Wednesday, February 18, 2009

The Riddle of Peter Jacobsen.

By Sophia Siedlberg

Imagine for a moment a situation where an attorney is instructed by their client to find legal reasons to sue people for objecting to what the client writes or says in the public domain. An example would be something like the client saying: "Tell that fat, ugly freak who should be locked up for life, that their objecting to my calling them that is libel against me!"

Well, that is not a satirical comment but an example of how in most cases any respectable law firm would advise the client that in court this would seem ridiculous. But not Peter M Jacobsen. How has it all come to this?

Let's clarify one thing first. The "Client" in this case is Dr Kenneth Zucker who seems to be very unsettled by some of his ex-patients making comments about their treatment under his care at the Clarke Institute of Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), as well as the opinions of others who are critics of the treatment protocols used at the CAMH. . While a lot has been written about Dr Zucker and his associates, not all that much has been said about the legalistic tactics employed by their legal representatives. At present it appears that a number of the people who were targeted by Peter Jacobsen acting on behalf of Kenneth Zucker are beginning to speak out openly after Professor Lynn Conway (A recipient of such legal threats herself) decided to confront this legalistic bullying in the public domain.

The mystery seems to be the way Jacobsen appears to have no problem, or sense of conflict, when it is patently obvious to most observers that he is saying to people, "Do not walk on the grass!", while Jacobsen and those he is representing are standing on the grass. To most observers this appears absurd at best.

Lynn Conway observed that this behavior on the part of Jacobsen and those he is representing formed a distinct pattern of what is clearly intimidation. We don't really have to look very long and hard to see why Lynn Conway came to this conclusion. The way the "Clarke-Northwestern" (A combination of "Clarke" in Toronto and the "Northwestern university" in Chicago, where most of Dr Zucker's associates are located) have conducted themselves to date have been to state that they believe in a theoretical framework to describe mainly transsexual patients, and then to vigorously suppress any dissent or alternative opinion.

They employ a range of methods including threatening emails, barring people from debate in numerous public fora and the use of agitators to confuse or disrupt debate that may go against the "Clarke Northwestern".

The point is that while most of these tactics can be seen as the product of angry debate, Jacobsen's involvement takes this into a new arena. I am of the opinion that Peter Jacobsen should be plainly aware of the fact that his legal arguments have little or no weight. If anything, I feel they undermine his own reputation considerably. So why then does he persist in issuing ridiculous legal threats when the charges tend to characterize the actions of those he is representing rather than those he is issuing the legal threats to?

Jacobsen is most likely fully aware of the fact that none of his claims would probably hold ground in court, and would most likely result in counter claims against the CAMH. Look at this from a rational perspective. The Clarke Northwestern cannot on a collective level complain about the stifling of "Academic Free Speech" when they have so evidently sought to suppress opinions that differ from their own. The very fact that Jacobsen is issuing these legal threats testifies to the fact that the Clarke Northwestern are trying to suppress the free speech of others. While in a number of Jacobsen's letters we read that he considers some of the commentary about Kenneth Zucker in particular goes beyond "Free speech", it is clear that Jacobsen's notions of free speech differ considerably from a more generally accepted definition of free speech. Also, when you consider some of the statements made by those he represents, which are blatant libel, the contradiction becomes even more evident. Meanwhile Jacobsen persists in presenting invidious legal arguments that only serve to highlight the contradictions while at the same time trying to present his clients as the victims of slander and libel.

The only way Jacobsen can make any of his arguments work would be by the use of legal technicalities. Logically his arguments are nonsensical. It is the very fact that Jacobsen appears to believe that such "Legal gymnastics" would convince anyone that his arguments and actions have any validity which leaves me wondering whether or not he is simply engaging in damage limitation on behalf of Dr Kenneth Zucker and the CAMH.

This of course brings up the questions about what the CAMH and Dr Kenneth Zucker have really been doing to damage their own reputations and what good Peter Jacobsen seems to think that repeating the mistake of damaging one's own reputation will serve. The actual activities of the CAMH and Dr Kenneth Zucker do not fall into the scope of this commentary and are probably the subject of jurisprudence at this point in time.

