Pathologizing Our Partners

Blanchard’s latest crap dates back into the 1960s and Virginia Prince’s conversations with Stoller and perhaps even longer.

For certain people any man who has sex with us is either decieved or has dubious tendencies.

If we have sex with men and get SRS it is because we can’t accept our homosexuality or because straight men are supposed to be ultra attractive.

I came out in the Stonewall era so that one was rather laughable considering some of the most charming and physically attractive men were gay.

Gay men aren’t interested in us although some are attracted to our T to M brothers.  When I was first exploring my sexuality in the era of sexual freedom I tried sex with gay men and found it rather unsatisfying as did they.

Then a few months after I came out and had been on hormones for some six months this good looking pot dealer hit on me, he was straight and was reacting to my femininity.  When we had sex I was the girl in bed and set the pattern I would follow as a pre-op of telling him I did not want him to touch me there.

A few months later I had a lover, a Marine Corp deserter. Our relationship started based on “Women say yes to men who say No!” Very Lysistrata but also one of those things that we did back in the 1960 when we were better people than we are today.

It was a heterosexual relationship on every level except for my having parts of my body I placed off limits.  Yet the academics and psychiatrists as well as the uber right wing religious fucks  called our relationship gay.  Said we were both in denial.  At the height of gay liberation no less they said that of two people who considered themselves “Revolutionaries”.

The pathologizing of our partners continues after SRS and has its roots in the religious ideology that fucking is for procreation and not for fun.  The same ideology that says no to abortion rights and birth control for women and at the same time preaches abstenence going so far in certain cultures to stone women who aren’t chaste outside marriage.

This pathologizing is religion in pseudo scientific drag, a sort of post moderning of language mutating it from religious to psychopathological.

Actual people’s loving relationships be damned.

6 Responses to “Pathologizing Our Partners”

  1. Suzy CC Says:

    So if Stoller Prince and Blancahrd went there first with their obvious homophobia is the whole topic verboten outside of one taking a firm stand that anything goes, no questions asked and therefore sex has absolutely nothing to do with our…. er ummm don’t know quite what to call it!

    None -the-less, might it be possible, even in the slightest that perhaps our sexuality may in fact be tied in to this in at least some small measure? Obvious I’m a very foolish woman to so blithely grab the third rail of the “gender community,” yet grab it I will.

    From my observations there are some rather large questions about this very thing that have never been looked at with an objective eye or should I say, not since Dr Benjamin’s studies back in the sixties and seventiies. From what I see there are many reasons for this but chief among this is that most researchers come to the table with a preconceived notion.

    Either they have the Blanchard school of thought, that to desire men as a woman with this history obviously means we are gay and in denial (despite the fact that these people do exist), or that if we desire women then we are men with a fetish that is, in the words of Douglas Adams “mostly harmless,” again this is despite the fact that they too exist!

    But with all humility might we step back from the various soap-boxs for a minute and with the flag of truce at least ponder the question?

    Does our sexual desire tie in?

    Might it factor for some and not for others? Why is it that with women of history we are the mirror opposite of the population as a whole with a small minority of straight women and a disproportionately large “lesbian” population.. and now for the capper, Why are there so many who go it one better and find their companionship in a relationship with other women of history?

    Yes I went there… So should we line up the firing squad now and get it over with or perhaps after a spot of tea just to be civil about it? But before the firing commences ,let me say in my defense I do not have the slightest issue with ones choice of partners. Love is love, and company and companionship and a relationship between any two caring people are not things to be scoffed at or slighted.

    I’m simply posing the question… Why the anomaly? The continuum kool aid folks would have us deny that there is anything sexual about their dressing in womans panties and wacking off… not right or wrong mind you, but that it is sexual… ummm ok

    Hate to be the bearer of bad news but folks, that is sexual.. As to where it comes from? Ya got me? Is it wrong? As long as no children or animals are hurt in the process and all parties willing, more power to em. But lets put it back on the table… is this sexual?

    Ok move onto the harder question, might the same be said for us? I’ll even offer myself as subject matter!

    As a kid was I sexually motivated? I don’t know would be the honest answer. OK I was attracted to men but also repulsed at the same time because I was told I was going to be come one. I was likewise in someways repulsed by women too. Because of my outside looking in at their subjugation not to mention those horrible bindings that women wore back there. Humm didn’t leave much room did it?

    As an adolescent my first sexual experiences were with males. Again it was a mixed bag.. quite exciting but somehow wrong.. None of the parts fit right and of course it was to a child of the south in the sixties a mortal sin that would condemn my eternal soul to damnation and worse if we were caught!

    Late adolescence.. I turned to women.. it was what the world said I was suppose to do an in a strange way I found that I could be come quite aroused but it was with me being her and her being me or that was the way it played out in my head.

    Early adulthood all women… and sex was a chore.. something that my damned body demanded and I hated. Still I also tried to have relations with men but I was simply not a gay male… Sorry but Gay men want to have sex with a man… and being a man was the last thing I wanted to be.

