The Creation of a Trans-Martyr's Mythology

Simply put, it is a tragedy whenever any person reaches a point, for any reason, where they feel that they must take their own life.  In the case of the person who is generally referred to as "Leelah" Alcorn (his legal name was Joshua Ryan Alcorn) this tragedy has been compounded by the hateful, and outrageous attempts by transgender extremists to use this case to further their absurd agenda.

Alcorn is presented as a "trans girl," though the evidence is pretty clear that he was more likely a deeply ego dystonic gay male.  Worse, the fact that he clearly had a number of mental health issues that lead to his death have been swept aside in the effort to promote him as a martyr to the cause.

First off, in his "suicide note," he uses language that shows his confusion, referring to himself as "gay," and making a big issue out of having to wait less than a year to begin transition because he thinks he will be too late to have an appropriate appearance.  That, of course, is absurd.  He also talks about how he "lied" to his therapist and claimed to be straight.

Alcorn's parents reacted according to their beliefs, and did what they thought best for their son.  There was nothing criminal in their actions, and it is clear from Alcorn's postings that he was not physically abused.  He was simply not allowed to behave in a manner that his parent's felt was wrong.  And given his reference to himself as the "transgender queen of hell," and "Satan's wifey" show that he was in a serious rebellion against his parents.  I, personally, cannot blame them for trying to reign him in.

His parents, who stated that they told him that they loved him unconditionally, have been portrayed as monsters.  Of course, the truth is rarely, if ever, presented by transgender extremists who attempt to make his parent's statement look far different than what they are.

And it is also telling that his death was a typical male suicide.  Females rarely kill themselves in such a violent manner.  Alcorn was a deeply disturbed person, and his death truly is a tragedy, but using him to attack those who do not share the radical agenda of the transgender extremists is also a real tragedy.  Hopefully his promotion as a martyr will not lead to other suicides.

Transition Versus Transgression

I have been working on this post for a while.  During that time I have learned that, as some would say, "Great minds think alike.  There was a post at TS-SI that says almost the exact same thing I do in this post.  Scary in a way...my first reaction was, "How did they know what I was saying?"  Of course, it is just coincidence, but still, it gives one pause.


Then, there was this response to a post by "Autumn" Sandeen at LGBT Weekly:

Living in the real world instead of some sub culture where what is freaky is normal, I have never seen any of the issues transgenders have seen.If only they would ether stay in the closet or have SRS and become real legal women instead of living some life that is a legal fiction all would be good.
There are lots of less than perfect looking women in the world, so Autumn and the rest, why don’t you live your life as legitimate females instead of some other.

And there was this rather frightening response to a question posed by same person making the above comment:

“why force your way into female spaces while still being male bodied?”

for the same reason you choose to attempt to ‘change’ who we are… BECAUSE WE CAN!

I would not want to encounter that person in ladies room.

There have been a lot of words devoted to the battle over "transgender" versus "transsexual."  On one side, you have those I refer to as "gender fascists" who demand that transsexuals accept the label "transgender."  On the other side, you have those that the gender fascists like to label as "transsexual separatists" in their attempts to force transsexuals back into line.  But the real question is, what is it that really divides these two groups?  That can be summed up in two words...."transition" and "transgression."


For me, and other true transsexuals, it is all about simply being who, and what, we really are.    After spending a portion of our lives in the wrong body, dealing with the public perception of how we should be, and struggling with all the problems this leads to, we finally take the steps necessary to correct things, and get on with a normal life.  We see ourselves as simply women, or in the case of FTMs, simply men.  We simply want to live the life we feel we have been cheated out of.


On the other hand, you have people who seem more interested in transgressing gender norms.  They have no desire to simply live their lives as normal men or women, but instead identify as "trans people."  At the far extreme, they go out of their way to insure that they do not even come close t fitting within gender norms.  Others seem to have no concept of how normal men and women act.  They may not go out of their way to completely transgress gender norms, but they often appear more as caricatures than anything else.


Those who are of the transgressive variety are usually very "out" about their past.  They not only have no desire to simply live as members of their "target" gender, they feel a strong need to be extremely open our being transgender.  And, they generally insist that others have an obligation to also be "out, loud, and proud."  They attack those who do not share their desire to be in other's faces as being ashamed, scared, closeted, etc.  They cannot grasp the simple concept that some might simply wish to live normal lives.l


Anyone who disagrees with the "transgender" paradigm, especially those who wish no part of the transgender label are viciously attacked.  We are accused of hatred, bigotry, and trying to tell others how to live their lives.  Actually, none of this is true.  The charge that we try to tell others how to live their lives is particularly absurd.  I would never insist that someone must, or even should, have sex reassignment surgery.  In fact, quite the opposite is true.  I would say that those who are adamantly "non-op" are making absolutely the correct decision for their selves.  I would have serious disagreements with those extremists who try to insist that everyone should forego surgery and simply accept living in their "chosen gender role" without surgery, but no, I would never insist that anyone "must" have surgery.


Now, I do not believe that those who are "non-op" are transsexuals.  I consider the term "non-op transsexual" to be an oxymoron.  If you do not have the absolute desire to change your sex, you are not a transsexual, and under no circumstances should you ever consider having irreversible surgery.  The results would be unsatisfactory, and possibly, even probably tragic.  Unfortunately, there really is a "transgender" hierarchy, and many see "transsexual" as the apex.  This is why some, such as "Autumn" Sandeen, insist on demanding the label "transsexual" even though hey have no desire to change sex.  They believe that calling themselves "transsexuals" increases their credibility, even though just the opposite is actually true.


I cannot relate to the desire of some for transgression.  I have no desire to be seen as anything other than simply a woman.  I take no pleasure in being identified as anything else. I do realize that people are driven by any variety of desires and motives, but that does not mean I accept them as proper.  Some people enjoy variant sexual practices, but I have no interest in them, and I find some highly disturbing.  The drive towards gender transgression often seems linked to this same behavior.  Many males who are drawn to "transgender" seem to have desires that are related to masochism.  They delight in the idea of forced feminization, and they often show belief in the idea of women being lower in status than men.  Some might choose to call me judgmental, but I find such attitudes to be distasteful.  I have actually seen some take delight in being treated poorly by chauvinistic males, claim such as affirmation of their femaleness.  Personally, I think it simply affirms their inherent misogyny., 


Of course, it is this misogyny that has led the radical feminists to attack the transgender movement.  And while I have serious disagreements with much of radical feminism, I can understand some of their views on this issue.  It is also what has brought vicious attacks from conservatives and the religious right.  Claiming that these attacks are rooted in "transphobia," hatred, and bigotry is a bit disingenuous. Much of it is simply an all too natural reaction to what is, quite frankly, often outrageous behavior.  I realize that is, to many who identify as transgender, or even transsexual, outright heresy.  But when you choose to go against societal norms, you have to take responsibility for the reactions, even if you disagree.


Of course, the great irony here is that the transgender extremists actually engage in pretty much the same behavior as those who so vehemently oppose them.  They have a world view, and they expect others to conform to that view.  Part of their problem, however, is that their view is very much a minority view, so they are not going to find the sympathy that they demand.  And when they don't get what they want, they react in anger and often resort to insults and attacks.


I have been taken to task by several transgender extremists, including Suzan Cooke, for refusing to conform to to the demanded "courtesy" of referring to anyone who claims to be a woman with female pronouns.  I hated to break it Cooke, but if I ever had the misfortune to meet "Autumn" Sandeen or "Monica" Roberts in person, I would still refuse to refer to them using female pronouns.  At best, if the situation required it, I would avoid using pronouns, but no, under no circumstances would I refer to either of these fellows as females, as they are not, and I am not going to lie just to make them feel better.  Cooke can toss out as many vulgar insults as she wants, but to be quite honest, I long ago realize that Cooke was basically a bad joke clinging to a conflated past that makes her think she is still way more important than she ever was in reality.


Sadly, while Cooke claims to oppose the use of "transgender" as an umbrella term, Cooke takes an unacceptable middle position, suggesting that "trans" be used instead.  Personally, I don't want to be identified as "transgender," "trans," or any other such term.  I am a woman, period.  Not a trans-woman.


Sadly, some simply cannot comprehend the idea that it is this concept of being "other" that we reject.  We do not identify with transgressive behavior, and we do not view ourselves as "transgressing" anything.  We have simply corrected our bodies, or in the case of pre-op "true transsexuals" in the process of doing so.  We are not seeking to become something we are not.  Quite the opposite in fact.  This is what makes is so absurd when a kook like "Cristan" Williams expends so much bandwidth trying to prove some silliness like his claims that, at some obscure point in time, some obscure person decided that "transsexual" was an umbrella term to be used like "transgender" is now, or that they decided to use "transgender" instead of "transsexual." So what?  At one point in time, someone who was a homosexual male described himself, and other homosexual men, as "women trapped in men's bodies."  Now, I seriously doubt that one could find very many, if any, gay men who would remotely identify that way now.


Sadly, the process of transition often brings us into contact with those who are motivated by desires born of transgression, and even more sadly, some have trouble shaking off that association.  And some, for whatever reason, find themselves drawn to it, embracing it as part of their personality. They don't realize that it actually divides them from the community of women that they worked so hard to be a part of.

A Busy Sunday...

Wow, so many issues, so little time...


No, seriously, there are some trivial things that all merit a response, but none of which are really so major as to warrant an individual post.  So, let's begin....


First, we have the silliness that has erupted around A. G. Casebeer's violent threats that were posted on uber-bigot "Monica" Robert's Facebook Page.  Mr. Roberts pulled the page as soon as the controversy began, but fortunately it was preserved for posterity by Dana Lane Taylor.  Well, "Autumn" Sandeen has now posted about how Casebeer and Mr. Roberts have apologized for the nasty remarks.  Well, actually, they appear to have posted some rather insincere sounding remarks that sound more like they are sorry they got caught.  But the real story is about how "Monica" Helms reacted to a comment from CathrynP, a transsexual who has long been a major thorn in the side of the transgender extremists.  Mr. Helms, as only he can do, goes off.

Yeah, right!

Whine, whine, whine.  You have hated Monica for as long as you have hated me, because she sees you for what you really are, and have pointed out your lies on several occasions.  You can't stand it when people see right through you.  You have even threaten her and Dawn Wilson to the point where they had to report YOU to the authorities.  You are the last person on the planet to call for stripping someone of anything.  You need only to look in the mirror to see the one person who has spread more hate then the other Cathy, Monica and AC could ever do together.  I may get called out for this comment, but someone has to point out your blatant hypocrisy.

I'm ready for my card, Autumn.

by: MonicaHelms @ Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 08:13:20 AM CDT

Now, CathrynP replied very calmly, pointing out that Mr. Helms is basically lying.  So, how does Mr. Sandeen react?  Well, as usual, he "drops a card," but warns both Mr. Helms (who regularly violates the rules at Pam's House Blend without any real fear of ever being booted, and CathrynP who didn't really violate any reasonable rule.  Another example of Mr. Sandeen's efforts to censor those he disagrees with, while allowing the worst sort of behavior from friends like Mr. Helms.  And of course, a later nasty remark by Mr. Roberts, who seems incapable of much else, doesn't even seem to warrant notice.

Our next minor issue is yet another hilarious post by "Cristan" Williams.  Mr. Williams is all upset because his silliness is being exposed and ridiculed both here and elsewhere...in spite of his stupid "facepalm" attacks.  I guess we are supposed to be so devastated by those that we just curl up and fade away.

