the "Klan Fallacy," that is simply a straw argument tossed about by kooks like Mr. "Cristan" Williams, and Sandeen. It has no application here.
Here is another interesting exchange...
Aunty Orthodox@AutumnSandeen Alright, go for it. More power to you, to Camp Trans and so forth. But from my POV, you're working to destroy women's space.
Autumn Sandeen @auntyorthodox ...is by intention defining women's space as not including of one kind of woman. Just as evil as it would be to exclude..
Aunty Orthodox @AutumnSandeen It's not evil. If there is evil, it is forcing women to lose their safe space to people who only "claim" to be women.
Autumn Sandeen @auntyorthodox ...and I can see now you're one of the bigots. I actually pity you...you're now on the wrong side of history.
Aunty Orthodox @AutumnSandeen And trans activists who refuse to acknowledge womens' rights to create exclusive spaces are actually harming women.
Autumn Sandeen @auntyorthodox ..your beliefs. To be true to my belief on how to combat antitrans sentiment, I must see your belief system crushed.
A couple of interesting points... Disagree with Mr. Sandeen, and he instantly calls you a bigot. Even if what you are doing is simply defining women's space as not including men. I mean, really, Mr. Sandeen's only claim to being a woman is basically "because I say so." That is one of those issues he keeps avoiding. And then there is his classic fallback to violent language. He has to "crush" Aunty Orthodox's belief system. Crush... Kind of scary. And I should point out, nowhere in any of this debate does Aunty Orthodox come across as a radical feminist. Perhaps she is, but I see no evidence of it.
The bottom line to this whole thing is summed up in this exchange....
Aunty Orthodox @Autumn Sandeen This isn't about equality though. It's about women having the power to establish safe spaces, however they define that.
Autumn Sandeen @auntyorthodox Ordinary equality means trans women are treated as other women..white, black, Hispanic, disabled, veteran..fill in the blank.Sandeen could care less about safe spaces for women, as he is not one. He is a man, and he thinks like a man, including the belief that he what he wants is all that matters. And, more to the point, "trans women" are not remotely women. To compare "trans" to things like "white, black, Hispanic, disabled, veteran" is absurd. By its very nature, "trans" indicates that they are men, and they want to continue to identify as men. I am a woman, not a "trans woman." Yes, I am a white woman, I am a Christian woman, I am a disabled woman...but those do not directly address my being a woman. To say one is a "trans woman," on the other hand, is to make a statement that expands to "Well, I am really a man, who identifies as being a woman, but I cling to my identity as a man while still claiming to 'really be a woman.'" Yeah, well, that's nice, now please, stay out of women's spaces....because you don't belong there.
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
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....
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....
Friday, March 1, 2013
A Moderate Proposal
Over, and over, I see the radical fringe of the transgender kooks demanding more and more outrageous concessions. And unfortunately, in some cases, they get them. I think it is time we rein in the silliness. Therefore, I would like to put forward some moderate proposals that would provide for a balance between real need, and public safety and opinion.
First, I think that changing of birth certificates should be limited to those who have actually changed their sex. That means, no "women with penises" or "pregnant males. If you have not made the changes, you will not legally be viewed as having "changed your sex." No more of this "change of gender" silliness.
Second, I think a simple compromise on issues like "transgender students in school" is to require any student who wishes to be fully recognized as a a different "gender" to be stealth. In another words, if a student who is born male wants to allowed to use the girls bathroom, but has not had surgery, then they would be required to transfer to a school where they would be required to be stealth. No more of this "out, loud, and proud" silliness. If you claim you are "really" a female, or "really" a male, then really be a female or a male. If you want to have it both ways, then you either use the bathroom appropriate to your genitalia, or you use a bathroom that is "gender neutral." As to things like locker rooms (usually not a problem before at least middle school) the student would need to be excused from physical education classes.
Likewise, I believe that access to bathrooms in general should be based on being in transition. If you are a crossdresser, and this is all just a bit of a game, then it's YOUR problem. You don't have a right to force yourself on women (or in extremely rare cases, men) just so you can engage in your fantasies. And again, if you are pre-op, you cannot use areas where nudity is inevitable, period.
Also, I think restrictions should be made for other situations. For example, if you are going to claim to have changed sex for purposes like engaging in athletic competition at the college level (it is unlikely that anyone in middle school or high school would be allowed to have undergone sex reassignment surgery) then again, stealth should be a requirement. Privacy would be protected, so people would not be allowed to "research" information and out someone, but anyone publicly outing their own self would become disqualified. "Gabrielle" Ludwig, for example, is back in the news. This is not someone who simply wanted to be who he really is, but instead is a classic transgender, seeking attention, and getting it at the expense of legitimate female athletes.
Bottom line, people should not be allowed to use situations as a soap box to push their agenda and take advantage of laws intended to protect people with real needs. It is time to draw the line. You want to be the real you? Fine. You want to attract attention? Fine. But using "legal rights" to attract attention? Nope.
And lest you think I am being unfair, you should check out an article on "Transadvocate" which is not edited by the king of transsexual extremists, Mr. "Cristan" Williams. Entitled "California Trans Student Domaine Javier Expelled By a Baptist University For 'Fraud' Is Suing" it takes the person in question to task for having lived stealth (even though the student then went public on MTV's True Life. At first, one might get the impression that the objections raised where simply over statements made on the show about having been "deceptive," but the final quote makes it obvious that the author of the article believes that "transgender" people, who I am sure would include in his mind, "transsexuals, must be, loud, and proud, or face condemnation:
First, I think that changing of birth certificates should be limited to those who have actually changed their sex. That means, no "women with penises" or "pregnant males. If you have not made the changes, you will not legally be viewed as having "changed your sex." No more of this "change of gender" silliness.
Second, I think a simple compromise on issues like "transgender students in school" is to require any student who wishes to be fully recognized as a a different "gender" to be stealth. In another words, if a student who is born male wants to allowed to use the girls bathroom, but has not had surgery, then they would be required to transfer to a school where they would be required to be stealth. No more of this "out, loud, and proud" silliness. If you claim you are "really" a female, or "really" a male, then really be a female or a male. If you want to have it both ways, then you either use the bathroom appropriate to your genitalia, or you use a bathroom that is "gender neutral." As to things like locker rooms (usually not a problem before at least middle school) the student would need to be excused from physical education classes.
Likewise, I believe that access to bathrooms in general should be based on being in transition. If you are a crossdresser, and this is all just a bit of a game, then it's YOUR problem. You don't have a right to force yourself on women (or in extremely rare cases, men) just so you can engage in your fantasies. And again, if you are pre-op, you cannot use areas where nudity is inevitable, period.
Also, I think restrictions should be made for other situations. For example, if you are going to claim to have changed sex for purposes like engaging in athletic competition at the college level (it is unlikely that anyone in middle school or high school would be allowed to have undergone sex reassignment surgery) then again, stealth should be a requirement. Privacy would be protected, so people would not be allowed to "research" information and out someone, but anyone publicly outing their own self would become disqualified. "Gabrielle" Ludwig, for example, is back in the news. This is not someone who simply wanted to be who he really is, but instead is a classic transgender, seeking attention, and getting it at the expense of legitimate female athletes.
Bottom line, people should not be allowed to use situations as a soap box to push their agenda and take advantage of laws intended to protect people with real needs. It is time to draw the line. You want to be the real you? Fine. You want to attract attention? Fine. But using "legal rights" to attract attention? Nope.
And lest you think I am being unfair, you should check out an article on "Transadvocate" which is not edited by the king of transsexual extremists, Mr. "Cristan" Williams. Entitled "California Trans Student Domaine Javier Expelled By a Baptist University For 'Fraud' Is Suing" it takes the person in question to task for having lived stealth (even though the student then went public on MTV's True Life. At first, one might get the impression that the objections raised where simply over statements made on the show about having been "deceptive," but the final quote makes it obvious that the author of the article believes that "transgender" people, who I am sure would include in his mind, "transsexuals, must be, loud, and proud, or face condemnation:
So will Domaine begin to live proudly and authentically with us on our bittersweet road less traveled? Or will she continue to deceive? Watch and see.In another words, will this person give up actually being a woman, which he already did when he went on True Life? With transgender extremists, actually living authentically as a woman (or a man) is simply not an option.
Friday, February 15, 2013
Mr. Sandeen Can't Hide From the Truth
Well. apparently the man who loves censorship has convinced LGBT Weekly to again let him hide from the truth. For a while, they seemed to be preventing him from his usual tricks. Then he posted a self-aggrandizing piece called A decade of Autumn. When challenged on the fact that he clearly engaged in fraud when he obtained a falsified birth certificate, Mr. Sandeen first tried avoiding the issue, then finally published a link to a fact sheet from the Transgender Law Center on the law that streamlined the process. Then, when certain facts, like the fact that the doctor who castrated him (the full extent of his surgery) was contacted, and without making reference to any specific patient, stated that anyone claiming that he had said that castration was a basis for claiming a change of sex was mistaken, and that he remains a male physically, he started having comments removed. In another words, Mr. Sandeen conned his doctor, and lied to the courts, and does not want the truth to come out at LGBT Weekly.
Apparently, Mr. Sandeen is getting all comments blocked without approval now. Typical. He hates the truth, and lies when he claims that he is a transsexual. He is not a transsexual, not a woman, and most assuredly not a female.
Then, the real irony is, the site flagged for moderation a post that quotes the San Francisco Superior Court as saying:
In order to ask the Court for a gender change, you have to give the Court an affidavit from your physician documenting the sex change. You must have undergone gender reassignment surgery in order to ask for a gender change order.This contradicts Mr. Sandeen's claims. There are not specifics on the San Diego Superior Court site, but since this is based on State law, it has to be assumed that the standards are the same. Mr. Sandeen has not had "gender reassignment surgery" (an absurd term pushed by TG extremists) and his sex has not been changed.
Apparently, Mr. Sandeen is getting all comments blocked without approval now. Typical. He hates the truth, and lies when he claims that he is a transsexual. He is not a transsexual, not a woman, and most assuredly not a female.
Friday, January 4, 2013
Lies, Damn Lies, Statistics, and Mr. Sandeen's Birth Certificate
Well, "Autumn" Sandeen is at it again. He has posted a blog entry over at LGBT Weekly in which he makes the completely absurd claim that he is now a "womon born womon," so to speak. As you may recall, Mr. Sandeen had himself castrated a while back, and then perjured himself before a judge in San Diego in order to get his birth certificate changed. Sadly, no one followed through on plans to make an appearance and challenge this action.
Now, Sandeen claims that the illegally obtained piece of paper means that he was "born a woman." Sorry, but NO!!! HE WAS NOT!!! He is not, has never been, and will never be a woman. He simply lacks, to use a term from theology, "valid matter." Mr. Sandeen shows no sign of being a woman. His behavior, and his inherent nature is male.
In fact, his very approach to the concept of being a "woman" is very male. Like many "transgender" men who wish to claim to be women, he sees to see womanhood as something to be taken, demanded even. When I began transition, it was not with an attitude of entitlement, but with a desire to be accepted. I did not feel I had an inherent right to be a woman, even though I felt I truly was one. I felt like I had to show that I was a woman. If I could not do this, then I felt, perhaps I was mistaken.
Men, like Mr. Sandeen, seek to achieve their "female" status by decree. It does not matter what the evidence says, they are women because they have a piece of paper that says they are a woman. They demand that society submit to their delusions. It is, after all, their entitlement. Sorry, but that is simply wrong.
Sandeen demands that people accept that he is a woman, even though he has, and clearly intends to keep, his penis. He is no different from "Colleen" Francis, forcing himself into women's spaces, even though he has no business being there, and is really not wanted.
No one with a shred of sense would ever truly accept Sandeen as a woman. He is, at best, a very poor caricature of a very male concept of how a woman acts. A sort of a bad drag act. Sadly, this is apparently how he really sees women. Sandeen is, quite simply, a major argument for the radfem's point of view.
