Can Someone Buy the Transgender Kooks a Clue?

In a recent article in LGBT Weekly. Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen again advocates for "access to bathrooms."  And in this particular article, he exhibits an appalling lack of having a clue.  He launches into one of his favorite themes...feminists sharing similar views to conservative Christians.  And yet, in complaining about this, he misses a very big clue.

Here we have two groups that are, for the most part, polar opposites.  One would expect little common ground between them.  And yes, both stridently oppose unrestricted access to women's spaces, in particular restrooms, by men who claim to be women.  

Now, it is an interesting fact that, for many years, pre-op transsexuals were able to easily access the women's room.  The problem affects those who are more inclined to identify as "transgender."  Now, I have given quite a bit of thought to term, and I have come to the conclusion that the vast, overwhelming majority of those who prefer to be labeled "transgender" tend to retain a considerable amount of identification as "male."  Unlike the classic transsexual, they seem to want people to be forced to "see" them as women, while be totally aware that the person was born male.  Actually being a woman, in a real, meaningful way, is outside their interests.  They want to be women, but male.  They want to adopt a female identify, persona, and dress, but to remain a male.  Some may go so far as to have surgery, but they still insist on being "out, loud, and proud."  They reject the concept of stealth, and have no desire to enter the women's room and only be seen as a woman.

Now, in some cases, this is connected to the sexual arousal that many feel.  Being in the women's room, or shower, or locker room, or other places that they are not really welcome, is part of the thrill.

But, it never occurs to the kooks like Sandeen that perhaps the reason two groups can find common ground in this issue is that it actually is a serious issue that should not be brushed aside so quickly.  That, perhaps, some common sense is called for.  That honestly considering one's appearance, demeanor, and likelihood of being accepted as female, should be considered instead of just barging in, and expecting to be accepted.

Let's Be Honest, Folks....

As I have pointed out, several times, there has been a lot said about the case of the transgender male in a Colorado high school who has been accused of harassing female students.  Much has been made about how "inaccurate" the news stories were.  I disagree.  I think they raised valid points, and that the reaction from the transgender extremists simply illustrates the true nature of the problem.

The Pacific Justice Institute issued a statement in which they said, "a trans person in the restroom is 'inherently intimidating and harassing.'"  I think that statement, as written, is somewhat flawed.  First off, the words "trans person" are very vague.  I imagine they might well, for example, include me in that, and yet, I use the restroom regularly without intimidating or harassing anyone.  Further, I do not identify as a "trans person."

And, some who might properly be identified as a "trans person" and who might self-identify as such would also be able to use the restroom without being "intimidating and harassing."  But, I would completely agree if it were reworded as, "a trans person in the restroom can be inherently intimidating and harassing."  

What would make a difference? Why is this true in a case like the one in Colorado, but not, perhaps in other cases?  The answer is simple.  In the case in Colorado, there has been no real attempt on the part of the student to assimilate as a female.  He is, as they say, "out, loud, and proud."  This is a continuing problem with the transgender extremists.  They not only are out, they make sure everyone knows their history.  They don't attempt to fit in as women...they force their situation in everyone's face.

And that is how some, like Mr. "Cristan" Williams, Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen," Mr. "Dana" Taylor and others want it.  They not only don't care that they are making women uncomfortable, they seem to take delight in it.  And this is just wrong.

When I transitioned, I went to great lengths to make sure that I was not causing a problem in using the women's room.  The thought never occurred to me to see it as an inherent right.  If I had not been able to assimilate, I am not sure what I would have done.  But, I seriously doubt  I would have been able to continue my transition.

Now, we have kooks like Mr. Williams and Mr. Sandeen who go out of their way to not assimilate.  They seem to treasure the shock value of being known as "transgender."  It is the focus of their sad little lives, and if that makes women uncomfortable, they are all the happier, claiming it as some sort of "teaching moment."

I believe it is time for a return to sanity in this area.  If someone is not going to make an effort to actually assimilate as a woman, then they should stay out of women's spaces.  If you have not had surgery, then you should not be in a place where a woman might see you nude.  And if you are told you are making women uncomfortable, then you should take corrective steps to prevent this.  Otherwise....well, you are just acting like man, and a rather nasty one at that.

Hey! Who's the Naked Dude?

[Updated to correct an error in which I misattributed a position to Cathy Brennan.  For that, I apologize.]

I am sure most are familiar with the "Emperor's New Clothes."  It is the story of a very vain but gullible emperor of an imaginary land who is sold a set of "special" garments.  The thing is, he is told that they are made from a fabric invisible to anyone who is unfit for his position or "hopelessly stupid".    Of course, the garments  are not real, and he is being tricked into paying for nothing.  

So, when his new "clothes" are delivered, he is shocked to discover that he, the emperor, is apparently "unfit," but not willing to admit this, he makes a great fuss over how fine they are and after being assisted in dressing by the con artists who have tricked him, and having his ministers also discover they they too are not "unfit" (and of course no one admits this) he goes out in public where the crowds, again wishing to avoid embarrassment, make a great fuss over how fine the garments are.  Until, finally, a young child says, "Why does the emperor have no clothes?"