Now, Mr. Williams claims he has never tried to force "separatists" to join the TG movement.  I suppose in his usual style of debate this claim can be supported, but an examination of his posts show just how silly that claim really is.  He has attacked what he calls "TS separatists," mocked them, and tried, desperately, to refute their positions.  Not really the actions of someone who doesn't "care if they don’t want to identify as being part of any specific community."  A simple suggestion....at least for those who haven't drank the same "Flavor-Aid" (it wasn't Kool-Aid they drank at Jonestown).  Read his remarks, and ask yourself where he is coming from.  If you don't agree with me, that is fine.  If you do...well, then join me in a good laugh at his absolute silliness.


This, of course, is typical of the semantical games that Mr. Williams engages in.  He thinks himself far more clever than he remotely is.


Then, having hit Dana with yet another "facepalm" (Dana, I feel your pain) he goes on to attack me again, accusing me of lying about his comments about bathrooms.  Apparently when he talked about how many women have attacked other women in the ladies room he wasn't really suggesting that women are just as much of a threat, if not more of a threat, as men...uh, I mean transgender "women."   


Let me make three points here in response to Mr. WIlliams' silliness:

1. I have made it clear that I think pre-op transsexuals should be allowed access to women's restrooms, provided that they actually are pursing surgery, taking hormones, and that they are sufficiently feminized that they can enter a women's bathroom without looking like a man in a dress.  And provided that they conduct themselves in a proper manner.  I would not extend this privilege to transvestites(both part-time and full-time), gender queers, drag queens, so-called non-ops, etc.  Put another way, unless you are actively pursuing the removal of your penis, and the creation of a vagina, stay out of the ladies room.
2. The real issue with men in women's space is not so much safety, as privacy.  Men, as in transvestites, are unwelcome.  The vast majority of women see the restroom as a place they can go and get away from men.  This is sort of ironic, since "privacy" is the basis for many arguments made by people like Mr. Williams.  The right to privacy is what prevents states from going after gays for engaging in sex, and it is the basis for abortion rights.  Personally, I agree with the first, but not the second.  Privacy is an important right, but life trumps privacy.
3. Mr. Williams tries the silly ploy of suggesting that "trans men" would be forced into the ladies room.  What a load of crap.  First off, after about six months of hormones the average FTM has no problem passing as a man.  Second, men do not have the issue with privacy that women do.  They are not likely to feel threatened by a sufficiently transitioned FTM.  In the relatively short period that they are changing, it is not too much to ask that they use reasonable discretion and try not to freak people out too much.

No, if Mr. Williams wasn't suggesting that women are as much of a threat as men, I would love to know what he was trying to suggest....  Oh, he does throw the 14th Amendment around a lot, clearly having absolutely no idea what it means.

The final issue this Sunday is the silliness out of Cuba.  In a very bizarre story, we are told that a gay man has married a transsexual woman.  Now, granted, there are some cultural differences with regard to sexuality between Anglo and Latino cultures.  Many passive gay males in such cultures can avoid some stigma by adopting a feminine persona and presentation, but it is extremely rare for them to actually go so far as surgery.  Now, it is possible that the "bride" in this case succumbed to pressure from society and had the surgery.   I knew one person who was clearly ambivalent about surgery, but who stated that her family wanted her to have it, so she was going to.  I recently heard that she had the operation. It will be interesting to see what comes of this.

It is also possible that the gay community in Cuba is simply using this as a ploy to get attention.  The "bride" arrived holding a gay pride flag.  And the groom has AIDS, so I suspect he does not expect it to be long before death.  

The simple bottom line is, gay men do not generally marry transsexuals, at least not for love.  I suppose if one felt pressured to marry that might be preferable to a natal woman, but this whole thing seems very questionable to me.

Huh?

"Autumn" Sandeen has an article on Pam's House Blend called "Conflating Gay And Trans -- And More Religious Right Fear Mongering About It."  I have to say, I am a bit puzzled.


