Archive | June 2013

Same-sex Marriage Bill published in Scottish Parliament


It’s official dears.  The Scottish National Party (SNP) administration in the devolved Scottish Government promised they would publish their same-sex marriage bill in June. True to their word, the Marriage and Civil Partnerships (Scotland) Bill was published in the parliament in Holyrood, Edinburgh, on Thursday 27th June 2013.

The Bill makes provision for same-sex marriage while protecting rights of religious groups not to carry out ceremonies.  However, it also for the first time allows Humanist celebrants the ability to officiate marriages for both same-sex and opposite-sex couples.

Some in the opposition parties, Labour, Conservative and Liberal-Democrat, in the Scottish Parliament accused the SNP of dragging their heels on the issue.  Untrue dears, the simple fact is that the administration were so determined to get this right that they were tweaking and fine-tuning the legislation, so as to include trans people.  The Bill thus fully makes provision for transgender people, including allowing transgender people to stay married when obtaining the full Gender Recognition Certificate.

There is of course some opposition to the Bill but this is mostly from the pressure group Scotland for Marriage, who state they will encourage constituents to picket the offices of Members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs).  In reality this will probably just be a handful of their own supporters doing so.  Oh I really do hope they do so dears.  We have hate crime laws in Scotland and it would give me the greatest of pleasure to see a bunch of ignorant homophobes being carted off by the police.

The Westminster government meanwhile is still working out their Bill for England and Wales, including having problems over trans people.   Unless they can catch up, there may be a period, perhaps a year or more, where same-sex marriage is legal in Scotland but not England and Wales.

As terrible as that would be dears, it does throw open one possibility; that of English or Welsh people running off to Scotland to marry, possibly at Gretna Green, just as eloping teenagers used to do.  Now, just how romantic would that be Loves?

On 24th June 2013 a video was released of Scottish celebrities and politicians supporting same-sex marriage, to the the lovely Amy Macdonald’s wonderful love song for Scotland, “Pride”.

Pride indeed dears.  I’m not just welling up here, I am crying freely and the tears are streaming down my face as I type this.

I am so very, VERY proud to be Scottish today.   Well done and thank you to Alex Salmond and the SNP administration in the Scottish Parliament.

Video message from the Scottish Health Minister, Alex Neil MSP:

Announcement on the Scottish Parliament website:

Scottish Parliament page for the Bill and explanatory notes:


allowing transgender people to stay married when obtaining the full Gender Recognition Certificate. – See more at:

Crossdressing Social Network

Hello dears, any UK-based crossdressers out there?

I have found a wonderful social networking site for crossdressers.  I have been looking for a friendly and serious site of this kind for a while now and I believe I have found it in this one.

This is a place where everyone can relax and be all girls together without being hassled by perverts and bigots.  I really think I’m going to be at home here.

What’s love got to do with it? Some after Midnight thoughts.


When I look at my life, my sexuality and my gender identity, then I look at others in the same boat as me, I frankly cannot believe how lucky I am.

I am a crossdresser, who has the luck to have a girlfriend who knows all about who I am.  More than that however, she understands me and she not only accepts me for who I am but openly encourages me to be so.

I know that a great many crossdressers and those in the trans community are not so lucky.

I have read of tales that would touch the stoniest heart.  I have seen stories from crossdressers and trans women with female partners who have become complete bitches to them. I have read women lashing out at them, the entire LGBT community and even all men.  I have seen people humiliated by having private photos plastered all over public forums on the internet.  I have even heard of women seeking, and receiving, exclusion orders to keep their partners away from their own children.

At the other end of the spectrum, I have also seen strained relationships, due to the wants and needs of not just the CD/Trans woman, but of both partners.  And I have also seen relationships which are over, but neither party is willing to let go.

Before I met S, I was never lucky in love, and once had my heart truly broken. For those who have been there, you will know that ‘heartbreak’ is more than just a phrase; it is unbearable, torturous, genuine physical pain, and deeply psychologically scarring to boot. Although a life experience, it is not something I could survive again, and neither is it anything I would honestly ever wish on even my worst enemy – and I can be pretty damned cruel if crossed.

It did teach me one important lesson though; that love, true love, is never selfish. 

