Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
They use vague accusations (calling you a misogynist, a racist, a transphobe) without backing these claims up with any actual evidence (one such twit on Towleroad, when asked repeatedly to provide proof of his accusations would simply reply with "it's not my job to show you- look it up yourself" over and over and over. Which is moronic. If you are making such accusations it IS your job to provide the proof. Otherwise you sound like a lying, pathetic moron. Which this person pretty much was).
There are people out there with an eerily specific vendetta against you- which they mask through claims of being advocates for various minority groups they like to (falsely, by all my research and time spent reading/listening to you) claim you are prejudiced against. But they aren't advocates for these groups. They are advocates in a battle against you specifically as far as I can tell- and the reasons why can only be speculated on. None of the possible reasons, however, seem to be about your actual history or what actions you are actually taking to advocate for the GLBT community.
Just know that most people out there understand what's going on here. This isn't a fight for Trans awareness. This is a vendetta against you specifically and your fans, allies, and those you have helped through your advocacy will be here to help you.
Perhaps gay acceptance has become the new norm, and Dan is just a convenient screen for the transgendered victimization projector. Congratulations, gays; you're now considered mainstream by the margins.
Z
There are people in all movements who are attracted to the movement community because it is marginal, radical, unacceptable to "polite" society. It's less about the actual end goals of the movement as it is about a strange form of reverse elitism where you are the one who "gets it" and not the "sheeple". These sorts of people react very badly to mainstream acceptance because even though it furthers the movement goals, it normalizes the movement itself.
Enter Dan. He's been around and saying what he does for long enough that when he started the mere ideaof GLBT people were normal was radical, and the idea that kinky or otherwise non-normative people could discuss their lives openly and without shame was outside of "polite" society. Dan has helped change that. Now this radical fag is invited to the White House, and has the eyes and ears of the mainstream, and has them nodding along with him. He's helping mainstream the movement, and that is unacceptable to those who thrive on the margins.
How many "vague accusations" has our little Danny flung out there that turned out within a day to be totally false without nary a peep of retraction?
How delightful did we find glitterbombing before our own ass was the "ridiculous" target?
How often have we vomited terms like BIGOT and HOMOPHOBE and HATER and ASSHOLE up on folks whose only crime was to disagree with us?
How shocking that our little Danny doesn't care to eat the shit he dishes up on a daily basis.
Bon Appetit!
Nah, it strains credulity. Now if they instead suggested that unpaid interns were the culprits...
You win this thread.
they WERE arrested.....
here's some homework for Slog:
did the guy who glitterbombed Newt get arrested?
who is a more uptight bitch, Newt or Danny?
for the trans folks Danny mentioned
(for the umpteenth time...)
but he has milked it like a one teated cow
and how much,
if any,
of his own funds went to those poor confused souls?
I'm gonna go ahead and attempt a difficult maneuver: I'm calling a double-reverse false-flag. This was Maggie Gallagher and Brian Brown's doing. They hired actors (gay, naturally. Probably the same ones from that Gathering Storm piece) to pretend to be straight, cisgender activists pretending to be trans glitterbombers. It probably wasn't even real glitter; I'm guessing it's radioactive waste from Fukushima. Someone get me Goldy on the phone right now!
I don't think you hate trans people (at all), but this post makes me feel like you're listening really selectively and not as much as you're talking, and that's a problem.
Please- do us a favor here and link to these reasonable comments. Or simply copy and paste them here. Quote them for us if Dan hasn't done so already. Nothing is stopping you and I'm actually really curious which comments you are talking about.
I've been to various different blogs that discussed this topic and can't recall a single responder who actually gave calm, reasonable, legitimate reasons why they would have issues with "how Dan handled this situation". All the comments I read that were anti-Dan were either vague statements of hatred for the man in general or were basing their criticisms off of the demonstrably false information provided in the news blurbs and descriptions given in the articles about this issue.
If you went back and actually read the first-hand accounts from people AT the event, and from Savage himself, it becomes clear that nearly all the "facts" were wrong. He said none of the trans-phobic things that were attributed to him (the only anti-trans things he was quoted saying were in fact read verbatim from the question given to him by a student and not his own words) and he followed up the question by calling out the language as anti-trans and proceeded to defend the boyfriend in question's desire for trans-porn and anal play.
