If bigots walk out, kick them out permanently

State school should expel transphobic students.

It is probably just as well I never entered politics, dears.  I hate to think just what sort of authoritarian junta I would be dictator of.

Having said that, a story from the USA just makes me plain angry.

At Hillsboro High School, Missouri, 200 students walked out of the state-owned school after one trans girl asked to use female bathrooms, instead of the gender-neutral ones she had previously used.

The story, which appears in Pink News, is somewhat convoluted, as it is claimed that she asked to use female changing facilities.

Lila Perry, 17, came out as transgender last year, and was apparently asked to use the gender-neutral changing rooms.  Having lived as a girl from the age of 13, she asked to be allowed to use the female bathrooms, which appears to have been allowed.

The result was a walk-out by students in protest, and Perry had to be locked in the Principal’s office for her own protection.  The protest appears to have been fuelled by parents claiming that she was receiving special treatment.

However, other students, of the school’s Gay / Straight Alliance, who supported Lila also walked out in counter-demonstration at the way she was being treated by fellow students.

For her part, Lila told reporters “It wasn’t too long ago white people were saying I don’t feel comfortable sharing a bathroom with a black person and history repeats itself.  I wasn’t hurting anyone and I didn’t want to feel segregated out.  I didn’t want to be in the gender neutral bathroom. I am a girl, I shouldn’t be pushed off to another bathroom.”

The students returned to class after two hours.

A written statement from Superintendent Aaron D Cornman stated that the school district “respects the rights of all students and appreciates the fact that the students we are educating are willing to stand on their belief system and to support their cause/beliefs through their expression of free speech.”

The statement went on to say the district accepts students “no matter race, nationality/ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation. We will promote tolerance and acceptance of all students that attend our district while not tolerating bullying/harassing behaviors of any type in any form.”

So, what are we to make of this?  Well, Lila Perry says she merely wanted to use the bathrooms (toilets this side of the pond) corresponding to her identified gender, as is the right of every cis person, and should equally be the right of every trans person.   And of course, this highlights the fact that a great many trans people don’t want to use gender-neutral facilities – because they’re not bloody gender-neutral.  Why is that so very hard for some people to understand?

Suddenly that’s been extended somehow to changing facilities.  I am not seeing any proof that Lila ever asked to share female locker rooms. And of course, we see that bigoted parents are behind the lot.

The school district says that they will not tolerate bullying or harassment of any form.  Then let them live up to their word.

If students choose to walk out of a state school in protest at a trans girl, then that’s fine.  It should be easy enough to lock doors when they walk out, identify them, and expel the lot of them.  To do any less is pandering to transphobic bullying.

And given the auld Scots saw “Fools and bairns speak at the cross whit they hear by the ingleside”, these transphobic students are learning their bigotry from their parents.  So, time for them to be investigated by the authorities for instilling hate in the minds of their children.

Honestly Loves, you really wouldn’t want me to be in politics.  I would make it so hard on bigots – of any kind – they would be scared to even fart too loud for fear of action being brought against them.

Homophobic County Clerk Jailed For Contempt

Kim Davis refusing to issue a marriage licence to a gay man

Seems you CAN fight City Hall.

Kim Davis, County Clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky, USA has been jailed for Contempt of Court for refusing to issue marriage licences to same-sex couples, despite it being part of her job to do so.  As she is an elected official, she could not be dismissed from her post.

Mrs Davis consistently refused to issue marriage licences to same-sex couples, stating that her religious beliefs as a Christian prevented her from doing so.

One gay couple managed to capture her on camera stating that she would not issue them with a marriage licence.  She then continued to refuse to marry same-sex couples.  When told she must, she stopped issuing licences altogether, arguing that by doing so she was not discriminating against anyone, but continued to draw her salary.  She even appealed to the US Supreme Court, stating her religious freedom meant she did not have to issue same-sex marriage licences.  They refused to issue her a stay.  Earlier this year the US government ruled that all states must recognise and comply with same-sex marriage.

On 3 September US District Judge Dave Bunning found her Guilty of Contempt of Court for failing to comply with several orders, including one he had issued, and placed her in the custody of Federal Marshalls.  Davis had said earlier she was prepared to go to jail over the matter.

Three Deputy Clerks in the same office have likewise been ordered to comply with same-sex marriage, or they too shall be jailed.

Kim Davis and her deputies are trying to claim that as they are devout Christians, forcing them to issue same-sex marriage licences is an infringement of their First Amendment rights, which guarantee freedom of religion.  They do not appear to be too intelligent, as they are failing to realise that by refusing to issue such licences, they are enforcing their beliefs upon same-sex couples and are thereby infringing their First Amendment rights.

It is doubly damning as they are employed in public office posts, and the US Constitution guarantees a wall between church and state.  Davis and her cohorts were therefore acting totally illegally and unconstitutionally by refusing to issue same-sex marriage licences by basing their actions on religious belief.

Kim Davis and her deputies of course base their beliefs and actions upon what the Bible has to say about homosexuality, in the Book of Leviticus;

“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” (Leviticus 20:13, KJV)

Notice here that this verse mentions sexual relations between men.  Neither this verse nor any part of Levirate Law says anything about two men (or two women) marrying.  Indeed, contrary to what the bigots may think and try to claim, nowhere in the Bible does one find marriage defined as one man / one woman.  In fact there is no definition of any kind of marriage anywhere in the Bible.

Kim Davis and her deputies therefore could easily have issued marriage licences for same-sex couples without for one moment compromising their deeply held religious beliefs.   That they refused to do so can only mean they are either ignorant of the Bible, hiding behind the Bible to promote their own homophobia, or far more likely, both.

Levirate Law, in the very same chapter of Leviticus, has plenty to say on the question of adultery, however;

“And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.” (Leviticus 20:10, KJV)

And why do I bring the question of adultery up, dears?  Well, let’s just have a look at the track record of the oh-so-pious and righteous Kim Davis;

• She married her first husband, and then had twins fathered by another man.
• She divorced her first husband, and married another man, who was not the father of the twins, but who adopted them.
• She then divorced her second husband and married the father of her children.
• She then divorced her third husband and remarried her second husband.

