Box Turtle Bulletin

Hey, tranny…

There is currently a bit of a kerfuffle about the show Glee using the word “tranny” during their Rocky Horror episode. GLAAD is calling them in to have a little talk about it.

But here’s the thing, in a bigger sense, I still don’t know what appropriate term to use.

Yes, I know that the appropriate term is “transgender”, but I don’t think I’ve ever hear that used in a casual setting. It’s just too cumbersome and kinda clinical.

The first MTF transgender I knew was a loud brassy hippy-chick who was very kind to a naive young activist. She referred to herself as a tranny and, at the time, it seemed like everyone did. But while I know that term is still common among folks of a certain age who never thought of it as offensive, others find it to be an indication of disrespect.

Another friend of mine calls herself a T-girl. But I can’t say just how common that is. She may be the only one, for all I know.

So it’s a bit of an open question, I think. And one that is worth raising here as I know we have more than a few transgender readers. So I’ll ask you, our transgender folk (though others can opine as well):

Do you want to insist on “transgender”?

Some may. (I recall the lectures given to commenters on this site who made the fatal error of saying “transgendered”). But if so, is that a rule you keep for yourself? Do you always and only call yourself transgender?

Others may suggest that within friends other terms can be used. What might they be? What can we say that is not going to offend?

What can GLEE say that won’t offend? For that matter, is it even acceptable to be a sweet transvestite from transexual Transylvania anymore?

Shirvell fired

Having finally been determined to be too much of an embarrassment to work for the Michigan Attorney General’s office as an assistant DA (something I knew immediately), Andrew Shirvell has been fired by his boss (and onetime defender) Mike Cox. (Ann Arbor)

Shirvell was fired for using state resources for his campaign against University of Michigan student body President Chris Armstrong and for lying to investigators during his disciplinary hearing, Attorney General Mike Cox said in a statement.

That and making a fool of himself on television repeatedly.

SCOTUS declines to hear Lisa Miller’s appeal

From the Washington Post

The Supreme Court has declined to step into a lesbian custody dispute between a woman who has renounced her homosexuality and her onetime partner.

The justices on Monday turned down an appeal from Lisa Miller, the biological mother of an 8-year-old girl. Miller wanted the court to undo a Virginia court decision allowing Janet Jenkins visitation rights with the girl.

Actually it is no longer just over visitation rights. Now the courts have granted Janet Jenkins full custody. Meanwhile Lisa Miller has taken little Isabella and disappeared.

Nightline features Journey Into Manhood tonight

ABC’s Nightline will feature ex-gay group Journey Into Manhood tonight:

The retreat called “Journey to Manhood” offers therapeutic peer counseling over 48 hours to help men like Preston, who voluntarily come to learn how to deal with what they call “same-sex attractions.” For the first time ever, the retreat allowed cameras inside their controversial organization and ABC News was granted exclusive access.

Built on the premise that gay men are really just wanting to connect with their fathers, JIM is a hodge-podge of psychobabble and Cohen-style cuddling. It will be interesting to see how ABC handles this story, but the practices of Journey Into Manhood do not lend themselves to the light of exposure.

WSJ: DADT repeal is all but dead

Laura Meckler at the Wall Street Journal is reporting on the imminent death of the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

Advocates on both sides believed the issue had a chance of coming up in this month’s post-election session of Congress. Now that looks unlikely.

Sens. Carl Levin of Michigan and John McCain of Arizona, the top Democrat and Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, are in talks on stripping the proposed repeal and other controversial provisions from a broader defense bill, leaving the repeal with no legislative vehicle to carry it.

I’m not certain how she had determined that Levin and McCain’s efforts to remove the provision will be more effective now than their opposition when it was included. But it would seem to me that any effort to strip the repeal would require a vote on the floor and, unless those Senators who have committed to repeal renege on their promise, the votes are not with Levin and McCain. But perhaps there are peculiar rules which would allow such a move.

She also notes that the Administration is less than encouraging about the effort.

The Obama administration isn’t raising expectations that the issue will be considered this year. “I would like to see the repeal of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’ but I’m not sure what the prospects for that are,” Defense Secretary Robert Gates told reporters traveling with him in Australia over the weekend.

Asked what the White House priorities are for the coming congressional session, press secretary Robert Gibbs named four issues—tax cuts, a nuclear-arms treaty with Russia, a child nutrition bill and confirmation of Jack Lew as White House budget director. Asked why he wouldn’t put gays in the military on the list, Mr. Gibbs said it looked like Republicans would block action.

Supporters of the current policy gained high-profile backing over the weekend when the new commandant of the Marine Corps said he was concerned about unit cohesion and combat readiness if the policy was overturned. “There’s risk involved,” Gen. James Amos said. “This is not a social thing. This is combat effectiveness.”

Frankly, many of us are doubtful of the Administration’s commitment to gay issues. But surely President Obama is not so foolish as to call for repeal in the lame duck session and not follow through. Surely he will not actually show more commitment to defending DADT in court than he does in opposing it on the Hill. Surely he is aware that if he does so, he will lose the support and respect of those members of our community that still hold him in high regard.

Surely.

Bishop Robinson to Retire

There are few people whose lives have a global impact. Gene Robinson is one of them.

In 2003, when the Episcopal Church elevated Robinson, an openly gay man, to Bishop of New Hampshire, a shift in global religion, politics and power occurred.

While other factors had been leading to such a change for a long time, Robinson became a symbol, a rallying point, for those who were unhappy with the influence that England had over Christendom and the related political power she wielded.

The Episcopal Church is part of the Anglican Communion, the largest body of Christians outside the Roman Catholic Church. And while the Episcopal Church in the US is smaller and perhaps a bit elite, the Anglican faith dominates vast portions of Africa and is the voice of Christianity in many nations.

As the Church of England – and her Western sisters – have become increasingly liberal and increasingly the faith of modern industrious secular nations, ideological differences were bound to build in third world nations where there is a different perspective on life. And as there are far far more Anglicans in Africa than in The West, the deference given to the Church of England and the West became galling to local religious leaders.

Robinson’s appointment became a point of contention and an ultimatum arose. Either punish the Episcopal Church for daring to raise a gay man to Bishop, or the Global South (Africa and Asia) would be in schism.

Much negotiation and positioning has gone on since that time. The Episcopal Church has been slapped down (but refused to back down), a “solution” that appeased no one and resolved nothing. And while the current fragile relationship of the Anglican Communion is one of uncertainty, it seems to me that a break-up of the communion is inevitable.

This shift has also empowered African politicians to take up anti-gay causes, knowing that this is – within the church – an item of pride of identity and a symbol not only of African independence but African superiority.

And during all of this, Robinson has been a figure of international scorn and one of the most hated men on the planet. it hasn’t been easy. And now he has decided to retire. (Guardian)

The Rt Rev Gene Robinson, of New Hampshire, revealed his plans yesterday, at an annual diocesan meeting. He will be 65 when he steps down, seven years below the retirement age.

He told the convention that being in the eye of the storm had proved too much. He said: “Death threats, and the now-worldwide controversy surrounding your election of me as bishop, have been a constant strain, not just on me, but on my beloved husband, Mark, who has faithfully stood with me every minute of the last seven years, and in some ways, you.

“While I believe that these attitudes, mostly outside the diocese, have not distracted me from my service to you, I would be less than honest if I didn’t say that they have certainly added a burden and certain anxiety to my episcopate.”

However, this will not be much of a point of celebration for any Anglicans or a symbol of conservative victory. In May of this year, lesbian Mary Glasspool was consecrated bishop in Los Angeles. The Episcopal Church is not walking away from its gay members and the division will continue.

I wish Robinson well.

Gates calls for lame duck DADT repeal

The AP

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Congress should act quickly, before new members take their seats, to repeal the military’s ban on gays serving openly in the military.

He, however, did not sound optimistic that the current Congress would use a brief postelection session to get rid of the law known as “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

“I would like to see the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” but I’m not sure what the prospects for that are,” Gates said Saturday, as he traveled to defense and diplomatic meetings in Australia.

I appreciate the support of the Secretary of Defense on this issue. His voice is important to the debate.

But I can’t help but get the sense that he is not really clued into the President’s pledged campaign to repeal DADT during the lame duck session. It feels as though they aren’t on the same page. And that makes me concerned about the level of commitment that the Administration has for making this happen.

“They mapped the human genome — there’s no gay gene!”

Not long ago I saw this on NOM’s Facebook page:

They’ve mapped the human genome. There’s no gay gene!

I can’t find the quote anymore, but that doesn’t matter because this mistake is all over the Internet. The most common source seems to be this deeply flawed statement:

On April 14, 2003, the International Human Genome Consortium announced the successful completion of the Human Genome Project—two years ahead of schedule. The press report read: “The human genome is complete and the Human Genome Project is over” (see “Human Genome Report…,” 2003, emp. added). Most of the major science journals reported on the progress in the field of genetics, but also speculated on how the information would now be used. The one piece of information that never materialized from the Human Genome Project was the identification of the so-called “gay gene.”

So much wrong with this.* But that last sentence is especially bad:

The one piece of information that never materialized from the Human Genome Project was the identification of the so-called “gay gene.”

Actually, no — lots of information didn’t materialize from the project. Like the number of genes. Where they’re located on the genome. What those genes do. The same group that issued the press release also said this:

A sampling follows of some research challenges in genetics–what we still don’t know, even with the full human DNA sequence in hand.

• Gene number, exact locations, and functions
• Gene regulation
• DNA sequence organization
• Chromosomal structure and organization

And that’s just the beginning.

I can see why people are confused. What do you mean we don’t know how many genes there are? We’ve mapped the whole genome!

Strands of DNA, held together by base pairs

But that’s not what mapping the genome means. What does it mean, then? Time to get all dorky:

• The human genome is made up of 24 chromosomes 23 pairs of chromosomes.

• Chromosomes contain DNA, the genetic instructions governing an organism.

• DNA is shaped like two long curly strands (imagine a double slinky) held together by “base pairs” of chemicals called neucleotides.

Wikipedia offers a great description of how these elements fit together:

• DNA is made of two strands that pair together like the two sides of a zipper.

• The nucleotides are in the center, like the teeth in the zipper, and pair up to hold the two strands together.

• Importantly, the four different sorts of nucleotides are different shapes, so in order for the strands to close up properly, an A nucleotide must go opposite a T nucleotide, and a G opposite a C.

• This exact pairing is called base pairing.

And what’s a gene? A gene is a stretch of DNA, a sequence of base pairs. Now here’s the key:

To say we’ve mapped the human genome is to say we’ve sequenced all the base pairs.

The cobblestone highway

That’s it. It does not mean we’ve identified all the genes in the sequence. And it sure doesn’t mean we know the function of each gene we have identified.

Here’s a metaphor of my own. Imagine a chromosome is like a cobblestone highway winding through America. We can walk the highway and identify every cobblestone (or nucelotide), but that doesn’t mean we know what state (or gene) we’re in, or even how many states there are — much less what each state does.

You can see this by looking at the genes that researchers have only isolated recently:

All of this, discovered after the Human Genome Project was “complete.”

Unfortunately, anti-gays depend a lot on junk science and ignoring the facts they don’t want to see. The passage I quoted up top is all over the Internet, so it would be handy to condense this rebuttal into a simple statement that doesn’t require carrying around a nucleotide zipper diagram.

This is what I’ve come up with:

Mapping the genome just means they’ve figured out its chemical structure. They still haven’t broken it down into all the individual genes yet. They’re not even sure how many human genes there are. I mean, they didn’t find the gene for near-sightedness until 2010, seven years after the genome project was complete. Who knows what else they’ll find next?

For the record, I have no idea whether there’s a gay gene. Or a gay combination of genes. I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s a lot like height: We know there’s a genetic component, but environmental factors play a part, too, like hormones in the womb, and childhood diet and health. Yet even though it’s not 100% genetic, that doesn’t mean it’s a choice.

Either way, though, this particular anti-gay argument is dripping with irony. By attempting to cloak their homophobia in science, they do nothing but reveal their scientific illiteracy.

But at this point in the game, are you really surprised?

* The authors of this statement seem to be lying. The phrase,”The human genome is complete and the Human Genome Project is over” doesn’t appear anywhere in the press release (the authors direct you to the press release here, though that page merely links to the release itself). I don’t know why they felt the need to lie, because the Project is indeed complete. Maybe they were just sloppy, not dishonest. It’s aggravating, nonetheless.

UPDATE: Here’s a great graphic illustrating the relationship between the genome, chromosomes, DNA, genes, and base pairs.

Log Cabin appeals to Supremes

Earlier this week, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted the Administration’s request to put a permanent stay on Judge Phillips’ ruling which found the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy to violate the US Constitution. The Military will be able to continue to discharge gay and lesbian servicemembers until such time as the Appeal is determined.

Log Cabin Republicans didn’t accept that decision as final and have instead filed an emergency request to have the stay lifted. (CNN)

The Log Cabin Republicans filed an emergency request with the nation’s highest court to reverse the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal decision to allow the military to continue with “don’t ask, don’t tell,” while the government appeals the lower court ruling that the law is unconstitutional.
…
The high court appeal– “called an “application” — is now in the hands of Justice Anthony Kennedy. He will likely ask his eight colleagues to help him decide and order the federal government to weigh in with its views before a decision is made.

Alternately, Kennedy could decide on his own. In any case, while continuing the stay may say nothing about the ultimate position of Supreme Court Justices, a lifting of the stay could tell us a great deal.

Filing after the break

Read the rest of this entry »

Poll: Is psychologist Jeff Gardere right about “worst nightmare”?

Dr. Jeff Gardere is not a hater. The celebrity couples therapist isn’t out to attack the rights of gay people. But he may be making assumptions about parents that are based more in his own internalized prejudices than on reality.

He was a guest last night on CNN to discuss blogger Nerdy Apple Bottom’s posting about her five year old son’s decision to go to a Halloween party as Daphne from Scooby-Doo. In addition to scolding the mother for “outing her son”, he announced a rather shocking and surprising declaration:

“I have to tell you, I work with many heterosexual as well as, uh, gay couples and it is the worst nightmare of both the heterosexual and the gay couples to have to fathom that their child may be gay.”

Now it may be that those heterosexual and, uh, gay couples that I know are anomalous. Perhaps I only have run across very strange heterosexual and, uh, gay couples in my life, but I don’t know any who consider fathoming that their child may be gay to be their worst nightmare.

I know some who would prefer that their kid be straight, some who don’t care, and some couples who hope that one of their kids is gay. I even know of one parent who tried to raise a son to be gay… unsuccessfully (but he did end up supportive). Yet I don’t know any who are fearful of such a prospect, much less that it’s their worst nightmare.

But I may be unusual in that way. So let me poll our readers, some of whom are, uh, gay couples who have or hope to have kids of their own.

A mother refuses to be bullied by good concerned Christian women

If you have not yet seen this, and you probably have, this here is the five year old son of Nerdy Apple Bottom. It’s Halloween and he’s Daphne. And his mother is not going to let you bully him about it.

If you think that me allowing my son to be a female character for Halloween is somehow going to ‘make’ him gay then you are an idiot. Firstly, what a ridiculous concept. Secondly, if my son is gay, OK. I will love him no less. Thirdly, I am not worried that your son will grow up to be an actual ninja so back off.

If my daughter had dressed as Batman, no one would have thought twice about it. No one.

