Being Abandoned

Now that the 17-year old Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) law has been replealed and will undergo an implementation period, it will be interesting if anything really changes in the military, for the "boots on the ground", for the officers supervising enlisted troops and more so for recruiters. Does the LGB community really think reality will change?

Or will they see a backlash within the forces against openly lesbian and gay troops? All the surveys supported repealing the law. And many of the survey said the troops don't mind, but none of that accommodates the reality of an an openly lesbian or gay person being near, or more so next to, you when not in combat and when and where many people react. It's human nature, something a law can't change or undo, only the person and that's not likely.

But that's not my point here. While I applaud the passage to repleal DADT, I wonder if the LGB community will see another reason to jettison the issues relating to transgender members in their organizations or the transgender community. The LGB community has seen a real major success, but nothing changes for transpeople in the military. They're still ostracised and discharged should they come out.

And we still have DOMA awaiting repeal and ENDA up for LGBT people awaiting passage. Will the LGB community, as we saw Representative Barney Franks did several times for ENDA, remove transpeople from the bill because it wasn't the right time for their incluson. In truth, he never meant to include transpeople.

And we know Joe Salmonese promised inclusion and then sponsored and supported exclusion of transpeople. The simple truth is that the LGB community as a whole doesn't have the interest for transpeople and many in the community are covertly and privately transphobic. And sometimes overtly and vocal.

This is the opportunity for them to jettison the transpeople from their political agenda and focus on what they've always wanted, just lesbian and gay rights. Some will express support and even demand support for transpeople, but they're in the minority and often politically shouted down and into silence.

And that will leave transpeople, where they are in many political and legal areas, standing alone with few supporters outside themselves. The recent change will only worsen that and increase the distance between the LGB and T parts of the community. It's a real possible reality that in a few years LGB people focusing on state marriage laws, DOMA and ENDA will not include transpeople.

Success breeds the interest for more where it's not, and the LGB people will see that, to them, the T is an anchor in the political and legal world for their rights. And the T will be more isolated than before, and have to continue what some have done for the last decade or so, stand and fight alone.

The question is if that will prompt cooperaton to be focused on all trangender people or only the subgroups, or as some use subclasses, of transpeople, meaning the transistion focused transwomen and men will do what they've wanted, and recent court cases have decided, focus on inclusion as women and men, exclusive of the "trans" identity.

And they too can leave the rest of the transgender community behind. That's been their goal and will be their goal as they are almost there for post-transistion women and men and will be there for in-transistion women and men. They will do what the LGB people did to them, leave the rest behind, left to their own political and legal devices.

And then, as many post-transistion women and men do private, sit on their hands when asked for a show of who's for the others. It's what they've done and will do. The question is if in-transistion women and men will do likewise in public as they do in private, become invisible.

Being abandoned teaches survival, which the transcommunity has long learned, but it also teaches success on your own terms, something the transcommunity has also long learned. And after being abadoned, they too will abandon those left who are not like them. That's their reality.

To whom it may concern

To Whom It May Concern,

Meaning you who decide that gendervariant people aren't, and you fill in the rest according to your beliefs, values, whatever. You simply decide gendervariant people are less than human and don't deserve your understanding or acceptance. But that's what you don't get. You see, you think their being is about you. And it's not.

These people haven't done anything to you. They're not against you. They haven't hurt you physically or mentally. All they want to do is get through life just like you, without anyone bothering them, and especially anyone disliking them because they exist. Like you do and are doing. But they didn't do anything to deserve that anger or hatred.

They're just another person living with what they were given and trying to make the best of it. They not only face unreal personal trama and hurt from their family and friends who don't understand and often push them out of their home and lives, they face unreal hardship in life and world from people like you who for simply being.

So why do you hate them? And isn't your hate only yours?

Making Distinctions

Discrimination. What a word. It has a variety of definitions and applicatioins. It's almost only limited by our imagination for its use to describe some person, time, event, circumstance, situation, or whatever. And we discriminate by our words. Not just the acts but the distinctions.

The Oxford American Dictionary (copy sits by my desk besides on-line) defines it as:

discrimination |disˌkriməˈnā sh ən| noun
1 the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, esp. on the grounds of race, age, or sex : victims of racial discrimination | discrimination against homosexuals.

2 recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another : discrimination between right and wrong | young children have difficulties in making fine discriminations.

• the ability to discern what is of high quality; good judgment or taste : those who could afford to buy showed little taste or discrimination.

• Psychology the ability to distinguish between different stimuli : [as adj. ] discrimination learning.

And I'm no different. Take the words transgender and transsexual. Whenever you read someone's blog, article, column, etc, they almost invariably directly or indirectly define the terms and then make distinctions, which often end up as discriminations. And I have my definitions, applications and disinctions, and yes, discriminations.

It's one reason why the LGBT and especially transcommunity themselves can't get on the same page on issues. It's the old adage about the devil is in the details and for them, it's the words themselves.

Being blind

I was reading the news about Caster Sememya to run again in women's international track events. She was the woman who swept several sprints in Berlin last summer, winning by more than 2 seconds in some races, dominating the competition. It was then the other women competitors voiced their view that "she" wasn't just a woman. You can search the news stories over the last year to see the various views athletes and the media have taken with her.

I haven't changed my view of the situation then, because the South African doctor who examined her before her departure from Berlin advised the South African Athletic Association not to send her as she wasn't the women she appeared to be and any gender test would show the truth about her. But she went and the controversy began.

But that's not my argument anymore. It's that the transcommunity has not changed their view that she had the right then and more so now to compete as she is and not have to undergo any medical treatments required of transgender athletes to compete fairly with the other athletes. They still keep arguing the other athletes, the atheletic community and the athletic organization simply have to accept her rights.

My argument is that for the sake of one, who clearly demonstrated some unusual advantage, everyone else has no right to contest her rights. The individual is more than the whole. They argue this applies to all transgender people, but more so in some cases where it's clearly and obviously misplaced at best and wrong at worst.

The are simply blind to the reality of the whole. They assume all transgender people have the disadvantage and deserve advantages wherever they can get them. Except that Caster wasn't wholy born female but, as some sources have reported, some form of intersexed, probably mild to moderate AIS, meaning a male with the appearance of female gentalia, but no female reproductive system.

She may think of yourself as a girl (gender identity), raised a girl and accepted as a girl, but it doesn't make her female, and enough to compete with other women. But that doesn't seem to bother the transcommunity. They prefer blindness to reality and understanding. They prefer to discriminate against other women than acknowledge they may be wrong. They prefer to simply deny the truth.

The truth other sports have proceedures for transgender athletes to compete on par with their other same gender athletes and all have complied to compete, taking the mandatory two-plus years to transistion. That's what Caster should have done and what the IAAF should have mandated, striping her of her medals, records, and rights to compete until she complies.

But she didn't and screamed discrimination. And the transcommunity screamed with her. And those who voiced support for the other women, they were verbally pummelled into silence. They not only didn't want to hear the truth, they wanted their truth to be right. Except it wasn't right or fair.

And now after nearly a year from the events in Berlin and Caster is allowed back, they're arguing they were right all along, except it's clear between the lines in the news, Caster did undergo some medical treatments and proceedures to comply with the IAAF's rules for transgender athletes. Something she should have done then.

Being blind has some advantages, as we know. We can deny the truth and reality and only see our view as right and fair. And in doing so with Caster and against everyone else the transcommunity showed their colors, or rather their inability to see the color, only their black and white world, except everything and everyone else is black.

And only then do we see the transcommunity's self-righteousness and self-serving blindness. Sadly too, because it only adds to those who do help and support transgender people and the transcommunity to winch and balk. And then walk away, in their forced silence. Being blind not only hurts yourself, it hurts others who want to care, only to be rejected by not being blind.

The Case of Caster Part II

Well, she's back, and the controversy didn't go away and only is the rhetoric on both sides heating up. But what is added to the mix is more obvious the motive of the South African Athletic Association (SAA). According the news, she "completed" the regimen the IAAF prescribed, except it wasn't said what that was.

Going back to last year, what we know or really heard was that she had her undescended testes and no female reproductive system. Over this last year, according to the IAAF and the SAA, she had those removed and supposedly followed a regimen of hormone replacement therapy (HRT). And the SAA said, "trust us." And she didn't have to go through the two years of HRT transgender althletes are required to complete before competing again.

Except at her recent track event she blew the field away. Granted her time was considerably slower than last year and far from any world record, it was still evident that her (former?) male body is still there and the (HRT) didn't seem to work or maybe not even followed. At this point it's clear while she still thinks she's a woman (for her gender) and wants to compete as a woman, she is still mostly male.

Her advantage is that any male athlete who matures will be physically stronger (and probably faster and quicker) than comparable being and maturing female. And if she had undergone HRT, there would be significant physical changes, even for an extreme athlete. That's not evident in the video I saw of her recent races. She wasn't at her peak, and has a lot of room to improve before more imporatant events his year and next.

In other international sports, any male to female transistion for an athletes would undergo two years of HRT, so why was she allowed to return after a year? The reason is that two years would have probably wiped out her chance to be competitive. But what if she wasn't under HRT for the year? Then aside from natural reduction of testosterone, she wouldn't be much different which training could easily make up.

