Well, At Least He Tried

Well, I have challenged Ms. "Mark" Cummings, the leader of the Shame On You Transgender Edition cult of loser bloggers to post something beside his usual insults, and well, so far she hasn't post much except the same repetitive crap, usually along with a statement that she is tired of dealing with me, and is going to stop…  Oh well,..

But, I will give "investigative reporter Mr. "Zierota" Slingen credit…at least he has tried to post a coherent argument.  Sort of…kind of….

He asks, "How Objective is Transgender?"  He is clearly attempting to answer my assertion that "transgender" is a meaningless, subjective term that is an artificial social/political construct dreamed up by some crossdressers in the 1990s.  Sadly, for him at least, he falls quite a bit short.  

The primary basis for his argument is, "if the definition is accurate then there is ground for meaning."  Now, besides being vague, and pretty much circular reasoning, (sort of like saying, "The sky is blue because it is, well, blue in color….") it has no real bearing on the discussion, if only because there is no accurate definition of "transgender."  He then goes on, curiously enough, to use the terms "good and evil" which are certainly "subjective" as an example…of what, I am not sure…but okay.

He then offers this gem…

Transgender is a very objective word that can go into many directions for each person while the basis remains the same. Every direction of its meaning holds the same two words. Trans and gender. So what's the best way to explain the objectivity of this? Let's try an image!

Well, aside from effectively admitting that term is subjective (a "word that can go into many directions for each person while the basis remains the same") he offers as an illustration, this:

Here we have a mish-mash of terms, and a definition that is, by its very nature, totally subjective.  

Even worse, different people, and different groups, and even members of some of the groups listed in the illustration, would argue that they are not transgender.  For example, a lot of people who identify strongly as transgender would exclude crossdressers, transvestites, drag queens, and drag kings because, well, they are sort of embarrassing and they don't want people "getting the wrong idea."  On the other hand, a lot of interest people would violent object to being labeled transgender, and would argue that including them under the imaginary umbrella is simply an effort to co-opt their condition for cynical purposes.

And quite frankly, I and a lot of other transsexuals would argue that we do not fit that silly definition (not the lamest, but close…) in that we do not cross over from our true gender, and we do not challenge traditional gender roles or expressions.  Simply put, unlike Mr. Slingen, I am a woman, and that is the gender I express.

What is even sillier is what he posted about that diagram above….

Goodness gracious! That's a lot of labels!

Uh, yes, and that is part of what makes the whole thing HIGHLY SUBJECTIVE.

He then goes on to assert…

So, how objective is Transgender when you know the entire meaning? Simple. It's objective enough to know what gender means as opposed to sex. We also know that in a traditional society, the majority of people are cis gendered and they only recognize two extreme ends of the gender spectrum which is male and female as absolutes in a binary system.

He is just digging a deeper and deeper hole, since it has become common practice among transgender extremists to conflate "gender" and "sex."  They insist on using terms like "Gender Reassignment Surgery" while also asserting that "gender is what is between your ears, and sex is what is between your legs."  So, are they talking brain surgery?  Seriously…they do this a lot, referring to changing the "gender" on a birth certificate.  Or the "gender marker" on a driver's license.  So, talking about transgender being "objective" because we know what "gender" is, well that's another nail in the coffin for Mr. Slingen's argument.

Oh, and another example he attempts to use is that of the term "atheist."  Now, atheist is a clearly defined term.  He tries to compare my assertion that I am not transgender to someone who asserts that they do not believe in "god or gods"  saying they do not "identify" as an atheist.  Well, that is sort of like Mr. Slingen saying he is not a man…it doesn't quite work that way.  As I said, the term is clearly defined…unlike "transgender."  It is not about "identity," is is about fact.  Mr. Slingen could say, "I do not identify as a human being," but that would not make him a dog."  But, transgender is, quite frankly, meaningless as anything other than as an identity.  Trying to make it an objective label fails miserably.

But, of course, the transgender extremists need to make it appear to be an objective label for political reasons.  Which is, again, part of what makes it so subjective, and, quite frankly, meaningless.  In many ways, it comes down to numbers.  More "transgender people" means more political clout.  Now, given that I rather strongly oppose their political agenda, that is another reason I flatly refuse to accept the label.

