Rule Breaking Or Homophobia?

[sugaredwalls]

Lol, this may be a biased place to ask this....

There is this case of lesbian high school girl in Jackson, Mississippi, she wants to wear a tux in her yearbook photo, the school said she couldn't. They stated the reason was because it's a rule that the girl wears the drape thingy and boys wear tuxes.

So, I've been arguing back and forth at another forum, where others are insisting this has nothing to do with homophobia. I say bullshit, it's homophobia all the way!

JACKSON, Miss. — Everyone at Wesson Attendance Center knows 17-year-old Ceara Sturgis is gay because she's never tried to hide it.

But when Sturgis – an honor student, trumpet player and goalie on the school's soccer team – wanted her senior photograph in a tuxedo used in the 2009-10 yearbook, school officials balked. Traditionally, female students dress in drapes and males wear tuxedos.

Now, the American Civil Liberties Union of Mississippi has gotten involved, issuing a demand letter to Principal Ronald Greer to publish the picture of Sturgis in the tuxedo. The ACLU says it's giving the school until Oct. 23 to respond before pursuing court action, said Kristy L. Bennett, the ACLU's legal director.

A secretary for Greer referred questions to Copiah County Schools Superintendent Rickey Clopton, who declined to comment on Thursday.

Sturgis said she should get to decide how she looks in the senior photo.

"I feel like I'm not important, that the school is dismissing who I am as a gay student and that they don't even care about me. All I want is to be able to be me, and to be included in the yearbook," Sturgis said in a statement.

Veronica Rodriguez, 47, said school officials are trying to force her daughter – who doesn't even own a dress – to appear more feminine.

"The tux is who she is. She wears boys' clothes. She's athletic. She's gay. She's not feminine," said Rodriguez during an interview Thursday at the ACLU office.


Rodriguez said Sturgis took her pictures over the summer instead of with the other students last year, but she used the same studio.

In August, Rodriguez said she received a letter from the school stating that only boys could wear tuxedos. Rodriguez said she met with assistant Superintendent Ronald Holloway who told her he didn't see regulations about the issue in the student handbook.

But when she talked with Greer, she said he told her it was his "conviction" that Sturgis wouldn't appear in the yearbook in a tuxedo.

Bennett said the teenager's constitutional rights are being violated. Bennett said similar cases, including same-sex prom couples and girls wearing tuxedos to proms, have been successfully challenged in court in other states. ACLU officials said they were unaware of any other constitutional disputes involving gay teens at Mississippi schools.

"You can't discriminate against somebody because they're not masculine enough or because they're not feminine enough. She's making an expression of her sexual orientation through this picture and that invokes First Amendment protection," Bennett said.

There's no state policy that deals with the yearbook photo issue, said state Department of Education spokesman Pete Smith.

The deadline for the photo to be accepted for the yearbook was Sept. 30. But advertisements for the publication are still being taken so Sturgis has time for her photo to be included, Bennett said.

Sturgis lives with her grandparents in Wesson, a town of about 1,700 founded during the Civil War in southwest Mississippi. The town's Web site said residents "pride ourselves on our quiet way of life."

Rest of article

 

[none2_none2]

I would first as the question as to whether they would have forbidden her to wear a tux if she wasn't gay or if they didn't know for sure? What if she was just a straight tom boy, or what if here issue was transgender related and not gay.

Odds are that it is gay related BECAUSE she admitted that she was gay, but without more details it isn't a done deal that it was specifically homophobia. What if the school board stated that she should come to prom night with a girl and even dance with her, but both had to wear a dress?

Again odds are that it is homophobia, but there isn't more details. I would be more appropriate to label it as sexism -- a phobia against non-traditional gender roles.

 

[sugaredwalls]

Given the area (bible belt) and the fact that they still have segregated proms down there...homophobia aint a stretch IMO.

 

[Night_Jasmine]

I sorta live IN the Bible Belt area (have all my life). I wouldn't put this so much as homophobia but more along the lines of "this is how it's done, how it's always been done, and it ain't gonna change" type of thing.

 

[sugaredwalls]

I sorta live IN the Bible Belt area (have all my life). I wouldn't put this so much as homophobia but more along the lines of "this is how it's done, how it's always been done, and it ain't gonna change" type of thing.

Lol, in other words....homophobia.

 

[Night_Jasmine]

No, not at all. If a community is in the habit of doing things a certain way, it never changes because that's just how it's done.

That's the South for you. Most of the communities I've been in, if it was done this way 20 years ago, it's still done that way.

Homophobia has nothing to do with it.

 

[emap]

Jas is right, us southerners are rather stubborn, we find a way that works and just do it that way until it stops working. I betcha there are still cemetaries that dig grave sites with shovels in the south.

Not to say it is not homophobia but it probably is simply a matter of been this way and aint no reason to change it thinking. Why it took so long to desegregate the south even.

 

[Night_Jasmine]

Emap is right.

However, segregated events are against federal law. The South hasn't had anything segregated in over forty years. Might want to check your facts before commenting on that.

 

[Etoile]

It's sexism, not homophobia. A heterosexual girl wouldn't be allowed to wear the tux either. (Whether she wants to or not is irrelevant - she wouldn't be allowed to, therefore it's sexism, not homophobia.)

 

[Wolfman1982]

Hey can we not all agree , whether it is how it is done and will always be done. Then it is still wrong ?

 

[Safe_Bet]

It doesn't make a lot of diff to me if it's sexism or homophobia. Principal Greer, who said "it was his "conviction" that Sturgis wouldn't appear in the yearbook in a tuxedo." is a fuckstick.

When I hear the work "conviction" I immediately smell the reek of "bible belt" religion based bigotry (which includes the afore mentioned sexism, homophobia, anti-feminism, racism, gender-ism, and a whole bunch of other disgusting "isms".)

 

[Recidiva]

When I was in high school, and this was 20 years ago, my best friend was gay and he wanted to win the local "Miss Teen" equivalent because he wanted the scholarship.

He fought to enter, he won, and he wore the tiara.

He was also met with an auditorium of thunderous applause (he really was the most talented.)

Give her the damned tuxedo.

The ruling on the surface is sexist as it has to do with ALL girls and not just gay girls. But I'm not excluding homophobia as the cause.

 

[sugaredwalls]

Emap is right.

However, segregated events are against federal law. The South hasn't had anything segregated in over forty years. Might want to check your facts before commenting on that.

Lol, sorry but I do know my facts, you may want to recheck yours.

Segregated proms in Georgia, 2009:

About now, high-school seniors everywhere slip into a glorious sort of limbo. Waiting out the final weeks of the school year, they begin rightfully to revel in the shared thrill of moving on. It is no different in south-central Georgia’s Montgomery County, made up of a few small towns set between fields of wire grass and sweet onion. The music is turned up. Homework languishes. The future looms large. But for the 54 students in the class of 2009 at Montgomery County High School, so, too, does the past. On May 1 — a balmy Friday evening — the white students held their senior prom. And the following night — a balmy Saturday — the black students had theirs.

The white students’ prom was held on May 1 at a community center in nearby Vidalia; the black students had theirs at the same place the following night.

Racially segregated proms have been held in Montgomery County — where about two-thirds of the population is white — almost every year since its schools were integrated in 1971.

link

And in Mississippi, they just recently had an integrated prom in 2008, which would be quite less than the 40 years you stated:

This year, for the first time, the high school in Charleston, Miss., held an integrated prom -- ending a system of parallel parties for black and white students. After we covered the story this week, a whole lot of people wrote in to say they were just plain shocked that any kind of segregation could still exist in this country.

Um, private golf courses, anyone? Suburban high schools -- and inner city ones? Your church?

Since I first learned about the integrated prom through a report in the Jackson Free Press, I called the editor for her reaction. Donna Ladd is a longtime friend and hero of mine. More than once, she and her staff have tracked down a suspect in a decades-old race murder. She runs an integrated paper with an integrated audience. In my book, Donna Ladd has earned the right to talk about this, and what she says is that we need to see what's happening right in our neighborhoods.

Laura Conaway

link

 

[sugaredwalls]

It doesn't make a lot of diff to me if it's sexism or homophobia. Principal Greer, who said "it was his "conviction" that Sturgis wouldn't appear in the yearbook in a tuxedo." is a fuckstick.

