This is a waste of bandwidth.

The fact that you think you can clearly identify trans people further erases those who have to pass as cis to survive. I hope you rethink demonizing activists who were actually intimately affected by your words. Know that there were tears shed by this entire ordeal (but moreso at the comments of your fans on blogs than what you actually did). I appreciate your 3rd update.

@98, I have no interlized transphobia. Perhaps it's you who has interlized lexophobia?

Consider that carefully: maybe you're the one who is afraid of words, because you think they're "baad" even in a vacuum? That is what I'd call "lexophobic".

@106 then you're not an ally to the trans community, at the very least. Because if a trans person (and I'm sure most would agree with me) is hurt by a word or an expression, and you think it's ok for someone (including yourself) to use it, not only is it inconsiderate, but it's blatantly ignorant (or even willful).

@105, the fact you think you can identify transphobic people just by looking at words further erases your friends and supporters -- those you don't know you have. I hope you rethink demonizing words as a means of achieving social change -- it didn't work in Soviet Russia, it isn't going to work here.

Know that tears are shed also when hate is used against mere words.

Your heart is in the right place. Your mouth isn't. That's all. And this is not likely to change. Thanks for your input, and have a nice day.

@107, if one of my trans friends were hurt by a word, I'd worry about this person and his/her feelings, not about the word. I'd also worry about the intention of those who tried to hurt him/her, again not about the word.

If you insist in fighting against words, you'll never save people. As simple as that.

@107, some people (in my country even) are offended by the word "American". Does this make you an inconsiderate, or blatantly ignorant (or even willful) every time you use it?

Words are empty puffs of airs; what they're used for is what is important. Your problem is not words. It's people and what they think and do. Concentrate on the real enemy, not on some paper tiger made of imagination and wishful thinking.

Toasting in a reactionary bread.

@110, I wished kamheron above would pay attention to transgendered people like you. To him, you're invisible, because he's so sure of his holy doctrine he can't really see you!...

Ah. Guess we won't get to 300 posts after all; it seems like this one has mostly run out of gas.

Unless ankylosaur posts another 200 comments, of course, which is always a possibility.

I believe Dan because whenever I've read claims that he's prejudiced against any group backed up by link, quote or other evidence, I've always found it to be either a misinterpretation, a matter of context (e.g. dan being sarcastic, a qualifying statement left out) or a matter of the critics personal opinion (that isn't generally agreed upon even by the group in question).

@114, if you help me we could do it. :-) After all, this would be good fro transgender visibility, right?

Edit: Oh, or a statement he retracted once he knew better.

@84 Can't give you that one. Freak gets tossed my way all the time, as a disabled individual. I've used the word myself -- and never in a context of transgenderism. Sometimes it's not all about you.

What's a little odd is that you used the better term transsexual twice and followed it with "she-male for lack of a better term."

@110, The one thing to hope for is that, despite the glitterbombing and the lack of understanding of some transgender activists, Dan will continue his advice-column-turned-activism-sorta in favor of sexual minorities.

Does a man-made vagina look like a can of spam dropped from a great height?

not one of the folks who've glittered me—one at Eugene, three at UCI—is actually trans.

The typical PC police. e_e

@79,

Sadly I must state that I am disinclined to accept your request...

"all 76 people above should kill themselves for being fucking morons and posting in these comments"

I'm hopeful that this was your attempt at 'humor'? I'm inclined to think that degrees in biology and chemistry, in addition to post graduate work, is indeed an indication of my being an excellent example of a "moron". Thank you. :-) As for the "posting in these comments", you have also committed this 'sin'. Anyway, I hope your day improves.

Kind regards,
k

Long time fan and have probably read everything Dan's ever written from his early days as a columnist when the column was called "Hey Faggot" to his published books to his blogs.

1. I agree that the glitter bomb was a premeditated act. Those bombers were lying in wait for anything Dan might say regarding the trans community to glitter bomb is ass, and like a poster above, the very question itself may have been planted as an excuse to glitter bomb Mr. Savage. Just say'n.

2. I don't get why some in the trans community would get their silk panties/cotton BVD's all twisted in a bunch for the use of of tranny. One of the best gay clubs in San Francisco (arguably the most PC place on the planet) is Trannyshack. From the website:

"Trannyshack, San Francisco’s infamous drag performance night club, shocked and delighted packed audiences every Tuesday night at midnight for over twelve years. Defying all expectations, Trannyshack incorporated everything from low brow trash to high brow performance art, and became famous (or, infamous) worldwide as the quintessential San Francisco experience. No visit to the City was complete without a stop at Trannyshack.

The club has been featured in Out (which named it one of the top 10 reasons to move to San Francisco), Genre, Instinct, and Paper magazines and won numerous Best of the Bay awards, and was filmed for an independent feature length documentary , titled “Filthy Gorgeous: The Trannyshack Story” . Trannyshack is now branching out its empire, with shows in LA, London, Waikiki, Seattle, Portland, New Orleans, and Reno enjoying great success."

