Gender in the Media

This is the great video I was talking about today! Just keep watching... it's ridiculous. And the comments on the video don't even note the blatant sexism or stereotype?

Gym Class Heroes- Ass Back Home

Response to Daily Trojan Article/ Music Video

Growing up in what Salama classifies as a city where being transsexual really isn’t a big deal and is mostly accepted by neighboring communities and by the people who live there (San Francisco). I must say that I believe that it is due to the lack of pressure for people to “accept” different opinions. While these transgender communities are very present in San Francisco never have I been approached or seen any sort of movements made by them to encourage others to open their minds and accept them. Perhaps I may be wrong, but for in my case it is the lack of attention towards these communities (positive or negative) that has lead me to accept people’s different views on sexuality and gender.
I do agree that anti discrimination laws are a means of helping society as a whole gradually become aware and accepting of these different classifications. I do not agree with Salama’s statement “people who choose to identify themselves in a different way need to be aware of the effects of such decisions.” This statement was very bold and naive and I was shocked that she would think (although only implied) that transgendered people should consider the “side effects” how others will treat them because of who they are.
On a side note and combining my love for music and relating it to gender conflict topics, I recently stumbled upon an old song and remembered seeing the music video. This video, made by a Swedish duo who make very bold statements through music and how they represent themselves in the industry, make a statement about acceptance of different sexual and gender classifications. Hopefully you’ll enjoy the song/video!

The Knife --- Pass this On
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKhjaGRhIYU

Daily Trojan

After reading this article….I have a lot of mixed feelings and so many thoughts!
First off….I feel as though the individual who wrote this article seems to place no priority on individual rights or personal experience. The author seems so insensitive and write with so much ignorance.

One of the lines that really caught my attention was:
“So instead of making laws about very narrow, personal issues like whether we identify as male or female, maybe our representatives can actually fix our broken budget, or realize that there are worse forms of injustice than discrimination against whom people choose to be.”

I don't know if it's just because of the way that this class has opened my eyes to the world of gender.... but I find it crazy that someone could choose to ignore the intense interaction between gender and every other aspect of life. Although I think that some of what the author says are good points (that there are a lot of things in American that need legal and government attention) I feel as though the article completely targets the LGBTQ community. It is kind of odd to think that such discrimination happens even at USC...I always had thought of our campus through its pride in social and ethnic diversity...but it seems as though even here we will never be able to escape the stereotypes perpetuated by a judgmental society. Not only do I feel like this article makes our school look really really bad, but I also feel as though it is an innacurate representation of our school's mentality. Gender Identification is woven into just about every aspect of life, and in my opinion is necessary as it is a way for humans to organize themselves and make sense of the chaos that is our world. To think that something such as gender and self identification is unimportant is such an ignorant way to view the world...because until we begin to understand ourselves, we are never going to be able to help or understand anyone else.

Relating Lecture to The Exorcist!

This week in lecture we discussed special friendships especially between nuns. When Professor discussed how one of the signs of special friendships was when two nuns could "end up hating each other with the same passion they love each other," I thought about my Varsity cheerleading squad in high school that I was a member of. There would always be cheerleaders bickering one second and being best friends the next, which seemed very similar to Professor's description of the nuns.

I most enjoyed when Professor talked about how one of the nuns, while she was performing what we assume to be some sort of sexual relation with another nun, wears a cross around her neck. We talked about how the cross being on the nun's body while she is performing such an act makes an even closer contradiction with her behavior and her expectation as a holy, virtuous person. I recently watched The Exorcist and this actually reminded me of one of the scenes from the movie. The little girl is possessed and the devil inside her makes her stab her vagina violently with a cross. This scene is similar to the scene with the cross around the nun's neck because it also creates a contradiction with a virtuous symbol of Christ and something we consider wrong. Here is a picture of The Exorcist scene:

Article Response

This piece seemed like it was written by a rookie as opposed to a more experienced journalist. The arguments are highly underdeveloped or even supported, like her argument is that there are "larger problems" to worry about. When are there not major concerns for lawmakers to consider? Also, when is the ideal time to address and protect transgender rights?

One thing that really caught my attention was the how the author assumed that the college students lived in a bubble while it seemed like she lives in a bubble also. In all fairness, I probably live in a bubble also and am completely ignorant of transgender people and their issues. For example, I have no idea how many exist and don't think I have ever met one, though I probably have and don't know it. However, while I am aware of my ignorance, the author seems to think that she is knowledgeable about the subject when she is clearly not, or at least doesn't demonstrate any knowledge. Even more disturbing is that she doesn't display any compassion.

The Queer Dilemma

The concept of sexual identity, however flawed, is one that makes the struggle for civil rights necessary and possible, employing a mode of political usefulness especially with social grassroots movements. While identification often involves a process of identifying differences, there is a laudable quality, in at least establishing a sense of respect for our identities however different they may be.

One notable idea that Salama points to is the notion that identity is “unnecessary,” because it is true that once secured, identity does not obliterate abberation, perhaps instilling hostility towards our differences. What I cannot appreciate about this article however, is that it breaks entirely from an anti-essentialist argument calling for a social or political organization that is more true to the inessential, fluid and multifaceted character of sexuality. Rather than alluding to proposals that identification should be viewed in a freer and more deconstructed form, Salama rather crudely states that, “Surely there are larger problems to worry about.” In a narrow-minded approach, she overlooks the fact that just because a legistlation targets a smaller group of transgenders, it does not affect the larger population, when in fact, it alters an entire society. It is not a matter of legislations about “very narrow, personal issues” considering the broader ramifications that laws such as Gender Nondiscrimination Act and Vital Statistics Modernization Act establish about accepting differences. We can only hope for models in which boundaries, cultures and identities can be negotiated defined and produced but not by first establishing a sense of respect.

It Gets Better...Psyche!

So upon reading Salama's article on the new transgender focused legislation being passed in California, the first response I had was "that's some fucked up shit". After simmering down and returning my brain back to the present and out of Brooklyn, East Flatbush mode I couldn't help but still feel the sting of utter shock. Many people are surprised that someone could feel this way considering the location of our campus and contemporary style of thought USC seeks to teach, others were surprised that someone on the Daily Trojan condoned and thought it permissible to have someone spread such a hateful opinion publicly, I was surprised no one had noticed this before.

I feel like one of the largest problems I've had with USC (and don't get me wrong I love it here, New York is 45 degrees and pouring right now) is that I feel like it's a campus too caught up on appearances and not enough on authenticity. Although we've implemented an amazing visions and voices program to bring culture and arts to the students and faculty of USC, Roski is one of the most underfunded schools within the university (legit, it's two ancient buildings and the flags along the pathway of it say Viterbi on them). Though we have our good neighbors and friends community service program set up to serve the children of our surrounding mostly Hispanic immigrant community, they still felt the need to pick up myself and eleven of my other Posse members to bring more diversity to the campus because in reality the only people on this campus from the surrounding neighborhood are the kids they're serving and the workers they have cleaning up after the people that walk by them like they don't exist. And despite the fact that we may be known as one of the most accepting LGBT campuses in the nation, we still foster an environment where people feel so disconnected to others and find it so impossible to relate their struggles to their peers that a student who is most likely of a foreign background themselves can't see the equal level of importance LGBT issues hold to that of immigration.

In reality we can get all fire and brimmstone over the injustice of comments and opinions such as these and we really REALLY should but like, what after? Sweep it under the rug and remind everyone of that time we got upset over something someone said to prove that we care about our community while completely forgetting that it's not about yelling at someone when they're wrong but educating them to be right as an institution of learning should? I certainly hope not but hey, it gets better, right?

--Jheanelle Garriques

Definitely Transphobic

The article is obviously transphobic. The beginning of the article makes a counter statement against the anti-discrimination law by stating people, “should instead be more accepting of the people who aren’t as comfortable with working with people who identify as transgender.” Imagine If the word ‘people’ was replaced with ‘KKK’, and the group ‘transgender’ was replaced with ‘black’, the statement would be incredibly racist. The statement simplifies to accepting discrimination for personal feelings. I don’t believe the author intended for the article to have such a negative response to transgender. They are obviously more annoyed with the political agenda of the government rather with the social issue at hand, which explains their ignorance.

For one, discrimination is a serious issue, which still exists in major cities such as San Francisco and Los Angeles and everywhere else. The article also seems to undermine transgender discrimination, by stating if people are not willing to accept transgender, we cannot use the law to change one’s minds. The author seems to think the law cannot be used to protect people, because the law cannot change the general public’s belief and mindset. If the same belief were used during the civil rights movement we would still reside in a county with racist attitudes. The use of ‘narrow and personal’ as adjectives for the issues at hand explain the articles ignorance towards the entire issue. Basically the article undermines the need for laws to protect against discrimination and it doesn’t provide any evidence towards why we don’t need new laws.

Reaction to Salama's article

I don't think this article should have received as much criticism as it did. The controversy surrounding the publication seems a little bit excessive. I think it is quite clear that the point of this article is not to come across as homophobic, but rather to present the side of the story that is usually just ignored. Engie chooses to consider the point of view of those who aren’t comfortable with transgenders and of those who think the government should be tackling bigger and more inclusive issues. It is quite evident that our country is facing some huge problems. Problems that effect the entire population, such as the economic crisis, not just a small minority like the transgender community. Thus, I find validation in her her argument. The government has higher priorities than “making it easier for people to declare they are transgender.” I don’t think it is appropriate for this article to have received so much criticism for stating a comment that is nothing more than an observation and an opinion. Isn’t that the point of an article?

I was a little surprised, but nevertheless pleased, to read her suggestion that we should be more accepting of the people who aren’t comfortable working with transgender people. This is a point of view that is too often ignored because it is considered mean or politically incorrect. We should be acknowledging the feelings of these people just as much as we do of the transgender people. It is important that the other side of the issue, the one that she presents, is given a chance to be expressed.

As many of the critics suggest, Engie could have been a little more lenient in her discussion of the importance of these acts; however, doing so would have undermined her argument. As the author, it was her choice, and we should respect that. Topics such as this one are controversial so it would be difficult to present an argument that did not upset anyone. I think the readers should be a little more realistic in terms of understanding that opposing points of view exist, and there is nothing wrong with expressing those views. There is obviously nothing wrong with disagreeing with Engie’s argument, but there is no need to call her piece “pathetic,” as one of the commenters does. This class has taught me to be more open to the different ideas and points of view that exist in our society. Engie is simply presenting one such idea.

Response to "Identification unnecessary in political realm"

The article “Identification unnecessary in political realm” by freshman Engie Salama has sparked a large amount of controversy that is especially evident in the comments below the article on the website. Salama’s article seems to portray a negative stance on the two bills that have just recently granted transgender people legal rights to declare their gender more easily on documentation. I didn’t like how Salama said that these bills “might not be so positive” and then contradicts herself by saying she is not saying that “they do not deserve the same rights” because these bills are only giving them the same rights everyone else has and there is nothing negative about them.

Salama then asks “But is it really necessary to create a law to expedite that transition?” In response to this, I would ask: if laws hadn’t been passed regarding civil rights and discrimination against African Americans decades ago, would people really have stopped discriminating as quickly? Sometimes laws are necessary to quickly give people the rights they deserve. Salama also notes that there are bigger problems, but in reality, no one can tackle all the biggest problems at once, so its better to handle some of the other problems that are real and present rather than doing nothing and just talking about the big problems. She goes on to say “We should instead be more accepting of the people who aren’t as comfortable with working with people who identify as transgender.” In doing what she suggests, we would only be encouraging intolerance, which should definitely not be done.

Before writing this article with negative implications toward transgender rights, Salama should have realized that her view would contradict and offend those of many people at USC, as there are many transgender people and supporters that would read it. One of the commenters was transgender and said, “As a USC graduate, and transgendered woman, I am highly offended by this blurb, the only saving grace it being an opinion column.” Many have also commented that they are upset that USC’s own newspaper, The Daily Trojan, would publish such an article. I feel that everyone is allowed to express their opinion, but they should not have published this article alone as it does present a one-sided view that seems to hold prejudice against the transgender population. When my high school’s newspaper would publish controversial articles, we would always have two articles next to each other, each representing one side of the issue, so the paper would never seem biased toward one opinion. It probably wouldn’t excuse the fact that such a negative view was presented in the Daily Trojan and some people would probably still be upset but many would probably have taken it better if it was posed as a controversy being debated with two opposing articles. It would maintain the newspaper’s unbiased reputation. This also just reminded me of a disclaimer we would have on our newspaper regarding the fact that the writers’ views portrayed in the articles in no way represented the beliefs of the school or the newspaper staff. The entire newspaper probably shouldn’t be stigmatized for the narrow-minded opinions of one freshman.

Ignorance.

"Perhaps it’s not the state’s place to tell employers, teachers and other people in society they must be blind to an individual’s personal decision."

