The thing that I find most disturbing about this article combined with the letters responding to it is the underlying current of sexism.

Whenever a transgendered person is mentioned or referred to for real or rhetorical reasons, it is always a male-to-female person, or, and it sickens me that this phrase was used by an allegedly educated person, a man who wants to cut off his penis. When gay people write letters defending the separation of "gay" and "transgender" into two separate categories, it is men, and in at least one specific case the person doubts that the two should be thrown together, because that would be to instinuate that a gay man is or could be fundamentally like a woman or share more properties of that gender.

I find it slightly ridiculous but mostly sad. Even here in the case of so-called progressive people fighting for so-called progressive legislature, it is still just a male pissing contest. "That guy is a freak, he wants to cut off his own dick!" "Don't categorize me with those people because even if I'm gay and I like taking it from behind I am still a manly man!"

This may seem a peripheral issue to many people here but it seems pathetic to me that this form of chauvinism still dominates even in a world allegedly counter to the male-dominated norm.

omg my name is dave sugarman and i cannot even type properly!!!1one Which means you are either stupid or you really wish you were e. e. cummings.

Frankly I don't care what you think, dear. This whole thing still stinks of male chauvinism. All the big manly gay men are afraid of being associated with men who think they're women, or women who think they're men, or women who were once men, or men who were once women. They are as narrow in their view of human sexuality as the straight people who would deprive all of those people of their rights.

And I wasn't aware that oppressed minorities had the luxury of being able to pick their allies.

I am surprised how a simple article like this can attract some of the dumbest people to make comments about all of womankind. How charming.

But in other news I can affirm from memory that the word "vajayjay" has indeed seen use here at Salon. I recall it was sarcastically used to describe a scene in the season finale of House in the TV review section here.

Ok, so the rest of the world may be doing it. That doesn't mean we have to. I prefer both men and women who look natural. Although it's so difficult to even tell these days. I have a female friend who I spend a great deal of time with and I hadn't seen her out of makeup until one time just recently. She wears it so religiously that I literally had no idea what she actually looked like without it.

A little concealer, ok. Some mascara for women, whatever. But honestly, neither men nor women should be spending time and money to apply these chemicals to their faces every day just for the sake of some twisted idea of vanity. Didn't Broadsheet report just a few days ago that women absorb 5 pounds of chemicals through their face every year?

And wearing makeup is the progressive thing to do?

Clearly you did not read the statement in context and have not bothered to read the letters here in the letter section which discuss Harris's actual intent.

I sure hope /you/ don't have kids, but if you do, I shall not be so crass as to suggest they are removed from you for your criminal stupidity.

Regarding the actual topic at hand, I find this scenario to be one where both the law and its practitioners have severely failed us. It is shameful that any jury might acquit someone of such a heinous act simply because they were not given the option of applying a lesser charge.

...couldn't agree more.

All the self-proclaimed antifeminists here seem to be railing against some kind of big mean feminist that they themselves have created, rather than addressing the real issues at hand. It doesn't matter the topic of the post in Broadsheet... somehow they will find a way to blather about how it "proves" that feminists are man-eating psychos, that women are unfit to be in positions of power, that sexism is actually the fault of women, or, incredibly, that women are the perpetrators of child abuse more often than men.

It would be laughable if it weren't so constant.

To those who say that disliking Hillary or thinking she were the scariest candidate does not equal misogyny, I think that would be easier to believe if the Hillary-haters were not so huge in number. I mean, come on. No intelligent human being could give any reason why Sen. Clinton would be scarier than, say, Rudy "sleep deprivation is nothing compared to running for president" Giuliani or Fred "I swear this is not preparation for an acting role" Thompson, or any of the other Republican presidential candidates.

A handful of people who disagree with Clinton's policy decisions in the past few years could get away with saying they thought she was scary. But the same people refusing to say that Giuliani is not a hell of a lot scarier? Now, that's just pathetic.

I don't know what you're trying to achieve here but you are almost certainly the only person who will ever think you're right. The rest of us are as uninterested in your opinion as AKA Smith and the others.

Technically Clinton is the candidate to beat. And technically she is a woman. And technically all the rest are men.

So yeah, it did end up that it was a bunch of guys beating up on a woman. Except maybe for Richardson. She is the one to beat, so yes, they are beating up on her. I don't think the comment is really any bigger than that.