Women Born Transsexual

I’m not a fan of heterosexual transvestites, particularly the on-line crowd who are often fantasy cross dressers presenting very male take it or leave it domineering arguments.

I think it would be easier for those activists promoting non-discrimination measures to actually get those bills passed if transgender was limited to its original definition and described people who lived full time without pursuing SRS.

I actually get really pissed off when male cross dressers get in my face about not being lumped into the same category they are.

Most of them are way too testo driven and too misogynistic to not get on my nerves.

In spite of all that I feel obligated to point out that in my forty plus years of being out and having been around transgender and transsexual people I have encountered rather few heterosexual transvestites in places other than conferences or meetings, TS/TG events and gatherings or restaurants/bars/clubs catering to TS/TG people.

I’ve had sex with a couple of fairly major rock musicians who wore women’s clothes.

I’ve been to bars like the Queen Mary in Studio city that were sort of up scale from the “trannie”/drag bars where sisters hustled the men and were turning tricks. So I’ve encountered the elusive heterosexual transvestite, shy night creatures by habit, often frightened by day light, harsh words and encounters with disapproving straights.

While this species of the genus generally labeled with trans-prefixed word is often blamed for all of humankind’s woes as well as the entire system of misogyny and sexism, in reality they are only rarely spotted in the wild and when they are tend to be afraid of other people not of their particular species.

I sometimes think they are scapegoated precisely because they are easy targets and aren’t much given to defending themselves.

That pretty much leaves them a pariah minority because transsexuals are quite willing to join the majority culture in beating up on them and even the full time transgender folks aren’t terribly inclined to defend them.

The 1960s and even the 1970s are long past and in the intervening years conformity has become the rule. Freak and geek bashing along with bullying and hippie punching has become an international sport.

Now the butcher’s Bill is starting to come in ominous envelopes.

Lately I find myself thinking…

Martin Niemöller: “First they came for the Socialists…”

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out–
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out–
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out–
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me–and there was no one left to speak for me.

It doesn’t make me like heterosexual transvestites enough to want to be friends or welcome them into my house.  But it is enough to make me think before joining a bunch of bullies  in scapegoating them.

You see the next people they are going to come after are the transgender people and pre-op transsexuals.

I’m not being paranoid.  They have already started on this one.

Newest group to get the “Men in Dresses invading the Women’s Room” target hung on their back are pre-op transsexuals in schools that have non-discrimination policies.

Along with the usual suspects like BevJo Von Dohre and Cathy Brennan flogging the transvestites in the lady’s room meme we have their allies the Christo-Fascists and the ultra right wing crazies.

Bigoted minds run in the same circles.

I have come to view the radfems as allies of the radical right wing misogynists since they always show up to run their “Trannie Scare” tactics at a time when women, especially heterosexual women are under attack.

Nothing like a good scare tactic to distract women from the “War on Women”.

I find it really interesting that I’m post-transsexual.  I’ve been fucking sterile for some 43 years and yet I run far more articles about reproductive rights and abortion on a blog titled, “Women Born Transsexual” than you ever find on most “radical feminist” blogs.  Indeed I run far more general feminist articles than one usually finds on their blogs.

For months now they have been saying about their campaign, “Its only transvestites in the Lady’s Room.”

Except now the target has moved and it’s pre-ops in the Women’s room and their allies on the right agree.

See:

• World Net Daily aka Wing nut Daily
• Campus reform
• The Daily Caller

Perhaps if we could get past fighting about whether we are all part of the same group and have to wear the same label we might move on to actually fighting the right wing instead of each other.

The Radical Right is trying to co-opt feminism by calling anti-abortion centers and right wing pacs “Susan B. Anthony” this and that.

I think it is a mistake to join the radfems in beating up on the transvestites if for no other reason than the radfems and their allies the radical right have already started in on the pre-ops.

From The Independent UK:  http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/05/23/radfem2012-excluding-on-the-basis-of-gender/

By Sophie Warnes
Wednesday, 23 May 2012

As someone who is interested in feminism as a movement, I was pleased to find out about RadFem2012 – a Radical Feminism conference held in London in July. Unfortunately, to my disappointment and anger, this conference has a policy of excluding people based on gender – not only men, but also people who are transgender. I am particularly concerned that trans women (assigned male at birth but now living as women) are being excluded from this space because there aren’t really any other adequate – and safe! – spaces for them to be in where they can discuss feminist issues.

