Personally, I Take It As A Compliment....

Well, I see that the extremely confused, and often confusing Suzan Cooke has again noticed that I don't share certain views with her, and has again chosen to attack me.  As I said in the title, I take it as a compliment that she is upset at something I said.  Cooke is someone who cannot seem to make her mind just how cozy she wants to be with the transgender.  I suspect she knows she has burned off a lot of what good will she had with the transsexual community with her rather shrill diatribes touting her leftist politics and her overblown ego that make her a legend in her own mind.


Let me state, categorically, and without question, Suzan Cooke is the last person I would ever want to jump on the "Harry Benjamin Syndrome" bandwagon.  Granted, she did early on, but her ego just would not let her own term, "Women Born Transsexual," be replaced by something else.  So, she turned on people who might have, at least on certain specific issues, agree with her.


Since her blog, which I consider a never ending source of humor, began, she had swung periodically between "transsexual separatist" and "transgender."  In Cooke's case, her lefty side wants to join with the transgender kooks in their rebellion.  Her transsexual side pulls her back.  It is sort of fun to watch.


I used to be a member of Cooke's mailing list until I made a suggestion that did not meet with her approval.  Then her partner, Tina, took a dislike to me, and well, it was not pretty.  Something akin to the purging of transsexuals from feminist groups.  I moved on, and very quickly realized that I had lost nothing except a few nasty people I did not need in my life.  


Personally, I pity Cooke.  There are some powerful demons in her life.  I know she has a history of substance abuse, and she clearly is deeply insecure.  Another blogger once did some research and chose not to publish what she found.  She feared it would push Cooke over the edge, and I suspect she was right.


Now, I see that Cooke has teamed up with "Natalie" Reed, who like Cooke, is a rather hateful atheist.  I long ago observed that some atheists seem to have reached some intellectual conclusion that there is no God.  I disagree, but most of them are capable of being decent and congenial folk who only mention their lack of belief if it comes up naturally in a conversation.  They do not feel the need to shout in people's faces, usually as profanely as possible, "I hate God, and refuse to believe in Him!!!"  Yes, that is basically their belief.  They are angry, usually because some human said or did something that hurt them, and they have come to blame God for that slight.  They shake their fist in God's face, and say I hate You, and the worst thing I can do is not believe in You.


All that can really be said for such a person is, God is patient and will welcome them back if they ever feel the need.  In the meantime, the only thing is to pity them, perhaps have a guilty laugh at their expense, and to pray for them.


In the meantime, it is nice to know that Cooke still obsesses over me from time to time.  But hey, it is the least I can offer given all the laughs I have at her expense.  Oh, and I would remind Cooke, she is always welcome to come and argue here.  Cooke is a big believer in the vilest forms of censorship.  Within limits, primarily mine and others privacy, I allow pretty much anyone to come here and make an ass of themselves.

An Excellent Example of Why I Want NOTHING To Do With "Transgender."

Every once in a while, I come across some random blog that proves to be an excellent example of what is wrong with the "transgender" extremists.  I found an excellent example from some kook who calls himself "Natalie" Reed.  In what he presents as a sort of "April Fool's Joke" he attacks the concept of "Harry Benjamin Syndrome," which, as is typical, he knows nothing about.


Mr. Reed, it seems, is another gender fascist wannabe.  


His article, which starts with a rather nasty portrayal of what he apparently believes those who support the HBS concept to be like, then turns into a rant against people who, gosh darn it, just can't see that they have to be gender rebels like him.


First off, in spite of what he thinks HBS people are like, the first thing he needs to realize is that we are not part of his beloved "trans community."  Then he launches into this clueless bit of screed:

For all we’ve been through, trans people are not necessarily above falling into the same binary or hierarchical attitudes about gender common to our culture, nor does finding oneself on the receiving end of cissexism necessarily cause someone to immediately divest themselves of all the cisnormative ideas that have been drilled into them over the course of their lives. Deciding to transition doesn’t magically or instantly cause someone to let go of things like gender binarism, genital essentialism, misogyny, transphobia, the confusion of gender expression and role with gender identity, heteronormativity and heterosexism, the idea of sexuality and gender having a deterministic relationship to one another, the idea that gender and sex have a deterministic relationship to one another, or the one million and one ways that any given concept, object, characteristic or behaviour is gendered one way or the other.

I sort of, kind, imagine that Mr. Reed would expect, and more likely vehemently demand that his views be respected, and yet, he seems to presume that there is some requirement that anyone who is transsexual must somehow think like he does.  Sorry, but I happen to believe in the gender binary, that having a penis does make you a male, and that wishing to keep it does make you a man.  On the other hand, I think that men in dresses like Mr. Reed are the misogynistic ones, and they often turn out to be very homophobic since they cannot let go of their heterosexuality.  Further they think that gender expression is the equivalent of gender identity, and that gender identity is all that really matters (i.e. say you are a woman, and magically you are...at least until you say you are a man again).  While I have gay and lesbian friends, i also have enough sense to recognize that heterosexuality is the norm (that simply means that it happens far more often than not, not that it is "better") and that yes, sex and gender NORMALLY are in sync, and further, that for people where they are not in sync (unlike someone who CHOOSES to rebel against their true gender) that person is healthier and happier when they are brought into sync.


In short, I think that Mr. Reed, and all the other transgender kooks are, well kooks. He rejects the idea that transsexualism (or HBS) has any legitimate basis, apparently thinking, as so many do, that it really is, "just a lifestyle choice."  Of course, things like crossdressing are just choices, or more specifically, fetishes, though give enough time, they do grow into lifestyle choices.


Oh well, more and more, I try to ignore fools like this, but sometimes you just have to say something.  If he wants to be a gender rebel, that is certainly his right.  But it is my right to have a good laugh at his expense, to consider him to be a kook, and to certainly oppose his attempts to undermine the very fabric of our society.

 

 

Just A Might Bit Arrogant

I have to say, little that the gender fascist who calls himself "Cristan" Williams says or does would surprise me.  But he has really pushed the envelope with his latest post in which he arrogantly takes it upon himself to declare the transsexual separatist movement dead.  This is a new extreme of male arrogance for even him.


In a move that is reminiscent of George W. Bush's appearing on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln to declare "Mission Accomplished," Mr. Williams has effectively declare victory.  Now, granted, in response to one comment, in one of his classic straw arguments, he asserts that he never said he had "won."  Yes, and Bush did not say the war was "over."  Uh huh, yeah....


Mr. Williams asserts that he has shown a series of memes, i.e. straw arguments he has created, have been refuted.  Actually, all he has done is try to bury the truth under an avalanche of fuzzy claims, and questionable citations.  For example, he tries to claim that Christine Jorgensen "identified" as a transgender woman based on a questionable citation that includes an isolated quote she once made.  I have yet to see that she said it more than once, if then.  And certainly it is highly unlikely that she identified with the word as it is now used.


In fact, this brings up another of his straw arguments.  He claims that transsexuals claim that "transgender" did not exist until the mid-Ninties, and that it was invented by a bunch of crossdressers.  Now, some may have come to understand the facts in that manner, but what Williams says is, again, a straw argument that hides the truth.  It is not clear how early the first use of "transgender" or some variant of that term first occurred.  That is certainly not helped by Mr. Williams rather odd collections of alleged citations.  Funny how they always come from obscure and difficult to locate sources.  This of course leads to the highly dishonest practice by him of demanding that people prove a negative.  This, of course, is a classic dodge used by any number of scoundrels.


In truth, it doesn't matter.  Even if all of Mr. Williams claims are true, they would make zero difference in the debate, since the fact remains that the transgender movement as it now exists, and the one that many do not wish to be associated or identified with, did begin in the mid-Nineties, and it was invented by a group of crossdressers.  The evidence for this really is overwhelming.  The only evidence for Mr. Williams claims are some vague incidents where someone might have used transgender, though not in the sense that it is now used.


