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....

Uh, No, That's Not Quite the Truth....

In yet another "Autumn" Sandeen story, we have a lie being perpetuated across the Internet by GLAAD.  They state that Mr. Sandeen is the first "transgender  service member to publicly have "her" (sic) gender marker changed on all military documents.  While he might well be the first transgender service member to make a complete ass of himself in public crowing like a banty rooster over having his paperwork changed to reflect a lie based on fraudulent documentation, he is not the first as was documented by several statements made in response to his posting on LGBT Weekly.

From the way this reads things have actually changed for the worst. When I changed my retired USAF ID card in 1986 all I did was go into the personnel office at the nearest facility, show my old id, court ordered name change, and letter from my therapist.

The only bump was that the clerk said “I’m sorry mam. Your husband is going to have to come in himself”. That required a few words of explanation.

All official mail comes in the right name. The VA here (Portland) is fine with my transition. There seem to be quite a few of us in the area.

And as if that lie were not enough, the article is also inaccurate in saying that ALL of Mr. Sandeen's military documents were updated.  In spite of his best efforts to rewrite history (this is the idiot who now tries to claim that his fraudulent birth certificate makes him a "woman born woman") the Navy will not retroactively change the details of his actual service.  

And, changing one’s recorded name and/or gender at the DOD won’t result in being able to obtain an updated DD214 – a servicemember’s Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty. According to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records’ Applicant’s Guide To Applying To The Army Board For Correction Of Military Records:

“If you have a name, gender, or social security number (SSN) change after discharge from the military, even if it is court ordered, the name and gender on your military records will not be changed since they are historical documents which record facts during the time you served in the military. If you need a certificate to show your current name or gender and that you served in the military under another, you can request such from the National Personnel Records Center, Military Personnel Records …”

So, bottom line, Sandeen used his fraudulent claim to have actually had SRS (he was castrated, which makes him a eunuch, not a female) to con the Navy into updating his "gender" on his documentation, which is something they have done for some time, but according to GLAAD he is not only the first, but has done something even he admits he did not really do.

Uh, yeah, that's pretty much how it goes....

Why the Obsession With HBS?

It seems that a lot of the silliness oozing out from under the transgender rock has to do with an odd creature known as an HBSer. This, of course, is another neologism from the transgender kooks. Neologisms are, along with chauvinism, and logical fallacies, one of the major exports of that group. BTW, a neologism is the correct term for what is commonly referred to as "a made up word." Well, actually, an even better term, which ironically is a bit of a neologism would be "protologism" which Wiktionary defines as a newly coined word or phrase defined in the hope that it will become common; a recently created term possibly in narrow use but not yet acknowledged. BTW, protologism is a word used mainly as jargon at the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., the parent organization of Wiktionary and other projects.

So, that brings us back to the question of, what is an HBSer?  Well, it is how the transgender kooks have taken to referring to what they were calling a transsexual separatist.  They can't really use that much anymore, since Mr. Cristan Williams rather arrogantly, and quite dishonestly, declared that movement dead.  He does that sort of thing an awful lot.

To understand this rather fanciful concept (most of those to whom the term is applied had nothing to with either of the two branches associated with HBS) I guess you would need to start with the question of what HBS is.  What horrible abuses lie within?

Well, the simple fact is, HBS refers to "Harry Benjamin Syndrome," which is a proposed term to replace "transsexualism" in medical nomenclature.  Now, why, you might ask, would a new term be needed?  There were two basic motivations.  The first was the effort by the transgender extremists to co-opt transsexualism as a sort of beard for transgender behavior, and the second was the fact that "transsexual" was, for a time, increasingly associated with a particularly disturbing form of pornography that had nothing to do with the actual transsexualism.

While the term has been used in some cases as a medical term, it has not yet, and may never, achieve widespread acceptance.  Most of the people I was associated with have lost interest in advocating for its use, and have moved on.  There is still a group in Europe, led by a person known as Charlotte Goiar whom the group I was affiliated with disassociated from over some fundamental philosophical differences.  It should be noted that the transgender extremists try to ignore these facts and conflate the two groups in their effort to create a straw man to argue against.  Interestingly enough, the Goiar originally used the improper form, Harry Benjamin's Syndrome, but has since adopted the correct usage.  When a disease or syndrome is named in honor of someone, a possessive is not proper as they neither own, or (usually) suffered from that condition.  Of course, this technicality is often ignored by the media, and thus people more often say Alzheimer's disease, instead of the technically correct Alzheimer disease.

As the term HBS began to catch on in some circles, the transgender kooks began to panic.  I rather suspect that hey feared that a term they had invested a lot of effort into co-opting would be replaced by a concept that would specifically exclude them. In other words, the truth might come out and they could not have that.  

As I say, the effort to encourage adoption of the term has waned.  It seems to be stronger in Europe, but most here lost interest.  But, the label HBSer seems more popular than ever.  And some, like Suzan Cooke seem obsessed with HBS.  Granted, Cooke originally had no problem with the term, and her earlier opposition seems more related to personalities and the fact that HBS was competing with Cooke's "Women Born Transsexual" meme, which now seems silly in light of Cooke's adoption of the transgender mindset.

So, when you see someone using "HBSer," you can safely assume that they are most likely presenting a classic straw man argument.  Then again, even if they don't use the term, that is one of several logical fallacies they are very fond of....

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...

I Don't Know Why Cooke is Confused

I just wanted to post a brief article about something that just showed up on Women Born Transsexual.  Suzan Cooke seems confused that Drew Cordes has a problem with gendered pronouns. The answer is simple. If Cooke just bothered with a bit of research, she would find out that Cordes, who had SRS relatively recently, almost immediately realized that he was not really a woman, and is now, as is sometimes sadly the case, yet another who has gone off the deep end for just that reason. I had doubts about Cordes, and was more than a bit surprised when he announced he had surgery. I was not surprised, shortly afterwards, when he started expressing regrets.


Of course, this sort of thing can be expected as, more and more transgender kooks push for surgery on demand. Like Cooke did not too long ago when she was telling people to "cowgirl/cowboy up" if they make a mistake.

