Great Moments In Transgender Silliness

I have spent so much time focusing on the kooks over at Shame On You Transgender Edition that I haven't had time to comment on some of the other silliness that has been going on.

First off, there has been the extreme silliness surrounding the movie Dallas Buyers Club, and Jared Leto winning Best Supporting Actor for his role as "Rayon," who is basically a drag queen.  But, we are told by the kooks, "Rayon" is a transgender woman, even though the term transgender was not remotely in common usage until years later than the period portrayed in the film.  And besides that, the character is completely fictional, added to the film  for "dramatic purposes."  

Now, the irony is, the same people who complained bitterly when Felicity Huffman portrayed a transsexual (who by the way, is very clear that she is a transsexual) in the film Transamerica, are now complaining that a man portrayed "Rayon," and that this gives "the wrong idea about transgender people.  Hmmm, I just don't see that, since, as pointed out many times, "transgender" is such a vague and meaningless term.

The complaints really took off when Jared won the Academy Award, and failed to "thank the transgender community."  Now, why he should, is beyond me.  For what?  For not even being around during the time portrayed in the film?  The whole thing is just incredibly silly.

And of course, Mr. "Cristan" Williams' Transadvocate blog continues to be a constant source of comedy, including:

• One blogger complaining that people actually think "Boys have penises, and girls have vaginas!"  The horror!
• Another blogger has realized that "Jerry Springer exploits trans women for ratings…"  Really?  I wonder why no one has ever noticed that before? (For those too dumb to really…that SARCASM!!!!)
• The surprising admission (for them) that Jan Morris, a well known transsexual, is not a "transgender" since they have an article about some dude who wants to be the "first trans person to climb Mount Everest."  For those who are not aware, Morris did it in 1953, before her transition.  Granted Morris, did not go to the summit, but was part of the expedition, and was the one who reported the news that Edmund Hillary had made it to the top.
• And an absurdly whiny post by Mr. "Dana Lane" Taylor complaining about Cathy Brennan's supposed harassment of him.  Actually, someone really should seriously intervene in Mr. Taylor's mental health crisis….

And of course, the boys, and girl, at Shame On You Transgender haven't failed to provide a few moments of silliness themselves.  They provided what would, otherwise, have been solid advice on make-up for transgender men looking to impersonate women (Seriously guys, are you trying to look like women…or clowns?) but then they had to act like idiots and include…

Remember that as a transgender person you are an ambassador for all of us. The first impression you give people can be the most important so take your time and do the make-up right. Too much make-up, well that's just a shame.

This is another example of why I want nothing to do with the transgender community.  I didn't transition to be an "ambassador."  Seriously, I guess the idea of simply being a woman is completely lost on Mr. "Michelle" Spicer.  It's all about being a man in a dress, and making sure everyone knows you are a man in a dress…

And Ms. "Mark" Cummings wrote another egotistical rant, including this bit of narcissism…

The truth can be hurtful and many will not accept it, they will turn around and create all sorts of justification, and make the truth barer a monster. Well guess what, pier pressure has never worked with me. I beat my own drum and couldn't careless if the message is not popular or rings right with many. I have my own mind and have never been a follower. So if what is written on this blog offends you, there might be a reason, and possibly something that you need to look into. What rubs you the wrong way, usually has a message or lesson for you. I know you are not going to agree and that is fine to, I am just stating my views and opinion as are all the writers on this blog.

It wouldn't be nearly as funny…if the didn't effectively contradict himself.  On the one hand, she admits she is self-promoting, but then she comes across as condescending…if you don't like what she says, it's because you are the one who is wrong, and you are just not getting the message she is trying to force down your throat…but hey, she is okay with you disagreeing, because she is just presenting "her views and opinions."  

It is one thing to suggest that people should read critically.  I hope anyone reading my blog does just that.  If you blindly accept everything I say, well…that is not a wise approach to ANYTHING you read.  Think about it, question it, challenge it, and then, if it stands up, accept it.  Of course, so often (and Ms. Cummings is a classic example) if they can't refute it, they get angry, and resort to insults.  Yes, I am blunt with people.  I don't play games and pander to delusions.  I point out that people are frauds, con artists, grifters, stalkers, perverts, and yes…even men (or women) when they claim to be otherwise.  I don't do this to insult.  I do this because some people need to be confronted with the truth.

The transgender community remains a regular source of truly silly positions.  While I keep hoping they will come to their senses…I'm not holding my breath.

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?

The REAL Transgender Agenda

Well, Mr. "Cristan" Williams is at it again...  

This time, he has gone so far as to defend "Colleen" Francis, who exposed himself to a group of teenage girls at Evergreen College in Washington State.  Perhaps defend is not the proper term.  As is typical with Mr. Williams, he has confabulated a rather fanciful tale in a desperate attempt to deny what actually happened.

Mr. Williams is trying to claim that the whole affair is really all an "urban legend," by, well, trying to cook up an urban legend.  I find it kind of interesting that Mr. Williams has waited over a year to come up with the bit of drivel.  Apparently he thinks it has been long enough that people might actually believe his lies.

