Well, my long term cyber-stalker, "Diane" Lask has upped his game. He sent me another anonymous message, this time including a more overt threat. I guess it will have to have a talk with the San Francisco Police Department sooner, rather than later. Apparently Lask has taken complete leave of his senses. His first message was enough to qualify as threatening, and will like result in his being investigated for stalking. This one, well it will cinch such a case. He really must be aching to be some hunky prisoner's date. Remember, Lask is apparently non-op, and thus would end up in with men, not women. I'm sure he will be very popular.
Showing posts with label evil. Show all posts
Showing posts with label evil. Show all posts
Friday, December 12, 2014
Monday, April 7, 2014
It Is Really Getting Out of Hand
You know, up to a point, one can almost laugh at the silliness of the transgender kooks. They flounce around, claiming to be women, when they clearly are not. But it ceases to be funny when they start encroaching on the security of others. It is bad enough that they believe they have an absolute entitlement to invade women's spaces, even those involving nudity, while waving their penises….excuse me, their big old "neoclits" in the women's faces. It gets worse when they think they have the right to expose themselves in front of young girls, as was he case with "Colleen" Francis. But more and more, they openly threaten actual violence against anyone who dares even disagree with their insane demands.
For example…there was this tweet…
It actually gets worse…(tweets quoted in the order they were apparently posted, not actually displayed on Twitter)
In another bit display of male arrogance, Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen has apparently offered money (could it really be $10,000?) to anyone who will supply him with the identity of the person who posts as Gallus Mag. Seriously….
I clearly do not agree with the goals of the "transgender" extremists, and I am not shy about stating that. I have been harassed more than once by them.
For example…there was this tweet…
@pansgrrl @cecilia_c_chung @TransLawCenter I can do dialog in real life as long as I have something heavy to kill the #terf with
This sort of things is simply unacceptable. Now, to Cecilia Chung's credit, she did take the person to task…
But this person, calling himself "Jessica" is clearly dangerous. He doesn't back down from his violence, but instead tries to excuse it…
@cecilia_c_chung @pansgrrl @TransLawCenter these people want my friends not to exist and they don't think I exist.
I am not sure what he means by "they don't think I exist…." Clearly, he does exist…and I guess what he really means is, "They don't think I'm really a woman." And hey, I think they are right…he isn't. He is a violent, and dangerous man, who is threatening women because he is not getting his way.
@cecilia_c_chung @pansgrrl @TransLawCenter if they are not dealt with we run the risk of more violence or deaths.
@cecilia_c_chung @pansgrrl @TransLawCenter This is not the time to debate with those so predisposed, it is long past time that they were
@cecilia_c_chung @pansgrrl @TransLawCenter dealt with, be that via the law, as I am pushing for or by duct tape
Now, obviously what you have here is the classic, "over the top rhetoric of blaming someone for violence, simply because the don't "approve" of you. I am not aware of a single case of any of these women that Mr. Ottowell has such vitriol for ever committing a single act of violence. In fact, they have pointed out that the violence is committed by men.In another bit display of male arrogance, Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen has apparently offered money (could it really be $10,000?) to anyone who will supply him with the identity of the person who posts as Gallus Mag. Seriously….
@AutumnSandeen @_Plastic_Girl She's confusing someone putting a call out to discover Gallus Mag's identity with a "bounty" as in violence.
@MAMelby @_Plastic_Girl Well, true enuf. I live under my name, take the heat & past death threats under my name. Gallus doesn't; she should.
Now, Mr. Sandeen can't quite seem to grasp why this might be upsetting. Apparently, after a bit of research, it turns out that not only is Mr. Sandeen involved, but, not surprisingly, so is über kook Mr. "Dana Lane" Taylor. While they might only be hoping to embarrass and humiliate said person (uh, yeah…sure) even that is over the top. I have been on the receiving end of Mr. Sandeen's harassment, and I know he is supposed to be the person who blackmailed one blogger into leaving the Internet. This sort of thing is just sick.Friday, November 30, 2012
What's Wrong With Just Being Normal?
For many of us, nothing. For some...well... To me, there is nothing wrong with being "traditional" or " "mainstream," but in her most recent rant, Suzan Cooke, transgender kook, gender fascist, and pretty much increasingly a bit of a shrill joke, goes off over someone named "Purple." What did this person do that was so terrible? Well, apparently they have extolled the virtues of being a relatively normal person.
Granted, this person does seem to also be a bit of a flake. It is not clear if this is the person who used to post under the name, "PurpleGirl," who was a devotee of Charlotte Goiar, who started a European "Harry Benjamin's Syndrome" movement (apparently it has since dropped the incorrect use of a possessive...naming is to honor, not imply ownership) who used to post under the name "Courtney Michelle Holder." That person, who as I recall did take some extremist views not unlike those taken by person posting as Donna Reiser, who is also a devotee of Goiar. The HBS group that I was part of had major disagreements with Goiar, and broke with her very early on.