Now, Sandeen claims that the illegally obtained piece of paper means that he was "born a woman." Sorry, but NO!!! HE WAS NOT!!! He is not, has never been, and will never be a woman. He simply lacks, to use a term from theology, "valid matter." Mr. Sandeen shows no sign of being a woman. His behavior, and his inherent nature is male.
In fact, his very approach to the concept of being a "woman" is very male. Like many "transgender" men who wish to claim to be women, he sees to see womanhood as something to be taken, demanded even. When I began transition, it was not with an attitude of entitlement, but with a desire to be accepted. I did not feel I had an inherent right to be a woman, even though I felt I truly was one. I felt like I had to show that I was a woman. If I could not do this, then I felt, perhaps I was mistaken.
Men, like Mr. Sandeen, seek to achieve their "female" status by decree. It does not matter what the evidence says, they are women because they have a piece of paper that says they are a woman. They demand that society submit to their delusions. It is, after all, their entitlement. Sorry, but that is simply wrong.
Sandeen demands that people accept that he is a woman, even though he has, and clearly intends to keep, his penis. He is no different from "Colleen" Francis, forcing himself into women's spaces, even though he has no business being there, and is really not wanted.
No one with a shred of sense would ever truly accept Sandeen as a woman. He is, at best, a very poor caricature of a very male concept of how a woman acts. A sort of a bad drag act. Sadly, this is apparently how he really sees women. Sandeen is, quite simply, a major argument for the radfem's point of view.
Thursday, November 8, 2012
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.
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.
Friday, September 14, 2012
A Curious Discovery
While dealing with the unfortunate incident with the autogynephile who calls himself Dev (and no I am not using male pronouns because he disagree with me, but because he showed himself to be classically male) I discovered that I had "spam" comments in my spam filter. I had never even bothered checking, since I did not expect anything to be there.
Much to my further surprise, I discovered that a number of them were repeats of a single comment from none other than "Autumn" Sandeen, the noted gender fascist and eunuch. The comments were in response to my challenge to his attempt to obtain a passport as a "female" by taking advantage of an outrageous loophole provided by the Obama administration that allows men who can get a doctor to write a note to fraudulently claim to be females.
Mr. Sandeen proceeded to whine about how he was just following the new rules, and was not claiming to have actually completed changing his sex.
Now, I admit, he has a point...as well as a "pointer" but that comment now seems awfully ironic in light of his actual fraudulent act of obtaining a California birth certificate as a female. Unlike Federal regulations (which can, and probably will be changed by a future administation, California law does not really allow a man, with a penis, to claim to be a woman. In fact, here in San Francisco, where you would expect the rules to be the loosest, the paperwork specifically states that you must have completed sex reassignment surgery, None of this "completed transition" silliness that Sandeen's fraud involved.
So, he not only did what he denied he was doing with the passport application, he bragged about it online. I wonder...if Sandeen is ever arrested and prosecuted for his perjury, will he claim that his birth certificate entitles him to serve his time in a women's prison?
Much to my further surprise, I discovered that a number of them were repeats of a single comment from none other than "Autumn" Sandeen, the noted gender fascist and eunuch. The comments were in response to my challenge to his attempt to obtain a passport as a "female" by taking advantage of an outrageous loophole provided by the Obama administration that allows men who can get a doctor to write a note to fraudulently claim to be females.
Mr. Sandeen proceeded to whine about how he was just following the new rules, and was not claiming to have actually completed changing his sex.
Now, I admit, he has a point...as well as a "pointer" but that comment now seems awfully ironic in light of his actual fraudulent act of obtaining a California birth certificate as a female. Unlike Federal regulations (which can, and probably will be changed by a future administation, California law does not really allow a man, with a penis, to claim to be a woman. In fact, here in San Francisco, where you would expect the rules to be the loosest, the paperwork specifically states that you must have completed sex reassignment surgery, None of this "completed transition" silliness that Sandeen's fraud involved.
So, he not only did what he denied he was doing with the passport application, he bragged about it online. I wonder...if Sandeen is ever arrested and prosecuted for his perjury, will he claim that his birth certificate entitles him to serve his time in a women's prison?
Thursday, August 9, 2012
If He Would Stop Lying, Perhaps Mr. Sandeen Would Feel Better
"Autumn" Sandeen, the Eunuch Who Would Be Queen, is again whining about his mental illness and how down he has been lately. Ironically, the answer is right there, staring him in the face, practically slapping him silly trying to get his attention, but he keeps ignoring it.
He is depressed because he is trying to be something he is not, and deep down, he knows it.
Sandeen is the classic crossdresser who gets bored and tries to become a transsexual so he can keep the thrills going. The classic example of this was Renee Richards, who tries, desperately, to deny that he made a mistake, even though it is clear that he did, and that he knows it. I have suggested to several therapists that they read Richards' book to better understand what should be red flags indicating that a person should not be considered for SRS. Such an intervention might have helped Sandeen who shows much the same sort of history as Richards.
Sandeen says:
Like most men, Sandeen refuses to admit to error. He has chose this path, and he intends to stubbornly see it through. I suspect his castration was motivated by a desire to prove that he was man enough to become a woman, making a sacrifice that would upset a lesser man too much.
Sandeen cannot "survive" as a woman, since he isn't a woman to begin with. He cannot be what he is not. And deep down, he really does not want to be. He wants to be a "gender rebel," like "Kate" Bornstein, another highly disturbed individual who mistakenly thought surgery was the answer to his demons.
Those external efforts that Sandeen complains about are called reality. He has a penis. He is a man. End of story. He has attempted what is, effectively, a legal fraud and he committed perjury to accomplish this. He basically lied and claimed to have changed his sex, when he has not. When he is careful, he speaks of "legally changing his gender," which is an absurd idea.
First off, according to the way that Sandeen would normally define the word, it is neither a legal concept, or subject to change. If one could change one's gender, transsexuals would be treated mentally, rather than physically. There would be no basis for sex reassignment surgery. We would simply have our "gender" changed to match our bodies.
