Of Turd Polishing and Lies

Views: 15825

UPDATE: On May 5, 2012, Dana posted the following in in a blog post:

I just had an email exchange with Cathy Brennan that didn’t turn out like I thought it would. I found out she doesn’t give a shit about me..and never did.

I guess Dana finally understands the outrage many of us felt when she was gleefully playing the fool in public for RadFems.


Today I found that I was the subject of another Dana Lane Taylor commentary. Dana is an opinion leader in the TS Separatist group and in this post she claims that I am trying to force her and those like her to give up identifying a transsexual women:

image

Then there are the power struggles which seem to have ramped up a lot lately. Cristan Williams, Supreme Queen of Transgender Historical Records and better than anyone else on the interwebz, is taking the lead.  She has been doing extensive research into the history of the word transgender, and is trying to make those of us who reject the identity accept it. No matter who coined that term or what history there is behind the term, we can just look at what it means now. I have referenced Charles Prince as the coiner of the term, before, but you know what? I could really give a shit who coined it.  I reject it simply for what it is today.

Dana’s Post

Presenting a historical record that isn’t aligned with Dana’s belief about reality apparently means that I am the, “Supreme Queen of Transgender Historical Records and better than anyone else on the interwebz.” She then moves into victim mode by climbing a rhetorical cross claiming, “[Cristan] has been doing extensive research into the history of the word transgender, and is trying to make those of us who reject the identity accept it.”

straw-man

TO BE CLEAR:

I have never once claimed that a Separatists must stop self-identifying in a way that is most comfortable for them. Claiming that I have done so is a demonstrable lie. I don’t care at all what a Separatist does with their life nor do I care how they chose to self-identify and I certainly don’t care if they don’t want to identify as being part of any specific community.

Believe it or not, I don’t sit around dreaming up ways to force Dana or any separatist into being part of the trans community. It’s the height of hubris to think that people actually do that.

Me investigating some Separatist truth claims isn’t about Dana or any other Separatist. I investigated those truth claims to satisfy my own curiosity. I posted my findings when it turned that a number of the myths spread by Separatists were just that: myths… as in..

image

As much as a Separatist might be amazed to learn, I didn’t conduct my research because I have a vendetta against them; Separatists merely sparked my curiosity. What Dana does with her life, how she lives it and how she choses to self-identify isn’t any of my business and I therefore do no comment on it – and that goes for any other Separatist out there. I’ve only ever commented on the factual realities surrounding their unsourced assertions of fact and when I’ve done so, I cite my sources.

 

TO THE SEPARATISTS OUT THERE:

If you want to write about me and the things that I’ve said, fine; just stop lying about the things I’ve said. Stop pretending that I care how you self-identify. What I care about are the facts. If you want to discuss the facts, then fine. However, arguing against made up positions only discredits your already dubious claims. If you can’t/won’t even deal with the criticisms of just a few of the truth statements you’ve made honestly, how can I – or anyone else – be expected to trust that your claims are worthy of serious consideration?

Stuff like this…

image

– “Just Jennifer” misrepresenting this post

… divests the Separatist group of credibility.  Just Jenifer isn’t the only one who lies about what I’ve said. Therefore, here are (yet again) the handful off issues I’ve raised:

  1. I asked to be able to have a chance to look at the objective evidence separatists apparently have so that I can have the opportunity to make an informed conclusion about TS Separatist assertions of fact. [Source]
  2. I investigated who coined the term “transgender” and found that it wasn’t Virginia Prince. [Source]
  3. I investigated if there had been a community of diverse constituent groupings for the last 40 years and discovered that there was. [Source]
  4. I investigated if the term “transgender community” existed in it’s modern usage years before Feinberg published on the topic and found that it had. [Source]
  5. I investigated the claim that the transsexual community had been colonized by and assimilated into a homogeneous non-transsexual community and found that it hadn’t. [Source]
  6. When Separatists took up the same bloody mantle of intellectual hucksterism I spoke up and correctly condemned their behavior. [Source]
  7. I have stated that I want full 14th amendment for ALL – even transmen. [Source]

These are my only points. My “agenda” begins and ends with these 7 points. If folks are going to criticize me, then at least deal with my actual points instead of arguing against points you’re pretending I’ve made.

AN ANSWER TO DANA’S CHALLENGE:

On 8/13 (today) Dana issued a challenge about a post from yesterday (8/12) featuring Cathy Brennan doing damage control. Dana wrote “So, how many of these leaders in the transgender / transvestite community published Cathy Brennan Answers Critics? None, so far.” So, I will meet that challenge. To wit:

Cathy Brennan: I support rational anti-discrimination protections for people of transgender and transsexual experience. As you know, I actively supported HB 235 in Maryland last spring, which would have banned discrimination in housing, employment and credit.

The key word is “rational” and what Cathy claims “rational” means as the entire context of her statement turns upon what Cathy means by this caveat. She later clears this question up for this particular audience saying:

CB: All anti-discrimination laws have an exception built in them to permit discrimination based on sex in certain public accommodations – this is why we have sex-segregated bathrooms, showers, locker rooms, and the like. The definition of gender identity that the LGBT organizations keep putting forth is overbroad, and allows males who are not transgender or transsexual access into female only space. This is bad for women.

She goes on to add a bit of context to what she considers to be “rational” later in the article:

CB: We fully support anti-discrimination protections for transgender and transsexual people that do not run roughshod over laws that protect females…

She then end the interview saying:

CB: I appreciate and respect that women of transgender and transsexual experience struggle to be accepted and recognized as women. I personally accept women of transgender and transsexual experience as women. Meanwhile, females in 2011 continue to struggle to be accepted as human. I would encourage women of transgender and transsexual experience to help us in our struggle as well.

