Another Example of Why I Do Not Accept the Label of "Transgender"

In the comments section of Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen's column at LGBT Weekly, another man in a dress tried to dismiss the comments of myself, and another transsexual on the basis that we were "in pain."  I was rather amused by this, and simply replied, "Nope… My pain was ended when I had SRS."

Then I got to thinking about this.  This is a common tactic among transgender extremists, one that is almost as popular as labeling any disagreement as hatred.  The words might vary, with the accusation being that we are ashamed, in denial, or fearful, etc., but the basic idea is the same.  We are to be ignored because we are not being "honest."

Of course, this is the goal.  If they can "dismiss" our point of view, they can ignore it, and not have to actually deal with it.  They don't have to address the actual points raised, which just might prove a bit difficult.  You see this tactic a lot.  It is basically a variation on the classic logical fallacy known as a "straw man argument."  Rather than address the real point that is raised, in this case the issue was open service in the military for transgender people, you create a false argument, which is easily dismissed.

The simple fact of the matter is, I don't identify as transgender.  And that is all that transgender is, an identity.  Most who identify as such are not remotely transsexual.  Yes, there are exceptions, and some have guzzled the transgender "Kool-Aid" in large quantities.  Personally, I cannot understand why anyone who is transsexual would find common ground with the transgender paradigm.

Of course, part of the problem with the term "transgender" is that it is so vague as to actual meaning, it has become, essentially, meaningless.  But, for the most part, those who do identify with transgender seem to be more inclined towards being, as some would say, "out, loud, and proud."  They feel the need to make sure people know that they are transgender.  Their very core identity seems to depend on people being aware that they are transgender.  On the other hand, I, and most other transsexuals simply desire to get on with our lives as the women, or in the case of FTMs, the men, we really are.

To me, the idea of being "openly" transgender, or even "openly" transsexual, is unacceptable.  I am simply a woman.  I have been through transition, and I have left as much of my former life behind as is possible.

In another column on for LGBT Weekly, Mr. Sandeen writes about his experiences trying to obtain a discount based on his service in the Navy.  Now, I find it interesting that he states"One of the documents that can be used to indicate one is a veteran with my phone company is a DD214 (the military’s separation of service, or discharge document)."  Now, this is a document on which the name cannot be changed.  In another words, this document has Sandeen's birth name.  But, apparently, this was not the only document that Sandeen could have used to establish that he served in the military, but it is the one he chose.  Now, I never served in the military, but I have faced situations where I could have revealed my birth name.  And, unless absolutely necessary, I will avoid doing so.  In fact, the last time I recall having to do that was when I got my California ID.  I had to provide a copy of my birth certificate, and since that was before my surgery, I had to use the original version.  But transgender people seem to revel in this.

This is the main thing that divides most who are transsexual from those who prefer to identify as "transgender."  The transgender types want to keep a connection to being their birth sex and gender.  They don't want to be what they claim they "really" are.

Trapped in a Loop

A "time loop" is common device in science fiction.  The characters find themselves repeating the same experience, over and over, seemingly doomed to forever repeat the same period repeatedly for eternity.  Sometimes, looking at the crap from transgender extremists feels much the same.  I keep having the experience of reading stuff, shaking my head, and thinking "They don't get it, and they can't see that they don't get it."

The latest version of this comes from, of course, the kooks at Shame on You Transgender Edition.  "Michelle" Spicer, who seems to have become he most prolific poster among those spewing ignorance on that blog starts off with this bit of drivel…

Have you ever noticed that when you are talking to a transgender woman that she is always 100% sure beyond doubt that she is making the right decision. She very well may be making the right decision, but it is not possible to be 100% sure about anything. We are humans and we have doubts, it's just part of human nature. Yet in order to toe the line in the transgender community, she is forced to maintain an impossibility to secure her position in the transgender hierarchy.

Now, I cannot speak to the experience of that non-existent entity known as a "transgender woman," but I would assume that, as usual, Mr, Spicer is referring to some random transsexual he has encountered.  Now, by the time a transsexual has reached the point of beginning transition, he or she has struggled through years of self-doubt, misery, and even self-hatred in some cases.  Most of us have suffered at least some form of abuse at the hands of others.  By the time we finally transition, we are generally quite sure we are doing the right thing.  But, something that has been lost along the way is the concept that transition is a trial period.  That is why it is, or at least should be, called the Real Life Test.  If it turns out to  not be the right choice, there is always the possibility to go back.  Of course, now, many kooks attack anyone making that decision.  Simply put, you have doubts, or if you don't need to transition to survive…then don't.

