In response to yesterday's post about problematic bathroom divisions:

Dear Queerty,

So the point of your article is, "uh, yeah I understand that transgendered people have had their lives threatened and been beat up in restrooms, but some of us are just darned pee shy so that's more important"?! Wow, shame on you for being no more enlightened than FOX News. You're actually proud of that? I think its a shame that many of us spend 20 years IDing as gay and fighting for gay rights, but the minute we transition, we lose all support and apathy from our gay "brothers" and "sisters". Your "pooping" rant is even worse than the "support marriage ban homosexual marriage" rant. [Ed. note: No it's not. Our pooping rant was hilarious! James Dobson can only wish he were this funny! Sorry, back to the letter about why we're terrible people...] The GLBT means we are supposed to stick together and make eachother safer and supported. You're sounding like a Log Cabin Republican. Thanks for the fight to continue having transpeople unsafe when they use the restrooms, thanks for trivializing our safety.

So you're saying if we remove the gender separations from all the communal bathrooms and make everything unisex, then thugs won't beat up transsexuals in there anymore? Mmmmm...not convinced.

In all seriousness, despite the crazy post yesterday, changing the communal bathrooms to "unisex" will probably have no affect on anything. Everyone will just use whichever bathroom was originally intended for them anyway. They'll peek in, see who's in there, see if there are urinals on the walls (men's) or not (women's), and choose accordingly. Speaking from experience of being at colleges with unisex communal bathrooms, this is how these situations work out.

Legal accommodations should definitely be made for people who are transsexual, as well as people born without a definite gender (1 out of 10,000 babies in the US). Really, all people should be allowed to use whichever facilities they prefer, depending on how they identify, and everyone else should mind his/her own business. Since that's not going to happen any time soon, so it's best to protect them as well as possible.

But going into the University of Colorado's Student Union and changing all the communal bathrooms to "unisex" is not going to protect anyone from getting beat up, as you suggest in your letter. Such a move is not going to educate anyone. Instead, it gives the trans-bashing thugs a chance to go harrass women while they're on the toilet. The bigots aren't mad that the transsexuals are in the "wrong" bathroom. They're mad that they are transsexuals, period. It doesn't matter where they are.

So what is the answer? Who knows... Providing a separate bathroom in the building somewhere for transgendered students sounds a lot like the days of separate drinking fountains, as if the trans person would be required to use that specific facility.

From the tone of your letter, it sounds like this issue hits close to home. If that's the case, we'd appreciate hearing more of your perspective, or anyone else in a similar situation. Thanks for writing.

We're having our site redesigned soon, which will add a "comments" feature on each post--so to warm up, why don't we give folks a bit of practice and print some of our letters? Read below:

[Read On ...]

We knew that Jamaica's bad rap was going to come back to haunt it sooner or later, and it's already happened! Joel, an enthusiastic reader from the Dominican Republic, wrote in to tell us all the reasons why gay vacationers should head to his beautiful island (that happens to be just as conservative and homophobic as the other islands, but with fewer highly-publicized head-bashing incidents in the last year) instead of Jamaica, St. Maarten, or the Bahamas.

Among the gay draws he describes are dance clubs, a bath house, gay hotels, and "very hot men." And if that doesn't convince you, then check out Monaga, where you can see the (ample) attractions of the Dominican Republic right on your screen.

It all sounds nice to us, but you'll probably still find us in Puerto Rico, not getting killed.

Read Joel's full letter after the jump.

[Read On ...]

We keep raising hairs these last two weeks, and the latest was with our post about the dangers of homophobic Caribbean countries. Reader Bryan sent us an articulate letter questioning our choice not to vacation in the Caribbean:

Living out and proud means just that. Hearts and minds are not won with threats and boycotts, but with experience and personal human connection. On the same day that you and others in the blogosphere are calling for us to abandon hope of change in the Caribbean, Andy at Towleroad reports a positive story of progress being made in the heart of a well-known religious homophobe. Shouldn't that be our inspiration.

Of course everyone will travel where they like, and we applaud anyone brave (and altruistic) enough to use their vacation time to talk to homophobic Jamaicans. We personally prefer the types of personal human connections that don't involve getting our heads bashed in and being left for dead in a country with no viable police force. Call us selfish and cowardly.

But Bryan did feel that we were encouraging a boycott of the Caribbean, and we wish to clarify again. We would never dream of trying to rally every disagreeable homo on the Internet to do anything, especially boycott a tropical vacation destination. Our position remains: Do what you like, but you'll find us in Hawaii (or Puerto Rico, Italy, etc.).

Read Bryan's full letter after the jump.

[Read On ...]

Dear Queerty,

I was really disappointed to read the post on AOL about how you criticized the gay families at the White House Easter Egg Roll. Taking a stand at the event was an important message to send to our government, who is increasingly stripping away the rights of LGBT families. It's people like you who sit back and don't take a stand until advocates win rights for you, and then you reap the rewards. When are you going to speak up?

--J.T., Philadelphia

[Read On ...]

These stories are breaking our hearts. Read on:

Dear Queerty: Thanks for publishing the piece about the temporary repeal of the HIV+ person's travel ban to the U.S. for the Chicago Gay Games.

As a Canadian who is HIV+ and has relatives now living in the U.S. (Texas), I would like to travel south to your country to visit them - but cannot. In order to have even a regular temporary visit, I would have to apply to the Department Of Homeland Security for a special waiver, which would only be granted, possibly, for medical reasons. In short, no dice.

This law has been in effect for years, ever since George Bush Sr. signed it into law. It amazes me that after all this time, a great percentage of gay people in the U.S. do not seem to be aware of it's existence. It's a mean-spirited, punitive law that protects and benefits no-one. I have not been able to travel to visit the U.S. for years, and in the current political climate, would not dare to.

I look forward to the day when myself and all other HIV+ people - gay, lesbia, trans, straight - can visit your country in peace and safety.

Sincerely,
James H
Toronto, ON, Canada

Where have we been? Why haven't we heard more about this? We are now collecting these stories; if you are in a similar situation, please email holla@queerty . com, so we may learn of your plight.

Yesterday's Queerty included a post on the ban of HIV+ tourists visiting the U.S.; we had no idea such a ban existed, until we read a story about how it was temporarily repealed to allow HIV+ athletes legally compete in the upcoming Gay Games. It's all too depressing, and embarrassing, to comprehend.

But in the post, we questioned the effectiveness of such a ban, and how it would be enforced. How could a customs agent catch you, without giving you an HIV test as they checked your passport? It sounded silly.

We didn't think of this all-too-real scenario, as a non-American reader explains:

How this rule (banning HIV+ visitors) is enforced is as nasty as Customs and Immigration get. These days, you can assume your bag's been opened. It might even be formally searched, as mine was twice the last time I came to your, oh, insert your own adjective, country.

If such a search finds, say, your anti-retrovirals, you're hauled in for the *really* invasive questioning. If you try and evade by, say, mailing them in to yourself, then when caught (they scan post from abroad pretty carefully now) you're likely to be put in cells for a bit rather than just thrown out. If you lie on the visa waiver, you'll not be let back in again either. Ever. If you try and apply for a visa, you'll waste time and money and simply not get one (unless of course you're famous).

We stand corrected, and we thank him for his thoughts.

Ban on HIV+ Tourists [Queerty, 3/15/06]