The Resurrection of Racism, now Renamed Homophobia

violadamore2, James Nimo writes "Dear Commissioners of the Metropolitan Library System of Oklahoma County:

I can appreciate the seemingly intractable situation the Metropolitan Library System has been sucked into in regard to Representative Sally Kern's efforts to extort the library with budget cuts should Metro fail to appease her misguided ideas of majority representation. Don't be fooled by crocodile tears. Kern and Company are engaged in a disgusting power play into which they are dragging the library: the resurrection of racism, now renamed homophobia--the fear of gay people. Ms. Kern and her followers are infected with a mental dis-ease, if you will: an unsettling nervousness with sexuality of any kind, including their own. This discomfiture is only requited when a sacrifice is made to their deficient egos. Is this sacrifice going to be equality in the library?
The long-term best interest of the public library is using this 100% tax-paid service in a way that 100% of the citizens can use the books and materials knowing that the selections were made on a sound, professional basis and not segregated to appease those on the Commission, and those blinkered by ignorance, who think they've made the County safe for theocracy and prejudice. It's been stated that 3% of the annual Metro budget comes from the Oklahoma Department of Libraries. Is 3% the price of selling minority rights and equality? Is that more or less than thirty pieces of silver for your soul?

Your position as Commissioners is to spend tax money in ways that protect all citizens's rights. The library is not your private pulpit to berate one minority while celebrating your majority. It is not your place to judge people. Your position is to keep this library system an inviting, well-ordered service for all citizens, nothing more, nothing less.

Please recall that the original target of the Kern Campaign was to shelve what she calls gay-themed books. In support of Mrs. Kern, Mrs. Gillogly's plan submitted at the May Commission meeting is an attempt to dilute and hide naked antagonism directed at gay people. A so-called "parenting shelf" or "sensitive subject shelf" consisting of topics thought too bold for children was never considered necessary until Mrs. Kern made public her ugly homophobia, and like a magician, it has hypnotized many of you in to thinking just like she does. In February, Mrs. Kern never mentioned other topics, only so-called gay-themed books, but now Mrs.Gillogly's transparent attempt at "compromise" can be seen for what it is: camouflage to hide bigotry.

History has shown that when presented with unpopular ideas, people, or situations, leaders have frequently taken the wrong fork in the road. Just limiting our review to two or three generations past we can see that humans have not done the right thing at the right time. Only much later, sometimes as late as a lifetime, have the negative actions been rectified and at what terrible cost.

The Nazi book burning exhibit now in the Downtown Library Atrium is a notorious example of the negative choice some people made to try and remove Jews, a minority, from the exercise of their civil and human rights.

America had its own negative choice in the racial discrimination demonstrated towards another minority, African-Americans, that was such a bloody and "biblically" supported segment of our social and economic history. Separate but equal didn't work.

Why does the thought of gay people erect in your minds the brick walls of defense and exclusion? If Mrs. Kern were pushing for the segregating of African-American books would you have allowed the lies and bigotry said of gay citizens at recent Commission meetings to be directed at African-Americans to the extent you have allowed such gross lies and insults to taint the Library Commission's official record? Haven't you moved past such ignorance in racial matters? How many times have we read with amazement of the crimes committed against citizens of color during our American history, justified, the religiously inspired claimed, by some bible quote demanding segregation? Separate but equal didn't work for African-American citizens and it won't work for gay citizens either.

And now at the urging of Rep. Sally Kern, our public library is faced with whether you will continue the Constitutional policy now in place or will this Commission take the wrong fork in the road and place this library system on a journey down the dark trail that the human mind finds so fascinating: the suppression of another minority--gay citizens--a minority that has never done harm to any of you physically or mentally.

It is not illegal to be a minority. Why is the Commission so desperate to accommodate the prejudice of the ignorant unless this prejudice is currently the prevailing view of the Commission majority? Failing to lance this social carbuncle, you give the observing public the idea that infection with homophobia is acceptable. You reinforce prejudice to the extent you spin and hair-split over books that treat a legal minority of Oklahoma County with equality.

Why have a policy at all if not to use it now when it's needed?

The current library selection policy, last reviewed in 1997, is a good framework that encompasses all books, all points-of-view, all topics. Enforce the policy and your problems are solved! Don't get nervous and wavering when you have a perfectly sound basis to challenge those who think they have a right to NOT be offended. Don't use tax money to build a house of cards that falls when challenged.

James Nimmo

Oklahoma City, OK"

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Falling Out of My Chair

This choice will include dress and comportment, so I will be able to tell a tranny by how "he" is dressed and how "he" walks, because she will be dressed like a female and exhibit female body language.

Oh this is one for the LISNews archives. Blake are you reading this????

Dressed like a female. Exhibit female body language.

Birdie, Slash, any other females around here care to discuss skirts, pumps, perhaps why you never wear men's Levi's or always cross your legs when sitting?

Fang you're not a bigot, you're a 19th century hermit!

Simply too precious for words.

reality check

Unfortunetly you have to pay to see this article but the gist of it is that in the State House in Augusta, Maine, a man in drag representing a GBLT group was handing out condoms to 13 year olds.

I'm not a racist. I do have a low tolerance for idiots.

Re:reality check

Oh, makes sense now. That's a perfectly understandable reason for the Commissioners of a library system in Oklahoma to lock up the "gay themed" books.

Re:reality check

We as a profession cannot praise things like the Internet, Blogs, and technology in general for opening communication and information making it available to everyone around the world and then act as if certain things occur within a bubble.

Re:reality check

So providing the Holy Bible in the library has led to Priest and Pastors sexually abusing parishoners?

Re:reality check

yes, because as we all know the Holy Bible is, if nothing else, about priests and pastors sexually abusing parishoners.[/sarcasm]

Re:reality check

Just as we know that being GLBT is about handing out condoms to 13 year olds.

Re:reality check

Just as we know that being GLBT is about handing out condoms to 13 year olds.

Don't start changing your tune now. Wasn't everyone just defending men in drag going into women's bathrooms just a couple weeks ago? Haven't there been a number of defenses for men in dresses just this week? If I said condoms shouldn't even be in schools wouldn't there be a flurry of arguements coming from everyone? And supposedly none of this as anything to do with one another? There's no connection whatsoever? Yeah right.

Re:reality check

Wasn't everyone just defending men in drag going into women's bathrooms just a couple weeks ago?

No, Greg, we were not. We were slamming you for your ignorance about homosexuality and transexuality. And, by the way, those things are two entirely separate issues.

I know you won't get this, but I'm going to explain it here anyway for those who choose to not be invincibly ignorant. "Sex" is who you are on the outside, and is dependent on the plumbing you express in your phenotype. "Gender" is who you are on the inside, and is expressed in how you self-identify. In transexuals, the gender does not match up with their sex, and which washroom they use is solely dependent on their gender. So if you see some "guy" dressed in drag going into the Ladies room, that's not a guy, that's a chick.

As for handing out condoms to thirteen year olds, I bet some of them have been having wet dreams and should damned well know what condoms are and how to use them before they turn fourteen and are old enough for legal sex. Of course the problem ultra-rightists have with that is that nobody should be having sex without their permission.

And if anyone want's to know more about homosexuality and transexuality, see my commentary on these issues on rightist misperceptions about these issues.

Re:reality check

There's not Greg. Those issues stand or fall independent of whether or not someone is GLBT. People who are GLBT can have Conservative views. I suspect that many of them either do not, or refuse to act on them, because they have not found a home in the Conservative camp. The Log Cabin Republicans come immediately to mind.

The idea that because people are GLBT necessarily leads to a particular action is what I question. There are plenty of people, regardless of their sexual, or gender, identification that agree with (or disagree with) the issues you have brought up.

Your evident belief that allowing easy access to GLBT books for teens leads to the handing out of condoms to 13 year olds is utterly, and totally, unsupported by any evidence and is based solely upon your misconception of what "those" people are like. Reading a book does not lead to one simple conclusion. If it were that simple, why are there so many competing and differning beliefs around the Bible?

Re:reality check

Its called defining deviancy down.
Was anyone outraged about condoms in school? No? The bar goes down
King and King? the bar goes down
Men in skirts? the bar goes down
Men in the ladies room? the bar goes down
Men in skirts giving condoms to 13 year olds, the bar is there by your own inaction. This isn't just about "those people" but about each every one of us.

Re:reality check

Its called defining deviancy down.

In your narrow mindset, perhaps. To some of us it's: the slippery slope to intolerance. Knowledge is power, which is why you want high schoolers ignorant, isn't it? So they can't make well informed choices for themselves?

You want the next generation to be ignorant about the human dignity of fags, kikes, and niggers so they will hate on your command?

Your intolerance is in your heart by your choice. My choice is to not let your hate poison me.

Even your language is rife with extremist intolerance. "Those people"? Yeah, God forbid we should let any of "those people" escape being rounded up and sent to choke on Zyklon B.

Re:reality check (and God knows you need one)

LOLOL.. So the movie Braveheart was defining deviancy down? Those things are not all equal, Greg. To you, perhaps. But not to everyone. Just because you define something as deviant, does not mean that everyone else does, or needs to.