Oh well....

Extreme Transgender Silliness

Sometimes a transgender kook will publish something that is so incredibly silly it seems beyond belief.  This mornings round of silliness over at Women Born Transsexual brought just such an example.  Now, as you may know, Suzan Cooke mostly republishes stuff from other sites.  There is very little original content, and today is no exception.  One of Cooke's favorite sources of late has been the Huffington Post, which seems to have become a major mouthpiece for the transgender extremists.

This morning there was an article entitledTrans* Invisibility, by "JamieAnn" Meyers that has to be one of the best examples of what makes "transgender" completely distinct from both transsexualism, and well, from sanity as well.  The second paragraph pretty much sets the stage for this:

My wife and I were visiting with a cisgender heterosexual couple, and our conversation began to focus on personal relationships. Because we wanted to be authentic about our life experiences, we came out to them as a couple, and I came out as a trans* woman. Almost immediately, both of them said, "That doesn't matter to us." The intent of their statement was to be affirming, but the statement's impact on me was profoundly different. Though it's important to know that people respect and accept you, it's also important that they honor the lifelong struggle that you have faced as a trans* person.

Now, think about this.  The normal couple, and yes, relative to to the kook writing here, they are normal, basically says "Okay, no problem..."  Sounds reasonable, at least to a sane person,  But this is a transgender kook.  No!  Of course that is not example.  They have to honor the struggle of someone choosing to play dress-up and pretend to be a woman.  This is wrong on some many levels.  It is insulting to women who often face very real struggles.  It is insulting to gay and lesbian couples who have had to deal with discrimination.  Simply put, it is outrageously insulting to anyone who has faced real discrimination for something that was not, quite literally, a lifestyle choice.  

This person shows the true nature of transgender.  It is not, as we are so often told, about being who you really are.  It is about being transgressive.  It is about being at odds with societal norms, and it is about rubbing society's nose in your misbehavior.

Seriously, this person is complaining about people being accepting.  He, and yes, this is another person I refuse to pander to and call by female pronouns, is complaining because they are not making a big fuss over him being transgender.  Give me a break.

I have a few friends who know my history.  I have more who I am not sure know or not, and then quite a few whom as far as I know, have no idea.  Out of the friends who know, there is basically one who I discuss it with much,  And even then, he pretty much understands not to bring it up.  He might rarely ask a question, but I am generally the one who broaches the subject.  For example, on Monday night, we were talking and I suddenly realized something. asked what the date was.  He thought and said, "I'm not sure, why?"  I pulled out my smartphone, and saw it was the 11th.  I realized that the day before had been the 7th anniversary of my SRS.  I hadn't even thought about it.  Not that is not a significant day for me, but as time has passed, surgery has ceased to be a major focus for me.  Before I had it, getting to that point was very significant.  Now, looking back, it simply marks the point where my life got a lot better.  

Somewhat ironically, four days before that was the "anniversary" of "Autumn" Sandeen's showing up for work in drag.  A day he makes a big deal of, especially this year because it marked 10 years of him pretending to be a woman.  He has no idea, of course, what being a woman is like, and he never will.  Ironically, his making a big deal out his "anniversary" is one of the indications of this.

But for me, the past becomes more and more distant.  When I first started dealing with my problem (as opposed to making up an excuse like Sandeen and other transgender kooks have) I wondered if there would come a time when it would be easy to forget.  The answer is yes.  Outside of this blog, and the occasional conversation with my friend, being transsexual is not a major part of my life.

Funny, but I find it highly offensive when someone tries to remind me that they know that I am  transsexual.  It is not something I care to discuss with most people.  The one person I do discuss it with holds a special place in my life, as my spiritual director.  But in most cases, no, I don't like to talk about it.

And I find it rather silly that the original author makes a big deal out of comparing all this to "race."  Now, just think about this for a second.  A lot of humor has been made out of how people react to having the fact that they are a certain race pointed out.  If you are a complete fool, you might feel it necessary to let someone know you are okay with them being black, or Asian, or Native American, etc., but most of us would consider that a bit gauche.  And we would also consider it odd if someone got made because we didn't make an issue out of their race or ethnicity.

If you meet someone who is gay, do you feel it appropriate to make an issue out of it?  Do you go out of your way to "affirm" that you accept their gayness?  Not very likely.  I find it amazing that the Huffington Post would publish such an absurd article, but then again, this is about the idiocy know as "transgender," where making sure everyone knows you are a "man in dress" is part of the fun.

You're Not the Boss of Me!

Immature anarchists with the mindset of adolescent males...  That's what the "surgery on demand" crowd sounds like.  Oh, now we have a new, kinder and gentler term..."informed consent," well, actually, we have a term that is being badly misused.  Another term that is likely to be bandied about is "the Argentinian Approach."  The idea is the same...no gatekeepers, no Standards of Care, no screening of applicants for SRS, and no recourse if a mistake is made.  You don't want people telling you what to do, so do it "your way."  And if you make a mistake, well as Suzan Cooke says, "cowgirl up/cowboy up."  Hmmm, that sounds like what I heard before my transition.  "Don't transition. Just live with it."  Or the advice that some offer gays and lesbians, "Okay, so you have these feelings...  Suppress them, and be chaste."

The problem here is, not everyone who presents seeking treatment for "gender issues" is transsexual, and not everyone should be encouraged to transition.   But some misguided people, who seem to have problems with concepts like authority and morality, insist that anyone who wants sex reassignment surgery, or hormones for that matter, should be given them without having a doctor's approval.  Now, in the case of male to female patients, hormones are relatively benign.  With the exception of eventual sterility, there are few truly permanent effects.  This is not true for female to males.  On the other hand, particularly for male to females, surgery is a one way path, and if someone makes a mistake, it can be very tragic.

But for some, the appeal of being in complete control, of not having to seek the advice and consent of a medical professional who's job it is to prevent a tragic mistake, is such that they seek to circumvent the Standards of Care just for the sake of doing so.  But they don't understand that those standards are there for their protection, not as a hinderance.  They are not there to prevent transsexuals from getting the care that they need.  They are in place to prevent people who are not transsexuals from making a mistake (a fact that seems lost on Suzan Cooke who seems to think that the people who have regrets were transsexuals before surgery) and by doing so, the help insure that those who would put an end to surgery don't have an excuse to do so.