Cooke never misses a chance to attack the HBS movement, apparently because the idea that a person might actually transition simply to live a normal life seems to disgust Cooke. This Reiser is as extremist in one direction as the transgender activists, including Cooke, are in the other. Where they want to claim that everyone who is "transsexual" is motivated by a desire to transgress gender, and must be "out, loud, and proud," Reiser claims that "true transsexuals" cannot be lesbians. While many of the "straight men in dresses" that make up the core of the transgender extremists do claim to be lesbian, that does not mean that everyone who is transsexual, and identifies as a lesbian, is a fraud.
Let's consider that view. Certainly some women, a certain percentage, are sexually and romantically attracted to women. Some of them are that way, pretty much from birth. Others are more fluid in the sexuality. A lot of women, after a bad experience with a man, or because of abuse by a male, will, for a period, be attracted to women. They may well return to being attracted to me, often to the dismay of their female partner. So, to say that a "transsexual" cannot be a lesbian is to say, in effect, that transsexuals are significantly different from other women. And this plays into the Blanchard-Bailey theory that attempts to "prove" that transsexuals are not really women at all, just excessively gay men, and straight men with a weird fetish.
This sort of thing is not uncommon. I once had a well-known transgender kook tell me that a transsexual could not possibly be "pro-life." I have seen others try to claim that transsexuals can't be Republicans, or conservatives, etc.
The simple fact is, women, including transsexuals, like women in general, can have a wide range of views. Some of us are more conservative than others. Personally, I tend to joke that my politics are radically moderate. I am a member of the Far Middle, the extreme center. I pride myself on the fact that I can enter a debate between someone who is far right, and someone who is far left, and have both of them calling for my head.
Some people, like Cooke, are very rigid in their thinking. They are incapable of comprehending other view points. I don't mean "agreeing" with those viewpoints, but comprehending why someone might hold them. They cannot see that their might be arguments supporting that view that people might honestly hold. Cooke sees the world as black and white. If you do not share Cooke's highly extremist left-wing view then you are wrong, end of story. No just in error, but wrong as in "you will face the firing squad" when the revolution occurs type wrong. Even evil, in a sense, though Cooke does not quite seem to believe in actual morality in an traditional sense.
On the other hand, while I may not agree with someone, I can often see why they think the way they do. I can see the reasoning behind their view, and that enables me to see the flaws in their reasoning, if such exist. I could make their arguments for them, and then explain to them why those arguments are flawed while also explaining why the extreme opposite view is equally wrong. That is more than an extremist can handle.
A good example of this sort of thing would be the recurrent bathroom issue. On the one hand, and extremist like Cooke will claim that there should be NO restrictions on transgender access to bathrooms. No matter where one is on the imaginary spectrum, whether one identifies as a straight male fetishtic crossdresser who is just really turned on by the idea of slipping into the ladies room even though you know you are not going to pass and will cause major distress...which really, really turns you on, are you are a surgery-tracked transsexual who is a week away from surgery, it is all the same. And I can see the arguments that might be made. Everyone needs to pee. It can be dangerous to go into the men's room if you are crossdressed. We have to respect everyone's gender identity and gender presentation. Now, on the far opposite extreme are those who might go so far as to say that even if one is a fully transition post-op, they have no business in the ladies room. Their argument would be, a Y chromosome has no business in the ladies room (I would love to hear how they would deal with someone with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome, a so-called "XY female.") Well, The first arguments are not really persuasive. If one wishes to crossdress, that might be their right, but it does not give them license to create a public nuisance, and quite frankly, speaking as a woman, a man in the ladies, and that is what a crossdresser is, is a public nuisance. They don't become a woman when they slip on a dress. If they are concerned about danger, then they should take responsibility for their behavior and avoid such situations. They do no have an absolute right to crossdress and use that as an excuse for being a nuisance. And the term gender identity is, to a large extent, meaningless. It is one thing to be a true transsexual, carefully screened by a qualified and competent therapist, and another to simply assert that one "feels like a woman today." And presentation? Give me a break. It may be your right to present as you wish, but that does not mean I have to pander to your fantasies.
As I say, I am a moderate. There need to be provision made for those who have a legitimate need to enter the ladies room, even though they might be physically male. Those who are properly diagnosed as transsexual (not some kook who manages to fool a therapist with a big rubber stamp), but also provision to protect the privacy of women. Personally, I did not enter the ladies room until I felt reasonably sure that I would be accepted as a woman, and not cause distress. That, simply put, was because I was a woman, and had concern for other women. The vast, overwhelming majority of those who identify as transgender are men, and like men, they think they have privilege that they really don't.
