Comments at IOP spark controversy

A petition calling on the IOP to apologize for the use of a transphobic slur at an event has garnered over 1,100 signatures.

Photo: Courtesy of Ray Whitehouse, Institute of Politics
Columnist and founder of the "It Gets Better" project Dan Savage (left) and IOP fellow Ana Marie Cox (right) discuss the role of social media in activism last Thursday at the IOP. A comment made by Savage elicited student criticism and an online student petition.

After a terse exchange about the use of a transphobic slur between a guest speaker and student at an Institute of Politics (IOP) event last week, students in the LGBTQ community have started circulating a petition calling for a formal apology from the IOP. At press time, the petition had more than 1,100 signatures.

The event was an off-the-record Fellows seminar held by Ana Marie Cox, a political columnist on U.S. politics for The Guardian. It featured Dan Savage, a relationship and sex advice columnist and founder of the It Gets Better project, as a guest speaker.

The incident occurred when, according to several sources, Savage and Cox began discussing his personal history as a gay man. According to a first-year student and member of the LGBTQ community who asked to be identified as Hex, Savage used the slur t—– as an example in an anecdote about reclaiming words. Cox then added, “I used to make jokes about t—-ies,” audience members recounted.

“That was one of the most hurtful parts,” Hex said, explaining the perceived insult was that Cox used the slur to refer to the group of people she joked about. “In that context, it was like being applied to all transgender people,” it said. (“It” is Hex’s chosen pronoun.)

In a statement, the IOP said, “A guest used language that provoked a spirited debate. The speaker was discussing how hurtful words can be repurposed and used to empower; at no point did he direct any slurs at anyone.”

Hex asked Savage and Cox to use the term “T-slur” instead of the actual word. According to second-year Sara Rubinstein, an executive director of QUIP (Queers United in Power), and Hex, Savage then named other slurs, asking if they were suitable to use instead. “Obviously [he attempted] to threaten me and make me feel uncomfortable in that space, which was pretty successful,” Hex said.

A dialogue about the usage of the slur between Cox, Savage, and Hex ensued, creating a tense atmosphere in the room, according to several audience members. Hex ultimately apologized to Savage for misdirecting the conversation, but was further upset when Cox started talking about gender identification and left the room in tears. Following Hex’s exit, members of the staff and the dean on call, who had been asked to attend as a precaution due to Savage’s controversial history, quickly left to comfort it, according to Hex and a staff member.

IOP Executive Director Steve Edwards, who attended the seminar, would not provide specific details of the event, citing the off-the-record policy for Fellows seminars, but provided more context in an interview.

“Fundamentally what the conversation was about was language. 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,” he said. “The other argument was that language can be reappropriated—hurtful language can be re-appropriated by groups that are directly affected by the language—and used to empower and that there’s a tradition of that.”

Some students from QUIP had prepared questions for Savage to confront some of his past writing. Rubinstein acknowledged that she went “basically to raise criticism. It was not really things related to the slurs. It was more about philosophical differences with queer politics.”

The day after the seminar, Rubinstein, Hex, second-yearKris Rosentel, and first-year Alex DiLalla—a student who is heavily involved in the IOP and attended the event—met with Edwards and Dillan Siegler (MBA ’00), the director of partnerships and engagement at the IOP to discuss the incident and planned a follow-up meeting for Tuesday.

“We listened openly and sympathetically to the concerns about language and about the dehumanizing effects of language and expressed our desire not to be a place where dehumanizing language is used,” Edwards said. “At no time did we characterize the language from the event itself.” They also praised the students for standing up against what they perceived as an issue.

On Thursday evening after the seminar, Rubinstein and Rosentel had started drafting what would later become their petition on, calling for a formal apology from the IOP and “a commitment to preventing the use of slurs and hate speech in the future,” the petition reads. They released the petition after Rubinstein and Hex saw the IOP’s statement during Tuesday’s follow-up meeting and were disappointed, saying that the statement didn’t accurately represent what happened at the event.

The statement, authored by the IOP staff, reads in part: “By definition, views will be expressed on occasion with which some will strongly disagree or even find deeply offensive. But we cannot remain true to our mission and be in the business of filtering guests or policing their statements to ensure they will always meet with broad agreement and approval and will not offend.”

