Saturday, June 7, 2014
LGBTQITSLFA About That Hate Crime I Committed at University of Chicago
Posted by Dan Savage on Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 1:57 PM
Let's play let's pretend, shall we? (I realize we played let's pretend earlier this week, Slog, but indulge me.)
Let's pretend that I'm standing in line at Starbucks with a straight friend and we're having an animated conversation. There are two trans activists standing in line behind us—let's pretend they're trans activists with a social media presence—and they overhear me tell my straight friend that I met a trans person earlier that same day at a seminar. "I got into an argument with it," I say to my cishet friend. "It was so full of shit. It insisted that I was in the wrong and you should've seen the look on its face when I tried to engage it in a conversation about the point it was making. Because, man, it had its head up its ass."
In less time than it would take me to order tea the two trans activists behind me would be tweeting out quotes and launching an online petition condemning the hate speech they were overhearing me use in line at Starbucks. Because referring to a trans person as "it"—not he or she or zim or zer or them or their, but it, a thing, an object—is the worst thing you call a trans person after "tranny." Some would argue that "it" is worse than "tranny" because "tranny" is sometimes used by trans people affectionately or ironically. (When I posted this picture of me in drag on Instagram, for example, Kate Bornstein, the trans activist, author, icon, and a "Savage Love" guest expert for nearly twenty years (!) wrote this in the comment thread: "Aw, see? You ARE a dear tranny!") I've heard shock jocks and bigots and bashers dehumanize trans people by calling them "it," but I have never in my life heard a trans person refer to another trans person as "it"—not in jest, not as a putdown, not once, not ever.
So "it" is an anti-trans slur and it's arguably the worst anti-trans slur. Got it? Okay, hold that thought.
In the weeks before I was accused of committing an anti-trans hate crime at U of C and denounced as a transphobic bigot by a couple grandstanding (transtanding?) drama queens kings monarchs, I curated a five-night speakers series at the Pen World Voices Festival in New York City that featured a trans woman. (All the speakers were women except me—misandry!) I was one of four executive producers of an online video series profiling seven prominent LGBT Americans—including a trans woman. (Laverne Cox's video isn't up yet. But please go check out the amazing videos featuring Jason Collins, Jayne Lynch, and Tegan and Sara.) I invited M. Dru Levasseur, a trans activist, attorney, and cofounder of the Jim Collins Foundation, an organization that funds gender-confirming surgeries for trans people, to give advice to a woman dating a trans man in "Savage Love," and I taped an episode of the "Savage Lovecast" with trans activist, writer, and porn star Buck Angel, who gives advice to a lesbian about loving her fiance through—and being open to marrying him after—his transition. I realize this comes off as defensive—but, hey, I'm defending myself here. Suffice it to say: If this how transphobes roll... the trans community could use more transphobes like me.
Okay, so here's what went down at U of C: I was invited to speak at the Institute of Politics (IOP) by visiting fellow Ana Marie Cox, Dowager Wonkette, columnist for the Guardian, talking head on MSNBC, and one of the stars of Twitter. IOP seminars are off-the-record affairs. Participants—speakers included—agree not to write, blog, or tweet about what is discussed during these closed-door sessions. The IOP wants high-profile political and media figures to speak openly and candidly with its students and this confidentiality agreement is designed to facilitate honest discussions—sometimes brutally honest discussions. Before the seminar began Cox told me that some queer students were upset that I had been invited to speak because, you see, I am an anti-trans bigot and my presence at U of C was potentially traumatizing to trans students. These students were coming to the seminar. (No queer students objected to Sen. Rick Santorum's appearance at the IOP earlier in the same week.)
I've hesitated to write about the controversy over my remarks until now because I wanted to abide by the confidentiality agreement. But with Reason, National Review, U of C's student newspaper, the Drudge Report, and Glenn Beck all over it—and with two student participants having already violated the confidentiality agreement (they told organizers that the confidentiality agreement was voided when I "committed a hate crime")—I suppose I'm no longer bound by it.
Anyway, Cox moderated and we spoke with roughly fifty IOP students about social media, writing, activism, the "It Gets Better" campaign, the santorum neologism, and the differences, as I see them, between rightwing activism and leftwing activism. Shortly into the talk Cox asked me about the controversy around my use of the word "tranny" in "Savage Love," a word I stopped using in 2011 (the same year, it seems, that trans activist Carman Carrera, who strongly objects to the use of the word, stopped using the word herself). I talked about why the word was problematic, why some object to its use, where I see double standards, and the LGBT community's long history of reclaiming hate words. Most of the students at the seminar were surprised to learn that "queer" used to be considered a hate term. Queer Nation activists in the early 1990s successfully reclaimed the word—hence queer studies programs, queer student groups, and the popularity of "LGBTQ"—but some older gays and lesbians vehemently object to the use of the word "queer." I also spoke about "tranny" in the specific context of "Savage Love." Faggot, dyke, queer, sissy, tranny, breeder—all these words appeared in "Savage Love" from the start. With the exception of "tranny," all still do. I stopped using "tranny" in "Savage Love" and on the podcast after young trans activists began objecting to its use. (Somehow no one seems to give a shit that lesbian gay elders object to the use of the word "queer.")
Oh, and the name of the U of C LGBT student group that objected to my appearance on campus? Queers United In Power (QUIP). Anyway...
If I had scolded my readers for using "faggot" and then allowed readers to toss "tranny" around, that would've been hypocritical. But in the column, which got its start in the early 1990s when Queer Nation was out there agitating in favor of reclaiming hate terms, readers were invited to address me as faggot. For nearly a decade every letter to "Savage Love" began with the salutation "Hey, Faggot." Some readers used the term affectionately, some used it hatefully, demonstrating that intent, not a particular string of letters, makes a word hateful. (Here's an email that came in yesterday: "Dan, you fucking fag! Here I am, at work, quietly listening to the American Savage audiobook when you read about the death of your mother. My throat blocks, my eyes swell with tears. AT WORK. It is a beautiful story. I just should have listened to it at home. P.S. What can I do as a straight male to help your cause?" OMG a straight guy who loves my work just called me a fag—I suppose that's a hate crime.)
I never suggested that the trans community ought to reclaim "tranny." I wasn't giving orders to the trans community. Just sharing a little queer history with IOP students in a confidential, off-the-record conversation.
During this part of the talk a student interrupted and asked me to stop using "the t-slur." (I guess it's not the t-word anymore. I missed the memo.) My use of it—even while talking about why I don't use the word anymore, even while speaking of the queer community's history of reclaiming hate words, even as I used other hate words—was potentially traumatizing. I stated that I didn't see a difference between saying "tranny" in this context and saying "t-slur." Were I to say "t-slur" instead of "tranny," everyone in the room would auto-translate "t-slur" to "tranny" in their own heads. Was there really much difference between me saying it and me forcing everyone in the room to say it quietly to themselves? That would be patronizing, infantilizing, and condescending. Cox gamely jumped in and offered that she had used "tranny" in the past but that she now recognizes its harm and has stopped using it. The student who objected interrupted: as neither Cox nor I were trans, "tranny" was not our word to use—not even in the context of a college seminar, not even when talking about why we don't use the word anymore. I asked the student who objected if it was okay for me to use the words "dyke" and "sissy." After a moment's thought the student said I could use those words—permission granted—and that struck me a funny because I am not a lesbian nor am I particularly effeminate. (And, really, this is college now? Professors, fellows, and guest lecturers need to clear their vocabulary with first-year students?) By the not-your-word-to-use standard, I shouldn't be able to use dyke or sissy either—or breeder, for that matter, as that's a hate term for straight people. (Or maybe it's an acknowledgment of their utility? Anyway...)
This student became so incensed by our refusal to say "How high?" when this student said "Jump!" that this student stormed out of the seminar. In tears. As one does when one doesn't get one's way. In college.
Okay, gang, remember our let's pretend game at the top of the post? What's one of the worst things you can call a trans person? What's arguably worse than the "t-slur" itself? It. After the student who challenged, interrupted, and yelled at me and Cox stormed out of the room, a friend of this student informed Cox, who had used a standard pronoun to refer to this person after this person left the room (while Cox observed, with great sensitivity and tact, that some feel very strongly about this issue), that this person's preferred pronoun was "it."
And... scene.
Ridiculous... fucking... scene.
The trans person who had been scolding me about the use of a potentially traumatizing anti-trans slur has chosen an anti-trans slur as its pronoun preference. And if other trans people—maybe in line at a Starbucks—were to overhear me using its preferred pronoun when talking about it, those other trans people could potentially be traumatized and I would be accused of hate speech. That's really all you need to know about this whole mess. Sorry it took me two thousand words to get there.
It and its friend are young. And foolish. And playing games. I'm not going to spend the rest of the day unpacking this tempest in privilege pot—it's far too nice outside—or the other idiocies it and its buddy injected into the conversation. (Its buddy told the room that "It Gets Better" Project "has done more harm than good.") Queerty has a good rundown, links to the stories at the The Maroon, UC's student paper, and a link to the online petition created after my appearance. There's a really amazing, spot-on piece about my appearance at U of C by Ari Cohn at FIRE, John Aravosis has offers some great analysis at Americablog, and you can Google around if you want to see what conservative websites and writers have to say. (They're having a field day—and while serious people are talking about this shocking anti-trans hate crime, conservatives are deflecting attention from that crime by talking up the antics of it, its buddy, and the maroons at QUIP.)
But I do want to quote one piece at The Maroon—which has written numerous pieces about my alleged "hate crime," the demand by QUIP for an apology from the IOP (which the IOP, to its credit, refused to cough up) and QUIP's demand that the IOP promise to "censor" all future IOP guests who might use "hate speech" (not gonna happen, says IOP)—all without bothering to contact me for my side of the story. (That's not how we do journalism out here in the real world, Maroon. Please consult your faculty advisors. You do have faculty advisors, right?) This piece was written by Anastasia Golovashkina, another student who was at the seminar (and the "facts of [her] piece have been read and verified by five student attendees of the seminar," the Maroon notes):
I am aware that, as a non-trans individual, I speak from a position of cisgender privilege. More than anything, I applaud students for speaking up for their principles. It is neither my place nor intention to dispute how Savage’s choice of language may have made some students feel, or to question the genuine hurt or distress they may have felt as a result of this experience. LGBTQ concerns—particularly those of trans individuals—remain heavily underrepresented at all levels of public discourse, and I applaud Queers United in Power (QUIP) for taking a leading role in championing these issues on our campus. But the nature of QUIP does not make its members immune to all criticism, particularly as recent events have led me to question the honesty and value of several of its members’ claims and intentions. Taken together, they suggest a troubling lack of integrity about the campaign they have carried out.
For one, it is disingenuous for the petition’s authors to allege (in some, though not all, of their conflicting, seemingly ever-changing statements), that students had been repeatedly interrupted by Savage and Cox at the seminar, or not given ample opportunity to voice their concerns. In the few instances when Cox and Savage did interrupt students, they did so only to request permission to finish their sentences—only because they had been interrupted by the students first. Near the end of the seminar, Cox even made a point to ask the petition’s only author still in attendance whether she felt like she had been heard. Her answer? “Yes.”
It has been even more disingenuous for the students to repeatedly modify their petition’s pre-“update” language without notifying signatories, and to delete an astonishing number of their own and others’ public comments about the incident on social media. Having actually attended the seminar and observed countless inconsistencies between their descriptions and reality, I am taken aback by how many of my peers would sign such a strongly worded petition on the basis of incredibly minimal, misleading information....
I have never witnessed anywhere near this level of backlash about the IOP’s hosting of speakers like Rick Santorum, a former lawmaker who has actively used his power to disenfranchise and marginalize virtually all non-heterosexual, non-cisgender, non-male, non-white individuals. It baffles me to think that a longtime LGBTQ activist’s use of certain language, almost exclusively in a historical context, is somehow worse than a powerful politician’s dedicated actions to suppress the entire LGBTQ community, and his advocacy of said actions at our university.
For all these reasons and many more, I believe the approach these students are taking is unfortunate, questionable, and destructive.
Dishonest, disingenuous, inconsistent, misleading—these are not honest actors. And as I've written previously: "False accusations of engaging in hate speech are themselves a form hate speech—particularly in the hothouse environment of LGBT activism." It and its compatriot and QUIP owe me, Ana Marie Cox, IOP, and all the students at U of C an apology.
I'm going to give the last word to a trans person—typical transphobic behavior on my part—and close with a tweet from Parker Marie Molloy. A writer, a columnist for the Advocate, and a trans woman, Molloy has written numerous pieces about the use of anti-trans slurs and peeled the bark off me in the past. After Molloy called out RuPaul's Drag Race for what she perceived to be the use of transphobic slurs on that program, the producers dropped their long-running "You've Got SheMail" tagline and apologized for a "Female or Shemale" segment. Molloy looked into what went down at UC and tweeted this out this last week:
From what I gather here, I'm on @fakedansavage's side (seriously) http://t.co/igxd5ScGU4
— Parker Marie Molloy (@ParkerMolloy) June 5, 2014
1
"And, really, this is college now? Professors, fellows, and guest lecturers need to clear their vocabulary with first-year students?"
Unfortunately, it seems like it is.
Unfortunately, it seems like it is.
3
That was a lot of words. A lot of words whining about whiners whining about words.
WHO'S THE BIGGEST WHINER IN AMERICA??
My vote is the syndicated columnist.
WHO'S THE BIGGEST WHINER IN AMERICA??
My vote is the syndicated columnist.
7
Since when does wanting to clear your name equal whinning?
It's that biphobic bs all over again. If people want to be offended they will be and there's nothing you can about it....
It's that biphobic bs all over again. If people want to be offended they will be and there's nothing you can about it....
8
Me thinks thou protest too much. Just own that you aren't always right dan and it's your smugness and inability to,ever acknowledge you're wrong is the real,issue.
**NERD ALERT** This reminds me of a dodge-ball scene in a season 1 episode of Buffy: The Vampire Slayer called "The Pack", in which Xander and the "mean kids" are possessed by a hyena spirit.
The dodge-ball game ends up with Buffy on one side, and all of the pack plus one extra on the other side. Rather than attack Buffy, they inexplicably turn and attack their own teammate.
This is what I feel the trans SJW trolls essentially are doing with you, Dan. Rather than fight with an actual anti-trans hate crime committing jackass that they may not be able to defeat, they would rather attack you and falsely accuse you of being an anti-trans hate crime committing jackass- knowing full well you won't go so far as to cause them any real harm. It's simply easier and lazier to attack allies and neutrals than it is to attack enemies.
The dodge-ball game ends up with Buffy on one side, and all of the pack plus one extra on the other side. Rather than attack Buffy, they inexplicably turn and attack their own teammate.
This is what I feel the trans SJW trolls essentially are doing with you, Dan. Rather than fight with an actual anti-trans hate crime committing jackass that they may not be able to defeat, they would rather attack you and falsely accuse you of being an anti-trans hate crime committing jackass- knowing full well you won't go so far as to cause them any real harm. It's simply easier and lazier to attack allies and neutrals than it is to attack enemies.
