Manly, yes....

Occasionally, some TG type will ask me something like, "Why do you call (some transgender kook) a man?"  Well, here is a classic example...

On his blog today, after a rather silly and typically clueless diatribe about politics, Mr. "Cristan" Williams adds this comment...

Chances are you’re an H-BSer (Zing! Pow! Right in the kisser!)

Now, this is a classic example of a male expressing a fantasy about violence towards women.  I grew up with domestic violence, and quite frankly, it is not a joking matter.  But, as is often with the case of TG kooks, Mr. Williams' true nature, the "inner boy" you might say, pops out, and he is too clueless to even be aware of it.

As, I said..."Manly, yes...and no, I don't like it a bit."

A Likely Fraud About Voter Fraud

Since I registered to vote when I turned 18, I have only missed voting twice.  Once was a very minor race where I didn't know anything about the two people running, and honestly had no idea which I should vote for.  It was a special election, with only one office on the ballot, and well, to be honest, I completely forgot about it until it was too late.  The other time was during a presidential primary, and I was a poll watcher.  I had not planned on doing it, but the person we had assigned to a particular location turned out to be a complete kook, and we had to get him out of there before things got out of hand.  He was claiming voter fraud repeatedly, and without good cause.  The funny thing was, there was real voter fraud during that election, but it was of a completely different nature.  I believe strongly in the right to vote, and I also believe that voter fraud should be dealt with severely.

That said, I have been amused by the hysterics coming out of the National Center for Transgender Equality.  They have been claiming that the above image from the cover of a training guide put out by a right wing group proves that they plan to target transgender voters.    At least three of the kookiest transgender blogs have featured this story.  Now, let me say, right off the bat, that I have no idea what the training material actually says.  I can't find a copy of it online.  But, I also suspect that the NCTE also does not know, OR, if they do know they might be engaged in a bit of fraud themselves.  Funny, but I have seen no one provide anything other than this cover image as proof of their allegations.  If the guide includes specific instructions to target transgender men, you would think they would want to quote it in  detail...

Now, what I see is a suggestion, perhaps meant to be humorous, perhaps meant to be serious, that some man might dress up as a woman, so he could vote fraudulently, possibly using the name of a person who is deceased.  That seems a lot more reasonable than some alleged plot to prevent transgender men from voting.  Let's face it, they're not that big a voter bloc, and it would not be worth the effort.

But truth rarely serves the purposes of extremists, so a silly claim is made, based on a humorous image.  If they don't have full access to the content of the training material, they should not be making a claim based on an assumption.  And if they do have full access, and it does not say what they claim, then they are guilty of fraud themselves.

But I do suspect this is making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Bottom line, regardless of how you lean, you should get out and vote.  

Up To Our Eyeballs in Straw

Well, let's continue examining the latest complete idiocy from Mr. Cristan Williams.  He has rallied to the defense of noted pervert "Colleen" Francis, and as is typical for Mr.  Williams, the straw arguments are coming fast and furiously.

Let's start at the beginning, always a good place to start, and in this case, Mr. Williams pull out a whopper....

It’s happened. The H-BSers, the RadPhlems and the people who DEFENDED Prop 8 have untied as one to proclaim that pre/non-op transwomen as a group are 1.) icky because 2.) they’re actually men, and therefore 3.) a danger to cisgender women.

Ah, so many lies...  and no real arguments (hence the childish name calling and insults).  First off, no one has "untied" nor have we even "united."  Second, where does Mr. Williams get stuff like suggesting that I, or anyone else who supports the HBS paradigm has ever remotely suggested that "pre-op transsexuals" are men (I would never refer to someone as a pre-op transwoman since I find the word "transwomen" to be offensive)?  That is classic straw, a lie imposed on an opponent since it is easier to refute than the truth.  Yes, I consider non-ops to be men.  They are men, born with penises, who want to keep their penises.  How you get "woman" in any sense out of that is, well, beyond me.  Nor have I ever said that all, or even most, men are a threat to women, cisgender or otherwise.  Seriously, what we have here is a classic straw argument.  Not surprising, since this is Mr. Williams typical style.