So, Mr. Slingen can pout, through a fit, sputter, and spew, but he can't force me to be transgender, no matter how badly he wants to.

The Return of the Idiot Troll...

In my last posting, I talked about my error of thinking Elizabeth at Notes From the T-Side might have gotten over her little snit about the Colorado high school case.  Among other aspects of all that, I wondered how long it would be before the nasty stalker, "Diane" Lask would pop back up.  Well, it didn't take that long….  

As he tends to do, this person, who I used to refer to as an "idiot troll" back in the waning days of my regular involvement on Usenet, made another round of nasty, and quite false, claims.

The funny part in all of this, is how this whole episode seems to sum up a lot that is wrong with how both transsexuals and those who make up the quite separate "transgender community" tend to act out online.

As I have pointed out, there is often a tendency of some to elevate themselves to a sort of self-aggrandized status as a "pioneer" of sorts.  Suzan Cooke has made an online career of this sort of silliness, and Elizabeth has adopted the same sort of approach.  The story is always the same.  They were an early transitioner.  They had no doubts, no insecurities, their transition was flawless, and anyone who does not agree with their every infallible pronouncement is, at best, suspect.

And they tend to surround themselves with a bunch of sycophants who provide a chorus of ego strokes that allows them to hide some very obvious insecurities.  I will give Elizabeth credit for one thing…she tends to not be as inclined to censorship as Cooke, who apparently can't deal with disagreement at all.  And, so far, Elizabeth has resisted the urge to completely abandon all principles and pledge her troth to Mr. "Cristan" Williams and the transgender extremists.

The truly funny part is, for a group, including Elizabeth herself, who seem to be inclined to question others intelligence, they seem to have seriously impaired reading comprehension.  My final words there, albeit a bit garbled when my fingers slipped and I missed what the spell checker produced, were "I should have gone with my first instinct and ignored you. I won't make that mistake again."  

That after ignoring quite a bit of drivel that preceded the post I responded to.  But, both Elizabeth, and several in her sycophant chorus, chimed in like fools, to suggest I should go elsewhere.  Hmmm, now perhaps they are simply posturing like childish fools, trying to boost their own egos, by telling themselves that they "bested" me.  When, as I said, I don't post there again, they can tell themselves that it was their doing.

But, back to Lask, and his latest round of garbage.  This is the classic example of what people like Elizabeth surround themselves with.  Lask postures about how he is a "A true TS misidentified by JJ."  Actually, Lask, as I have pointed out, turns out to have never had SRS.  For quite some time, Lask hid behind a claim of his surgery having "failed."  Of course  when one considers that Lask also used to brag about his great successes as a well paid programmer (including claiming to have owned a Corvette) one also has to wonder why Lask never had corrective surgery.  Now, Lask simply hides behind fake names, and anonymous remailers to lash out at imagined enemies.

 Lask likes to make a big deal out of some poorly chosen words I put on a website I threw together back when having a vanity web site was "the thing."  (Now, that would be having a blog instead.)  The funny part is, Lask not only strongly identified as a transvestite at one time, he was a very active member of a group originally known as Educational TV Channel, which morphed into Transgender San Francisco, or more commonly, TGSF.  Yes,  Mr, "true transsexual" was an active member of a transvestite social group.  And he wants to accuse others of being autogynephilic.  Even funnier, Lask likes to parrot Michael Bailey, and point out that I am a "techie."  Well, Lask spent years as a programmer and as a very active transvestite.  Hmmm….

Lask, along with a few others, is the reason there are parts of my past I simply don't disclose. Yes, that leads to, as some claim, my backstory lacking "consistency."  And if someone wants to attempt to exploit that, that is certainly their privilege.  Lask's backstory lacks quite a bit of veracity, but Lask sticks to simple lies, leaving out major details such as his military career (he certainly was NOT an early transitioner) and his involvement with a transvestite social club.  But hey, some people are just very skilled liars.  That is typical of what psychologists would label a "sociopath."

A Very Bad Law

I'm normally a big supporter of both Tom Ammiano and Gov. Jerry Brown, but I am not happy with either of them at the moment.

