Tuesday, 14 February 2017


Is that true?  Anyone have any idea where the petition went and why?  And why it came back?  And how we know that there are 1,920 names on it, up from the 1,870 when it, suddenly, disappeared?

[I'll add only one remark at this point:  If you're talking about an online petition Working or Not Working -- which someone does in the Comments section of yesterday's post -- I said nine years ago that if we got 2,000 signatures on the petition I would reconsider my decision to not go out in public and I still plan to do that: reconsider.  My intention with the Petition was never punitive, it was accommodative of Feminism:  a misogynist shouldn't go out in public, in my view.  That being said, I DON'T BELIEVE DAVE SIM IS A MISOGYNIST. I'm not a feminist. To me, there's a big difference. The more signatures there are on the petition affirming I DON'T BELIEVE DAVE SIM IS A MISOGYNIST, the more willing I am to go out in public.  Posting here, as an example, more extensively in the Comments sections of the various posts is a direct result of getting closer to the 2,000 mark. Answering questions from people who haven't signed -- and won't sign -- the petition. Walking, briefly, around a convention in Kitchener City Hall New Years' Eve of last year.] [No danger of being recognized except by KITCHENERCON organizer Ron Hoppe and long-time local comics artist Bill Byrne].

Haven't seen a CEREBUS "In My Life" for a long, long, long while...

(creative people making a living in a creative field documenting CEREBUS' influence on their work and how they discovered it) (any creative people interested in doing a similar "In My Life" please contact TimW),

...so we all appreciate Adam Beechen taking time out of his VERY busy freelancer schedule (is there any other kind?) to send this to TimW (and TimW for posting it).  Adam has had a long and busy career in comics, TV and animation.  As someone put it recently, remembering Adam's letters back in the "Aardvark Comment" days and seeing his credits on TV: "The FAMOUS CEREBUS fan"

His most recent gig -- the longest he ever worked on one thing, according to Adam -- was as Executive Producer on TRANSFORMERS: ROBOTS-IN-DISGUISE for the last three years.

Take it away, Adam!



jonbly said...

I also believe that Dave Sim is not a feminist.

Cory Foster said...

I don't believe Dave Sim is a misogynist.

Dave, does the return of the petition remove the requirement for stating the above in comments?

Margaret said...

I don't believe Dave Sim is a misogynist. Though the petition is back up. . .

Dave -

iPetition never sent me an email that they took it off line. I sent them a response via their contact form. No response. So I sent them an email and got a form email in response. I responded back to that load of BS and got a partial response that they had numerous complaints of names being added without permission - though they gave me no info on that, just a statement - and with the high increase in the number of recent additions they thought the petition was being spammed. With that final email they removed some names and put the petition back online.

It sounds like the names being collected at conventions were the names in question. I've since gone through and removed the ones I knew wanted to be removed - some I couldn't find (perhaps the ones iPetition removed) and some possible typos, so I've asked for assistance with the names. I also deleted a bunch of names that were just first names or an initial and a last name - as you've previously stated you wanted full names, first and last. So currently the count stands at 1,867 names.

If you want, I can set the petition so one has to log in with facebook to sign the petition. That added layer of security should prevent this from happening in the future.

And btw - I finally got to the Bs pro-shop on Sunday and got some swag. It'll be headed your way tomorrow via FedEx. I still haven't cashed the AV check 'cause everytime I look at it - I'm thinking so cool, a check from AV! Though I was disappointed there was no aardvark on it. Plus I'm still riding the wave of the Patriots winning their 5th Super Bowl. w00t!

mike r said...

Hi Margaret!
Even though my wife and I did sign the petition long ago, we do not have a Facebook account. I'm sure there are others, as well. Even though it's a secure site, you might leave others out who might want to sign, but refuse to belong to Facebook.
Michael Ragiel

rlsharer said...

Dave Sim is not a misogynist.

Great to see your blog/comments again...I have been eager to hear your comments on the current political climate where the trend is to stick a "hate tag" on people that disagree with your politics....some people have been doing this for years, eh?

Excited about the new comic!