The is because HRT is part anti-androgen and at proper levels reduces testosterone to within the more normal range for genetic women, not at the high level bordering on low male levels. Those levels indicates the HRT was too low or not followed. Even Kristy Worley has it wrong saying Caster has congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) when she has no female reproductive system to have this condition, according the doctor who originally examined her and recommended she not go to Berlin last year.

But in reality, this isn't about her but winning. She wants to win no matter what, and if she has a physical advantage of her birth and maturity (as male), then so what. Her country wants to win. So, that's what it's really about, medals and records, and having South Africa get the recognition. She's not a pawn anymore and it's clear she doesn't care about honesty and fairness, other words she would set the record straight for all to know and prove us wrong.

But I haven't heard that, nor do I expect, except in the future when the truth is finally known and will be too late to retract the awards and records. I would like to be wrong, and the information isn't complete to know for sure, but what does exists from reliable sources tilts against her. She can let the world know, so what's the problem since it's already a public issue?

I think if she continues to win with significant margins over longtime women athletes, then the questions will continues with more fervor and the other female athletes will have a case to make to make her case public so everyone understands. As I said last year, she stepped into the spotlight, so silence isn't an answer. And as I said last year, the IAAF really screwed up, but they will have to face the music of her competition if she continues winning.

She came out of nowhere to win big and was obviously male. That hasn't changed, which means the controversy hasn't changed, along with everyone's opinion. Anyway, that's my opinion to date, and as always, subject to change with the truth and reality.

More Harm than Good

I was reading the news about one individual transwoman (pre-op and some might suggest marginably passable at best) who likes the spotlight. She's also a veteran and is active the transgender veterans movement, which I don't understand the VA accepting transgender care as service or veteran related. Demanding transgender care by the VA seems odd at best.

I'm a strong advocate for veterans' care, being a veteran myself, but only for those whose injuries and disabilities are service-related, whether directly or indirectly. I'm for more money and resources for our two Iraq war and Afghanistan war veterans who have been long rejected or neglected by the VA, much due to arrogance of the Bush-Cheney attitude about throwaway soldiers.

Anything else, however, belongs to the individual, which includes transgender care. It's a waste of government resources. But that doesn't seem to matter to this person, and she loves to write and promote herself working for the movement of transgender veterans and people. But to me, she's actually doing more harm than good for several reasons.

First, and really foremost, she has long implied she was post-op and legally female, but when arrested at a protest at the White House recently, she had to identify as (legally) male, but then claimed discrimination when housed with male inmates during her brief time in jail. This has been an issue in the transcommunity, which I agree transpeople need separate and safe places in jail and prison. But in her case, all her identification, according to the news stories, listed her as male, but dressed as female.

Being a cross-dresser doesn't, in my view, means she's transgender. I suspect she's in transistion, but she could just be living as man presenting as a woman. That's what fulltime cross-dressers do. Some even go through electrolysis and take some hormones, but they don't have the interest to change the sex or legal identification as male. This woman hasn't really said one way or the other which she is or going through except how she presents herself.

Harsh? Maybe, but when now she admits she's also bipolar. Ok, there are treatments for this, but I'm not sure it's cause for announcing it as without additional information, like what treatments she is getting and what she is doing about it. She served 20 years in the military and is just now coming out with this news?

My point here? Well, I've always had problems with transwoman who go fulltime as woman, adopting the whole thing about being women, except their face and voice. And add to some their body, and I just don't understand someone yelling at the world to accept them as a woman but nothing other than clothes appears normal for women. I know it's my own subtle discrimination and many of transwoman try hard to get by and through life quietly despite all the physical issues they carry.

But as several more famous (trans)women (meaning the trans is former as they're legally female) have stated in their opinion of any transwoman's transistion, consider facial surgery first among your surgical needs, A passing face gets you through 90% of the initial impressions people have. That's simple psychology. But a vast majority of in-transistion women, mostly older transwomen, don't and think it's their right to just be and we have to accept it.

I won't argue there are many natal women who have non-feminine faces, but all of the rest of the outward signals are there not to question their sex or gender. But these transwomen don't have those innate advantages, and all the makeup and smiles won't hide a masculine face. Add the voice, which doesn't change in transistion, and you have instant recognition of something other than a woman. All the clothes, behavior and expression won't overcome that.

And so the question is if transwomen like this one is doing more harm than good to the transgender cause and movement? When many transwomen transistion quietly and simply move on in their life as women, the vast majority easily or mostly passable, then why should they identify with transgender people like this woman? They don't and won't. It's the problem with the transcommunity promoting women like this one who loves the attention.

In the end I have say, I see and understand both sides, but that said, I side against this woman who is doing more harm than good as all the noise she makes is focused on herself in the name of the cause and not just being the messenger for the cause. She is the poster woman for why so many transwomen don't get involved in the community and movement and distance themselves after their transistion, and why transpeople aren't always accepted as normal, the proverbial "man in a dress" syndrome.

The reality is that this woman isn't going away, and probably why she hasn't finished the medical and legal process to be legally female, except maybe if the VA paid for her surgeries. And don't get me started there, as so many have begged, borrowed and worked hard for the money for their surgeries. And while some have had insurance coverage (rare but improving), having the VA pay for it is beyond common sense.

And the reality is the transcommunity will use her because they believe being visible is the key. But they forget being visibly good and accepted is more important than just being visible. They'll take people like her and accept the price of losing many other port and in-transistion women to silence and distance. They mistake the messenger for the message.

Becoming Invisible

The goal of many, and some say most, in and post-transistion women is to become invisible in their life and work, as women, and to let the label of their past and transistion fade into the distance of time. This is accomplished by many when they're recognized as women, and nothing is in the words, and any public announcements or notices, about their former sex (not gender as they've always self-identified as female).

As they say, they arrived, if only for a moment, but it's like cresting a hill and on the way down you lose all sight of the valley you left behind. It's simply becomes a memory, always there and ready to become visible if the situation or circumstances happen. But then you'll be long over any stress of the, "What if they find out.", and will simply say, "Ok, and?"

It's also the bane of the transcommunity when this happens. Not just when the vast majority escape the transcommunity shortly after finishing their transistion, meaning getting their documents changed, but when your past isn't even in the discussion in your life and work. They simply are women.

The transcommunity sells this as the goal of transistioning women, but also harbor the silent, and sometimes not so silent, wish, post-transistion women hang around the transcommunity. Some do because they have little choice, it's their public identity, not by choice but circumstances. And some do by choice.

And some really less by choice than reality. For a variety of reasons some simply find it hard to assimilate into the world of women, usually they don't pass well enough to become physically invisible. It's the sad reality of social standards of presentation, expression and behavior. Try as they do, becoming invisible just doesn't happen.

Some ignore the signs and simply plow ahead in their life, and many find acceptance and support, but it almost always comes with a cost and a price. It's always work convincing people you're real and really who you know you are. And some just forget even trying and just try to live quietly without the hassles.

What's even sadder is that the transcommunity doesn't help them outside of using them. While facing the world with all the problems of being visible, the transcommunity uses them to show the problems of being visible, adding insult to injury. When they need the help to become invisible, they get used for being visible.

And the transcommunity wonders why post-transistion women become invisible and walk, if not run, away from the words and even the community, and criticizes those who do for being invisible. They expect them to become visible and be used. Like that helps their life and work? To relive what they want to forget?

It's why becoming invisible is so important in the lives of post-transistion women. Just to be themselves as we all are and do. And without the fear of what Satchel Page said, "Don't look back, something may be gaining on you." Or in their case, someone in the form of the transcommunity.

Transgender activists

They come in all flavors. They espouse the whole gamut of views and opinions. And they say they represent the "transgender community." All different, except in one aspect they're all the same. They're all overly sensitive to criticism, intolerant of alternative or opposing ideas and especially opinions, loud and demanding not just to be heard but to be heard over the crowd and by everyone.

And worst of all, they won't listen in return, they only talk or write louder to overwhelm other voices. They simply want you to listen and agree, silently. No words, or even a peep from you. Just nod in agreement to show them they're right and they're smarter than anyone else in the room.

What's the beef here then? Well, in one recent court case a Wisconsin judge overruled a law prohibiting Sex Reasignment Surgery (SRS) for inmates diagnosed with Gender Identity Disorder, meaning transsexual inmates can't get this surgery paid by the Department of Corrections, or really the taxpayers. I don't have a problem with the law but with the judge and his decision.

Why, especially when it's a treatable condition and the surgery is one, and usually the final, step in the process to transistion from male to female? Because SRS isn't covered by any other state program there, not covered by the health insurance companies there, and only covered by a very few employers there. Why should it be a freebie at taxpayers' expense when they don't pay for SRS for ordinary people?

I'm for SRS being covered by health insurance. And a few do, but it's not mandatory by the federal or any state government in their healthcare insurance regulations. And if anyone needs SRS which is the transistioning women to complete the process to live as whole and complete women and be legally female, they deserve it first and foremost and well before felons and inmates.

You see all the ordinary transwomen struggle to live and work, and finding ways to pay for the cost of SRS. We're not talking a cheap surgery here. It's $15-20K in the US, not including travel and other expenses outside the clinic or hospital. It's more in Europe but cheaper in Asia, usually Thailand, but then the travel and other expenses are far higher offsetting the total cost to be about the same.

But you can't make this argument to transgender activists. They only believe anything is better, even when it's not right or fair. Just progress is ok with them, even when it's ethically and morally wrong, let alone financially unwise. There are far better ways to spend money on inmates than SRS for the handful of transgender women in prisons.

Why should the many transwomen who can't afford it not be able to access program to help pay for something identified in the DSM as a mental condition when inmates can get it free, and then avail themselves to the other free services to change their birth certificates for their sex. They could go in man and come out women, all paid by the taxpayers.

And people are supposed to say it's ok? And they'll write the checks?

Sorry, I'm for the surgery for those wanting or needing it but there has to be some sense of priority who gets it and who pays for it. But I'm not sorry or am I for what ever advances the progress for transgender people at any price or cost, especially when it's paid by others not in the transgender community.

This is one of the many views I differ with members of the transgender community, and especially the activists. They lose touch of the greater world which we all live in and must abide by for the beterment of all. The common good as they say. Transgender activists seem to lose that view.

And worse when you voice your view, as an alternative, in opposition, as questions, or however, you get verbally pummelled into submission. And if you don't submit, your ignored or worse removed from the discussion, as I have been excommunicated from forums and my responses not approved or removed.

But it doesn't or won't silence me. As in my rules for this blog, it's mine, not yours. Censor me on yours and I'll do likewise here. I want civil conversation with open ears, mind and voices, especially with humor and a smile. That's what's missing from transactivists, realism and humor. And I'll keep poking at that too.

Susan Stanton

I've been reading the reviews, blogs and columns on the recent documentary CNN about Susan Stantion and her transistion from the time she came out when she was the city manager for a small city in Florida to her recent job as the city manager of another city in Florida. I'll be honest to say I didn't watch the documentary, for several reasons.

First, much of these documentaries are the same, with the same life story and same career story. Susan's isn't significantly different except she chose to come out in a public forum (city council meeting) without privately consulting the members to know how they would react, let alone vote to retain then him as the city manager through her transistion. In short, she screwed herself by not doing her homework behind closed doors.

Second, she villified the transgender community during the months following her outing and then firing. Despite all the best advice from many leaders in the transcommunity, she let loose a litany of demeaning and denigrating comments in interviews separating herself as a woman from the rest of the transwomen, either in or post transistion. And yet she had just started her transistion.

Third, she sought out the publicity for her plight and transistion. She gave interviews whenever and wherever she could to tell her story of her situation as a real woman (not trans anything) and her firing. She wanted the spotlight and when she was criticized, even by the transcommunity, she continued to criticize transpeople, including calling many of them, "men in dresses". This despite the reality she was marginally passing herself.

Fourth, when she wasd fired, her contract guarranteed her a full year salary and health insurance. While trying to make the public believe she lost her job and wasn't making money anymore, and was looking for another city manager job, she was financially fine. We're talking low six figure salary with benefits too.

In addition, shortly after her firing she set herself up as a consultant for transgender issues and programs. For a modest fee, of course, she would travel to the place, give talks and promote transgender rights. All like she was suddenly an expert about and on transgender issues and people. Yes, while criticizing the very same community and people in interviews.

So it showed she was in it for the money. But then poor she wasn't. Nor humble.

And lastly, she sold her story to CNN for the price of her sex reassignment surgery. While many transwomen go in debt for their surgery - it's not commonly covered by health insurance but is covered by some employers now, she was handed a check in return for the rights to the most intimate details of her life and transistion.

Others have done this with or for documentaries, most in exchange for partial or full payment for the $15-20K surgery. But Susan had the nerve to deny the fact after she confirmed the fact. She simply lied about it to make the documentary in progress look like an honest one and her volunteering for it. As they say, yeah right.

Susan Stanton doesn't represent the ten of thousands of post-transistion women. She doesn't have the right to claim her story as one, only one as a greed, publicity seeking bitch. Yes, transwomen can be bitches too, she's a shining example. She was lucky to find a new job in the same career at about the same salary and benefits as her old one.

Except for a year of missing salary, using her savings, retirement and other investments to live, she really didn't lose when the vast majority of transwomen lose their jobs, usually their career and almost all their savings during and after their transistion. Yes, she lost her wife and children. That's the reality, very few transistion and keep them in marriage.

Some transwomen fair better with supporting employers, some resurrect their career years later, and some find new careers where they end up personally and professional better. But they're not the majority of transwomen. Susan kept her career with only a slight lose of money, with her major bills in her transistion costs paid by CNN.

She's not the example but the exception. And not by herself, but by luck she sold herself for the documentary and lucked out with getting a new job. Her story isn't the norm, but one created by her for her self-presevation defining herself as a woman and not transgender. Don't mistake her sympathies for the transcommunity or her empathies for other transwomen, it's not real.

It's all a show for the show. And she can seperate herself of the rest of transwomen and not one of them. Yeah, right. And they don't claim her either. Not unlike a bottle of wine gone bad. No one wants it and it can't disguise itself. She's not the hero, or heroine, and she's more the evil queen who can't stand the people other attribute her to in their reviews, columns and blogs on her and the documentary.

Your time is better spent with the young transwomen and their stories. They're the future, they're more honest and really need the help. People and life stories like Kimberely Reed and others. Or better yet, those in college or starting their careers trying to find acceptance to just get on with their life and career. They're worth our attention and support. Not Susan.

It's not about fairness

I was reading the column by someone with the Organisation Internationale des Intersexués (OII, an Intersex organization) about the International Olympic Committe (IOC) and how the IOC has never treated intersexed athletes with respect and fairness, including the recent events with Caster Semenaya of South Africa. I've expressed my view of her and noted she's not by definition intersexed, just an under developed male, and has no right to compete as female.

But the OII seems that all intersexed people should be able to compete in the sex and gender of their choice, despite any obvious or less than obvious advantages they have over non-intersexed atheletes, as the Caster case also showed (3 times the level of testosterone as female athletes). They think somehow people can just show up, announce their sex and gender, and compete accordingly.

And they expect the IOC to agree to allow it. It's about fairness in their mind. Except the OII fails to understand it's not about fairness for a small group of people and less so athletes, but the whole of the athletic community. It's a relative fairness, and as much as you want to complain about the binary sex and gender system, and intersex and transgender atheletes are discriminated against, it's what is.

And the OII fails to understand many professional organizations have rules and proceedures for transgender athletes to compete in the new sex and gender, Marianne Bagger and others have demonstrated this quite professionally by following them to compete openly and fairly. That's what the Athletic Association of South Africa should have done with Caster, make her transistion first, then compete.

That would be fair. But I suspect, when she does transistion, she won't be as dominate as she was in the Berlin competition in 2009 when the complaints were lodged against her. I won't argue the IOC mishandled her case, badly in fact. That's obvious, and they're simply trying to fixing their own problems. And they even botched that. But at least they issued rules for her for future competitions.

In the end the OII needs to take a step back, take deep breath, and see the larger picture, and then put themselves in that instead of trying to make their own picture of the world, and their view of fairness no one else agrees with. They need to get real about themselves and more understanding of others. Now that's fairness for all of us.

Enough already

Update.-- I'll forgive the new MTV show "Transform Me", or at least from the first episode. I watched it later (rerun) and thought it wasn't all that bad. Some younger transwomen, as some older ones have, want to just be like other women and it's fair for them to try and improve their looks, makeup and wardrobe. I still think it's kinda' hype, but I guess ok hype. I just wish there was a way to lose the trans label for post-transistion women, it's unnecessary and unfair.

Ok, this is rant about several things, which means you can really ignore the rest if you're not into reading my personal rants or vents at the world around, about, with transgender people and the transgender community. It's really boring, except of course as an exercise for me to yell from my corner of the world standing on my soapbox. Ok, enough explanation. Onward.

First, enough of the documentaries about people's transistions. I won't argue the recent film, "Prodigol Son", is excellent and worth seeing once. This is about the TV documentaries of individuals from childhood to post-transistion, such as the recent one by Steven/Susan Stanton. She wasn't liked by the transcommunity when she transistioned and no one wants her see or hear her again.

One reason people do this, invite the cameras into the life like that, is simple. It's to pay for the sex reassignment surgery, in part of more often entirely, as with Susan Stanton. Selling yourself to get the surgery doesn't do justice to the many who need it more and can't get insurnance which covers it (rare anyway) or pay for it out of pocket, or at least not without going in debt for $15-20K.

The other reason is the life stories doesn't change. There's too many common threads running through the life of those who transistion. There's already a wealth of books and documentaries of self-destructive people who finally got through their transistion with some sense of being. It's the sad reality of the discrimination, but also for the bad decisions by the individuals.

And lastly, with this one, Susan Stanton not just criticized the transcommunity and other transwomen, she distanced herself from it by calling herself "a woman" as opposed to "those" transwomen. In short she pissed everyone in the community off enough no one had any sympathy for her when she found herself of need of it, especially from the very community she villified.

