This Suzan Cooke clap trap send up of classic transsexualism is about as sanctimonious and disingenuous as it gets.

I spite of saying as recently as last week on Pam’s House Blend that she didn’t know what classic transsexuality even meant, Suzan Cooke knows damn well what classic transsexualism is; Cathryn Platine, who has taken credit for the use of the term, was given a shout out (Cooke said yesterday on her blog, “I give shout outs to people I think have good ideas.”) on Cooke’s Women Born Transsexual blog. No less than five blogs on her blogroll, including TS-Si, routinely use the term. Everyone involved in the gender debate, even the transgender, know that classic transsexualism, true transsexualism, HBS, and even Women Born Transsexual are synonymous.

Cooke has over the past several month reverted to transgenderism. Both on her blog and at least one major GLBT blog she has been apologizing for essentially making a career out of being one of the most vocal and vitriolic critics of the transgender construct she know embraces. She contends she has “…changed her views” adding just yesterday on WBT:

“I’ve been apologizing for my own actions and words that added fuel to the flames.”

Now, isn’t that special…

She later says in the same comment:

“At this point I’m planning on going to Creative Change in Dallas in February where I hope to meet some of the other voices in the GLBT/TQ blogosphere.

For those who don’t know what Creative Change – Dallas is, it’s a 2000-3000 attendee conference put on by the Gay and Lesbian Task Force whose stated goal is:

“…to build our movement’s political power from the ground up to secure our overarching goal of full equality, social justice for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people in the United States.”

What does the Creating Change conference do? Well it’s:

“…the nation’s preeminent political, leadership, and skills-building conference for the LGBT social justice movement.”

In short, it’s where the gay and transgender activist go to further discuss the best tactics to continue appropriating and colonizing classic transsexuals.

Suzan Cooke has slammed me for allowing certain HBS fanatics posts on my blog, while at the same time welcoming at least one transgender activist who flat out, aggressively, openly, and overtly denies not only my identity, but that of everyone who is classic/HBS/true transsexual. She now uses the same shout down and silencing tactics on post ops that she once used on the transgender. She now uses the same insults on classic transsexuals that we’ve all heard for years from the transgender, banning from her blog anyone who offers a different perspective. She’s called us homophobic while saying that all straight people are “boring and conservative”, wondering out loud why anyone would want to be straight. Her latest ploy is to say that HBS is “bulls**t” and by association, classic transsexualism, true transsexualism, real transsexualism, and even her Women Born Transsexual redefinition of all three of them. She now has the tactic of saying those who prescribe to anything resembling true transsexualism are setting themselves up as “better than” someone else; how friggin tired is that?

There has been speculation that her 180 degree change in position is in anticipation of yet another transsexual memoir, the insinuation being to moderate her views in the hope that if such a boring, largely unsubstantiated, topic is published holding the radical views she is known for would dilute any chances she might have of making the college speaking circuit promoting her book. Most could care less why, myself included.

Either way, Suzan Cooke’s hypocrisy has not gone unnoticed as more and more delete her from their blogroll and challenge her at every turn, just as we would any other transgender. Which begs the question why she was invited to post such BS on TS-Si…certainly it will be a cold day in hell before the transgender blogs will allow our side to post on theirs?

TS-Si publishes a variety of opinion columns from any number of writers. I doubt if any two of them agree on anything 100% of the time.

Our purpose is to encourage discussion and provide different glimpses into Transsexuality. If we only published people with the same outlook, TS-Si would grow very boring, very quickly. The opinions of our guest writers are just that: their opinions.

We have no intention of being a monolithic purveyor of a some god given truth.

TS-Si is not a blog. We are a science and news site that publishes articles, scientific papers and abstracts, news of interest, and opinion pieces. The only restrictions we place on the opinion articles is that they be free of libel, be well written and supported by fact and, where available, scientific research.

We encourage comment on everything we publish but would prefer that even critical comment add to the discussion rather than be a simple personal attack on the writer. We read everything we publish before we publish it, including the comments on the articles.

As TS-Si is neither liberal nor conservative, pro- or anti- any particular religion. We hold to no particular creed or standard of political correctness. We refuse to blindly follow the latest liberal itch or conservative catechism. So we publish a lot of opinion pieces that we anticipate some one some where will be upset by.

If we aren't ringing someone's bell somewhere, we aren't doing our job.

Thank you, Susan, for your comment on this opinion column by Suzan Cooke. We welcome your point of view, as we do many others. You stated and asked:

Either way, Suzan Cooke’s hypocrisy has not gone unnoticed as more and more delete her from their blogroll and challenge her at every turn, just as we would any other transgender.

and

Which begs the question why she was invited to post such BS on TS-Si…certainly it will be a cold day in hell before the transgender blogs will allow our side to post on theirs?

Various writers are "invited" to submit articles. We also receive unsolicited submissions. Either way, we take responsibility for what appears on this site.

Suzie is welcome here because she matters, as do so many others. Just thinking for a moment about the post-op population, we have reached a point where there are enough of us out and about to present a variety of perspectives, often at variance with each other. The post-op population alone ranges from Left through Right, both politically and socially. We do not exclude anyone from the dialogue.

If there is one thing notable about the transgender sites and blogs, it is the intolerance for dissent. Given the size of our readership, which includes people who are not party to squabbles like this, we can offer wide exposure to viewpoints that might otherwise never be heard. And the silent readers (nee lurkers) are legion.

We have been a redoubt for refugees from the predations of transgender editors who banned and, in some cases, pursued authors whose works were remounted here. Some of the transgenders have even tried to interfere with the physical operations of this site to prevent us from publishing certain authors.

We fight back. That is one reason why they seldom visit here much any more.

TS-Si.org is not a transgender site. I think our position on the matter is clear. The notion that we should be included under the transgender umbrella is both absurd and dangerous.

We concede, unhappily, that "... it will be a cold day in hell before the transgender blogs will allow our side to post on theirs ..." However, that does not mean we must be parochial in our own coverage. We can rise above their low threshold for quality and fairness by paving the way toward a more civil discourse.

We have over the years invited various transgender activists to submit an article for publication, present their point of view, and air out any ensuing controversy. Our editorial policies would prevail, of course, including our zero tolerance for libel, flaming, and the assorted nastiness so common elsewhere.

The transgender answers range from stony silence through seriously nasty personal invective through attempts to compromise our operations.

TS-Si is solely responsible for its own policies. We have formulated our practices for the reasons discussed here and to meet our overarching mission:

TS-Si is dedicated to the acceptance, medical treatment, and legal protection of individuals correcting the misalignment of their brains and their anatomical sex, while supporting their transition into society.

We do not always agree with our columnists (or even the comments on their columns), but we unrelentingly enable responsible statements of diverse positions and thoughful crtiques that advance the dialogue.

Back to Suzy, there is a point often missed. Her work, whatever one may think of it, entwines her personal journey with an evolving perspective on the issues of the day. Taken with good humor and respect, her opinion pieces are honest mileposts in one life, as lived.

We are all in that position. Keeping in mind that TS-Si is not a transgender site and has a mission to achieve, keep coming back, you are welcome here.

All of you.

Honestly, my problem here is that I can see everyone's point of view. What is even more troubling is that they are all correct in their own way.

Some months ago I posted several times on Susan's blog. That post predicted Susan's Capture. It was, I wrote, history repeating itself. Why? Because one of the reasons Susan had for establishing the WBT 'brand' was to define transsexualism, removing it from the 'transgenderist' wagon that was getting a roll on at that time, and restating the position of TS women as opposed to wymen born wymen. Cook later abandoned WBT at least partly under pressure. When she started it up again earlier this year there was always the possibility that situation would repeat.

I think the problem here is that Susan restarted WBS with a lot of fire: No whining TG's for her. (her words) She attracted a following of TS activists. The Brands were different: "HBS", "classical transsexual", "true transsexual" & etc. She was quickly establishing herself as an icon when she capitulated again.

A dyed-in-the-wool cynic such as myself did not feel let down because I had not elevated her. But those who did felt betrayed, and some of that is Suzan's doing. Some of it comes from putting too much faith the prima facia behaviors of human beings who have exercised their woman's prerogative before and will almost certainly exercise it again.

At the same I think its not unreasonable to celebrate Suzan's life: to recognize the trails she blazed and the fights she's fought. But I think we also need to place those things in the context of her time. To situate in that context is not to demean them. It is to acknowledge that in her way she made things a little easier for those of us who came along after.

Sadly, she attracted followers, then ridiculed them for following. Perhaps the lesson here is not to create icons too eagerly? From memory this is Sir Walter Scott (But I stand to be corrected)

"For the sword outwears the sheath,
And the soul wears out the breast,
And the heart must pause to breath,
And love itself have rest."

Cheers:

WBT was a simple way of combining several concepts. Woman of transsexual history, post-op etc.

It was a statement of belief that we were born with transsexualism, that it was innate.

It wasn't even in opposition to women born women, an oxymornic statement to begin as woman is an adult female and no one is born adult.

It does postulate having a transchildhood, with a frequent history of abuse and filled with deep discomfort over our birth sex assignments.

But as early as its angry birth as a meme we who coined the meme, Tina and I also added that the simple usage of TG/TS or transsexual and transgender could go a long way towards quieting inter group hostility.

I was not unique in seeing there being communities described by various transprefixed words rather than one community comfortably residing in perfect harmony under a collective umbrella term. It was obvious at the Forward Motion Conference I attended in Burbank in the late 1990s.

As for my attending Creating Change in February... I am a anarchist with a long history of involvement in movements starting with the anti-war in Vietnam movement. I have been active in the Gay and Lesbian Movement since 1969.

It is an opportunity to see old friends as too many have passed away over the recent years. Perhaps to run into friends from other cities where I have lived.

As for you and Susan Taylor... I do not speak for you but rather for myself. If my opinion carries weight it is due to my history.

I have simply found it far easier to communicate with people i am not calling vile names. After all most of the TG people I am in correspondence with are also progressives who share many other values with me. It is not like trying to communicate with ultra right wing Republicans.

Is this true Suzan? You did all this to position yourself for a book tour, or something like that? I have to say I already feel like I'm pulling a knife out of my back with your attacks on the legitimacy of the transsexual condition. You of all people should know what kind of life we have to lead, and how awful it is to have transgender politicians speaking for us. Are you trying to become one of them?

If this is true, then I think I finally understand what the word sellout means when the baby boom generation activists used it as an accusation against their peers. This is so disappointing.

"I have simply found it far easier to communicate with people i am not calling vile names. After all most of the TG people I am in correspondence with are also progressives who share many other values with me."

No Suzan - you just changed direction. You did an about face, and redirected your name calling called toward those who you had encouraged into believing you were an icon. As usual with these things name calling begat name calling. There are countless examples of that out in the blogosphere. And I am truly sorry because you were and are a pathfinder in so many ways.

So I will respect you profoundly for your achievements past and present. I will let the matter lay with that.

Blue wrote

Is this true Suzan? You did all this to position yourself for a book tour, or something like that? I have to say I already feel like I'm pulling a knife out of my back with your attacks on the legitimacy of the transsexual condition. You of all people should know what kind of life we have to lead, and how awful it is to have transgender politicians speaking for us. Are you trying to become one of them?

If this is true, then I think I finally understand what the word sellout means when the baby boom generation activists used it as an accusation against their peers. This is so disappointing.

I don't see how we get from what Suzie orignally wrote and this comment. At times I think people are reacting to what's going on in their head instead of what is on the written page.

Aria Blue: there had been an earlier comment on speculation in some quarters that Syzy might be planning "yet another transsexual memoir".

Suzy announced her book project a while back, but - to my knowledge - never focused exclusively on transsexual content, treating that as just one aspect in a fuller life story.

We shall see.

The term WBT refers to two different things. (1) Women Born Transsexual (WBT), coinded by Suzy and Tina; (2) The WBT list, a private list Suzy ran years ago for post-op women.

Some of the confusion can be traced to a conflation of the two.

Suzie can be a pain in the butt, Suzie can be an irritating mote, but she most always adds something of value to the conversation, value she earned on the mean streets, not in the halls of academia or at the feet of any gender preacher.

Suzie and I share an ancient fondness for panthers who take a good poster, but we both learned that a good poster or clever slogan does not a successful revolution make.

Today, decades later, Suzie and I continue towards our mutual goals, albeit using slightly different vectors. I chose to work for change from the inside; Suzie's apptitudes are more suited for working from outside the establishment.

We both, however, are triangulating towards the same general targets we first aimed at in the the 1960s (I haven't thrown a bomb in ages)-- but our work is now done in the daily congress of democracy rather than in the self-referential cliques of any single view or the political soup du jour.

In the words of the poet, beneath's Suzie's rough exterior lies a heart of agéd creamcheese.

The fact is she is attacking the very legitimacy of the transsexual condition and is seeking to push it under the transgender rug. Whether or not she does it for personal gain is beside the point. She says that believing in a "classic" transsexual condition is the same as believing in autogynephilia. How do you put a positive spin on that? This is pure foolishness.

It doesn't matter what someone has done in the past if it is all destroyed with one careless (or deliberate) destructive act. I'm not sure how she can recover from the total loss of credibility.

Although I'm sure I wasn't the first to use the term "classic transsexuality", I probably was the one who re-introduced it to general use in the past couple of years.

I did so to be able to discuss the medical aspects of a medical condition separate from the homophobia, orientation issues, and in order to sidestep some of the nastiness that was being associated with HBS. As I see it, WbT, classic transsexuality and HBS have at their cores the same idea. Neurological intersexuality doesn't trip off the tonque (or fingers) hence "classic transsexuality" to avoid class issues, orientation issues, early v late issues and stick to just the medical, neurological issues. It failed as it quickly became just another version of "HBS".

I'm tired of all this garbage. I spend the better part of a decade trying to get the "gender communities" to use TG/TS myself so see that as a doomed from the start effort since it was my trying to promote that simple respect of identity that got me targeted by the worst of the TG terrorists in the first place.

Oh, and regarding activism. I was a hippy activist in the sixties myself, maintained a life long counter culture mindset, active in many causes and a long time member of NOW. Enough so I'm on a first name basis with a number of state chapter heads at this point. My feminism has been attacked by SA-ET as something not relevant to most women's lives. It is relevant to the circles of women I move in...that's a cultural difference not an essence of "womanhood" one.

Most of my circle of friends are bisexual women or lesbians so I do not appreciate the shots at them either. Gay men I have little use for because I find them the least respectful of all groups of men towards women with histories and that would even include the radical religious right ironically enough. My reluctance to be dragged into GLBt circles is because of this and this alone since gay men dominate and control most of the "issues" promoted as GLBt ones. I do favour basic LGB rights personally.

Aria Blue said about Suzy:

She says that believing in a "classic" transsexual condition is the same as believing in autogynephilia.

Is it fair to assume that you are reacting to the following paragraphs from Suzie's column:

Embracing Classic Transsexual is sorta like embracing autogynephilia. Indeed Bailey uses it as a synonym for androphilic or homosexual transsexuals, who also embrace rather feminine stereotypes of ideas of the proper roles of women in society. [N3]

I was sort of amused to discover this one because a couple of the other people I banned from commenting on my blog were at one point in their relatively recent history self identified as autogynaphilic.

I do not think that signifying oneself as HBS, "classic" transsexual or otherwise automatically implies one is autogynephilic.

Saying that "Embracing Classic Transsexual is sorta like embracing autogynephilia", then comparing it to Bailey's usage on supposedly shared ideological grounds does not work for me. I think Suzy is mistaken.

beat me to it when said "... WBT, classic transsexuality and HBS have at their cores the same idea."

We have stated many times that the underlying birth condition is what matters. Several of us have pushed back against transgender encroachment, sought an alternative term, tried everything to maintain a sharp focus.

I recall experiencing what Cathryn did when I used TG/TS, etc. to show distinction and was accused of being a bigot and much much worse.

Sadly, even among ourselves and people who should know better, once they arrive at a turn of phrase they like, lather on social positions that qualify the core meaning. I tried out HBS or a while, but some of the adherents reacted badly over my same-sex relationship, family life, and willingness to at least listen to what transgender activists actually say.

I do not agree with Suzie that genuine and mutually respectful dialogue with the transgender activists is possible under current conditions. We have not seen it to be true here on this site, nor out in the streets where we do a lot of our work.

We do see significant stirrings among scientists, doctors, and thoughtful commentators. Over the long term that will change the world and consign much of transgender controversy to a dusty historical ledger.

The only way I am attacking the legitimacy of transsexualism is if being transsexual requires one to be a ranting name calling bully.

You act as if I haven't read some of the name calling. Y'all never waste your efforts on the fanatical Christians or the Ultra Right Wing, hell most of you do not even attack the crap spewing from McHugh, Bailey, Blanchard or Zucker. Instead it is transgender this, that and the other thing.

You are like the brainwashed sheeple who are against Nationalized Health or the Tea Baggers.

I've had my SRS longer than some of you have been alive and I came out at 21 (the earliest I could get treatment without parental approval due to 1960s laws). I actually was a patient of Dr. Benjamin's. When he first met me he was confused as to why a beautiful girl like me would want to be a boy, assured me that with me it was definitely physical. I do not embrace HBS because he called it transsexualism and if that is what he called then that is good enough for me.

I actually did a bunch of research regarding "classic transsexual". If you were ever married to a woman or fathered kids you can't legitimately claim that one because basically to be a "classic transsexual" you have to be an androphilie.

One of the benefits of having a history is knowing that the folks at the gender clinics in 1970 covered the same set of demographics as now. That there isn't something that makes those who like men superior to those who like women or those who transition young better than those who transition later.

I have concluded that everyone of us who is really TS has certain elements within their narratives including early awareness of difference.

So no I do not embrace "classic transsexual" as a way of pretending I am somehow better than other sisters who got SRS later in life or fathered children.

As for my writing a book. That is true. It also ends in 1980 with the transsexual vs WBW transwars and the rise of the ultra right wing in American politics. It is as much about SDS/the 1960s hippie scene and 1970s Sunset Blvd scene as it is about being born transsexual.

If I have apologized to people it is because I slandered them in a way that was both cruel and unfair. Getting back to my personal roots of the things I stood for in the 1960s and 70s has made me less likely to attack people who have been as oppressed as me.

There is a certain element of seeing oneself as better than even other sisters who also are post-op to those embracing "classic transsexual" as an anarchist I try not to pander to non-existent and pseudo-class differences. I suggest Paul Robeson Jr.'s book
Paul Robeson, Jr. Speaks to America: The Politics of Multiculturalism.

If you embrace there being an androphilic type then you have to embrace there being the other side of the equation, the Autogynephilic type.

The alternative is not to claim that you are androphilic therefore better.

The alternative is to point out that both are equally slanderous bulls**t.

The comparison may not work for you but it is valid.

I. for one, will gladly read what she has to say.

I don't particularly disagree with your analysis of androphilia and autogynephilia.

My discomfort is with the application, such that being A automatically implies one is B. Where is the causal connection between "classic transsexual" and autogynephilia? Isn't it possible to be a real TS-born person (regardless of the catch phrase) who is not autogynephilic?

I think it is impossible to be a woman, especially a female identified woman and not be autogynephilic.

Otherwise there would be no women's magazines, no fashion, no women's literature. Women look upon other women with identification, envy and perhaps a little lust.

Men objectify, women identify.

A gross si,mplification, I'll admit but work calls and I don't have time to pull the cites.

Sometimes I am surprised that so many of us who had to develop the thickest possible skins in order to transition in a variety of difficult circumstances can be so thin-skinned in dealing with each other years later.

A lot of the debate on the net includes efforts of one group or another to define others in a way that suits them. I don't like to participate in that -- it seems just a recipe for offending people. And I find that it helps not to identify personally as "trans" anything, whether classic or new formula.

On the whole, the WBT blog seems to me an equal opportunity offender. I enjoy reading it.

FWIW

Not so much thin skinned on my part as just plain tired of the same old same old over and over.

I transitioned in my forties and against almost all medical odds, fathered a daughter (it turns out it was genetically impossible for me to father a son). For some, my "creds" are forever questionable as a result. In other ways I lived a woman's live long before transition, my ex was/is an FtM in deep deep denial so I had the experience of being married to a man for all practical purposes, something I learned socializing on job with women my same age...our stories were almost identical about our partners.

You know what?....my own womanhood is not threatened by the rantings of some purist. As a result I can sit down and have a long, meaningful and deep conversation with rad fems when almost no one else with my history can. The group I find impossible to have meaningful discussions with are TGs. I just put up a blog entry addressing this at radicalbitch.wordpress.com if anyone cares. I have zero interest in engaging those who suddenly decided I'm not "real" enough because I'm Pagan, a Feminist, not married to a genetic man and not really interested in partnering with one anymore because I find the engrained mysogyny too much to stand these days. I didn't transition at the "right age", I fathered a child (who might as well be my physical clone strangely enough). So?

Blanchard's theories only held sway at Jurassic Clarke prior to Bailey's ludicrous attempt at a book. The basic problem with the theory from the get go, noted by some of the top minds in psychology and psychiatry was that applied to women, any woman who was comfortable with her own body and got any pleasure from it was also an autogynophile. When you factor this in along with the now pretty much confirmed neurological intersexed nature of transsexuality and confined the criteria to those with male neurological makeups, it works. No one seems to like to admit this. Both Blanchard and Bailey started from the premise that women of transsexual history are basically men, a position shared, ironically enough, with the most vocal of the TG crowd. It simply doesn't work from that premise.

Several well placed psych professionals were ready and writing on this when the James/Conway internut war with Bailey broke out.

I don't accept anyone's claims unless they are substantiated; claims of so-called history means less than absolutely nothing to me until proven. Some of the so called history I read parallels Forest Gump being instrumental in every major social event of the '60s and '70s. Because someone says something doesn't mean it actually happened. I'm not as easily impressed as some are and tend to dismiss out of hand most narratives on the internet unless I personally have knowledge of it or know someone who did. Knowledge of history doesn't necessarily imply one took part of it.

Irrelavance is just that and what may be important to some may be nothing more than irratating minutia to another.

Who was that addressed at?

My own life has been stranger than fiction in many ways thus I tend to believe others until given a reason otherwise.

You Susan, are just electrons impacting on a cathode ray tube to me.....I've never met anyone who knows you personally so should I, according to your own standards, just believe you are some random guy in a stained wifebeater tee, swilling beer claiming to be a woman on the internut? That's what I'm left with using your criteria..... I've noticed that those who make such statements ("I don't believe anyone's life stories without proof") often do so from what is called "projection" in psychology, especially on the internut. It comes from seeing in others that we know to be true of ourselves.

Suzan Cooke and I have never met in person but have interacted on the net for well over a decade. She is consistent, her life experiences parallel my own in many ways and I suspect she and I both have overlapping contacts 3D in sixties activism and trans circles. While I may not agree with her on a lot of stuff, that she is sincere is not a question in my mind.

Susan wrote

don't accept anyone's claims unless they are substantiated; claims of so-called history means less than absolutely nothing to me until proven. Some of the so called history I read parallels Forest Gump being instrumental in every major social event of the '60s and '70s. Because someone says something doesn't mean it actually happened. I'm not as easily impressed as some are and tend to dismiss out of hand most narratives on the internet unless I personally have knowledge of it or know someone who did. Knowledge of history doesn't necessarily imply one took part of

Apparently Susan doesn't believe in anything she hasn't seen with her own eyes or personally participated -- a rather Susan-centric universe, no?

Susan demands that she must be allowed to stick her hand into the wound before she will believe what someone else tells her.

I have never been to Oz or Kiwiland, never smelled their air, never picked up a handful of their soil and let it drift through my fingers -- but I believe that both exist, that there is a nation called Australia and one called New Zealand, and that neither of them is a figment of our collective imagination.

But if what Susan says about herself is correct, I wouldn't be able to convince her of their existence without buying her a plane ticket to the southern hemisphere so she could see them with her own eyes.

So much of the world can slip by if your life is spent constructing obstacles to understanding reality.

"You Susan, are just electrons impacting on a cathode ray tube to me.....I've never met anyone who knows you personally so should I, according to your own standards, just believe you are some random guy in a stained wifebeater tee, swilling beer claiming to be a woman on the internut?"

You can, and should, assume anything you damn well like, Cathryn...who knows, you might be righter than you think. I'm sure other transgender would like to think the same thing, I've certainly heard similar things from them. Either way, I don't require any validation of who I am, and don't seek it by endlessly posting the same tired story of my life in repetive comments on other people's blogs to that effect. I think its sweet you defend your friend, Suzan. That's what friends do. If you want to believe everything you read on the net, knock yourself out...but I don't.

You've come at me twice in this thread, out of the blue, so since you brought it up, you are partly right. I sure don't give a flying screw about your religion, nor lesbianism, and certainly not feminism. You're wrong, however, when you say that I attack those issues. If and when I decide to come at your position, you won't have to wonder if I have or not.

I find it difficult to accept a lot of what she says when she slips into a rant and screeches against the so called "right wing extreme" and those who are not in favour of a nationalised health scheme which would ultimately hand over a large portion of our GNP unto government control, not to mention the control of governmental bureaucrats in my health care (my apologies to those working for the government and involved with this website). I've often found it more difficult to deal and discuss issues with the "progressives" whose idea of compromise is "Do it MY way or else" and feel that their way is some universal truth. I think thi attitude probably speaks volumes about her words and thoughts in this article and probably many other articles she has authored.

My history is NOT hers, glad she made it, I made it too, we weren't all privileged to meet Dr. Benjamin; but that doesn't make her or her history any better, truer, or whatever than mine or other peoples. Some of us had a different path; many of us feel that "transgenderism" is NOT connected or a part of HBS or being Transsexual. Thank goodness, she wasn't granted the ability to see into my mind, it's none of her business anyway, nor is it her right or privilege to judge me and my being HBS/transsexual no matter when I had gender correction surgery.

No, I wont use the phrase I was about to use regarding broomsticks and flight.

Pamela

Kiaora Lisa

You write:

I have never been to Oz or Kiwiland, never smelled their air, never picked up a handful of their soil and let it drift through my fingers -- but I believe that both exist, that there is a nation called Australia and one called New Zealand, and that neither of them is a figment of our collective imagination.

Sigh! I live in on one of them and my faith is sorely tested from time to time.

That was a funny line!

I hope I am not wasting bandwith on this already long thread, but that deserved a shout-out!

When I first got into a situation where I was able to face down the demon that burned at my very source of being I did so against a wall of opposition. The opposition and antagonism from my family I expected; it was one of the things that restrained me at age 14. The wall of opposition I faced was also made up of a large number of members of the support group, transvestites all. Including the instigator of the group who kept me talking all night literally until daybreak about how it was possible to have the best of both worlds. As I subsequently began the real life test and my life began to take a turn for the better that wall of opposition became an iron curtain with barbs in it. There was constant sniping, harping, jealous jibes and constant “outings” at meetings to any newcomer at the group.

I felt a massive sense of betrayal too when it became clear that many of the people whom I had once respected and had believed to be supportive suddenly switched sides.

Now here 25 years on I see the same thing yet again. It hasn’t surprised me because there have been visible holes in essays from Suzan Cooke for some time. All the firebrand opposition to transgender doctrine; are now out of the window. Grandstand statements of divorce from transgender now look like so much hot air. Here in Suzan’s rebuttal of classic transsexual is the evidence of a complete change of heart. I read this exact piece on Suzan’s own blog but refrained from commenting because well, you don’t go too hard on people in their own front room do you? I wasn’t intending to comment here either because I thought let her go quietly but reading the thinly veiled accusations of right wing meaning presumably Nazi in reference to others whom I also respect, I think it is time to say something.

It’s not just the rejection of “classic transsexual” or the use of the term “autogynophelia” presumably used to raise the temperature since these terms have inherent issues within them. A point Suzan happily uses to her own advantage. No it is the apparent rejection of everything that went before. To have once rejected transgenderism and to now say you embrace it for no other reason than those of “politics” simply reinforces the perception of those whose intelligence is now insulted by saying that we are simply your right wing political opponents. Suzy, you do this in favour of a psychological lie and in preference to a blatant political construct, an artificial construct and one which for years you opposed.

Now when challenged on the issue I see a name calling tirade. Bullying tactics that you say you hate yet here they are visited by you on everyone who dares to question your motive. It is that which has brought me into an issue I had hoped might simply blow over and I could avoid entering. From here it looks like you are supporting something simply because other political dogma is similar to your own. However if you think these people are your allies, think again. Why they will turn on you Suzy just as soon as you’ve served their purpose and what they want from you is finished. You will be the one making the compromises not them. They never have in the past, what makes you think they are different now?

You see what you give them, is credibility, there you are with your history that we’ve all heard trotted out over and over. Suzan Cooke a patient of Harry Benjamin on the campaign trail for transgender, a classic transsexual, Harry Benjamin’s most perfect example of a primary transsexual ever, who now calls herself transgender, what a coup! Why, it’s like getting Abraham Lincoln to campaign for the Democrats. However, when they have what they want from you Suzy Cooke, why they’ll pop you in the trash can without a care in the world.

Lisa, if you want to compare geographical reality with internet embellishment then go friggin crazy. But, I think you've lost your friggin mind. That's about as juvenile an argument as I've ever heard...what a lame analogy...get a friggin life. I will tell you as I tell catkisser, if you want to believe everything you read individuals claim on the internet, then great...I don't.

You see what you give them, is credibility, there you are with your history that we’ve all heard trotted out over and over. Suzan Cooke a patient of Harry Benjamin on the campaign trail for transgender, a classic transsexual, Harry Benjamin’s most perfect example of a primary transsexual ever, who now calls herself transgender, what a coup! Why, it’s like getting Abraham Lincoln to campaign for the Democrats. However, when they have what they want from you Suzy Cooke, why they’ll pop you in the trash can without a care in the world.

When did Suzy call herself "transgender"? How can WBT ever be aligned with the TG cause?

She didn't, and it isn't -- and cannot be.

Not calling names, attempting to be civil, is not surrender -- it's an attempt at being civilized. If you have read the Woman Born Transsexual blog you might have noticed a call for a "two way street" -- mutual respect, and a willingness to forgo the "transgender as umbrella" foolishness, for a start.

That's not surrender, that's a willingness to work together on issues that benefit both parties.

If you're going to attack -- at least get some of your facts right.

Evangelina what you call a betrayal is simply my withdrawing from the playing of stupid trannie name calling games.

What pissed me off the most about the whole transgender argument in the late 1990s was the stupid post-modern word games. Those put forth by the camp calling themselves "classic transsexuals" is just as boring.

It does absolutely nothing what so ever to further our cause. For what it is worth you have told me yourself of the value in what Press For a Change accomplished. Stephan Whittle and many of the others who ran that organization identify as transgender and yet you speak highly of the Gender Recognition Act.

Me bullying? I am not even trashing the people who use their own blogs to trash me. At most I mention their trashing me in passing and decline to devote half my blog to denouncing them.

The stupid war between transsexuals and transgenders does not pass one hate crimes law, one anti-discrimination bill. Nor does it keep one person from dying on the streets of Austin from exposure, homeless even though she was a military veteran. In a place where the local slogan is "Keep Austin Weird".

If you had bothered to read my first published piece, "Not My Child" you would have seen that I care about people other than myself and those narrowly defined as being the same as myself. You might not know what inspired that article.

The night I wrote the draft to that piece I had just learned that a Latina transkid, a street queen and a hustler had just tested positive for HIV. She was undocumented.

Do you really think I care to waste any more time in these word games?

The shift in consciousness. I work around some incredibly racist right wing people. I hope I am better than that. I do not wish to emulate their name calling.

In doing the research for my book I have found my consciousness return to a place where I fought for what I believe in and took a stand against those things I believe to be wrong.

I am part of the gay and lesbian movement because I am a lesbian. My issues are not only those of heterosexual post-SRS women. Too often those of us in relationships with other sisters have been the targets of name calling from the heterosexual sisters. They imply that there is something wrong with us for loving another WBT. Heterosexual sisters often seem to believe we should defend their right to marry rather than help promote marriage equality that would permit us the right to marry.

Save your breath, ladies...the whole place stinks.

Not-Blog blog owners...no one buys the we-post-all-points-of-view BS. This place has posted numerous essays ridiculing the transgender, so much so it's a turn off to many of us. And, to now be subjected to the juvinile BS from Lisa is just too much. I've sworn off this place once before, but I swear before the Jesus that your transgender buddy Suzan Cooke makes fun of, I will never post at this hypocritical excuse of a place ever again. I will leave it to all you TG friendly types to work within you GLB centric space to change whatever it is you feel you want to advocate for.

I think all of you are a bunch of fruitcakes...including wierd Cathryn Platine. Post all of your alternative views, and then support them if you like, which is what you have done. I think Suzan Cooke is a fake. I think post ops who are "in love" with other post ops are maladjusted...and anyone who promotes a thousands of years old religion is crazier than a loon.