So much for the sanctity of marriage.  So much for being a ‘good Christian’ and adhering to the Bible.  Seems to Kim Davis that it’s okay to discriminate against gays, yet she herself has flouted the selfsame law – on several occasions – which she claims prevents her from marrying same-sex couples.

It’s called hypocrisy, Kim dear, which is one more reason I am happy to see you rot in jail and I do hope a hefty fine follows.  Step down from your job, Luv; you are obviously unfit to hold it.

Don’t you dare be camp – and crossdress only if you’re queer

National Union of Students passes discriminatory motions

Dears, I don’t know what has become of the dear old National Union of Students (NUS).  When I was a member, more years ago than I like to think about, it was a welcoming, all-inclusive body where you could be yourself, nobody judged you and they fought bigotry and injustice wheresoever they perceived it.  Today it seems it has become the haven of hyperfeminist bigots who don’t have a bloody clue about gay mannerisms or crossdressing, yet who are happy to make racist gestures.

On 25 March 2015 delegates at the NUS Women’s Conference passed a number of motions aimed at the LGBTQI community within UK colleges and universities.   And, as feminazis are wont to do, they got it all wrong.  So very, very wrong.

Motion 503, forwarded by the NUS LGBT Committee called “Dear White Gay Men: Stop Approprirating Black Women”

A bloody sad state of affairs when British students cannot spell “appropriating”, I’m sure you’ll agree, dears.  That apart however, the motion claimed that white gay men are using affectations common with black women, explained thus;

“This may be manifested in the emulation of the mannerisms, language (particularly AAVE- African American Vernacular English) and phrases that can be attributed to black women. White gay men may often assert that they are “strong black women” or have an “inner black woman”, White gay men are the dominant demographic within the LGBT community, and they benefit from both white privilege and male privilege.

I have never, for the life of me, ever heard any gay man claim to have a strong or inner black woman inside him.  If there are such, I’d just laugh in their faces.  That apart, there are no other examples of mannerisms, language and phrases, so this motion is very much open to the interpretation of the NUS Feminazi Thought Police.  There are many men in the LGBTQI community who are camp and effeminate.  I happen to be one myself, as my regular followers are aware of.  Am I now to be decried by some harpie on a university campus should I dare to sashay, as I am wont to do, or use camp language and phrases which they may associate with black women?  Let them just try.  My reply would be to shove a hand in the complainants face at full arms length and tell them, “Talk to the hand, sister, cos the face ain’t listenin’.”

Motion 503 is a terrible move for the NUS and is actually discriminatory on two counts; firstly it generalises about white gay men, and assumes that a great many use such mannerisms.  That is homophobic.  And were that not enough, the reverse side of that particular coin is that it generalies that certain language, mannerisms and phrases are common to black women.  And that, my dears, is both racist and sexist in one fell swoop, as it assumes that the delegates know the minds of black women.

But onto the motion which most here will be interested in, and I do hope my fellow trans, CD and genderqueer friends are sitting down – you may need a stiff drink by your hand as well.  Brace yourselves dears.

“To issue a statement condemning the use of crossdressing as a mode of fancy dress, To encourage unions to ban clubs and societies from holding events which permit or encourage (cisgender) members to use cross-dressing as a mode of fancy dress,”

The reason for this motion?  That trans women (no mention of trans men) may find crossdressing by cishet men offensive.   Hands up here all you lovely trans ladies who are at all offended by cishet men crossdressing.  No?  No, thought not.  The fact is, as many who come here know full and well, that crossdressers and trans people have a mutual respect for each other and we stand up for each other.  Therefore, this motion immediately generalises in that it assumes to know what trans women are thinking, and that dears is transphobic.  Secondly, it attempts to drive a wedge between us CD and trans sisters.  That ain’t happenin’ girls.  Never on my watch.

The NUS has allowed dispensation in this for genderqueer students who want to use cross-dressing in their everyday lives as a mode of expression, or who wish to crossdress by dressing as a fictional character in fancy dress.  Aww, how sweet of them.

BIG problem here, dears.  If they seek to ban clubs and societies with encourage cisgender crossdressing, then they are up against the overwhelming vast majority of crossdressers.  This effectively means that if the Beaumont Society, who give help, guidance and support to crossdressers and their families, tried to give a speech or host a help event at a college or university, the NUS would attempt to ban it, on the grounds that the majority of their members are crossdressers.

So the NUS would in effect ban any such group from giving on-campus help and advice to cisgender crossdressing students.   And of course, because this motion would effectively do that, that could only add to the stress and emotional turmoil such students are already going through.  Moreover, it is not outwith the bounds of possibility that a young student just ‘finding’ themselves, may actually be trans, and the NUS stamping down on them like this could actually force them back into the closet.

And just who do the NUS Women’s Committee think they are to state that a genderqueer person may crossdress but a cishet person may not?  That is pure discrimination which not only does not understand crossdressing, it does not even attempt to understand it.

The entire motion is based upon the bigoted perceptions of women who are not crossdressers, and this shows in part of the wording of this motion; “which permit or encourage (cisgender) members to use cross-dressing as a mode of fancy dress,”  That statement, allied with the ‘dispensation’ that genderqueer students can crossdress as fictional characters says it all.  They think we’re all drag queens, dears.  Yet again, they prove their complete and total ignorance of a subject they have not even attempted to research, or indeed, actually try asking crossdressers.

These motions were passed at the conference, dears, and have been widely criticised ever since.

Oh yes, that bit about racist gestures.  To emphasise that some people find some gestures damaging, instead of clapping, those present showed ‘jazz hands’, after one NUS Women’s delegate Tweeted, “Some delegates are requesting that we move to jazz hands rather than clapping as it’s triggering anxiety. Please be mindful!”  For those of you not in the know, ‘jazz hands’ are where you hold your hands either side of your face with the fingers full open, and grin widely – a mannerism common to minstrel shows, where white men would ‘black up’ as black men, and sing songs synonymous with African-Americans in the US deep south.  An act so racist that it is banned almost everywhere today.  Oh well done.  That’s very progressive, isn’t it?

So, well done NUS Women’s Conference for showing your uninformed and ignorant prejudice by giving your blessing to homophobia, sexism, transphobia, mysandry, and racism.  But at least now I know why you call your decisions ‘motions’ – because like you, they’re full of shit.

