Critical Resources
Lindsey Amer-"Why Kids Need to Learn About Gender and Sexuality" critical resource response
by Hope B.
Over 20% of the LGBTQ+ community is eight to eighteen years old. The conversation about different sexualities is growing every day. In a TED Talk, Lindsey Amer explains the importance of early exposure to sexuality and gender identity. People think children cannot grasp these concepts, but Amer tells her audience both topics are comprehensible if explained well. Using statistics, she emphasizes the effect of society’s ignorance. The significance that educating youth can have is crucial to promoting a culture of acceptance.
Rejection of LGBTQ+ practices is largely caused by the lack of conversation and knowledge. Adults interpret concepts with higher complexity than children leading them to believe sexuality and gender to be too intense for youth. Increased exposure has an unmatched impact on the new generation’s ability to comprehend these concepts. Amer quotes research from the American Academy of Pediatrics saying "… children have a solid understanding of their gender identity by the age of four.” Children learn about their own sexual identity by observation and interpret that information to start understanding other’s identities. Elementary math teachers do not teach algebra before they teach addition. It would be impossible for students to understand. Amer uses the same concept of simplification to ease the process of understanding for viewers who are beginning to explore the world of gender and sexuality. As Amer explains, "gender is about how we feel and how we express ourselves. Sexuality is about love and gender and family, not about sex. " Generation Z’s exposure and opportunities allow for unprecedented absorption and internalization of these ideas. Both can be discussed in depth, but simplification promotes easy understanding and encourages observation and exploration in the child’s own life.
Children continue to identify as LGBTQ+, but some families reject them, because of several reasons, such as personal beliefs. This results in children feeling neglected and rejected. Parents lack the necessary knowledge on these lifestyles leading them to reject any sexuality that is not “normal” in fear that their children may experience a harder life. This is sometimes the case but is unrelated to the family’s level of acceptance. "Lesbian, gay, and bisexual teens are more than three times more likely to try suicide than their heterosexual peers, and transgender teens are almost six times more likely. " This statistic is a direct result of families failing to offer support to their children. LGBTQ+ youth may also experience abandonment because of their parent’s extreme opposition to these practices. Families commonly refuse to provide any form of care to the child following their coming out, which can cause youth homelessness. A depressing statistic Amer references confirms the sad reality of society’s rejection resulting from lack of education by saying "one-third of homeless youth identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or questioning, and about four percent… identify as transgender."
Amer identifies the main cause for common adversities this community faces as the ignorance of LGBTQ+ topics. By limiting the younger generation's exposure to LGBTQ+ concepts, we aid ignorance of practices their peers may follow. Ignorance may cause these individuals to feel, at the very least, neglected, misunderstood, and rejected, and possibly suicidal. Some may think this conflict does not affect their life, but everyone, whether they are aware of it or not, probably knows someone who identifies as a member of these widespread communities. We must educate youth about these communities to promote acceptance and provide a stepping stone towards social justice and peace.
(Word Count 571)
Matthew H. Birkhold- "It’s Time to End National Coming Out Day" critical resource response
by Sophie M.
Do you think everyone’s sexuality should be acknowledged on one set date? In Matthew H. Birkhold's article, “It’s Time to End National Coming Out Day”, he addresses “Coming Out Day” celebrated by members of the LGBTQ community. This holiday was created in 1988 to provide comfort and support for the members of this community, which at the time was considered abnormal. Today Birkhold does not see the same need for National Coming Out Day. In this article Birkhold discusses his opinion that National Coming Out Day should be canceled ,and I see this argument from both perspectives. While Birkhold makes a good case for his argument, however, he does so from an admitted place of privilege and overlooks quite a few key points. In this essay, I will argue that Birkhold’s largely casual treatment of this privilege along with his failure to address discrimination in other countries and the progress we still need here weaken the impact of an overall positive message.
Birkhold argues that Coming Out Day supports the idea that being gay is strange or wrong. I agree with his argument that bringing attention to someone’s sexual orientation to prove the validity of it is not right. He states in the 1980’s, “Coming out was a form of activism — a way to challenge conventional ideas and fears by showing that gays and lesbians were a part of everyday life.” Today the same can be said for other holidays that recognize activism for minorities such as Black History Month or International Women’s Day. Shouldn’t these days be celebrated to support all minority groups? Birkhold acknowledges the importance of Coming Out Day by saying “It continues to affirm our lives, worth, and dignity.” Other holidays that celebrate underrepresented people can provide self worth and pride in the same way.
Birkhold acknowledges his own privilege and the importance of this holiday by saying,
“ For people in different circumstances, this day might provide much-needed support and strength.” By recognizing his own privilege his argument becomes flawed, because he has not had to face all the hardships other’s have faced. He’s found comfort and strength for himself, but cannot speak for the entire LGBTQ community and say this day can’t still hold importance to others.
Birkhold acknowledges the advances here in America, “But America is a safer place in 2017. Polls suggest most Americans consider same-sex relations morally acceptable. Same-sex marriage is legal in all 50 states, and the latest Gallup survey indicates that most Americans believe new laws are needed to reduce discrimination against LGBTQ individuals.”. However, Coming Out Day is not just a holiday. He doesn’t mention the lack of progress for the LGTBQ community in other countries and discrimination against same-sex couples around the world.
Birkhold makes a strong argument for canceling National Coming Out Day. 2020 is much different than the decades and centuries before. Same-sex couples walking the halls of high school would have been scandalous to my parents, and to me it was an everyday occurrence. Now children are taught acceptance and the importance of diversity. However, we still see reports of kids being bullied, books being censored, and politicians pushing the right-wing agenda. As a country, we have progressed in acceptance of the LGBTQ society and we need to continue to be an example to the world that all people have worth regardless of their sexual orientation. Keeping this day is a way to continue to teach acceptance until the day does come where our differences do not have to be pointed out but celebrated!
(Word Count: 562)
Peter Spriggs-"Is Sexual Orientation Determined at Birth? No." critical resource response
by Isabel H.
In Peter Spriggs's article, "Is sexual orientation determined at birth? No.", argues that sexual
orientation, unlike skin color, is not determined at birth. Sprigg references outside resources to
back up his argument, however, his claims are one-sided and do not hold any weight. In this essay, I will argue that Sprigg is heavily reliant on unreliable evidence and appeals to professionals without any substantial claims. Additionally, I will address how he fails to consider any counter-arguments or voice to the other side, which undermines his argument.
Spriggs is not subtle with the professionals he references within this article; he references professional opinions that only support his own view on the topic, which is not the best approach. He referenced the American Psychological Association, where they stated “there is no consensus among scientists about the exact reason that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation… no findings have emerged that permits scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors.” Spriggs used this quote by a credible source to use for his argument that the “‘born gay’ theory lacks scientific credibility.”
The anecdotal evidence that Spriggs used to support his claim is based on research conducted prior to the 1970s, where the research described that childhood experiences, such as a lack of affection from the parent of their same gender, leads to homosexuality. The way that Spriggs also stated that a lot of the researchers in the 70s still believe this theory to this day. Another piece of anecdotal evidence that Spriggs used was the claim of “non-genetic biological theories,” such as hormonal influences and even attempted to claim by “some researchers” that men with older brothers are more susceptible to becoming homosexual later in life. He attempted to use this to support his claim although he went on expressing that this has never actually been demonstrated though.
Spriggs fails to take into consideration a counterargument for his claims that sexual orientation is not determined at birth. He does not attempt to make any reference that there could possibly be evidence that sexual orientation is determined at birth. Instead, through the use of referencing only opinions, not even facts, that strokes his claim and uses anecdotal evidence that has no real standing ground. The use of a counterargument is an important part of an article such as this one written by Spriggs.