Gender, we are told, is what is between our ears, sex is what is between our legs. In the case of a true or classic transsexual, the gender is truly different from the sex. In Sandeen's case, the gender and the sex are the same, and the issue is one of transgression. Sandeen is rebelling against what he really is, choosing to become, in effect, a "man in a dress." He wants the world to know he is a man, but he wants to force the world to call him a woman. It is a control issue, which of course, is typically male.
The simple fact is, Sandeen is lying, and he knows he is lying. He knows he is not really a woman, and that he never will be one. He doesn't really want to be one, but he wants to force society to accept him as one. The reality of his situation is ever with him. He whines, he complains, he accuses others of intolerance when they will not pander to his lies, but he knows he will never really change things to his warped concept of reality. And that makes him depressed.
Perhaps if he simply accepted reality, and stopped trying to deny it, he might feel better. He has been able to fraudulently obtain a court document that says he is female, but he is not female. He is now applying to change his birth certificate to reflect this fraud. He has tried to tell himself that this will make it all better. But he knows the truth. He will continue to be a man, and nothing will ever change that. Better that he accept his, and be happy being a "gender rebel," than trying to force people to pander to his demands. It simply is never going to happen. He may force clerks to put on a false smile, and say "Ma'am" to him, but he knows when his back is turned, they are snickering and saying, "Whoa, it's a dude..." And that is why he is so depressed.
He is depressed because he is trying to be something he is not, and deep down, he knows it.
Sandeen is the classic crossdresser who gets bored and tries to become a transsexual so he can keep the thrills going. The classic example of this was Renee Richards, who tries, desperately, to deny that he made a mistake, even though it is clear that he did, and that he knows it. I have suggested to several therapists that they read Richards' book to better understand what should be red flags indicating that a person should not be considered for SRS. Such an intervention might have helped Sandeen who shows much the same sort of history as Richards.
Sandeen says:
On a certain level, it feels like I’m internally fighting for my survival as a woman because of external efforts to define me as a man. And internally for me, this is at the intersection of being a trans woman and being disabled due to mental illness.Of course, Sandeen is not a woman in any sense of the word. He is a male-gendered, male bodied person who is trying to rebel against gender norms. He cannot change his brain, which is clearly and immutably male. He has not remotely changed his body to be female (though that would just make him what would effectively be a sort of pseudo-FTM. We have more than a few of those already.
Like most men, Sandeen refuses to admit to error. He has chose this path, and he intends to stubbornly see it through. I suspect his castration was motivated by a desire to prove that he was man enough to become a woman, making a sacrifice that would upset a lesser man too much.
Sandeen cannot "survive" as a woman, since he isn't a woman to begin with. He cannot be what he is not. And deep down, he really does not want to be. He wants to be a "gender rebel," like "Kate" Bornstein, another highly disturbed individual who mistakenly thought surgery was the answer to his demons.
Those external efforts that Sandeen complains about are called reality. He has a penis. He is a man. End of story. He has attempted what is, effectively, a legal fraud and he committed perjury to accomplish this. He basically lied and claimed to have changed his sex, when he has not. When he is careful, he speaks of "legally changing his gender," which is an absurd idea.
First off, according to the way that Sandeen would normally define the word, it is neither a legal concept, or subject to change. If one could change one's gender, transsexuals would be treated mentally, rather than physically. There would be no basis for sex reassignment surgery. We would simply have our "gender" changed to match our bodies.
Gender, we are told, is what is between our ears, sex is what is between our legs. In the case of a true or classic transsexual, the gender is truly different from the sex. In Sandeen's case, the gender and the sex are the same, and the issue is one of transgression. Sandeen is rebelling against what he really is, choosing to become, in effect, a "man in a dress." He wants the world to know he is a man, but he wants to force the world to call him a woman. It is a control issue, which of course, is typically male.
The simple fact is, Sandeen is lying, and he knows he is lying. He knows he is not really a woman, and that he never will be one. He doesn't really want to be one, but he wants to force society to accept him as one. The reality of his situation is ever with him. He whines, he complains, he accuses others of intolerance when they will not pander to his lies, but he knows he will never really change things to his warped concept of reality. And that makes him depressed.
Perhaps if he simply accepted reality, and stopped trying to deny it, he might feel better. He has been able to fraudulently obtain a court document that says he is female, but he is not female. He is now applying to change his birth certificate to reflect this fraud. He has tried to tell himself that this will make it all better. But he knows the truth. He will continue to be a man, and nothing will ever change that. Better that he accept his, and be happy being a "gender rebel," than trying to force people to pander to his demands. It simply is never going to happen. He may force clerks to put on a false smile, and say "Ma'am" to him, but he knows when his back is turned, they are snickering and saying, "Whoa, it's a dude..." And that is why he is so depressed.
Monday, July 16, 2012
More idiocy from Mr. Sandeen...
Well, about a week ago, "Autumn" Sandeen was back whining about the supposed "cyberharassment" he claims he was subjected to surrounding his effort to get a fraudulent birth certificate that indicates that he is "female." Of course this is just silliness. He let everyone know that he planned to effectively defraud a court by claiming to have had SRS when he has only been castrated. He seems to expect that he should be able to commit a fraud and not be challenged.
He made a very questionable claim concerning the documentation he received from the doctor who castrated him, and when some contacted that doctor and asked if he really considered castration to be "full SRS" he said he did not. This of course led to Sandeen waiting until a change in the law took effect which simply makes it easier for people to fraudulently claim to have changed their sex. Sandeen has tried to claim that the law allows for men to become "legally female," but that is not the case. It just lowers the standards for what documentation is required, making it easier for a doctor to facilitate a fraud. I am sure Sandeen did not tell the court that he still has his penis.
Sandeen has tried to claim that the doctor violated HIPPA when all that really happened is that the doctor's office made a general statement about their policies without reference to Sandeen. But the way that Sandeen tells it, they violated his privacy, which is basically a self-serving bit of drama on his part.
And of course, as previously documented here, Sandeen has done his share of cyber harassment himself.
