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.