Thursday, February 6, 2014

Janet Mock vs Piers Morgan or Much Ado About Nothing

Janet Mock is an incredibly beautiful young woman from NYC whoa happens to have been born transsexual. The first time I read of her was in the Marie Claire piece in 2011. It was an article by Janet Mock as told to Kierna Mayo.In it Mock clearly identifies as transsexual and the word transgender is never and I mean never used. The simple fact is that Janet was born transsexual and was only transgender if included under its umbrella.

Her story was inspirational and poignant and in her  Blog she mentioned writing her life story in a book called "Fish Food" which evolved into "Redefining Realness" which I have not read but will. It has just been published and Janet Mock scored a major coup with a recorded interview with Piers Morgan of CNN on his National evening Show. I watched the interview Tuesday evening and thought it was okay considering the subject and the participants.

On Tuesday evening after the interview aired Janet Mock was on Buzzfeed claiming Morgan sensationalized her story and failed to discuss trans issues in this comment.

“He’s trying to do info-tainment,” Mock told BuzzFeed Tuesday night. “He doesn’t really want to talk about trans issues, he wants to sensationalize my life and not really talk about the work that I do and what the purpose of me writing this book was about.”

 The question I have is what did Mock think was going to happen? The salient part of this story is that Janet was born transsexual and a boy and survived this to overcome this as she realized she was always a girl and had SRS at 18 and moved to NYC and met this gorgeous guy and they love each other and she faced what all heterosexual post-op transsexuals do which is how the heck do I tell a guy without getting killed?

Morgan was deferential and exceedingly complimentary towards Janet and to be honest I think he was kind to her because I would have asked some pointed questions about certain inconsistencies in her self portrayal which I will get to a little later.

What happened to Piers Morgan after the Tuesday interview was typical of the people running the trans activist community. Salon published an article by Katie McDonough that relates the Katie Couric interview with the Mock interview which claims that anatomy and transition are somehow not relevant which is a very large pile of horseshit. It seems that the fact Mock had a sex change and actually transitioned are not relevant because the issues that need discussing involve something other than Mock's sex change and transition which is an even bigger pile of horseshit unless you understand where these people are coming from.

Mock is a permanent wet dream for every man in a dress if they can get her to devolve herself into their mindset that her sex change was not important and her transition was not important because the issues involve the larger fraternity of the "men in dresses" that want legitimacy. It is why they call themselves transgender and refuse to use cross-dresser or transvestite or even drag queen. Personally I wish not a one of them even the slightest harm and could care less what they do in their everyday life except when it infringes on what those born transsexual go through.

Read the Marie Claire article and other writings by Mock and her SRS was the primary goal in her life  but somehow that has changed and anatomy is unimportant as she attempted to promote in the Wednesday re-interview where Mock was shall we say less than stellar. Morgan was incensed that he was savaged in the media and on twitter in the now infamous style of the crazies that seem to percolate to the top of the transgender community. He was savaged in the same manner as Rosanne Barr who had the unmitigated gall to side with girls that a man, Colleen Francis, and his hairy balls and dick should not be present and viewable where a high school swim team was present. Her life was threatened and worse.

The savaging of Morgan is not up to those standards but it is approaching it. Morgan is like most in the real world. He assumes that transgender means transsexual. What a very silly man he is. Transgender means transvestites and cross-dressers claiming to be the same as those born transsexual. Obfuscate the truth and the truth is obfuscated and skewed towards the falseness of what is transgender.

Some where along her path Mock became an acolyte of the transgender mafia and her view of herself has changed. She is no longer a woman but a trans-woman which is something other than a woman. That is what transvestites and cross-dressers are yet Janet Mock is somehow blinded by this.

Her new pals have stolen the stories of those born transsexual and fitted them to themselves. Somehow a transvestite or cross-dresser always knew they were feminine and some even claim girls at very young ages while others had late onset delusions which are just as relevant as those of us born transsexual. weareallthe same after all.

In the Marie Claire article she said she worked in a Boutique and lost her virginity to a boy at 17 and swore she would never do that kind of sex again and even on Piers' show said she has dated boys since she was 16. In her memoir I am guessing she discusses her claim of working as a sex worker on Merchant Street in Honolulu which was the subject of an HBO documentary. That kind of debunks the Boutique and the lost virginity story but It rings as true as that story but why mislead others in 2011? Mock now claims she was sexually abused which again I can understand since I was raped at 14 but I will know more after I read her biography.

The irony here is that when she first went public Janet Mock was a heroine who had overcome insurmountable obstacles to become the woman she should have been born as but suddenly today Janet Mock has become a "victim"and a professional one at that.One does need those street credentials if one wants to hang around with the professional victims line Laverne Cox, Monica Roberts and their ilk and playing the race card helps a lot in that world.

These loons crucified Katie Couric because she dared ask about anatomy and they are crucifying Piers Morgan because he openly asked those questions and Janet Mock willingly answered them. If you are it and proudly trans those are perfectly viable questions unless of course you are hiding something which many of them are.

In truth there is nothing special about Janet Mock and her story.There are thousands of us born transsexual that faced similar situations and managed to survive in lot worse circumstances but chose to live our lives as women without notoriety. Mock claims she wants to help girls like her which is noble but girls like her and girls like I was as a child are driven to our sex changes like a moth is attracted to a flame. It defines our sex and must be fixed and Janet made statements like that before but now she has fallen under the spell of the transgendered.

If you try and tell me you knew you were a girl at 5 but somehow you made it to 50 and want to transition but do not want SRS I have one word for you. BULLSHIT!! It is part of the giant lie that transgenderism is built around. The sad thing is people like Janet Mock have lost site of this and have fallen "victim" to the transgender lie. In a way Piers Morgan, Katie Couric, and Rosanne Barr also fell victim to the transgender lie in their own sad ways because they dared ask questions that are pointed or they dared side against the transgendered. It is something many others that cross the men that run transgender activism have felt.

When I was in NYC before and after I lost a man I loved because i did not know how to tell him I did several radio shows and two television shows outside NYC. I was asked those pointed questions and I answered them because I thought it might help people understand how rough it was for kids like me. Sometimes it worked and sometimes it got ugly but when you subject yourself to that scrutiny it is something to be expected.

For Janet Mock to make the statements she has made about Piers Morgan and to allow the nastiness that has occurred and claim she was "blindsided" is disingenuous at best and plain stupidity if not. My guess is the "girls" she hangs out with were upset with what she said and Mock reacted in this manner to maintain her credibility within the transgender community because after all they are the ones that will buy her book. I bet Laverne Cox was pissed because she discussed her anatomy/sex change because to Cox that is certainly not relevant or so it seems. I wonder if Laverne is as proud of her 7 inch neoclit as Monica Roberts is?

Will the next victim of the transgender brigade be Jazz when she admits she cannot wait for her SRS? How dare she talk about the horrors those born transsexual see when we look at that part of our anatomy. We should embrace it like they do but how do you embrace what you hate and want rid of as Janet Mock clearly stated in her earlier musings which she now claims were taken out of context. I wonder how it feels to be a trained pet of the transgendered? They truly are like the Borg because they assimilate and resistance is futile if you have no courage.


Autumn Sandeen said...

You've convinced me, Elizabeth: everything that is significant about you is found underneath your panties. Nothing else matters; nothing else is important: all you are at the core is your genitalia.

Because, if you don't believe that, you don't believe the message that Janet Mock is trying to present to the marketplace of ideas: she is a human being who is more at her core than the shape of her genitalia, and so are the human beings she considers her sisters, her brothers...her siblings.

Rory Desmond said...

I couldn't disagree with you more. First of all, there is no "transgender lie" as you so ignorantly put it. I feel sorry for you that you believe what society and the mainstream world has taught you about gender. There is no right or wrong way to be transgender/transsexual however you wish to word it. Gender is what is in between your ears, sex is what is in between your legs. I feel sorry for you; a fellow trans* woman is infact transphobic, to say the least.

Rory Desmond said...

I couldn't disagree with you more. First of all, there is no "transgender lie" as you so ignorantly put it. I feel sorry for you that you believe what society and the mainstream world has taught you about gender. There is no right or wrong way to be transgender/transsexual however you wish to word it. Gender is what is in between your ears, sex is what is in between your legs. I feel sorry for you; a fellow trans* woman is infact transphobic, to say the least.

JohannaVL said...

I believe the issue you're facing is that you don't realize that Janet Mock was born with the brain of a woman.

All fetuses start out as female, and as it has been scientifically observed with a variety of trans* women, their fetal brains do not masculinize due to a low amount of testosterone in the womb. Likewise, the reverse happens for trans* men (too much testosterone).

