I posted this picture on the photography forums I subscribe to with the following comment, "now you know where to shop for all your transgendered needs."

Another member responded with this post:

Why would transgenders need such a store? They could buy their clothes in any ordinary clothing store. I find it rather disgusting.

There is a store in the beach area where I live, called "Leathers and Lace." It caters mostly to gays, selling porn and sex toys as well as kinky leather outfits. They had a sign outside (now changed): "If you don't like our sign, don't look at it." I guess they must have had some complaints. I did take a picture of it but didn't keep it because the whole thing is so repulsive.

My response:

I'm not quite sure why you need to be digusted at the idea that transexuals would want their own stores, but just to alleviate your fears, Trani is a store I saw in Boston in June, which happens to be an ice cream parlor. While I'm sure that they would not discriminate against the LGBT community, I don't think they actually cater to them.

His response:

I thought you were serious about the store being for transsexuals. I'm not disgusted with the store even if it really was for that purpose, although my words might have made it seem that way. I'm disgusted with the phenomenon of transsexuality. And I have no "fears" which need to be alleviated because I'm not afraid of transsexuals.

At this point, I felt we needed to take this offline, so I sent him a private message:

I'm sorry, I should not have challenged you in the public forum, and I'll be happy to remove my posts if you'd like, but I am a little curious why you would find transexuals so disgusting

He sent me this long email that just blew my mind. People really think like this? I make jokes, but this truly makes me feel so sad.

Greetings, Jocose:

The person, I have no problem with, nor do I judge them. As with homosexuality I am naturally repulsed by the actual act. I do discern between the person and the offense and do not condemn the person because of the offense

I am a Christian (please forgive me for throwing that at you) and I see that God also condemns such acts as cross-dressing and homosexual sex but he does not condemn the persons. It breaks my heart to see people having sex change operations, just as it also breaks God's heart. It suggests that God made a mistake when He created them, but that is not so.

Long before I became a Christian and even as a long-time atheist, I was repulsed by these things. I first learned of them when I was about eleven years old and felt sick to my stomach when other boys described the details to me. At first I did not believe them yet still felt great repulsion. I hasten to add that I have not been abused by such persons but I have been approached for homosexual sex, as an adult. It is hard to describe the feeling when homosexuals do that.

Transexuality and and homosexuality go hand in hand, that is why I am including homosexuals in this matter.

Now, as a minister, for the past eight years I have been helping such people, among others. This is something I do six nights a week after I come home from work. It involves exorcisms because both transsexuality and homosexuality are spiritual problems, not mental, nor natural. I deal with human pain night after night, caused by sexual, physical and mental abuse. Sexual abuse is one of the world's biggest problems.

Many of the homosexuals and transsexuals who come to me have been sexually abused as children. Some became that way from sexual experimentation. Either way, tremendous hurt is caused. It leads to broken families, severe depression, suicide or suicidal thoughts, voices in the head, visions of apparitions etc. All of these things are considered to be "mental illness" but it is not so.

In the eight years I have done this, I have often gone to bed and wept over the pain that people endure. I see what pornography does to people and it is condemned by God but supported by the U.S. Supreme Court who say it is protected by the Constitution. So the people who indulge deeply in their Constitutional porn, later end up facing a judge at their trial for rape or other sexual abuse. It is porn which leads a person to become a pedophile, rapist or a murderer. The help given to children is a joke because the depth of sexual abuse is not understood by those committed to helping the kids. And even if they did understand, there is little they can do about it.

The bright side of all this is, the homosexuals and transsexuals who come to me become heterosexual, just as they were when they were first born. Nobody is born homosexual, despite their beliefs that they were. And nobody was born with the wrong body. God does not create such beings and then condemn their sex lives.

Now imagine what a transsexual must feel when they have been delivered of the spiritual side of their problem but is still in the body that they changed. Imagine a man who became a woman but now realizes that he really is a man. It is much harder to change back to his original form than it was to change his gender for the first time.

