They preach to their choir, for they have not the wit to do otherwise

So... Why transsexual, and not transgender? Why indeed? Because:

"A transsexualism (TS) came into the world with a birth condition, with significant medical implications. An individual can achieve full partial or awareness of the condition at various stages throughout one's lifetime, but it does not change the underlying medical reality." 

Wot the 'eck is a transsexualism?

How about "we assume most transsexuals came into world with a problem"? It's both a medical and a psychological condition, and what someone does with their life is none of their damn business. If someone is aware, at a young age, that there's a disconnect between physical and mental genders - and decides not to pursue TS-Si's approved course of action (for whatever reason), then, well, they're "a transgender" and can be derided to your little heart's content.

So now that we've established that someone who knows absolutely sod all about medical matters is providing ersatz medical advice, let's move on, shall we?

Transgender advocacy would have it that "gender" and "sex" are human social constructs that have no meaningful basis in biology. 

I wonder if the people of TS-Si can spell "bullshit"? Some people argue that gender and sex are social constructs. Some people argue that sex has no basis in biology. Transgender advocacy does not argue that. Transgender advocacy argues that people should be allowed to pee in safety. Basically.

They go on (and on, and on):

Whatever the internal impulses and sense of self that drive people, outward "presentation" is enough to identify a person's place along a broad, and fluid, gender spectrum.

Besides contradicting their own behavior, why isn't is given more importance? Probably because it's an incomplete idea. And the full idea would go against what they actually do stand for.

You know, at this point I should point out that I didn't even bother seeking their permission to quote the lazy buggers. What I'm writing about is covered by fair use, parody and freedom of expression. I only mention this because they seem to be hung up on legalities. They also don't accept this mystical umbrella all of these transsexual separatists argue exists. It must for them, I guess.

On the other hand, they're very generous:

This does not mean that TG goals are altogether wrong, but simply that people born with TS have practical needs left unattended by current political advocacy.

Oh, how nice.

Perhaps I can refer Sharon, et alia, to my recent post where I pointed out that they have more legal protections than any transgendered person? Even if those protections (ahem, yeah well...) are meager to begin with!

Their next two sentences are a bit of a puzzle:

Please note that this position is most criticized by the holders of urban human rights political positions. TS-Si strongly advoctes human rights; we do not advocate disrespect or inequality before the law that would penalize the TG-identified population.

I have no idea what the first one means; I don't think it has any actual meaning and is something someone placed there because they were bored. As for the second sentence, they strongly support both human rights and the derogation of transgender people? Nah. One or the other, and I strongly suspect it's "derogation of those mean TG's".

Continuing would be a challenge; it seems that TS-Si doesn't have the wit to even be trivial. I can't stand to see that much of the English language so casually butchered. Philosophically, TS-Si doesn't stand for equality; they would never publish a piece that had transgender people set up as strawmen if they were. Usually, such a device is a rhetorical technique; I use it, quite often to be honest. I portray or setup the Tea Party to be my patsy. I deliberately put such groups in a negative light. Used honestly, it's a powerful idea - so powerful it's commonplace in the political discourse. Used without care, as Lisa did in her "clown" article, it's not powerful. It's trivial, combative and flame-baiting. Lisa used the technique unwittingly, but her intention was the same as Rush Limbaugh's: bait the opposition. In this case, her opposition was "the transgenders". That TS-Si not only published her article but that the Managing Editor felt she had respond indicates that TS-Si officially agrees and, as a consequence, is [merely] a partizan website that can be discounted for any serious discussion about gender. They preach to their choir, for they have not the wit or intelligence to do otherwise. In short, you can advocate for the rights and privileges of the transsexual woman, and you can do it without insulting those who less power and influence than you. And if you do need to insult transgender people, is too much to ask that you do it with some style? I'm getting bored with the casual sameness of the insults.

Carolyn Ann