Letters to the Editor
just another day
Published Letters: 20 Editor's Choice: 2
-
Harm?
[Read the article: Why girls cut themselves]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There's one line that really jumped out at me from the article itself.
"Once self-harming behavior starts it is difficult to stop. Over time, with something such as cutting, children's bodies react to it in a way that helps reduce biological and psychological pain. They essentially become addicted to this behavior. So you want to prevent this behavior before it starts."
Now, but this seems like a somewhat contradictory phrase. In the context of the study, we're pretty clearly talking about relatively minor forms of self-harm which do not necessarily occur terribly frequently (3 times in the last 6 months, or 5 times over a lifetime?): the small superficial scars referred to by previous posters. Though they may (may) be symptomatic of deeper issues, these things, in and of themselves, are harmless, upsetting though they may be to parents of both genders. If they can actually have a positive effect on a mildly troubled teen's psychological state, I'm not sure what the big deal is. Being 15 is hard enough as it is without people freaking out about your coping mechanisms.
Moles can be cancerous, can be symptoms of deeper health issues, but more often than not they're just moles; arguably mildly disfiguring (although some people like them), but nothing worth treating. It seems to me that light cutting should be thought of in the same light, as a potential symptom of real problems, but nothing all that serious in and of itself.
-
Good news
[Read the article: Obama and Clinton plan to cool it]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thank you. That was good to read. It's staggering how little attention these particular issues have garnered so far in this otherwise extraordinarily media-heavy campaign year, upsetting to realize how uninformed about them I was, and this as (I'd like to think) a relatively interested, educated, conscientious citizen.
-
A ways to go, still
[Read the article: MSNBC on the "pregnant man": "I'm gonna be sick"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I have to admit, I'm surprised by the level of vitriol here, particularly given the comparatively high levels of normally generally found in Salon's letters. I think it telling that an article primarily about transphobia has generated quite a few stellar examples of such. I'm familiar enough with prejudice of this sort to not be particularly shocked by it, but I'm a bit saddened to see it here.
There's this tendency towards extreme dogmatism even among relatively progressive thinkers on transgendered issues. I suspect this hearkens back to the medical community's (generally justified, although sometimes overzealous) insistence on a high degree of demonstrated commitment to living as the opposite gender before authorizing any irreversible medical procedures (including many types of hormone therapy). This leads to the assumption that people who have more complex or muddled gender identities, or who simply haven't yet undergone these procedures, are somehow faking it, don't deserve to choose the gender role they occupy, or somehow possess less "trans cred". This is not an uncommon prejudice even among the transgendered community.
And it's pure poppycock. Why is it that someone who has never once wavered in his or her commitment to gender and sexual equality can somehow think that a woman who binds her breasts, maybe applies fake stubble or a beard, dresses in overtly masculine garb and modifies her voice and mannerisms to appear more male (which is neither easy nor painless) doesn't deserve to be treated like and referred to as a man? Maybe he'll undergo more invasive and irrevocable procedures later, or maybe he won't, but frankly, unless you (are lucky enough to) get him into bed, what difference does it make to you? And even if he woke up one day and decided to be a woman again, what harm would that do?
Or the biological male who undergoes partial gender reassignment procedures (and there are many, many, many reasons why you wouldn't want to go the full genital surgery-route) but dresses in tomboy fashion and dates women, identifying as female, but a lesbian, does she have any less right to the titles of "trans" or "woman" because she has chosen an alternative lifestyle within the general sphere of femininity? Or because she still possesses a penis? Because she had sperm frozen before the hormones, and may some day "father" a child?
All I'm getting at is that the freedom to choose and change gender (one which I obviously believe very strongly in, and think other people should too) comes with a range of options, not just a pair of binary choices; the above are not hypothetical examples, but two people in my own life (I am the surrogate father for the former and his girlfriend). Thomas Beatie has almost certainly given a great deal of thought to what he's going to do to his body in order to feel more at home in it, without sacrificing functionality or his own health (and, I hope, that of his daughter-to-be). To question his commitment to his gender or his family on the basis of what news coverage he's received is both irresponsible and bigoted.
-
Somebody to love
[Read the article: Geisha guys: Japan's hottest new accessory]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I thought fairly seriously about going to Japan and being a host-boy for a while.
Honestly, there are days at the office when it's still tempting.
Given conservative cultural expectations still very much in place, to my knowledge, on married women in Japan (which do not, by and large, involve keeping your job), it doesn't even seem all that surprising that this profession is thriving. We all need at least some human companionship, but not everyone has time for all the baggage it comes with even under optimal conditions.
Also, I don't know if there's a really clear analogue in North America, but I do know that the working girls around here have small but not insignificant numbers of johns who pick them up and pay for their company and conversation as much as (and sometimes instead of) sex. Not a dissimilar phenomenon, I don't think.