Claiming that Janet Mock was "born a boy" is not only just completely incorrect (her brain was born female), but also transmisogynistic because it delegitimizes the identity of a trans* woman as being anything other than a truly authentic real woman.

Your life is experienced the way it is due to the brain that you have. People learn to self identify and in so doing <1% find out that their internal gender, imprinted into their brains from birth, simply are not congruent with their bodies.

This is what transsexualism is. It is nothing more than people born with brains gendered one way and bodies another (not that bodies have a gender - they have an assigned sex, but not a gender).

As such, trans* people are the gender they identify as simply because who better to tell you than the trans* person themselves - it is, after all, their life experience they are forced to live with.

Trying to compare them to giant hairy men who want to show their balls off to a high school locker room full of people simply shows the lack of foresight - many trans* women do not like their genitals and would only not be showing them off in locker rooms, but also hiding them and being embarrassed for having them.

When trans* women are called "men in dresses" and are demonized to be sexual perverts, you are not describing the real lived experiences of actual trans* people - you are simply ignoring what we have to say for your own convenient narrative to not have to expand your mind to the understanding that sex and gender are separate concepts.

Scarlett St. Clair said...

This article is fucking disgusting.
You have no idea what 'transgender' means, and that's just simply all there is to it.

Anonymous said...

This is a great post with a serious and spot on analysis of the issues involved. It has been indeed incompressible and tragically sad to watch Janet devolve from a beautifully strong and independent young woman into an assimilated trans-borg mouthpiece.

Having struggled through that most painful transition to just throw it all away. I guess that just shows the power of peer pressure. She has now adopted the trans-speak where 'woman' have penises and prostituting young children is "empowering".

I call it pimping for the men in dresses.

Elizabeth said...

@Autumn Sandeen

ROFLMAO. Oh contraire Autumn. Before my SRS removing what was there was the most important thing to me because it was WRONG. Since then I have lived a full and quite normal life which is something you know little of.

Why are you not honest with people about what transgender truly means? Why all the lies about sameness and obfuscation about the differences between those born transsexual and those that are transgender?

Why don't you explain in the bills you want to pass that using the term transgender instead of transsexual opens the door for transvestites, cross-dressers, and drag queens to obtain rights they do not deserve.

it is all a pathetic lie in an attempt to make you and your ilk feel you are something you are not. You are transwomen and thus not women. A transwoman may be a woman such as Janet Mock but you are left at the curb.

The sisters you talk about are those that have kept their functioning male genitalia which is why you and your ilk find it offensive when that question comes up because you DO NOT WANT TO ANSWER IT.

Elizabeth said...


You are an idiot. I was Janet Mock long before Janet Mock was born and I certainly know what it means to be transsexual. Here is a question for someone like you whose intellect is obviously limited.

If someone is born with a female brain why would they keep male genitalia? Just for a fool like you I will answer it. They would get rid of it as fast as possible and that is the difference.

Transgender is an umbrella term so by its definition it is not specific but a generalization made up originally by transvestites and cross-dressers who colonized those born transsexual for the need for some form of legitimacy because NOBODY would support anything aimed at allowing transvestites and cross-dressers into women's spaces so these men cn live their fantasy.

If you have read any of this blog I agree that sex and gender are separate concepts. Transsexuals have a sex identity problem and the transgendered have a gender issue based on expressing their feminine said which is primarily appearance or cultural. I wish them zero harm and support their right to be safe but I do not support their right to infringe on the rights of women because they dress like one.

Elizabeth said...

@Rory Desmond

Actually unlike you I think for myself and there is certainly a very large transgender lie. Why don't the transgendered tell everyone they have kept their manly genitalia? WHy don;t they openly admit to that instead of hiding behind the bullshit that sex is between your legs and gender is between your ears.

Your sex is wired in your brain because those born transsexual have a sex identity issue which is why the term transsexual was coined. Gender is fluid and not binary while sex is in general.

We do not change gender we change sex. As a child my gender was never in doubt but my sex was because I had the wrong parts.

I am NOT trans anything you dipshit. I left that on the operating table in 1971. I am a woman plain and simple.

What do you call your trans women pals that like their male genitalia? It is farcical reading the party line from you pathetic wankers.

I would attempt to explain why it is intellectually dishonest to claim someone with a penis is a woman when they want to keep said penis because it provides them pleasure but you are incapable of understanding that.

Anonymous said...