What we need of stories of successful post-transistion women, and there are far more of them and their stories. That's what's needed, not another see where I've been through story.

Second, Logo TV channel. Enough RuPaul and his dumbass drag show. And I'll add the new "Transform Me" show looking for transwomen to become beautiful women. What happened to just being ordinary and human? Why do we have to expect transwomen be stereotypical women who only want to look pretty?

It's stupid. It's ok to look good, and some of these shows are ok to see people transformed, but it's not the norm of women. Just sit at a local mall and watch women. How many dress up with clothes and makeup in public? Let's get real. Some shows do and are real about their transformation, but most push wanting to look beautiful.

Third, stop the confusing ideas of what's transgender and who's transgender. It's not right or fair to the many post-transistion and the many in transistion to be thought in the same way as drag queens, cross-dressers and other pseudo-transgender (neither of these are in the truest sense of the DSM) people.

There are significant and clear differences between those transistioning and especially those who have transistioned. They don't need or deserve the label the pseudo-transpeople claim as transgender and forget to distinguish. There is a clear and obvious difference and distinction between those being and living as women and those pretending to be women.

Clothes don't make you a woman, being does. Pretending and playing dressup doesn't make you a woman, living as one does. Dressup is fine when it's for the occasion as women do, but not when men want to wear the clothes for fun. The former take the clothes off and they're still women, the latter resume their life as men. Big difference.

It's the very reason the vast majority of post-transistion women walk away from the transcommunity and forget their past. It's not them and not what they want to go back to. And it's not what we need to see, especially in the life documentaries and in the shows. It's about being real and human versus pretending. Don't confuse the latter with the former.

Ok, I feel better.

Transistion Advice

I read a non-public forum (can't directly link to the post) where someone posted their advice for a transistion, and unfortunately, after reading it, I couldn't disagree more. Their advice is well-founded and good, but my criticism is that it is entirely based on the individual in the transcommunity. To which I responded with the following.

I would only counter having one or two close friends who are trans or understand transpeople, and then avoid the transcommunity altogether. The peole in the transcommunity generally are either be dismissive (the cliquish attitude) or overly positive (unrealistic). Develop your friends and contacts among the rest of the world because that's where you'll live post-transistion, not with the commuity - unless you're a public figure who wants to be there or has little choice.

There a many transpeople who transistion without the transcommunity and use the wealth of professional and personal resources to get through and beyond their transistion. Many of the medical and other professionals provide the complete suite of services you need (physicians, surgeons, therapists, appearance, etc.) outside of community. They may support the community but they work with the clients individually, and not through the community.

I would say to find a good physician, therapist, and appearance specialists (face, wardrobe, etc.). They'll be more honest, understanding and supportive of you and your transistion to succeed than other transpeople being cheerleaders, or the opposite.

Don't think you need other transpeople or the transcommunity, and only support it, if you want, for the issues you care about. This is important if you don't want to develop the thick skin approach or don't want to live with the inbred attitudes often found in the community.

And realize most importantly, you can't put yourself back in the closet. So be very careful not only how you come out, but when. Coming out early has its pitfalls and puts undue stress on you and your appearance to meet expectations. You can actually get most of the way through your transistion to coming out just before going fulltime, and after you've learned what it takes and are ready.

I would go so far as to say, only do so when it's clearly obvious to others what you're doing, and even then do it cautiously and carefully. Waiting helps the understanding and acceptance by others as they've seen you change and are less surprised. This is important with your professional life and career where you want to stay without any significant impact. This is unlikely but less so when they value you and your work.

Anyway, that's what I wrote.

The Mobius Strip

I've read over and over people describing gender as a spectrum. I've even used it myself. But since then, I've come to the idea that gender is more a Mobius Strip with male on one side and female on the other where any point on the strip has both and any direction leads to the other. To show this I use a demonstration.

Take a strip of paper, say a half-inch wide and 8-9 inches long. Write male on one side and female on the other side. In the middle on each side draw a line and 50%. On each end write 99% on each side (since no sex is 100% except a few rare girls) and 1% on both sides of the other end. Then twist the strip and connect the ends where the 1% on one side overlaps the 99% on the other. That's my idea of the Mobius strip of gender. It's the continuous spectrum and show anywhere you are you're both male and female.

If you follow the strip from one 99%/1% side around through the 50%/50% point, you'll end up at the other 99%/1% side. It's an endless, continuous spectrum. We're somewhere on the strip, and free and fluid to move any direction we are and want to be. We're fluid in our journey on the gender spectrum.

Being Alone

Boy, do I feel alone. Not alone in the physical sense, but the political sense. Since the International Olympic Committee released it's recommendations and guidelines on suspected intersexed athletes, they've been verbally pummelled almost into oblivion, by every sports analysist and pundit alive. But not by the female atheles, only the retired ones.

Strange we're not hearing the women athletes disagree, after the case of Caster Semenaya. And this is where I feel alone because I agree with them. She should have never left South Africa (SA) to compete. The SA doctors suggested it to the ASA (SA's sports organization) there.

By all the public accounts, while Caster Semenaya was raised female, possibly due to some condition which prevented her from becoming fully male which is her genetic sex, they reported (or leaked) she has (maybe had as reports now suggest she had surgery) less than fully developed male gentalia and undescended testes, and a partial vagina, but no female sex or reproductive system.

Can someone still claim she is female? And when the testes kicked in during puberty which propelled her athletic abilities to the top of "female" athletes in South Africa, no one wondered why a girl was physically developing into a boy? But they did, tested and examined her, and knew. But the ASA still choose to let her compete.

And they wonder why the other female athletes said something?

No one doubts the IOC screwed it up, but only for politcal purposes and none did the right thing for the other athletes. They were lost in the discussion and decisions. Caster should have been disqualified and her times and wins removed from the record book. And then she could prove her case to have everything reinstated.

But the IOC didn't decide but waited, balked and then hedged their bets. And now they're hedging them again, but at least they're looking at the larger picture of women athletics and athletes. It's not about individuals but the sport. It's sad it's a binary system for competition, but it's what it is.

If you want to compete, chose one or the other but compete fairly, not with some predisposition for being the opposite sex disguised as the other gender. It's been tried and caught. Caster's case is no different. It's not about her life, her race or her abilities, and not her perceived gender. It's about her sex.

And that's what I disagree with the rest of the intersex and transgender communities. So I stand alone there. And there's very little which will change my mind. You can't be a boy, however undeveloped, raised as a girl and still be female. And the little will be the evidence proving me wrong, which is sadly lacking in the arguments on the other side.

They consistently argue around the issue and discuss generalities, and then overlook Caster's actual condition as reported. They seem to want to lump into a class of people she doesn't qualify, only if you stretch some definitions or characteristics, a lot too. They have yet to prove where she is actually genetically and physicall female.

Which they argue is prove she's intersexed. Only in that she was raised a girl. But where were her parents, her doctors and others who knew she wasn't quite, or really, female? She's not alone when they hide things from children, which she can say was part of her believe she's a girl.

Except she didn't change physically into a woman at puberty, but became more a boy. And she didn't wonder? I hope she wasn't and isn't that naive. We don't and likely won't know, but she sure knows now. And I don't see why she can't follow the procedures transsexuals follow to compete, where you can compete.

And to that end, until shown differently, I'll stand here, alone. Not against her or transwomen, but for women athletes. They deserved fairness too, which the IOC needs give them, which they seem to be doing now, and Caster needs to give them as a competitor.

There is a limit

There is a limit to tolerating jokes about transpeople, or worse non-transpeople who people try to make into transpeople. Daniel Tosh on Comedy Central did just that when the network ran a 1:20 (min:sec) segment by him on the worldest tallest model. She is 6'8" among other measurements he cites, but more so, he tries to make her into a him.

There is a point where tasteless becomes offensive, and this segment passed it at great speed into the area that not just Mr. Tosh should apologize, which wouldn't be serious or accepted anyway, but Comedy Central should apologize to viewers but more importantly to the model and to transgender people. It's beyond comedy.

Apparently Mr. Tosh hasn't spent any time around tall women. Maybe he should visit a WNBA game and make similar comments about the women players. How long do you think he would last against them? How long would you think they'd take before they (verbally) cut his dick and balls off and stuff them down his throat?

And apparently Mr. Tosh thinks height equates to sex or gender. Obviously he hasn't spent much time observing the diversity of people. They come in all shapes and sizes. They come in all heights too. Maybe a group of tall(er) women should corral him and have a short conversation about his size as a man. Obviously Mr. Tosh isn't very tall. And mabye Mr. Tosh is hiding something too which isn't appropriate for his sex?

Mr. Tosh deserves whatever crap people can give him. Maybe someone should do a segment on him, the world's most tasteless gay man, who despite appearing to be of normal height, weight and physical size has his brain is in his dick, and is so small it took a microscope to find it. You could do a whole line of jokes about him similar to those he made about the model.

