A Right Strawy Post...

Martin Luther did not care for the Epistle of James, and once referred to it as a "right strawy epistle."  Well, when I saw gender fascist's "Cristan" Williams' latest attack on Ashley Love, those words came to mind.  Not exactly in the way that Luther meant them, but because Mr. Williams is up to his usual trick of positing straw arguments.  BTW, didn't he declare the transsexual separatist movement dead?  So, why is he still so obsessed with it?  


Anyway, Mr. Williams makes his usual ad hominem attacks, and then issues the following challenge to Ashley Love:

MY CHALLENGE TO ASHLEY LOVE:

1. Produce objective evidence proving that Virginia Prince used the word “transgender” in the 1960s or 70s.
2. Produce objective evidence proving that Virginia Prince used the term “transgenderist” before 1978.
3. Produce the objective evidence which led Love to conclude that the historical record has been faked.
4. Produce objective evidence proving that “transgender” wasn’t used in its modern usage back in 1974.
5. Produce objective evidence proving that the term “transgender” is only 20 years old instead of at least 42 years old.

I suspect that Ashley Love will again, quite properly, decline to engage Mr. Williams.  But, what the heck, I am more than willing to expose him for the fraud that he really is.  This is the same straw arguments he has  made before, and here again are some responses dealing with this drivel:

1.  An irrelevant, and dishonest question.  The issue is not a person, nor a word, but is a concept.   In the 1960's and 70's Prince was pushing his anti-homosexual and anti-transsexual views.  He wanted to protect his followers from their wives, who would he knew would be upset if they thought their husbands might be attracted to men, or worse, interested in changing sex.  
2. Prince's use of the term "transgenderist" was a major contributing factor in the rise of the silliness we now know as "transgender."  He began pushing the idea that men who had fantasies of being women could live "en femme" full time.
3. The so-called "historic" record seems to only exist for Mr. Williams.  His sources are almost all obscure publications that are not readily available.  That, in and of itself, does not provide objective proof.  But then again, Mr. Williams has not really provided anything that could remotely be called "objective" or "proof."  He has provided links to PDFs of what he claims are scans of documents.  The problem is, there does not seem to be any independent objective confirmation of the originals.  Now, this leads to Mr. Williams engaging in a classic dishonest tactic in debating....effectively demanding that his opponents "prove a negative."  He never really proves his claims, but instead relies on demanding that his opponents prove that they do not exist.  That, of course, is both impossible, and dishonest. 
4. In this one, we actually see him demand that someone prove a negative.  Again, highly dishonest.  He has never proven that it was used in that manner.  Of course, this completely obscures the fact that his point is completely irrelevant.  It is possible, though not remotely proven, that there might have been some who used the term in some manner that resembles the current use.  So what?  That is not remotely a relevant issue to the debate, which is actually about a movement that began to really take hold in the 1990's, and which has, quite honestly, resulted in exactly what Ashley Love has asserted.
5. Language rarely springs into use suddenly.  Whether or not someone used a word in an isolated context 42 years ago has nothing to do with how it is used today.  42 years ago, the accepted view was that homosexuality was totally a choice.  Even longer in the past, the phrase "woman trapped in a man's body" was used to describe homosexuals.  But no one would insist that either of these are remotely accurate today.  Again, the issue is not about when a word was coined, or how it was used 42 years ago, but is instead about people being forced to accept a label that they are presently uncomfortable with and being forced to agree with concepts that they presently find objectionable.

Once again, Mr. Williams shows that he is dishonest, and has no respect for the rights of others.

Two Perfect Examples of What is Wrong With Transgender

Well, two of the more extremist of the transgender nut cases have offered up posts that both show the serious flaws in their goals, and the contradictory nature of their logic.

Both "Autumn" Sandeen and "Cristan" Williams have, quite cluelessly, shot themselves in the foot.  Well, Mr. Williams more than Mr. Sandeen.  Sandeen has simply shown the anti-social nature of his desires.  Williams has shown that his claims about the origins of "transgender" are not true.

First off, Sandeen has posted in response to Jillian Page, who he describes as a "wonderful friend" even as he takes Page to task for stating what Sandeen no doubt considers the ultimate heresy against transgender doctrine.  

As I discussed in my last post, Sandeen is ranting against stealth by "trans people," and I can imagine his outrage that someone he considers a fellow traveler has the audacity to actually disagree with him.  I mean, how dare anyone but Sandeen presume to state what the primary goal of transgender people "should be?"

Page states:

The ultimate goal of trans people is to blend in with society, and not to draw any special attention to themselves. I think we are getting to the point where the less said to the media, the better, especially about such personal things like having babies. I mean, whose business is it, anyway?

Now I don't identify as "trans" anything, but I see merit in this comment.  I have a lot less problem with those who are trying to blend in with society.  And I do wish "trans people" would learn some discretion when it comes to the media.  The example that Page gives is classic, a transgender "man" who has given birth in England.  At least in this case the masculinized woman had the good sense not to allow her name to be used.  No, men do not have babies.  And I don't care what the British tabloids want to claim, this person was not a "male mother," first, second, or otherwise.  

Of course, Sandeen is aghast at the suggestion that trans people primary goal is anything other than the complete destruction of certain societal standards.  And this is what is wrong with the transgender movement in general.  It is not about being who you really are, but instead is about rebelling against gender norms and imposing an unpopular view on society.

I think part of this is because, as certain behavior becomes more acceptable, the transgender need more and more outrageous behavior to fuel their fetishes.  It used to be that appearing in public dressed as a woman could quickly land a man in jail.  That sort of law has disappeared, so now there is less "thrill" in being publicly crossdressed.  There is little shock value in just being a crossdresser, so they have to push the envelope.

Now, a commenter on Sandeen's site suggests that he is pushing this agenda because he is not able to "pass."  And yes, in Sandeen's case, "pass" is the appropriate term, as he is not now, and never will be a woman.  The best he can hope for is to fool someone into thinking he is not a man,though that is extremely unlikely.

The other post that shows what is wrong with the transgender movement, as I said, comes from none other than lead gender fascist "Cristan" WIlliams.  Williams, who has made a name for himself by posting obscure citations that are supposed to prove that "transgender" really does apply to transsexuals, and that separatists are wrong.  The problem, for him, is that they prove nothing remotely like that.  At best, assuming that all of the claimed posts are remotely legitimate (still an open question since Williams basically demands that people prove a negative, which is a classic false argument) they show that a variety of people put "trans" and "gender" together, sometimes in reference to transsexuals, and other times in reference to other groups.  

In one recent post he even cites C.S. Lewis using the term "trans-sexual."  The problem for Williams is that Lewis was referring to marriages in Heaven.  A classic question from theology, which Lewis answers with the idea that people will "beyond sex," not that the saints will have their sex changed upon arrival at the Pearly Gates.  Granted, that was a plot line a rather silly bit of transvestite fiction that was cited in one scholarly book on the subject of transvestites.

And therein lies the problem for Williams' basic argument.  The fact that various people, at various times, may have used a word does not equate to them holding to the current concept which is attached to that word.  And it is actually the concept, not the word that those Williams likes to label as separatists reject.  But that requires actual logic and thought, not one of Williams' strengths.  He prefers what he perceives, usually erroneously, as clever arguments.

And Phillip Frye, who is, as shown by the very history that Williams posts, a heterosexual transvestite who was quite determined to force his little hobby on society serves as a perfect example of why many transsexuals want no part of "transgender."  Frye has, in the past, attacked transsexuals, and has made statements to the effect that people should not have surgery, claim that 50% are dissatisfied after surgery.  This, of course, is clearly a lie.  Of course, Frye is not the first transgender extremist to make such a claim.  Many of them vehemently oppose surgery for anyone.
  
Frye has attempted any number of legal frauds, such as suggesting that people claim to suffer from ectopic ovaries and a hyperthrophied clitoris in order to get their birth certificate changed.  And he then suggested that such a birth certificate could be used to obtain a fraudulent same sex marriage.  Now, I support same sex marriage, but not through fraud.  That accomplishes nothing.  

