R.I.P. Lorena Xtravaganza

[Helvis2012]

God bless her.

[Yoda Rules!]

This is truly a terrible loss for the entire TS community. Lorena was known as "La Reina" because she truly was a queen. She didn't frequent the TS party scene often but I do remember her stopping in at the Secret Lounge to meet some friends and she was very sweet and humble. Rest in peace to this truly beautiful queen.

[rydermorrison]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/ny...fire.html?_r=1

R.I.P. Lorena... so sad

[rydermorrison]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/ny...fire.html?_r=1

This article that the NY Times ran about her death is unreal. So transphobic and needlessly exploitative. Shame on them...

[Marty Mcfly]

This article that the NY Times ran about her death is unreal. So transphobic and needlessly exploitative. Shame on them...

I disagree.When People die they always write what they did for a living in the article.I do not think that they were taking cheap shots.It's is not mean to call an Escort and escort.

[BeardedOne]

Actually, I'm rather impressed by the Times article, in comparison to so many others that have appeared in the past when one of our angels lost their life.

They seem to have been rather respectful to the gender pronouns and consistently referred to her recognized self and only referred to her past life through the eyes of others, just to give perspective.

In the end, there is no amount of proper reference that can bring her back.

[rydermorrison]

I disagree.When People die they always write what they did for a living in the article.I do not think that they were taking cheap shots.It's is not mean to call an Escort and escort.

This weekend, the New York Times published an extremely exploitative article about a transgender woman who had died in a fire. The article, about Lorena Escalera, only mentions that she was killed in a fire after telling readers that she was "curvaceous," that she "drew admiring glances" in her "gritty Brooklyn neighborhood," that she "was known to invite men for visits to her apartment," that Lorena was "called Lorena" (as opposed to saying she was "named Lorena" or that she simply was Lorena) and that she "brought two men to her apartment" sometime between late Friday night and early Saturday morning.

The article by Al Baker and Nate Schweber treats Escalera completely disrespectfully, later describing a pile of debris outside the burned apartment which "contained many colorful items. Among them were wigs, women’s shoes, coins from around the world, makeup, hair spray, handbags, a shopping bag from Spandex House, a red feather boa and a pamphlet on how to quit smoking."

Take the word "transgender" out of the equation.

Would the New York Times ever describe a woman who is not transgender, who had died in a fire, as "curvaceous" - in the first sentence, no less? Would it carefully note that her apartment contained makeup and "women's shoes?" Would it say that she was "called" whatever her name was - especially if police later identified her by that name?


^^this article explains it better then i can. here's the link if anyone wants to read the whole thing. http://www.glaad.org/blog/ny-times-t...y-unacceptable

[Marty Mcfly]

Actually, I'm rather impressed by the Times article, in comparison to so many others that have appeared in the past when one of our angels lost their life.

They seem to have been rather respectful to the gender pronouns and consistently referred to her recognized self and only referred to her past life through the eyes of others, just to give perspective.

In the end, there is no amount of proper reference that can bring her back.

I agree it was decent..Are they trying to say that one of the men she was with burned her place down?

[Marty Mcfly]

This weekend, the New York Times published an extremely exploitative article about a transgender woman who had died in a fire. The article, about Lorena Escalera, only mentions that she was killed in a fire after telling readers that she was "curvaceous," that she "drew admiring glances" in her "gritty Brooklyn neighborhood," that she "was known to invite men for visits to her apartment," that Lorena was "called Lorena" (as opposed to saying she was "named Lorena" or that she simply was Lorena) and that she "brought two men to her apartment" sometime between late Friday night and early Saturday morning.

The article by Al Baker and Nate Schweber treats Escalera completely disrespectfully, later describing a pile of debris outside the burned apartment which "contained many colorful items. Among them were wigs, women’s shoes, coins from around the world, makeup, hair spray, handbags, a shopping bag from Spandex House, a red feather boa and a pamphlet on how to quit smoking."

Take the word "transgender" out of the equation.

Would the New York Times ever describe a woman who is not transgender, who had died in a fire, as "curvaceous" - in the first sentence, no less? Would it carefully note that her apartment contained makeup and "women's shoes?" Would it say that she was "called" whatever her name was - especially if police later identified her by that name?


^^this article explains it better then i can. here's the link if anyone wants to read the whole thing. http://www.glaad.org/blog/ny-times-t...y-unacceptable

Oh Yes I do understand your Point now..Ill read the article..We all have to realize that People that are not into the TS lifestyle still find them and us men who live them to be very strange..Little by little they are starting to understand us more I think.

[rydermorrison]

Actually, I'm rather impressed by the Times article, in comparison to so many others that have appeared in the past when one of our angels lost their life.

They seem to have been rather respectful to the gender pronouns and consistently referred to her recognized self and only referred to her past life through the eyes of others, just to give perspective.

In the end, there is no amount of proper reference that can bring her back.

True its very respectful in comparison.. that doesnt really mean much though..