There is Truth, and Then There is Cooke...

I have to say, I was rather amused to discover that Suzan Cooke is ranting about me again.  I seem to be one of her favorite obsessions sometimes.  Granted, I have taken her on more than a few times myself.


But, I want to correct a few errors in her post....


First off, she brings up an unfortunate throw-away line I posted on a web site I threw together some years ago...

It was there that I first encountered someone who considers herself to be “True/Classic Transsexual”  and can always be depended upon to trash TG folks,.  Only in those days she wasn’t so certain about herself.  Indeed.  Her self description was, “More than a transvestite and less than a transsexual.”

First off, it was actually my therapists who considered me to be a "True/Classic Transsexual." Second, it is true that I disagree strongly with the TG view.  And I am not shy about speaking out against it.  Now, as I said, I did use that line on a web site I threw together.  It was back in the earlier days of the web, when vanity sites were all the rage.  And it was also during a difficult time i in my life.


I had actually transitioned a few years earlier.  I met with a therapist, who quickly diagnosed me as a "transsexual."  I was treated by a endocrinologist who had studied with Harry Benjamin.  And a couple of years into my transition, for reasons that actually had little to do with my transition, or with whether or not I was transsexual, I came very close to what could be called a nervous breakdown.  At that time, some issues related to my transition, along with the other problems (most financial) pushed me to the breaking point.  


I could not deal with everything, and one morning, in something of a panic, I decided to de-transition, primarily to find some amount of relief from what was overwhelming me.  Quite simply, at that time it was the only thing I had control over.  I quickly convinced myself that it was the right thing to do, and over the next seven years I struggled to find myself.  


At first, I tried to deny true self completely.  That did not last long.  Then I tried to convince myself that I could find a middle ground.  That was the point at which I wrote that inane comment.  The modern transgender silliness had not quite caught on, though there were early bits of it online.  I actually tended to argue with the more extreme proponents, who were just beginning to formulate their efforts to "deconstruct gender."


Simply put, I knew I was not a transvestite, but I didn't want to admit that I really was a transsexual.  I knew what admitting I was transsexual would mean.  But, as I looked inward, the truth became clear.  I sought out a new therapist (my previous one had contributed to my near breakdown) and I began to deal with who, and what, I was.  I also took my time.  My first transition had been a bit spontaneous, and I rushed into it with no planning.


I took my time.  I planned.  And then I made my move.  I changed my name on a Monday, spent Tuesday getting my paperwork in order, and on Wednesday I went out and found a job. I was prepared for the changes that would come, and I survived.  It was not easy, but I was focused.  Over time, I came to grips with issues like my sexuality (I am a straight woman) and I moved across country to San Francisco.  I found a good job here, got my surgery, and my life is vastly improved.  


No, it has not been with problems.  But, and this is what is really important, I have been able to handle things without falling apart.  When I was pretending to be a male, I could not do that.  The least obstacle seemed insurmountable.  I would often go to pieces over things that I would now laugh off.  The proof, as they say, is in the pudding.


Another thing that needs to be corrected....  I hate no one.  I object to the silliness that is spewed by transgender extremists, including Suzan Cooke, but I had no one.  That would be contrary to my faith, which I am not ashamed of.  


Also, I would like to remind people that I do not censor comments unless they contain personal attacks, usually against others.  I won't tolerate the invasion of my privacy, or that of anyone else, but beyond that I am not afraid of what someone might have to say.  In fact, the vast majority of comments censored here have been ads for Asian porn sites.  That is not acceptable, and will be removed.


And let me address one final error.  Cooke makes the following statement:

As a result I have several people who devote an inordinate amount of time to trashing me for not wanting to be part of their “Classic Transsexual/HBS” club.

No, that is not really the case at all.  First off, I would be absolutely appalled if Cooke suddenly chose to embrace such a view.  Cooke's doing so would be one of the worst things that could happen.  Cooke is, quite honestly, an egotistical kook who thinks that she is remotely relevant in the world today.  Sadly, she has a few who share that delusion, and who continue to stroke her ego because they imagine she is some arbiter of veracity.  I will admit, at one time I shared that delusion myself.  Then I realized Cooke is to be pitied, rather than feared.  She is clinging to a largely imagined past where she was the alpha transsexual.  Now, she is trying to relive those glory days, and failing miserably.


No, I, and others, speak out against Cooke because she has embraced the silliness of the transgender extremists.  It really isn't about Cooke, but is about the idiocy that Cooke has come to endorse.  Most of the time I just have a sad laugh at Cooke's extremist rants.  The Sixties are past, the Weathermen are gone, and for good or bad, the country is going back to the Right.


Extremism, of any sort, tends to wind up being an effort in futility.  Demanding outrageous concessions is only going to end in valiant defeat.  Unfortunately, some prefer that to accomplishing something through concession.


