A "Legal" Fiction

Let me start off by saying that I have no objections to same-sex marriage.  I have friends who are married to members of the same-sex, and I was even the photographer at one such wedding.  


But, the law is the law, and "Autumn" Sandeen, who has taken advantage of a loophole in California law to perpetuate what is, effectively, a fraud, is making a claim that is, at best, untested, and is probably a complete load of crap.  Sandeen, who is now claiming to be "legally female" claims that he can enter into a "heterosexual" marriage with a man.  First off, either Sandeen has gone completely delusional, is completely ignorant, or is just plain dishonest.  If Sandeen was able to find some poor fool willing to marry him, it would not be a heterosexual marriage (Sandeen still has a penis, and two people with penises do not a heterosexual couple make.) and I honestly wonder, if such a marriage occurred, if it would be remotely legal in California, or any other state that currently does not recognize same-sex marriages.


I mean seriously, does Sandeen really think a piece of paper changes anything?  If he died, I seriously doubt his death certificate would record him as a female.  If he is arrested, his piece of paper is not going get him a bunk in a women's prison.  He is still a male, no matter what him, his delusions, or a judge in San Diego might say.  And no, his piece of paper is not going to get him admission to women's only space.  


Nope, Sandeen is still a male, and he is still a man.  Even if he decides, at some future point, to go further and have full SRS, he will still be a man.  You can't change the brain, and in Sandeen's case, that is 100% all-American male.  No matter what he wants to claim.


About all Sandeen's silliness accomplishes is an increase in the possibility of backlash against transsexuals who actually are post-op.   


Oh, and apparently kudos to Cathy Brennan, who it appears made an effort to talk some sense to the court, though sadly, she was unsuccessful.

So, Which Is It?

"Autumn" Sandeen has posted another rant against a radical feminist who opposes "transgenderism."  In this rant, which seems most geared towards pushing Mr. Sandeen's favorite cause, which is censorship of anyone who disagrees with him, he includes the following quote from Sheila Jefferys:

Since transsexualism is socially constructed then it is important to consider how to counter the promotion of the practice.

...The medical profession need not direct the gender dissatisfied to surgery. Counselling is possible to encourage clients to take a more political approach to their situation and to realize that they can rebel against the constraints of a prescribed gender role, and relate to their own sex in their native bodies. Unfortunately many doctors are so convinced of the existence of a phenomenon they define as transsexualism that they do not offer any approach apart from self-mutilation.

 Now, what puzzles me is that this could just as easily be a quote from, oh say, "Monica" Helms, or "Monica" Roberts, two leaders of the "They Will Take My Penis When They Pry My Cold Dead Fingers From It" Club.  I mean, how many times have we seen transgender extremists, including Mr. Sandeen, attack transsexuals who insist that surgery is the defining issue separating transgender and transsexual?


And how many times have we seen transgender extremists attack people for having surgery, claiming that we should, in effect, learn to rebel against the constraints of a prescribed gender role while keeping our penis?  Oh, wait, that's just what Mr. Sandeen plans to do.  Remember his fraud, claiming he is having "genital reconstruction surgery" when all he is having is a castration, and then bragging about how he is going to use this to defraud the State of California into changing his birth certificate?  I can guarantee you, he will not likely tell the judge the full story.  He will present paperwork claiming he has had surgery to change his sex, and that will be a fraud.


And he will be doing just what he complains about Jefferys saying

Who is Julie Bindel and Why Is She Saying All These Terrible Things About Me?

Julie Bindel seems to be the 21st Century's version of Janice Raymond. Raymond, of course, is famous for her nasty diatribe, The Transsexual Empire:the making of the she-male in which she contends that male-to-female transsexuals are part of a plot by men to infiltrate the women's movement. Raymond maintained that transsexualism is based on the "patriarchal myths" of "male mothering," and "making of woman according to man's image." She further claimed this is done in order "to colonize feminist identification, culture, politics and sexuality," adding:

All transsexuals rape women's bodies by reducing the real female form to an artifact, appropriating this body for themselves .... Transsexuals merely cut off the most obvious means of invading women, so that they seem non-invasive.

Bindel's views are not dissimilar from Raymond's, which should not be surprising since they both approach things from a radical lesbian separatist feminist perspective. The main difference is, Bindel seems unable to let go of her virulent hatred for transsexuals based on the fact that a group of transgender activists successfully blocked her winning an award from the group Stonewall in England.

