A Quick Recap...

Well, after a lovely evening with friends, I returned home to find several interesting developments….

First, before taking off, I had listened to Mr. and Ms. Cummings, uh, "radio" show (basically a rather lame podcast on a web site).  They couldn't even seem to agree on exactly where they stood on crap like the silliness at the Academy Awards, with Mr. Cummings wanting to take a bit more extremist stand than Ms. Cummings.  Then, they were no doubt a bit pissed to discover a post on their blog from one of their comrades in insanity that contradicted everything that Ms. Cummings tried to push.  That post was removed….

Mr. Waters posted a rather silly rant in response to my article on his absurd article on bathrooms, and even was so silly as to try to cover up his obvious admission he is non-op.  Yes, it is clear he is non-op, but when confronted with it, he realizes the truth and tries to weasel out.  

Worse, he shows he is not remotely a transsexual, making remarks about how he assumes I was "upset about having a small (sic) clitoris).  Actually, I was rather thankful, prior to SRS, that I had a very small penis.  I hated what I had, and would have been a lot more dysphoric had I been well endowed.  I wasn't.  I imagine, based on his remarks, Mr. Waters is rather fond, and proud of his manhood.  I hated mine, and got rid of it, rather than clinging to it for dear life, and yes, as a matter of fact, that is part of what makes me a woman.  And what indicates Mr. Waters is a man.

Mr. Waters tries to make me feel bad, but again shows how he doesn't get it.  I am NOT a part of his "community."  So, I could care less if a bunch of kooks, like him, hate me, I have a lot of friends in the real world.  And he obviously hasn't followed me on Twiiter….which might prove very enlightening to him.  Actually, I am one of those people who is very hard to label, which drives simple minded fools like Mr. Waters, and his friends, a bit crazy.  Feminist?  Not in the sense he imagines…  Certainly NOT transgender…. Conservative?  No…  Liberal?  Again, not really…  He can't pin me down, pigeon hole me, and that makes him confused, and angry.  

He tries to make an issue out of an imaginary sexual assault that happened locally…(yes, imaginary…the truth has come out, it was all a LIE) and well, I guess he looks kind of foolish.  

And no, Mr. Slingen, I haven't had any problem reading the blog….  No problem at all.

Reality versus Fantasy...

Well, it appears, at least for the moment, that another Internet flame war is over.  As some may know, I occasionally comment in Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen's posts on LGBT Weekly, the local LGBT magazine in San Diego. Mr. Sandeen seems to be their token transgender kook (most major LGBT publications have one, usually posted online, but not in the actual publication).  This week, he did another whiny post about the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival.  Apparently, the "men in dresses" crowd is determined to force themselves on the lesbians separatists who attend this event.

Usually, Mr. Sandeen tends to ignore comments made to his posts on that site. For a while, they were supporting his usual heavy handed censorship, but something changed. It appears that they decided that pretty much anything goes. A few commenters have actually, and quite accurately, referred to him using male pronouns without being banned. Now it appears that Mr. Sandeen decided to take advantage of this in order to, shall we say, "fight back."

The problem, of course, is that Mr. Sandeen wants to be the "transgender MLK." He regularly, including in this week's article, tries to make that connection, and of course, winds up making a mockery of Dr. King and his philosophy. But in order to maintain his "facade" he has to avoid showing his true nature as much as possible. So, apparently, Mr. Sandeen brings in support. That, or he has more than a few sock puppets.

Oh, and a couple of other points that should be addressed.  Sandeen tries to claim that I am obsessed with him.  Actually, he posts more than most, so he gets written about more than most.  Of course, Suzan Cooke has made the same claim...  And Sandeen has commented about the difference in word counts between me and him, as well as the number of comments I posted.  I simply responded to every bit of silliness thrown at me.  I have no doubt that had I ignored even one of them, the claim would be made that I was "bested."

One of those he called upon, is Mr. "Cristan" Williams, who repeated the outrageous claim made on Transadvocate that Janice Raymond is responsible for at least 50,000 deaths. That article was written by Zoe Brain, who is infamous for claiming that he spontaneously, without medical intervention changed from a male to a female. A rather insane claim, to say the least. Mr. Williams seemed to be trying to argue that the "radfems" have to be beaten into submission to prevent further deaths, or something like that.. Here is part of my response to his comment:

Now, beyond that, we slip the bounds of reality, and well….I love a good conspiracy theory….but this not one. I mean, really….this bit of histrionics, which is a recent invention of Williams, and a certain person from Australia who claims to have “spontaneously” changed from a man to a woman (seriously folks, I am NOT making this up) is quite hysterically funny. Funny, I never once encountered this force reparative therapy, nor have I ever heard of such an effort. Perhaps it was super, duper top secret and known only to the secret lesbian separatist cabal…. Known racists? Funny, but since the 1950′s, transsexuals have been accessing medical care without that much trouble. I know when I started in the early 1990′s, I had no trouble at all, and I was in the Deep South (any deeper, and you would be in way over your head). Yeah, I suppose it is possible that a group of extremists might have advocated legislating “trans folk” out of existence. I remember a lot of radical groups that have advocated a lot of laughable ideas. Let’s see, at one time or the other, I have heard of groups who want to give the country back to Native Americans, of a group that wanted to force all white people out of the states that formed the Confederacy and create an exclusively African-American nation, of people who want to ban the consumption of meat, of people who want to execute anyone who is gay, that men should be allowed to invade women’s shower and locker rooms and that women should accept then as “women with penises”…the list could go on, and on. For the most part, sane, rational people learn about such ideas, recognize them for what they are…the rants of crackpots, hope the person does not become violent (like the guy who got it in his head that there is a black market in human body parts and then possibly sent ricin laced letters to a senator and Obama) and get on with our lives. Oh, we might speak up if the person gets a bit of attention, but we generally seem them as the kooks that they are. 

Anyway, thanks for a good laugh….

I guess Mr. Williams had no answer to reality, as his next response was to fall back on an argumentum ad hominem, the logical fallacy of attacking the person and not their position. That is Mr. Williams' standard practice when he cannot defend a position (which is not at all uncommon).  

