"You can't handle the truth!"

When I saw that the Toronto Star had, unsurprisingly, confirmed the likely veracity of the incident involving a naked (and quite erect) transgender man harassing a woman in a YMCA locker room, I wondered how Mr. "Cristan" Williams would react.  After all, Mr. Williams has frantically tried to deny that the story happened, labeling it as a lie, a hoax, etc.  Oh, he had to admit, somewhat reluctantly, that there was a possibility that the story was true, but even then he buried it under so many "weasel" words, it could easily be missed…

The Toronto Star has published this claim – without noting that the claim is a hoax, or at the very least is an anonymous and unverified claim – twice now. 

This is actually a repeat of what is said in an earlier paragraph that referred, quite contradictorily, to the entire story as a HOAX, in a story that repeatedly used the term "hoax" to refer to the entire claim.

Of course, this came after I pointed out that Mr. Williams had no real basis to show that the story was actually false, and was simply making them claim without any real basis.  Now, it turns out that the Toronto Star has been able to contact the author…that the YMCA has admitted receiving complaints…and that, it is much more likely that the story is true.

So, how has Mr. Williams reacted?  Has he admitted his error?  Has he admitted engaging in what basically amounts to a cover-up?  Has he faced reality, and dealt with the very real likelihood that a transgender male was parading around a Toronto YMCA, with a full erection, harassing females?

Are you kidding?  Of course NOT!

To use his own words, he has "doubled down" on his attempted cover-up.  

Of course, Mr. Williams, along with his comrade in lies, Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen, know that the truth is not their friend.  They have to hide the truth.  They have to perpetuate the illusion that "transgender people" never act in improper ways.  Because, quite frankly…

They can't handle the truth!!!!

We Don't Want Special Rights….Except When We Want Special Rights

I've been wondering when one of the extremist transgender bloggers would take on the case of the transgender boy at a Bay Area high school who got himself in trouble for attacking a group of girls he claims were bullying him.  Of course, Mr. "Cristan" Williams decided to weigh in, and as might be expected, he is demanding "special rights" for this fellow….

The case is really a simple one.  A student, who claims to be a "girl" but who is male, and who is well known in his high school, claims he was bullied by female students for years.  (And here we have been led to believe that female students have no problems with boys invading the girl's room in school…whoops.)  The boy, who calls himself "Jewlyes" Gutierrez, physically assaulted the girls, leading to a rather nasty altercation that was caught on someone's cell phone.  And because Gutierrez decided to use violence in response to verbal harassment, he was charged with battery.

Those are the simple facts.  A male student, who claims to be transgender, is verbally harassed, and uses physical violence against the female students who object to his presence in their bathroom.  Pretty simple.  Now, of course, in the eyes of the extremist transgender crowd, the girls have no rights, and Gutierrez has all the rights.  He gets to force himself on them, and when they react, he gets to use violence to "correct" them.

But, he cry will go up, "No, we don't want special rights!  We just want to be treated like everyone else…."  But when push comes to shove, no, they want special rights.  When they are treated like everyone else, they cry foul.

No one should be bullied, but being bullied does not justify violence.  That is the real issue here.  A male (sorry, but he is) physically attacks females who are calling him names.  Sorry, but no, that is not excusable.  If he was defending himself from a physical assault, it would be different.  But they were not hitting him.  He is the one who resorted to violence.  And he was a male, hitting a female.  Reality may not suit the transgender extremists, but it is past time for them to be brought face to face with it.

Let's Be Honest, Folks....

As I have pointed out, several times, there has been a lot said about the case of the transgender male in a Colorado high school who has been accused of harassing female students.  Much has been made about how "inaccurate" the news stories were.  I disagree.  I think they raised valid points, and that the reaction from the transgender extremists simply illustrates the true nature of the problem.

The Pacific Justice Institute issued a statement in which they said, "a trans person in the restroom is 'inherently intimidating and harassing.'"  I think that statement, as written, is somewhat flawed.  First off, the words "trans person" are very vague.  I imagine they might well, for example, include me in that, and yet, I use the restroom regularly without intimidating or harassing anyone.  Further, I do not identify as a "trans person."

And, some who might properly be identified as a "trans person" and who might self-identify as such would also be able to use the restroom without being "intimidating and harassing."  But, I would completely agree if it were reworded as, "a trans person in the restroom can be inherently intimidating and harassing."  

What would make a difference? Why is this true in a case like the one in Colorado, but not, perhaps in other cases?  The answer is simple.  In the case in Colorado, there has been no real attempt on the part of the student to assimilate as a female.  He is, as they say, "out, loud, and proud."  This is a continuing problem with the transgender extremists.  They not only are out, they make sure everyone knows their history.  They don't attempt to fit in as women...they force their situation in everyone's face.

And that is how some, like Mr. "Cristan" Williams, Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen," Mr. "Dana" Taylor and others want it.  They not only don't care that they are making women uncomfortable, they seem to take delight in it.  And this is just wrong.

When I transitioned, I went to great lengths to make sure that I was not causing a problem in using the women's room.  The thought never occurred to me to see it as an inherent right.  If I had not been able to assimilate, I am not sure what I would have done.  But, I seriously doubt  I would have been able to continue my transition.

Now, we have kooks like Mr. Williams and Mr. Sandeen who go out of their way to not assimilate.  They seem to treasure the shock value of being known as "transgender."  It is the focus of their sad little lives, and if that makes women uncomfortable, they are all the happier, claiming it as some sort of "teaching moment."

I believe it is time for a return to sanity in this area.  If someone is not going to make an effort to actually assimilate as a woman, then they should stay out of women's spaces.  If you have not had surgery, then you should not be in a place where a woman might see you nude.  And if you are told you are making women uncomfortable, then you should take corrective steps to prevent this.  Otherwise....well, you are just acting like man, and a rather nasty one at that.

The Truth Begins to Slip Out, and It is NOT Pretty

Well, the invasion of the women's room by the boys in dresses continues.  And the more it drags on, the clearer it becomes just how disturbing the transgender kooks real agenda is.  The official party line remains, "We just want to go in, do our business, and get out..." while the truth is, "We just want to force ourselves on women..."  Yes, there, I said it, and I stand by it.  A couple of items that have come out prove this.

Two men in dresses...

First off, there is the leader of the attempt to undermine our national defense by forcing the military to deal with transgender fellows wanting to be "female" soldiers (and presumably be assigned to women's units and be allowed to crossdress like Mr. Sandeen loves to), "Allyson" Robinson (seen here with Mr. Sandeen, himself...imagine having this pair in the ladies room with you. Mr. Robinson, who is one of those straight male crossdressers who had a long career as a man, before deciding he wants to pretend to be a girl full time (and who certainly looks like a guy in a dress) decided to "count coup" in the women's room in the Phoenix airport. He left this note, to make sure that the women knew that their privacy had been violated. So much, for "we just want to pee in private. No, they want to invade the women's room, make sure that the women know that men are in there, and in case anyone missed it, rub their noses in it.

But it get's worse. In Arizona, State Rep. John Kavanagh, the author of the so-called "Papers to Pee" bill, spoke up in defense of his actions. He explained, not unreasonably, that he was not so much concerned with men in women's bathrooms, but was instead concerned with locations like locker rooms and showers, where there is a greater expectation of privacy, and as the law here in San Francisco puts it, there is a possibility of "inevitable nudity."  In another words, here in San Francisco, you cannot force women to take showers with pre-op transsexuals (something which any pre-op transsexual would have a problem with anyway), or more to the point "non-op transgender people."  In another words, no penises in the women's shower.  If a place does not have private shower stalls, then transgender people have to be given a specific time they can use the shower, or an alternative location.  The same goes for areas like dressing rooms without individual stalls, or spas and such.  A quite reasonable approach, and one set up with the input of "transgender people."

