The Transgender Movement's Dirty Little Secret

I've been thinking about this post for quite some time.  It is about something that is quite obvious, but which is kind of easy to overlook in all the rhetoric that spews out of the "transgender movement."  But, an article at LGBT Weekly by Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen, one of the leading voices of that movement finally pushed me to write it.

In the article, titled "Fourteen years ago and now," Mr. Sandeen says

"I remember coming out in early 2003 as a transsexual – that’s what we called ourselves back then. When those of us who called ourselves transsexual also called ourselves transgender, it was actually kind of political – we were also identifying ourselves as falling under a transgender umbrella of gender nonconforming people."

This quote pretty much sums up what the transgender movement is really all about.  First off, it is not about being "transsexual."  Mr. Sandeen may have called himself a "transsexual," but he is not, and never was remotely a transsexual.  He may have even been able to find some doctor who is willing to rubber stamp his fantasies, but he has been a life long member of the "They Will Take My Penis When They Pry it From My Cold Dead Fingers" club.  He occasionally flirts with the idea of SRS, but has made no real move in that direction.  Even during the period when the VA was supposedly going to cover it.  He has had an orchidectomy, rendering him an eunuch, and has tried to pass this off as sex reassignment surgery, but he still retains his penis.

Next he states that he also called himself "transgender" he connects that with being "gender non-conforming."  This is where the truth really begins to come out.  First off, being transsexual is NOT remotely about being "gender non-conforming."  It is quite the opposite. It is about being fully the gender, and sex, that you really are.  Here Mr. Sandeen is letting the secret out.  Transgender is really all a scam.

The transgender movement has tried, for some time, to use transsexualism as, in effect, their "beard."  That is, they have claimed to be "transsexual" to justify their demands.  But they are not transsexual, and in fact, have no desire to be anything other than what they were born as.  They only want to be "gender non-conforming."  In order to be that, they must remain their birth gender.  They may claim to "really" be a gender different from what they were assigned at birth, but this is simply not the case.

Take Mr. Sandeen, for example.  He served about 20 years in the United States Navy.  If his "true" gender had been female, he would have probably not made it through one tour of duty.  He would have not been able to fit in to the male culture that military service requires of men.  He would not have been able to tolerate being forced to dress and shower with other men.  I remember how much I dreaded changing during high school PE.  I went out of my way to avoid showering when others were present during the one semester I lived in a dorm with communal showers.  The rest of the time, I lived in what was either a dorm with "suites" where you had the bathroom to yourself, or in a dorm that was originally a women's dorm, where the showers had individual stalls.

All of this brings us to the big secret.  Transgender people, for the most part, do not really want to be what they claim.  They want to retain their birth gender, and more often than not, their birth sex.  In many cases, when they do change their sex, they seem to regret, and they go out of their way to make sure that others know their birth sex.  For them, it is not about actually being "their true gender and proper sex," but is about forcing people to "accept" them as something they work very hard to not actually be.  

People who identify a transgender seem to have this compulsion to force people to both see them as their birth sex and gender, but treat them as the opposite.  They want to invade spaces where they really don't belong, and increasingly, to expose their bodies while demanding people pretend that their genitals are something that they are not.

Transsexuals are disgusted by the idea of having someone see them naked before their surgery.  I remember having to endure being examined by the surgeons who performed my SRS.  It was excruciating.  But when I went in for a follow-up, and had a rather handsome young doctor removing stitches, his face right up in my privates, I suddenly realized that it did not bother me at all.

SRS does make a world of different for those who actually need it.  For those who don't. it just makes them rather miserable.

A New Low, Even For the Transadvocate

First off, I want to apologize for being away for a while.  Real life intervened, and I have been very busy...in a good way.  Also, to be honest, there has been little worth writing about.  After a while, it gets tiresome writing about the same old silliness from the radical TG crowd.  There just hasn't been much new stuff...until now.

In an article by Fallon Fox, a pseudo-transsexual man who likes to beat up on other women, we are informed that the "TERFs" (i.e. Trans Exclusive Radical Feminists) are "the new Westboro Baptist Church."    Of course, this is the same bunch that has repeatedly tried to get the Southern Poverty Law Center to declare TERFs to be a certified hate group.  I guess since that hasn't worked, they have decided to take on a new approach.

The whole idea is ludicrous.  Worse, Mr. Fox comes up with some rather strained (to say the  very least) reasons for his claim.

Who in the hell would go through years of hormone replacement therapy, electrolysis, doctor’s appointments, psychological therapy, loss of thousands and thousands of dollars, loss of family and friends, possible loss of one’s job, put themselves in harm’s way by being a prime target for physical violence at the hands of men? And most importantly, why would some so called “men” elect to have an operation on their genitals that would remove their ability to use their sexual organ in penetrating fashion in the act of rape? Most rational adults are not ignoramuses to the degree that they would believe such rhetoric especially after hearing the counter argument.

Uh, sorry fellow, but we are constantly told how one does not need SRS to be a woman, how women have penises, how "most transgender people don't have surgery," etc.  So, don't come along and try to use claims about having SRS to argue a transgender position.  It's a bit disingenuous to say the least.

And really, why would someone who claims to be a "woman" spend so much time insuring that everyone, and anyone is fully aware that they were born a man, and expose their self to endless rounds of publicity, seeking out the spotlight?

Sorry, what you try to describe are transsexuals, who are not, automatically, transgender.  

And let's look at what the transgender extremists have pushed.  A lot of the controversy has arose because:

1. Transgender males generally refuse to respect reasonable boundaries.  They demand to be allowed to invade women's spaces, no matter how personal and private they are.
2. Transgender males introduced the idea of the "cotton ceiling" in an attempt to shame lesbians into accepting sex with them.
3. An increasing number of transgender males demand the right to be in place where nudity is inevitable, even though they have no had corrective surgery.  And they adamantly defend men who have been caught in such situations.
4. These men, Mr. Fox being a particular example, belittle the very real concerns that women have about men committing aggressive acts.

I don't agree with everything the Radical Feminists say, but I also do not believe they remotely deserve the crap spewed by kooks like Mr. Fox.

The Transgender Kook Triple Play

There is a pattern that seems to play out repeatedly when one deals with transgender extremists.  The more they are kooks, the more precisely it plays out….  And in my recent adventures with the Trannymaniacs I wrote about last time, it has played out very precisely.

