A New Low

Over the past year, I watched as Suzy Cooke cozied up to the transgender types.  At first I was a but puzzled, as Cooke was one of the staunchest advocates of separatism.  But, Cooke got closer, and closer until it reached the point where it was clear that Cooke's position has shifted drastically.

Now, Cooke has really gone off the deep end...  Cooke is clearly taking up the position of Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence.  The same position taken by Paul McHugh and most of the rest who would oppress transsexuals.

Cooke has declared that transsexuals do not have "female brains."  Even more puzzling, Cooke has declared the idea that we do to be "misogynistic."  I'm not sure where that leaves the concept of "Women Born Transsexual," since the alternative is "men who choose to be transsexual."

This is a position that is taken by some transgender radicals who seem to know that they clearly don't have female brains, but who want to claim to be "just like transsexuals."  It is, for example, the position of "Willow" Arune, and well-known net kook, who by the way, has become a major fan of Cooke.  That also says a lot about what Cooke has turned into.  The main cheerlead for Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawerence, who has made a career out of trashing successful transsexuals, is now cheering on Cooke.

The bottom line is, Cooke, who does not take criticism well, started taking positions that did not sit well with other transsexuals.  We spoke up, and Cooke lashed out.  From there, things went down hill.  Cooke talks about unity, but what Cooke seems to actually mean is blind adherence to the law according to Cooke.  If you don't agree with Cooke, then you are the enemy, to the point where those Cooke used to be allies with are now all the enemy.  Cooke needs to take a look around and realize this.

I theorized earlier that Cooke seemed to want to unite everyone, with Cooke as the supreme leader.  That is obviously the case.  Sadly, right now, Cooke's might force seems to consist of a few hanger's on, including Mr. Arune.  He will cozy up to anyone who will stroke his ego, and tell him he really is a transsexual in spite of his totally bizarre history.  And Cooke, it appears, will accept anyone who blindly follows.

There was a time when Cooke was viewed by many as a major arbiter of who was, and was not, real.  If Cooke accepted you as a "Woman Born Transsexual," you could feel secure in your identity.  Yes, it was silly, but many fell into that trap.  Now, Cooke seems to be struggling to maintain a slowly deteriorating grasp on a secure identity.  And it is kind of sad to watch.

Hoist By One's Own Petard

Danielle Pauline Severson, born Dana Paul Severson who claims to be a pre-op transsexual has a problem.  Severson wants to get married....to a woman.  But, Severson has a California driver's license that says "female."  So, when Severson went to get a license in Reno, Nevada the clerk said "No, we don't allow same-sex marriages."  Now, obviously, the authorities in Nevada were mistaken.  Severson is still a male.  But since the license says female, and Severson appeared to be a female, they said no.  So, Severson and partner had to go to California where Severson was able to get a license as a male.

Now, I have no problem with same sex marriage.  I have several gay and lesbian friends who are legally married, having tied the knot before Prop. 8 was passed.  But, I do have a problem with transgender people wanting to have their cake and eat it too.  If you claim to be a woman, and you want society to accept you as a woman, then you should be ready to play by the rules that apply to being a woman.

I find it absolutely hilarious that someone wants to be treated like a woman, until it become inconvenient.  This reminds me of the outrageous behavior of a certain Texas lawyer who invited post-op lesbians to come and marry their partners (provided they were born female) after the Littleton case.  Phillip "Phyllis" Frye loves to pull such stunts, even though the net effect is to simply make things worse.

So, once again we see someone who wants it both ways.

Truly sad.

Gender Confused?

A term that is commonly trotted out by the religious right in arguing against transsexuals is "gender confusion." It is used in the context of arguing that transsexuals should not receive sex reassignment surgery as treatment, but should receive psychiatric treatment to help them overcome their "gender confusion."

Now, for those who are true, or classic transsexuals, i.e. those who have what is better referred to as Harry Benjamin Syndrome, there is clearly no confusion about their gender. They know, quite fully, that they are mentally female, and no amount of psychiatric browbeating is going to change this. For example, I identify as a woman, period. I do not identify as a "trans woman," or any other variation on the numerous man who had a sex change and became a woman concepts that so many cling to. From the beginning of my transition, I knew I wanted to be accepted as a woman, not seen as a transsexual, or worse, as transgender.

But, unfortunately, there are also those who are transgender. In their case, the answer is not as simple. First off, I should point out, again, that "transgender" is actually an artificial political construct. A more proper term for those who are not transsexual or HBS would be "crossdressers". I mean, they are clearly not transsexuals if they are not seeking SRS, or even if they are seeking SRS but do not have a brain that is sexually differentiated differently from their body. Most of those who would fit this description seem to have a very strong need to maintain an identification with their birth sex. For them, it is not about being, but about appearances.

Robert Stoller, a researcher at UCLA, wrote about crossdressers (he used the term transvestites) having an identification as being a "woman with a penis." Now, I don't agree with much of Stoller's ideas, mainly because they were rooted in the silliness known as psychoanalysis, but I have come to see that he did have a point about crossdressers. There does seem to be a strong identification of the sort he described.