Well, many, like the emperor, are being sold an illusion.  And some are beginning to ask questions, and that is causing panic among transgender extremists.  Over the past several days, a number of them, led by Mr. "Cristan'  Williams, have tried to counter an article that first appeared on Christian Broadcasting Networks website about a transgender male in Colorado, who has invaded the girls bathroom, and the fact that this has caused distress for female students.

Mr. Williams has posted at least five (now up to six) stories on Transadvocate, plus one on his personal web page, and has further made efforts to hound any news site that has dared repeat the story.  All of his posts have included outright lies, in an attempt to stem what is clearly the beginning of a coming backlash.

The latest post on Transadvocate is just absurd.  Headlined, "Anti-gay activist group admits trans school “harassment” is fake," it is basically just one big lie. The group in question, Pacific Justice Institute did not make an admission, and the whole thing is Mr. Williams putting words in their mouth in an attempt to create another of his trademark straw man arguments.

Mr. Williams starts off:

Okay. Maybe the Pacific Justice Institute (PJI) doesn’t think that they’re admitted their charge of “harassment” is fake, but I’ll let you be the judge.

Okay, there is so much wrong here, it is laughable.  First off, it is kind of hard to make an admission without intending to actually do so.  Second, well, let's be honest, Mr. Williams is not going let anyone be the judge.  He is going to tell you what to think, and demand that you accept it.

What is really going on becomes a bit more obvious later in the post.  He attacks one of his favorite targets, attorney Cathy Brennan, because, well she simply quoted a statement from Pacific Justice Institute.  This is not even a position taken by her/  That post points out their view that "a trans person in the restroom is 'inherently intimidating and harassing.'"  Now, to be specific, what is referenced, is having someone who is male, who makes it clear that he is male, but who i claiming to be "a girl," insisting on using the women's restroom.  We are not talking about someone who has a medical condition, who is seeking to assimilate as a female.  We are talking about someone who wants to be "out, loud, and proud," as a transgender.

Williams goes on to attack Brennan for "outing" an FTM transgender teenager, while glossing over the fact that what Brennan actually did was notify school authorities about this person posting harassing messages on Tumblr, including some about women and rape.  The student was making the posts from a school account.  Of course, in the fantasy world of the transgender activist, such behavior as that committed by the student is protected and Brennan should have simply accepted it without complaint.  I guess "ordinary women" don't count...only trans women.

All of this serves to further expose what terrifies kooks like Mr. Williams.  If people actually stop and consider what is really going on, the entire transgender house of cards will come crashing down.  They are not interested in helping the rare person who actually is transsexual, who simply wants to get on with their life, avoiding publicity.  In fact, if you do wish this, they are very likely to show what hypocrites they really are, and attempt to out you, especially if you don't wish to follow them in lockstep.

No, the truth must remain hidden.  The focus must be kept off of the fact that they are trying to force people to accept that women have penises, and that simply claiming womanhood magically grants it in total.

And people are finding that increasingly hard to swallow....  And noticing that not only is the emperor quite naked, but that he is trying to be such in women's locker room....

Mr. "Cristan" Williams Lies, Again....and Again....and Again...

In an article of the type that Mr. "Cristan" Williams is notorious for, he shows, once more, that he is a pathological liar.  The article, entitled Trans Student Attacking Girls in School Restroom! Or, you know… not, is classic Mr. Williams. The title is the first lie. No one has actually said that a trans student is attacking girls. This is a classic "Cristan" Williams straw argument. What has been alleged is that the male student is harassing girls, which would include forcing himself into the girls rooms when it is well known that he is a male-bodied student. Mr. Williams, being a male-brained man has no concept of the idea that female students might no want a man in their bathroom. Mr. Williams is the sort of pervert who thinks they should just "get over it."

He then goes on to crank out even more of his typical straw arguments... He asserts that the right wing is claiming:

Florence High School is supposedly part of a trans conspiracy to assault school girls in the restroom.

ROTFL!  No one has made such a claim, but that doesn't stop Mr. Williams...  He is on a roll, and has no sense of ethics.

He then goes on to attack the journalist who has written about this.  What David McCain of "the examiner" (funny how Mr. Williams doesn't provide links to the stories he quotes..., using images instead, which allows him to control what people do, and do not, see).  The story can be found here.  Clearly, this story has Mr.  Williams in a full-blown panic.  He has brought in back-ups to try to dominate the comments...

No, he misrepresents what was reported.  No one suggested that anyone was "assaulted," or "attacked."  The word used was "harassed, which would describe how girls might feel about having a boy in their presence.

Mr. Williams also lies when he claims:

I challenged David about his facts and he admitted that he abdicated his responsibility to conduct due diligence for a story concerning a trans kid. Let’s be honest here, this is a case where ADULTS are targeting a trans KID, asserting that the kid is preditor. Apparently, for people like David, what he’s knowingly doing to this kid is acceptable as long as he has his juicy headline that plays well for his audience.

Actually, Mr. Williams has harrassed David McCain, and McCain most certainly made no such admission.  So, Mr. Williams lies again.  Further, no one has used the term "predator" or even "predator" to describe the student.

And finally, Mr. Williams posts a comment from what he claims is a female student at the high school in question, without citing the source.  It is not as it would appear, a comment on the article in question...

So, again, Mr. Williams, who has an established record for lying, has done it again.

Thank You Mr. Taylor

Seriously, I want to thank Mr. "Dana Lane" Taylor for his article on Transadvocate entitled "On 'Passing' As A Woman."  In this article, you have made very clear the difference between transgender and transsexual.  Even though you have turned against "transsexual separatism" you have made the case for it beyond question.

Of course, this is not what was intended.  The article rather cluelessly expresses what transgender is REALLY about.  Or, perhaps, more to the point, what it clearly isn't.  

Now, Mr. Taylor bases the article on the term "passing," which I also disdain, but for very different reasons.  I have said, more than once, "I don't pass."  I don't mean, as they say, that "get clocked," or that "I get read," quite the opposite in fact.  I simply mean that I am accepted as what I am, simply a woman.  What Mr. Taylor means is, in fact, just the opposite.  Like many transgender males (and yes, he is a male), he does not wish to be seen as a woman, because if he is seen as a woman, he cannot force to acknowledge him as a "woman."  And forcing people to accept him as what he is not, and never will be, is what it is all about for men like him.  And yes, Mr. Taylor is also really a man...socially, and emotionally.

For a transsexual, this is all about being who, and what, we really are....women.  For transgender males, it is about forcing people to abandon reality and acknowledge them as "woman," even though their personalities are clearly masculine, and they retain their penises.

Mr. Taylor tries to dress his garbage up in a false patina of pseudo-feminism, talking about defying "stereotypes."  But, stereotypes exist, quite simply, because they reflect reality.  But the issue here is not about how people dress...when I was approaching beginning my real life test, I could not "pass" as a male.  I had some very bizarre experiences, including being told I was going into the wrong restroom when trying to use the men's room.  I avoided going to lunch with my boss for fear of being called "ma'am" by wait staff.

Mr. Taylor talks about the "harm" that encouraging passing might cause to someone, like him, who is never really going to be accepted as a woman (I suspect that the "male" characteristics he speaks of are not so much appearance as his personality...) but I want to present the other side of the coin, so to speak.

The transgender community has been all aflutter over the fact that a "transgender teenager" has been elected homecoming queen in Southern California.  Great news?  Nope.  This poor child, no doubt influenced by men like Mr. Taylor, Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen, and Mr. "Christan" Williams, has been "out, loud, and proud."  Cassidy Lynn Campbell was even featured in a photo spread, including shots that gave the impression more of someone who still appears very male with a wig, and quite a bit of make-up.  Now, I realize that this person has just begun attending school as a "girl" this school year, and it is still very early.  Presumably, this person was presenting as a male most of the time, until very recently.  But, what really happens when someone tries to take this path?  

Well, here is a link to what this person posted on You Tube after being brought face to face with reality.  Compare this to other videos where this person self-identifies as a "teenage drag queen."  The video might be a bit of theater, or it may be the honest heartbreak of a transsexual who could have avoided this by actually making an effort to be a female, rather than trying to be a "transgender."  I am certainly leaning towards sincere, but I honestly can't say for sure.

Gee, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Sandeen, Mr. Williams, if it is real, I bet you can feel real proud of what your crap really results in.  Sure, for you, and many others, it is really all a game.  But your game, and your trying to force it on others, has real world consequences.  But you don't care about that, as long as you have your "thrills." If you REALLY cared, you would be working to help young transsexuals assimilate, but that does not fit your agenda, does it?

He Said WHAT?!?!?!?

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Choice? Sometimes Yes, Sometimes No.

Over at the Huffington Post, which is becoming a regular mouthpiece for transgender extremists, "Brynn" Tannehill, a former officer in the U.S. Navy, and current transgender extremist, is trying to argue the issue of whether or not he had a choice about "transitioning," which in his case, means putting on women's clothes and claiming he is now a full fledged woman with a penis, lesbian class.

Now, let's consider this for a moment.  This is a person who had no problem getting accepted to the U.S. Naval Academy.  Now, the Naval Academy, like all of the service academies, adheres to what is referred to as the "Honor Concept."

Midshipmen are persons of integrity: We stand for that which is right.

We tell the truth and ensure that the full truth is known. We do not lie.

We embrace fairness in all actions. We ensure that work submitted as their own is their own, and that assistance received from any source is authorized and properly documented. We do not cheat. 

We respect the property of others and ensure that others are able to benefit from the use of their own property. We do not steal.

Now, it is that second line that is the problematic one here.  If Mr. Tannehill is really a transsexual, then he would have known, by the time he entered the Naval Academy, that something was very wrong (to say the very least) and let's be blunt, since we can assume he entered the Academy around 1993 or so, it is unlikely he would not be aware of being a transsexual, which would have meant that he would have lied during his physical.  He would have also have had to hide this fact throughout his time at the Academy.  Actually, it is very likely that he did hide the fact that he was a closeted crossdresser at that time.  

