From The Philadelphia Inquirer:
A federal agency’s efforts to remove the words gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender from the program of a federally funded conference on suicide prevention have inspired scores of experts in mental health to flood the agency with angry e-mail.
At issue is a conference on suicide prevention to be held next Monday in Portland, Ore., and organized by the Suicide Prevention Resource Center of Newton, Mass., a contractor with the federal mental-health agency. On the program is a talk that, until recently, was titled “Suicide Prevention Among Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgender Individuals.”
Studies have found that the suicide risk among people in those groups is two to three times higher than the average risk.
So it came as a surprise to Ron Bloodworth - a former coordinator of youth suicide prevention for Oregon and one of three specialists leading the session - when word came down from agency project manager Brenda Bruun that they should omit the four words that described, precisely, what the session was about.
Bloodworth was told it would be acceptable to use the term sexual orientation.
____________________________________________________
Excerpted from the edited talk:
“We must always remember that there are very particular problems in the, um, community surrounding persons whose sexuality is not oriented towards persons of a different gender, as well as persons whose gender is not the same as at the time of their birth due to surgical intervention…”
“Why is the suicide rate so much higher for people whose romantic partnerships are with people of their own gender as well as people who have changed their gender (regardless of whether their romantic partners are thereafter of their current or previous gender)? A good question, and it really has to be somewhat broken down - to examine the whole group, yes, but also the three distinct groups of, er, males who have chosen non-females as intimate partners, females who favor pairing with non-males, and males and females who are now, respectively, females and males…”
“With regards to men whose sexual preference is other than that of so-called “straight” men, one need only look at programs like “Male Altenative-Sexuality-Practicing Individuals’ Eye for the Straight Guy” to see that the cultural pressures…”
“There’s also particular challenge with… female persons who choose to partner with non-male persons in an intimate way. Said demographic tends towards longer relationships, the end of which can hit with all the force of the proverbial bomb dropped from the “Enola Cheerful…”
Fanny Roborat
27 comments
Ananna
February 22, 2005 at 1:20 am
1Oh partner who shares not only my sexuality but my gender as well, did you hear the voices of the peoples of Hiroshima and Nagasaki cry out in terror and pain as they died? I did too, honey. Let’s have a smoke and think of Iran.
No, I don’t like that at all. Let’s have a re-election like they want to do in Washington State.
Love,
Hanna
tess
February 22, 2005 at 1:55 am
2I feel the need to crack a Gannon/Guckert joke right about now . . .
David
February 22, 2005 at 2:15 am
3Well, uh, the real issue seems to me, uh, to be that there is no, you know, reason to heighten public awareness of this issue, at least not in any way that might, well, suggest that these are specific groups of real people with identities worthy of specific recognition, and who are at double or triple the risk for, well, uh, the intentional ending of their own sentient existences.
What’s next, calling Iraqi children mangled by cluster bombs Iraqi children mangled by cluster bombs? They are, well, you know, youthful collateral damage, and some of them might even be “cheerful.”
Mike Z
February 22, 2005 at 3:48 am
4I can see where the feds are coming from here. I mean, if we talk explicitly about higher suicide rates among GLBTs, then we’re just legitimizing that kind of lifestyle, right?
–
As many of you probably know, The Simpsons had a gay marriage episode last Sunday. Some of the coverage in the NY Times was really priceless.
I quote:
“L. Brent Bozell III, president of the Parents Television Council, criticized ‘The Simpsons’ for addressing the issue of gay marriage, though he cautioned that he had not seen the episode…
‘At a time when the public mood is overwhelmingly against gay marriage, any show that promotes gay marriage is deliberately bucking the public mood’… ‘Do children need to have gay marriage thrust in their faces as an issue? Why can’t we just entertain them?’ ”
Presumably he figures we should just show them old Lawrence Welk reruns. That seems more in line with the overwhelming public mood.
bjd
February 22, 2005 at 4:52 am
5Butbutbut…. bubble machines and singing showtunes while dressed in sequined suits are so GAY!
Good night, good night
And pleasant dreams to you
Here’s a wish and a prayer
That every dream comes true
And now, till we meet again …
Adios, au revoir, auf weidersehen … Good night!
dee
February 22, 2005 at 8:08 am
6Thanks for the song bomb, bjd.
Kelli
February 22, 2005 at 9:07 am
7I saw that Simpsons episode, the administration should have loved it. It equated uh, same and/or similar gender attracted people entering into marriage with people marrying animals and inanimate objects.
It is possible that everyone was offended.
Monty Zoom
February 22, 2005 at 9:56 am
8Do you think that the non-acceptance of the life style of those who differently inclined towards the same sex as they perhaps are or were has anything to do with the tendency towards premature termination of ones own life? Nah!
I think the episode of the Simpson’s was not nearly offensive enough. I think the beginning warning was a total cop-out. But that may just be me…
Mary
February 22, 2005 at 10:12 am
9That’s one way to stop the “Gay Agenda”- don’t allow the word to be used. Sheesh!! I wish these idiots would get a clue.
As for the Simpson’s, I thought it was hysterical. Guess that means it didn’t offend everyone
“You can’t marry something that doesn’t exist. Or, can you?…………..”
Matt
February 22, 2005 at 10:27 am
10Mike Z. The thread where we make up comments by people who never viewed the thing they are commenting on was a couple days prior. You are making it up right?
Kelli. The Simpson goal is to offend everyone in the great tradition of satire. Take a perposterous situation and make it more perposterous to expose the initial perposterity. Not that I saw the episode or anything.
The best part is that “he cautioned that he had not seen the episode…”
Mike Z
February 22, 2005 at 12:19 pm
11Matt -
No need for me to fabricate.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/21/arts/television/21simpsons.html
Johnnyboy
February 22, 2005 at 12:39 pm
12It’s amazing how conservatives, who are always straining to find any opportunity to deride ‘political correctness’ (sometimes to the point of making up PC diktats, to better get outraged about them), are now actually engaging in an even worse (and way stupider) kind of censorship.
Harold
February 22, 2005 at 1:47 pm
13So exactly how old should children be before you start reading to them from Orwell’s 1984? (Stock up on copies while you still can!) Although at some point, what with the historical redacting and the constant monitoring and the linguistic eradication, kids are gonna wonder what all the fuss was about.
I wish I had a copy on me right now…I’m sure there are a few passages relevant to the Portland incident.
Deborah
February 22, 2005 at 2:50 pm
14http://www.mondopolitico.com/library/1984/1984_c1.htm
There ya go, Harold. 1984 online. My 15 year old pointed out last night that 1984 seems to have arrived about 20 years later than expected.
Carrie
February 22, 2005 at 3:27 pm
15Hey all,
Writing in from Portland, Or. aka the lesbian capital of America. Without these distinctions I guess we would just be like everybody else. Instead of the bumper sticker, Keep Oregon Weird; I guess it would have to say, Keep Oregon Homogeneous. Oops there’s that homo word again.
Cheers,
Carrie
Bob
February 22, 2005 at 4:42 pm
16In a follow-up request, the federal agency has asked that the upsetting word “suicide” be replaced with “early retirement” or “personal leave.”
Allison in Santa Cruz
February 22, 2005 at 8:14 pm
17Does anyone remember having to change the g-word in “When Johnny Comes Marching Home”? The version I learned as a wee tyke goes “And we’ll all feel gay when Johnny comes marching home”. Somewhere along the line, about when I was in junior high, we were told to sing “And we’ll all feel GLAD when Johnny. . .” Even then, before I knew what political correctness was, I thought it was stupid. We’re all gonna feel gay, as in happy, and that’s gonna make us gay, as in homosexual? Good Lobster, that’s silly.
