I second this completely. It's irresponsible "journalism" and is quite frankly offensive. But you know that. So yes. If there's any way I can help, including drafting letters and whatnot from afar, I'm your man.
Yikes. I can well believe this has got you seeing red, dude. Big hugs. (((((hug)))))
What confuses me is that he appears to work his way around to the way I've tried to approach gender ... that I should call people what they identify as out of respect ... only after going into the most wild-ass, disrespectful discussion possible.
His knickers seem to be in a twist about this ordinance that he feels compels him to change his language. That kind of thing used to bother me, too, to some degree ... but I think it's a red herring in this case.
Here's how I look at it: I've never inspected anyone's chromosomes. Anyone's, my own included. So how the fuck do I know who someone "really" is sex-n'-genderwise ... assuming the XX and XY are even the final word on whatever it is that makes up biological sex or gender in the first place?
Hell, I haven't even inspected the visible genitalia of any of my trans friends. How does this asshole know you and/or Patrick were "female" at any point in your lives, by any definition??
I just don't get people's arrogant certainty that they can confidently label a damn thing, and that they have the right to get all pissy when someone else disagrees. His whole "a bush is not a tree" and "red is not brown" arguments are bullshit. A lot of bushes are only "bushes" because they're constantly pruned. Otherwise they'd be trees. Yew and holly are two good examples. As for mislabelling colors: has he ever had a friend who with one of the many forms of color blindness? Sorry, kid, there are people who just don't perceive color the same way as the rest of us. Maybe this causes issues between us if they talk about color differently than we do, but fucking deal with it.
Well. I may roll all the above up into a somewhat politer ball and send it to him.
Matt, sweetie, I'm majorly sorry that people are still using you, Blake, and Patrick as whipping boys for their rants about whatever the fuck has them upset today. For what it's worth, I'd clobber them all upside the head with a big-ass clue-by-four if I could.
good lord he's confused isn't he? That article is convoluted and indecisive. I find that one of the most irritating, kind hearted and silly things the bay area does is pass laws that good behavior and general respect should govern--but why use you, patrick and blake as whipping boys for his diatribe--why not focus on what ostensibly is his point? He's getting an email from us.
I actually found the law to be silly, too. But in my email to him I simply explained that it wasn't any different than any other anti-harassment law. I don't know of anyone in San Francisco who has gotten arrested for name-calling. My experience was it was only prosecutable if it was paired with something like physical abuse to classify it as a hate crime.
And it should piss you off....it pissed me off too. I sent the guy an e-mail and got the same pre-fabricated response that he sent everyone else who wrote him. Bastard.
I saw that and gritted teeth until they nearly cracked
Since people's responses to the author seemed to be ineffectual, I dashed this off to the Dallas Voice--mostly just a version of what I've already said here on LJ.
I've just read Contributing Columnist Michael Alvear's column "Transgender pronouns can be annoying" on your web site (http://www.dallasvoice.com/articles/dispArticle.cfm?Article_ID=2880), and I have to say I'm both confused about what his point is and surprised that a major gay/lesbian paper bothers recycling this kind of tired rant. If there's nothing better to talk about these days, if being "annoyed" by trans people is the worst that happens, maybe life isn't as bad for ordinary gay men and lesbians as we keep hearing it can be. Maybe Dallas is the gay paradise we've all been waiting for.
Alvear certainly winds up making some reasonable comments, among them that transsexual and transgender people should be called by the gender and pronouns they prefer, out of respect. But he gets there by way of some shockingly disrespectful discussion, and some very muddy thinking.
He asserts that "[Patrick] Califia is like a bush resenting the grass for not calling it a tree. Well, if you've got bush and no trunk are you really a tree?" I know we're supposed to be talking about genitalia here (and how delicately Alvear puts it!) But the comparison breaks down pretty badly when you consider that bushes in the plant world often ARE trees as well. As far as I know, yew and holly are two examples of something we usually encounter as a "bush," yet easily grow to "tree" stature if you simply don't prune them.
I guess Alvear's point is that "bush" and "tree" are different because he says so, any evidence or complications to the contrary, and that "male" and "female" are just as easy to tell apart, also because he says so. Having set out the rules for this "objective reality" of his, THEN it's okay to toss trans people a few crumbs of "respect."
Where does this arrogant certainty come from? For my own part, I've never checked anyone's chromosomes, my own included, to "prove" their sex or gender. Most of the time, I don't even see a trans person's genitalia. That said, respect for their chosen gender identity and pronouns is where I START, not where I end up only after getting on a high horse about how I'm "respecting" them in the face of the "objective reality" Alvear seems so worked up about.
I could use some proof that Alvear knows what anybody's sex or gender is better than they do. Did someone die and he got elected the Gender Expert in their place?
I realize that Alvear's discomfort has partly to do with recent San Francisco legislation that purportedly criminalizes the use of gender pronouns in ways people feel harrassed by. Well, sure, criminalizing certain kinds of speech raises tricky concerns, but so does any form of anti-hate-speech, anti-harrassment legislation. Why pick on trans people's version of an attempt to protect themselves from the brutal oppression we all know is out there for most of us who aren't straight?
I guess I'm waiting for more gay men and lesbians who are upset about this kind of legislation to attack the laws that protect sexual orientation, first. There are certainly gay conservatives who dislike the entire project of enacting hate-crimes and anti-harrassment ordinances. Maybe Alvear is one of them. But I'd feel better about his ethics if he tried to bring down that whole house of cards, rather than knocking over some *other* vulnerable population's protections. If his goal is to dismantle gender and sexuality protections in general, it isn't obvious from this article, and perhaps he could be clearer.
I'm sorry it's so "annoying" for him that people feel both disrespected and vulnerable, and that they ask him to be part of a solution. I'm even sorrier that a paper like the Dallas Voice seems to agree with his annoyance far enough to take it regional and national. How hard it must be to have to change your thinking.
I guess I should feel even sorrier for all those homophobes out there who don't want to change their thinking about any of us. It must be just awful for them.
This is the kind of article that really makes me long for a nice, quick, wodchipper accident which would remove one probably small piece of his anatomy so that we could all stand around and go "feel like the girl you are yet?" Because it's so obvious that to him, genitalia makes the gender. What an ignoramoose. And how the heck does an article referring to anyone as a cock sucking fag or a carpet muncher get printed? Even in Texas... UGH. There's a reason why I tend to loathe the south. Sorry your life has to be fodder for the "gender nazis" so often man. That must get really old.
Unbelievable, except that it's from a Dallas rag. Sorry, Matt.
I'm going to try to dash off a letter to the editor before I leave town tomorrow morning; obviously Mr. Thing isn't up for any kind of meaningful dialogue.
His rant about you and Patrick seems out of place to begin with. It's like his whole article was just a poorly-disguised excuse to bitch about you two.
I agree with what thingie wrote above about it looking like a poorly fabricated excuse to slang crap on You,Blake and Patrick. I have sent a letter to him (as has pretty much everyone I know who has seen it) and my partner has also sent one to the editor.
again, what a prick! (grabbing my pitchfork) preston.
Matt, in your generous and brave "outness" obout being tranny, you unfortunately have also become something of a target. Patrick was already somewhat famous for being a well known sexologist, so your relationship has greatly increased your visibility. I am sorry that you have to read this crap, it should have been printed on an appropriate medium, such as toilet paper. Please don't let it stop your visibility or your voice.
Hey Matt, I am so sorry that this has been written. Bullshit journalism from the lowest common denominator. I am going to write a letter to the editor. I hope this guy never gets published again.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Yuck
That should never have been rpinted, it is not acceptable nor safe.
Im sorry you have to deal with crap like that. If theres anyway to help, let me know, I'm all yours.
- stacey
Re: Yuck
no subject
no subject
Not just maddening but confusing and incorrect too
What confuses me is that he appears to work his way around to the way I've tried to approach gender ... that I should call people what they identify as out of respect ... only after going into the most wild-ass, disrespectful discussion possible.
His knickers seem to be in a twist about this ordinance that he feels compels him to change his language. That kind of thing used to bother me, too, to some degree ... but I think it's a red herring in this case.
Here's how I look at it: I've never inspected anyone's chromosomes. Anyone's, my own included. So how the fuck do I know who someone "really" is sex-n'-genderwise ... assuming the XX and XY are even the final word on whatever it is that makes up biological sex or gender in the first place?
Hell, I haven't even inspected the visible genitalia of any of my trans friends. How does this asshole know you and/or Patrick were "female" at any point in your lives, by any definition??
I just don't get people's arrogant certainty that they can confidently label a damn thing, and that they have the right to get all pissy when someone else disagrees. His whole "a bush is not a tree" and "red is not brown" arguments are bullshit. A lot of bushes are only "bushes" because they're constantly pruned. Otherwise they'd be trees. Yew and holly are two good examples. As for mislabelling colors: has he ever had a friend who with one of the many forms of color blindness? Sorry, kid, there are people who just don't perceive color the same way as the rest of us. Maybe this causes issues between us if they talk about color differently than we do, but fucking deal with it.