If anything, Bindel is even more strident in her attempts to put an end to the treatment of transsexuals. But what is that drives Bindel's animosity towards people like me?

In her most recent attack, published in the November issue of the political and cultural magazine, Standpoint. In an article entitled, "The Operation That Can Ruin Your Life" Bindel states:

Feminists tend to be critical of traditional gender roles because they benefit men and oppress women. Transsexualism, by its nature, promotes the idea that it is "natural" for boys to play with guns and girls to play with Barbie dolls. The idea that gender roles are biologically determined rather than socially constructed is the antithesis of feminism.

In another words, Bindel objects to transsexuals because we don't fit her dogmatic view of how the world should work. The fact that we exist adds evidence to the science that is increasingly proving that the feminist view that gender is socially constructed is simply false. Bindel's position is increasingly unsupportable. In spite of many attempts by radical feminists to raise children to avoid gender stereotypes, the fact is, it is natural for boys to play with guns, and girls to play with dolls. And science has repeatedly shown that such behavior is primarily hard-wired into the brain.

To be honest, I find this sort of thing quite amazing. Granted, there are numerous groups who will continue to ignore scientific fact when it contradicts their devoutly held dogmas, and feminism is not immune from this. But it is sad that their doing so does harm others.

Another interesting thing about Bindel's writings is how she conflates transsexualism with transgender. It is not clear if Bindel does this deliberately, or if she is really that ignorant of the true nature of transsexualism. And excellent example of this from her article:

A definition of transsexualism used by a number of transsexual rights organisations reads:

Students who are gender non-conforming are those whose gender expression (or outward appearance) does not follow traditional gender roles: "feminine boys," "masculine girls" and students who are androgynous, for example. It can also include students who look the way boys and girls are expected to look but participate in activities that are gender nonconforming, like a boy who does ballet. The term "transgender youth" can be used as an umbrella term for all students whose gender identity is different from the sex they were assigned at birth and/or whose gender expression is non-stereotypical.

According to this definition, a girl who plays football is trans-sexual.

Okay, this is not remotely a definition of "transsexual." It is, at best, a very loose and extremely broad definition of "transgender." But what I especially odd is that this is more precisely a definition of the rather vague term "gender non-conforming," which is rather ironic since Bindel accuses transsexuals of being rather strongly "gender conforming." And I know of no one who would remotely say that a girl who plays football is "trans-sexual." And surely Bindel knows that not all who identify as transgender claim to be transsexual, and that few who truly are transsexual remotely identify as transgender.

Another subject that Bindel obsesses about, but seems to have little actual understanding of, is the rare case where someone regrets having surgery. Again, her writing seems to combine deliberately misleading prose with a lack of actual knowledge of the subject:

A number of transsexuals are beginning to admit that opting for surgery ruined their lives. "I was a messed-up young gay man," says Claudia McClean, a male-to-female transsexual who opted for surgery 20 years ago. "If I had been offered an alternative to a sex change, I would have jumped at the chance, but as soon as I told the psychiatrist I felt trapped in the wrong body, or some such cliché, he was writing out a referral to the surgeon."

Now, first off, regrets have always been an issue, and are not something that have only recently been revealed. Years ago, when I was first beginning transition, I remember seeing a person on one talk show discussing how soon "she" had wanted to try out her new vagina, ignoring the doctors instructions to wait at least six weeks before having sex. A few months later, this same person was on another talk show telling how surgery had been a mistake and expressing deep regrets. Clearly, this was a person who should never have been cleared...but mistakes happen.
In the case Bindel uses as an example, the person was clearly an ego dystonic homosexual male, which has long been a strong contraindication to having SRS. Again, no competent doctor would have knowingly approved this person for surgery. In almost every case where regrets occur, the person either bypassed the established Standards of Care, lied to get surgery, or failed to follow their doctor's orders afterwards.

Along this same line, Bindel cites a very questionable statistic:

Apart from Thailand, the country with the highest number of sex-change operations is Iran where, homosexuality is illegal and punishable by death. When sex-change surgery is performed on gay men, they become, in the eyes of the gender defenders, heterosexual women. Transsexual surgery becomes modern-day aversion therapy for gays and lesbians.

Now, I have seen this claim made numerous places, but I have found nothing to actually back it up. It is true that SRS is not only legal in Iran, but also that it is paid for by the government there. I doubt, however, that many, if any, people come from outside Iran for the surgery. In the United States there are several surgeons who entire practice is dedicated to SRS.

