Dear Editor:

I was deeply disappointed to read this week’s transgender feature by your editor, Celeen Adams. A publication like the Gay and Lesbian Times has an obligation to write pieces which help dispell myths and inaccuracies in our community. Opening an article with using a masculine name Daniel, who is 11, and then saying, “He wants to be a girl” completely misses the point of transgender issues altogether. First of all, if you are going to use a psuedonym, then use a gender-correct one. I can assume that no one in this little girl’s life still uses a masculine name. After all, she has been presenting and “passing” (a horrible phrase) as a girl for five years. Then why use a male name?

We do not aspire to be a gender, we are our gender. It is our exterior and those with whom we desire contact that need to adjust their thinking. By using the pronoun “he,” the entire concept of understanding what our transgender children are going through is missed completely. I suspect “Daniel” will now be even more confused, since she has presented and passed as a girl for five years now. You refer to “Daniel” with a male name and male pronouns. Did her parents? I doubt it. To them, you likely owe a huge apology.

As for the sources used, there were some wonderful references for pediatric transgender issues at the bottom. Apparently, none of them were contacted, since they would have all corrected the writer from the start.

We work so hard to get recognition, and if Barbara Walters can get it right, then surely so can a GLBT publication.

Sean Smytheson

Dear Editor:

As a physician who treats transgender patients in San Diego, I am appalled at your recent article on transgender youth by Celene Adams, who is the News and Features Editor (!). First of all, a child who has been presenting herself as a girl for five years should be given a female pseudonym name and female gender references. This is an ignorant mistake that a publication like the GLT should have not made. It points out that even the Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual community has a long way to go in understanding transgender issues. Secondly, the notion that transgender children cannot receive medical help before they are 12 years old is completely false. There are a number of areas—physically, emotionally, and psychologically—that are addressed by the medical community for these children, even in San Diego. I would encourage the GLT to do a better job when dealing with such a powerful subject. I do applaud the fact the GLT is at least talking about the subject but I am disgusted by the ignorance that was portrayed in the article.

Davey M. Smith

Dear Editor:

In response to Kevin McCarthy’s letter he had nothing to do with the closure of the 2200 Club. Of the hundreds of members of the club he was the only one who testified in court and his testimony was completely dismissed. The court ruled that the Club 2200 was only in violation of not enforcing the single occupancy rule on the rooms. That finding was solely based on the testimony of the undercover police officers who made numerous visits to the club and found no credible evidence that any of McCarthy’s allegations were true. McCarthy admitted under oath that he had an alcohol problem and that he was intoxicated during the time of his visits to the club. It was obvious to the court that the bizarre allegations that he made after many visits to the club were complete fabrications. People in the courtroom realized that McCarthy must have had a vendetta because he never made allegations against similar businesses. The staff of the 2200 Club had no idea what motivated McCarthy. A friend of his may have been one of the hundreds of former members that were permanently banned from the club mostly for illegal drugs or violence.

Please refer to the court records and Russell O’Brien’s well written editorial in the 2/15/07 GLT.

Bob Smith

Dear Editor:

Nicole’s history of endorsing the anti-gay candidates is legendary. Most of us long time readers of the GLT know not to vote for Nicole’s choices and it behooves all of us to get the word out to the new members of our community. Many of us are going to vote for Stephen Whitburn for city council only because of Nicole’s “kiss of death” support of Todd Gloria. Gloria may be well qualified for the position but Nicole’s record creates doubt. Of course Nicole may endorse James Hartline. Nicole sure gave a glowing report of Hartline’s performance at the election forum. No mention was made of the ex-con and “cured” gay’s sordid past. I suggest that each of us carefully examine the candidates before voting and long after flushing Nicole’s endorsements down the toilet.

Dee Keng

Dear Editor:

Yes Nicole has every right to endorse and support any candidate he wants. In his column he brags “By the way, in the last election, about 90 percent of the candidates I supported won, which is a better record than the Gay & Lesbian Times, San Diego Democratic Club or Log Cabin Republicans.” Does he not realize that the purpose of endorsing candidates is to notify his readers which candidates will best represent their concerns in office. Instead Nicole tries to pick the candidates that are favored to win like someone betting on Sunday’s football games. He apparently does not care if they are bigots or not; if he thinks they are going to win he endorses them. Like Nicole I am a person of color but unlike Nicole the race of a candidate is not a factor in my support. Michael Aguirre did not receive the endorsements of some GLBT organizations, not because he was Latino as Nicole says, but because he was a less than honest loose canon which we have all since found out. Irresponsible politicians come in all colors and religions.

The more revealing Nicole is trying to defend his endorsement policy the more the LGBT community looks elsewhere for political advice. And yes we do question Nicole’s commitment to our community.

Tyrone Jones

Dear Editor:

I was astonished to read Nicole’s description of how wonderful James Hartline was at the city council candidates forum.

In the 10/05 edition, the San Diego City Beat said, “Experts warn against ignoring or dismissing people like Hartline. At CityBeat’s request, Mark Potok, director of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Intelligence Project, which has monitored hate groups for the past 30 years and recently published a study of the religious right’s anti-gay activism, reviewed a sample of Hartline’s writings and says he believes Hartline poses a threat to the community.”

“This man engages in a series of what are essentially lies,” Potok said. “It is false that ‘homosexual activists are intentionally spreading the AIDS virus,’ [and] to describe gay people as a ‘bunch of rebellious child molesters’ is an invitation to hate crime. I’m sure that Hartline will deny that with all of his heart, but the fact is when religious leaders make these kinds of statements young angry men in the community tend to see them as authorization for violence.”

“Potok points out that, in America, gay men are the single most physically attacked subpopulation.”

So what is next for the irresponsible Nicole, an endorsement of James Hartline for council? After all Nicole did endorse Kevin Falconer, Tony Young and Brian Maienschein, the only councilmembers that voted against marriage equality. Haven’t we all heard enough of Nicole’s absurd endorsements?

Rose Prieto