But I may have missed something- so please enlighten us. You have this opportunity to set the record straight right here in the very thread created by Savage himself. I would love to hear how his response and follow-up has been anti-trans.
mememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememe
mememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememe
mememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememe
mememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememe
"And yet by trying not to say the word "tranny" anymore, he says it over and over in that post..."
"Exactly. That was a very good read and she had a lot of the concerns I did.
'his phrasing "transsexual sex workers... she-males for lack of a better term," implies that he believes it is the better term, and that that's not a bad assumption to make given that previously he has preferred to use that term rather than "transsexual "'
That definitely made me cringe while reading Dan's response. The whole thing came off a little condescending...and like he wasn't really trying all that hard to sound apologetic or to clear the air in a way that would prove anyone wrong. And the stuff about him mis-gendering the glitterbombers? That is the second time in a month that he's done that and it just doesn't look good for him"
Other comments about the commentariat, ignoring intersectionality, and parallels to other minority community issues are also an interesting read.
Providing quotes, as you did, DOES help you a great deal. Thank you for showing your work.
Dan's critics never bother to acknowledge the good things he has done. Yet, do you call them out for that? I think you're showing a bit of a double standard yourself.
This "he used 'tranny' in a post about how he isn't saying 'tranny' anymore—that's hate!" stuff is garbage. The blog posts and comments by people condemning for using "tranny" are full of the word "tranny."
As for... "transsexual sex workers... she-males for lack of a better term," you'll never know what I was about to say next, as the GBers shut down the talk at that point. Maybe I was about to say, "...actually, there is a better term, more than one, and I just used one of them: transsexual sex worker."
I agree that my phrasing there was inapt. Weighed against the rest of my writings and actions, does it prove that I'm transphobic and that I'm the enemy of trans folks?
As for "misgendering" the GBers, I wasn't aware that I'd done that. No one has written to me about it. If I did, I'll apologize, and make a correction.
And I know this is going to blow your mind, but... I'm not pouring over the comment threads at every blog about this. The comments I quoted today were sent to me by Slog tippers. I'm kinda busy, actually, out here filming, and away from my laptop most of the day.
Defending yourself only enables the complete and utter fraking morons who are being bankrolled by losers like the GOP to make up things to attack with, in case you have not realized it, the majority of your detractors have more in common with the Westboro Church than any transgendered people.
On a side note, could we all be a little less touchy feel and accept that not everyone is comfortable with the same world? Whiny bitches (male or female) are part of the problem, not the solution.
What on earth is wrong with the term "cis"? "Cisgender" is really long. And you're not actually saying there *shouldn't* be a word for "the opposite of trans," are you?
And while I think the *terminology* around trans-cis is a needed one, I've always hated the prefix cis- itself as it's so obscure no one outside of a chemist picks up on its meaning at first exposure. That all said... "cissy" is awesome!
and make their points. FFS, people.
Also, please come and glitter bomb me. I give trans people a 90% discount on my services for legal representation on trans issues. Clearly that 10% fee is an indication that I am anti-trans. Right?
@52, you should go explain why that's necessary and why Dan's bluntness is relevant to trans people who took issue with the repeated use of the word.
And to Matt and whoever else from upthread is still reading this, this is EXACTLY why I don't like giving in to requests that I, a cis person, act as impromptu spokesperson or relay transcriber for trans people who have already gone to the god damn trouble to make themselves heard and put themselves out there for conversation. Because this is what happens every time. People end up wanting to engage with the cis person on the trans people's opinions while continuing to ignore the trans people.
Shit, I just managed to get mine paid off about 10 years ago, and I'll bet I've been at it a lot longer than you.
Good for you for giving a shit, though, all snarkiness aside.
It's a little disingenuous and a whole lot absurd to say that Dan discussing his own take on being publicly glitterbombed is "making it all about himself."
Who should he be making this about? Diana Ross?
I don't follow. If he said "for lack of a better term", doesn't this imply he doesn't like the term? Also, the reason for this not being a good assumption lacks backing. What exactly did Dan say that fits this?
Besides, there is this lexophobic thing in some activisms (of which the transgender ones, alas! are not exempt) whereby words are criticized rather than what is said, which misses the point that acceptance is gained by changing hearts and minds, not vocabulary choice. Someone claiming to diagnose transphobia on word choice alone, regardless of what was actually being said, and on the intention/context of the utterance, is not really helping advance his/her own cause.
