Trump Gets One Thing Right

I am not remotely a fan of Donald Trump.  I went in to the Presidential election expecting, as much as I hated the  idea, that Hillary Clinton would be elected.  I didn't vote for either, choosing to writing in Bernie Sanders, who I knew would not win, but who I found less objectionable than either of the two clowns running at the top.   Early on during the returns, I was mildly surprised to see Trump take an early lead.  I figured it was just a fluke.  Then as the night went on, it was obvious that something very odd was happening.  Finally, it became clear that Trump would likely win.  As I had figured, I would be unhappy no matter what happened, and I was right.  The next morning, he was the winner.

I wasn't quite sure what to expect from a Trump presidency.  I figured he would overturn some of the things Obama had done.  Some of Obama's changes I approved of, some I thought were absurd.  Especially his extremist views on transgender issues.

One of the worst of those decisions was his allowing openly transgender personnel to serve in the military.  The military is not a place for social experimentation.  Its primary purpose is to provide for the defense of our nation.  It requires disciplined, functional troops, who are ready to stand firm against all enemies of our nation.  They need to be able to work together and form bonds that allow them to operate as a well prepared unit.

Allowing males to enlist as women, and be in women's barracks, where there is inevitable nudity, or likewise to allow females to serve in men's unit is not acceptable.  It is simply not fair to those subjected to such an intrusion.  For someone who is actually transsexual, such a situation is unthinkable.  But we are not talking about transsexuals here.  We are talking about men, who enjoy living as women, but who wish to retain a strong connection to being a man.  They may in some cases, even choose to go so far as to have SRS, but they still want people to know they were born male.  Or, they are females who want to live as men, but have everyone know they were born female.

It would have been one thing if Obama has instituted a policy similar to "don't ask, don't tell," where transgender personnel would have been allowed to serve, but would be required to not engage in certain behaviors on duty, on base, and such.  But instead, they were allowed to serve as their "target" gender, as indicated in this rather extreme policy statement:

0.                        Policy Highlights
   

• Service members with a diagnosis from a military medical provider indicating that gender transition is medically necessary will be provided medical care and treatment for the diagnosed medical condition, in the same manner as other medical care and treatment. 

• Gender transition in the military begins when a Service member receives a diagnosis from a military medical provider indicating that gender transition is medically necessary, and concludes when the Service member’s gender marker is changed in the Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS) and the Service member serves and is recognized in the preferred gender. 

• At that point, the Service member is responsible for meeting all applicable military standards in the preferred gender and will use berthing, bathroom, and shower facilities associated with their gender. 

• Any discrimination against a Service member based on their gender identity is sex discrimination and may be addressed through the Department’s equal opportunity channels. 

 In the past, I suggested that transsexuals who had undergone diagnosis, and SRS could be allowed to serve as long as they were not open about their past history.  But that is nowhere near what this policy provide for.  It should also be noted that among people who identify as transgender, they do not generally have a medical condition as such.  They are seeking a lifestyle change, not an actual medical transition.  Unfortunately, far too many therapists are quick to grant them a claim to being transsexual, even when it clear that they are not, because of political pressure from activists who seek to use transsexuals to further their own demands.

Trump has, during his time in office, exhibited bizarre behavior, a general lack of understanding of history, and the role of the president, and an appalling lack of ethics, but in regards to this issue, he is doing the right thing.

Another Example of Why I Do Not Accept the Label of "Transgender"

In the comments section of Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen's column at LGBT Weekly, another man in a dress tried to dismiss the comments of myself, and another transsexual on the basis that we were "in pain."  I was rather amused by this, and simply replied, "Nope… My pain was ended when I had SRS."

Then I got to thinking about this.  This is a common tactic among transgender extremists, one that is almost as popular as labeling any disagreement as hatred.  The words might vary, with the accusation being that we are ashamed, in denial, or fearful, etc., but the basic idea is the same.  We are to be ignored because we are not being "honest."

Of course, this is the goal.  If they can "dismiss" our point of view, they can ignore it, and not have to actually deal with it.  They don't have to address the actual points raised, which just might prove a bit difficult.  You see this tactic a lot.  It is basically a variation on the classic logical fallacy known as a "straw man argument."  Rather than address the real point that is raised, in this case the issue was open service in the military for transgender people, you create a false argument, which is easily dismissed.

The simple fact of the matter is, I don't identify as transgender.  And that is all that transgender is, an identity.  Most who identify as such are not remotely transsexual.  Yes, there are exceptions, and some have guzzled the transgender "Kool-Aid" in large quantities.  Personally, I cannot understand why anyone who is transsexual would find common ground with the transgender paradigm.

Of course, part of the problem with the term "transgender" is that it is so vague as to actual meaning, it has become, essentially, meaningless.  But, for the most part, those who do identify with transgender seem to be more inclined towards being, as some would say, "out, loud, and proud."  They feel the need to make sure people know that they are transgender.  Their very core identity seems to depend on people being aware that they are transgender.  On the other hand, I, and most other transsexuals simply desire to get on with our lives as the women, or in the case of FTMs, the men, we really are.

To me, the idea of being "openly" transgender, or even "openly" transsexual, is unacceptable.  I am simply a woman.  I have been through transition, and I have left as much of my former life behind as is possible.

In another column on for LGBT Weekly, Mr. Sandeen writes about his experiences trying to obtain a discount based on his service in the Navy.  Now, I find it interesting that he states"One of the documents that can be used to indicate one is a veteran with my phone company is a DD214 (the military’s separation of service, or discharge document)."  Now, this is a document on which the name cannot be changed.  In another words, this document has Sandeen's birth name.  But, apparently, this was not the only document that Sandeen could have used to establish that he served in the military, but it is the one he chose.  Now, I never served in the military, but I have faced situations where I could have revealed my birth name.  And, unless absolutely necessary, I will avoid doing so.  In fact, the last time I recall having to do that was when I got my California ID.  I had to provide a copy of my birth certificate, and since that was before my surgery, I had to use the original version.  But transgender people seem to revel in this.

