Tuesday, March 6, 2012

State of Maryland Transgender Rights Bill

I am actually not sure where I should begin with this but here goes. Early today I received an email from one of the leaders AGAINST the Transgender Rights Bill currently being contemplated in the State of Maryland. I gather they found me through both my comments about Bathroom Rights Bills on my blog and other blogs. SO much for nobody giving a crap what I say.

I was asked to write letters to a list of State Senators in opposition to the bill. They asked me if there were other transsexuals that would speak out against this bill which is part of the reason I am writing this post. It was not the request that has me in a quandary. It is the misconceptions the individual had about someone like me. These misconceptions are absolutely not malevolent in any way but could be hurtful if one did not consider the source and the circumstances.

Thanks to GLAAD, GLBT, and the Transgender Rights or Transvestite Rights movement I am still considered transsexual and "not straight". This individual has been dealing with the transvestites pushing the bill in Maryland after the Transgender Rights bill was passed in Baltimore County. If I did not realize who was responsible for these misconceptions I could be mad at the emailer but they can only go by what they know, read, and see and they are certainly not going to meet someone like me because my life is private and will stay that way.

I have asked for permission to post the email unedited because I think it is important.  I have not received permission to do so and hopefully I get permission. If anyone wishes to write an email in support of the opposition they can send me an email and I will provide you a list of State Senators that should be emailed.

As if these misconceptions of transsexuals is not bad enough when perpetrated by GLAAD, GLBT, and the Transgender Borg it has also found its way into a really scary place. That scary place is Psychiatrists that treat children and have a great deal of influence over how children are treated. I cannot give the name or location of said Psychiatrist but they had a rather odd view of what a transsexual was. They thought a transsexual was someone that was transgender that had SRS or everyone was transgender until SRS and then afterwards they were transsexual.

For someone that treats children and is considered or claims to be an expert on gender issues this is both shocking and troublesome but unfortunately I am not surprised. I have felt for a long time the Transgender crowd wanted to subsume transsexual or remove it all together from use and it seems they are winning. This Psychiatrist said we are transgendered and not transsexual unless operated on.  I find it appalling that this individual has not read Benjamin and has such misconceptions about what defines a transsexual.

Unfortunately this correlates to issues involving transgender rights because I believe the symptoms are related.  The transvestites realize bathroom rights leaves some transsexuals in a rough position because we need to protect pre-operative transsexuals and they are piggy backing on that because they realize the solution is tricky.

How do we protect our pre-operative transsexuals yet keep the men out of women's toilets and private areas? Any suggestions?


Dawn1257 said...

If I may? For those who are in a position to do so, I think it best to concentrate on reaching and securing safety for the youngest of us. Those of us who – for whatever reason- were unable to find, achieve, and garner help early on, it is likely too late for measures of anonymity or privacy. And, in a lot of instances, even relative safety. Unfortunately, we may be stuck with that 'T' whatever moniker haunting us throughout our remaining lives. And unfortunately, the minions of the 'Borg' have succeeded in diluting the true meanings and distressing needs of transsexualism.

I suppose a grassroots effort at building a wall of separation between people born with transsexualism and those claiming a gender conflicting lifestyle could be developed. If the Borg have been successful at getting their collective feet in the door toward introduction of awareness for their issues regarding education in K-12 school systems, there exists a plausible possibility to drawing severe distinction between people who need to change their sex and those who aren't compelled to do so. But, it would come at a cost. You all know what that cost would be.

On the legislative level, I doubt that there could be word-smithed a piece of legislation effective enough to delineate between transsexual conditioned people and the transgender. At least not in a way that I would feel 'unmarked'. But I do feel strongly that if the future of our society is being forced to allow for people who have no instinctive need to be their proper sex, but rather play at not being so, then it might be best to take a page from their playbook and build that line of distinction that is increasingly being validated by physiological research in order to make “normal” people aware of the differences between us and them.

The real solution is more archaic and harsh. But, we also know that is not going to be easily accepted by society either.


Anonymous said...

I’d love to see who has to actually polices such a policy of segregating who is a real woman and who isn’t.

Elizabeth said...


Isn't the real problem here that we even have to talk about men in dresses having the balls to expect access to women's spaces? If giving them access increases the chance of harm for women or girls it is wrong and I mean if the chance increases only by 1/10 of a percent.

It will always come down to appearance and fear which is sad for women. Kind of funny how women are supposed to be tolerant and accepting of men in dresses in our spaces but men do not. Let them wear their dresses into men's spaces and FORCE their fellow men to be tolerant and understanding. Funny how that never happens isn't it???

Sagebrush said...

Elizabeth, you're right that appearance is what makes trouble in women's (and men's) spaces, yet it's not how we normally determine (or used to determine) who has a right to be in a given space.

If a woman is very butch, she might be hassled using a women's room. But she has a perfect right to be there. It would be crazy to say a butch woman should use a men's facility.

And yet, we see the opposite being pushed -- people wanting men to have access to women's facilities because of how they are presenting. If you flip that the other way, I doubt anyone would support it.

As for pre-ops, women who are being treated for their congenital disorder, maybe making the carry letter more official would help. And only those who are surgery-tracked could have one.

Anonymous said...

My RLT was mercifully cut short about 11 months to be exact but even before that I never had a single incident or sideways look. I didn't have a "carry letter" either I neither felt the need or actually practically needed one. That said knowing these FW therapists they would issue carry letters to the clown Howard from Pheonix could get one. I don't want that freak anywhere near me when I am in the ladies room. Let him use the Gents he can get his Jollies in there.


Anonymous said...

Still no practical solutions. A good question was asked how you police this? Who polices it practically? What is the cretieria for legitimacy--who decides that?

Anonymous said...

OK I'll bite! If someone complains you call the police and they get arrested and hopefully charged. If the person looks female acts talks female no-one is going to have an issue.

But to give men the right to use female spaces because we are not just talking ladies rooms here, the legislation includes sports and public changing facilities etc. is plain dangerous. Let me turn this back on you. Why the hell should women have to put up with it? Let the FW use the gents.

One day there is going to be a case where women physically deal with one of these perverts. A deft removal of the dead cat (i e Wig) and flush it down the toilet. They can face the public on their exit.



Elizabeth said...

I will take a bite myself.

It seems to me men would think it gentlemanly to protect their women but then transvestites do not see it that way at all. They think they need to be protected from their fellow men out of fear the fellow men will be shocked and respond accordingly.

Since a transsexual needs a Therapist and a Psychiatrist for hormones and surgery my proposal is quite simple. A letter put forth by the Therapist and/or a Psychiatrist that states this individual is undergoing the process of sex reassignment with the clear knowledge that both the Therapist and/or the Psychiatrist are responsible for the individual they lettered up for.

Maybe what we need is more gatekeepers and not less and maybe it is finally time somebody says so. Maybe fear of arrest and the wife finding out will stop transvestites from roaming women's spaces pretending to be what they never want to completely be.

In the US one can get a Passport for a short period of time before SRS and that is another solution.

The main aim here is not bathrooms but the redefinition of what a woman is. I want to thank this anonymous poster for prodding me because I now intend to do something.

Anonymous said...

"How do we protect our pre-operative transsexuals yet keep the men out of women's toilets and private areas?"

An exceedingly simple yet difficult question.

As our hostess points out: "Isn't the real problem here that we even have to talk about men in dresses having the balls to expect access to women's spaces?"

The problem as I see it is that these men, these part-time/recreational cross-dressers, (formerly known as transvestites), have become empowered by the enforced use of the term, transgender whereby they have now assumed, or more accurately usurped the medical legitimacy of the pre-operative, surgically tracked transsexual.

As any woman of transsexual history can attest, it has nothing to do with the clothes or the "presentation", that seems to define just about anything, transgender. The fact that TS children state so simply that they are boys or girls so early in their young lies, (usually before even starting school), stands in stark contrast to the convoluted arguments and "man'splanaitions" of the TG.


Dawn1257 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dawn1257 said...

Sorry, I deleted my previous post because I felt there was more I wanted to respond to of your comment.

"A letter put forth by the Therapist and/or a Psychiatrist that states this individual is undergoing the process of sex reassignment with the clear knowledge that both the Therapist and/or the Psychiatrist are responsible for the individual they lettered up for."

YES! Exactly! I thought this was something already common place? Okay, call me naive, but I had one in my possession before I even began RLE and carry it everyday. Although I have never had to use it, it says exactly what you state. It just seems like complete common sense to me.

Also, As you mention about the "gatekeepers". This is something the TG's fight against kicking and screaming. They are absolutely militant against people controlling access to their display.

Maybe there are some of us who don't require such stringent gatekeeping. Say, if your very young. But, it should be more than mandatory for people over say, twenty five. And, especially if they've had any sexual relationship before transition.

Anonymous said...

I see no real possibility of a therapist being responsible, in this scenario, for the actions of a client because they obtain a letter to "transition" and enters a the ladies room. If a therapist can be held liable for there actions based on the thresholds you elude to there wouldn't be any therapists.

I don't see a police State that will put a guard of police office at the door of every bathroom to "check your papers." Who will vote for that extra expense?

This has to be balanced with what men feel about FtM's entering their spaces and they find a really butch lesbian. "Show us your papers!" Is this enough for Godwin's Law?

No... What I'm seeing is a bit more sinister; Anything with a working penis is wrong by proxy. Are men being blamed in both scenarios?

