There's a transgender candidate running for office in Nampa, Idaho, and she -- Melissa Sue Robinson -- has a YouTube channel here; Facebook page here; and her candidate website is here. She's publicly running as a transgender candidate.
Articles about her specifically, or include a profile of her:
* Huffington Post Melissa Sue Robinson, Transgender Activist, Runs For Mayor Of Idaho Town
* Idaho Statesman Nampa candidate forum
* Spokesman-Review RS: Nampa's Transgender Wannabe
* Boise Weekly Nampa Mayoral Hopeful Issues Spanish Press Release
The Idaho Statesman has an article up this week on the candidate field, entitled Hopefuls crowd Nampa ballot; In the mayor's race, taxes and jobs are key issues as three challengers aim to unseat the incumbent. Here's the portion of the article that includes an interesting comment about what she plans to do about her subcommunity of the LGBT community if she's elected (emphasis added):
Robinson launched her campaign in June with a declaration of her transgender status because, she says, "If somebody finds out later, it looks like you're hiding something." Initially she advocated city and state anti-discrimination ordinances to cover transgender citizens along with other groups, but she now says that plank is not in step with Nampa and she would not pursue it as mayor."Now I wanw I want to focus on what it's really about: What I can do for Nampa," Robinson said. She advocates pushing for a rapid transit bus system with dedicated lanes between Caldwell and Boise and creating a privately funded program to provide college scholarships to Nampa students.
I realize trans people are whole people, and for many of us, being trans is only a part of who we are instead of being the defining quality that defines our lives. But, if the Idaho Statesman is accurately reporting on where mayoral candidate Melissa Sue Robinson currently stands on an antidiscrimination ordinance that would cover her peer transgender people -- when two recent studies indicate such discrimination is a real problem for transgender people -- that's news. Especially when one considers that that Melissa Sue Robinson's candidate webpage has a URL of equalityidaho.org.
In this day and age, can you imagine an African-American, disabled, or gay candidate being successful in running for office if he or she stated that he or she wouldn't pursue a non-discrimination ordinance for peer African-Americans, disabled people, or gays? -- African-Americans, disabled people, or gays that are experiencing discrimination in his or her community? -- Adding the that he or she wouldn't pursue the ordinance because it was out of step with community values?
Frankly, I'm never going to understand politics. 
Candidate Robinson's reported position on an antidiscrimination that would protect people like her is baffling to me.
To quote Martin Luther King Jr.:
Cowardice asks the question - is it safe?
Expediency asks the question - is it politic?
Vanity asks the question - is it popular?
But conscience asks the question - is it right?And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular; but one must take it because it is right.
From the outside looking in, this change of position by candidate Robinson looks like expediency to me.
Your thoughts on Melissa Sue Robinson's candidacy?
H/t 
to Stephanie Stevens of transgendernews
We are talking about five students who are living a gay lifestyle that is leading them to dress a way we do not expect in Morehouse men."
-- Dr. William Bynuam Bynum, vice president for Student Services
When sweeping statements like this are made, it makes you want to ask Bynum if he knows if there's a difference between gay/trans/cross-dressing, since it's pretty apparent from the ignorant statement that he probably doesn't. (CNN):
An all-male college in Atlanta, Georgia, has banned the wearing of women's clothes, makeup, high heels and purses as part of a new crackdown on what the institution calls inappropriate attire. No dress-wearing is part of a larger dress code launched this week that Morehouse College is calling its "Appropriate Attire Policy."
The policy also bans wearing hats in buildings, pajamas in public, do-rags, sagging pants, sunglasses in class and walking barefoot on campus.
Senior Devon Watson said he disagrees with parts of the new policy, especially those that tell students what they should wear in free time outside of the classroom.
"I feel that there will be a lot of resentment and backlash," Watson said. "It infringes on the student's freedom of expression. I matriculated successfully for three-and-half years dressing so how is this a problem?"
It's one thing to ban droopy drawers and dressing in pajama bottoms on campus because it looks unprofessional, but when you cross into the territory of a blanket statement about gender expression, it's discriminatory. What if a male student shows up for class dressed in a sharp tailored woman's business suit, appropriate footwear, etc? to Bynum, that's equivalent to dressing up like Carmen Miranda with a basket of fruit on her head.
According to the CNN article, Bynum met with the campus gay organization, Morehouse Safe Space, which voted on the policy and overwhelmingly supported it, 27-3. MSS says on its Twitter page that "We are the ONLY LGBT Organization @ Morehouse College. We strive to find an alliance amongst Gay & Straight Students in the AUC." I think it's a safe assumption to say the "T" is there as lip service based on that vote. Given how there's already a lack of affirmation for LGB at many HBCUs, the trans issue is simply not enough on the radar to put up a fight, and that's sad.
An another article (Atlanta Journal-Constitution), Bynum gives additional reasoning for the no-dresses policy that are also revealing and relevant to note.
"This is necessary, this is needed according to the students," he said. "We know the challenges that young African-American men face. We know that how a student dresses has nothing to do with what is in their head, but first impressions mean everything."
It shows you how black (and other POC) trans folk are double damned in their communities -- they are the living hurdle to cultural acceptance and thus are vilified in policies like this.
***
The article also notes that at Hampton University that would enrage me -- students with braids or dreadlocks are encouraged to cut their hair. Again, locs are becoming more acceptable in the workplace, HBCUs are concerned that aside from an afro (I assume it would only find a short one acceptable), that locs and braids even a well groomed styles, are an impediment to employment when one is already dealing with racial discrimination. It's not fair, but I'd have to say, in some parts of the country and some professions, this crap is still true. You have to land the job first, and then see if you can "go natural."
The Morehouse Dreuse Dress Code Policy is below the fold.
Morehouse College Appropriate Attire Policy
October 2009Published in The Maroon Tiger
It is our expectation that students who select Morehouse do so because of the College's outstanding legacy of producing leaders. On the campus and at College-sponsored events and activities, students at Morehouse College will be expected to dress neatly and appropriately at all times.
Students who choose not to abide by this policy will be denied admission into class and various functions and services of the College if their manner of attire is inappropriate. Examples of inappropriate attire and/or appearance include but are not limited to:
1. No caps, do-rags and/or hoods in classrooms, the cafeteria, or other indoor venues. This policy item does not apply to headgear considered as a part of religious or cultural dress.
2. Sun glasses or "shades" are not to be work in class or at formal programs, unless medical documentation is provided to support use.
3. Decorative orthodontic appliances (e.g. "grillz") be they permanent or removable, shall not be worn on the campus or at College-sponsored events.
4. Jeans at major programs such as, Opening Convocation, Commencement, Founder's Day or other programs dictating professional, business casual attire, semi-formal or formal attire.
5. Clothing with derogatory, offense and/or lewd messages either in words or pictures.
6. Top and bottom coverings should be work at all times. No bare feet in public venues.
7. No sagging--the wearing of one's pants or shorts low enough to reveal undergarments or secondary layers of clothing.
8. Pajamas, shall not be worn while in public or in common areas of the College.
9. No wearing of clothing associated with women's garb (dresses, tops, tunics, purses, pumps, etc.) on the Morehouse campus or at College-sponsored events.
10. Additional dress regulations may be imposed upon students participating in certain extracurricular activities that are sponsored or organized by the College (e.g. athletic teams, the band, Glee Club, etc).
11. The college reserves the right to modify this policy as deemed appropriate. *All administrative, faculty, students and support staff members are asked to assist in enforcing this policy and may report disregard or violations to the Office of Student Conduct. "
crossposted on Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters
I'm sure R sure Rep. Steve King and those 52 Republicans in the House expected some type of response for their letter asking that the President fire Kevin Jennings.But the response they are getting isn't the one they should want.