I've been to it in both SF and LA and each time the place has been packed with everyone from audience and performers alike having a great time. In LA where i live the longest running gay event is a themed party called "Dragstrip 66", where the term "Tranny" is often integrated cleverly in its themed nights. Maybe all these trans gendered folks don't go clubbing much but they should try it, these events are the bomb (grin).

3. I've noticed for some reason that Dan has become something of a lightning rod topic on some gay sites. Recently on both Towleroad and Queerty - Dan's glitter bombing episodes have been met with some much vitriol that its surprising (on Queerty last week there was over 300 comments re: Dan's glitter bombing). Dan is out there fighting the good fight with humor and aplomb, using words like fag, freak, faggot etc, but still articulating excellent arguments for GLBT rights.

So dissenters, unless you've got some connections that's going to get you on CNN, Bill Maher, MSNBC or any other national media outlet and once on, you can speak eloquently about GLBT issues and often against anti gay bigots who have "god" on their side, why don't you haters just STFU and go after those who really hate us all.

Dan's a hero in my book. Dan please keep up the good work!!!!!!

@ 114, we still have six hours. But yeah, that was an impressive outburst by the anonymous troll, wasn't it?

Voldemort!

I love your work and admire you so much. Clearly, the glitter bomber was prepared to glitter bomb you and just couldn't wait to find an opportunity to do so. That was dumb. No one is a greater champion of people who are self-identified as, or perceived to be, anything other than vanilla heterosexuals.

Lots of fucking cowards on this thread. Otherwise, they wouldn't post their drivel anonymously. I've heard that the glitter-bombers weren't even trans. As a member of the trans community, I'd just like to say that glitter-bombing Dan Savage is not being a good ally.

@76: People who want to change society so often get trapped in the wrong wars. Changing words instead of hearts and minds -- that's one of Satan's most efficient traps to get people to do bad things even when they have good, nay the best, intentions.

Well put and too true.

This whole discussion is giving me horrible flashbacks to teaching college classes in African American studies as a group of students were attempting to ban the n word from the campus. Sometimes I think I have PTSD from the sheer exhaustion and frustration of all those pointless harangues against one's allies.

My personal favorite was when a white student told me that I needed to remove the Civil Rights Movement from my course on the 1960s because "We can't discuss the Civil Rights Movement unless there's a black person in the room." A PC monitor--yeah, I'm sure said black students relish that unpaid work.

Fucking Sigh.

Dan,
I appreciate your 'clarification' to the incident but what I fail to understand and is why you are not actively engaging trans community activists in a dialogue or attempting to bring in Trans folks to guest comment on your column or go to other lengths to show that you are actively working to 'get better on Trans issues'. As Joe Ippolito pointed out on your last post there are two amazing Trans conferences you could attend, one right in Seattle - Gender Odyssee one in Philly - Philly Trans Health Conference. Even your use of Transsexual rather than Trans woman or Trans porn shows that your language is stuck in the 1980's. Trans people in general stopped using "Transsexual" as an umbrella term in the mid-90's, that's now nearly 15 years ago. I'm not going to nitpick, I appreciate your call to cool down your rabid fans from baselessly slinging slurs at Trans people and or mischaracterizing our reactions as 'rapid' or needing 'prozac' which only further reenforce demeaning cultural stereotypes. As a kinky fag you should know best. What people say matters. I have on no less than 20 occasions listened or heard you attack right-wingers for their language and 'not getting it right'. I get it, you used 'word for word' from cards. At similar events I generally rephrase for the audience. As a public figure you have an obligation to model for your audience. I have a hard time imagining you reading word for word the N word to describe people of color, the C or B word to describe women, W-B word to describe Mexicans, and so on if they were 'word for word' on a card. I think it is reasonable that Trans people are asking you for a public apology and at least SHOW that you are making positive steps towards being more educated about Trans issues as the US public generally accept you as an "Authority" on all things kink, queer, and trans. Can you not follow the examples of people who have said other slurs (even if they claim they were taken out of context?): Isaiah Washington. Brett Ratner. etc..etc..

@135, I've had a couple of similar experiences (though nothing as bad as your n-word-banning war). You have my sympathy.

So many people are so animistic they think "wrongness" is in symbols or objects -- the whip is bad, not the whip-holder;

My impression is that there simply always are too many people who want to tell others they know better. "I know what you think; evidence: this symbol here, which of course can mean only one thing..." Or even, "my language use is better than your language use."

Don't the modern-day snobs love to be superior, even when they are not? And they know better than that. I'm sure they know Rick Santorum wouldn't become a friend or ally simply by changing all his vocabulary use to suit their preferences. Ricky would still be comparing them to animals -- but in PC terms. What a big step forward, eh?

@136, I disagree with some of what you say; among other things, that a certain group of people gets to decide what the language use of others should be; that's not how language works. What people say does matter, but what matters is what they say, not the specific words they chose. Context.

But I certainly agree that it would be a good idea if trans activists (especially if they're trans people themselves) were invited to co-host the podcast or to guest-blog on slog. In fact, now that you pointed this out, I myself wonder why Dan never did that.

