Slog
News & ArtsWednesday, November 16, 2011
LGBTQITSLFA More Damning Evidence of My Transphobia Emerges
Posted by Dan Savage on Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 6:04 AM
A commenter at JMG:
Dan Savage raises over $5000 (from his largely "straight" readership, mind you) for an African American trans woman's funeral after her murder.
Dan Savage raises over $2000 (from his largely "straight" readership, mind you) for a young trans student kicked out of the same school in Mississippi that Constance McMillan was kicked out of.
Here's his support of a brutally beaten trans woman in Michigan.
Dan Savage raises the remaining needed funds (from his largely "straight" readership, mind you) for trans porn star and acitivist Buck Angel to finish a documentary about his life/work.
Like I said yesterday: If I'm the enemy of trans people everywhere, trans people everywhere could use more enemies like me.
And...
...if I may address this piece of batshittery:
You may notice that Dan Savage managed to get the glitter bombers arrested, which tends to be a particularly dangerous experience for trans people. If cis folk with the privilege not to get so badly harmed once they do inevitably get arrested were willing to do it, more power to them.
I didn't get anyone arrested. There was security at the event—there's always security at television shoots because the presence of TV cameras brings out the crazies—and campus police officers went looking for the GBers while I was backstage getting de-glittered. I went back on stage and continued with the talk. I didn't know that someone had been arrested until the talk was over—90 minutes later—when the police came backstage and told me they had caught one of the people who "assaulted" me. I laughed when they said "assaulted" because, you know, we were talking about glitter. The cops asked if I wanted to press charges, I said no, and I asked them not to hassle the GBer they'd nabbed. I've had no further contact with the police, and I'm not pressing charges.
And this is my favorite comment:
Savage is so addicted to attention and also seems to have such few scruples that I wouldn't be surprised if he hired this last group of glitter-bombers to do what they did just so he could play the victim and also create this post with impunity. I would not put such behavior past him. Its already been revealed they were not transwomen.
I glittered myself! And the GBers weren't brave cis folks putting their privileged bodies on the line in defense of their trans allies! They were working for me!
2
Nah, I'd only believe that you hired those people to glitterbomb you if you hadn't been wearing a shirt at the time.
3
It's become disturbingly clear since the onset of these glitter bombings that there are people out there that despise you (Dan Savage) and will say/do/write anything they can to try and convince as many people as possible to hate you to.
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.
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.
4
I don't get why Dan has to be a target; it's not like transgendered folk have a pattern of externalizing inner issues through outward displays that run counter to contemporary norms, right?
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.
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.
7
Hilarity. You just cannot satisfy some people - they demand - they have a RIGHT - to be aggrieved! How dare you not oppress them! These people are right out of Monty Python. They're just attention whores and would rather have a little fun getting attention by 'disrupting' a friendly figure (Dan) than tackling some of the real hate-mongers.
8
I'm just glad that there were no trans persons involved in this glitterbombing. Not all of us support that bullshit, Dan.
Z
Z
9
I am truly offended that you would use slurs like "GBer" in print. That term has hateful connotations after being used for a very long time, weeks even, by people to belittle Glitter Bombardiers. Your slights are not going unnoticed! And to use that type of slur in front of police? For shame!
10
@3, I've been thinking about the matter of motive for a few days now and I have a tentative hypothesis.
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.
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.
11
I think they just wanted to throw glitter at somebody, and the real haters are too scary for them, so they tried to make a safe guy into a bad guy. Whee, glitter!
12
This is so very preciously what-goes-around-cums-around and bites your thin skinned ass....
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!
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!
13
Yeah, I'm not really very clear on the many different ways some can be offended. Here on campus, there was a big dust up because a Native professor had the title "Mother Earth" in the class. There were cis/trans exchange of outrage and accusations of privilage all over the goddamned place. It was truly stupid.
14
So, someone is suggesting that Dan hired assorted hench-persons to glitterbomb himself because he's addicted to attention?
Nah, it strains credulity. Now if they instead suggested that unpaid interns were the culprits...
Nah, it strains credulity. Now if they instead suggested that unpaid interns were the culprits...
16
Ugh. What a sorry bit of cooked up buffoonery against you. Don't let it bother you Dan. You're still a lot of people's hero, myself included.
17
Never the less,
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?
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?
18
It was nice of Danny to put in a good word
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?
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?
19
Like I said yesterday: In my humble opinion if I'm the enemy of trans people everywhere, trans people everywhere could use more modest enemies like me.
21
You know, glitterbombing used to mean something. It's just shameful.
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'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!
22
Of course WE all love Danny to death but you girls must admit there is no bigger attention whore.....
23
Dan knows a lot more about being famous than I do, but I have to wonder if maybe he is spending to much time on this. I think he should have given the G-bomber one Slog post, to show he wasn't trying to pretend the whole thing never happened, then put it behind him. As we say on Slog, don't feed the troll.
25
Some people like being angry. Hopefully in this case they're young and they'll get over it. Dan's doing as much to bring knowledge of sexual- and gender-minority issues to the wider culture as anyone, and he's doing so in a way that's respectful and empathetic.
26
Honestly, it makes me a little uncomfortable to know that you're reading and willing to feature JMG comments, but there's no mention here of some of the thoughtful and reasonable comments of trans people who discuss why they still kind of have issues with how you handled this one. But there's room for people who praise you (sort of irrelevantly, it seems to me) for raising some money from some straight people for a few trans issues and a couple of straw man examples of your critics.
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.
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.
27
@27
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.
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.
29
Sorry, my comment (comment #27) was directed at @26. Was a comment removed or did I just get the number wrong?
31
mememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememe
mememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememe
mememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememe
mememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememe
mememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememe
More...
mememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememe
mememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememe
mememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememe
mememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememe
32
I don't know what in the world would be so hard about going and reading for yourself, or how me posting those comments addresses in any way the fact that Dan excluded them and what that says his approach to this incident, but here are a couple of examples.
"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.
"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.
33
So this guy showed up with glitter just in case Dan said something "offensive" about transgendered people? I don't buy it. I think some guy saw an opportunity to get on tv, and that's all.
34
I have to say that I was also bothered again while re-scanning that comment thread to see that the two ridiculous comments Dan called out were both petty things about his GB incident when I think a much more meaningful and trans-allied critique of comments probably would have discussed the dozens and dozens of really disturbing anti-trans comments there (there shouldn't even be a T in LGBT, trans people fetishize victimization, I know lots of tran people don't like the word tranny but I use it anyway, and on and on and on).
35
Being detained by security or police is not the same as being arrested. Was anyone actually handcuffed, read their Miranda rights, taken to a police station, and questioned?
36
@ 32, don't gripe. There were hundreds of comments, and you're not going to win the argument by saying people should go looking for themselves.
Providing quotes, as you did, DOES help you a great deal. Thank you for showing your work.
Providing quotes, as you did, DOES help you a great deal. Thank you for showing your work.
37
@26
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.
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.
38
@32 & 34 I have to say, you make me not like you very much, for what it's worth. You strike me as nitpicky and bitter. Like you're scanning things you can take offense at. And I believe in free speech so I don't want any words banned. If someone called me a fag or faggy, for example, I would think it were a compliment. But even if I hated it, I would support somebody's freedom to say it.
39
32, You do realize that he was reading a question written by an audience member, and not just saying these things, right? And perhaps you missed where he did address these claims? When he started speak to the offensive nature of the terms used in the question, the "glitter bombing" (Go to a gay night club, and one can be glitter bombed anytime, so it's hardly a trauma to a gay man.) happened.
40
Thanks, folks. You've convinced me that there's no such thing as "trans" - only "crazy." Replace the "T" with a "C" and you're all set.
41
@32: The folks who are calling me out for using the word "tranny" in a post where I talk about the problems with using the word "tranny" and address criticism of my past use of that word and point out that I've stopped using that word—the folks who are claiming even this usage of the word is evidence of my transphobia—are... using the word "tranny" themselves in their posts, and they're using in the exact same context that I'm using it.
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.
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.
42
I'm not trying to "win an argument," Matt, and that seems like a pretty petty way to approach the whole topic. I think that if people can take the time to comment about this, then it shouldn't be that arduous to look into the opinions of actual trans people when someone has pointed out that they're readily available and pointed out exactly where they can be found. This whole incident is (supposedly?) about trans issues. I think the fact that people ignore trans opinions and then insist on having their hands held through eventually listening to them is pretty relevant to the conversation. Seeking out trans opinions on trans issues should be a pre-requisite, not an inconvenience.
43
They're not my words or opinions, Dan, and I'm not trans, so I don't need you to take it up with or make it right with me, and there's less than zero point in you debating someone else's opinions with me (though on a personal level, I think pointing out that a trans person used a word about trans people is a pretty weak-sauce defense of you using it in terms of logic). You probably want to talk about that with the trans people in question. I also pretty clearly stated in my initial comment that I don't think you hate trans people. At all. But I don't think the way you're handling this and where you're placing your focus speaks as loudly to your support of the community as you might like, and it's uncomfortable to watch. Again, my $.02.
44
@42: Please follow the links in the original post to all the columns I've written that include quotes from trans people, talk about about trans issues, columns that date back to 1999. There are probably earlier columns, but I haven't had time to comb through the archives.
45
Dan, stop!
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.
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.
46
@ Bhamjason (24)
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?
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?
47
@39, I realize that that's what he was doing a lot of the time. So do (I believe) the trans people who took issue with it. I think you may be missing their point.
49
@44, what does that have to do with how this particular incident is being handled? I'm genuinely confused by that answer.
51
I'm curious... what does the process of "de-glittering" involve?
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 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!
52
@47, You also realize that you can't educate people about language and terminology and their own ignorance about langauge and terminology if you don't, um, use the offensive terminology? In order to tell people that they shouldn't use the word "shemale" or the word "tranny" you need to use the words. There is a time and a place for the use and utilization of words - all words - and a Q&A with a sex columnist who's known to be blunt and willing to speak openly about anything sexuality related is one of those times and places.
53
Amazonvera, you might want to back out of the thread and controvery for a bit. You're not helping. If trans people have opinions on this silly game of shoot your ally, feel they are reasonable, and that there are reasonable criticisms of Dan Savage to be made, then they can damn well get off their lazy fingers and navigate over to this page ON DAN'S SITE that IS DAN'S BLOG where DAN READS THE COMMENTS
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?
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?
54
@50 Fair enough.
@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.
@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.
56
@17, so it doesn't matter that Dan (like Newt) had nothing to do with it? So people are now responsible for things they didn't do?
60
@53, ALL of the comments Dan addresses in this post are from JMG, not Slog, so you're being pretty ridiculous and totally unnecessarily insulting trans commenters to boot. So...great job?
61
Alan @53: How's that 10% discount working out for you? I wonder how many of them pay the other 90%. Probably doesn't pay off those student loans very quickly.
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.
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.
62
@amazonvera
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?
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?
63
@amazonvera, who quoted:
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.
'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 "'
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.
64
@62, he's discussing the "take" of three JMG commenters in this post, so no, I don't see how pointing out how in his posts defending his status as a trans ally he's showcasing the opinions of three pretty useless commenters while totally ignoring the comments of trans people in the same post as "absurd" in the least.
66
OMG people can be so fucking silly. I'm sure this is a pain in the ass for you, Dan, but I hope you're able to find some amusement in the sheer ridiculousness of it all.
67
@63, that's not what that phrase means, but you know what you should do if you want to discuss appropriate trans terminology and why hurtful words don't matter with the person who feels that way? Go talk to that trans person instead of trying to debate it with a cis person who didn't say it.
68
I'm transsexual, and I think Dan is a *huge* positive force for all queerfolk, trans included, as he's become the go-to guy for reaction and explanation in the media, and he's super articulate and unflappable.
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.
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.
69
@ amazonvera. The problem with getting trans opinions on anything is total lack of consensus unless you narrow down to a subset of people. Even that fails too most of the time. Would you like an example? Many trans people consider the word shemale to be offensive. I know some shemales who don't find the term offensive at all. You might find that word offensive in any context and very offensive when applied to you but how would that give you the right to speak for a sex worker who makes a living being a shemale in a high-end nightclub in Hong Kong. Applying your own logic it is imperative we ask the shemale and discount your opinion because you aren't one. The word trans is like a circus tent full of different acts. It has the skilled and beautifully dressed high wire ballerina, the clowns, trained elephants, lion tamers and many more all under one huge canvas. But in a circus the audience at least has the ringmaster to direct their attention when the dogs and monkeys ride into the center ring on horseback. Popcorn too.
