Another Example of Outrageous Behavior By Transgender Extremists

A while back, I wrote an article about a case here in San Francisco. Well, here is a follow-up, and well, it's pretty bad. To recap, back in April, I wrote about a 31 year-old male who goes by the by the name of Dana McCallum. He was arrested back on Jan. 26 of this year on suspicion of rape. Specifically, he has been charged with three counts of spousal rape, one count of false imprisonment and one count of domestic violence. Now, Mr. McCallum (oddly enough, his legal name is Dana Contreras) calls himself transgender "woman," and happens to be a programmer with Twitter, and was accused of raping his wife. He was just allowed to plead guilty to a couple of misdemeanor charges and got probation.

It is bad enough that he basically is getting away with rape, but what is even more outrageous is the response from other transgender "women."  They rallied to his support.  Here is someone, who is quite male, and who apparently has no desire to give up his penis, who claims to be a "woman," who raped a female, and a bunch of other men, who claim to identify as "women" tried to censor discussion about the case. 

Yes, the transgender extremists actually got GallusMag locked out of her blog, Gender Trender for over a week, apparently because they were afraid this case would publicize the fact that most transgender males do not have sex reassignment surgery, and would prefer to hang on to their penises.  Well, that and also the fact that transgender males commit sexual assaults at the same rate as other men.

And it should be noted that, again, the media reporting on this story, in an apparent attempt to pander to the transgender extremists, seems to be avoiding the detail that this person is still physically male, and intends to remain physically male.  This has led to more than a bit of confusion among people making comments on the case locally.

Yes, once again, the "men in dresses" club acts like, well, a bunch of men.  They are more concerned with protecting one of their own, than being outraged that a woman, who they claim to identify with, was raped.  Go figure.

I Can't Wait To See the Transgender Kooks Try To Spin This One

Ironically, right on the heels of another absurd article by Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen, in which he attacks Roseanne Barr for speaking out against certain behaviors by transgender males (just to be clear, I am talking about males who claim to be women), there comes a story that is going to be a real headache for those who try to claim that transgender males are not potentially a threat to women.  The award for most clueless headline has to go to the San Francisco Chronicle, which had:

S.F. women's rights advocate accused of raping wife

Okay, at first glance, you might assume that some man, who was known for advocating for women's rights, had been accused of raping his wife. But the lead paragraph is very confusing...

While attorneys for a women's rights advocate and prominent Twitter engineer accused of raping her estranged wife say the accuser is "out for revenge," a friend who says she was present after the incident said Friday that the wife just wants to teach her children that criminals must face justice.Now, this is where things start to get very strange...  You see, under California law, a woman cannot commit rape, which is defined on the basis of "sexual intercourse," and which later sections of the law make clear involves penetration by a penis...  The rapist is a transgender male, who has not had surgery (and presumably does not plan to have said surgery, as there should be little doubt that this dude could easily afford any SRS surgeon since he works in a very well paid position, and I would be surprised if Twitter does not cover SRS).  In California, you pretty much have to be a male (i.e. have a penis) to commit a rape (including spousal rape).  Otherwise, it is covered under a different statute. 

So, to be completely clear here, a 31 year-old male who goes by the by the name of Dana McCallum was arrested back on Jan. 26 on suspicion of rape. According to the San Francisco district attorney's office, he was charged with five felonies. Specifically, he has been charged with three counts of spousal rape, one count of false imprisonment and one count of domestic violence. As a curious aside, his legal name is given as "Dana Contreras"  In fact, two years ago, he was featured, under his legal name in an article, in The Advocate entitledThe Ten Most Innovative Companies and the LGBTs Who Got Them to the Top.  Sadly, you would not quite get that from the San Francisco Chronicle article, which goes out of its way to avoid mentioning that Contreas is transgender, or that he is a male.

Oh, and it should be noted that about a year ago, Contreas, in a speech he gave to at his high school, pulled the classic stunt of misleading people into thinking he had surgery.  Clearly, he has not, as if he had, it would impossible for him to be charged with rape.

Now, I will point out, in all fairness, at this point in time, Contreas has been charged, but not convicted.  On the other hand, it does not really look good for him.  His defense is a classic male tactic, of claiming it is all about "money," that his spouse, who he had served with divorce papers the day before, was hoping to cash in on his stock options.  Now, what that would have to do with "rape" is, of course, ignored by the attorneys.  California law would probably grant her a share in them anyway.  So, this so-called "women's rights activist" falls back on a classic dodge in an attempt to claim he didn't commit rape.  Sad...

It will be interesting to see how the likes of Mr. "Cristan" Williams and Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen deal with this embarrassment.  Of course, for the time being, I would not be surprised if they hammer the "not convicted" meme.  But, if this Contreas is convicted, and I would not be at all surprised if that occurs, it will be much harder for them to explain away.

Stay tuned...this could get very interesting.

Disagreement is NOT Hatred

One of the classic tactics of the transgender extremist kooks is to scream "hate" if someone so much as even slightly disagrees with them.  It happens all, the time, and yesterday, it popped up in a comment that got blocked for a violation of the one rule I have about commenting on this blog.  But I did want to address the foolishness expressed by Mr. "Jacqueline" Waters.

He starts off with an incredibly stupid bit of drivel…

If you look like a woman and you go in the mens room you are going to get harrassed and possibly abused and raped. I realize you hate transgender people just like many Jews hate jews.

Let's see…  Stupidity, mixed with lies, tossed with a nice Godwin's Law violation.  Yes, we have a classic bit of transgender silliness here.  Actually, you are going to get some shocked looks, and possibly someone trying to be helpful and tell you "Ma'am, you are in the wrong rest room."  Maybe in a bit of panic on the part of some poor guy who wonders just which of you made the mistake.  I know, from personal experience.  The last time I visited a men's room before I began living as myself full time, some poor gentleman looked absolutely aghast that a woman was in the men's room.  Not too long before that incident, I had a helpful employee on another occasion stop me and say, "Ma'am, your going into the wrong restroom…"  Fun times…

Now, quite frankly, Mr. Waters might be harassed because he looks a bit effeminate, but that is another matter.  No one is going to mistake him for a woman in either the men's room, or the women's room.  Of course, I realize he does face a dilemma and is going to cause problems in either.  Of course, causing problems is one of the thrills that transgender kooks seek.

Now, I don't appreciate garbage like what Mr. Waters spewed.  I had a dear friend who was a Holocaust survivor, and I don't like it when people toss around comments like that.  Besides, I honestly don't hate anyone.  I don't wish anyone to suffer harm, including rape.  But if one is engaged in deviant behavior, and pretending to be a member of the wrong gender, which is at the heart of the transgender lifestyle (i.e. men pretending to be women, or women pretending to be men) one does risk upsetting the wrong people.

He then goes on to make the false claim that I am "an advocate for rape of transgender people," and that I am one who "applauds for every name read on TDOR you now since you find we are not 'real women'…"  Uh, all I can say is, "Wow, talk about delusional…"  Actually, again, I don't delight in anyone's death.  And I have never advocated anyone getting raped.  People who are close to me have been victims of rape, and I find such comments highly offensive.  Mr. Waters is simply one sick fool to even suggest such a thing, but this does show the silliness of the transgender mindset.

And finally, he shows his complete ignorance, and blind believe in the rants of Mr. "Diane" Lask when he makes a comment about "the so called surgery you claim you have had with no break in posting for long enough to ever have a surgery like that and recover."  I would suggest he pop over to Google Groups, take a look at the newsgroup postings for February of 2006, and he might notice that I talked about my surgery coming up, and that I didn't post for some time.  I was in the hospital for a week, without Internet access (I asked before I went in…) and then because I had moved to a new unit in the building where I lived at the time on the day before I went in for surgery, it was another couple of weeks before my Internet was back up.  I got some support, and more than a bit of crap from the usual trolls at that time.  Oh well…it was something I did for myself, and no one else.  It is kind of amusing to go back and read some of the crap posted back then.  According to the trolls, I died (several times apparently), was on suicide watch, and "jumped the gurney."  It is kind of ironic that it is now claimed that I was posting the whole time people were asking where I was…

Actually, having SRS is a very profound experience.  I took a while before I felt up to dealing with both hooking up my Internet connection, and reading the crap I knew some would post.  When I was ready, I found it all quite laughable, then, and even more so now.

My advice to Mr. Waters, and the rest of the kooks at Shame On You Transgender Edition is to simply face the fact that you are not transsexuals, you are not "women," you will never be transsexual, you will always be transvestites (at best), and be proud of what you are, and stop trying to force your silliness on others.

And a footnote:  This is the 400th article on my blog…  A minor milestone, I suppose, but one worth a brief mention...

