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.