So my gay ass—already pretty sparkly—got glitterbombed at the University of California at Irvine last Monday. This went up on Bilerico yesterday:
According to my source at the event, Savage was in the middle of answering a question from a student who was wondering if her boyfriend was a freak because he watched porn featuring trans women. Savage suggested that her boyfriend was a freak, while freely using the terms “shemale” and “freaky tranny porn.” That is when two individuals ran up and threw glitter on him yelling “Transphobe!”
So: a “source” says that I stood on a stage at UCI and “freely” tossed the word “shemale” and the phrase “freaky tranny porn” around and called someone who was into trans porn—and presumably attracted to trans people—a “freak,” comments which inspired two “individuals” to run up and toss glitter at me. Now there’s a Change.org petition—I’ve already signed it, won’t you?—scolding me for my use of “trans-phobic language” and demanding that I apologize for being a such naughty cissy.
The folks who’ve signed the petition—most with their hearts in the right place—have been misled.
Here’s what went down: I was doing a “Savage Love Live” Q&A at UCI. People submit questions anonymously, just like they would for a regular column, using whatever language or terminology they’re comfortable with. I read their questions aloud—verbatim—and offer some on-the-fly advice. Here’s the complete transcript of my “transphobic” comments at UCI (the italics indicate when I’m reading the anonymously submitted question):
DAN: [READING FROM CARD] My boyfriend is straight but he enjoys anal sex and he asks me to make love to him in his butt all the time. [ASIDE:] You have no one to blame but yourself. [READING FROM CARD] Also, he likes watching she-male porn. Could you tell me why he is acting like this? [ANSWER:] Um, I’m gunna go out on a limb here and say it’s because he likes shemale porn and he enjoys anal stimulation. He’s acting like this because he’s a very freaky boy. If you’re into him, and you’re willing to go there for him, there are a lot of straight guys who are into transexual sex-workers, transexual porn, she-males for lack of a better term, although some people think that’s very offensive—
It was at that moment—just as I was beginning to address the problem with the term “shemale”—that I was glitterbombed.
I did say “shemale.” I read the question as-written, repeated the term in my response, and then used “transexual” in place of “shemale” (“transexual sex-worker,” “transexual porn”), modeling the use of less offensive terms, before circling back to “shemale” in order to unpack why some find it offensive. I never used the phrase “freaky tranny porn.” 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.)
As for “freaky boy”: that boy is a bit of a freak and anyone who reads my column knows that I’m pro-freak, pro-kink, pro-porn, pro-just-about-everything. I’m a freak myself, as I’ve said numerous times, I married a freak, some of my best friends are freaks. “Freak,” in the context of “Savage Love,” is a freakin’ compliment. More to the point: I didn’t tell the girl who asked the question to dump her boyfriend because he enjoys trans porn; indeed, I urged her to keep dating him if she was into him and willing to go there (anal, allowing him to enjoy his porn). And this is nothing new with me: I’ve long taken the side of people who are trans or attracted to trans folks. Here’s a column I wrote about trans issues in 1999. (Try not to get bogged down on the headline, thought policepersons, as columnists don’t write their own headlines.) And the advice I was giving to trans/trans-attracted people in 1999 isn’t much different from the advice I gave earlier this year. (Is this the kind of advice that a transphobic sex-advice columnist doles out? Is this? Or this?)
Back to what went down at UCI: It’s clear from the transcript—and it’s clear from the way that my remarks are being actively and maliciously misrepresented—that the people pushing this “Dan Savage is transphobic!” meme are not honest actors. False accusations of engaging in hate speech are themselves a form hate speech—particularly in the hothouse environment of LGBT activism. Any honest reader of my column, like any honest person who attended my Q&A at UCI, knows that not only I am not transphobic, I’m pretty rabidly pro-trans.
Or: If I’m the enemy of trans people everywhere, trans people everywhere could use more enemies like me.
UPDATE: Someone who was at the UCI event describes in his own words what went down in a comment at JMG. The commenter misattributes “freaky tranny porn” to me, based on the Bilerico report, but he gets the rest of the details right.
