Overly sensitive?

Sometimes, the silliness of the gender fascists is really amazing. They can't seem to make up their minds. A perfect example of this is a post on Pam's House Blend by leading gender fascist Autumn Sandeen.

So what has Mr. Sandeen's panties in a wad? He is upset about a segment of The Tonight Show in which Conan O'Brien stages fake embarrasing situations. The idea behind the joke is that he will sell then to tabloids. In a recent episode of Conan's Tabloid Moment he supposedly goes to a stripper bar. He then decides to make the situation even more embarrassing, so a neon sign reading "Trannies" drops down, and the female strippers slap on fake mustaches. A silly joke, admittedly, but I do have to wonder why Mr. Sandeen would be so upset?

After all, this is a man who spares no effort to tell the world that he still has his penis, and that, after all, women can have penises. So, why, in his weird world view, can't women also have mustaches? And doesn't Mr. Sandeen's beloved transgender umbrella not also include "gender queers?" Shouldn't the idea of women with mustaches not set Mr. Sandeen's hard to going pitter-patter? Or is just the idea of women with penises that he is so hung up on?

And he wonders why we want no part of the transgender umbrella.

Personally, I think Conan, perhaps inadvertently, has exposed the true absurdity of "transgender" in a way no one else has.

Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics

The concept of Harry Benjamin Syndrome seems to set off a lot of transgender people. They will go out of their way to try to dismiss it. One of the most common tactics is to suggest that HBS is just some sort of identity.

One of the latest such efforts comes on A Gender Variance Who's Who which used to be Gender Variant Biography:

Previously I had commented that it was particularly rude of HBS persons to pretend that non-HBS transsexuals do not exist when non-HBS are over 99% of transsexuals. I received a couple of replies that my figures were way off, but now I see that Charlotte Goiar agrees with me. She has revamped her web site and now says that HBS is “an extremely rare condition [1:100,000]”. (She previously used the now discredited 1:30,000.)

Let us spell this out.

I am assuming that transsexuals are 1:500, a cautious ratio from the Conway-Olyslager study.

A transsexual is someone who has sexual affirmation surgery and does not regret it afterwards.

1:100,000 is 10 in a million.

1:500 is 2000 in a million.

Thus there are 200 transsexuals for every HBS if Goiar is right (although she gives no rational for her number). HBS are only a fraction of 1% of transsexuals.

Now, there is so much wrong here, it is hard to decide exactly where to begin. First off, I should point out that Charlotte Goiar does not speak for the entirety of the HBS community. Goiar is a very controversial figure from Spain who insists on the incorrect form "Harry Benjamin's Syndrome." In naming a syndrome, it is considered improper to use a possessive. Harry Benjamin neither had the condition, nor did he own it.

Now, it should be noted that the entire concept behind HBS is simply to suggest this as a new label for what is otherwise known as "true transsexualism" or "classic transsexualism." In another words, it would be applied to those who have had a lifelong knowledge that their internal sense of what their sex should be did not match their body, and a desire to correct it as much as possible.

Now, the way the author of A Gender Variance Who's Who defines transsexualism is a less common one. It is also not the definition that Conway uses. Conway herself that only counting those who have actually had surgery will result in a lower number.

Now, I have not idea where Goiar gets her number from. A figure of 1:100,000 is pretty silly. I also think that 1:500 is too far in the opposite direction.

No, the bottom line is, HBS is synonymous with true or classic transsexualism. Yes, there are people who have sex affirmation surgery who are not HBS, but they are also not really transsexual. For example, there are autogynephiles. There are also those who make mistakes, but who refuse to openly admit this.

The article on A Gender Variance Who's Who is just another attempt, and not the first by that author, to discredit the idea of HBS. For something they want to claim is rather rare, they seem to fear it a lot.

It's Not About You...

I really had to laugh when I read this comment by Suzan Cooke on Woman Born Transsexual:

As for outing her. she uses her name in posts to the Advocate and else where and is currently making her blog pretty much about me.

I bash back

First off, I don't know why Cooke would think I would write posts to a gay publication like the Advocate and second, it really isn't about Cooke, or any other individual.