The simple bottom line is, if you are a transsexual, you might try to hide that fact from others, and even from yourself, but you are not going to be very successful.  I was relatively late transitioning, and even later having surgery.  I knew some was wrong very early on.  I didn't know what it was, or what could be done.  When I learned, I got bad information that delayed my transition for years.  By the time I did transition, my life was pretty much messed up, and it took a few years to sort things out.  And that involved, as much as possible, trying to be as stealth as possible.  I wasn't interested, as Mr. Tannehill is, in rubbing people's noses in it, but instead, simply wanted to be what I should have been all along.

Did I have a choice?  Yes, between continuing to suffer, or having a relatively normal life.  Did Mr. Tannehill have a choice?  Yes, between having a relatively normal life, or being a public spectacle.  Funny how that works out....

A Really Dumb Question

In yet another attempt to avoid reality, Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen revisits a question he asked in an article in 2009.  The Right Way To Be LGB Or T?  Let's get past the first part quickly.  Being lesbian, gay, or bisexual is an objective state.  You either are, or you are not.  If you believe they are not a choice, then the question is even more ignorant with regards to those three states.

Transgender, of course, is an identity that is a choice.  The right way to be transgender is simply to say, "I am transgender."  And suddenly you are.

Transsexual, which is what Sandeen is not, is also not a choice.  Again, you either are, or you are not.  The real issue is, a lot of people want to lie, and claim to be transsexual, when they clearly are not.  Just as more than a few men, like Sandeen, want to lie, and claim to be women when they clearly are not.

Which brings us to a simple truth...

There is no single right way to be L, G, B, or T...or, transsexual or a woman for that matter.  But there is a very large number of ways to not be transsexual or a woman.  And at the top of that list is "Avoiding reality." And Sandeen and his ilk engage in that one all the time.

Transphobia? Or Just Common Sense?

Way back in the earliest days of this blog, I wrong a post about what I call "club words," the sort of words that people, especially extremist activists, use to beat people into submission.  And of course, the favorite of the transgender kooks is "transphobia."  

The most common definition of "transphobia" is:

An irrational fear of, and/or hostility towards, people who are transgender or who otherwise transgress traditional gender norms.

This rather silly term was made up by the transgender kooks as a sort of parallel for "homophobia."  Now, the term homophobia started out as a bit of a slam against men who had issues with homosexuality, based on the suggestion that such men were actually frightened of their own "latent homosexuality."  Over time, as it became more widely applied, it tended to lose this original meaning, and now stands as a sort of bizarre term that has a root meaning that is largely unrelated to how it is actually used.  Few would now suggest that people actually fear homosexuals as much as they simply dislike their behavior which some see as immoral.

But, as more and more transgender activists decided that they wanted to align themselves with the LGBT community, even though they actually share little in common (especially given the idea that sexual orientation is inherent, while much of what defines transgender is clearly chosen behavior, they decided to plagiarize the term homophobia and modify it into "transphobia."  

Increasingly, the term is used to attack anything that the transgender kooks dislike, even if it is actually quite reasonable, and totally rational.  For example, in the article that inspired this column, Mr. "Cristan" Williams calls the idea that a person who was a male for the majority of his life, but who has in relatively recent time, undergone sex reassignment surgery, should not be allowed to beat up women in mixed martial arts competitions, transphobia.  He cites a claim by "Marci" Bowers, the infamous transgender surgeon who took over Biber's practice in Trinidad, CO before bolting to San Mateo, CA as stating:

Most measures of physical strength minimize, muscle mass decreases, bone density decreases, and they become fairly comparable to women in their musculature. After as much time as has passed in her case, if tested, she would probably end up in the same muscle mass category as her biologically born female counterpart.

 Now, this is the standard set of arguments made whenever the issue of a post-op transsexual who desires to enter women's sports comes up.  Even if one sets aside questions about why they would even want to do such a thing (If they do win, it will be attributed to their having been born a male, and if they don't win, well...one wonders why they even bother?) I find it interesting that Bowers uses a lot of "weasel" words...like "most," "fairly,"and "probably."  Nothing definite, just a bunch of dancing around the facts.  In another words, this person "might" not have an advantage, but Bowers is not going to make a definitive statement.

Another doctor that Mr. Williams cites takes a similar "weaselly" approach:

She’s been doing that [HRT] for so many years, that she probably does not have a significant advantage, if any at all. Especially because she wasn’t a big man when she lived as a male. She’s 5’7 and slight of build, and basically the size of an average female.

She "probably" doesn't have "significant" advantage.  Hmm, based on his statements, I guess a 5'7" man with a "slight build" could fairly fight a woman as well...

The bottom line is, no one really knows.  Personally, I have questions about anyone who has a history as a male engaging in women's sports. and I find it hard to justify such.  Being a transsexual involves trade-offs.  But some, in a classically male manner, want to have their care and eat it too.  Again, if they prevail, they will be seen as having done so because they were born male, and if they don't, well...if one is not in it, to win, why bother?  And in should be noted, in the case of the person being discussed, they have two wins, and no losses, so the question of an unfair advantage remains legitimate.

In the case of a person who was born a man, who is going to actually be engaged in a sport that involves actually trying to beat up a woman, the sane and rational thing would be to err on the side of caution.  But that does not set well with the transgender kooks, who think that a person's right to claim to be a woman trumps all.  Now, even allowing that the person in question might actually be a transsexual woman, which I find a bit difficult to accept when someone decides to out their self (that, at least to me, raises serious questions as to their motivations, should women be subjected to such a situation?  Isn't it funny who women who were born female always seem to come out on the short end of the stick where the TG crowd is concerned?

Likewise, we have a store in Idaho taking the quite reasonable step of telling someone, who is not a woman, and who quite clearly was not really even trying to act like a woman, who was in the women's room, to no longer come into their store.  This person was creating an uncomfortable situation for people who had every right to be there, specifically by standing to pee.  This is not a transsexual woman, who is concerned about fitting in with other women.  This was a man, who just didn't care.  And let's be honest, this person is not even really attempting to look like a woman, but instead is a typical TG parody of a woman.  I was very cautious until I was quite certain that I would not cause a scene in the women's room.  But the TG crowd could care less about women, even though that is what they claim to be.

And the list of such examples could go on, and on...like the response of the TG crowd to the case of "Colleen" Francis, the pervert who was exposing himself to young girls in the women's dressing room at a college.  Or how they think that first grade girls should be forced to share the bathroom with a male child, simply because he says he is a girl, no matter how uncomfortable they are.  Don't like the idea of seeing some man's naked body in the women's shower at your spa Then you are transphobic.  Do you think women have a right to gather together without  men who claim to be women invading?  Well,  you are not only transphobic, but they will call you are TERF as well. Even if you are not a radical feminist, but just think people have a right to decide who to associate with at a private event.  Don't want some guy in the ladies room, just because he put on a dress?  Yes, they would say you are definitely transphobic.  Don't want some boy being assigned to share a dorm room with your daughter...at an women's college?  Transphobic?  Have common sense?  Yeah, you're probably a transphobe.

You know, I think perhaps we should start pointing out instances of "cisphobia," which would be defined as:

An irrational fear of, and/or hostility towards, people who are not transgender or who otherwise fail to transgress traditional gender norms. 

I mean seriously, that seems a reasonable and sane response to some of the silliness engaged in by the TG crowd.  

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.

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.

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.

Avoiding the Real Issue

A week or so ago, "Cristan" Williams, self-appointed alpha gender fascist, was crowing about how he had been asked to take over as managing editor of Transadvocate by Marti Abernathey. Well, now Mr. Williams has posted one of his typical bits of drivel...and it is certainly destined to be a classic example of his skill at avoiding the real issue.

Titled Insidious: Extreme Pressures Faced by Trans People, it starts off with this rather ominous sounding lead paragraph:

Studies show that the trans population lives under extreme psychological pressures unseen in even active military personnel. Fifty-five percent of trans people [1,2] were found to live with social anxiety. Within the general American population, similar types of anxiety are experienced by only 6.8% [3] of the population while these levels of anxiety were found to exist at a rate of 8.2% among military personal.

Wow, sounds horrible, doesn't it?  Those poor, oppressed "trans people"...  What Mr. Williams does not mention is the fact that the vast, overwhelming majority of "trans people," who are living with this terrible social anxiety, choose to be "trans people," and are, as a matter of choice, acting in a manner that they know is contrary to social norms.  In another words, it is their own fault.

In fact, I would venture to say that the percentage of so-called "trans people" who actually suffer from social anxiety is actually higher, as it is possible that the statistics cited my well include more than a few transsexuals who might not actually share the same issues as "transgender" people.

Think about it.  The people Mr. Williams is talking about are overwhelmingly men, who choose to engage in behavior that is offensive to a majority of society, and which is actually intended, by choice, to offend others.  These are not innocent victims.  Their identity is rooted in transgressive behavior.  They could easily avoid much of the problems they face, if they chose to, but for various reasons they prefer engaging in the very behavior that results in their social anxiety.  Worse, people like Mr. Williams refuse to compromise to protect the safety and comfort of women.  They prefer a world where the ladies restroom is wide open to men, with no regard for privacy or safety of women, even though the boys in dresses like Mr. Williams demand to be accepted, and treated, as "women," well at least as "trans women."

Now, these are not people who are actually trying to become women.  Their identity is as "trans women" which means that they have to hang on to their identify as men, in addition to their supposed identity as women.  They are, more often than not, demanding that society accept them as "women with penises."  I remember reading about this in Robert Stoller's book Sex and Gender: On the Development of Masculinity and Femininity. At the time, I thought the idea was absurd, but I have come to realize that there is at least some truth there. I mean, there is really no other way to explain the behavior of kooks like "Autumn" Sandeen, "Monica" Roberts, and others. They revel in their penises even as they claim, quite humorously, to be women.

 And yet, we are supposed to believe that these perverts are victims of discrimination. Again, they choose to engage in behavior that most people will find disturbing, but they are the victims. And yes, in spite of denials, like one posted on Transadvocate, for the transgender crowd, it is a choice. The denials are billed as "humor" and perhaps they are, because they are certainly not related to reality. The first talks about trying to achieve passability.  