Oh well, Cooke has always been a "legend in her own mind."

It's Really Very Simple...

I never cease to be amazed by the obsession that the transgender crowd has for the ladies room.  And now, everyone's favorite bigot, Monica Roberts, has a new rant on Bilerico about some transgender getting caught in the women's bathroom in Houston, Texas.  Of course, this is going to create a perfect storm of trans-insanity given that this is the home of Phillip "Phyllis" Frye, who is never shy about seeking publicity.  And who often just makes things worse.


Alas, Texas conservatism is running head on into the relatively liberal nature of Houston (they have a lesbian mayor) and the end result will probably not be good.


But the fact is, it really is very simple.  Whether you are pre-op, or a transgender, if you don't assimilate as woman (I don't like the term pass when applied to a transsexual, though it is appropriate if one is talking about a transgender)  reasonably well, then avoid using the ladies room until you do.  When I was in transition, I didn't do what the transgender crowd now insists is their right.  I did not just march into the nearest women's room.  I built up slowly.  I would seek out a restroom I knew would likely be empty and hopefully as isolated as possible.  As I became more confident that I was perceived as a woman, I started using more public restrooms.  I never once has a problem in the ladies room, though the last time I went in  a men's room I freaked some poor guy out.


Simply put, if you don't care how you are perceived, and think you have some right to use the ladies room because you are dressed as a woman, you really don't belong there.  I wasn't so much scared of being caught, as I was thinking about the feelings of my fellow women.  People like Monica Roberts, and the vast majority of transgender activists, don't share that value.  And that says a lot about their true nature.


Note:  I found a video of the person in question, and this person is not credible as a "woman." Also, it should be noted that Texas has a law that specifically outlaws going into a restroom reserved for the opposite sex.  The mayor in Houston has issued an executive order that is in conflict with state law.  This is probably going to be a train wreck.

A Dog in the Manger

There is an ancient Greek fable, sometime attributed to Aesop, about a  dog lying in a manger who could not eat the hay but who nevertheless prevented the other animals from being able to eat it either.   It is used as an idiom for someone who has no use for something, but seeks to prevent another from using it as well.


"Autumn" Sandeen has established himself as a classic example of a Dog in the Manger.  In his most recent diatribe on Pam's House Blend he complains about how his ex-wife, who apparently has nothing to do with him, is seeking an annulment of their marriage from the Roman Catholic Church.


Now, for those who are not familiar with the practices of Catholicism, if one is divorced, and wishes to have their marriage sanctified by the sacrament of marriage in the Church, then the only choice is to have the previous marriage annulled.  There are certain situations where the church will hold that the previous marriage was not properly entered into, and the annulment is granted.


Most often, the grounds for the annulment is that one or both of the parties was too immature to enter into a valid sacrament of marriage.  Other grounds can include mental illness, a lack of intention to stay faithful or have children, deception and some other very technical reasons.


The simple, bottom line is, Mr. Sandeen's wife should have no problem getting such a decree.  But he is not willing for this to happen.  He intends to challenge his wife's effort.  Now, he claims that part of the reason is that he does not want his children from the marriage, who will have nothing to do with him, to be made "illegitimate."  However, a church annulment does not do that, legally, or in the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church.  He would have some claim to that if this were a legal proceeding, but not in this case.


No, the obvious reason his ex-wife would seeks an annulment is that she plans to remarry (or perhaps has already remarried) and wishes to have the church recognize the new marriage as sacramental.


And, just as obviously, Mr. Sandeen's ONLY real reason for opposing the annulment is to spite his wife, and perhaps is also a vain attempt to prevent her from being able to remarry.  Of course, there is no way that the church is going to deny the marriage.  His silly little tantrum is going to do nothing but given ignorant people another bit to use against transsexuals (though ironically, Mr. Sandeen is not remotely actually a transsexual.


Mr. Sandeen is one of those men who, sometime during puberty, developed a fetish for wearing women's clothes, with no real evidence of gender issues prior to that, who then, after a long period of living as a successful male, decides to take his little fetish to the next level, and became full time.  Then, he decided he would be a transsexual to gain higher standing as a "transgender."


Mr. Sandeen shows no desire to simply live as a woman.  He is an "out, loud, and proud" transgender.  He makes sure anyone and everyone knows his history, and in the past made it clear he had no desire to give up his penis.  He now claims to be surgery tracked, though he also tends to indicate that he will have surgery only when he can have it paid for.  In truth, I am sure if he does get it covered, he will find another excuse.


And adding to the silliness of Mr. Sandeen's claims is the comment by "Zoe Brain" the self-acclaimed "rocket scientist" who asserts, rather bizarrely that Mr. Sandeen's marriage was a "same-sex one, despite the fact that children resulted."  Now, that is ridiculous.  Mr. Sandeen had, and still has a penis.  His wife had a vagina, ovaries, and a uterus.  They had children, that were conceived from Mr. Sandeen's sperm, and his wife's eggs.  To remotely suggest such a marriage was a "same sex one" is totally false.  I guess they must have pretty low standards to be a "rocket scientist" down under.