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.

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.

Huh?

Well, Mr. "Dana" Taylor just gets weirder and weirder.

First he posts...

Not bad for a crossdresser, eh Mr. Jennifer Usher? Had to throw that dig in. I am done paying attention to the bigot and hate monger.

Then he proceeds to make the next five out of six posts about me, with the most recent being  a link to a juvenile (in more than one way) video, where he makes the claim that I have asserted that his man boobs are hurting women all over the world.  

HUH?

Now, where he gets that I remotely said that in a post which was actually about how his behavior exposes him as just another  autogynephile (Bailey and Blanchard would have a field day with some this crazy) is, well, it just doesn't make ANY sense.  

Not to mention his regular comments here...and his persistence in mentioning me in comments every chance he gets.  

In any case, Mr. Taylor's obsession with me continues...  

Update:  Make that six out of seven...

He has posted two in one day.

Does he support rape?  Well, that is a matter of opinion, but he did decide to turn against the radfems, simply because they don't want to have sex with him.  I mean, that is what the whole cotton ceiling silliness is about...trying to force lesbians to accept transgender men, pre-or post op, to have sex with them.  No, I don't trivialize rape.  Mr. Taylor does when he tries, on the one hand, to force women into having sex with him against their will, and then tries to put on a show of false piety about the subject of rape to prove he is just one of the boys in dresses, whoops I mean, one of the "girls."

I take rape very seriously.  People who are very close to me have been raped.  And that is all  I will say on the subject, because I don't violate confidences and privacy.

Mr. Taylor...I think he is doing more harm to the transgender cause no, than he did when he was lying to himself (he was never a transsexual separatist, because, quite frankly, he was never a transsexual to begin with).

Mr. Williams' War on Women

Well, the man who wants to be the world's leading gender fascist continues his war on women.  I do not, repeat, do not agree with a lot of the extremism that comes from the Radical Feminists, but when I see the sort of crap that Mr. "Cristan" Williams is trying to pull, it actually makes me feel sorry for them.  Williams apparently has no clue as to how he comes across, or more likely, just doesn't care.

It started when, born of his anger that Victoria Brownworth does not support the right of men who claim to be women to force themselves on the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival.  Williams is also heavily involved in the "Cotton Ceiling" silliness, where "male lesbians" attempt to demand that real lesbians must have sex with them.  They cannot seem to accept the pretty much absolute right of someone to decline another as a sexual partner.  This really does begin to come very close to rape.

Well, Williams dug up a five year old article Brownworth did about pumping parties, which mentioned a young FTM, including the appearance of his genitals. Williams tried to accuse Brownworth of pedophilia and went so far as to contact authorities in an attempt to have charges filed.  Since then, Brownworth has alleged that she has been subjected to threats of violence and rape.  

Now, there is no way of easily ascertaining if Brownworth's allegations are true, but Mr. Williams' claims have been pretty much laughed away by everyone he has contacted.  If Brownworth's allegations are true, and it is very probably that they are, it would not be unreasonable to suspect that Williams might be responsible.  That does not mean that he is, just that he would be a reasonable suspect.

Williams now claims to have contacted the police and is alleging that statements by Brownworth, that she has contacted the police, are not true.  It should be noted that what he has specifically claimed is that a police report has not been filed against him.  While Brownworth did allude to Williams when mentioning filing a report, in reality, under such circumstances, unless Brownworth can show, objectively, that Williams is the culprit, the police would not have a report that "names" Williams.  Further, while the police might tell someone that they do not have a specific report on them (as in, no we are not looking to request you be arrested at this time) that does not mean that a report has not been filed.  Williams considers himself a master of spin, and this would not be the first time he has, in effect, lied like a cheap rug.  

I do know Mr. Williams can be quite obsessive about those he sees as an enemy.  He has very little respect for boundaries, unless he is the one setting them.  His behavior in this matter is outrageous, and his contempt for real women is highly disturbing.  And he actually wonders why transsexuals want no part of his little "movement."

This Would Be Funny If It Were Not So Infuriating

Okay, I just saw a post on Transadvocate where Dana Taylor has decided to join the transgender side.  Now, it is, of course, one's right to choose how one views the world, and who one wishes to align oneself with.  For me to say otherwise would be hypocrisy.