Seriously, so many transgender types may imagine that they actually pass, but they are often mistaken. And even the ones who look reasonably credible lose any hope of "passing" the moment they start talking. It does not take long to realize that they are not women mentally. Their thoughts and behavior are 100% male.

The next reason given is cost. Of course, this does not remotely apply to transgender people who have no plans to actually transition. And for many, the costs of things like hormones are relatively negligible.

The third reason is "success." That transgender people lose out on jobs and such. Of course, again, this is not true for those not full time. And the number of transgender activists who are on disability, usually for mental health issues, speaks for itself.

The next two have to do with being forced to "explain" and being "gossiped" about. Hello? Look at the behavior we are talking about. This is what they are LOOKING FOR!!! They want the attention being "transgender" attracts.

The sixth reason speaks of having exhausted reasonable options. This of course is typical transgender co-opting of transsexual's experiences. Yes, for those of us who are transsexual, this is true. We reach our limit, after having led very miserable lives. For the men in dresses crowd, after long, successful careers, during which their crossdressing is a part time hobby, they decide to go full bore. They were not desperate. They just decide that the thrills need to be upped.

In the seventh reason, the person whines about how much harder it is to be a woman. This, of course, is also part of the motivation. For a transgender, the "lower status" is part of the game. Ever notice how transgender types seem to be very chauvinistic men? They think being at a lower status make them more "womanly" and they delight in it.

The eighth reason has to do with being alone. Again, a transgender trying to co-opt something that some transsexuals experience. Yes, dating can be hard. Then again, since my surgery, I have never revealed my past to anyone I dated. Now, if you are "out, loud, and proud" you might well attract chasers, of which their are plenty. But most of the men in dresses crowd are into women, and unless they can find someone who is as perverted as they are, or who has such low self-esteem that they will put up with a boyfriend who calls himself a woman, they are generally out of luck. But then again, they are the woman of their own dreams. For them, this is about sex, and well...I really don't want to go there. Disgusting.

The final reason is pain. Again, if you are a transsexual, yes, you may go through some pain. Surgery does hurt. Electrolysis is no fun. But for the men in dresses crowd, surgery is not a serious option, and increasingly, they don't bother with electrolysis. I mean, why give up that option of really freaking people out?

Interestingly, I worked with some of the people involved with one of the studies Mr. Williams cites. I conducted surveys, and I know the sort of people who were questioned. A lot of my opinions on "transgender" silliness came out of that experience. I saw first hand the sort of people Mr. Williams is trying to claim are "really women." Interestingly enough, you don't see the same sort of thing with FTM transsexuals. Most of them simply transition, and get on with their lives. There are a few rare exceptions, but most of them can easily assimilate and move on with their lives. Those who choose otherwise tend to openly identify as "gender queer" and tend to claim a "none of the above" type of gender identity...insisting on silliness like "gender neutral" pronouns.

No, the "social stresses" are not because they are victims, it is largely because they are transgressing societal norms and experiencing the resistance that naturally follows such behavior.

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.

Reaping What You Sow

Well, Riki Wilchins, who gave the world "Transexual Menace" (though now even Wilchins is using "Transsexual Menace" seems to be coming face to face with reality.  Wilchins has been very active lately, writing about the issue of testosterone blockers, and how they may bring an end to the nightmares faced by transsexual youth, and then in another article, writing about having to deal with children's question about whether or not Wilchins is a "boy or a girl" when claiming to be a "mother."  

Now, Wilchins basically made a career out of being very publicly "gender queer" even as Wilchins went through transition and had sex reassignment surgery.  I quickly came to see Wilchins as one of those people who was not worth focusing much attention on...sort of like "Kate" Bornstein, who I suspect regrets having transitioned and who is trying to deal with now being a man trapped in a woman's body...sort of a bizarre, almost Twilight Zone twist if there ever was one.

Wilchins never really made an effort to assimilate, or "pass" as Wilchins puts it.  Now, as I have stated before, I have come to realize that "passing" is very much a transgender concept.  It is basically an assertion that one is not really a woman, but is fooling everyone else into thinking one really is.  That is why I say, "I simply am," rather than "I pass."  I am not fooling anyone.  I am not trying to.  And, quite frankly, I don't have to.

Wilchins, who has a six year-old daughter who has been confronted by children saying "you can't be her mother."  Wilchins, interestingly enough, is upset by this.  Could it be that Wilchins really was transsexual, but got caught up in a bizarre political/social revolution, and now, as they say, "the chickens have come home to roost?"  Could Wilchins have made a bad choice?  Is Wilchins, as they say, now "hoist by one's own petard?"

If so, it would certainly be a rather ironic situation.  Wilchins did a lot of damage to transsexuals.  Wilchins was one of the more obnoxious voices pushing for gender upheaval when most of us just wanted to get on with normal, quiet lives.  Wilchins actively sought the spotlight when most of us wished to avoid it, and quite frankly, wished Wilchins would just shut up.  

Among other things, Wilchins was active in Camp Trans, and attempt by a group of transgender males to force their way into the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival.  It should be noted that more than a few post-op transsexuals have simply ignored the "womyn born womyn" and attended the festival.  Camp Trans, as evidenced by some nasty graffiti painted on one of the camp's kitchens, was about intact males forcing themselves on the festival.

