Letters to the Editor
TrinSF
Published Letters: 7 Editor's Choice: 1
-
The lessons of suffrage and the creation mythos of Stonewall
[Read the article: How did the T get in LGBT?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The mention of women's and black suffrage is interesting and more telling than was explained. Early women suffragists were told that they should work to support voting for blacks and to put their energy towards that, and that the time for women's voting rights would follow after. Argument on the matter created lead to a schism in the movement in the late 1860's that wasn't resolved until more than a generation later.
The "community" (whether it be LGB, or LGBTLMNOP) has historically come to the transgendered community for support, in fundraising and activism. When I worked as a state chair for Stonewall 25, the 1994 march in New York City comemmorating the Stonewall riots, this came up frequently. One of the most common creation myths, if you will, for the gay rights movement is that the Stonewall Riots were the first/watershed event; since the Sonewall rioters included many drag and transgendered folk, it follows that they would be considered part of whatever gay rights movement they started. During one of the national meetings in preparation for the anniversary march, there was a lot of discussion about whether it would be the LGB march, or the LGBT march, or even longer acronyms. (The leather caucus wanted initial inclusion, the People of Color caucus wanted recognition, etc.)
I think what may be bitter-making for the transgendered community is that feeling that when it's money, volunteer hours, or just warm bodies to for marches that the queer community wants, they're certainly "part of the team", but when something like legislation comes up, there are discussions like this one, questioning the value of their inclusion. Will the non-transgendered activists of the LGB community work for transgendered rights once they get theirs? The historical lessons of suffrage in the US suggest not, unfortunately.
-
Aravosis doesn't have a problem with bisexuals, it seems...
[Read the article: How did the T get in LGBT?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...which surprises me, given that the exact same arguments have also been used against them, too. After all, the argument goes, bisexuals have the advantages of heterosexual privilege. In it's worse case, the argument against bisexual inclusion in the big tent becomes one of legitimacy -- bisexuals aren't "real" queers, are in denial, are unwilling to commit to the movement, etc.
15 years ago I heard those arguments used regularly to justify downplaying bisexual inclusion. Only the names have been changed in the transgendered inclusion debate.
-
When I cook Thanksgiving, it's not a step back.
[Read the article: Keeping men out of the kitchen?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Pretty much every year for 20 years, I have cooked a vast and involved Thanksgiving dinner, all by myself. I invite family when they want to come, and lots of friends. I have to be quite firm that's not potluck, or friends will bring things. When guests arrive, they are absolutely not allowed into the kitchen. For me, this isn't a step back into the '50's -- it's about control, and a display of power. I say about it, "Other people run marathons and climb mountains. I cook Thanksgiving." I put a lot of effort into carefully orchestrating the food, and I don't want my menu messed up by adding someone else's offerings. I don't want anyone in the kitchen because I am an absolute control freak about that one day, with a very precise schedule and process.
I don't make my partner sit on the couch because I am reverting to gender roles -- he stays out of the kitchen because this is my New York marathon, and I run it alone.
-
Wow...
[Read the article: A mistake that should last a lifetime]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Speaking as someone with tons of inked friends, this is the best rationalization for a crappy tattoo EVAR. Doesn't make me want to *have* a crappy tattoo, but if it works for the writer, hey, great.
-
Yeah, I'm one of those people
[Read the article: Wal-Mart can be good for your health]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]We have "platinum" coverage insurance with very low copays, live in an area saturated with great doctors and many competing medical practice supergroups. In the past I saw a internist at a well known multispeciality practice associated with one of the best medical schools in the nation.
The last two times I was sick, though, I went to a Quickhealth and paid up front instead. I had gotten tired of the crap around my regular doctor. Making an appointment took at least a day. To get an appointment within a week of calling, I had to have a phone evaluation with an advice nurse. Then they'd call me back and offer me *one* time. If it wasn't good for me, tough. Then I'd go and wait 45 minutes in the waiting room, 20 minutes in an exam room, and spend 5 minutes with someone who wasn't my "regular" doctor -- because appointments with that person were never available. The final straw was going in for a problem and being told "You're fat, that's your problem" instead of being treated.
So for about two years, I wouldn't go to the doctor, because it had gotten to be too much of a hassle. Then the Quickhealth opened about 5 minutes away. If I'm sick, that's where I go. The doctor is friendly, treats my problem, and doesn't lecture me. Because it's located in a one of a chain of drugstores that I use normally, I can get the prescription filled quickly. I can get treated at a time good for me instead of when my primary care provider deigns to see me.
If my primary care provider offered a fast walk-in treatment option, I probably wouldn't be shopping around for a different care provider, and seeing the Quickhealth people to fill in the gaps.