Scenario 1-- pre-op MtF enters a ladies room, busted for not being passable and without papers.

Scenario 2--pre-op MtF beaten by men because she is using the men's room, can't use ladies because she isn't passable and doesn't have papers.

Can't you see the absurdity; Both scenarios the penis is at fault.

What your really talking about is a form of fascism based on lookism.

As I see such a law progressing, I can see the abuses pile up; Even if women are able to self report to the police then cries, "A man in the ladies!" and that suspect show's their letter, legitimizing there transition, they then can file charges against the gal for false report, discrimination based on lookism or a member of a protected class. FYI only whites in the white washroom--remember that doesn't work in our legal system.

Should a panty check be implemented? This is laughable.

Those letters are easy to obtain, I can see medical over-site but policing it is a bit absurd.

Do you really think such a system would deter a sexual predator? All they have to do is obtain a letter (or not) and enter. The proffered law would be redundant because the action (sexual assault) the new law purports to protect women, ostensibly, against pre-transitional women who look like men, is already illegal.


Elizabeth said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Elizabeth, I do see it. I'm just an unfortunate recipient of some law school. I'm aware of the risks to women. Allowing transvestite/Cross-Dressing men to have access to our private spaces is problematic, but equally so enforcing such a segregation between TV/CD vs TS legally is problematic. I don't think your seeing that.

I was talking to my girlfrends about "what if's" and if they found a man in drag in the ladies (such as the gent in the blue nickers) and unanimously we didn't want to see that but of course I told them that if you lived in Maryland you would be fined for protesting. We were appalled.

This of course depends on the group you talk to. How do gay or strait men feel about this? How do lesbians feel about his? How do FtM's feel about this?


Anonymous said...

A question for Black Swan: If, as it seems you agree that men in dressess, wigs and heels should not be allowed legal access to those areas reserved for the privacy of women, wherein do you see the problem in allowing an accomodtion for those women who are in the process or correcting a congenital birth defect?


Elizabeth said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Elizabeth said...


You are not a lawyer so stop making like you are. You show your ignorance by saying it is problematic preventing men from access women's spaces dressed because it is hard to do!! Do not pass a law that uses the asinine term Transgender is the first step. In point of fact it is better to pass nothing than to pass what they have.

Just for you legal mind only Baltimore County in Maryland has such a law. Massachusetts has a law that can result in a fine if $2500 and a year in jail.

Most women, me included, would say little in a bathroom if the man in a dress was presentable. The real problem is the laws enable access to gyms, dressing rooms, showers, and other women's facilities. I would deny the guy who flies in panties, a bra, garter belt, and heels from entering a woman's rest room. How about you? I am stunned he is allowed to fly that way.

Straight men do not want the man in a dress in their restroom or facilities because they would probably beat the shit out of them. Gay men and lesbian women are as appalled as I am. FTMs can grow a beard and easily use men's rooms unless of course they decide they are not 'really" men and get pregnant but men are stronger than women so a woman is not a threat to a man. A man most certainly is a threat to me and that is the problem.

The bills should say Transsexual Rights if they are going to be passed. How many bills would pass if they said Transvestite Rights? No a fucking one because a Legislator would be unelectable if he supported a Transvestite Rights bill.

Elizabeth said...

@Black Swan

Oh please stop this silliness. The entire problem is about men invading women's spaces because they have targeted laws and had them passed that use the term transgender.

The correct solution is to rename the bill Transsexual Rights but then the transvestites will scream. Better yet we could rename them "Transvestite Rights" bill and make the politicians put their careers on the line.

This does not just end in the bathroom. Transvestites can enter changing areas, gyms, and every single place where women thought they were safe and that should not happen.

We as a society are better off without a law that forces women to accept men in the ladies room. The problem is if a woman does complain about it or does say something about it the woman will be fined and possibly face jail for opposing a man in a dress from entering a woman's safe zone.

You might be able to defend yourself but I and most women cannot and if these laws alter the conditions for the safety of women and girls even slightly it is outrageous.

The simple fact is transvestites should not be entering women's spaces. The simple fact is that if they pass or are acceptable and nonthreatening they will not be stopped or questioned. The simple fact is nobody is going to do panty checks. The simple fact is if a transvestite is given these rights they will abuse them and use them to enhance the thrill of the day en femme.

Maybe the possibility of being caught might frighten some away. Maybe an aware woman will catch a predator and not be afraid to say something or call for aid.

Transsexuals do NOT need these rights bills. All we need to be is accepted in our correct sex but with enough respect for our new sex that we do not still have a usable prick or are not stupid enough to be a pregnant man.

Enforcing a law that allows men in women's spaces is a police state. enforcing laws that prevent men from entering women's spaces is just common decency and the protection of the weaker of the two sexes.

I am just sorry you cannot see that.

Anonymous said...

Never said I was a Lawyer nor was I a member of any bar. However, there are several professions that grant you specialized legal knowledge without being a member of the bar. Not sure why your attempting to discredit me based on this.

My personal feelings of how it should be, or how you feel it should be are irrelevant to the practical distinction your attempting to make utilizing black and white gender binary reasoning. You want there to be a special license for transitioners-- a primmer to whom can have access and who cannot correct?

Are you attempting to make access illegal unless you meet such a threshold required to obtain this letter? The act of sexual assault is already illegal. I don't want to get into a discussion of who is legit or not. Neither your nor my opinion matters about who is male and who is female. Thankfully the law protects those minorities from us too.

Access to a particular restroom does not equal the act of sexual assault. You don't point to a fact just your opinion of a "Transvestite/Transgender" vs "Transsexual" Rights Bill. Gays and lesbian YOU know, not their general opinion I suspect. The middle ground isn't for me but I'm not going to step on those TV CD TG Queer folk anymore because I should feel I'm better than they are. Do you feel your more legitimate than they are? More deserving of rights than they are? I tried this argument on and it doesn't fit me. If you believe in equality for some and not others you don't believe in equality at all.

Sorry Elizabeth if you don't understand but my contention stems from drawing a line between male and female with bathroom politics like this when there are way too many grey areas as S has suggested one of them. I am personally not comfortable with a man in the ladies room. However a cross dresser needs a safe place to pee in public. Because cross dressers are a fact of life.

The rules for cross dressers, both men and women are, as I understand them, that you use the restroom that corresponds to your gender presentation. I used to work at a chain fitness center part time and they had such a policy for those that could use the locker room: You had to have your ID (drivers license) correspond with the gender on your membership and I've never heard of the gym having a problem with it.


Elizabeth said...


Please do not push me your Transgender Rights bullshit BS because that is all it is, Bullshit!! In most areas of the United States it is illegal for a transvestite to enter a ladies room en femme. As a supposed legal scholar I would think you would realize that.

Whether you want to agree to it or not the simple use of the term Transgender opens up the possibility of abuse in bathrooms but more importantly in dressing rooms, gyms, and other women's spaces. Men have attempted to invade those spaces multiple times en femme. It is one thing for a pre-operative transsexual to access such areas but it is another for a heterosexual man in a fucking dress.

I realize the air is kind of thin for you but maybe you should try and get some more oxygen. Transvestites DO NOT have a gender identity issue so why should they be accommodated in any space reserved for women when they most CERTAINLY NOT WOMEN nor do they want to be women.

For someone that supposedly spent some time in law school you really are clueless.

Answer me a simple question. Why should men in a dress that are heterosexual males be allowed in women's spaces? On what planet were you born?

When the public wakes up and realizes transgender truly means transvestite the shit will hit the fan and hopefully that is before some kid or women gets accosted by some pervert in a woman's space.

It is one thing for a pre-operative transsexual to be in women's spaces. It is not okay for a heterosexual male in a dress to be in women's spaces but then you live in California.

Thankfully I live somewhere that will never allow a transvestite to walk into women's spaces without the risk of being arrested.

Anonymous said...

@ BS

"I don't want to get into a discussion of who is legit or not."

Of course not, because that is the issue. The question of whether or not those men in dresses, those transvestites, are in fact women.

The obvious answer is that clearly, they are not.

Do not muddy the waters with your poorly articulated red herrings. This is not about "equality for some and not others". It is simply about the womens' right to privacy, and that these so called transgender laws infringe upon those rights.

And please do not try to drag me into some poorly defined "grey area". I am perfectly happy with the sexual binary and while I have little use for "gender benders" I wish them no ill will so long a they do not impose their silliness upon the rest of us under the false flag of 'equality'.


Anonymous said...

There are two issues not a single transgender identified person will discuss. One is the precise definition of transgender and the other is the precise etiology of transsexual. The whole point for them is obfuscation. The spectrum theory holds as much water as the colander in my kitchen and makes as much sense an Edward Lear poem. Any time anyone does raise the issue down comes the hammer of censorship.

The general public will eventually wake up to the fact "transgender" is just a front for transvestism that uses transsexuality as it's acceptable face.

Anonymous said...

You really can’t begin this discussion without first making a moral distinction between bathroom access and the act of sexual assault.  This argument goes no where unless this is clearly decided.  I like balance in discussions and it appears there isn’t a correlation with bathroom access for transgender and sexual assaults. I’m open to proof you can submit that correlates bathroom access and sexual assault crimes increases as a direct causality of bathroom access.  So for now your arguments have fails in The County of Baltimore that access equals abuses your report. 

