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.

Sunday, April 27, 2008

Did I Mention a Guggenheim Award?

“Did I Mention a Guggenheim Award?”
Notes from upsetting the clique
By Sophia Siedlberg

I cannot start this without mentioning that Alice Dreger has won a Guggenheim award. There is mass starvation, and there are thousands of children being surgically altered every year; the war in the middle east is really horrible; lots of Americans are losing their sons and daughters to the war in Iraq, and Alice has won a Guggenheim Award. Did I forget to mention that Alice Dreger has won a Guggenheim award? Well just in case we have forgotten, it has just dawned on me again to remember that Alice Dreger has won a Guggenheim award. Now we must not forget Alice has a Guggenheim award.

The Chinese have been testing nuclear weapons and beaten up on a lot of Buddhists; the Olympic torch is none too popular and there are mass graves in Srebrenica being dug up. Oh yes and we must not forget, most important of all, Alice Dreger has won a Guggenheim award. Well good for her. But hang on. What does this earth shattering news mean? Did she also happen to have a nomination for the Nobel Prize as well? And was she nominated for both by the others in the Clarke Northwestern clique.

Well reading the Guggenheim publicity material, I find that this is a rather interesting little organization that in truth has people apply to it for grants or funding for given projects that are designed to “further humanity”. I wonder what Alice has been given funding to be doing in order to further humanity. There is that new system she has nurtured to make vast quantities of methane. All she does is think of being pregnant, lifts her top from her stomach and she can produce enough “womb turds” to solve an oil crisis and an alternative source of energy.

No she was given the award so she can write a more virtual crock of well you know what I mean, called “Studying the squeals of Lab Rats: The Sequel”. Yes, you read that correctly. She has been awarded thousands of dollars by the Guggenheim foundation (Which she applied for I add) to write an even more revolting PDF file about the “Critics of J Michael Bailey”. Perhaps I should be congratulating her, but I am simply no longer convinced that her constantly dragging this subject up over and over again is serving any purpose. What this does to “Further humanity” eludes me completely.

But then what does Alice Dreger really think that “furthering humanity” means? I mean since “Studying the squeals of Lab Rats” all we have seen is an almighty row blow up that was really better left buried. And in the middle of this tempest while responding to an article in the Daily Northwestern her puppy dog Aron Sousa came out with how wonderful sex with her is.

I Quote:

“I have been referenced in Mr. Gsovski's article as a research subject with whom Dr. Dreger had sex. Let me say that I think both the research and the sex were/are excellent.”

Well I have no doubt he had his little Scooby snacks and got jealous of the Dr Who Adipose that has decided that Alice is its mother. Oh yes, I almost forgot. Did I mention that Alice has been given a Guggenheim award? OK, I have to say this every now and then just to remind people of the real news. And she is thrilled at the fact that she can now do more “research” with Aron, suck up to Bailey and then publish an even bigger PDF file called “The Squeals of Lab Rats: The Sequel”.

I have no doubt that she will be mentioning OII in the sequel and I may myself be a target of her writing. Well that is called freedom of speech and I have no doubt when she starts digging the dirt on me she will have a few shocks. She will have trod on a landmine. Oh enough of that, I don’t think I need mention the nasty things. Yes Alice got her Guggenheim award and that is all that really should matter.

Why did she get awarded this money? So she can go out and call a lot of people nasty names and also stick the boot in on a few people (Mainly Lynn Conway, Andrea James and Deirdre McKlosky). Like why does she feel so protective towards Bailey? Actually that is an interesting question, like did he blackmail her or something? Or was he so nice that she was charmed by him? Oh, what do I care; let’s change the subject. Genetics, I have always been fascinated by that period of time between the world wars when a lot of people changed their names to avoid persecution. There were also a number of adoptions that used to happen at this time. It is interesting because it plays havoc for geneologists. I would love to research this, perhaps I could myself apply for a grant from an organization like the Guggenheim, I mean as I am trained as a geneticist. I could put some emphasis on something like tracing the ancestry according to names and the ancestry according to genetics. There are many interesting markers I could use. Like for the names I could look at certain names and determine who was given them to avoid persecution. That would be important because people who believed their families were killed in concentration camps could find distant relatives who avoided that horror by being “assimilated” out of the targeted communities. They often used certain Anglo Saxon and German names. Some names were used quite often to avoid being hammered under the jackboot.

I could also use genetics to trace people’s actual origins, with markers like double recessive genes for example. And pool recursions and so on. It would actually be quite interesting historically. Not only would it enable people to understand where they came from, it may actually make some people stop and think a little. For example if you told a genocidal maniac that they had an ancestry belonging to a group of people they do not like, then what would happen? I doubt very much I would get funding for such a project, though I do believe the University College of London had an interesting project recently that looked at a little more than Y chromosomes and mitochondrial DNA. Some people were rather surprised, like there they were believing they were descended from the Vikings and it turned out they originated in some areas of what would now be known as Lebanon. To me that is something far more enlightening for humanity than beating up on a few activists belonging to sexual minorities. But then I am not quite so sure Alice Dreger would share my enthusiasm for such research. I think I know why.