So, what is the Transgender Kook Triple Play?  Well, it works like this…

First, they try to show you the error of your ways.  They inform you that you are wrong, and that they want to show you the "right path…"  (BTW, all of the weird grammar and spelling mistakes are in the original…just consider everything to include (sic) where appropriate.) They will be firm, but that "only want to help you out."  Here is part of what this bunch's self-appointed "messiah", Ms. "Mark" Cummings had to say at the beginning...

Transgender is not meaningless it is who you are and will always be. You can run but you cannot hide. Say all you want, scream from the top of your lungs. But you don't full anyone. Now if you feel the need to think you are a woman and that gives you peace, then by all means wish away. But you are only hurting yourself in the long run. You were not a mistake from the word go, we are here to show the world the true meaning of duality, and to think you can kill who you were, is only an act of delusion.

As I said, a bit firm, but after all, she has to set me straight…  But, he tries a somewhat softer approach after I pointed out to him that, no, I really didn't buy into his crap, and was not going to accept his advice…

You can repeat it all you want and believe it. It is your choice, your life, but the world knows otherwise. My life is amazing and I am so at peace, before I use to think like you, and I woke up. You are no more of a woman than a transgender woman who still has her penis. Your penis has been inverted but it still has male written all over it. It is fake, it does not lubricate, it does not self dilate. It is a wound at best, having that does not make you a woman. You were born a guy. You and all of us have a hormonal imbalance that makes us feel, in your case feminine and in my case masculine, but that does not make us the gender we claim we are. No matter what surgery, no matter what procedure. You are not a mistake, you don't need to prove to the world one thing. You were fine the way you were. Now I have nothing against transitioning but knowing why we are doing this and why we have been placed here on earth.

Now, she drags out some classic transgender tropes, but she also tries to be a bit condescending, but also tries to gently set me on the proper path…  And I decline to accept her correction…

At this point, Ms. Cummings' "husband," Mr. "Jessica" Cummings joins the discussion…

Actually Jennifer I am post op and had my surgery in April of 2013 just FYI. I identify as a woman but I am proud to be Transgender so your fetish theory holds no water with me. We are all equal unfourtunately some of us that are proud of who we are post real pictures of ourselves and those of us that are ashamed hide behind fake photos such as a cartoon character.

Now, I had pretty much told Ms. Cummings that I was not buying into their crap in no uncertain terms.  I was already seeing a bit of what was going on, but I hadn't read enough to know the depths of insanity this group holds..  For example, while I would come to suspect something was amiss, I did not yet know for certain that Mr. Cummings was lying through his teeth when he claimed to be "post-op."  Yes, he, like Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen is a post-op eunuch, not a transsexual.  And I had not made the connection that he was the "husband" of Ms. Cummings.

Now, he drags out some classic transgender tropes, but he also tries to be a bit condescending, but also tries to gently set me on the proper path…  More classic transgender silliness…"shame," "hiding," etc.  In their mind, someone who is leading a normal, quiet, and happy life as a woman is somehow actually miserable, ashamed, hiding, and in need of correction.

Of course, when this approach fails to work, the second stage of the Transgender Kook Triple Play is to start insulting the person they are arguing with.  As sure as the sun rises, the insults will come out.  The break is not always clearly defined, and there is usually some mixing of the two…

I don't care if you agree or disagree with me, I don't need your validity or anyone elses. I am speaking my mind and that I am entitled to do. And yes I have walked my life in both genders as have you and as all other trans people. Glad we provided you with amusement since your lonely ass has nothing else better to do. I am sure dilating gets boring after awhile and since you have not been able to use that expensive man made vagina, I wonder how much regret you actually have and need to boost yourself by saying you are better than us trannies who won't put ourselves through that unnecessary procedure that at best won't be able to satisfy anyone, not even yourself. You did come and throw the first stone, by saying transgender is meaningless therefore, you must understand that we don't take very lightly to snobby transsexual women who are uptight due to lack of sexual pleasure and filled with regrets.

Actually, she clearly does care, and she clearly needs my validity.  Now, keep in mind the irony of the statement that she is "speaking my mind and that I am entitled to do," given that she repeatedly informed me that I have no right to not identify as transgender.  Now, it should be noted, I never said I was better, and actually said there was no basis for comparison.  My position throughout this discussion, including what started the whole mess, was simply to point out that the idea of a "transgender hierarchy" was bogus, in part, because the ones supposedly at the top are not necessarily transgender.  

And yes, I said "transgender is meaningless" because, well, it is.  It is an artificial, social/political construct that is highly subjective and which has no objective basis.  In reality, the only criteria for being "transgender" is if one chooses, of one's own volition, to identify as transgender.  Of course, this offends the extremists, who, as much as anything, need numbers.  And they wish to use transsexuals as their "beards" to hide behind. 

Now, when things really get rough, they bring out their favorite insult, and violate Godwin's Law…

I can't believe these HBS nazis have to be just like the TERF is today. Because that's why their scientific theories are not being taken serious and the proposal of having the term transsexual changed to HBS is thus rejected.
There is a page dedicated to debunking the entire series of claims made by HBS nazis who tried to get a page up on Wikipedia.

Now, at this point, they have effectively lost the argument…but, hey, the funs only starting.  I will spare you the endless back and forth of nasty insults.  I admit, I was not exactly kind in my responses, but as I have said many times, I don't suffer fools, or bigots, well.  And when you are dealing with she extremely foolish bigots…it is not going to be pretty.  But the main thing I did was meet their stupidity with facts, and that, of course, just made them madder, and madder, which brings us to the final stage of the transgender triple play…the inevitable end of battle.  But first, we should look at a bit of irony…

This band of kooks chose to use the image I have on this blog in their attacks on me.  Now, the content of this blog is copyright, by me, and as they say, all rights are reserved.  I don't object to "fair use," but copying my artwork and using it as they did is not fair use.  Quoting is fair use, but taking an image is not (ironically, because of this, I did find out that some bizarre plastic surgery blog, which is not in English, has actually stolen my image as well.  Not much I can do, as I assume it is hosted in China, which does not recognize copyright as a rule…but sort of weird…and a little creepy…).  When I notified them of this, they went totally loopy, claiming I was trying to censor them.  No, I simply said, "Remove the image you stole."  I did not say, "Take down the silly insults you have thrown at me…" or "Remove the outrageous claims you make on your blog…" or even "Stop lying about having had surgery you haven't had…"  No, I did not try to censor them…BUT….

