My kingdom for a mug shot.

If you're really arrested, there's a mug shot on file?

I want to make sure they put their best face forward.

Who's got the mug shot?

Sandeen, in her own words, has a penis. Quote:

When I went up to the processing window to identify myself, I told them I was transgender, and had male genitalia and female breasts, and that I identified as female.

How much experience can Sandeen have relative to the experiences of someone with a labia, vagina, and a relatively concealed non-extending, non-erecting uretha?

What would Sandeen uses the P-Mate for?

''Dedicated to the acceptance, medical treatment, & legal protection of individuals who are in the process of changing their anatomical sex and supporting their transition into society.''

This is what TS-SI says they stand for. However the author of this article destroys this very concept. Autumn Sandeen is a SHE not a HE. You are doing the very thing that landed her in the spotlight by using incorrect pronouns. This is nothing more than a hate speech article designed to inflict pain on another human being as well as the entire transgender community.

But you give yourself away with the "entire transgender community" comment.

This would be the same transgender community that claims women of history will never be "real".

That essentially there is no difference between a weekend crossdresser and someone born transsexual.

That penises are feminine if you put a pink ribbon around them.

That surgical correction is "mutilating your crotch".

That "gender" is a social construction and must be destroyed.

Did I manage to insult all that? Good.

You are just started on your "journey"? And already you throw hate, coward etc. around like an old pro. The rest goes like this: elitist, full of self loathing, transphobic, post op nazi, more woman than thou, etc.

You see it works like this, Sandeen and his buds are fond of telling everyone that women of history will never be "real" women. Then they claim we are just like them......ergo they are not "real women" either by their own logic so they are he and him.... Sandeen is actually one of the worst offenders who calls women of history "transgenders" knowing it is considered a deadly insult and actually insists that the media do the same. He is also one of the most relentless self promoters since P.T. Barnum.

Someone said recently (I forget where) that if you dress as a woman, have a dick and want to keep that dick there is a word specifically for someone like that, transvestite. Not transsexual, not transgender.... transvestite, a male bodied person who dresses as a woman. Sandeen is a transvestite.

Joesphine Sodomese is a nom de plume that pokes fun at the current head of HRC by the way that allows me to speak freely, you have just demonstrated the reason for the anonymity.

You seriously googled that name? Wow, I am in awe of that level of cluelessness.

Where do you get your facts at? I am trying to find where Autumn claims to be a transvestite. All I can find is she claims to be a transgender woman.

You don't have any facts. Have you ever thought about what the actual situation would be for a transsexual woman who still has a penis would be in a jail situation? It is the stuff nightmares are made of. I am a transsexual woman who has not gone through my surgery yet but that does not make me a transvestite. A transvestite dresses as a woman as a fetish. They almost never live their entire life as a female. They also hide their fetish from the people they know. There are pre-op transsexuals, post-op transsexuals and no-op transsexuals. There are various reasons that some end up non-op.

I am surprised that a site like TS-Si would allow good old fashioned bigotry to be posted here. I can assure you I will not be a regular reader here.

When I first read this article the first thing I saw was the word tranny which is offensive to a lot of transsexuals. Perhaps it wasn't used to cause harm as I first thought. I did more research and found out some things I wasn't aware of. I do still find this article offensive because it seems like a personal attack against someone. I also find my own comments offensive in the same manner.

So, I apologize for showing my ass like I did.

is not offensive to a large number of those who were out and active 10 or more years ago. This "it's hate speech" thing is brand spanking new and almost universally transgender oriented who disregarding one of the most important lessons transitioners of earlier years gave, "get a sense of humor, you'll need it". Today it's all victimhood and screaming outrage which hardly wins anyone over. Tranny was a term of endearment among early transsexuals going through the process. Occasionally it is still used in gatherings of women of history discussing their history.

You have managed to shock me Dana. I don't remember anyone ever apologizing after one of those "you are an evil bigot elitist" rants. In the spirit it was offered, it's accepted.

Josephine, I also recall those early days when we used "tranny" to each other. Yes it was said with affection and humour. However then came Arnold Lowman and the spread of transgender. In recent years the word has taken on a quite different meaning and sentiment. Similar in some ways to the "N" word for black people. Not quite the same sure but similar. Personally despite my history with the word, I dislike it being applied to me though that only happens on line from some quite unpleasant sources.

Amen! No quarrel with that at all! Bravo! Won't make us any TG friends though that's for sure.

what Jane said about Autumn. I met Sandeen once at a party held at a former acquaintance's place. Sandeen was renting a room and when we met the first thing Sandeen wanted to do was show me his/her sissy cloths.

This person is one very sick puppy.

Read this and shut up.

apa.org/.../transgender.aspx

I'm always a fair-minded woman so I looked at your site... Thank you so much, you were right on the money! There it was, on page two, smack dab in the middle of the article, the very point we have been trying to make!

“Cross-dressers or transvestites comprise the most numerous transgender group. Cross-dressers wear the clothing of the other sex. They vary in how completely they dress (from one article of clothing to fully cross-dressing) as well as in their motives for doing so. Some cross-dress to express cross-gender feelings or identities; others crossdress for fun, for emotional comfort, or for sexual arousal. The great majority of cross-dressers are biological males, most of whom are sexually attracted to women.”

Take them out and what are you left with in the transgender circus, lets see shall we?

Drag queens, TG perhaps? Nahhh they’re gay silly!
Drag Kings, Certainly they are TG right? Sorry! Lez!.
Gender [deleted]? Oh who the heck knows what they really are other than smug, young, in college and surprise of surprises the “GF” tends to end and quickly when they enter the job market and saying “do you want frys with that” gets old.

Gosh darn it! You know that really only leaves transsexuals doesn’t it? Take out all the various and sundry non-ops and others who fit the above and what you got left is… us!

Hummm according to the DSM V, which the APA (thanks again for pointing us to them) will be using soon, We are not TG, we are TS and even that ends when we are cured following surgery…

So thanks “StF” for making a very clear and concise endorsement for Autumn being a twit and a pervert!

Sibyl

BTW you may want to rethink “Shut the [deleted] up” as a pen name… it might turn some folks off to your message… just an opinion!

Not so sure why the took so long to get to the meat of the issue as to why the TV's like Autumn do what they do, none the less the did get there in the end didn't they?

I'd like permission to crosspost this piece to Pam's House Blend.

It would be to show I'm not universally loved by transsexuals, nor am I universally liked by people of transsexual history.

I have responded to Autumn Sandeen's inquiry via email. Autumn can use either the "Quote this article on your site" feature at the end of the article or republish the article in its entirety under the terms of our standard Creative Commons license. Note that if the latter option is exercised, the article must appear in its entirety and without derivation.

We have notified the ownership of Pam's House Blend regarding these terms.

I had thought that a blog that is dedicated to the acceptance, medical treatment, and legal protection of individuals correcting the misalignment of their brains and their anatomical sex, while supporting their transition into society. Would know better than use pronouns that do not match with where the person you are referring to identifies.

My thoughts on this horribly bitter self-absorbed stream of bile by Ms. Sodomese.

trinityofhedon.blogspot.com/.. ./...

Penny, One of the first things you are taught in the care of mental patients is not to feed the delusions. Autumn was discharged from the military for reasons of mental health and is on a 100% mental disability pension. His behaviour in the past and as recently as the escapade described here is most unlike any transsexual I have ever encountered. I have encountered a great many transgendered and transsexual people who have worked extremely hard to get SRS I am quite happy to use appropriate pronouns for those people both TG and Transsexual. There is a real difference between those two groups. In the case of Autumn Sandeen I draw the line. Autumn Sandeens antics undermine and call into disrepute those who doo take this process seriously. Autumn treats this as a joke and as a way to promote Autumn Sandeen. Now before you use more abusive language I suggest you do some research on the history of this person.

By the way I read "your thoughts" on your own blog and saw a great deal of bile there too. People in glass house should not throw stones. I suggest you clean up your own act before you attempte to call into question others.

@Evangelina & @Josephine - Truth is not bile. Kate agrees with my entire blog post. Try again. Hate is hate and you are spreading it. Regardless of your personal feelings about Autumn, you used HER as an example to paintbrush ALL non-ops as just transvestites. THAT is my point. As for data points, try years of personal experience dealing with all sorts of people, including many pre, post and non-ops of various outlooks, and I've met many just like you. You can deny what you've put across here but your own words speak for themselves. This is not just about Autumn, and if it were directed solely at her I wouldn't have felt a need to blog about your conduct, as, despite my friendship with her, I too take issue with some of her methods and tactics. But you very clearlt intonated that ALL non-ops in yopur view are just men in dresses who will never count as women. To many people, surgically constructed vagina or not YOU will never be a "real woman". And yet I accept you fully as a woman not because of your no-no bits but because youy feel you are one. Autumn feels she is one, and lives full time as one, and you should respect that. Take issue with her tactics, her questionable methods, whether or not you find her motives suspect. But DO NOT misgender her and expect anyone to come to your defense if someone misgenders you. As I have been in jail, (Read the rest of my blog, you might learn a great deal about grace and survival), I can vouch for the fact that had she not been up front about her anatomy she could have gotten treated a LOT worse.

trinityofhedon.blogspot.com/.. ./...
trinityofhedon.blogspot.com/.. ./...

If you can read what I've survived and still think Autumn's precautionary disclosure of her genital status was anything but self-preservati on, I truly pity you.

The bottom line is that YOU do not get to decide who "counts as real" in womanhood anymore than anyone else does. Womanhood is in the soul, not the bodyparts. As I have a uterus and a penis on the same body, one could say I'm uniquely qualified to judge who counts, and I say if they live full time as a woman and risk being beaten up or murdered every time they leave the house, THEY COUNT AS REAL. And you Josephine, need to seriously analyze your attitudes. Look at your article, and remove Autumn from it. Then put yourself in her place, and imagine some RadFem blogger was writing it about you.

And then tell me you're not being hateful.

Penny, there is no doubt you have been through some awful experiences. For that I have nothing but sympathy for what happened. However do you think you are an island and the only person this sort of thing has happened too? You know less than nothing about me and yet you accuse me and Josephine of hate when what we complain about is the stupidity of Sandeen's actions, attitude and outright lies. I suggest you read my blog you will not find hate. What you will find is a rejection of Transgender doctrine and domination of my narrative. A domination that seeks to obliterate my very existence as a woman who survived transsexuality.

Autumn Sandeen's actions are symptomatic of what I have witnessed from transgender for 26 years. Frankly my patience is at an end. Autumn is currently enduring nothing from us compared to what has been done to me and to transsexuals by crossdressing transvestites in the past. Our surgery is described as mutilation and our lives a lie. If you expect us to continue to allow this kind of thing any more you are very much mistaken.

Historically Transsexual women have gone silent and blended into the woodwork and it has cost us our identity. Stolen by transvestite men. We are not spewing hate we are simply saying enough no more this appropriation stops here.

I am sorry for your personal experiences and respect your defence of your friend but you'll get no retraction from me. Autumn Sandeen is a male transvestite, period.

This opinion piece is mine and not that of TS-Si. I've already stated that in comments and the article is clearly marked with that disclaimer as well. To the best of my knowledge, I have never seen Sharon use male pronouns for any trans identified person so your beef is with me, not her. Penny, if you wish a dialogue you will need to cease the baseless claims and shotgun accusations. I'll warn you ahead of time, you are not likely to change my mind as my opinions and positions are tested constantly and based in reality. And you will have to do it here.

"Autumn" Sandeen is a disaster. He is a bad joke who should be ashamed of the insults he heaps on women, period. He is a classic example of the worst of the transgender movement. Having spent most of his life as a relatively successful male (he brags about how well he did in the Navy) he decided he wants to be a woman, but for a long time was an avowed non-op. When he realize that was not getting him anywhere, he became a born again pre-op, though his surgery seems to always be in the far future.

Just so "Josephine" knows I'm not solo.

katebornstein.typepad.com/.../ ...

Blog by Kate BY GOD Bornstein her damned self.

as she has IN THESE COMMENTS alluded to being a post-op woman, so her "Hoe do you know what I am" defense crumbles, and proves her to be shallow and desperate. And no Josephine, just because you technically CAN gender whoever you meet doesn't mean you GET to without getting called on it for the hatemongering that it IS.

Sit down, count to ten, pour yourself a nice glass of wine and let go of your anger. Yes, I am a posty, a long time one in fact. Yes, I did forget I did actually pointed that direction in an early comment with a "we" statement. But the point I was trying to get across to you is that the way transgenders react to someone taking a different position to them is influenced by whether they think the speaker is a woman of history or a non-trans woman. And that, my dear, is clear prejudice. No ifs, ands or buts.....prejud ice. And your reaction to finally getting around to reading the other comments and then exploding exposes your clear prejudice. Did you bother to parse the rest of what I had said?

As for Kate, I met her, I like her, I think her third gender stuff is absolute garbage. See, outside of tranny-land people can actually disagree on things, even major ones, without slinging insults, the need to fight to the death, the absolute need to be right no matter what the cost.

Penny, I think you need to understand the precise meaning of the word “Bigot” because I think you have it’s meaning more than slightly skewed.

“bigot” a person who holds a view or belief obstinately and is intolerant towards those who do not.

Since I am tolerant of people who do not share my views or beliefs the word hardly applies to me. Because I don’t give a flying fig what Autumn Sandeen chooses to wear in public or private; neither do I care what his sexual preferences are or yours for that matter. What I do care about is Autumn Sandeen claiming to be Transsexual when patently he is not and is not by a very wide margin, Holding an opposing view does not constitute bigotry. However it rather looks to me as if the word more correctly applies to you since you seem obstinate in your views and beliefs and are intolerant of those of us who do not share your views. I think the Bigot shoe is on the other foot.

You believe Kate Bornstein is some kind of God, your words and I think you may be guilty yourself of mis-gendering unless Kate identifies as male or is this more of the third gender claptrap?

Speaking of gender, the correct definition of gender is –

“Gender” – the class in which a noun or pronoun is placed in grammatical grouping. In English these are masculine, feminine, neuter.

If there is any third gender it would be neuter, in other words “neither” or gender neutral. Therefore, the terms are applied grammatically and more correctly to objects, this is especially true in the French language.

If Autumn changes his attitude and behaviour and somehow I doubt that will happen, perhaps me and Josephine could change our minds. Another reason why bigot does not apply.

Your question about how, with the demise of DADT (which I think is inevitable) in favor of service in the open, "can the military deal with sex transitions and variant gender presentations".

As is well known, Lisa Thompson transitioned in place as a civilian employee at the Defense Department. She blazed many trails in the process. Granted, she was a civilian, but Lisa and others have affected the atmosphere among policy makers.

That is one instance of the "incremental process" you talked about in your comment. There are others, such as formalized management of employees moving toward surgical correction.

These are civilian processes that provide ready templates for adaptation by the uniformed military forces. Throughout, we must remember that all service members must meet the physical qualifications of their target sex while on the job.

In my view, the sooner we detach sex and gender issues from progress in removing bars against gay and lesbian sexual orientation the better. Let DADT sail through and focus on other issues later.

In fact, promoting presentation in this manner actually impedes further progress since it reinforces stereotypes. The more socially conservative policy makers view transgenders as homosexual male queens.

That may not be accurate or just but is a political reality that constrains a more comprehensive solution.

The convolutions involved when discussing transsexuality and transgenderism among ourselves are plainly in evidence. Imagine what it looks like to nonplussed policy makers.

Said comment was also not snide or condescending as those of Josephine and Evangelina have been. Said comment simply, and very clearly, pointed out the clear bigotry and hypocrisy rampant in the words of both afore-mentioned individuals. So exactly what TOS violation did I commit? I can still see any number of comments here perfectly visible that are blatantly derogatory, outright crude, and certainly far more volatile than anything i said in pointing out that in the manner in which they attempted to defend their bigotry they were in fact proving it.

Also, as you fet a need to specify MY comment being censored "pending review", given the available evidence, I can only assume you're simply censoring me because I finally made my point clearly enough that it can't be argued without resorting to such childishness as, oh say, censoring me? Tsk tsk. I'm not sure Kate will be willing to do that guest column you requested of her if she's presented with the risk that anything you dislike but can't out-debate will not so quietly disappear.

Penny,

I tend to be a bit flip at time, and so I was in my first reply to you. Why not? I had no idea who you are or where you are coming from, only the terse statement to all of us to “stfu!” Sorry dear but it did not set the tone for more reply than I gave it.

Since then you have gone into more depth and related some of the reasons you feel as you do. I can understand some of your anger as you have suffered horrible indignities. Things that I would wish upon no one ever.

That said You’ve also a different cross to bear than I/we in being physically intersexed and I would like to take this conversation back there if you would not mind. As you said, you choose to be part of transsexuality as a label. I quote “I count myself as a sister to Trans Women by choice, not by necessity.” And that’s the rub… no one here is identifying (god I loath that word!) as anything!

We are women! Albeit women with a convoluted medical history but women none the less…. As are you, penis be-damned! So why then would I could I should I say that you are a woman and Autumn is not?

Simple, and the answer lies in another statement of yours. You stated that you cannot have the penis you loath removed for medical reasons. Dear that loathing is a sentiment shared equally by all here once upon a time. Which is why we had the darn thing removed and as quickly as possible, just as you would, if you could. I dare say, as it does for me, our hearts go out to you for not being able to rid yourself of that terrible impediment…

But dear, stop and take a breath! Seriously! We are not your enemy! That you have that desire we had puts you and us in a VERY different category that the “non ops” you keep referring to! Bottom line and no matter how you slice it this will always be true, if one is happy with having a penis then one is a man! If a woman is saddled with such a thing then she desires with all her heart to be shed of it and with good reason! Having a penis is the antithesis of all that is female.

By the very definition to be a transsexual. One MUST want and need to be rid of “it” and as quickly as possible for the same reason any other woman would. Thus the term non-op transsexual is a non sequitur, nothing more than a rude and condescending parody of all that we, and, all that you are!

I for one am sick and tired of this co-opting of the transsexual narrative by those men who for whatever reason choose to glom to. Not transsexual identity, mind you, as it has become in their hands, but the honest to goodness transsexual narrative that they have taken and morphed into transgender identity!

Each of us here was born transsexual with a soul and nature that was and is and always will be female. More so we were all born with feminine characteristics , mannerisms and physical features, as were you, and like you, we all suffered at the hands of savage men who found us an easy target for their rage for those characteristics . Lastly, like you when we could we did everything possible to set right, as far as was humanly possible that which was wrong.

Having done so, to have our tiny place in the sun co-opted, then erased, by men who want nothing more than to take our little bit of legitimacy so they are not painted with the stigma of transvestite is insufferable. Rightly so and it makes us angry. An emotion that you too feel for similar reasons…

Thus to us having someone like Autumn (or Thomas Bettie for the FtMs) out there in the media playing the clown and the fool and making a mockery of all that we are is something we will no longer stand for no longer. We are not all one big happy family, we are not at the uber end of some imagined continuum of gender identity. Never have been and never will be I’ve nothing in common with the transvestites and transgender and neither do you! Other than our both having suffered at the hands of folks who would abuse us for sport. Something which makes me empathetic but not a sister!

Sibyl

I find it difficult to believe that you allowed Josephine Sodomese's little "guest column" rant and then refused to allow the reply by "the Shaman of Hedon". Both do exactly the same thing. However, the censored piece commented on things written in J.S.'s piece and the writer's beliefs on why they were written. J.S.'s article ridiculed, vilified and attempted to dehumanize Autumn Sandeen

Josephine mocked Autumn's participation in this act of civil disobedience. Then she took it further by mocking Autumn's 20 years service to this nation and her resulting disability.

