If He Would Stop Lying, Perhaps Mr. Sandeen Would Feel Better

"Autumn" Sandeen, the Eunuch Who Would Be Queen, is again whining about his mental illness and how down he has been lately.  Ironically, the answer is right there, staring him in the face, practically slapping him silly trying to get his attention, but he keeps ignoring it.

He is depressed because he is trying to be something he is not, and deep down, he knows it.

Sandeen is the classic crossdresser who gets bored and tries to become a transsexual so he can keep the thrills going.  The classic example of this was Renee Richards, who tries, desperately, to deny that he made a mistake, even though it is clear that he did, and that he knows it.  I have suggested to several therapists that they read Richards' book to better understand what should be red flags indicating that a person should not be considered for SRS.  Such an intervention might have helped Sandeen who shows much the same sort of history as Richards.

Sandeen says:

On a certain level, it feels like I’m internally fighting for my survival as a woman because of external efforts to define me as a man. And internally for me, this is at the intersection of being a trans woman and being disabled due to mental illness.

Of course, Sandeen is not a woman in any sense of the word.  He is a male-gendered, male bodied person who is trying to rebel against gender norms.  He cannot change his brain, which is clearly and immutably male.  He has not remotely changed his body to be female (though that would just make him what would effectively be a sort of pseudo-FTM.  We have more than a few of those already.

Like most men, Sandeen refuses to admit to error.  He has chose this path, and he intends to stubbornly see it through.  I suspect his castration was motivated by a desire to prove that he was man enough to become a woman, making a sacrifice that would upset a lesser man too much.  

Sandeen cannot "survive" as a woman, since he isn't a woman to begin with.  He cannot be what he is not.  And deep down, he really does not want to be.  He wants to be a "gender rebel," like "Kate" Bornstein, another highly disturbed individual who mistakenly thought surgery was the answer to his demons.

Those external efforts that Sandeen complains about are called reality.  He has a penis.  He is a man.  End of story.  He has attempted what is, effectively, a legal fraud and he committed perjury to accomplish this.  He basically lied and claimed to have changed his sex, when he has not.  When he is careful, he speaks of "legally changing his gender," which is an absurd idea.  

First off, according to the way that Sandeen would normally define the word, it is neither a legal concept, or subject to change.  If one could change one's gender, transsexuals would be treated mentally, rather than physically.  There would be no basis for sex reassignment surgery.  We would simply have our "gender" changed to match our bodies.  

Gender, we are told, is what is between our ears, sex is what is between our legs.  In the case of a true or classic transsexual, the gender is truly different from the sex.  In Sandeen's case, the gender and the sex are the same, and the issue is one of transgression.  Sandeen is rebelling against what he really is, choosing to become, in effect, a "man in a dress."  He wants the world to know he is a man, but he wants to force the world to call him a woman.  It is a control issue, which of course, is typically male.

The simple fact is, Sandeen is lying, and he knows he is lying.  He knows he is not really a woman, and that he never will be one.  He doesn't really want to be one, but he wants to force society to accept him as one.  The reality of his situation is ever with him.  He whines, he complains, he accuses others of intolerance when they will not pander to his lies, but he knows he will never really change things to his warped concept of reality.  And that makes him depressed.

Perhaps if he simply accepted reality, and stopped trying to deny it, he might feel better.  He has been able to fraudulently obtain a court document that says he is female, but he is not female.  He is now applying to change his birth certificate to reflect this fraud.  He has tried to tell himself that this will make it all better.  But he knows the truth.  He will continue to be a man, and nothing will ever change that.  Better that he accept his, and be happy being a "gender rebel," than trying to force people to pander to his demands.  It simply is never going to happen.  He may force clerks to put on a false smile, and say "Ma'am" to him, but he knows when his back is turned, they are snickering and saying, "Whoa, it's a dude..."  And that is why he is so depressed.

A Blast From the Past

As I have said before, I am originally from Birmingham, Alabama, so I was a bit surprised when I saw that location mentioned on Suzan Cooke's web site. At first, I thought it might be an article about a friend of mine who was a post-op FTM who happened to have been the star witness in the trial of his uncle who was convicted for the 16th Street Church bombing that killed four girls in 1963. He was featured in the book "Transgender Warriors."

