I realize that some (or all) of what I say may unintentionally anger people, for different reasons and in different ways. If you choose to respond or react, I ask that you do so with respect. Respect my opinion and that I choose to speak. If you disagree, realize that I do not say this to offend you or to injure you. If you believe I am mistaken about anything, I will hear what you believe to be the truth as long as you say it in a non-hostile and non-commanding way. Nothing I say here is hostile. Nothing is meant or to be taken with sarcasm. I make points, and points are refutable and mutable with new understanding. Just as I understand you may not, I may not necessarily change my views. I live my life and know things from my perspective. I don’t mind that yours is different. Here is mine.
Videos on youtube:
I addressed the first more so, this I list for reinforcement, the story is told the same way a second time
I don't hear the part where she's told she can't be in the yearbook because she's *lesbian*. Maybe it's in the subtext and not literal. No one in the video said outright "lesbians are not allowed in the year book." It is stated that the photo of her wearing a tuxedo may not be in the yearbook. Being a female student who (according to the video) does not deny that she identifies as female, she abides by the school dress code for female students. If she's contesting the dress code, it remains unexplained how this dispute relates to her sexuality.
At the Christian all-girls school I attended, we had a uniform and dress code every day. It was not well-liked; however, it was accepted that while attending school, we had to wear the uniform. There was an option to wear uniform pants or a uniform skirt. We could have short hair and other traditionally male styles of hair if we chose. Where is a line drawn?
There were lesbian-identified students at school. Rules against P.d.a. at school were upheld, and the perception of these rules was not that sexual orientation was the problem. Girls were not allowed to sit around after school and kiss boys while on school property, either. We were told P.d.a is not acceptable for school, because it's distracting and not professional whether in single or multi-sex schools. When people did see this rule broken, they were watching and distracted from their work. The rule had a basis; eliminate distraction and maintain professional conduct.
The point I mean to make is to define battles clearly. Students could not have made a case that banning lesbian p.d.a. at school was unjust, because p.d.a. was not allowed between heterosexual people either. Regardless of sexual orientation, the rule was equal to all. Dress code, too, is a rule which can be upheld equally, regardless of sexual orientation. Whether a basis for yearbook picture dress codes exists may be up for debate. If there is a basis for the rule and it is upheld equally, the student in the youtube videos has no case.
To another point, if a lesbian makes a case for a change in dress code, does that indicate to change the dress code is the right course of action because she is a lesbian? Does it mean to not change the dress code is wrong, because a lesbian has requested it? Or is it right to address the case as if she is a female student, equal to other students whose preferences in clothing are against the dress code? It would be wrong to not address the case at all, simply because she is a lesbian. Is that what happened? Was the case given adequate attention, or was it thrown out without consideration? All of this is a matter of debate, of opinion, and of finding more facts.
If a case is made for wearing a tux in a yearbook photo, can the case be made within existing rules or must new rules be made? If a student needs to identify as male in order to wear a tux in the yearbook photo, she could make a case for wearing male clothing because she identifies as male, if that is true for her. What I’ve heard from personal friends about the level of acceptance of gay and transpeople in the South makes it difficult to fathom pursuing the aforementioned course. I don't want to see anyone persecuted; if you know me, you know that. Change is effected in degrees over time; rebellion effects change all at once. Those who rebel endure pain and suffer for a cause, and occasionally succeed to see instant or dramatic results. Examples include: Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, women throughout history including suffragists, and the scores of people throughout the 50 year/150 year LGBT rights movement. These people have suffered, died, been arrested, beaten and excluded from human rights. If this case can be seen as affecting a human right, there is a case.
Yet there seems to be a stark difference between persecution and her story. She would be pictured in her yearbook if she complied by rules upheld by the Supreme Court (or so the second video says). Her disobedience of a rule which does not relate to homosexuality removed her privilege. Was her story told ineffectively? Or did a story about a girl who wants media attention get spun into a gay rights issue, because she’s gay? I’d say it’s good news that so much attention is paid to the feelings and rights of a gay student, one whose mother is *publicly* supportive of her. This video is not all bad news. It contains good news of progress in the minds of some Americans who are willing to accept non-traditional gender-expression, to say nothing of the Americans who take it for granted that an out-lesbian has rights. Remember the days when your orientation could get you killed? We have made it far as a human community, in a very short time, and for the better.
Foster a world where women can be proud to be women, and proud to be sexually oriented whatever way they are, wear what they feel comfortable wearing, and can still behave in respectful ways toward themselves and others.
And can still be free to be Christian, a faith based on love which was begun with an idea to include Everyone who wants to be part of it, because we as human beings are connected and need to survive one another.
No comments:
Post a Comment