I find josephine's entire guest rant abhorant in many ways.

Like Autumn I am retired from the military and am rated at 70 per cent disibilit. Also, I was never wounded in a combat zone. I guess I was just lucky because I was boots on the ground in Southeast Asia and for Desert Shield/Desert Storm. And, I am a medical non-op transexual person. The last of which would make me just another delusional crossdresser in Josephine's eyes.

I have read most of what Autumn has had written in online blogs and news services. I have never heard of this Josephine Sodomese or read anything written by her. Nor have I ever heard of Josephine being involved in anything advocating equal civil rights for any transgender people. Given this, i put no more credence in Josephine's bovine excrement.

Since you published Josephine's attack on Autumn Sandeen and her civil disobedience, I hope that you reconsider and publish the censored piece by "the Shaman of Hedon" which shows that Josephine is as expert at making baloney as she is at slicing it and passing it around. And that her comments and opinions were nothing more that disgusting bigotry.

Pax,
Gwen Spencer

I have used TS-SI as a reference source, and no doubt will continue to do so.

Articles with deliberate and malicious misgendering have no place on such a site. Neither does talk about a "tented skirt". This reflects very poorly indeed on the judgement of both author and editorial staff.

Frankly, the article, and the unbridled spite and malice in the comments, were deeply disappointing to me. I have, and continue to hold, the authors and editors of this site in great respect. It is for that reason that I'm so disappointed.

No doubt my comments will lead to personal attacks on me too, not on my opinion (which are all open to challenge), but myself and possibly my family too. Such behaviour is almost guaranteed in my experience, after a foetid piece such as this. But it's because I think that you're better than this, that this is an uncharacteristi c lapse, that I offer these comments, for what little they're worth.

One can disagree without incoherent malice; this article is nothing but. It could have been written by a hate group such as the TVC, and will no doubt be used by them.

thank you for leaving a comment (and the compliment as well). We decided to run this piece understanding that it could arouse strong passions. However, it is in many ways far less provocative than what I have seen elsewhere. Besides, we also hoped it would stimulate some strong thinking.

This is, after all, an opinion piece and open for serious critique. There have been a handful of on-topic, calm and deliberative comments. They were were ignored by most. I am disappointed that most of comments build their criticisms on unexamined premises and expect compliance at the cost of a dissenters personal autonomy.

Some went on to make doctrinaire assertions about "self-identific ation" and "misgendering". The audience would benefit from reasoned discussion of both topics. Likewise, is it really true that we can assess someone from afar as being TS or TV, this or that? If so, how? And what does it matter in the long run?

And how do these kinds of topics and questions tie into the original incident discussed in the opinion column?

Seriously.

Josephine, I could cry. You are the hero I have been waiting for. We must save our community from being infiltrated by this TG umbrella cage that has sent a tidal wave of cross dressers and drag queens who seek to compromise our well being, and teach false education of who we are. We are not men in dresses. How do we assert our own identities, when it seems the cross dressers have bought their seats at the gay hierarchy table, and are silencing us?

I came up with a counter so inescapably accurate it got censored rather than let anyone see just how completely I made the point. You sound JUST like any anti-gay rant from right-wing groups, just switching a few names here and there. And many read what you and Josephine said and agreed completely. You don't get a much better rebuttal than raw brutal truth. That you refuse to see the harm you cause is far sadder than you seem to think my "wah wah my dog's bigger than your dog" rebuttals constist of. I genuinely pity you. Autumn's a better person despite her flaws, at least she can admit when she's made a mistake.

An "intersex" interloper lecturing on on transsexual issues. How novel.

Here's a clue; if you are an outsider you had better ask permission from the people you are invading if it's okay to speak for them if you don't want trouble. We went through this with the "transgender", and now apparently we have "intersex" people claiming to be "transsexual", and then lecturing us on our behavior. Is that about right?

You, Penny, obviously have no idea what you are talking about, outsider that you are. You don't seem to grasp that there is such a thing as a biological transsexual condition, and instead, with your outsider's perspective, seek to impose your own views of the situation on reality, and on us. It is not appreciated, as you can see here.

I'm not sure why you feel entitled to lecture people on a topic which, by your own admission, isn't really your area. You are "intersex". For you to boldly claim that we transsexuals don't exist, but are simply manifestations of transgender, is outrageous and offensive. This kind of aggression coming from intersex quarters is sure to cause some problems.

Mind your own damn business.

As I stated earlier: "We can not vouch for the veracity or accuracy of any such disclosures that may be made at other venues. In any case, such disclosures are not authorized by TS-Si, its partners, or affiliates."

Please do not be swayed by any statements or disclosures made by any party in the matter of Penny Sautereau-Fife' s comment moderation.

I am bound by privacy and confidentiality considerations. As a result, I cannot report publicly on certain facts that would illuminate the situation.

I read Penney's comments and wonder about her motivations. If she is truly intersexed, then only she knows in her own mind whether she is male or female; Im sure if surgical correction were possible she would correct it; however, there are also those that are TS for whom surgical correction is NOT possible for physical reasons or even monetary reasons, some are able to live with it, some are not; I had a friend that was TS and had MG and was unable to live with being non-op and we lost her several years ago. If Sandeen Identifies as a MALE whenever it suits him, then his claim of being TS is pure BS. Penny has jumped in and ranted on and on, I'll take Josephine's remarks and comments over Penney's. Zoe I have read on another forum, Some of her things I agree with some I disagree with, but overall, she does remain respectful and polite. I do find Sharon and Lisa to be both polite and fair and I'm in agreement with them most of the time and they in turn put up with my rants about big government.
Pamela

You're simplistic to even think otherwise.

This is the very first time I've ever seen an article posted that voilated a website's own TOS.
So, how does that work out? Vacation the editor that passed this?

Terms of Service (TOS) for the website are located under the "About" menu tab on the Terms of Service (ts-si.org/.../terms-of-service) page.

Please advise how you believe we violated our own TOS and use the appropriate contact menu item so we can take the matter under consideration.

You can access the Terms of Usage for the commenting facility by clicking the same phrase located above the ReCaptcha box.

Finally, please consider reading the prior comments in this thread for more information on the varying views of our readers.

Thank you,

Sharon S. Gaughan
TS-Si Co-Founder, VP & Executive Director
Managing Editor, TS-Si.org (ts-si.org)
ts-si.org (ts-si.org)

at pamshouseblend. com . I would have made comment on it over there, in support of this article but ... I have been banned for life for arguing JUST ONE TIME with autumn sandeen. So much for sandeens journalistic standards and fair play. If your not transgender and not gay, you are not getting time at PHB.

I had to backtrack and reread several paragraphs in the article, thinking I had overlooked the mention of some unnamed male that the author was talking about, before I realized that you were actually referring to her as a "he".

I would think that no matter what animosity you held toward her that you'd at least do the common courtesy of respecting her gender identity. In not doing so you've lent credibility to those who would try to tell any transgendered person, post-op or otherwise, that they don't have the right to determine their own identity for themselves, and have undermined the movement that you supposedly stand for.

Also, a note to "The Other Woman":

I believe that, since ones gender is determined internally and not externally, it is my right to go by whatever set of pronouns I think suits me best. Surgery and hiding undesirable sexual characteristics do not change your gender identity. They only change your appearance. Why, then, should we allow the world to dictate who we are?

What if Rosa Parks had decided to go along with what the mainstream society wanted? Would we be as far ahead on civil rights as we are today?

Sadly Elliot, you apparently missed the paragraph where it was clearly pointed out that when put into the group of females, Mr Sandeen immediately informed the police that he was a MALE.

Sounds like a cross dresser to me that has a ton of confusion in HIS mind about his identity.

She deserves to be disrespected because someone called SRS surgery a funny name? She deserves disrespect because she banned you from the website she moderates? She deserves disrespect because she informed police that she still had male genitalia?

First off, Pamela, I did read that paragraph, and I got nothing more out of it than that she was informing the police of something that might be pertinent when people are being segregated by gender. She didn't, by any stretch of the imagination, insinuate that she identified as male. The fact that you'd stretch it so far as to say that she did strikes me as childish.

Also, for Evangelina, I'm not sure I understand the significance of anything you've listed here. Did Autumn call you a transvestite? Did she describe SRS in a demeaning way? I'm not sure I understand, but even if she did, how is retaliating with disrespect going to solve anything? It seems rather counterproductive.

Cathryn is the only one here who might actually have a case, and yet instead of trying to get legal recourse for the things that were done to her (libel, copyright infringement) she's going to come here and support everyone else as they try to set fire to what little progress the trans movement has made so far.

Priscilla asks, "How, then, are transitioning patients to be treated in public situations?" Well, as one of those people I can answer. We don't willingly put ourselves into situations where our transitioning status is likely to be revealed.

Sandeen's actions were ill-conceived from the start. I should have thought even from the LGBT perspective this protest must be considered a setback. Why is he/she immune then from criticism?

Does Elliott really believe one's physical characteristics are merely a matter of "appearance"? Really? That it makes no difference at all whether one has a penis or a vagina? Does a body count for nothing? Is this the middle ages still?

How, Elliott, is telling someone you have a penis not revealing that you are male? Why tell someone you have a penis if not to distinguish yourself from women?

And how on earth do you assert a "right" to a pronoun?

If people can simply pick and choose whether or not to be "he" or "she" or whatever and change their minds another day then why is it so important? Surely it becomes a trivial matter then - so why make a fuss if one gets it wrong?

I wish I could add to this debate, but in all honesty, I do not know where to start. There is so much emotion vitriol and what little reason is offered, is shouted down with hateful invectives and cries of bigotry, sexism, racism and even class-ism.

I have tried to offer my opinion in the past on other blogs only to be attacked from ALL sides.
Nevertheless, I will again attempt to state my position in the hopes that my OPINIONS and perspectives will be addressed, rather than my heritage or my history. I will preface my remarks by stating that I have a very high regard for self reliance, personal responsibility and integrity. I am also a fiscal conservative and think that "progressive" type politics can be a dangerous path in that it tends to inhibit individual initiative and personal responsibility.

