The Transgender Movement's Dirty Little Secret

I've been thinking about this post for quite some time.  It is about something that is quite obvious, but which is kind of easy to overlook in all the rhetoric that spews out of the "transgender movement."  But, an article at LGBT Weekly by Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen, one of the leading voices of that movement finally pushed me to write it.

In the article, titled "Fourteen years ago and now," Mr. Sandeen says

"I remember coming out in early 2003 as a transsexual – that’s what we called ourselves back then. When those of us who called ourselves transsexual also called ourselves transgender, it was actually kind of political – we were also identifying ourselves as falling under a transgender umbrella of gender nonconforming people."

This quote pretty much sums up what the transgender movement is really all about.  First off, it is not about being "transsexual."  Mr. Sandeen may have called himself a "transsexual," but he is not, and never was remotely a transsexual.  He may have even been able to find some doctor who is willing to rubber stamp his fantasies, but he has been a life long member of the "They Will Take My Penis When They Pry it From My Cold Dead Fingers" club.  He occasionally flirts with the idea of SRS, but has made no real move in that direction.  Even during the period when the VA was supposedly going to cover it.  He has had an orchidectomy, rendering him an eunuch, and has tried to pass this off as sex reassignment surgery, but he still retains his penis.

Next he states that he also called himself "transgender" he connects that with being "gender non-conforming."  This is where the truth really begins to come out.  First off, being transsexual is NOT remotely about being "gender non-conforming."  It is quite the opposite. It is about being fully the gender, and sex, that you really are.  Here Mr. Sandeen is letting the secret out.  Transgender is really all a scam.

The transgender movement has tried, for some time, to use transsexualism as, in effect, their "beard."  That is, they have claimed to be "transsexual" to justify their demands.  But they are not transsexual, and in fact, have no desire to be anything other than what they were born as.  They only want to be "gender non-conforming."  In order to be that, they must remain their birth gender.  They may claim to "really" be a gender different from what they were assigned at birth, but this is simply not the case.

Take Mr. Sandeen, for example.  He served about 20 years in the United States Navy.  If his "true" gender had been female, he would have probably not made it through one tour of duty.  He would have not been able to fit in to the male culture that military service requires of men.  He would not have been able to tolerate being forced to dress and shower with other men.  I remember how much I dreaded changing during high school PE.  I went out of my way to avoid showering when others were present during the one semester I lived in a dorm with communal showers.  The rest of the time, I lived in what was either a dorm with "suites" where you had the bathroom to yourself, or in a dorm that was originally a women's dorm, where the showers had individual stalls.

All of this brings us to the big secret.  Transgender people, for the most part, do not really want to be what they claim.  They want to retain their birth gender, and more often than not, their birth sex.  In many cases, when they do change their sex, they seem to regret, and they go out of their way to make sure that others know their birth sex.  For them, it is not about actually being "their true gender and proper sex," but is about forcing people to "accept" them as something they work very hard to not actually be.  

People who identify a transgender seem to have this compulsion to force people to both see them as their birth sex and gender, but treat them as the opposite.  They want to invade spaces where they really don't belong, and increasingly, to expose their bodies while demanding people pretend that their genitals are something that they are not.

Transsexuals are disgusted by the idea of having someone see them naked before their surgery.  I remember having to endure being examined by the surgeons who performed my SRS.  It was excruciating.  But when I went in for a follow-up, and had a rather handsome young doctor removing stitches, his face right up in my privates, I suddenly realized that it did not bother me at all.

SRS does make a world of different for those who actually need it.  For those who don't. it just makes them rather miserable.

The Obama Administration Has Gone Way Too Far

Last month, the Department of Housing and Urban Development issued an order that requires any shelter receiving Federal funding in any form to allow transgender people equal access to the facility based on their "gender identity."  The transgender kooks are all excited by this.  And women are appalled. 

One of the issues that is often raised in objection to such a rige id approach is that a man might simply claim to "really" be a woman in order to get access to a women's shelter.  Of course, there are a number of advantages to this.  Less threats of violence.  A lower population of women, so the chances of getting a bed are greatly improved.  And, of course, the obvious one...being able to be among women.  Of course, we are told by the transgender kooks that this would simply never happen.  And of course it does.

A friend, who happens to be a resident of a large homeless shelter in San Francisco, CA had told me about just such a case.  (I cannot reveal this person's name, or the name of the shelter, because of privacy concerns.)  There is a person residing in that shelter who presents as a "trans woman," who clearly is not.  This person, who I have seen on the street near the shelter, is clearly a man, and other than wearing an ill fitting dress, makes no attempt to present as female.  Some examples:

• Most of the time he sports a rather full beard.  While he has occasionally shaved it off, it grows back quickly, so you have someone who basically looks like a hard-core homeless man, except he is wearing a dress.
• The first night she encountered him, he was in an overnight bed.  During the night, she happened to observe him masturbating rather enthusiastically.  She reported this to a monitor, and he was removed for the night, but was allowed to return on later nights.  He now has a longer term bed, but has still be observed to engage in such behavior.
• On another occasion, a woman using the bathroom noticed that the person in the stall next her was peeing rather loudly.  She leaned down enough to see that person's feet, and recognized the khaki men's sneaker that this alleged "trans woman" wears.  And yes, they were facing the toilet.  He was standing to pee.

