The Creation of a Trans-Martyr's Mythology

Simply put, it is a tragedy whenever any person reaches a point, for any reason, where they feel that they must take their own life.  In the case of the person who is generally referred to as "Leelah" Alcorn (his legal name was Joshua Ryan Alcorn) this tragedy has been compounded by the hateful, and outrageous attempts by transgender extremists to use this case to further their absurd agenda.

Alcorn is presented as a "trans girl," though the evidence is pretty clear that he was more likely a deeply ego dystonic gay male.  Worse, the fact that he clearly had a number of mental health issues that lead to his death have been swept aside in the effort to promote him as a martyr to the cause.

First off, in his "suicide note," he uses language that shows his confusion, referring to himself as "gay," and making a big issue out of having to wait less than a year to begin transition because he thinks he will be too late to have an appropriate appearance.  That, of course, is absurd.  He also talks about how he "lied" to his therapist and claimed to be straight.

Alcorn's parents reacted according to their beliefs, and did what they thought best for their son.  There was nothing criminal in their actions, and it is clear from Alcorn's postings that he was not physically abused.  He was simply not allowed to behave in a manner that his parent's felt was wrong.  And given his reference to himself as the "transgender queen of hell," and "Satan's wifey" show that he was in a serious rebellion against his parents.  I, personally, cannot blame them for trying to reign him in.

His parents, who stated that they told him that they loved him unconditionally, have been portrayed as monsters.  Of course, the truth is rarely, if ever, presented by transgender extremists who attempt to make his parent's statement look far different than what they are.

And it is also telling that his death was a typical male suicide.  Females rarely kill themselves in such a violent manner.  Alcorn was a deeply disturbed person, and his death truly is a tragedy, but using him to attack those who do not share the radical agenda of the transgender extremists is also a real tragedy.  Hopefully his promotion as a martyr will not lead to other suicides.

A Complete Load of Crap

The kooks at Shame on You Transgender Edition posted a hilarious piece by Mr. "Michelle" Spicer, entitled Dating Transwomen Does Not "Make You Gay".  While the title is bad enough, the article is worse.  It is homophobic, and inaccurate.  It starts out with an accurate, but somewhat misleading idea..

Many of you have heard the myth that dating a transgender woman if you are a heterosexual male will somehow turn you gay. This has to be the most ridiculous type of rationale that I have heard of thus far.

Okay, you cannot really turn someone gay.  Granted, under certain circumstances, men who would otherwise not do so, may engage in homosexual behavior (the classic example is men who are incarcerated) but upon release they generally return to heterosexual practices. But…but then Mr. Spicer launches into this bit of absurdity….

Our sexual orientation does not change because of who we date, we date someone because of our sexual orientation. You can make love to a body but you can only date an actual person, it's the person inside you eventually fall in love with(if there is any kind of real love there) and a transwomans spirit is a woman!

Okay, keep that first sentence in mind…it is the petard this idiot will be hoist be, but let's look at that second part.  There is so much wrong here.  But for the moment, let's look at the final assertion…"transwomans (sic) spirit is a woman!"  Nope.  A "transwoman's" spirit is not a woman.  If it was, she would not be a "transwoman," which is an oxymoron, but would just a woman…which is anathema to so-called "transwomen" who cling to their manhood with a tenacity that puts a barnacle clinging to a boat to shame….

But, let's consider the part where Mr. Spicer really goes off the deep end…

Men who are attracted to transgender women are not automatically gay in any way shape or form. That is not to say that gay men cannot be attracted to transgender women, but the attraction itself does not change their orientation. If you are a heterosexual man the chances are that you are attracted to a transwoman because of her femininity, her personality and her spirit. There are fetishists of course, but they are attracted to a fetish and not the actual transwoman that stands before them. Using someone as an object is not considered dating them and does not come from any place of respect. This article is only concerned with men who actually want to date transgender women regardless of their surgical status and not treat her like an object. There is a difference between a "chaser" and having an actual interest in dating transgender women.

Okay, it is pretty much unheard of for a straight man to actually engage in a physical relationship with a "transwoman."  Likewise, if you are a pre-op, once a guy finds out you are physically male, the best you can hope for is that he doesn't totally freak out and become violent.  The relationship will probably end, at least with regards to any hope of romance, and you will end up broken hearted.  If you are seriously surgically tracked, you have two choices…date men who claim to be straight (but clearly aren't) or be celibate.  What they claim here is delusional crap.  It is simply believing the lies of men who are either lying to themselves or to everyone else.  If a guy is attracted to you, and you are physically a male, then that man is homosexual.  He may deny being such, but he is.  End of story.  He doesn't give one whit about your spirit, your femininity, or your personality.  He simply fetishizes "chick with dicks."  I've met my share, and I found the relationships very unsatisfactory.  He may pretend to "not treat you like an object," but if you are physically male, he is almost certainly going to.  And chances are, he will drop you like a rock if you actually do have surgery.  Shoot, I dated one guy who was a very wealth contractor.  He lived in what some would call a "MacMansion," had a pool and a hot tub, and drove a Jag.  I'm not a gold digger, but I am also not stupid…but the relationship ended quickly when he said "Don't have surgery…"  

Yes, for a while, I was a bit naive, and actually believe the sort of fairy tale Mr. Spicer is spewing here.  After learning what guys meant when they asked if I was "functional" (NO!  I have been on hormones for a while, and even if I was, what part of "I'm a woman," do you not understand?) I realized that most of these guys were not straight, and were pretty screwed up to boot.

Mr. Spicer ends with this bit of comedy…

Men who date transgender women are heterosexual men dating women, period. Simply because she is a different "type" of woman makes no difference to this writer. There are men who like French women, does that make them french? Simply because a man is attracted to a "type" of woman will not change his sexual orientation any more than it could change his nationality. The myth that dating a transgender woman "makes you gay" is ridiculous, damaging and causes the men who want to date us a great deal of shame. Transwomen lose out on dating and finding love because of this and that is just a damn shame.

Sorry, but no.  Heterosexual men don't want women with penises, and they certainly don't want to be topped by one.  There is only one kind of "woman" and men who date "transgender" women, as well as men who are attracted to pre-ops and so-called "non-ops" (a misnomer…if you are not going to have surgery, you are not a transsexual, so there is no need for that qualifier) are not heterosexual, they are perverts who fetishize the idea of a woman with a penis.  And if you think otherwise, you are lying to yourself, and very possibly putting yourself in serious danger, looking for a guy who doesn't even exist.

A Few Thoughts On Suicide

A couple of recent developments have led me to say a few words on this rather touchy subject.  The first is the rather silly claim by Mr. "Michelle" Spicer on Shame On You Transgender Edition that I have threatened suicide.  I don't know exactly where he got that silly idea.  It is possible that he is just lying, or it is possible that he is trying, rather desperately, to stretch my pointing out that his cult leader, Ms. "Mark" Cummings tried to nudge me in that direction.  I made it quite clear that Ms. Cummings' lame attempt was not remotely going to work.  Suicide is not remotely something I would consider.  But it was, quite obviously, what Ms. Cummings was suggesting.

In fact, I seem to recall some of the, uh, "investigative reporters" (it's hard to type that without laughing) at Shame On You Transgender Edition suggesting that my shining the harsh light of reality might "trigger" someone towards suicide.

And, of course, there is the kerfuffle about Mr. "Dana Lane" Taylor threatening suicide, and then getting bent out of shape when it was brought to the attention of his employer.  Apparently this has resulted in him being put on "disability" by his employer.  He was harassing various women online, and they called him on it.

Well, a lot is made about how so many transgender people supposedly attempt suicide.  Now, I can understand how a person who is a transsexual might be tempted towards suicide if they are thwarted in their need to transition.  But if a person has transitioned, and is facing issues that cause them to consider suicide, then perhaps they need to rethink their decision to transition.  Perhaps they need to consider if transition is working for them.  If transitioning does not make your life better, and it does not give you the ability to handle problems, then you are probably headed for disaster.

And if you are feeling suicidal, get help!

