How Much Sillier Can Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen Get?

In the latest chapter of the battle between women and the "men in dresses" crowd, Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen has come up with an even sillier post over on Transadvocate.  In previous articles we have discussed his first post, in which he first made the claim that GallusMag has been "outed."  In that article, we showed that, by his own standards, the claim was bogus.  Mr. "Cristan" Williams, and Mr. "Dana" Taylor, yes, the "Milk-Man" himself, have claimed to have found out who GallusMag really is.  And, they cling to this, at best, flimsy claim desperately.  Mr. Sandeen has become point man for their position.

In this article, he attempts to back up that claim with some of the most laughable evidence ever presented.  Now, keep in mind that what GallusMag has done is not, as Mr. Sandeen claims, "doxxing" which is "l33t-speak" for uncovering information on someone.  What GallusMag has done is simply shine a light on some of the sillier things that men in dresses have put up on the Internet.  Her sources are all quite public.  She just exposes them to the ridicule they deserve.  Her subject matter ranges from outright threats of violence, to men in dresses just acting silly.  So, naturally, they hate her with a passion.

On the other hand, they have to claim she has been "doxxing" them to excuse their attempts to invade her privacy.  

Mr. Sandeen's case is ridiculous.  He refers to vague claims, that he declines to provide details of, and then proceeds to back those claims up with some rather hilarious "facts" that add up to nothing.

For example, he claims that GallusMag denied the claim too quickly and therefore it must be true.  Of course, the fact of the matter is, what was actually denied was a claim by Mr. Williams that he had discovered that GallusMag was wealthy, and lives in a "luxurious home."  That is what was denied.  Once again, facts are twisted to make something appear to be different than it really is...

From there, it just gets even sillier.  Someone found a MySpace page for the person who has been mis-identified as GallusMag.  Mr. Sandeen makes a big deal out of the fact that this person, who is an artist, has a piece that depicts GallusMag.  Now, considering that GallusMag is a historical figure, and well known in certain circles, that proves...well, nothing.  But even sillier is an attempt to claim that the image depicts the artist as GallusMag.  A rather silly claim, but presented as though it is conclusive.

The rest of the article, apparently the actual "facts" needed padding, consists of Mr. Sandeen critiquing the rest of this person's art.  Which, of course, has no real bearing on the claims made.  The funniest part is Mr. Sandeen's attempt to accuse a woman of objectifying women, in defense of so-called "transwomen" objectifying women.  Of course, Mr. Sandeen, who is quite male in both body and mind, has no idea what he is blathering about.

The bottom line is, the men in dresses crowd is more obsessed with the idea that they have struck a blow against someone they violently hate, than with any concern for the truth.  They have their "trophy," and they are not going to give it up without a fight.

A Complete Load of Crap

The kooks at Shame on You Transgender Edition posted a hilarious piece by Mr. "Michelle" Spicer, entitled Dating Transwomen Does Not "Make You Gay".  While the title is bad enough, the article is worse.  It is homophobic, and inaccurate.  It starts out with an accurate, but somewhat misleading idea..

Many of you have heard the myth that dating a transgender woman if you are a heterosexual male will somehow turn you gay. This has to be the most ridiculous type of rationale that I have heard of thus far.

Okay, you cannot really turn someone gay.  Granted, under certain circumstances, men who would otherwise not do so, may engage in homosexual behavior (the classic example is men who are incarcerated) but upon release they generally return to heterosexual practices. But…but then Mr. Spicer launches into this bit of absurdity….

Our sexual orientation does not change because of who we date, we date someone because of our sexual orientation. You can make love to a body but you can only date an actual person, it's the person inside you eventually fall in love with(if there is any kind of real love there) and a transwomans spirit is a woman!

Okay, keep that first sentence in mind…it is the petard this idiot will be hoist be, but let's look at that second part.  There is so much wrong here.  But for the moment, let's look at the final assertion…"transwomans (sic) spirit is a woman!"  Nope.  A "transwoman's" spirit is not a woman.  If it was, she would not be a "transwoman," which is an oxymoron, but would just a woman…which is anathema to so-called "transwomen" who cling to their manhood with a tenacity that puts a barnacle clinging to a boat to shame….

But, let's consider the part where Mr. Spicer really goes off the deep end…

Men who are attracted to transgender women are not automatically gay in any way shape or form. That is not to say that gay men cannot be attracted to transgender women, but the attraction itself does not change their orientation. If you are a heterosexual man the chances are that you are attracted to a transwoman because of her femininity, her personality and her spirit. There are fetishists of course, but they are attracted to a fetish and not the actual transwoman that stands before them. Using someone as an object is not considered dating them and does not come from any place of respect. This article is only concerned with men who actually want to date transgender women regardless of their surgical status and not treat her like an object. There is a difference between a "chaser" and having an actual interest in dating transgender women.

