Many trans people didn’t ‘become’ something else — so please avoid that word

We’re writing to express concern in response to Laura Washington’s column last week, “Raising sons who became daughters is a shared story for Kim Lightford, Heather Steans.”

First, the title inaccurately describes the experiences of trans people. GLAAD’s concise Media Reference Guide says “Avoid phrases like ‘sex change’ or ‘born a man’ in headlines.” Why? Because many trans people didn’t “become” something else. Just because people didn’t know we were trans doesn’t mean we weren’t always trans. Unless the person you’re referencing describes themself as “becoming,” it is harmful.

For example, we weren’t “born women” — the doctor assigned us female at birth by glancing between our legs and checking a box. This assumption isn’t based on biology, hormone measurement, or chromosomal makeup. So, using the words “born as,” “biological” or “become” is incorrect and unscientific.

There’s also no reason to use or quote a trans person’s deadname, their given name that they themselves no longer use. Laverne Cox “lambasted deadnaming” in a 2018 Washington Post article. She talks about the pain of police deadnaming and misgendering trans people even after they’re murdered. As GLAAD says, “Many people use names they have chosen for themselves, and the media does not mention their birth name when writing about them.” (e.g., Lady Gaga, Whoopi Goldberg)

Also, the article mentions one of the senator’s children being bullied at school and contemplating suicide. According to the U.S. Transgender Survey, trans people face disparate levels of poverty and discrimination. One of the toughest to swallow is that “41% percent of transgender respondents reported attempting suicide, compared to 1.6% of the general population.” This number is so high because we’re often kicked out of our homes at a young age, struggle to finish school, are discriminated against for housing, jobs, etc. The least a newspaper can do is get our name and pronouns correct.

Trans people get so little coverage and when we do, we’re misgendered and deadnamed. Ultimately, we’d love to share what outwardly looks like a happy story, but cannot because we know it will harm our community. We strongly believe you can do better.

August Stockwell, founder of Upswing Advocates
Bunny McKensie Mack, founder of Boundary Work
Jes Scheinpflug, co-founder of Praxis Group

Justice Roberts can assure a fair impeachment trial

The U.S. Constitution states that, “When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside.”

My question, then, is this: What does Chief Justice John Roberts believe this means for him? How this impeachment trial in the Senate, over which he will preside, could be an extremely large part of his legacy as chief justice.

Might Justice Roberts sit quietly in those gold-striped robes that Chief Justice William Rehnquist commissioned for the impeachment trial of Bill Clinton? Will he oversee a trial in which there are perhaps no witnesses, with jurors — the senators — who in many cases have already made numerous public statements of their biases and impartiality? (Though they took an oath that they will “do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: So help me God.’’)

Hopefully, Roberts will not sit silently by. Hopfully, he will serve the American people by insuring that this trial stays true to the principles of American jurisprudence.

Walter R. Kowalczyk, Jefferson Park