The issue here is the strange approach that has been taken by Peter Jacobsen. If you look at the case in any detail you will find a series of legal threats that are illogical, relying if anything on technicality rather than fact. The question is a simple one. On what basis does Jacobsen do this? Well, that is the riddle.

Friday, May 9, 2008

A letter to America: A Response

From Peter Trinkl, Board President, Bodies Like Ours
(In response to: A letter to America)

You say that you are writing a letter to an entire nation. An issue that you raise is that American men and women traveling abroad are often “disliked, distrusted, or on some occasions even hated”. I have never traveled to Europe, so I can only take your word for it. I suspect that American travelers are pretty much like travelers everywhere, often resented for having the time and money to travel. When some Americans travel the world, I suspect that there is often distrust based upon a past history of slavery and colonialism. In the near future, the majority of Americans will not come from Europe. Progress is being made towards America becoming a modern multi-cultural and diverse society.

You speak of the harmful effects of the relationship between the medical profession in the United States and the medical profession in the United Kingdom. I assume that you are referring to the cultural dominance of medical treatment protocols for intersex children put forward by advocates for the new DSD nomenclature (Disorders of Sex Development). It is most unfortunate that the treatment guidelines now being put forward are making their way into the United Kingdom. That is terrible news. I know that one document, a Chicago Consensus Statement, that still recommends involuntary infant genital surgery in cases of highly virilized CAH children.

I believe that we are in a time of change, where intersex people are speaking out about our own experiences, connecting with other intersex people, and demanding recognition as human beings. You say that “All I really want is just to lead my life as best I can and that is that”. I know that intersex children should not be made to feel guilty. But unfortunately, I think that the trauma is very deep. From what I know, I don't think that my parents were as abusive as your parents. However, I think that my parents were never able to really bond with me, which led to a lifelong estrangement. Being born intersex is an accident of birth, but it is an accident that lasts for a lifetime.

You say “However, the medical professionals who operate from the Clarke-Northwestern school of medical opinion over the USA have decided that I had no right being born. They don't say it outright and it is not aimed at me personally, but they basically assert that there is only ‘pure’ male and ‘pure’ female.” I agree with you on this one. From J. Michael Bailey saying that he has no objections to the possibility of parents aborting gay fetuses to the recent attack on the transsexual community under the guise of an academic discussion of the Female Essence Narrative, it is clear that some people are, at the minimum, not very good listeners, and at worst, well..... worse. I think that it is very damning, that time and time again, the subjects of Bailey's research disagree with his interpretations of their interviews. And now Alice Dreger has a Guggenheim. I think that it is great that Alice got a Guggenheim, but I am disturbed that she will use the funds to continue the flimsy arguments first advanced in her article in defense of Bailey. She can do better than that. Nearly every day, the thought crosses my mind: “Why doesn't Alice pick on someone her own size?” I hope that I don't offend intersex and transsexual people with these thoughts, because I am sure that there are many strong voices out there. But I believe that she should stick closer to personal experiences, such as deconstructing the Female Essence Narrative among so-called bio-females.

I agree that much of the work of the Clarke Northwestern group is closely related to past eugenics movements in the United States, even if it might not be explicitly stated and they only continue the work in spirit. Normalization is still the watchword in the treatment of intersex children. If it is not surgical or hormonal normalization, it is psychiatric normalization. I see the genetic identification of intersex conditions and genetic counseling towards promoting so-called healthy and well adjusted children as a growth industry. The search for a so-called gay gene continues.

Human Rights should not be confined by national boundaries. I am appalled that the United States included an exemption for its own practices of infant genital surgery on intersex children from international agreements condemning female genital mutilation. I am appalled that in the United States, normalizing infant genital surgeries are still performed on an involuntary basis on intersex children roughly five times a day. I am appalled that not a single state in the United States has banned involuntary infant genital surgeries performed before a child has a chance to grow up and make their own choices about their body.

But there is some progress in the United States. I am typing this using OpenOffice Writer rather than Microsoft Word.

