Now, Cooke also does not mention that I was banned from Women Born Transsexual for the
Cooke whines that "true stealth" is near impossible. There is truth in that remark, but it is truth that strains out, as they say, those tiny little gnats, while swallowing a camel whole. For those not up on ancient Middle Eastern humor, Jesus was making a joke about people who pick a tiny insect out of a bowl of soup, while gulping down an entire camel to illustrate a point. A real knee-slapper in His day... Simply put, yes, if someone really wants to probe into your background, say if you are running for public office, they might find out your situation. But, for all practical purposes, stealth is quite possible. Sure, someone doing a web search on my real name would discover that someone by that name was mentioned in various places in connection to transsexualism. They would also discover that a person by that name ran in Bay to Breakers. It wasn't me. They would discover that someone by that name is a member of the vestry of a church in Los Angeles. Nope, not me. They would discover lots of things about lots of people, none of whom are me.
I choose to be relatively stealth because I am not interested in transgressing gender. That is not remotely my motivation. I am interested in something that people like Cooke, Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen, Mr. "Cristan" Williams, and others are not...having a normal life, as an ordinary woman. Sandeen objects that I refer to him with male pronouns, and call him a man. Not because I am calling him something he is not, he is a man, and he knows he is a man, and he really doesn't have any illusions that he is actually a woman. He is upset because I am disrespecting his gender transgression. I am not playing along with his demand that people suspend disbelief and reality and call him a "woman."
Lots of things are public. I found out "Autumn" Sandeen's birth name at least a year before he decided to publicly reveal it. Unlike some jerks, who shall rename nameless, I chose to no reveal it, tempting as it would have been. Why? Because I am not a hypocrite. I would not appreciate having it done to me, and so I don't do that to others. I respect people's wishes with regard to privacy. Cooke, being a true bully, does not. Funny how that works...Cooke calls me a bully because, well, I comment on things Cooke says online. On the other hand, Cooke actually argues that people who don't like what Cooke says have no right to comment on Cooke's Things Cooke will not allow me to comment on at Cooke's blog, period, and would not allow anyone to comment in such a manner anyway. The rule on Cooke's blog is to sing Cooke's praises, or get banned. But, in the same article, Cooke suggests that people do exactly what I am doing, write on their own blog....but then complains because I write about some of the sillier things Cooke says. This is mainly a blog about issue that affect transsexuals, and since a lot of those issues have to do with idiocy from extremist transgender activists, that is who I write about a lot. And yes, I consider Cooke to be an extremist transgender activist. Now, Cooke has several choices. Cooke can, and I realize this is not going to happen, get a clue and perhaps change some of the sillier things written. Cooke can ignore me. Or Cooke can continue whining about what I say. But no, Cooke is not going to shut me up.
Now, granted, I would ban Cooke from writing some of what Cooke writes about me (that darn privacy rule), but not for disagreeing with me. To Cooke, just disagreeing is bullying. Cooke, as one might say, has issues. Or to put it another way, Cooke loves censorship. The question that always springs to my mind when people are so into censorship is, just what are they afraid of? The answer, of course, is the truth....