I applaud you Bil. Thanks for stepping up. The one thing I would say, is you probably should have probably posted this BEFORE the post.

*That* is the way to do an apology.

Could you give some lessons to the politicians on the (R) side -- they keep failing at them.

Thanks, Bil. I put my faith in you this time, and I'm glad you did the right thing. :D

First, I want to thank you, Bil, for taking responsibility for this debacle, for that is what I truly think this was. It has severely damaged the goodwill that I and many other trans people, and many of our allies, held for Bilerico based on its commitment to diversity and your ongoing efforts to educate yourself and the LGB community about trans people and the issues we face.

You say that Bilerico is not a "safe space," but I think you and I have a different conception of what that means. For me, a "safe" online community doesn't require that everyone agree with me. In fact, I come to Bilerico to learn what other people think about the events in our LGBT community in order to aid in my own understanding and help shape my personal opinions. That goal would be poorly served if everyone was singing the same tune all the time. However, Bilerico becomes unsafe when contributors or commenters are allowed to discount and disrespect my identity and tell me that what I know to be true about myself is merely a delusion and that the choices I make to affirm my identity and attempt to live a life of peace and dignity constitute "mutilation." Creating a "safe space" here on Bilerico is about requiring civility and respect, not telling me what I should think or feel, and not discounting the validity of my experience just because it's different than yours and you don't understand it.

This controversy reminds me of the growing pains that Bilerico went through not so long ago over the same kind of incivility in comments that led to the revamping of the guidelines applicable to commenters and an increased commitment to actually enforcing those guidelines. As I and others pointed out in the comments to Mr. Gold's article, he violated the terms of service for commenters. One would hope that contributors would be subject to standards that are at least as stringent as those applicable to readers who choose to commment.

So, how to proceed into the future? Don't allow contributors to do what I would not be allowed to do in a comment. Require contributors to talk about issues and speak about disagreements with civility and respect for the validity of opposing viewpoints.

It's been a long and trying day with the roller coaster of emotions that I have experienced with this controversy. I'm not expressing myself very well and I'm sure I have more to say, but, right now, I need to rest.

I hope we all can learn and grow from this experience, as painful as it's been for me and many others.

First of all, I do want to acknowledge and applaud your willingness to step forward and take responsibility for this. It's never easy to admit a mistake, and even harder to do so in front of a national audience. That takes courage, and that courage deserves recognition.

That said, this still rings hollow to me. I don't want to say "too little too late" because that's not exactly right. Rather, it smacks of an uncomfortable double standard. Where was this class of response when Austen posted her now-infamous "harsh dissection of political realities"? Where was the editorial response stepping up to defend the rights of the posters here to speak their minds? Where was your spirited defense of her right to make people uncomfortable and disturb the peace?

Further, I think in your haste to show respect to a known icon of the gay community, you do us all a disservice by sugar-coating his message. I think that if you were to take Dr. Gold's message and sanitize all of the language, it would still have been just as wrong to endorse. Rendering "mutilated" as "unnecessarily modified" and replacing "peckers" with "penises" doesn't change the fact that the underlying assumptions in his post aren't supported by the broad wealth of easily-attainable and well-documented research into the actual experiences of real transsexuals.

I disagree with your assertion that his argument was "well intended but the language choices he made diminished his point". No doubt he believes this, of course, and I can even grant that you agree with it, but I believe to the underlying majority of transsexuals who read and responded to that post, there could be no interpretation of that message which could be considered well-intended. One could, for example, make the argument that electroshock therapy, forced exorcism, Exodus International, lobotomy, and murder are all "well intentioned" tactics of an anti-gay movement that believe, honestly and earnestly, that dying pure is a better alternative to living in sin. No doubt this is the attitude of the government of Uganda, for instance. Shall we excuse their statements and actions as "well intentioned"? They believe in the rightness and justice of their actions, and surely believe without irony or doublethink that their cause is just and their course is true. That they seek to do us bodily harm is irrelevant; in the greater scheme of things, they honestly think they're doing us a favor.

Even if we grant that this is untrue of those groups, what of others? What of Maggie Gallagher? What of Peter LaBarbara? What of Fred Phelps? What of Pat Buchanan? What of Rick Warren? At what point are we allowed to say, "I'm sorry, but your premise is sufficiently divergent from mine that no amount of 'good intentions' can salvage this communication"? When is it acceptable to declare "irrevocable differences" and seek a philosophical divorce?

When people agree on the facts but disagree on the interpretations, there is room for dialogue and understanding. When people disagree on the facts, there is nowhere to take the discussion. Ronald Gold's facts don't seem to mesh with mine, and it would seem that they don't mesh with the wider realm of Bilerico's audience.

This points back to the comment I made to Antonia earlier: tolerance is a transitive, reflexive, and compartmentalized principle. I extend it only to those who extend it to me, and only in the arenas in which it is granted. To extend it outside of that realm is to indirectly advocate for one's own intellectual extermination. Dr. Gold did nothing to convince me of his willingness to include me in his worldview vis a vis sexual identity, and so I see no reason to try to include his views in mine. He and I may have no problem conversing with each other amicably on other subjects, but at least as far as transsexuality goes, he has demonstrated himself unfit for public consumption in my eyes. When he apologizes for the harm that he's caused, then I'll consider the matter... not resolved, but at least tabled.

I've been pretty busy with my netroots work to support one of our Latino LGBT politicians and preparing to move... I haven't been on here much recently. I am usually one of the biggest fans of Bilerico.

BUT right now I am so damn annoyed with you, Bilerico.com and Bil. I read Gold's post.

1) Many of the responses to his post are NOT reasonable - some are ugly nasty attacks that need to be removed.

2) Have you contacted him for some clarification? And asked him to post something?

3) Either stand by him a bit or remove the post. The multiple "he doesn't speak for us" comments before, during and at the end of his post are sad.

4) Anyone who reads the post without emotion and ready judgment can see that his INTENTION in his post was not to be harmful but to be helpful. Obviously it wasn't helpful, but the obvious intention...

STAND BY YOUR MAN at least a bit... with his body of work... he deserves better... and re-post his true first post, this isn't his first...

But while I am at it... I'd suggest that most of your new contributors you are selecting seem to lack some color... Are you really having a hard time finding contributors of color? Story in itself... I for one am pretty annoyed with you site/Bil right now. I for one will just throw my own blog out into the www scene and have my say without competing for a monthly guest post in a sea of white. God knows that I'd be bound to write something controversial anyways... And frankly there are too many LGBT/Latino people and issues to not be able to write or read Latino written posts more often, if not daily...

Well, there was just a Latino LGBT Dem elected to one of the highest political posts in America thus far... I am sure you will have another post by Karen Okamb that ignores the work of this Latino activist and others to help support his election... while she does her usual love fest articles kissing a whole lot of LGBT org arse...

** TO AVOID THE NEED FOR THE ED TEAM TO WRITE THIS: MY WRITINGS DON'T REFLECT THE WORDS OF MUCH OF ANYONE, I DON'T TAKE MYSELF TOO SERIOUSLY, YOU SHOULDN'T ANYWAY! **

First of all, I do want to acknowledge and applaud your willingness to step forward and take responsibility for this. It's never easy to admit a mistake, and even harder to do so in front of a national audience. That takes courage, and that courage deserves recognition.

That said, this still rings hollow to me. I don't want to say "too little too late" because that's not exactly right. Rather, it smacks of an uncomfortable double standard. Where was this class of response when Austen posted her now-infamous "harsh dissection of political realities"? Where was the editorial response stepping up to defend the rights of the posters here to speak their minds? Where was your spirited defense of her right to make people uncomfortable and disturb the peace?

Further, I think in your haste to show respect to a known icon of the gay community, you do us all a disservice by sugar-coating his message. I think that if you were to take Dr. Gold's message and sanitize all of the language, it would still have been just as wrong to endorse. Rendering "mutilated" as "unnecessarily modified" and replacing "peckers" with "penises" doesn't change the fact that the underlying assumptions in his post aren't supported by the broad wealth of easily-attainable and well-documented research into the actual experiences of real transsexuals.

I disagree with your assertion that his argument was "well intended but the language choices he made diminished his point". No doubt he believes this, of course, and I can even grant that you agree with it, but I believe to the underlying majority of transsexuals who read and responded to that post, there could be no interpretation of that message which could be considered well-intended. One could, for example, make the argument that electroshock therapy, forced exorcism, Exodus International, lobotomy, and murder are all "well intentioned" tactics of an anti-gay movement that believe, honestly and earnestly, that dying pure is a better alternative to living in sin. No doubt this is the attitude of the government of Uganda, for instance. Shall we excuse their statements and actions as "well intentioned"? They believe in the rightness and justice of their actions, and surely believe without irony or doublethink that their cause is just and their course is true. That they seek to do us bodily harm is irrelevant; in the greater scheme of things, they honestly think they're doing us a favor.

Even if we grant that this is untrue of those groups, what of others? What of Maggie Gallagher? What of Peter LaBarbara? What of Fred Phelps? What of Pat Buchanan? What of Rick Warren? At what point are we allowed to say, "I'm sorry, but your premise is sufficiently divergent from mine that no amount of 'good intentions' can salvage this communication"? When is it acceptable to declare "irrevocable differences" and seek a philosophical divorce?

When people agree on the facts but disagree on the interpretations, there is room for dialogue and understanding. When people disagree on the facts, there is nowhere to take the discussion. Ronald Gold's facts don't seem to mesh with mine, and it would seem that they don't mesh with the wider realm of Bilerico's audience.

This points back to the comment I made to Antonia earlier: tolerance is a transitive, reflexive, and compartmentalized principle. I extend it only to those who extend it to me, and only in the arenas in which it is granted. To extend it outside of that realm is to indirectly advocate for one's own intellectual extermination. Dr. Gold did nothing to convince me of his willingness to include me in his worldview vis a vis sexual identity, and so I see no reason to try to include his views in mine. He and I may have no problem conversing with each other amicably on other subjects, but at least as far as transsexuality goes, he has demonstrated himself unfit for public consumption in my eyes. When he apologizes for the harm that he's caused, then I'll consider the matter... not resolved, but at least tabled.

Bil, I see you posted this at 3 AM. Did you stay up late to draft a response, or get up early? I guess it doesn't matter - either one shows you are concerned.

I agree with Angry Queer that some kind of warning as a preface to Ronald Gold's article might have been nice. It would have prepared some readers to expect to be offended, or even persuaded some to avoid reading it altogether.

I've met several gay men, in their 30s and 40s who believe much as does Ronald Gold. (These are not just generational beliefs related to his age) I understand their lack of insight into transsexual identity, but am astonished by their complete self-assurance that they have it right. Clearly, dialogue is needed.

Because of those experiences, I took the presence of Gold's article in the spirit of an attempt at dialogue. I think Bilerico is to be commended for trying to bridge divides in the LGBT community. But crossing those divides challenges our comfort and is sometimes painful. I guess that is why I think a cautionary preface to articles such as Mr. Gold's might be wise.

Several people have said the pain the op-ed caused some of our readers is too high of a price to pay. Is it?

What do we get for that price paid? I mean, I can see some significant positive in the way our community responded in the comments section, but with the hurtful hateful bigotry on top that doesn't exactly send the message that the bilerico community supports us. The note on top says that the piece does not reflect the opinions of the bilerico ed team doesn't, but it really needs to go further and say that it is contrary to the beliefs of the bilerico ed team. Because it is, right?

What other benefit do we get? Ronald hasn't participated in any meaningful dialog. He hasn't apologized. As far as we can tell he hasn't grown in any way. As far as I know he hasn't even read the comments. Will he just turn around and say "Damn those trans folks are crazy, I won't talk with them any more"? Or will he spend the next several months immersed in reading our words and perspectives, trying to gain a decent understanding? Will he do a 180 and become a great ally? I somehow doubt it. But only then can we talk about if it was worth it.

In the meantime we've seen at least a few hundred people re-traumatized. We've had a few dozen regular readers decide to take us off their feed, and as a result will have fewer trans positive participants here. I feel like my reputation is tarnished by being associated with this site. And perhaps months later this will turn up in some right wing justification for mistreatment of trans people (they don't have to show people the comment section).

No. The price paid has not been worth it.

This is not 1.100000th the apology required. Words are not enough.

Action is required.

Penance.

With that post you lost readers. You lost allies. You may have lost contributers and I was nanometres from demanding my previous guest post be removed from the site as well as calling for a boycott on facebook and in the sig of every site i post on.

You contributed to the hurt I and others feel inside. You added weight to the feellings of rejection. You contributed to the exclusion, invalidation, hostility that the transgender community faces. You picked up the welcome mat and slapped me in the face with it.

And its a lot harder to build up and tear down. Thats what you need to do now. You must undo the damage you did. To individual readers, to the community, to the previuous goodwill and reputation you squandered in a moment.

You can start by adding a big easilly seen, downright umnissable in fact TRIGERRING on posts which might be triggerring and COUNTERPOINT on ones where your trying to allow views like that to have their say.

And now you've personally added to peoples internalised transphobia with your editorial decision you can personally accept responsibility for working on reducing it in the community to the same degree you just added to it. Heres a link you need to read: http://ctb.ku.edu/en/tablecontents/sub_section_main_1172.htm

And you better work on the issue of suicide prevention in the community. Cause thats what adding to transphobia does. IT KILLS PEOPLE! Know what the stats for attempted suicide are for Gay people? For Lesbians? For Bi? For Questioning?... For TRANS? Look them up!

You have a lot of work to do... cause you hurt a lot of people for no good reason and you are personally responsible for a lot of healling.

Here's my problem, Bil, and why I think you made a bad call here. As I read his post, I personally find it to be a clear violation of the Bilerico Project Terms of Service. For that reason in particular, I don't believe that post should have been run unless and until Mr. Gold had rewritten it to conform to the guidelines of the TOS.

I've been asked to rewrite some of the things I've posted to the site for just that reason, and even though I've definitely pushed the envelope there, I've never, even at my most aggressive, ever posted anything as universally offensive and as completely at odds with the TBP TOS as this post of Mr. Gold's.

And forgive me Bil, but it feels like there's a double standard at play here, that Mr. Gold is getting far more leeway from you in failing to comply with the TOS than I or any other contributor I know of generally gets.

I don't think that's right. If Mr. Gold is going to post at TBP than he should be subject to exactly the same rules and editorial oversight as the rest of us. When we go overboard in our language use, even if the points we are making are valid, the edteam calls us on it and asks us to rewrite.

I feel Mr. Gold should have been required to rewrite his post to be in full compliance with the TOS before it was posted. Not only would it have just been the fair and proper thing to do, but it would likely have saved all of us a lot of drama and hurt feelings.

At what point does a post go from "challenging" to "offensive?" What made this post stand out over other controversial posts?
Challenging is asking me to question my basic assumptions. Offensive is echoing abusive and painful words that come from society and my own head telling me what a horrible, deluded, and fucked up person I am.

Challenging is intellectual discourse with mutual respect. Offensive is making a group of people that are supposed to be considered part of this community out to be lunatics.

Challenging can get heated at times because of strongly held opinions. Offensive is not heated. It's violent.

Mr. Gold was violent towards trans people in these ways:
1) He used derisive language to make his point.
2) He trivialized transgender experiences in much the same way as our abusers, attackers, murderers, and rapists do.
3) He echoed the concepts and ideas of the unexamined majority towards trans people.

I have generally liked Bilerico because of its willingness to publish challenging stuff and provoke interesting debate. The posts here tend to be well thought out, carefully considered, and quite reasonable. When someone publishes something that accidentally offends someone, most folks seem to have a good sense of how to listen and how to check their own privilege.

Done with sensitivity and a willingness to listen to the people he was talking about, Mr. Gold's post could have been such a thing, worthy of debate and discussion and sparking a deliciously heated, but respectful debate, much like almost every other post that has ever been on this site.

But Mr. Gold, and Bilerico.com crossed the line here. This wasn't a well-reasoned, well thought out post done by a person with sensitivity and a willingness to learn. It was a hateful screed full of unexamined privileged assumptions about a group of people that Mr. Gold has probably barely interacted with. A screed that echos the words of our community's abusers, haters, naysayers, murderers, rapists, etc. and reminds us ALL of the trauma that we have experienced.

I appreciate your apology, but I'm afraid its not enough for me, personally. If this is the currently accepted level of "respectful debate" that bilerico is going to support and have posted on their site, I cannot read this site. Encountering stuff like this, without warning, is simply too traumatic and triggery for me. I will not be regularly reading Bilerico any more for the foreseeable future, and for that I am disheartened.

Apology accepted for the article.

Now, when are we going to get one for this:

We encourage all readers to continue responding to Mr. Gold in the same spirit his post was written - with positive intent while bluntly stating your own opinion and experiences.

That lauding of the spirit of the post wasn't from Mr Gold - it was from the Bilerico Editorial team. I found that of greater concern than the article itself.

Your words here have done much to relieve me. Though I guess I always had faith in you Bil. This kind of thing is so unlike you, uncharacteristic.

Once more, my sympathies for taking on the thankless job of moderator - and having people like me not let you get away with it when you "err".

Bil, I am sorry to see that so many readers only wish to read things that match their prejudices. There is a heck of a lot worse than Mr. Gold's piece which has also generated considerable vitriol of late and I have to ask: Is anyone learning anything or are they just indulging in hypersensitivity?

Even after "Arizona" I continued to read and selectively comment upon postings because this is a learning tool for us all. If someone had thrown back to me in "My Open Letter to Florida and California Republicans" that I also should have included Arizona, I would have and been grateful for the input. But instead my lapse of including John McCain's home state in my message was undermined by Towleroad and yourself. That lack of editorial and personal support for this former contributor was sorely felt at the time, but I do not give up, I go on.

Now certain projectors have complained that you have too many Caucasian contributors and not enough of this or that ethnic minority. This I find stupid because I know you have broken your back to be inclusive of everyone.

"Edit" Webster's Collegiate definition: "To prepare (as literary material)for publication or public presentation." Further: "To alter, adapt or refine especially to bring about conformity to a standard or suit a particular purpose."

In short, you bounce a posting back to the author with notes about what is wrong about it. Don't skewer him or her after the fact.

Bil, thanks for apologizing. I think there are some important things that you're missing, though.

First, you keep saying that Ron Gold's piece is about gender fluidity. I understand that you are trying to be nice to him by putting his article in the best possible light, but he never said anything about gender fluidity. He said trans people are deluded and mutilated. He said being trans is not real. It would be more accurate, and entirely fair, to describe his piece in words he actually uses.

Second, you mention having published a piece by an ex-gay proponent. However, I don't think you invited that person to be a regular contributor. There is a difference. There is also a big difference between publishing something controversial, such as pieces opposing gay marriage or hate crimes legislation (in which there's actually some room for discussion of racism, assimilation, etc), and publishing something that is just a rewrite of a fairly common oppressive belief.

Lastly, a few people have said, more or less,that he is stupid and transphobic because he is old and that is how old people are. This is a very ageist thing to say. There are plenty of trans elders and cis elders who are great trans allies. There are lots of young people with transphobic beliefs just like Ron Gold's. I am sad that you are trying to represent elder viewpoints by publishing oppressive things that happen to be written by older people and fit with stereotypes about what older people think.

I'd just like to echo some of the points about "safe space." I agree 100% that friends and allies can and should have vigorous discussions about issues, especially, the nuts and bolts of how to move forward in equality, all of us, each of us. These are difficult questions over which

But honestly I did not expect to see a piece that erases the validity of trans experience here, let alone, both here and defended on the utterly implausible grounds that "he meant well." I read the post. He "meant well" for some, but not for trans people.

Do you really think that, for example, trans people are not "challenged" enough about who and what we are each and every day as we simply try to go about the business of living? Is it so much to expect that here on Bilerico we might expect to be free of THAT sort of challenge here?

I'm disappointed with you, Bil, even as I thank you for the many great things about the site and the diverse contributors you have.

I'm not so willing to accept your apology. You have given me crap for the last two years on some of the things I said in the comment section, yet I focused on just one hateful person in each of those comments, and didn't trash an entire community the first chance I got.

I am willing to bet the farm that if a trans person said some similar things about, say, gay men, it wouldn't have seen the light of day. But, none of us will ever have any proof of that, except a trans contributor who tries to do so.

I'll repeat what I said in the other posting for all the public to see. After having 26 Guest Postings, you have still constantly kept me from becoming a contributor because I'm "too controversial," yet you bring someone on who makes me look like Mary Poppins. If others in the trans community want to let you dodge this bullet with a simple apology, then that's their business. Me? I don't think so.

Ask me if I'm bitter.

Oh, and if you notice, out of those 200+ comments, you won't see Ron comment once. Another one of your "post-and-run" contributors?

"I can offend people all day, but I don't have to defend my statements. If they don't like it, tough shit." Is that his sentiment?

As an editor, one of the first things I ask myself is whether or not this writer has done her homework. I ask that question whether or not it's an opinion piece or a news piece and whether or not the topic at hand is controversial or neutral.

I just don't see how you read Gold's sideswipe and thought that it was written by someone who had done their research, laid some groundwork, offered an opinion and then supported it with some facts. He may have; he just didn't show it in that piece of writing.

He didn't meet the requirements of journalism, bloggy or not, gay or not. It doesn't, in my judgment, meet the requirements of a solid op-ed either.

It's provocative, sure, but is that enough?

Bil,

I stand up for free speech, even when it’s offensive! I’m wondering if Mr. Gold is strong enough to “Stand Corrected?” Does Mr. Gold have the courage to admit to all of us that he is wrong? While I defend everyone’s right to speak offensively it does me/us no good to listen to it unless the person offering the offensive speech is known to be willing to listen and learn from those he offends!

Dialog that builds bridges between people is something TBP should strive and stand for. You should ask Mr. Gold if he is willing to learn from his “teachable moment!”