This response from Peter Trinkl is also available on OII's website at:

Wednesday, May 7, 2008

A letter to America

Hello America! How are you today? You are probably wondering what someone in the UK is doing writing a letter in effect to an entire nation. Well, it goes like this, have you, the average American man or woman, ever wondered why when you travel abroad you are disliked, distrusted or on some occasions even hated? I am not talking about some Islamic countries either, but often in countries that are supposed to be your closest allies, such as here in the UK.

Well, here is the explanation that may help because I can assure you I am not writing out of hostility. I admit there was a time a few years ago when I followed the crowd and said “Americans are dumb. They just got Bush as their president”. But then I thought that instead of simply saying that, why not explain why such a sentiment came about? Today, living in the UK which is a country that has stood by you very often in recent years, has committed troops to fight your wars and even faced bombs, essentially for you, the concept of “Anglo American” relations seems, at best, to feel a little one way. I will give you a personal example. In the US there is a clique of medical professionals whom I have written about very often, that have not only decided what clinical guidelines and treatment protocols should apply in every state in the US but also here, in the UK, and those policies are detrimental to the health care I receive and ultimately to my health.

I will not hide what my health issues are. I was born “intersexed”, that is “of no clear anatomical sex by the currently defined medical standards”. There is nothing politically correct about me, and I am not really a member of the LBGT lobby. I am just an individual with a medical condition that is a bit unusual; I have no “Gender identity issues”. All I really want is just to lead my life as best I can and that is that. It was an accident of birth and nothing I should be made to feel guilty about.

However, the medical professionals who operate from the “Clarke-Northwestern” school of medical opinion over in the USA have decided that I had no right being born. They don’t say it outright and it is not aimed at me personally, but they basically assert that there is only “pure” male and “pure” female. I am angry about this because I am not an American citizen, and yet it would seem that people who would be born with health issues like mine would probably not be born or if we are, we would be subjected to surgical intervention, secrecy and shame, all because of American sensitivities? And American morality?

Look at yourselves. At the time I write this, there is an African American and a middle class White Woman doing battle to become a presidential candidate. And listen to what is being said, from the outside, from “Not in America”. Do you know what journalists outside the US are saying? “The Americans are having a bit of a problem at the moment with the race issue and the gender issue”. America looks like a country of bigots presenting token candidates for the Democratic Party. I mean look at how quickly the issue of the Republican candidate was settled. No controversy or wringing of hands there.
In some countries, like the Islamic countries, you are compared to Nazis. I think that is unfair but from where I am sitting, in all honesty there is little smoke without fire. Take the issue of Homosexuality and Abortion. These are hot button topics Americans are stereotyped over. Now is it not interesting that some Americans, usually of the “Religious right”, would gladly kill a medical professional who carries out abortions, unless of course there is some test that can determine whether or not the unborn child may grow up to be gay. As it happens that is a bit of a joke outside the US, like the aborting of children with many other “Defects” (including those like mine, intersex conditions) is “fine”, and now I hear some (The Clarke Northwestern) talking of eradicating gay fetuses as well.

Any sort of non conformity to some physical or social ideal is met with abortion, with the intent to eradicate and the American Right wing and neo-conservative movements are funding this because they have been lied to. They are also paying doctors to interfere with the internal affairs of other countries. Is it any wonder an American Accent usually gets met with such derision and hatred, even in countries where people have laid their lives on the line defending American interests.

I am not saying the Clarke Nothwestern are solely responsible for the hatred (sometimes visceral hatred) felt towards America, but they are one example of what the problem really is. Let me illustrate the point with how the average American tourist looks through the eyes of your typical Brit. “Overweight, Oversexed and Over here” would be one commonly used phrase. “Bloated, superficial bully who wants to rule the world with an iron fist and Mc Donald’s” is another. I have no doubt you see the British as prudish, anally retentive and all talking like Dick Van Dyke in the Mary Poppins Movie. There is a difference; on the one side there is a sense that “Those over there” are quaint and probably a bit dim. On the other side there is a sense of real anger, at having our hospitality abused and at having your values imposed on us, of sensing that whatever happens, the Americans will always regard the rest of the world (and in this case the UK) as mere second rate of this planet.

And I am talking about people who traditionally are your allies, not your sworn enemies.
Perhaps you need to take a close collective look at yourselves. I am not saying look at the fat bully stereotype. I am saying stop and think. Stop taking other nations for granted. Stop imposing your rules on their day to day lives, and yes stop having the likes of the Clarke Northwestern (Among others) represent you on the international stage, making you look like a bunch of warmongering, genocidal, dictatorial maniacs. I am not anti American, as it happens the organization I am speaking to you from is an international organization (Which qualifies me to say what I am saying) which has a very large American contingent. In a way OII is a microcosm of the international problem you Americans have to be dealing with. OII represents international opinion, unlike say ISNA which represents American opinion. In OII there is a common and consistent thread, even among the American membership that America-centric organizations like ISNA and the Clarke Northwestern are a symbol of American arrogance on the international stage. In a way similar to some large companies like Microsoft or Coca Cola or McDonalds.

Now, you are not unwelcome. In the UK I can buy a copy of Microsoft Windows, buy a big Mac and swig it down with a can of Coke. But when I see these things as a product of a nation that would see people like me killed before they are born, along with the disabled and LGBT folks. I see symbols of an invader, not a friend. That is your problem America. Before you alienate yourselves from the rest of the planet, sit back and think what is it you are doing wrong. Take it as advice from an honest friend and remember I am still typing this on Microsoft Word, for now.

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Index of Articles

Ziek Ziek Ziekeddy Gynephile

By Sophia Siedlberg

Dr. Westenfelder has inspired me to start an award scheme. I will call it the Westenfelder Quackery award. And every month OII could award this to whatever doctor really comes out with the usual dumb panic-stricken claptrap, but in the best style. We have had notable candidates already: "Girls will be girls (Or Else)" (Perrin White), "The Doctors felt that anything other than DSD was too de-pathologizing" (Alice Dreger), "They are best, sorry, "especially, suited for prostitution" (J Michael Bailey).

So why have I decided that this award be named after Dr Westenfelder? Of Krankenhaus Maria-Hilf, Klinik für Urologie und Kinderurologie, Krefeld. Because He has come out with an absolute corker. And here it is:

"In 5-alpha deficiency, early gonadectomy and feminization are not recommended since gyneophile behavior can be expected. Late or non-correction is rejected by the majority of psychiatrists. Many problems remain unclear and controversial due to lack of knowledge."

Ok, so Dr. Martin Westenfelder is talking about not doing surgery on intersex patients. Oh how wonderful, but there is a catch. "They may grow up being lesbians" and "must be made men" (So surgery is still involved then). I see we are in Der Eigene territory again. Oh and what is singled out for this wonderful male privilege. Yes, you guessed it. People with 5 alpha. I find that particularly irritating. I am not sure what it is with psychiatrists and 5 alpha. Do they have dreams of surgeons procuring a Bolivar or Cohiba sized penis on an 18 month old child. Well a cigar is a cigar, the end result is more, errm Hamlet, and mangled at that. To put it bluntly Dr Westenfelder is not telling you about the surgery, yes I said surgery, in his own country, that is termed "A hypospadias repair" or "Treating a hernia" but often involves the ripping out of the occasional uterus while no one is looking.

You can see how this strange logic works, when you consider that most papers on 5 alpha describe a vagina and the little girl grows up into macho manhood with a 30 foot long penis that would make a spammer jealous. Well this is evidently a bit fictional if Dr. Westenfelder considers masculinization of a "hypospadias" to be needed. There would not be one right? But a clitoris and vagina right? Westenfelder ends his comment with:

"In the future they can only be solved through cooperation, documentation, and observation of these individuals over their lifetime."