Ammiano introduced, and Brown signed, AB1266, the law is meant to provide protections for "transgender" students.  Unfortunately, it contains one provision that makes it a very bad law.

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.

Strictly interpreted, this would mean that a male student, upon declaring that his gender identity is female, would not only be able to play on a girl's athletic team (irregardless of his hormonal status), but would also be able to join the girls in the shower after the game.

I am sure the transgender extremists are just...well, doing what men who are sexually aroused do, over the prospect of this.

It is one thing to say that students should be treated fairly, or that students who identify as transgender should be allowed to dress and be treated as the gender they claim to identify with, but the idea that a male student should be able to be in a place where female students have a right to expect privacy, simply by making the assertion that "he feels like a girl," is absurd.

The irony is, no student who is actually transsexual would take advantage of this, so any student who actually does, and perhaps none actually will, is simply not a transsexual, but is instead a pervert.

The Silliness Continues

Well, now GLADD has become involved in the effort to force the news media to suspend reality and pander to transgender extremists.  They have several complaints...

Describing Acoff as "oddly dressed" is incredibly insulting.

The body was dressing in three bras.  Now, unless this is some very common transgender thing I am unaware of, I would say that can accurately be called "oddly dressed" and would be if the victim were a female.

Her murder did not "end her fight for acceptance," it ended her life. Period

 Well, I can sort of agree that the murder ended the victim's life, but talk about straining out gnats...

There is no need to describe what she was wearing at the time of her murder; she had already been identified at the start of both stories, describing her wardrobe only trivializes her murder.

 It is called "reporting." It also provides information that might help jog someone's memory, and which might help lead police to the killer.  You never know. 

Acoff's criminal record is almost certainly irrelevant to the story, especially when provided without any context concerning the trans community and law enforcement.

 Well, let's provide a little context then, shall we?  Transgender people are often very ant-social and are very likely to engage in criminal behavior.  The police tend to take a dim view of such behavior.  Is that better?  Or are they supposed to lie about that as well?  And yes, I know what I am talking about.  I observed such behavior first hand for several years.  I heard them talk about engaging in criminal behavior, and not just the stuff you would expect, like drugs and sex work.  Shoplifting is a very common activity.  If you look at the "ball culture" scene, it is rife with tales of stealing very expensive garments for shows.  So, yes, let's talk about transgender and the police in context.  It says quite a lot about the real nature of transgender.

And removing pronouns doesn't fix much. Yes, the stories are no longer factually incorrect, but this tact still shows an unwillingness to respect the victim's gender identity and accept her as female.

He wasn't a female.  It is not even clear that he was full time as transgender.  But, you have to love how they blithely demand that reality be ignored, and that the newspaper should report false information.  In fact, in the article, GLADD even makes excuses for why this person might not have presented as female all of the time.  But still, they demand that part of the person's life be the basis for lies.

All, apparently, to spare the feelings of a dead person.

Lies, Damn Lies, Statistics, and Mr. Sandeen's Birth Certificate

Well, "Autumn" Sandeen is at it again.  He has posted a blog entry over at LGBT Weekly in which he makes the completely absurd claim that he is now a "womon born womon," so to speak.  As you may recall, Mr. Sandeen had himself castrated a while back, and then perjured himself before a judge in San Diego in order to get his birth certificate changed.  Sadly, no one followed through on plans to make an appearance and challenge this action.

Now, Sandeen claims that the illegally obtained piece of paper means that he was "born a woman."  Sorry, but NO!!!  HE WAS NOT!!!  He is not, has never been, and will never be a woman.  He simply lacks, to use a term from theology, "valid matter."  Mr. Sandeen shows no sign of being a woman.  His behavior, and his inherent nature is male.

In fact, his very approach to the concept of being a "woman" is very male.  Like many "transgender" men who wish to claim to be women, he sees to see womanhood as something to be taken, demanded even.  When I began transition, it was not with an attitude of entitlement, but with a desire to be accepted.  I did not feel I had an inherent right to be a woman, even though I felt I truly was one.  I felt like I had to show that I was a woman.  If I could not do this, then I felt, perhaps I was mistaken.