Now, in the process of writing this article, an interesting thing has happened. You see, I don't always write a post in one setting. I work on it some, take a break, do some more research, etc. Well, this morning the suggested DSM revisions came out, and one of the suggestions is to classify autogynephiles as "transvestites."

That would mean that a lot of the "transgender" crowd, the vast majority, would now be classified as having "transvestic fetishism" instead of "gender identity disorder."

But to return to the original subject, the term "gender confusion" does seem more appropriate for someone who wishes to be seen as a "woman" while clinging to his status as a "male," though I am not sure that is is rooted in "confusion" so much as it is just a conscious rejection of reality.

Is there anyone who is truly "confused" about their gender? I don't know, but I cannot honestly say I have seen any real cases. I have encountered people who are clearly suffering from mental illness that seems to manifest itself in cross gender behavior. In some cases, the person goes back and forth, but I am not sure that it is actually confusion.

In any case, the bottom line is that "gender confusion" is a myth created by the religious right in an attempt to appear compassionate while actually doing real harm to people simply because they do not fit a world view that has no foundation in reality, and that includes the Bible.

There is NO Such Thing as a Pregnant Man!!!

Once again, a kook has been given space on Bilerico to make an absurd assertion. This time, it is a rather bizarre character who calls himself "Dyssonance" when commenting on various blogs, but who posts as "Antonia D'orsay" on Bilerico. Mr. D'orsay has become quite a prolific poster there, making his trademark silliness.

This time around, he takes on the issue of another pregnant "man," in this case one who identifies as gay, and who is in a relationship with another "man." In another words, he is talking about two transgender "men," both born female, one of whom has been impregnated, probably by artificial insemination.

He is, of course, not the only gender fascist to deal with this issue. "Autumn" Sandeen, over at Pam's House Blend had a hissy fit because a couple of disk jockeys made some remarks about this case. Ironically, while the female disk jockey was a bit put off by the idea of a man having a baby, neither pointed out the opposite, that the one having the baby is clearly not a man in any sense of the word. This is simply a woman who has taken testosterone, changed her appearance to look more masculine, who is doing the one thing that unquestionably defines her as a woman.

Men, at least with current technology, cannot have babies. And anyone born physically male who wished to have one for any reason other than to be some sort of freak show for monetary gain is probably not a man either. While I am sure there might be some men who would do it if the money was sufficient, I doubt they would have any desire to actually nurture or raise the baby. The child would simply be a prop, to be passed on after the money is collected.

This whole "pregnant man" silliness, is just another attack on biology by those who wish to reduce sex and gender to something meaningless.

Give Me A Break!

Sometimes the extent of self-deception some seem to exhibit is amazing. I just read a posting on Bilerico by "Cassandra Keenan," a person who claims to be a "pre-op male to female transsexual," on the question of whether or not men who date "trans chicks" are straight or gay. Now, setting aside the issues I have with someone who would refer to their self as a "trans chick," I was interested in finding out what this person's take would be.

By and large, Keenan seems to try to avoid taking a position. I suspect this is simply a matter of avoiding the truth. I know I had to face this question during my transition. In my case, I quickly realized that there are a lot of men who such as those Keenan describes:

The guys I go out with self-identify as straight. In fact, a number of them were in heterosexual marriages previously and fathered kids. Yet, they are attracted to me. And this happens a lot. Meaning, it's widespread and common -- at least in my experience.

Now, they may claim to be straight, and some of them may really, really believe they are. Shoot, a lot of men who wanted to date me were married. I would wind up politely declining, but I found this strange. But I also quickly realized these men were not really interested in me, but were wanting to date a "woman with a penis," to put it nicely. I was just a fetish for them.

Were they gay? Perhaps not in the sense that the term is usually used, but they were certainly clearly interested in a homosexual relationship. I suppose some could be called bisexual, though many of them made it clear that they did not want me to pursue surgery. It did not take too long before I simply stopped dating until after my surgery.

Since my surgery, no one I have had sex with has known my past. I was not interested in dating a man who was interested in me because I had a penis. If I had really believed they were able to see past that, I would have felt differently, but I quickly realized that was not the case.

Keenan tries to fudge and suggest that we either need to redefine heterosexuality to ignore the issue of body parts (heteroflexible?), or perhaps abandon the concept of sexual orientation labels. I would offer a simpler solution...face the fact that the men who are pursuing you are doing so because you have a penis, and decide if you like that (in which case you are not transsexual and should probably not have surgery) or that you don't (in which case celibacy until being post-op is the only viable choice). But telling yourself that this men really, really see you as a "real woman" is delusional.

The Curious Case of Amanda Simpson

Much has been written in the TG blogosphere about Amanda Simpson, the former test pilot that President Obama appointed to be Senior Technical Advisor For The U.S. Bureau Of Industry And Security. Of course, they all focus on the fact that Simpson is "transgender." The first articles celebrated this as a major triumph. Then there was a lot of reaction to the negative comments that were made by various groups.Much has been written in the TG blogosphere about Amanda Simpson, the former test pilot that President Obama appointed to be Senior Technical Advisor For The U.S. Bureau Of Industry And Security. Of course, they all focus on the fact that Simpson is "transgender." The first articles celebrated this as a major triumph. Then there was a lot of reaction to the negative comments that were made by various groups.

