The Bush administration says the white paper reflected the scientific understanding of the time, but it reads like a veneer of science cloaking an aversion to homosexuality. The committee should examine whether Dr. Holsinger cherry-picked the literature or represented it objectively. Most important, it must determine whether Dr. Holsinger holds these benighted views today. The Senate should not confirm a surgeon general who considers practicing homosexuals abnormal and diseased.
"Practicing homosexuals"? Perhaps when I'm done practicing I'll go pro and make some porn or something. Or maybe I'll don my wig and cha cha heels and prance away to some dead diva for tips and bar shots.
I wonder if my parents are practicing heterosexuals. I shudder to think if they were professionals. I can handle the truth but what would my siblings, and God forbid, my nieces and nephews think?
Why can't they just drop the clinical speak that creates that concept of "the other", separate and apart, subcategorized, and dehumanized, though use of the term "practicing homosexuals". It conjures completely unnecessary images of "practiced" sexuality. Just refer to us as "gay people", (I'm not even asking for the dreaded "GLBT" bull. Never liked it anyway.)
Anyway, The OpEd piece is overall supportive. "Dr." (hows that, again?) Holsinger and his neanderthal views should not be allowed anywhere near the office of Surgeon General. Let him go "practice" his "medicine" elsewhere.
Update: Boris comments that "accomplished" might be a nice touch in the step up from "practicing". Would this make my sister an "accomplished heterosexual" with her brood of five, brilliant children.
Hmmm, I wonder what category my maternal great grandparents would fall under with their astounding pack of 14 progeny.
1 comment:
Oh, Gunga. Perhaps when you are through 'practicing' you will instead be an 'accomplished', or 'seasoned', or 'adept' homosexual. Perhaps not.
Post a Comment