So, someone who made a career out of "not really being a woman" is forced to face the reality of choices made.  Sad in a way, but also rather satisfyingly ironic.  A morality tale for the transgender community.  You really do "reap what you sow."

There Really Is a Difference!

It's funny how sometimes I will be kicking an idea for an article around in my head, and then suddenly one of the transgender kooks will say something that is exactly the thing I was thinking about addressing.  Well, Suzan Cooke, who has become a leading apologist for the Transgender Borg, so much so that I have more than once suggested we should just start calling her Locutus, has done just that.

In her ongoing attempts to attack people she once basically agreed with (her revisionist history of her reaction to Harry Benjamin Syndrome is pretty much fiction) she has published a new post called Sex Reassignment Surgery Does Make a Difference, Just Not the Ones the HBS Folks Claim.

The bit of inane drivel from Cooke that tied in with the article I have been considering, was this:This is because a few assholes have made SRS into this thing that is almost like a trophy they can wave in the faces of those who can’t afford surgery or don’t have the same level of discomfort within their own skins as to require SRS.

Now, this, of course, is straight out of "Transgender 101."  We are all exactly, absolutely the same, but...many cannot afford surgery, or simply do not feel the need for surgery, but aside from that, we are all exactly, absolutely the same.

And it is, of course, complete and total 

HORSEFEATHERS! 

Yes, I can think of another term for it, but hey, I really don't care for that kind of language.  But, seriously, this is complete and utter silliness, and it establishes, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Cooke is completely and totally given over to the transgender point of view.

First off, the simple truth is, very few people who are truly transsexual...that is, people who are truly born with a brain that is sexually differentiated at odds with their body, and who are not actually some man who has a fetish as a hobby that involves fantasizing about being a woman, is likely to be able to deal with various issues that are going to interfere with the ability to accumulate sufficient wealth to be able to afford SRS without something of a struggle.

I know in my case, it interfered with my educational plans, and I wound up dropping out of school and actually spent a good deal of my life, pre-transition, as a homemaker.  My former spouse worked, and I stayed home.  We both agreed that I was more suited to keeping house, and my attempts to "earn the living" generally resulted in financial disasters.  That left me lacking in job experience I needed to find a good paying job when I finally came to full grips with what I needed to do.  

I was lucky that I was able, as more and more are, to find a job where my health insurance covered SRS.  Now, of course a kook like Cooke will probably throw some minor rant about privilege and how relatively rare this is.  And I will, of course, counter with a few facts.  First, the job I had at the time of my surgery was in a research project dealing with AIDS prevention for people who are transgender. Now, the definition of "transgender," was "politically correct" and included transsexuals, as well as the other categories that the "transgender paradigm" attempts to link with transsexuals.  In fact, much of my views of 'transgender" come from my experiences in that project.

The staff I worked with was rather varied.  Our executive director was a post-op transsexual who would have been close to being a contemporary of Cooke's.  We had a couple of other post-ops women, and an assortment ranging from one other true pre-op through various varieties of what turned out to be, pretty much non-ops as well as a few FTMs, and a couple of females who identified as "gender queer."  

Now, I became involved in the project because I was seeing a counselor who specialized in transsexual and transgender people, in anticipation of having surgery.  I was about three years into my transition when I came to San Francisco, and I was assigned to her by the City's health care system.  She was working with the research program I would be employed by, and I was asked if was willing to participate in a survey they were doing.  I agreed, and was interviewed by the person who I would later learn was the executive director.  As part of the survey process, I was invited to participate in various classes (part of the research project) and through that, I was invited to volunteer.  I had been attending college, considering a career in nursing, and  during the summer I had no classes.  Unfortunately, the nursing program was very impacted, and admission was by lottery.  I found myself in a difficult position.  The program that was supporting my college studies had a time limit, and it was very likely that it would run out before I could even get admitted.  The volunteering, which was presented to the program as an "internship" led to a job offer, and since I already knew that surgery was going to be covered soon, I jumped at the opportunity.

Now, the bottom line in all of this, is in an office with a number of supposedly "pre-op transsexual," only myself, and one other, actually took advantage of the surgical benefit.  A couple of the FTMs had top surgery, but I, and one other, were the only two who had SRS. 

The rest found a variety of excuses why they didn't really want surgery.  Some went on to other positions with the same university when the program we were in was disbanded after the principal investigator turned out to have been mishandling money, among other issues.  But they did not take advantage of the benefit.  

My point in telling this story is simple.  If someone really needs the surgery, if their body is at odds with their brain, they will find a way.  My plan had been to find a job that would pay enough that I could live on half my income, and put the other half into savings.  Right before coming to San Francisco, I thought I had reached that point, but other issues in my life led to that falling apart.  The job I had with the university was half-time, providing enough for me to live on, and the surgical benefit meant I didn't have to worry about actually saving money, but ironically my time frame worked out about the same.  If I had been working full time, at the same pay rate, I would have reached the point where I could have afforded the surgery about the same time I actually had it.  And, I did have the added benefit of note having the possibility of a financial disaster wiping out part, or all of my savings.  So, I suffered pretty much the same as I would have either way.  Even though my surgery was covered by insurance, the impact was the same as if I had worked for that time and saved the money.  The downside is, I didm't get to travel to Thailand, which is probably where I would have had the surgery otherwise.