When I hear the work "conviction" I immediately smell the reek of "bible belt" religion based bigotry (which includes the afore mentioned sexism, homophobia, anti-feminism, racism, gender-ism, and a whole bunch of other disgusting "isms".)

And that would be my observation as well.

The first complaint religious nuts have about public schools is that they are forcing some sort of "homophobic agenda". We all know that's ridiculous but schools seem to run from it, as if it was true, even though it's bullshit.

This is just one example of homophobia at public schools, it goes beyond sexism. Girls are protected by Title 9 at school but there is no protection for LGBT students.

 

[none2_none2]

And that would be my observation as well.

The first complaint religious nuts have about public schools is that they are forcing some sort of "homophobic agenda". We all know that's ridiculous but schools seem to run from it, as if it was true, even though it's bullshit.

This is just one example of homophobia at public schools, it goes beyond sexism. Girls are protected by Title 9 at school but there is no protection for LGBT students.

Language is a very important tool in communicating with other people. That is why one needs to be very careful on what words they choose to use. From what little was stated in this story, there is no proof that the decision was based solely on the fact that she was a lesbian. It was strictly about sexism of attire. The title 9 bill never was meant to address equality in attire, so that is a moot point.

This situation may very well be the surface of underlying homophobia, but until that is proven it isn't appropriate to just say it is anyway. When people casually use a term, it looses its power. It would be like the boy inappropriately crying wolf. People started to ignore him so that when there was really a wolf, nobody bothered to listen to him. The word lost its power from misuse.

Also, while a lot of anti-gay rights come from the religious right, realize that there are plenty of non-religious people who are not pro-gay rights and plenty of them who would flip on a dime if being against our rights was to their advantage.

 

[sugaredwalls]

Language is a very important tool in communicating with other people. That is why one needs to be very careful on what words they choose to use. From what little was stated in this story, there is no proof that the decision was based solely on the fact that she was a lesbian. It was strictly about sexism of attire. The title 9 bill never was meant to address equality in attire, so that is a moot point.

This situation may very well be the surface of underlying homophobia, but until that is proven it isn't appropriate to just say it is anyway. When people casually use a term, it looses its power. It would be like the boy inappropriately crying wolf. People started to ignore him so that when there was really a wolf, nobody bothered to listen to him. The word lost its power from misuse.

Also, while a lot of anti-gay rights come from the religious right, realize that there are plenty of non-religious people who are not pro-gay rights and plenty of them who would flip on a dime if being against our rights was to their advantage.

I would have to say that you are very, very naive to believe that words/semantics makes a difference. It doesn't. Call it what you want but it's still homophobia. The school is forcing a girl to dress like a girl, when she wants to dress like a boy. Now why do they want her to dress like a girl and not a boy? Who are they to assign what gender of clothing she wears? Being a lesbian who wears boys clothes is her identity. It's like telling a girl she can't wear jeans because those are boys clothes.

Like I said, there is little or no protection of LGBT student's rights in a public school and this is another example of it. I would hardly call saying this is homophobia a "misuse" of power, as nothing changes when nobody is vocal about these issues. If we listened to your way of thinking, people would probably still think the earth is flat.

 

[sugaredwalls]

And just to drive the point home, here is the boogie man for public schools, this is the kind of garbage that makes them afraid or validates their reason for not letting a girl wear a tux in her yearbook photo:

Taken from the Family Research Council website, their viewpoint and a nifty bigots handbook you can buy for 2 bucks:

Homosexuality In Your Child's School

U.S. Mail: $2.00
(Download PDF) Homosexuality in Your Child's School (.pdf): Free
Despite decades of activism and media propaganda promoting acceptance and celebration of homosexuality, and a number of political and judicial victories for the pro-homosexual movement, polls show that a clear majority of Americans still believe that homosexual behavior is "morally wrong." Pro-homosexual activists have therefore decided that indoctrinating impressionable school children is an easier way of changing public attitudes toward homosexuality than persuading adults.

This pamphlet describes how pro-homosexual activists work their way up from seemingly innocent-sounding "safe schools" programs (which treat traditional values as being equivalent to racism), to one-sided "training" of teachers and students, to injecting homosexuality into every subject in the curriculum. Their final step is the active punishment of those who dare to express disapproval of homosexual behavior. This pamphlet will equip you to oppose this promotion of homosexuality in your child's school.