70
Dan,
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.
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.
71
@43, I'm not sure one can say Dan is not "handling this well". There are always people who will be angry no matter what, and the comments you quoted don't really seem deep -- they're more like claims that they know Dan is transphobic on the basis of such little evidence, it's little more than wishful thinking.
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.
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.
72
Amazonvera, rules are rules. If you want to make a point, you have to go to the work to back it up. That obligation rests on your shoulders, and no one else's.
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.
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.
73
@amazonvera, the two transsexual people I know are certainly not offended or hurt by this word. So I'm not sure this would go on.
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.
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.
74
Honestly, Amazonvera, the quotes you cited don't do much to convince me that anything legitimate was being brought up to prove Dan is being Trans-phobic here:
"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.
More...
"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.
75
I'm curious to the linguistic divide between transmen and transwomen. It SEEMS to an outside observer that transmen prefer to use terms like 'trans,' 'genderqueer,' or 'cis' whereas transwomen seem to use more conventional language or eschew these arguments all together (with a few notable exceptions from both threads). This all really anecdotal on my part, but can anyone within the community speak to the (trans)gender breakdown within trans activism? Also, does anyone have a good source about the demographics of trans-Americans? Are there more transmen than transwomen, or have I just met more of the former than the latter? Do more transwomen attempt to "pass?" This is my theory, but I have no support for it.
Not trying to offend anyone, just curious.
@ankylosaur: I LOVE the word lexophobic, btw.
Not trying to offend anyone, just curious.
@ankylosaur: I LOVE the word lexophobic, btw.
76
The insistence on referring to men and women who have not changed genders as "cis" is fucking ridiculous and just as offensive to some as "tranny" is to trans people. It's college level Social Justice bullshit. Frankly, the insistence that "trans" is somehow better than "tranny" and "transgender" is better than "transsexual" is just as ridiculous. The people that hate you will always use your self-descriptors as pejoratives. Groups are better off standing their ground and reclaiming words.
77
@69, for sure, if we can't get absolute, uniform agreement from every member of a community, then it's clearly not worth it to listen to or consider the opinions of members of that community, pro and con, that are being freely offered. Then it's probably a good idea to pretend that the lack of uniform consensus is somehow specific to that community (GOProud who? What SBA List?) and use that complete fallacy to compare trans people to circus performers. Excellent point.
78
p.s. I think the reason so many 'cis' people hate 'cis' is because we didn't choose the term and when it's thrown out in conversation it often feels like a slur. It seems odd to be deliberately confrontational in conversations about linguistic. This might make some sort of point about 'discomfort and the oppression of language' but largely it just comes across as antagonistic.
It's also kind of geeky in a bad way.
It's also kind of geeky in a bad way.
79
@3 based on my interactions with people in the JMG comment thread for the first incident...it seems to me that there is an undercurrent of "Why is Dan the spokesgay?!?, how come I didn't get a golden ticket to CNN interviews?" It's far easier to tear someone down than it is to work for 15 years or so to get to the position Dan is in the world. Now, I could be assuming that and putting a lot into other people's mouths, but that seems to be the one critique I get. Dan is over privileged and therefore undeserving of what he has rightfully earned through sweat.
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?
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?
80
@77: The trans community does seem much harder to know how to address than other oppressed minority groups. It's a really diverse community and to those of outside it, it often seems like anything we say has a high chance of giving offense. GOProud may have radically different opinions than most (many?) other LGB people , but I'd assume most GOProud members would still rather be called "gay men" or "lesbians" than "faggots" or "dykes."
81
Whoa. Wait. Amazonvera admits to not being trans. So what's his/her/its point here, other than just trolling?
82
Just curious about what de-glittering consists of and why you would need to do it before continuing to talk? It's not like it was a pie.
83
@76 agreed. "Cis" is just silly. Originally it made a point, but the point's long been made to anybody who cared. Now it just seems to mark the user as someone who's apt to lecture, with the result that the listener tunes 'em out.
84
@71, one can and one did, and @73, I don't believe that I quoted your two trans friends or asked them to speak for the quoted commenters who do have a problem with it, so I don't get your point.
@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.
@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.
85
@80, just because it seems or feels that way to you when dealing with difficult issues doesn't make it empirically so, and it doesn't even take a political party divide to turn up vast divides in what LGB people call themselves or want to be called by others, so I'm not sure that's an example for anything so much as how this isn't a specifically trans issue.
@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.
@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.
86
@ 84, you don't measure right or wrong by what people do with it.
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 was right to go get the quotes yourself. It would have been wrong to make people go there.
That's how it is.
87
People who are hurt by words...
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.
More...
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.
88
There you go again, Amazonvera. Saying "don't be lazy- just go out here and read through it yourself to find the arguments I'm talking about vaguely here."
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.
More...
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.
89
@judgmentalist, who wrote:
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.
I LOVE the word lexophobic, btw.
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.
90
@86, and I think it would have been right for people to go to the source and actually listen directly to trans people and fail to see how that could be classified as "wrong," but there we are. I don't see one new comment engaging any of the trans people on that post, pro or con, in dialog, so apparently you're not alone.
@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.
@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.
91
@85: ok. let's agree to disagree since there are no empirical facts to be had here, only anecdotal evidence and belief systems. I would imagine a rigorous scientific survey would support the common language choices of lesbian and gays, but as far as I know, that don't exist so we're at a standstill.
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.
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.
92
@76(Soupytwist), I'm certainly not in favor of fetishizing words and identifying enemies by them; but I'm surprised by why you should think the word "cis" is 'bad.' It's simply the opposite of "trans", referring to people who did not change their sex. Sure, that's the overwhelming majority of people, but then again the overwhelming majority of people is heterosexual, and this doesn't make the word "heterosexual" bad, wrong or unnecessary.
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"?
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"?
93
*on* this subject.
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.
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.
94
@77, but if there indeed are many opinions (including on whether or not certain words are acceptable), then mandating vocabulary use is not going to find full support even among those people directly affected by it -- trans people here. Doesn't that concern those who think vocabulary choice is the big enemy identifier?
95
@78, "cis" doesn't feel that way to me. Would you argue the same about "heterosexual" or "straight"? I don't think these terms were deliberately invented by the heterosexual or straight community to identify itself, but only sort of appeared as the need to talk about heterosexuals as a group developed.
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?
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?
96
@89: That's beautiful -- I don't know if you're an academic or a mental health professional, but I appreciate your thoughts about this, especially this.
. 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.I'll stop with the compliments, but thanks for that lens on this.
97
@88, I don't think I have used that descriptor once, mostly because I think it's a useless distinction in situations like these and has little to do with agreement or disagreement. There are not many comments in that post, far fewer that are at a glance critical of Dan and even fewer, pro or con, by people identified in their comments as trans. I'm perfectly happy for people to take the five to six minutes needed to identify and then read EVERY comment made by a trans person in that post and reach their own conclusions. Then maybe even reach their own conclusions about why not one of them was mentioned in a post about JMG commenters on a trans issue. Then maybe even engage trans people in dialog if they're so moved.
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.
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.
98
@76, again, why? In most real-life situations you don't need the word "cis" of course, just like in most real-life situations you don't need the word "straight": most men and women are straight, so chances are you can just assume it and not even use the word.
But there would be situations in which you'd talking about the trans people community as opposed to the .... what... community then?
But there would be situations in which you'd talking about the trans people community as opposed to the .... what... community then?
99
The word "cis" can be useful, certainly, but often is used such that the user might as well have said "muggle". This might be why people have developed an aversion to it.
100
I'm so confused by all this. On one hand we have the original Bilerico post that based on an "eye-witness's" mistaken testimony. And as a result there are a number of individuals who are upset at Dan, but he actually is not guilty of doing (at least on this specific occasion.) A second post has been made on Bilerico acknowledging the error made, and to my comprehension arguing that the anger at Dan is still justified. Then there are the two posts on Slog, the previous on has individuals such as Buck Angel posting that Dan's use of certain words is fine and others claiming they are highly offensive. I don't know if their is a consensus to be found. Maybe we are all destined to find what we want to find? If we want to find transphobic indications we will. If we want to find indications of allied support then we will. In some ways we share so much, the comprehension that someone can wield a word or phrase like a knife and cause us deep pain, but because we are such individuals we cannot see how others do not agree. I guess this is where motivation or the hearts intent comes in, we cannot see through the eyes of another, so we must try and see the whole picture. We must consider the each others humanness and acknowledge that sometimes people who are supportive let us down, they choose words or read question cards that contain words we find hurtful and maybe even abusive. That disappointment is a hard thing to swallow, as is realizing we cannot tailor someone to our liking. We have to look beyond and ask is this an enemy speaking or is this a friend whose word choices we despise. It seems to always come back to the heart. Just my $0.02.
101
@84(amazonvera), I just said I had talked to trans people who didn't feel offended by said words, so it's not a simple issue. It's not simply "there are different opinions", it's also "since there are different opinions, one can't mandate word choice to others without alienating those in one's own community that disagree with it." For more on that, see my comment above on "people who were hurt by words".
102
@95: My problem is less with the word 'cis' and more with the way it's used. It's an in-group expression still at this point within the trans community, but there SEEMS to be an expectation that out-of-group individuals are responsible for not being aware of it. I also feel like the tone used when 'cis' is said is very different than 'heterosexual' -- it often feels somehow pejorative. More like referring to people as "straights" or "breeders."
It's also just not very pretty with its sibilance and its confusing pronunciation: " 'Kiss?' 'Sis?' Honey, can you come explain this angry email our daughter just sent to us about not respecting her gender queer identity?" If words are meant as tools for communication, than I think better choices could have been made.
Again though, this is all anecdotal and may reflect my feelings on the matter more than some objective reality.
It's also just not very pretty with its sibilance and its confusing pronunciation: " 'Kiss?' 'Sis?' Honey, can you come explain this angry email our daughter just sent to us about not respecting her gender queer identity?" If words are meant as tools for communication, than I think better choices could have been made.
Again though, this is all anecdotal and may reflect my feelings on the matter more than some objective reality.
103
@91, I'm not an authority on trans issues, don't claim to be, and never will be. I don't speak for any trans person, let alone all trans people. What I've advocated in this post is not ignoring what actual trans people are saying and doing a better job of including them in the conversation, and I've advocated that regardless of any individual trans person's agreement or disagreement with Dan.
@94 I don't think I understand what you mean by "doesn't that concern," so I don't know how to answer that question.
@94 I don't think I understand what you mean by "doesn't that concern," so I don't know how to answer that question.
104
@101, I think you're missing my point. You're discussing why these words shouldn't be used with me when the opinion I stated was not my own and I've made it clear to you that that opinion should be discussed with the actual trans person/people who expressed it. It makes no sense to discuss how certain trans people feel with a cis person when the trans people themselves are part of an accessible public dialog on the issue. I really don't know how much more clearly to explain it.
105
DAN, you just have to do an all-trans podcast now.
Look at all the interest (and bickering) this glitter bomb generated. Obviously, people are simply interested in trans-folk.
Maybe invite a F2M (Buck?) and a M2F on for a panel discussion?
Look at all the interest (and bickering) this glitter bomb generated. Obviously, people are simply interested in trans-folk.
Maybe invite a F2M (Buck?) and a M2F on for a panel discussion?
106
@84, just out of curiosity, where were the comments you said you indicated to other people? Where they the JMG comments thread, or the Belerico one? I didn't see it clearly in the posts preceding this one (84).
107
@ 90, what should I be doing about that?
I'm focused on one, tiny part of this: whether you do your work or not. You're doing it fine; why you keep complaining about it is beyond me.
It's up to you whether we keep going round and round this point or not. I can do it all day, if you like. If you want to get off, then DO NOT RESPOND TO ME ANYMORE. Okay?
I'm focused on one, tiny part of this: whether you do your work or not. You're doing it fine; why you keep complaining about it is beyond me.
It's up to you whether we keep going round and round this point or not. I can do it all day, if you like. If you want to get off, then DO NOT RESPOND TO ME ANYMORE. Okay?
108
@ 100, people have a tendency to pick at things like this because it gives them a sense of control. Unfortunately, it's addressing the symptoms, not the disease. It's easier to tell someone what words they can and can't say than it is to educate.
109
@90(amazonvera), It's curious you thought my theory upthread was meant as a reply to you, when I didn't address it but just offered it as my opinion on the subject of why victimized people may misidentify their victimizers. Labeling it "condescending" without engaging with it (you'll see it covers much more than trans people, so you probably can relate to it too even though you're cis) is just avoiding the work of thinking about it.
I've gone to JMG and added several comments as a Guest. I'm trying to do what you suggest, and engage them directly. So have several other people here, judging by the appearance of their names there. This aspect of your criticism is therefore being taken care of.
I've gone to JMG and added several comments as a Guest. I'm trying to do what you suggest, and engage them directly. So have several other people here, judging by the appearance of their names there. This aspect of your criticism is therefore being taken care of.
111
@ 106, JMG. Dan's first link.
@107, Matt, what are you going on about? What do I want you to do about what? Since when am I complaining about us continuing to discuss this? You don't understand why I have a problem with people not approaching the source for themselves? No kidding! It's not like I've already acknowledged that we have a fundamental disagreement about that and that it is what it is.
@107, Matt, what are you going on about? What do I want you to do about what? Since when am I complaining about us continuing to discuss this? You don't understand why I have a problem with people not approaching the source for themselves? No kidding! It's not like I've already acknowledged that we have a fundamental disagreement about that and that it is what it is.
112
@100(Kim in Portland), that is also what I think. It seems people zero on certain indicators -- "X" means 'transphobic', "Y" means 'ally' -- without taking the time to understand what is really meant.
In Dan's case, as he himself acknowledges, his opinion of trans and bi people has evolved over time, and he's now very supportive of their causes. If you look at this, you see "ally" indicators all over. But it is also true that he made less good remarks on bi and trans people in the past (again as he himself acknowledges), so if you look at this, you will again "transphobic" indicators.
The actual task of analyzing who is, or isn't, on your side -- a difficult task sometimes, I hasten to add -- cannot be reduced to such indicator-hunting. That so many people in all kinds of activisms (trans people are far from the only ones doing this) still succumb to this, is sad.
In Dan's case, as he himself acknowledges, his opinion of trans and bi people has evolved over time, and he's now very supportive of their causes. If you look at this, you see "ally" indicators all over. But it is also true that he made less good remarks on bi and trans people in the past (again as he himself acknowledges), so if you look at this, you will again "transphobic" indicators.
The actual task of analyzing who is, or isn't, on your side -- a difficult task sometimes, I hasten to add -- cannot be reduced to such indicator-hunting. That so many people in all kinds of activisms (trans people are far from the only ones doing this) still succumb to this, is sad.
113
Dan,
I'd like to invite you to be my enemy. We have a bathroom that needs a remodel, and we're about 20k short. Please raise this ASAP!
I'd like to invite you to be my enemy. We have a bathroom that needs a remodel, and we're about 20k short. Please raise this ASAP!
114
@ankylosaur, that's great. I hope you find more meaningful answer to your questions about trans people who are bothered by certain language by actually talking to them.
As for the idea that people who think your comments are condescending must not have thought about them is kind of a case of proof in the pudding. I also don't believe that your sermons about how other people should feel about words are directed exclusively to me, but when they come in the midst of a conversation you're trying to have with me about that topic, I would say it's fair to treat them as part of that dialog. I wish you luck in finding better answers.
As for the idea that people who think your comments are condescending must not have thought about them is kind of a case of proof in the pudding. I also don't believe that your sermons about how other people should feel about words are directed exclusively to me, but when they come in the midst of a conversation you're trying to have with me about that topic, I would say it's fair to treat them as part of that dialog. I wish you luck in finding better answers.
115
@ 111, we have NO fundamental disagreement, because I have taken no position. All I've said is that it's your responsibility to provide quotes, and not just point someone toward some stale blog and tell them to go fish. You seem to have a problem with that, yet you got the quotes anyway.
Stop having a problem with that. It's petulant and immature.
Stop having a problem with that. It's petulant and immature.
116
@115, Matt, you are a laugh a minute. You're right, you have totally "taken no position." Not in this comment where you literally tell me to stop having my own opinions that are different from yours (but we have "NO fundamental disagreement") or stated empirically what my responsibilities are, and certainly not earlier when you dictated what behavior of mine was literally "right" vs. "wrong." It's true, you've been a regular paragon of equivocation.
Look, you think it's "right" and "responsible" for me to have done things one way. I disagree for a variety of reasons that I've already explained multiple times. C'est la vie. What else would you like to discuss here?
Look, you think it's "right" and "responsible" for me to have done things one way. I disagree for a variety of reasons that I've already explained multiple times. C'est la vie. What else would you like to discuss here?
117
@114(amazonvera), thanks. Up until now there haven't been many new arguments, but I haven't looked through most of it yet and certainly there'll be more interesting ones.
Of course you're entitled to see my theories as "condescending", and to interpret them in the context of a conversation -- but there are several conversations in parallel here, so the same text applies to all of them; any of the people I was talking with could do that (and others have, too, as I see above).
As for your judgment, my point is simply that by finding it condescending you haven't said much about whether or not it is right. No matter how condescending you may think I am, I may still be right. And that matters.
Good luck to you too, in your own personal quests!
Of course you're entitled to see my theories as "condescending", and to interpret them in the context of a conversation -- but there are several conversations in parallel here, so the same text applies to all of them; any of the people I was talking with could do that (and others have, too, as I see above).
As for your judgment, my point is simply that by finding it condescending you haven't said much about whether or not it is right. No matter how condescending you may think I am, I may still be right. And that matters.
Good luck to you too, in your own personal quests!
118
If the criticism is that you have used words in the past that the trans community finds offensive (like, say, this) then pointing out things you've done to help trans people doesn't address it. You can be an ally and still be insensitive. Whether you're a worthwhile target is another issue altogether (I'm going to throw my hat in with the "NO" crowd) but a simple apology and acknowledgment that you no longer use such words, as you did in one of the comments above, goes a lot further than the defensive stance you took in this post.
119
@103(amazonvera), "doesn't that concern" = "isn't it relevant to", "shouldn't it be taken into account by".
120
@104(amazonvera), your point is actually crystal clear; that's why I went over there. I think people are taking issue with your tone of voice rather than with your words. Also, you did express the opinion that Dan didn't do what he should (selected the wrong comments, etc.), so this is probably also something the others are disagreeing with. But as for your injunction to go there and talk to them directly, no, that I think is quite clear, and actually a quite good idea.
121
@118:
"I never said the word 'tranny' at UCI at all; indeed, I've made a conscious effort to stop using 'tranny' after the memo went out last year declaring the word an off-limits 'hate term.' (Mike Signorile wrote a good post about the rapidly changing take on the word 'tranny' here.)"
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…
"I never said the word 'tranny' at UCI at all; indeed, I've made a conscious effort to stop using 'tranny' after the memo went out last year declaring the word an off-limits 'hate term.' (Mike Signorile wrote a good post about the rapidly changing take on the word 'tranny' here.)"
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…
122
@102, but this can probably be attributed to the wider context, can't it? Given the bad overall situation of trans people and the problems they face in our society, I'd bet any word they'd have picked for non-trans people would end up being somewhat affected by it, and end up having the same usage issues ('pejorative', etc.) you talk about.
As for the pronunciation... does the word "cis" in chemistry sound any worse? CIS is also the name of the Community of Independent States, the successor of the former Soviet Union; I've heard it being referred to as both C-I-S and "CIS". I don't think people who used the latter pronunciation felt it was bad. Maybe you're just associating the pronunciation of the word with the usage issues you mentioned?
As for the pronunciation... does the word "cis" in chemistry sound any worse? CIS is also the name of the Community of Independent States, the successor of the former Soviet Union; I've heard it being referred to as both C-I-S and "CIS". I don't think people who used the latter pronunciation felt it was bad. Maybe you're just associating the pronunciation of the word with the usage issues you mentioned?
123
@118: But can't we acknowledge that people can grow and change? It seems Dan has already apologized more than once for his past offenses. Or should he spend the first ten minutes of any speaking engagement saying "mea culpa" for past offenses to the bi and trans communities?
It just seems as though there are more people eager to take offense than to have a meaningful dialog -- that applies as much to the Tea Party as the gay or trans community -- it just seems like a sad fact of modern/internet culture.
It just seems as though there are more people eager to take offense than to have a meaningful dialog -- that applies as much to the Tea Party as the gay or trans community -- it just seems like a sad fact of modern/internet culture.
124
@ 116, it's not your opinions that matter, but your attitude. You have an obligation to provide those things; I have an obligation to make sure people like you do.
125
@118(blip), 120(Dan Savage): but doesn't it seem to you that all this worry about words only deviates from the real fight against stereotypes and bigotry? I mean, the very fact that 'tranny' became bad quickly and somewhat unexpectedly shows how easy it is for a word to become 'offensive'. Until trans people become accepted by the wider society, other words will jump in to fulfil the offensive role of 'tranny' even if it is eliminated. The word "trans" itself might end up being offensive.
Why not concentrate on increasing trans visibility, answering the (often bigotry-oriented) questions of the wider society, and giving out information about trans people and their issues instead of on word choice? What exactly is achieved by attacking a word rather than the people who use it for bad ends?
Why not concentrate on increasing trans visibility, answering the (often bigotry-oriented) questions of the wider society, and giving out information about trans people and their issues instead of on word choice? What exactly is achieved by attacking a word rather than the people who use it for bad ends?
126
@119, got it. I'm sure many of them do take it into account, but any community that waits for uniform consensus on every issue to do anything about them will accomplish...what? Also, I'm not sure that I've heard anyone claim that vocabulary choice is "the big enemy identifier," though I may have missed it. With any issue or community, acting like there's a binary system of Enemy vs. Ally and that all behavior will fall cleanly into one category or the other creates a false dichotomy. It doesn't work that way. It's a broad scale, and people who fall along every part of it are capable of getting things right and fucking things up. I'd like to think I'm a net-positive supporter of a lot of groups (hopefully that's actually the case), but that doesn't mean I never fuck up when it comes to those groups' issues or that I shouldn't be questioned or criticized for fucking up when I do.
127
Count me as another transguy who thinks the GBers are ridiculous, and this is all nonsense. In a country where trans people are beaten, raped, and murdered, and I have to think about how much fluid I consume whenever I leave the house for fear of having to use the public bathroom and get yelled at or much worse, wtf? Really, Dan is the problem?
Language is a democratic project. Words are tools that we, together, have brought into existence in order for us to be together more explicitly and know each other more deeply. As usual, it is not the tool but how it is used that is the problem, and I don't think anyone on this thread or any of the related ones that I have, regrettably, spent time on, has articulated any argument that Dan's usage in this case was problematic (unless they were mistaken as to the facts). The argument is that these words are per se bad and that there is simply no acceptable use of them. That's just dumb. It's dumb about how language functions (as ankylosaur has pointed out amply supra) and it's dumb about what Dan was actually saying, and it's dumb about the relationship between Dan and his audience when he is doing one of these college Q&A sessions.
Thanks for all your work on behalf of transfolk, Dan.
Language is a democratic project. Words are tools that we, together, have brought into existence in order for us to be together more explicitly and know each other more deeply. As usual, it is not the tool but how it is used that is the problem, and I don't think anyone on this thread or any of the related ones that I have, regrettably, spent time on, has articulated any argument that Dan's usage in this case was problematic (unless they were mistaken as to the facts). The argument is that these words are per se bad and that there is simply no acceptable use of them. That's just dumb. It's dumb about how language functions (as ankylosaur has pointed out amply supra) and it's dumb about what Dan was actually saying, and it's dumb about the relationship between Dan and his audience when he is doing one of these college Q&A sessions.
Thanks for all your work on behalf of transfolk, Dan.
128
@124, lol, it's good to know that my opinions don't matter. I never would have guessed that you felt that way. And I provided them, Matt. A long time ago. Pretty much immediately when asked, actually. But I'm glad you were here to be the Enforcer of Right and Wrong on the Internet. Where would we be right now without you?
129
@122: I am not a linguist, nor a chemist so I hadn't been exposed to the word cis in other context. I'm not sure what I would have thought about it in a different context. I think this word with stick, although I doubt it will ever enter mass consciousness, although I could be wrong about that. I wish it didn't have a hissing quality to it, but again, I can't separate my experience from the sound. I know I need to accept it, and hopefully at some point I will find it less offensive. At the end of the day, you're right, they are just words.
130
Could this be a case of trans-ferred aggression?
Why go after the real enemy when that involves effort, risk and exposure? Shit, here's this guy right here who's not even defending himself against us, what with him being on our side and all. Pounce!
Why go after the real enemy when that involves effort, risk and exposure? Shit, here's this guy right here who's not even defending himself against us, what with him being on our side and all. Pounce!