Cox, the moderator, said the IOP statement represented her views and reaffirmed her support for Savage. “I am proud to have brought Dan Savage, one of the most important gay rights activists in the past twenty years, to the University of Chicago,” she wrote in a statement. “His candidness and willingness to engage in taboo topics are among the reasons he has been able to make such a difference in so many lives.”

Despite the petition, an apology from the IOP does not appear likely. “What we are defending is the right for all of those individuals—including the other students in the room, some of whom felt very, very differently about what went on—to be able to express themselves in this forum. That’s what we’re weighing here,” Edwards said. “By not apologizing to these students, we are not at all saying that we condone or endorse the specific views.”

The students behind the petition disagree. “What I hope we can get is an acknowledgement that this happened, a commitment knowing that kids and students involved at the IOP aren’t going to have to face hate speech,” Hex said. “They’re going to know that they can feel comfortable.”

Edwards said the IOP is working with the Office of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer Student Life to develop future training for staff and the board.

  • FG

    So what is the slur? How am I supposed to know to avoid it if it is censored?

    • jack

      The T word is the abbreviation of the word ‘transvestite’ (not sure if transvestite is also a slur?)

      • indo3


        • Mickey Logan

          Yep. This week it’s a slur.

      • Tigernan Quinn

        If you don’t know, please don’t talk.

        It’s short for transgendered, transvestite, and any other trans word.

        A few fragile birds have decided this hurts. But we’ve been using tranny since the ’70s and we are NOT stopping now.

      • Tug Spano

        Transvestite and Tranny have both been used as slurs, and if you are using them outside of the context (academic discussion) described in the article, you’re probably being impolite and uncouth. Regardless, i can not wrap my head around someone who wants to be referred to as “it”, which is dehumanizing no matter the context, having a hissy fit bc someone used a word in an academic discussion in that moment about the impact and changes of language and words. O_O

    • Anonymous

      In this case, the t-word substitutes tr*nny. A few notes on trans-related vocab:

      transgender (NOT transgendered) – umbrella term for people whose gender identity and/or gender expression differs from the sex they were assigned at birth
      trans – preferred term; considered more inclusive than ‘transgender’
      transvestite – dated and offensive; substitute with cross-dresser

      In future cases:

      You’re allowed to do independent research on issues you’re unfamiliar with

      • FG

        There is no need to treat me condescendingly. Had you done research yourself, (or better yet, asked a question like I did), you would have found that English is my second language, and that my not-so-westernized culture does not deal with these subjects.
        No one gave me a “Politically Correct” guide when I came here, and therefore I try to take my cues from reactions to debates like the one currently going on. Without knowing what word was used, I can’t make sure I avoid it in the future (or understand why I would be voluntarily censoring myself).
        Furthermore, my point here was not a request for a lesson on all the possible t-words, but which specific t-word was used in this debate. You say that transvestite is offensive, as is tranny…so which of the two words was used by Cox and Savage? Had it been myself up in that stage, I would not have been aware that either of those two words were offensive.

        • Falafel

          Shhh … you must be silenced … else your non-American naivete threatens to expose the ridiculousness of these insane radical-imposed speech rules.

          Truly, it takes an innocent child to say the emperor has no clothes.

        • Anonymous

          I apologize for being condescending. I admit I was being a little defensive. Often in these cases, people ask other to put effort into explaining instead of putting in the work to do a search themselves, which bothers me.

          However, I still do think that it would have taken you just as much time to search on Google what the t-word could have stood for. By doing a search yourself, you have the opportunity to find resources that explain the issue more in depth, like why these words are problematic.

          I know that you didn’t request a lesson, but trans vocabulary is a subject many people don’t know about, so I used the opportunity to educate anyone reading this page.

          If you must know, Cox and Savage used tr*nny, but why does that matter if multiple words are offensive? Shouldn’t you avoid them all?

          • Falafel

            but see, if tranny is such a bad slur, why is it literally unknown to casually bigoted anti-tranny folks? the n word, everyone knows it’s bad because it’s actually used to hurt people. the “t” word?

          • Anonymous

            Your ignorance isn’t my problem. It’s your choice to stay in your bubble and only read about and seek out subjects that allow you to remain comfortable and inert.

            Also, you may want to work on your ability to craft arguments and comprehensible language. On this thread, most of your statements or unintelligible, irrelevant, reductionist or nebulous.

