Cooke the Kooke Goes Off the Deep End

Well, Suzan Cooke has really gone loopy this time.  A person didn't even really disagree with Cooke, and Cooke still went ballistic.  Cooke actually disagreed with Mr. "Monica" Roberts, the leading gender fascist bigot, when Mr. Roberts basically demanded that everyone be "out, loud, and proud." And someone, well, actually thought they were agreeing with Cooke, but no, Cooke went off the deep end...

Here is what the person said, in response to Cooke's basically disagreeing with Mr. Robert's demand that all transgender people must be out (and remember as a fully blown gender fascists, Mr. Roberts presumes to include all transsexuals as transgender, even though he really, really hates the post-op ones, especially if they are white....okay, Cooke is an exception, because Cooke is so racked with guilt for being white, and fawns all over Mr. Roberts):

Yes more “out and proud” exultations; I get tired of being told I’m Doing It All Wrong.

And people like Dana Taylor who has seen the one true transgender light* and renounced being just another woman in favour of jumping onto a virtual Pride carnival float with all the flouncy men. How long until her new friends start tearing her apart?

Of course, "Dana" Taylor, who deluded himself into thinking he was not only a transsexual, but a separatist one, has now "seen the light" and decided he really, really loves his penis, and realized that means that lesbians don't want to have sex with him, has decided to join the transgender extremists, since they, presumably, will have sex with him, while claiming that they are really all lesbians in good standing, even if they all still have penises.

Cooke's response?

Being transsexual doesn’t require one to be an ass**** towards transgender people. HBS holes are like KKK/Nazis who think being white requires white people to be racist bigots like them. So far I haven’t met an HBSer who lived up to their bull**** standards. Most are keyboard warriors donning an imaginary avatar uniform to spread bigotry. (sorry, but I am not going to repeat Cooke's profanity)

Hmmm, this is true.  I have even said that a person can be a transsexual, and choose to identify as transgender, if that is what floats their boat, though I cannot imagine why anyone would be so stupid.  But, apparently, in Cooke's brain-damaged delusions, being transgender does require one to be an ass**** towards transsexuals.  Now, apart from the Godwin's Law violation, and the silly delusions (the only standard I have ever seen from the HBS advocates was that one either have had surgery, be living a successful life, or that they be serious seeking it.  But such details such a facts are lost on an insane person, such a Cooke.

Now, it get's worse.  This person had the audacity to disagree with Cooke's portrayal of her.  I mean, the nerve of some people.  Cooke has spoken, and no one should question the absolute truth of the great and powerful Cooke.

Blah, blah, blah. I’ve heard the song too many times. Learn a new one or go play in traffic. I have better things to do than sit here moderating your stupid boring posts. 

Step away from your key board and take off your dress, play time is over. 

The fantasy trannie HBS princess game bores the crap out of me.

I would say that this was the end of any respect I had for Cooke, but that happened a long time ago.  Now, I just see Cooke as basically an insane person, ranting, and trying to live out some bizarre delusion of importance.

I won't bother quoting the next person's comment, or Cooke's rather hilarious diatribe about being a pioneer and all.  If you really are interested, or just need a good laugh, and yes, it is hilarious, follow the link about.

And, one more thing....like a pit bull, Cooke can't let go of this one...  There is another post here, that is even more insane that the one I wrote about here.  Simply put, for the most part, the only person ranting about HBS is Cooke.  The rest of us have pretty much gone back to using the term "transsexual."  Not Cooke's laughable "Women Born Transsexual," just transsexual.  And nope, no one has to make up an lies about Cooke.  The truth is plenty damning enough.  Oh well....

The Sad Case of Dana Lane Taylor

Dana Lane Taylor, who at one time identified as a "transsexual separatist" has now embraced the transgender cause, and is Mr. "Cristan" Williams' latest BFF.  A lot of people are amazed at this turn around.  

Taylor is concerned about now being attacked by former friends.  Nope, though I do feel pity for this sad individual.  Clearly Taylor has a very fragile self-identity.  Taylor apparently embraced both "transsexual separatism" and "radical feminists" in order to feel like a "real woman."  The key word there is "feel like."  

