Letters to the Editor
-
Good Question
Oddly enough, I recently asked a (gay) friend why the "T" was in there, and what I - as a gay man - had in common with the Transgendered community. He didn't have an answer, but I always figured the question had a similar dynamic to the one about Gay Pride parades - why does the media always focus on the leather crowd and the drag queens and present an image of extremism to the world, while the majority in the crowd are indistinguishable from our straight brothers and sisters in how we dress and carry ourselves. These questions - at least in my mind - aren't about passing judgement on any group, no matter how extreme their stance, but rather an inquiry as to why - for political and cultural purposes - I must always be labeled as part of a group which includes many members I have little or nothing in common?
Thanks for asking.
-
Strength in numbers?
Toss enough people into the mix and you have a movement. Seems obvious.
-
we'll never learn, will we?
Dear John,
The Talented Tenth doctrine has never worked yet, and it will not work now. And if that article/title doesn't ring a loud, clear bell for you, I would say that you don't know enough about civil rights movements in the US to have an informed opinion about ENDA, gay rights, or gender expression (I won't belabor the point about discrimination and assults against gays being largely about gender expression that others have made quite well enough in other letters).
Half-a-loaf, indeed. Of course you'll take it - you get to take the first cut. Perhaps instead we should do it like my mother used to, when my brother and I wanted to split a piece of cake: one made the cut, the other got first choice of the pieces. You cut the loaf, I want first pick.
-
Actually, I'm already protected - but thanks
Actually, S. Bear, I don't get the first slice of ENDA when it passes. I live in Washington, DC, I'm white, and have a reasonable income. I don't need the protections in this bill, I'm already covered by DC law and I work for myself so my employer isn't going to do jack to me. So, in fact, I'm taking this stand for the millions of gays and lesbians who don't live in big liberal cities, but actually live in real America where having and keeping a job, and providing for themselves and their families, is a real concern, not just a political football. It's ironic that the all-caring far-left of the community seems to care so much about the transgendered community, and that's great, but they don't seem to care too much about the 25 million members of our own community.
-
Of course not
"...But I simply don't get how I am just as closely related to a transsexual (who is often not gay) as I am to a lesbian (who is). Is it wrong for me to simply ask why?"
Of course it's not wrong for you to ask why. Well, I mean, it wouldn't be wrong for you to ask why if we hadn't all gone batshit insane, which apparently we have.
We, as liberals, apparently love to panic and freak-out and split hairs and become unable to differentiate our real friends from our real enemies. Jesus, the poor guy spends half the article continually reasserting how much he believes in transgendered rights, and restating how it may be necessary to make a present sacrifice in order to gain a long-term political gain. But from the reactions in the comment section, you'd think that he advocated burning all "Ts" at the stake.
But that's not even my major concern.
Mr. Aravosis should be able to ask, calmly, rationally, and without vitriol, if there is a difference between being gay and being transgendered. It's an honest question, right? But of course asking this question will merely get him tackled and piled on from all sides. "Selfish," "does not give a flying fuck," "shame on you," "disgusting," "haughty, "shocking disappointing..." these are just some of the comments about Mr. Aravosis's article... from just the first two pages of comments.
Excuse me, but one of the reasons that I signed up to be a liberal was because I thought that liberalism was based on the Enlightenment and rationality and the scientific method. When did we become unable to have a simple conversation? Maybe being transsexual is exactly the same as being gay. Maybe it isn't. But being unable to respond to an honest question with anything but angry slogans and knee-jerk reactions... gee, that almost reminds me of the other political party. ...You know, the one that's not to the left.
--oliver miller
-
Yes, Gay, as well as other "inclusiveness" has gone too far.
The Constitution--even with the Civil War amendments actually intended to give the Republican party enduring supremacy in the union by enfrancising what was thought to be freedmen loyal to the Republican party--seeks to guarantee the same rights of citizenship to all individual citizens. Not Groips, individuals.
It is long past time end all the statutory and administrative preferences which have been heaped on privileged groups and minorities since the 1960s. The Warren Court is over (thank God), and it is time to get back to the Constitution instead of exceptions to it. The Constitution means equality for all individuals, but special treatment for none.
So yes, "Inclusiveness" for Gays, along with quotas, preferences, special criminal penalites for "hate"--or anything else--have gone way too far.
-
Equal-Opportunity Discriminators
Saintperle wrote:
"So no, the gay community goes too far only in not remembering what nasty little "I'm for me first and everyone else can go to hell" poseurs they used to be."
I must respectfully add that this is exactly the way some leaders in the same-sex marriage movement treat polyamorists. It seems that we have had the bad taste to show up at the party and create complications for them simply by our existence.
It suits same-sex marriage activists' agenda to distance themselves from we who engage in multi-partner long-term committed relationships, even though those who oppose both them AND us are equally hostile toward all sexual minority groups. I find it disingenuous, to say the least. We have the Weekly Standard's Stanley Kurtz to thank for that.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/938xpsxy.asp
Now THOSE are scare tactics!
And of course, in many cases, we are them and they are we, i.e., the practice of polyamory (not polyf***ery) is growing in the gay community, and many polyamorists are bisexual.
We really are all in this together - those who oppose all of us are equal-opportunity discriminators.