Monday, August 19, 2013

More Thoughts on AB1266

I need to comment on a comment made by Autumn Sandeen on the previous blog post but I need a complete post to do it. I appreciate the comments and as most know I welcome even Sandeen's comments in an attempt to keep an open dialog except for a loon in Connecticut all are welcome to post.

I mean no offense to anyone that reads this blog but on the subject of transsexual children you are all clueless because quite bluntly none of you have ever lived the experience these children are going through.  I have lived them personally and a friend and I have shepherded 10 young transsexuals into their adult female selves. Anything that helps any kid is worth the risk and I see little downside although I have some reservations I will keep an eye on.

I need to make several comments on Autumn's comment so here goes. Sandeen said the following:

One is the sad reality is that transsexual has the word "sex" in the middle of it, as well as the related reality of having the term transsexual being coopted by the porn industry. Last I read a few years ago, transsexual and she-male labeled porn is fastest growing sector in the porn industry. As such, much of what males in American society know about transsexual women is the false impression that much of transsexual porn gives of transsexual women.

That is a stupid reason for denying the use of the correct medical term transsexual. We change sex, we do not change gender. You tools in the Transgender Activists union constantly try to remind us that gender is fluid and cannot be accurately defined in the binary yet you then claim it is "gender reassignment surgery" until you changed it to "gender confirmation surgery" which by your own usage is not definable because gender is too fluid but then that is what you wanted, wasn't it? Just how do you perform gender surgery. Is that the same as changing from boy mode to girl mode? Does  a nice set of EEE implants qualify? Gender has always been cultural and would still be without the misinformation being spread by people like Sandeen.

The reason Benjamin used transsexual is "because" we changed sex or crossed over to another sex and by the way all the children that are born transsexual and are transitioning are primarily heterosexual females so boys and sex "are" important to them as it was to me. Just to make it clear the word sex in transsexual is not about intercourse but simply recognizing that we change sex.

So you read transsexual and she male porn was fast growing so that makes it necessary to deny the term transsexual? What a crock of horse manure and I see lots of that here on this ranch but yours smells to high heaven. Well gay porn is big business and growing quickly so maybe we should start using some other word to describe them. Not likely is it?

The only males that seek out she male porn are the tranny chasers and the gay men that want to make themselves believe they are not gay, they are one and the same by the way. It is minuscule and of little relevance except maybe for your pal Monica Roberts who calls herself transgender but is in fact a she-male because and I quote, "her men like her 7 inch neoclit (dick)". The only men that like dicks on women are gay men and that is a simple fact so maybe you should consider using another name other than transgender which by the way is now the word of choice for the she-males who once pretended to be transsexual and now pretend to be transgender or actually fit under the umbrella.

The term transsexual also has the imagery of sex change operations -- which many in society, as we know, consider icky and weird. When the term transsexual is used in conjunction with children and youth, the mental image of many social conservatives have is what they consider to genital mutilation of 5-year olds genitalia.

Another crock of horse manure. The only ones that consider it "icky and weird" are people like you and your pals and certain nutjobs. Pat Robertson supports SRS and considers us female and acceptable afterwards as do many social conservatives so your silly attempt to rationalize not using transsexual because it upsets others is a pile of crap. It upsets you because you are not in favor of SRS. In fact I believe maintenance issues were why you did not get it but we know the truth. Not one single person thinks a 5 year old child's genitals are going to be mutilated. If they do then they are as dumb as a fence post and do not count.

It is just another canard floated by the transgender flunkies in order to justify the usage of transgender.

Here is another quote that is interesting.

It's good to keep in mind that Christine Jorgensen embraced the term transgender (spelled as she did, trans-gender) to specifically refer to transsexual people. From the Winnipeg Free Press on October 18, 1979: 
"'If you understand trans-genders,' she says, (the word she prefers to transsexuals), 'then you understand that gender doesn’t have to do with bed partners, it has to do with identity.'"

I was raped by a man in February of 1960, just after I started hormones, and I suffered serious injuries and Dr. Benjamin asked my mother to bring me to NYC in April of 1960 because even though he visited me in Mass General he was worried.  14 year old kids like me can have trouble getting over something like that. He brought me there because he wanted to meet with my mother and me to discuss my treatment regimen and he wanted me to meet someone.

I met that someone in a private room in his offices with my mother and it was Christine Jorgensen. The irony was I had no idea who she was which amused her no end. It took my mom and Harry several minutes to explain that I was talking to a grownup me. She invited me to write to her if I had questions or concerns and we stayed in touch until shortly before her death in 1989. Not one time did she ever use the term transgender or trans-gender in her writings and always considered herself transsexual. Her assistant or manager did suggest I could write less than 5 times a week

Maybe in real life, since she made her living being Christine Jorgensen, it was convenient to glom onto transgender to further her career. For what it is worth she never used that word in any letter written to me.

Transgender does have a meaning regarding an umbrella term when the term is used within broader communities -- including LGBT/LGBTQIA community and their subcommunities -- but it's not the same meaning that's used within legislative and regulatory contexts.
That is a lie and you know it. Transgender has one meaning and that is as an umbrella term that includes transvestites, she-males, drag queens etc. and when the word transgender is specified then they are covered by the law. Show me anywhere where it is legally defined that Transgender has a different meaning in the law and in the general public. Not even Black Swan is silly enough to make that argument.

Transsexuals have a sex identity problem and since they almost universally consider themselves female they are not facing a gender identity problem. Gender identity has been co-opted so badly that transvestites and she males now claim they have the same gender identity issue they casually claim transsexuals have whenever it is convenient to use the word transsexual as you have many times including when you had your castration performed.

Transsexual is dragged out when the tough questions are asked about transgender. or when convenience requires it and it is used by all of you self appointed activists. You need the implication that transgender means transsexual and your comment proves this very point.


Anonymous said...

My deepest apologies for having a hand in the derailing of this topic but I simply could not stand by and let the mealy palp that has become our narrative go unaddressed! I spent the better part of the preceding two years quietly reading all, and I do mean all our critics words, listening to them to distill if and what they were saying was in anyway true from what was clearly not. Time and time again I came to the same place where it was clear that they all did in fact have some part of it very right but on the whole, they had most of it terribly wrong. which begged the question of why? Why would such varied critics have such different answers yet get some part dead to rights?

It came down to a very simple answer. It was the language they were all using!. A language that was created, not to make clear what is what so this could be rationally discussed. Rather, it was a language that was created to do the very opposite! A language that by design obfuscates and obliterates. A language that is meant to equate by confusion things which are anything but the same! A language that would have Orwell laughing (or perhaps crying) because it was in fact the epitome of "New Speak!" "It" of course is the "Language of Trans!"

As for the needs of the young... you are right. I do NOT know what it feels like to be in their shoes! It was one of the points of greatest confusion for me growing up, that as I read everything I could lay hand to, that the recurrent description of the high intensity TS was not talking about me! That it could also fall under a lower intensity would take me years and years to understand... concluding when I actually met some of these rarer than rare kids... It was at that moment that I understood exactly what this was all about and that I thanked the gods for sparing me that burden because I would not have survived it!

So back to topic... this bill is a very good first step towards helping those who need it the most, but still I fear that as long as the language being used continues with this same milk sop that equates the kid trying to kill themselves out of the sheer pain and frustration of being born transsexual as being no different than the discomfort of a sixty year old fetishist gone to seed... that there will be a an eventual back lash and as we both know... it is the kids who will suffer from it.


Anonymous said...

The transvestites and fetishists like Sandeen are pushing hard to not only erase us from our own narrative but they are along with the rest of the gays sexualizing children.

They started all of this by directing their attention away from their own sexual fetishes by using the word gender in combination with trans.
They know they are transvestites or lifestyle sissies. (Sandeen admits to this) They have made their sickness politically correct at our expense, and at the expense of all women.

Go fuck yourself Autumn.
You are a disease.

Anonymous said...

What you are witnessing is classic TG 'New Speak'. By conflating the two clearly distinct terms, TG and TS, they are able to use those legitimate needs of kids to benefit the "poor TG victims" AKA, creepy men in dresses.

Anonymous said...


Isn't that what creepy men in dresses want to do exploit children?


Just Jennifer said...

Well, yes, I would say a very large portion, oh probably near half, of the human race considers SRS to be "icky and weird." Actually, it would probably be better to say that they find it downright "terrifying." Explain to a the average male, Sandeen, included, what is involved in SRS, and watch then blanch, look pained, perhaps cross their legs, grab for the genital area, and quickly demand that you stop describing it.

But, I am sure they would have the same reaction a discussion of the treatment for testicular cancer, or worse penile cancer. Or a discussion of a very type of land mine I remember reading about in the book "Everything You Always Wanted To Know About Sex..." Early on during my transition a friend showed me part of a film called "Shocking Asia," that included actual footage shot during SRS and breast augmentation surgery. The scene of a SRS, which was quite graphic did not bother me at all, but the footage showing how they enlarge the area to insert a breast implant was excrutiating to watch. My friend commented of my reaction, "Yes, no 'man' could watch the SRS without having a visceral reaction, but any woman seeing that about the breast implants would feel rather squeamish."

All that said, a lot of people, including two of the surgeons who performed my SRS (the third was female) were able to move past that and recognize that it was medically necessary.

The fact that some, such as Sandeen, are obsessed with being, as Robert Stoller (who was heavily influenced by "Virginia" Prince") put it, being "women with penises" does not negate the legitimacy of the term "transsexual.

Anonymous said...

And here is just one more sad example of the tragic consequences of this perverted 'gender-speak'.