Political Correctness Versus Medical Accuracy

A thought occurred to me the other day...

Let's consider two scenarios....  

In the first, someone is berating a transsexual woman for wishing to have SRS and then simply get on with having a normal life as a woman, effectively just blending in and not being out, loud, and proud, as a "trans woman," but simply wishing to be normal.

In the second, someone is pointing out to a person that perhaps they should reconsider their plans after seeing where they have made this comment concerning having an orchidectomy:

Most interestingly, some people have asked whether I’ll get to keep them after they’ve been removed. And some surgeons do let you take them home! I figure we’ll preserve them in a jar, display it on our bookshelves, and use it as a weird prop for videos. (Anyone who knows what chemicals and processes are necessary to do this, hit me up.)

Now, the question is, which of these situations, if either, would you consider to be "transphobic."  Is berating someone for wanting to transition, and simply live as a woman an example of "transphobia."  Is warning someone who is clearly having some rather bizarre fantasy about what they are going to do with their testicles after having them removed that they might be making a mistake ""transphobic?"

Well, it appears that if you asked a lot of transgender extremists they would probably say that the first is not only not transphobic, but that the behavior the person is being berated for is, itself, "transphobic."

On the other hand, trying to warn someone that their planned behavior is indicative of some serious mental health issues would earn you a nice label of being "transphobic."

In addition to the seriously bizarre bit about keeping his testicles in a jar, the person in question, "Zinnia" Jones, has some other very interesting comments on his blog.  For example....

I’m comfortable with the way my genitals currently function, and SRS would alter that significantly, with a potential risk of losing sensation and the ability to orgasm. There are also a number of serious complications that can occur, and revision surgeries are often necessary. If SRS were perfect, I’d be much more willing to have it done. But as is, I personally don’t consider it worth the risk of compromising what I have now. This is just my own evaluation of my options – something that each person has to decide for themselves.

Now, this is clearly a person who is not remotely a transsexual.  During my transition, I considered the possibility of an orchidectomy as an intermediate step, in order to reduce the amount of hormones I was taking, but I learned that it is frowned upon my most SRS surgeons for certain technical reasons.  But I can state, without hesitation, that I was never "comfortable with they way my genitals currently function" prior to SRS.  I wanted that changed significantly, and while I would certainly have been unhappy with a loss of sensation (thankfully not the case) it was a risk I was willing to take.  Then again, my motivations for having SRS were neither sexual nor, more to the point fetishistic.

If we look at another statement on this person's blog, we can see more of what is going on here...

I should emphasize that I personally find the whole-body changes induced by HRT to be much more important than obtaining a vagina. People tend to reduce all of transitioning to being solely about correcting your genitals, as if that’s the entirety of what a “sex change” is. And yes, for many trans women, having a vagina is a priority. But there’s still much more to this than rearranging small pieces of flesh that most people will never even see.

Now, all of this might seem more understandable if it were written by, oh say, a person who had a lifelong history of crossdressing, and was suddenly transitioning at the ago of, say, 50. But the person in question is clearly much younger.

What we see here is clearly autogynephila.  Of that, there is no question.  These are not the words of a transsexual, but, at least originally, the primary determination of whether a person was, or was not, an autogynephile was age at transition.  If a person was below a certain age (never really clear) they were a "homosexual transsexual" and over a certain age, again, not clearly defined, they were an "autogynephile."  

The theory first put forward by Ray Blanchard, and then taken up by Michael Bailey and Anne Lawrence was intended to basically discredit transsexualism.  We are all supposed to be gay men, who are just too gay to be men, or straight men with a fetish, basically transvestites who are taking it to an extreme.  Interestingly, many in the so-called "transgender community" have somewhat taken up this line of reasoning.  

A person who is "happy with the how their genitalia functions" really should not be allowed to make permanent, and irreversible changes, including orchidectomy.  Granted, this is not as drastic as full SRS, but it is simply not medically justified.  Hopefully, this person will simply not be able to find a therapist willing to approve the surgery, or a surgeon willing to perform it.

This is just one example of the idiocy that results from the current trends in transgender extremism.  There is no concern for what is actually beneficial or harmful, just for pushing an extremist agenda.

Transgender is a essentially meaningless, highly subjective, term that describes an artificial social/political construct.  There is no objective criteria for exactly what makes someone "transgender" other than transgender extremists trying to insist that transsexuals have to identify that way, whether they wish to or not.

This is the approach pushed by extremists such as Mister "Autumn" Sandeen (yes, you got tagged again, because you said something idiotic again) such as he did in a comment on an article on Notes From the T Side.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Research is NOT the Issue

I wanted to further address some of the silliness that Mr. "Cristan" Williams claims in his post How Not To Do Research.  