131
@128 " ... it's good to know that my opinions don't matter "
If there was any doubt that you're actively misinterpreting ...
If there was any doubt that you're actively misinterpreting ...
132
@112,
I agree, Anklyosaur, it is both difficult and sad. As private individuals we have the luxury of learning what words are painful for friends, family, and acquaintances. We can learn to not use those words, to understand exactly why they hurt. How can one do that with a public persona? Does one obtain a list of neutral words, más o menos. I think it may be easy to think in this Internet world that every individual is heard and someone in the public/famous spectrum is not only everyone's personal friend (thus knows what words are hurtful and why for every individual) and is held to a standard of tailoring their comments to please the great majority and hope very few are offended. I'm not sure if that is realistic expectation or even a fair one. I Surely one can aspire to use neutral words, one can apologize for past usage, one can hope to never falter again, and one can apologize for slipping. At some level people will see what they wish.
I need to go run. I don't think that I am making a lot of sense. I hope you enjoy the rest of your day.
Take care.
I agree, Anklyosaur, it is both difficult and sad. As private individuals we have the luxury of learning what words are painful for friends, family, and acquaintances. We can learn to not use those words, to understand exactly why they hurt. How can one do that with a public persona? Does one obtain a list of neutral words, más o menos. I think it may be easy to think in this Internet world that every individual is heard and someone in the public/famous spectrum is not only everyone's personal friend (thus knows what words are hurtful and why for every individual) and is held to a standard of tailoring their comments to please the great majority and hope very few are offended. I'm not sure if that is realistic expectation or even a fair one. I Surely one can aspire to use neutral words, one can apologize for past usage, one can hope to never falter again, and one can apologize for slipping. At some level people will see what they wish.
I need to go run. I don't think that I am making a lot of sense. I hope you enjoy the rest of your day.
Take care.
133
@126, true. But this implies that even the activists who defend said communities also often fuck up -- and targeting Dan on the assumption that the UCI incident was evidence of transphobia was a case in point. The main reason for that was fear of words -- Dan said "she-male", therefore he's transphobic and we should glitter-bomb him -- which perfectly exemplifies what you're saying: everybody can fuck up trans issues, including the most strenuous transgendered trans rights activist. Dan is certainly not alone.
There are people who seem to think that fighting words is fighting the good fight -- several have commented here, and also on Dan's other post on this issue. These are the people who who will say quite clearly that someone who uses a word like "tranny" cannot be an ally. I'm sure there are others who don't that -- Dan makes this point himself -- but these aren't the ones I'm talking about.
There are people who seem to think that fighting words is fighting the good fight -- several have commented here, and also on Dan's other post on this issue. These are the people who who will say quite clearly that someone who uses a word like "tranny" cannot be an ally. I'm sure there are others who don't that -- Dan makes this point himself -- but these aren't the ones I'm talking about.
134
@112
And, I should say that I personally don't think words should be banned themselves, but that through working with abuse victims I have come to see words as emotional memory triggers. By which I mean that when heard they bring back emotional memories that are independent of the present situation. And while one can work on not allowing a word to trigger things, it can take a long time. Some move past faster than others, some seem to be unable. So inorder to keep communication open, I aspire to not use those words.
Take care.
And, I should say that I personally don't think words should be banned themselves, but that through working with abuse victims I have come to see words as emotional memory triggers. By which I mean that when heard they bring back emotional memories that are independent of the present situation. And while one can work on not allowing a word to trigger things, it can take a long time. Some move past faster than others, some seem to be unable. So inorder to keep communication open, I aspire to not use those words.
Take care.
135
@132 (Kim in Portland), exactly! I also try to avoid words or expressions I know will hurt someone. (I have a friend who hates emoticons, for instance; when I send her e-mails, I carefully avoid them out of respect for her.) This is perfectly OK, and is indeed what people who care about others should do.
I am only sad when people fetishize this into thinking that certain words (or emoticons) are per se bad and should be avoided at all costs, in all contexts, no matter what is said. Which is why I do use emoticons when sending e-mails to other friends who are not displeased by them: I don't think emoticons have to mean only what they mean to that friend of mine. And which is why I'm OK with using, in certain contexts and with certain people, words that I know certain other people, in certain other contexts, would find offensive.
I hope you enjoy your day, too. (I"m sick -- big cold -- and in bed, which is why I've been writing so many comments. Hopefully I'll be better in a couple of days.) Take care!
I am only sad when people fetishize this into thinking that certain words (or emoticons) are per se bad and should be avoided at all costs, in all contexts, no matter what is said. Which is why I do use emoticons when sending e-mails to other friends who are not displeased by them: I don't think emoticons have to mean only what they mean to that friend of mine. And which is why I'm OK with using, in certain contexts and with certain people, words that I know certain other people, in certain other contexts, would find offensive.
I hope you enjoy your day, too. (I"m sick -- big cold -- and in bed, which is why I've been writing so many comments. Hopefully I'll be better in a couple of days.) Take care!
136
@127: It's awesome to hear trans voices here in addition to the allies arguing amongst themselves. :) I also appreciate your wisdom on who the enemy actually is.
@132/134: I think you're making a lot of sense. Thanks for your insightful comments and relevant experiences.
@ankylosaur: I agree with you -- I hope it comes across that way.
@132/134: I think you're making a lot of sense. Thanks for your insightful comments and relevant experiences.
@ankylosaur: I agree with you -- I hope it comes across that way.
137
@133, Of course allies fuck up. The point is that we should be the best at listening and not letting our hurt feelings, or embarrassment, or derailing surface concerns about tone or style, etc. get in the way of fixing things, because we should understand better than non-allies that our personal discomfort is just not as important as the issues of the community about which we ostensibly care so much.
Also, I've seen too many trans people express issues with Dan's talk at UCI and response since then that go beyond him using the two specified words to be willing to simplify the issue that way. It seems to be more complicated than that, and I'd rather let them express what their problems really are.
Also, I've seen too many trans people express issues with Dan's talk at UCI and response since then that go beyond him using the two specified words to be willing to simplify the issue that way. It seems to be more complicated than that, and I'd rather let them express what their problems really are.
138
@26: " there's no mention here of some of the thoughtful and reasonable comments of trans people who discuss why they still kind of have issues with how you handled this one"
Generally because those "thoughtful"/"reasonable" comments were based on not understanding the situation as it happened.
Do you have any ones from those who read firsthand accounts and actually understand what went on?
Generally because those "thoughtful"/"reasonable" comments were based on not understanding the situation as it happened.
Do you have any ones from those who read firsthand accounts and actually understand what went on?
140
@137: "Also, I've seen too many trans people express issues with Dan's talk at UCI and response since then that go beyond him using the two specified words to be willing to simplify the issue that way. It seems to be more complicated than that, and I'd rather let them express what their problems really are."
Great, now let them make actual arguments, we want to hear 'em!
Stop giving insinuations, it's tiring.
Great, now let them make actual arguments, we want to hear 'em!
Stop giving insinuations, it's tiring.
142
Someone posted this over at Bilerico:
To all concerned,
I was at the Eugene, OR filming.
I hope this doesn't upset some of you.
I think DSWC is a bio female, and straight. My friends know her, and while they have gone to pains to say she is an ally of the LGBT community, she was wrong here. She has been known to be an ally in LGBT causes before, and is well liked. But this is really unfair to Mr. Savage.
I don't remember enough about the Eugene, OR speech to say whether Dan had said anything that night to deserve the glitter bomb. I do remember it happened early and she yelled something about being a rape apologist.
The thing I find really bad on her part is that she threw the large heavy glass container at his head after she threw the glitter. It made a very loud "clunk" when it hit the floor that could be heard throughout the auditorium. After the talk some other students looked and there was a dent in the stage floor where it hit. It barely missed Mr. Savage's head. If it would have hit him, she could have done serious damage to him. A concussion or worse. She doesn't seem to be showing any shame on the blog post that this author, has linked to, but this was seriously dangerous.
Just as the witness from the other school commented, once Mr. Savage was cleaned he went on with his conversation and we all laughed, groaned, blushed and had a really good time. Dan spent a few minutes talking about trans issues as well. All very sex positive.
Just thought you all should know. Someone out there is not telling the truth. Whether it is DSWC or the author of this post.
To all concerned,
I was at the Eugene, OR filming.
I hope this doesn't upset some of you.
I think DSWC is a bio female, and straight. My friends know her, and while they have gone to pains to say she is an ally of the LGBT community, she was wrong here. She has been known to be an ally in LGBT causes before, and is well liked. But this is really unfair to Mr. Savage.
I don't remember enough about the Eugene, OR speech to say whether Dan had said anything that night to deserve the glitter bomb. I do remember it happened early and she yelled something about being a rape apologist.
The thing I find really bad on her part is that she threw the large heavy glass container at his head after she threw the glitter. It made a very loud "clunk" when it hit the floor that could be heard throughout the auditorium. After the talk some other students looked and there was a dent in the stage floor where it hit. It barely missed Mr. Savage's head. If it would have hit him, she could have done serious damage to him. A concussion or worse. She doesn't seem to be showing any shame on the blog post that this author, has linked to, but this was seriously dangerous.
Just as the witness from the other school commented, once Mr. Savage was cleaned he went on with his conversation and we all laughed, groaned, blushed and had a really good time. Dan spent a few minutes talking about trans issues as well. All very sex positive.
Just thought you all should know. Someone out there is not telling the truth. Whether it is DSWC or the author of this post.
143
@123 If you read my post a little more carefully, you will see that we're on the same page. My point is that Dan wasn't glitterbombed because he hates all transgendered people as this post implies, but because he has used insensitive language re: transpeople in the past, at least in the eyes of the bombers.
I don't think he needs to start every discussion about transgendered people by apologizing for things he has said in the past, but in th context of *this particular blog post*, it would be a lot more helpful if he had initially acknowledged his evolving use of transgendered language, as he did in comment #41, rather than the somewhat dismissive tone he started off with.
I don't think he needs to start every discussion about transgendered people by apologizing for things he has said in the past, but in th context of *this particular blog post*, it would be a lot more helpful if he had initially acknowledged his evolving use of transgendered language, as he did in comment #41, rather than the somewhat dismissive tone he started off with.
144
@ 138/140, you're a little late to that party. In terms of the online folks (vs. IRL folks), I've sourced them, quoted them, there don't seem to be holes in their information (except for some that are still in everyone's information so far as I can tell), and even Dan has come into the thread and acknowledged that some of the issues are or may be problematic, and we'll see where that goes when he's got more time and information.
145
It's possible Dan glittered himself. If he's anything like me.
I installed a bucket of glitter over my desk and I pull a rope and glitter myself when ever I say anything "anti-ism." Or whenever I want to pretend Rip Taylor is here.
Either way it reinforces my belief system because I LOVE GLITTER!
I installed a bucket of glitter over my desk and I pull a rope and glitter myself when ever I say anything "anti-ism." Or whenever I want to pretend Rip Taylor is here.
Either way it reinforces my belief system because I LOVE GLITTER!
146
I do remember fondly the 4th of July I spent with with guy with pale skin, platinum blond hair, and glittery pink lip gloss. Ahh, good times with glitter.
Having read the thread over at Bilerico, the only thing I have to add is this:
Any functionality to the concept of privilege in the sociological studies context seem to have been lost. It seems to be exclusively used by people whose only real message seems to be "I am way more victimier than you".
Having read the thread over at Bilerico, the only thing I have to add is this:
Any functionality to the concept of privilege in the sociological studies context seem to have been lost. It seems to be exclusively used by people whose only real message seems to be "I am way more victimier than you".
147
@134(Kim in Portland), I also have no problems with avoiding words because they trigger bad memories in a victim -- just as I wouldn't have a problem avoiding talking about Romania in my wife's presence, or about Blacks in that one friend's presence. Traumatized victims do need care, and even though I'm not a professional I've also had experience with several kinds.
My problem is with those who think it's the word's fault that it triggers reactions, and who also think that using that word implies a desire to trigger the reaction, or at least a fear of the victim in question (transphobia, in Dan's case). That is simply not true, and leads people sometimes to the wrong conclusions about who they should be fighting against.
The healing process goes through de-sensitizing the triggering mechanisms. It doesn't always go that way; some people are scarred for life, and my heart is sad for them. But it is ultimately true that those victims who do manage to heal had to face the problem of the real source of their victimization -- without hiding behind false associations.