I mean, isn't that the whole idea?  I mean, what did the transgender extremists think would happen when they forcibly joined LGB to T?  Did they think that the Religious Right wouldn't assume that "transgender" was just another form of gay?


Oh, I know the idea is supposed to be something about "sexual minorities," which is why some try to add even more letters.  Like "I" for intersexed, and two "Q's" for queer and questioning.  And some want to add another "T" for transsexual.  And an "A" for asexual, an "O" for omnisexual, and a "P" for pansexual.  I can think of a few other "sexual minorities that would not be so welcome, so that idea sort of falls apart quickly.


But back to the point.  What did Sandeen think was going to happen when he dressed up in Navy drag and chained himself to the White House fence in support of repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."  Even he is not so extremist that he thinks that trying to get "transgender people" able to serve openly is a valid cause.  He was there is support of gays, lesbians and bisexuals.  That sort of makes it more likely that he will be perceived as a gay male by many.


And then he has the audacity to wonder why people with HBS want no part of transgender?  We simply want to live our lives as women.  Not as men who become women, not as women who used to be women, and certainly not perceived as gay men who just got carried away.  But that is exactly how the transgender movement causes us to be perceived. 

Give Me A Break!

Sometimes the extent of self-deception some seem to exhibit is amazing. I just read a posting on Bilerico by "Cassandra Keenan," a person who claims to be a "pre-op male to female transsexual," on the question of whether or not men who date "trans chicks" are straight or gay. Now, setting aside the issues I have with someone who would refer to their self as a "trans chick," I was interested in finding out what this person's take would be.

By and large, Keenan seems to try to avoid taking a position. I suspect this is simply a matter of avoiding the truth. I know I had to face this question during my transition. In my case, I quickly realized that there are a lot of men who such as those Keenan describes:

The guys I go out with self-identify as straight. In fact, a number of them were in heterosexual marriages previously and fathered kids. Yet, they are attracted to me. And this happens a lot. Meaning, it's widespread and common -- at least in my experience.

Now, they may claim to be straight, and some of them may really, really believe they are. Shoot, a lot of men who wanted to date me were married. I would wind up politely declining, but I found this strange. But I also quickly realized these men were not really interested in me, but were wanting to date a "woman with a penis," to put it nicely. I was just a fetish for them.

Were they gay? Perhaps not in the sense that the term is usually used, but they were certainly clearly interested in a homosexual relationship. I suppose some could be called bisexual, though many of them made it clear that they did not want me to pursue surgery. It did not take too long before I simply stopped dating until after my surgery.

Since my surgery, no one I have had sex with has known my past. I was not interested in dating a man who was interested in me because I had a penis. If I had really believed they were able to see past that, I would have felt differently, but I quickly realized that was not the case.

Keenan tries to fudge and suggest that we either need to redefine heterosexuality to ignore the issue of body parts (heteroflexible?), or perhaps abandon the concept of sexual orientation labels. I would offer a simpler solution...face the fact that the men who are pursuing you are doing so because you have a penis, and decide if you like that (in which case you are not transsexual and should probably not have surgery) or that you don't (in which case celibacy until being post-op is the only viable choice). But telling yourself that this men really, really see you as a "real woman" is delusional.

Too Funny for Words!!!!

Well, once again the boys of Bilerico has shown their true colors. On more than one occasion, some gay man has seen fit to set transsexuals straight about how things should work. Well, this time they allowed things to go a bit too far.

Ron Gold, who apparently is a long time gay activist, wrote a post entitled "'No' to the notion of transgender." (After much hesitation and a great deal of anger from the gender fascists, the article was remved from Bilerico. But it was preserved by Google, and so I have a link.) Now, as good as that title sounds, the article itself is quite nasty, full of bad information, and generally shows what this gay man thinks of transsexual women. And in this article, I am going to respond to what he says.

Of course. the gender fascists are up in arms, even though the article is not so much about them as it is about those who should not even be labeled "transgender." In Gold's twisted imagination, there are basically drag queens and transsexuals:

What is transgender? Well, there are two sorts who seem to be covered by the name, the drag kings and queens so good at portraying cartoon imitations of straight people, and transsexuals, the folks who report that from an early age they've felt themselves trapped in the wrong bodies. Despite the equipment they were born with that belies their assertions, they say they are really men or really women.

Okay, right there, he is off to a bad start. He seems to condense what is properly called "transgender," those who, almost always after puberty, suddenly decide that they want to live as members of the opposite sex but in the majority of cases wish to keep their genitals intact, with those who are HBS (also known as classic or true transsexualism) who knew from an early age that something was wrong, and who exhibited issues from an early age.

Now, from this unstable foundation he goes down hill...

What does it mean to be really a man or a woman? Since it's not about genitalia, it must be about personality, and what, one asks, is a male or a female personality? Even straight people nowadays concede that some men are the warm, loving type that used to be thought exclusive to women, and some women are the strong, action-oriented sort that used to be thought exclusive to men. And lesbians and gay men have always known that people of the same gender can be very different from each other. Isn't it true that those we form mated relationships with are always complementary - even polar opposites - to ourselves?

At first it appears that he is spouting the classic transgender "We can be women while keeping our penises," silliness. But it quickly becomes obvious that he is actually trying to deny the reality of the experiences of true transsexuals. His words seem to echo the ridiculous views of those like Janice Raymond and Julie Bindel. And worse, he seems to be pandering to outdated stereotypes and myths about gay men. He seems to be saying that they always pair as nelly queen with a butch male. How truly bizarre.
Just so there is no mistake about where he is coming from, he empatically states:

Let me state it categorically. There is no such thing as a male or female personality. Personality is not a function of gender.

And not surprisingly, his remarks are clearly, and dare I say, catergorically, a complete load of bovine excrement. No one, with a shred of common sense, would ever make such a dogmatic statement. Granted, this misconception is at the very heart of radical, extremist feminism, but no one, except the transgender community, really takes them very seriously. Everyone else just rolls their eyes, and recognizes their views as just plain silly. Some on the Left might extend them some slack just to be politically correct, but they don't really buy into such idiocy.

Gold continues on in confusion of transgender and transsexual and his attempt to set us all straight:

So where does that put the concept of transgender? In my view, down the tubes! And that leaves the further questions of how transsexuals got to think the way they do, and what to do to resolve their dilemmas. I hope I'll be forgiven for rejecting as just plain silly the idea that some cosmic accident just turned these people into changelings. What happened, more than likely, is that, from an early age, when they discovered that their personalities didn't jibe with what little boys and girls are supposed to want and do and feel, they just assumed they mustn't be real little boys and girls.

No, it is not some "cosmic accident," just something that interferes with the sexual differentiation of the brain in utero. And what he dismisses, refering to it erroneously as "transgender," is exactly what transsexuals experience. But he doesn't think that such an experience has any real meaning. And, of course, it is more than just realizing that one's "personality" doesn't jibe. It is much deeper than that. It is a sense of discomfort with one's body. Gold clearly does not accept that the obvious fact that boys and girls are actually different. But they are. All the efforts at raising a gender neutral child either fail, or result in a child who is deeply confused.

Next Gold presumes to tell parents how to deal with such a child, providing truly bad, and potentially harmful advice:

So, parents of such little boys and girls, do not take them to the psychiatrist and treat them like they're suffering from some sort of illness. Explain to them that, whatever the other kids say, real little girls do like to play with trucks and wear grimy jeans, and real little boys like to prance around in dresses and play with dolls. And make sure the teachers are on the same page.

