It might be of interest to know that in the 1974 3rd edition, this book uses transgender as an umbrella term. However, in this 2nd edition from 1965, transgenderism is clearly used as a term that might better describe the transsexual experience.
In the book, The Transsexual Phenomenon (1966) – published a year after the above book came out – Harry Benjamin used transsexual as an umbrella term, inclusive of people who occasionally crossdressed and didn’t want hormones or surgery (Type 4 Transsexual), those who wanted to take hormones but not have surgery (Type 5 True Transsexual) as well as those who need to take advantage of every avenue of transition: legal, hormonal and surgical (Type 6 True Transsexual). Clearly, the 1965 book suggested the use of transgenderism for those who would be a Harry Benjamin Type 6 True Transsexual. In other words, in 1965 folks were making the same lexical argument the transsexual classic, The Uninvited Dilemma (1983) would later make.
Until 1979, transsexual could be used to describe a Type 4, 5 or 6 transsexual. Dr. Paul Walker, a gay man from Galveston, Texas who was working with transgender activist Phyllis Frye at the time, codified transsexual in the 1979 HBIGDA Standards of Care to mean what we currently take transsexual to mean: a Harry Benjamin Type 6 True Transsexual. That same year, Christine Jorgensen publicly rejectedtranssexual in favor of transgender, noting – in the same way that the 1965 usage notes – transsexuals do not transition because of their sexuality.
After Prince wrote transgenderal once, she didn’t use a trans+gender lexical compound again until 1978 – not even when she was trying to classify different types of trans people in 1977. By then, YEARS had gone by while the trans community had used trans+gender lexical compounds (and their derivations, eg transies, transperson, transpeople) in ways which parallel current uses and in ways that do not.
Either this is true or it isn’t. Either I have evidence to support my fact assertions or I do not. Either I’m lying and have conjured my evidence through the magic of Photoshop (or perhaps time travel?) or I’ve not.
I know that the Prince Fountainhead Narrative is fundamental to the True Transsexual/Harry Benjamin Syndrome/Transsexual Separatist folklore, but damn… If you’re going to assert a faith position, at least do it honestly. Stop trying to justify dogma with assertions that can be easily proven false. Simply come out and say that no matter what, your faith in the Prince Fountainhead Narrative is unshakable and that you will reject any and all evidence which calls the Prince Fountainhead Narrative into question.
The reality is the Prince encouraged people to believe that she bestowed transgender upon us. She was kinda egomaniacal in that way:
Prince’s self-promoted importance has been way overstated. Prince didn’t coin transgender nor did she pioneer the term. She wasn’t the first to use transgender, transgenderist, trans, transpeople or transgenderism nor was she where these terms got their cultural currency. These terms were ALREADY in use within the trans community – by transsexuals and non-transsexuals like – years before Prince used them. For example, years before Prince used transgenderist, the term was used in the first national trans study performed by the trans community itself in 1975.
A stwarman argument is when you want to attack a position, have no logical reason to attack it, and so instead lie about what the other person said. Simply compare what I actually said (blue quote) and what this person claims I said (the first sentence after my quote). Strangely, just prior to this she recounted how TERFs attempted to murder one of her dear friends for not being cisgender:
The post drones on and on, creating one fake position for me to take after another, so that she could (presumably) enjoy attacking absurd ideas I’ve never promoted. Apparently lies are the only rhetoric folks like this have left to cling to. IMHO, these folks are the young earth creationists of the trans experience. They seem to have no argument to make that isn’t laughable and yet, their place in this world seems to be predicated upon their fantasy being true:
A lesbian transsexual was targeted for not being non-transsexual; cisprivilege isn’t real.
Prince didn’t coin or pioneer trans terms; Prince is where transgender comes from.
In what other arena of discourse is this level of intellectual turpitude tolerated? In what arena of discourse are equivocation and strawman arguments so prominently featured?
I owe debt of gratitude to folks like this for inspiring me to respond to their fact assertions. None of the history I’ve discovered would have been uncovered and published in books and peer reviewed journals had they not thrown their historical fallacies in my face. All of that history would have stayed hidden and nobody would have been able to question their historical assertions about transgender. So, thank you creepy internet troll, for giving me yet another opportunity to put the evidence out there!
I gave a presentation with Sandy Jones (HACS) on Substance Use issues within the trans population at a conference today. Here’s the intro from the handout:
Working with transgender clients can raise fundamental questions of policy. A trans client’s presence can challenge long held assumptions and belief systems about the very nature of gender. Not only can these issues become challenging for the staff and management, a transgender person’s presence can present issues that may challenge the gender stereotypes held by other clients as well. A fundamental decision many facilities are faced with today is whether the client’s right to services is worth the possible challenges a transgender client’s presence may inspire. This resource presents information to assist providers in improving substance abuse treatment for trans clients by raising awareness about the issues unique to these clients. It is hoped that sensitizing providers to these unique issues will result in more effective treatment and improved treatment outcomes for transgender persons within the drug court setting.
I put this handout together over the last week. There’s some good info (best practices, terminology 101, etc) in it:
I wanted to share an article I really enjoyed recently:
I have discovered that members of our community are policing each other and attempting to create a hierarchy of who is truly Trans or not. Many people are playing the same games of ‘normality’ that Gays and Lesbians have often pulled in an attempt to normalize themselves by othering people who are considered less normal. These situations really need to stop if we are going to strive for our goals. This shouldn’t be about picking each other apart, but pushing each other forward. It’s an easy temptation, I suppose, to sell out people who are not like you in order to advance yourself, but it won’t make change, and we will still be stuck always at the bottom of the barrel looking for a way to thrive in a world where we will never quite be accepted.
