A Few Minor Points...

I screwed up yesterday...

After noticing Elizabeth's post on Notes From the T Side I made the mistake of thinking she had gotten over her little snit fit, and might be willing to put stuff behind us.  Not even close.  I don't know what it is, but some early transitioning transsexuals, at least ones who transitioned back in the Sixties, seem to have some major insecurities.  The classic example, of course, is Suzan Cooke.  Granted Cooke has gone full tilt as a transgender apologist, apparently deciding the ego strokes she gets from the men in dresses bunch is worth it.

I can understand having some identification with a possible early transitioning transsexual such as might be the case in Colorado.  Now, I say might be simply because we really have pretty much zero valid information.  Almost everything published has been filtered through either the Pacific Justice Institute, or Mr. "Cristan" Williams.  Simply put, this means it is highly probable that the facts have been lost in their attempts to "spin" the story to fit their extremist agendas.  

I tried to explain this to Elizabeth, but she is the sort of person who sees things as you either totally accept her extremely rigid viewpoint, or well, you can expect a vicious and rather nasty attack.  

And yes, I know some of the extremists would accuse me of the same thing, but well, they would be wrong.  I don't have a lot of patience when others do such things, and when they do, I will generally give them a full dose of reality.  But if someone is willing to engage in a rational, and reasonable discussion, I can be quite pleasant about it.  I have a lot of friends with whom I may disagree on some points.  We are able to discuss this, and if necessary, agree to disagree, without resorting to accusations of bigotry, hatred, and intolerance, or the need to toss insults, profanity, or profane insults.

I'm sorry, but I won't be bullied into agreeing to something I don't believe.  And if that causes someone to resort to ridiculous attacks in an attempt to do so, I will generally either confront them with their own failures, or, possibly just walk away if the area of disagreement is relatively narrow.  In the case of extremist kooks like Mr. Williams, or Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen, I will generally expose their lies, and take apart their illogical arguments.  In the case of Elizabeth, I am more disappointed than anything else.

I mean seriously...  She seems to have some need to act like a character out of some bad teen flick.  She seems to want to play the "mean girl."  Between impugning my intelligence, and questioning my validity as a transsexual, she pretty much went off on some ridiculous tangents.

Her principle argument that the person who has been labeled "Jane Doe" by Mr. Williams must be a transsexual amounted to "no kid that age would subject themselves to the abuse and ridicule" unless they really were.  Well, I obviously did not agree with that position, and a recent situation here in the Bay Area, where a teenage boy who has chosen to act out by claiming to be "agender" and wearing skirts, was set on fire when he fell asleep on a bus.  I was a little surprised that the trans kooks were a bit slow picking up on the story, but they seem to have finally discovered it.  But, as horrible as this crime is (NO ONE SHOULD EVER BE SET ON FIRE FOR ANY REASON) it does expose the fact that, well, Elizabeth was simply wrong.  

Instead of saying, "Okay, I don't agree, but I can see your point," she slings more insults and tries to claim it is two different things.  Well, I agree, clearly claiming to be "agender" is not exactly the same as claiming to be transgender, or perhaps transsexual, but it is also not really that much different in terms of possible stigma, and in fact, claiming to be "agender" is probably going to invite even more stigma.

Bottom line, the argument that no teenager would claim to be a transsexual, who is not actually one, is totally without merit.  So, without more accurate information, I am going to withhold judgement.

The other area where Elizabeth showed extremely poor reasoning was first off, adding to something I said in a comment so she could attack me (i.e. a straw man argument), and then using a "No True Scotsman" fallacy based on that.

I mentioned a very personal, and largely private period in my life.  There is a lot about that time I simply am not going to talk about publicly, and which I have only discussed, in detail with a few very close and trusted friends.  I usually some it up, in a very over-simplified manner, by saying it was triggered, in part. because of a very poor therapist.  The bottom line is, I went through an emotional crisis, and detransitioned for about seven years.  Elizabeth seized on that small bit of information, and claimed I had "failed at transition."  That is not even remotely accurate.  I delayed my transition because I decided, for deeply personal reasons that are really not any of her business, to attempt to find a lesser path. 

Now, some might argue that I should reveal all, but I am not going to do so for several reasons.  First, doing so would invade the privacy of other people.  Second, there was a lot of pain involved in that period of my life.  And third, as I have discussed here before, there are people who spend a lot of time online stalking others, and I am not going to give them information they would gladly abuse.  

If Elizabeth really needs to look down on others to feel better, that is her failing, not mine.  If she wants to imagine things, based on a small amount of knowledge, and a large amount of insecurity, well...that is her problem.  I really don't need her permission or her imprimatur to be a woman.  If she wants to set some absurd criteria to judge someone's validity, she can join the kooks like Bailey and Blanchard who have made a career of doing such.  

