Trannymaniacs

I miss the Animaniacs.  I used to love watching that series of cartoons, as well as Tiny Toons.  Well, I encountered a group of bloggers who have recently appeared who might well be called the "Trannymaniacs."  Yeah, I hate that word, but they seem to embrace it, among other bizarre things, so, why not?  The other name I thought of using was "Bat Sh*t Crazy Trannies," but I really don't care for profanity.

I encountered them after I read an article they had posted through the "Transgender News" mailing list.  I read it as a possible source for article ideas.  Entitled "The Transgender Hierarchy of Evil," it was a diatribe about the "imaginary" transgender hierarchy.  You know. the one that supposedly ranks people and goes something like:

Post-Op Transsexuals

Pre-Op Transsexusls

Non-op Transsexuals

Pre-Transition Transsexuals

Crossdressers

Fetishistic Transvestites

Drag Queens

Of course, never mind that most transsexuals do not even identify as being member of the transgender community, nor do many drag queens.  And some have started excluding crossdressers, fetishistic transvestites, and drag queens because, well they are just too darned embarrassing.

Well, I read the post, and left a simple comment…

Sorry, but no…I am a post-op transsexual. I am not transgender. I reject that term and the political silliness it represents. I changed my sex, not my gender. One is "transgender," if, and only if, one identifies as such. Otherwise, it is a meaningless term. The hierarchy is meaningless, because transgender is meaningless.

And, well, I set off a fire storm of controversy… A little over an hour later, I got a reply from some kook who calls himself "Jessica Lynn Cummings."  Mr. Cummings' post was followed about 3 minutes later by a post from his wife, "Mark Angelo Cummings."  Yes, you read that correctly…you see, Mr. Cummings claims to be a "post-op transsexual," as does his wife…  Now, this sort of thing happens, but they are not remotely transsexuals.  Not judging by the insanity that followed….

Right off the bat, Mr. Cummings went full-blown gender fascist, telling me that I am not allowed to not identify as transgender.  Worse, as things went on, they basically let it be known that transsexualism (remember, they claim to be transsexuals themselves) is not legitimate.  Their rhetoric sounded more like the sort of crap spewed by Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence (and yes, Lawrence also claims to be transsexual) than anything else.

Things went down hill from there…I'm not exaggerating when I say this bunch is seriously insane.  All told, there are six members of this bizarre little cult.  The more I went back and forth with this bunch, the stranger it got.  Apparently Mr. Cummings and his wife (not remember, Mr. Cummings is "Jessica" and the wife is "Mark") fancy themselves some sort of transgender messiahs, who are going to "take their show on the road."  Or, to put it a bit more accurately, they have bought a motorhome, and are going to become traveling grifters.  It appears that neither is employed, though Mrs. Cummings claims to be an "Occupational Therapist, Nutritional Consultant and Master Personal Trainer."

I'm really not completely sure what is going on with this bunch.  On the one hand, a lot of their stuff, including the attacks on transsexuals, is straight out of the classic transgender playbook.  It sounds a lot like old school Arnold Lowman (you may know him better as "Virginia" Prince), or classic Phil Frye (aka, "Phyllis," Mr. "Cristan" Williams' role model), but there is also almost a hardline, right wing tone to it.  It makes me wonder if Mrs. Cummings, who on at least one of her numerous websites, speaks of her "faith" might be trying to balance involvement with fundamentalism with his lifestyle?  She would not be the first person to have issues with this.

Her attitude almost comes across as, "You can be a transgender, but don't think there is any real legitimacy to your identity.  You're not "really" a woman, (or a man in her case) but as long as you accept that, and identify as a transgender, it's okay.  But if you get uppity, and think you're really a "woman," or really a "man," then you are delusional.  It would also be consistent with her being married to a man in a dress.  That way, she can be the "husband" but not have to deal with being in what would be, in the eyes of some religious people, a "same sex" marriage.  On the other hand, they can let lose with profanity that rivals that of most sailors, so I don't know.

Whatever the source of their beliefs…fundamentalism, or just extreme transgender, they are clearly some of the most insane transgender kooks I have run across in some time.  They spend a lot of time accusing anyone who disagrees with them of "self-hatred," "shame." "arrogance," "transphobia," etc.  But that seems to be exactly what they are suffering from.  They are clearly dealing with some serious mental issues, and are taking them out on anyone, and everyone who dares question their views.  But, they also spend a lot of time parroting the same tired crap you get from the usual mindless transgender types.

In any case, the whole thing deteriorated into them posting a series of articles attacking me, and violating the copyright on this blog site.  I have contacted Google to complain (they also use blogger) with them threatening me with the "Streisand Effect."  I am sure this isn't over, especially when they see this article…but, I admit, I don't suffer fools, and especially bigoted fools well.  Sometimes it is fun to see just how badly they will get when they fall apart.

Aw, Poor Suzy Must Be Jealous She Hasn't Gotten Any Attention Lately

Even though I haven't had much to say about kooky Suzan Cooke lately, she has decided to go after me, and Ben Girl (who did tear into Cooke quite justifiably about her outrageously hateful post after Rick Warren's son took his own life...establish Cooke as a true bigot of the worst sort) in her latest post.  And it is a really twisted piece of work, even by Cooke's standards.  Actually, I have largely ignored Cooke for the simple reason that Cooke rarely publishes anything original anymore.  Most of Cooke's blog is simply rehashing stuff from the looney Left press, and from the Transgender News mailing list.  In fact, a few weeks ago, when Transgender News did not post for a few days, Cooke's blog went silent as well. Unlike Cooke, I prefer quality over quantity.  Granted, I had planned to speak out about Cooke's piece on Rick Warren, but Ben Girl did such an excellent job, I saw no need to.  Which I guess has been eating at Cooke for a while....

Now, in Cooke's latest bit of insanity, she makes this assertion:

I do know I have a couple of people who make slamming me and a number of other TS/TG folks the main focus of their blogs. Jennifer ***** and Ben Girl to name names.

As I have said many times, I prefer to not use my name here.  Even though a lot of people know it, and jerks like Cooke have no morals, I stand by my policy...  Now, that said, I would point out that Ben Girl has posted about Cooke all of 4 time out of 213 posts.  On this blog, Cooke has been a significant enough topic to rate a label in 60 out of 299 posts (including this one).  She is certainly not the "main focus" of either of our blogs.  Of course, Cooke is one of those people who simply cannot abide disagreement.  

Of course, Cooke, who has an ego as big as her adopted state of Texas, is not really ranting about me speaking out against her.  She is rallying to the defense of her compadres, and fellow transgender kooks, Mr. "Cristan" Williams, and Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen.  Somewhere along the line, Cooke went over the deep end, and decided to become a major port of what she used to label the "Transgender Borg."  Shoot, Cooke is now the "Borg Queen."  Sandeen is upset because he can't censor me.  And, ironically, because I am doing the very thing he calls Cathy Brennan a coward for, he claims, not doing...answering his crap.  He attacks Brennan for not emailing him, which would supply him with an email address he can use to harass her.  Or, worse, supply to others for the same purpose.  

Now, some might get the impression that Cathy Brennan is some virulent hater of men, by reading some of the crap Sandeen has written about her.  It turns out that a) she actually worked with Sandeen to try to get the Maryland transgender bill passed, and b) had met with Sandeen where she had the unfortunate experience of finding out, first hand, just how totally insane Sandeen is....  Here is a quote from a comment that Cathy Brennan made to Sandeen on Pretendbians...

You are not female. You might be legal status female, but you are not female. Remember when my ex gf and I met you for coffee? You pounded the table and told us how you wanted to put your balls in a jar after you got them cut off so you could bring them to meetings and say you brought your balls with you. You also asked my ex gf if she would cast your balls for you.

That’s not female.

BTW, I thought you were disgusting then, but I was working on HB 235 because I have trans friends I care about, so I held my nose and worked with you. But please do not ever state that we were friends. I would never be friends with someone so crass that they talk about their balls for 45 minutes at a political meeting.

I have to say, I knew Sandeen was a kook, but I had no idea that Sandeen was THAT  big of a kook.  No, that is NOT female, those are not the words of a woman...shoot, those are not the words of  sane person.  They are, however the words of someone Cooke apparently wishes to align herself with.

Cooke's post is really just bizarre.  In it, Cooke tries to compare me and Ben Girl to house slaves, like some character in a movie.  In it, Cooke, again, attacks me for having been a part of the move to adopt the term "Harry Benjamin Syndrome."  Ironically, in the early days of her blog, Cooke herself embrace the term.  I don't know if Cooke's objection was based on my involvement (Cooke has had a bitter hatred for me since I made a suggestion on her blog that she did not agree with, and her partner Tina somehow decided I was a threat) or because she realized it was competition for her own label, "Women Born Transsexual."  Oh, BTW, that suggestion I made was relatively innocuous.  It was simply that transsexuals might consider getting a born female to serve as a spokesperson, the idea being that it would allow us to better advance our case while protecting our privacy.  Unlike Cooke and the rest of the Transgender Borg, some of us don't wish to be seen as anything other than women.

The simple fact is, what has Cooke in such a state is the that I, and Ben Girl, are not interested in being transgender but prefer just being women.  Cooke, like the rest of her kind, seem to thrive on that identification as "other."  They would, simply put, but transgender than be women.  Cooke, again, exhibits what I am now labeling, in a sort of "ha, ha only serious" manner, cisphobia...the fear of, or animosity towards, being normal.  In fact, Cooke actually has the audacity, and the hypocrisy, to try to force the label "transgender" on us, when we have clearly rejected it.  I should note, by the way, that Cooke has effectively embraced it, so no, I am not forcing it on her.

Ultimately, that is what HBS was all about.  Interestingly enough, the cisphobic crowd seems more married to the term than those of us who advanced it.  While it has been used on occasion, it probably won't catch on.  I can live with the term transsexual, as it appears, thankfully, that its use as a label for a particularly nasty form of pornography has faded.  In fact, that had a lot to do with the development of the term.  We did not want to be labeled as transgender, which had become associated with kooks like Sandeen who want to play dress up and pretend...and with the term "transsexual" being linked to pornography, we felt that a new term was needed.  And Harry Benjamin Syndrome was chosen, not because of the fact that Benjamin Syndrome would be abbreviated as BS, as Cooke claims to have pointed out, but instead because Benjamin Syndrome is already used to refer to a a type of multiple congenital anomaly/mental retardation (MCA/MR) syndrome.  

I honestly don't know what emotional trauma haunts Cooke so badly, and drives her to such bizarre extremes.  I do know Cooke had a long history of substance abuse, and emotional problems.  I know that Cooke has long exhibited bizarre and unstable behavior.  I know that Cooke has some serious emotional needs that she cannot seem to satisfy. One of these obviously is rooted in the fact that some lesbians do not accept transsexual as actually being women.  This is illustrated by this remark...

No matter how far up the bigots assholes you have your tongue in the end you are still a transsexual/transgender person. You can play the role of an extermination camp Sonder Commando, but all it does is postpone the inevitable.

I have three things to say to this.  First, back early on in my transition, when some of my relatives exhibited problems with my situation, my reaction, "That is there problem.  I will not take responsibility for their ignorance and bigotry."  I feel the same way now.  If someone has a problem with transsexuals. that is their problem, not mine.  Second, I find that life is a whole lot easier if you don't spend all your time shoving the fact that you are a transsexual in other people's faces.  And third, that brings me back to a point I have already made.  I am not transgender because I don't have that need to shove my history in people's faces.  Cooke clearly does.

Cooke is one of those people who is truly invincibly ignorant.  No matter what is said, Cooke has this bizarre idea that she knows, and everyone else is wrong.  She says...

I’ve pissed off the HBS holes because I don’t buy their purity crap. I also don’t buy their hatred of every transsexual/transgender person who stands up for their rights and by extension for the rights of all.

My problem with Cooke is the same problem I have with every other transgender extremist kook.  It has nothing to do with "purity."  I realize that Cooke picked that term up back in the days of Usenet, when there were some who tried to define transsexuals based on a very narrow standard.  Cooke even harks back to that by bringing up my unfortunate remark about being "more than a transvestite, less than a transsexual."  When I first began transition I hit some rough spots.  Many do, and I did what many do, and I reverted.  According to the real purists, and Cooke I should add, was one of them, that marked me as "not pure."  I struggled.  I tried to find a middle ground.  I found there was not one.  And I moved on with my transition again.

Oh, and one one bit of information for Cooke.  I generally don't refer to myself as a "girl."  I leave that bit of silliness for the "men in dresses" crowd.  It has always struck me as a silly affectation.  And the term was Harry Benjamin Syndrome to honor him for his pioneering work, not to identify anyone as one of his "girls."  In fact, because of harassment from a cyberstalker, I thought it wise to not reveal my surgeon as I suspect he would have been harassed as well.  Seriously, Cooke need to get a clue...and a life.

Put simply, well, I guess my view of Cooke is the same as my view of any other bigot.  I'm not going to take responsibility for her ignorance and hatred.  But I will go on speaking out against transgender stupidity, whether from Cooke, or her comrades Mr. Sandeen, Mr. Williams, and others.  And if Cooke doesn't like that...tough.  

