G
oing into the summer, for many
of us, means even more changes
in an increasingly turbulent
pandemic. Coronavirus hotspots are
shifting, and those who are left on campus
will soon be returning to their hometowns,
for better or worse. As Michigan continues
to see increasingly deadly days, it is vital
that we keep in mind the groups at highest
risk, including LGBTQ+ people.
Just about everyone
is
struggling
in
some
form or another because of self-isolation
and stay-at-home orders, but queer people
are especially predisposed to loneliness
and depression, as my fellow columnist
Owen Stecco wrote recently. As many as
60 percent of LGBTQ+ people struggle
with depression or anxiety, both of which
are easily exacerbated by this pandemic.
Stay-at-home orders also worsen issues
common among queer people regarding
family environments. Only a quarter of
LGBTQ+
youth
reported
having
supportive
families, and just under half of openly queer
youths were made to feel bad about their
orientation
by
their
families.
The
University
of Michigan, like many other universities,
urged students to leave campus if at all
possible, but just because students are
physically capable of going home doesn’t
mean they should — not that it will matter
when the semester ends in a few weeks and
they have to go home anyway. This doesn’t
even address the students who don’t have
a home to go back to, as 40 percent of
homeless youth are LGBTQ+.
In truth, returning to the closet and/or
going back to a bigoted family is the safest
option for many LGBTQ+ people, provided
they have the option. While it is true that
young people are less likely to die from a
case of COVID-19, age is far from the only
survivability
factor
—
things
like
preexisting
conditions and access to medical care
matter just as much, if not more. Gay and
bisexual men and transgender people are
drastically
more
likely
than
other
Americans
to have HIV and, therefore, a compromised
immune system. More than one in five
transgender
adults
have
a
chronic
condition
(diabetes, asthma, etc.), a major risk factor
for coronavirus patients. The same trend
can be seen in LGB adults. To complicate
things further, those who are LGBTQ+ are
less likely to have health insurance than
those who are not. This serves to worsen
the severity of said chronic conditions and
deter individuals from seeking care if and
when
they
contract
COVID-19,
despite
their
heightened risk of death.
Perhaps the greatest risk factor for
queer people during this pandemic is
respiratory issues. Breathing trouble is
a key symptom of COVID-19, hence the
desperate need for respirators. LGBTQ+
people have enough trouble breathing
as it is — and it’s not just the prevalence
of chronic conditions that sometimes
happen to be respiratory. A lesser-known
fact is that LGBTQ+ people are roughly
twice as likely to smoke as their cisgender
and heterosexual counterparts. Smoking
increases the chance of both contracting
the virus (due to higher risk of chest
infections and frequent hand-to-mouth
contact) and experiencing complications
once sick. Breathing issues virtually
exclusive to the LGBTQ+ community
are those related to chest binding, a
practice used by many transgender men,
nonbinary people and sometimes butch
lesbians to flatten their chests. One of the
many potential health problems caused by
frequent binding is shortness of breath.
These and many other medical needs
of the community are being put on the
back burner as states order the indefinite
postponement of “nonessential” health
care services. Michigan’s order dictacts
— as the bare minimum that must be
postponed — joint replacements, bariatric
surgeries and any dental care that does
not “relieve pain or infection”; in Texas
and many others, this has been made to
include abortion despite its time-sensitive
nature.
With
these
procedures
constituting
the minimum for cancellation, it comes as
no surprise that transgender health care
makes the list as well. Gender-affirming
surgeries, which already have a long wait
period due to the small number of surgeons
doing them, are being delayed even further
because of COVID-19. These procedures
are often vital to the health and safety of
transgender people, who see decreases in
anxiety, depression and suicidal behavior
as well as a decreased likelihood to smoke
or abuse drugs — factors that are more
important than ever during this pandemic.
This quarantine period would be ideal for
recovering from surgery if only people
could get them, and forget about trying to
start hormone therapy.
If LGBTQ+ people are more likely to
be hospitalized over a case of COVID-
19, what happens to them once they
get there? As overwhelmed hospitals
begin to ration life-saving equipment,
prospects are bleak. One rationing
method is to give lower priority to
patients with underlying conditions,
which would disproportionately affect
minorities, particularly Black people,
but also queer people. No matter what
method is used, though, they all hinge
on prioritizing those most likely to
survive short-term and long-term.
As if the heightened suicide risk in
the LGBTQ+ community wasn’t bad
enough on its own, it could very well
become a deciding factor in denying
people life-saving resources because
it compromises the odds of long-
term survival. Even if this could be
controlled for, doctors have strong
implicit biases against queer people,
making them unlikely to prioritize gay
and transgender patients regardless of
how resources are officially allotted.
Now more than ever is the time to
think of others. The vast majority of
us personally know someone who is
LGBTQ+. Keep them in mind when you
debate going out or wonder if you really
need to wear that mask. Wash your
hands, keep your distance and stay home
unless absolutely necessary — and, of
course, have the best summer you can, no
matter who you are.
4 — Thursday, April 16, 2020
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
Alanna Berger
Zack Blumberg
Brittany Bowman
Emily Considine
Jess D’Agostino
Jenny Gurung
Cheryn Hong
Krystal Hur
Ethan Kessler
Zoe Phillips
Mary Rolfes
Michael Russo
Timothy Spurlin
Miles Stephenson
Joel Weiner
Erin White
ERIN WHITE
Managing Editor
Stanford Lipsey Student Publications Building
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
ELIZABETH LAWRENCE
Editor in Chief
EMILY CONSIDINE AND
MILES STEPHENSON
Editorial Page Editors
Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of The Daily’s Editorial Board.
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
RAY AJEMIAN | COLUMN
LGBTQ+ health amid the pandemic
Ray Ajemian can be reached at
rajemian@umich.edu.
F
ollowing
the
recent
announcement
of
his
departure from the 2020
presidential campaign, Sen. Bernie
Sanders, I-Vt., has left many of his
supporters yearning to see a similarly
progressive agenda from former Vice
President Joe Biden. I understand
the frustration his supporters feel
when the candidate whose agenda
we deem incomparable to Sanders’s
has now become the only option for
the Democratic vote in the upcoming
presidential election. However, as
we come to realize that the ideals
of Biden and Sanders stem from
the same Democratic principles,
we should act on the promises that
Biden’s campaign makes for climate
change. In a world where political
divisions resemble the separation
between environmental prosperity
and
environmental
destruction,
we — as supporters of Sanders’s
Green New Deal, as humans and as
stewards of our future — should now
turn to support Biden for President of
the United States.
One of the most prominent
similarities between Biden’s and
Sanders’s
approach
to
solving
the climate crisis is utilizing the
framework of the Green New Deal
to enact the necessary changes for
improving our society. For Sanders,
the Green New Deal pushes for
legislation during the next decade
to factor climate change “into
virtually every area of policy, from
immigration to trade to foreign
policy and beyond.” For Biden,
the Green New Deal captures two
defining truths for his campaign:
“(1) the United States urgently needs
to embrace greater ambition on an
epic scale to meet the scope of this
challenge, and (2) our environment
and our economy are completely
and totally connected.”
Both
candidates’
approaches
acknowledge how all people will
be affected by green legislation that
alters the landscape of the workforce.
For
Sanders,
ensuring
a
just
transition for all energy workers and
for frontline communities is the first
step toward addressing economic
injustices in our country. For Biden,
fulfilling an obligation to all workers
affected by the national energy
transition is a commitment that our
government cannot relinquish.
The
bold
agendas
of
both
candidates promise confrontation
with fossil fuel giants that have
exploited
communities
across
our country. For Sanders, it is
imperative that the government
holds accountable the fossil fuel
corporations that “... knowingly
destroyed our planet for short-
term profits” throughout the past
decades. For Biden, the government
should not only reprimand the greed
of the fossil fuel industry but also
“develop solutions for environmental
injustices affecting communities
of color [and] low-income and
indigenous communities.”
The most important comparisons
between both candidates’ agendas
are their commitments to 100
percent clean energy and net zero
emissions by 2050. For Sanders,
passing legislation like the Green
New
Deal
would
propel our
nation to “... achieve 100 percent
sustainable energy for electricity
and transportation by no later than
2030 and to fully decarbonize the
economy by 2050 at the latest.” For
Biden, his first year of presidency
will be dedicated toward legislation
that “1) establishes an enforcement
mechanism that includes milestone
targets no later than the end of his
first term in 2025, 2) makes a historic
investment in clean energy and
climate research and innovation, 3)
incentivizes the rapid deployment of
clean energy innovations across the
economy ... ”
Though these comparisons exist
between the outlooks of Sanders
and Biden on the climate crisis,
many of Sanders’s supporters still
internalize disappointment in the
idea that no politician’s outlook on
one of the gravest issues of modern
society will ever match the same
drastic
intention
as
Sanders’s
outlook. In understanding that our
greatest hope for a future will not be
carried out at the level of influence
executed by the presidency, we
have to come to terms with the
fact that Biden’s campaign is the
next best option for the future.
Biden will not easily replace the
promise of Sanders’s climate plans,
but he demonstrates substantive
dedication and commitment toward
the urgency of the climate issue
among other political figures.
Above all, we have to understand
that the alternative — four more
years of permanent environmental
degradation and disrespect under
the Trump administration — is
entirely unacceptable. We cannot
succumb
to
President
Donald
Trump’s business-as-usual in spite
of our reluctance to see completely
eye to eye with Biden on all accounts.
As a party, the most important action
we can take is to unite to solve the
issues that pose the biggest threat
to our future. If we come together
and acknowledge the compromises
that need to be made for the greater
good, we will see that we are truly
more alike than we are unalike in
our quest for happiness and justice.
Furthermore, I urge you to support
Biden in his presidential campaign
for the promise that he guarantees
to address the climate crisis.
We should support Biden for our climate’s future
KIANNA MARQUEZ | COLUMN
CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONVERSATION
Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the
editor and op-eds. Letters should be fewer than 300
words while op-eds should be 550 to 850 words.
Send the writer’s full name and University affiliation to
tothedaily@michigandaily.com.
Kianna Marquez can be reached
at kmarquez@umich.edu.
CASEY RHEAULT | CONTACT CARTOONIST AT CRHEAULT@UMICH.EDU