Dec 18, 2012
commented on Savage Love Episode 321
Responsibly packed trousers:
So, if I understand you correctly, you're equating the choice to be a gun owner with your sexual orientation and pedophiles in that it's the "good version" of the problematic sorts: child molesters and murderers.
Pedophiles are people who did not choose to be such, but have urges and sexual drives that tend them towards horrible actions (child molestation). Resisting those urges to avoid being evil is more difficult for them than it is for others, and *that* is praiseworthy: accomplishing that which is difficult, in the name of morality. The only choice made here is a difficult one, and a moral one.
You, by comparison, made two choices here: the choice to be a gun owner and the choice to not murder people. While you have the right to make those choices, you don't have the right to make them free from the social judgment of others; while the Second Amendment protects your rights, the First Amendment protects Dan's (and others') free speech to criticize you if he so chooses. Choosing to be a gun owner is at best controversial, as there is little real need for anyone to possess a tool useful for only one thing: destruction and death.
You don't get a cookie for not being a murderer. I don't think anyone should be praised for that absolute minimum level of humanity.
If you have urges, comparable between your gun-owner status and pedophelia, that compel you towards horrible actions, I would hope that you seek some of the readily-available mental health treatment options available to you.
Jan 23, 2012
commented on SL Letter of the Day: Girlfriend, Interrupted
I like that the fact of her trans identity was in no way relevant. No, really. It's just a thing that is. Doesn't matter much here beyond it being background information on the relationship.
That said, I think the LW should dump her ass. If he wants a different kind of relationship than she does, trying to stick it out will only end up hurting him in the long run. I feel for the guy, but we're not always a good match for the people our hearts and hormones tell us to want.
Jun 23, 2011
commented on The Tranny Chaser Chaser
If a gay boy (or straight chick) hit on me 'cause of what's in my pants, despite the fact that I'm a woman, he'd be in for some disappointment and possibly some anger. It's insulting, y'know, to be implicitly called a guy like that. I get hit on by lesbians and straight guys plenty, I don't need attention that's intrinsically tied to someone inaccurately perceiving masculinity in me.
Now if an bisexual whoever, or a gay boy (or straight chick) who said "I know you're not a guy, but I'd like to experiment and I feel more comfortable with you 'cause I know how dicks work..." tried, that might be a different story.
Nov 14, 2010
joined My Stranger Face
Nov 14, 2010
joined My Stranger Face
Nov 14, 2010
commented on Michelangelo Signorile on "Tranny"
I adore Dan about 90% of the time, and I think I'm a better person - and the advice I give my friends is a hell of a lot better - for reading and listening to him all these years.
But he's flat out wrong on this thing. And so are the folks complaining about "cisgendered." Every group, every demographic classification of person that academic and abstract conversation might want to refer to someone, needs to have a (relatively) value-neutral word used to describe that population. Likewise, there needs to be a word to refer to people who are not in that population. 'Cisgender' is a pretty value-neutral term, originating within the past twenty years, whose most offensive component is the fact that it's based on a cute little chemistry pun. (Google 'stereoisomer' for more on its origins. Even Wikipedia covers what a cis- isomer vice trans- isomer well.)
If you don't like the word, you're welcome to suggest something else for the clearly-needed linguistic space of "individual or collection of individuals who are not trans identified" and submit that to the collective brain trust that are academic/literary/informally-minded folks discussing these issues. If your word is better, and it catches on, then way to go you for your contribution to contemporary lexicon! If not, intent and origin surely matter, and only one of these two "offensive" words is used in the commitment of hate crimes, bullying, and other forms of dehumanizing conduct. The other is an arguably-cute pun.
As far as Dan's assertion that there's nothing wrong with the term "tranny," he's right and he's wrong. There isn't anything wrong with it. I hear trans guys call themselves that all the time. I hear gay dudes calling themselves 'faggot' all the time. I hear black folks call each other the n-word all the time... and it's all the same thing. It's not the term that's inherently offensive, it's the history and the intent behind the word that's almost always offensive. A simplification: Black folks pretty clearly said as a group a long time ago that other folks weren't supposed to use that word, because it's offensive... so we stopped. Aside from people who mark themselves as more or less racist by the use of that word, society took notice and acknowledged as a matter of respect this linguistic shift towards less mean-spirited language. Gay men and lesbians collectively decided that 'faggot' and 'dyke' aren't really words that they wanted to hear used against them anymore, and after a lot of work, eventually the same linguistic shift was granted. All that trans folks are asking for is the same thing that was allowed to black folks and gay/lesbian folks: stop using a word that's insulting. Posing to trans folks any argument that culminates in "but I really want to call you tranny!" will sound to those ears as I imagine a Black person would hear any similar argument for a non-Black person to call them by the n-word.
Which isn't to say that you're inherently wrong to use the term. Just be aware that you will not get the kind of endearing response that you might be hoping for. Slurs, of course, do not say anything about the people who are being described in such crude terms. They say worlds about the people who use them after being asked not to.
There are no individual spokes-trans-people. There don't need to be. I'm sure not one of them. Instead of listening to one or two members of a group, if you're really curious about the collective response of trans people is, go read some trans blogs. Pam's House Blend and Bilerico are good LGBT-including-the-T blogs to start with. See what other trans people are saying and what other trans people are feeling. If one opinion doesn't matter, see what language the rest of the trans blogosphere is using.