Sometimes the transgender extremists come up with some pretty silly stuff. The latest is the complaint that "transgender" voters will be disenfranchised by voter ID laws. That is truly absurd.
Personally, given the high degree of voter fraud in some states, I think photo ID laws are a good thing. I live in San Francisco, where there were considerable complaints about possible fraud in the most recent election where a candidate backed by the "moderate" (i.e. right wing) faction may have received fraudulent votes in Chinatown. Of course, since the moderate faction also controls the DA's office, no one is really expecting much to be done about this.
The transgender extremists are whining that it is difficult for them to obtain IDs that match their "gender identity." This is ridiculous. Yes, some states will not change the sex marker (the TG kooks want to call it a gender marker) on a license until after surgery. So what? Is it not better to have a license that reflects one's legal name and has a recent photo while in transition? Oh wait, we are talking transgender, not transsexuals. They often want to play around. They don't necessarily want to commit to one identity, or the other.
In truth, this has nothing to do with transgender people being denied the right to vote (they should either get their ID updated, or present in a manner consistent with their ID) and everything to do with transgender extremists trying to create an issue where none really exists in order to support those who wish to insure that voter fraud is easily committed.
Sad, but not surprising.
Showing posts with label driver's license. Show all posts
Showing posts with label driver's license. Show all posts
Monday, April 16, 2012
Monday, January 23, 2012
Enforcement? No Problem...
"Autumn" Sandeen, the king of the boys in the women's room, has already posted another post on the "bathroom issue." This time, he is trying to argue that it would be too hard to enforce keeping men out of the women's room, so women should just put up with being overrun by men.
HOGWASH!
No one is suggesting guards at the bathroom door. The answer to enforcement is simple. If someone complains, someone responds. That is how it has always worked. In fact, that is exactly where Sandeen's argument falls apart. He is approaching this as though keeping men out of the women's room is some new idea, or as though there is going to be some sudden increase in enforcement. The answer is simple, we keep doing what we already do. For example, if a woman encounters an obvious man in the women's room, she goes and finds someone, perhaps a store employee, a security guard, a manager, etc., and complains. That person takes the appropriate course of action. Problem solved.
Yes, in extremely rare cases, some very butch lesbians may be viewed as men. Of course, we have to keep in mind, they have most likely chosen to make themselves appear to be men, so they have to take responsibility for their choices.
Mr. Sandeen also raises the straw trans man argument. That is, he raises the straw argument of "what about trans men?" If someone has been on testosterone long enough, then they should simply use the men's room. End of discussion. They look like men, sound like me, etc. They should be in the men's room. Just like those men who look like men, sound like men, even though they happen to be wearing a dress. It is a smoke screen, and a false argument.
Intersex individuals are also a false argument on the part of Sandeen. First off, most intersex people identify as one sex or the other. And most intersex people usually are credible as one sex or the other, almost always the one they identify as. So, another false argument. Mr. Sandeen is grasping at straws.
And no one is suggesting underwear checks. Another false argument by Sandeen, who certainly would not pass such a thing.
No, again, the answer is simple. If someone complains, the offending person can be approached by security. They can discretely discuss the matter with the person, explaining that a complaint has been made. If the person agrees to refrain from behavior in the future, the matter can be settled. If the person is a repeat offender, become belligerent, or refuses to cooperate, then they can be arrested on appropriate charges, and/or banned from the property. Having worked retail, I am quite familiar with store policies where shoplifters are served with papers banning them from entering the store for an extended period of time. The same can be done for men in the women's room.
Finally, Sandeen raises the ID issue. Again, the answer is simple. The rules about changing gender markers on licenses should be tightened. The law was originally intended to help those actually transitioning from male to female. Anyone who is not actually going through an RLT, and who is not actively surgery tracked, should have their license reverted to their birth sex. And if someone makes a false claim that they are surgery tracked, after a certain period of time without showing clear progress towards surgery, they should have their license reverted. They could continue to have their legal name, and current photo, but the sex marker would revert to the birth sex. And in the future, they would not be allowed to change it until after surgery is performed. The period could be reasonable, say 10 years, but that would be it. No SRS, and your license reverts.
HOGWASH!
No one is suggesting guards at the bathroom door. The answer to enforcement is simple. If someone complains, someone responds. That is how it has always worked. In fact, that is exactly where Sandeen's argument falls apart. He is approaching this as though keeping men out of the women's room is some new idea, or as though there is going to be some sudden increase in enforcement. The answer is simple, we keep doing what we already do. For example, if a woman encounters an obvious man in the women's room, she goes and finds someone, perhaps a store employee, a security guard, a manager, etc., and complains. That person takes the appropriate course of action. Problem solved.
Yes, in extremely rare cases, some very butch lesbians may be viewed as men. Of course, we have to keep in mind, they have most likely chosen to make themselves appear to be men, so they have to take responsibility for their choices.
Mr. Sandeen also raises the straw trans man argument. That is, he raises the straw argument of "what about trans men?" If someone has been on testosterone long enough, then they should simply use the men's room. End of discussion. They look like men, sound like me, etc. They should be in the men's room. Just like those men who look like men, sound like men, even though they happen to be wearing a dress. It is a smoke screen, and a false argument.
Intersex individuals are also a false argument on the part of Sandeen. First off, most intersex people identify as one sex or the other. And most intersex people usually are credible as one sex or the other, almost always the one they identify as. So, another false argument. Mr. Sandeen is grasping at straws.
And no one is suggesting underwear checks. Another false argument by Sandeen, who certainly would not pass such a thing.
No, again, the answer is simple. If someone complains, the offending person can be approached by security. They can discretely discuss the matter with the person, explaining that a complaint has been made. If the person agrees to refrain from behavior in the future, the matter can be settled. If the person is a repeat offender, become belligerent, or refuses to cooperate, then they can be arrested on appropriate charges, and/or banned from the property. Having worked retail, I am quite familiar with store policies where shoplifters are served with papers banning them from entering the store for an extended period of time. The same can be done for men in the women's room.
Finally, Sandeen raises the ID issue. Again, the answer is simple. The rules about changing gender markers on licenses should be tightened. The law was originally intended to help those actually transitioning from male to female. Anyone who is not actually going through an RLT, and who is not actively surgery tracked, should have their license reverted to their birth sex. And if someone makes a false claim that they are surgery tracked, after a certain period of time without showing clear progress towards surgery, they should have their license reverted. They could continue to have their legal name, and current photo, but the sex marker would revert to the birth sex. And in the future, they would not be allowed to change it until after surgery is performed. The period could be reasonable, say 10 years, but that would be it. No SRS, and your license reverts.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
It Is Really Very Simple...
Females don't have penises.
Of course, the transgender extremists don't like this. They think women have penises. Two examples of this have cropped up recently. First, "Autumn" Sandeen is upset that the Veterans Administration will not change his "gender" marker to indicate that he is a female. They want him to prove he has had a sex change, which of course he hasn't. Mr. Sandeen claims he is pre-op transsexual. More likely, he is a member of the "They Will Take My Penis When They Pry It From My Cold Dead Fingers" Club. He somehow never seems to progress towards surgery. He has suggested that he "might" have it when the VA will pay for it, but clearly he is not that interested.
Another example of this silliness comes from Alaska where the ACLU has decided to claim that not issuing a license to a transgender person who has not had surgery is unconstitutional. I have no idea where in the constitution it says that males, with penises, have a right to be labeled as females, but apparently they think it does.
Now, in both of these cases, what is being requested is, in some locations, granted as a courtesy for those seriously pursuing sex reassignment surgery. Well, at least that is the theory. But Alaska is not one of those states. Like several others, it only changes licenses when surgery is complete.
If a state wishes to allow pre-op, surgery tracked classic transsexuals the right to change their licenses to facilitate their Real Life Test, they have my full support. But that is not enough for the transgender extremists. They will not be happy until society accepts that women have penises. And that is just not right.
Of course, the transgender extremists don't like this. They think women have penises. Two examples of this have cropped up recently. First, "Autumn" Sandeen is upset that the Veterans Administration will not change his "gender" marker to indicate that he is a female. They want him to prove he has had a sex change, which of course he hasn't. Mr. Sandeen claims he is pre-op transsexual. More likely, he is a member of the "They Will Take My Penis When They Pry It From My Cold Dead Fingers" Club. He somehow never seems to progress towards surgery. He has suggested that he "might" have it when the VA will pay for it, but clearly he is not that interested.
Another example of this silliness comes from Alaska where the ACLU has decided to claim that not issuing a license to a transgender person who has not had surgery is unconstitutional. I have no idea where in the constitution it says that males, with penises, have a right to be labeled as females, but apparently they think it does.
Now, in both of these cases, what is being requested is, in some locations, granted as a courtesy for those seriously pursuing sex reassignment surgery. Well, at least that is the theory. But Alaska is not one of those states. Like several others, it only changes licenses when surgery is complete.
Jillian T. Weiss who has become the house transgender at the Bilerico Project had this to say:
Of course, there are many types of sex reassignment surgery, and "complete" is a relative term.Actually, no, There are really only two primary kinds of sex reassignment surgery...male to female, and female to male. Now, in the context of this article, the above statement is even more clueless. It might be arguable that if it were a female to male that "complete" is a relative term, but for a male to female, complete means you no longer have a penis, and testicle, and you now have a vagina. End of discussion. It does not mean you have only had an orchidectomy, or breast augmentation surgery, or facial feminization surgery. You have a penis, you are still a male.
If a state wishes to allow pre-op, surgery tracked classic transsexuals the right to change their licenses to facilitate their Real Life Test, they have my full support. But that is not enough for the transgender extremists. They will not be happy until society accepts that women have penises. And that is just not right.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
The Latest TG Insanity in Texas
Let me start off by saying that I have nothing against same-sex marriage and that this is not the issue here.
Since Littleton v. Prange, the Texas case that invalidated a post-op transsexual woman's marriage because the court rule that she was still a male, TGs have occasionally pulled a very silly stunt in Texas.
Post-ops, who identify as lesbian, have applied for marriage licenses on the grounds that they are still, in the eyes of Texas law, still men. The latest such case has become publicized. Anne Bernal, who is the County Attorney of El Paso County, Anne Bernal, has requested an opinion from Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott as to whether the county can issue a marriage license to a couple where a woman wishes to marry a post-op transsexual who was born a man. The transsexual's original New York birth certificate still says male, but a new certified birth certificate issued in Washington State, and the driver's license, say female.
Now, I don't know any details about this person that would allow me to evaluate whether they are a classic or true transsexual. There are claims of intersex, which are often highly questionable.
Now, there are couple of issue complicating this case:
If the couple is allowed to marry, it furthers the claim in Texas that sex reassignment surgery is invalid. It can then be used as evidence that post-op transsexual woman are still "really men." Of course, this is fine with transgender extremists who often push the idea that surgery is unnecessary.
Since Littleton v. Prange, the Texas case that invalidated a post-op transsexual woman's marriage because the court rule that she was still a male, TGs have occasionally pulled a very silly stunt in Texas.
Post-ops, who identify as lesbian, have applied for marriage licenses on the grounds that they are still, in the eyes of Texas law, still men. The latest such case has become publicized. Anne Bernal, who is the County Attorney of El Paso County, Anne Bernal, has requested an opinion from Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott as to whether the county can issue a marriage license to a couple where a woman wishes to marry a post-op transsexual who was born a man. The transsexual's original New York birth certificate still says male, but a new certified birth certificate issued in Washington State, and the driver's license, say female.
Now, I don't know any details about this person that would allow me to evaluate whether they are a classic or true transsexual. There are claims of intersex, which are often highly questionable.
Now, there are couple of issue complicating this case:
- First off, in 2009, the Texas legislature passed a law which states that a certified birth certificate suffices to establish sex.
- Should the Washington State birth certificate be viewed as valid since that is not the state where this person was born?
If the couple is allowed to marry, it furthers the claim in Texas that sex reassignment surgery is invalid. It can then be used as evidence that post-op transsexual woman are still "really men." Of course, this is fine with transgender extremists who often push the idea that surgery is unnecessary.
UPDATE
I found out, right after posting this story, that the couple were married in San Antonio, TX. So, yet another alleged transsexual in Texas has legally claimed to be a male, even though the person is post-op. This sort of thing betrays all true transsexuals and should certainly not be seen as any sort of victory. Of course, the transgender kooks will almost certainly disagree.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Hoist By One's Own Petard
Danielle Pauline Severson, born Dana Paul Severson who claims to be a pre-op transsexual has a problem. Severson wants to get married....to a woman. But, Severson has a California driver's license that says "female." So, when Severson went to get a license in Reno, Nevada the clerk said "No, we don't allow same-sex marriages." Now, obviously, the authorities in Nevada were mistaken. Severson is still a male. But since the license says female, and Severson appeared to be a female, they said no. So, Severson and partner had to go to California where Severson was able to get a license as a male.
Now, I have no problem with same sex marriage. I have several gay and lesbian friends who are legally married, having tied the knot before Prop. 8 was passed. But, I do have a problem with transgender people wanting to have their cake and eat it too. If you claim to be a woman, and you want society to accept you as a woman, then you should be ready to play by the rules that apply to being a woman.
I find it absolutely hilarious that someone wants to be treated like a woman, until it become inconvenient. This reminds me of the outrageous behavior of a certain Texas lawyer who invited post-op lesbians to come and marry their partners (provided they were born female) after the Littleton case. Phillip "Phyllis" Frye loves to pull such stunts, even though the net effect is to simply make things worse.
So, once again we see someone who wants it both ways.
Truly sad.
Now, I have no problem with same sex marriage. I have several gay and lesbian friends who are legally married, having tied the knot before Prop. 8 was passed. But, I do have a problem with transgender people wanting to have their cake and eat it too. If you claim to be a woman, and you want society to accept you as a woman, then you should be ready to play by the rules that apply to being a woman.
I find it absolutely hilarious that someone wants to be treated like a woman, until it become inconvenient. This reminds me of the outrageous behavior of a certain Texas lawyer who invited post-op lesbians to come and marry their partners (provided they were born female) after the Littleton case. Phillip "Phyllis" Frye loves to pull such stunts, even though the net effect is to simply make things worse.
So, once again we see someone who wants it both ways.
Truly sad.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