I'd like to underscore your point, Bil, about the difference between "safe space" and "personally vilified and condemned." Gold didn't merely question the boundaries of transgender identity, something I do myself all the time. That would have been a bit outside the "safety zone," and yet not vilifying and condemning. He went far, far, far beyond that, explicitly negating, in his title, the identity of part of our community. He vilified trans identity by calling it "mutilation" and condemned it by calling transgender identity "plain silly."

If you can't identify transphobia when you see it, you can't be in the LGBT business. Well, actually you can, as I would say that 90% of gay leaders don't know it when they see it, and just try to use bland, neutral, happy language on general principles. We're seen as a prickly bunch who need to be kept away from company. But we wouldn't be so prickly if people didn't keep pricking us.

From the Merchant of Venice: "He hath disgrac'd me, and hinder'd me of half a million, laughed at my losses, mock'd at my gains, scorn'd my nation, thwarted my bargains, cool'd my friends, heated mine enemies; and what's his reason? I am [trans]. Hath not a [trans] eyes; hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer that a [gay] is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that. If a [trans] wrong a [gay], what is his humility? revenge. If a [gay] wrong a [trans], what should his sufferance be by example? why revenge. The villainy you teach me I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction."

My opinion of the difference between "challenging" and "offensive" is that when you spray stereotypes and misconceptions at a population you clearly have had very little interaction with and have almost no real knowledge of just to be spiteful, that is offensive. When you point out relevant weaknesses and misconceptions of that population in order to help them take an honest look at themselves with the goal of improving themselves in perception and reality, that is challenging. Mr. Gold's piece was offensive.

I disliked Gold's post enormously, both for its insulting dismissal of transpeople and its poorly reasoned arguments. With some very light wordsmithing, his article could just as easily be published on an ex-gay site.

I do not see the editorial difference between publishing this and the raging homophobia though of other posters. I refer specifically to Yasmin Nair, whose posts are filled with vitriol towards LGBT people deemed other than "queer." Were it my decision, neither would be published.

Having said that, I like Bilerico for its diversity of opinion and because while it is not a safe space, it is often a learning space. Austen and Dr Jillian, for example, are always challenging and worth the read.

As re the "elderly" argument, I'm not a spring chicken. I'm not even an old rooster and age is no excuse for bigotry. In fact, it's probably less of an excuse.

I tend to view these kinds of posts as more challenging than offensive, and tend to encourage thought-provoking discussion. It's difficult to find the fine line between them, so I err on the side of publication and encouraging people to smack down in the comments. Mr. Gold, in my view, wrote in good faith and not out of hatred or bigotry, and that is a big difference.

One factor in determining that is the mind of the writer. You introduced Mr. Gold as someone who has worked in the LGBT community before and I expect to be open-minded. He is not John Cornyn. He can learn. Learning is better than never engaging at all. Let him write.

Also, I would like to see some kind of rule enforced that new writers, particularly those who write commentary that will be controversial, need to engage in the comments. Mr. Gold's post needed to be a conversation and elaboration on his thoughts.

I've read each and every comment on this thread and I have to say that the readers of this blog are so much more aware of reality than the editors apparently are. I've been lurking here for quite some time, though I only created an account today to comment on that poisonous screed that you didn't find offensive as much as challenging. I left Americablog after years and years because it's owner feels the same way Mr. Gold does. You screwed up big time allowing this person to become a contributor, you screwed up big time by publishing that piece of hateful excrement but your biggest screw up was that ridiculous justification disguised as an apology you wrote here. This blog is yours and of course you are free to run it as you wish. I don't expect a "safe place" but I will not participate in, even tacitly as I have been, a place that publishes bigoted, uninformed, stereotypical screeds about me and my community. I've spent the last 49 years listening to that kind of rhetoric and believe me, it tells me much more about the author than you or he realizes. I've lost a total of four jobs due to my being transsexual, (for which I have no recourse in this state, unlike, I might add, gay women or men). I've been bashed twice, (it's been attempted many more times than that), attempted suicide, (serious, hospitalization required attempts), twice, disowned by elements of my family and through all of that, never wavered in my sense of self. If it was as easy or as imagined as Mr. Gold seems to think, doesn't anybody believe that it would have been easier just to accept my birth gender? Why would I go through all of that if I was merely confused. I have an IQ tested at 154, (average over three tests). I don't say that to be a douche, I say it to make clear that if this was confusion, I could have overcome it as such. The point of Mr. Gold's venom is clearly to "put us in our place". He, like Mr. Aravosis, Barney Frank and many others, see us as unnecessary hangers on of the larger movement, the drunken uncle, the luggage at the airport with a rotten smell coming out of it. He wrote that piece solely to marginalize us, believing that in so doing he could separate the gay population from we oh so embarrassing distractions.

You screwed up and you've lost another reader. Good day to you.

Words without action become useless in situations such as this one.

I restate my request that you remove the offending post. I agree that it is dangerous, it can be cited from other sources, and used to continue to promote hateful views. This is different from dissenting views that are respectful.

I appreciate you apologizing, that is helpful.

I want the terribly damaging and offensive post removed, I truly consider it dangerous.

Bil,

You had a responsibility to apologize, but not an obligation. I think its wonderful that you did, and to see how late it came shows just how much this weighed on you.

I was shocked when I read Ronald's piece, but I remember I came in here with guns blazing as well. I recognized the tone of his piece as attempting to do something that his words were very much not.

I don't think this should have been published as is, but that doesn't mean it should not have been published. I had two pieces sent back to me in the begining for silly mistakes. I fixed them and avoided having THIS heaping helping of hate hoisted on the site earlier.

Ronald wasn't looking to hurt the feelings that he did, even if he did mean to be shocking. He needed the ed team to tell him 'there is just no way this goes up in this state. Here's why.' The last thing I want is for Bilerico to stop pushing the envelope and become a sterilized no fun zone, but there was no fun in this, and I don't want that either.

If a post needs to be sent back a dozen times before it can be scheduled, then so be it. If we're going to push the envelope, we ought do it with quality sh*t. Bilerico usually does... but this one... not so much.

That said, I'd love to hear what Ron has learned. I also really appreciate seeing this apology. I'm sure many offended readers are as well. I haven't gone back to read the comments on that one.. I'm sort of scared to, but I'm sure many have put Ron right.

I'm just a little pissed noone is reading my Buju Banton post now, though!

Bil;
You asked for constructive suggestions and after a long walk in the cold here, I am calm enough to undertake such a response.

First of all, the staff probably needs to meet to discuss the identy of the Bilerico project itself; it is an Gay blog, a LG blog, anLGB blog or is it truly an LGBTQ site.

I know that your immediate response will be that the identity is proudly proclaimed upon the masthead, but as of late you've had a few mosh-ups where men, usualy gay men tackle the issue of gender identity. I am protective of and advocate for the Lesbians of operative history that I either know personally or represent through various undertakings; I cannot presume to speak for other member of the trans community except in support of their rights.

Grandly disregarding scientific knowledge and making trans-anything a choice is probably not a good thing to do. It tends to be seen as the sort of thing that the G/L's are constantly berating Paul Cameron for doing, or even the ex-gays.

Knowing terms is helpful as well. It is my understanding that the drive for physical congruence with the brain through surgery is called gender dysphoria, or dysphoric imperative as a trans physician Rebecca Alison framed it. A neologism like "gender dystopia" conjures up images of a society run by the denizens of a drag club, a "V for Vendetta" in chiffon.

Calling your target audience delusional is not helpful either. The APA says that they are not delusional and Mr Gold used to be very concerned about what the APA thought.