Damian T. Lloyd, Esq. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Travis Pelkie said...

Well, I appreciate that Dave has been more open to responding to posts more often, and answering questions of any and all of us. I hope that if this petition issue has been settled, he will get back to that.

(Side note: something I saw awhile ago [when Tim posted the full list at that point some time within the last year] was that it appeared that Sean Robinson was on the list twice, once around #25 (or 55, maybe) and again presumably around the time he started the remastering [I want to say 256]. I assume this was purely accidental, and I probably should have brought it up when I noticed it. Of course, it's also entirely possible that there are 2 Sean Robinsons that signed it, it's not an uncommon name....)

That said, I'm not sure why there's a note of ... unfairness? a sense that people are out to "get" the petition? ... in comments about it the last couple days. iPetition certainly should have informed Margaret of the fact that they were taking the petition down and why, but isn't the reason perfectly valid? Dave is concerned that somehow people will get the notion that he's a feminist (or perhaps more accurately won't accept that he's not one), so why shouldn't iPetition validate that all the people on the list intend to be on the list? If Joe Blow decides that he doesn't believe in what the petition states, but somehow his name has gotten on there, shouldn't he have the right to protest that and request that his name is removed, as it makes him appear to support a position that he doesn't?

And lookit that, too. When more people were informed of the existence of the petition, in arenas like comic cons where comic fans that would probably know of Dave congregate, he actually gets a lot of signatures. As opposed to having it on the internet and expecting people to stumble across it somehow.

To be fair, of course, there are plenty of comics creators aware of the petition that have not signed, but I'm sure there are plenty that still aren't aware. There are a lot of comics creators around these days!

Margaret said...

Travis - I don't Sean R's name twice on the petition either on the AMoC copy or on the current petition. If anyone does see a duplicate name, please let me know and I'll look into it.

Hal Brandt said...

Dave Sim is not a misogynist or a feminist.
I looked at the petition just to make certain my name was still there (Hal Brandt) and after hitting "Show More" until my index finger was sore, I still didn't see my name. I signed way back near the beginning, all those years ago. I noticed there were a lot of blank slots at the end of my "show more's" and a lot of first names only and even one deceased (Kim Thompson - RIP), but I never saw my own. Please advise, Margaret - can you see me or should I sign again? Worried I might've somehow been lost in the shuffle or blanked out.

Bill Ritter said...

Hal Brandt! I have same issue...I was an early signer.

Check out: http://momentofcerebus.blogspot.com/p/dave-sims-ipetition.html

The initial ~1,000 or so are named.

Dave Sim said...

I don't think you have to be a conspiracy theorist to think something isn't kosher in Milwaukee in all of this. :)

Rick - I don't really have much to add to the actual situation. As I've said to a few people over the last 20 years -- and more often in the last few -- "This is a society out of which I am very proud to have been thrown." Voted off the island. Whatever you want to call it.

Hi Hal! (and Bill!) Long time no hear from! My best advice would be (for those interested and it is a bit of stretch, I'll grant you) to check the petition as frequently as you can (without venturing into Obsessive-Compulsive territory) and if you don't see your name there, sign again. I mean, obviously, we're going to get labelled as paranoid, but it does seem to happen a lot.

Travis - I appreciate what you're saying, Travis, but on a scale between "I don't think that's actually the situation that we're in" (0) and "what you're saying sounds like an artful cover story to me" (10) I'd say you're at about an 8 or 9.

Yes, obviously, anyone whose name got onto the petition and wants their name taken off -- whether they changed their mind, thought better of it, whatever -- should be able to do so. This has been a part-time job for Margaret for a good nine years now and I think she's extended every courtesy to everyone involved non-stop and without exception. If you want her to recount ALL of the horror stories she's gone through on this, I'm sure she'll be happy to accommodate you.

But, seriously, Travis. Dude.

Dave Sim said...

Cory - Yeah, I'm fine with everyone dropping I DON'T BELIEVE DAVE SIM IS A MISOGYNIST from their comments as long as the petition a) exists and b) is available for signing. Of course, I also wouldn't mind if people would keep using it for a little RAH-RAH as we continue the climb to 2,000 signatures. :)

Margaret - Appreciate the BB swag and so will the recipient.

BTW, after thinking every week "I should have saved all of my paste-ups: Margaret would want them" -- word balloons and backgrounds from CEREBUS IN HELL? -- last week I actually did so and put them all into a little padded envelope and mailed them to you. As I said in the note, good luck finding a way to store these! It might at least be worth a post here on AMOC: all these dinky little paste-ups spread out on your carpet. :) Not to mention that you have to wait for AARDVARK COMICS No.1 and STRANGE CEREBUS No.1 to know which backgrounds and which word balloons belong together.

Don't say I didn't warn you!

Damian T. Lloyd, Esq. said...

Dave says, "I don't think you have to be a conspiracy theorist" and then spends the rest of his comment being exactly that. Even now that we have an explanation, Dave still wants to believe Da Fem'nists are out to get him. (And absolutely, iPetition should have notified petition-owner Margaret as soon as they took the petition offline.)

Dave also repeats his zombie lie "'This is a society out of which I am very proud to have been thrown.'" I will speak the truth every time he speaks this lie: he was never thrown out of society; he left of his own free will. He's not an exile; he's a recluse. (I wish this was the only example of Dave attempting to rewrite history to comport with his own legend.)

I think Dave Sim is a misogynist and an anti-feminist. I don't think, ironically, that he is a sexist (he's always gone out of his way to say that any woman who can compete with a man on men's terms should be permitted to do so).

-- Damian

rlsharer said...

Damian, I don't think you're a "Sim Hater", as *many* are, but you are just flat out Wrong.

Dave is kind to use the phrase "voted off"....I can personally guarantee you that the Sim Haters did much more vicious things than Vote. It became a personal quest for them to slander him as often and as loudly as they could, whenever his name was brought up....even if it only to do with his art. Anyone that stood up to them was slandered as well.

I wrote a column, for a short while, that was focused on some of the politics involving Dave and his work, and they sought me out and attacked both him and me after almost every column. It was exhausting, and there comes a point where it's much easier to live outside the Village.

Damian T. Lloyd, Esq. said...

Rick S.: Thank you for your vote of confidence. I don't see myself as a "Sim Hater" either (but of course). Where I am critical of Dave, it is out of disappointment -- that he fails to live up to the standards he professes to live by and / or that he fails to live up to what I consider accurate and rational apprehension of reality. I don't think Dave is crazy, I don't think Dave is stupid, I think Dave is a misogynist, I don't think Dave is worth much as a thinker, and I think Dave is a great cartoonist.

Unfortunately, I don't know if I can trust your judgement. I remember your defences of Dave and Cerebus on the old Comicon.com message boards. You said a short while ago that you consider those arguments closely-reasoned, but I'm afraid I remember them differently. Perhaps for some people, a work can strike so deep a chord within them that they become a little love-blind, where the very affection for the work affects your ability to be objective about it. Such is, I believe, the case with Jeff Seiler, whose deep and genuine appreciation of and affection for Cerebus and Dave is sometimes expressed over-zealously. (I'm trying not to be insulting here, but even I admit it might be hard to take it any other way.)

So I'm saying I would need to see your evidence, rather than accept your personal guarantee, to be convinced that what you label an attack is something more than criticism.

-- Damian

Glen said...

I think I might start posting on the "A Moment of Grimjack" blog.

Margaret said...

/Hal - you're there, at #43. If anyone else wants to know if they are on the list, just email me at cerebusfangirl at cerebusfangirl with your full name.

Dave - thank you for thinking of me for the Cerebus items. I'll get some of the archival portfolios that I use for the rest of my collection and catalogue the items. Hopefully that will work. . .if not, I'll find something else. And yes, it'll probably be worth a AMoC entry or two. Also, the BB swag should be there by 2/20 according to FedEx. . .

Travis Pelkie said...

I looked at the petition via the link that Bill provided above. It looks formatted a bit differently than what I remembered, but that could just be me. I'm not sure what I saw, then. The only thing I could take a guess at was that the "Ian Robinson" at 233 looked like Sean to me?

So I was obviously mistaken. However, to be clear, I never thought that there was any shenanigans going on, simply that there may have been an accidental double entry. Apologies if anything I said seemed to imply any malice on anyone's part.

Having said all that....

Don't attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity, is what Damian said on the other comments section.

As I understand it, the guy whose Twitter Damian linked to in the other post complained that his name was appearing on the iPetition.

iPetition apparently thought something was amiss because of that, and undoubtedly because (I assume) a lot of the recent signatures would have come from the same IP, as [I've forgotten his name who has been collecting signatures at cons] presumably is inputting the new signatures from his hard copy and using the same computer when he puts them all in. When you've gotten an average of, what, 150-200 signatures per year, and the amount on your petition suddenly nearly doubles in a few months? Yeah, a responsible petition agency should flag that as weird.

What they failed to do was to inform Margaret that they were taking it down, and then giving her the runaround when she tried to find out why. That's where the stupidity comes in.

So -- complaint about someone being falsely shown as supporting a petition that he doesn't, an odd increase in the amount of signatures in the last year...of course the petition should have been questioned.

It shouldn't have occurred without Margaret being told about it, however.

But to attribute to that stupidity on their end a...sinister motive, as you seem to be implying, Dave?

Why? Who benefits, as they say? Why didn't they just take it down years ago, or never accept it in the first place?

I suspect this is just one of those things we'll never agree on.

Nonetheless, I still love comics by Dave Sim and want to see more of them, so I'll continue to support the Kickstarters et al as much as I'm able.

In other news, I haven't been to the comic shop yet this week, so I don't know if CIH? 1 is actually out yet, but once I get it, I'll post a review over at the Atomic Junk Shop.

Dave Sim said...

Travis, No, I don't think this is something that we'll ever agree on. I think the complete absence of the professional community -- with a half-dozen notable exceptions -- speaks (and has spoken) for itself from the beginning. There have been a lot of surprises. I was sure that Chester Brown, self-confessed libertarian, would sign and Rob Walton, David Petersen liberal wouldn't sign. Exactly the opposite was true.

I'm definitely not taking the 1,800+ signatures as a MAJOR vote of confidence when it takes nine years to amass them. The next problem is how to arrange a Dave Sim convention appearance in the age of Trigger Warnings, Microaggression and Safe Spaces. If I DO go to a convention, I'm not going to pretend to be a feminist. So, that needs to be discussed with the two conventions who have expressed interest in having me attend. And have offered very generous appearance fees as well.

I think the only sensible thing is a completely antiseptic signing environment where I don't actually talk to anyone: just sign autographs. So that anyone who wants an autograph can get one (first one is free and then a charge for each one after that) and politics doesn't need to enter into it.

And then arrange some sort of after-hours social environment for people who have signed the petition AND people who are willing to sign a Trigger Warning of some kind: "Dave Sim is not a feminist and he isn't going to pretend to be a feminist at this social event. By signing here you acknowledge his right to free expression and different political opinions from your own. If you are overly sensitive or easily offended it is recommended that you not enter."

Whether any convention is willing to do that, I don't know. But it seems to me that I'm being very accommodating of feminism in structuring my appearance AROUND feminism and its (to me) peculiar SJW requirements.

If, as a society, we ever chuck Trigger Warnings, Safe Spaces and the idea that such a thing as microaggression exists, I'll reconsider "just being a guest". But, right now, that's not the society that we live in.

No matter what feminists, like Damian, pretend to be the case.

al roney said...

Dave's island is actually a whole lot larger these days.

I live in a country where everyone who didn't vote for Hilary Clinton is considered a misogynistic-sexist-homophobic-zenophobic-racist-nazi.

There's so much eye-rolling going on these days, that many of us are walking around with perpetual headaches...

...and I'm done. I quit. I just laugh now. Guilt-free.

I don't engage with anyone on anything close to a political level anymore. Life is far too short to waste attempting to inform, correct, debate or otherwise engage with a "side" that is so hell-bent on perpetuating sheer nonsense. They've gone too far - and it's failing.

