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!
@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.
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.
@ 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.