But this is increasingly unacceptable to the transgender extremist kooks.  For example, there is this bit of drivel from ThinkProgress:

Consider the lived experience of the transgender woman, who identifies, presents, and lives as a woman in every aspect of her life. She may have undergone hormone therapy, electrolysis/laser hair removal, and other procedures to bring her body and gender into alignment, but she may have elected not to undergo surgery on her genitals — a costly, invasive procedure that would likely permanently sterilize her, depriving her of her reproductive rights. If she were to enter a men’s restroom or locker room, she would look entirely out of place, and as Signorile pointed out, would face a heightened risk for violence and harassment. The women’s room is the correct room for her to use. According to Kavanagh, however, the mere fact that she might still happen to have a penis that another girl in the locker room might just happen to see is such a safety risk to the girl that discrimination against all trans people is thus justified. It’s absurd, belittling, and just plain bigoted.

Now, clearly the person described here does not live as a "woman" in every aspect of his life.  She still has a penis.  Women don't willingly have penises.  If he elects to forego having it removed, he is indicating, without question, that he is a man.  Now, this person has NO business in any area that is for women only, especially if nudity is likely.  He has no business being there to see women, or to be seen by women.  As I have pointed out, if I encountered such a person in such an area, I would take action involving pepper spray...in the face, and then in the crotch.  I think he would get the message.

And if there is any question that they think it is perfectly acceptable for a man, who claims to be a female, but who has, and wants to keep his penis (a true transsexual would avoid such a situation at all costs) then this quote from the same article makes it clear how they view the matter:

It’s absurd to conclude that all girls would experience psychological harm by simply seeing another person’s body, and such an assertion suggests that trans people’s bodies are somehow dangerous to others.

So, there you have it.  If you are a woman, who does not want to see a man's penis in the locker room or shower...or a parent who does not want your daughter exposed to such a sight, then you are a bigot.  Still don't get that?  They make that completely clear:

Kavanagh tried to obfuscate responsibility for his position by referring to a case at Evergreen College where a trans woman’s use of the locker room raised concern with a young girl’s family. He neglected to mention that it’s the very anti-LGBT Alliance Defending Freedom that is responsible for raising the controversy in the first place.

Whether one agrees with the Alliance Defending Freedom, or not, does not change the fact that the pervert "Colleen" Francis was exposing himself to young girls at the college.  But hey, its okay because a group that is "anti-LGBT" objected.

Ethics and Late Transition

The New York Times Magazine has a column called The Ethicist and he was asked the question "Should I Become a Woman and Risk Causing Pain to My Wife and Children?"  His response was very reasonable.  He said:

So the question you really need to ask yourself is this: Is your psychological damage from gender dysphoria greater than the psychological damage that its restoration will inflict upon the lives of any (or all) of your children? If the answer is yes, proceed. If the answer is no, don’t do it. Your sadness is tragic, but at least it’s confined to yourself. This advice might seem reactionary, but it’s not a position on whether transitioning is ethical in and of itself. There’s no inherent ethical problem with that decision. It’s about the possibility of improving one life at a greater cost to three others who might lack the intellectual and emotional maturity to comprehend what’s really happening.

Of course, this will not sit well with the transgender extremists who will insist that he should transition without regrets or apologies.  At least a couple have already objected to the advice given., here and here.

But, the columnist raises some good points.  This person has a happy married life, and a satisfying career.  This is not a person who has been tormented all of his life by gender issues.  It is almost certainly yet another aging crossdresser who wants to increase the thrills.  

I made my second, and final major transition a bit later in life.  My first ended because of stress over issues that were not directly related to transition.  My life improved greatly, and I maintain a good relationship with my ex and my child.  But they understood my need.  It was not easy for them, and there were periods of strain, and there are still occasional issues, but they do understand that it helped me.

Sadly, this is not always the case, but the kooks keep pushing people to move forward.