This is the main thing that divides most who are transsexual from those who prefer to identify as "transgender."  The transgender types want to keep a connection to being their birth sex and gender.  They don't want to be what they claim they "really" are.

Well, At Least He Tried

Well, I have challenged Ms. "Mark" Cummings, the leader of the Shame On You Transgender Edition cult of loser bloggers to post something beside his usual insults, and well, so far she hasn't post much except the same repetitive crap, usually along with a statement that she is tired of dealing with me, and is going to stop…  Oh well,..

But, I will give "investigative reporter Mr. "Zierota" Slingen credit…at least he has tried to post a coherent argument.  Sort of…kind of….

He asks, "How Objective is Transgender?"  He is clearly attempting to answer my assertion that "transgender" is a meaningless, subjective term that is an artificial social/political construct dreamed up by some crossdressers in the 1990s.  Sadly, for him at least, he falls quite a bit short.  

The primary basis for his argument is, "if the definition is accurate then there is ground for meaning."  Now, besides being vague, and pretty much circular reasoning, (sort of like saying, "The sky is blue because it is, well, blue in color….") it has no real bearing on the discussion, if only because there is no accurate definition of "transgender."  He then goes on, curiously enough, to use the terms "good and evil" which are certainly "subjective" as an example…of what, I am not sure…but okay.

He then offers this gem…

Transgender is a very objective word that can go into many directions for each person while the basis remains the same. Every direction of its meaning holds the same two words. Trans and gender. So what's the best way to explain the objectivity of this? Let's try an image!

Well, aside from effectively admitting that term is subjective (a "word that can go into many directions for each person while the basis remains the same") he offers as an illustration, this:

Here we have a mish-mash of terms, and a definition that is, by its very nature, totally subjective.  

Even worse, different people, and different groups, and even members of some of the groups listed in the illustration, would argue that they are not transgender.  For example, a lot of people who identify strongly as transgender would exclude crossdressers, transvestites, drag queens, and drag kings because, well, they are sort of embarrassing and they don't want people "getting the wrong idea."  On the other hand, a lot of interest people would violent object to being labeled transgender, and would argue that including them under the imaginary umbrella is simply an effort to co-opt their condition for cynical purposes.

And quite frankly, I and a lot of other transsexuals would argue that we do not fit that silly definition (not the lamest, but close…) in that we do not cross over from our true gender, and we do not challenge traditional gender roles or expressions.  Simply put, unlike Mr. Slingen, I am a woman, and that is the gender I express.

What is even sillier is what he posted about that diagram above….

Goodness gracious! That's a lot of labels!

Uh, yes, and that is part of what makes the whole thing HIGHLY SUBJECTIVE.

He then goes on to assert…

So, how objective is Transgender when you know the entire meaning? Simple. It's objective enough to know what gender means as opposed to sex. We also know that in a traditional society, the majority of people are cis gendered and they only recognize two extreme ends of the gender spectrum which is male and female as absolutes in a binary system.

He is just digging a deeper and deeper hole, since it has become common practice among transgender extremists to conflate "gender" and "sex."  They insist on using terms like "Gender Reassignment Surgery" while also asserting that "gender is what is between your ears, and sex is what is between your legs."  So, are they talking brain surgery?  Seriously…they do this a lot, referring to changing the "gender" on a birth certificate.  Or the "gender marker" on a driver's license.  So, talking about transgender being "objective" because we know what "gender" is, well that's another nail in the coffin for Mr. Slingen's argument.

Oh, and another example he attempts to use is that of the term "atheist."  Now, atheist is a clearly defined term.  He tries to compare my assertion that I am not transgender to someone who asserts that they do not believe in "god or gods"  saying they do not "identify" as an atheist.  Well, that is sort of like Mr. Slingen saying he is not a man…it doesn't quite work that way.  As I said, the term is clearly defined…unlike "transgender."  It is not about "identity," is is about fact.  Mr. Slingen could say, "I do not identify as a human being," but that would not make him a dog."  But, transgender is, quite frankly, meaningless as anything other than as an identity.  Trying to make it an objective label fails miserably.

But, of course, the transgender extremists need to make it appear to be an objective label for political reasons.  Which is, again, part of what makes it so subjective, and, quite frankly, meaningless.  In many ways, it comes down to numbers.  More "transgender people" means more political clout.  Now, given that I rather strongly oppose their political agenda, that is another reason I flatly refuse to accept the label.

So, Mr. Slingen can pout, through a fit, sputter, and spew, but he can't force me to be transgender, no matter how badly he wants to.

A Bit of Clarification

Early on in the now endless stream of silliness over a single student in Colorado, I made an assumption I should not have made, and asserted that the person in question was not making an effort to assimilate as female.  I now realize that I simply do not have enough information to say that.  Simply put, I don't know what the situation is.

What I do know is that most of the information in this case has either come through Pacific Justice Institute, or Mr. "Cristan" Williams.  They represent two opposite extremes, and I consider both to be about equally reliable.  Which is to say, I would not take what either of them says as absolute truth without some serious verification from a more reliable source, and in this case, there have been none.

Some people, who I respect, or at least did respect, have viciously attacked me for not following them in lockstep.  I'm sorry, but first off, I refuse to suspend thinking just because someone tells me to.  If that leads to the person attacking me, insulting me, trying to shame me, and thus trying to bully me into accepting their view that tends to make me wonder why they can't accept that someone might not see things their way.

I am saying, for the record, I don't know what the situation is.  If someone wants to blindly follow a proven liar in this matter, that is their choice.  I made that sort of mistake early on, when I was not aware of the source, and I regret it.  But I won't be bullied by people, even people I considered to be friends, into rushing to the opposite extreme either.

If I make a mistake, I own up to up.  If someone points that out to me, and offers legitimate arguments, I reconsider.  If someone tries to shove bad information down my throat, and then insults me because I don't swallow it, well...that doesn't work so well.  It says a lot more about them, than it does about me.  

And just so people know where I am coming from...I identify as a woman, not a "trans woman" or a "transsexual woman" or any other such term.  I try to consider the feelings of others who are also women a lot more than I consider the feelings of just those who might share a similar history to mine.  Yes, our situation is different.  I recognize that.  But, it is not the only thing that defines me.  And quite frankly, I get really sick of "identity politics" no matter who is trying to push it.

Oh, and I notice Suzan Cooke has again attacked me for speaking up.  I really do pity her.  She clearly has some serious insecurities.  I don't demand that people agree with me, and contrary to repeated claims, I don't use male pronouns just because someone disagrees with me.  I use male pronouns when I honestly feel that they are justified.  People like Mr. Williams, and Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen are so clearly men, it almost hurts.  Cooke, as bad as she acts...as much as she has become, to go with the analogy she was so smitten with, Locutus of Borg, is a woman.  A deeply disturbed, nut case but still a woman.  So no, I don't call people men because I disagree.  I call them men because they show no sign of remotely being women.

Has the Backlash Against the Transgender Extremists Begun?

A while back, I wrote about what is now referred to as the School Success and Opportunity Act, which is a very innocuous sounding name for what is a potentially bad law.  I know some disagree, and I admit, after reading Elizabeth's two excellent articles, (here and here)  on the law at Notes From the T Side, I am not quite as opposed as I originally was, but I still think the law needs, at the very least, to be rewritten.

I have no problem with there being a law to protect and assist students who are transsexual. Such a law might well have made my life a lot better when I was in school, though that is a hard concept to wrap my mind around because at that time, there were some many other things that would have been issues that the ones addressed by this law would have been relatively minor.  

I do know that I had learned to hide my feelings, and I have a very clear memory of answering a question asked by a psychiatrist in a way that was not truthful.  I was asked, "If you had three wishes, what would they be?"  I knew what the first would be, "To be able to change into a girl." and I also knew that it would not be a wise thing to admit.  Instead, I gave what I thought were "safe" answers.  Given how badly those were twisted, I still shudder to think how that woman would have reacted to the truth.

But this law is, as I pointed out, poorly written.  It is the sort of law that only a transgender extremists could truly love.  It is so vague, it pretty much amounts to "anything goes" with regards to students claiming to be "transgender."  There are no standards for what constitutes a valid claim.  It is strictly "name it, and claim it."  There is no requirement that the student have even spoken to a therapist.  

In theory, at least, a jock could walk into the principals office with a grin on his face, announce that he feels like a girl, and insist on being allowed to enter the girls locker rooms and bathrooms, and there is nothing that could be done to stop him.  Now, maybe this will never happen, but it could.  A more likely scenario is that some student who  has a fetish will take advantage of the law to, and gain access to such spaces even though his gender, and gender identity are still quite male.

And all of this brings us to the present.  Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen latest diatribe is about how the Capitol Resource Institute is leading a coalition that has begun gathering signatures to overturn the law.  I imagine they will have no problem getting the law on the ballot.  And chances are very good that it will pass.

The problem is rather obvious.  As Mr. Sandeen points out in the article:

The California School Boards Association (CSBA) describes the School Success and Opportunity Act as requiring “districts to permit transgender students to participate in gender-segregated school programs and activities – including athletic teams, sports competitions and field trips – consistent with their gender identity and to use facilities consistent with their gender identity.

The only problem is, the term should be sex-segregated.  What the law does is require schools, with no qualifications or limits, to allow male-bodied students in girl's locker rooms, showers, and bathrooms with no real restrictions as regards issues like "inevitable nudity."  As I said, the law is very poorly written.

A real irony is, Mr. Sandeen quotes a press release from the leader of, which states :

“AB 1266 mandates San Francisco values on all California schools.”

That's the problem...  It actually doesn't.  Here in San Francisco, the rules concerning access to showers and locker rooms require that access only be given as long as "inevitable nudity" is not a problem, and that a facility must, if feasible, take steps to prevent such from happening, or provided separate but equal facilities.  In another words, you have provide separate, enclosed stalls for showers and changing if that can be reasonably done.  This law, does not seem to allow for such restrictions.

Now, maybe schools have such facilities.  When I was in high school, the only showers were for the athletes (my senior year, it was decided that they would be available to others during PE, though it was optional and most did not take advantage) and they was zero privacy.  I don't know if the girls locker room was the same or not.  I also recall from my college days that the showers in the dorms originally built for male students also had open showers.  I only spent one semester in such a dorm, and the rest of the time I was in a dorm originally built for female students but "converted" to half of what was rather jokingly referred to as the co-ed dorm.  We shared a common building, but it consisted of two wings separated by the cafeteria with a gate separating the two sides that was locked at night.  The showers in that building had separate stalls.  No really "co-ed." but it was provided as a response for demand for such a co-ed dorm.

No, the simple solution would be to quickly amend the law to add a few simple provisions:

Require students wishing to make such a claim to be seeing a qualified therapist and have a written statement that provides a diagnosis.  

Further, students wishing to make such claims would have to present completely as the gender they claim to identify as.  In another words, the would have, as they walk, the walk, and not just talk the talk.  

There should also be provisions allowing schools to make accommodations when facilities do not provide adequate privacy in situations that involve inevitable nudity.  We don't need any teenage "Colleen" Francis types exposing themselves.

And a provision should be made to prevent students from repeatedly switching back and forth.  

Changes like that would likely short-circuit a proposition that will likely end all protections, even those for students who actually need them.

But I doubt the transgender extremists will have the good sense to compromise, preferring a glorious defeat instead.

Slacktivists? ROTFLLMAO!!!!!