The primary belief I have seen is from people who insist that Transsexuality is more ‘normal’ than being Transgender. Often this is accompanied by acceptance that Transsexuality is an acceptable medical condition and occasionally with the belief that being Transgender is a choice and therefore not real.
This is a really good piece on that shame-based instinct to deal with internalized transphobia through rejecting, mocking, belittling, misgendering and otherizing trans folk.
More History on Trans Terms – Supposedly the term “transsexual” was “coined” in 1949 or, if you like, a German version was coined in 1923. I discover that the word was being used in the English language as early as 1907.
Rewriting Trans History With 3 Simple Points – I discover that transgender was in use in 1965 (and the person using it wasn’t Virginia Prince), that “transgenderist” was in use before Prince ever used it and that multiple umbrella uses of trans terms existed in the early 1970s.
Dismissed Trans Heroes: Lee Brewster – Reintroducing the trans person who helped organize and fund the queer community’s civil rights effort and how they were wiped from the history books by RadFems and their gay ideological supporters.
For a really amazing (very comprehensive yet concise) review of all things trans in 2012, Zagria (an awesome trans historian) is almost done with her annual review. CHECK IT OUT!
Isis recently modeled political shirts that read, “Legalize Gay” (a play on “Legalize LA”) and “Gay O.K.” (a play on “A OK”) and I know what you’re thinking… You’re thinking that it’s cool that an out transgender woman is able to support one of the many political causes she cares about. So, what would you think if I told you that your reaction is wrong; moreover, what if I told you that you’ve just helped oppress Isis and every transgender woman out there? Furthermore, what if I told you that the only way you could make your thought crime right is to only use the language Ashley Love allows and to turn your back on half of modern transgender history? I know what you’d say because it’s the same thing I say to myself every time I read something Ashley Love has written.
Love’s 1-woman “organization” MAGNET released a McCarthy-like indictment of American Apparel and GLAAD for supposedly duping Isis into calling herself a gay man which is, of course, all part of the ongoing conspiracy against transsexual people. Love asserts that when Isis King put on a “Gay is OK” shirt, she was inadvertently calling herself a gay man. Yup. That’s right. All you cisgender women out there, don’t wear anything with “legalize gay” on it because apparently doing so means that you’re saying that you’re a gay man. All you heterosexual folks out there, beware; you need to be mindful because visibly supporting gay rights apparently equals telling others you’re gay. In Love’s universe, if you visibly engage in political speech which supports full 14th amendment rights for non-heterosexuals, you’re actually calling yourself gay:
[GLAAD] inadvertently went against their mission statement by validating the transphobic misconception that Isis and other women like her are “gay” males, instead of who they really are – women, period. The constant misgendering of women of transsexual experience by GLAAD and other ‘LGBT’ groups derails accurate education on transsexualism and must stop.
Ashley has created a FaceBook group of some of her supporters (and a lot of gawkers) in an attempt to make the unreasoned ad populum argument that American Apparel and GLAAD colluded to make Isis out to be a gay man, that transsexuals as a whole are offend when we are referred to as being “transgender” and that GLAAD is forcing the media to refer to all transsexuals as only being “transgender” (which is a lie, GLAAD does no such thing). Instead of doing the work of making a reasoned argument, Love hopes that you’ll take her fact assertions on faith alone because it might seem as if others share in her dogma.
In search of more people to join her FaceBook group to make it seem as if lots of people believe in the anti-transsexual conspiracy gospel Love preaches, she recently had a misinformation piece published on the Washington Blade’s website:
It’s unethical to enforce sociopolitical opinions onto another group’s legitimate medical condition, such as how transgender umbrella theorists started doing in the mid-1990s to transsexualism. Our patients’ rights are not a political bargaining chip for gender deconstructionism activists to appropriate.
In theory, the coalition known as LGBTTIQQ is different communities aligning themselves to accomplish a common goal. But what happens when that coalition’s top priority ranks the needs of a particular, more privileged group over the more discriminated against groups? An uprising is what happens. The “Transsexual Spring,” the widespread and growing resistance against misrepresentation, calls for major reform in education concerning our birth challenge. Our health care, medical-based narrative and social well being won’t be compromised or worked against by notions of pro-segregation, malpractice, history revisionism and the tolerance of sex discrimination. We hope our educational campaign will spark dialogue that leads to honesty, healing and harmony. Our much larger goal is promoting media depictions with messages that affirm, rather than misgender.
You wrote: “Our much larger goal is promoting media depictions with messages that affirm, rather than misgender.”
Misgender? Did you just say you’re against misgendering people? I’m really surprised to learn that your goal is to stop the practice of misgendering since you engage in that behavior yourself. Or, did I misunderstood you when you asserted that people like me have a male psyche?
For example, this Spring a few self-promoting and self-aggrandizing “transgender” bloggers, authors and “gender outlaw” entertainers (who actually financially and professionally profit by enforcing transgender socio-politics and umbrella-ism theory) are obsessing over how to stop the inevitable transsexual liberation by creating petty drama, speculating, concocting ‘out of this world’ and laughable history revisionism, taking actions and quotes out of context, presuming to know one’s intentions as if they are telepathic, unrobing and degrading the bodies of women born with transsexualism and behaving like unstable, over compulsive and anti-social pesonalites, fueled by their amazing male egos and desire to get attention, although it’s negative attention. – Ashley “I hate citing evidence” Love, May 6, 2012
Unethical? Did you just say that, “It’s unethical to enforce sociopolitical opinions onto another group’s legitimate medical condition…“? Oh, you mean like what you’re doing to Isis King right now?