When Obsessive Cyberstalkers Unite

Truth be told, the gang at Shame On You Transgender Edition has basically switched over from bloggers to cyberstalkers and have joined forces with Mr. "Diane" Lask, who has been obsessed with me for some time.  Ms. "Mark" Cummings slipped up and revealed this when he mentioned that someone had sent him the current set of photos he has posted.  These photos are from a collection that Lask assembled some time back, and which he likes to trot out.  

Now, I have written about Mr. Lask in the case, including the warning that anyone encountering this person should tread cautiously.  Lask stalked a person from Canada for years, tormenting him at every opportunity, simply because they had a disagreement on Fidonet years ago.  Lask was still going after him as recently as two or three years ago even though that person had actually fled the Internet to escape Lask.

Now, clearly, the truth hurts, and Ms. Cummings and her husband, "Jessica" are feeling a lot of pain.  Ms. Cummings tries to claim I am obsessed with them.  Yes, I admit, I have posted quite a bit on them.  This is a blog that deals, among other things, with the idiocy of transgender extremists.  And lately, they have been a primary example of this.  Granted, a somewhat obscure example that its creators want to imagine is more a factor than it really is, but still, a perfect example of the genre.  Other blogs have been relatively quiet.  

I mean, really, why wouldn't I write about their ridiculous garbage?  They went totally ballistic because I simply pointed out that I do not identify as "transgender."  I haven't seen such a complete overreaction in some time.  The results have been hilarious.

I admit, I can be harsh.  I don't mince words.  But at the core of everything I write is logical and objective arguments.  What do they have?  The same tired lies from an obsessive cyberstalker who, quite fortunately, has nothing new to offer….

Ten years ago, Lask and I met, when I offered him the opportunity to sleep on my floor for a few days when he was, quite literally, homeless.  I was living, at the time, in an SRO, because I was trying to get back on my feet after a relationship ended, and I chose to move to San Francisco to start over.  Lask, it turned out, had been homeless for years.  I have suspicions of how that came to be, and I suspect it might have involved some improper behavior when he was working in Nevada, but that is just speculation.

Some time after that, when Lask became angry with me because I would not comply with a request of his, he began targeting me.  At first, I thought it was someone else, but then Lask made some comments that let me know it was him.  Simply put, he said some things that only he would have known to say.  I don't appreciate betrayal, especially when it involves lies added on to truth.  The game was on.

Now, one of the stunts Mr. Lask has pulled for years, is to post photos from an unfortunate article published in the SF Weekly about the SRO I lived in.  That article was, well, a rather odd piece of journalism that still puzzles me a bit.  While the place I lived was not perfect, it was also nothing like the article described.  In fact, parts of the article, rather bizarrely included accusations apparently made by the organization that operated the building,  They were fighting with the person they hired to manage the building and in an attempt to fire him (he was protected by a union) they made false claims about him being a member of a gang, and some other silliness.  He eventually ended up receiving quite a bit of money from them in a settlement.

The photos in the article, which are supposedly rooms in the building, are often presented as showing my room.  Nope.  To be honest, I'm not sure whose room they show, or if they are even from the building where I lived.  The room where I lived looked quite different.  Then again, the place described in the article seemed quite far removed from what I experienced there as well.  I never, for example, saw people lined up to buy drugs.  I have no doubt that drugs were used by some residents.  Shoot, this is San Francisco.  I don't care where you live, chances are good, that at least some of your neighbors are using some sort of recreational drug.  The question is not if, but what…

But, times change…  I no longer live there.  Mr. Lask has no idea where I live now.  He has lost track of me.  He has only his old lies that he keep repeating every chance he gets, rather obsessively.  He has created an entire fantasy life for me that has little resemblance to reality.  If he does know anything current, he has the good sense to keep quiet about it, as revealing it might prove a bit costly.  Stalking is a crime, and if he has current information, it would certainly lead to charges.

