Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Dear editorial staff of the Washington Times,

You unconscionable cowards.

I believe in freedom of speech, but with that freedom comes, yes, responsibility, since we would not care about such freedoms if words had no meaning. It is reprehensible that what you choose to do with your semi-anonymous platform is to fan the fires of irrational fear and hatred by spewing hate-speech against a small minority.

"First-graders should not be forced into the classrooms of teachers undergoing sex changes."

I should not be forced to pay taxes for schools in which discrimination in hiring practices contributes to the unemployment rate of transsexuals. I should not be forced to pay taxes for schools in which children are taught to be hateful of anyone who does not live exactly as they do. If you truly feel it is your right to teach your children to be bigots, do it on your own dime, in your own home.

But yes. Let’s talk about the children.

Let’s talk about Larry King, shot to death by an eighth grade classmate who thought that was an acceptable response to “gender-variant” behavior.

Let’s talk about children beaten to death by their parents for gender-variant behavior. Or beaten to death out of fear of future gender-variant behavior.

Worse, let’s talk about the states in which it is fully legal to attempt to beat the gay out of your child, as long as you only leave bruises in the appropriate locations.

Let’s talk about Cameron McWilliams, the ten year-old transgendered child who saw no other option but suicide. At ten.

There is a common thread to arguments such as yours – that we transsexuals should stay in our place, which is, presumably, away from children. Actually, judging by your frequent use of the word “she-male” in a desperate attempt to strip us of our humanity, you watch a great deal of pornography. It is extremely telling and sad that you cannot imagine us in any situation that is not hyper-sexualized.

Let’s talk about the consequences of teaching children that cruelty is acceptable as long as the victim is “not normal.” Let’s talk about the consequences of teaching children that the only acceptable lifestyle for transsexuals is starring in your pornography. Children grow up, but they do not grow out of the violence they are taught to perpetrate and condone in childhood.

I don’t expect you to care, but I’m including this just in the off-chance that even a single member of your editorial staff has a shred of basic human decency.

In a recent study, 70% of transsexuals surveyed reported having experienced harassment in the workplace. This harassment regularly included physical violence. From that report, “A gay employee of the Connecticut State Maintenance Department was tied up by his hands and feet; a firefighter in California had urine put in her mouthwash; a transgender corrections officer in New Hampshire was slammed into a concrete wall; and a transgender librarian at a college in Oklahoma had a flyer circulated about her that said God wanted her to die. When employees complain about this kind of harassment, they are often told that it is of their own making, and no action is taken.”

Your editorial directly justifies such behavior. Your words seek to incite assault, rape, and murder.

That is no idle threat. Your transphobia is based on lies, idle speculation, and rampant bigotry. There is no threat to you or your own. The only threat here is the one that we face every day as, yes, a class of citizens whose sole day of solidarity is one during which we remember our dead.

Your right to your unfounded opinions does not trump my right to live.

"ENDA would make it impossible for a non-church-based charter school, for instance, to remove from the classroom a "she-male" who insists on exposing her pupils to her unnatural transformation."

Unnatural? Unnatural like birth control? Like blood pressure medication, concrete floors and brick walls? Unnatural like electric lights and indoor plumbing? Unnatural like prosthetic limbs, penicillin, and pacemakers? You don’t give half a crap about “natural” versus “unnatural.”

Nevermind that if the transphobic assholes in the world didn’t have a fetish for prying into personal medical histories, the children would most certainly not know. Would you like to take a guess at who I’ve heard give the most graphic description of gay sex in a classroom? Would you like to guess? She was not a lesbian or a transsexual, she was a straight, cissexual woman who thought it was appropriate to give her students a graphic description of gay sex acts in order to share her horrified fascination.

"It's actually a psychological disorder, officially listed as such by the current American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Our children and our co-workers should not be forced by law to be held hostage to such disorders, nor should employers be forced to have psychologically troubled persons as the public face of their businesses."

Okay, let’s talk about psychological disorders. Your words seem to indicate some fear of those who suffer from mental illnesses, with the certainty that this is a reasonable response. It is not. I refuse to duck the stigma that comes from remaining in the DSM-IV (and being shoe-horned into the DSM-V). People. Have. Mental. Illnesses, the severity of which can range from short-term issues (similar to catching a cold, most likely fine in a few days) to the mental equivalent of a long-term physical illness.

Long term mental illnesses can in many cases be managed, and even people with severe mental illness can live full lives, work jobs, and are no threat to anybody. People who suffer from mental illness are far more likely to be the victim of a violent crime than the perpetrator.

Shame on you, too, for not doing the slightest bit of research on this subject. You work at a newspaper, and you couldn’t be arsed to do a five second Google search? If you had, it would have turned up the information that, yes, mental disorders are included in the disability protected class. It is already illegal under federal law to discriminate based on mental disorders.