            “this is why the university of chicago can’t have anything remotely cool or edgy.” What is “this?” What do you consider “remotely cool or edgy?” Do you have a single example of when UChicago has had the opportunity to do something “remotely cool or edge” and chose not to because of “this?”

            “insane radical-imposed speech rules.” Not actually that radical or insane by any realistic metric.

            Do you mean transphobic when you say “anti-tr*nny?” What purpose does “literally” serve in that sentence? How many folks do you refer to by “casually bigoted anti-tr*nny folks?” Are you implying that the t-word isn’t “actually used to hurt people?” You imply that tr*nny isn’t a “bad” slur by saying that “if tr*nny is such a bad slur.” Just because you are oblivious to the problems of a community doesn’t mean those problems aren’t real.

            Congratulations on contributing nothing to this conversations but your painful ignorance.

          • communitymember2

            I object to the dehumanizing use of the term “f*rry” to describe my orientation.
            I prefer the use of the term “fur-covered-sex-god.” I find the term f*rry (only “fur-slur” should ever be used) to be problematic because it makes it seem like we’re something cute and loveable – very patronizing to one who sees itself as a savage regal beast. I now order everyone in the world to never refer to our community as “fur-slur” because it takes away my agency and infantilizes and marginalizes my diverse community.

          • The question

            Where’s the list?

          • The question
          • One problem is that such lists are ever-changing, with new words accreting via the euphemism treadmill. Thus, my grandfather (a dyed-in-the-wool liberal) used to refer to East Asians as Orientals because he hadn’t gotten the memo that the word’s connotation had changed. Another problem is that tiny changes in language can produce huge changes in offensiveness, such as “person of color” (preferred) vs. “colored person” (archaic/offensive) and “transgender” (preferred) vs. “transgendered” (archaic/offensive). In practice, such arcane and shifting usage serves as a political shibboleth to distinguish the in-group from the out-group. (Memo to the LGBTQ&c. crowd: You’re the in-group.)

          • Ulyssees

            Why should FG–or any of the rest of us–avoid every word that you and your political comrades deem offensive? Who granted you the right to censor our vocabulary. Transvestite and Tranny seem like perfectly useful words to me–I plan to keep using them without apology. Honestly, you and your friends need to toughen up, buddy. (Or is “buddy” a problem too?)

          • Anna Kroy

            T-word = infantile hogwash. Transvestite men have been calling themselves trannys for decades. Along comes a batch of ignorant, self-important children dictating to their elders that gay men cannot use “tranny” anymore (a word that has always been used as a term of endearment WITHIN the gay male drag culture.) Insert eye roll here…

          • Jeffrey G. Johnson

            One should avoid using such words, by which I mean employing them in speech with intent to wound or with careless lack of sensitivity.

            But talking about the word “tranny” or “nigger” to make statements about the history of their usage or make negative value judgements about the usage of the words is not the same as using the words to wound or marginalize. In such cases sentences containing such words are at a meta-level conceptually to the hurtful and degrading speech acts involving such words.

            If we can’t talk about race, sex, gender, racism, sexism, etc. then we can’t communicate and understand. If we eliminate vocabulary that is real and exists in the world, it becomes harder to share ideas and develop better values. The sounds and the letters aren’t what matters. The meaning and intent matters. How people treat one another matters. Our opportunities for freedom and satisfying life matter. We are smart enough to disambiguate from context and know what the intent is. We need to trust one another more and not repressively police each other’s language.

            In this case an ally, Dan Savage, has been hurt by a false accusation without good reason.

        • indo3


        • Tigernan Quinn

          Yes there is – you gave an explanation that was wrong. Next time, don’t speak until you know what you’re talking about.

      • Grumpy Ol Fart

        TRANNY. I had mine replaced last week. Damn reverse gear went out.

    • It’s “tranny” (source).

  • Falafel

    See, this is why the university of chicago can’t have anything remotely cool or edgy. Stick to reading about Plato, nerds

  • Anonymous

    The petition to end the use of offensive words at the IOP bothers me, because it is focusing too narrowly and inappropriately at the larger problem. People who speak at the IOP should be allowed to say whatever they want; they are expressing their own views and exercising their right to free speech. HOWEVER, the IOP should not bring in people who are hostile to a specific demographic. 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. In addition, IOP should be more careful and thoughtful in who they are bringing in. If they think it is a great idea to bring in someone like Savage, then they should not specifically ADVERTISE and SPAM a list host belonging to members of the marginalized demographic. It is insulting to our intelligence that they thought they were doing something great for the LGBTQ community by bringing him in (and clearly they thought this, because normally they do not advertise on an LGBTQ listhost). If this university wants a diverse student body, they need to not offend the minorities and make them feel unwelcome and unsafe.