Again, I have pointed out that some, such as Mr. Williams and Mr. Sandeen, are neither transsexuals, or women.  This is  based on arguable facts, not whether or not they followed the exact same path I did, or whether or not they adhere to some political viewpoint.

Separating Facts From Total and Complete Fabrication

As I said yesterday, the "trans panic" continues, and to be honest, it is getting pretty deep.  Mr. "Cristan" Williams is in overdrive pumping out the lies, straw man arguments, and such, and the sad thing is, he is just making the whole mess at the worse.

His latest bit of drivel would be hilarious if it were not so serious.  He has posted another straw man argument that seems to raise some serious questions about what really is going on in Florence, CO.  In his latest opinion piece masquerading as "news" he seems to claim that the police are investigating Pacific Justice Institute for "bullying."  What is actually said is very disturbing, if true.  Of course, like pretty much everything in this case, this bit of information comes from a biased source... Apparently Pacific Justice Institute has alleged that Superintendent Rhonda Vendetti has warned that "that the complaining families were now subject to having their social media monitored by police." Okay, there are basically three possibilities here...PJI has fabricated this claim, the superintendent is lying, or the police actually are engaged in outrageous, and illegal acts intended to repress free speech.  The one thing that is very clear is, well, as usual, Mr. Williams is lying again.  The parents are not Pacific Justice Institute, and the Florence Police would have no jurisdiction to investigate them for bullying (PJI Is located in California).  

Now, let's look at several facts, some of which have nothing to do with the Colorado case anyway:

First, in spite of what some want to believe, none of this is really about transsexuals.  Mr. Williams pretty much has shown outright disdain for transsexuals.  He is very focused on "transgender rights" which is an entirely different subject.  He is simply desiring to use a teenage student in Colorado to further a far more extreme political agenda, and apparently will use any sleazy trick he can dream up, including now attempting to buy the support of the parents.  Mr. Williams has started a fund raising drive to provide them with money.  I guess they have to be rewarded for allowing him to use their child.

The real issue is also not a high school student in Colorado.  It is about preserving a rather poorly written law in California.  Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen posted a rather telling comment.  He quotes the AB 1266's author who speaks of how various school districts have instituted "common sense" policies.  That is true.  For example, I did a little research, and found a news article from a local paper, The Canon County Daily Record, in Colorado about the case.  It provided a bit of information about Colorado's law concerning transgender rights:

The Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies Civil Rights Commission states under Rule 81.11 - Gender-Segregated Facilities (http://bit.ly/18jzRRz) that nothing in the Colorado Antidiscrimination Act prohibits segregation of facilities on the basis of gender; all covered entities shall allow individuals the use of gender-segregated facilities that are consistent with their gender identity, including but not limited to restrooms, locker rooms, dressing rooms and dormitories; and in gender-segregated facilities where undressing in the presence of others occurs, covered entities shall make reasonable accommodations to allow access consistent with an individual's gender identity. (emphasis mine)

BTW, while Mr. Williams has written an increasing number of articles on this case, that was the ONLY story in the local paper.  

Okay, that is not terribly different from the regulations here in San Francisco.  Here they use the term "inevitable nudity" but otherwise the policy is pretty much the same.  They have to make modifications, if reasonable, otherwise they have to provide access to equivalent facilities.  For example, if there are showers, they have to provide separate stalls, and curtains.  That sort of thing.  They do NOT have to allow a "Colleen" Francis situation, like Mr. Williams wants.  

And that brings us to "Colleen" Francis and what that pervert tells us about what is really going on.  Some years ago, when the push for transgender rights really took off...when it was decided that the status quo, which was that transsexuals, perhaps with what were called "carry letters" were pretty much allowed access to restrooms, and other facilities, was not enough, and that crossdressers and such should be allowed access as well, some raised the concern that it would not stop there.  That these men would want to force their way into more private spaces.  We were told that this was absurd, that it would never happen....

Yeah, "Colleen" Francis...  BTW, Mr. Williams's response to that case was laughable.  He actually tried, in an absurd post, to claim that women were a greater threat than men.  Of course, this is a man who has pushed the "cotton ceiling" meme, and who has pretty much show clear disdain for women who, uh, well....don't have penises.  Suddenly, it is not only okay for men (sorry, but if you are willing to wave your penis around in a women's locker room or shower, you are a MAN, BABY!) to invade women's spaces, but to do so nude.

AB 1266 does not contain a provision that addresses "inevitable nudity."  It does not allow for provisions that address "inevitable nudity."  It does not contain clauses that allow schools to set "common sense" policies.  I imagine that the extremists at Transgender Law Center argued against such provisions.  The law, and that is part of the problem, it is a law, not a school policy, is going to be enforced by judges, who will be constrained by what the law actually says.  And by what it does not say.

What the law says on the matter is a bit too simple:

A pupil shall be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs and activities, including athletic teams and competitions, and use facilities consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records.

It can, and no doubt will, be argued that the law does not allow a school to make provisions for dealing with inevitable nudity.  That would be a "restriction."  The law does not provide any provision for determining a student's gender identity.  What if a student claims that it "fluctuates."  

I sincerely believe that some "common sense" is needed...

The law should be modified to address "inevitable nudity."

The law should be modified to include a provision requiring some form of medical documentation that the student has been diagnosed as transsexual by a qualified, licensed therapist with experience in the treatment of that condition.  And presentation would have to be consistent, not periodic.

Rules that would address issues of fairness in athletics.  Even if the claims of "gender identity" are true, imagine, for example, girl's basketball teams fielding male students with height and strength advantages that would otherwise be illegal.  It would, in effect, be the equivalent of allowing students to take steroids.  Not to mention, track and field, volleyball, and other sports. 

Those provisions would go a long way towards addressing legitimate concerns.  Yes, groups like PJI would still object...but so, probably, would kooks like Mr. Williams and Mr. Sandeen, who suddenly would be losing their extremist agenda.

Bottom line, it is really sad that a student in Colorado is being used by either side to further political gain.  It is especially sad that this student is reported to be on "suicide watch."  You know, I almost predicted in my article that would be the next development.  I decided that would have been in poor taste, and didn't add it.  I honestly hope it is not true.  But, given that the child might actually believe what Mr. Williams, and Mr. Sandeen have lied about having been said, I don't know if it is true or not.  

Would I put it past Mr. Williams to make such a claim if it were not true?  Not at all.  He has already shown he lies as easily as he breathes.  He has already shown that he is more than willing to pay for the use of this child.  He has already shown little actual regard for the child's  privacy.  

And no, I don't hate Mr. Williams.  I find his behavior to be reprehensible but no, I do not wish him harm.  I wish he would show some decency and stop using a child for his political goals. But, I don't hate him.  And I don't appreciate people making such claims in an attempt to use "club words" to beat me into submission.

Mr. Sandeen Has A Complete Meltdown

Well, I can't say I am totally surprised, but Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen has finally had a complete breakdown online.  In the past, his kook has cyberstalked me, in an attempt to censor what I say about transgender extremists.  This morning, he went off the deep end and posted a rather interesting article on Transadvocate.

Now, Sandeen starts off by claiming to have been cyberbullied, and cyberstalked three times and offers links (note, links as in plural) to document this.  Oddly enough, they are all the same link.  I don't know if he had simply become so angry he was not thinking, or if he thinks his readers are that ignorant.  He then says something that shows just how insane he really is...

I now understand that people I’ve never met in the brick-and-mortar world actually have despised me enough to have seriously planned, and in one case actually accomplishing, real harm to me in the brick-and-mortar world.

Okay...  Well, what actually happened was there was discussion of preventing Sandeen from attempting to, and then actually committing a criminal fraud that he had bragged he was going to do.  He basically lied to a court and claimed he had changed his physical sex.  He has not.  But having said the above, he goes on to tell, in detail, how he tried to cause me real harm.  He wanted, in his mind, to have me fired from a position he imagined I had.  Actually, I was never a "staff member" of my church.  I was, for a while, the editor of the church newsletter.  I did my turn, and now it is someone else.  Sandeen's little harrassment had nothing to do with that.

Hmmm, let's look at that definition of cyberstalking he posted.

Sending multiple e-mails, often on a systematic basis, to annoy, embarrass, intimidate, or threaten a person or to make the person fearful that she or a member of her family or household will be harmed. Also called e-mail harassment.

In another words, exactly what Sandeen brags about doing.  And what Sandeen is clearly hoping others will follow his example and do.  And again, Sandeen admits to this...

I wanted the ministers at her church to know how one of their lay leaders was acting outside of the church towards people the church was supposed to be welcoming towards, so I wrote the church — and as I said before, I cc’d her on that email. I did nothing behind her back.

Sounds like he wanted to make sure I was annoyed, embarrassed, and/or intimidated.

Let's compare here...  I write a blog about issues affecting transsexuals, which includes the silliness pushed by transgender extremists like Sandeen, among others.  Sandeen is very active in pushing an agenda that I rather vehemently oppose.  I express my opinion on these issues.  Further, my blog welcomes anyone who wants to comment, and has only one rule...respect privacy.  The only people I have ever blocked have been those who attempt to engage in the sort of harassment that Sandeen is guilty of.  Granted, the one time that Sandeen attempted to comment here, his post went to spam, which I was not even aware had been added in an update, and I did not see it until long past the day it was sent.  Sandeen tends to prefer posting drivel of the sort we see here, from blogs that are heavily censored.