UPDATE 2: This just in from someone who signed that Change.org petition:
I signed this petition at the request of a trusted friend and, after I signed it, I immediately regretted it after I realized the nature of the petition. Please accept my apologies… I should have been more careful with what I was signing. Thank you for your continued efforts and all that you do. You have been a great influence on my life and those around me.
UPDATE 3: Some folks are slamming trans activists and trans people generally in the comments thread here and on some other blogs. Please don’t do that. And for the record: not one of the folks who’ve glittered me—one at Eugene, three at UCI—is actually trans. I know, right? They’ve all been “allies” of the trans community. (Allies of? Or embarrassments to?) That self-righteous, attack-your-allies, too-angry-to-listen bug isn’t unique to Ts; it’s been documented in Ls, Gs, and Bs too. (I myself have succumbed on, oh, one or two occasions.) Also for the record: the day after my talk at UCI, I met and spoke with a trans student—hey there, C—and we had a perfectly delightful, perfectly rational, and mutually enlightening conversation about transphobia, porn, sex, whether “shemale” is ever okay, his coming out process (recent), my coming out process (not so much), and how he needs to stop smoking. (Really, C. Stop smoking.) It was the best conversation I had at UCI, it was a private conversation (it wasn’t filmed), and it was with a trans man.
So, non-trans commenters, please don’t make generalizations about all trans people based on the actions of a few… non-trans people. [Scroll down: apparently one of the GBers is trans.]
UPDATE 4: More damning evidence of my transphobia emerges! 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 briefly 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 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! And I had one of them arrested!
UPDATE 5: Oh, right—the glass jar.
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.
If I hadn’t have ducked, or if I didn’t see it coming (which I might not have, what with glitter in my eyes and all), that glass jar would’ve hit me square in the face. As luck would have it, I did see it coming, and was able to dodge it. So there was that too.
UPDATE 6: The Eugene GBer Tweets that she’s a trans woman and demands a correction:
Rose was the GBer who threw the jar at my head but she wasn’t the GBer who was arrested; that was one of the GBers at UCI.
UPDATE 7: A reader writes…
I just want to add one more voice to the chorus of sane and reasonable trans folks who respect what you’ve done for the T in GLBT. I’m a long-time fan of the column/podcast, and I think that queer folks who think that you’re the enemy need to get some serious perspective (and I tell the ones I know that, though I doubt they listen). I’m always wary of the “X doesn’t speak for ME!” cries, because in most cases no one ever fucking said they did, but it worries me a little to see the reactions in the comments threads and to see people piling on trans folks for the insanity of the glitter bombers—I promise we’re not all douchebags!
And of course there’s still some room for improvement in how you talk about trans issues, but you know that, and it doesn’t detract from all the real and concrete support you give to the community. So, thanks again for all your hard work.
At least glitter isn’t much of a punishment for someone of your fabulousness. Glad you ducked the jar.
Wendell
University of Oregon, Dan! And I’m sorry that that happened. It made me embarrassed for my school when it happened
@152: You forgot- “It’s important to remember that the criticism about Dan Savage’s behavior was not about his words that night but about his ongoing and recent behavior over an extended time period. I will write more regarding this response later today.”
Your source hasn’t gotten “some of the details wrong”, they have ALL THE PERTINENT DETAILS wrong.
But, of course, it doesn’t matter whether this is true or not, or whether he was being positive towards trans-individuals, all that matters is the narrative we’ve got going!
to the commentors: just because someone has done some good work for white, cis, gay people doesn’t mean they get a free pass when they use slurs like tranny and shemale. it means they still have work to do.
we all have to unlearn the hate we are indoctrinated with at young ages, about how certain people are superior than others simply because of the colour of the skin, who they choose to have sex with, and how they lead their lives.
shouldn’t we all be working together to ensure we have the most accepting, celebrated, united queer community possible? as opposed to criticizing those who criticize?! you’re just proving so many queer people’s complaints and concerns about cis gay people not caring about trans/genderqueer folks. it’s sad.
to the commentors: just because someone has done some good work for white, cis, gay people doesn’t mean they get a free pass when they use slurs like tranny and shemale. it means they still have work to do.
we all have to unlearn the hate we are indoctrinated with at young ages, about how certain people are superior than others simply because of the colour of the skin, who they choose to have sex with, and how they lead their lives.