I went to U.C. Berkeley in the '80s. I ran with some uber-uber-left political circles where, being gay helped offset my white male cisgender privilege (though somehow I was still more privileged than the white male cisgender STRAIGHT guys), even though they grew up in middle class suburbia and I grew up without electricity or indoor plumbing. In those uber-uber-left circles, everyone professed to support the gays while somehow thinking that being a white gay male was the pinnacle of political power, even more than straight guys.
This sort of bullshit drove me batshit crazy and essentially drove me out of the political limelight.
I have never witnessed anywhere near this level of backlash about the IOP’s hosting of speakers like Rick Santorum, a former lawmaker who has actively used his power to disenfranchise and marginalize virtually all non-heterosexual, non-cisgender, non-male, non-white individuals. It baffles me to think that a longtime LGBTQ activist’s use of certain language, almost exclusively in a historical context, is somehow worse than a powerful politician’s dedicated actions to suppress the entire LGBTQ community, and his advocacy of said actions at our university.
This drives me up the fucking wall. If you think that Dan Savage is worse than Rick Santorum, if Savage is worth protesting but Santorum is not, get some fucking perspective. If you think the "It Gets Better" campaign has done more harm than good, you're a fucking liar. Put some up stats or even some carefully argued anecdotes, or shut the fuck up.
I've been reading Dan since his earlier "Hey, Faggot" days. It has become very clear that there are certain uber-uber-left elements that are so bent on painting him as the worst thing since Hitler that they have come to the conversation with an agenda and will never try to engage in a meaningful dialog.
More...
This sort of bullshit drove me batshit crazy and essentially drove me out of the political limelight.
I have never witnessed anywhere near this level of backlash about the IOP’s hosting of speakers like Rick Santorum, a former lawmaker who has actively used his power to disenfranchise and marginalize virtually all non-heterosexual, non-cisgender, non-male, non-white individuals. It baffles me to think that a longtime LGBTQ activist’s use of certain language, almost exclusively in a historical context, is somehow worse than a powerful politician’s dedicated actions to suppress the entire LGBTQ community, and his advocacy of said actions at our university.
This drives me up the fucking wall. If you think that Dan Savage is worse than Rick Santorum, if Savage is worth protesting but Santorum is not, get some fucking perspective. If you think the "It Gets Better" campaign has done more harm than good, you're a fucking liar. Put some up stats or even some carefully argued anecdotes, or shut the fuck up.
I've been reading Dan since his earlier "Hey, Faggot" days. It has become very clear that there are certain uber-uber-left elements that are so bent on painting him as the worst thing since Hitler that they have come to the conversation with an agenda and will never try to engage in a meaningful dialog.
@8 he does acknowledge when he's wrong, you tool. He stopped using "tranny" in Savage Love years ago. Do you want me to go and Google for the column where he says as much which almost certainly exists? Or are you hung up on the fact that he may never have explicitly said, "it was wrong to use that term", implying that his actions are worth less his words?
@11 The Left doesn't need to worry about the Right trying to destroy us; we certainly do a good enough job all on our own.
@11 The Left doesn't need to worry about the Right trying to destroy us; we certainly do a good enough job all on our own.
13
STS (at #10), I think you pretty much nailed it. People feel marginalized, so they desperately seek out a situation in which they will have power. In some cases, that leads them to attack people who don't deserve it, but who might acquiesce to their requests because they consider themselves allies.
I think that it's a useful trend of the last few years that people default to trusting marginalized people's description of their own feelings. In the past, much of the time the default reaction would be to seek out ways that those feelings are somehow "incorrect." However, if there's a situation where people will automatically believe you are in the right, that can be abused. Wittingly or unwittingly, the person who confronted Dan with demands that he censor himself is abusing the principle of charity.
I think that it's a useful trend of the last few years that people default to trusting marginalized people's description of their own feelings. In the past, much of the time the default reaction would be to seek out ways that those feelings are somehow "incorrect." However, if there's a situation where people will automatically believe you are in the right, that can be abused. Wittingly or unwittingly, the person who confronted Dan with demands that he censor himself is abusing the principle of charity.
14
Very disturbing to hear of someone wanting to call themselves"it". What mental disturbance could possibly lead a person to classify " itself" this way.
This whole label thing is getting way confusing.. Really. I'm told to call myself a CIA .. No phone that's cis woman( even the bloody phone is conspiring).. And seriously, nobody asked me if I was comfortable with this. Or even explain what CIA , shit phone, would you stop that, what CID , not that either, CIS (yes I'm allowed to keep it now) means.
This whole label thing is getting way confusing.. Really. I'm told to call myself a CIA .. No phone that's cis woman( even the bloody phone is conspiring).. And seriously, nobody asked me if I was comfortable with this. Or even explain what CIA , shit phone, would you stop that, what CID , not that either, CIS (yes I'm allowed to keep it now) means.
15
"Let me show you that I am the bigger person by ending my tirade with a quote from somebody who just so happens to agree with me."
Yup, you're totes the bigger person here. *thumbs up*
Yup, you're totes the bigger person here. *thumbs up*
16
Another example of why playing Word Cop is not only a losing proposition but a distraction from real issues.
It's things like this that make me less than supportive of trans activism. (I will always and forever strive to be respectful of individual trans people.) There's this strain of trans activism that goes way beyond basic respect and civil rights. It instead demands that the world conform to even the most bananas, out there demands of any individual trans person, "it" in this case. If you expect the world to conform to your every whim, you need *professional* help, not cheer leading from twit activists.
Hah. I guess I'm an elder. I am old enough that I largely think of "queer" as a pejorative, and I never really bought into the whole 'reclaiming' thing. I still cringe whenever I hear it.
But I'm also sane enough to have some perspective. Context is everything. I know that when young gay people these days use the word "queer", they are almost always using it as a badge of honor, and are not trying to make me cringe and relive past hurts of my youth. It is a word with positive connotations to them.
So I cringe and let it pass. Accusing these queer youth today of hate speech is every bit as ridiculous as accusing Dan of hate speech. The word is now a positive part of their subculture, and they clearly mean me no insult by it.
But I'm also sane enough to have some perspective. Context is everything. I know that when young gay people these days use the word "queer", they are almost always using it as a badge of honor, and are not trying to make me cringe and relive past hurts of my youth. It is a word with positive connotations to them.
So I cringe and let it pass. Accusing these queer youth today of hate speech is every bit as ridiculous as accusing Dan of hate speech. The word is now a positive part of their subculture, and they clearly mean me no insult by it.
Good lord. College students, I swear. QUIP needs to get stuffed. You're absolutely right on, Dan. Don't let these idiots get you down.
20
Dan, you got it wrong. Tegan and Sara are Canadian.
For real though, Dan (while an asshole) is mostly right in this case. I do somewhat object that reclaiming "tranny" is equivalent to reclaiming the word "queer" and that we are "eating our own" by attacking LG allies (this is more other commentators and not directed at Dan). Given how the trans community has been treated by organizations like the HRC in the past, it is certainly understandable why we get frustrated. I mean it's difficult to attack true bigots when you are being hamstung by the words and actions by supposed allies (again, this part isn't directed at Dan).
For real though, Dan (while an asshole) is mostly right in this case. I do somewhat object that reclaiming "tranny" is equivalent to reclaiming the word "queer" and that we are "eating our own" by attacking LG allies (this is more other commentators and not directed at Dan). Given how the trans community has been treated by organizations like the HRC in the past, it is certainly understandable why we get frustrated. I mean it's difficult to attack true bigots when you are being hamstung by the words and actions by supposed allies (again, this part isn't directed at Dan).
21
Whenever I see misplaced and overblown outrage over language (and I see it a lot... it's the internet's favorite sport these days), I wonder who told these kids that they had an absolute right to never be hurt or offended.
Whenever I heard the word tranny on Drag Race, for instance, it made me a tad uncomfortable... then I'd move on and enjoy the show, because Drag Race is great fun.
I've had no end of pain in my life because I'm a TRANNY. I hate the word TRANNY. If someone calls me TRANNY in hatred, it's going to hurt. Then I'm going to move on. Because if you're going to be a tranny in this world, you'd better grow a thick fucking skin.
Learn about context, learn about history, learn about intent, learn about gray areas and learn forgiveness of other people's imperfections while recognizing your own.
Whenever I heard the word tranny on Drag Race, for instance, it made me a tad uncomfortable... then I'd move on and enjoy the show, because Drag Race is great fun.
I've had no end of pain in my life because I'm a TRANNY. I hate the word TRANNY. If someone calls me TRANNY in hatred, it's going to hurt. Then I'm going to move on. Because if you're going to be a tranny in this world, you'd better grow a thick fucking skin.
Learn about context, learn about history, learn about intent, learn about gray areas and learn forgiveness of other people's imperfections while recognizing your own.
22
One good thing to come out of all this, though: the phrase "drama monarch" which I will now use all the time forever.
23
What a twirl up. And the sad outcome for "it" and others dealing with real life issues is ; this forum will no longer be a place where people can trust their stories are respected , and not bandied about in the real world. Snot nosed little twits.
24
'Drama monarchs' is a keeper. But people like these twits are worse than that, they're *trauma* monarchs. Words only hurt when they have sticks and stones behind them. These fools are hearing sticks and stones because they *want* the sticks and stones.
I support the equal rights of trans and genderqueer people without reservation. But as a cis/het woman, I am often accused of not being inclusive/sensitive enough & transphobic when I talk about women's health issues like abortion, pregnancy, and even fucking yeast infections & PMS. So, I'm not allowed to talk about my experiences because...? Ugh. It's too much.
Welcome brand new Slog members, SiaNos, Mercer and Joel_are. Thank you for joining this important discussion. Mercer, you should know that Dan seldom reads the comments.
Posted this over at the Maroon:
Once we've settled with Voldemorting certain words, yet another nuance of communication withers and language takes one more step toward meaninglessness.
"...One argument is that language and certain terms can be so hurtful that no matter the context, no matter the person using them, they should not be invoked, period.” --IOP Executive Director Steve Edward
Once we've settled with Voldemorting certain words, yet another nuance of communication withers and language takes one more step toward meaninglessness.
"...One argument is that language and certain terms can be so hurtful that no matter the context, no matter the person using them, they should not be invoked, period.” --IOP Executive Director Steve Edward
29
This looks like an angry youtube comment and pretty much only consists of ad hominem attacks. Remind me again how you're still relevant?
Dan,
You have a good Mai Tai Recipe?!? I would offer these hurt activists some ice cold mai tais from your secret recipe, and all will be forgiven..
I would also add to your piece,the Pink Triangle, which I thought was crazy when Larry Kramer et al. used it in the 1980s, now it is an icon for LGBT community. Larry Kramer is one of those people who is still pissed off at everyone, hell he even is pissed at Barbra Streisand. Some people will never be appeased, and no one will have a monopoly on self righteous behavior...
You have a good Mai Tai Recipe?!? I would offer these hurt activists some ice cold mai tais from your secret recipe, and all will be forgiven..
I would also add to your piece,the Pink Triangle, which I thought was crazy when Larry Kramer et al. used it in the 1980s, now it is an icon for LGBT community. Larry Kramer is one of those people who is still pissed off at everyone, hell he even is pissed at Barbra Streisand. Some people will never be appeased, and no one will have a monopoly on self righteous behavior...
Watch out, Mr. Savage. In the Cloud-Cuckooland of contemporary academia, any future campus appearances may require a Trigger Warning.
Dan, if I may (you may not), I wish you would have put the self-aggrandizement either at the end or as a footnote because it comes off as more than defensive, and really takes away from your otherwise really strong point. REALLY STRONG.
The self-aggrandizement seems like you're being poor me, rather than dissecting the over-sensitive nature of the most recent wave of activists and allies. Please get over your self-obsession and self-defensive obsession (the self-defensiveness really weakened several sections of American Savage as well), and instead trust that your points are strong enough to stand on their own.
Thanks.
The self-aggrandizement seems like you're being poor me, rather than dissecting the over-sensitive nature of the most recent wave of activists and allies. Please get over your self-obsession and self-defensive obsession (the self-defensiveness really weakened several sections of American Savage as well), and instead trust that your points are strong enough to stand on their own.
Thanks.
34
You know what breaks my heart, Dan? That you even feel a need to respond to this bullshit.
I've been reading you on a regular basis for more years than I can remember, following your tweets, reading your books, buying your books, giving your books as gifts. I've watched hundreds of It Gets Better videos, dozens of your Savage Love appearance videos, and attended Hump! in NYC.
I'm straight and mostly cis. You're a major part of the reason I count myself as an LGBTQ equality activist. I joined a church that preaches an equality gospel (in the original Quakerese, that's "witnesses the testimony of equality") and I wasn't even Christian before that. I did so in part to skew the argument that it was Christians v. Atheists. (Fuck no. Real Christians would fucking follow Christ's order to love thy neighbor and leave judgement to the Lord. I don't know what these random hate-filled homophobic/transphobic assholes are who call themselves Christian, but this newishly minted Quaker calls bullshit on them.)
So, Dan, you brought me to God and church, for whatever that's worth. And for Equality for our LGBTQ brothers and sisters, which is worth a lot. I brought your message about the Transgender Day of Remembrance to Meeting a few years back, and we organized ourselves for it! A traditional Quaker memorial service, except with candles, literature and speakers. An educational experience for all involved.
I wish you had half as much respect and confidence in yourself as we do, Dan. There's no need to explain anything to us. We love you, your work and your spirit. Just keep doing what you do and know that we have no doubt in your integrity, your kindness, or your heart.
I've been reading you on a regular basis for more years than I can remember, following your tweets, reading your books, buying your books, giving your books as gifts. I've watched hundreds of It Gets Better videos, dozens of your Savage Love appearance videos, and attended Hump! in NYC.
I'm straight and mostly cis. You're a major part of the reason I count myself as an LGBTQ equality activist. I joined a church that preaches an equality gospel (in the original Quakerese, that's "witnesses the testimony of equality") and I wasn't even Christian before that. I did so in part to skew the argument that it was Christians v. Atheists. (Fuck no. Real Christians would fucking follow Christ's order to love thy neighbor and leave judgement to the Lord. I don't know what these random hate-filled homophobic/transphobic assholes are who call themselves Christian, but this newishly minted Quaker calls bullshit on them.)
So, Dan, you brought me to God and church, for whatever that's worth. And for Equality for our LGBTQ brothers and sisters, which is worth a lot. I brought your message about the Transgender Day of Remembrance to Meeting a few years back, and we organized ourselves for it! A traditional Quaker memorial service, except with candles, literature and speakers. An educational experience for all involved.
I wish you had half as much respect and confidence in yourself as we do, Dan. There's no need to explain anything to us. We love you, your work and your spirit. Just keep doing what you do and know that we have no doubt in your integrity, your kindness, or your heart.
I would like to hear more about all this harm the It Gets Better Project is alleged to have caused.