Mr. Lask also has some photos, including one he doctored up, from an even I attended.  I did not want my photo taken, and mugged at the camera a couple of times.  Not photos I would choose to have published, but one which show, as one person said, "A middle aged woman, enjoying herself."  But, hey, the tactic is simple.  Publish a photo, and make fun of it.  People see what they want to see.  Mr. "Jessica" Cummings makes a snarky, and rather bizarre comment about "pigtails."  Which is kind of weird, since I have NEVER worn my hair in that style, and am not in any of the photos.  He also makes some remark about me being 59 at the time.  Nope, not even close.  But, I guess Mr. Cummings finds ageism funny, even if it is imaginary.

Ms. Cummings and her husband apparently don't like having the truth exposed.  I do find it very telling that they offer nothing in the way of rational argument.  They can't counter the actual arguments I make.  When their "investigative reporters" try to, they wind up falling back on an argument that amounts to "You disagree with me.  So, that means you are spewing… Hate.  Transphobia.  Hate. Transphobia."  Talk about a broken record.  They can't defend their absurd positions, and they have to resort to truly lame cyberstalking tactics.  They are typical transgender poseurs, and they simply repeat the same crap they have learned from other transgender poseurs.  Granted, it is easier to just repeat the same mantra than to actually stop and examine their lives and deal with real issues.  If they did, they might realize that they are making a mistake, and seek help getting their lives back on track.

A hint people:  Building your entire life on crossdressing fantasies does not work.  Eventually the fad will run out, and people will get tired of pandering to your fantasies, and you will have to face reality.  And it won't be pleasant.

Rage, Rage, Against the Dying of the Lies

Dealing with transgender extremists, like those at Shame On You Transgender Edition can be an interesting experience.  Their latest reaction is…well, kind of bizarre…and almost incoherent mish-mash of weird rants strung together with bad grammar and poor spelling.  Yes, we all make typos, but give me a break…these people are not even trying.  But I digress.

This latest diatribe begins with a rather odd list of the trademarks they are apparently ripping off for some Japanese characters…  Then it sort of goes downhill from there in a rather confused attempt to again attack me, in another of their ironic harangues that includes lines like…

He's also the type of troll who will resort to ad-hominem attacks if he can't win an argument.

I guess when they do it, it's not ad hominems…that, or they are just hypocrites.

Okay, they claim I am "obsessed" with their "genitalia, and surgical status."  What they are actually objecting to is me simply pointing out that they are pushing the transgender agenda that preaches the bizarre notion that females have penises, and men have vaginas….at least some of the time….sort of….kind of….

The classic transgender line is "sex and gender are not the same thing."  Okay, that is, sort of, true.  If, by gender, you mean the more accurate concept of "sexual differentiation of the brain" there is some truth there, though it suddenly becomes a bit fuzzier.  What the transgender kooks mean is, actually "Sex and gender are not the same thing, and they are totally unrelated.  Which is, of course, complete and total hogwash.  

Sorry boys and girl (they are all boys except one) but that is not remotely true.  In truth, in a normal person (and yes, I did say that dreaded word, normal), the brain and the genitalia are sexually differentiated at different times during fetal development, which means that you might wind up with male genitalia, but a female brain.  Or vice versa.  No, I imagine that so far, they are all nodding, going "Yeah, of course…."  The problem is, such occurrences are rare.  As in, they don't happen nearly as often as the TG crowd likes to claim.  

Far more common are situations where men (and on rare occasions women) far reasons that are not fully understood, develop bizarre obsessions with masquerading as members of the opposite sex.  The intensity of this desire can range from the occasional to full time.  And the intensity may grow over time.  Oddly enough, usually included in this behavior is a rather strong obsession with being "a woman with a penis." In some cases, less common, but not unheard of, you have behavior of the type that Blanchard and Bailey have labeled "autogynephilia" which is a sexual fetish centered on having SRS.  This may develop out of the desire to be "a woman with a penis," or it may be an unrelated condition that is parallel to  classic transvestitism.