Update:  Cooke has posted another disjointed, and rather bizarre rant about HBS (a term which has largely fallen out of use).  It really doesn't warrant much of a response.  I honestly hope Cooke will either realize the need, or someone else will care enough to push her into seeking the serious mental health treatment she so clearly needs.  Oh well...  She rants about others living in a fantasy, while posting an edited version of her own history....  Sad, really, but not all that unexpected.

And a thought....if I am such a fraud, or self-loathing, then why do I allow anyone to comment here, and say pretty much whatever they want, provided they don't violate the privacy rule, while Cooke censors with a heavy hand, and blocks pretty much any post that disagrees with her extremely narrow viewpoints?  Why shoot, even Cooke herself would be welcome...

A Busy Sunday...

Wow, so many issues, so little time...


No, seriously, there are some trivial things that all merit a response, but none of which are really so major as to warrant an individual post.  So, let's begin....


First, we have the silliness that has erupted around A. G. Casebeer's violent threats that were posted on uber-bigot "Monica" Robert's Facebook Page.  Mr. Roberts pulled the page as soon as the controversy began, but fortunately it was preserved for posterity by Dana Lane Taylor.  Well, "Autumn" Sandeen has now posted about how Casebeer and Mr. Roberts have apologized for the nasty remarks.  Well, actually, they appear to have posted some rather insincere sounding remarks that sound more like they are sorry they got caught.  But the real story is about how "Monica" Helms reacted to a comment from CathrynP, a transsexual who has long been a major thorn in the side of the transgender extremists.  Mr. Helms, as only he can do, goes off.

Yeah, right!

Whine, whine, whine.  You have hated Monica for as long as you have hated me, because she sees you for what you really are, and have pointed out your lies on several occasions.  You can't stand it when people see right through you.  You have even threaten her and Dawn Wilson to the point where they had to report YOU to the authorities.  You are the last person on the planet to call for stripping someone of anything.  You need only to look in the mirror to see the one person who has spread more hate then the other Cathy, Monica and AC could ever do together.  I may get called out for this comment, but someone has to point out your blatant hypocrisy.

I'm ready for my card, Autumn.

by: MonicaHelms @ Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 08:13:20 AM CDT

Now, CathrynP replied very calmly, pointing out that Mr. Helms is basically lying.  So, how does Mr. Sandeen react?  Well, as usual, he "drops a card," but warns both Mr. Helms (who regularly violates the rules at Pam's House Blend without any real fear of ever being booted, and CathrynP who didn't really violate any reasonable rule.  Another example of Mr. Sandeen's efforts to censor those he disagrees with, while allowing the worst sort of behavior from friends like Mr. Helms.  And of course, a later nasty remark by Mr. Roberts, who seems incapable of much else, doesn't even seem to warrant notice.

Our next minor issue is yet another hilarious post by "Cristan" Williams.  Mr. Williams is all upset because his silliness is being exposed and ridiculed both here and elsewhere...in spite of his stupid "facepalm" attacks.  I guess we are supposed to be so devastated by those that we just curl up and fade away.

Now, Mr. Williams claims he has never tried to force "separatists" to join the TG movement.  I suppose in his usual style of debate this claim can be supported, but an examination of his posts show just how silly that claim really is.  He has attacked what he calls "TS separatists," mocked them, and tried, desperately, to refute their positions.  Not really the actions of someone who doesn't "care if they don’t want to identify as being part of any specific community."  A simple suggestion....at least for those who haven't drank the same "Flavor-Aid" (it wasn't Kool-Aid they drank at Jonestown).  Read his remarks, and ask yourself where he is coming from.  If you don't agree with me, that is fine.  If you do...well, then join me in a good laugh at his absolute silliness.


This, of course, is typical of the semantical games that Mr. Williams engages in.  He thinks himself far more clever than he remotely is.


Then, having hit Dana with yet another "facepalm" (Dana, I feel your pain) he goes on to attack me again, accusing me of lying about his comments about bathrooms.  Apparently when he talked about how many women have attacked other women in the ladies room he wasn't really suggesting that women are just as much of a threat, if not more of a threat, as men...uh, I mean transgender "women."   