    With me so far? Depending upon which side you take I’m now gay,straight, and a fetishist to boot! Wheeeeeeeeee

    Maybe if I marry that will make it stick… yeah right! Working genitals… oppsie. Have child.. divorce, become single mom., back on topic, when it came to releasing sexual tension the fantasys were always of me as the woman I was… with a man. Tried again with men in 3D. Nope still not gay!

    Fast forward… put gun to head pull trigger, doesn’t fire, say what the hell and transition. Become asexual for years… get surgery… and its back to men… omg! Men! Where did they all come from? Just for old times sake tried to be with a woman… nahhh, no can do, I’m still not gay!

    Ok so to answer my own question… did it factor in? Ummm no. but it was part of the background dialogue and it didfactor in as I played with differing roles and tried to make things fit over the years…

    OK, your turn.!

  2. Sarah Says:

    Hello Suzy,

    Glad to hear that you discovered your sexuality and liked it 🙂

    > again this is despite the fact that they too exist!
    You will find an example for every theorie that is produced. It gets really evil when a gatekeeper finds an example of his favorit patholgy and writes a recommendation letter for the person, happy to have finally an honest person in front of him / her 😦

    supressed Homosexuality (which would be one part of BBL) ist at least in Europe contraindication and with greater exaptence of Homosexuality is not too often heard of, now.

  3. Evangelina Says:

    What I find most sinister about the Baily Blanchard attitude and their theories surrounding transsexuality, is the “there is no escape for anyone” in all this.
    For the successful transitioner who has become a woman in every way medically possible, is undetectable as a woman of history, who desires a heterosexual relationship with a man. She may innocently meet and fall in love with the man of her dreams. Marry him (it is possible in most countries) and never breathe a word of her history; and that is her perrogative. Her husband and friends have not the slightest suspicion that she has in the past been transsexual. Yet in the eyes of Baily/Blanchard and their ilk these people are hommosexual and worse the husband has been cruelly deceived.
    For homosexuality to exist in this situation there has to to be same sex desire, perhaps I am dim but I can’t see that in this scenario. But then I don’t suffer the pathology Bailey/Blanchard clearly suffer.

  4. ariablue Says:

    All the sex crap from those people is just a subterfuge. It’s in the same vein as the “gender” explanation, which then leads to the identity politics. And that’s how all this gets mixed up.

    I think people put to much stock in their “choices”, because we tend to assume our conscious minds, with all its internal dialogue, is “me”. And we ignore the deep-seated motivations that actually drive us because we only get a hint of them from what seeps up to our conscious.

    There is a tendency in Western thought to dismiss everything but the conscious mind, but I think that we act on impulse from much “lower” most of the time. Those who have mastery of certain base drives are considered enlightened.

    So with that said, it is my personal belief that this is only about the body. Our brain is part of our body, a system within a system. When the larger system experiences an imbalance, we are driven to correct it. None of our thoughts or desires or sexual practices can change that one little bit.

    Examining one’s motivations in this sense doesn’t seem like a worthwhile pastime. I tend to think that most people want to tie this to sexual need merely because our culture guilt trips everyone, using sex as the ultimate no-no. Why buy into that?

  5. Nerissa Belcher Says:

    Suzy CC wrote: “…Why is it that … we are the mirror opposite of the population as a whole with a small minority of straight women and a disproportionately large “lesbian” population.. and …Why are … so many …in a relationship with other women of history?”

    This seems pretty straight-forward to me. Arguably most MTF TSs, are bisexual leaning towards a preference for men (this particularly the case once we’re post-GRS). However, most MTF TSs have even greater difficulties than the bio-gals in finding decent men.

    So we’re likely to end up with bio-gals or transwomen/men. Typically those of us who don’t make being trans the be all, end all of our lives will find bio-gals as lovers and partners. Meanwhile those of us whose lives revolve around being trans will generally end up with other trans folks.

    I’ll now step into a minefield of political incorrectness by pointing out that for MTF TSs “younger”, “slim”, “attractive” and “passable” makes us much more likely to end up with men. Meanwhile “older”, “heavy”, “unattractive” and “not passable” makes us much more likely to end up with biogals or trans folks. I can promise you that most older, heavy, unattractive and not passable MTF TSs (and many similarly situated lesbians) who “prefer” women would “discover” they preferred men if they were to wake up one day as an attractive young woman.

    • Suzan Says:

      Women have a greater tendency towards bisexuality than men do.

      I’ve had relationships with men but I choose to be with women and I am partnered with a WBT.

      I think the years of misogynistic abuse many of us have suffered at the hands of men turn many of us off to them.

      “Bio-gals” What the Fuck? How Tri-Ess transvestite is that?

      BTW I came out as a lesbian while I was a fashion model and I find your thinking regarding lesbianism to be more like that of a misogynistic male identified neo-con religious troglodyte than liberated.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: