I have been embroiled in the Colleen Francis bullshit for a while now and it really bothers me. One of the reasons it bothers me is the reaction of the so-called transgender leaders who have jumped to support this pervert or even claim one bad apple does not spoil the barrel as some believe.
The irony here is these same people rightfully scream about the issues involving the rapes of women by men. They excoriate the police for not defending women and those of us born transsexual or even the transgendered that are raped. Rape is the ultimate act of dominance by a man over a woman. It is a man saying I can do with you as I want because I am a man. It is a hideous crime with very long range ramifications for the victims of rape.
After I met Benjamin I started down the hormone path and my life seemed to be heading for a happy future. I had a boyfriend that really liked me and accepted me as a girl which still amazes me to this day. Within a month of returning from the meeting everyone seemed to know I was transsexual and school life was the best it ever was. One boy said it really meant sense to him that I was really a girl. Well, I was on my way to girl but far from being as female, as I realized.
I was 14 years 1 month and several weeks old when my neighbor Chuck finally fulfilled his fantasy and actually physically raped me and beat me into submission. I will never know if he did it because he saw me as a girl or the effeminate boy he so desired. I am reminded of that day every time I wash my hair because I can feel the areas where they drilled into my head to release the pressure on my brain because he fractured my skull in two places.
All I remember is being told by him his wife wanted to see me and I liked his wife and if she was home there was no threat. I remember getting hit and kind of remember him pulling off or trying to pull off my clothes when I blacked out. I did manage to scratch him I gather but I have no memory of that. It was bad enough I was transferred to Massachusetts General where the brain surgery was performed. This was 1959 and female rape victims rarely got to see their rapist arrested so it was worse for me.
He claimed I attacked him with my 115 pounds of muscled (sic) fury and he had to defend himself with his 220 pounds of manhood and anally rape me for some reason. It was his second attempt and his first success at raping me. Thankfully I have no memory of what happened and I recovered with the help of a boy, his family, my family, and Dr. Benjamin who actually came to see me in the hospital.
Those in the transgender community talk about rape yet they cannot see that simply allowing individuals with male genitalia into secure female spaces is dangerous. There are reasons someone keeps their penis and balls and it is because the majority of them use them during sex and the vast majority of them consider themselves lesbian which means they are attracted to women. Now these individuals need a functioning penis for sexual gratification but this is never talked about because they are women, because they say they are, this is bullshit.
I really have little issue if they want to live en femme but if you strip off the dress underneath at best they may have breasts but they have functioning male genitalia, Autumn Sandeen excepted. Now if a man walked into a secure female dressing, shower or locker uninvited holy hell would break out. If a man walked into said areas and exposed his junk it would result in outrage and arrest. Wearing a dress and makeup with functioning male equipment by definition makes you a threat to any woman if you are predisposed to such behavior but since we women have no clue about your predisposition we scream for help because it is a danger and we recognize it as such.
The transgender love to claim this violates their civil and human rights and that is bullshit. It violates the civil and human rights of females and women to be forced to accept men in our spaces. Even if said men claim to be women with male genitalia. Mr Francis was and is on a very low estrogen dosage and is not using blockers of any kind according ton his own web site. He and his ilk want functioning male genitalia because they use it during sex with women. Anyone that uses male genitalia for sex is a man and it is undeniable.
These same male equipped individuals scream bias because lesbians will not accept them as women and allow them to date lesbians. Isn't it kind of odd how none of them bitch about men not accepting them as women and wanting to have sex with them? They know the result of that scenario and it rarely ends well for them but with women they face little physical threat unless they run into a tough dyke. I might pay to see that fight.
It seemingly flies right over their heads that allowing these individuals into secure female areas uninvited is dangerous, but that is actually not true because they know the danger but it is not to them. From a women's position even the slightest increase in the potential for a sexual threat is unacceptable. Women always have to worry about sexual aggression in men.
It was something I had to learn after SRS. After my first divorce I was very careful when I dated and even a hint of aggression meant the man was dropped. Maybe that was the fear from my childhood rape but if a man so much as indicated he had the proclivity to get rough he was gone.
The entire concept of the non-op is troublesome for many of us that fought so hard for SRS. I do understand some are medically unable to have SRS but they are very few in number. The entire concept of non-op is keeping their male genitalia, well it is for the very high majority without question. So can someone tell me why women should accept them as fellow women when they want male parts? What am I missing here?
These same assholes talk about rape, feminism, and rights like they actually have a clue what it means to struggle as a woman in the work place, to be threatened with rape or be raped by a man, and the myriad other issues women face. They will never be asked, "why aren't you home raising a family", as I was many times by men in the workplace. They knew nothing of my past so it seemed logical to them. They will transition at work but will never face the prospect of being paid 70% of what a man makes because the men need extra money for their "family". They will never be passed over for promotion because they are too assertive. They will never be passed over for promotion because they are too smart for their own good. They have protection for that because they are "trans". In theory women do also but in the workplace try and prove it.
It is all part of the attempt by men to invade women's spaces. Are you trying to tell me that a so-called woman that claims to be a woman and wants his male parts working because he is attracted to women is not going to get aroused at the site of naked females? It is why there is a billion dollar porn industry for their perusal. This is just free porn.
Now we who oppose these "women" with functioning male genitalia in our spaces are called bigots, transphobic, Nazi's, associated with the KKK, and other sundry nasty names. Please explain to me why preventing anyone with functioning male genitalia from secure female spaces is any of the above? These fools have no support from anyone outside their own little circle of fellow loons. The public is so overwhelmingly opposed to this it borders on unanimous condemnation yet it continues.
It is neither bigotry nor transphobic to want "women" with functioning male genitalia to stay out of secure female spaces. In point of fact it is simply common sense, a common sense we women have understood for eternity. Men regardless of how they disguise themselves do not belong in secure female spaces uninvited for our safety and even if the percentage of danger is 1 chance in a 100,000, it is one chance too many.
These fools fear the repercussions from their fellow men so they invade female spaces under the ruse it is safer for them en femme. Well it is safer for them but it is less safe for women, so just who needs protection and who is endangered? I guess it is easier for them to endanger women to protect themselves. We will accept all who have had SRS but categorically deny those same undeserved privileges to anyone that keeps male genitalia for any reason. Women's secure spaces are for those with a vagina and not dick and balls.
One transgender activist even tried to equate naked women in secure female facilities with her transgender pals which associates naked women as no different that naked "women" with male junk because they are after all women identified. This individual in a comment on another blog actually stated "trans" people should be registered so they have the privilege of using female facilities which somehow nullifies the inherent danger of someone attracted to women with male genitalia being physically allowed in private female spaces. Yeah like that would work.
For a long time I thought this was misogynistic behavior but in reality it is just pure male chauvinistic behavior. They are better than us and we will accept this or be damned for not accepting it. We are inferior which is why they keep the male parts. Those damn vagina's are good to stick their dick in but damn how can they pee on a tree and mark their territory with the damn thing plus maintenance and upkeep is a pain.
It is simply men being men and has not one damn thing to do with being female or a woman. It is truly that simple.
16 comments:
Shemales.
Very well put Elizabeth.
NYF
very well put. Vast Majority of the TEE-GEE crowd are Men with a sick fetish. Vast majority of them have no intention of getting SRS. Which is why most of them will never be the opposite gender, no matter how hard they try.
Just something I feel should be clarified; as far as I am aware (and I'll admit that is NOT due to medical expertise but largely due only to what I've read of people's personal experiences), there is NO reason why an Orchiectomy would/should prevent a male "functioning" well enough to rape someone (in the physical sense) IE Autumn Sandeen INCLUDED.
What gets me about this whole sordid affair is the idea of regulation. The regulation that to this violation of a safe space was not directed at women safety but rather at civil rights protections for self identified transgender individuals. The difficulty is that this is nonchalant regulation without considering the deleterious impact on women. Statistics show that “The U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (1997) estimated that 91% of United States rape victims were female and 9% were male, with 99% of the offenders being male and 1% of the offenders being female.[1].
Quite apart from Coleen Francis this is an abject failure of the regulation. The failure to foresee the deleterious effect on women is the result of a male viewpoint in drafting such regulations and even worse their interpretation by the university. From a male viewpoint the safety issue does not exist. A male identified biological female without surgery in a men’s locker room would be exposed to extraordinary danger which is why it would never happen.
That transgender activists defend this behavior is no surprise really. It’s the same dumbness that makes men believe that a self identified transgender person with a dick is no danger to women as long as they say so. As did the University by hanging up curtains. WTF
Thank you for writing this. I have searched the internet for TG reactions to the Colleen F incident and all I found was either defense or silence.
I cannot express how much it means for me to have found a reasonable voice, a female voice, to stand up and say that it isn't right. Thank you sister. For this sort of loyalty and understanding of the female experience is what shows that you have a woman's perspective.
And those who can't understand it, who seek to invalidate a female's right to spaces without males, who undermine women's rights, who want to keep their penises and gain access to every last inch of female-only spaces - those will never be women. No matter what their passport says.
Look at this. http://sexnotgender.wordpress.com/2012/11/14/advanced-topics-in-gender-identity-male-nudity-and-fraud-prevention/
It was the answer I was looking for without the invective character assisinatilons.
B.S.
Nothing has been said about this pervert that is not true. Further, I would submit, based on evidence, that any supposed trans "woman" who is willing to be seen nude in women's space is, at best, delusional and quite probably is a fraud.
It's all thought-provoking. More and more I suspect that the only 'right' answers when confronted by a penis-waving whacko in the shower-room are:
a) scream loudly and raise a ruckus; don't back down.
or, if you're quick-witted enough:
b) point to it, giggle, and aver that it looks like a penis but it's smaller.
Either choice works as a means of aversive conditioning unto whacko perverts.
It still causes me to shake my head and wonder just what the legislators were **smoking** the day they drafted that law in Washington?
Sign me,
recalcitrant old elfchick in South Wales
postscript: more and more I am thinking that the correct way to deal with this kerfuffle is to simply disengage and get on with one's life. Isn't that what we wanted from the very outset: to get on with life?
**hugs** all around in light of the current nuttiness
I'm not sure how we're going to determine if a penis is "functional" or not, short of someone with an erection (which probably can and should invoke indecent exposure laws).
Someone on hormones, for instance, very likely "can't get it up." I'm assuming that's a "non-functional" penis by your definition. Or is it being able to urinate that makes it functional (what about men who's urethra doesn't exit their penis)? Or what about old guys that haven't taken their viagra and can't get it up - clearly they shouldn't be in the locker room of women, even if it's non-functional.
It's a lot more complex than "if it has a penis, keep it out." I do agree we need privacy and safety when people are undressed and vulnerable. But you don't get that with signs on the door or policies.
We have to understand the Tee-Gees are men and don't know any other way to react.
NYF
Yes you do. The sign reads, "WOMEN".
That means NO PENISES. (Functioning or not).
I was washing-up in the communal shower-room with several other women at the works yesterday afternoon (work makes us quite grubby and nobody wants to go home covered in dirt and sweat).
We've got just the one big shower coming out the ceiling, so we take turns helping each other get the dust off our backs, etc.
What's said in the baths usually stays in the baths, but I'll make the exception to allow that yesterday's conversation turned to the Francis case in America and the opinion was unanimous: raise a ruckus and run that creepy pervert out of there, at point of broomsticks if need be.
Consider that as another data point, from working-class women in the UK, where nobody seems to be particularly patient with acting-out one's fantasies in public spaces.
Sign me,
somewhat-less-dusty elfchick
Truth be known, MKIA is a bit of a hippie chick and so, has found herself more than once at "clothing optional" events... Which translates as the last one naked is a rotten egg! When this happens, the thought, other than wondering what that cute guy chatting me up is packing, is how "they" can say "they're women" till the cows come home AND they turn blue in the face for good measure. But out here in the real world there are two and only two flavors of human. Male, Female.
Mr Francis has shown, he is not female... ergo, he has no business in female only spaces! Thanks to him and the few other pervy wankers like him. These trans-protection laws are toast! They have no one to blame but themselves!
As an aside, something tells me that you've watched Gangnam Style...
Huh?
Post a Comment