gdp's Comments

WGNO-TV : Charges could be Upgraded Against Suspect In Death of Transgender Woman

Sun, 27 Apr 2014 17:03:25 +0000

She. Read your AP style guide or look at GLAAD's.

Canon City Daily Record : Florence-Penrose School District receives draft policy regarding transgender student - Canon City Da

Thu, 16 Jan 2014 19:53:49 +0000

Why did you leave out the fact that the school did it's own investigation and found that no harassment had take place? Why did you leave out the the Florence PD investigated, but dropped the case after PJI advised the parents to make no statements under oath? Why did you leave out the fact that these policy suggestions weren't "recent?" PJI submitted those "suggestions" almost 2 months ago. This is just PJI hype that you're helping to inflate. Stop it. Shame on you.

Canon City Daily Record : Parents voice concern about transgender student at Florence High School - Canon City Daily Record

Thu, 12 Dec 2013 14:25:49 +0000

To be clear, Clemenson verified that the other speaker was also part of the group organized via the out-of-town Tea Party club. It's therefore very likely that the 3rd wasn't a parent of a child in the district either. I just couldn't verify much about her, so I didn't comment on her. I'd love to learn more about how the notion that Clemenson, et al were all parents of local school children became such a prominent theme of this article.

KTXL-TV : Backlash against Transgender Bathroom Bill

Wed, 28 Aug 2013 03:02:57 +0000

This is so silly. These policies have been on the books in places like TEXAS for years and all that's happened is that trans kids got to go to school without worrying about institutionalized bigotry. Ask yourself why none of these stories ever mentions that Cali-style policy protecting trans kids has already been enacted throughout the nation - for years - without incident? All this nonsensical fear mongering just so some bigots can harm trans kids is kinda sad.

TransGriot : 'The Face' Model Devyn, Is Apparently So Light Skinned, She's International and Not Black

Tue, 26 Mar 2013 22:39:16 +0000

Wow... She sounds like a H-BSer :/

MercatorNet : MercatorNet: The expanding gender agenda

Sat, 9 Feb 2013 14:49:20 +0000

Are you actually asserting that nobody has an innate subjective sense of their own physical sex? Ya, know... a gender orientation? How... John Money of you.

TransGriot : It's Not 'Unwarranted Bitching' To Point Out Trans Peeps Weren't Mentioned In The POTUS' Speech

Fri, 25 Jan 2013 20:34:33 +0000

More on ciswashing of queer history: http://www.transadvocate.com/so-what-was-stonewal...

TransGriot : Twans Sep Twying To Start Twouble

Tue, 15 Jan 2013 04:54:50 +0000

She backed out and then threatened to call teh internets police on me unless I agreed to never, ever, EVER, NEVERRRRR(!!!!!!!) again note that she started the drama, backed out of the debate by pretending that she wasn't able to contact me and/or that somehow she didn't know when the debate would be (even though I had posted a live countdown-to-debate on my site and sent her the info). Here's the threat wherein she states she's going to report me to a Texas agency that deals with housing discrimination... and that she was going to contact Annise and get her to set me straight. http://www.cristanwilliams.com/b/2012/07/02/dun-g... Lisa really believes that "transgender" is a communist plot. This and folks like Jennifer Usher and Ashley Love are what's left of the TS Seps. BTW, a YEAR ago she announced that she was about to publish a rebuttal to my research that would destroy my research and prove the TS Sep history correct. Aaannd... I'm still waiting for the rebuttal. At this point I'm starting to suspect that she simply doesn't know what she's talking about and that maybe her assertions are not actually based in reality.