So, what did YOU do to stop the man from handing out condoms to 13 year olds?

I'm guessing that since you didn't answer any of my substantive points, that you don't have an answer, and, instead, you've decided to hide behind vague phrases like "defining deviancy down". How is King and King deviant? How is men wearing skirts "deviant". If you mean in the mathematical sense, then the vast majority of us are deviant in one form or another. Of course, at one time, blacks and whites getting married was considered deviant. Was that just another case of defining deviancy down?

Once something is declared, either by you or a majority, to be deviant, how do you get that particular thing off of the "deviant" list?

An example that comes to mind is that at various times, men wearing earrings has been both a standard fasihon statement AND deviant. What is YOUR standard for determing deviance? And what significance should that have for the rest of us that disagree?

Re:reality check (and God knows you need one)

any of your more substantive points? which ones were those exactly? Nothing like patting yourself on the back.

Men who try and pretend to be women. That's deviancy (and by the way, go to Scotland and tell them kilts are skirts and see what happens). Now it can be done for humor, can be done for fun, if thats what gets you off in the bedroom that's yours business. Go into a library and try and use it as an excuse to use the ladies room or go to your local statehouse and start handing out condoms that way and that just makes you a sick pup.

Re:reality check (and God knows you need one)

LOLOL, they were my substantive points. If you don't agree, that's wonderful. The point that how does reading a GLBT book lead to handing out condoms on to 13 year olds. Does it really matter if the person handing out those condoms is a man wearing a dress or not? Would you have been OK with it if they had been wearing a suit and a tie? So.. what did YOU do to stop that action? My excuse is that I'm 3000 miles away and didn't know about it until you told me.

But what would happen if a man wanted to wear a dress into the library and didn't ask to use the woman's restroom. Is that still deviant?

What if they're not pretending, but truly feel they are a woman in a man's body?

So, how do you define deviance... or do you only provide examples? How is a man pretending to be a woman deviant? Because most people don't do it?

Re:reality check (and God knows you need one)

Let me restate the question, because my last response did not do a very good job of that.

Your evident belief that allowing easy access to GLBT books for teens leads to the handing out of condoms to 13 year olds is utterly, and totally, unsupported by any evidence and is based solely upon your misconception of what "those" people are like. Reading a book does not lead to one simple conclusion. If it were that simple, why are there so many competing and differning beliefs around the Bible.

Is deviance, for you, simply any act that is not participated in by a majority with the country (or community, or what have you)?

Re:reality check (and God knows you need one)

Men who try and pretend to be women.

To reiterate:

I know you won't get this, but I'm going to explain it here anyway for those who choose to not be invincibly ignorant. "Sex" is who you are on the outside, and is dependent on the plumbing you express in your phenotype. "Gender" is who you are on the inside, and is expressed in how you self-identify. In transexuals, the gender does not match up with their sex, and which washroom they use is solely dependent on their gender. So if you see some "guy" dressed in drag going into the Ladies room, that's not a guy, that's a chick.

Psychosexual dynamics -- any kind of human dynamics -- do not fit into binary thinking. Rarely is anything in life as simple as the simple-minded present it. You are conflating homosexuality with transsexuality and transvestism and you are doing so while being woefully ignorant of all three issues. You are also denying "those people" their basic human rights. Everyone of "them" has much right to be who they are out in public as you do however much you don't like it. And you don't have to like it. But you do have to live with it. So stop with the naziism already. Or move someplace where they'll be happy to execute fags for you. Iran, Turkmenistan. . . .

Yes or No

So if you see some "guy" dressed in drag going into the Ladies room, that's not a guy, that's a chick.

Any you would continue sipping your margarita as you watch this chick choose the door labeled senoritas? The same washroom that your 13 year-old daughter happens to be using?

Re:Yes or No

Since I am not a bigot, yes.

Re:Yes or No

I appreciate the candor. It's also refreshing to see your reasoning buttressed in faith because that's all you have in hoping this chick isn't a pervert. I'm no bigot either, but those stick figures designating male and female washrooms having nothing to do with social contructs. As you say, they are all about the plumbing.

Re:reality check

I haven't said that reading a book like King & King is a direct link to guys in skirts handing out condoms. What I have been saying is that actions like the guy in the skirt handing out condoms or the guys in skirts using ladies restrooms or the heavy push for gay marriage is a direct link to what OK is doing. Blue states get bluer, red states get redder. Don't knock conservatives for tightening standards while liberals are busy cutting them loose.

Deviancy is defined as "Differing from a norm or from the accepted standards of a society". But I have no intention of getting into a debate on what is or is not deviant with someone who believes that nothing is deviant.

Re:reality check

Really. And you know that I believe that nothing is deviant how? You'll have to refresh my memory of when you asked me that.

If one definition of deviance is differing from the norm... then we all are deviant in one way or another.

LOLOL.. "tightening standards..." or , Defining Intolerance Up.

Re:reality check

"Really. And you know that I believe that nothing is deviant how? You'll have to refresh my memory of when you asked me that."

Its not for me to guide your arguments. If your just going to pick at the beliefs of others without offering your own then I'm going to assume you have none.

Re:reality check

LOLOL. Nice. I didn't guide the argument. You made the assumption. I was curious about what you based that on. Faulty logic, of course: "If he doesnt' offer an alternative, he must not have one." But, about par for the course.

Since you did offer a definition, and you haven't bothered to define it or describe it, I can assume that you would consider inter-racial marriage to be deviant in your way of thinking since it fits the definition you provided. I mean, I can't be responsible for guiding your argument, can I? So why do you consider interracial marriage deviant? And, of course, you would be in favor of taking any children's book that illustrated interracial marriage and shelving it in the Parent's Section because, by golly, it is deviant.

How bout' it??

Fang says ok. What about you? Do you let the chick proceed with your daughter already within??

Re:Yes or No

I'm no bigot either, . . .

Oh, yes, you are. The proof of the pudding is right here:

those stick figures designating male and female washrooms having nothing to do with social contructs.

Washroom segregation has a great deal to do with social constructs, and your inability to see past the plumbing is indicative of your reactionism and closed-mindedness.

Re:Yes or No

My question is how do you actually know it's a man in a dress? Are you looking up the skirts with mirrors on your shoes? (Talk about deviancy). And please don't say that it's "obvious" when a man is dressed up as a woman, cus it isn't always...some men make prettier women than a woman. And some women look very masculine, even in a dress.

You're also assuming that every man wearing a dress is a pervert or potentially so. Women can be molesters as well.

And to answer your question: if I knew for sure it was a man, I'd probably stay sitting but keep an eye out to make sure my daughter was out in short order. But that's assuming I knew it was a man.

s/

Re:Yes or No

Washroom segregation

Please.

Back to the restaurant. After this "chick" has placed him/herself in the same washroom as your 14 year-old daughter, some fella like myself, a thirty-something guy dressed in khaki's and a regular shirt, follows suit while you continue sipping your margarita without giving a second glance. Any move now on your behalf would only betray your own prejudices of what a transexual should look like. Knowing that you are not a bigot, we can safely say that you, Fang, have absolutely know problem with any man using a woman's bathroom.

So what we really have here is your advocating the abolishment of the the two-potty system as we know it. LISNews ladies are you listening????

Your welcome to answer

Slash, see my last scenario posted to Fang.

According to your countryman, unless you open your mind and let any man use the girls potty, you're a bigot by way of projecting transexual stereotyping.

But that's assuming I knew it was a man.

Well now, that's really the issue here isn't it? Are you using the phenotype or "who you are on the inside" definition?

Re:Yes or No

So what we really have here is your advocating the abolishment of the the two-potty system . . .

NO, what we have here is a standard reactionary non sequitur. Two of them, in fact. One is founded on your ignorance of the psychosexual dynamics of sexualism and transexualism.

Aside from that, it is social conventions in large part that keep washrooms segregated. I doubt there is any law against it. Despite that, men and women, given a chance to segregate, do segregate. This is simple human dynamics, not a part of the "vast left-wing conspiracy".

Re:Yes or No

NO, what we have here is a standard reactionary non sequitur.

Oh contraire. What we have here is an attempt to obfuscate my question behind your customary Latin nonsense. To revisit my question.

I'm labeled a bigot for accepting those stick figures as "phenotype people". And yes this also means washroom segregation. But how does one identify a transsexual? Jackboots, fish net stockings, perhaps a fashionable Liz Clairborne purse? The truth is you can't without projecting as you like to say, your own biases. To say otherwise would be to know that only men dressed in drag, or otherwise identifiable as transsexual are permitted to use the girls potty. So your inability to establish visual criteria, at least none so far, follows that my logic does follow. That being the concept of "one" washroom by virtue of self-identifying preference rather than physiological rule. For the majority of men and women uncomfortable with sharing a washroom or shower with others of the opposite sex, Fang, until this point, says "Too bad".

The question again. A fella like myself, a thirty-something guy dressed in khaki's and a regular shirt, follows your 14 year-old daughter into the bathroom. Or for that matter, women's locker room at the local swimming pool. What do you do?

Re:Yes or No

I'm labeled a bigot for accepting those stick figures as "phenotype people".

No, you are labelled a bigot for refusing to respect the human dignity and the rights of transexuals.

But how does one identify a transsexual?

"You" don't; they identify themselves, and the one you described will not be a male-to-female tranny in any event, it will be a female-to-male tranny who will be going into the men's room.

To say otherwise would be to know that only men dressed in drag, . . .

See, this is your reactionary biases coming to the fore again. Transvestites do not self-identify as women, they self-identify as men who like to dress like women. I will admit, however, that your logical fallacy (just to keep it in a language you know but still have trouble following), raises an interesting question: Which washroom do transvestites use when they are out in public?

Do us a favour, will you? Find a transvestite support group and ask them.

As for transexuals, which washroom they use depends on the degree of difference they feel. If such a one has made a conscious choice to be female despite "his" phenotype, then she will live as a female. This choice will include dress and comportment, so I will be able to tell a tranny by how "he" is dressed and how "he" walks, because she will be dressed like a female and exhibit female body language.

And by the way, in your sample you are attempting to conflate prospective child molesters with transexuals.

Re:How bout' it??

I really had to think hard about this one. It's not something that I'm used to, and there is a lot of years of warnings about sexual predators, etc... to sift through. That and I don't have any daughters.

I don't think I would stop them, but I would probably be personally uncomfortable with it. Depending upon the circumstances, what sort of "vibe" I got from the situation, etc..., I'd probably send my wife in as well to make sure that everything was OK.

Which is odd when you think about it. We send our kids off to camps and sports where it has been shown over and over again that predators hang out and take advantage of those positions of authority and trust. Just recently, a District Executive with the Boy Scouts in Portland, OR, and who had moved up in the administrative ranks of the BSA and was in Irving Texas, was found to have child porn on his computer. He looked like your just average type of guy. Which, I think, is the point I'm trying to make. Just because someone looks different, does not make them anymore of a danger than someone who looks "normal".

And, how is it any different when we don't bat an eye when a guy goes into the bathroom with our son in there? That normal looking guy is just as likely to be a predator as the transgendered individual using the women's restroom.

GLBT

I always find it amusing how people link glbt with the worst of the homophobic stereotype but yet refuse to link heterosexality with its own negative stereotypes. Its a blinkers thing, i think. Most heterosexuals wear gigantic blinkers so that they don't have to see anything other than what they want to(in reagrds to anything other than their own sexuality and its validity). Poverty, rape, racism, ageism, losers are all things that blinkers can apply to, I'm just sorry that people don't understand that blinkers are for ANIMALS.Now i know for some people its just hard to understand that GLBT is valid and it doesn't involve handing out condoms to 13yr olds (most have their own anyway!). Just because one person depicts a negative does not mean all follow that trend, otherwise i'd be more than happy to believe all priests are rapists, all nuns are lusting whores hiding behind the evil cultish churches and all heterosexuals were small minded, elitists with more lust than love and less brains than imagined brawn.Something i personally see as offensive is removing a display and shifting it into a corner out of the way of the easily offended. If you're offended by it you should be reading more about it and spending more time with it starting you right in the face, rather than being accommodated and getting it moved.Its cheap, childish and if you can get offended at a couple of books and a poster then wtf are you doing in a library!?!

Re:Falling Out of My Chair

Now, tomeboy, you're stereotyping women. I almost never wear skirts/dresses; I never wear high heeled shoes--I wear sandals (sometimes ones that have a heel)year round, except when it snows, then I wear boots outside. I have bought and worn mens jeans before, although I usually shop in the women's section. I also don't tend to cross my legs when sitting. I don't wear make up...when it comes to some things, I'm not very girlie. Although put a spider near me and I'll give you a very girlie scream.

I think this shows that no one is 100% male or female or at least society's definition of same. As to the whole bathroom question: If I saw someone that to my perceptions and experience, looked like a man and dressed as such, going into a womans'/girls' washroom, yes I would be concerned and do something about it. But if it was a man wearing a dress (and whatever definition of male you want here) then I probably wouldn't because my socialisation, the visual cues, would tell me that it was a woman so I wouldn't ever know the true gender/sex of the person.

The concern with this whole male looking female going into the washroom is interesting. Let's turn it around: if you saw someone who was "obviously" female going into the mens' washroom and your 13 year son was in there, would you be as concerned for your son as for your poor daughter off in the girls' room?

And wasn't there a time when it was considered "deviant" for women to wear pants?

s/

Syndicate content