My problem is with those who think it's the word's fault that it triggers reactions, and who also think that using that word implies a desire to trigger the reaction, or at least a fear of the victim in question (transphobia, in Dan's case). That is simply not true, and leads people sometimes to the wrong conclusions about who they should be fighting against.
The healing process goes through de-sensitizing the triggering mechanisms. It doesn't always go that way; some people are scarred for life, and my heart is sad for them. But it is ultimately true that those victims who do manage to heal had to face the problem of the real source of their victimization -- without hiding behind false associations.
149
@137(amazonvera), not only do allies fuck up -- the victims themselves (or oppressed minority) also often fuck up and misunderstand things and use language that either hurts others or doesn't advance their cause. In activism, as in everything else in life, nobody is perfect.
My whole point against lexophobia is that this is one way in which some activists -- allies and/or victims -- fuck up, as in the glitter-bombing incident; both specifically (tactically), by misinterpreting Dan, and generally (strategically), by attacking someone who is not really transphobic and who can and does help them, instead of someone who is, and doesn't.
I've also seen many opinions against Dan (in the JMG list) not based on this specific incident. There were also interesting reactions to these opinions, many of which were left unanswered. (Basically along the lines of "Dan said X in the past, therefore he still believes X" -- "but he's already stated he changed his mind about that" (e.g., the existence of bisexuals).) But it's still early -- maybe there'll be more interesting developments later.
My whole point against lexophobia is that this is one way in which some activists -- allies and/or victims -- fuck up, as in the glitter-bombing incident; both specifically (tactically), by misinterpreting Dan, and generally (strategically), by attacking someone who is not really transphobic and who can and does help them, instead of someone who is, and doesn't.
I've also seen many opinions against Dan (in the JMG list) not based on this specific incident. There were also interesting reactions to these opinions, many of which were left unanswered. (Basically along the lines of "Dan said X in the past, therefore he still believes X" -- "but he's already stated he changed his mind about that" (e.g., the existence of bisexuals).) But it's still early -- maybe there'll be more interesting developments later.
151
@143, Oh, I see your point now. OK, I agree.
I'd still say that glitter-bombing him for things he no longer says or advocates is not really what I'd call the best use of resources available to the trasngernder movement. But then again, it seems we both agree on that.
I'd still say that glitter-bombing him for things he no longer says or advocates is not really what I'd call the best use of resources available to the trasngernder movement. But then again, it seems we both agree on that.
152
Anklyosaur,
In those I work with it would seem it is less about the word, but a memory of the word being used. A similar, but not identical, situation was a woman whose partner would make a pot of tea before beating her. She came to associate the tortured wail of a kettle as a prelude to a beating. The sound triggered memories for her. In kind of the same way words triggered memories for others. The memory comes back. I'm not a professional counselor, but it sounds a lot like post traumatic stress disorder. In those instances it was better to avoid a word, because of its connection to the memory.
I hope that helps make my point clearer. I'm sorry to 'hear' you are under the weather. I hope you feel better very soon.
In those I work with it would seem it is less about the word, but a memory of the word being used. A similar, but not identical, situation was a woman whose partner would make a pot of tea before beating her. She came to associate the tortured wail of a kettle as a prelude to a beating. The sound triggered memories for her. In kind of the same way words triggered memories for others. The memory comes back. I'm not a professional counselor, but it sounds a lot like post traumatic stress disorder. In those instances it was better to avoid a word, because of its connection to the memory.
I hope that helps make my point clearer. I'm sorry to 'hear' you are under the weather. I hope you feel better very soon.
153
@144: "you're a little late to that party. In terms of the online folks (vs. IRL folks), I've sourced them, quoted them, there don't seem to be holes in their information (except for some that are still in everyone's information so far as I can tell)"
Actually, I've gone through your posts and I don't see any grand list of quoted atrocities for which Savage must repent.
Actually, I've gone through your posts and I don't see any grand list of quoted atrocities for which Savage must repent.
154
All I see is DAN MUST ACKNOWLEDGE HIS CRIMES repeated over and over.
It'd be much more useful if you actually specified them instead of just talking about "those things Dan said", as if the content is less important than your specific message of Dan's complicity in transphobia.
It'd be much more useful if you actually specified them instead of just talking about "those things Dan said", as if the content is less important than your specific message of Dan's complicity in transphobia.
155
@149, If you're coming away from this thinking that the only issues trans people have expressed with Dan's behavior in this incident are misunderstandings, then I'm not sure you're listening to them. That's not what I see them saying, and I don't think anyone but you, as I have already pointed out to you, misunderstands what "for lack of a better word" means. Also, you disagreeing with trans people who want cis people to stop using trans slurs in any setting, or at least more sparely and judiciously than they feel Dan did in this case, also doesn't mean that they don't understand what happened. Disagree with them if you like (or better yet when you find someone reasonable willing to talk with you, ask them to help you understand), but pretending that their concerns don't really count or don't exist doesn't seem like the behavior of an ally.
156
"Any functionality to the concept of privilege in the sociological studies context seem to have been lost. It seems to be exclusively used by people whose only real message seems to be "I am way more victimier than you"."
Yup. The concept of privilege as I learned about it way bitd in college sociology and gender studies ("Transnational Women's Movements"-- take that!) was never used to silence anyone, or say their opinion doesn't count, but to have people reflect on where their own point of view comes from. Now, if you can't check all the right boxes w/r/t race/gender/socioeconomic status/gender id/able-bodiedness/sexuality/etc/etc/etc/etc, you can't say anything.
Yup. The concept of privilege as I learned about it way bitd in college sociology and gender studies ("Transnational Women's Movements"-- take that!) was never used to silence anyone, or say their opinion doesn't count, but to have people reflect on where their own point of view comes from. Now, if you can't check all the right boxes w/r/t race/gender/socioeconomic status/gender id/able-bodiedness/sexuality/etc/etc/etc/etc, you can't say anything.
157
@151 I think it's safe to say that glitterbombing is *never* a good use of anyone's resources, including the glitter.
158
@155, and what does "for lack of a better word" mean to you? To me, it is an acknowledgement of perceived problems or inadequacy with the word one is about to use. What is it to you?
I've re-read the comments at JMG, written a couple of others myself. If you see something there I've missed, I'd be happy if you'd tell me what (if you don't want to copy it here, just tell me who posted it).
In what way am I prentending their concerns don't exist or don't really count? I'm claiming they're wrong in associating the wrong with the word -- replacing the whip-master with the whip, as it were. That's not the same thing. And I'll be happy if anyone there will react to any of my questions -- I'm looking forward to it, actually.
Would I be correct in reading your comment @155 as "condescending"? I hasten to add that it doesn't imply that you're wrong, of course.
I've re-read the comments at JMG, written a couple of others myself. If you see something there I've missed, I'd be happy if you'd tell me what (if you don't want to copy it here, just tell me who posted it).
In what way am I prentending their concerns don't exist or don't really count? I'm claiming they're wrong in associating the wrong with the word -- replacing the whip-master with the whip, as it were. That's not the same thing. And I'll be happy if anyone there will react to any of my questions -- I'm looking forward to it, actually.
Would I be correct in reading your comment @155 as "condescending"? I hasten to add that it doesn't imply that you're wrong, of course.
159
@156, I've noticed this tendency, too. It's funny, isn't it, that oppressed groups should often indavertently mimic the tactics (or some milder version thereof) of their oppressors? I suspect it's related to the phenomenon of victims also sometimes becoming perpetrators -- apparently by allowing that which victimized them to define them and making their fight be, consciously or unconsciously, about revenge.
Fortunately not all activists are like that -- far from that.
Fortunately not all activists are like that -- far from that.
161
@158, it means exactly what it says, i.e. that there is a perceived lack of a better word on the part of the speaker. But Dan clearly knows better words than the one he chose to recycle for his own use after quoting it. Lots of them. So why did he re-use the word himself and then say there was a lack of a better word? I don't know. I can certainly understand why there are trans people who don't appreciate it, though.
You keep saying (and I see you doing it there, too) that trans people upset with Dan's words at UCI misunderstood him even though the version of events that many of them are offering is wholly accurate. I don't know why you're doing that, but yeah, it is treating those concerns like they don't really count.
If you feel that disagreeing with you and your apparent approach to this isssue is condescending, then yes. If not, probably not.
You keep saying (and I see you doing it there, too) that trans people upset with Dan's words at UCI misunderstood him even though the version of events that many of them are offering is wholly accurate. I don't know why you're doing that, but yeah, it is treating those concerns like they don't really count.
If you feel that disagreeing with you and your apparent approach to this isssue is condescending, then yes. If not, probably not.
162
@amazonera, The people who aren't "handling this well" are you and those glitter bombers. You admit Dan is an ally, but then go on to treat him and his reputation poorly by trying to argue that THIS is the event that defines Dan's treatment of the transgendered community, that everything he's done before for them some how shouldn't be taken into consideration, and everyone's just awful cause they haven't personally asked a member of the trans community what terms are acceptable...etc.
I'm half black with pale skin and african american features. There are a large number of terms for this depending on where the speaker is from, their own ethnicity & etc. I don't particularly like some of them, but if I was having a conversation with someone and they made a reference to someone's or my own mixed race with one I don't take offense unless the context calls for it. And even then who they are, what they stand for & etc. make a huge difference in HOW I address this offense. I don't go off on my grandmother for her insensitivity like I would a white supremacist at a bus stop.
I'm half black with pale skin and african american features. There are a large number of terms for this depending on where the speaker is from, their own ethnicity & etc. I don't particularly like some of them, but if I was having a conversation with someone and they made a reference to someone's or my own mixed race with one I don't take offense unless the context calls for it. And even then who they are, what they stand for & etc. make a huge difference in HOW I address this offense. I don't go off on my grandmother for her insensitivity like I would a white supremacist at a bus stop.
163
Matt, do you get the inherent irony in commenting on someone else still taking part in a conversation by continuing to take part in a conversation? Or in implying that someone else has a need to get in an arbitrary last word while throwing a complete non sequitur back into a previously deceased conversation with that very person? Because whether you do or not, you're kind of my favorite in this post.
164
As a so-called gay cis male, I find the use of cis offensive. It sounds too much like sissy, which is a word often used in an insulting manner toward gay men. Therefore, I have deemed cis to be a non-trangender phobic term. From now on, please refer to me, not as a cis male, but a flibbity-flobbity-flewbity male. Anyone who uses the term cis from this moment forward is a bigot. There. Done. See how that works?
165
@162, where in the world have I said any of that? I don't think this particular incident defines Dan's...anything, and the only people I've told to go talk to a trans person were those who had specific questions or disagreements about the words of a particular, individual trans person writing in another post. They weren't my comments and I couldn't answer those questions. I don't get what you're saying here.
166
@161, but isn't it what he himself said -- that his comment was going to be about how there is a better word? Besides, you seem to agree with me (as does the free idioms dictionary that the speaker who uses the expression perceives a problem with the word -- or else, why would s/he hope for a better one? Apparently the problem is not the meaning of this expression, but the fact you think Savage knows better words.
Why did he re-use the word? As one commenter at JMG said, because this is a way of engaging the letter-writers in general: making it easier for them to talk about things they're often ashamed of in the words they themselves used. This may lead to clashes with other perceived interpretations of said words, of course -- but this is not the same as claiming that Dan used such words as an expression of transphobia, conscious or unconscious.
I also can understand why there are trans people who don't appreciate that -- just as I can understand why my friend who was mugged by a Black man has bad feelings about Black people. It doesn't follow that they (or my friend) are right.
I haven't seen many wholly accurate descriptions of the situation in the JMG comment thread (except for joannmp's, whose clear-mindedness I really appreciated). If there are others, please point me to them. I have noticed a number of comments attacking them because of old wrongs, and claims that he is an "attention whore" and suchlike.
Again, please point to a place where I said they misunderstood him even though the person I was talking to hadn't misunderstood him? I looked again at my comments, and I can't see the one you're talking about.
That was exactly what I thought when you called my opinion "condescending". We aren't that different after all. :-)
It's good to remember your words when deciding if my (or anyone's) comments are really treating others' concerns as if they didn't count, or simply disagreeing with them. As you point out, there is a difference.
More...
Why did he re-use the word? As one commenter at JMG said, because this is a way of engaging the letter-writers in general: making it easier for them to talk about things they're often ashamed of in the words they themselves used. This may lead to clashes with other perceived interpretations of said words, of course -- but this is not the same as claiming that Dan used such words as an expression of transphobia, conscious or unconscious.
I also can understand why there are trans people who don't appreciate that -- just as I can understand why my friend who was mugged by a Black man has bad feelings about Black people. It doesn't follow that they (or my friend) are right.