But I was even more surprised when I realized the article was about a person most commonly known in Birmingham as "Ms. Sid," the "notorious" transsexual... Cooke had linked to a story from Birmingham's past, and as is typical for Cooke, missed the real facts in favor of a bit of political drivel...

Born Sidney McFerrin Ford, Jody Suzanne Ford became something of a local scandal when the hairdresser known as "Mr. Sid" revealed plans to become a woman. The sign outside the shop was changed to "Ms. Sid's" and tongues began wagging. About this time, I was struggling with my own issues, though I had not yet fully realized that I was transsexual. In my mind, the term had some rather negative associations. I was first aware that such a thing was even possible when I saw an episode of a TV show hosted by Joe Pyne where he profiled Christian Jorgensen. It was presented so sordidly that the concept failed to fully resonate with me. Not long after that, when I read the book "Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex..." the description of sex change surgery was so horrifying that I was totally repulsed by the idea. Thankfully that description was not remotely close to reality.

About this same time, Renee Richards was in the news, having created a scandal in women's tennis when it was revealed that she had been Dr. Richard Raskin.  So, curiosity drove me to pay a visit to "Ms. Sid's."  Fortunately, it was also a boutique, so I had an excuse to wonder in and have a look without having a haircut I would have had to explain.

The shop was located in Five Point's South, which ironically, was a neighborhood I would later live in for about ten years.  I remember, walking in, and starting to look at the clothes while trying to discretely see if I could spot Ms. Ford.  I remember a very tall woman at one of the stations, who I assumed must be the object of my curiosity.  Other than being rather tall, I noticed nothing out of the ordinary.  I honestly was not sure if this was really her, but I saw no one else that might have been.

On at least two other occasions I saw her (I now know it was her I saw), once getting into her car, and once at a bank.  Of course, I was too shy to actually approach her and ask questions.

A few years later, she was killed in an incident at a local motel.  It was only through the article that Cooke linked to that I learned, as Paul Harvey would have said, "...the rest of the story."  

Sadly, she died when she reacted to some nasty comments made by Larry Maddox, the owner of the Vestavia Hills Motor Lodge.  She was at Brookwood Mall with her former wife, when Maddox made some anti-gay slurs.  Ms. Ford chased him up the highway in her car and confronted him outside the motel.  He went in, and came out with shotgun and fired.  He claimed self-defense, and was found not guilty.

Based on details in the story that Cooke linked to, I wonder if she was truly transsexual.  For example there was an incident, before transition, where this person is described as being seen in heels, a woman's suit, and full beard.  Before transition, this person was also a member of the gay community, though she had been married twice, and had a child.  She played basketball at a college affiliated with the Church of Christ, and played semi-professional football for a time.  All in all, it is a history more typical of some who are better described as "transgender" than transsexual.  And the act of chasing someone down and confronting them as she did seems more male than female.

It is hard to say, but Cooke, and the author of the original article, try to spin it as a hate crime. I had previously thought that Ms. Ford died when a romantic encounter turned nasty.  I was not aware that she had chased her killer and confronted him after an altercation.  

That is the problem with mixing legitimate transsexual issues with politics.  Cautionary tales get lost in the rush to make someone a martyr.  This person died, sadly, because she acted like a man.  Maddox should have faced manslaughter, not murder, as he started the incident, but Ms. Ford might still be with us if she had not made a stupid choice.  A fact, tragically lost on those who have adopted the transgender mindset as Cooke clearly has.

Just Call Her Locutus, Because She Has Been Assimilated!

I have noticed for a while now that Suzan Cooke has a tendency to oscillate between being virulently anti-transgender, and sounding pretty much like a card-carry member of what she likes to label the "Borg."  Well, it appears that, like Captain Picard, she has been assimilated...