When Cathy is interviewing for a piece that is supposedly aimed at simply answering critics, Cathy’s stance can seem fairly reasonable enough. The problem with this article is that the context in which Cathy uses “rational” is NOT the same context she chose to use in her UN letter:

image

Females require sex-segregated facilities for a number of reasons, chief among them the documented frequency of male sexual violence against females and the uniquely female consequence of unwanted impregnation resulting from this relatively common form of violence. [xxi] Public policy, therefore, rationally permits sex segregation in certain settings where a reasonable expectation of privacy exists.

xxi: Please see “Men in Women’s Restrooms,” http://ts-is-liberation.org/Men+in+womens+restrooms, an article cataloguing the presence of males in female-only space on the TS-IS Liberation website maintained by transsexual activist Dana Lane Taylor.  Our sincere thanks to Ms. Taylor for compiling this information.

Let me ONCE AGAIN explain why this is deplorable. As supporting evidence for her statement,  Cathy cites Dana’s personal wiki. Dana claims that transgender women are a risk to cisgender women:

image

The Transgender Community wants to stay in denial about the dangers of men using women’s private spaces. On this page, I am pointing to articles that show men should not be allowed in women’s private spaces. There is also a section on Transgender offenders. I see Transgender, Inc. deny the existence of transgender individuals (cross-dressers and transvestites) committing crimes against women in their private spaces.

Women born transsexual are NOT men. The public needs to know the differences between those with transsexual histories, crossdresser, transvestite and gender variants.

When Cathy says this:

Cathy Brennan: I support rational anti-discrimination protections for people of transgender and transsexual experience.

And then goes on to lend the following context:

CB: I appreciate and respect that women of transgender and transsexual experience struggle to be accepted and recognized as women. I personally accept women of transgender and transsexual experience as women.

This carries a certain meaning. Had this been the context of the UN letter, I don’t think I would have taken issue with it. My issue is that the above context is not the same as the following:

Females require sex-segregated facilities for a number of reasons, chief among them the documented frequency of male sexual violence against females and the uniquely female consequence of unwanted impregnation resulting from this relatively common form of violence. [see http://ts-is-liberation.org/Men+in+womens+restrooms for more info on this issue] Public policy, therefore, rationally permits sex segregation in certain settings where a reasonable expectation of privacy exists.

The link Cathy cites claims that transgender women pose a sexual assault risk to cisgender women. This statement also carries a certain meaning.

The behavior Cathy is engaging in is called equivocation. If Cathy, Dana or anyone else is not clear on why the argument posed in the UN letter is an example of disgusting bigotry, please feel free to READ THIS.

I am ashamed for Dana that instead of backing off such disgusting intellectual barbarism, she’s doubled down. It doesn’t matter to me that Cathy has moved into damage control mode and is now redefining the caveats she used in her UN letter for use by her apologists; what matters to me is that the intellectual hucksterism that both Dana and Cathy engaged in through the UN letter has not been honestly addressed. Cathy can try to polish her intellectual turd and Dana can stick her head in the sand and pretend that she’s not engaging in the same kind of bigotry that the KKK deals in if she likes. However, it won’t change the demonstrable fact that Dana’s disgusting, fatuous and contemptible ideology is one of the favorite tools bigots have used throughout history: the “some sicko can be associated with a population and therefore the entire population should be viewed as being suspect” reasoning. My god… they should both be ashamed of their continued behavior. Hocking this obloquy to the UN once is bad enough, but then denying that you ever did so makes the offence that much worse.

 

8/14/11 UPDATE:

 

Dana has responded to my post with some equivocation of her own. If you, like a lot of folks, understand that transmen and women who have not/cannot obtain complete  phalloplasty (FTM) or vanginoplasty (MTF) are NOT crossdressers and transvestites, then Dana’s critique seems fairly rational. However, that’s not the idea Dana is pushing. Dana believes – contrary to trans law, trans medical standards and English language definitions – if a MTF hasn’t had vanginoplasty, she’s male and needs to be forced into the men’s restroom and that is a FTM hasn’t had phalloplasty, then he’s female and needs to hang out in the women’s restroom.

image

From the 723 fight: One, does not in fact equal the other.

Dana and the penis police figure things are simple: If you’re a MTF non/pre-op, you’re a risk to the women around you and belong in the men’s restroom and the same goes for FTMs. When Dana writes “cross-dressing men” she’s not talking about what pops into the minds of folks who are familiar with trans terminology; rather, she’s using the word in a manner consistent with her own made up terminology:

image

Link to Dana’s post

In an effort to muddy the waters even more, Dana posts the following:

image

Link to Dana’s post

Claiming that men in little Bo Peep Halloween-like costumes for sexual kicks are “transgender women”. I’m sure she’s tell you all day long about how these BDSM images represent “transgender women”. This is lexiconic 3-card monte game that Dana is playing has real-world implications – as evident by the UN letter and if Dana can’t grasp why this is a bad thing, I think that speaks to the credibility folks should give her voice.

Published by

Cristan

Cristan Williams is a trans historian and activist. She started one of the first trans homeless shelters and co-founded the first federally funded trans-only homeless program, pioneered affordable healthcare for trans people in the Houston area, won the right for trans people to change their gender on Texas ID prior to surgery, started numerous trans social service programs and founded the Transgender Center as well as the Transgender Archives. Cristan is the editor at the social justice site TransAdvocate.com, is a long-term member and previous chair of the City of Houston HIV Prevention Planning Group, is the jurisdictional representative to the Urban Coalition for HIV/AIDS Prevention Services (UCHAPS), serves on the national steering body for UCHAPS and is the Executive Director of the Transgender Foundation of America.

97 thoughts on “Of Turd Polishing and Lies”

  1. Thanks for helping boost the signal of my message. But the more you publish about me the more outright lies you are stating. What did you expect to happen when you outright lied saying that I think transgender women are a danger to women? I never once said that. Show me where I did? I have also never said that a woman of transsexual history that hasn't had a vaginoplasty was not a woman. You are really starting to lose it. Fine by me, though. At least now people are starting to listen to our voices and take our voices seriously.

  2. “What did you expect to happen when you outright lied saying that I think transgender women are a danger to women? I never once said that. Show me where I did.”

    You said transgender (crossdressers and transvestites) people should not be allowed in restrooms due to they risk you believe they pose. Do you or do you not assert that non-op trans folk are crossdressers?

    ” I have also never said that a woman of transsexual history that hasn’t had a vaginoplasty was not a woman.”

    So, you’re saying that Monica Roberts is just as much of a woman as you are. Correct? If that’s what you’re saying, then I stand corrected.

    ” At least now people are starting to listen to our voices and take our voices seriously.”

    *facepalm*

  3. Every single one of the perpetrators on the page you refer to were male-identified male bodied testosterone filled men. You outright lied stating I said transgender women are a danger to women. You also insinuate that I think transgender people shouldn't use the bathroom. Seriously?

    And you can simply stand corrected on the vaginoplasty comment as I have never said anything like that. You are outright lying.

  4. "You said transgender (crossdressers and transvestites) people should not be allowed in restrooms due to they risk you believe they pose." I am calling you a liar. I never said that. I said MEN should not be allowed to use WOMEN'S private spaces.

    I have to chuckle at this "opinion" piece as I am the "Opinion spokes person" for the transsexual community. What happened to your obsession with facts? Out the window.

    You took the side of defending perverts that victimize women to further the agenda of the transgender cult. And you are using false statements to do so.

      1. Do you admit you are lying about me in this article? Your lies are also on other blogs such as transadvocate.

        I don't have to answer your question as I have thousands of words published on the Internet and not once have I ever said what you are insinuating. Keep publishing your opinions and delusions as facts. Hope it works out for you.

        1. This will make the 3rd time I've tried to get you to deal with me without sidestepping, blame-shifting and/or equivocation:

          There is also a section on Transgender offenders. I see Transgender, Inc.? deny the existence of transgender individuals (cross-dressers and transvestites) committing crimes against women in their private spaces. Women born transsexual are NOT men. The public needs to know the differences between those with transsexual histories, crossdresser?, transvestite? and gender variants?. – Dana's wiki

          1.) Are you claiming that non-op transwomen are women in the above statement or are you claiming that they're men?

          2.) Additionally, are you not urging people to make a value judgement concerning the risks of allowing transgender people the use of a restroom?

          Just answer the questions.

        2. The only claim I am making FOR THE BILLIONTH TIME is that the people on that page are MEN. These MEN are also part of the Transgender Community. My goal is to ensure the public understands that gender identity and gender expression laws should not be written in a way that would make it legal for MEN to take a shower with a young girl at a pool. See, this is the huge problem with the transgender umbrella.

          My argument is that men don't use women's private spaces, period. How many times do I have to answer this? You are trying to force me to answer a question that is actually not even related to my page. At no point in time did I mention women not being able to use women's spaces. I subscribe to Cathy Brennan's definition if that makes you feel better.

          CB: We fully support anti-discrimination protections for transgender and transsexual people that do not run roughshod over laws that protect females. We support the following definition of “gender identity – a person’s identification with the sex opposite her or his physiology or assigned sex at birth, which can be shown by providing evidence including, but not limited to, medical history, care or treatment of a transsexual medical condition, or related condition, as deemed medically necessary by the American Medical Association.” Such a definition would protect the classification of sex, while simultaneously providing a cause of action for discriminatory practices on the basis of a persistent and documented “gender identity.” We welcome people who fit into this definition into space segregated by sex in recognition of their perceived need for access and in the fervent hope that we can achieve such protection for identifiably transgender or transsexual people without harming females.

      2. "Do you or do you not push the idea that non-op trans women are men?"

        A simple answer, as regards my position…

        Men, who have no desire to change their sex, but who dress and parody women, i.e. what you are calling "non-op trans women," are men. Period. You are, of course, quite free to disagree, but no, they are not women, and are certainly men. Satisfied?

        1. So, not that the true facts about the origin of the "transgender community" (yes, Arnold Lowman, aka Charles "Virginia" Prince was heavily involved) have come out (ironically on Blierico) I assume you will be issuing apologies to everyone you have harassed of late….

        2. What are you talking about Jennifer? Are still claiming that that Price coined the term? Look up the definition of what "coining" a term is and then get back with me.

          The term was around for more than a decade before anyone began using the term to refer to crossdressers (which happened in the early 1980s). Pretending that when crossdressers began using the term that transsexuals stopped using the term is simply not aligned with the historical record. Since the early 1980s, the term has been used to reference transsexuals and crossdressers.

          Are you claiming that the above statement is somehow different than what I claimed in my Bilerico posts? If so, respond with a post wherein I make the claimed that the term "transgender" was never used to reference non-transsexual trans folk. Ah, that's right… you won't be able to do that.