Calling a corrective surgical proceedure, approved of and endorsed by current medical science "mutilation" probably contributes little to building bridges. Again, were I to make a positive suggestion, it would probably be helpful to avoid language used by the Evangelical Right and notorious extremists such as Margaret Jamison, Julie Bindel, and others.

Were I to engage is some decadent self revelation here, I would relate that I have had, in years past, a Lesbian of Operative as a lover and can tell you from personal experience that her genitals were sheeer artistry and beauty, most certainly NOT an example of mutilation.

The condescending and dismissive anhilation of the gender identity of trans people is probably unhelpful in a Bilerico piece as well. Once again, it flies in the face of current neurobiological science and is the language of our opponents. Would you publish a piece opining that homosexuality is the result of molestation and that gays are not truly gay but damaged and need to be fixed? Unlikely. This site has hammered at those involved in reparative therapies.

Those would be my respectful suggestions for consideration of possible steps that would help to avoid this kind of event in the future. As for me, I am off to a meeting with Richard Cohen and Fr Harvey to help gay identified men get past their psychological damage so that they can be healthy, functional and productive heterosexuals and reduce the heath risk that gay behaviour poses to society by getting tax monies re-directed to federally funded Jesus camps.

It was my decision that this post would challenge our readers more than it would offend them. It was my responsibility and I made a not-fully-considered decision. I'm sorry.

Don't you think trans people are constantly challenged already? Why do we need to be shocked out of a comfort zone that we largely do not have access to?

I don't believe in safe spaces at all, so I never considered any blog to be safe space - not even my own. But when I start pondering who to shock out of their complacency, I don't start with marginalized people. It's not the marginalized people who are complacent. It's the privileged people - the ones who maintain that marginalization. And yes, people who are marginalized in some ways can be privileged in others (although it's not so simple as to separate them out and treat them as separate).

Would you honestly allow a post that called all LGB people deluded and unnatural, and said that same-sex attraction doesn't really exist? And when your commenters respond predictably (that is, with anger), would you deliver this same apology?

Well. Haven't been here in awhile just because of...life

I have read both this and Ronald Gold's posts as well as the comments section of both post. I am simply sitting back and learning.

Bil, I'm sorry, but your apology falls far short of addressing the hurt that Ron Gold's post has brought to the transcommunity or restoring trust that we might be treated with dignity on the Bilerico site.

Mr. Gold and the Bilerico editors owe a personal apology to author Jan Morris for the maligning pronouns that he hurled at her. Gold's deliberate contempt for those born different than himself is reiterated in his followup comment:

"I don't apologize for using words like mutilation and deluded. That's what I think it is!"

Deluded, indeed. It's sad that a person who worked for so many years to end false stereotypes of mental pathology will now forever be remembered for inflicting those very same stereotypes.

I can read prejudices such as Ronald Gold's anywhere on the internet. I can encounter similar prejudices virtually everywhere in the real world. These attitudes are not hard to find. They are not thought provoking, roughly hewn explorations of gender fluidity. In reality, they are hate and ignorance packaged as rational discourse and common folk wisdom.

Consequently, I wouldn't classify the Ronald Gold article as "challenging." Allowing a bigoted person to post clearly prejudiced and misguided statements about a deeply marginalized group of people is more aptly described as creating a spectacle for the sake of stirring inflamed passions. This is the threshold at which an editorial venue starts to shift from a lively exchange of ideas to a verbal melee reminiscent of daytime TV talk shows such as The Jerry Springer Show.

Is that really the kind of atmosphere you wish to foster here? I have come to expect a higher quality of discourse from The Bilerico Project than this. I hope that my confidence has not been misplaced.

After the jump, I'd like to explain my reasoning, point out the positives, and ask your advice on how to prevent episodes like this in the future.

The answer to that question is simple: run the piece past several trans people. If most of them are saying the piece is inappropriate, then don't run the article. By the huge volume of negative responses from trans people on the original thread, there's a good chance the piece would have been rejected by trans people given the opportunity to review the article prior to publication.

Bil, you aren't transgender. Consequently, things are going to fly under your radar that simply wouldn't pass muster for most trans people. Something similar could be said for a straight editor managing a progressive publication that decided, in error, to post an "edgy" opinion piece that critiques LGB people using worn out homophobic prejudice repackaged as "challenging commentary."

If you want to address transphobic prejudice in the queer community, then fine: address it earnestly and forthrightly. Don't provide someone with bigoted attitudes a venue to spew their misguided ideas with the expectation that your commenters will take up the slack and correct a foolish person's hateful meanderings. Such actions wind up inadvertently tarring Bilerico with the same brush of prejudice that the foolish person paints with.

There's already enough mistrust and ill feeling between the LGB and the T. Allowing Ronald Gold's post was akin to pouring an accelerant on a raging fire. While I'm sure that wasn't your intent, The Bilerico Project now reeks of gasoline.

Calling us deluded was "positively intended"?

Who's deluded now...

Do not confuse the fact that my community is capable of rebutting this nonsense without flaming as recognition of Mr. Gold's "positive intent". I, for one, cited two premises where we might agree, in an attempt to educate him...but I see no intent aside from bigotry in his piece. At best, we are modeling the civilized way to assert a premise...one he should have managed to learn by now.

Do you imagine that listing the long credentials of this guy, then letting him spout diatribes, helps the LGBTQI cause in any way? Do you imagine that spreading and repeating ignorance in big headlines with contributors who you present as credible is, in any way, a cure for that ignorance?

What on Earth did you imagine you were "challenging" with this piece? And why did you feel it needed to be challenged?

It took you too long to apologize. It still doesn't register as sincere since you're still making excuses for him. Were this a matter of race, and the N*word were used, it still wouldn't be up on your site. This is THAT offensive, and your credibility is THAT damaged.

You want guidance for the future? It's very simple:

1) If you wouldn't say it about black people, or gay people, or any other oppressed people, don't say it about us.

2) Follow the GLAAD media reference guide. Just because you're not a news site doesn't make you exempt from them. The fact that you claim to be a LGBTQI site means it's going to be that more embarrassing when you have to be scolded.

3) Learn from the MANY instances where the trans community has objected to Bilerico's pattern of transphobic stupidity and actually fix it. How many Ronald Goldman's will it take to finally get through to you people?

Bil: I just wanted to say thank you for this post. Also, I wanted to apologize for losing my temper slightly in the comments section of Ronald Gold's post. I must say that I did feel personally attacked and trivialized by the language that he used. I also felt his point was expressed poorly and probably also got lost altogether for some readers (specifically trans readers) due to the hateful and inflammatory language that he used.

One of the reasons why I love Bilerico so much is for what you mentioned in this post: that it pushes the envelop and challenges, even at the risk of ruffling feathers. The whole notion of challenging certain beliefs is a core principle of my own writing that I feel is often absolutely essential in order to foster productive discussion and ultimately bring about positive change. But my writing doesn't challenge for the sake of challenging. It just happens to reflect the way I see things. Anyway, I guess that's kinda beside the point.

I think one of the guidelines that could help distinguish offensive from challenging is that a writer should possess a certain level of respect and sensitivity for others. If you have that, then by all means, go ahead and challenge the very foundation of people's beliefs. Ronald Gold's post did not convey respect in the slightest, however. His post instead amounted to trans-bashing, in my opinion.

Personally, I can't help but think that anyone who considers that piece "challenging" rather than offensive, must share some of those beliefs. Either that or you are suffering from a inexcusable lack of awareness for a community that you yourself purport to serve.

I have to bow out here, As there is clearly going to be no repudiation of Mr Gold's statements by the site management; instead a letigimisaion of publishing them is offered.

That is no more accceptable than publishing a racist diatribe upon the shaky grounds that such opinions exist.

Bil,

As a friend and a gentleman, you have exceeded expectations here. I know your position on the issue, and I know you didn't much like the article. You're stepping on some eggshells here and making do with what you've got. I do feel like I have to walk a bit of a tightrope here, as my response in the issue is not directed at you.

Unfortunately, business and friendship do sometimes have to operate in separate worlds, and this is no exception. I do not give Bilerico Media LLC a pass on this. If it were any other organization -- especially one not attached to the LGBTQ movement, the firestorm would be all over the LGBT blogosphere, demanding apologies, redaction, and correction. Your apology does nothing to allay the fears of readers worried that this kind of discourse won't become par for the course at this blog, and without attacking these fears Bilerico Media LLC has caused a net negative impact, both on its base readership and its reputation as an inclusive resource.

I have written a post that further elaborates on these questions. I do hope that your ed team will take the time to reply in full.

One of the exceses is that he's old? Hell, I'm old, too, but what did that ever get me here? Comments removed and being turned down to become a contributor.

I was told tha Bilerico has "high standards" to be a contributor here. If Ron is an example of Bilerico's "high standards," maybe I should be thankful my name is not associated with this blog. It seems some trans contributors are having second thoughts about being associated with Bilerico, too.

Bil,
Thank you for accepting the responsibility for this. Neither is Bilerico a safe place nor should it be a dangerous place. No person should feel that he or she will come here and be attacked. Questioned and challenged yes, but attacked, personally insulted and categorically dismissed, no. I recognize that this happens from time to time in the comments but an editorial policy should prevent it happening in the articles and essays. The big problem here is that this has happened and projectors are feeling attacked.
I think that the post by Mr. Gold fails a good editorial policy on several fronts. The first front is that it invalidates the identity and feelings of a group of people. And editorial policy should not accept posts in general that do this. I understand that there are times when another viewpoint is entertained such as 'ex-gay' people, but those are exceptional and when they are allowed they need to be held to a higher standard of reason and discourse through non-loaded language. They should IMO also have an editorial note attached explaining their presence here.
Secondly it is directly insulting and offensive to a group of people. The language is judgmental, insulting and offensive. It calls them delusional, it insults their doctors, it insults the medical process by which they are assisted.
Thirdly it is directly insulting to an individual by intentionally mislabeling her gender demonstrating a willingness to insult and hurt others.
Fourthly it fails to present any sort of coherent argumentation for a controversial position which it espouses. It argues against itself internally by first questioning if people need mental health treatment and then calling those same people delusional and the use of the term mutilation was unacceptable. Even the response of the author refuses to engage in reasoned discourse and seems to come across as -I'm no expert but this is what I believe so I don't need to entertain discourse- in nature.
And lastly it crosses from the position of trying to inform and understand to a position of refusal to accept and hear.I have asked people to explain to me why they feel something or experience something. He shows a refusal to listen, to hear, to consider and to accept others in this piece.
I would suggest that those five areas be considered in future editorial decisions.
While the apology is commendable I do feel that this post so very violates the purposes of Bilerico it is a mistake to allow it to remain. I strongly urge you to reconsider this choice and remove this post from Bilerico since it has not contributed to discourse and has greatly contributed to pain and has damaged the reputation of Bilerico.

Hi there Bil first off heres a hugg for you. But in the furture I suggest perhaps a preview of new bloggers first postings.So at the minimum you can get ready for the storm to follow.

((((((((((HUGGGGSSSS)))))))))))))
to everyone now chill realax take a deep breath now didnt that feel better.

Love ya
Caty

Erm, we're not all looking for "safe space." In fact, many of us routinely play devil's advocate, go against the flow and do what could be more accurately called "challenging" others. Instead, this was like entering home and being beaten by the new roommate while everyone watches. Challenging involves reasoned arguments, not willful ignorance and tired insults that should have been dispelled by the evidence long ago.

No, you admit you were aware of the content of the post, didn't preface it with anything (which is what you've apologized for) and now that the OP has unapologetically stood behind his misgendering of Jan Morris and his insulting dismissals of "silly," "deluded" and "mutilation," you have yet to call him on it.

Sorry, but this one's a Fail.

The only reason I haven't removed Bilerico from my reader yet is because I don't know if Tobi and Dr. Weiss will still be posting here.

Honestly, between them, Zoe, genderbitch, Austen, countless others (too many to list!), all the arguments have been pointed out--his points were something that appear on bingo cards. His points are viewpoints I see come from teens, gay and straight men in their twenties/thirties, all the time, every day. It's not a discussion, it's something that has been covered thousands of times in thousands of places that five minutes with a search engine will give you days of things to read.

"Safe space" doesn't mean we all have to agree, but when someone actively misgenders and calls transitioning mutilation, on a supposedly rather inclusive site..

Kinda makes you question why you still bother reading.

Bill, the statement I have the biggest issue with is you stating this is not a safe space. I'm curious which contributors you've invited on who would not be safe for gay men to be exposed to? The reality is, most of your "editorial board" is made up of gay/lesbian cissexual people. They make certain it's a safe space for you. I don't see any such filter for trans people at Bilerico. I saw a similar (but far more informed) thread written by a straight male contributor about trans people. Did anyone question his actual experience or understanding with the community. I saw a recent glowing thread about Simon LeVay where some gay cis BIlerico editorial board members suggested he would be a great contributor to Bilerico even though he's infamous in the trans community as a Bailey/Blanchard supporter and has incredibly dismissive views of transwomen. Bill, I've been reading this blog for several years and I've never seen comparable moments for gay men (though, granted, I'm not a gay male so maybe I didn't notice) where someone who was coincidentally viewed as a homophobe was suggested as a regular contributor. Yes, there are some members of the gay community who certainly disagree with one another, but not to the extent where they literally dismiss the very sexual orientation or identity of other gay people (maybe bisexuals though) What you're really saying is, this isn't a safe space for trans people, deal with it.

Bil,

Not that I'm reading her again (You lost me forever when you invoked the Virginia Tech massacre during your freakout over voz; I never have thanked you here for triggering me, btw. Thanks.), but you want to know how to not do this again? Simple:

a) STOP HAVING ARTICLES BY CIS PEOPLE ABOUT TRANS PEOPLE

or

b) HAVE AT LEAST ONE TRANS EDITOR/HAVE TRANS CONTRIBUTORS "VET" ARTICLES

Explanation:

a) You, both as an individual and an editorial tem, have repeatedly shown that you have no clue when it comes to trans issues even when trans people have freely given of time and energy to attempt to educate you. Some people would be struck by the fact that they keep approving articles that result in universal condemnation by trans people as a sign that perhaps they have a blind spot. Not you. You just keep weakly apologising after the fact and talk about "dialogue" and "challenging views" when you "apologise". Tell you what: When you bring on board a homophobic trans person as a contributor, I'll believe you mean this. Otherwise, just follow the simple rule of banning cis queer people from writing about trans issues.

b) If you really can't swallow the idea of not having cis queer people write about trans issues, then ffs have a trans editor (best case) or have articles on trans by cis people vetted by one or more trans contributors (worst case). This would take care of your, personal and editorial, blind spot wrt trans issues.