H. Clinton sucked. A terrible candidate. It had nothing to do with her sex, or lack thereof. Trump sucked too, but folks were sick and tired of being called misogynistic-sexist-homophobic-zenophobic-racist-nazi's for not basking in the glory of HC.

Message sent and delivered.

So, I guess, to me, your petition, and I did sign it quite awhile ago, is a bit far down on the list of things to concern myself. Seriously, it really doesn't compare to so many of us being called misogynistic-sexist-homophobic-zenophobic-racist-nazi's.

No petition required in these parts. At all. So be it.

The island is a lot bigger than just the guy who wrote and drew that aardvark comic.

Damian T. Lloyd, Esq. said...

Why does Dave think that comics creators owe it to him to sign his petition? Does he think they all owe each other allegiance because they're Inside People? I grant you libertarians generally aren't that bright, but surely Chester Brown can make up his mind about whether Dave is a misogynist on the basis of Dave's words, not because they're both professional cartoonists. That's been a repeated, weird non sequitur from Dave.

And I see Dave is trying again to get the whole world to accommodate him, because he's such a special snowflake. I recall that he tried to insist that every fellow panel-member at a convention had to sign his pledge; that didn't work out so well for him. Now he's trying to insist that the whole convention sign a pledge that he enjoys rights already protected by the constitutions both of his own country and the country he likes best, and demanding that the convention provide him with a "safe space".

I agree with Dave that the truth remains the truth, irrespective of what we believe. I think I am a lot closer to it than he is.

Al R. seems both angry and delusional. I think we can agree that candidate H. Clinton sucked. But I fear that this kind of political discussion is rarely valuable, and certainly outside the scope of a blog about Cerebus.

-- Damian

Dave Sim said...

Hi Damian! I appreciate you sticking with us. I think the site works well because we can "have at each other" in posts/comments on one subject and then just forget it if there's another post/comments that doesn't go anywhere near sensitive areas.

Uh, I never said that about a convention panel, I said that when I was asked to help judge the Doug Wright Awards. By Chester (which means by Seth but at arm's length): I'd give a "pass" to any civilian (non-comics) judge, but I had no interest in playing "all of us together" with comics people who thought I was a misogynist.

And, Damian, I have to say al doesn't sound REMOTELY angry and delusional to me. I think, as he does, that the Left has pushed this weird agenda to the point where all you can do is roll your eyes and laugh.

Sandeep's strip this week about the 31 gender pronouns (he's got an even funnier one up ahead with Virgil discussing Cerberus' gender identities with all three heads) I think, points in a direction that liberals and Liberals really aren't comfortable having people point at. Understandably!

It's 2017 and no one can see the future so, heck, it's very possible that 30 years from now the idea that ANYONE WOULDN'T know all 31 (or 50 or 75) gender pronouns automatically will make all us 2017 people seem like knuckle-dragging insensitive cavemen and cavewomen.

But, man, Damian, don't you think that's a tough political "sell"? If someone tells you what gender they are and you don't refer to them by the CORRECT pronoun, you're INSULTING them? "Xem" and "xi" and "them" (for an individual)?

The NATIONAL POST has only printed one letter from me (and they no longer have a fax number for the letters page), but I really wanted to write in and say, "Can someone at least write an ARTICLE about the 31 genders and their respective pronouns?" I suspect they DON'T because it's going to be pretty obvious that they aren't actually talking about genders, but sexual preferences and strange psychological imprinting and projection.

But, I'm more than happy to reserve judgement on that until I actually am able to read a description of each of the 31 genders and how, specifically, they THEORETICALLY differ from each other.

Nothing so far.

Damian T. Lloyd, Esq. said...

Dave: Thanks for responding. This is actually a pretty good example of what I mean when I say, "Dave doesn't know how to think." As with Rick S. a day or two ago, I'm trying to be not insulting but descriptive. I don't think you're dumb, and I don't think you're crazy. I do think you're wrong about some things, and the reason you're wrong is because you taught yourself to think and you got that wrong some of the time, so that as you took the measure of the world you were using a ruler that was itself faulty, thus resulting in some truly bizarre leaps. I know you want to apprehend reality as accurately as possible, but ... well, as someone wisely said, "Interest doesn't equal aptitude."

