A Bit Cranky...

In scholarly circles, the term "crank" is used to refer to those people, usually with little or no actual academic training, who claim to have solved some classic math problem, or to have discovered some new "theory" in physics, or such.  They are, of course, inevitably wrong, and in many cases, their "discovery" is quite imaginative.  Here is what Wikipedia has to say about these people:

1. Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of acknowledged experts.
2. Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important.
3. Cranks rarely, if ever, acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial.
4. Cranks love to talk about their own beliefs, often in inappropriate social situations, but they tend to be bad listeners, being uninterested in anyone else's experience or opinions.

Well, "Cristan" Williams has now earned that title.  He has dismissed quite a bit of scholarly research in favor of his clearly biased ideas concerning the origins of the term "transgender."  He claims that someone, vaguely referred to as "Dr. Rawson," travelled across the country, to view the Houston transgender archives.  I would assume, following a bit of quick research on Google, that this is "K.J Rawson," who lectures at the University of Kentucky, and who seems to like the word "queer" an awful lot.  While my original impression was that Rawson probably identifies as "genderqueer," I have been informed that the correct identity is "female to male transgender person."


Anyone who has dealt with Williams can tell you that the four points above are dead on with regards to his behavior.  


So, we have a kook who thinks he knows more than real academics now claiming that his research trumps that published in peer reviewed journals.  Oh well...


I would strongly urge Dr. Rawson to take anything found in the archives created by Mr. Williams with a very large grain of salt.

Not a Woman, But Possibly a Sociopath

Well, now that he has pulled off his "legal" fiction "Autumn" Sandeen is now whining about how he was "cyberbullied".  Now, first off, that is basically a complete load of crap, and second, it shows that Sandeen is not only not a woman, and certainly not remotely a female, but is quite frankly a sociopath, someone who suffers from Antisocial Personality Disorder.  I told in the past how Sandeen actually did cyberstalk me.  What happened with Sandeen was simply a completely appropriate discussion of what, at the time, would have been appropriate steps to challenge an attempted fraud.

ICD-10 defines Antisocial Personality Disorder as someone showing at least three of the following criteria:

1. Callous unconcern for the feelings of others.
2. Gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, rules, and obligations.
3. Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships, though having no difficulty in establishing them.
4. Very low tolerance to frustration and a low threshold for discharge of aggression, including violence.
5. Incapacity to experience guilt or to profit from experience, particularly punishment.
6. Markedly prone to blame others or to offer plausible rationalizations for the behavior that has brought the person into conflict with society.

There is no question that Sandeen clearly appears to meets criteria 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6.  Not enough is known to conclusively state he might meet criteria 3.


Sandeen repeatedly ignores the fact that many do not wish to be lumped in with "transgender, and gender nonconforming people," and yet he continues to use the term "transgender, transsexual, and gender nonconforming people" as though they belong together.  He also has shown little regard for people's feelings in a number of ways, including his cyberstalking of myself.


The second one pretty much speaks for itself.  For example, Sandeen has claimed that his "legal change of gender" would allow him to legally marry a man, even though Sandeen still has his penis and is not remotely a female, or a woman.


Sandeen has exhibited, and bragged about violent acts against people who questioned his being a woman.


He shows no guilt for his actions against me, but is outraged that something for less serious was aimed at him.


And again, he is blaming others for objecting to his previous plan to commit would would, at the time, have been a legal fraud.


Sandeen was able to obtain a "legal change of gender" because transgender extremists have managed to con the state legislature into rewriting state law vaguely enough that there appears to be a legal loophole that would allow a physician to fraudulently imply that a patient has undergone sex reassignment when they actually have not, and more importantly for Sandeen, have disallowed challenges to such a claim.


This last is at the heart of Sandeen's complaint about being cyberbullied.  He bragged online about how he planned to perpetuate such a fraud, and he objected when people discussed taking legal steps to prevent it.  He then stated that he planned to wait until the new law was in effect, to avoid such a legal challenge.


Interesting...Sandeen attempts to do real harm, but thinks HE is being cyberstalked when someone discusses trying to prevent him from committing what would have been a crime.  Well, of course that does certainly fit criteria 2 above.