Dan, how about it? Sounds like a good idea to me.

@138 Dan had Buck Angel answer questions on the Lovecast: http://www.thestranger.com/SavageLovePod… and the column: http://www.avclub.com/articles/june-8-20…

What i'd like to hear is,

"I'm always working to better my understanding of the complex human relations that i claim to be an expert, in addition to further refining how i express myself so nobody can be confused or hurt by my statements."

Not, "I was misquoted"

I've read enough "Savage Love" to know that your heart is in the right place and you're right 98% of the time. That doesn't mean you don't occasionally say dumb shit. If you're not learning from this episode, it's probably going to happen again.

@142, he -was- misquoted. You shouldn't have to apologize for something you didn't actually do.

The attention whores, errrr, glitterbombers obviously planted the question so they could make a spectacle. You don't go to a Dan taping with glitter and a plan to get removed and then leave it to chance if trans issues will be discussed. They probably think they are actually doing something constructive.

For the person on Bilerico that says Dan should have, "changed the word," well, they obviously don't understand how quotations work. In his answer, Dan did change the word. The only time he did use the word shemale was to preface a discussion on why the word was offensive. Seems like he was fighting the good fight, as usual.

Some people don't understand the difference between being active and being constructive. I mean, these people live in Orange County, and they find Dan offensive? They can't really find greater enemies to trangender rights in Orange Fucking County?

Oops, I meant tranny. Not shemale.

@142: Poor, insincere critics don't lead to revelations.

If someone's going to make legitimate points, that's one thing. "friends of the family" who malign based on outright lies aren't interested in him learning, either. They just want to humiliate and gain attention/praise for their works.

It's pathetic and these people deserve nothing for their efforts.

You should probably read the article again without skimming.

Wasting a perfectly good glitterbomb on Dan-fucking-Savage is wrong and misguided. Does any really think he's transphobic? He probably has a transgendered nanny for his kid. Somebody brought glitter to the hall and just waited for an off-color remark. Diminishes the purpose and intent.

@142
"...so nobody can be confused or hurt by my statements"

Fuck that. It's never gonna happen unless you are silent.

@148: "REG: Right. You're in. Listen. The only people we hate more than the
Romans are the fucking Judean People's Front.
P.F.J.: Yeah...
JUDITH: Splitters.
P.F.J.: Splitters...
FRANCIS: And the Judean Popular People's Front.
P.F.J.: Yeah. Oh, yeah. Splitters. Splitters...
LORETTA: And the People's Front of Judea.
P.F.J.: Yeah. Splitters. Splitters...
REG: What?
LORETTA: The People's Front of Judea. Splitters.
REG: We're the People's Front of Judea!
LORETTA: Oh. I thought we were the Popular Front.
REG: People's Front! C-huh.
FRANCIS: Whatever happened to the Popular Front, Reg?
REG: He's over there.
P.F.J.: Splitter!"

Man, I almost wish Responsible Doc would show up.

And Tobi Hill-Meyer at Bilerico is soooooo sorry. Really, Dan.

Here's the humble apology:

"Further Update: Dan Savage has posted a response and a copy of the transcript from the event. I would like to apologize because, as if often the case with eye witnesses, my source appears to have gotten some of the details wrong."

No. Tobi Hill-Meyer got it wrong. Didn't ask Dan's camp what happened. Just, you know, wrote the story based on "my source" and vetted it with the mob. Hmmm. Sounds unprofessional and broke all 3 of the rules of journalism, which are:

1. Get the facts.
2. Get the facts.
3. Get the facts.

This kind of reaction comes with the territory of gaining fame and being successful as an "accidental gay leader." I would not be surprised if the glitter-bombers were not conservative plants. In any case, anyone who has read your column knows that you are not transphobic. I am sympathetic to people who are sensitive to language, but context is everything. Your original column, "Hey F-----," was in its time striking and helped to destigmatize the epithet; it would not be appropriate now. Similarly, our sensitivities toward other words have also evolved, so it isn't fair to take things out of context.

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.

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.

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!

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.

@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?

False accusations of engaging in hate speech are themselves a form hate speech

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:

. Somebody brought glitter to the hall and just waited for an off-color remark. Diminishes the purpose and intent.

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:

I am sympathetic to people who are sensitive to language, but context is everything. Your original column, "Hey F-----," was in its time striking and helped to destigmatize the epithet; it would not be appropriate now.

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:

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!

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:

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.

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:

I'm cis-gendered and those words are not mine.

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.

It's not fucking hard to stop using words that hurt people or to learn what pronouns someone wants you to call them by.

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.

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.

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.

Arguments like this ignore the history of systematic oppression behind these words.

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?

Words like these make people want to kill themselves.

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?

I want to live in a world where all my friends feel respected.

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?

Is it really worthwhile to whine about some words you should remove from your vocabulary?

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'd rather spend my time trying to make the spaces I'm in as safe and accessible to everyone as I can,

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:

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.

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:

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.

Indeed.

@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.