Thought and Opinion

I pose this question because as love and happiness are shared

human desires, I have essentially always heard black gay and queer

men say that they want a “masculine” man. Their presentation

notwithstanding, a large number of black gay men have made

masculinity their standard for love; and thereby, have attached much

of their happiness to something that – many would say – is largely

external and performative. That begs the question what is invaluable

or superior about masculinity? What gives masculinity its privilege?

And importantly from what power structure or binding source have so

many of us gotten that perception of masculinity from?

I led a measured conversation with Dr. Ed Rice and Michael Sorrells about what masculinity means to us as individuals and to our community. I asked each man to define masculinity as he lives it. Dr. Rice spoke of presentation, how one shows up, and how masculine and feminine traits shift by context. Michael described masculinity as the freedom and comfort to be fully oneself. We agreed that definitions vary by upbringing, place, and culture. We also argued that many traits labeled masculine or feminine are simply shared human strengths and that power structures shape how those labels gain prestige. We probed whether masculinity is performative or intrinsic. We discussed historical and social forces that attach value to stoicism, control, and dominance. I raised how Black women who raise sons often enact traits deemed masculine, and we asked whether those acts are parenting rather than gendered performance. Dr. Rice and Michael emphasized that survival and context shape behavior, and that we must question inherited standards that may cage our hopes and loves.

Companies mentioned in this episode:

• Orange County Register
• The Source
• Vibe

I pose this question because I wonder if black gay men have allowed heteronormative expectations to standardize how we define ourselves. By various means America deemed gay and queer identity as partly synonymous with femininity. Have some black gay men unknowingly allowed that standard to seep into their thinking? For example:

• The traditional image of gay or queer black men in tv, film, music, etc. has usually been a more feminine-based presentation or spectacle
• Commonly used lingo of gay black men (sis, girl, bitch, read, yasss, the tea, Judy, the gods, etc.) present as feminine-based
• Those popularly referred to as “gay icons” are usually women (e.g. Cher, Patti Labelle, Tina Turner, Whitney Houston, Judy Garland, Diana Ross, Beyonce, etc.)
• Presenting with flamboyant or feminine-based mannerisms is seemingly expected by some black gay men
• Black gay men have often prefer dating “masculine” men

Therefore, I ask Do Some Black Gay Men See Themselves Through a Feminine-based Lens? To help us navigate this sensitive and complex topic, I am joined by (intro the guests)

I opened a careful and direct conversation about whether some Black gay men view themselves through a feminine lens. I asked Gerald Garth and Dr. Leon Maultsby to help untangle perception, history, and lived experience. We traced how media images, popular gay lexicon, and the prominence of female gay icons like Diana Ross and Beyoncé shape a cultural script that can suggest femininity as a default model for queerness. Gerald affirmed that some men present as feminine and that social prescriptions and stereotypes often guide that presentation. Leon reflected on childhood patterns of acceptance and emulation, noting that early proximity to women can normalize feminine behaviors as a method of belonging. We explored how those patterns operate in both private identity formation and public community building. I questioned whether commonly used gay language, borrowed in part from Black women, reinforces a gendered frame. Both guests illuminated the evolution from coded speech used for concealment to open subcultural language that signals safety and kinship. We emphasized that expression can be authentic, strategic, or both, and that the community’s use of feminine-coded signs can serve as preservation, protest, and identity work rather than a simple acceptance of imposed roles.

Companies mentioned in this episode:

• Boys Love the Radio
• In the Meantime
• LA Pride
• Thought and Opinion

I pose this question because President Donald Trump’s second term has been a

manic cycle of corruption, greed, and cruelty. So much so, that many Americans

have been shocked into thinking that this is unlike any presidency in US history.