Now, Sandeen goes on to try to defend another of his attempts to intimidate me.  He threatened to use some photos that were obtained by "Willow" Arune through deceit and provided to a vicious cyberstalker, the one who prompted Sandeen to contact my church.  This person also contacted Suzan Cooke.  To Cooke's credit, she declined to engage in such behavior, having more ethics than Sandeen.  Ironically, Cooke does not brag about how she is so like Martin Luther King, Jr.  

Jennifer claims I don’t own the copyright of my image; she claims it’s owned by the Huffington Post.

Actually, no.  Sandeen wrote me, and demanded I remove the photo.  I declined to be censored by Sandeen (do you think Sandeen, or Mr. "Cristan" Williams, would agree if I demanded that they take down the private information that Sandeen has posted?).  I pointed out that the photo had no copyright, and besides, Sandeen himself had made it public.  Mr. Williams has copied content from my blog, without permission (not just quotes, but graphics as well).  It is called, "fair use."  Sandeen, by the way, has gone far beyond that here.  He pointed out that the web page said "Copyright, Huffington Post" and I responded, "You are not the Huffington Post."  I never said that the items where owned by them.  In fact, I said the opposite.

Now, for example, I have no idea how Sandeen got the photo he used in his post.  It is one taken of me some years ago, by a guy I dated a couple of time, and was used by me in various places.  It is not one of the one's Arune stole (hey, unlike some people I prefer truth). 

Now, as to Sandeen's "meat puppeting" (funny, given I never mentioned that term...) that is kind of obvious.  His columns rarely rate more than a few comments.  Rather suddenly, there seemed to be a chorus of very similar remarks, including a number from a supposed radical feminist who attacked me and another transsexual, including as Sandeen puts it, misgendering us (funny, Sandeen never said a word) but this person defended Sandeen who has also cyberstalked a number of lesbian women.  Perhaps I am mistaken, but I will go with Occam's Razor on this one...

A few final thoughts...

I am supposedly obsessed with Sandeen, but which of us put what was obviously quite a bit of time and effort into searching the Internet for detailed information on someone?  What I write about Sandeen is based on reading his posts on LGBT Weekly, and Pam's House Blend.  And more recently, Twitter.  Hmm, folks be warned...reading Sandeen's public writings is stalking him in his twisted mind.  I actually started my blog, largely in reaction to his, and other transgender extremists efforts to hide dissent.

I would welcome anyone to my church, and in fact, we have had transgender people visit.  Funny thing...I generally don't take political issues to church with me.  And that is, really, what this eventually is.  A political disagreement.  Sandeen wants to rend asunder the fabric of society.  I oppose his efforts to subvert gender.  He just takes it a bit too personally.  And that is just his reaction to my speaking out against his ridiculous demands for society.  As to what else I might do, that is none of his business as it does not directly involve him.  Suffice to say, I won't be donning a uniform I am not entitled to wear (he mocked women, and the US Navy) and chaining myself to the White House fence.  Or otherwise making a public fool of myself.  Unlike him, I do not seek, or appreciate attention.

I will no more pander to Sandeen's delusions than I would those of the gentleman who I had the misfortune to have sit next to me on the bus the other day.  He started ranting, to anyone who would listen, about some person on the bus who he imagined was his enemy.  I'm not sure which passenger it was, but he was quite agitated.  I tried as best as possible to ignore him, but I also made sure the driver was aware (we were both sitting in the front) and I very discretely made sure my pepper spray was in my hand...just in case.  He finally exited the bus without incident.  Both he, and Sandeen, have lost touch with reality.  Fortunately, as someone who knows Sandeen pointed out this morning, Sandeen is 350 miles away.

What I will do is continue to speak out, and draw attention to Sandeen's foolishness.  And that foolishness includes the fantasy that he can control me.

Update:  Well, it seems that Mr. Sandeen chose to update his article, so I guess I should correct his new lies:

I think I need to make a point one more time because Jennifer is still imagining that I’m conspiring with others to cause her harm. Specifically, I’ve never conspired with someone named Willow to take any coordinated action against Jennifer. In general, I’ve never done any conspiring with anyone at all at any time whatsoever in any matter that relates to Jennifer Usher. As much as she may believe I have engaged in some coordinated conspiracy to cause her harm, she’s absolutely wrong in that belief.

This, of course, is a classic straw man argument.  I did not say that Sandeen was "conspiring" with anyone.  To repeat, some time back, a particularly nasty cyberstalker sent messages to several bloggers trying to get people to attack me by contacting my church.  He was hiding behind anonymous servers, and would not do his own dirty work.  I suspect he feared legal action.  Suzan Cooke posted about this,and how she would not go along,  Only Sandeen actually, as far as I know, was the only person stupid enough to actually do what was asked.  The person cyberstalking me was not Willow Arune, though Arune was a supporter of that person's efforts.  It was hardly coordinated, more of a clumsy scheme by a person who had previously been obsessed someone in Canada.  The person has apparently since disappeared.  I don't know if they have died, been imprisoned (there is reason to believe this person had a history of criminal behavior in Nevada, or perhaps finally got on some serious anti-psychotics.  