But when I read the reason, "The Cotton Ceiling" I had to do a bit of checking.  I knew it had something to do with the whole rad fem versus trans kerfuffle.  But I was not sure of the details.

Here is what I found...

“…the Cotton Ceiling – with reference to knickers – is the term parts of the trans community have inventively adopted for the way that, however theoretically accepting of trans people a lot of progressives may be, when it comes to actually having sex with us, they vote with their …um…feet.”

In other words, it is about complaining because someone is exercising their basic human right to choose who, and who not, to have sex with.  Now, let me be clear on several things here.  Since I completed my transition, I have had sex with several men, none of whom knew my history.  It was none of their business.  Unlike the transgender crowd, I have no need to reveal my medical history in order to get my jollies.  Had someone known, and decided to decline, I might have had my feelings hurt, but I would have seen it as their right to make that decision.  Just as it is my right to decide, for example, if I want to date someone who is an FTM.  I have done so, but I don't know that I would always make that choice.  I had one post op friend who was almost stalked by a rather obnoxious FTM.  She did not want to date him, but for a while, he was almost comical in his pursuit of her... almost, but more creepy than funny.

But according to the "cotton ceiling" crowd, lesbians should be ashamed of making a choice that it is their right to make.  Taken to its logical extreme, and I have actually seen this done, straight men should have no right to turn down a "trans woman," in other words, quite possibly, a dude in a dress, who wants to go to be with him.  Now, I had a few dates before surgery and on occasion the guy did not know when we first met. I alway was careful how I revealed my, uh, situation in order to avoid any violence.  I don't believe such violence is warranted, nor do I believe the trans panic defense should be allowed.  I also think pre-op transsexuals as well as transgender men, should exercise caution to avoid being injured or worse, murdered.  But this cotton ceiling crap is just creepy.  If you feel the need to broadcast your history, people have a right to take it into consideration when deciding if they want you as a sexual partner.  There is a word for trying to deny someone the right to make a decision based on that knowledge.  It is called rape.  If a woman does not want to have sex with you because she does not believe you are an appropriate partner, whether that woman is of trans history or not (and I have known of trans women, who identified as lesbian, who also did not want to have sex with transgender men, but you insist they do not have that right, then hey Bro' you are proving, you da man!

If anyone wants a good example of the sort of behavior that lies behind my statement that I don't "misgender" transgender men, this is one of the best....  

It's Really Very Simple...

Much sound and fury has been expended over Roseanne Barr's remarks about transgender men (sorry boys, but I am not going to call you women) going into women's spaces.  Now, Barr, who I still think of as being a few French fries short of a Happy Meal, no doubt, quite ignorantly include transsexual women under her remarks, but this is an issue that is bigger than just Roseanne (and yes, that would be huge).  

Jillian Page, a post-op in Canada had this to say on the issue:

I think I wasn’t upset by her comments because I have had sexualreassignment surgery, and have reconciled that part of my body with myheart and my brain. But if I had not had the surgery yet and foundmyself facing the same problems so many pre-op and non-op trans peopleface over the washroom issue, perhaps I, too, would have takenRoseanne to task for her somewhat careless, off-the-cuff comments, forwhich she apologized.

Now, there is a problem here, and I have to wonder if Page really has thought this through.  Page, I realize is pretty much swilling down the transgender Kool-Aid, but there is something here that needs to be confronted.

It is really, very, very simple.  If you call yourself a pre-op, and you cannot comprehend that the obvious presence of your penis in a place like the women's room, or a locker room, might be upsetting to women, then...STAY OUT!!!!  Put another way, if you think you have some absolute right to be in the women's room, even though you are a pre-op, if you think that women should not be upset having your penis exposed in a dressing room, if you think you have a right to enter women's spaces, even though you not corrected your body, let me be clear...YOU DON'T!!!

Just to be completely clear here, if you have these sort of attitudes, if you cannot comprehend how women might feel about your penis, if you think they should "just get over it," well, YOU ARE NOT, AND YOU NEVER WILL BE, A WOMAN!!!!!  YOU ARE A MAN!!!  GOT THAT?  A MAN!!!!  NO AMOUNT OF HORMONES, SURGERY, OR FANTASY, WILL EVER CHANGE THAT.  SO STAY OUT OF WOMEN'S SPACES.  WE DON'T WANT YOU, YOU ARE NOT WELCOME!!!!!