Mr. Sandeen should be ashamed of acting so cruelly towards his ex-wife.  He should just let her seek her annulment, ignore it all, and go on with is little fantasies.  Seeking to deny her the ability to remarry is simply his being a dog in the manger.


And he should stop trying to speak for transsexuals.  

Not the Term I Would Use...

There has been a lot of buzz among the transgender radicals over the recent episode of Glee that featured the Rocky Horror Picture Show.  Apparently, they are all upset because the show modified some of the lyrics, and they had a female playing the role of "Dr. Frank-N-Furter," the "sweet transvestite from transsexual Transylvania."


Lead gender fascist, "Autumn" Sandeen is absolutely livid that they changed "transsexual" to "sensational" on the show, writing about this in an article entitled Just Call Me "Sensational".  Now, as I said, that is not the term I would use for Sandeen.  


I must say, I am puzzled.  Why would anyone who claims to be a "woman" want to be remotely associated with that movie, and especially that character?  Okay, granted, we are talking about someone like Sandeen, so maybe that does make sense.


Personally, when I saw the movie, back around 1979, I was somewhat repulsed by the whole thing.  I found it all a bit much, and found nothing to relate to.  I was pretty deep in denial about my transsexualism, but I still felt it was not remotely related to that condition.


It says a lot about the true nature of "transgender" and its complete disconnect from "transsexual" that anyone would remotely object to not being associated with this travesty.

Huh?

"Autumn" Sandeen has an article on Pam's House Blend called "Conflating Gay And Trans -- And More Religious Right Fear Mongering About It."  I have to say, I am a bit puzzled.


I mean, isn't that the whole idea?  I mean, what did the transgender extremists think would happen when they forcibly joined LGB to T?  Did they think that the Religious Right wouldn't assume that "transgender" was just another form of gay?


Oh, I know the idea is supposed to be something about "sexual minorities," which is why some try to add even more letters.  Like "I" for intersexed, and two "Q's" for queer and questioning.  And some want to add another "T" for transsexual.  And an "A" for asexual, an "O" for omnisexual, and a "P" for pansexual.  I can think of a few other "sexual minorities that would not be so welcome, so that idea sort of falls apart quickly.


But back to the point.  What did Sandeen think was going to happen when he dressed up in Navy drag and chained himself to the White House fence in support of repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."  Even he is not so extremist that he thinks that trying to get "transgender people" able to serve openly is a valid cause.  He was there is support of gays, lesbians and bisexuals.  That sort of makes it more likely that he will be perceived as a gay male by many.


And then he has the audacity to wonder why people with HBS want no part of transgender?  We simply want to live our lives as women.  Not as men who become women, not as women who used to be women, and certainly not perceived as gay men who just got carried away.  But that is exactly how the transgender movement causes us to be perceived. 

Well, duh!

I am always amused by some of the silliness of the transgender extremists, but sometimes the best stuff comes when they miss a simple point.  For example, in a rant about a professor who objects to male crossdressers in the women's room, "Autumn" Sandeen makes the following comment:

This is Prof. Stark stating that trans women aren't really women, and that she approves of discriminating against trans women because she is afraid of people she calls "men who dress as women." This too is Prof. Stark publicly stating that trans women are all potential restroom predators, and that she wants to limit the civil rights of trans people because of her unfounded fears.

I have news for Mr. Sandeen, "trans women" are NOT really women.  Women are women, if you feel the need to qualify it with a word like "trans" then no, you are not talking about women.  Mr. Sandeen is one of those who thinks that sex is meaningless, and that gender is determined by a whim.  Put on a dress, and you become a "woman," albeit a "trans woman," but in Sandeen's fantasy world, entitled to all the privileges of full womanhood, including the right to demand that women put up with your presence in the women's room and even to be able to expect people to overlook the fact that you have a penis if you are in a space where nudity is the norm.

Now, like any survivor of HBS, I went through the period of being pre-op, and yes, I had to use the women's room while still physically a male.  But, unlike the Sandeens of the world, I did not just force my way in, demanding acceptance.  At first, I would try to find a place that was the least likely to be in use by anyone else.  Then, as I became increasingly aware that I was fully accepted as a female, I started using more public facilities.  But, for a time, I was keenly aware of the feelings of other women.  The last thing I wanted was to cause a scene, both for my sake, and more importantly the sake of other women.

Sandeen shows no such sensitivity.  He only cares about his rights and those of other transgender people.  The feelings of women are of no concern to him.  They are expected to smile, and welcome men into their world.