First off, I make no claim to be doing "research."  I simply did a bit of fact checking that exposes Mr. William's rather bizarre claims as, well, bogus.  He attempts to claim that the term "transgender" was in widespread use before the rise of the "transgender movement" in the Nineties, and that said rise is actually a myth.  He does this because, well, when examined closely, the "transgender movement" doesn't look all that good.  It basically consists of a bunch of crossdressers trying to co-opt transsexualism.  Something that has given rise to the transsexual movement that Mr. Williams keeps pronouncing to be dead, but never quite is.

But, Mr. Williams doesn't do research either, unless you consider what Blanchard and Bailey do to be research.  Research is a search for facts and the truth.  What Blanchard, Bailey, and Mr. Williams engage in is an attempt to prove a view that has no basis in fact, and an attempt to manufacture evidence to fit their view.

Now, Mr. Williams' approach is something along the lines of, "If I can show that the term "transgender" was used in the past, no matter how rarely, or how isolated, or even if it was used in a completely different context, that will prove that Virginia Prince and other did not create a movement that basically co-opted transsexuals."  Sorry, but no.  Ideas can appear, and then fade, and someone else have the same idea, completely on their own.

For example, I invented the laser printer.  Seriously.  Back in the late-Seventies, at a time when dot-matrix and modified IBM Selectrics ruled the scene, I invented the laser printer.  Someone explained to me how a copy machine worked.  Basically, a series of lenses focus an image on a electrostatic drum, which transfers toner to a page which is then run through heater rollers, fusing the toner into the paper.  It occurred to me that a laser beam could be used to "draw" images from a computer on that drum, with the rest of the process pretty much the same.  I thought it up, on my on, and sadly, did not have the good sense to even consider getting a patent.  It would not have made any difference.  Someone else, completely unknown to me had the same idea, and patented it, a few years before I had my idea.  But hey, that sort of thing happens.  Liebnitz and Newton both "invented" calculus, and fought over who was first.  But they both had the same idea, quite separately (well, to a point, anyway).  Newton gets the credit (at least partly because he used his position to insure that he got it) and we use Liebnitz's notation for the most part.  But two different people had the same idea.  So, it is entirely possible, and based on the evidence, quite probable, that the term transgender was invented, and reinvented several times before the movement that many want no part of arose.

Mr. Williams can double talk all he wants.  He can play with graphs, and then try to link me to Fox News, when he is actually the one doing what Fox is accused of.  But, he can't really prove his claims.

Oh, and in a comment to an article by Suzan Cooke, he makes the false claim that I call anyone I disagree with a man.  No, not true at all.  If that were true, I would certainly be calling Cooke a man.  I call men, men.  "On what basis?" one might legitimately ask.  Well, there are several.  First, I look at whether the person vibes as a woman.  This is the primary one, and no, it has nothing to do with stereotypes.  I have known very masculine women, who were still women.  I have known very feminine men, who were still men.  It is one of those things that is hard to define, but if you think about it, commonly experience.

Mr. WIlliams, simply put, truly comes across as a man, and nothing but a man.

I also look at how the person presents their self to the world.  Do they present primarily as a woman, or is it primarily as a "transgender."  As I have said, you can be a woman, or you can be trans, but not really both.  If you feel the need to strongly qualify what you are, you probably aren't.

And finally, and also very importantly, I look at how they relate to women.  Do they have no regard for women's feelings, needs, privacy, security...?  Do they understand that women see the world differently from men?  Clearly, many don't.  

Lies, Damn Lies, Statistics, and Mr. Williams

Well, as I sort of expected, Mr. Williams did not take kindly to having his theories...well, proven to be total fiction.  And, as I expected, he has made a rather pitiful attempt to lie his way out of it.  There is not much else he can do....

He begins with his usual ad hominem (he refers to anyone he disagrees with as a troll) and then, well, he really blows it.

He produced a laughable graph that he attempts to claim trumps mine.  What he has actually done is resort to such a dishonest tactic that he has destroyed any hope of credibility.  You see, he is trying a bit of misdirection.  He produced a graph, that shows big values for transgender, but which, because of the way it is constructed, is actually deceptive and then he attempts to pull the wool over people's eyes (and some will reach up and help him move it into place, I am sure) by calling on people to compare to graphs that are not really comparable.

What he has done is sort of like comparing a map that has a scale of one inch to one hundred miles, that shows the Eastern Seaboard and another map, that has a scale of one inch for one thousand miles miles of the entire United States, and claiming that that they show the second shows that New York is closer to Los Angeles than it is to Washington, D.C.  You cannot make the comparison he is making.

My graph shows the relationship between three words over a longer period.  His compares several different words, over a much shorter period.  Because his graph has a different set of words, and a different time range, difference between the occurrence of the words are more exaggerated.  This makes it look like "transgender" shows up quite often.  But in truth, it just shows that it shows up more often than the other words, and in particular, he compares "transgender" with "Transgender."  That alone would render the results invalid since the program is case sensitive.

Here is a more accurate version of what he produced:

 It compares the two words from my chart, which is not what he used.  And it has smoothing of zero, which is more accurate for a smaller time period.  Simply put, there is a very tiny blip in 1974, but relatively speaking, the word "transgender" is non-existent during this period compared to "transsexual."  Oh, and yes, I could have set smoothing to 3, which would have showed an absolute flat graph for "transgender."  

