Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
Editors' Picks
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
s/he sure throws like a girl.....
That's cute.
Compartmentalization much?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=compartmentalizatio…
This lady is a misguided, victim-minded troll. Only trolls would so obstinately ignore Dan's CLEAR and CONSISTENT support of the trans community.
It's probably not impossible for Dan to imagine his 22-year old up to something like this. Rose just needs to set her sights a bit higher—starting with, I dunno, and actual enemy of gender identity equality—which shouldn't be incredibly hard to find.
How about this Rose, whether you're assaulting sex advice columnists or reliving alternative publishing trends from the 90's, try focusing on one word: "praxis"!
What's praxis? I'm sure you know. I'm sure i your college conversations about gender theory and queer activism you use, abuse and generally throw praxis around with reckless abandon.
I'm just not sure you know what praxis ISN'T. Because it's not glitter-bombing Dan Savage and it's not publishing a "zine"!
"Passing" isn't everyone's ultimate goal, you know.
But, no, seriously, this kind of angry victim-minded lashing out is really sad, and it's exactly what you expect to emerge from an unaccepted community. All Rose gets from me is pity, and if that pisses her off, well, tough shit.
So it was some asshole liberal arts college student. Surprise Surprise. FYI, Michele Foucalt and Judith Butler did not write bibles, they wrote theories.
Still, the last thing any trans folk need are more attacks, however misguided they may be.
It's probably exactly what she wants, anyway. She can't wait to show everyone that she's such a victim.
Anyway, I can happily count a number of trans folk among my dearest and friends, and none of them act like angry victims with chips on their shoulders.
If it looks like a girl, and call her a girl and she freaks the fuck out because you should have call her a trans... wtf? If she or he likes labels that much, maybe it should wear a huge fucking sign! What a fucking idiot.
Anarcha-feminist is a Paultard with sand in her vagina.
Also: DIY, does that mean she cut her dick herself?
FML -_-
Oops. "Clutching pearls" is a term that is IN ITSELF should be deemed offensive!
Oops! Attempts at humor in any former is ALSO offensive!
Help me! I'm choking on my own political correctness -- which is also an offensive term, I'm sure!
"Not to be "transphobic" but I find it difficult to take transwomen seriously when they take on common drag queen monickers as names."
Rose Pedals. Trans activist. Might as well call yourself, "Lois Angeles".
You make a plea to be taken seriously and, unlike Dan, you hide behind a *****fake**** name.
Come out of your closet, COWARD!
@37: Er, I believe that she should actually have to come up with a specific reason and logic why she threw it if she's going to call herself an activist, but this sort of internet bravado is dumb.
There would be nothing wrong with her using a pseudonym, in and of itself.
How sweet.
http://www.questioningtransphobia.com/?p…
I think points 4 and 7 are valid here. There may be some value in talking with some trans women at some point about their perspective on some of this stuff, since it seems like the majority of your experience under the transgender umbrella has been with trans men, but I don't think you're doing yourself favors by continuing to address the vague accusations of the glitterbombers.
"Some of us are rather adorable and funny to be around."
Yes! Quite a few of you are, which is why I'm lucky to count some of you among my friends (and "exes on good friendly terms").
Your community doesn't deserve to be misrepresented by this sanctimonious twat.
@28 Cis and Trans are terms used in chemistry (and I'm sure elsewhere) meaning same and opposite (in this case, groups arranged around a double bond, but that's not important to anyone). So when transgender was coined, I assume a transperson or trans-ally coined cis when they were looking for a complimentary term.
Hell, I want attention on twitter too, but I prefer to tweet stuff that's marginally respectable and along the lines of, "Woo hoo! Got an A on my midterm!"
i know , right ?..or 'mistaken'
But in conversations about trans issues (like who gets to use the bathroom, or the changing room), it is helpful to have a way of talking about people with different backgrounds. At first, people found themselves talking about "trans-women" and "real women" or "natural women". That's the problem -- "real" and "natural" come with a lot of unhelpful, biased baggage. So (as said @44) an ally of the transgendered came up with 'cis'-gendered, to provide a neutral term to talk about people who were born the same gender they present. As long as you're willing to leave the room whenever transgender issues are being discussed, you'll probably never have to use these terms.
Two things:
1 - Hardly anyone is actually calling her out. One person wished her burnt alive, one gave a message of agreement, but mostly, people have been polite in pointing out that she has misread Dan's intentions, and acted poorly.
2 - Her bio now says: queer trans anarchist dyke DIY feminist mentally ill punk kid. (emphasis mine). Don't dare to comment on what she means by that move.
Also, man, do I not miss being an anguished college kid.
These are simply people who desperately want to prove to the rest of their community that they've spent more hours studying every last minute detail of Queer Theory than anyone else. The way to prove this is to exhibit showy pseudo-outrage at petty little details that only a theory-obsessed savant would notice. The end result is pedantic bickering that only stands in the way of actual action.
Nobody cares how deeply you've delved into vague academia: with activism, what matters is results, and I guarantee that Dan has done more to convince real people that transexuals deserve equal rights than any glitter-bombing wannabe revolutionary.
There's a reason Malcolm X didn't spend his time browbeating the Black Panthers into changing their name to the Aftican-American Panthers.
Her target illustrates her motivation. This has nothing to do with Dan, trans-phobia or trans-rights. She's angry, but too scared to confront the people at who she's truly angry. This is her rebellion with training wheels.
She'll either grow confident in herself and start protesting against her real enemies, or she'll play it safe venting her anger at her allies and continue to work against her own cause.
Jar = an assault.
I recommend a criminal charge to help her remember the difference.
The whole point of glitter is that it is nonthreatening and not harmful. When you throw the jar after the glitter, that kinda negates that point. Dumb people with anger management issues shouldn't become activists.
May you and I party together sometime.
Will you email me?
savage @ the stranger dot com?
Thanks representing all the sane trans folks in this thread -- the vast and overwhelming majority of trans folks -- and drop me a line, please. Want to bounce something off you.
Thanks.
And less of throwing heavy objects at the heads of our allies. Fuck's sake.
People do stupid things when they're in College. People who've had a pretty shitty life and live in a pretty hostile world may do stupider stuff in College.
She doesn't sound like she's equipped to handle the fallout from this. Have some decency and compassion for fuck's sake.
I understand Dan is upset - but he's a big guy and doesn't really need the horde piling on.
https://twitter.com/#!/search/realtime/r…
There is no "DanFan horde piling on." One jerk told her to die in a fire, several have reiterated that Dan is the best kind of "enemy" for her cause to have, a couple have called her an idiot (which may be harsh, but rings true, and not of violence). And, in proof that she's not the only person on the internet with poor reading comprehension, she has plenty of support. One nutsack (who himself got chastised) aside, even those disagreeing with her have done so calmly and non-violently, which is more than can be said for her.
Regarding whether it was appropriate for Dan to share her tweet: She chose her venue. Dan didn't out her, she outed herself, in a medium of her choosing. She wanted the attention, and she got it. While she may be acting like an angry, scared kid, she's an adult who made a series of adult decisions, which have consequences. Let her community (in this case, Twitter) remind her about appropriate behavior. Whether she sees it or not, the response there has been very reasonable. And let's hope that she come out of this with some better perspective on the world at large.
We don't like the word? Tough snookums.
Also, dude, breathe. Don't be that guy who freaks out when someone applies a label to you that you haven't personally adopted yet. It's not always a bad thing.
Are we in any substantive disagreement, here? I don't think that we are. I've been wrong before, and hopefully will again.
Are you...inside my head?
And so I wonder what the point of ridiculing her (see, eg. 4, 5, 6, 10, 12), calling her an idiot etc. is. And frankly (and I have said that before) the dynamics of these comments remind me a lot of bullying. It might be that she's a tough woman who can take it. But there is also a chance that the contempt poured out over her does actual damage to a person that already sounds hurt. People can be profoundly affected by the type of stuff that's written about them online. If there is even a small chance, that those comments do actual damage - say, trigger some type of breakdown - is it really worth it?
Rose has posted at Bilerico, Slog, and on her Twitter that she's upset she didn't get the chance to cause physical harm to Dan. She seems pretty proud of it too. I think she deserves to be called out.
Some of it may be that gays have gotten some employment protection, marriage equality in some states (but not on a federal level), etc, etc. And mostly, the trans community hasn't. Some of them get very upset if a group is pushing for LG or LGB rights with going for the whole alphabet. And on the one hand, Yeah, it's wrong for anyone to be denied their human rights and all of it should have been corrected decades ago. But in actual politics-of-the-possible: the smaller net succeeds before the big net does. And, guess what? Out gays in the workplace, Massachusetts not becoming cats and dogs together in the street, Disney et al extended partner benefits - all of that HELPS trans people. It normalizes and personifies people who push many gender boundaries.
Yea, Natives shouldn't have had to wait decades after women could vote who shouldn't have had to wait for decades after black men could vote who shouldn't have had to wait four score and seven years after the white guys. But the tent couldn't have been opened that wide in 1863, as much as it should have been.
Each newly accepted minority group makes it easier for the next. And each expansion of full franchise as a citizen is coming faster than the last.
