I’m glad Eden has updated and clarified what he meant and thought by putting up his post on Dr. Spack and Camenker’s viewpoints, but saddened to see that he’s only linking to JVoices when he writes, “I disagree with those out there who think that there was something wrong with citing the exchange.”

What was written seems to have had an impact. So, something must have resonated. So why would Eden only link to the post to point out his disagreement?

If I hadn’t written the post and challenged him on it, along with other commenters, would he have edited the post to now have a bit more context, even be a bit more trans-friendly and with more of an understanding of his own perspective?

Has it now become “ancient history” that blogs are a means for us to have a greater ability to challenge and interact with larger media outlets when coverage of an issue isn’t on par? And can this interactivity be seen not only as disagreements, but as tochlecha, thoughtful engaged critique? What is the difference? How can one discern? For even now living in a different region of the U.S., I know that the way that I speak impacts people so differently than when I am back on the east coast. So how can we always tell, and how do we learn to both say, “hey thanks for showing me that I needed to be clearer on some aspects, and yet, I still also have a different perspective.”

One of my main points, which he’s now somewhat rectified, was that there was no context for the comments at all. If he had, at the very least wrote what he wrote in the update, more of his aim would have come through, and would have led to a different discussion, and undoubtedly, a different post on my end.

But that wasn’t the original post. He’s now written at least a little bit more about why he was posting this, and his own opinions, although still very little about Dr. Spack’s work. (And I’m actually glad a commenter later accurately pointed out that Dr. Spack actually isn’t performing sex-change operations on children, but rather hormonal treatment, which is different.)

And I think it’s great Eden was open to updating his piece.

But isn’t there a lesson about how this interactivity can be positive, not just about disagreeing?

Being able to say sometimes our haste leaves us with new lessons to be learned by the impact of our words. And that we are able to learn and grow from them.

Lord knows, I’ve experienced this myself a handful of times in blogging, and have learned a lot of good and important lessons about the impact of how when I post sometimes too quickly, and am not clear enough, what I write can hurt or be inaccurate. (Hence going back to apologize on that very post that I had first misread along with another commenter what the site was that he was quoting from.)

So, is it possible for us to challenge one another without only acknowledging each other for what we disagree on?

I see the exchange as a good one. An interesting lesson in many ways on what is sometimes great about blogs, and sometimes hard and challenging about blogs–great for opening up the conversation more, but still hard in how different it is from face to face conversations and discussions, and how sometimes in quickness and speed we end up effecting our readers differently than we hope to have.

With that, I still think, even with the update, it’s good to discuss our disagreements.

So, I still find it important to call out media bias in LGBT coverage if an issue isn’t covered accurately, and “fair and balanced” or “differing viewpoints” ends up being doctors and researchers “versus” not even, say, conservative doctors or researchers, but ultra-conservative commentators.

This is a long standing issue in media coverage of LGBT people, and a pattern that advocates are working to rectify. Do I think Eden knew this when he posted a blog that in some ways was cheeky, and probably to him, relatively harmless? Probably not. But do I still think it’s a problem and important to point out, even if it’s meant to just be a quick post. Yes.

So yes, in that Eden and I probably do disagree. But hey, healthy disagreement is part of it, and part of change.