Just WHAT is Mr. "Cristan" Williams So Afraid Of?

I just noticed where Mr. "Cristan" Williams is bragging over on Transadvocate about how he got a radfem bounced from Twitter and also had her blog shut down.  In fact, Mr. Williams devotes a major about of his time towards trying to silence anyone who disagrees with him.  And on top of that, he posted his little trophy under "humor."  I guess he thinks letting women know who's boss is funny to him.

In fact, trying to silence anyone who dares disagree with him seems to be a major endeavor of Mr. Williams.  He maintains tight control over who can post replies on his blog.  When I first encountered him, I got into a debate with him on his personal blog, and I quickly realized that he is extremely intellectually dishonest.  He tried, repeatedly, to use logical fallacies, and dishonest debating techniques to narrowly define the parameters of the debate to his advantage.  I refused to allow him that control, and he quickly banned me.  He then posted about "the Jennifer Shuffle," his mocking term for my refusal to allow him a dishonest upper hand.

He has been both dishonest, and quite vicious in his ad hominem attacks on opponents.  His ongoing war against Victoria Brownworth, and other women who do not share his rather absurd opinions.  Mr. Williams is on a crusade to crush this source of dissent from the transgender idiocy.  Ironically, his approach is remarkably similar to one of the cartoons from the website he gloats about that was removed.  Men accusing women of making up rapes, or in this case, threats of rape.

And given any opportunity, he will resort to the most vicious, and dishonest, of ad hominem attacks.  If he finds the slightest flaw, it suddenly becomes a major defect.  Even if that flaw is a figment of his imagination.  Or, perhaps, something manufactured to provide a basis for a lie.

But just as striking as the viciousness shown to his opponents is, something else is equally striking...the absence of any logical arguments.  Oh, Mr. Williams will carry on for days when someone declines to be suckered into one of his dishonest debating forums.  No one with a shred of sense would agree to that.  But Mr. Williams will only debate when he controls the forum.

So, what is the bottom line here?  It brings us back to the original question...what is Mr. Williams so afraid of?  Why does he work so hard at misdirection?  Could it be that the truth is the one thing he fears?

Like how he totally rejects the concept of male privilege, but then invents an imaginary "cis privilege" which he throws out every chance he gets?  Sort of a red herring, one might say.  Or how he is so quick to claim that Victoria Brownworth has filed a false report against him, but he encourages others to do exactly that.  Not, of course, that he would be stupid enough to risk it...but he hopes someone will do his dirty work for him.  

Transadvocate, the website he is now editor of, has numerous examples of his approach.  In the past three months, he has obsessed over what he terms "TERFs" or Trans Exclusive Radical Feminists.  He has devoted article after article, not to actually refuting their logic, but to tossing ad hominem on top of ad hominem in an attempt to bully them into silence.

And when Mr. Williams does attempt to make an argument, it is pretty much inevitably a miss-mash of several logical fallacies.  From straw men, to the bandwagon fallacy, he pretty much runs the gamut.  He cherry picks his authorities, and jumps at a false cause.

Oh well, I guess when you are defending the indefensible, you don't have much else you can use.

Update:  Wow, the "ink" wasn't even dry on this post before Mr. Williams did it again...

In a headline article titled The TERF Empire Declares War Against Trans People Mr. Williams cranks up the rhetoric and rolls out a number of logical fallacies.  This, uh, "declaration of war" is actually a rather well written letter sent to Mr. Dallas Denny (no need to put his name in quotes since that is his male, birth name.  The last I heard, the middle name is still Henry.) that points out a pretty solid strategy for dealing with the task of "...questioning transgender as a valid political movement..."  

So, what horrible crimes do these war-declaring, uh, TERFs, plan?  Well, here is an example:

Ideologically, as educators and women, some feminist, others not, we see the classroom as an open space designed for the investigation of controversial ideas and a forum to embrace our commitment equally to academic freedom, women’s rights and free expression. Our students deserve no less from us. These freedoms that we exercise (even if it really pisses you off) are above all sacred. But so too is teaching, and helping students to make sense of what is going on in the world. We highly doubt any student is so profoundly unsophisticated or uncritical as to accept the canard of hate speech that you attempt to make. Students know bulls**t when it presented. These undergraduates will arrive at more honest and apt conclusions simply by drawing facts into the conversation. In other words you do not get an opportunity to lie like a rug on our watch. We will dismantle the basic claim of “transgender” oppression. Once exposed the list of fraudulent claims that follow falls apart.