If you love someone, you must take everything that goes with that, the good and the bad; the things you love about them, and those things which irritate the hell out of you.  I know I am not the easiest person in the world to get along with.  I’m fond of saying my girl has two arseholes – I’m one of them.  And there are things S does which drive me up the wall at times.  I forgive all.  Why?  Because I love her, and that love outweighs all.

When I first came out to S, she told me that even if I were to go over to “the other side” – i.e. suddenly announce that I were wholly gay, and wished to pursue that, she would accept that, and painful as it may be, she would let me go.  By equal measure, I have told her from the start that if she ever wanted to go, even though it may kill me, I would never stand in her way.

That is because we love each other.

When you love each other, you have to be prepared to let go if you must.  I would never attempt to stand in the way of S’s happiness, and I know that neither would she stand in the way of mine.  For the other to be happy is the goal of our love, just as it should be the goal of anyone who loves another.

To be spiteful and vindictive about a partner whose lifestyle does not match yours is not love. If someone lashes out in any way because their partner is not what they want or expect them to be, that is not love.  To ever try to stand in the way of the lifestyle choices of a partner is not love.

It is selfishness in as much as you are thinking of yourself, rather than the one you claim to love.  Understandable to an extent, as it may be born out of fear but selfishness nonetheless. And ultimately it not only harms your partner, but you in the long run.

If one cannot accept that their partner identifies with another gender because they are afraid of losing them, well I’m sorry, but it is too late; they have lost them already.  And if that other partner feels they cannot walk away from that, then both end up living a lie, and that is cowardly. Plus the longer they postpone it, the harder and deeper it is going to hurt when the break does inevitably come, as trust me, it must do.

When the break does come, it will be hard and it will hurt like hell.  But if you at least have respect for each other, if not love, then you will let go sooner rather than later. If you have any modicum of love for the other, you will wish them well and to be happy in their new life. Then it is only once you have let go you can get on with your own life, and seek the happiness and love you also truly deserve.




Gays won’t have to prove they are married


I always wondered what the House of Lords got up to in the wee small hours Dears.  It seems sex is on the agenda – literally.

As most people are aware Westminster recently voted to allow same-sex marriages – and good for them.  Not before time considering they were dragging their heels a year behind the devolved Scottish Parliament in doing so.

During the Same-Sex Marriage Debate in the House of Lords in the early hours of 20 June 2013, Baroness Butler-Sloss attempted to table an amendment suggesting definitions of consummation and adultery under the Bill.  In English law, consummation is defined as penetration of the vagina by the penis, whether or not a condom is used.

Baroness Butler-Sloss, a Law Lord and former High Court Judge, who says she is for gay rights but against same-sex marriage, tabled the amendment claiming that it was important for gay men to demonstrate their commitment to their partners, so that they may remain faithful to each other.

Because of course, that works in heterosexual marriage, doesn’t it?

Stating “Penetration only takes it halfway.” (Yes dears, make your own jokes.  I’m thinking it but I’m not saying it.), the Baroness’s amendment was allegedly aimed at making matters equal concerning divorce.  She stated that it is unfair that heterosexual men and women can be sued for divorce, on claims of adultery, whereas the Same Sex Marriage Bill, as it stands, homosexual partners would not be able to be sued on those grounds.  She continued,  “I consider it profoundly unsatisfactory and, more importantly, profoundly unjust that adultery is not the ground for same-sex divorce. It undermines the value of same-sex marriage. I assume that it is because there has not so far been a definition of consummation of a sexual relationship other than between couples of the opposite sex.”

And do you know what Dears, she does have a point.  It was where she sought to change the law – for same-sex and heterosexual couples however that it started to get bizarre.

So how did Baroness Butler-Sloss seek to level the playing field?  She proposed redefining consummation by importing the definition of rape law.  She wanted the definition of penetration to include the vagina, mouth and anus, as it does under the Sexual Offences Act, which would pertain to all marriage.

Yes Loves, I can hear what you are thinking immediately – what then about lesbian marriage?   And this was not lost on Lord Alli opposing the motion either.   He stated that the “definition of the sexual act that defines fidelity for heterosexuals is outdated and, in my view, very cumbersome,”  and added, “Simply importing the definition of penetration—anal, vaginal or oral—into this would leave lesbians at a complete disadvantage regarding fidelity.”