But I am reminded of the wisdom of James Baldwin in Notes of a Native Son. Mr

Baldwin said that “the past is all that makes the present coherent”, and America’s

past makes clear that President Trump’s anti-black racism and nativism –

animosity aimed at perceptions of alien contamination by minority and immigrant

groups – are well known to American history. Said differently, Donald Trump’s ilk

of white man is not new to the presidency. So please take a brief walk with me as

America’s past makes our present coherent.

To understand why Trump’s hate is on-brand for the presidency we will briefly look

at race through the eyes of Presidential giants George Washington, Thomas

Jefferson, John Adams, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Ronald

Reagan. Then, we’ll see racism in public policy by looking at the immigration

policies of, again, President’s Jefferson and Lincoln and Herbert Hoover and

Dwight Eisenhower.

I map how racism moves from idea into law and force. I begin with the founders who separated emancipation from full equality and who even planned deportation rather than shared citizenship. I trace public actions that made racism operational: Jefferson and Lincoln both considered expatriation of freed people; Herbert Hoover used deportation and fear to push Mexicans out during the Depression; Dwight Eisenhower launched Operation Wetback with military methods and mass removals. I link those past policies to modern practices of mass deportation and to President Trump’s own call for a "bloody story" and the use of ICE and armed operations in public spaces. I argue that state power has long been a tool for racial control in this country. The lesson I press is sober: when prejudice gains legal backing, it becomes violence. We must read that history to see why what looks new is in fact a familiar pattern.

Takeaways:

• I state that Donald Trump's racism aligns with long-standing patterns in American history.
• I trace racist ideas from Jefferson, Washington, and Adams to show systemic continuity across presidencies.
• I argue that race shaped foundational laws and policies, including slavery, the Fugitive Slave Act, and political exclusion.
• I demonstrate that public policies such as mass deportations, Operation Wetback, and Hoover expulsions reveal persistent American nativism and xenophobia.
• I remind listeners that even revered figures like Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt held racist beliefs and policies that complicate simple heroic narratives.
• I urge a healthy skepticism about legal protections and norms, advising Black, Latino, Native, Jewish, and other communities to preserve dignity and prepare for threats.
• I counsel that understanding America's racist past prevents shock and helps us keep our sense of self, dignity, and direction while we resist current policies that mirror historical exclusion and violence.

Companies mentioned in this episode:

• Boys Love the Radio

I pose this question because in 2021, the city of Santa Clarita – the 3rd largest city in LA County and its last traditional republican stronghold – was sued for violating the CA Voting Rights Act. The CVRA lawsuit alleged that due to electing its City Council on an at-large basis, Santa Clarita“dilutes the votes of Latino citizens, suppresses the ability of their communities to recruit and support candidates for public office, and prevents them from aggregating their votes to elect those candidates in single-member districts.” The result is, the lawsuit continued, that “large geographic areas with minority communities are chronically underrepresented.” In 2022, Santa Clarita agreed to settle the Voting Rights Act lawsuit. It agreed to transition from at-large to district-based City Council elections with one district being a majority-minority district where the majority of the eligible voters in that district are 45% Latino with another 15% being African-American and Asian-American.

The question becomes why did it take the threat of litigation to persuade Santa Clarita’s leadership to become serious inclusion? Did Santa Clarita want inclusive city leadership? My guest today was one of the plaintiffs in the CVRA lawsuit.

I asked Michael Cruz to recount the sequence that compelled him to become a plaintiff in the California Voting Rights Act action. I listened as he described a clear pattern of notice and omission. We learned that formal letters requesting a move to district elections were ignored more than once. I heard him explain that litigation became the only viable path after repeated inaction, and that the city did not file a responsive pleading. I reflected with him on how the final settlement transformed Santa Clarita from at‑large voting to district elections, and how that legal pressure — rather than voluntary reform — produced the change. We also examined the fiscal and civic consequences. I noted Michael’s view that the city incurred substantially higher legal costs by resisting change. He told us that litigation accelerated a settlement within months, but at a price to taxpayers and to relationships within local government. I asked him to evaluate the fairness and efficacy of the outcome, and he emphasized that the district model will improve accountability and access to elected officials for communities that had been overlooked.

