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....

Racist AND Misogynistic

Well, it appears that Mr. "Monica" Roberts, everyone's favorite racist hates women as much as he hates white folk. He has posted a diatribe where he actually tries to justify the violence spewed by boys in dresses like Mr. "Cristan" Williams, and Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen. 

What he doesn't get is that radical feminist reacted to the invasion of women's spaces by pseudo-transsexuals like him, who want to wave their penises, whoops, I mean, 9 inch neoclits around and tell them girls how they are just as much women as they are.  

The problem is, men like Mr. Roberts, Mr. Sandeen, and Mr. Williams don't want to be women, they want to be trans women. They want to to have it all. They don't have a woman's soul, they just want wear women's clothes and self-denigrate themselves. 

It's always funny how their idea of "really" being a woman involves claiming to have been raped or sexually harassed. I guess that says a lot about how they really see women. 

I have knows for Mr. Roberts...women know male violence. They have been victims for a lot longer than he has been pretending to be a woman.  If he really was a woman, he would be a lot more sensitive to the feelings of those he claims to be one of. 

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.

A Busy Sunday...

Wow, so many issues, so little time...


No, seriously, there are some trivial things that all merit a response, but none of which are really so major as to warrant an individual post.  So, let's begin....


First, we have the silliness that has erupted around A. G. Casebeer's violent threats that were posted on uber-bigot "Monica" Robert's Facebook Page.  Mr. Roberts pulled the page as soon as the controversy began, but fortunately it was preserved for posterity by Dana Lane Taylor.  Well, "Autumn" Sandeen has now posted about how Casebeer and Mr. Roberts have apologized for the nasty remarks.  Well, actually, they appear to have posted some rather insincere sounding remarks that sound more like they are sorry they got caught.  But the real story is about how "Monica" Helms reacted to a comment from CathrynP, a transsexual who has long been a major thorn in the side of the transgender extremists.  Mr. Helms, as only he can do, goes off.

Yeah, right!

Whine, whine, whine.  You have hated Monica for as long as you have hated me, because she sees you for what you really are, and have pointed out your lies on several occasions.  You can't stand it when people see right through you.  You have even threaten her and Dawn Wilson to the point where they had to report YOU to the authorities.  You are the last person on the planet to call for stripping someone of anything.  You need only to look in the mirror to see the one person who has spread more hate then the other Cathy, Monica and AC could ever do together.  I may get called out for this comment, but someone has to point out your blatant hypocrisy.

I'm ready for my card, Autumn.

by: MonicaHelms @ Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 08:13:20 AM CDT

Now, CathrynP replied very calmly, pointing out that Mr. Helms is basically lying.  So, how does Mr. Sandeen react?  Well, as usual, he "drops a card," but warns both Mr. Helms (who regularly violates the rules at Pam's House Blend without any real fear of ever being booted, and CathrynP who didn't really violate any reasonable rule.  Another example of Mr. Sandeen's efforts to censor those he disagrees with, while allowing the worst sort of behavior from friends like Mr. Helms.  And of course, a later nasty remark by Mr. Roberts, who seems incapable of much else, doesn't even seem to warrant notice.

Our next minor issue is yet another hilarious post by "Cristan" Williams.  Mr. Williams is all upset because his silliness is being exposed and ridiculed both here and elsewhere...in spite of his stupid "facepalm" attacks.  I guess we are supposed to be so devastated by those that we just curl up and fade away.

Now, Mr. Williams claims he has never tried to force "separatists" to join the TG movement.  I suppose in his usual style of debate this claim can be supported, but an examination of his posts show just how silly that claim really is.  He has attacked what he calls "TS separatists," mocked them, and tried, desperately, to refute their positions.  Not really the actions of someone who doesn't "care if they don’t want to identify as being part of any specific community."  A simple suggestion....at least for those who haven't drank the same "Flavor-Aid" (it wasn't Kool-Aid they drank at Jonestown).  Read his remarks, and ask yourself where he is coming from.  If you don't agree with me, that is fine.  If you do...well, then join me in a good laugh at his absolute silliness.


This, of course, is typical of the semantical games that Mr. Williams engages in.  He thinks himself far more clever than he remotely is.


Then, having hit Dana with yet another "facepalm" (Dana, I feel your pain) he goes on to attack me again, accusing me of lying about his comments about bathrooms.  Apparently when he talked about how many women have attacked other women in the ladies room he wasn't really suggesting that women are just as much of a threat, if not more of a threat, as men...uh, I mean transgender "women."   


