There’s no excuse for that crap…None whatsoever. Yes, what Rob McKenna is doing is disgusting. However, it’s just as disgusting to treat transgender people like some casual slur to be thrown around to insult other people. Dan Savage should have known better, especially since he’s gotten himself into this kind of trouble MANY times before.

Okay, I’m confused…If a cis-gender politician who is also gay does something politically (like a certain CA pol recently) that will have a negative impact on other GLB people, we’re supposed to excoriate him/her for their hypocrisy, outing as necessary… but a transgender pol that does something that reasonable people could construe as potentially anti-trans gets a pass?
Is AG McKenna not transgender? And why isn’t it relevant?

This a puerile and hateful column.This is exactly the same as the attacks on Coulter for her appearance rather than her insane words.
And it has the added bonus of implying that Trans people are less valuable – and that the mere implication lessens this AG.
Can we change the nickname for this writer to ‘spokesbigot’?
Biography of Attorney General Rob McKenna
PERSONAL BIOGRAPHY
Born Oct. 1, 1962, Ft. Sam Houston, TX
Married to wife Marilyn for 23 years; four children, ages 8, 12, 17 and 20
St. Louise Catholic Parish (1977-present)
Eagle Scout
PROFESSIONAL
King County Councilman (elected in 1995, unopposed for re-election in 1999 & 2003)
Perkins Coie, Attorney at Law; Business and regulatory law (1988-1996)

There is zero evidence that AG McKenna is transgenderDan is just using the label transgender as a slur against a political opponent.  

Me tooI don’t understand the point here. Is the AG not transgender?

Yeah, good luck getting an apology from Dan!But, you know, this really goes perfectly with the Uncle Joe fashionista post below.
And I kinda like Dan in spite of his faults but this was just fucked up.

I’m confused

It’s staggering that Rob McKenna, a female-to-male transsexual, is making it harder for other FTMs (and MTFs) to access the life savng sex-reassignment surgery that allowed Rob to become the man he is today.

Which part of the health care bill helps trans people get surgery? Because I definitely don’t remember seeing anything about that at all.

How is it different from the Va AGI can’t say how many blog posts I’ve seen mocking the gay-obsessed Va. AG as a closet case. What’s the difference?

See question below re Va AGThis post has the smell of hypersensitivity to me.

Perhaps Dan can provide some proof…It sounds to me like Dan is outing McKenna as trans — and I would expect for there to be some level of proof if that were the case.  If not, then, yes, it’s out of line.

Damn, stop making excuses for DanI mean, even Dan isn’t making any excuses for himself.

We won’t know for a while…The benefits plans have yet to be written by HHS — and hopefully trans-exclusionary language will not be a part of it… which will open up the door for people to get onto a plan which not only covers SRS, but all treatments under WPATH guidelines.
The fact that HHS — particularly for the health care exchanges — gets to write the coverage requirements language was what got the anti-choice crowd in a tizzy.  The trans-panic language was just layered onto the top of the craziness.

better things to dothan play gotcha hypersensitivity.

Sorry, but I haveto agree with Dan.

Washington’s AG isn’t gay-obsessedThat is a HUGE difference.  AG McKenna, to my knowledge, has not gone out of his way to vilify gays or trans people.  The sad fact is that Dan Savage could have written a strong critique of McKenna’s involvement in the HCR lawsuit without ever having to use an anti-trans slur.

on what?

Okay I am still confused…So McKenna isn’t trans and Dan is just declaring him that way to somehow make a point (Which confuses me more). WTF???

right, he’s trying to insult himby calling him trans and a closeted hypocrite.  all without a shred of evidence.

This is a FAIL if the politician is not trans, but is spot on, if crude, if pol IS transI gather that almost all Trans people use hormones at some point in their transition, and most prefer long-term hormone support. That option should be regarded as just another maintenance drug, and if the insurance pays for thyroid supplements, there’s no reason it should avoid paying for estrogen and testosterone maintenance. So, he would be a selfish bastard, like most Log Cabin types.
If he is trans, he surely isn’t the sharpest knife in the drawer. He claims to be an Eagle Scout, and that is a readily researched status. Even people not connected with scouting consider faking Eagle Scout to be pretty low. Politicians lie about their CVs all the time, usually inflating their own education, and they get caught all the time. Faking Eagle Scout is more offensive than faking degrees, offensive in itself.

