Blogs Jun 6, 2012 at 11:35 am

Comments

1
Jesus, I can't think of a more vocal minority of a minority than those who police Dan on gender.
2
Thanks for this, Dan.
3
@Banna (#1): yeah, I know right? It's so damn annoying when those minorities think they deserve not to be erased out of all discourse and ignored and then they expect to be treated with, like respect, and stuff. I mean, really, who do they think they are?
4
But you didn't say all men have dicks, so your point is still valid
5
Just for the reference of logic - you know, the study of reasoning - "A(x), so B(x)" is "A(x) implies B(x)", and is not "not A(x) implies not B(x)". "A()" as "bringing the dick" doesn't even specify *how* the dick was brought (in a bag, in the imagination, etc.). I do support trans folk, and quite sympathize, but this is not the battle to pick, except for attention (and please find it further afield).
6
And yes, I know the difference and honor "presents as", "identifies as", etc.
7
@4, @5 While Dan didn't imply that all men have dicks, he did imply that everyone who has a dick is a man, and that implication erases trans folks from the equation just as much as it would have if he had said that all men have dicks.
8
@7 "As for concerns about seeming less than manly: You're bringin' the dick, NEWB, so you're the man."

While I agree that "bringin' the dick" can and probably usually is, construed in ways that can be othering, it is not directly exclusionary and speaks to it's intended target well.

It is well and good that Dan addressed this, and it is good to remind ourselves about the broad spectrum of people and experience, but respectfully to #3's point I think it is unreasonable, unwieldy and ultimately self-defeating to try to cover everything with every statement.
9
@Atumor... I'm *really* working on preventing my eyes to roll. The point behind @1 is not whether Dan was right or not. He realized he wasn't clear, so he clarified things. But there's a BIG difference between an off-the-cuff metaphor and "erased out of all discourse." That's the sort of histrionics that @1 was referring to.
10
Simultaneously, such policing of discourse is not likely to well-engender (hah) the trans community to society at large. It's the same fucking reason I don't always correct people on grammar, spelling, and punctuation: I don't want to be a dick.

Except when I want to be a dick.
11
"pussing out" = lacking courage
Is that a slur?
12
Too late, this has already been added to the book of incidents that prove that Dan Savage is a misogynist, trans-hating sexphobic.
13
BTW where's that "Dan do you support marriage equality for polyamorous folks say yes or you're a bigot" person gone to
14
I want to be a friend and ally to the trans community. I really do. I want people to be free to dress and behave in whatever way makes them happy and gives them peace of mind, without facing violence or discrimination.

But I categorically reject the assertion that anyone is "erased" from discourse simply because they haven't succeeded in convincing the rest of us that our understanding of gender identity is inferior and should be replaced by theirs, or guilting us into pretending we agree even though we don't really. I don't care if someone with a cock "identifies" as a man, a woman, or a fucking harp seal -- I do not recognize their authority to dictate my conscience or my vocabulary.
15
As I've always understood about boy culture, just having a dick doesn't make you a man, either. By all accounts, it's something you earn.
16
I'm with 14. It seems like the person writing in to chastise Savage would have had to jump though several mental hoops to arrive read an implication of transphobia in his words. The mass mass mass majority of penis-havers are indeed "male-identified" men. So in common parlance, yeah, guys have dicks and women don't. There are exceptions, sure, and beautiful ones. But if the word "exception" means anything, then "non-male-identifying persons with penises" is an exception.
17
”Differently dicked” is my new phrase of the day.
18
@9 is sayin' it best.
19
BTW...

No one jumped down my throat. I read the column in edit last night, before it went to the printer (old school!), and this sentence struck me—transphobic me!—as problematic.
20
Dear Dan:
You're getting a tad gun-shy there.
(Oh my god, have I offended the differently horsed?)
21
Thanks, Dan. Whether or not there was a need or demand to say this, it's still a kind and inclusive gesture.
22
I'm all for inclusive, but I think things get ridiculous when someone has to apologize for saying that men have dicks.

The vast, vast majority of humans with dicks are men. The vast, vast majority of humans without dicks are women. Of course there are exceptions. But if we are going to have to continually qualify everything we say, pepper ever casual comment with caveats, and offer explanations for every comment we utter even if the meaning of those comments is pretty self evident, we are going to effectively destroy our ability to communicate with any ease or fluidity.