The simple fact is, human nature is such that there will always be a significant number of people who will, for any number of reasons, decide that the solution to their problems lies in gender transition.  I'm not talking about transsexuals, who are born with a brain that is sexually differentiated at odds with their body, but about people who suffer from mental illness, or who are crossdressers going through a mid-life crisis.  I am talking about, though increasingly rare in this country, gay men who think that becoming a woman will make them okay.  These are the things that doctors are supposed to screen for.

Are there abusive "gatekeepers?"  Yes, some exist.  Ray Blanchard would be one of the best examples.  But there are plenty of competent therapists.  The problems generally arise when someone goes to a therapist with no experience in dealing with transsexualism.  Unfortunately, more than a few professionals refuse to acknowledge their own limitations.  

My advice to anyone considering transition is, if you can live without it, then don't do it.  If you are just looking to go full time with your desire to crossdress, then please, spare us.  If you are ambiguous about surgery, don't even think about it.  You should only go down this path if  the only other option is suicide or some other form of self-destruction.

The bottom line is, simplistic ideas, like "cowgirl up/cowboy up" or "surgery on demand" will just result in people getting harmed.  One can expect such from extremists like Cooke.  I prefer a more sane approach.

A Truly Moronic Suggestion!

It is one of those truly stupid ideas that simply will not die.  Far too often, usually after a news story about how someone has major regrets about having undergone sex reassignment surgery, or in the most recent case, an woman who now regrets having taken male hormones, some fool will pop up and say "If you make a mistake, then live with it!"  At times, this is part of a larger demand for "surgery on demand." That is, the idea that the Standards of Care should be abandoned, and people should be allowed to have SRS on a whim.  Sadly, there are some unscrupulous surgeons who come close to that already.

The latest incarnation of this idiocy, comes, as it always does, from someone known for taking extremist positions.  In this case, not surprisingly, and not for the first time, the source is Suzan Cooke.  In a couple of articles, here, and here, Cooke has a hissy fit over the idea that doctors should actually have to be responsible for doing their jobs.

For MTF transsexuals, hormones are a major diagnostic aid.  If a man mistaken thinks he should transition it is usually sexually motivated.  A few months to a year on a proper dose of estrogen, and his sex drive is reduced, and voila, he begins to lose interest in transition...unless, of course, he is an aging transvestite, where a lowered libido is often the trigger for the sudden desire to become a woman.  In the case of an FTM, sexual issues are rarely the cause of a desire to transition, but there is also the issue of the difficultly of reversing the effects of testosterone.  For a woman, taking hormones by mistake are far worse than they are for a man.  For a man, about the worst possible outcome is permanent sterility (relatively rare, since they probably won't be on them long enough) and possibly the neat to have his breasts surgically dealt with (again, relatively rare).  

In the case in England that triggered Cooke's most recent rant, it was a woman who not only underwent testosterone treatment, but who also had a double mastectomy.  Interestingly enough, the doctor in this case is the one who replaced Dr. Russell Reid who became mired in controversy when a patient, who had clearly lied and who had suffered from some seriously delusional ideas about how life would be as a woman, had regrets after undergoing SRS.

Now, Cooke's suggestion might seem, at face value, to be reasonable.  But, in truth, it is simply wrong.  First off, doctors have a responsibility to, as the pledge in the Hippocratic Oath, to "first, do no harm."  A surgeon should require that anyone seeking SRS provide verifiable documentation from a competent therapist, as well as a second recommendation from another therapist.  The second letter is necessary because, quite frankly, there are some therapists who simply should not be allowed to practice.  I know, I saw one early in my transition, and that person contributed greatly to my transition being delayed.

I was dealing with several issues, including coming to grips with my true sexual orientation.  Instead of working with me on these issues, the therapist I was seeing simply glossed over them, and pushed me to proceed.  I clearly needed time, and she wanted me to move ahead.  This led, among other things, to a serious breakdown, and I detransitioned for seven years.  In retrospect, I wonder what might have happened if I had allowed her to pressure me into proceeding before I was ready.

I also know of a case involving a middle-aged woman who, more out of loneliness than any gender issues, started claiming to be an "FTM" so should could hang out a research study targeting "transgender" people.  She actually seemed to relate more to the MTF staff, but she was being pressured by one of the FTM staff members to "get off the fence" and start hormone therapy.  It was obvious that this was not a good idea, but he would not listen to reason.  Fortunately, she relocated to Alaska, and escaped from his efforts to get her to do something that would have caused serious problems.

Transition, hormones, and surgery are not to be taken lightly.  To suggest that someone "just live with it" is an incredibly callous view, especially coming from someone who felt the need to transition.  If you are a transsexual, imagine being told that.  Actually, you probably don't have to imagine.  I know I was, more than once.  It is not good advice.  Now, imagine having undergone surgery by mistake, and actually losing the option of dealing with one's situation. SRS is, especially for a MTF patient, irreversible.  There is no real possibility of becoming a full male again.  

Mistakes happen.  I can think of two well-known cases where the person involved has almost certainly made a mistake, but has refused to acknowledge it.  And I know of several causes where the person has made the fact that they made a mistake very well known.  In all of these cases, a competent therapist could, and should, have prevented the person from making the mistake.  Yes, the person involved lied, and for that reason, they share some of the responsibility.  But a competent therapist will do more than simply take a person's statements at face value.

If anything, the Standards of Care need to be tightened.  People who really need SRS might be a bit inconvenienced, but they will make it through the process.  Those who should not have surgery should be screened out, before a mistake is made.

Defending the Indefensible

Well, Suzan Cooke is at it again...  I have suggested in the past that Cooke should be called Locutus.  Now I wonder if it was so much an assimilation as an outright surrender.

Cooke seems to have adopted a "bro's before ho's" attitude as a member of what Cooke used to refer to as the Transgender Borg.  Cooke has decided to defend the pervert "Colleen" Francis to the point of absurdity.  And at the same time, Cooke is trying to play the martyr, whining about being "attacked."

The problem is, Cooke is not doing a very good job.  Cooke has no real arguments, and there are no real arguments in this case.  Most of the TG crowd is in hiding.  They can't defend the pervert, but the Transgender Code (which really is basically "bro's before ho's") holds that when the issue is real women before faux women (i.e. men in dresses pretending to be women) you have to stick with the boys.  

Cooke, faced with no real arguments, begins by attacking the mother who objected, not to a "transwoman" sharing the pool, but to a naked male being, well, naked in front of her teenage daughter.  Mr. Francis was not in the pool, presumably wearing a bathing suit as Cooke tries to claim, but was in a sauna, with his legs spread apart to ensure that his male genitals were clearly visible to the teenage, and younger, girls who were present.  This is documented in the police report from the campus police at Evergreen State College. To repeat, this is not a case of a transgender person simply being present, but being present, in the nude, and going out of his was to expose himself. For doing what ANY decent parent would do, Cooke labels the woman a "Christo-fascist."  Cooke is a bigot from the word go, and it shows.

Now, since Cooke doesn't have any real arguments, the next step for Cooke is simple. Violate Godwin's Law with a vengeance. Everyone who dares to disagree with Cooke get's labeled as a Nazi. Cooke also tosses out the term "Sonderkommando." The sad thing is, by using "Nazi" as an insult, Cooke waters down the concept. Cooke equates the absolute horrors of the Holocaust, where people were killed because they belonged to certain groups that were considered inferior, to simply disagreeing with Cooke's insane views. I honestly wonder if Cooke is really that naive. Or if that is not part of Cooke's agenda. After all, the easiest means to pave the way for a new Holocaust is the get people to forget the true horror of the original one. That is the real purpose behind Godwin's Law, to discourage people from trivializing the Holocaust.

Cooke goes on to make absurd claims, comparing those who think that a 45 year-old man claiming to be a woman exposing his genitals to young girls is a problem to bigots in the South lynching a 14 year-old boy for "whistling at a white woman."   This, of course, is a perfect example of what Cooke claims is being done to "Colleen" Francis.  Cooke is engaged in telling the "Big Lie."  Contrary to what Cooke tries to claim, I have not suggested that Mr. Francis is representative of "all transgender people."  Yes, some might do that, but Cooke is using that as a smoke screen.  This case is an example of how far the kooks are willing to push things.  But no, I don't think most transgender people are just waiting to to march into dressing rooms and flash teenage girls.  Francis is a pervert, and an exception rather than the rule.  

Most of the transgender kooks have actually had the good sense to not even try to defend this sicko.  Cooke and "Cristan" Williams are the two main exceptions.  Most of the rest have hidden, shaking in fear, hoping that they won't actually have to deal with this.  Their ideology won't allow them to remotely accept that their need to be reasonable exceptions to the absolutist adherence to the special rights they demand (and yes, being allowed to expose your "neo-clit" to young girls would be a special right) but they also know that this is not something that people are going to accept.

Now, the real irony in all this is the absolutely absurd attempt by Cooke to link the response to Mr. Francis' perverted behavior, and the so-called "war on women."  Hmmm, let's see...Cooke is trying to defend, and actually cover-up a case of a man exposing his genitals to a group of teenage and younger girls.  This is, quite frankly, a situation where a man is using his genitals as a weapon to harass these girls.  Not really much removed from actual rape, which is not a sexual crime, but is a violent one where, yes, a man uses his penis as a weapon.  Funny, but I don't think Cooke even knows which side is which.  A hint for Cooke...the one Cooke is on is not the women's one.

The Boy's Club Closes Ranks

Well, well...since Suzan Cooke, aka "Locutus of Borg" has gone off the deep end in defense of "Colleen" Francis, the pervert who has been forcing himself on young girls, the men in dresses club has had to rally to Cooke's defense.  Yes, no less gender fascist than Mr. "Cristan" Williams has rallied to the defense of Cooke, and Mr. Francis.  Can't leave a fellow pervert to stand alone...

Let's be clear here.  This pervert in Washington state is not a pre-op transsexual.  He has made clear that he has a penis, and he wants to keep it.  And he loves showing it to teenage girls.  He is a classic transvestite, who is turned on by the idea of being a "woman with a penis," and goes to the extreme of forcing his penis on others and then suggests that they should "just get over it."  And, Williams, a fellow pervert, thinks that anyone who disagrees with this sickening behavior is "under a Klan Fallacy."

Now, let me remind people here of a common tactic of extremists.  You compare your opponent to some great evil.  If you are right wing, you call your enemy a "Communist."  It doesn't matter if they have a connection to communism, or not.  You just throw that accusation out there.  The idea is they will be so embarrassed they will either fold, and go away, or be caught up in refuting the outrageous accusation.  If you are left wing, you compare your enemy to the Nazis (also works for the right wing in some cases), or better yet, the Klan.  And that is the dishonest tactic that Mr. Williams has resorted to in his desperation.

Now, here is a man, who claims to be a woman, attacking women, for not wanting to have a man, with a penis, who claims to be a woman, forcing that penis on them.  Pervert Francis is engaged in the same basic sort of violence against women that rapist engage in...using his penis as a weapon.  Williams, a man, is defending this behavior.  What Mr. Francis is doing is an act of violence, albeit a bit less than an outright rape, buy still an act of violence.  Just like a "flasher," he is imposing his penis on women.  And Mr. Williams, thinks this is just fine, and anyone who doesn't see it their way is a member of the Klan.

Now, in defense, yes, I said defense, of RAPISTS, yes I said RAPISTS, Mr.  Williams offers thirty, count them, thirty examples of women who have engaged, according to Mr. Williams, in rape.  This is supposed to "prove" that men are no more of a danger to women than,  "womym born womyn."  Seriously...give me a break.  This is the sort of argument that only a man could possibly imagine making.  For those who have come here and question why I have the audacity to refer to "Cristan" Williams with male pronouns, and have refused to acknowledge HIS "womanhood"....well, there you have your answer.  

Thirty women, compared to how many hundreds, even thousands of men?  Yes, one can find examples of anything.  I could, no doubt, easily find thirty transvestites who are guilty of any crime, and claim that proves that transvestites are a danger.  Shoot, I would be I could find more, say, 300.  I could find some arbitrary number of any group, and claim it proves something, and like Mr. Williams, I would be intellectually dishonest.

The fact is, rapists, exhibitionists, child molesters, and such tend to be men.  For those thirty women, I would venture that there are thousands of men guilty of rape.  Does this mean that all transvestites are rapists?  No, of course not.  Does this mean that all men are rapists?  No, how absurd!  Does this mean that women have every right to be uneasy at the presence, of an obvious man, in a place where women have good reason to expect to feel relatively secure, and free from the presence of men?  Yes, absolutely.  Does Mr. Williams, a man, with no real evidence of actually having a feminized brain remotely understand this?  Not remotely.  He is "transgender" and he thinks as a transgender, he is above women.  They should bow to his demands...

Cooke, I suspect, is more a classic bigot.  She has a hatred, an irrational hatred, of a certain class of people, and that clouds her thinking.  But Williams goes beyond this. Williams tries to claim that a woman being uncomfortable with the presence of a man in a women's room is comparable to a white woman being uncomfortable with a black woman in the women's room.  Now, this might seem, to some, on face value to be a valid argument.  It is, however, both dishonest, and without any basis in reality.  Being a particular race is based strictly, without question, on genetics.  While is it possible, in theory, to alter one's skin tone to appear darker, and even to undergo cosmetic surgery to appear to be another race, this is a bit extreme.  But any man can, if it suits him, simply dress as a woman.  And for a significant number of men, this is basically what happens.  Put another way, we are discussing something reasonably assumed to be congenital and unalterable, with something it is equally reasonable to assume is simply chosen behavior.

Perverts like Mr. Francis, and Mr. Williams choose to behave as they do.  A woman who is black, or Asian, or even white, did not likely make a choice.  A man, choosing to engage in a certain behavior, such as Mr. Francis, or Mr. Williams, should not be automatically allowed to force himself on women.  But, Mr. Williams says if you don't think they should be able to, you are a victim of the "Klan fallacy."

Mr. Williams, simply put, is full of crap.  Laughably, absurdly, and totally, full of crap.  Seriously, if you take his arguments seriously, you are an idiot.  End of story.  This is comparable to people who claim that perpetual motion exists, but the government is covering it up.  This is comparable to people who claim to have solved some unsolvable math problem.  Williams, is, well, a bad joke, and the sad thing is, he is not alone. 

Oh, and I am going to call it....  By invoking the Klan, Mr. Williams has, effectively, committed a technical violation of Godwin's Law, and has, simply put, lost the argument on that basis alone.  So, the fact that he is a total moron is somewhat irrelevant.  

It's Official...

Well, I have known for some time that Suzan Cooke had pretty much taken to hitting the TG Kool-Aid pretty hard, but even I am shocked that Cooke has NO problem with the pervert "Colleen" Francis forcing his penis on young women in Washington State.  

A commenter challenged Cooke on this in response to Cooke's latest diatribe against me, and well, here is Cooke's incredible response:

Maybe I’m not that concerned with persecuting transvestites in order to prove to myself that I am really a woman.

It has been my observation that the people most obsessed with this sort of thing were either once transvestites themselves or are such strange looking people as to be the sort who would be accused of being transvestites. 

I’m not a cop. I don’t make a career out of persecuting people for being different. 

Unlike you I’m not afraid of transgender people. Oh by the way I hate HBS assholes.

A few comments in response to this bit of complete silliness from Cooke...

It is not about persecuting transvestites (at least Cooke doesn't call this pervert a "woman"), it is about going after a man who is taking obvious delight into forcing his nudity on young women.  And it is not about proving oneself a woman...what a stupid thing to say.

So, all the women such as the mothers of the girls who were this pervert's victims, are really former transvestites or so strange looking that people would take them as transvestites?  Again, Cooke is showing incredible stupidity with such remarks.

This is not about people being different, it is about someone being a creep, and trying to force himself on teenage girls.  I guess, based on that, Cooke thinks rape is okay too.  After all, the poor rapist is "just different..."  Good grief, Cooke has really lost it...

And no, it has nothing to do with being afraid of transgender people.  Perverted men with no sense of restraint or boundaries?  Yes, they kind of scare me.  But transgender people?  Nope, not particularly afraid of them as a class.  

And finally, we come down to the simple fact.  Cooke is a classic bigot.  Just like those who hate gays, lesbians, and others....  Cooke has her own little group she hates.

Personally, I don't hate people.  For one thing, it contradicts my faith.  I do hold people responsible for bad behavior, particularly when it harms others.  But that is not hate, no matter how much kooks like Cooke want to claim it is.  I also tend to not put much credence in a bigot telling me about hate...somehow, it seems really, really contradictory....and more than a little foolish.

No wonder Cooke is so afraid of the truth.  It would not be very kind to her....

It's Really Ironic...

There has been a lot of talk lately about "depathologization" of transsexualism and transgender behavior. Of course, these are two separate topics, which actually have nothing in common, thought, of course, the transgender kooks don't want you to know that.

Now, what is ironic is, depathologization of transsexualism is not really that new of an idea. It has been around for several years, and was previously known as "Harry Benjamin Syndrome." Yes, that horrible thing that makes transgender kooks like Suzan Cooke and "Autumn" Sandeen rent their clothes and cry out was really about moving transsexualism from being a "mental illness" to recognizing it as a medical condition. Well, actually, at first, Cooke kind of embraced the idea until she realized it was competition for her "Women Born Transsexual" silliness.

Oh, and note, I said Harry Benjamin Syndrome, not "Harry Benjamin's Syndrome," the phrasing preferred by a separate, and eventually unrelated movement that originated more in Europe, and which became somewhat extremist in certain views. Some dishonest "historians" attempt to conflate the two movements in order to discredit the Harry Benjamin Syndrome movement.