Baroness Stowell of Beeston, also opposing, stated that the Bill made adequate provision for divorce on grounds of unreasonable behaviour, and emphasised the fact that same-sex couples will be able to make promises and commitments in the form or words they choose.

Baroness Butler-Sloss withdrew her Amendment, stating that she was “sad” (I agree – very) and claimed that straight and gay couples would not be equal according to the law.

This whole thing is bizarre Dears.  The main stumbling block which the Same Sex Marriage Bill faced was opposition from the Christian churches.  To counter this the government made provisions in the Bill whereby no clergy shall be forced to carry out a same-sex marriage (they never would have to have anyway, but that’s another story).  As this is the case, the chances are that most same-sex marriages will be carried out in registry offices, rather than places of worship.  Now we have had an unelected member of the upper house of the Westminster government trying to push terms of consummation of marriage – which is a wholly religious concept.

In early Judiastic society it was common for newlyweds to consummate their marriage with the woman lying on a cloth.  As most girls were virgins when they went to their marriage bed in those days, the bloodied cloth would be passed on to the clergy to prove that consummation had taken place.  In some churches in the early days of Christianity it was common for the newlyweds to copulate on the altar table in full view of the assembled clergy and wedding guests.  Doubt that?  Well that’s why some ancient churches have wide altar tables, and the modern evolution of that act is when groom is told he may kiss the bride.

The Matrimonal Causes Act (1973) states that a marriage may be annulled if either or both partners are incapable of consummating it, or either partner refuses to.   This is silly, archaic nonsense – even for heterosexual couples.

For a start, since sexual liberation few people, male or female, go to their marriage beds virgins nowadays.  Secondly, it is quite common in this day and age for people who are incapable of having sex, either for physical or other reasons, to still get married.

If a man or woman is in the forces and decides to marry their long term partner quickly before a tour of duty, with no time for sex, are they then not married?  Is someone who marries someone who is paraplegic or otherwise not physically able to have sex not married?  Are an elderly couple, as is quite common nowadays, who have decided to tie the knot and one or both cannot perform the sexual act not married?  Are asexuals who wed for companionship not married?  Moreover, how does one prove that consummation of the marriage has or has not taken place.  They cannot as it is impossible to do so.

When civil partnerships were introduced in the UK in 2004, the issue of consummation was avoided completely.  However, in May 2012 government ministers considered taking the issue of sex out of marriage law, for both heterosexual and same-sex couples, altogether.  This was defeated when Conservative MP Edward Leigh claimed that it would reduce actual marriage to the level of civil partnerships, and stated that consummation was still valid for Roman Catholics for whom annulment was still valid but divorce was not.  Please Dears, Catholics divorce every day.  And again, it is impossible to prove consummation, so it is again an irrelevance.

In the final instance, what bothers me about this is that those in government who have been against same-sex marriage, have all too often been the same people who have made homophobic comments about gays and lesbians being sexual perverts.  Now by banging on about consummation, which is an irrelevance nowadays, it is Baroness Butler-Sloss and people like her, including those who refuse to remove sex from marriage law altogether, who seem to be obsessing about sex and losing sight of the fact that marriage is not about sex, it is about love.  It is supposedly a commitment of two people who love each other to bond as one.

Those who go on about the “sanctity of marriage” are the very ones who claim that marriage is about love, and it would serve them better to concentrate upon that love, rather than the sex which is only one of the many aspects of a loving marriage.

It’s either that or (and sorry for being such a bitch Dears) Baroness Butler-Sloss is just bitter for appearing to be the world’s worst drag queen ever.

I consider it profoundly unsatisfactory and, more importantly, profoundly unjust that adultery is not the ground for same-sex divorce. It undermines the value of same-sex marriage,’ Butler-Sloss said.

‘I assume that it is because there has not so far been a definition of consummation of a sexual relationship other than between couples of the opposite sex.

– See more at: Continue reading

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of a Penis


Two little stories from across the pond which are victories for the Trans community in the USA dears.  Anti-Trans Bills defeated in both Arizona and Texas.

In April 2013 an ordnance was approved in the city of Phoenix, Arizona, prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations based on gender identity.  Needless to say this made the hackles raise on a few opponents and Republican Representative John Kavanagh introduced a bill which would make it a crime for any person to use a public restroom or washing facility associated with a sex other than that assigned at birth, as stated on a birth certificate.

Silly boy Mister Kavanagh.  Just what did he expect?  For people to produce their birth certificates along with other proof of identity at the door of a public loo?  Hmmm, seems so.  Read on.

Kavanagh’s Bill caused uproar with claims of government overreach and intrusion into privacy.  Was he deterred?  Not for one moment.  In fact Kavanagh then re-introduced his Bill with an inclusion to enlist citizens and businesses to monitor the gender of those using public restrooms.  Basically he wanted private enterprise spying on people’s privates.

However members in Kavanagh’s own caucus group have voiced concerned about his definitions and he has now shelved his Bill, he says until next year.  Frankly, I can’t see this one getting out of the starting gate (or should that be stalls dears?).

Meanwhile, deep in the heart of Texas (no dears, I’m not singing with a pair of chaps on my knees), it is law that trans people can marry if they can provide proof of a sex change.  The Texas Legislature meets every two years and in April Senator Tommy Williams (Republican – gosh, shock horror, who would have thunk it?) attempted to remove this trans-positive law.

Stating the case of Littleton vs Prange (1999), Senator Williams tried to argue that ones gender is determined by sex at birth and this can never be changed.  Headed up by former Transgender Foundation of America board member (now with Equality Texas) Daniel Williams, Senator Williams’ anti-trans Bill was roundly defeated and the pro-trans Texas legislature stands.

Silly man.  Senator Williams should have learned when he tried to table exactly the same Bill in 2011 – and lost then on exactly the same grounds he lost this year.

The Importance of NOT being Ernest


Edinburgh, capital city of my beloved Scotland, was a strictly Presbyterian and sabbatarian place in the late 1860s.  No doubt then a lovely young lady walking along the main thorougfare of Princes Street with soft, feminine features, pretty blonde tresses beneath a bonnet, carrying a frilled parasol, wearing a dress which hugged a shapely figure, and sporting a small bustle as was the fashion of the times, would have injected a little light and colour into the otherwise dour lives of the citizens, and not a few raised eyebrows and disapproving tuts to boot.  Not least of these however was one such young lady by the name of Stella Boulton who stayed in Princes Street for six month in 1869.  You see dears, Stella was in fact Ernest Boulton, a female impersonator stage performer, who also openly crossdressed in public, carried on affairs with men, and who went on to scandalise Victorian Edinburgh.

Scots author Neil McKenna has outlayed the story of Ernest / Stella Boulton and his friend Frank “Fanny” Park, in his new book Fanny & Stella of how they came to be charged and how the careers of a Post Office Manager and a United States Consul were destroyed through association with them.

Ernest Boulton came to Edinburgh to recuperate after an operation at the behest of an admirer, Louis Hurt, who met him while the two were working for the Post Office in London.  It was here that Ernest really appears to have fully taken on the persona of Stella.  As such, she found Hurt pretty boring.  He was not into crossdressing at all and wanted Stella to appear more manly, and even grow a moustache.  Nonetheless, whilst Hurt in his position as a manager toured rural post offices, Stella went with him, even up to Thurso and Wick, the two northernmost towns on the Scottish mainland.

Back in Edinburgh it seems Stella, whose features were indeed feminine, could get away with appearing in public as a woman, although some things did give her away.  While most of Scots society refused to believe homosexuality of any kind even existed in the UK, but must have come from the European continent – more of which later – she nevertheless found herself widely accepted as something of a curiosity by some.  She was also to discover a hidden subculture in the Scots capital and soon there was no shortage of “gentleman callers” at Hurt’s lodgings in what was then the most prestigious street in the whole of Scotland.  What Hurt’s landlady, who would not even allow “weekday tunes” to be played on the piano on a Sunday, thought of this one can only wonder.

There was the rough and ready John Jameson Jim, “Honest” Jack from Musselburgh (a town neighbouring Edinburgh to the east), and a counter assistant from Kensington and Jenners Store (now Jenners; it was and remains the most up-market store in Scotland).  There was also a Mr John Safford Fiske, US consul to Edinburgh and Leith.

Fiske was living at the time in nearby George Street, parallel to and then equally as prestigious as Princes Street, and his life consisted of attending social functions and arranging his marriage to an American heiress whom it was planned would come to Edinburgh to meet him.  It seems however he was marrying purely out of duty and to hide his homosexuality, as many gay men did do right up until it was no longer illegal in the UK.  He had liaisons with two brothers, Donald and Robbie Sinclair, who introduced him to Stella, and from the moment he met her, Fiske was captivated.  The two entered into an affair, apparently highly sexual in nature, and exchanged love letters, telegrams and even photographs (gay porn is nothing new dears), including some of Fiske in female attire.

Stella returned to London to continue her stage career with Fanny Park but she and Fiske kept up their correspondence.  On 28 April 1870 however, Boulton and Park were arrested in London on charges of indecency.  When John Fiske learned of this, he burned all of the correspondence he had received from Stella Boulton.  However, the Metropolitan Police in London had his correspondence to her, including an explicit love letter written 12 days before Boulton’s arrest, in which he stated he still had 11 photographs of Stella and four notes from her.  The long arm of the law was soon to reach all the way up to Edinburgh.

Fiske hoped the US Consulate would protect him and said the letter was “just foolishness”.  His protestations however fell on deaf ears and Inspector James Thompson of the Metropolitan Police wired Detective Officer Roderick Gollan of the Edinburgh City Police, requesting that he search John Fiske’s home.   In the subsequent search Gollan found three letters and two telegrams from Louis Hurt, and a number of photographs of young men in compromising positions.  Gollan asked Fiske if there was anything else and knowing the game was up, he handed over a box full of more such photographs (I’m wondering who the photographer was dears).  He was taken into custody and eventually taken to London to face trial.

Louis Hurt meanwhile, when the story broke, feared the worst and requested leave from the Edinburgh Post Master General. This was granted, although the latter asked for him to provide a full written explanation of “his relations with the young men in women’s clothes”.  Hurt knew that the police must have found compromising letters from him too.  Wanting to know the full extent of the damage, he did the worst thing he could have done; he went to London, where he was promptly arrested.

Had John Fiske and Louis Hurt kept their nerve, then their careers may have been saved.  For in a bizarre twist, all four men were acquitted.  The legal profession simply could not believe that such acts could take place on British soil, and even wondered if this penchant for dressing in womens clothes and committing homosexual acts came from France believe it or not.  This was the Britain of the days of the Empire upon which the sun never set; a Britain of real men and it could not be let known that in such a Britain any man could be seen as effeminate.  And it really was upon that basis apparently that Boulton, Parke, Hurt and Fiske were all set free.

Stella Boulton went back to her stage act, and even toured the United States.  Whether it were with or without Fanny Park is not recorded.  The damage to Hurt and Fiske however could not be healed.  Louis Hurt travelled Europe afterwards, hoping to escape notoriety.  Eventually he settled in Vienna, where he became a teacher of English and where he died in 1836, aged 91.  John Fiske, his diplomatic career completely shattered as well as ambitions for Washington DC (and his gold-digging sham marriage), went to Italy where he lived and spent his time painting and cultivating his garden.  Apparently his photos of Stella became part of the “Linlithgowshire Rogues Gallery” and are now in the hands of Edinburgh City Libraries.  I’ve just got to try to see those dears.

Those are just the bare bones of the story, which I thought would interest you to show you that crossdressing is by no means a new phenomenon, and that the Victorian age was far from as staid and upright (or cisgender and heterosexual) as we have been led to believe.

I have ordered the book Fanny & Stella by Neil McKenna from my local library darlings, and once I’ve read it I shall tell you more.




“I’m not homophobic, but…”


The above post appeared on a secular group in Facebook dears.  This is a homophobe trying to claim they are not a homophobe by denying their own homophobia.  It is the sexual politics equivalent of “I’m not a racist, but…”

So let us just take a look at the writer’s claims and break them down.

moral objections to homosexual sexual activity are not “prejudice”, as they specify clearly the offending action, and do not rely on spurious generalisation.”

Firstly, where exactly do such objections specify cleary the offending action?  If the writer is basing his objections upon the Bible, then it merely says

“Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” (Leviticus 18:22, KJV)

“Lie… …as with womankind”  Well maybe it’s just little me being naive dears but that does not clearly specify any sexual act.  For all we know, it could mean just as it reads – lying together.

All right, I’m being naughty and playing with words.  Let us assume however, that the verse means what most religious people opposed to homosexuality take it to mean.  And look out, I’m going to say it; gasp, shock, horror, anal intercourse.

So now we have to look at what the commentator says in the above article.

The writer states that they are opposed to “homosexual sexual activity” which here is defined as anal intercourse.  However, it is known that there are women who enjoy anal intercourse with male partners.  It is equally known that there are gay men who do not practice anal intercourse.  And then there are men who like their female partners to practice anal intercourse upon them with a strap-on, some of whom are bisexual, and others who are actually heterosexual.

The writer therefore in assuming that anal intercourse to be “homosexual sexual activity” is making a wholly inaccurate generalisation about all gay men and the act.  They not only assume that all gay men practice anal intercourse but by referring to it as a “homosexual sexual activity”, they further assume it to be exclusively so, which as I have illustrated, simply is not the case.

Anal intercourse is no more a homosexual activity than oral sex or masturbation.  Okay, I too make assumptions but I’ll assume that most sexually active heterosexual women practice and enjoy oral sex upon male partners, just as there are men who enjoy practicing cunnilingus (no dear, it’s not an Irish airline) on women.  There are men who have oral sex with other men, and women who do it with other women.  Likewise women masturbate men, men masturbate women, gay men masturbate each other, as do lesbian women.  And of course, the overwhelming vast majority of us all masturbate ourselves.  Interestingly enough solo masturbation could be accurately described as homosexual sexual activity.  Yet we all do it (yes you do – you can fool yourself all you like but you can’t fool me) and it was even considered normal everyday behaviour until Samuel-Auguste Tissot (another puritanical religious interfering busybody) published his anti-masturbation book L’Onanisme in 1790.  And then there are people of all sexualities and gender identities who do not partake of oral sex, masturbation, or anal sex for that matter.

Short of same-sex genital to genital contact, such as “docking” between men or “scissoring” between women, there is actually very little could be accurately described as “homosexual sexual activity”.  And even then, not all gays and lesbians practice the above.  In sexual intimacy it is very much “horses for courses” dears and what gets one individuals, or couples, blood pumping will leave others quite cold.  I for one do not understand why some people get a kick out of wearing rubber body suits and it’s not something I would ever do.  But hey, I like to tuck my willy into frilly panties, so just what right exactly do I have to judge?  None whatsoever, and nor do I.  It’s their life, and as long as no-one is hurting a child, anyone else vulnerable, or an animal, then the watchword in any aspect of the many facets of sexual activity is if it feels good, if it feels good, do it!

If you actually break the word homosexual down, then you find that it’s root does not actually pertain to sexual intimacy at all but merely to gender.  Homo meaning “same”, it literally simply means “same sex”.  In that context two people of the same sex embracing, kissing on the cheek, or even just phoning, contacting online or merely talking could accurately be described as “homosexual activity”.  In which case the sexual aspect becomes redundant and thereby becomes an irrelevant secondary feature”.  So another of the writer’s myths busted.

Homosexual in the modern sense does of course mean being physically attracted to someone of the same sex, which is of course “homosexual sexual activity”, just as being physically attracted to someone of the opposite sex is heterosexual sexual activity.  And both are equally normal, as there is not one wholly straight not wholly gay.  To be a “real man / woman” is a biological impossibility (and if any guys out there doubt that, consider that not only do you have nipples, but also that they grow erect when excited or cold).  We are all somewhere on “the spectrum” of sexuality.  Given that fact, the writer should have no problem with homosexual physical attraction, or indeed any relationship which springs from that.  Especially as one of the places you will find a particularly touching example of such is in, ermmm, the Bible.

The narrative of David and Jonathan is one of the most moving stories in the Old Testament (so refreshing from all the slaughter and bloodshed).  Recorded in the Books of Samuel, it tells of how the two were competitors for the crown.  Yet when David came before King Saul, his son Jonathan took an immediate liking to him and the two “form a covenant”;

And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father’s house.  Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.” (1 Samuel 18:1-3)

As the story continues, being a rival, David is pursued by Saul.  War ensues and before they have to part, David and Jonathan renew their covenant.  Eventually, David and Saul are reconciled but sadly Jonathan is killed in battle and David laments his loss;

“O Jonathan, thou wast slain in thine high places.  I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.”  (2 Samuel 1:25-26, KJV)

The official, theological, line of course is that this was no more than a Platonic relationship, or a “romantic friendship” as some would have it.  Hold on a minute tough dears.  Let us go back to what else the First Book of Samuel says

“And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.” (1 Samuel 18:4)

Now, if Jonathan stripped down, as described above, he would then be stark naked in front of David.  The theologians can say what the want lovies but when a man tells you he loves you and strips naked in front of you, one can be fairly sure of what is about to happen, and we can easily assume it is going to be somewhat more than a little elaborate than a firm handshake.

Therefore, assuming that David and Jonathan existed – and I see no reason to doubt that – it is fairly obvious to me that the two were indeed not only sexually attracted to each other but did indeed share sexual intimacy.  And the later narrative, in which David sadly laments his dear Jonathan, and how his love was greater than that of women, speaks for itself.  Every time I read it I picture David playing his harp softly and singing sadly, pining for his lost love, which has me welling up every time I read it, just as I am right now.

Of course, I doubt it but I could be wrong. Perhaps it was indeed a Platonic romantic friendship.  But then, if it were, then the fact of Jonathan stripping off becomes an irrelevant secondary feature”.  Whichever, what David and Jonathan did in their relationship is no damned business of the writer’s, just as anyone’s relationship, gay or straight, is none of his damned business.

As with so many others of his ilk, therefore, the writer of the above piece has indeed generalised about gay men and what constitutes “homosexual sexual activity” and in doing so builds up a mistaken stereotype based upon ignorant assumptions.

The writer states, moral objections to homosexual sexual activity are not “prejudice”.  The Oxford English Dictionary defines the word prejudice as dislike, hostility, or unjust behaviour deriving from preconceived and unfounded opinions.”  I have clearly illustrated above that the writer’s views have derived from preconceived and unfounded opinions, and therefore are indeed prejudiced.  Given that they are prejudiced against gay men, such views are indeed homophobic, no matter what the writer attempts to claim in the second paragraph.

I cannot say if the original writer of the post is a Christian but assume so.  I know for certain that the person who posted it in Facebook certainly is (and I am not convinced they are not one and the same person).  Claiming moral indignation, he is merely trying to justify his own ignorant bigotry by hiding behind one verse from the Old Testament in the Bible; a book which continually contradicts itself, and as we can see in the narrative of David and Jonathan, does not even support the ignorant prejudices of homophobes.

Bigots force Scots Transwoman to Flee Home Town


Spare a thought dears for Stephanie Smyth, a Scottish transgender woman who has been forced out of her home town of Johnstone, thirteen miles west of central Glasgow due to bigotry.

Now 32, Stephanie started to openly identify as a woman in her 20s by wearing female attire and finally went gender reassignment treatment last year.  Since then she has suffered a constant tirade of abuse in streets and in shops.  She has been mocked by security guards, followed by shop staff, and had verbal abuse continually shouted at her, bizarrely including calling her a “witch”.  What I find bizarre about that is that were Stephanie a practising Wiccan, perhaps nobody would bat an eyelid and she would actually receive more respect.

Finally Stephanie’s nerve cracked and in an trans community echo of Jimmy Somerville’s song about him running away from his Scottish home, Small Town Boy, she fled the Renfrewshire town, leaving her jobs, her friends and all familiar she grew up with behind her.

When I found this story on Facebook, I was also pained by the ignorant comments of two persons who appear to be blaming the victim.

Ignoramus No.1: “I’m curious about why she felt unable to move to Glasgow, which is implied by her stating that she’s had to leave her friends behind; Johnstone’s not that far out from Central.”

Johnstone is 13 miles from central Glasgow, so it is not as close as our bigoted friend claims.  Scots communities tend to be extremely tight-knit, so perhaps there were people Stephanie felt close to and she feels that for her own safety, she can now never return there.  I have lived in my community most of my life and some of my neighbours truly are like family to me.  Were I to be forced out, I would be heartbroken.  Therefore, I can identify with exactly what Stephanie is saying.  Contrary to the above claim, there is absolutely nothing in the report which implies she felt she could not move to Glasgow and this sounds more to me like a particular type of bigot we get here who thinks Glasgow is the be-all and end-all of Scotland, and anyone who disagrees with that must be anti-Glasgow (the same applies to some sad Neanderthals in Edinburgh).