I could be wrong, but the whole mess that resulted from one comment had the feel of a very organized effort. I suspect Sandeen invited some people (he has already done that on a smaller scale) hoping to bury me in comments. Didn't quite work very well for him.... As it was, he pulled just about every trick in the book... I imagine he thought I would whither in the face of a massive load of absurd rhetoric. When that did not work, the insults started. As I have pointed out, my identity is quite secure thank you. Repeating lies started by a cyberstalker is not going to scare me off. Anyone I care about, knows better, and anyone who believes that crap...well, I could care less.
Of course, the hilarity continues....  Sandeen was having a hissy fit on Twitter...and she brought in some old faces...

Monica Roberts ‏
@AutumnSandeen @cristanwilliams She was hatin' on me for a while until she discovered I don't play with pseudo cisprivilege chasing fools

Truth be told, I pretty much stopped reading Mr. "Monica" Roberts crap because I realized it was a bad combination of Ebonics, racism, and pretty much the same rants repeated over, and over, and over, and over....occasionally punctuated with his self-aggrandizement about some award he got.  In short.  BORING!

And a new face....who has some incredibly stupid things to say....

J. Skyler @AutumnSandeen @transgriot Im sure she was the one on Wired's interview w/ @GailSimone on Batgirl saying "transgender" is a slur.

Nope, not me.  I hadn't seen the article, and when I took a quick look, and saw the number of comments, I lost interest quickly.  But yeah, Mr. Sandeen is quite correct.  I do agree.  I, personally, would consider it a slur if applied to me.  For those who identify that way, no.  Of course, the subtlety of that is lost on fools like Mr. Sandeen, and company.  Then there was this particular bit of cluelessness...

J. Skyler ‏@
@AutumnSandeen @gailsimone @transgriot also misidentifying as cisgender knowing that's not the intended use of the term, which is hysterical

 Oh dear, I forgot to ask the gender fascists for permission before "identifying."  Actually, it has nothing to do with identity.  My gender matches my physical sex, so, according to the definition, I am cisgender.  Of course, the same, technically, could be said of Mr. Sandeen, and Mr. Roberts, among others.  They are clearly male, and clearly men.  So, by definition, they would be "cisgender" as well.  I do, by the way, I think this J. Skyler person is more than a bit cisphobic.

J. Skyler ‏@jskylerinc
@GailSimone @autumnsandeen @transgriot she's a surgical essentialist who thinks anyone who doesn't undergo surgery is pretending/deviant. 

For those who don't speak "tranny" that means I don't believe women have penises and want to keep them.  Now, I suppose that "pretending" would be pretty accurate, but I would not call most "deviants."  I reserve that term for specific cases, like the guy who was exposing his junk to young girls.  But Mr. Sandeen came back just as cluelessly...

Autumn Sandeen
@jskylerinc @GailSimone @TransGriot It's more than that. She even gets on post-SRS folk who she deems to not be ideologically pure.

Nope, it has nothing to do with "ideology," pure, or otherwise....

Autumn Sandeen ‏@transgriot @cristanwilliams I've feed the troll too many times, I fear.

Actually, except for occasionally cyberstalking me, Sandeen has pretty much avoided responding to my posts. I guess being humiliated as much as he has been will do that to a fellow.

So, let's see....

If they can't refute an argument.....

They will try to bury you in comments....

If that doesn't work.....

They resort to insults....

And when that fails.....

They call you a troll.

Yes, such is the classic transgender approach to reality.

Update:  And then they resort to word count flames...

Yeah, go figure...Sandeen is now comparing the number of words I have posted, versus the number he has posted.  Hmmm, doesn't he know, women tend to be more verbal than men.  Perhaps he might take that into consideration!  Well, in any case, he can update his word count, and whine even more....   ROTFL!

Update:  It appears that Sandeen went a bit too far.  This morning, he had posted two more comments on his post, basically postings of two tweet he had made, which were attacks on me, and which mentioned me by name (which I prefer to keep private).  I responded, and pointed out that he has a habit of attempting to out women against their will.  Both posts, and my responses were removed afterwards.  I kind of wonder if Sandeen did it, to cover his tracks, of if the people at LGBT Weekly didn't like his behavior. Most curious....

Reaping What You Sow

Well, Riki Wilchins, who gave the world "Transexual Menace" (though now even Wilchins is using "Transsexual Menace" seems to be coming face to face with reality.  Wilchins has been very active lately, writing about the issue of testosterone blockers, and how they may bring an end to the nightmares faced by transsexual youth, and then in another article, writing about having to deal with children's question about whether or not Wilchins is a "boy or a girl" when claiming to be a "mother."  

Now, Wilchins basically made a career out of being very publicly "gender queer" even as Wilchins went through transition and had sex reassignment surgery.  I quickly came to see Wilchins as one of those people who was not worth focusing much attention on...sort of like "Kate" Bornstein, who I suspect regrets having transitioned and who is trying to deal with now being a man trapped in a woman's body...sort of a bizarre, almost Twilight Zone twist if there ever was one.

Wilchins never really made an effort to assimilate, or "pass" as Wilchins puts it.  Now, as I have stated before, I have come to realize that "passing" is very much a transgender concept.  It is basically an assertion that one is not really a woman, but is fooling everyone else into thinking one really is.  That is why I say, "I simply am," rather than "I pass."  I am not fooling anyone.  I am not trying to.  And, quite frankly, I don't have to.

Wilchins, who has a six year-old daughter who has been confronted by children saying "you can't be her mother."  Wilchins, interestingly enough, is upset by this.  Could it be that Wilchins really was transsexual, but got caught up in a bizarre political/social revolution, and now, as they say, "the chickens have come home to roost?"  Could Wilchins have made a bad choice?  Is Wilchins, as they say, now "hoist by one's own petard?"

If so, it would certainly be a rather ironic situation.  Wilchins did a lot of damage to transsexuals.  Wilchins was one of the more obnoxious voices pushing for gender upheaval when most of us just wanted to get on with normal, quiet lives.  Wilchins actively sought the spotlight when most of us wished to avoid it, and quite frankly, wished Wilchins would just shut up.  

Among other things, Wilchins was active in Camp Trans, and attempt by a group of transgender males to force their way into the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival.  It should be noted that more than a few post-op transsexuals have simply ignored the "womyn born womyn" and attended the festival.  Camp Trans, as evidenced by some nasty graffiti painted on one of the camp's kitchens, was about intact males forcing themselves on the festival.

So, someone who made a career out of "not really being a woman" is forced to face the reality of choices made.  Sad in a way, but also rather satisfyingly ironic.  A morality tale for the transgender community.  You really do "reap what you sow."

Case Closed!

There has been something of an ongoing debate online over the origins of what can be called the "Transgender Paradigm."  The rather notorious kook and gender fascist Mr. "Cristan Williams" has tried to claim that the term has a long history, and that the fact that the term, and the movement that has pushed it as an umbrella term arose pretty much starting in the mid-Nineties is a "myth."  Mr. Williams has provided quite a bit of highly questionable (at best) evidence, and has tried to bury opponents in an heap of ad hominem attacks and arrogance.

Well, yesterday, a very geeky web comic, that has nothing to do with transsexualism or transgender, happened to provide a link that led me to what has been missing this argument.  Real evidence.  Google has a site that allows you to analyze the occurrence of a collection terms in a large collection of books over a time range. 

So, I checked the occurrence of three terms, "transsexual," "transvestite," and "transgender" from 1960 to the most recent data, which is 2008.  The results, to say the least, destroy Mr. Williams' claims.

As can be seen from the graph, the term "transgender" is completely absent until around 1990.  It then starts to becomes a bit more common during the mid-Ninties, until it finally becomes more common around 2001.  

Contrary to Mr. Williams' claims, it is clear that what has been claimed by most is true.  The "Transgender Movement" began in the Nineties, become increasingly active during that decade.  It was effectively non-existent before 1989 at the absolute earliest.  

Unlike Williams, who seems to have access to information that, well, no one else actually does, anyone can check this out for their own self.  Go to http://books.google.com/ngrams and try it for yourself.  You can use the values I used, or those of your own choosing.  But, as they say, the matter speaks for itself.

As I have said for some time, while it is possible that there might have been isolated incidents where the term "transgender" was used, it was not a common term, and the movement that we now deal with did not exist, before around 1990.  It is, instead, a very recent phenomenon, and well, Mr. Williams is delusional at best, and more likely deliberately deceptive.

Mr. Sandeen Is Cyberstalking Again

I have pointed out, more than once, that "Autumn" Sandeen is a kook, who has engaged in cyberstalking me, sending emails attacking me to my church.  Well, he is up to it again, this time trying to harass some lesbian he has it in for;

Check out this article.

I mean, seriously.  Sandeen is literally out of touch with reality.  He apparently believes, as indicated by his remark on Twitter, that he is "now" a "Woman Born Woman" because he committed a fraud and lied to a judge to get his birth certificate changed.  No, he is not a woman, legal or otherwise.  And is certainly not a female.  FEMALES DO NOT HAVE PENISES.  WOMEN DO NOT HAVE A PENIS AND A DESIRE TO KEEP IT.

Again, you can't make this stuff up.

It's Official...

Well, I have known for some time that Suzan Cooke had pretty much taken to hitting the TG Kool-Aid pretty hard, but even I am shocked that Cooke has NO problem with the pervert "Colleen" Francis forcing his penis on young women in Washington State.  

A commenter challenged Cooke on this in response to Cooke's latest diatribe against me, and well, here is Cooke's incredible response:

Maybe I’m not that concerned with persecuting transvestites in order to prove to myself that I am really a woman.

It has been my observation that the people most obsessed with this sort of thing were either once transvestites themselves or are such strange looking people as to be the sort who would be accused of being transvestites. 

I’m not a cop. I don’t make a career out of persecuting people for being different. 

Unlike you I’m not afraid of transgender people. Oh by the way I hate HBS assholes.

A few comments in response to this bit of complete silliness from Cooke...

It is not about persecuting transvestites (at least Cooke doesn't call this pervert a "woman"), it is about going after a man who is taking obvious delight into forcing his nudity on young women.  And it is not about proving oneself a woman...what a stupid thing to say.

So, all the women such as the mothers of the girls who were this pervert's victims, are really former transvestites or so strange looking that people would take them as transvestites?  Again, Cooke is showing incredible stupidity with such remarks.

This is not about people being different, it is about someone being a creep, and trying to force himself on teenage girls.  I guess, based on that, Cooke thinks rape is okay too.  After all, the poor rapist is "just different..."  Good grief, Cooke has really lost it...

And no, it has nothing to do with being afraid of transgender people.  Perverted men with no sense of restraint or boundaries?  Yes, they kind of scare me.  But transgender people?  Nope, not particularly afraid of them as a class.  

And finally, we come down to the simple fact.  Cooke is a classic bigot.  Just like those who hate gays, lesbians, and others....  Cooke has her own little group she hates.

Personally, I don't hate people.  For one thing, it contradicts my faith.  I do hold people responsible for bad behavior, particularly when it harms others.  But that is not hate, no matter how much kooks like Cooke want to claim it is.  I also tend to not put much credence in a bigot telling me about hate...somehow, it seems really, really contradictory....and more than a little foolish.

No wonder Cooke is so afraid of the truth.  It would not be very kind to her....

It's Really Very Simple...

Much sound and fury has been expended over Roseanne Barr's remarks about transgender men (sorry boys, but I am not going to call you women) going into women's spaces.  Now, Barr, who I still think of as being a few French fries short of a Happy Meal, no doubt, quite ignorantly include transsexual women under her remarks, but this is an issue that is bigger than just Roseanne (and yes, that would be huge).  

Jillian Page, a post-op in Canada had this to say on the issue:

I think I wasn’t upset by her comments because I have had sexualreassignment surgery, and have reconciled that part of my body with myheart and my brain. But if I had not had the surgery yet and foundmyself facing the same problems so many pre-op and non-op trans peopleface over the washroom issue, perhaps I, too, would have takenRoseanne to task for her somewhat careless, off-the-cuff comments, forwhich she apologized.

Now, there is a problem here, and I have to wonder if Page really has thought this through.  Page, I realize is pretty much swilling down the transgender Kool-Aid, but there is something here that needs to be confronted.

It is really, very, very simple.  If you call yourself a pre-op, and you cannot comprehend that the obvious presence of your penis in a place like the women's room, or a locker room, might be upsetting to women, then...STAY OUT!!!!  Put another way, if you think you have some absolute right to be in the women's room, even though you are a pre-op, if you think that women should not be upset having your penis exposed in a dressing room, if you think you have a right to enter women's spaces, even though you not corrected your body, let me be clear...YOU DON'T!!!

Just to be completely clear here, if you have these sort of attitudes, if you cannot comprehend how women might feel about your penis, if you think they should "just get over it," well, YOU ARE NOT, AND YOU NEVER WILL BE, A WOMAN!!!!!  YOU ARE A MAN!!!  GOT THAT?  A MAN!!!!  NO AMOUNT OF HORMONES, SURGERY, OR FANTASY, WILL EVER CHANGE THAT.  SO STAY OUT OF WOMEN'S SPACES.  WE DON'T WANT YOU, YOU ARE NOT WELCOME!!!!!

As to crossdressers, non-ops, and such, well...you really shouldn't even be considering being in the women's room.    Sure, man that you are, you will force your way in.  You have no shame, and are not really that much different in attitude or behavior from a rapist.  It is all just a matter of degree.

When I was pre-op, I was always aware that, in a sense, I was an interloper.  I appreciated that I was accepted into the company of woman, albeit without their knowledge of my past in most cases.  I was always very sensitive to any uneasiness on the part of a female friend who knew my situation, under such circumstances.  And the idea of being in a situation where my privates would be exposed made me close to physically ill.

But now, more and more, the transgender extremists think that women are supposed to "just get over it."  They really don't realize just how digesting they are.  What they are doing is simply proving that Janice Raymond was right to a degree.  It was just that she didn't understand certain nuances, and perhaps, didn't care.

A Straw Man About A Straw Man?

Wow, I know how much "Cristan" Williams, gender fascist extraordinaire, loves to make straw arguments, but I have to say, creating a straw argument in order to falsely accuse me of making a straw argument....well, that is a stretch even for him.

In a rather silly attempt to avoid dealing with the fact that he demands to impose the term "transgender" on people against their will, he says"

The troll completely misrepresents my post by pretending to defend herself against my supposed and entirely fictitious claim that only I get to decide who is and who isn’t a women:

Now, where he gets this silliness from is, well it's beyond me, since that is not remotely what I said.  Mr. Williams devotes a lot of time and effort into trying to rewrite the history of the term "transgender" in order to force it on those who do not identify that way.  I have taken him to task for that, and I might add, I have noticed when his arguments are refuted, he resorts to ad hominem attacks, such as calling the person challenging him a troll.

Now, as to Mr. Williams claim that I am contradictory, I would point out that I have never said that he has to call himself anything.  I have never said, nor would I ever say, that he should not be allowed to call himself a woman.  I would not even claim that Colleen Francis, the pervert in Washington State, who has a propensity for forcing his penis on teenage girls (who, according to him, just need to be "informed") has to call himself a man.  I'm just not going to lie, and call him one.  I am not going to pander to his delusions.  But hey, as I say, he call call himself anything he wants.

And I find Mr. Williams' comment very telling:

I therefore thought I’d make sure that everyone but Jenifer had an opportunity to fully comment on her pablum here.

Unlike myself, Mr. Williams does carefully censor comments in order to maintain the illusion that his, uh, logic and wit, are unassailable.  That is one of his more male attributes.  I really dislike having to moderate comments, but a couple of rather nasty trolls make it necessary.  The person who apparently complained that their post required approval had their post approved a bit over 30 minutes later.  I would have done it sooner, but hey, I was not at my computer.    Apparently, in that time, Williams was notified, and posted his rather snarky comments on his web site.

Oh, and I would like to note that Mr. Williams also has no regard for people's privacy. I do not not use my real name here. Mr. Williams, of course, being a gender fascist extraordinaire, presumes to use people's names when they have made it clear that they wish to remain private. As does, Suzan Cooke.

And finally, the primary purpose of this blog is to do exactly what Mr. Williams and Cooke hate...to expose them for what they really are. Both go to great lengths to carefully control responses. Mr. Williams, or Cooke for that matter, could have posted here, but they would not have been able to control the argument. That is something they really can't deal with. It has to be where they are in control, or they don't want to play...

Oh Dear...Poor Little "Suzy" is Upset Again

Alas, I guess the truth hurts...  Suzan Cooke has posted another rant about me over at "Women Born Transsexual."  Oh well...  I know Cooke hates having faults pointed out, but it is going to happen from time to time.  Not that anyone takes Cooke all that seriously anymore.  Except those few transgenders who are eating it up now that Cooke has become one of their staunchest defenders. 

In fact, in a bit of irony, the kook who was the first of two recent abusive posters is, so far, the only one who has responded to Cooke's post.  I suspect he may also be the fool that was trying to attack me here.  I always figured he would be back.  Or, it could be a rather nasty troll who has been stalking around the Internet for years.  

No, Cooke is, if nothing else, a bit of a coward.  Cooke will only respond from a position where Cooke controls the discussion.  I have made it clear that Cooke is welcome to post here, but I doubt it will ever happen.  Cooke really can't stand up in a fair fight.  Unless the odds are stacked in Cooke's favor, Cooke shies away.  When Cooke started "Women Born Transsexual," I posted a comment welcoming Cooke to the Blogosphere.  Cooke's response was anything but polite.  After that, for quite some time, I pretty much ignored what was said there, though I did read it for the occasional laugh out loud moment.  Cooke is nothing, if not absurdly funny at times.

Well, I will continue pointing out when Cooke makes some absurd remark.  I am really not interested in engaging in a tit for tat with Cooke, but I can tell when something I have said has hit a nerve.  As I said, Cooke has gone from being extremely nasty (once calling a post-op who had chosen to stay with her wife a "skin transvestite") to close to being effectively a member of the transgender extremists I refer to as "gender fascists."  Granted, Cooke hasn't quite reached the point of insisting that people accept the label of "transgender."  But it is getting close.  Hey, I am sure Cooke will finally reach the goal of becoming the Alpha Tranny yet.

Oh, and I notice that Cooke hated Aria Blue, and the person who wrote "Enough Nonsense."  Granted, the person at "Enough Nonsense" apparently had the goods on Cooke, and pretty much confirmed what I always suspected...that Cooke has some major issues, particularly with insecurity.  But I also notice that Cooke did not mention that the person who wrote "Enough Nonsense" was basically blackmailed into shutting down.  I wonder if the same thing happened to Aria.  And now I wonder, did Cooke perhaps have something to do with it?  Probably not, but Cooke apparently has no problem with REAL bullying.  

Anyway, it is good to know that I hit a nerve.  Cooke is the type who needs to be brought down a notch occasionally.  And when Cooke starts slinging nasty insults, you know Cooke has been.....  I mean really, "Classic Trannie Skanks?" That is, no pun intended, a real classic. As I said, Cooke is nothing, if not good for a laugh. But, then again, this is the fool who gave the world the silliness of "Women Born Transsexual...," the only term that might top "Womyn Born Womym" as truly absurd.
UPDATE:

I checked in and was not particularly to find that Gender Fascist and Cyberstalker "Autumn" Sandeen has add his two cents worth (and vastly over priced at that) on the subject.  Sandeen, who spent TWENTY years in the Navy is claiming he "never really passed as a man."  Gee, I wonder where he got that from?  It certainly was not a part of his story in the past.  In fact, when he first posted photos of himself in his Navy drag costume, he bragged about his twenty years worth of stripes showing "good conduct."  Yeah, like he would have lasted 20 minutes in the military if he did not pass as 100% all-American macho male.  Uh huh...  No, Sandeen clearly picked up on something I have pointed out...that us hated classic transsexuals, who were not lucky enough to have found the means to transition early, did lead horrible lives until we did.  Sandeen was a happy go lucky crossdresser.  Oh, I am sure he slipped into something frilly when he got the chance, but the rest of the time, you know he was all man, or he would have been run out of the service, and not in the official way.  They wouldn't have given him the chance.  He would have been begging for a discharge instead of waiting 20 years and then, at the last minute, claiming disability.

Oh, and now Sandeen is trying to play the victim, claiming having someone respond to his stupidity causes him to "trigger."  Good grief...  We can only hope he actually does do everyone a favor and crawls under a rock and shuts up.  Though I admit, I would miss the humor...

Yes, Sandeen and Cooke...two peas in a pod.

A Bit Cranky...

In scholarly circles, the term "crank" is used to refer to those people, usually with little or no actual academic training, who claim to have solved some classic math problem, or to have discovered some new "theory" in physics, or such.  They are, of course, inevitably wrong, and in many cases, their "discovery" is quite imaginative.  Here is what Wikipedia has to say about these people:

1. Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of acknowledged experts.
2. Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important.
3. Cranks rarely, if ever, acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial.
4. Cranks love to talk about their own beliefs, often in inappropriate social situations, but they tend to be bad listeners, being uninterested in anyone else's experience or opinions.

Well, "Cristan" Williams has now earned that title.  He has dismissed quite a bit of scholarly research in favor of his clearly biased ideas concerning the origins of the term "transgender."  He claims that someone, vaguely referred to as "Dr. Rawson," travelled across the country, to view the Houston transgender archives.  I would assume, following a bit of quick research on Google, that this is "K.J Rawson," who lectures at the University of Kentucky, and who seems to like the word "queer" an awful lot.  While my original impression was that Rawson probably identifies as "genderqueer," I have been informed that the correct identity is "female to male transgender person."


Anyone who has dealt with Williams can tell you that the four points above are dead on with regards to his behavior.  


So, we have a kook who thinks he knows more than real academics now claiming that his research trumps that published in peer reviewed journals.  Oh well...


I would strongly urge Dr. Rawson to take anything found in the archives created by Mr. Williams with a very large grain of salt.

Another Example of Diversity and Inclusion

Transgender kooks like "Autumn" Sandeen" and "Cristan" Williams want to force women with a history of transsexualism to accept being forced into the transgender paradigm, with the latest tactic being to try to sound very reasonable...claiming they just want inclusion and diversity.  Well, here, from a crossdressing web site, is a perfect example of what they want to force us to accept as our, uh..."sisters."

I met a lot of nice friendly people at the IFGE convention, both transsexual and non-transsexual, but the attitude of the Trans-Nazis in attendance was a turn-off.

Did they think they were better women than me because they cut off their penises and ingested hormones?

The Trans-Nazi phenomena was an eye-opener. I always thought we were all sisters in the same boat and should help each other traveling through troubled waters, but some of our sisters would just as soon dump some of us off the side without a life preserver.

There is so much here that is just repulsive.  Uh, first off, womanhood is not quantifiable.  There is no such thing as being "a better woman."  You either are, or you are not...and the person writing here..definitely not.


No, I did not "cut off my penis."  It was skillfully dissected by a group of surgeons, and the result is a very functional, and quite normal looking set of female genitalia.  That, is what makes me a woman.


I am not, in any sense, this person's "sister," and he is most assuredly not mine.  I have nothing in common with this person, and we are not in the same boat.  And if I found myself in such a sad state, I would be the one going overboard, and swimming for shore.


So, no, I don't want inclusion, and I don't want this sort of diversity.

 

The New York Times Did Nothing Wrong

The transgender kooks have been out in force, blogging about how the New York Times is transphobic for simply telling the truth about a "trans woman" who died in a fire.  They are upset because the Times, according to them, was disrespectful.  The most absurd comment comes from the GLAAD Blog:

Unfortunately, the problem with the Times’ article on the death of Lorena Escalera, a transgender woman of color, is bigger than their “choice of words” or with their attempt to “capture” her story. It’s their failure to recognize trans women as women.

I hate to break it to GLAAD, and all the other "name it, and claim it" kooks out there, but no, Lorena Escalera was not a woman.  This person was someone who wore women's clothes, presented to the world as a woman, probably took hormones, but who was, essentially, a transgender male.  I have seen nothing that indicates that this person had undergone surgery, or that they had any plans to.

This person worked as an entertainer, and as an escort.  In another words, they made their living off of the fact that they were really a male who dressed as a woman.  Sorry, but that does not make one a woman anywhere, except possibly, the fantasy world that kooks like "Autumn" Sandeen, and "Cristan" Williams.


It is sad that this person died, and I am sure that family and friends are grieving, but it is also sad that this person is being used to further an extremist political agenda that seeks to completely subvert reality in the name of some bizarre form of political correctness.


What the New York Times did was the present facts about this person, and their death.  They did not hide the raw truth about how this person lived.  That this upsets the same transgender kooks who attack transsexuals who want no part of their freak show is a bit hypocritical.  Here was a person who was the living embodiment of "transgender."  And they are upset that this is being exposed.  And yet, they complain that transsexual women often desire stealth.  We are attacked for trying to simply live normal lives. 


Once again, this exposes the transgender extremist's real agenda.  It is not about "being who they really are," but about forcing society to accept an absurd view of sex and gender.