Mr. Williams wants everyone to pretend that language never changes, unless of course such a change supports his position.  


As to the claim that the transsexual separatist movement actually being dead, well he really offers nothing to actually back that up.  Granted, he did post this story on April Fool's Day, so maybe he thinks it a clever joke.  Or maybe he was just tired of getting zero comments on his blog, as he certainly opened a hornet's nest.  No, his entire argument is based on that series of memes he claims to have busted:

• The colonization of transsexuals meme

This, of course is exactly what he is engaged in.

• The transgender was an invention of the 1990s meme

As pointed out, "The transgender" (sic) might not be an invention of the 1990s, but the moder transgender movement clearly is.

• The transgender was coined by Virginia Prince meme

Arnold Lowman, who called himself  Charles "Virginia" Prince, is credited with inventing the phrase "transgenderal" perhaps coined and certainly popularized the term "transgenderist" and was a major leader of the overall movement that the modern transgender movement grew out of.  BTW, exactly this argument has been made by more than one scholar.  Whether it is true or not is largely a matter of perspective.

• The transgender came from transgenderist meme

What is with this "The transgender" silliness.  The first one I could see as a typo, but the continued use is just bizarre.  Are we talking about "community," "movement," "silliness?"  What?  In any case, in a very real sense, it did come out of a group that, for a while, identified as transgenderist.

• The transgender originally meant crossdresser meme

I don't know of anyone who claims this.  Up until the 1990s it was a rarely used term, and largely meant nothing.  Thus, a straw argument....

• The there was no trans community before the 1990s meme

This is another of his classic straw arguments.  Were there support groups and and communication between groups of transsexuals. and between groups of transvestites?  Yes. Was there the "transgender community" that Mr. Williams attempts to force people into against their will?  Not remotely.  Another straw argument.

• The as long a transgender exists, progress can’t be made meme

And yet another straw argument.  Progress has been made in spite of the attempts of transgender extremists, but they do make things difficult, and in some cases impossible.  Further, what Mr. Williams, and others. like to gloss over, is the problem of what transgender extremists want.  What he calls progress, I would call a nightmare.

• The before the 1990s, transsexuals lived a problem-free life meme

This has to be one of the most pitiful attempts to create a straw argument I have ever seen.  I don't know anyone who could claim this.  At least not anyone who is transsexual.

• The umbrella terms were an invention of the 1990s meme

Actually, the transgender movement as we know it was born of the idea of transgender as an umbrella term.  Certainly, before the 1990s some tended to associate transgender and transsexual, though nothing like the current movement's gender fascists do today.

• The transgender was invented by a Commie in the 1990s meme

As I understand it, one of the leaders of the movement has, at least in the past, identified as Communist.  Another straw man argument.

• The there’s no such thing as a non-op transsexual meme

Ah, a semantical straw argument.  Since the term "transsexual" clearly refers to someone changing sex, and since the only way to change one's sex is to have surgery, then there are no non-op transsexuals...just delusional people who claim they are non-op transsexuals.  Of course, Mr. Williams bases this on out-dated information that was written in 1966 and which has been abandoned long ago.  Oh, and that information came from Harry Benjamin, who he usually seems quite fond of trashing anyway

• The Non-transsexual trans folk pose a rape risk to women in the restroom and/or Gender Identity protections make women unsafe meme

And he ends his list of grand, but none existent "bustings" with, of course, another straw argument.  The issue is not that "transgender" people will be a threat to women in restrooms.  The argument is that the way the transgender movement insists that laws be written would result in males, including ones who are not even transgender, being able to enter women's space by simply claiming, if only momentarily, that they identify as female.  That does present a very real danger, and that is what most, including myself, oppose.

Well, once again, Mr. Williams lies, obfuscates, and generally makes silly arguments in an attempt to claim some small amount of victory where none remotely exists.

Suffice to say, those who want no part of "transgender" are alive, and healthy.

Invincible Ignorance

When one is dealing with the transgender community, one of the most important things to remember is that you are dealing with people who have no real grasp on reality.  They live in an imaginary world where women have penises, men have vaginas, and such.  This was especially brought home to me by a post from "Cristan" Williams, who, at least at times, seems to have no grasp on reality, and a response from "Autumn" Sandeen, who is perhaps one person with even less of a grasp on reality than Willams.

Williams is engaged in one of his favorite activities, taunting Dana Lane Taylor, who Williams has an obsession with, over a response Taylor made on Facebook.  What did Taylor say that has Williams in such a rage?  Why she had the audacity to point out to Williams that she does not completely disagree with certain actions taken by the government that Williams decided to strut and crow about like a Banty Rooster.  This, of course, pretty much puts the lie to Williams claims, but naturally, he cannot have that.  After all, he is never wrong...at least in his imagination.

Amazingly clueless as ever, Williams drags out an argument that shows that both he, and apparently certain forces within the Obama administration, have their heads so far up their....well, lets say that where they have their heads stuck, the sun never shines (unless, of course, your doctor is using a solar powered proctoscope, and the smell is not very pleasant...at least not for those who are remotely normal) that they are completely oblivious to the fact that they are exceedingly misogynistic.

The example that Williams uses, and one which it is implied is taken from a government presentation, involves a man showing up at a shelter in women's clothing, sporting a full beard, and asking to be admitted.   Now, the government slide does not specify exactly what is, and is not permissible.  The obvious implication is that such a person cannot be denied shelter.  Williams tries to imply that such a person would have to be housed with women, irregardless of how much discomfort this might cause.  In fact, one senses that Williams is delighting in the very idea that such a person would make the women extremely uncomfortable.

This is an extremely misogynistic position, implying that the rights of women are not as important as those of men who engage in crossdressing.  Let's be honest, such a person does not have a female gender identity.  Period, end of discussion.  This person is engaged in the behavior know as "gender queer."  They are mocking societal norms, almost certainly with a desire to upset other people.  I cannot remotely see why such a person should be allowed to do such a thing to women who are already in an extremely unpleasant situation.  But hey, Williams is not a woman, has no sense of what women feel, and I suspect, probably has some innate hatred of women.

The bottom line is, Williams hates Dana Taylor because Taylor has effectively refuted William's silly attempts to force women to accept men in women's restrooms.  Williams supports a law that provides no restrictions on men invading women's spaces.  All one has to do is say that one's "gender identity" is female, even if only temporarily, and one has no restrictions on entering the women's room.

But this lack of reality does not stop with Williams.  Sandeen gets in on the fun as well.  He decided to comment on Dana Taylor in one of his more bizarre rants in some time.  He starts off by complaining that Taylor has "functionally defined" him as a male because of his "surgery," which of course, consisted of being castrated.  Sandeen has a penis, wishes to keep his penis, and is, therefore, functionally a male.  That is pretty obvious to anyone with a shred of intelligence.  Then Sandeen goes on to make the complaint that Taylor has "implicitly defined me as a 'eunuch' in the comment thread for my recent column"  Actually, if you read the column, you will find that Sandeen is the one who cites Matthew 19:12 in a rather bizarre attempt to claim that the Bible mentions transgender people.  This passage refers to eunuchs, so it is not Dana Taylor who has defined Sandeen as a eunuch.  Of course, Sandeen, being a eunuch, might be a bit sensitive about this.  

Sandeen goes on to attack Dana Taylor through a series of bizarre non sequiturs.  The first is Sandeen's objection to a very reasonable statement by Taylor that any transsexual who identifies as transgender is fighting against our rights as women.  Of course, this logic is lost on a man like Sandeen.  He does not identify as a woman.  He identifies as a transgender.  This means he wishes to hang on to his penis (literally in his case), though some transgender people who actually have surgery do so figuratively.  Identifying as transgender implies a lack of desire to move on and become fully a woman.