I think that there is and always has been a "clear difference" between what is commonly found 'covered' by the TG umbrella and a "classic", 'real-deal' transsexual. In short the very terms themselves drawe the distinction. A transsexual, "transits", crosses over binery of /differnce in sex, (a physical attribute). A transgender, transists the gender distinction or the difference in genders, (a social construct).

How hard is thatto understand?

If having a penis means that you can't identify as a female, then should you be able to identify as a female if you still have a Y chromosome?

First of all, by "transvestite" (which is, using the dictionary definition, someone who dresses like and/or adopts mannerisms typical of the opposite gender, but identifies themselves as their birth gender), I take it that you're referring to people like me and Autumn who identify themselves as opposite to the gender assigned at birth, but have not had reassignment surgery. Your objection, I assume, is that our penises are masculine features, and that we shouldn't be considered female so long as we have them, and so long as they are not completely female by any objective medical standard.

I suppose then, that you are defining transsexual as someone who is completely female by any objective medical standard, and has no physical characteristics that are believed to be exclusive to males.

That said, I'm afraid that if you go by this definition, then it's impossible to become a transsexual. So long as there's no way to change your chromosomes from XY to XX or vice versa, there's no way to be completely female by any objective medical standard after being born a male.

Face it, if our body made us who we are, everyone's gender identity would be identical to the sex assigned to them at birth.

First, surgery does not make you a transsexual. That is a transvestite head game to confuse the general public and stupid gays and lesbians who should know better. A transsexual is someone who is driven to put mind and body into congruence to the maximum amount possible. There are no non-op transsexuals by choice, only circumstances. Next, you transvestites always counter with junior high level genetics. Guess what, unless you are privy to insider medical information about someone who was actually karyotyped, you haven't a freakin' clue what their genetics are. In fact, unless a full battery of deep tissue samples from all organ systems are done, you still don't know for sure so give that crap a rest. Own that you are an idiot when it comes to genetics by your own comments. You can fix that, the resources to actually begin to educate yourself are here.

Eliot, a transvestite is a person who dresses even lives as the opposite sex while maintaining the body of the birth sex. Identity is garbage as all transvestites will claim they "identify" as something even if it's subject to change with the underwear. That "I identity as" crap is exactly that, crap, a transvestite scam.

There are people born transsexual who have not be able to correct their bodies, it is the drive to do so that defines the condition, no drive, no transsexual. There are plenty of post operative crossdressers out there They are end stage fetishists also known as autogynophilics . Eliot, stop running your little head games. If you got a dick and wish to keep said dick you are not and never will be a woman. End of story. You can feel like a chicken but I would not expect any eggs from you.

This is exactly why I avoid trans people like a plague. Because, almost to the individual we are petty, vindictive, and bitter, quick to use cruelty and one-upmanship to wound one another as deeply as possible. We begin our struggle hopeful, trying desperately to simply be accepted and acknowledged as the gender we truly are. Sadly, by the time we come out the other end of the grinder that is transition we feel pitted against one another in order to force distance between what we were and what we are. "I'm better than so-and-so because I am on hormones" or "I am a REAL woman because I have had surgery."

Autumn can be terribly annoying. If you would have told me a week ago I would even bother defending her I would, I would have never believed it. Her endless articles about herself become keyboard-shatte ringly irritating. At the same time, this is one bloody mean, exceptionally personal attack article from a site that is apparently supposed to be heavy on science. Referring to Autumn as "he" is really, profoundly stupid and cruel. This isn't a reasoned, well-thought out response to Autumn's self-aggrandizi ng or a conversation about whether her taking part in the DODT protest was a hindrance or help to anyone involved. This is poking fun at someone because you don't like them. This is being purposefully hurtful to, let's face it, a pretty damn easy target to begin with. There's no shortage of reasons to criticize Autumn's approach to activism, but this Josephine person chose to instead be a bully. Because, obviously, the best route to changing hearts and minds or making your point is calling someone names.

Anyway, I leave you with a really deep and abiding bit of truth. I have found that the trans people who are most willing to unabashedly criticize others in our community with such venom, are often the ones who you are most like to "gender" as a line-backer for the Chicago bears.

Hope to see you on the defensive line next season, "Joe"!

See, I can be a bully too!

The minutia can be argued from here to eternity, but it doesn't change the basic fact that born male transgender folk want to keep their penis above all else, and born transsexual folk need the unwanted appendage removed.... end of story.

"A transsexual is someone who is driven to put mind and body into congruence to the maximum amount possible."

I suppose that's a fair definition, if you're simply leaving it at that, but I'm still not sure why this gives other people the right to tell me what gender I am. And if I can't choose to go by whatever pronoun I'm comfortable with, why should you be able to?

You object to my point about chromosomes because unless you go through a lot of hoops, you can't see them. But what if, in the near future, technology has become so advanced that they can make a device that will be able to detect XY chromosomes from a distance? Would you simply try to avoid the sensors and hide the truth? Would you give up and allow yourself to be labeled as a male? Or would you grow some integrity, stand up to those trying to out you and say that your gender identity is that of a female, and that the state of your body doesn't dictate who you are?

I wonder which you'd choose, to be honest.

I'll tell you this much TG Folks, I can smell the testosterone emanating from you from a distance of about 50yds. I can read the misogyny between every line you write. I can also foresee the time when your nemesis meets you. It's not that far away. Don't turn to those you call haters, bigots, self loathers, assimilationist s, sexist, homophobic and transphobic for support moral or otherwise. We will be long gone.

I actually hate no one, yet you all accuse me and us of hate. I don't hate you but I do pity you. But keep it up please, it's always good for a laugh.

This On Line magazine stands as the finest on the internet for its consistently high standard of scientific information. It leads with accurate assessments of work carried out at the very frontiers of human knowledge.

Over on PHB all they can do is deify the antics of a transvestite who drew attention to himself for his own self agrandisement completely nullifying the sacrifices of those with him. Talk about selfish. The whole transgender movement wreaks of testosterone and male privilege. AS a woman I deal with it every day of my life, that is why I recognise it when I see it read it and smell it.

It seems you've run out of cohesive arguments and are now instead turning to demeaning insults and vitriol—which is fine, I guess. You have a right to kick and scream if you want, but why kick at the shins of other transpeople? How is that going to make this world better for people like you and I?

Eliot wrote Quote:

The point that I'm trying to get at is that it's also not as simple as penis and vagina. Having a penis does not mean that you are necessarily a male, and having a vagina does not necessarily mean you are a female. My point of contention here is that if you're going to tell everyone with a penis that they must be male, then you can't make exceptions for people with XY chromosomes without committing a special pleading fallacy

No, you misread us, what we are saying is that if you want to keep your penis you are a male. If you are driven to have Quote:

sex reassignment surgery

to bring your body into congruence with your brain, you were born transsexual.

Transsexuality is about biological SEX/i]; Transgender is about conforming to a non-biological social construct that gender theory defines as GENDER. They are two separate things.

Neither one is better that the other, but they are different aspects of the human condition. They are not the same.

And, as friend, I would suggest that you don't put all your eggs in Autumn Sandeen's basket. Just saying.

Right, it seems I'm a little rusty on my fallacies. Still, though, there is no objective reason to hold the genitalia as the end-all-be-all for identifying someone's gender. At least there aren't any that can't also be applied to so called 'gender determining chromosomes'.

Quote:

No, you misread us, what we are saying is that if you want to keep your penis you are a male.

Say for instance that through some miracle of science someone who was born male managed to change their chromosomes to XX instead of XY. If they wanted to keep it that way, would they be female despite otherwise identifying and presenting as male?

If that same person went through SRS, but changed nothing else about his body, style of dress, or the way he identifies himself, would you consider him to be a female?

If a ciswoman decides that she wants a penis but does not identify as a male, does that make her a man?

See this sort of position enables those that try to say that we're not actually women or that we're not actually men. Just people who modify their bodies and play pretend. I guarantee that these stipulations you use to deny people the right to identify themselves in whatever way they're comfortable will only lend them credibility. They'll point to you and say "See? Even amongst themselves they know that just saying you're a woman doesn't make it so..."

Also, I'm not putting eggs in anyone's basket. I don't know enough about Autumn and her situation to be able to take a side on it. What I do know is that I identify myself as a woman, and that internal identification holds more weight than a thousand penises.

All I can recommend is that you keep reading and studying and work this out for yourself. The information is here and elsewhere. If you bring an open mind and heart to the task, who knows where it will lead in time.

All I can say for myself is that I am legally and medically female. My legal name is Sharon Sinead Gaughan. Your mileage may vary.

The ReCaptcha for this comment is "peace is".

No Elliot not run out of cohesive argument. I’ve been having these discussions/deb ates with the likes of you and some of the others here for some 26 years now. In that time I have learned that those who are as obstinate in their beliefs as you and some are also intolerant of opposing views, though as yet you have not displayed that trait, it’s simply a waste of time and really gets you nowhere.

The difference between sex and gender has been explained. The difference between transgender and transsexual as been explained and yet you obstinately return to hypothesis of such unlikely extremes as to be in the realm of reductio absurdum at which point you return to reality and say there that proves my point. Well reductio absurdum does not work, ask any lawyer.

I really care not a single fig what Sandeen does in his spare time and in private. I really don’t care much what they do in public for that matter so long as it is legal and within the bounds of public decency. I do care when a condition is claimed that is nothing whatever to do with the one they do suffer and in the process of so doing damages the chances of young transsexual women and men getting medical treatment for a medical condition. DSM 5 when accepted, makes it clear that when medical treatments are complete and the patient is living a stable life they are cured. These people will be deemed cured of their transsexuality. That is not going to be true for transgender. They will be held in the TG limbo for life. Autumn Sandeen historically claimed to be transgender non op and has been hyper-active spreading that word. Now suddenly Sandeen claims transgender and transsexual. You cannot be both, it is either or not both. The conditions are mutually exclusive if not arguably contradictory. (Might be moot)

So no I am not out of cohesive argument but I am weary of talking to brick walls and people with obstinately held beliefs by those intolerant of opposing views.