But something written by Gwen Smith, a columnist for several LGBT newspapers made me wonder about all this:

For myself, I applaud Simpson for all the facets of her life and all the skills that have allowed her this opportunity – and I look forward to the day when one's transgender status is simply another part of the rich fabric of one's life.

This got me to wondering...how did people find out that Simpson is "transgender?" Ironically, it appears that it is possible that Simpson was simply appointed to the position, and just happens to be transgender. I mean, as far as I can tell, the Obama administration was not the source of this bit of information. So, who spilled the beans?

Well, it seems that the story became national news after it appeared in the blog Political Punch on the ABC News website. So, how did they find out that Simpson was "transgender?" The answer, quite simply, is that Simpson announced this on the National Center for Transgender Equality website:

In a statement, Simpson, a member of the National Center for Transgender Equality's board of directors, said that "as one of the first transgender presidential appointees to the federal government, I hope that I will soon be one of hundreds, and that this appointment opens future opportunities for many others.

Simpson is the one who drew attention to Obama having appointed someone who was "transgender." Of course, this is Simpson't right to do, but it is also classic "transgender" behavior. Simpson clearly has no real desire to simply be a woman. Simpson, instead feels the need to be known as someone who was born a male, and who had a long and successful career as a man.

While I don't agree with some of the nastier remarks made by some, I cannot help but note that once again, someone who identifies as "transgender" feels the need to be "in your face" about who they used to be. And that makes it hard to defend them from the attacks they receive.

A Very Good Question...

This week brings yet another post on Bilerico. Interestingly enough, this one, which was posted in reaction to Bil Browning's heavy handed attempt to silence those who endorse the HBS model raises an interesting question, "Should We Scrap the Word "Transgender"?"

Actually, that is not really the real question addressed in this article. It would have better worded as, "Should we continue to impose the term transgender on those who object?" The author, Dr. Jillian T. Weiss (Dr. Weiss is a law professor) makes the following comment:

Some transsexuals argue that biological studies indicate some differences between the brains of transsexuals and the sex attributed to them at birth. "Classic" or "true" transsexuals is sometimes a term used to refer to people who feel gender variant from a very young age, exhibit behavior and characteristics stereotypically attributed to the opposite sex from a young age (3-6 yrs), and who see to live as the opposite sex as soon as possible. When sex reassignment surgery was in its infancy, these were the only people allowed to access it.

Now, while I find the term "gender variant" to be highly insulting, I otherwise agree with this definition. This is a pretty good description of what many of us experienced.

But then, Dr. Weiss goes on off in a very disturbing direction:

At this point in time, however, many people have come to the realization that one does not necessarily need to exhibit these very specific circumstances in order to be a good candidate for sex reassignment surgery. Others have also expressed the feeling that, even though they do have these characteristics, they do not want or need sex reassignment surgery. They are happy to live part-time or full-time in a different gender role without such surgical intervention. They may or may not take cross-gender hormones. They are perfectly happy the way they are.

I am not sure who these "people" are, but I fear that they are seriously mistaken. I have encountered more than a few of these supposedly good candidates for surgery, both on-line and off. They tend, in many cases, to be anything but successful in their transitions. And while there are some, who may have been somewhat effeminate or butch as a child, if they do not have an overwhelming desire to pursue transition and surgical correction then, as was pointed out in an excellent article on this same subject at Enough Non-Sense, they have nothing in common with true or classic transsexuals.

Dr. Weiss does seem to understand, and acknowledge, that many do not like to be labeled as transgender. I am one of those who objects strongly to that term. But scrapping "transgender" is not the answer, unless one is going to return to more specific terms for everyone. I have no problem with those who identify as "transgender" calling themselves that. While I think it is a seriously flawed term, as I do not believe that gender can be changed, since I personally do not identify that way it is not my place to dictate what they can call themselves.

What is needed is to simply leave transsexuals or people with HBS alone. Stop trying to drag us into the political schemes of those who are transgender. They can demand the right to be able to claim to be a different sex without surgery...and I, and others can loudly disagree. Shoot, they can even argue that they should have rights, but not true transsexuals for all I care. I doubt they will win. Let them make all their silly claims, but leave transsexuals out of it. As one commenter puts it:

I only see two solutions to change the public perception:

1) Convince the public that anatomical males who "feel female inside" are ordinary women who should have access to women's spaces and legal status

or

2) Allow only anatomical females access to female spaces and legal status, and make sure the public is aware of this restriction when passing bills, etc.

I have little hope for #1.

Ultimately, that is what this comes down to. While I do believe that provision should be made for those seriously pursuing surgical correction, who have a legitimate diagnosis of true transsexualism or HBS during the Real Life Test, I do not support the first option.