Wow!  No wonder Mr. Williams is so furious...  They are doing the one thing he fears...exposing his claims to the light.  Ah, but it get's even better:

In the classroom the first order of the day will confront the ever ubiquitous over used manipulative claim of “transphobia”—which sounds hollow when students see that the primary victims are natal women who happen to hold opinions and write things that you and others do not happen to like. Again we will address, why? The claim of transphobia, once undressed and parsed is revealed as a bullying and shaming tactic used specifically against natal women. A point-by-point analysis of all the false analogies will speak to the ever-worsening manipulations of a misogynistic movement. The classroom will be a platform to pursue truth, and students will have opportunities to check facts and question the use of statistics and finally realize that movements lie and some are bigger bulls**t masters than others.

I had intended to mention how Mr. Williams trots out "transphobia" ever time someone disagrees with him, but I forgot to.  But, they didn't. 

Oh, and this part is also quite good:

We are not using anything by which any our identities are accessible to you or any other person that has demonstrated a past inclination and criminal like pathology to threaten or slander women. You both have demonstrated this pathology clearly. This is not only a logistical decision; the choice is made in consideration of our physical safety—yes “die cis scum” has a kind of scary ring to it. Simply put, we’re “stealth”. We’re confident that you realize this piece of correspondence is not meant in anyway to be interpreted as part of dialogue. It is meant to let you know that you just secured Sheila Jeffreys another generation and your attempts to censor her are a case study in: the reach exceeds the grasp. By the time we are done the transgender movement and those names attached will be more accurately seen as like carnival hucksters and boss man thugs and Sheila Jeffreys will drop a note on personal stationary thanking you for the spike in sales.

I can't say as how I blame them at all.  Both Mr. Denny, and Mr. Williams can be rather scary. They both seem too smart to actually be linked to a threat, but they are more than willing to have an anonymous cohort do it for them.

You can read the entire letter here.  And you really should.  Read it, and read Mr. Williams' totally absurd article that makes it sound like the, uh, TERFs are planning a lynching party or something.  

A funny thought...  Mr. Williams has put a lot of effort into having the, uh, TERFs, declared a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.  Read the letter, and imagine that this was the sort of tactic used by, oh, say...the Ku Klux Klan, or other, REAL hate groups.  I don't know about you, but I think if they did, the world would be a much kinder, and gentler, place.

 

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....

Game of Thrones...

No, I am not talking about the popular series on HBO, which I have never watched, but about a, well, a different sort of, uh...throne.  Yes, it is time to take another look at the goal that the transgender kooks obsess over....yes, that sort of throne.

Between a bit over the top reaction by a lawmaker in Arizona, and the case of a child in Massachusetts who claims to be a girl, in spite of having been born male, and who wants to use the girls bathroom, bathrooms, we have scores of men who want to invade the one reserved for women back in the news.

So, let's take a rational look at the issue....

The first question has to be, is there a valid rationale for having sex-segregated restrooms?  The obvious answer is, of course, a resounding YES!  Both men and women are extremely uncomfortable at the idea of sharing the intimacy of the bathroom.  While some will try to argue that this is an archaic idea, born of sex-based discrimination, designed to keep women in their place, the simple response is "poppycock!"  Yes, a bit of research, where I was trying to find out what the history of sex-segregated bathrooms is, led to a number of law journal articles where some left-wing kook was trying to argue that sex-segregated bathrooms were discriminatory, and not because of the "transgender" issue, but simply on the face of it.  None were remotely persuasive, and they all were just obvious attempts at academic silliness.

So, given that sex-segregated restrooms are legitimate and justified, the question arises as to what exceptions should exist to such a rule?  That is, when should a person be able to enter a bathroom that does not match their physical sex?  Of course, some exceptions are obvious, such as entry by law enforcement and other public safety officials in an emergency. And traditionally exceptions are made for very young children accompanying a parent of the opposite sex.  But what other exceptions should exist?  As best I recall, the last time I went in a men's room was to help a friend, who was male, and who was confined to a wheelchair.  It was in a gas station/convenience store.  It felt a bit weird, but it was one of those situations where there was really not a choice, since the bathroom was not equipped for a person who was disabled.  Some places now offer facilities for just such situations, but that was not the case here.

So, that brings us to the heart of the matter...what about "transgender people" and what is truly a separate issue, those who are legitimate transsexuals during the Real LIfe Test?  Let's start with the transgender crowd.  Ideally, they should use the bathroom that matches their physical sex.  Of course, I can already hear the screams of "transphobia!!!!"  Poppycock.  There is simply no rational basis for them to claim that changing clothes gives them the right to violate bathroom rules.  And that, quite frankly, is what they are demanding. That the simple act of changing clothes, or theoretically, simply making the assertion that they "feel like the opposite sex" would eliminate any barriers to them using the wrong restroom.  Of course, they try to hide all this behind euphemisms like "trans women" and such.  But for the vast, overwhelming majority of transgender people, they are simply demanding exactly this.  And they are demanding it, irregardless of the feelings of those legitimately in the rest room.  If a man, with a heavy beard shadow, and clearly male features, puts on a dress, we are told, he has the right to swagger his way into the ladies room, no matter how upsetting it is.  Oh, we are told, he is not really a threat, as he is a "trans woman."

And this brings us to one of the favorite tactics of both sides of the debate...the topic of male predators in the women's room.  While this is a legitimate issue, it really should not be the primary one for either side, as both sides have weak arguments.  Both the radical RIght, and radical feminists tend to rightfully point out that giving into to the demands of the transgender extremist would open women's restrooms up to the presence of predators.  This, quite frankly, is quite true.  But, so far it has proven to be a relatively rare issue.  We have had cases like the one in Texas where a registered sex offender was found to be, or at least claimed, to be, a transgender person in transition.  Having such a person in a women's rest room is outrageous.  And then there is the well known pervert "Colleen" Francis who was exposing his privates in a women's sauna in Oregon.  He didn't even have the decency to try to be discrete.

Now, the problem here is, the transgender extremists are not asking for the right to discretely use the rest room that matches their, uh, gender expression.  They are demanding the right to force their way into the ladies room, with all those present being fully aware that this person is a "trans woman."  They don't want discretion, they demand full license.  And worse, they now want to go beyond the bathroom and to indiscreetly invade places like showers, locker rooms. sauna. spas, etc., where nudity is common, and women will be forced to share space with naked males.  Said women are, of course, supposed to fully accept these naked men as "transwomen."

The sad thing is, for years, we had a workable compromise that, while not perfect, was pretty much acceptable.  If you were passable, you could pretty much take advantage of that, and discretely use the bathroom.  This, in fact, is still the model that, by and large, works for transgender women (i.e FTMs who are no hormones but have no intention of having surgery).  As long as one is discrete, i.e. you are not making sure that everyone knows your history either by telling, or by obvious behavior. and you don't do anything stupid, you were allowed, and even, I suppose, welcome in the bathroom opposite your sex.  But again, that is not good enough for the transgender extremists.  Like in the Colorado case, the child, who has a clearly male name (have you every heard of a girl named Coy?) everyone has to have their nose rubbed in it.

And you have to love the insane arguments that the transgender extremists come up with.  One of my favorites is the specter of "trans men" in the ladies room.  The only problem is, that is absurd.  After a bit of testosterone, they can enter the men's room with no problem, and there is no need for them to be "forced" into the ladies room.  No, the problem is, and remains, men, who look like men, invading the women's room and forcing themselves on those who belong there.

You also have to love the way the transgender kooks cannot seem to even try to muster empathy for those they claim to be "just like."  They think that women, who might be offended by their presence in the women's room, should "just get over it."  In another words, typical male behavior and attitude, on full display, and they wonder why people have a problem.  Alas, it is so obvious sometimes that kooks like "Autumn" Sandeen, and "Cristan" Williams are simply delusional men, it is almost funny.  The only "women" they have anything in common with are their fellow transvestites.

It should also be noted that claims of discrimination, and being forbidden the right to use the bathroom are totally bogus.  What is being denied is a license to invade a place they don't belong where they would cause discomfort to those who have a right to be there.  In fact, what they are demanding is, in and of itself, discriminatory.  They are not being told they cannot use the restroom, just that they have to take responsibility for their behavior and face the consequences.  They can either choose to not go out dressed en femme if they fear going into the men's room, or they can "man up" and face what awaits them.  They are also, as they point out to the women whose rest rooms they would invade, still protected by laws against assault.