For one thing, "Cristan" Williams, a leading kook among the more extreme faction of the gender fascists has given his imprimatur to Cooke, saying that "Suzan Cooke Nails It" and singing her praises because he claims that Cooke has begun adopting some of his rather odd views of trans-history.  He seems very determined to hide the embarrassment that was wrought upon his kind by Arnold Lowman, better known as Charles "Virginia" Prince.  Oh well, now he is claiming Cooke as something of a covert.  Perhaps she is....  But he mainly is delighted that she seems to share his obsession with being "transgressive."  He cannot stand the idea that anyone would actually transition and then get on with a normal life.  He tries to force transgression on others, much as Cooke is coming around to doing.  I believe they come at this from different directions, but the result is the same...


Personally, I wish that those who are caught up in the pretend world of gender transgression would just leave the rest of us be, but they don't seem capable of that.  And now, Cooke is starting to spread some false claims...


In a recent post Cooke claims:

Transsexuals have the HBS/Classic Transsexuals who tried to take over the label Women Born Transsexual, but were rebuffed from that action back when the meme represented a mailing list and not a blog. They managed to pollute the meme because some people insisted on associating WBT with the HBS/Classic Transsexuals set, even though we opposed the transphobia and homophobia as well as the right wing rhetoric that is the stock and trade of the HBS/CT set.
When I started this blog I was denounced for being supported by Andrea James by people Andrea James had exposed as trolls and frauds. I was denounced for supporting the efforts of Andrea James and Calpernia Addams.
I made it clear from the start that I did not like the HBS movement, particularly since it was originally and quite appropriately titled the “BS Movement.”

Actually, the HBS group that I was part of (there were at least two) had no desire to be linked with the label "Women Born Transsexual," which we largely considered a rather silly attempt to sound like the even sillier "Womyn Born Women" meme of Lesbian Separatists.  Now, after my surgery, I joined Cooke's mailing list, where I made the unforgivable faux pas of actually having an idea that Cooke hadn't thought up first.  If one expressed a view that Cooke disapproved of, and then actually defended that view, you were seen as a "threat" and attacked.  In my case, it was repeating a suggestion a friend of mine had once made that transsexuals should hire someone, a non-transsexual woman, to serve as a spokesperson.  Cooke went postal over the idea, and when I defended it, well things got nasty.  Tina, Cooke's partner, decided I was a threat, and well even though I actually went so far as to apologize, I was kicked out of the group.  


I thought Cooke had mellowed and matured from here rather silly behavior back on Usenet, but no...she was moving back towards behaving like a bad caricature of a Sixties radical.  This, of course, is the Cooke we all know and well, have a good laugh at.  I really can't take here all that serious any more.  Some still buy the idea that Cooke has some standing as an elder in the tribe, but actually, she is just a very insecure person trying to be somebody.  Oh well, Cooke has a few followers who tremble in fear of her disapproval.  


And for the record, it was Cooke who tried to link to HBS, not the other way around.  She linked WBT with HBS on her blog until she realized that we were not going to march in lockstep with here silliness on certain points of view.  And there was an early suggestion that the term be "Benjamin Syndrome" until it was discovered that this was already used for another condition involving mental retardation.  It was never referred to as "BS."

More idiocy from Mr. Sandeen...

Well, about a week ago, "Autumn" Sandeen was back whining about the supposed "cyberharassment" he claims he was subjected to surrounding his effort to get a fraudulent birth certificate that indicates that he is "female."  Of course this is just silliness.  He let everyone know that he planned to effectively defraud a court by claiming to have had SRS when he has only been castrated.  He seems to expect that he should be able to commit a fraud and not be challenged.


He made a very questionable claim concerning the documentation he received from the doctor who castrated him, and when some contacted that doctor and asked if he really considered castration to be "full SRS" he said he did not.  This of course led to Sandeen waiting until a change in the law took effect which simply makes it easier for people to fraudulently claim to have changed their sex.  Sandeen has tried to claim that the law allows for men to become "legally female," but that is not the case.  It just lowers the standards for what documentation is required, making it easier for a doctor to facilitate a fraud.  I am sure Sandeen did not tell the court that he still has his penis.


Sandeen has tried to claim that the doctor violated HIPPA when all that really happened is that the doctor's office made a general statement about their policies without reference to Sandeen.  But the way that Sandeen tells it, they violated his privacy, which is basically a self-serving bit of drama on his part.


And of course, as previously documented here, Sandeen has done his share of cyber harassment himself.  


