Autumn Sandeen in a post in the San Diego LGBT Weekly is again trying to deconstruct transsexualism and make the unknowing believe it is terminology that has seen its time and should be put into the world of pejoratives like other derogatory words. She even brought Christine Jorgensen from the grave in an attempt to justify the concept that transsexual should be replaced with transgender.
There has long been some that are offended by the "sex" part of transsexual which is a little baffling when one considers we change sex and not gender and "transsex" describes that very process of crossing to another sex or changing sex. It is truly what being transsexual has always been about but not any longer it seems, well certainly to most in the transgender umbrella for sure.
I actually met Jorgensen in the Spring of 1960 in Harry's office. Something horrid had happened to me and Harry arranged the meeting which is ironic because I had no idea who she was. We wrote back and forth for a few years but after Kevin died and my adventure in Aversion Therapy in the summer of 1963 I stopped communicating with everyone from my family, to Harry, to Jorgensen, with the exception of my older brother Ray. In a little tiny irony she was the first person I ever read or heard use the term "tranny" but that was the early 60's.
The real irony of this attempt to make transsexual a sexualization of "trans" people is the simple truth the only ones being sexualized are those of us that had SRS because we were and are the only women involved. They are trying to link the sexualization of women with the sexualization of transsexuals by some. The other irony here is the person writing this article has a penis, sans balls, and they have as much chance of being a female sex object as a cement wall. The other way they attempt to denigrate transsexuals is by claiming since she-males advertise themselves as transsexuals the word is bad. I think a little explanation is needed for the men in dresses crowd.
A tranny chaser is a man that likes his women to have tits plus a dick and balls. They will chase pre-op transsexuals and they will chase drag queens and they might even chase transvestites but what they are after is a she-male or a combination of both sexes but with the male sex characteristics basically intact. A tranny chaser will not chase women nor those who have had SRS. They would chase Monica Roberts because she has an intact male anatomy. They might even chase Sandeen but they would have to lower their standards in that case.
Most She-Males are about as transsexual as a Drag Queen but some are because being a She-Male has earning potential for SRS as does the Drag world. She-males advertise themselves as transsexual so the Tranny Chasers will know who and what they are because that is their clientele. Claiming that because She-Males use transsexual is bad for those that are transsexual is like claiming women should find another term for themselves because transvestite hookers are women.
Another reason for the "sex" issue in transsexual is because sex is in the name. The ones whining about this are heterosexual men who often claim that SRS is not about the sex as in fucking which does beg one question. Why would you want a vagina if you were not going to use it. The reason is simple for those that feel that way. Getting rid of the dick and balls makes them feel "less male" but certainly "not more female" because most women I know want good sex as bad as any man does and you can count me in that category.
Many of the ones in that camp claim to be asexual which is a misinterpretation of what Benjamin said because Harry was talking about transsexuals pre SRS and many are asexual rather than have any sex at all before SRS. Most of the women I have known like me thoroughly enjoy sex but there are a few that do not like there are some natal women that do not but one must wonder if they met the right partner, male or female, how long that would last. Besides they are men and the thought of being penetrated is not something men accept easily even with a vagina in place. This also goes for our lesbian sisters.
In the article Sandeen claims the word "trans" people united behind was "transgender in the 90's. Actually this is untrue because mostly activists like Wilchins and her ilk moved that way but not those born transsexual once they realized the true makeup of the new umbrella. It is why people are opposed to transgender. The other issue we had and have is when we are "cured" with SRS most of us want to leave behind the public side of being transsexual because we are women.
I do love the "diversity" model concept used by Sandeen and the belief that the "visibly" trans are the ones that face all the discrimination and all the rights gained are for those born transsexual. Just what are those rights? They are mostly rights that allow us to "just" be women.
When was 14 years old I was raped by my brutish neighbor. Thankfully I have not one single memory of the event except for the first few minutes since he fractured my skull to keep me quiet. All he kept muttering to me as he ripped my clothes off and hit me was, "I'll show you what it means to be a woman", while nearly killing me. Every time Sandeen opens her mouth or puts pen to paper or keyboard to word processor or keyboard to internet post I feel like Sandeen is telling me and everyone before and to come that "He will tell us what it means to be a woman" and we must listen or I must listen. What the fuck does Sandeen or Monica Roberts or any of these penis packing activist assholes understand about being a woman? They are men and it shows through in every word.
Sandeen wants to reject medicalization because we recognize it as our cure and they look at it as forced sterilization or castration. We want transsexualism to be a medical condition because most of us that have finished that path recognize the fact we are cured and simply women. We are not some hyphenated form of woman with "trans" or "transgender" in front. We look at that as a denigration of our womanhood. Sandeen and her ilk look at it as a badge of honor because they want to be special and recognized as special because they are "trans" whatever.
The goal of these transgender assholes is the deconstruction or destruction or removal of transsexual from usage because it clearly defines a specific group of people. It defines those that want a sex change. The problem is the actual word or meaning they want to redefine and deconstruct is female and woman. They want female and woman to include them in their penis packing panties with their 5o'clock shadows and other male accoutrements.
They demand to be accepted as women rather than earning that privilege by becoming a woman and living a life that earns one womanhood. They want to legislate themselves female and they are winning some battles but some people are standing up to them.
Look at the hubris these penis packing men have. They actually are demanding that lesbians accept them as women, lesbians, sex partners, and feminists because they say they are despite packing a penis in the panties. Sounds a little like another version of "I'll tell you what it means to be a woman" only this time it is "I'll tell you what it means to be a lesbian feminist" and you will like!! That is like a pre-op transsexual telling a heterosexual man that "you will accept me as a woman and fuck me up the ass but pretend it is a vagina and like it"!! Not likely.
The irony is these penis packing lesbian feminists are outraged that lesbian feminists will not accept them as women. They do not want to have to work as women in the work place and actually be women in the real world they are "demanding" to be accepted because they say so. How fucking manly of them. I am a heterosexual woman but I have to imagine the creeps it brings to a lesbian at the thought of a lesbian with a functional penis.
The real goal along with removing transsexual from the vernacular is to deconstruct what female and women means. This is clearly a case of men trying to tell women what it means to be what is our essence of existence and our physical presentation. I guess it is now okay to have a man bulge in a bikini and transphobic to point it out.
It is transphobic to point out that transvestites are not women and should not be treated nor allowed access as such. It is transphobic to criticize anything they say because after all "man knows best". It is even transphobic to point out that someone is an obvious man in a dress that turns out to be a registered sex offender.
Is it bad to say that having the GLBT or GLAAD or any of its rags representing us is akin to appointing a third generation inbred redneck with an IQ of 35 to head Mensa. We have not one thing in common with them.
It is important that transsexualism be termed a medical condition but if that happens the the transvestites are recognized for what they are which is men with a social problem or fetishists. I actually have nothing against them and wish them no harm as long as they do it on their own time and at accepted places where they gather but it will be a very snowy day in hell when I accept them as women because they put on a dress, heels, and a wig and stuff the dick and balls in panties and parade around town. They are men because they will go back to being men.
I have to wonder why NOW has not been heard on the redefinition of female. Are they just too dumb to realize what is happening or do they favor penis in the panties women?