As to crossdressers, non-ops, and such, well...you really shouldn't even be considering being in the women's room.    Sure, man that you are, you will force your way in.  You have no shame, and are not really that much different in attitude or behavior from a rapist.  It is all just a matter of degree.

When I was pre-op, I was always aware that, in a sense, I was an interloper.  I appreciated that I was accepted into the company of woman, albeit without their knowledge of my past in most cases.  I was always very sensitive to any uneasiness on the part of a female friend who knew my situation, under such circumstances.  And the idea of being in a situation where my privates would be exposed made me close to physically ill.

But now, more and more, the transgender extremists think that women are supposed to "just get over it."  They really don't realize just how digesting they are.  What they are doing is simply proving that Janice Raymond was right to a degree.  It was just that she didn't understand certain nuances, and perhaps, didn't care.

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.

You Can't Make This Stuff Up!

Over at "EHIPASSIKO" the blog site of "Cristan" Williams, there is a new post that is, well, it is just unbelievable.  Williams tries to argue that, in the context of the bathroom, women are in as much danger, if not more, from other women, as they are from men.  That is, this "transwoman" is trying to say that men pose no more of a danger than other women.  Unbelievable!  And, of course, this is done with very questionable evidence.


Now, clearly, anything is possible.  The issue is not, "Are women totally and completely safe from possible assault and even rape if men are never allowed into a women's bathroom?"  That would be absurd.  The issue is, "Will women's safety, and their comfort, be affected negatively by the presence of men in dresses in the women's room."  This, of course, is completely lost on a gender fascist like Williams who wishes to assert that the moment a man puts on a dress, he becomes completely and fully a female with all attendant rights and privileges.  Williams joins with fellow kook "Monica" Roberts in proclaiming that they now have a "neo-clit" in their panties and that they are thus superior to natal women, and must be given special privilege. 


Now, Williams offers as evidence for this assertion a series of articles involving assaults, one rape, and a rather bizarre case (cited twice) of a pair of women engaging in sex in a bathroom,  apparently in front of a child.  Unfortunately for Williams, the rape case is not a very good argument as the case was later dismissed.  It may well have never even happened.  Or at least not have been an actual rape (it involved digital penetration).


Now, it seems incredible to me that anyone claiming to be a woman would ever make an argument that other, uh, natal women are as much of a threat as men are.  Of course women fight with each other.  And of course such fights might even occur in the ladies room.  But that is not really the issue;  The issue is sexual violence, which overwhelming involves men, whether it is rape, or some other form including voyeurism.


As I say, you can't make this stuff up...not that I would want to. 


Oh, and a simple solution to the bathroom issue.  Access to the women's room should be available only to those who are in transition, seeking surgery, on hormones, and who are living full time,  It could be linked to changes of identification, which should be time limited.  If the person is not making progress towards surgery, they would revert to an 'M' on their ID and be banned from the women's room.  Simple.  And fair.  If you are a crossdresser, find a family room or a place with a single, one person bathroom and stay out of places you don't belong.  And this includes full time crossdressers with "neo-clits" like "Monica" Roberts.

The "Empire" Strikes Out

In 1979 a former nun turned radical lesbian-feminist named Janice Raymond wrote a book called "The Transsexual Empire."  In it, she viciously attacked transsexuals, and in particular, those who claimed to be lesbians.  Raymond, who was a lesbian-separatist considered them to be invading "women's space."  And ever since, some, particularly those who themselves identify as "transsexual lesbians" have been obsessed with Raymond and her views.


Personally, I find Raymond to be a bit of a bad joke.  Her book was ludicrous.  She has no understanding of the true nature of transsexualism, coming at the subject from the classic radical feminist position that socialization is the only factor differentiating men and women.  Raymond ignores the role that biology plays.  And, quite simply, Raymond was terrified that she might encounter a transsexual and not know they were born male.  For want of a better term, Raymond was terribly "heterophobic."  Sort of the lesbian equivalent of a man who loses it when he finds out the woman he is with was born male.  


Now, "Autumn" Sandeen, a pseudo-transsexual kook who pretty much fits the stereotypes that Raymond attributed to all transsexuals, is dragging up Raymond's diatribe again.  And, ironically, Mr. Sandeen is using it to attack true transsexuals.