Now, Sandeen has published what anyone could easily find.  He has revealed that his birth name is Stephen Mark Sandeen.  It is kind of funny how he was so secretive about it.  I have known his birth name for some time.  All you have to do is search the court records for "Sandeen" and name changes in San Diego.  I guess Sandeen figured it was only a matter of time before someone bothered to do it.  I choose not to reveal what I found out.  It would have just given Sandeen another reason to play the martyr.  


I am sure for Sandeen, it is a bit of a thrill.  I am honestly surprised he did not do it sooner.  He is clearly more interested in being a "woman with a penis" than anything remotely resembling a real female.  This latest bit of theater, which I suspect was triggered by the realization that his birth name is no big secret, is somewhat akin to the classic end to a drag act, where the queen would whip his wig off, so there is no question that he is really a man, and that his act is all an illusion.


The bottom line is, Sandeen is not a transsexual, is not a woman, and never will be.  He is another male crossdresser who, after a long career as a man, has decided to take up his "hobby," or more correctly, fetish, in his retirement.  He shows no sign of actually being a woman, and seems clueless about what women actually think or feel.  Sadly, he desperately needs and seeks attention, which means he pushes him forward as the face of transgender, which he misrepresents as including transsexuals.

Transition Versus Transgression

I have been working on this post for a while.  During that time I have learned that, as some would say, "Great minds think alike.  There was a post at TS-SI that says almost the exact same thing I do in this post.  Scary in a way...my first reaction was, "How did they know what I was saying?"  Of course, it is just coincidence, but still, it gives one pause.


Then, there was this response to a post by "Autumn" Sandeen at LGBT Weekly:

Living in the real world instead of some sub culture where what is freaky is normal, I have never seen any of the issues transgenders have seen.If only they would ether stay in the closet or have SRS and become real legal women instead of living some life that is a legal fiction all would be good.
There are lots of less than perfect looking women in the world, so Autumn and the rest, why don’t you live your life as legitimate females instead of some other.

And there was this rather frightening response to a question posed by same person making the above comment:

“why force your way into female spaces while still being male bodied?”

for the same reason you choose to attempt to ‘change’ who we are… BECAUSE WE CAN!

I would not want to encounter that person in ladies room.

There have been a lot of words devoted to the battle over "transgender" versus "transsexual."  On one side, you have those I refer to as "gender fascists" who demand that transsexuals accept the label "transgender."  On the other side, you have those that the gender fascists like to label as "transsexual separatists" in their attempts to force transsexuals back into line.  But the real question is, what is it that really divides these two groups?  That can be summed up in two words...."transition" and "transgression."


For me, and other true transsexuals, it is all about simply being who, and what, we really are.    After spending a portion of our lives in the wrong body, dealing with the public perception of how we should be, and struggling with all the problems this leads to, we finally take the steps necessary to correct things, and get on with a normal life.  We see ourselves as simply women, or in the case of FTMs, simply men.  We simply want to live the life we feel we have been cheated out of.


On the other hand, you have people who seem more interested in transgressing gender norms.  They have no desire to simply live their lives as normal men or women, but instead identify as "trans people."  At the far extreme, they go out of their way to insure that they do not even come close t fitting within gender norms.  Others seem to have no concept of how normal men and women act.  They may not go out of their way to completely transgress gender norms, but they often appear more as caricatures than anything else.


Those who are of the transgressive variety are usually very "out" about their past.  They not only have no desire to simply live as members of their "target" gender, they feel a strong need to be extremely open our being transgender.  And, they generally insist that others have an obligation to also be "out, loud, and proud."  They attack those who do not share their desire to be in other's faces as being ashamed, scared, closeted, etc.  They cannot grasp the simple concept that some might simply wish to live normal lives.l


Anyone who disagrees with the "transgender" paradigm, especially those who wish no part of the transgender label are viciously attacked.  We are accused of hatred, bigotry, and trying to tell others how to live their lives.  Actually, none of this is true.  The charge that we try to tell others how to live their lives is particularly absurd.  I would never insist that someone must, or even should, have sex reassignment surgery.  In fact, quite the opposite is true.  I would say that those who are adamantly "non-op" are making absolutely the correct decision for their selves.  I would have serious disagreements with those extremists who try to insist that everyone should forego surgery and simply accept living in their "chosen gender role" without surgery, but no, I would never insist that anyone "must" have surgery.


