The Obama Administration Has Gone Way Too Far

Last month, the Department of Housing and Urban Development issued an order that requires any shelter receiving Federal funding in any form to allow transgender people equal access to the facility based on their "gender identity."  The transgender kooks are all excited by this.  And women are appalled. 

One of the issues that is often raised in objection to such a rige id approach is that a man might simply claim to "really" be a woman in order to get access to a women's shelter.  Of course, there are a number of advantages to this.  Less threats of violence.  A lower population of women, so the chances of getting a bed are greatly improved.  And, of course, the obvious one...being able to be among women.  Of course, we are told by the transgender kooks that this would simply never happen.  And of course it does.

A friend, who happens to be a resident of a large homeless shelter in San Francisco, CA had told me about just such a case.  (I cannot reveal this person's name, or the name of the shelter, because of privacy concerns.)  There is a person residing in that shelter who presents as a "trans woman," who clearly is not.  This person, who I have seen on the street near the shelter, is clearly a man, and other than wearing an ill fitting dress, makes no attempt to present as female.  Some examples:

• Most of the time he sports a rather full beard.  While he has occasionally shaved it off, it grows back quickly, so you have someone who basically looks like a hard-core homeless man, except he is wearing a dress.
• The first night she encountered him, he was in an overnight bed.  During the night, she happened to observe him masturbating rather enthusiastically.  She reported this to a monitor, and he was removed for the night, but was allowed to return on later nights.  He now has a longer term bed, but has still be observed to engage in such behavior.
• On another occasion, a woman using the bathroom noticed that the person in the stall next her was peeing rather loudly.  She leaned down enough to see that person's feet, and recognized the khaki men's sneaker that this alleged "trans woman" wears.  And yes, they were facing the toilet.  He was standing to pee.

This illustrates the very real problem.  As used in this situation, "gender identity" is meaningless.  As my friend observed while we were discussing this, she has a lot of transgender friends, and they are very concerned about how they present.  Even if pre-op, they sit to pee, would never engage in any activity that would make them stand out as male, and of course are far more concerned about their appearance.

No, clearly, this is just one example of a man who is doing what is claimed to never occur.  He is pretending to be "transgender" in order to access a women's shelter.

I Wonder...

Okay, the blog Feministing has yet another whiny, and more than a little creepy, post about how those mean old lesbians will have sex with women born women, and even "trans men," but not with "trans women."

The basic gist of the whole posting, besides the obvious "those mean old lesbians won't have sex with me, and they should be forced to" thing is about how this "disrespects" the gender identity of "trans men:"

It’s incredibly undermining to frame sexuality in a way that lumps these men in with all female assigned folks instead of with cis men. It’s a failure, in the realm of sexuality, to recognize thattrans men’s male identities are just as legitimate as cis men’s. If you’re going to base sexuality on gender, better base it on people’s actual genders.

Okay... Well, first off, I find it rather odd that a "trans woman" is presuming to speak out on the idea that "trans men" are being disrespected...especially when, as far as I am aware, few, if any "trans men" are actually raising this issue.  

Second, and more to the point, where is the outrage about all those men, often referred to as "chasers" or "fans" who claim to be "straight" but who not only will only date a "trans women" who have not had surgical correction, but who insist on those "women" performing sex acts that no woman born woman could perform...at least without wearing a prosthetic phallus.

These, uh, "straight men" have been known to dump their, uh, "girl friends" if they have SRS, even after long term relationships.  Funny, but I have to wonder, where is the outrage?  Where are the cries of how this disrespects the "gender identity" of the "trans woman?"

Up To His Usual Tricks

There is an old cliche about, "How can you tell is lying?  His lips are moving...."  Sometimes, I feel like updating that to, "How can you tell Mr. "Cristan" Williams is lying?  He's posting on the Internet again..."  Granted, Williams, not unlike some he loves to attack, does not lie so much as he stretches the truth to a ridiculous extreme so that it is effectively a lie.  Well, that or sometimes he just outright lies.

In the latest such example, Mr. Williams greatly exaggerates the reaction of some to the recent law passed in California that I think is poorly written.  The law is intended to extend protections to students who are transsexual, though of course, political correctness insists that the term must be "transgender."

The article is classic Mr. Williams.  He exaggerates the reaction of some, linking together several diverse groups in an attempt to give a false impression.  And then he attempts to use images from popular culture to sway, so he can avoid making an actual, rational argument.

The only problem I have with the law, is the same problem many have with other, similar laws.  It is too vague.  Of course, this is how the extremists want it.  Kooks like Mr. "Cristan" William seem to have an obsession with protecting the rights of perverts like "Colleen" Francis and "Paula" Witherspoon, the registered sex offender and child molester who was cited for being in the women's room at Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas, Texas.  Now, personally, I think it rather reasonable to question whether a person such as Witherspoon actually has a legitimate "female gender identity."  The evidence seems pretty strong that he doesn't.