You cannot construct a first cause or multiple cause argument that states “bathroom access equals sexual assault.”  Its just not going to happen in any court of law.  Sorry I’m not going to buy Common Sense arguments that defenestrates parity of reason.   Hanging on a cliché’ that’s popular isn’t an argument either. 

The issue with this post:  Is the Baltimore County Transgender Right Bill a good law?  Yes. 

These arguments your making are proffering a given set of facts based on an ideology, very fundamentalist religion based I should ad, that common sense should dictate what men and women are and .  ““Common sense” takes something as a given rather than critically examining it. “Common sense” suggests trans identities are not legitimate. It says it’s silly to question whether men are really men and women are really women. It says vagina = woman, penis = man. “

If you want to get into biological discussion--bring it.  You know my background with my father (Professor of Biology/Chemistry/Education) I participated in documentary in Australia that illustrated 1500 species that change there gender and even more so that are bi-gendered so don’t play off the naturalist fallacy unless you want to be served crow.  Lots of grey areas in the binary.  I don’t even like using  abnormality/biological error (normal vs. abnormal) and prefer the use of the terms "typical," "usual," or "most frequent" when dealing with human males and females. 

Your attempting to make exceptions for only those men and women that are on a SRS surgery tract. which is the first grey area.  What is your test for who is legitimate?  The Transsexual Litmus Test List   http://www.bilerico.com/2011/07/you_are_not_transsexual.php

I know of a dozen blood disorders and hundred or so physical abnormalities that can prevent SRS.  Mothers escort there toddler sons in the ladies room and fathers escort there toddler daughters into men’s room--they need to watch them. What about intersex folk?  I’m not going to derail this discussion by such “grey areas” unless Elizabeth wishes to allow me the latitude to do so.  Additionally, I’ll only do this if a standard is set by Elizabeth that successfully illustrates such a grey area, and if I successfully prove a grey area your binary argument fails.  Will you concede? 

Finally, Your fears are well founded, yet ill placed that living in two gender society places men and women at some risk of sexual assault from both sexes, hopefully we have enough deterrents in law that prevent this but equally so is that women also sexually assault men (boys and other women) and in increasing and alarming numbers.  Check FBI/DOJ statistics.  Where is the parity in your reasoning with FtM’s that don’t receive SRS?


Anonymous said...

To the Anonymous poster I challenge you to prove that there are homogenized definition of transsexual that all transsexuals accept without reservation. A neat little box that all "real" transsexuals fit it? Of course this is a loaded argument because if any tranexual doesn't agree with your definition they fail the test. Is the test fare or are you being a fascist?


Anonymous said...

I invoke Godwin's Law BS. You lose!

I am well aware of your stance which is filled with the standard obfuscation. Your contributions to this debate are to be found in comments to TS Si and here. So I am confident any argument I put forward will receive more such obfuscation and red herrings. While I may be prepared to enter into such a discussion I am not prepared to waste my valuable time on a closed mind such as yours.

Elizabeth said...


Stop with the bullshit. So you know a dozen blood disorders and hundred or so physical abnormalities that prevent SRS? All of these conditions are quite rare. Since the odds of being born Type VI are 1 in 100,000, according to Harry much higher, and the odds of being born Type V are about 1 in 30,000 we get into a problem involving the probability that one can be both born Type V or Type VI and then have one the conditions you describe.

This moves the odds of this happening to the following. I will make an erroneous assumption that your list includes diseases that occur in 1 out of 100 people. Since both conditions a mutually exclusive the odds of being born transsexual and having one of your supposed conditions change from 1 in 100,000 for Type VI to 1 in ten million and for Type V to one in 3 million.

These odds are actually significantly higher because I know how rare most of the conditions you claim prevent SRS are. The odds are significantly higher. Basically your continual use of Reductio ad absurdum in your argument process is silly.

The results of allowing men in dresses inside women's spaces is more dangerous for women. It does not matter if the chance is minuscule the simple fact is men have NO RIGHT in women's spaces. There is no "rule" that allows it. There are laws in some states and counties within the US that do and they are in error.

I disagree vehemently that this is a moral discussion when talking about men in women's spaces. You again are attempting to use an absurd argument to make a point. The simple fact is allowing men into women's spaces increases the danger for women. If you cannot see that then I suggest you are the one having issues the opponents. I am 5-8 and weigh 130 pounds. I cannot defend myself against a 6-2 inch 220 pound man even if you think you can.

There are thousands of cases every year of voyeurs attempting to either take video or pictures in women's spaces. There are many cases of men dressing as women and attempting to harm women. Nobody is saying all transvestites are that way but even one additional incident is too much because a man in a dress presenting as a woman is NOT A WOMAN and therefore does not belong in women's spaces. You do not give the wolf access to the chicken coop because he claims he is just doing his business.

Again I ask you why must women make the accommodation for men? I dare you to answer that simple question. Why must women be tolerant and understanding of a man in a dress pretending to be a women for a day? Let their fellow men be the tolerant and understanding ones. Fat chance of that happening.

Until a pre-op transsexual has her SRS it is a problem they will have to deal with and it is a problem I had to deal with in my time. You just deal with it. It really comes down to presentation.


I suppose this fool should be welcome in women's spaces? Not on my watch!!!

Anonymous said...

@Elizabeth, "The simple fact is allowing men into women's spaces increases the danger for women." This is your "Ad Hoc" generic unsupported answer to my inquiry. Your making it up. Prove the fact. How is that fact confirmed with evidence you can post as links such as DOJ, Local PD or FBI Crime Statistics--got any news stories of such? Prove it please.

If you can't prove it then prove the Baltimore County PD's claim falsifiable. You can hack at it from both angles. That instruction is just as easy to follow as emptying shit from a boot with the instruction on the bottom of the heel. We can talk about your probability and chance argument later.

I'm trying to avoid an argument about who is a man and who is a woman, because its off your topic. I agree with you that in Baltimore County Maryland a man in a dress or a woman dressed up as a man can use the bathroom according to their gender presentation respectfully to pee. Who does that hurt? That's what this is really about isn't it?


Anonymous said...

@Anonymous, I only accused you of that posibility I didn't actually say you are a fascist. 10 point pentality for illegal use of "Godwin's Law." Your still behind--do try to keep up.

So what? As for any place that I may or may not have engaged in obfuscation on any point, please I'm in a learning curve here about how Classic TSity's antediluvian stance on these issues may have shot progress in the foot. It may be the transgenders--I don't care. This is a derailment off point--foul! I get a free throw now.

I'm just asking you to answer your own question to transgenders about the common definition of transsexuals. I bet your have just as hard a time with it. Sinse you have not answered therefore wouldn't that be the same as the pot calling the kettle black?

Bringing it back on the posts point the link shows the Baltimore County law enforcement officials have no cases of rape or sexual assult by transgender [MtF] in the ladies room. Claims of such are false. How is that obfuscation? Did you read the article?


Elizabeth said...


Well if you had read some other posts there were some examples of those claiming to be transgender that were not only sexual predators but considered highly likely to re-commit crimes. Most cases of sexual assault are not reported in the US by women because the woman becomes the guilty party by being investigated.

Here you do the same thing by saying there is no proof that men in dresses within ladies facilities do not increase the possibility of issues. Why do women have to pit up with this kind of shit?

The simple fact is men should not be there. End of case and it is how it will be in most of the United States. It is outrageous that you would think men have a place in a women's restroom or dressing area, or showers, or gyms if they are not wanted. You are no different than the men in dresses trying to shove this down women's throats because it is men doing this.

I am glad I understand where your position on this issue is and that you are really just a transgender or transvestite apologist. But then they are probably your clientele or the ones that hire you.

Again for someone as supposedly legal minded as you claim you seem to have little grasp of the law or the Bills being passed. Bathrooms are the tip of the issue. If a predator knows all he needs is to put on a frock, a wig, and some lipstick to enter women's spaces they will do it and there are plenty of cases if you are capable of using Google. One extra case or instance is one too many simply based on the concept men should not be in women's spaces since in general women cannot defend themselves against men except of course you.

Your problem is you and your transgender pals do not realize most transsexuals do not consider the "Classic TS antediluvian stance" old or out of date. Most wish it was easy to just slip away and live a normal life which I and others have done.

We do not believe a transsexual willingly keeps a penis and if they do they are not transsexual except in rare cases which are quite rare probability wise. I know you do not believe that but then that was a given.

The sad part is I know enough about you to realize you suffered what most transsexuals went through yet you continually write comments that presupposes that we are all the same in some way. We are not.

I was a girl always as were you. The transvestite is always a man and always will be. Wearing a dress does not give them the right to call themselves women. It just makes them men in dresses pretending to be women who will go back to their male jobs on Monday and like so many before them will screw over women because it is their male heritage. It is sad to see that part of you has not been lost.

The simple truth is since men should not be in women's spaces and laws must be passed to force women to accept this that we women should never bow down to more oppression from men, particularly a man in a dress insulting every woman on this planet by insisting they are women because they are in a dress.

You are a fool.

Anonymous said...

Don't be childish BS I don't give two flying figs about fictional "points" or "free goes" Grow up and act your age and not your hat size.

Unless someone is post SRS or under treatment that leads to full SRS they do not belong in women's private places, Period. Can you guarantee unequivocally and without reservation or obfuscation that there will never be a case where some pervert puts on a dress to get his jollies either in Maryland or elsewhere? No you cannot. Like it or not the risk that someone may in the future commit such an act is reason enough to ensure it remains illegal. However small the risk it is too big a risk to take. Liz is right here, why should women have to endure that indignity? This in one situation in which women have a special case to put since it is women who are the ones are vulnerable. I thought it was men who were supposed to protect women and not place us in danger.

Anonymous said...

Don't you just love it how these TG types are so typcally reminiscent of those little third grade bully boys who just made up their own rules as they went along, reality be damned.

I must say BS, your arguments are so contrived that they reflect poorly on what is so obvious; IE that men who dress as women, or "femulate" are trying to use any form of contrivance to justify their own particular oddball behavior. Then, they add insult to injury by stating that women "can't" or "must" do. How chauvinistic of them.

As Liz says, why is it incumbent upon women to accomodate these part-time recreational femulators? Why can they not simply pitch their personal proclivities to their fellow men?

Anonymous said...

@Elizabeth, since you like numbers:

BTW wouldn't you blog be boring if everyone was a memeber of the choir?

There are 747,408 registered sex offenders in the US

10% are women who committed sexually related crimes, however women's sex crimes are grossly underreported by their victims, usually men and boys fail to report, and the number is actually higher in prevalence.

311,591,917 population of the United States

Multiplied by the prevalence of transvestism.

Confounding factors...The registered sex offenders have a very low recidivism, and the vast majority are not really sexual predators, many are on the list merely for prostitution.

The bathroom boogieman your conjuring I suspect is so rare to be virtually non-existant. Thus, The County of Baltimore PD official that transgender having bathroom access doesn't reach the threshold numbers of the abuses possible to be a clear and present danger. 

The numbers served by the Transgender Rights Bill far exceed the potential victims you claim will report abuse. No one can be guaranteed absolute safety and some concessions need to be made.

Remember my caution regarding parity in the law I meant that if you have:

A very passable and beautiful MtF, boob job and FFS, yet non-op transgender woman (actually a celebrity), using your reasoning, would be forced to use the mens room.

You would also have a 6' tall cop, vary manly-man, with a vagina, forced to use the ladies room, again your reasoning. I know an LAPD officer, body builder, FtM just like this.

There are hundreds of non-op examples. Do you really want to continue down this rabbit hole?

You don't get to have it both ways.. ROTFLMAO!


Elizabeth said...


Lord you are just so ill informed. You just do not understand anything about people but then being a professional transsexual that makes her living out of having had SRS and still being transsexual I would not expect you to understand any of it.

If you have to make a law to force women to accept men in their spaces then things have gone to far. They are women's spaces and are reserved for women. This does not just involve bathrooms but then you seem to ignore that.

Actually your non-op beauty would have no issue using the ladies room because it is presentation afterall and they would not be stopped since most of us do not want trouble but since he is non-op and obviously wants to stay that way he is a man. If he could afford FFS and a boob job he can afford a vagina and if he prefers his penis he is a man.

That is silly and your reasoning is just plain silly. That FTM would have no problem using a men's room. The only rabbit hole is the one you keep digging for yourself. Men do not belong in ladies spaces and that is what we are talking about. The reasoning is that men are physically much stronger than us.

I have zero sympathy for any non-op and if they choose not to have surgery as your celebrity friend did then he is a man with boobs and FFS but that is another discussion.

If it makes life tough for some in the transgender crowd then TOUGH SHIT. All the truly transsexual I have known figure out how to make life work. They do not look for excuses or special privileges because they are transvestites.

The problem is these laws are only passed in liberal areas of the country and if ever put to vote would fail because people do not support transvestites. If you and your transgender pals are so brave and up front why not pass a Transvestite Rights Bill instead of a obfuscated transgender rights bill that helps only transvestites. Pass a bill that states transsexuals after SRS are the new sex. That solves the problem but not for you and your men in dresses who prefer a penis to a vagina.

Now do me a favor. If you cannot come up with a better argument then refrain. The argument is men do not belong in women's spaces even in a dress. Where is your response to that and your argument that men have a right to women's spaces. Will those same men give me access to their BOD or management positions? Highly unlikely but yet these fuckwits demand to be accepted as women while en femme but refuse us access to their all gentlemen's establishments in places like NYC.

Maybe they would hire you for entertainment purposes.

Anonymous said...

@Elizabeth, "The argument is men do not belong in women's spaces even in a dress. Where is your response to that and your argument that men have a right to women's spaces..." I guess that brings into question who decides in any given moment what gender you are? Since your using a gendered term "men" vs male I suppose the individual decides what gender they are based on dress and appearance. That's the law in the County of Baltimore.

You didn't answer my question: How would you determine the prevalence of a potential bathroom sexual predator in drag? Rate of prevalence of a sexual preditor multiplied by the prevalence of transvestites multiplied by the number of men in the country. Sinse we're dealing with independent variable shouldn't the numbers be highly infrequent?

BTW: Did you say "TOUGH SHIT" to your 6'2" linebacker friend who took their own life? I know someone much bigger than I that benefits from transgender rights. You could hardly condemn her given that mother nature wasn't kind and made her a giant. Fortunatly for her I don't roll the way you do and will not invalidate her situation and instead look for solutions. She would be perfect for the WMBA, unfortunatly they will not let her play because she wasn't born female. Don't you think she should have a right to play?

According to the WMBA and most professional sports teams post-op transsexual woman are not women either--that includes you and me too. You are correct we need a bill passed such as the stipulation in the UK's GRA (2004) that states that if you receive a Gender Recogniction Certificate, correct me if I'm wrong, allows you to change your birth certificate and other ID, you are also to be considered as if your gender has never changed.


Miz Know-It-All said...

Dana Taylor of who writes on the TS Liberation blog has compiled a rather extensive list of sexual predators who also claim to be "Transgender." As you seem to buy the TV nonsense about men such as these not existing despite their convictions, I would invite you to peruse that list and then tell me why any of those sick twisted men deserve my support for them being in women's spaces?

Sagebrush said...

@Black Swan

You wrote: "The rules for cross dressers, both men and women are, as I understand them, that you use the restroom that corresponds to your gender presentation."

In a word, no. If that were the case, then natal females who happen to present very butch would be obliged to use the men's loo. That is incorrect. Women, butch women included, belong in women's facilities. Men belong in men's facilities, even if they don't conform to male gender stereotypes.

Anonymous said...

@Anonymous, so according to you how many Sexual Assults, Battery and Murder of transgender people (including Full/Part-Time Cross Dressers and Transvestites) are you willing to accept once they are foruced to use the men's room?

This sounds like forced attrition and erasure politics.


Anonymous said...

Miz Know-it-all, I have not heard from you in awhile. I couldn't find Dana Ann Taylor's list but found a link that contains her list--a list debunked. Is this the list?


So far the evidence I'm seeing is there is a much greater danger for transgender women to be forced to use the men's room then for those "men in dresses" to use the ladies.. The numbers of Assults/Battery are the highest in any population demographic from men victimizing TG's.


Elizabeth said...


In this case BS stands for something other than BlackSwan and fits appropriately.

I said bullshit to your position that a 6-0 in dyke built like an NFL linebacker and a manly man cop would have to use the ladies room. I am sure she fit in perfectly in the men's room. Men are physically capable of defending themselves.

The number of assaults by men are not against transvestites they are against transsexuals many of whom are working the streets to get money for SRS. There you go again using transgender to replace transsexual to make the poor transvestites sympathetic.

Who uses what bathroom is defined by what SEX one is and not by what gender one is. Even though you asshole transgender morons would like to claim they are one and the same they are not. In point of fact I am only considering women's spaces because men can defend themselves from women dressed as men and there are few women that prey on men.

Now you start with the transgender bullshit about what defines a woman and their desire to redefine it to include someone with a penis which is bullshit. The issue we are discussing do not directly relate to the FTM since men might like women to enter their spaces so they could prey on them.

I am not a transsexual. I was cured in early 1971. Obviously you still perceive yourself as transsexual because you make your living as a professional transsexual. You enjoy the public eye otherwise you would not do what you do.

Bathroom usage is not defined by presentation. Bathroom rights are defined by ones sex or in the special case of pre-op transsexuals their sex identity. Transvestites do not have either a sex identity or a gender identity issue. They are comfortable as men and willingly go back to being men until they get old and the testosterone gets low and they falsely believe they are no women.

You falsely claim transgender men in dresses are women because they are not. They are men and that is the issue. Do they desire to be complete women? No they do not so therefore they are fucking men although I will admit rather pathetic and pitiful asshole men.

Transgender Rights is another attempt to make men in dresses legally women for the time they are en femme. It is just another misogynist attempt at making women more inferior to men. It allows men to be equally female by putting on a dress but still male on Monday when work starts.

Pre-op transsexuals find a way to make it work without needing laws that permanently mark them as former men. Transvestites have no problem with being permanently marked as men as long as they can be woman for an evening and invade our spaces.

It is too bad if transvestites face more danger using men's rooms. Are they not men? They are certainly not women even though assholes like you use the term transgender women. If one has a penis and intends to keep it then one is a man. End of story.

As for your flippant comment about species changing gender you are incorrect. They change sex for reasons directly related to producing offspring and there are no mammals that do that and because of you dad i assume you realize we are mammals although transvestites stretch it.

You are pathetic in your attempt to justify male access to women's spaces but you are very careful not to bring up the total ramification of these bills. That ramification is heterosexual men have access to every single space women believe is private including dressing areas, showers, etc.. It is not just toilets nitwit but then you realize that but ignore it.

BS is the perfect acronym for you.

Elizabeth said...

Just for your edification BlackSwan






2009 “Richard Rendler, 60, of San Jose, a registered sex offender, found that out on Friday in Campbell, when he was arrested at the PruneYard Shopping Center on misdemeanor loitering charges. Campbell Police Sgt. Dave Carmichael said Rendler was arrested after having been caught in the womens’ restroom of an unnamed store for “several minutes.”

Police were tipped off to Rendler’s whereabouts shortly before noon on Friday, when a witness called authorities to say a man was getting out of his car wearing fake breasts and a wig and carrying a purse. The witness saw the man near a bank and thought it was a little “weird” to see a man wearing what seemed to be a disguise, Carmichael said.”


According to the Megan’s Law Web site, Render has been previously arrested on charges of child molestation and indecent exposure.”

http://www.romenews-tribune.com/view/full_story/6822843/article-Rome-man-arrested-in-women’s-bathroom-at-Calhoun-Walmart?instance=home_Most_popular 2010- Georgia -Rome man arrested in women’s bathroom at Calhoun Walmart

by Calhoun Times

“A Rome man was released on bond after being arrested for allegedly taking his clothes off in front of children in the women’s restroom of Walmart in Calhoun. Police officers arrived to find Burnes wearing a dark woman’s suit including a short skirt and jacket, black leather coat, black high heals, red nail polish, green eye shadow and women’s jewelry. According to the witness, Burnes had been in the women’s section of the store with his skirt “kicked up showing his white girdle and dark thong underwear.”

This is a sick one.


Google is quite effective plus help from others. Just one case is all I need BS. Men are predators by nature whether they are wearing a dress or not.

Foxfire said...

"I am personally not comfortable with a man in the ladies room. However a cross dresser needs a safe place to pee in public."

Then let them scream for the "right" to pee in the men's room in their outlandish getup where they belong!!

Why must they invade women's spaces? Why aren't they screaming for men to accept them into their own spaces?

It is because real men (you know, the ones who don't wear their wife's panties and wouldn't be caught dead in women's private spaces) wouldn't stand for it, so why the hell should we? Elizabeth is 100% right on this as usual, these clowns and perverts only want to exercise more male privilege and claim yet more "rights" over women. I say let them use the men's room all they want.

Anonymous said...

Have you read this yet? Peeing in peace. http://transgenderlawcenter.org/pdf/PIP%20Resource%20Guide.pdf

Anonymous said...

Does anyone actually think a sign on the door of a public restroom (i.e. Ladies room) is adequate protection from the list of predators that Elizabeth posted?


Elizabeth said...


Actually it is not if laws are passed allowing men in dresses to access women's rooms but it does mean someone can be questioned in a civil manner as to why they are using the ladies room or for that matter and ladies areas. That after all is really the issue. We are prevented from even asking under penalty of fine and jail if we even "ask".

In 99.99% of the cases nobody would say a thing but if your law was in effect the predator could not be questioned until he committed an act that was predatory in nature.

I have no issue with any MTF transsexual using women's bathrooms. The simple fact is a transvestite is not MTF. A transvestite is MTFFTFD or Male to female for the Fucking Day which is the entire freaking problem. They do not have a gender identity issue because they are as comfortable as men as they are dressing as women.

My suggestion would be chose one and get it cut off and come and join us but then I bet you think a man with a penis is just as much of a woman as one with a vagina.

The problem is this is a political attempt by male heterosexual transvestites to get the right to access women's spaces to somehow enhance the thrill or somehow make it easier for them to be en femme. Last time I checked a man in a dress does not have the civil right to demand I accept him as a woman but I am sure you and your ilk will change this.

The simple truth of the matter is women should have the right to question anyone in their safe spaces without penalty but the questioning should be civil. In most cases it will be cool. If it is not just find another ladies room and maybe it will be easier.

Men telling women they have no right to ask a man in a dress why he is in a ladies room grates against everything women endure on a daily basis in their everyday lives. Asking for the right does not mean denial of access it just means the right to question since ladies rooms are a social area for women as our our other spaces we once felt secure in.

The simple truth is no single woman is strong enough to prevent a man in a dress from using a ladies room but we do deserve the right to ask why but then men never do think women have the right to ask why about anything!! Do they!!!

Anonymous said...

Are you saying that all cross-dressing is a sexual fetish?

What is the general thinking about gender identity: Is it fixed or is it fluid?

Isn't Harry Benjamin's scale, in part, a scale that measures the degree of gender (identity) discomfort from which one is born with?


Elizabeth said...


I find it difficult to believe any form of transvestism is not a fetish but even it is not it is most certainly not a condition of gender dysphoria or gender identity. Now the words have been twisted and the meanings perversely changed but the simple fact is a transvestite is quite happy as a man as long as he can dress.

Actually Harry called transvestism a social condition for what it is worth. I certainly wish no harm on any transvestite but that does not mean I refuse the right to deny them access or at least question why they are in women's spaces.

Gender itself is fluid but gender identity or gender dysphoria implies and is defined as discomfort and dislike of the "gender" they were born into which is actually the incorrect use of gender since gender is a cultural expression and is expressed differently throughout the world.

Transvestites do not suffer from such conditions because they are in general heterosexual men and your former leader, Virginia Prince, firmly believed that and protested against any mention that transvestites had a gender issue. Transvestites have a dressing issue or a social condition because society expects men to dress somewhat like men.

If society in the form of men were more tolerant and understanding then maybe dressing en femme would be more readily accepted by the men of the world and their fellow men en femme could use the men's room.

Personally my taste in men goes for the manly man types and not some simpering wimpy man in a dress expressing his feminine side by disgustingly doing a parody of what a woman is. Maybe your taste in me is different and you prefer men in heels and a skirt which is your right I guess.

This issue will eventually come to a head and will end up in the Supreme Court of the United States within the USA and the transvestites will lose there even if the court is liberal because morally men do not belong in women's spaces but then I know you do not see it that way. No court would dare redefine what defines female or women and to be blunt should not. You seem to have no problem accepting a man with a penis as a woman which does make me wonder about you sometimes but then you are just young and dumb with little real experience in the real world as a female, a woman, and most certainly not as a mother. I have which is why I am on the side of women on this issue.

Anonymous said...

"Are you saying that all cross-dressing is a sexual fetish?"

No. You brought up this extermely stale red herring. Nice try, but not interested in your bait.

"What is the general thinking about gender identity: Is it fixed or is it fluid?"

I have no clue. I suppose it would depend on whom you queried and how you posed the question. You seem to be the expert on all things trans. Why don't you enlighten us?

"Isn't Harry Benjamin's scale, in part, a scale that measures the degree of gender (identity) discomfort from which one is born with?"

No. It is much more. "In part", it was a measure of intensity of the urge to cross dress and or adopt the sexual characteristics of the opposite sex. Two distinctly different conditions.

Please understand that I have only a very limited understanding of this whole gender mix and match scenario.

Nevetheless, I find idea of a man, no matter how he is dressed or "presenting", in a space reserved for the privacy of women, to be highly unorthodox and frankly offensive.


Anonymous said...

Is there an actual solution to this madness? On one side people say, “they're just a man in a dress.” On another side they say, “we're transgender and deserve respect for who we are.” And, yet another view proclaims, “if they're not going through surgery, they're still a man is a dress!”

I have a thought (rare, I know). I'd like to say that I think the transgender advocacy groups are lobbying for the wrong solution. By their actions they're running the risk of placing people (not just themselves) who don't believe in their political agenda of mandating acceptance, but also people who suffer from transsexualism, to great bodily harm.

Why do I say it's lobbying for the wrong solution?

Well, if the transgender crowd believe they are some kind of “third” category of gender. Why don't you solicit for YOUR OWN bathrooms and dressing rooms? That's the approach you should be focusing on
instead of trying to take over already established 'safe areas'. You cannot legislate acceptance any more than you can morality. But, logic is what logic is.

Like it or not, the binary world has worked well for thousands of years. Legislative attempts at negating the binary might occur in some places for some time. But, like Abe Lincoln said about fooling some of the people some of the time. There comes a time when people won't be fooled any longer. It's not unlikely that a backlash will occur somewhere in this Country. What happens to you transgender people then? You'll be standing out like a sore thumb! The real problem is, you'll very likely take a few people who suffer from a transsexual congenital condition out with you! And, that's not fair to them.

So go fight to secure your OWN private spaces, and leave women and men alone! Recognize that you are 'different'. Accept it! Love it! But, quit trying to equate yourself to a group or groups of people who do not wish to be lumped into your reality.

I can support a push for a "gender neutral" third option for publicly paid for and owned restrooms. I cannot support demanding from privately owned entities access to gender specifically segregated areas, access, just because you're not sure what you are and when.


Deena said...

This has certainly been interesting reading.

Men dominate in legislative bodies. Those are the men I would like to see keeping their hands off potty politics. My preference is that old saying that if it isn't broken don't fix it. Women have been doing just fine policing their own spaces without legislative interference.

Anonymous said...

The real problem is social acceptance and the cliche' machine that manufactures the stigma.

For example what sounds acceptable and what doesn't?

Men in dresses,


Women in pants?


Elizabeth said...


Are you really serious with that comment? You are actually so unintelligent you are dumb enough to make the comparison that men in dresses equates to women in pants!! Does you new boyfriend like to wear dresses? Bet he does not!!!

