Search Box

Monday, 4 August 2008

OII's response to being told the truth, kindly



see part 1 of this blog here

Trying to make sense of it all.

20th July 2008: Curtis HInkle has now taken down Sophia Siedlberg's defamatory commentary - I thank him for that. However, he says that in challenging this defamatory post, I have humiliated him in front of OII's board. I am sorry he feels humiliated, but wonder why? After all, would he take such lies about him, lying down. I hope not. And it isn't that hard to speak the truth. On the website they continue to maintain it as if I have not responded!


3rd August 2008: As this is now a little bit of history, I can comment further.
OII activists have removed the offensive and defamatory attack on myself, which was written by Sophie Seidlberg. However after I wrote this blog, in which I gave them truthful and honest answers, they have now put in its' place the following:

"OII did eventually receive an email from Stephen Whittle which appeared initially to answer some of the questions raised by members of OII. And it also appeared that Stephen Whittle was being polite and reasonable. However, later on Stephen Whittle said in his blog that he was both angry and felt the discussion with OII was very hostile. For us the problem appears to be the inconsistency with which Stephen conducted himself in this debate, being civil with us at first, but later taking a very unpleasant stance in his blog and in emails to various individuals who challenged him on some points. We are concerned because OII and intersex activists feel they are being attacked by Stephen Whittle for asking these questions about Zucker. The president of OII has decided not to communicate any further with Stephen Whittle."

Clearly they do not get the message - I have absolutely no problems with any person questioning whether Ken Zicker should be chairing the APA's DSM V committee. I think it has to be questioned and the answer should probably be no, he should not, not least because he is not an MD & psychiatrist, merely a psychologist. However I do want an apology from Seidleburg, and from Hinkle for publishing her gross and defamatory remarks about myself and what I supposedly 'think'. They may well have been read by hundreds of people, and many of them, in turn, might think they were truthful if they did not know me well. Have they ever thought of the possibilities of this and they impact it has had , not just on myself but also on my partner and wife, Sarah, and the rest of the family.

OII clearly think that requesting an apology and asking for the removal of defamatory remarks was taking an 'unpleasant stance' and that to ask for these to eb done is to 'attack' them. I chose to respond sensibly and very carefully, with a great deal of consideration both in the letter to them and, later when they still had not removed it, in this, my blog , but unfortunately nothing happened until I made it quite clear that, if they did not remove the offensive material, I would sue them .


They also clearly think it was acceptable to continue publishing these lies long after I had written to them with a very considered and reasonable answer (in their own words) was acceptable. Why do they think I took to blogging. The answer is that they were my inspiration. I wasn't going to continue after I had written my first blog about Alice Dreger's article on the 'apparent' saintliness of Ken Zucker. Rather, it became clear to me that if I was being attacked on the web as an irresponsible liar, trampling on other people's lives etc. then, at the very least, such perpetrators should expect is a public web response. This is my reputation they are trying to ruin.

To be honest I am now glad they have decided to vanish from my life – I could do with the extra time. However, I wish them and OII well, and I hope that the battles they are fighting to better the lives of intersex kids and adults go well for them. But if they are this paranoid about their friends, I doubt they are going to manage to speak to their enemies. An apology is still waited, though I am not holding my breath. I suppose I should now ask them to remove this latest comment which has taken the line that I took an 'unpleasant stance', because I took the time to be as pleasant as possible ... well not quite, I didn't (in the end) in the case of one individual who was exceptionally rude. But I am not apologising to her until she decides to apologise to me.