The problematic part of the law does not require that a student seeking protection under the law have any evidence other than, apparently, a vague claim of identity:

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.

Now, consider how this is written.  Let's take a hypothetical situation that is actually not really all that hypothetical.  Now, granted, the situation I am describing happened at a local community college, not a K-12 school, and the person involved was possibly not a student, but bear with me.  A male was lurking in the women's locker room in the school's athletic facility, and attempted to attack a woman.  Now, suppose a law similar to this were in effect and he were spotted and reported before actually attempting an assault.  The police arrive, and confront the perp.  He is not dressed as a female, but, thinking quickly, states "I believe myself to be a female, so I am in the appropriate facility for my gender identity."  The police officers' hands would be tied.  They would probably not even be able to check the person's ID and see if he had any priors or warrants.  As long as he had not actually committed an act, he would be "protected," simply by telling a lie.

Now, Mr. Williams would have you believe that such things never happen.  He actually repeats a previous attempt to claim that "cisgender women" are actually more of a threat to women in restrooms than men, transgender or otherwise.  Poorly written laws put women in danger.  As in the example above, had the suspect been confronted, a poorly written law would bind the police from doing their jobs.  Now, Mr. Williams tries to imply that NO transgender person would ever engage in improper behavior, but this is simply not the case.

Now, what is likely to happen is that this law will be challenged in court.  Also, there is already a move underway to have it rescinded by a ballot initiative.  If the reaction indicated by comments on SFGate.com, the San Francisco Chronicle website, are any indication, such an initiative would very likely pass overwhelmingly.  Comments were overwhelmingly negative.  And that is in San Francisco.  There was no serious support for the law.  A few commenters tried to make the same sort of vague claims as Mr. Williams.  

If such a proposition passes, the good parts of the law will likely be thrown out with the one poorly written provision.  Personally, I would like to see the provision rewritten to require an actual diagnosis from a licensed therapist, and provisions to protect the privacy of students in situations where there is inevitable nudity.  Also, I think it would be reasonable to require that any student accessing sex-segregated areas actually be, as some say, living full time as the "gender" they claim to identify with.

Another false claim by Mr. Williams is this:

Here in TEXAS – yes, conservative TEXAS – we’ve had these California-style policies in effect for YEARS. And you know what’s happened? Nothing… Except trans kids got to go to school without having to face institutionalized bigotry.

Now, some might claim this is absolutely true.  Some might claim it is a bit of an overstatement.  But, because of a very specific phrase (" California-style policies") it is actually an outright lie.  

Here, in its entirety, is the Houston rule:

Employees of the District shall not discriminate on the basis of or engage in harassment motivated by age, race, color, ancestry, national origin, sex, handicap or disability, marital status, religion, veteran status, political affiliation, sexual orientation, gender identity, and/or gender expression. A substantiated charge of harassment against a student or employee shall result in disciplinary action.

Compare that to the wording from the California law above, keeping in mind the fact that this wording is the only real change in California law, which already had, shall we say, "Houston-style policies" on the books for years.  Whoops!  I would say that what Mr. Williams claims is an outright lie, not just clever semantics.

The bottom line is this...  Mr. Williams claims to be a woman, but he seems to have no regard for the actual feelings of women confronted with an obvious man invading their space.  He has hounded Virginia Brownworth, accusing her of terrible acts, simply because she does not support the right of men like Mr. Williams to invade places like the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival, or to force lesbians to accept them as sexual partners.

So, I suppose it is no surprise that Mr. Williams would lie about reactions to the California law.

Exposing Transgender Idiocy...

Sometimes stories almost write themselves....  I was checking out the usual drivel that comes from the Transgender News mailing list when I came across an article entitled Exposing Cisgender Privilege by Nina Ember Nova.  Now with a title like that, you know it is almost certainly going to be a major bit of transgender idiocy.  And yes, it truly is.

Here are the examples of "cisgender privilege" that are alleged, and why they are so absurd:

1. Not having to face discrimination when going to bureaucratic offices because your gender identity doesn’t not match the sex marker on your id.

You know, one of the first hurdles a transsexual has to face is chaining paperwork.  Nobody claims it is fun, and yes, I was rather nervous, but the people I dealt with were professional about their job, and they simply followed the rules.  Now, for the first three years of my transition I was stuck with a driver's license that said 'M' because Alabama will not change the sex marker until you have had the surgery.  In that time, I had maybe two people notice it.  I was in a couple of car accidents, and got stopped a couple of times by a officer (once speeding, and once for an expired tag) and not once did they notice that it did not match my presentation.  Of course, I looked and acted like a woman.  Most discrimination occurs because they person looks like a "man in a dress."  Funny, but people find that a bit disturbing...
2. Be able to be called by the name and pronoun that matches your gender identity.