So no, Sandeen is not remotely a woman, and never will be, but he clearly appears to meet the criteria for being a sociopath.  Of course, I am not a licensed professional, and would not presume to make a diagnosis, but that is certainly how it appears to me.

A "Legal" Fiction

Let me start off by saying that I have no objections to same-sex marriage.  I have friends who are married to members of the same-sex, and I was even the photographer at one such wedding.  


But, the law is the law, and "Autumn" Sandeen, who has taken advantage of a loophole in California law to perpetuate what is, effectively, a fraud, is making a claim that is, at best, untested, and is probably a complete load of crap.  Sandeen, who is now claiming to be "legally female" claims that he can enter into a "heterosexual" marriage with a man.  First off, either Sandeen has gone completely delusional, is completely ignorant, or is just plain dishonest.  If Sandeen was able to find some poor fool willing to marry him, it would not be a heterosexual marriage (Sandeen still has a penis, and two people with penises do not a heterosexual couple make.) and I honestly wonder, if such a marriage occurred, if it would be remotely legal in California, or any other state that currently does not recognize same-sex marriages.


I mean seriously, does Sandeen really think a piece of paper changes anything?  If he died, I seriously doubt his death certificate would record him as a female.  If he is arrested, his piece of paper is not going get him a bunk in a women's prison.  He is still a male, no matter what him, his delusions, or a judge in San Diego might say.  And no, his piece of paper is not going to get him admission to women's only space.  


Nope, Sandeen is still a male, and he is still a man.  Even if he decides, at some future point, to go further and have full SRS, he will still be a man.  You can't change the brain, and in Sandeen's case, that is 100% all-American male.  No matter what he wants to claim.


About all Sandeen's silliness accomplishes is an increase in the possibility of backlash against transsexuals who actually are post-op.   


Oh, and apparently kudos to Cathy Brennan, who it appears made an effort to talk some sense to the court, though sadly, she was unsuccessful.

Another Example of Diversity and Inclusion

Transgender kooks like "Autumn" Sandeen" and "Cristan" Williams want to force women with a history of transsexualism to accept being forced into the transgender paradigm, with the latest tactic being to try to sound very reasonable...claiming they just want inclusion and diversity.  Well, here, from a crossdressing web site, is a perfect example of what they want to force us to accept as our, uh..."sisters."

I met a lot of nice friendly people at the IFGE convention, both transsexual and non-transsexual, but the attitude of the Trans-Nazis in attendance was a turn-off.

Did they think they were better women than me because they cut off their penises and ingested hormones?

The Trans-Nazi phenomena was an eye-opener. I always thought we were all sisters in the same boat and should help each other traveling through troubled waters, but some of our sisters would just as soon dump some of us off the side without a life preserver.

There is so much here that is just repulsive.  Uh, first off, womanhood is not quantifiable.  There is no such thing as being "a better woman."  You either are, or you are not...and the person writing here..definitely not.


No, I did not "cut off my penis."  It was skillfully dissected by a group of surgeons, and the result is a very functional, and quite normal looking set of female genitalia.  That, is what makes me a woman.


I am not, in any sense, this person's "sister," and he is most assuredly not mine.  I have nothing in common with this person, and we are not in the same boat.  And if I found myself in such a sad state, I would be the one going overboard, and swimming for shore.


So, no, I don't want inclusion, and I don't want this sort of diversity.

 

A Predictable Result

Well, the Miss Universe Canada pageant was held last night, and two things that could have been easily predicted have occurred.  The first is that Jenna Talackova, who made headlines for being a transsexual was among the 12 semifinalists, but she did not win, nor was she among the five finalists.  In another words, she was treated with political correctness in a very predictable manner.  She was also, of course, given that most common of beauty pageant consolation prizes...she was tied with three other contestants for the title of Miss Congeniality.


The other predictable result?  The usual bloggers are already starting to spin the story as having been a great victory.  No, it was "handled."  I strongly suspect that she was allowed to compete simply to avoid a nasty and protracted legal fight that would have possibly been very costly for the pageant.  And, having been allowed to compete, she was given the honor of being a semifinalist, but not a finalist.  Close, but not too close.  


I see no great gains in her having competed.  She essentially sacrificed her claim to true womanhood when she entered a "transsexual" beauty pageant in Thailand, and completely gave it up when she decided to enter the Miss Universe Canada Pageant.  


It is, perhaps, not fair, but all who have been through the process of transition from one sex to another face a choice.  We can live our lives as who we really are, or we can cling so tenaciously to our past that we effectively give up our claim to be anything other than our birth gender.  Sometimes we have to avoid things we might otherwise wish because people might well connect us to our past, and label us as transsexual, or worse, as transgender, because of it.


In the end, Jenna Talackova has accomplished nothing.  She got her fifteen minutes of fame, which she may, or may not parlay into a future career.  But she really didn't break down any barriers, or win some great victory for "trans women."  She was simply handled, and moved out of the way.

Uh, Not Even Remotely Right....

I wonder sometimes where the transgender kooks come up with some of their ideas.  Take, for example, this bit of insanity from "Autumn" Sandeen over on LGBT Weekly:

Somewhere in between the extremes of people who demand no trans people should have surgery, and those who demand all trans people have surgery there is middle ground that recognizes that no group of trans people really should dictate what trans experience is the universal trans experience.

Huh?  "Those who demand all trans people have surgery...?"  Now, I realize this is in the context of Mr. Sandeen trying to cover up the fact that he is darn close to one who claims that no one needs surgery (he has denigrated those who have the surgery, and implied that we still have penises, etc.) but really, even he can't be that completely ignorant, can he?


First off, I think anyone who identifies as a "trans" person probably ought to serious question the wisdom of having surgery.  If you are that attached to your past, well then you just might miss certain parts when they are gone.  For example, let me be very clear on this...I would never suggest that Mr. Sandeen have surgery.  By beef with Mr. Sandeen is not that he has not had surgery, or that he does not need surgery, but that he has taken to claiming to be a transsexual, and that he claims to be a female.  He is neither, and even if he had surgery, it would not make him a woman.  It would simply make him a man with a vagina.  Like several other transgender kooks who made the mistake of going too far.


No, there are a lot of "trans" people who really, REALLY, REALLY should never have surgery, and more than a few who should not have done it who already have.  Some publicly regret it, others regret it while denying they regret it, but acting in ways that harm true transsexuals.


I know of no one who remotely demands that anyone should have surgery.  Yes, I believe that surgery, including vaginoplasty, should be a requirement for changing a birth certificate in the case of a male to female transsexual.  I think that male to females should at the very least have to have upper surgery, a complete hysterectomy and removal of the ovaries, and the vagina closed before being allowed to change their birth certificate.  I understand the limitations of FTM surgery, and am sympathetic to their plight.


Retaining the physical genitals of one sex, while claiming to be a member of the other is simply dishonest.  But then so is a lot of things Mr. Sandeen tries to pass off on society.

What Sandeen Means by Diversity

In a fawning response to Mr. "Cristan" Williams silly attempt to sound reasonable, his fellow gender fascist, "Autumn" Sandeen replied "Yay for the diversity model of trans experience!" So, the question is, what exactly does Mr. Sandeen mean by "diversity model?" The answer to that can be found in his rather nasty response to Suzan Cooke over at Women Born Transsexual:

Suzan, you talk about being nearly sixty-five, and you talk about idolizing April Ashley.

The type of black and white transsexualism you espouse is basically a form of cognitive distortion.; the type of transsexualism you espouse has been diversified by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) — the organization formerly known as the Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association (HBIGDA) — you might want to read WPATH’s seventh version of the Standards Of Care.

Susan, there’s now way to say agreeably state this: you’ve become an anachronism. The transsexualism you espouse is no longer sustained in the current version of the standards of care for transsexual, transgender, and gender nonconforming people. Whereas pervious versions of the Harry Benjamin Standards of Care were focused on those who needed vaginoplasties or phalloplasties to align their bodies with their gender identities, the current understanding of trans experience is one of acknowledging the diversity of trans experiences; the diversity of treatments needed for trans people to be comfortable in their own skins. But at the same time, these standards of care recognize that those who need genital reconstruction surgeries, to include vaginoplasties, aren’t requiring cosmetic surgeries, but necessary surgeries.

It’s not that many trans people need vaginoplasties or phalloplasties to align their bodies with their gender identities, but instead that not all trans people need vaginoplasties or phalloplasties to align their bodies with their gender identities. In your anachronistic view of transsexual experience, you fail to recognize that your personal trans experience of needing a vaginoplasty to align your body with your gender identity isn’t the universal trans woman experience.
California and Vermont now recognize this in their laws regarding gender identity and changing one’s legal sex. They have embraced the model the State Department uses for changing one’s gender marker on one’s passport as thestandard for changing one’s legal sex.

So does Argentina in their recent change regarding changing legal sex. And at the same time, Argentinean law now recognizes that a very significant number of trans people need genital reconstruction surgery as medical treatment for their gender dysphoria, and their laws now require that trans people who need genital reconstruction surgeries, to include vaginoplasties, will receives those surgeries as a legal right.

What you are espousing, Suzan, appears to me to be a black-and-white, highly defended version of trans experience. What you are espousing is a viewpoint that attempts to take your personal trans experience of needing a vaginoplasty and require it be the universal trans experience for all transsexual people — even when the currently accepted viewpoint of WPATH that treatment for gender dysphoria in individual treatment for trans individuals requires shades of gray thinking in determining what treatments are appropriate for individual transsexual, transgender, and gender nonconforming people.

I’m quite aware that pointing this out isn’t going to change your point of view on transsexual experience. But I believe it’s important to again point out that your community viewpoint on genital reconstruction surgeries/sex reassignment surgeries are anachronistic viewpoints belonging to the sixties and seventies versions of HBIGDA’s standards of care.

And, don’t expect me and a significant numbers of our peers to embrace your black-and-white, highly defended viewpoint of transsexual experience. Call our viewpoints “bullshit” all you want, but at the same time realize your black-and-white, highly defended viewpoints are no longer in the trans mainstream — your viewpoints are no longer what HBIGDA’s follow-on organization WPATH embraces.. 

I identify, for the record, as transgender, transsexual, trans, and female. My legal sex will be changed by California the end of the month, despite what you believe about the importance of the ability for transsexual women to have vaginoplasties to have the ability to experience vaginal sex. 

And, I can comfortably live with that.

Well, this certainly seems to contradict what Mr. Williams is trying to claim.  In Sandeen's "diversity," there is really no place for classic transsexuals.  And yet, he tries to demand that we  accept the label of "transgender."  What he overlooks is the fact that, among other things, WPATH was taken over by kooks like himself.  Several years ago, when the name change was foisted on the organization, they moved away from their original purpose, and became more of an advocacy group for "transgender issues."  That does not make Sandeen's position the correct one, it is just part of the larger political battle.


The fact remains, Sandeen can identify as whatever he wishes, but he is neither a transsexual or a female.  As any number of people have pointed out, he is a rather delusion former enlisted MAN who is viewed by the U.S. Navy as mentally disturbed who has a fetish for wearing women's clothes.  His attempts to desexualize "transgender" are rather amusing, since he himself has an obsession with being "a woman with a penis," which is, quite frankly, something of a sexual perversion.


In fact, it is odd that Sandeen appeals to the Standards of Care in making his argument, as they state specifically "Gender nonconformity Is not the same as gender dysphoria."  While I don't particularly like the term "gender dysphoria," it is the one that was traditionally used by what was know as the Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association, or HBIGDA before they went off the deep end and become "WPATH."  But even still, even they acknowledge that there is a difference between someone like Sandeen, who has neither the need, or the desire to correct their body, and someone like myself, or Suzan Cooke, who does. No, we are not anachronistic.  We are simply not anything like Sandeen, who, it should be pointed out again, wishes to be "a woman with a penis."  Sandeen in a recent posting even goes so far as to try to impose the view on women with a history of transsexualism that they "still have a penis."  And he wonders why transsexuals dislike him so much...


No, this is the face of what Sandeen calls diversity and Williams calls "inclusionism."