During a House Oversight Committee meeting, Rep. Nancy Mace used the derogatory term “tranny” in discussing legislation aimed at various aspects of the contentions transgender issue. Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), the ranking Democrat on the committee, objected. “The gentlelady has used a phrase that is considered a slur in the LGBTQ community and the transgender community,” he said.
That is correct. Moreover, this is not a new development: “tranny” is an old slur, and unlike some terms that have been declared slurs after once being considered acceptable (I forget: is “queer” a slur now, or isn’t it?) that term for a transexual has always been used as an insult.
Nevertheless Mace, emulating the outburst that ended Dr. Laura’s radio career (Except that she said, “Nigger, nigger, nigger!”), spat back, “Tranny, tranny, tranny! I don’t really care. You want penises in women’s bathrooms, and I’m not gonna have it. No, thank you.”
For this illogical and needlessly uncivil response, Mace has been cheered by some conservative pundits. Now that’s transphobia and bigotry. “Tranny” is in the same ugly category as nigger, spic, gook, retard, fag, dyke, cunt, and other indisputably denigrating terms that have no redeeming feature. Their purpose is to demonstrate hatred and contempt for the group or individual being described. Such a purpose is per se unethical: disrespectful, unfair, cruel and uncivil.
Connolly replied, logically enough, “To me, a slur is a slur, and here in the committee, a level of decorum requires us to try consciously to avoid slurs.” He was right.
Connelly continued, “You just heard the gentlelady actually actively, robustly repeat it; and I would just ask the chairman that she be counseled that we ought not to be engaged — we can have debate and policy discussion without offending human beings who are fellow citizens. And so, I would ask as a parliamentary inquiry whether the use of that phrase is not, in fact, a violation of the decorum rules.”
Mace, putting in her entry for Asshole of the Year, refused to submit. “Mr. Chairman, I’m not going to be counseled by a man over men and women’s spaces or men who have mental health issues dressing as women.”
That response, like her previous one, made no sense, but still, some conservative pundits applauded. Matt Margolis, for example, argued that “tranny” isn’t really a slur. Bologna. I knew the word was a slur decades ago. He lionizes Mace for refusing to submit to a Democrats because, he claims, “everything” is a slur to progressives now. That might be a justifiable exaggeration in some cases, but not when a real, undeniable slur like “tranny” is involved. Connolly is 100% correct: there is no excuse for members of Congress to deliberately use terms that only exist to offend and marginalize minorities. To do so gives a license to citizens to behave hatefully, because our elected representatives are supposed to be role models and to exemplify the best conduct in public, not the worst.
I say this with full recognition that my ethics, decorum and civility standards for members of Congress is so alien to so many current members today that it is almost futile to keep insisting on it. Just watch the ridiculous spectacle House members and Senators made of themselves protesting against Elon Musk yesterday.
A civil, responsible elected official should be able to make her points without stooping to gutter slurs.
Ethics Alarms 
It’s tempting to categorize this story under the Third Niggardly Principle because of the way the Left is handling trans-issues, but this is clearly a Second Niggardly Principle instead. Mace has the ability and the responsibility to clearly express her position without resulting to juvenile name calling.
I can’t believe that I didn’t include the Niggardly Principles analysis in this post.
Boy, I need a vacation…
Yes, you do. But not for this reason. Anyone who’s read EA for a good amount of time (and new commenters should familiarize themselves with the blog before commenting anyway) should be aware of the principles.
I do not think the niggardly principles apply to the word used by Nancy Mace. These principles only apply when somebody objects to a word that is non-objectionable, such as the word “niggardly”; this is the first niggardly principle. The crux of the matter is that “niggardly” means “parsimonious”, and has nothing to do with race, although the word has some similarities in sound to a well known racial slur.
The second niggardly principle applies when I keep using that (non-offensive) word to upset other people. So this principle does not apply when a deliberate slur is used.
So maybe we need a refresher on the application of the niggardly principles. Does it only apply to words? Or does it also apply to opinions and sentiments? E.g. do the niggardly principles apply to “All Lives Matter”, or “Its OK To Be White”? Or do we risk that application of the niggardly principles result in an undesirable form of self-censorship, where the better course is a frank rebuttal of ignorance?
That’s where the Third Niggardly Principle applies. When it’s clear that the purpose of stopping offensive words or phrases is to shut down opinions.
My take on this is that the Third Niggardly Principle only applies in conjunction with the First Niggardly Principle, when the words used are non-offensive to start with. Nancy Mace could easily have expressed her opinions without resorting to slurs. I hope that our host Jack is going to weigh in on the correct application of the Third Niggardly Principle?
Come on!
This is the context to spell it baloney!
Nice chart here: https://www.yourdictionary.com/articles/baloney-bologna-difference
I know. I was being bad.
Hmm… If you were to eat your words, then that indeed would flip the ‘edible’ column on the chart…
Despite all the words we don’t see in type much anymore, even when they are the basis of the topic, “Baloney” was the most jarring given your recent soft on crime post from ~4 days ago.
I think you are correct that you need a holiday.
Haha, those insults are just the tip of the iceberg. I could give you five more of the same kind for each one of those. However, that would be not just entering the gutter but diving into the disgusting waters. For a brief time I said I wanted to go back to the time when I could stand in line for takeout, tell a mildly racist/sexist/homophobic joke, and get away with it. I don’t think I do.
Yet the slurs racist, bigot, homophobe, transphobe, et al can be promiscuously strewn about in place of anything resembling an argument.
She should have corrected herself innocuously by using “tranzy, tranzy, tranzy”.
Then, deny that she ever said “tranny” and claim that all of the recordings failed to pick up the original “z”.
A good point.
The social psychologist Jonathan Haidt has mentioned that problem.
When you make an argument and someone says “That’s racist,” frequently there was no racism / prejudice / bigotry in the argument. In such a case, it should be legitimate to reply “That’s not an argument, that’s a slur.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfJDtH-p-7Q&ab_channel=TheVeritasForum
charles w abbott
rochester NY
Jack wrote:
For this illogical and needlessly uncivil response, Mace has been cheered by some conservative pundits. Now that’s transphobia and bigotry. “Tranny” is in the same ugly category as nigger, spic, gook, retard, fag, dike, cunt, and other indisputably denigrating terms that have no redeeming feature.
Exactly right. Just goes to show you that the Left doesn’t have the bigotry, insanity and stupidity market cornered by any means. They just expose themselves far more often.
you are also assuming that Tranny isn’t short for transvestite, which a penis in a dress is factually correct.
the left has long since gone past the point of civil discourse and most folks are not capable of discussing thing at a level of a Sowell or Peterson.
Should we hope for better from our elected officials, yes.
I am willing at this point to accept their feet if clay, as long as they are working to slay the Leviathan.
I think there may be an element of “I’m sick and tired of being sick and tired” of being bullied by the word police in her conduct. I think the Trump victory has released a number of restraints people felt themselves to be under at least the last four years. Of course, is this proper behavior by a member of Congress in a Congressional hearing. No. Is it signature significance. I don’t know.
So who are we talking about? I mean is tranny a slur to transvestites or transsexuals. They are completely different things a transvestite does not necessarily mean the person suffers from gender dysphoria.
A slur requires the user to use the word in a pejorative manner. This is why blacks assume use of the word nigger by non-blacks is a slur while its us is perfectly acceptable among blacks.
Being a bitch is a badge of honor when women want to describe themselves as one but let a man describe a woman as a bitch then women take offense.
Should I get my tighty whiteys in a wad if a female uses the word men in the context of hen she is exasperated at some man because he has not lived up to one or more of her expectations – as in harumpf…MEN!!! Do we allow some pejoratives when used by someone who derives value in being “oppressed”.
What do I do if an activist or lawmaker refers to me or people like me as having “ white privilege”. Should I take offense and construe that as a slur as its context in use means I get special rights because of my race.
Seems to me it would be cumbersome to constantly say I get special privilege because of my race whereby saying white privilege is the descriptor the user wants to use.
To me a tranny bolts to a bell housing and is used to maintain a speed given a given number of engine rpm’s. Ru Paul has no issue with the word Tranny and views the connotation as a slur just a way to claim victim hood.
Yes, in groups use the same terms all the time as a badge of honor so to speak.
The main difference here is that there is a time and place for these words to be used socially and House committee meeting is not the time or place. If the point is to get things done, and not waste taxpayer time and money, then putting decorum first makes sense so we don’t get distracted by situations like this. Mace’s behavior not only serves to distract from the importance of the issue at hand, but it fosters more instability at the governmental level, which doesn’t help anyone regardless of where they stand on the issue. When it is time to speak boldly, one does so without insults and pettiness. There was nothing brave about Mace’s comments.
Also, Jack it’s dyke not dike.
Ugh. I knew that once…i so seldom have occasion to use either word. Thanks, I’ll fix it. Stupid and careless.
This is the same congresswoman who was chiding a Sunday talk show host for his poor choice of words in comparing what Trump did with what she was subjected to. Not the same venue, but the same principle applies I think.
If memory serves, she’s also part of the cabal that thought it would be fun to blow up the House of Representatives by deposing the speaker. I know not everyone agrees with me on this, but dang! The GOP has enough hurdles without erecting more for themselves.