But the real question is why?  Is it because, well, the "Colleen" Francis affair is so far-fetched that we should all believe that such a thing could never happen?  Or is it because, well, if the transgender extremists like Mr. Williams have their way, things like this will become routine?

If you guessed the former, sorry, but you are wrong.  If you guessed the latter, congratulations!

You see, very central to the REAL transgender agenda is an effort to force women to accept, shall we say, nude intact males in areas where there is an expectation of privacy.  Put a bit less delicately, these, uh, "women" are supposed to be free to wave their, uh, neo-clits around.  And if you don't like it?  TOUGH!  Just ask Transadvocate contributor Mr. "Zinnia" Jones:

"Cis people’s bathroom fears do not matter"

And then there is this outright lie from Mr. "Mara" Kiesling, in which he actually admits to the fact that part of the agenda is forcing women to accept nude men in the showers and dressing rooms:

The most significant change for transgender people is that we fought for and won removal of language that clarified use of showers and locker rooms "where being seen unclothed would be unavoidable." None of the states that have passed and successfully implemented a gender identity anti-discrimination law includes such a provision, and neither should ENDA.

This is not true, as 11 of the 17 states with such laws have separate provisions that protect privacy in such areas.  And as I showed in my previous post, this is a part of those schools policies that Mr. Williams has been lying and saying were "identical" to the new transgender school law that is currently being challenged in California.  That law specifically leaves out any provision that would allow for such protections.  It is important to remember that an omission can be as significant as an inclusion.

No, bottom line, this is the real transgender agenda.  Mr. Williams wants you to believe that what happened at Evergreen College is a myth.  He wants you to not demand protections until it is too late...

And I do appreciate Elizabeth at Notes From the T Side having the decency to acknowledge that I was right when I predicted that this would happen.  As I said, I was not interested in attacking a young transsexual.  I'm simply opposed to Mr. Williams and his ilk using a child to push their agenda. 

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.

Breaking New Ground For Gender Fascism

First off, let me state up front, I am not interested in debating whether Manning is a hero or not.  As to whether Manning is a transsexual, transgender, or just a deeply disturbed gay man, that remains an open question.  I want to deal with something a bit more concrete.

Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen, the man for whom I first coined the term "Gender Fascist" has gone to a new extreme.  In posts in several locations, he has attacked Manning because Manning did not transition in a manner that Sandeen has declared necessary.  Seriously.

In the article, which is posted on Transadvocate, Mr. Sandeen makes it clear that he disapproves of Manning's conduct with regards to to giving secret documents to WikiLeaks.  He begins by making a rather self-aggrandizing statement about how he is going to respect Manning's desire to be referred to as "Chelsea" based on teachings he "learned as Pentecostal youth," even though he has apparently embraced atheism as an adult.  This is apparently part of his ongoing harassment and stalking of me.

Having puffed himself up in this manner, the then begins his attack on Manning:

But as I respect her name and identified gender, I’m cognizant that Chelsea didn’t respect the trans community — the trans community of which I am a part — in how she came out.

So, apparently Sandeen has appointed himself arbiter of how someone must come out, and of course Mr. Sandeen does think they have to come out.  But, apparently, he expects to be consulted first:

As I read Chelsea’s announcement, I was struck that the thrust of her statement was about her wants and needs, and that there was no mention or consideration of the impact of her statement on other trans people. For example, Chelsea mad her announcement without warning to LGB and especially T community leaders even as she put LGBT community leaders the in the position of defending her gender identity. What she did was put the responsibility of defending her chosen name and preferred pronouns on LGBT non-profits and trans community activists who weren’t fully aware of if, when, or how she was going to publicly announce she has a female gender identity.

One of my biggest problems with Mr. Sandeen, and a number of other transgender extremists, is how they show no regard for how their positions might affect transsexuals who are not interested in being linked with their perversions.  But here is Mr. Sandeen, apparently upset that he was inconvenienced by Manning's announcement.

Part of the irony here is how Mr. Sandeen has no regard for the very real problems will Manning will face if Manning really is transsexual.  Granted, Mr. Sandeen has no personal experience of such issues, but still, his arrogance is amazing.

But Mr. Sandeen goes on to make an even more outrageous statement:

To me, it’s notable that Chelsea made her announcement that she was a woman without publicly using the terms trans, trans*, transgender, or transsexual to describe herself, or acknowledge she was part of a community that were going to be defending her gender identity.

I don't know, but perhaps Manning has the good sense to not want to be associated with extremists like Mr. Sandeen.  Of course, to him, and his ilk, that is the unpardonable sin.  One must be willing to be a part of the "community."  

And the arrogance continues:

There is no honor in harming the community to which you are entering.

And, there is no honor is announcing the new name Chelsea wishes to be addressed by and her gender identity without considering how the timing of her announcement may impact efforts for open military service for trans people in the service. 

I don’t know about anyone else, but I see a pattern of behavior where she doesn’t consider the consequences of her actions…to include the impact her behavior has had and is having on others.