Transphobia? Or Just Common Sense?

Way back in the earliest days of this blog, I wrong a post about what I call "club words," the sort of words that people, especially extremist activists, use to beat people into submission.  And of course, the favorite of the transgender kooks is "transphobia."  

The most common definition of "transphobia" is:

An irrational fear of, and/or hostility towards, people who are transgender or who otherwise transgress traditional gender norms.

This rather silly term was made up by the transgender kooks as a sort of parallel for "homophobia."  Now, the term homophobia started out as a bit of a slam against men who had issues with homosexuality, based on the suggestion that such men were actually frightened of their own "latent homosexuality."  Over time, as it became more widely applied, it tended to lose this original meaning, and now stands as a sort of bizarre term that has a root meaning that is largely unrelated to how it is actually used.  Few would now suggest that people actually fear homosexuals as much as they simply dislike their behavior which some see as immoral.

But, as more and more transgender activists decided that they wanted to align themselves with the LGBT community, even though they actually share little in common (especially given the idea that sexual orientation is inherent, while much of what defines transgender is clearly chosen behavior, they decided to plagiarize the term homophobia and modify it into "transphobia."  

Increasingly, the term is used to attack anything that the transgender kooks dislike, even if it is actually quite reasonable, and totally rational.  For example, in the article that inspired this column, Mr. "Cristan" Williams calls the idea that a person who was a male for the majority of his life, but who has in relatively recent time, undergone sex reassignment surgery, should not be allowed to beat up women in mixed martial arts competitions, transphobia.  He cites a claim by "Marci" Bowers, the infamous transgender surgeon who took over Biber's practice in Trinidad, CO before bolting to San Mateo, CA as stating:

Most measures of physical strength minimize, muscle mass decreases, bone density decreases, and they become fairly comparable to women in their musculature. After as much time as has passed in her case, if tested, she would probably end up in the same muscle mass category as her biologically born female counterpart.

 Now, this is the standard set of arguments made whenever the issue of a post-op transsexual who desires to enter women's sports comes up.  Even if one sets aside questions about why they would even want to do such a thing (If they do win, it will be attributed to their having been born a male, and if they don't win, well...one wonders why they even bother?) I find it interesting that Bowers uses a lot of "weasel" words...like "most," "fairly,"and "probably."  Nothing definite, just a bunch of dancing around the facts.  In another words, this person "might" not have an advantage, but Bowers is not going to make a definitive statement.

Another doctor that Mr. Williams cites takes a similar "weaselly" approach:

She’s been doing that [HRT] for so many years, that she probably does not have a significant advantage, if any at all. Especially because she wasn’t a big man when she lived as a male. She’s 5’7 and slight of build, and basically the size of an average female.

She "probably" doesn't have "significant" advantage.  Hmm, based on his statements, I guess a 5'7" man with a "slight build" could fairly fight a woman as well...

The bottom line is, no one really knows.  Personally, I have questions about anyone who has a history as a male engaging in women's sports. and I find it hard to justify such.  Being a transsexual involves trade-offs.  But some, in a classically male manner, want to have their care and eat it too.  Again, if they prevail, they will be seen as having done so because they were born male, and if they don't, well...if one is not in it, to win, why bother?  And in should be noted, in the case of the person being discussed, they have two wins, and no losses, so the question of an unfair advantage remains legitimate.

In the case of a person who was born a man, who is going to actually be engaged in a sport that involves actually trying to beat up a woman, the sane and rational thing would be to err on the side of caution.  But that does not set well with the transgender kooks, who think that a person's right to claim to be a woman trumps all.  Now, even allowing that the person in question might actually be a transsexual woman, which I find a bit difficult to accept when someone decides to out their self (that, at least to me, raises serious questions as to their motivations, should women be subjected to such a situation?  Isn't it funny who women who were born female always seem to come out on the short end of the stick where the TG crowd is concerned?

Likewise, we have a store in Idaho taking the quite reasonable step of telling someone, who is not a woman, and who quite clearly was not really even trying to act like a woman, who was in the women's room, to no longer come into their store.  This person was creating an uncomfortable situation for people who had every right to be there, specifically by standing to pee.  This is not a transsexual woman, who is concerned about fitting in with other women.  This was a man, who just didn't care.  And let's be honest, this person is not even really attempting to look like a woman, but instead is a typical TG parody of a woman.  I was very cautious until I was quite certain that I would not cause a scene in the women's room.  But the TG crowd could care less about women, even though that is what they claim to be.