Pope Nukes Trans People

Religion has destroyed many lives – gender recognition embraces and enhances it

I really am beginning to wonder if Pope Francis has lost the plot completely.  In a new book, This Economy Kills, the Pontiff has comparaed trans people to nuclear weapons.

Claiming to defend the order of “God’s creation”, Pope Francis stated, “Let’s think of the nuclear arms, of the possibility to annihilate in a few instants a very high number of human beings… Let’s think also of genetic manipulation, of the manipulation of life, or of the gender theory, that does not recognize the order of creation.”

Utterly bizarre.  Particularly coming from a man who is not only celibate himself, but who heads up a church within whose rules millions of clergy, nuns and monks, and even lay people also practice celebacy.  Is that not going against the order of creation, which is to reproduce?

But he goes even further; “With this attitude, man commits a new sin, that against God the Creator,” the pope adds.  “The true custody of creation does not have anything to do with the ideologies that consider man like an accident, like a problem to eliminate.  God has placed man and woman and the summit of creation and has entrusted them with the earth… The design of the Creator is written in nature.  If we fail in this responsibility, if we do not take care of our brothers and of all creation, destruction advances.”

Really?  A sin against God, the Creator?  Okay, let’s play Frankie’s game here.  Assuming that God existed, would that God not have created trans people “in nature”?  And herein lies the problem; that the Pope, who previously has claimed to be cool with LGBT people, obviously still considers gender and sexuality to be a choice, when it plainly is not.

As to seeing “man like an accident, like a problem to eliminate”, that has never been my experience of LGBT people.  But I could quote chapter and verse of the history of Christianity (and other faiths) of eliminating people, including not a few LGBT people, who were a problem to churches, clergy and their fanatical followers.  Just as there are LGBT people who are attacked to this day, some to the point of being murdered, many more who commit suicide, because of persecution from the religious.

And I would ask the Pope, or any who agree with him, while they argue from the psychological identification of transgender people, where do they stand when such differences occur physically, such as in the case of hermaphroditism?  What happens when a baby is born with both sets of genitals?  What when such a child develops as they grow into either a girl or a boy, of which there are a great many recorded cases?  No doubt the God-botherers would claim that is different, because there is visible biological evidence.  Well, I’ve got news for them; within each and every trans person there is visible biological evidence of their gender identity.  Just because a girl is born with a penis, or a boy is born with a vagina does not make them any less girl or boy.  The point being that to wholly discard psychological identification with a gender contrary to that of the cisgender binary is nothing short of complete ignorance of what is in fact a very complex subject.

To put it another way, as the wonderful trans girl character Stephie says in Sophie Labelle’s cartoon Assigned Male; “I’m not a girl in a boy’s body.  I am a girl, this is my body. Girls have all kinds of bodies.”

And if we, still playing the Pope’s game, accept that God exists (except I don’t), then if he and his followers accept that their God can make human beings with biological differences which defy the cisgender norm, then it logically follows that any such God would be equally capable of making psychological differences.  Or does the Pope reckon that his maker would only ever be involved in biological creation, and have nothing to do with the mind?  If so, then that could be considered to be nothing short of blasphemy.  Who then is the sinner?

But then, I need no lessons on nuclear weapons and the disregard for human life from a church who once had a member of clergy, Father George Zabelka, who blessed the crews of the Enola Gay and Bock’s Car; the planes which dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  Given that he once said “One cannot kill in the name of God.”, if Pope Francis had any balls at all he would publicly revoke those blessings.

And neither do I need any lessons on what is and what is not natural, or morality. from any church which not too long ago castrated prepubescent boys purely in order to keep their voices high, which to this day widely practices celibacy – which is choice, not nature – against the very commandments of the Bible to be fruitful and multiply, and which still protects perverts who bugger little boys.

New Year – New Scotland

Equal marriage now fully in law in Scotland

Bliadhna Mhath Ùr o Alba na Bòidhche / Happy New Year from Bonny Scotland, darlings, and sorry I’ve not been on here recently.

Well, on 31 December 2014 the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Act passed fully into law, with the first marriages taking place on the stroke of midnight, when Susan and Gerrie Douglas-Scott were married in a civil ceremony and Joe Schofield and Malcolm Brown were wed in a Humanist ceremony, both weddings took place in Glasgow.

I am sure all my lovely friends here join me in wishing Susan and Gerrie, and Joe and Macolm, and all other same-sex couples who have wed heartiest congratulations and all the best for the future.  To any who don’t – get a life.

Susan and Gerrie’s wedding was witnessed by Scottish National Party (SNP) First Minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon MSP (Member of the Scottish Parliament) and Patrick Harvie MSP, Convenor of the Scottish Green Party.  The involvement of the First Minister, who recently inherited the post from Alex Salmond MSP, in this wedding has drawn some amount of criticism, and not a few nasty comments, from those on the political right and the anti-independence media.  They fail to mention however that Ms Sturgeon was invited by the couple to be a witness, as a personal friend of the couple.   So shame upon the media for attempting to politicise a completely non-political and private event.

The witnesses for Joe and Malcom were Scots Makar (Scots equivalent of the English Poet Laureate) Liz Lochhead and Marco Biagi MSP.  Mr Biagi is the Scottish Government Minister for Local Government and Community Empowerment, who had responsibility for bringing the new law into effect.  An openly gay man himself, Mr Biagi stated “With a New Year nearly upon us, there really is no better way to celebrate than by watching these two people get married and make that lifelong commitment to each other.  I am proud of our parliament in passing the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Act 2014 and proud of Scotland and the country that we are fast becoming.”

I could not agree more.  New Year, new beginnings, new Scotland.

Luvs

Xandra xxx

Paddington Bare?

Hello Luvs.  Quite a bizarre story has cropped up in the past few days.  A movie of Paddington, the much-loved children’s animation about a little bear coming to London from Peru, has received a PG (Parental Guidance) certificate by the British Board of Film Censors (BBFC).  The reasons for this are, quote, “dangerous behaviour, mild threat, mild sex references (and) mild bad language”.