But it also was heartbreaking to me that my sweet, kind-hearted five year old was right to be worried. He knew that there were people like A, B, and C. And he, at 5, was concerned about how they would perceive him and what would happen to him.

Just as it was heartbreaking to those parents that have lost their children recently due to bullying. IT IS NOT OK TO BULLY. Even if you wrap it up in a bow and call it ‘concern.’ Those women were trying to bully me. And my son. MY son.

These good mothers at the Christian school would never ever think of themselves as bullies. But they are setting role models for their children, approving of condemnation and rejection and letting their kids know that they have the right to humiliate other kids who don’t dress up to their standards or live according to their gender expectations.

But I think this kid’s going to be okay. He has a cop for a father and a super-hero for a mother. I love this woman.

My son is gay. Or he’s not. I don’t care. He is still my son. And he is 5. And I am his mother. And if you have a problem with anything mentioned above, I don’t want to know you.

Amen.

World Net Daily’s magazine: for folks who are astonishingly stupid

World Net Daily, the website who never goes a day without at least a few Shocking! Discoveries! about the Homosexual! Agenda!, is declaring that America has a gay obsession. Other than the obvious observation that WND is looking at a mirror and thinking its a window, they offer evidence that is even stupider than usual. It’s even stupider than when they told us that homosexuality is caused by soy products.

In fact, so gay obsessed are WND… oh, I mean America… that WND’s “magazine” Whistleblower (only $40 for the year, buy now!!) is dedicating the next issue to AMERICA’S ‘GAY’ OBSESSION.

It’s full of fascinating and fanciful articles such as:

* “The ‘gay’ deathstyle” by J. Matt Barber, in which the attorney explores implications of the shocking news that 20 percent of “gay” males in the U.S. are HIV-positive [actually it’s 11.8%, but Barber isn’t very good at comprehension and can’t read beyond the first paragraph]

* “The zero-sum game of ‘gay rights'” by Peter LaBarbera, an eye-opening survey of casualties in the escalating war between homosexual activism and Americans’ freedom of conscience

* “What’s causing all the ‘gay’ teen suicides?” by Linda Harvey, who shows that while some blame anti-homosexual bigotry, the truth may be quite the opposite

Yes! Buy now and read that what America really needs today is more anti-homosexual bigotry so as to stop ‘gay’ teen suicides. And WND is so impressed with its magazine that they are printing testimonials from, well, themselves.

“This issue of Whistleblower is simply terrific,” said WND Editor Joseph Farah, “and there is no other news organization that will provide this kind of amazing information and analysis on a critical issue most are afraid to touch.

“Everybody who wants the America of the future to remain ‘a shining city on a hill’ needs to read ‘AMERICA’S GAY OBSESSION’ – and share it with others,” he said.

Added Kupelian: “I know everyone these days is preoccupied with politics and the economy, and may feel that ‘gay rights’ is just some ‘marginal social issue.’ I have news for you: This ‘marginal’ issue is increasingly outlawing the Christian faith. That’s not an exaggeration: Owen and Eunice Johns, a lovely Christian couple, want to open their home to foster children – but the government refuses and condemns them because they’re Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin.

“Get it? It’s no longer a matter of whether homosexuals are fit to adopt children or take them in as foster parents,” said Kupelian, “but rather, it is now Christian parents who are considered unacceptable to raise children. This is happening more and more.

“If you want to stop the rapid criminalization of Christianity, you need to read ‘AMERICA’S ‘GAY’ OBSESSION.'”

Just one small problem… the Johns are not exactly a clear example of America’s gay obsession or even of America’s “rapid criminalization of Christianity”. In fact, the Johns aren’t American at all. They live in Derby, about 130 miles north of London. And “the government” which is “condemning” them is not the United States but the United Kingdom.

But it’s okay. World Net Daily knows that their readers never look up anything for themselves. Or, if they do, they probably won’t know that England is not part of America. You see, WND counts on its readers being stupid. Really stupid. Astonishingly stupid.