Well there is another lie, not coming from Westenfelder himself. But how often is that parroted when discussing 5 alpha? As someone with 5 alpha, my experience has been that such statements are little more than hot air. And the "Make ‘em male" line of reasoning is nothing new either. As it happens, this is what I was subjected to. I have written it out enough times. I really cannot help but see something abusive behind all this. Before 1990 the records of sex assignation did not read like a uniform rush to feminize every child. Dr. John Money had a blanket policy of feminization but everywhere else it was more uncertain, and in the Middle East and various religious countries masculinization was and still is more common. Perhaps my argument sounds a little twisted when I say that most of the time, male assignation is motivated by a need to cause the child harm, and make them regret they were ever born, having been through it myself. However, I am entitled to say that. Dr Westenfelder is from what I have been reading either a surgeon or a psychiatrist. Most probably a psychiatrist given the "Dr" title, and someone whom I regard as a threat. It is simple Pavlovian logic. I was assigned "male" given a life of hell, and when I finally had the damage undone as best it could be, I read these people in the media going "Man, man, man, man, Srebrenica, hahaha". All they are achieving by all this is to make themselves objects of hatred; I have said that before as well. I have also said they will do it to the wrong child and that child could grow into an autandrophobe and hunt the doctors down.

My feelings towards the "Expert" who decreed I should be "male" when I was a child are homicidal, literally. I have to keep that anger under control; I have had to be kept well away from medical professionals who started harping on about chromosomes and "make ‘em male" because I would have killed them at one time. I am not sure the Dr. Westenfelder quite understands what he is dealing with. I am not saying everyone born with an intersex variation or even 5 alpha would have the negative reaction towards the "masculine" I have, but again and again I say that one day they will do it to someone else who is not as able to restrain their anger.

My actual answer is to use this "Westenfelder award" and every quack who comes out with arbitrary sex assignment, and does it for dumb reasons like "they may grow up gay" or "they may grow up lesbian" will get the award. You could consider this as an exercise is psychology, a sort of special list calling attention to those who are causing great harm to innocent children and if children could grow up gynephiles, they could also grow up to be angry autoandrophobes.

Let's see if the doctors are so confident. Do the Doctors feel comfortable being listed when that list could easily be read by someone in the future who is very angry? I mean the Doctors usually still go in for covering their tracks so angry patients cannot trace them. What Am I saying? Well, are the doctors really so confident about the eventual outcome of their actions? You see I am concerned about the children. So much so I am quite happy to maintain a list of Doctors who have caused them harm. Do the doctors feel so confident with such a list that could guide future victims about whom to sue?

Again feel free to talk to us. I am sure we can all come to a more mutual understanding.

Evolutionary Psychology

Evolutionary Psychology
(It is True as it happens)
Notes from Upsetting the Clique
By Sophia Siedlberg
Copyright 2008

What, according to the ideals of eugenicists and evolutionary psychologists is the pinnacle of human evolution? The answer is a world populated by knuckle scraping man-apes and bouncing breasted bimboes and these are referred to as "The male of the species" and "Female of the species". They are not as popular science would have it, the pinnacle of evolution however. Observe the physiology of these "ideal" human beings and you will notice a few flaws. Aside from being grotesque in themselves, they are in truth an impossibility, and therein lies the problem.

When the Clarke Northwestern Clique of psychologists actually take the time to describe what they consider "normal" in terms of social and biological evolution, they are in reality describing their own "genetic software".

I have observed this because my thinking is considered "abnormal". (I am now the proud owner of a personality disorder it would seem). I suppose this is perhaps the best point of reference really, my "personality disorder". Let's look at my reaction to the idea that on this planet there are "ideal men and women" (That is men and women who fit the ideals laid down by the Clarke-Northwestern). When I was asked what I would think of such men and women I replied: "Vermin and scum". When I was asked why I said: "They are an evolutionary liability, like a virus, which started life as a means of passing genetic information between one organism and another, a sort of message in a bottle; however, today a virus is a replicating machine that serves no other purpose than to replicate, ideal men and women are like that, a virus". When asked to give another example I said: "Well, there are cancers. Look, the world is overpopulated but it is the ideal men and women who do the most damage to the planet that nurtures them all because they are pre programmed to hog resources and breed". Other comparisons have included infestations, infections and so on. Basically any comparison between ideal men and women and various pathogens would be perhaps the most accurate way of describing my viewpoint.

While what I have said can sound a tad genocidal, it is usually the genocidal super race types of people that are my target. I will say that two wrongs do not make a right, I do not for example advocate screening blond hair and blue eyes from the human gene pool, nor do I advocate wiping the same off the face of the earth. So my thinking is not pathological hatred, but as J Michael Bailey would say "A rational description of a group of people". But J Michael Bailey and his minions fail to recognize that what he holds up as an ideal, (The perfect physical and racially "pure" specimens of heterosexual manhood and womanhood) I regard as a disease. You see my "personality disorder" is not down to my considering a group of people to be a disease, but who I consider to be a disease.

Let's look at this another way, a biologically pre programmed unease about a group of people would differ from a more logical unease motivated by environmental management. Bailey has a particular disgust for "Latinos, Blacks, Intersex people, Gays, Transsexuals, Bisexuals and Homosexuals". This is clearly motivated by the "yuk factor". (A fear of difference). The Clarke Northwestern, the HBI and Bailey are motivated towards advocating the elimination of various people because they have characteristics that somehow disgust Bailey and his minions. None of the groups cause harm to the gene pool. Many of them either do not partake in it (As in the sexual minorities) or contribute by keeping a wider form of biodiversity. (Biodiversity needs melting pots basically). That really makes the HBI (Human Biodiversity Institute) a bit of an oxymoron quite frankly. My motivations are different I suspect the genetic make up of the ideal man and woman are if anything little more than evolutionary retrogression. And if they are allowed to over breed and dominate, then humanity will be running in reverse from an evolutionary standpoint. I mean look what happens when you introduce rabbits to the wrong environment, or Italian snails. Ecological disasters happen. If any species gets too successful it will destroy its environment.

I am thinking in terms of ecological management, not eliminating people I do not like.

Now please keep in mind I only look at these situations that could feasibly be resolved by breeding ideal man and woman out of the gene pool. But I am not suggesting there be eugenics; well not if Bailey leaves the sexual minorities alone, because sexual minorities are natural population controls. However, if Bailey started talking gas chambers then I would then be forced to advocate gassing ideal man and woman to maintain the natural balance.

And I, not Bailey, am the one with the personality disorder. What does that say? The logic I am using is a perfected version of that peddled by the HBI in particular, and the HBI would have to concede that my logic is far superior to theirs simply because I am immune from a lot of the evolutionary thought processes that inform them. I am sexless and as such can spend more time considering logic than considering when the next rut will happen.

I could say that I agree with people like Galton about the human gene pool. I just think that Galton had the wrong targets in mind. I mean ideal man and woman would perhaps be the most destructive beings ever to come out of controlled evolution, ideal man would be bred to the point where he would be covered by the dangerous dogs act, he would be a psychotic roid raged, naturally androgen addled monstrosity. Ideal woman would be a harbinger of so many venereal diseases (Because of her inherent promiscuity) anything she touches would probably drop dead given the rate at which micro organisms would have to be in constant battle with her accelerated immune system. Oh, yes she may have immunity and kill off most of the human race but her and ideal man would so restrict the human gene pool in the longer term we would end up with a race of genetic degenerates.

The point is, if you apply eugenics and evolutionary psychology to their logical conclusion you can kiss the human race bye bye. Because these people want to breed into the human gene pool the most destructive and degenerate characteristics. Am I wrong for pointing out that places like Auchswitz were visible examples of just how criminal ideal man and woman can get? They wiped out millions of people from the human gene pool (The usual "Suspects" of course) and then expected some golden age of a planet populated by what exactly? Ideal man the androgen addled killing and rutting machine and ideal woman who breeds much more than just babies. Am I wrong in thinking that mass murder in the name of some flawed ideal is not only wrong but downright criminal?


It seems to me that the exclusive legacy gene in some people running around going "I must pass on my genes and preserve my pure bloodline" has mutated to drive some people pathologically insane. The best part of it is, I am not a loony left liberal who claims that everything is a social construct. I am a geneticist who sees this stuff for what it is, humanity's longest suicide letter. Let’s rename the "exclusive legacy gene" (Actually it is a self referring complex of 67 genes of which one of the clique, Eric Vilain has only seen 50).

Lets be brutal here, and totally honest. What the HBI, the Clarke Northwestern, Bailey and Greenberg are striving for in their talk of eugenics is a degenerate genetic mistake that is the only true definition of "Dysgenic". Why don't the HBI rename themselves the HMI or "Human Monoculture Institute". And they know I am right, because I am using exactly the same science and points of reference they are. That is what makes the irony so delicious.

You see, this is what makes the eugenics movement so comical. What they want the human race to become is akin to something that used to swing in the trees and served little purpose other than being cat food. You see the more they try to make sex dimorphism obvious, the more they over emphasize the characteristics. Well what would an ultra macho man be other than a killing and rutting machine? What would an ultra girly female be other than a biological hazard breeding. The end result would be nothing more than a biological car crash and then perhaps when humanity ends because of this the rest of life looks back and goes: "What was that, huh, monkeys!"

Monday, April 28, 2008

Homo Erection The best Possible outcome!

"Homo Erection The best Possible outcome!"
Notes from Upsetting The Clique
By Sophia Siedlberg
21 April 2008

Kenneth Zucker once said that the best possible outcome in gender confused boys is that they grow up as gay men (Presumably to be gassed by Bailey) and not transsexuals. Why? No seriously, that strikes me as a bit strange. What is so ideal about someone who is "Gender confused" not changing sex? Is this a new breed of Male that Zucker is considering behind Bailey's back, some Der Eigene macho gay? Ah yes, I see now. It makes a lot of sense when you think about it. This "Macho Gay" is good because he would follow the perfect ideal of a man in a physical sense, that is, he would be this Darwinian rut ape that can pretend to be heterosexual. He would be called Homo Erection!

But how does this translate into reality? Bailey's Homosexual Transsexuals would have weedy little bodies, rather like chimps after the Zucker Treatment, they would probably end up as something like the 1866 Hornet caricature of Charles Darwin. A bit like Zucker really, only they would be gay men a bit like, errm, best not say that, I will get sued for libel. Well, let's just say that Homo Erection is not and would never be your regular gay guy, more a sort of re-engineered horror made in the image of Zucker himself.
But hang on a moment. Would this not show some division in the Clarke-Northwestern clique? I mean the idea that Zucker may be going behind Bailey's back, that is really bad. Let's put the joking aside for a moment and consider all this carefully. It is quite evident that we have a cadre of academics who regard various minority groups as little more than laboratory rats. What all this does illustrate is the casual contempt they hold for certain groups of people. We have all been here before. Only it is not considered politically correct to mention it.

It is a behavior that is common to human vivisectionists. Take a look at Nazi Germany during the 1930's and you find just that. Dr. Joseph Mengele had a particular interest in twins; Dr Sigmund Rascher had an interest in freezing his "patients". Dr. Carl Clauberg had an interest in mass sterilization. Each had their own specialty and each had their own agenda. Clauberg being perhaps the most interesting because for him the aim was to find means of "pruning the gene pool" quickly and cheaply. This was in line with the ideology he served. Rascher is also interesting because his "experiments" were designed to find out the human tolerances to temperatures and high altitude. Mengele made little or no sense, gruesome sense or otherwise. These were just "Blue Sky" experiments designed to determine what happens when one in a pair of twins gets to suffer something horrible, did the other "sense it"?

What these people had in common was the ease with which they turned their "patients" into mere objects of study. When the Clarke Northwestern clique are attempting to defend themselves, they frequently claim they have no truck with Nazi ideology. I have said myself that I am skeptical about the claims that these people are Nazis as many have claimed, but I am a lot less skeptical about the similarities between what went on in concentration camps and what these people get up to. This is where Zucker raises an interesting question. Why does Zucker refer to the "Best outcome" is this Homo Erection? No it is not Nazism but it is certainly de-centralized social cleansing. Of the sort that flourished under the Nazi regime. I mean, what is so sacred about the male anatomy that it has to be "protected at all costs"? I mean Bailey, despite sounding like Adolph Brandt and Ernst Rhom (Who were male supremacists in the Nazi Party) does not seem to follow the same logic. He does not seem to follow to the same conclusion as Zucker. Bailey regards homosexuality as "An evolutionary mistake". Zucker somehow tries to "Accommodate it" but does this make Zucker more "humane" that Bailey? I don't think so!

Zucker is quite clear about how he would prefer people to be. In the case of anyone the Clarke Northwestern clique calls "male" and "homosexual" (Which can almost randomly mean anyone) Zucker has yet another "Ideal" not quite the grunting rut ape of Bailey's imaginings but some weedy simian caricature that pretends to be masculine despite being unable to follow that to the letter. All Zucker offers is yet another stereotype. Zucker himself.

What this means is that the Clarke Northwestern clique are a bit inconsistent about what sort of society they wish to engineer. What they are doing is not aimless. There is some "Preferred outcome" but it is often difficult to see what it is when they say different things. Or are we really talking about "Manageable humans". I mean were people identified as "Non transitioning homosexual males" (Or Homo Erection according to Zucker's stereotype) would Bailey be any less inclined to regard them as fit only for gassing or prostitution? Again I doubt that very much. I get the impression that Zucker is a bit of a sham in the wider scheme of things. All he says is that there is this "Ideal outcome" which would still not measure up to the Clarke Northwestern "ideal" and as such, at some point either be screened out, stigmatized or even gassed. The whole "therapeutic" model that Zucker "offers" at the Clarke Institute is a waste of time really because it would not make life any better for anyone in the wider scheme of things if the Clarke Northwestern saw their agenda through to it's logical conclusion. I mean the logical conclusion seems to include evangelical Christians accepting abortion if it is deemed that the fetus may be gay. What chance does Zucker's "Homo Erection" really have? None really, or about as little chance that Bailey's "Homosexual Transsexuals" really have.

It is at this point the common thread seems clear. Bailey and Zucker are approaching the "Gay Question" (Which can include anyone as the target) from their own perspectives. Zucker is more experimentally inclined. He wants to see what mental torments can be used to drive "Those included in the gay question" to suicide that he can bring about. Bailey just does not see any value in that. He wants them terminated before birth. My question is what have these people got against Gay folks, or anyone they define as "Gay". It is not my being politically correct either, as I have already pointed out it lacks pragmatism if gay folks are a natural population control anyway. What is more damaging is that they are evidently tripping up over each other, with conflicting agendas. Publicly they will probably say that this is all about science rather than unity but I suspect that is not strictly true. I suspect that Zucker is aware of Bailey's "plans" but sort of wants his own bit of glory. It will probably get spun further down the line as Zucker offering a "Way out" for those defined as "Gay" and "Male". But I suspect that Zucker is at the shredding machine when Bailey arrives at his office. This is nothing new for Zucker. There was a time when he was advocating Dr. John Money's ideas about surgically assigning an intersex child to a given sex and then using something like the Stockholm syndrome to get them to comply with that role. Type in Zucker's name on YouTube and he is there in a news interview saying this outright.

This does not correspond at all with the Clarke Northwestern public agenda. Remember that Team Bailey spent years "Campaigning against" Money's ideas (Using him as a scapegoat) and that has worked too well. Basically Bailey wants them all assigned male and then wait for them to complain so he can make their lives even more miserable. But the public face of all this is that Bailey says that "Infant surgery is wrong" (When it is feminizing). Zucker says different. Zucker says all surgery works. So either Zucker has been at that shredding machine and the YouTube video along with a few papers somehow avoided getting shredded or they have come to some "Agreement".

Whatever the truth of all this is, Zucker and Bailey are not entirely consistent when making statements in public and that is something I would consider exploiting. Bailey wants gay folks dead, Zucker wants a stock of lab rats to play with. That is a difference of approach that does result in papers in a shredder. A point worth remembering in these notes.