RuPaul is only trangender in the broader use of the word, due to his infrequent changes in gender expression. Most transpeople I know would never in common language consider a crossdresser or drag queen to be transgender. It’s one reason I prefer “transsexual,” so there is no confusion.
Perhaps it is just my social group / community, then. My former roommate did drag, and through him and other venues, I’ve met many transgender individuals. They use the term with him and his ilk, and vice versa. I by no means intend any offense in my prior post, so if there was any taken, I apologize.
Probably true - transpeople are a small minority and most people are not all that invested in the topic, and are unlikely to hear much about it; when they do, all too often it is news stories like this, people being (apparently) unreasonably sensitive over nomenclature.
The problem here is that everyone appears to have different terms that they prefer, and others that they find offensive. The antagonist in this news item, allegedly, prefers to be referred to as “it” rather than “him” or “her”. I would have thought anyone would be offended by being referred to as “it”, but apparently not.
It is not intuitive to someone who only casually follows this stuff that the same person who prefers to be called “it” would find the term “tranny” so horribly offensive, that apparently even talking about the word was verboten - it was attempting to make everyone at the talk use the term “t-slur” instead, according to the story.
The message the majority gets is that even an acknowledged expert like Savage can’t avoid offending.
So I guess I was the only reader here who was quite puzzled by the title, as the only meaning I had ever heard for “tranny” was that is was an abbreviation for “transmission”.
I’m also offended that the thread title has the comma outside the quotation marks. Can someone start circulating a petition?
I took no offense, but I appreciate very much your consideration in case I had. 
As I said, I find banning talking about the word and using the phrase “t-word” silly and ignorant. Shutting down honest dialogue doesn’t help anyone.
One other thing that might have desensitized me to the term is that on various cough *social *cough apps and sites, you will often see transgender people call themselves as such.
Thank God; I thought I was the only one.
Judging by opinions I’ve read online long before this by some LGBT folks re: Dan Savage, I wouldn’t be surprised if this incident wouldn’t have gotten any traction or attention if it weren’t him.
Can I speak for my community and insist that we not be referred to as cisgendered? In fact, we should stop using the c-neologism altogether.
I assume the answer (not being transgendered myself) would probably be something along the lines of, “as long as people in your community insist that we’re the biological gender we were born as, no fucking way.”
Right, this is the crucial distinction.
Some people can’t seem to accept that, when it comes to offensive words, there is a difference between using them to discuss their historical context, and actually using them to refer to another person. Discussing the historical use of the word nigger is not the same as referring to a black person as a nigger.
I try to make this distinction in my history classes. In those classes, some of the readings that we discuss contain words like “nigger,” and when this topic comes up in class, i always use the word itself, and refuse to say “n-word” instead. So, instead of “It was common in many parts of America to use the n-word when referring to blacks,” i’ll say "“It was common in many parts of America to use the the word ‘nigger’ when referring to blacks.”
Some of my students are, at first, a bit uncomfortable about this. I explain to them that part of being a historian is dealing with the past in all its complexity, and being willing to investigate and discuss candidly the diversity of human experiences and beliefs and actions. Using thinly-disguised euphemisms, in my opinion, doesn’t really serve any purpose; in fact, it is just as likely to draw extra attention to the word in question. When you say “n-word,” everyone listening knows exactly what the word is, just like they know exactly what you mean when you write “Fu_k that sh_t.”
Sigh.
Savage is one of the most sex-positive public figures in the US today. He always has been but now he’s finally (fairly) main stream (and very funny to boot).
Mhendo has it right in that Savage wasn’t intending to hurt anyone but using the word in its historical context.
The snake really is starting to eat itself when people like Dan Savage are being attacked.
In my experience, Dan Savage is one of the few people who can do no wrong. I don’t care what he said, he’s right and those 1100 are wrong. And I don’t say this lightly, but after many years of observation. We all need heroes in our lives, and Dan Savage is one of mine . . . and damn hot, to boot.
Yeah, there is a distinction between use and mention. For example, I used “Yeah” in the previous sentence but I mentioned it in this one.
Perhaps it comes from an oversimplified rule for which some people either cannot or will not allow nuances.
Cannot: They integrate the idea that one should not say That Word whether That Word is “nigger” or “tranny” or “kike”. Then, they just apply that in a blanket way, without wondering what purpose that rule might serve and whether proscribing all instances is overarching. This is common for many rules, even on non-sensitive topics.
Will not: Perhaps a fear that if one does not use an overarching rule that is absolute rather than making distinctions between proper uses and improper ones, that will leave the door open for improper uses.
How dare you be so dismissive of my culture? Commas outside quotation marks are a British tradition, even if your mind is too closed to care.
Uhh, okay. While I’m not disagreeing with your point, linking to a post on this board isn’t really a credit to your argument. “There’s plenty of information out there about trans issues like a thread on this message board that nobody fucking reads!” I dunno, if you wanted to point out there’s plenty of good literature on the subject, maybe something with more than ten readers might have been good.
Seriously! I’m a huge Dan Savage fan, I listen to his podcast every week (just listened this morning), and I don’t believe my fanhood is clouding my judgment - I’m a fan because Savage is an open, clear-headed, nothing-phobic voice of reason and is funny as hell as a nice little bonus. If anyone is calling Dan Savage transphobic, it’s either because they don’t know shit about him or because they’re idiots who need to pick a fight.
The concept is hardly stretched. Savage was speaking at a private seminar, not issuing a sermon from the mount. It is not at all unusual for a seminar to be off-the-record. Designating a discussion as off-the-record may encourage greater candour from attendees. It’s difficult to see why this practice should be offensive to anyone.
OTOH, I am mortally offended by Dan Savage’s outfit in the linked article: awful drab trousers capped off by lurid running shoes. He’s damaging the image of gays everywhere.
. . . naggers?