You really must be desperate. If men want to wear skirts they can wear a "kilt" and claim they are Scottish or they can wear a dress without trying to hide the fact they are men. That is after all the issue at the center of the issue.

I actually see no issue with a man wearing a dress as long as he is not trying to pretend he is a woman to use women's spaces or should I say more accurately use women's spaces because he fears his fellow men.

Anonymous said...

I bet he does!

Anonymous said...

Wow! Personal attacks and character assassinations--CLASSIC, I must be hitting a cord.

I'll break it down for you using the bumper sticker rule: Man in a dress; not acceptable when woman in pants is. Why is it not acceptable to the degree that "woman in pants" is? The stigma of T perhaps. You can shave your head and throw some jeans, t-shirt, boots and a flannel shirt your good to go butch (not saying you are), but put a man in a skirt somehow it just doesn't fly because of that stigma. Stay with me now. There are many others, but the WMBA policy is that women like us are just a "man in a dress." They’re go against the Olympic Committee 2010 stance on allowing transsexual women to compete. Isn't it just their opinion. So what do we rely on?

I'm not making a equating comparison (obviously), but illustrating the distinction. Just to make sure we're on the same page and you have your wits about you tell me why don't you ever see a bumper sticker that says something like, "Proud parent of a spanked child?" The cliché' "man in a dress" doesn't fly as an argument. However, men should not be in women's private restrooms and locker rooms, I have no contentions there. Where my contentions is your invalidation of others gender identity as not as legitimate as yours. How you come to your conclusions are based purely on prejudice. There are too many grey areas in the transgender crowd for me invalidate anyones identity and I can’t balayage them out of the restroom because they lack perfect gender binary distinction. Your argument and poor evidence of rare occurrence of sexual predators in the ladies room does not rise to the prohibition of transgender women using the ladies room; its been established that a sign designating a female restroom didn’t protect anyone from your examples given. Furthermore the Baltimore County PD have establish “…that claims of rapes by transgender persons false.”

So far, what I've read online there are huge differences in the reasons why some people cross dress'; Some its about fetish, some its about social release and for others its about their expression of their gender identity. Now as I examine the weakness in your position(s) isn't it true that before transition many transsexual women have cross-dressed? So as soon as its declared "I'm transsexual" the cross dressing past changes its definition? REALLY?!

I don't mean to challenge you with these simple questions but lets face it if what your saying is true it should withstand this kind of examination. For example go onto Wikipedia and type in Transgender, look at the history tab and see if someone tried to proffer this edit "Transgender really means full-time cross-dress/transvestite" and you find from independent judgment that this is unsupported presumptions and "vandalism" without evidence.

If gender identity is fluid (BTW it is), that means it can change and be at different degrees. Not always to the same degree that a type VI transsexual may experience but to a lesser need to express that identity. Is this a fare assumption? And cross-dressing at some points may be an expression of that manifest feeling is that just as legitimate? I'm not relying on the gender binary in this approach, that gender binary is the prejudice, is it possible that gender identity could require only some expression, not to the extent of medical intervention?


Elizabeth said...


Actually you have not struck anything since every argument you make strikes out. My problem is I do not suffer fools well and unfortunately you qualify as a fool. Your entire position falls apart based on your own words.

You are embarrassingly out of touch living in California BS. Because there have not been issues in Baltimore County does not mean there have not been unreported issues there and there certainly are issues elsewhere but I will throw it back at you.

Men in dresses have been using ladies rooms for quite a while so why suddenly do they need a law that allows them to? Are these poor men being harassed by women on a daily basis and god forbid being prevented from peeing?

Have women been beating the shit out of men in dresses trying to use our toilets? Nope. The current situation works and has always worked. Is it painful at times for some poor man in a dress? yes it is but none of them have been harmed by women for the simple reason outside of a few women most of us could not take on a man.

The real issue here is you and your friends want to redefine that toilets are a sex defined resource which is a binary condition except in the case of the intersex and they will hopefully get to chose the sex they want but it is binary.

Now you write some drivel trying to compare a man in a dress and a woman in pants and I told you I have no issue if a man wants to wear a dress in public. They could wear a kilt or even a sun dress. They can even use a ladies room if they "pass" but they should not be in ladies spaces in general until after SRS.

So what it comes down to is that I am prejudiced since I do not believe a transvestite or cross-dressers should enter women's spaces. My point of view is you are prejudiced against the sex you so desperately wanted to be that you changed sex but you think so little of women's safety that you do not realize we can police our own bathrooms and we need that right.

Then you bring up the WNBA policy which is kind of weird isn't it? Just for your EDIFICATION the Olympic Policy requires that the woman be at least 2 years post operative or that she has had SRS. Is the next claim going to be that the Olympics support sterilization?

The other question would be how does the Olympic rules and a man in a dress with a penis relate to the current argument we are having?

Elizabeth said...

@BS continued

It is totally unrelated. The gender issue does not work either since by your definition gender is fluid and I agree. Therefore gender cannot be used in a binary toilet system or in women's spaces because that is based on the binary, so how does one determine which gender qualifies for which toilet? Is it a free for all? Many in your gender fluid world deny they are either men or women so what toilet do they use?

The gender identity issue blows up in your face if gender is fluid because the gender identity concept relies on the binary. In its purest designation gender identity was initially meant to describe someone like us but that has now changed but like most thinking a position through and understanding one cannot cover all bases with a single position without obscuring what the position is becomes impossible.

The problem I see with your position is even your position does not fit your argument. If gender was binary you would actually have a possibly valid argument, if it was valid that a transvestite has a gender identity problem but since gender is fluid which identity is at play here?

Toilets and women's spaces are based on sex or sex identity and are binary. You gain admittance by being the correct sex or at least "passing" as the correct sex for women's spaces.

Since there are a myriad of genders and all kinds of gender expression would you like to enlighten us all as to which ones qualify for access to women's spaces? Remember you are the one that said gender is fluid and implied gender is not binary.

We women have policed our own areas since there creation and we do not need the help of fools like you to tell us how to do it. There have been few issues and certainly no assaults on a man in a dress.

The real issue here has always been breaking the illusion of the man in the dress that he actually passes as a woman. This causes great pain to the en femme man and men should never be discouraged even in their little fetish world.

The gender argument fails miserably so try again.

Anonymous said...

Speaking of adages, BS..."If you cannot impress them with your brilliance, try baffling them with your bullshit.

You had better up your game though, because at this point, I have to agree with Elizabeth. Miserable FAIL.

No matter how you cut it, men do not belong in those spaces reserved specifically for the privacy of women. I just don't get it. If you object to the stigma attached to men in dresses, then change that.

The issue is with your fellow men. The only issue women have is with our privacy and your attempts to invade it.

The facts are that as Elizabeth points out, some men do wear skirts with great aplomb. Sean Connery comes to mind, and he looks absolutely dashing in his Scottish kilt.

The point being that he is NOT trying to "pass" as female, and as a result, my guess would be that he would have no problem using the men's room. He is after all a man and clearly so.

The problem arises in instances such as this.....

where a man is trying to pass as a woman and because he simply is NOT a woman, cannot pass as is seen as an imposter.

Anonymous said...

I agree with you that my attempts to understand this and get my head around it are quite clumsy. Maybe you should explain it better. A man in a dress is NOT a woman. However is a transgender woman a woman for the purpose of this discussion.

What we don't have an argument about is that men don't belong in the women's restroom, beating dead horses. So we come to the the defintion of transgender, which we talked about at length, and what I'm hearing here is that TG = full-time TV/CD, "man in a dress" does not equal a woman I disagree with TG = full-time TV/CD, but I do this with some thought and can't find any corroborating sources to support her contention.

Elizabeth said, "How do we protect our pre-operative transsexuals yet keep the men out of women's toilets and private areas? Any suggestions?"

You can't unless you allow TGs access as well. To draw distinctions between a TS's and TG's becomes problematic for the purpose of restroom access. You would have to create a special license to transition that by definition is prejudicial. You also have alot of TS kids declaring themselves TG. The law is needed because of the prejudice against TG's.


A-girl said...

A different perspective maybe?:

BS you said (way the heck up there^):

"However a cross dresser needs a safe place to pee in public. Because cross dressers are a fact of life."

When I was at a point where I Didn't "present" quite so agreeably, I used the "disabled" rest rooms. You know, wheelchairs and all that?, turns out, inside them most of the time they'e a private stall with a normal toilet (it's just got a few hand rails and such around it and a whole bunch'a room) no-one there to beat me up, or for me to make uncomfortable by my appearance and 99% of places have a separate unisex disabled toilet right next to the men's and ladies these days.

Point is; if you're there for honorable reasons (IE: to take a wee or a crap, which is the only importance a toilet ever had to me) then were's the issue?

However, if you have other "motivations" I can see how it might make a difference.

And let's look at what they might be:

maybe to have the world "back you up" in your own delusion that you actually ARE female and/or a woman on that particular day? Well, to that I'd say: 1. it's not the worlds responsibility to do that, and 2. If you need to force them to by law, then how much does it really mean when they do? (I know personally, no-one gets to tell me how or what to think)

If that isn't your reason, then I can only think of one other and that is due to your sinister intentions, in which case should not the safety of the public come first?

Dunno, that's just my simple country mind's way of looking at things.

Elizabeth said...


And she attempts to change course in her argument again.

