Can Bailey and Blanchard’s Misogynistic Theories be Traced to Prince?

To the best of my knowledge Prince never used the terms autogynephilia or androphilia yet Bailey and Blanchard’s characteristics of each are direct descendants of crap “St. Prince” pushed as far back as the 1960s.

Ah the gift that goes on giving, like a lethal sexually transmitted disease…

He was the one who gave us the two classes of transsexuals based on our pre-op attraction to either women or men.  Stoller transmogrified those into primary and secondary.

Our homophobic old closet drag queen Prince who couldn’t admit that when en femme he liked the men and was a trannie chaser to boot as well as an old perv. who wanked off to trannie porn.  (I don’t make this shit up.  Check out Docter’s book) He thought that anyone who became a lesbian after getting SRS was one messed up WBT who should have stayed a transvestite like him.

He labeled those of us who had sex with men prior to getting SRS as “homosexual transsexuals” and like Bailey and Blanchard thought that our primary reason for getting SRS wasn’t really to be female but rather to be able to attract straight men and “accommodate” them.

The depth of misogyny this nasty old queen displayed seems boundless.  The thought that being able to have vaginal sex with men might just be a part of the reason and not the entirety escaped his limited and some what perverted imagination.  For that matter he probably couldn’t imagine women actually enjoying their own bodies.

But wait folks he saw those who were attracted to women and got SRS as being so in love with their image/idea of being a woman they made the mistake of confusing gender with sex and got SRS only to find themselves living the half life of lesbians.

Being an autodidact and compulsive in my pursuit of history has cause me to read some stuff that makes me tell people that there is a lot of really twisted shit out there about us.

Prince had credibility because he had a degree and because male doctors saw him as being sane in keeping what they consider the world’s most valuable possession.

Remember this.  In “The Proceeding of the Second Interdisciplinary Symposium on Gender Dysphoria Syndrome” some one actually said he heard one doctor say, “But they want to do the unspeakable to their unmentionables.”

In a world of male supremacy and misogyny the very idea that one would give up manhood for second class status as a human being is seen as disturbed.

The reason one see so little negative material written about F to Ms is because for them it is upward mobility whereas for us it is seen as downward mobility and therefore a sign of mental illness.

Now I have to locate a few missing links which means sifting through a bunch more dreck.

One Response to “Can Bailey and Blanchard’s Misogynistic Theories be Traced to Prince?”

  1. ariablue Says:

    One of the more telling things you hear in TG circles is when someone refers to the surgery as anything to do with “the penis”. As in “removing the penis”. Who the heck thinks like that? This is about a VAGINA, who stops and worries about what it was before? Our brains don’t even register it as belonging to us, so of course we don’t internalize ownership of the offending member. Sheesh.

    I have a difficult time trying to read through some of these trans postings where they talk about their own part down there as “my penis”. Reading Monica Helms crow about how enjoyable it is to use the ol’ penis on someone is… well I just don’t know how to reconcile that with her self-identification as a transsexual.

    This also ties in to the differences between the HBS/WBT person learning different lessons than the male-born when going through the exact same experiences and indoctrination as a child. It doesn’t take. I wish more people in the gender crowd could understand this.

    Those among the TG crowd who say they believe gender is meaningless and changeable by declaration don’t seem to grasp that who you are, as decided by root brain configuration, interprets our experience as well as informs it. In other words, the claim of equivalence is false on its face, and trying to shame us with references to our “common” past is misleading as well as abusive.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: