Friday, November 30, 2012

Research is NOT the Issue

I wanted to further address some of the silliness that Mr. "Cristan" Williams claims in his post How Not To Do Research.  

First off, I make no claim to be doing "research."  I simply did a bit of fact checking that exposes Mr. William's rather bizarre claims as, well, bogus.  He attempts to claim that the term "transgender" was in widespread use before the rise of the "transgender movement" in the Nineties, and that said rise is actually a myth.  He does this because, well, when examined closely, the "transgender movement" doesn't look all that good.  It basically consists of a bunch of crossdressers trying to co-opt transsexualism.  Something that has given rise to the transsexual movement that Mr. Williams keeps pronouncing to be dead, but never quite is.

But, Mr. Williams doesn't do research either, unless you consider what Blanchard and Bailey do to be research.  Research is a search for facts and the truth.  What Blanchard, Bailey, and Mr. Williams engage in is an attempt to prove a view that has no basis in fact, and an attempt to manufacture evidence to fit their view.

Now, Mr. Williams' approach is something along the lines of, "If I can show that the term "transgender" was used in the past, no matter how rarely, or how isolated, or even if it was used in a completely different context, that will prove that Virginia Prince and other did not create a movement that basically co-opted transsexuals."  Sorry, but no.  Ideas can appear, and then fade, and someone else have the same idea, completely on their own.

For example, I invented the laser printer.  Seriously.  Back in the late-Seventies, at a time when dot-matrix and modified IBM Selectrics ruled the scene, I invented the laser printer.  Someone explained to me how a copy machine worked.  Basically, a series of lenses focus an image on a electrostatic drum, which transfers toner to a page which is then run through heater rollers, fusing the toner into the paper.  It occurred to me that a laser beam could be used to "draw" images from a computer on that drum, with the rest of the process pretty much the same.  I thought it up, on my on, and sadly, did not have the good sense to even consider getting a patent.  It would not have made any difference.  Someone else, completely unknown to me had the same idea, and patented it, a few years before I had my idea.  But hey, that sort of thing happens.  Liebnitz and Newton both "invented" calculus, and fought over who was first.  But they both had the same idea, quite separately (well, to a point, anyway).  Newton gets the credit (at least partly because he used his position to insure that he got it) and we use Liebnitz's notation for the most part.  But two different people had the same idea.  So, it is entirely possible, and based on the evidence, quite probable, that the term transgender was invented, and reinvented several times before the movement that many want no part of arose.

Mr. Williams can double talk all he wants.  He can play with graphs, and then try to link me to Fox News, when he is actually the one doing what Fox is accused of.  But, he can't really prove his claims.

Oh, and in a comment to an article by Suzan Cooke, he makes the false claim that I call anyone I disagree with a man.  No, not true at all.  If that were true, I would certainly be calling Cooke a man.  I call men, men.  "On what basis?" one might legitimately ask.  Well, there are several.  First, I look at whether the person vibes as a woman.  This is the primary one, and no, it has nothing to do with stereotypes.  I have known very masculine women, who were still women.  I have known very feminine men, who were still men.  It is one of those things that is hard to define, but if you think about it, commonly experience.

Mr. WIlliams, simply put, truly comes across as a man, and nothing but a man.

I also look at how the person presents their self to the world.  Do they present primarily as a woman, or is it primarily as a "transgender."  As I have said, you can be a woman, or you can be trans, but not really both.  If you feel the need to strongly qualify what you are, you probably aren't.

And finally, and also very importantly, I look at how they relate to women.  Do they have no regard for women's feelings, needs, privacy, security...?  Do they understand that women see the world differently from men?  Clearly, many don't.  

What's Wrong With Just Being Normal?

For many of us, nothing.  For some...well...  To me, there is nothing wrong with being "traditional" or " "mainstream,"  but in her most recent rant, Suzan Cooke, transgender kook, gender fascist, and pretty much increasingly a bit of a shrill joke, goes off over someone named "Purple." What did this person do that was so terrible?  Well, apparently they have extolled the virtues of being a relatively normal person.

Granted, this person does seem to also be a bit of a flake.  It is not clear if this is the person who used to post under the name, "PurpleGirl," who was a devotee of Charlotte Goiar, who started a European "Harry Benjamin's Syndrome" movement (apparently it has since dropped the incorrect use of a possessive...naming is to honor, not imply ownership) who used to post under the name "Courtney Michelle Holder."  That person, who as I recall did take some extremist views not unlike those taken by person posting as Donna Reiser, who is also a devotee of Goiar.  The HBS group that I was part of had major disagreements with Goiar, and broke with her very early on.  

Cooke never misses a chance to attack the HBS movement, apparently because the idea that a person might actually transition simply to live a normal life seems to disgust Cooke.  This Reiser is as extremist in one direction as the transgender activists, including Cooke, are in the other.  Where they want to claim that everyone who is "transsexual" is motivated by a desire to transgress gender, and must be "out, loud, and proud," Reiser claims that "true transsexuals" cannot be lesbians.  While many of the "straight men in dresses" that make up the core of the transgender extremists do claim to be lesbian, that does not mean that everyone who is transsexual, and identifies as a lesbian, is a fraud.

Let's consider that view.  Certainly some women, a certain percentage, are sexually and romantically attracted to women.  Some of them are that way, pretty much from birth.  Others are more fluid in the sexuality.  A lot of women, after a bad experience with a man, or because of abuse by a male, will, for a period, be attracted to women.  They may well return to being attracted to me, often to the dismay of their female partner.  So, to say that a "transsexual" cannot be a lesbian is to say, in effect, that transsexuals are significantly different from other women.  And this plays into the Blanchard-Bailey theory that attempts to "prove" that transsexuals are not really women at all, just excessively gay men, and straight men with a weird fetish.

This sort of thing is not uncommon.  I once had a well-known transgender kook tell me that a transsexual could not possibly be "pro-life."  I have seen others try to claim that transsexuals can't be Republicans, or conservatives, etc.  

The simple fact is, women, including transsexuals, like women in general, can have a wide range of views.  Some of us are more conservative than others.  Personally, I tend to joke that my politics are radically moderate.  I am a member of the Far Middle, the extreme center.  I pride myself on the fact that I can enter a debate between someone who is far right, and someone who is far left, and have both of them calling for my head. 

Some people, like Cooke, are very rigid in their thinking.  They are incapable of comprehending other view points.  I don't mean "agreeing" with those viewpoints, but comprehending why someone might hold them.  They cannot see that their might be arguments supporting that view that people might honestly hold.  Cooke sees the world as  black and white.  If you do not share Cooke's highly extremist left-wing view then you are wrong, end of story.  No just in error, but wrong as in "you will face the firing squad" when the revolution occurs type wrong.  Even evil, in a sense, though Cooke does not quite seem to believe in actual morality in an traditional sense.

On the other hand, while I may not agree with someone, I can often see why they think the way they do.  I can see the reasoning behind their view, and that enables me to see the flaws in their reasoning, if such exist.  I could make their arguments for them, and then explain to them why those arguments are flawed while also explaining why the extreme opposite view is equally wrong.  That is more than an extremist can handle.