And the list of such examples could go on, and on...like the response of the TG crowd to the case of "Colleen" Francis, the pervert who was exposing himself to young girls in the women's dressing room at a college.  Or how they think that first grade girls should be forced to share the bathroom with a male child, simply because he says he is a girl, no matter how uncomfortable they are.  Don't like the idea of seeing some man's naked body in the women's shower at your spa Then you are transphobic.  Do you think women have a right to gather together without  men who claim to be women invading?  Well,  you are not only transphobic, but they will call you are TERF as well. Even if you are not a radical feminist, but just think people have a right to decide who to associate with at a private event.  Don't want some guy in the ladies room, just because he put on a dress?  Yes, they would say you are definitely transphobic.  Don't want some boy being assigned to share a dorm room with your daughter...at an women's college?  Transphobic?  Have common sense?  Yeah, you're probably a transphobe.

You know, I think perhaps we should start pointing out instances of "cisphobia," which would be defined as:

An irrational fear of, and/or hostility towards, people who are not transgender or who otherwise fail to transgress traditional gender norms. 

I mean seriously, that seems a reasonable and sane response to some of the silliness engaged in by the TG crowd.  

Inclusionist? Not exactly...

I have noticed that in addition to using "separatist" as a club word to beat up on those who decline to identify as "transgender," "Cristan" Williams is fond of labeling himself as being an "inclusionist."  Now, I guess that might well be appropriate in one sense, as the word is pretty much made up.  "Inclusionism" is primarily a theological term for a specific view of soteriology (the doctrine of salvation), but it is not a commonly used word either.  So, we have someone who is more properly referred to as a "gender fascist" using a made up word, based on a concept that has nothing to do with the actual discussion, which involves an artificial, highly subjective, political/social construct.  Yes, that Mr. William's for you.  


Now, there are all sorts of problems with using "separatist" including the fact that it is kind of hard to separate from something you are not a part of.  As I have said many times, "transgender" is an identity.  This is a concept that is completely lost on Mr. Williams.  In a comment he made in an argument with someone who does not identify as "transgender" he uses what is clearly a logical fallacy:

Let me pose a question to you: Does a lesbian ceases(sic) to be a homosexual (an umbrella term) if she doesn't self-identify as a homosexual?

Now, I can just imagine Mr. William's smug, self-satisfaction at what he no doubt thinks is a devastating, logical argument.  There is only one small problem.  It is a completely bogus argument.  Yes, "homosexual" can be described, quite properly, as an "umbrella term."  It is an objective term, easily defined, and is, most importantly, not an identity.  And that is where the argument falls apart.  Homosexual is not an identity, is is an objective fact.  


Now, the term "lesbian," on the other hand, is subjective, and is an identity.  Not all homosexual females identify as lesbian.  In fact, there is not clear, universal agreement on what the term lesbian even means.  I have seen some use it as a synonym for "homosexual female,"  while others have defined is as "a homosexual female who specifically has a dislike or even hatred for women,"  Some homosexual females identify as "gay women," declining to be called "lesbian," and they can be quite adamant about the terminology.  So, the term "lesbian" is comparable to the term "transgender," not "transsexual."


Now, "transsexual" like "homosexual" is an objective term.  It has a specific meaning.  "Transgender" is a subjective term.  There are no clear lines defining what is, and is not, "transgender."  For example, are drag queens "transgender?"  What about effeminate men, and butch women?  I have seen some argue that all homosexuals are "transgender" because they cross gender norms.  But such an argument is widely rejected.  Clearly, there is no objective definition for "transgender."  I was, and is, an identity...a social/political construct.  One can choose to identify as "transgender," but it is not a term that should ever be imposed on anyone.


And this is where what Mr. Williams calls the "inclusionist world view" falls apart:

The Inclusionist World View:

1. We ALL face oppression because our history or our expression violates cultural gender stereotypes.
2. Our oppressors LOVE our differences and NEVER want our differences to be seen as normal differences (on par with differences which violate cultural norms, eg Look Who’s Coming For Dinner)
3. Our oppressors use our differences to “otherize” us so that oppression becomes a social meme.
4. Our oppressors oppress us because they like the power, not because they don’t like our differences.

Okay, the first point is pretty much meaningless.  Anytime someone uses a term like "ALL" it is highly suspect.  Mr. Williams, of course, cannot back that statement up with any real evidence.  He cannot speak to the experience of ALL, but that does not stop him from doing exactly what he tries to attack others for.

The same is true for the second assertion.  "NEVER?"  Again, can he prove this?  Of course, not.  But this is, again, exactly what he accuses others of.  Funny how he does not follow his own rules.  But, that is exactly what one comes to expect from him.