Now, Sandeen has published what anyone could easily find. He has revealed that his birth name is Stephen Mark Sandeen. It is kind of funny how he was so secretive about it. I have known his birth name for some time. All you have to do is search the court records for "Sandeen" and name changes in San Diego. I guess Sandeen figured it was only a matter of time before someone bothered to do it. I choose not to reveal what I found out. It would have just given Sandeen another reason to play the martyr.
I am sure for Sandeen, it is a bit of a thrill. I am honestly surprised he did not do it sooner. He is clearly more interested in being a "woman with a penis" than anything remotely resembling a real female. This latest bit of theater, which I suspect was triggered by the realization that his birth name is no big secret, is somewhat akin to the classic end to a drag act, where the queen would whip his wig off, so there is no question that he is really a man, and that his act is all an illusion.
The bottom line is, Sandeen is not a transsexual, is not a woman, and never will be. He is another male crossdresser who, after a long career as a man, has decided to take up his "hobby," or more correctly, fetish, in his retirement. He shows no sign of actually being a woman, and seems clueless about what women actually think or feel. Sadly, he desperately needs and seeks attention, which means he pushes him forward as the face of transgender, which he misrepresents as including transsexuals.
He made a very questionable claim concerning the documentation he received from the doctor who castrated him, and when some contacted that doctor and asked if he really considered castration to be "full SRS" he said he did not. This of course led to Sandeen waiting until a change in the law took effect which simply makes it easier for people to fraudulently claim to have changed their sex. Sandeen has tried to claim that the law allows for men to become "legally female," but that is not the case. It just lowers the standards for what documentation is required, making it easier for a doctor to facilitate a fraud. I am sure Sandeen did not tell the court that he still has his penis.
Sandeen has tried to claim that the doctor violated HIPPA when all that really happened is that the doctor's office made a general statement about their policies without reference to Sandeen. But the way that Sandeen tells it, they violated his privacy, which is basically a self-serving bit of drama on his part.
And of course, as previously documented here, Sandeen has done his share of cyber harassment himself.
Now, Sandeen has published what anyone could easily find. He has revealed that his birth name is Stephen Mark Sandeen. It is kind of funny how he was so secretive about it. I have known his birth name for some time. All you have to do is search the court records for "Sandeen" and name changes in San Diego. I guess Sandeen figured it was only a matter of time before someone bothered to do it. I choose not to reveal what I found out. It would have just given Sandeen another reason to play the martyr.
I am sure for Sandeen, it is a bit of a thrill. I am honestly surprised he did not do it sooner. He is clearly more interested in being a "woman with a penis" than anything remotely resembling a real female. This latest bit of theater, which I suspect was triggered by the realization that his birth name is no big secret, is somewhat akin to the classic end to a drag act, where the queen would whip his wig off, so there is no question that he is really a man, and that his act is all an illusion.
The bottom line is, Sandeen is not a transsexual, is not a woman, and never will be. He is another male crossdresser who, after a long career as a man, has decided to take up his "hobby," or more correctly, fetish, in his retirement. He shows no sign of actually being a woman, and seems clueless about what women actually think or feel. Sadly, he desperately needs and seeks attention, which means he pushes him forward as the face of transgender, which he misrepresents as including transsexuals.
Thursday, June 7, 2012
Absolute Silliness
Early in my transition, I came up with the phrase "I will not accept responsibility for other people's bigotry." By that, I meant that I would not beat myself up because certain people had an issue with my transition. I had a brother-in-law, for example, who was a bit of a celebrity in certain religious circles who rather stubbornly refused to use my proper name. He offered the compromise that he would refer to me as "J" which I declined, because "Jay" is a boy's name, and besides, my name is Jennifer, not an initial. I actually found it kind of amusing watching him stumble over language trying to avoid using either a name, or pronouns to refer to me. And this was after he had to admit that he could not actually show, from Scripture, that I was doing something wrong. It was clear that his concern about his image trumped any decency he might have shown me.
I simply refused to compromise my life for his, or anyone else's convenience. I realized that he, and some others, did not recognize my transition as legitimate. I simply considered the source and got on with my life. Why should I let their ignorance, or prejudice, define who, or what I really am?
Well, of late, the transgender blogs have been going crazy over the "radfem's," i.e. radical feminists, mostly lesbian separatists, alleged bigotry against transgender people. You would think the "radfems" were advocating murder the way the extremists are carrying. And, in the expected return swing of the pendulum, Suzan Cooke has added her voice to the chorus. Cooke, in her usual shrill hysteria, had compared the "radfems" to the Religious Right who Cooke hates with a passion. Cooke, who recently seemed to have returned to a position in opposition to the silliness of the transgender extremists now sounds, again, like a clone of "Autumn" Sandeen and "Cristan" Williams.
Now, personally, there is a lot that I would disagree with radical feminists over. But, I can see some of their points specifically concerning "transgender" issues. I mean, look at the transgender extremists who are now claiming that a man can become a woman simply by saying he is a woman. Many are the radical feminists are far more comfortable with those who have undergone sex-reassignment surgery than those who simply change their wardrobe and then claim that also changes their sex. I also can see some of their views concerning men who grew up enjoying male privilege who now claim to be fully women. Those who most often identify as transgender, and those who tend to be the most radical proponents of that movement, are men who were rather late in life when they showed any inclination towards claiming to be a woman. Prior to that, they were often transvestites, but they showed no real issues with their gender identity. In fact, as crossdressers, they often identified as a man who was wearing women's clothes.
I had gender issues from early on. I did not have words to express what I felt, because I went through much of it during a time when such issues were well known. I certainly never enjoyed male privilege, basically being seen as something of a "defective male." People sensed that I was "different," and I was often accused of being a sissy. I fought to avoid such a label at times, always unsuccessfully, simply because such a label generally led to being bullied. But it was hard to hide the real me, and so I suffered.
But then there are those like "Autumn" Sandeen, who served for twenty years in the U.S. Navy, as a male, in a male-only position. He had no problems, which, had he been transsexual, would have been impossible. He likes to claim that in his last years he was harassed because he was perceived as "gay." It is obvious that as his retirement approached, he was beginning to think of becoming a full-time crossdresser, rather than the part-time one he had been to that point. And I am sure he began acting a bit effeminate.
