Mr. Pinza, what's a lesbian?

This summer, I'm teaching basic debate to middle-schoolers. They chose to debate school dress codes, and one enterprising student stumbled upon the story of Natalie Young of Queens, who was sent home from her middle school in April, 2002 for wearing a T-shirt that said "Barbie is a Lesbian." That little story could prove very useful in his debates. Just one small glitch:

Mr. Pinza, what's a lesbian?

A super-sized teachable moment, right? Well, yes, but also a professional test. Remember, this is a young boy, barely a tween, asking a direct definitional question. The way I respond will undoubtedly cause several ripples. (Honestly, I'm a bit surprised that, at this hour, I haven't received an email from his parents.) I keep the answer as direct as the question: a gay person is one who is attracted to the same gender. Gay women are sometimes called lesbians.

The student's response was a knee-jerk "Ew", but I was pleasantly surprised by its brevity and muted tone. He quickly returned to the matter at hand -- how could this T-shirt help our debate on dress codes? You see, young Ms. Young is gay, so here I walk the tightrope again. I tell him that she wore the shirt because she expresses pride in who she is. I used the analogy of culture at first; wouldn't he be proud to wear a shirt with the South Korean flag on it? For Natalie, it may not be a statement of her ethnicity, of course, but there is a strong community bond with gay persons just as there is among disabled persons or women. Once my student understood that, he could see why the school's admonishment would anger her (and her mother) enough to file a lawsuit. Perhaps he could use that when he argues against dress codes.

I know that some would criticize my use of culture as an analogy because they perceive homosexuality as a chosen lifestyle rather than a genetic trait. The religious groups who lambast the gay life often describe it as an ongoing sin of commission, even going so far as to invent elaborate therapies or rituals designed to de-homo-genize their lost brothers and sisters in the name of Almighty. I would argue, though, that even if homosexuality is a choice, prejudice based on someone's exercise of free will is still a harrowing prospect. Can homophobia really be dismissed or justified if the gay lifestyle comes from a conscious decision rather than DNA?

Herein lies the quandry of 21st-century civil rights. It's easy for the historical textbooks to show our students the injustices of slavery, Jim Crow, women's suffrage, and Japanese internment. The pictures really do tell the story in those cases. The portraits of Harvey Milk, however, rely upon the paragraphs and captions because the most prominent forms of discrimination in today's world are aimed at invisible others. Anatomy no longer provides the basis for bigotry; behavior does. Members of Congress received violent threats over their health care votes, but civilians were also subject to acts of rage that would make Orwell's thought police proud. We shall never forget that 9/11 seems to have brought religious hatred back into vogue. Victims on one day could be perpetrators the next. Such is the modern state of uncivil disobedience when the target of your venom isn't easily spotted on the street.

I hope my student actually uses Natalie Young in his debates this week, but more importantly, I hope he realizes down the road that America is making it pretty tough for anyone to be openly proud of their beliefs, philosophies, or lifestyles. Honestly, most students believe that the civil rights movement is over because they see desegregated schools and have never witnessed a bus boycott. This branch of our history and civics curricula needs a major overhaul if it's to stay relevant to a generation raised on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".