 

Hoist By Her Own Petard

Suzan Cooke, who can't seem to make up her mind whether she wants to be a "transsexual separatist" or a "transgender apologist" posted a story yesterday about a "transsexual" woman who was cited for using the women's room at Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas, Texas.  To make matters worse, Cooke included a taunt aimed at the "HBS Sisters of Transsexual Purity:"

Do the HBS Sisters of Transsexual purity who side with the radical feminists and the ultra right wing Christo-Fascists want people in treatment, with Doctor’s letters stating they are on hormones and in transition to be denied restroom access.

The short answer, of course, is "No."  The long answer is, "Whoops, someone got hoist by her own petard...."


It seems that this person's story has turned out to be more than a bit questionable.  Now, first off, I have to point out that it is highly curious that this person is initially identified as "transsexual" instead of the usual "transgender."  Given what has come out, that raises some questions.


Well, right off the bat, at least one commenter to Cooke's blog smelled a rat.  Cooke continued to try to defend the story, but then the details began to roll in...  The first clue was the fact that this "transsexual's" carry letter was dated after the citation was given.  In another words, this person did not have a letter at the time they were cited.


Another issue was the fact that this person claims to be in transition for six years but they have not had a name change.  And it should be noted, getting one's name change is not at all difficult in Texas.  This person, who is both legally, and physically male, claimed to be at the hospital with "her" husband.  Uh, that's just not possible in Texas.


Up to this point, Cooke was making every effort to keep defending this person...then things got really interesting.


It turns out that that the person involved is on the sex crime registry for molesting under-age girls.  Isn't this the sort of thing that the transgender kooks claim never happens.   So, the bottom line is this:


A person who has made questionable claims about being in transition for six years, falsely claimed a husband, and who is a registered sex offender was caught using the ladies room.  This person lied about having a carry letter, producing one obtained after the citation was issued.  


So, no, as I have said before, I have no problem with someone who is legitimately in transition using the ladies room.  But, I do have a problem with someone who is clearly a fraud doing so. 

You Really Can't Make This Stuff Up...

This has to be one of the silliest things I have read in quite some time. If there was any question that "Autumn" Sandeen is a man, this puts it to rest... He has put up a
"A Shopping List Of Trans Women’s Shame."  That is, a list of things that Mr. Sandeen thinks that "transwomen should be ashamed of.  Now, as I have pointed out many times, the term "transwoman" is an oxymoron.  That is, it is a contradiction of terms.  You can be a woman, or you can be "trans" but you cannot be both...  So here are some highlights from the list:

1. When someone says to us they’d no idea that we’re trans, we feel complimented.

     Well, of course one feels complimented.  Why would this be a "shame?"  Unless, like Mr. Sandeen, you actually are a man....

2. When someone says to us they’d guessed we’re trans, we’re heartbroken.

     Again, why bother transitioning if you are just going to be seen as a man?

7.  We avoid discussing our dicks.

     Why do I suspect that this is one of Mr. Sandeen's favorite topics to discuss?

8. We avoid discussing taking hormones with nontranssexual people.

     Perhaps because they are really not that interested?

9. We avoid discussing our operative status with nontranssexual people because we don’t want to be thought of as men — no matter what our operative status.

      don't know about you, but I am beginning to suspect that Mr. Sandeen wants to be seen as a man....

10. If we haven’t had a vaginoplasty at this snapshot in time, we avoid discussing our operative status with our post-operative trans peers because we feel obligated to justify why we haven’t had a vaginoplasty.

     Well, in Mr. Sandeen's case, it is simple.  They will take his penis when they pry it from his cold, dead fingers....

11. If we have had a vaginoplasty, we grade the shape of our genitalia by how “normal” and nontranssexual these look.

     So, in Mr. Sandeen's mind, having a messed up vagina is a plus?  Really?

12. If we’ve had a vaginoplasty, we don’t discuss dilating and surgery with nontranssexual people.

     Again, mostly because they REALLY, REALLY DON'T WANT TO HEAR THE DETAILS!!!!!  Seriously, Mr. Sandeen, of course, knows nothing about such things, as he is not a transsexual, has not had, and if he is smart, never will have, a vaginoplasty.

13. We convince ourselves after our vaginoplasties that we no longer have dicks.

     Well, simply put, WE (a term which specifically excludes Mr. Sandeen) do not have dicks.  And why we would want to imagine we still do is beyond me.

14. We convince ourselves after vaginoplasties that we’re “normal” women — even though our vaginas have no possibility of lubricating like nontranssexual women’s vaginas do.
15. We convince ourselves after vaginoplasties we’re “normal” women — even though our vaginas have to be stretched with dilator to make the depth as close to nontranssexual women’s vaginas as possible.

16. We convince ourselves after vaginoplasties we’re “normal” women — even though our vaginas will never be capable of passing a newborn through them.

     In these three, we see classic Sandeen.  He hates post-op women, and does his best to belittle us, and loves to denigrate our vaginas.

17.  When we see nontranssexual women who are pregnant, we feel defective.

     I cannot speak for all women of transsexual history, but I know I have the same urges and desires as any other woman.  And yes, it hurts to know that I will never bear a child.  Now, I realize this is foreign to Mr. Sandeen, who is clearly not remotely a woman, and this sort of remark is typical of him.

18. We use “normal” to describe ourselves.

     I would never use "normal" to describe Mr. Sandeen.

27.  We choose to be stealth so that we personally don’t experience employment and housing discrimination.
28.  We choose to be stealth, even knowing trans people who come after us will experience the same discrimination we did early in our transitions — and we do nothing to make their transitions easier than our own transitions were.

     The only real reason to choose to be stealth is so one can actually experience life as a woman, not as a "transgender."  I realize this is a concept completely foreign to Mr. Sandeen.

Seriously, this is the real face of the transgender kook.  This is what they are really thinking, and this is so completely foreign to real transsexuals that I honestly cannot accept "Autumn" Sandeen, and his ilk, as anything other than men impersonating women.

More Gender Facist Crap

"Christan" Williams is at it again.  This time he seems to have cobbled together a post he claims is from a "separatist."  In the past, Williams has claimed to have discovered heretofore unknown articles "proving" that the term "transgender" was was used long before anyone knew, and was even favored by Christine Jorgensen.  I have already noted that the sources cited are all extremely obscure, and difficult, if not impossible to locate.  Now, without providing a citation, Williams provides a supposed essay by a separatist (i.e. someone like myself, who does not identify as transgender, in defiance of Williams' demands).  Odd, but I searched Google for the first line from this supposed posting, but the only thing that showed up was Williams' article.  Curious....


Granted, Williams does not claim that what he refers to as a "sad little rant" is from a blog site, or a web posting.  But the fact that no citation is given seems, at best, curious.


Williams posts the usual "gender fascist" silliness about "elitism," "shame," and "transphobia." One of the more interesting bits of illogic is when Williams tries to link the case of Peter Oiler, a transvestite who was fired by Winn Dixie, and who repeatedly lost in court, to transsexuals.  Rather odd logic for someone who claims to be a post-op.  Of course, as we have seen with cases like "Autumn" Sandeen, some transgender definitions of "post-op" are simply lies.  I don't know if Williams actually had SRS, but I increasingly doubt it.  


Then Williams tries to inject racism into the discussion (well, he is a big fan of "Monica" Roberts) who hates post-op transsexuals and white people with equal passion) when he refers to "separatists" as "our down-low community."
Williams shows where he is really coming from when he states this:

When it comes down to it, here’s the basic, broad-brush world view differences between Separatists and Inclusionists…
The Inclusionist World View:

1. We ALL face oppression because our history or our expression violates cultural gender stereotypes.
2. Our oppressors LOVE our differences and NEVER want our differences to be seen as normal differences (on par with differences which violate cultural norms, eg Look Who’s Coming For Dinner)
3. Our oppressors use our differences to “otherize” us so that oppression becomes a social meme.
4. Our oppressors oppress us because they like the power, not because they don’t like our differences.

The Separatist World View:

1. Transsexuals face oppression because people confuse us with crossdressers and drag queens.
2. Our oppressors HATE what they view as being strange and/or deviant behavior.
3. Transsexualism isn’t about strange and/or deviant behavior; it’s a medical condition and has nothing to do with breaking gender stereotypes in our culture.
4. Our oppressors will stop oppressing us if we can get them to see that we aren’t like crossdressers and that we are instead like intersex people.

Since Williams takes it upon himself to define people's views, why not return the favor.  Here is his real view:

1. I get a kick out of facing oppression. I really don't want to be anything other than "weird." I hate the idea of remotely being a part of "normal" society, but I want to force everyone to pretend I am normal. Knowing I am really upsetting people is a large part of the fun in this little game I play.
2. I love engaging in strange and/or deviant behavior, and I really, really love forcing it down people's throats, knowing they really hate it.
3. How dare transsexuals refuse to accept the labels I put on myself, and on them. They will be strange and deviant because, well because I say they are. They have no right to disagree with me.
4. I'm going to shove my behavior down everyone's throat. This is all about power, and I want it all. Anyone who disagrees with me will be insulted, belittled, and attacked until they submit.

Yes, kind of redundant, but that is how Williams seems to be.  He is a one note opera, and it is all about how he is right, and everyone is wrong. 

The real irony in all of this is Williams' claim that he is not demanding that people identify as he  wishes.  He even goes so far as to say:

If the down-low guy doesn’t want to identify as being gay, then fine. If the stealth lesbian doesn’t want to identify as being a lesbian, then fine. If the TS Separatist doesn’t want to identify as being trans, then fine. HOWEVER, do not demand that the entire trans community rework its culture to suit your whims and unsubstantiated statements of fact.

Those are strange words coming from someone who spends an entire post attacking people who don't identify as transgender.  His bottom line, "I have a right to my views, and I demand that you respect my identity, but I am not going to respect yours.  You can call yourself whatever you want, but I will call you whatever I want, but I will absolutely go ballistic if you call me anything other than what I demand."

Oh well, I would call Williams a bad joke.  As to what he calls me, well, who cares?  I just consider the source.  And I have a good laugh.

Much Ado About Nothing

It was with some degree of amusement that I watched "Cristan" Williams' hissy fits about Dr. Keith Ablow's comments about Chaz Bono's appearance on "Dancing With the Stars."  Now, let me start by saying I don't particularly agree with Ablow.  I did find it interesting that he seems to concede that he might well fail in his attempts to "cure" Chaz, and that if it came to it, he would support Chaz in seeking surgery.


That, of course, is a rather extreme version of how therapists should approach the treatment of transsexuals.  They certainly should not rubber stamp requests for SRS.  When they do, you end up with a very serious possibility of someone making a tragic error.  I have seen it happen.  SRS is not something to be rushed into,


But there is a bigger issue here.  Mr. Williams is infuriated that Dr. Ablow would dare disagree with transgender dogma.  The result has been an almost comedic attempt to destroy Ablow's career.  Now, as I said, I don't particularly agree with Ablow, and even less so with Paul McHugh, who Ablow has apparently quoted in support of his positions.


Ablow has expressed some opinions I find a bit amusing, like suggesting that parents should not allow their children to watch "Dancing With the Stars" because it might cause them to decide they are "transgender."  And he has made some nasty comments where he conflates transsexualism with transgender (that is probably what I would find most disturbing), but to suggest, as Mr. Williams does, that Ablow has violated medical ethics is, well, laughable.


Ablow is entitled to his views.  He is not the only doctor to disagree with surgical treatment for transsexuals.  So what?  Does Mr. Williams really imagine that someone might mistakenly choose Ablow as their therapist in pursuit of surgery?  Ironically, if that person was a true transsexual, Ablow has indicated that he would ultimately support them in pursuing SRS.  That is better than many therapists, who firmly oppose anyone ever having surgery.


The problem here is simple.  Some, especially those who made a poor choice, are so insecure that even the most minor of challenge to "transgender dogma" sends them into fits.  Ablow is one opinion among many.  Those inclined to think transsexuals in error will continue to do so.  Those who understand the needs of true transsexuals will not be persuaded by his rants.  And those like Mr. Williams, who feel the need to demand ideological purity with continue to have hissy fits about any disagreement.  And they will continue to engage in behavior that will make themselves look foolish, like filing silly ethics complaints in desperate attempts to be noticed and feel important.

The Idiocy Continues...

Well, my response to the rather silly claims by Cristan Williams at Bilerico seems to have created a bit of a stir.  First off, Williams, who seems to be self-appointed as a new leader among the gender fascists.  Williams responds to those who disagree with ad hominem attacks and mockery.  And at the same time, in what has to be a laughable tactic, Williams demands that people present "objective evidence."  Given that transgender is a totally subjective concept, that is quite a stretch.  Simply put, Williams is all ego and a mile wide.


Now, this is a rather curious person.  The claim is made that Williams is a "post-op." transsexual.  Well, that may well be, but given the latest round of lies from Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen, one has to wonder what "post-op" means in this case.  I mean, Williams certainly does not come across as someone who is transsexual.  There is clearly no desire to be a woman.  It is possible that Williams had SRS and now has deep regrets and compensates by going heavily into gender politics.  This would not be the first such case.  It is equally possible that the op that is post for Williams is something short of full SRS.  But that doesn't really matter as we don't know the facts, and probably won't.  Sadly, among the transgender extremists, the view still holds that being "post-op" gives one more credibility.  That is why Mr. Sandeen suddenly became a "transsexual" and is now claiming that he is going to have "genital reconstruction surgery."  I mean, how is castration remote "reconstruction?"  Before you know, it Mr. Sandeen will be claiming to be a post op, even though he will remain a woman with a penis.


And even having surgery does not make one a woman.  If one does not have a female brain before surgery, one will not afterwards.  But I digress....


Williams again is pushing the idea that transsexuals have to be a part of the transgender community based on questionable history.  Of course, when I raised some questions about this, Williams went ballistic.  I have merely pointed out that the information is questionable.  I have pointed out that Williams cites sources that are at best, not widely available, and which might, possibly, be fraudulent.  So, how does Williams respond?  With ad hominem attacks and straw arguments.  I didn't say that the sources were fake, I said they were questionable.


This time around, Williams appeals mostly to sources like Tapestry, which started as part of a transvestite club.  And I find it especially funny that Williams cites Roger E. Peo, "Ph.D."  Peo was a major fan of transvestites.  Oh, and that "Ph.D."  It is from the the Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality.  This, uh, institute operates out of a storefront in San Francisco.  It is not accredited, a subject it tries to side step in its FAQ on the web site.  It has actually moved up in the world, having relocated from a rather run down building in Folsom Street area South of Market, to a slightly less seedy area near the Tenderloin.  It claims to be the "Harvard" of the study of Human Sexuality.  If I were Harvard, I would sue for defamation.  This is the sort of people Williams appeals to for this round of rhetoric.  Oh, and Williams, no my head has not exploded, though I did laugh quite a bit at it all.


Now, let's take a step back, and look at the bigger picture.  Let's say that Williams is completely honest.  So what?  Williams takes a few isolated comments, and tries to use this to demand compliance from people who, quite simply, want no part of the transgender extremism.  So, why is Williams so adamant about this?  Well, first off, the transgender movement is terrified of the idea that transsexuals might actually separate.  If we did, transgender is exposed for what it actually is...a bunch of men trying to force society to call them women.  


Without transsexuals, transgender is nothing but a group of men in dresses.  Like Mr. Sandeen, they want to keep their penises.  Like "Monica" Roberts, they want to brag about that big old "neo-clit" they are packing in their panties.  They know that suddenly, they will not have transsexuals to hide behind.  


Williams is fond of challenging people about what harm has been done to transsexuals by association with transgender extremism.  Well, first off, as a classic example, there is the loss of the right to marry.  Funny how this was not an issue in the United States until transgender people started making noise.  Suddenly, transsexual marriages is tied into same-sex marriages.  Yes, I know exactly what Williams will bring up....April Ashley, but that was in England and things did not become an issue in this country until relatively recently.  Now, things are rough.  


Another example of damage is the growing idea that surgery is not needed.  Because of those who belong to the "They Will Take My Penis When They Pry My Cold Dead Fingers From It" club, who also claim to be fully women, fully female, some people raise issues as to why transsexuals need, or should have, surgery.  After all, others do quite well without it.  This undercuts efforts to obtain insurance coverage for example.  Of course, those who don't want surgery love to claim their reasons are economic.  Insurance coverage would expose their lies.


Now, Williams is anti-stealth, spewing the usual crap about shame.  Williams dismisses the very real desire to simply live as a woman, not as a "trans whatever."  Again, clearly, Williams does not really wish to be a woman.  Williams, like others, transitioned to be "trans."  As I have said before, I prefer not being a "woman, but...."  I don't care for people to say, "Oh, she is a nice woman, but....you know she was once a man," or "she is "really a man," or whatever. I don't want people saying, "You know how men are....oh, yes, of course you do."  No, I don't know.  I never understood why they act like they do, thank you.  I felt like an outsider.  I don't know what life is like on both side, and really, neither does anyone else.  If you were perfectly happy as a man, then sorry, you are not really a woman.  I am amazed at people who had long, successful careers as men who suddenly decide they are really women.  And then they wonder why people don't really accept them as "real women."


All is this is fine for Williams, but clearly, Williams is not happy just living the life that Williams chooses.  Williams, like many gender fascists feels the need to dictate how others can life and identify, casting aspersions on "separatists," transsexuals who do not wish to identify as transgender.


So that brings us back to the simple bottom line.  Transgender is a highly subjective, artificial social and political construct.  It has no basis outside the minds of those who dreamed it up.  In truth, the very concept has changed over the years.  There is no objective definition of who is, and who is not, transgender except that one is transgender if that is what one calls oneself. Unlike "transsexual," which is an objective term, "transgender" is an identity and nothing more.  I am not transgender.  I did not change my gender, as it has always been female.  I changed my sex.  In fact, transgender is an oxymoron as one cannot really change one's gender.  You cannot make yourself into a woman by choice.  You can change your gender presentation, and I an willing to accept a definition that is worded in that way, though it would still not properly apply to me.  And others speak of "transcending" gender.  I don't do that either.  I simply am what I am, a middle aged woman.  I am not a trans woman, just a woman, thank you.  And please, don't even think about calling me gender variant.  If people want to rebel against their true gender, that is their right, I suppose.  But if they want to claim me as part of their rebellion, they have a fight on their hands.


Once again, a modest proposal, which, of course will be rejected.  Let people identify as they please.  Stop imposing the term transgender on people.  Make it a rule that it never be used unless someone chooses to be called that.  If someone says, I am not transgender, that should be the end of it.  If someone says, they are transgender, that is their right.  But don't force your terms on others.  It is just not right.


As to Williams, that person can get bent out of shape all they want.  They are not going to silence me.  So far, all Williams has shown is how weak a position Williams has taken.  Arguments like "face plants" may seem clever to Williams, and Williams' followers, but really, is that the best you've got?