Dear Editor:

In response to the trashy hate letter, written by a sick individual … (Jeff Wilson) I know it’s not a policy for the GLTimes, to edit letters to the editor, but this letter was the worst I’ve ever seen. Shame to you GLT, in allowing this slop to be published! Our community is splintered enough as it is, but you allow it anyway! The GLT is a loophole for sickies to talk trash and laugh. Our trans- community has it’s hands full eduacating straight folks infected with transphobia and then dealing with pussmouths like Jeffy, it makes it more difficult.

Jeffy, you are a very sick and hatefull person and probably hate yourself. I can’t understand how one can be so mean, but it probably makes you happy. Just for the record, it was the trans comunnity who threw the first blows and rocks at Stonewall! Get a life, and paticipate in the GLBT community, constructively.

It’s time for the GLT, to stop hate and edit all letters to the editor!

Brenda Watson

Dear Editor:

Andrew Towne’s letter of Jan. 17 and Jeff Wilson’s letter of Feb. 14 promoting the exclusion of transgendered people from the gay rights agenda, exemplify a gay separatist attitude, which if the trend continues will fracture our community. I find it sad that those who seek acceptance for themselves are unwilling to accept others.

I have listened to women berate transsexuals at the Women’s Day Festival last summer at the Center - which is supposed to be a place of refuge and growth for everyone. And I hear growing dissent from the gay male community in commentary such as Towne and Wilson’s.

I’m a transsexual woman. I’m in a same sex relationship with another transsexual woman. We are not as Wilson implies, sissy boys, closet cases or sexually befuddled. We are transgendered people, not “trannys” and we don’t use gender slurs in our writings.

Whether you consider us gay, bisexual or lesbian makes no difference to me. But it does not invalidate the fact that I and my partner are part of the greater GLBT community. In fact we are the gay community at its most diverse.

Yet so far as the ENDA debate goes, in his letter Towne states that in parts of this country white males can be discriminated against if they happen to be gay. If a non-inclusive ENDA is passed, even though I am gay or lesbian, I will still be discriminated against simply because I have a penis and boobs. It’s not right that my community should exclude me because my body doesn’t match some arbitrary gender norm.

I also believe Towne is wrong, that a new Congress and Democrat President will in fact pass an inclusive ENDA. And it is up to us all to ensure that happens.

Clearly there is a continuing need for the GLBT community to educate, accept and support one another. We have great strides to make in equality in the next two presidential terms and it is only by all pulling together that our rights to equality will be secured, or even sustained.

Jamie Starr

Dear Editor:

Jeff Wilson cannot know his history. He questions as to why “Gays” should have to “add” the Bisexuals and the Transgendered to the “gay community”. Who did he think was at Stonewall? The gay men, the crossdressers, the transgendered ... no one is being “added” to the gay community - they were there all the time!

Elitism fairly disgusts me.

James Hall

Dear Editor:

This email is in response to you publishing of a letter from a Jeff Wilson. I am personally shocked and disappointed in the GLT. Why would you give someone the opportunity to express such hateful views in print; that article should have never been published. His closed minded views and OPINIONS do not reflect well with what the GLT represents. I feel the GLT owes the Trans community an apology, I understand freedom of speech; but giving someone who is clueless and brainless to what has gone on the past 20 years; is giving him an arena to voice his hatred and ignorance, which does more harm that good.

Kailin Johnson

Dear Editor:

Judging from your editorial, “ A step back in the battle against HIV/AIDS” (February 14), you’re supporting the AIDS establishment’s current hissy-fit over a Swiss AIDS Commission statement that the risk of contracting HIV from sex with an HIV-positive person whose medication regimen has made their viral load “undetectable” is “negligible.” You begin by quoting some of the headlines with which this study has reported — which you correctly describe as “borderline sensational” (though that’s been the case with much AIDS reporting, especially the now-discredited scare stories about hundreds of millions of sub-Saharan Africans supposedly infected with HIV) – and then say they pertained to an “appalling Swiss study regarding HIV and unprotected sex.”

It’s one thing to say the headlines are appalling, and quite another to use that adjective about the study itself. The Swiss report was written by four of that country’s top HIV/AIDS experts, and deals not (as your editorial claims) with four “cases” but with four separate studies, including one from Spain involving 393 couples and another from Brazil involving 93 couples. In Spain, none of the HIV-negative partners became HIV-positive during the 13 years (1990 to 2003) that the study covered, and in Brazil six HIV-negative partners became HIV-positive — which the study authors attributed to lapses in the positive partners’ compliance with treatment regimens. Agree or disagree, the science was a lot more comprehensive than you claim.

Though the Swiss report not only assumes the truth of the HIV/AIDS model but supports the use of anti-retroviral drugs, the response to it shows just what a narrow range of scientific research the HIV/AIDS propagandists regard as permissible. By calling the study “appalling” and “dismaying,” you send the message that the research shouldn’t have been done at all: that we “know” unprotected sex between HIV-positives and HIV-negatives is always dangerous, and that any scientific reconsideration of that proposition should be suppressed because people might get the “wrong” idea that they can actually wriggle out of the condom/manic sexual terrorism that has been imposed on the Queer community since HIV was proclaimed the cause of AIDS 23 years ago.

Yes, the Swiss report has its weaknesses. The studies it was based on all involve only heterosexuals practicing vaginal intercourse and don’t seem to have raised the question of whether anal sex is riskier. It did, however, stipulate that for risk-free unprotected sex, the positive partner must not only be on meds and in full compliance but also must not have any other STD’s. The assault on the Swiss paper, like the recent scare about an allegedly sexually transmitted strain of antibiotic-resistant MRSA staph bacteria that was targeting Gay and Bi men — where you had to read two-thirds of the way through the news reports to find that the real risk wasn’t sexual orientation but your history of antibiotic use — is yet another sign that the health establishment isn’t about to give up its dictatorial propaganda campaigns against natural (“bareback”) Gay male sex even if the facts no longer support them.

Mark Gabrish Conlan