shouldn’t we all be working together to ensure we have the most accepting, celebrated, united queer community possible? as opposed to criticizing those who criticize?! you’re just proving so many queer people’s complaints and concerns about cis gay people not caring about trans/genderqueer folks. it’s sad.
to the commentors: just because someone has done some good work for white, cis, gay people doesn’t mean they get a free pass when they use slurs like tranny and shemale. it means they still have work to do.
we all have to unlearn the hate we are indoctrinated with at young ages, about how certain people are superior than others simply because of the colour of the skin, who they choose to have sex with, and how they lead their lives.
shouldn’t we all be working together to ensure we have the most accepting, celebrated, united queer community possible? as opposed to criticizing those who criticize?! you’re just proving so many queer people’s complaints and concerns about cis gay people not caring about trans/genderqueer folks. it’s sad.
@156: “to the commentors: just because someone has done some good work for white, cis, gay people doesn’t mean they get a free pass when they use slurs like tranny and shemale. it means they still have work to do.”
Try reading the topic next time.
@kamheron: Actually, the issue here is that “freak” has multiple definitions. The N word does not, so it’s not a good comparison. (“Fag” does, but none that are relevant in this country/time period.) Dan’s use of the word “freak” did not refer to trans people, it referred to someone who has non-vanilla sexual tastes. You can argue with that usage if you want, but make sure you’re arguing with the right usage!
@160: Exactly. This is in the context of “getting freaky”, “letting one’s freak flag fly”, etc. It’s synonymous with kink, and not universally ill-mannered.
Sounds like the loons at PETA to me.
@159
ditto
@156
Except Dan only said those words because he was reading the question aloud to the audience. And Dan hasn’t only done good work for white, cis, gay people. In 2008 he encouraged sloggers to donate money to Duanna Johnson’s funeral expenses. Johnson was a black trans woman who was brutally murdered. In 2010 Dan raised money for a young trans student who was kicked out of school in Mississippi as well.
I think Dan should read those questions exactly as written. It makes more of an impact if he reads it, then if there are words that could cause a problem, he gets a chance to educate everyone in the audience as to why it is insensitive, and how it should be phrased. If he just edits the text in his head and reads the PC version, that education doesn’t happen. It is just so ironic that he was in the process of doing just that when he got glitterbombed.
If you want Dan to become a better ally, just fucking talk to him. Don’t glitterbomb him. That is a stupid way to try and get your point across. It makes you look bad and you actually lose people who are trying to be your ally. I’m straight, but I have a lot of friends in the GLBT community, including trans people. Do I now have to live in fear that I might accidentally say something that has just become a bad word? Fuck that. I understand how difficult it is to fight the amount of transphobia that is out there, but you gotta get a little bit of a thick skin too. Don’t fight your friends, if they accidentally say something that hurts you. Fucking TALK to them for Christ’s sake.
I don’t really see the advantage to transsexuals of swapping the word “transsexual” for “shemale” when talking about porn (which is what Dan was doing in this case).
My understanding is that the chaser quality of that porn is part of the reason words like “tranny” and “shemale” are disliked… so I’m not sure how renaming it helps. I’d imagine transsexual porn to encompass a completely different kind of porn, actually.
Kinda like how slut porn is a kind of porn that features females, but if I insisted on calling it female porn people would have the wrong idea of what I’m talking about.
Sorry, apparently I should have used “transpeople”. No offense intended.
@2: It’s a bit of a stretch, but I think we might be able to. Maybe.
Oh Dan, you’re evolving, I get it and appreciate it, but if you’re going to use your past writing as proof that you aren’t transphobic, be honest about all of your track record.
Because you see, this is what a transphobic ignoramus writes. http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Savag…
I feel better about this issue after reading this. It does seem like you were pretty grossly misrepresented. It’s too bad that you got glittered because us trans folk are always on such high alert in this social climate. Thank you for taking the time to really explain all this.
I dropped my change.org account after reading this article. This kind of hyperbole completely misses the point of why we love Dan. The fact he got glitter bombed shows that these people were out to get him for something that he’s known for doing; giving honest no BS answers to questions that need to be answered in a no BS way. This approach has proved itself to be the correct way to talk about sex. No shame and to the point. Don’t dilute yourself with politics, LET YO’ FREAK FLAG FLY!
kamheron is right.