I have been told that I shouldn’t be disappointed because radical feminism includes ‘trans theory criticism’, and that clearly if I can’t see why trans people are being left out, then it is because I am not a radical feminist. But it’s worth noting that at no point in the explanation of what radical feminism is on the conference website, does it say that transphobia, or even ‘trans theory criticism’, is an integral part to the politics of radical feminism. It does, however, list those issues that I do think are important to discuss: male-perpetrated violence against women, the sex industry, cultural misogyny, and the effects of economic and environmental policies on women across the world.

Thus, by the organisers’ own definition, excluding trans people (or even having a debate about trans people) isn’t a critical part of radical feminism. And in fact, one of the pioneering – or most well-known – radical feminists, Andrea Dworkin, wrote herself that: “That is not to say there is one sex, but that there are many… The words “male” and “female,” “man” and “woman,” are used only because as yet there are no others…We can presume then that there is a great deal about human sexuality to be discovered, and that our notion of two discrete biological sexes cannot remain intact.”

I suspect the root of the issue is either a fundamental misunderstanding of what transgenderism is, or a bizarre need for ciswomen (assigned female at birth, and still living as females)to claim feminism – as in, what it means to be a woman, as well as feminism as a political standpoint – for their own. In the first instance, transgenderism is borne out of a condition known as gender dysphoria. Those with gender dysphoria feel like they are in the wrong body; born the wrong gender.

Complete article at:  http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/05/23/radfem2012-excluding-on-the-basis-of-gender/

From The ACLU:  http://www.aclu.org/blog/lgbt-rights/critical-transgender-concerns-awaiting-action-social-security-administration

By Ian S. Thompson
05/22/2012

From NPR:  http://www.npr.org/2012/05/21/153201730/how-much-can-potential-employers-ask-about-you

by Alan Greenblatt
May 22, 2012

Everyone knows it’s tough to get a job these days. The task is that much harder if you have any kind of blemish on your past.

The use of background checks to screen potential employees has become a billion-dollar business. More than 90 percent of employers in the U.S. conduct criminal background checks, at least on some potential hires, according to a recent study by the National Consumer Law Center.

In addition to criminal records, businesses commonly look into all kinds of other information, such as credit reports and driving records.

“Our approach has been, there should be a job for everybody, but not everyone is appropriate for every job,” says attorney Les Rosen, head of Employment Screening Resources, a background check firm in California.

How Far Is Too Far?

Businesses can be legally liable if they don’t check out workers who go on to commit crimes while on the job. And no company wants the embarrassment of finding out later that high-profile employees fibbed on their resumes, as happened recently with Yahoo CEO Scott Thompson.

But consumer advocates say employers have become too cautious — and too nosy.

Demands from some companies and universities that applicants hand over their passwords to social media pages such as Facebook led Maryland to enact a prohibition on the practice earlier this month. Similar legislation is pending in Congress and a handful of other states. Lawmakers also have grown concerned that employers are using background checks to screen out entire categories of potential workers in ways that are discriminatory.

Continue reading at:  http://www.npr.org/2012/05/21/153201730/how-much-can-potential-employers-ask-about-you

From Truth Out:  http://truth-out.org/news/item/9319-the-not-so-free-market-how-consumerism-fuels-human-trafficking

By Mischa Geracoulis
Wednesday, 23 May 2012

Human trafficking is the commercialization of that which no one has the right to sell – human lives. These lives – approximately 30 million women, men, girls and boys worldwide – are bought and sold for labor, commercial sexual exploitation and war. According to the US Department of Health and Human Services, trafficking is the fastest-growing criminal operation – tied with arms smuggling and second only to drug trafficking. It’s highly profitable; estimates figure that trafficking enterprises generate upward of 30 billion US dollars per year.

Though trafficking often involves smuggling and border crossings, that’s not always the case. Nor is it the case that trafficked, enslaved humans are found only among the predictable provinces of garment industry sweatshops, pornography and agriculture. No longer a problem that’s “out there,” trafficking happens internally, in all 50 states, right in our very own neighborhoods.

Trafficking crimes in commonplace businesses like nail and hair salons, massage spas, commercial janitorial service companies, domestic and hotel housekeeping, restaurants, bars and even in suburban residential brothels, are categorized under US federal law as sex trafficking or labor trafficking. California counties like Sacramento, Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego are a hotbed for both manifestations of this criminal activity.

The Polaris Project publishes a list of potential red flags, ways to recognize trafficking and slavery within one’s own community because, Polaris explains, there is no typical profile of a trafficking victim in the US. The victim may be a child or adult, formally educated or not, a US citizen or an undocumented immigrant. The common denominator among victims that renders her or him vulnerable to trafficking is, nevertheless, the pre-existence of instability and a desire for a better life.

