Homo Erection The best Possible outcome!

"Homo Erection The best Possible outcome!"

Notes from Upsetting The Clique

By Sophia Siedlberg

21 April 2008
http://www.intersexualite.org/zuckape.html

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.