While children may go through phases where such behavior occurs, for a transsexual it is more profound. And no, while "tomboys" and "sissies" exist, and often grow up to be normal, healthy children, that is not what we are dealing with here. Transsexuals, even as children, are not simply little boys who want to wear dresses and play with dolls. They have a brain that is wired like any little girl's, which inclines them to like the things that girls like. Telling them that this is okay for little boys is not going to change that, and will probably, ultimately, just lead to even more confusion.

It is when he comes around to advising adults that we get to heart of what is really bother Mr. Gold. In truth, that was obvious all along, and he does not hesitate to let us know what he is really concerned with:

As for adults struggling with what to do about their feelings, I'd tell them too to stay away from the psychiatrists - those prime reinforcers of sex-role stereotypes - and remind them that whatever they're feeling, or feel like doing, it's perfectly possible with the bodies they've got. If a man wants to wear a dress or have long hair; if a woman wants short hair and a three-piece suit; if people want romance and sex with their own gender; who says they can't violate these perfectly arbitrary taboos? A short historical and cross-cultural survey should establish that men and women have worn and done all sorts of stuff. I recall reading something by Jan Morris in which it seemed that he thought he needed a sex change because he wanted men to hold doors open for him and kiss him goodbye at train stations. For starters, I'd have told him that I've had these nice things happen to me and I've still got my pecker.

What a classic statement. Here we have the real reason that so many gay men have problems with transsexuals. They fear the lost of their, uh, pecker. Well, Mr. Gold should rest assured...no one wants to take his pecker away from him. No one is going to pressure him into having sex reassignment surgery to correct his behavior. In fact, Mr. Gold should be aware that actually be a gay man is considered a contraindication for having SRS.

It is kind of ironic in a way. Many of the gender fascists, in attacking Mr. Gold, have tried to compare his statements about how there is no such thing as a male or female personality to things from the Religious Right. In fact, such a few is contrary to what the Religious Right thinks. They strongly believe that men and women are quite different in terms of personality. What the Religious Right does believe instead, is the silliness Mr. Gold presents here...that transsexuals are really the same as gay men, and should not give up what he clearly sees as his most prized possession. Again, he just doesn't get it. I guess Mr. Gold is so worried about his own penis that he feels he has to be concerned with everyone elses as well. Sort of a "No Penis Left Behind" program.

He concludes with more ignorance:

Perhaps it isn't needless to say that a No to the notion of transgender does not excuse discrimination against cross-dressers or post-op transsexuals in employment, housing and public accommodation; and I strongly support legislation that would forbid it. I would, however, get after the doctors - the psychiatrists who use a phony medical model to invent a disease that doesn't exist, and the surgeons who use such spurious diagnoses to mutilate the bodies of the deluded.

Apparently Mr. Gold felt a need to play a bit of CYA. He wants to deny people needed medical care because he fears for the safety of their penises (funny how FTMs are suddenly not a concern) but he doesn't want anyone discriminated against otherwise.

As to the rest of his comments, they are simply the ignorant rants of a gay man who is terrified that some penis might be removed. In his mind, apparently becoming a woman is mutilation. The simple fact that he ignores is that transsexualism is a well documented disease, with research increasingly showing that it has a physical cause. In his ignorance, he would spare transsexuals from discrimination, but he would consign us to a living hell.

Much has been written about this article. Mr. Gold was immediately removed as a contributor at Bilerico (of course, censorship is their standard response to any controversy), a number of articles have been posted condemning Mr. Gold, and Bil Browing is in full retreat. He has yet, as far as I can tell, failed to explain why this article was allowed to be posted. Perhaps he thought that, since the primary target was classic, true transsexuals, the gender fascists would embrace it. This is not the first time that Bilerico has allowed a gay man to condescend to transsexuals, and it will probably not be the last.

I suspect that, truth be told, this probably reflects Bil Browning's true opinions more than he wants to admit. In fact, it probably actually relects the true feelings of many gay men who simply cannot comprehend the real nature of transsexualism. And once again it goes to show why it is a mistake for transsexuals, both women and men, to allow themselves to be linked to the LGBT.