Last week, PGN began a series about transgender sex workers, exploring these women’s lives, from the endemic discrimination they have faced to the physical and sexual violence they’re confronted with on a daily basis. Following the piece’s publication, there were a number of questions raised about the writer’s attitudes towards the trans community. As a publication that serves the entire LGBT community, PGN takes each and every reader response seriously and wants to ensure that all readers feel represented in and by this paper.
While this piece has elicited a range of responses, no one could argue against the importance of examining the issues and people in this series. The “T” in LGBT represents a community that is disproportionately affected by a range of societal ills — discrimination in housing and employment, violence, access to health care and proper medical treatment, among many others. Sex workers, in particular, are at increased risk of being victimized, and because of stigma, these women continue to be in danger every day. But their plight is often off the radar of the rest of the LGBT community, not to mention the mainstream population; these women and their stories need to be heard and humanized — and this was the primary goal of this piece.
This series was pitched to PGN by Victoria Brownworth, a former PGN staff writer and longtime contributor, who also writes for a number of other national LGBT publications and has won a series of national journalism awards. Some readers have contended that the piece should have been assigned to a transgender-identified writer. However, PGN does not take into consideration factors such as orientation, identity, race, age, religion, etc., when assigning stories; while it is vital that the writer has an understanding of the community about which he or she writes, PGN does not have a policy that the writer identify with that community. And, as always, PGN welcomes pitches by writers of all backgrounds.
That said, it has been also been argued that this particular writer has made comments in the past that suggested anti-transgender viewpoints. PGN was unaware of these previous incidents and that may have factored into our editorial discussion. Each writer and staffer at PGN comes from a different background and holds different perspectives, based on his or her own experiences, about personal identity. Just as the LGBT is far from monolithic, ideas about what it means to be L, G, B or T are wide-ranging. Differences, however, should not close the door to discussions.
Brownworth was criticized by some readers for instances in which she expressed support for women-only space, comments that some interpreted to mean that she did not include trans women in those spaces. Each comment, however, should be looked at separately and in full context. For instance, in a recent piece about the Michigan Women’s Festival, Brownworth wrote that the event should be a place for women to be women. But, she contended, she was not suggesting that transgender women should not be welcomed, rather that the event should be a time for celebration of women, of all identities, without political arguments. The festival has long been the subject of a debate about trans inclusion, which has drawn a range of opinions from throughout the LGBT spectrum.
Regardless of where you fall on the Michigan Women’s Festival issue, or other conversations about gender and identity, having an open discussion about and respecting one’s differences should not be out of the question. As reporters, we at PGN talk with people every day — some of whom we share similar ideologies with, and others not so much. But we have seen firsthand how integral it is to not shut down conversation when another’s viewpoint digresses from our own; remaining open to the other’s experiential opinions can be dually productive.
But, dialogue is key. If PGN readers have an opinion about a story, we always encourage letters to the editor so that these views can be shared with our readers. And writers themselves welcome individual contacts about their work.
No one has argued against the content of this series. And that’s important. But the debate that has surrounded it has detracted from its impact. Instead of this series being about the trans women who are facing harassment and violence each day and night, it has become about a writer’s personal views. This writer spent money of her own and countless hours with these subjects; there was no malintent to this series. As most journalists who write for community newspapers can attest to, this work is not motivated by love of money — it stems from a passion for the craft and for the community. And the community is what needs to be the focus here.
The community of women profiled in this series has been cast aside, by society and by our community, for too long. All other issues can and should be addressed, but separately. The women profiled in this series have stories to tell. And we need to listen.