Yes, in the classic endgame for a transgender kook, they played the censorship card.  Mr. Cummings has this to say...

@ Jennifer we have Sat back and entertained your childish actions on every article. It is getting old. We have yet to censor you and shut you up but if it keeps up much longer I will personally start deleting everyone of your comnents from this point forward. So you can waste your time babbling your hypocritical, disrespectful, and manly comments and I will simply make then disappear. Poof =)

And, after I pointed out the irony of this, in light of them doing an entire blog post on their false claim of being censored (Really, this people have NO sense of irony, no sense of humor, and well, no sense, period….) one of them replied:

Well you getting blocked won't be determined by the amount of farm animals you've f****d, but by the amount of stupidity and hate you put into pixels in these commentsections. I take it you've blocked people on your blog too since you're so privacy sensitive about things you've put into the public domain! Ouch! That had to hurt. (And yes, I did censor the profanity in this one…)

My reply to this one was, quite simply, factual…

ROTFL! Well, I guess you should block me then, since I would never match you on the first (since, as I said, I don't engage in your sexual practices, sir…and if you actually thought, about it, you would realize just how incredibly ignorant AND impossible such a suggestion is) and I am also not going to make stupid remarks, since I clearly disagree with your idiocy. But, as you point out, Blogger (alas) does not have a blocking function. And again, your understanding of "public domain" versus copyright is laughable. Hurt, only in the sense that it always hurts to see someone so completely, and woefully lacking in knowledge.

And I still love the irony of you all whining about censorship, and then threatening it because you realize you are actually losing the argument. Classic transgender mentality.

And, of course, they removed my post…along with another, earlier one, where I pointed out, in response to a similar childish remark suggesting that I live in Texas, and well, engage in what I can only assume is a sexual practice this person is quite obsessed with…he keeps mentioning it) along with the suggest that I should therefore "copyright animals"…

Well, first off, I don't live in Texas, nor do I engage in your sexual practices. I do however understand the difference between copyright law, and patent law. You see, copyright applies to creative works, like writing, art, photographs, and movies. It would not apply to an animal. Patent law would, but only if you invent something sufficiently new. Now, genetic modifications are covered, so it would be possible to patent an animal, but one has to keep in mind that patents are in effect a much shorter time than a copyright. Now, sir, it is obvious that your statement was, as usual, mind numbingly ignorant, but that is to be expected.

Anyway, this has all been fun…I admit a certain guilty pleasure in giving kooks fits…and I could sort of see how it would end…it almost always does, unless someone higher up the food chain prevents it (as has happened at LGBT Weekly where Mr. Sandeen is not allowed to censor like he would like to).  I will probably occasionally monitor these kooks, and bring you response to anything truly insane, as I do with other kooks.

Gagging on Gnats and Swallowing Camels

Those who have been following the strange tale of AB 1266 might remember that I pointed out, back in October, that places like San Francisco and Oakland had actually addressed some of the more extreme problems that might occur with AB 1266.  In fact, over at LGBT Weekly I confronted Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen about these issues, and strongly suggested that the transgender extremists might want to urge the state legislature to amend AB 1266 to include such provisions in an effort to head off the possibility of that law being overturned.

Well, it is now January, the petition to overturn AB 1266 is still very much alive, in spite of overly optimistic predictions by transgender extremists (and some clearly underhanded efforts by the Secretary of State to stop it) and, well, things have taken a slightly surprising turn.

The extremists from Pacific Justice Institute have embraced the approach taken by San Francisco.  

Think about that for a minute.  We were told, over and over, by kooks like Mr. Sandeen, and his fearless leader, Mr. "Cristan" Williams, that there was nothing wrong with AB 1266, that is only implemented the polices already in place like San Francisco, and that there had been no problems.  Of course, both of them were, as usual, lying through their teeth.  AB 1266 was intended to do exactly what was feared, such as allow students to arbitrarily choose what gender they feel like on a given day, and force female students to put up with males parading around nude in girl's locker rooms.

It seems that Mr. Sandeen is now eating his words, and is actually upset that PJI is taking the reasonable approach to dealing with this issue….

Mr Sandeen is straining out a gnat over the fact that not everyone on the right is willing to embrace "San Francisco" values, and swallowing the camel that, well, transgender males have superior rights to females.

And he is, as has become his practice, badly twisting Scripture to do it.

The article at Transadvocate is laughable, at best.

The whole thing started because PJI has suggest that Florence High School, which is at the center of the controversy over the "Jane Doe" case, adopt the San Francisco Unified School District's approach to dealing with transgender students.

How could Mr. Sandeen possibly find fault with this?  Well, simple…Mr. Sandeen latches on to the fact that another, separate, group that is part of the Privacy For All Students coalition that opposes AB 1266 does not share exactly the same view as PJI.  That group, Capital Resource Institute, apparently takes a bit more of a hard line on the issue.

Hmmm, so, rather than show a shred of common sense, Mr. Sandeen digs his heels in and has a hissy fit because someone actually is willing to compromise, and well, take a position that Mr. Sandeen should fully accept.

Mr. Sandeen tosses out a bit of Scripture…

The integrity of the upright guides them, but the unfaithful are destroyed by their duplicity. Proverbs 11:3 

I think he might want to think long and hard about that one.  He is the one being duplicitous here.  But then, who would expect anything different?

Transgender Extremism's Second Favorite Tactic

Obviously, as previously discussed, the favorite tactic of transgender extremists is to simply accuse anyone who questions the right of men to claim to be "women" and then wave their penises in front of actual women, of hatred.  Their second favorite tactic is similar, but slightly different.  It is to obfuscate and avoid the real issue.

Mr. "Cristan" Williams, and his comrade in deception, Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen have both had a complete meltdown over some transgender man in Toronto "ogling" a woman in a YWCA locker room.  Their issue?  The reporter did not do the impossible, and verify that the story was true.  So, of course, Mr. Sandeen called YWCAs in Toronto, who stated that no such incident had been reported, and also called the police, who stated the same, and then both he, and Mr. Williams, declared the story a "HOAX!"  You can read their silly diatribes here, and here.