Finally, Mr. Sandeen goes on to attack Manning's actions in revealing having a gender identity issue prior to being arrested:

And, of course, there is the courage and commitment thing. Prior to being arrested, she reached out for help to her immediate supervisor, essentially outing herself as trans with the “My Problem” email and inclusion of a photo of her presenting as female. Courage and commitment to further identify as trans to the Army with intent to receive treatment for her gender dysphoria and a discharge could have included going to the next and the next and the next supervisor in her chain of command, or could have included contacting a military psychologist or psychiatrist — contacting anyone with the power to help her until someone in the Army acted or what she described as her problem. (I do believe there was a failure of leadership by her immediate supervisor for not passing on the information up the chain of command when it was a clear call for help, but that’s another issue.) It seems to me that she demonstrated a lack of courage and commitment in how she reached out for help…from the military and discharged from to be treated and discharged by the Army for what was then referred to under DSM-IV TR as gender identity disorder.

Simply put, it is really none of Mr. Sandeen's business when, or how, Manning chose to come out.  Mr. Sandeen should really just butt out of this one, and stop acting like he thinks he is some sort of "alpha tranny" or something.

I knew he was arrogant, but this one takes the cake.  

He Said WHAT?!?!?!?

Okay, this one is just too much....

There is no question that "Dana Lane" Taylor is a man....

There is no question that "Dana Lane" Taylor has a sock puppet on Twitter as @Six of Caprica....

But I fear the poor boy slipped up and showed the true nature of transgender extremists....

In case you have trouble reading what Mr. Taylor said, it's "Can't wait to get to work so I can go pee in the ladies room."  

Really, you just can't make this sort of thing up....

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.

And the Clue-Meter is Pegged on Dead Zero

Another day, another update on the continue saga of Mr. "Dana" Taylor's death spiral into absurdity...

Yesterday, Mr. Taylor posted a comment concerning a person who comments here, and number of other places, on Gender Trender.  Not only was this comment completely off-topic (the article it was posted to was about an excruciatingly bad vocal performance by some kook singing about how the New York Senate should pass GENDA.  I suspect it is more likely to cause them to pass a ban on torturing people with truly awful videos.  It is tempting to say it falls into the "so bad, it's good" category, as it is laughable, but no....this video is just excruciatingly horrid.  But I digress...

Mr. Taylor did not, unsurprisingly, get the response he expected.  Instead, he pretty much was made to look like a fool.  Not that he is likely to realize that.

Gallus Mag responded:

Dana, your hobby is ingesting massive quantities of synthetic female hormones so that you can expel a form of male breast milk from your moobs which you then post pictures of on your blog. I don’t think you are in a good position to call out another man for “perversion”.

And that was followed by a picture of Mr. Taylor's blog page, complete with the infamous photo of his trophy milk.  Now, anyone with sense would have slinked off in shame, but not Mr. Taylor....  He came back with...

So you excuse actual sexism? Okay…good on you. Thanks for sharing my photo.

I almost feel sorry for Mr. Taylor...is he really that arrogant?  And again, he said...

Gallus is okay with Nicky’s sexism.  Thanks.

No, that is not what was said at all.  What was said was, "I don’t think you are in a good position to call out another man for “perversion”.  Big difference, but totally lost on Mr. Taylor.  

If that wasn't enough to get across to Mr. Taylor that maybe he had made, shall we say, a major strategic blunder, you would think this would:

Okay this dick can afford a dual electric breast pump. I never thought I could get more angry at one of these bastards but this just triggered it. F**K NO women who have infants can’t afford one of those. To rent one is crazy expensive–sick. People a dual electric breast pump is top of line like $300. You disgusting prick. He bought a breast pump for his fetish and women who actually need them to express for sick infants in hospital can’t afford them. You know what? When the vote to keep keeping this dicks out of womens spaces comes up my state I am on the state house steps handing these pics out. Come on by Dana I will be with the La leche women. Trans Rights live the sick fetish to the fullest. Dana your gonna be famous baby. I honestly did not think these guys could come up with anything else–I was wrong.

I have to say, Mr. Taylor is doing far more damage now, than he ever did when he was delusional enough to think he as actually a transsexual.

No, someone with a shred of intelligence would realize they were licked at this point.  But, not Mr. Taylor.  He was back this morning with yet another clueless post on his website:

For those who seem obsessed with my breasts and lactation. When I first lactated it was totally unexpected. I did some research and found more information about Prolacton. Prolactin is important in development of the breasts. I am currently trying to naturally increase the size of my breasts and increased prolactin will hopefully help. No matter how many of you haters try to same me for having control over my own body, it won’t work. So keep crying. I live of the tears of haters.

There are several points this pervert needs to grasp...

1. No one is obsessed with his moobs...
2. We are simply using him has the poster boy for transgender idiocy and perversion.
3. Trying to cover your...uh, posterior, is only making your look every sillier.  
4. Those are tears, except, perhaps, from laughing so hard.

