Eric,

I think it's important to be aware that it's more than just the issue of taking offense. When I first saw the title, my response was somewhat of an, "Oh shit," and I quickly went to reading through the article waiting for the hammer to drop. I had a sinking feeling in my stomach, and as I wondered what the context for the title was I thought, I've read Eric's posts, he's certainly aware enough not the refer to anyone he met by that. It was only when I reached the question about "a girl who has a dick" that I relaxed.

I'm actually quite interested by the phrasing and context of their question, as it seems to indicate to me that they were firmly identifying a girl who has a dick as a girl and the fact that they avoided the more colloquial yet culturally loaded "chick with a dick" feels promising.

Anyway, I thought the article was great, and it's got me thinking about what it would be like to go back to my high school. Yet I thought you should know that my experience of reading the article was not as great, filled with tension and apprehension, and perhaps not the experience you aim to give to your readers.

Eric;
Kudos for going to the event, but using a sensationalistic title that is offensive to part of the LGBT community is a no-no, respectfully.

Only recently, various organisations chided the Christian Right for references to "she-males"

We cannot stand against the Christian Right's behaviour when some of our respected authors/activists do the same for the "Fox/Rupert Murdoch/Randolph Hearst" effect of attention getting sensationalism

If what you're talking about doesn't sound dated and ineffectual, then you're welcome to pursue them. It really does to me.

In any case, I find your whole diatribe depressingly ignores the use and power of real human connection. Your immediate reaction to a personal story full of empowering and undoubtedly positive experience (not to mention that the story revolves around an idea that demonstrates concrete utility in breaking up the heteronorm dominance in high schools across America) is to call into question the OP's "lack of compassion" which while perhaps evident in his DICTION was utterly absent in OP's recounted ACTIONS.

Can we give some weight to the notion of intent and the specific consequences of the use of language in question here? Or must we speak in generalities about the supposed power of words? I guess that's comes easiest when your evidence is mostly anecdotal...

"You semi-knowingly used one of the most offensive phrases known to the MtF trans community, on an ostensibly LGBT site, and when called on it, you get belligerent?"

First, Eric did not use that phrase. He intimated that it was used in his article, which it was not. Second, saying a phrase such as "the N word" is not the moral equivalent to actually saying the word that that phrase represents. Similarly, implying its use here also not the same as using it.

Third, Eric was relaying a story where this idea was actually brought up by his audience, and it was interegal to the article, and a fascinating look into the mind of a high school student.

Fourth, inasmuch as this is a GLBT site with a GLBT audience, and Eric is a GLBT contributor, one would imagine - or hope - that he would be given the benefit of any doubt about where his heart lays. If this was a general interest site, and Eric was an unknown quantity, it might make more sense to automatically go on "red alert" and look for offense.

My group has a guideline: assume best intentions. You can have a disagreement, but if you think the other person is merely misguided or uneducated, the quality of that disgreement will have an entirely different tenor than if you come to the argument thinking your opponent is evil or stupid.

"Is Bilerico a site whose posters are seriously committed to transgender equality or not? If it is, then posters should be trying to learn from fellow posters."

I haven't seen anything to indicate that Eric isn't seriously committed to transgender equality. And given the seriousness of such a charge, it strikes me as a fairly beligerent thing to say; and not indicative of gentle rejoinder from a friend.

However, saying "so shoot me" seems more of an expression of frustration; that was also my reaction to which he was responding.

If every time anything trans-related is jumped upon, it won't be worth anybody's while to write about it. Then we all lose.

I suppose I'll go up to the next KKK meeting in Gainesville and scream at the top of my lungs that I don't want to be included in their meeting or under their "white" umbrella. Think they'll tolerate me for any length of time? I suppose it would make sense to some people.

Eric, as a fellow projector, I can totally relate to your frustration over folks who are only looking for confrontation. I'm not sure if that's what was going on this case. However, let's say that it was. Wouldn't just ignoring the comment, or saying something non-confrontational have been more effective in defusing things?

Another thing to remember is that it's not only the person you're responding to who reads the comments. As a transman who's pretty thick-skinned, your "shoot me" comment brought me up short and, frankly, shocked me. It was so unexpected after the sensitivity exhibited in the post. Even more so given that your answer to Angel gave the impression that you knowingly titled your post the way you did.

Finally, because it's not your issue, you may be unaware of the extent of transphobia in the gay male community, and the emotional toll it takes on transgender people. I'd venture to say that since the ENDA debacle, that transphobia has become overt and acceptable in a way it was not previously. To the point that, after nearly 30 years as an activist, I'm seriously beginning to wonder if T inclusion will ever truly become anything more than lip-service.

got the comment to link wrong: here's my response to Alex in place:
Alex..
He most certainly did NOT apologize until long after I responded. What he did was admit he used a phrase just to provoke response knowing it was at least somewhat offensive and then stated he did it with eyes open and no sense he did anything wrong.

Find me the apology in that.

Alex.....I am primarily heterosexual with some bi- mixed in. Why on earth would I thus feel that my orientation has anything to do with that of a gay man? Victimhood is not a reason to united except in a most general fashion. I've arguably suffered more discrimination during my fairly long life on the basis of my religion than I have for being hetero, having a trans background etc. Should we, following your justification, add a MR to the alphabet soup? (minority religion)...

Yes, oppressed people should work together to fight all oppression BUT putting all my civil rights eggs in the gay male basket just seems downright stupid to me. That's why I respond here and that's why my primary activism is for women's rights BEFORE gay male rights. The women's movement is very very inclusive of lesbian issues, there is no contradiction here.

My "agenda" is not to break alliances, it's to force those "in name only" alliances to either get it together or stop doing more harm than good. A gay man doing "educational outreach" who sees no problem in using the single most offensive term for someone of trans history is not educating, he IS the problem. That's how I see it.

"One more thing~ Am I the only one who's not reading the "girl with a dick" comment from the teen as about a transwoman? I thought it was more of one of those stupid things high school boys come up with to test the boundaries of an abstract concept,... "

I agree with you, Alex. I think the kid was trying to determine if same sex attraction was based on genitalia, or something more ephemeral. It's not unlike teenage philisophical debates if masturbation is inherently gay.

Transfolks are used to being the underdogs. We don't like it any more than anyone else, but we're used to it and we know how to organize and maximize our impact from that position.

Gay men, on the other hand, are used to being in charge. They're used to being first in line and telling everyone else what we're all going to do. Now forced to operate as an underdog when advocating for same-sex marriage, their political SOP just doesn't work anymore. In the minds of many, God is on the other side of the debate and that settles the matter.

This rings very true with me. There are quite a few gay men (not all) who are in the whole "It'll come eventually on its own, so we can sit back and passively accept the equality." Good luck to those folks!

And there are still too many people leading the movement with that mentality. It's frustrating.

Post-Prop 8, I think there are going to be less, not more, Democrats willing to stick their necks out for us, and that's going to be especially true when things like DOMA and DADT come up for review. Anything that even smells like an endorsement of same-sex marriage is not going to see the light of day in Congress for a while yet, even with Obama in office.

I'd hate to say it, but I fear the same thing. We're always saying that the Democrats should repay our support. And we say we'll support them if they do. But all that campaign in Cali proved was that queer support will come riddled with incompetence. It wasn't putting our best face forward.

Brynn, unlike Eric I have received numerous death threats. I find that more troubling and the fact that when I tell about this, it is ignored or dismissed. Most of those death threats come from within the transgender community for daring to express my opinions.

"Why are homosexuals speaking for the transgender in the first place?"

You have either not read the article, or your need to be snide and disengenous knows no bounds.

One would imagine that given the risks of ridicule and being shown as intellectually deficient in commenting on something you hadn't read would be sufficient reason not to do so.

However, in case it wasn't, these are the salient facts from the article:

* Eric was there representing himself as part of a program where people went back to their own high school. The nature of the program doesn't require you to be anything other than who you are.

* There were no identified trans people present, either as speakers or as audience members, so Eric did not usurp anyone's voice.

* The reference made by the student about a girl with a penis was not a question about a transperson. It was a question directed to a gay man about his motivation for sexual attraction. A young person tried to be sensationalistic in the manner he was asking if gay people were primarily interested in genitalia.

* There was no indication that the young person had any concept that he thought of a girl with a penis as a transwoman. This seems to be a construct that some transpeople, who think about issues of gender identity a great deal, have overlayed on a teenaged boy who likely has thought about gender not at all.

* There were apparently no questions asked at all about Eric's gender identity or expression, or about the subject of gender dysphoria in general.

Therefore, your charge that Eric was speaking for transgendered people is without merit, regardless of how you arrived at it, and not helpful to this discussion.

