Virginia Prince played an important role in the development of trans narratives made by trans people. But she was a child of her times and ended up confirming transphobic and homophobic ideas.In my post When four tribes go to war I argued that transgender separatist -- i.e. groups that try to define themselves as substantially different from other transgender people -- become separatists in order to be recognized as normal people.
They want to fit into society as it is, to the best of their ability. In order to do so they have built a wall between themselves and those that do not, in their opinion, pass as normal women or men.
It seems to me this is partly a struggle for control over language.
It can get really bad.
I believe this is why some trans women refuse to be associated with transpeople who do not follow the rules of traditional behavior, being those male to female "crossdressers "or transsexual sex workers. The first group may be defined as fetishistic or paraphilic men; the other may be explained to be sex crazed feminine gay men. The operative term is "men". The very existence of these groups is seen as a threat, as they may undermine the trans women's possibility of being respected as ordinary women.
"Classic transsexuals" (CTs) define and redefine their definitions in order to keep out trans women associated with the "unclean". The androphilic "transkids" use science to keep the much coveted natural femininity for themselves. And, as I will show you in this post, "crossdresser" activists have been feeding this dragon of antagonism as well.
Controlling language
It seems to me this is partly a struggle for control over language.
To give one example:
The "classic transsexuals" (and their later variant, "transmedicalists") – i.e. trans activists who see themselves as "real" men and women as opposed to other gender variant people – are trying to take control over core terms in order to avoid any suspicion of them being the same as crossdressers and effeminate gay men. They do this by limiting the definition of the word "transgender" to their own taste and by associating it with the groups they despise and want to avoid.
Then they start attacking people who use the term "transgender" in the all encompassing way, arguing that they being included in such a group is insulting. By establishing that the term "transgender" is offensive, they manage to offend the other party while at the same time appearing as the victim.
It is a brilliant ploy, I must admit.
The enemy of my enemy
It can get really bad.
In 2009 one of the CT blogs, Enough Nonsense, revealed the strategy in an amazing post called Allies and a recent skirmish. The post tells the story about the establishment of an Internet group that is to challenge the TG "at every opportunity":
"We are coordinated. We act. We respond. And, we do so consistently, persistently, and reasonably. Our group is growing and we've succeeded in shutting down threads spouting TG [transgender] non-sense... To us, rewriting GLBT [gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender] as GLBT/TS is just a further manifestation of transgender…and is no revision whatsoever.
Any type of political association to transgender…is transgender.
Any defense of transgender strategy…is transgender.