It should also be noted that he took a comment out of context.  As I pointed out, later in the article, which he conveniently ignores, the word occurs in a few isolated sources.  But it was not of any significance until around 1990.

Sorry Mr. Williams, but you cannot lie your way out of this one.  You can only make yourself look more foolish.

Transition Versus Transgression

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

A Bit Cranky...

In scholarly circles, the term "crank" is used to refer to those people, usually with little or no actual academic training, who claim to have solved some classic math problem, or to have discovered some new "theory" in physics, or such.  They are, of course, inevitably wrong, and in many cases, their "discovery" is quite imaginative.  Here is what Wikipedia has to say about these people:

1. Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of acknowledged experts.
2. Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important.
3. Cranks rarely, if ever, acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial.
4. Cranks love to talk about their own beliefs, often in inappropriate social situations, but they tend to be bad listeners, being uninterested in anyone else's experience or opinions.

Well, "Cristan" Williams has now earned that title.  He has dismissed quite a bit of scholarly research in favor of his clearly biased ideas concerning the origins of the term "transgender."  He claims that someone, vaguely referred to as "Dr. Rawson," travelled across the country, to view the Houston transgender archives.  I would assume, following a bit of quick research on Google, that this is "K.J Rawson," who lectures at the University of Kentucky, and who seems to like the word "queer" an awful lot.  While my original impression was that Rawson probably identifies as "genderqueer," I have been informed that the correct identity is "female to male transgender person."


Anyone who has dealt with Williams can tell you that the four points above are dead on with regards to his behavior.  


So, we have a kook who thinks he knows more than real academics now claiming that his research trumps that published in peer reviewed journals.  Oh well...


I would strongly urge Dr. Rawson to take anything found in the archives created by Mr. Williams with a very large grain of salt.

Thanks, But No Thanks!

"Cristan" Williams has put up another post where he tries to sound very reasonable, claiming to only want to be "inclusionist" as opposed to us nasty separatists.  Well, again, the answer is "No thanks."  What Mr. WIlliams keep trying to gloss over is that there are substantial differences in the political and social views that are inherent in the "transgender movement" that he wishes to "include" people in, and those of us who he insists on labeling "separatists."  We simply do not share his political and social views.  We differ from him on major issues, and there is simply no common ground on which we can meet.


Why, he and other gender fascists (a much more accurate term than "inclusionists") cannot accept this is beyond me.  We don't view things the same way, and we want no part of his movement.  Period.  End of story.


And no amount of trying to paint himself as reasonable is going to change that.  Especially when all he is really doing is posting his usual straw arguments...

A Right Strawy Post...

Martin Luther did not care for the Epistle of James, and once referred to it as a "right strawy epistle."  Well, when I saw gender fascist's "Cristan" Williams' latest attack on Ashley Love, those words came to mind.  Not exactly in the way that Luther meant them, but because Mr. Williams is up to his usual trick of positing straw arguments.  BTW, didn't he declare the transsexual separatist movement dead?  So, why is he still so obsessed with it?  


Anyway, Mr. Williams makes his usual ad hominem attacks, and then issues the following challenge to Ashley Love:

MY CHALLENGE TO ASHLEY LOVE:

1. Produce objective evidence proving that Virginia Prince used the word “transgender” in the 1960s or 70s.
2. Produce objective evidence proving that Virginia Prince used the term “transgenderist” before 1978.
3. Produce the objective evidence which led Love to conclude that the historical record has been faked.
4. Produce objective evidence proving that “transgender” wasn’t used in its modern usage back in 1974.
5. Produce objective evidence proving that the term “transgender” is only 20 years old instead of at least 42 years old.

I suspect that Ashley Love will again, quite properly, decline to engage Mr. Williams.  But, what the heck, I am more than willing to expose him for the fraud that he really is.  This is the same straw arguments he has  made before, and here again are some responses dealing with this drivel:

1.  An irrelevant, and dishonest question.  The issue is not a person, nor a word, but is a concept.   In the 1960's and 70's Prince was pushing his anti-homosexual and anti-transsexual views.  He wanted to protect his followers from their wives, who would he knew would be upset if they thought their husbands might be attracted to men, or worse, interested in changing sex.  
2. Prince's use of the term "transgenderist" was a major contributing factor in the rise of the silliness we now know as "transgender."  He began pushing the idea that men who had fantasies of being women could live "en femme" full time.
3. The so-called "historic" record seems to only exist for Mr. Williams.  His sources are almost all obscure publications that are not readily available.  That, in and of itself, does not provide objective proof.  But then again, Mr. Williams has not really provided anything that could remotely be called "objective" or "proof."  He has provided links to PDFs of what he claims are scans of documents.  The problem is, there does not seem to be any independent objective confirmation of the originals.  Now, this leads to Mr. Williams engaging in a classic dishonest tactic in debating....effectively demanding that his opponents "prove a negative."  He never really proves his claims, but instead relies on demanding that his opponents prove that they do not exist.  That, of course, is both impossible, and dishonest. 
4. In this one, we actually see him demand that someone prove a negative.  Again, highly dishonest.  He has never proven that it was used in that manner.  Of course, this completely obscures the fact that his point is completely irrelevant.  It is possible, though not remotely proven, that there might have been some who used the term in some manner that resembles the current use.  So what?  That is not remotely a relevant issue to the debate, which is actually about a movement that began to really take hold in the 1990's, and which has, quite honestly, resulted in exactly what Ashley Love has asserted.
5. Language rarely springs into use suddenly.  Whether or not someone used a word in an isolated context 42 years ago has nothing to do with how it is used today.  42 years ago, the accepted view was that homosexuality was totally a choice.  Even longer in the past, the phrase "woman trapped in a man's body" was used to describe homosexuals.  But no one would insist that either of these are remotely accurate today.  Again, the issue is not about when a word was coined, or how it was used 42 years ago, but is instead about people being forced to accept a label that they are presently uncomfortable with and being forced to agree with concepts that they presently find objectionable.

Once again, Mr. Williams shows that he is dishonest, and has no respect for the rights of others.

Clearly, Mr. Williams Prefers His Fantasies

"Cristan" WIlliams, king of the wild transgenders, has set his most recent sites on Ashley Love, who is intensely hated by the transgender extremist kooks because she, like myself, refuses to join their cult.  In his typical style, he does exactly what he accuses others of doing, and in doing so, he provides the evidence he claims they lack.


Ashely said:

We simply do not want to be appropriated and treated like a voiceless colony.
We protest the way the truth is being disregarded and censored in this social engineered and problematic "transgender umbrella-ism reservation ideology" mandate that feels more like people with transsxualism being kidnapped and misused than voluntary consent.

No, we will not shut up and be assaulted like this.

We will strike back if we have to

Now, if Mr. Williams was remotely truthful in his claims, his response would simply be, "Fine."  But he intends to do exactly what Ashley objects to.  He is focused on forcing her into the "transgender cult," or at the very least shouting her down.  His view seems to be, "Silly woman, get back in your place!  I know what is best for you!"


In his reply, he uses his usual straw man approach:

Answer the following 4 questions:
1. When did transgender become an umbrella term?
2. When did transsexual stop being an umbrella term?
3. Exactly how many decades has transgender referenced the transsexual experience?
4. Where did the term come from and does it mean today what it meant then?
You know how I know you don’t actually know any of this? Because A.) you wouldn’t have made this post to begin with had you known the answers to these questions; B.) you wouldn’t be thinking about deleting this comment for the crime of challenging your reality; and, C.) you’ve never once back[ed] up anything you assert with any objective fact.
So, while I know you’ll delete this comment, I’m going to at least answer the above questions so that you can no longer claim the excuse of ignorance…

Now, you have to remember that Mr. Williams imagines himself the successor to his hero "Hitch," Christopher Hitchens, who died last year.  Now, while at best, Mr. Williams is a poor imitation, he does have some of the more obnoxious traits down pat.

Now, the above questions are, of course, somewhat dishonest.  They are too vague and lacking in context, which allows Mr. Williams to distort the facts, and create his fantasies, which he then tries to claim as reality.

For example, he claims that "transgender" became an umbrella term in 1974.  This, of course, is based on the fact that a few people among the transvestite crowd might have used it that way, on a few isolated occasions.  A better question would be "When did transgender come to be commonly used as an umbrella term.   The answer there would be during the Nineties, which is when the attempt first began to force people into a common social political construct.  Prior to that, the Internet was not available, and thus such an effort would have been impossible.

His next question, "When did transsexual stop being an umbrella term, again falls back on the fact that it might have been used in isolated incidents in such a manner.  At the crux of his argument is the "Benjamin Scale," which dates to the 1960's.  Of course, the fact that it never really caught on among those in the field is ignored by Mr. Williams.  Transsexual was commonly used to refer to those who were seriously seeking surgery, while the rest were classified as "transvestites."  Actually, the more common "umbrella term" at that time was "sexual pervert."  Now, if we actually apply Mr. Williams' logic, we should continue to use such terminology, though I imagine Mr. Williams would be howling that we have moved past such hateful and judgmental language and that he will never accept being labeled as such (though in a sense, that is exactly what he strives to be.  He does seem to take great delight in being at odds with societal norms.


The third question, again, is lacking in context.  Mr. Williams bases his arguments on isolated usage, that never reached any degree of acceptance at the time, of course ignoring other usages that are inconvenient.  For example, the first medical journal article discussing Christine Jorgensen's case (she was not mentioned by name of course) referred to her as a "transvestite."  So, based on Mr. Williams' logic, "transvestite" should be the universal, umbrella term, since it was applied to both those who know expect to be called "crossdressers" and those who are properly referred to as transsexuals.  Of course, "transvestite" is largely considered an insult these days.  Funny, why do they get to determine what they are called, but transsexuals are denied this right?