Isis King: I even try to stay away from “transsexual” because I still have my own little things with the word.
Janet Mock: What is that? I want to explore that.
Isis King: I just… it’s kinda like the whole “tranny” thing, I just feel like when someone says transsexual, it’s so much negativity that comes with it. So, I just prefer “transgender.”
Janet Mock: Well, yeah. And of course you have the right to self-identify how you choose to self-identify.
Isis King: Yeah…
Janet Mock: I feel like “transsexual” to me makes it only about the body and the transition, whereas “transgender,” I feel, speaks more to the entire essence of what politically what our bodies say.1
Love, STOP using Isis King to promote your deluded2 version of reality! Let Isis speak for herself. Stop pretending that you are the arbitrator of self-identity for transsexuals. I am a transsexual who is part of the transgender community. When you refer to me, Isis, Janet or the MAJORITY of transsexuals, you should state that we are either transsexuals who are part of the transgender community or that we are simply transgender and/or trans (with an * if you feel you REALLY need to). That is, unless you want to, by your own standards, be unethical. I’ve never once referred to you as being a transgender person, Love because I – unlike you – will respect the chosen self-identity of trans folk. Why do you choose to disrespect King’s self-identity? How can you feel justified in using her to support your sociopolitical opinions at her expense when you’ve just acknowledged – in black and white – that doing so is unethical?
Even though you KNOW it’s a lie, I see that you’re still gleefully pushing the 1990s as your date for transgender being an umbrella term. Ashley, that makes you a demonstrable you’re a liar. Furthermore, your own hubris has blinded you to the double standards you seem all too happily to ignore:
You’re happy to claim to be victimized by the word “transgender,” but seem all to eager to erase the self-identity of transsexuals who DO identify as being transgender.
You decry trans folk who you claim “speak for you” while in the next breath asserting that YOU (via your bogus front “organization”) speak for transsexual and intersex people.
You resent being associated with other non-cisgender folks while at the exact same time trying to associate yourself with intersex folks regardless of their objections.
Why didn’t you bother to mention the FACT that Isis (like me) self-identifies and being transgender? Would that truth have been a little too inconvenient for your deluded reality? Ashley, your so-called “transsexual spring” is a fantasy. Almost all TS Separatist leaders have moved on with their lives, the historical narrative you continue to push has been thoroughly debunked and practically all trans stars (you seem to hope to influence) continue to self-identify as being transgender. The only folks leading your “transsexual spring” are the fringe folks like yourself, Just Jenifer and the folks at Gender Reality. You know, those “ethical” folks who, like yourself, get their jollies by misgendering people in lieu of presenting actual evidence-based arguments. Look around you because you’re in good company, Love.
Ask the transsexuals, intersex people and other trans folk you were screaming at – LITERALLY SCREAMING AT – (to the point that several people thought you might become violent) during the Philadelphia Trans Health Conference what they think of you. I couldn’t help but note that you chose to not mention those altercations in your blog account of the conference. Was it because you knew that if you honestly discussed your obdurate behavior people might think less of you?
Here’s Isis King and Angelica Ross talking about what they think of you.3 Please note that they make many of the very same points I do. Consider this a reality check, Love.
A lot has been made over a RadFem Cathy Brennan being “attacked” at a dyke event by event organizers and some cis and trans folk. After the “attack” shouting match happened, a few people made trollish statements about wanting RadFems to die.
Personally, I see little difference between that violent hyperbole and RadFem hyperbole:
… their arrogance and oppressiveness is amazing. It is funny though that they are so used to Feminists immediately bowing before them that they don’t know how to deal with that we don’t care what happens to them. They expect we’ll be shocked to see statistics about them being killed, and don’t realize, some of us wish they would ALL be dead. – BevJo
I watched the 20 min video and never saw the “assault” she later claimed. She states in the video description that the encounter was videoed when folks started yelling; there’s no mention of violence prior to the video starting. It seems that she may have been taking poetic license or claiming that, in the strict legal sense, any bodily contact can be construed as “assault.”
On the video, I see a small group of ~ 5 folks yelling at each other. The only person I see get into someone’s personal space was the RadFem. The entire shouting match seemed to start because the RadFem was loudly talking over/shouting down anyone who disagreed with her and so the other side began to get loud and repeatedly said that they were being loud because the RadFem kept loudly talking over any attempt to challenge her fact assertions. Additionally, one of them claims was that the RadFem had sexually harassed one of them, which the person strongly objected to.
Organizer of the Dyke march, Ida Hammer approached Cathy Brennan after Brennan had been telling trans dykes that they didn’t belong at the event. Hammer tried to talk to Brennan, but Brennan kept talking over Hammer. That’s when other Dyke march participants confronted Brennan about her bigoted behavior. After Hammer left, she tweeted the following which Brennan responded to claiming that – yup, you got it – Hammer assaulted her too. Here’s a video of the encounter that Brennan claims to have been assaulted.
Here’s a verbatim transcription of the interaction between Hammer and Brennan:
Brennan: And that’s what this is about!
Hammer: Well okay. But…
Brennan: That is what this is about!
Hammer: I’ve… I’ve looked at your Twitter feed. (To third person:) I’ve looked at her Twitter feed.
Brennan: What’s your name again?
Hammer: (Laughs) I don’t want to be put on your hit list. I don’t…
Brennan: (simultaneously) because, like I…
Brennan: I don’t have a hit list! Do you not know what these guys are doing?
Third person (to Brennan ): I’ve seen your hit list!
Hammer: I… Look, I’m trying to… I looked at your twitter feed and every twitter that you write is “Fuck you” “@ so and so, Fuck you” “@ so and so fuck you”
Brennan: Do you not know what these guys are doing? Do you not know what these people are doing to lesbians in the community? Are you fucking kidding me? Are you fucking kidding me?Alright.
Third person (to Hammer): Do you have to…? We don’t need…
Brennan: No! No.
(Conversations split, Brennan and Hammer no longer talking to each other)
Third person (to Hammer): I have a question. (Hammer turns attention to this person). I have a question. I’m not trying to be anything, okay? Women…. (drowned out by fourth person yelling).
Fourth person (to Brennan): But how often do you like, actually let trans women have a voice? Because she… (drowned out by Brennan yelling).
Brennan (to fourth person): I have…!
Fourth person (to Brennan): No! Because she’s trying to talk to you and…
Brennan (to fourth person): She’s not trying to talk to me! She came up to me with her gang…
Fourth person (to Brennan): She is trying to talk to you! (Hammer turns attention to this conversation for a second, but returns it to the third person quickly and they walk out of scene).
(Incomprehensible talking between fourth person and Brennan).
Fourth person (to Brennan): As a cis-woman, as a fellow cis-woman, I’m very disappointed.
Brennan (to fourth person): I am not cis! I am not cis!
Fourth person (to Brennan): Then Why, why..?
Apparently the viemo video picks up where this video leave off. Neither of these videos shows anything like an “assault.”
To be direct, I’m not so sure that any other bigot would have been treated differently. I didn’t see anyone pushing/hitting the RadFem (which was what I thought had happened by the way the incident has been hyped on the internet). I would also suggest that it’s kinda lame of a bigot to claim victimhood when they pay the same exact social price all bigots seem to pay in our society – they get confronted by angry people. To my eyes the supposed “aggressors” seem to be acting like people act when a hell-fire street preacher shows up at Pride or Klan members show up in their sheets holding racist signs. Here’s a video of me and a bunch of other pissed off bikers, atheists and queer folks yelling at Phelps bigots. There’s nothing wrong with bigots having their say or normal people responding their bigotry. I’m sure that it’s very vexing for RadFems to find themselves in the same boat as the Phelps folks and the Klan because they don’t see themselves in that way… even though their events are treated throughout the world exactly like Klan rallies.
RadFems have caused actual harm to countless trans folk by successfully putting an end to trans healthcare for both govt and private health plans. This has resulted in the very real suffering and death of untold trans folk for decades now:
And even that’s not good enough for them; last year RadFems and their separatist lapdogs petitioned to UN to remove trans protections. The talking points from this RadFem/TS Separatist UN Letter letter were picked up by the IPS-Inter Press Service, which provides articles to news agencies in Europe, Africa, the Asia-Pacific and Latin America – places where anti-trans violence runs rampant.
When actual RadFem inspired physical violence and bloodied the trans founder of queer liberation, did trans folk respond in kind? No, we didn’t.
“In the beginning, we were the vanguard of the gay movement…We were very well respected for the first four years” – Sylvia Rivera
Women in the GLF were uncomfortable referring to Rivera—who insisted in using women’s bathrooms, even in City hall—as “she.” Pressure mounted. The year 1973 witnessed clash that would take Rivera out of the movement for the next two decades. Her lifelong friend and fellow Stonewall Veteran Bob Kohler recalled, “Sylvia left the movement because after the first three or four years, she was denied a right to speak.” It was during the Pride rally in Washington Square Park after the Christopher Street Liberation Day March.
To the dismay of Lesbian Feminist Liberation drag queens were scheduled to perform. As they passed out flyers outlining their opposition to the “female impersonators,” Rivera wrestled for the microphone held by emcee Vitto Russo, before getting hit with it herself. Rivera explained, “I had to battle my way up on stage, and literally get beaten up and punched around by people I thought were my comrades, to get to that microphone. I got to the microphone and I said my piece.” Rivera complained that the middle-class crowd cared little to nothing about the continued harassment and arrests of street drag queens. Bleeding, Rivera sang, “You Gotta Have Friends,” screamed “Revolution Now!” and led the crowd in a chant of “Give me a G, Give me an A, Give me a Y…What does it spell?” Barely audible, her voice breaking, “GAY POWER,” she groaned.1
When RadFems forced transwomen out of jobs they were good at just because they were trans, have we trans folk replied in kind? No, we’ve not. Do I really need to recount the ways in which RadFems targeted folks like Beth Elliott? Do I really need to recount how similar Robin Morgan’s 1970s words mirror the recent words of Bev Jo? RedFems have stolen trans healthcare, they have bloodied us, they have marginalized us, silenced us and for decades and I ask, have trans folk EVER come close to causing the sort of suffering for RadFems they have visited upon the lives of trans folk?
Yah, I’m sure it sucks to be confronted at every turn for your decades of bad behavior, RadFems. Your place of privilege in the queer community has evaporated and I’m sure that’s difficult for understand why. But get used to being confronted at every turn by trans and cis folk who won’t stand for your bad behavior any longer. I stand with you in denouncing violent internet comments, but I support all who continue to confront your horrific behavior non-violently.
While I see no evidence that RadFems were treated in the way RadFems treated trans folk in these videos, I’m all for free speech. If a bigot wants to say bigoted things, then the bigot should be able to say whatever it is they have to say… but they should expect to face the same social stigma that any other bigot faces in society. As to the online comments we are rightly decrying, they are in the same vein as comments made by RadFems in the past (“… some of us wish they would ALL be dead.” – BevJo). I’m VERY strident in my blogs about RadFems and their TS Separatist lapdogs, but I’ve never verbally attacked anyone’s personhood. I’ve only ever attacked their fallacious and fatuous assertions of fact. I think it’s bullshit to talk about harming any type of bigot. Violent hyperbole against bigots is NOT okay. Anytime someone talks about wanting to dropkick a RadFem, Klansman or a Phelps, I cringe. If you have a point to make and you use hyperbolic rhetorical violent imagery to do it, not only do you lose, you’ve become a huge asshole. It’s wrong when RadFems do it and it’s just as wrong when anyone else does it.
1. Benjamin Shepard, “Sylvia and Sylvia’s Children: The Battle for a Queer Public Space,” That’s Revolting! (ed. Matt Bernstein Sycamore)
Even though the Virginia Prince fountainhead myth is dead, TS Separatists still promote it as if it were fact. Today, the Separatists over at “GenderReality” tried to set the record straight on trans history. How did they set the record straight? They just asserted their version of reality to be fact and expected all to simply accept their assertions of fact on faith alone. What refutations did they make of my research – the very research Dr. Milton Diamondreferred to as “…extremely valuable not only to me but to the many researchers who strive for accuracy. Your work has certainly opened my eyes and corrected for me many misconceptions…” you might ask? They simply asserted that I must be a sociopath since I’ve not gotten aboard the TS Separatist express. Furthermore, they asserted that I’m subhuman and need to be dealt with in order to stop the flow of the original source material I’ve published over the past year since it doesn’t toe the TS Separatist line.
Again, this is why the TS Separatist movement – as it has existed over the past few years – is dead.
Arnold Lowman, aka Charles Prince, aka Virginia Prince, was the origin of the term “transgenderist”, as we all know. His relationship with Robert Stoller and others in psychiatry (research psychology really) led to all sorts of nonsense.
Yes, yes, yes… we are all familiar with this myth. Supposedly, Virginia Prince coined the term transgenderist in 1978. This is a well-worn TS Separatist myth:
“I have no idea why it is that the FTM transsexuals continually link themselves with transgender. Transgender is a term coined by and for a male transvestite, Charles “Virginia” Prince, who made it quite clear that he was not a transsexual and actually thought those of us who opted for surgery were delusional.” – http://tinyurl.com/buc5rur
“Coined by rabidly transsexual phobic Charles “Virginia” Prince who published many of those crossdresser fantasy magazines of earlier days and who founded Tri-Ess, a rabidly homophobic and transsexual phobic network of support groups for crossdressers, “transgender” and “transgendered” suddenly were sold as shorthand for transsexual… Suddenly the term “transsexual” included whole new variations such as the “non-op” transsexual in addition to the prior pre operative and post operative. Never mind that the term transgender was coined for exactly this meaning originally, transgender was still tainted by those nasty sexually driven transvestites and so while it was being recast as “inclusive” (always hard to fight being “inclusive”, it’s one of those terms with high positive politically correct context) it was also stripped of it’s original meaning.” – http://tinyurl.com/dyvmr5b
“The coiner of the term transgender was Virginia Prince, a heterosexual crossdresser who held those of us who had sex reassignment surgery in contempt. Virginia was particularly vicious in her opinion regarding WBTs who were lesbian after sex reassignment surgery. She called us freaks and mistakes… As many people are aware, Virginia Prince, a male crossdresser and a staunch promoter of heterosexual transvestism since the late 1950s, invented the term “transgender” in the 1990s to distinguish male crossdressers from men and women born with HBS.” – http://tinyurl.com/d49rkdo
‘I know that the roots of the “Transgender Community” are in the heterosexual transvestite communities, that Virginia Prince coined Transgender. (The quibble point about Prince coining Transgenderist not Transgender is BS. Transgenderist is to transgender what feminist is to feminism.)” – http://tinyurl.com/bmtne74
“the term “transgender,” or more specifically, “transgenderist” originated with Arnold Lowman, better known as Charles “Virginia” Prince. Yes, Prince came up with the term to describe those who crossdress full time.” – http://tinyurl.com/caw423f
“Ekins and King (p9, 2005) write about how Virginia Prince, an American male pharmacologist who went on to live as a female, coined the term transgender. In trying to place her (preferred pronoun) in a historical context they also recorded how Prince was against sex realignment surgery and her disdainful attitude towards transsexuals who underwent genital modification.” – http://tinyurl.com/bs6b3vk
“First of all, the term transgender was coined by a transsexual-hating crossdressing male named Charles Prince who wanted to separate himself from transsexuals. That fact alone sends shivers up our spines.” Dana Taylor http://tinyurl.com/cb436ax
Separatists want YOU to believe that “transgender” came from “transgenderist” and that transgenderist was coined by Prince in 1978. Why? This fantasy seems to be the engine driving the entire movement in that the myth is the only thing they can point to, to give their assertions a veneer of rationality. I mean, here’s an academic book that saying that the term comes from Prince and that it was created by her in 1978:
I mean, it’s a book, right? Books on history books are NEVER wrong… right?!?
No. Prince didn’t coin “transgenderist” in 1978 and she damn sure didn’t coin “transgender.” Here’s a two-page article from early 1975 trans newspaper describing what a transgenderist is and is not, where it comes from and that the term is very young. TS Separatists want YOU to believe that it’s rational to assert that Prince coined the term in 1978 even though it was in wide use years before and finding it’s way into non-Prince trans media. Really. That’s what they want you to believe… and apparently if YOU don’t believe that, YOU might be a sociopath, have a male ego or whatever childish ad hom they can come up with that will preserve their delusions.
Regardless of whatever fantasy Separatists want to propagate, “transgenderist” came from the community itself and was in significant usage by early 1975… A decade after “transgenderism” was being used to describe transsexualism. Yup, “transgender” was being used to describe transsexuals in 1965 – that’s BEFORE Benjamin wrote the Transsexual Phenomenon. In 1965, transsexualism was seen as being an extreme form of so-called “Primary Transvestism” – a concept which was in line with the Magnus Hirschfeld’s view. Hirshfield viewed “transvestite” as a catch-all term for anyone with a “mixture of mental gender differences” (Mischung seelischer Geschlechtsunterschiede, 1918:89). In a 1931 report recounting the genital reconstruction surgeries by Berlin doctor Ludwig Levy-Lenz, the transsexuals in the report were referred to as transvestites.
Benjamin refined “transsexualism” into types so that people who occasionally crossdressed, who didn’t take hormones and did not want surgery were Type 4 Transsexuals, people like Virginia Prince were Type 5 “True Transsexuals” and people like myself who needed to live full time, take hormones and have genital surgery were Type 6 “True Transsexuals.” These categories remained what it meant to be transsexual until the term was redefined by a gay man associated with the Houston transgender community – and specifically Phyllis Frye – Dr. Paul Walker. Dr. Walker redefined transsexual to mean what we currently take to mean “transsexual” in the first HBIGDA Standards of Care (SOC I, Section 4.3.1, Principle 7, 1979) published out of Galveston, Texas.
Before Dr. Walker’s retooling of “transsexual” in 1979, “transgender” was being used in the 60s and 70s to refer to the modern concepts of transsexual. Quite literally, “transgender” has been used to specifically reference surgical trans folk (Type 6 True Transsexuals) longer than “transsexual” has. In 1965, the term was being used to note that transsexuals were not driven by their sex drive in their quest for surgery. In 1970, the term was used to describe a post-op transsexual movie character. In 1974, doctors were using the term to describe they type of surgery transsexuals have and by the late 1970s, the term was being used by Christine Jorgensen to describe herself because “… gender doesn’t have to do with bed partners, it has to do with identity.”
“The transvestite rarely seeks transgender surgery, since the core of his perversion is an attempt to realize the fantasy of a phallic woman.” – (1974, A Practical Handbook of Psychiatry, p 176)
So, “transgender” is at least a decade older than “transgenderist” and there exists no evidence to support the notion that Prince coined jack shit expect perhaps her one solitary use (and immediate abandonment) of transgenderal in 1969 .
The idea that Prince gave Dr. Robert Stoller his ideas about gender is just idiotic. Stoller and Prince’s ideas about gender were diametrically apposed! I think this is one of the stupidest things I’ve yet heard a separatist claim. Compare the following ideas about gender and tell me if they are the same:
Gender identity is the sense of knowing to which sex one belongs, that is, the awareness ‘I am a male’ or ‘I am a female’. This term gender identity’ will be used in this paper rather than various other terms which have been employed in this regard, such as the term ‘sexual identity’. ‘Sexual identity’ is ambiguous, since it may refer to one’s sexual activities or fantasies, etc. The advantage of the phrase ‘gender identity’ lies in the fact that it clearly refers to one’s self-image as regard to belonging to a specific sex. Thus, of a patient who says: ‘I am not a very masculine man’, it is possible to say that his gender identity is male although he recognizes his lack of so-called masculinity. – International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 1964, v 45, pages 220 – 226
“You all have histories where people report that, “Ever since I was this high, I used to pray to God that I would wake up in the morning a girl.” I asked these people, “So you made this prayer. Suppose you woke up the next morning and your penis and testicles were gone and you had a vagina. You had the same clothing, took the same books to school, went to the same class, played the same baseball games with the boys and did everything that you did the day before. Would you think that God had answered your prayer?” They would say, “Well, no I didn’t want that. I wanted to be a girl.” The concept of girlness and femaleness are blurred together. What they are seeking is gender change, but not a sexual change.” – (2005:5-15). Virginia Prince: Pioneer of Transgendering (ed: Richard Ekins. and Dave King) The Haworth Medical Press, an imprint of The Haworth Press, Inc
“I was pleased to have Dr. Fisk use the term “gender dysphoria syndrome,” but if it is truly a matter of gender dysphoria, why do you not offer a gender solution instead of a sexual one? What you really have is a “sexual dys-phoria syndrome.” We have sexual identity clinics in which people are examined, selected, screened, and finally have surgery performed on them which changes their sexual identity.” – Virginia Prince: Pioneer of Transgendering (ed: Richard Ekins. and Dave King) The Haworth Medical Press, an imprint of The Haworth Press, Inc.. 2005. pp. 29-32
Are these two people asserting the same view on gender? TS Separatists want – no, need – YOU to believe that they are.
The earliest mention in that literature goes back to Hirschfeld’s “Die Transvestie”. This led to more speculation about these men who dressed up and aped their idea of women’s sexuality. By the time Lowman showed up, the fringe field of sexology was looking for a unifying theory to join all aberrant behavior.
