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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transition Versus Transgression

I have been working on this post for a while.  During that time I have learned that, as some would say, "Great minds think alike.  There was a post at TS-SI that says almost the exact same thing I do in this post.  Scary in a way...my first reaction was, "How did they know what I was saying?"  Of course, it is just coincidence, but still, it gives one pause.


Then, there was this response to a post by "Autumn" Sandeen at LGBT Weekly:

Living in the real world instead of some sub culture where what is freaky is normal, I have never seen any of the issues transgenders have seen.If only they would ether stay in the closet or have SRS and become real legal women instead of living some life that is a legal fiction all would be good.
There are lots of less than perfect looking women in the world, so Autumn and the rest, why don’t you live your life as legitimate females instead of some other.

And there was this rather frightening response to a question posed by same person making the above comment:

“why force your way into female spaces while still being male bodied?”

for the same reason you choose to attempt to ‘change’ who we are… BECAUSE WE CAN!

I would not want to encounter that person in ladies room.

There have been a lot of words devoted to the battle over "transgender" versus "transsexual."  On one side, you have those I refer to as "gender fascists" who demand that transsexuals accept the label "transgender."  On the other side, you have those that the gender fascists like to label as "transsexual separatists" in their attempts to force transsexuals back into line.  But the real question is, what is it that really divides these two groups?  That can be summed up in two words...."transition" and "transgression."


For me, and other true transsexuals, it is all about simply being who, and what, we really are.    After spending a portion of our lives in the wrong body, dealing with the public perception of how we should be, and struggling with all the problems this leads to, we finally take the steps necessary to correct things, and get on with a normal life.  We see ourselves as simply women, or in the case of FTMs, simply men.  We simply want to live the life we feel we have been cheated out of.


On the other hand, you have people who seem more interested in transgressing gender norms.  They have no desire to simply live their lives as normal men or women, but instead identify as "trans people."  At the far extreme, they go out of their way to insure that they do not even come close t fitting within gender norms.  Others seem to have no concept of how normal men and women act.  They may not go out of their way to completely transgress gender norms, but they often appear more as caricatures than anything else.


Those who are of the transgressive variety are usually very "out" about their past.  They not only have no desire to simply live as members of their "target" gender, they feel a strong need to be extremely open our being transgender.  And, they generally insist that others have an obligation to also be "out, loud, and proud."  They attack those who do not share their desire to be in other's faces as being ashamed, scared, closeted, etc.  They cannot grasp the simple concept that some might simply wish to live normal lives.l


Anyone who disagrees with the "transgender" paradigm, especially those who wish no part of the transgender label are viciously attacked.  We are accused of hatred, bigotry, and trying to tell others how to live their lives.  Actually, none of this is true.  The charge that we try to tell others how to live their lives is particularly absurd.  I would never insist that someone must, or even should, have sex reassignment surgery.  In fact, quite the opposite is true.  I would say that those who are adamantly "non-op" are making absolutely the correct decision for their selves.  I would have serious disagreements with those extremists who try to insist that everyone should forego surgery and simply accept living in their "chosen gender role" without surgery, but no, I would never insist that anyone "must" have surgery.


Now, I do not believe that those who are "non-op" are transsexuals.  I consider the term "non-op transsexual" to be an oxymoron.  If you do not have the absolute desire to change your sex, you are not a transsexual, and under no circumstances should you ever consider having irreversible surgery.  The results would be unsatisfactory, and possibly, even probably tragic.  Unfortunately, there really is a "transgender" hierarchy, and many see "transsexual" as the apex.  This is why some, such as "Autumn" Sandeen, insist on demanding the label "transsexual" even though hey have no desire to change sex.  They believe that calling themselves "transsexuals" increases their credibility, even though just the opposite is actually true.