Sometime back, I wrote about the comedy of Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen.  Well, he has come up with, perhaps, his funniest material yet.  In a post on Transadvocate, he has not only managed to prove that he is clueless, but has also managed, in response to mostly negative comments, to outdo Mr. "Cristan" Williams at abusing logical fallacies.  I do love that last bit.  I have pointed out, for some time, that the transgender kooks love to engage in logical fallacies, so now they regularly mention that concept in their posts, falsely accusing me of such, while, of course, cluelessly engagibg in them repeatedly.  They do love to imitate...

Anyway, what has set Mr. Sandeen off this time is the post I did on AB1266, the law that is supposed to protect transgender students in school, but which actually just abuses everyone else.  He is apparently (it is kind of hard tell) upset that I, and others are not actively lobbying for our point of view.  Yeah, seriously....

Call them classic transsexuals or women of operative history; call them true transsexuals or transsexual separatists — whatever you call them, you can also call them ineffectual slacktivists.

I mean, seriously?  I don't know what he is smoking, drinking, injecting, or snorting...but if it is not a controlled substance, it should be.  

The simple fact is, unlike Mr. Sandeen, Mr. Williams, and a number of other transgender kooks, I, and quite a few others that Mr. Sandeen seeks to attack in his laughably bizarre post are just not narcissistic publicity whores like they are.  We simply do not feel the need to run around Sacramento, Washington, or such, making fools of ourselves.  Can you imagine the laughter that must fill legislative offices after these fools have left?

No, my mother taught me well...."Fool's names, and fool's faces, often seen in public places."  Yes, I think AB 1266 is a bad law.  I sent a message asking Gov. Brown to veto it, and I am disappointed that he decided not to.  But, I have no desire to waste my time and money traveling to Sacramento to engage in self-aggrandizing political grandstanding.

No, there is a much simpler, and far more effective strategy.  Simply allow kooks like Sandeen to have their way.  It is interesting to note that Mr. Sandeen also posted another article where he whines about how "Progressive Talking Heads (are) Not Talking About California School Success And Opportunity Act."  Gee, did it ever occur to Mr. Sandeen that even the "progressive talking heads" might have enough sense to realize what a total train wreck this law has the potential to become?  Has he ever stopped to think that maybe, just maybe, they understand that average people think this is way too extremist?  Nah, of course not.

If Sandeen took the time, for example, to read the comments posted on SFGate, the web page for the San Francisco Chronicle, he might discover that here in the Bay Area the reaction was overwhelmingly negative.  And lest he try to make some excuse about it not really reflecting local sentiment, he should compare it to the response to the Supreme Court overturning Proposition 8.

No, AB 1266 could well be the final straw for the public's tolerance of transgender silliness.  It is bad enough that women's rooms are regularly invaded by men in dresses, but when you start talking about having boy showering with girls, provided the boys claim to be girls, people tend to say "ENOUGH!!!"

The problem with the law, simply put, is that its language is too vague.  The few who tried to defend it on SFGate kept claiming that it would not do what was claimed.  That it would take more than simply "claiming" to be transgender to get access to the girls locker room.  But the law does not say that.  I simply says that one cannot be denied access based on one's gender identity.  The claim is also made that no one would abuse such a law, but we have already seen too many examples that show otherwise.


Sandeen also, rather cluelessly links to an article from Notes From The T-Side that shows, quite conclusively, that his birth certificate is fraudulent, and that he knows that it is.  That would be the birth certificate that Mr. Sandeen has claimed shows that he is a "woman born woman."  Seriously, you can't make this stuff...not that ANYONE with a brain would want to.

Then he carries on about some crazy idea that the people at TI-SI came up with called "Transsexual Independence Day." Somehow, I managed to miss that one. Now, why Sandeen even bothers to bring this up is puzzling. As I said, he carries on in the comment section about "straw arguments," and refers to "Transsexual Independence Day" as a non sequitur, but his bringing it up is both. I had never even heard of it, and Elizabeth at Notes from the T Side basically posted an article that exposed the silliness of the who concept. It is not a surprise that it never went anywhere.

That's the problem with Mr. Sandeen's article.  It attacks me, and others, for something we don't do, have never claimed to do, links us to things we either opposed, or were not even aware of, and of course, does all of this to the glory of Mr. Sandeen.  

If he wants to go to Sacramento with other men in dresses, clomp around to various legislative offices, and get laughed at behind his back (you know they howled about his silly beret) that is his right.  Me, I will just sit back and wait for it all to blow up in his face.

Oh, and in a rather bizarre bit of absurdist theater, he posted a picture of himself, stuffing his face with Cheetos, which has a weird tag about "the blogging standard of blogging in one's PJs from one's mother's basement."  I'm not quite sure what that is supposed to imply, but my mother passed on over 25 years ago, and I live on the second floor of my building.  

As I say, whatever Mr. Sandeen is on, I do hope his friends will stage an intervention before he suffers any further brain damage.

A Very Bad Law

I'm normally a big supporter of both Tom Ammiano and Gov. Jerry Brown, but I am not happy with either of them at the moment.

Ammiano introduced, and Brown signed, AB1266, the law is meant to provide protections for "transgender" students.  Unfortunately, it contains one provision that makes it a very bad law.

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.

Strictly interpreted, this would mean that a male student, upon declaring that his gender identity is female, would not only be able to play on a girl's athletic team (irregardless of his hormonal status), but would also be able to join the girls in the shower after the game.

I am sure the transgender extremists are just...well, doing what men who are sexually aroused do, over the prospect of this.

It is one thing to say that students should be treated fairly, or that students who identify as transgender should be allowed to dress and be treated as the gender they claim to identify with, but the idea that a male student should be able to be in a place where female students have a right to expect privacy, simply by making the assertion that "he feels like a girl," is absurd.

The irony is, no student who is actually transsexual would take advantage of this, so any student who actually does, and perhaps none actually will, is simply not a transsexual, but is instead a pervert.

He's Not Against Stealth, He's Just Against Anyone Actually Being a Woman

Well, it appears after several rounds of vicious nastiness that that Transadvocate is attempting to make something resembling a logical argument.  For that they are to be commended.  Most of the drivel from that site has been the rants of Mr. "Cristan" Williams, Mr. "Monica" Roberts, and Mr. "Dana" Taylor.  But now, Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen, the self-style "Martin Luther King" of transgender extremism, is attempting to push the transgender extremist agenda.  And he has failed miserably.

I also find it interesting that Mr. Sandeen, and Transadvocate in general, seem to have finally admitted that Elizabeth's excellent blog "Notes From the T Side" actually exists.  Shoot, she does a much better job than me of exposing the silliness of the transgender extremists, and it is about time they acknowledge that by attempting, vainly of course, to refute her.

He starts out by quoting Harvey Milk.  Here Mr. Sandeen engages in his first mistake.  He equates being transgender, which he always insists includes transsexuals, with being gay.  This is wrong on so many levels, it is hard to decide where to begin.  First off, being transsexual does not make one transgender.  Second, being transgender is an identity, not an object state of being, like gay or lesbian.  Third, being transgender, is a choice. Fourth, much of what Mr. Sandeen is trying to address here is unrelated to being transgender, as it deals with primarily transsexual issues, which Mr. Sandeen has no experience or knowledge of.

And then he makes a truly clueless statement...

The T is part of the LGBT community. I believe what Milk said about gay and lesbian people is just as applicable to trans people: trans people are hurt both in the voting booth and within the halls of state and federal legislatures because society doesn’t know us.

Actually, the worst thing that can happen to the transgender extremists, and hopefully, something that will happen as soon as possible, is for people to REALLY get to know them.  Imagine how people would react if they they knew, for example, that transgender men think they have a right to force lesbians to have sex with them?  How do they thing people would react if they knew that they actually reject the simple concept that "no means no," and that anyone has the right to decline to have sex with another without having to give a reason?  Do they really think that people would be "impressed" with some pervert getting off on taking unapproved drugs, illegally obtained, to induce lactation, just so he can get off on producing milk like his fantasy of a "real woman?"  Would they be just thrilled at the idea of them defending the right of a convicted rapist and child molester putting on a dress and hanging out in a ladies room in a hospital?  But when these things are brought up, they try to silence the discussion with bogus cries of "transphobia."

Next, Mr. Sandeen moves on to rather arrogantly critique "transsexual separatists."  The biggest problem here is, it is not his place to do so.  If he wants to insist that transgender people should be "out, loud, proud, and in people's faces," that is certainly his right.  But he has no business trying to impose his views on transsexuals who do no wish to be subsumed under the "umbrella."  But, of course, Mr. Sandeen is just another arrogant male who, like Mr. Williams, has no concept of boundaries with regards to others.

Mr. Sandeen summarizes by saying this...

Elizabeth writes from the place of rejecting the idea of belonging herself to any public trans community, and looks to her wants as a woman that are served by not being out to coworkers and society as having a gender identity that doesn’t match the gender that was assigned to her at birth.

Here again, we see how the transgender extremists don't have a clue.  It is not about our "wants as a woman," but about simply being a woman.  This is something Mr. Sandeen has never experienced, and will never experience, and apparently is determined to never experience.  If you are "out" to people, you will not truly be seen as a woman, especially if you are constantly reminding them of your pass.

Then, in a move that I find rather amusing, Mr. Sandeen brings up logical fallacies.  Now, I find it amusing that many will, perhaps without realizing it, start copying something I might say.  I have pointed out numerous examples of Mr. Williams' use of logical fallacies, and now Mr. Sandeen is attempting to parrot that.  Unfortunately, again, he is clueless.  He attempts to accuse Elizabeth of using the "True Scotsman" argument.  Unfortunately, Mr. Sandeen, in doing so, not only fails to understand that logical fallacy, he creates another, in that he is engaging in a "Straw Man Argument."  Hmmm, a logical fallacy created from a logical fallacy about a logical fallacy.  

For something to be a "True Scotsman" argument, there has to be a clear definition of the group pointed to.  An example would be to say that "No real American hates baseball."  Absurd, of course, as many who can clearly be shown to be Americans (by birth or by naturalization) hate baseball.  That is a "True Scotsman" argument.  It is not a "True Scotsman" argument if you cannot establish, clearly, that someone, or something is clearly a part of a defined group.  And that is where Mr. Sandeens mistake occurs.  His reasoning is circular, and he is begging the question.  Mr. Sandeen states...

Elizabeth holds this as hers and her likeminded peers truth about those who they consider No True Transsexuals: “[W]e do not buy the man in a dress is a woman because he says he is.”

Mr. Sandeen is assuming, rather bizarrely, that because something sounds similar, "No True Scotsman" versus "No True Transsexual" then it must be the same.  But, again, you cannot dismiss something as a "True Scotsman" argument until you have shown that the argument makes a false claim that someone who really is a true Scotsman, isn't.  Mr, Sandeen is presuming that someone is a true transsexual without providing a valid basis.  If I were to say that I am a true Scotsman, that could be easily refuted.  I am not, as far as I am aware, of Scottish heritage, I was not born in Scotland, and well, I'm not a man.  It can be shown, though he might disagree, that Mr. Sandeen is not a true transsexual.  The same is true of the vast, overwhelming majority of those who identify as transsexual.  They simply are not transsexuals, true, or otherwise.

No, there is no logical fallacy on our part.  We are putting forth objective positions.  Mr. Sandeen is trying to play semantical games.  We are presenting a clear definition of terminology.  Mr. Sandeen is saying, "If I call myself something, I become it."  That is what some call "magical thinking."  Does Mr. Sandeen think if he calls himself an automobile, he will be able to consume gasoline rather than food?  I doubt it, and if he does, he will soon find he is quickly mistaken if he tries.  Yes, his position really is that absurd.  

The simple fact of the matter is, and this may shock some readers, laws based on gender identity are bogus.  They should not be passed, and they should be removed from the books where they are.  These laws are based on something that is vague, unprovable, and are easily abused.  Discrimination laws should be based on immutable, and verifiable criteria.  Race, national origin, sex, are things that fit this criteria.  Yes, sex can be changed, but not easily.  On the other hand, anyone, including a rapist and child molester like Paul Ray Witherspoon aka “Paula Witherspoon” can claim to have a female gender identity and use that to invade the women's room.  Now, think about that.  This man, who raped two teenage girls, and as recently a 20011 was arrested for sending nude photos (while still on probation), now claims to be a woman?  But if I would rather no share a restroom with him, I'm in the wrong?

Mr. Sandeen continues in this vein, then comes up with this bit of silliness...

The trans activists who work on those issues are generally out as trans. They prepare society for the reality that many people whose gender identity doesn’t match the gender assigned to them at birth are members of families (such as being children, parents, aunts and uncles), hold down jobs (such as lawyers, nurses, and fast food workers), go to primary and secondary schools, and not only vote but have friends, family, and allies that vote too.

The same is also true of many rapists, child molesters, child abusers, bank robbers, murderers, drug addicts, alcoholics,  etc...  Being a family member, parent, aunt, uncle, having a job, attending school, and voting does not negate bad behavior.  And yes, some of the behavior of these "trans activists" is bad, such as pushing the idea that lesbians are obligated to have sex with them.

And again, he makes this absurd remark...

I don’t make the case against stealth — if one doesn’t want to be out to one’s friends, family, coworkers, and legislators, then no one, in my opinion, should force you to be. There are real social and financial costs due to stigma that can result from being out to one’s coworkers, friends, families, and or society as a whole.

What a silly statement.  And again, so clueless.  People do not choose stealth because they are ashamed, or cowardly, or greedy, as Mr. Sandeen implies.  People choose stealth because they wish to live their lives honestly, rather than being seen as something they are not.  I have said many times, you can be trans, or you can be a woman, but you can't be both.  The moment you reveal your past, you are no longer seen as actually a woman, but, at best, as a woman who used to be a man....or as a man who became a woman, or to many people, as a man pretending to be a woman.  Granted, for someone like Mr. Sandeen, that last one IS being honest.

The Logical Fallacy of Transgender

In all of the silliness that has gone on today, what with Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen's complete meltdown, and Mr."Cristan" Williams comment on it, I saw something that I should have commented on.  And that was the central issue that I am trying to get people to see.

Sandeen was carrying on because I commented that he would not respond to challenges.  I have seen Williams try to use logical fallacies and intellectual dishonesty to avoid dealing with real issues.  And I realized, they have no choice.

At the core of the transgender paradigm is "self identification."  A transsexual who posts as Aunty Orthodox confronted Sandeen over this.  She was debating Sandeen about MWMF and the issue of who is and is not a woman...

After some back and forth, I asked specifically about Kirk Sneade, a college student who published a manifesto which included this bullet:

• Kirk Sneade has self defined as a woman ever since he realised it gave him legal access to the women’s changing rooms at the Bloomsbury gym.

Does Autumn Sandeen support Kirk Sneade, a self-identified woman, as an attendee to MWMF? Seems crazy, doesn’t it? Autumn would not address the question, instead choosing to talk about equality, and yadda yadda.

Autumn avoided two pointed questions. The first is, what is a self-identified woman? Her refusal to answer suggests that we both agree that Kirk Sneade is not a woman, even though he meets the criteria for self-identifying as one.

The second is whether women can define who is allowed to be a part of women’s-only space. An organizer may want to exclude male-bodied persons, or even female-bodied trans women from their space (e.g., MWMF, Radfem 2013). That’s their right. Autumn disagrees

But what is a woman? Is Kirk Sneade a woman? See how circular this is? If Kick Sneade, a self-identified woman, can enter women’s space, who can’t? Shouldn’t women decide who gets to be included in women’s space?

I have to say, this was absolutely brilliant.  I would challenge any who wish to defend transgender politics to answer this simple paradox.  Clearly, Kirk Sneade is not a woman.  Right?  Well, if he isn't, and you claim someone like Sandeen is, how can this be?  Sandeen's ONLY claim to being a woman is, after twenty years of successful service as a man, in a man's role, in the US Navy, he decided he wanted to be a woman and started self-identifying as one.  Now, he will, of course, claim that he was always a woman, and such, but I call foul on that.  Trust me, I know.  I had a miserable life before I transitioned. I would not have lasted 20 minutes in the Navy, let alone 20 years.  

If all it takes to be a woman is to self-identify as one, then by that standard, Kirk Sneade is a woman.  But clearly Kirk Sneade is not a woman.  No one, except a true fanatic, would say he is.  But if he is not, where is the line?  And who gets to draw it?  Sandeen would not answer this, because Sandeen cannot answer this.  Would Sandeen insist that people MUST use female pronouns to refer to Kirk Sneade?  After all, Sneade says he is a woman?  That is the same standard as Sandeen claims.  Would Sandeen demand that Kirk Sneade be admitted to MWMF?  Probably...  But that is a bit different matter.  And here is the real kicker.  Would he insist that be allowed in the women's changing rooms?  If not, Sandeen's entire paradigm falls apart.  If so, then Sandeen has shown he has no concept of how women think or feel. And with that the transgender house of cards collapses...

Women, quite frankly, don't "self-identify" as women.  We just are.  Sandeen will call foul, perhaps, or someone else might, and they are welcome to do so.  But ask any woman to really explain what makes her a woman, and that is the answer you will ultimately get.  It is not an identity.  It is a reality.  A reality that Kirk Sneade, and let's be honest, Sandeen, have never, and will never, experience.  So. all they can claim is, "I self-identify" as a woman.  And I am sorry. but that just doesn't cut it.

So, what is the moral of all this?  It is simple. One is a woman, if, and really only if, one is able to actually life in society as a woman.  Not a transwoman, not as transgender, but just as a woman.  I do, and so do a lot of transsexuals who have completed transition and moved on.   