One person with a similar problem came to me just a couple of months ago. This person said he was a man in a woman's body. "He" was in his thirties when we spoke. I knew right from the start that this was really a woman who believed she was a man in a woman's body. By time that evening was over, the woman was free in her spirit and rejoicing, hardly able to believe what had happened to her. The cause? Sexual abuse when she was a child. She was actually in the midst of talks with her surgeon about a sex change operation.She had been evaluated by a psychiatrist and was preparing for the change.

God calls homosexuality a "perversion" and "an abomination." It is the perverse part of a person's nature which repulses me. The actual person, my heart grieves for even if they are happy for a while in their new form.

he suicide rate among homosexuals is higher than that of heterosexuals. I know I keep talking about homosexuals but that is what transsexuals also are. A man becomes a woman and begins a sexual relationship with a man. The transsexual's spirit is still the male spirit which he was given at conception, therefore it results in two men having sex.

There is more which I could describe but I think I have said enough. Perhaps I am overly sensitive to these problems but until you listen to the person's terrible story, it is hard to imagine such grief caused by one human to another. Of course, not all homosexuals or transsexuals remember what happened to them as children. They just feel they were born that way.

I apologize for my hasty remarks in the forum. I do not mind if you remove them but please do not remove your picture. I now understand the humourous side of it.

CA can’t seem to let it go, nor does it seem that he has ever heard the old saying that it is better to have someone think you a fool than open your mouth and prove it, he tries to get the last word in. I let him have it as I’ve lost any interest in trying to help him improve his site.

Sorry Jo Cose, on this we absolutely don't agree. Good luck to you as well.

CA

At this point, I have become bored with this and try to end it gracefully. This is the final email I will send to CA:

CA

True objectivity in historical research is impossible. There is no way to separate yourself from your opinions. Every scholar accepts that and does their best to present their prejudices and biases up front so there is no confusion as to where they are coming from. What you choose NOT to discuss is as much a personal judgment as what you DO choose to discuss.

I’m not sure how saying that cheating was involved is “clearly” a judgment call or a critique. I have copious sources that prove that both Sampson and Sandow cheated those two nights in 1889. Facts are not critique, they are facts. It would be my opinion to say that Sandow was a cheater, or that he enjoyed cheating, or that he wanted to beat Sampson so badly that he cheated. These are all opinions and my personal critique of the events; they cannot be substantiated.

The bottom line is that the site is your website, and only you should decide what goes on it and what doesn’t go on it. I respect that. But remember, there is a lot of personal judgment on your site by what you choose not to include.

If you ever decide to include a section on Sampson, please let me know. He is an extremely important person in Sandow's life, and should not be overlooked. He is also important to the history of strongmen as he typified a subgenre of the vaudevillian strongman. I would be happy to write something, but bear in mind that it will not hide anything to make anyone look pure, innocent or a victim. I don’t worship these guys, I study them as historical figures.

Good luck with the site.

Hi Jo Cose,

It all goes back to one thing. You call Sandow a "cheater."

Using that word makes your story a critique. It's clearly a judgement call. I want there to be as little personal judgement in the Sandow website as possible. From the dozens of letters I get every week, I can tell you that the site is viewed by hundreds of museums, scholars, students, and the media every day. The writings on the site should allow the reader to draw their own conclusions, not dictate them.

CA

Unfortunately, DC has now gotten involved. Here is his contribution.

Hi Jo Cose,

My goodness, what a tempest you've stirred up! I tried to expalin to CA that you were the world's expert on CAS, and that your little caption was accurate. His objection came with the word "cheating" because (I suppose) it casts doubts on Sandow's character. Personally, I see nothing wrong with your explanation, but I'm not the webmaster . . .