That's the kind of crap that LGBT parents and students at public school have to put up with. Traditional values my ass. Where are their rights?

 

[kbate]

I'm still female despite being gay.

I have no pretensions of being male, or desire to appear as a male.

She might desire to appear as a male, or be "anti-female" in the appearance department.

Society demands that we accept rules - and we cannot demand that every rule be modified to fit the whims of each and every individual - or society becomes meaningless.

Sometimes you have to fit in - bend a bit and you find that others become more willing to bend towards us. Standing stiff in every wind - only makes one tired and windbeaten.

 

[none2_none2]

I would have to say that you are very, very naive to believe that words/semantics makes a difference. It doesn't. Call it what you want but it's still homophobia. The school is forcing a girl to dress like a girl, when she wants to dress like a boy. Now why do they want her to dress like a girl and not a boy? Who are they to assign what gender of clothing she wears? Being a lesbian who wears boys clothes is her identity. It's like telling a girl she can't wear jeans because those are boys clothes.

Like I said, there is little or no protection of LGBT student's rights in a public school and this is another example of it. I would hardly call saying this is homophobia a "misuse" of power, as nothing changes when nobody is vocal about these issues. If we listened to your way of thinking, people would probably still think the earth is flat.

If you want to use the homophobic word every time you don't get your way, then people will simply ignore you and assume that you suffer from Tourette syndrome... Learn to pick your battles if you ever want to win.

Just so you know I have longer than normal hair to cover a birth defect. Back in my school days, guys were supposed to have short hair. I was harassed about it continually. It was seen as being like a hippy or a sissy. Some people in the community based such ideals on their religious belief, but there were plenty who weren't but still believed in traditional roles. It was bad enough that I was not allowed to join the boy scouts. Nevertheless, this was strictly about sexism -- not homophobia. To give you an idea of just how stubborn their beliefs were. At the same time I was harassed, they also had a Christmas parade with floats with some of them being religiously themed. I got to play "Jesus" in the float about Him in the temple. The reason being that as much as they were against hippies and sissies, somehow Jesus was the one exception to the long hair rule.


There were others in the schools who were labeled "fags" to these same people because they were known to engage in gay sex. I don't know examples of girls in this situation -- rather just a few guys. They dressed like boys. To put it bluntly, their "crime" was that they were known to "suck cock". Their tormentors started stories of one of the guys going outside in his mothers evening gown and high heals to get the newspaper. They made it up to embarrass him.

So sorry to correct you, but I am not naive. I'm just being honest. From the information that was provided, this is a case of sexism. You can even call it an issue with the transgendered rights, but then the article says she is gay -- not transgendered.

Bottom line: If you want to take away my rights to love or be with someone of the same gender, then yes I will call it homophobia. I don't need a particular length of hair, a particular item of clothing, nor make-up to make me gay. If you have silly, stupid rules about how I look and they are gender based, then it is simply sexism. In my case, I demand the right to wear my hair as I choose, but to call it homophobia would be a gross misuse of the term.

 

[none2_none2]

I'm still female despite being gay.

I have no pretensions of being male, or desire to appear as a male.

She might desire to appear as a male, or be "anti-female" in the appearance department.

Society demands that we accept rules - and we cannot demand that every rule be modified to fit the whims of each and every individual - or society becomes meaningless.

Sometimes you have to fit in - bend a bit and you find that others become more willing to bend towards us. Standing stiff in every wind - only makes one tired and windbeaten.

Well said!

 

[Safe_Bet]

I'm still female despite being gay.

I have no pretensions of being male, or desire to appear as a male.

She might desire to appear as a male, or be "anti-female" in the appearance department.

Society demands that we accept rules - and we cannot demand that every rule be modified to fit the whims of each and every individual - or society becomes meaningless.

Sometimes you have to fit in - bend a bit and you find that others become more willing to bend towards us. Standing stiff in every wind - only makes one tired and windbeaten.

Hon, "You" ain't "Her". She obviously has a much different gender identity than you or I (I'm pretty femmie). According to the article she ALWAYS wears boy's clothing which would most probably put her into the Q or I catagory of LGBTQI.

