Though, Leigh, Cathryn, and a few others have on just a very, very few occasions, been guests and allowed to post on my blog, Enough Non-Sense has no contributors as conventionally recognized throughout the blogosphere. To be accurate, please refer to Leigh as a guest blogger in your post.

OK...I'll respond to this.

I wrote what I meant, Cristan. Then, I explained what I wrote when you requested I do so. If, after writing what I meant, and then explaining what I wrote you still are having trouble understanding what I said, I simply am not inclined to go any further. I really don't think what I said was difficult to understand.

I'm under no illusion that I will be able to convince or persuade you are anyone else who is joined at the hip to the GLBT cause of anything whatsoever. I simply commented on your blog with regards to what you said in closing your essay, i.e., "I will concede a point to the individual I initially quoted. From the evidence I see, it does indeed seem that the post-1990 transgender community is different than the pre-1990 community." I gave you a perspective of someone who was has been around the issue starting in 1968.

I'm not offended, just disinclined to fruitlessly debate or defend something I lived through.

Cristan, what I wrote is what I meant. You haven't misunderstood what I've written, but simply fail in wanting to engage in any meaningful discussion. This is the second time I've politely tried to engage you here; I won't be back.

Carry on...

Paragraph 1 - Your understanding is incorrect - some initially embraced the term; I, for one, did not...but some did initially until it became clear that it was not a term that differentiated between transsexualism and every other form of what is now termed transgender.

Paragraph 2 - Your understanding is incorrect - I can see that you've picked up on the word defend; perhaps that was a bad choice of words on my part but, yes, you certainly stand up for transgender and its causes. I did not say nor infer that transsexuals "...dispute the idea that there was a group made up of people of non-cis histories, expressions and/or experiences who fought for common cause in the 60s, 70s and 80s because back then (unlike now) people understood that there were different types of trans people (eg a transsexual is not a crossdresser)." Certainly there were groups during that time frame that did just that. What I did say is that for the most part, a few gender libertines aside, did recognize there was a distinct difference between transsexuals and other groups that would now be characterized as transgender.

Paragraph 3 - You are essentially correct in your understanding - I feel the overwhelming number of post op transsexuals, though they may support issues relating to those who are not post op, could care less about the transgender or, at the least, put no more priority on transgender issues than they would any other; they are quite comfortable with the rights that they hold. They feel no imperative to take part in the issue. They have transitioned and consider their gender journey complete and simply live their life with no more inclination toward transgender than any other male or female.

Paragraph 4 - You are completely incorrect in your understanding...on every count - If one proceeds, as I and many of us do, upon the premise that post ops MtFs are simply females, then it has nothing to do with classification or identity any more than it would be for a natal female...it simply is...we don't identify as female, we are female. The lack of participation in the issue is simply indicative of the vast majority of living post ops holding that position. Much is said about the lack of rights that post ops have, when many of us do not feel that way. The rights of post op transsexuals as legitimate females have only been challenged in a handful of states...some cases have been won, others have lost...most never see the light of day in a court room (which is particularly true in the case of post ops marrying). Because someone has lost in court, on any issue, doesn't mean that they have not been protected under any portion of the constitution.

Paragraph 5 - Essentially, you are correct in your understanding - you repeatedly refer to transsexuals when I, for the sake of clarity, repeatedly use the word post op transsexuals. But, yes, it is insulting to be referred to as trans anything to many who have completed SRS. To many of us, it was only after having SRS that we felt complete and fully female...to relegate us back into that category is insulting and fails to recognize our fulfillment. Because gender theorists may have coined a term over the years which they say applies to many of us is inconsequential to those of us of whom fall into that group, being simply a sociopolitical attempt to put everyone who has even the slightest gender variation under one word...and is as alien to us as it might be to you if over a period of time society deemed that everyone who had not had SRS was a snake, transsnake, snakeoid, or some other derived term.

You say this:

“You brought up the Nikki Araguz case an claimed that I said that this a about same-sex marriage rights. Again, I think you are making a strawman argument. What I said over and over again was that the Texas Attorney General said that he was waiting on the Wharton case to get over with in order to issue an opinion about if the State will recognize the transitioned status of people like Nikki.”

No, actually, what you said, was what I said you said and that was that the Araguz case would define same sex marriage in Texas…specifically, you said this:
http://www.tgctr.org/2010/07/22/nikki/

“This will be a landmark case. We face a long legal battle which will likely reach the U.S. Supreme Court and will define future law on transgender recognition and same-sex marriage.”

I will tell you again, Cristan, the Nikki Araguz case has nothing to do with transgender, the GLBT, or same sex marriage…it had and has to do with what you are NOW saying, i.e., will Texas recognize the transitioned, post operative status of Nikki Araguz, and by implication and association, post operative transsexuals.

I have a passing acquaintance with Ashley Love, and to the best of my knowledge she didn’t talk Nikki into posting her disavowal of the GLBT…I do know that it was I who first informed her of Nikki’s post. In the comments of Nikki’s post, it appeared that Meghan Stabler did the coaching. Perhaps you have better insight.

I don’t refer to myself as transsexual, like I said, if I have to refer to myself at all, it’s simply female.

I’ll tell you this, Cristan, I really don’t appreciate debating transgender advocates who either conclude or preface their debate points with such statements as these:

“If you cannot or will not provide me an apples-to-apples example, then I must conclude that you have no credible answer to my challenge.”

“If you cannot or will not provide me an apples-to-apples example, then I must conclude that you have no credible answer to my challenge.”

“If you cannot or will not address my actual argument, then I must conclude that you have no credible response.”

“If you’re having trouble with the idea of dealing with metrics when looking at a specific community’s civil rights standing…”

“I have to say that it is my opinion that this statement alone explicitly demonstrates that you are currently lacking an ability to deal with the TS-not-TG dialogue in a rational manner.”

“If you cannot or will not grasp this simple fact, then I must conclude that your world-view belief system will not allow you to work with objective facts in a meaningful way regarding this one single issue.”

Cristan, you don’t have the intellectual reserve to come at me and I don’t appreciate the condescending statements you make. I’m not inclined to continue. You continue “identifying” as transgender…or transgender and transsexual, or as transgender, transsexual, and female…or any combination of any of them. Hell, you can even claim “victory” like you did with the television debate you had. The point is your life seems to be absolutely absorbed, revolving around any and everything “transgender”…mine is not.

With regard to the first two paragraphs of your treatise…the first one makes no sense to me, I am stating what I believe and/or have experienced. It’s not very often I’m asked to refer to myself, in fact, I can’t remember the last time…perhaps on a contract I might have accepted…but it’s never transsexual, much less transgender, simply female.

Try reading the whole essay, Cristan…particularly the part of Katrina Rose’s essay regarding to the Laws of Louisiana being changed to allow post ops to change their birth certificates and enter into heterosexual marriages.

“You’ve set up a surprising strawman argument here. I never said that fact that, for example, elected officials in the deep-south hanging out with all types of non-cis people is a literal civil right.”
No, you didn’t “literally” say that, but you certainly strongly and emphatically implied it by saying:
“Another thing that irks me is the demonstrably false notion that if all non-cisgender are grouped together, that we transsexuals won’t get our civil rights. If that’s so, why then is it that in Houston…”
And, then you list the examples used to substantiate what “irks” you.
If you want to play words games, I’m not interested.

Now, this is funny. You take each of the examples you give to substantiate the transgender acquiring civil rights and insert black person, judge, etc in place of transgender. And, then you say:

“If the above were true in the Deep South of 1967, it would be a bit difficult to argue that blacks were so discriminated against that they needed a Federal law explicitly protecting the civil rights of all people regardless of race.”

Oh, really. Then, being as this is your example, by your logic, if your examples are indeed indicative of the transgender acquiring their civil rights then…” it would be a bit difficult to argue that transgender in Houston are so discriminated against that they need a Federal law explicitly protecting the civil rights of all transgender regardless of category.