Increasingly, commodities produced by slave labor such as cotton, bananas, rice, coffee, tea, chocolate, bricks, fashion accessories and electronics reign in the US market. The Better World Shopper, a research organization that ranks corporations based on a corporation’s social and environmental practices, publishes information on more than 1,000 corporations. Walmart, Chevron, GE, Citibank and Nestle, turn up at the top of its worst offenders list.

Continue reading at:  http://truth-out.org/news/item/9319-the-not-so-free-market-how-consumerism-fuels-human-trafficking

From Common Dreams:  http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/05/23-5

Marchers defy Bill 78; Neighborhoods fill with sound of banging pots and pans

From Raw Story:  http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/05/23/alan-simpson-tells-senior-citizen-group-your-flyer-is-bullst/

By Andrew Jones
Wednesday, May 23, 2012

Cantankerous former Wyoming Senator Alan Simpson (R) lashed out once again at another notable senior organization recently, calling their criticism of his recommendation for massive cuts to Social Security “bullshit.”

In a letter forwarded by the AFL-CIO Wednesday morning, the passionate Simpson expressed his displeasure with the California Alliance for Retired Americans (CARA) for sending out a flyer condemning his deficit reduction plan from President Barack Obama’s task force he co-chaired with former Clinton White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles (D).

“Your little flyer entitled ‘Bowles! Simpson! Stop using the deficit as a phone excuse to gut our Social Security!’ is one of the phoniest excuses for a ‘flyer’ I have ever seen,” the Republican wrote. “What a wretched group of seniors you must be to use the faces of the very young people that we are trying to save, while the ‘greedy geezers’ like you use them as a tool and a front for your nefarious bunch of crap. You must feel some sense of shame for shoveling this bullshit.”

Jodi Reid, who is the Executive Director of the CARA, described her organization’s shock to The Raw Story exclusively at the contentious tone Simpson struck with them.

“We were taken aback by the tone and the language of the letter,” Reid said. “We are very appalled that he would say the things that he said, but the core of the issue is that we oppose to some of the proposals he’s been going around the country promoting.”

Continue reading at:  http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/05/23/alan-simpson-tells-senior-citizen-group-your-flyer-is-bullst/

From The Nation:  http://www.thenation.com/blog/167979/protest-coming-london-olympics

Jules Boykoff and Dave Zirin
on May 21, 2012

To be in London, two months before the 2012 Summer Olympics, is to feel a bit like a fish in an aquarium, with people constantly poking at the glass. Cameras adorn nearly every street corner and police vehicles are more prevalent than double-decker buses. It’s easy to understand why many are saying enough is enough.

On Saturday, July 28, protesters will be gathering in London to just say no to the priorities imposed by these most corporate of Olympic Games, and it’s hardly difficult to understand why.

Security forces are busily militarizing the urban terrain. Olympics security officials recently unboxed the military-grade Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD), an eardrum-shattering weapon that has been war-zone tested in Iraq. There are plans to station surface-to-air missiles on the roofs of London apartment buildings. The Royal Navy’s biggest warship will sit along the Thames. Typhoon jets and Lynx helicopters will be ready for action. Scotland Yard has stockpiled more than 10,000 plastic bullets. Police are constructing mobile stations to facilitate swift bookings. And “dispersal zones” have been set up where police can freely ban anyone they deem to be engaging in antisocial behavior.

None of this comes cheap. Londoners were told that the Olympics would cost £2.4 billion. Projections that include ballooning infrastructure costs are now looking at £24 billion, ten times the original bid’s estimate. They were told that the games would be funded with a “public-private partnership,” but the “private” end is now picking up less than 2 percent of the tab. In such an atmosphere, protest is inevitable, but the people coming out on July 28 are angry about more than militarization and debt. There are other issues drawing people into London’s privatized public square.

Olympics sponsorship has become a full-throttle, corporate cornucopia. London Games sponsors include icons of health and fair play like McDonald’s, British Petroleum and Dow Chemical. In the name of good health, McDonald’s is handing out “activity toys” for kids to play with after munching down their Happy Meals. BP is—no joke—an official “sustainability partner.” Dow Chemical’s prominent presence is a slap in the face to London’s large South Asian population, given the notorious gas disaster in Bhopal, India, that killed more than 20,000 people and left hundreds of thousands more suffering in its wake. In 1999, Dow Chemical merged with Union Carbide, the US firm responsible for the Bhopal nightmare.

Continue reading at:  http://www.thenation.com/blog/167979/protest-coming-london-olympics