Finding a Problem Where None Exists...

You have to love the kooks over at Bilerico.  They tend to be one of the worst sites for censorship, but now they have a whiney article about how Google Instant is censoring certain words...

• Bilerico - Allowed (damn right)
• Gay - Allowed
• Homosexual - Allowed
• Queer - Allowed
• Dyke - Allowed
• Lesbian - blocked from Google Instant
• Transexual - blocked from Google Instant
• Transvestite - Allowed
• Tranny - blocked from Google Instant
• Faggot - blocked from Google Instant
• Fag - Allowed
• Bisexual - blocked from Google Instant

The problem is, none of those words are actually censored.  They may not show up as an "instant result," but you can still search for them.

Now, for those who don't understand how Google Instant works, it "suggests" terms you might be searching for.  For example, if you type in a T, the first word that is suggested, at least when I tried, was "target."  Add an R, and it goes to another list, etc.  The closer you get to the word you actually want, the greater the chance it will show up.  If you are searching for "tranny," it won't suggest that word, but it will allow you to search for it.  So, it is not remotely censored, it is just not a suggested word.

I mean really, are the people at Bilerico really that stupid?  There is no actual censorship at all.  Unlike, of course, Bilerico

Oh, and by the way, "transexual" is an incorrect spelling, used by some for political purposes, but technically incorrect.  You can search for it, but you mostly get links to articles on transsexualism, and a few where that particular spelling is used.

Almost, but not quite...

Suzanne Cooke, who has become a major apologist for the more extreme elements of the transgender movement sometimes comes close to having a clue, but then misses it completely. In a post yesterday she had one of those moments.  At the end of an article by Thomas Hammarberg, Commissioner for Human Rights for the Council of Europe, Cooke makes the following comment:

I swear sometimes it seems as though transgender folks are opposed to sex reassignment surgery and want to end it the same way they insist on erasing Transsexual in the name of some imagined unity of identity under the rubric of “Transgender as Umbrella”.

This is bad form and discourages people with transsexualism from acting as part of a coalition on issues that concern all.

It is a denial of our needs and has been one of the major causes of the TS/TG War that has gone on for some 20 years now.

Sometimes, I swear I would be better off devoting energy to tree hugging and general worker’s rights issues.

Class War, not just for the rich anymore.

So close, and yet so very far.  No, it is not really "sometimes" and no, it is not a matter of "seems like."  There are some major leaders of the transgender movement who have publicly spoken out against SRS and who have made very negative comments about those who seek it.  Some of these same people are good friends of Cooke.  True, some who have made such remarks now claim to be surgery-tracked, but they also never make progress towards SRS, and always have an excuse why they have not had surgery and why there is no clear plan for them to have it any time soon.

The simple fact is, transgender is not remotely the same as transsexual, but the transgender crowd wants to use transsexuals to further their own radical agenda of deconstructing gender.  This is exactly why many of us continue to openly, and loudly oppose anything remotely connected to the transgender model.  And yet, Cooke still seems torn between that agenda and her rather bizarre ideas about transsexualism.

Cooke is so determined to be a stereotypical radical that she is more comical than anything else.  It becomes really impossible to take her remotely seriously, but sadly, some still think her some oracle of transsexual truth.

Hopefully, they will eventually get a clue...

The Truth Finally Comes Out

I have written several times about the Mike Penner/Christine Daniels case, usually in response to some drivel from "Autumn Sandeen."  And Sandeen has usually written in response to an article about Penner.  But a new article in the L.A. Weekly has come out that sheds new light on what led Penner to take his life.  And yet, Sandeen is oddly quiet.  Why, all of a sudden, are we not subjected to another round of hand wringing by Sandeen.  Why is he not telling us what wonderful friend Christine Daniel was, and how sad he is over the loss of this dear friend?


Perhaps because the truth is out, and it turns out that we now know some new facts about what drove Penner to suicide.


The primary factor was one that I can understand.  Penner de-transitioned because he missed his wife.  He could not deal with the end of his marriage.  Years ago, I went through a similar time.  There were two differences.  In my case, my ex-spouse and I stayed together and I had time to work through my issues and realize that being true to myself was more important.  In the end, we remain friends.  Penner's marriage was beyond repair, and even after he returned to being "Mike" his marriage could not survive.


But the secondary factors are why I am not surprised that Sandeen has ignored this new insight into what happened.  There are some interesting quotes from Penner, made at the time he was still living as Christine.  For example, there is this one, sent to Susan Stanton who had complained about Christine's comments in a blog:

"I think what I'm doing is correct. If you've got a problem with it, it's your problem. ... I'm a real woman who loves makeup and clothes, shoes. A woman, not a trans-anything who needs to quote-unquote represent some undefined community. For the first time in my life, I'm being true to myself, and my true self loves makeup, clothes, shoes."

That is a very telling comment.  Especially in light of another comment where she said that she was:

"overwhelmed by everything and everyone. I feel as if I am being used as a pawn by the trans community (and maybe theTimes as well). I have been close to tears many times. ... I am flat-out exhausted."

This confirms what I long suspected.  Penner was used, and to a large extent abused, by the transgender crowd.  But Penner was not remotely transgender.  Penner was a late transitioning true transsexual.  He had fought his feelings as long as he could, but when he finally gave in, he had to face the loss of his wife.  That was too much for him to deal with.


In this article, we also learn, for I believe the first time anywhere, that Penner had scheduled surgery with Marcie Bowers.  In fact, the event that triggered his decline was when Bower's office contacted him about delaying his surgery for a week.  


I found Bower's comment that having surgery would have saved Penner's life to be highly questionable.  Penner needed to work things out with his ex-wife.  He needed to reach closure over the loss, or he needed to decide that his marriage was more important.  If he had reached the first, he would have moved on to surgery.  If he had decided the second, then it would indicate he was not a transsexual after all.  But until this was worked out surgery should have been out of the question.  

You Can't Have it Both Ways

It has been a while since I posted here.  LIfe has been busy.  I have someone new in my life, and that has taken up some of my time.  I also have other things going on, and besides that, there has not been much worth writing about.  Then, yesterday, I saw a post by notorious transgender activist Suzan Cooke and decided I had to say something.


Yes, I know, Cooke is adamant that she is not transgender.  She insists that she is not under the umbrella.  But, the simple fact is, Cooke has, as they say, been guzzling the Kool-Aid for sometime, and is transgender in all but name.


The latest silliness is Cooke's adamant assertion that "gender is a social construct."  That, of course, is straight out of the radical transgender playbook.  The bottom line is that it means that gender is essentially a choice, that transsexuals are not really what they say they are, and that, given enough "social construction," transsexuals can be "cured" (i.e. be beaten into accepting their birth "gender."  Of course, Cooke would probably deny all of this, but hey, facts are facts.


What we call "gender" is actually inherent, and immutable.  It is the sexual differentiation of the brain.  It is well established by science, a fact that is denied vehemently by some in the same way that religious fundamentalists deny proven science about other issues.  Of course, the more radical transgender activists don't want gender to be inherent.  They adamantly claim that gender is a choice, and not inherent.  One's sex is what one says one sex is.  


I did not choose to be a transsexual.  I chose to deal with something that as present from birth.  If one thinks that gender is a choice, they must either be blind, or have a very odd definition of gender.  Anyone who has been around a group of transgender people, observing those who are clearly men in dresses, pretending both poorly and cluelessly, to be women, would have no illusion that "choice" is involved in true transsexualism.


It is not about stereotypes.  It is about something inherent, and not easily defined.  There are obvious differences in males and females that are not affected by socialization.  Some behavior can be modified, but there are things that cannot be.  And those things are what are truly gender.  And since Cooke denies this, she sides with the transgender crowd, as well, ironically with both radical feminists who hate transsexuals and the religious right who wish to deny our reality.

Failure to Learn

Once again, the sad and tragic story of Mike Penner, aka Christine Daniels has resurfaced.  The June issue of GQ has an analysis of what happened, and why.  And, of course, "Autumn" Sandeen has engaged in a self-indulgent story about the whole thing.

Much has been written about Penner, his transition to Christine, his return to presenting as a male, and his suicide.  I have written on it myself.  But the question of what happened remains. 

The more I have read about Penner, the more I have come to wonder if, perhaps, he was the extremely rare example of a true transsexual that manages to hold out for almost fifty years with no real outward signs of gender issues.  I don't know much about his life prior to transition.

He claimed to have made the decision in order to survive.  That makes me wonder if he was legitimate.  On the other hand, he seems to have had a very successful career up to that point, which raises doubts.  If one is truly transsexual, the chances of having a successful life as a male or pretty much nil.  You might be able to fake it for short periods, but to be successful in a male dominated field like sports writing without facing serious problems seems highly unlikely.

But, if Penner was truly transsexual, then there is less question as to what happened.  If he was a true transsexual, then his death can be laid at the feet of the transgender activists who tried to use him.

Penner made a very public transition.  If he was truly transsexual, this would have been torture.  He would have wanted nothing more than to simply be a woman.  But instead, he had to face being publicly paraded about as a trophy for the transgender activists who claimed to be his friend.  They could use him, without considering the effects their use had on him.

For most transsexuals, the improvements in their life are the proof that they are transsexual.  But most transsexuals do not make public transitions.  Transgender types embrace the public.  They get what they really seek, to be "women with penises," or "women who were once men," or even "men pretending to be women."  Most have no desire to give up their penis, and none have any desire to fully give up their maleness.

So, what if Penner was a true transsexual?  If so, he should have been counseled to consider starting over.  It would not have been easy.  He might have had to walk away from a successful career.  At the very least, he might have had to move to another state, to a smaller place, and start over writing something other than sports.  It would not have been perfect.  He would be taking a risk, and it would require that someone would have to know, but it could have been done.

Or he could have simply left his old life completely behind.  He could have done what I did.  He could have found an entry level job, downsized his life, and slipped quietly into his new life.  But, of course, the transgender community would have none of that.  Penner would be their poster child.  Unfortunately, he couldn't take it.  It was not the life he wanted, even though I am sure they told him it was the only way.

But, of course, the activists and their dupes won't learn.  In truth, I doubt they even understand what they should learn.  When the next chance comes, they will do it all again.  And if that person dies as well?  Well, there is nothing the transgender community loves as much as a good martyr. 

They just refuse to learn, no matter what the damage.

A Horrible Episode

Last night's Family Guy was a terrible episode that was highly inaccurate, and very insulting to transsexuals. 

In the episode, Glen Quagmire's father,Dan, a decorated Naval officer, appears to be gay.  When Glen confronts his father, he confesses that he is not gay, he is a woman trapped in a man's body.  This is followed by several of the characters expressing opinions that basically came down to "what's the difference?"  There are also the usual references to "she/males" and such. This was not really refuted.

Then, Dan, who has so far appeared as a male, pops off to the hospital where he has a sex change.  Never mind that this is absurd.  One does not just go in, and come out looking like a woman.  No hormones, no RLT, just off to the OR, and he is a woman.  This is followed by playing Glen's confusion of pronouns for laughs, as Glen, now Ida, walks out of the OR, dressed as a female, with quite a nice figure, and a full head of long hair.  The doctor having made it sound like "he" had died during surgery, announces that "she" is doing quite well.  I can assure you, one does not walk out after such surgery.  I was not allowed out of bed for most of a week.

Then Ida visits Peter and family, again with another round of bad jokes.  Then Glen and his father fight and Ida goes to a hotel.  Finally, Brian who has been away at a web contend seminar, returns stopping at a local hotel for a drink. There he meets Ida, who he falls for.  Then, returning home, he talks to Stewie, telling him about having met the perfect woman.  Stewie then tells him about Quagmire's father. More bad jokes ensue, including Stewie talking about how it "must be a train wreck down there."   Brian is making the usual bad jokes until he discovers that Dan is now Ida.  He begins a rather prolonged round of vomiting.  Then Brian makes a comment about how when "they move to a new neighborhood they have to notify everyone, that's how it works." 

Ida comes back to Glen's house, and in about the only decent part of the show, they make up.  There is really not enough here to offset the bad that this show has featured.  Ida, who it had previously been suggested, is extremely selfish, pretty much apologizes and excuses Glen's boorish behavior.  Then Glen, while hugging Ida, apparently has an erection, saying it can't tell the difference.  Then Ida tells Glen about meeting Brian.  Glen does not take the news well.

The show ends with Glen brutally beating Brian, who has been in shower, scrubbing furiously as though he feels the need to wash away something horrible.   He tells Brian that he will blow his head off if he catches him near his house, and after he finishes, tells him to just lie there and die.  The final scene has Quagmire leaving, and Brian at the door saying to him, "I f**ked your father!" The actual word is bleeped out, but it is obvious what was said.

Why such an episode was done, and why this subject was treated so badly, will no doubt be debated online.  Already, Bil Browning at Bilerico has written a rather self-righteous article condemning it. Browning, who is gay, really does not have the standing to speak for the transsexual community.  I strongly suspect, as word gets out, that other transgender sites will express similar outrage.  And all of them will miss the point.

The reason for such ignorance is simple.  This is how transgender people present themselves.  And they insist on linking their confusion to those who are truly transsexual.  How many men, after long successful military careers, suddenly announce they are really women?  How many seek to associate gay and transgender?  How many transgender types imply that we are really still men?  As I say, the truth will be lost on them.  Especially the fact that this episode insulted transsexuals specifically, and that most of them have no business saying anything at all.

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."