Men, like Mr. Sandeen, seek to achieve their "female" status by decree.  It does not matter what the evidence says, they are women because they have a piece of paper that says they are a woman.  They demand that society submit to their delusions.  It is, after all, their entitlement.  Sorry, but that is simply wrong.

Sandeen demands that people accept that he is a woman, even though he has, and clearly intends to keep, his penis. He is no different from "Colleen" Francis, forcing himself into women's spaces, even though he has no business being there, and is really not wanted.

No one with a shred of sense would ever truly accept Sandeen as a woman. He is, at best, a very poor caricature of a very male concept of how a woman acts. A sort of a bad drag act. Sadly, this is apparently how he really sees women. Sandeen is, quite simply, a major argument for the radfem's point of view.

Uh, Not Even Remotely Right....

I wonder sometimes where the transgender kooks come up with some of their ideas.  Take, for example, this bit of insanity from "Autumn" Sandeen over on LGBT Weekly:

Somewhere in between the extremes of people who demand no trans people should have surgery, and those who demand all trans people have surgery there is middle ground that recognizes that no group of trans people really should dictate what trans experience is the universal trans experience.

Huh?  "Those who demand all trans people have surgery...?"  Now, I realize this is in the context of Mr. Sandeen trying to cover up the fact that he is darn close to one who claims that no one needs surgery (he has denigrated those who have the surgery, and implied that we still have penises, etc.) but really, even he can't be that completely ignorant, can he?


First off, I think anyone who identifies as a "trans" person probably ought to serious question the wisdom of having surgery.  If you are that attached to your past, well then you just might miss certain parts when they are gone.  For example, let me be very clear on this...I would never suggest that Mr. Sandeen have surgery.  By beef with Mr. Sandeen is not that he has not had surgery, or that he does not need surgery, but that he has taken to claiming to be a transsexual, and that he claims to be a female.  He is neither, and even if he had surgery, it would not make him a woman.  It would simply make him a man with a vagina.  Like several other transgender kooks who made the mistake of going too far.


No, there are a lot of "trans" people who really, REALLY, REALLY should never have surgery, and more than a few who should not have done it who already have.  Some publicly regret it, others regret it while denying they regret it, but acting in ways that harm true transsexuals.


I know of no one who remotely demands that anyone should have surgery.  Yes, I believe that surgery, including vaginoplasty, should be a requirement for changing a birth certificate in the case of a male to female transsexual.  I think that male to females should at the very least have to have upper surgery, a complete hysterectomy and removal of the ovaries, and the vagina closed before being allowed to change their birth certificate.  I understand the limitations of FTM surgery, and am sympathetic to their plight.


Retaining the physical genitals of one sex, while claiming to be a member of the other is simply dishonest.  But then so is a lot of things Mr. Sandeen tries to pass off on society.

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.

Just A Might Bit Arrogant

I have to say, little that the gender fascist who calls himself "Cristan" Williams says or does would surprise me.  But he has really pushed the envelope with his latest post in which he arrogantly takes it upon himself to declare the transsexual separatist movement dead.  This is a new extreme of male arrogance for even him.


In a move that is reminiscent of George W. Bush's appearing on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln to declare "Mission Accomplished," Mr. Williams has effectively declare victory.  Now, granted, in response to one comment, in one of his classic straw arguments, he asserts that he never said he had "won."  Yes, and Bush did not say the war was "over."  Uh huh, yeah....


Mr. Williams asserts that he has shown a series of memes, i.e. straw arguments he has created, have been refuted.  Actually, all he has done is try to bury the truth under an avalanche of fuzzy claims, and questionable citations.  For example, he tries to claim that Christine Jorgensen "identified" as a transgender woman based on a questionable citation that includes an isolated quote she once made.  I have yet to see that she said it more than once, if then.  And certainly it is highly unlikely that she identified with the word as it is now used.


In fact, this brings up another of his straw arguments.  He claims that transsexuals claim that "transgender" did not exist until the mid-Ninties, and that it was invented by a bunch of crossdressers.  Now, some may have come to understand the facts in that manner, but what Williams says is, again, a straw argument that hides the truth.  It is not clear how early the first use of "transgender" or some variant of that term first occurred.  That is certainly not helped by Mr. Williams rather odd collections of alleged citations.  Funny how they always come from obscure and difficult to locate sources.  This of course leads to the highly dishonest practice by him of demanding that people prove a negative.  This, of course, is a classic dodge used by any number of scoundrels.


In truth, it doesn't matter.  Even if all of Mr. Williams claims are true, they would make zero difference in the debate, since the fact remains that the transgender movement as it now exists, and the one that many do not wish to be associated or identified with, did begin in the mid-Nineties, and it was invented by a group of crossdressers.  The evidence for this really is overwhelming.  The only evidence for Mr. Williams claims are some vague incidents where someone might have used transgender, though not in the sense that it is now used.


Mr. Williams wants everyone to pretend that language never changes, unless of course such a change supports his position.  


As to the claim that the transsexual separatist movement actually being dead, well he really offers nothing to actually back that up.  Granted, he did post this story on April Fool's Day, so maybe he thinks it a clever joke.  Or maybe he was just tired of getting zero comments on his blog, as he certainly opened a hornet's nest.  No, his entire argument is based on that series of memes he claims to have busted:

• The colonization of transsexuals meme

This, of course is exactly what he is engaged in.

• The transgender was an invention of the 1990s meme

As pointed out, "The transgender" (sic) might not be an invention of the 1990s, but the moder transgender movement clearly is.

• The transgender was coined by Virginia Prince meme

Arnold Lowman, who called himself  Charles "Virginia" Prince, is credited with inventing the phrase "transgenderal" perhaps coined and certainly popularized the term "transgenderist" and was a major leader of the overall movement that the modern transgender movement grew out of.  BTW, exactly this argument has been made by more than one scholar.  Whether it is true or not is largely a matter of perspective.

• The transgender came from transgenderist meme

What is with this "The transgender" silliness.  The first one I could see as a typo, but the continued use is just bizarre.  Are we talking about "community," "movement," "silliness?"  What?  In any case, in a very real sense, it did come out of a group that, for a while, identified as transgenderist.

• The transgender originally meant crossdresser meme

I don't know of anyone who claims this.  Up until the 1990s it was a rarely used term, and largely meant nothing.  Thus, a straw argument....

• The there was no trans community before the 1990s meme

This is another of his classic straw arguments.  Were there support groups and and communication between groups of transsexuals. and between groups of transvestites?  Yes. Was there the "transgender community" that Mr. Williams attempts to force people into against their will?  Not remotely.  Another straw argument.

• The as long a transgender exists, progress can’t be made meme

And yet another straw argument.  Progress has been made in spite of the attempts of transgender extremists, but they do make things difficult, and in some cases impossible.  Further, what Mr. Williams, and others. like to gloss over, is the problem of what transgender extremists want.  What he calls progress, I would call a nightmare.

• The before the 1990s, transsexuals lived a problem-free life meme

This has to be one of the most pitiful attempts to create a straw argument I have ever seen.  I don't know anyone who could claim this.  At least not anyone who is transsexual.

• The umbrella terms were an invention of the 1990s meme

Actually, the transgender movement as we know it was born of the idea of transgender as an umbrella term.  Certainly, before the 1990s some tended to associate transgender and transsexual, though nothing like the current movement's gender fascists do today.

• The transgender was invented by a Commie in the 1990s meme

As I understand it, one of the leaders of the movement has, at least in the past, identified as Communist.  Another straw man argument.

• The there’s no such thing as a non-op transsexual meme

Ah, a semantical straw argument.  Since the term "transsexual" clearly refers to someone changing sex, and since the only way to change one's sex is to have surgery, then there are no non-op transsexuals...just delusional people who claim they are non-op transsexuals.  Of course, Mr. Williams bases this on out-dated information that was written in 1966 and which has been abandoned long ago.  Oh, and that information came from Harry Benjamin, who he usually seems quite fond of trashing anyway

• The Non-transsexual trans folk pose a rape risk to women in the restroom and/or Gender Identity protections make women unsafe meme

And he ends his list of grand, but none existent "bustings" with, of course, another straw argument.  The issue is not that "transgender" people will be a threat to women in restrooms.  The argument is that the way the transgender movement insists that laws be written would result in males, including ones who are not even transgender, being able to enter women's space by simply claiming, if only momentarily, that they identify as female.  That does present a very real danger, and that is what most, including myself, oppose.

Well, once again, Mr. Williams lies, obfuscates, and generally makes silly arguments in an attempt to claim some small amount of victory where none remotely exists.

Suffice to say, those who want no part of "transgender" are alive, and healthy.

Comparing Apples and.....Well, People

"Autumn" Sandeen is complaining that we don't have an acceptable word that covers everyone that he wants to be covered by transgender.  Apparently, he is now throwing in the towel on forcing everyone under the transgender umbrella and is hoping to coin a new term.


Unfortunately, Mr. Sandeen misses the bigger picture.  We do not need such a term.  There is nothing that connects these diverse groups.  Crossdressers are not the same as drag queens, who have nothing common with transsexuals, who are completely unrelated to gender queers....etc.  The only ones who really want such a term are those like Mr. Sandeen who have some bizarre need to identify as something they clearly are not.


Mr. Sandeen has a desperate need to identify as a transsexual even though he clearly has no desire to actually change his sex, seeking instead to perpetuate a bizarre fantasy of being a woman with a penis...well, more specifically, "a legal female with a penis."  This is absurd.  But it is Mr. Sandeen's goal.


No, we don't need a new term.  The old one has proven to be a failure.  Mr. Sandeen should take a lesson from that, but I don't see that happening.

Mr. WIlliams Throws in the Towel

Over the past few weeks, I have been in a battle of wits with a gender fascist who goes by the name "Cristan" Williams.  Mr. Williams first popped up on Bilerico with some pretty silly claims about how "transgender" had been around a long time.  When he was challenged on this, he began using some rather silly, and dishonest, debating techniques.  Now, most people are not that familiar with forensics, so this sort of behavior can quickly deteriorate into a bit of a brawl.  And when someone is using such techniques dishonestly, this is even worse.  Suffice to say, the battle of wits was quite one sided.  It was me against someone who was essentially witless.


In the latest round, I stated:

"For someone to say, "I am a woman, and I have a penis that I plan to keep," is completely insane. " 

To which another person responded"

Oh please. What's so magical about a penis that makes it define sex? 

 Now, this is just the sort of silliness one often encounters from the more extreme of the transgender extremists.  Mr. Williams immediately rallied to this kook's defense, and I challenged Mr. Williams on the topic.  Now, Mr. Williams response was to accuse me of making a straw argument (not a particularly bright move, since he uses them repeatedly, as I had pointed out).  This is sort of the debating equivalent of saying "Same to you, but more of it."  I made the statement that, if he did not share that view, he was welcome to denounce it, and I would gladly admit my error.  He quickly tried to change the subject a bit by resorting to an ad hominem attack, accusing me of something he labeled "the Jennifer Shuffle."  What this means, is that I would not let him define the limits and terms of the debate.  Put in simpler terms, I would not allow him to try to goad me into saying something he could twist into yet another straw argument.


Now, let me pause here to say that the main reason I have, as some would put it, "misgendered" Mr. Williams is this constant, rather masculine tendency to try to goad people into making statements that he can twist.  His debating style reminds me more of Sen. Joseph McCarthy more than anything else.  I can just picture Mr. Williams, bug-eyed and red faced, screaming "Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party?!?!?!?"  Or in Mr. Williams case, I suppose it would be, "Are you now, or have you ever been, a transsexual separatist?!?!?!?!?"


In any case, I made the statement:

Let me put this in simple terms...a penis does not belong on a woman.

And Mr. Williams came back with: 

BUT IS IT THE ONLY FACTOR IN DETERMINING SEX?

Now. this is a classic example of a dishonest question.  It has no context, and there is no simple answer.  It is clearly meant to be answered, "Yes" or "No."  Which is just plain silly.  It is not much better than the classic, "Have you stopped beating your wife?"  If you have never beaten your wife, or if you are not even married, then the "true" answer would "No," implying that you still beat your wife.  And of course, if you answer yes, you are are admitting to having beaten your wife.  Of course, that is kind of silly, but Mr. Williams' question is not much better.


The problem is, he give no indication of what he means by sex.  Does he mean legal sex? Perceived sex?  Chromosomal sex?  Genital sex?  Brain sex? Gonadal sex?  Reproductive sex?  Or perhaps he means sex, as in who you are going to engage in intercourse with, though I doubt it.  Without context, there is no answer to the question.  In some of the above contexts, the answer is yes, in others, no.  And in a couple, the answer is "It depends."


My answer stands.  If you claim to be a woman, and you have a penis, and you plan to keep it, then something is just not right....


Well, apparently he knows he is not going to back me into a corner, and that I am on to his semantical games, so he resorted to silly ad hominem attacks, and finely, when I pointed out that he clearly has no real arguments, he has stated that he is banning me.  And that, of course, is the last refuge of a transgender scoundrel.  When they can't win...when the argument is lost....when they know they are being made to look the fool....they ban you.  


This is why I don't moderate comments before posting.  I don't ban people except under the most extreme of circumstances.  And that, so far, has not really happened.  Bottom line, Mr. Williams is still welcome to comment here.  As are most others.  There are a couple of people I would not allow, simply because I have them blocked in other forums.  But that is because of privacy issues more than anything else.  In fact, that is probably the one thing that would get someone banned.  Violating my, or someone else's, privacy.

Mr. Sandeen is a LIAR!!!

"In a comment to a recent post, "Autumn" Sandeen, one of the point men for the extremist wing of the transgender movement made a blatantly false statement.  In fact, he even contradicted himself to do it. 


While attacking "true transsexuals, classic transsexuals,women of operative history, and women of transsexual history -- as well as some associating with Harry Benjamin Syndrome..." he makes this assertion:

Well, many (if not most) these true transsexul women believe that late transitioning transsexual people, non-operative transsexual people, many-if-not-all pre-operative transsexual people, genderqueer people, drag performers, and crossdressers are fetishists.

This, of course is a basic straw argument.  It contains a grain of truth, and then adds quite a bit of falsehood.  It would, of course, be accurate to say that we see some late transitioning non-transsexuals as fetishists.  The same can be said of crossdressers.  Drag performers are generally not fetishists, and I know of no one who claims they are.  Gender queer would be considered to be more of a social/political form of extremism.  There is, of course, no such thing as a non-operative transsexual person.  They probably are fetishists, as they are essentially another form of crossdresser.  And finally, the most egregious lie is the addition of "many-if-not-all pre-operative transsexual people."


Has Mr. Sandeen taken leave of his senses...well, more than he clearly already has?  Or is this simply a deliberate lie?  Clearly, it is the latter.  He knows better than this.  It does not even make sense.  Earlier in the same comment, he lumps those close to surgery in with those who are post-op.  Well, if these people, who by his own words, include "all" pre-ops, that would mean that those close to surgery see themselves as being fetishists, and those who are post-op as having been fetishists.


Simply put.....HUH?!?!?!?!?


What an incredibly stupid attempt to discredit people he knows are correct.  He can't refute us with facts, so he has to appeal to fear.  Obviously we were all pre-ops at one time.  We may see people, such as Mr. Sandeen, who were avowed non-ops, who suddenly declare that one day, in the far distant future, if all the stars align, and they win the lottery, etc., that they will have surgery, but who clearly have no imperative to undergo the operation, and have more excuses than actual plans, as frauds, and yes, even fetishists.  But Mr. Sandeen is not, and never will be a transsexual.  He just wants to improve his status.


And he proves this by lying.

Incredible Stupidity

Well, it seems that "Autumn" Sandeen has decided to abuse the changes to the rules concerning passports, while playing dumb (or is he really that stupid) about why his new passport will be limited to two years.


Simply put, the government has had a long standing policy that allows those who are traveling overseas for SRS to obtain a temporary two year passport for the purpose of obtaining that surgery.  Apparently, the rules have been loosened a bit to remove the specific requirement that one be traveling for surgery, but still there remains a two year limit for those who have not yet had SRS, clearly to allow them to easily travel for that purpose.


Well, of course the radical transgender crowd, like Sandeen, think this gives them license to obtain an ID that is often allowed in place of a birth certificate.  So, now Mr. Sandeen can pretend to be a natal woman, while remaining an intact man.  


In response to a question, he claims to not know why his deceptive passport will be limited to two years.  The answer is simple...it is to allow him to travel to a place like Thailand to have SRS.  But, of course, that is not what Mr. Sandeen plans to do.  He just wants to have something that falsely claims he is a woman...another chance to revel in his transgender status, imagining himself to be a real woman....with a penis.


Mr. Sandeen needs to realize that a passport that claims he is a female will not make him a woman.  It will just make him a man who is lying.  And when his two years are up, his passport will end, and he will very possibly find that is it.  That he will have had his little fun, but there will be no more.


I fully support the idea of allowing a temporary change to allow for travel for surgery, but all Mr. Sandeen's abuse of this will do is give conservatives more ammunition to oppose even that small favor.


Then again, Mr. Sandeen refuses to see that his antics hurt the chances for repeal of "don't ask. don't tell."  Some of the extremists are even starting to push for the repeal of the ban on transgender people being allowed to openly serve.  That is an absurd suggestion.  While I can where people who have completed transition, and have had full surgery, might be able to serve, the idea of someone like Sandeen demanding to be allowed to serve as a female, while retaining his penis, is absurd.  There really are limits, though extremists like Sandeen and his ilk refuse to acknowledge them.


UPDATE


It appears that Mr. Sandeen has decided that he misread the new law.  He now plans to fraudulently claim that he has completed his transition, and that he is fully female.  Apparently the kooks at NCTE talked to Obama administration into wording things vaguely enough that people can claim that they are fully transitioned when they are not.  Never mind that such a change will almost certainly result in a nasty backlash that will wind up hurting true transsexuals when a more conservative president is elected.  They will have had their short season of fun pretending to be women, and real women will, again, suffer.

Is It Complete Idiocy or Just Bad Journalism at Pam's House Blend?

In what has to be one of the most ridiculous pieces I have read in a long time, "Autumn" Sandeen attacks Seventeen Magazine in an article entitled "Is It Transphobia Or Just Bad Journalism At Seventeen Magazine?" The short answer to Mr. Sandeen's question is, "neither," though, of course, he does not see it that way.

The subject of the article is a piece in Seventeen entitled, "My Boyfriend Turned Out To Be A Girl." It is about a teenage girl who became involved with someone she thought was her first true love, and he turned out to be an FTM transsexual. The article is actually very well written, and even includes the disclosure that had he been truthful, she would have stayed with him. In truth, the young FTM was quite a jerk, and treated the girl rather badly.

So, why is Mr. Sandeen all hot and bothered, especially given that he admits this person was a jerk?

The gist of the article, from the article headline to the bolded and highlighted text, seemed to be that female-to-male transsexuals are really females who are deceiving others.

Well, since this person is a pre-op female to male, and since he did deceive this young woman, I think that is pretty much what the article would have to be about unless it was fiction. It says nothing about FTMs or transsexuals in general. It only deals with this one person, and this one relationship and the experience of this one young lady.

In addition, Mr. Sandeen seems upset that they did not, instead, write about how terrible transgender people have it.

The simple fact is, if one is pre-op, then one should be upfront as soon as possible in a relationship. In this case, the deception, and I am sorry, but that is what it was, goes on for a long time. It became revealed with the young FTM became abusive and was arrested by the police.

I mean really, Mr. Sandeen is so distraught over things like the Angie Zapata case, but at the same time wants encourage the very behavior that leads to such tragedies. In this case, there was no violence, except on the part of the FTM. And that lead to his being outed. If the situation had been the reverse, and it had of been another young MTF, it could have ended differently.

No, Mr. Sandeen would rather see another beloved trans martyr than to fail to push the latest transgender myth...that one changes sex by simply saying one is the new sex. I shall deal with that in depth in an upcoming article. But for now....

To answer my question....I would have to go with complete idiocy.