Editor:
Does the NCJ ever print a letter that isn’t anti-Trump, demonizing Republicans, stereotyping those with opposing views, mocking the “Christian God,” against any growth, not questioning climate change and blaming the white race for most evils since the dawn of time?
You know, about 40 percent of Humboldt doesn’t march to the beat of your drum. I know all too well how it is to be a minority but your biased writings are ridiculous. There are two sides to every topic and story, but the Journal seems to deny its readers that privilege. If you aren’t going to give all sides a fair platform, just be honest and state it so we all know what to expect. Everyone knew where Pravda stood.
I am a dark Hispanic man who is registered as an Independent. But as I read the NCJ, I am lost in a maze of leftist dogma that is unchallenged week after week. We are told that those who doubt “climate change/global warming” are flat earthers who don’t believe in science. But if one says there are two biological sexes according to science, they are mocked and called silly names. Can’t have it both ways, gotta’ be fair if you want any credibility. Any periodical that is slanted left or right is good for wrapping fish and not much more. How about offering writings that challenge thought instead of reaffirming one’s prejudice?
Assume your readers are not idiots and want to get all information and then decide for themselves. You know, like they do in free nations with a free and honest press.
Eric Cortez, Eureka
This article appears in Humboldt County Supervisor Bowl MMXX.
“…if one says there are two biological sexes according to science…” So much to unpack in that phrase!
“Biological sex” refers to anatomy, male or female…or intersex (born with a mix of physical attributes—that’s what the recent debate over surgically “fixing” in-between infants was all about).
But there’s so much more: “gender” usually refers to one’s gender identity. For most of us, biological sex and gender align, but for a significant minority, they don’t. I may be wrong, but it sounds as if you’re unsympathetic to such folks? Perhaps to the whole LGBTQIA population?
Barry Evans, I suggest you reintroduce yourself to the definition of the word “usually”. Both words “gender” and “sex” usually refer to biological sex. They’re very common words ubiquitous in print and conversation. “Biological sex” and “gender identity” are terms usually used to clarify specific contexts.
The term “significant minority” in context of gender and sex is ridiculous for all kinds of reasons that I hope become obvious to you after some thought, lest you’re prepared to argue who’s more significant among countless minority demographics. At best, the term is redundant. At worst, it’s an oxymoron.
You assume the editorial is written by somebody unsympathetic to LGBTQIA individuals, which is not only very unfair, but really misses the point of his message. If I disagree with your perspective of gender identity, it would be cruel of me to harbor negativity toward you and everybody who resembles you. For the most part, I agree with what this person is saying in his editorial. There are a lot of double standards presented within the words of the North Coast Journal, and it happens often enough that I would call many of its authors hypocrites.
I’m wondering who mocked Eric Cortez and called him names for his simply saying that there are two biological sexes according to science. Eric, they were being mean to you! Of course there are.
I’m wondering, though, is it the presence of a Y chromosome or the presence of a penis that defines bona fide males? What happens when there’s one but not the other? And perhaps you can help by reviewing this… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequential_h… … and coming up with a good term to use when there is a transition going on? It seems to be a matter of concern to you.