Really dears?  Nestling among the countless horror movies (Children of the Corn, They Wait, Wolf Creek, Live from the House of Lords, etc) which make up the bulk of my DVD collection, there are a few children’s movies with a U (Universal) certificate, and which would fall under the above categories for the BBFC classifying Paddington as PG.  The delightful romp about a boy trying to rescue little people, The Borrowers certainly contains what could be considered dangerous behaviour, mild (and not so mild) threat, mild sex references and mild bad language.  Yet it received a U certificate and this is just one movie I shall reference in this article.

Comparing the two, the BBFC states that the dangerous behaviour is Paddington hiding in a fridge.  Fair enough.  But in The Borrowers we have the little people living underground and full-sized people trying to catch them, including going down drains. In Paddington the mild threat is a taxidermist threatening to “kill and stuff” the bear.  In The Borrowers the daughter and her boyfriend are threatened by the father on several occasions.  There are also scenes of actual violence in The Borrowers, and there is also plenty of bad language.

It is the mild sex references in Paddington however that the PG Certificate seems to pivot upon, and the reasons for referring to this are completely hypocritical of the BBFC.  You see dears, their problem is one man dressing in female clothes and flirting with another man.

Going back to The Borrowers there is the scene where the daughter finds a very sexy costume to wear and to which her mother says no, but she gets it anyway,  There are also flirting scenes between Stephen Fry and Victoria Wood and a boy/girl near kiss scene.  I am sure any one of you could find many movies with U certificates and aimed at children where the content could be considered mildly sexual and flirtatious.

So it seems to the BBFC that so long as the couple in any scene are cisgender / heterosexual then these scenes are perfectly valid.  Yet the moment any character veers from that, then it obviously warrants a PG certificate.  Well done BBFC in your efforts in bringing up another generation of little bigots.

What I do find bizarre is that younger kids, like the toddlers Paddington is aimed at, would probably take the scene in question more in their stride and laugh at it, which was obviously the intention.  It may have escaped the censors notice but pre-schoolers are much more interested in scanning the horizon for sweet shops than they are in gender and/or sexual diversity.  It is actually the older kids, 5 and up, we need to worry about; the ones who have already had gender and sexual stereotypes ingrained in them by uninformed and bigoted parents.  Frankly by giving Paddington a PG certificate, they are playing right into the bigoted mindset of those who lambasted Tinky-Winky in the Teletubbies as gay because “he” is purple, is topped by a triangle and carries a handbag (I say “he” but to the best of my knowledge the Teletubbies are gender-neutral).

On the other hand, if the media does not portray non-cis people to children, then however do we expect them to accept trans and gender-fluid people as normal?  There is still a long way to go but it is widely accepted that the portrayal of openly gay and lesbian people in the media has created much wider acceptance.  Indeed, the wider we portray all genders and sexualities, can only be helpful to non-cis and non-hetero children to come to terms with and accept that the urges within them are perfectly normal and nothing to be ashamed of.

The creator of Paddington Bear, Michael Bond, is absolutely appalled at the allegations.  He told the Daily Mail, “I’d be very upset. I might not sleep well tonight. I can’t imagine what the sex references are. It doesn’t enter into it with the books, certainly,”  Michael Bond is one of the greatest creators of children’s stories and animation ever, and one of the heroes of my childhood, as well as millions of others around the world.  One can only therefore share his surprise at this ridiculous ruling by a board of bigoted cisgender censors who see offence where none was intended, and for that matter exists.

Poor old Paddington Bear; once a loveable kids character, now reduced to a life of vice and sleaze.

Mind you, even as a child, I did reckon Paddington was a bit gender-fluid.  After all, that hat is FABULOUS!  But Paddington, Lovey, please lose the duffle coat.  It is doing absolutely nothing for you Dearie.

The Rainbow Referendum

Majority of Scots LGBT community back independence

Hello dears, as I write this, there is only one day to go until the Referendum on Scottish Independence on 18 September 2014.  And it pleases me greatly that Pink News held a poll in which 54% of the Scots LGBT community stated they would be voting Yes.

2163 Scottish readers of Pink News took part in the poll, in which 54% said they would vote Yes, 44% said they would vote No, and 2% were undecided.   When asked which party they would vote for in a Scottish election, 35% said Scottish National Party (SNP), 26% Labour, 10% Green, 9% Liberal Democrats, 7% Conservative, 5% Scottish Socialist Party, and 8% unsure.

The First Minister of Scotland, Alex Salmond MSP (Member of the Scottish Parliament), stated “I am delighted this PinkNews poll has produced a majority for the Yes campaign, as well as the opportunity to build a fairer country that comes with it. It is a fantastic response from Scotland’s LGBT community and is a further demonstration of the rise in support for a Yes vote we have seen across Scotland. An independent Scotland will herald a new era for equalities, enshrining rights and protections in a written constitution.”

Now, I have met Alex Salmond and he is a lovely man who can completely disarm people with his warm smile, and who could charm the birds out of the trees.  However, whilst it is all very well and good to speak of building a fairer country and enshrining rights in a new constitution, he may well want to end the funding of his party by the Stagecoach bus company boss, Brian Souter, a known homophobe who once launched a campaign to retain the notorious anti-gay Section 28.  He may also want to offload the many Holy Willies in his party who are equally homophobic and who would seek to push their own faith in an independent Scotland – that is NOT happening.  Those are just two reasons I am not and cannot be a member of your party, Alex Sweetie.

So, given the above, just how did we reach a situation where a poll shows that the majority would back independence and would vote SNP?  Well, I reckon LGBT people are pretty well switched on and tend to be very intelligent.  A great many will not have fallen for the rhetoric of the media who have continually tried to claim that the referendum is purely an SNP matter, when that is simply not the case.  The official campaign for Scottish independence is Yes Scotland, a non-partisan, grass roots organisation, of which the SNP are but one of many parties and individuals who support it.  Certainly, the SNP are the most vocal proponents of the independence campaign, but given they are the government in power in the Scottish Parliament and their raison d’etre is independence, it would be surprising if they were not.  But to even suggest that the SNP are the ones driving Yes is as untrue as to suggest that the Conservative Party are the driving force behind the official campaign against independence, Better Together.