The problem is, the journalist in Toronto did nothing wrong, while both Mr. Sandeen, and Mr. Williams are, again, lying through their teeth.  Calling this a hoax is a lie, as they have no evidence of that.  The lack of evidence proves nothing.  In this case, they are claiming that the fact that this was not reported to the YWCA, or the police proves it did not happen.  That is simple ignorance.  The simple fact is, at best, it would be an open question.

Why do they do this?  Because they know, deep down, it almost certainly did happen, but they can't deal with that.  So, they make it go away.  They hide it.  As they always try to hide these things.

They want to create an illusion that all transgender people are good, and pure, and innocent.  Because let's face it, the truth is not their friend.

Did a transgender male, parading around in the nude, with a full on erection, really ogle a woman changing in YWCA locker room in Toronto?  Possibly, even probably.  Do such things happen?  Yes, though Mr. Williams and Mr. Sandeen wish to lie and claim that they NEVER happen.

Perhaps a more important question is, why do perverts like Mr. Sandeen, and Mr. Williams want to force women to have to face even the possibility of such things being forced on them?

A Few Minor Points...

I screwed up yesterday...

After noticing Elizabeth's post on Notes From the T Side I made the mistake of thinking she had gotten over her little snit fit, and might be willing to put stuff behind us.  Not even close.  I don't know what it is, but some early transitioning transsexuals, at least ones who transitioned back in the Sixties, seem to have some major insecurities.  The classic example, of course, is Suzan Cooke.  Granted Cooke has gone full tilt as a transgender apologist, apparently deciding the ego strokes she gets from the men in dresses bunch is worth it.

I can understand having some identification with a possible early transitioning transsexual such as might be the case in Colorado.  Now, I say might be simply because we really have pretty much zero valid information.  Almost everything published has been filtered through either the Pacific Justice Institute, or Mr. "Cristan" Williams.  Simply put, this means it is highly probable that the facts have been lost in their attempts to "spin" the story to fit their extremist agendas.  

I tried to explain this to Elizabeth, but she is the sort of person who sees things as you either totally accept her extremely rigid viewpoint, or well, you can expect a vicious and rather nasty attack.  

And yes, I know some of the extremists would accuse me of the same thing, but well, they would be wrong.  I don't have a lot of patience when others do such things, and when they do, I will generally give them a full dose of reality.  But if someone is willing to engage in a rational, and reasonable discussion, I can be quite pleasant about it.  I have a lot of friends with whom I may disagree on some points.  We are able to discuss this, and if necessary, agree to disagree, without resorting to accusations of bigotry, hatred, and intolerance, or the need to toss insults, profanity, or profane insults.

I'm sorry, but I won't be bullied into agreeing to something I don't believe.  And if that causes someone to resort to ridiculous attacks in an attempt to do so, I will generally either confront them with their own failures, or, possibly just walk away if the area of disagreement is relatively narrow.  In the case of extremist kooks like Mr. Williams, or Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen, I will generally expose their lies, and take apart their illogical arguments.  In the case of Elizabeth, I am more disappointed than anything else.

I mean seriously...  She seems to have some need to act like a character out of some bad teen flick.  She seems to want to play the "mean girl."  Between impugning my intelligence, and questioning my validity as a transsexual, she pretty much went off on some ridiculous tangents.

Her principle argument that the person who has been labeled "Jane Doe" by Mr. Williams must be a transsexual amounted to "no kid that age would subject themselves to the abuse and ridicule" unless they really were.  Well, I obviously did not agree with that position, and a recent situation here in the Bay Area, where a teenage boy who has chosen to act out by claiming to be "agender" and wearing skirts, was set on fire when he fell asleep on a bus.  I was a little surprised that the trans kooks were a bit slow picking up on the story, but they seem to have finally discovered it.  But, as horrible as this crime is (NO ONE SHOULD EVER BE SET ON FIRE FOR ANY REASON) it does expose the fact that, well, Elizabeth was simply wrong.  

Instead of saying, "Okay, I don't agree, but I can see your point," she slings more insults and tries to claim it is two different things.  Well, I agree, clearly claiming to be "agender" is not exactly the same as claiming to be transgender, or perhaps transsexual, but it is also not really that much different in terms of possible stigma, and in fact, claiming to be "agender" is probably going to invite even more stigma.

Bottom line, the argument that no teenager would claim to be a transsexual, who is not actually one, is totally without merit.  So, without more accurate information, I am going to withhold judgement.

The other area where Elizabeth showed extremely poor reasoning was first off, adding to something I said in a comment so she could attack me (i.e. a straw man argument), and then using a "No True Scotsman" fallacy based on that.

I mentioned a very personal, and largely private period in my life.  There is a lot about that time I simply am not going to talk about publicly, and which I have only discussed, in detail with a few very close and trusted friends.  I usually some it up, in a very over-simplified manner, by saying it was triggered, in part. because of a very poor therapist.  The bottom line is, I went through an emotional crisis, and detransitioned for about seven years.  Elizabeth seized on that small bit of information, and claimed I had "failed at transition."  That is not even remotely accurate.  I delayed my transition because I decided, for deeply personal reasons that are really not any of her business, to attempt to find a lesser path. 

Now, some might argue that I should reveal all, but I am not going to do so for several reasons.  First, doing so would invade the privacy of other people.  Second, there was a lot of pain involved in that period of my life.  And third, as I have discussed here before, there are people who spend a lot of time online stalking others, and I am not going to give them information they would gladly abuse.  

If Elizabeth really needs to look down on others to feel better, that is her failing, not mine.  If she wants to imagine things, based on a small amount of knowledge, and a large amount of insecurity, well...that is her problem.  I really don't need her permission or her imprimatur to be a woman.  If she wants to set some absurd criteria to judge someone's validity, she can join the kooks like Bailey and Blanchard who have made a career of doing such.  

Again, I have pointed out that some, such as Mr. Williams and Mr. Sandeen, are neither transsexuals, or women.  This is  based on arguable facts, not whether or not they followed the exact same path I did, or whether or not they adhere to some political viewpoint.

The "Trans Panic" Continues...

No, I don't mean "trans panic" in the sense of the rather nasty defense used when someone is murdered because they are discovered to be transsexual, or more likely, transgender.  I mean the frantic attempts to gain attention by writing about the case of the Colorado high school student.  The transgender extremists can't seem to get enough of it.

Mr. "Cristan" Williams has repeatedly written on the subject, and now Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen has taken up the cause, having produced at least three four articles(they come so fast it is hard to keep up), two three on Transadvocate, and another on LGBT Weekly.  Well, technically, the latest article on Transadvocate is more about AB 1266, which is at the heart  of the panic.

I suspect, AB 1266, a law that takes an extremist approach to protecting "transgender" students in California public schools will be overturned next year.  I have said, repeatedly, that the smart move would be to have it amended to take out the excessive features (in particular sharing locker rooms) or at least include provisions concerning privacy (i.e. something similar to rules in San Francisco that address "inevitable nudity").  Now, I don't even know what the situation is in school locker rooms.  It has been a very long time since I was in one, and that may not even be an issue.  But, whether it is, or not, addressing it would defuse the objections to the law.

But, given that this has not once been addressed in anything I have seen, I suspect that it may well be a issue.  And I also strongly suspect that transgender extremists have no problem with the issue, even though I have no doubt it would cause even more upset for students who are legitimately transsexual (who are really not a concern for the kooks like Sandeen and Williams).

I do find it amusing that, while the Pacific Justice Institute has made the claim that the Colorado student was harassing female students, the only ones who has applied terms like "attacking," "predator," and "monster," have been trans extremists attempting, desperately, to create straw man arguments.

Now, honest people can disagree on whether or not what has occurred in that Colorado high school amounts to harassment.  Arguments can be made both ways.  But the simple truth is, no one, not even the Pacific Justice Institute has actually referred to that child using words like "predator" or "monster" except the trans extremists.  The really bad thing is, I can imagine this child reading some of the articles in support, and actually believing that people have used those terms...when they haven't.

I have been attacked by people I would normally support because I have declined to accept extremists positions on this case.  I am saddened that this child is being used by either side to further a political agenda.  I am saddened that this child's privacy has been invaded by having photos posted online.  It seems odd...much has been made about people making death threats, and yet, something that might lead to someone spotting the child and attacking has been posted.  Without the photos being posted, the chances of someone identifying the child are much less.  But, anyone who is obsessive enough to actually carry out such an attack now has more information to use.

In spite of what some, in fits of irrational rage, have suggested, I don't want this child harmed.  Sadly, if it does happen, it may well be more the fault of the trans extremists than those they try to smear while pushing their agenda.

Mr. "Cristan" Williams Lies, Again....and Again....and Again...

In an article of the type that Mr. "Cristan" Williams is notorious for, he shows, once more, that he is a pathological liar.  The article, entitled Trans Student Attacking Girls in School Restroom! Or, you know… not, is classic Mr. Williams. The title is the first lie. No one has actually said that a trans student is attacking girls. This is a classic "Cristan" Williams straw argument. What has been alleged is that the male student is harassing girls, which would include forcing himself into the girls rooms when it is well known that he is a male-bodied student. Mr. Williams, being a male-brained man has no concept of the idea that female students might no want a man in their bathroom. Mr. Williams is the sort of pervert who thinks they should just "get over it."

He then goes on to crank out even more of his typical straw arguments... He asserts that the right wing is claiming:

Florence High School is supposedly part of a trans conspiracy to assault school girls in the restroom.

ROTFL!  No one has made such a claim, but that doesn't stop Mr. Williams...  He is on a roll, and has no sense of ethics.

He then goes on to attack the journalist who has written about this.  What David McCain of "the examiner" (funny how Mr. Williams doesn't provide links to the stories he quotes..., using images instead, which allows him to control what people do, and do not, see).  The story can be found here.  Clearly, this story has Mr.  Williams in a full-blown panic.  He has brought in back-ups to try to dominate the comments...

No, he misrepresents what was reported.  No one suggested that anyone was "assaulted," or "attacked."  The word used was "harassed, which would describe how girls might feel about having a boy in their presence.

Mr. Williams also lies when he claims:

I challenged David about his facts and he admitted that he abdicated his responsibility to conduct due diligence for a story concerning a trans kid. Let’s be honest here, this is a case where ADULTS are targeting a trans KID, asserting that the kid is preditor. Apparently, for people like David, what he’s knowingly doing to this kid is acceptable as long as he has his juicy headline that plays well for his audience.

Actually, Mr. Williams has harrassed David McCain, and McCain most certainly made no such admission.  So, Mr. Williams lies again.  Further, no one has used the term "predator" or even "predator" to describe the student.

And finally, Mr. Williams posts a comment from what he claims is a female student at the high school in question, without citing the source.  It is not as it would appear, a comment on the article in question...

So, again, Mr. Williams, who has an established record for lying, has done it again.

Mr. "Cristan" Williams, the Cotton Ceiling, and a Big Pile of Straw

It would be tempting, having read Mr. "Cristan" Williams latest round of misdirection and straw arguments entitled "Cotton Ceiling: Uncovering the trans conspiracy to rape lesbians" to just roll one's eyes, and say "Well, he is an idiot..."  But no, this article actually took quite a bit of thought to come up with.  You don't build up that kind of deception without putting at least some effort into it.  No, I think he really knows better.

Or not...  Maybe he is really is that blind to what women actually experience and think that he really does believe his own lies.  Either way, the bottom line is, he is putting up his usual arrogant straw arguments.

In this latest travesty of a post, he actually tries to defend the "cotton ceiling" silliness pushed by men pretending to be lesbians.  What he ignores is the simple fact that rape not only involves force, but can also involve coercion.  And quite frankly, coercion is what the cotton ceiling is really about.

Mr. Williams, in his typical fashion, presents several straw arguments, and attempts a rather clumsy bit of misdirection.  He first bases his argument, quite laughably, on the fact that the matter began with only seven participants in the original workshop where, apparently, the term was coined.

The problem is classic.  How many times have we heard it?  All together now, let's repeat it for the benefit of men like Mr. Williams....  

NO MEANS NO!

As in, end of discussion...the matter is closed....go away and leave the women alone.  But, as is so typical, they won't take no for an answer.  They have to "identify barriers" (i.e. THEY DON'T WANT TO HAVE SEX WITH YOU AND HAVE SAID NO!" and then "strategize ways to overcome them" (i.e. "We find a way to get them to have sex with us, or die trying..." and then these idiots think this will "build community?"  I think the message is pretty clear....they are not wanted in the community they are trying to, quite frankly, force their way into, and this effort is pretty much just going to make that worse.  In fact, it clearly has, but these are men, and men don't believe in retreat.

Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I am a straight woman, so my only interest here is a general one in the bigger picture of how other women are treated.  I am not interested in having sex with lesbians, and I am certainly not interested in a "man in a dress."  I like my men a bit more, well, masculine.  Sure, it would be easy to just ignore the whole mess, and let them duke it out.  But I am not one to ignore someone trying to bully another.  

Mr. Williams then goes on and pulls the old trick of putting words in other's mouthes...a classic variant of the straw argument:

TERF: Teh cotton ceiling is all about teaching trans people how to rape lesbians!1!!

Dupe: LOLWUT

TERF: Yeah, Planned Parenthood gave a workshop to teach trans people how to rape lesbians! No means no!

Dupe: That sounds a little strange to me…

TERF: Don’t believe me? Google any of the many, many, many TERF blogs that freaked over the Planned Parenthood workshop! #rapeculture

Dupe: Well, I did hear about how transwomen want to hang out in the women’s restroom…

TERF: Yup, it’s all about rapey rape culture!

Dupe: Yeah, I guess tranwomen are kinda rapey…

TERF: I KNOW, RIGHT?!?! Spread the word!

Dupe: I’m totally blogging about this!

This is typical of Mr. Williams.  He isn't quoting anyone in particular, and the one example he offers simply proves he is misquoting it. 

Even when faced with facts, he tries to "spin" it to sound like women are being unreasonable...

Original workshop description:  Participants will work together to identify barriers, strategize ways to overcome them, and build community. 

TERF Petition to stop the workshop:Planned Parenthood Toronto is helping to sponsor a March 31 conference in Toronto that includes a workshop inviting participants to discuss and strategize ways they might be able to“overcome” women’s objections to these participants’ sexual advances.

I mean, it is more than a bit obvious that the only barrier to overcome is women's objections to these participants sexual advances.  Whether you are male, female, transgender, transsexual, or a woman born woman....NO MEANS NO!  End of discussion.  Back off.  Go away.  Stop trying to have sex with that person.  But, some, particularly men, don't seem to get this.

He goes on in this vein, attempting, quite lamely, to make transgender men the victim of a "TERF" conspiracy.  Funny, but he just can't seem to accept that simple fact...

NO MEANS NO!

 End of discussion.

Who Really Hates Who?

I'm sure many, if not most are familiar with the ongoing conflict between Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen and me.  Or, for that matter, between Mr. "Cristan" Williams and those he labels as "TERFs," or between any transsexual who dares challenge transgender dogma and various transgender extremists.  The one common thread among all of these things is accusations of hatred.

For example, Mr. Sandeen has accused me of hatred because I have mentioned him, according to his claims, over 130 times.  Now, let's consider this.  I write a blog dealing with issues of interest primarily to those who identify as true or classic transsexuals.  Mr. Sandeen has largely positioned himself as a major blogger among a faction that pretty much opposes the concept of true or classic transsexualism.  So, it is natural that I would comment on much of what he writes.  What he is objecting to is the analysis and refutation of the positions he, and others, take on those issues.

One of the factors that led me to start this blog was the often heavy handed censorship I found on "transgender" blogs.  Simply disagreeing with transgender dogma could get a person quickly banned, especially if they were effective in making their points.  Mr. Sandeen in particular became well known for his severe censorship on Pam's House Blend.  You didn't even have to violate the rules there.  I was banned because of stuff I wrote on my blog here.  

Now, I don't tell Mr. Sandeen what he can, and cannot write.  I have never censored his comments here, and I have not tried to dictate to him what he can write, but he has done that to me, repeatedly...and has begun resorting to threats in his attempts to make me submit to his will.

As I said, if keep up your behavior you should be prepared for escalation. The status quo is not acceptable to me now. I'm done with you being comfortable in your bigotry and hate.

So, exercising my free speech and responding to what he says, while exercising his free speech rights, is bigotry and hated?

Sandeen has a history of violence.  He has admitted to harassing women online.  Here is a link to what he was forced to apologize for.  And yet, he has the audacity to question why I would object to meet him in person?  He has a history of cyberstalking me, and has escalated the efforts over time.  I don't think my reaction to his demand to meet face-to-face is at all unreasonable.  And when I made it clear that such would not be tolerated, he tried to suggest, with no basis, that I was the one threatening violence because I said I would take legal steps if he tried to make contact.

You, Jennifer, can threaten me all you want. Does your threat mean that if I attended a service at your church you'd hit me? Is violence what you're threatening?

I found this just a bit disingenuous, as I have repeatedly pointed out to Mr. Sandeen that my purpose was not to threaten, but simply to avoid personal contact, and that I would take only take legal steps if he tried to approach me.  I suspect he knows better, but is trying to make himself look like a martyr.

Mr. Sandeen takes great umbrage at what he calls "misgendering" (the transgender kooks do love their neologisms) but he has no problem at all with people forcing the label "transgender" on people who reject it.  As I have pointed out, I refuse to call someone "female" who clearly is not.  I do not buy into the magical, "name it, and claim it" approach that the transgender extremists push.  But, at the same time, I do not demand that anyone refer to their self in any particular manner, or that they refrain from referring to their self in any particular manner.  I may not see Mr. Sandeen as a woman, and I may firmly make this clear, but I have never insisted that Mr. Sandeen must call himself a "man."  Or that he can't refer to himself as "transgender."  I have called him on the fact that he falsely claims to be a transsexual, but I would never insist that he refrain from using that term.  But, Mr. Sandeen is closely aligned with those who try to insist that people must accept the label "transgender," even if they find it offensive to be called such.  And he continues to impose such a label on people against their will.

For example, in spite of my disdain, for being linked with "transgender" Mr. Sandeen, in an effort at self-promotion still insists on "including" me in a group I want no part of.  Has blogged:

@terfherder @danaequality @transadvocate I'm with you on community. But we fail when we eat our own -- & irritatingly JJ is one or our own.