And finally, with the fourth question, Mr. Williams just leaves reality behind.  Keep in mind, while he tries to imply that the term "transgender" was widely used for decades, the fact is, the term was, at best, obscure, and more accurate archaic during that time.  Even if his questionable citations are accurate, the usage was not remotely widespread.  One has to remember, that there was a tendency during these times for transvestites like Arnold Lowman, who used the names "Charles Prince," and "Virginia Prince" to regularly try to introduce new terms to replace "transvestite" which they felt was too associated with "perversion."  So, I have no doubt that "transgender" popped up occasionally, along with others like "bi-gendered," "femmephile," and others.


No, the bottom line is this, Mr. Williams is the living embodiment of what Ashley Love is referring to.  


As to his "challenge" to Love, who he hopes to bait into arguing with him, I would remind him, I don't shy away from challenges, even from bullies like him.  When I took him on, he was reduced to throwing ad hominems, which is, of course, the last bastion of a loser.

A Simple Proposal

This blog started on August 28, 2007.  This post is the 200th, which makes this sort of, kind of special.  Think of it as a collector's item.  Who knows, maybe someday it will be worth something.  Or, more likely, not....  But, hey, 200 posts.  That's quite a few.


Well, I wanted to post something special to mark this occasion, and I decided to to a post that has been rattling around my brain for a while.  I know a lot of people are tired of the stupid gender wars that are fueled by the insistence of those who demand that everyone join in a lock step march under the transgender umbrella.  And it should be obvious to those pushing that view that, well, it just is not going to happen.  Oh wait, I forget, they are a bunch of men who think they can push women around...


So, I make the following proposal to settle the matter once and for all.


The gender fascists simply acknowledge what they already know....that transgender is an identity, not an objective state of being.  That is, they openly acknowledge that no one should ever be referred to as transgender, gender variant, or other such terms unless they have specifically identified themselves as being such.  Period, end of story, no exceptions.  No more claims as to who is transgender, only an acknowledgement that transgender is an identity that some adopt.


This would be changed in places like the GLAAD media guide, pointing out that unless a person willingly identifies as transgender, they should not be referred to as such.  It would also be communicated to the medical profession.  


This would end the fighting over language.  Those who identify as transgender could rally for their rights, and leave the rest of us alone.  And we could move on and discuss our own issues, without having to worry about being associated with groups we do not identify as members of.


I know....  It is not likely to happen.  Men like "Cristan" Williams, "Autumn" Sandeen, and "Monica" Helms need the lie that transgender people include transsexuals.  They are not really transsexuals, but they want to use that label when it suits them.  They want, very much, to be "women with penises," even though such does not really exist.


But under my suggestion, they can make that claim all they want, and well, the rest of us can join our true peers in having a good laugh.

Inclusionist? Not exactly...

I have noticed that in addition to using "separatist" as a club word to beat up on those who decline to identify as "transgender," "Cristan" Williams is fond of labeling himself as being an "inclusionist."  Now, I guess that might well be appropriate in one sense, as the word is pretty much made up.  "Inclusionism" is primarily a theological term for a specific view of soteriology (the doctrine of salvation), but it is not a commonly used word either.  So, we have someone who is more properly referred to as a "gender fascist" using a made up word, based on a concept that has nothing to do with the actual discussion, which involves an artificial, highly subjective, political/social construct.  Yes, that Mr. William's for you.  


Now, there are all sorts of problems with using "separatist" including the fact that it is kind of hard to separate from something you are not a part of.  As I have said many times, "transgender" is an identity.  This is a concept that is completely lost on Mr. Williams.  In a comment he made in an argument with someone who does not identify as "transgender" he uses what is clearly a logical fallacy:

Let me pose a question to you: Does a lesbian ceases(sic) to be a homosexual (an umbrella term) if she doesn't self-identify as a homosexual?

Now, I can just imagine Mr. William's smug, self-satisfaction at what he no doubt thinks is a devastating, logical argument.  There is only one small problem.  It is a completely bogus argument.  Yes, "homosexual" can be described, quite properly, as an "umbrella term."  It is an objective term, easily defined, and is, most importantly, not an identity.  And that is where the argument falls apart.  Homosexual is not an identity, is is an objective fact.  


Now, the term "lesbian," on the other hand, is subjective, and is an identity.  Not all homosexual females identify as lesbian.  In fact, there is not clear, universal agreement on what the term lesbian even means.  I have seen some use it as a synonym for "homosexual female,"  while others have defined is as "a homosexual female who specifically has a dislike or even hatred for women,"  Some homosexual females identify as "gay women," declining to be called "lesbian," and they can be quite adamant about the terminology.  So, the term "lesbian" is comparable to the term "transgender," not "transsexual."


Now, "transsexual" like "homosexual" is an objective term.  It has a specific meaning.  "Transgender" is a subjective term.  There are no clear lines defining what is, and is not, "transgender."  For example, are drag queens "transgender?"  What about effeminate men, and butch women?  I have seen some argue that all homosexuals are "transgender" because they cross gender norms.  But such an argument is widely rejected.  Clearly, there is no objective definition for "transgender."  I was, and is, an identity...a social/political construct.  One can choose to identify as "transgender," but it is not a term that should ever be imposed on anyone.


And this is where what Mr. Williams calls the "inclusionist world view" falls apart:

The Inclusionist World View:

1. We ALL face oppression because our history or our expression violates cultural gender stereotypes.
2. Our oppressors LOVE our differences and NEVER want our differences to be seen as normal differences (on par with differences which violate cultural norms, eg Look Who’s Coming For Dinner)
3. Our oppressors use our differences to “otherize” us so that oppression becomes a social meme.
4. Our oppressors oppress us because they like the power, not because they don’t like our differences.

Okay, the first point is pretty much meaningless.  Anytime someone uses a term like "ALL" it is highly suspect.  Mr. Williams, of course, cannot back that statement up with any real evidence.  He cannot speak to the experience of ALL, but that does not stop him from doing exactly what he tries to attack others for.

The same is true for the second assertion.  "NEVER?"  Again, can he prove this?  Of course, not.  But this is, again, exactly what he accuses others of.  Funny how he does not follow his own rules.  But, that is exactly what one comes to expect from him.

Actually, it is generally the transgender movement itself that seeks to "otherize" (My, but Mr. Williams does like to make up word, doesn't he?) people.  In fact, I have seen people attacked for not identifying as being "other."


All of this is of course, a classic example of a straw argument:


And the final assertion, again one made without any real evidence, is patently absurd.  It might be true in some cases (key word: might) but otherwise, it is a broad brush assertion that cannot be backed up with objective evidence.  Funny, but thus Hitchen wannabe is being sliced up by what he likes to label "Hitchen's Razor."  But, that is not surprising.  Mr. WIlliams likes to define the debate on his terms, which are always slanted in his favor.


Now, of course Mr. Williams would never stop there.  He has rather self-servingly defined his world-view, making assertions not backed up by evidence as though they were absolute facts. So, he now presumes to define his opponent's supposed world-view.  

The Separatist World View:

1. Transsexuals face oppression because people confuse us with crossdressers and drag queens.
2. Our oppressors HATE what they view as being strange and/or deviant behavior.
3. Transsexualism isn’t about strange and/or deviant behavior; it’s a medical condition and has nothing to do with breaking gender stereotypes in our culture.
4. Our oppressors will stop oppressing us if we can get them to see that we aren’t like crossdressers and that we are instead like intersex people.

This is a gross oversimplification and distortion of people's actual positions.  Of course, only a fool would expect anything better from Williams. 


For example, confusion with crossdressers and drag queens is not the only reason that transsexuals face oppression, but it is a factor.  Those like Williams actually see themselves as the same as crossdressers and drag queens.  They derive a lot of their identity and pleasure from being at odds with society, and they resent those who do not share their...well, perversions.


It can certainly be shown, from evidence, that some people do confuse transsexuals with crossdressers and drag queens, including attributing to transsexuals motivations that are unique to crossdressers.


Does Mr. Williams really want to deny that those he refers to as "oppressors" do not hate what they view as deviant behavior?   That alone would pretty much render his position laughable.  But then he really shows his true colors....


Clearly, Williams sees transsexualism as both strange and deviant.  Of course, this is because Williams apparently himself identifies as strange and deviant and wants to look down on those he sees as denying being like him.  This is part of his obsessive accusations that "transsexuals" are elitist.  The simple fact is, transsexualism is a medical condition, and it is exactly the opposite of violating gender norms. (Again, Williams' use of "stereotypes" shows more about how he thinks.)  


And finally, he basically tries to make an assertion that education is not going to help transsexuals when time, and time again, the opposite has proven true.  In fact, it can be shown that for many years, transsexuals were often viewed more favorably before the transgender extremists started trying to co-opt them.  The situation was not perfect. but it was better than it is now.  


No, Williams calling himself an "inclusionist" is an attempt to hide what he really is.  A much more appropriate term is "gender fascist."  While he makes self-serving statements to the effect that he does not wish to force an identity on anyone, in practice, he shows the opposite.  He mocks those who decline to be labeled as transsexual, tries, in vain, to argue that they are simply denying what they really are, and attacks anyone who dares stand up to his silly attempts at debate.

Now This is Kind of Weird....

On the one hand, we have "Autumn" Sandeen....  He is just all upset because RuPaul made some nasty remarks about how transgender people should just get over their objection to being called a "Tranny."  In fact, Mr. Sandeen is so upset that he insists on spelling it "Tr**y."  Ironically, that bit of absurd theater sort of plays into RuPaul's arguments. 


On the other hand, we have none other than "Cristan" Williams defending the word.  Which is actually not that surprising since more often than not, Mr. Williams acts more like a misogynistic male than anything else.


Now, the word is an insult.  It is a diminutive for several words that begin with "trans."  I don't care for it personally, when it is used to refer to transsexuals.  I don't care for the way that many transgender kooks want to demand the right to use it to refer to themselves, but expect everyone else to not use it.  I also don't care for the tendency among African-Americans to use a certain term commonly referred to as the "N-word" to refer to each other.  I grew up in the South, and I saw the pain that word can cause.  Using it, whether you are white, black, or any other race, is not cute.  It is not clever.  It is not empowering.  It is just nasty.  It is a hateful word.


"Tranny" is not in the same class as the "N-word."  It is an insult, but it does not carry the long history that some insults do.  I don't like, I don't think people should use it, but I also think that transgender people should stop trying to play the victim.


Let's be blunt.  Transgender people, like Sandeen, and Williams, and any number of others, are trying to act in a way that they know is contrary to societal norms.  They are not expressing their true gender, but are trying to force people to accept them as something they are not.  They have NO desire to leave their pasts behind, and simply move into society as women.  They want to be transgender, not simply women.  They take delight in society's discomfort with their behavior, and enjoy nothing more than forcing people to smile, and act like they are really women, even as they look, act, and, let's be honest, identify as males.


True transsexuals are rare.  Transgender men who want to flaunt their behavior in society's face are dime a dozen.  They need to fact facts.  Their behavior is contrary to societal norms, and they are not making an effort to fit in.  If they insist on acting out, they should accept that a majority of people are not going to be comfortable with it.

Here We Go Again...

Well, "Cristan" Williams, who is vying for the crown of "King of the Gender Fascists" is at it again.  This time around, he is attacking Dana Lane Taylor for, well, for telling the truth.  Of course, Mr. Williams, as is his habit, is playing fast and loose with the truth.

In a post entitled Dana Lane Taylor: I Rise to Your Challenge Mr. Williams ignores what Dana actually said, and proceeds to create his usual brand of straw arguments.  Here is what was actually said:

The Transgender Leadership consists mostly of those who claim a female identity. I haven’t seen a single male crossdresser take a leadership role by lobbying for transgender rights. Almost every one of those who are in these roles identify as women. Now, why would this be? I think it is something a lot of people don’t think about but I bet those leaders know very well why.

And here is what Mr. Williams claims was said:

Today I found that I was the subject of yet another Dana Lane Taylor gauntlet throw-down. Dana is an opinion leader in the TS Separatist group and in this post she seems to claim complete ignorance of any crossdresser leadership within the trans community except for the evil Virginia Prince. Well, as with the last time Taylor threw out a challenge, I accept!

Now, I have highlighted a couple of things.  Dana says "mostly."  This is certainly a defensible position.  Mr. Williams, in another of his straw arguments (unlike him, I am using the term correctly) says that Dana seems to claim "complete ignorance."  Hmmm, now, if Dana had said there were "no" male crossdressers in leadership roles, Mr. Williams might have a point.  Dana does say she has not seen a single cross dresser take a leadership role in lobbying for transgender rights.  While we could quibble over the true nature of some of the leadership, she does have a point.  Lobbying is a very specific activity, which involves going and talking to legislators.  And while it can certainly be argued that some of the leadership of the transgender extremists are, for all practical purposes, male crossdressers I have to concede that is not how they claim to identify.  In fact, there seems to be some tendency, as they move into more prominent leadership roles, to claim identities as "transsexuals," and even surgery tracked while always making excuses why they are not actively pursuing surgery.

And that, quite frankly, is a major problem for Mr. Williams' argument.  It is odd that people who were card carrying members of the "They Will Take My Penis When They Pry My Cold Dead Fingers From It" Club, such as, oh, "Autumn" Sandeen, and "Monica" Helms, rather suddenly decided they are transsexuals, and are seeking SRS....even as they make excuse after excuse about why they are not actually going to have surgery anytime soon.  And no, Mr. Sandeen's highly publicized castration does not count.  He has maintained a touching attachment to his penis.  In fact, Mr. Sandeen's behavior is another blow to Mr. Williams' argument.  Why this need to deceive about the nature of one's standing if being a crossdressing male is really okay.

Dana speaks the truth, and as usual, Mr. Williams tries to obfuscate, create arguments of straw, and generally avoid the truth.  The overwhelming, vast majority of people who identify as transgender are male crossdressers.  They are not people who actually have any real female gender, and who mostly want to play dress up and get off on being in women's clothes.   But, Mr. Williams is a classic gender fascist who tends to insist that transsexuals must accept the label of transgender.  When this is pointed out, he tries to hide behind the straw argument that he is not telling transsexuals that they cannot identify as transsexual.  Of course he doesn't.  He just insists that they must also accept the label "transgender," which is, of course, the original issue.

All of this rancor could be avoided Transgender extremists would just accept:

1. That some people are not, and do not wish to be identified as transgender.
2. That transsexuals by and large have NO desire to subvert, transgress, or transcend gender.
3. That terms like "gender variant" and "non-cisgender" are often highly offensive to people who are transsexual.
4. That just because they don't really identify as something other than their birth sex and gender, does not mean that others also don't identify that way.
5. That in most cases they are not as clever as they think they are.

Update:  I have to admit, I was really taken in by Taylor.  This person was a self-deceiving fraud who has decided, after some soul-searching, that his is really "transgender" and is now Mr. Cristan Williams latest BFF...  And a full-fledged transgender kook to boot.  And yes, Mr. Taylor is now a full-fledged member of the "They Will Take My Penis When They Pry My Cold Dead Fingers From It" Club as well.

More Gender Facist Crap

"Christan" Williams is at it again.  This time he seems to have cobbled together a post he claims is from a "separatist."  In the past, Williams has claimed to have discovered heretofore unknown articles "proving" that the term "transgender" was was used long before anyone knew, and was even favored by Christine Jorgensen.  I have already noted that the sources cited are all extremely obscure, and difficult, if not impossible to locate.  Now, without providing a citation, Williams provides a supposed essay by a separatist (i.e. someone like myself, who does not identify as transgender, in defiance of Williams' demands).  Odd, but I searched Google for the first line from this supposed posting, but the only thing that showed up was Williams' article.  Curious....


Granted, Williams does not claim that what he refers to as a "sad little rant" is from a blog site, or a web posting.  But the fact that no citation is given seems, at best, curious.


Williams posts the usual "gender fascist" silliness about "elitism," "shame," and "transphobia." One of the more interesting bits of illogic is when Williams tries to link the case of Peter Oiler, a transvestite who was fired by Winn Dixie, and who repeatedly lost in court, to transsexuals.  Rather odd logic for someone who claims to be a post-op.  Of course, as we have seen with cases like "Autumn" Sandeen, some transgender definitions of "post-op" are simply lies.  I don't know if Williams actually had SRS, but I increasingly doubt it.  


Then Williams tries to inject racism into the discussion (well, he is a big fan of "Monica" Roberts) who hates post-op transsexuals and white people with equal passion) when he refers to "separatists" as "our down-low community."
Williams shows where he is really coming from when he states this:

When it comes down to it, here’s the basic, broad-brush world view differences between Separatists and Inclusionists…
The Inclusionist World View:

1. We ALL face oppression because our history or our expression violates cultural gender stereotypes.
2. Our oppressors LOVE our differences and NEVER want our differences to be seen as normal differences (on par with differences which violate cultural norms, eg Look Who’s Coming For Dinner)
3. Our oppressors use our differences to “otherize” us so that oppression becomes a social meme.
4. Our oppressors oppress us because they like the power, not because they don’t like our differences.

The Separatist World View:

1. Transsexuals face oppression because people confuse us with crossdressers and drag queens.
2. Our oppressors HATE what they view as being strange and/or deviant behavior.
3. Transsexualism isn’t about strange and/or deviant behavior; it’s a medical condition and has nothing to do with breaking gender stereotypes in our culture.
4. Our oppressors will stop oppressing us if we can get them to see that we aren’t like crossdressers and that we are instead like intersex people.

Since Williams takes it upon himself to define people's views, why not return the favor.  Here is his real view:

1. I get a kick out of facing oppression. I really don't want to be anything other than "weird." I hate the idea of remotely being a part of "normal" society, but I want to force everyone to pretend I am normal. Knowing I am really upsetting people is a large part of the fun in this little game I play.
2. I love engaging in strange and/or deviant behavior, and I really, really love forcing it down people's throats, knowing they really hate it.
3. How dare transsexuals refuse to accept the labels I put on myself, and on them. They will be strange and deviant because, well because I say they are. They have no right to disagree with me.
4. I'm going to shove my behavior down everyone's throat. This is all about power, and I want it all. Anyone who disagrees with me will be insulted, belittled, and attacked until they submit.

Yes, kind of redundant, but that is how Williams seems to be.  He is a one note opera, and it is all about how he is right, and everyone is wrong. 

The real irony in all of this is Williams' claim that he is not demanding that people identify as he  wishes.  He even goes so far as to say:

If the down-low guy doesn’t want to identify as being gay, then fine. If the stealth lesbian doesn’t want to identify as being a lesbian, then fine. If the TS Separatist doesn’t want to identify as being trans, then fine. HOWEVER, do not demand that the entire trans community rework its culture to suit your whims and unsubstantiated statements of fact.

Those are strange words coming from someone who spends an entire post attacking people who don't identify as transgender.  His bottom line, "I have a right to my views, and I demand that you respect my identity, but I am not going to respect yours.  You can call yourself whatever you want, but I will call you whatever I want, but I will absolutely go ballistic if you call me anything other than what I demand."

Oh well, I would call Williams a bad joke.  As to what he calls me, well, who cares?  I just consider the source.  And I have a good laugh.