I cannot relate to the desire of some for transgression.  I have no desire to be seen as anything other than simply a woman.  I take no pleasure in being identified as anything else. I do realize that people are driven by any variety of desires and motives, but that does not mean I accept them as proper.  Some people enjoy variant sexual practices, but I have no interest in them, and I find some highly disturbing.  The drive towards gender transgression often seems linked to this same behavior.  Many males who are drawn to "transgender" seem to have desires that are related to masochism.  They delight in the idea of forced feminization, and they often show belief in the idea of women being lower in status than men.  Some might choose to call me judgmental, but I find such attitudes to be distasteful.  I have actually seen some take delight in being treated poorly by chauvinistic males, claim such as affirmation of their femaleness.  Personally, I think it simply affirms their inherent misogyny., 


Of course, it is this misogyny that has led the radical feminists to attack the transgender movement.  And while I have serious disagreements with much of radical feminism, I can understand some of their views on this issue.  It is also what has brought vicious attacks from conservatives and the religious right.  Claiming that these attacks are rooted in "transphobia," hatred, and bigotry is a bit disingenuous. Much of it is simply an all too natural reaction to what is, quite frankly, often outrageous behavior.  I realize that is, to many who identify as transgender, or even transsexual, outright heresy.  But when you choose to go against societal norms, you have to take responsibility for the reactions, even if you disagree.


Of course, the great irony here is that the transgender extremists actually engage in pretty much the same behavior as those who so vehemently oppose them.  They have a world view, and they expect others to conform to that view.  Part of their problem, however, is that their view is very much a minority view, so they are not going to find the sympathy that they demand.  And when they don't get what they want, they react in anger and often resort to insults and attacks.


I have been taken to task by several transgender extremists, including Suzan Cooke, for refusing to conform to to the demanded "courtesy" of referring to anyone who claims to be a woman with female pronouns.  I hated to break it Cooke, but if I ever had the misfortune to meet "Autumn" Sandeen or "Monica" Roberts in person, I would still refuse to refer to them using female pronouns.  At best, if the situation required it, I would avoid using pronouns, but no, under no circumstances would I refer to either of these fellows as females, as they are not, and I am not going to lie just to make them feel better.  Cooke can toss out as many vulgar insults as she wants, but to be quite honest, I long ago realize that Cooke was basically a bad joke clinging to a conflated past that makes her think she is still way more important than she ever was in reality.


Sadly, while Cooke claims to oppose the use of "transgender" as an umbrella term, Cooke takes an unacceptable middle position, suggesting that "trans" be used instead.  Personally, I don't want to be identified as "transgender," "trans," or any other such term.  I am a woman, period.  Not a trans-woman.


Sadly, some simply cannot comprehend the idea that it is this concept of being "other" that we reject.  We do not identify with transgressive behavior, and we do not view ourselves as "transgressing" anything.  We have simply corrected our bodies, or in the case of pre-op "true transsexuals" in the process of doing so.  We are not seeking to become something we are not.  Quite the opposite in fact.  This is what makes is so absurd when a kook like "Cristan" Williams expends so much bandwidth trying to prove some silliness like his claims that, at some obscure point in time, some obscure person decided that "transsexual" was an umbrella term to be used like "transgender" is now, or that they decided to use "transgender" instead of "transsexual." So what?  At one point in time, someone who was a homosexual male described himself, and other homosexual men, as "women trapped in men's bodies."  Now, I seriously doubt that one could find very many, if any, gay men who would remotely identify that way now.


Sadly, the process of transition often brings us into contact with those who are motivated by desires born of transgression, and even more sadly, some have trouble shaking off that association.  And some, for whatever reason, find themselves drawn to it, embracing it as part of their personality. They don't realize that it actually divides them from the community of women that they worked so hard to be a part of.

The Latest TG Insanity in Texas

Let me start off by saying that I have nothing against same-sex marriage and that this is not the issue here.

Since Littleton v. Prange, the Texas case that invalidated a post-op transsexual woman's marriage because the court rule that she was still a male, TGs have occasionally pulled a very silly stunt in Texas.

Post-ops, who identify as lesbian, have applied for marriage licenses on the grounds that they are still, in the eyes of Texas law, still men.  The latest such case has become publicized. Anne Bernal, who is the County Attorney of El Paso County, Anne Bernal, has requested an opinion from Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott as to whether the county can issue a marriage license to a couple where a woman wishes to marry a post-op transsexual who was born a man.  The transsexual's original New York birth certificate still says male, but a new certified birth certificate issued in Washington State, and the driver's license, say female.

Now, I don't know any details about this person that would allow me to evaluate whether they are a classic or true transsexual.  There are claims of intersex, which are often highly questionable.

Now, there are couple of issue complicating this case:

• First off, in 2009, the Texas legislature passed a law which states that a certified birth certificate suffices to establish sex.
• Should the Washington State birth certificate be viewed as valid since that is not the state where this person was born?

Personally, I think cases such as this are a classic example of how transgender people do serious harm to transsexuals.  If this person is truly a woman, then I would not think they would want to be identified as a male.  But this person seems to be quite willing to set aside her womanhood to "beat the system."  This sort of behavior was proposed by Phillip "Phyllis" Frye, the infamous transgender kook who has a history of attempting to use outrageous acts to gain publicity,

If the couple is allowed to marry, it furthers the claim in Texas that sex reassignment surgery is invalid.  It can then be used as evidence that post-op transsexual woman are still "really men."  Of course, this is fine with transgender extremists who often push the idea that surgery is unnecessary.

UPDATE

I found out, right after posting this story, that the couple were married in San Antonio, TX.  So, yet another alleged transsexual in Texas has legally claimed to be a male, even though the person is post-op.  This sort of thing betrays all true transsexuals and should certainly not be seen as any sort of victory.  Of course, the transgender kooks will almost certainly disagree.

An Identity Politics Fail

I just read a rather interesting rant posted on Suzan Cooke's transgender blog "Women Born Transsexual." It was written by Curtis E. Hinkle who is the founder of OII, a group that pushes identity politics for people who are intersex.

Mr. Hinkle is outraged that Fox News, which he proudly proclaims has blocked from his TV, had a commentary on the hate crimes legislation that mentioned "hermaphrodites" which those who are into intersex identity politics consider an insult. (You can't have a good identity politics movement without at least one word you find to be a terrible insult.)

I was reading the commentary, wondering who at Fox News might have written such a thing, when I suddenly realized the joke. It was from the late night comedy news show, Red Eye. The phrase that gives it away:

And if you disagree with me, then you’re probably racist.

At one time, it was "...then you are worse than Hitler," but that was changed to the current one. Taking this seriously, is akin to quoting something from "The Onion" as an actual news story.

That's the problem with people caught up in identity politics. They have no sense of humor. And it leads them to overreact to bad jokes every time.

For the (Hopefully) Last Time

Let me start by reiterating...

This blog does not target any particular individual. It is about issues that affect those born with Harry Benjamin Syndrome, also known as classic or true transsexualism. What I write about is determined by what is being said on other blogs, especially those that are run by frightened activists who can't stand to be disagreed with in their comment sections. In fact, one of the principal reasons I started it was because I saw so many who disagree with the "transgender party line" being kicked off of blogs for daring to speak the truth.

Now, one of the worst offenders in this regard happens to be Suzan Cooke. For example, yesterday, Cooke removed a post that took her to task for the same thing that I had written about. And that was the incredibly, unbelievabe statement that stated that people who are transgender are intersex. Now, Cooke's remark is exactly the sort of thing I write about.

In a post where Cooke whines about my writing about her remarks, she doesn't focus on the real issue (her ridiculous remark) but instead goes ballistic because I pointed out that she hates God. I stand by what I said. Cooke is a classic example of an angry atheist....someone who is mad at God and who strikes out at Him in what they believe is the worst possible way, by ceasing to believe in Him. I guess they think that will show Him.

Cooke offers up something Cooke calls the Epicurean Dilemma:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

This is a rather poetic version of what is commonly referred to as the problem of evil. It is supposed to leave Christians dumbfounded and confused. It is meant to be unanswerable. In truth, the answer is very simple. God cannot remove evil from the world without removing free will. And if God removed free will, then love could not exist, because love requires a free will. And a world without love would be the greatest evil of all.