Personally, I find it extremely insulting for him to claim that I am part of a community with these three men.  I strongly suspect that @terfherder is none other than long time stalker "Diane" Lask.  He would appear, at first glance, to just be a creepy "admirer," that is a man who is obsessed with "trans women" as sex objects, but the style of his writing is that of Lask, who has a history of "sockpuppeting" (hiding behind fake names).  Same tired insults, same basic style.  If it is not Lask, it is someone closely linked to Lask.

I  can present objective arguments as to why Mr. Sandeen is both male, and a man.  He cannot, however, present objective arguments as to why anyone is "transgender" unless the person in question has unequivocally stated that this is how they identity, and how they wish to be referred to.  I have. repeatedly, done just the opposite, and yet he insists on calling me a member of his imaginary community.

I have also made it abundantly clear that I value my privacy.  Unfortunately, that is not always  possible to maintain on the Internet.  For example, my name was linked to this blog simply because I was not aware that WordPress allows bloggers to see information about the email addresses of people posting comments.  Blogger, which I use, does not allow this.  Early on, I posted a comment on Suzan Cooke's blog, and Cooke "outed" me, linking my "pen name" to my legal name.

In spite of this, I have made it clear that I would prefer that my privacy be respected as much as possible.  But transgender extremists will have no part of this.  For example, Mr. Sandeen has repeatedly used my legal name in commenting about things I have written here.  In fact, he repeatedly attacks transsexuals who wish to maintain their privacy, attacking them as cowards.

There are two, quite legitimate, reasons we wish to retain our privacy.  The first, is that many transgender extremists have shown a very real bent towards violence.  Numerous women, both those born women, and those of a transsexual history, have been subjected to calls for violence by these kooks.

The second reason, is simple.  The vast majority of those who truly are transsexual have no desire to be "out, loud, and proud."  We prefer to keep our history private, for the simple purpose of being able to live our lives as women, not as "former men," that is, as "trans women," transwomen," "women of the second kind," or whatever other term becomes in vogue.  Put in other words, we simply don't desire to be "other."  This, of course, is the driving motivation of the transponder extremists.

I find it ironic that, Mr. "Cristan" Williams, in one of his more recent diatribes, "You might be a TERF if…" includes:

2.) Out transpeople to employers.

Now, I am not a "transperson" but then neither is the person who Mr. Williams uses in his example, but the irony here is, Mr. Sandeen has engaged in just such behavior.  As I documented in my article, "Sandeen Goes Cyberstalking" I documented how Mr. Sandeen mistakenly believed I was employed by my church, and attempted to out me.  Now, some in my church are aware of my history, and others are not.  Mr. Sandeen, in his classic male arrogance, showed no regard for my privacy, but was concerned only with his petty attempts at revenge.

And he engaged in exactly the behavior that Mr. Williams finds so "reprehensible" if done by someone he would label a "TERF."

So, in spite of Mr. Sandeen's claims, it is just as arguable that he is the one guilty of hatred.

Not Only a Liar, But An Arrogant One

You can tell when someone has successfully refuted Mr. "Cristan" Williams lies...he makes an immediate response.  For example, Elizabeth at Notes From the T Side posted an excellent article entitled Cis-Privilege or The New Transgender Lie in which she proceeds to refute on of Mr. Williams most persistent lies...that "transgender" is the appropriate term for those who are transsexual.  She provides the following quote, which is typical of Mr. Williams' rhetoric:

Transgender (AKA: trans, trans*, TG) is an umbrella term that encompasses a variety of people including transsexuals, crossdressers, drag kings and queens, as well as bigender and androgynous individuals.1 Transgender that came into common usage during the 1970s, but was popularized as early as 1965 as a way to refer to transsexuals who wanted genital reconstructive surgery. Today, the term transgender is used to refer to individuals who are not cisgender.

Now, Elizabeth, who transitioned and had surgery before Mr. Williams was, as my mother used say, "not even a gleam in his father's eye," points out, quite correctly, that this is "complete and absolute lie."  This is something I showed almost a year ago, much to Mr. Williams chagrin.

No, the term was not in common usage in the 1970's among transsexuals, or anyone else.  There are a few very isolated occurrences, that Mr. Williams tries to conflate into "common usage."  This is one of his favorite "complete and absolute" lies.  He does the same thing he tries to accuse others of doing, taking an isolated usage of a word, and making it into something it is not.  Williams is fond of pointing out that Arnold Lowman, aka "Virginia Prince" used the term "transgenderal" in 1969, and then claiming that this is the source of what he likes to label the "Virginia Prince Fountainhead Myth."  But, his entire premise is built on rare, isolated usage of the term, which it can clearly be shown did not come into anything remotely resembling "common usage" until the 1990's.  

Mr. Williams blissfully ignores the first hand testimony of people who were actually transsexuals during this period, and falls back on isolated occurences of the term to show it was in common usage, but then dismisses the use of the term by Lowman as the origin of its current use.  Uh, okay....

In the early 1990's, some time after when Williams claims the term was commonly used, I was introduced to the term "transgenderist" while attending meetings of a support group in Atlanta.  The group was led by none other than Dallas Denny, who would go on to become a major figure in pushing transgender as an umbrella term.  But, at the time, Denny was was still identifying as a transsexual, and explained that "transgenderist" was a term for someone who lived full-time as the opposite sex, but who did not desire SRS.  Transgender was not being used at all.  And there was still a clear division between crossdressers and transsexuals.  This, at a time when Mr. Williams would have us believe "transgender" was in "common usage" as an umbrella term.

When Mr. Williams gets caught in a lie, he tends to dig himself deeper.  He falls back on the same lame tactics, like falsely accusing his opponent of using "straw man" arguments, while doing so with impunity.

For example, in response to Elizabeth's post, he combines the two tactics...

A stwarman (sic) argument is when you want to attack a position, have no logical reason to attack it, and so instead lie about what the other person said. Simply compare what I actually said (blue quote) and what this person claims I said (the first sentence after my quote).

Sounds reasonable, until you look at what Mr. Williams is quoted as saying:

Cis-Privilege (AKA, transphobia, heterosexism, cisgenderism) refers to a set of unearned advantages that individuals who identify as the gender they were assigned at birth accrue solely due to being cisgender.

