Editor’s Note:
The University News Editorial Board has decided to retract our Feb. 16 editorial entitled “Gender and Sexual Identification: Right and Wrong?” We would like to offer our sincere apologies to anyone who was hurt by the offensive nature of the piece.
The editorial was intended to be an exploration of the ways in which a society’s views on different behaviors and identities can change over time. In our initial discussion of the topic, we talked about how certain ideas that were once viewed as “deviant” or morally wrong have grown to be more accepted over time. We hypothesized about how this process could conceivably continue into the future, with ideas that we in the present might find unacceptable or even abhorrent, and discussed the merits by which society uses to judge these behaviors.
However, it is quite clear that the piece did not accurately convey these ideas. The examples we used to illustrate our points were poorly chosen, and the language and tone of the piece was highly inappropriate. Though the editorial was intended to provide only inquiries, and not any concrete political statements, we recognize that many of the issues we chose to discuss are of an extremely sensitive and personal nature, and that we did not treat these subjects with the tact and due diligence they deserve.
It was never our intention to equate same-sex attraction with pedophilia or bestiality. That is an unfortunate and politically fraught analogy that has been used, both historically and in the present day, to justify discrimination and violence towards members of underrepresented groups. The juxtaposition of these concepts was unintentional, but carelessly executed, and we apologize for even the slightest suggestion of equivalence.
But more importantly, our biggest and most egregious offense is the lack of inclusion of any LGBTQ+ individuals in this discussion. We realize that a group of mostly privileged, white, straight and cisgender college kids are not the best people to lead such a conversation.
We view this editorial, from the initial discussion to the decision to publish it, as extremely regrettable.
Many current and former students have written to us to express their disapproval of our editorial. In particular, a Facebook post by Free to be called us out for our ignorance and demanded we do better. This is a challenge that we have decided to take very seriously. Going forward, we will be looking to collaborate with more knowledgeable SLU organizations on how to best increase minority representation in the newspaper, as well as an increase of coverage about LGBTQ+ events and news. We will strive to be more inclusive and more receptive to your criticism. We assure you, this is not where the story ends.
As student journalists, our purpose was, as it is with everything we publish, to create a dialogue. In our attempt to do so, however, we have overstepped the bounds of rational discourse and strayed into territory in which we had no place to be. Now, in the spirit of creating an open and inclusive dialogue, we respectfully ask that the students of SLU forgive us for the ignorance in our speech, and grant us the opportunity to listen.
Penny Weiss • Mar 2, 2017 at 11:11 am
Perhaps the UNews needs to address issues of gender, sexuality, and sexual identity more regularly, to avoid such truly unfortunate messes. Were there a regular conversation, such an editorial would have been immediately obvious as out of line. We have many people with personal experience and/or professional expertise who can contribute more knowledgeably to the dialogue.
Rebecca Hicks • Feb 25, 2017 at 9:42 am
The article was so incoherent, with such an absence of both arguments and well framed questions that it could be interpreted in two very different ways.
According to one of these interpretations, it is a criticism of homosexuality through a poorly done reductio absurdam. I say “poorly done” because it both failed to explain what exactly the alleged similarity between homosexuality, pedophilia and bestiality is, and it failed to adequately acknowledge the differences between the three.
According to the second interpretation, it was advocating bestiality. Or at the very least, asking us to consider the possibility that bestiality is not immoral.
I believe that this second interpretation corresponds more closely to what the article was actually saying. (I cannot judge the author’s intention, only his or her words).
Perhaps it seems implausible to the innocent minded that the article would advocate bestiality, but there are people actively advocate argue against the idea of it being immoral, Canada has now made forms of bestiality legal. It is, however, an abhorrent form of animal abuse.
Baldur • Feb 24, 2017 at 12:45 am
I didn’t see the original, but keep in mind that pedophiles likely outnumber the LGBTQ crowd, so your retraction has likely offended more than your original piece.
The original gay rights movement was largely supported by the boy lovers, but then in the 1990s the other gays stabbed them in the back. I can assure you that the boy lovers are not pleased with this turn of events, and neither are the girl lovers.
And then there’s Newton’s Third Law of Motion….
Perhaps it’s time you learned the facts: starting with the fact that pedophiles are less likely to sexually abuse children than non-pedophiles. The information is out there, if you are willing to look.
Jenny Edwards • Feb 22, 2017 at 10:38 am
I have not seen your original editorial, so my comments are related specifically to this statement in your retraction. “It was never our intention to equate same-sex attraction with pedophilia or bestiality.”
As a person who specializes in animal sexual abuse (bestiality) issues, here is why bestiality, pedophilia, and same-gender attraction are not at all the same thing.
Bestiality has long meant cruel and depraved behavior, and has been adopted by the legal system as the term used most often to describe prohibited sex acts between a person and an animal. Bestiality, however, is not the same as zoophilia, which is the sexual attraction (not an act) of a person to an animal.
Zoophilia (sexual attraction to animals) and pedophilia (sexual attraction to children) are two paraphilias (unusual sexual attractions) that – under certain conditions – can be diagnosed as mental health disorders. Homosexuality used to also be considered a paraphilia by the American Psychiatric Association, but the APA now recognizes same-gender attraction as a valid sexual orientation. If both partners can legally consent, and neither partner is significantly impaired by the relationship, it’s neither illegal nor unusual.
One key reason pedophilia and bestiality are both illegal is that in both cases, the victim cannot give informed consent. This distinction is important because simple consent is often used to justify the behavior – “the six-year-old girl came onto me”; “my dog wants it when he sniffs my crotch”. Informed consent means that the sexual object (the child or the animal) not only agrees to the contact, but understands the ramifications of that agreement. As an example, I can offer a dog a treat and the dog will happily agree to take it. But what I know, that the dog doesn’t, is that my ultimate intention is to entice the dog to have sex with me. I have the ability to give informed consent, the dog does not.
Thanks for writing the editorial as well as the clarification, and for allowing me to weigh in.
Rebecca Hicks • Feb 25, 2017 at 9:46 am
The article took the strange view that “lack of animal consent” refers simply to the inability of animals to express consent in English. The author said that animals can consent, because they can use body language to consent.
You, however, are correct in your statement that human ability to consent rests upon our intellectual ability to understand the ramifications of the agreement, an ability which animals do not have.
The explanatoin of “consent” which was contained in the article was an abhorrent one.
Jay Aldrich • Feb 21, 2017 at 10:06 pm
I read the article and thought it was coherent. A sort of reductio ad absurdum was used to make it’s point which may have irritated the GLBTQ community but it does not make the point any less valid. Cheers for having the guts to write the oped but not so much for the retraction. Why did you apologize for not having GLBTQ input? That’s what rebuttals are for.
Rebecca Hicks • Feb 25, 2017 at 9:34 am
Rather than criticizing homosexuality, it is my opinion that it was advocating bestiality.
Readers have not wanted to interpret it that way because we are (rightly) so shocked by bestiality that it seems unimaginable that someone would defend it, but there are persons currently defending the supposed morality, or at least lack of immorality, of bestiality.
It was a very INcoherent article, though, so it could be interpreted either way. And there were no actual arguments in it.
Anonymous • Feb 25, 2017 at 11:48 am
I would say cheers to the retraction, because something like that should have never been posted in the first place. Period.
Anonymous • Feb 20, 2017 at 7:42 pm
What the hell??
Flehmen • Feb 20, 2017 at 6:27 am
It is unfortunate that a free and open discussion cannot be had on these topics anymore. I am a zoophile and no I do not abuse animals. I am one of those grossly underrepresented minorities which is excluded from reasonable discussion.
I could show you research showing 10-15% of the population has some interest in sex with animals. That research most often cited about us is of literal criminals, just like what happened to the LGBT community. The same conclusions are being draw of a minority again. Unbiased research of this topic come up a lot more sympathetic because we are pretty darn normal. Many of us, the survivors of your hate, have to be above average intelligence or to have isolated ourselves away from people who would judge us.
I hope you are the time to reach out to the zoophile community on your campus and get a thoughtful conversation going rather than listening to the fundievhate mongers on either the pro or anti LGBT side of things. The LGBT community does not speak for us since they will not have us.
Feel free to contact me for further information and some science you can read.
Mitchell Davis • Feb 20, 2017 at 12:37 am
Damn dawg, you got your head screwed on wrong.
London Reynolds • Feb 19, 2017 at 11:35 pm
To falsely equate consensual expressions of human sexuality with pedophilia is both hateful and irresponsible in the extreme. This article is an embarrassment to the entire SLU community.
Corwin Weeks • Feb 19, 2017 at 11:14 pm
This is an absolutely pitiful excuse for an article and am quite frankly embarrassed to attend the university associated with this tonight. I hardly feel it is necessary to explain why, but would be happy to if asked. Me and countless others.
Ryan McKinley • Feb 19, 2017 at 10:59 pm
Y’all, laziness at the Ed board meetings is only ok when we’re talking about places to enjoy St. Louis.
ann • Feb 19, 2017 at 10:35 pm
this is a joke right …