In your reply you take a joke, assume it as a fact, impute it to liberals, claim somebody is implementing it as policy, and then imagine these same liberals are uncomfortable with all this. That is just not a logical or rational thing, that your mind did just there. That's not a chain of argument; that's just a heap. If you knew how to think you wouldn't have said that.

I would say I don't know where you get this stuff, but in this case I do. Sandeep read the "31 gender pronouns" scare from a year ago on some right-wing-hysteria website (if he's upscale, "Daily Caller" maybe), and of course he's not smart enough to trace the story back to a distortion of one committee in one city in one state in one country (it's the New York City Commission on Human Rights). (But he does know you personally!) He told you about it, and you shared a laugh over those dumb liberals and feminists (but it was a sardonic laugh, because you know the inferior liberals and feminists currently control society and it won't be until long after you're dead that the rightful order is restored) -- and because it fit so well with what you want to believe, you didn't look into it either so you never learned that this is not a plank in some monolithic liberal platform. You got the specifics wrong, you got the generalities wrong, and you drew the wrong conclusions.

Obligatory cheap shot: Would Dave, if she's called by the wrong pronoun, take offence? Of course she wouldn't; she just said so above.

"The National Post" may no longer have a fax number, but I seem to recall someone on this very blog was talking just recently about Cerebus stamps. You do know that they're not just ornamental, right? They can be affixed to letters, and "The National Post" does print its mailing address.

-- Damian

Dave Sim said...

Damian - Postal service being what it is, there's NO WAY that a letter would get to them in time to be considered for publication. I'm also pretty sure -- with newspapers being on the way out and severe budget constraints -- that they only publish e-mails since they can be cut-and-pasted easily, whereas a letter (or a fax, back in the day) needs to be retyped.

Okay, I'll bite. If there aren't 31 genders then how many genders are there in the Universal Liberal Consensus? i.e. Number and exact description? And is there a Universal Consensus on the number and description? I know LGBTQ2 -- so that's five genders -- but how many letters (and numbers) are there after that? Theoretically. At this point.

al roney said...

@Dave - You would be correct - I am neither angry, nor delusional. I disengage, laugh it off, and focus back on reality (at least my version of it). Much better and healthier way to live.

However, I am not in the least bit surprised that Damian would have that takeaway about me based on what I wrote - proves my point actually.

Kit said...

I know LGBTQ2 -- so that's five genders

How does the latter follow from the former?

Keith said...

I think there might be some confusion here between "sexual orientation" and "gender identity". According to Planned Parenthood: "We express our gender identity in the way that we act masculine, feminine, neither, or both. Some of us are transgender — which means that our biological sex and our gender identity do not match up. Each of us also has a sexual orientation. You may be bisexual, gay, lesbian or straight."

The 31 genders thing is an initiative from the Mayor of New York City (http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/NYC-releases-gender-list/2016/06/01/id/731809/). As this article states at the end:"If you don't know what pronouns to use, ask...Be polite and respectful; if you use the wrong pronoun, apologize and move on." I don't think this list is necessarily representative of any kind of Liberal consensus.

See, when you're talking about gender identity and correct pronoun use, this is really the crux of the matter. If you don't know what to call someone, ask them; they will tell you, and you can move forward. The same way you might ask someone if they prefer to be called Dave or David, you can ask them their preferred pronoun. It's no more than the most basic level of human courtesy. It's actually pretty simple.

rlsharer said...

Keith - What's actually pretty simple is the fact of two genders. I sincerely believe that Mankind is getting stupider as the centuries go by, peppered with the illusion of Genius.


Jeff Seiler said...

While Rick Sharer and I have had our contretemps over the years, I tend to agree with him here.

We're discussing *genders* here. Male. Female.

You know; the ol' "in-out, in-out."

Thirty-something ways of describing genders is ridiculous.

If you want a gender change because you believe you were born, or borne, wrong, then God bless you and good luck. I'm not a fan of it, but I'm begrudgingly accepting it.


Bisexual, homosexual, lesbian, trisexual (is there such a thing?), bestial, pedophilial, coprophial, necrophial, it all revolves around two genders. (And, I do not advocate any of the latter four, for the record.)

Male. Female. Male-male; female-female. Genders. The only two kinds.

However you want to express your gender capability legally, hey, go to town. Have fun. I don't recommend it, but, hey, it is fun.

Thirty-one genders?

As the character Clay Davis used to say on the HBO show, "The Wire",


Barry Deutsch said...

Jeff and Dave, as far as I know, no one in real life has claimed there are 31 genders. It's certainly not some sort of liberal consensus

What happened, as Damian alluded above, is that the NYC Commission on Human Rights printed a pamphlet which I'd summarize as saying "people shouldn't discriminate against people because of their sexuality or gender or anything like that." On the back of the pamphlet, as a design element, was a graphic made up of 31 words relating to people's sexuality and/or gender. It was pretty obviously a graphic element, not a "list," and nothing in the pamphlet labels it a list of "genders."

But a bunch of right-wing sites claimed it was a "list of 31 genders," and that false story spread.

There is no consensus among the left regarding precisely what should be counted as a gender. Some people will say "there's only two," some folks on the edges of Tumblr will say "there are as many genders as there are people." (There are many, many more of the former than of the latter.)

In my community, I think many people would say there are four basic gender identity options: male, female, androgynous (identifying as a combination of male and female), and agender (not identifying as either male or female). This is usually shortened to "male, female, other" or "male, female, genderqueer."

Gender is a matter of personal identity, not as a fact. (In contrast to a question like "does this person have a penis?." which is a fact.)

Barry Deutsch said...

My second-to-last sentence was unclear. If I could edit it, I would change it to say: "Gender is seen by many on the left, myself included, as a matter of personal identity, not as an empirical fact."

Dave Sim said...

Barry & Damian - Okay, do you understand that a person can disagree with all that and not be guilty of bigotry?

i.e. "I don't go along with your premise, consequently I'm not interested in learning new pronouns for what I see as just plain, no offence, just calling it like I see it, strange people. You are trying to move me out of what I perceive to be Reality into what you perceive to be Reality and, thank you, but I have no interest in being made to go somewhere that I don't perceive to be Real."?

As Jeff says: we have the technology and we're going to have more technology. If you want to use it to change your personal physical Reality into whatever you want to change it, God bless you. Hope it works out for you. But stop trying to make it sound as if ME saying that SEEMS TO ME a very bad idea personally and societally is evidence of insanity, intolerance, non-inclusiveness and/or bigotry.

And most of all PLEASE stop trying to make it sound as if I should CELEBRATE your idiosyncratic ideas of Reality against my will.

Anonymous said...

I was one of the first people to sign the petition, and I've also gone on record as stating it's basically a bad idea. On the other hand, I suspect it had more to do with the 'comic book nation,' pro's or prominent fans/workers that Dave has known over the years.

As it stands, the petition seems to be aimed at everybody in the whole entire world, so it's nice to know that Dave gives a break to non-comic book fans in that regard. As opposed to the large numbers of people in the same business who've partied with Dave, drunk and smoked and whatever at his expense, and then turned their back on him.

On the third hand, I don't see how Dave or anyone else would benefit from two or three or ten thousand signatures on the petitions. He did fine at SPACE, but I think the Cerebites had more fun being able to talk to people who knew comics and "Cerebus."

Here's an example for those who weren't there: In 2004, at the bar after the show closed one night, I happened to be with a few other fans talking to Gerhard. I think Seiler was at the table, but I might be mistaken about that. Anyway, at some point, someone walks up and says they're turning in for the night, but it was awesome to meet Gerhard, and Ger politely shakes his hand, spilling his drink onto the floor in the process.

I moved to try to catch the glass, but didn't really have a chance, so I was at 'Ground Zero' (as it were) to gasp "Something fell!" I probably didn't even say it loud enough for anyone at the table to hear me, but that didn't matter because (what seemed like) the entire bar yelled in unison "Something fell!"

An enormously fun moment for every Cerebite in the bar, appropriate for 2004, the Year of the Aardvark. Ger was probably turning red with embarrassment and simultaneously holding back laughter, and Dave had already gone back to his room for the night. I don't think he'd be appreciably different now, and although there are probably con privileges I don't know about, I can't see how going to conventions as anything other than paid Elder Statesman would possibly benefit him. So what point does the petition serve?

Anonymous said...

The above comment was by ChrisW, by the way. I'm lucky if I remember which email and password I use for my Google account, and that's the only option available that I've ever used.


Barry Deutsch said...

"Barry & Damian - Okay, do you understand that a person can disagree with all that and not be guilty of bigotry?"

I don't really care what you think about pronouns, Dave. You and Sandeep were the ones who brought this whole thing up (with a reference to a fake news story).

I'm more interested in kindness - in how you'd treat a real human being in front of you. If you were to meet a trans woman and made a point of saying "Who is HE? What is HE doing? What do you mean, I should you her when you're a HIM?," that would bother me, because it would be mean.

But I think you wouldn't do that, because I've never known you to be mean in a personal interaction.

"And most of all PLEASE stop trying to make it sound as if I should CELEBRATE your idiosyncratic ideas of Reality against my will."

I don't believe I've ever said that, or anything which could reasonably be interpreted to mean that. If you know of a time when I've said that, please quote it directly.

I honestly don't want you to "celebrate" any particular viewpoint. Not only would I not force anyone to celebrate anything, I can't even imagine caring about that.

Here's what I want: I want non-trans people, trans people, and genderqueer people to treat each other with reasonable kindness and mutual civility when they interact. I want governments to not pass laws that discriminate against trans people, or make them less safe.

But I couldn't care less what you "celebrate."

(I mean, I know you celebrate various holidays, and I hope you find the holidays you celebrate enjoyable and/or meaningful. But really, Dave, that is as far as it goes.)

Barry Deutsch said...

Chris W, that "something fell!" anecdote is hilarious. In my household, when something is knocked over, it's very common for us to look at each and dramatically declare "Something fell."

"As opposed to the large numbers of people in the same business who've partied with Dave, drunk and smoked and whatever at his expense, and then turned their back on him."

This seems illogical to me. If someone honestly believes that Dave is a misogynist, then it would be dishonest of them to sign the petition. And it would remain dishonest of them to do that even if Dave once bought them a meal.

It's reasonable to expect gratitude towards someone for buying you a meal. It's not reasonable to expect them to lie.

Jeff Seiler said...

Hi, Chris! If it was 2004, then I wasn't there. My first SPACE convention was aught-five, and then until Dave stopped going. Good story, though.

Jeff Seiler said...

Barry, I think you may have, as I had to learn not to do when reading Dave's letters to me, mistaken Dave's use of the word "your". He often (mostly?) uses his communiques, regardless of the format, for "reading into the record". Unfortunately, the word "your" can be used to address a singular person or a mass group, interchangeably. I suspect, but do not know for sure, that his comment about "your" CELEBRATING gender interchangeability was addressed to the (unfortunately) mass of people who advocate that.

That's just me guessing, here.

Anonymous said...

Barry, I don't think it's illogical. If you think someone is a misogynist, then why would you party on his dime? If you're as morally pure as you present yourself, then you should be willing to pay for your own booze, drugs and hotel room. Or are you just leeching off Dave to hurt him? That's not good either. At the very least, when asked for comments after #186 came out - and Dave had one of the largest 'freebie' lists in comics - you could say he throws one hell of a party. It's just common decency to acknowledge what you got from someone else because of their benevolence.

Jeff, I know one of the major Yahoo's (isn't that a card in Diamondback?) was at the table. I can think of some people that I know it wasn't, and we were all otherwise geeking out about talking to Gerhard instead of focusing on those non-Gerhard people at the table.