The fact thatthis man is an AG suing to stop HCR.  The rest of the blather is just that.

Just plain stupidNothing like insulting a person by stating that he’s a member of your group.  What an idiot.

OMG!NO! Not Washington State. We need to quickly impeach the bum and wipe out his kind for the good of the state. Next thing we will hear he is not a citizen, or even a human!

So what is the chancethat this is part of an offensive to remove trans people from ENDA?

And people wonder why…And people wonder why I say that the number one reason that trans people need to be included in ENDA is for protection against non-trans gays and lesbians.
Number of people out there who would trust Dan Savage to non-discriminatorily evaluate a trans person OR SOMEONE HE THINKS is trans???
I’m hoping the number doesn’t rise above zero.
On the other hand, I suspect that Savage himself views himself as uber-cool and hip with respect to civil rights – and there are a number of Aravosisists, Frankenphobes, Dredge-mongers and Janice-worshippers who will side with him.
I imagine Ron Gold is still vertical enough to cast a vote as well, so….

Dan Savage’s post is incredibly offensive and he should remove it.It’s bad enough that anybody would make fun of transgender people, but to have a gay writer doing it is just too much. As a cis-gender lesbian I reject Dan Savage’s “joke” and advise him to grow up.

InterestingI was wondering why the anti-choicers were so up-in-arms over the bill even after Obama reaffirmed the ban on use of federal funds for abortions.
So right now it’s really a toss-up: trans people can get everything up to and including SRS, or they can get nothing, or even worse, outright declarations that such things don’t have to be funded. If that’s the case, then the point Dan was trying to make about helping trans people get trans-related medical expenses covered seems to be a bit premature at this point.

I agreeDan isn’t the first person to make a serious claim that the AG is transgender. Just Google it.
We make speculations all the time of anti-LGBT politicians being closeted gay people. When we do that we are not using “gay” as an insult. Why is it an offensive if you do the same thing for rumored-to-be transpeople?
Just sayin’.

there is absolutely no reason to believethat this guy is trans, unlike the alleged closet cases who are usually old bachelors.  further, my reading of the post is that Savage used the term trans as an insult.

It sounds like he just got the facts wrong, and should apologize for thatbut that the intent of his post was not to attack someone for being trans, but being a hypocrite. WHen a gay man does this (that is they do things adverse to gays) then outting them as such is not a matter of homophobia. Not sure how this is transphobia. Its just sloppy writing. Not malicious writing.

I tried lookingand outside of what Dan Savage claims, there’s really no mention of it. In fact, most of the other hits I got were people looking for this same information and finding out the only source is Dan Savage. Thus far, it seems like he pulled it out of his butt…

I think it is malicious writingbecause Dan Savage made up an accusation out of thin air and used it in a negative way, to make someone look like a hypocrite.

Thus farthere’s nothing specifically in the bill that helps trans people to pay for trans-related medical expenses. And from my understanding, there’s the possibly that such things could be explicitly excluded from mandatory coverage. So I think it’s a bit too early to be passing judgment.

McKenna formed a bloc against GLBT protections on the KC CouncilMcKenna consistently voted to table or block GLBT anti-discrimination ordinances (9/12/2004 is one meeting in particular, here are the minutes with the ordinance in question that McKenna helped kill, http://mkcclegisearch.kingcoun… ), and while he’s not as obsessed as Irons is/was, he’s one of the main reasons gender identity didn’t get a full measure of protection until 2 years ago, basically buttressing Irons’ motions to halt action on certain ordinances. He also carried water for anti-gay groups.
For example: http://seattletimes.nwsource.c…
Also, a quote from Val Stevens: State Sen. Val Stevens, R-Arlington, who had planned to introduce legislation to amend the constitution to ban gay marriage, now says that if there’s a shift in the Legislature she may have to reconsider.
“I might still go ahead and introduce it,” she said. “We want to see how we might be able to use Rob McKenna [newly elected Republican attorney general] to help us activate some of what has been neglected in the state for years.” — http://community.seattletimes….
McKenna Quote: “The other Republican candidate, King County Councilman Rob McKenna, criticized the ruling’s wording as too broad and said its argument that there is no compelling state interest to deny marriage to two people in a committed relationship could leave marriage open to blood relatives or those practicing polygamy.
“It threatens to destroy all standards we apply to the right of marriage,” he said.” — http://community.seattletimes….
As a King County Councilmember, he’d had run-ins with the Seattle indie press on GLBT issues, especially folks like Dan Savage who was blasted by politicians for being outspoken (for example, as Helvetica Bold); politicians like McKenna. That’s one issue McKenna moderated on to run as a stealth candidate in his re-election, which required the support of Western WA.
McKenna has been extremely damaging to the GLBT community. First when it was a local issue in the Puget Sound, then early on in his current job as AG.
So let’s not pretend he’s innocent or harmless.

The reference is to McKenna’s actions in King County…McKenna attacked gay rights but had a hard spot in his heart for attacking the trans-community.
I guess you could always ask Savage to clarify his remarks.

“the intent of his post was not to attack someone for being trans”That COULD be the case – but Savage doesn’t strike most people as being the most trans-friendly peron around.

Thanks for the excellent research!I guess I haven’t been in WA long enough to see McKenna in full anti-LGBT action.  However, it still doesn’t excuse Dan Savage from acting like an anti-trans bigot, not to mention a journalist who cares nothing for the veracity of his claims.  The sad thing is that people are believing that McKenna is a trans hypocrite merely because Dan said he is.

I agree – this is not helpful…but this particular swipe is not new.  I recall Dan Savage saying this last June.  He’s simply recycling some old crap because McKenna did something newsworthy.  I don’t think people really take Dan Savage too seriously anyway.

One more thing…For those of us in Washington State who disagree with McKenna’s decision to join the tea-bagger lawsuit against the new health care reform law, here’s something CONSTRUCTIVE you can do:  CONTACT YOUR LEGISLATORS.  They’re still in session, many of them are mad as hell and are trying to figure out how to respond, and they want to hear from their constituents.

What a non-surpriseIt’s not like Dan Savage hasn’t got a long history of anti-trans bigotry already.

true. that’s why he needs to be called on in.

This is supporting marginalization.

This is supporting marginalization.

This is supporting marginalization

I don’t.But then, I oppose marginalization as kinda one of the most important things I can do.
Funny that.

Then waste your time on thisinstead of ENDA

Why ask when you can just bash?Having a dialogue is not nearly as personally satisfying as ranting and raving.

Fully capable of doing bothAt the same time.
Since they go hand in hand, it’s fairly easy.
You, on the other hand, actively further marginalization.  

I see this as part of the ENDA discussionIt’s posts like Dan’s that give people tacit permission to discriminate against trans people.  This includes people who will be talking to their legislators about the importance of passing what needs to be an inclusive ENDA.

Ultimately, its irrelevant.You don’t use trans lives as a insult.
Period.
Non negotiable.

Have you seen the comments over on Dan’s postand his response, which is in the text box above under the “Update” heading?  He’s given the finger to dialog.

Thank you, LurleenStuff like this cannot be glossed over.  It MUST be talked about and exposed.
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans, — the lot of us.  Our lives are not insults.  And when we support anyone who uses that we are supporting the very things that we are fighting against.
Defending this, making excuses for this, saying “he must not have meant it that way” — these are all things that support and encourage marginalization.
No.  It is not acceptable, at all, ever, in any way, in any shape, in any form, for any reason.
And so long as people think it is, we will not get to where we want to be.

Disagreeing with you does not equal marginalizing or are we all suppose thinkthe same now without question.

“It’s posts like Dan’s that give people tacit permission to discriminate against trans people.”Hence my response to him – it is discrimination by people like him that I fear most.

That maybe the case. I don’t know enough about his columnor read him outside very infrequently reading his sex columns (which often leave me thinking relationships and sex are often more complicated than he writes, but I digress) and wondering why people have chosen him to be a gay rights spokes person (again I digress).
My point is I don’t know much about him on trans rights.  I know John Avarosis has a bad rep because of what he said about ENDA, which I disagreed with him on (because I see it as divide and conquer by straights), if I am remembering the right person. I was just basing my view on the specific writing that the diarist writes about above.  

Number One?If you really think that’s the number one reason, I’d say you’re misguided.
ENDA is about discrimination in employment. It doesn’t protect anyone from anyone’s big mouth.

Dan Savage is a transphobic idiotI can’t believe anyone bothers playing nice with him. He regularly misrepresents trans experience, has practically zero understanding of what transition involves, and generally appears to subscribe to the Ronald Gold view of trans people. In short, he is transphobic, and should be called on it. Often. I don’t believe anything he says or writes, especially a trans outing with zero evidence.
His implicit claim that trans surgeries are going to be covered by this “health insurance reform” is ludicrous and it’s clear he is only using the idea as a slur against transpeople. To me, this demonstrates he has no idea what this legislation was about. The powers-that-be have no intention of providing more actual health care, especially for trans people. The idea of the law is to get people on insurance policies, and then the insurance companies can restrict treatments. They have plenty of experience doing exactly that. They may not be able to deny coverage altogether due to pre-existing conditions, but they can sure limit the available treatments. And they will.
Savage’s update is an incredible insult to the trans community. And yea, I think this has a lot to do with ENDA. Personally, I’m getting tired of Savage using his soapbox to step on the faces of transpeople. It has to stop. I expect transphobia from the religious right, but to get this kind of treatment from a vocal member of the gay community is just Machiavellian.

I think it’s more Dan being careless…the vast majority of his trans-insensitive remarks are all couched in either old jokes or misuse of terminology. In this case, he’s going after someone who made no small thing of his dislike of the GLBT community as a whole. In part, perhaps, because now that McKenna is outside the simple sphere of the Puget Sound, Dan’s a little too narrow-focused for him and then we get into the “jiminy cricket, shut your mouth” moments.
Dan’s carelessness is in that he expects Slog readers to know the history (or look it up for lack of anything better to do) and to realize the hyperbole inherent to the mention. He’s throwing something back at McKenna, but people don’t realize McKenna slung first. Nor are they going to go back and read between the lines in McKenna’s bio to see things that should at least call Dan’s implications into question.
Still insanely, ahem, jerkish of him– to clean up my language a bit.
I think Dan is still hurt that McKenna was a major player in killing marriage equality in WA state. Some people don’t like their livelihoods and status as a citizen toyed with, which leads to digging up really snotty deep-in-context remarks later on when the backstory is a decade or more into the past.

I understand the hurt.I understand the anger at this person.
None of it mitigates the fact that trans lives are not an insult, and defending them, even on that basis, is still helping to further marginalization.

What’s the issue first off?I don’t think everyone’s on the same page about outing or accusing anti-LGBT politicians of being gay or trans themselves.
Start at square one. Yeah, I have a problem with ripping apart closeted anti-gay pols. I feel the same if they’re trans. If it’s true, it’s pertinent to a degree. But people go overboard to the point where it just seems like vengeance.
I’ve noticed gay men in particular seem to be paranoid that their biggest enemies are closet cases.
Gays are rather accustomed to the practice of accusing,  assuming or implying Republicans are secretly gay. The insult isn’t that they’re gay, but that they’re self-loathing. Many aren’t going to see much of a difference in accusing someone of being secretly trans. The underlying accusation is that they’re self-loathing.
But is it different? Well, yeah I think it is. Trans folk don’t receive the same of level of tolerance gays do. Or maybe gays have gotten used to a practice we never should’ve in saying so-and-so is gay without a shred of evidence and we’ve lost our sensitivity to it.
I’m not excusing anyone, I just want clarity. ‘Cause we never get to the crux of issues when we keep talking past each other.
I mean, if you want Dan Savage to treat trans folk the same was he treats gays, this is it.
Or if you think some gays are getting a little too much joy out of outing or baiting, yeah I’m with you.

There’s more than 1 way to squander your credibilityAnother way is to post regularly on PHB that R71 doesn’t have a chance at being put on the ballot and that its proponents are just a handful of rubes seeking to make money off of the effort.  And then to backpedal gracelessly when it makes the ballot.  Then to mindlessly cheer a campaign that barely won against essentially no opposition.  Yeah, that’s another way to completely lose credibility.
Anyway, nice to see you pandering to the ever-present need of Blenders to hound someone who violated PC canon.  Life is more interesting when there are enemies everywhere.  

It’s not ludicrous…

His implicit claim that trans surgeries are going to be covered by this “health insurance reform” is ludicrous and it’s clear he is only using the idea as a slur against transpeople.

He’s wrong, but it’s not ludicrous. This may have been possible had we been able to pass public option and the House bill as that would’ve set up a council that could mandate what treatments had to be covered by the public option plan. But we didn’t, we got the Senate bill and no public option.

Ok, let’s look at something…For Savage’s claims that McKenna is an FtM to be true, then McKenna’s parents, schools, Boy scout troop, and family would all have to be complicit in the process.
His parents would have needed to find a doctor capable of performing surgery on a prepubescent child.  Within the realm of possibility — but not as trans,  That would be as an IS person undergoing a forced assignment.
Because it would need to have been done before the age of 6.
Now, again, all of that is possible.  It is, however, incredibly improbable.  So improbable that the burden of proof is going to rest on Savage to establish it.
Which he can’t do, and won’t do.  And, as I was explaining to someone not too long ago, this is not an isolated incident, Savage routinely says nasty stuff about Trans folks.
So it’s an outright lie that McKenna is trans. And I say that as someone who finds outing an anti-LGBT person to be perfectly acceptable.  Seriously — no problems with doing that here on my part.
What I’m upset about is that he has used trans lives as an insult.  And I’ll be just as upset if he does the same with cisLGB lives as well.
That’s not “PC”, either — that’s simply calling bullshit something that’s bullshit.  LGBT lives are not insults — they are not bad things and they are not humorous.
I want him to retract the entire statement — now and in the past going back six years.
Including the bullshit about the HCR issue, but that’s separate.
HE wants to go after this dweeb for being a putz, I;’m all good and happy with that.  BUt he is not going to get a bye for being an asswipe that uses trans lives as an insult.
Not now, not ever again.
It’s got to stop.

Yeah, I just read thatI just read the Eagle Scout thing. So, pretty obvious he can’t be trans.
I don’t really know what to do with him other than ignore the stupid crap he says. It’d probably be easier to find a replacement/competitor. That would mean someone with the same attitude but more informed.

clarifyingfirst paragraph I mean the AG, second I mean Dan. I’m tired, so probably not explaining myself as well as I could be.

The problem isthat ignoring the issue doesn’t make it go away.
He’s being called on his privilege here, really — he’s being told that the expectation he has that just because he’s some sort of great person, he’s above the rules.
He’s not.
If I ever say something terribly homophobic, I hope to all hell people leap on me (and I suspect I won’t have to worry about a lack thereof, lol).
We can’t ignore it — that’s tacitly supporting it, and it has to stop.
Not just with him, but with Mike Musto and all the rest of the great and worldly cis people who have been “getting away with it” because, well, the response that everyone says is “just ignore it”.
It just let’s them do it more, and makes us all complicit in the use of stigma and defamation of LGBT people.

Its the exact same thing that used to be used against straight candidates… whispering that the candidate is secretly gay or lesbian.  Yes, such things still go on, but the tactic doesn’t have the same punch that it did 30 or 40 years ago. I think the trans community is about at the same level of acceptance and controversy that gays and lesbians had 30 years ago.  
Savage’s use of a transphobic attack is something we would expect from a Teabagger or Freeper… its not acceptable coming from our own community.  

I think it’s a bit richSuch an attack coming from a member of NAMBLA.

Why does Dan Savage still have a job?Why does Dan Savage still have a job?

Congratulations, PHBShark: jumped.

And sometimes he also shows anti-woman and racial bigotry.

I think it’s funny people think Savage is an advocate in the first place.He is worse than Joe Solmonese in my opinion.
His “credibility” was used up with his reaction to Prop 8.

Don’t forget that he doesn’t like bi people, either

Go through that post…… And replace “Transexual” with “Homosexual” and “trans” with “gay”, and you get something semantically equivalent to any number of “This gay republican is such a damn hypocrite!” posts on this very blog. Yes, I think you’re being oversensitive. The only issue is if the accusation isn’t true, in which case Dan is guilty of spreading false rumors. This doesn’t make him prejudiced against transgendered people, though.

Soooo….…. Jumping to conclusions about someone’s gender identity based on physical appearance is evidence of bigotry, but jumping to conclusions about their sexuality based on bachelorhood isn’t?

Look at his recordDan Savage has a long record of disrespecting trans people; it’s not like it’s hard to find other examples of him trashing us (or him throwing around racism, misogyny, and anti-bi prejudice, for that matter). Were this the first time he’s done something like this, maybe then I’d be willing to cut him a little slack. But this isn’t the first time he’s pulled this crap; he’s been called out on his treatment of trans people before. In light of that, it’s kind of hard to see this as anything but another episode of willful bigotry on his part.

And those same postsare one’s I’ve raised a stink about before as well.
This time, however, I’ve had enough.
Our lives are not insults. And he doesn’t get a pass.

Agreed

Who says you get to hand out passes?He didn’t ask you for a pass and doesn’t need one.  Don’t assume moral authority cuz you don’t possess it.
BTW, what do mean when you say “this time . .  I’ve had enough”?  What are you going to do?  Attack him?  Call the police on him?

I don’t understand.I’ve read this a few times and I don’t understand how Dan’s comments can be called anti-trans. Sure, they were ill-informed; if you want to fault him for that, be my guest. But anti-trans? Where do you see that? If anything, his rabidly pro-trans stance made him shoot from the hip and miss.
Dan erroneously believed that McKenna is trans, and based on that belief he slammed him for betraying the trans cause. Is this any different from slamming a politician (whom you thought was gay and closeted) who voted for an anti-marriage-equality amendment?
By the way, I do read Dan’s column every week but I’m no rabid supporter. I’d be the first to admit that he’s full of crap a significant portion of the time.

Thanks, this is exactly the point I’m trying to make……I’ve read this three times and I can’t see a word that seems anti-trans to me. (See my comment directly below yours.)

Pro-Trans?I have not ever read one single thing by Dan that could qualify as pro-trans. At best, he has lip-service “LGBT” inclusiveness when he writes/speaks about general community stuff.
I specifically remember him using the S-bomb when talking about trans women and NOT seeing a problem with it.
I’m open to any instances where Dan is showing a Pro-Trans stance.

I can’t figure that one out, eitherI’ve never come away from anything he’s written about trans people feeling like he’s anything but anti-trans.

OK, bear with me, please……because I’m new to all this.
Let’s take Dan’s post as an isolated statement. Don’t consider his history.
Now, can you point to a word in the post that sounds anti-trans? Because I can’t see one. It sounds for all the world like he’s pointing at McKenna and shouting “DAMN you, vile traitor to the noble trans cause!!!” That is a pro-trans statement.
I haven’t followed Dan all that closely, and I didn’t have a vested interest in GLBT politics until about nine months ago. So my best guess is that the difference between your interpretation and mine is that you’re seeing Dan’s statement through the lens of his previous statements. The situation is analagous to a shock-jock who had been known to use the word “nigger”, and then condemned a black politician for voting against the needs of his community. If I knew that shock-jock’s past, I would assume the condemnation was thinly-veiled racism, whereas if you hadn’t listened to him you might wonder why on earth I think he’s a racist. Is that a good parallel?

KindaIf this had been a single context-free comment It could be seen as just poorly-worded. Unfortunately for the world, Dan has plenty of context that informs the reader that he has been given plenty of education for previous “gaffs” and continues on making being trans the punchline in his insult/joke.
The thing is, the AG is not a trans guy, couldn’t be a trans guy, not remotely a trans guy. Dan’s pulling being Trans out of his behind and slapping the AG with it. The AG isn’t betraying the Trans cause, he may be working against it, but he’s not betraying it. This is not the same as a closited gay politico who votes against LGBT rights. This is a non-trans (cis) man who is doing something Dan doesn’t like regarding health care reform. This isn’t a trans person acting counter to the LGBT community – this is simply Mr Savage using being trans as a way to insult someone.

That’s what it says on the siteComment #140 on the post.
As far as I know, there’s just as much evidence for that as the AF being Trans.

Ah. Thanks……Given some comments I heard, I was under the impression that the rumor about the AG was credible enough for Dan to have genuinely believed it. You’re saying there’s no way he did, so it was wholly cynical.

Speak out against him.OR was that not something you found readily visible?
I’ve contacted his advertisers, his editors, the place where he works.
I’m using social media to make sure that people understand this is not acceptable.
And, in point of fact, I do possess moral authority.  They may not be your morals, but I am an authority on mine and do have such. If you don’t agree, then defend him — but be aware that logically, in doing so, all you do is further the very stigma that we are trying to overcome.

Some people apparently haven’t been paying attention to Dan Savage.Yes, he’s a smutty clown, but when has he ever demonstrated any knowledge of politics?  He’s been wrong constantly in his opinions, his predictions, his analysis of facts — you name it.  And every time he has the chance to exercise even the judgment of a two year-old, he doesn’t.  He can’t.  He’s an idiot.
When Dick Cheney took the country to war, Dan Savage not only supported him, but he was a cheerleader for genocide.  He was glad for a war that anybody with basic reading skills knew was a sham and he thought it was a great idea to kill Iraqis because it would make them fear and respect us.  What was the difference between him and Dick Cheney then?  Or now?  How much more low can a human being sink?
When Prop 8 passed, he blamed the blacks.  He didn’t just blame them once, he wrote weeks — not days, but weeks — of columns blaming the blacks.  Even after we had the evidence to back up the common sense that the blacks did not cost us Prop 8, he continued to blame the blacks.  People begged him to stop.  He wouldn’t.  How is that not racist?
His best buddy in the whole world — and the person who spoonfeeds him his “ideas” — is Andrew Sullivan, a universally despised moronic hypocrite who has spent his entire career for sale to the highest bidder, who used to be an extreme right shill who was — guess what? — a supporter of Dick Cheney and a cheerleader for genocide.  This is who Dan Savage thinks is a genius.  Because Dan Savage is scum.
This transphobic, childish and completely insane column is not a departure for Dan Savage.  This IS Dan Savage.  How can anyone be surprised?

Not sureI’m trying to understand just how Savage is “slurring” the transgender community here.  The column read fairly straightforwardly to me, and the message I got was not “damn that Rob McKenna for being transgender”.  Rather, Savage was criticizing McKenna for filing a lawsuit that may have the effect of making it more difficult for trans people who want reassignments to obtain them.  Indeed, Savage referred to reassignment surgery as “life-saving”, which seems to respect the significance of the operation for those who seek it.
Granted, none of the above is meant to excuse any of the column’s shortcomings.  Savage’s argument may be incorrect on the merits (for any number of reasons – e.g., perhaps McKenna’s decision to sue has nothing to do with the availability of reassignment surgery under the bill).  Savage’s facts may be lacking as well (as several commenters have noted re. McKenna’s not actually being transgender).  And some of the terminology definitely comes up short (“transsexual”?!)
But I highly doubt that someone who criticizes “anti-trans bigots” in as many words, and who appreciates the life-saving significance of a transition, harbors the sort of malice associated with an intent to “slur” the trans community.

Ask yourself this question:Could Savage have made a viable criticism of McKenna’s involvement in that lawsuit without ever mentioning gender identity?  There is no evidence, after all, that McKenna is trans.  The answer is a resounding yes, and several state legislators immediately produced some fine examples of how that could be done.  They criticized McKenna for what he was doing, not who they lied he is, and their arguments were given serious consideration in return.  
There was no legitimate reason for Savage to take this completely irrelevant angle of attack.  In fact, if Savage had wanted to hammer McKenna for past anti-LGBT words and deeds, he could have simply calculated the number of LGBT Washingtonians potentially harmed by continuing lack of access to health insurance because of McKenna’s lawsuit.  That would have been a legitimate criticism based on fact.

Not likelyObama made it clear long before he was elected that he didn’t support a public option. So to speak of “could of” is specious. And if you really think the knuckledraggers are going to go along with paying for trans surgeries, you are simply not paying attention.