Why Is the Transvestite Sandeen So Upset Over a Transvestite Fantasy?

Well, it appears that "Autumn" Sandeen, has his panties in a wad over what is, essentially, a transvestite fantasy.  In his latest post at Pam's House Blend, he is in hysterics over a new ABC TV show called "Work It."  The show is about two men who pretend to be women so they can get jobs as pharmaceutical representatives for a company that is apparently in total violation of Federal law.  I wonder how they will explain the company getting away with a policy of hiring "only women?"  But I digress....


The show, which seems to basically be a rehash of the old plot concept from Bosom Buddies and Tootsie.  The idea is, a straight male is "forced" by some circumstance beyond his control to dress up as a woman.  He may be doing this to get a job, or to obtain some other benefit.  And even though it goes against his very nature, he succeeds, and perhaps, comes to be a better man because of it.  Oh, and he finds that he enjoys being a woman, if only for a while.  In another words, it is a classic transvestite fantasy of forced feminization.


So, why is Mr. Sandeen so upset?  Well, it appears that LGBT activists have declare war on this show because it "trivializes" the experiences of transgender people, and well, it makes fun of the idea of men wearing dresses.  In another words, this is a safe issue for them to use to "prove" that they are really, really aware of, and concerned about, transgender issues and they are doing something about it,


Of course, the whole thing is just ridiculous.  This is a show about two straight men disguising themselves as women to get jobs.  They are "pretending" to be women in order to get a job they would otherwise be denied (again, how is this company getting away with a clear violation of Federal law?).  That is totally unrelated to "real" transgender people who ae pretending to be women because they think it is a fun and cool thing to be a "woman with a penis."  And, it is unrelated to true transsexuals who are women, who are in the process of putting they lives on track.  


The claim is made that in "real life" transgender people face problems:

In the brick-and-mortar world, most of us late-transitioning trans women didn’t have the benefit of make-up and wardrobe departments to facilitate our transitions. Many of us started our transitions with deep voices, heavy beards, and bone structures that didn’t say “woman.” Many of us were — many of us are — visibly trans, not “passing” in our target sex of female.

Of course, Mr. Sandeen fails to mention that he, and other transgender people generally attack anyone attempting to be  actually "pass."  The whole idea for people like him is to be visibly transgender.  They are not interested in actually being female, but derive their identity from being "women with penises."  So, a show about two straight men who somehow manage to overcome obvious problems and succeed in passing, is just too much for them.  They think, how dare these men actually work as women, and not "trans women."  It appears that they are upset with this show for much the same reason that they hate those who identify as transsexuals, but not transgender.  They hate anyone who is successful at being a woman.  


Sandeen attempts to feign ignorance of the whole concept of stealth:

In the brick-and-mortar world, the two crossdressers in Work Itwould be having uncomfortable discussions with the HR department of their new employer about transitioning in the workplace, including negotiating restroom use. They would likely at least face workplace harassment, and if they lived in the 35 states without employment protections based on gender identity, they might not have been hired — or if already hired might have been fired — specifically for being trans…and without much legal recourse. 

I live in the brick and mortar world, as he puts it.  I have never had an uncomfortable discussion with the HR department.  In all of my jobs, except one, I was not remotely out.  I did work at a position as an outreach worker for a research project that targeted people who identified as transgender or transsexual.  I had participated in the project at the request of my therapist at the time, and I sought the position because it provided me with both an income and health insurance benefit that would cover my sex reassignment survey.  I later moved on to another position that was not directly related to transgender issues.  But even there, there were no such discussion.


No, most jobs I have had since transition have been held simply as a woman.  I never seriously considered "transitioning" on the job.  Even in the outreach position, I had been in transition for years, and was simply listed as a female.  In fact, I ignored requests sent out to all employees in the organization to, "be out."  Every year, during Pride Month, they would distribute posters featuring employees who were willing to publicly identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender.  I had no desire to do so.


I lived in one of those 35 states.  In my first job after transition, I was hired as as a woman, and assigned to the lingerie department.  In my job, among other duties, I had to assist other women in the dressing room.  No one ever questioned whether whether I was a woman.  Granted, unlike those Sandeen describes, I had undergone electrolysis, had been on hormones for years, and well, I admit I am blessed with relatively good bone structure.  But, more importantly, I did not begin transition until i was ready.  This was not a silly fantasy for me.  It was about being who, and what, I really was.  Not engaging in dress-up and forcing people to indulge my delusions.  I was not interested in being transgender, or even transsexual.  I was simply living as the woman I already was.  


The only connection this show has to transgender is the fact that it is essentially a clean version of transvestite fiction.  You would think that someone like Sandeen would be excited to have this presented weekly.  But, the LGBT activists have spoken, and so he must rush to front of the mob, and help lead the charge.  After all, if they get this show cancelled, they will have shown their power and TV executives will be under their control.


Personally, I think the show is a rather silly idea.  The answer to sex discrimination is to take the employer to court, not to pretend to be the sex they are willing to hire.  But that would not make a very good TV show.  Another objection to this show is that it uses the idea of men dressed as women for humor.  Funny, but I would think they would start by making an effort to shut down every drag show, and to force every drag queen, to  stop performing.  Of course, men dressed as women is humorous.  And yes, that is a problem for transgender people.  After all, that is exactly what they essentially identify as.  


GLAAD has the following to say about the show:

GLAAD has seen the pilot and while the show’s pilot does not explicitly address transgender people, many home viewers unfamiliar with the realities of being transgender will still make the connection. Work It invites the audience to laugh at images of men trying to adopt a feminine appearance, thereby also making it easier to mock people whose gender identity and expression are different than the one they were assigned at birth. Said GLAAD’s Acting President Mike Thompson, “Transphobia is still all too prevalent in our society and this show will only contribute to it. It will reinforce the mistaken belief that transgender women are simply ‘men pretending to be women,’ and that their efforts to live their lives authentically as women are a form of lying or deception.”

These problems are even more pronounced in the show’s printed ad, which depicts the two main characters dressed as women while standing at men’s room urinals. Not only does it inadvertently further notions that transgender identities are humorous or artificial, but imagery like this are one of the first things anti-LGBT activists resort to when trying to deny transgender people protections against discrimination. As Mark Snyder from the Transgender Law Center said in a recent article, a printed image like this in magazines or the sides of city buses will “make it more difficult for transgender people to gain full equality — including the important right to access public accommodations appropriate to their gender identity.”

GLAAD clearly has no grasp of transgender reality.  When you have men, who are intent of being "trans women," i.e. retaining their identity as men, while attempting to force society to accept them as women, simply, and only, because they claim to be women, it is really kind of hard to argue that they are not engaged in a form of lying or deception.   Granted, the deception is not the one that GLAAD is thinking of, but it is, at best, a shaky position.  And the issue is not the right to access public accommodation appropriate to theyr "gender identity," but quite the opposite.  It is about men, who are quite happy as men, getting into women's spaces.


As to the print ad, I grant, it is a bit absurd.  Transgender people don't walk up to urinals like that.  No, they stand to pee in the stalls of women's room.  After all, as I said, forcing  their way into women's rooms is a major part of their agenda, though I do suppose they would welcome forcing women's rooms to include urinals.  But that is a whole new discussion.

Sandeen Should Keep His Advice To Himself

Well, "Autumn" Sandeen, one of the more obnoxious of the transgender extremists, is back with his latest silliness.  He has taken it upon himself to advise Janet Mock, the editor of People.com who has chosen to out herself as part of the "It Gets Better" series of videos.


Ms. Mock transitioned very young and had previously not revealed her past.  She chose to do the video out of concern for young transsexuals.  It is admirable that she chose to do this, and to be honest, I envy those who have access to this sort of information now.  When I was in my teens, the only term I knew was "transvestite" until I saw Christine Jorgensen mentioned on a show hosted by Joe Pyne.  It did not provide much in the way of real information, and when I read "Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex..." I got horrid misinformation about my options.  It was not until I read "Canary" by Canary Conn that the possibility of transition and surgery became known to me.  But, other misinformation prevented me from pursuing transition for a number of years after that.


Mr. Sandeen presumes to lecture Ms. Mock about what she can expect.  He presumes to try to impose his experiences on her.  He has no business even remotely doing this.  He is suggests that she can expect to be seen as a "man in a dress" by some.  Yes, I suppose some extremists on the Right might attempt to impose that term on her.  But that is not what Mr. Sandeen is talking about.  He is talking about other women.  I am sure Mr. Sandeen is speaking from experience, as that is exactly what he is...."a man in a dress."


Quite obviously, Mr. Sandeen is upset that Ms. Mock has made it clear that she is a "transsexual" not "transgender."  He is not a part of Mr. Sandeen's imaginary community.  She is a woman, who has left her past behind.  Worse, from Mr. Sandeen's point of view, she is someone who can help change opinions about the differences between transsexuals and transgender.


I don't know what Ms. Mock's future plans include.  Hopefully, she will simply continue her life and the fuss will pass quickly.  That, of course, will deeply disappoint Mr. Sandeen.  Like Mike Penner, who for a while was known as Christine Daniels, Mr, Sandeen hopes to puff himself by some association with a public figure.  But he really should just keep his advice to himself. I seriously doubt Ms. Mock appreciates it.

The Insanity that is the "Transgender Community."

Recently, we have seen a few more examples of the silliness that regularly erupts from the so-called "Transgender Community." The first such example is the ongoing mess about restrooms. Every chance it gets, the Religious Right trots out the "bathroom issue" and every time, transgender activists go ballistic and start raising their usual howl of protest. And everytime, the transgender activists simply ignore the fact that, in many cases, the Religious Right is raising perfectly legitimate issues.

This has happened twice in the past two weeks, with two different outcomes. In the first case, an attempt was made to put an end to a gay rights bill in Gainesville, FL by using the "bathroom issue" as a reason to do away with the current law. And, sadly, the Religious Right has a perfectly good point that was totally ignored by the transgender activists as they ranted against the effort.

Now, this could have been a perfect opportunity for the "transgender community" (which in truth is pretty much an illusion) to show some common sense, and the disarm the Religious Right. Instead, they acted in their usual silly way, and pretty much confirmed that they really don't care if men invade the womens rooms.

The way the law is currently written, prettty much any man (or woman) can enter pretty much any bathroom, and, if confronted, simply claim that, at that moment, their gender identity is at odds with their physical sex. Now, they may be a perfectly normal man (or woman) one second before they walk into the wrong bathroom, and they may be a perfectly normal man (or woman) one second after they walk out, and quite frankly, they may be a perfectly normal man (or woman) the whole time they are in the wrong bathroom, but as long as they claim that their gender identity "matches" the bathroom that they have entered, they are off the hook. They don't even have to be "crossdressed."

This is, of course, totally absurd, but it is what the law effectively allows. And it could easily be rectified by simply providing that anyone entering a restroom that does not match their physical sex has to be in the process of changing their physical sex and be undergoing the RLT. This could be shown by having a "carry letter" as used to be the normal procedure, or even by having therapists issue small ID cards that would serve the same purpose. Yes, this leaves the crossdressers and the so-called non-ops out in the cold, so to speak, but that is really where they belong.

Further, any such law should make provisions dealing with so-called "unavoidable nudity." That is, in areas where there is a very real chance of someone being seen in the nude, pre-ops would either be banned, or if it is not unreasonable, privacy would need to be provided. This would mean in areas like showers and changing rooms. Either they would need to provide individual shower stalls and changing areas (if the cost would not be too great) or pre-ops would just have to wait until after surgery to go into them.

Of course, such a law would never be acceptable to most transgender activists...which shows that their agenda is not what they claim it to be.

And it should be noted that while the amendment that would have rolled back protections in Gainesville was defeated, an attempt to pass "transgender" protections was defeated in New Hampshire.

Another area where some have shown their true silliness has been the issue of "disclosure." Or at least, the issue of "disclosure as it relates to dating." Now, some of the more extreme gender fascists want to insist that everyone be "out, loud, and proud." They shove their transgender state in people's faces. They rant against the idea of stealth, and attack anyone who prefers to live their life normally. They tend to think that disclosure should be made by all, including post-ops.

Another extreme are those who want to ignore the fact that a pre-op (or a so-called non-op) who does not disclose is, unfortunately, at risk of serious bodily harm when a sudden discovery is made. Now, let me state, up front, that I do not believe that such a discovery is EVER an excuse for someone to do anything violent to another person. If a man discovers that his date is, as some like to put it, "a girl with something extra," then he should walk away...period, end of story! That said, I am also a realist that knows that this is rarely going to happen.

The simple, sad fact is, if a pre-op does not disclose, she is risking her life. That does not mean that this is the way it should be, or that she is "asking for it," or that she "gets what she deserves." But it does mean that she needs to use some common sense. Now, I think the men who killed Gwen Arajuao should have all been convicted of murder, and that they all should have been given life sentences. But, I also wish Gwen had of avoided the entire situation to begin with. I would much prefer that she be alive.

Simply put, the victim is not to blame, but we all need to use good sense. Yes, I played with fire a few times. And I was lucky. I never got burned. But, that was pretty much dumb luck and nothing more.

The problem is, many of the more extreme "transgender activists" are telling people that they should be able to expect people to act in a certain way, when, unfortunately, that is not how people are going to act. In another words, they are encouraging pre-ops (and non-ops) to engage in risky behavior, and are in effect setting them up to become possible martyrs. Even if the laws are changed, as they should be, and the so-called trans-panic defense is banned, people will still get killed. The only thing that will change is that the law will be able to deal with them without them finding that one, lone idiot on a jury who will vote not guilty, resulting in another hung jury, and a mistrial, and some prosecutor deciding to play it safe and allow for some ridiculous plea bargain that lets them get away with murder.

In an ideal world, this would not be a problem. But when the idiot chorus starts accusing people of "blaming the victim" because they try to warn people to avoid dangerous situations, the ultimate result is going to be someone getting hurt.

Pointing out simple truths is not "blaiming the victim." It is trying, desperately, and perhaps a bit in vain, to avoid someone becoming a victim. I am sure some welcome martyrs like Gwen Arajuao. Shoot, there is a day set aside every year when they honor them (the Day of Remembrance). And for all of the noble speeches about how it would be great if we could stop having that day each year, the simple truth is, many are probably secretly glad for increased numbers.

If you want some idea of this, just go to the web page for the event and look at the rather horrid bit of drivel that old Phil Frye of Texas came up with. It is song, to be sung to the tune of "Danny Boy" that glorifies those who had the misfortune to be murdered. I must say, I am thankful I have never actually had to hear this one performed. I think the song can be summed up in the line that goes "And come next year when fall’s again up- on us, if more are killed and killed, more well may be. We’ll honor them and the places they are lying. and loudly say, 'We will re- member you'. And you will hear as we pro- claim a- bove you, and your spirits will warmer, sweeter be."

No, this is typical of transgender silliness. I am sure there are those who get all choked up from such. But really, this is the sort of idiocy that gets people killed. Those who die should be mourned, but they are not really martyrs, nor have they done anything to be honored for. They were simply in the wrong place, at the wrong time, and in many cases doing the wrong thing.

What's Wrong With Being Stealth?

The simple answer for transsexuals, or better, those with Harry Benjamin Syndrome, is "Absolutely nothing!" A lot of so-called "transgender activists" spend a lot of time whining about how people should be "out, loud, and proud" about being transgender. They heap attacks on anyone who dares "hide" claiming it is out of fear, or shame. And simply put, that is a complete load of hogwash.

Here is it is, another National Coming Out Day. Trangender activists will again demand that transsexuals "come out of the closet." And I will repeat what I have said many times before, "The closet is not applicable to transsexuals." You see, the primary reason for being stealth is not shame, or fear...it is because the alternative is to continue living a lie.

If you are "out," then it is pretty much impossible to live as the person you really are. As I have pointed out to many, people may say that they accept you as a woman, but they often qualify that to the point of it being meaningless. In fact, I have referred to this as being a "Woman, but...." as in, "Yes, she is a very nice woman, but....she used to be a man." No, I was never a man. I tried to pretend to be one, and I finally gave up and stopped trying to do that. Now, why would I want to link myself to that past?

Some actually seem to relish their "dual" status. They seem to want to keep one foot firmly in the past. I don't. I hated that life, and I want no part of it.

So, no thanks. I will pass on being "out, loud, and proud." No, instead, I am simply a woman, and proud of it.