He only goes to show there is a limit to being totally tasteless, insensitive and offensive. Sometimes we see examples of the extremes well past the limit to remember where the limit is when being human, and leave it to Comedy Central to ignore the limits of decency to show the extreme. All the more reason I don't watch the channel.

Don't confuse the two

Under the transgender (trans)community umbrella exist quite a few divergent and diverse groups, some people living in more than one and some moving between during their life, but most just sit in one. This is where the public gets confused and mixes one or more together or uses characteristics of one for another. They're all really vastly different and almost exclusive of the other groups.

And this is where the community at large and many of the groups confuse the public, sometimes intentionally and sometimes inadvertently to define the larger umbrella than the different groups. This is where some groups and members of those groups get misunderstood and face discrimination and often hate or anger. They're not what the people think but only what the community has presented.

Harsh? Maybe, but I was reading a column by a pair of transvestites or crosse-dressers, they didn't say which but they're two gay men who love to play dressup and go out as caricatures of women. Women they think women should be and they love to pretend to be. But they're not transgender, which they claim they are.

I say this because transgender means possessing characteristics signifcantly more of the opposite sex or gender than their birth sex. This means men who are women in their mind, and usually want to be and live as women, some to the extent they transistion into becoming physically female as much as medically possilbe.

Some call these people transsexuals to distinguish between transgender people. But the truth is that either way, men who only like to present themselves as women because it's fun, a hobby or other reasons aren't transgender in any sense of the definition, but they like to claim it for the purposes of discrimination laws.

And this is where the transcommunity shoots itself in the political foot. By wanting laws for the rights and protections of everyone under the umbrella, they hurt the ones who really want to be women, not occasionally, but 24/7, complete with changes to their birth certificate and all documents. They want to be women and leave their male history behind, far behind.

This is a divisive issue in the transcommunity and people who espouse separation between groups and especially independence from groups and the community are most often treated as traitors and enemies of the community, but this is the prevailing view of many in and post transistion women. The don't see themselves as trans anything and have little interest in the transcommunity.

And this is where they look at other groups in the transcommunity as hurting them and their efforts for acceptance and integration into mainstream life. When people keep identifying them as or with other groups, they feel they have to start all over explaining themselves. It's the never-ending cycle of misunderstanding.

It's why the vast majority simply walk away from the transcommunity, and since they are legally women, where the others aren't, they can and usually decide it's not their world or issues. It's why the transcommunity has a hard time keeping post-transistion women, they walk away and never look back.

Why should they? They were betrayed by the other groups in the transcommunity who confuse the distinction, claim they're like them, and then demand the same rights and protections. And then the "trannies", like those in the column, wonder why they're not liked? Where are gay men playing dressup the same as in or post-transistion women?

And the same applies to cross-dressers, only less so for the small percentage who do transistion, who are men who just want to dress as women. They're no different than drag queens or transvestites, only the reasons are different. They live and work as men, identify as men, usually married with families, and don't want to transistion to be or live as women.

So what's transgender about them? There's no overwhelming self-identity as women to want to be women, only to wear the makeup and clothes. That's not different, just their clothes, which often are similar as they like to dressup for parties, events or weekends, but not just simply living.

Still harsh? Yes, but I know some in and post-transisition women who feel that way, only those who stay with the community, as some are public or media people, have to or choose to keep their personal views to themselves, but most just walk away and forget the transcommunity exists. I don't and won't blame them. I agree with them. It's their life and right, not to be confused or misrepresented.

These two gay men aren't the transcommunity and should not decide or speak everyone in the community, and definitely should not think they're transgender. Don't confuse real differences, don't confuse the truth and reality, and above all else, don't consider you're the same as (trans)women. Clothes don't make you one, being and living does.

Being Touchy

I'm a fan of the NPR show, "Wait, wait, don't tell me." with Peter Sagal, Carl Castle and the 3-panel guests. It's irrevelently funny, not just pushing the boundaries of satire, but often going beyond into bad reactions even from the audience long known for being understanding and tolerant of the show. But apparently they touched a raw nerve making fun of the term hermaphrodite, used by a Representative Duncan Hunter about the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy.

The truth is the show routinely does this in the obvious way. It's the nature of the show, so listeners must learn to leave their sentiments and sensitivities outside the theater when listening. And this was just one of those jokes. It wasn't meant to discriminate or hurt anyone. It was to make fun of Rep. Hunter's remark and not toward intersexed people.

And yes, I heard the show, as I try to do every week (and not on a podcast). And yes, I heard the remarks and cringed a little. But then I've cringed a little listening to many shows in the past. This is one of NPR's most popular programs, and maybe they give them a little more latitude than others, but it is the show's format and style too, and has won many listeners and supporters.

The issue with the show with the transcommunity and the intersex community is the use of the term hermaphrodite, used by Rep. Hunter and not the show. But, let's be clear here, the intersex community is not the one and sole judge of word usage. They're not the word czar with the word hermaphrodite or intersexed. And that's what seems to bothers both communities, the term offended both because they saw it as offensive.

And true to form, Ms. Autumn Sandeem, on Pam's Houseblend Website (trans issue blog of several contributors), took issue with the show over the term and remarks, apparently not understanding the show. She needs to step back and get a view of the larger picture. She's not the NPR's censor or guardian of taste or senstivity, just a listener, and apparently not one who undestands the show's premise.

She seems to have forgotten the content and context of the piece in the show. As Foghorn Leghorn would have said, "Relax, son, it's a joke." Maybe a bad one to you, but not to many who are just as sensitive to bad seemingly off-hand remarks, which these weren't if you know how the show is produced and presented. In short, she and others need to lighten up.

And yes, Ms. Sandeem, the show had mocked and satrized blacks, disabled and other people and groups, but always in a way it's obviously not hateful or mean. Tasteless maybe, but that's their style. The whole show is done with their tongues in their cheeks and sometimes sticking out.

The Double-edge sword

It was announced this week a woman in Massachusetts won her case with the IRS in the US Tax Court. She filed her income tax statement deducting $5,000 for her sex reassignment surgery and other related expenses associated with her treatment for "Gender Identity Disorder", the term used in the DSM-IVTR for treating patient who are diagnosed with the identity opposite their birth sex.

The medical procedures are well defined in the Standard of Care under WPATH's oversight formerly the HBIGDA and endorsed by both APA's (psychological and psychiatric associations) in the DSM. Ok, seem straight-forward, except the IRS has routinely denied anyone the deductions on the patients taxes, even though the majority of health insurance companies refuse to cover the costs (considered cosmetic or elective surgery, depsite the medical evidence to the contrary).

This time the person won. The surgery, almost always paid out of the person's pocket (except those who sell their stories for TV news documentaries where the TV station usually picks up most if not all of the cost, which runs $20-25K). A few employers now pay some to most of the expenses for permanent employees under their health coverage (after the health insurance coverage).

That's cool, huh? Well, sorta', as someone may say. While many transpeople advocate for removal of GID from the DSM, called the depatholization, and some called for a new name as a condition, both of these would provide the avenue to deny or reject coverage for the therapy, hormones and surgeries necessary for a sex change (often called sex transformation now in the insurance handbooks).

That's the double edge sword. This decision opens the door to mandate coverage by insurance companies to cover a disorder defined in the DSM. Almost every other disorder or disease is covered to some extent. GID isn't to any extent. But to push for coverage, the name and label would persist. The patient would be diagnosed with a recognized disorder and open to a treatment plan with a "cure" including SRS.

The problem is that few, if any, transpeople call or consider themselves "sick" in need of a cure. It's a simply birth defect (wrong physical sex) than a mental disorder. This is in part what Alice Kalafarski makes in her essay at Bilerco. Unfortunately I think she misses a point.

While I agree with her view on the matter of being trans or having GID, I think she misses the point about the tax dedcution. It's easy for those who can afford SRS or those young enough to go in debt ot pay it off later. But the vast majority do need the tax deduction as the cost is prohibitively expensive, causing great financial sacrifice to the woman.

And for that, having a disorder and be "cured" is only temporary to getting the tax deduction. You can forget the label in time, but you may not be able to recoup the lost money. It's a trade-off each transwoman should have the right to choose than facing no choice.

And I don't agree it's about rights of transpeople over the rights of the individual transperson. I'll take the individual's rights any day. It's easy for those who have the freedom, and usually have finished their transistion, to forget others and their rights and often their problems to transistion, where money is almost always the overriding issue.

We shouldn't forget to fight for the medical community and especially the insurance companies to do what is best for the patient, provide the treatment for transpeople so they can affordably transistion and get on with their life and work as they know themselves to be. That's the priority, the everything else is later.

Misperceptions

As much as the "transgender" community, called transcommunity here, strives for unity, and the much-sought but never realized commonality, it suffers from that very idea in the media and with the public, and feels totally frustrated with what's going on in and around it, bite their tongue and ego, not to create dissenstion and criticism at themselves, or simply become silent. Unfortunately, that's not solving the problem.

And the problem very simple, the very thing they promote, which is diversity. But unlike other diverse groups, who have some measure of commonality among the member or the goals of the group, the transcommunity doesn't have that because all the different subgroups don't have anything in common with other groups and don't have common goals.