Overall, Sprigg fails to convince the reader that being gay isn’t biological. His lack of impartiality makes reading the article pointless. Spriggs's argument needs to forget bias and stop appealing to professions. In conclusion, he fails to answer the question “Is sexual orientation determined at birth?”
Word Count: 466
LZ Granderson- "The Myth of the Gay Agenda" critical resource response
by A.S.
In a TEDxTalk by LZ Granderson, he discusses the stigmatization of being gay and following a so-called gay agenda. But what exactly is this agenda? He claims that the U.S. Constitution is essentially the agenda itself. In this essay, I will argue that the “gay agenda” is the search for the equality that is already claimed in the Constitution, and nothing more. Then, I will be going into detail about individual business rights, followed lastly by what needs to happen based off the Disabilities Act to ensure that the LGBTQ+ community has the equal rights that the constitution claims they should.
Conservative Christians termed the word “gay agenda” to disparagingly describe the gay rights movement. However, Granderson argues,” This is the gay agenda: equality. Not special rights, but the rights that were already written by these people [in the constitution]” (Granderson 12:02). These rights requested are not special. They are basic American rights. When the constitution was finalized, it has remained written that all Americans should be treated equally. It is hypocritical for those who label LGBTQ+ rights advocates as “gay agenda followers” for the term was created by people who are able to practice their rights freely. It is objectively unconstitutional to believe that gay people should have to fight to have the same rights as everyone else.
Granderson particularly mentions, “Marriage equality is not about stripping somebody’s rights away, it’s about granting them the rights that have already been stated” (13:45). He reminds people that there are many in fear of losing jobs and even their homes just for being gay. The 14th amendment states that there is to be no stripping of rights within a state for reasons regarding sexuality, yet business owners are still legally allowed to deny service to someone solely for their sexuality. Despite what the amendment states, people are still being denied these basic rights.
Last, he states, “There was a point in our history in which, if you were considered disabled, that an employer could just fire you, before the Americans with Disabilities Act. We keep doing this over and over again” (16:39). This ties into my previous quote, but it leaves the viewer with more perspective. As we had to pass laws to protect disabled rights, it is equally as important to do so for LGBTQ+ rights. Workplace discrimination is unethical, and it is important that all Americans are treated equal, and that starts with pushing the “gay agenda”.
Although frowned upon by many Americans, the gay agenda is only a term created to attack LGBTQ+ communities advocating to have the same rights as straight citizens. This matters because constitutionally and ethically, it is imperative that no human should be given less rights than others due to their sexuality. Without this, the moral fabric of our country will be torn. The gay agenda is within the constitution, so the next step is for everyone to treat it that way.
Word Count: 488
Ellen Lamont- "Navigating Campus Hookup Culture: LGBTQ Students and College Hookups" critical resource response
by Alyssa Z.
One point that Ellen Lamont discusses throughout this article is how overall cis heterosexual men are the problem when it comes to college hookups in regards to the LGBTQ+ community. I agree that heterosexual cis men in college communities are a huge problem when it comes to sexuality and the LGBTQ+ community hookup culture. While I agree that heterosexual cis men in college communities write the script for hookup culture because they prioritize their own sexual desires and use masculinity as an excuse to be predators, it’s clear they lack the education of the anatomy and how to please a women over all.
On college campuses heterosexual cis men revolve around their own sexual desires and pleasures. Research shows that during and after hookups, men are not attentive to women’s sexual and emotional needs nor do they feel an obligation to be (Armstrong et al. 2012; Wade 2017). Men who are in committed relationships are much more caring and open with their partners desires rather than solely focused on their own pleasures. his indicates that heterosexual men do not feel the need to be thoughtful partners without a commitment, and feel free to treat women who engage in casual sex poorly for being “too willing” to have sex (Bogle 2008). This all creates a double standard in which women are slut shamed for casual sex while men are praised for it.