Now, this brings us to the simple bottom line.  Folks like Mr. "Zierota" Slingen want people to believe that sex is not real.  That all that matters is what someone says that they are.  If you say "I am a girl…" then you are magically transformed into a full-fledged member of the female sex, no questions allowed.  Yes, it is stupid, but that is what they want to force you to accept.  Reality be damned…

Oh, and I have to note once again, that Mr. Slingen falls back on another common transgender trope…"not woman enough…"  That is a laughable concept, which shows a bit more of the transgender mindset.  Being a woman, or a man, is not a quantifiable thing.  There is no base unit of womanhood.  You can't be 70% woman, or 90% woman.  You either are, or you are not.  And well, Mr. Slingen, and most of his gang are not, "Mark" being the exception.

The simple bottom line is, sex and gender are both binary.  Basically, it really is male or female.  Contrary to common claims, there is no such thing as a person who is both.  There may be variations in aspects of sexual differentiation, and a person may have characteristics of both sexes (for example, having male genitalia, and a female brain, or genitalia that did not differentiate fully during development) but there is no in between.

Sex has three primary markers…chromosomes, genitalia, and the brain.  In terms of chromosomes, a Y mean male.  In terms of genitalia, a penis means male.  In terms of the brain, things are a bit more fuzzy, but a pretty solid indication is, you want a penis, your a male.  And the brain sex is what really determines what we call gender.

Now, the transgender crowd likes to conflate gender expression with "gender" though they are not the same thing at all.  Simply desiring to dress as a woman does not make you one.  Lots of men are crossdressers.  Most are occasional crossdressers, a few are full time.  The one thing they all have in common is a desire to keep their penises.  If you are not driven to have surgery, if you are comfortable with a penis, and most importantly, if you are able to successfully function as a man in society, then you are, well, a man.

And this, finally brings us to one of the sillier aspects of this bunch of fools attacks on me.  They just don't get it.  Yes, as a "man" I was a pretty wretched person.  I am not proud of that period of my life.  Simply put, I was a lousy man.  I was pretty lousy at things that men do.  I'm not going to share details, if only out of consideration for those affected by my failings, but yes, I was not at all successful as a man.  And yes, I face challenges now.  The same challenges a lot of middle aged women face, but I am able to deal with those challenges and my life is considerably better.  Funny, but that is sort of lost on these, well, men in dresses.  They can't see just how stupid their position is…

But then, they are men, and that is, simply put, is how they view the world….

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.

Caught in a Lie and Looking Foolish

Well, there has been an interesting turn of events among the fools at Shame On You Transgender Edition.  Mr. "Jessica" Cummings, in a rather odd post reiterating the fact that are censoring me (kind of moot, since I have intentions of commenting there), posted some pretty bogus claims about me.  According to Mr. Cummings, I have posted a comment that "confirms" that I have not had SRS, and also my daughter has posted information that confirms I have not had surgery.  Of course, both of these claims are outright fabrications.and someone, I honestly don't know who, asked him for a link to the alleged site where the bogus information was posted.  I kind of suspect it was Mr. Lask, no doubt in a panic that someone found some information he missed.

I wondered how they would react to that question, since they could not possibly have such a link, and well, Mr. Cummings is scrambling to cover his…uh, posterior.  He is claiming that I am the anonymous poster, that he won't provide the (non-existent) information until the poster identifies who they are, and so on.  Of course, since these posts don't actually exist, and he therefore cannot remotely post a link to them, it all becomes rather humorous.  I mean, why would it matter if I were the person asking the question?  If it were me, and it is isn't, I would certainly not ask that question if the information did exist.  And let's be blunt here…if the information did exist, they would have not only posted a link in the article, they would have posted a screen capture as well.  These are not the brightest bulbs in the string.

And let me reiterate, I did not have SRS for anyone other than myself.  I had it because I had a need to have, and nothing else.  If someone honestly wishes to believe I didn't have it, that is their delusion to believe it.  It does not change the fact that I have had SRS, it does not make me magically change back into a male, and it does not make Mr. Cummings any less of a male eunuch, or into any semblance of a woman.  It only means that a person believes in something false.

Now clearly, they are not at all happy that I am commenting on them here, since Mr. Cummings is boasting that he plans to prevent me from reading their "blog."  Well, if he thinks he can do that, he is in for a very major surprise.  Another transgender kook tried the same thing.  Mr. "Dana Lane" Taylor, the "Milk Man" himself, though he could block me, and yet, I was able to read his blog at will…  Actually, there are a several ways, one relatively obvious, others not so obvious.  I won't say how….that would be spoilers, but it is trivial.  

