Two Perfect Examples of What is Wrong With Transgender

Well, two of the more extremist of the transgender nut cases have offered up posts that both show the serious flaws in their goals, and the contradictory nature of their logic.

Both "Autumn" Sandeen and "Cristan" Williams have, quite cluelessly, shot themselves in the foot.  Well, Mr. Williams more than Mr. Sandeen.  Sandeen has simply shown the anti-social nature of his desires.  Williams has shown that his claims about the origins of "transgender" are not true.

First off, Sandeen has posted in response to Jillian Page, who he describes as a "wonderful friend" even as he takes Page to task for stating what Sandeen no doubt considers the ultimate heresy against transgender doctrine.  

As I discussed in my last post, Sandeen is ranting against stealth by "trans people," and I can imagine his outrage that someone he considers a fellow traveler has the audacity to actually disagree with him.  I mean, how dare anyone but Sandeen presume to state what the primary goal of transgender people "should be?"

Page states:

The ultimate goal of trans people is to blend in with society, and not to draw any special attention to themselves. I think we are getting to the point where the less said to the media, the better, especially about such personal things like having babies. I mean, whose business is it, anyway?

Now I don't identify as "trans" anything, but I see merit in this comment.  I have a lot less problem with those who are trying to blend in with society.  And I do wish "trans people" would learn some discretion when it comes to the media.  The example that Page gives is classic, a transgender "man" who has given birth in England.  At least in this case the masculinized woman had the good sense not to allow her name to be used.  No, men do not have babies.  And I don't care what the British tabloids want to claim, this person was not a "male mother," first, second, or otherwise.  

Of course, Sandeen is aghast at the suggestion that trans people primary goal is anything other than the complete destruction of certain societal standards.  And this is what is wrong with the transgender movement in general.  It is not about being who you really are, but instead is about rebelling against gender norms and imposing an unpopular view on society.

I think part of this is because, as certain behavior becomes more acceptable, the transgender need more and more outrageous behavior to fuel their fetishes.  It used to be that appearing in public dressed as a woman could quickly land a man in jail.  That sort of law has disappeared, so now there is less "thrill" in being publicly crossdressed.  There is little shock value in just being a crossdresser, so they have to push the envelope.

Now, a commenter on Sandeen's site suggests that he is pushing this agenda because he is not able to "pass."  And yes, in Sandeen's case, "pass" is the appropriate term, as he is not now, and never will be a woman.  The best he can hope for is to fool someone into thinking he is not a man,though that is extremely unlikely.

The other post that shows what is wrong with the transgender movement, as I said, comes from none other than lead gender fascist "Cristan" WIlliams.  Williams, who has made a name for himself by posting obscure citations that are supposed to prove that "transgender" really does apply to transsexuals, and that separatists are wrong.  The problem, for him, is that they prove nothing remotely like that.  At best, assuming that all of the claimed posts are remotely legitimate (still an open question since Williams basically demands that people prove a negative, which is a classic false argument) they show that a variety of people put "trans" and "gender" together, sometimes in reference to transsexuals, and other times in reference to other groups.  

In one recent post he even cites C.S. Lewis using the term "trans-sexual."  The problem for Williams is that Lewis was referring to marriages in Heaven.  A classic question from theology, which Lewis answers with the idea that people will "beyond sex," not that the saints will have their sex changed upon arrival at the Pearly Gates.  Granted, that was a plot line a rather silly bit of transvestite fiction that was cited in one scholarly book on the subject of transvestites.

And therein lies the problem for Williams' basic argument.  The fact that various people, at various times, may have used a word does not equate to them holding to the current concept which is attached to that word.  And it is actually the concept, not the word that those Williams likes to label as separatists reject.  But that requires actual logic and thought, not one of Williams' strengths.  He prefers what he perceives, usually erroneously, as clever arguments.

And Phillip Frye, who is, as shown by the very history that Williams posts, a heterosexual transvestite who was quite determined to force his little hobby on society serves as a perfect example of why many transsexuals want no part of "transgender."  Frye has, in the past, attacked transsexuals, and has made statements to the effect that people should not have surgery, claim that 50% are dissatisfied after surgery.  This, of course, is clearly a lie.  Of course, Frye is not the first transgender extremist to make such a claim.  Many of them vehemently oppose surgery for anyone.
  