This illustrates the very real problem.  As used in this situation, "gender identity" is meaningless.  As my friend observed while we were discussing this, she has a lot of transgender friends, and they are very concerned about how they present.  Even if pre-op, they sit to pee, would never engage in any activity that would make them stand out as male, and of course are far more concerned about their appearance.

No, clearly, this is just one example of a man who is doing what is claimed to never occur.  He is pretending to be "transgender" in order to access a women's shelter.

It's Been A While...

My last post was back in August.  To be honest, I just got tired of pointing out the never-ending insanity of the transgender kooks, and decided to spend some time on other, more productive, pursuits.  I have, however, looked in from time to time and have a laugh at how absurd it is all becoming.

And on one of those looks, I found out that, nine months later, Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen is still obsessing over me.  As is Mr. "Natalie" Reed, who, bizarrely, has apparently accused me of stabbing someone in the chest on a bus.  Uh, no...I've never stabbed anyone, anywhere.

As an interesting aside, Mr. Reed is also ranting about how increasing "gender neutral" bathrooms would serve to invalidate "trans people."  As though the obvious obsession with forcing themselves into places they are not wanted hasn't already done that.  Sort of puts the claims of just wanting to "pee in peace" in a whole new light.  Nope, they want to be able to force women to put up with men, who don't even try to actually live or act like females, invading women's spaces, and to demand that these men, who cling very strongly to their male identification (while maintaining that they are "really women") be fully accepted as women.

I have left my past behind.  I only reveal it when absolutely required, and then with an explanation that I am a transsexual, not "transgender."  And an explanation of what the difference is.  Simply put, Mr. Sandeen, Mr. Reed, and all the rest of their ilk, don't want to be women.  They just want to force people to say they are, all the while knowing that this does not jibe with reality.

Oh well, back to doing what these kooks can never do...living my life as a woman.

The Fundamental Theorem of Transgender

It's funny, but a lot of times I will have an idea brewing, and then an article will come along that fits that idea so perfectly, it is frightening.  That happened recently with an article on GenderTrender about a review of Julia Serano’s “Excluded” by lesbian Kit Van Cleave was published by Houston’s OutSmart.  Hmmmm...Houston....I wonder if noted transgender kook, and Houston resident, Mr. "Cristan" Williams is involved?

In any case, the review, which was very even handed, was pounced upon by the transgender extremists and OutSmart caved, and pulled it.  The problem is, from the rhetoric, you would think this review was some "Janice Raymond" type attack piece...instead, as I said, it is very even handed.  What it does not do is specifically pander to the TG mindset.

Here is this highly offensive article.  Decide for yourself:

”All that aside, some books I just can’t get through, even with sustained effort, like a pair sent to the OutSmart offices. I’ve had to struggle to grasp the authors intentions, and examine why I found these books impenetrable. Sometimes it’s just style- long sentences covering half a page without ceasing, terms created without definition or juxtaposed to other terms so that the two don’t make sense: lack of logic; inability to support an argument; unclear overall goals; ambiguity.
In Julia Serano’s “Excluded”, for example, the first twenty pages is given over to redefining terms, making up new terms, and wrestling terms about the various available “lifestyles” in the gay community. As Serano puts it, “I call myself a woman and transsexual…because I feel those words best describe some parts of my person.” Okay, fair enough, until this comment follows immediately after: “ I do not believe that there is some magical underlying quality all musicians, or all bird people, or all women, or all transsexuals have in common.” Huh?

Another puzzlement is the prefix cis. “It is difficult to discuss trans people without also having langage to describe the majority of people who are not trans.” Serano writes, continuing, so “transactivists often use the word cisgender as a synonym for non-transgender and cissexual as a synonym for non-transsexual.” And that’s all the definiton of cis we’re going to get from Serano. According to other sources, the word actually stands for people happy with the gender and sexuality they feel they were born with. I know gay people reject being called abnormal, but that’s no reason to come up with a new word for “normal”.

Wikipedia attributes “Cisgender” to Carl Buijs, a transsexual from the Netherlands. In April 1996, Buijs wrote in a Usenet posting, “I just made [the word] up.”

As Serano’s book is also a bit of a memoir, I found in Part One, Chapter 2, that this writer, who calls herself a woman, has made the decision to still retain his penis. As a matter of fact, Serano went to a summer camp specifically to protest people with penises not being allowed to attend the Michigan Women’s Music Festival (the sponsors were apparently avoiding “male energy” with this fest.)
I believe I’m lost. If we’re going with the idea that semantics is dead (i.e. “transsexual” doesn’t mean what it means), or no longer useful, then throw out the dictionaries. Until then, I expect writers to try to stay within the agreed meaning of the words we all use. Otherwise, I can call myself a puppy, but no one will know what I’m talking about when I describe my life.”

Now, I am left to wonder what they find so objectionable?  The fact that the author speaks the truth?  Serano may claim to identify as a transsexual, but clearly is not.  Transsexuals seek to have surgery.  When one declares that one is not planning to have surgery, one is declaring that one is not a transsexual.  The person doing so may come to find that they are mistaken, but that is not that common.

The idea that I was thinking about addressing is how transgender extremist react to anything that does not specifically endorse their questionable logic by instantly screaming, at the top of their lungs, that it is an obvious example of transphobic hate speech, and must be censored, banned, and the author soundly humiliated in public.  And I realized that the very simple reason they take this approach is obvious.  They really can't defend their views in a reasonable manner.

If people make reasonable points, and it happens quite often, the transgender extremists go into panic mode, scream "transphobia" and hate, and use those terms, which I have previously labeled "club words" to beat down the truth.

And then there is the latest from Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen, where he starts whining about some issues he doesn't want to face as well.

So, therefore, it is obvious that the "fundamental theorem of transgenderism" is to hide from the facts, present a false front, and scream like crazy to avoid having to actually justify their unreasonable demands.

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.

A Few Words on Surgery...

This morning, I had a thought that came to me about something that "J. Skyler" said about me.  Referring to me, this person asserted, "...she's a surgical essentialist who thinks anyone who doesn't undergo surgery is pretending/deviant. "  Of course, as is typical with the TG kooks, this is a very simplistic portrayal of a much more complex opinion.  As I pointed out in comments yesterday, I would not automatically use the term "deviant."  As to "pretending," it is also not quite the word I would use either.

So, what do I believe?  First off, I believe that sex reassignment surgery....  Well, let me pause first here, to specifically reject the absurd trend towards calling it "gender reassignment surgery."  This is part of a larger effort by the TG crowd to muddy up, somewhat ironically, the waters they themselves created.  A common meme pushed by the TG crowd is "sex is what is between your legs, gender is what is between your ears."  Of course, they also like to push the idea that gender is, somehow, both fungible, and a choice. But they also want to claim that being TG is not a choice.  In short, they are pretty much making it up as they go.  More precisely, sex is what is between your legs, and what we call "gender" is better defined as the sexual differentiation of the brain.  Simply put, you are either hard wired as a man, or as a woman.  It is, in spite of one of the sillier assertions of some TG kooks, quite related.  But it also occurs at a different time during development.  The body can go male, and the brain female, or vice versa.  Such a condition is rare, but it is what make a person a true transsexual.  So, for something to actually be "gender reassignment surgery," it would have to change the brain, not the genitals.  In short, "gender reassignment surgery" is a fictitious concept, and simply does not exist.

Now, returning to my original thought, sex reassignment surgery, or SRS, does not make a man into a woman (or vice versa) it makes a male into a female (again, or vice versa) to the extent possible with modern techniques.  A better way of putting it would be to say that it allows a true, or classic transsexual the opportunity to live a normal life, and relieves their discomfort with their body.  It corrects, as much as possible, what is, in effect, a birth defect.  It is not magic, and it does not  change who a person is, or make them something they are not.

What this "J. Skyler" person seems to suggest is that I think that the act of having surgery would do just that, and nothing could be further from the truth.  Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen whined, "...It's more than that. She even gets on post-SRS folk who she deems to not be ideologically pure."  Again, a statement that is a bit of a distortion of what I actually think.  Yes, I have encountered post-ops that I seriously believe made a mistake having SRS.  For example, there is "Willow" Arune, the notorious defending of Bailey, Blanchard, and Lawrence, who asserted that he had decided to have SRS because he was raped in a Thai prison (and supposedly had it suggested by a therapist in Thailand).  Another good example would be "Anne" Lawrence...of Bailey, Blanchard, and Lawrence.  I could name a few more, but why bother?  Some are relatively well known, and some are more obscure.  Some have openly declared that they made a mistake, and others, like Arune, just act out in ways that show that their surgery was in error...while often maintaining that they made no mistake.  

So, what is my view?  It is actually simple.  SRS, like an medical procedure, has indication and contraindications.  It is not for everyone.  Surgery is not the dividing line between "real and fake, or between pretending/deviant and...well, whatever that person imagines would be the alternative."  Nor is it about ideology.  Of course, this shows what TG is about, and why it is a flawed, and yes, very dangerous concept.  SRS, again, is a medical procedure.  Those who would undergo it should be carefully screened.  In fact, if a therapist is not rejecting people who seek it, something is very wrong.  And sadly, an increasing number of therapists will pretty much rubber stamp any request.  Mistakes are going to happen.  Some people will always be able to con even the best therapist into granting them approval.  But, therapists should be more cautious.  Surgery should never be "on demand."

For example, if they are faced with someone who is middle-aged, has had a long and successful career as a man, who has shown no prior issues with their gender identity (and no, crossdressing not only doesn't count, but should be a red flag), these things should be investigated.  People who are transsexuals have life-long problems.  When someone claims they have always "known" they were the wrong sex, but clearly had no problems coping, and then suddenly, often after something that would otherwise trigger a mid-life crisis, declare that they are transsexual, and want a sex change, something is probably amiss.  As much as possible, the therapist should interview friends, family, and when appropriate, spouses.  There are a lot of things that should be looked at.  Taking the person's word for it, is not a wise path.

Fortunately, most who should not have SRS don't seek it.  This is the other side of the coin.  I don't think, for example, That Mr. Sandeen is a man because he doesn't want surgery.  I think he doesn't want surgery because, simply put, he is a man.  If he did decide to go the full route, it would not change him into a woman.  He would still be a man, albeit one with a vagina....in effect, finally becoming a transsexual, albeit an FTM.

And that brings us back to a very simple fact.  True transsexuals are rare.  Those who, for want of a better term, can be labeled as "transgender" are far more common.  This has always been true.  Being transgender is a choice, and currently something of a fad.  It is, in many ways, the current rebellious fad.  Such things come and go.  History offers many such examples, but the ones most are familiar with are the more recent ones... In the Fifties, there was the Beat Generation. At least they gave us some interesting literature.  In the Sixties, the Hippies came along.  They gave us some decent music.  They were followed by things like Punks, and Slackers....which didn't seem to give us much of anything.  I imagine, in time, the TG fad will begin to wane as well...and some will be left badly damaged because of it.

The TG Crowd Is Not Going To Like This....

The news media is all abuzz about the case of a transgender male in Idaho who was given a stay-away order by a grocery store after he was caught in the women's room.  Now, this is a perfect example of the sort of thing that I, and a lot of other women have a real problem with.

The way the story is being presented it...a "transgender woman" was told that "she" cannot come into Rosauers grocery store in Lewiston, Idaho after some women complained about "her" presence.

Okay, that is the mainstream media version...


And, here are a few facts that you may not have heard:

• The person involved has not changed his name. Even though it is implied that he is "living as a woman," his legal name is Alberto Robledo, though he apparently uses the name "Abby" to hide this fact.
• He had repeated this behavior for several days.
• And, perhaps most significantly, he was urinating while standing.

It is that last detail that is the real tip-off here. This is not a transsexual, but is a classic example of a transgender male invading the women's room.


The bottom line is clear, the grocery store's security people did the right thing.

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

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

Two men in dresses...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Game of Thrones...

No, I am not talking about the popular series on HBO, which I have never watched, but about a, well, a different sort of, uh...throne.  Yes, it is time to take another look at the goal that the transgender kooks obsess over....yes, that sort of throne.

Between a bit over the top reaction by a lawmaker in Arizona, and the case of a child in Massachusetts who claims to be a girl, in spite of having been born male, and who wants to use the girls bathroom, bathrooms, we have scores of men who want to invade the one reserved for women back in the news.

So, let's take a rational look at the issue....

The first question has to be, is there a valid rationale for having sex-segregated restrooms?  The obvious answer is, of course, a resounding YES!  Both men and women are extremely uncomfortable at the idea of sharing the intimacy of the bathroom.  While some will try to argue that this is an archaic idea, born of sex-based discrimination, designed to keep women in their place, the simple response is "poppycock!"  Yes, a bit of research, where I was trying to find out what the history of sex-segregated bathrooms is, led to a number of law journal articles where some left-wing kook was trying to argue that sex-segregated bathrooms were discriminatory, and not because of the "transgender" issue, but simply on the face of it.  None were remotely persuasive, and they all were just obvious attempts at academic silliness.

So, given that sex-segregated restrooms are legitimate and justified, the question arises as to what exceptions should exist to such a rule?  That is, when should a person be able to enter a bathroom that does not match their physical sex?  Of course, some exceptions are obvious, such as entry by law enforcement and other public safety officials in an emergency. And traditionally exceptions are made for very young children accompanying a parent of the opposite sex.  But what other exceptions should exist?  As best I recall, the last time I went in a men's room was to help a friend, who was male, and who was confined to a wheelchair.  It was in a gas station/convenience store.  It felt a bit weird, but it was one of those situations where there was really not a choice, since the bathroom was not equipped for a person who was disabled.  Some places now offer facilities for just such situations, but that was not the case here.

So, that brings us to the heart of the matter...what about "transgender people" and what is truly a separate issue, those who are legitimate transsexuals during the Real LIfe Test?  Let's start with the transgender crowd.  Ideally, they should use the bathroom that matches their physical sex.  Of course, I can already hear the screams of "transphobia!!!!"  Poppycock.  There is simply no rational basis for them to claim that changing clothes gives them the right to violate bathroom rules.  And that, quite frankly, is what they are demanding. That the simple act of changing clothes, or theoretically, simply making the assertion that they "feel like the opposite sex" would eliminate any barriers to them using the wrong restroom.  Of course, they try to hide all this behind euphemisms like "trans women" and such.  But for the vast, overwhelming majority of transgender people, they are simply demanding exactly this.  And they are demanding it, irregardless of the feelings of those legitimately in the rest room.  If a man, with a heavy beard shadow, and clearly male features, puts on a dress, we are told, he has the right to swagger his way into the ladies room, no matter how upsetting it is.  Oh, we are told, he is not really a threat, as he is a "trans woman."

And this brings us to one of the favorite tactics of both sides of the debate...the topic of male predators in the women's room.  While this is a legitimate issue, it really should not be the primary one for either side, as both sides have weak arguments.  Both the radical RIght, and radical feminists tend to rightfully point out that giving into to the demands of the transgender extremist would open women's restrooms up to the presence of predators.  This, quite frankly, is quite true.  But, so far it has proven to be a relatively rare issue.  We have had cases like the one in Texas where a registered sex offender was found to be, or at least claimed, to be, a transgender person in transition.  Having such a person in a women's rest room is outrageous.  And then there is the well known pervert "Colleen" Francis who was exposing his privates in a women's sauna in Oregon.  He didn't even have the decency to try to be discrete.

Now, the problem here is, the transgender extremists are not asking for the right to discretely use the rest room that matches their, uh, gender expression.  They are demanding the right to force their way into the ladies room, with all those present being fully aware that this person is a "trans woman."  They don't want discretion, they demand full license.  And worse, they now want to go beyond the bathroom and to indiscreetly invade places like showers, locker rooms. sauna. spas, etc., where nudity is common, and women will be forced to share space with naked males.  Said women are, of course, supposed to fully accept these naked men as "transwomen."

The sad thing is, for years, we had a workable compromise that, while not perfect, was pretty much acceptable.  If you were passable, you could pretty much take advantage of that, and discretely use the bathroom.  This, in fact, is still the model that, by and large, works for transgender women (i.e FTMs who are no hormones but have no intention of having surgery).  As long as one is discrete, i.e. you are not making sure that everyone knows your history either by telling, or by obvious behavior. and you don't do anything stupid, you were allowed, and even, I suppose, welcome in the bathroom opposite your sex.  But again, that is not good enough for the transgender extremists.  Like in the Colorado case, the child, who has a clearly male name (have you every heard of a girl named Coy?) everyone has to have their nose rubbed in it.

And you have to love the insane arguments that the transgender extremists come up with.  One of my favorites is the specter of "trans men" in the ladies room.  The only problem is, that is absurd.  After a bit of testosterone, they can enter the men's room with no problem, and there is no need for them to be "forced" into the ladies room.  No, the problem is, and remains, men, who look like men, invading the women's room and forcing themselves on those who belong there.

You also have to love the way the transgender kooks cannot seem to even try to muster empathy for those they claim to be "just like."  They think that women, who might be offended by their presence in the women's room, should "just get over it."  In another words, typical male behavior and attitude, on full display, and they wonder why people have a problem.  Alas, it is so obvious sometimes that kooks like "Autumn" Sandeen, and "Cristan" Williams are simply delusional men, it is almost funny.  The only "women" they have anything in common with are their fellow transvestites.

It should also be noted that claims of discrimination, and being forbidden the right to use the bathroom are totally bogus.  What is being denied is a license to invade a place they don't belong where they would cause discomfort to those who have a right to be there.  In fact, what they are demanding is, in and of itself, discriminatory.  They are not being told they cannot use the restroom, just that they have to take responsibility for their behavior and face the consequences.  They can either choose to not go out dressed en femme if they fear going into the men's room, or they can "man up" and face what awaits them.  They are also, as they point out to the women whose rest rooms they would invade, still protected by laws against assault.

So, this brings us back to the central question.  How should this situation be dealt with for those who are possibly legitimately transsexual, and in the process of the Real Life Test?  The answer, as I have suggested before, is simple.  It is the same answer that has existed for some time.  Once a person is ready, in consultation with a qualified therapist,  to consider living full time in their target sex, they would be issued a statement that would allow them to access the appropriate rest room.  If someone is challenged, and they cannot show such documentation, they would be subject to whatever penalties the local law provides.  Any therapist caught issuing statements inappropriately would be subject to sanctions.

I realize that such an approach would not go over well with the transgender extremists, who demand unfettered access.  And it would probably not go over well with the radical feminists who claim that there is no such thing as a "legitimate transsexual."  And I am sure that extremist conservatives would also blanch at the idea.  Which probably means that my idea is a good compromise.

Hoist by Her Own Petard

Let me preface this by saying that I personally have no problem with same-sex marriages, though I do believe it is up to individual states to decide the issue, and I believe that unless a state approves of such a marriage, one should be bound by the law in a given state.  That said, this is an interesting turn of events in a story that I have written on before.

"Thomas" Beatie, the infamous "pregnant man" has been told that she cannot divorce her wife of nine years because the judge cannot determine that they were married to begin with.  Now, it should be noted that the judge did not base the ruling on it being a same sex marriage, just that Beatie, who kept his reproductive organs intact, and who has born children will claiming to be a man, failed to establish that she was a transsexual man at the time of the marriage.  Well, DUH!!!!!

Oh, and the worst part...she wants to compete to get pregnant with her new girlfriend, commenting that perhaps both will be pregnant at the same time...

Here is a link to the story.

Oh Good Grief, ANOTHER One....

I swear, there seems to be a never ending stream of examples of the sort of silliness that the transgender extremists are trying to foist on the world....  I just found another one who is blogging on the site of a newspaper in New York State.  In this case, an elderly male has taken to calling himself "Renate" and is out to tell the world how he is really a female.  In another article, he tells about the "birth of his female self."

Too funny....

I mean, all the classic TG stuff is there....

Successful career as a male....check.

Defines being a woman in terms of stereotypical "female" behavior....check.

Waited until he was retired, and then some to start living as a woman, well a caricature of a "woman"...check.

Speaks of his "male self" as having died even though he claims he was always female gendered....check.

Calls himself a lesbian....check.

Thinks his wife should accept it....check.

Says he loves his wife, but clearly not as much as he loves crossdressing....check

Doesn't want to give up his penis.....check.

Almost certainly a lifelong crossdresser, but too old for the sexual part....check.

Thinks that women have penises....check.

Has his own name for his condition....check.

Couldn't want to start telling the world about how he is a "woman with a penis"....check.

As I said, another one....

I Don't "Misgender" People

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Moderate Proposal

Over, and over, I see the radical fringe of the transgender kooks demanding more and more outrageous concessions.  And unfortunately, in some cases, they get them.  I think it is time we rein in the silliness.  Therefore, I would like to put forward some moderate proposals that would provide for a balance between real need, and public safety and opinion.

First, I think that changing of birth certificates should be limited to those who have actually changed their sex.  That means, no "women with penises" or "pregnant males.  If you have not made the changes, you will not legally be viewed as having "changed your sex."  No more of this "change of gender" silliness.

Second, I think a simple compromise on issues like "transgender students in school" is to require any student who wishes to be fully recognized as a a different "gender" to be stealth.  In another words, if a student who is born male wants to allowed to use the girls bathroom, but has not had surgery, then they would be required to transfer to a school where they would be required to be stealth.  No more of this "out, loud, and proud" silliness.  If you claim you are "really" a female, or "really" a male, then really be a female or a male.  If you want to have it both ways, then you either use the bathroom appropriate to your genitalia, or you use a bathroom that is "gender neutral."  As to things like locker rooms (usually not a problem before at least middle school) the student would need to be excused from physical education classes.  

Likewise, I believe that access to bathrooms in general should be based on being in transition.  If you are a crossdresser, and this is all just a bit of a game, then it's YOUR problem.  You don't have a right to force yourself on women (or in extremely rare cases, men) just so you can engage in your fantasies.  And again, if you are pre-op, you cannot use areas where nudity is inevitable, period.

Also, I think restrictions should be made for other situations.  For example, if you are going to claim to have changed sex for purposes like engaging in athletic competition at the college level (it is unlikely that anyone in middle school or high school would be allowed to have undergone sex reassignment surgery) then again, stealth should be a requirement.  Privacy would be protected, so people would not be allowed to "research" information and out someone, but anyone publicly outing their own self would become disqualified.  "Gabrielle" Ludwig, for example, is back in the news. This is not someone who simply wanted to be who he really is, but instead is a classic transgender, seeking attention, and getting it at the expense of legitimate female athletes.

Bottom line, people should not be allowed to use situations as a soap box to push their agenda and take advantage of laws intended to protect people with real needs.  It is time to draw the line.  You want to be the real you?  Fine.  You want to attract attention?  Fine.  But using "legal rights" to attract attention?  Nope.

And lest you think I am being unfair, you should check out an article on "Transadvocate" which is not edited by the king of transsexual extremists, Mr. "Cristan" Williams.  Entitled "California Trans Student Domaine Javier Expelled By a Baptist University For 'Fraud' Is Suing" it takes the person in question to task for having lived stealth (even though the student then went public on MTV's True Life. At first, one might get the impression that the objections raised where simply over statements made on the show about having been "deceptive," but the final quote makes it obvious that the author of the article believes that "transgender" people, who I am sure would include in his mind, "transsexuals, must be, loud, and proud, or face condemnation:

So will Domaine begin to live proudly and authentically with us on our bittersweet road less traveled? Or will she continue to deceive? Watch and see.

In another words, will this person give up actually being a woman, which he already did when he went on True Life?  With transgender extremists, actually living authentically as a woman (or a man) is simply not an option.

I Must Have Struck a Nerve...

About two weeks ago, I posted about a silly bit of drivel on "cisgender privilege."  Well, the site that published that article decided to strike back....and, of course, post even more "transgender idiocy," (they don't like that term).  I have to say, I am honored.  

Granted, it is the usual sort of silliness one comes to expect.  I am accused of trying to impose a hierarchy.  Nope, not even close.  For their to be a hierarchy, there would have to be a direct relationship.  There isn't.  Transsexuals are not automatically transgender.

The person also take umbrage at my pointing out that transgender is a choice.  Of course it is.  It is an artificial social political construct with no objective basis in reality.  Period.   Now, a person who is a transsexual might choose to identify as transgender.  Some do, though I cannot for the life of me understand why.  But, transgender is a choice.  It is a chosen identity, though the more extremist of transgender activists, including über kook "Cristan" Williams, try, desperately, to force that label on people against their will. BTW, Mr. Williams was the first to praise the article.  That says a lot, right there.

In any case, this article simply serves as continuing proof of what I asserted in my previous article, and in numerous articles before, and a few since.  Transgender is about being "different."  For a person who identifies as "transgender" normal is anathema, in the sense of something to be denounced.  

I really get a chuckle out of this bit of true idiocy:

I have discovered that members of our community are policing each other and attempting to create a hierarchy of who is truly Trans or not. Many people are playing the same games of ‘normality’ that Gays and Lesbians have often pulled in an attempt to normalize themselves by othering people who are considered less normal. These situations really need to stop if we are going to strive for our goals.

Oh, this is so wrong, in so many ways....  To start, let me repeat, I am not part of the trans community.  Second, as I already pointed out, I don't believe a hierarchy can exist when there is no real relationship.  You now, the old bit about comparing apples and oranges.  Further, there is no real relationship between gays and lesbians and transsexuals, nor is there a relationship between gays and lesbians and people who choose to identify as transgender.  Yes, such a relationship may exist in the mind of some ignorant people, but in reality, there really is no connection.  People who are transsexual may be gay or lesbian, people who are transgender may be gay or lesbian, but people who are into left-handed, underwater basket weaving might also be gay or lesbian.  There is no real connection.  Further, no, this is not about "othering" people, it is about people othering themselves.  People are are transgender deliberately separate themselves from "normal."  They have no desire to be "normal."  That is what transgender is all about.  And finally, let me make clear, again,  I have no desire to further the goals of the transgender community.  I actively oppose the efforts of the transgender community.  I hope to do whatever I can to thwart the goals of the transgender community.

Now, I am taken to task for the alleged mistake of "assuming' that "Nina Ember Nova" is transgender.  Actually, whether this person is transgender or not has no bearing on the fact that what was posted is transgender idiocy.  It's still wrong, it's still bogus, regardless of how the person who wrote it chooses to identify.  And let me add that the term "privilege is, in and of itself, pretty much an example of idiocy in general.  It is used when someone feels that they are denied something they think they should be entitled to, and are envious that they don't have it.  It is what used to be called "covetousness."  In recent years, I have developed osteoarthritis in my left hip. I am not classified, at least for certain purposes, as disabled.  But I don't go around ranting about people having privilege because they are not.  Privilege is just another way of othering oneself, and trying to put down those you envy.

Ah, but the author goes on:

Ignoring that however, JustJennifer’s arguments were inherently wrapped around the notion that if a person truly needed to transition from male to female they would dress and act like a ‘normal’ woman like she apparently does. She also claims that its wrong for someone to look like a ‘man in a dress’ and also claims that some people “invite abuse” because of their gender expression. She also seems to take it upon herself to become a gatekeeper for transitioning by essentially claiming that if others do not match up to her experience, then these other people are just performing “Transgender idiocy” and are essentially fake. Her arguments are also classist and ableist in the belief that people require SRS to have safe spaces while many can not afford or medically receive care for numerous reasons. The point is, her arguments cater to the mainstream audience of society and ask people to cave under the pressure of social expectation instead of understanding that she, despite her self described medical condition, is just as much of a gender rebel to the world around her. Also, Nina and myself will be working to respond to her more in depth soon enough.

Okay, let's be clear about something here, AGAIN!!!  If you really are a transsexual, then you are essentially a normal woman (or man as the case may be).  You will not have the desire to play dress up and prance around in silly costumes like so many do, even though they claim to be "transsexuals).  And yes, if you are not to the point where you can blend in with other women, then you should have the good sense and decency to exercise discretion and show consideration for other women.  If, of course, you are a man, with a typical male personality, well....never mind.  You will act like a man, and we will react accordingly.

And yes those who really need to transition will, it is called "not making excuses."  Again, it is not easy, but one will find a way.  I did.  Others have.  But many won't.  It should also be noted that even when people have surgery handed to them on a platter, they will find excuses.  They, actually, are the ones who believe in this silly hierarchy stuff.  They think, like "Autumn" Sandeen does, that lying and claiming to be a transsexual elevates their status.  It doesn't.  It just makes then look like the liars they are.

And well, it sounds like this jerk, and "Nina" plan to take me on some more.  Good.  I like exposing foolishness.

In closing, let me offer up one last quote that shows the absurdity, and contradiction of this person's arguments:

The minute we, as Trans people, cross the gender/sex boundary, we are not considered normal any longer. We can go stealth and I certainly don’t take that away from any individual, but the mere act of having the courage to say, “Hey, I don’t belong to the group I’m assigned,” automatically introduces gender roles and the thoughts and opinions of society into the mix. It takes a certain level of internal thought and analysis to accept and understand something that much of society isn’t willing to accept as real. It is true that for some people there is a medical fix through hormones and surgery and the problem is more or less solved. Yet for others the acceptance and fight against a broken history and the narratives that are created for us as Trans People are problematic.

Now, I am accused of "othering" people.  Again, no.  I decline to be "othered,"  (BTW, there really are no such words as "othering" and "othered," but since the author uses them....)  First off, I may have crossed the "sex boundary," but no, I did not cross the "gender boundary."  My gender, or more accurately, my brains wiring, was always female.  I simply accepted that, and am living according to my correct gender.  I took steps to bring my body into alignment with my gender.  Interestingly enough, as I began the process, I actually found myself being called "ma'am" even while i was still, technically, "presenting as male."  That is, before I updated my paperwork, and specifically stopped crossdressing.  I chose not to but heads with society.  I saw no pleasure in it.  And that is what separates transsexuals, particularly true transsexual, from the transgender crowd.  We are not rebelling against our gender, or anything else.  We are simply getting on with our lives.  And many of us, like most people, might be amused by the transgender, but beyond that, we really don't understand their need to act out, and we certainly do not approve of it.

Don't blame me if you find it hard being a "trans person."  That's your choice, not mine.  I think you are acting out, and no, I am not going to pander to you, I am not going to play along, and I am not going to welcome you into women's space with open arms.

Mr. Sandeen Can't Hide From the Truth

Well. apparently the man who loves censorship has convinced LGBT Weekly to again let him hide from the truth. For a while, they seemed to be preventing him from his usual tricks. Then he posted a self-aggrandizing piece called A decade of Autumn. When challenged on the fact that he clearly engaged in fraud when he obtained a falsified birth certificate, Mr. Sandeen first tried avoiding the issue, then finally published a link to a fact sheet from the Transgender Law Center on the law that streamlined the process.  Then, when certain facts, like the fact that the doctor who castrated him (the full extent of his surgery) was contacted, and without making reference to any specific patient, stated that anyone claiming that he had said that castration was a basis for claiming a change of sex was mistaken, and that he remains a male physically, he started having comments removed.  In another words, Mr. Sandeen conned his doctor, and lied to the courts, and does not want the truth to come out at LGBT Weekly.  

Then, the real irony is, the site flagged for moderation a post that quotes the San Francisco Superior Court as saying:

In order to ask the Court for a gender change, you have to give the Court an affidavit from your physician documenting the sex change. You must have undergone gender reassignment surgery in order to ask for a gender change order. 

This contradicts Mr. Sandeen's claims.  There are not specifics on the San Diego Superior Court site, but since this is based on State law, it has to be assumed that the standards are the same.  Mr. Sandeen has not had "gender reassignment surgery" (an absurd term pushed by TG extremists) and his sex has not been changed.

Apparently, Mr. Sandeen is getting all comments blocked without approval now.  Typical.  He hates the truth, and lies when he claims that he is a transsexual.  He is not a transsexual, not a woman, and most assuredly not a female.

 

The Transgender Extremists Are Becoming a Self-Parody

When I was younger, I used to enjoy reading MAD Magazine. I always found their satires of current movies and TV shows quite amusing, especially if I had seen what was being parodied. But one in particular sticks in my mind. They took on the comedy Catch-22 which was a satirical anti-war movie about a fictional air squadron during World War II. A fried of mine, who had seen the movie, pointed out that the satire, which was entitled Catch-All-22 was pretty much simply a rehash of the plot of the movie. The movie, he said, was so absurd, that the artists and writers at MAD must have found it impossible to parody.

That is what the "transgender movement" has become, so absurd that they are a self-parody. They take offense at even the slightest, most imaginary insult, and then they launch into a frenzied effort to suppress the often imaginary insult.  In the past, these efforts were mostly limited to cyberstalking, something I have been a victim of, but now they have extended to open attacks on blog sites of radical feminists who express an opinion that is contrary to what the transgender extremists consider to be politically correct.

I often find myself in disagreement with the more extremist of the so called "radfems," but I still respect their right to free speech, just as I respect the right of the transgender extremists to spread their silliness.

For example, one of the most recent battles erupted when a blogger made an off-hand remark about women becoming angry because they cannot achieve the perfect body shape...that of a Brazilian transsexual.  That relatively innocuous remark has led to an amazing about of fury in England that has now spilled over to the United States, including attempts to suppress the freedom of speech of women ranging from those who oppose the more absurd extremes of the transgender kooks to to those who object to transsexuals.

Then there is the outrage expressed by "Autumn" Sandeen on Pam's House Blend.  Mr. Sandeen is upset that President Obama did not make a point of pandering specifically to the men in dresses during his inaugural address in which he spoke "LGBT families."  Mr. Sandeen admits that Obama has done a lot for "transgender people," but is upset that Obama did not actually, specifically mention the men in dresses crowd.  In fact, the Obama administration has, in my opinion, in some cases gone to far.  For example, the State Department allows the update of what Mr. Sandeen falsely refers to as "gender markers" on passports.  No, they are an indication of SEX, which is basically an indication of whether or not you have a penis.  Mr. Sandeen has a penis, and he wants to keep his penis. Therefore, in terms of both sex, and his precious "gender" he is a male, and a man.  Period.  But Mr. Sandeen is one of those who likes to play with gender, abuse it, and subvert it.  He was, is, and always will be a man, even if he makes the tragic mistake of deciding to have SRS to prove something.

It's a simple fact of life...not everyone is going to accept transsexualism as legitimate.  There will always be some, if they know, who will refuse to see a person who was born male as a woman.  This is even more true for the "men in dresses" crowd.  I don't see them as women either.  But hey, I can live with it.  First off, the people who do know are relatively rare in my life, and most who know are people I have told.  The ones who refuse to accept me rarely remain a part of my life.  Most people simply don't know.

But the "transgender kooks" cannot abide this.  They feel they have a privileged right to force people to acknowledge them as female, even if they have a fully functioning penis hidden in the panties.  And if someone fails to do this, they are likely to face outright bullying.  Of course, what else would one expect from a bunch of men?

The Radfems Have Some Good Points

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

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

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

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

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

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