I'm generally on your side, Dan, but I'm feeling conflicted on this one. If you'd been talking about race, and described how the "n-word" had been reclaimed, you still wouldn't have said aloud the actual term that "n-word" refers to. Because you know, and I know, and all other non-racist white folks know that the n-word is not ours to use, and it never will be until those it refers to state otherwise in a clear, culture-wide fashion.
When you tell a trans person that saying "tranny" aloud instead of "t-word" or "t-slur" is OK because you're using it the context of how it's a problematic word that may or may not deserve retaking and that you're certain that it's OK because you just said it was, you're missing the point.
It's not OK to use the word tranny (or any term) in any context if the person that it describes is *literally standing in front of you, asking you to please not use it*. What would have been so terrible about apologizing right then and moving forward? What point did it prove? What allies were gained?
We didn't successfully reclaimed "queer" because our straight allies forced us to - queers like us did. As their allies, we need to offer our trans friends the same courtesy.
When you tell a trans person that saying "tranny" aloud instead of "t-word" or "t-slur" is OK because you're using it the context of how it's a problematic word that may or may not deserve retaking and that you're certain that it's OK because you just said it was, you're missing the point.
It's not OK to use the word tranny (or any term) in any context if the person that it describes is *literally standing in front of you, asking you to please not use it*. What would have been so terrible about apologizing right then and moving forward? What point did it prove? What allies were gained?
We didn't successfully reclaimed "queer" because our straight allies forced us to - queers like us did. As their allies, we need to offer our trans friends the same courtesy.
37
@33: I'm sorry, Misanthrope, but you're wrong about this and I really take exception—oh, wait. I'm doing it again, aren't I? Sorry! xxxooo
How the hell can anyone not berate someone who wants to be called "it"?
What a fucking idiot he/she/they is. Maybe I'm just old and judgemental, but I think demanding to be addressed as something less than a person is roughly equivalent to asking strangers in the grocery store to hold your leash while your master is getting cantaloupes or something, so you don't run away.
Fucking idiot.
What a fucking idiot he/she/they is. Maybe I'm just old and judgemental, but I think demanding to be addressed as something less than a person is roughly equivalent to asking strangers in the grocery store to hold your leash while your master is getting cantaloupes or something, so you don't run away.
Fucking idiot.
39
Seems like progressives are especially prone to attack each other in public as well as private, not just LGBT activists but all progressives/liberals. Look at the Occupy movement and how it broke down into in-fighting about how to organize drum circles -- before the tents were cleared out by the police Occupy had already lost the 99%.
From what I see conservatives only attack their own when one of them breaks ranks and starts talking reason. That's why conservatives are still winning on carbon, low taxes on the rich, blocking single payer healthcare, security state spying, pretty much everything except gay marriage -- amazing we are winning that one. (Remember the gay groups that were against gay marriage tooth and nail? Queer progressives even tried to fight our own on that one too...)
From what I see conservatives only attack their own when one of them breaks ranks and starts talking reason. That's why conservatives are still winning on carbon, low taxes on the rich, blocking single payer healthcare, security state spying, pretty much everything except gay marriage -- amazing we are winning that one. (Remember the gay groups that were against gay marriage tooth and nail? Queer progressives even tried to fight our own on that one too...)
As a Maroon (BS 2013), my UChicago newsfeed has been blowing up with this bullshit for a few weeks. Fuck sake.
And the person who made a fuss? Was it perchance a person of moderately short stature, stocky build, dark hair, round face, moderate acne problem, probably a 4th year? I may have had a class with it a few years ago. There was this one "That Kid" in my SOSC class my second year. Ambiguously trans; my visual impression was that That Kid was transgender, but for the life of me I could not tell which direction the transition had gone. And boy oh boy, That Kid had to make fucking EVERYTHING we discussed about gender norms and heteromasculine whatever. Fuck sake, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar!
And the person who made a fuss? Was it perchance a person of moderately short stature, stocky build, dark hair, round face, moderate acne problem, probably a 4th year? I may have had a class with it a few years ago. There was this one "That Kid" in my SOSC class my second year. Ambiguously trans; my visual impression was that That Kid was transgender, but for the life of me I could not tell which direction the transition had gone. And boy oh boy, That Kid had to make fucking EVERYTHING we discussed about gender norms and heteromasculine whatever. Fuck sake, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar!
41
When I think of all the productive ways that this energy could have been directed instead, it makes me almost despair.
Oh Dan, you are high profile enough to know better then to say something touchy, even sarcastically, in public. I still love you though, because I know you are human.
@8 - 1. It's "methinks," one word, not two
2. Don't say "methinks" anyway. You sound pretentious. Or go ahead, I'm not the methinks police, I don't think.
3. Outside the original literary context, the "doth protest too much" line is too often used as a lazy way to try to shut down discussion, implying that even talking about it is an admission of guilt. If people were talking shit about me in such a public manner, I for one would appreciate the dignity of being allowed to defend myself.
2. Don't say "methinks" anyway. You sound pretentious. Or go ahead, I'm not the methinks police, I don't think.
3. Outside the original literary context, the "doth protest too much" line is too often used as a lazy way to try to shut down discussion, implying that even talking about it is an admission of guilt. If people were talking shit about me in such a public manner, I for one would appreciate the dignity of being allowed to defend myself.
44
@36, interesting argument- but really don't think the
T- word equates in viciousness with the n- word.
C'mon, really- what bullshit. To violate a private forum, now make it a visible forum over such as this. How about the same level of outrage over the c- word? And as a poster above says, she is accursed as being insensitive, if she talks about periods..
Sorry a trans* woman can't produce blood or a baby thru her fanny/ but you know it's all starting to get absurd .. Really fucking absurd.
T- word equates in viciousness with the n- word.
C'mon, really- what bullshit. To violate a private forum, now make it a visible forum over such as this. How about the same level of outrage over the c- word? And as a poster above says, she is accursed as being insensitive, if she talks about periods..
Sorry a trans* woman can't produce blood or a baby thru her fanny/ but you know it's all starting to get absurd .. Really fucking absurd.
47
@44, I do think that in a discussion on an university campus, about the use of these terms, one can say the words "nigger" or "kike" or "tranny" or "cunt" or "faggot" and not have to apologize.
There are lots of people in this world who are just itching for an insult. They'll take any chance they can to feel sorry for themselves. Unfortunately, it spans the entire political spectrum, but it really finds its home at the extreme right and the extreme left.
50
@36 @44 @47
Really, this should be a very simple idea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use%E2%80%9…)
If we are going to be adults about things, we should be able to at least point at them verbally like when I use "any given fucking word"
Dan is really very unfairly maligned in this instance
Really, this should be a very simple idea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use%E2%80%9…)
If we are going to be adults about things, we should be able to at least point at them verbally like when I use "any given fucking word"
Dan is really very unfairly maligned in this instance
@47 Unless you're using it as a slur aimed at somebody. Using the word is ok if you're talking about the word, but to wield it as a weapon aimed at a target in an academic discussion is wrong.
yelahneb @36,
I disagree. If adults are discussing word usage, I think they can go ahead and use the words in question. Anyone who can't handle that should excuse themselves from the discussion.
Mac @43, +1.
Erica @47, +1.
It's not OK to use the word tranny (or any term) in any context if the person that it describes is *literally standing in front of you, asking you to please not use it*
I disagree. If adults are discussing word usage, I think they can go ahead and use the words in question. Anyone who can't handle that should excuse themselves from the discussion.
Mac @43, +1.
Erica @47, +1.
Also, Dan, did you read the op-ed in the Advocate written by the Cisgay dude? In it, the author said, essentially, I don't give a fuck about history. He wrote a solipsistic column saying, essentially, because one group (transsexuals, in this case) was offended by a term (tranny), that's all that mattered. It didn't matter that a different group (drag queens) had worked for years (decades) to reclaim it as it somehow wasn't their word to reclaim (ignoring that it had been wielded at them as well).
A friend posted it to their wall, and I had the same response you wrote more elegantly here. Though I have no skin in the game (I've no desire to dress in drag), the argument basically amounted to one group of gays kowtowing to deeming the word "queer" to be offensive and unworthy of reclamation because lesbians find it offensive.
The author also further weakened his argument by saying that trans people have been treated poorly by mainstream gays, making the argument into a pity party/guilt trip summing up to "can't we give them just this one point?" It wasn't about you specifically, but it's important to the t-word fight.
A friend posted it to their wall, and I had the same response you wrote more elegantly here. Though I have no skin in the game (I've no desire to dress in drag), the argument basically amounted to one group of gays kowtowing to deeming the word "queer" to be offensive and unworthy of reclamation because lesbians find it offensive.
The author also further weakened his argument by saying that trans people have been treated poorly by mainstream gays, making the argument into a pity party/guilt trip summing up to "can't we give them just this one point?" It wasn't about you specifically, but it's important to the t-word fight.
@ 33, as someone who is often irritated with Dan's self-aggrandizing, I completely disagree that it presented any kind of distraction or detraction here.
56
Well cunt is a great word to use when talking of vaginas. Nice, juicy word. My point is, there now is some big problem with the t- word, yet the use of cunt as a derogatory slur is allowed to continue. Even on Dans post earlier this week, about a gay orgy, the c- word was used by a gay poster(s) as a slur, can't remember if it occurred more than once... The other words, are derogatory . But of course, depends on context, intent and who is using it.
Yes, I agree, Dan was badly treated over this incident. As were the students, who had assumed their privacy was going to be respected..
Yes, I agree, Dan was badly treated over this incident. As were the students, who had assumed their privacy was going to be respected..
@54 Where it's placed in the article really put me on the "Dan really stepped in it again" mindset, and I thought he was going to use it to make a half-assed "please excuse my bad behavior and stop attack me as I'm not the enemy" excuse. Then he changed gears, dropping that whole line of argument and I think the response would have been stronger without it. If only blog posts had appendices.
@ 56, I can see that. But I knew this about trans activism and I've felt a certain contingent has it in for him, so I felt it unlikely he had stepped in it this time. Just my own perspective .
I understand that most of you support Dan's use of the word at the event and the manner in which he used it, despite the consequences. Can anyone tell me what harm there would have been in not using it?
61
Dan, those of us who have really listened to you throughout the years know you as someone who has uncommonly sophisticated thinking and who frames debate/advice with nuanced and contextual perspective. The style of this type of knee jerk attack on you (and on others) feels too much like right wing religion. Hugely judgmental and a rushing to call everyone a sinner. There seems to be way too much emphasis and joyful outrage on finding sinners and pinning scarlet letters on people. It didn't' matter what you said--there's a prejudgment and an agenda. Prove you aren't a sinner--float or drown. Can't win. It is so destructive and this type of tactic gets mirrored in supposedly opposite positions. But it's the same. It's like being in church with where you cannot win--instead of constructive listening, it's damn you to hell.
62
@61 I couldn't possible agree with you more. There are very few people who are popular on the internet that I can bank on having nuanced, well thought out views on certain matters (despite vociferous hubbubs surrounding them). Dan, Andrew Sullivan, Ta- Nehisi Coates, Noam Chomsky all attract loud detractors. But if you know a damn lick about anything they write, you know that the cartoonish version of them is false.
63
I guess the purpose of convening to discuss relative issues, within the context of being real, open, honest and authentic, was a point missed by one, or several of the attendees. There is a great deal of value in recognizing the impact of 'words' - 'terms' - and creating a shift in culture, and a worthy conversation time and time again. Avoiding the actual words or terms within the context of debate and discussion in order to advance understanding, would render the debate/discussion pointless.
I must admit I enjoyed reading Dan's fascinating detailed review of events. It keeps getting better, Drama Monarch's - may not think so. There are many of us out in the world who just stand in the place of support - for our collective progress, in spite of our many differences, we of the LGBTQ.....
I must admit I enjoyed reading Dan's fascinating detailed review of events. It keeps getting better, Drama Monarch's - may not think so. There are many of us out in the world who just stand in the place of support - for our collective progress, in spite of our many differences, we of the LGBTQ.....
It's never good when grownups take the follies of first year students too seriously, but the follies themselves are not cause for alarm. Yes, there are first year students who think storming out of a room in tears is how you get your point across. It didn't just start happening in the 21st century. Young students make those kinds of mistakes, and worse. It's how they learn.
It's too bad when these growing pains spill off campus, but it's normal and healthy for this kind of silly bullshit to happen in an educational setting as long as the leadership is in place to set them straight by the time they matriculate.
It's too bad when these growing pains spill off campus, but it's normal and healthy for this kind of silly bullshit to happen in an educational setting as long as the leadership is in place to set them straight by the time they matriculate.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
on June 7, 2014 at 9:30 PM
· Report this
@ 59, the harm of making discussion impossible if even one person objects. The resulting loss of learning, particularly in the setting of a major university. The harm of empowering words with their worst meanings because now only the worst people will say them. The harm of distracting from real issues while being hung up on cosmetic ones, resulting in ineffectiveness and ultimate irrelevance - the opposite of what seems to be their goals. The danger of suppressing free thought. The danger of creating circuses like this, for which the trans student bears all responsibility, which hinders the movement instead of helping it.
Dan made it crystal clear what kind of forum this was. It's easy to give in to the student, but lets be clear. The student was engaging in "its" own bullying here. The student derailed the entire discussion and created a shitsto when "it" didn't get "its" way. If you don't perceive any harm in kowtowing to such bullying, you are blind.
Dan made it crystal clear what kind of forum this was. It's easy to give in to the student, but lets be clear. The student was engaging in "its" own bullying here. The student derailed the entire discussion and created a shitsto when "it" didn't get "its" way. If you don't perceive any harm in kowtowing to such bullying, you are blind.
@59 - Apologies in advance for the slippery slope argument, but where does it end? In an academic discussion about... I was going to come up with an example, but let's just say "any given subject" does an attendee have the right to stand up and insist that everyone participating never directly name the subject of the discussion lest someone be made uncomfortable?
The shitstorm that followed was an unfair smear cpaign against Dan (not to mention a betrayal of trust in violating the confidentiality agreement). It is not incumemt upon Dan to prevent such smears by relinquishing control of his vocabulary to whoever asks. It is on everyone to grow some perspective and not start shit where shit is not needed.
The shitstorm that followed was an unfair smear cpaign against Dan (not to mention a betrayal of trust in violating the confidentiality agreement). It is not incumemt upon Dan to prevent such smears by relinquishing control of his vocabulary to whoever asks. It is on everyone to grow some perspective and not start shit where shit is not needed.
67
Ah, the left.
Also, it seems every oppressed minority wants to be the blacks, redux. They provide the template, and they have the "n-word", so in order to fill in the template, we better have a "t-word".
Also, it seems every oppressed minority wants to be the blacks, redux. They provide the template, and they have the "n-word", so in order to fill in the template, we better have a "t-word".
68
Also, it's called the "Chatham house rule" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatham_Hou…). Perhaps since that name is a nod to a group of rich white men, it's tainted and must be suppressed.
69
To all of those non cisgendered folks out there loosen the fuck up. If ya can't do that go and get yourself a movement all on your own. WE DON"T FUCKING NEED YOU.