So, what is the real issue?  That's simple.  Privacy.  Women, real women, whether or not they have a history of transsexualism, have a right to feel secure in women's spaces.  They should not have obvious men forcing themselves into that space, and they certainly should not have to contend with men (i.e. an avowed non-op, or someone who claims to be a pre-op but who lacks the simple ability to empathize with those he claims to be like) forcing their penises on them.

Let's be clear here...there is no real question that "Colleen" Francis was taking steps to ensure that his penis was in full view.  It was not accidental.  He was engaging in exhibitionism, a very male behavior under the circumstances.

Now, I would honestly hope that Mr. Francis is an exception.  I have no reason to believe that  all, or most, or even a significant subset of transgender people are perverts who would, at the first opportunity, flash their penises at young girls.  Of course, Mr. Williams has to suggest that I would, because he knows that the truth is not going to be kind to him.  Mr. Williams takes a very extremist view of so-called "rights" for those who identify as transgender.  In Mr. Williams view, Mr. Francis' fantasies trump reality.  

Let me spell this out.  Mr. Francis, who is attending a college in Washington State, masquerading as a woman (no, I really don't buy his claims), and because some people are so "open-minded" that their brains fell out, got kicked under and cabinet, and have turned to dust, he has been allowed to have more rights than real women.  If he wants to invade the women's locker room, wave his penis around, and upset everyone else, then the college says that is just fine.  Any woman who objects has to use a lesser facility (now, why, if they are actually going to be insane enough to actually pander to this pervert, they can't tell him to use the smaller facility as I strongly suspect he will have it to himself).  This just tickles Mr. Williams pink.  He could care less if women get dumped on, as long as one of his fellow transgender kooks gets special rights.  And yes, in this case, there is no avoiding that this is special rights.

Now, Mr. Williams tries to argue that a "ciswoman's," i.e. a woman's (Mr. Williams lives in a fantasy world where claiming one is a woman automagically makes one a full fledged woman) right to be comfortable in women's space does not trump the right of a man who has some fantasy about dressing up and pretending to be a woman to invade that women's space.  Oh, he words it a bit differently, but that is really what he is arguing.  And this supposed superior right of the transgender man is based on what?  

Let me recap here...  When I was early in my transition, and the time came to face the bathroom issue, I approached it cautiously.  First, I did not even attempt to enter a women's bathroom until I was reasonably sure that my appearance had sufficiently feminized that I would not cause a scene.  Then, I would try to find an out of the way restroom where it was, hopefully, unlikely that I would encounter anyone.  As time went on, and it became more and more obvious that I was not seen as a man, I became more comfortable and did not feel the need to "get in, get out as quickly as possible."  Still, I was always careful to make sure there was not a chance of someone seeing something they should not (not really hard to do) and I would have never have dreamed of entering any area where nudity would be an issue.  

But, the more extreme of the transgender kooks want to be able to walk into women's space no matter who much distress it will cause, and without regard to the feelings of the women using that space.  As I have pointed out before, such attitudes and behavior shows, beyond any doubt, that such a person is not and never will be a woman.

The simple bottom line is this...unless someone is a transsexual, and is in the process of the RLT (or at least preparing for it) they really should not enter women's spaces, including the restroom.  If you are a crossdresser, engaged in your hobby, which includes so-called "non-ops" then you really have no moral claim to use of the women's room.  Yes, you can possibly get away with it, and under such circumstances, you have little to actually worry about, but that does not, and will never make it right.

Now, I would be remiss if I did not mention yet another straw man argument that Mr. WIlliams makes.  And this one is another whopper:

There is a real difference between a transwomen going into a private area to change, pee, etc. and some sick f***-up of any flavor (cis or trans) walking into a room to parade their genitalia around.  If a cisgender woman goes into the locker room and exposes herself, then there’s laws to deal with her behavior. Claiming that those laws somehow magically evaporate if the person is trans instead of cis is a bigoted lie and those who propagate that lie should be called out at every turn.

