While "Prince" was telling the world that he was a "femniphile" and crossdressed out of a love of the feminine, he was admitting to Robert Stoller, a researcher at UCLA who specialized in gender identity issues, that he really was motivated by erotic desires. And he was also telling Stoller, and anyone else who would listen, that transsexuals were all just crossdressers, or gay men, who were just getting carried away. Hmmm, sounds like the same pseudoscience that Blanchard spews now.
One problem was, "Prince" had no standing to be making such pronouncements, and yet he had papers published as though he did. His degree was in Pharmacy, not Psychology.
"Prince" is also credited with coining the term "transgender." Some question this, as the term that he actually coined was "transgenderist," to describe full time crossdressers such as himself. Now, it appears that "Prince" did take female hormones, and it is claimed that he had breast implants, but he was completely unwilling to give up his manhood, though some claim his response to the news of Christine Jorgensen was, if I had $5000 I would catch the next boat to Denmark. Of course, it is has also been said that he was, quite wisely, denied surgery.
Now, even though they were somewhat slow to react to the news, some of the transgender fascists have begun to sing the praises of their fallen hero. Both Sandeen and Helms have weighed in. And Sandeen has not taken that kindly to those who would point out "Prince's" shortcomings. For example, one person was took to task for referring to "Prince" with male pronouns. Of course, this is a big no-no in the fantasy world of the transgender." A big part of the transgender fascist's paradigm is that one gets to simply declare what one is, and everyone else has to follow in lockstep agreement. Never mind that "Prince" was clearly not a woman, given that his motivation was admittedly erotic. In his later days, he was known for having a taste for "she male" pornography.
Now, Helms raises the question about why anyone would care about "Prince's" 50-year old remarks. Well, Helms has never been known for paying much attention to facts, and apparently he glosses right over the fact that "Prince's" ideas are still being used by those, like Blanchard, Bailey, Zucker, Docter, and others, who would discredit transsexuals.
So, "Prince" is dead, and for the most part, few have actually paid much attention. Even in places where you would sort of expect this to be a major story, it has been ignored. There is no mention on either the Tri Ess web site, or at the IFGE web site. I would be a bit surprised if TG Tapestry doesn't dedicate the next issue to "Prince," but then again, he was a bit of an embarassment to those who want to claim that "transsexuals" are really "transgender." But, at the same time, IFGE did name one of their awards (since dropped) for "Prince." So, who knows?
As Shakespeare said:
Not that "Prince" actually did anything that was that good, but there is no question, his evil will definitely live on for a while longer. Especially for those who suffer from Harry Benjamin Syndrome.The evil that men do lives after them;
The good is oft interred with their bones;
.jpg)
15 comments:
Are you serious? The founder of Transvestia, El Transgenderisto Primero, the proginator of all that is T, dies and none of the organizations that celebrate that legacy even notice? Wow. I wonder why...
Well, I can think of any number of reasons that he might be an embarassment to them, but it is still surprising. Ironically, his death seems to be getting the most attention from Suzan Cooke.
Yes, I put a comment on your blog where you assume you know who I am. I don't mind you linking to my blog, but I do object to you posting incorrect information about who I am. Again, I ask that you remove the name you have linked to this blog.
Yes, you may release the comment,
I prefer to leave the question of my identity an open issue.
If I wanted to do this by email, I would. I am quite stealth, and I don't care to have my identity known. That may may not square with your views, but it is m right. And I would ask that you respect this. Personally, I find your practice of featuring people without contacting them, and without requesting their approval to be rather distasteful. You publish incorrect information as fact. Regardless of what your purpose is, it is not very ethical. For example, you effectively identify people as gender variant who may find such a label highly insulting.
And you seem quite obsessed with invading people's privacy.
"Gender Variant" is not remotely neutral. As I said, some find it highly insulting.
As to the comment about "Prince" and his taste for "she-male" pornography...I admit, I found that tidbit on a less than reliable source...your blog.
As to Helms, and others, since they censor anyone who remotely disagrees with them, I choose to address their silliness here.
And I refer to people by accurate pronouns. I do not buy into the transgender silliness that holds that one gets to simply claim to be a certain sex. Nor do I buy into the idiotic idea that simply changing clothes changes one's gender. When, for example, someone brags about having served successfully in the military, as a man, for long enough to have retired, but now suddenly decides they are "really" a woman, I tend to consider that a bit silly.
Richards is a public person. Richards has effectively invited such comments by publishing two bigographies.
And I only comment on what others have written. I do not go off on wild tangents, such as claiming that someone is someone they are not. You seem to do that a lot. If you are going to offer "biographies" of people, especially those who are still alive, you should contact them first, and ask permission to feature them. And as you might notice, I generally don't censor comments here. I only do so if someone makes a direct personal attack on myself or another.
I suppose Zagria doesn't see the least bit of irony in anything she just said.
I don't agree with everything on "Enough Nonsense."
And actually, I have read Docter's book. It has, however, been a while. But thanks for verifying that bit of information. I strongly suspected that was where it came from, but was not sure.
Now, it is funny that you bring up "objective." Yes, my statements are objective. They are based on observable facts, not silly claims. But Blanchard's pseudo-science is anything but objective. It is totally subjective. Blanchard simply dismisses as a liar anyone who does not admit to fitting his ridiculous theories.
Now, let me explain this in very simple terms. First off, you again presume to know who I am, when you do not. Second, I choose to not reveal who I am. That is my right. You do not have a right to know who I am, or for that matter, who I am not. Please refrain from such speculation in the future.
Now, in case you haven't been able to figure it out, I don't reveal who I am. I keep that information private. Please respect my privacy. And please refrain from your apparent need to dominate, and stop trying to tell me what I can and cannot do based on your rather odd views.
I choose to comment anonymously. I find it odd that you presume that I am the same person as someone who comments relatively publically. Seems you don't deal well with contradictions.
And once more...in very simple terms...there is a substantial, and dare I say it, objective difference between commenting on what others post on their blog, especially when they deny people the right to respond on their blogs...and writing a biography about someone, especially where you might actually be invading their privacy.
No, apparently there is a lot that Zaria does not see.
"As HBS becomes better known, people want to know who the HBS activists are. If you want stealth, go and do it, and stop posting."
Ah yes, the old "We'll ruin you if you attempt to speak out.". This is a common pattern among abusers; keep the bitch silent.
Yes, that does seem to be the case. I was kicked off of Pam's House Blend because of comments I made here, even though I did not violate any of the terms of service there. Well, actually, in truth it was for making a fool out of Sandeen. I was kicked off of Bilerico, not for any real violation, but mainly because I was, again, making strong arguments against the foolishness of the TG crowd. They simply cannot abide dissent.
Post a Comment