What is true is that, tragically, SRS is a way for Iranian homosexuals to escape execution. However, this often turns out to be a fate almost as bad. Again, Bindel seems to show complete ignorance of the realities of the medical treatment of transsexualism. In most of the world, someone who is truly homosexual (for example, a man who actually sees himself as a man, and who desires to have sex with men who see him as a man, and who he sees as men) is not seen as a viable candidate for SRS. While such a situation is relatively rare in more recent times, it was a problem in the past, when being gay or lesbian was not as acceptable.

Granted, Bindel does raise on legitimate point. She mentions the case, previous written about here, where a male rapist, who claims to be transsexual (a claim I would be inclined to dispute) has won the right to be held in a women's prison, even though he has not had SRS. Bindel does present the fact is a misleading manner, implying that this person does not wish surgery (that is the basis for his being moved) but otherwise, her point is correct. Such an arrangement is unfair to the women he will be placed among.

Bindel also quotes Dr Caillean McMahon, a US-based forensic psychiatrist, who defines herself not as a transsexual but as a "woman of operative history:"

The trans community has an unforgiving global sort of condemnation towards critical outsiders. I have to be suspicious that the insistence of many of those demanding to enter it is not for the purpose of celebrating the spirit and nature of women, but to seek an enforced validation, extracted by force in a legal or political manner.

I agree strongly with Dr. McMahon. This is a very apt description of the transgender viewpoint, which has nothing to do with HBS or transsexualism. I find it interesting that Bindel would find someone who has had SRS that she seems to agree with. Perhaps if she got to know more actual transsexuals or better, those who actually have HBS, she might realize that she is misjudging the few based on the behavior of the many.

Bindel's closing remarks, again, show just how little she understand the true nature of transsexualism:

In a world where equality between men and women was reality, transsexualism would not exist. The diagnosis of GD needs to be questioned and challenged. We live in a society that, on the whole, respects the human rights of others. Accepting a situation where the surgeon's knife and lifelong hormonal treatment are replacing the acceptance of difference is a scandal. Sex-change surgery is unnecessary mutilation. Using human rights laws to normalise trans-sexualism has resulted in a backward step in the feminist campaign for gender equality. Perhaps we should give up and become men.

It is clear, though obviously not to Bindel, that her argument is with science, and not those who are truly transsexual. It is also obvious that much of her ire should be directed towards those who are transgender and not transsexual or HBS. Being "equal" does not change the need to be whole. Transsexualism or HBS is not about being "different." It is not about men wishing to pretend to be women. It is about having a brain that is female in a body that is male. It is ironic that Bindel, who seems to have such a dislike for men, thinks all of the problems are simply based on culture and upbringing. She does not understand that there are real differences in men and women. Such differences do not negate the need for equality. But trying to negate those differences will not result in equality, but instead will lead to a new form of repression. Women should be free to be women. Not as second class citizens, but as equals, And men should be free to be men, not as superiors, but again as equals. And that should be true regardless of how are bodies are.

I Don't Need Permission to be a Woman

On the English transgender web site, Bird of Paradox, the author is again having a hissy fit over the "Reclaim the Night" march that will be held by the London Feminist Network next month. Now, this march, which is a protest against violence against women, is specifically "women only."

What I find absolutely hilarious in all of this it the fact that LFN says it is open to women, including the phrase “women of all backgrounds.” Now, as a post-op survivor of HBS I would have no problems with that. It says women only, and I am a woman. But that is not good enough for some transgender activists. It does not specifically state that it is trans-inclusive.

I notice specifically it says nothing like “women born women,” which is, of course, the “nice,” politically correct, way of saying “no transsexuals.” So, the fact that they don’t single out transsexuals, and specifically say, “transsexuals are welcome too,” in effect saying that you might not really be women, but are welcome anyway, offends the author? Go figure. I would be more offended at the suggestion that because I had HBS that I had to be specifically told that it was okay for me to identify as a woman.

Now, personally, I would not join them because I don’t agree with all of their views, but it would not be because I am not really a woman and feel I need a special invitation to come.

Transgenders Say the Darndest Things...