No, there is nothing wrong with being normal and traditional. And people have a right, within limits, to be otherwise. But, if they make that choice, they should also take responsibility for their behavior and realize that not everyone is going to look at them and say "Aren't they so cool, being a rebel and all..." We aren't. We are far more likely to look at them, and at best laugh, and at worst see them as a very disturbed, and disturbing person."
Granted, this person does seem to also be a bit of a flake. It is not clear if this is the person who used to post under the name, "PurpleGirl," who was a devotee of Charlotte Goiar, who started a European "Harry Benjamin's Syndrome" movement (apparently it has since dropped the incorrect use of a possessive...naming is to honor, not imply ownership) who used to post under the name "Courtney Michelle Holder." That person, who as I recall did take some extremist views not unlike those taken by person posting as Donna Reiser, who is also a devotee of Goiar. The HBS group that I was part of had major disagreements with Goiar, and broke with her very early on.
Cooke never misses a chance to attack the HBS movement, apparently because the idea that a person might actually transition simply to live a normal life seems to disgust Cooke. This Reiser is as extremist in one direction as the transgender activists, including Cooke, are in the other. Where they want to claim that everyone who is "transsexual" is motivated by a desire to transgress gender, and must be "out, loud, and proud," Reiser claims that "true transsexuals" cannot be lesbians. While many of the "straight men in dresses" that make up the core of the transgender extremists do claim to be lesbian, that does not mean that everyone who is transsexual, and identifies as a lesbian, is a fraud.
Let's consider that view. Certainly some women, a certain percentage, are sexually and romantically attracted to women. Some of them are that way, pretty much from birth. Others are more fluid in the sexuality. A lot of women, after a bad experience with a man, or because of abuse by a male, will, for a period, be attracted to women. They may well return to being attracted to me, often to the dismay of their female partner. So, to say that a "transsexual" cannot be a lesbian is to say, in effect, that transsexuals are significantly different from other women. And this plays into the Blanchard-Bailey theory that attempts to "prove" that transsexuals are not really women at all, just excessively gay men, and straight men with a weird fetish.
This sort of thing is not uncommon. I once had a well-known transgender kook tell me that a transsexual could not possibly be "pro-life." I have seen others try to claim that transsexuals can't be Republicans, or conservatives, etc.
The simple fact is, women, including transsexuals, like women in general, can have a wide range of views. Some of us are more conservative than others. Personally, I tend to joke that my politics are radically moderate. I am a member of the Far Middle, the extreme center. I pride myself on the fact that I can enter a debate between someone who is far right, and someone who is far left, and have both of them calling for my head.
Some people, like Cooke, are very rigid in their thinking. They are incapable of comprehending other view points. I don't mean "agreeing" with those viewpoints, but comprehending why someone might hold them. They cannot see that their might be arguments supporting that view that people might honestly hold. Cooke sees the world as black and white. If you do not share Cooke's highly extremist left-wing view then you are wrong, end of story. No just in error, but wrong as in "you will face the firing squad" when the revolution occurs type wrong. Even evil, in a sense, though Cooke does not quite seem to believe in actual morality in an traditional sense.
On the other hand, while I may not agree with someone, I can often see why they think the way they do. I can see the reasoning behind their view, and that enables me to see the flaws in their reasoning, if such exist. I could make their arguments for them, and then explain to them why those arguments are flawed while also explaining why the extreme opposite view is equally wrong. That is more than an extremist can handle.
A good example of this sort of thing would be the recurrent bathroom issue. On the one hand, and extremist like Cooke will claim that there should be NO restrictions on transgender access to bathrooms. No matter where one is on the imaginary spectrum, whether one identifies as a straight male fetishtic crossdresser who is just really turned on by the idea of slipping into the ladies room even though you know you are not going to pass and will cause major distress...which really, really turns you on, are you are a surgery-tracked transsexual who is a week away from surgery, it is all the same. And I can see the arguments that might be made. Everyone needs to pee. It can be dangerous to go into the men's room if you are crossdressed. We have to respect everyone's gender identity and gender presentation. Now, on the far opposite extreme are those who might go so far as to say that even if one is a fully transition post-op, they have no business in the ladies room. Their argument would be, a Y chromosome has no business in the ladies room (I would love to hear how they would deal with someone with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome, a so-called "XY female.") Well, The first arguments are not really persuasive. If one wishes to crossdress, that might be their right, but it does not give them license to create a public nuisance, and quite frankly, speaking as a woman, a man in the ladies, and that is what a crossdresser is, is a public nuisance. They don't become a woman when they slip on a dress. If they are concerned about danger, then they should take responsibility for their behavior and avoid such situations. They do no have an absolute right to crossdress and use that as an excuse for being a nuisance. And the term gender identity is, to a large extent, meaningless. It is one thing to be a true transsexual, carefully screened by a qualified and competent therapist, and another to simply assert that one "feels like a woman today." And presentation? Give me a break. It may be your right to present as you wish, but that does not mean I have to pander to your fantasies.
