Another Gender Fascist, Another Bad Joke

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

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

Imagine the term Transgender used as an insult.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Travesty in Washington

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Game Over

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It wouldn't change a thing.

Truly unbelievable....

A few days ago, Cooke posted another diatribe in reaction to my most recent post pointing out how Cooke has joined the transgender movement.  In that post, Cooke made this comment:

In the thirteen months I have been running this blog I have had several people whose blogs seem obsessed with me and how I have somehow failed them. My imagined crimes are many and to prove it they mine my words looking for nuggets they can strip of context to prove their point.

Then, in another more recent post, Cooke dropped this falsehood:

I do not like censorship.

Now, together, these two posts show exactly why I occasionally post about Cooke's rather absurd remarks.  First off, Cooke has an ego as big as the state of Texas.  No, Cooke has not failed me, or anyone else.  I have long considered Cooke to be something of a curiosity.  I remember the absurd "performance art piece" where Cooke took the APA's announcement that they were dropping homosexuality from the DSM and changed it to be about gender identity disorder.  Personally, I thought it just dumb.

I also remember Cooke's tyranny on the mailing list "Women Born Transsexual."  Heaven help the member that actually had the audacity to have an original thought.  Cooke would have none of that, nor would Cooke's partner, Tina.

No, Cooke has never failed me.  The only thing Cooke could fail to do is provide the occasional laugh.

Which brings me to Cooke's claim to "not like censorship."  Now, that is a real knee slapper.  Cooke loves censorship.  In fact, that is the main reason Cooke is the subject of post's here.  Cooke will not allow any criticism on "Women Born Transsexual."  Post a disagreement with Cooke, and chance are you will be banned for life.  Suck up to Cooke, like a certain kook from Canada, and Cooke will let you post, even if your ideas are completely at odds with Cooke's.

I will remind people, any and all are free to post comments here.  The only time I remove any of them are if the contain personal attack, particularly on others...or if they contain links to to ads, especially for sex or porn sites.

But, I notice that those like Cooke don't like to post where they can't control the argument.  If they can't censor it, then they want no part of it,

A New Low

Over the past year, I watched as Suzy Cooke cozied up to the transgender types.  At first I was a but puzzled, as Cooke was one of the staunchest advocates of separatism.  But, Cooke got closer, and closer until it reached the point where it was clear that Cooke's position has shifted drastically.

Now, Cooke has really gone off the deep end...  Cooke is clearly taking up the position of Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence.  The same position taken by Paul McHugh and most of the rest who would oppress transsexuals.

Cooke has declared that transsexuals do not have "female brains."  Even more puzzling, Cooke has declared the idea that we do to be "misogynistic."  I'm not sure where that leaves the concept of "Women Born Transsexual," since the alternative is "men who choose to be transsexual."

This is a position that is taken by some transgender radicals who seem to know that they clearly don't have female brains, but who want to claim to be "just like transsexuals."  It is, for example, the position of "Willow" Arune, and well-known net kook, who by the way, has become a major fan of Cooke.  That also says a lot about what Cooke has turned into.  The main cheerlead for Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawerence, who has made a career out of trashing successful transsexuals, is now cheering on Cooke.

The bottom line is, Cooke, who does not take criticism well, started taking positions that did not sit well with other transsexuals.  We spoke up, and Cooke lashed out.  From there, things went down hill.  Cooke talks about unity, but what Cooke seems to actually mean is blind adherence to the law according to Cooke.  If you don't agree with Cooke, then you are the enemy, to the point where those Cooke used to be allies with are now all the enemy.  Cooke needs to take a look around and realize this.

I theorized earlier that Cooke seemed to want to unite everyone, with Cooke as the supreme leader.  That is obviously the case.  Sadly, right now, Cooke's might force seems to consist of a few hanger's on, including Mr. Arune.  He will cozy up to anyone who will stroke his ego, and tell him he really is a transsexual in spite of his totally bizarre history.  And Cooke, it appears, will accept anyone who blindly follows.

There was a time when Cooke was viewed by many as a major arbiter of who was, and was not, real.  If Cooke accepted you as a "Woman Born Transsexual," you could feel secure in your identity.  Yes, it was silly, but many fell into that trap.  Now, Cooke seems to be struggling to maintain a slowly deteriorating grasp on a secure identity.  And it is kind of sad to watch.

Hoist By One's Own Petard

Danielle Pauline Severson, born Dana Paul Severson who claims to be a pre-op transsexual has a problem.  Severson wants to get married....to a woman.  But, Severson has a California driver's license that says "female."  So, when Severson went to get a license in Reno, Nevada the clerk said "No, we don't allow same-sex marriages."  Now, obviously, the authorities in Nevada were mistaken.  Severson is still a male.  But since the license says female, and Severson appeared to be a female, they said no.  So, Severson and partner had to go to California where Severson was able to get a license as a male.

Now, I have no problem with same sex marriage.  I have several gay and lesbian friends who are legally married, having tied the knot before Prop. 8 was passed.  But, I do have a problem with transgender people wanting to have their cake and eat it too.  If you claim to be a woman, and you want society to accept you as a woman, then you should be ready to play by the rules that apply to being a woman.

I find it absolutely hilarious that someone wants to be treated like a woman, until it become inconvenient.  This reminds me of the outrageous behavior of a certain Texas lawyer who invited post-op lesbians to come and marry their partners (provided they were born female) after the Littleton case.  Phillip "Phyllis" Frye loves to pull such stunts, even though the net effect is to simply make things worse.

So, once again we see someone who wants it both ways.

Truly sad.

Gender Confused?

A term that is commonly trotted out by the religious right in arguing against transsexuals is "gender confusion." It is used in the context of arguing that transsexuals should not receive sex reassignment surgery as treatment, but should receive psychiatric treatment to help them overcome their "gender confusion."

Now, for those who are true, or classic transsexuals, i.e. those who have what is better referred to as Harry Benjamin Syndrome, there is clearly no confusion about their gender. They know, quite fully, that they are mentally female, and no amount of psychiatric browbeating is going to change this. For example, I identify as a woman, period. I do not identify as a "trans woman," or any other variation on the numerous man who had a sex change and became a woman concepts that so many cling to. From the beginning of my transition, I knew I wanted to be accepted as a woman, not seen as a transsexual, or worse, as transgender.

But, unfortunately, there are also those who are transgender. In their case, the answer is not as simple. First off, I should point out, again, that "transgender" is actually an artificial political construct. A more proper term for those who are not transsexual or HBS would be "crossdressers". I mean, they are clearly not transsexuals if they are not seeking SRS, or even if they are seeking SRS but do not have a brain that is sexually differentiated differently from their body. Most of those who would fit this description seem to have a very strong need to maintain an identification with their birth sex. For them, it is not about being, but about appearances.

Robert Stoller, a researcher at UCLA, wrote about crossdressers (he used the term transvestites) having an identification as being a "woman with a penis." Now, I don't agree with much of Stoller's ideas, mainly because they were rooted in the silliness known as psychoanalysis, but I have come to see that he did have a point about crossdressers. There does seem to be a strong identification of the sort he described.

Now, in the process of writing this article, an interesting thing has happened. You see, I don't always write a post in one setting. I work on it some, take a break, do some more research, etc. Well, this morning the suggested DSM revisions came out, and one of the suggestions is to classify autogynephiles as "transvestites."

That would mean that a lot of the "transgender" crowd, the vast majority, would now be classified as having "transvestic fetishism" instead of "gender identity disorder."

But to return to the original subject, the term "gender confusion" does seem more appropriate for someone who wishes to be seen as a "woman" while clinging to his status as a "male," though I am not sure that is is rooted in "confusion" so much as it is just a conscious rejection of reality.

Is there anyone who is truly "confused" about their gender? I don't know, but I cannot honestly say I have seen any real cases. I have encountered people who are clearly suffering from mental illness that seems to manifest itself in cross gender behavior. In some cases, the person goes back and forth, but I am not sure that it is actually confusion.

In any case, the bottom line is that "gender confusion" is a myth created by the religious right in an attempt to appear compassionate while actually doing real harm to people simply because they do not fit a world view that has no foundation in reality, and that includes the Bible.