At the heart of Mr. Sandeen's latest diatribe is his same tired insistence that he is a woman, albeit, a transwoman.  Of course, the problem is, "transwoman" is, at the very least, an oxymoron.  There is really no such creature.  Transgender, by its very nature, precludes someone who was born male from actually claiming womanhood.  It is an open repudiation of actually being a woman, and certainly of actually being a transsexual.  Those who identify as transgender tend to cling to their histories.  They want to claim to be women, while keeping one foot in their maleness.  And worse, they show utter contempt for anyone who does not wish to share in their bizarre behavior.


In the article, Mr. Sandeen quotes Sandy Stone, who was attacked by Janice Raymond in her book.  Stone was a sound engineer with Olivia Records, a music company specializing in women's music.  Stone was a post-op who, at the time, identified as a lesbian.  Stone has since married a man and is now a professor at an university in Texas.  A few years after Raymond's book, Stone wrote a diatribe entitled "The Empire Strikes Back: A Posttranssexual Manisfesto."


Now, in Stone's essay, there is a section where Stone seems to attack those who "pass."  This is something, of course, that Mr. Sandeen wholeheartedly embraces:

To "read oneself aloud" -- I embrace the concept for myself. It is a posttranssexual experience for me to embrace a transgender experience as my own, diversity-minded experience. I know that reading myself aloud, this being out and proud as both transsexual and transgender, has been defining for who I've developed into. I certainly will not pay the extremely high price of silence for personal acceptance within any portion of our broad society.

There are a couple of problems with the above statement.  First off, Mr. Sandeen is not remotely a transsexual, and secondly, for him to speak of being "postranssexual" is completely absurd.  You can't be "post" something you are not to begin with.  And clearly, Mr. Sandeen is not a transsexual.  If he is "posttranssexual," then he is, in effect, saying that he has completed his transition.  Since he is an intact male, he is effectively declaring himself, again, to be non-op.  A year or so ago, he had begun claiming he was surgery tracked, though he showed no apparent need to move ahead with any plans for surgery.  That seemed fishy at the time, and now he again seems to be taking a non-op position.


Likewise, another transgender extremist, "Monica" Helms, who was also, for a period, claiming to be surgery tracked, not only appears to have returned to the "they will take my penis when they pry my cold, dead fingers from it" camp, but also appears to be frantically opposed to the very idea of surgery being a covered benefit under insurance.


Mr. Helms launches into a bizarre, and completely dishonest diatribe about how insurance coverage for surgery would not make any difference.  First off, if it is covered by health insurance, it is covered like any other necessary surgery.  The claim that one has to pay up front, and is then reimbursed is an outright lie.  I know.  I had my surgery paid for by insurance, and my main out of pocket expenses where a $250 co-pay, and the cost of my dilators.  Everything else was paid for.  Now, not all medical coverage is as good.  If I had another plan, I would have paid more.  But if I had that other plan, I would pay more for any medical procedure.  If, say, I needed bypass surgery, I would have paid the same amounts.  


Why does Mr. Helms make these silly claims?  Because if his health insurance actually covered the costs of surgery, he would lose an excuse for keeping his penis.  He needs to maintain that illusion that he would have surgery, except it costs too much.  Never mind the fact that he bought a house, rather than seek surgery.  For a true transsexual nothing is more important than corrective surgery.  For someone like Mr. Helms, nothing is more important than finding an excuse to keep his penis.


Mr. Helms also raises the ridiculous claim about people being "non-ops" for health reasons.  This is also not remotely legitimate.  Yes, there was a time when people were denied surgery for reasons such as being diabetic (which I am), or being HIV positive (which I am not),  or other conditions.  As surgery for true transsexuals is increasingly recognized as medically necessary and not just elective doctors are more willing to take risks, and in most cases any contraindication is only a temporary situation.  People are "non-ops" because they are not transsexuals.  They want to keep their penises.  I had a friend who was a brittle diabetic.  Her blood sugar was very poorly controlled.  She had been denied surgery for years, but before she died, she convinced a doctor to remove her penis and testicles and complete everything except creating a vagina.  She didn't live much longer after that, and died of unrelated causes, but she was a transsexual.  Mr. Helms, is not.


As one commenter points out, by claiming to be transsexual, but rejecting surgery, they are undermining those who really do need it.  They either do not care that they hurt true transsexuals, or more likely, that is their goal.  They know they are not really transsexuals and they hate those who are.


So, why do they so desperately cling to the claim that they are transsexual?  Because they want the benefits that they believe transsexuals have.  They want to force society to grant them legal status as females, even though they have no intentions of giving up their penises.


