@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.

@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.

@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.

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?

@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).

@ 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?

@ 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.

@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.

amazonvera, go back to your kitchen and stfu.

@ 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.

@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.

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!

@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.

@ 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.

@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?

@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!

@103(amazonvera), "doesn't that concern" = "isn't it relevant to", "shouldn't it be taken into account by".

@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.

@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…

@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?

@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.

@ 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.

@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?

@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.

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.

@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?

@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.

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!

@128 " ... it's good to know that my opinions don't matter "

If there was any doubt that you're actively misinterpreting ...

@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.

@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.

@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.

@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!

@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.

@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.

@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?

Why can't we be just women and men?

@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.

@139: Log out and join the anonymous leotarded-ones.

@ 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.

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 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".

@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.

there are now more comments on this thread than there are trans people in seattle.

@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.

@139, because reality just isn't that simple! :-)

@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.

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.

@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.

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.

@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.

"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.

@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.

@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.

Still at it, amazonvera? I don't suppose you like anyone else to get in the last word, do you?

@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.

@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.

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.

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?

@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.

@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.

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.

@ 163, the term you're looking for is "meta."

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!

@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.

@168, exactly! :-)

@168 - As an illiterate, I'll thank you not to reference--or use--the written word.

@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.

@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?

@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.

@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).

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.

@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.

@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?

@amazonvera, maybe I found a suitable topic for us to go on talking. You wrote:

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.

@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.

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.

@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.

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.

@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.

@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.

@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. :-)

@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.

@187 That is why I never watch soap operas- it always seemed ridiculously stupid.

@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.

hahahahahahaha.
this was my entertainment while i ate a bowl of soup.
hahahahah! yes.

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".

Hey, Telsa!

(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.)

Dan: it really wasn't a party without her, to be sure.

@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.

@195: Hilarious. You got me. Simplified, if memory serves, to the point of distilling War & Peace to a 12-page New Yorker essay.

@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?"

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.

@200: Using your actual name for all social transactions is a specific privilege afforded to some people, but not all.

Just be glad Sieur Louis de Conte and Eric Blair aren't still alive, or they might lecture you on the importance of a pen name.

@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."

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.