This article is beyond ridiculous. Salama's discourse, which argues against a law that prohibits discrimination against transgenders, is full of logical fallacies and entrenched in prejudice. She proposes that today there are many people who are uncomfortable working with transgenders, and thus, "we should instead be more accepting of the people who aren’t as comfortable with working with people who identify as transgender."

While she is correct that there are many people who are uncomfortable with working with transgenders, her conclusion is ludicrous. In fact, because of the truth of the former statement, there is an absolute need for such laws that will force people to realize that it is time to change their backward mindsets. For example, laws have been passed prohibiting discrimination against colored people, fomenting the more accepting mindset we have today, leading to our nation's first Black president (nevertheless, there is much work to be done to change mindsets regarding racism). Would Salama (in the 1960s) have written an article declaring that laws should be understanding of racist employers instead of passing civil rights amendments?

Change generally comes by working within the system. As our system runs on legislation, reformers generally aim to pass legislation that is in keeping with their ideologies. The writer is correct, people today are still very prejudiced and often uncomfortable about individuals who do not conform to heteronormativity. But it is for that very reasons that such anti-discrimination laws are so necessary.

Daily Trojan Response

Engie Salama who is majoring in biochemistry would not have the slightest clue about gender studies. Her article has no real basis on the issues that surround the transgender community. It sounds like the surface argument that someone who suffers from homophobia/transphobia would have. It lacks logical and rational ideas. To address a community of students like us in the Daily Trojan was a courageous move, but definitely a dumb one since her facts are screwed up. Those are clearly just her personal opinions, but they do not represent the USC community. As I read the responses to her article in the Daily Trojan page, I found that someone commented on the fact that Engie wears a head scarf. I completely agree with the author on how ironic it is for someone who wears a hijab to be upset about anti-discriminatory laws, when such laws are the ones that allow her to wear the hijab in the first place. I was mainly shocked when she stated “We should instead be more accepting of the people who aren’t as comfortable with working with people who identify as transgender”. Really? So, does that also apply to those that discriminate on  basis of color, socioeconomic status, education, etc?? Sounds to me like this is an excuse to allow further discrimination against a minority community that clearly has no compassion or understanding. Sure there are “more important things” to worry about, but that doesn’t mean that earning the basic human right of being accepted this isn’t important. The fight for gender/sexual identity to be accepted is not over simply because of this law. Obviously, there is much work ahead for the transgender/homosexual/queer/etc.

Also, how can she claim that “making laws about very narrow, personal issues…realize that there are worse forms of injustice than discrimination against whom people choose to be”? Recall the case of Lawrence King, a 15-year-old gay student who was shot twice by fellow student. This case was a clear case of homophobia. Was Larry’s death a narrow problem? I think this perfectly illustrates the discriminatory behavior that America is teaching our young.

Just Reality

Like most in our class, I am absolutely shocked that the Daily Trojan would okay a piece like this. There are so many things wrong with it, I really don't know where to begin. I have read through the blog posts and a good amount of the comments on the actual piece, and I don't think there's much left to say, but I am squarely set on the idea that the author is transphobic and failed at hiding it.

I do think she thinks she's progressive or open-minded but none of them could come through her rather ignorant piece. First, this question is a great bother to me: "Does there have to be a specific prohibition against discriminating for “gender identity and expression”? Surely there are larger problems to worry about."

I can't help but think that during the civil rights movement, there were people saying, "Aren't there more things to worry about?" There will ALWAYS be problems in the world to worry about, but they are not always fixable by a government bill. Something like LGBTQ rights perhaps CAN be, so if we have the ability to make the world a better place for anyone, we should take advantage of it. Her disapproval for the government working on providing transgender people more equality under the law, something we are promised in our Constitution is mind-boggling to me.
The author continues, saying, "The truth is, many people might not be comfortable accepting others for their personal decisions." This is true. However, is that a good basis for not giving people rights? As some have brought up, someone may not be comfortable with one's religion, but the law asks everyone to respect each other on those terms, and that is the right thing for our society. For the law to allow us to discriminate people on any basis like sex, religion, race, is to untie all other establishments of toleration.