Okay, it is pretty much unheard of for a straight man to actually engage in a physical relationship with a "transwoman."  Likewise, if you are a pre-op, once a guy finds out you are physically male, the best you can hope for is that he doesn't totally freak out and become violent.  The relationship will probably end, at least with regards to any hope of romance, and you will end up broken hearted.  If you are seriously surgically tracked, you have two choices…date men who claim to be straight (but clearly aren't) or be celibate.  What they claim here is delusional crap.  It is simply believing the lies of men who are either lying to themselves or to everyone else.  If a guy is attracted to you, and you are physically a male, then that man is homosexual.  He may deny being such, but he is.  End of story.  He doesn't give one whit about your spirit, your femininity, or your personality.  He simply fetishizes "chick with dicks."  I've met my share, and I found the relationships very unsatisfactory.  He may pretend to "not treat you like an object," but if you are physically male, he is almost certainly going to.  And chances are, he will drop you like a rock if you actually do have surgery.  Shoot, I dated one guy who was a very wealth contractor.  He lived in what some would call a "MacMansion," had a pool and a hot tub, and drove a Jag.  I'm not a gold digger, but I am also not stupid…but the relationship ended quickly when he said "Don't have surgery…"  

Yes, for a while, I was a bit naive, and actually believe the sort of fairy tale Mr. Spicer is spewing here.  After learning what guys meant when they asked if I was "functional" (NO!  I have been on hormones for a while, and even if I was, what part of "I'm a woman," do you not understand?) I realized that most of these guys were not straight, and were pretty screwed up to boot.

Mr. Spicer ends with this bit of comedy…

Men who date transgender women are heterosexual men dating women, period. Simply because she is a different "type" of woman makes no difference to this writer. There are men who like French women, does that make them french? Simply because a man is attracted to a "type" of woman will not change his sexual orientation any more than it could change his nationality. The myth that dating a transgender woman "makes you gay" is ridiculous, damaging and causes the men who want to date us a great deal of shame. Transwomen lose out on dating and finding love because of this and that is just a damn shame.

Sorry, but no.  Heterosexual men don't want women with penises, and they certainly don't want to be topped by one.  There is only one kind of "woman" and men who date "transgender" women, as well as men who are attracted to pre-ops and so-called "non-ops" (a misnomer…if you are not going to have surgery, you are not a transsexual, so there is no need for that qualifier) are not heterosexual, they are perverts who fetishize the idea of a woman with a penis.  And if you think otherwise, you are lying to yourself, and very possibly putting yourself in serious danger, looking for a guy who doesn't even exist.

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 Real Agenda

Yesterday, during her obsessive round of commenting on my blog, Ms. "Mark" Cummings posted one comment that contained a violation of the single rule I have, and so got deleted.  But I wanted to share the bulk of that content with you, because it reveals, quite clearly, the real nature of this person…

Learn this everyone hates you including your own family. You are a delusional low life tranny an ugly one at that. Do the world a favor.

Now, the first line is not remotely true.  It is based on something my daughter wrote on what was intended to be a very private online journal she shares with her friends.  And it was written during a very difficult time for both of us, that is long past.  I am not going to share the details of that time, because I am not going to violate my daughter's privacy.  But, since then, we talk regularly, and have spent time together on a number of occasions.  I also have three lovely grandchildren, who love me very much.  So, Ms. Cummings can lie all she wants, as I have reality.

The second line is laughable, and well, typical of Ms. Cummings' writing style.  She claims six years of college…obviously not one that had very high standards for grammatical skills.  As to whether or not I am "ugly," well that is a matter of individual taste, but I know more than a few who would disagree…  

But it is that last line that I wanted to focus on.  It's meaning is quite clear.  This comes from a person who tries, quite desperately at times, to present a facade of being a leader in the all too imaginary transgender community.  She pontificates regularly on what she perceives as the various faults of support groups, and individuals.  The current header on their joke of a blog states…

We are a collaboration of bloggers exposing shameful events, topics, and people that are affecting the entire LGBT Community. Stay up to date with the latest shameful news reports by following us.

Not only is this more than a bit presumptuous, it could certainly be argued that much of he shame is their own behavior…  Ms. Cummings has this to say concerning herself…

What we say may not always be the popular consensus, but we speak from our hearts and shed light. Sometimes the light can be bright and not always welcoming. You may not like me, But as I have always said at the end of every video, I love you but remember to love yourself too.

I suppose she should append, "Unless, of course, you have the audacity to disagree with me…in which case, you should just do the world a favor and…"

What this favor is, of course, is suicide.  Yes, this sick person is actually suggesting that I take my own life.  He has engaged in an ongoing campaign of harassment (which fortunately is laughably lame…) in an attempt, quite obviously, to push me into a suicidal depression.   Now, I don't know if this is entirely a creation of his own disturbed psyche, or if he has been urged in that direction by Mr. "Diane" Lask, who has engaged in similar behavior towards those he disagrees with in the past.

But Ms. Cummings should be exposed for the sick person she is...

