Disagreement is NOT Hatred

One of the classic tactics of the transgender extremist kooks is to scream "hate" if someone so much as even slightly disagrees with them.  It happens all, the time, and yesterday, it popped up in a comment that got blocked for a violation of the one rule I have about commenting on this blog.  But I did want to address the foolishness expressed by Mr. "Jacqueline" Waters.

He starts off with an incredibly stupid bit of drivel…

If you look like a woman and you go in the mens room you are going to get harrassed and possibly abused and raped. I realize you hate transgender people just like many Jews hate jews.

Let's see…  Stupidity, mixed with lies, tossed with a nice Godwin's Law violation.  Yes, we have a classic bit of transgender silliness here.  Actually, you are going to get some shocked looks, and possibly someone trying to be helpful and tell you "Ma'am, you are in the wrong rest room."  Maybe in a bit of panic on the part of some poor guy who wonders just which of you made the mistake.  I know, from personal experience.  The last time I visited a men's room before I began living as myself full time, some poor gentleman looked absolutely aghast that a woman was in the men's room.  Not too long before that incident, I had a helpful employee on another occasion stop me and say, "Ma'am, your going into the wrong restroom…"  Fun times…

Now, quite frankly, Mr. Waters might be harassed because he looks a bit effeminate, but that is another matter.  No one is going to mistake him for a woman in either the men's room, or the women's room.  Of course, I realize he does face a dilemma and is going to cause problems in either.  Of course, causing problems is one of the thrills that transgender kooks seek.

Now, I don't appreciate garbage like what Mr. Waters spewed.  I had a dear friend who was a Holocaust survivor, and I don't like it when people toss around comments like that.  Besides, I honestly don't hate anyone.  I don't wish anyone to suffer harm, including rape.  But if one is engaged in deviant behavior, and pretending to be a member of the wrong gender, which is at the heart of the transgender lifestyle (i.e. men pretending to be women, or women pretending to be men) one does risk upsetting the wrong people.

He then goes on to make the false claim that I am "an advocate for rape of transgender people," and that I am one who "applauds for every name read on TDOR you now since you find we are not 'real women'…"  Uh, all I can say is, "Wow, talk about delusional…"  Actually, again, I don't delight in anyone's death.  And I have never advocated anyone getting raped.  People who are close to me have been victims of rape, and I find such comments highly offensive.  Mr. Waters is simply one sick fool to even suggest such a thing, but this does show the silliness of the transgender mindset.

And finally, he shows his complete ignorance, and blind believe in the rants of Mr. "Diane" Lask when he makes a comment about "the so called surgery you claim you have had with no break in posting for long enough to ever have a surgery like that and recover."  I would suggest he pop over to Google Groups, take a look at the newsgroup postings for February of 2006, and he might notice that I talked about my surgery coming up, and that I didn't post for some time.  I was in the hospital for a week, without Internet access (I asked before I went in…) and then because I had moved to a new unit in the building where I lived at the time on the day before I went in for surgery, it was another couple of weeks before my Internet was back up.  I got some support, and more than a bit of crap from the usual trolls at that time.  Oh well…it was something I did for myself, and no one else.  It is kind of amusing to go back and read some of the crap posted back then.  According to the trolls, I died (several times apparently), was on suicide watch, and "jumped the gurney."  It is kind of ironic that it is now claimed that I was posting the whole time people were asking where I was…

Actually, having SRS is a very profound experience.  I took a while before I felt up to dealing with both hooking up my Internet connection, and reading the crap I knew some would post.  When I was ready, I found it all quite laughable, then, and even more so now.

My advice to Mr. Waters, and the rest of the kooks at Shame On You Transgender Edition is to simply face the fact that you are not transsexuals, you are not "women," you will never be transsexual, you will always be transvestites (at best), and be proud of what you are, and stop trying to force your silliness on others.

And a footnote:  This is the 400th article on my blog…  A minor milestone, I suppose, but one worth a brief mention...

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.