I can certainly understand why the radical feminists would not want someone like Sandeen at their meetings. He seems to fluctuate between acting very male and acting like a bad parody of a woman. Likewise, other transgender extremists often come off as more male than anything else. For example, check out "Cristan" Williams recent post where he puff himself up like a strutting peacock and postures in a very male manner about how he has "rewritten transgender history" in a year. But that's a topic for another post.
No, I may not agree with the radical feminists, but I do understand at least some of where they are coming from. They don't want men invading their space. And their definition of men is a bit broad, including not only the men in dresses like Sandeen, but also post-op transsexual women. Of course, I imagine more than a few post-op women might be among them without them knowing. True transsexuals rarely have trouble assimilating in such situations. They don't come across as men in dresses, and unless they choose to be open about their past, no one would know.
But, even some post-ops are going ballistic over the issue. As I said, Suzan Cooke is in a complete snit over the issue. Which is sort of surprising, but Cooke cannot seem to make up her mind which side she is on. She has even apparently joined the chorus of transgender extremists who think that CeCe MacDonald should be placed in a women's prison, even those said person is physically a male. In short, Cooke would negate the rights of every woman in a state prison in favor of a male criminal, simply because said person claims a female gender identity. That surprises me.
The CeCe MacDonald case is a perfect example of why radical feminists would take such a dim view of "transgender." Here is a person who committed a crime, and plead guilty. Yes, it is argued that it was self-defense, but I have to wonder. The case occurred in Minnesota, which is not exactly an anti-transgender stronghold, being the first state to pass a state-wide rights bill that included gender identity. But, like pretty much anywhere else, those rights are tempered by common sense. You don't put a man in a women's prison. If you have a penis, you are male for certain purposes, no matter how you dress, what your ID says, or even if you live in a state that is insane enough to change your birth certificate like Sandeen has take advantage of.
The transgender extremists are trying to claim not only that MacDonald should get a pass on killing someone because of being black and transgender, but should also be allowed to be in a women's prison. What a load of crap. This represents an attack on women, not support for them.
Likewise, when transgender people attack radical feminists for wanting to maintain their vision of "women's space," I think it represents the inherent misogynistic tendencies of many in the transgender extremist movement. And the same is true when radical feminists are attacked as viciously as they have been recently. I don't agree with them, but I respect their right to hold views that are not the same as my own.
But then, transgender has never really been about rights...it has always been about a bunch of men wanting their way at the expense of women.
I simply refused to compromise my life for his, or anyone else's convenience. I realized that he, and some others, did not recognize my transition as legitimate. I simply considered the source and got on with my life. Why should I let their ignorance, or prejudice, define who, or what I really am?
Well, of late, the transgender blogs have been going crazy over the "radfem's," i.e. radical feminists, mostly lesbian separatists, alleged bigotry against transgender people. You would think the "radfems" were advocating murder the way the extremists are carrying. And, in the expected return swing of the pendulum, Suzan Cooke has added her voice to the chorus. Cooke, in her usual shrill hysteria, had compared the "radfems" to the Religious Right who Cooke hates with a passion. Cooke, who recently seemed to have returned to a position in opposition to the silliness of the transgender extremists now sounds, again, like a clone of "Autumn" Sandeen and "Cristan" Williams.
Now, personally, there is a lot that I would disagree with radical feminists over. But, I can see some of their points specifically concerning "transgender" issues. I mean, look at the transgender extremists who are now claiming that a man can become a woman simply by saying he is a woman. Many are the radical feminists are far more comfortable with those who have undergone sex-reassignment surgery than those who simply change their wardrobe and then claim that also changes their sex. I also can see some of their views concerning men who grew up enjoying male privilege who now claim to be fully women. Those who most often identify as transgender, and those who tend to be the most radical proponents of that movement, are men who were rather late in life when they showed any inclination towards claiming to be a woman. Prior to that, they were often transvestites, but they showed no real issues with their gender identity. In fact, as crossdressers, they often identified as a man who was wearing women's clothes.
I had gender issues from early on. I did not have words to express what I felt, because I went through much of it during a time when such issues were well known. I certainly never enjoyed male privilege, basically being seen as something of a "defective male." People sensed that I was "different," and I was often accused of being a sissy. I fought to avoid such a label at times, always unsuccessfully, simply because such a label generally led to being bullied. But it was hard to hide the real me, and so I suffered.
But then there are those like "Autumn" Sandeen, who served for twenty years in the U.S. Navy, as a male, in a male-only position. He had no problems, which, had he been transsexual, would have been impossible. He likes to claim that in his last years he was harassed because he was perceived as "gay." It is obvious that as his retirement approached, he was beginning to think of becoming a full-time crossdresser, rather than the part-time one he had been to that point. And I am sure he began acting a bit effeminate.
I can certainly understand why the radical feminists would not want someone like Sandeen at their meetings. He seems to fluctuate between acting very male and acting like a bad parody of a woman. Likewise, other transgender extremists often come off as more male than anything else. For example, check out "Cristan" Williams recent post where he puff himself up like a strutting peacock and postures in a very male manner about how he has "rewritten transgender history" in a year. But that's a topic for another post.
No, I may not agree with the radical feminists, but I do understand at least some of where they are coming from. They don't want men invading their space. And their definition of men is a bit broad, including not only the men in dresses like Sandeen, but also post-op transsexual women. Of course, I imagine more than a few post-op women might be among them without them knowing. True transsexuals rarely have trouble assimilating in such situations. They don't come across as men in dresses, and unless they choose to be open about their past, no one would know.
But, even some post-ops are going ballistic over the issue. As I said, Suzan Cooke is in a complete snit over the issue. Which is sort of surprising, but Cooke cannot seem to make up her mind which side she is on. She has even apparently joined the chorus of transgender extremists who think that CeCe MacDonald should be placed in a women's prison, even those said person is physically a male. In short, Cooke would negate the rights of every woman in a state prison in favor of a male criminal, simply because said person claims a female gender identity. That surprises me.
The CeCe MacDonald case is a perfect example of why radical feminists would take such a dim view of "transgender." Here is a person who committed a crime, and plead guilty. Yes, it is argued that it was self-defense, but I have to wonder. The case occurred in Minnesota, which is not exactly an anti-transgender stronghold, being the first state to pass a state-wide rights bill that included gender identity. But, like pretty much anywhere else, those rights are tempered by common sense. You don't put a man in a women's prison. If you have a penis, you are male for certain purposes, no matter how you dress, what your ID says, or even if you live in a state that is insane enough to change your birth certificate like Sandeen has take advantage of.
The transgender extremists are trying to claim not only that MacDonald should get a pass on killing someone because of being black and transgender, but should also be allowed to be in a women's prison. What a load of crap. This represents an attack on women, not support for them.
Likewise, when transgender people attack radical feminists for wanting to maintain their vision of "women's space," I think it represents the inherent misogynistic tendencies of many in the transgender extremist movement. And the same is true when radical feminists are attacked as viciously as they have been recently. I don't agree with them, but I respect their right to hold views that are not the same as my own.
But then, transgender has never really been about rights...it has always been about a bunch of men wanting their way at the expense of women.
Thursday, May 24, 2012
Not a Woman, But Possibly a Sociopath
Well, now that he has pulled off his "legal" fiction "Autumn" Sandeen is now whining about how he was "cyberbullied". Now, first off, that is basically a complete load of crap, and second, it shows that Sandeen is not only not a woman, and certainly not remotely a female, but is quite frankly a sociopath, someone who suffers from Antisocial Personality Disorder. I told in the past how Sandeen actually did cyberstalk me. What happened with Sandeen was simply a completely appropriate discussion of what, at the time, would have been appropriate steps to challenge an attempted fraud.
Sandeen repeatedly ignores the fact that many do not wish to be lumped in with "transgender, and gender nonconforming people," and yet he continues to use the term "transgender, transsexual, and gender nonconforming people" as though they belong together. He also has shown little regard for people's feelings in a number of ways, including his cyberstalking of myself.
The second one pretty much speaks for itself. For example, Sandeen has claimed that his "legal change of gender" would allow him to legally marry a man, even though Sandeen still has his penis and is not remotely a female, or a woman.
Sandeen has exhibited, and bragged about violent acts against people who questioned his being a woman.
He shows no guilt for his actions against me, but is outraged that something for less serious was aimed at him.
And again, he is blaming others for objecting to his previous plan to commit would would, at the time, have been a legal fraud.
Sandeen was able to obtain a "legal change of gender" because transgender extremists have managed to con the state legislature into rewriting state law vaguely enough that there appears to be a legal loophole that would allow a physician to fraudulently imply that a patient has undergone sex reassignment when they actually have not, and more importantly for Sandeen, have disallowed challenges to such a claim.
This last is at the heart of Sandeen's complaint about being cyberbullied. He bragged online about how he planned to perpetuate such a fraud, and he objected when people discussed taking legal steps to prevent it. He then stated that he planned to wait until the new law was in effect, to avoid such a legal challenge.
Interesting...Sandeen attempts to do real harm, but thinks HE is being cyberstalked when someone discusses trying to prevent him from committing what would have been a crime. Well, of course that does certainly fit criteria 2 above.
So no, Sandeen is not remotely a woman, and never will be, but he clearly appears to meet the criteria for being a sociopath. Of course, I am not a licensed professional, and would not presume to make a diagnosis, but that is certainly how it appears to me.
ICD-10 defines Antisocial Personality Disorder as someone showing at least three of the following criteria:
There is no question that Sandeen clearly appears to meets criteria 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6. Not enough is known to conclusively state he might meet criteria 3.
- Callous unconcern for the feelings of others.
- Gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, rules, and obligations.
- Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships, though having no difficulty in establishing them.
- Very low tolerance to frustration and a low threshold for discharge of aggression, including violence.
- Incapacity to experience guilt or to profit from experience, particularly punishment.
- Markedly prone to blame others or to offer plausible rationalizations for the behavior that has brought the person into conflict with society.
Sandeen repeatedly ignores the fact that many do not wish to be lumped in with "transgender, and gender nonconforming people," and yet he continues to use the term "transgender, transsexual, and gender nonconforming people" as though they belong together. He also has shown little regard for people's feelings in a number of ways, including his cyberstalking of myself.
The second one pretty much speaks for itself. For example, Sandeen has claimed that his "legal change of gender" would allow him to legally marry a man, even though Sandeen still has his penis and is not remotely a female, or a woman.
Sandeen has exhibited, and bragged about violent acts against people who questioned his being a woman.
He shows no guilt for his actions against me, but is outraged that something for less serious was aimed at him.
And again, he is blaming others for objecting to his previous plan to commit would would, at the time, have been a legal fraud.
Sandeen was able to obtain a "legal change of gender" because transgender extremists have managed to con the state legislature into rewriting state law vaguely enough that there appears to be a legal loophole that would allow a physician to fraudulently imply that a patient has undergone sex reassignment when they actually have not, and more importantly for Sandeen, have disallowed challenges to such a claim.
This last is at the heart of Sandeen's complaint about being cyberbullied. He bragged online about how he planned to perpetuate such a fraud, and he objected when people discussed taking legal steps to prevent it. He then stated that he planned to wait until the new law was in effect, to avoid such a legal challenge.
Interesting...Sandeen attempts to do real harm, but thinks HE is being cyberstalked when someone discusses trying to prevent him from committing what would have been a crime. Well, of course that does certainly fit criteria 2 above.
So no, Sandeen is not remotely a woman, and never will be, but he clearly appears to meet the criteria for being a sociopath. Of course, I am not a licensed professional, and would not presume to make a diagnosis, but that is certainly how it appears to me.
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
A "Legal" Fiction
Let me start off by saying that I have no objections to same-sex marriage. I have friends who are married to members of the same-sex, and I was even the photographer at one such wedding.