Frye has attempted any number of legal frauds, such as suggesting that people claim to suffer from ectopic ovaries and a hyperthrophied clitoris in order to get their birth certificate changed.  And he then suggested that such a birth certificate could be used to obtain a fraudulent same sex marriage.  Now, I support same sex marriage, but not through fraud.  That accomplishes nothing.  

And Frye is one who is often credited with the creation of the modern transgender movement.  Of course, what is repeatedly denied by Williams is the simple truth that originally, transgender was presented as an alternative to transsexualism.  It started when some crossdressers, such as Frye, "Holly" Boswell, and yes,  Arnold Lowman (aka Charles "Virginia" Prince).  For example, Dallas Denny (no use in using what some refer to as "scare quotes" here, as Denny was named "Dallas" at birth, and as I understand, never changed his name.  In fact, as I understand it, his legal name remains Dallas Henry Denny) wrote in a review of a book from the earlier days of the transgender movement:

To their everlasting credit, a few courageous souls, notably Virginia Prince, Linda Phillips, Phyllis Randolph Frye, and Holly Boswell, realized the absurdity of this type of thinking, and began asking, quietly at first, and then with increasing force and volume, “Why is it necessary to have a surgery I don’t want in order to live the life I desire?” Once posed, this question had but one logical answer, and that was that the rigidly dichotomous gender roles of our society had made us blind to the possibility, and that of course, they and other transgendered persons could function in society as women without offering their genitals up to the surgeons.

Yes, contrary to what Williams tries so hard to claim, it really did start out as an anti-transsexual movement.  And part of the irony is, Denny rushed into surgery, even though many who knew him felt he was not a good candidate.  For the record, there is no joy in being right about such a thing.

The concept of "transgender" that we have today (as opposed to some obscure use of the term that Williams happened to possibly turn up) was first conceived as an alternative to transsexual.  It originated when some aging transvestites decided that they wanted to be full-time crossdressers, but did not remotely want to give up their penises.  Then, because of the transgender hierarchy that they often try to deny exists, they decided that they were "really" transsexuals....except, well, they still didn't want to give up their penises, but hey, they liked calling themselves transsexuals because, well, it sounded better than admitting that they were still crossdressers, just full time.

But how could they claim to be transsexuals if transsexuals were not "transgender."  Thus the movement that began as an alternative to being transsexual began to claim to be about being transsexual, and the term was morphed into the vague, confusing mess we have today, and they wonder why transsexuals want no part of their silliness.

And, of course, Williams continues to try to force people to accept the label transgender, whether they like it or not.  And, of course, we continue to laugh at his silliness.

Sandeen Remains Clueless, But Is Kind Of Right for Once

"Autumn" Sandeen is either completely clueless, or he is a liar.  I'm not sure which, but after yet another incident that should tip him off that he is not remotely credible as a woman (i.e. to put it in trans-speak, he doesn't "pass") he decided to identify himself correctly.  I love his internal debate, as he rejects a couple of outright lies, before deciding to be honest....

I could’ve answered “I’m a woman,” and perhaps added a invective epithet to the end of that line, but I didn’t. 

I could’ve answered “I’m a woman, but I’m also a male-to-female transsexual,” but I didn’t. 

Instead, I looked him straight in the eye and said without weakness or animosity, “Well, I’m transgender.” I chose to fully embrace my sociopolitical trans identity in my answer to that young man. 

It’s clear what he expected from me to feel was humiliated at the asking of his question. It’s clear that he expected me to embrace internalized transphobia. He didn’t expect me to be matter of fact regarding my trans identity; the young man looked somewhat taken aback at my answer.

Sandeen is not a woman, so the first would have been an outright lie, and given the fact that he had clearly been read, would have been sort of silly.

The second would have been two lies, again not a woman, and no, not remotely a transsexual.

No, Sandeen actually told the truth.  He is not a woman, he is not a transsexual, he is simply a man with "sociopolitical trans identity."  That is, he is a man who likes to play dress-up, pretend to be a woman, and make some sort of bizarre sociopolitical statement about rebelling against society's gender norms.

I doubt the young man was as taken aback, as he was just surprised that Sandeen, for a change, was actually honest.

But that is not the point of Sandeen's blog post.  He wants "trans people" to be out, loud, and proud like he is.  Of course, in his warped view, he includes transsexuals (after all, he falsely claims to be one).  Now, if someone who is truly transsexual wants to be "out," that is, I suppose, their business, but Sandeen, as always, remains clueless.