Now, I do not believe that those who are "non-op" are transsexuals.  I consider the term "non-op transsexual" to be an oxymoron.  If you do not have the absolute desire to change your sex, you are not a transsexual, and under no circumstances should you ever consider having irreversible surgery.  The results would be unsatisfactory, and possibly, even probably tragic.  Unfortunately, there really is a "transgender" hierarchy, and many see "transsexual" as the apex.  This is why some, such as "Autumn" Sandeen, insist on demanding the label "transsexual" even though hey have no desire to change sex.  They believe that calling themselves "transsexuals" increases their credibility, even though just the opposite is actually true.


I cannot relate to the desire of some for transgression.  I have no desire to be seen as anything other than simply a woman.  I take no pleasure in being identified as anything else. I do realize that people are driven by any variety of desires and motives, but that does not mean I accept them as proper.  Some people enjoy variant sexual practices, but I have no interest in them, and I find some highly disturbing.  The drive towards gender transgression often seems linked to this same behavior.  Many males who are drawn to "transgender" seem to have desires that are related to masochism.  They delight in the idea of forced feminization, and they often show belief in the idea of women being lower in status than men.  Some might choose to call me judgmental, but I find such attitudes to be distasteful.  I have actually seen some take delight in being treated poorly by chauvinistic males, claim such as affirmation of their femaleness.  Personally, I think it simply affirms their inherent misogyny., 


Of course, it is this misogyny that has led the radical feminists to attack the transgender movement.  And while I have serious disagreements with much of radical feminism, I can understand some of their views on this issue.  It is also what has brought vicious attacks from conservatives and the religious right.  Claiming that these attacks are rooted in "transphobia," hatred, and bigotry is a bit disingenuous. Much of it is simply an all too natural reaction to what is, quite frankly, often outrageous behavior.  I realize that is, to many who identify as transgender, or even transsexual, outright heresy.  But when you choose to go against societal norms, you have to take responsibility for the reactions, even if you disagree.


Of course, the great irony here is that the transgender extremists actually engage in pretty much the same behavior as those who so vehemently oppose them.  They have a world view, and they expect others to conform to that view.  Part of their problem, however, is that their view is very much a minority view, so they are not going to find the sympathy that they demand.  And when they don't get what they want, they react in anger and often resort to insults and attacks.


I have been taken to task by several transgender extremists, including Suzan Cooke, for refusing to conform to to the demanded "courtesy" of referring to anyone who claims to be a woman with female pronouns.  I hated to break it Cooke, but if I ever had the misfortune to meet "Autumn" Sandeen or "Monica" Roberts in person, I would still refuse to refer to them using female pronouns.  At best, if the situation required it, I would avoid using pronouns, but no, under no circumstances would I refer to either of these fellows as females, as they are not, and I am not going to lie just to make them feel better.  Cooke can toss out as many vulgar insults as she wants, but to be quite honest, I long ago realize that Cooke was basically a bad joke clinging to a conflated past that makes her think she is still way more important than she ever was in reality.


Sadly, while Cooke claims to oppose the use of "transgender" as an umbrella term, Cooke takes an unacceptable middle position, suggesting that "trans" be used instead.  Personally, I don't want to be identified as "transgender," "trans," or any other such term.  I am a woman, period.  Not a trans-woman.


Sadly, some simply cannot comprehend the idea that it is this concept of being "other" that we reject.  We do not identify with transgressive behavior, and we do not view ourselves as "transgressing" anything.  We have simply corrected our bodies, or in the case of pre-op "true transsexuals" in the process of doing so.  We are not seeking to become something we are not.  Quite the opposite in fact.  This is what makes is so absurd when a kook like "Cristan" Williams expends so much bandwidth trying to prove some silliness like his claims that, at some obscure point in time, some obscure person decided that "transsexual" was an umbrella term to be used like "transgender" is now, or that they decided to use "transgender" instead of "transsexual." So what?  At one point in time, someone who was a homosexual male described himself, and other homosexual men, as "women trapped in men's bodies."  Now, I seriously doubt that one could find very many, if any, gay men who would remotely identify that way now.


Sadly, the process of transition often brings us into contact with those who are motivated by desires born of transgression, and even more sadly, some have trouble shaking off that association.  And some, for whatever reason, find themselves drawn to it, embracing it as part of their personality. They don't realize that it actually divides them from the community of women that they worked so hard to be a part of.

Absolute Silliness

Early in my transition, I came up with the phrase "I will not accept responsibility for other people's bigotry."  By that, I meant that I would not beat myself up because certain people had an issue with my transition.  I had a brother-in-law, for example, who was a bit of a celebrity in certain religious circles who rather stubbornly refused to use my proper name.  He offered the compromise that he would refer to me as "J" which I declined, because "Jay" is a boy's name, and besides, my name is Jennifer, not an initial.  I actually found it kind of amusing watching him stumble over language trying to avoid using either a name, or pronouns to refer to me.  And this was after he had to admit that he could not actually show, from Scripture, that I was doing something wrong.  It was clear that his concern about his image trumped any decency he might have shown me.


I simply refused to compromise my life for his, or anyone else's convenience.  I realized that he, and some others, did not recognize my transition as legitimate.  I simply considered the source and got on with my life.  Why should I let their ignorance, or prejudice, define who, or what I really am?


Well, of late, the transgender blogs have been going crazy over the "radfem's," i.e. radical feminists, mostly lesbian separatists, alleged bigotry against transgender people.  You would think the "radfems" were advocating murder the way the extremists are carrying.  And, in the expected return swing of the pendulum, Suzan Cooke has added her voice to the chorus.  Cooke, in her usual shrill hysteria, had compared the "radfems" to the Religious Right who Cooke hates with a passion.  Cooke, who recently seemed to have returned to a position in opposition to the silliness of the transgender extremists now sounds, again, like a clone of "Autumn" Sandeen and "Cristan" Williams.    


Now, personally, there is a lot that I would disagree with radical feminists over.  But, I can see some of their points specifically concerning "transgender" issues.  I mean, look at the transgender extremists who are now claiming that a man can become a woman simply by saying he is a woman.  Many are the radical feminists are far more comfortable with those who have undergone sex-reassignment surgery than those who simply change their wardrobe and then claim that also changes their sex.  I also can see some of their views concerning men who grew up enjoying male privilege who now claim to be fully women.  Those who most often identify as transgender, and those who tend to be the most radical proponents of that movement, are men who were rather late in life when they showed any inclination towards claiming to be a woman.  Prior to that, they were often transvestites, but they showed no real issues with their gender identity.  In fact, as crossdressers, they often identified as a man who was wearing women's clothes.  


I had gender issues from early on.  I did not have words to express what I felt, because I went through much of it during a time when such issues were well known.  I certainly never enjoyed male privilege, basically being seen as something of a "defective male."  People sensed that I was "different," and I was often accused of being a sissy.  I fought to avoid such a label at times, always unsuccessfully, simply because such a label generally led to being bullied.  But it was hard to hide the real me, and so I suffered.


But then there are those like "Autumn" Sandeen, who served for twenty years in the U.S. Navy, as a male, in a male-only position.  He had no problems, which, had he been transsexual, would have been impossible.  He likes to claim that in his last years he was harassed because he was perceived as "gay."  It is obvious that as his retirement approached, he was beginning to think of becoming a full-time crossdresser, rather than the part-time one he had been to that point.  And I am sure he began acting a bit effeminate.


I can certainly understand why the radical feminists would not want someone like Sandeen at their meetings.  He seems to fluctuate between acting very male and acting like a bad parody of a woman.  Likewise, other transgender extremists often come off as more male than anything else.  For example, check out "Cristan" Williams recent post where he puff himself up like a strutting peacock and postures in a very male manner about how he has "rewritten transgender history" in a year.  But that's a topic for another post.


