© Henry Romero / ReutersVoters wait to cast their ballots at a polling station in Nezahualcoyotl, Mexico, on June 4, 2017.
The 17 candidates in Oaxaca, although innovative, are not transgender at all, according to local media cited by Reuters. Instead, they were part of a plan by various political parties to fill spots with males after they were not able to find enough females.
The electoral institute for the state confirmed that the candidates have been temporarily blocked due to "suspected irregularities,"adding that it "will be vigilant that the constitutional principle of equality is adhered to, and that women have effective access to public office."
The scheme was concocted ahead of July 1 elections, in which thousands of local positions will be filled by election and the country will select a new president.
Although the politicians' plan ultimately unraveled, Oaxaca is indeed a state with a tradition of people known as "muxes" who are born male but identify as a mix of gay and feminine. They are often recognized as a third gender.
And although some of the politicians were even dressed at muxes to make their false personas seem more believable, the muxe community didn't buy it.
"The majority of them have publicly known marriages and children with women," a coalition of muxe and women's rights groups said in a statement, as quoted by AP. "Some of them are even running for re-election as mayors, and during their past terms they said nothing about being transgender."
WTF?
Then again, lots of single males or females could 'claim' to get 'married' so as to get Social Security benefits or, these days, damn near as important, health insurance.
The US Supreme court's decision in the Kentucky case re the clerk refusing to issue gay marriage permits was NOT the proper case for that issue as it was not raised sufficiently in the lower courts by the same standards the US Sup. Court ROUTINELY uses as an excuse to avoid deciding on cases that will get the PTB mad at them, such as cases (what few there have been) claiming the OBVIOUSLY unconstitutional 'Patriosh*t Act and NDAA' (which essentially is a law claiming that for reasons of "National Security' (the phrase must only be placed on a piece of paper by a US Attorney) and then the courts will NOT hear the issue of whether being AN AMERICAN illegally kidnapped and murdered via torture, constitutes a violation of your 'constitutional rights'.. (And if you're dead, then the state attorneys argue: 'What's it matter? Dead people do not have constitutional rights to live, etc."
And they claim, with straight face: "And the issue of who killed them - i.e., the US or its 'agents' - is not for this court to be allowed to consider, even if the facts proved that the person was executed a la the VC shot with a 38 special snubnose in vietnam by one of 'our' strongment.
Think about it for the US position isn't simply that it has the right to kill foreigners overseas, nor is it that they have to right to torture and kill Americans overseas, NO! They flat out argue - in the most obvious and egregious application of the claim that we are the 'indispensable' state - they claim, again, straight faced, that the US Executive Branch has the right to kidnap American Citizens at home.. drag them to some black site in some ship in international waters (or on land, too,for example, Saudi Arabia) and there slowly torture them to death and that those people so grabbed (e.g., 'What became of Baybars?'*
R.C.
*Granted, odds are against it, at least now. But whenever this sh*t has begun happening it is always that folks just start to 'disappear,' and then the numbers get so high that the folks get together and realize (like the Argentinian Mothers of the Missing still do - and those were OUR Torturing Murdering Scumbag psychopaths, who learned the i ntricacies of torture at Ft. Benning, GA's 'School of the AmeriKaz'.
RC