 Now, aside from the fact that this comment actually makes little actual sense since using a locker room for a woman (Mr. William goes out of his way to try to avoid this issue...to him a man with a penis who calls himself a woman is just as much of a woman someone born female) would very possible involve acceptance of nudity, especially one like Mr. Francis invaded that features a sauna and hot tubs, which is hardly "exposing oneself" when an actual woman does it.  Now, maybe he means if a woman enters a men's locker to "expose" herself.  Seriously, I don't think I have ever heard of a woman "exposing" herself to another woman in this manner.  I did have the experience once of having a neighbor pull down her pants to show me a skin rash and ask my opinion.  She did it rather suddenly, and without asking if I minded.  Of course, she did not know I was pre-op or anything other than just another woman,  And when I worked at a department store selling lingerie, I had a few women who asked my opinion of how something it, but again, I guess we have to keep in mind, Mr. WIlliams has no way of understanding actual women's behavior, including being relatively comfortable with seeing other women nude.  Women don't have the homophobic hang-ups that men do, nor are they generally turned on by the sight of other women's nudity. Men are very visually oriented in their sexuality, women are not.  But as I say, Mr, Williams would have no experience of this.

Now, all that said, let's examine the real falsehood in his statement.  Mr. Francis invaded women's space, demanding the right to use a women's locker room, and to be their nude, in spite of the fact that women would be present, and would be forced to see his penis....which he has made clear he plans to keep.  It has been shown, by testimony as to his behavior, recorded in a campus police report, that he positioned himself in such a manner as to make his penis very obvious.  When complaints were made, Mr. Williams suggested that the teenage girls needed to be educated about "trans women," and the women were told, by the college that Mr. Francis' rights were superior to theirs and that they could use a smaller facility.  To repeat, the pervert deliberately exposes himself, women rightfully complain, and are told they have no right to do so.  So, what Mr. Williams claims is provably false, across the board.  The laws have evaporated, which is actually what Mr. Williams actually demands.  After all, in Mr. William's mind Mr. Francis is a full-fledged woman, penis and all.  I fear Mr. Williams is the one propagating a lie.  But again, this is not unusual for Mr. Williams, who has a long history of making up facts that only he seems privy to.

It should also be pointed out that a classic tactic in some circles is to someone, falsely, of being a bigot, in the hopes that it will intimidate their into silence.  This is not unlike what is referenced by Godwin's Law, which specifically relates to the use of the term "Nazi."  But, as I pointed out, by accusing those who disagree with him of being "Klan," Mr. Williams has, effectively, violated Godwin's Law, and has lost the argument on that basis.  Not, I might add, that he has any real arguments to begin with.  The whole thing is quite ludicrous.

Of course, kooks like Mr. Williams don't believe in "morals" and such.  They have no concern other than their own pleasure and such.  They don't care who is upset, or even harmed.  It is really all about them, and those they consider to be superior to women.  And when they don't get their way, including blind acceptance, they resort to silliness like claiming those who disagree with them are aligned with the Klan.  Of course, ultimately, their "argument" simply shows the fact that they really have no argument.  Just a big old pile of straw men that they engage in ripping to shreds, while crowing like a rooster and claiming victory.

The Boy's Club Closes Ranks

Well, well...since Suzan Cooke, aka "Locutus of Borg" has gone off the deep end in defense of "Colleen" Francis, the pervert who has been forcing himself on young girls, the men in dresses club has had to rally to Cooke's defense.  Yes, no less gender fascist than Mr. "Cristan" Williams has rallied to the defense of Cooke, and Mr. Francis.  Can't leave a fellow pervert to stand alone...

Let's be clear here.  This pervert in Washington state is not a pre-op transsexual.  He has made clear that he has a penis, and he wants to keep it.  And he loves showing it to teenage girls.  He is a classic transvestite, who is turned on by the idea of being a "woman with a penis," and goes to the extreme of forcing his penis on others and then suggests that they should "just get over it."  And, Williams, a fellow pervert, thinks that anyone who disagrees with this sickening behavior is "under a Klan Fallacy."

Now, let me remind people here of a common tactic of extremists.  You compare your opponent to some great evil.  If you are right wing, you call your enemy a "Communist."  It doesn't matter if they have a connection to communism, or not.  You just throw that accusation out there.  The idea is they will be so embarrassed they will either fold, and go away, or be caught up in refuting the outrageous accusation.  If you are left wing, you compare your enemy to the Nazis (also works for the right wing in some cases), or better yet, the Klan.  And that is the dishonest tactic that Mr. Williams has resorted to in his desperation.

Now, here is a man, who claims to be a woman, attacking women, for not wanting to have a man, with a penis, who claims to be a woman, forcing that penis on them.  Pervert Francis is engaged in the same basic sort of violence against women that rapist engage in...using his penis as a weapon.  Williams, a man, is defending this behavior.  What Mr. Francis is doing is an act of violence, albeit a bit less than an outright rape, buy still an act of violence.  Just like a "flasher," he is imposing his penis on women.  And Mr. Williams, thinks this is just fine, and anyone who doesn't see it their way is a member of the Klan.

Now, in defense, yes, I said defense, of RAPISTS, yes I said RAPISTS, Mr.  Williams offers thirty, count them, thirty examples of women who have engaged, according to Mr. Williams, in rape.  This is supposed to "prove" that men are no more of a danger to women than,  "womym born womyn."  Seriously...give me a break.  This is the sort of argument that only a man could possibly imagine making.  For those who have come here and question why I have the audacity to refer to "Cristan" Williams with male pronouns, and have refused to acknowledge HIS "womanhood"....well, there you have your answer.  

Thirty women, compared to how many hundreds, even thousands of men?  Yes, one can find examples of anything.  I could, no doubt, easily find thirty transvestites who are guilty of any crime, and claim that proves that transvestites are a danger.  Shoot, I would be I could find more, say, 300.  I could find some arbitrary number of any group, and claim it proves something, and like Mr. Williams, I would be intellectually dishonest.

The fact is, rapists, exhibitionists, child molesters, and such tend to be men.  For those thirty women, I would venture that there are thousands of men guilty of rape.  Does this mean that all transvestites are rapists?  No, of course not.  Does this mean that all men are rapists?  No, how absurd!  Does this mean that women have every right to be uneasy at the presence, of an obvious man, in a place where women have good reason to expect to feel relatively secure, and free from the presence of men?  Yes, absolutely.  Does Mr. Williams, a man, with no real evidence of actually having a feminized brain remotely understand this?  Not remotely.  He is "transgender" and he thinks as a transgender, he is above women.  They should bow to his demands...

Cooke, I suspect, is more a classic bigot.  She has a hatred, an irrational hatred, of a certain class of people, and that clouds her thinking.  But Williams goes beyond this. Williams tries to claim that a woman being uncomfortable with the presence of a man in a women's room is comparable to a white woman being uncomfortable with a black woman in the women's room.  Now, this might seem, to some, on face value to be a valid argument.  It is, however, both dishonest, and without any basis in reality.  Being a particular race is based strictly, without question, on genetics.  While is it possible, in theory, to alter one's skin tone to appear darker, and even to undergo cosmetic surgery to appear to be another race, this is a bit extreme.  But any man can, if it suits him, simply dress as a woman.  And for a significant number of men, this is basically what happens.  Put another way, we are discussing something reasonably assumed to be congenital and unalterable, with something it is equally reasonable to assume is simply chosen behavior.

Perverts like Mr. Francis, and Mr. Williams choose to behave as they do.  A woman who is black, or Asian, or even white, did not likely make a choice.  A man, choosing to engage in a certain behavior, such as Mr. Francis, or Mr. Williams, should not be automatically allowed to force himself on women.  But, Mr. Williams says if you don't think they should be able to, you are a victim of the "Klan fallacy."

Mr. Williams, simply put, is full of crap.  Laughably, absurdly, and totally, full of crap.  Seriously, if you take his arguments seriously, you are an idiot.  End of story.  This is comparable to people who claim that perpetual motion exists, but the government is covering it up.  This is comparable to people who claim to have solved some unsolvable math problem.  Williams, is, well, a bad joke, and the sad thing is, he is not alone. 

Oh, and I am going to call it....  By invoking the Klan, Mr. Williams has, effectively, committed a technical violation of Godwin's Law, and has, simply put, lost the argument on that basis alone.  So, the fact that he is a total moron is somewhat irrelevant.  