It is ironic that people like Mr, Sandeen, and Mr. Helms, claim that being "out, loud, and proud" is about being honest, and yet they are anything but honest.  They want to claim the status of being something they are not.  They want to claim to be transsexuals when they have no desire to change their sex.  They want to change their birth certificates to indicate that they are female, while retaining their penises.  They want to change their passports, again without giving up their penis.  They want to claim to women, even though they are clearly, and happily, men.


They cannot possibly fool people into thinking they are really women, so they dig in and demand that people suspend reality and go along with their delusions.  And, again, they attack those who can successfully live as women.  And no, it is not about appearances.  It is about behavior.  I have met many who looked quite convincing, but who had such totally male attitudes that the illusion that they are actually women quickly fades.


This is why Raymond bothers them so much.  They are exactly the sort of men that Raymond saw all transsexuals as.  I would be willing to bet there were probably transsexuals that Raymond did not know were transsexuals.  Of course, the very idea of actually being a woman is lost on people like Mr. Sandeen and Mr. Helms.  They are men playing a game of dress up.


One of the issues that Raymond makes a big fuss over is privilege.  I always find this somewhat amusing.  For a classic transsexual, male privilege is as unknown as it is for any other woman.  We grew up being seen as, for want of a better term, "defective males."  We were labeled as "sissies" and while we were not, perhaps, treated exactly like females, we were not treated as normal males either.  Our status was, quite often, not unlike that that many women experience, but at the same time, lacking in many of the advantages that they had.  For example, we certainly lacked the protection from violence that, at least in the past, extended to females.  But we also were denied the sort of status that leads to privilege.  On the other hand, men like Mr. Sandeen, and Mr. Helms, were leading successful and happy lives in the military.  Apparently, they were crossdressers, and as sometimes happens, they have decided to take their "hobby" to the next level.


The bottom line to all of this is that it seems truly odd that some are so obsessed with being accepted by the tiny handful of kooks who make up radical separatist feminism (the sort who think all heterosex is rape and that men should be eliminated).  This is a group that is at the far extreme, and yet some waste an incredible amount of time worrying about the fact that they do not accept "transgender" people as "real women."  So what?  There are always going to be people who don't accept the concept of sex reassignment.  And shoot, I seriously doubt that the vast majority of people really accept kooks like Mr. Sandeen and his ilk as "real women."  I mean, seriously...a bunch of men, playing dress up, while making it clear that they were born men, that they intend to keep their penises, acting in a very masculine manner (and blissfully unaware of that behavior in most cases), and demanding that they be called women?  Granted, they are as looney as the extremist feminists that they obsess over.  Maybe that explains it all...

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.

The Issue of Rape

I read a lot of blogs. Sometimes I find new ones as links on other blogs. One I found this way is "Bird of Paradox," which is listed on Suzan Cooke's blog roll at "Women Born Transsexual." Now, there was a recent article there that dealt with the case in England where a "pre-op transsexual" who is serving a life sentence was moved from a men's prison to a women's one. Part of the reasoning was that being in a men's prison prevented this person from completing the real life test in order to have sex reassignment surgery.

Now, this is the sort of thing that might seem worthy of celebration as an enlightened view of the medical necessity of medical treatment for those with HBS. It might, but the facts of the case actually show that it is outrageous.

You see, the prisoner in question was convicted of manslaughter and attempted rape. Now, under English law, manslaughter has a different meaning than it does in the United States. The exact details of the case are not clear, but it is entirely possible that the death occurred in the process of attempting the rape, and that the rape is "attempted" only because the victim died before actually being violated. Such a case would be considered "involuntary manslaughter" if the death was not intended, but could still result in a life sentence given the seriousness of the crime in process when the death occurred. This seems the most likely scenario given that the court decision refers to a conviction, not convictions.

Now, the author of Bird of Paradox was quite thrilled at the decision. I tried to post a comment pointing out that it seems questionable that a man who is capable of such a violent act is actually a transsexual, and that such a person should definitely not be allowed to be present in a women's prison while still an intact male. My comment was not allowed because I was "ungendering" this person. In a follow-up email, the author pointed out that "Prisoner B" "has been granted a Gender Recognition Certificate which makes her legally a woman." The author simply cannot see that there might be a danger to the women this person might be incarcerated with.