Anyone remember the publisher that decided to replace all the "nigger" references in Huckleberry Finn with the word "slave"?
That guy on the Daily Show (the "black" correspondent) remarked that Twain used a term that reflected racism--in 19th century America, Twain's own possible racism, etc.--while the publisher reduced it to a job description.
That guy on the Daily Show (the "black" correspondent) remarked that Twain used a term that reflected racism--in 19th century America, Twain's own possible racism, etc.--while the publisher reduced it to a job description.
71
Alright, you know, it does seem to me that this student was being hypersensitive. But you know what else? I am a cisgender person. Not sure my opinion is the most important one in this situation, especially since I wasn't there.
I like Dan Savage. A lot. I also feel that he isn't the most sensitive teddy-bear on the block, which is a common side effect in folks who shoot from the hip, as he does.
Is it possible that this is a situation where he offended someone, who maybe had a right to be offended, and maybe he should have been a little more sensitive? Is it possible that this also does not constitute a hate crime, but an instance of discomfort in human interaction - a personality clash? Is it possible that each party holds differing opinions about what is appropriate and politically correct - and that each party is entitled to those opinions?
I don't know. I wasn't there.
Needless to say, I, as a U of C grad and a rational, deeply flawed human being, am capable of enjoying Dan Savage and also extending my sympathy to this student AT THE SAME TIME. No one should be made to feel attacked. I wasn't there, so I don't know if this student's impression of Dan Savage's attitude was correct. But their take-away from the situation is important to THEM. I don't like to think of anyone feeling threatened in that way. Even if it is a result of hypersensitivity (and as I said, I have no idea if that is the cause or not - I WASN'T THERE and if YOU weren't there, then you don't really know.)
Seriously, I have no idea what an objective interpretation of the situation was. But I do know that what I personally care most about is that people feel safe and supported. I suppose, if I'd had my druthers, I would have liked Dan Savage to have backed down in that confrontation in deference to another person's comfort. I dunno, though, maybe in the moment that seemed totally unreasonable to him. I just know that I personally value offering that comfort to others more than being the voice of reason. I fully recognize that this often leaves me in the weaker position, logic-wise.
Innahoo, my ending point is thus:
Keep talking, Dan Savage, I like the words you say.
Keep talking back, people who challenge him, the words you say are important as well.
More...
I like Dan Savage. A lot. I also feel that he isn't the most sensitive teddy-bear on the block, which is a common side effect in folks who shoot from the hip, as he does.
Is it possible that this is a situation where he offended someone, who maybe had a right to be offended, and maybe he should have been a little more sensitive? Is it possible that this also does not constitute a hate crime, but an instance of discomfort in human interaction - a personality clash? Is it possible that each party holds differing opinions about what is appropriate and politically correct - and that each party is entitled to those opinions?
I don't know. I wasn't there.
Needless to say, I, as a U of C grad and a rational, deeply flawed human being, am capable of enjoying Dan Savage and also extending my sympathy to this student AT THE SAME TIME. No one should be made to feel attacked. I wasn't there, so I don't know if this student's impression of Dan Savage's attitude was correct. But their take-away from the situation is important to THEM. I don't like to think of anyone feeling threatened in that way. Even if it is a result of hypersensitivity (and as I said, I have no idea if that is the cause or not - I WASN'T THERE and if YOU weren't there, then you don't really know.)
Seriously, I have no idea what an objective interpretation of the situation was. But I do know that what I personally care most about is that people feel safe and supported. I suppose, if I'd had my druthers, I would have liked Dan Savage to have backed down in that confrontation in deference to another person's comfort. I dunno, though, maybe in the moment that seemed totally unreasonable to him. I just know that I personally value offering that comfort to others more than being the voice of reason. I fully recognize that this often leaves me in the weaker position, logic-wise.
Innahoo, my ending point is thus:
Keep talking, Dan Savage, I like the words you say.
Keep talking back, people who challenge him, the words you say are important as well.
72
Alright, you know, it does seem to me that this student was being hypersensitive. But you know what else? I am a cisgender person. Not sure my opinion is the most important one in this situation, especially since I wasn't there.
I like Dan Savage. A lot. I also feel that he isn't the most sensitive teddy-bear on the block, which is a common side effect in folks who shoot from the hip, as he does.
Is it possible that this is a situation where he offended someone, who maybe had a right to be offended, and maybe he should have been a little more sensitive? Is it possible that this also does not constitute a hate crime, but an instance of discomfort in human interaction - a personality clash? Is it possible that each party holds differing opinions about what is appropriate and politically correct - and that each party is entitled to those opinions?
I don't know. I wasn't there.
Needless to say, I, as a U of C grad and a rational, deeply flawed human being, am capable of enjoying Dan Savage and also extending my sympathy to this student AT THE SAME TIME. No one should be made to feel attacked. I wasn't there, so I don't know if this student's impression of Dan Savage's attitude was correct. But their take-away from the situation is important to THEM. I don't like to think of anyone feeling threatened in that way. Even if it is a result of hypersensitivity (and as I said, I have no idea if that is the cause or not - I WASN'T THERE and if YOU weren't there, then you don't really know.)
Seriously, I have no idea what an objective interpretation of the situation was. But I do know that what I personally care most about is that people feel safe and supported. I suppose, if I'd had my druthers, I would have liked Dan Savage to have backed down in that confrontation in deference to another person's comfort. I dunno, though, maybe in the moment that seemed totally unreasonable to him. I just know that I personally value offering that comfort to others more than being the voice of reason. I fully recognize that this often leaves me in the weaker position, logic-wise.
Innahoo, my ending point is thus:
Keep talking, Dan Savage, I like the words you say.
Keep talking back, people who challenge him, the words you say are important as well.
More...
I like Dan Savage. A lot. I also feel that he isn't the most sensitive teddy-bear on the block, which is a common side effect in folks who shoot from the hip, as he does.
Is it possible that this is a situation where he offended someone, who maybe had a right to be offended, and maybe he should have been a little more sensitive? Is it possible that this also does not constitute a hate crime, but an instance of discomfort in human interaction - a personality clash? Is it possible that each party holds differing opinions about what is appropriate and politically correct - and that each party is entitled to those opinions?
I don't know. I wasn't there.
Needless to say, I, as a U of C grad and a rational, deeply flawed human being, am capable of enjoying Dan Savage and also extending my sympathy to this student AT THE SAME TIME. No one should be made to feel attacked. I wasn't there, so I don't know if this student's impression of Dan Savage's attitude was correct. But their take-away from the situation is important to THEM. I don't like to think of anyone feeling threatened in that way. Even if it is a result of hypersensitivity (and as I said, I have no idea if that is the cause or not - I WASN'T THERE and if YOU weren't there, then you don't really know.)
Seriously, I have no idea what an objective interpretation of the situation was. But I do know that what I personally care most about is that people feel safe and supported. I suppose, if I'd had my druthers, I would have liked Dan Savage to have backed down in that confrontation in deference to another person's comfort. I dunno, though, maybe in the moment that seemed totally unreasonable to him. I just know that I personally value offering that comfort to others more than being the voice of reason. I fully recognize that this often leaves me in the weaker position, logic-wise.
Innahoo, my ending point is thus:
Keep talking, Dan Savage, I like the words you say.
Keep talking back, people who challenge him, the words you say are important as well.
The older I get, the more deeply prejudiced I get. Prejudiced against people in academia who are under 25. Maybe just against all people under 25. I'm always trying to fight that bigotry, but articles like this remind me how much better the fight for equality is when everyone involved is actually a grown up.
Dan, I normally love your writing, but get to the fucking point. What is the point? That you were maligned by students? That students are too sensetive? That "tranny" is a complicated word? You're all over the place and obviously upset and trying to get the flying monkeys on board.
You might want to run this shit by an editor before posting next time, because here it sounds like a rudderless rant. xxxooo!
You might want to run this shit by an editor before posting next time, because here it sounds like a rudderless rant. xxxooo!
81
@71, 72: No. Comfort is not the trump card.
@78, 79: If you guys are finding this mentally challenging, maybe stick to Charles Mudede's posts.
@78, 79: If you guys are finding this mentally challenging, maybe stick to Charles Mudede's posts.
83
@79, no- please Dan do not put your pieces by an editor/ love the passion and spontaneous words .
Yes, in the columns I've seen- a couple have been a bit confronting ( the shit coming back out of the toilet into a woman's arse was a pretty hard image to get outta my head )... This piece reads pretty clear to me... And your pissed off ness at this treatment also comes thru. And fully justified. Hope you can shake it off soon..
Yes, in the columns I've seen- a couple have been a bit confronting ( the shit coming back out of the toilet into a woman's arse was a pretty hard image to get outta my head )... This piece reads pretty clear to me... And your pissed off ness at this treatment also comes thru. And fully justified. Hope you can shake it off soon..
84
I really don't think this merited a response, Dan. This situation is kids learning how to be in the world. You're already being defended on campus where this little incident belongs. I substitute at a pre-school on occasion. If a couple kids start yelling "poopy head" at me it's incumbent on the school to instruct the kids about how to respect visitors. No need for me to assert my non-poopy head bonafides in a 2000 word letter to my local paper. This is essentially the same situation.
English is a narrow, pointless language. In German referring to some persons as "it" ("es") is perfectly acceptable. Teenaged girls (das Madchen) are "it". On the other hand, all transexuals (der Transsechtualer) are "he" ("er"). On yet another hand, all sailors (die Matrose) are "she".
Danno, you are an intelligent guy, so I won't beat around the bush, but why did you pull a paul?
I don't blame you for being upset, as I am sure that particular student was a little over-sensitive, however pretending like you don't understand what the deal is, is a pretty lame excuse. It's the kind of shit Paul would do, but you have less of a problem with honesty
Your weak spot is you tend to be an asshole, but just a little bit, so I am sure you understand how someone could get a little upset with you, and it's sorta silly to pretend that it doesn't come with the terrortory. I wasn't there and I am not going to watch the video, however it's probably safe to say that the student's reaction would have been more appropriate if it was only Ana Marie that was uttering the T-slur.
You may have honestly had absolutely no intention of being offensive, but like a tormenting older brother knows how to instigate shit telepathically, I doubt that the absolute innocence is 100% true. I am not sure why journalists take so much pride in doing it, but being an asshole ultra-subtle-like is practically a pass time
Like I said, I am sure the student played a part to, but there really is more honor is honesty, if anything, save the asshole face for the religious people. You'll get more pleasure pissing off them and you are sort of a spokesperson for equal rights, it wouldn't hurt to mind your P's & Q's around people who struggle against similar injustices that you know first hand, all too well
Just a suggestion, as you can see here from all the comments, if you want pretend you had no roll in it what so ever, you'll have plenty of support and others saying " Your right Dan!"
it's not really a huge deal, anyway, tell Jeremiah I said hi
More...
I don't blame you for being upset, as I am sure that particular student was a little over-sensitive, however pretending like you don't understand what the deal is, is a pretty lame excuse. It's the kind of shit Paul would do, but you have less of a problem with honesty
Your weak spot is you tend to be an asshole, but just a little bit, so I am sure you understand how someone could get a little upset with you, and it's sorta silly to pretend that it doesn't come with the terrortory. I wasn't there and I am not going to watch the video, however it's probably safe to say that the student's reaction would have been more appropriate if it was only Ana Marie that was uttering the T-slur.
You may have honestly had absolutely no intention of being offensive, but like a tormenting older brother knows how to instigate shit telepathically, I doubt that the absolute innocence is 100% true. I am not sure why journalists take so much pride in doing it, but being an asshole ultra-subtle-like is practically a pass time
Like I said, I am sure the student played a part to, but there really is more honor is honesty, if anything, save the asshole face for the religious people. You'll get more pleasure pissing off them and you are sort of a spokesperson for equal rights, it wouldn't hurt to mind your P's & Q's around people who struggle against similar injustices that you know first hand, all too well
Just a suggestion, as you can see here from all the comments, if you want pretend you had no roll in it what so ever, you'll have plenty of support and others saying " Your right Dan!"
it's not really a huge deal, anyway, tell Jeremiah I said hi
87
I'm with #18. In my high school days, (late 60's), "queer" was one of the most hateful things one could say about anyone. I'd still prefer you not refer to me that way. That being said, if I only hear things said that I agree with, don't I become like on of those Republicans addressing an invitation-only rally? Preaching to the choir has always been an exercise in futility.
The people at QUIP will grow up after they graduate and get into the real world where THEIR (probably middle class) privilege of attending a university won't mean shit to anyone ever again.
89
Context is always important and Dan is a smart guy. How could a smart guy not realize that calling someone "it" would be offensive to anyone overhearing the conversation? If I was talking to that person, sure, I'll use "it" if that's what "it" prefers. But no one else knows that at the Starbucks.
And everyone needs to get a grip and quit being such a crybaby. "The mean man said something mean!" Give me a break.
And everyone needs to get a grip and quit being such a crybaby. "The mean man said something mean!" Give me a break.
On a positive note from the real world, I attended Washington DC's Pride Parade yesterday.
Among the things that made me tear up:
The people marching with PFLAG and various churches, especially those marching from rural Virginia.
Also, a young trans-man with a sign reading "I may only be 15 but I already know that I am a man." Next to him was his mother with a sign reading, "I support my transgendered son."
It made me tear up with happiness. Things are changing rapidly for the better.
Probably one of the reasons why members of QUIP can waste their time with such triviality.
Among the things that made me tear up:
The people marching with PFLAG and various churches, especially those marching from rural Virginia.
Also, a young trans-man with a sign reading "I may only be 15 but I already know that I am a man." Next to him was his mother with a sign reading, "I support my transgendered son."
It made me tear up with happiness. Things are changing rapidly for the better.
Probably one of the reasons why members of QUIP can waste their time with such triviality.
Thank you, Dan. You are amazing.
I'm reminded of my beef with Fagbug. The owner tours campuses where LGBT groups have been advocating a ban on casual use of "faggot" and then invite a speaker whose brand is the slur. I've lobbed the more harm than good insult.
I have become a strong supporter of trans people and I understand how painful it can be not to be recognized as the gender you are, but I think recognition that use of the wrong pronoun is almost never intended as a slur is important.
I'm reminded of my beef with Fagbug. The owner tours campuses where LGBT groups have been advocating a ban on casual use of "faggot" and then invite a speaker whose brand is the slur. I've lobbed the more harm than good insult.
I have become a strong supporter of trans people and I understand how painful it can be not to be recognized as the gender you are, but I think recognition that use of the wrong pronoun is almost never intended as a slur is important.
93
Reading thru the references Dan has given- wow. In the comments section of one of the articles, gay men calling out to drop the T, because so much stuff is going down.
And I'm guessing after this , Uni ofChicago may find it hard to attract high profile people to speak at this seminar in future.
People with gender identification issues, by the very nature of identifying with the sex other than what they are born with, are suffering ( I would assume). Is there a resolution to this inner conflict? Is there a point where some or most trans people feel some clarity in their gender? After hormones/ after surgery..
This swirling energy that never seems to settle,
Always a new battle . Can't say tranny/ can't say transsexual/
Women and men have to prefix cis.. So trans people have a space.
It won't ever be that a trans woman will be able to bear a child, be able to breast feed .. Maybe this rage is just externalised, so it doesn't matter how many hoops we all jump thru- which names we use to support a trans person/ or how much acceptance of them is given/ it will never be enough for some.
And I'm guessing after this , Uni ofChicago may find it hard to attract high profile people to speak at this seminar in future.
People with gender identification issues, by the very nature of identifying with the sex other than what they are born with, are suffering ( I would assume). Is there a resolution to this inner conflict? Is there a point where some or most trans people feel some clarity in their gender? After hormones/ after surgery..
This swirling energy that never seems to settle,
Always a new battle . Can't say tranny/ can't say transsexual/
Women and men have to prefix cis.. So trans people have a space.
It won't ever be that a trans woman will be able to bear a child, be able to breast feed .. Maybe this rage is just externalised, so it doesn't matter how many hoops we all jump thru- which names we use to support a trans person/ or how much acceptance of them is given/ it will never be enough for some.
94
@61 Yep. When I talk about my experiences in graduate school--a program housing ethnic, women's, and queer studies--my partner frequently replies that it sounds like a cult, and not unlike the religious fundamentalism she walked away from to come out of the closet.
I'm glad Dan has taken to defend himself, because this is the self-cannibalism of the left. The right makes big bank off the absurdity of these kinds of temper tantrums masquerading as activism. It's a key reason why the humanities have been so successfully diminished and discredited in the increasingly corporatized university.
In my experience, the language and image and self-identity obsessed college students and academics--who tell themselves that they are revolutionaries--suffer from the very "privilege" they use as a cudgel to silence anyone who challenges or threatens them. It explains why they define their adversaries in such narrow terms (i.e. Dan Savage is the enemy but Santorum speaks without incident.)
When I was a faculty member, an activist group on campus had shut down classes for over a week. Among their demands was to ban the n-word from the campus, with sanctions for violators. As you can imagine, the white libertarian ranks on campus swelled because of the presumed victimization such a move implied ("free speech!," "free speech!"). Another hot button issue that suffused the protests was cultural appropriation, to the point where the white self-martyrs set up get-your-own-Mohawk stands to protest their supposed oppression by the "Drama Monarchs" (love that).
And during all of these episodes I was teaching courses on conservative attacks on voting rights, the imprisoning of an entire generation of people of color for minor drug offenses, and ongoing historical studies of how racism continues to shape collective hostility toward the poor as an effective way to attack the social safety net.
And I cannot tell you how many of my classes got derailed because the outrage, counter-outrage, counter-counter-outrage, what-about-my-outrage came to dominate every damn conversation.
More...
I'm glad Dan has taken to defend himself, because this is the self-cannibalism of the left. The right makes big bank off the absurdity of these kinds of temper tantrums masquerading as activism. It's a key reason why the humanities have been so successfully diminished and discredited in the increasingly corporatized university.
In my experience, the language and image and self-identity obsessed college students and academics--who tell themselves that they are revolutionaries--suffer from the very "privilege" they use as a cudgel to silence anyone who challenges or threatens them. It explains why they define their adversaries in such narrow terms (i.e. Dan Savage is the enemy but Santorum speaks without incident.)
When I was a faculty member, an activist group on campus had shut down classes for over a week. Among their demands was to ban the n-word from the campus, with sanctions for violators. As you can imagine, the white libertarian ranks on campus swelled because of the presumed victimization such a move implied ("free speech!," "free speech!"). Another hot button issue that suffused the protests was cultural appropriation, to the point where the white self-martyrs set up get-your-own-Mohawk stands to protest their supposed oppression by the "Drama Monarchs" (love that).
And during all of these episodes I was teaching courses on conservative attacks on voting rights, the imprisoning of an entire generation of people of color for minor drug offenses, and ongoing historical studies of how racism continues to shape collective hostility toward the poor as an effective way to attack the social safety net.
And I cannot tell you how many of my classes got derailed because the outrage, counter-outrage, counter-counter-outrage, what-about-my-outrage came to dominate every damn conversation.
95
Just in case someone wants to use the examples given @85, they're almost entirely wrong:
A transsexual person is der _or_ die Transexuelle (sic!) depending on their preferred gender/pronoun. Der Matrose is grammatically male. A female sailor is "die Matrosin."
It is correct that a girl, "das Mädchen," is grammatically neuter (because it's technically a diminuitive and all diminuitives formed with "-chen" are neuter.) That said, no one would refer to a specific girl as "it"—it's always "she."
Picking German, of all languages, as an example of how to handle gender in language is a bad joke. Writing even moderately gender-neutral language is German is a fucking nightmare since the generic form of every single profession, for example, is gendered (almost exclusively male), so your choices are either to use sexist language or to use in awkward gender-neutral constructions. In English you just use "they" and you're done with it and nouns don't have a natural gender in the first place. _So_ much better. (For those interested in feminist history, Monique Wittig actually points to the advantage of English over French in gender-neutral—or in her terms gender universalist—language).
A transsexual person is der _or_ die Transexuelle (sic!) depending on their preferred gender/pronoun. Der Matrose is grammatically male. A female sailor is "die Matrosin."
It is correct that a girl, "das Mädchen," is grammatically neuter (because it's technically a diminuitive and all diminuitives formed with "-chen" are neuter.) That said, no one would refer to a specific girl as "it"—it's always "she."
Picking German, of all languages, as an example of how to handle gender in language is a bad joke. Writing even moderately gender-neutral language is German is a fucking nightmare since the generic form of every single profession, for example, is gendered (almost exclusively male), so your choices are either to use sexist language or to use in awkward gender-neutral constructions. In English you just use "they" and you're done with it and nouns don't have a natural gender in the first place. _So_ much better. (For those interested in feminist history, Monique Wittig actually points to the advantage of English over French in gender-neutral—or in her terms gender universalist—language).
96
I am largely in agreement with Mr Kevin.
From the comments of the Maroon article to which Mr Savage linked:
[And trust me, Dan Savage has done way more to marginalize trans people than Rick Santorum... we are not even on Santorum's radar for the most part. But Savage has used his authority in the gay community and liberal America to shut down voices of trans people and undermine their efforts.]
I could make a case that I feel marginalized more often (though not to greater effect) by various specific feminists who tend to have heterosexist moments than by most anti-gay politicians whose primary concerns lie elsewhere - but perhaps one notices specific marginalization more than when one is in one group of many being marginalized, and there are certainly far more opportunities to notice the missteps of someone who much more frequently addresses issues at the top of the list. But it seems as if this approach only counts the negatives. Would this person deny that Mr Savage, when not doing or saying things resulting in offence, has done a great deal more than Mr Santorum to empower the voices of trans people? Even accepting higher gross negatives, how does the net balance not swing undisputably the other way?
From the comments of the Maroon article to which Mr Savage linked:
[And trust me, Dan Savage has done way more to marginalize trans people than Rick Santorum... we are not even on Santorum's radar for the most part. But Savage has used his authority in the gay community and liberal America to shut down voices of trans people and undermine their efforts.]
I could make a case that I feel marginalized more often (though not to greater effect) by various specific feminists who tend to have heterosexist moments than by most anti-gay politicians whose primary concerns lie elsewhere - but perhaps one notices specific marginalization more than when one is in one group of many being marginalized, and there are certainly far more opportunities to notice the missteps of someone who much more frequently addresses issues at the top of the list. But it seems as if this approach only counts the negatives. Would this person deny that Mr Savage, when not doing or saying things resulting in offence, has done a great deal more than Mr Santorum to empower the voices of trans people? Even accepting higher gross negatives, how does the net balance not swing undisputably the other way?
@48: I believe @45 answers that question succinctly, in a way. "It" hates the It Gets Better project because "it" resents Dan's appropriation of the word "it", which "it" has reclaimed for itself.
98
Also, if what I read in one of the linked articles was a quotation and not a paraphrase, the petition does not refer to the student by the correct chosen pronoun, saying "they had to rush out of the room" (or whatever the exact phrase was) rather than "it". Perhaps a lesser offence than a slur, but not ideal for the petitioners.
99
Always surprised at how most of my friends dislike Dan vehemently and are astonished and even angry that I'm saying with approval about what Dan said this week or that week. That is, gay male friends, straights & lesbians say Dan who? And a few trans friends are as likely to have heard he's a Bad Cisman and have labeled him persona non grata.
When I ask why they dislike him so the most common answers are: he's too much of an asshole (obv they haven't read his tear jerkingly tender essays on his mom, family, etc.) or he's not funny enough anymore, not edgy enough anymore, not enough of an asshole anymore (obv they haven't listened to the podcast), or he's too angry (obv they haven't bothered to listen / read that his anger is directed mostly at appropriate targets that do egregious harm, like the Santorums and 2nd amendment nuts).
Sheesh. Maybe they are all secretly jealous of his biceps which look way more awesome in person than on TV. :-)
When I ask why they dislike him so the most common answers are: he's too much of an asshole (obv they haven't read his tear jerkingly tender essays on his mom, family, etc.) or he's not funny enough anymore, not edgy enough anymore, not enough of an asshole anymore (obv they haven't listened to the podcast), or he's too angry (obv they haven't bothered to listen / read that his anger is directed mostly at appropriate targets that do egregious harm, like the Santorums and 2nd amendment nuts).
Sheesh. Maybe they are all secretly jealous of his biceps which look way more awesome in person than on TV. :-)
100
@99
True.
Dan's columns (i.e. him) can be great -- commonsensical, even "traditional" in the very best sense, very human, clever, direct but gentle etc.
But I have seen him BULLY people and be just a bit too full of himself.
Him of all people: a bully.
Then again, maybe he is aware of that flaw (and most of us have some of it) and admits it in his work? Which would be admirable.
True.
Dan's columns (i.e. him) can be great -- commonsensical, even "traditional" in the very best sense, very human, clever, direct but gentle etc.
But I have seen him BULLY people and be just a bit too full of himself.
Him of all people: a bully.
Then again, maybe he is aware of that flaw (and most of us have some of it) and admits it in his work? Which would be admirable.
@85: Very well put response.
The German language (or the German anything) is an absurd solution to sexism/gender bias. And Romance languages (French, Spanish, Italian, etc.) are of course suffused with gender-crazy rules. English is actually not all that bad in this regard, when it comes down to it. Mandarin Chinese might be best of all in terms of gender-neutral pronouns, but it seems...doubtful that westerners are going to start speaking it anytime soon (then again, who knows?).
@100:
Dan is the furthest thing from a bully. He's the youngest brother in a large family from a large city. Trust me, his seemingly hair-trigger ability to go into attack dog mode is just a part of who he is. Why would we be reading/listening to him if he were someone else?
The German language (or the German anything) is an absurd solution to sexism/gender bias. And Romance languages (French, Spanish, Italian, etc.) are of course suffused with gender-crazy rules. English is actually not all that bad in this regard, when it comes down to it. Mandarin Chinese might be best of all in terms of gender-neutral pronouns, but it seems...doubtful that westerners are going to start speaking it anytime soon (then again, who knows?).
@100:
Dan is the furthest thing from a bully. He's the youngest brother in a large family from a large city. Trust me, his seemingly hair-trigger ability to go into attack dog mode is just a part of who he is. Why would we be reading/listening to him if he were someone else?
102
The problem with letting manufactured outrage get under your skin is that you end up feeding trolls.
They so badly want attention that it just encourages the further manufacturing of outrage, and the spinning wheel of finger-pointing and stamping of feet takes on the appearance of a perpetual motion outrage machine.
Dan, you pledged not so long ago to stop giving Fox News attention when they're being intentionally provocative--when they're being total trollish tools, which is their favorite pose, because it stirs things up and garners them more attention than they merit.
I respectfully suggest, Dan, that you apply that same principle to trans trolls. They just want the attention that comes from leveraging your fame and name, Dan--stop feeding them.
They so badly want attention that it just encourages the further manufacturing of outrage, and the spinning wheel of finger-pointing and stamping of feet takes on the appearance of a perpetual motion outrage machine.
Dan, you pledged not so long ago to stop giving Fox News attention when they're being intentionally provocative--when they're being total trollish tools, which is their favorite pose, because it stirs things up and garners them more attention than they merit.
I respectfully suggest, Dan, that you apply that same principle to trans trolls. They just want the attention that comes from leveraging your fame and name, Dan--stop feeding them.
103
@100 you've seen Dan BULLY people, your use of caps, please elaborate!
In the last 15 years I've read all his books, read almost all of his columns, maybe a third of his blog posts, and listened to about 10% of the podcasts, almost none of his TV appearances, one episode of that MTV show -- too many ads, I hate TV, also seen him live once. Amazing biceps. Perhaps a have a bias for biceps. Entertaining persistence yes, attacking evil people yes, but I have never seen what I'd remotely call bullying.
So please elaborate because either he's been bullying people someplace I've missed, or you and I have very different definitions of what a bully is. My definition is someone powerful attacking someone less powerful, deliberately and repeatedly, with no empathy or sensitivity, going after someone who didn't do anything bad, for the purpose of the bully's personal gain, sadistic pleasure, or to intimidate the vulnerable into silence.
In the last 15 years I've read all his books, read almost all of his columns, maybe a third of his blog posts, and listened to about 10% of the podcasts, almost none of his TV appearances, one episode of that MTV show -- too many ads, I hate TV, also seen him live once. Amazing biceps. Perhaps a have a bias for biceps. Entertaining persistence yes, attacking evil people yes, but I have never seen what I'd remotely call bullying.
So please elaborate because either he's been bullying people someplace I've missed, or you and I have very different definitions of what a bully is. My definition is someone powerful attacking someone less powerful, deliberately and repeatedly, with no empathy or sensitivity, going after someone who didn't do anything bad, for the purpose of the bully's personal gain, sadistic pleasure, or to intimidate the vulnerable into silence.
104
@100: Disagreeing with someone is not bullying. Pointing out stupid comments or behavior is not bullying. Calling out bullshit is not bullying.
Demanding that people not do any of those things, OTOH, is bullying.
This kind of privileged, entitled, controlling behavior is the leftist counterpart of the rightwing bigotry that cries censorship when people boycott its proponents. You have the right to express yourself - you do not have the right to force people to listen to you, Rush Limbaugh, nor do you have the right to force people to agree with you, QUIP. A key part of freedom of speech is that it's not just for you - you have to extend it to the people around you and the people who disagree with you. But these narcissistic jackasses don't understand that, and as a result they're not only derailing their own causes, they're giving ammunition to the other side.
When libertarians and fascists on the right criticize the left for "political correctness" and "word policing", they're mostly just complaining that their own privilege isn't as enormous as it used to be. But then something like this comes along and proves them right for a change.
So there's an example of the damage this shit causes, as eloquently detailed by Matt from Denver @65.
Demanding that people not do any of those things, OTOH, is bullying.
This kind of privileged, entitled, controlling behavior is the leftist counterpart of the rightwing bigotry that cries censorship when people boycott its proponents. You have the right to express yourself - you do not have the right to force people to listen to you, Rush Limbaugh, nor do you have the right to force people to agree with you, QUIP. A key part of freedom of speech is that it's not just for you - you have to extend it to the people around you and the people who disagree with you. But these narcissistic jackasses don't understand that, and as a result they're not only derailing their own causes, they're giving ammunition to the other side.
When libertarians and fascists on the right criticize the left for "political correctness" and "word policing", they're mostly just complaining that their own privilege isn't as enormous as it used to be. But then something like this comes along and proves them right for a change.
So there's an example of the damage this shit causes, as eloquently detailed by Matt from Denver @65.
I bet "it" basks in "its" 15 minutes glory. What an asshole.
"Time does nothing to that subject,
when one's an asshole, one's an asshole,
be one 20 or be one a grandpa,
when one's an asshole, one's an asshole,
between you no more controversies,
obsolete assholes or asshole beginners
small assholes from the last rain,
old assholes from the snows of yesteryear !"
(badly translated from Georges Brassens, songwriter and poet.
"Time does nothing to that subject,
when one's an asshole, one's an asshole,
be one 20 or be one a grandpa,
when one's an asshole, one's an asshole,
between you no more controversies,
obsolete assholes or asshole beginners
small assholes from the last rain,
old assholes from the snows of yesteryear !"
(badly translated from Georges Brassens, songwriter and poet.
106
As a generally proud U of C alum (see my username), this whole thing pisses me off to no end. Part of the reason you go the U of C is to be challenged and engaged by ideas that you don't necessarily share and people that you don't necessarily agree with. If what you want is to live in a bubble that only people who speak how you want them to speak and think how you want them to think can penetrate, go to Brown and major in underwater basket weaving. You clearly aren't mature enough to handle "Vita Excolatur."
Oh, and on a side note, I will never, ever, under any circumstances, refer to a human being as "it" in polite company. If a person were to ask me to refer to him or her as "that nigger" instead of using gendered pronouns, I wouldn't oblige either.
Oh, and on a side note, I will never, ever, under any circumstances, refer to a human being as "it" in polite company. If a person were to ask me to refer to him or her as "that nigger" instead of using gendered pronouns, I wouldn't oblige either.
107
When you're in someone else's space, and they ask you not to use a specific word - no matter the reason - acting patronizing or condescending is not the correct response. Writing an article like this is not the correct response. I see a lot of "I'm not at fault; look at how ridiculous this student was" when in fact, as the adult who has to moderate a discussion that is inclusive of all participants, the burden - unfairly or not, as perceived by you, because I do not think it is an unfair burden in the least - falls upon you, and the moderator, to listen to the request, and then either say "I don't feel like following your request" and ending the conversation, thus excluding the student and stop acting like you were trying to be inclusive, or say "I don't understand your request, but I'll follow it for this discussion because I'd rather have everyone on board and not get sidetracked from our main goal." You can't play both sides and pretend to come out the hero, because you, a cis male who has never had that particular slur leveled at you with the same emotional connotations as someone who is not cis would have had, are not the hero here. You are in the wrong. And the fact you can't suck it up and say 'hey, I don't know why you're this upset, but I'm sorry for making you upset' - genuinely, of course, as your sarcasm up above is nothing short of insincere - says a lot about you, as a person.
Stop trying to be a person who works for all rights, when you obviously can't include those who need those rights in the first place. You can't teach African Americans anything about reclaiming the n-word as you are white; similarly, you can't teach and preach to trans people anything about reclaiming the t-slur, as you are not trans, and have no supporting background to build off of for that kind of a discussion.
More...
Stop trying to be a person who works for all rights, when you obviously can't include those who need those rights in the first place. You can't teach African Americans anything about reclaiming the n-word as you are white; similarly, you can't teach and preach to trans people anything about reclaiming the t-slur, as you are not trans, and have no supporting background to build off of for that kind of a discussion.
108
When you're in someone else's space, and they ask you not to use a specific word - no matter the reason - acting patronizing or condescending is not the correct response. Writing an article like this is not the correct response. I see a lot of "I'm not at fault; look at how ridiculous this student was" when in fact, as the adult who has to moderate a discussion that is inclusive of all participants, the burden - unfairly or not, as perceived by you, because I do not think it is an unfair burden in the least - falls upon you, and the moderator, to listen to the request, and then either say "I don't feel like following your request" and ending the conversation, thus excluding the student and stop acting like you were trying to be inclusive, or say "I don't understand your request, but I'll follow it for this discussion because I'd rather have everyone on board and not get sidetracked from our main goal." You can't play both sides and pretend to come out the hero, because you, a cis male who has never had that particular slur leveled at you with the same emotional connotations as someone who is not cis would have had, are not the hero here. You are in the wrong. And the fact you can't suck it up and say 'hey, I don't know why you're this upset, but I'm sorry for making you upset' - genuinely, of course, as your sarcasm up above is nothing short of insincere - says a lot about you, as a person.
Stop trying to be a person who works for all rights, when you obviously can't include those who need those rights in the first place. You can't teach African Americans anything about reclaiming the n-word as you are white; similarly, you can't teach and preach to trans people anything about reclaiming the t-slur, as you are not trans, and have no supporting background to build off of for that kind of a discussion.
More...
Stop trying to be a person who works for all rights, when you obviously can't include those who need those rights in the first place. You can't teach African Americans anything about reclaiming the n-word as you are white; similarly, you can't teach and preach to trans people anything about reclaiming the t-slur, as you are not trans, and have no supporting background to build off of for that kind of a discussion.
109
Ages 17ish to 24ish are all about identity development and it's a messy time. I teach in a college, and 90% of my students are trying to figure existential lifeshit out—all while passing classes and figuring out what to do as a career. Some of them are more rational and polite about their ennui than others. The highly sensitive student who gave Dan shit is going through a major transitional stage, compounded by discovery of gender identification (or lack of). These students don't have a lot to go on and are just figuring out their way. Unfortunately, they are doing it in a very rude and antisocial way. But that's sometimes what we get with college students. They don't have enough life experience yet to understand that being aggressive and demanding doesn't equate with maturity and leadership.
These so-called "differences of opinion" really would have helped Alan Turin with his tests.
While a machine can never qualify as a consciously thinking living being, the ignorant human can definitely qualify itself to be a machine and disqualify it's mind of being human.
it only takes a little bit of unrecognized ignorance when that ignorance is mislabled as being knowledgeable of truthful subjects.
For instance, when parsing right from wrong, in a world with varying core beliefs about what defines "right" from "wrong" it matters less what the actual action is, and has everything to do with whether or not the action is desired and consented to by a fully knowledgeable adults.
So I think it's the mark of a machine when a person claims to understand why what makes a BDSM scenes right or wrong, in sense of absoluteness, has everything to do with that consent,
yet to then remain ignorant of the definition of public and private spaces, as that difference will tell you whether or not you can rightfully claim your behavior as being able to be consented to,
so the whole "danger" that Matt describes in #65 is complete and utter bullshit, as that logic only does not fly unless the space is private as opposed to public
There is a reason that Our Constitution has so much to do with ownership, property, and defining the difference between public and private spaces.
As those definitions are necessary to be always be able to parse any situation as whose actions are in the right, or that they have the right to do so, and distinguish the persons whom have the right, from those who do not
It is really is fairly simple
unless of course, you are ignorant, or a machine
More...
While a machine can never qualify as a consciously thinking living being, the ignorant human can definitely qualify itself to be a machine and disqualify it's mind of being human.
it only takes a little bit of unrecognized ignorance when that ignorance is mislabled as being knowledgeable of truthful subjects.
For instance, when parsing right from wrong, in a world with varying core beliefs about what defines "right" from "wrong" it matters less what the actual action is, and has everything to do with whether or not the action is desired and consented to by a fully knowledgeable adults.
So I think it's the mark of a machine when a person claims to understand why what makes a BDSM scenes right or wrong, in sense of absoluteness, has everything to do with that consent,
yet to then remain ignorant of the definition of public and private spaces, as that difference will tell you whether or not you can rightfully claim your behavior as being able to be consented to,
so the whole "danger" that Matt describes in #65 is complete and utter bullshit, as that logic only does not fly unless the space is private as opposed to public
There is a reason that Our Constitution has so much to do with ownership, property, and defining the difference between public and private spaces.
As those definitions are necessary to be always be able to parse any situation as whose actions are in the right, or that they have the right to do so, and distinguish the persons whom have the right, from those who do not
It is really is fairly simple
unless of course, you are ignorant, or a machine
111
@108. If the student had gotten up and said "I am offended by your viewpoint, stop expressing it," and Dan had refused to comply, would that mean he's not "trying to be inclusive"? The purpose of this forum was to get people's unvarnished thoughts. By unilaterally claiming the right to censor those unvarnished thoughts, it was the student who was being not only uninclusive, but utterly inconsiderate to the feelings of everyone else in that room. To borrow a term I have nothing but contempt for, that student was claiming a "trans-privilege" to impose limits on that conversation that no-one else in the room possessed.
And by the same token, declaring that someone's gender and skin color are the sole determinants of what topics they may or may opine on, as you do in your final paragraph, are many times more "exclusionary" than using any word, no matter how offensive.
@110 Your "private" versus "public" distinction makes no sense in this context. Dan was the invited guest to a program run by a private university for the benefit of its students who could freely choose whether or not to attend. That's about as close to a "private" setting as you can get, short of Dan talking to the mirror in his bathroom.
And by the same token, declaring that someone's gender and skin color are the sole determinants of what topics they may or may opine on, as you do in your final paragraph, are many times more "exclusionary" than using any word, no matter how offensive.
@110 Your "private" versus "public" distinction makes no sense in this context. Dan was the invited guest to a program run by a private university for the benefit of its students who could freely choose whether or not to attend. That's about as close to a "private" setting as you can get, short of Dan talking to the mirror in his bathroom.
to which Dan has yet to enter the ignorance of Paul's territory, but Dan does have a problem in that he believes another person's sexuality is something he gets any say in whether or not a person discloses their sexuality or shares it in any way with the public
He does not have the right to say that "a person has a moral responsibility to come out of the closet"
it is perfectly within his rights to tell those people to bite him, whom wish to keep their sexuality as private and not share it with him or the public,
however proclaiming it a moral obligation is violating a person's most basic, core rights, the ones declared in Our Declaration, the same ones LGBT people have had violated since that day in 1776, as the private matters of spirituality and sexuality, are not area's that you will ever have any right to invade , not ever, at least not without them rightful owner of that private space desiring to be violated.
These are very important aspects when it comes to right and wrong behaviors, especially if you are interested in Real freedom, real liberty, and real justice and it care about actually deserving those most basic core rights in your life
because there are certain levels of respect that it is Your duty to voluntarily be responsible for, if you expect to be granted certain freedoms and specific liberties
not respecting another person's rights, and believing that such violations can occur without it meaning your forfeiture of certain freedoms and specific liberties is the mentality of a rapist
which is to not be worthy of the rights guaranteed by Our Constitution
which is why it is a very, very, very stupid thing to do; it is very, very, very stupid to exercise freedoms or liberties which you willingly choose to violate or unconstitutionally withhold said rights from other worthy people
More...
He does not have the right to say that "a person has a moral responsibility to come out of the closet"
it is perfectly within his rights to tell those people to bite him, whom wish to keep their sexuality as private and not share it with him or the public,
however proclaiming it a moral obligation is violating a person's most basic, core rights, the ones declared in Our Declaration, the same ones LGBT people have had violated since that day in 1776, as the private matters of spirituality and sexuality, are not area's that you will ever have any right to invade , not ever, at least not without them rightful owner of that private space desiring to be violated.
These are very important aspects when it comes to right and wrong behaviors, especially if you are interested in Real freedom, real liberty, and real justice and it care about actually deserving those most basic core rights in your life
because there are certain levels of respect that it is Your duty to voluntarily be responsible for, if you expect to be granted certain freedoms and specific liberties
not respecting another person's rights, and believing that such violations can occur without it meaning your forfeiture of certain freedoms and specific liberties is the mentality of a rapist
which is to not be worthy of the rights guaranteed by Our Constitution
which is why it is a very, very, very stupid thing to do; it is very, very, very stupid to exercise freedoms or liberties which you willingly choose to violate or unconstitutionally withhold said rights from other worthy people
@109,
That's a good explanation for what's going on with that particular student. It doesn't explain why that student's own particular issues are being taken seriously by anyone else or why this has turned into a firestorm in the "transcommunity". Anyone with any sense should be telling "it" to grow the fuck up.
@112,
You seriously can't tell the difference between Dan expressing an opinion about coming out being a moral imperative and a fucking Constitutional violation? Grow up.
That's a good explanation for what's going on with that particular student. It doesn't explain why that student's own particular issues are being taken seriously by anyone else or why this has turned into a firestorm in the "transcommunity". Anyone with any sense should be telling "it" to grow the fuck up.
@112,
You seriously can't tell the difference between Dan expressing an opinion about coming out being a moral imperative and a fucking Constitutional violation? Grow up.
114
I thank M? Corner for reminding me that I wondered about Ms Cox. She was moderating, she raised the subject, and her remark about her former jokes was apparently the one instance of The Word being uttered in a context consistent with the inference that it was being used as a slur rather than quoted as part of an academic discussion. And yet the headline reads:
"Comments made by Savage elicited student criticism and an online student petition."
"Comments made by Savage elicited student criticism and an online student petition."
115
"That's not how we do journalism out here in the real world, Maroon"
Ha ha! Dan Savage scolds student journalists to not engage in one source journalism! Because the Stranger NEVER has or will engage in one source journalism.
Ha ha! Dan Savage scolds student journalists to not engage in one source journalism! Because the Stranger NEVER has or will engage in one source journalism.
@ 110, that danger is already being realized. What do you think holding a seminar in private is, with a nondisclosure agreement in place, if not a manifestation of those dangers?
Think about it, if you can. Dan and the other participants had to go behind closed doors because they are already not free to speak about this topic in an open forum. If they do, the howling monkeys of outrage disrupt everything, and intellectual discussions are destroyed by mob rule. And as we now see, even going into hiding is no protection if someone behind that door will break the agreement because "it" didn't get "its" way.
Calling it "bullshit" in the face of such manifestation is in par with climate change denial. It's already happening, and it's delaying social justice for as long as we let it.
Think about it, if you can. Dan and the other participants had to go behind closed doors because they are already not free to speak about this topic in an open forum. If they do, the howling monkeys of outrage disrupt everything, and intellectual discussions are destroyed by mob rule. And as we now see, even going into hiding is no protection if someone behind that door will break the agreement because "it" didn't get "its" way.
Calling it "bullshit" in the face of such manifestation is in par with climate change denial. It's already happening, and it's delaying social justice for as long as we let it.