          But here's the only thing you will be able to do: You're just going to repeat your assertion without providing any evidence to support it. You'll make a post or comment somewhere claiming the same, pretending that you've made some sort of point or proven something. Then if you don't see that you're rocking my boat, you'll begin using personal insults. You'll keep doing that until you find someone else to troll until you get board with them and then you'll be back. No, you're not going to provide any evidence… so go ahead and start in with your trolling. Amuse yourself and then move on girl.

        3. For someone who takes so much pride in playing semantical games, you are pretty lousy at them. I said "transgender community." Sorry, I said nothing about who "coined the term." You should really try to keep up with what is going on. The truth about how the transgender community, you know that group that you keep berating transsexuals for wanting to be separate from, and how it came to be in the form that it is now. You see, it is not very good for your point of view. Weiss over at Bilierico has posted a bit of history that, well, I am afraid it blows all of your silliness away. It doesn't matter who coined the word, or who might have used in the past, or how people might have conned dictionary writers into defining it. The real nature of the so-called "transgender community" has been revealed by the person who started it. Now, run along and read the article on Bilerico…here is the link:
          http://www.bilerico.com/2011/08/yvonne_cook_riley

          You see, that is called "evidence." Real evidence. Easily checked.

          Listen to the audio file. Now, since Bilierico is where you chose to start this, it appears that, shall we say, you have been "hoist by your own petard."

          And one last time, your condescending arrogance is really not cleverness. It is just lame, and really trite.

        4. So, we're already to the point where you use the personal attacks. So, here's the part where I say, "How – in any way – does what she say negate what what written about the "transgender community" in 1984?" This is where you add some more personal attacks, not answer my question directly and claim victory. Ready… 3, 2, 1… GO!

        5. What personal attacks? I am quite serious. I realize you think yourself very clever, but again, nope, not at all.

          I will make this real simple. What was written in 1984 is negated by changes made about six or seven years later, when the term was adopted by a new movement that grew out of IFGE. People like Prince, and Frye, who have long had animosity towards transsexuals, decided to create a new community that would unite all the "gender variant." The problem is, no one asked if transsexuals wanted to be part of it. We didn't, we don't, and we aren't. Some might identify that way, but that really is what it is. An identity. It is an artificial, social/political construct that has no real basis other than as an identity that one may, or may not, accept. I am not gender variant, I do not transgress, nor do I transcend gender. And I did not change my gender. I changed my sex. So, tell me….why should I be labeled transgender? Certainly not because some arrogant activist tells me to "grow up."

        6. Damn. I accidentally deleted your pithy response. Can you please repost your comment? I think it was something like “You are the weakest link” or something.

    1. There is also a section on Transgender offenders. I see Transgender, Inc.? deny the existence of transgender individuals (cross-dressers and transvestites) committing crimes against women in their private spaces. Women born transsexual are NOT men. The public needs to know the differences between those with transsexual histories, crossdresser?, transvestite? and gender variants?.

      Are you claiming that non-op transwomen are women in the above statement or are you claiming that they're men? Additionally, are you not urging people to make a value judgement concerning the risks of allowing transgender people the use of a restroom?

      You can make all the claims about me that you like. You can pretend that your above quote and/or the BDSM photos you posted urges people to view transwomen as women who should be allowed to empty their bladder if you like. I will leave it to the good senses of rational observers to conclude whether or not the ideology you peddle is worthy of serious consideration.

  5. The words I used were Crossdresser and Transvestite. I don't see how there is any ambiguity in that. This page is about MEN victimizing WOMEN, period. I find it interesting that you jump to the defense of these perverts over the protections of women. That is pretty much how the transgender community rolls (steamrolls over women).

    And since you made the claim that I said transgender women are dangerous to women and shouldn't be allowed in to even use the bathroom, a light went off. You basically said those men in the transgender section were women. So, if this is what the transgender community thinks women are, I need to educate the public about that.

    One of the big difference between you and I is that you are speaking to the transgender community and I am speaking to the transsexual, transgender and feminist communities as well as society at large.

    The transgender community refused to address the broad definitions of gender identity and gender expression in laws and finally a lot of women got fed up with it. Does it surprise anyone that Cathy and Elizabeth submitted an article to the United Nations? Doesn't surprise me one bit and I am proud to be a part of it.

    I never thought that the transgender community would actually help tear down walls that have existed between women of transsexual histories and the more assertive feminists groups. Kudos for that!

    1. The words I used were Crossdresser and Transvestite

      You've not answered my questions. LET ME REPEAT:

      There is also a section on Transgender offenders. I see Transgender, Inc.? deny the existence of transgender individuals (cross-dressers and transvestites) committing crimes against women in their private spaces. Women born transsexual are NOT men. The public needs to know the differences between those with transsexual histories, crossdresser?, transvestite? and gender variants?. – Dana's wiki

      1.) Are you claiming that non-op transwomen are women in the above statement or are you claiming that they're men?

      2.) Additionally, are you not urging people to make a value judgement concerning the risks of allowing transgender people the use of a restroom?

      Just answer the questions.

      I find it interesting that you jump to the defense of these perverts over the protections of women. That is pretty much how the transgender community rolls (steamrolls over women). And since you made the claim that I said transgender women are dangerous to women and shouldn't be allowed in to even use the bathroom, a light went off. You basically said those men in the transgender section were women.

      Oh. My. God… you're behavior is unbelievably Orwellian as any purported Fox News "no-spin zone". So, the game now is that instead of simply answering the questions, you're going to claim that I'm trying to get people to believe that these sick fucks are women? Wow… just… wow.

      Just answer the above two questions without sidestepping, blame-shifting, moving to goal posts or equivocation. Just answer the damn questions Dana.

  6. YOU said this:

    "Let me ONCE AGAIN explain why this is deplorable. As supporting evidence for her statement, Cathy cites Dana’s personal wiki. Dana claims that transgender women are a risk to cisgender women:"

    Since all of the vicimizers on my page are MEN (crossdresser and transvestites) how do you justify this false claim above? Crossdressing MEN and transvestite MEN are members of the Transgender Community. You were the one that put the Fox News spin on this.

  7. Wait…… what??? Dana said that pre-ops and non-ops should stay out of the women's restroom? Then I sure hope that she uses the men's room, because last I heard, Dana was still packing male wedding tackle!!!

    Really, what is the big difference between a pre-op like Dana and a crossdresser?

    1. "Dana said that pre-ops and non-ops should stay out of the women's restroom? "

      Cristan, congratulations for spreading the lies. See what happens when you lie? I never said that.

      1. QUIT FUCKING LYING! You are the one that says crossdressing men are women. You are a pathetic piece of shit. I am going to finish posting all of my information about my pre-op status.

      1. Nice… let me reply by a cut n' paste from above:

        I have never once claimed that a Separatists must stop self-identifying in a way that is most comfortable for them. Claiming that I have done so is a demonstrable lie. I don’t care at all what a Separatist does with their life nor do I care how they chose to self-identify and I certainly don’t care if they don’t want to identify as being part of any specific community.

        Believe it or not, I don’t sit around dreaming up ways to force Dana or any separatist into being part of the trans community. It’s the height of hubris to think that people actually do that.

      2. "Suck it"??? How manly of you to say such a thing, Dana!

        When I read your words, the word that nearly always comes to mind is hyp-o-crite. Look it up sometime. You used to be some sort of TG activist until you decided to "improve" yourself by turning on those you claimed to advocate for and became a "TS activist", belittling those who are just like you. And now what, you are dropping the whole "trans" thing altogether and siding with radical feminists who hate ALL trans people? What was it that your idol, Cathy Brennan said? Oh yeah, "Trans women are women in name only." She was talking about people just like you, Dana. Don't believe me? I dare you to post a comment on their rad fem hub and see how long it lasts before it is deleted. In their world, you are and will always be a man, no matter how much you suck up to them.

        So you want your employer to pay for you to have GRS. Not if your radical feminist friends have any say in it! I've read their blogs and many of them are quite vocal about wanting GRS and transition outlawed!

        Dana, you continue to rail against Cristan and others who have done so much to help the TG community. What have you done, other than bitch and moan in your blog?

        1. I know exactly who this is. 🙂 Didn't we agree that you and I being at war with each other wasn't productive?

  8. @ Dana and Cristan. This is getting absurd. Please call each other on the phone and discuss these issues. Texting is fraught with perils. You may disagree with each other but at least if you can have a civil voice conversation you both ought to be able to agree on the specifics of the differences in perceptions of sex.

    I have found in real life that women have no difficulty discerning who is welcome in which sex segregated spaces. But when an attempt is made to define it in "law" then it gets very complicated. Perhaps that is because the majority of legislators are men?

    1. You know, I thought about asking her to do a skype or blog TV session.

      When I say "crossdresser", I'm talking about a male-bodied person who sometimes presents a female expression of gender and does so for reasons of gender identity and not for sexual kicks.

      When I say "transwoman", I'm talking about trans folk whose gender identity conflicts with their sex assigned at birth.

      When I say "gender identity", I'm talking about one's innate experience of self as being male or female.

      When I say "transgender", I'm talking about those who violate cultural gender stereotypes.

      When I say "transsexual", I'm talking about people with a medical condition who have to address both a physical and social transition.

      I agree that this is getting ridiculous. Dana, if you're reading this… what say you? Would you be willing to do a blog TV session and talk about these issues?

      1. I almost posted a knee-jerk reaction to this so I will ponder about it instead. I have been publicly flogged by you and others in the transgender community over my support of a document submitted to the UN for protection of women. I don't just identify as transsexual, I also identify as a woman and am concerned about women's rights. The transgender community is not showing they care about women's rights, at least at this moment.

        1. Well, think about it some.

          I'm going to do a Blog TV session this coming week. It would be great if you could participate. If not, I'll be talking to the folks in the chat.

      2. After seeing that comment from Spmeone who cares (that you approved, intentionally) I refuse to talk to you. I have never been secret about any of my efforts, including lobbying for insurance coverage of treatment for transsexualism at the University of Pennsylvania. Do some research. This is no big secret and has nothing to do with my stance. I do not want MEN in WOMEN'S private spaces, period.

        1. Lets both admit that you and I communicating on this is futile. You are trying to force me to say something I do not believe and never insinuated. I have a feeling you are "Someone Who Cares".

        2. Ugh! Either you made a page featuring BDSM men named "transgender women" or you didn't. Which is it? Either you are claiming that transgender women are men or you have a really strange way of claiming that transgender women are not men.

        3. This is so exhausting.

          YOU are the first one who said I was talking about transgender women. YOU DID THAT FIRST! You said my page hilighting dangers of men in women's private spaces was translated into me saying transgender women are dangerous to females. Remember that? You are a total idiot and I refuse to discuss this any further. You are the one who stared all this crap and you know it. What a fucking moron you are. BYE

        4. This will make the 4th time I’ve tried to get you to deal with this without sidestepping, blame-shifting and/or equivocation:

          There is also a section on Transgender offenders. I see Transgender, Inc.? deny the existence of transgender individuals (cross-dressers and transvestites) committing crimes against women in their private spaces. Women born transsexual are NOT men. The public needs to know the differences between those with transsexual histories, crossdresser?, transvestite? and gender variants?. – Dana’s wiki

          1.) Are you claiming that non-op transwomen are women in the above statement or are you claiming that they’re men?

          2.) Additionally, are you not urging people to make a value judgement concerning the risks of allowing transgender people the use of a restroom?

          Just answer the questions.

        5. You are the one who attacked me stating that women are dangerous to women..remember? Oh, did you forget? So soon?

        6. No, I said that your disgusting logic is fallacious because it can be used on any group of people. To show how absurd the ideology is that you're selling is, I applied the same standards you us on "transgender" people (as you call them on your page) to women.

          Your page uses a wide brush by identifying the people on your page as simply transgender. When you post photos of abusers on your pages, you don't claim something like: "These people do not represent the transgender community." No, you label them as being transgender and then claim on your website that transsexual people are not transgender. Context is everything. You then gleefully post BDSM men in Halloween costumes and call them transgender women. Did you post a disclaimer saying something like, "These people do not represent the transgender women." No, you didn't.

          Lastly, please distinguish between an attack on you personally and an attack on your ideas. A personal attack look like this:

          Suck it bitch. LOL – Dana Taylor @ 6:07 PM

          What a fucking moron you are. – Dana Taylor @ 5:33 PM

          You are a pathetic piece of shit. – Dana Taylor @ 5:23 PM

    1. That was you that posted that crap about Nikki and I? *facepalm*

      The icon you used looked like a drag queen shoe, so I never made the connection. You have the privilege of being the one and only person on my block list LOL!

      <img src="http://cristanwilliams.com/dana-block.PNG"&gt;

      Yah, I have no desire to read any of that. I'm guessing that if it's anything like your opines about Nikki and me, it's just more uninformed and unsourced gestations.

      However, I've scheduled a BorgTV… erm, I mean BlogTV show this Weds. I'm putting out a public invite. Please come. The discussion will be TS Separatism. If you join as a co-host, you'll get a nifty video of you PWNing me, right? Otherwise, I'll host the chat and just talk to those who show up. If another Separatist wants to take your place as a co-host, I'll do that so at least there can be some face-to-face dialogue between the two sides happening.

      1. Drag queen shoes? Really? Did you not notice the spikes on it? Put 2 and 2 together on what those shoes represent. And no, I am not going to talk with you as I can't trust you.

        1. Well, the shoes seemed to be so over the top that they'd be unusable except as a stage prop. Knifes on shoes… Is it a commentary on the name of stiletto shoes?

          Anyway… yah, I don't trust you at all either. Remember, you're the only person I've ever blocked on FaceBook; that's saying something. However, just because you are the one person I trust the least out of all the people I've met on the internet, I'm still willing to hash this out on a face-to-face forum. If you've not changed your mind by 5 PM Central time, I'll let Deena know that you've refused and that she will be speaking for the TS Separatists instead of you.

      1. My heart lies in rights for women of transsexual history without sacrificing the rights of women. Can you do the same? Do you see I am not this evil person that you make me out to be? Everyone interprets things in a way to benefit their own agenda and you sacrificed me for that. I FIGHT for rights of transgender and transsexual women as long as it does not put the safety of women in jeopardy.

        1. Sidestep.

          Everyone interprets things in a way to benefit their own agenda…

          Everyone? Really?

          Do you see I am not this evil person that you make me out to be?

          I have not once commented on you as a person. I have commented on you're behavior. I do not think that you're an evil, bad or stupid person. I've never said that and I've never inferred that. What I have said is that your page uses a wide brush identifying the people on your page as simply… transgender.

          When you post photos of abusers on your pages, you don't claim something like: "These people do not represent the transgender community." No, you label them as being transgender and then claim on your website that transsexual people are not transgender. Context is everything. You then gleefully post BDSM men in Halloween costumes and call them transgender women. Did you post a disclaimer saying something like, "These people do not represent the transgender women." No, you didn't.

          I FIGHT for rights of transgender and transsexual women as long as it does not put the safety of women in jeopardy.

          And that last little bit is problematic. Give me an example where transgender RIGHTS put the safety of women in jeopardy. Posting pictures of sick fucks, pretending that they represent the transgender community and then making the illogical leap that should trans rights be approved, women's safety will be put in jeopardy is a fallacy. Moreover, it's a disgusting fallacy.

  9. Backfire? Maybe. Maybe there are other pre-op transsexuals who feel the same way I do and they will realize it is time to revolt against this insanity called transgender.

    1. Well, I'd like to give Dana 24 hours to think about it before I tell her that her spot is taken. If Dana refuses to talk by tomorrow, I'll connect with you and go over everything, okay?

      THANK YOU for your willingness to past through bickering!

      1. Yes, Dana really should do it rather than me. I have been somewhat a "separatist" longer than she has been alive but drag queens in the ladies room really don't bother me. Its obnoxious people who irritate me.

        1. Well, it's not an issue of should or shouldn't. It seems that you are more than capable of articulating things well.

          Basically, I'm taking you up on your suggestion and I want to give Dana some time to think about it. If she refuses, I think you would be able to talk about the issues better than most.

          I really appreciate your willingness to foster actual dialogue!

        2. I have verizon as my cell service. Call whenever you can. It is now after 9 pm my time so its free.

  10. You write: " If you, like a lot of folks, understand that transmen and women who have not/cannot obtain complete phalloplasty (FTM) or vanginoplasty (MTF) are NOT crossdressers and transvestites, then Dana’s critique seems fairly rational. However, that’s not the idea Dana is pushing. Dana believes – contrary to trans law, trans medical standards and English language definitions – if a MTF hasn’t had vanginoplasty, she’s male and needs to be forced into the men’s restroom and that is a FTM hasn’t had phalloplasty, then he’s female and needs to hang out in the women’s restroom."

    I'm confused. I assumed you had much the same viewpoint. You state in your bio: "I had sex reassignment surgery in 2004." Also the subtitle of your G+ profile states: "Post-op TS atheist woman from the Houston TG Community… So yah, basically your worst nightmare."

    Firstly I think it's a real pity that you think being trans and athiest is a nightmare. I am transsexual, and athiest (and communist as well, if that counts), and I think it's a pretty good place from which to view the world.

    But seriously, if you don't think people's operative status should matter, then why do you announce yours like this? Personally I think that what's between someone's legs is their and their lover's business, and nobody elses. If nothing else – announcing your operative status makes all the young impressionable trans people believe (more so) that these things really matter.

    I concur that this is a point on which I disagree with some (many?) in the separationist camp. I could care less what you've purchased, be it clothes or makeup or wigs or that shiny new vagina. IMO there's just no way you can purchase a female (or male) identity – it's something you just are.

    1. Firstly I think it’s a real pity that you think being trans and athiest is a nightmare.

      The sarcasm was apparently lost on you. Of course neither are nightmares. However, on both counts I’ve been attacked. Remember, you’re talking to someone who does stuff like going on Fox News and putting the smack-down on right wing fundamentalists.

      . But seriously, if you don’t think people’s operative status should matter, then why do you announce yours like this?

      Because the knee-jerk reaction of a number of Separatists is to declare that a person’s perspective on the idea of a trans community isn’t valid since they are not post-surgical. Hell, I’ve had some of these people claim that I probably didn’t have surgery and if I did, then I must regret it or else my perspective would align with theirs.

      I don’t personally care what’s between someone’s legs. About the only time I think I would care is if some mentally disturbed person (of any genital configuration) tried exposing it in a public place.

      IMO there’s just no way you can purchase a female (or male) identity – it’s something you just are.

      Yes, I completely agree with you 🙂

      1. Now, there you go again…. You say, "Because the knee-jerk reaction of a number of Separatists is to declare that a person's perspective on the idea of a trans community isn't valid since they are not post-surgical. " That, of course, is a classic straw argument. I know of no one with a shred of credibility who says such a thing. We were all pre-op at some point. What many DO say is that if one is not truly surgery tracked, then one is not in a position to speak to transsexual issues. There are an increasing number of crossdressers who wish to claim status as transsexuals, even as they are denouncing transsexuals for thinking themselves superior. The simple fact is, there is no hierarchy. There are a bunch of diverse conditions (such as transsexualism) and behaviors (such as crossdressing) that have NOTHING substantive in common. Saying that crossdressers and transsexuals are the "same" is absurd. Crossdressers, by and large, are men with a fetish. Transsexuals are women, or men, born with what is, in effect, a correctible birth defect.

        For someone to say, "I am a woman, and I have a penis that I plan to keep," is completely insane. They are not a woman. They are a crossdresser, or a transvestite. Stoller had some interesting things to say about how transvestites wanted to be "women with penises." I used to think he was a bit loopy. Now I see that he was on to something.

        1. "For someone to say, "I am a woman, and I have a penis that I plan to keep," is completely insane. "

          Oh please. What's so magical about a penis that makes it define sex?

          You've simply picked an arbitrary expensive bar so that you can buy womanhood. You could equally well have picked breast enhancement, or facial feminisation surgery, or any number of other things.

          It's what's between your ears that counts, not what's between your legs.

        2. No, just as someone without a clue…. BTW, I don't use the term "TG Borg." That is Suzan Cooke's creation, not mine. And no, it is not heresy (I love the string of straw arguments here), it is just plain wrong.

          But hey, now I have a better idea of where you are coming from. I can now see you are just a bit of a bad joke…not a serious commenter. I mean really, anyone who thinks a penis has nothing to do with sex is…..well, not to be taken at all seriously. Laughed at, yes. Taken seriously? Not a chance.

        3. Just so that we’re on the same page, would you post the definition that you use when you say “straw argument”?

          For me (and the rest of the world) a strawman argument is when I pretend that you have taken up a position that you did’t and then attack the made up position instead of dealing with the actual original issue. For instance, here’s a strawman argument:

          ” I can now see you are just a bit of a bad joke…not a serious commenter. I mean really, anyone who thinks a penis has nothing to do with sex is…..well, not to be taken at all seriously. Laughed at, yes. Taken seriously? Not a chance.”

          In the above strawman argument, you’re pretending that I’ve said that genitalia has “nothing to do with sex” and proceeded to attack that fake position.

          Also, so that I understand what you mean, would you please provide the definition you use when you talk about an ad hom attack?

          For instance, while pretending that I’ve said that genitalia has “nothing to do with sex”, you used this fake position to try to discredit me instead of dealing with the criticism of the idea that genitalia is the only factor in determining sex. You’ve sidestepped the actual issue by trying to discredit me instead of the issue. That’s an ad hom attack.

          The definition you apply to “straw arguments” and ad hom attacks seems to be quite different than the English language definitions used by the rest of the world and I’d like to know what you mean because you’re statements don’t make sense to me. For instance, you claim that when I stated that Natasha’s position is “heresy”, I created a “straw argument”.

          Here’s the definition of the word, “heresy”: dissent or deviation from a dominant theory, opinion, or practice. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/heresy

          I was talking about the dominant opinion of TS Separatist. My statement was not directed at you nor was it a mischaracterization of the dominant opinions held by Separatists. Shall I use your own statements to as evidence to support my point?

        4. Well, now this is interesting….using a straw argument of claiming I made a straw argument to defend against the fact that you have been repeatedly shown to make straw arguments, Boy, talk about twisted. Now, you certainly give ever appearance above of agreeing with Natasha. You do not once say anything like, "Well Natasha, you just made an incredibly ignorant statement and boy are those who don't buy the most extreme of transgender silliness going to be on you like white on rice." No, you just give every appearance of agreeing completely. Now, if you want to publicly state that Natasha is wrong, and that you don't believe a penis is an indicator of sex, that is if you want to state that women either do not have a penis, or do not want one if they do have one, I will gladly concede that I misunderstood you. Otherwise, well, you are simply being intellectually dishonest….again….and have been for more times than I care to count.

          Actually, you are talking about the dominant position of science, medicine, society in general, and one that is only accepted by a minority of the human race, notably the most extremist of transgender extremists. Now, talk about a straw argument…. No, what Natasha stated is not "heresy." It is a delusion. A claim made by someone who has lost some grip on reality. It is the sort of thing that they used to lock people up in mental hospitals for believing. Now we realize that such people are, for the most part, not dangerous….and thus it is not necessary to hold them against their will.

        5. And yet another sidestep. From now on, I'm going to refer to your evasive steps as the Jennifer Shuffle. You've still not addressed the critique of the idea that genitalia is the only factor in determining sex. Not one word about it… yet.

          *watches for the next dance step*

        6. ROTFL! Sorry, but you don't dictate the terms of this discussion. You can use silly little comments like this, but I consider them meaningless, so keep on trying….they just give me a good laugh.

          Let me put this in simple terms…a penis does not belong on a woman. If you have one, and you want to keep it, you are not a woman. Period, end of discussion.

        7. Sorry, but you don't dictate the terms of this discussion.

          And it's just a step to the left…

          Let me put this in simple terms…a penis does not belong on a woman.

          BUT IS IT THE ONLY FACTOR IN DETERMINING SEX? And the Jennifer Shuffle continues…

        8. Again, your silliness is meaningless.

          I stand by my answer. You, once again, try to demand a simple answer to a complex question, and I simply choose to not play that game. Call it what you wish, but your silliness just shows you have no real arguments and can only rely on dishonest questions. In this case, the question you demand an answer to has no context and is therefore a dishonest question. So, nice try, but nope…..not really that clever. Ask honest questions and you might well get answers. Continue trying to play lame semantical games and I will treat you like a fool. Your choice.

        9. I stand by my answer.

          Um, but you didn’t answer the question; that’s the point. You’ve not addressed the issue; you’ve only ever sidestepped the issue.

          Call it what you wish, but derp herp herp derp… the question you demand an answer to has no context and is therefore a derp derp herp derp.

          And the Jennifer Shuffle continues…

        10. Huh?!?!? What is it about a penis that defines sex? Might I suggest you take an introductory, remedial biology class? Or ask a five year old? I mean, really, that is too funny. That is just truly insane. Thank you! That is just too good! That says it all.

      2. "Because the knee-jerk reaction of a number of Separatists is to declare that a person's perspective on the idea of a trans community isn't valid since they are not post-surgical. Hell, I've had some of these people claim that I probably didn't have surgery and if I did, then I must regret it or else my perspective would align with theirs. "

        Well I refuse to say whether or not I've had genital surgery, because that's basically nobody's business. Except of course for my husband. People will have to decide whether I'm credible or not solely on the strength of my arguments.

        The problem I see with the trans separatist spokespeople (as you know, I don't identify as TG, so am a separatist myself) is that for the most part they appear to be fifty or sixty something year old late transitioners, dripping in male privilege, who have trouble blending in and being accepted as female, so must grab at these arbitrary tokens (like genital surgery) to strengthen their claim.

        I've gotta say, it doesn't make for a lot of credibility.

        Which is a pity, as there are merits (IMO) to treating identity and presentation as separate axes, rather than just pretending transsexuals are super crossdressers, which is what the "transgender spectrum" model implies. Only those merits are never going to be seen while the exponents for it are so batshit.

        1. ROTFL! You seem to want it both ways. Most of the people I know who are "separatists" transitioned early and have no trouble living normal lives as women. Given your statements, I would tend to guess that you have not had SRS, and have no desire to have it. That is certainly your right, but your animosity toward those who have is very telling.

          Identify is certainly important, but it is just one side of what is, in effect, a two sided coin. I can certainly point to people who have had SRS but who are clearly still men. One very well known transgender activists comes to mind. That person is not remotely a woman, even though that person has had SRS. But, having a penis, and having no desire to be rid of it is part of the other side, and is an indicator that the identity is not that of a woman.

          You like to thrown out statements about people "buying" an identity by having surgery. Uh, yeah, sure. whatever….

        2. You write: "Most of the people I know who are "separatists" transitioned early and have no trouble living normal lives as women."

          I never said that separationists were late transitioners. I said their spokespeople are. Enormous difference. Most of the transsexual women I know in real life wouldn't know nor care about the issue, as they haven't had anything to do with the recent transitioners and the crossdressers who dominate the "support" spaces for years.

          "Given your statements, I would tend to guess that you have not had SRS, and have no desire to have it. That is certainly your right, but your animosity toward those who have is very telling. "

          You're funny.

          "You like to thrown out statements about people "buying" an identity by having surgery. Uh, yeah, sure. whatever…."

          I never said people were buying an identity. Rather that they were buying womanhood. It's a huge difference, and much, much more insulting. Buying womanhood says that the buyer has reduced women to nothing more than things – clothes, vagina, etc.

          Which you've clearly done.

Leave a Reply