Your words also feed into the stigma that mental illnesses are personality flaws, rather than illnesses, a stigma that keeps people from getting the treatment they need.

For you, this may be idle, disgusted speculation. For us, this is quite literally life and death.

Your words are unacceptable.

Keffy R. M. Kehrli





Edited to add: While the newspaper in question is of extremely dubious quality, it was more of a "straw that broke the camel" than anything else. It was certainly not the first time I had seen statements like these, and I rather doubt it will be the last. WT might be the "mouthpiece of a cult" but there are enough other people who feel this way (as evidenced by violence statistics alone) that I felt this post needed to be written.

Edited again to add:
Yes, please do repost, link, retweet, facebook, etc. I have no bandwidth limitation, as this is hosted on LiveJournal.

Thank you, all those of you who already have, and those of you who will in the future.


Jun. 13th, 2010 10:29 pm (UTC)

Would you tolerate your child being taught, without your consent or knowledge, Christian principles in gradeschool?
Jun. 14th, 2010 05:19 am (UTC)
I was going to respond to the layers of misconceptions in your question until I looked at your website shoddy theology and even worse argumentation.

a) Godwin's Law
b) I thought you wanted nothing to do with homosexuals?
Jun. 14th, 2010 10:42 am (UTC)
But my question is so simple. Why do you dance around it? I believe, with all of my heart, that you would oppose-with every fiber of your being-ANYONE teaching your child morals and values that you vehemently disagree with. Yet it seems to me that you would prevent God-fearing parents from simply excluding their children from sex-education classes where male-on-male sexual activities are explained in detail. My question is ridiculously simple. I'm simply asking you if you would tolerate YOUR child being taught, without your consent or knowledge, Christian principles in grade-school?
Jun. 14th, 2010 05:53 pm (UTC)
Why should I answer your question when your comment demonstrates that you either a) haven't read my post at all or b) are so incapable of thought that you saw "Gay" somewhere in there and immediately conflated my argument with something else entirely?

But hey, I'll answer it for the fuck of it.

At no point in my post do I argue that parents should be unable to take their children out of sex-ed classes. INCIDENTALLY, I DO NOT think they should do so, since the harm done to children and teens is much higher when those classes either a) don't exist or b) are taught as abstinence-only classes.

I don't know what you're on about regarding whether or not male-on-male sex acts would be described in detail. There are no classes in which children are taught detailed homosexual practices for the simple reason that that's not what sex education is.

But that is completely beside the point. That's not what I'm talking about in this post.


Or, to make it more clear to you...


Your analogy does not fly. Here's a better question.

How would YOU feel if Christians were legally allowed to be fired teaching school due to a fear that they might indoctrinate children with hatred of queers? Not for teaching bullshit intelligent design instead of science, but simply for the fact of being openly Christian?

Or, worse, how would you feel if people were actively calling for Christians to be fired (in order to protect the children, of course!) not for how they act in the classroom, or even for how open they are about simply being Christian, but because someone has invaded their privacy to determine that they do believe in a Christian god, and then assumed that means they like to touch children just like so many of their priests?

As far as how I feel about my child being taught without my knowledge or consent, well...

It doesn't matter, you see? Children are taught Christian principles in public grade school regardless of what I think. Even if the school itself is secular, there are enough loud, privileged "Christian" families that any child will certainly hear about your god, most certainly in great length.

If I had children, they would grow up KNOWING that there are other viewpoints in the world than my own. Truly, if mine were best for them, then that would be how they would grow up. Knowing about something (that some of their classmates have two daddies or two mommies, or that Mr. Smith is more comfortable as Ms. Smith) is not harmful.

Unless you're telling me that the Christian faith* is so bloody fragile that the mere existence of other theologies is a deathblow to it, in which case you might want to spend less time obsessing over your assumptions regarding my sex life and more time tending your flock.

* AND THEN, which one? Honestly? Because I know plenty of very devout Christians who are able to work with and be friend with queers who manage to not obsess over gay sex.

And which Christian principles? Love thy neighbor? Good! Great!
Judge not, lest ye be judged? And I know you think you're not judging, but you very very much are. Hell, you judged my post without even reading it, apparently, since your point of contention appears nowhere in my post, and can only be reached by your crack-pot assumption that we obsess about sex as much as you do.

Finally, what I should have said from the start:

You're a Christian? Or you think you are one? Go read the New Testament. You seem to have done it roughly as much justice as you did my post.

Edited to add: And since it's such a big point of confusion for you, let me point out how bloody stupid it is to think that telling children that they aren't allowed to BEAT or VERBALLY ABUSE or even KILL one another for being gay is anything near the same thing as somehow REQUIRING them to be gay.

Edited at 2010-06-15 06:29 pm (UTC)

Latest Month

January 2017



Page Summary

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Terri McAllister