Actually, it is generally the transgender movement itself that seeks to "otherize" (My, but Mr. Williams does like to make up word, doesn't he?) people.  In fact, I have seen people attacked for not identifying as being "other."


All of this is of course, a classic example of a straw argument:


And the final assertion, again one made without any real evidence, is patently absurd.  It might be true in some cases (key word: might) but otherwise, it is a broad brush assertion that cannot be backed up with objective evidence.  Funny, but thus Hitchen wannabe is being sliced up by what he likes to label "Hitchen's Razor."  But, that is not surprising.  Mr. WIlliams likes to define the debate on his terms, which are always slanted in his favor.


Now, of course Mr. Williams would never stop there.  He has rather self-servingly defined his world-view, making assertions not backed up by evidence as though they were absolute facts. So, he now presumes to define his opponent's supposed world-view.  

The Separatist World View:

1. Transsexuals face oppression because people confuse us with crossdressers and drag queens.
2. Our oppressors HATE what they view as being strange and/or deviant behavior.
3. Transsexualism isn’t about strange and/or deviant behavior; it’s a medical condition and has nothing to do with breaking gender stereotypes in our culture.
4. Our oppressors will stop oppressing us if we can get them to see that we aren’t like crossdressers and that we are instead like intersex people.

This is a gross oversimplification and distortion of people's actual positions.  Of course, only a fool would expect anything better from Williams. 


For example, confusion with crossdressers and drag queens is not the only reason that transsexuals face oppression, but it is a factor.  Those like Williams actually see themselves as the same as crossdressers and drag queens.  They derive a lot of their identity and pleasure from being at odds with society, and they resent those who do not share their...well, perversions.


It can certainly be shown, from evidence, that some people do confuse transsexuals with crossdressers and drag queens, including attributing to transsexuals motivations that are unique to crossdressers.


Does Mr. Williams really want to deny that those he refers to as "oppressors" do not hate what they view as deviant behavior?   That alone would pretty much render his position laughable.  But then he really shows his true colors....


Clearly, Williams sees transsexualism as both strange and deviant.  Of course, this is because Williams apparently himself identifies as strange and deviant and wants to look down on those he sees as denying being like him.  This is part of his obsessive accusations that "transsexuals" are elitist.  The simple fact is, transsexualism is a medical condition, and it is exactly the opposite of violating gender norms. (Again, Williams' use of "stereotypes" shows more about how he thinks.)  


And finally, he basically tries to make an assertion that education is not going to help transsexuals when time, and time again, the opposite has proven true.  In fact, it can be shown that for many years, transsexuals were often viewed more favorably before the transgender extremists started trying to co-opt them.  The situation was not perfect. but it was better than it is now.  


No, Williams calling himself an "inclusionist" is an attempt to hide what he really is.  A much more appropriate term is "gender fascist."  While he makes self-serving statements to the effect that he does not wish to force an identity on anyone, in practice, he shows the opposite.  He mocks those who decline to be labeled as transsexual, tries, in vain, to argue that they are simply denying what they really are, and attacks anyone who dares stand up to his silly attempts at debate.

Bullied to Death?

Recently, the hot topic on the LGBT blogs has been the shocking number of teenagers who have committed suicide as a result of bullying.  Of course, the focus has been on attempting to portray this as something caused by the "right wing."  But there is a problem with that.  Bullying is nothing new.  I was bullied as a child, as I imagine almost every transsexual was.  And I have been bullied as an adult.  The biggest difference is that the bullies today are "cyber-bullies" and are easily ignored.  A kill file is a wonderful thing.  They continue to rant, and I never see them.  On the rare occasion someone responds to them, and quotes them, I have learned that they want to imagine that I am really still reading their hatred, which only shows just how disturbed they really are.  But I digress.

There is no denying that there has been a rash of suicides linked to bullying.  And as I said above, the LGBT blogs have been largely trying to make it sound like this is the fault of the Right...that nebulous bogey man that includes anyone who dares disagree with even the most radical of the LGBT.  But what is really going on?  

I will be the first to admit, I don't know the specific reason for all of this.  I will start by pointing out that it is not limited to LGBT youth.  Suicides related to bullying have increased overall.  It is not an LGBT problem.  And I don't believe it is caused by an increase in bullying.  Bullying has always existed, probably as long as humans have been around.  So, why is there this increase in suicides?

It is something that needs to be studied.  It is a well established fact that suicides often seem to happen in clusters.  It can become something of, dare I say it, a fad.  I remember reading of a rash of suicides in one institution that began with someone hanging their self on a certain coat hook.  After a number of men followed suit, the hook was removed, and the suicides stopped.  In a similar manner, as teenage suicides resulting from bullying become publicized, other teenagers will feel the need to follow suit.  And the more it happens, the more it is likely to happen.

