A Horrible Episode

Last night's Family Guy was a terrible episode that was highly inaccurate, and very insulting to transsexuals. 

In the episode, Glen Quagmire's father,Dan, a decorated Naval officer, appears to be gay.  When Glen confronts his father, he confesses that he is not gay, he is a woman trapped in a man's body.  This is followed by several of the characters expressing opinions that basically came down to "what's the difference?"  There are also the usual references to "she/males" and such. This was not really refuted.

Then, Dan, who has so far appeared as a male, pops off to the hospital where he has a sex change.  Never mind that this is absurd.  One does not just go in, and come out looking like a woman.  No hormones, no RLT, just off to the OR, and he is a woman.  This is followed by playing Glen's confusion of pronouns for laughs, as Glen, now Ida, walks out of the OR, dressed as a female, with quite a nice figure, and a full head of long hair.  The doctor having made it sound like "he" had died during surgery, announces that "she" is doing quite well.  I can assure you, one does not walk out after such surgery.  I was not allowed out of bed for most of a week.

Then Ida visits Peter and family, again with another round of bad jokes.  Then Glen and his father fight and Ida goes to a hotel.  Finally, Brian who has been away at a web contend seminar, returns stopping at a local hotel for a drink. There he meets Ida, who he falls for.  Then, returning home, he talks to Stewie, telling him about having met the perfect woman.  Stewie then tells him about Quagmire's father. More bad jokes ensue, including Stewie talking about how it "must be a train wreck down there."   Brian is making the usual bad jokes until he discovers that Dan is now Ida.  He begins a rather prolonged round of vomiting.  Then Brian makes a comment about how when "they move to a new neighborhood they have to notify everyone, that's how it works." 

Ida comes back to Glen's house, and in about the only decent part of the show, they make up.  There is really not enough here to offset the bad that this show has featured.  Ida, who it had previously been suggested, is extremely selfish, pretty much apologizes and excuses Glen's boorish behavior.  Then Glen, while hugging Ida, apparently has an erection, saying it can't tell the difference.  Then Ida tells Glen about meeting Brian.  Glen does not take the news well.

The show ends with Glen brutally beating Brian, who has been in shower, scrubbing furiously as though he feels the need to wash away something horrible.   He tells Brian that he will blow his head off if he catches him near his house, and after he finishes, tells him to just lie there and die.  The final scene has Quagmire leaving, and Brian at the door saying to him, "I f**ked your father!" The actual word is bleeped out, but it is obvious what was said.

Why such an episode was done, and why this subject was treated so badly, will no doubt be debated online.  Already, Bil Browning at Bilerico has written a rather self-righteous article condemning it. Browning, who is gay, really does not have the standing to speak for the transsexual community.  I strongly suspect, as word gets out, that other transgender sites will express similar outrage.  And all of them will miss the point.

The reason for such ignorance is simple.  This is how transgender people present themselves.  And they insist on linking their confusion to those who are truly transsexual.  How many men, after long successful military careers, suddenly announce they are really women?  How many seek to associate gay and transgender?  How many transgender types imply that we are really still men?  As I say, the truth will be lost on them.  Especially the fact that this episode insulted transsexuals specifically, and that most of them have no business saying anything at all.

It's About Time

An interesting thing happened last week on Suzan Cooke's transgender blog, Women Born Transsexual.  She finally had her fill of "Willow" Arune, who is a well known net kook and apologist for Blanchard, Bailey and company.  What finally triggered the meltdown was the rather bizarre case of George Rekers, a well known advocate of reparative therapy for both those who are gay or lesbian and those who are transsexual.  Rekers was found to be involved with a gay prostitute who had accompanied him on a trip.  I will spare you the nasty bits, which have been posted on numerous gay blogs.

Cooke linked Rekers to Blanchard and Bailey and as would be expected, Mr. Arune rose up in defense.  Cooke, who is a major Godwin's Law violator, seemed a bit surprised, perhaps the only person who was.  The usual accusations of being a collaborator and a Nazi resulted, and Arune apparently decided to beat a hasty retreat before being toss off of another blog.  Arune has a long history of being banned from numerous groups, blogs, and other places.  Arune even managed to get banned from Yahoo after creating a mailing list to attack Andrea James.  That cost Arune not only that group, but also his infamous Autogynephilia mailing list.

