Pride & Opinions

I’m pretty sure that I think that this is good news, but I’m not sure. According to Gay Rights Watch,

Officials in the Poway school district near San Diego did not violate the First Amendment rights of a student they punished for wearing a homophobic T-shirt to class, a federal judge ruled.
Tyler Chase Harper sued the school district in 2004, arguing that his rights were violated when he was removed from class for wearing the anti-gay shirt on the Day of Silence, which is intended to promote tolerance of gays and lesbians. The shirt read “I Will Not Accept What God Has Condemned” on one side and “Homosexuality Is Shameful, Romans 1:27″ on the other side.

The next day, he wore the same shirt, but it had been altered to read “Be Ashamed [of What] Our School Has Embraced.” School administrators asked him to remove his shirt on the second day because they said it violated their dress code, which bans promotion of “violent or hateful behavior.”

Harper refused, and he was removed from class and assigned to the front office to complete his day’s remaining schoolwork.

So here’s the conundrum. I am generally very pro-free speech, especially when it comes to students, who I believe we allow to have their rights trampled in the name of keeping order, which I guess has a place but is not the primary goal of an education. At the same time, to me, the difference seems to be between the two shirt options - the first one is obviously acceptable and protected because it states an (abhorrent) opinion, and gives the student’s personal opinion on the matter (that the bible verse means he won’t accept tolerance). But on the second day, the student altered the t-shirt to direct it towards others, to say that they should be ashamed, which is what crosses the line. To me, it’s similar to the difference between wearing a t-shirt that has a bible verse about a woman obeying her husband, and saying you agree with it, and wearing a t-shirt that has the directive “Woman, Get Back into the Kitchen!” on it. The fact that the second verse is directed towards others makes it hateful, where the first is legitimately protected speech.

Note that I make this argument without reference to its ability to disrupt class, and that’s because, as I mentioned, I’m not sure that I agree that that’s a legitimate function of the educational system. New and radical ideas are supposed to provoke change. And they’re supposed to make people think, and maybe, if racism or sexism or heterosexism are the norm at your high school, and it’s radical to challenge that, you should be disrupting the educational process of your school. So I’m conflicted, but ultimately think that hate speech laws are generally good.

What do you think?

Free Speech, ACLU, GLBT, Hate Speech

Free Speech, ACLU, GLBT, Hate Speech

One of the most obnoxious but predictable effects of GLBT bias is the way that it often intersects with other forms of oppresion (racial, gender, class-based, religious, disability, etc) to make every situation worse. Nina at Queercents comments on one manifestation of this- how gender discrimination against women in the workplace can be especially problematic for lesbians and other queer females, because it multiplies the effects of both. First, there’s the issue of being female, which Nina says makes figuring out - and planning for - the amount of money needed for retirement harder to accomplish:

For many people, contemplating retirement can trigger anxiety about having enough money. There are gobs of books one might read to make sure the magic number has been saved. There are worksheets and online calculators that can help determine the amount. While it’s a highly personal calculation, figuring out the number is usually the easy part.
Establishing the plan to reach the number is typically the bigger challenge. Women have a harder time than men with closing the retirement savings gap. We live longer and make less. This isn’t an astounding revelation.

The challenges that face women in the workplace are a combination of factors - women may take more time out to raise family, or care for elderly family members, household tasks that sterotypically fall to women. Add in the fact that women still don’t make as much money for their work as men, through both pay discrimination and the fact that a lot of the jobs typically done by women are assigned less value by the economy. But add in LGBT status and, though you might not make any less money (though you totally might, since discrimination based on sexual or affinity orientation is completely legal in the US and most states), you’ll have less options for making up the gap.

Why is this? Well, as Nina explains, a lot of the ways that women are encouraged to make up the difference, especially if they leave the workforce for awhile to take care of others, are things like spousal IRAs or taking advantage of tax loopholes based on one’s partners. And as she notes, “Unfortunately, this doesn’t apply to the LGBT community. You have to be married for a Spousal IRA to be available to you as a stay-at-home parent. This puts queers at a further disadvantage.”

THIS is what gay marriage is about for me, a lot of the time.

Link via Queercents

GLBT, lesbian, gay marriage, financial advice, intersectionality

GLBT, lesbian, gay marriage, financial advice, intersectionality

It really bothers me when people won’t call someone by the name that they’d prefer to be called by. You know, like, someone’s name is Gertrude, but they’d prefer Trudy, and people just refuse? The occasional grandparents isn’t too bad, but at some point it just becomes impolite. And by impolite, I mean that it is not engaging in the act of politeness, as the dictionary defines it, “Marked by or showing consideration for others, tact, and observance of accepted social usage.” I think that the first two parts of that sentence are the more important parts, though I suppose it provides a good limit on the necessity of calling people whatever they want, should they want to be called something vastly inappropriate. You call someone by their preferred nickname because you are considerate of their feelings, and because it shouldn’t make any difference to you one way or the other. To refuse to do so, or to refuse to pay attention for long enough that it becomes rude, is to fail at that consideration.

So, for me, a lot of questions about the politics of naming or words related to GLBT questions are really politeness questions. If someone is transgender, for example, and would prefer to be called by a feminine rather than masculine sounding name, or be referred to using masculine rather than feminine pronouns, what should you do? Obviously, you call them that name (assuming it’s not a swear word or something), and use those pronouns, because it would be impolite not to do so. Your feelings about that lifestyle or anything else are irrelevant - it is simply a matter of consideration and tact.

The same is true for words connoting relationships. If someone wants me to call their long-term partner of the same sex their “wife,” who cares? It doesn’t affect me one way or the other, but it does reflect a lack of consideration for their feelings on my part if I refuse for some political reason. Especially since, at that point, I would be the one injecting politics into the conversation, not them.

Words mean lots of different things to different people, and I’m not saying that every situation is the same. But honestly, when you think about it, can’t most of these problems be solved simply by being courteous towards others?

GLBT, names, transgender, courtesy

GLBT, names, transgender, courtesy

To really understand transgendering/transsexualism, it helps to have an idea of what it really is, and its root cause. The beginnings of transgendering lie in gender dysphoria.

gen·der (jěn’dər), n.:
     1. Sexual identity, especially in relation to society or culture.
     2. The condition of being female or male; sex.

dys·pho·ri·a (dɪsˈfɔriə), n:
     1. a state of dissatisfaction, anxiety, restlessness, or fidgeting.

Breaking down the definitions of those words, gender dysphoria seems like a fairly simple concept: a sense of dissatisfaction or discomfort with one’s gender, whether birth gender or chosen gender. Gender dysphoria is a characteristic of what is referred to as gender identity disorder, though honestly I don’t like that term as ‘disorder’ implies that those who feel gender dysphoria are somehow abnormal.

They’re not.

The feeling of gender dysphoria is often the very beginning of the path towards transition; to make it even simpler, it’s the feeling that one was born in the body of the wrong gender. Your body is male, and yet you feel female. Your body is female, but you feel male - in ways that go beyond mere social identification and rest on a deep psychological level that often cannot be explained but that know, quite firmly, what feels wrong and what feels right.

The sense of wrongness associated with the feeling of being in the wrong body is what can prompt transgendered individuals to begin crossdressing, taking hormones, and pursuing surgical options in order to ease that sense of discomfort and align the physical self more thoroughly with the mental and emotional self.

Because gender can be such a fluid concept defined by more than one’s physical body, it can make transition very complex. More than just modifying or disguising the body to better suit one’s chosen gender, there’s also the matter of filling one’s gender role in society. Male and female gender roles are now more easily blended and interchangeable than they were as little as fifty years ago, but there’s still a matter of perception; people treat you differently based on the gender that they perceive you as, which can either help or hinder in feeling more comfortable with living as one’s chosen gender. It’s as much mental and emotional as it is physical, and yet the three aspects always depend on one another.

Imagine gender dysphoria as wearing a pair of shoes that’s two sizes too small. Talk about walking a mile in someone else’s shoes, eh? Only these shoes you can’t take off. They’re always there, always cramping your feet painfully, making it difficult to walk - chafing, blistering, driving you more insane with every day and yet you don’t know what to do about it, or you don’t have access to a way that might be able to remove them.

Not pleasant, is it? Now imagine feeling that way about your entire body. As if your body was an ill-fitting garment thrust upon the body of the self with no choice given to you in the matter.

And imagine that you were given a choice, later in life, once you came to understand your own gender identity and what you wished to do about it, and the options available to you to find something that fits.

Imagine the relief of taking off that ill-fitting shoe and walking free.

Imagine that pain, imagine that relief, and imagine it affecting your entire life, your happiness, and your concept of self-identity. Imagine it making you question everything, to the point where you can’t even allow yourself to become interested in someone for fear that they’ll want you for the wrong gender, will reject you if they find out who you really are under that wrong skin - can’t even comfortably walk into a public bathroom without feeling as if you’re in the wrong place no matter which one you chose.

Imagine looking in the mirror and seeing a stranger to who you really are, and then you may understand gender dysphoria.

Are you a MtF or FtM transgender/transsexual/transvestite/crossdresser, or considering/questioning? Want to share your story or motivational anecdote? E-mail your story to adrien-luc.sanders@451press.net with the subject “Transgender Tales” or use the Contact Form to send your story in.

transgender tales, thursday transgender tales, transgender, transvestite, transsexual, crossdresser, crossdressing, mtf, ftm, m2f, f2m, male-to-female, female-to-male, gender identity, gender dysphoria, transition, transitioning, sex change, transamerica, felicity huffman, trans media, trans films

The following was submitted as an “Ask Adri” question, but while I’m honestly not sure what constructive opinion I could offer on this, I wanted to share it with everyone anyway. (Warning: graphic imagery ahead.)

Dear Adrien,

I wanted your take on the anti-discrimination campaign that started here last week to make people aware of the new laws Europe instated.

There’s posters, post cards, spots on tv and banners on the internet. The slogan is ‘Discriminating is illegal. And inhuman.’
In these pictures, people’s bodies are shown, and they have labels sewed on.

Amongst others, there’s a woman in a wheelchair with the label ‘dead weight’. There’s a coloured boy labeled ’scum’. There’s a young mother who’s pregnant with her second child labeled ‘takes advantage’. And there’s two guys kissing. One is labeled ‘abnormal’, the other ‘contagious’. (I added the picture, the only one I could find was of the gay couple, it’s the French version though.)

In the TV spot The label he get’s sewed on says ‘different’, and the voices in the back are saying:
‘They just don’t want to work, those parasites…’
‘If I get to choose, I’d rather hire a man for this job…’
‘You can never be too carefull, with all that AIDS and stuff…’
‘Those people don’t care about getting a job, they’re all scum.’

You can imagine the reactions. Half the people don’t care, one quarter is shocked and appalled, and the rest of us think it’s brilliant, daring, will open many eyes.

Me, I cringe when I see the spot on tv. You actually see them sew the label on. I’m not sure what to think. It could be good, really good. But it might be too much. Harsh images and shock effects can certainly work, but… It’s a double edged blade.

What do you think?

The TV spot in question:

Give me a second to stop squirming. Oh, jeebus. The video itself isn’t that bad; I just have issues with needles going into anything other that cloth. (Adri + syringes = NO.)

Truthfully I don’t even think there’s that much shock value involved, but then I’ve seen worse in American adverts, so I may be the wrong person to ask; cultural differences have probably desensitized me to this sort of thing. Still, I can see where some would be incensed or disturbed by this sort of advertising.

The question to ask is this: is it shocking enough to get them to take notice, and then stop and consider the message - or is it so shocking that the message is lost in the horrified reaction to the imagery? I think in this case it’s the former; yes, it’s a little graphic, but no more graphic than watching House or Grey’s Anatomy, and the graphic imagery isn’t played up to grotesque extremes. There’s just enough to be effective and to make sure that you’re paying attention while the point is driven home. At the same time it gives you something to think about on a more subtle level: those labels are painful. In the advert they become physically painful rather than emotionally painful, but the implication of pain is there and registers on a subconscious level to lead people closer to understanding that discrimination hurts in many ways.