You see, if you are "out, loud, and proud," you are effectively undoing whatever you have accomplished by transitioning.  It has been the same story since Christine Jorgensen was outed back in the Fifties.  She could never live a life as "just a woman."  The same is true for ever other public transsexual.  The more out you are, the less you are able to live as a woman, or a man in the case of an FTM.  


Of course, for someone like Sandeen, this is not really an issue.  He does not remotely want to be a woman.  His desire is to be transgender.  He enjoys parodying women, but he is not one himself, and makes no real attempt to be one, beyond engaging in some of a caricature that is more akin to drag, than to womanhood.  Simply put, he is an insult to women, not one of us.


He talks about protections based on "gender identity."  What that actually means, is protections based on a claim.  You say that you have a "gender identity" at odds and poof, you get protections.  You don't actually have to even be telling the truth.  It is a totally subjective basis for protections, and in effect, makes little, if any, sense.


I think that transsexuals should be protected under the same laws that protect anyone from being discriminated against because of a medical condition.  But people like Sandeen should take responsibility for their choices, and accept the consequences.  Like someone who identifies as a Democrat, Republican, Socialist, Communist, or Nazi (other examples of sociopolitical identities) Sandeen should accept that he does not have a right to protections based on how he sees himself. 

More Gender Fascist Crap

Well, "Cristan" Williams is at it again.  Recently, he has posted "I HATE Separatists?" and another bit of drivel called "More on Historical Trans Terms."  


The first is a rather rambling that includes a bizarre straw argument claiming that what is termed "The War on Christmas" is based on people using X-mas to refer to Christmas, and then attempting to refute this with the argument that the use began with Christians, and that the 'X' is actually the Greek letter chi which is the first letter of Christ in Greek.  Well, that is the origin of X-mas, but there are several problems with Williams' claim.  First off, the "War on Christmas" is not about how one spells Christmas, it is about some entities, especially large chain stores, requiring employees to refrain from wishing people "Merry Christmas."  People have been instructed to only use something like "Happy Holidays."  Second, many atheists have ignorantly used "X-mas" actually thinking they were disrespecting Christians, and many continue to use it hoping to create an argument.  


All of this was sparked because a group called "Post-trans normality New Zealand and Australia" had the audacity to post on Facebook, and get the attention of the New Zealand Daily News. Alas, for a gender fascist like Williams, the very thought that a group of "separatists" might get the attention of the news media would be infuriating. After all, people might begin to realize that there are views different from his that need to be considered.  In particular, that unlike Williams, and his ilk, transsexuals simply want to move and live as normal people, not some sort of gender rebels.

Williams, responds by taking a statement from the Facebook page out of context, and twisting it to make this group sound like it is doing exactly what Williams' devotes a lot of time to doing himself.  In fact, in this same article, he is claiming that he "just wanted to PWN their newsworthy group."  That is kind of hilarious, since what he claims this group is guilty of is trying to shut down discussions, but that is exactly what Williams' is claiming to have done.

Oh, and what is amusing is the completely clueless manner in which Williams claims to have accomplished this pwnage.  He compares the 12 members of this group with the 4,535 members of the Facebook Transgender Alliance.  The funny thing is, he simply backs up the basic separatist argument, that true transsexuals are rare, and quite distinct from the large numbers of transgender people.  That true transsexuals have different needs that are lost in the mass of crossdressers, gender queers, and drag queens that make up the transgender mob.

I realize that it is lost on a man like Williams, but numbers are not the point.  There will always be far more transgender people than transsexuals.  Transsexualism has always been a very rare condition, though a lot of transgender frauds have tried to claim to be transsexuals, even as they reject surgery, or even living a normal life as a woman.  They even go to the point of attacking someone for daring to try to have a "normal" life.

SImply put, Williams drivel about how he doesn't hate separatists comes across a lot like the "hate the sin, love the sinner" claim made by Fundamentalists.  I wonder how Williams' feels about that one?  WIlliams does not agree with the idea that transsexuals have a right to decline to identify as transgender, and he spends a lot of time trying to impose the term on people.   He shows no respect for any view not  consistent with his own.

In his other column, Williams again presents an article where Christine Jorgensen supposedly expresses a preference for the term "transgender" over "transsexual."  Now, this article, which seems to be very obscure, and an isolated statement (as best I can tell, Jorgensen did not widely express this view) is supposed to date from 1982.  Even if it is legitimate, all it indicates is that Jorgensen was playing around with words, and that she favored a word that removed "sex" and replaced it with "gender."  It does not, in any sense, suggest that Jorgensen remotely endorsed any of the silliness pushed by gender fascists like Williams.

But this is what we have come to expect from Williams....questionable sources that only he seems to have access, straw arguments, and arrogant claims of pwnange.  Oh, and a good laugh as he does

W

Enforcement? No Problem...

"Autumn" Sandeen, the king of the boys in the women's room, has already posted another post on the "bathroom issue."  This time, he is trying to argue that it would be too hard to enforce keeping men out of the women's room, so women should just put up with being overrun by men.


HOGWASH!


No one is suggesting guards at the bathroom door.  The answer to enforcement is simple.  If someone complains, someone responds.  That is how it has always worked.  In fact, that is exactly where Sandeen's argument falls apart.  He is approaching this as though keeping men out of the women's room is some new idea, or as though there is going to be some sudden increase in enforcement.  The answer is simple, we keep doing what we already do.  For example, if a woman encounters an obvious man in the women's room, she goes and finds someone, perhaps a store employee, a security guard, a manager, etc., and complains.  That person takes the appropriate course of action.  Problem solved.


Yes, in extremely rare cases, some very butch lesbians may be viewed as men.  Of course, we have to keep in mind, they have most likely chosen to make themselves appear to be men, so they have to take responsibility for their choices.


Mr. Sandeen also raises the straw trans man argument.  That is, he raises the straw argument of "what about trans men?"  If someone has been on testosterone long enough, then they should simply use the men's room.  End of discussion.  They look like men, sound like me, etc. They should be in the men's room.  Just like those men who look like men, sound like men, even though they happen to be wearing a dress.  It is a smoke screen, and a false argument.


Intersex individuals are also a false argument on the part of Sandeen.  First off, most intersex people identify as one sex or the other.  And most intersex people usually are credible as one sex or the other, almost always the one they identify as.  So, another false argument.  Mr. Sandeen is grasping at straws.


And no one is suggesting underwear checks.  Another false argument by Sandeen, who certainly would not pass such a thing.


No, again, the answer is simple.  If someone complains, the offending person can be approached by security.  They can discretely discuss the matter with the person, explaining that a complaint has been made.  If the person agrees to refrain from behavior in the future, the matter can be settled.  If the person is a repeat offender, become belligerent, or refuses to cooperate, then they can be arrested on appropriate charges, and/or banned from the property. Having worked retail, I am quite familiar with store policies where shoplifters are served with papers banning them from entering the store for an extended period of time.  The same can be done for men in the women's room.


Finally, Sandeen raises the ID issue.  Again, the answer is simple.  The rules about changing gender markers on licenses should be tightened.  The law was originally intended to help those actually transitioning from male to female.  Anyone who is not actually going through an RLT, and who is not actively surgery tracked, should have their license reverted to their birth sex.  And if someone makes a false claim that they are surgery tracked, after a certain period of time without showing clear progress towards surgery, they should have their license reverted.  They could continue to have their legal name, and current photo, but the sex marker would revert to the birth sex.  And in the future, they would not be allowed to change it until after surgery is performed.  The period could be reasonable, say 10 years, but that would be it.  No SRS, and your license reverts.

Inclusionist? Not exactly...

I have noticed that in addition to using "separatist" as a club word to beat up on those who decline to identify as "transgender," "Cristan" Williams is fond of labeling himself as being an "inclusionist."  Now, I guess that might well be appropriate in one sense, as the word is pretty much made up.  "Inclusionism" is primarily a theological term for a specific view of soteriology (the doctrine of salvation), but it is not a commonly used word either.  So, we have someone who is more properly referred to as a "gender fascist" using a made up word, based on a concept that has nothing to do with the actual discussion, which involves an artificial, highly subjective, political/social construct.  Yes, that Mr. William's for you.  


Now, there are all sorts of problems with using "separatist" including the fact that it is kind of hard to separate from something you are not a part of.  As I have said many times, "transgender" is an identity.  This is a concept that is completely lost on Mr. Williams.  In a comment he made in an argument with someone who does not identify as "transgender" he uses what is clearly a logical fallacy:

Let me pose a question to you: Does a lesbian ceases(sic) to be a homosexual (an umbrella term) if she doesn't self-identify as a homosexual?