The thing is, is that is who SHE is. No asshole Principal has the right to "re-identify" her.

As for your "Sometimes you have to fit in - bend a bit and you find that others become more willing to bend towards us." comment... SERIOUSLY???? You must be kidding, right? All I see is the LGBTQI community "bending" and the str8/fundie/rethuglican/neocons kicking us in the ass.

Let me leave you with two pertaint quotes:

Change does not roll in on the wheels of inevitability, but comes through continuous struggle. And so we must straighten our backs and work for our freedom. A man can't ride you unless your back is bent.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

and

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

 

[kbate]

Hon, "You" ain't "Her". She obviously has a much different gender identity than you or I (I'm pretty femmie). According to the article she ALWAYS wears boy's clothing which would most probably put her into the Q or I catagory of LGBTQI.

The thing is, is that is who SHE is. No asshole Principal has the right to "re-identify" her.

As for your "Sometimes you have to fit in - bend a bit and you find that others become more willing to bend towards us." comment... SERIOUSLY???? You must be kidding, right? All I see is the LGBTQI community "bending" and the str8/fundie/rethuglican/neocons kicking us in the ass.

Let me leave you with two pertaint quotes:

Change does not roll in on the wheels of inevitability, but comes through continuous struggle. And so we must straighten our backs and work for our freedom. A man can't ride you unless your back is bent.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

and

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

You need to choose what truly matters, else you marginalise every bit of progress we do make.

It's not Neocons/Republican's and the right who kick us down... We lost in Liberal California too ---- it is society in general that disapproves of homosexuality, and one reason they do so, is the in-your-face- demand for special/different treatment.

Rather than reading King's pithy quotes and pretending that each is an axiom of life and universal trvth - read Sun Tsu and Machiavelli. Learn how, when and where to fight.

but in the meantime go ahead and flame me... I dared to disagree with a mainstream lbgt opinion.

 

[Safe_Bet]

You need to choose what truly matters, else you marginalise every bit of progress we do make.

It's not Neocons/Republican's and the right who kick us down... We lost in Liberal California too ---- it is society in general that disapproves of homosexuality, and one reason they do so, is the in-your-face- demand for special/different treatment.

ummm, princess... I suggest that you read a few of my posts before you start bitch slapping at me... I DO demand... but I demand EQUAL treatment! not special or different. I DEMAND to be treated EXACTLY the same as str8's are.

Whether "They approve"??? I honestly could give a shit. "They" didn't approve of blacks being allowed to marry white women; "They" didn't approve of women having the right to vote; "They" didn't think child labor was wrong...

The FACTS still remain that it is a RIGHT!

Rather than reading King's pithy quotes and pretending that each is an axiom of life and universal trvth - read Sun Tsu and Machiavelli. Learn how, when and where to fight.

but in the meantime go ahead and flame me... I dared to disagree with a mainstream lbgt opinion.

Nah, no reason to flame you. You have the right to you own opinion, no matter HOW snarky you are. You can disregard the words of Dr. King all you want. You can even strategize over cocktails with all those fine folks at the HRC as they "devise" how we should "give them more time". Knock you self out, babe. Don't sweat it! The REST of us will make sure that you get YOUR rights too.

 

[Etoile]

OMG it's kbate!!! *faints*

 

[sugaredwalls]

Hon, "You" ain't "Her". She obviously has a much different gender identity than you or I (I'm pretty femmie). According to the article she ALWAYS wears boy's clothing which would most probably put her into the Q or I catagory of LGBTQI.

The thing is, is that is who SHE is. No asshole Principal has the right to "re-identify" her.

As for your "Sometimes you have to fit in - bend a bit and you find that others become more willing to bend towards us." comment... SERIOUSLY???? You must be kidding, right? All I see is the LGBTQI community "bending" and the str8/fundie/rethuglican/neocons kicking us in the ass.

Let me leave you with two pertaint quotes:

Change does not roll in on the wheels of inevitability, but comes through continuous struggle. And so we must straighten our backs and work for our freedom. A man can't ride you unless your back is bent.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

and

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

Thanks, awesome quotes and very true words to live by!