Stay tuned for more updates on the insanity at Shame on You Transgender Edition, a new low in transgender kookiness on the Internet.

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?

Mr. "Cristan" Williams is Lying Again

It hardly qualifies as news, it happens so much, but Mr. "Cristan" Williams has come up with another of his signature whoppers.  He is whining because Cathy Brennan contacted OutSmart Magazine, and LGBT publication in Houston, to complain about an article Williams wrote on what he likes to call "Transgender Exclusionary Radical Feminists," or TERFs.  Williams has repeated a lie he created, claiming that Ms. Brennan is affiliated with the Pacific Justice Institute.  She isn't, and his entire basis for this claim is the fact that she apparently posted a link to something they published.  Hmm, based on that logic, I would hate to see what Mr. Williams would claim about me….

Mr. Williams plays fast and loose with the facts quite often.  Then when confronted with the truth, he simply lies more.  In this case, only a fool would would begin to believe this flimsy lie.

Unfortunately, Mr. Williams personally imposed himself into the case of the Colorado teen that became the focus of so much controversy.  Elizabeth at Notes From the T-Side is closer to see the problem here, but I suspect does not want to admit that her enthusiastic endorsement of Mr. Williams was in error.

Elizabeth writes, quite accurately, about how being labeled transgender hurts the cases of someone like the student referred to by Mr. Williams as "Jane Doe," but still refuses to admit that Williams' motivations, and actions, have nothing to do with helping the child, and everything to do with pushing the radical transgender agenda of full and unfettered access to women's spaces for men pretending to be women.

BTW, in spite of the best efforts of the transgender kooks, it appears that the implementation of AB 1266 will not be quite what they planned.  News articles have talked about schools making plans to provide privacy in dressing areas, so the kook's vision of "transgender" males waving penises around the girls is not going to happen after all.

Of course, knowing the kooks, and their agenda, I am wondering when the first lawsuit challenging such an approach will appear?  And how quickly things will blow up in their face?

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.

More Lies From Mr. Williams....

Well, as is his style, Mr. "Cristan" Williams is strutting about and crowing about how he has "forced" several news organizations to pull the story about the transgender student who harassed girls at his Colorado high school.  Part of this stems from the vagueness of the term "harass."  I would not be at all surprised if the claim was made on the basis of the unquestionable fact that a male student, now claiming to be transgender, and therefore "female" insisted on his right to enter the girls restroom.  Is this harassment?  Well, if you are a female, and you have someone you know to be a male, who is not even trying to make a secret of that, quite publicly insisting on sharing the restroom with you, and this makes you uncomfortable...then yes, I would call that harassment.

This is the problem with the whole transgender extremist approach.  These people are not trying to actually be women.  Men like Mr. "Cristan" Williams, and Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen, and Mr. "Dana" Taylor are not remotely attempting to be women.  The very idea is foreign, and even repulsive to them.  They are trying to be "transgender."  They cannot imagine not being, as they would say, "out, loud, and proud."  The idea that someone might simply mistake them for an actual female would be terribly upsetting.

No, what they are all about is forcing people to suspend reality, suppress their clear knowledge, and basically accept a lie...namely that they are "women," and even "female" even though they have penises, and would rather die than give then up.

So yes, Fox News is right...this male student is harassing the girls at his high school.  He is not some poor innocent just trying to deal with a medical condition...he is actively forcing his chosen behavior on girls who, I have no doubt, are not at all happy.  And yes, that is pretty much  textbook case of harassment.

And I am not even going to bother ripping apart his rather obvious abuse of statistics to bolster absurd claims, like how "half of the transgender population" are victims of rape.  That is totally bogus.  Well, okay...that one is too good to pass up.  It is based on some surveys conducted in places like here in San Francisco.  I am familiar with these kinds of studies, and the population is not "all transgender people" or even a representative portion of "all transgender people."  The participants are largely transgender sex workers, who have a very high rate of things like sexual assault...as do sex workers in general.  So, while a study might show that half of the participants were sexually assaulted, that does not remotely translate into the outrageous claims made by Mr. Williams.

But hey, Mr. Williams wouldn't know the truth if it slapped him in the face (which, quite frankly, it does regularly).

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.

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.

How Arrogant Can One Transgender Extremist Get?

I have seen Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen post some pretty arrogant stuff.  I mean, he loves to style himself as the "transgender" equivalent of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.  But he has reached a new low...  He is now comparing himself to Private Manning.

Now, I am not interested in debating whether Private Manning is a hero, or a villain.  That is not the purpose of this blog.  But I will note that Sandeen, before Manning expressed the desire to now be know as "Chelsea" was pretty much on the villain side, and it should be noted, he took a lot of flack for it.  Now, he wants to elevate himself to the same level.

In his most recent post on LGBT Weekly, Mr. Sandeen engages in absurd self-aggrandizement as he boasts of how he took what he implies were great personal risks during his exhibitionistic performance at the White House fence in protest of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."  Well, at least that is what he thought he was saying when he posted this delightful Freudian slip:

But, having my belief about my own actions regarding those protests I participated in, I had no illusion that what I was doing was violating the explicit direction of Navy uniform regulations. That regulation states “Members of the Navy and Marine Corps, including retired members and members of reserve components are prohibited from wearing uniforms of the naval service while attending or participating in a demonstration, assembly or activity knowing that a purpose of the demonstration, assembly or activity supports personal or partisan views on political, social, economic or religious issues.” And, I knew there could be serious consequences to violating military law.

I assume what he meant to claim was that he was "aware" that his actions might well result in serious consequences, though what he actually says is the clearly more truthful idea that he knew, quite well, that they simply wouldn't.  Simply put, there is no way that the Obama administration was going to send Mr. Sandeen to military prison, or worse, strip him of his military pension.  It simply would not be a very smart move politically. 

Mr. Sandeen goes on to puff himself up by talking about how he would have faced the same problems as Private Manning, had he gone to military prison (like that was even a remote chance).

To be honest, at this point, I really have to pity Mr. Sandeen.  He clearly is desperate to puff himself up, and has reached the point where he is now more than willing to engage in the most ridiculous of self contradictory claims.  Two weeks ago, he trashed Private Manning, and now he compares himself to that same person in an obvious attempt to ride the wave of publicity.

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.

Does Mr. "Cristan" Williams REALLY Think So Poorly Of His Readers

From time to time, I will run across as example of rhetoric, that is so lame, so incredibly flawed, so filled with obvious distortions, that it is apparent that the person writing it thinks the people who will be reading it, will believe anything.  Mr. Williams' reply to Mr. "Autumn" Sandeens' attempt at rational argument is just such an example.  And to be honest, it is hilariously bad.

Well, actually, what Mr. Williams is actually doing is attempting to refute the quite excellent article written by Elizabeth at "Notes From the T Side."  You might expect Mr. Williams would have posted this there, but it is obvious why he didn't.  He clearly hopes his readers won't actually compare what he claims with what the actual article says.

For example, Elizabeth quotes him as saying....

Stealth people say things like “I just want to get on with my life as the woman I am” – a sentiment that sounds rational enough on the surface. The problem with that sentiment is that it’s also a delusion. Stealth people rationalize their lies by believing that being trans was only a medical problem that was fixed – kind of like a cleft palate; purposefully pretending that there wasn’t a social transition that entailed violating numerous cultural norms. Stealth is purposefully taking away the choice of letting the people you claim to love the most decide if they are willing to take on the potential social costs (as unfair and stupid as those social costs might be) of breaking those backwards cultural norms by being with you. If you believe that it is only a medical condition, remember that I said that you’re delusional when your best friend, your husband or wife, your boyfriend or girlfriend, your adopted child, etc finds out that you lied about your social and medical history. Yes, it is a medical condition that should be treated medically, but to pretend that this medical condition is exactly like having laser eye surgery is nothing more than living in denial. Living an authentic life means having the courage to stand firmly on the ground on truth regardless of what stupid, moronic and asinine stereotypes and/or fears others may choose to cling to.