Now, as bad as the above is, a newer post on Bird of Paradox serves to show the true absurdity of the transgender mindset. It seems that there is a "Feminism in London 09 event." The author expresses concern that this event might not be welcoming to "trans women."

Any trans woman seeing that will surely already hear the alarm bells ringing. It shouldn’t need restating that the word “woman” defaults to meaning “cis woman” and excludes trans women as a consequence. And “pro-feminist man”? I wonder if that includes trans men?

Now, I identify as a woman, not a "trans woman," so I would not be disturbed by such a remark. If there was something that interested me, I would have no qualms about attending.

But what really upsets the author of Bird of Paradox is the fact that a "Rape and sexual violence workshop is for "women born women" only.

Now first off, it is just possible that this is simply because it avoids the sticky issue of determining who might, or might not, have a penis. After all, in the transgender mindset, "women can have penises, and even wish to keep those penises." And it is just possible that a group of women discussing an issue like rape and sexual violence might not wish to have men who are capable of engaging in that behavior present simply because they are wearing a dress.

Or, just possibly these women see a very simple fact that is obvious to me. Given that the author of "Bird of Paradox" claims to be a spokesperson for "trans women," and given the cluelessness of this person with regards to putting an intact male, convicted of manslaughter and attempted rape in a women's prison, it is just possible that they might possibly view "trans women" as not being welcome in such a discussion. I know I would certainly not want someone with that sort of mentality present.

Just to make it clear...rape is not a sexual crime. It is a crime of violence. A rapist uses his penis as a weapon against a woman. It is not about sexual desire, but about a desire for the ultimate domination and humiliation of a woman. In an intimate discussion of this issue, I doubt many women would want someone who is incapable of understanding this to be present.

The Reason Why...

The issue has been raised over why many who identify as HBS or classic transsexuals object so strongly to the efforts of transgender activists. The implication is often made that we are somehow elitist and hateful to the efforts to of what I have termed the gender fascists. Well, as story out of England is the perfect example of what is truly wrong with the efforts of the transgender types. Here is one version:

'Prisoner A' is legally female, and being held in a men's prison
A trans woman, serving a life-sentence for manslaughter and attempted
rape claims the court denying her application for residence in a
women's prison violates her human rights.

The prisoner, who for legal reasons can only be identified as
'Prisoner A,' placed an application to a UK court to be relocated to a
women's prison but had her request declined.

Prisoner A has already successfully had her gender officially
recognisd by law, having her birth certificate updated under the
Gender Recognition Act 2004. She has had laser hair removal on her
face and legs as well as developeing breasts following hormone
treatment.

Addressing the High Court, the woman's lawyer stated that 'keeping her
in a men's prison was a violation of the right to respect for her
private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human
Rights.' Prisoner A watched the proceedings from prison via video
link.

The lawyer told the court Prisoner A was desperate to get her gender
reassignment surgery, but that medics refused to perform the procedure
until she had lived as a woman for a significant amount of time, which
would only be possible in a women's prison.

'A' has been forbidden from wearing any female clothing such as skirts
or blouses, and anything more than 'subtle makeup', even though she is
being held in the vulnerable prisoner's wing.

Prison staff and authorities argue that she will be no better off in a
women's prison and that, if moved, she would have to spend long
periods in segregation at an extra cost of £80,000 per year

The hearing has been adjourned to a later date.

This is exactly the sort of thing that the gender fascists would love to impose on the United States. Thankfully, they have been largely unsuccessful in their radical attempts to pressure states to allow pre-ops or even those who have no intention of ever seeking sex reassignment to change their birth certificates. To say that "Prisoner A" is legally a woman is an outrage. First off, this person is physically a male. And quite obviously, in spite of claims to the contrary, this person is also mentally a man. Women might commit murder, but the idea that someone who would commit a rape, which is a violent crime where a man seeks the ultimate domination over a woman, might be mentally a female is absurd. This person is obviously in need of serious help, but sex reassigment is not what is needed.

And worse, to even suggest that such a person should be allowed to be placed in a women's prison is totally beyond the pale. Beyond the fact that he is still physically a male, there is also the fact that he would clearly be a danger to those incarcerated there. But, I have little doubt that, if this case were in the United States, many, if not most, of the gender fascists would be fighting for his right to claim to be a woman.

And that is why it is important to continue to oppose them and their efforts to redefine concepts that no one has seriously doubted since mankind began.

.
.