Or not…

An absolute lie, did you say?

A lie? Really?

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 rejected transsexual in favor of transgender, noting – in the same way that the 1965 usage notes – transsexuals do not transition because of their sexuality.

In December of 1969, Prince used transgenderal once in her magazine for crossdressers.  She abandoned the term and never used it again. In fact, when the term popped up again in 1977, it was used to mean a transsexual. A few months after Prince used transgenderal, in 1970 a TV Guide used transgendered to describe a transsexual movie character. By 1975, West Coast trans support groups began using transgenderism as an umbrella term and in the previous year, 1974 trans groups in the UK were also using it as an umbrella term.

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!