You either are a real woman, or you are not.  Mr. "Cristan" Williams, Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen, Mr. "Monica" Helms, Mr. "Monica" Roberts, and others are not.  They really don't identify as women, but as some odd creature they call a "transwoman."  Oh, they say, "Transwomen are real women," but that is simply laughable at best.  Women are women.  No qualifiers.  They don't want to be women, they want to be "women with penises."  Even if they make the mistake of having SRS, they have an overwhelming need to cling to their maleness.

No, I am not going to attack Taylor, though I will speak out if Taylor starts saying stupid stuff in support of the transgender cause.  It would just be cruel right now.  This person clearly needs serious help, and I fear all creeps like Williams and Sandeen will do is take advantage and make things worse.

I don't need people's acceptance to be a woman.  That is why Taylor fell into a trap.  Taylor cozied up to the radical feminists, who I consider to often be as extremist, in their own right, as the transgender kooks, and then, on discovering that they were not fully accepting, had an emotional crisis.  

Funny how that works.  You tell a bunch of people, who basically hate men, "Hey, I 'was' a guy," and then you get upset because the say, "Sorry, but we don't see you as a woman."  If you are a woman, fine.  But it is not an "identity" you adopt.  I fear Taylor has discovered, the hard way.

This Would Be Funny If It Were Not So Infuriating

Okay, I just saw a post on Transadvocate where Dana Taylor has decided to join the transgender side.  Now, it is, of course, one's right to choose how one views the world, and who one wishes to align oneself with.  For me to say otherwise would be hypocrisy.

But when I read the reason, "The Cotton Ceiling" I had to do a bit of checking.  I knew it had something to do with the whole rad fem versus trans kerfuffle.  But I was not sure of the details.

Here is what I found...

“…the Cotton Ceiling – with reference to knickers – is the term parts of the trans community have inventively adopted for the way that, however theoretically accepting of trans people a lot of progressives may be, when it comes to actually having sex with us, they vote with their …um…feet.”

In other words, it is about complaining because someone is exercising their basic human right to choose who, and who not, to have sex with.  Now, let me be clear on several things here.  Since I completed my transition, I have had sex with several men, none of whom knew my history.  It was none of their business.  Unlike the transgender crowd, I have no need to reveal my medical history in order to get my jollies.  Had someone known, and decided to decline, I might have had my feelings hurt, but I would have seen it as their right to make that decision.  Just as it is my right to decide, for example, if I want to date someone who is an FTM.  I have done so, but I don't know that I would always make that choice.  I had one post op friend who was almost stalked by a rather obnoxious FTM.  She did not want to date him, but for a while, he was almost comical in his pursuit of her... almost, but more creepy than funny.

But according to the "cotton ceiling" crowd, lesbians should be ashamed of making a choice that it is their right to make.  Taken to its logical extreme, and I have actually seen this done, straight men should have no right to turn down a "trans woman," in other words, quite possibly, a dude in a dress, who wants to go to be with him.  Now, I had a few dates before surgery and on occasion the guy did not know when we first met. I alway was careful how I revealed my, uh, situation in order to avoid any violence.  I don't believe such violence is warranted, nor do I believe the trans panic defense should be allowed.  I also think pre-op transsexuals as well as transgender men, should exercise caution to avoid being injured or worse, murdered.  But this cotton ceiling crap is just creepy.  If you feel the need to broadcast your history, people have a right to take it into consideration when deciding if they want you as a sexual partner.  There is a word for trying to deny someone the right to make a decision based on that knowledge.  It is called rape.  If a woman does not want to have sex with you because she does not believe you are an appropriate partner, whether that woman is of trans history or not (and I have known of trans women, who identified as lesbian, who also did not want to have sex with transgender men, but you insist they do not have that right, then hey Bro' you are proving, you da man!

If anyone wants a good example of the sort of behavior that lies behind my statement that I don't "misgender" transgender men, this is one of the best....  

Invincible Ignorance

When one is dealing with the transgender community, one of the most important things to remember is that you are dealing with people who have no real grasp on reality.  They live in an imaginary world where women have penises, men have vaginas, and such.  This was especially brought home to me by a post from "Cristan" Williams, who, at least at times, seems to have no grasp on reality, and a response from "Autumn" Sandeen, who is perhaps one person with even less of a grasp on reality than Willams.

Williams is engaged in one of his favorite activities, taunting Dana Lane Taylor, who Williams has an obsession with, over a response Taylor made on Facebook.  What did Taylor say that has Williams in such a rage?  Why she had the audacity to point out to Williams that she does not completely disagree with certain actions taken by the government that Williams decided to strut and crow about like a Banty Rooster.  This, of course, pretty much puts the lie to Williams claims, but naturally, he cannot have that.  After all, he is never wrong...at least in his imagination.

Amazingly clueless as ever, Williams drags out an argument that shows that both he, and apparently certain forces within the Obama administration, have their heads so far up their....well, lets say that where they have their heads stuck, the sun never shines (unless, of course, your doctor is using a solar powered proctoscope, and the smell is not very pleasant...at least not for those who are remotely normal) that they are completely oblivious to the fact that they are exceedingly misogynistic.

The example that Williams uses, and one which it is implied is taken from a government presentation, involves a man showing up at a shelter in women's clothing, sporting a full beard, and asking to be admitted.   Now, the government slide does not specify exactly what is, and is not permissible.  The obvious implication is that such a person cannot be denied shelter.  Williams tries to imply that such a person would have to be housed with women, irregardless of how much discomfort this might cause.  In fact, one senses that Williams is delighting in the very idea that such a person would make the women extremely uncomfortable.

This is an extremely misogynistic position, implying that the rights of women are not as important as those of men who engage in crossdressing.  Let's be honest, such a person does not have a female gender identity.  Period, end of discussion.  This person is engaged in the behavior know as "gender queer."  They are mocking societal norms, almost certainly with a desire to upset other people.  I cannot remotely see why such a person should be allowed to do such a thing to women who are already in an extremely unpleasant situation.  But hey, Williams is not a woman, has no sense of what women feel, and I suspect, probably has some innate hatred of women.

The bottom line is, Williams hates Dana Taylor because Taylor has effectively refuted William's silly attempts to force women to accept men in women's restrooms.  Williams supports a law that provides no restrictions on men invading women's spaces.  All one has to do is say that one's "gender identity" is female, even if only temporarily, and one has no restrictions on entering the women's room.

But this lack of reality does not stop with Williams.  Sandeen gets in on the fun as well.  He decided to comment on Dana Taylor in one of his more bizarre rants in some time.  He starts off by complaining that Taylor has "functionally defined" him as a male because of his "surgery," which of course, consisted of being castrated.  Sandeen has a penis, wishes to keep his penis, and is, therefore, functionally a male.  That is pretty obvious to anyone with a shred of intelligence.  Then Sandeen goes on to make the complaint that Taylor has "implicitly defined me as a 'eunuch' in the comment thread for my recent column"  Actually, if you read the column, you will find that Sandeen is the one who cites Matthew 19:12 in a rather bizarre attempt to claim that the Bible mentions transgender people.  This passage refers to eunuchs, so it is not Dana Taylor who has defined Sandeen as a eunuch.  Of course, Sandeen, being a eunuch, might be a bit sensitive about this.  

Sandeen goes on to attack Dana Taylor through a series of bizarre non sequiturs.  The first is Sandeen's objection to a very reasonable statement by Taylor that any transsexual who identifies as transgender is fighting against our rights as women.  Of course, this logic is lost on a man like Sandeen.  He does not identify as a woman.  He identifies as a transgender.  This means he wishes to hang on to his penis (literally in his case), though some transgender people who actually have surgery do so figuratively.  Identifying as transgender implies a lack of desire to move on and become fully a woman.

The next is a statement that simply shows that Sandeen is not remotely a transsexual.  He takes offense at Dana Taylor's response to his bizarre post that claims that "transgender people are the cool kids."  That was a post where Sandeen appeared, flouncing about like a horrible misogynistic caricature of a woman in a costume that was not remotely something a real woman would would wear, particularly one of Sandeen's age.  It was amusing in a very creepy sort of way.  Taylor makes the statement:

I don’t find being transsexual cool one bit. It is a horrible condition. It is a crime against humanity. How can that be celebrated as being cool?

Sandeen tries to claim that this indicates that Taylor "loathes" being a transsexual.  I don't think I have ever met anyone who would have chosen to actually be a transsexual.  Many people choose to be "transgender," often deciding to claim to be transsexual, but no one who is actually transsexual would remotely think it is cool.  This just proves what I have said about Sandeen for a long time.  He has no actual history as a transsexual.  He was clearly a transvestite who decided, in his later years, to take his hobby full time.  Keep in mind, this is someone who loves to brag about his 20 years of service in the Navy.  Twenty years of being a man in a very masculine environment.  This is not a transsexual.  

And then Sandeen, goes on to claim that Dana Taylor will not answer the question, "Do you consider non-op transsexuals to be women?"  Now, given how Sandeen chooses to spin this, the use of "non-op" seems odd.  Perhaps Sandeen actually meant "pre-op," or perhaps Sandeen is just trying to scam people.

For me, the answer is simple.  Anyone who claims to be a "non-op transsexual" is delusional. There is no such thing.  It is an oxymoron.  That is someone, like Sandeen, who is saying "I have a penis, I want to keep my penis, but I am a woman."  No, such a person is not a woman.  And Dana Taylor is not a "non-op," so why Sandeen would claim, "If she answers that question with a yes, then she denies that she’s a woman at this point in your life. If she answers it with a no, then she’s forced to embrace that she isn’t a woman until she has a vaginoplasty — a vaginoplasty we know she needs to be comfortable in her own skin and to fully be complete as the woman we know she is."  It means nothing of the sort.  A pre-op transsexual is working to correct their birth defect, unlike Sandeen, who is nothing but a man with a fetish for pretending to be a "woman with a penis."

Sandeen actually saying something even more incredibly ignorant to the realities of transsexualism, adding, "To answer the question means she has to acknowledge the loathing she has for a body part that she was born with one that separates her from the rest of the community of women — in a sense she has to fully embrace that she’s one of the transsexual people she loathes being. I believe the term for what she’s feeling is referred to as 'internalized transphobia.' "

Simply put, and I realize this would be completely lost on Sandeen, part of being a transsexual is having a loathing for one's male genitalia.  Again, Sandeen's statement prove he is not remotely a transsexual.  He has no understanding of what transsexuals feel.  He cannot comprehend that one would choose to be a transsexual if such a thing were possible, and that wishing one had not suffered through what transsexuals suffer through is not "internalized transphobia."  What Sandeen actually means is that the fact that Dana Taylor is a true transsexual, who has felt things that Sandeen has never felt, threatens Sandeen's delusions and fantasies, and must be attacked.

Ironically, Sandeen is deep in the closet.  He is hiding from the fact that he is a transvestite, who will never be more than a transvestite, and he actually believes he must "advance" up the imaginary transgender hierarchy, even though he really doesn't want to.  He has sacrificed his testicles to this goal, even as he is terrified at the idea of losing his precious penis.

Rather than embrace what he really is, he lies and tries to be what he is not.

Sandeen, and Williams are deeply mired in "Invincible ignorance."  They simply refuse to learn, even as they demand to teach everyone and further that ignorance.

Update:  I have to admit, I was really taken in by Taylor.  This person was a self-deceiving fraud who has decided, after some soul-searching, that his is really "transgender" and is now Mr. Cristan Williams latest BFF...  And a full-fledged transgender kook to boot.

Here We Go Again...