Starting from this sentence on, "Changing one’s gender is a personal decision in most cases, and people who choose to identify themselves in a different way need to be aware of the effects of such decisions," I don't really understand what the author is saying. She says things like we need protection under the law, but there has to be a law drawn on how much toleration we are asked to show. She says that it's "just reality" that there will be people who won't be willing to accept transgender people. That is also true. But that is precisely why we need a law to protect these individuals and their inherent rights as citizens.
The way she words the article makes it seem that transgender people are choosing to change their gender on a whim, but identifying yourself as transgender is a difficult process and certainly not something many would call a "choice". I just feel like the author should have done some more research and re-thought that she was saying before posting such an article on the Daily Trojan, a representative of our Trojan family as a whole.

Response to Article

As soon as I began reading Salama's article, I was frowning, most probably because I was surprised that someone could be so ignorant of such an important thing in society: gender. I will admit that I probably would not have been as affected by this article if I had read it before I started taking this class, but after being in gender conflicts and becoming more aware of others and the importance of accepting everyone's decisions, I felt like this article was downright snotty and rude. Reading the part where Salama states that "there are larger problems to worry about" in society than helping transgenders become more comfortable revealing themselves to the world especially made me surprised that this girl, who was supposedly thinks "we all deserve our rights" wasn't applauding these acts instead of commenting on how unnecessary they are. I do realize that Salama is completely entitled to her opinion, but I believe that she could have been more considerate in her article.

Upsetting Article

I found the article to be a very upsetting experience. As I read the article, I found myself becoming increasingly disturbed by the author’s blindness to her own transphobia. Through her writing, it is obvious that she believes she is supporting anti-discrimination and equal rights, yet she is actually eliciting very discriminating thinking. This author appears to hold a very heterocentric perspective on the issue as she tries to organize gender in attempt to constrain its mysteriousness and excessive nature. She is obviously overwhelmed with the nature of gender, and she uses this discomfort that she feels surrounding transgenderism in order to illogically justify her argument.

The author does not recognize gender as a fluid entity like Judith Butler and fellow Queer Theory activists describes, and thus is unable to see the importance of allowing individuals to express their desires in any way they see fit and allowing them to identify as whatever they feel is natural. Moreover, if we were to really apply the Queer Theory to this situation, the individuals would not even have to identify themselves, refusing the question of “What ARE you?” and be given the choice to bypass the identification process altogether.

Everyone should be given their own rights to either identify themselves in any way they want or not at all, so as the author attempts to justify that transgenders should not be able to identify themselves, she steps completely out of line. She states that the government should focus its time on other problems, yet she fails to realize that the issue of protecting the rights of minorities is one of the government’s main jobs, not to mention that allowing citizens the freedom to convey their identity freely is a fundamental right. In this way, she is irrationally putting the discomfort that transgenderism brings to her and others in front of the right of transgender individuals to freely express themselves. Thus, the article takes a very self-centric perspective, favoring her own ideas and those that relate and take a similar stance.

Transphobia in the Daily Trojan

The argument that society is unable to multitask and shouldn’t address certain issues because we have “larger problems to worry about” is a tired one, especially when it comes to human rights. Rights are always a pressing matter and protecting them should always be a priority, because unfortunately our world is one in which human rights are not ensured for everyone. And in a society in which transgender people are subject to fierce transphobia, it’s especially important to have a legal basis for the recognition and protection of their rights.

Engie Salama takes on the subject of trans rights in her op-ed piece, arguing that they should not be protected by law because not everyone is accepting of transgender. At one point, she even says, “We should instead be more accepting of the people who aren’t as comfortable with working with people who identify as transgender.” Her argument boils down to the cry of the privileged: “Not everybody is willing to accept the classification,” therefore protections for transgender rights should not be implemented—because laws protecting gender identity force non-trans people to confront the fact that trans people exist and to at least tolerate them, even if it makes them uncomfortable. Oh, no! How horrible, that we would treat marginalized groups as equals! Won’t somebody think of the poor cisgender majority?

I wonder whether Salama would argue with the necessity of legislation protecting the rights of other minorities and disenfranchised groups. Are laws prohibiting discrimination against, for example, African Americans and women unnecessary? The civil rights and feminist movements don’t think so. And what about people with non-heterosexual orientations? Would she agree that LGB individuals, too, do not need legal protection? That we should maintain the homophobic discourse in this country, simply because acceptance makes people uncomfortable? Meanwhile, the Prop 8 case drags on and gay kids are killing themselves.