I haven't seen many wholly accurate descriptions of the situation in the JMG comment thread (except for joannmp's, whose clear-mindedness I really appreciated). If there are others, please point me to them. I have noticed a number of comments attacking them because of old wrongs, and claims that he is an "attention whore" and suchlike.
Again, please point to a place where I said they misunderstood him even though the person I was talking to hadn't misunderstood him? I looked again at my comments, and I can't see the one you're talking about.
If you feel that disagreeing with you and your apparent approach to this isssue is condescending, then yes. If not, probably not.
That was exactly what I thought when you called my opinion "condescending". We aren't that different after all. :-)
It's good to remember your words when deciding if my (or anyone's) comments are really treating others' concerns as if they didn't count, or simply disagreeing with them. As you point out, there is a difference.
168
As a flibbity-flobbity-flewbity male, @164, I take offense at that. And how dare you use the word "male" without my express written consent!
169
@mygash, I think you're accusing amazonvera by association -- she didn't say these things, but you're associating her with people who did because of some perceived connection in their opinions.
Amazonvera did say things like But Dan clearly knows better words than the one he chose to recycle for his own use after quoting it. Lots of them. So why did he re-use the word himself and then say there was a lack of a better word? I don't know. I can certainly understand why there are trans people who don't appreciate it, though. , which are a bit odd, but don't warrant an all-out attack. She's just expressing a different opinion.
Amazonvera did say things like But Dan clearly knows better words than the one he chose to recycle for his own use after quoting it. Lots of them. So why did he re-use the word himself and then say there was a lack of a better word? I don't know. I can certainly understand why there are trans people who don't appreciate it, though. , which are a bit odd, but don't warrant an all-out attack. She's just expressing a different opinion.
172
@166, Please tell me that you didn't just try to use a free online idiom dictionary as a resource for a linguistic point. The phrase means that the speaker perceives that there is a lack of a better word than the one being used, and if, as you say here, you think that my faith that Dan knows that there are a plethora of better words than the one he used is misplaced, then I apparently think much more highly of Dan when it comes to trans issues than you do. I'm sorry, but that's just ridiculous.
Neither you nor I know why Dan re-used the word. I'm sure that if he ever addresses trans people's expressed concern about the for-lack-of-a-better-word incident, he'll say so. Whatever his reason, he knows that that's a choice that offends a lot of trans people. He may have thought his reasons for going for it outweighed those concerns, I don't know. Again, though, since I don't think being offended by slurs regularly used against one's own minority community is just like racism (or whatever in the world you're saying there in that appalling mess of an analogy), I think it's fair for trans people to question that.
I see you engaging in a conversation on exactly these points with one of the commenters I quoted, who seems to be responding on topic to your points and questions, so I don't know what you want from me on that score.
You might start with where you say on JMG that Dan didn't really apologize because he's not wrong, people got mad at him over a misunderstanding. Even though the person you're conversing with is making it clear that there are/were plenty of perfectly understood issues to be upset about.
Neither you nor I know why Dan re-used the word. I'm sure that if he ever addresses trans people's expressed concern about the for-lack-of-a-better-word incident, he'll say so. Whatever his reason, he knows that that's a choice that offends a lot of trans people. He may have thought his reasons for going for it outweighed those concerns, I don't know. Again, though, since I don't think being offended by slurs regularly used against one's own minority community is just like racism (or whatever in the world you're saying there in that appalling mess of an analogy), I think it's fair for trans people to question that.
I see you engaging in a conversation on exactly these points with one of the commenters I quoted, who seems to be responding on topic to your points and questions, so I don't know what you want from me on that score.
You might start with where you say on JMG that Dan didn't really apologize because he's not wrong, people got mad at him over a misunderstanding. Even though the person you're conversing with is making it clear that there are/were plenty of perfectly understood issues to be upset about.
173
@165 your comments #s 43,44, 64, 77 . There's probably more, but you give me a headache.
Anyways, I'm saying even IF Dan Savage did something offensive, he deserves to have it brought to his attention in a respectful manner, BECAUSE he's their ally. If a friend uses a word that upsets you in a conversation that is actually supportive of you and you wig out; who does that expose as an insensitive jerk?
Anyways, I'm saying even IF Dan Savage did something offensive, he deserves to have it brought to his attention in a respectful manner, BECAUSE he's their ally. If a friend uses a word that upsets you in a conversation that is actually supportive of you and you wig out; who does that expose as an insensitive jerk?
174
@169 & 172, if that really is the case then I apologize. If that quote 169 brought up is truely the sum of your feeling on this manner amasonvera, then I did misjudge you.
However I fail to see why you would continue pushing the idea that Dan DID commit an offensive act if that was your stance.
However I fail to see why you would continue pushing the idea that Dan DID commit an offensive act if that was your stance.
175
@173, not one of those comments says anything remotely like what you said, so I don't know what to tell you.
If, as you say, Dan did say something offensive, and you have a tone argument concern with upset trans people, I guess you're free to make it. I personally feel that I say something offensive to a friend and they're pretty pissed about it, then as their friend I'd be the best person to understand why they're pretty pissed and still accept that I'm primarily responsible (barring throwing jars, that's just fucked up).
If, as you say, Dan did say something offensive, and you have a tone argument concern with upset trans people, I guess you're free to make it. I personally feel that I say something offensive to a friend and they're pretty pissed about it, then as their friend I'd be the best person to understand why they're pretty pissed and still accept that I'm primarily responsible (barring throwing jars, that's just fucked up).
176
Amazonvera,
As the tireless transgender ally that you appear to be, you surely must know that there are better uses of your time than spending hours arguing with transgender allies on Slog, right?
As for "bad words," when did we stop looking at context? When a trans ally uses a word to make a point, I happen to think the point can be more important than the word. Surely, Dan has used offensive language in the past, as has everyone. But he has acknowledged that repeatedly, and made a commitment to be more sensitive in the future. It seems to me like he's done plenty of mea-culping (or mea-culpying?) for his "transgressions," for "lack of a better term." In addition to acknowledging his past insensitivity, Dan has been a tireless advocate for the transgender community, speaking in support of the community as a whole and helping individuals within the community. I really don't see what more he could do. Obviously, he's never going to do enough to satisfy everyone. Some people are going to be offended no matter what. Perhaps they are just cis white gay male-phobic.
As the tireless transgender ally that you appear to be, you surely must know that there are better uses of your time than spending hours arguing with transgender allies on Slog, right?
As for "bad words," when did we stop looking at context? When a trans ally uses a word to make a point, I happen to think the point can be more important than the word. Surely, Dan has used offensive language in the past, as has everyone. But he has acknowledged that repeatedly, and made a commitment to be more sensitive in the future. It seems to me like he's done plenty of mea-culping (or mea-culpying?) for his "transgressions," for "lack of a better term." In addition to acknowledging his past insensitivity, Dan has been a tireless advocate for the transgender community, speaking in support of the community as a whole and helping individuals within the community. I really don't see what more he could do. Obviously, he's never going to do enough to satisfy everyone. Some people are going to be offended no matter what. Perhaps they are just cis white gay male-phobic.
177
@175, I really don't think you get any of this. But let me say it again; I don't think Dan did anything offensive and I don't have anything against people bringing up their grievances, but when you do so in a manner that outright attacks your friend's character and feelings then I think it reflects more on you than them.
178
@172, oh, my own OED confirms that the free online dictionary is right, but your own definition of the phrase is enough, amazonvera. Basically we both understand this expression to mean the same thing -- except to you the fact that Dan knows more words means he shouldn't have repeated that one (which he knew wasn't good), whereas I don't see a big sin in that. That's the difference here, not sources.
Where did you read that I think "my faith that Dan knows that there are a plethora of better words than the one he used is misplaced"? When I read the comment you're reacting to, I see I claimed the exact opposite. I wouldn't call that "ridiculous", but you do need to pay more attention.
As for why Dan re-used the word, how about @41 above? (Of course, we -- even Dan -- will never know for sure, since that moment in time is lost forever, but that's unnecessary detail.)
It is fair for trans people to question that -- as it is fair for anyone to question anything. It doesn't follow from this that they're right.
As I see it, there is actually no incompatibility between us. My main point here is simply that swapping the whip and the whip-master doesn't advance any causes, whereas your main point seems to be we should be talking at JMG. (You're also expressing doubts about Dan's choice of words, but I don't think you were trying to make a point there.)
By going to JMG, I'm trying to address yours (and thanks for your pointer to that comment -- I'll go have a look). We can go on talking here if you feel you want to address my point (namely, that fighting slurs instead of slur-users doesn't advance any causes). If not, why exactly are we talking as if our points weren't compatible again?
Where did you read that I think "my faith that Dan knows that there are a plethora of better words than the one he used is misplaced"? When I read the comment you're reacting to, I see I claimed the exact opposite. I wouldn't call that "ridiculous", but you do need to pay more attention.
As for why Dan re-used the word, how about @41 above? (Of course, we -- even Dan -- will never know for sure, since that moment in time is lost forever, but that's unnecessary detail.)
It is fair for trans people to question that -- as it is fair for anyone to question anything. It doesn't follow from this that they're right.
As I see it, there is actually no incompatibility between us. My main point here is simply that swapping the whip and the whip-master doesn't advance any causes, whereas your main point seems to be we should be talking at JMG. (You're also expressing doubts about Dan's choice of words, but I don't think you were trying to make a point there.)
By going to JMG, I'm trying to address yours (and thanks for your pointer to that comment -- I'll go have a look). We can go on talking here if you feel you want to address my point (namely, that fighting slurs instead of slur-users doesn't advance any causes). If not, why exactly are we talking as if our points weren't compatible again?
179
@amazonvera, maybe I found a suitable topic for us to go on talking. You wrote:
Of course. But it doesn't follow from that that the person is right in being pissed about it. I do have to respect the person's feelings and do my best not to hurt them, but that doesn't mean agreeing with the (perceived) cause. For instance, my friend who was (he no longer is) resentful towards Blacks: I did avoid talking about Blacks in his presence, and if I mentioned Blacks in a way that triggered an angry reaction from him, I did apologize. But it doesn't follow from this that I should think he is right in reacting as if Blacks were bad.
Indeed throwing jars is just fucked up.
I personally feel that I say something offensive to a friend and they're pretty pissed about it, then as their friend I'd be the best person to understand why they're pretty pissed and still accept that I'm primarily responsible (barring throwing jars, that's just fucked up).
Of course. But it doesn't follow from that that the person is right in being pissed about it. I do have to respect the person's feelings and do my best not to hurt them, but that doesn't mean agreeing with the (perceived) cause. For instance, my friend who was (he no longer is) resentful towards Blacks: I did avoid talking about Blacks in his presence, and if I mentioned Blacks in a way that triggered an angry reaction from him, I did apologize. But it doesn't follow from this that I should think he is right in reacting as if Blacks were bad.
Indeed throwing jars is just fucked up.
180
@ 176 Lol, I'd assume that we all have better things to do with our time than comment on slog, but I'm fine with my cumulative use of far-less-than-hours, though I appreciate your concern. As far as your impression of Dan's actions the only factual error that I see there is that you claim Dan mea culpa'ed for the old transgression of "for lack of a better word." That's not an old transgression, and while he seems open above to looking into the fact that it may have been problematic, there's no mea culpa yet. Other than that, you're entitled to your opinion of his behavior. My point in this thread is and continues to be that the trans people who have some pretty reasonable and relevant issues with Dan on this incident are also entitled to theirs and I see him and a lot of others kind of ignoring and marginalizing their opinions while talking about being trans allies. I think that's a problem. It doesn't mean that I think Dan hates trans people or that I agree with all trans people about this issue (which would be impossible).
@177, Okay. But if the offensive thing I say to my friend is, by it's nature, a bit of a negative reflection on my character, than I don't know how you expect them to air their grievances, whatever the tone, without mentioning that.
@Ankylosaur, no, you and I don't agree and aren't "compatible." You seem to have a habit of badly twisting and ignoring people's words in order to create imaginary common ground, and it's actually really dismissive. If you'd been paying attention to what I'm saying, you'd know that I disagree with not only your perceptions of trans people's issues with Dan on this topic but also pretty much your entire approach to marginalizing language, though I'll admit that only in these last exchanges where you asserted that people being offended by slurs that get directed at their community is just like irrational racial hatred did you really cross into batshit crazy territory for me, so I'm happy to consider our interaction concluded.
More...