My blog is about issues that affect those with Harry Benjamin Syndrome, including the crap that spews from the transgender activists, particularly those who are referred to as the "gender fascists." Cooke has decided to cozy up to the likes of "Monica" Helms and "Autumn" Sandeen and so, she gets mentioned.

I realize that in the bizarre world of the transgender any disagreement is tantamount to "bashing." Oh well, they can think what they want. Personally, I think it all rather silly.

Ironic, Isn't It?

A quick note just to say that I find it incredibly ironic that transgender apologist Suzan Cooke is so upset that "Autumn" Sandeen got his photo posted, even though Sandeen invites such exposure, but Cooke thinks nothing of trying to "out" me. Cooke is quite convinced that she knows who I am, even though she doesn't. This behavior is typical of the transgender. They cannot stand the idea that someone might actually be stealth, and they have an obsessive need to link a name with anyone who opposes them.

As I have said before, I am a very private person, and therefore I chose to not give my name out. A lot of people have tried to link me to someone named "Jennifer" who is involved with HBS, but they are just making guesses. I choose to speak out while maintaining my privacy. It would be nice if people respected that, but instead, they won't, so they try to put a name on me even though they don't have a clue.

As I say, I have seen this behavior repeated several times. It is always done by those who either choose to be out, or more often, simply cannot be stealth. For whatever reason, it is very bad behavior, and it just shows that some can't handle the truth, so rather than answering issues raised, they resort to personal attacks, even if the person they are attacking is imaginary.

Wrong Again!

Transgender apologist Suzan Cooke is at it again. This time she has rallied to the cause of lead gender fascist "Autumn" Sandeen because a right wing group has used Mr. Sandeen's picture on a web page suggesting that Obama's health care plan will provide coverage for sex affirmation surgery. Well, actually they use the term "gender reassignment surgery," showing that are about as ignorant of things as the gender fascists.

Now, Cooke, who appears to be trying to suck up to Sandeen in the same way she has sucked up to Monica Helms, misses a couple of points here. First off, Sandeen does not seem to be the least bit upset at being targeted. In fact, Sandeen, who has has one of the most massive egos of any gender fascist, seems quite delighted to be the poster child for this issue. Sandeen nver complains about having his name or picture used...except possibly where someone is actually showing him for the bad joke that he is.

Second, and very closely related, Cooke seems to miss the fact that Sandeen has actively sought this sort of attention. Sandeen is not at all shy about making sure his picture is available to anyone seeking an image of a transgender person.

And yet, Cooke is just beside herself over the imminent danger she imagines that Sandeen is facing. Cooke, like many transgender activists, seeks to imply that any disagreement with their viewpoint is tantamount to violence. Such a view is simply a way of seeking to restrict disagreement.

The actual bottom line is, this is just another example of the damage that the transgender crowd causes those HBS and/or true or classic transsexuals. Sandeen was for many years an avowed non-op, and if he ever does have SAS it will probably be another disaster. He is not respresentative of those for who surgery is medically indicated. Proper candidates are seeking to correct their bodies and to get on with their lives with some sense of normality. Someone like Sandeen, who simply seeks attention is remotely comparable.

There is Truth, and Then There is Bilerico`

It has been a while, but yet another heated debate over transsexualism versus trangender has broken out on Bilerico. This one started with a post in which a "straight" male purports to set us all straight on gender identity. The actual post is basically a rehash of the same tired silliness that we have heard many times from the gender fascists. It is the comments where things get interesting. As is often the case, things get heated, insults are hurled, and people get banned. And, as is typical at Bilerico, the ones hurling the insults are not the ones who get banned. The policy at Bilerico seems to be that anyone daring to challenge the transgender party line will be heavily moderated, and those of the gender fascist ilk will be excused.

Some of the comments are interesting for just how ridiculous a position some can take...

Let's start off with one of the more bizarre character who shows up on the various blogs. Now, this fellow is a man who identifies as a "Goth" crossdresser and who goes by the name "Battybattybats." He is always good for something ridiculous...but this really takes the cake:

Cause the fact is the 'transgender movement' is not a crossdresser movement as the seperatists are always painting it.

It IS a transsexual movement!

Because the majority of out folk are TSs.

The majority of politically active folk are TSs!