Sometimes seeing people trying to write in ways to assure they don't offend anyone is torturous. I'm all for making reasonable effort to not be intentionally offensive, but there are always going to be people who actively try to find something to be offended about in every word said or written.
23
@14: Anyone who publicly exclaims that they're "sick of trying to appease" blacks, gays, trans activists, fuck off. All of you I've met in person never did a damn bit of effort trying to understand anyone before ranting about "political correctness" and "thought police". You're whiny titty-babies who can't take any level of criticism before retreating to your proud bigotry.
24
Dan writes a sex column that deals with the nitty-gritty details of gender and sexuality (including the subgroup of the differently-dicked) so it is totally appropriate for him to do a quick inclusiveness check when he feels he left out a group.

These minorities of minorities also tend to be the more interesting letters Dan receives. Maybe I've been reading too long but plain old hetero, gay, lesbian issues tend to be a bit "been there, answered that, DTMFA".

LOL, maybe it's progress when gays and lesbians are becoming boring?
25
@24, that makes sense when he is addressing a question that is about gender.

The question was about a hetero virgin boy being nervous about having sex for the first time. For the context Dan's comments made perfect sense.

Sure, Dan writes a sex column. But that's just it. It's a column written for a mass audience, and all these caveats and explanations of what was meant that are needed to make everyone happy makes for a bad reading experience. Do you really want every one of Dan's columns to become an overly long essay on gender, sexual orientation, or any other possible topic that might possibly have some double meaning that, although clear from context, he would need to publicly analyze in excruciating detail in order to be totally inclusive?

Or would you rather he answer the damn questions in an easy manner where what he is saying can be understood in context without the need for all that?

I'll go with the later.
26
Thanks, Dan. I didn't find your original at all transphobic, but your clarification struck me as very thoughtful and kind.
28
If anyone who was offended by that told me they were a man I wouldn't take them seriously. Anybody who cultivates the habit of being threatened by every generalization they read qualifies as a girl.
29
@27 I didn't see his comment until you pointed it out. I guess I am tired of seeing discussions about something else being derailed into discussions about inclusive language. That sort of thing seems to happen a lot. Everyone has their own personal list of words they are offended by.
30
"he can bring the dick in his soul"
Did you read that out loud at all before you wrote it?
*childish snickering*
31
Oh no. Alight the Grail Shaped Beacon! Somebody is offended on the internet again!
32
Venomlash! A rare, actual LOL. Thanks for that...
33
@27

You'd be surprised how angry people get when you start asking them to make an effort where previously they did not.
34
Venomlash, I too had an actual LOL @ 30. Thanks for that!
35
I think I might have a soul dick. Awesome stuff.
36
Mr Fortunate - Post 25 is unclear. Does "hetero" apply to "boy" or to "virgin"? If you are calling this virgin a hetero boy, that was never specified; we know only that he has a girlfriend. If you are calling this boy a hetero virgin, that opens up some fun possibilities.

(Here endeth my impersonation of Rumpole making Soapy Sam Ballard's best point for him in Rumpole for the Prosecution.)
37
Thanks Dan! THIS is only one reason why you rock!

(And no people, I wasn't damning Dan to hell or calling him a transphobe, I knew what he was saying but i know what it's like to be that kid who is a virgin and also dickless.haha! If we're going to evolve as people, then me saying "don't forget this" and Dan going "don't forget this" is vital. All you people getting offended and upset over us making a connection between trans and non-trans experiences realllllly need to assess where you stand.)
38
@25 "Do you really want every one of Dan's columns to become an overly long essay on gender, sexual orientation, or any other possible topic that might possibly have some double meaning that, although clear from context, he would need to publicly analyze in excruciating detail in order to be totally inclusive?"

Even with limited word space Dan pulls off that kind of complexity constantly, which is why he's such a great writer. Maybe you should read a little deeper.

"Soul dick." Thanks, Mr. Savage!
39
"Post 25 is unclear. Does "hetero" apply to "boy" or to "virgin"? If you are calling this virgin a hetero boy, that was never specified; we know only that he has a girlfriend."

Fine, a virgin boy in a hetero relationship.

Happy?

Now you have me doing it, and that is one of the reasons I am starting to not enjoy posting around here anymore.

***By "now" I mean at this time, and in no way mean to slight other tenses. By "doing" I mean engaging in an action, and I hope that is not a slight to other verbs. By "reasons" I mean the specific points of facts and inference that inform my decisions and conclusions, and these "reasons" only apply to myself and are not meant to be implied to apply to anyone else. By "posting" I mean the typing of my opinions and ideas on a forum, but I want to fully recognize all other forms of expression and don't mean to suggest that "posting" is the only one. By "here" I mean in this forum, although I do understand that there are other forums and I even occasionally post on some of them because I try to be GGG.
40
"Maybe you should read a little deeper."

I read deep enough, and have been reading Dan for a fairly long time. Yes, he does get into that, and it makes those columns kind of boring. He's at his best when his columns are short, to the point and irreverent.
41
#10: on your point of "I don't want to be a (grammar) dick. Except when I want to be a (grammar) dick. "

Why is it that the unwillingly dickless (and the unwillingly dicked) are such dicks when it comes to the minutia of inclusive grammar?

#24/25: When people get off on trying to cast well-meaning people as villians in minor (and in this case pretty obscure) gender gaffs, they themselves are a little bit off. What is a GGG partner to do when someone REALLY wants to be a grammar Nazi? Oh, yeah, DTMFA.

If you're a minority of a minority, lighten the fuck up. You'll advance your cause (if it's equality) faster by embracing your allies instead of castigating them. Unless your cause is matyrdom and attention-seeking - then you should keep on with the dickish, dickless behavior.
42
@41: If you pay closer attention, it's usually people trying to draw attention to themselves as allies. The most obnoxious pro-trans voices are cis. The most delusional feminist voices, as often as not, belong to men. And I've lost track of how many times someone trying to speak for some other culture slighted them horribly in the process.

The problem, as mentioned above, is that trying to cover too many bases detracts from your main point. Worse, it primes things to blow up when some group inevitably slips one's mind. Nothing in NEWB's letter outright states that the relationship is monogamous. Or that he hasn't engaged in some pretty heavy yet non-penetrative BDSM. Or that he's straight, and hasn't been smoking cocks for the past couple of years while considering "real sex" only PIV. Or that his girlfriend is human. Yet polys, kinksters, bis, and zoos understand that covering all of them in turn undermines the basic message of "communicate, don't overstress, and FFS be careful".
43
Yo, I don't find respect and inclusivity all that tiresome. I don't find people's requests for respect and inclusivity all that tiresome either.

What I do find tiresome is these endless litanies of gripes about how tiresome respect and inclusivity are. What a boorish, boring thread.
44
@33: Read @41. You'd be surprised how angry people get when you start asking them to be perfect where previously they were already making good-intentioned and often very effective efforts.

45
I deeply appreciate that Dan thought to make this language more inclusive. I wish this kind of thoughtfulness was more present in our culture. The time for things like this to go unsaid is when we become an inclusive enough culture that everyone would already understand this to be true, and we aren't there yet.
46
I seriously don't understand why people are so upset at being asked to be more specific and accurate when describing reality.

47
@46 - Because the "more specific and accurate" requirements seem to be getting endlessly more specific and more micro-micro-accurate, and their application can vary from context to context to the point where some folks fear that we'll need a PhD in gender studies just to use a fucking pronoun, and carry around explanatory footnote charts around our neck . Me, I'd rather just accept people than be constantly lectured at about new rules that sometimes vary from week to week depending on which school's theories on sexual and gender linguistics are in the fashionable ascendant.
48
I mean, come on. There's about three billion men on the planet. And pretty much every one of them has a dick. How many fucking zeroes are there after the decimal point before we get to another number in the "0.0000____%" which represents that percentage of males who don't have dicks, for whatever reason, and we're caveating about that?????. This sort microscope-level compliance drives people absolutely bonkers and moves our society forward not one goddamned bit.
49
@22: I demand my right to inclusive language. I demand that every time someone writes a name, pronoun, or other word that applies to human males or females in aggregate or specific, that they append the phrase "(and Arthur)" just in case that statement might apply specifically to Arthur. Also, append the phrase "(except for Arthur)" just in case the statement is not applicable to Arthur.

In other words, yes, what you(and Arthur)(except Arthur) said.
50
FYI, Arthur is a silicone-abled male being, currently sitting in shrinkwrap packaging on a shelf in an adult store in Skokie, Ill, but seeking a prosthetic human to which he(and Arthur)(except Arthur) can "bring the dick."
51
@50: *sigh*
And Skokie always seemed such an innocuous place full of kindly old people...
52
Mr Fortunate - I was trying to be funny while covering. I'm on your side. And as the angry posts I expected to see directed at you never materialized, either I succeeded or people weren't paying that much attention.
53
Ah, sorry Vennominon. Take it as a compliment. Your satire is so good you fooled me.
54
Quite all right, Mr Fortunate. I do tend to forget that not everyone has an encyclopedic knowledge of Rumpole.
55
@49,50: You just gave me a soul boner.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.