Several blogs and organizations have rallied around Jennings, calling attention to the fact that the attacks on his character is nothing more than a smear campaign because he is an openly gay man:
The Huffington Post:
Shame on the 53 Republican Congressmen who have signed a letter asking for Kevin Jennings' head on a silver platter. They have started a witch hunt. Van Jones was first. Now Kevin Jennings. I'm sure there is a list.
There. I've said it. For those of you who read my posts here, you know me to be fairly measured in my points of view. Today I don't feel measured.
I am mad. But I am going to take a deep breath and step back.
People for the American Way:
"Kevin Jennings has dedicated his entire career to ensuring that all students are safe in school," said Keegan. "Kids can't learn when they're not safe, and Kevin's work has won unanimous praise from across the education community. He's exactly the kind of person who should be in charge of the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools. It's disappointing that some opponents of this administration would rather attack Jennings and his work to score political points than actually protect kids."
Truth Wins Out:
“Jennings ‘real agenda’ was promoting tolerance and stopping children from essentially getting mugged in schools because of their real or perceived sexual orientation,” said Besen. “These attempts to slime Jennings have nothing to do with his exemplary record or qualifications. Instead, extremists are trying to use Jennings as a proxy to further their culture war.
This backlash against King's letter can be pinpointed to anger over one portion of the letter - the part which accused Jennings of covering up potential sexual abuse of a minor.
King's letter made this charge weeks after it had been widely and publicly debunked. Also, according to Greg Sargent of Plum Line, King's office was informed of the falsity of the charge BEFORE the letter was sent out.
This blatant attempt at lying even had gay conservative commentator Andrew Sullivan crying foul:
. . .to send a letter to the president that repeats what is clearly untrue strikes me as a classic part of the usual strategy of tr fefying to accuse gay people of child-abuse. And King knew the charge was untrue, because we know Greg Sargent told his office, and even Fox News corrected its smear.
More concern has been raised over the New York Times's coverage of the controversy. The article published looked like a listing of points rather than giving more detail behind the claims lodged against Jennings. Among other things, the article failed to note that the charge against Jennings involving the "underaged minor" was debunked.
John Aravosis of Americablog took the article's writer, David Kirkpatrick, to task:
Reporters, like the NYT's David Kirkpatrick, get played by both sides of the aisle. And it's the reporters' job to sniff through the spin, and the bull, and find out if there's a real story underneath. It is not the reporters' job to simply reprint one side's accusations as "news," without questioning the source, or pointing out the obvious errors in the charge itself.
Media Matters gave a breakdown of the things the article should have mentioned but didn't.
On the Support Kevin Jennings page via Facebook, there was a huge jump of supporters since King's letter came out.
This is excellent news, but those of us who support Jennings shouldn't slack up in the least.
Those who are intent on Jennings' dismissal have shown that they won't let truth or public embarrassment stand in the way of their attempts.
COMMUNITY VIGIL FOR COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM
VIGILIA COMUNITARIA PARA UNA REFORMA COMPRESIVA DE LAS LEYES DE INMIGRACIÃ"N
Friday, October 23, 2009
viernes 23 octubre de 2009
7:30 to 8:30 pm. St. Michael & All Angels Episcopal Church
1704 NE 43rd Ave., Portland
This bilingual community service will include songs, prayers, stories, and Scripture reflections, followed by a candlelight proceture reflections, followed by a candlelight procession to the Hollywood MAX station. Este servicio comunitario bilingüe incluirá cantos, oraciones, comentarios y reflexiones BÃblicas. Después iremos en procesion para la Estación de MAX para una vigilia con velas. For more information please contact:Deacon Marla McGarry-Lawrence
St. Michael & All Angels Episcopal Church
1704 NE 43rd Ave.
Portland, OR 97213-1402
503-284-7141 ext. 314 CAUSA (Oregon's Immigrant Rights Coalition), the largest Latin@ civil and human rights and advocacy organization in the Pacific Northwest
No comments:
Post a Comment