Salama’s argument reeks of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell mentality—that because people are uncomfortable and don’t want to face their own prejudices, instead of talking about this we should pretend there is no problem at all. But that’s not how problems are solved. Problems are solved only when they are actually confronted, and pandering to a transphobic population isn’t going to end any kind of discrimination. Therefore, legal protections are necessary, since that is one avenue by which change really does happen.

I could go on and list more of my problems with this piece, but I will end with the admission that Salama actually does make a valid point towards the end of it: Some of the discrimination transgender people face may be due in part to intersectional issues, such as race and class. However, she fails to realize that transgender is in and of itself a target of discrimination—and that she herself is contributing to this problem.

Revision Needed

It appears to me the argument made by Engie Salama for the Daily Trojan does not come across the way the author intended when the piece was written. The article makes it appear the author is against equality for transgenders in our society, opposing new California laws that allow one to legally change their gender easier. I feel the author was trying to make a point entirely separate from this. I feel she wanted to say that the government needs to do more to support equality for transgenders and homosexuals.

The last line of her piece talks about how the government needs to “realize that there are worse forms of injustice than discrimination against whom people choose to be.” Looking at this it would appear she wants more action to be taken in the future. Although these bills are a necessary step the government must take to bring equality to transgenders, some people could possibly see these as just symbolic actions taken by the government to gain public support. They are not necessarily accomplishing much with these bills. I believe the author wants to see our government do more to promote equality than just allowing you to change your gender. She also states the economic status of many transgenders in our country, saying “23 percent of transgender people earn wages below the poverty level.” She clearly wants action to be taken to help these people gain better lives. This essay needs a major revision to clearly articulate the author’s true thesis.

A Response to "Identification Unnecessary in Political Realm"

Engie Salama’s article is a prime example of ignorant writing riddled with illogical statements.

As Amy Nham, Esther Won, and Tara Huusko have pointed out, Salama has argued that “many people might not be comfortable accepting others for their personal decisions… [furthermore] changing one’s gender is a personal decision in most cases, and people who choose to identify themselves in a different way need to be aware of the effects of such decisions.” Salama seems to be implying the fact transgenders receive unfair treatment (an example would be how “23 percent of transgender people earn wages below the poverty level) is justified as an effect of a “personal decision”. First of all, it is not a personal decision. Sexuality, as demonstrated by Queer Theory and Kinsfey scale, is fluid and undefinable. Very few individuals can be regarded as either “100%” heterosexual or “100%” homosexual, as individuals can and do have urges that contradict their identified sexual orientation. This makes sense since, according to Queer Theory, desire and urges can co-exist. In other words, transient urges or acts do not establish a final definition of or do not undermine an individual’s sexuality. Sexuality is too dynamic and complex to be summarized by focusing on a few haphazard acts.

Furthermore, such discriminatory behavior, contrary what she is arguing towards, is not universal. Such conduct is seen in people who are too engrained in the belief that heterosexuality is the “default” slate, who believes anything that throws this “standard” into question not does not adhere to the norm and should be criticized. This is a fine example of how “heterosexuality is always in the act of elaborating itself is evidence that it is perpetually at risk, that is, that it 'knows' its own possibility of becoming undone." Judith Butler’s statement from Imitation and Gender Insubordination provides an explanation as to why the heteronormative population is so defensive—they know, consciously or unconsciously, that the heterosexual orientation is fragile. Same sex bonding is promoted or possible throughout society (restrooms, boy/girl scouts, locker rooms), causing the heterosexual to feel threatened and to feel obligated to lash out at anything that challenges their embedded ideals.

Salama also argued “we should instead be more accepting of the people who aren’t as comfortable with working with people who identify as transgender” is illogical. She is claiming that since some people are not receptive towards transsexuals, we should help them not be as accepting. In other words, she is proposing the discriminators should be allowed to discriminate against others. We may not be living in “a perfect world,” as she said, but her advocating accepting people who are uncomfortable with transgender completely contradicts her definition of a perfect world where no one receives undue treatment on account of a specific characteristic or trait. Salama also claimed that the laws were “imposing” when the laws are merely protective. While she acknowledges that transgenders are discriminated against, she fails to realize that if such laws were not to be established, the people uncomfortable with transgenders would be completely free to discriminate against transgenders. Even with laws that promote gender and racial equality, the glass ceiling, a subtle and almost transparent barrier that prevents the majority of minorities and women from being promoted in management as the upper echelons of corporate America is dominated by Angelo-Saxon males, still exists.