Aw, Poor Suzy Must Be Jealous She Hasn't Gotten Any Attention Lately

Even though I haven't had much to say about kooky Suzan Cooke lately, she has decided to go after me, and Ben Girl (who did tear into Cooke quite justifiably about her outrageously hateful post after Rick Warren's son took his own life...establish Cooke as a true bigot of the worst sort) in her latest post.  And it is a really twisted piece of work, even by Cooke's standards.  Actually, I have largely ignored Cooke for the simple reason that Cooke rarely publishes anything original anymore.  Most of Cooke's blog is simply rehashing stuff from the looney Left press, and from the Transgender News mailing list.  In fact, a few weeks ago, when Transgender News did not post for a few days, Cooke's blog went silent as well. Unlike Cooke, I prefer quality over quantity.  Granted, I had planned to speak out about Cooke's piece on Rick Warren, but Ben Girl did such an excellent job, I saw no need to.  Which I guess has been eating at Cooke for a while....

Now, in Cooke's latest bit of insanity, she makes this assertion:

I do know I have a couple of people who make slamming me and a number of other TS/TG folks the main focus of their blogs. Jennifer ***** and Ben Girl to name names.

As I have said many times, I prefer to not use my name here.  Even though a lot of people know it, and jerks like Cooke have no morals, I stand by my policy...  Now, that said, I would point out that Ben Girl has posted about Cooke all of 4 time out of 213 posts.  On this blog, Cooke has been a significant enough topic to rate a label in 60 out of 299 posts (including this one).  She is certainly not the "main focus" of either of our blogs.  Of course, Cooke is one of those people who simply cannot abide disagreement.  

Of course, Cooke, who has an ego as big as her adopted state of Texas, is not really ranting about me speaking out against her.  She is rallying to the defense of her compadres, and fellow transgender kooks, Mr. "Cristan" Williams, and Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen.  Somewhere along the line, Cooke went over the deep end, and decided to become a major port of what she used to label the "Transgender Borg."  Shoot, Cooke is now the "Borg Queen."  Sandeen is upset because he can't censor me.  And, ironically, because I am doing the very thing he calls Cathy Brennan a coward for, he claims, not doing...answering his crap.  He attacks Brennan for not emailing him, which would supply him with an email address he can use to harass her.  Or, worse, supply to others for the same purpose.  

Now, some might get the impression that Cathy Brennan is some virulent hater of men, by reading some of the crap Sandeen has written about her.  It turns out that a) she actually worked with Sandeen to try to get the Maryland transgender bill passed, and b) had met with Sandeen where she had the unfortunate experience of finding out, first hand, just how totally insane Sandeen is....  Here is a quote from a comment that Cathy Brennan made to Sandeen on Pretendbians...

You are not female. You might be legal status female, but you are not female. Remember when my ex gf and I met you for coffee? You pounded the table and told us how you wanted to put your balls in a jar after you got them cut off so you could bring them to meetings and say you brought your balls with you. You also asked my ex gf if she would cast your balls for you.

That’s not female.

BTW, I thought you were disgusting then, but I was working on HB 235 because I have trans friends I care about, so I held my nose and worked with you. But please do not ever state that we were friends. I would never be friends with someone so crass that they talk about their balls for 45 minutes at a political meeting.

I have to say, I knew Sandeen was a kook, but I had no idea that Sandeen was THAT  big of a kook.  No, that is NOT female, those are not the words of a woman...shoot, those are not the words of  sane person.  They are, however the words of someone Cooke apparently wishes to align herself with.

Cooke's post is really just bizarre.  In it, Cooke tries to compare me and Ben Girl to house slaves, like some character in a movie.  In it, Cooke, again, attacks me for having been a part of the move to adopt the term "Harry Benjamin Syndrome."  Ironically, in the early days of her blog, Cooke herself embrace the term.  I don't know if Cooke's objection was based on my involvement (Cooke has had a bitter hatred for me since I made a suggestion on her blog that she did not agree with, and her partner Tina somehow decided I was a threat) or because she realized it was competition for her own label, "Women Born Transsexual."  Oh, BTW, that suggestion I made was relatively innocuous.  It was simply that transsexuals might consider getting a born female to serve as a spokesperson, the idea being that it would allow us to better advance our case while protecting our privacy.  Unlike Cooke and the rest of the Transgender Borg, some of us don't wish to be seen as anything other than women.

The simple fact is, what has Cooke in such a state is the that I, and Ben Girl, are not interested in being transgender but prefer just being women.  Cooke, like the rest of her kind, seem to thrive on that identification as "other."  They would, simply put, but transgender than be women.  Cooke, again, exhibits what I am now labeling, in a sort of "ha, ha only serious" manner, cisphobia...the fear of, or animosity towards, being normal.  In fact, Cooke actually has the audacity, and the hypocrisy, to try to force the label "transgender" on us, when we have clearly rejected it.  I should note, by the way, that Cooke has effectively embraced it, so no, I am not forcing it on her.

Ultimately, that is what HBS was all about.  Interestingly enough, the cisphobic crowd seems more married to the term than those of us who advanced it.  While it has been used on occasion, it probably won't catch on.  I can live with the term transsexual, as it appears, thankfully, that its use as a label for a particularly nasty form of pornography has faded.  In fact, that had a lot to do with the development of the term.  We did not want to be labeled as transgender, which had become associated with kooks like Sandeen who want to play dress up and pretend...and with the term "transsexual" being linked to pornography, we felt that a new term was needed.  And Harry Benjamin Syndrome was chosen, not because of the fact that Benjamin Syndrome would be abbreviated as BS, as Cooke claims to have pointed out, but instead because Benjamin Syndrome is already used to refer to a a type of multiple congenital anomaly/mental retardation (MCA/MR) syndrome.  

