Virgina Prince did do much good—she was out seeking acceptance for crossdressers before Stonewall, which showes incredible (dare I say it) balls—but I think we need to acknowledge two things.
First she was a product of her times. Some of her stuff read today is more than a bit embarassing, reflecting the sexism of the day.
Second, in a bid to gain respectability for crossdressers, she did a couple things that while well-intentioned, led to some undesireable consequences.
When she formed Tri-Ess, she specifically excluded transsexuals and homosexuals—to avoid freaking out the SOs of crossdressers. This has contributed to unnecessary divisiveness within the transgender community—as well as some difficult situations for individuals. What happened to the Tri-Ess member who realized she really was transsexual?
Second, she created the “no sex please, we’re crossdressers” mythology—as opposed to those nasty, pervy fetishic transvestites. Unfortunately, the reality is usually messier. I’d venture that sexual excitement has been a component of dressing for the vast majority of crossdressers at some point during their history. (Prince herself has a taste for she-male porn to this day, according to her biography.) Not that it was the necessarily the main reason why we dress, but it was/is there—and needless to say SOs are rightly skeptical about the difference between the rhetoric and what they see. (For what it’s worth, transsexuals also developed a similar “no sex please” rhetoric, albeit for different reasons—namely clearing the gatekeepers who deemed it the only “acceptable” way of thinking if you wanted to get GRS.)
So let’s recognize her contributions, but also realize that things aren’t as clearcut as she protrayed. Virgina today would probably be considered a non-op transsexual, something that she’d probably hotly dispute.