No, I may not agree with the radical feminists, but I do understand at least some of where they are coming from.  They don't want men invading their space.  And their definition of men is a bit broad, including not only the men in dresses like Sandeen, but also post-op transsexual women.  Of course, I imagine more than a few post-op women might be among them without them knowing.  True transsexuals rarely have trouble assimilating in such situations.  They don't come across as men in dresses, and unless they choose to be open about their past, no one would know.


But, even some post-ops are going ballistic over the issue.  As I said, Suzan Cooke is in a complete snit over the issue.  Which is sort of surprising, but Cooke cannot seem to make up her mind which side she is on.  She has even apparently joined the chorus of transgender extremists who think that CeCe MacDonald should be placed in a women's prison, even those said person is physically a male.  In short, Cooke would negate the rights of every woman in a state prison in favor of a male criminal, simply because said person claims a female gender identity.  That surprises me.


The CeCe MacDonald case is a perfect example of why radical feminists would take such a dim view of "transgender."  Here is a person who committed a crime, and plead guilty.  Yes, it is argued that it was self-defense, but I have to wonder.  The case occurred in Minnesota, which is not exactly an anti-transgender stronghold, being the first state to pass a state-wide rights bill that included gender identity.  But, like pretty much anywhere else, those rights are tempered by common sense.  You don't put a man in a women's prison.  If you have a penis, you are male for certain purposes, no matter how you dress, what your ID says, or even if you live in a state that is insane enough to change your birth certificate like Sandeen has take advantage of.


The transgender extremists are trying to claim not only that MacDonald should get a pass on killing someone because of being black and transgender, but should also be allowed to be in a women's prison.  What a load of crap.  This represents an attack on women, not support for them.


Likewise, when transgender people attack radical feminists for wanting to maintain their vision of "women's space," I think it represents the inherent misogynistic tendencies of many in the transgender extremist movement.  And the same is true when radical feminists are attacked as viciously as they have been recently.  I don't agree with them, but I respect their right to hold views that are not the same as my own.


But then, transgender has never really been about rights...it has always been about a bunch of men wanting their way at the expense of women.

Misusing MLK...again.

It is no secret that "Autumn" Sandeen believes himself to be the transgender extremist version of Martin Luther King, Jr., an affectation that is both false, and insulting to the legacy of King.  But in his latest bit of silliness, he not only abuses what King actually meant, he pretty exposes  the real nature of transgender extremism, and again affirms why real transsexuals both disavow Sandeen, and want no part of his silliness.


When King said that the Civil Rights movement did not make "the white man feel comfortable" he was talking about people's conscience, their sense of right and wrong.  I grew up in Birmingham, AL, and I remember well the Civil Rights movement.  It worked because it was about doing the right thing.  People were mistreated simply because of the color of their skin.  If you were black, or as it was termed then, "colored," you had to use separate restrooms, separate water fountains, had to sit in the back of the bus, and in many cases, were not allowed to enter many restaurants.  People who challenged these laws were subjected to violence in the form of vicious dogs and fire hoses.  King himself was jailed simply for non-violent civil disobedience.  And the laws changed, and because people were effectively confronted with their bigotry, they changed as well.


What made people uncomfortable was their own behavior, their own prejudices that had no basis in anything real, but were simply born of what some would call human depravity.  King, who was a Christian minister, confronted this as, quite literally, the sinful behavior that it was.


But, when Sandeen talks about making people uncomfortable, he is talking about being the one doing things that are wrong.  He is talking about men such as himself, forcing themselves into women's spaces where he does not belong.  He is talking about forcing society to change the very rules that have guided humanity to this point.  He is not seeking to right a wrong, but instead is trying to force society to accept lies such as that women have penises, and that simply saying one is a female makes it so.


King's goal was not to make society uncomfortable, he was seeking to improve society for the benefit of all.  Sandeen is seeking to force society to accept things that are simply wrong.  People like Sandeen are not trying to persuade society to stop being bigoted against human beings for absurd reasons, but are trying to force society to accept behavior that is, quite frankly, unacceptable.  They are not seeking rights, but instead are seeking license to misbehave.


No, the transgender extremists derive their identity, and their pleasure, from making people uncomfortable.  That is their reason for existing.  Not to make society better, but to simply make society accept their own misbehavior.