But, the law is the law, and "Autumn" Sandeen, who has taken advantage of a loophole in California law to perpetuate what is, effectively, a fraud, is making a claim that is, at best, untested, and is probably a complete load of crap. Sandeen, who is now claiming to be "legally female" claims that he can enter into a "heterosexual" marriage with a man. First off, either Sandeen has gone completely delusional, is completely ignorant, or is just plain dishonest. If Sandeen was able to find some poor fool willing to marry him, it would not be a heterosexual marriage (Sandeen still has a penis, and two people with penises do not a heterosexual couple make.) and I honestly wonder, if such a marriage occurred, if it would be remotely legal in California, or any other state that currently does not recognize same-sex marriages.
I mean seriously, does Sandeen really think a piece of paper changes anything? If he died, I seriously doubt his death certificate would record him as a female. If he is arrested, his piece of paper is not going get him a bunk in a women's prison. He is still a male, no matter what him, his delusions, or a judge in San Diego might say. And no, his piece of paper is not going to get him admission to women's only space.
Nope, Sandeen is still a male, and he is still a man. Even if he decides, at some future point, to go further and have full SRS, he will still be a man. You can't change the brain, and in Sandeen's case, that is 100% all-American male. No matter what he wants to claim.
About all Sandeen's silliness accomplishes is an increase in the possibility of backlash against transsexuals who actually are post-op.
Oh, and apparently kudos to Cathy Brennan, who it appears made an effort to talk some sense to the court, though sadly, she was unsuccessful.
But, the law is the law, and "Autumn" Sandeen, who has taken advantage of a loophole in California law to perpetuate what is, effectively, a fraud, is making a claim that is, at best, untested, and is probably a complete load of crap. Sandeen, who is now claiming to be "legally female" claims that he can enter into a "heterosexual" marriage with a man. First off, either Sandeen has gone completely delusional, is completely ignorant, or is just plain dishonest. If Sandeen was able to find some poor fool willing to marry him, it would not be a heterosexual marriage (Sandeen still has a penis, and two people with penises do not a heterosexual couple make.) and I honestly wonder, if such a marriage occurred, if it would be remotely legal in California, or any other state that currently does not recognize same-sex marriages.
I mean seriously, does Sandeen really think a piece of paper changes anything? If he died, I seriously doubt his death certificate would record him as a female. If he is arrested, his piece of paper is not going get him a bunk in a women's prison. He is still a male, no matter what him, his delusions, or a judge in San Diego might say. And no, his piece of paper is not going to get him admission to women's only space.
Nope, Sandeen is still a male, and he is still a man. Even if he decides, at some future point, to go further and have full SRS, he will still be a man. You can't change the brain, and in Sandeen's case, that is 100% all-American male. No matter what he wants to claim.
About all Sandeen's silliness accomplishes is an increase in the possibility of backlash against transsexuals who actually are post-op.
Oh, and apparently kudos to Cathy Brennan, who it appears made an effort to talk some sense to the court, though sadly, she was unsuccessful.
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Uh, Not Even Remotely Right....
I wonder sometimes where the transgender kooks come up with some of their ideas. Take, for example, this bit of insanity from "Autumn" Sandeen over on LGBT Weekly:
First off, I think anyone who identifies as a "trans" person probably ought to serious question the wisdom of having surgery. If you are that attached to your past, well then you just might miss certain parts when they are gone. For example, let me be very clear on this...I would never suggest that Mr. Sandeen have surgery. By beef with Mr. Sandeen is not that he has not had surgery, or that he does not need surgery, but that he has taken to claiming to be a transsexual, and that he claims to be a female. He is neither, and even if he had surgery, it would not make him a woman. It would simply make him a man with a vagina. Like several other transgender kooks who made the mistake of going too far.
No, there are a lot of "trans" people who really, REALLY, REALLY should never have surgery, and more than a few who should not have done it who already have. Some publicly regret it, others regret it while denying they regret it, but acting in ways that harm true transsexuals.
I know of no one who remotely demands that anyone should have surgery. Yes, I believe that surgery, including vaginoplasty, should be a requirement for changing a birth certificate in the case of a male to female transsexual. I think that male to females should at the very least have to have upper surgery, a complete hysterectomy and removal of the ovaries, and the vagina closed before being allowed to change their birth certificate. I understand the limitations of FTM surgery, and am sympathetic to their plight.
Retaining the physical genitals of one sex, while claiming to be a member of the other is simply dishonest. But then so is a lot of things Mr. Sandeen tries to pass off on society.
Somewhere in between the extremes of people who demand no trans people should have surgery, and those who demand all trans people have surgery there is middle ground that recognizes that no group of trans people really should dictate what trans experience is the universal trans experience.Huh? "Those who demand all trans people have surgery...?" Now, I realize this is in the context of Mr. Sandeen trying to cover up the fact that he is darn close to one who claims that no one needs surgery (he has denigrated those who have the surgery, and implied that we still have penises, etc.) but really, even he can't be that completely ignorant, can he?
First off, I think anyone who identifies as a "trans" person probably ought to serious question the wisdom of having surgery. If you are that attached to your past, well then you just might miss certain parts when they are gone. For example, let me be very clear on this...I would never suggest that Mr. Sandeen have surgery. By beef with Mr. Sandeen is not that he has not had surgery, or that he does not need surgery, but that he has taken to claiming to be a transsexual, and that he claims to be a female. He is neither, and even if he had surgery, it would not make him a woman. It would simply make him a man with a vagina. Like several other transgender kooks who made the mistake of going too far.
No, there are a lot of "trans" people who really, REALLY, REALLY should never have surgery, and more than a few who should not have done it who already have. Some publicly regret it, others regret it while denying they regret it, but acting in ways that harm true transsexuals.
I know of no one who remotely demands that anyone should have surgery. Yes, I believe that surgery, including vaginoplasty, should be a requirement for changing a birth certificate in the case of a male to female transsexual. I think that male to females should at the very least have to have upper surgery, a complete hysterectomy and removal of the ovaries, and the vagina closed before being allowed to change their birth certificate. I understand the limitations of FTM surgery, and am sympathetic to their plight.
Retaining the physical genitals of one sex, while claiming to be a member of the other is simply dishonest. But then so is a lot of things Mr. Sandeen tries to pass off on society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