Heterosexual cis men use their masculinity as an excuse to be predators of women in a sexual manor. Men are taught to address and go after women as if they have a higher authority, almost as if they were their prey. When these young men do this and have this mind set, it leads to very harsh issues. Things as far as rape, to alcohol induced intercourse, egos being hurt, and even the simple concept of ignoring a women’s body language (Ford 2017). The idea and stereotype of “getting girls'' is where most of this is based off of. These are just a few of the things that are seen within young men with their sexual relations with young women.
Something that is missing from this article is the fact that throughout college communities heterosexual men are not educated on the anatomy and how to please a women over all. It is evident that the college hookup scene holds the potential to challenge ideas of gendered sexuality as women seek out sexual pleasure (Ridgeway 2011). The problem lies with the simple fact that men do not know what they are doing physically and with that being said, do not “please” the woman. All females are different obviously, which is something that men don’t off the bat understand, because men are more here’s how you get them off, whereas women. . . are more complicated (Rachel 2018). Women’s minds and bodies are far different than the average mans and men fail to comprehend this. Men being educated and taught the human body would be a great start for a changed script.
With these things being said, many LGBTQ+ students feel trapped by the dominant hookup scene on campus scripted by the average heterosexual cis man. This troubling feeling and stress causes LGBTQ+ members to isolate themselves and try and find specifically LGBTQ+ oriented environments. These men have structured this environment with these issues that are sculpting the LGBTQ+ community, making it all that much more difficult to express themselves sexually and have that interaction with partners.
Word Count: 586
Gaell Jocelyn-Blackman- The York Review article critical resource response
by Hope B.
We all have our fair share of stories from school that we share with our friends, but many people have stories about how awful those years can be. The teenagers and young adults of the LGBTQ+ community face discrimination from everyone around them daily. Gaell Jocelyn-Blackman wrote an article for The York Review discussing how parents and schools of LGBTQ+ can play a role in changing the harsh. She argues that homosexual sensitivity training will stop the discrimination by educating and training the school officials and anti-gay students. However, I think that it will ultimately make the situation worse. Students of that age are too immature to discuss this topic in a public manner. The “training” courses will make LGBTQ+ feel vulnerable, and it’ll become just another checkbox.
In theory, these programs could be beneficial, but the truth is that majority of students are too immature to take them seriously. Younger kids will be confused. The older kids may be mature enough, but a handful would take advantage of these programs to exploit the LGBTQ+ kids in their class. The article says, “It would probably help the students get a better understanding if homosexuality was compared to other subject matters such as culture and religion.” Most teenagers won’t willingly change their mindsets, especially if a friend says something ignorant. They’ll probably join in and it’s unlikely for them to follow the road less traveled. They’ll find more ways to put their classmates at risk of humiliation and harassment.
I think these programs would hurt LGBTQ+ students and end up causing more harassment and discrimination because other students won’t take this seriously. The article says, “Over 25% of LGBT youths are high school dropouts because of the discrimination they are faced with in the school atmosphere.” These numbers are already extremely high, so imagine how they would look if these programs ever went into place. These programs may make LGBTQ+ students feel even more exposed because a part of their identity is being discussed so publicly.
To school administrators, these programs will be just another thing on their checklist. The article says, “Archer is stressing that educators must address discrimination against gay students and must put aside their personal views to create a safe environment for these students.” Realistically, schools won’t put more on their plates than they have to. These programs would need an overwhelming number of supporters to be put into schools, so if they eventually did, it would be because administration was tired of hearing people complain about it. It will be one more box to check to say their school “promotes diversity and inclusion”, defeating the purpose all together. LGBTQ+ will still feel discriminated against. If school’s are wanting to do something to alleviate the discrimination that LGBTQ+ students face every day this is not the way to do it. I think that allyship programs would be much better because it allows students to choose whether or not they want to know more.
Word Count: 496
Peter Spriggs- "Why “Sexual Orientation” and “Gender Identity” Should Never Be Specially Protected Categories Under the Law" critical resource response
by Isabel H.
Once again I have found myself reading an article by Peter Sprigg. In Peter Spriggs article, “Why “Sexual Orientation” and “Gender Identity” Should Never Be Specially Protected Categories Under the Law”he attests that the LGBT+ community shouldn’t be protected by discrimination laws. Sprigg argues three main points surrounding “SOGI” laws. He says they are: not justified in principle and invasive and cause tangible harms. I will discuss how Sprigg fails to view the LGBT+ community as valid and deserving basic human rights.
Spring begins his argument by saying, “SOGI laws are not justified in principle,” and he dissects the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He references the “biological factors identifiable at birth”, these factors are race, color, and sex. His belief is that discrimination rights should protect things that are inborn and involvoluntary. However, he believes that freedom of religion, which is voluntary, should be protected by the law. To quote Sprigg, “ the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution—which is silent on issues of ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity’.” On the other hand, the Constitution was written in 1789 and back then SOGI data was not taken into consideration. Another thing to consider is that people of color and women were not given the same rights in 1789. The timespan between 1789 and 1964 provided a lot of change, is it so hard to believe that from 1964 to now there has been more change?
He then goes on to say that, “SOGI laws are invasive and cause tangible harms.” What Sprigg believes is that these laws will hurt businesses and the privacy of individuals. As far as business goes, his claim says that SOGI characteristics aren’t visible and therefore employers would not be able to discriminate towards them. However, this is untrue, hypothetically if a transgender person walked into an interview and was not chosen because of their gender, this would be discrimination. Another example would be a gender-fluid person getting fired for requesting that their correct pronouns are used. Sprigg moves on talking about, “Such laws allow biological males (who claim to be female) to access private spaces like showers, locker rooms, and bathrooms designated for women, allowing them to be nude or in various states of undress,” While this is true, the other side should be considered. What if a pretransition man was to go into the men’s restroom and because they are transitioning, they are assaulted. If they had gone into the women’s bathroom that could’ve been avoided. These laws are not as cut and dry as he tries to portray.
Overall, Sprigg fails to convince readers that the LGBT+ community shouldn’t have protective rights. His lack of humanity makes reading the article difficult. Spriggs needs to set aside bias and personal view, and remember that LGBT people are humans. This being said all humans deserve the right to be treated equally.
Word Count: 586
Sexual Orientation in Politics- criticial resource response
by Ashton S.
Some people feel as if sexual orientation is something that should not be brought into politics; but they’re wrong, and here’s why. In an opinion article by Kathleen Parker, she touches base on identity and politics and where the line should be drawn between the two. She mentions how one’s sexual orientation should be kept secret in order to not affect political opinions. In this essay, I will argue why she is incorrect by covering the importance of sharing orientation, what will happen if we don’t, and the true meaning of identity.
Parker makes her opinion seen with this quote, “Then again, how odd to find it necessary to publicly declare one's — or someone else's — sexual identity.” She is referring to politics and how making your orientation known is not necessary, when for heterosexuals, it is. The problem is that straight people are already letting the world know they are straight because it is the societal norm. People of the LGBTQ+ community are the minority in politics, and that makes it even more important to not hide that from anyone.
The importance of sharing orientation comes down to one reason; what happens if we hide it. Today, the LGBTQ+ community is more accepted in society as a whole, but they aren’t fully supported yet. After saying coming out is “crucial”, Parker claims, “Far more noteworthy, however, would be not knowing such personal details, suggesting a truer transcendence, as well as respect for privacy — and, not least, one's right not to know.” I find error in this statement as anyone involved or supportive of LGBTQ+ knows that if we hide this simple information from the world, then it is only taking steps backwards for LGBTQ+ rights. Hiding something about yourself to “protect” others has never been helpful, especially in politics.