So, this brings us back to the central question.  How should this situation be dealt with for those who are possibly legitimately transsexual, and in the process of the Real Life Test?  The answer, as I have suggested before, is simple.  It is the same answer that has existed for some time.  Once a person is ready, in consultation with a qualified therapist,  to consider living full time in their target sex, they would be issued a statement that would allow them to access the appropriate rest room.  If someone is challenged, and they cannot show such documentation, they would be subject to whatever penalties the local law provides.  Any therapist caught issuing statements inappropriately would be subject to sanctions.

I realize that such an approach would not go over well with the transgender extremists, who demand unfettered access.  And it would probably not go over well with the radical feminists who claim that there is no such thing as a "legitimate transsexual."  And I am sure that extremist conservatives would also blanch at the idea.  Which probably means that my idea is a good compromise.

I Must Have Struck a Nerve...

About two weeks ago, I posted about a silly bit of drivel on "cisgender privilege."  Well, the site that published that article decided to strike back....and, of course, post even more "transgender idiocy," (they don't like that term).  I have to say, I am honored.  

Granted, it is the usual sort of silliness one comes to expect.  I am accused of trying to impose a hierarchy.  Nope, not even close.  For their to be a hierarchy, there would have to be a direct relationship.  There isn't.  Transsexuals are not automatically transgender.

The person also take umbrage at my pointing out that transgender is a choice.  Of course it is.  It is an artificial social political construct with no objective basis in reality.  Period.   Now, a person who is a transsexual might choose to identify as transgender.  Some do, though I cannot for the life of me understand why.  But, transgender is a choice.  It is a chosen identity, though the more extremist of transgender activists, including über kook "Cristan" Williams, try, desperately, to force that label on people against their will. BTW, Mr. Williams was the first to praise the article.  That says a lot, right there.

In any case, this article simply serves as continuing proof of what I asserted in my previous article, and in numerous articles before, and a few since.  Transgender is about being "different."  For a person who identifies as "transgender" normal is anathema, in the sense of something to be denounced.  

I really get a chuckle out of this bit of true idiocy:

I have discovered that members of our community are policing each other and attempting to create a hierarchy of who is truly Trans or not. Many people are playing the same games of ‘normality’ that Gays and Lesbians have often pulled in an attempt to normalize themselves by othering people who are considered less normal. These situations really need to stop if we are going to strive for our goals.

Oh, this is so wrong, in so many ways....  To start, let me repeat, I am not part of the trans community.  Second, as I already pointed out, I don't believe a hierarchy can exist when there is no real relationship.  You now, the old bit about comparing apples and oranges.  Further, there is no real relationship between gays and lesbians and transsexuals, nor is there a relationship between gays and lesbians and people who choose to identify as transgender.  Yes, such a relationship may exist in the mind of some ignorant people, but in reality, there really is no connection.  People who are transsexual may be gay or lesbian, people who are transgender may be gay or lesbian, but people who are into left-handed, underwater basket weaving might also be gay or lesbian.  There is no real connection.  Further, no, this is not about "othering" people, it is about people othering themselves.  People are are transgender deliberately separate themselves from "normal."  They have no desire to be "normal."  That is what transgender is all about.  And finally, let me make clear, again,  I have no desire to further the goals of the transgender community.  I actively oppose the efforts of the transgender community.  I hope to do whatever I can to thwart the goals of the transgender community.

Now, I am taken to task for the alleged mistake of "assuming' that "Nina Ember Nova" is transgender.  Actually, whether this person is transgender or not has no bearing on the fact that what was posted is transgender idiocy.  It's still wrong, it's still bogus, regardless of how the person who wrote it chooses to identify.  And let me add that the term "privilege is, in and of itself, pretty much an example of idiocy in general.  It is used when someone feels that they are denied something they think they should be entitled to, and are envious that they don't have it.  It is what used to be called "covetousness."  In recent years, I have developed osteoarthritis in my left hip. I am not classified, at least for certain purposes, as disabled.  But I don't go around ranting about people having privilege because they are not.  Privilege is just another way of othering oneself, and trying to put down those you envy.

Ah, but the author goes on:

Ignoring that however, JustJennifer’s arguments were inherently wrapped around the notion that if a person truly needed to transition from male to female they would dress and act like a ‘normal’ woman like she apparently does. She also claims that its wrong for someone to look like a ‘man in a dress’ and also claims that some people “invite abuse” because of their gender expression. She also seems to take it upon herself to become a gatekeeper for transitioning by essentially claiming that if others do not match up to her experience, then these other people are just performing “Transgender idiocy” and are essentially fake. Her arguments are also classist and ableist in the belief that people require SRS to have safe spaces while many can not afford or medically receive care for numerous reasons. The point is, her arguments cater to the mainstream audience of society and ask people to cave under the pressure of social expectation instead of understanding that she, despite her self described medical condition, is just as much of a gender rebel to the world around her. Also, Nina and myself will be working to respond to her more in depth soon enough.

Okay, let's be clear about something here, AGAIN!!!  If you really are a transsexual, then you are essentially a normal woman (or man as the case may be).  You will not have the desire to play dress up and prance around in silly costumes like so many do, even though they claim to be "transsexuals).  And yes, if you are not to the point where you can blend in with other women, then you should have the good sense and decency to exercise discretion and show consideration for other women.  If, of course, you are a man, with a typical male personality, well....never mind.  You will act like a man, and we will react accordingly.

And yes those who really need to transition will, it is called "not making excuses."  Again, it is not easy, but one will find a way.  I did.  Others have.  But many won't.  It should also be noted that even when people have surgery handed to them on a platter, they will find excuses.  They, actually, are the ones who believe in this silly hierarchy stuff.  They think, like "Autumn" Sandeen does, that lying and claiming to be a transsexual elevates their status.  It doesn't.  It just makes then look like the liars they are.

And well, it sounds like this jerk, and "Nina" plan to take me on some more.  Good.  I like exposing foolishness.

In closing, let me offer up one last quote that shows the absurdity, and contradiction of this person's arguments:

The minute we, as Trans people, cross the gender/sex boundary, we are not considered normal any longer. We can go stealth and I certainly don’t take that away from any individual, but the mere act of having the courage to say, “Hey, I don’t belong to the group I’m assigned,” automatically introduces gender roles and the thoughts and opinions of society into the mix. It takes a certain level of internal thought and analysis to accept and understand something that much of society isn’t willing to accept as real. It is true that for some people there is a medical fix through hormones and surgery and the problem is more or less solved. Yet for others the acceptance and fight against a broken history and the narratives that are created for us as Trans People are problematic.

Now, I am accused of "othering" people.  Again, no.  I decline to be "othered,"  (BTW, there really are no such words as "othering" and "othered," but since the author uses them....)  First off, I may have crossed the "sex boundary," but no, I did not cross the "gender boundary."  My gender, or more accurately, my brains wiring, was always female.  I simply accepted that, and am living according to my correct gender.  I took steps to bring my body into alignment with my gender.  Interestingly enough, as I began the process, I actually found myself being called "ma'am" even while i was still, technically, "presenting as male."  That is, before I updated my paperwork, and specifically stopped crossdressing.  I chose not to but heads with society.  I saw no pleasure in it.  And that is what separates transsexuals, particularly true transsexual, from the transgender crowd.  We are not rebelling against our gender, or anything else.  We are simply getting on with our lives.  And many of us, like most people, might be amused by the transgender, but beyond that, we really don't understand their need to act out, and we certainly do not approve of it.

Don't blame me if you find it hard being a "trans person."  That's your choice, not mine.  I think you are acting out, and no, I am not going to pander to you, I am not going to play along, and I am not going to welcome you into women's space with open arms.

How Dare You?

There are four things the transgender extremists cannot stand...

The first, is the idea that anyone who is a transsexual would not gladly accept being labeled as "transgender."  Tell them you are not transgender and they will usually insist that you actually are, and that you have no choice in the matter.  Funny, in a way, since many of them think being a woman (or a man) is simply a matter of choice.

They also cannot stand anyone disagreeing with them.  If you actually speak out against their silliness, they will accuse you of transphobia, either internalized or overt, depending on whether they claim you as one of them, as well as a bigot any any number of other nasty things.  Shoot, Suzan Cooke will probably even throw in Nazi, a term used by said person to the point where it becomes effectively meaningless.

Even worse is if you actually best them at a debate.  They will either simply disappear and pretend that the debate isn't occurring, or worse they will resort of the most vile of ad hominems.

And the final thing that the transgender extremists cannot stand is for anyone to actually maintain privacy concerning their history.  They demand that one be "out, loud, and proud."  Ironically, they often brag about how well they pass, even as they proclaim their "outness."  But to actually just get on with one's life as who you really are?  That is horrible.  It cannot be allowed.  Shame!  Fear!  Hiding!  Deception!  That last pretty ironic from men with penises who claim lly female...

I saw all of this played out recently at a place called "Outserve Magazine."  One of their contibutors did a nasty piece about how there are no "true transsexuals."  I, of course, responded.  Much to my surprise, for once a radically transgender blog site did not go crazy with censorship.  The debate became rather heated, but I was able to make some very good points.  My joy at seeing true debate allowed was shattered when, rather suddenly, the entire collections of comments disappeared (even though the article indicates that are still 97 comments).  Worse, they now require you to log in through Facebook.  In another words, in order to comment, you have to effectively "out" yourself.  This is outrageous.  I have already had more than one cyberstalker harass me (including "Autumn" Sandeen, who was tipped off by another, very vicious cyberstalker who puts others up to doing his dirty work.

So, no, I will not comment at Outserve in the future...at least not without setting up a fake Facebook account, which is technically a violation of the Facebook's terms of service.  The radical transgender types are, quite frankly, not very nice people at all.

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.

A Right Strawy Post...

Martin Luther did not care for the Epistle of James, and once referred to it as a "right strawy epistle."  Well, when I saw gender fascist's "Cristan" Williams' latest attack on Ashley Love, those words came to mind.  Not exactly in the way that Luther meant them, but because Mr. Williams is up to his usual trick of positing straw arguments.  BTW, didn't he declare the transsexual separatist movement dead?  So, why is he still so obsessed with it?  


Anyway, Mr. Williams makes his usual ad hominem attacks, and then issues the following challenge to Ashley Love:

MY CHALLENGE TO ASHLEY LOVE:

1. Produce objective evidence proving that Virginia Prince used the word “transgender” in the 1960s or 70s.
2. Produce objective evidence proving that Virginia Prince used the term “transgenderist” before 1978.
3. Produce the objective evidence which led Love to conclude that the historical record has been faked.
4. Produce objective evidence proving that “transgender” wasn’t used in its modern usage back in 1974.
5. Produce objective evidence proving that the term “transgender” is only 20 years old instead of at least 42 years old.

I suspect that Ashley Love will again, quite properly, decline to engage Mr. Williams.  But, what the heck, I am more than willing to expose him for the fraud that he really is.  This is the same straw arguments he has  made before, and here again are some responses dealing with this drivel:

1.  An irrelevant, and dishonest question.  The issue is not a person, nor a word, but is a concept.   In the 1960's and 70's Prince was pushing his anti-homosexual and anti-transsexual views.  He wanted to protect his followers from their wives, who would he knew would be upset if they thought their husbands might be attracted to men, or worse, interested in changing sex.  
2. Prince's use of the term "transgenderist" was a major contributing factor in the rise of the silliness we now know as "transgender."  He began pushing the idea that men who had fantasies of being women could live "en femme" full time.
3. The so-called "historic" record seems to only exist for Mr. Williams.  His sources are almost all obscure publications that are not readily available.  That, in and of itself, does not provide objective proof.  But then again, Mr. Williams has not really provided anything that could remotely be called "objective" or "proof."  He has provided links to PDFs of what he claims are scans of documents.  The problem is, there does not seem to be any independent objective confirmation of the originals.  Now, this leads to Mr. Williams engaging in a classic dishonest tactic in debating....effectively demanding that his opponents "prove a negative."  He never really proves his claims, but instead relies on demanding that his opponents prove that they do not exist.  That, of course, is both impossible, and dishonest. 
4. In this one, we actually see him demand that someone prove a negative.  Again, highly dishonest.  He has never proven that it was used in that manner.  Of course, this completely obscures the fact that his point is completely irrelevant.  It is possible, though not remotely proven, that there might have been some who used the term in some manner that resembles the current use.  So what?  That is not remotely a relevant issue to the debate, which is actually about a movement that began to really take hold in the 1990's, and which has, quite honestly, resulted in exactly what Ashley Love has asserted.
5. Language rarely springs into use suddenly.  Whether or not someone used a word in an isolated context 42 years ago has nothing to do with how it is used today.  42 years ago, the accepted view was that homosexuality was totally a choice.  Even longer in the past, the phrase "woman trapped in a man's body" was used to describe homosexuals.  But no one would insist that either of these are remotely accurate today.  Again, the issue is not about when a word was coined, or how it was used 42 years ago, but is instead about people being forced to accept a label that they are presently uncomfortable with and being forced to agree with concepts that they presently find objectionable.

Once again, Mr. Williams shows that he is dishonest, and has no respect for the rights of others.