Let me make three points here in response to Mr. WIlliams' silliness:

1. I have made it clear that I think pre-op transsexuals should be allowed access to women's restrooms, provided that they actually are pursing surgery, taking hormones, and that they are sufficiently feminized that they can enter a women's bathroom without looking like a man in a dress.  And provided that they conduct themselves in a proper manner.  I would not extend this privilege to transvestites(both part-time and full-time), gender queers, drag queens, so-called non-ops, etc.  Put another way, unless you are actively pursuing the removal of your penis, and the creation of a vagina, stay out of the ladies room.
2. The real issue with men in women's space is not so much safety, as privacy.  Men, as in transvestites, are unwelcome.  The vast majority of women see the restroom as a place they can go and get away from men.  This is sort of ironic, since "privacy" is the basis for many arguments made by people like Mr. Williams.  The right to privacy is what prevents states from going after gays for engaging in sex, and it is the basis for abortion rights.  Personally, I agree with the first, but not the second.  Privacy is an important right, but life trumps privacy.
3. Mr. Williams tries the silly ploy of suggesting that "trans men" would be forced into the ladies room.  What a load of crap.  First off, after about six months of hormones the average FTM has no problem passing as a man.  Second, men do not have the issue with privacy that women do.  They are not likely to feel threatened by a sufficiently transitioned FTM.  In the relatively short period that they are changing, it is not too much to ask that they use reasonable discretion and try not to freak people out too much.

No, if Mr. Williams wasn't suggesting that women are as much of a threat as men, I would love to know what he was trying to suggest....  Oh, he does throw the 14th Amendment around a lot, clearly having absolutely no idea what it means.

The final issue this Sunday is the silliness out of Cuba.  In a very bizarre story, we are told that a gay man has married a transsexual woman.  Now, granted, there are some cultural differences with regard to sexuality between Anglo and Latino cultures.  Many passive gay males in such cultures can avoid some stigma by adopting a feminine persona and presentation, but it is extremely rare for them to actually go so far as surgery.  Now, it is possible that the "bride" in this case succumbed to pressure from society and had the surgery.   I knew one person who was clearly ambivalent about surgery, but who stated that her family wanted her to have it, so she was going to.  I recently heard that she had the operation. It will be interesting to see what comes of this.

It is also possible that the gay community in Cuba is simply using this as a ploy to get attention.  The "bride" arrived holding a gay pride flag.  And the groom has AIDS, so I suspect he does not expect it to be long before death.  

The simple bottom line is, gay men do not generally marry transsexuals, at least not for love.  I suppose if one felt pressured to marry that might be preferable to a natal woman, but this whole thing seems very questionable to me.

Sandeen Proves Himself a Bigot

One has to hand it to "Autumn" Sandeen, the man just doesn't have good judgement.  His latest post really shows him for what he is...a "classist, sexist, racist, lookist, and otherwise judgmental and xenophobic" bigot.  He has posted a video called The People of Walmart in a bizarre attempt to attack what he terms the "Homophobia Industrial Complex."  


The bizarre thing is, some of the people in the video appear to be rather outrageous transgender types.  Sandeen is trying to attack people who oppose the idea of some man in a dress teaching kindergarten.  I assume he is thinking about the controversy in Oakland where a group of extremist transgender activists were allowed to attempt to indoctrinate a first grade class on the deconstruction of gender.


I know it probably seems that I pick on Mr. Sandeen a lot, but he invites it.  He posts garbage like this, and then seems amazed that even some of his supporters are outraged. 


UPDATE:


Since I first posted this, the comments on Mr. Sandeen's blog have been almost universally negative.  And, in a somewhat surprising move, Suzan Cooke, who had previously, and rather surprisingly, embraced him as a friend has now turned on Mr. Sandeen due to the attack on people who shop at Walmart, and his column yesterday where he presumed to advise Janet Mock.


YET ANOTHER UPDATE:


Well, it is the Monday after Sandeen's bigotry was posted on Saturday.  He is finally back from wherever he was hiding, and he has issued what will have to pass for his apology.  He claims he had no idea that the video might be offensive and that the saw it as celebrating "diversity."  Now, given that this is pretty much lifted from one of the few comments that did not condemn him for posting that piece of garbage, it is pretty obvious that he was waiting for someone to offer him something he could use to bail himself out.  I don't, for one nanosecond, believe that Sandeen did not see that video for what it was, an attack on people that was, as Pam Spaulding put it, "classism, sexism, racism, and fatphobia, to name a few."  Of course, it appears that Spaulding is not going to take Mr. Sandeen to the woodshed.  No surprise....