There was a time when I read Transsexual Empire and seethed. No, it wasn't 1979 or 1980. It was in 2005. How could this Radical Feminist even deign for a second to declare that I was not her flesh and blood? How could she possibly, legitimately believe and write such pap as 'transsexuals are men who are masquerading as women in order to enter womyn-space for the purpose of gaining our trust and acceptance and then bring patriarchy into the free spaces we have fought so hard to develop.' WTF was she talking about? How insane was she when she wrote that?

Three years has made a lot of difference. I fully intend to purchase the book, re-read it and place it prominently on my bookshelf, in a place of honor. For as I live longer and watch what has happened over the past fifteen to twenty years the more i am convinced that not only was Janice Raymond mostly right; I am convinced that she was aware of a danger that lately has caused us some harsh words and hurt feelings right here. (I'll get to that shortly.)
First I want to post this warning Please be aware that this essay is my opinion. It is not meant to be hateful, but it is passionate and controversial. I am not denying the validity of anyone's walk; but there is a devil in this piece and it is Virginia Prince. He was a dyed-in-the-wool misogynist and CD/TV. His example does not mean that all such people in the TG umbrella are evil or agree with him. But, he does have converts and fellow-travelers. IMO they continue to sow the seeds of dissension and animosity, especially toward women.

Yes, Virginia Prince who's avowed aim and desire was to 'destroy transsexuality and transsexuals' in order that he might make a world that would 'accept' his own kind: CDs and TVs. He was the precursor of Ray Blanchard and Michael Bailey and his aim has been mostly well and truly met, at least in the minds of 'regular people.' Prince publicly insisted that CDs, TVs and TSes 'are the same.' There is no such thing as a transsexual. There are just men who want to dress in women's clothing. There is no distinction except the lengths to which someone is likely to go in order to get gratification from the way they look. 

Funny thing about Mr. Prince. Everywhere he spoke: Southern Comfort, Fantasia Fair, Texas T Party and other such conventions the WBW, both totally genetic and birth-defected, walked out on him. Again and again. Yet, his screed managed to make it's way into the language of Gay-Lesbian activism and then into GBL and GBLT. It co-opted therapists and has become the language we use in our every day lives. He gave us Tri-Ess and he gave us 'trans-gender.' And his words sound a lot like the basis for what Janice Raymond wrote against in 'Empire.'


I am going to attach a link here http://gallae.com/cathy/essay22.html for an essay written last year by Cathryn Platine. I first read it yesterday after a friend pointed me toward it when I opined to her much of what I wrote above.   

Nichole 

Yeah. I was concerned that it wasn't as clear as it should have been. I spoz I was trying to not give offense and wound up with confusion.

The point is this: "Virginia" Prince managed to 'win' the field to '->-bleeped-<-' while denying that 'transsexuals' even exist. Prince, a misogynist and confirmed male managed to influence the thinking of Bailey and Blanchard as well. And I suspect may well have been the impetus for Janice Raymond's diatribe about 'transsexuality' as well.

Although if you read '->-bleeped-<-' or 'Cross-dresser' or 'Transgender' where she wrote 'transsexual' you pretty much come away with a view that pretty much points toward todays 'TG Movement' as it is: mostly men wanting to enter 'women's space.'

My thought is that Prince did what he set out to do. Destroy 'transsexual' in the minds of the general public and even the 'gender' profession as a valid phenotype. He tried, for her own political and social purposes to say that 'transsexuals' are 'just like me.' Just intensely driven cross-dressers.

Platine made the same point in her essay. Yet, the 'fighters' in this battle invariably tend to be the women. While the guys get a pass and have their desires fulfilled, women are discounted as 'not real.' As we have seen here lately: the women fight each other in this battle. Although here its called 'stealth' and 'out' and 'stealth' is seen as somehow negative and 'harmful.' Fighting the battle for the guys is seen as being 'worthy' and 'right.'

N~

I don't know.  To be honest, I think that you're giving Raymond a bit too much credit.  What she was reacting against 25 years ago was (IMHO) not misogynist transpeople, but rather the misogynist system set up to "manufacture" transsexuals.  Back in the day, the criteria for "transsexuality" was extremely high, for example to be straight and pretty.  The people in the medical field responsible for "producing" transsexuals were creating something of a Stepford Wife version of femininity, and it's no surprise that feminists were none too happy about this.

I mean, I agree with you about Price, I'm just saying that I don't necessarily link his views to what Raymond was combating per se.

Lia

Probably am, Lia. But read her book and do the substitutions. I think a lot it of goes pretty well with the current picture.

Of course, I was re-reading the first chapter of The Feminine Mystique today for a class reading. I realized that not much has changed although everything has.

The problem is systemic and imaginative failures: a too literal view of life and the world: no perspective except in things. Of course, W.C. Williams was talking images and 'descriptions of things.' Today we are talking about turning everything into 'things.'   

It's been many years since I read Janice Raymond's writings, as I recall though, her viewpoint was that ALL of us, pre-op, post-op, non-op, etc., would be considered males infiltrating women's space.

I'd actually been thinking of digging out that book again and reading it, I never finished it last time I attempted, got too disgusted with it.

y2g

Yes, it is a difficult read.  I should get my hands on TFM though, I've wanted to read that.  Another good one: Toms and Dees, about trans/gay identity in Thailand.  Easy to read, and written by a very smart lady (who I'm lucky enough to have as a professor this semester.  Coincidentally, though).

Lia

Quote from: y2gender on January 28, 2008, 08:44:22 PM
It's been many years since I read Janice Raymond's writings, as I recall though, her viewpoint was that ALL of us, pre-op, post-op, non-op, etc., would be considered males infiltrating women's space.

Ya know, here's the bottom line, Zythera. I am simply just too tired anymore. I have no desire to put my butt on the line for a group of guys who wanna dress on the weekend. Why should I. And yes, I am well aware of the Neimoeller or whomever quote that is always falsely attributed to Dietrich Bonhoeffer about the Nazis 'coming for people.'

I get that. But if the 'cause' is so damned important why not put their own butts on the barricades rather than hanging out in 'safe' places and then opining that they never leave certain areas anymore. See, I live in the very areas they don't have any wish to go to.

And I have never been threatened or told I should 'leave' a bathroom or shower or meeting, etc.

Now, tell me again 'who' is being come for, and why? Kate mentioned a bit ago about the difference between a life and a weekend. I think that's a valid distinction.

I really don't want anyone to be hurt, to include having their livelihood taken away for acts that I see as harmless and simply expressive of some drive within that isn't pathological. No harm. no foul.

I am just not certain why it is that the way I live my own life is somehow more of a question than how they live theirs. They're entitled and I am not? They are okay remaining in their enclave and I am not 'doing all I can for the cause?'

Just explain to me how that is supposed to work, please? My gripe is with the whole 'Rainbow Coalition' that is supposed to exist, but that I see forgetting about the 'rights' of women as we move forward.


Nichole