TransGriot : Ashley Love Has Been Consumed By The Dark Side Of The Trans Force

Thu, 5 Jul 2012 22:48:00 +0000

I keep hoping that she'll have a moment of clarity and snap out of it. She has so much misguided passion... the problem is that she's spreading and legitimizing the very RadFem dogma they've used against all trans folk... except Love is focusing that RadFem BS on non-transsexual trans folk. "I do not think that transvestites should use the women's restroom just because they have decided to dress up in women's clothing." - Ashley Love, Friday, January 22, 2010 RadFems used that same argument to marginalize Sylvia Rivera: [Women in the GLF were uncomfortable referring to Rivera—who insisted in using women’s bathrooms, even in City hall—as “she.” Pressure mounted. The year 1973 witnessed clash that would take Rivera out of the movement for the next two decades. Her lifelong friend and fellow Stonewall Veteran Bob Kohler recalled, “Sylvia left the movement because after the first three or four years, she was denied a right to speak.” It was during the Pride rally in Washington Square Park after the Christopher Street Liberation Day March. To the dismay of Lesbian Feminist Liberation drag queens were scheduled to perform. As they passed out flyers outlining their opposition to the “female impersonators,” Rivera wrestled for the microphone held by emcee Vitto Russo, before getting hit with it herself. Rivera explained, “I had to battle my way up on stage, and literally get beaten up and punched around by people I thought were my comrades, to get to that microphone. I got to the microphone and I said my piece.” Rivera complained that the middle-class crowd cared little to nothing about the continued harassment and arrests of street drag queens. Bleeding, Rivera sang, “You Gotta Have Friends,” screamed “Revolution Now!” and led the crowd in a chant of “Give me a G, Give me an A, Give me a Y…What does it spell?” Barely audible, her voice breaking, “GAY POWER,” she groaned.] - Benjamin Shepard, “Sylvia and Sylvia’s Children: The Battle for a Queer Public Space,” That’s Revolting! (ed. Matt Bernstein Sycamore) Love is completely unaware (or willfully blind) that RadFems are why we trans folk lost our healthcare in the first place. Instead of simply investigating the facts, she seems to blindly assume that we lost our healthcare in the 1980s because of non-transsexual trans folk. If she would just do a little damn research she would learn that it was a RadFem brief that the Reagan Administration used to justify removing trans care from Medicare... which the states then used to remove trans care from Medicaid... which the private insurance companies then, following the government's example, removed trans care. Love just doesn't/won't get the truth: [So forgive us people with transsexualism when we get a little feisty and resistant against Gay Inc and it's Transgender Subsidiary using their big platform to spread misinformation that harms people with transsexualism, their medical legitimacy, health care rights and narrative!] - Ashley Love, Tuesday, August 2, 2011

WordPress blog at cristanwilliams.com : Objectively Measuring Our Community

Thu, 8 Mar 2012 03:05:35 +0000

Thanks!

The Arbiter: Online : Letter to the editor

Thu, 1 Mar 2012 15:54:25 +0000

Thank you for writing this piece! I think it's hard for some to clearly grasp the obdurate nature of their faith in the anti-trans social memes permeating our culture. Some believe it's a choice to have a cross-sexed gender identity because jokes, religious assertions and armchair therapists collaboratively create a social climate in which an otherwise rational person who knows that while they themselves cannot pick and choose gender identities at will, trans people must. I'm sure the author of the piece you've responded to cannot recall when he "chose" his gender-identity and I'm sure that it's not occurred to him that neither can trans people. Furthermore, we know that that gender identity isn't taught/learned because we know the man who pushed that idea in the 70s (John Money) falsified his research. You want to know what happens when you force a kid with a male gender identity to be a girl? Look up John Money's tragic John/Joan case. While you're doing that think about how this child's case exactly mirrors the experiences of transsexual kids. No, we as human beings do not just pick a gender identity. If people would set aside the memes and rationally consider - for even just a moment - the facts which are there to be known about humanity and our gender identity, I'm sure many would find themselves mortified over their treatment of trans people. Is it any wonder why something like half of trans kids suffers with PTSD? When trans people can be legally fired, not hired and denied basic housing options, do we really need to quibble over the explicit damage these unsupported anti-trans memes cause? Is there a correlation between the fact that homeless trans people have a 22% HIV infection rate and a world wherein practically all homeless shelters refuse service to trans people? I'd say so. I work as a case manager. Do you know that it took me TEN YEARS - 10!!! - to get our local childrens homeless shelter to stop kicking out trans children? Stop and just consider what I've seen happen to these children once they were forced onto the street over the last decade. Do you want to know why the shelter refused services to trans kids? They thought that the kids were playing dress-up so that they could rape the other kids... I am not joking. Ideas like this are held for a reason. They don't just happen to pop into existence - en masse, suddenly and without cause - to create an environment wherein otherwise rational people sleep well at night knowing that they sent a trans child to meet their fate on the cruel streets. No; such attitudes and beliefs require a social climate in which the February 27 edition of the Arbiter became an unwitting co-architect. Thank you Diane and thank you Arbiter for allowing a more reasoned voice to be heard in the midst of a maelstrom of meme-driven misinformation, phobia and the very particular type of hubris only found in those who's confidence in their world-view is propped up by legions of the like-minded rather than logic and reason.

WordPress blog at cristanwilliams.com : More on Historical Trans Terms

Tue, 7 Feb 2012 05:01:20 +0000

That one is rather long also and in a phrase says \"the term is still evolving\".

Do you believe that my position is that the term is not evolving? Do you believe that it is my position that the term has never evolved?

But you seem to love walls of text...

Is your critique that I'm too detailed when I dispel Separatist memes with historical fact?

WordPress blog at cristanwilliams.com : More on Historical Trans Terms

Tue, 7 Feb 2012 04:43:20 +0000

Wow... you copy and pasted a wikipedia article. So, not only did you go for the strawman (my supposed position that words do not evolve) you went for the argumentum verbosium too. The idea that I've asserted that words do not change meaning is absurd; the posts listed here contradicts your argument. In fact, practically every post I've made about terms is about the evolution of the term. If your best critique of the information I've made available is to pretend that I'm making assertions that you'll never be able to actually quote me making, then I guess that says a lot about your position. So, if I understand your post correctly: A.) You're not happy with me. B.) You felt you needed to attack my position and therefore, instead of dealing with my actual assertions, you instead invented an imaginary position for me to take. C.) You felt posting a wiki article was really clever.

WordPress blog at cristanwilliams.com : I HATE Separatists?

Sun, 5 Feb 2012 22:54:00 +0000

Really? What evidence did you base that assertion upon? This is a PERFECT example of the fallacious memes that get passed around. Here's a copy of a TV Guide wherein a trans character is referred to as "transgendered" from the year 1970: http://www.cristanwilliams.com/b/wp-content/uploa... ... and a close-up of where the term was used: http://www.cristanwilliams.com/b/wp-content/uploa... Here's a 1970s newspaper in which Christine Jorgensen calls herself transgender: |http://www.cristanwilliams.com/b/2011/07/08/chris... Here's a book on transsexual surgery from 1974 talking about "transgender surgery": http://research.cristanwilliams.com/2011/08/15/tr... Here's another book from the early 70s which talks about transsexual research as "transgender research": http://research.cristanwilliams.com/2011/08/15/tr... Either the people who told you that the term was invented in the 1990s were wrong or someone from the 1990s time traveled. Which do you think is more likely?

WordPress blog at cristanwilliams.com : Separatism and Inclusionism: The Difference

Sun, 5 Feb 2012 00:04:30 +0000

By way of reply, I'll say to you what I wrote to this group's leadership just last night:

As I've sad to you numerous times, I totally get wanting to have a TS-only group. I've also said that I too am a member of a TS-only group too. The difference is that we don't go around pretending to be victims of those mean ol' crossdressers who are tying to appropriate our identities *rolls eyes* So to be very clear, I never said that you should not have a support group. In fact, I've said the opposite numerous times. What I did do was poke fun at the idea that English language taxonomies are somehow oppressive. I also poked fun at the hubris so many Separatists display. For example: "For me it is also, and equally as importantly, about developing a clear voice so that we can talk to governments and health systems and get early intervention for other true transsexuals, so they do not need to go through the horrors of puberty and the ravages of testosterone." Yes, this is a great goal. Very admirable. However, believing that you can be politically powerful with a group of > 20 is hubris. If you want to make real change, learn to work with people who are different than you, who you disagree with and who you might not even like because the lives that hang in the balance are worth more than your personal discomfort or need to have others tell you that you're opinions are valid. Hence, my graphic comparing groups and how they think work gets done.

I don't attack people, I attack truth assertions when they seem to be demonstrably false. I attacked because they made the following unsupported assertions of fact to validate their need to meet as a group:

“Personally, we think the surfacing of this old issue again is timely, highlighting a problem with the legal definition of trans women, and drawing attention to the problems that mixing sexual fetish with transsexualism causes for our dream of wider acceptance in the community,” she says. “Repeatedly, male cross dressers are standing on public platforms and claiming to speak for us. These are people who have no belief that they are female and no desire for hormonal or surgical correction. It is time that we had an independent voice so we can stand and speak for ourselves.”

In the first paragraph she's asserting that there's a problem and that the problem is due to "mixing sexual fetish with transsexualism". Did she offer any evidence to support this assertion of fact? Nope... she expects all readers to simply take the validity of her victim status on faith alone. In the next paragraph she complains about all the crossdressers who are apparently speaking for transsexuals... again without evidence. Ironically Dana Taylor wrote a post about a month ago crowing about how there's no crossdressers out there speaking up. There is an objective truth to be found; either there's a glut of crossdressers speaking on behalf of transsexuals (in which case transsexuals are victims) or there isn't (and she's making a false assertion of fact). Do I perceive a threat? Nope... not at all. Interestingly, the perception you (and seemingly many other Separatists) apparently have about my motivations is the topic of the post I'm working on right now and will publish today :)

WordPress blog at cristanwilliams.com : Separatism and Inclusionism: The Difference

Sat, 4 Feb 2012 01:03:00 +0000

Hey, there's nothing wrong with having a TS group anymore than there's a problem with having an intersex group. However, conflating the reality of groups with different types of non-cis experience, history and expression and having a linguistic taxonomy to collectively talk about all the types of people with a non-cis experience, history and expression is what most call an equivocation. We have an amazingly strong transgender community in Houston with post-op MTF transsexuals groups, transsexual groups, drag groups, general trans groups, FTM groups, SO groups. parents groups, youth groups, gender-queer groups and much, much more. Each of these parts are allies in working to improve the quality of life for all types of trans folk. The drag community has been putting on fundraisers for transsexual surgeries for years. That's the point of the graphic.

WordPress blog at cristanwilliams.com : Separatism and Inclusionism: The Difference

Fri, 3 Feb 2012 23:42:04 +0000

TG groups are not safe for TS women.

Let's be honest... TG groups are not safe for only a certain minority of TS women. The majority of TS women have no issues with other non-cis folk.

WordPress blog at cristanwilliams.com : Separatism and Inclusionism: The Difference

Fri, 3 Feb 2012 21:30:31 +0000

Someone said it... TY :)

WordPress blog at cristanwilliams.com : Nikki Araguz, Jewel Thief Extraordinaire

Sun, 29 Jan 2012 03:45:00 +0000

Cristan you are quibbling about the concept of original. I was using it in the dictionary definition of the one originally issued.

Well, I'm using it in the way that it's correctly used with reference to certificates of live birth. Just because Delgadio's lawyers equivocated and claimed that Nikki's BC wasn't original doesn't make it so. When Heather's side identifies a stolen photocopy of Nikki's erroneous BC calling it "original" they are misrepresenting its status. It's only "original" if you mean "first copy" just as if someone's BC with a misspelling of the father's name was "original". But that's not the context in which they're using the word "original". They're claiming that there was an original non-erroneous BC and a second one was issued... and that's a misrepresentation of the facts. In CA, Nikki was born female; the male designation is viewed as being an error - like a misspelled name. There is only one original BC and that BC states that Nikki was born female in the EXACT same way that had Nikki's father's name (eg Joe Smith) was listed Joey Smith, the error would be corrected and the original reissued.

As to the rest of your response I have no way of knowing if what you assert without proof is in any way accurate or valid

Fair enough. It would probably be helpful to set up a timeline and post it. It might be hard do find 3rd party evidence for the first 2 weeks since Nikki reached out to me just a day or two after her husband died. It's going to be hard to prove that her intention was to lay low and avoid the press those first couple of weeks... unless her mom could corroborate that... hrm... I'll have to think about how to corroborate what was going on via 3rd parties since she made no public statements about the suit for weeks before she finally made a statement to the press.

Have you ever spoken directly with Heather?

Only very briefly and it wasn't more than a few words. She doesn't like me. All I have to go on is what Nikki told me years ago before Thomas died, what Nikki now says, what Nikki's family says, the documented history of struggles between Heather and Nikki and what Nikki's church friends said.

Are there any taped clips where she has said the things you assert?

Absolutely! :) That should go on that timeline! Remember, Thomas died on July 4, 2010. Days before his funeral, Nikki heard that the ex was going to go after her and gossip broke out in Wharton. Thomas' funeral was July 12 and Nikki is made to feel unwelcome. The day after Nikki buried her husband (Tues, July 13), she is officially informed of the suit seeking to declare her male and her marriage void. Heather broke the news via her lawyers on Fri July 16 and the news broke Saturday morning, July 17. It isn't until July 21 that Nikki finally made a statement to the press... by then ~ 2 weeks has gone by wherein she was wrung through the rumor mill. Here's the first news story from July 17: http://www.leader-news.com/articles/2010/07/17/ne... Note that Nikki is not quoted and note the history Heather has with Nikki. Note that it was this initial report wherein Heather outs own her kids. Here's a video I did from July 2010 wherein I'm fairly pissed and am reviewing Heather's media (mis)statements: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3f7-UDiNMg I'm sure you're not the only one who would benefit from seeing the verified facts put into some sort of timeline. I'll put that on my to-do list :)

WordPress blog at cristanwilliams.com : Nikki Araguz, Jewel Thief Extraordinaire

Sun, 29 Jan 2012 00:52:00 +0000

I think you make a weak case when you say her BC says female because that is not her original bc.

Actually, that's incorrect. There are only 2 types of BCs: Amended and Original. In Texas, my BC is amended... and there's my original TX BC and then there's the amended TX BC (and that BC states that it's amended). In California, they reissue an original. It's not an amended BC. In other words, in CA, for transsexuals, they treat the original sexed status as an error in the same way an incorrect birth date, time, location, etc. In CA, they are correcting an error on the original BC because in CA, MTF transsexuals were born female, not male. In Texas, a MTF transsexual is deemed to have been born male... which is why an amended BC is issued. This is one of the HUGE problems with Judge Clapp's decision - which he chose to not address even though this was a point maid by Nikki's lawyers. The 14th amendment of the constitution holds that if CA asserts that Nikki was born female, TX must recognize that assertion. Nikki wasn't born in TX and TX must therefore use the documentation officially recognized by the state of CA (in the same way CA must recognize TX documentation). Incidentally, this was one of the reasons for the last court date in Wharton. According to standards and practices, the Judge must address the points raised in the case. In Nikki's case, he didn't bother to address any of the points made by Nikki's legal team. Judge Clapp refused to offer any legal reasoning behind his decision and said that this last hearing was a waste of his time. That's called bias.

Then I ran across the 1995 Jerry Springer incident.

I've known one other trans woman who went on Springer. She was 18 and was told that it would be a serious show. When she got there, she was told that the show was scripted and if she didn't play along, she'd have to find her way home. The show also made as much alcohol as she wanted available to her. Yah, I did a total facepalm when I learned that she was on Springer. Yah, 19 year olds are not known for their maturity or critical thinking abilities, but still...

Do you fault the birth mother for wanting to care for her children?

Yes, I do. She hated Nikki with a passion. For years Nikki raised those kids and it was Nikki who paid child support. 4 out of 7 days the boys lived with Nikki and Thomas. When Heather Delgado started out with this suit, she was getting 300K. If she wins, she will still receive only about 300K after legal fees. For that, she’s outed her children in small-town Wharton. When the kids she claims such concern for went back to school, instead of being the kids of a fallen hero, they’ll were known as the kids of the guy who married a pre-op transsexual... their step-mom – the very step-mom they lived with 4 days out of the week for most of the last 4 years. Heather’s doomed her kids to a life of schoolyard hell… and for what?!? I don't think this is at all about the kids for Heather Delgado. It was Delgado who went to the press first. She outed Nikki and her kids to the press. Delgado even put those poor kids on TV several times! Nikki refused to talk to the media for 2 weeks until they found the cell number and began calling her day and night. As of now, ALL Nikki's benefits are going to pay for legal fees. She won't see a dime. At this point, she's only fighting for the legal recognition of her marriage. Those are the objective facts. Now, how do those facts square with Heather Delgado going on Fox, claiming to be a victim, trotting the (already traumatized) kids on national television, claiming that Nikki - the kid's parent for most of their conscious life - was a man and claiming that she (Delgado) was doing all this for the well-being of the kids?

I can say that if some drunk lady offered to trade me her Rolex for my Timex I would refuse and try to find her a safe ride home so she could sleep it off.

I don't drink; I haven't taken a drink in more than 20 years. One of the major reasons I don't drink is because I'm constantly hearing about the absurd drama that happens - to all sorts of people - because they thought that going out for a night on the town sounded like "fun." I'm not too sure that Nikki's any different in that regard to a LOT of the "normal" people I meet in my day-to-day life.

I think what is important is the welfare and future of the children

Well, the kids already have their money and they have a ton of benefits up to and including a free university education up through PhD level. So, on that level, they're already taken care of. Unfortunately, they've become pariahs, were bullied so much due to their mother going to the press with all of this that they had to be taken out of public school. Not only did they lose their father and Nikki -a parent that they relied upon more that their own mother - the context in which they knew them both was stripped from them in the most public way. What happened to them was as cruel as it was unnecessary.