This topic was starting to derail another thread.
Dan Savage is a long-time sex advice columnist, author, theatre director, and radio/podcast host. He has been the coiner of several neologisms regarding sexuality and sexual practices, including Senator Rick Santorum's 'Google problem'. He is also the founder of the It Gets Better Project.
He's also courted a great deal of controversy over the years. Specifically accusations that, while he is a voiceferous proponent of gay and lesbian rights, he is less a proponent for other sexual minorities (specifically bisexual and transexual people); some have called him 'biphobic' or 'transpohobic.'
I'm a fan of the guy, and I'm generally willing to let slide a few verbal missteps here and there. I'm very much of the opinion that the accusations of Dan being biphobic or transphobic are a result of some overly-sensitive people looking at stuff he wrote 20 years ago amd since retracted, and/or taking contemporary things he said out of context.
For example, during a talk at the University of Chicago in June 2014, Savage was talking about the history and usage of the 'T-word', considered by some in the LGBT community to be a hateful slur, and by others to be a word that shoud be used proudly so as to become defanged and re-appropriated (as was the word 'queer' in the 1990s). Some audience members objected to using the word at all in any context, and the discussion devolved into a shouting match.
Another controversy is that Savage is a denier of the existence of bisexuality. He was in the past, based on some personal anecdotal experience. Savage has explained why he used to believe this. He has also drawn controversy by stating his belief that many young people with a bisexual identity ultimately 'disappear' by entering a monogamous relationship; thereby becoming 'socially gay' or 'socially straight.' Savage considers this a simple fact (anecdotal evidence seems to back him up on this); many bi activists point to this as evidence of his biphobia.
Like I said, I'm a fan. I think Savage is indeed a very powerful and articulate defender of LGBT rights. I do not believe the accusations that he's biphobic or transphobic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would say that he is a Friend to everyone who lives around other human beings. (I was going to say everyone interested in sex, but he gives good advice to people who identify as non-sexual, or are in relationships with different degrees of sexual interest).
I can't really speak to the specifics of some of your points, but I think his advice comes from positive intentions, and while it may not be perfect or appeal to everyone all the time, overall he is an incredably good influence on the sexuality of the world.
NOTE: I guess I reject the idea that someone must be perfect in all regards to be considered a friend. I think a large problem among activist types is the insistence on ideological purity that prevents people from finding common ground, and instead causes infinite fracturing among progressive communities. Having said that, my largest problem with Savage is his lesser of two evils voting policy.
For example, during a talk at the University of Chicago in June 2014, Savage was talking about the history and usage of the 'T-word', considered by some in the LGBT community to be a hateful slur, and by others to be a word that shoud be used proudly so as to become defanged and re-appropriated (as was the word 'queer' in the 1990s). Some audience members objected to using the word at all in any context, and the discussion devolved into a shouting match.
Talk about leaving out central parts to make it seem less bad than it was.
Savage and Dana Cox, both cis people, held a lecture on reclaiming words, and time and time again used the t-word (not merely talking _about_ the t-word, but constantly _using_ it). A trans minor asked them respectfully not to use it because it was hurtful, and to instead use "the t-word". It was met with a bunch of slurs, Savage retorically calling the trans student a bunch of bad stuff and asking "if that's okay to say" etc.
A witness:
Then Savage's colleague Dana Cox took over:
Any actual trans ally with the circumstances that Savage had in that moment, would have stopped her. Not stopping her is in itself a huge failure.
But that wasn't all; what followed after made it even more abusive:
He used all his leverage as a writer for The Stranger to bully and demean the child even more, claiming the child is a transphobe for trying to reclaim "it" as a pronoun (oh the irony) and getting his friends to call the child "a pathetic excuse of a student".
His defense to all this? "Well i have trans friends sooo".
Consider what would have happened if a white guy in a nearly white school acted the same way about the N-word, bullying a black kid for asking them not to use the N-word itself.
And no, I don't buy Savage's excuse and claims that he's being misrepresented, not when there's been witnesses who have said he said what he said and considering his history.
--------------
Also, on top of his actions there, there's been a plethora of b!$*!~%& he's said about bi people, trans people, and asexual people. He's also said some pretty bad misogynist stuff. The actions above is merely some of the worst things he's done.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gaberlunzie, thanks for pointing that out. I went and read up on that incident, and that's really disturbing. Not only because it was a callous, excessive, and arrogant response from Savage, but also because it gave me reason to reevaluate my previous positive opinion of Ana Marie Cox. That was the kind of behaviour one would expect from enemies, bout allies.
Fergie, activists and allies don't have to be perfect, nobody is. It is however problematic to call someone an ally of the LGBT community when they frequently site dismissal, disdain, abd disrespect for entire swaths of the community. Savage is certainly an ally to the G and L, but the community doesn't stop there.
Savage and Dana Cox, both cis people, held a lecture on reclaiming words, and time and time again used the t-word (not merely talking _about_ the t-word, but constantly _using_ it). A trans minor asked them respectfully not to use it because it was hurtful, and to instead use "the t-word". It was met with a bunch of slurs, Savage retorically calling the trans student a bunch of bad stuff and asking "if that's okay to say" etc.
Its different ideas about what is the best strategy [socially ban the word vs embrace it) to attain the same goal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm an outsider, but from a purely practical standpoint, I have to ask: For a group of people with so many well-funded, vocal, and obvious enemies, why is this a question even worth asking?
Is there by any chance a recording of the lecture? It is really hard to base anything on second hand accounts.
Given Dan Savages history of using derogatory words (I believe he used to ask, or at least be fine with people addressing letters to him with the opening "Hey fa@@ot") he is about the last person I would expect to be PC about language. Since this was a lecture on reclaiming words, wouldn't you expect him to use many of the words that are considered derogatory?
I also think that it is kind of accepted that Savage is a somewhat arrogant and douchey guy (I doubt he would disagree with that). I suspect that on some level he was hazed (called names, etc) but was able to use his abilities to overcome that hardship and use it create a fine career for himself, and even help people. That other people may have a different response, and not be toughened by hazing, but rather beaten down by it probably doesn't occur to him because, well, the whole arrogant and douchey thing.
I still don't know what to conclude, especially without actually seeing the lecture in question. I am inclined to say that if you go to a Dan Savage lecture about reclaiming derogatory words, you should not expect PC language to be used. If this goes beyond words, I would like to know more...
And no, I don't buy Savage's excuse and claims that he's being misrepresented, not when there's been witnesses who have said he said what he said and considering his history.
I was not in attendance at the June 2014 lecture in question. Were you?
There are other interpretations of what transpired at the event.
And there are similar critiques by LGBT activists against the petition circulated in response to the event.
From the accounts I can piece together, it seems that the audience member who objected started to disrupt the discussion after realizing that Savage would not acquiescence to demands that he stop using the word. Savage then started treating the objector the same way a comic treats a heckler-- and Savage has both a rapier wit and a sharp tongue.
It seems to me that this wasn't any sort of transphobia, but rather a reaction to a heckler that happened to be transgendered.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dan Savage is a gay Caucasian man and was raised Roman Catholic. If he wants to talk about reclaiming a historically derogatory anti-RC phrase like "Papist", or a historically derogatory anti-gay phrase, I think most LGBT people would be fine with it. But as thejeff pointed out, when he starts telling trans* people whether they should or should not reclaim a historically derogatory anti-trans* phrase, what he says on the matter doesn't really carry any water because he doesn't belong to that group and never has. Likewise, if he decides to tell Jews or black peoples or lesbians whether they should reclaim the slurs used against them, he doesn't get a vote. He should also expect that pressing ahead with his opinions is likely going to encounter negative resistance from those groups because he is an outsider, regardless of his well-meaning intentions.
RuPaul Charles also encountered similar blowback using that same anti-trans* slur. While he is a gay black man that performs in drag, he doesn't get to decide whether that word is reclaimed or not. He doesn't get to cry foul when he uses that word and encounters blowback. While a number of drag performers do currently or later identify as trans*, RuPaul never has. He would certainly raise hell if a white woman freely used an anti-black slur or an anti-gay slur, like Amanda Bynes did not too long ago... and rightly so.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another controversy is that Savage is a denier of the existence of bisexuality. He was in the past, based on some personal anecdotal experience. Savage has explained why he used to believe this. He has also drawn controversy by stating his belief that many young people with a bisexual identity ultimately 'disappear' by entering a monogamous relationship; thereby becoming 'socially gay' or 'socially straight.' Savage considers this a simple fact (anecdotal evidence seems to back him up on this); many bi activists point to this as evidence of his biphobia.
Regardless of Savage's personal journey, self-discovery, and acceptance, he doesn't get to dictate whether others' bisexual identities truly exist or not. The only person that lived Savage's life and possesses his sexual identity is Savage. Bisexuality is not a sexual act, it is a sexual identity, and it isn't magically erased just because the bisexual is in a committed monogamous relationship with a partner. Unless the partner identifies as genderqueer or somewhere not on the poles of gender identity, how the hell does Savage expect a bisexual person to act?!
And for someone as informed as Savage is supposed to be, he should know damn well the damage poorly-chosen and negating words from a supposed ally with authority can do to kids starved for any positive recognition and affirmation of their bisexual identity.
I'm an outsider, but from a purely practical standpoint, I have to ask: For a group of people with so many well-funded, vocal, and obvious enemies, why is this a question even worth asking?Because people who seem like friends, but tear you down from the inside are even more dangerous than obvious enemies?
Sure, I guess. It just seems like a well-intentioned mistake in a world where people walk around with their "I hate you" signs on wouldn't be the top of my list of worries.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, I guess. It just seems like a well-intentioned mistake in a world where people walk around with their "I hate you" signs on wouldn't be the top of my list of worries.I'm an outsider, but from a purely practical standpoint, I have to ask: For a group of people with so many well-funded, vocal, and obvious enemies, why is this a question even worth asking?Because people who seem like friends, but tear you down from the inside are even more dangerous than obvious enemies?
The HRC and Barney Frank have always ostensibly maintained they were for advancing all LGBT rights and equality, but both were repeatedly happy to throw trans* folk under any old bus to further their own agenda. Even now in retirement, Frank still blames political trans* folk and their political allies for the failure to make progress on ENDA and the passage of DOMA & DADT.
If someone wants to be a true ally, they need to learn to listen to those they purportedly support, especially when they have been repeatedly informed (both politely and less so) they are getting basic stuff wrong.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm an outsider, but from a purely practical standpoint, I have to ask: For a group of people with so many well-funded, vocal, and obvious enemies, why is this a question even worth asking?
There's a saying "with friends like these, who needs enemies?"
The LGBT community already tends to be divided and factional. I have personally heard lesbian and gay people make jokes about bisexuality. I've heard lesbian, gay, and bisexual people all making jokes about trans people. It's like each group looks down on the next.
Another saying: "united we stand, divided we fall".
The LGBT community doesn't need "allies" who will encourage and support division. That weakens the community and impedes progress.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are other interpretations of what transpired at the event.
This does not seem to be a "different interpretation of what transpired", it seems to be an opinion piece by some person who wasn't even there just dismissing the issue out of hand.
And there are similar critiques by LGBT activists against the petition circulated in response to the event.
Yes, by another person who was not there and at least AFAIK not affected in the slightest by his transphobic language. Wowzor, a gay man whining about how bad trans feminine people are for pointing out transphobic language when used by gay men. Why am I not surprised.
There's a really bad tendency among gay men to 1. often be transphobic biological essentialists and 2. use their homosexuality as a shield against criticism of transphobia. I'm a bi cis man myself, but honestly can't even stand the gay community any more because it's so frakkin rampant. I see more explicit and overt transphobia on gay dating profiles than on straight ones, honestly.The same is kinda true for overt misogyny too, there's a lot of that within the gay community too, and the same tactic of deflecting criticism with their homosexuality.
While there are some experiences that are shared among the LGBT community, others are not - it is a diverse community. And being part of the LGBT community doesn't automatically give you understanding of what others experience, especially if they're not part of the same "letter" as you.
Savage and Dana Cox, both cis people, held a lecture on reclaiming words, and time and time again used the t-word (not merely talking _about_ the t-word, but constantly _using_ it). A trans minor asked them respectfully not to use it because it was hurtful, and to instead use "the t-word". It was met with a bunch of slurs, Savage retorically calling the trans student a bunch of bad stuff and asking "if that's okay to say" etc.Its different ideas about what is the best strategy [socially ban the word vs embrace it) to attain the same goal.
Sure. But Savage and Cox are not in a position to determine which strategy is "best" in the face of those actually affected by those decisions.
Just like I as a white guy can't go around calling black people the n-word just because I might personally think it's better to embrace it. And just like I as a white guy shouldn't go around telling black people who do use the word to stop just because I might personally think it's better to ostracize the word.
And if I _would_ do that, and a black person tells me to please stop because it's hurting them, and I refuse and retaliate by asking them "then can I call you a *insert racial slur 2*? can I call you a *insert racial slur 3*? and so on. That is completely unacceptable on every level.
Is there by any chance a recording of the lecture? It is really hard to base anything on second hand accounts.
Not that I know of, but since it's basically Savage's word against both the trans child's _and_ what other witnesses have said, I think it's fair to assume that what the child said is in broad strokes true.
Given Dan Savages history of using derogatory words (I believe he used to ask, or at least be fine with people addressing letters to him with the opening "Hey fa@@ot") he is about the last person I would expect to be PC about language.
The difference here, is that he is a gay man, and f*g is a slur against gay men. If he wants to use it about himself, that's fine! For some, reclaiming words is empowering. But you can't reclaim a word that's not been a weapon against you to begin with. If he wants to reclaim f*g, s*ssy, homo (as a noun) or whatever - that's fine. They're his to reclaim. Just like I could, since I'm also part of a group that have those words weaponized against me. But, neither I or Savage can reclaim the N-word, or the T-word, or d*ke, or other words that are weaponized against other people.
Since this was a lecture on reclaiming words, wouldn't you expect him to use many of the words that are considered derogatory?
Using it once, to note what they are talking about, is one thing. Like, "The t-word, or tr*nny, has these and these and these factors blah blah" and the refer to it as the t-word, is one thing. And when a trans child in the audience asks you to please do that because it's hurtful to hear over and over, you heed that. As simple as that.
I also think that it is kind of accepted that Savage is a somewhat arrogant and douchey guy (I doubt he would disagree with that). I suspect that on some level he was hazed (called names, etc) but was able to use his abilities to overcome that hardship and use it create a fine career for himself, and even help people. That other people may have a different response, and not be toughened by hazing, but rather beaten down by it probably doesn't occur to him because, well, the whole arrogant and douchey thing.
If he's not empathic not to not be an arrogant douche, and doesn't prioritize it high enough to actually change his behaviour, I see no reason why he should be cut slack for it. It may be an explanation, but it is worth absolutely zilch as an excuse.
Sure, I guess. It just seems like a well-intentioned mistake in a world where people walk around with their "I hate you" signs on wouldn't be the top of my list of worries.
Yeah, if this was the only thing ever I'd agree with you. It's not. It's just the most egregorious thing he's done this decade. He has a long history of reducing the LGBT community to just the G (and sometimes with a lower case l attached). He's also been an ass towards bisexual and asexual people, and basically reduced the LGBT movement to a movement about getting same-sex marriage rights (in his comments about asexual people).
Not to talk about his whole "it gets better" campaign. Which basically amounts to "suck it up, because if you're white and an upper middle class and a gay man, it's going to get better".
I'm an outsider, but from a purely practical standpoint, I have to ask: For a group of people with so many well-funded, vocal, and obvious enemies, why is this a question even worth asking?There's a saying "with friends like these, who needs enemies?"
The LGBT community already tends to be divided and factional. I have personally heard lesbian and gay people make jokes about bisexuality. I've heard lesbian, gay, and bisexual people all making jokes about trans people. It's like each group looks down on the next.
Another saying: "united we stand, divided we fall".
The LGBT community doesn't need "allies" who will encourage and support division. That weakens the community and impedes progress.
Wish I could like this a dozen times.
It's worth pointing out too, that those who encourage division are those that throw other groups under the bus, not those that point this out; trans people who distance themselves from transphobic gay people are not divisive; the transphobia is.
IMO, that's a harder call. Though blaming political trans* folk and their political allies is a bit much.
I think what he (and a lot of other white gay guys (though of course far from all)) do, is akin to what the men in the worker's movements have done in regards to women for a very long time, and what white cisgender feminists tend to do towards women of color and trans women; they are generally speaking at the top of the heap within their respective movements, and generally are the ones setting the agenda and choosing what will be prioritized, and see every intersectional analysis as a threat to the issues they are most personally involved with (like same-sex marriage, or industrial wages, or women as CEO's). So they dismiss these people, infantilize them, pretend to know best about other's situation, and generally act in line with this sentiment:
"Our battles first. Then, when ours are finished, we'll help you with yours." (except that that never happens, because there's always something else to prioritize higher).
And if I _would_ do that, and a black person tells me to please stop because it's hurting them, and I refuse and retaliate by asking them "then can I call you a *insert racial slur 2*? can I call you a *insert racial slur 3*? and so on. That is completely unacceptable on every level.
Unacceptable in nearly every circumstance yes... Unless you happen to be standing in a lecture./meeting titled "embracing the offensive word to deny it power" or whatever they called it. In which case you should be expecting it, because it was on the sign as you walked in. Mind you, that one circumstance is so bizarre I would have wanted to bap someone that came up with it as an acceptable circumstance.. but reality is stranger than fiction.
It seems like malice is being assumed where idiocy would suffice, but thats always a tricky proposition.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It seems like malice is being assumed where idiocy would suffice, but thats always a tricky proposition.
Idiocy is not realizing it's hurtful. Callousness is knowing that it is but continuing. Malice is attempting to add more to be as hurtful as possible.
Idiocy is not realizing it's hurtful. Callousness is knowing that it is but continuing. Malice is attempting to add more to be as hurtful as possible.
It seems like malice is being assumed where idiocy would suffice, but thats always a tricky proposition.
I think he realizes that it IS hurtful. If he was callous then he wouldn't care about the word at all. I suppose it could be some really passive aggressive excuse for excusing an attack, but I'm not sure what his motive there would be.
He knows it hurts and his hypothized method of making it not hurt is to use it until it doesn't, kind of like ripping the bandaid off vs letting it fall off on its own. I suppose it takes more than a bit of arrogance to tell someone else that you've got the method that works best for them on something this important, but there's a vast difference between someone being horribly wrong on something as squishy as social engineering and someone actively out to get you.
I had no idea about this controversy. I only knew Savage as the funny sex columnist that I read in Boston's alt-weekly and that he started the whole Santorum brouhaha.
Oh yeah, and the fact that he robo-called for communism.
I'll have to ask my transcomrade what she thinks next time I see her.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm old enough to remember the word "queer" as being solely a hate-filled epithet: The go-to "N-word" for gays.
It was the AIDS epidemic, the Reagan Administration's complete ignoring of the issue, and groups like ACT UP and Queer Nation that defanged and re-empowered the word.
There were a LOT of LGBT people back in the '80s who objected to the antics of what they considered a fringe group using such a hate -filled term. But now, "queer" isn't deemed an epithet at all. We won.
That talk in June at U Chicago was about attempts to defang an offensive term. Savage was active in ACT UP back in the '80s, and he was doing the same thing again with a different term.
That's not transphobia: That's someone who's pushing back against an individual they think is being hyper-sensitive and not understanding the gist of the conversation at hand.
I listen to the guy's podcast (I actually pay for the 90-minute weekly version, rather than the free 45-minute version), and I hear someone who is passionate, compassionate, smart, witty, and who really cares about people.
Some guy wrote in to him and said, Hey, look, I'm in a straight guy in a relationship. But I get off on having guys punch me in the balls. Not other stuff with men, and not women punching me in the balls. Does that seem weird to you? etc.
And Dan replied, basically, Everyone is different, whatever floats your boat, be careful not to overdo it, and oh, you might give your girlfriend a chance to know about and possibly accept that. He re-iterated his observation that sexuality is so various that no one can really explain it.
I, personally, might have been inclined to say something about the complexity of the guy's issues. But Dan's response was much better. He simply told the guy it was all fine by him. Which is about the nicest thing you can do.
So, in the balance, there is no question in my mind, Dan is a force for good. He is really amazing, just one of those people that, not due to any particular gifts or experiences or training, just has an amazingly big heart.
I remember some of the comments he made about bi guys. There was some pushback on this generalizations. In fact, I wrote him a complaining email. And he evolved. He listened, he cared, he changed. That's what an ally is. Not somebody that's perfect, or who agrees with you, or is polite, but someone who actually cares and wants what's best for you, and is willing to believe you when you tell him what makes you happy.
I don't think most of the people critical of his actions and words can actually claim to be half the friend he is. He's not only an ally of the LGBT community, but broadly speaking, a person who says nice things to people in trouble. And conversely, not so nice things to people who give HIM trouble. And if he goes overboard at times, well, I find it easy to forgive him.
I think a lot of the people he speaks to can understand what it's like to have to justify not just your opinions, but your existence, to other people. If you come out on top, there's a good chance you've gotten pretty tough... whether you wanted to be or not.