And Frye is one who is often credited with the creation of the modern transgender movement.  Of course, what is repeatedly denied by Williams is the simple truth that originally, transgender was presented as an alternative to transsexualism.  It started when some crossdressers, such as Frye, "Holly" Boswell, and yes,  Arnold Lowman (aka Charles "Virginia" Prince).  For example, Dallas Denny (no use in using what some refer to as "scare quotes" here, as Denny was named "Dallas" at birth, and as I understand, never changed his name.  In fact, as I understand it, his legal name remains Dallas Henry Denny) wrote in a review of a book from the earlier days of the transgender movement:

To their everlasting credit, a few courageous souls, notably Virginia Prince, Linda Phillips, Phyllis Randolph Frye, and Holly Boswell, realized the absurdity of this type of thinking, and began asking, quietly at first, and then with increasing force and volume, “Why is it necessary to have a surgery I don’t want in order to live the life I desire?” Once posed, this question had but one logical answer, and that was that the rigidly dichotomous gender roles of our society had made us blind to the possibility, and that of course, they and other transgendered persons could function in society as women without offering their genitals up to the surgeons.

Yes, contrary to what Williams tries so hard to claim, it really did start out as an anti-transsexual movement.  And part of the irony is, Denny rushed into surgery, even though many who knew him felt he was not a good candidate.  For the record, there is no joy in being right about such a thing.

The concept of "transgender" that we have today (as opposed to some obscure use of the term that Williams happened to possibly turn up) was first conceived as an alternative to transsexual.  It originated when some aging transvestites decided that they wanted to be full-time crossdressers, but did not remotely want to give up their penises.  Then, because of the transgender hierarchy that they often try to deny exists, they decided that they were "really" transsexuals....except, well, they still didn't want to give up their penises, but hey, they liked calling themselves transsexuals because, well, it sounded better than admitting that they were still crossdressers, just full time.

But how could they claim to be transsexuals if transsexuals were not "transgender."  Thus the movement that began as an alternative to being transsexual began to claim to be about being transsexual, and the term was morphed into the vague, confusing mess we have today, and they wonder why transsexuals want no part of their silliness.

And, of course, Williams continues to try to force people to accept the label transgender, whether they like it or not.  And, of course, we continue to laugh at his silliness.

There Really Is A Difference...

Over the past two days, Suzan Cooke has again tried to cozy up to the gender fascists. First, Cooke posted an article that both attempted to redefine the term "transgender" and which basically claimed that transgender people can turn into transsexuals simply by having surgery. This sounds a lot like the silly, and imaginary, transgender hiearchy where one climbs the ladder. You may start out as a lowly transvestite, getting aroused by wearing your wife's panties. Then you might move up to a crossdresser, claiming that you are not really doing it for sexual reasons. Start living full time, and according to Cooke, you become a full fledged "transgender." (And here you thought that was what you were all along.) Scrape together the money, pop off to Bowers in Trinidad (she seems to take anyone) and you have now graduated to a genuine Woman Born Transsexual, even though the idea never even occured to you before you discovered the joys of your wife's panties at the age of 45. I mean really, this is just ridiculous.

Cooke even goes so far as to claim that "classic transgender people" are committed to binary gender and are not into gender transgression. Cooke has got to be kidding...

According to Cooke, the real difference between "classic transgender people" and transsexuals is simply the ablity to afford surgery. If you are lucky, you get to be a transsexual. Hit hard times, and sorry, but you are stuck being transgender. Of course, that is straight out of the transgender playbook. How often have we heard that they would have surgery, but gosh darn it, there is the mortgage, and the car payment, and the credit card bills, and the cost of popping off to all those conferences, and the Tri-Ess dues, and the donations to IFGE, and.....? Oh wait, according to Cooke, all those poor transgender types are oppressed and underprivileged.

Then, in later article Cooke seems to want to back off, and admit that maybe there is something more than luck, and classism, involved. I guess after pretty much being confronted by a round of angry comments, Cooke realizes that she is in danger of losing half of her imaginary coalition. So, Cooke now seems to say that...well, maybe some of them really don't want surgery, but....they are still poor, oppressed, and we should all still compromise and become one, big, happy family. In fact, Cooke goes so far as to begin making apologies for Charles "Virginia" Prince.

Sorry, but again, NO! We are not alike, we do not really share common goals, and let's be honest, if we give them an inch, they are going to take a mile. Personally, I am not interested in deconstructing gender, subverting the binary, or joining up with the likes of Jasper Gregory. Cooke can try will all her might to deny that this person is the very model of a transgender woman, but that is ultimately the perfect example of why I want no part of transgender or Cooke's proposed compromise.

Term Limits

It was two years ago today that the first post in this blog appeared. Originally, I thought I would probably produce one or two posts a month. Things have increased considerably. This month I have posted as many posts as I did in the previous year. Of course, I could post more, but I write each post, as opposed to reposting stuff from other sources just so I can produce several posts a day.

In honor of this milestone, here is a special post looking at some terms the gender fascists seem to love....

From Through The Looking-Glass And What Alice Found There by Lewis Carroll:

When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean— neither more nor less.’

‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master - - that’s all.'

Anyone who has dealt with the transgender community might well feel as though they have gone down the rabbit hole and joined Alice in talking with Humpty Dumpty. Much of the terminology used seems to bear little resemblance to anything that can be called reality.

In this posting, I would like to look at some of the terms one encounters and discuss both what they mean, and what the gender fascists want them to mean.

Well, as they say, the first place to start is at the beginning.

Transgender - Of course, this path has been trod before, but let's review...The gender fascists would have us believe that "transgender" is an objective term that refers to a specific, identifiable group. They would include transvestites, crossdressers, drag queens, drag queens, transgenderists, butch women, femme men, gender queers, two spirits, bois, gurls, sissy maids....oh, and of course, transsexuals. (Now, why any true or classic transsexual would want to be lumped in with stuff like crossdressers and sissy maids is beyond me.)

The problem is, "transgender" is not an objective term. It never has been, and never will be. It is an artificial social/political construct and it has too many different definitions, most of which are often in conflict with one another. Also, many of those who some would force the term on do not wish to be defined that way.

It is often used to imply that one can "change one's gender." This of course is not true, and is an absurd thing to suggest. If it were possible, then transsexuals could simply choose to change their gender to match their bodies, and no one would need to have surgery. Contrary to the claims of many, gender is not fluid. Ironically, most who are "transgender" were actually born with a gender that matches their body, and are actually trying to present as a gender other than their true one.

Transgender is, plain and simple, an identity. It is a label that one can adopt, but which, likewise, one should be free to reject. It should never be forced on someone against their will, and it should never be used to describe someone unless they themselves have indicated a willingness to be called that. Of course, this sort of concept infuriates the gender fascists who feel free to label people as they see fit, but who become furious if someone does not pander to their silly delusions.

Now, one of the bigger problems with "transgender" is the fact that many feel their gender is not the issue. For example, my gender has always been female. I did not decide to change my gender. I decided to accept my gender, and instead to change my sex. Gender, it appears, is immutable. But the transgender paradigm holds that gender is a social construct and is therefore a choice.

Some define "transgender" in terms of either transgressing or transcending gender. Most who identify as having Harry Benjamin Syndrome do not see themselves as doing either. I certainly do not transgress gender. My gender is female, and that is how I dress and behave. The idea of appearing in public dressed as a man strikes me as absurd. Nor did I transcend gender. I simply accepted the gender I truly am, and got on with my life.

Gender Variant - Gender variant is becoming an increasingly popular replacement for "transgender." Of course, this, as much as anything, shows just how clueless some people are. They think "gender variant" is a more benign term than "transgender." In truth, for most, it is even more offensive. First off, there is nothing variant about my gender. I have a female gender, and I simply conform to societies standards for that gender. Of course, I am sure there are those who would love to see this replace "transgender" as it will set them even more apart from normal society.

Transgenderist - Transgenderist was the term first coined by Charles "Virginia" Prince to describe those, like himself, who chose to live full time as the opposite sex without seeking SRS. Prince was adamantly opposed to sex reassignment surgery. It has been suggested that this was because Prince was denied surgery when he attempted to get it. It has largely been replaced by the oxymoron "non-op transsexual."

Cis-whatever - In scientific terms, "cis" is the opposite of "trans" so someone came up with the bright idea of using "cisgender" to refer to people who are, in effect, normal. That was silly enough, but now the term has become something of an insult. Other variations include things like "cissexual." It's use led to a major meltdown on Pam's House Blend. Personally, I don't see why a special term is needed for people who are not transgender or transsexual.

Normborn - This is a relatively new term, which has appeared on a few blogs, especially on Women Born Transsexual where, like "cisgender" it is used as something of an insult. Again, this speaks loads about the transgender mindset...and what is says is not at all favorable. It has to be kept in mind, being transgender is all about being different...being "other," simply being at odds with normal, decent society. This is why some gender fascists seem to hate the HBS concept. They don't want to be normal, and they can't seem to stand the idea that anyone else would want to be either. Of course, they want to force society to accept them, and the idea that there might be transsexuals who don't share their desire to rebel against norms works against that.

The transgender attitude is summed up best by a quote from Gwen Smith concerning a couple of cases that have received attention lately:

A cadre of experts – right or wrong – will be attempting to decide if Semenya is male or female, and that will determine if she will be able to continue to compete on the world stage. Meanwhile, Manpower Inc. will not get to ogle Blatt's genitals to determine if others will be magically comfortable around her.

No one should get that power. The only people who can truly say if we are men or women are ourselves.

In the case of Semenya, the issue is one of simple fairness. If she has some medical condition that gives her an unfair advantage, then the officials have a right to know this. And of course, given that she has higher than normal levels of testosterone, and that her coach is a former East German with a history of cheating, it is not unreasonable for them to investigate.

As to Blatt, this person was in a position that involved being in the locker room with women who might be nude. There is good reason to believe that Blatt has not had corrective surgery, and given that some doctors will provide documentation that falsely implies that surgery has taken place, when it is not actual SRS, it is not unreasonable that her employer require additional documentation. The request for a photograph of her genitalia was not the most reasonable approach, but it would deal with the possibility of fraud. A better approach would have been to simply request an examination by a doctor that Manpower could trust.

No, whether or not we are men or women is not our choice, and there are situations where simply taking someones word for it is not a reasonable demand.

Women Born Transsexual - This term was dreamed up by Suzan Cooke. Cooke was trying to counter the "women born women" concept that some extremist lesbian-separatists have used to dismiss transsexuals as being "not really women." Of course, those who think in terms of "women born women" are a very small minority that are largely insignificant to the lives of most women.

This term was originally supposed to differentiate between transsexual and transgender, but increasingly Cooke has adopted transgender views, and is now transgender in all but name. Cooke's latest effort is to add another T to LGBT, creating LGBT/T for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender/Transsexual. Cooke simply does not get it. Those who do not wish to identify as transgender are not going to want to compromise in this manner either.

So, as this blog begins its third year, I look back at all the changes. More and more, people are speaking up and saying "No!" to the gender fascists. We may be small, but we are not going to roll over and play dead for the gender fascists.

Stuck on himself...

As I have said before, when I started this blog, it was not with the intention of spending so much time commenting on the silliness posted on so very many "transgender" blogs. But, because there is so much silliness, and because the gender fascists go to such great pains to censor any dissenting views, I often find myself doing just that.


One of the most outspoken of the gender fascists is Monica Helms. Helms, like some many of those determined to impose their views on people, seems a bit confused. For some time, Helms was an avowed non-op, but has recently started claiming to be surgery tracked. This is odd, given the number of times that Helms has viciously attacked those who have had surgery.

About a month or so ago, Helms started his "Stuck" series, one of which I have already commented on. Apparently, the series was supposed to be three articles, but now Helms has added a fourth that is on a common theme for many who are transgender, "fear." Of course, they are not the ones who are afraid. They project this emotion onto others.

As is typical of Helms, he uses this concept to slam what he sees as improper behavior for those he drags into his "community." For example, he speaks of those who are fearful of being seen with other "trans people." This he attributes to the idea that the chances of being clocked increase with the number of trans people in a group. Now, there is some truth to that concept, but I doubt it is a fear that Helms has to worry about. Helms has little choice in the matter of being clocked.

Then Helms goes on to suggest that some "transsexuals" fear "crossdressers." He attributes this to the fact that many object to the hateful statements made by Arnold Lowman, aka "Virginia Prince." In raising this point, Helms makes the following statement:

They fear the words that came from Virginia in 1959 as if they pertain to the world in 2009. I say this is fear, because there has never been a good explanation why her fifty-year-old words remain relevant in the 21st Century.

Now, this statement leaves me wondering if Helms is really that ignorant of "Prince" and his ongoing diatribes and the fact that they continue to used to attack transsexuals and people with HBS. "Prince" not only never renounced those positions that were first taken in "1959" but continued to express them to anyone who would listen.

Now, I would say that "Prince's" words were never really "relevant" but they did form the basis for much of the harm done to transsexuals and people. For example, Blanchard's pseudo-science can be directly traced to "Prince."

Here are some of the misconceptions that can be directly traced to "Prince:"

• The idea that transsexuals study the biographies of other transsexuals in order to create our stories. This allows researchers to ignore the fact that we share common experiences because. And that allows them to dismiss the legitimacy of our claims. This has led directly to Blanchard's approach of simply labeling as a liar anyone who does not fit his theories.
  
• The concept that sex and gender are so totally separate as to be effectively unrelated. This means that, given the tendency of some to define gender strictly in terms of "social construct," some claim that one can simply choose one's gender.


• The idea that crossdressers are motivated by something other than erotic desire. This view was pushed by "Prince" even as he was telling Robert Stoller how he did find crossdressing erotic.


• The idea that transsexuals can be divided on the basis of sexual orientation, and that they are either men who are just super gay, or that they are men with a fetish.

Helms goes on to discuss how some fear discovery. Now, like many gender fascists, Helms equates not being "out, loud, and proud" with being fearful. It simply does not enter his mind that some might simply wish to live their lives as women, and not "transgender women." If someone knows your past then they are very unlikely to ever fully accept you as a woman, but instead, their views will always be colored by the fact that you were born a male. For some, this is not a good thing. Of course, for a transgender like Helms, it is the whole thing.

Finally, we have this from Helms, which is what lead to the tiltle of this article:

Through all of this, I cannot understand why some trans people fear me, the
things I do, or how I live my life. They try to come across one way, but it
boils down to nothing more than fear. Trapped animals growl, show their teeth
and scream when faced with a supposed threat, all to cover up their fear. Humans
are no different. I try to extend the olive branch to those who fear me because
I have made many friends from those who may not have liked me in the past. I am
never afraid to make a new friend, yet it is another fear that many in the trans
community have.

Now, first off, the people who Helms is attempting to slam here would be insulted by his referring to them as "trans people." I personally do not care to have the adjective "trans" appended to anything referring to me. Now, I suppose Helms idea of a trying to "extend the olive branch" is to attack post-op women, as he has done many times. Granted, Helms was able to find a kindred spirit in Suzan Cooke, but that would be a good subject for another whole article. Simply put, Cooke may identify as a "Woman Born Transsexual," but increasingly Cooke sounds like a transgender in all but name.

No, the bottom line is, no one fears Helms, or how he lives his life. Like many of the gender fascists, he thinks himself more than he really is. No, we simply do not appreciate his attacks, though we do find that he does continually expose himself for what he really is. And, that, simply put, is more, perhaps, to be pitied, not feared.

Arnold Lowman is dead...

Now I imagine you might be asking, "Who was Arnold Lowman?" You probably knew him better as the infamous crossdresser "Virginia Prince," aka "Charles Prince." His real name was Arnold Lowman. Or, at least that was his name at birth. Quite frankly, I have never seen anything that says whether he changed it, or not. But, he is much better known as "Virginia Prince," the founder of the Heel and Hose Club that later became Tri Ess, the "sorority" for heterosexual crossdressers. I think the original name says a lot about what "Prince" was really all about, but he made a career out of denying that transvestitism, which he later insisted be called "crossdressing" was not erotic in nature. To which I say, "POPPYCOCK!"

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:

The evil that men do lives after them;

The good is oft interred with their bones;

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.