It is completely lost on Sandeen, and his fellow men, that they are not, and will never be, women.  He is joined in his delusions by "Monica" Helms and the kook who calls himself "Dyssonance."  All three are a major cause of the problems that currently affect transsexual and HBS women.  Of course, when this is pointed out to them, they resort to denials, distortions, and insults.  Heaven help anyone who dares challenge them.  They are, after all, not only women with penises, but women with penises who are in no hurry to be rid of said organ.  I know that Sandeen and Helms have claimed to be surgery tracked, but they seem to be more excuse tracked.  They will have surgery when it is handed to them on a platter...maybe...


But in the meantime, they will be coming to a women's room near you.

Bullied to Death?

Recently, the hot topic on the LGBT blogs has been the shocking number of teenagers who have committed suicide as a result of bullying.  Of course, the focus has been on attempting to portray this as something caused by the "right wing."  But there is a problem with that.  Bullying is nothing new.  I was bullied as a child, as I imagine almost every transsexual was.  And I have been bullied as an adult.  The biggest difference is that the bullies today are "cyber-bullies" and are easily ignored.  A kill file is a wonderful thing.  They continue to rant, and I never see them.  On the rare occasion someone responds to them, and quotes them, I have learned that they want to imagine that I am really still reading their hatred, which only shows just how disturbed they really are.  But I digress.

There is no denying that there has been a rash of suicides linked to bullying.  And as I said above, the LGBT blogs have been largely trying to make it sound like this is the fault of the Right...that nebulous bogey man that includes anyone who dares disagree with even the most radical of the LGBT.  But what is really going on?  

I will be the first to admit, I don't know the specific reason for all of this.  I will start by pointing out that it is not limited to LGBT youth.  Suicides related to bullying have increased overall.  It is not an LGBT problem.  And I don't believe it is caused by an increase in bullying.  Bullying has always existed, probably as long as humans have been around.  So, why is there this increase in suicides?

It is something that needs to be studied.  It is a well established fact that suicides often seem to happen in clusters.  It can become something of, dare I say it, a fad.  I remember reading of a rash of suicides in one institution that began with someone hanging their self on a certain coat hook.  After a number of men followed suit, the hook was removed, and the suicides stopped.  In a similar manner, as teenage suicides resulting from bullying become publicized, other teenagers will feel the need to follow suit.  And the more it happens, the more it is likely to happen.

And that is scary,  What is worse, is that the LGBT blogs will probably continue to fuel this phenomena, if only because they will see this as a means to attack those they oppose.  I fear that things will get far worse before they get better...and that is only if they get better.  There have been a few attempts to fight back, but they have been rather weak.  The scary thing is, the victims become martyrs for a cause, and this may even encourage others to see suicide as not only the answer, but as sort of honorable act.  It isn't.  The honorable act would be to stand up to the bullies and refuse to give in,  And worse, the bullies don't seem to be shamed by causing someone's death.  There have been cases where they even showed up at funerals to gloat.

Something very disturbing is going on.  The most extreme of the LGBT blogs are trying to use the deaths of teenagers by suicide as a club to beat up anyone who disagrees with them.  Somewhat predictably, Suzan Cooke has attempted to rewrite the past and claim that when she started her blog she "laid down the law to the 'HBS/Classic Transsexual; that their name calling wouldn’t be permitted on this blog."  Never mind that we started her blog she tried to identify with the "HBS/Classic Transsexual."  It was only after it became obvious that Cooke had become an apologist for the worst of the gender fascists that the "HBS/Classic Transsexual" began to reject her extremist positions and that she suddenly turned on those she used to align with.

Oh, and never mind that Cooke as been known to bully people quite a bit.  I recall her attacking one post-op as a "skin transvestite" because that person stayed with her wife.  That, apparently, was before Cooke took up with another post-op and was reborn as a long-time lesbian.  But again, I digress.

Bullying happens on both sides of the political spectrum.  And the term "bully" is often used as a club word.  If they don't like it when someone speaks the truth, they just call that person a "bully."  That way they can avoid dealing with facts.  And sometimes the people quickest to call another a bully are the true bullies.  I know of one well known net-kook, who has threatened me with being "outed," and who has even made actual attempts to cause me real harm off the Internet, who loves to scream bully when I stand up to him.  And this same kook has gone after a number of others.

No, something is going on.  And it is probably going to get worse.  Part of the reason it will get worse is because others will try to take advantage of it.  Part of the reason is because there are some real problems that need to be addressed. And part of the reason is simply that these things have to run their course.  

I don't really have the answer.  I do know it will have to involve teaching kids that suicide is not the answer.  I know it will have to do with changing values.    And I know that the answer, strange as it may seem, will not be to, to silence the bullies.  First off, that won't work...and any attempt might make things worse, and second, as I said, there have always been bullies.  Something else is going on.