Marooner and drunk Kevin,
I am saying that if you are going to waste everyone's time arguing shit that has no understanding of how to discern having the right from not having the right, which this whole post is about, it's people like you whom are the reason people have to sign wavers
as nothing would ever get done without people agreeing to take a referee's judgement as the final say, that's how to get around situations where both extreme sides of the idiot fence are represented.
if the fault doesn't lie with Dan or the student, then the moderator is the one who didn't preform their job
as that's the situation we have, drunk Kevin, you are correct, people have to grow up, sign wavers to agree to the mods, or shut the fuck up
I am saying that if you are going to waste everyone's time arguing shit that has no understanding of how to discern having the right from not having the right, which this whole post is about, it's people like you whom are the reason people have to sign wavers
as nothing would ever get done without people agreeing to take a referee's judgement as the final say, that's how to get around situations where both extreme sides of the idiot fence are represented.
if the fault doesn't lie with Dan or the student, then the moderator is the one who didn't preform their job
as that's the situation we have, drunk Kevin, you are correct, people have to grow up, sign wavers to agree to the mods, or shut the fuck up
Two wrongs don't make a right Matt, if Dan wanted to remain in the right, he could have said that he'd love to discuss what happened, however that would break the agreement as others chose to do
which means it's no longer a matter of "private" space, since both sides of the idiot fence decided to drag it into public arenas
which means it's no longer a matter of "private" space, since both sides of the idiot fence decided to drag it into public arenas
Except Dan wasn't wrong. If one participant breaks the agreement, nobody is still bound by it. Especially when one of the other participants is under public attack for what occured at that meeting.
Only one person made this public - "it." Dan loses nothing by engaging the matter now.
You should think these things through more. You're basically arguing that Dan shouldn't be able to defend himself in public. It's like Kafka's Trial except that it's we who are being kept ignorant, while only one side gets to make vague but damaging charges. There is no logical or fair system of ethics that regards that as right.
Only one person made this public - "it." Dan loses nothing by engaging the matter now.
You should think these things through more. You're basically arguing that Dan shouldn't be able to defend himself in public. It's like Kafka's Trial except that it's we who are being kept ignorant, while only one side gets to make vague but damaging charges. There is no logical or fair system of ethics that regards that as right.
121
This is why I want to throw a brick every time someone invokes 'privilege' to try to silence someone else. There may have been a time when the word had meaning. Now it is just a goalpost-moving version of 'shut up, that's why.'
nobodies moving goal posts Poly, it's just the difference between things like instantaneous velocity and average velocity.
It's pointless to argue who is in the right and who is in the wrong accept for every point along the timeline of events.
without addressing the parts where Dan was in the right and after which point he was in the wrong, this is just all that ivy league bullshit of enjoying arguing.
there is no point in discussing a point wherein the student is right with a person who is talking about the point when Dan was still in the right
unless you want a play by play where we are talking about the points where the right and wrong lines are crossed, we might as well invite Paul, and Rick Santorum to solve this problem
It's pointless to argue who is in the right and who is in the wrong accept for every point along the timeline of events.
without addressing the parts where Dan was in the right and after which point he was in the wrong, this is just all that ivy league bullshit of enjoying arguing.
there is no point in discussing a point wherein the student is right with a person who is talking about the point when Dan was still in the right
unless you want a play by play where we are talking about the points where the right and wrong lines are crossed, we might as well invite Paul, and Rick Santorum to solve this problem
123
Just out of curiosity, does U of C get complaints about cultural appropriation over the name 'Maroon'?
Using "tranny" to describe a trans person is hate speech. Using "tranny" to identify it as a problematic word about which you're about to have an academic discussion is NOT hate speech. This is not rocket science.
Spelling out what makes "tranny" problematic, as Dan was attempting to do, would progress trans rights causes by communicating exactly what it is that, well, makes the word "tranny" problematic. (Some of) those who entered that discussion would leave with a better idea of exactly why this word matters so much to trans people. Similarly, the discussion of whether or not it will be reclaimed by trans people is a perfectly appropriate academic discussion, regardless of whether or not the trans community ultimately decides to follow the example that their colleagues laid out with the word "queer."
And I'm sorry, but a huge portion of what makes "tranny" problematic is context. It was not considered a hateful term until it was co-opted by bigots and used to communicate hatred. It's that usage- being used to communicate hatred- that makes it a hate term. Using it hatefully, or casually, would be inappropriate. Using it academically is not, since the context is vastly different.
And before anyone argues against that point, consider that even this "it" person actually agrees with it- for every single other anti-queer slur. This alone should raise red flags about his sincerity. Principles are only principles if you apply them consistently.
When this person insisted that the use of the term is universally inappropriate, they are essentially arguing that context should be ignored and the appropriateness of words should be dictated by knee-jerk whims rather than by the context in which they are being used. This reduces the politics of equality down to a "potty mouth" accusation mentality in which ideas do not matter, but rather a strict set of rules is set forth to either be followed or broken. Ironically, this is arguably a less sensitive approach to slurs, since it reduces them to mere "naughty words" and ignores the fact that what makes so many slurs offensive is their ugly historical context, not merely their inclusion on somebody's no-no list.
I'm not the type of person who bellows screeds against "PC police" every time someone is taken to task for saying something stupid. Slurs are not to be used casually, even if hatred is not intended; however, academic discussions do not qualify as casual use. Often, with an academic discussion, there's a point being made and that point should be what determines whether or not something is offensive. I think that, when it comes to slurs, there's no shortage of compelling arguments making a convincing case that those who use them are idiots and assholes. However, each one of these arguments relies on describing why their use in a given context reflects hatred and/or unreasonable levels of consideration for others. When you argue that a word is a black-and-white "no-no," you are denying the existence of a logical argument against the use of a word (in most contexts) in favor of an oversimplified schoolyard mentality. This may be a nice, quick route to appearing to be a "better" radical on a shallow level, but otherwise it's insulting to the cause that these people claim to support with such emotional conviction.
More...
Spelling out what makes "tranny" problematic, as Dan was attempting to do, would progress trans rights causes by communicating exactly what it is that, well, makes the word "tranny" problematic. (Some of) those who entered that discussion would leave with a better idea of exactly why this word matters so much to trans people. Similarly, the discussion of whether or not it will be reclaimed by trans people is a perfectly appropriate academic discussion, regardless of whether or not the trans community ultimately decides to follow the example that their colleagues laid out with the word "queer."
And I'm sorry, but a huge portion of what makes "tranny" problematic is context. It was not considered a hateful term until it was co-opted by bigots and used to communicate hatred. It's that usage- being used to communicate hatred- that makes it a hate term. Using it hatefully, or casually, would be inappropriate. Using it academically is not, since the context is vastly different.
And before anyone argues against that point, consider that even this "it" person actually agrees with it- for every single other anti-queer slur. This alone should raise red flags about his sincerity. Principles are only principles if you apply them consistently.
When this person insisted that the use of the term is universally inappropriate, they are essentially arguing that context should be ignored and the appropriateness of words should be dictated by knee-jerk whims rather than by the context in which they are being used. This reduces the politics of equality down to a "potty mouth" accusation mentality in which ideas do not matter, but rather a strict set of rules is set forth to either be followed or broken. Ironically, this is arguably a less sensitive approach to slurs, since it reduces them to mere "naughty words" and ignores the fact that what makes so many slurs offensive is their ugly historical context, not merely their inclusion on somebody's no-no list.
I'm not the type of person who bellows screeds against "PC police" every time someone is taken to task for saying something stupid. Slurs are not to be used casually, even if hatred is not intended; however, academic discussions do not qualify as casual use. Often, with an academic discussion, there's a point being made and that point should be what determines whether or not something is offensive. I think that, when it comes to slurs, there's no shortage of compelling arguments making a convincing case that those who use them are idiots and assholes. However, each one of these arguments relies on describing why their use in a given context reflects hatred and/or unreasonable levels of consideration for others. When you argue that a word is a black-and-white "no-no," you are denying the existence of a logical argument against the use of a word (in most contexts) in favor of an oversimplified schoolyard mentality. This may be a nice, quick route to appearing to be a "better" radical on a shallow level, but otherwise it's insulting to the cause that these people claim to support with such emotional conviction.
No Matt, two wrongs never make a right, if you had an agreement about not disclosing private details, and the other person breaks that agreement, then they are wrong
You are not wrong until you break the agreement. Otherwise any other person other than you can have their words by worth jack shit, your words have value until to you decide to not be good on them.
The student being wrong may have influenced Dan's decision to also stand in the wrong, but the student didn't force Dan to walk the way he did, he chose
At this point they are both wrong, so it doesn't really mean shit, no article written by anybody, even a transgendered veteran of discrimination on Queerty magazine can make either the student or Dan to begin walking back on the right path.
They are both wrong, it's what they choose to do after the fact the matters.
It's certainly not against the law to walk the wrong path your entire life, just be careful of the wrong paths that are actually illegal, because once you decide walking the wrong path is right, then your world becomes the wrong that isn't illegal and the wrong path that is illegal
That is the moving of goal posts that Poly is referring to
Frankly, I don't give a shit if neither Dan nor the student does the right thing, or if both Dan and the student redefine their wrongs as the new rights.
As that is pretty much a pass time around here, idiot sloggers deciding their wrongs are the new rights
Being LGBT was never a wrong, that was the lie society tried to force you to believe.
You are not wrong until you break the agreement. Otherwise any other person other than you can have their words by worth jack shit, your words have value until to you decide to not be good on them.
The student being wrong may have influenced Dan's decision to also stand in the wrong, but the student didn't force Dan to walk the way he did, he chose
At this point they are both wrong, so it doesn't really mean shit, no article written by anybody, even a transgendered veteran of discrimination on Queerty magazine can make either the student or Dan to begin walking back on the right path.
They are both wrong, it's what they choose to do after the fact the matters.
It's certainly not against the law to walk the wrong path your entire life, just be careful of the wrong paths that are actually illegal, because once you decide walking the wrong path is right, then your world becomes the wrong that isn't illegal and the wrong path that is illegal
That is the moving of goal posts that Poly is referring to
Frankly, I don't give a shit if neither Dan nor the student does the right thing, or if both Dan and the student redefine their wrongs as the new rights.
As that is pretty much a pass time around here, idiot sloggers deciding their wrongs are the new rights
Being LGBT was never a wrong, that was the lie society tried to force you to believe.
129
For what it's worth, I knew a genderqueer person who preferred the pronoun 'it'. Took me a damn long time to get used to that, but not my job to tell someone else how to refer to themselves. It was not a wacko activist, who got super upset at everything, either.
oh boy,
I don't follow links because I am not currently knowledgeable enough to properly secure my network
Anyway, I didn't realize you were talking about the Starbucks on seventh, in your "hypothetical game"
I suppose you are looking for some sort of confession. The only thing I can say is I don't feel guilty --- at all --- for noticing attractive people, I didn't give anybody creepy, staring, leering looks
I didn't utter any hateful words, nor did I even think them. When a person looks good and I notice and I think WOW her presence is striking, I am not worried about whether or not the person is a female, pre-op female, male blah blah blah or any gender or mix of anything. Because the only thing I thought was simply noticing how attractive the person was in a fairly short dress, with her legs propped up on a coffee table.
I don't care what gender the attractive person is, I may have joked long ago, parodying a conservative homophobe who is genuinely concerned that if the attractive person had a penis, that it might mean I am homosexual. I was mocking the type of conservative whose problem isn't that he hates you, he hates himself. That person is not me, nor was I intending it to be taken seriously
I have classes that I am in the process of failing, and you bother me with this shit?
spit it out for Christ's sake, you are the only one besides all the other sloggers who are being Ridiculous by default of trying to be too Suttle
I don't hang around in between those two locations, and if I ever do, I assure you it is only in passing, the times that it does appear like I am lingering there, I am either Lost or else attempting to amuse a friend, because I hate that fucking place, and I don't if it's the Suttle and Ridiculous in Heaven or Hell, I will tell both inhabitants to spit it out or else go fuck themselves,
when I say I didn't realize something, I mean I had not occurred to me, I despise all the strategy in the ivy league political debate strategerie book. I am not concerned with winning an argument, I am just trying to do the right thing
More...
I don't follow links because I am not currently knowledgeable enough to properly secure my network
Anyway, I didn't realize you were talking about the Starbucks on seventh, in your "hypothetical game"
I suppose you are looking for some sort of confession. The only thing I can say is I don't feel guilty --- at all --- for noticing attractive people, I didn't give anybody creepy, staring, leering looks
I didn't utter any hateful words, nor did I even think them. When a person looks good and I notice and I think WOW her presence is striking, I am not worried about whether or not the person is a female, pre-op female, male blah blah blah or any gender or mix of anything. Because the only thing I thought was simply noticing how attractive the person was in a fairly short dress, with her legs propped up on a coffee table.
I don't care what gender the attractive person is, I may have joked long ago, parodying a conservative homophobe who is genuinely concerned that if the attractive person had a penis, that it might mean I am homosexual. I was mocking the type of conservative whose problem isn't that he hates you, he hates himself. That person is not me, nor was I intending it to be taken seriously
I have classes that I am in the process of failing, and you bother me with this shit?
spit it out for Christ's sake, you are the only one besides all the other sloggers who are being Ridiculous by default of trying to be too Suttle
I don't hang around in between those two locations, and if I ever do, I assure you it is only in passing, the times that it does appear like I am lingering there, I am either Lost or else attempting to amuse a friend, because I hate that fucking place, and I don't if it's the Suttle and Ridiculous in Heaven or Hell, I will tell both inhabitants to spit it out or else go fuck themselves,
when I say I didn't realize something, I mean I had not occurred to me, I despise all the strategy in the ivy league political debate strategerie book. I am not concerned with winning an argument, I am just trying to do the right thing
131
@ 108: Yes, it was someone else's space - it was the space of the Institute of Politics, not QUIP's space. The person who did not respect someone else's private space was the narcissistic Maroon, not Dan (the invited guest) and not Ana Marie Cox (the host).
When you're in someone else's space, and they ask you not to violate the confidentiality of that space, and you do so anyway simply because you didn't like something you heard, you are an ASSHOLE.
When you're in someone else's space, and they ask you not to violate the confidentiality of that space, and you do so anyway simply because you didn't like something you heard, you are an ASSHOLE.
133
@ 127: Once the confidentiality was broken, it was broken. Expecting Dan to maintain silence while being pilloried is unreasonable and ridiculous.
But then, all I ever hear from you is noise and nonsense.
But then, all I ever hear from you is noise and nonsense.
Some disrespectful asshole said :
"When you're in someone else's space, and they ask you not to violate the confidentiality of that space, and you do so anyway simply because you didn't like something you heard, you are an ASSHOLE."
as if commenting here could by an example of exactly what you are trying to say,
That's fine, just realize for all the shit the authors and commenters say here at slog, if you can't take that which you dish out, don't dish it out.
I am very aware that slog is for the most part, hypocritical and ignorant, and expects a double standard or only believes in rules and guidelines when they have a gross advantage to manipulate
So you can throw all the subtle shit you want, If I ask for clarification, and there are no objections, bitching about it through subtle and indirect ways only makes you a coward with no right to do so. It's a cowardly spineless route to take, that is doubly spineless because you take the subtle way through coward town.