Why Cooke would expect anything different from Arune is the real mystery.  Arune has a very bizarre history.  He is on disability in Canada, even though he brags about practicing law pro bono.  He traveled to Thailand, supposedly as part of some sort of business deal, and claims he was imprisoned because he was framed by Citibank.  While he was in a Thai jail, he claims he was sodomized (he uses the term rape, but that is not the appropriate term for male on male sexual assault).  Apparently, prior to this he showed no inclination towards any gender issues and he originally claimed that the idea of a sex change was suggested by a therapist, apparently in Thailand.  When he was confronted on this, he defended that claim.

After being largely rejected as a transsexual by anyone who encountered his bizarre claims, he dropped out of sight for a while, returning with a claim of being an autogynephile and major defender of Blanchard and Bailey.

Arune has a history of attacking those who have successfully transitioned.  He tries, desperately, to drag them down to his level.  He has attacked Andrea James, Calpernia Adams, Lynn Conway (he took her to take for her "Successful Transsexual Women" page, claiming that none truly existed), and anyone else who does not blindly adhere to the Blanchard theory of transsexualism.  Arune also has a history of seeking affirmation for his transsexualism.  He seems more concerned with being seen as a transsexual than anything else.  That is why he was trying to befriend Cooke.  He saw her as a major source of credibility.  As is always the case, this has basically blown up in his face.  Of course, it never occured to Arune that Cooke's imprimatur no longer has the value it was once perceived to have.

Of course, the relationship was symbiotic.  Arune provided major strokes for Cooke's massive ego.  Both seem to have a pathological need to viewed as authoritative.  Outside of their indivdual small groups of followers, neither of them is.

The bottom line?  I seriously considered naming this article, "When Kooks Collide."

The Latest TG Insanity in Texas

Let me start off by saying that I have nothing against same-sex marriage and that this is not the issue here.

Since Littleton v. Prange, the Texas case that invalidated a post-op transsexual woman's marriage because the court rule that she was still a male, TGs have occasionally pulled a very silly stunt in Texas.

Post-ops, who identify as lesbian, have applied for marriage licenses on the grounds that they are still, in the eyes of Texas law, still men.  The latest such case has become publicized. Anne Bernal, who is the County Attorney of El Paso County, Anne Bernal, has requested an opinion from Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott as to whether the county can issue a marriage license to a couple where a woman wishes to marry a post-op transsexual who was born a man.  The transsexual's original New York birth certificate still says male, but a new certified birth certificate issued in Washington State, and the driver's license, say female.

Now, I don't know any details about this person that would allow me to evaluate whether they are a classic or true transsexual.  There are claims of intersex, which are often highly questionable.

Now, there are couple of issue complicating this case:

• First off, in 2009, the Texas legislature passed a law which states that a certified birth certificate suffices to establish sex.
• Should the Washington State birth certificate be viewed as valid since that is not the state where this person was born?

Personally, I think cases such as this are a classic example of how transgender people do serious harm to transsexuals.  If this person is truly a woman, then I would not think they would want to be identified as a male.  But this person seems to be quite willing to set aside her womanhood to "beat the system."  This sort of behavior was proposed by Phillip "Phyllis" Frye, the infamous transgender kook who has a history of attempting to use outrageous acts to gain publicity,

If the couple is allowed to marry, it furthers the claim in Texas that sex reassignment surgery is invalid.  It can then be used as evidence that post-op transsexual woman are still "really men."  Of course, this is fine with transgender extremists who often push the idea that surgery is unnecessary.

UPDATE

I found out, right after posting this story, that the couple were married in San Antonio, TX.  So, yet another alleged transsexual in Texas has legally claimed to be a male, even though the person is post-op.  This sort of thing betrays all true transsexuals and should certainly not be seen as any sort of victory.  Of course, the transgender kooks will almost certainly disagree.

Whoops, Please Try Again...

Well, Suzan Cooke, who has joined the ranks of transgender has weighed in on the Sandeen debacle, and once again has shown a complete cluelessness.

Cooke asserts that:

Perhaps Autumn Sandeen enlisted thinking that doing so might make a man out of her and cure her of transsexualism or transgenderism. Of course TS or TG doesn’t work that way and isn’t cured that way.

No, Mr. Sandeen enlisted, period.  At the time I doubt he ever had a thought about being transsexual, transgender, or anything else.  He was just a man, looking for a career.  How can I be so sure?  Because he served long enough to retire with a full pension.  Sandeen likes to brag about his long, very successful career in the Navy.

True transsexuals don't have long successful careers as men.  They either transition early, or they live very miserable, and troubled lives until they do transition.  Cooke should know this, especially given all that we have heard about how she transitioned early.  Of course, I guess that is a bit difficult for Cooke to deal with since, as I understand it, her partner was a late transitioner.  Perhaps she was one of those who decided to transition after living happily as a man for years.

No, Sandeen remains a classic example of the worst of the transgender movement.  He is a man, who has every desire to keep a strong attachment to his history as a man, but who wants to play at being a woman.  He really should just to stick to what he is good at, and stop trying to be something he clearly is not.

Another Gender Fascist, Another Bad Joke

I have mentioned the person who calls himself "Dyssonance" before.  One of his silly little posts was brought to my attention when a well known kook, "Willow" Arune, quoted it on Suzan Cooke's transgender web site.  I left a comment there, but as is typical for those sort of sites, any dissent is avoided.

So, let's look at what this gender fascist has to say:

Imagine the term Transgender used as an insult.

Well, it is an insult if it is being forced on you.  I do not identify as transgender, and consider it an insult to be referred to as such.

Well, that’s what’s going on with a small group of trans people. And make no mistake, they are absolutely trans people. But they do not consider themselves trans people.

Now, isn't this interesting...  Mr. Dyssonance doesn't care how we identify.  He will tell us what we are.  It appears that he is the one using "transgender" or in this case, "trans" as an insult.

The particular group involved here is a break-away sect from the slightly larger US “TS-SI” sect, which is itelf (sic) a break away group from the “HBS” sect of Trans people.

Now, notice how he tosses out terms like "sect" and "break-away."  Neither is appropriate, but hey, truth is not an issue for gender fascists.

These people are surgical supremacists, to start with, and the fastest way to discern one is that they decide that some people are and some people aren’t transsexual based on puerile and utterly subjective personal opinions.

Mr. Dyssonance is really laying it on here.  Or perhaps I should say, he is really shoveling it.  I guess in his mind those who disagree with him are childish.  And apparently he has no idea what the term subjective means.  Those who identify as "classic transsexuals," or HBS, tend to have objective views.  For example, we reject the oxymoron "non-op transsexual."  This is why, increasingly, men who have no desire to lose their penis have started claiming to be "pre-op" but they never seem to have any real intentions of having surgery.  Just excuses.  We also look at other, very objective factors.  So no, our rejection of many is not at all subjective.

The splinter group in this case calls themselves “Classic Transsexuals”. They are seeking to gain ownership of the term transsexual. To them, a transsexual is only such if they happen to “vibe” right to them, and if they happen to have an acceptable “narrative” (personal history), and if they happen to hold acceptable views similar to them. The requirements for which change according to how they feel about the individual. 

So, now "classic transsexual" is a splinter group.  Actually, it is probably the more common term.  And I hate to break it to Mr. Dyssonance, but words do have meanings.  Actually, he, and his ilk, are the ones trying to gain ownership of the term "transsexual."  And no, it is not just about vibing.  Yes, one's personal history is a factor in deciding if one is a transsexual.  Especially if the person making the decision is a licensed professional.  As to "acceptable views," there are a lot of people I would consider to be transsexual who I strongly disagree with.  There might be some who don't consider those who disagree with them on some social or political view to be "transsexual," but such an approach is absurd, and such a claim is bogus.  It is just a bit of smoke and mirrors to avoid the truth.

And no, the requirements don't change.  Being a transsexual is not about holding any political or social views. It is about having a brain that is sexually differentiated differently from the body.  Period.

Now, I am not going to bother with the rest of the article.  It can be summed up simply as a typical attack on the idea that transsexualism is inherent, and not simply something one chooses.  Clearly, Mr. Dyssonance is one of those who knows, deep down, that he is pretending to be a woman.  So, he attacks those who have a history that indicates a biological basis.

I will note that he does make up one fact.  He claims that no "mainline scientist" supports the idea that transsexuals are "neurologically intersex."  While he might be able to maintain such a claim by insisting on using that specific term, in the broader sense, his claims is totally untrue.  It is true that the term "intersex" tends to have a very specific meaning, and is generally limited to conditions involving the genitalia and internal sex organs, the idea that transsexuals are, to use an older term, "psychic hermaphrodites" is not a new one, and has been a widely held one since Harry Benjamin first suggested it.

Or to put it more succinctly, Mr. Dyssonance simply makes stuff up as he goes.

A Travesty in Washington

Last week, transgender activist "Autumn" Sandeen was arrested as one of the so-called "White House Six," six protesters who chained themselves to the White House fence in protest of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.  Along with the others, who were all gay or lesbian, Mr. Sandeen was arrested.  Now he is whining about how he was treated in jail.

Now, Mr. Sandeen, who is a retired member of the United States Navy was wearing a female naval uniform, even though his entire service in the Navy was served as a man.  Mr. Sandeen is one of those people who decided rather late in life, after a successful career as a man, that he really wants to be a woman.

There was apparently some confusion on the part of the White House police as to Mr. Sandeen's sex.  He informed them that he was transgender, and that he had "female breasts and male genitalia."  Apparently the police first misclassified him as female.  Then, when they realized their mistake, they change his ID bracelet to one that correctly said "M."  Of course, Mr. Sandeen, who is of the mind that simply claiming to be a woman makes one fully, and completely female, was terribly upset.

Now this brings us to the two problems central to this whole issue.

First off, transgender people simply do not have a place in the military.  I see no problems with a post-op transsexual, who is otherwise qualified, being allowed to enlist in the military.  But I am sorry, there is no place for someone who is pre-op, non-op, etc.  They are simply not going to fit into the military's purposes.  They will be disruptive, period.  I mean, there are limits. 

Second, Mr. Sandeen, in spite of all his protests and whining is still, physically a male.  He has no right to expect to be placed in a female section of the jail.  At best, if he is in a jurisdiction that allows for such, he might be placed in a special section with other transgender people who are still physically male.  Possibly he might be placed in isolation.  But he has no basis to expect to be incarcerated with females.

This is the absurdity of the transgender movement.  They expect society to completely suspend reality with regards to their situation.  There is rarely much, if any privacy in a jail or prison.  In holding areas, prisoners are forced to share a single toilet, with no privacy at all.  If one is there long enough to be required to take a shower, nudity is inevitable.  Mr. Sandeen might well expect the women who would be forced to tolerate his presence to ignore his penis, but that is unreasonable.

And Mr. Sandeen will simply have to face the simple fact that many, especially veterans, might well be displeased with his wearing a female uniform.  At the very least, he should show some regard for the feelings of others, but no, that is not going to happen either.

Game Over

Once again, Suzan Cooke just doesn't get it.  In the post "Game Changer" Cooke says:

When “Classic Transsexuals/HBSers” started calling me names because I refused to continue playing the trashing people with transgenderism game since people with transsexualism are supposed to be superior and not just another oppressed group, I started seeing this as part of how the right wing has kept everyone down.

The disagreements people have with Cooke is not because we think we are superior.  It is simply because we know we have nothing in common with those who are transgender, and we don't want any part of that movement.  To suggest we are superior, is to suggest that we are comparable.  We simply are not, and don't care for the suggestion that we are.

Transgender is about being something is one is not.  Transsexual is about being what one really is.  Those who are transgender have a seemingly overwhelming need to cling to their past, and even their present, as their birth sex.  Transsexuals want to correct things, and move forward.

Cooke's post is based on an article by the transgender kook "Antonia D'orsay" who posts under the name Dyssonance.  In his article, he says:

What if the game changed, though? What if all those transsexuals could get surgery without a problem — it was taken care of with the same dispassionate efficiency of treating the flu.

“ok, we’re going to do your surgery next Tuesday at 10. Your copay is 150, sign here.”

Well, setting aside that fact that "Dyssonance" seems to be suggesting surgery on demand, which would result in a vast number of regrets and which would probably end the possiblity of surgery for everyone, the simple answer is, "It wouldn't change a thing."

How do I know?  Just over four years ago, that was pretty much my experience.  My co-pay was $250, but yes, like an increasing number of employers, mine provides coverage for SRS.  I was the first MTF to take advantage of the option.  I know of one other who did.  The simple fact is, there were, at the very least, six other people who were "potential candidates."  None, as far as I am aware, have taken advantage.  That is, six people, all MTFs, who were "transgender" who could have had their surgery for $250 or so, who didn't bother.

People have SRS because they need it badly enough to do what it takes to get it.  In my case, I worked at a job that was half-time, and which paid me considerably less that I could have made elsewhere.  Since having my surgery, I have become full time, and make considerably more money.  But in order to get my surgery, I put up with a lot.

The idea that if it were less expensive, more would have surgery is simply not true.  This has been shown, time after time, when transgender types, including some very well known activists, have spent money that could have paid for a trip to an excellent doctor in Thailand on something they wanted more, like a fancy car, or a new house.  Of course, they continue to whine about how, if only their insurance would pay for it....

It wouldn't change a thing.