The great Christian author, C.S. Lewis said this about the matter:

We can, perhaps, conceive of a world in which God corrected the results of this abuse of free will by His creatures at every moment: so that a wooden beam became soft as grass when it was used as a weapon, and the air refused to obey me if I attempted to set up in it the sound waves that carry lies or insults. But such a world would be one in which wrong actions were impossible, and in which, therefore, freedom of the will would be void; nay, if the principle were carried out to its logical conclusion, evil thoughts would be impossible, for the cerebral matter which we use in thinking would refuse its task when we attempted to frame them.

Now, I honestly cannot conceive of Cooke, remotely being willing to give up free will. So, Cooke, like the rest of us, is stuck with a world in which evil exists. In fact, it is that very free will that allows Cooke to not believe in the God that grants it to her.

Oh, and ironically, if Cooke had not launched this latest diatribe, I would have, as planned, written about another of Cooke's fellow transgender activists. I will save that one for tomorrow, unless something more interesting comes along.

An Amazing Error

It sometimes amazes me just how silly transgender activists can be. It is not, for example, uncommon to see claims that women can have penises, and that men can have vaginas...and worse, that they can desire to keep them. But something on neo-gender fascist Suzan Cooke's blog really floored me. Now, for those who don't remember, for years, Cooke was a major player in the effort to separate transsexuals from the transgender confusion. Then, earlier this summer, Cooke moved over to becoming transgender. Now, Cooke still claims to be "transsexual not transgender," but Cooke's views are such that it is clear that she no longer sees any significant difference.

In a rather disjointed, and rambling article in which Cooke vents her anger at God, she makes the following rather incredible statement

Because transsexuals, transgenders and other intersex people fell somewhere between or saw the potential in achieving greater oneness of self by moving from an assigned and ascribed as immutable status to a different defined as immutable status the experts viewed us as mind f**ks, the fly in the ointment.

Unbelievably, Cooke has gone further than any gender fascist has before. I honestly cannot recall ever seeing one have the audacity to actually claim that transgender people are "intersex." Yes, they claim that intersex people are "transgender," but not the other way around. A small, but important distinction as they see "transgender" as the umbrella, with individual identities drug, often screaming and kicking, under it. Claiming intersex is a form of transgender is highly offensive. Claiming transgender is intersex is....well, itis incredibly ignorant.

Transgender is not intrinsic. It is an artificial political/social construct. It does not exist apart from the imagination of those who embrace it. Intersex is a physical condition, that is not a choice.

Cooke seems to be determined to shed what few shreds of credibility she has left as she rushes to join people like "Monica" Helms and "Autumn" Sandeen in the boy's club that is transgender activism.

This one must have left Roberts dizzy for hours...

TransGriot: Intersex Separatists, Transpeople Aren't Your Enemy

I've written about Monica Roberts before. As have others. But in this article, Roberts performs a set of mental gynastics that much have left her quite dizzy. In a bizarre attempt to reach out to those who are intersex, Roberts makes an argument based on the evidence that transsexuals have a medical condition not a mental one. Now, of course this complete ignores several facts.

• First it ignores the fact that the "transgender" community that Roberts embraces is most made up of non-transsexuals. So, even if one includes "true transsexuals" (i.e. the ones with a medical basis) it would represent a very small minority of a larger whole.
• Second, Roberts has made extremely hateful and bigoted remarks about "true transsexuals." Worse, these remarks tend to be extremely racist. So, it seems extremely ironic that she now wants to claim us for some purpose.
• Finally, I rather suspect that anyone who actually bothers to read the rest of Roberts' drivel would be more repulsed by his arguments than persuaded.

And no, in spite of what Roberts will claim, I don't hate her at all. Of course, this is Roberts classic pattern. Anyone who disagrees with her, or who dares to stand up to her, is accused of hatred. I guess when one is as filled with hatred as Roberts is, tends to see everything in those terms. Ironically, I have seen the same sort of behavior from members of the Klan.

No I simply pity Roberts. A person that filled with hatred must be very miserable. One can only hope that she gets help before she completely self-destructs.