A good example of this sort of thing would be the recurrent bathroom issue.  On the one hand, and extremist like Cooke will claim that there should be NO restrictions on transgender access to bathrooms.  No matter where one is on the imaginary spectrum, whether one identifies as a straight male fetishtic crossdresser who is just really turned on by the idea of slipping into the ladies room even though you know you are not going to pass and will cause major distress...which really, really turns you on, are you are a surgery-tracked transsexual who is a week away from surgery, it is all the same.  And I can see the arguments that might be made.  Everyone needs to pee.  It can be dangerous to go into the men's room if you are crossdressed.  We have to respect everyone's gender identity and gender presentation.  Now, on the far opposite extreme are those who might go so far as to say that even if one is a fully transition post-op, they have no business in the ladies room.  Their argument would be, a Y chromosome has no business in the ladies room (I would love to hear how they would deal with someone with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome, a so-called "XY female.")  Well, The first arguments are not really persuasive.  If one wishes to crossdress, that might be their right, but it does not give them license to create a public nuisance, and quite frankly, speaking as a woman, a man in the ladies, and that is what a crossdresser is, is a public nuisance.  They don't become a woman when they slip on a dress.  If they are concerned about danger, then they should take responsibility for their behavior and avoid such situations.  They do no have an absolute right to crossdress and use that as an excuse for being a nuisance.  And the term gender identity is, to a large extent, meaningless.  It is one thing to be a true transsexual, carefully screened by a qualified and competent therapist, and another to simply assert that one "feels like a woman today."  And presentation?  Give me a break.  It may be your right to present as you wish, but that does not mean I have to pander to your fantasies.  

As I say, I am a moderate.  There need to be provision made for those who have a legitimate need to enter the ladies room, even though they might be physically male.  Those who are properly diagnosed as transsexual (not some kook who manages to fool a therapist with a big rubber stamp), but also provision to protect the privacy of women.  Personally, I did not enter the ladies room until I felt reasonably sure that I would be accepted as a woman, and not cause distress.  That, simply put, was because I was a woman, and had concern for other women.  The vast, overwhelming majority of those who identify as transgender are men, and like men, they think they have privilege that they really don't.

No, there is nothing wrong with being normal and traditional.  And people have a right, within limits, to be otherwise.  But, if they make that choice, they should also take responsibility for their behavior and realize that not everyone is going to look at them and say "Aren't they so cool, being a rebel and all..."  We aren't.  We are far more likely to look at them, and at best laugh, and at worst see them as a very disturbed, and disturbing person."  

Thursday, November 29, 2012

Lies, Damn Lies, Statistics, and Mr. Williams

Well, as I sort of expected, Mr. Williams did not take kindly to having his theories...well, proven to be total fiction.  And, as I expected, he has made a rather pitiful attempt to lie his way out of it.  There is not much else he can do....

He begins with his usual ad hominem (he refers to anyone he disagrees with as a troll) and then, well, he really blows it.

He produced a laughable graph that he attempts to claim trumps mine.  What he has actually done is resort to such a dishonest tactic that he has destroyed any hope of credibility.  You see, he is trying a bit of misdirection.  He produced a graph, that shows big values for transgender, but which, because of the way it is constructed, is actually deceptive and then he attempts to pull the wool over people's eyes (and some will reach up and help him move it into place, I am sure) by calling on people to compare to graphs that are not really comparable.

What he has done is sort of like comparing a map that has a scale of one inch to one hundred miles, that shows the Eastern Seaboard and another map, that has a scale of one inch for one thousand miles miles of the entire United States, and claiming that that they show the second shows that New York is closer to Los Angeles than it is to Washington, D.C.  You cannot make the comparison he is making.

My graph shows the relationship between three words over a longer period.  His compares several different words, over a much shorter period.  Because his graph has a different set of words, and a different time range, difference between the occurrence of the words are more exaggerated.  This makes it look like "transgender" shows up quite often.  But in truth, it just shows that it shows up more often than the other words, and in particular, he compares "transgender" with "Transgender."  That alone would render the results invalid since the program is case sensitive.

Here is a more accurate version of what he produced:

 It compares the two words from my chart, which is not what he used.  And it has smoothing of zero, which is more accurate for a smaller time period.  Simply put, there is a very tiny blip in 1974, but relatively speaking, the word "transgender" is non-existent during this period compared to "transsexual."  Oh, and yes, I could have set smoothing to 3, which would have showed an absolute flat graph for "transgender."  

It should also be noted that he took a comment out of context.  As I pointed out, later in the article, which he conveniently ignores, the word occurs in a few isolated sources.  But it was not of any significance until around 1990.

Sorry Mr. Williams, but you cannot lie your way out of this one.  You can only make yourself look more foolish.

Wednesday, November 28, 2012

Case Closed!

There has been something of an ongoing debate online over the origins of what can be called the "Transgender Paradigm."  The rather notorious kook and gender fascist Mr. "Cristan Williams" has tried to claim that the term has a long history, and that the fact that the term, and the movement that has pushed it as an umbrella term arose pretty much starting in the mid-Nineties is a "myth."  Mr. Williams has provided quite a bit of highly questionable (at best) evidence, and has tried to bury opponents in an heap of ad hominem attacks and arrogance.

Well, yesterday, a very geeky web comic, that has nothing to do with transsexualism or transgender, happened to provide a link that led me to what has been missing this argument.  Real evidence.  Google has a site that allows you to analyze the occurrence of a collection terms in a large collection of books over a time range. 

So, I checked the occurrence of three terms, "transsexual," "transvestite," and "transgender" from 1960 to the most recent data, which is 2008.  The results, to say the least, destroy Mr. Williams' claims.
As can be seen from the graph, the term "transgender" is completely absent until around 1990.  It then starts to becomes a bit more common during the mid-Ninties, until it finally becomes more common around 2001.  

Contrary to Mr. Williams' claims, it is clear that what has been claimed by most is true.  The "Transgender Movement" began in the Nineties, become increasingly active during that decade.  It was effectively non-existent before 1989 at the absolute earliest.  

Unlike Williams, who seems to have access to information that, well, no one else actually does, anyone can check this out for their own self.  Go to and try it for yourself.  You can use the values I used, or those of your own choosing.  But, as they say, the matter speaks for itself.

As I have said for some time, while it is possible that there might have been isolated incidents where the term "transgender" was used, it was not a common term, and the movement that we now deal with did not exist, before around 1990.  It is, instead, a very recent phenomenon, and well, Mr. Williams is delusional at best, and more likely deliberately deceptive.

Monday, November 26, 2012

There Really Is a Difference!

It's funny how sometimes I will be kicking an idea for an article around in my head, and then suddenly one of the transgender kooks will say something that is exactly the thing I was thinking about addressing.  Well, Suzan Cooke, who has become a leading apologist for the Transgender Borg, so much so that I have more than once suggested we should just start calling her Locutus, has done just that.

In her ongoing attempts to attack people she once basically agreed with (her revisionist history of her reaction to Harry Benjamin Syndrome is pretty much fiction) she has published a new post called Sex Reassignment Surgery Does Make a Difference, Just Not the Ones the HBS Folks Claim.

The bit of inane drivel from Cooke that tied in with the article I have been considering, was this:This is because a few assholes have made SRS into this thing that is almost like a trophy they can wave in the faces of those who can’t afford surgery or don’t have the same level of discomfort within their own skins as to require SRS.
Now, this, of course, is straight out of "Transgender 101."  We are all exactly, absolutely the same, but...many cannot afford surgery, or simply do not feel the need for surgery, but aside from that, we are all exactly, absolutely the same.

And it is, of course, complete and total 


Yes, I can think of another term for it, but hey, I really don't care for that kind of language.  But, seriously, this is complete and utter silliness, and it establishes, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Cooke is completely and totally given over to the transgender point of view.

First off, the simple truth is, very few people who are truly transsexual...that is, people who are truly born with a brain that is sexually differentiated at odds with their body, and who are not actually some man who has a fetish as a hobby that involves fantasizing about being a woman, is likely to be able to deal with various issues that are going to interfere with the ability to accumulate sufficient wealth to be able to afford SRS without something of a struggle.

I know in my case, it interfered with my educational plans, and I wound up dropping out of school and actually spent a good deal of my life, pre-transition, as a homemaker.  My former spouse worked, and I stayed home.  We both agreed that I was more suited to keeping house, and my attempts to "earn the living" generally resulted in financial disasters.  That left me lacking in job experience I needed to find a good paying job when I finally came to full grips with what I needed to do.  

I was lucky that I was able, as more and more are, to find a job where my health insurance covered SRS.  Now, of course a kook like Cooke will probably throw some minor rant about privilege and how relatively rare this is.  And I will, of course, counter with a few facts.  First, the job I had at the time of my surgery was in a research project dealing with AIDS prevention for people who are transgender. Now, the definition of "transgender," was "politically correct" and included transsexuals, as well as the other categories that the "transgender paradigm" attempts to link with transsexuals.  In fact, much of my views of 'transgender" come from my experiences in that project.

The staff I worked with was rather varied.  Our executive director was a post-op transsexual who would have been close to being a contemporary of Cooke's.  We had a couple of other post-ops women, and an assortment ranging from one other true pre-op through various varieties of what turned out to be, pretty much non-ops as well as a few FTMs, and a couple of females who identified as "gender queer."  

Now, I became involved in the project because I was seeing a counselor who specialized in transsexual and transgender people, in anticipation of having surgery.  I was about three years into my transition when I came to San Francisco, and I was assigned to her by the City's health care system.  She was working with the research program I would be employed by, and I was asked if was willing to participate in a survey they were doing.  I agreed, and was interviewed by the person who I would later learn was the executive director.  As part of the survey process, I was invited to participate in various classes (part of the research project) and through that, I was invited to volunteer.  I had been attending college, considering a career in nursing, and  during the summer I had no classes.  Unfortunately, the nursing program was very impacted, and admission was by lottery.  I found myself in a difficult position.  The program that was supporting my college studies had a time limit, and it was very likely that it would run out before I could even get admitted.  The volunteering, which was presented to the program as an "internship" led to a job offer, and since I already knew that surgery was going to be covered soon, I jumped at the opportunity.

Now, the bottom line in all of this, is in an office with a number of supposedly "pre-op transsexual," only myself, and one other, actually took advantage of the surgical benefit.  A couple of the FTMs had top surgery, but I, and one other, were the only two who had SRS. 

The rest found a variety of excuses why they didn't really want surgery.  Some went on to other positions with the same university when the program we were in was disbanded after the principal investigator turned out to have been mishandling money, among other issues.  But they did not take advantage of the benefit.  

My point in telling this story is simple.  If someone really needs the surgery, if their body is at odds with their brain, they will find a way.  My plan had been to find a job that would pay enough that I could live on half my income, and put the other half into savings.  Right before coming to San Francisco, I thought I had reached that point, but other issues in my life led to that falling apart.  The job I had with the university was half-time, providing enough for me to live on, and the surgical benefit meant I didn't have to worry about actually saving money, but ironically my time frame worked out about the same.  If I had been working full time, at the same pay rate, I would have reached the point where I could have afforded the surgery about the same time I actually had it.  And, I did have the added benefit of note having the possibility of a financial disaster wiping out part, or all of my savings.  So, I suffered pretty much the same as I would have either way.  Even though my surgery was covered by insurance, the impact was the same as if I had worked for that time and saved the money.  The downside is, I didm't get to travel to Thailand, which is probably where I would have had the surgery otherwise.

As I pointed out in my last post, San Francisco will now cover SRS for those who cannot afford it.  If nothing else, any who claim they would have it, but cannot afford it, could consider relocating to San Francisco.  But, of course, few actually will.  And while I doubt it will become widespread, it is increasingly likely that other places that provide medical care for the less fortunate will be forced to consider such coverage.  And coverage under health insurance is quickly becoming widely accepted.  Soon the "I would, but I can't afford it," excuse will be gone completely.

This brings us to the second part of Cooke's silly statement.  There are "don’t have the same level of discomfort within their own skins as to require SRS."  Simply put, these people are not transsexuals.  They are people who have a desire, born of a fetish, or a sense of rebellion, or  who knows what, who have chosen to transgress societal norms.  They thrive on the conflict and controversy their behavior leads to.  It may not be politically correct to point this out, but they are, quite simply, basically anti-social in terms of personality.  They don't want to fit in.  They crave being at odds with the norm.  They are unhappy with the idea of being "normal."  They don't want to be a normal woman, or a normal man.  They want to be, as one kook once put it, "a woman-male."  That is, they want to force society to pander to their behavior, treating them as a "woman" while forcing the fact that they are male on people.  Or vice versa in the terms of some who are born female.  Some in this group, such as Mr. "Cristan" Williams, claim to have had surgery, but they still retain a strong link to their maleness.  Others, such as Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen actually engage in fraud to get their birth certificate change, openly bragging about their deception.  It is unclear if the judge in San Diego who granted Mr. Sandeen's request to change his birth certificate to falsely indicate that he is "female" was aware of his true surgical status (i.e. that he is a eunuch, retaining his penis) but in San Francisco the courts instructions make it clear that this is NOT acceptable.

It is not about being "special" as Cooke tries to claim, but it is more about actually not being special.  You see, I don't believe there is a basis for real comparison, so there is nothing to make a transsexual "better" or even "less" than someone who is transgender.  It would be like comparing the proverbial apple and orange.  Both share common traits, living beings, of the vegetable kingdom, and both fruits, but there the comparison largely ends.  Likewise, a transgender person and a transsexual are both human beings, and they may share a few other common traits (such as both having been assigned male at birth), but again, there the comparison ends.  Comparing the two is, in effect, comparing a man to a woman.  Same species, but very different in many ways.

And this is where Cooke's silliness falls apart.  Cooke simply does not get it.  Most of us never shared her past obsessions, and we have no need to purge ourselves of her feelings of guilt.  I did not transition to become a transsexual, I transitioned to become a woman.  But kooks like Cooke seem determined to make that as difficult as possible.  By engaging in anti-social behavior, and then trying to basically insist that this is "typical" of transsexuals, and worse, by, insisting on linking us to the even more anti-social behavior of some who push the transgender paradigm, when our past is revealed, either inadvertently, or because of necessity (my primary care doctor knows, but I don't share it, for example, with my ophthalmologist") we face forms of discrimination that are not necessarily overt, but are ore subtle, such as being perceived as thinking and feeling differently than we actually do.  No, I don't want to wear my past on my sleeve like some do.  No, I don't particularly want to talk about it.  No, I really don't appreciate it when you tell me how moved you are by the fact that it is the "Transgender Day of Remembrance."  What I want, is to be treated as you would any other woman, period.

The simple bottom line is this.  If Cooke wants to call a bunch of "men in dresses" sisters, because it makes Cooke feel all transgressive and revolutionary, and just oh so politically correct, that is certainly Cooke's right.  But hey, I don't, I want, and if Cooke wants to get her panties in a wad because of it, then well, Cooke is probably not going to be happy with what I have to say about it.  But hey, that's life.  Cooke has as much of a right to be wrong as anyone else. But I'm still not buying the insanity she is peddling.  And what little respect I once had for Cooke as an pioneer has long been laid to rest.  Who knows, maybe Cooke is right, and these people are closer to being Cooke's siblings than not.  But in that case, "sister" is really not remotely the appropriate term in either direction.

Yes, one way, or the other, SRS makes a difference.  For some, like myself, it makes a major improvement in one's life.  I have faced things that would have previously devastated me, but which I was able to handle because I no longer carry the baggage i once did.  For others, it is itself devastating.  It is a mistake for them, and it accomplishes nothing of value, and may even lead them to take their own life.  Or, it may just lead them to dedicate their lives to attempting to make life miserable for anyone for who surgery was the right choice.

Bottom line, I and others who fit the classification of "classic transsexual" are women socially, and as female as is possibly with current medicine.  There are a lot of people who have no real desire to be both, or in some cases, either.  I would appreciate it if both they, and their apologists, would stop trying to insist that they are "just like me."  They are not.  I'm not better, or lesser.  There is really no basis for comparison, and perhaps that is the biggest difference that SRS makes.  Whether you have it, or not, it makes clear the difference between those who desperately need it, and those who really don't.

Monday, November 19, 2012

A Dose of Reality

Well, the City of San Francisco has announced that it will now offer SRS (though they are apparently, and quite ignorantly, calling it "gender reassignment surgery") to those covered by the City's "Health San Francisco (HSF)" health care plan.  HSF basically replaced what used to be called "Community Health Network," which provided medical for those who are uninsured and unable to pay for their own care.  It is a bit more formalized, and instead of the usual "sliding scale" used in most locations, it is more like an HMO.

The reaction to the article in the San Francisco Chronicle should act as a wake up call for the transgender extremists, but, of course, they will probably continue as cluelessly as usual.  At the time of writing this, there are 333 comments, almost all of which are negative, and many of which, including some from gay males, are downright hateful.  Granted, the comments also show an overwhelming degree of complete ignorance of the subject.

The facts are simple.  Very few people, relatively speaking, actually seek sex reassignment surgery.  Even when it is offered to them on the proverbial silver platter.  Most will find an excuse why they will "wait," even if they try to avoid coming right out and admitting that they have absolutely no desire to give up their penis.  I worked with a number of "transgender" people when I received my surgery, which was covered by insurance.  Most of the people I worked with failed to have the surgery, even though they all, initially, claimed they would rush to have it.  One other co-worker actually had the surgery, and one FTM co-worker had chest surgery.  The rest did not even seriously make an effort to check it out.  Similar results occurred when San Francisco became the first municipality to offer the surgery to its employees.  There were actually very few takers.

Some of the comments on the Chronicle's website predicted that the rush to have the surgery would bankrupt the City.  It was even suggested by a few idiots that San Francisco will fall victim to "medical tourists" who will drop in, have a sex change, and return home.  Never mind the fact that the process will probably take months, if not years, to complete.  When I had my surgery, I had already been seeing a therapist for over a year, and even then, my case had to be presented to a committee for consideration.  I was quickly approved, but it was not automatic.  I imagine a similar approach will be used by Healthy San Francisco.  In any case, I would also assume that anyone seeking coverage will be required to meet the full Standards of Care.

The comments also included the usual comments about how the surgery is "elective," "cosmetic," and "unnecessary,"  Amazingly, there were few objections raised.  I had no desire to get involved in the fight, but I doubt the vast majority of "transgender" activists even care, and many are probably, at least secretly, hoping that the naysayers will actually succeed and spare them all having to explain why they are not rushing to have the surgery now that it is suddenly "affordable.

I seriously doubt there will be any flood of transgender people to San Francisco in search of free SRS.  A few may come here, but there simply are not that many who want the surgery to begin with.  

But it will be an embarrassment for the "people would have the surgery, but they can't afford it" crowd.  And the transgender extremists who think there is widespread acceptance should read some of the comments.  They are not nearly as "accepted" as they think.  And yes, they really are doing harm to true transsexuals.  What should be a "no-brainer" is being treated as an outrage by people who have no real idea of what is going on.

Thursday, November 8, 2012

Mr. Sandeen Is Cyberstalking Again

I have pointed out, more than once, that "Autumn" Sandeen is a kook, who has engaged in cyberstalking me, sending emails attacking me to my church.  Well, he is up to it again, this time trying to harass some lesbian he has it in for;

Check out this article.

I mean, seriously.  Sandeen is literally out of touch with reality.  He apparently believes, as indicated by his remark on Twitter, that he is "now" a "Woman Born Woman" because he committed a fraud and lied to a judge to get his birth certificate changed.  No, he is not a woman, legal or otherwise.  And is certainly not a female.  FEMALES DO NOT HAVE PENISES.  WOMEN DO NOT HAVE A PENIS AND A DESIRE TO KEEP IT.

Again, you can't make this stuff up.

Defending the Indefensible

Well, Suzan Cooke is at it again...  I have suggested in the past that Cooke should be called Locutus.  Now I wonder if it was so much an assimilation as an outright surrender.

Cooke seems to have adopted a "bro's before ho's" attitude as a member of what Cooke used to refer to as the Transgender Borg.  Cooke has decided to defend the pervert "Colleen" Francis to the point of absurdity.  And at the same time, Cooke is trying to play the martyr, whining about being "attacked."

The problem is, Cooke is not doing a very good job.  Cooke has no real arguments, and there are no real arguments in this case.  Most of the TG crowd is in hiding.  They can't defend the pervert, but the Transgender Code (which really is basically "bro's before ho's") holds that when the issue is real women before faux women (i.e. men in dresses pretending to be women) you have to stick with the boys.  

Cooke, faced with no real arguments, begins by attacking the mother who objected, not to a "transwoman" sharing the pool, but to a naked male being, well, naked in front of her teenage daughter.  Mr. Francis was not in the pool, presumably wearing a bathing suit as Cooke tries to claim, but was in a sauna, with his legs spread apart to ensure that his male genitals were clearly visible to the teenage, and younger, girls who were present.  This is documented in the police report from the campus police at Evergreen State College. To repeat, this is not a case of a transgender person simply being present, but being present, in the nude, and going out of his was to expose himself. For doing what ANY decent parent would do, Cooke labels the woman a "Christo-fascist."  Cooke is a bigot from the word go, and it shows.

Now, since Cooke doesn't have any real arguments, the next step for Cooke is simple. Violate Godwin's Law with a vengeance. Everyone who dares to disagree with Cooke get's labeled as a Nazi. Cooke also tosses out the term "Sonderkommando." The sad thing is, by using "Nazi" as an insult, Cooke waters down the concept. Cooke equates the absolute horrors of the Holocaust, where people were killed because they belonged to certain groups that were considered inferior, to simply disagreeing with Cooke's insane views. I honestly wonder if Cooke is really that naive. Or if that is not part of Cooke's agenda. After all, the easiest means to pave the way for a new Holocaust is the get people to forget the true horror of the original one. That is the real purpose behind Godwin's Law, to discourage people from trivializing the Holocaust.

Cooke goes on to make absurd claims, comparing those who think that a 45 year-old man claiming to be a woman exposing his genitals to young girls is a problem to bigots in the South lynching a 14 year-old boy for "whistling at a white woman."   This, of course, is a perfect example of what Cooke claims is being done to "Colleen" Francis.  Cooke is engaged in telling the "Big Lie."  Contrary to what Cooke tries to claim, I have not suggested that Mr. Francis is representative of "all transgender people."  Yes, some might do that, but Cooke is using that as a smoke screen.  This case is an example of how far the kooks are willing to push things.  But no, I don't think most transgender people are just waiting to to march into dressing rooms and flash teenage girls.  Francis is a pervert, and an exception rather than the rule.  

Most of the transgender kooks have actually had the good sense to not even try to defend this sicko.  Cooke and "Cristan" Williams are the two main exceptions.  Most of the rest have hidden, shaking in fear, hoping that they won't actually have to deal with this.  Their ideology won't allow them to remotely accept that their need to be reasonable exceptions to the absolutist adherence to the special rights they demand (and yes, being allowed to expose your "neo-clit" to young girls would be a special right) but they also know that this is not something that people are going to accept.

Now, the real irony in all this is the absolutely absurd attempt by Cooke to link the response to Mr. Francis' perverted behavior, and the so-called "war on women."  Hmmm, let's see...Cooke is trying to defend, and actually cover-up a case of a man exposing his genitals to a group of teenage and younger girls.  This is, quite frankly, a situation where a man is using his genitals as a weapon to harass these girls.  Not really much removed from actual rape, which is not a sexual crime, but is a violent one where, yes, a man uses his penis as a weapon.  Funny, but I don't think Cooke even knows which side is which.  A hint for Cooke...the one Cooke is on is not the women's one.

Wednesday, November 7, 2012

Manly, yes....

Occasionally, some TG type will ask me something like, "Why do you call (some transgender kook) a man?"  Well, here is a classic example...

On his blog today, after a rather silly and typically clueless diatribe about politics, Mr. "Cristan" Williams adds this comment...
Chances are you’re an H-BSer (Zing! Pow! Right in the kisser!)
Now, this is a classic example of a male expressing a fantasy about violence towards women.  I grew up with domestic violence, and quite frankly, it is not a joking matter.  But, as is often with the case of TG kooks, Mr. Williams' true nature, the "inner boy" you might say, pops out, and he is too clueless to even be aware of it.

As, I said..."Manly, yes...and no, I don't like it a bit."

Tuesday, November 6, 2012

A Likely Fraud About Voter Fraud

Since I registered to vote when I turned 18, I have only missed voting twice.  Once was a very minor race where I didn't know anything about the two people running, and honestly had no idea which I should vote for.  It was a special election, with only one office on the ballot, and well, to be honest, I completely forgot about it until it was too late.  The other time was during a presidential primary, and I was a poll watcher.  I had not planned on doing it, but the person we had assigned to a particular location turned out to be a complete kook, and we had to get him out of there before things got out of hand.  He was claiming voter fraud repeatedly, and without good cause.  The funny thing was, there was real voter fraud during that election, but it was of a completely different nature.  I believe strongly in the right to vote, and I also believe that voter fraud should be dealt with severely.

That said, I have been amused by the hysterics coming out of the National Center for Transgender Equality.  They have been claiming that the above image from the cover of a training guide put out by a right wing group proves that they plan to target transgender voters.    At least three of the kookiest transgender blogs have featured this story.  Now, let me say, right off the bat, that I have no idea what the training material actually says.  I can't find a copy of it online.  But, I also suspect that the NCTE also does not know, OR, if they do know they might be engaged in a bit of fraud themselves.  Funny, but I have seen no one provide anything other than this cover image as proof of their allegations.  If the guide includes specific instructions to target transgender men, you would think they would want to quote it in  detail...

Now, what I see is a suggestion, perhaps meant to be humorous, perhaps meant to be serious, that some man might dress up as a woman, so he could vote fraudulently, possibly using the name of a person who is deceased.  That seems a lot more reasonable than some alleged plot to prevent transgender men from voting.  Let's face it, they're not that big a voter bloc, and it would not be worth the effort.

But truth rarely serves the purposes of extremists, so a silly claim is made, based on a humorous image.  If they don't have full access to the content of the training material, they should not be making a claim based on an assumption.  And if they do have full access, and it does not say what they claim, then they are guilty of fraud themselves.

But I do suspect this is making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Bottom line, regardless of how you lean, you should get out and vote.  

Monday, November 5, 2012

Up To Our Eyeballs in Straw

Well, let's continue examining the latest complete idiocy from Mr. Cristan Williams.  He has rallied to the defense of noted pervert "Colleen" Francis, and as is typical for Mr.  Williams, the straw arguments are coming fast and furiously.

Let's start at the beginning, always a good place to start, and in this case, Mr. Williams pull out a whopper....
It’s happened. The H-BSers, the RadPhlems and the people who DEFENDED Prop 8 have untied as one to proclaim that pre/non-op transwomen as a group are 1.) icky because 2.) they’re actually men, and therefore 3.) a danger to cisgender women.
Ah, so many lies...  and no real arguments (hence the childish name calling and insults).  First off, no one has "untied" nor have we even "united."  Second, where does Mr. Williams get stuff like suggesting that I, or anyone else who supports the HBS paradigm has ever remotely suggested that "pre-op transsexuals" are men (I would never refer to someone as a pre-op transwoman since I find the word "transwomen" to be offensive)?  That is classic straw, a lie imposed on an opponent since it is easier to refute than the truth.  Yes, I consider non-ops to be men.  They are men, born with penises, who want to keep their penises.  How you get "woman" in any sense out of that is, well, beyond me.  Nor have I ever said that all, or even most, men are a threat to women, cisgender or otherwise.  Seriously, what we have here is a classic straw argument.  Not surprising, since this is Mr. Williams typical style.

So, what is the real issue?  That's simple.  Privacy.  Women, real women, whether or not they have a history of transsexualism, have a right to feel secure in women's spaces.  They should not have obvious men forcing themselves into that space, and they certainly should not have to contend with men (i.e. an avowed non-op, or someone who claims to be a pre-op but who lacks the simple ability to empathize with those he claims to be like) forcing their penises on them.

Let's be clear here...there is no real question that "Colleen" Francis was taking steps to ensure that his penis was in full view.  It was not accidental.  He was engaging in exhibitionism, a very male behavior under the circumstances.

Now, I would honestly hope that Mr. Francis is an exception.  I have no reason to believe that  all, or most, or even a significant subset of transgender people are perverts who would, at the first opportunity, flash their penises at young girls.  Of course, Mr. Williams has to suggest that I would, because he knows that the truth is not going to be kind to him.  Mr. Williams takes a very extremist view of so-called "rights" for those who identify as transgender.  In Mr. Williams view, Mr. Francis' fantasies trump reality.  

Let me spell this out.  Mr. Francis, who is attending a college in Washington State, masquerading as a woman (no, I really don't buy his claims), and because some people are so "open-minded" that their brains fell out, got kicked under and cabinet, and have turned to dust, he has been allowed to have more rights than real women.  If he wants to invade the women's locker room, wave his penis around, and upset everyone else, then the college says that is just fine.  Any woman who objects has to use a lesser facility (now, why, if they are actually going to be insane enough to actually pander to this pervert, they can't tell him to use the smaller facility as I strongly suspect he will have it to himself).  This just tickles Mr. Williams pink.  He could care less if women get dumped on, as long as one of his fellow transgender kooks gets special rights.  And yes, in this case, there is no avoiding that this is special rights.

Now, Mr. Williams tries to argue that a "ciswoman's," i.e. a woman's (Mr. Williams lives in a fantasy world where claiming one is a woman automagically makes one a full fledged woman) right to be comfortable in women's space does not trump the right of a man who has some fantasy about dressing up and pretending to be a woman to invade that women's space.  Oh, he words it a bit differently, but that is really what he is arguing.  And this supposed superior right of the transgender man is based on what?  

Let me recap here...  When I was early in my transition, and the time came to face the bathroom issue, I approached it cautiously.  First, I did not even attempt to enter a women's bathroom until I was reasonably sure that my appearance had sufficiently feminized that I would not cause a scene.  Then, I would try to find an out of the way restroom where it was, hopefully, unlikely that I would encounter anyone.  As time went on, and it became more and more obvious that I was not seen as a man, I became more comfortable and did not feel the need to "get in, get out as quickly as possible."  Still, I was always careful to make sure there was not a chance of someone seeing something they should not (not really hard to do) and I would have never have dreamed of entering any area where nudity would be an issue.  

But, the more extreme of the transgender kooks want to be able to walk into women's space no matter who much distress it will cause, and without regard to the feelings of the women using that space.  As I have pointed out before, such attitudes and behavior shows, beyond any doubt, that such a person is not and never will be a woman.

The simple bottom line is this...unless someone is a transsexual, and is in the process of the RLT (or at least preparing for it) they really should not enter women's spaces, including the restroom.  If you are a crossdresser, engaged in your hobby, which includes so-called "non-ops" then you really have no moral claim to use of the women's room.  Yes, you can possibly get away with it, and under such circumstances, you have little to actually worry about, but that does not, and will never make it right.

Now, I would be remiss if I did not mention yet another straw man argument that Mr. WIlliams makes.  And this one is another whopper:
There is a real difference between a transwomen going into a private area to change, pee, etc. and some sick f***-up of any flavor (cis or trans) walking into a room to parade their genitalia around.  If a cisgender woman goes into the locker room and exposes herself, then there’s laws to deal with her behavior. Claiming that those laws somehow magically evaporate if the person is trans instead of cis is a bigoted lie and those who propagate that lie should be called out at every turn.
 Now, aside from the fact that this comment actually makes little actual sense since using a locker room for a woman (Mr. William goes out of his way to try to avoid this him a man with a penis who calls himself a woman is just as much of a woman someone born female) would very possible involve acceptance of nudity, especially one like Mr. Francis invaded that features a sauna and hot tubs, which is hardly "exposing oneself" when an actual woman does it.  Now, maybe he means if a woman enters a men's locker to "expose" herself.  Seriously, I don't think I have ever heard of a woman "exposing" herself to another woman in this manner.  I did have the experience once of having a neighbor pull down her pants to show me a skin rash and ask my opinion.  She did it rather suddenly, and without asking if I minded.  Of course, she did not know I was pre-op or anything other than just another woman,  And when I worked at a department store selling lingerie, I had a few women who asked my opinion of how something it, but again, I guess we have to keep in mind, Mr. WIlliams has no way of understanding actual women's behavior, including being relatively comfortable with seeing other women nude.  Women don't have the homophobic hang-ups that men do, nor are they generally turned on by the sight of other women's nudity. Men are very visually oriented in their sexuality, women are not.  But as I say, Mr, Williams would have no experience of this.

Now, all that said, let's examine the real falsehood in his statement.  Mr. Francis invaded women's space, demanding the right to use a women's locker room, and to be their nude, in spite of the fact that women would be present, and would be forced to see his penis....which he has made clear he plans to keep.  It has been shown, by testimony as to his behavior, recorded in a campus police report, that he positioned himself in such a manner as to make his penis very obvious.  When complaints were made, Mr. Williams suggested that the teenage girls needed to be educated about "trans women," and the women were told, by the college that Mr. Francis' rights were superior to theirs and that they could use a smaller facility.  To repeat, the pervert deliberately exposes himself, women rightfully complain, and are told they have no right to do so.  So, what Mr. Williams claims is provably false, across the board.  The laws have evaporated, which is actually what Mr. Williams actually demands.  After all, in Mr. William's mind Mr. Francis is a full-fledged woman, penis and all.  I fear Mr. Williams is the one propagating a lie.  But again, this is not unusual for Mr. Williams, who has a long history of making up facts that only he seems privy to.

It should also be pointed out that a classic tactic in some circles is to someone, falsely, of being a bigot, in the hopes that it will intimidate their into silence.  This is not unlike what is referenced by Godwin's Law, which specifically relates to the use of the term "Nazi."  But, as I pointed out, by accusing those who disagree with him of being "Klan," Mr. Williams has, effectively, violated Godwin's Law, and has lost the argument on that basis.  Not, I might add, that he has any real arguments to begin with.  The whole thing is quite ludicrous.

Of course, kooks like Mr. Williams don't believe in "morals" and such.  They have no concern other than their own pleasure and such.  They don't care who is upset, or even harmed.  It is really all about them, and those they consider to be superior to women.  And when they don't get their way, including blind acceptance, they resort to silliness like claiming those who disagree with them are aligned with the Klan.  Of course, ultimately, their "argument" simply shows the fact that they really have no argument.  Just a big old pile of straw men that they engage in ripping to shreds, while crowing like a rooster and claiming victory.

Sunday, November 4, 2012

The Boy's Club Closes Ranks

Well, well...since Suzan Cooke, aka "Locutus of Borg" has gone off the deep end in defense of "Colleen" Francis, the pervert who has been forcing himself on young girls, the men in dresses club has had to rally to Cooke's defense.  Yes, no less gender fascist than Mr. "Cristan" Williams has rallied to the defense of Cooke, and Mr. Francis.  Can't leave a fellow pervert to stand alone...

Let's be clear here.  This pervert in Washington state is not a pre-op transsexual.  He has made clear that he has a penis, and he wants to keep it.  And he loves showing it to teenage girls.  He is a classic transvestite, who is turned on by the idea of being a "woman with a penis," and goes to the extreme of forcing his penis on others and then suggests that they should "just get over it."  And, Williams, a fellow pervert, thinks that anyone who disagrees with this sickening behavior is "under a Klan Fallacy."

Now, let me remind people here of a common tactic of extremists.  You compare your opponent to some great evil.  If you are right wing, you call your enemy a "Communist."  It doesn't matter if they have a connection to communism, or not.  You just throw that accusation out there.  The idea is they will be so embarrassed they will either fold, and go away, or be caught up in refuting the outrageous accusation.  If you are left wing, you compare your enemy to the Nazis (also works for the right wing in some cases), or better yet, the Klan.  And that is the dishonest tactic that Mr. Williams has resorted to in his desperation.

Now, here is a man, who claims to be a woman, attacking women, for not wanting to have a man, with a penis, who claims to be a woman, forcing that penis on them.  Pervert Francis is engaged in the same basic sort of violence against women that rapist engage in...using his penis as a weapon.  Williams, a man, is defending this behavior.  What Mr. Francis is doing is an act of violence, albeit a bit less than an outright rape, buy still an act of violence.  Just like a "flasher," he is imposing his penis on women.  And Mr. Williams, thinks this is just fine, and anyone who doesn't see it their way is a member of the Klan.

Now, in defense, yes, I said defense, of RAPISTS, yes I said RAPISTS, Mr.  Williams offers thirty, count them, thirty examples of women who have engaged, according to Mr. Williams, in rape.  This is supposed to "prove" that men are no more of a danger to women than,  "womym born womyn."  Seriously...give me a break.  This is the sort of argument that only a man could possibly imagine making.  For those who have come here and question why I have the audacity to refer to "Cristan" Williams with male pronouns, and have refused to acknowledge HIS "womanhood"....well, there you have your answer.  

Thirty women, compared to how many hundreds, even thousands of men?  Yes, one can find examples of anything.  I could, no doubt, easily find thirty transvestites who are guilty of any crime, and claim that proves that transvestites are a danger.  Shoot, I would be I could find more, say, 300.  I could find some arbitrary number of any group, and claim it proves something, and like Mr. Williams, I would be intellectually dishonest.

The fact is, rapists, exhibitionists, child molesters, and such tend to be men.  For those thirty women, I would venture that there are thousands of men guilty of rape.  Does this mean that all transvestites are rapists?  No, of course not.  Does this mean that all men are rapists?  No, how absurd!  Does this mean that women have every right to be uneasy at the presence, of an obvious man, in a place where women have good reason to expect to feel relatively secure, and free from the presence of men?  Yes, absolutely.  Does Mr. Williams, a man, with no real evidence of actually having a feminized brain remotely understand this?  Not remotely.  He is "transgender" and he thinks as a transgender, he is above women.  They should bow to his demands...

Cooke, I suspect, is more a classic bigot.  She has a hatred, an irrational hatred, of a certain class of people, and that clouds her thinking.  But Williams goes beyond this. Williams tries to claim that a woman being uncomfortable with the presence of a man in a women's room is comparable to a white woman being uncomfortable with a black woman in the women's room.  Now, this might seem, to some, on face value to be a valid argument.  It is, however, both dishonest, and without any basis in reality.  Being a particular race is based strictly, without question, on genetics.  While is it possible, in theory, to alter one's skin tone to appear darker, and even to undergo cosmetic surgery to appear to be another race, this is a bit extreme.  But any man can, if it suits him, simply dress as a woman.  And for a significant number of men, this is basically what happens.  Put another way, we are discussing something reasonably assumed to be congenital and unalterable, with something it is equally reasonable to assume is simply chosen behavior.

Perverts like Mr. Francis, and Mr. Williams choose to behave as they do.  A woman who is black, or Asian, or even white, did not likely make a choice.  A man, choosing to engage in a certain behavior, such as Mr. Francis, or Mr. Williams, should not be automatically allowed to force himself on women.  But, Mr. Williams says if you don't think they should be able to, you are a victim of the "Klan fallacy."

Mr. Williams, simply put, is full of crap.  Laughably, absurdly, and totally, full of crap.  Seriously, if you take his arguments seriously, you are an idiot.  End of story.  This is comparable to people who claim that perpetual motion exists, but the government is covering it up.  This is comparable to people who claim to have solved some unsolvable math problem.  Williams, is, well, a bad joke, and the sad thing is, he is not alone. 

Oh, and I am going to call it....  By invoking the Klan, Mr. Williams has, effectively, committed a technical violation of Godwin's Law, and has, simply put, lost the argument on that basis alone.  So, the fact that he is a total moron is somewhat irrelevant.  

Saturday, November 3, 2012

It's Official...

Well, I have known for some time that Suzan Cooke had pretty much taken to hitting the TG Kool-Aid pretty hard, but even I am shocked that Cooke has NO problem with the pervert "Colleen" Francis forcing his penis on young women in Washington State.  

A commenter challenged Cooke on this in response to Cooke's latest diatribe against me, and well, here is Cooke's incredible response:
Maybe I’m not that concerned with persecuting transvestites in order to prove to myself that I am really a woman.
It has been my observation that the people most obsessed with this sort of thing were either once transvestites themselves or are such strange looking people as to be the sort who would be accused of being transvestites. 
I’m not a cop. I don’t make a career out of persecuting people for being different. 
Unlike you I’m not afraid of transgender people. Oh by the way I hate HBS assholes.
A few comments in response to this bit of complete silliness from Cooke...

It is not about persecuting transvestites (at least Cooke doesn't call this pervert a "woman"), it is about going after a man who is taking obvious delight into forcing his nudity on young women.  And it is not about proving oneself a woman...what a stupid thing to say.