I’m cis-gendered and those words are not mine. It’s not fucking hard to stop using words that hurt people or to learn what pronouns someone wants you to call them by. Comments like anklysaurs, that use semantic arguments to demand ownership of words, usually come from people with the self-entitlement that comes from a place of privilege. Arguments like this ignore the history of systematic oppression behind these words. The point of words is that they have meaning. Words like these make people want to kill themselves. I want to live in a world where all my friends feel respected.
Is it really worthwhile to whine about some words you should remove from your vocabulary? I’d rather spend my time trying to make the spaces I’m in as safe and accessible to everyone as I can,
I dropped my change.org account after reading this article. This kind of hyperbole completely misses the point of why we love Dan. The fact he got glitter bombed shows that these people were out to get him for something that he’s known for doing; giving honest no BS answers to questions that need to be answered in a no BS way. This approach has proved itself to be the correct way to talk about sex. No shame and to the point. Don’t dilute yourself with politics, LET YO’ FREAK FLAG FLY!
Bitten by your own hyperbolic, paranoid political correctness. Good times.
“Comments like anklysaurs, that use semantic arguments to demand ownership of words, usually come from people with the self-entitlement that comes from a place of privilege.”
Actually. No. They come from decades of some pretty rigorous research in linguistics; the discipline he has spent a lifetime in; what the Tea Party would call “elitist” to counter the idea that brutal facts have no meaning to those who don’t care about facts. Anklysaur’s fundamental position, born out by decade of research, is that when you try to banish uncomfortable language, it simply gets replaced by equally effective linguistic ways of inflicting pain. I’ve sure you’ve taken note of how the phrase “family values” has come to be regarded as a dog whistle that makes people gag. That’s what Mr. Ank is pointing out. You have a Dan Savage who is destroying the pain of a sexually related set of identities so people can feel free to talk about their own internal conflicts with them and trans people and their advocates don’t even know it. I’ll be you there are MORE people coming out of the trans closet because of Dan ever was possible before. Dan is, if anything, an accidental advocate and an intentional commentator on ALL the groups represented in LGBTQ. He frees us to have conversations over things that have forever made us all squirm.
Glad to hear your side of things, Dan. This kind of bullshit drove me away from “trans communities” quite a while ago. If living my life without drawing attention to my victimhood and kvetching about other people’s language is privilege, then sign me the fuck up.
Wheee!! What fun. It’s always so amazing watching people have a fit and fall into it over NOTHING! That poster over at Bilrico demonstrates some of the dangers of Internet “news”. It seems like everyone is acting like TMZ and that ilk. Never let the truth get in the way of a story that will ramp everyone up.
You really need bullet points for all the stuff you want to coment on so here goes
1. I hate the phrase “cis” whatever–mostly because it’s stupid. Or rather stoopid.
2. Re-phrasing what other people have written is elitist and condescending
3. I don’t know if we should drop the “T” but think about it–shouldn’t we really drop the “B” part? They’re always getting arrested in bathrooms and kidnapping their children from the other partner and running off to Central America after they’ve found Jesus or resigning in disgrace after they’ve given their Israeli boyfriend a state job. Makes the rest of us look bad.
4. Some of us are just waiting to get our feelings hurt and find grievances everywhere they look.
5. When I asked someone for facts to back up what they were saying I was told to “do my own research” and the stuff they sent me to was so freaking innocuous I thought I had typed it incorrectly.
Dan, When you modify the emotionally neutral term cisgendered, into cissy, I feel a bit disheartened and frustrated since my need for communication and respect for vocabulary wasn’t met. Cisgendered, similar to heterosexual, is intended to detach people from stigma. You have become such an influential person from the LGBT community that what you say can have a strong impact in the relatively public audience. Even if you are reiterating what other people have said, even if you’re trying to break down the PC nature of modern language, acknowledge that for some, it could be their initial exposure into sex-positive stuff. That being said, I’d like to see a disclaimer so that it can ease the negative emotional impact. Please take more responsibility for what you say by recognizing that your statements might offend people. This means, expect criticism, whether in the form of a glitter shower, or a more than two line dialogue.
@2, 7 no dice…
@171: “Comments like anklysaurs, that use semantic arguments to demand ownership of words, usually come from people with the self-entitlement that comes from a place of privilege. Arguments like this ignore the history of systematic oppression behind these words.”
Ideologically correct analysis, but short on facts and historical complexities. If you insist on the history behind the words, you have to address the history of the use of “tranny” within the community as an endearing term.
You also have to address the pesky fact that Dan used “freak” not to describe transpeople, but the “boyfriend” who enjoys a certain kind of porn.
Yes, ideological analysis says that “transexual” carries with it an oppressive structure of meaning, and yes it is such a “1980s” word (or whatever era). The word “homosexual” is also like that, and sometimes it makes me, as a gay man, uncomfortable to hear it. That does not give me, as a gay man, the right to assume homophobia in the speaker of this word, it does not excuse me from addressing the lived complexity of the person using this word. Also, it does not disallow me, or anyone else who wants to signal alliance, to use this word ironically, edgily, or even straight-faced, depending on the occasion of speaking.
I, nor anyone else, do not have to right to be protected from discomfort.
Yes, you’re fighting for your right to speak on your own terms, but by attacking the right of others (especially allies) to speak on their terms, you’re turning people off, because it is basically hypocrisy.
I’m sorry you encountered a glittering here in Eugene. The report made me cringe- especially after reading the diatribe from a local Trans advocate in the issue of the Eugene Weekly. I’ve lived here for over 25 years and Eugenians have made being offended an art form practiced on every stupid issue you can think of on a regular basis.
Like others have pointed out Dan is not the enemy, mainstream society is- stop trying to be like PETA: well meaning but totally ineffectual.
@ 178, I guess some epic shitstorms just aren’t that epic.
Glitter bombing a gay man doesn’t make much sense. Trans-folk need to get their own relevant protest symbol…maybe origami bombing?
No. Saying you disagree with someone, or disapprove of their words or ideas, is not the same as hate speech. This reminds me of right-wing pundits applying the term “hate speech” to the opinions of anyone who happens to disagree with them. Not cool.
Other than that, though, I’m totally with Dan on this.
(That is, I agree that the accusation of “hate speech” is silly and unfair, but disagree that that in itself constitutes hate speech. Let’s get some perspective here.)
I’m extremely shocked that this post didn’t have 300 comments by 6PM, knowing how my community gets all pissy whenever anyone says “boo.”
@84: kamheron, thank you for writing the first comment in this and other thread that gives a critique of Dan but with a tone that keeps communication open.
Yes, I also feel there are ignorances in the dominant gay culture that prevents effective alliance across racial/class/gender lines. Some commenters here sound like some white people being defensive when told they have internalised/unexamined racism that needs to be worked through. (For what it’s worth: speaking from the perspective of a non-white, non-American gay man). It’s especially hard for liberal-minded people who self-identify as non-racist.
BUT, taking the ideological high ground and playing the privilege-spotting game is not going to change anything. Mainly because the ideological game is usually short on facts and complexities. When you wrote “nigger” to demonstrate offence, it was very ironic because you’re writing behind an internet pseudonym and there’s no way for any one to tell if you’re black or not. My first reaction was: this is obviously someone who is “allowed” to use that word.
And who dishes out these licenses? Not you, not the ideologically correct, not even the victims of oppression can dictate the terms. People with creativity and access to social networks do: MCs, Louis CK, South Park, Dan Savage, etc.
In South Africa, it is not the the “privileged” – educated, middle class, politically progressive across colour lines – who reclaim hurtful words. They are uncomfortable and want to ban words in the courts. The people most frequently flinging edgy racial jokes are the working class and unemployed. It’s a very real survival strategy – but you understand that, or you wouldn’t be fighting over words. But it’s ironic that you elevate semantics when done by you or other “downtrodden”, and demean it when done by the perceived “privileged”.
If you can’t get your allies to understand and accept your language, either a) get your own pop star and get it out there, make it hip, or b) the language policing is not gonna fly. Try another strategy.
And these allies – Dan, and commenters on this blog, and yes even privileged white gay men – whatever their/our blindspots – are rooting for personal creativity, empowerment and happiness. Use this positive energy, whatever its flaws.