BTW, look closely at how he worded that.  After having made an effort to produce milk, and having spend a ridiculous amount of money for a toy (men...boys....toys, you know the old line), he goes back and tries to find something to try to hide his perversion behind.  He didn't know this before, and makes that clear, but tries to now act like this is why he did this.  I mean, really, this is hilarious.

And, in the final bit of cluelessness, the crowning touch, if you will...I have to say, he picked the perfect website.  They have a section on Male Breast Enlargement.  And that is their words, not mine.  No "Trans Woman Breast Development, or something else like that, but what it really is, breast development for men who want to indulge in fetishistic fantasies.  They certainly know their audience:

It (sic) you’re a biological male who dreams of having beautiful, voluptuous female breasts, there are several routes available to take you there. Many of them require some research, some planning, and a lot of gumption. None of the methods listed below are going to transform a male body into a female body overnight. But regularity and time can produce the breasts you’ve always dreamed of.

It's like...well, Mr. Taylor's dream come true.  The perfect place to indulge his fantasies.

Ah, Mr. Taylor, the gift that keeps on giving.

If There Was Any Doubt That "Dana" Taylor Is Nuts....

His new blog removes them completely...

I mean, between this example of having an adolescent male mindset...

And his over the top, autogynephilic obsession with his breasts...including lactation... (warning, NSFW or if you have a weak stomach)

I find myself wondering....how did this kook manage to fool us as long as he did?

I guess the first is supposed to just devastate me.  It doesn't.  

The second, however, I find pretty revolting.  Some men are really disturbed, and disturbing.

Truly sad...

The Truth Begins to Slip Out, and It is NOT Pretty

Well, the invasion of the women's room by the boys in dresses continues.  And the more it drags on, the clearer it becomes just how disturbing the transgender kooks real agenda is.  The official party line remains, "We just want to go in, do our business, and get out..." while the truth is, "We just want to force ourselves on women..."  Yes, there, I said it, and I stand by it.  A couple of items that have come out prove this.

Two men in dresses...

First off, there is the leader of the attempt to undermine our national defense by forcing the military to deal with transgender fellows wanting to be "female" soldiers (and presumably be assigned to women's units and be allowed to crossdress like Mr. Sandeen loves to), "Allyson" Robinson (seen here with Mr. Sandeen, himself...imagine having this pair in the ladies room with you. Mr. Robinson, who is one of those straight male crossdressers who had a long career as a man, before deciding he wants to pretend to be a girl full time (and who certainly looks like a guy in a dress) decided to "count coup" in the women's room in the Phoenix airport. He left this note, to make sure that the women knew that their privacy had been violated. So much, for "we just want to pee in private. No, they want to invade the women's room, make sure that the women know that men are in there, and in case anyone missed it, rub their noses in it.

But it get's worse. In Arizona, State Rep. John Kavanagh, the author of the so-called "Papers to Pee" bill, spoke up in defense of his actions. He explained, not unreasonably, that he was not so much concerned with men in women's bathrooms, but was instead concerned with locations like locker rooms and showers, where there is a greater expectation of privacy, and as the law here in San Francisco puts it, there is a possibility of "inevitable nudity."  In another words, here in San Francisco, you cannot force women to take showers with pre-op transsexuals (something which any pre-op transsexual would have a problem with anyway), or more to the point "non-op transgender people."  In another words, no penises in the women's shower.  If a place does not have private shower stalls, then transgender people have to be given a specific time they can use the shower, or an alternative location.  The same goes for areas like dressing rooms without individual stalls, or spas and such.  A quite reasonable approach, and one set up with the input of "transgender people."

But this is increasingly unacceptable to the transgender extremist kooks.  For example, there is this bit of drivel from ThinkProgress:

Consider the lived experience of the transgender woman, who identifies, presents, and lives as a woman in every aspect of her life. She may have undergone hormone therapy, electrolysis/laser hair removal, and other procedures to bring her body and gender into alignment, but she may have elected not to undergo surgery on her genitals — a costly, invasive procedure that would likely permanently sterilize her, depriving her of her reproductive rights. If she were to enter a men’s restroom or locker room, she would look entirely out of place, and as Signorile pointed out, would face a heightened risk for violence and harassment. The women’s room is the correct room for her to use. According to Kavanagh, however, the mere fact that she might still happen to have a penis that another girl in the locker room might just happen to see is such a safety risk to the girl that discrimination against all trans people is thus justified. It’s absurd, belittling, and just plain bigoted.

Now, clearly the person described here does not live as a "woman" in every aspect of his life.  She still has a penis.  Women don't willingly have penises.  If he elects to forego having it removed, he is indicating, without question, that he is a man.  Now, this person has NO business in any area that is for women only, especially if nudity is likely.  He has no business being there to see women, or to be seen by women.  As I have pointed out, if I encountered such a person in such an area, I would take action involving pepper spray...in the face, and then in the crotch.  I think he would get the message.

And if there is any question that they think it is perfectly acceptable for a man, who claims to be a female, but who has, and wants to keep his penis (a true transsexual would avoid such a situation at all costs) then this quote from the same article makes it clear how they view the matter:

It’s absurd to conclude that all girls would experience psychological harm by simply seeing another person’s body, and such an assertion suggests that trans people’s bodies are somehow dangerous to others.

So, there you have it.  If you are a woman, who does not want to see a man's penis in the locker room or shower...or a parent who does not want your daughter exposed to such a sight, then you are a bigot.  Still don't get that?  They make that completely clear:

Kavanagh tried to obfuscate responsibility for his position by referring to a case at Evergreen College where a trans woman’s use of the locker room raised concern with a young girl’s family. He neglected to mention that it’s the very anti-LGBT Alliance Defending Freedom that is responsible for raising the controversy in the first place.

Whether one agrees with the Alliance Defending Freedom, or not, does not change the fact that the pervert "Colleen" Francis was exposing himself to young girls at the college.  But hey, its okay because a group that is "anti-LGBT" objected.

I Don't "Misgender" People

In reaction to an article on "Cristan" Williams' rather sudden, and somewhat bizarre, endorsement of theories that hold that transsexual women have brains that are sexually differentiated at odds with their bodies (this would be something of a reversal of his previous positions, I was taken to task for using "incorrect pronouns" when referring to Mr. Williams.  Of course, this is not the first time this accusation has been made.  

But, I would contend that no, I do no such thing.  While some might disagree on grounds of political correctness, I don't think I am using the wrong pronouns at all.  Nor, for that matter, do I think that anyone is automatically entitled to demand the use of pronouns based on their "preference."  This, of course, is a major tenet of "transgender activism."  And, as which most of transgender activism, I disagree vehemently.

As I have pointed out, the entire transgender paradigm is basically an artificial social and political construct.  It has no basis in reality.  This, for example, is very much brought out in an article that is cross-posted to The Transadvocate blog.  In it, a woman who is "gender queer" identified, who is dating a "trans woman" talks about the politics involved.  Yes, even simply dating a "trans woman" becomes a political matter.  What a complete load of silliness.  But this, is, of course, identity politics at its most extreme.

And that is the problem in much of this...people who identify as women as part of some social/political play-acting demand rights that they have no real claim to, all so they can force their bizarre behavior on society as a whole, which then, based on false claims made by these freaks and perverts, assumes that transsexuals are just like that.  And then they wonder, or at least pretend to wonder, why transsexuals want no part of their silliness.

No, I believe that concepts like male and female, man and woman, have real meanings, and are not just labels that can be claimed on a whim.  I don't believe there is some inalienable right to be called a woman, or a man, if one is not.  If someone makes more of an issue of being trans than an effort to be a woman, then why should I call them a woman?

I don't choose which pronouns I use based on whether or not I agree with someone.  If that were true, then I would, for example, refer to one blogger very differently than I do.  As much as I vehemently disagree with that person, I don't see them as male.  Misguided?  Yes.  Politically extremist?  Without question?  Insane?  Very likely.  But male?  No.  I believe that person has allowed her political leanings, coupled with an overblown ego that is devastated by the realization that she is not the alpha transsexual she once thought she was to allow her to seek the adulation she receives from basically abandoning what she once espoused to influence her...that, and possibly more than a bit of senility or dementia, but no, not being male.

On the other hand, as I say, when someone is more concerned with hanging on to their past, and reveling in their "gender transgression," why wouldn't I see them as men?  Because, quite frankly, that is what they are.

The Comic Stylings of Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen...

Yes, once again, the clown prince of transgender silliness has posted another hilarious bit of humor.  Unintentionally, of course.  "Autumn" Sandeen's latest, can be found at the Huffington Post, which has, of late, become a major source of transgender propaganda.  Entitled, "Violating Sex And Gender Norms While Traveling," it contains some of Mr. Sandeen's classic jokes, as well as some new material that will have you rolling on the floor, convulsed with laughter.

He starts off with his classic joke of saying, "I'm a transsexual who also identifies as transgender."  Now, that's a real knee-slapper right there.  I mean, seriously, Sandeen?  A transsexual?  Seriously, how does he make this stuff up?  Claiming one is a transsexual while writing an article on violating sex and gender norms is classic absurdist humor.  The whole point of being a transsexual is to conform one's sex to one's innate gender, and to fit within society's norms.  Granted, he does add that bit about being a transgender, but in order to really fit what he describes, a transsexual would have to act in accordance with their birth sex.  In fact, what a transsexual does, when he/she transitions, is to stop violating sex and gender norms.  But hey, this is Mr. Sandeen, so we have to expect truly absurd, off the wall silliness.

Next up, Mr. Sandeen delights us with another of his classic lines, "Let me begin by saying that I "pass" as female in almost all settings -- that's including in bathrooms."  Mr. Sandeen, as well all know, does not "pass" at all.  That is, there is no more chance of him fooling anyone into believing he is anything more than a silly man in a dress, than there is of any other crossdressing comedian, say "Benny Hill," or "MIlton Berle" to name a couple of classics.  To add to the hilariousness of that claim, Mr. Sandeen does not offer his readers a clear recent photo of him, so they can judge the veracity of such a claim.  That is a shame, as I am sure they would love to compare it to him in typical attire that looks nothing like what a woman his age would actually wear.  Better yet, would be a video, so they could get the full effect of him flouncing about in his unique parodying of a woman.  He does, however provide  a picture of him being dragged away in his female Navy uniform that does not really show his face very well, and this older picture of him.  I apologize in advance if it leave any readers with nightmares.  

The new humor includes this rather bizarre bit:

When going through a body scanner I actually left seven cents in my right front pocket. So, the TSA officer who was at the scanner station said I was going to be given a full body search. I was taken to a separate room with two female TSA officers. Before they began the search, I disclosed that I was transgender and that they may feel something that wasn't normally expected by to be on a female body when they touched my crotch. They asked me then if I wanted male officers to conduct the search, and I said no: I said I'd prefer female officers to do the search. I was pleasant and smiling when they did the search, and they were pleasant in return.

All joking aside, I honestly feel sorry for the two female officers who were subjected to Sandeen's perversity.  I can just imagine his excitement at the idea of a couple of women being forced to grope him.  I bet he really loved getting to tell him about the "special surprise" waiting for them in his crotch.  Had I ever had such an experience, I would not have been all smiles.  I would have been completely mortified, and would have had the decency to ask them if they would be comfortable performing the search.  But for a freak like Sandeen, it was a "teaching moment."  Yes, he got to leave them with a false impression of what a transsexual really is, as I am sure he emphasized the lie that he is a transsexual.

Thankfully, on the occasions I flew before I completed my transition, I never faced such a situation.  I did have my purse searched once, because a handful of Hershey's Miniatures showed up on the X-ray, and looked like they might be explosives.  The officer who conducted the search and I had a good laugh over that.  But, even though it was not a primary reason, never having to worry about such a mortifying experience played a very small roll in my need for surgery.   I imagine for Mr. Sandeen, he would not want to miss out on future teaching experiences....

A Very Odd Story...

A few months ago, we were all treated to the exploits of "Colleen" Francis, the pervert in Washington State who was protected from being "discriminated" against when he flashed his junk to young girls whose swim team was attending a meet at a local college.  Francis, claims to be a woman, and the college ruled that even though he is fully equipped with a penis, he is entitled to invade women's space and parade around in the nude.

Now, we have a rather odd story out of Virginia, where another "transgender woman" was tossed from a spa.  Now, the stories make comments about how "was asked to leave the spa after complaints about "her" appearance. Now, I have not seen a single article, all of which seem to be from "transgender sources" that mention her operative status. It is made all the more strange because Suisling states that:

"None of the complaints, as they were described to me, referenced my genitalia in any way,”

I have to wonder why Suisling would make such a comment, unless a) Suisling is physically a male, and b) was, as we would say back in Alabama, "Naked as a jay bird."

It is not clear what Suisling's operative status is, but it does make a difference.  If this person is physically a male, and was parading about in women's spa, sans clothing, then they had every right to ask Suisling to leave.  And in spite of what Suisling claims, if that were the case, it would not be illegal in California.  It is perfectly legal here to exclude a person who has not undergone SRS from an area were "inevitable nudity" is likely.

I have to say, it is getting more and more ridiculous.  And again, if I encountered a nude male in such a situation, well, that's what pepper spray is for.  Once in the eyes, and a heavy dose in the crotch,

Exposing Transgender Idiocy...

Sometimes stories almost write themselves....  I was checking out the usual drivel that comes from the Transgender News mailing list when I came across an article entitled Exposing Cisgender Privilege by Nina Ember Nova.  Now with a title like that, you know it is almost certainly going to be a major bit of transgender idiocy.  And yes, it truly is.

Here are the examples of "cisgender privilege" that are alleged, and why they are so absurd:

1. Not having to face discrimination when going to bureaucratic offices because your gender identity doesn’t not match the sex marker on your id.

You know, one of the first hurdles a transsexual has to face is chaining paperwork.  Nobody claims it is fun, and yes, I was rather nervous, but the people I dealt with were professional about their job, and they simply followed the rules.  Now, for the first three years of my transition I was stuck with a driver's license that said 'M' because Alabama will not change the sex marker until you have had the surgery.  In that time, I had maybe two people notice it.  I was in a couple of car accidents, and got stopped a couple of times by a officer (once speeding, and once for an expired tag) and not once did they notice that it did not match my presentation.  Of course, I looked and acted like a woman.  Most discrimination occurs because they person looks like a "man in a dress."  Funny, but people find that a bit disturbing...
2. Be able to be called by the name and pronoun that matches your gender identity.

A trip to the probate judge's office took care of that.  My legal name has been Jennifer for quite a while now.
3. Not be called a pervert because of your gender identity is different from what was assigned to you at birth.

Actually, for the vast majority of transgender people they are called a pervert for exactly the opposite reason.  Their gender identity is male, and very obviously so, but they insist on dressing as, and pretending to be, a woman.
4. Not be bullied, sexually exploited, [abused] because you express your gender identity.

This is not because you express your "gender identity."  This is because of behaving in a manner that invites such abuse.  Funny, I have never had this experience because, well, I have not put myself in that position.  And on the rare occasion someone has tried to go there, I have let them know it was not going to happen.

5. Not be labeled “psychotic” because of your gender expression.

Maybe if you tried not acting like someone who is psychotic, it might help.  Believe me, the one's I have labeled as psychotic were not seen that way because of gender expression, though more than a few have tried to use their "gender expression" as an excuse for their behavior.

6. Be able to use certain facilities, such as the bathroom or locker room, and feeling safe and not be called a pervert, pedophile, or a rapist.
Guess what?  If you are being called a pervert, pedophile, or a rapist in the bathroom or locker room then you might want to get a clue and stay OUT OF THE LADIES ROOM until you are presentable enough to not cause people to be upset.  When I started my transition I never dreamed of just forcing my way into the ladies bathroom like, well like a pervert.  I eased into it, cautiously, until I felt confident that I was not going to cause a riot.  And if you have not had FULL SEX REASSIGNMENT SURGERY, then you have NO business being in a locker room.  It may be inconvenient.  It may seen fair to you.  But really, you walk around in a locker room where I am with your penis hanging out, and well, I carry pepper spray.  Your face, and an area that is clearly very precious are both getting a shot,

7. Your masculinity or femininity not be challenged because of your gender identity or trans status.

Maybe if you actually made an effort to appear as, and assimilate as, the gender you claim to identify with....  Ah, but they mention "trans status."  You see, they want, so to speak, to have their cake and eat it too.  They don't REALLY identify as women.  They want to force society to accept them as something they are not, and then they complain when people object.

8. Not be told that you are not man enough or woman enough because your genitalia does not “match” with your gender identity.

Maybe you should get a clue and stop trying to tell people that "women have penises."  If your gender identity is really what you say it is, then why aren't you seeking to correct it, and being patient until you achieve that goal.

9. Be able to walk down the street and not be targeted and be called a prostitute by the police because of your gender identity/trans experience.

You know, this is a lot less likely to happen if a) you dress like a normal woman, and b) you are not hanging out in an area where prostitutes are.  Funny, I have never once been accused of such, and I used to do outreach to transgender sex workers.  

10. Being able to go to the DMV and not legally be called the improper title (sir, madam, etc.) because of inaccurate identification.

This is a bit weird.  If you are going to the DMV, and it is not to update your identification then it strikes me that it is not the identification that is inaccurate.

11. Your birth certificate, the identity given to you at birth, matches your real identity and gender expression.

If you haven't had SRS then it should not be changed, and well, to be quite blunt, if you have not had SRS, and don't plan to, then it does match your real identity.  Birth certificates have NOTHING to do with gender expression.  If you have not changed your sex, you should not be able to change your birth certificate to lie about your sex.

12. Never having to go to court to prove who you are and get your id’s match your gender expression.

Well, boo hoo...  If you don't want to do that, then don't.  But don't call it cisgender privilege to not have to.

13. Be able to see people in the media who matches your gender identity who are not depicted as perverts, psychotic murderers, or the comic-relief/butt-end of jokes.

Okay, this shows what is really going on.  I see people in the media all the time that match my gender identity.  They are called WOMEN!!!  I would venture that about 50% of the people on TV are in that group.  So, what this kook who wrote this article is really saying and what puts the lie to all the rest, is that his gender identity is not really female, it is "trans."  He identifies as a dude pretending to be a woman, and complains that TV shows don't feature such people.

14. See a medical doctor anywhere who understands your health needs.

This has nothing to do with privilege, it is just a matter of choosing wisely.

15. Be able to undress in any designated safe space matching your gender identity without anyone seeing you as a threat, a sexual predator, or a freak.
in
If you have a penis, stay out of the women's dressing area.  You have no business being there.  It is a safe space because people like that, who DO NOT HAVE A FEMALE GENDER IDENTITY ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE THERE!!!!

16. Have access to medications and surgeries you need for your health, safety, and overall well-being and have it be covered by medical insurance.

Again, this has nothing to do with being "transgender."  It is a problem for a lot of people.

17. Find clothes easily and readily that matches your gender identity and expression.

Huh?  What, you mean like pantyhose with a place for you penis to fit into?  If you claim to be a woman, you should have no problem finding clothes.  If you claim to be a man, again, plenty of clothes.  Shoot, you can even find unisex stuff.  So, what is the problem?

18. Have a formal title, such as Mr., Ms., Mrs., Miss, that matches your gender identity and expression.

Again, it is clear that your gender identity is "none of the above."  So, don't be surprised if people have issues with you...

19. Being able to express your gender identity without the threat of being fired.

Try no insisting on dressing up in a manner that will upset your fellow employees and the customers.

20. Be able to join circles of men or women without the threat of being “exposed” and being harassed, shunned, bashed, and violently not accepted.

Well, since the person who wrote this clearly does not seem to identify as man or woman, that seems to be the cuase of rhis problem.

21. Not having to hear from parents “when you were a girl/boy then...” when you never identified as the gender given to you.