Now, I can just imagine Mr. William's smug, self-satisfaction at what he no doubt thinks is a devastating, logical argument.  There is only one small problem.  It is a completely bogus argument.  Yes, "homosexual" can be described, quite properly, as an "umbrella term."  It is an objective term, easily defined, and is, most importantly, not an identity.  And that is where the argument falls apart.  Homosexual is not an identity, is is an objective fact.  


Now, the term "lesbian," on the other hand, is subjective, and is an identity.  Not all homosexual females identify as lesbian.  In fact, there is not clear, universal agreement on what the term lesbian even means.  I have seen some use it as a synonym for "homosexual female,"  while others have defined is as "a homosexual female who specifically has a dislike or even hatred for women,"  Some homosexual females identify as "gay women," declining to be called "lesbian," and they can be quite adamant about the terminology.  So, the term "lesbian" is comparable to the term "transgender," not "transsexual."


Now, "transsexual" like "homosexual" is an objective term.  It has a specific meaning.  "Transgender" is a subjective term.  There are no clear lines defining what is, and is not, "transgender."  For example, are drag queens "transgender?"  What about effeminate men, and butch women?  I have seen some argue that all homosexuals are "transgender" because they cross gender norms.  But such an argument is widely rejected.  Clearly, there is no objective definition for "transgender."  I was, and is, an identity...a social/political construct.  One can choose to identify as "transgender," but it is not a term that should ever be imposed on anyone.


And this is where what Mr. Williams calls the "inclusionist world view" falls apart:

The Inclusionist World View:

1. We ALL face oppression because our history or our expression violates cultural gender stereotypes.
2. Our oppressors LOVE our differences and NEVER want our differences to be seen as normal differences (on par with differences which violate cultural norms, eg Look Who’s Coming For Dinner)
3. Our oppressors use our differences to “otherize” us so that oppression becomes a social meme.
4. Our oppressors oppress us because they like the power, not because they don’t like our differences.

Okay, the first point is pretty much meaningless.  Anytime someone uses a term like "ALL" it is highly suspect.  Mr. Williams, of course, cannot back that statement up with any real evidence.  He cannot speak to the experience of ALL, but that does not stop him from doing exactly what he tries to attack others for.

The same is true for the second assertion.  "NEVER?"  Again, can he prove this?  Of course, not.  But this is, again, exactly what he accuses others of.  Funny how he does not follow his own rules.  But, that is exactly what one comes to expect from him.

Actually, it is generally the transgender movement itself that seeks to "otherize" (My, but Mr. Williams does like to make up word, doesn't he?) people.  In fact, I have seen people attacked for not identifying as being "other."


All of this is of course, a classic example of a straw argument:


And the final assertion, again one made without any real evidence, is patently absurd.  It might be true in some cases (key word: might) but otherwise, it is a broad brush assertion that cannot be backed up with objective evidence.  Funny, but thus Hitchen wannabe is being sliced up by what he likes to label "Hitchen's Razor."  But, that is not surprising.  Mr. WIlliams likes to define the debate on his terms, which are always slanted in his favor.


Now, of course Mr. Williams would never stop there.  He has rather self-servingly defined his world-view, making assertions not backed up by evidence as though they were absolute facts. So, he now presumes to define his opponent's supposed world-view.  

The Separatist World View:

1. Transsexuals face oppression because people confuse us with crossdressers and drag queens.
2. Our oppressors HATE what they view as being strange and/or deviant behavior.
3. Transsexualism isn’t about strange and/or deviant behavior; it’s a medical condition and has nothing to do with breaking gender stereotypes in our culture.
4. Our oppressors will stop oppressing us if we can get them to see that we aren’t like crossdressers and that we are instead like intersex people.

This is a gross oversimplification and distortion of people's actual positions.  Of course, only a fool would expect anything better from Williams. 


For example, confusion with crossdressers and drag queens is not the only reason that transsexuals face oppression, but it is a factor.  Those like Williams actually see themselves as the same as crossdressers and drag queens.  They derive a lot of their identity and pleasure from being at odds with society, and they resent those who do not share their...well, perversions.


It can certainly be shown, from evidence, that some people do confuse transsexuals with crossdressers and drag queens, including attributing to transsexuals motivations that are unique to crossdressers.


Does Mr. Williams really want to deny that those he refers to as "oppressors" do not hate what they view as deviant behavior?   That alone would pretty much render his position laughable.  But then he really shows his true colors....