Takeaways:

• I describe how repeated formal notices were disregarded by city leadership, leaving us no option but to initiate litigation to compel the transition to district-based elections that afford equitable representation.
• I contend that district-based elections materially increase accountability and accessibility because constituents can identify and directly petition a specific council member regarding localized concerns such as traffic, parks, and potholes.
• I note that the city's delay and resistance to implement district elections voluntarily culminated in elevated legal costs borne by taxpayers and materially diminished public trust in municipal governance.
• I observed that prior municipal inclusion rhetoric prioritized political sameness over genuine diversity of perspectives, thereby perpetuating the systemic marginalization of Latino and other minority communities within the city.
• I recognize that the creation of District 1 enabled majority-minority voters to elect a representative of their choice, yet I maintain that sustained civic engagement and candidate cultivation will be necessary to translate electoral access into substantive policy outcomes.
• I exhort newly enfranchised residents to speak consistently to their council member, to hold elected officials accountable through ongoing participation, and to consider running for office when their concerns remain unaddressed.

Companies mentioned in this episode:

• Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
• Target
• NAACP
• Chamber of Commerce
• Economic Development Council

Today, I welcome Valerie Bradford to Thought and Opinion. She is the founding President of the Santa Clarita chapter of the NAACP and a candidate for Santa Clarita City Council. Her candidacy is historic. She is only the 2nd black women to run for City Council in Santa Clarita’s 38 yr history as a city. If she wins, she would be only the 3nd newly elected woman to the Council since 2008, and the first black City Council member in Santa Clarita’s history.

I welcomed Valerie Bradford to Thought and Opinion and I guided a rigorous conversation about civic stewardship, representation, and the practical exigencies of municipal governance. I asked pointed questions about why she chose to run for the Santa Clarita City Council given the city’s reputation for public safety, balanced budgets, and economic vitality, and she articulated a measured but incisive critique: the city’s institutional reflex to preserve historical modalities of power has left a significant portion of the populace insufficiently seen and insufficiently heard. I foregrounded the structural transition from at-large to district-based voting and probed the implications of that reform, and she offered a lucid explication of district four’s demographics, the imperative for outreach to communities of color, and the need for forward-looking leadership that anticipates infrastructural and socioeconomic shifts rather than merely perpetuating legacy practices. I pursued the interview with inquiries about campaign strategy and intergovernmental collaboration. Valerie delineated a pragmatic approach predicated on issue-focused discourse, community listening, and informational transparency, exemplified by her regular communications regarding local development projects. I examined the potential salience of race and gender in the contest, and she candidly acknowledged that identity would be a factor while insisting that those attributes constitute sources of strength. The dialogue closed with reflections on accountability, accessibility of government, and the ethical influences she would carry into office — unity, faith, servant leadership — all of which I recorded as central takeaways for listeners seeking a substantive appraisal of a consequential local campaign.

Companies mentioned in this episode:

• Thought and Opinion
• NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People)
• NAACP Santa Clarita Branch
• Facebook
• Boys & Girls Clubs of America
• William S. Hart Union High School District

Part 2 of Black, Gay and Modern

I pose this topic because the identity markers of black and gay have always been exploited as barriers to equality and self-determination in America. Yet despite racism, classism, and homophobia black gay men are openly flourishing in ways not seen even 20 years ago. What has caused this triumph? Let's hear thriving gay black men talk about how they define themselves, navigate intersectional trauma, and what their triumph is made of. 

• Dr Ed Rice is an accomplished educator, author, and journalist. After having taught at the elementary through postsecondary levels and holding various professorships for 20 yrs, Dr. Rice published his first children's book in 2023 called "Cosmic Granny, In a Score to Settle." Prior to Cosmic Granny, In a Score to Settle, Dr. Rice was a distinguished journalist. His work appeared in The Orange County Register, The Source and Vibe Magazines. And, he served as Contributing Editor for the Los Angeles Sentinel newspaper. 

I pose this topic because the identity markers of black and gay have always been exploited as barriers to equality and self-determination in America. Yet despite racism, classism, and homophobia black gay men are openly flourishing in ways not seen even 20 years ago. What has caused this triumph? Let's hear thriving gay black men talk about how they define themselves, navigate intersectional trauma, and what their triumph is made of. 

• Martel Okonji is the Executive Partner and Founder of Developing Communities Together LLC. He is also a faculty member of Cal State University Northridge and serves as the leader of CSUN's Pride Center. He has served as a Commissioner with the LA County Dept of Mental Health and will soon be Dr. Okonji as he is completing his PhD in Leadership and Change, where his focus is leadership, equity, and community development. 

Israel and Genocide With Dr. Dirk Moses

I present this topic because Israel’s genocide of the Palestinian people in Gaza is one of the sweeping atrocities of our time and necessitates our attention. The human toll bogles the mind. As of early September 2025, estimates are that 38 percent of Gaza’s pre-Oct 7th population has been displaced. Of the more than 67,000 killed, children account for 30 percent of the dead. Within that estimated 67,000 dead is also more than 1,200 whole families who have been wiped off the face of the Earth. Gaza itself, roughly twice the size of Washington D.C. at 149 sq miles, has been largely reduced to ruble. Eight out of every 10 buildings that stood in pre-Oct 7th Gaza have either been damaged or destroyed. This is genocide. 

• Our televisions, phones, etc have been inundated with pictures of carnage and death in Gaza for the past 2 yrs. Why is said destruction genocide and not crimes against humanity or war crimes? 
• To give my listeners the clearest picture possible when Russia bombs a children’s hospital or a school in Ukraine, how are those attacks different in nature from what we have seen in Gaza? 
• Genocide, the “crime of crimes”, is a legal term that carries prosecution as a means towards justice. Why has it been difficult to prosecute someone for the crime of genocide? 
• Looking at Gaza, Sudan, Myanmar as examples. As one who has devoted themselves to understanding and preventing genocide, what does your expertise taught you about humanity? 

Supporting Donald Trump?”

I pose this question because despite being convicted of falsifying business records to increase his chances of winning the 2016 Presidential race; and, being found liable of sexual assault and engaging in “massive fraud to falsely inflate his net worth and unjustly enrich himself” by overstating property values to get better interest rates from banks and lower premiums from insurers American evangelical Protestants continue to be among Donald Trump’s most devoted supporters. Notwithstanding Donald Trump’s life being an unrepentant pattern of lying, adultery and fornication, reviling, extortion, hate, pride, and the like the evangelical church continues to crown him as god’s anointed vessel come to restore godliness to America. By that devotion the evangelical church has forfeited any claim to a divine calling and has shown its works to be that of a menstrual cloth.

One would think that because of Trump’s unrepentant sinfulness and boasting about sin; such as, grabbing women by the pussy and hating his enemies, that many in the American evangelical church would have mounted a clear biblical basis for their dedication to Donald Trump. But, as we shall see, no such case has been made. By briefly examining the arguments of the late Dr. John MacArthur, Dr Albert Mohler, Dr. Wayne Grudem, and pastor Douglas Wilson we shall see that from scholars, to theologians, to pastors no argument seems to exist. That is to say, that those who wear the name evangelical, and are purported to have the saving message of Christ Jesus as the core of their only message to – as they would say – a lost world have made no scriptural case for evangelical support of Donald Trump. Meaning, their support of Trump is not founded on biblical truth.

Thought and Opinion is your platform for a clearer understanding of where we find ourselves in their America and how we define ourselves within it. We will go beyond the accepted discourse. To the ideas, and consequences, that we sometimes hesitate to engage. Join andre and various guests on Sundays at noon PDT as we reframe our politics and Identity in their America.