Thats the worst part of their whole framing of this.

CDs are almost totally closetted fighting with their own selves. They are like the G and L folk were back in the 50's and 60's.

But the TG groups include them partly because one day when enough do come out they will be a large population. And this inclusion of Cds and other non-binary folk is framed as if the CDs were running the whole thing.

Well how many CDs are there openly running organisations with Transgender in the name? How many openly CD people are there in office?

It's not a CD movement.

Now, first off, the whole idea of being "in the closet" or "out" is foreign to the concept of being a transsexual. Transsexualism is about having a birth condition that is corrected and then one gets on with one's life. It is not about being "different," which is, of course, a distinction that would probably be lost on someone who considers theirself to be "Goth."

Of course, Battybattybats has his own ideas about transsexuals, and seeks to redefine the term to suit his own views:

Yes, 'classic transsexual' and the other oft-used 'true transsexual' are very demeaning and invalidating of many other transsexuals.

And I see that for some transsexuals they reject the term transgender because they see it as invalidating. These Cisgender transsexuals could just call themselves that, cisgender transsexuals, It seems an accurate descriptor, or some other such term could be coined without invalidating others with terms like 'classic' or 'true' and without attempting to rob those transsexuals who do support the term transgender of it.

Now, the term "true transsexual" was coined by Harry Benjamin to differentiate them from those who might appear to be transsexual, but are not. The term "classic transsexual" came about, in part exactly because of, shall we say, "bat-brained" people who seek to redefine "transsexual" to include people who are not really transsexual. So now, according to Battybattybats, not calling someone something they are not is insulting. Seriously, he says basically this exact thing:

But if Transgender must be redefined to take into account the feellings and issues and self-identity of others then so must 'classic' transsexual.

So, it is really very simple...Battybattybats will set us free of the term "transgender" provided we abandon the our identities in such a way that his is still allowed to muddy the waters and associate us with those we don't wish to be linked to. If that doesn't show what a lot of this is about, then I don't know what could.

Now, Battybattybats is not just content to try to redefine transsexuals, he wants to argue that we really are just the same as crossdressers. When someone pointed out that there are numerous studies that show that transsexualism (or preferably, HBS) has a neurological basis, he says this:

Oh it's NARTH time now is it?

The question is not whether there is biological evidence for biological causation of TS.

There is, neurological and so far at least one gene.

BUT WHERE ARE THE STUDIES DONE ON CROSSDRESSERS FOR THESE SAME AND DEGREES AND VARIANT CAUSES THAT FIND A TOTAL ABSENCE OF THEM?

Did I mention earlier that insults are only moderated if they are made against those pushing the transgender party line? Imagine the outrage if someone compared one of the gender fascists to the kooks over at NARTH...but someone got moderated. and apparently banned, for suggesting that Battybattybats was illogical

But, I digress. The basic reason such studies are not done is that no one with any real knowledge remotely thinks that crossdressing is anything other than a chosen behavior. It is not inherent. I does not appear until quite a bit later in life, often well after puberty. Simply put, there is no scientific basis to think that such studies would show anything now already known. Also, it should be considered that there has been research that shows that crossdressers lose interest in crossdressing if they take estrogen. Simply put, the estrogen reduces their sex drive, and the desire to crossdress goes away. And another study has shown that selective serotonin uptake inhibitor (usually used to treat depression) can also reduce the desire to crossdress. Some scientists believe this is similar to their use to treat obsessive-compulsive disorders. Of course, given that some SSRIs reduce the sex drive, it may also be related to the same effect as estrogen.

Now Battybattybats is not the only one who is spreading misinformation and insults in the comments on the Bilierco post. Of course, one of the leading gender fascists, "Monica" Helms has to jump in:

67 comments and I haven't said a word . . . until now. It's interesting to see those who support Don and his article dance around those who only come out to hijack yet another discussion on trans issues. I'm sure it amuses some people to watch this new round of Trans WWF, a fight to the death, which always seems one-sided around here. Personally, I got better things to do with my time.

Now, Mr. Helms stars right off with an attack. In Helms' view, anyone who does not toe the transgender line is out to "highjack" the discussion. In another words, Helms simply dismisses contrary views as not worthy of consideration. Of course, such an attack is okay with Bilerico.