Well, I mean, if you want to pretend that folks weren’t using “transsexed” to refer to non-transsexual transgender people in 1915, then I guess you can make this assertion. Hirschfeld didn’t coin transvestite; that term has been around since at least 1652 (read your OED). The closest thing to “coinage” that can be given to Hirschfeld is the 1920s term, “transgesticismus” which was originally a Karl Ulrichs term (transgestismus), but was modified by Hirshfield to refer to people who behaved in a cross-sexed manner:
“Seine Gesten sind oft so charakteristisch weiblich, daß man geradezu von einem Transgesticismus im Sinne einer Umkehrung der männlichen oder weiblichen Bewegungs modalität sprechen könnte. ” – M. Hirschfeld, Sexualpathologie III., Leipzig: A. Marcus & E. Webers, 1922, p. 11.
I mean, if you really would like to kick this old skool, you’d need to cite Ulrichs when he spoke of a “feminine soul enclosed in a male body” (Die Geschlechtsnatur des mannliebenden Urnings, eine naturwissenschaftliche Darstellung: körperlich-seelischer Hermaphroditismus. Anima Muliebris Virili corpore Inclusa) in 1868. Ulrich spoke of a mental (seelischer) intersex condition (Hermaphroditismus) as being part of one’s essential personhood (anima). However, this and later use of the “wrong body narrative” was generally used to describe a stereotypical female sexual drive within the body of a male. Magnus Hirschfeld echoed Ulrich’s “körperlich-seelischer Hermaphroditismus. Anima Muliebris Virili corpore Inclusa” with his 1923 term, “seelischer transsexualismus.” It wasn’t until Jorgensen popularized the experience of having one’s essential personhood trapped in an oppositely sexed body that gender was popularized as being the subjective experience of one’s sex within the context of a culture. “I was a woman masquerading in a seemingly male body,” said Jorgensen to her early endocrinologist, Dr. Christian Hamburger. Only after Jorgensen popularized this dysphoric experience of gender as a reaction to one’s physical sex that Dr. Stoller writes of “gender identity” in a way that recognized Jorgensen’s subjective experience…. a view which Prince apposed. Remember also that Jorgensen wasn’t referred to as a transsexual in newsprint until 1966 and then not commonly until the mid 1970s.
There is no transgender movement- it has always been about the transvestites. Transgender does not exist; it is a lie. There is no transgender movement but that which seeks to hide the transvestite agenda, and rebrand the desires of sexual fetishists as a kind of identity, replete with the imprimatur of psychological authority, such as it may be.
I take it back; this is the most idiotic thing I’ve ever heard a separatist say. So, we’re dealing with a global crossdresser conspiracy against transsexuals. Apparently a crossdresser cabal made transsexuals a deal we couldn’t refuse and now TS Separatist are our only hope!
The bullshit they’re asking YOU to swallow is that the trans community is a top-down oligarchy in which crossdressers make identity pronouncements from on high and – for some inexplicable reason Separatists never seem to get around to talking about – EVERYONE simply gave up their personal and group identities to assume the new one crossdressers told them take on. They need YOU to buy into this victim narrative, otherwise they’ll seem a little cuckoo bananas and won’t get to pretend anymore that they are actually vessels of some special insights which they must give unto the masses lest we transsexuals face certain doooooom!
The transgender community IS NOT one symmetrically monolithic mass; rather, it’s an exquisitely diverse and interlocking system of smaller and smaller interlocked groupings all linked by gradations of common experiences and history. Separatist BS asks us to believe that somehow an identity pronouncement can be made from on high and that all of these very, very different groupings with very, very different interests and needs – for some inexplicable reason – then simultaneously accepts and takes on this pronouncement of identity. The trans community contains within it disparate groups which would have virtually no contact with each other outside of the realm of a shared experience and history. These shared gradations of experience and history facilitates communication and hence, the reality of community itself.
Any of the identity terms the trans community uses were not written in stone by some leader and passed down to us, their devoted followers from on high; that’s a complete distortion of how community identities come into common usage. Only those identity terms which resonate sufficiently throughout and between the various gradations of groupings will become real identity terms. The very idea that the trans community can be somehow told, instructed and/or forced into taking on new identity terms is preposterous to most anyone who’s done community organizing work if they think about it even for a moment!
But don’t take my word on how coinage myths are BS. Listen to what Dr. Daniel Dennett has to say about these myth in his lecture at Oxford University:
At some point in the 1990′s, political correctness was thrown into the mix. It became politically incorrect to use any term except “transgender”. There were, by then, a few transsexual people who attempted to represent the transsexual group within this mess. But they were quickly shown the door by the increasingly cult-like “transgender” bosses. That is the extent of transsexual involvement in the “transgender” movement.
As I said, they need YOU to believe that personal and group identity is given from on high from trans “bosses” otherwise it isn’t a mythical top-down oligarchy and they are not victimized freedom fighters locked in an epic battle for the future of all transsexuals. Because, if Prince didn’t coin transgender and if the trans community isn’t an oligarchy then that makes their views more than a little nutty.
And now we come to the epic ad hom attack wherein I am diagnosed by this TS Separatist as being a sociopath who needs to by stopped because I refuse to join them in their delusion:
People like Williams are doing nothing more than lying. Not misunderstanding, not good people getting confused. Just flat out lying. They are trying to continue this campaign of transsexual extermination, because they are attempting to become the new transvestite thought leaders. They are transvestites through and through, as well as highly sociopathic, and they get many cheap thrills out of our frustration and degradation.
Because the sociopath’s chief goal is to commit murder by creating conditions for the suicide of others, I see no reason to treat with these monsters as if they are fellow human beings. We don’t owe them the time of day, much less ingress into our lives through dialogue.
They are invaders and must be expelled. The sociopath transvestites must simply be defeated. And that will be the end of “transgender history”.
And there you have it folks. This is what TS Separatism has come to. Yes, because I won’t blindly swallow the TS Separatist line hook and sinker, I must be mentally deranged. Furthermore, I should not be seen as a human being by others; I’m sub-human and need to be dealt with. And YOU better get on board with TS Separatism otherwise YOU might forfeit you’re right to humanity as well.
This isn’t just a nutty example of some extreme voice, this IS the exact message TS Separatist leaders are currently pushing. Here’s the leading spokesperson for TS Separatism, Ashley Love:
For example, this Spring a few self-promoting and self-aggrandizing “transgender” bloggers, authors and “gender outlaw” entertainers (who actually financially and professionally profit by enforcing transgender socio-politics and umbrella-ism theory) are obsessing over how to stop the inevitable transsexual liberation by creating petty drama, speculating, concocting ‘out of this world’ and laughable history revisionism, taking actions and quotes out of context, presuming to know one’s intentions as if they are telepathic, unrobing and degrading the bodies of women born with transsexualism and behaving like unstable, over compulsive and anti-social pesonalites, fueled by their amazing male egos and desire to get attention, although it’s negative attention. Their desperate behavior is obviously a backlash to the realization that their fantasy “transgender umbrella reservation” mandate is coming to an end. They are dealing with their ‘bubble being popped’ like most imperialists do when their colonies breaks free: Retaliating with [mental] violence, back tracking, faking evidence and agreements,mispspesking for deseased transsexuals & others, and transparent [and failed] character assassinations against numerous women of transsexual history that are being seriously listened to. Their over the top cyber bullying is very telling in how they lack genuine facts to back up their opinion based frame work, as well as not having authentic or sincere intentions, just the typical crafty lies most politicians spit when they want to CON-vince the people of something they know dang well is *hog wash*.
– Ashley “I hate citing evidence” Love, May 6, 2012
This is the true face of TS Separatism: Batshit Crazy.
This Friday at 7 PM central on BlogTV, The separatist, Lisa McDonald will be debating that “transgender” comes from communism just backed out of the debat. I’m sure the debate will be would have been full of conspiracy theory, non-sequiturs, ad homs and lots of quote mining… and on my side you’ll get you would have gotten to see me pull lots of face palms and do my best to explain to rationally discuss the historical context of “transgender.”
This debate arose from a series of exchanges in which Lisa asserted that I was a big poo-poo head for thinking I had a right to debunk the Prince fountainhead myth:
I suggested that we debate. I then contacted her on FB because she didn’t respond. I went through the process of setting the debate up and answering all of Lisa’s questions. This weekend Lisa went on transadvocate to pretend that I’m trying to duck the debate:
What happened to our debate?!?
You mean, the debate I announced in my last blog post?
You mean the debate I arranged?
You mean the debate we’ve been talking about on FB for the last 2 weeks?
In case you’d like to read the opinion piece (I only recently figured out) Lisa wrote, you can read it here. Here’s the post in which Lisa pretends as if I’m trying to duck out of the debate. Last Wednesday I send her the embed code to host the debate on her site, we communicate on Sunday and on Sunday she goes on transadvocate and publicly writes, “By the way what happened to our debate? I’d really, really love to have a one on one debate with you on Transgender and Communism.” as if she doesn’t know what’s going on with our debate.
Kinda lame, Lisa. I’ll see you at the debate this Friday at 7 central.
UPDATE: 6/19/2012 at 12:30
Lisa has backed out of the debate… of course:
Lisa continues to pretend that she didn’t back out of the debate. She posted what she claims to be the “complete” email exchange on her blog, but like most of the “facts” she has on offer, that’s a falsehood. Here’s the rest of the conversation that she chose to to not publish:
I took screenshots of this exchange and have not posted it until today because I wanted to see if she would do the right thing and publish the FULL exchange instead of an edited version (which she passes off as being “complete”) on her site. A week ago, I challenged her to post the entire exchange, but she hasn’t done it. Instead, she deleted our FaceBook exchange. (edit: the thread had been archived, not deleted)
Lisa’s pretending that since she asserts that I didn’t address a question she had, she had no idea whether or not the debate would take place. She asserts that she posted her question on transadvocate.com because she just wanted to clear up her confusion.
Since we had been, at that point, emailing back and forth for weeks, I just can’t believe that it didn’t occur to Lisa that emailing me was the proper way to ask her question and/or check in with me. It’s just not possible that Lisa is that stupid. For as wacky as her conspiracy theories are about a commie plots to force all transsexuals into a rhetorical transgender gulag, she is in school. People who are too stupid to understand that into order to directly communicate with someone, you must directly communicate with them won’t make it in school. Lisa knew what she was doing.
I suspect that she chose to “communicate” with me in the way that she did because she wasn’t actually attempting to communicate with me; rather, Lisa was trying to communicate with those who read transadvocate. I think she designed she comments to make it sound as if I wasn’t communicating with her – which was lame. The readership of transadvoate.com was her target audience, not me. I only replied to the audience Lisa chose to pose her question to.
Lisa claimed that she wanted a professional, respectful debate. Lisa lied. She misrepresented to truth for her own purposes… and continues to do so.