"When you're in someone else's space, and they ask you not to violate the confidentiality of that space, and you do so anyway simply because you didn't like something you heard, you are an ASSHOLE."
as if commenting here could by an example of exactly what you are trying to say,
That's fine, just realize for all the shit the authors and commenters say here at slog, if you can't take that which you dish out, don't dish it out.
I am very aware that slog is for the most part, hypocritical and ignorant, and expects a double standard or only believes in rules and guidelines when they have a gross advantage to manipulate
So you can throw all the subtle shit you want, If I ask for clarification, and there are no objections, bitching about it through subtle and indirect ways only makes you a coward with no right to do so. It's a cowardly spineless route to take, that is doubly spineless because you take the subtle way through coward town.
When you offer public access to the space, you can remain the administrator of that space, but it isn't exactly the private space you think it is.
Nobody can force you to do the right thing, nobody can force people in glass houses to not chuck rocks at the houses in the valley below
but it is a very chickenshit and cowardly act chuck those rocks, pretend not to hear when the people below clearly state, "STOP" in every sense of the word that exists as opposed to understanding that your words will be misunderstood, yet not correcting the misunderstanding because you are a manipulative fuck, then having the gall to call up the cavalry because of the injustice done to your ego --- even though your glass house wasn't even scratched ---- by the peon you abused for years and actually did violate real personal private space, as opposed to a virtual private space with public access that you were to spineless to moderate because of some dumb unspoken unwritten law of the assholes of yesteryear fucked you over with
great, you should have spoken up then, as it doesn't give you or any slogger the right to keep flawed understanding of laws used to govern.
fuck that, if it happens to me or I see happen to others, I will say something, because I mean it when I say I'd like to see a solution to the world's problems
Have a little faith in yourself, have courage to stand for the right things, there is honor in a life lived like that, there is no honor in double standards and manipulation, but you don't have to take my word for it
Nobody can force you to do the right thing, nobody can force people in glass houses to not chuck rocks at the houses in the valley below
but it is a very chickenshit and cowardly act chuck those rocks, pretend not to hear when the people below clearly state, "STOP" in every sense of the word that exists as opposed to understanding that your words will be misunderstood, yet not correcting the misunderstanding because you are a manipulative fuck, then having the gall to call up the cavalry because of the injustice done to your ego --- even though your glass house wasn't even scratched ---- by the peon you abused for years and actually did violate real personal private space, as opposed to a virtual private space with public access that you were to spineless to moderate because of some dumb unspoken unwritten law of the assholes of yesteryear fucked you over with
great, you should have spoken up then, as it doesn't give you or any slogger the right to keep flawed understanding of laws used to govern.
fuck that, if it happens to me or I see happen to others, I will say something, because I mean it when I say I'd like to see a solution to the world's problems
Have a little faith in yourself, have courage to stand for the right things, there is honor in a life lived like that, there is no honor in double standards and manipulation, but you don't have to take my word for it
138
@108 That is a false dichotomy, this is not a world where the only two options are "if you don't do exactly what I say, you're abusing your privilege to exclude me" or "be inclusive and do exactly what I say".
at 133
Yeah Chase, I have to depend on confidentiality I would only choose not to do any business with the student, I wouldn't automatically condemn any other party whose confidence had been broken, but as soon as one of the other parties involved went around spewing their shit and breaking the confidence I placed in them, that's the point wherein the each and every party that show it is not wise for me to confide in them, I will no longer do, as that is a double standard, to me that's in many ways worse than the asshole who leaked the info first.
When you justify the exact same shitty actions you were raising hell over, it removes your right to complain about it. As far as I am concerned, both assholes should lose their rights when they cannot exercise them responsibly
is this direct enough?
Go fuck yourself Chase
Yeah Chase, I have to depend on confidentiality I would only choose not to do any business with the student, I wouldn't automatically condemn any other party whose confidence had been broken, but as soon as one of the other parties involved went around spewing their shit and breaking the confidence I placed in them, that's the point wherein the each and every party that show it is not wise for me to confide in them, I will no longer do, as that is a double standard, to me that's in many ways worse than the asshole who leaked the info first.
When you justify the exact same shitty actions you were raising hell over, it removes your right to complain about it. As far as I am concerned, both assholes should lose their rights when they cannot exercise them responsibly
is this direct enough?
Go fuck yourself Chase
I haven't logged into this account in a million years, but now seems like an appropriate enough time. I <3 how asswipes like Savage are so quick to agree with right wingers about "PC Police" and overreaction and blah blah. Does it burn you that not every progressive thinks your shit smells lovely? That particularly the young are leaving people like you behind?
Enjoy your fan club. Incidentally, my main critique of the "It Gets Yadda" project is that it should come with a big damn asterisk. What happens when it doesn't? Because for a lot of people, it can and will get worse. Like being referred to with the pronoun of an inanimate object by one of the loudest voices in contemporary LGBnm politics.
Fuck all y'all. Goodbye.
Enjoy your fan club. Incidentally, my main critique of the "It Gets Yadda" project is that it should come with a big damn asterisk. What happens when it doesn't? Because for a lot of people, it can and will get worse. Like being referred to with the pronoun of an inanimate object by one of the loudest voices in contemporary LGBnm politics.
Fuck all y'all. Goodbye.
141
@135, Chase writes
"Is this direct enough for you? Go check your meds, I think you missed some."
Yup. That is in the true Slog spirit: "bullying".
If you don't like someone's comment, attack them by saying they are loonie, or a troll or off their meds.
Don't like the substance? then attack their person.
Very nice indeed.
"Is this direct enough for you? Go check your meds, I think you missed some."
Yup. That is in the true Slog spirit: "bullying".
If you don't like someone's comment, attack them by saying they are loonie, or a troll or off their meds.
Don't like the substance? then attack their person.
Very nice indeed.
142
And if in fact someone is truly "off their meds", to tell them so is just stupid.
No, Chase I am not saying that YOU are stupid, (though you may be.)
Do you think it makes sense to tell someone in a genuinely fragile position (like any one of a number of people who are in fact truly mad - Ybara, Rodger etc -- and they may well be Slog commenters) attack them as loonie?
I am sure you can do better, such as just ignoring them.
No, Chase I am not saying that YOU are stupid, (though you may be.)
Do you think it makes sense to tell someone in a genuinely fragile position (like any one of a number of people who are in fact truly mad - Ybara, Rodger etc -- and they may well be Slog commenters) attack them as loonie?
I am sure you can do better, such as just ignoring them.
143
People who present a perpetually moving target in terms of what is acceptable speech -- not to mention one that is often self-contradictory and 100% personally customized, and therefore variable depending on which specific person is shouting from the soapbox at the moment -- find themselves isolated, with nobody willing to talk either to them or about them.
This is not the first activist group that I do not consider myself even an ally of, for precisely that reason.
This is not the first activist group that I do not consider myself even an ally of, for precisely that reason.
@119,
Seems like most babytrans don't give a shit about the people who literally bled for their rights. For fuck's sake, check #140.
Seems like most babytrans don't give a shit about the people who literally bled for their rights. For fuck's sake, check #140.
145
So many interesting issues here. One is whether was OK for Savage to even blog about the issue. He writes, somewhat equivocally:
"I've hesitated to write about the controversy over my remarks... I wanted to abide by the confidentiality agreement. But with Reason, National Review, U of C's student newspaper, the Drudge Report, and Glenn Beck all over it..... I suppose I'm no longer bound by it."
Based on this link at the UC student paper,
http://chicagomaroon.com/2014/05/30/comm…
it seems clear to me that it is perfectly OK for him to discuss what happened.
He is being savagely (no pun) attacked in public and it would unfair for him to be forced to stay silent.
Whether Cox/Savage/Hex etc used inappropriate tone/body language impossible for anyone not there to say. That would be a separate matter.
But it is obvious to me that Savage is free to speak about what happened.
"I've hesitated to write about the controversy over my remarks... I wanted to abide by the confidentiality agreement. But with Reason, National Review, U of C's student newspaper, the Drudge Report, and Glenn Beck all over it..... I suppose I'm no longer bound by it."
Based on this link at the UC student paper,
http://chicagomaroon.com/2014/05/30/comm…
it seems clear to me that it is perfectly OK for him to discuss what happened.
He is being savagely (no pun) attacked in public and it would unfair for him to be forced to stay silent.
Whether Cox/Savage/Hex etc used inappropriate tone/body language impossible for anyone not there to say. That would be a separate matter.
But it is obvious to me that Savage is free to speak about what happened.
146
@28: Great new verb! "Voldemorted." Thanks
In fact, we should fully fill out the neologism, defining the word "Voldemort" as "any Word Which Must Not Be Said" and using it as the fill-in-word every time someone is talking about a word that political correctness demands be censored. Thus people will be talking not about the "n-word", "t-word", "c-word" et cetera, but will say "the N-Voldemort", "the T-Voldemort", "the C-Voldemort" et cetera.
I am also amused that supposedly liberal voices are openly demanding active censorship on the part of the authority structure.
In fact, we should fully fill out the neologism, defining the word "Voldemort" as "any Word Which Must Not Be Said" and using it as the fill-in-word every time someone is talking about a word that political correctness demands be censored. Thus people will be talking not about the "n-word", "t-word", "c-word" et cetera, but will say "the N-Voldemort", "the T-Voldemort", "the C-Voldemort" et cetera.
I am also amused that supposedly liberal voices are openly demanding active censorship on the part of the authority structure.
147
@ 140 - Did you miss the part where the word "it" is the CHOSEN PRONOUN of the kid in question? Dan was using the pronoun the kid wanted people to use.
148
Contrary to Savage, it can get worse.
Read more:
http://chicagomaroon.com/2014/05/30/perm…
He is accused of being "misogynistic, biphobic, transphobic, and racist comments."
I think Savage can be harsh but I don't think it is directed at any one group.
And I take back my earlier remark that he wrote "too many words." (Though still think that the narrative is a bit unclear.)
This issue of free speech is _important_ and some students at U of C, some of the brightest students in the nation, don't seem to get it. So Savage in fact should be writing more.
One commenter (a student but who knows?) wrote:
"Bringing in Dan Savage was as negative as bringing in a member of a Hate Group. He is Transphobic, Biphobic, and says very questionable things about Sexual Assault. Bringing him to our school is harmful to trans* people's, bisexuals's, and survivors's feelings of acceptance at this campus."
Not good preparation to face the real world outside the UofC and of course Savage is free -- should -- write about what happened and the implications.
Read more:
http://chicagomaroon.com/2014/05/30/perm…
He is accused of being "misogynistic, biphobic, transphobic, and racist comments."
I think Savage can be harsh but I don't think it is directed at any one group.
And I take back my earlier remark that he wrote "too many words." (Though still think that the narrative is a bit unclear.)
This issue of free speech is _important_ and some students at U of C, some of the brightest students in the nation, don't seem to get it. So Savage in fact should be writing more.
One commenter (a student but who knows?) wrote:
"Bringing in Dan Savage was as negative as bringing in a member of a Hate Group. He is Transphobic, Biphobic, and says very questionable things about Sexual Assault. Bringing him to our school is harmful to trans* people's, bisexuals's, and survivors's feelings of acceptance at this campus."
Not good preparation to face the real world outside the UofC and of course Savage is free -- should -- write about what happened and the implications.
149
@144 It's almost as if times change and what words are considered (un)acceptable change with it! Besides deference to authority is intellectually lazy.
When in the end, both parties are just a bunch of self-absorbed assholes who believe it's more important to be right, then to do the right thing and admit when you're wrong, who the fuck cares
And when someone tries to make you suffer and bleed you, just because they did, that's fucked up @144
I wouldn't give a shit either, I don't give a shit about people who afflict others, esp when it comes from someone who knows what it's like to be afflicted.
Fuck those people who make it out of the hell humans create for other humans, and then set booby traps along the path. The people who genuinely care about others, the ones who care more about that then looking like they're right are the only people worth giving a shit about.
Unless this whole story is complete bullshit (which I am sure it is after the Santa Barbara shootings, Bob Ergdahl, and every other bullshit story spewed out by people who don't give a fuck about the truth, people who do genuinely care, don't need to have these types of debates, because people who care don't continue to attack others when they are already on the ground.
The don't make up bullshit scenarios and equate verbally and emotionally and psychologically beating the shit out of an ally, to attempting to crash a same sex orgy party and violating their space.
You don't need to know all the bullshit colorful details when you are just trying to figure out who the asshole is
They are people who want to make sure everyone has suffered like they have instead of doing everything in their power so that nobody has to suffer like they did.
And that is the main difference between an asshole and a caring person.
Every person who ever helped civil rights progress, isn't stupid enough to kick it two floors down just for the fuck of it or to make sure the next person doesn't get anything handed to them
More...
And when someone tries to make you suffer and bleed you, just because they did, that's fucked up @144
I wouldn't give a shit either, I don't give a shit about people who afflict others, esp when it comes from someone who knows what it's like to be afflicted.
Fuck those people who make it out of the hell humans create for other humans, and then set booby traps along the path. The people who genuinely care about others, the ones who care more about that then looking like they're right are the only people worth giving a shit about.
Unless this whole story is complete bullshit (which I am sure it is after the Santa Barbara shootings, Bob Ergdahl, and every other bullshit story spewed out by people who don't give a fuck about the truth, people who do genuinely care, don't need to have these types of debates, because people who care don't continue to attack others when they are already on the ground.
The don't make up bullshit scenarios and equate verbally and emotionally and psychologically beating the shit out of an ally, to attempting to crash a same sex orgy party and violating their space.
You don't need to know all the bullshit colorful details when you are just trying to figure out who the asshole is
They are people who want to make sure everyone has suffered like they have instead of doing everything in their power so that nobody has to suffer like they did.
And that is the main difference between an asshole and a caring person.
Every person who ever helped civil rights progress, isn't stupid enough to kick it two floors down just for the fuck of it or to make sure the next person doesn't get anything handed to them
In an effort to keep
the
discourse respectful and on topic, commenting on this item is
available only to registered commenters.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
About That Hate Crime I Committed at University of Chicago by Dan Savage
-
Want to Do Something About Gun Violence? Here's Where to Start. by Paul Constant
-
Shooting at Seattle Pacific University: Multiple Victims, One Fatality, Two Suspects in Custody by Eli Sanders
-
Not One More by Anna Minard
-
By Passing Initiative 594, We Have a Chance to Stand Up and Say: "Not One More." by Cheryl Stumbo
-
Aaron Ybarra, Alleged Seattle Pacific University Shooter, Appears In Court by Ansel Herz
-
Steve Scher Abruptly Parts Ways With KUOW After Nearly Three Decades by Grant Brissey
-
Two New Challenges to Seattle's $15 Minimum Wage Law by Anna Minard
-
Two New Coffee Places to Avoid by Bethany Jean Clement
-
Open Carry + Stand Your Ground = Perpetual Violence Machine by Dan Savage
Comments (149) RSS