As I say, I am a moderate. There need to be provision made for those who have a legitimate need to enter the ladies room, even though they might be physically male. Those who are properly diagnosed as transsexual (not some kook who manages to fool a therapist with a big rubber stamp), but also provision to protect the privacy of women. Personally, I did not enter the ladies room until I felt reasonably sure that I would be accepted as a woman, and not cause distress. That, simply put, was because I was a woman, and had concern for other women. The vast, overwhelming majority of those who identify as transgender are men, and like men, they think they have privilege that they really don't.
No, there is nothing wrong with being normal and traditional. And people have a right, within limits, to be otherwise. But, if they make that choice, they should also take responsibility for their behavior and realize that not everyone is going to look at them and say "Aren't they so cool, being a rebel and all..." We aren't. We are far more likely to look at them, and at best laugh, and at worst see them as a very disturbed, and disturbing person."
Thursday, September 24, 2009
For the (Hopefully) Last Time
Let me start by reiterating...
This blog does not target any particular individual. It is about issues that affect those born with Harry Benjamin Syndrome, also known as classic or true transsexualism. What I write about is determined by what is being said on other blogs, especially those that are run by frightened activists who can't stand to be disagreed with in their comment sections. In fact, one of the principal reasons I started it was because I saw so many who disagree with the "transgender party line" being kicked off of blogs for daring to speak the truth.
Now, one of the worst offenders in this regard happens to be Suzan Cooke. For example, yesterday, Cooke removed a post that took her to task for the same thing that I had written about. And that was the incredibly, unbelievabe statement that stated that people who are transgender are intersex. Now, Cooke's remark is exactly the sort of thing I write about.
In a post where Cooke whines about my writing about her remarks, she doesn't focus on the real issue (her ridiculous remark) but instead goes ballistic because I pointed out that she hates God. I stand by what I said. Cooke is a classic example of an angry atheist....someone who is mad at God and who strikes out at Him in what they believe is the worst possible way, by ceasing to believe in Him. I guess they think that will show Him.
Cooke offers up something Cooke calls the Epicurean Dilemma:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
The great Christian author, C.S. Lewis said this about the matter:
Oh, and ironically, if Cooke had not launched this latest diatribe, I would have, as planned, written about another of Cooke's fellow transgender activists. I will save that one for tomorrow, unless something more interesting comes along.
This blog does not target any particular individual. It is about issues that affect those born with Harry Benjamin Syndrome, also known as classic or true transsexualism. What I write about is determined by what is being said on other blogs, especially those that are run by frightened activists who can't stand to be disagreed with in their comment sections. In fact, one of the principal reasons I started it was because I saw so many who disagree with the "transgender party line" being kicked off of blogs for daring to speak the truth.
Now, one of the worst offenders in this regard happens to be Suzan Cooke. For example, yesterday, Cooke removed a post that took her to task for the same thing that I had written about. And that was the incredibly, unbelievabe statement that stated that people who are transgender are intersex. Now, Cooke's remark is exactly the sort of thing I write about.
In a post where Cooke whines about my writing about her remarks, she doesn't focus on the real issue (her ridiculous remark) but instead goes ballistic because I pointed out that she hates God. I stand by what I said. Cooke is a classic example of an angry atheist....someone who is mad at God and who strikes out at Him in what they believe is the worst possible way, by ceasing to believe in Him. I guess they think that will show Him.
Cooke offers up something Cooke calls the Epicurean Dilemma:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.This is a rather poetic version of what is commonly referred to as the problem of evil. It is supposed to leave Christians dumbfounded and confused. It is meant to be unanswerable. In truth, the answer is very simple. God cannot remove evil from the world without removing free will. And if God removed free will, then love could not exist, because love requires a free will. And a world without love would be the greatest evil of all.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
The great Christian author, C.S. Lewis said this about the matter:
We can, perhaps, conceive of a world in which God corrected the results of this abuse of free will by His creatures at every moment: so that a wooden beam became soft as grass when it was used as a weapon, and the air refused to obey me if I attempted to set up in it the sound waves that carry lies or insults. But such a world would be one in which wrong actions were impossible, and in which, therefore, freedom of the will would be void; nay, if the principle were carried out to its logical conclusion, evil thoughts would be impossible, for the cerebral matter which we use in thinking would refuse its task when we attempted to frame them.Now, I honestly cannot conceive of Cooke, remotely being willing to give up free will. So, Cooke, like the rest of us, is stuck with a world in which evil exists. In fact, it is that very free will that allows Cooke to not believe in the God that grants it to her.
Oh, and ironically, if Cooke had not launched this latest diatribe, I would have, as planned, written about another of Cooke's fellow transgender activists. I will save that one for tomorrow, unless something more interesting comes along.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
