Madly Spinning….

I don't remember which presidential election it was, but I do recall, after a debate between two candidates, the news commentators started talking about "spin doctors."  "Spin" had entered our lexicon to describe a type of propaganda that is attempted by providing an interpretation of an event or campaign to sway public opinion in favor or against a certain organization, idea, situation or public figure.  It usually involves a heavily biased portrayal of an event or situation.  Sometimes it is just plain lies.

There has been more than a bit of spin being tossed out in the wake of Janet Mock's appearance on the show Piers Morgan Live on CNN.  Mock, who now apparently openly identifies as transgender was the victim of an attempt by Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen to co-opt her experiences as a transsexual when she chose to participate in Dan Savage's It Get's Better video series.

At the time she went public, I expressed the hope that she would return to being a private figure, but unfortunately, she seems to be embracing the role of being publicly "trans."  I do note that she prefers the term "trans" over "transgender" or "transsexual."  For myself, I reject the term "transgender" completely, preferring to simply refer to myself as a woman.  I recognize that "transsexual" is the medical term for the condition I was successfully treated for, but I don't wear it as my identity either.  But the fact remains, Mr. Sandeen has no business giving anyone advice, and he certainly does to need to be, again, trying to, again, puff himself up by association with someone who has become something of a celebrity.

In his recent attempt to spin things regarding her appearance on CNN, Mr. Sandeen refers to himself as "being a minor public figure – a 'sublebrity…'"  That is more than a bit of an exaggeration.  At best, Mr. Sandeen is the perfect example of my mother's advice that "fool's names, and fool's faces are often seen in public places."  Mr. Sandeen is the epitome of a "wannabe."

Sadly, Mock seems to have chosen a very public, and political, path following her decision to  participate in Savage's video series.  I am not going to judge her motivations, though it does make me wonder about her.  Granted, she chose to live stealth for a period, and perhaps, having made that first choice, found it difficult to undo what she had done.  Once the genie is out of the bottle, as they say, it can be hard to put it back.

I will grant, Mock did not start out choosing the path that Mr. Sandeen has, of openly being a clown, imagining himself the transgender Martin Luther King, Jr.  On the other hand, Mock did create the silly, and rather offensive "#girlslikeus" that was immediately, and enthusiastically embraced by the "men in dresses" crowd.  Mr. Sandeen doesn't use that one quite as much, but still does occasionally.

I have no reason to think that Mock is not truly transsexual, but she has clearly decided to follow the transgender "party line."  That is a shame.  She is not only hurting other transsexuals like herself, but is also, ultimately harming her own interests.

As to how Janet Mock was treated by Piers Morgan, well what did she expect?  Well, of course, the answer to that is clear…she expected to be pandered to, because she was there as a transgender, which is the current hot item in "identity politics."  The expectation is that they will be given special treatment, and not asked "hard questions."  Look at the silliness about Katie Couric's interview with "Carmen" Carrera and "Laverne" Cox.  Now, here were two men, who claim to "really" be women, with Cox referring to the two them as "possibility models" (I don't even want to think about what possibility she has in mind…), and they went ballistic because Couric asked them about their bodies.  I guess reality is off-limits when you are a "possibility models."  The facts are simple.  They put on nice dresses, and they may look like attractive women, but as Austin Powers said, "It's a man, baby."  And in this case, it's the truth…  These two have penises, and like the vast majority of "transgender women" (i.e. men in dresses) they want to keep their penises.  But they insist that they have to be accepted as "female."  Uh, "females with penises…"   Uh, no…

Now comes Mr. Sandeen, who complains that Mock is being defined by her transition.  One problem that Mr. Sandeen is so quick to ignore…Mock is the one defining herself by her transition.  In the article he wrote at the time, Mr. Sandeen predicted:

"Among those new realities she will experience will be a partial loss of membership in the ‘club’ of women.  There are now going to be a large number of women who will forever now look at her not as a woman, but as a man in a dress. Those will include less than accepting coworkers who will smile to her face, and then viciously rip into her behind her back. And, members of the religious right will likely soon be calling Mock a ‘mutilated man’ too, and identify her relationship with her boyfriend as a ‘homosexual’ relationship.”

There is a measure of truth here.  Of course, a lot of this is caused by people by Mr. Sandeen serving as the public face of 'transgender."  When you have kooks like Mr. Sandeen, and Mr. "Cristan" Williams, and such as the public face of transgender, and insisting that they are "just like transsexuals," or worse, that they are actually transsexuals themselves, that is going to lead people to thing that is what being transsexual is about.  And by identifying with "transgender," Mock is basically associating herself with the men in dresses crowd, not with women.  She can protest all she wants, but she has made her bed, and has no business complaining that she now finds it uncomfortable.

The transgender crowd, including any transsexual insane enough to align with it, needs to realize that once they go public, their history becomes fair game.  They have no right to demand to have it both ways.  If they want privacy, they need to keep their private life, private.  If they want to be be exhibitionistic, and that seems to be a major part of being transgender, they need to accept that people are going to ask questions they may not like.  And if someone is a transsexual, but decides to join the transgender crowd, they need to be ready to accept that their are, perhaps permanently, forfeiting any chance of being truly accepted as a member of their true sex.  Like Esau, they are selling their birthright for a "mess of pottage."  And no amount of spin will ever really change that.

Another Example of Transgender Extremists Just NOT Getting It

Recently, I learned about the suicide of someone named Essay Anne Vanderbilt.  Vanderbilt was the developer of a rather bizarre looking putter that was apparently quite revolutionary.  It could help golfers sink putts, and it had attracted the attention of a golfing writer who became someone obsessed with tracking down the inventor.

As he investigated the story, he found more and more inconsistencies.  Suspecting some sort of possible fraud, he dug deeper, but what he eventually found was that Vanderbilt was a post-op transsexual who was quite stealth.  When he made it clear that he planned to expose her, she committed suicide.  Naturally, a few transgender kooks have jumped on this to cluelessly blather about how rough it is for transgender people…mostly completely missing the simple fact that she was almost certainly not one of their ilk.

Another author, again completely missing the point, has taken a slightly different approach…but still misses the point entirely.  "Dana" Beyer, one of several transgender extremists who have found a home at the Huffington Post, has written an article whining about  Vanderbilt being in the closet.  Of course, Mr. Beyer is quick to point out that Vanderbilt had a history of being suicidal, and had a history of "emotional struggles."  He also makes the obvious error of referring to her as a "trans woman."  Vanderbilt was nothing like Mr. Beyer and the rest of the cadre of kooks who pontificate at the Huffington Post.  Vanderbilt clearly had no desire to be anything other than simply a woman…something the transgender crowd blanches at the thought of.

This is one several things that are lost on the transgender crowd in their rush to force transsexuals under their umbrella.  We are not the same.  Transsexuals have an absolute need to correct their bodies, and an equally absolute need to simply live as the women (or men, in the case of FTM transsexuals) that we really are.  Transgender people have a need to be, well, "transgender."  For them, the idea of not being "out, loud, and proud" is as equally offensive as the idea of being such is to a true transsexual.  They want people to know their history.  It is central to their identity, just as being simply a woman is to mine.

And that brings us to the core of what this article is about….Mr. Beyer's clueless drivel…  For example, he utters this ridiculous bit:

When any life is lost, it is a tragedy. When it is lost because of unbearable social pressures, it is an unnecessary tragedy. Her story is, unfortunately, still way too common.

Obviously, this poor woman killed herself because she feared something kooks like Mr. Beyer embrace with total enthusiasm.  While I believe that Vanderbilt overreacted to the situation, I can understand what she felt.  She would have been outed in, at least from her view, a very public manner.  Now, in truth, the situation might well have been ultimately manageable, it would have been difficult.  She no doubt had a lot invested in the product she had invented, and her future income probably depended on building on that success.  Simply picking up and moving somewhere she was not known would not have been an option.  

How one deals with being outed depends, in part, on the nature of the outing, and on where one lives.  For some, it can be hard to escape public scrutiny.  For others, it can be as simple as packing up and moving to a new town, or even a new part of town.  What she was threatened with (as best I can tell, she was not actually outed until after her death, but she should have been assured that her private life would remain private.  And, it is possible, if she had simply explained her situation to the person planning the article, that would have been respected.

But, I suspect that kooks like Mr. Beyer, and a long litany of others I won't bother naming, contributed to her death by pushing the concept that "transgender" people have no problem being "outed."  After all, I suspect some of them should probably be more likely to be suicidal if people didn't know their history.  After all, where is the fun in bullying people into ignoring reality and referring to you as a woman, if they are not fully, and unquestioningly aware that you were, and in many cases, still are, a male.

Some of the crap spewed by Mr. Beyer is just incredible…  For example, he exhibits both the cluelessness of a man, and a complete disregard for the safety, perhaps, of those who don't share his love of the spotlight:

Leaving the closet of her pre-transition male life, she created a new closet, with a narrative that clearly was flawed when she presented as a highly successful engineer and inventor. I'm amazed that her story didn't immediately raise eyebrows, as she was a middle-aged 6-foot-3 woman with a low-pitched voice, degrees from MIT and Penn, and a résumé of work on the stealth bomber and Bluetooth technology. Maybe we've progressed sufficiently that many are no longer aware of the profound sexism that infected the realm of science and technology back in the '70s and '80s. Few women received those degrees and worked on those projects. The ignorance evinced by the author and his editor tell me we still have a long way to go.

First off, Mr. Beyer would have kicked Vanderbilt right back into that first closet, where he still resides.  Mr. Beyer continues to, effectively exist as a man.  He may demand, and even force people to "acknowledge" him as a female, but they do it only by suspending reality.  He continues to exist as, in effect, a man.

Second, he ignores the fact that, yes, some women, not many, but some, did manage to have careers in those fields.  But he also makes sure to emphasize things that might clue his readers in on how to play "spot the tranny."  Yes, folks, that tall woman, with a voice that is perhaps not quite as high pitched as you think it should be…she just might be a man, so don't hesitate to make that assumption.  Especially if she has the "wrong" degree…  Talk about ignorance…Mr. Beyer exhibits it in bulk.

Worse, Mr. Beyer goes on to not only absolve the author of any guilt, but to actually suggest that he was justified in what he put Vanderbilt through…

The LGBT community pounced on the writer and his editor, blaming them for causing her death, even though she had killed herself before the story had been published. There were complaints that she should never have been outed, even though her gender history was clearly pertinent to the mystery that was her life. It was implied that there was no compassion for her, a claim we have no way of evaluating. Causation was implied where there was only correlation, and the trans community lashed out at what it saw as a miscarriage of justice and vicious cyber bullying.

After all, how dare she choose stealth.  She must join behind those like Mr. Beyer, in transgender lockstep.  Anything else is unacceptable.  Besides, what Vanderbilt was subjected to was not unlike what many, including myself, have been subjected to by transgender extremists seeking to punish those who refuse to be assimilated.  One blogger was literally driven into hiding because she dared speak out.

The question that haunts me is how we, as trans persons, can become full and equal citizens as long as we keep our true selves from our friends and neighbors. How can we overcome the need to reinvent ourselves in a manner others might consider deceptive when those others create such pressures that some trans persons see no way out? How can we be free as long as we stay in the closet or create new closets?

What Mr. Beyer really wants to do is force people into the closet of being what they are not, because, quite frankly, he can never be what they are. Mr. Beyer would deny to those who are truly transsexual the life they seek, because he finds it "deceptive."  What he actually demands is deception, not the other way around.  What he really means is, if the truth gets out that transsexuals are not transgender, and that the idiocy spewed by the extremists is, well, idiocy, then he might not be able to successfully bully people into ignoring reality.

My answer is that we simply must come out. The risks may be great, and the act of coming out may be fraught with peril, but as our gay allies have learned, the only way to acceptance and affirmation is to first accept and affirm yourself.

Mr. Beyer is a classic "gender fascist."  He thinks he has a right to dictate what is right for me, and those like me.  I do accept and affirm myself…as the woman I am, not a man in a dress like Mr. Beyer would have me be.

The Return of the Idiot Troll...

In my last posting, I talked about my error of thinking Elizabeth at Notes From the T-Side might have gotten over her little snit about the Colorado high school case.  Among other aspects of all that, I wondered how long it would be before the nasty stalker, "Diane" Lask would pop back up.  Well, it didn't take that long….  

As he tends to do, this person, who I used to refer to as an "idiot troll" back in the waning days of my regular involvement on Usenet, made another round of nasty, and quite false, claims.

The funny part in all of this, is how this whole episode seems to sum up a lot that is wrong with how both transsexuals and those who make up the quite separate "transgender community" tend to act out online.

As I have pointed out, there is often a tendency of some to elevate themselves to a sort of self-aggrandized status as a "pioneer" of sorts.  Suzan Cooke has made an online career of this sort of silliness, and Elizabeth has adopted the same sort of approach.  The story is always the same.  They were an early transitioner.  They had no doubts, no insecurities, their transition was flawless, and anyone who does not agree with their every infallible pronouncement is, at best, suspect.

And they tend to surround themselves with a bunch of sycophants who provide a chorus of ego strokes that allows them to hide some very obvious insecurities.  I will give Elizabeth credit for one thing…she tends to not be as inclined to censorship as Cooke, who apparently can't deal with disagreement at all.  And, so far, Elizabeth has resisted the urge to completely abandon all principles and pledge her troth to Mr. "Cristan" Williams and the transgender extremists.

The truly funny part is, for a group, including Elizabeth herself, who seem to be inclined to question others intelligence, they seem to have seriously impaired reading comprehension.  My final words there, albeit a bit garbled when my fingers slipped and I missed what the spell checker produced, were "I should have gone with my first instinct and ignored you. I won't make that mistake again."  

That after ignoring quite a bit of drivel that preceded the post I responded to.  But, both Elizabeth, and several in her sycophant chorus, chimed in like fools, to suggest I should go elsewhere.  Hmmm, now perhaps they are simply posturing like childish fools, trying to boost their own egos, by telling themselves that they "bested" me.  When, as I said, I don't post there again, they can tell themselves that it was their doing.

But, back to Lask, and his latest round of garbage.  This is the classic example of what people like Elizabeth surround themselves with.  Lask postures about how he is a "A true TS misidentified by JJ."  Actually, Lask, as I have pointed out, turns out to have never had SRS.  For quite some time, Lask hid behind a claim of his surgery having "failed."  Of course  when one considers that Lask also used to brag about his great successes as a well paid programmer (including claiming to have owned a Corvette) one also has to wonder why Lask never had corrective surgery.  Now, Lask simply hides behind fake names, and anonymous remailers to lash out at imagined enemies.

 Lask likes to make a big deal out of some poorly chosen words I put on a website I threw together back when having a vanity web site was "the thing."  (Now, that would be having a blog instead.)  The funny part is, Lask not only strongly identified as a transvestite at one time, he was a very active member of a group originally known as Educational TV Channel, which morphed into Transgender San Francisco, or more commonly, TGSF.  Yes,  Mr, "true transsexual" was an active member of a transvestite social group.  And he wants to accuse others of being autogynephilic.  Even funnier, Lask likes to parrot Michael Bailey, and point out that I am a "techie."  Well, Lask spent years as a programmer and as a very active transvestite.  Hmmm….

Lask, along with a few others, is the reason there are parts of my past I simply don't disclose. Yes, that leads to, as some claim, my backstory lacking "consistency."  And if someone wants to attempt to exploit that, that is certainly their privilege.  Lask's backstory lacks quite a bit of veracity, but Lask sticks to simple lies, leaving out major details such as his military career (he certainly was NOT an early transitioner) and his involvement with a transvestite social club.  But hey, some people are just very skilled liars.  That is typical of what psychologists would label a "sociopath."

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?

Political Correctness Versus Medical Accuracy

A thought occurred to me the other day...

Let's consider two scenarios....  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Very Bad Law

I'm normally a big supporter of both Tom Ammiano and Gov. Jerry Brown, but I am not happy with either of them at the moment.

Ammiano introduced, and Brown signed, AB1266, the law is meant to provide protections for "transgender" students.  Unfortunately, it contains one provision that makes it a very bad law.

A pupil shall be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs and activities, including athletic teams and competitions, and use facilities consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records.

Strictly interpreted, this would mean that a male student, upon declaring that his gender identity is female, would not only be able to play on a girl's athletic team (irregardless of his hormonal status), but would also be able to join the girls in the shower after the game.

I am sure the transgender extremists are just...well, doing what men who are sexually aroused do, over the prospect of this.

It is one thing to say that students should be treated fairly, or that students who identify as transgender should be allowed to dress and be treated as the gender they claim to identify with, but the idea that a male student should be able to be in a place where female students have a right to expect privacy, simply by making the assertion that "he feels like a girl," is absurd.

The irony is, no student who is actually transsexual would take advantage of this, so any student who actually does, and perhaps none actually will, is simply not a transsexual, but is instead a pervert.

More Panic

Well, it's always nice to have something affirmed, even if it is inadvertent.  Dana Beyer has a new article on Huffington Post that is a perfect example of what I wrote about in Panic in the Ranks!  The simple fact is, a few examples of "transgender" men deciding that becoming, or being, a woman was not the right path for them has them up in arms.

The problem is, in their effort to defend their house of cards, they are posting outright lies.  For example, Beyer has this to say:

Trans persons, like gay persons, are "born that way." While the younger generation is now claiming space between genders or negating gender entirely, I will focus only on what most Americans see as the trans experience: persons raised as boys who become women, and those raised as girls who become men.

Nope, not even remotely true...  Trans people, i.e. those who identify as transgender have adopted a label that is highly subjective, and pretty much meaningless.  Transsexual people, who are relatively rare, and who may, or more likely may not, identify as transsexual, are born that way.  But the vast majority of people who identify as transgender are not remotely transsexual.  And they are also not remotely born that way.  Not even everyone who engages in homosexual behavior is born that way.  For example, it is well documented that men in prison will have sex with other men, even though they have not done so prior to incarceration, and do not do so after being released.  

Then Beyer goes on to make this ridiculous claim:

The most important fact needed to understand this process of physical and gender transition is that the sense of oneself is innate. It does not suddenly transform as we grow, or change with puberty. It is not determined by clinging mothers or distant fathers. It matters not that Mom wanted a girl and got a boy, or that Dad punished his son for dancing. Our sense of self is inborn, and that is to be expected with a sexually reproducing species. Variations in sexual orientation, choices about procreation and the like are irrelevant for this discussion.

Let's consider reality, instead.  We are expected to believe that someone who has lived to the age of 40 0r 50, showing no indication of actually believing that they are a "really" a female, is married with several children, has had a successful career as a man, and then rather suddenly announces that he has a life-long history of "gender dysphoria" and has always known he was a woman, is not, perhaps, making most of it up?  Usually the only indication of gender issues in such cases is, possibly, fetishistic crossdressing.  And in rare cases, the progression from the onset of fetishistic crossdressing to "full transition" can be quite sudden.

The two example Beyer chooses to focus are poor ones:

So while we may be raised as boys, our brains have told us we're girls, and vice versa. The process of gender transition aligns the body and social life with the mind. It is, in a very profound respect, coming home. The process has been beautifully described by women such as Jenny Boylan and Joy Ladin.

Both were late transitioners who are not living as women, but as transgender people.  In the case of Joy Ladin in particularly, the ex-wife presents a very different version of the story from the one told by Ladin.

Beyer, much like Sandeen, tries to argue that the "real reason" someone might detransition is not that they realize they are not "really a woman," but is only because of external pressures:

If at any time during or after this period one chooses to stop the process, that is called detransitioning. External pressures can be intense, and it may simply be imprudent for some people to continue. For others it becomes medically or financially impossible, or the tradeoffs simply may not add up. It's unfair to consider those situations failures, though after having lived closeted for decades, mired in shame, it's extremely hard to not feel like a failure. That's why detransitioning is not a panacea and often ends up creating an emotional state worse than the one present during the difficult transition process. You cannot undo the coming-out process, just as you cannot un-ring a bell.

Or, more likely, the person simply realizes that they are not really a woman after all...  In some cases, it can come after years of living a lie.

It is amazing the lengths that Beyer will go to in an effort to avoid the truth:

This often unavoidable sense of failure may drive a person to fabricate a fantasy to explain away the transition altogether. This isn't surprising, as we are often looking to understand our actions, particularly those that cause a great deal of stress to ourselves and our loved ones. Some simply can't accept that they were "born that way," so they create narratives about having been stung by a bee or forcibly cross-dressed by Mom until puberty, or having suffered transient global amnesia. While we don't understand all the causes of gender dysphoria -- we know some cases are caused by genetic and chromosomal variations; metabolic differences in utero; environmental pollutants called endocrine disruptors, such as DES (diethylstilbestrol) and dioxin; or association with more generalized intersex conditions -- we do know that bee stings, amnesia, and parental behavior do not play a role. Claiming them to wall off shame and embarrassment only serves to minimize the truly difficult challenges faced by so many others and trivializes the success of those who make it through the gauntlet of societal resistance.

I mean, really....how silly can you get?  It is not a matter of not admitting that one is "born that way," it is a matter of it being obvious that one was not, and that one decided, for whatever reason, that being a woman would be better.  We are not talking about transsexuals here.  We are talking about delusional men.  Which are the most common form of "transgender person."  Delusional men who, in spite of privilege sufficient to insulate them from reality, still realize that being a woman is not for them.  And admitting any error is near impossible for some men.

Panic in the Ranks!

It is always interesting to watch what happens when a high profile "transgender" person decides that maybe, just maybe, transition was not the best choice.  The transgender extremists go into defense mode, and quite frankly, they panic.  I guess it hits just a little too close to home.  For example, Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen often takes the lead in addressing such incidents.

Recently, there have been too such cases.  The first, and the one that has received far less attention, involves Michael Wallent, a high level employee of Microsoft, who had gone as far as having facial feminization surgery and implants.  He announced that he was returning to being a male in March.  The other, much higher profile case, was that of Don Ennis of ABC News, who suddenly announced in May that he was transitioning, and who just as suddenly announced that he was returning to being a male again.

Both of these cases share things in common.  Both transitioned relatively later, after long and successful careers as males.  Bother were married to women.  Both had relatively high profile jobs.  Both made very public transitions, Ennis more than Wallent.

The Standards of Care used to have a very strong standard for at least a year of what is known as the Real Life Test (or as some prefer to water it down, the Real Life Experience) before one could undergo sex reassignment surgery.  Unfortunately, under pressure from transgender extremists, this has been watered down to a requirement of 12 continuous months of living in a gender role that is congruent with their gender identity, along with a suggestion that one be seeing a therapist during this time.  The old standard spelled out what was required for a successful Real Life Test, including maintaining employment, being in school, or at the very least doing volunteer work.  Also, it was required that one change one's name to a gender appropriate one.  It also required that the therapist verify that the person was not simply hiding away from society, waiting out the time until surgery would be approved. 

Contrary to what some tried to claim, this was not to prevent someone from having surgery, or to make them jump through hoops because the therapist was some sort of sadistic control freak (though there were abuses in rare cases), but to ensure that the patient was not going to make a tragic mistake.  But many extremists pushed for surgery on demand.  The compromise opens the door to people being able to effectively bypass protections, which greatly increases the possibility of a mistake.

Even with the old standards, mistakes happened.  Some, which are often glossed over by transgender activists, whose mantra has become "No one ever really regrets."  But that simply is not true.  In some cases, the person changes their mind before going too far, as in the case of Don Enniss.  In other cases, the realization that one is not really a woman comes too late, such as the case of "Samantha Kane."  

Born Sam Hashimi, this person was a perfect example of the classic mid-life crisis transition. He was successful, married, and a millionaire.  Iraqi born, both his business empire, and his marriage collapsed at the end of the first Gulf War, and at age 37 he announced that he was going to become a woman.  And it appeared that he had made the right choice.  He poured quite a bit of money into cosmetic surgery, and took on the appearance of being a rather attractive woman.  He had a successful interior design firm, lived a jet-set lifestyle, and had sex with a number of well to do men.  But, he was miserable.  Being a woman, even a successful woman, was simply not what he really was.  

None of the articles I have read on this person, who now calls himself "Charles Kane," indicate if he had a history of crossdressing, but I suspect he did.  Many articles about his return to being a male mention things like his "sitting like a woman," and him wearing "dusty rose moccasins" with his suit.  He  has a very androgynous appearance, probably due largely to the facial feminization surgery he had.  In 2010 he was engaged to be married, and has since dropped out of the spotlight.

A somewhat lesser known case was Dani Bunten Berry, a successful game programmer, who after a third failed marriage underwent SRS at the age of 43.  Again, this person had serious regrets before dying of lung cancer at the age of 49.  Berry did not return to being a male, but did warn others about not rushing into having surgery.

Another, much more publicized case where regrets are clearly an issue, though denials have been made, is that of Renee Richards, the famous, or perhaps better, infamous tennis player, and eye surgeon who became the face of transsexualism in the 1970's.  Richards is a classic example.  He was an eye surgeon, a crossdresser, and he had surgery after a mid-life crisis.  He has clearly expressed regrets, even though he has also written a second autobiography in which he tries to hide this fact.  Of course, it should be remembered, once you have SRS, there is really no hope of reverting to being a male, no matter how much one wishes to.  Some, such as Kane, choose to return to a "male role," but once the penis is gone, it is not coming back.

Granted, actual regrets are rare.  I imagine a lot of people begin transition, discover it is not the right path, and return to a male role without much attention.  And, in some cases, what Mr. Sandeen refers to as "external pressures."  Yes, a person transitioning may face such issues.  I did, and it resulted in a seven year delay for me.  But, I should also point out that my initial transition was hasty, and not well planned out.  I also had a very poor therapist who was pushing me to move at a faster pace than I was comfortable with, and who glossed over real concerns that I had.

And, one other factor that contributed was the fact that even though I had changed my name, and lived as a woman, on Sunday mornings I would dress as a male for church.  It was an odd experience.  It was near impossible for me to "pass" as a male, and on one memorable occasion, I remember one of the older men holding the door open for me, and saying, "There you go young lady." even though I was wearing a suit (granted, I refused to wear a tie).  By the way, it was a relatively large church, so not everyone knew me.  

I tried, very much, to convince myself that I was doing the right thing when I reverted.  I struggled to find someplace where I would be comfortable remaining a male, but it was just not possible.  In the end, for me, it was become a female, or die trying.  But ironically, it is often those who are the least suited to transition who find it the easiest, at least in terms of finances.

If you look at a lot of the most virulent of transgender activists, they tend to have transitioned late, after successful careers as men, have been married with a number of children, and to either have been able to retain well paying jobs, or to have a steady source of income from retirement and or disability (often military).  What may appear to be a successful transition is more likely, something of a sham.  They don't live as women, but as transgender.  For many, their lives do not improve, but they have sufficient resources that they are able to avoid actually being forced to face reality.  

But sometimes they cannot escape the simply truth that transition is not living up to their fantasies, and they revert back to living as their true gender.  And, if the person is high profile, the transgender activists go into a panic, because they fear that the truth might come out.  The simple fact is, most "transgender" people have a gender that matches their birth sex.  They are not "women trapped in men's bodies."  They do not have a mind that is at odds with their body.  They are simply engaging in what is, in effect, a form of anti-social behavior.

Unfortunately, the transgender extremists know this, and that is why they have an obsessive need to hide behind true transsexuals.  They want to first claim us, and then push us to the forefront and claim to be just like us.  But they are not, and this is clearly seen by anyone with a shred of common sense.

And if someone who is not a transsexual realizes this, and decides to return to their true gender they may well find themselves under pressure from their so-called friends to continue with their transition.  I know when I postponed my transition, which actually was because of external pressures, though this was not immediately obvious to myself, or anyone else, I was pressured by my therapist to not do so.  I actually had to have someone else speak to that therapist on my behalf because of the pressure I was subjected to.

This sort of behavior is outrageous.  It very likely led to the suicide of Mike Penner, also known as Christine Daniels.  Instead of letting that person sort things out, there was an attempt to "help."  Or more specifically, an attempt to force this person back into being a very public face for the transgender community.

Keep in mind, transgender dogma now holds that simply saying "I am a woman," makes one a woman.  The idea that someone might "think" they are a woman, and then realize they are not, refutes this absurd position.  If someone can realize they are making a mistake, it means that it is entirely possible that anyone could be making a mistake, and well, deep down, many know they are not really women, so this could blow their little fantasy world wide open.  It's like a loose thread.  If people notice it, and start pulling at it, the who thing comes unraveled.

I am sure that many were thrilled to have someone as high profile as Don Ennis donning a wig, and a dress, but if that was not right for him, that is his right.  Attacking him because you find his reasons for returning to his birth gender lacking is outrageous.  His story is a bit odd, but if he feels the need to hide his real reasons, that says more about the voyeurism of the transgender community than it does about Ennis.  Making such a choice can be difficult, and the person should be given space to do so.

The same is true for anyone else who feels the need to make a correction.  It may terrify those who know, deep down, that they are now living a lie, but they should deal with their own demons, and not try to drag others down with them.

Does Mr. "Cristan" Williams REALLY Think So Poorly Of His Readers

From time to time, I will run across as example of rhetoric, that is so lame, so incredibly flawed, so filled with obvious distortions, that it is apparent that the person writing it thinks the people who will be reading it, will believe anything.  Mr. Williams' reply to Mr. "Autumn" Sandeens' attempt at rational argument is just such an example.  And to be honest, it is hilariously bad.

Well, actually, what Mr. Williams is actually doing is attempting to refute the quite excellent article written by Elizabeth at "Notes From the T Side."  You might expect Mr. Williams would have posted this there, but it is obvious why he didn't.  He clearly hopes his readers won't actually compare what he claims with what the actual article says.

For example, Elizabeth quotes him as saying....

Stealth people say things like “I just want to get on with my life as the woman I am” – a sentiment that sounds rational enough on the surface. The problem with that sentiment is that it’s also a delusion. Stealth people rationalize their lies by believing that being trans was only a medical problem that was fixed – kind of like a cleft palate; purposefully pretending that there wasn’t a social transition that entailed violating numerous cultural norms. Stealth is purposefully taking away the choice of letting the people you claim to love the most decide if they are willing to take on the potential social costs (as unfair and stupid as those social costs might be) of breaking those backwards cultural norms by being with you. If you believe that it is only a medical condition, remember that I said that you’re delusional when your best friend, your husband or wife, your boyfriend or girlfriend, your adopted child, etc finds out that you lied about your social and medical history. Yes, it is a medical condition that should be treated medically, but to pretend that this medical condition is exactly like having laser eye surgery is nothing more than living in denial. Living an authentic life means having the courage to stand firmly on the ground on truth regardless of what stupid, moronic and asinine stereotypes and/or fears others may choose to cling to.

She then proceeds to tear this statement into shreds.  In seven paragraphs, she succinctly shows how totally ridiculous Mr. Williams' claims are.  I'm not going to quote them here, go read the article for yourself, the link above will take you there.

How does Mr. Williams respond to this?  Well...

Wow. I just read Elizabeth’s response. It’s nonsensical in that she does things like quote me where I say:

“Yes, it is a medical condition that should be treated medically, but to pretend that this medical condition is exactly like having laser eye surgery is nothing more than living in denial.”

And responds – in the first sentence under that quote – saying:
“CW does not believe this is a medical condition but a social condition complicated by a self perceived medical condition.”

Simply puts, he cherry picks out a small part of a much longer quote, and tries to imply that what he quoted is what she addressed.  This is not clever, it is a lie.  I mean, really....  If that was all he said, that would be different, but he said a whole lot more, and Elizabeth took it apart and showed the fallacies in what he really said.  

Not only does he ignore the fact that she said far more about his quote, which he implies was a rather short one, he misrepresents what she actually said, after saying much more, about the line he chooses to focus on...

The pathetic analogy that SRS is like a cleft palate or laser eye surgery is quite telling about CW. Anyone that has gone through SRS would never and I mean NEVER be that flip about it because it is incredibly painful and the recovery time is extensive. I doubt CW has had SRS but I could be wrong.

Well, I have had eye surgery, twice, and SRS, granted only once, and I have to agree with Elizabeth.  I've had cataracts removed from both eyes.  The first time was in 2003, the second was earlier this year.  It was certainly nice having my vision returned to relatively normal, but to compare that to the life changing experience of SRS in 2006...well, I have long believed that Mr. Williams tries to mislead people into thinking he has had it.  That he has had facial surgery is pretty obvious.  But I agree with Elizabeth, either he has not had it, or if he did, he regrets it.

He ignores what she actually said, and tries to twist it around to sound like she has distorted what he said...

Then she goes on to be deliberately obtuse so that she could claim that I believe having SRS is just like having laser eyes surgery. She uses that strawman to bolster her questioning of my surgical status to cast me as someone who’s less than a True Transsexual(TM) and who is therefore not qualified to offer a valid view.

No, she did not say that he believes SRS is just like having "laser eyes surgery," she questioned how he could make such an inane analogy.  His original point was dismissing the significance of SRS, and that is what she addresses.

Now is where things get really silly.  Mr. Williams then goes on to claim to use accusations of "logical fallacies" to counter Elizabeth's arguments, but instead, well, like Mr. Sandeen yesterday, he engages in a "logical fallacy created from a logical fallacy about a logical fallacy."  In this case, he actually does it repeatedly.

He again abuses the "True Scotsman" argument, attempting a sort of logical gymnastics that comes down to "I must be a True Transsexual because I am claiming that they are using the True Scotsman logical fallacy to show I am not."  The problem is, that is not what has been done, as I showed yesterday in responding to Mr. Sandeen.

Just to be clear, let me repeat...  For an argument to be a True Scotsman fallacy, it has to be, first and foremost, a fallacy.  That is, it lacks any basis other than a false assumption.  If you actually use evidence, and reason, to argue that someone is not what they claim they are, then it is not a logical fallacy.  Claiming it is, in order to avoid actually addressing the evidence, is itself not only a logical fallacy, but is a lie as well.

Mr. Williams is a walking textbook of logical fallacies.  From the simplest straw man, to the most vicious ad hominem, he engages in them as his stock in trade.  This bit of silliness is just one example of many.

And he concludes with a ridiculous claim...

I’m so happy that their movement – as Elizabeth knew it even 5 years ago – is dead. They had nothing to build their community upon by demonstrably false history and deep transphobic antipathy.

Our movement?  I don't know where he gets this from.  We are simply living our lives, and telling extremists like him to stop claiming we are "girls like him."  We never sought to build a community, and basically reject the idea of such.  He is the one who has tried to built a false history, and who hides behind accusations of transphobia to dismiss any valid argument against his extremist positions.

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....

Cooke the Kooke Goes Off the Deep End

Well, Suzan Cooke has really gone loopy this time.  A person didn't even really disagree with Cooke, and Cooke still went ballistic.  Cooke actually disagreed with Mr. "Monica" Roberts, the leading gender fascist bigot, when Mr. Roberts basically demanded that everyone be "out, loud, and proud." And someone, well, actually thought they were agreeing with Cooke, but no, Cooke went off the deep end...

Here is what the person said, in response to Cooke's basically disagreeing with Mr. Robert's demand that all transgender people must be out (and remember as a fully blown gender fascists, Mr. Roberts presumes to include all transsexuals as transgender, even though he really, really hates the post-op ones, especially if they are white....okay, Cooke is an exception, because Cooke is so racked with guilt for being white, and fawns all over Mr. Roberts):

Yes more “out and proud” exultations; I get tired of being told I’m Doing It All Wrong.

And people like Dana Taylor who has seen the one true transgender light* and renounced being just another woman in favour of jumping onto a virtual Pride carnival float with all the flouncy men. How long until her new friends start tearing her apart?

Of course, "Dana" Taylor, who deluded himself into thinking he was not only a transsexual, but a separatist one, has now "seen the light" and decided he really, really loves his penis, and realized that means that lesbians don't want to have sex with him, has decided to join the transgender extremists, since they, presumably, will have sex with him, while claiming that they are really all lesbians in good standing, even if they all still have penises.

Cooke's response?

Being transsexual doesn’t require one to be an ass**** towards transgender people. HBS holes are like KKK/Nazis who think being white requires white people to be racist bigots like them. So far I haven’t met an HBSer who lived up to their bull**** standards. Most are keyboard warriors donning an imaginary avatar uniform to spread bigotry. (sorry, but I am not going to repeat Cooke's profanity)

Hmmm, this is true.  I have even said that a person can be a transsexual, and choose to identify as transgender, if that is what floats their boat, though I cannot imagine why anyone would be so stupid.  But, apparently, in Cooke's brain-damaged delusions, being transgender does require one to be an ass**** towards transsexuals.  Now, apart from the Godwin's Law violation, and the silly delusions (the only standard I have ever seen from the HBS advocates was that one either have had surgery, be living a successful life, or that they be serious seeking it.  But such details such a facts are lost on an insane person, such a Cooke.

Now, it get's worse.  This person had the audacity to disagree with Cooke's portrayal of her.  I mean, the nerve of some people.  Cooke has spoken, and no one should question the absolute truth of the great and powerful Cooke.

Blah, blah, blah. I’ve heard the song too many times. Learn a new one or go play in traffic. I have better things to do than sit here moderating your stupid boring posts. 

Step away from your key board and take off your dress, play time is over. 

The fantasy trannie HBS princess game bores the crap out of me.

I would say that this was the end of any respect I had for Cooke, but that happened a long time ago.  Now, I just see Cooke as basically an insane person, ranting, and trying to live out some bizarre delusion of importance.

I won't bother quoting the next person's comment, or Cooke's rather hilarious diatribe about being a pioneer and all.  If you really are interested, or just need a good laugh, and yes, it is hilarious, follow the link about.

And, one more thing....like a pit bull, Cooke can't let go of this one...  There is another post here, that is even more insane that the one I wrote about here.  Simply put, for the most part, the only person ranting about HBS is Cooke.  The rest of us have pretty much gone back to using the term "transsexual."  Not Cooke's laughable "Women Born Transsexual," just transsexual.  And nope, no one has to make up an lies about Cooke.  The truth is plenty damning enough.  Oh well....

In The Middle....

Well, first off, this post marks the 300th on this blog! It was just over a year ago, I posted the 200th, and now we are up by another hundred. Hmmm, I wonder if Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen will want to make another smart remark about that....for those who don't know, he has been whining about the amount I post...not the first man to claim a woman has too much to say.

Another big announcement....this blog now has a presence on Twitter. I am there as @_JustJennifer_. Feel free to follow me. And I should note, Sandeen has blocked me from following him. Oh well....that is easily gotten around....

Now, on to the topic at hand... I have stated many times that I am a moderate politically. I often joke that I am a member of the Radical Middle, the Far Center....that I am a Extreme Moderate. But it is, in many ways, more than a joke. I do take a very moderate approach to most issues. And I am often amused by the more extremist views that others take.

To start with an easy example...there is Suzan Cooke. Her politics are pretty much off the deep end on the Left. She seems to want to relive her "glory days" as a hanger-on with the Weather Underground. When someone is that far out there, it is hard to take them seriously. On gender issues, Cooke used to be closer to the center, but has recently become almost as extreme as Mr. Sandeen.

Now, Mr. Sandeen may not be the craziest, or the most radical, but he is pretty much a kook among kooks. He is, quite frankly, is the gift that keeps on giving. I am still laughing at the bit about he pounding the table and telling Cathy Brennan that he wanted to carry "his balls around in a jar..." As she told him, that is not female. I guess we should all be thankful that the rules do not allow doctors to return such items to patients. The world is safe from Mr. Sandeen's testicles...though his penis is apparently still at large.

Over on a blog called "Gender Trender," there is a rather amusing exchange between Mr. Sandeen and someone who posts as "Gallus Mag." Basically, he is trying to get this person to reveal her name to him, and she is trying to get him to understand that a woman might not want certain people, including a kook like him, having that sort of information. Sandeen has repeated shown that he is incapable of comprehending how women feel, and this is a perfect example. Towards the end of the exchange, he refers to Gallus Mag as a "girl," and she objects. Instead of acting in a mature manner, Sandeen tries to defend this very male condescension...

I call women “women”. You’re not brave; you’re not a grown-up. You are a girl, “girl”, b/c you’re a hit and run coward. Seriously, not even brave enough to email me? Truly a height of effeminacy—a brave feminist you just ain’t. L and G done with us?

This, as much as anything, shows how male his brain is. What an incredible bit of drivel, from someone who is not only a man, but more than a bit of chauvinistic pig at that. Oh, and a clue for Mr. Sandeen....he should look up the definition of effeminate...

effeminate 
adjective

(of a man) having or showing characteristics regarded as typical of a woman; unmanly.

Hmmm, "of a man." And Sandeen is tossing that insult at a woman. Yeah, talk about completely clueless. I suppose one could call Sandeen, "effeminate," and technically, that is what he is, but only in the sense that he is a very bad caricature of a woman. Sort of in the vein of various comedians who have dressed up and minced around in what many women would consider to be a highly insulting parody. Except he thinks he is actually fooling people.

On the opposite side of the coin, you have this mostly excellent response to Mr. Sandeen from Marie-France Lease

You know what, Sandeen. If I had been born in the middle of an aboriginal forest — without so much as a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of — everyone who met me in that forest would have NO DOUBT that I am a woman because I am, in fact, a woman.

I don’t need one or three or fifty sheets of gub’mint paper to “prove” I’m a woman. I AM a woman. For me and for half the human race, it really is just that simple.

While you’re bleating and foaming and tilting about demanding that everyone agree with you? Half the human race? We’re just going about our business trying to survive from cradle to grave as actual, authentic females.

If you were an actual, authentic female, you’d be nodding along with me and thinking, “Truth.” For us, it’s not a game. It’s not an achievement. It’s not a contest. It’s not “fake it till you make it.” It’s not a hobby, an avocation, an obsession, something we do to entertain ourselves — or get ourselves off.

We’re living it from the first sex-identifying ultrasound until we draw our last breath.

So to hell with you and the penis you road in on. We don’t care about your stupid little pieces of paper or your falsies or your pink eye-shades. We’re just trying to make it till the next payday, till retirement, till the Goddess draws us back into Mother Earth for our long sleep.

Go take up another hobby. We’re sick to death of being hounded by delusional dudes.

Most of this I can honestly relate to. I don't buy into the "Goddess" stuff, and shoot, when I was in my mother's womb, they didn't have ultrasound...but yes, I understand whshe is saying, and I know, just as well, that it is all lost on kooks like Sandeen.

Another,Becky Green had this to say....

Buffalo Sandeen,

You’re a man with a man’s height, body frame and a man’s rage. You have an imposing figure and no woman could physically beat you. Who’s to say you won’t start stalking Gallus in person or that you won’t show up at her door and pummel her unconscious? With your words alone, we can see you’re pushy, aggressive, fond of intimidation and all MALE. No woman should ever divulge her personal information to a delusion, emotionally unstable man-child such as yourself.

So take your big, lumbering, hulky body with fake tits and size 13 shoes down to your local strip club and get a beer with the bros while you ogle the gyrating women, because that’s what “real” wo-men, like you, enjoy doing.

A bit heavy handed, but in Mr. Sandeen's case, still dead on.  Granted, some women are tall, have a heavier frame, and can exhibit some serious rage.  But, given what has been said about Mr. Sandeen, by himself, and others, this is pretty dead-on.  He himself has bragged about having a fit of rage because he was called a man.  There is a lot of overlap between men in women in terms of size, so this is a bit extremist.

Then, into this argument, a voice of reason appears... Cassandraspeaks has this to say...

If anyone needs a piece of paper to prove their sex they certainly are NOT that sex. The men like Autumn Sandeen are an insult of the worst order. He is everything GM says he is and more. The list of those like him is as long as your arm. I’ve been fighting those like Sandeen in a verbal and philosophical war for over 25 years. They take advantage of the ignorance about what transsexuality really is in order to obtain their own perverted desires. Good luck in dealing with this freak.

Cassandra is a transsexual, and one would hope that this would add some balance to this discussion, but now we see the other side of the extremist coin rear its ugly head...  someone calling herself, Cynical Cynthia tosses this out...

Yes, Cassandra, your definitions of this arbitrary concept are the most correctest ever; menzes like Sandeen will never understand. You, because of the things you say and think about the arbitrary concept of transsexualism, are completely different to him.

Now, if she had only stopped there, we would have reached a good middle ground.  We could come together, shake hands, and join forces to defend women...  Sadly, she continues with this silliness...

*yawn* – Same shit, different day. Females have vaginas and give birth; males have penises and fertilise eggs which causes females to get pregnant and give birth. Your thoughts on arbitrary principles or identification with either sex will not make you a member of that sex no matter how different you supposedly are to Mr Sandeen. At least, I imagine that your supreme ideas have not given you ovaries, fallopian tubes and a uterus with which to give birth, but do correct me if I am wrong.

What a nasty thing to say, not just because of transsexuals, but because a small, but not non-zero group of women are born without uteruses, fallopian tubes, or ovaries.  They are still women, in many cases, of XX phenotype, but with some other condition.  I can understand that, and can certainly relate to them.  Other women lose these things to disease.  And they grieve for their loss.  Men like Sandeen could care less.  Some of use actually do feel a sense of real loss for what we, sadly, never had, and never will.  I have heard similar remarks from some transgender creeps, but hearing such a flippant remark, from a woman, is just nasty.  

But here we get into the realm of the more extreme of the radical feminists.  Here a person recognizes that someone actually gets it, but then, purely on ideological grounds, turns a deaf ear.  Cynical Cynthia effectively says, "Hey, your right, your different, but I am going to stop thinking because I have to stay true to a point of view that say I have to reject anything you say."  How absurd.

This is at the heart of the radical feminist's arguments with transsexuals.  While they are quite accurate in their assessment of the transgender crowd, which for the most part act like men, they have to fall back on ideology when faced with transsexuals.  Someone like Sandeen is easily dismissed as the man he is.  He makes it oh, so easy.  He waves his paperwork and say "I am a woman," and everyone pretty much laughs and says "Nope, you're not..."  He flounces around in a ridiculous outfit that no real women would wear and says, "Hey, don't you just love #girlslikeus," and everyone sort of snickers, and he gets mad and makes threats.  He chains himself to the White House fence, and says, "I am like Martin Luther King, Jr.," and every grimaces and says, "Well, only in the sense you both were men..."

But, they attack transsexuals on very theoretical basis, claiming that gender is a "social construct," and dismissing legitimate brain studies by lying about them...a tactic that has also been used by some transgender types who know that such studies expose them for the frauds they are.  They make claims like biology is destiny, while effectively denying the only basis on which such a claim can be made.

The radical feminist view is based on the notion that gender is all about socialization, which is, often the same idea claimed by feminists.  We are supposed to believe that it is all about how we are raised.  In the radical feminist view, children born with a penis are raised to be men, and told all the things that seem to come to men so naturally.  And yet, they ignore the fact that even when parents try to raise their children more neutrally, they still exhibit gender typical behavior.  Parents who try to raise their boys to be more gentle are shocked when things don't work out as they expect.  Try to raise a girl to be more masculine, and she might shock you.  And do they really think that they can just ignore situations like mine, where my father made very effort to "beat and/or shame the sissy out of me?"  Now, sure, someone like Sandeen, who spent twenty years in the military, proudly, and successfully serving, as a man, in a very male environment, before, as he neared the time he would retire, only then began to show some signs of what was to come.  Sandeen is a typical of the sort of man who hides a fetish for a long time, and then has it come out late in life.  He is able to easily assimilate as a male, before finally deciding he is going to enjoy his little hobby. 

 I, on the other hand, like many, never fit in as a man.  I always stood out.  I was seen, as I have said, as a "defective male."  I was like the classic comedy trope...the woman who dresses up as a man, to infiltrate some group of men, and who is either immediately spotted, and subjected to  playful torment, or for even more laughs, initially succeeds in her disguise, but keeps slipping up, creating more and more humor.  In short, I stuck out like a sore thumb, and often had people people comment on that fact.  I learned to laugh it off, but I knew people wondered what was going on.

On a website called Transgender Tropes, which sets out to refute said "tropes," there is this comment:

“Transgenderism is based on the idea that gender traits, characteristics, emotions and behaviors ARE inherently tied to one’s biological sex (Biology IS destiny), and they seek to reconcile their own diversity from gender norms by altering their biology to match the traits they view as incongruent with their physical sex. This is actually a REVERSAL of the idea that biology isn’t destiny. What they are saying is that gender IS biologically determined. And if they fail to conform to sex based gender norms they must alter their biology as much as possible to at least conform cosmetically to their gender essentialist beliefs. This is opposite to the idea of transgressing biological imperative (nature) with socialization and free will (nurture).”

Actually, this is rather odd, and quite inaccurate statement.  First off, it is not remotely accurate to attribute this to the transgender crowd.  They tend to claim that sex and what they call gender, are so separate as to be completely unrelated.  In fact, they often claim that gender is, effectively not only a choice, but is almost a mood.  That one can be a woman one day, and a man the next, and perhaps even none of the above on yet another day.  And that each whim must be accepted as totally and equally valid.

Ironically, even as the radical feminist reject the idea of "brain sex" (as, ironically do many of the more radical transgender extremists) they actually seem to adhere to exactly such an idea with a tenacity that matches that of some among the religious right.  And, in complete ignorance of scientific studies that show otherwise.

Of course, for the transgender crowd, it is really all about the trappings.  Like most women, I enjoy getting dressed up for certain occasions.  But, day to day, I dress like, well like what I am, a geeky woman.  Most days that means what I guess you would call "mom jeans," a t-shirt (unisex, since I kind of like them loose) with something clever on it (One of my favorites says "There are 10 kind of people in the world, those who understand binary, and those who don't.") , flats or sneakers, no jewelry, and no make up.  I don't need to dress like Barbara Billingsley in Leave it to Beaver in order to "feel like a woman."  Someone, who was quite transgender, once commented that I dressed like a house wife.  He meant it as a bit of a correction.  I took it as a complement.  Then again, one of my best friends, who is a born woman, is never seen in anything but a skirt.  I used to dress that way more, but I was also working in a an office.  BTW, I don't know if she knows my history or not, but she has never brought it up, and even if she does know, she treats me as a woman.  In fact, I had a doctor a few years ago, who would occasionally make some comment, and realize she had actually forgotten my history, catch herself, and then realize that oh, yeah, it really didn't matter.  

I have, or had, a cousin who well, I have often wondered if she was possibly transsexual.  She was very masculine, always preferred things like cars, and ham radio to the things her mother would have preferred.  She generally dressed in what certainly looked like men's clothes, and she never married.  I don't know if she was a closeted lesbian, or simply repressed her feelings.  She lived in a time, and place, where being a lesbian would not have been acceptable.  I have lost touch with her.  I imagine she has heard about me, and it would be interesting to find out her reaction.  Most of that part of my family has effectively disowned me.  At least as far as I know.  The last time I saw her was at the 70th anniversary of one an aunt and uncle of ours.  She was there, in a dress, looking quite odd.  At the 75th, I was told I would not be welcome after informing people of my transition.  Not long after than, both that aunt and uncle had died.  I haven't had contact with any of them since.  But, I digress...

What I honestly wish the radical feminist could accept is that, yes, one is born a woman, but that what makes one a woman really is in the brain, and it really is determined by hormone levels during development, and that yes, something can go wrong.  In a sense, they do accept transsexual women.  Many of us simply do not wish to be "out, loud, and proud."  We don't wear our histories on our sleeve, and we don't tell people our past, and, perhaps this might surprise some of the radical feminists, they would never guess.  The vast, overwhelming majority of my friends in the real world are what they would call "women born women."  I have friends who are straight, and I have friends who are lesbians.  Some know my past, most don't.  I interact with them, and I am accepted by them, as a woman.  I live as stealth as possible.  If I did not love San Francisco so much, and if I did not have such good friends here, I would possibly consider relocating somewhere and starting over...again.  I lived for a year in small town, where literally no one knew.  It was heaven, but it did not last for reasons that had nothing to do with being transsexual, and I wound up moving 2,000 miles to San Francisco.  To most people who know me, I am simply a very smart, very geeky, middle aged woman.  I have nothing to do with the transgender community.  I occasionally will see someone I know from when I did outreach work, a job I stumbled into somewhat by accident, but which paid reasonably well, and had good benefits.  As soon as possible, I moved to a position that had little to do with the transgender community.  It paid even better, but unfortunately, like a lot of government-funded research work, funding dries up, and you end up being cut.  So, shortly afterwards, was my boss.  I have moved on, and I am in a completely different field.  And no, it really isn't anyone's business.

My point in all this is, we need to find a middle ground.  There are people who actually do have a medical condition that is known, for want of a better term, as transsexualism.  They are rare.  Sandeen and that ilk, are not transsexuals.  They are a lot more people who get off on dressing up and pretending.  As long as they don't cause harm, who cares?  But they really need to learn their limits.  Invading women's space is causing harm, and they need to either voluntarily stop it, or they need to be stopped.  They have a choice.  Transsexuals don't.  They should not receive special rights, and yes, things like access to women's spaces, and being allowed to change their birth certificates while keeping their penises are special rights.

It is time to return some sanity to this whole mess.  It is not likely to happen easily, but I do suspect it will eventually happen.  They are pushing for too much, and the backlash is beginning.  And all the while, I will be here, in the middle, watching it all, and doing what I can to help restore a least some reason before it is too late.