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.
Using the hijab that the author supposedly wears could make this very problematic. It's interesting to think about whether we are discussing the author's ideas as written on the article or if her personal religious expression (as in garb) can be part of a response to her points?
ReplyDelete