Of course, I know you won't do either of these. You've been quite clear in the past that while trans people might fascinate you, while you might like having us as readers and contributors, while you understand that the "T" in "LGBT" stands for "Trans" and therefore your site should have articles about trans stuff, you honestly could care less about the real harms you create and further with your publication and approval of hate speech. This "apology" reiterates that as it does not address the change that is needed for this to stop happening and instead has to ask for us to tell you what to do. Apology not accepted.

Bilerco may not be safe space, but there is still a line to be drawn between "allowing painful ignorance because it should be openly addressed and challenged" and "allowing blatant and malicious hate speech". It should have been self-evident to you that Gold's post was not being made in any sort of good faith, but purely as an attack on the legitimacy of the very existence of trans people.

But what was the point of his post, Bil? The point wasn't to "challenge" your readership ... did you really think that Ron Gold's post would lead some transpeople to smack their foreheads and exclaim "aha! I AM deluded and mutilated! Thank you Ron Gold! Now the healing can begin!!?" or lead others to similar exclamations of "You know! I think that Ron Gold has a point! There ARE only two types of transpeople - drag queens and transsexuals!"

I think people are giving the editorial board entirely too much credit by even acknowledging the "but this post would challenge us all" BS. There was no rational point to Ron's post at all, so let's call a spade a spade. This violently transphobic post was cleared because of the intended controversy and high-comment rate that would ensue. Period. And it has been deemed appropriate to allow such controversy to occur at the expense of transpeople by an all cis-gender team. Collateral damage to bolster the site. I don't think that Bil or the editorial board accurately calculated the risk of such a move, including the outrage of some of its contributors and the loss of some of its readership and even rumored boycotts, but it is what it is. Anything for the numbers.

I think several other people may have said this better than I am about to try to, but I think it’s a little reductive to characterize people who object to yesterday’s post as just being “afraid to have challenging conversations” or as being “easily offended” or having an obsessive need for “safe space.”

You can tell a lot about an on-line community (and sometimes the larger communities they reflect) by what information is taken as a given and what information is viewed as subject to debate. Gay people think all kinds of crazy things, OK? There are GLBT people out there who think that AIDS is not caused by HIV. There are gay people out there who believe wholeheartedly in reparative/conversion therapy. There are gay people who are white supremacists and neofascists. There are gay people who are members of NAMBLA, etc. etc. etc — and we pretty much take it for granted that these are extreme views and that there’s not a lot to discuss there, unless you’re intentionally trying to spark a pointless flame war for shits and giggles.

The fact is that you are not a neutral forum for these questions to play themselves out. You are in a curatorial role as a site editor, and the discussions that are allowed to play out or not are a reflection of the core values of your site. What you are in effect saying here is that the basic notion of trans people’s sanity and integrity is somehow an unresolved question, up for debate. That’s the underlying problem here.

The more I think about this, the more I feel that I am most upset with you, Bil, and the other editors here at TBP. I could ignore or forgive Ronald of his hateful bigotry. Hell, if the guy sticks around and listens to a few of us, maybe we could teach him a thing or two.

What I can't stomach is your tacit endorsement of his values. The way that you continually justify his post as "controversial discussion" You should know better, especially since you seem to call yourself an ally.

I want to make an observation here: Go to any one of a number of other controversial posts on your blog. Especially the ones that are heated and angry. Note how much back and forth argument takes place. Look at how deep the threads go. Now go look at Mr. Gold's post. Notice how shallow the comment threads are.

Where's the lively debate and discussion? Where's the back and forth argumentation? Nowhere. You have maybe 3-5 people supporting Mr. Gold's nonsense, and a few hundred others decrying it as wrong and hateful. You have failed to produce debate and discussion here and instead produced hundreds of upset and traumatized individuals in your readership.

Consider why that is. Why is the discussion completely falling apart here? Look at the comments, and you might see a few hundred explanations of why: What you are supporting is *more* than offensive. *More* than "disagreements of opinions." *More* than mere "hypersensitivity."

What you are dealing with is nothing less than an attack on people's lives. An attack that, despite being fought with words on the internet, can and will lead to actual causalities through murders and suicides.

Transgender people live in a society that constantly and ceaselessly tells us that we are delusional, mutilated, crazy freaks. That our experiences are all in our head and that we've "brought all of this pain and suffering on ourselves." To live our lives normally, we have to struggle with these voices both outside us and within us. We have to literally face down people that would take away our rights, our dignity, and our ability to live. We have to fight those self-doubts and fears and such within our own selves and maintain self-esteem and self-worth in the face of a crowd seeking to confirm our deepest fears, lest we give up and kill ourselves.

This isn't like same-sex marriage or employment non-discrimination. This is more like Iran where homosexuals are killed for being gay. This is, quite literally, a fight for our very lives and our ability to function.

It is a fight of ideology. A fight for society's "permission" to SIMPLY exist. It is a fight that happens in words and deeds and blogs through the world and the internet.

So perhaps you might understand our pain when our "allied" blog posts words that contribute to the side of the fight where we don't get to live our lives normally. Where we are relegated to being sick, delusional fools. You might understand that we're a little upset that our "friendly" blog post is doing nothing less than contributing to the ideology and beliefs that get us KILLED.

You are not going to get out of this by saying, "Oh, but we disagree." or saying "Oops! Our bad. We're sorry." Are you going to tell that to the transfolk you're HELPING TO KILL? Would you say that to a trans person that has just attempted suicide because of words like Mr. Gold's? "Oh, you shouldn't have taken that so seriously. We didn't agree with it after all."

Dramatic? Over-the-top? Wild? Not at all. This is the reality that trans people have to face, day in and day out. We have to quiet the voices inside our own heads long enough to stand up against the voices coming from the outside. Failure to do so means nothing less than death for some people.

Don't make it harder for us to find self-esteem and self-love. Don't support the ideologies of our murderers and rapists and give them further justification to kill us and hurt us. Don't make the voices in our own heads harder to overcome by adding more self-doubt and self-loathing. Don't stand idly by when an attack is made on a marginalized and traumatized population, especially when you have the power to stop that attack.

You've got a long way to go towards fixing this situation if you have any interest in doing so. So far, you're just digging yourself deeper and deeper.

In the spirit of helping the editorial team in the future, I'd like to point out another large topical area in which offense can easily be given: HIV.

After reading the post "Why Are So Many Gay Men Grateful They Got HIV?" I asked in my comment who was reviewing the guest bloggers and their postings. I received no response. Though there were only 33 comments, nearly all of those agreed that the author's tone was inappropriate and his ideas were shallow. I would go further and say that he was deeply hurtful to those who must live with HIV. The post was certainly hurtful to me, so much that I almost quit reading Bilerico.

It's very easy to trash people with HIV. We aren't likely to defend ourselves, especially the way we got the virus. In fact, most people with HIV are reluctant to admit it to others or discuss the fact--precisely because of such reactions as that post's author. Yet, people living with HIV are most in need of the support of the community, and now more than ever the youth of our community need to hear what it's like to live with the virus. Hurtful words that send people with HIV further underground with their experiences are arguably hampering prevention efforts.

Instead of support, in that instance Bilerio sanctioned abuse and hurt. I am glad that the editorial standards of this site are being reconsidered. I suggest that more sensitivity be used around posts regarding HIV. If no member of the editorial team is HIV+, perhaps the team should seek out a HIV+ person to help review such postings.