She then proceeds to tear this statement into shreds.  In seven paragraphs, she succinctly shows how totally ridiculous Mr. Williams' claims are.  I'm not going to quote them here, go read the article for yourself, the link above will take you there.

How does Mr. Williams respond to this?  Well...

Wow. I just read Elizabeth’s response. It’s nonsensical in that she does things like quote me where I say:

“Yes, it is a medical condition that should be treated medically, but to pretend that this medical condition is exactly like having laser eye surgery is nothing more than living in denial.”

And responds – in the first sentence under that quote – saying:
“CW does not believe this is a medical condition but a social condition complicated by a self perceived medical condition.”

Simply puts, he cherry picks out a small part of a much longer quote, and tries to imply that what he quoted is what she addressed.  This is not clever, it is a lie.  I mean, really....  If that was all he said, that would be different, but he said a whole lot more, and Elizabeth took it apart and showed the fallacies in what he really said.  

Not only does he ignore the fact that she said far more about his quote, which he implies was a rather short one, he misrepresents what she actually said, after saying much more, about the line he chooses to focus on...

The pathetic analogy that SRS is like a cleft palate or laser eye surgery is quite telling about CW. Anyone that has gone through SRS would never and I mean NEVER be that flip about it because it is incredibly painful and the recovery time is extensive. I doubt CW has had SRS but I could be wrong.

Well, I have had eye surgery, twice, and SRS, granted only once, and I have to agree with Elizabeth.  I've had cataracts removed from both eyes.  The first time was in 2003, the second was earlier this year.  It was certainly nice having my vision returned to relatively normal, but to compare that to the life changing experience of SRS in 2006...well, I have long believed that Mr. Williams tries to mislead people into thinking he has had it.  That he has had facial surgery is pretty obvious.  But I agree with Elizabeth, either he has not had it, or if he did, he regrets it.

He ignores what she actually said, and tries to twist it around to sound like she has distorted what he said...

Then she goes on to be deliberately obtuse so that she could claim that I believe having SRS is just like having laser eyes surgery. She uses that strawman to bolster her questioning of my surgical status to cast me as someone who’s less than a True Transsexual(TM) and who is therefore not qualified to offer a valid view.

No, she did not say that he believes SRS is just like having "laser eyes surgery," she questioned how he could make such an inane analogy.  His original point was dismissing the significance of SRS, and that is what she addresses.

Now is where things get really silly.  Mr. Williams then goes on to claim to use accusations of "logical fallacies" to counter Elizabeth's arguments, but instead, well, like Mr. Sandeen yesterday, he engages in a "logical fallacy created from a logical fallacy about a logical fallacy."  In this case, he actually does it repeatedly.

He again abuses the "True Scotsman" argument, attempting a sort of logical gymnastics that comes down to "I must be a True Transsexual because I am claiming that they are using the True Scotsman logical fallacy to show I am not."  The problem is, that is not what has been done, as I showed yesterday in responding to Mr. Sandeen.

Just to be clear, let me repeat...  For an argument to be a True Scotsman fallacy, it has to be, first and foremost, a fallacy.  That is, it lacks any basis other than a false assumption.  If you actually use evidence, and reason, to argue that someone is not what they claim they are, then it is not a logical fallacy.  Claiming it is, in order to avoid actually addressing the evidence, is itself not only a logical fallacy, but is a lie as well.

Mr. Williams is a walking textbook of logical fallacies.  From the simplest straw man, to the most vicious ad hominem, he engages in them as his stock in trade.  This bit of silliness is just one example of many.

And he concludes with a ridiculous claim...

I’m so happy that their movement – as Elizabeth knew it even 5 years ago – is dead. They had nothing to build their community upon by demonstrably false history and deep transphobic antipathy.

Our movement?  I don't know where he gets this from.  We are simply living our lives, and telling extremists like him to stop claiming we are "girls like him."  We never sought to build a community, and basically reject the idea of such.  He is the one who has tried to built a false history, and who hides behind accusations of transphobia to dismiss any valid argument against his extremist positions.