Even though Mr. Helms claims to be surgery tracked (after many years of admantly claiming to be a non-op he has said he now wants the surgery...if he can get his employer to cover it under health insurance). Nevertheless, he really has nothing but contempt for transsexuals. And his ignorance of the facts is truly astounding:

"Classic transsexual" was created by transsexuals who wanted to be separate from trans men, pre-op and non-op transsexuals, lesbian post-op trans women and crossdressers. There's nothing wrong with that need to be separate.

However, no non-classic-transsexual scientist, doctor or biologist has validated their claims and no real scientific proof exists that it is a biological condition, no matter how people tend to stretch other studies to fit their beliefs. It's only a label and a mindset. Nothing more. Viva la labels!

It is really hard to tell if Mr. Helms is really this incredibly ignorant, or if he is just being absurdly dishonest. I mean, there is so much here that is so incredibly wrong. First off, those of us who identify as "classic transsexuals," or as I prefer, "survivors of HBS" have no desire to be separate from FTMs who are also classic transsexuals. Also, we were all pre-ops at one time, though I admit, we might well wish to be separate from those who are claim to be post-ops but who are clearly making no moves towards surgery. As to "non-ops," there is no such thing. They are not transsexuals. The term "non-op transsexual" is an oxymoron," And we have nothing in common with crossdressers.

Further, his assertion that there is "no non-classic-transsexual scientist, doctor or biologist has validated their claims and no real scientific proof exists that it is a biological condition" is just unbelievable. He knows better, and in this case is clearly lying...or incredibly delusional. There are a large number of such studies, and Mr. Helms has been told this time after time. But, like Battybattybats, he just plows on, invincibly ignorant.

And to simply dismiss "classic transsexual" as "just a label" shows where Mr. Helms is coming from. For him, it is all about "identity." As the old saying goes, "When you are a hammer, all the world looks like a nail." For Mr. Helms, since his being "transgender" is just a label, so our birth condition must be as well.

But, at the same time, he tries to claim to be the same as us:

Transexualism is indeed a birth condition. Most all of us knew we were "built wrong" when we were little. For me, 1955 (age 4.) Did I know in 1955 that I would also accept the word "transgender" in 1995? However, "classic" transsexualism is not a different and separate birth condition. It's the same condition with a different label.

Now, didn't Mr. Helms just say that transsexualism does not have a biological cause? Hmmm, so I guess he must be claiming that, while he was in the womb, he just up and decided he was going to be a "girl," even though he had that penis between his legs.

Now, even though Helms claims he knew, at age four, that he was "built wrong," he has lived to be 58 year-old without having a really serious need to be corrected. In fact, for most of those 58 years, he was a happy, content male. He not only served in the Navy, he was in the submarine service. This is not something that someone does without passing some pretty intense examinations to make sure they are mentally and emotionally stable enough. Someone who, from the age of four, had known they were built wrong, would not be able to fake it that well.

And you have to remember, Helms, until very recently was not only a happy content male, he was adamant that he had no need, or desire for corrective surgery. In fact, he has attacked post-op HBS women, and continues to do so, mocking them for their need to have surgery.

So, here we have another nasty battle on Bilerico. The gender fascists get to make nasty remarks about anyone who does not accept their radical views. HBS survivors and classic transsexuals get moderated, and often shown the door. Typical.

A thought....

While looking at yet another round of arguing on yet another pro-transgender blog, I had a thought. A common argument made by the gender fascists is that they outnumber those who are HBS, classic transsexuals, or true transsexuals (note that I do not include "WBT" since that term is quickly becoming associated with the transgender crowd).

Now, that is an interesting argument. I mean, is that not the same argument that has been used to oppress for ages? African-Americans were out numbered by the segregationists in the South...Chinese workers were outnumbered by those who sought to oppress them during the buiding of the Western United States...well, the list could go on and on.

I'm sorry, but who I am is not subject to a majority vote. There may be more "transgender" than those who are classic transsexuals. As a matter of fact, that is exactly the point. HBS or classic transsexualism, is rare. It is not a condition that one simply decides to have. Just because there are fewer of us does not give the gender fascists the right to try to drag us under their umbrella