When shock advertising is used with immaturity, where the blatant goal is only to disgust while the message itself is secondary, it fails and becomes a cause for public outcry. I don’t think this is one of those situations. I think it was handled with tact and maturity and even if I’m squirming looking at those needles, I admire how cleverly it was done.

I told you I have nothing of value to offer here, but that’s my opinion. Maybe others reading this will have a different take on things. Either way, thank you for sharing this with everyone.

Needle-phobically yours,
~Adri

Have a question you’d like to see answered on Ask Adri? E-mail your question to adrien-luc.sanders@451press.net with the subject “Ask Adri Question” or use the Contact Form to send your question in.

ask adri, anti-discrimination campaigns, shock advertising, labels

Imagine that you’re a soldier deployed in the field. It’s been a hard day; you’ve been shelled and shot at, and you and your unit are now holed up under heavy cover trying to get an idea of the enemy numbers and whether or not you have enough ammunition left to survive them.

No, stupid, your eyes are still closed. Open your eyes and breathe deep, calm down. There’s a strange smell in the air - thick, but not wholly unpleasant. Soft, alluring, but increasingly strong. You pick yourself up off the ground carefully, brushing at a strange pink dust that clings to your gear. Glancing around you, you notice your compatriots doing the same. And suddenly you’re struck by just how dashing Private Smith looks in his uniform, and how he has the prettiest blue eyes that you’ve ever seen…

Think it’s a joke? I did, too; I’ve been skimming various articles on this topic over the past few days, thinking it had to be a joke. A satirical spoof.

It’s not.

Pentagon Had Plans for ‘Gay Bomb’ - Newsmax.com

The Pentagon considered a proposal to create a hormone bomb that could turn enemy soldiers into homosexuals and make them more interested in sex than fighting.

U.S. military officials told KPIX-TV in San Francisco that a “gay bomb” was on the drawing board in 1994 but then subsequently rejected.

I had to check this out before I could buy it. Turns out they were dead serious - at least, on the fact that the incident on KPIX-TV actually occurred. There’s reference to it on Wikipedia, the BBC, and CBS. I honestly don’t know if I believe they ever intended to do this, but I at least believe that they said they did. Maybe. Kinda. Okay, I’m still a little skeptical.

The idea is…well, the fact that someone even came up with it is hilarious, insulting, and mind-boggling. I mean, sure, there’s something hot about a man in uniform. But suddenly turning said man and his compatriots gay is not going to immediately result in an uncontrollable love-fest, not without some artificial stimulation of the sex drive to overcome the primary thought processes that say “Hey! We’re in a battle zone, and under fire! We should be firing at the enemy troops, not trying to find a place to deposit our little soldiers!” Suddenly becoming gay does not turn you into a ravening beast who instantly jumps anything male in sight. We’re human beings, not dogs in heat. You want people to act that way, you’re going to need a pretty potent aphrodisiac and not just a homosexualizing agent.

Yes, I just made that term up.

Reading various articles on it produces conflicting suggestions; some say it was just intended to be a gay bomb, while the aphrodisiac bomb was something entirely different. So I have no idea what the intention was behind it.

Either way, I can still laugh my bloody arse off. Can you imagine an entire metropolitan area saturated by this chemical? It would be like some screwed-up version of Wraeththu (which is, by a large margin, the worst piece of tripe that I’ve ever read short of a Laurell K. Hamilton novel; it reads like flowery yaoi mpreg fanfiction written by a twelve-year-old girl). There would be some pissed-off wives and girlfriends at home, unless the chemical was unisex and also turned them lesbian and quite content with one another rather than their wayward men. Maybe if Isaiah Washington had had a hot dose of this stuff, he’d still have his job.

As hilarious as that would have been, I’m glad that the Pentagon scrapped the idea. To look at things more seriously, we don’t understand enough about human sexuality and what causes it for us to be tampering around with chemically altering it. All the lab tests in the world don’t prepare you for how a chemical agent will behave in the field, and the effect it will have on large populations - especially not in the long term. In an attempt to create a chemical that would change someone’s sexuality, they may end up creating a biological agent that is permanently damaging not only to the individuals influenced by it, but their environment and those who come in contact with them.

Then again, when has a nation at war ever cared about those things?

gay bomb, pentagon, military, chemical warfare, alternative weapons, biological weapons, changing sexuality

You ever stumble on one of those issues where you’re of two minds about the overall conflict - where on one hand you understand the point and why something needs to be done, and yet at the same time you wonder what the hell the big deal is?

That’s pretty much how I feel about the eHarmony discrimination lawsuit.

eHarmony sued for excluding gays - Yahoo News

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - The popular online dating service eHarmony was sued on Thursday for refusing to offer its services to gays, lesbians and bisexuals.

A lawsuit alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on behalf of Linda Carlson, who was denied access to eHarmony because she is gay.

Lawyers bringing the action said they believed it was the first lawsuit of its kind against eHarmony, which has long rankled the gay community with its failure to offer a “men seeking men” or “women seeking women” option.

All right, I see the point here. It’s a good one. eHarmony.com is denying service to gays and lesbians based on sexuality, which can only be considered discrimination rather than an oversight based on ignorance when multiple prospective users have spoken to them about the issue and they haven’t changed their policy. It’s discriminatory, it’s unfair, it’s homophobic, it’s…not surprising from a dating service tied with a conservative evangelical religious group. But it’s still wrong, regardless of the “our business, our terms” clause inherent in most TOS agreements. Since it’s a publicly offered service, gays and lesbians should have the right to use it appropriately, and should also have the right to speak out and take action when that right is denied.

But on the other hand…there’s a nagging, irritable part of me that’s muttering about frivolous lawsuits. Why not just tell eHarmony to take a hike and use Yahoo! Personals, Matchmaker.com, Gayfriendfinder.com, OutinAmerica.com, or any of a dozen other well-established dating services that either cater to all sexualities or are specifically gay-oriented?

Seriously. Is eHarmony so much different from the hundred other online dating services that you can’t just take your business elsewhere? If a business doesn’t have what you want, you go to their competitors, who are - trust me - quite happy to take your money when the other company won’t. Suing eHarmony is a great statement for gay and lesbian rights, sure, but it’s almost like suing Target because they don’t carry your brand of dishwashing detergent (manufactured by a gay-friendly, eco-friendly, labor-friendly, pro-choice company, of course) and thus you had to buy it at Wal-Mart.

In this situation, we aren’t dealing with a lack of choice. If eHarmony was the only option available for online dating/matchmaker services, then going to the extreme of a discrimination lawsuit would be understandable. But in this case it’s a bit excessive, as frankly if I were in this situation I wouldn’t want to give my business to a company that I had to force to take it in the first place…not when I have other businesses lining up to provide me with willing service.

Forget the lawsuit. Go get your damned soap - and your damned date - somewhere else. If eHarmony doesn’t want to cater to the gay dating market it’s their loss, not yours, when they lose out on paying customers and revenue from advertisers targeting to the gay market. You are a consumer with choices and you lose nothing by turning to another service. So why waste the money to fight a meaningless battle?

The creed of good business is that the customer is always right - but what’s right isn’t always what’s smart.

And if you ask me this lawsuit may be the right thing to do, but honestly?

It sure as hell ain’t the brightest.

eharmony, dating sites, lawsuits, matchmaker.com, outinamerica.com, personals sites, discrimination

Allow me a moment, my darling flytraps, my wee pimentos in the olive of my martini, to be a thoroughly wicked person. Allow me, even, a brief lapse into schadenfreude - unfair, I know. Despite my temper, I do usually try to be fair towards even my opponents and not wish ill on those who wish ill on me, or glory in another’s misfortune.

But right now, I’m snickering a little too hard at the karmic justice to adhere to those principles very closely.

Why?

Because while cruising the news this morning, I found the following headline: “Phelps Follower Arrested”.

Oh, and not just any follower, my dearest little chickadees. Oh, no. The good reverend’s own daughter. Arrested. For contributing to the delinquency of a minor.

Phelps Follower Arrested - 365gay.com

 
(Omaha, Nebraska) The daughter of homophobic preacher Fred Phelps was arrested Wednesday for suspicion of contributing to the delinquency of a minor.

Shirley Phelps-Roper was arrested in Bellevue, Nebraska, after her 10-year-old son stomped on an American flag during a protest at the funeral of a National Guardsman killed in Iraq.

Please reread that last sentence.

“her 10-year-old son stomped on an American flag during a protest at the funeral of a National Gaurdsman killed in Iraq.”

I’m going to run out of fingers to count on before I finish tallying up all the things so very, very wrong with that sentence. And the Phelps family advocates this kind of behavior as godly, just, and right, kiddos. Oh yeah. You? You’re going to hell because you and your lover have the same junk in the trunk. But committing public acts of desecration at the funeral of a man who died in service to his country, in front of his grieving family? That’s your ticket right to heaven, baby. It’s also your ticket to a free ride in a police car, shiny silver bracelets non-optional. At least they’re sparkly, hm?

[snort] That, my friends, my dumplings, my little pecan-crusted nougat centers, is what I like to call a good old karmic b*tchslap.

shirly phelps-roper, fred phelps, reverend phelps, westboro baptist church, picketing, protesting

…did the world of gay news just have a miniature explosion while I was asleep or something? First we’ve got California approving legislation for gay marriage and Arnie being a douche about vetoing it, then Bush nominating a man with an anti-gay record for surgeon general (does this surprise anyone at all?), and not to mention Kalamazoo, MI stripping away same-sex partner benefits (I was supposed to speak at an animation convention there last month; I’m glad I didn’t, now). Is it just me, or did the gay community take a few hits below the belt in the past few days? Then again, it does seem to go that way rather often. A few steps forward, a few punches recoiling back. But this is the story that really catches my attention today:

Teacher Suspended For Comparing Gay Slur With The N Word - 365gay.com

 
(Nashville, Tennessee) A Nashville middle school teacher who equated calling something “gay” with the use of the N word has been suspended for three days without pay.

Stephen Henry, a sixth-grade teacher at Creswell Arts Magnet School, overheard a student describe something as “gay.” Henry approached the girl who is reportedly African American and asked her how she would feel if he were to use the N word.

The girl later complained to her parents.

This is a teacher with twenty-one years of positive history; a teacher who used an apt example to make a student understand the kind of damage her words can cause. He didn’t call her the N-word. He asked her how she would feel if she was called the N-word, so she would understand how people would feel about the use of “gay” in a negative connotation. I know the N word is racially charged and sensitive. But what it comes down to is that it’s a word that’s used to label people negatively because of a trait they’re born with: skin color. “Gay” is a word that’s used to describe people because of another trait they’re born with: homosexuality. It’s not as charged as the N word. But it could be, given time and constant use in that fashion.

I don’t think the teacher deserved a suspension at all. I think he deserves a commendation for making his point so clearly, and I hope that his intention is considered and appreciated more thoroughly when his suspension is appealed.

The girl’s mother said she was too young for that kind of discussion. If she’s old enough to be calling things “gay” in a derogatory fashion then she’s old enough to understand the connotations of her words, and young enough to change her habits before they become an ingrained and rather ugly part of her personality.

And before you get started on me about how I’ve never been called the N word so I wouldn’t understand: button it. Feel like playing the Adri’s Mystery Ethnicity game today? One of the many pieces that make up this particular pile of sweet brown sugar is good old African-American, darlin’, and where I come from one drop is all that it takes for you to be considered full-blood. So yes, I’ve been called the N word. I’ve been called the N word, redskin, tomahawk, Squanto, chink, bonzai, and a half-dozen other racial slurs based on one or another aspect of my mixed ethnicity. And that’s before the barbs begin about my sexuality, my style, my hobbies and habits.

So don’t you effin’ well tell me I wouldn’t understand why it’s so serious that he used that word as an example. And don’t tell me that the N word and a phrase like “that’s so gay” cannot be compared in severity, either, because you know what? The N word started off as a common, innocuous part of everyday language, too. Negro: the Spanish word for the color black, nothing else. As harmless as the colors red, blue, and yellow. It wasn’t until it was applied in a derogatory, dehumanizing fashion to an entire ethnic group that it began to take on the connotations that its slang/slur form, the N word, has today. It wasn’t until we made it ugly that it became filth. It isn’t the word itself. It’s the decades of intention that were poured into it.

So how long, do you think, will it take for “gay” to pick up that same connotation? How many times will we say “that’s so gay” about something we find disgusting or inadequate before the meaning of the word “gay” changes and it becomes as much of a sensitive, painful issue as the N word?

Language evolves by the means and methods in which we use it. Words mean what we wish them to mean. Words reflect our intentions.

So when you call something “gay”…tell me, what are you intending to say?

gay marriage, california, arnold schwarzenegger, george bush, surgeon general, anti-gay, james holsinger, kalamazoo, michigan, same-sex partner benefits, healthcare, the n word, gay, racism, homophobia, slurs, slang

No, this isn’t some joke. Thank gods it’s not some joke. And if the Dallas election goes well, it could actually happen.

Dallas Could Elect Its First Gay Mayor - ABC News

This conservative metropolis could become the nation’s largest city to elect an openly gay mayor if a longtime city council member wins a runoff election later this month.

Ed Oakley’s candidacy is the latest indication that Dallas’ reputation as a conservative stronghold is giving way to more diversity. The city is already home to several gay elected officials, including the sheriff.

I am going to stomp on every last one of my pessimistic, cynical tendencies to hope that Oakley wins.

I think you’d have to live in Texas to understand why this is such a monumental step. Then again, I’m sure the reputation of Georgie W.’s home state precedes itself. Despite being home to several large cities and primary centers of industry, a thinning majority of the state is still wildly intolerant of homosexuality. There’s a general assumption in many places that urban development encourages progressive thought and expansion of values to accept diversity.

In Texas, that’s rarely true.

Of course, the growing minority of those who are accepting tends to be open-minded, understanding, and quite casually comfortable with those from all walks of life. And don’t get me wrong: for every jerk who flings homophobic slurs at your back, there’s another kind soul who’ll stand by your side to offer a shoulder to lean on in those moments in which support is most needed. But it doesn’t change the fact that Texas is very much a red state.

And red states tend not to deal well with gays.

“Dallas is less and less the Dallas that people think it is,” said Cal Jillson, a political science professor at Southern Methodist University. “And Dallas is less and less the Dallas that it used to be.”

Dallas is, admittedly, becoming more cosmopolitan than the standard of Texas cities, and I’m not surprised that this issue has found a home there first. Texas needs this - a major city, a conservative city, that at once accepts a man’s sexuality but at the same time ignores it in favor of what’s most important: his political stance. There are too many who would refuse to vote for him based on his open homosexuality alone, ignoring whether or not they’re in favor of policies that may well benefit them. If Oakley is voted into office, it will set a wonderful precedent and an example for the rest of Texas…the rest of the country.

Not that I think being gay makes him the perfect mayoral candidate; he is human, after all. He’ll have some bad, bad political ideas, some really good ones, and he’s going to botch things as often as he fixes them. Being gay doesn’t make a politician any less a politician, and it shouldn’t. But he would be a landmark, nonetheless, and his election would give me renewed hope in the turning of the tides in the conflict over sexuality in this nation.

As long as he doesn’t end up in jail over some indiscretion or another. Texas hasn’t quite caught up with California, and doesn’t allow conjugal visits for gay and lesbian inmates.

ed oakley, dallas, texas, gay elected officials, gay mayor, politics