Clearly, Williams sees transsexualism as both strange and deviant.  Of course, this is because Williams apparently himself identifies as strange and deviant and wants to look down on those he sees as denying being like him.  This is part of his obsessive accusations that "transsexuals" are elitist.  The simple fact is, transsexualism is a medical condition, and it is exactly the opposite of violating gender norms. (Again, Williams' use of "stereotypes" shows more about how he thinks.)  


And finally, he basically tries to make an assertion that education is not going to help transsexuals when time, and time again, the opposite has proven true.  In fact, it can be shown that for many years, transsexuals were often viewed more favorably before the transgender extremists started trying to co-opt them.  The situation was not perfect. but it was better than it is now.  


No, Williams calling himself an "inclusionist" is an attempt to hide what he really is.  A much more appropriate term is "gender fascist."  While he makes self-serving statements to the effect that he does not wish to force an identity on anyone, in practice, he shows the opposite.  He mocks those who decline to be labeled as transsexual, tries, in vain, to argue that they are simply denying what they really are, and attacks anyone who dares stand up to his silly attempts at debate.

The Bathroom Issue, Again

It should be no surprise that "Autumn" Sandeen is again ranting about how men should have the right to invade the women's room.  He is bringing up the issue this time by implying that it is a civil rights issue comparable to Jim Crow laws.  This, of course, should not be surprising since Mr. Sandeen sees himself as the transgender Martin Luther King, Jr.  


The problem is, his views on this issue tend to prove that Sandeen is not a woman, trans or otherwise.  You see, in addition to the very real danger having men free to invade women's restrooms poses, there is another issue that is totally lost on men like Sandeen.


The women's room is, for real women, one of their very few places where they can find sanctuary from men.  And, of course, men like Sandeen want to invade this space.  They cannot comprehend that their might be legitimate reasons they are not welcome.  Ironically, it is the right to privacy, that is often cited in issues like gay rights (sex between consenting adults in private), abortion (the Roe v. Wade ruling is based on a right to privacy), and such.  For women, having a right to exclude men from the women's room is a privacy issue.  


The simple question, that has to be answered, is does one group's rights override another group's.  In some cases, the answer is simple.  Clearly, the rights of various races overrode the rights of a single race with regards to Jim Crow laws.  While the laws were primarily aimed at African-Americans, they could be extended to exclude others.  There were solid arguments for eliminating racial discrimination, not the least of which is that race is inherent, and not a matter of choice or behavior.  Another good argument is that there was not a legitimate basis for such laws, other than simple prejudice.  Some people did not like having to share space with people of another race.  There was not rational basis for such a choice, so it had to be denied legal status.


Clearly, we do need to make provision for those who are legitimately transsexual, as this is an actual medical condition.  But, we do not need to pander to the hobby of the transvestite, and the delusions of men like Sandeen.  As I have suggested before, for most transsexuals, this is not a problem.  I have never been challenged in the women's room.  In fact, it is not really a problem for those who actually make an effort to credibly present as a woman.  But I also waited until I was sure I would not cause a disruption in the women's room before I actually made a practice of using one.  I started out going to ones that were not heavily trafficked.  Then, as I became more confident, I would pretty much go in, use it, and get out as discretely as possible.  Then, finally, when I knew I would not have any problems, I just joined the rest of the women in going, and when appropriate checked my hair and make up, and even rested in the lounge area some provide.  


But, I did not see the women's room as something I had an absolute right to invade, nor did I see it as something of a challenge to be conquered.  I got no thrill out of being there.  It was simply a part of living my life, and once I was sure that my presence would not upset others, I moved on.


Sadly, those like Mr. Sandeen are more interested in deconstructing gender, destroying the binary, and otherwise eliminating societal standards that they simply don't like.  And they don't care how many women are hurt in the process, as long as the boys in the transgender club get their wayA


Now, if we apply these legal standards to transgender males invading women's spaces, things begin to fall a bit short.  Even if we set aside the risk of improper behavior (the fact that it is currently rare does not mean it cannot or will not increase as opportunities increase) we still have the privacy issue.  Now, most women, including myself, are very uncomfortable with the idea of sharing the women's room, and other women's spaces, with men.  I have no problem with someone who is a valid, surgically tracked transsexual who is undergoing the real life test being in the women's room, but I do have objections to crossdressers, and other transgender males invading my privacy.


Now, another issue that much be considered is whether or not transgender behavior should be protected by law.  Well, it fails right off the bat.  It is often only behavior.  Clearly, a transvestite (or crossdresser if we are going to be politically correct) does not have to crossdress.  They are not acting on the basis of an inherent characteristic.  They may become anxious if they do not crossdress, but there is nothing that arguably justifies their imposing this behavior on others to the extent that they should be allowed to violate the rights of women.  So, clearly, transvestites should not be allowed to invade the ladies room.


The next group that has to be considered is full-time crossdressers.  This would include men like Sandeen, who has made it clear that he has no desire to actually change his sex, though he does want to force society to pander to his delusions and call him a female legally.  Now, I wonder how the vast majority of women would feel about Mr. Sandeen being present in the women's room.  His behavior is hardly female, and he is clearly male brained.  Personally, I would not be comfortable sharing a rest room with him.  I imagine I am hardly alone in feeling that way.


And let's consider the larger implications of the sort of laws that Sandeen others push.  They are not content to have laws that address the issue of transgender people in bathrooms.  They want laws that are so broad that they would effectively open up the women's room to anyone, provided that they simply make the claim that during the period that they were in the women's room they were identifying as a female.  It would not matter how they were dressed, whether they were clean shave, or sporting a full beard, or whether they had a feminine hairstyle, or a crew cut.  They simply have to say, even if only momentarily, I FEEL LIKE A WOMAN.  and as if by magic, they are allowed to legally enter the women's room.  Clearly, unless it could be shown that they engaged in some over the top behavior (i.e. they raped or killed someone, or perhaps groped a woman) they would be immune from challenge.


It would not matter how much their presence upset women.  After all, we would just be unreasonably prejudiced.  Of course, as I have pointed out, Sandeen is not a woman.  The feelings, needs, and security of women is not his concern.  All he cares about is the alleged "rights" of him and other men who engage in the same behavior as he does.

Another Perfect Example...

Ah, "Cristan" William's website is the gift that keeps on giving.  Even when Williams is not posting questionable claims, and suspicious evidence to back them up, his eager followers can post some pretty hilarious silliness.  Here is one from a person going by the name Tess McGowan that just shows the absurdity of the transgender mindset:

I was just going to post something like this. We never get to see the faces of separatists because they live in seclusion until they get their surgeries in the hopes that they can live a “normal life”. However, once they get their vaginal surgeries, many of them will walk the earth still having masculine traits (physical and mental) because they have NO IDEA how to live as a woman. It’s quite funny and sad if you think about it, the fact that these people have such high hopes that vaginoplasty will somehow magically change their lives when it’s just one milestone.
I giggle at separatists.

Now, this shows the sort of invincible ignorance that permeates the transgender extremists.  I don't know anyone who lived in seclusion before getting their surgeries.   I suspect what this person means is that some live in stealth, not participating in silliness like gatherings such as "Southern Comfort" or "Fantasia Fair," and not having one's photo published on some of the sillier web sites.  In another words, they simply transitioned and completed a proper Real LIfe Test.  My life was pretty normal before and after surgery.


Now, the really hilarious part is some transgender person making a comment like "have NO IDEA how to live as a woman."  Good grief!  People like Williams have no idea how masculine they come across.  He has a "win at all costs" attitude that is totally male.  Others, such as the example at hand, present as silly parodies of women, "giggling" their way through life.  Actually, it is the true transsexuals who see vaginoplasty as a very important milestone, but I not met one who thought it would do anything other than making them more comfortable in her own body.  And while that may not be magical, it does make a big change in one's life.


I remember cringing at my last examination by my surgeons before my SRS.  Having them sit their and examine that part of my body was pure torture.  I never felt comfortable having it looked at. Not long after that, I was on an exam table with a rather gorgeous doctor taking out some stitches.  It suddenly occurred to me that even as he had his face literally right up in my crotch, I felt no discomfort, no shame, no desire to flee.  That might seem odd to some who is rather attached to his male genitals, but for me, it is was a pretty big change.


Funny though, I didn't have to learn to be a woman.  I didn't have to go to support groups or silly transgender gatherings for the thrill of being taught how to walk, sit, and gesture.  It came naturally to me.  Which had a lot to do with being miserable for the period before transition.


The bottom line is, this foolishness sounds like the classic "more woman than you" silliness that is so popular with transgender people.  They don't get it....you either or a woman, or you are not.  Their is not quantification of being a woman.  One is not a certain percentage of being a woman.  It is not something you learn, or build up points towards.  You simply are, or you are not.