I would therefore suggest that the LGBT community are well aware of this (probably more so than the cisgender, heterosexual majority) and that is why they don’t believe in throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Then there is the House of Lords question.  I happen to know for a fact that there are a number of LGBT people on both sides of the border who dislike the fact that there are 26 unelected Church of England bishops, the Lords Spiritual, many of whom are homophobic, who have the ability to vote and influence government legislation upon them.  We dislike it even more in Scotland, given that the Church of England is the English established church, and a minority faith in Scotland.  Little wonder then that Scots LGBT people should wish to remove themselves from that poisonous influence.

LGBT support for the SNP is little harder to explain.  The fact that England may have well have got same-sex marriage before Scotland, yet the Scottish government tabled their Bill first, may go some way towards doing so.  Besides which, the English Same Sex Marriage Act was booted through Westminster with indecent haste, with the result of all knee-jerk legislation, it is deeply flawed.  The Marriages and Civil Partnerships (Scotland) Act, however, although it took much longer, is much more comprehensive and embracing of many more people.  The Scottish Government working hand-in-hand with the Equality Network to make it so may very well have wooed a number of LGBT supporters.

And despite their funding from Souter and anti-gay religionists, the SNP government’s support for the LGBT community during the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow may have won a good deal of support as well.  In Glasgow an LGBT rainbow flag flew over the city – after Green Party and SNP Glasgow Councillors forced the ruling Labour administration, who had downright refused to fly the flag, into a u-turn.  The Scottish Government echoed this by flying a rainbow flag over the Scottish Parliament building in Holyrood, Edinburgh.  Then came the First Minister’s speech at the opening of the games, in which he openly condemned the persecution of LGBT people in many Commonwealth countries; a speech for which he was congratulated by none other than LGBT rights campaigner Peter Tatchell.

All in all, it seems that the 54% are correct in their thinking, that only an independent Scotland can safeguard and further their rights.

And should Better Together shoulder any of the blame for their failure in this poll?  As much as I disagree with them, I would never suggest that Better Together as an organisation is homophobic.  As the old adage goes, however, politics makes strange bedfellows, and some of Better Together’s are not so much strange as odious.

At one point Better Together put a rainbow logo up on their Facebook page.  It had to be taken down less than 24 hours later, due to a barrage of homophobic abuse from their own members and supporters.  This does not in the least surprise me.  Better Together has attracted quite a number of followers from the extreme right.  It is to their credit that they refused the Orange Order membership and refused to have anything to do with the Orange march through Edinburgh opposing independence. They have not however distanced themselves from some other far-right organisations, such as the Britannica Party.  And if Better Together wish to dispute that, perhaps they could explain why Britannica Party Treasurer Max Dunbar, along with his BP cohorts, was canvassing on a street in Glasgow City Centre on 31 August 2014, with official Better Together banners and handing out Better Together literature.  That of course was the day he kicked a pregnant homeless woman in the stomach, before calling her an alcoholic or a drug addict – he has since been arrested for the assualt.  Yes, you never read about that one in the tabloids, did you dears.

As long as Better Together associate themselves with extreme right, often violent, and certainly homophobic individuals and organisations, is there any surprise then that the LGBT community will continue to be repelled by them?

Better Togther have also ran an extremely negative campaign, in which they have been caught out in many lies, used scaremongering, and their supporters tend to be argumentative, unhappy and often aggressive – as a Yes campaigner, I can confirm this, as I’ve been on the receiving end of it many times.  Compare that to the cheerfulness and often party atmosphere of Yes campaigns.  One in Glasgow on Saturday, 13 September, was almost carnival-like.  But again, you won’t read that in the tabloids.  It is little wonder then that Yes attracts people with our positive message, while Better Together’s negativity turns people off, whatever their sexuality and/or gender.

Whatever the rights and wrongs however, with really is just hours to go now, it seems that the LGBT Yes vote is in the bag, and I for one could only be happier if it were a sassy pink Prada bag, full of rainbow sequins.

What’s in a name? Quite a lot in fact.

In the past I have seen posts by people on this interwebs thingy and other social media, making comments about crossdressers, transsexuals/transgenders, drag queens and others which are often mistaken, and all too often attempt to lump us all together.  You can’t do that, dears.  It is about as accurate as saying Socrates was mortal, cats are mortal, therefore Socrates was a cat.

I can’t condemn many who fail to make the distinction.  As my sisters here know full and well, all of us are not only shunned and condemned by society, the media all too often holds people like us to ridicule and make mistaken reports about us.

Therefore I shall attempt to give definitions of the different groups of people who do indeed crossdress.  Please excuse me if even I get some of this wrong; as I am fond of saying, even I don’t have all the answers and I’m still trying to work this damned thing out myself.

Crossdressers

Crossdressers are men or women who dress in clothes which are gender specific to the opposite sex.  They are mostly men, but there does exist a small minority of female to male crossdressers.  Contrary to popular belief, not all crossdressers are gay, nor are they transgender.  The prevelance of crossdressing encompasses all sexualities, and this is perhaps where the confusion comes in.  It has been recorded however that the vast majority, some 68%, of crossdressers are in fact cisgender, heterosexual men, most of whom are married and have families.  But others can be gay, bi, intersex, or even asexual.

Even I thought myself to be hetero at one time, but have finally admitted to myself that I am in fact pansexual – I love the person, not the gender.  It seems to me that bringing sexuality into the matter is where confusion often lies.  Certainly, crossdressing can have a sexual dynamic to it, and lead to really fun, kinky sex.  To think that the drive is primarily sexual, however, is vastly mistaken.  Crossdressers like myself merely have a drive within ourselves to explore the feminine side of our psyche, and that is no more sexual than any woman who dons her favourite pretty, feminine clothes.

Transgender / Transsexual

There have been attempts to claim that there are distinctions between transgender and transsexual people on grounds of gender v sexuality.  LIkewise some people, including those in the medical fraternity, sometimes attempt to define the difference by saying that transgender means “pre-op” (before gender reassignment surgery), whilst transsexual means “post-op”.  Yet given that I have also seen these definitions reveresed, this is clearly bollocks (or even lack thereof).  To save confusion therefore, I make no such distinction and generally refer to both groups by the all-encompassing term, “Trans”.

Trans people are those who have the psyche of one gender, born into the body of the opposite gender.  Given that, being trans is neither a choice nor a drive to ‘explore’ alternate gender and sexuality, but rather it is a need.  Basically trans people are born in the wrong bodies.  Given that, we see again that sexuality is not the main driving force of trans people, but rather the desire to right an abberation in nature, no different than someone born with a hare lip, say.  And again, trans people cover the whole gamut of sexual identities.  I know trans people who are hetero, and others who are lesbian.  There are also trans people who are intersex, pansexual, and even asexual.

Intersex

Intersex is a condition once mistakenly (and insultingly) referred to as hermaphroditism; whereby someone is born with reproductive or sexual anatomy which does not conform to the biological definitions of male or female.  This can mean examples such as a girl with an unusually large clitoris, or no vaginal opening, or a boy with a noticeably small penis (micropenis is the derogatory medical definition), or whose scrotum is divided to appear more like a labia.  In extreme cases an intersex person can have the genitals of both genders; such as a vaginal opening located behind the scrotum.

There have been many recorded cases of such children growing to become either men or women with the onset of puberty, whereby a child outwardly appearing to be male has developed breasts and more defined female genitalia, or those apparently female developing testes and a fully defined penis.  In other cases, however, people can have inward physiology of one gender opposite to that they identify with which is not identified until adulthood, if at all.  There have been people have lived entire lives as one gender or the other, only for post-mortem operations to prove them to be intersex.

Needless to say, an intersex person may identify with one gender or the other – or even both – and dress and act accordingly.  This does not mean, however, that intersex should ever be confused with transgender / transsexual, when they are clearly not one and the same thing.

Freedressing / Genderqueer

Freedressing is about challenging traditional binary gender roles in matters of dress and fashion.  This is quite different to crossdressing, trans and drag, all of which identify with one or other of the gender dichotomies.  Freedressing instead asserts that people should be free to wear what they want.  Probably one of the most famous advocates of freedressing is the flambouyant-dressing Eddie Izzard, who once stated “they’re not women’s clothes, they’re my clothes, I bought them”.  And yet Eddie Izzard still gets mistakenly reported in the press as a drag queen.

And this is where I have a huge problem with many advocates of freedressing.  The Freedressing Campaign on Facebook officially states “Promoting freedom of expression for genderqueer and gender nonconforming people, while countering transphobia and oppressive gender stereotypes.“  Yet while they claim that, their entire mission seeks a wholly androgynous dress sense, and in fact is critical of trans and crossdressing people for adopting gender binaries.  Indeed, they insultingly go as far as to maintain that crossdressing and drag are one and the same thing. 

More bizarrely, they claim that freedressing could end eating disorders; “Hopefully one day we shall see the fashion industry shift as it did during the 80s, and males can be more confident in their personal appearance. This can in turn reinforce their body image and confer the willpower to combat the widespread epidemic of obesity and malnutrition in our culture.” Strangely enough, I didn’t notice eating disorders decline during the New Romantic era.  In fact, quite the opposite happened, with more women and men suffering anorexia and bullimia, in the search for the ‘perfect’ androgynous body.

And the male-oriented message of that quote, “males can be more confident”, has not escaped me.  Neither however is the entire message of the Freedressing campaign, which assumes that all crossdressers are male; “Unfortunately for males, challenging this sexist notion is classified as crossdressing.”

Freedressing is indeed a fine and admirable idea.  It seems to me, however, that if it is about challenging gender dichotomies, opposing transpobia, and giving people – male and female – the right to dress as they please, then trans and crossdressing people should be free to wear what we wish, and not be accused of reinforcing the gender binary, as the Freedressing Campaign accuses us of doing so.

Drag Queens and Drag Kings

This term mostly applies to men who dress in women’s clothing and make themselves up as women, usually in a slutty fashion, for the purposes of entertainment.  Most drag queens are gay men and act outrageously in their acts.  The singer and entertainer, Divine, was a prime example of this, as is Paul O’Grady, who used to play the trashy Liverpudlian woman, Lily Savage.  There are however drag queens who are hetero.  Danny la Rue was a good example of this, as is Barry Humphries, who plays the batty Australian woman, Dame Edna Everage.  Humphries is in fact married with seven children.

Although their is a much smaller prevelance, there are indeed very successful drag kings – women who dress as men for the purely for entertainment.  Historically drag kings were very popular in British music halls, the most famous being Ella Shields, who sang Burlington Bertie from Bow.  Shields, actually an American, was hetero and it was her husband, William Hargreaves, who wrote the song.  In more modern times the macho Murray Hill is played by entertainer Betsy Gallahger, while All the King’s Men are an 8-piece drag King ensemble from Boston.  Drag kings, are largely the opposite of drag queens, in that a great many are lesbian, although this is not always the case.

There is one thing for certain, however.  To ever refer to crossdressing, trans, or intersex people as drag queens or drag kings is in fact a derogatory term, and should be avoided.  We do not dress for the public’s entertainment.

Conclusion

In the immortal words of The Kinks, “Girls will be boys, and boys will be girls. It’s a mixed up, muddled up, shook up world,”  There is often talk of places and people being ‘tolerant’ of genders and sexualities which differ from the cisgender heterosexual mainstream.  I would suggest that every person should not be merely ‘tolerated’, rather they should be afforded the respect which every human being on the face of the planet deserves. And that applies be they male, female, cisgender, heterosexual, gay, lesbian, bi, trans, crossdresser, intersex, genderqueer, pansexual, asexual, any mixtue of the above, or any other gender and/or sexuality.

My partner has just informed me that our relationship is described as “bigender”.  I’ve just told her “Hon, I’ve accepted I’m pansexual. No more labels, please.”

Many people dislike labels, yet it is part of the human condition to categorise and pigeonhole all things, and our fellow beings indeed come into that.  In a perfect world, there would be no need for labels.  Sadly, we live in a far from perfect world, and it may take centuries of education before they become superfluous.

Whether we like it or not therefore, we still have the labels and shall, and shall have to, continue to use them.  But why we do, let’s all make sure we get the terminology correct.  And while we are about it, let us all refer to each other by the most important and most appropriate label which clearly defines the behaviour, gender and sexuality of each and every one of us – human.

Let’s not be Frank

Denial is not a river in Africa.

Well, I have to say you could have knocked me down with a feather. In a shock announcement, former boxing promoter Frank Maloney has revealed living as a woman for the past year, wants to be known as Kellie, and is to undergo gender reassignment surgery.

And why is this such a shock, dears?  Well this is the same Frank Maloney who in 2004 stood as United Kingdom Indpendence Party (UKIP) candidate for London Mayor and made so many openly homophobic comments that James Davenport of the Gay Conservatives called him a “dangerous extremists” and called upon UKIP to deselect him as candidate.

Maloney’s comments at that time were not just hate-filled, some of them were downright absurd.  Judge for yourself;

“I object to seeing policemen in uniform holding hands in public – it’s not a family way of life and we should support the family more.  If a policeman and a policewoman in uniform were walking along holding hands in public they’d be pulled up.”

“I’m not homophobic, but in public let’s live a proper moral life – I think that’s important.”

“There is a problem with gay parades”

“If you are homosexual, you are homosexual – just get on with your life and stop bitching about things.”

“I don’t think they do a lot for society. I don’t have a problem with gays, what I have a problem with is them openly flaunting their sexuality.”

 “I’m more for traditional family values and family life. I’m anti same-sex marriages and I’m anti same-sex families.”

 “I don’t think it’s right for children to be brought up that way. I don’t think two men can bring up a child.”

Maloney at the time had also said he would not campaign in the London Borough of Camden, stating there were “too many gays”.  Following the complaint from James Davenport, he tried to qualify that statement by trying to claim it was because nobody would vote for him;

“What’s it got to do with them? The Gay Conservatives are not going to vote for me anyway,” he said, “I have said I don’t want to campaign around gays because I don’t think they will vote for me.”

Well, he certainly got that latter statement right.  But then, few Londoners voted for Maloney and the neo-fascists of UKIP.

In the light of this announcement, one can only assume that this deep-seated homophobia possibly came from Frankie Baby’s own denial and the self-loathing which that denial creates.  Having been in denial for so long myself, I can certainly relate to the self-hate which the need to be female can imbue in one.

As a boxing promoter, Frank Maloney was hugely successful, and once managed Lennox Lewis to the World Heavyweight Crown.  His secret life of a transsexual, alongside the macho image of boxing, caused him severe depression, which led to him at one point attempting suicide with a mixture of booze and prescription drugs.  A family man with two daughters, Frank’s marraige also broke down due to his sexuality, and she states that telling his wife and daughters was the hardest thing he ever did.

Perhaps we should not be so surprised.  Frank Maloney was always a charismatic character, well-loved by some and well-known for his outrageously flambouyant dress sense, which included Union Flag suits.  Oh, Kellie was just dying to be let out.  She certainly states that she has always known she was born into the wrong body.  Perhaps therefore we can see the choice of the macho sport of boxing as overcompensating.

I for one am therefore willing to give Kellie a chance.  It would be nice for her to apologise for Frank’s homophobic remarks, but I personally am not expecting one any time soon.  Likewise I do not know if she is still a UKIP member, and if so I would like her to leave that odious party, but I won’t hold me breath on that one either.

I shall however be watching and listening to Kellie very carefully, dears.  Whilst it should not be so, we are all aware that there are bigotry problems even within the LGBT community, and while one would trust that Kellie would be more tolerant than Frank, that yet remains to be seen.

I have to say that at 61 years of age, Kellie makes a striking figure of a woman.  And her brave decision should send a clear message that it is never too late for trans people to fulfil their lives.

It sadly also gives me no pleasure that Kellie has already been subjected to the same kind of comments online which Frank Maloney used to dish out to others.

Michele Bachmann: Gays Seek Polygamous Paedophilia

“Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.” (Matthew 7:5, KJV)

Speaking on the conservative Christian US radio show, Faith and Liberty, Republican Party Congresswoman for Minnesota, Michele Bachmann, accused the LGBT community of attempting to invoke an age of tyranny in the USA by stifling “diversity in speech”, of wanting to legalise polygamous marriage and, worst of all, wanting to abolish the age of consent.

Bachmann claimed she believed the LGBT community wanted to, quote, “abolish age of consent laws, which means we will do away with statutory rape laws so that adults will be able to freely prey on little children sexually. That’s the deviance that we’re seeing embraced in our culture today.”

Because of course, the countries which have embraced same sex marriage and greater liberty for their LGBT citizens have all legalised polygamy and abandoned age of consent laws, haven’t they? Except they have not. Not one of them. Here in Scotland we have just recently adopted same sex marriage by the Marriages and Civil Partnerships (Scotland) Act; the greatest ever law in Scots history to define marriage. That Act makes it perfectly clear what the restrictions are concerning polygamy, age of consent and incest. In fact, the new Act has reinforced those laws.

Bachmann’s bigoted views are obviously based in the claims that gay people are perverts and, to use her own words, deviants. Now let’s look at the actual facts. The vast majority of paedophiles are heterosexual men, and yes, that includes those who prey upon little boys. Most children who are abused are victims of either family members or friends of the families, and most victims – of both sexes – are abused by their own fathers.

Makes one wonder about the conservative Christian claim about the sanctity of marriage and the family being the cornerstone of society, doesn’t it?

Then one has to consider the vast number of children, again of both sexes, who are abused by deviant Christian clergy. And again, the vast majority of these clergy are not gay. The largest group among such clergy are of course Roman Catholic priests (whom the RC Church still shamefully protect too much), and some will claim that because they are celibate, they must be gay. Not so. Being celibate is a lifestyle choice, born sexuality is not. And while RC priests may mainly abuse little boys, that is purely due to the misogynistic nature of the RC church, the clergy have much more access to them than little girls. Although the incidence is much lesser, there are indeed little girls who are sexually abused by RC priests. Just as there are clergy of many other churches (and other religions) who equally abuse both little boys and little girls.

And while their incidence is much, much lesser than that of men, there are indeed women paedophiles. The vast majority of female paedophiles prey upon little boys, and just like abusive fathers, they usually abuse their own sons. It is equally not unknown however for paedophile women to sexually abuse little girls, and following exactly the same pattern, the abusers are usually heterosexual, close family members or trusted friends of the family, including Christian clergy.

It is rather hypocritical for a Christian to point the finger and make accusations concerning the age of consent, when one considers what the Bible has to say. Isaac was 37 years old at the “Binding”, when God asked his father, Abraham, to offer his son as a sacrifice. Abraham was told of the birth of Rebecca just after this event. Isaac took Rebecca as his bride when he was 40, which would make her only 3 years old. This is the traditional counting given in the Jewish Midrash, which is the widely accepted age. Mary was betrothed to Joseph, which in the Jewish custom of the time would have happened when she was 12 years old.

Likewise one would have thought Ms Bachmann, who portrays herself as the true blue all-American girl, and who (erroneously) believes the USA to be a Christian country, would prefer to keep a little more circumspect when it comes to the age of consent in her homeland, particularly among those states who share her views. Traditionally states in the deep south ‘Bible Belt’ of the USA were known for their rather loose views on consent laws. Probably the most high profile case was that of the marriage of rock musician Jerry Lee Lewis to Myra Gale Brown in Tennessee, who was not only 13 years old at the time of the marriage, she was Jerry’s first cousin once removed. Ah, but you say, that was in the past, and the USA has since ratified the age of consent to either 16 (same as Scotland) or 18, across all states. Wanna bet? As recently as 1999, a mere 15 years ago, one state ratified that consent at the tender age of 14 years old. That state is one of the most conservative Christian states in the Union, a state whose boundary signs claim “When Jesus returns, he’s coming here” (as if crucifying the poor man wasn’t enough), South Carolina;

SC CONSTITUTION SECTION 33. Age of consent. — No unmarried woman shall legally consent to sexual intercourse who shall not have attained the age of fourteen years. (1999 Act No. 3, Section 1, eff February 16, 1999)

The fact is, and this is what Michele Bachmann and those who think like her will never comprehend, the sexuality of any paedophile has nothing to do with their urges to abuse children. This is because the true motive behind paedophilia is in fact not at all sexual. The abuse of children is carried out by inadequate individuals seeking power over those weaker than them. Just like any abuse, be it sexual, physical, verbal or psychological, it is a form of bullying, carried out by cowards. That Bachmann is apparently ignorant of this fact makes her unfit to hold her Congressional post or to speak for the people she was elected to represent.

When it comes to polygamous marriage, there is not one LGBT community on the face of the planet which recognises this, nor has ever even called for it.  And the majority of countries frown upon polygamy.  Yet again, when one looks to the faith Michele Bachmann claims to follow so fervently, and is so self-righteous about, one finds polygamy being quite commonly practised, as it was among Jewish society of Biblical times.

There are two Biblical verses Christians opposed to homosexuality commonly fall back upon and both are in the Book of Leviticus;

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

“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” (Leviticus 20:13, KJV)

The author of the Book of Leviticus was of course Moses – whom the Bible states had at least three wives; Zipporah is mentioned in Exodus 2:21, the unnamed Ethiopian woman (yep, Moses had an interracial marriage – take that Tea Party) appears in Numbers 12:1, while Judges 4:11 states that Hobab, the Kenite was the father of Moses’ third wife. And these are the three wives we know of. Moses (assuming he existed) as a wealthy and important man more than likely had a great many more wives. King Solomon is stated in the Bible as having 700 wives and 300 concubines.

Nor will the New Covenant argument wash on this one, for Jesus never condemned polygamy. In fact, Jesus states that the Levirate Law, that is the law given to Moses, would always endure (it doesn’t – because it is in fact diametrically opposed to the message of love which Jesus taught). Indeed, we find the following;

“If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband’s brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband’s brother unto her.” (Deuteronomy 25:5, KJV)

Notice here that at no time does this stipulate that the brother-in-law of the woman should be unmarried, and in fact it would be rather unusual in Jewish society if he was. One can only assume therefore that Jesus, as an upholder of the Levirate Law, was fully in favour of polygamous marriage. Yet Michele Bachmann would have you believe it is a ‘deviancy’ which the LGBT community are attempting to enforce upon all.

Bachmann, playing the great American patriot, is as much on shaky ground on this one as she is on the age of consent. Some Scots-Irish (Ulster Scots) and Welsh settlers in America, both before and after the founding of the USA, either brought multiple-partner relationships. Polygamy was common among many Native American tribes and some settlers adopted this practice. Then of course there are the early polygamous practices of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. No doubt Bachmann would counter that these people were not Christians. Well, in the case of Native Americans she may be correct. However, those who adopted their practices would indeed have been Christians. Anyone with a basic knowledge of the Celtic peoples of the British Isles will soon tell you just how strictly Presbyterian they, particularly those of Scots and Irish background were, and to a great deal remain. And if Bachmann wants to argue that Mormons are not true Christians, one can only wonder if she would say that in public, or to the face of the Governor of Massachusetts and 2012 Republican presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, an active Mormon.

The point is that whichever way one looks at it, the USA, just like the Bible, actually has a history of polygamous marriage which no-one, not even Michelle Bachmann, can get away from. And that polygamy was never introduced by the LGBT community, but rather in many cases by Bible-believing Christians.

Everyone has the right to freedom of religion, thought and conscience. Michele Bachmann however is not practising that right. Just like so many ignorant bigots of her ilk today, she is attempting to cherry pick Bible verses to hide behind to support her own homophobia. This is clearly evidenced by her stating that any crackdown on hate speech is bringing in tyranny by “government controlled enforced speech and behaviour”. Basically, Bachmann is trying to argue for the right to go around spouting hate speech against those her limited intelligence chooses to be intolerant towards.

Even as an atheist, I would never seek to refuse anyone their right to their faith, so long as that faith is all-inclusive (as Jesus taught), evolves along with society and does not impinge upon the rights of others. If Michele Bachmann, however, is adamant to be a fundamentalist Christian, believing that the teachings of the Bible are not only true but should never change with the times, then I would suggest that she stops being such a hypocrite and leads by example, by stepping down from her governmental post, and remaining silent and subservient to her husband;

“But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.” (Timothy 2:12, KJV)