So, all the women such as the mothers of the girls who were this pervert's victims, are really former transvestites or so strange looking that people would take them as transvestites?  Again, Cooke is showing incredible stupidity with such remarks.

This is not about people being different, it is about someone being a creep, and trying to force himself on teenage girls.  I guess, based on that, Cooke thinks rape is okay too.  After all, the poor rapist is "just different..."  Good grief, Cooke has really lost it...

And no, it has nothing to do with being afraid of transgender people.  Perverted men with no sense of restraint or boundaries?  Yes, they kind of scare me.  But transgender people?  Nope, not particularly afraid of them as a class.  

And finally, we come down to the simple fact.  Cooke is a classic bigot.  Just like those who hate gays, lesbians, and others....  Cooke has her own little group she hates.

Personally, I don't hate people.  For one thing, it contradicts my faith.  I do hold people responsible for bad behavior, particularly when it harms others.  But that is not hate, no matter how much kooks like Cooke want to claim it is.  I also tend to not put much credence in a bigot telling me about hate...somehow, it seems really, really contradictory....and more than a little foolish.

No wonder Cooke is so afraid of the truth.  It would not be very kind to her....

Hit A Nerve...Again

Well, in my article on depathologization I mentioned Suzan Cooke, and somewhat predictably, Cooke has responded with another rant.  Well, I can always tell when I really hit a nerve.  The angrier Cooke is, the more rambling Cooke's rant becomes.  This one is especially bizarre.

As I have observed, Cooke does not like any criticism.  Cooke seems to be afraid of her ideas being challenged, and goes to serious lengths to avoid actually having to defend them.  Simply put, Cooke apparently fears the truth.

What really disturbs Cooke, though she will deny it vehemently, is that some of us see through her silliness.  Cooke has serious issues, and hides behind a facade of radical chic
to avoid facing them.  Cooke was a cradle Roman Catholic, which must have been hard.  Of course, Rome teaches that it holds absolute authority in spiritual matters.  If Rome says you are a sinner, well, you are supposed to accept it without question.  Cooke couldn't, and so Cooke rebelled.  But rebelling is not always so easy. 

Cooke could not reconcile her feelings with the teachings of the Church, so Cooke simply rejected God, who in Cooke's mind is at fault, and did the worst thing she could think of.  She told Him she no longer believes in Him.  I guess that is supposed to show Him who's boss...  I always feel sorry for the angry atheist, shaking a fist in God's face, and screaming "I don't believe in You!  So, there!!!"  And yes, I see the contradiction...they try not to.

I think part of Cooke's problem is, she doesn't realize that I see her as more of a clown than anything else.  A sad clown, granted, but a self-parody that becomes more and more irrelevant with each rant.

Cooke has always tried, somewhat successfully, to cultivate a cult of personality.  Years ago, Cooke was a terror on Usenet, sitting in judgement on those she deemed less worthy.  I recall her referring to transssexuals who remained married to spouses as "skin transvestites."  One in particular, was regularly tormented by Cooke.  Years later, that same sad case still clings to Cooke's every word.  A crumb of approval from Cooke is all she seeks...

I admit, I feel prey to this a bit myself.  Then I realized Cooke is, well, more Kook than anything else.  A sad, insecure soul, trying to relive some imagined glory from the past.  And facing the fact that more and more realize that she is not so wise after all.

The real irony in this latest post is Cooke's attempt to link me to the Tea Party.  Now, that is a real hoot for one simple reason.  I see Cooke, and the Tea Party in much the same way.  Two extremes, both wrong.  You see, in politics, the truth is in the middle, not at the extremes.  Cooke is at one erroneous extreme, and the Tea Party is at the other.  And worse, the extremes are often closer to each other than to the Center.

I remember a guy I knew in the mid-Seventies.  He was a bit of a hanger-on during the Jimmy Carter campaign.  A lot like Cooke, he fancied himself an uber-radical, and bragged about his radical history.  He used to go hang out at the John Birch Society headquarters where he discussed the Illuminati with the Right Wing kooks.  They were coming from opposite extremes, but they were both so far gone that they actually had a lot in common.

So no, I am not Tea Party, or anywhere near Cooke politically.

But i am more than a bit amused...and now awaiting Cooke's next angry rant...but no, I will not be silenced.

Friday, November 2, 2012

It's Really Very Simple...

Much sound and fury has been expended over Roseanne Barr's remarks about transgender men (sorry boys, but I am not going to call you women) going into women's spaces.  Now, Barr, who I still think of as being a few French fries short of a Happy Meal, no doubt, quite ignorantly include transsexual women under her remarks, but this is an issue that is bigger than just Roseanne (and yes, that would be huge).  

Jillian Page, a post-op in Canada had this to say on the issue:
I think I wasn’t upset by her comments because I have had sexualreassignment surgery, and have reconciled that part of my body with myheart and my brain. But if I had not had the surgery yet and foundmyself facing the same problems so many pre-op and non-op trans peopleface over the washroom issue, perhaps I, too, would have takenRoseanne to task for her somewhat careless, off-the-cuff comments, forwhich she apologized.
Now, there is a problem here, and I have to wonder if Page really has thought this through.  Page, I realize is pretty much swilling down the transgender Kool-Aid, but there is something here that needs to be confronted.

It is really, very, very simple.  If you call yourself a pre-op, and you cannot comprehend that the obvious presence of your penis in a place like the women's room, or a locker room, might be upsetting to women, then...STAY OUT!!!!  Put another way, if you think you have some absolute right to be in the women's room, even though you are a pre-op, if you think that women should not be upset having your penis exposed in a dressing room, if you think you have a right to enter women's spaces, even though you not corrected your body, let me be clear...YOU DON'T!!!

Just to be completely clear here, if you have these sort of attitudes, if you cannot comprehend how women might feel about your penis, if you think they should "just get over it," well, YOU ARE NOT, AND YOU NEVER WILL BE, A WOMAN!!!!!  YOU ARE A MAN!!!  GOT THAT?  A MAN!!!!  NO AMOUNT OF HORMONES, SURGERY, OR FANTASY, WILL EVER CHANGE THAT.  SO STAY OUT OF WOMEN'S SPACES.  WE DON'T WANT YOU, YOU ARE NOT WELCOME!!!!!

As to crossdressers, non-ops, and such, really shouldn't even be considering being in the women's room.    Sure, man that you are, you will force your way in.  You have no shame, and are not really that much different in attitude or behavior from a rapist.  It is all just a matter of degree.

When I was pre-op, I was always aware that, in a sense, I was an interloper.  I appreciated that I was accepted into the company of woman, albeit without their knowledge of my past in most cases.  I was always very sensitive to any uneasiness on the part of a female friend who knew my situation, under such circumstances.  And the idea of being in a situation where my privates would be exposed made me close to physically ill.

But now, more and more, the transgender extremists think that women are supposed to "just get over it."  They really don't realize just how digesting they are.  What they are doing is simply proving that Janice Raymond was right to a degree.  It was just that she didn't understand certain nuances, and perhaps, didn't care.