Bil-

You get character points for admitting your error and taking the darts without flinching, an "ATTABOY" for each; BUT this was a major "AW SHOOT!" and, as we used to say in teh Army, it takes at least 10 "ATTABOYS" to recover from one "AW SHOOT".

A good test for admissibility should be to substitute your own group for the group being discussed and, if you are offended, it fails the test.

I have spent many hours arguing against the opposite point of view among many transgender people who think they are okay and gay people are not, simply because there is no mention of transgender people in the bible.

I would expect that you would not allow a piece by one of them to run on your blog...in this case, I am sure such a piece would have gone down in flames.

Diversity is not the mere presence of people from a wide variety of backgrounds, nor is it acknowledging they exist, or even discussing their issues. Even the largest hate groups do that.

True diversity is providing each of those diverse groups a place at the table, and an equal voice in the discussion. Each voice brings a different perspective and adds to the integrity and the workability of resolutions that come from the discussion.

Allowing someone who has a history of anti-transgender opinion to write a piece on transgender people is at best risky, on the whole, folly and toward the worse end of the options inflammatory and divisive.

Who benefits ? Whose agenda is served by the kind of dissension sown by this piece?
Assimilationists, those not wedded to an inclusive ENDA, those who want to turn back the clock to an exclusive gay movement.
This man is an experienced activist. Is he really this totally ignorant, totally unaware of the effect this post was bound to have ?
I really don't think its too paranoid to see this as an attempt to use Bilerico. This apology and possible changes in editorial processes are not totally inadequate in respect of the content of this article. But I'd also like to hear something in terms of this site allowing itself to be used for what constitutes an attack on the full LGBT community.

You ask what makes this entire subject offensive rather than controversial. The answer is the very notion that our identities are subject to debate is offensive on its face.

Transphobia in the gay community as a concept is controversial.

The hate speech of transphobic hate mongers, such as this hideous screed you have published, is not controversial. It's simply wrong and hurtful. Publishing it is simply legitmizing it. The fact that in your non-apology you continue to refer to it as merely controversial proves you simply don't get it.

Would you honestly publish an editorial from a gay neo-nazi suggesting the holocaust never happened and simply saying above it that you knew the views in the editorial were controversial, but we should all have a rollicking good debate?

Compare yourself to this example:

"So here at Kosher Komments, we have an ex-nazi telling us all about how the Holocaust never happened. Let's all have a nice and interesting debate about this controversial topic!"

...

"Why is everyone so upset?!"

Expressing an opinion and delineating an argument are often two separate things and his article should be used as a great example of what happens when you confuse opinion and fact. He tried to combine the two for maximum effect and when his "argument" backfired, he then relied on his "opinion". Also, to further repudiate any arguments that may contradict his, he referred to trans people as deluded.

According to Miriam-Webster, deluded is defined as the persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary.

His choice of word - deluded - only serves to call our judgement and sanity into question and not to further any discussion. Therefore, anything a trans person says is not to be believed, according to him. In addition, anyone who agrees with what Dr. Gold "argued" is also distrustful of trans people.

I hate to point this out, but your initial unwillingness to listen to what others were saying about it being considered hate speech is evidence that you also distrust trans people.

How long did it take for you to really start to question your assumptions about the validity of trans peoples' opinions?

When one of us says that something is offensive, what is your first reaction? That we are (a) hypersensitive, (b) reactionary, (c) biased, or (d) all of the above?

How many trans people "clamouring" and being "vociferous" did it take for you to start wondering if your were wrong?

What if we were too scared to speak up, as it has been in the past? Would you ever even realize that you were wrong in publishing that article?

Have you thanked any trans people for opening your eyes?

You tried to let his words slide by with a terse warning, but I still don't buy the fact that you finally understand why his words were offensive to trans people. I really would like you to delineate your understanding, because it seems that you have capitulated to demands to apologize without any real reflection.

If I am wrong, please feel free to correct me. I welcome it. I really would like to keep reading what this website has to offer considering I like what your trans writers have to say.

I hate to think I was was once again foolish and naive to believe that gay people could push aside their opinions and beliefs about gender to really listen to what trans people have to say.

I was starting to believe that trans people were finally being taken seriously by LGB people, but your failure to understand the offensiveness of his article reflects yours and many other LG activists' ingrained biases against trans people.

Sincerely,

Just another pissed off trans person.

A lot of trans folks would see questions like "Where are your lobbyists on the Hill?" as challenging, even feather ruffling. Questions such as that would be fair questions, even if pointed, about which people could dicker and come to a synthesis of opinion.

Dr Gold left no room for that in his verbal diarrhea about transgender people.

As a trans woman...specifically, a transsexual woman, I will not argue against being deluded. I will simply dismiss the argument, and the arguer, as being that of someone who is comfortably numbed to to point of petulance, and is not to have influence in my life.

To paraphrase Jenny Boylen, who is quoting Mary Poppins, "In the end, "Dr." Gold, what doesn't matter...is you!"

Please don't let the Bilerico Project go that way, too.

I am saddened by this entire incident and the entire situation it has produced. I think Bill Browning is a exceptionally kind and gracious man. This said the comments from Ron Gold should have been sent back to him for some reconsideration on the terms Ron Gold used. Some might call this censorship, some just being an editor. If anything can be salvaged from this it is the fact we now see there is a great lack of understanding as to what Transgender means. But I am not really surprised by this in that the very term Transgender is about as useful in describing someone that falls under it as a broad sword is at being useful as a butter knife. Ron Gold's comments really just reflect this too clearly. I hope that in the future someone might take at least the time to try to realize use of such a broad term particularly when used in the negative way is going to offend a great deal of people. I know it managed to offend me anyway.

no slight intended, J.P. Minsinger, but you might consider reading an article before deciding that an ignorant screed that denies the entire validity of trans experience didn't warrant comments that might otherwise be "over the edge."

I don't think that trans people having to defend the basic legitimacy of their very existence is an example of something positive or a good "stirring of discussion of transgender issues."

Bilerico's been good for trans people before, and I trust it will be again. But.

Making apologies is embarrassing, and it's easy to insert excuses in an effort to lessen the embarrassment. Resist that urge. Those excuses can ruin an apology.

By filling up your apology with talk about "diverse opinions", "challenging", "civil debate", "controversy", etc., you seem to be saying that people who were offended (basically, anybody who knows or cares a damn thing about trans people) *don't* value these things. Apologizing only for being "hurtful", after spending paragraphs lauding your love for free speech, sounds a lot like "The problem is that you wimps don't value free speech like I do."

No. You published a completely uninformed, name-calling rant calling for the nonexistence of one segment of the community. That's not about allowing "controversial" or "challenging" content. It's a flat contradiction to the notion that Bilerico exists for queer people - all queer people, not just one subgroup that's on top. It was a mistake, a big one. Full stop.

Good people make mistakes. Sometimes we just aren't thinking right and things slip past us. An unvarnished apology can be healing.

A half-apology, though, can be worse than the initial offense. When you have time to ponder the issue, and you still spend more energy excusing yourself than acknowledging what was wrong, it gives the impression that you regret the complaints more than you regret the mistake.

Bil: You say that Gold's post was about gender fluidity. I'm sure Gold believes that. He believes that he is propagating a very open, free concept of gender. But his version (and not only his) of gender "fluidity" is based on unchangable "biology". You can be and do anything you want as long as you don't step over the boundaries of "biology". This is a very problematic concept and one that reenforces, rather than opens gender boundaries.