@177, Okay. But if the offensive thing I say to my friend is, by it's nature, a bit of a negative reflection on my character, than I don't know how you expect them to air their grievances, whatever the tone, without mentioning that.
@Ankylosaur, no, you and I don't agree and aren't "compatible." You seem to have a habit of badly twisting and ignoring people's words in order to create imaginary common ground, and it's actually really dismissive. If you'd been paying attention to what I'm saying, you'd know that I disagree with not only your perceptions of trans people's issues with Dan on this topic but also pretty much your entire approach to marginalizing language, though I'll admit that only in these last exchanges where you asserted that people being offended by slurs that get directed at their community is just like irrational racial hatred did you really cross into batshit crazy territory for me, so I'm happy to consider our interaction concluded.
181
@ankylosaur - Sorry, I've been offline most of the day, I'm not ignoring you!
I think using the term "cis-" in academics makes sense, it obviates confusion and is useful. But in everyday language, interpersonal communication? It's a farce. Because for people who have transitioned genders, it shouldn't be about people who haven't transitioned genders. And the desire to label people as "other" is about as naive and egocentric as one can get.
I think using the term "cis-" in academics makes sense, it obviates confusion and is useful. But in everyday language, interpersonal communication? It's a farce. Because for people who have transitioned genders, it shouldn't be about people who haven't transitioned genders. And the desire to label people as "other" is about as naive and egocentric as one can get.
182
An open note to you, Dan:
I don't check in often with you these days or with what's happening elsewhere. This time, though, I'm finding it hard to avoid reading about this whole glitterbombing thing. It shows up in my news feed, my Twitter re-tweets, and even in an email by someone — an annoyed, straight cis person — who isn't even aware that I'm trans, wondering why you can be so, and I quote, "mean-spirited" towards trans people (I replied, "I guess he thinks they're freaks or something"). What's up with this?
To your original posting remark above — that you promoted raising tactical money for two trans people, one already dead, the other after making a lot of hay over the much more popular (and cis lesbian) classmate Constance McMillen — means little beyond tokens. You can no more buy a way out of your malcontent towards non-cis people than one can pay hush money to bribe loyalty: it works for a while, but it can't work in perpetuity.
What I see with this new wave of political mobilization and politically charged tactics against your public appearances — by people much younger than you or me — is much like the impassioned, though naïve mobilization pressed by Act Up over twenty years ago. The relationship isn't a coincidental one: Act Up was a force of activist militancy as an exceptional way to make others notice how institutional disregard was hurting the gay community. These glitterbombing folks you've dealt with — all of them trans people, I'm told! — see these acts of civil disobedience as a last-ditch way to have others notice the way you treat trans people with a turned-up nose of slight disgust.
Imputing, inferring, suggesting, or expressing that trans people are functionally other, inferior, or freakish — given your media placement, is hurting trans people. It's been hurting trans people for at least three decades. It Gets Better isn't helping a lot of trans teens and even trans adults, because they know you don't have their back where it would count most: as an advocate in mass media normalizing trans people as legitimate citizens worthy of the same respect and dignity as cis people like yourself.
Give it a little time, and these new, if militant protestors will get their act together, become better focussed, and will be better able to confront, point-by-point, what amounts to your bully pulpit in the most traditional sense: Slog, followed by the syndicated Savage Love.
For now, it's like watching a fly (these agitated protestors and other, largely powerless trans people) being swatted at by a pile-driver (you with your mass-media sway and your name as a blue-seal brand of normalized gayness). Eventually, what amounts to the Barnum-like performance of your Slog postings will tire on decent cis people who will start to see the smoke and mirrors for what they are. Some already have, and that momentum will only continue.
You will always have your core base of loyal fans. As you forfeit reputability as a columnist with increasingly out-of-vogue sentiment towards people who, without contest, are the most institutionally, socially, and legally marginal population left standing in the U.S. today — yes, trans people — your core following is going to look more like zealous fans following a celebrity (I'm thinking like those Michael Jackson fans at his old child molestation trial) and less like well-meaning people who can't for the life of them grasp why such a marginal population, lacking a mass-media platform on par with yours, is so gravely upset with you. These are, overwhelmingly, the people for whom it isn't getting better. Your brand of advocacy is hurting trans people, not helping. That's why they're upset.
So long as you lean to your media platform as a place to mock those who challenge your passé regard for trans people, you won't improve dialogue; can't improve a general cis audience's grasp of institutional-level trans marginality; aren't going to build an alliance of respect (which first must come from the powerful to the much less powerful); and can't emote a mock-atonement that will come across as convincing to those repeatedly hurt by your trivializing, condescending treatment towards non-cis people.
You would think that buying people would be all it would take to win over their loyalty. Sorry, it's never worked that way.
As always, you can tell me to "fuck off, Telsa." You do so because you know there is no intelligent rebuttal you can contribute to the conversation under the terms you currently operate. What protects you now is your media reach. It won't always protect you.
I wish you lots of luck, Dan. More than luck, I wish you'd find some way to unravel on your own why you esteem trans people, on the whole, as functionally inferior or unpleasant; only a sentiment of inferiority can explain why you would use your column to mock people who express a bona fide grievance you are loath to acknowledge as valid.
tl;dr: You can only keep this up for so long before it will catch up and burn you, your reputation, and possibly some of the respect you've worked so hard to build with campaigns like It Gets Better. You can't keep acting like you're a friend or supporter to people you know you'd rather knowingly keep away at arm's length or more, both in your personal life or in your workplace. A handful of trans spokespeople you turn to publicly are no surrogate to this deficit. Your personal contempt for trans people has always been the chink in your armour, and eventually someone is going to figure out where that vulnerability is. Don't be surprised if they exploit it the way you exploit outing cis gay closet cases who push the homophobia card. People are slowly seeing through your ruse, and it's only time before that becomes a critical mass.
More...
I don't check in often with you these days or with what's happening elsewhere. This time, though, I'm finding it hard to avoid reading about this whole glitterbombing thing. It shows up in my news feed, my Twitter re-tweets, and even in an email by someone — an annoyed, straight cis person — who isn't even aware that I'm trans, wondering why you can be so, and I quote, "mean-spirited" towards trans people (I replied, "I guess he thinks they're freaks or something"). What's up with this?
To your original posting remark above — that you promoted raising tactical money for two trans people, one already dead, the other after making a lot of hay over the much more popular (and cis lesbian) classmate Constance McMillen — means little beyond tokens. You can no more buy a way out of your malcontent towards non-cis people than one can pay hush money to bribe loyalty: it works for a while, but it can't work in perpetuity.
What I see with this new wave of political mobilization and politically charged tactics against your public appearances — by people much younger than you or me — is much like the impassioned, though naïve mobilization pressed by Act Up over twenty years ago. The relationship isn't a coincidental one: Act Up was a force of activist militancy as an exceptional way to make others notice how institutional disregard was hurting the gay community. These glitterbombing folks you've dealt with — all of them trans people, I'm told! — see these acts of civil disobedience as a last-ditch way to have others notice the way you treat trans people with a turned-up nose of slight disgust.
Imputing, inferring, suggesting, or expressing that trans people are functionally other, inferior, or freakish — given your media placement, is hurting trans people. It's been hurting trans people for at least three decades. It Gets Better isn't helping a lot of trans teens and even trans adults, because they know you don't have their back where it would count most: as an advocate in mass media normalizing trans people as legitimate citizens worthy of the same respect and dignity as cis people like yourself.
Give it a little time, and these new, if militant protestors will get their act together, become better focussed, and will be better able to confront, point-by-point, what amounts to your bully pulpit in the most traditional sense: Slog, followed by the syndicated Savage Love.
For now, it's like watching a fly (these agitated protestors and other, largely powerless trans people) being swatted at by a pile-driver (you with your mass-media sway and your name as a blue-seal brand of normalized gayness). Eventually, what amounts to the Barnum-like performance of your Slog postings will tire on decent cis people who will start to see the smoke and mirrors for what they are. Some already have, and that momentum will only continue.
You will always have your core base of loyal fans. As you forfeit reputability as a columnist with increasingly out-of-vogue sentiment towards people who, without contest, are the most institutionally, socially, and legally marginal population left standing in the U.S. today — yes, trans people — your core following is going to look more like zealous fans following a celebrity (I'm thinking like those Michael Jackson fans at his old child molestation trial) and less like well-meaning people who can't for the life of them grasp why such a marginal population, lacking a mass-media platform on par with yours, is so gravely upset with you. These are, overwhelmingly, the people for whom it isn't getting better. Your brand of advocacy is hurting trans people, not helping. That's why they're upset.
So long as you lean to your media platform as a place to mock those who challenge your passé regard for trans people, you won't improve dialogue; can't improve a general cis audience's grasp of institutional-level trans marginality; aren't going to build an alliance of respect (which first must come from the powerful to the much less powerful); and can't emote a mock-atonement that will come across as convincing to those repeatedly hurt by your trivializing, condescending treatment towards non-cis people.
You would think that buying people would be all it would take to win over their loyalty. Sorry, it's never worked that way.
As always, you can tell me to "fuck off, Telsa." You do so because you know there is no intelligent rebuttal you can contribute to the conversation under the terms you currently operate. What protects you now is your media reach. It won't always protect you.
I wish you lots of luck, Dan. More than luck, I wish you'd find some way to unravel on your own why you esteem trans people, on the whole, as functionally inferior or unpleasant; only a sentiment of inferiority can explain why you would use your column to mock people who express a bona fide grievance you are loath to acknowledge as valid.
tl;dr: You can only keep this up for so long before it will catch up and burn you, your reputation, and possibly some of the respect you've worked so hard to build with campaigns like It Gets Better. You can't keep acting like you're a friend or supporter to people you know you'd rather knowingly keep away at arm's length or more, both in your personal life or in your workplace. A handful of trans spokespeople you turn to publicly are no surrogate to this deficit. Your personal contempt for trans people has always been the chink in your armour, and eventually someone is going to figure out where that vulnerability is. Don't be surprised if they exploit it the way you exploit outing cis gay closet cases who push the homophobia card. People are slowly seeing through your ruse, and it's only time before that becomes a critical mass.
183
@amazonvera, I simply don't see the grounds for what you're saying. I feel the emotions in your words, of course, but I the reasons cannot be in what I wrote.
My point is nothing of what you said. My point is that being offended at the slur-word to the detriment of the slur-user and his/her intentions is a mistake. You don't seem to want to address that; you keep repeating that I'm saying crazy things, but you really don't address the one thing I'm really trying to say.
I'm saying that people confuse words with word-users, and you think I'm saying reactions to ethnic slur are irrational? :-)
I'm saying people should pay attention to where the real problem is rather than concentrating on non-crucial issues like word choice (because new slur will replace the old slur if the situation doesn't change) -- and you think I'm in "batshit crazy territory"? :-)
Do you think that offensive words have some magical power that goes beyond their usage? Maybe their letters are glittered? :-)
Well, OK. If our "interaction" is concluded, we'll both be happier for it. A pity you wouldn't really address my point, though. Maybe next time you will.
My point is nothing of what you said. My point is that being offended at the slur-word to the detriment of the slur-user and his/her intentions is a mistake. You don't seem to want to address that; you keep repeating that I'm saying crazy things, but you really don't address the one thing I'm really trying to say.
I'm saying that people confuse words with word-users, and you think I'm saying reactions to ethnic slur are irrational? :-)
I'm saying people should pay attention to where the real problem is rather than concentrating on non-crucial issues like word choice (because new slur will replace the old slur if the situation doesn't change) -- and you think I'm in "batshit crazy territory"? :-)
Do you think that offensive words have some magical power that goes beyond their usage? Maybe their letters are glittered? :-)
Well, OK. If our "interaction" is concluded, we'll both be happier for it. A pity you wouldn't really address my point, though. Maybe next time you will.
184
I'm still trying to figure out why anybody, anywhere gives a shit about gender at all, honestly. While sex is widely varied actual phenonmenon body to body, gender is pretty much a bullshit series of cultural rules and behaviors that don't really amount to either jack or shit. Your physical genital appearance displeases you? Change it- that is between you, your doctor, and the mirror. Let me know what new pronoun to use, or if I should use one at all regarding your person. After that, let's get some beers and watch some Martha.
185
@182(Telsa), it sounds like you haven't read any of the things Dan has written in favor of trans people. He's not simply buying loyalty with bribes; he's showing that his opinions have changed significantly. Do you really not see this?
All this emotion, all that emphasis, all that implicit sarcasm, all that intensity, all this desire to make Dan suffer as much as possible -- is that from a place that doesn't acknowledge that people can actually change their minds and be on your side?
