On The Bilerico Project, a well respected LGBT blog, a post about Transgender people started up something fierce.
The post is called, "No" to the notion of Transgender, written by Ronald Gold. In this post, he writes:
So where does that put the concept of transgender? In my view, down the tubes! And that leaves the further questions of how transsexuals got to think the way they do, and what to do to resolve their dilemmas. I hope I'll be forgiven for rejecting as just plain silly the idea that some cosmic accident just turned these people into changelings. What happened, more than likely, is that, from an early age, when they discovered that their personalities didn't jibe with what little boys and girls are supposed to want and do and feel, they just assumed they mustn't be real little boys and girls.After this was published, many readers expressed their anger and frustration over the post and TBP's choice to upload it.
Bil Browing added this at the beginning of the post:
All posts published on Bilerico Project do not reflect the opinions of nor any endorsement by the Editorial Team. Many Bilerico readers and contributors have found Ronald Gold's op-ed offensive or needlessly coarse. The idea behind Bilerico Project is to encourage dialogue among different facets of the LGBT community that might normally never interact this intimately. We encourage all readers to continue responding to Mr. Gold in the same spirit his post was written - with positive intent while bluntly stating your own opinion and experiences.After I read it, I thought it was a joke. It felt like Ronald was thinking out loud and putting it on the screen. I wish Bil would have challenged Ronald to rethink this post. I know he want diverse views on the blog, but he has to remember what his site represents. Many LGBT folks go there to feel supported, gain knowledge and strengthen their spirits; a post like Ronald's could've easily changed.
This was not a good moment for TBP, but I hope there were some lessons learned.
3 comments:
The paragraph quoted sounded offensive to me and I resisted opening the link to the original essay.
I did click over to Gold's essay and found it unnecessarily dismissive of many deep concerns. I sympathize with most of what he says - from the suspect science of psychology to the notion that one ought to enjoy whatever drag one wears, whatever body parts it covers.
While I want people to agree with me on substance - I'm okay with the person who disagrees but embraces our right to live in disagreement equally before the law - like that New Jersey Dem who voted marriage out of committee even though he claimed to disagree with it from a religious standpoint.
I do wish the disagreement came bundled in humility, however. "What happened, more than likely, is" ... really? How much more than likely?
He was wrong to express his thoughts in such an agressive way, but, even if I don't agree, I don't find it that terrible...
He has every right to think what he wants and to voice his opinion, but I don't appreciate his attacks on transgender identities, nor do I think his personal insights are helpful for our community as a whole.
Post a Comment