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

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

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

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

And then he makes a truly clueless statement...

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

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

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

Mr. Sandeen summarizes by saying this...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And again, he makes this absurd remark...

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

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

As Much As It Pains Me To Say It....

Roseanne Barr, for once, is right....

Quite frankly, I have never cared for Roseanne Barr.  Since the first time I ever saw her in a Pizza Hut commercial, through her years as a sitcom star, and her many outrageous stunts, I have always found her irritating, outrageous, and not at all likable.

But, her comments about men forcing their way into women's space based on a claim of being "trans women" is dead on.  And, I am not really all that surprised that a bunch of kooks have attacked her for speaking the truth.  Simply put, they can't handle the truth.

This all stems from the incident I wrote about a couple of weeks ago.  Barr got the facts a bit wrong, saying that it occurred in Australia, not Washington State, but otherwise was right about this being simply wrong.  This pervert has no business being in women's space, and especially not when he insists on forcing his nudity on teenage girls.  

I find it very interesting that, by and large, the "transgender activists" have pretty much pretended this story does not exist, except for viciously attacking Barr for not adhering to the party line.  They don't quite have the courage to come out in support of the pervert, but they also lack the decency to admit that maybe things have gone a bit too far.

Funny, in a way...the common cry we have heard whenever the bathroom issue comes up is, "We just want to pee in peace..."  They throw fits, and complain that they are being accused of horrible things, when all they really want to do is just go in, use the bathroom, and leave in peace.  That certainly seems reasonable.  And for many transgender people, it is.  Of course, there are those who are not at a point in their transition where they remotely are credible as women.  You might think they would have the decency to delay their forays into the women's room until they are better able to fit in, but they often demand to be accepted.

And now, we have a pervert, who openly speaks of his sexual deviations, who is demanding to be allowed to be present, nude, when other women are in the facility, and some of the more insane of the transgender activists are defending him.

Barr is right, this is as stupid as the LGBT groups who were prepared to embrace NAMBLA as a cause.  The problem this time is, common sense, and decency, do not seem likely to prevail.  

The Bathroom Issue, Again

It should be no surprise that "Autumn" Sandeen is again ranting about how men should have the right to invade the women's room.  He is bringing up the issue this time by implying that it is a civil rights issue comparable to Jim Crow laws.  This, of course, should not be surprising since Mr. Sandeen sees himself as the transgender Martin Luther King, Jr.  


The problem is, his views on this issue tend to prove that Sandeen is not a woman, trans or otherwise.  You see, in addition to the very real danger having men free to invade women's restrooms poses, there is another issue that is totally lost on men like Sandeen.


The women's room is, for real women, one of their very few places where they can find sanctuary from men.  And, of course, men like Sandeen want to invade this space.  They cannot comprehend that their might be legitimate reasons they are not welcome.  Ironically, it is the right to privacy, that is often cited in issues like gay rights (sex between consenting adults in private), abortion (the Roe v. Wade ruling is based on a right to privacy), and such.  For women, having a right to exclude men from the women's room is a privacy issue.  


The simple question, that has to be answered, is does one group's rights override another group's.  In some cases, the answer is simple.  Clearly, the rights of various races overrode the rights of a single race with regards to Jim Crow laws.  While the laws were primarily aimed at African-Americans, they could be extended to exclude others.  There were solid arguments for eliminating racial discrimination, not the least of which is that race is inherent, and not a matter of choice or behavior.  Another good argument is that there was not a legitimate basis for such laws, other than simple prejudice.  Some people did not like having to share space with people of another race.  There was not rational basis for such a choice, so it had to be denied legal status.


Clearly, we do need to make provision for those who are legitimately transsexual, as this is an actual medical condition.  But, we do not need to pander to the hobby of the transvestite, and the delusions of men like Sandeen.  As I have suggested before, for most transsexuals, this is not a problem.  I have never been challenged in the women's room.  In fact, it is not really a problem for those who actually make an effort to credibly present as a woman.  But I also waited until I was sure I would not cause a disruption in the women's room before I actually made a practice of using one.  I started out going to ones that were not heavily trafficked.  Then, as I became more confident, I would pretty much go in, use it, and get out as discretely as possible.  Then, finally, when I knew I would not have any problems, I just joined the rest of the women in going, and when appropriate checked my hair and make up, and even rested in the lounge area some provide.  


But, I did not see the women's room as something I had an absolute right to invade, nor did I see it as something of a challenge to be conquered.  I got no thrill out of being there.  It was simply a part of living my life, and once I was sure that my presence would not upset others, I moved on.


Sadly, those like Mr. Sandeen are more interested in deconstructing gender, destroying the binary, and otherwise eliminating societal standards that they simply don't like.  And they don't care how many women are hurt in the process, as long as the boys in the transgender club get their wayA


Now, if we apply these legal standards to transgender males invading women's spaces, things begin to fall a bit short.  Even if we set aside the risk of improper behavior (the fact that it is currently rare does not mean it cannot or will not increase as opportunities increase) we still have the privacy issue.  Now, most women, including myself, are very uncomfortable with the idea of sharing the women's room, and other women's spaces, with men.  I have no problem with someone who is a valid, surgically tracked transsexual who is undergoing the real life test being in the women's room, but I do have objections to crossdressers, and other transgender males invading my privacy.


Now, another issue that much be considered is whether or not transgender behavior should be protected by law.  Well, it fails right off the bat.  It is often only behavior.  Clearly, a transvestite (or crossdresser if we are going to be politically correct) does not have to crossdress.  They are not acting on the basis of an inherent characteristic.  They may become anxious if they do not crossdress, but there is nothing that arguably justifies their imposing this behavior on others to the extent that they should be allowed to violate the rights of women.  So, clearly, transvestites should not be allowed to invade the ladies room.


The next group that has to be considered is full-time crossdressers.  This would include men like Sandeen, who has made it clear that he has no desire to actually change his sex, though he does want to force society to pander to his delusions and call him a female legally.  Now, I wonder how the vast majority of women would feel about Mr. Sandeen being present in the women's room.  His behavior is hardly female, and he is clearly male brained.  Personally, I would not be comfortable sharing a rest room with him.  I imagine I am hardly alone in feeling that way.


And let's consider the larger implications of the sort of laws that Sandeen others push.  They are not content to have laws that address the issue of transgender people in bathrooms.  They want laws that are so broad that they would effectively open up the women's room to anyone, provided that they simply make the claim that during the period that they were in the women's room they were identifying as a female.  It would not matter how they were dressed, whether they were clean shave, or sporting a full beard, or whether they had a feminine hairstyle, or a crew cut.  They simply have to say, even if only momentarily, I FEEL LIKE A WOMAN.  and as if by magic, they are allowed to legally enter the women's room.  Clearly, unless it could be shown that they engaged in some over the top behavior (i.e. they raped or killed someone, or perhaps groped a woman) they would be immune from challenge.


It would not matter how much their presence upset women.  After all, we would just be unreasonably prejudiced.  Of course, as I have pointed out, Sandeen is not a woman.  The feelings, needs, and security of women is not his concern.  All he cares about is the alleged "rights" of him and other men who engage in the same behavior as he does.

Defending the Indefensible

Sometimes the radical extremists go just a bit too far.  A perfect example of this is Bil Browning's latest absurd rant on Bilerico.  He has his nose out of joint because a couple of pedophiles, who dressed up as women and tried to seduce a teenage boy, were referred by their actual names and called "perverts."  Well, duh!


One of the men was charged with rape, and the other was charged with unlawful sexual conduct with a minor.


Bil states that it is not clear whether they were "transgender women."  It really doesn't matter.  They are both pedophiles, and are both criminals.  They will, hopefully, go to prison, and will, again hopefully, serve long, and probably very unpleasant, sentences.  When they get out, they will have to register as sexual predators.


Yes, these men are perverts.  I cannot think of a better term for someone engaging in such behavior.  What they did is inexcusable.  Even if they are, by some incredible stretch of the imagination, actually transsexuals, what they did is outrageous.  They are not deserving of anything other than a long stretch in prison.  Being held up to public ridicule is the least of their problems,


The real irony in all of this is the picture that accompanies the article.  It is a rabbit covering his ears, and it says "make the stupid people shut up." 


Bil should take that advice.