So, why do the kooks hate it so much? Well, in some cases, it is because it competed with the kooks own little patch of turf, and a lot of the people who endorsed Harry Benjamin Syndrome did not necessarily agree with this, or that, kook's own agenda. For example, we did not embrace the idea that "transgression" was a valid reason to claim to be another sex.

Worse, those who endorsed Harry Benjamin Syndrome made it clear that they wanted nothing to do with transgender activism and that we rejected the transgender paradigm. That, of course, was too much for the gender fascists to accept.

The approach was simple, and straight forward. We asked that medical profession simply acknowledge that a small number of people are born with what is, in effect, a congenital condition where the brain is sexually differentiated at odds with at least part of the body. This condition resulted in an overwhelming desire to correct one's body to the extent that science allows. In another words, what some would call a true, or classic transsexual.

HBS, as it has come to be known, would have provided a basis for insurance coverage, which some are more than willing to sacrifice in their demands that doctors no longer consider people who think that simply claiming to be a different sex effectively changes their sex to be mentally ill. Uh, yes, that sounds crazy to me...but hey, most crazy people will tell you they are really the sane ones.

Another problem people had with the HBS movement was that we would not embrace the insanity of "surgery on demand," and actually endorsed tightening the criteria. While it is fortunate that most who should not have surgery now embrace the non-op paradigm, there is room for mistakes, particularly in cases where surgery is more easily obtained because of insurance or socialized medicine. For example, Natalie Reed, who recently admitted what I had already surmised, that he is a "pre-op" wrote a post in which he discusses his ambivalence towards SRS, but indicates that he will pursue it anyway. Reed is a mistake in the making. If one can live without surgery, then they should. Just because it is, effectively free, and just because one is able to talk a therapist into rubber stamping your request (far too many therapists are afraid to "just say NO!" to be people who are poor candidates, does not mean one should hope on the table thinking that surgery will somehow make it all right.

We have enough screwed up "post-ops" already. We don't need another who will either become a virulently anti-transsexual TG activist, or worse, decide that God does not approve of SRS because they made a mistake.

So, now we have yet another attempt to get transgender people out of the DSM. Of course, most could care less if transsexual are harmed, and for some, harming transsexuals would probably be a desirable side effect.

Truth vs. Fiction

Ah, it appears that Suzan Cooke is again engaged in that brand of cyberstalking and bullying that Cooke specializes in....the hypocritical kind.  Cooke complains that I comment on things posted at "Women Born Transsexual," and claims that I devote a third of my blog to attacks on Cooke.  And the Cooke takes offense at being invited here, to debate me.  Of course, Cooke, or anyone else, is welcome here to debate on a level playing field where the only rule is no invading of privacy.  Cooke, naturally declines, as Cooke never really ventures anywhere that Cooke is not in control.

Now, Cooke also does not mention that I was banned from Women Born Transsexual for the horrible sin of welcoming Cooke to the blogosphere.  Yes, I sent a simple, and actually friendly message, being quite willing to move past Cooke's nastiness after I made a suggestion that Cooke took offense to while I was a member of Cooke's private mailing list.  Well, actually, Cooke's partner, Tina, took more offense, and targeted me, but that part never gets mentioned by Cooke.  Oh, and what was that horrible suggestion?  It was one, made to me by a friend, that transsexuals hire someone to be a spokesperson.  This would allow those who are stealth (in Cooke World, like the rest of Tranny Land, this is called being a coward) to get the word out without having to give up privacy.  Of course, Cooke has joined the many, the proud, the transgender and made sure that everyone know that Cooke used to be a dude, with full boy parts...because, after all, you can't transgress gender if no one knows.

Cooke whines that "true stealth" is near impossible.  There is truth in that remark, but it is truth that strains out, as they say, those tiny little gnats, while swallowing a camel whole.  For those not up on ancient Middle Eastern humor, Jesus was making a joke about people who pick a tiny insect out of a bowl of soup, while gulping down an entire camel to illustrate a point.  A real knee-slapper in His day...  Simply put, yes, if someone really wants to probe into your background, say if you are running for public office, they might find out your situation.  But, for all practical purposes, stealth is quite possible.  Sure, someone doing a web search on my real name would discover that someone by that name was mentioned in various places in connection to transsexualism.  They would also discover that a person by that name ran in Bay to Breakers.  It wasn't me.  They would discover that someone by that name is a member of the vestry of a church in Los Angeles.  Nope, not me.  They would discover lots of things about lots of people, none of whom are me.

I choose to be relatively stealth because I am not interested in transgressing gender.  That is not remotely my motivation.  I am interested in something that people like Cooke, Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen, Mr. "Cristan" Williams, and others are not...having a normal life, as an ordinary woman.  Sandeen objects that I refer to him with male pronouns, and call him a man.  Not because I am calling him something he is not, he is a man, and he knows he is a man, and he really doesn't have any illusions that he is actually a woman.  He is upset because I am disrespecting his gender transgression.  I am not playing along with his demand that people suspend disbelief and reality and call him a "woman."  

Lots of things are public.  I found out "Autumn" Sandeen's birth name at least a year before he decided to publicly reveal it.  Unlike some jerks, who shall rename nameless, I chose to no reveal it, tempting as it would have been.  Why?  Because I am not a hypocrite.  I would not appreciate having it done to me, and so I don't do that to others.  I respect people's wishes with regard to privacy.  Cooke, being a true bully, does not.  Funny how that works...Cooke calls me a bully because, well, I comment on things Cooke says online.  On the other hand, Cooke actually argues that people who don't like what Cooke says have no right to comment on Cooke's   Things Cooke will not allow me to comment on at Cooke's blog, period, and would not allow anyone to comment in such a manner anyway.  The rule on Cooke's blog is to sing Cooke's praises, or get banned.  But, in the same article, Cooke suggests that people do exactly what I am doing, write on their own blog....but then complains because I write about some of the sillier things Cooke says.  This is mainly a blog about issue that affect transsexuals, and since a lot of those issues have to do with idiocy from extremist transgender activists, that is who I write about a lot.  And yes, I consider Cooke to be an extremist transgender activist.  Now, Cooke has several choices.  Cooke can, and I realize this is not going to happen, get a clue and perhaps change some of the sillier things written.  Cooke can ignore me.  Or Cooke can continue whining about what I say.  But no, Cooke is not going to shut me up.