As I pointed out in my last post, San Francisco will now cover SRS for those who cannot afford it.  If nothing else, any who claim they would have it, but cannot afford it, could consider relocating to San Francisco.  But, of course, few actually will.  And while I doubt it will become widespread, it is increasingly likely that other places that provide medical care for the less fortunate will be forced to consider such coverage.  And coverage under health insurance is quickly becoming widely accepted.  Soon the "I would, but I can't afford it," excuse will be gone completely.

This brings us to the second part of Cooke's silly statement.  There are "don’t have the same level of discomfort within their own skins as to require SRS."  Simply put, these people are not transsexuals.  They are people who have a desire, born of a fetish, or a sense of rebellion, or  who knows what, who have chosen to transgress societal norms.  They thrive on the conflict and controversy their behavior leads to.  It may not be politically correct to point this out, but they are, quite simply, basically anti-social in terms of personality.  They don't want to fit in.  They crave being at odds with the norm.  They are unhappy with the idea of being "normal."  They don't want to be a normal woman, or a normal man.  They want to be, as one kook once put it, "a woman-male."  That is, they want to force society to pander to their behavior, treating them as a "woman" while forcing the fact that they are male on people.  Or vice versa in the terms of some who are born female.  Some in this group, such as Mr. "Cristan" Williams, claim to have had surgery, but they still retain a strong link to their maleness.  Others, such as Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen actually engage in fraud to get their birth certificate change, openly bragging about their deception.  It is unclear if the judge in San Diego who granted Mr. Sandeen's request to change his birth certificate to falsely indicate that he is "female" was aware of his true surgical status (i.e. that he is a eunuch, retaining his penis) but in San Francisco the courts instructions make it clear that this is NOT acceptable.

It is not about being "special" as Cooke tries to claim, but it is more about actually not being special.  You see, I don't believe there is a basis for real comparison, so there is nothing to make a transsexual "better" or even "less" than someone who is transgender.  It would be like comparing the proverbial apple and orange.  Both share common traits, living beings, of the vegetable kingdom, and both fruits, but there the comparison largely ends.  Likewise, a transgender person and a transsexual are both human beings, and they may share a few other common traits (such as both having been assigned male at birth), but again, there the comparison ends.  Comparing the two is, in effect, comparing a man to a woman.  Same species, but very different in many ways.

And this is where Cooke's silliness falls apart.  Cooke simply does not get it.  Most of us never shared her past obsessions, and we have no need to purge ourselves of her feelings of guilt.  I did not transition to become a transsexual, I transitioned to become a woman.  But kooks like Cooke seem determined to make that as difficult as possible.  By engaging in anti-social behavior, and then trying to basically insist that this is "typical" of transsexuals, and worse, by, insisting on linking us to the even more anti-social behavior of some who push the transgender paradigm, when our past is revealed, either inadvertently, or because of necessity (my primary care doctor knows, but I don't share it, for example, with my ophthalmologist") we face forms of discrimination that are not necessarily overt, but are ore subtle, such as being perceived as thinking and feeling differently than we actually do.  No, I don't want to wear my past on my sleeve like some do.  No, I don't particularly want to talk about it.  No, I really don't appreciate it when you tell me how moved you are by the fact that it is the "Transgender Day of Remembrance."  What I want, is to be treated as you would any other woman, period.

The simple bottom line is this.  If Cooke wants to call a bunch of "men in dresses" sisters, because it makes Cooke feel all transgressive and revolutionary, and just oh so politically correct, that is certainly Cooke's right.  But hey, I don't, I want, and if Cooke wants to get her panties in a wad because of it, then well, Cooke is probably not going to be happy with what I have to say about it.  But hey, that's life.  Cooke has as much of a right to be wrong as anyone else. But I'm still not buying the insanity she is peddling.  And what little respect I once had for Cooke as an pioneer has long been laid to rest.  Who knows, maybe Cooke is right, and these people are closer to being Cooke's siblings than not.  But in that case, "sister" is really not remotely the appropriate term in either direction.

Yes, one way, or the other, SRS makes a difference.  For some, like myself, it makes a major improvement in one's life.  I have faced things that would have previously devastated me, but which I was able to handle because I no longer carry the baggage i once did.  For others, it is itself devastating.  It is a mistake for them, and it accomplishes nothing of value, and may even lead them to take their own life.  Or, it may just lead them to dedicate their lives to attempting to make life miserable for anyone for who surgery was the right choice.

Bottom line, I and others who fit the classification of "classic transsexual" are women socially, and as female as is possibly with current medicine.  There are a lot of people who have no real desire to be both, or in some cases, either.  I would appreciate it if both they, and their apologists, would stop trying to insist that they are "just like me."  They are not.  I'm not better, or lesser.  There is really no basis for comparison, and perhaps that is the biggest difference that SRS makes.  Whether you have it, or not, it makes clear the difference between those who desperately need it, and those who really don't.