... for the gender argument. If you'll notice, Elliot's issue with these physical facts is their interpretation in a gendered system. For those that don't believe in gender theory it's easy to see why these facts do not add up to conflict and fallacy. For those who have known nothing but gender theory from the outset, everything because a confusing mass of contradiction, because the social theory known as is truly a mess. It's like the difference between wandering through the hedgemaze and looking down at the hedgemaze from a balcony. That's why the propaganda of gender is pushed so hard and tries to drown out competing voices- if you can imprint the theory of things first, it can be very difficult for someone to dig themselves out of it.

I like to think that I'm always open to be proven wrong, and that my stubbornness is just me being rigorous in order to make sure that if I am going to change my stance, it'll be because the argument I'm going in favor of has more merit.

While you haven't given me any argument that I can accept, I do thank you for at least being civil and not assumptive as some others have.

The ReCaptcha for this comment is "Percy Socialist"... not quite as neat and meaningful as yours but I'll take it.

you can define yourself as a rhudabega but it don't mean I have to agree with you

Elliot argues, "The fact of the matter is that the XX and XY chromosomes are every bit a part of someone's physical sex as anything, seeing as how, just like genitalia, if we check we can reasonably expect most cis-men to have XY and most cis-women to have XX."

Elliot, is your point that, because we have found something that correlates with the primary female sex characteristic, we now must now change the definition to give the unseen, imperfect predictive variable equal billing with the defining value??

Most "cis-women" have long hair, weigh less than and are shorter than the average man, have less body hair, were exposed to less androgen in the womb, and have various other characteristics in varying degrees. And, in your words, we don't even have to "check" for many of these things.

But, like chromosomal formation, none of these things constitutes the definition of woman, and none is perfectly correlated with womanhood. In other words, many people recognized as women legally, medically, in common usage and, yes, traditionally, because they have the PRIMARY SEX CHARACTERISTIC, have not had these other features. This includes so-called "cis-women," who are, like the rest of us, defined as female by their primary sex characteristic. (Gosh, I hate the term, "cis-women.")

But, Elliot, how many "cis-women" have penises?

As I said I TOTALLY support treating people with male genitalia who are living as female full time as women. But that should be treated as a normal variation, rather than justification for a gauzy meaningless redefinition of the sexes. I think I explained why elevating a predictive factor to a defining characteristic is a logical fallacy in my prior comment, and I prefer not to debate further.

No offense intended.

P.S. I just saw your pedophile comment. Maybe we all could use a break.

Actually, seeing as how we essentially agree that people who identify and present as women full time should be allowed to call themselves women, the particulars of how we come to this conclusion are essentially moot.

As for the pedophile comment, please try not to make more out of it than what's there.

I'm not sure how to even begin to respond to that, Leigh. Nothing you said there addressed my argument. I appreciate you trying, though.

Eliot and few others have made offhanded use of the term "Sex determination", a phrase easily misunderstood by the lay public.

For humans, there is a common assumption in the popular media that there is a unique male gene, Sex-determining Region Y (SRY), that "determines" sex. It does not. Scientists use the term "sex-determinat ion" as shorthand for an uninterrupted process that leads to typical sexual morphologies.

In general embryogenesis terms, determination is the fixation of the destiny of undifferentiate d embryonic tissue. "Sex determination" just means that: a set of information values are fixed in place that can reasonably be expected to influence the outcome one way or another. Whether or not that outcome is reached can be another thing altogether.

Conception brings a flurry of activity to organize the resources necessary to development, including sexual development that is consistent with other instructions from the genome. This comes in handy should the organism proceed down an alternative developmental path away from the default female.

Once packaged as Sry, the data is organized and ready to initiate male development. For example, Sry includes the data necessary to support an informational target: testis formation. This simply means that the instructons are there for regulatory processes to interrupt the default ovary formation, which results in the morphological homologue: testicles.

Sry lacks intragenic regions (introns) and therefore does not have a role in transcription to regulatory RNA and/or the expression of other genes. Regulatory processes act on Sry, but the gene has little direct effect on other genes. What data Sry contains is ready for pickup by the agents of regulatory processes and subsequent development.

Under ordinary circumstances, the SRY gene is found on the Y chromosome in therians, including humans. Parts of this gene can also be translocated to the X chromosome, a form of information transfer that results in XX male syndrome.

posed by a self-proclaimed "dyssonant" member of your community who proudly plays by "her own rules".

"Is a person who has not (and may or may not) had genital surgery but lives as a woman (full time) a transsexual, and what sex and what gender are they?"

Well...a reasonably thoughtful person, not burdened by the "esoteric, essentialist existentialism" of this current debate.....migh t just say NO. She is simply a woman; a female of the human species. I mean, my MOM hasn't had any genital surgery, and she certainly lives full time as a woman.

However, in this current debate, grappling with the basic meanings of such confusing terms like "boy" or "girl", the question becomes, as intended by the author, a maddening conundrum, trapping unwary thinkers in an endless loop of conflicting definitions and political agendas.

Nevertheless, the "question" or riddle does have merit, in that it draws to the forefront, THE QUESTION. Is a "chick with a dick" or a "woman with a penis" a transsexual or a transgender? I would answer as follows. If that person has, or is in the process of actually CHANGING their morphological/p hysical SEX, then yes. That individual would meet the accepted definition of transsexual. If on the other hand, there is no uncompromising DRIVE for such a complete and total physical/morpho logical alteration of the physical genitalia, then my answer would be no. That person could not honestly be classified as a transsexual.

Now barring for the sake of brevity the argument over "labeling", since this REALLY is what this question is about), or "I can identify anyway I want..." Does saying that you are ten feet tall ACTUALLY, REALLY make you ten feet tall? Does saying or asserting that one is ANYTHING, a man, a woman, an elephant cause one to actually BE such. I would argue that in any SANE world, it does not.

SO, what about the majority of the people here that ARE NOT driven to such drastic ends (surgical alteration of one's genitalia), and yet still feel strongly motivated to identify/act like/look like/dress like the opposite sex. I would argue that they are entirely free to do so, but they clearly, by definition, ARE NOT transsexual.

Bravo AnnaRose ...

I too saw that question from dyssonnance and immediatly recognized it as loaded. Others pointed that out to some degree and when dyss didn't get the answers she was hoping for, tried to mold the responses into something that could validate the argument in her favor.

I believe this is called wagging the dog ..

I left a comment at Dyss blog.

www.dyssonance.com/.../

In the European Court of Justice in the 1990’s in the PvS case, transsexual was defined as,

a person intending to,
a person presently undergoing,
a person who has underwent,

Sex Reassignment surgery.


I also pointed out the legal standing of the so called Yogyakarta Principles.
www.dyssonance.com/.../
The principles read OK initially, until you sit down and go through them with a fine tooth comb.

I am not "trans" anything either, but in my opinion there are serious issues at stake when we reflect on the situation of pre-operative individuals who have to overcome financial, medical, legal and other obstacles to correction. Promotion of SRS as a lifestyle choice continues to do harm.

Attempts at redefinition to serve unrelated identity preferences impedes progress. All of this, of course, is imho.

devinkay,

You say you are a first time visitor. The opinion piece, by a guest commentator, IMO is not at all representative of this website. Many regular readers, including this one, did not agree with the comments expressed in the opinion piece. I have a feeling that most wish to move on to more productive pursuits.

If you are so inclined you may wish to stop back from time to time, and you may find something helpful or interesting to you.

What do you suggest we say in a disclaimer and where would you recommend we place it?

What follows is an attempt to provide you with some background, but not presume to imply any particular position on your part. So first, let me remind everyone that there is a difference between factual news reporting, analysis, and opinion. Too many people forget that.

There is no doubt that this guest opinion column is an entry into a long line of contentious pieces on a variety of topics, written by a variety of people, and published at a variety of websites with little notice. Because TS-Si.org released the opinion column, it received more notice than might normally be the case. It is only a one-off instance, but has been characterized by some as representative. Hardly.

People can have strong feelings about issues or individuals - both pro and con - as is evident here. One thing is for sure: we will defend their ability to speak and raise even the most uncomfortable of issues. The issues raised by this piece remain in dispute and could bear closer examination. We have done this more quietly elsewhere in this site and a guest columnist did it here, in an arguably more colorful manner.

We strongly support dissenting views and have a history of providing a safe haven for those who have been abused on other sites. We currently have nearly 200 authors on our site. A handful of them - I can't disclose how many - have been banned, ridiculed, intimidated, stalked, and/or even threatened with physical violence for their views. We do not necessarily agree or disagree with their voews.

Some of the opinion columns that appear at TS-Si.org can contain opinions (or even practices) that can raise strong counter-opinion s and feelings. This column, Autumn Sandeen (did not) Die For Your Sins, certainly qualifies as such a column.

The author adopts a rhetorical convention that offends many people but was defended in this particular case by others. In the former case, "misgendering" occured given the circumstances presented in the column, while in the latter case it was an appropriate response to circumstances presented in the column.

You can see from the comments that this disagreement was seldom directly addressed but instead aired out in the most emotional and accusatory terms. The column originally put out on the table a multi-layered argument that combined a substantive political issue with considerations of social protocol, but did it in a way that offended the sensitivities of many people.

The column contains views that assume the reader has knowledge of an extensive history on the person at the center of the narrative. We have a large number of literate and careful readers who, if not acquainted with this prior history, ordinarily would ask a question like "Why did you call Autumn Sandeen a Mister" and expect a responsible answer (whether they agreed with or not).

That did not happen because a disputational tsunami soon arrived. In fact, I even stated at one point what I did expect in place of the emotionalism: I said:

We decided to run this piece understanding that it could arouse strong passions. However, it is in many ways far less provocative than what I have seen elsewhere. Besides, we also hoped it would stimulate some strong thinking.