It's due to the people in the subgroups, which is why they have the diversity and not the commonality. Don't believe me? I say this for several reasons.

Look at any pride parade. How many different types of groups of people do you see? Look at the LGBT community and support groups. How many different types of them are there and how many different types of people are in each of them? The reality is there is very little overlap between the types and groups, and it's usually only at public events where they can present unity. Except it's not there once the event is over.

Read the different media stories on "transgender people" or "transsexuals."

Look at all the subgroups. There are drag queens, often called female impersonators or illusionists, transvestities, cross-dressers, gender-queer, pre/in-transistion people and post-transistion, or legally recognized, people. Look at how the media often lumps them together or under common terms, so the reader can't tell if the person in the story is in what type and group.

Notice how the media overlaps the characteristics of one type into the other, even when describing individuals. Usually only in longer documentaries do you get to see the distinction and differences between the person in the story and the rest of the transcommunity.

Aake a look at the LGB community (without the T). They don't need, and often don't seek or want help from the transcommunity to advance their goals. They will more often than not forget if not exclude the transpeople in their work, discussion, publicity, events, etc, unless of course there are some drag queens for the media to call transpeople.

And they will drop the T when it suits their personal or political agenda. Look how long it took to get transpeople in the hate crimes laws. Look at the efforts to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). It wouldn't and won't pass with transpeople, but they promised to include it, except in the final version, it wasn't there. No thanks to Representative Barney Franks himself.

Take a look at cross-dressers' organization. They're independent of any other groups in the transcommunity and only get involved in "transgender" events or groups to put themselves under that umberella name, when in fact they aren't transgenders, but just men who like to play dressup (ok, a few transistion but 95+% don't).

Take a look at the trans-only groups. The run the gamut in their life, views and presentations, from the totally, and often long, stealth, to the totally non-passable. They disagree about every issue relevant to the members and community, and they're often the most unwavering people in their views, because in the end, it's about identity and being trans or not.

Take a look at post-transistion men and women. Where are they? Nowhere because they're legally recognized as men and women and don't need or want the transgender label or the help of the transcommunity. They have the Civil Rights Act to protect them as men and women.

In the end, it's really about six different ingredients when mixed together produce a worse result. It's not the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, but quite the opposite, the parts are better being parts and not being in the whole. And as much as the transcommunity strives for unity and commonality, it's time they woke up and realized it's not working for everyone.

Not true you say? Like many cities, counties and states have laws protecting LGBT people now.

True, but the LGB got that on their own effort and the transpeople got their recogniztion on their own effort. I won't argue the LGBT community has achieved a lot over their history, but it hasn't come with unity and commonality in mind but political expediency in mind. Many in the LGB community supprt transpeople and vice-versa, but rarely has it worked to achieve goals for both in one effort, but in separate efforts.

But I'm not at my point, the post-transistion men and mostly women who have long left the transcommunity and only stay in the LGBT community because they are LGB people now. They're not trans-anything, which is why they don't want the label, which is because they're not seen as men and women, at the fault of the transcommunity, as well as the media.

Really? Read any story about a post-transistion woman. How many times are they described as "transgender" and not transgendered (past tense), or worse they're described as a "transsexual." This is because it sells the story. But in doing that, often with the transcommunity's help and endorsement, it's keeps them under the umbrella, to the detriment of the individual.

Ask anyone about a post-transistion woman and they'll more often thiink of any of the other groups, but not just as men and women. The Amanda Simpson stories are good examples of a woman who transistioned 10 years ago but is still considered transgender. Why? It's not who or what she is now. So why does she recognize as transgender?

Do we call ex-addicts addicts in the present tense? Do we call ex-alcoholics alcoholics in the present tense? And other ex-something the same now as they were then? We don't. So why do we call them transgender when it's their past or history and not their present and future?

And many in the public confuse them with cross-dressers, transvestites, etal, because that's their perception of the whole group of people under the umbrella. They lump their view into a one-fits-all single description, when nothing could be farther from the truth. And worse, they confuse them with gays or lesbians, confusing sexual identity and orientation with gender identity.

Any wonder the vast majority of post-transistion women leave the transcommunity and don't look back.

Closet and Stealth

I was wandering around the Internet, like we all do, and stumbled on an essay by Autumn Sandeen entitled, "The Closet Kills and a response by Helen Boyd, the author of books about her spouse. And I have some arguements with Autumn (who posted a comment here on one of my posts about Amanda Simpson).

She points out, but not in her writing but in her existence and identity, that she is a transwoman, or a transgender women, which ever fits your definition. This is exactly what she demonstrates is wrong with the transcommunity, and it's why the vast majority of post-transitions (legally recognized) women leave the community, if they ever were involved. They don't subscribe to that perspective about being.

The are as stealth as possible today, which isn't entirely possible and not guarranteed in the future, and they simply live their life as women in the world of women and the larger world of family, life, work, etc. They have earned and deserved that stealthness to ensure their privacy, security and safety, much of which Autumn seems to argue against and which she is wrong. Which is why I wrote the essay just before this one about transactivists.

They espouse a view that they think fits, or should fit, everyone, and in many cases, they do it out of choice or necessity. Choice because they could be stealth and for some situation(s) or circumstance(s) they chose to be out. Necessity because they had no choice as their looks or presentation doesn't pass for what many people think of women. So they're obvious and open to the pitfalls of human nature.

This is in part what some in the transcommunity argue about presentation. Namely the face. It's the first thing people look at when seeing, greeting or meeting you and it's the first thing they use to determine your gender. All in a few seconds. And from their own set of clues learned from their experience. Nothing we can change, and nothing we can undo. It's human nature.

It's why some in the transcommunity are baffled why some go through their transistion to get SRS (vaginoplasty) and be legally recognized as female but then have difficulty integrating into the world as women because they're not seen as women. Not as men, but obviously different. And then some wonder why they're not readily accepted and why their life is as hard or harder than before or even duing their transistion.

Stealth and closet isn't their public life. And often these are the ones espousing and sometimes shouting what others should be, like them, not stealth or in the closet, but out and even proud to be different. And they wonder why the message isn't followed except by those similar to them. All the ones who could be stealth are stealth, minus the few public ones where work, life or circumstances outed them.

But even then, they espouse a different view, one of being women. And the world doesn't seem to worry because they appear and present themselves as women, forgetting they're mentally, emotionally and spiritually women, only their past is different. They get through life as women because they fall in the range of normal women we recognize.

And in return, those, like Autumn, who are out and I'm assuming proud, argue their view against stealth and closet. To all the (trans)women who don't want to listen because it's not their life and world, they say they're not true to the greater community of transwomen, except they don't see themselves as transwomen, just women. Something Autumn seems to intentionally be blind or ignorant with in her view.

And in the end, she only goes to confirm in those who are stealth, and many in the closet, why they are stealth and not like her. While Autumn stands on her soapbox to espouse her view to the world, they just walk quietly getting on with their life.

The case of Caster

I was reading an essay on The Bilerico Project by Patricia Warren entitled, "Olympics and the Coming Gender Inquistion". And the comments seemed to agree with her. I started to post my commnet but decided to post it here instead, mostly because I'm tired of being verbally pummelled when I disagree with the transcommunity. So here would be my response to here essay.

I'm curious, what will the lbgt, and especially the trans, commnity would say if, and maybe when, it is confirmed that Caster was born male and is physically male, with no female reproductive system and probably with some form of androgen insensitivity? Will you still argue Caster should still be allowed to compete as a female athlete?

Simply believing your a girl/woman is enough? And what about other similar male-born athletes who decide they're really women and want to compete too? And what if a female athele decides to transistion to being a man, taking testosterone, but still wants to compete as a female, her birth sex? Where is the line between male and female athletes? Isn't that what they established the standards for transatheletes in some sports (eg. golf, mountain biking)?

You criticize the IOC and IAAF, which deserves some for their ineptness with the case of Caster Semenya, but if they have to develop some rules for all female athletes, where do you suggest they draw the line, set the standards and require treatment for variations?

I think folks in the community need to take a step back and look at the large picture. It's not about one athlete who has a special condition, it's about fairness for all the athletes. Let's also not forget Caster chose to compete, she chose to step in to the sports arena and spotlight, and despite the way she's been treated by the IAAF, she doesn't necessarily have the right to cry foul when questions were raised. Like any athlete under investigation, she has the responsibility to prove her case, which she didn't even try.

I don't like arguing, even in the debate style, with diehard activists. They're deaf and blind to opposing views and often change the argument from the subject to the greater topic or the individual, as Andrea James did in her essay, "Caster Semenya and the Apartheid of Sex." She wandered around the question, and title of the essay, but never addressed it.

The end. This is what the transcommunity has argued with this case, either her right to be and compete, or about non-typical sex conditions in people, trying to fit Caster's into the larger scheme which needs protection from discrimination. But she and the others don't address the discrimination to the other female athletes.

And when someone does take them to task on this issue, they simply verbally pummel the person. And they wonder why many people, even current and former transgender people, don't like them? Talk about clueless.

