Calling bullshit on the local newspaper is fun and tiring
Mr. Colin Bruce,
Thank you for taking time from your schedule to meet with Jake Hume, Sarah Dibiagio, Ian Kaufman and me on the October 4, 2013. It was a second opportunity to understand each other’s views and to follow-up on our petition action-items and re-iterate them in regards to the editorial “Sexual rights, public norms” published on Sunday, September 15, 2013.
To recap:
On September 18, 2013 our response letter was published in the Letters to the Editor section.
Additionally, on September 23, 2013 we requested with our supporters and presented the following petition with action-items:
1. The Chronicle Journal takes ownership of the editorial as the views and opinions of The Chronicle Journal as they are not reflective of the Thunder Bay community.
2. The Chronicle Journal provides a public apology for the offensive language and lack of context expressed throughout the article.
3. The Chronicle Journal clarify the intent of the gender neutral washrooms with Lakehead University administration as well as misrepresentations of gender identity.
During the aforementioned meeting, you stated that your views have not changed, and that you would still publish the editorial.
You also made the following suggestions and offer:
1. You suggested that we request the minutes of the Board of Governors committee in regards to the creation of the washrooms at Lakehead University.
2. You offered the opportunity to us to write an article (500 words)
3. You agreed that it would be appropriate for the Chronicle Journal to write and publish a statement to clarify to the readers the purpose of the (gender-neutral) unisex washrooms. This would correct the misrepresentation of the washrooms at Lakehead University as LGBT exclusive. As we discussed, in the past, at Lakehead University (gender-neutral) unisex washrooms were created because students who identified as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, trans** faced dangers/violence and so expressed their need for safety and access to washrooms. The washrooms were made not to segregate or isolate people who identify as LGBT. The unisex/gender-neutral washrooms are for those who want the safety of being alone in the washroom and at present, they are washrooms that are accessible by all people.
Please let me know if I have any of the above items items wrong.
My colleagues and I discussed the October 4th meeting, which included Julio Gomes, and Ian
Pattison. We remain dissatisfied.
In regards to the Chronicle Journal writing and publishing a statement of clarity about the (gender-neutral) unisex washrooms: While this would demonstrate to us that the Chronicle Journal takes ownership of the incorrect information about the washrooms, it would not address the unnecessarily hurtful language used in the editorial to talk about Rohit Singh. The author of the editorial misrepresented her. I am quoting directly from the editorial:
a. “The newspaper uses “she” because Singh identifies as a woman despite having a man’s body.”
The problem: The air-quotes around ‘she’ and the word “despite” imply and present the idea that Rohit, and other trans* people are deceptive and/or imposters.
b. “Singh dresses as a woman and tries to look like a woman with hair and makeup. But her build and facial hair betray her physical identity.”
Again, the author of the editorial is suggesting that Rohit is being deceptive just by being herself. A person is more than what they wear. And gender is a construct, not anatomy. The author is wrong in the assumption that all trans* men strive to be masculine, or that all trans* women want to be feminine. This limited view is insulting and damaging to the esteem of trans* people.
c. “That line was crossed when the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission penalized a store-owner for acting reasonably and understandably to protect her livelihood and her customers from unreasonable and ultimately selfish behaviour.”
The author disagrees with the HRC’s ruling in Rohit’s case and presents a third assumption. The string of words “protect”, “unreasonable”, and “selfish behaviour” in the context of the editorial gives a tone that implies that trans* people should be treated differently. What is more, the author makes Rohit sound like criminal, whose presence - as a customer - was threatening to staff and her fellow customers.
The September 15th 2013 publication of “Sexual rights, public norms” presents incorrect information. It also uses unnecessarily hurtful language, and it demonstrates bias in its misrepresentation of trans* people. In short, it is discriminatory as it presents stereotyped statements using Rohit Singh as an example.
Rohit Singh is a person and by fact and description she follows under the criteria that Ontario Press Council has approved as being part of an “identifiable group”. Specifically, people who were born to a group or are part of a group although not necessarily by choice.
We see newspapers as an important sources of information and news. As a newspaper The Chronicle Journal has a responsibility to be accurate in its reporting. A condition of this is using correct terms and pronouns out of respect and credible journalistic practice. It is October 7, 2013 and we have had two meetings. Is The Chronicle Journal willing to address and take ownership of the September 15th 2013 publication of “Sexual rights, public norms"? Will it publicly acknowledge that the editorial used incorrect and unnecessarily hurtful language? Will The Chronicle Journal publish a statement to address our complaint and clarify the nature of the gender neutral washrooms at Lakehead University?
As student centre coordinators, Jake (of Pride Central) and I (of Gender Issues Centre) have taken this as far as we can. The next step would be to file a complaint with the Ontario Press Council, and ask for their intervention and to make an assessment of the Chronicle Journal’s press standards.
We believe our demands are fair and just and easily addressed. We want the erroneous information presented in “Sexual rights, public norms” corrected, and our complaint to be promptly addressed. We await your response. We ask that you respond by the 9th of October, 2013.
Regards,
Jayal, Jake, Sarah, and Ian.