Maybe it's because the headline of the story gives the impression that a gay man is answering these kinds of questions. How would it be if a "transgendered" person wrote a story about the talk they gave at a school and rather than title it appropriately, they focused on one particular question that had little bearing on the story itself. And that question is a a horrible slur not to the transgendered, but to transsexuals in particular.

I was going to come up with an offensive example of a "transsexual" person speaking for gays, but nothing really has the same impact in the other direction. It is the same sort of thing when some African Americans would come up with racial terms for caucasians, I think.

They lacked the same punch in the larger community because of the nature of the power structure. The slurs of "minorities" don't carry the same weight as the slurs of those who hold all the power in a relationship. Calling someone a "breeder" does not have the same punch as calling someone a "faggot".

Maybe Sue was alluding to the idea that because of the complete lack of respect for women "transsexuals" (not transgender, many of whom identify as gay men) in the gay male community, it's only natural that they feel entitled. If the consensus there is that women "transsexuals" are just other, inferior, gay men then it doesn't matter if you use terms like those in the title. Nobody will call you on it because when the minorty isn't around, you can all have a good laugh at their expense. (How does every good racist joke begin?)

Nobody's identity is respected because we lack common language. Some people seek to own language and enforce that on others. Besides being a blatant power grab, this leads to a lack of boundaries, and a lack of mutual respect for one another. The all-inclusiveness of the umbrella term is an idea taken too far. To the contrary, sometimes fences make good neighbors.

It is the polar nature of this "all or nothing" approach that defines overzealous application of idealism. Idealism should never override practical considerations, nor should it be used as a means of beating up on people who disagree with you. Idealism often leads to tyranny.

In fact, men and women "transsexuals" have no natural insterest in GLBT politics outside of being a minority. And if it is the case that we are put in a box by a common bigoted enemy, it still does not change who we are. Are we to let the worst elements of human nature redefine our lives? There is no peace to be found in living up to your enemy's expectations.

*I am unpersuaded that I must change my life to live in an identity constructed by bigots. And much of the transgender movement seems to be a knee-jerk reaction to fear of potential bigotry. Hastily cobbled-together standards (or lack thereof) are not the foundation of a successful, moral political movement.*

This is why "transgender" is a bad idea.

"Now, Mr. Rory,... "

By all means Susan... you may call me Rory.

" ...where do I charge Eric of speaking for transgendered people?

You responded to an article written by a gay man who was charged by some commenters with speaking for the trans community by saying, "Why are homosexuals speaking for the transgender in the first place?" Inasmuch as Eric is the gay man in question, there simply can be no other possible interpretation than you're accusing Eric of speaking for trans people. You only need to connect the dots from A to B. Surely you didn't think that would elude us.

"The question I posed wasn't that difficult to understand. And it still stands, but to put it another way: what are homosexual men doing commenting on transgender issues of which they have no direct insight into?"

That is not the same question. To answer this question, gay men still have the right of free speech, even under the current administration. They can comment on anything they damn well please. More specifically, Eric wasn't asked, nor did he comment on, any trans issue whatsoever. Again, if you read the article, the question was about Eric's sexuality. However, if he had been asked a question about gender identity, I would have want wanted him to answer the question to the best of his ability. Since there was no other available speaker to answer such a question, I think that would be preferable to leaving the student in the lurch and uninformed.

"Take it even further if you like: why are transgender issues even discussed in the same breath as homosexual ones at all?"

There is no evidence that any transgender issues were discussed. I'm fairly certain I covered this in a previous post, which you either forgot or couldn't comprehend. However, it seems unreasonable to hold any speaker responsible for the questions he is asked. I know when I speak to students, I encourage them to feel free to ask any questions they would like. Without questions, we can't be sure we're reaching our audience. If the question is inappropriate, it can be handled as such if that comes to pass.

"Go on...make my day, Mr. Rory...tell me it's because they are related. And, when you do, please make sure to explain just how issues of the transgender in general, and transsexuals in particular, when the proportion of homosexuals in each group theoretically should be no more higher than the mainstream are related to the issues of homosexuals, which are entirely issues of sexuality and sexual orientation."

Okay, I have no idea what this sentence means.

"Why don't you answer that for yourself if you like, though the question is platonic in nature...I know the answer."

Again, I really don't know what the question was, or if there was actually a question at all. I assume however, that you meant to say that the question (whatever it was) is rhetorical, not platonic. My relationship with questions are usually non-sexual.