Tough audience

Why is the transcommunity so obstinate, and often arrogant, when people disagree with them, and worse, dissent from their opinion? It's like the whole community has this attitude you have to agree with everything and everyone about al transpeople and transgender issues, or you're not one of them, and maybe not a real transgender person. It baffles me.

I got kicked off of one forum for disagreeing with the owner/moderators in a discussion, especially asking why someone else was booted off the forum for her views. They then imposed a rule that I found unacceptable, but only wanted to ask about it, and the next thing I realized I was gone from the member roles, as was another person before me (and I agreed with her).

They are really touchy people. But they don't seem to see the differcence between a simple opposing opinion and an opponent. They lump all opposing views into opponents forgetting to separate the discussion from the person. Ok, why the post here?

Well, someone posted the lasted news about Caster Semenya and I responded saying I thought she shouldn't have competed with the women because she didn't fit the definition under the rules of being a woman. The problem is that the rules aren't very clear and the IOC and IAAF decides on individual cases. And Caster's sex/gender fell between the cracks in the words, except Caster didn't.

The issue is that even if Caster is physically an underdeveloped boy (possibly a vagina but no female reproductive system) but raised female, should she be allowed to compete with female athletes. The transcommunity shouts yes and I said no. I agreed with the female athletes who filed the complaint which started the whole mess where everyone screwed up, including Caster.

And now it's an ugly mess. But the transcommunity argues that being raised female was enough to make her female and qualified to compete. And everyone thinks her privacy has been violated. But I disagreed arguing she wanted to compete, and she chose to step into the arena and spolight to compete. And so, she can't cry foul when questions are raised.

But my point here is the sensitivity of the transcommunity and the many members. It's why many don't get involved and the majority of post-transistion women don't identify as trans, walk away from the community if they ever were a part, and don't for the most part, even care. They've living as women, or men.

And I managed to put myself in their proverbial doghouse, like I'm supposed to apologize for my opinion? Sorry, that's not going to happen, unless the obvious where I'm proven wrong or stupid, like that hasn't happened before. But hey, I'm human. But it's only part and parcel with many issues in the transcommunity.

For example, those who express the view of the binary gender structure as it exists in society are criticized for not challenging it. Why? Many local and state government have laws protections lgbt people, but they still enforce a sex/gender binary. The experts have long exposed the binary sex/gender structure as false, but it hasn't changed it. And who would want to be in a third sex/gender umbrella type anyway?

Like the transcommunity thinks that's better? Or more so, challenge the sex/gender standards by being out and different. usually done by the young genderqueer as they're called now, and my apologies if that's not what you like, but it's what's you're called. Like they expect everyone out and proud. For what? You don't gain anything and you likely will lose a lot.

What don't they understand? They bitch about thinking people should be out and proud then speak out about it when those same people are outed. This is shown in the case of Chinese model Alicia Liu. But who cares if she's transistioned, and why doesn't it matter she never said anything so far? Because of the publicity she's getting now?

And the list goes on, but it's not universal. I've noticed occasionally longtime members have criticized people in the community and expressed opposition to majority opinions, many not that different than mine, and they're allowed to speak with freedom and often with respect. But others, like myself, get verbally pummelled. Except not into submission or agreement, just verbally black and blue.

So why stay on the fringes of the transcommunity? Well, for friends and others in the community, because it is a human rights issue, and I like to challenge norms, whether it's society's or the transcommunity. I think they need fringe people to remind them their world isn't the whole world, and their reality isn't the reality of the rest of the world.

Many in the community know that and express that, but more often they're more diplomatic or eloquent where the criticism isn't obvious. The dance of words, except I'm more like Harrison Ford's character said in his movie "Clear and Present Danger" when he replied, "I don't dance." I didn't with my life and career, so why stop now?

Assumptions

The one problem people who transistion from one gender to the other have when talking with people, usually because the other person(s) are curious, mystified, angry, and so on through the gamut of emotions known in reactions to transpeople, isn't their knowledge and experience, although some aren't fully aware let alone knowledgeable about being transgender, but the assumptions of the other person(s).

It's why there are so many misperceptions about transpeople, many of which are perpetuated by opponents with blatant lies and misinformation (and why just because it came from a "Dr", usually of religion or theology, and sometimes from a mail-order "university", it must be right escapes me). But everyone has a view of transpeople which they put on anyone they see as transgender or occasionally meet.

It's why transpeople can't get their individual story through to most people, they don't want to listen except to fit the story into their assumptions about transpeople. In most cases, they've already lost the person(s) to understand the truth about transpeople and the reality of their story. And they lost the person(s) to accepting them, unless those people have experience and a postitive view of transgender people.

And try as they have, the transcommunity hasn't overcome these assumptions because in many cases they actually perpetuate those assumptions. It's because many in the transcommunity use the umbrella explanation of transgender people, from drag queens to post-transistion people, without qualifying the subgroups or the individuals. And especially the differences, in ways people see and understand.

The transcommunity loves the umbrella idea while sacrificing the individuals. And it's the individuals who suffer the most. The transcommunity argues against transphobia but can't see how they perpetuate it. When people look at post-transistion women but think of gay drag queens, or heterosexual cross-dresser, it's no wonder they can't accept them as women. And it's no wonder those women can't seem to get accepted.

And the media, sometimes with the transcommunity's help or involvement, perpetuates this problem with their rhetoric and news about "transgender" women, trying to show them as normal women, except any normal woman wouldn't do what the media has transwomen do for the story, but then reinforcing the idea they're not real women, but transgender women.

They isolate them from the rest and the transcommunity not only encourages it but emphasizes it themselves, identifying them as transgender, forgetting to add the explanation where under the umbrella they are, leaving it to the assumption of the people reading, watching or listening to the story. They actually make it worse. Really?

Yes. Look at the press releases about Amanda Simpson, the second political appointee to the government (not one of the firsts in government, just for appointees). It was the transgender community who identified her as transgender, even though she had transistion 10 years earlier. She has a transgender past or history, but she isn't currently transgender, but simply female and a woman.

But the transcommunity did the damage, feeding the opponents to call her every transphonic and degrading description in the book about transgender people. Leaving it to their assumptions than making sure the properly identified Ms. Simpson. And then they argued against those people, except the damage was done to all post-transistion women. They created the fire and were angry when people added more wood to it?

And the transcommunity wonders why the vast majority of post-transistion women, and many in-transistion, don't come out or become public, but simply live quietly as women? Would you help someone who stabs you in the back? Would you want to keep expaining why all the assumptions about transgender women aren't true because the transcommunity won't fight for you?

Anyway, my point is simply that if you meet a transperson, wherever they are in the transistion, don't assume anything unless they tell you, and then remember it only applies to them, and not other transpeople. Every transperson's story and view is different, and many don't fit under the transgender umbrella or in people's assumptions.

So ask with a clear open mind and heart as you would anyone else. You might just meet a really cool person, and maybe a new friend.

Invisibility is ok

With all the press releases about and public interviews by post-transistion women, but especially the recent appointment of Amanda Simpson to the Department of Commerce, obviously more than qualified for the job but overshadowed by the supposed "first" transgender person in the federal government, and then corrected to be the second, a Congressional staffer took the honor of the first appointment.

Or so we know. And that's my point, the cloak of invisibility, or as some in the transcommunity like to call it, living stealth (which isn't really stealth but that's another and contentuous subject in the transcommunity). All of a sudden, again, the transcommunity wants all the "invisible" transpeople, assuming they want to be identified as transgender after their transistion, to come out into the public spotlight.

And, to me, that's the worst thing they could do, destroy what peace and quiet they had after probably a very tumultuous transistion. To relive all the pain and sorry again, but in the public arena. And it's the dumbest thing the transcommunity can do, to ask them and if necessary, to expose them as (former) transgender people. That's the best way to create hate within the community from in or post-transistion people.

I won't argue invisibility hurts the transcommunity to show present and former transpeople are normal within the population, likely tens of thousands living and working without the knowledge of their history, except by the necessary small group of family, friends, co-workers (often none), professionals (medical, therapists, legal, etc.), and others (past friends, lovers, etal.). The numbers are large, probably on the order of 8-10 stealth persons to each public transperson.

But I will argue they have the right to stay stealth and not to follow the transcommunity. The transcommunity all too often creates more problems for people for their political agenda and goals than they solve for them. I won't argue some public (trans)people (meaning if they identify or not, the media and community identifies them as transgender) are terrific and wonderful advancing the public view of former transpeople.

And I will argue however, those who are public, should rememeber they don't have the right to speak for or represent the invisible ones, nor do they have the right to describe them as transgender for the transcommunity or for public acceptance. None of those people want to find their past becoming their future, and any words by public (trans)people should express that, as a few do very well.

They left the word and world behind, let's honor that decision and only speak for yourself. And only represent yourself.

Dear Ms Simpson

Update.--- After an e-mail exchange with Ms. Simpson, I'm satisfied she'll do well in the job, as she earned and deserved it, and will put the matter of her former transgender identity behind her. I will take her at her word for now and expect she will do as she said. While the transgender community will continue to promote her and probably encourage her activisim, I hope, and will hold her accountable by her words, that she will not engage in activites for the transcommunity or transgender employees in the federal government unless it is part of her official duties.

And so to that end, I will keep this post to hold it as a record. The original is below.

Dear Ms. Simpson,

I applaud your appointment by President Obama to the Department of Commerce. I have no doubt you will do well and serve this country well. You more than earned and deserved the offer to accept to serve the American people. And I appluad your efforts to work with the LGBT, and especially transgender, community to advance public awareness of transgender people and people like yourself to transistion and live legally recognized in the sex and gender they know they are.

After reading a public statement you made about your appointment, you said you hoped this opened the door to many more (transgender and post-transistion) people in government, I do, however, have some words in response. First, not all post-transistion people want to be recognized as transgender. It may be your choice of words, it's not theirs, so please don't label them when they don't want it.

Second, surprising as it may seem, there already are transgender and post-transistion people in government service, in the administration, the military and even Congress. You're not the first, so please don't assume you're the only one. The others have long preferred to live and work quietly without the public label you identify with. Again, don't hurt their life and work for your agenda and cause.

And third, don't think you speak or represent them. And you certainly don't speak for me. Keep your tune and tone, and especially your opinion, to yourself about other transgender or post-transistion employees and people. They just might not like or appreciate the consequences of your words.

Anyway, that's it. Enjoy government service. And remember you're appointed, not a permanent employee, so understand the latter are great people having worked for the American people in government service. Don't abuse or misuse them for political purposes or gain. They definitely won't like that.

Take care.

Being Oversensitive

After sitting on the sidelines watching the transcommunity for a number years, researching the history of the community, organizations, people, events, issues, and so on, and occasionally participating in discussions, I've come to the conclusion, really from my first group meeting, the transcommunity and especially the transgender part of the community, meaning mostly cross-dressers and transistioning women, are over sensitive and don't know when someone is making a point to poke fun, spark discussion, lighten the discussion or is making a tongue-in-cheek comment.

Not surprisingly few trans men join transgroups because historically they have a built-in support group in lesbian groups. Since they are female to male, most are or were butch lesbian (some use dykes), they don't need the transcommunity. For now anyway. Some lesbian groups are kicking transmen out because they want lesbians, not former lesbians turned straight guys. And they're not liking the testosterone effect on their former lesbians.

But that's off the point. Anyway, my point is that most of the people in the transcommunity haven't learned to lighten up in discussion and they take almost everything too seriously, especially internal opposition. And that's when it's worse. Question views or expresss alternative opinions or ideas and you will be verbally pummelled, if not expelled. As I have learned. Up to that point, you'll get criticized by the diehard transpeople (again mostly transwomen).

Extreme view? Maybe, but look at the recent situation with the appointment of Amanda Simpson to the Department of Commerce. I wrote as the first she will be the "token" women with a transgender past at such levels of government and she maybe (note maybe) a puppet for both sides, the administration to promote LGBT people and the transcommunity to promote one of them.

Except as I noted she's not one of them. She transistioned long ago and is legally female, not trans of any flavor, that's her past or history, not her present or future. And yes, she did work on LGBT boards and with LGBT groups as a transrepresentative. She even used it in her polticial campaign years ago. But now she's just a woman in a job.

It was the transcommunity who promoted the news release of a "transgender appointment" to the administration. And then they whined with the flak began. I kidding the "whining" part, but it was to be expected by the conservative and religious groups. What didn't the transcommunity not understand or see. They fired the first volley and didn't expect return fire, often as usually happens, very insulting and degrading?

It's why I walked away from the transcommunity and other than continue to watch from the sidelines, I don't get involved. There are many outsanding people and groups in the community, but like every larger issue, there are the often loud but always serious voices who don't tolerate opposition and especially dissent. And worst of all, they don't tolerate humor.

Don't poke fun at them in jest, least you want a verbal beating from members. I've always subscribe to the idea to take your issues serioulsy but not yourself seriously. But then always discuss any issue with an open mind and heart, to listen, understand and talk with honesty, fairness and always with some humor. There's humor in everything, it's makes life easier to swallow.

Unfortunately, in spite of all the good people in and good work of the transcommunity, they haven't learned to just smile at life. After all, it's funny it's in own right, just open your eyes and see. You'll feel better and learn to be more understanding and accepting, and yes, of opposition within and anger from outside.

Please Remember

Please remember folks, the essays here are simply observations and thoughts on life from my perspective. My eyes and mind. Nothing more. And just my opinion from my knowledge, understanding and experience. As I knew then or know now. Nothing more. The essays don't necessarily mean anything beyond that, except occasionally some may have some general relevance.

While I'm not active in the LGBT community and through its organizations, far from it for personal reasons, I like to wander around a lot of areas of life looking in from the fringes and see what's there. And true that misses a lot of the details from being there, looking longer, or seeing more things, I've found most people inside aren't much different. It's being human with our own bias.

For all the words, just remember they're simply mine, open to discussion (through your comments), and always open to change when presented with good arguments, information and experience. I learn before, during and after writing, and often review and rewrite some of the essays. And I always quote the old adage you grandmother taught you.

What you don't know it or forgot it? It's the old adage, "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all.", to which I've always added some rules. First, if you can't express a negative in a positive way, then don't say it. If you can't add suggestions for improvement or change, then don't say it. And if you can't say it with humor, meaning, say it with glint in your eye, your tongue in your cheek, or a smile on your face, then don't say it.

So, that's it. What I write is all said with an open, light-hearted intent to think out loud, and right or wrong, no verbal pummelling allowed. The positive will stay, the negative gets trashed. And both will show me more about yourself than your words.

Looking in the mirror

It's what all transwomen do, look at the face in the mirror, to see if the face they've known all those years is the new face they want to be and live with. Some who are comfortable with makeup, namely drag queens, transvestities and cross-dressers, and some who transistion who use it for life, rely on the face in the mirror for confirmation.

And if you notice, it's how the media portrays transwomen in stories, dressed nicely with makeup and jewelry. It's what's expected of women, to want to be pretty with makeup and want to always worry about their looks. In the transcommunity, there are those transwomen, usually self-described as "girly girls." To them, it's often all about looks, especially the face.

But there also are also those who do it because it's part of life as a woman. It's not the reason, the need or the want, but the expected. This is true in many professions and jobs where clothes and presentations are standards, whether it's saleswomen in stores, managers in public roles, senior managers and executives with government, organizations and corporations.

In all those cases, it's about the face in the mirror, and how best to make it pretty for the day or situation. But it's not the way they normally live outside those situations. The majority of women today wear little if any makeup. A much smaller percentage wear it outside the workplace. And it's mostly two types.

The young women who wear it because it's part of their life. And the older women who wear it because it's part of their looks, and often necessary to get by. For themit's their face which isn't there without out it. It's what they want to see in the mirror, not liking what they see without it or wanting to look like someone else with it.

These are the transwomen who swear makeup, and the rest of the typical woman's world of clothes, fashion, jewelry, shopping, etc. is what women do because it's what women are. The criticize women who don't wear it and condemn transwomen who don't want to wear it. To them, it's often more about playing dressup than being a woman.

That's because very few make any real effort to be physically women, and it's why all the clothes, make and jewelry are necessary. It's a play to get away from being male and men than being women. The largest group under the transgender umbrella are cross-dressers when and where these standards apply.

But it's those who transistion who ignore those standards because it's not about playing women but about being women and the normal life of one. It's not the occasional day/night excurion, weekends, or even conferences to dress as a woman for awhile, but return to being male and a man who they are and live. It's the 24/7 life as all women live.

And that is where the face in the mirror is important. It's the one without makeup. It's about losing the face of their past and seeing the face they've always wanted. And makeup is optional as part of life, used when it fits, and not as a necessity when it doesn't. It's about being ordinary as a woman, and yes, it's all the plain and ordinary being of women.

It's also raises the question about transistions. The problem I've noticed with many post-transistion women is that they focused their transistion on their public presentation to get through the initial experience, often called the real-life experience and get to the sex reassignment surgery (or gender reassignment surgery in many countries). They want the vagina to be whole.

But they forget the face. Their face. Hormones make a lot of changes, obviously to body, and the less obviously to the face. This is where women split in their transistion. Some decide, either naively, blindly or intentionally, to see a face they want than the face they have. And despite all the information that the first thing people use to judge others is the face, especially for gender, they find themselves "clocked", and then angry.

They're angry they weren't seen as women and forgot their male-like face. And even with all the makeup in the world, you can't hide those features. The very face they saw in the mirror is the one which betrays them in public. And they didn't notice or want to notice. And they get angry at the wrong people for the wrong reasons.

It's also why many in transistion focus to get facial feminization surgery for a female face, often spending $25-30K for the work, including extensive bone work. And even then, it's a gamble. The resulting face may pass but won't pass their view of what they wanted to see. Realistic expectations often gets lost in the hope and wishes.

This is where the two groups divide. In their thinking, their transistions and their life after their transistion. The face in the mirror. To see what it is or what you want. To see it with reality or imagination. To see it without and then with makeup to be a woman in heart and mind reflected in the mirror, than hiding what you don't want to see.

In the end, the face others see is reflected in the mirror, and we can choose which we see.