Let me make three points here in response to Mr. WIlliams' silliness:

1. I have made it clear that I think pre-op transsexuals should be allowed access to women's restrooms, provided that they actually are pursing surgery, taking hormones, and that they are sufficiently feminized that they can enter a women's bathroom without looking like a man in a dress.  And provided that they conduct themselves in a proper manner.  I would not extend this privilege to transvestites(both part-time and full-time), gender queers, drag queens, so-called non-ops, etc.  Put another way, unless you are actively pursuing the removal of your penis, and the creation of a vagina, stay out of the ladies room.
2. The real issue with men in women's space is not so much safety, as privacy.  Men, as in transvestites, are unwelcome.  The vast majority of women see the restroom as a place they can go and get away from men.  This is sort of ironic, since "privacy" is the basis for many arguments made by people like Mr. Williams.  The right to privacy is what prevents states from going after gays for engaging in sex, and it is the basis for abortion rights.  Personally, I agree with the first, but not the second.  Privacy is an important right, but life trumps privacy.
3. Mr. Williams tries the silly ploy of suggesting that "trans men" would be forced into the ladies room.  What a load of crap.  First off, after about six months of hormones the average FTM has no problem passing as a man.  Second, men do not have the issue with privacy that women do.  They are not likely to feel threatened by a sufficiently transitioned FTM.  In the relatively short period that they are changing, it is not too much to ask that they use reasonable discretion and try not to freak people out too much.

No, if Mr. Williams wasn't suggesting that women are as much of a threat as men, I would love to know what he was trying to suggest....  Oh, he does throw the 14th Amendment around a lot, clearly having absolutely no idea what it means.

The final issue this Sunday is the silliness out of Cuba.  In a very bizarre story, we are told that a gay man has married a transsexual woman.  Now, granted, there are some cultural differences with regard to sexuality between Anglo and Latino cultures.  Many passive gay males in such cultures can avoid some stigma by adopting a feminine persona and presentation, but it is extremely rare for them to actually go so far as surgery.  Now, it is possible that the "bride" in this case succumbed to pressure from society and had the surgery.   I knew one person who was clearly ambivalent about surgery, but who stated that her family wanted her to have it, so she was going to.  I recently heard that she had the operation. It will be interesting to see what comes of this.

It is also possible that the gay community in Cuba is simply using this as a ploy to get attention.  The "bride" arrived holding a gay pride flag.  And the groom has AIDS, so I suspect he does not expect it to be long before death.  

The simple bottom line is, gay men do not generally marry transsexuals, at least not for love.  I suppose if one felt pressured to marry that might be preferable to a natal woman, but this whole thing seems very questionable to me.

A Sad Situation...

I grew up in Alabama during the Sixties. I saw a lot of things first hand that many have only read about in history books or seen in old documentaries. When I took my daughter to the Civil Rights Museum, the first thing you see on entering the exhibits is a recreation of a segregated water fountain. One side is marked Whites, and the other side is marked Colored. As we approached, I was thinking how thankful I was those days were past. My daughter, on the other hand, turned to me in absolute shock, and asked "You mean they really had things like that?" I was thankful it was something she could see with such horror.

Recently, I have encountered some things that remind me of those days. I have seen something that shows the same sort of hatred expressed by the worst villains of those days. A place that is dominated by the same desire to control those who would dissent as shown by Bull Connor, when he turned fire hoses on young demonstrators.

And the saddest part is, all of this is from someone who wishes to be seen as speaking in the spirit of Martin Luther King, Jr.

The place I am referring to, is another blog, run by one of the gender fascists, Monica Roberts. The following quotes are used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

Here is a nice sample of Roberts' prose.

I've since discovered that Sue Robins is one of those white transsexual separatists that I've been tangling with in various online transgender groups since the late 90's. Before I
start the fun and festivities taking this e-mail apart and rebutting her WBT azz
(and in this case the WBT stands for weak-minded belligerent transsexual) enjoy
this music video from Jill Scott for her hit song 'Hate on Me'.

Now the above shows several characteristics of Roberts' style of writing. The first is the obsession with race. Everything for Roberts, revolves around race. A very confrontational style that includes personal attacks on anyone who has the "audacity" to disagree. A bitter hatred of anyone who is successful in their transiton. And a tendency to write in ebonics.

If you follow the link, which is in the original article, you find even more examples of this:

One of the things that's been a contentious issue ever since I transitioned in 1994 and have been around the transgender community is this ongoing battle between the pre-ops/non-ops and post-ops.

Frankly, that's more of a white transwoman thang that I try to stay out of, but here's my take on this asinine mess.

Again, one finds race as a central theme, along with the rather odd use of ebonics. But it gets worse:

Much of the sniping between the two groups has several elements to it. But the major bone of contention between the pre and post-ops is over the word 'transgender'.
The reason a majority of people in the community use it is because it's an inclusive umbrella term for the entire diverse community of gender variant people.
The post-ops usual argument is that the pre/non-ops haven't worked hard enough to save money like 'they' did to have GRS (genital reconfiguration surgery), so don't hate on them. They can't (or won't) understand why any transsexual would want to keep that 'ugh' male organ.

Again, we see the bitter hatred of post-ops. But this is relatively mild, compared to what comes next:

Post -ops also assert that they are being lumped in with the transgender community 'against their will' and it keeps 'them' from being accepted by natal females as women. They claim that one day the 'silent majority' of post-ops will revolt against this 'oppressive' situation and not only start their own movement, but push for laws that give rights only to transgender people who have completed surgery.

Yo, did y'all consider the fact that the reason y'all have problems being accepted as women is because of all that WMP that you're still clutching on to like a wino holding his last bottle of MD 20/20?

Here Roberts begins attacking post women in earnest. Funny, in a way, that a person who displays so much male arrogance would attack some for "White Male Privilelge." Again, we see Roberts' two favorite themes, the evils of white people and the evils of post-ops.

But, you haven't seen anything yet...

On the flip side, the pre/non-op argument is that the post ops are not only wrong, but are selfish, arrogant and bitter people who have not only turned their backs on their less fortunate sisters, but have forgotten where they came from. The pre/non-ops also assert that ignoring the fact that many peeps can't have GRS for medical reasons is callous, and the 'just work hard and save for GRS' argument, while I agree with it in principle, the fact that this line is almost always spouted by white post-ops and ignores the reality that transpeople of color live with. We don't have the access to the financial resources that many of these former white males did.

Again, white people who are post-op are portrayed as villans. And reality is ignored. The simple fact is, there are virtually zero cases where medical issues are a permanent bar to sex affirmation surgery. This excuse is used a lot, but it is fraudulent. It is probably rooted in the past, when such issues were real. At one time, anything from something as serious as being HIV positive, to something as trivial as being diabetic, could prevent one from having surgery. But, as medical professionals have recognized that SAS is not simply a cosmetic procedure that can be held back without problems, they have been more willing to operate on those with medical issues.

But, as Roberts gets warmed up, things from bad to worse, to so downright bad that it actually becomes comical...

One pattern I continue to see with some white post ops is that they blitz through the real life test and go straight to the table for surgery. They they wonder why and get mad because they spent $10K for a neocoochie and got 'sirred', while a non-op with five incles of neoclit in her lace panites gets treated as a female.

A major reason is that because GRS for some pre/non-ops will happen about the same time George W. Bush gets nominated for a Nobel Peace prize and they know it, the pre/non-op spends more time focusing and perfecting the internal and spiritual aspects of femininity.

Again, we see race as an issue. One wonders about African-American HBS women who "blitz through the real life test." Would the same be true for them? But what is really telling is Roberts' disdainful references to "neocoochie" and getting sirred and non-ops getting treated as a female. Again, Roberts either lives a very protected life, or is totally delusional. While it is true that some people rush into surgery, and have regrets, few transgenders who have an aversion to surgery are likely to be treated as females, at least outside of their own social circles. One only has to spend some time in San Francisco's Tenderloin and Polk Gulch areas to put that silliness to rest.

Let me offer one final quote from this particular set as an example of Roberts' viewpoint:

Anybody with positive cash flow can get an improved female
body, but femininty is a learned, spiritual, constantly evolving journey. You
aren't going to master it (if you ever do) if you're more concerned about
getting the earliest possible surgery date or stressing because you didn't get
the day you wanted for your facial feminization surgery consultation.

Here Roberts is self-contradicting. After ranting about how wrong it is to point out that it is relatively easy to get surgery if you really want it, and that those who don't have it, don't want it, Roberts seems to confirm this point. This leads me to suspect that Roberts has had surgery, but has serious regrets. But the comments about how femininty is learned, and is constantly evolving journey, shows that Roberts has no real experience of having been born with a female mind in a male body. No doubt, this is at the heart of the attacks on successful transsexual women. This sort of thing is reminiscent of other such people, like "Willow Arune," who is notorious as a staunch defender of Michael Bailey and Ray Blanchard. Arune has not met anyone who hates transsexuals that Arune does not dearly love.

This article could go on for far longer, just quoting Roberts's hateful remarks, but I will offer one final one to sum up:

I chuckle because every time these peeps post their vitriolic crap (which I delete) in a vain attempt to quote unquote 'try to make me look bad', they're missing the mark. They need to look in the mirror (if it doesn't break first) to ascertain who this is really hurting. You're making yourselves look like the peeps that not only need Jesus, but need straitjackets and prescription medication as well.

Actually, Roberts needs no help in looking bad, and would do well to practice, rather than preach. Roberts is filled with pride, but fears criticism. Like so many of the gender facists, Roberts will delete anything that is remotely well written. It is not the vitrolic crap that gets deleted, but well written challenges to Robert's rhetoric.

Roberts, in many ways, reminds me of a member of the Klan I was introduced to once. The man was filled with hatred to the point that he could not think rationally. When any of his positions were challenged, he would either launch off into a rant, or make an assertion that the Bible backed him up. If you asked him to tell you where, he would begin stalling, and then say something to the effect of "I can't remember the exact chapter and verse, but it's in there...in the Psalms I believe." Just out of curiosity, I tried to find anything remotely like what he claimed to be citing, and couldn't. Like Roberts apparently does, he simply made up stuff to suit his own hateful view.