It's Official...

Well, I have known for some time that Suzan Cooke had pretty much taken to hitting the TG Kool-Aid pretty hard, but even I am shocked that Cooke has NO problem with the pervert "Colleen" Francis forcing his penis on young women in Washington State.  

A commenter challenged Cooke on this in response to Cooke's latest diatribe against me, and well, here is Cooke's incredible response:

Maybe I’m not that concerned with persecuting transvestites in order to prove to myself that I am really a woman.

It has been my observation that the people most obsessed with this sort of thing were either once transvestites themselves or are such strange looking people as to be the sort who would be accused of being transvestites. 

I’m not a cop. I don’t make a career out of persecuting people for being different. 

Unlike you I’m not afraid of transgender people. Oh by the way I hate HBS assholes.

A few comments in response to this bit of complete silliness from Cooke...

It is not about persecuting transvestites (at least Cooke doesn't call this pervert a "woman"), it is about going after a man who is taking obvious delight into forcing his nudity on young women.  And it is not about proving oneself a woman...what a stupid thing to say.

So, all the women such as the mothers of the girls who were this pervert's victims, are really former transvestites or so strange looking that people would take them as transvestites?  Again, Cooke is showing incredible stupidity with such remarks.

This is not about people being different, it is about someone being a creep, and trying to force himself on teenage girls.  I guess, based on that, Cooke thinks rape is okay too.  After all, the poor rapist is "just different..."  Good grief, Cooke has really lost it...

And no, it has nothing to do with being afraid of transgender people.  Perverted men with no sense of restraint or boundaries?  Yes, they kind of scare me.  But transgender people?  Nope, not particularly afraid of them as a class.  

And finally, we come down to the simple fact.  Cooke is a classic bigot.  Just like those who hate gays, lesbians, and others....  Cooke has her own little group she hates.

Personally, I don't hate people.  For one thing, it contradicts my faith.  I do hold people responsible for bad behavior, particularly when it harms others.  But that is not hate, no matter how much kooks like Cooke want to claim it is.  I also tend to not put much credence in a bigot telling me about hate...somehow, it seems really, really contradictory....and more than a little foolish.

No wonder Cooke is so afraid of the truth.  It would not be very kind to her....

Hit A Nerve...Again

Well, in my article on depathologization I mentioned Suzan Cooke, and somewhat predictably, Cooke has responded with another rant.  Well, I can always tell when I really hit a nerve.  The angrier Cooke is, the more rambling Cooke's rant becomes.  This one is especially bizarre.

As I have observed, Cooke does not like any criticism.  Cooke seems to be afraid of her ideas being challenged, and goes to serious lengths to avoid actually having to defend them.  Simply put, Cooke apparently fears the truth.

What really disturbs Cooke, though she will deny it vehemently, is that some of us see through her silliness.  Cooke has serious issues, and hides behind a facade of radical chic
to avoid facing them.  Cooke was a cradle Roman Catholic, which must have been hard.  Of course, Rome teaches that it holds absolute authority in spiritual matters.  If Rome says you are a sinner, well, you are supposed to accept it without question.  Cooke couldn't, and so Cooke rebelled.  But rebelling is not always so easy. 

Cooke could not reconcile her feelings with the teachings of the Church, so Cooke simply rejected God, who in Cooke's mind is at fault, and did the worst thing she could think of.  She told Him she no longer believes in Him.  I guess that is supposed to show Him who's boss...  I always feel sorry for the angry atheist, shaking a fist in God's face, and screaming "I don't believe in You!  So, there!!!"  And yes, I see the contradiction...they try not to.

I think part of Cooke's problem is, she doesn't realize that I see her as more of a clown than anything else.  A sad clown, granted, but a self-parody that becomes more and more irrelevant with each rant.

Cooke has always tried, somewhat successfully, to cultivate a cult of personality.  Years ago, Cooke was a terror on Usenet, sitting in judgement on those she deemed less worthy.  I recall her referring to transssexuals who remained married to spouses as "skin transvestites."  One in particular, was regularly tormented by Cooke.  Years later, that same sad case still clings to Cooke's every word.  A crumb of approval from Cooke is all she seeks...

I admit, I feel prey to this a bit myself.  Then I realized Cooke is, well, more Kook than anything else.  A sad, insecure soul, trying to relive some imagined glory from the past.  And facing the fact that more and more realize that she is not so wise after all.

The real irony in this latest post is Cooke's attempt to link me to the Tea Party.  Now, that is a real hoot for one simple reason.  I see Cooke, and the Tea Party in much the same way.  Two extremes, both wrong.  You see, in politics, the truth is in the middle, not at the extremes.  Cooke is at one erroneous extreme, and the Tea Party is at the other.  And worse, the extremes are often closer to each other than to the Center.

I remember a guy I knew in the mid-Seventies.  He was a bit of a hanger-on during the Jimmy Carter campaign.  A lot like Cooke, he fancied himself an uber-radical, and bragged about his radical history.  He used to go hang out at the John Birch Society headquarters where he discussed the Illuminati with the Right Wing kooks.  They were coming from opposite extremes, but they were both so far gone that they actually had a lot in common.

So no, I am not Tea Party, or anywhere near Cooke politically.

But i am more than a bit amused...and now awaiting Cooke's next angry rant...but no, I will not be silenced.

It's Really Very Simple...

Much sound and fury has been expended over Roseanne Barr's remarks about transgender men (sorry boys, but I am not going to call you women) going into women's spaces.  Now, Barr, who I still think of as being a few French fries short of a Happy Meal, no doubt, quite ignorantly include transsexual women under her remarks, but this is an issue that is bigger than just Roseanne (and yes, that would be huge).  

Jillian Page, a post-op in Canada had this to say on the issue:

I think I wasn’t upset by her comments because I have had sexualreassignment surgery, and have reconciled that part of my body with myheart and my brain. But if I had not had the surgery yet and foundmyself facing the same problems so many pre-op and non-op trans peopleface over the washroom issue, perhaps I, too, would have takenRoseanne to task for her somewhat careless, off-the-cuff comments, forwhich she apologized.

Now, there is a problem here, and I have to wonder if Page really has thought this through.  Page, I realize is pretty much swilling down the transgender Kool-Aid, but there is something here that needs to be confronted.

It is really, very, very simple.  If you call yourself a pre-op, and you cannot comprehend that the obvious presence of your penis in a place like the women's room, or a locker room, might be upsetting to women, then...STAY OUT!!!!  Put another way, if you think you have some absolute right to be in the women's room, even though you are a pre-op, if you think that women should not be upset having your penis exposed in a dressing room, if you think you have a right to enter women's spaces, even though you not corrected your body, let me be clear...YOU DON'T!!!

Just to be completely clear here, if you have these sort of attitudes, if you cannot comprehend how women might feel about your penis, if you think they should "just get over it," well, YOU ARE NOT, AND YOU NEVER WILL BE, A WOMAN!!!!!  YOU ARE A MAN!!!  GOT THAT?  A MAN!!!!  NO AMOUNT OF HORMONES, SURGERY, OR FANTASY, WILL EVER CHANGE THAT.  SO STAY OUT OF WOMEN'S SPACES.  WE DON'T WANT YOU, YOU ARE NOT WELCOME!!!!!

As to crossdressers, non-ops, and such, well...you really shouldn't even be considering being in the women's room.    Sure, man that you are, you will force your way in.  You have no shame, and are not really that much different in attitude or behavior from a rapist.  It is all just a matter of degree.

When I was pre-op, I was always aware that, in a sense, I was an interloper.  I appreciated that I was accepted into the company of woman, albeit without their knowledge of my past in most cases.  I was always very sensitive to any uneasiness on the part of a female friend who knew my situation, under such circumstances.  And the idea of being in a situation where my privates would be exposed made me close to physically ill.

But now, more and more, the transgender extremists think that women are supposed to "just get over it."  They really don't realize just how digesting they are.  What they are doing is simply proving that Janice Raymond was right to a degree.  It was just that she didn't understand certain nuances, and perhaps, didn't care.