I tried to explain my point of view to CA. Here's what I wrote:

As for Jo Cose, I know that he is an honest historian who has done much work on the life and somewhat tarnished career of Charles A. Sampson. I think that your objection to the word "cheating" is understandable because it implies that ES was involved in something immoral or illegal. Personally, I think it's really important to keep in mind that ES was a showman who often played fast and loose with the truth, but lots of theater people did so, too -- for instance, is it "cheating" for a magician to say that a rabbit has "magically appeared" out of a top hat? Of course not; it's part of the act. Is it cheating to claim that a strongman lifted a ton with his little finger? That's not quite so clear (although all reasonable people would realize the impossibility of such a claim).

Best to you,

DC

I'm sorry CA, I'm a little confused...what do you mean by taking sides? Who thinks there is still a controversy over whether or not Sampson used trickery and that Sandow out-tricked the trickster? There is no controversy. Both Sandow and Sampson cheated throughout thier careers. Likewise both cheated at the challenge bouts in Oct/Nov 1889 in London; clearly, however, Sandow cheated better. These are just plain documented fact (this is also what the first chapter of my thesis is all about). Nor is there any need to worry about dishonoring Sampson, he did that himself just fine.

As far as "positives" about Sampson, there really aren't any. THAT is what makes him so interesting. He was a complete fraud, he was a cheat, he was a theif. He was exposed time and time again on stage and in the newspapers for being a fraud, and yet, he still managed to sell out theatres wherever he played. This is all why I am fascinated by his career. He raises all kinds of questions: Why did people still come to see him? How did his style of performance fit into the growing interest in physical culture? What does his being exposed say about the the rise of investigative reporting? How did he use advertising to overcome bad press (and is there even such a thing as bad press if he was still getting into the papers and selling tickets)? Were people really niave or were they more willing to suspend their disbelief at the turn of the century? The questions are really endless...that is why I go to the Library of Congress whenever I can and research him, why I went to London on two separate occasions to do research on him, and why I am going to France in the winter. He is, to me anyway, the most interesting strongman in the history of strongmen.

Anyway, I'm still willing to send you a pic or two of Sampson to add to your website, but if you are looking for only positive things about him, I don't think I will be able to provide you with that. The facts just don't support it.

Hello again Jo Cose. I am not going to take sides on this issue. To me, it's a moot point to dishonor a man over a hundred years after a fact that seems still in controversy. If you have some interesting postivies to write about Sampson and what made a great strongman on his own merits, I would be happy to publish it.

CA

CA,

I hate to correct DC, but Sampson actually used a large unattractive male assistant (Cyclops) to cheat his way through his performances. It was in fact Sandow who used the attactive accomplice (don't forget that it was Sandow, not Sampson, who won).

Hello Jo Cose,

I wrote to DC, Sandow's biographer and told him the story of Sandow vs. Sampson... here is what he wrote to me........

"Jo Cose is right about the Sampson match; Sandow did win it by trickery, but many consider his opponent to have been an even greater trickster. Thus, to beat him at his own game was quite a coup. Rather than saying that Sampson "used women and cheating" to win, I would have said he used "a pretty accomplice and subtle trickery" or something like that."

CA

ahh, one of the many interesting things in Sandow's life.

If you'll recall, Sandow was whipped by a young woman named Lurline (The Water Queen) while he was performing in NYC at the Casino. Part of that attack was because of her assistance during the Sandow/Sampson bout. Apparently she was trying to blackmail him and was going to expose the truth of how he beat Sampson. They actually went to court and she threatened to expose him as a fraud and was going to bring Atilla to America. They settled out of court.

During the bout, one of the feats was to break chains by flexing their biceps. Sampson's arms were bigger than Sandow's and therefore Sandow was unable to use the chains Sampson provided.

Being the showmen that he and Atilla were, they were well prepared. Earlier, Sandow had had chains made. So, when the time came, he pulled out the chains and said something to the effect of "Never fear, I'm prepared." Like Sampson, Sandow offered the audience the opportunity to test the chains. He passed them around the theatre and let people pull and tug on them to test them.

The last person to test the chain was a young, attractive woman (our Lurline). She, through some slieght of hand, switched the original chain for a gaffed one, which Sandow used. It was rigged to be easily broken.

Hope that clears it up :)