Ignoramus No.2: “I am curious why said person did not contact the police? Surely just abandoning town is a terrible way to deal with hate crime.”

Only someone not in the LGBT community could ever have come out with a statement like that.  Why didn’t she contact the police dears?  Perhaps because the police, just like the rest of mainstream Scottish society, do not recognise the trans community and can be every bit as bigoted.  Stephanie stated, “I found that a lot of people who worked in security would be standing around laughing and staff workers would also follow me around, jumping to conclusions.”  Called to an incident with security or shop staff and a trans woman, just whom do you think the police are going to take the side of dears?  And before I get any responses claiming the police are not bigoted, I will relate that I once worked above a gay bookshop, whom the local police, whenever they were bored, would raid for “offensive materials”, during which the staff were roughly treated and verbally abused.  On every occasion the materials they seized were all returned and all charges against the operators of the shop were dropped.

Not being transgender myself, I don’t pretend to even start to understand the feelings of Stephanie or anyone else in the trans community.  This I do know however, when someone born of biological male gender identifies with femininity in any way, shape, or form, it can be a frightening thing for that person.  You can go through years, decades of denial, which can lead to severe depression.  I should know lovies.  I never came to terms with Xandra until I was 40-something (and more than that I’m not saying, so don’t ask – it’s rude to ask a lady her age) and since exploring my femme I have never been happier.  There are however many, family included, who do not know about Xandra, and probably never shall.  I am frankly too much of a coward to ever come out.  And should any cisgender person deride me for that dears, then I openly invite you to even just think for a few minutes of donning clothes of and making yourself appear like someone of the opposite gender, and openly telling friends, family, co-workers and your local community that is how you are and what you identify with.  Go on, think about it.

Yes, not so big and brave now, are you dears?

I also know all too well about the small town mentality which is a cancer in too many Scottish towns and villages, where if one verges as much as one tiny iota from the norm, then they will have a lynch mob out for you.  The fact that poor Stephanie was called a witch highlights this silly fear of the unknown. Frankly dears one thought we had left that mentality behind 400 years ago when innocent women and girls were burned at the stake for as little as having a birthmark.  Even for someone who is cisgender and heterosexual male or female, there are sadly places where the local reaction will be, as my late father used to remark on such places, “Wha’s he?  Whaur’s he frae?  Whit’s he daeing here?  When’s he gaun hame?”  (Who is he? Where is he from?  What is he doing here?  When is he going home?”).   Scotland is not always the warm welcoming place that many with rose-tinted (or is that tartan-tinted) would have you imagine it is.

As tragic as it is, therefore, I admire people like Stephanie.  The very fact that she openly tries to live as a woman speaks volumes of her courage.  If you’re reading this Stephanie, I likes your style girl and I’m sending you ((HUGS)).

For the transphobic bigots of Johnstone, I have nothing but contempt for you.  If you think Stephanie Smyth fleeing is a victory, it is surely a Catharic one.  You have brought shame down upon your own town.  And more so upon your country, Scotland, which is also every bit as much Stephanie’s country, and mine, and every member of the Scottish LGBT community as it is yours.

The  link to the report in Gay Star News is below dears:

I found that a lot of the people who worked in security would be standing around laughing and staff workers would also follow me around, jumping to conclusions. – See more at:
I found that a lot of the people who worked in security would be standing around laughing and staff workers would also follow me around, jumping to conclusions. – See more at:
I found that a lot of the people who worked in security would be standing around laughing and staff workers would also follow me around, jumping to conclusions. – See more at:

Training Skirts takes on a New Meaning?


Darlings, I just love this story I found recently.

Train drivers on the Roslagsbanan train service in Stockholm, Sweden, have been complaining that the heat in the driving cabs in their trains can reach up to 95º Fahrenheit / 35º Centigrade in summer and things have been rather uncomfortable in recent hot weather.

The operating company, Arriva, have stated that shorts cannot be worn as they contravene the company’s uniform code.  The same code however, states that long trousers or skirts are acceptable dress, but do not stipulate gender.  Male train drivers have therefore taken to wearing skirts, which they find much cooler.

Silly boys.  I could have told you that a long time ago.

The company has given this move its blessing.  They cannot complain as to do so would be discriminatory.

And quite right too.  Surely it’s the drivers right to choo-choose?

Sorry darlings, little Xandra does so love her bad puns.