Well, "Cristan" Williams, who is vying for the crown of "King of the Gender Fascists" is at it again.  This time around, he is attacking Dana Lane Taylor for, well, for telling the truth.  Of course, Mr. Williams, as is his habit, is playing fast and loose with the truth.

In a post entitled Dana Lane Taylor: I Rise to Your Challenge Mr. Williams ignores what Dana actually said, and proceeds to create his usual brand of straw arguments.  Here is what was actually said:

The Transgender Leadership consists mostly of those who claim a female identity. I haven’t seen a single male crossdresser take a leadership role by lobbying for transgender rights. Almost every one of those who are in these roles identify as women. Now, why would this be? I think it is something a lot of people don’t think about but I bet those leaders know very well why.

And here is what Mr. Williams claims was said:

Today I found that I was the subject of yet another Dana Lane Taylor gauntlet throw-down. Dana is an opinion leader in the TS Separatist group and in this post she seems to claim complete ignorance of any crossdresser leadership within the trans community except for the evil Virginia Prince. Well, as with the last time Taylor threw out a challenge, I accept!

Now, I have highlighted a couple of things.  Dana says "mostly."  This is certainly a defensible position.  Mr. Williams, in another of his straw arguments (unlike him, I am using the term correctly) says that Dana seems to claim "complete ignorance."  Hmmm, now, if Dana had said there were "no" male crossdressers in leadership roles, Mr. Williams might have a point.  Dana does say she has not seen a single cross dresser take a leadership role in lobbying for transgender rights.  While we could quibble over the true nature of some of the leadership, she does have a point.  Lobbying is a very specific activity, which involves going and talking to legislators.  And while it can certainly be argued that some of the leadership of the transgender extremists are, for all practical purposes, male crossdressers I have to concede that is not how they claim to identify.  In fact, there seems to be some tendency, as they move into more prominent leadership roles, to claim identities as "transsexuals," and even surgery tracked while always making excuses why they are not actively pursuing surgery.

And that, quite frankly, is a major problem for Mr. Williams' argument.  It is odd that people who were card carrying members of the "They Will Take My Penis When They Pry My Cold Dead Fingers From It" Club, such as, oh, "Autumn" Sandeen, and "Monica" Helms, rather suddenly decided they are transsexuals, and are seeking SRS....even as they make excuse after excuse about why they are not actually going to have surgery anytime soon.  And no, Mr. Sandeen's highly publicized castration does not count.  He has maintained a touching attachment to his penis.  In fact, Mr. Sandeen's behavior is another blow to Mr. Williams' argument.  Why this need to deceive about the nature of one's standing if being a crossdressing male is really okay.

Dana speaks the truth, and as usual, Mr. Williams tries to obfuscate, create arguments of straw, and generally avoid the truth.  The overwhelming, vast majority of people who identify as transgender are male crossdressers.  They are not people who actually have any real female gender, and who mostly want to play dress up and get off on being in women's clothes.   But, Mr. Williams is a classic gender fascist who tends to insist that transsexuals must accept the label of transgender.  When this is pointed out, he tries to hide behind the straw argument that he is not telling transsexuals that they cannot identify as transsexual.  Of course he doesn't.  He just insists that they must also accept the label "transgender," which is, of course, the original issue.

All of this rancor could be avoided Transgender extremists would just accept:

1. That some people are not, and do not wish to be identified as transgender.
2. That transsexuals by and large have NO desire to subvert, transgress, or transcend gender.
3. That terms like "gender variant" and "non-cisgender" are often highly offensive to people who are transsexual.
4. That just because they don't really identify as something other than their birth sex and gender, does not mean that others also don't identify that way.
5. That in most cases they are not as clever as they think they are.

Update:  I have to admit, I was really taken in by Taylor.  This person was a self-deceiving fraud who has decided, after some soul-searching, that his is really "transgender" and is now Mr. Cristan Williams latest BFF...  And a full-fledged transgender kook to boot.  And yes, Mr. Taylor is now a full-fledged member of the "They Will Take My Penis When They Pry My Cold Dead Fingers From It" Club as well.