Well. I may roll all the above up into a somewhat politer ball and send it to him.
Matt, sweetie, I'm majorly sorry that people are still using you, Blake, and Patrick as whipping boys for their rants about whatever the fuck has them upset today. For what it's worth, I'd clobber them all upside the head with a big-ass clue-by-four if I could.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
I saw that and gritted teeth until they nearly cracked
I think transpeople should divorce from the whole alphabet soup acronym GLBTQQI, in my worst moments.
no subject
Hell, he's so confused, he can't even get his facts straight. The way he writes, it sounds like Pat gave birth and Matt was the father.
I'm angry at his words, but I pity the writer as a person.
Letter to editor
I've just read Contributing Columnist Michael Alvear's column "Transgender
pronouns can be annoying" on your web site
(http://www.dallasvoice.com/articles/dispArticle.cfm?Article_ID=2880), and
I have to say I'm both confused about what his point is and surprised that
a major gay/lesbian paper bothers recycling this kind of tired rant. If
there's nothing better to talk about these days, if being "annoyed" by
trans people is the worst that happens, maybe life isn't as bad for
ordinary gay men and lesbians as we keep hearing it can be. Maybe Dallas
is the gay paradise we've all been waiting for.
Alvear certainly winds up making some reasonable comments, among them that
transsexual and transgender people should be called by the gender and
pronouns they prefer, out of respect. But he gets there by way of some
shockingly disrespectful discussion, and some very muddy thinking.
He asserts that "[Patrick] Califia is like a bush resenting the grass for
not calling it a tree. Well, if you've got bush and no trunk are you
really a tree?" I know we're supposed to be talking about genitalia here
(and how delicately Alvear puts it!) But the comparison breaks down pretty
badly when you consider that bushes in the plant world often ARE trees as
well. As far as I know, yew and holly are two examples of something we
usually encounter as a "bush," yet easily grow to "tree" stature if you
simply don't prune them.
I guess Alvear's point is that "bush" and "tree" are different because he
says so, any evidence or complications to the contrary, and that "male"
and "female" are just as easy to tell apart, also because he says so.
Having set out the rules for this "objective reality" of his, THEN it's
okay to toss trans people a few crumbs of "respect."
Where does this arrogant certainty come from? For my own part, I've never
checked anyone's chromosomes, my own included, to "prove" their sex or
gender. Most of the time, I don't even see a trans person's genitalia.
That said, respect for their chosen gender identity and pronouns is where
I START, not where I end up only after getting on a high horse about how
I'm "respecting" them in the face of the "objective reality" Alvear seems
so worked up about.
I could use some proof that Alvear knows what anybody's sex or gender is
better than they do. Did someone die and he got elected the Gender Expert
in their place?
I realize that Alvear's discomfort has partly to do with recent San
Francisco legislation that purportedly criminalizes the use of gender
pronouns in ways people feel harrassed by. Well, sure, criminalizing
certain kinds of speech raises tricky concerns, but so does any form of
anti-hate-speech, anti-harrassment legislation. Why pick on trans people's
version of an attempt to protect themselves from the brutal oppression we
all know is out there for most of us who aren't straight?
I guess I'm waiting for more gay men and lesbians who are upset about this
kind of legislation to attack the laws that protect sexual orientation,
first. There are certainly gay conservatives who dislike the entire
project of enacting hate-crimes and anti-harrassment ordinances. Maybe
Alvear is one of them. But I'd feel better about his ethics if he tried to
bring down that whole house of cards, rather than knocking over some
*other* vulnerable population's protections. If his goal is to dismantle
gender and sexuality protections in general, it isn't obvious from this
article, and perhaps he could be clearer.
I'm sorry it's so "annoying" for him that people feel both disrespected
and vulnerable, and that they ask him to be part of a solution. I'm even
sorrier that a paper like the Dallas Voice seems to agree with his
annoyance far enough to take it regional and national. How hard it must be
to have to change your thinking.
I guess I should feel even sorrier for all those homophobes out there who
don't want to change their thinking about any of us. It must be just awful
for them.
Pete Chvany
Bi Activist
Boston
no subject
UGH. There's a reason why I tend to loathe the south.
Sorry your life has to be fodder for the "gender nazis" so often man. That must get really old.
wondering ...
no subject
I'm going to try to dash off a letter to the editor before I leave town tomorrow morning; obviously Mr. Thing isn't up for any kind of meaningful dialogue.
no subject
What a Bastard!
again, what a prick!
(grabbing my pitchfork)
preston.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject