Taking its cue from mainstream entertainment – because how else would you know if a story is relevant? – Sunday's New York Times dived into the realm of transgendered people and how, like a mixed race child, sometimes neither side wants them. The cue for the debate? The L Word, of course, where the lesbian character Moira decides she wants to become a man, which sparks a huge dispute — not only among the show's other protagonists, but among the show's fans.

Some (and we'll refrain from using the word "many," as there don't seem to be any hard data on this) in the lesbian community view gay women who opt for sex changes as an abomination of their kind; any lesbian who wants to become a man (and, often, enter into a "heterosexual" relationship afterward) isn't worthy of their respect, since she's supposedly turned her back on her sexuality. This debate has long raged among the queer male community, though, according to the Times, significant numbers of women becoming men has only developed in the past 10 years.

And while you do have groups of lesbians labeling transgenders as "abandoning their sexuality," you've also got folks like the National Center for Lesbian Rights, which takes the opposite approach: Let people be people. Says the organization's executive director Kate Kendall, "Given our history of oppression, all lesbians should encourage people to be themselves even if it means our lesbian sister is becoming our heterosexual-identified brother.”

The Trouble When Jane Becomes Jack [NYT]

A new battle is waging on gay turf, and perhaps it's one you didn't expect to hear much about, given how much attention is already bestowed upon gay marriage and non-discrimination laws. This feud is between gay activists – who, let's admit it, are always deemed to be "in the right" by friends of the queer community – and "mixed" couples. That's "mixed" as in one person is straight and the other is gay — and they're living happily ever after, raising children and enjoying suburbia.

Before you get ahead of yourself, these arrangements have nothing to do with husbands living on the downlow, secretly cheating on their wives. Couples like Ben and Jessie Christensen (Ben is gay, while Jessie is straight) knew about each other's orientation before they tied the knot. So why get married? Because, they argue, as Mormons getting married is what God wants them to do, gay or straight.

But this straight-gay marriage (the Christensens have two children together) is bound for doom if you look at statistics. And gay support advocates, especially among the gay Mormon community, claim this type of relationship is wrong in so many ways: It doesn't allow a gay man to truly identify as homosexual; it traps women in unhealthy relationships; it creates an atmosphere of confusion for their children.

But the Christensens and other couples soldier on, struggling with intimacy and using writing as their outlet. They've joined others in similar situations online, blogging about their experience, though Ben and Jessie may be the most explicit and identifiable among the group; for obvious reasons, many blog anonymously. Though the man upstairs is always watching — but isn't that why they got married in the first place?

Gay, Mormon, married [Salt Lake Tribune]

In case you needed a primer on the standardized list of attacks conservatives use to fight equal rights for gay men and women, blog The Wide Awakes brings us a handy list.

Myth # 1: Ten Percent of the Population is Homosexual. Myth # 2: Homosexuals are Born Gay. Myth # 3: Homosexual Relationships are No Different than Hetersexual Ones. Myth # 4: AIDS is as much of a Risk for Heterosexuals as it is for Homosexuals. Myth # 5: Homosexuals are Normal, Healthy, Everyday People. Myth #6: The Bible doesn’t Condemn Homosexuality–Only Promiscuity. Myth # 7: Homosexuality is Unchangeable.

If only they offered a handy print-out version of its "myth" busting, we could carry around their nescience in our back pockets.

Top Seven Myths of Homosexuality [The Wide Awakes]

• Having wrapped up its annual conference, the National Education Association is still sticking to its talking points: it does not endorse gay marriage. It just wants to. [CNS News]

• It took Out a little while to get around to the Ryan Smith gay bashing story, and now that the magazine finally did, readers are livid the story came so uncomfortably close to blaming Smith for his own attack. [Out]

• Now that New York's highest court has made its decision regarding gay marriage, the question begs: Is that it? [Advocate]

• Forget how you'd feel if Jake Gyllenhaal or Vin Diesel came out. What would it mean to their straight girl fanbase? [After Elton]

• It's not a summer in P-town if Andy Towle isn't there. [Towleroad]

• D.C.'s most narcissistic gay explains the rules for playing Kings when your white ass isn't surround by your frat guy-cum-yacht club member crowd. [VividBlurry]

New York Giants' defensive end Michael Strahan isn't going to great lengths to defend against rumors of his being gay, despite his ex-wife's claims. The trouble began last March when Strahan filed for divorce from his wife Jean, who then proceeded to file a domestic violence complaint against him (which was quickly dismissed). Fast forward to last week to divorce court when Jean claimed Michael lived an "alternative lifestyle." But, as the New York Daily News' Michael O'Keeffe notes, Strahan didn't take the typical route of a professional athlete denying he's gay (read: He's not Mike Piazza, who held a press conference to announce his heterosexuality).

The New York Giants' defensive end didn't hold a hastily organized press conference to loudly proclaim his love for the ladies. He didn't head to a trendy nightclub and pose for the paparazzi with the finest-looking women he could find.

Instead, Strahan went to a gym in the West Village, the birthplace of the gay rights movement. He went to dinner at a Meatpacking District hotspot with Ian Smith, the TV doctor Jean Strahan had suggested was his lover (Smith, who is married, says he is not gay). He told a New York radio station that he had many friends who were gay or bisexual and that he was cool with that.

"This is New York City," Strahan said during a brief phone call to the station. "If you can't accept people for being people, then you have no business being here."

Cue the requisite debate over whether professional sports are becoming more tolerant toward gays in their midst. Is one professional athlete – who still holds the small possibility of not even begin gay – having a more rational reaction to homosexuality going to change the industry? Certainly not. But a move like this could certainly be Giant.

Strahan's handling of `gay' tag a breath of fresh air [NYDN]

Not that the gay community needs much more convincing that homosexuality is tied to biology, but new research finds a correlation between men being gay and their having older brothers. From exploring the lifestyles and biology of of nearly 1,000 Canadian men, the "fraternal birth order effect" study author Anthony Bogaert concludes there's a link between the sexuality of a man and whether he's got older brothers — even if he wasn't raised with them.

Researchers have known for years that a man's likelihood of being gay rises with the number of older biological brothers. But the new study found that the so-called "fraternal birth order effect" persists even if gay men were raised away from their biological families. [...]

Bogaert and a colleague first reported the older-brother effect a decade ago. According to Bogaert, men with no older brothers have about a 2 percent to 3 percent chance of being gay. If they have three or four older brothers, the rate goes up to about 5 percent. [...]

To find the answer, Bogaert examined surveys of 944 Canadian men, both gay and straight, about their sexuality and their families.

The older-brother effect was constant regardless of whether the men were raised with natural, adopted or stepbrothers. It also didn't matter if they weren't raised with their biological mothers.

Homosexuality Again Linked to Biological Factors [Health Day News]

Nothing pleases us more than seeing gay young people accepted in their schools. We scoffed at our high school's gay-straight alliance (we were still in the closet and struggling to self-identify, cut us some slack); but some schools don't even have them. So to hear California's Murrieta Valley High School senior Chad King crowned prom king is good news for all of us — we thought. King, who's been out since his sophomore year, was awarded the honor at prom alongside queen Taylor Osland, who has both Down syndrome and alopecia — a fact that didn't make us feel all that comfortable.

On one hand, King's winning the crown suggests his fellow students accept him as their peer, regardless of sexual orientation. But voting for him alongside a mentally disabled person connects two dots that shouldn't necessarily be associated. Don't misunderstand: We've got nothing wrong voting for the underdog, and there's no reason why a gay or mentally disabled student shouldn't be crowned king or queen. But the student body's concerted effort to get these two to sit in the prom thrones side-by-side sounds more like a pity vote and suggests an equating of homosexuality and mental retardation. Nonetheless, congratulations to them both.

Homosexual prom king, special needs prom queen shatter norms at Murrieta Valley [NC Times]