None of you four are any ally of mine. I said there would be no question when I came at another position, and you can bet your sweet wig, Lisa, I will be calling TS-Si out on every occasion I get. I know who my allies are against the TG construct...Suzan Cooke, Lisa Thompson, and Cathryn Platine...you don't qualify. Each of you give hypocrisy new meaning.

Go ahead, ban me you disingenuous mind f**ks. And, keeps talking to yourselves whiles saying you don't...suits you.

But, I think you've lost your friggin mind. That's about as juvenile an argument as I've ever heard...what a lame analogy...get a friggin life. I will tell you as I tell catkisser, if you want to believe everything you read individuals claim on the internet, then great...I don't.

The night I wrote the draft to that piece I had just learned that a Latina transkid, a street queen and a hustler had just tested positive for HIV. She was undocumented.

The shift in consciousness. I work around some incredibly racist right wing people. I hope I am better than that. I do not wish to emulate their name calling.

Typically, when opposed the resort of the Progressive is to name calling and another rant. An "undocumented" Latina transkid,a "street queen and hustler"; sorry, but I totally oppose those that enter this country illegally. Let's call her by the right name, an Illegal Alien, not some feel good term like "undocumented", this was a person that had entered this country illegally and had no right to be here. It is sad that she ended up on the street, a "hustler" again a feel good term for "prostitute", and contracted Aids from her activities. I have worked around some incredibily stupid "progressive" people who thinks that we should welcome anybody that can sneak across the border into this country and that the government "owes" us cradle to grave support and nurturing. SOrry but in my estimation, that makes us "subjects", not citizens. Love the threats and "righteous anger" on her last posting, see, you have opposed her ideas that she shared down from on high.
Okay, now I say, go climb on your broomstick and fly away to your never never land Suzan, where everybody worships your words and bows at your Dr B approved feet.
Apologies Lisa and Sharon, but enough is enough.

Pamela

Tina Suzy accepts the transgender mantle the second she campaigns for transgender issues. If she does not apply the word on herself it WILL be applied on her without her consentmaybebut it WILL be applied.

Classic:

definitions:

1. of the first or highest quality, class, or rank: a classic piece of work.
2. serving as a standard, model, or guide: the classic method of teaching arithmetic.
5. of or adhering to an established set of artistic or scientific standards or methods: a classic example of mid-Victorian architecture.
6. basic; fundamental:
9. traditional or typical:
Serving as the established model or standard: a classic example of colonial architecture.
Having lasting significance or worth; enduring.
Adhering or conforming to established standards and principles: a classic piece of research.
Of a well-known type; typical: a classic mistake.

I think all of you are a bunch of fruitcakes...including wierd Cathryn Platine. Post all of your alternative views, and then support them if you like, which is what you have done. I think Suzan Cooke is a fake. I think post ops who are "in love" with other post ops are maladjusted...and anyone who promotes a thousands of years old religion is crazier than a loon.

This is what gives everybody else who works to advance Intersexed and transsexed legitimacy a bad name. I reject this kind of rant out of hand. You, Susan, are no ally of mine! I do not want your bile around me!

but does anyone remember what the original discussion was about? Crikey, ladies! What happened to civil debate and discussion?

I've always found it rather curious how hot-topic discussions always seem to get distilled down to 'The Great Debate' (e.g. TG vs. TS, and derivatives) which in turn invariably triggers personal attacks which in turn causes lines to get drawn and gloves to come off which in turn causes participants who are otherwise calm and rational to rail against each other in response to any and all perceived slights (slight: n. A deliberate discourtesy; a snub) and the whole thing ends up looking like a pissing contest. You'd think we'd have learned by now not to take that bait.

I once responded to a spite-filled letter from Monica Helms in which s/he resorted to name-calling and invocations of righteousness, to which - in part - I replied: "I regret that you have resorted to arrogant remarks and personal affronts; such immaturity is rare among women." The same sentiment could apply here as well.

As the King of Swamp Castle said, "Let's not bicker and argue over who killed who." Rather, I would admonish, let's stop the killing. Can't we?

But it doesn't change the facts. People prove who they are with their actions, and not everything on the internet is real. When did we forget that?

What I see happening now is that some people are posting bait as a precursor to starting accusations of classism and racism in order to deflect attention from what they are doing. I'm sick to death of the nasty accusations of Nazism and all the other crap hurled my way for simply saying no to men, and now others, who want to control our lives and our truth.

I may not agree with everything Susan (EN) says, but I will tell you this. What she says is exactly how people in the mainstream view all this stuff. I think Cathryn herself even wrote about how people go insane by talking to themselves, and the fact that people here can't see it is very troublesome.

The fact remains that as long as the majority of the people talking about transsexual syndrome are steeped in the GLBT, it will be considered a gay disease and will not be taken seriously by the public or the medical establishment. Those who identify themselves as TS and lesbian, or as a supporter of transgender while being TS themselves, are doing nothing more than propogating the transgender myth regardless of good intentions.

I have yet to hear anyone who subscribes to the GLBT paradigm come out with a clear statement of separation between their "TSness" and their sexual orientation. That is because those who blend the two do so on purpose to be "trans", and those who don't are simply gay men and women.

Intersex and transsexual cannot protect themselves from GLBT aggression as long as there are people who claim to speak for us while they play politics in the GLBT- or for crass personal gain. The motives of people who do these things are, at the very least, suspect. Actions speak louder than words, and Susan is right that something really stinks.

AriaBlue wrote:

"I may not agree with everything Susan (EN) says, but I will tell you this. What she says is exactly how people in the mainstream view all this stuff. I think Cathryn herself even wrote about how people go insane by talking to themselves, and the fact that people here can't see it is very troublesome."

Well...I dunno ... I have some of my most intelligent conversations with myself. Err... at least I think I do ...

Aria, I do not apologize for my medical history, my religion or my sexual orientation. Susan has known I'm Pagan for a long time and that I am bi-sexual and it was not a problem until I said something about the little slams she made in general about sexual orientation and religion. I kept reminding her my circle of friends were largely lesbians and bisexual women hoping she'd ease up on the open bigotry. It's one thing to oppose colonization of our issues by the GLBt's, it's quite another to be an open homophobe and religious bigot. I finally felt I had to say something about it and tried to do so gently.

Suddenly I'm also a transgender? Lisa and Sharon are? Suzan is? And Jennifer Usher, who was absolutely notorious on usenet is the "the" spokesperson for HBS? ......and I'm the one who is loony tunes?

Trans everything are their own worst enemies. I think Suzan is wrong in the belief that TGs will be reasonable and drop the umbrella. Just because I think she is wrong doesn't give me license to slam her however... or call her a transgender.

Susan got pissed at me because I told Leigh I was trying to stay out of all these personalitiy disputes. I was carefully, without mentioning my name, told I was not welcome on her blog and would be banned if I commented there again. She demanded I remove the link on my own blog to hers.

... well as much as someone can in all this I suppose. I'm not sure that it's Susan's position that the TG's will be reasonable about giving up the transsexual golden goose, lol.

It does bother me to hear accusations of bigotry and/or homophobia used rather blithely in some cases. Too often the militant TG radicals use those terms in an attempt to silence absolutely anyone who happens to disagree with them on anything. It is a grave disservice to people who actually suffer discrimination from these things when some rather over-privileged white male crossdresser flings them about as a weapon, which I've seen before both on internet venues like blogs and messageboards and also in person at "support" groups.

That said, if people have a problem with Susan I'm sure they can be specific. I think it would take more than just a general lack of interest in GLBT matters to brand one as a bigot. I'm not particularly interested in GLBT politics, and outside of my general support of equal rights and how it affects me via the TG thing, it isn't a part of my life. I have no natural affinity for the gay world. Though I've also heard the same thing from some lesbians and gays I've met in real life though, hehe. They simply don't like that scene and choose to make their lives about something more than just the sex part.

I think you said something similar about how some people approach feminism, or perhaps even this topic if I am remembering some of your essays. If you approach it as a woman, then there is little problem. If you approach being a lesbian as a "trans" whatever, what are you really saying?

The whole point of this to some of us is tied exactly to this point: Why WOULD anyone born transsexual have a permanent forced connection to the gay world, simply by accident of birth? If you happen to also have been born gay, then so be it and pursue your political interests under that rubric if that's your calling. To conflate the two separate conditions is often an act of hubris in the way it plays out. And quite often it is an act of pure dishonesty. I've never come across more outright lies, manipulation, and pure unadulterated bulls**t than I have in dealing with trans matters.

And it isn't just limited to the patients, the so-called professionals are complicit as well. You never know who is real, but more often than not most of the trans-people you "meet" on the internet are just huge phonies. I suspect as the TG world winds down we'll see less and less people claiming to be TG. Maybe we'll have less and less people claiming to be transsexual as well, once a wall of resistance begins to form and coalesce.

The inestimable and inexhaustive Susan wrote:

I think all of you are a bunch of fruitcakes.

No no, no no no no. How many times have I told you that I am the Walrus? Please keep you personal degradations correctly nomen'd and aimed.

Remember, I am the Walrus, Sharon is the wild-eyed Irish Republican, and Suzie is the street kid who knows how to make an expeditious explosive device.

Got it? I am the

Walrus

, not the

fruitcake

.

If you would like to be the eggman, however, I believe that position is still open.

Goo goo g'joob, darlin'.

An "undocumented" Latina transkid,a "street queen and hustler"; sorry, but I totally oppose those that enter this country illegally. Let's call her by the right name, an Illegal Alien, not some feel good term like "undocumented", this was a person that had entered this country illegally and had no right to be here. It is sad that she ended up on the street, a "hustler" again a feel good term for "prostitute", and contracted Aids from her activities. I have worked around some incredibily stupid "progressive" people who thinks that we should welcome anybody that can sneak across the border into this country and that the government "owes" us cradle to grave support and nurturing. SOrry but in my estimation, that makes us "subjects", not citizens. Love the threats and "righteous anger" on her last posting, see, you have opposed her ideas that she shared down from on high.

Gee Pamela, in the old days this is the point where I would go off on you.

You are totally ignorant of what you speak.

This "illegal alien" criminally entered the country as a 2 year old.

During the time between her parents coming here and her sero-converting they legalized their status but refused to legalize hers because she was a maricon, a maraposa, a transkid.

Instead they threw her out, to live and die on the streets of LA, undocumented because of parental hatred. Why do you think I called the article "Not My Child"?

"Tina Suzy accepts the transgender mantle the second she campaigns for transgender issues. If she does not apply the word on herself it WILL be applied on her without her consent maybe but it WILL be applied."

Evangelina... How in hell is your labeling me transgender any different from the transgender activists telling me I must be transgender?

Your actions show you to be pretty much like the queens in the bars who haven't learned to throw shade and can only resort to reading as in "You are a queen." Which is pretty pointless when you are one too.

Or do you think your name calling makes you better than some one else, when you were born with a dick and balls between your legs too and had the same surgery I did?

How freaking stupid is that?

"Tina Suzy accepts the transgender mantle the second she campaigns for transgender issues. If she does not apply the word on herself it WILL be applied on her without her consentmaybebut it WILL be applied.

Evangelina"

In other words, saying you will no longer call names, will no longer engage in "pre-emptive attacks" means you are "transgender"?

Where has she "campaigned for transgender issues"?

Do you see ENDA and hate crimes bills as "transgender issues"? Doesn't the fact they impact everyone who is LGB or T make them a bit more than that?

In any case, the fact we are women, and LESBIANS means those become "our" issues too.

Would you call supporting the ERA a "transgender issue" also?

Let's get a little bit of balance here, folks. Being willing to listen, or being open to the POSSIBILITY of change, is not the same as BEING that specific thing.

Remember, I'm the one who said "there's no future being the 'T' in LGBT." -- I still stand by that for WBT's -- at the same time I can support the GOALS of the LGBT movement where they intersect mine.

I said that because being "the T" means we (WBT's, post-ops) will never be recognized as women by the LGB folks. Now, if you happen to be T, it is possible to get some support from LGBT groups. The trick is to wean yourself from that support as soon as possible after you are either full time or post-SRS.

If you do not do that, you may well be stuck in that "middle place" for a very long time. "Middle" was not my goal -- nor is it that of most WBT's.

Calling somene who is willing to see if the "Trandgender as Umbrella" folks are willing to talk, or modify their position -- especially now, after the backlash against "transgender as umbrella" has become so strong and widespread, is not the same as BEING "transgender".

Suzy and I must take some credit for helping the post-op movement along. WBT became known around the world, and has been attacked by just about every TG "leader" and group. All along, we stated we are NOT anti-TG -- we support their rights as equal human beings -- it's just that we want them to stop co-opting our lives. To stop including us in a movement we want no part of. To stop saying "we are all the same".

Heck, as can be seen here, even all post-ops and WBT's are not the same -- we share a medical condition that we took care of --- then we went on with our lives. That's very different from "TG".

Susan wrote:

Lisa, I will be calling TS-Si out on every occasion I get.

I will be quite interested in your views on the thousands of science articles and the tens of thousands scientific abstracts on the site. You do read them, don't you?

Be sure, however, to include some factual content, peer reviewed studies that might contradict the various articles, hard science research that disputes the quality of the articles and studies published in TS-Si, in your analysis and evaluation of the science.

As for the opinion columns, their purpose is to elicit discussion and thoughtful comment: they fulfill the former purpose quite well -- as evidence by the comment string on this column -- but they sometimes are severely lacking in the thoughtfulness of the comments they receive.

And if you plan on calling me out, I'm quite fond of dining at the Tasting Room in Eve's Restaurant in Alexandria. The atmosphere is relaxing, the sound level low enough for intellectual repartee, and the food and service are four and five star -- that Eve's is public venue filled with dinners of all persuasions, ethnicities, and (presumbably) sexual preferences simply adds to the moment's ambience. I look forward to your call.

Perhaps this argument is really more about overall world view. Calling someone who is willing to TALK to TG's a TG is little different from calling someone willing to talk to Iran a "terrorist". It makes about as much sense.

Over the years, diplomacy has been the mainstay of international affairs -- the Hapsburg Empire extended its life by about 100 years through the skillful use of diplomacy. Those who attempted to bluster through using only force often had much shorter lives.

Being open to diplomacy now might just be the best way to achieve goals that suit all of us. If not, we can always go back to bluster and namecalling -- its just that it's so stressful.

I know Susan Taylor in real life. We are both best friends. We have also on numerous occassions been "not speaking". We are both very individualistic, strong willed and outspoken. A recipe for "not speaking".

I do not agree with everything Susan says, but I will agree that what she says most often is right on target. It is hard hitting. It speaks to the truth. It bears no alliegence to friendship and it rarely pulls punches, not even when it comes to me.

I was banned from Suzan Cooke's blog simply for showing up. One post, mere commentary, not even anything derogatory said about anyone, just banned by association. She consider's me in the same vein as Jennifer Usher. She said so on Pams House Blend, another place I am banned from, simply for disagreeing with sandeen with ONE post on my part.

I fare no better here when it comes to opinion. Lisa and Sharon may say that they take no sides, but in fact they very much do, and they have and will add just enough slant to ridicule without making it look too obvious. We have been to war with each other, no love is lost.

In a private email to me, Sharon Gaughan invited me to write an article for TS-SI, I declined. She told me the offer stood should I change my mind. Months later, I took her up on it. Sharon and I went back and forth on the content, which she had already published, then kept asking me to approve changes, based on private behind the scenes emails with Autumn Sandeen and PHB, the target of my article. I was asked several times while the article was live to approve changes which I did.

The final article appears with this heading "LEIGH SMITH SAYS ....".

Any other article on this rag that professes to be "neutral", has a title, and a small tag line with the authors name. The very clever use of my name in all caps in the headline was nothing more than a way for Sharon Gaughan and Lisa Thompson to add ridicule and contempt to the author. I was in effect, baited and trapped by them. My mistake, one I will not make again.

There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that friendships are playing a huge part in this so called "news service". Susan Taylor's Enough Nonsense blog does go against the GLBT, and rightly so. Her commentary does speak to the colonisation of transsexed and intersexed persons by transvestic gender queers among the transgender umbrella. She is at very least not being a hypocrit in her views, even if like me, you disagree, she will for the most part uphold your right to post your disagreement.

Susan has said that stance is changing, that she has decided to ban those that offer up dissent. I hope that she changes her mind on that, for it is possibly the only blog out there where someone can call a spade a spade, without coming up against people like cooke, sandeen, thompson and gaughan, that will either slant what you post, or simply delete it and ban you out of hand and prejudice.

I don't really understand all the anger on this issue. And I am a bit surprised by that sentence coming out of me, because I am quite capable of being offended by others who try to classify people like me as something we are not for their own purposes.

But really, what can they do to us? If one has obtained a proper birth certificate and lives with her desired level of privacy, are the rantings of a (likely) personally troubled group of TG "leaders" really that threatening to our welfare? They are the ones that live a flamboyant public existence as some kind of third sex, not us.

I do worry more about the newbies and preops that may be brainwashed into following an improper course and I spend a fair amount of time working with several of them at any one time, in part to avoid their making poorly informed choices.

But I think it is a good idea for all "sides" to lower their voices on this and I certainly won't object to someone engaging the so-called transgender leaders in calm, rational debate. On the other hand, to save me heartburn, I may not read every item in response.

Finally, no one is going to persuade me that I should not support gay rights any more than anyone will persuade me I should not support racial justice. It is a question of fairness and morality, not group membership.

Leigh added a comment that outlines her view of what transpired earlier that led to the publication of my column, Leigh Smith Cites House Blend Entry As "Trans-sheep-le Journalism at its worst!".

The piece, as submitted by Leigh, was not suitable for standalone publication, but we accorded her the courtesy having her point of view recorded for further comment. Please visit the original column for more on this.

The other details Leigh recounts are out of temporal order and do not fairly represent what actually happened. We do not discuss the details of our discussions with authors in public and maintain confidentiality at all times. I can say that we offered Leigh the opportunity to write a comprehensive column on her views, but she subsequently refused.

The quote from Leigh's comment on this thread that led to my response is as follows.

In a private email to me, Sharon Gaughan invited me to write an article for TS-SI, I declined. She told me the offer stood should I change my mind. Months later, I took her up on it. Sharon and I went back and forth on the content, which she had already published, then kept asking me to approve changes, based on private behind the scenes emails with Autumn Sandeen and PHB, the target of my article. I was asked several times while the article was live to approve changes which I did.

The final article appears with this heading "LEIGH SMITH SAYS ....".

Any other article on this rag that professes to be "neutral", has a title, and a small tag line with the authors name. The very clever use of my name in all caps in the headline was nothing more than a way for Sharon Gaughan and Lisa Thompson to add ridicule and contempt to the author. I was in effect, baited and trapped by them. My mistake, one I will not make again.

Sharon said:

"The piece, as submitted by Leigh, was not suitable for standalone publication"

Not ONCE was I told that it was "not suitable for standalone publication" as you call it. Had you done so I would have retracted it, but then you had already published it anyways, while we continued to go back and forth on the content, you making sure that everything I said was suitable to Sandeen. You went out of your way to slant it.

For the past few hours, TS-Si has been subjected to a Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDoS) attack in an attempt to make the site unavailable to its users.

The attack is distributed, which involves targeting the site from multiple external systems, although the perpetrator in this case is a single source that turned subservient servers into zombies for the purpose.

The putative destination for the attack is the article entitle "Classic Transsexual" and the accompanying comments.

Please be assured that our security remains strong and intact. No comment or personal information has been compromised in any way. You can continue to comment anywhere on the site in complete confidence and we encourage you to do so.

TS-Si and its website, TS-Si.org, do not tolerate interference in its operations. The external sources have been blocked and correction is underway. The attacker(s) can expect punitive actions.

To improve performance during our clean up period, we have reduced the number of active comments in this thread. Not wanting to inconvenience our users, the only comments affected by this move will be those by the principals, Sharon Gaughan and Lisa Thompson.

First, Lisa's are now unpublished; we will follow with all but two of Sharon's if necessary to simplify operations. Only if necessary, we will unpublish some of the earliest comments.

Once we have restored full service and feel confident that the attack is over and permanently dealt with, we will republish all comments.

Thank you for your patience and support during this period.

Sharon S. Gaughan
VP & Executive Director, TS-Si
Managing Editor, TS-Si.org

We have aired some issues that need examination, while bringing out the best and worst in people.

To dispose of the worst: blustering insults and coarse language have no place in this discussion. At minimum, it blunts the validity of the speaker's position; worse still, it casts a dehumanizing spell on the target. This reveals more about the speaker than the opponent.

To encourage the best: I recommend people calm down, avoid the temptation to disembowel others, adopt a rational tone, and simply state their position and/or response.

We have an opportunity here to clarify the issues in a way that can inform people early in their transition, as well as the professionals who monitor us (and they are many) seeking advanced understanding they can incorporate into their own work.

Speaking for myself:

(1) Whatever we choose to call the birth condition, there are people who are aware early in life that their neurobiology - perhaps even their genomic makeup - does not align with their genitalia (that includes me). We may not have the adult vocabulary to adequately describe what we experience, but the experience is no less valid for that. For such people, the only successful correction requires hormonal reset, surgical correction, and immersion in a life consistent with their sex as it was meant to be. Getting there can be swift or a long and difficult process. Some never live long enough to leave their pre-op state and achieve full correction, sadly leaving them unfulfilled.

(2) Other people, commonly known as transgender, are in a different situation; I wish them success and peace upon their distinctive path.

(3) I draw the line at attempts to impose sociopolitical categorizations (e.g., transgenderism) on people born transsexual without their consent, representing me in ways I find inapplicable, offensive, and dangerous for the unwary. As I have stated elsewhere, including transsexuals under the transgender "T" umbrella has the effect of relegating full correction of our misalignment to that of a lifestyle choice. This relegates the most vulnerable among us to a life of frustration and exposes them to potentially violent interference, even madness.

(4) Sexual orientation has nothing to do with any of this. As it happens, I am in a same-sex relationship. Most people, including post-op transsexuals are heterosexual, but none of that matters. We are who we are.

(5) The alignment history of partners has nothing to do with any of this. As it happens, my life partner is also a post-op female. We were both very surprised by this development, but quite happy with the outcome. Both of us have a bi-sexual component in our sexuality that is trumped by our monogamous commitment.

(6) Political positions per se are not a qualifier for whether one is accepted as a valid post-op person. My partner and I have both served our country in times of war and peace, a fact that some on the Left find offensive and some on the Right underestimate. We are proud of our service while vigorously defending the right of others to disagree.

(7) I find it inconsistent to advocate a free and open dialogue that accommodates my perspective while blocking the views of others. I am not threatened just because one or more of the opinion columnists disagree with me. This site is a safe place to air out such differences in the hope that it leads to mutual understanding - or, at least, mutual tolerance.

There is more, of course, but this will do for now.

Update: USA18:52 EDT (UTC -5:00)

TS-Si.org sustained and defeated a Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDoS) attack designed to prevent access by our users and disable certain site features.

The confirmed attack destination was the article entitled Classic Transsexual and the accompanying comments.

TS-Si does not tolerate interference in its operations. We have blocked the external sources, identified the attacker(s), and applied punitive sanctions.

No comment or personal information has been compromised in any way. We encourage you to leave comments anywhere on the site and in complete confidence. We are now in the process of completing our site cleanup and gradually returning to normal.

Thank you for your patience. We particularly appreciate the private communications expressing support during this period.

Sharon S. Gaughan
VP & Executive Director, TS-Si
Managing Editor, TS-Si.org

What is there to discuss? What is there to reach a middle ground on and with whom?

Once upon a time in the not too distant past, right here in the good old USA, State legislators in all but two of the fifty states. Including I might add those horribly conservative southern states whom, at the time still embraced their Jim Crow laws, accepted that the Gods can make a mistake! That a female (or male) can be born with the wrong genitalia! The important part of this was the mistake not only was correctable, it should be corrected! So the legal means to that correction was codified

Part of the agreement, the rather logically assumed part was, one so afflicted would turn heaven and hell both just for the change to correct the mistake! It was assumed, if one truly was a female then such a such gross error in anatomy would mean there could not possibly be anything more important in a girls life than to get it over and done with so she can move on with her life!

That was the way I saw it when it came my time for correction. So I made the pact, paid the price and once it was done, picked up the few pieces left, came to speed damn fast on all that I missed and slipped into society with my past as the past.

No where in any of that was there even the least thought given to one going… ohhh, say… a quarter for the way? Or halfway? Or even three quarters of the way!. Heck there wasn’t thought given to going 9/10th of the way. NO!!! It was all or nothing! You started the process, got you surgery, got the records corrected and moved on…

I wonder what do you think might have happened if this same issue was presented as it is now…A Life-style? A Choice of dress? An issue of ohh I dunno Gender Identity what ever that may be?

I can tell you this. I certainly would not have a correct birth-certificate, a correct passport, a correct driver;s license college transcripts etc etc etc. where it not for those who went before me setting that example!

Yet since the late Nineties when I came on line I have been reading all this garbage about transgender and lifestyle choices when talking about women such as me, and as the years progress so to does the volume of that cacopany of voices saying “you are part of our umbrella of gender issues!” Mind you when this is said it means I’m out there at the uber queer extreme end as a some sort of ersatz, penile inverted Frankenstein-esque amalgam of man-made surgical parts grafted onto a castrated-man who at best roughly simulates the shape of a woman.

Well hush my little sweet southern mouth! I can think of nothing that would please me more than to sit round the table yet again with these same folks and hear for the einth time all about how this was a lifestyle choice and I’m just like them. Meet them half way? Sure… Right… Uhhhh… and that would be halfway to where? Hell? Yep nothing would please me more except to slam my fingers in the car door a few times

Nope!

As it was said in the movie “Network” “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it any more!" For far too long I’ve been quiet while the Donna Rose’s and Andrea’s of tranny town spoke for me. Well no more sister! While I will support to my dying breath the rights of all humans to be full citizens I will not stand by as I am included in this bastardized alphabet creation of theirs!

No no and no. I’m tired of it! I am tired of all the self-appointed leaders out there educating folks how to spot markers on women like me. I’m tired of all the blogs and websites with their non-stop hubris of “middle ground”

Sure, I have history, as do we all! Sure, I went through transition! Because of those experiences, I like everyone here has felt full force, the utter brutality of societies scorn for one perceived as being not fully of one sex. It is not a thing I would wish upon my worst enemy

Yet I persevered though the pain and transitioned. I moved on. I started my life anew and cut all the ties, and I do mean all, to a past that is no longer mine. It hurt! Oh God did it ever hurt and I shed a lot of tears in the process, but when it was over and done with, I discovered the joys of simply being…

A woman…

All this angst? All this dissonance? It has no part of my life now.!

Should it? Is there something I’m missing about why holding on to the pain is a good thing? Is there some reason I’m missing as to why I should turn my back on the life I have created? Is there some reason I should grab up this banner of out and proud (of WHAT pray tell?) and wave it from on high saying “ha-ha, fooled ya! I’m really a man? What would I, or any of those I love gain by such an act?

Nothing!

Nothing at all could be gained by my doing such a foolish thing and what is worse, it would mean all that pain and suffering was for naught. Yet is that not exactly what “the Activists” say we should be doing? Is that not the inevitable outcome of embracing their out and proud policies? What does having my genitals repaired have to do with being a lesbian? Pray tell what does a middle aged woman have anything in common with a man in a dress? How does this make me part of “gayness?” Why should I reach out to the TG with understanding? They have yet to give me the time of day!

No no and no! enough is enough. I will meet all who try to take me into this umbrella and continuum with all the resistance I can muster

Sibyl (named sock-puppet and troll by Susan Cooke who does not throw stones I’m told)

Thank you for your comment.

Wow sibyl ... thats telling em straight and true! I could not agree more!

I have it on good authority that we don't publish people like Sibyl.

Don't know if this will get published or not, but:

Gee Pamela, in the old days this is the point where I would go off on you.

You are totally ignorant of what you speak.

This "illegal alien" criminally entered the country as a 2 year old.

During the time between her parents coming here and her sero-converting they legalized their status but refused to legalize hers because she was a maricon, a maraposa, a transkid.

Instead they threw her out, to live and die on the streets of LA, undocumented because of parental hatred. Why do you think I called the article "Not My Child"?

From your original statement, she was here and undocumented, so she was either a minor when they somehow managed to get 'documentation" in which case she should have been under their umbrella, OR she was of an adult age. By any standard she was an illegal alien; her parents were also apparently illegals too, but somehow obtained documentation ( probably without returning to the country of their origination) without going through the standard/correct immigration process.

I do not you like to call names, as previously pointed out, typical and well displayed even here in the comments section.

Dr. Gaughan, we are all relieved TS-Si got through the nastiness. We would loose heart without you. You have done so much to clear some obstacles and help us along.

We learn so much on this site and receive the right kind of stimulation. We constantly poke our seniors on priorities. After all, if some research topic is ok with TSSi, it must be ok all around.

Btw, Verna got her dissertation topic approved and Ray actually got his diss done.

This may be the wrong article for this comment but hey why not. This thread, in particular has been a revelation. Everyone here works so hard and with so much passion!

Enough for now, Sharon. And Edgar says Hi! :->

The Lab Rats

TS-Si.org has returned to normal operations. There are only a few lingering effects on the smooth operation of our commenting facility.

Sharon S. Gaughan
VP & Executive Director, TS-Si
Managing Editor, TS-Si.org

Because Susan Taylor (SA-ET) is now blogging about me, I feel the need to add a comment to this entry to clarify my position. I disagree with Suzan Cooke about almost every aspect of this entry......and I deplore the personal attacks made on her because of it.

In the past I promoted using transgender and transsexual to the gender communities. In the past being the operative part and each and every time I mentioned this anywhere I though I had made that crystal clear. That ship sailed a long time ago for the reasons I also gave with the mention of that, I was viciously attacked for doing so.

For visitors who see Cathryn Platne's previous comment and refer over to Susan's (SA-ET) blog, Enough Non-sense. The specific entry is Allies and a Recent Skirmish. Please be advised that the blog mentions Lisa Thompson and makes some highly questionable staements about TS-Si. There are a few points to remember.

(1) We did sustain a Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attack that took several hours to resolve. The server never did go down altogether, but took some damage.

(2) As I pointed out in an earlier comment near the end the discussion, we took some damage to our server system configuration. One of the results was a destabilization of the commenting facility. We had to unpublish some of the comments. Not wanting to inconvenience our users, I unpublished most comments by Lisa Thompson, Sharon Gaughan, and another person who understands the need. We did this to stay within a ceiling we set on comment entries while we work out a permanent solution.

The current limit is set for "50" comments per article. If necessary, I will unpublish some more comments while we work on the problem. Once resolved, we will readjust the ceiling to accomodate a much larger comment thread.

(3) We have not yet fully resolved the issue but expect a fix in the next few days. When that happens, we will restore all comments in the thread - as pledged in my updates on the problem.

(4) We practice transparency on this site, which is why I posted a series of updates to keep readers appraised of the situation.

(5) Since our founding, this site has been subjected to all manner of attacks from external sources in an attempt to disrupt or eliminate our operation. We seldom report publicly on such things, feeling it would be an unnecessary distraction. In this case, the DDoS effects were visible to our users and we felt it necessary to provide an explanation. We will do a wrap-up at a later date.

(6) The most recent stimulus for my comment here is an entry by Susan (SA-ET) that cites Lisa Thompson, discussing her and TS-Si. I have appended the passage for your review.

Once again, please note: Lisa Thompson did not delete any comments. I unpublished some of them to avoid crashing the commenting facility. As stated during the attack, we will republish them when I am satisfied the system issues are fully resolved.

She has since deleted the comment she made that lead me to respond in that manner. She also deleted a second baiting comment. That’s the TS-Si way of controlling opinion…bait with a an insulting, asinine comment, and then delete the baiting comment after one responds. Baiting someone on your blog with a comment and then deleting the baiting comment to make the person who addresses it look bad is pubescent child behaviour. I don’t participate in that kind of crap, and no doubt there will be no one who questions TS-Si about why she deleted her two baiting comments after I responded.

There is a clear line that Susan of Enough Nonsense has written in her post, one which everyone here should be able to agree on when looking past the personal conflicts. And there is big difference between compromising for a common good, and acquiescing for personal gain.

Simply put, the lines are drawn and those who take part in the TG corruption really are no friend to any of us. This isn't something Susan has dictated, it's a reality she has recognized. It's time that everyone who has an interest in this subject take another look at what they are really doing.

If people continue to put themselves and their needs before their goals, they are not going to be part of the solution. At best they'll be left behind in the fading world of TG, because that sort of self-aggrandizement properly belongs there with the rest of it.

Where do you stand?

Can you be specific?

TS-Si.org is now fully operational and all article comments that were temporarily unpublished have been restored.

If you notice any problems, please clear your browser cache and try again; if the problem persists, contact us via the Contact tab.

Thank you for your patience.

I will publish a statement on this situation and some attendant user issues later today. My remarks will appear at approximately 9 Sep 2009; USA21:00 EDT (UTC -5:00) or before.

Sharon S. Gaughan
VP & Executive Director, TS-Si
Managing Editor, TS-Si.org