In reality the numbers of transsexuals are quite low and the majority of those born transsexual and pre surgery are actually not large. 1 in 100,000 for Type VI and 1 in 30,000 for Type V which are the only truly transsexual.

That makes approx 10,000 Type V and 3000 Type VI in the US alive at any one time. Some have claimed 1 in 10,000 but figures do not back that up in countries like Britain etc.

The transgender camp is almost entirely made up of cross dressers and transvestites. There are only a few transsexuals that call themselves TG and none that have surgery that I know of but I am sure there are enough fools out there.

Nice try but per your usual your argument falls apart completely. Assuming my figures are correct then there are 13,000 transsexuals in US but I bet there are several million transvestites. All we have to do is pass laws that state these are transsexual rights bills to avoid the obvious transvestites. Why is that not done?

The reason is simple it has always been and always will be a transvestite issue over bathroom and women's space rights. It is men wanting the right to claim womanhood because they put on a dress.

Just another example of misogyny. Only a man could think a man with a penis qualifies as female for the day.

Anonymous said...

BS To be honest, I really do not see anything at all wrong with the definition TG = full time transvestite. That is after all how the terms creator intended it to a be used. Charles Prince used the term "Transgenderist" to describe himself, therefore those like him would be "Transgender"

Any post op TS or pre op TS for that matter who identifies as transgender are simply misguided individuals who have been taken in by the TG movements obfuscation and rhetoric. Clearly you are one of them. It is surely about time you woke up to the fact you have been duped, simple as that.


Anonymous said...


Those numbers your quoting don't ad up versus the numbers of sergeries performed.



Anonymous said...

OK this is wierd this study shows the prevalence of SRS not the prevalence of transsexualism.

Why is that?


Elizabeth said...


Because if you do not have surgery you are not transsexual? Gee what a freaking novel idea!!!

True transsexuals get surgery??

Lord you really are owned hook, line, and sinker by the TG mafia!!

Actually the numbers are reasonably accurate as I gave them. Even the top SRS surgeons cannot do more than 100-200 surgeries a year. Most do significantly less. I seriously doubt their are more than 10,000 surgeries a year worldwide but then not everyone getting SRS is transsexual either.

Anonymous said...

"True transsexuals get surgery??"

The actuarial numbers of surgeries don't agree with your prevalence predictions. How do you know the 1:30,000 is acutate? The actual number of surgeries places the prevalence at 1:2,500, which renders your predicion falsifiable.

Please clarify.


Elizabeth said...


The claim of 1 in 2500 is made where? Thai surgeons perform 1500 surgeries a year and that is their statistics.

You claim 1 in 2500 which would imply there are at any one time approx 120,000 transsexuals in the United States. If you are claiming that 1 in 2500 have had SRS you are absolutely full of shit. There are not 120,000 sex changes in the United States.

Now if your statistics imply 1 in 2500 claim to be transsexual then you could be correct. If you are implying that 1 in 2500 qualify as good candidates for SRS then you are full of shit or that 1 in 2500 have had a sex change and in this case you are delusional.

Benjamin describes a true transsexual as either Type V or Type VI and by the late 70's both he and Ihlenfeld felt too many unqualified people were getting SRS and the numbers then were small.

Now do yourself a favor and learn how to correctly use the word actuarial.

My numbers are too low and your numbers are too high IMHO but either way there are millions of transvestites while there are very few transsexuals in comparison.

The simple truth is not everyone that get SRS is transsexual but then I gather you would disagree but even Harry realized that by the late 70's.

So far you have changed your argument multiple times in order to win. That is quite typical of men when they are in a losing situation. We both know you are not a man so stop it and just wise up.

Anonymous said...

Could it be that they are counting ALL surgeries associated with TG's, such as FFS, orchi's, and most importantly those surgeries done mistakenly on those poor benighted souls who wished or believed that SRS would "make them a woman"?

Anonymous said...

300,000,000 / 2,500 = 1,200,000???

Does this mean that there are a MILLION+ Post-OP TS's in the world, or in the USA, or the UK?

Or...if my math is off, (or yours is), 120 thousand? That seems like an awful lot. Where are they all? I know about MAYBE(?), 5 world wide, and that is only via these blogs.

It would seem that even if there were twice that many, or even just half, that they have all moved on into the mainstream and live quiet normal lives.

Most certainly they are not advocating for laws that would make accomodations for those choosing to exist outside the binary at the expense of that binary that they suffered and sacrificed so much for, to be a part of.


Anonymous said...


Your using the win/lose paradigm, I'm just looking for understanding and clarity. I'm willing to test the issues with spirited debate. I'm sure you'll find plenty of women in the real world that are much more competative than I am.


This just states SRS conducted in the US as of the date of this study 2002. I'm sure the current numbers are much higher in the last years if they are following trend.

Look at Table 1
1960's 1000 SRS surgeries
1970's 6000-7000
1980's 9000-12,000
1990-2002 14,000-20,000
2002-2012 ????

Following trend would put the numbers pushing 30,000. I'm sure this number is too high and refects some that may have went too far, yet the rate of SRS surgery regret's don't show up high on the charts or prohibative at all. Why is that?


Miz Know-It-All said...

I just read Lynns study. Can I be the only one to see the fallacious assumptions she front loaded into this?

One, that Transvestites can progress to becoming transsexual, when it would seem clear from the evidence of the young TS that one either is or is not TS!

The second is that because an SRS was performed that the person it was done to must in fact be TS... Again this is working from the fallacious base assumption that one can somehow "catch" TS.

So tell me, which of these two things is more likely, that TS is a highly communicable disorder affecting middle aged men... Or that men having cross-dressed for a lifetime have a progressive addiction that in it's end stage in late adulthood leads the more susceptible to thinking they might actually be female for their wanting to wear female garb 24/7?

Anonymous said...

Miz Know-It-All,

If your using the addiction model then once the fix wears off then all those that had SRS who are really transvestites whould be screaming surgery regrets in numbers that would actually dwarf the actual number of transsexuals that Elizabeth predicts. Since you don't have such numbers of surgery regrets wouldn't that suggest satisfaction of results?

"True transsexuals get surgery??" Who said that? So Elizabeth your concede that your 1:30,000 predittion is too low?

Also the per capita number of SRS surgeries in the 60's doesn't reflect the actual number of TS patients, niether does 1970's nor 1980's. So what were all those untreated transsexuals doing? Cross Dressing perhaps?

The use of the term "transgender" doesn't invalidate this result. Using a popular cliche' isn't an argument.


Elizabeth said...


Your math is in error. The correct figure is 125,000


Oh please give me a break. You do not want a spirited debate. You change the debate every time you get squashed. Those figures are estimates and are therefore not scientific but could be accurate.

The large increase in SRS is from late transitioners but even assuming the figures correct in the 90's it was 1400 to 2000 a year. Base on 125,000 transsexuals alive in the USA, by your estimates and assuming a normal distribution by age then taking 70 as a median old age their are approx a max of 1666 transsexuals per year born in the US based on let us say Type V and Type VI which are what Benjamin defined as true transsexuals.

Statistically that is not a lot of people. Even as late as 1977 Harry told me too many people were getting SRS. I have seen estimates that 2% of men cross-dress but I tend not to believe it is that high primarily because I hope it is not. Even at 1% that is 1.5 million assuming 50% male population. It is 10 plus times higher.

Just who does the transgender borg represent again? It sure seems men in dresses based on pure numbers.

Miz Know-It-All said...

Mind you I am not making a value judgement about the desire of a male to be feminine in dress and manner... If that floats your boat and you man enough to take the social abuse that will most certainly come with that then I give my full blessings! But to take this back to the original point. Most of those who are "identifying as TG do in fact have fully intact and working male genitalia yet they are wanting full and open access to all spaces designated for those who do NOT have said male genitalia! While I do not oppose those who want to play dress up. There is no conscionable reason to make women's spaces less secure by giving access to women's spaces to those who are in fact not female!

Miz Know-It-All said...

So by your account then the majority of these late transitioners, and they are the ones who make up these numbers, go on to live highly satisfactory lives as female! Which would beg the question would it not of why they need special accommodations wouldn't it...

As to regretters, I think you will find there are in fact studies that show a higher than expected number of "regretters!" All of whom are late transitioners. all of them, lesbian" and all of them wishing that they had not taken that final step, this without taking into account those who having such a thoroughly male mind set that would not admit they'd something so colossally stupid, even if they were on fire and admitting it was the only way to put the fire out!

Deena said...

If I ever bump into some lout in the ladies room who is loudly asserting his right to pee there I will quietly leave.

Anonymous said...

Miz Know-It-All,

By all means please post that study which shows the regretters, The numbers need to be really high, but of course men being ego driven tend to hide their failings and may just be that, unreported surgery regretters that de-transition. What are the actual numbers?

You see when I began this I was hoping to lay some framework for "grey areas'" and bathroom usage. Y'all handed it to me on a silver platter. So far I have these facts:

One: Gender identy is fluid and not fixed, even though sex is considered mostly binary, we are speakting to the grey area of transitioners in Elizabeths last question in her post. "How do we protect our pre-operative transsexuals yet keep the men out of women's toilets and private areas? Any suggestions?"

Two: Not all cross dresses are sexual fetishists. Now you can post a parade of horrors and the worst is this one, murderer with a panty fetishist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Williams which brings me to my next fact.

Three: The segregated bathroom is in no way a deterrent for sexual preditors.

Four: Transgender doesn not equal full time transvestite/cross dresser. I'm totally open to a real study that show this but so far nil.

Five: No one here can give any clear numbers as to prevalence, the actual numbers are much than Elizabeth's admittatly low estimate, yet no clear number.

Elizabeth is allowing exculpatory reasoning and dishonest hysteria to dictate who gets to use the ladies rest room; transvestite NO, cross-dresser NO, transgender NO, pre-operative transsexual(qaulified by Elizabeth only) YES. All the "No's" are potentially sexual preditors--her arguments totally fail here. Relying on hysteria and cliche's isn't an argument at all to deny a transgender person bathroom access.

If we are talking about absolutes then sure you can make such distinction as to only genetic women in the ladies room, but so far the facts borne out that several items, which are quite clear there ins't a clear definition as to primacy of gender dysphoria, causality of gender dysphoria, frequency of events that one could conclude that a TG's motivation is to rape other women in the ladies rest room, prevalence of TSity, demographic spread, environmental factors, and what defines "pre-operative transsexual?"

I'm totally open to you narrowing the line to whom is a real pre-operative transsexual but doing so with absolute statements makes it easy to cross examine, proving multiple grey areas.


Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

Question: "The argument is men do not belong in women's spaces even in a dress. Where is your response to that and your argument that men have a right to women's spaces?" Elizabeth

RESPONSE: I guess that brings into question who decides in any given moment what gender you are? Since your using a gendered term "men" vs male I suppose the individual decides what gender they are based on dress and appearance. That's the law in the County of Baltimore." BS

To me this exchange provides an excellent example of the futility of arguing/debating with the TG. It is like trying to talk sense to jello. Never going to happen.

Remember, the #1 rule when arguing with men: Men are always right!

Rule #2: When the men are obviously wrong, refer to rule #1

It seems most obvious to me that the simplest answer, to the question of who decides a persons' perceived gender, would be, most logically the perceiver. It is up to the presenter to "present" the appropriate gender.

I guess my question would be what has any of this to do with the sex of that person, which is for the most part, binary.

Elizabeth said...


You do realize that last paragraph with that question was rhetorical don't you? Oops, that would require some common sense.

Sometimes you can make the man a girl but you cannot take the man out of the girl!!

Elizabeth said...


The last line of previous comment was not aimed at anyone in particular but at the TG crowd in general.


One of the things you need to learn about inteelignet argument is when you are in a deep hole stop digging because eventually the ladder will not get you out.

You are in deep hole without a ladder.

Miz Know-It-All said...

I've a rather full life, so where it not that I am royally pissed off at these bloody obvious men with their dead cat wigs running around pretending to be me, or you for that matter, whilst playing gurl as part of their "transgender spectrum?" Frankly? I wouldn't give a flaming rats ass what they, or you do! Nor would I bother to waste the breath on either of you. So if you REALLY want those numbers I suggest that you do your own damn leg work and you go find out how many regretters there are... The studies are out there if you would but look. Might I suggest you start with McHugh from Johns Hopkins and Blancard from The Clark as regretters are very VERY much their thing... Then maybe you can work your way back through Blanchard and Bailey who are also fond of that issue. I'm sure in the interest of fairness you can keep on going through all the studies till you get to the rah rah section with folks like Julia Serano and Helen Boyd where it's all sunshine and daises and everyone is whatever "gender" they say they are no matter what the hell that actually means!

Miz Know-It-All said...

Now, that said, and before you drag up even more of these silly idiotic red herrings so you can pretend yet again to be far far more clever than you are. Lets get back to the point of all this shall we? You know... That big red shiny candy like point you keep running round and round and round trying oh so hard to avoid seeing? Namely... Why it is so damned important ANY man's potential safety and his possible fear of being being assaulted by other men because he is playing girl. Completely and totally override that of ANY women who being smaller and weaker also fears for her safety when she is forced to accept men into her intimate and vulnerable spaces? Oh wait! What am I thinking! Silly me! They are men! So by God! They have their God given right of dominion to do anything they want to do don't they! I mean that's not Male Privilege speaking? Oh No no no! It's their "Transgender Right!" Silly silly me! And here I though that as you are a woman that women's rights to safety and security might possibly matter more to you! Oh yeah, I get it, it does unless you are a "trans-woman!" Sorry! My bad!

Miz Know-It-All said...

Tell me BS. seriously! Are you really so utterly naive that you think that if a man sticks his swinging dick inside a pair of pink panties, marchs it right into a sex segregated ladies bathroom, lockeroom or fitting room that he actually becomes a female? No? How can I say that cause it's sexual binary elitism? When clearly! This is all about "Gender Expression" you say... Oh you mean like as in Fetish! Got you! Really Get out! Really? Who would have thunk it! Oh wait, got it wrong again didn't I? Thank you! You're so right... That can't possibly be a fetish can it? I mean it's not at all like these men have a history going back two, three, four, five decades or even more of putting on women's undies and whacking off is there? I mean get real. What self respecting cross-dresser EVER waxes on and on and on in their literature about what it feels like to be putting on those oh so soft and silky panties over those sleek smooth hose before they slip into their high high heels and snap their garters to in the ladies bath/shower/fitting or locker-room! Nope! No no fetish there! I mean it's not like they somehow lived full and happy lives as men, breeding up a whole mess of young ones and grand-babies by having regular two and three time a week penetrative sex with the misses... Noooo what was I thinking! Why of course it can't be a fetish when it's so obvious that now, over half a century later, they simply lost the good fight and are fully consumed with their gender dysphoria so they MUST be "gendered" as feminine by the entire world!... (but pssst... just between us gurls, I think he really wants to keep the willie cause you know, wink wink nudge nudge, come Saturday night, how else can he slip it to the little woman? Humpa humpa humpa!)

Yes you are clearly right BS, You win, you are certainly the more skilled debater here...Truly! You are a master of debaters!

Anonymous said...

Miz Know-it-All,

Instead of hot air to fill useless space please provide the link to support you contention. Your argument fails without it. Simple huh?


Anonymous said...

"Like talking sense to jello." Brilliant, Anon! And you just know the Transvestite Lobby is counting every nose job as if it were SRS.

There's no way there are more than a thousand or two SRS ops performed in North America every year, and even that seems high. The surgeons' throughput doesn't support any more than that. Some people go abroad for SRS, but then, other people from abroad come here, so it should balance out more or less. 3000 per annum in N. America, max. And that's pushing it to the absolute ragged edge.

But there's more to it than just adding them all up. 2/3 to 3/4 of those who do get it, are age 45 or older. One prominent surgeon's staff recently told me that of four patients, typically one would be teen or early 20s, one mid-40s, one mid-50s, and one over 60!

My point being, these stats need a birth/death model to account for attrition.

Also, because of the attrition issue, about half of all living post-ops will have emerged and dealt with it young. Think about it: 25 years later, the 45-y/o patient is 70 and statistically likely to have died, anyone who did it older would almost certainly be gone, and the early-emerger is around 45-50. So the young-emerging ones will pile up in the post-op statistics over time.

So I figure, whatever post-op counts you're seeing, divide by two right off the top to account for attrition. The denominator may actually be more than that. And if you just want to count those who deal with it young, the high-intensity "true blue" cases as it were, divide by at least *eight* to get a maximum outside boundary number. Maybe call it 10, and just slide the decimal over one place?

-- A.R.

PS: Good to see you around again, MKIA. Missed you.

Miz Know-It-All said...

BS, If you really really want to know the numbers, might I suggest you pull out YOUR purse and go to the medical journal Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica. The Swedes have tons of studies going back decades on this very subject. Studies that give accurate numbers and diagnostic factors predictive of a good or poor outcome. Oh, and they also show there is a clear and distinct demarcation between transsexual and the mentally disturbed, and or transvestites. Oh but wait... Darn, my bad! That's not going to work is it? Cause the TG have determined the Swedish Medical world is populated by a bunch of eungenically minded Nazi devils pushing their forced sterilization on innocent TG with the inexcusable and obviously insane idea that someone born male, who supposedly transitions to female should... i dunno... loose the man bits?

Funny then isn't it? How that takes us right back to "That big red shiny candy like point" "Why it is so damned important ANY man's potential safety and his possible fear of being being assaulted by other men because he is playing girl. Completely and totally override that of ANY women who being smaller and weaker also fears for her safety when she is forced to accept men into her intimate and vulnerable spaces?"


Anonymous said...

One of the ways anthropologists examine the sophistication of societies is to look at the manner in which it protects or treats the vulnerable members of that society. Women and children are usually considered as a priority because therein lays the future. Also vulnerable in that they are generally physically weaker than males. By and large women are protected through laws of nature i e In a civilised society men do not beat women. Though if you read the bible there are many passages where men are given instruction on how to do it!

That aside, what the TG are doing is arguing that THEY are vulnerable and therefore need protection. In truth their motivation is to give themselves a legal loophole that allows them access to "female only" space so their little fantasy bubble is not burst. Poor dears need their fantasies don't they. They get these privileges because they are persistent and because any opposition to their demands plays on the reluctance of the law to appear prejudicial towards particular groups. From that perspective this society has lost it's way because in granting privilages to TG's it is neglecting it's primary duty towards women and children. How many attacks on women in their private spaces will it take for this law to be rejected? This should not be an argument of statistics this should be an argument of protection not just physical protection but also protection of the dignity of females.