This was only touched on briefly above, that Dan was deliberately targeted – in a premeditated attack, ‘cuz who goes to an event with glitter unless it’s with the intent to use it (okay … wallet, comb, tissue pack, keys, glitter … yeah, I’m ready) – because he’s perceived to be a successful gay leader.
What most likely provoked the attackers (or whoever hired them, if they were indeed plants) is that Dan makes money from public speaking. THAT is what makes them see red.
Was your spelling of “cissy” a pun on cis-trans chemical structures? Because if so…. <33333333333333
I understand why folks would get upset over the term “shemale” even if they misinterpreted what Dan was trying to say. People, don’t judge — it doesn’t make you any tougher to not care about hateful language than it makes those who do get offended by such language weaker. Prejudiced language and humor can have an insidious effect, and make people less sensitive to the group being targeted. Not to mention it is extremely hurtful to be the target of such epithets. By calling someone a “shemale” you are invalidating her worth by turning her into a joke and set of stereotypes. The same is true about calling someone a “n****r”, whore, poof, what have you.
That said, agree with @187 it seems premeditated.
@141: how about more Buck Angel with Dan?
@148, who wrote:
Yep. That about sums it up.
It’s so sad to think these people (who, as Dan says, were probably mostly, if not all, non-trans) don’t realize they’re doing a disservice to their own cause by making it appear petty and unjustified.
@153(JayJonson), who wrote:
Actually, I quite think it would help, and for the same reason: so that people would be ‘desensitized’ to the word itself and would realize that the intentions of people who use it are the real problem, not the word. Garconniere above might benefit from that. Being lexophobic isn’t going to help any sexual minorities solve their problems.
@155 (undead ayn rand), who wrote:
Pre-CISE-ly.
Lexophobic activists don’t get this, to the detriment of their causes: they end up looking petty and trivial, when in fact they are not. It’s so sad.
Mr Ank – Aargh, now I shall never sleep tonight. You would have to invoke one of the five most Overused Pieces of Music in all of figure skating, and the one that typically tends to attract overmarked skaters.
That upsets me even more than your invoking that television programme that I am sure I’d call entirely overrated if I ever could force myself to watch it.
On the positive side, maybe the group is making Mr Crisp smile. Perhaps I’ll be greeting him soon.
Now I must at least attempt to sleep. If I could only listen to the Rose of Pain a few times, that would help, but alas I cannot.
@garconniere, who said:
And how does being lexophobic (‘afraid of words’) help us get there?
Criticism is not bad, because people can be wrong. The glitterbombers criticized Dan, which in principle is not bad (he’s been wrong some times). It’s what they criticized him for that was totally wrong.
Don’t be afraid of criticism, garconniere, because real criticism is the only thing that keeps you away from doing wrong things for the right purposes. Your heart is in the right place; the actions of those glitterbombers, however, aren’t.
All they did was make the (actually just) cause of transgender visibility and acceptability look a little petty. By not recognizing Dan as one who is on their side, they gave proof of poor understanding of their own situation in the big picture (society as a whole).
@165(wingedcat), who wrote: My understanding is that the chaser quality of that porn is part of the reason words like “tranny” and “shemale” are disliked… so I’m not sure how renaming it helps. I’d imagine transsexual porn to encompass a completely different kind of porn, actually.
Yep. Quite a good example of why lexophobia (‘fear of words’) doesn’t get you very far.
Changing words without changing realities isn’t going to change anything. If words change at all, they should change in response to a changing reality. They’re not the motor; they’re the cans tied to the back of the car.
This could be seen as a similar phenomenon to the Occupy forum being disrupted ie some people would rather attack those who are closest to them on any given issue.
Some people believe this is a function of collective process and consensus decision-making, whereas I’d say that it’s a psychological/personality issue – if only because there are equivalents in other political circles (Republicans whose main beef is with other Republicans who aren’t Republican enough, for example).
@171 (Momo_is_tired), who wrote:
Yes, they are. You know them; they’re part of your language, like “table” or “chair”. You may choose not to use them (as you might choose not to use “table” or “chair” either), but that doesn’t make them any less yours. Or mine, or everybody else’s.
Yes, it is, because the list keeps changing. Besides, attempting to change the words as if that were tantamount to changing the realities is simply not going to work. New offensive words will replace the ones you eliminate unless you change hearts and minds.