And again with this stupid "hierarchy" stuff.  Bunch of guys finding something to compete over.  There are no degrees of being a woman, and if you are a transsexual, then don't worry about the imaginary "transgender hierarchy," unless, of course, you really do want to link yourself to a bunch of guys in dresses…in which case, well, maybe you should think long and hard before you decide to have surgery after all…because there is no going back.

But then Mr. Spicer takes off on a really stupid tangent that should leave no doubt that he is not remotely transsexual…

I recently posted an article about hormones and I mentioned that hormone replacement therapy does not always cause sexual dysfunction. There was no end of transwomen ready to swear that they lost sexual function not only from the first time they took hormones, they lost sexual function on the way home from the pharmacy! Loss of sexual function happens over time and there are many transwomen who remain functional right up until the surgery. But you won't hear any of them standing up to say so, they are simply not allowed too. Not unless they want to risk losing face in a community that has little cohesion and offers even less help. Why do we have to keep up these pretenses? Why do transwoman have to argue about stealing the pink blanket from another baby hours after they were born in an effort to "out trans" the next transgender woman. The arguments are ridiculous and can make us look like delusional fools.

Okay, this bit of tripe is bad enough…but I checked out the article he refers to, and who led to the above is even worse….

Estrogen will kill your sexual function. More often than not this is certainly not the case. Your sex drive may change over time but your actual sexual function should not be affected until such time as you chose(or not) to have Gender Reassignment Surgery.

Okay, first off, it does not happen instantly.  That much is correct.  In my case, when I started out, I was on .5 mg of Estinyl (Ethinyl estradiol) which would be about the equivalent of 7.5 mg of Premarin, plus an injection of Depo Estradiol once a month.  It took about 6 weeks for my, uh, sexual function as Mr. Spicer puts it, to cease.  Oh, and after two to three months I asked my doctor to move me to more regular injections of Depo Estradiol, so he switched me to every two weeks.  Now, whether or not you lose the ability to have an erection and ejaculate (orgasms never went way) is dose dependent.  I imagine, like most male crossdressers, Mr. Spicer wants to keep having erections.  I was overjoyed that they were gone.  That is one of those significant differences that separates transsexuals and those who are "transgender."  Most men in dresses want to keep their penis, uh, fully functional.

Clearly, Mr. Spicer did not like being confronted with the truth.  He no doubt has a doctor with enough savvy to put him on an appropriate dosage for a crossdresser.  Of course, you probably wouldn't tell the patient that, since many crossdresser, while easy to spot, are not always willing to give up that fantasy that they are "really" a transsexual, even though they want to keep their penis.  Then again, he may even have one of those doctors who follows the ridiculously low dosing regimen of the Clarke Institute, which basically puts patients on low dose birth control pills, and then claims that hormones have little, if any, actual effect on male patients.  Uh…yeah, and I imagine some of them are quite happy with that.  But no the transsexual ones.

If you take a proper dose of estrogen, you will see changes over time.  You will have breast development, which can be as variable as that of women born women.  Some have more than others.  You will see some changes in facial features.  Again, this is variable.  It depends a lot on what you had to start with.  In the case of Mr. Spicer, I don't know how long he has been on hormones, but the pictures I have seen of him are not promising.  You will also see some fat redistribution, and you body will take on a more feminine shape.  Again, variable.  I know one very well known transgender extremist who sports a beer belly any redneck could be quite proud of.  What some would call Dunlap's syndrome.  (My belly, done lapped over my jeans…) I don't know how much of that is how that person dresses, and how much is hormones (or the lack thereof), and how much is simply genetics, but that person does look kind of odd.

The bottom line is, hey, if you want to identify as "transgender" fine…be transgender.  Just stop claiming stuff like how you are just as much a woman as anyone else, and how you are just like a transsexual….  Just stop trying to tell transsexuals they are transgender, because I got news for you…if you buy into the crap Mr. Spicer spews, you almost certainly aren't.