I honestly don't know what emotional trauma haunts Cooke so badly, and drives her to such bizarre extremes.  I do know Cooke had a long history of substance abuse, and emotional problems.  I know that Cooke has long exhibited bizarre and unstable behavior.  I know that Cooke has some serious emotional needs that she cannot seem to satisfy. One of these obviously is rooted in the fact that some lesbians do not accept transsexual as actually being women.  This is illustrated by this remark...

No matter how far up the bigots assholes you have your tongue in the end you are still a transsexual/transgender person. You can play the role of an extermination camp Sonder Commando, but all it does is postpone the inevitable.

I have three things to say to this.  First, back early on in my transition, when some of my relatives exhibited problems with my situation, my reaction, "That is there problem.  I will not take responsibility for their ignorance and bigotry."  I feel the same way now.  If someone has a problem with transsexuals. that is their problem, not mine.  Second, I find that life is a whole lot easier if you don't spend all your time shoving the fact that you are a transsexual in other people's faces.  And third, that brings me back to a point I have already made.  I am not transgender because I don't have that need to shove my history in people's faces.  Cooke clearly does.

Cooke is one of those people who is truly invincibly ignorant.  No matter what is said, Cooke has this bizarre idea that she knows, and everyone else is wrong.  She says...

I’ve pissed off the HBS holes because I don’t buy their purity crap. I also don’t buy their hatred of every transsexual/transgender person who stands up for their rights and by extension for the rights of all.

My problem with Cooke is the same problem I have with every other transgender extremist kook.  It has nothing to do with "purity."  I realize that Cooke picked that term up back in the days of Usenet, when there were some who tried to define transsexuals based on a very narrow standard.  Cooke even harks back to that by bringing up my unfortunate remark about being "more than a transvestite, less than a transsexual."  When I first began transition I hit some rough spots.  Many do, and I did what many do, and I reverted.  According to the real purists, and Cooke I should add, was one of them, that marked me as "not pure."  I struggled.  I tried to find a middle ground.  I found there was not one.  And I moved on with my transition again.

Oh, and one one bit of information for Cooke.  I generally don't refer to myself as a "girl."  I leave that bit of silliness for the "men in dresses" crowd.  It has always struck me as a silly affectation.  And the term was Harry Benjamin Syndrome to honor him for his pioneering work, not to identify anyone as one of his "girls."  In fact, because of harassment from a cyberstalker, I thought it wise to not reveal my surgeon as I suspect he would have been harassed as well.  Seriously, Cooke need to get a clue...and a life.

Put simply, well, I guess my view of Cooke is the same as my view of any other bigot.  I'm not going to take responsibility for her ignorance and hatred.  But I will go on speaking out against transgender stupidity, whether from Cooke, or her comrades Mr. Sandeen, Mr. Williams, and others.  And if Cooke doesn't like that...tough.  

Update:  Cooke has posted another disjointed, and rather bizarre rant about HBS (a term which has largely fallen out of use).  It really doesn't warrant much of a response.  I honestly hope Cooke will either realize the need, or someone else will care enough to push her into seeking the serious mental health treatment she so clearly needs.  Oh well...  She rants about others living in a fantasy, while posting an edited version of her own history....  Sad, really, but not all that unexpected.

And a thought....if I am such a fraud, or self-loathing, then why do I allow anyone to comment here, and say pretty much whatever they want, provided they don't violate the privacy rule, while Cooke censors with a heavy hand, and blocks pretty much any post that disagrees with her extremely narrow viewpoints?  Why shoot, even Cooke herself would be welcome...

I Don't "Misgender" People

In reaction to an article on "Cristan" Williams' rather sudden, and somewhat bizarre, endorsement of theories that hold that transsexual women have brains that are sexually differentiated at odds with their bodies (this would be something of a reversal of his previous positions, I was taken to task for using "incorrect pronouns" when referring to Mr. Williams.  Of course, this is not the first time this accusation has been made.  

But, I would contend that no, I do no such thing.  While some might disagree on grounds of political correctness, I don't think I am using the wrong pronouns at all.  Nor, for that matter, do I think that anyone is automatically entitled to demand the use of pronouns based on their "preference."  This, of course, is a major tenet of "transgender activism."  And, as which most of transgender activism, I disagree vehemently.

As I have pointed out, the entire transgender paradigm is basically an artificial social and political construct.  It has no basis in reality.  This, for example, is very much brought out in an article that is cross-posted to The Transadvocate blog.  In it, a woman who is "gender queer" identified, who is dating a "trans woman" talks about the politics involved.  Yes, even simply dating a "trans woman" becomes a political matter.  What a complete load of silliness.  But this, is, of course, identity politics at its most extreme.

And that is the problem in much of this...people who identify as women as part of some social/political play-acting demand rights that they have no real claim to, all so they can force their bizarre behavior on society as a whole, which then, based on false claims made by these freaks and perverts, assumes that transsexuals are just like that.  And then they wonder, or at least pretend to wonder, why transsexuals want no part of their silliness.

No, I believe that concepts like male and female, man and woman, have real meanings, and are not just labels that can be claimed on a whim.  I don't believe there is some inalienable right to be called a woman, or a man, if one is not.  If someone makes more of an issue of being trans than an effort to be a woman, then why should I call them a woman?

I don't choose which pronouns I use based on whether or not I agree with someone.  If that were true, then I would, for example, refer to one blogger very differently than I do.  As much as I vehemently disagree with that person, I don't see them as male.  Misguided?  Yes.  Politically extremist?  Without question?  Insane?  Very likely.  But male?  No.  I believe that person has allowed her political leanings, coupled with an overblown ego that is devastated by the realization that she is not the alpha transsexual she once thought she was to allow her to seek the adulation she receives from basically abandoning what she once espoused to influence her...that, and possibly more than a bit of senility or dementia, but no, not being male.

On the other hand, as I say, when someone is more concerned with hanging on to their past, and reveling in their "gender transgression," why wouldn't I see them as men?  Because, quite frankly, that is what they are.

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.