The true meaning and importance of identity is showing who you are and not feeling the need to hide it from anyone. In the article, Parker says, “Identity is essential to our sense of self, our relationship to others and our place in society.” Followed by her stating that when identity is pulled into politics, we begin “drawing attention to plights, problems and issues unique to an ignored, marginalized, oppressed, disenfranchised or otherwise non-integrated segment of society.” When it comes to identity, it is crucial that those outside of the societal norm make it known. Drawing attention to these certain problems is not a bad thing, and can actually be very beneficial to young and LGBTQ+ citizens in decided what moves to make in politics.
Identity and politics should not be kept separate. You cannot “hide” something so important about yourself and expect there to not be issues arising from it. Its important to not hide your sexuality as it can be seen as discouraging to anyone within the LGBTQ+ community. This has been happening for centuries, but everyone just happened to be heterosexual. Times are changing for the better, but if we hide it then no further progress will be made.
Word Count: 501
This is what LGBT life is like around the world- Jenni Chang and Lisa Dazols- critical resource response
by Alyssa Z.
Who would’ve thought LGBTQ people would flee to the United States to escape the discrimination. Jenni Chang and Lisa Dazols, a gay couple from San Francisco set off on a mission to travel the world and find LGBTQ+ members across the world to share their stories through film. The couple explains how people from different countries and ethnic groups experience and deal with being gay. In this response, I will discuss the different struggles that different countries go through when being gay and transgender, Nepal, Kenya, and Argentina. I will argue that it is important to elevate international perspectives of LGBTQ people in order to protect people from discrimination in the future.
Nepal struggles with poverty and recovery from civils wars making LGBTQ equality less of a priority in the country. The couple elevates the voice of a transgender woman in order to raise awareness of the issues on a bigger scale. The movement in Nepal had a main figure, Bhumika Shrestha, a transgender woman who has overcame discrimination in many forms. This woman was expelled from school and incarceration because of her gender personation. “In 2007, Bhumika and Nepal’s LGBT rights organization successfully petitioned the Nepali supreme court to protect against LGBT discrimination.” Bhumika stated “I was given my transgender identity card”. She explains how difficult things were, even small things such as using the restroom. Getting her transgender card was a huge accomplishment and a huge step to improvement and equality in Nepal.
In Kenya, there are people fighting against discrimination in the public eye while getting extreme hate in return. There is an intolerance towards LGBTQ people but that doesn’t stop everyone from fighting for who they truly are. Dazols states, “In Kenya 89% of people who come out to their families, are disowned”. Homosexual acts are a crime here and can also lead to incarceration. While here in Kenya, they met Davis Kuria who became Kenya’s first openly gay political candidate. He stood for the reality of who he was throughout his campaign which lead to death threats and request for him to be killed. Though he was frightened, he stayed strong and true to who he was. David is a prime example of someone in the LGBTQ community who has faced great discrimination and overcame it.
In Argentina, LGBTQ people are very excepted and free, this freedom spreads and influences other Latin American countries to do the same when it comes to the fight for their equality. Yhere are “LGBTQ laws that are even more progressive than in the united states”, Dazols explains. In 2010, Argentina became the first country in Latin America, and the 10th in the world to adopt marriage equality. The people of Argentina are very proud of their country when it comes to the model of equality that they have created, and they wish the same for the rest of the world.
Communities across the world are all experiencing LGBTQ in their own different ways. There are still great struggles and progress to be made worldwide. There is a long road to full equality, as Chang states, “and let’s not forget that 75 countries still criminalize homosexuality today”. It is important to understand the hope and courage that stands across the globe. Equality is not just needed in the United Sates, this is a worldwide movement. The momentum of more and more people embracing themselves fully. When Nepal protected against LGBTQ discrimination, India pushed harder. When Argentina embraced the equality, Brazil and Uruguay soon followed. Ireland said yes to equality, the entire world noticed. This is a worldwide domino effect. Those who truly fight for quality should be proud of the progress and continue to fight for true and full freedom and equality for all.
Word count 600