There Really Is A Difference

I sometimes identify myself as a "transsexual separatist," mainly to irritate the kooks like Mr. "Cristan" Williams who use that term.  But in truth, the term is something of a misnomer.  It was created as an attack on transsexuals who simply do not identify with the so-called "transgender paradigm."  The term was clearly coined by "gender fascists"  as part of a larger attempt to force those identified as "transsexual separatist" back into line.  We are actually, truth be told, more assimilationist than separatist as the goal is to assimilate into the larger society, rather than, for want of a better term, "sticking out like a sore thumb." 

This was particularly brought home to me when I happened to check out the comments made on the article by Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen (all ready discussed here) where he invents the idea that I am some sort of "activist."  The article that lead to him stalking me on Twitter, and in comments on this blog for a while, in a bizarre attempt to distract me from something I don't even do.  Amusing, but a bit of a bore after a while.

The comment was made by some guy calling himself "dawn1257" and it shows the overwhelming arrogance of some transgender extremists.

It starts off with a semi-accurate opening:

Certainly you are aware that the effectiveness of your and others activism is not what propels their dislike of all things transgender? It’s that your and others activism – they feel -publically beguiles the very term ‘transsexual’.

The use of the term "beguile" is a bit puzzling.  I would not say that that Mr. Sandeen's "activism" (I would tend to refer to it as self-aggrandizing attention seeking) charms or 
enchants anyone, and it certainly does not help time pass more pleasantly.  The term does carry an aspect of being deceptive, and in that sense is slightly accurate.  Well, actually...the deceptive part is highly accurate.

The real problems are in what comes next.  I don't know whether it is arrogantly clueless, or cluelessly arrogant....

Run-ins with Elizabeth are not unknown to me. My first was a result of her blog post entitled something like, ‘I Will Never Understand’. The premise of her writing was two-fold. First she has difficulty in maintaining understanding of why a “man” would wait twenty, thirty, or more years, get married, have children, and THEN transition. Secondly, she simply could not fathom why, after transitioning, anyone would want to remain either in that same marriage, be ‘known’ as the “Town Tranny”, and/or be open to anyone (activist) about what she perceives as only a correctable medical condition which once corrected that individual should just then ‘melt’ into society living forever as the woman, or man they know themselves to be.

Now, I admit, I did get married, for the primary purpose of getting away from my father, and I have one daughter.  I got married because, at the time, I thought I was attracted to women and because, after seriously considering transition in my early twenties, I became convinced, based on bad information, that I would not be allowed to pursue SRS.  I did some research in a university library, and the books available at the time tended to indicate that anyone who was attracted to women was not considered a viable candidate for transition and surgery.  I did not know that this was not true, and since I had no access to a competent therapist, I had no way of knowing otherwise.  And the worse part is, when I later learned that it was possible to transition and pursue surgery, I discovered I was actually a straight woman.  

But this not what we are talking about here.  We are talking about men, generally facing a mid-life crisis in the forties, fifties, even sixties, who suddenly, after showing no sign if having an issue with their "gender identity" (other than being an adult fetishistic crossdresser) suddenly decide that they are "really a woman," and as pointed out, want to stay married, and be "out, loud, and proud."  In another words, someone like, oh...say, Mr. "Sandeen" or Mr. "Cristan" Williams.  In a lot of cases, the wife has the good sense to say, "No way!," but many are financially dependent on their husbands, or feel bound by moral standards and remain in the marriage.

Now, it is not so much a matter of not understanding, as simply not seeing such a person as having any relationship to transsexualism (other than possibly suffering from the delusion that they actually are transsexual...again, we come back to the part about deception).

It is in the next paragraph where things really go off the tracks....

To a large degree her, and the others just like her, do feel animus. They feel threatened. They feel repulsed at the concept, and the coercion, and the corrupting of the term ‘transsexual’ being co-opted in sameness as transgender. It’s their sincere desire to maintain a ‘purity’ for a term that really never even existed before one prominent Psychiatrist coined it some 60+ years ago. Some of them, Elizabeth included, claim that they were in fact treated by this man. And, they may well have been. I believe they feel it to be their collective duty to protect that term with a vengeance because ‘they’ received his blessing as themselves when no one else would even consider their plight. So they have developed an aggressive desire to protect that label for only those who ascribe to, and are willing to follow the protocol enshrined from his research. In that protocol, Dr. Benjamin felt that ‘blending’ back into a normative lifestyle in the sex you believe (know) yourself to be, and have transitioned to, was paramount to being successful and ‘true’.

This shows the sort of clueless arrogance I was talking about.  First off, it is kind of ironic to have someone who I am sure clings to the term "transgender" like a drowning man grasping at a life preserver, making comments about people trying to defend a clearly defined medical term that many attempt to co-opt.  I mean, seriously, in spite of the attempted lies of Mr. "Cristan" Williams, the fact remains that "transgender" in its current usage only dates from sometime around the mid-Nineties.  The term may have occasionally cropped up prior to that, but it was not at all common.  Worse, there is the snarky comment implying that someone might make a false claim to having been treated by Harry Benjamin, and the rather false claim that we feel "threatened."  I agree, I do feel angry at the attempts to coerce me into accepting a label I do not agree with, but I also believe that Benjamin, and other experts are right that blending in is preferable...for true transsexuals.  For transvestites, like Mr. Sandeen, Mr. Williams, and I would presume "dawn1257," the very idea is anathema.  For them, it is all about being as exhibitionistic as possible.

The clueless arrogance continues...

But, the fallacy as I see it in these ‘separatists’ is that they were from a time when the science behind transsexualism, and other labeled gender variances were scattered, essentially unknown, and uncoordinated in cross-referencing. Today, like so many other physiological human conditions, much more is known -professionally. The ‘knowing’ is a resultant factor of availability of information worldwide. No longer are such issues confined for weeks, months, or even decades buried in obscure manuals, or sheltered from even public awareness.

The problem is not so much that science has advanced, it has and it has shown that the differences between transsexuals and those who might well be labeled as "gender variant" are quite wide, but that political pressure has played a major role in how things are dealt with.  A lot of therapists will now pretty much rubber stamp anyone who claims to be "trans" whatever for hormones, and if they are actually willing to give up their penis, SRS, without any real effort to determine if they are really transsexual.

He then asserts...

This is where activism comes to play. Just because something might be verified clinically as true, that doesn’t always manifest to instant recognition and acceptance of what was once thought solely as a “taboo”, a maligned, and misunderstood condition. Without the foot soldiers (activists) who in many cases are the subjects of these issues themselves, how then is a public who is ever so willing to ‘light the torches and grab the pitchforks’ instead of utilizing calm discussion and reasoned thinking on such issues going to be made known the actual truth?

The real irony here is that a lot of so-called "trans activism" involves trying to lie and make people believe that "transgender" people all are all "transsexuals" and that it is not that they are making a choice to "transgress" gender, even though that is clearly what they are doing.

Then we get to a statement that is truly clueless....

Essentially, these ‘separatists’ are and will remain ineffective in their pursuit. Some of their ‘chosen few’ will follow in their foot traffic and their mean-spirited blogging. Some of those who become transitioned will desire not to be ‘known’ publicly. Some will seek the light of determined ambition to reach out and make a difference positively in whatever manner they can. Some of us will also aid that campaign in more quiet ways, just because we can and not because we are afraid or embarrassed.

Actually, we are far more effective than he realizes.  For example, in spite of the best efforts of the transgender extremists to force us into line, including actually outright lying, we are quite able to maintain our separate identity.  In spite of their shrill claims, most simply do not buy the claim that disagreement with their extremism is hate.  Our pursuit is to blend in and live normal lives, and we do it quite well, even as they try, oh so desperately, to force us to do otherwise.

I'm not sure what this person thinks is the pursuit in which we remain ineffective.  Perhaps like Mr. Sandeen, he imagines us plotting to block their extremism.  In truth, we don't have to make such an effort.  The extremists are self-destructive, and their is a backlash coming.  Our goal is more a matter of avoiding being hurt by that backlash.

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.

Why Do Transgender Kooks Do Such A Lame Job of Lying?

I was about to turn in for the night, and on a hunch, I decided to take a quick look at Mr. "Dana" Taylor's blog, since he spent quite some time trying to harass me in the comment section.  Let's just say, it is quite absurd...

In a post entitled,  Dear Mr. Just Jennifer he says:

You have made me regret posting photos of my breasts and their functions on my site. I get this weird creepy feeling knowing you are paying so much attention to them. Kind of like a pervy man would. I posted the medical aspects of my breast development, not something for you to pant over. Please stop looking at my photos, creep. Thanks.

*puke*

And learn how to read, idiot.
http://danalanetaylor.com/2013/05/04/natural-breast-enhancement/

BTW, a few days ago, after starting high doses of Saw Palmetto, I actually began to lactate. It has since stopped because the herb made my head feel a bit funny. 

So, slowly introducing it now.

Not intentional induction of lactation.

This is what is know as "misdirection."  He assumes that people are too stupid to actually read what he posted in another entry.  Oh, and this references something I didn't do more than glance at.  Sorry Mr. Taylor, but I'm a straight woman.  I'm really not the least bit interested in your breasts, even if they are man boobs.

So, what is he directing attention away from?  What is that makes the above into a complete lie?  What shows who the real "idiot" is here?

This post entitled Quick Update On My Breast Development:

I have increased in size a bit but more noteworthy is that I have begun lactating! This did happen once before but it felt like a fluke. This time I used an electronic dual breast pump designed for expecting milk. The only changes I have made to my program is an increase in Puerana Minfica as well as a couple of days of Doperdomine.

I have removed the rather bizarre picture of his "trophy" milk...

If really just have to see it, follow the link above. 

But why you would, I have no idea. 

Not bad for a crossdresser, eh Mr. Jennifer Usher? Had to throw that dig in. I am done paying attention to the bigot and hate monger.

Now, I was curious.  I had never heard of Doperdomine, so I did a Google search.  Turns out he misspelled it (not that I had heard of the correct version either) and the correct name is 
Domperidone.  This is a drug that is not even approved in the United States.  It would have to be obtained through from another country.

A link on its use to increase lactation.

A link to its entry on Wikipedia.

Notice, both places make it clear, it is taken to increase lactation.  And thehe whole gist of the second blog post is that he "begun lactating!"  And that he got himself an "electronic double breast pump."   And that he thought the first time was just a fluke.  Yeah, sure, he didn't do it "deliberately."  Uh, huh...sure.  I mean, seriously, does he really think he is fooling anyone?  

No, I am not "paying so much attention to them."  I'm not "panting" over them (seriously, this sounds like even more of his autogynephilic fantasies).  No, I am simply pointing out what a complete and creepy pervert he is, and he is trying to scramble and save face.  The smart thing would have been to pull the posts.  Then, if he could have made a desperate attempt to claim they never existed, and hope they are not on the Internet Archive.  But, I guess he is too proud of his little trophy to do that.  So, he pulls this stunt instead.

Oh, and Mr. Taylor, there's your problem right here....it seems I can read quite well.

Oh Good Grief, ANOTHER One....

I swear, there seems to be a never ending stream of examples of the sort of silliness that the transgender extremists are trying to foist on the world....  I just found another one who is blogging on the site of a newspaper in New York State.  In this case, an elderly male has taken to calling himself "Renate" and is out to tell the world how he is really a female.  In another article, he tells about the "birth of his female self."

Too funny....

I mean, all the classic TG stuff is there....

Successful career as a male....check.

Defines being a woman in terms of stereotypical "female" behavior....check.

Waited until he was retired, and then some to start living as a woman, well a caricature of a "woman"...check.

Speaks of his "male self" as having died even though he claims he was always female gendered....check.

Calls himself a lesbian....check.

Thinks his wife should accept it....check.

Says he loves his wife, but clearly not as much as he loves crossdressing....check

Doesn't want to give up his penis.....check.

Almost certainly a lifelong crossdresser, but too old for the sexual part....check.

Thinks that women have penises....check.

Has his own name for his condition....check.

Couldn't want to start telling the world about how he is a "woman with a penis"....check.

As I said, another one....

Perhaps We Should Thank Sandeen

I imagine some of my regular readers, seeing that title, might think I have slipped a cog...  That I might have blown a fuse...  That I might suddenly have taken leave of my senses...  That I might now be a few French fries short of a Happy Meal...  That I might just plain have lost my mind!

But!  There is something we might well thank "Autumn" Sandeen for.  He is, quite frankly, the exception that proves the rule.  That is always an interesting phrase.  It is hard to explain, until an example happens along.  And then one suddenly realizes, "Here is just such an exception."  Of course, that is not completely accurate.  The "exceptions" are not really exceptions, but why quibble over such details.  For example, in Sandeen's case, he is not a transsexual, or a woman.  But he claims to be both.  Worse, he tries to force transsexuals under the "transgender umbrella."  He is a constant source of bad information, and seems to do his best to make transsexuals look as bad as possible.

But, in doing so, he provides us with a unique opportunity.  On very rare occasions I find myself in a debate with someone who is trying to argue that I am "not really a woman."  Such a person is usually approaching this from, to at least some degree, a rather bizarre mix of religious and pseudo-scientific arguments.  That is where someone like Sandeen comes into the picture.

Sandeen is such a bad parody of both a woman, and a transsexual, who claims to be both.  He provides a perfect example of something that can be pointed to and shown as a counterpoint to true transsexualism.  One can offer up Sandeen and say, "Now here is a classic example of what you are accusing me of being, and here, quite frankly, is where Ihe  differ from such a person."  And more to the point, it would be near-impossible to find any meaningful areas where I, or any other true transsexual, has anything in common with Sandeen.  Aside from the relatively superficial argument that we were both "identified as male birth" there really isn't anything else.  In that sense, Sandeen becomes the example of a person who identifies as transgender, but who is lying when he claims to be either a transsexual or a woman.  Clearly, he is neither, and as such is the exception that proves that we are different.  His counter-example provides evidence for our veracity.

Think of it as having a known standard to compare something fake against.  Looked at alone, it might be hard to tell if something is real or not.  If, for example, you don't have a real Rolex, you might be fooled by a good fake.  If it looks well made, if it is heavy enough, and there is nothing obvious to give it away, you might be fooled.  But next to the real thing, the fake becomes more obvious.  This is also true of any number of other things that are often copied.  In isolation, the fake may, or may not, look pretty convincing.  But compared to the real thing, the fake quickly shows it flaws.

Sandeen, I will admit, is pretty obviously flawed.  He is more like a cheap imitation.  No one seeing a video of him flouncing about in an outfit that no real woman his age (or probably any real woman, period) would ever where, acting like a bad caricature of how women act, or in a classic, explaining the virtues of a device that allows women to pee standing, would ever think...well, that might be a real woman.  But put him next to a real woman, and the differences are all the more apparent.

So, perahps, we should thank Sandeen for giving us a strong argument for the veracity of our experiences.

Up To Our Eyeballs in Straw

Well, let's continue examining the latest complete idiocy from Mr. Cristan Williams.  He has rallied to the defense of noted pervert "Colleen" Francis, and as is typical for Mr.  Williams, the straw arguments are coming fast and furiously.

Let's start at the beginning, always a good place to start, and in this case, Mr. Williams pull out a whopper....

It’s happened. The H-BSers, the RadPhlems and the people who DEFENDED Prop 8 have untied as one to proclaim that pre/non-op transwomen as a group are 1.) icky because 2.) they’re actually men, and therefore 3.) a danger to cisgender women.

Ah, so many lies...  and no real arguments (hence the childish name calling and insults).  First off, no one has "untied" nor have we even "united."  Second, where does Mr. Williams get stuff like suggesting that I, or anyone else who supports the HBS paradigm has ever remotely suggested that "pre-op transsexuals" are men (I would never refer to someone as a pre-op transwoman since I find the word "transwomen" to be offensive)?  That is classic straw, a lie imposed on an opponent since it is easier to refute than the truth.  Yes, I consider non-ops to be men.  They are men, born with penises, who want to keep their penises.  How you get "woman" in any sense out of that is, well, beyond me.  Nor have I ever said that all, or even most, men are a threat to women, cisgender or otherwise.  Seriously, what we have here is a classic straw argument.  Not surprising, since this is Mr. Williams typical style.

So, what is the real issue?  That's simple.  Privacy.  Women, real women, whether or not they have a history of transsexualism, have a right to feel secure in women's spaces.  They should not have obvious men forcing themselves into that space, and they certainly should not have to contend with men (i.e. an avowed non-op, or someone who claims to be a pre-op but who lacks the simple ability to empathize with those he claims to be like) forcing their penises on them.

Let's be clear here...there is no real question that "Colleen" Francis was taking steps to ensure that his penis was in full view.  It was not accidental.  He was engaging in exhibitionism, a very male behavior under the circumstances.

Now, I would honestly hope that Mr. Francis is an exception.  I have no reason to believe that  all, or most, or even a significant subset of transgender people are perverts who would, at the first opportunity, flash their penises at young girls.  Of course, Mr. Williams has to suggest that I would, because he knows that the truth is not going to be kind to him.  Mr. Williams takes a very extremist view of so-called "rights" for those who identify as transgender.  In Mr. Williams view, Mr. Francis' fantasies trump reality.  

Let me spell this out.  Mr. Francis, who is attending a college in Washington State, masquerading as a woman (no, I really don't buy his claims), and because some people are so "open-minded" that their brains fell out, got kicked under and cabinet, and have turned to dust, he has been allowed to have more rights than real women.  If he wants to invade the women's locker room, wave his penis around, and upset everyone else, then the college says that is just fine.  Any woman who objects has to use a lesser facility (now, why, if they are actually going to be insane enough to actually pander to this pervert, they can't tell him to use the smaller facility as I strongly suspect he will have it to himself).  This just tickles Mr. Williams pink.  He could care less if women get dumped on, as long as one of his fellow transgender kooks gets special rights.  And yes, in this case, there is no avoiding that this is special rights.

Now, Mr. Williams tries to argue that a "ciswoman's," i.e. a woman's (Mr. Williams lives in a fantasy world where claiming one is a woman automagically makes one a full fledged woman) right to be comfortable in women's space does not trump the right of a man who has some fantasy about dressing up and pretending to be a woman to invade that women's space.  Oh, he words it a bit differently, but that is really what he is arguing.  And this supposed superior right of the transgender man is based on what?  

Let me recap here...  When I was early in my transition, and the time came to face the bathroom issue, I approached it cautiously.  First, I did not even attempt to enter a women's bathroom until I was reasonably sure that my appearance had sufficiently feminized that I would not cause a scene.  Then, I would try to find an out of the way restroom where it was, hopefully, unlikely that I would encounter anyone.  As time went on, and it became more and more obvious that I was not seen as a man, I became more comfortable and did not feel the need to "get in, get out as quickly as possible."  Still, I was always careful to make sure there was not a chance of someone seeing something they should not (not really hard to do) and I would have never have dreamed of entering any area where nudity would be an issue.  

But, the more extreme of the transgender kooks want to be able to walk into women's space no matter who much distress it will cause, and without regard to the feelings of the women using that space.  As I have pointed out before, such attitudes and behavior shows, beyond any doubt, that such a person is not and never will be a woman.

The simple bottom line is this...unless someone is a transsexual, and is in the process of the RLT (or at least preparing for it) they really should not enter women's spaces, including the restroom.  If you are a crossdresser, engaged in your hobby, which includes so-called "non-ops" then you really have no moral claim to use of the women's room.  Yes, you can possibly get away with it, and under such circumstances, you have little to actually worry about, but that does not, and will never make it right.

Now, I would be remiss if I did not mention yet another straw man argument that Mr. WIlliams makes.  And this one is another whopper:

There is a real difference between a transwomen going into a private area to change, pee, etc. and some sick f***-up of any flavor (cis or trans) walking into a room to parade their genitalia around.  If a cisgender woman goes into the locker room and exposes herself, then there’s laws to deal with her behavior. Claiming that those laws somehow magically evaporate if the person is trans instead of cis is a bigoted lie and those who propagate that lie should be called out at every turn.

 Now, aside from the fact that this comment actually makes little actual sense since using a locker room for a woman (Mr. William goes out of his way to try to avoid this issue...to him a man with a penis who calls himself a woman is just as much of a woman someone born female) would very possible involve acceptance of nudity, especially one like Mr. Francis invaded that features a sauna and hot tubs, which is hardly "exposing oneself" when an actual woman does it.  Now, maybe he means if a woman enters a men's locker to "expose" herself.  Seriously, I don't think I have ever heard of a woman "exposing" herself to another woman in this manner.  I did have the experience once of having a neighbor pull down her pants to show me a skin rash and ask my opinion.  She did it rather suddenly, and without asking if I minded.  Of course, she did not know I was pre-op or anything other than just another woman,  And when I worked at a department store selling lingerie, I had a few women who asked my opinion of how something it, but again, I guess we have to keep in mind, Mr. WIlliams has no way of understanding actual women's behavior, including being relatively comfortable with seeing other women nude.  Women don't have the homophobic hang-ups that men do, nor are they generally turned on by the sight of other women's nudity. Men are very visually oriented in their sexuality, women are not.  But as I say, Mr, Williams would have no experience of this.

Now, all that said, let's examine the real falsehood in his statement.  Mr. Francis invaded women's space, demanding the right to use a women's locker room, and to be their nude, in spite of the fact that women would be present, and would be forced to see his penis....which he has made clear he plans to keep.  It has been shown, by testimony as to his behavior, recorded in a campus police report, that he positioned himself in such a manner as to make his penis very obvious.  When complaints were made, Mr. Williams suggested that the teenage girls needed to be educated about "trans women," and the women were told, by the college that Mr. Francis' rights were superior to theirs and that they could use a smaller facility.  To repeat, the pervert deliberately exposes himself, women rightfully complain, and are told they have no right to do so.  So, what Mr. Williams claims is provably false, across the board.  The laws have evaporated, which is actually what Mr. Williams actually demands.  After all, in Mr. William's mind Mr. Francis is a full-fledged woman, penis and all.  I fear Mr. Williams is the one propagating a lie.  But again, this is not unusual for Mr. Williams, who has a long history of making up facts that only he seems privy to.

It should also be pointed out that a classic tactic in some circles is to someone, falsely, of being a bigot, in the hopes that it will intimidate their into silence.  This is not unlike what is referenced by Godwin's Law, which specifically relates to the use of the term "Nazi."  But, as I pointed out, by accusing those who disagree with him of being "Klan," Mr. Williams has, effectively, violated Godwin's Law, and has lost the argument on that basis.  Not, I might add, that he has any real arguments to begin with.  The whole thing is quite ludicrous.

Of course, kooks like Mr. Williams don't believe in "morals" and such.  They have no concern other than their own pleasure and such.  They don't care who is upset, or even harmed.  It is really all about them, and those they consider to be superior to women.  And when they don't get their way, including blind acceptance, they resort to silliness like claiming those who disagree with them are aligned with the Klan.  Of course, ultimately, their "argument" simply shows the fact that they really have no argument.  Just a big old pile of straw men that they engage in ripping to shreds, while crowing like a rooster and claiming victory.

It's Really Very Simple...

Much sound and fury has been expended over Roseanne Barr's remarks about transgender men (sorry boys, but I am not going to call you women) going into women's spaces.  Now, Barr, who I still think of as being a few French fries short of a Happy Meal, no doubt, quite ignorantly include transsexual women under her remarks, but this is an issue that is bigger than just Roseanne (and yes, that would be huge).  

Jillian Page, a post-op in Canada had this to say on the issue:

I think I wasn’t upset by her comments because I have had sexualreassignment surgery, and have reconciled that part of my body with myheart and my brain. But if I had not had the surgery yet and foundmyself facing the same problems so many pre-op and non-op trans peopleface over the washroom issue, perhaps I, too, would have takenRoseanne to task for her somewhat careless, off-the-cuff comments, forwhich she apologized.

Now, there is a problem here, and I have to wonder if Page really has thought this through.  Page, I realize is pretty much swilling down the transgender Kool-Aid, but there is something here that needs to be confronted.

It is really, very, very simple.  If you call yourself a pre-op, and you cannot comprehend that the obvious presence of your penis in a place like the women's room, or a locker room, might be upsetting to women, then...STAY OUT!!!!  Put another way, if you think you have some absolute right to be in the women's room, even though you are a pre-op, if you think that women should not be upset having your penis exposed in a dressing room, if you think you have a right to enter women's spaces, even though you not corrected your body, let me be clear...YOU DON'T!!!

Just to be completely clear here, if you have these sort of attitudes, if you cannot comprehend how women might feel about your penis, if you think they should "just get over it," well, YOU ARE NOT, AND YOU NEVER WILL BE, A WOMAN!!!!!  YOU ARE A MAN!!!  GOT THAT?  A MAN!!!!  NO AMOUNT OF HORMONES, SURGERY, OR FANTASY, WILL EVER CHANGE THAT.  SO STAY OUT OF WOMEN'S SPACES.  WE DON'T WANT YOU, YOU ARE NOT WELCOME!!!!!

As to crossdressers, non-ops, and such, well...you really shouldn't even be considering being in the women's room.    Sure, man that you are, you will force your way in.  You have no shame, and are not really that much different in attitude or behavior from a rapist.  It is all just a matter of degree.

When I was pre-op, I was always aware that, in a sense, I was an interloper.  I appreciated that I was accepted into the company of woman, albeit without their knowledge of my past in most cases.  I was always very sensitive to any uneasiness on the part of a female friend who knew my situation, under such circumstances.  And the idea of being in a situation where my privates would be exposed made me close to physically ill.

But now, more and more, the transgender extremists think that women are supposed to "just get over it."  They really don't realize just how digesting they are.  What they are doing is simply proving that Janice Raymond was right to a degree.  It was just that she didn't understand certain nuances, and perhaps, didn't care.

If He Would Stop Lying, Perhaps Mr. Sandeen Would Feel Better

"Autumn" Sandeen, the Eunuch Who Would Be Queen, is again whining about his mental illness and how down he has been lately.  Ironically, the answer is right there, staring him in the face, practically slapping him silly trying to get his attention, but he keeps ignoring it.

He is depressed because he is trying to be something he is not, and deep down, he knows it.

Sandeen is the classic crossdresser who gets bored and tries to become a transsexual so he can keep the thrills going.  The classic example of this was Renee Richards, who tries, desperately, to deny that he made a mistake, even though it is clear that he did, and that he knows it.  I have suggested to several therapists that they read Richards' book to better understand what should be red flags indicating that a person should not be considered for SRS.  Such an intervention might have helped Sandeen who shows much the same sort of history as Richards.

Sandeen says:

On a certain level, it feels like I’m internally fighting for my survival as a woman because of external efforts to define me as a man. And internally for me, this is at the intersection of being a trans woman and being disabled due to mental illness.

Of course, Sandeen is not a woman in any sense of the word.  He is a male-gendered, male bodied person who is trying to rebel against gender norms.  He cannot change his brain, which is clearly and immutably male.  He has not remotely changed his body to be female (though that would just make him what would effectively be a sort of pseudo-FTM.  We have more than a few of those already.

Like most men, Sandeen refuses to admit to error.  He has chose this path, and he intends to stubbornly see it through.  I suspect his castration was motivated by a desire to prove that he was man enough to become a woman, making a sacrifice that would upset a lesser man too much.  

Sandeen cannot "survive" as a woman, since he isn't a woman to begin with.  He cannot be what he is not.  And deep down, he really does not want to be.  He wants to be a "gender rebel," like "Kate" Bornstein, another highly disturbed individual who mistakenly thought surgery was the answer to his demons.

Those external efforts that Sandeen complains about are called reality.  He has a penis.  He is a man.  End of story.  He has attempted what is, effectively, a legal fraud and he committed perjury to accomplish this.  He basically lied and claimed to have changed his sex, when he has not.  When he is careful, he speaks of "legally changing his gender," which is an absurd idea.  

First off, according to the way that Sandeen would normally define the word, it is neither a legal concept, or subject to change.  If one could change one's gender, transsexuals would be treated mentally, rather than physically.  There would be no basis for sex reassignment surgery.  We would simply have our "gender" changed to match our bodies.  

Gender, we are told, is what is between our ears, sex is what is between our legs.  In the case of a true or classic transsexual, the gender is truly different from the sex.  In Sandeen's case, the gender and the sex are the same, and the issue is one of transgression.  Sandeen is rebelling against what he really is, choosing to become, in effect, a "man in a dress."  He wants the world to know he is a man, but he wants to force the world to call him a woman.  It is a control issue, which of course, is typically male.

The simple fact is, Sandeen is lying, and he knows he is lying.  He knows he is not really a woman, and that he never will be one.  He doesn't really want to be one, but he wants to force society to accept him as one.  The reality of his situation is ever with him.  He whines, he complains, he accuses others of intolerance when they will not pander to his lies, but he knows he will never really change things to his warped concept of reality.  And that makes him depressed.

Perhaps if he simply accepted reality, and stopped trying to deny it, he might feel better.  He has been able to fraudulently obtain a court document that says he is female, but he is not female.  He is now applying to change his birth certificate to reflect this fraud.  He has tried to tell himself that this will make it all better.  But he knows the truth.  He will continue to be a man, and nothing will ever change that.  Better that he accept his, and be happy being a "gender rebel," than trying to force people to pander to his demands.  It simply is never going to happen.  He may force clerks to put on a false smile, and say "Ma'am" to him, but he knows when his back is turned, they are snickering and saying, "Whoa, it's a dude..."  And that is why he is so depressed.

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.