* “Stop demanding people actually understand what you’re all about and be content with all those rights you have.” That’s not at all what I was attempting to say. Rather, my point — and, I take it, Spec’s point as well — is that if you want people to actually understand and sympathize with what you’re all about, “demanding” it with an imperious tone or going about asking for it in a way that’s alienating to those you’re attempting to communicate with isn’t the best strategy. Not only does it fail to get your message across, but it induces many who otherwise might not care — myself, for instance — to react negatively to you and your group(s). This criticism, I might add, applies to any group that pursues similar tactics — e.g. the hunger strikers, at whom I would level a similar but more vehement argument — and has nothing to do with the particular content of your message.

* So write letters to the editor. Those get entered into the permanent Spec archives just as much as do Spec editorials. Publish your own articles arguing against the Spec editorial — the internet makes that very easy. Talk calmly with the editorial board about your concerns, and maybe in the future they’ll write an editorial that’s more congenial to your preferences and aims than this one.

* A fair point. To be a successful party, GenderFuck had to be heavily publicized. In no way does that undermine the editorial’s argument, however. Its point is that GenderFuck did not *have* to be conducted in the manner it was — it *could* have been themed and publicized differently. Spec’s suggestion, I take it, was that it probably would have been a good idea for the party’s organizers to do so, for the reasons stated. That’s not homophobia. It’s an attempt at constructive criticism. It’s just a pity it hasn’t been taken that way.

I think the reaction to the Spec editorial was blown out of proportion- it was not by any means a homophobic editorial. It was, however, poorly researched and insensitive. I’m usually uncomfortable when events, queer or not, seem overly sexualized, and I didn’t think QuAM was like that at all. The events were very empowering. The author of that editorial really should have attended the educational events- it’s very obvious that s/he did not.

your ignorance astounds me.

I don’t think Spec has anything to recant, and it’s not like our rights are being denied in any sense. But it’s a shoddily written editorial that seems to ignore the fact that the parties are meant to be inclusive, meaning anyone can show up if they want. I personally did not go to GenderFuck because I wouldn’t feel comfortable at that party, but that’s my own issue, not one for the community at large. I don’t think anyone can mention the last time there was a party like that for queer people on campus. Too often I attend heteronormative parties with the same attention to sexuality, and as the only gay person, I wind up feeling exactly the way Spec describes straight people as feeling at QuAMs social events. So until all dorm parties are approved as queer-inclusive, I don’t think Queer Awareness Month’s social events deserve any criticism you wouldn’t give to a frat party for being non-queer-inclusive. It’s about damn time this kind of party existed for queer people. If it’s at the expense of a heterosexual couple looking for a night out on the town, I could care less, and I think Spec board should too.

* WRONG. It’s actually really offensive. You’re just wrong. Sorry.

* Suck it up? Not really good enough. ‘Suck it up’ is sort of like saying, “Hey! Be happy with what you have! Stop demanding people actually understand what you’re all about and be content with all those rights you have. Can’t you get married now??”

* The LGBT/Queer community has dealt with criticism PLENTY in the past. Plenty. Srsly. What makes this particularly ANNOYING is that it comes from the Spec’s editorial board. Thirty years in the future, when people look back to see what happened with QuAM in 2008, they’ll read the spec and that’s the history that’s recorded. Not as an opinion piece, but as a ‘legitimate source’.

* In regards to publicity: for a discussion on science, bisexuality, politics, whatever, you only need a small group to make the event great. Obviously the more people who come the better, but a discussion can be productive and insightful without 100 people. Meanwhile a DANCE… well a dance sucks if no one shows up. No way around that. Of course genderfuck had to be heavily publicized. Part of the strength of the programming lies in the numbers.

In summary: I’m going to keep reading bwog as opposed to spec.

We read with disappointment and outrage the inaccurate, sensationalized, misinformed, and malicious comment you made above.

As individuals and organizations, a thorough and diverse response is necessary to unpack and respond to the multifaceted slander that you published on this blog.

We respectfully request that sufficient space be given in the immediate future to concerned groups and individuals to offer editorial responses.

A response is appreciated as soon as possible, as this issue is urgent and of utmost importance to a significant number of individuals on this campus.

In disappointment,

Executive board of the Students for Giant Inflatable Penis Awareness