    • Raul Rodriguez

      So it is better to shield yourself from views you disagree with rather than listen to an analyze them?

      • brunostrange

        Don’t you know that’s what universities are for these days? A place where the first, second and third priorities are that your sensibilities not be challenged or offended in the slightest way. You must be old or something.

    • Pete McCutchen

      Yes, of course. You can’t have somebody offering challenging ideas at a university, after all.

      • Anna Kroy

        Perish forbid they might hear a different point of view! Aieeee! It burns!

    • Anna Kroy

      Dan Savage was probably an out, proud and loud gay icon before you were born. Then you po-mo kids come along with your 57 genders and 97 pronouns, accusing him of hate speech? Sit down and shut up, kid. You’re embarrassing yourself.

      • Julia Holcomb

        Savage is a hater and anyone who is paying attention knows it.

        • foxfount

          Please provide any evidence to support this assertion. If it is so manifestly obvious, it should be an easy claim to support.

    • Grumpy Ol Fart

      It’s called free speech. It’s a right and you don’t have to like it. Now put on your grown up pants and get over it. Bunch of sissies.

    • Jeffrey G. Johnson

      Actually it is a good thing to expose yourself to ideas you dislike, and to understand why other people think differently.

      Trying to arrange the world around you to proactively prevent accidental exposure to unwanted ideas reminds me of the mentality that imposes strict Islamic dress codes. Rather than strengthening one’s mind to deal with the world as it is, an attempt is being made to alter the world to conform to one’s mental requirements. It seems backwards and futile.

    • Bill

      Really? You think Dan Savage should not have been invited to speak because you perceive him as anti-trans? OK then. Maybe you can share some links to your vigorous opposition to Rick Santorum’s discussion last month? Or Rand Paul in April? If we’re talking scale of transphobia, they are waaay up there and are hostile to lots of specific demographics. I would feel unwelcome in a Rick Santorum discussion, so he should have never been invited I guess. The IOP is about sharing ideas and thoughts. Not everyone is going to like all those ideas and thoughts, but it doesn’t mean we just stop sharing them. Or maybe that’s your point, let’s shut down the IOP so conversation never happens.

  • Earl of Sandwich

    I used to think U.of Chicago was smarter than this ‘Oberlin’ type PC-language hogwash.

    I’d hope other students here would step forward in the name of freedom of expression and defend people’s right to use language without being proscribed. No one has the “right” to not be offended. And universities more than anywhere in life are where you are expected to deal with a plurality of ideas. Instead you get people carping about ‘feeling safe’ as though they expect the world to be bubble-wrapped for them, and the words and behaviors of others to be strictly controlled by thought-police.

    Sad and embarrassing for the school.

  • indo3

    I can’t believe it’s frowned upon to say the N-word but saying the T-word is okay? It’s 2014 people.

    • Anna Kroy

      Tranny, tranny, tranny. Nope. No lightening.

      • Jeffrey G. Johnson

        There is an element of superstitious taboo in this kind of censorship. Yes, it’s 2014 people. Aren’t we quite a ways past superstition and taboo by now?

        Perhaps we must abolish the word “Tyranny”, because it is ever so close to the unmentionable that one could easily get deeply wounded by a momentary dyslexic glitch in lexical scanning of the sentence.

        Perhaps we even need to amend English grammer with TWML (Trigger Warning Markup Language).

        Tags like for “close mind” or for “avert gaze” could surround offensive words as a hint to the reader. And software and e-readers could self-censor everything according to pre-set preferences.

        I hope nobody takes that idea seriously.

      • Andrew Cone

        Tranny tranny tra—ZAPPP AHHH HOLY SHIT OW

    • beyond partisan

      It’s totally OK to use the N-word in 2014 – just watch the winners of the 2014 national college debate. Every other word was the N-word.

    • Grumpy Ol Fart

      It’s called “free speech” It’s a right. You don’t have to agree with it. Now put on your grown up pants and get over it.

  • Ulyssees

    God forbid Hex the Tranny might be uncomfortable. Good God Almighty already. Little wuss.

  • Ulyssees

    Tranny. Transvestite. There, I said it. Doesn’t appear that the sky has fallen. Honestly, this is about the silliest thing I’ve ever read. Honestly, if men want to cavort around in women’s clothing it’s hard to have much sympathy for their being labeled what they are. If it’s good enough for my dictionary, it’s good enough for me. Yo, Hex! Go find something else to whine about.

    • Bryan Scott Langley

      Exactly! We embraced “gay”, we took back “queer”, we’ve even taken back “faggot” to a degree, but the newest generation of fagalas can’t manage the fortitude to place positive connotations onto “tranny” and “transvestite”? I’m sorry, we fought and continue to fight hard for our rights to equality. Stop being lazing whiny little babies and attacking the very people, the advocates, that made your complaining even possible; you entitled insufferable little brats.

      • Bryan Scott Langley

        And I’m pretty sure none of those were slurs!

  • Anna Kroy

    Since when do people go to college to be “comfortable”? That’s ridiculous on its face. We go to college to learn, to be challenged, to grow, to stretch, to experience new things – and yes, sometimes to be offended. Being offended is one of the ways that we demarcate our principles – its a necessary part of defining our own character. I don’t believe in taboo words, taboo books or taboo thoughts.

    While I may hate many of the nasty words people use for female bodies, and I would prefer to not have them flung at me in a threatening manner, if I were in a workshop discussing the things that get yelled at women by cat-callers and various ways we might respond, I absolutely would not demand that speakers police their language to protect my fee-fees. That’s infantile.

    It’s like expecting people to talk about WWII without mentioning concentration camps because talking about the camps might hurt someone’s feelings. Seriously?

    If you’re too sensitive to hear a slur discussed in a workshop? You belong in therapy, not in a seminar.

  • Richard McCargar

    Is it actually “hate speech” to discuss how hate speech is used? If it is used in the context provided, I don’t think so.

    In my opinion, too many people are of the opinion that they have a right to never be offended. Does that hurt your feelings? It shouldn’t.

    If free speech only protects speech that makes everyone comfortable, it has no value.

  • Grumpy Ol Fart

    It’s called “free speech” LGBT community. It’s a right. It’s allowed to be offensive. Now put on your grownup pants and get over it.

  • Guest

    Isn’t choosing ‘it’ as a pronoun even more dehumanising than having someone else use the T word? Seriously, if I heard anyone refer to someone else as an ‘it’ I would think they’re insane.

  • hurricanewarningdc

    “It?” The problem is obviously not the words used (in an open, group dialogue, mind you), but the fact that “it” threw down a challenge and lost. He/she couldn’t deal with the fact that his/her viewpoint and choices weren’t universally embraced, that his/her tantrum was received with a polite shrug. From the story, it appears that “Hex” has alot more to worry about than the acceptance of his/her sexual identity; he/she is ill-equipped to deal with life as an independent adult. UChicago, i’m sure, does a better job of selecting and graduating well-adjusted, functioning members of society. Perhaps over the next three years in college, this student will grow up.

  • TestSalad

    I find that calling transgendered people “it” is far more offensive than “tranny”.

  • brunostrange

    Jesusf•ck, this new PC wave is way out of hand.

    Generally, I’ve been indifferent toward political correctness – perhaps even viewed it favorably. But the militant thought and language police of the past few years is absurd. Straight out of Idiocracy. There are better ways.

  • Radioedit

    ““It” is Hex’s chosen pronoun.”

    Jesus christ, go back to TUMBLR.

    • Jeffrey G. Johnson

      Even if you have a valid point, mockery and cruelty aren’t constructive. They are no substitute for understanding and communication. You may get a thrill of pleasure from being clever, but that passes quickly and in the end you’ve done no good.

      • Anna Kroy

        Shaming idiots is an age-old method of getting them to correct their idiocy.

        • Jeffrey G. Johnson

          Perhaps so. It depends on the idiot. Some of them just dig their heels in deeper. If they are introspective and able to engage in self-criticism, they might be influenced, but then, real idiots are not usually very capable of self-criticism.

          There is another age-old tradition expressed as “you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar”. I figure it’s usually best to go that route first.

  • Jeffrey G. Johnson

    I understand that the intent is to make the world a better place where every human can live and love according to their desires, and seek fulfillment on their own terms without facing discrimination and hatred.

    But even the best intentions can stumble over foolish errors of logic, and attempts to educate people about careless mental habits embedded in language or custom can be carried to an extreme level of absurdity, so they are no longer an expression of rights and a call for freedom, but instead become an obsession with victimhood and a self-defeating confusion of signs, sounds, or textual glyphs with the truly important meanings and intentions of communication.

    If you undermine your allies because of such (to be quite frank) neurotic preoccupations then you undermine your cause and your self. Dan Savage was insulting no one, and he did not use the word “tranny”, but rather he talked about the word “tranny”. Hex chose to take offense when it was not given.

    There is a big difference between using a word and talking about a word. I am not being a racist if I say I saw a video of a racist white woman calling a black man a nigger. I’m not using that word, I’m reporting that the woman said “nigger”. The timid tendency to type t____ or T-word or N-word is a ludicrous and cowardly shrinking from reality. And if you can’t grapple with hard reality you can’t hope to improve the world we all live in.

    One might anticipate the hurtful exposure to the unwanted sound of the offensive word that could occur if you take your car to a mechanic to have that gear shifting thing fixed. To avoid this you could choose to become an unvehicled person, but then you’re heaping absurdity atop absurdity. What truly matters aren’t sounds of speech or the glyphs of text. What matters is the meaning, and how people treat you and what the opportunities are.

    Creating fake drama won’t help with that.

    • Laurence Ballard

      Well said. 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

  • Don

    Hahahahahahahahahaha! This is fantastic.

  • Henri11111

    Cultural Marxism at it’s worst… yet.

  • Elizabeth Potter Graham

    “Following Hex’s exit, members of the staff and the dean on call, who had
    been asked to attend as a precaution due to Savage’s controversial
    history, quickly left to comfort it, according to Hex and a staff
    member.” IT?

    • Anna Kroy

      It likes to be called it. It said so. *** insert eye roll here ***

  • I call them “It” because I dont know what they are.

  • It would be better if the episode was a prank planted by a rival university in the hope of discouraging potential donors. Hex is simply a bully hiding behind a false identity, really functionally no different than a Klansman in a hood. Sad to see the University reduced to this. What is really needed is for someone to take charge and tell 10% of the faculty and 15% of the students to find another home. That would not be censorship but simply a return to standards of accountability. The issue has nothing to do with anyone’s sexuality, it has everything to do with conduct inconsistent with being in a scholarly community. Edward Levi and Robert Hutchins would not have tolerated such conduct. Totalitarian mediocrities with no sense of proportion do not belong at U of C.

    There is no hypocrisy here. I am an alumnus who has used this identity on the Internet, not when in a conference or debate, for years to avoid stalking.

  • matthewrettenmund

    I graduated from U of C in the early ’90s when it felt I was 1 of about 20 gay people, let alone trans people. It shocks me that things have progressed to the point where gay and trans people are so visible that one who happens to be a complete nut job is allowed to make such a stink and sway public opinion. Give me a break. This person is deranged, and it has nothing to do with “its” ( apparently, this person prefers that derogatory pronoun ) trans status.

    • J William Pope

      Unfortunately, Hex represents the “mainstream” gay Left.

      • Bryan Scott Langley

        I don’t think so!

  • blah82

    This is utter BS. Slurs are slurs because of intent. He was not directing it at anyone in a defamatory or malicious way. I’m just sick and tired of the drama queens seeking attention by manufacturing this phony sense of Victim-hood.

    S**t like this trivializes the very real kinds of hate that is experienced by trans people, and other sexual minorities.

  • BenTheGuy

    Apparently some transexuals think the “it” pronoun is offensive. Hex should call them up and apologize for “its” hate speech.

  • Tigernan Quinn


    We did not fight in the streets in the ’80s when people were dying to end up at this place. Knock it off, china dolls, you do NOT control words.

  • J William Pope

    I hope Mr. Savage now appreciates why there are a considerable number of gay Republicans, conservatives, libertarians, and others who do not identify with the Liberal Left.

  • Mikes Lives

    I was so hoping this was a joke – which, it turns out to be just that – a joke.

  • ML

    Shouldn’t the issue of confidentiality be addressed? Regardless of the petitioner’s feelings, everyone agreed to confidentiality. The petitioner broke that, which says a lot about the professionalism and genuineness of its actions. I’m sorry for the program which may lose future guests because of this kind of behavior.