And what he falsely claims is a straw argument: 

CW claims somehow that the privileges women have and those of us that live as women without being open, out, and proud are not earned but given. Here is a list of cis privileges that are easily identified as the complaints men in dresses have about their transvestite fantasies as women. It is directly aimed at the few rights we women have that provide us comfort or safety or that define us as females and women. What it all comes down to is they as men have the right to do whatever they want, wherever they want, and however they want when they are playing girl in fantasy mode.

Now, let's take this step by step... Is that what Mr. Williams said?  Yes, as "accrued" means "be received by someone in regular or increasing amounts over time..." and he says this is solely due to their being cisgender, so clearly these things are "not earned."  Is the rest of Elizabeth's statement true? Look at the list that is linked to, and you will see that the rest is dead on as well.  

Mr. Williams then claims:

The post drones on and on, creating one fake position for me to take after another, so that she could (presumably) enjoy attacking absurd ideas I’ve never promoted. Apparently lies are the only rhetoric folks like this have left to cling to. IMHO, these folks are the young earth creationists of the trans experience. They seem to have no argument to make that isn’t laughable and yet, their place in this world seems to be predicated upon their fantasy being true: 

• A lesbian transsexual was targeted for not being non-transsexual; cisprivilege isn’t real. 
• Prince didn’t coin or pioneer trans terms; Prince is where transgender comes from.

Just one problem for Mr. Williams...he is not even mentioned again.  So...he is the one who is lying.  And he uses a blatant straw argument by making the comparison to creationism.

There is no straw man here, or even a "stwarman," on the part of Elizabeth Just a simple statement concerning the demands that Mr. Williams, and other transgender extremists, push.  

And that is really what Mr. Williams is about.  It is clear that he makes no attempt to actually live as a woman.  He is completely, as they say, "out, loud, and proud."  Just like his cohort Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen, he clearly has NO desire to be seen as a woman, but wishes to be seen as transgender.  He wants people to know he was not born a woman, and then wants to force them to acknowledge him as a woman, even if it is contrary to what their senses tell them.  It is not about being a woman, but is about control. 

They want to control how people are allowed to use language.  As soon as a man says the magic words, "I feel like a woman," in their view, he becomes not just a "woman," but a female, with all the rights and privileges thereof, and must be fully accepted as such, including the right to enter any, and all sexually segregated area, even those involving nudity.

If a woman is uncomfortable with the presence of this other "woman" then the woman is, in their view, a bigot, and she must be forced into compliance.  Even if that woman is a convicted rapist and registered sex offender.  In a debate with Representative John Kavanagh, he pull out one of his favorite dodges...are transgender people immune from laws regarding rape, sexual assault, and exposing themselves.  Unfortunately he ignores the fact that the pervert "Colleen" Francis was doing just that.  he made no attempt to be discrete, and when people complained, they were told that the laws protecting said pervert trumped the laws that should have protected the children involved.

So, bottom line...once again Mr. Williams is caught lying like a cheap rug.

What's the Difference?

I am often attacked by the "gender fascists," i.e. the transgender extremists like Mr. "Cristan" Williams, Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen, Mr. "Dana" Taylor, and others because I don't care for the term "transgender," refuse to accept it, and especially because I am constantly challenging the silliness that they spew...  Silliness like claiming that simply saying one is a woman magically makes it so.

On those occasions, for example when dealing with a medical provider where I have to reveal my history, I am sometimes asked, "What's the difference?" when I explain that I am transsexual, not transgender.  That's a good question, and while I usually respond with a relatively technical answer, of late other differences have become obvious.

For example, there was the rather silly article posted by Mr. Williams that asks "What are the top 3 things you like about being trans?"  I cannot think of a better illustration of the difference between actually being a transsexual, and being some kook who identifies as "transgender."  For me, there was NOTHING I liked about being "transsexual."  If I had a choice, it would certainly not to have been born transsexual.  My first choice would have been to be born a normal female.  If not that, then my second choice would have been to have been a normal male.   I certainly would not have chosen to be born transsexual.  If I liked "being trans" I would certainly not have put so much effort into having SRS.

Of course, the person asking this question is a man, who either has not had SRS, or if he has, regrets it.  He revels in being "transgender."  It is his entire purpose in life.  For him, it is a choice, not a medical condition.  I would no more choose to be transsexual, than I would choose to be diabetic.  I would not more find something good in being transsexual as I would find something good about being diabetic.

No, I haven't gotten to see life from "both sides."  I never had "the best of both worlds."  I was miserable for much of my life.  I hurt people I care about. 

Another difference that has become very obvious is how we deal with disagreement.  I recognize that a lot of radical; feminists would reject the idea that I am a woman.  Shoot, I have known that since I first read Janice Raymond's The Transsexual Empire back around the time I began transition.  I certainly did agree with Raymond's extremist views, but I also did not feel the apparent blind rage that seems to consume transgender extremists who cannot seem to deal with such disagreement.  The Internet is becoming filled with their calls for the rape and murder of women who simply don't wish to sleep with them.  

I do find it interesting that I can get along with many of those women, even if I don't agree with everything they say.  Then again, I seriously doubt that the kooks like Mr. Sandeen, Mr. Williams, and Mr. Taylor have much in the way of friendship with women born women.  They certainly spend a lot of time attacking them online.

Even if I don't agree with what someone writes, I am willing to listen, and try to find common ground.  I consider Victory Brownworth a friend.  Mr. Williams seems to have become obsessed with destroying her.  As best I can tell, the real motivation for this is the simple fact that Ms. Brownworth does not think men like Mr. Williams should be able to attend the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival.  Mr. Williams, really does not like being told no.  So, Mr. Williams has repeated attack her, accused her of horrible crimes, and then he wonders why people think him something of a kook.

When I began transition, a major concern fo me was to not cause discomfort to other women.  For the kooks like Mr. Williams, Mr. Sandeen, an Mr. Taylor, the feelings of women are inferior to their fetish-driven desires.  If a woman is upset at the idea of sharing a shower or other space with a "transwoman" with an intact penis, she is at fault and she must submit to the tyranny of the transgender kooks.  Before my surgery, the idea of exposing myself to a woman like that would have been horrifying.

Yes, there are major differences.

Up To His Usual Tricks

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

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

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

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

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

A pupil shall be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs and activities, including athletic teams and competitions, and use facilities consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records.

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

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

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

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

Another false claim by Mr. Williams is this:

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

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

Here, in its entirety, is the Houston rule:

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

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

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

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