Hearts and minds, not words. Is that really so hard to understand?
By concentrating on words rather than on intentions and on people, you sound like the grammar-and-style police. Or like someone who would say that, since you used the word “fucking” in your comment, then you are a penis-worshipping patriarchal goon (who by the way doesn’t understand how “hurtful” the word “fucking” can be). Which of course would miss the point of your comment.
One thing I’m sure trans people didn’t like is when they were “diagnosed” by bigots who claimed trans people were “dysfunctional” and should learn to accept the bodies they were born with. Didn’t this cause suffering?
And yet here you are, diagnosing me, without the slightest idea about what my life was like. You use terms that do not fit it at all, and you think you’ve made some point. How are you different from transphobic bigots when you do that?
Is that what you call “change”? Let’s hope not.
And arguments (actually claims) like yours simply misinterpret this history of systematic oppression — which is behind (good choice of words: behind) the words, not in them.
You think the whip is guiltier than the whip-master. And you claim to understand their history of oppression?
Other people make people want to kill themselves. They can use words to that purpose, yes. But words — the very same words — can also be used to heal. To think that it’s the words that cause this rather than people and how they use said words is like saying that the tool does the work, not the worker. That the computer writes your comments, not you.
Do you really think that if bigots simply change their words (and develop new offensive ones), life will get better for trans people?
So do I. Are you sure that what you’re doing is helping this come true — or are you perhaps wasting your time when you worry about words outside of context and intentions?
Yes, because it counters the idea that by eliminating these words you’ve achieved something. In fact you’ve achieved nothing, and the situation of trans people remains as before.
It’s all about doing work that really matters as opposed to purely semantic work that doesn’t change anything real.
I do that, too. And I’m trying to tell you that there are better ways of doing that than worrying about word usage out of context.
It’s true. There are more meaningful things you can do — more inclusive, more bridge-building, than (like the old grammar-and-style police) criticize people for word use, thereby creating totally artificial ‘enemies’ that really aren’t your enemy.
@177(Recognize), I think you’re a good example of what kemheron, garconniere, and Momo above failed to do. You still argue that it’s the word choice rather than the intention that counts (which I would disagree with) — but you correctly point out that Dan must make his intentions clear when he uses words, and that “cissy” — suggesting “sissy” — can be misinterpreted and thus must be better explained.
I will agree 100% that people must make their intentions as clear as possible. Dan usually does that rather well — as many have pointed out, there are lots of queerfolk (including trans people) who can thank Dan for making their lives more livable and more open, for making them grow beyond the shame that others wanted to immerse them in.
@ravished, who wrote:
Indeed. Even though I do disagree with your “ideological analysis” (bascially for the same reasons you mentioned: the mere “word” = “bad” equation does not describe reality in a meaningful way), I agree entirely with what you say here.
People do not need to be protected from discomfort. Heterosexuals don’t need to be protected from the history of bigotry that mostly heterosexual societies had, for instance.
People need to be accepted as people, respected as people, understood as people. The “discomfort” thing comes from a different worldview.
@ravished, who wrote:
Indeed.
Actually what gets me with his rebuttal is how he responds to the term “freak”. Sure, some people are proud to be known as “freaks” like maybe people in the BDSM community, poly, kinky, etc.
However, a lot of us in the trans community do not wish to be labelled as “freaks”. If fact, a lot of us work very hard NOT to be considered freaks and we’d much rather just be known as “regular” everyday people that aren’t associated with a kink or fetish. We’re just born this way, we’re just people like anyone else and in fact wish to conform to the binary gender system like the majority.
By calling us freaks, Mr.Savage is assuming that we embrace and want to be a part of being a “freak”. Maybe he thinks being a “freak” as a compliment, but I think he’s just saying that to dig himself out of a hole. Personally, I find it pretty offensive in general to automatically be associated as a “freak” just for how I was born into this world.
@186(ravished), one question. What exactly is your view on the importance of semantics — do you think that a ‘history of oppression’ behind a word implies this word is ‘bad’ (even though you accept others using it)? My point is that since there are other uses than the ‘bad’ one, it’s bad uses (intentions, contexts) one should fight against, not words. From what I see in your comments, your opinion differs somewhat from that. I’d be thankful if you could discuss it in more detail.