It's About Time

An interesting thing happened last week on Suzan Cooke's transgender blog, Women Born Transsexual.  She finally had her fill of "Willow" Arune, who is a well known net kook and apologist for Blanchard, Bailey and company.  What finally triggered the meltdown was the rather bizarre case of George Rekers, a well known advocate of reparative therapy for both those who are gay or lesbian and those who are transsexual.  Rekers was found to be involved with a gay prostitute who had accompanied him on a trip.  I will spare you the nasty bits, which have been posted on numerous gay blogs.

Cooke linked Rekers to Blanchard and Bailey and as would be expected, Mr. Arune rose up in defense.  Cooke, who is a major Godwin's Law violator, seemed a bit surprised, perhaps the only person who was.  The usual accusations of being a collaborator and a Nazi resulted, and Arune apparently decided to beat a hasty retreat before being toss off of another blog.  Arune has a long history of being banned from numerous groups, blogs, and other places.  Arune even managed to get banned from Yahoo after creating a mailing list to attack Andrea James.  That cost Arune not only that group, but also his infamous Autogynephilia mailing list.

Why Cooke would expect anything different from Arune is the real mystery.  Arune has a very bizarre history.  He is on disability in Canada, even though he brags about practicing law pro bono.  He traveled to Thailand, supposedly as part of some sort of business deal, and claims he was imprisoned because he was framed by Citibank.  While he was in a Thai jail, he claims he was sodomized (he uses the term rape, but that is not the appropriate term for male on male sexual assault).  Apparently, prior to this he showed no inclination towards any gender issues and he originally claimed that the idea of a sex change was suggested by a therapist, apparently in Thailand.  When he was confronted on this, he defended that claim.

After being largely rejected as a transsexual by anyone who encountered his bizarre claims, he dropped out of sight for a while, returning with a claim of being an autogynephile and major defender of Blanchard and Bailey.

Arune has a history of attacking those who have successfully transitioned.  He tries, desperately, to drag them down to his level.  He has attacked Andrea James, Calpernia Adams, Lynn Conway (he took her to take for her "Successful Transsexual Women" page, claiming that none truly existed), and anyone else who does not blindly adhere to the Blanchard theory of transsexualism.  Arune also has a history of seeking affirmation for his transsexualism.  He seems more concerned with being seen as a transsexual than anything else.  That is why he was trying to befriend Cooke.  He saw her as a major source of credibility.  As is always the case, this has basically blown up in his face.  Of course, it never occured to Arune that Cooke's imprimatur no longer has the value it was once perceived to have.

Of course, the relationship was symbiotic.  Arune provided major strokes for Cooke's massive ego.  Both seem to have a pathological need to viewed as authoritative.  Outside of their indivdual small groups of followers, neither of them is.

The bottom line?  I seriously considered naming this article, "When Kooks Collide."

Who is Godwin? Good Question....

Transgender blogger, Suzan Cooke asks "Who is Godwin?" in another of her rants entitled Nasty Girl on "Women Born Transsexual." Since Cooke, like most transgender bloggers, is very big on censorship, I will answer her here. (BTW, Cooke is always welcome to comment here, but she should, of course, keep in mind that here the playing field is level.)

I would imagine, given her comparisons of those who voted against gay marriage in Maine to Nazis that she is referring to Godwin's Law, which was originally formulated by Mike Godwin in 1990. It states

As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.

The term Godwin's law can also refer to the tradition that whoever makes such a comparison is said to "lose" the debate.

And it is exactly the sort of over the top rhetoric of those like Cooke that led Godwin to formulate the law to begin with. He is not, as Cooke rather defensively suggests, a Nazi sympathizer. Quite the opposite. The purpose of the law is to try, far too often unsuccessfully, to get those who trivialize the Holocaust by comparing anyone they disagree with to Nazis, to reconsider. While I am unhappy that gay marriage lost in Maine, I would not compare it to the murder of six-million Jews, as well as a number of other people by the Nazis.

But then again, I don't share Cooke's often extreme views on a number of points.