Boo!
Making fun of someone for choosing to be a terrible individual != making fun of someone for being gay/trans.
If it's the same thing to you, you're incapable of nuance and should probably ponder things more before you unhinge your jaw.
@everyone who is bothered by the term "cisgendered"- count me in the camp that doesn't get why it is in any way offensive or offputting, or I think one person even said "creepy"??
Maybe that's because I'm a scientist, and the terms cis- and trans- instinctively make sense to me, and I'm grateful for the term cisgendered for bringing some clarity to the discussion. It makes it so much easier to keep track of what you're talking about. It makes it easier for me to remember what the term transwoman or transguy means, since it does sort of set up terms in parallel ( I dont want to say "opposition.")
Anyway, just speaking as a cisgendered woman here; I like the term. Because I do feel a bit squicky about fumbling around "normal" "born" "bio" to search for a term that just means "not trans" because, yeah... some of that sounds derogatory, like "omg thank FSM that I'm not trans," when I dont mean to convey that at all.
"It was a light plastic jar that missed him, not a heavy glass one he dodged." -Rose Pedals
I know the constant bullying seems unending, but these ignorant wastes of space and air will never grow up and become good people. But, it does get better, as you get older they will matter less to your sense of worth, and as they get older they will mature into older and wiser idiots who speak less often. It gets better, while they get more bitter.
You have my sympathy Dan, thanks for all your hard work for the rights of all orientations. Your "It Gets Better" stuff has made a major world change and those attacking you have done nothing more than throw glitter and whine.
It wasn't even a trans that attacked him.!
no; wait- it WAS a trans.
and they were arrested but it sure wasn't Danny's fault.
No, sorry; they were detained.
and waterboarded. but never arrested...
oh-sorry gang- turns out they were taken out back and shot.
but dammit they deserved it.
cause.....
cause they threw an iron anvil at Danny's head!
No wait, it was a heavy jar!
no, hang on fans; it seems it was a light plastic jar....
no...no....this story is still developing-
wait; it was a baggie!
the possibly trans assailant threw an empty sandwich baggie at Danny"s head!
OMG! he could have been killed!!
If you don't like what someone says, then hold your own damn forum to make your points heard. Glitter bombing is akin to spray painting an SUV, throwing ink on a fur coat, vandalizing a gay wedding chapel, or shouting down speakers whom you don't like.
Those who resort to fear, intimidation, and disruption merely prove they are unable to articulate a decent counter-argument.
I had white students at an experimental college (no grades, no tests, Foucault on nearly every syllabus) insist that they could NEVER on principle publicly disagree with a person of color. I even had a white student put it in writing in response to an assignment on black conservatives' memoirs. He wrote an excellent paper and then followed it with a one page apology about how he only wrote it because he had to honor my assignment but that I as the professor needed to know that he had no right writing such a thing as a white male.
I found those white students misguided on the whole, but occassionally loathesome in their cowardice and self-policing. I also think that many of the faculty at this place openly ecnouraged this never-ending deference of the privileged on any given political issue. I seriously got real tired real quick of students coming into my office and saying they wanted to do their research projects on "examining my own privilege as a [blank] person."
You don't respect people if you cannot even allow yourself to engage with them in an honest way--it actually means that you're prioritizing tending to your own guilt over actually connecting with the very people you claim to be in alliance with.
@86 - it's a bit rich to tell me that I don't see nuance and then don't get that
"reminds me of the dynamics of bullying" != bullying
I read comments like 4,5, 26 and they're mean-spirited, they attack the person (rather than what she did), they know that most people here are going to agree with them -- in short, I think what motivates someone to write such a comment is very similar to what motivates bullies: cementing in-group feeling, a bit of sadistic pleasure in putting someone down... no, it's not the same as bullying - but does it do any good?
Of course, maybe she really is bipolar or something, in which case I apologize for getting defensive and wish her the best of luck with her treatment.
Indeed.
If at some point people cannot engage honestly as individuals, with equal rights to agree and disagree, criticize and be criticized; if the existence of a past, or even a present, of oppression makes it impossible for spaces with such honest engagements to even exist; if 'the lessons of the past' are read as simply a lithany of personal guilt; then where will the seeds ever be from which true equality could grow?
There have to be spaces in which arguments stand or fall on their merits, not on the authority (personal, racial, sex-orientational or otherwise) of their authors. There have to be times at which people's opinions are taken seriously, agreed or disagreed with in their own terms, and discussed by people who agree to go on towards better conclusions. Or else, what is the point of even living together in the same society?
"You should have known I was a transwoman." Idiot children.