Colorado school forces gay marriage supporter to change her shirt

Falcon High School in Falcon, Colorado, has a student dress code:

The Board recognizes that students have a right to express themselves through dress and personal appearance; however, students shall not wear apparel that is deemed disruptive or potentially disruptive to the classroom environment or to the maintenance of a safe and orderly school.

The school even provides specifics on forbidden clothing. The first five rules relate to revealing items, but the sixth category addresses expression:

6. Any clothing, paraphernalia, grooming, jewelry, hair coloring, accessories, or body adornments that are or contain any advertisement, symbols, words, slogans, patches, or pictures that:

* Refer to drugs, tobacco, alcohol, or weapons.

* Are of a sexual nature.

* By virtue of color, arrangement, trademark, or other attribute, denote membership in gangs that advocate drug use, violence, or disruptive behavior.

* Are obscene, profane, vulgar, lewd, or legally libelous.

* Threaten the safety or welfare of any person.

* Promote any activity prohibited by the student code of conduct.

* Create a safety hazard for the student or others.

*Otherwise disrupt the teaching-learning process.

These seem clear. However, when Kate Cohn wore a shirt to school which said “[marriage is so gay]”, the principle made her remove it, insisting it was in violation to the school policy. (KKTV)

“Our district does have a dress code policy, all the students are aware of it,” said District 49 spokesperson Stephanie Meredith. According to Meredith, the school’s principal acted within the parameters of the school dress code, which gives an administrator room to decide when a line has been crossed.

“If it’s obscene, lewd, or anything that might be disruptive to the educational environment,” Meredith said, “Those are things where a judgment call might come into play.”

Cohn’s pro-gay-marriage message is not obscene or lewd. Which must mean that Principal Greg Moles Mike Carara finds this message to “disrupt the teaching-learning process.”

I wonder exactly what teaching and learning Moles Carara doesn’t want disrupted by Cohn’s support for her gay friends and family.

Reaching the bullies

I am pretty certain that were I a 14 year old kid, I would have almost zero interest in watching professional wrestling. But there are certainly plenty of boys who do, and it’s probably a fair assumption that those who are inclined to physically harass their classmates are among those more likely to be drawn to such entertainment.

So it is encouraging that Total Nonstop Action Wrestling has begun an anti-bullying campaign.

“Everyone at TNA stands firmly behind this new anti-bullying campaign. The bullying must stop, and we want to take a stand,” said TNA Chief Marketing Officer, Al Ovadia, himself a father of two. “There’s no place in our schools for bullying, be it based on a student’s looks, race, sexual orientation or anything else.”

Such “yeah, us too” campaigns may not seem to be as professionally prepared as those planned by child advocates, but they are of tremendous importance. Bullies may dismiss the efforts of the goodie-goodies, but when presumed safe havens for bullies – such as tough-guy wrestling sports – make it clear that bullying is not accepted by them either, it places importance on the issue.

When we as adults make it clear that no one – not churches, not tough guys, not conservatives, no one at all – accepts the torment of others, including less masculine boys and less feminine girls, then we will finally reach these kids. Let’s hope that those few voices who still give shelter to bullies and wink at their behavior – or justify it – are soon shamed into joining

My existence is not a violation of your rights

I am becoming increasingly frustrated by the notion of “balance” that some in the anti-gay industry are espousing.

I support the right of those who believe that homosexual acts are sinful and wish to encourage abstinence to have their voices heard. And those who think that the social acceptance of same-sex couples in society reduces public morality and will lead to social ills should be given the space to present their case.

But the false equivalencies that have been presented lately do not speak to an exchange of ideas, but rather to the assumptions of entitlement to which anti-gay activists think they are due.

The counterbalance to “I wish to advocate for gay rights” is not “you must be kept silent.” And there is no moral equivalency between “I wish to live unharmed” and “I wish to beat you to submission.” Yet these are not greatly exaggerated from that which we see presented.

Take, for example, Russian gay rights protesters who sued their country in the European Court after being denied the right to assemble. The court found last month that their rights had been violated and ordered that Russia allow for future gay rights demonstrations and assigned compensation.

The response to this decision by the Russian Orthodox Church is astonishing. (Interfax Religion)

“The decision made in Strasbourg essentially constitutes violence against the feelings and morals of the majority of [Russian] society. That will hardly help achieve the stated purpose to cultivate tolerance and achieve accord, mutual understanding and peaceful co-existence,” Father Filaret said in an interview with Interfax-Religion.

Peaceful assembly is depicted by the church as “violence against the morals and feelings of society.” The real violence enacted against the physical bodies of gay people in Russia was given less concern by the church than the “violence” against anti-gays feelings.

Howell Superintendent Ron Wilson

Or take note of the equivalencies assigned by the school board in Howell, Michigan. (Livingston Daily)

• On October 20, Jay McDowell wore a purple shirt to class to express solidarity with students who are bullied for being (or being perceived as) gay or lesbian. This led to a discussion about bullying and why it should be opposed.
• One student, who had come to class with a Confederate Flag belt buckle was asked by McDowell to remove the item (she did).
• In response, a male student declared that he opposes rainbow flags because, “I don’t accept Gays. It is against my religion. I am Catholic.”
• McDowell attempted to explain how “I don’t accept” followed by any group was disruptive and when the student refused to back down, suspended him and another student from the class for the day.

As the Michigan Messenger describes it:

That student … and another student, were kicked out of McDowell’s Economic class after debating with the teacher about a third student’s Confederate flag belt buckle. The student questioned why it was OK for students to wear clothing to support LGBT issues, but not for a student to wear a Confederate flag.

In other words, why isn’t “I support” equivalent to “I don’t accept”? Shouldn’t both positions be given the same prominence and legal and moral weight?

No. Perhaps in some settings, but not this one.

Because the context of the debate was over the bullying of children. And in that context, “I don’t accept gays” is an implicit endorsement of bullying of school children. When speaking of bullying, “I don’t accept” is a justification for bullying.

Yet the school board found that McDowell violated the rights of these two boys to their free expression and reprimanded him. And in doing so, they made the following comparison:

You also state you routinely do not allow [the Confederate Flag] in your classroom because it offends you, and you personally connect this symbol to a list of oppressions and atrocities. You do, however, allow the display of the rainbow flag, to which some of your students have voiced opposition.

McDowell actually does not display the rainbow flag. (And, indeed, if McDowell did use his class space to advocate for specific (or even general) political positions to the exclusion of other positions, I would agree that this was unfair.) But irrespective of that inaccuracy, consider what it means that the school board administration compared the two:

On one hand the Confederate Flag has a traceable history and an identifiable connection with acts of violence and advocacy of discrimination and intolerance towards people based on their racial and religious identity. In fact, in this particular high school it was linked to a Facebook Hate Group which, in 2009, used the flag as its profile picture and students have been required to remove the symbol from their cars. The Confederate Flag at Howell High was directly connected to a threat against some students.

On the other hand, the rainbow flag is linked with a set of social positions with which some students disagree. At most, it exists as a challenge to the beliefs of some students. But in the minds of this school board administration, a challenge to their beliefs is equivalent to – or worse than – a physical threat against others.

And so they accused McDowell of bullying the students, of denying their right to “not accept” their fellow students. In response to his defense of gay students from being bullied (or “not accepted”), they order him to “cease from engaging in the promotion of your personal social issues.”

For refusing to accept statements of intolerance in his classroom, the board accused McDowell of being intolerant.

Nonsense. Contrary to what anti-gay activists claim, tolerance is not defined by the extent to which it allows intolerance to prevail.

But perhaps most troubling is this instruction to McDowell: “Where controversial issues arise, be sure all sides of the controversial issue be explored without emotion and bias.” Think back to the originating situation, the reason for McDowell’s decision to wear purple: the suicide deaths of a number of gay and presumed-gay children.

What, I wonder, are “all sides” of the “controversial issue” that gay students should not be bullied to death?