The Sad Case of Dana Lane Taylor

Dana Lane Taylor, who at one time identified as a "transsexual separatist" has now embraced the transgender cause, and is Mr. "Cristan" Williams' latest BFF.  A lot of people are amazed at this turn around.  

Taylor is concerned about now being attacked by former friends.  Nope, though I do feel pity for this sad individual.  Clearly Taylor has a very fragile self-identity.  Taylor apparently embraced both "transsexual separatism" and "radical feminists" in order to feel like a "real woman."  The key word there is "feel like."  

You either are a real woman, or you are not.  Mr. "Cristan" Williams, Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen, Mr. "Monica" Helms, Mr. "Monica" Roberts, and others are not.  They really don't identify as women, but as some odd creature they call a "transwoman."  Oh, they say, "Transwomen are real women," but that is simply laughable at best.  Women are women.  No qualifiers.  They don't want to be women, they want to be "women with penises."  Even if they make the mistake of having SRS, they have an overwhelming need to cling to their maleness.

No, I am not going to attack Taylor, though I will speak out if Taylor starts saying stupid stuff in support of the transgender cause.  It would just be cruel right now.  This person clearly needs serious help, and I fear all creeps like Williams and Sandeen will do is take advantage and make things worse.

I don't need people's acceptance to be a woman.  That is why Taylor fell into a trap.  Taylor cozied up to the radical feminists, who I consider to often be as extremist, in their own right, as the transgender kooks, and then, on discovering that they were not fully accepting, had an emotional crisis.  

Funny how that works.  You tell a bunch of people, who basically hate men, "Hey, I 'was' a guy," and then you get upset because the say, "Sorry, but we don't see you as a woman."  If you are a woman, fine.  But it is not an "identity" you adopt.  I fear Taylor has discovered, the hard way.

A Small Glimmer of Hope Amidst the Insanity

It is not often that one finds much hope in the silliness that comes out of the "transgender community."  But every once in a while someone actually posts the truth, and it serves as a slap in the fact to fools like Mr. "Cristan" Williams who has spent a lot of time trying to force people under the umbrella.  Or Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen, who is again trying to push that idea.

Jillian Page, who is one of the more sane writers out there, makes just that point in an article that is titled Why Most Transitioned People Don’t Carry the Transgender Torch.  She begins:

“Where is it written that someone who has transitioned MUST help the (transgender) community?” asks reader Karyn Maynard in response to someone else on the comments board of a GLAAD post about Dawn Ennis.

Karyn makes a good point, and the fact of the matter is, most people who transition move on from trans issues. They don’t actually see themselves as transgender people, even if they embraced the cause of “transgenderism” at some point in their journey. But they don’t live between the gender binary as so many transgender people happily do: the transitioned MtF person IS a female, and the FtM person IS a male. The point of transitioning was to fully live life as a female (or male in the case of FtMs). Hence, many just ride off into the sunset, or go “stealth,” as some like to say.

In another words, we wish to live quiet, normal lives.  Something that seems to drive some transgender extremists up the wall:

Over the years, I have received complaints from some transgender readers who don’t accept that many transitioned people drop the “transgender” label and just see themselves as women (or men). They don’t understand it. “You are denying your heritage,” they say. They also seem to be saying that transitioned women and men are something less than “real” women and men.

Our "heritage?"  Where do they get this stuff from?  I honestly believe what they are really upset about is that we don't want to join them in being "other." This is what I have labeled as "cisphobia." (Hey, if the transgender kooks can make up silly words....)

I particularly like this part of the article...

When the media does it, they are essentially qualifying the womanhood or manhood of transitioned individuals, saying basically that they are something less than women or men. The “transgender” word is essentially an asterisk . But I can tell you that there is no asterisk beside the “female” designation on my birth certificate, driver’s licence, medicare card etc.

Yes, and that is also what the transgender kooks are doing when they refer to themselves as "trans women," or "trans men."  They don't want to be "normal."

But many of us want just that, even as the transgender kooks spew venom at us, telling us that we don't.  But I agree with what she says:

Little wonder that so many transitioned women and men disappear into the woodwork.

Of course, as I am sure you can imagine, this sort of thing does not go over well with the transgender kooks, and there has already been at least one bit of back lash....

In an article entitled You’re Only as Transitioned and Stealth as the Next Person Says You Aren’t, "Katrina" Rose tries to negate the truth, attempting to "scare" anyone who might get the idea of rejecting the efforts of their transgender masters:

Uh huh…

There is no asterisk until someone – someone with the power to make their opinion stick – says there is.

And then you need a torch-bearer to vindicate the non-asterisk portions of your identity papers.

What Mr. Rose ignores is that most who have such problems do so because they insist on flaunting their transgender status.  Yes, there may be cases where someone accidentally discovers someone is a transsexual, but if one has already made it clear by their actions that they are not interested in being "trans" but instead are attempting to live a quiet, normal life, then one will usually encounter less problems.

He  then goes on to make a whiney complaint that apparently boils down to the old "bad people in LGB groups don't treat us "T's" as equals.  Uh, might that be because most of the "T's" act like fools, demanding that people accept that "women have penises" and "men can get pregnant?"

"Brynn" Tannehill, Please Try To Keep Up

As part of maintaining this blog, I occasionally check the statistics, one of which is a list that shows how people get here.  This morning, I noticed several readers had arrived from a link on an article on the Huffington Post.  At first, I thought perhaps it was a link to a comment I made.  I was a bit surprised to find it was actually a remark in an article by "Brynn" Tannehill, about a post I made yesterday, entitled, appropriately enough, The TG Crowd Is Not Going To Like This....  Clearly, I was correct on that one.  Unfortunately, Mr. Tannehill doesn't quite get it....

Okay, let's being with Mr. Tannehill's comment...

The trans community has its own deep internal divisions, with some individuals working hard to marginalize anyone who doesn't express their "transness" in a way they approve of.

This is the quote that he links to my article.  There is so much wrong here...

• First off, Mr. Tannehill, I am not a part of the trans community.  Not even remotely.  If you took a few minutes to bother to read my posts you would have seen this.  I am not a member of your community, and in fact, I am very much opposed to it.
• Since I am not a part of your community, my statement does not represent a division, deep or internal.  It represents outside opposition.  I am not transgender, and I would thank you to recognize that in the future.
• I am not working hard to marginalize anyone.  Mr. Robledo has done an excellent job of marginalizing himself.
• Personally, I could not care less how someone expresses their "transness."  What is at issue in this case, as it is in yours, is a man, falsely claiming to be a woman.  Women, for example, do not stand to pee.  That is classic transvestite.  And let's look at your case.  You claim you are a "woman" but you had a long and successful career as a man.  You clearly had no issues that affected your ability to enter and successfully complete the program at the U.S. Naval Academy, one of the toughest schools in the country. It was only after you had had a successful life as a male (albeit, I am sure with a bit of crossdressing on the side) that you rather suddenly decided that you preferred you little hobby to your male life.  This is typical of what is commonly referred to as autogynephilia.  In another words, you are a man with a very strong fetish, not a woman.  I'll even bet you have promised your wife that you will not have surgery...
• If Mr. Robedo was a woman, it would not matter whether I, or anyone else approves, but the isn't...and nothing will change that.

So, please, don't go making statements like you made here in the future.  You should have better reading comprehension than that.  And the classic "gender fascist" game of ignoring people's desire to be left out of the "trans community" is getting kind of lame,

His Own Worst Enemy

The man who would be king, well at least of the transgender fascists has been very busy lately.  Yes, Mr. "Cristan" Williams, who spends his time trying to prove that the modern transgender movement has been around a lot longer than it actually has is at it again, and he is doing a pretty good job of proving the things he has devoted himself to disproving.

In three recent articles, he has shown exactly the reasons true transsexuals want no part of the movement he attempts to force us into, and even ignores it a major leader's somewhat sage advice.

In the first article, he carries on about how Phillip Frye (not the character from Futurama, but Houston's best known transvestite) who was one of those who created a movement that no sane transsexual would want a part of was a major force in the early gay rights movement, and worked diligently to force the LGB to tack on the T.  Frye has done more than his share of damage to transsexuals.  He was one of the louder voices carrying the mantle of Arnold Lowman, aka Charles "Virginia" Prince that surgery was not necessary, and even undesirable.  He also pulled some absurd stunts that did more than a little to discredit transsexuals legitimacy, such as seeking out post-op "lesbians" in relationships with biological women to have them get "legally" married in Texas as a response to the Littleton case.  In another words, a woman was supposed to legally marry another woman.  But all the Texas authorities did was grin a stupid grin, and say, "Yep, as we all said, they're men, and they are jus' marryin' some woman...no problem."

Then he posts about Lee Brewster, a gay drag queen/transvestite who ran a specialty boutique for drag queens and transvestites in New York City until his death.  Brewster, like Frye was basically a transvestite who got a bit carried away, but who had no desire to actually be a woman.

Then he writes about Leslie Feinberg, someone who is really more butch lesbian than anything else, who played a major role in creating the modern transgender movement, the one he tries to claim existed long before, in the mid-Nineties.  But I have to love the fact that he quotes Feinberg in the following exchange from 1993:

Would you consider anyone who is a butch woman or an effeminate man to be transgendered?

Leslie: I think the point is not whether I would, but whether they would. What I think is that the gender community is forming a movement and starting to be visible and that more and more people will decide whether they are or are not gender oppressed.

So, Feinberg, a founder of the movement acknowledges that people have a right to be "separatists."  It was, is, and should be about "identity" not being forced to accept a label.  The only people I feel "gender oppressed" by are people like Williams, who try to tell me how I can view my "gender."

Ah, but there's more...

Some transsexuals regard being transsexual and being transgendered a being very different from each other and don’t really consider the term “transgendered” as being appropriate to their situation. Do you see there being a fundamental difference between being transgendered and being transsexual? 

Leslie: Well, in the literal sense, we’re talking about ether people crossing the lines of the sex they were mandated at birth and people who are crossing the lines of gender. So, of course, I do think there’s a very real difference between the lives of transsexuals and those who are transgendered, but that’s in the ten(sic) literal sense of the word. I also think that transsexuals who are read very easily on the street have very different lives than those who aren’t, but there’s becoming another use of the word “transgender” which is not so literal, which seems to me to be a kind of umbrella term to unite a very diverse population, and that’s the sense in which I use “transgendered.”

Now, I’m also very aware that language changes and that struggle shapes language, but it may be that there will be specific terms – the “transsexual/transgender” community or a term that we haven’t even heard yet, maybe “trans people” will come to mean anyone who crosses any sex or gender lines. So what I like about uniting us under this broad umbrella term is that it unites a group who share more in common than we differ.

Even from the beginnings of what Williams tries, falsely, to claim was around when it wasn't, Feinberg acknowledges that there are differences.  She wants to create a "community" but one born of identity, not forced assimilation.  And, quite frankly, it has pretty much failed.  Feinberg was wrong.  We don't share that much in common after all.

I agree that there needs to be an umbrella term for all of us, but the reason that some transsexuals don’t like that term — and I tend to agree with this — is that it at least has the implication that transsexuals don’t really change sex. So, do you acknowledge that that term at least has the potential to be used in that way?

Leslie: Certainly I’m not using the term to define anybody for themselves or to impose upon them a term that strips them of an important part of their identity, I think that frequently language doesn’t suit the needs of all the individuals of a community. I remember after the Stonewall Rebellion when the word “gay” first came into use that a lot of people were very angered because they felt it trivializes our oppression. Now the word “gay” has become very accepted. For some of us the word “lesbian” was very difficult to say because it sounded so close to slurs that had been used against us. So I think that the more that we grow as a movement and mature, the more our Ianguage will reflect accuracy and more of what each group within that community feels most expresses their identities.

So, there you have it, Mr. Williams hoist by his own petard.  The very actions he has engaged in, repeatedly, condemned by one of the founders of the movement he tries now to force down people's throats.  Even in 1993, the same issues were around.  One of the people most responsible for the modern use of "transgender" acknowledges the possibility of misuse, exactly the misuse that people like "Cristan" Williams and "Autumn" Sandeen, following in the footsteps to Phillip Frye and Arnold Lowman, engage in.

Research is NOT the Issue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks, But No Thanks!

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


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


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

A Right Strawy Post...

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


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

MY CHALLENGE TO ASHLEY LOVE:

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

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

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

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