In general, I agree with almost everything Elizabeth said in her piece, aside from referring to Janet Mock as a "boy" pre-surgery. I firmly believe if you've ever truly seen yourself (and identified yourself as) a male/boy, then you will never be female. I do not believe boys can become girls/men can become women, or vice versa. If you genuinely identified as a boy, then you wouldn't want a vagina in the first place, you'd be happy with your penis.

Are transsexual females men on the operating table pre-surgery, and women mere hours later after surgery? No, I definitely don't believe that. Transsexual women are women before surgery. The surgery just provides some peace of mind, and mental and physical freedom from the shackles imposed on us by having the wrong (male) anatomy.

But then, people say gender is in between your ears, whereas I think your sex is between your ears as well as your legs. How else can it be explained that some of us knew at a very early age that our outer sex anatomy was wrong?

And that is the key difference between the trans-sexed, and the transgendered. We know, and have always known, that our genitalia is wrong, and shouldn't be there. We also want rid of them as soon as possible. I don't believe in "late onset transsexualism", or that you can be transsexual without having severe dysphoria over having the wrong-sexed body.

It is wrong, and disingenuous, when the TG men in dresses try to claim that we are "all about our genitalia", or that our genitalia is the only thing important about us. That is deliberately obfuscating the real issue, and twisting it into something it's not. Just because our genitalia is of grave importance to us, does not mean our other aspects don't matter.

At it's base level, it's simply that no woman wants to have male genitalia, and would find it extremely distressing to have them. It is completely NATURAL to loath your genitalia and secondary sexed aspects, if inside you know you are a different sex to the one being misrepresented by what's on the outside. And it is something which causes great depression and anxiety until the genitalia are fixed to somewhat resemble how they should have been in the first place.

The transgender activists do not know what it's like to have those feelings and emotions which are directly tied in with being trans-sexed. They don't mind, or even like their male genitalia, which makes them men, and therefore completely incapable of relating to the lives of actual transsexual women.

It's sad to see what has happened to Janet Mock, and it just makes me again acutely aware of how right I've been to steer clear of trans/transgender communities. I won't allow my experiences and narratives to be butchered for the sake of allowing men in dresses to feel better about themselves, and attempting to gain access into spaces which they have no right being in.

I started on the road to surgery to at least somewhat feel like the ordinary female I've always known I've been, not to take on the sub-label of "trans woman" which implies that you are something less than a real woman. I would never allow the transgendered to make me dehumanize myself in such a way, and it's unfortunate that some born trans-sexed are allowing this, under the false pretence that these TG men are somehow our "allies". Truth is, whilst they are allied with us, our fight is only made much tougher, and our road to true acceptance much longer. I do not wish TG men any harm, and I would have no problem with them if they didn't keep trying to erase transsexual narratives simply because they find them to be completely unrelateable.

Anonymous said...

Jesus Christ, where did all the transvestites come from?

It seems that when someone dares disagree with them they come out of the woodwork male parts in hand claiming we are wrong because they define reality.

This is not the way to deal with your physical pain, don't take it out on us. We cannot help it that you are overweight and are carrying a load of toxicity that is causing you to experience physical discomfort. Get out and get some exercise instead of sitting in your apartment eating Cheetos. Believe it or not the sunshine will be good for your skin condition, work up a sweat that will help you detoxify, and maybe restore some of your long lost mental health.

To the other transvestites;
I don't know what hole you emerged from but please return to the hole from whence you came.

Your Neighbor,

Anonymous said...

I find it extremely telling that the hysteria embodied by the trans*-outcry over their poster child being challenged on message is in direct and highly pertinent contrast to the deafening silence engendered by your previous post on "trans-woman", wife killer, Robert Kosilek.

I suppose Colleen Francis and Kosilek are not *really* trans, or part of the trans-umbrella, because gee they are not really trans*...or maybe they really are "trans", only not as "trans" as Ms. Mock.

The truth is that no matter how these transgender truth benders try to bend or trans* the truth, the reality is plain for all to see.

Women - REAL women - have vaginas, NOT penises. And no..."men", do not get pregnant.

Anon 1

Anonymous said...

"Poster child"? LOL I didn't even know who Janet Mock was until I read this blog post!

I have never seen myself as a "tran" anything, so whether or not Kosilek belongs under the "trans umbrella" is neither here nor there as far as I'm concerned. Kosilek committed a horrific murder, and is obviously a misogynist, beyond that, his/her being "trans" or not is a total non-issue to me, which is why I personally didn't comment on the post.