Now, granted, I would ban Cooke from writing some of what Cooke writes about me (that darn privacy rule), but not for disagreeing with me.  To Cooke, just disagreeing is bullying.  Cooke, as one might say, has issues.  Or to put it another way, Cooke loves censorship.  The question that always springs to my mind when people are so into censorship is, just what are they afraid of?  The answer, of course, is the truth....

Oh Dear...Poor Little "Suzy" is Upset Again

Alas, I guess the truth hurts...  Suzan Cooke has posted another rant about me over at "Women Born Transsexual."  Oh well...  I know Cooke hates having faults pointed out, but it is going to happen from time to time.  Not that anyone takes Cooke all that seriously anymore.  Except those few transgenders who are eating it up now that Cooke has become one of their staunchest defenders. 

In fact, in a bit of irony, the kook who was the first of two recent abusive posters is, so far, the only one who has responded to Cooke's post.  I suspect he may also be the fool that was trying to attack me here.  I always figured he would be back.  Or, it could be a rather nasty troll who has been stalking around the Internet for years.  

No, Cooke is, if nothing else, a bit of a coward.  Cooke will only respond from a position where Cooke controls the discussion.  I have made it clear that Cooke is welcome to post here, but I doubt it will ever happen.  Cooke really can't stand up in a fair fight.  Unless the odds are stacked in Cooke's favor, Cooke shies away.  When Cooke started "Women Born Transsexual," I posted a comment welcoming Cooke to the Blogosphere.  Cooke's response was anything but polite.  After that, for quite some time, I pretty much ignored what was said there, though I did read it for the occasional laugh out loud moment.  Cooke is nothing, if not absurdly funny at times.

Well, I will continue pointing out when Cooke makes some absurd remark.  I am really not interested in engaging in a tit for tat with Cooke, but I can tell when something I have said has hit a nerve.  As I said, Cooke has gone from being extremely nasty (once calling a post-op who had chosen to stay with her wife a "skin transvestite") to close to being effectively a member of the transgender extremists I refer to as "gender fascists."  Granted, Cooke hasn't quite reached the point of insisting that people accept the label of "transgender."  But it is getting close.  Hey, I am sure Cooke will finally reach the goal of becoming the Alpha Tranny yet.

Oh, and I notice that Cooke hated Aria Blue, and the person who wrote "Enough Nonsense."  Granted, the person at "Enough Nonsense" apparently had the goods on Cooke, and pretty much confirmed what I always suspected...that Cooke has some major issues, particularly with insecurity.  But I also notice that Cooke did not mention that the person who wrote "Enough Nonsense" was basically blackmailed into shutting down.  I wonder if the same thing happened to Aria.  And now I wonder, did Cooke perhaps have something to do with it?  Probably not, but Cooke apparently has no problem with REAL bullying.  

Anyway, it is good to know that I hit a nerve.  Cooke is the type who needs to be brought down a notch occasionally.  And when Cooke starts slinging nasty insults, you know Cooke has been.....  I mean really, "Classic Trannie Skanks?" That is, no pun intended, a real classic. As I said, Cooke is nothing, if not good for a laugh. But, then again, this is the fool who gave the world the silliness of "Women Born Transsexual...," the only term that might top "Womyn Born Womym" as truly absurd.
UPDATE:

I checked in and was not particularly to find that Gender Fascist and Cyberstalker "Autumn" Sandeen has add his two cents worth (and vastly over priced at that) on the subject.  Sandeen, who spent TWENTY years in the Navy is claiming he "never really passed as a man."  Gee, I wonder where he got that from?  It certainly was not a part of his story in the past.  In fact, when he first posted photos of himself in his Navy drag costume, he bragged about his twenty years worth of stripes showing "good conduct."  Yeah, like he would have lasted 20 minutes in the military if he did not pass as 100% all-American macho male.  Uh huh...  No, Sandeen clearly picked up on something I have pointed out...that us hated classic transsexuals, who were not lucky enough to have found the means to transition early, did lead horrible lives until we did.  Sandeen was a happy go lucky crossdresser.  Oh, I am sure he slipped into something frilly when he got the chance, but the rest of the time, you know he was all man, or he would have been run out of the service, and not in the official way.  They wouldn't have given him the chance.  He would have been begging for a discharge instead of waiting 20 years and then, at the last minute, claiming disability.

Oh, and now Sandeen is trying to play the victim, claiming having someone respond to his stupidity causes him to "trigger."  Good grief...  We can only hope he actually does do everyone a favor and crawls under a rock and shuts up.  Though I admit, I would miss the humor...

Yes, Sandeen and Cooke...two peas in a pod.

Cooke Joins the Borg

Suzan Cooke created a silly term known as "Women Born Transsexual."  It is silly, because it is rooted in radical feminist "Womyn Born Womyn" meme.  Cooke was clearly trying to suck up to what are now referred to commonly as "radfems."  I think Cooke should start using "Dudes Born Transgender" because that is what Cooke seems, more and more, to be a part of.

I mean seriously, Cooke is attacking Ashley Love now.  I always wondered if Cooke had some sort of need to be the Alpha Transsexual, and now I know.  Cooke would rather be adored and worshipped than be right.  Cooke originally accepted the term "Harry Benjamin Syndrome," but then turned on it when it became a serious challenge to the WBT meme.  Cooke does not like competition.

Cooke generally has been lashing out at anyone who staunchly defends transsexuals against the silliness of what Cooke labeled the "Transgender Borg."  Now, Cooke has created a "Transsexual Borg," to attack, while increasingly defending the "Transgender Borg?"  Why might this be?

Because no one with a shred of intelligence can possibly Cooke seriously anymore.  Oh, Cooke has a few followers, but I have to wonder why they would take anything Cooke says seriously.  Cooke's politics are what some would term "loony Left."  Cooke has lost all sense of reality, and espouses politics that make little real sense. 

I actually kind of pity Cooke.  Cooke claims to have done certain things, and I have no real reason to question them, but I do suspect that the memories a bit more grandiose than the reality.  Cooke's ego needs a regular boost, and it appears that Cooke is finding that from the transgender crowd, and as this happens, and transsexuals distance themselves from Cooke (well, at least the real ones) Cooke turns more and more into the Borg Queen, which I suppose, is what Cooke actually craves.  

Cooke is so obsessed with radical politics, so determined to be at odds with anything that might remotely be seen as acceptable to the mainstream, that Cooke has become, in effect, if not completely, a transgender person.  Cooke is no longer about having a need to transition, and get on with one's life. Instead, Cooke is coming to embrace the transgression model that is pushed by the likes of "Cristan" Williams, and "Autumn" Sandeen.

It's sad in a way...I could laugh off, and at, Cooke's ridiculous political views.  But Cooke's views on transsexualism, that is another matter...  And all, so Cooke can be the Alpha Tranny.  

But I do want to think Cooke for the lovely compliment, connecting me to Ashley Love. Ashley, of course, is welcome to comment here whenever she wants.  Then again, Cooke is as well, though I know Cooke never plays in a playground that Cooke doesn't have control over, or at least where Cooke knows the moderator will prevent anyone from seriously challenging Cooke's views.

A quick update:  When I first saw Cooke's post, I got the impression that Ashley had said something about one of Cooke's new friends over in the Dude Born Transsexual group.  Instead, it appears that Ashley actually stood up to Cooke, and took Cooke to task for some nasty things Cooke had said (Note:  Cooke's Rule is "Do what I say, not what I do.  I insult whoever I wish, but woe to the person who insults me!"  Since Cooke did not let the comment through, I have no idea what was actually said...but I imagine it was more a minor disagreement than an actual insult.  Cooke's ego is extremely fragile, and the slightest challenge is more than Cooke can handle.

I know this personally.  I was a member of Cooke's Women Born Transsexual mailing list.  I made the mistake of unknowingly making a suggestion that Cooke would go ballistic over (the idea of hiring a non-transsexual woman as a spokesperson for transsexuals.  Cooke blew up, I didn't immediately beg forgiveness, but allowed that some might disagree, and the next thing I knew, it was like something out the Cultural Revolution.  I was summarily found guilty of, I guess, being counter-revolutionary, and booted from the group.  It was a bit surreal, but I moved on, and put it behind me.  Then, when Cooke started the "Women Born Transsexual" blog, I extended a welcome, and was promptly told, rather profanely, what Cooke thought of me.  That pretty much sums up why no one with a working brain cell should ever take Cooke seriously.  Extreme is one thing, but Cooke went off the deep end a long time ago, and seems to like it there. 

Just Call Her Locutus, Because She Has Been Assimilated!

I have noticed for a while now that Suzan Cooke has a tendency to oscillate between being virulently anti-transgender, and sounding pretty much like a card-carry member of what she likes to label the "Borg."  Well, it appears that, like Captain Picard, she has been assimilated...


For one thing, "Cristan" Williams, a leading kook among the more extreme faction of the gender fascists has given his imprimatur to Cooke, saying that "Suzan Cooke Nails It" and singing her praises because he claims that Cooke has begun adopting some of his rather odd views of trans-history.  He seems very determined to hide the embarrassment that was wrought upon his kind by Arnold Lowman, better known as Charles "Virginia" Prince.  Oh well, now he is claiming Cooke as something of a covert.  Perhaps she is....  But he mainly is delighted that she seems to share his obsession with being "transgressive."  He cannot stand the idea that anyone would actually transition and then get on with a normal life.  He tries to force transgression on others, much as Cooke is coming around to doing.  I believe they come at this from different directions, but the result is the same...


Personally, I wish that those who are caught up in the pretend world of gender transgression would just leave the rest of us be, but they don't seem capable of that.  And now, Cooke is starting to spread some false claims...


In a recent post Cooke claims:

Transsexuals have the HBS/Classic Transsexuals who tried to take over the label Women Born Transsexual, but were rebuffed from that action back when the meme represented a mailing list and not a blog. They managed to pollute the meme because some people insisted on associating WBT with the HBS/Classic Transsexuals set, even though we opposed the transphobia and homophobia as well as the right wing rhetoric that is the stock and trade of the HBS/CT set.
When I started this blog I was denounced for being supported by Andrea James by people Andrea James had exposed as trolls and frauds. I was denounced for supporting the efforts of Andrea James and Calpernia Addams.
I made it clear from the start that I did not like the HBS movement, particularly since it was originally and quite appropriately titled the “BS Movement.”

Actually, the HBS group that I was part of (there were at least two) had no desire to be linked with the label "Women Born Transsexual," which we largely considered a rather silly attempt to sound like the even sillier "Womyn Born Women" meme of Lesbian Separatists.  Now, after my surgery, I joined Cooke's mailing list, where I made the unforgivable faux pas of actually having an idea that Cooke hadn't thought up first.  If one expressed a view that Cooke disapproved of, and then actually defended that view, you were seen as a "threat" and attacked.  In my case, it was repeating a suggestion a friend of mine had once made that transsexuals should hire someone, a non-transsexual woman, to serve as a spokesperson.  Cooke went postal over the idea, and when I defended it, well things got nasty.  Tina, Cooke's partner, decided I was a threat, and well even though I actually went so far as to apologize, I was kicked out of the group.  


I thought Cooke had mellowed and matured from here rather silly behavior back on Usenet, but no...she was moving back towards behaving like a bad caricature of a Sixties radical.  This, of course, is the Cooke we all know and well, have a good laugh at.  I really can't take here all that serious any more.  Some still buy the idea that Cooke has some standing as an elder in the tribe, but actually, she is just a very insecure person trying to be somebody.  Oh well, Cooke has a few followers who tremble in fear of her disapproval.  


And for the record, it was Cooke who tried to link to HBS, not the other way around.  She linked WBT with HBS on her blog until she realized that we were not going to march in lockstep with here silliness on certain points of view.  And there was an early suggestion that the term be "Benjamin Syndrome" until it was discovered that this was already used for another condition involving mental retardation.  It was never referred to as "BS."