Cut your parents some slack.  This is hard enough on them.  If they are will to speak of your former sex in past tense, you are doing better than many....

22. Not be told you were selfish for not wanting to wear that dress/suit because it did not match your gender expression.

Again, people need time to adjust.  And yes, you might well actually be selfish...

23. Not have to come out to your parents, family, friends, and/or loved ones.

Then don't choose to be transgender.  And if you really are transsexual, sorry but that is part of the condition.

24. Be able to dress without having “tuck away” or “bind” anything.

Yes, just proudly have your penis erect under your dress...  After all, you are mighty fond of it.

25. Being comfortable in and not giving thought to a gender binary.

If you are not, then work to become so. If you don't want to, stop complaining.

Yes, this offers a great insight into what this is REALLY all about.  It is not a matter of need, but of choice.  And they want to force themselves on others.  They don't want to be women, they want to force people to abandon reality and make us accept and approve of their perversion.

The Radfems Have Some Good Points

I often state, only half-jokingly, that I am an extreme moderate, a member of the Radical Middle, the Far Center.  By that, I mean that I tend to disagree with those who are extremists. For example, I have a lot of disagreement with both extremists on both sides of the abortion issue.  I believe that abortion should be illegal except in cases of rape, incest (which I consider to be a form of rape), and to save the life of the mother.  I do not believe that women who have abortions should be prosecuted for doing so.  I believe that adoption is a superior alternative to abortion, and was once rather vulgarly attacked by someone (a note left on my windshield) because I had a bumper stick that read, "Don't Abort, I'll Adopt."  I have also been attacked by those who think I am a just too darned liberal on the issue because I don't favor executing women who have abortions, or think that abortion should be illegal, even if the mother's life is in danger (somehow it is lost on those extremists that the child will almost certainly die as well as the mother).  But, such is the nature of extremists.  I can respect your right to disagree, but I expect the same in return.

I feel the same way whenever a group of radical feminists start blindly attacking "transgender" people.  They tend to take a very broad brush approach.  But, I also find that the truth, again, falls somewhere in the middle.  The Radfems, as they are known, have some views that are, unfortunately, rooted in ignorance.  A lot of their philosophy is rooted in the rejection of a biological basis for gender.  To them, it is all nurture, and no nature.  Men and women are different because of social environment.  And yet, they also seem to take a "biology is destiny" view that rivals that of some on the extreme Right.  They push the idea that gender is oppression, but they wish to oppress those who feel their gender does not actually match their body.

Now, as I say, they have some good points.  The fact is, sadly, the vast majority of so-called "transwomen" (a term I don't care for) may be "trans" but they are not remotely women.  I am often amazed at how so many of them seem to take a surprisingly male approach to the act of "being a woman."  They seem "womanhood" as something to be taken by force, as an entitlement that they have a right to, and they attack anyone who has the audacity to challenge them on it.   

Just look at the behavior of the most extreme of transgender activists, like "Autumn" Sandeen, who decided that having himself castrated entitles him to claim that he is now a "womon born womon" (and yes, he actually used that spelling) and that he just might show up at the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival.  Look at "Colleen" Francis, and his supporters who think that a "transwoman's" right to flash his penis around a women's locker room trumps the rights of the women.  Even if young girls are involved.  Look at the style of "Cristan" Williams, and how his writing seems more that of a man trying to shove his views down women's throats than anything else.  He loves to gloat, strutting like a Banty rooster" when he imagines he has scored a victory (which is usually more imaginary than real, as he tends to present straw arguments and then ignore any refutation of his silliness).  I still get a laugh from his silly response when I refused to let him set the terms of a debate.  He refused to continue, and accused me of "the Jennifer Shuffle."  How, classically male, but not unusual.

And don't even get me started on the absurd, stereotypical way many transgender men (i.e. transwomen) think real women should behave.  Just check out a video or two of Mr. Sandeen flouncing around in one of his outfits.  It is an insult to women, period.  I remember once, a person who, in retrospect, was more likely transgender than transsexual, commented to me, "You dress like a housewife."  It was meant as a criticism, but I took it as a compliment.  I also remember, after attending a Halloween event at a local LGBT center, being told that several had wondered why a "straight woman" was there with her daughter.  Again, I took it as a compliment.    That is, after all, what I am.  Not a drag queen, not some bizarre caricature of a woman who favors the label "transwoman" because I want to hang on to my past, but simply an ordinary, run of the mill, woman.

Unfortunately, like most extremists, the Radfems paint with a broad brush.  And, unfortunately, they follow the transgender approach of lumping transsexuals in under the "umbrella" that is "transgender."  This is largely because they don't want to believe that there is a biological basis for transsexualism, which would refute their position that men and women are exactly the same emotionally and mentally, except where differentiated by nurture, even though that is clearly an invalid position.  But, when it comes to the behavior of the transgender, they are dead on.  Any woman should be offended by much of the behavior of transgender extremists, not just the Radfems, and no one should attack them for expressing such offense.  But Heaven help anyone who actually finds fault with transgender behavior.  Even if they are right on many of their points.