And unless you believe that all "trans people" are violent psychopaths (which hardly anyone aside from radfems believes is true), then the "trans status" of Kosilek should be a non-issue for you too. I personally, highly doubt Kosilek has transsexualism from what I've read of the case (though he possibly is transgender), but either way, it's a non-issue to me.

Anonymous said...

What frightens me the most about this entire affair is that the media is not just completely complicit in propagation of this outrageous lie, but they actively silence and censor those that actually try to address some simple realities.

An example of this manipulation of the truth can be seen at the LA Times where only those comments touting the party line or those which are clearly insanely bigoted are allowed. I have witnessed the disappearance of at least a dozen comments including two of my own on this site.,0,1612052.story#axzz2smLJFLwR

The issue is clear, despite what Janet always knew or felt, she was born male. The title of her "coming out" in Marie Claire was entitled, "I Was Born a Boy".

Despite this simple fact, and the fact that she is on TV promoting her book, which just happens to be about her "journey" from boy to girl, no one, not even the host of the show, is allowed to ask about that journey. No one is allowed to ask about that journey in the book wherein she is doing her utmost at "Redefining Reality"

Just how insane is that?

Anonymous said...

I note with some amusement that this has brought the kooks out in numbers.

If as "salon" claims Janet Mock was upset about the Morgan interview, what else did she expect? Why write the book if she's not prepared to answer the questions people are going to ask? Why did Janet make her transition public if she did not want to answer such questions?
Look I would not want to answer those questions every day of my life either which is why I have not written a book about my life or transition and neither would I write such a book. That's one reason the other is why the hell does ANYONE need to know EVER?

The justification is that these people wish to help and support those who come after. Fine I do too and have. Elizabeth has done far more than she ever talks about and neither of us have the public profile Janet Mock does and do not want it either. I never did and I know Elizabeth wishes to avoid it.

Whatever Janet's reasons for making her life so public the TG delight in making their issues her issues whether she or anyone else like it. I am sure she will come to regret being so public.

As for the Sandeen involvement in this of course anything that means not haveing to cut off that precious and become involved in all that "maintenance" pleases Sandeen no end.

I watched the interview and as far as I'm concernediers Morgan asked the questions and had the attitude every man and woman in the street would have. The TG are so protective of the truth about transsexuality true motivational source they will make a storm in a teacup about anything and everything.


Anonymous said...

To me, I cannot understand why anyone truly born transsexual would want their lives, and particularly that aspect of it, made public. Those with transsexualism generally crave normality, which is something that isn't really possible to achieve if your medical status of having transsexualism is public knowledge.

Unlike the TG brigade who seem to revel in their "trans-ness" and being different, those with transsexualism loath the fact that we are different (at least aesthetically) from most other members of our true sex. We just want to blend in with everyone else in general society, and live our day to day lives without having any special attention drawn to us.

And the fact is, at least right now, that once your medical history of transsexualism is known about publically, being seen as normal, and no different from anyone else is no longer a possibility. So, it is hard for me to understand why anyone born transsexual would wish to make that aspect of their lives public knowledge.

Of course, in this day and age of the internet, it is possible to help and support others born trans-sexed, whilst also keeping your medical history a private issue within the offline world. And I applaud Elizabeth and people like her for doing what they do, because I know once I have my surgery, all I want to do, is leave the nightmare of transsexualism behind me as far as I possibly can. And I believe this is something generally desired by everyone born with this horrible affliction. There may be very rare exceptions to that, but generally speaking, I think it is certainly true.

Not really knowing anything about Janet Mock, I do not know her motivations for making her life public, but if she is genuinely transsexual, that is something I'm sure she will come to regret sooner or later, regardless of any honourable motivations for originally wanting to do that. Then again, I've never identified as male, or seen myself as "a boy", so I also cannot relate to Janet Mock in that sense. I was born a girl afflicted with a terrible birth defect, I wasn't born a boy. Perhaps it's this fundamental difference which makes someone like Janet Mock desire to make her life public, whereas that is the last thing I would ever want to do.

Cassandraspeaks is bang on the money. TGs delight in making our issues their issues as often as they possibly can, and this is the thing that disturbs me the most about the militant TG activists. Why do they have this great need to conflate themselves with those born trans-sexed, when the truth is, they cannot relate to our lives and experiences in the slightest? The fact that they continually feel that they need to twist and erase transsexual narratives, is proof positive that they cannot relate to us, and deep down, I'm sure they are aware of this.