A trip to the probate judge's office took care of that.  My legal name has been Jennifer for quite a while now.
3. Not be called a pervert because of your gender identity is different from what was assigned to you at birth.

Actually, for the vast majority of transgender people they are called a pervert for exactly the opposite reason.  Their gender identity is male, and very obviously so, but they insist on dressing as, and pretending to be, a woman.
4. Not be bullied, sexually exploited, [abused] because you express your gender identity.

This is not because you express your "gender identity."  This is because of behaving in a manner that invites such abuse.  Funny, I have never had this experience because, well, I have not put myself in that position.  And on the rare occasion someone has tried to go there, I have let them know it was not going to happen.

5. Not be labeled “psychotic” because of your gender expression.

Maybe if you tried not acting like someone who is psychotic, it might help.  Believe me, the one's I have labeled as psychotic were not seen that way because of gender expression, though more than a few have tried to use their "gender expression" as an excuse for their behavior.

6. Be able to use certain facilities, such as the bathroom or locker room, and feeling safe and not be called a pervert, pedophile, or a rapist.
Guess what?  If you are being called a pervert, pedophile, or a rapist in the bathroom or locker room then you might want to get a clue and stay OUT OF THE LADIES ROOM until you are presentable enough to not cause people to be upset.  When I started my transition I never dreamed of just forcing my way into the ladies bathroom like, well like a pervert.  I eased into it, cautiously, until I felt confident that I was not going to cause a riot.  And if you have not had FULL SEX REASSIGNMENT SURGERY, then you have NO business being in a locker room.  It may be inconvenient.  It may seen fair to you.  But really, you walk around in a locker room where I am with your penis hanging out, and well, I carry pepper spray.  Your face, and an area that is clearly very precious are both getting a shot,

7. Your masculinity or femininity not be challenged because of your gender identity or trans status.

Maybe if you actually made an effort to appear as, and assimilate as, the gender you claim to identify with....  Ah, but they mention "trans status."  You see, they want, so to speak, to have their cake and eat it too.  They don't REALLY identify as women.  They want to force society to accept them as something they are not, and then they complain when people object.

8. Not be told that you are not man enough or woman enough because your genitalia does not “match” with your gender identity.

Maybe you should get a clue and stop trying to tell people that "women have penises."  If your gender identity is really what you say it is, then why aren't you seeking to correct it, and being patient until you achieve that goal.

9. Be able to walk down the street and not be targeted and be called a prostitute by the police because of your gender identity/trans experience.

You know, this is a lot less likely to happen if a) you dress like a normal woman, and b) you are not hanging out in an area where prostitutes are.  Funny, I have never once been accused of such, and I used to do outreach to transgender sex workers.  

10. Being able to go to the DMV and not legally be called the improper title (sir, madam, etc.) because of inaccurate identification.

This is a bit weird.  If you are going to the DMV, and it is not to update your identification then it strikes me that it is not the identification that is inaccurate.

11. Your birth certificate, the identity given to you at birth, matches your real identity and gender expression.

If you haven't had SRS then it should not be changed, and well, to be quite blunt, if you have not had SRS, and don't plan to, then it does match your real identity.  Birth certificates have NOTHING to do with gender expression.  If you have not changed your sex, you should not be able to change your birth certificate to lie about your sex.

12. Never having to go to court to prove who you are and get your id’s match your gender expression.

Well, boo hoo...  If you don't want to do that, then don't.  But don't call it cisgender privilege to not have to.

13. Be able to see people in the media who matches your gender identity who are not depicted as perverts, psychotic murderers, or the comic-relief/butt-end of jokes.

Okay, this shows what is really going on.  I see people in the media all the time that match my gender identity.  They are called WOMEN!!!  I would venture that about 50% of the people on TV are in that group.  So, what this kook who wrote this article is really saying and what puts the lie to all the rest, is that his gender identity is not really female, it is "trans."  He identifies as a dude pretending to be a woman, and complains that TV shows don't feature such people.

14. See a medical doctor anywhere who understands your health needs.

This has nothing to do with privilege, it is just a matter of choosing wisely.

15. Be able to undress in any designated safe space matching your gender identity without anyone seeing you as a threat, a sexual predator, or a freak.
in
If you have a penis, stay out of the women's dressing area.  You have no business being there.  It is a safe space because people like that, who DO NOT HAVE A FEMALE GENDER IDENTITY ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE THERE!!!!

16. Have access to medications and surgeries you need for your health, safety, and overall well-being and have it be covered by medical insurance.

Again, this has nothing to do with being "transgender."  It is a problem for a lot of people.

17. Find clothes easily and readily that matches your gender identity and expression.

Huh?  What, you mean like pantyhose with a place for you penis to fit into?  If you claim to be a woman, you should have no problem finding clothes.  If you claim to be a man, again, plenty of clothes.  Shoot, you can even find unisex stuff.  So, what is the problem?

18. Have a formal title, such as Mr., Ms., Mrs., Miss, that matches your gender identity and expression.

Again, it is clear that your gender identity is "none of the above."  So, don't be surprised if people have issues with you...

19. Being able to express your gender identity without the threat of being fired.

Try no insisting on dressing up in a manner that will upset your fellow employees and the customers.

20. Be able to join circles of men or women without the threat of being “exposed” and being harassed, shunned, bashed, and violently not accepted.

Well, since the person who wrote this clearly does not seem to identify as man or woman, that seems to be the cuase of rhis problem.

21. Not having to hear from parents “when you were a girl/boy then...” when you never identified as the gender given to you.

Cut your parents some slack.  This is hard enough on them.  If they are will to speak of your former sex in past tense, you are doing better than many....

22. Not be told you were selfish for not wanting to wear that dress/suit because it did not match your gender expression.

Again, people need time to adjust.  And yes, you might well actually be selfish...

23. Not have to come out to your parents, family, friends, and/or loved ones.

Then don't choose to be transgender.  And if you really are transsexual, sorry but that is part of the condition.

24. Be able to dress without having “tuck away” or “bind” anything.

Yes, just proudly have your penis erect under your dress...  After all, you are mighty fond of it.

25. Being comfortable in and not giving thought to a gender binary.

If you are not, then work to become so. If you don't want to, stop complaining.

Yes, this offers a great insight into what this is REALLY all about.  It is not a matter of need, but of choice.  And they want to force themselves on others.  They don't want to be women, they want to force people to abandon reality and make us accept and approve of their perversion.

Sandeen Remains Clueless, But Is Kind Of Right for Once

"Autumn" Sandeen is either completely clueless, or he is a liar.  I'm not sure which, but after yet another incident that should tip him off that he is not remotely credible as a woman (i.e. to put it in trans-speak, he doesn't "pass") he decided to identify himself correctly.  I love his internal debate, as he rejects a couple of outright lies, before deciding to be honest....

I could’ve answered “I’m a woman,” and perhaps added a invective epithet to the end of that line, but I didn’t. 

I could’ve answered “I’m a woman, but I’m also a male-to-female transsexual,” but I didn’t. 

Instead, I looked him straight in the eye and said without weakness or animosity, “Well, I’m transgender.” I chose to fully embrace my sociopolitical trans identity in my answer to that young man. 

It’s clear what he expected from me to feel was humiliated at the asking of his question. It’s clear that he expected me to embrace internalized transphobia. He didn’t expect me to be matter of fact regarding my trans identity; the young man looked somewhat taken aback at my answer.

Sandeen is not a woman, so the first would have been an outright lie, and given the fact that he had clearly been read, would have been sort of silly.

The second would have been two lies, again not a woman, and no, not remotely a transsexual.

No, Sandeen actually told the truth.  He is not a woman, he is not a transsexual, he is simply a man with "sociopolitical trans identity."  That is, he is a man who likes to play dress-up, pretend to be a woman, and make some sort of bizarre sociopolitical statement about rebelling against society's gender norms.

I doubt the young man was as taken aback, as he was just surprised that Sandeen, for a change, was actually honest.

But that is not the point of Sandeen's blog post.  He wants "trans people" to be out, loud, and proud like he is.  Of course, in his warped view, he includes transsexuals (after all, he falsely claims to be one).  Now, if someone who is truly transsexual wants to be "out," that is, I suppose, their business, but Sandeen, as always, remains clueless.


You see, if you are "out, loud, and proud," you are effectively undoing whatever you have accomplished by transitioning.  It has been the same story since Christine Jorgensen was outed back in the Fifties.  She could never live a life as "just a woman."  The same is true for ever other public transsexual.  The more out you are, the less you are able to live as a woman, or a man in the case of an FTM.  


Of course, for someone like Sandeen, this is not really an issue.  He does not remotely want to be a woman.  His desire is to be transgender.  He enjoys parodying women, but he is not one himself, and makes no real attempt to be one, beyond engaging in some of a caricature that is more akin to drag, than to womanhood.  Simply put, he is an insult to women, not one of us.


He talks about protections based on "gender identity."  What that actually means, is protections based on a claim.  You say that you have a "gender identity" at odds and poof, you get protections.  You don't actually have to even be telling the truth.  It is a totally subjective basis for protections, and in effect, makes little, if any, sense.


I think that transsexuals should be protected under the same laws that protect anyone from being discriminated against because of a medical condition.  But people like Sandeen should take responsibility for their choices, and accept the consequences.  Like someone who identifies as a Democrat, Republican, Socialist, Communist, or Nazi (other examples of sociopolitical identities) Sandeen should accept that he does not have a right to protections based on how he sees himself.