Murray
February 22, 2005 at 8:29 pm
18*to the tune of a jazzed up “When the Saints Come Marching In”*
There are men who love women, who love men,
and women who love women every now and then,
and men who love men, ‘cause they can’t pretend
they are men who love women who love men.
In the pursuit of true love joy,
boys will be girls and girls will be boys,
but some times it’s hard to know what to do
when you don’t know who you’re talking to,
when there are men who love women who love men,
and women who love women every now and then,
and men who love men because they can’t pretend,
they are men who love women who love men.
Steve Goodman, come too late and gone too soon.
Of course this administration doesn’t want to mention or acknowledge that gays and transsexuals find that the pressure, both internal and external is often too much to bear.
It might help them.
Much better for everyone if they just do away with themselves.
Kind of an “abstinence only” approach to sexual orientation and it’s problems.
David
February 22, 2005 at 11:59 pm
19A song of songs, Murray. Love it.
hedera
February 23, 2005 at 12:18 am
20And about the Parents’ Television Council: I’ve just checked Tim Goodman’s column in the S.F. Chronicle for December 13, 2004 (Here’s the link: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004 /12/13/DDG79AA71B1.DTL)
and I was right. This group IS the source of - get this - 99.9% of the indecency complaints received by the FCC. 99.9%. Isn’t that great? That was through October of 2004. In 2003 they had an off year - they only sent in 99.8% of the indecency complaints. This ONE GROUP is driving the ENTIRE indecency campaign at the FCC and all the that have resulted, acting as if they were the ENTIRE outraged country.
This was in Mediaweek on Dec. 6 2004 and Goodman, the Chron’s TV columnist (whom I read so I won’t have to watch TV) picked it up and went ballistic. Do read Tim’s column. Do read the Mediaweek article. He started a movement to Take Back The Airwaves and we should all support him.
tess
February 23, 2005 at 2:51 am
21testing . . .
tess
February 23, 2005 at 2:54 am
22Okay, this new feature Adam’s put up is sort of annoying and buggy.
But back to what I was getting at originally . . .
It’s times like these that I wish the average exec. bothers to examine the complaint and who’s making the complaint and how often. Since the vast majority of the complaints are being made by a tiny group of people, it would make sense to IGNORE THEM.
Of course, common sense isn’t necessary for the average exec these days. But it’s nice to imagine what it would be like to live in a world where they’re a little bit more thoughtful than reactive.
Kelli
February 23, 2005 at 10:51 am
23Tess-
It is sometimes difficult to ignore them when the tiny group has a dissproportionate amount of official power, aka secretary of Education Spellingbee’s first act …
She sure showed that rabbit.
tess
February 23, 2005 at 2:53 pm
24Kelli,
Whoops. Forgot about cases when they’re part of the same group (more or less).
Thanks for pointing that out.
Jerry
February 23, 2005 at 3:16 pm
25Oh, Great Lobster! You people just don’t understand! I have to have a TV. I am it’s slave. I can’t spend time monitoring my children’s viewing! I have no control over my life, or the lives of my children! If the government, directed by a tiny group of neo-Nazis, doesn’t curtail the First Amendment rights of the broadcasters (and of myself!) my children will become whores and bad-word-users.
But the Parents Television Council is saving me from having to waste a few minutes a day actually keeping an eye on my kids! And their Kids Kampaign will keep me informed about the sexual feelings of a pre-teen girl. And they are selflessly willing to question a pre-teen girl about her sexual feelings so that my kids will….well, you know…
Jim
February 23, 2005 at 3:32 pm
26Love the criteria set by the PTC..”other factors deemed important.” Such as a willingness to wear a brown shirt emblazoned with a cross perhaps?
Murray
February 24, 2005 at 9:48 am
27You know, it’s my experience that the parents who actually take responsibility by inoculating rather than isolating their children, end up with the children who do well. (Much better to show what is bad and why it is bad, rather than have another kid show what’s bad and why it’s good) The parents who expect everyone else (schools, society, TV, etc) to raise their children are the ones who later blame everyone else for doing such a lousy job.