Sometimes I am amazed at just how stupid identity politics can wind up being. A classic example of this is a comment about a posting on a feminist gathering in London. Now, this is the same blog I mentioned earlier, that had the article about the pre-op prisoner, convicted of killing a women while trying to rape her, who is being moved to a women's prison.

The comment had to do with the fact that the feminist gathering had cleared up the misconception that "women" Tincludes "post-op transsexuals." This statement now appears on the Feminism in London 09 homepage:

This event is trans-inclusive and transwomen are welcome in the one workshop that is women-only. The Feminism in London organising group would like to apologise for not making this clear from the beginning.

Seems simple enough. But nothing ever is simple when you are dealing with diehard transgenders types.

The person making the comment is upset that they assumed that people would know that "women" includes "transwomen." The fact that the people behind this event chose to not single out "transwomen" as being special, needing to be informed that they are "women" is somehow "cissexism.

So, it is apparently cissexism if you think that "transwomen" are not really women, but it is also "cissexism" if you don't think that, and therefore don't see the need to say anything.

And these fools get all bent out of shape when I say, "I am a woman, not a transwoman." And then they wonder why I want no part of their silliness.

The Issue of Rape

I read a lot of blogs. Sometimes I find new ones as links on other blogs. One I found this way is "Bird of Paradox," which is listed on Suzan Cooke's blog roll at "Women Born Transsexual." Now, there was a recent article there that dealt with the case in England where a "pre-op transsexual" who is serving a life sentence was moved from a men's prison to a women's one. Part of the reasoning was that being in a men's prison prevented this person from completing the real life test in order to have sex reassignment surgery.

Now, this is the sort of thing that might seem worthy of celebration as an enlightened view of the medical necessity of medical treatment for those with HBS. It might, but the facts of the case actually show that it is outrageous.

You see, the prisoner in question was convicted of manslaughter and attempted rape. Now, under English law, manslaughter has a different meaning than it does in the United States. The exact details of the case are not clear, but it is entirely possible that the death occurred in the process of attempting the rape, and that the rape is "attempted" only because the victim died before actually being violated. Such a case would be considered "involuntary manslaughter" if the death was not intended, but could still result in a life sentence given the seriousness of the crime in process when the death occurred. This seems the most likely scenario given that the court decision refers to a conviction, not convictions.

Now, the author of Bird of Paradox was quite thrilled at the decision. I tried to post a comment pointing out that it seems questionable that a man who is capable of such a violent act is actually a transsexual, and that such a person should definitely not be allowed to be present in a women's prison while still an intact male. My comment was not allowed because I was "ungendering" this person. In a follow-up email, the author pointed out that "Prisoner B" "has been granted a Gender Recognition Certificate which makes her legally a woman." The author simply cannot see that there might be a danger to the women this person might be incarcerated with.

Now, as bad as the above is, a newer post on Bird of Paradox serves to show the true absurdity of the transgender mindset. It seems that there is a "Feminism in London 09 event." The author expresses concern that this event might not be welcoming to "trans women."

Any trans woman seeing that will surely already hear the alarm bells ringing. It shouldn’t need restating that the word “woman” defaults to meaning “cis woman” and excludes trans women as a consequence. And “pro-feminist man”? I wonder if that includes trans men?

Now, I identify as a woman, not a "trans woman," so I would not be disturbed by such a remark. If there was something that interested me, I would have no qualms about attending.

But what really upsets the author of Bird of Paradox is the fact that a "Rape and sexual violence workshop is for "women born women" only.

Now first off, it is just possible that this is simply because it avoids the sticky issue of determining who might, or might not, have a penis. After all, in the transgender mindset, "women can have penises, and even wish to keep those penises." And it is just possible that a group of women discussing an issue like rape and sexual violence might not wish to have men who are capable of engaging in that behavior present simply because they are wearing a dress.

Or, just possibly these women see a very simple fact that is obvious to me. Given that the author of "Bird of Paradox" claims to be a spokesperson for "trans women," and given the cluelessness of this person with regards to putting an intact male, convicted of manslaughter and attempted rape in a women's prison, it is just possible that they might possibly view "trans women" as not being welcome in such a discussion. I know I would certainly not want someone with that sort of mentality present.

Just to make it clear...rape is not a sexual crime. It is a crime of violence. A rapist uses his penis as a weapon against a woman. It is not about sexual desire, but about a desire for the ultimate domination and humiliation of a woman. In an intimate discussion of this issue, I doubt many women would want someone who is incapable of understanding this to be present.