Anonymous said...

Wow! The TGs sure came out in force! I guess somebody stepped on the tail of someone's sacred cow! I've never cared for the whole "TG rainbow" concept. Sorry, I'm not kissing cousins to some non-op or drag queen. I had a physical problem (my sex was wrong), and I took care of it (if I hadn't, I would have been dead years ago - ask anybody who know me in the before time, I was that much of a mess emotionally and mentally), took care of it 10 years ago, and got on with my life (yeah!).

I don't any woman who was in my situation (born with the wrong set), who wanted to be a part of the TG crowd, like Janet is. You see, as Liz and others alluded to, Transsexualism is about a physical issue (the physical sex is wrong), NOT about wanting to live in a feminine manner. There are gay males who are so femme, that they make some of Hollywood's top actresses (some of whom are quite glamorous), look downright butch by comparison. Guess what? We still consider these men to BE MEN. Ditto for the TGs, who just can't seem to understand thet WOMEN DON'T HAVE PENISES, nor do they want to have them, and if they have the misfortune to be born with one, THEY WANT IT GONE. I oughta know. When I was flat broke in 2002 (due to a huge pay cut in my job, and the high cost of electrolysis having eaten up tons of my money, to get rid of disgusting facial hair), crying all the time, and and on the verge of a nervous breakdown, I stated to a bunch of TGs during the last time I ever talked to any of them, that if it weren't for the fact that the tissue was needed for the surgery, I'd cut the damn thing off that was between my legs at the time, despite the fact that I might bleed to death in the process. The response I got? The TGs couldn't understand why I felt the way I did, but they were sorry that I was so upset. Thank god I was able to work insane hours in 2003, so I could afford to have the surgery, to fix that problem that was between my legs.

Yep, TGs just don't get it. Now if they would just quit trying to hijack my experience, so they can legitimize their desire to be seen as being "just like me." When people like Janet hang out in the TG crowd, and allow TGs to condition them to have the same mindset about sex, that they have, then People like Janet, are not women, they are TG.


Anonymous said...

Unfortunately they still can't understand the basic logic that a man in a dress is still a man. For these TGs the fun is in the dressing up to fool the world, for us the reality is that come the weekend after a long working week we can't wait to dress down and get into comfy gear like the majority of women out there. We just want to get on with being ourselves, without being an attraction at the circus. If they want to be part of freak shows that is their choice, but they should not expect us to follow them into the circus ring to join in their clown act.

A true TS from England

Anonymous said...

I think what I find most sad about this scenario is the way the "righteous anger" is manufactured. The way the viewer or reader is somehow expected to know the correct protocols when meeting and interacting with transgender individuals. These TG's revel in their separation and special status in society and separation from it yet at the same time demand inclusion and equality. How is that supposed to work and why should the rest of society even bother? What qualities and what contribution to the greater good are TG's offering society in return for inclusion. Is Kosileck or Colleen Francis benefiting the community in some way and if so how exactly? Every interaction they have with peers and their surroundings is creating a situation where people are made to walk on eggshells least they offend or anger in some way even though they may have been unaware of what they were supposed to do or say.

Why should mainstream society give a damn?

Anonymous said...

From 1 nut job to another.

My friend who knew Sandeen back when Sandeen was showing off the collection of fetish cloths sent this along to me.

Anonymous said...

I am not sure that I would call Ms. Mock a nut job. Sandeen, no question.

What Sandeen is doing is what he always does: he is attempting to coat-tail onto the success of others. In the case of Ms. Mock, I would suggest that she is a victim of her own insecurities.

Once the word got out, there was no way she could put the 'trans-genie' back in the bottle. I think that she just fell victim to the old "you owe it to your community to be a role model" meme, which is so seductive to most normal, caring, warm hearted human beings.

Now she will always be seen as just another younger, up-graded version of Donna Rose and/or Calpernia Adams, attempting to capitalize on that one things which makes her different or unique. That being, her "trans-ness".

As Cassandra rightly points out, that glaring disconnect between her actions -- her 'coming out' to Marie Claire in an expose entitled, "I was Born a Boy" -- and her mock outrage, is pretty obvious to anyone with an open mind and a functioning brain.

Anon 1