And that is scary,  What is worse, is that the LGBT blogs will probably continue to fuel this phenomena, if only because they will see this as a means to attack those they oppose.  I fear that things will get far worse before they get better...and that is only if they get better.  There have been a few attempts to fight back, but they have been rather weak.  The scary thing is, the victims become martyrs for a cause, and this may even encourage others to see suicide as not only the answer, but as sort of honorable act.  It isn't.  The honorable act would be to stand up to the bullies and refuse to give in,  And worse, the bullies don't seem to be shamed by causing someone's death.  There have been cases where they even showed up at funerals to gloat.

Something very disturbing is going on.  The most extreme of the LGBT blogs are trying to use the deaths of teenagers by suicide as a club to beat up anyone who disagrees with them.  Somewhat predictably, Suzan Cooke has attempted to rewrite the past and claim that when she started her blog she "laid down the law to the 'HBS/Classic Transsexual; that their name calling wouldn’t be permitted on this blog."  Never mind that we started her blog she tried to identify with the "HBS/Classic Transsexual."  It was only after it became obvious that Cooke had become an apologist for the worst of the gender fascists that the "HBS/Classic Transsexual" began to reject her extremist positions and that she suddenly turned on those she used to align with.

Oh, and never mind that Cooke as been known to bully people quite a bit.  I recall her attacking one post-op as a "skin transvestite" because that person stayed with her wife.  That, apparently, was before Cooke took up with another post-op and was reborn as a long-time lesbian.  But again, I digress.

Bullying happens on both sides of the political spectrum.  And the term "bully" is often used as a club word.  If they don't like it when someone speaks the truth, they just call that person a "bully."  That way they can avoid dealing with facts.  And sometimes the people quickest to call another a bully are the true bullies.  I know of one well known net-kook, who has threatened me with being "outed," and who has even made actual attempts to cause me real harm off the Internet, who loves to scream bully when I stand up to him.  And this same kook has gone after a number of others.

No, something is going on.  And it is probably going to get worse.  Part of the reason it will get worse is because others will try to take advantage of it.  Part of the reason is because there are some real problems that need to be addressed. And part of the reason is simply that these things have to run their course.  

I don't really have the answer.  I do know it will have to involve teaching kids that suicide is not the answer.  I know it will have to do with changing values.    And I know that the answer, strange as it may seem, will not be to, to silence the bullies.  First off, that won't work...and any attempt might make things worse, and second, as I said, there have always been bullies.  Something else is going on.

Transgender Myths...#2 Transphobia

The next transgender myth I want to examine is a very popular one, transphobia.

Now I am sure that some are already thinking, "What?!?!" The term "transphobia" has become so common we tend to take it for granted. But let's take a closer look at this term and consider where it comes from, and what it is supposed to mean.

Now, let me begin by saying that I am not denying that there are people who are have very strong negative opinions about those who are transgender, as well as those who are transsexual or who suffer from Harry Benjamin Syndrome. But, does this concept that has come to be labeled "transphobia" really exist?

Well, as they say, the beginning is the best place to begin. Before there was "transphobia" there was "homophobia." Originally, "homophobia" was a legitimate term which referred to cases where someone was so fearful of their own possible feelings of being attracted to someone of the same sex that they would react violently to anyone who was perceived as being homosexual. Something like what is know commonly referred to as the "gay panic defense," or the "trans panic defense" when it is raised during a criminal trial.

People started using the term "homophobia" as a bit of a taunt. Anyone who did not agree with the gay rights agenda might be accused of being secretly homosexual and making a big show to cover up that fact. Then, over time, the original meaning was lost and "homophobic" simply became a sort of short hand term for anyone who did not agree with the gay political agenda. Soon, it was being used as a way of silencing opponents much as some use the terms "bigot" and "racist."

Then, as the effort to add "transgender" to Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual started in earnest, some transgender activists started trying to imitate the tactics of the LGB movement. So, suddenly a new word, "transphobia" was made up, and it was used much as "homophobia" was being used...as a club word that could be used to attack people who did not share a particular political view. It is especially common to use this against transsexuals and those with HBS, by accusing them of "internalized transphobia."

So, the bottom line is, "transphobia" is a misnomer. It is not an irrational fear, and therefore it is not a phobia. It is simply a made up word that is, first and foremost, a rather silly attempt to copy the word "homophobia," which is a concept that has lost its original meaning. "Transphobia" is nothing more than a word used to attack those who either do not agree 100% with the gender fascists, or who have the misfortune to incur their wrath. Simply put, it does not really exist. As I said, there certainly is real prejudice against transgender people. Some of it is justified, much of it is not. Just as there is real prejudice against transsexual, though there, quite frankly, legitimate justification is harder, if not impossible, to find.

Club Words

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

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

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

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

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

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