This is, after all, an opinion piece and open for serious critique. There have been a handful of on-topic, calm and deliberative comments. They were were ignored by most. I am disappointed that most of comments build their criticisms on unexamined premises and expect compliance at the cost of a dissenters personal autonomy.

Some went on to make doctrinaire assertions about "self-identific ation" and "misgendering". The audience would benefit from reasoned discussion of both topics. Likewise, is it really true that we can assess someone from afar as being TS or TV, this or that? If so, how? And what does it matter in the long run?

And how do these kinds of topics and questions tie into the original incident discussed in the opinion column?

Please note that the first two sentences of the third paragraph have been quoted on other sites, while ignoring the final three sentences.

Policies and Site Guidance

-- The site as a whole is guided by a collection of policies, many of which are presented in our Terms of Service (ts-si.org/.../terms-of-service) (Link. (ts-si.org/.../terms-of-service)) See below for discussion of our Terms of Usage for comments.

Article Classification

-- Each article is assigned to a section and category suitable for its content. In this case, the combination "Opinion - Guest Columns" appears at the top of the page between the title and author lines.

Bylines and Sponsorship

-- Each page with a byline also carries a box containing information on the author; all pages carry a box denoting site sponsorship.

In this case, the author box carries this statement about the author: Her signed articles contain her own opinions and do not necessarily convey an official position of TS-Si, its partners, or affiliates.

In this case, the site sponsorship box carries this statement about the site: The TS-Si News Service is a collaborative effort by TS-Si.org editors, contributors, and corresponding institutions. The sources can include the cited individuals and organizations, as well as TS-Si.org staff contributions. Articles and news reports do not necessarily convey official positions of TS-Si, its partners, or affiliates. We welcome your comments.

Comment Handling

-- Comments on any article on this site are guided by our Terms of Usage, accessible before clicking the consent box by following the link entitled I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage (above the ReCaptcha Box).

For convenience, I will reprint the current terms here.

Terms of Usage: TS-Si.org

TS-Si welcomes responsible comments.

We encourage lively, open debate, but ask that you show respect for others. We often publish material that presents challenges and insights worthy of extended discussion. This can be done with emotional maturity and intelligence.

Before commenting on an article, please read it thoroughly and stay on topic. Address the issues without presumptions about the author(s) or other persons.

We reserve the right to remove a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, libelous, mysogonist, phobic, profane, or otherwise inappropriate.

By submitting your comments we reserve the right, at our sole discretion, to change, modify, add, or delete your comments at any time without further notice. Some comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site.

The previously mentioned abuses and/or any attempt to post a solicitations and/or advertising, flood, spam, or otherwise disrupt TS-Si.org operations are subject to further sanctions.

All comments input into the TS-Si.org comment facility are copyrighted by TS-Si, Inc. These Terms of Use are subject to modification at any time and at our discretion.

Thank you for your suggestions and comments (including the praise).

All of your remarks were interesting, but we are particularly struck by your statements that highlighted the situation faced by a first-time visitor who folllowed a link to a particular content item.

We serve our readers in many ways. Various statements on our pages provide a guide to content types and do, of course, attend to necessary legalities. But they also provide cues to the overall site context for any given content item before the reader.

We do not have a professed policy "to present material that 'could arouse strong passions'", but do accept that it may happen. We have been criticized by some very engaged adherents of Creationism and Intelligent Design for running research reports on evolution.

Every site has to deal with the nature of hyperlinked cross-referrals from other sites and search engines. Site managers can post all sorts of caveats; in the end, much depends on the capabilities of the visitors and their willingness to place any particular article in the overall context of the site.

Most of our visitors do exactly that, suspending judgement until they look at the front page and various section/categor y pages, and examine other available materials. They tend to get a feel for the place, coming back later to read some more. In technical terms, we are talking about visit duration and user retention, both of which are extraordinarily high at this site.

We do get our share of surfers looking for controversy. Studies have shown that an extraordinarily high percentage of people surf from place to place and hardly spend any time at all on any one site.

Within that group, some visitors will stay and read something if it strongly aligns with the preexistent views of the reader or, to a lesser extent, if they view the content as a threat that must be countermanded as swiftly as possible. This all derives from and reinforces the political contentiousness so evident today.

This is especially true if the first exposure was an opinion piece. In fact, some visitors seem to live in a bubble of controversy and show little interest in the rest of the site. The opinion pieces take up the least space and occupy the least visitor time while generating the most heat (but not necessarily the most light).

What you call "vitriolic comments" on the article have wide dissemination. Comments for each article are available via RSS (the button at the top of each comment block). This particular set has thousands of readers. Obviously, most of them do not post a comment themselves, but they do listen. We also receive voluminous feedback via our contact facility.

You refer to "posters who are obviously well entrenched here". I do not know what that means. The same people come and go and at various times and have opinions about us that can be hostile or flattering. Participants in our parent organization, TS-Si, typically do not post comments, leaving that to our visitors. This is because the site is not about us per se. The najor exceptions are Lisa Thompson and me.

You say you had the initial "sense that the site itself is the product of some loony fringe wannabe revolutionary clique". That is an interesting perspective, given that we sponsor no club, group, or clique. We are sometimes accused of that, often to contradictory ends. When it happens, it is always because of a visitor's strong disagreement with an opinion column and the unjustified inference that the site management has a disagreeable agenda that aligns with what they just read.

There are many unsettled questions in public policy but activists for one side or other can take their own position as orthodoxy. Deviations from that by an opponent are then interpreted as apostasy. At best, vigorous and enlightened debate ensues; at worst, we get a demonstration of how intelligence and maturity are unevenly distributed across the mass internet audience.

You said: "I hope where I've landed proves a small island in a sea of knowledge and compassion, as your mission statement implies."

TS-Si and TS-Si.org are never really about us, but considerations beyond ourselves. We do have an organizational scope that focuses on helping to remove obstacles in the path of people who strive for full hormonal and surgical correction of their birth condition. Essentially, the prime focus is on pre-ops, as seen by experienced post-ops who have come to understand the responsibility we have to share. Just how we go about that is open to question by others; our commitment is not.

I always enjoy conversations with people who do not shout and can carry on a reasonable conversation free of psychoneurotic preoccupations. People who see the world from a perspective cramped by ideology or personal hangups often miss how much there is to see that could enhance their understanding.

TS-Si.org is currently planning the next phase of our evolution, including another major content expansion and technology refresh. We have all of your suggestions for improvement under active consideration as we seek improvements in service to our users.

Thank you again for your suggestions and comments, including the praise.

Sharon S. Gaughan
TS-Si Co-Founder, VP & Executive Director
Managing Editor, TS-Si.org
ts-si.org (ts-si.org)

Since my last post, part of an exchange with Devin Kay, we have received several comments from readers who subscribe to the RSS Feed for the comments to this article. Most of the input came from our institutional readers.

I said in my comment that
Quote:

This particular set has thousands of readers. Obviously, most of them do not post a comment themselves, but they do listen.

There were two common themes from our RSS subscibers:

(1) they are interested in the topics and view the back and forth as illustrative of the issues - both settled and unsettled - as they play out in a public space.

(2) they pay the closest attention to comments that are calm and reasoned. They tend to dismiss what they characterize as rants, particularly if they are repetitive and do not advance the dialogue.

These are themes we often hear but the tone was quite emphatic in this case.

On the technical side, our readers would like to see improvements in the comment facility. That is definitely on the way with our next major site upgrade.

As most readers know, we do perioic upgrades designed to further enhance both content and our visitors' experience while on the site. We expect to implement our next major site upgrade during the next few months.

We will have more to say about this in a special article as we approach the unveiling of several content extensions and technical improvements.

Devinkay had this to say:

Quote:

For a post-operative transsexual to deny others' self definition on political grounds is the depths of irony. Despite the pretzel-logic efforts of some to segregate on the basis of body parts, the fact remains if Ms. Sandeen warrants male pronouns then everyone here who isn't a natal female warrants male pronouns. How damaged must you be to grab the high ground then turn around and kick the heads of those yearning for what you grant yourself by virtue of nothing more significant than a surgeon's handiwork?

You can insist that the mere absence of a penis makes a female, and you can misuse the terms transgender and transsexual as though they're mutually exclusive, and you can ascribe to whom you will the gender you deem fit based on your fabricated self-serving pseudo-scientific delusion, but you might want to bear in mind that beyond the borders of this thread your picayune posturing is meaningless. Go ahead and be insular and judgmental and see what sort of allies you gather, some few more sad souls like yourself, whose hunger for extrinsic validation corrupts and diminishes any cause you may think you have.

Haters are the same whatever their agency, and you're no better than the worst of them.

Sorry Devinkay, but the denial is NOT based as you claim on "political grounds" but on factual evidence and by definition of who and what a transexual is and what makes them Transexual; it is certainly NOT someone that decides to wear female clothing but retain their birth genitals unaltered. It is NOT a choice to declare yourself "Female"(or "Male") and demand government issued ID and free access to all female spaces. Transgender in which someone merely cross dresses full time as did Virginia Prince does not make them Transsexual; the terms are mutually exclusive since a transsexual has a driven need to transition physically and completely (as medically possible). By the way, the only "pretzel logic" is that presented by the transgendered that want to include or be included with the Transsexuals. Now if you bothered to read the opinion piece, you would have discoverd that "Miss" Sandeen when placed with the group of FEMALES arrested, immediately proclaimed "herself" to have a penis and balls, making her legally a "MALE" :

"Now we have, right on cue, "How I was abused when I was arrested" article on the front page of Pam's. "President Obama: A Transgender Veteran Is Not An ''Impersonator, '' ''It,'' Or ''Shim''. Autumn Sandeen. Pam's House Blend (26 April 2010).

