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."

Another Gender Fascist, Another Bad Joke

I have mentioned the person who calls himself "Dyssonance" before.  One of his silly little posts was brought to my attention when a well known kook, "Willow" Arune, quoted it on Suzan Cooke's transgender web site.  I left a comment there, but as is typical for those sort of sites, any dissent is avoided.

So, let's look at what this gender fascist has to say:

Imagine the term Transgender used as an insult.

Well, it is an insult if it is being forced on you.  I do not identify as transgender, and consider it an insult to be referred to as such.

Well, that’s what’s going on with a small group of trans people. And make no mistake, they are absolutely trans people. But they do not consider themselves trans people.

Now, isn't this interesting...  Mr. Dyssonance doesn't care how we identify.  He will tell us what we are.  It appears that he is the one using "transgender" or in this case, "trans" as an insult.

The particular group involved here is a break-away sect from the slightly larger US “TS-SI” sect, which is itelf (sic) a break away group from the “HBS” sect of Trans people.

Now, notice how he tosses out terms like "sect" and "break-away."  Neither is appropriate, but hey, truth is not an issue for gender fascists.

These people are surgical supremacists, to start with, and the fastest way to discern one is that they decide that some people are and some people aren’t transsexual based on puerile and utterly subjective personal opinions.

Mr. Dyssonance is really laying it on here.  Or perhaps I should say, he is really shoveling it.  I guess in his mind those who disagree with him are childish.  And apparently he has no idea what the term subjective means.  Those who identify as "classic transsexuals," or HBS, tend to have objective views.  For example, we reject the oxymoron "non-op transsexual."  This is why, increasingly, men who have no desire to lose their penis have started claiming to be "pre-op" but they never seem to have any real intentions of having surgery.  Just excuses.  We also look at other, very objective factors.  So no, our rejection of many is not at all subjective.

The splinter group in this case calls themselves “Classic Transsexuals”. They are seeking to gain ownership of the term transsexual. To them, a transsexual is only such if they happen to “vibe” right to them, and if they happen to have an acceptable “narrative” (personal history), and if they happen to hold acceptable views similar to them. The requirements for which change according to how they feel about the individual. 

So, now "classic transsexual" is a splinter group.  Actually, it is probably the more common term.  And I hate to break it to Mr. Dyssonance, but words do have meanings.  Actually, he, and his ilk, are the ones trying to gain ownership of the term "transsexual."  And no, it is not just about vibing.  Yes, one's personal history is a factor in deciding if one is a transsexual.  Especially if the person making the decision is a licensed professional.  As to "acceptable views," there are a lot of people I would consider to be transsexual who I strongly disagree with.  There might be some who don't consider those who disagree with them on some social or political view to be "transsexual," but such an approach is absurd, and such a claim is bogus.  It is just a bit of smoke and mirrors to avoid the truth.

And no, the requirements don't change.  Being a transsexual is not about holding any political or social views. It is about having a brain that is sexually differentiated differently from the body.  Period.

Now, I am not going to bother with the rest of the article.  It can be summed up simply as a typical attack on the idea that transsexualism is inherent, and not simply something one chooses.  Clearly, Mr. Dyssonance is one of those who knows, deep down, that he is pretending to be a woman.  So, he attacks those who have a history that indicates a biological basis.

I will note that he does make up one fact.  He claims that no "mainline scientist" supports the idea that transsexuals are "neurologically intersex."  While he might be able to maintain such a claim by insisting on using that specific term, in the broader sense, his claims is totally untrue.  It is true that the term "intersex" tends to have a very specific meaning, and is generally limited to conditions involving the genitalia and internal sex organs, the idea that transsexuals are, to use an older term, "psychic hermaphrodites" is not a new one, and has been a widely held one since Harry Benjamin first suggested it.

Or to put it more succinctly, Mr. Dyssonance simply makes stuff up as he goes.

Truly unbelievable....

A few days ago, Cooke posted another diatribe in reaction to my most recent post pointing out how Cooke has joined the transgender movement.  In that post, Cooke made this comment:

In the thirteen months I have been running this blog I have had several people whose blogs seem obsessed with me and how I have somehow failed them. My imagined crimes are many and to prove it they mine my words looking for nuggets they can strip of context to prove their point.

Then, in another more recent post, Cooke dropped this falsehood:

I do not like censorship.

Now, together, these two posts show exactly why I occasionally post about Cooke's rather absurd remarks.  First off, Cooke has an ego as big as the state of Texas.  No, Cooke has not failed me, or anyone else.  I have long considered Cooke to be something of a curiosity.  I remember the absurd "performance art piece" where Cooke took the APA's announcement that they were dropping homosexuality from the DSM and changed it to be about gender identity disorder.  Personally, I thought it just dumb.

I also remember Cooke's tyranny on the mailing list "Women Born Transsexual."  Heaven help the member that actually had the audacity to have an original thought.  Cooke would have none of that, nor would Cooke's partner, Tina.

No, Cooke has never failed me.  The only thing Cooke could fail to do is provide the occasional laugh.

Which brings me to Cooke's claim to "not like censorship."  Now, that is a real knee slapper.  Cooke loves censorship.  In fact, that is the main reason Cooke is the subject of post's here.  Cooke will not allow any criticism on "Women Born Transsexual."  Post a disagreement with Cooke, and chance are you will be banned for life.  Suck up to Cooke, like a certain kook from Canada, and Cooke will let you post, even if your ideas are completely at odds with Cooke's.

I will remind people, any and all are free to post comments here.  The only time I remove any of them are if the contain personal attack, particularly on others...or if they contain links to to ads, especially for sex or porn sites.

But, I notice that those like Cooke don't like to post where they can't control the argument.  If they can't censor it, then they want no part of it,