Incidentally @40, I'm not crazy, just a hard working, middle aged woman who started out in a different sex, and I resent the trans=crazy comment I see above. Some transfolk are crazy, sure, but some of *every* identifiable societal group are crazy: gays, religious folk, republicans, you name it, there are crazies in there somewhere.
Best to all.
You're not going to please everyone. I think you've responded well to these baseless attacks. Don't know what you could do/say to please your detractors. Probably absolutely nothing.
I do think it's a good thing to discuss the topic, though, and I'd welcome any of the trans people you quoted (or others) to post their reasons for assuming Dan is transphobic here.
Misidentifying the enemy is a rather common problem in activisms.
Also, no one is making you the trans-spokesperson here. You volunteered that mantle yourself. If it's such a burden, put it down. But don't complain. It comes with responsibilities, and complaining about that does you no good.
Since you're the one who mentioned the opinion, I'm addressing you. If someone else had, I'd address him/her. As I said above, I'd be delighted to take the matter up with any transgender person who would want to talk to me.
My only big point: words are not intentions, words are words. To feel hurt by words while forgetting it's people who hurt you means paying attention to the wrong thing -- not where the problem comes from.
"And yet by trying not to say the word "tranny" anymore, he says it over and over in that post..." this quote has already been dissected by other commenters here and I have to agree with them. Not only is this being overtly nit-picky about the use of these terms- it is fundamentally disingenuous and over-reaching to call him out for using the terms in a speech about how these terms are hateful.
All those quotes really convinced me of is that people can read anything into anything. But that has been obvious for as long as the Bible has been around so this is hardly news.
Also I agree with @36. You and other posters claiming similar things about "reasonable arguments being presented against Savage" seem to always open up rebuttals with a "I don't see whats so hard about looking yourself." Well think of it this way: YOU presented the argument. It is YOUR ONUS to present evidence to support those claims. Telling people they need to slog through hundreds, if not thousands of comments to find these nebulous examples just comes off like you are purposefully being obtuse because the information doesn't exist. Or that you fear by distilling it in the context of an argument would show how weak an argument it is. To your credit you DID move on to try and provide quotes (which I didn't really find convincing, but you did provide them) which is more than I can say about any other of the commenters defending the same position.
I'm also having a hard time centering in on what, exactly, your point is here. You seem to be defending the position of people claiming Dan says Trans-Phobic things, is a trans-phobe and yet you then say you don't think Dan hates Trans people.
It just feels scattered and like arguing for argument's sake. But feel free to keep trying. Perhaps there was something in your argument I've missed.
Not trying to offend anyone, just curious.
@ankylosaur: I LOVE the word lexophobic, btw.
It's also kind of geeky in a bad way.
Is it wrong that I've entertained the thought that this question was a plant by the GBers?
@24 do you understand the meaning of the prefixes cis and trans as they relate to Latin and chemistry?
@72, I told people exactly where those comments could be found and where the people who made them could be located for conversation. That is nothing if not citing the sources of my comments. And yet by refusing to take a couple of minutes to go to the source (in skimming through, it took approximately 90 seconds to locate all comments critical of Dan in that post) but insisting that I needed to hand feed their comments to people here who can't be bothered, everyone is now using that as a convenient excuse to discuss their comments with someone who didn't make them rather than having to engage with the trans people in question. So yeah, this worked out really well.
@74, read above, and if you would like to question or discuss the comments of those trans people, you should probably stop talking to me and start talking to them.
@81 My point is that a lot of LGB people are talking really loudly about what allies they are while ignoring the points of trans people, who are not me but none the less have meaningful shit to say, which is apparently a shocking concept. And I don't know if the person who just said that the term trans is synonymous with crazy has much room to talk about trolling.
It was right to go get the quotes yourself. It would have been wrong to make people go there.
That's how it is.
It's interesting how assocations work. My wife, for instance, who once lost a scholarship to a Romanian girl who cheated and falsely accused her of copying from someone else's work in her dissertation, developed for a while a distaste of Romanian people in general.
I also remember a friend who was once mugged by a Black guy and who developed a strong fear of Black people in general. He couldn't stand being close to one, they brought him bad memories.