The next is a statement that simply shows that Sandeen is not remotely a transsexual.  He takes offense at Dana Taylor's response to his bizarre post that claims that "transgender people are the cool kids."  That was a post where Sandeen appeared, flouncing about like a horrible misogynistic caricature of a woman in a costume that was not remotely something a real woman would would wear, particularly one of Sandeen's age.  It was amusing in a very creepy sort of way.  Taylor makes the statement:

I don’t find being transsexual cool one bit. It is a horrible condition. It is a crime against humanity. How can that be celebrated as being cool?

Sandeen tries to claim that this indicates that Taylor "loathes" being a transsexual.  I don't think I have ever met anyone who would have chosen to actually be a transsexual.  Many people choose to be "transgender," often deciding to claim to be transsexual, but no one who is actually transsexual would remotely think it is cool.  This just proves what I have said about Sandeen for a long time.  He has no actual history as a transsexual.  He was clearly a transvestite who decided, in his later years, to take his hobby full time.  Keep in mind, this is someone who loves to brag about his 20 years of service in the Navy.  Twenty years of being a man in a very masculine environment.  This is not a transsexual.  

And then Sandeen, goes on to claim that Dana Taylor will not answer the question, "Do you consider non-op transsexuals to be women?"  Now, given how Sandeen chooses to spin this, the use of "non-op" seems odd.  Perhaps Sandeen actually meant "pre-op," or perhaps Sandeen is just trying to scam people.

For me, the answer is simple.  Anyone who claims to be a "non-op transsexual" is delusional. There is no such thing.  It is an oxymoron.  That is someone, like Sandeen, who is saying "I have a penis, I want to keep my penis, but I am a woman."  No, such a person is not a woman.  And Dana Taylor is not a "non-op," so why Sandeen would claim, "If she answers that question with a yes, then she denies that she’s a woman at this point in your life. If she answers it with a no, then she’s forced to embrace that she isn’t a woman until she has a vaginoplasty — a vaginoplasty we know she needs to be comfortable in her own skin and to fully be complete as the woman we know she is."  It means nothing of the sort.  A pre-op transsexual is working to correct their birth defect, unlike Sandeen, who is nothing but a man with a fetish for pretending to be a "woman with a penis."

Sandeen actually saying something even more incredibly ignorant to the realities of transsexualism, adding, "To answer the question means she has to acknowledge the loathing she has for a body part that she was born with one that separates her from the rest of the community of women — in a sense she has to fully embrace that she’s one of the transsexual people she loathes being. I believe the term for what she’s feeling is referred to as 'internalized transphobia.' "

Simply put, and I realize this would be completely lost on Sandeen, part of being a transsexual is having a loathing for one's male genitalia.  Again, Sandeen's statement prove he is not remotely a transsexual.  He has no understanding of what transsexuals feel.  He cannot comprehend that one would choose to be a transsexual if such a thing were possible, and that wishing one had not suffered through what transsexuals suffer through is not "internalized transphobia."  What Sandeen actually means is that the fact that Dana Taylor is a true transsexual, who has felt things that Sandeen has never felt, threatens Sandeen's delusions and fantasies, and must be attacked.

Ironically, Sandeen is deep in the closet.  He is hiding from the fact that he is a transvestite, who will never be more than a transvestite, and he actually believes he must "advance" up the imaginary transgender hierarchy, even though he really doesn't want to.  He has sacrificed his testicles to this goal, even as he is terrified at the idea of losing his precious penis.

Rather than embrace what he really is, he lies and tries to be what he is not.

Sandeen, and Williams are deeply mired in "Invincible ignorance."  They simply refuse to learn, even as they demand to teach everyone and further that ignorance.

Update:  I have to admit, I was really taken in by Taylor.  This person was a self-deceiving fraud who has decided, after some soul-searching, that his is really "transgender" and is now Mr. Cristan Williams latest BFF...  And a full-fledged transgender kook to boot.

A Simple Proposal

This blog started on August 28, 2007.  This post is the 200th, which makes this sort of, kind of special.  Think of it as a collector's item.  Who knows, maybe someday it will be worth something.  Or, more likely, not....  But, hey, 200 posts.  That's quite a few.


Well, I wanted to post something special to mark this occasion, and I decided to to a post that has been rattling around my brain for a while.  I know a lot of people are tired of the stupid gender wars that are fueled by the insistence of those who demand that everyone join in a lock step march under the transgender umbrella.  And it should be obvious to those pushing that view that, well, it just is not going to happen.  Oh wait, I forget, they are a bunch of men who think they can push women around...


So, I make the following proposal to settle the matter once and for all.


The gender fascists simply acknowledge what they already know....that transgender is an identity, not an objective state of being.  That is, they openly acknowledge that no one should ever be referred to as transgender, gender variant, or other such terms unless they have specifically identified themselves as being such.  Period, end of story, no exceptions.  No more claims as to who is transgender, only an acknowledgement that transgender is an identity that some adopt.


This would be changed in places like the GLAAD media guide, pointing out that unless a person willingly identifies as transgender, they should not be referred to as such.  It would also be communicated to the medical profession.  


This would end the fighting over language.  Those who identify as transgender could rally for their rights, and leave the rest of us alone.  And we could move on and discuss our own issues, without having to worry about being associated with groups we do not identify as members of.


I know....  It is not likely to happen.  Men like "Cristan" Williams, "Autumn" Sandeen, and "Monica" Helms need the lie that transgender people include transsexuals.  They are not really transsexuals, but they want to use that label when it suits them.  They want, very much, to be "women with penises," even though such does not really exist.


But under my suggestion, they can make that claim all they want, and well, the rest of us can join our true peers in having a good laugh.

Well,DUH!!!!!!

Sometimes the invincible ignorance of certain transgender extremists proves to be surprising.  For example, "Autumn" Sandeen, who cannot tolerate anyone actually making valid and logical arguments against his silliness, has come out with a real doozy!


He is carrying on about the fact that some among the Religious Right think that transsexual women are "super gay."  Hmmm.....and this surprises Mr. Sandeen, why?


After all, Sandeen is a leader among those who wish to tightly going "transgender" which he falsely claims includes transsexuals, to lesbians, gays, and bisexuals.  So, what does he expect?  For extremists on the Right to have more sense that extremists on the left and somehow realize that this is all a silly political construct?  Oh wait, not even Sandeen fully understands that.


Of course, the Religious Right now sees transsexuals as "super gay."  Why wouldn't they, when fools like Sandeen are effectively telling them that transsexuals are, well, part of the LGBT community?


Oh, and Sandeen tries to argue that the Bible supports transgender people because  Matthew 19:12 says:

“For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it.”

Now, Sandeen, who is himself a eunuch, who has tried to falsely claim that having his testicles removed was "genital reconstruction surgery," actually makes the completely absurd argument that since this was the "only genital reconstruction surgery available in Biblical times," it means that God approves of transsexuals.

Now, I wrote a paper that was presented at an HBIGDA meeting concerning the religious aspects of Harry Benjamin Syndrome (aka transsexualism) and I did not need to resort to silliness like this.  I mean, this is a completely bogus argument.  This has nothing to do with gender identity, transsexualism, or silly men like Sandeen who want to be women with penises.

It is about eunuchs, men who have been castrated.  Under Jewish law, such men were excluded from the Temple, though this was later changed under the Prophets.  Jesus was just reiterating something mentioned elsewhere in the Bible.

And I cannot help but notice that Sandeen has finally persuaded the powers that be at LGBT Weekly in San Diego to block me from commenting there.  As I say, he cannot abide anyone actually countering his silliness.

An Excellent Post....

Quite frankly, it is rare that I find much agreement with anything Suzan Cooke posts.  Of late, she has become more and more of a self-caricature, the angry radical, ranting against imagined threats.  Simply put, I find her extremely intolerant, very narrow-minded, massively egotistical, and laughably extremist.  Cooke is, in many ways, a left-wing counterpart to someone like Michele Bachman. The vast majority of her "blog" is simply reposts of articles from various radical left-wing sources, with occasional comments from Cooke tacked on at the beginning.  There is very little original content these days.  And even the original stuff is an odd mix of articles that seem to either completely trash the "transgender Borg," or which seem strongly in support of the transgender movement.


Well in the midst of all this Cooke has posted a surprising good post that, without question, completely refutes the transgender paradigm.  In a single post, Cooke has managed to devastate the claims of kooks like "Cristan" Williams, "Autumn" Sandeen, and "Monica" Helms.  Simply put, this post should, but most likely won't, put an end to the attempts of the transgender extremists to co-opt transsexuals.  It is time for them to acknowledge that transgender is separate from transsexual. In another words, the transgender have lost.  It is over.


I won't quote the entire post.  Click above, and you should be able to read it.  But here are few of the best points:

It is an exercise of male privilege and expectations, of possessing male authority, when those who have penises presume the right to dictate to women how they should think and behave. That includes dictating thought and behavior to post-transsexual women who had sex reassignment surgery and now have female parts.

This is an excellent statement of the thesis of the post.  It does an excellent job of summing up the whole issue.

It is an exercise in male privilege to tell me that I have been drafted into a cult I never joined, that didn’t exist until recently. To tell me that because you baptized me into this cult against my will I can never leave the cult.

It is sociopathic male behavior to threaten, bully, verbally abuse and harass post-transsexual women, who refuse to be part of the Transgender Borg Cult. 

It is sociopathic male privilege to think it is alright to abuse us for wanting to be ordinary women after we have had our surgery and in some case have been post-op for far more than half our lives.

These three are devastating to the views of the gender fascists.  Especially the third.  They really hate the idea that we might choose to be, and succeed at being, ordinary women.

It is male privilege to presume you have the right to invalidate the lives of women in order to validate your claims to being women even though you have a penis between your legs instead of a vagina.

And it should be noted, the transgender don't really want to be "women," they want to be called women, treated as women, and accepted as women, while maintaining maleness, and they want everyone to be forced into this bizarre bit of fiction.  They want it, quite simply, both ways. They want, as one kook once put it, to be "woman-males."

It is male privilege to tell female people that you get to define woman and that having a penis should not keep one from being considered female.

The definition of women is pretty much settled, and has been for pretty much the length of time that humans have been around, but now the transgender extremists want to change things.  They want, as has been pointed out before, to make it sort of a matter of name it, and claim it.  Say you are a woman, and poof, you become a woman.  This, of course, is insanity, but sadly they have actually had some success in forcing this view on society.  And Heaven help the person who dares disagree.


Cooke's post should be sent to those who support transgender extremism with the suggestion that they reconsider their views.  It will be hard for them to argue against.


[Follow-up]  Normally, I would write this as a separate post, and I might do so later, but the next post will be, according to Blogger, my 200th post, and I am planning something special.


In any case, Mr. Cristan Williams, in another example of transgender cluelessness has a post entitled "Crowing Over Progress."  What an apropos choice of word.  After all, a rooster crows, and of course, Mr. Williams is so very, very male.  Even if he has had SRS, it did not make him a woman, just as you cannot make a silk purse out of sow's ear (or in Mr. Cristan's case, a boar's ear).  So yes, I suppose he is crowing for sure.  Oh, and of course in the article he points out something that sort of undermines all of his crowing.  He points out that it has come to light that Obama's "nanny" in Indonesia was transgender.  That is, Obama was raised for a while by a man who was pretending to be a woman (and who de-transitioned out of fear) which goes a long way towards explaining why the Obama administration has been so oddly pro-transgender.  So, in spite of what Mr. Williams want to claim, it is not all that obnoxious transgender lobbying that did the trick, but a rather bizarre coincidence instead.


So, somewhat cluelessly, "Cristan" Williams has actually confirmed what I said previously.  It is a matter of male privilege, and he likes to "crow" about it, no doubt also strutting like the rooster he is so like.