UPDATE: August 25, 2010 7:00 PM:
I just received an email from GLAAD, which reads, in part,
“USA Today has updated the article to reflect accurate terminology. I believe it was your letter that did the trick.”
Excellent! I’ll call that a win!
Thank you, GLAAD, and thanks, USA Today for acting so quickly.
###
Early this morning I read a piece in USA Today, “Hollywood now opening arms to gay characters, families.” Overall, it was balanced and supportive. But I had a few issues with it, so I sent an email off to USA Today’s Standards Editor, Brent Jones. I thought you might like to read it too.
Sadly, unless you want to blow your stack, I’d encourage you to not read readers’ comments. Yes, homophobic to the max!
Dear Mr. Jones,
It was nice to read Maria Puente’s piece, “Hollywood now opening arms to gay characters, families.” Given all the negative emotion surrounding LGBT relationships recently, an overall balanced yet positive piece was refreshing.
I did want to make one important point, however. As a writer who blogs on LGBT issues and civil rights, those who self-identify as “transgender” abhor the term “transgendered.” Just as we use the words “homosexual” or “heterosexual,” not “homosexualed,” or “heterosexualed,” someone is (or is not) “transgender.”
You may wish to review the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association Stylebook, or the GLAAD Media Reference Guide,
Given that the word “transgendered” appears several times in the piece as quotations, it might be a good idea for Ms. Puente to revisit her notes.
Perhaps one day you’ll run a piece detailing the hypocrisy and hate that are the foundation of groups like the American Family Association and Focus on the Family? Allowing them to be the representatives of the anti-gay movement in her piece shows how hateful their positions truly are.
But, again, overall, I want to thank you for running a balanced piece.
Sincerely,
David Badash