Rather than saying that Dan will always have supporters (true), I'd concentrate on the fact that he'll always have enemies (just as true). No matter what he says, there'll always be people who think he's doing the worst job possible -- because of what he used to write, or because of some perceived wrong like vocabulary choice... Just as you, and all activists, always will. Have enemies. Having them doesn't mean you're wrong.
He's out there, asking people not to overgenerlize against trans people just because a few of their activists decided to attack him publicly -- and you really can see nothing good in what he did or does? You really think you can see so deep in his heart that you know he has no hope?
Sigh!...
All of this -- all of this -- despite the fact that there are very real enemies out there, much more deserving of your attention than Dan was, even at his worst. Those who'd deny you even have a right to call yourselves human. And you worry about Dan instead?
Sigh!...
Well, as some others have said, maybe you worry about him because you actually know how close to your cause he is -- whatever difference there is can be exploited to the utmost, because he actually is sensitive enough to the issue to care about your opnions. It's easier to bully your friends, because your enemies simply won't let you come close.
OK, Tesla. Go on thinking that opposing Dan Savage is going to be a step forward for your movement. I wish you luck; we'd all like to see trans people more widely accepted and not discriminated. However it happens, though, it will be despite, not because, of the glitter-bombing. Because of that attack, you'll need a tiny little bit more luck than you otherwise would have needed. But, who knows? Maybe you'll have it. One can always hope.
More...
All this emotion, all that emphasis, all that implicit sarcasm, all that intensity, all this desire to make Dan suffer as much as possible -- is that from a place that doesn't acknowledge that people can actually change their minds and be on your side?
Rather than saying that Dan will always have supporters (true), I'd concentrate on the fact that he'll always have enemies (just as true). No matter what he says, there'll always be people who think he's doing the worst job possible -- because of what he used to write, or because of some perceived wrong like vocabulary choice... Just as you, and all activists, always will. Have enemies. Having them doesn't mean you're wrong.
He's out there, asking people not to overgenerlize against trans people just because a few of their activists decided to attack him publicly -- and you really can see nothing good in what he did or does? You really think you can see so deep in his heart that you know he has no hope?
Sigh!...
All of this -- all of this -- despite the fact that there are very real enemies out there, much more deserving of your attention than Dan was, even at his worst. Those who'd deny you even have a right to call yourselves human. And you worry about Dan instead?
Sigh!...
Well, as some others have said, maybe you worry about him because you actually know how close to your cause he is -- whatever difference there is can be exploited to the utmost, because he actually is sensitive enough to the issue to care about your opnions. It's easier to bully your friends, because your enemies simply won't let you come close.
OK, Tesla. Go on thinking that opposing Dan Savage is going to be a step forward for your movement. I wish you luck; we'd all like to see trans people more widely accepted and not discriminated. However it happens, though, it will be despite, not because, of the glitter-bombing. Because of that attack, you'll need a tiny little bit more luck than you otherwise would have needed. But, who knows? Maybe you'll have it. One can always hope.
186
@184: "I'm still trying to figure out why anybody, anywhere gives a shit about gender at all, honestly."
The same reason why racism, classism, and misogyny still exist. As long as gender roles still matter, they will affect others. The Secret-level massive doses of "the power of positive thinking" don't and will never change the world.
Plenty are not privileged enough to be able to fully ignore the effects of gender roles on their lives. It's certainly been the case for friends who have gone through the gender confirmation process.
The same reason why racism, classism, and misogyny still exist. As long as gender roles still matter, they will affect others. The Secret-level massive doses of "the power of positive thinking" don't and will never change the world.
Plenty are not privileged enough to be able to fully ignore the effects of gender roles on their lives. It's certainly been the case for friends who have gone through the gender confirmation process.
187
@184, it's the traditional ways of understanding the world. Just imagine trying to watch an average soap opera without knowing that guys are masculine, girls are feminine, and that they want to marry each other. :-)
188
@182: It'd also do you well to actually read the accounting of what happened from people who were there, in the crowd, and who transcribed directly, word for word without the activists' deceptive re-imagining of the scenario.
Reading tough. Outrage easy.
Reading tough. Outrage easy.
190
@51: Not just chemists but historians; the Austro-Hungarian Empire was unofficially divided into Cisleithania and Transleithania, the Leitha river historically being the border between Austria and Hungary.
191
@189: Real life is so much more stupid than soap operas. Many people don't have the option to switch the channel when others "make a big deal" about strict gender roles.
193
Shorter Tesla: "Any history of Dan doing good things for, with or about trans people is actually just more evidence for his nefarious plan to secretly not like trans people very much. Also, I have never met a black person."
There, I just saved you all twenty paragraphs over even the alleged "TL;DR version".
There, I just saved you all twenty paragraphs over even the alleged "TL;DR version".
195
(The hilarious part, of course, being that if you wanted to count up incidents of Dan being snarky about transpeople versus Telsa calling other transwomen "men in dresses" and actively looks-shaming and age-shaming transwomen for not passing as well as she allegedly does and for not having had the resources and support to transition as early as she did, I'm thinking the ratio would be like 1:100 in favor of Telsa being a jawdropping asshole with the world's biggest set of unexamined privilege issues.)
197
@194: Hey Dan. You realize that there are a lot of trans people who see you as the cis gay version of a Joe Paterno, right? That is, to those rooting for you, you are a champion and leader who is above doing any possible harm — directly or by proxy — to anybody below.
198
@195: Hilarious. You got me. Simplified, if memory serves, to the point of distilling War & Peace to a 12-page New Yorker essay.
199
@188: Cumulative readings take time. My reading on Dan's published word spans back to about 1998. I know he was active long before then.
As to the event spurring this Slog post: there are multiple channels of readings involved, not just Dan's. I factor past readings into this, too.
p.s., You were a middling writer when you were still alive. I guess "why stop when you're dead" became your mantra to replace "Where is John Galt?"
As to the event spurring this Slog post: there are multiple channels of readings involved, not just Dan's. I factor past readings into this, too.
p.s., You were a middling writer when you were still alive. I guess "why stop when you're dead" became your mantra to replace "Where is John Galt?"
200
I love how the trans people here with their vendetta against Dan Savage are too cowardly to put their actual names/nicknames on their posts. Just like every time I ask one of these frothing idiots, I never get a response other than "Everyone knows Dan has hated Trannies for years." And FWIW, Hawke is part of my last name and is probably enough to find me all over the internets.
203
@200: One more thought on the prudence of using pen names and pseudonyms, this from the Supreme Court of the U.S., in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission (1995):
"Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society."
"Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society."
204
Hey Telsa,
I hope you're well. I can't crank up any Paul Kelly song, especially "Before Too Long" without wishing you well. His Songs From The South (volumes 1 & 2) are a lovely collection. We all change a grow, hopefully for the better, I find. I hope you leave room for the fact that people can evolve and grow the heck up. I know I have grown up over the years, although I still embrace my delight in Kelly's older music. Hopefully that is a net good thing when I reach the end of my life. Maybe, Dan, is going through that same birthing process? I know that labor can be a long process, but has
rewarding ends. Anyway, It is nice to know you're still around.
Take care.
I hope you're well. I can't crank up any Paul Kelly song, especially "Before Too Long" without wishing you well. His Songs From The South (volumes 1 & 2) are a lovely collection. We all change a grow, hopefully for the better, I find. I hope you leave room for the fact that people can evolve and grow the heck up. I know I have grown up over the years, although I still embrace my delight in Kelly's older music. Hopefully that is a net good thing when I reach the end of my life. Maybe, Dan, is going through that same birthing process? I know that labor can be a long process, but has
rewarding ends. Anyway, It is nice to know you're still around.
Take care.
205
@200: Hawke -- I'm not sure if this has been said enough, but it's really wonderful that you've taking the time and the emotional energy to keep posting on here despite all the negativity and difficulties in communication. Out of these 200 comments at least 2/3rds really do want to improve communication and refocus the debate on productive change and better understanding. Thank you for helping this happen.
206
@200, Hawke -- let me support judgmentalist above. It is good to see that not all people are all about the hatred.
Telsa, would it really be so damaging to you, in whatever internet pen name you choose, to actually engage and try to discuss why you think Dan deserves the post you wrote? Why you think his opinion hasn't evolved, why you think his current support for trans people doesn't mean anything, etc.?
Telsa, would it really be so damaging to you, in whatever internet pen name you choose, to actually engage and try to discuss why you think Dan deserves the post you wrote? Why you think his opinion hasn't evolved, why you think his current support for trans people doesn't mean anything, etc.?
207
@206: It's much easier to tell someone what they believe and tear into a straw person than it is to actually face them directly and have a dialogue.
208
So, I got tired of reading so much negativity, so I had to skip most of these comments, but early on, there was a request for a reasonable response from a trans person. Now, I hadn't responded to this particular article, but here's the response I gave after reading the Queerty article "Trans Activist Glitter Bombs Dan Savage Again. Counterproductive?"
"As far as all this nonsense about attacking Dan Savage, I wouldn't say it's counterproductive, as that implies it's actually doing anything. I would just say it's unproductive. I think it's clear that Dan Savage has said some rude things about trans people, though likely out of ignorance and/or encouragement from trans friends of his. It's only more clear from that last article written by him that he understands what can be hurtful and wants to be respectful of it. Considering how he is, I think that's pretty big of him. I honestly wonder how many people who are outraged by his statements have ever read Savage Love (which, I'll admit, is kind of funny from time to time)."
"As far as all this nonsense about attacking Dan Savage, I wouldn't say it's counterproductive, as that implies it's actually doing anything. I would just say it's unproductive. I think it's clear that Dan Savage has said some rude things about trans people, though likely out of ignorance and/or encouragement from trans friends of his. It's only more clear from that last article written by him that he understands what can be hurtful and wants to be respectful of it. Considering how he is, I think that's pretty big of him. I honestly wonder how many people who are outraged by his statements have ever read Savage Love (which, I'll admit, is kind of funny from time to time)."
209
And as for the use of the word tranny, I don't like it. I think it's often used in a derogatory context and I let people know that I would prefer they not use it. That's all. If you want to keep using it, go ahead. I'm not going to stop you (as though I could) and I'm not going to demean you or assume you're a lesser person for using it.
Is anyone genuinely offended by the use of the term cis? It seems like I've only seen people say they're offended by it as a knee-jerk defensive reaction to trans people being offended by the word tranny. If people actually consider it offensive, I'll happily drop it from my vocabulary. It wouldn't be very difficult and worth it to me to make others feel more comfortable.
Is anyone genuinely offended by the use of the term cis? It seems like I've only seen people say they're offended by it as a knee-jerk defensive reaction to trans people being offended by the word tranny. If people actually consider it offensive, I'll happily drop it from my vocabulary. It wouldn't be very difficult and worth it to me to make others feel more comfortable.
210
Telsa: don't flatter yourself. You're a short and all-too-familiar story, and no amount of pettifogging (even the prestigious amount you produce on cue) can disguise that.
211
I don't see why you had to be defensive rather than just apologizing for any offense you caused and saying you'll continue to try to be a better advocate for trans people. Now you're just making this argument go on longer.
212
"I don't see why you had to be defensive rather than just apologizing for any offense you caused "
One shouldn't have to apologize for a disinformation campaign, though.
One shouldn't have to apologize for a disinformation campaign, though.
213
This isn't nearly as entertaining as watching a bunch of trans folks have a shit storm of a fight over whether to use transsexual or transgender, which is more appropriate, which is inappropriate, and who is really trans.
214
i have no idea what "cis" means in the context of a discussion about gender or sexual orientation.
215
I don't understand why you have this "me vs. them" mentality. Why can't you just own your shit, apologize, and then have a healthy dialogue. Nobody's perfect, but don't be arrogant and don't get defensive. I hope you do not continue to get aggressive.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: The Tell-Tale Handjob by Dan Savage
-
Foie Gras Tastes Like Cat Food by Callan Berry
-
Cap Hill Is Becoming a Little Like What? by Charles Mudede
-
Pizza Update: Breaking the 5-Minute Barrier by Goldy
-
President Obama Says NSA Spying Is "Transparent" by Paul Constant
-
SL Letter of the Day: Let Me Think... by Dan Savage
-
Slog Bible Study: Leviticus 20:9 by Goldy
-
The Daily Show on Poor, Bullied Christians by Paul Constant
-
In Which Peter Steinbrueck Peforms in Blackvoice by Goldy
-
The Monday Morning News by Goldy
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (215) RSS