In this article Sandeen reveals he was initially given a female arrest bracelet but told, by his own account, no fewer than four or five people processing him "I have a penis and balls" and then is surprised when the identification is changed to male and he is taken from the female queue and placed in the male one!"

Sorry too, BUT your assertion that calling transgenders and "Miss" Sandeen a Male does NOT in any way shape, form or wild stretch of the imagination make a Post-op a male. I am post-op and am female in every sense of the word and furthermore, my birth State agrees with me and upon presentation of the proper credentials, issued a birth Certificate showing that I was a "LIVE FEMALE BIRTH", a step denied to transgenders still owning a penis and balls, no matter how loudly they proclaim themselves to be "female". You might also be amazed to learn that Transgenders don't get to determine my status or to move me under the transgender "umbrella" no matter how much they would like to do so to cover themselves in the publics mind. I find MANY people that agree with me and also find that the Federal Government agrees with me; see if a person with a penis and balls can get a Passport listing as a female without a phony letter.

As far as "HATERS" , sadly you well fit your own definition of that sad group, you hate those that REFUSE your picayune label of Transgender and refuse your assertion that Transgender equals Transsexual. You hold a sadly mistaken belief and I have a great deal of sympathy for you and others like you with the same mis-guided belief.

By the way, it might be of benefit for you to go and do some in depth studies before ranting on. Just my Non-hating opinion you understand.

Pamela

Ditto: Cathryn and Pamala.

Devinkay wrote Quote:

The problem is that the definition of the term transgender is as concrete and universally accepted as the term human being, and using it any other way undermines the credibility of those doing it.

Perhaps in the phantasmagorica l spires of gender theory, transgender has some fixed, agreed upon meaning, but in the world where the rest of us live and work, transgender has no legal, medical, or scientific definition. A word that encompasses every possibility defines none.

There is no definition [of transgender] that will hold up in a court of law. What you cannot define specifically, you can not legislate for.

What is your personal definition of transgender? Please share with those of us who no longer have access to professorships and activists who speak for all of us.

We really would like to have a useful definition other than "everyone who isn't cisgendered."

Pamela, can you provide a link to the factual evidence that makes it possible for one person to determine with complete assurance and universal accord the gender identity of another? If not then we're talking politics. Your vehement ASSERTIONS about what YOU personally THINK transsexual is or isn't DON'T make them SO. A few more CAPS might do it, though. In fact, your criteria seem completely arbitrary to me and no more based on empirical evidence than those who profess the existence of a divinity.

I did bother to read Sodomese's sad ramblings, several times in fact, trying my honest best to find just one redeeming thing in it. I didn't, but that's for another time, maybe. I saw where Sodomese attributed an unsourced quote to Ms. Sandeen to the effect that Ms. Sandeen was supposed to have said, "I have a penis and balls." Was Sodomese there? Does she have a source that will swear under oath that Ms. Sandeen uttered those words? Did Ms. Sandeen assert somewhere that those were her words? If so, I'll eat crow. If not, Sodomese has gone dangerously close to committing libel. Considering the viciousness of her entire piece I find myself hard pressed not to believe she made that quote up to fit her yellow narrative.

What do you think Ms. Sandeen should have done, try to conceal her male anatomy from the arresting officers? Do you know how many transgendered women have been assaulted by police officers while under arrest? Is the officers' prejudice in this case not apparent in the way Ms. Sandeen reports they treated her? Consider what might have occurred if the officers had conveyed Ms. Sandeen to a females-only holding cell all the way across town only to discover her genitalia during a strip search. I have little doubt that's what was going through her mind when she outed herself when she did. I don't know that, but it seems a more plausible explanation than Sodomese's LGB tranny-takeover conspiracy theory.

To attack Ms. Sandeen for complaining about her ill treatment on the grounds that she deserved it because she has a penis is just the sort of bitter reasoning that makes it okay for prostitutes to get beaten up and raped. It represents the point where politics (religion -- philosophy -- call it what you will) trumps compassion. If you can't see the wisdom of unequivocally condemning the violation of anyone's rights to any extent for any reason, I don't wonder why we're seeing the frighteningly rapid erosion of civil liberties in this country. You think you're safe because you got you some surgery? Do you really think segregating yourself from cross-dressers is going to win you some sort of protection? The only safety is in numbers, and your insistence that you belong to a special private girl's club is a move in the wrong direction.

Until you provide that link to the factual evidence for observable gender identity markers, I say you warrant the same gender pronouns you ascribe to Ms. Sandeen. Do you consider that an insult? I don't intend it so. I only offer you your own logic. Do you think surgery and state-issued paperwork makes you a female or validates your womanhood? I don't. I do, however, think that if you declare yourself female I'm willing to accept that. After all, who should know better than you, right? Why won't you give Ms. Sandeen that consideration?

Speaking of being amazed to learn something, you might be amazed to learn that the definition of transgender isn't up for a vote. I won't go so far as to say it's immutable, but I will tell you that the way you use it finds no support beyond your tiny clique of aspiring separatists. You can continue to use it like a cudgel and a curse but you really ought to know that to anyone with more than a dash of literacy you look silly doing it.

I have to concede, you got me on the HATER thing. I am a HATER. I hate willful ignorance and intolerance like cold snot. I hate that we're ten years into the 21st century, blessed with virtually instant access to all the information in the world, and we still have people who prefer to cherry pick that information to build walls from which they can crap on others. You needn't feel sorry for me, though. I know who I am and don't need anyone to validate me. I don't need to warp the language so that I can feel superior. I don't even want to feel superior. I'm happy just being alive, doing my best, living and letting live in a world of infinite possibilities.

Would you care to direct me to those in-depth studies you recommend? I would absolutely love to see for myself what you know that I don't.

Cathryn, regarding ENDA's language, any bill governing the treatment of gender identity must necessarily reflect the common ground of a broad spectrum of lawmakers, exclusively non-transgender ed lawmakers, almost exclusively male lawmakers, almost as exclusively older lawmakers, arguably as exclusively heterosexual lawmakers, some fundamentalist Christians, some homophobes, many who have never met a transgendered person in their entire life. In that light, why would you seriously consider ENDA any sort of affirmation of gender identity? At best it's a grudging nomimal capitulation to the demands of a reality that can't be forced back into a closet and far from the last word in scientific evidence.

I love Barney Frank, but he's just an old gay guy who last time around dumped gender identity from the bill the moment he got a whiff that it might pass without it. So now he unsurprisingly sells out to the stereotypical, deeply-entrench ed, eons-old paradigm that gender is between the legs, and you want to make that your measure?

As far as the DSM goes, it has been wrong about transsexualism since it first addressed the subject, but now because it suits your views you're willing to embrace it? Are you aware of the controversy surrounding board members Blanchard and Zucker? Read about them and tell me the new DSM is no longer tainted by preconceptions and bias. I say its new position on gender identity is but an incremental (grudging) step on a long road to the truth.

You're right that your "Gender Congruence" certificate is a joke, so's your driver's license and your passport and your birth certificate, if you think any of them determine your gender. Obviously they don't, they simply sign off on it because you've managed to meet a set of arbitrary committee-creat ed gender standards.

Almost nothing we currently know about gender identity is manifestly extrinsic; science still isn't able to point to anything that invariably affirms it. What we have at this point are a few "possibilities that might indicate," which is a far cry from irrefutable evidence that can be used to say with unequivocal assurance that's male or that's female.

Well, I don't know about you but I don't need science, much less politics, to validate my reality. I'm female because I know I am. I've always known. If I hadn't reached a place in my life where I could afford the surgery I would still know. If I were to have hemophilia and couldn't have surgery I would still know. If I were to choose to forego the surgery for my loved ones' emotional well-being I would still know. You and Barney Frank can say what you will, you can cite all the studies you can find and make all the laws you want, my own self awareness tells me you're just simply wrong. And if you're wrong about me, you're probably wrong about others. And if you're wrong about others...

ENDA's a good thing, and it comes with a lesson I believe some on this thread would do well to consider. As you know, the T in LGBT is met with hostility by a certain faction of LGBs who believe we drag them down and complicate their agenda. Some, like Barney Frank and John Aravosis of AMERICAblog, make no bones about their resentment; they'd as soon spit on us as be identified with us. Luckily, the LGBT movement is big enough and peopled by enough decent open-minded souls to negate the self-serving opportunists who would abandon us. We owe our inclusion in ENDA to them, and they in turn owe us a nod for helping swell their ranks. It's out unity that gives us strength. Seeking to divorce yourself from others on the basis of whatever rationale does it for you serves no one so much as those who would keep us powerless and marginalized.

Devin, I really don't know how to answer you because you are so far off the mark that I am literally staggered by your apparent arrogant ignorance.

I have zero need of validation. I am woman, hear me roar. This transsexuality stuff is mostly a footnote to my own life that I keep a hand in only because I have an adopted trans niece and the occasional woman I mentor. And I have a low threshold of tolerance for stupidity. Hell, if you bothered to look up anything about me you would have discovered that I was born intersexed, not transsexed and was surgically constructed as an infant into transsexuality.

My day to day life consists of running a Women's Spirituality Centre, fighting feminist causes and promoting women's equality.

And you come in here and lecture bull to women who have been living woman's lives for decades with garbage statement almost everyone of us knows first hand is garbage about crossdressers and drag queens like Sandeen being linked to a medical pre-natal birth condition that you even have information supporting understand about exactly that on your own webpage? That the meaning of transgender is settled when it never was and almost everyone who tried to define it comes up with something different? That the implied insult challenging the actual womanhood of women of history by applying a term that third genders them isn't a pejorative?

Go back to planet transgender where up is down, penises are feminine and black is white. And one last thought, surgery doesn't make one a woman, it's the treatment for those born transsexual who already are women neurologically. My ID didn't make me female, my life did. Get a clue. Like all the transgenders before you on this thread (and a post-op transgender is still a transgender and not a woman) you immediately go to the personal attack as you did on Joesphine and then me.

This constant parade of the insane is getting old.