You say that your race example is absolutely an “apples for apples example of fair civil rights metrics.”

The fact is, that we both know that both examples are ludicrous. The Civil Rights Act was a necessity, just as ENDA is.

I fully understand your position with regards to the bridges that have been built by the transgender community here in Houston, and acknowledged how admirable that was in my previous reply. Nonetheless, though they are indeed indicators of acceptance and the “overall quality of health” of the Houston transgender community, which I applaud, the examples you give are not proof that the transgender are acquiring civil rights…simply that they are more accepted.

You conclude whatever it is that you want about my “world –view belief.”

So what if Nikki marched, spoke, or lobbied for GLBT equality in Austin. I don’t care. But, who are you to disallow me to use her own words as proof that her case was being harmed. Was she lying…again? But, as further proof, you and other GLBT advocates at every turn used this as a shirt tail for the GLBT to hang onto…and simply furthered the perception of the mainstream that this was a case of same-sex marriage…a gay issue…a transgender issue…when it was not. You can check out the commentary and comments on the numerous film clip scattered through-out the internet for proof.

As for me personally, neither myself nor even one other TS I either know or have met wants to deny the myriad groups under the TG their civil rights, however, the issues of post op transsexuals and pre operative surgery tracked transsexuals are not the same as those of others under the transgender umbrellas...it's not a matter of exclusionism, elitism, etc...it's just the way it is.

This is my opinion, whether you change yours or not is entirely up to you.

Just as a side note, a blog post I wrote a couple of days ago on my blog addresses the broad brush stroke of what you call the "double standard" with regards to TSs wanting to group themselves with the intersex...rather than have one wade through the post, here is what I said...in partial AGREEMENT with you:

"I agree with you, to some extent, but wholeheartedly disagree with you that the TS-not-TG group, as you call us, makes that correlation on a grand scale. Yes, I’ve seen comments and blog entries in which some TS claims, as fact, that transsexualism is an intersex condition, but rarely, except for the die-hard HBSers. There is some evidence this might be true, some might even say more than a little evidence of the fact, but transsexualism being considered an intersex condition is anything but a definitively proven hypothesis. I’m also well aware that the intersex as a whole want to maintain there autonomy and resent being grouped with the TS. Speaking for myself, to the best of my knowledge, I am not intersex; I have never grouped myself with them…in fact, I’ve posted on my blog in defense of them being colonized or sexualized by any group, particularly the GLBT, which is trying their damnedest to do just that. On the other hand, when I read about someone who has normal genitalia and has fathered children before then suffering a spontaneous sex change or realizing they were transsexual after a bee sting all I can do is just shake my head in disgust. The same goes for all those who claim they are intersex, though everything else is perfectly normal, because they find out they have a chromosomal anomaly. Most intersex people are not transsexual; most transsexual people are not intersex…that is simply the truth of the matter. There are enough links in this blog, much less on the internet, to prove that beyond doubt. So, don’t group all of us in the same boat, Cristan. Just as the transgender have their severely wacko subset, so do we. I assure you, I don’t care for them any more than you do."

I'm not sure how you could not understand what I wrote unless you choose not to. But, to make it clear, you list a series of events that you imply is proof that all of the so-called "trans" groups, or transgender, can acquire civil rights. And, I assert that none of the examples you give are even an example of a civil right, much less a substantiation that the transgender acquired them. Even clearer:

•Houston City Council members sponsoring a TRANSGENDER events
The Houston City Council sponsoring a transgender event is no more an example of the transgender acquiring civil rights than the Kiwanis Club sponsoring a crawfish boil.

•The TRANSGENDER community supporting the mayor of Houston – an out lesbian – into politics.
This is NOT an example of the transgender acquiring a civil right.

•The 2nd openly TRANSGENDER judge in the nation.
This is NOT an example of the transgender acquiring a civil right.

•Houston becoming is home to the only TRANSGENDER Center and Archive in the nation.
This is NOT an example of a civil right being acquired.

•The County Sheriff, Houston Mayor, a number of elected Judges and most of Houston city council always attends and supports any event our TRANSGENDER community puts on.
This is not an example of the transgender acquiring a civil right.

•Everyone from the FBI to the TCAB meeting with Houston TRANSGENDER leaders to learn how to improve their interactions with non-cisgender people.
This is not an example of the transgender acquiring a civil right.

All of the things you list are quite admirable and I congratulate you and your Houston community for building the bridges that you have...but the items you list are not examples of civil rights be acquired. Anyone can be appointed to position, always has been that way...anyone can support the candidate of their choice, always has been that way, anyone is free to attend a function, or not, if they are invited, always has been that way. The examples you give are strictly related to being recognized. Does Texas allow post ops to marry...maybe so with the 2009 Family Code, then again, maybe not; they haven't upheld a case yet. Does Texas have legislation on the books that routinely allow the changing of a birth certificate of post ops upon presenting proof of the change, without having the right attorney and the right judge in place...I don't think so. Those are examples of civil rights, not an official attending a function.

As for as presenting you with the example you requested...feel free to go to this web post of a Deacon Law Review article when a civil right was acquired in Louisiana more than 40 years ago to accomplish both of the examples above.
http://www.deakin.edu.au/buslaw/law/dlr/docs/vol9...

When the issues of post op transsexuals are merged with the issues of the other "gender variant" groups, the TSs get screwed, every time. The Nikki Araguz case was and is an example. You said that the Araguz case would define same sex marriage in Texas when, in reality, this case had, and has, nothing to do with same sex marriage, the GLB, or the transgender. It got so bad that Ms. Araguz had to specifically ask the GLBT to simply leave her out of their agenda completely...unfortunately, way too little, way too late. I'm not saying that the GLBT support of her is what caused her to lose her case, to date. But, in the court of public opinion, the GLBT, you, and others did way more harm than good in your attempt to make the Araguz case into a GLBT issue rather than one of a heterosexual post op female having their sex recognized. I hoped like hell that Nikki would have prevailed, but even if she had, based on her sex change, it wouldn't have made one iota of difference in the same-sex marriage debate. Louisiana has a constitutional amendment that prohibits same sex marriage, yet completely recognize the legitimacy of a post operative female, as well as their right to enter into a heterosexual marriage...and, yes, this has been upheld in court.

As you seem to like the word, so demonstrably explain to me how any of these things you listed are even an example of how the transgender are acquiring civil right, much less substantiating your claim they are proof of it. Nothing detailed, just a demonstrably short explanation.

•Houston City Council members sponsoring a TRANSGENDER events
•The TRANSGENDER community supporting the mayor of Houston – an out lesbian – into politics.
•The 2nd openly TRANSGENDER judge in the nation.
•Houston becoming is home to the only TRANSGENDER Center and Archive in the nation.
•The County Sheriff, Houston Mayor, a number of elected Judges and most of Houston city council always attends and supports any event our TRANSGENDER community puts on.
•Everyone from the FBI to the TCAB meeting with Houston TRANSGENDER leaders to learn how to improve their interactions with non-cisgender people.

Do you really think being appointed a judge is an example of the transgender acquiring a civil right, or having someone sponsor a TG event, or having the ability to run for office, or supporting someone for office, or even someone attending a TG function…do you really believe that these bulleted items you mention and the picture of Phyllis Frye are examples of civil rights having been, or being, acquired?

I don’t think they are examples at all…not even bad examples…of anyone acquiring anything, particularly civil rights here in “Houston (Bush-land) TEXAS, a deep-south RED State…”

Because someone recognizes another, doesn’t mean they support them, much less is willing to support granting them a civil right due to their status.

This whole post is weak, bordering on lame, only serving to push your specific transgender agenda and further polarizing transsexuals and those who are not.