This is of course understandable. I do not belittle my wife's, or this friend's, suffering. It is quite understandable that people may zero on some aspect of a situation that victimized them and select that aspect as symbolizing the situation as a whole. It becomes the culprit, as it were.
People who are in such situations must be helped and understood. They went through trauma, and their plight should not be belittled.
But the symbols they chose? The associations they made? These are wrong. And part of the healing process for them is to realize where the real culprits are. For my wife to realize that it was that specific Romanian girl who wronged her, not all Romanians; for my friend to realize it was that specific Black guy who mugged him, not all Blacks.
Similarly with people who zero on words as the cause of their oppression or victimization. They certainly deserve respect and help, and more than a little leeway given what they went through. But part of their healing process is finding out who the real culprit was in their case. And that was not the word, but the person who used it and his/her intention.
Or else, one falls into traps such as thinking that Dan is transphobic. Which of course he isn't. Do you see the problem? By prioritizing words over intention, context -- what was done with words rather than how it was said -- one runs the risk of overdiagnosing transphobia, of attacking people who are real allies, and of actually harming the cause one so much wants to further.
And that is sad. Very human -- victims everywhere succumb to this; and it's not their fault that they succumb to this, since they didn't choose their victimization. But sad nonetheless, because it harms the cause of making sure these people are no longer victimized.
No. Seriously, no. That's not how you make a proper argument. Citing your sources in an argument is required in order to VERIFY the quotes given by the person presenting them. It isn't there to force people to go to that source and identify those quotes themselves. Why? BECAUSE people tend to be lazy about these things. And you saying "jeez people do the work I can't be bothered to do myself even though I'm the one making these arguments" sounds pretty damn hypocritical. This is how these things work in order for a strong argument to be made: 1. You find the evidence to support your argument. 2. You extract the quotes you feel will support your argument. 3. You cite the source of these quotes after you present them.
You are skipping step 2. That leads to exactly the problems you are complaining about.
Also- what makes you think everyone will find these comments you refer to and see them as legitimate as you seem to? I would have probably skipped over the ones you cited as evidence of ridiculous arguments or snide comments not to be taken seriously. I would have kept going, looking for those "legitimate" comments that I would likely never find due to my own perceptions of this situation. Only you know what you are talking about- so it's important to show exactly what that is.
Yes. In making an argument that is controversial or that people seem to heavily disagree with you about- you DO need to "hand-feed" proof to them. It's just how it works.
Also I don't really WANT to discuss these issues with the people you quoted. I wanted to discuss with YOU- and discern why YOU thought what they were saying held any legitimacy at all. Because quite honestly I don't see any legitimacy there. You were the one to attribute that descriptor to their comments. I would have simply kept going on there because honestly those quotes felt like they were really fishing.
Thanks! I see it as standing for this particular situation in which people fight against the wrong enemy because of having suffered traumas mediated by one word, which lead to real phobias -- often things they can't control (like claustrophobia or agoraphobia). But it's true that some activists, despite having had no personal trauma or victimization themselves, also zero on words as 'obvious enemies', probably to facilitate the task of defining who the enemy is. These are more like homophobes or transphobes, i.e., not people with a real phobia, but with unwarranted assumptions.
@87, the problem that I see is that you're trying to preach some condescending doctrine to me as a response to what I've already told you are other people's opinions. People that you still continue to ignore.
but wait -- to @81's point. You're not trans? How would you identify yourself on a gender and sexuality axis of your choosing? As a cis gay man, I have often been shocked and disappointed by the actions of self-professed "allies" than were allegedly taken my behalf. You don't need to be trans to be a trans activist but I think it calls into question the source of the knowledge and authority you seem to believe you have any this subject.
What would you prefer as a way to refer to people who did not change the sex they were born with? And why would that be better than "cis"?
Having read your reactions since I started my post, I think you've either lost perspective or started trolling, so this conversation is probably not worth continuing.
I suppose there was a time when "gay" also felt the way you claim "cis" feels. Speaking for myself (as a cis guy), I have no problem with it. As far as I can see, nobody is using it to offend cis people, right?
The fact that people would rather use the most convenient excuse available to engage in dialog about trans issues with a cis person, and about other people's opinions no less and taking far more than 5-6 minutes to do so, is disappointing but neither surprising nor, since before I agreed to transcribe the comments, unexpected.
But there would be situations in which you'd talking about the trans people community as opposed to the .... what... community then?