More Cisphobic Silliness From Mr. "Cristan" Williams

Mr. "Cristan" Williams is continuing his crusade against women with an attack on someone for pointing out a rather significant truth...that women do sometimes lack the privilege that men like Mr. Williams enjoyed before he began his masochistic quest to impersonate a woman.  

In the article, Mr. Williams tries, again, to argue that cis people have great privilege....while ignoring the fact that what he considers a lack of privilege on the part of transgender people is basically of their own making.  Now, keep in mind, we are talking about "transgender" and NOT transsexual. 

Mr. Williams provides a list to make his case.  When looked through the lens of reality, it is a different matter...

Examples of cis-privilege as reported by the trans community: 

You can use public restrooms without fear of verbal abuse, physical intimidation, or arrest.

In another words, people who are not trying to pretend to be members of the opposite sex can go to the bathroom without violating social norms, or the law.  Oh, and I notice that Mr. Williams conveniently removed the one that was next in the original, about going into locker room and store changing rooms.  I guess even he knows that is a losing idea....

Strangers don’t assume they can ask you what your genitals look like and how you have sex.

Funny, but the only people who ever asked me that were transgender kooks.

If you are murdered (or have any crime committed against you), your gender expression will not be used as a justification for your murder (“gay panic”) nor as a reason to coddle the perpetrators.

I agree, no one should be murdered period.  But I do find it disgusting how the transgender community is more interested in praising martyrs than promoting safety.  Gay panic, which is also, surprise, surprise, used against gays, should not be a valid defense.  But pushing the idea that people should take chances is often what gets them killed.

You have the ability to walk through the world and generally blend-in, not being constantly stared or gawked at, whispered about, pointed at, or laughed at because of your gender expression.

Yeah, you tell 'em bro!  You guys have the right to dress up and look hilarious while impersonating a caricature of a woman, and anyone who laughs at you is wrong....  Seriously, do they ever look in the mirror?  Yesh, some of them are NEVER going to blend in, and let's be honest, a lot of them want to be stared at, gawked at, whispered about, pointed at, and laughed at.  If they don't want this, they should stop dressing like they do.

Strangers call you by the name you provide, and don’t ask what your “real name” [birth name] is and then assume that they have a right to call you by that name.

Or, they can realize that they are not now, nor will they ever really be perceived as women.  What they really want is the right to force everyone to ignore reality, and accept them as something they are not, and will never really be.

You have the ability to flirt, engage in courtship, or form a relationship and not fear that your biological status may be cause for rejection or attack, nor will it cause your partner to question their sexual orientation.

Ever wonder just how ridiculous the transgender kooks are?  Here it is!  They are demanding the right to force themselves on people.  Let's see...  If a cis person finds another cis person unattractive, that is, well, normal...  But, if a cis person is not attracted to a trans person, which most are not going to be, if say, a man does not want his girlfriend to be packing a penis, or perhaps even better, a woman is not thrilled to have some male pervert trying to get a date because he considers himself to be a lesbian, then they are somehow wrong?  That they have no right to reject such a person?  I mean, really, this is just how incredibly insane these people are.  I guess they might want affirmative action for male lesbians, or something.

If you end up in the emergency room, you do not have to worry that your gender will keep you from receiving appropriate treatment, or that all of your medical issues will be seen as a result of your gender.

Well, I have never been denied medical care, even while pre-op.  And let's face reality, in some cases, hormones and other drugs used in transition can cause medical issues.  But Mr. Williams wants doctors to ignore reality.

Your identity is not considered a mental pathology (“gender identity disorder” in the DSM IV) by the psychological and medical establishments.

Well, the therapist who referred me for SRS specifically declined to put a diagnosis for GID, stating that she did not think my "gender identity" was disordered at all.  That she saw my gender as female, and since that was my "identity," there was no disorder.  Now, if you have someone like Mr. Williams, who clearly has a male gender (or better a male brain) but wants to pretend he is a woman, then yeah, there is definitely something disordered going on....

You are not required to undergo an extensive psychological evaluation in order to receive basic medical care.

Giving someone hormones that are not appropriate to his or her sex, and which may cause major changes, or performing sex reassignment surgery on someone, is not basic medical care.  If it is not the right treatment, the results can be tragic.  

[You are] able to assume that everyone you encounter will understand your identity, and not think you’re confused, misled, or hell-bound when you reveal it to them.

I doubt anyone is likely to understand someone like Mr. Williams' identity.  Again, he is clearly a man, but he wants to pretend to be a woman.  He is, quite frankly, a walking contradiction.  Confused?  Perhaps.  Misled?  More like he is trying to mislead others.  Hell-bound?  I would leave that to God to decide.  But, understandable?  Hardly.

Again, we see what the transgender kooks want is nothing short of license to behave in an antisocial manner.  They are men who want to force people to ignore basic reality and pretend they are something they never will be.

If You Can't Beat Them, Co-Opt Them...

Well, it appears that Mr. "Cristan" Williams has decided to co-opt those he has vainly claimed victory over.  Mr. Williams, who has spent quite a bit of time telling us that the transsexual separatists movement is dead, and that we all must accept that our true motivation is really gender transgression, has suddenly decided to embrace the very positions he has fought so hard against.

It appears that he is trying to be a "born again HBSer."  On the Transadvocate site that he apparently inherited, he has posted a link to a video entitled Intersex Conditions Within The Transsexual Brain.  Of course, Mr. Williams, never one to leave things well enough alone has added to the title, making it out to be "Gender Orientation: Intersex Conditions Within The Transsexual Brain," which sort of implies that the video is an endorsement of Mr. Williams' attempts to explain transgender behavior.  Actually, the mishmash of psychobabble that Mr. Williams came up with has nothing to do with the topic of the video, which is simple statement that transsexualism can be thought of as a type of intersex condition.  Not a new idea, actually...it was suggested by a long line of scientists both before, and including, Dr. Harry Benjamin.  In fact, some actually coined the term "psychic hermaphrodites" to describe what would become know as transsexuals.  The idea being that transsexuals have brains that actually female.  Hmmm, what some have suggested as the basis for the concept of Harry Benjamin Syndrome.  Could Williams suddenly have decided to "co-opt" this idea he has hated so much?  Possibly.  He has certainly taken a video from Stanford, added a new "title page" that makes it look like it is an endorsement of the crap he dreamed up, and posted it to YouTube.  Classic Williams....

Another transgender blogger who has jumped on Williams' bandwagon is none other than Suzan Cooke, who reposted Williams link to the video.

Now, in the video, nothing new is really presented.  It is simply a rehash of information on several scientific discoveries that led some of us to suggest the idea of reclassifying transsexualism as a medical condition and not a mental illness.  Gender identity disorder could, and probably should, remain as a classification those cases where a mental, or at least behavioral disorder diagnosis it appropriate.

Funny, but this is the very stuff that Williams, and others, have rejected, but now seem to want to claim for themselves....maybe they realize, they are actually about to face a major backlash.

They haven't much of a leg to stand on.  They have tried to claim status as transsexuals, but when compared to true transsexuals they look, well, like the kooks they really are.  So, maybe they think they can claim the stuff they have rejected.  This could be interesting....

Be Careful What You Wish For

The transgender blogs are celebrating, as "gender identity disorder," which replaced "transsexualism" (largely because of the transgender kooks) is now "gender dysphoria."  Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen goes so far as to crow and quote "Dana" Beyers, who makes the following incorrect observation:

“A right-winger can’t go out and say all trans people are mentally ill because if you are not dysphoric, that can’t be diagnosed from afar,” Beyer said. “It no longer matters what your body looks like, what you want to do to it, all of that is irrelevant as far as the APA goes.”

Sorry fellows, but most of you, like Mr. Sandeen, are covered by "transvestic disorder."  As to what Beyer claims, well, if you are not "dysphoric" and therefore cannot be diagnosed with a mental disorder, that just makes you a "happy pervert."  In another words, you have to admit that your behavior is chosen, and therefore you have absolutely NO basis to claim things like a right to strut your junk in women's spaces.

The simple fact is, what was called "gender identity disorder" in DSM-IV, and "transsexualism" before that, never really applied to the vast majority of transgender people.  Almost all of them are actually covered by what was called "fetishtic transvestism" and is now called "transvestic disorder."

So, hey, you got what you want...and hey, you are still disordered.

It's Really Ironic...

There has been a lot of talk lately about "depathologization" of transsexualism and transgender behavior. Of course, these are two separate topics, which actually have nothing in common, thought, of course, the transgender kooks don't want you to know that.

Now, what is ironic is, depathologization of transsexualism is not really that new of an idea. It has been around for several years, and was previously known as "Harry Benjamin Syndrome." Yes, that horrible thing that makes transgender kooks like Suzan Cooke and "Autumn" Sandeen rent their clothes and cry out was really about moving transsexualism from being a "mental illness" to recognizing it as a medical condition. Well, actually, at first, Cooke kind of embraced the idea until she realized it was competition for her "Women Born Transsexual" silliness.

Oh, and note, I said Harry Benjamin Syndrome, not "Harry Benjamin's Syndrome," the phrasing preferred by a separate, and eventually unrelated movement that originated more in Europe, and which became somewhat extremist in certain views. Some dishonest "historians" attempt to conflate the two movements in order to discredit the Harry Benjamin Syndrome movement.

So, why do the kooks hate it so much? Well, in some cases, it is because it competed with the kooks own little patch of turf, and a lot of the people who endorsed Harry Benjamin Syndrome did not necessarily agree with this, or that, kook's own agenda. For example, we did not embrace the idea that "transgression" was a valid reason to claim to be another sex.

Worse, those who endorsed Harry Benjamin Syndrome made it clear that they wanted nothing to do with transgender activism and that we rejected the transgender paradigm. That, of course, was too much for the gender fascists to accept.

The approach was simple, and straight forward. We asked that medical profession simply acknowledge that a small number of people are born with what is, in effect, a congenital condition where the brain is sexually differentiated at odds with at least part of the body. This condition resulted in an overwhelming desire to correct one's body to the extent that science allows. In another words, what some would call a true, or classic transsexual.

HBS, as it has come to be known, would have provided a basis for insurance coverage, which some are more than willing to sacrifice in their demands that doctors no longer consider people who think that simply claiming to be a different sex effectively changes their sex to be mentally ill. Uh, yes, that sounds crazy to me...but hey, most crazy people will tell you they are really the sane ones.

Another problem people had with the HBS movement was that we would not embrace the insanity of "surgery on demand," and actually endorsed tightening the criteria. While it is fortunate that most who should not have surgery now embrace the non-op paradigm, there is room for mistakes, particularly in cases where surgery is more easily obtained because of insurance or socialized medicine. For example, Natalie Reed, who recently admitted what I had already surmised, that he is a "pre-op" wrote a post in which he discusses his ambivalence towards SRS, but indicates that he will pursue it anyway. Reed is a mistake in the making. If one can live without surgery, then they should. Just because it is, effectively free, and just because one is able to talk a therapist into rubber stamping your request (far too many therapists are afraid to "just say NO!" to be people who are poor candidates, does not mean one should hope on the table thinking that surgery will somehow make it all right.

We have enough screwed up "post-ops" already. We don't need another who will either become a virulently anti-transsexual TG activist, or worse, decide that God does not approve of SRS because they made a mistake.

So, now we have yet another attempt to get transgender people out of the DSM. Of course, most could care less if transsexual are harmed, and for some, harming transsexuals would probably be a desirable side effect.

Huh?

In a recent post, "Autumn" Sandeen makes the assertion that gender identity and gender expression are two different concepts.  He them proceeds to try to argue pretty much the opposite.


He is trying to counter the very strong argument made by Ashley Love that pushing protections based on gender expression are harmful to transsexuals.  Love is absolutely correct.  Mr. Sandeen tries to argue the opposite.  In spite of his rather lame attempts to argue otherwise, the term gender expression covers people like transvestites or crossdressers.  It covers a behavior, not something that is intrinsic.


Clearly, whether someone crossdresses on occasion, or is a full time transvestite, like Mr. Sandeen, actual gender identity is not really an issue.  Now, Mr. Sandeen may claim to be a transsexual, and may claim to have a female gender identity, but the facts are obvious.  He has no desire to live as simply a woman.  He goes out of his way to make sure that everyone knows his past.  He flaunts the fact that he spent 20 years in the Navy, serving in a position that, at the time, was only open to males.  Up until the point, after his discharge, that he decided to go full time, he was living quite happily and successfully as a man.


True transsexuals, also referred to as classic transsexuals, lead very miserable lives prior to transition.  Even though they may be in denial, they simply cannot function in a male role.  Their brain is not sexual differentiated to think as a male, and it is difficult, if not impossible, for them to maintain the illusion that they are men.


This is why protections for true or classic transsexuals are important.  They have a medical issue that should be accommodated.  Crossdressers and transvestites choose to engage in a certain behavior that does not warrant the same protection.  Traditionally we do not protect behavior from discrimination, and we should not start.


Mr. Sandeen is an extremist.  He favors protections that are quite simply, absurd.  He has shown no restraint on issues like bathroom access.  It is one thing to allow transsexuals, in transition, to use the women's room, it is something entirely different to say that putting on a dress entitles a man to invade women's space.  Mr. Sandeen simply refuses to see that women might feel threatened by such a situation.  In fact, in his comments, he adamantly asserts that women do not have a right to feel safe in the bathroom, making the absurd comparison to segregated rest rooms.  He again shows his extremist position that holds that a chosen behavior, i.e. crossdressing and pretending to be a woman, trumps the right of women to feel secure in a restroom.  For a transsexual, using the women's room is a necessity...for a crossdresser, even a full time crossdresser like Mr. Sandeen, it is more akin to a thrill, something to be done regardless of who it harms.


The great irony is that Mr. Sandeen and his ilk claim to be women, but they have no understanding or concern for those they claim to be in common with.  Their attitude is more misogynistic than not.  


No, gender expression should not receive protections.  It is not the same, or the equivalent of gender identity.  To follow the sort of logic that Mr. Sandeen engages in, one would argue that pedophilia would have to be protected since it is linked to a type of "sexual orientation."  Of course, such a view is obviously outrageous.  But it is consistent with Mr. Sandeen's approach which equates behavior with intrinsic condition.

Gender Confused?

A term that is commonly trotted out by the religious right in arguing against transsexuals is "gender confusion." It is used in the context of arguing that transsexuals should not receive sex reassignment surgery as treatment, but should receive psychiatric treatment to help them overcome their "gender confusion."

Now, for those who are true, or classic transsexuals, i.e. those who have what is better referred to as Harry Benjamin Syndrome, there is clearly no confusion about their gender. They know, quite fully, that they are mentally female, and no amount of psychiatric browbeating is going to change this. For example, I identify as a woman, period. I do not identify as a "trans woman," or any other variation on the numerous man who had a sex change and became a woman concepts that so many cling to. From the beginning of my transition, I knew I wanted to be accepted as a woman, not seen as a transsexual, or worse, as transgender.

But, unfortunately, there are also those who are transgender. In their case, the answer is not as simple. First off, I should point out, again, that "transgender" is actually an artificial political construct. A more proper term for those who are not transsexual or HBS would be "crossdressers". I mean, they are clearly not transsexuals if they are not seeking SRS, or even if they are seeking SRS but do not have a brain that is sexually differentiated differently from their body. Most of those who would fit this description seem to have a very strong need to maintain an identification with their birth sex. For them, it is not about being, but about appearances.

Robert Stoller, a researcher at UCLA, wrote about crossdressers (he used the term transvestites) having an identification as being a "woman with a penis." Now, I don't agree with much of Stoller's ideas, mainly because they were rooted in the silliness known as psychoanalysis, but I have come to see that he did have a point about crossdressers. There does seem to be a strong identification of the sort he described.

Now, in the process of writing this article, an interesting thing has happened. You see, I don't always write a post in one setting. I work on it some, take a break, do some more research, etc. Well, this morning the suggested DSM revisions came out, and one of the suggestions is to classify autogynephiles as "transvestites."

That would mean that a lot of the "transgender" crowd, the vast majority, would now be classified as having "transvestic fetishism" instead of "gender identity disorder."

But to return to the original subject, the term "gender confusion" does seem more appropriate for someone who wishes to be seen as a "woman" while clinging to his status as a "male," though I am not sure that is is rooted in "confusion" so much as it is just a conscious rejection of reality.

Is there anyone who is truly "confused" about their gender? I don't know, but I cannot honestly say I have seen any real cases. I have encountered people who are clearly suffering from mental illness that seems to manifest itself in cross gender behavior. In some cases, the person goes back and forth, but I am not sure that it is actually confusion.

In any case, the bottom line is that "gender confusion" is a myth created by the religious right in an attempt to appear compassionate while actually doing real harm to people simply because they do not fit a world view that has no foundation in reality, and that includes the Bible.