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.