Diana, I don't support ENDA (which is far different than opposing it) because essentially it is a watered down worthless feel good bill that only provides additional fund raising cover for HRC.

No one is going to be employed because ENDA passes. An employer simply will be prevented from hiring a GLBt person while openly stating why, it won't require anyone to actually hire anyone. Same for firing. I ran a business for about 25 years. I can tell you absolutely that you can fire or hire anyone you wish by just following the rules and as someone who was active in Civil Rights since the original battles in the sixties, it is almost impossible to sue an employer for discrimination is who isn't an idiot. Plus this bill would only apply to large corporations for the most part, the majority of whom already have non discrimination policies in place and totally exempts any employer with any religious connections at all.

It's all much ado about nothing. But the trannys must have their regular thing to be outraged over.

Devinkay wrote
Quote:

Do you remember how it was as you began trying to strip off that itchy facade of masculine machismo

.
The one thing I was never accused of was masculine machismo. There was nothing for me to strip off actually, I just became more myself.

Never fit in with guys. Never understood them. Never played their strange adolescent dominance games.

Was always the odd one: too bright, too different, too other. Girls have always hit on me, gay men have always hit on me, and now straight men hit on me.

There was no facade to scratch other than learning, when I was in grade school, how not to get beat up by those who might find me strange and think me an easy target.

Same skills are useful now.

Always was a girl on the inside, always have been me, with or without the correct sex marker on my birth certificate.

It's a totally different paradigm than the one you seem to be familiar with.

That facade of masculine was something I actually developed a daily ritual to "put on" for the world. I wore Greek fishing caps and when I put it on in the morning, did so in front of a mirror and mentally put on the male for the day.

Inside I was always female, never understood men or their motivations and transition itself was simply no longer putting on the male in the morning but just being me......which is pretty much what Lisa said and what most women of history seem to share as an experience.

No one is saying that you are less a woman.

You are, however, very comfortable using gender theory jargon – something that doesn’t exist outside of universities and gender advocate groups. So comfortable, it seems at times that you have internalized it without and no longer actually question what you are saying.

As for which one of us is the exception, how can you be so sure that the exception is me?

TS-Si is in contact with hundreds of long term post-op transsexuals around the world. We have found our experiences are similar (adjusted for differences in culture). We do not believe that any of us are exceptional.

I am uncomfortable with the phrase "Transgender Post-op" since it emphasizes the politicalizatio n of surgical correction, taking it away from the medical reality of the birth condition.

The "T" (for transgender) in the GLBT umbrella is a sociopolitical tactic that links sexual orientation to a combination of social presentation and/or female impersonation. It implies that anyone who is gay or lesbian is at least gender variant, or worse, a fraud.

It does not surprise me that so many GLB folks object to the inclusion of the "T".

For me, there is nothing in the GLBT assemblage that has anything to do with the core of transsexualism as I have described it here and elsewhere.

Some folks are committed to the doctrinaire expansion of the term transsexual to include individuals who are not full time and/or hormonally reconstituted, and/or seeking (or have accomplished) corrective surgery.

This has the effect of obscuring the urgent nature of true pre-op state and substituting a public relations claim of lifestyle choice.

We have seen too many people spin their wheels in transgender support groups. Fortunately, some see through this, emerge, and get back on the path to correction. But they are delayed and too often damaged in the process.

Just because transgender sociopolitical activists want to appropriate the transsexual narrative for their own purposes does not make it so. There are too many of us who never opted in to this and refuse to cooperate.

As I said in an earlier comment on "separatism", I can't quit what I never joined. Many more are coming 'round to say how sorry they were for falling into transgender dogma and regret they ever tried to join.

Some comments have been made here about how "we" are supposed to be stronger if part of a unified effort under the transgender umbrella.

Please note what has happened recently with DADT, ENDA, DSM-5, and other issues that touch on the reality of genuine pre-op transsexuals and former transsexuals. Progress has depended, not on acting out, but acting on facts and reason.

Actually, Lisa, I was recently labeled a "post-operative transgender," by someone who defines transgender as non-transsexual and therefore male. He who has ears, let him hear.

I've never taken a gender theory course, and while I did read every trans-related book I could get my hands on nearly ten years ago, I couldn't begin to tell you a single thing about a single one of them, except Jan Morris' Conundrum, which I found frightening and sad. I don't personally know a single transsexual besides myself, and the one and only time I attended a transgender support group I couldn't get out of there fast enough. I'm not a joiner and I don't belong to any gender community except my own, which has a population of one. I'm not sure what I could have internalized that hasn't been experiential, so whatever comfort I have with gender theory jargon is innate and sincere. Can you point me to my use of gender theory jargon so I can know what it is?

You ask how I can be sure the exception is you, and I say that I can't. It's an assumption based on my perceptions of the hundreds of hours of reading threads like this one in every trans-related website I've been able to find over the span of nearly a decade. I could be flat wrong and I'm willing to accept that upon presentation of credible evidence.

Now let me turn your question around, how do suppose some on this thread can be sure that all non-operative transsexuals aren't women? As I explained in an earlier post, I might well have not transitioned at all and died while I was still suppressing my core identity.

The easy answer is to buy into the accusation that I'm nothing but a "post-operative transgender" male. And that might work for every one of those long term post-op transsexuals around the world that you spoke of, but it doesn't work for me. I know who I am, and no theory, no matter how popular, can negate my self awareness. If anything, it would prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that a whole bunch of long term post-op transsexuals around the world are delusional.

You can go as far as to dismiss me as an anomaly, but without credible evidence to the contrary it would be as dishonest as my insisting that I know you're the exception, don't you think?

My point all along has been that no one can know someone else's gender except the one expressing it, and to discount that individual's gender expression because she doesn't fit some heretofore unsubstantiated gender theory or some chosen (and narrowly subscribed) definitions is tyranny, a sort of majority rules approach to gender identity not unlike the one cisgenders have exercised for generations.

How can you say, "We do not believe that any of us are exceptional," when the original article and most of this thread are all about asserting and defending exceptionality? An active contingent here aspires to create a paradigm that ensures its exceptionality and embraces any morsel of information it can to affirm it, including everything from ENDA and Barney Frank to "a dear friend who is a forensic psychiatrist" and "my uncle a psychiatrist."

And the primary reason I'm bird-dogging this thing the way I am is because I believe that paradigm is false and contrived for political gain, which this contingent appears convinced it can't achieve without first securing its exceptionality. I'm expressing my views, not to change anyone's mind but to challenge someone to give me a coherent reason to change mine. That ain't happenin'.

I think we have more than exhausted this topic We have no plans to limit the number of comments, given the possibility that someone new may drop by with their own perspective.

However, what has been said so far appears sufficient and can stand or fall on merit. Let us give this a rest.

I didn't see your cease and desist order until the page refreshed when I posted, Sharon. For what it's worth, my feeling is that the topic has hardly been breached, much less exhausted; but I get your point. Lots of passion but not much substance. Sorry for bringing gasoline to a house fire. To all I might have offended, no hard feelings, best wishes. If I may, I would like to offer the following youtube link as as my parting peace offering. It's a song, beautiful lyrics, my anthem. Enjoy. I'm outtie.

www.youtube.com/.../

Does not a TRANS-SEXUAL change SEXES and a TRANS-GENDER change GENDERS?

See I always thought that one's SEX was a biological structure and that one's
GENDER was a SOCIAL CONSTRUCT, that helped the sexes act/dress appropriately to
one's culture. OH SILLY ME and here I thought that all circles were ROUND not
square. "curiouser and curiouser" Hey! Ya got any more of those "red"
pills?...or was it the "blue" ones?

devinkay: "I don't believe age and time automatically translate to knowledge or wisdom, and I've seen precious little of either here to admire. The world is full of old fools. (And just for the record, I'm not calling anyone here a fool so you can put back down your poison pen.) "

dianakat: "And I tire of redundant harping criticism and absurdly TLR posts refusing to relinquish what has become a useless and ad hominem thread, even at the polite request of the managing editor. (And just for the record, no offense intended, so put away your reams of typing paper.)"

Your threat is duly noted and acted upon. This is over and your most recent posts unpublished.

Please stay off this site.

Sharon and Lisa;
I apologize for jumping in and answering the nonsense rant of r_u_lost, but I enjoy this site and reading the columns contained herein, even by those whose political motivations I disagree with with; it keeps my mind active and provides much fodder for thought as well as the scientific information ( some of which I lack the educational credentials to fully understand). I find the flow of comments to be very open and well edited to prevent wholesale insults yet permit a free exchange.

Thanks again for your efforts and work.
Pamela JS Dunn

Thank you for your kind remarks. This opinion column contained some serious points wrapped in a great deal of passion. The tone and rhetorical approach differ from most other opinion columns at TS-Si.org, but we do welcome diverse views.

I am struck by the asymmetry of the emotional reactions. Far more strident pieces have appeared elsewhere, including some truly savage and libelous assertions about pre-op and post-op transsexuals.

The people who posted in Autumn Sandeen's defense generally ignored the past history and the current context for Sandeen's actions. Just as bad are the conflations of fact and opinion, while attempting to assign associational guilt by mischaracterizi ng opposition via strawman construction.

The whole subject of "misgendering" is open to careful discussion, of course, but most of the posts took as givens a specific definition and proper application in real life. They are far from that but orthodoxy (by definition) cancels any departure ticket before the plane leaves the gate.

It is also a discussion that took place within a set of boundaries that exclude context, science, medicine, and a very important group: the general public.

It should be well known by now that we have been receptive to submissions by authors who represent the transgender activist point of view. What few responses we receive are incoherent, premised on loaded questions, scatological, irrelevant or some combination of all four. We receive even worse than that, items that are beneath comment.

Now we have to deal with obsessive behavior, threats and the usual attempts to silence us. We have been there before and I am confident it will come out the same way as in the past.

i think the DSM needs altering. lets move TS out of there and into a purely medical definition, and leave all the fruitcakes in there, since they are certainly mentally disturbed.