The Transphobic Ignorance of the Wee Free Moderator

Andy Murray – definitely cute, but not trans

Scottish clergyman’s distinct lack of Christian charity

The Reverend David A Robertson was recently invested as the Moderator of the Free Church of Scotland, a small church in Scotland which carries a very big voice.  With a membership of 13,000, it has long been renowned for their strict Presbyterian views, Sabbatarianism and ‘dour’ outlook on life.  To say it is a controversial denomination would be an understatement.

Not least controversial among its members is Reverend Robertson, who while trying to claim that he reaches out to all, has at times made statements against the LGBT community, atheists and secularists, which can hardly be described as full of Christian charity.  In his latest article in his blog, The Wee Flea, (a small, irritating, disease-spreading parasite – how very apt) however, I am sure many of my followers shall agree he goes way too far.

In his article, End of Term Report, Rev Robertson – sounding more like American evangelist Pat Robertson – states;

“And the thought also struck me – if Andy Murray begins to realise in a couple of years that he is not going to win any more mens tournaments, why can’t he just do a Bruce, say he feels like a woman, call himself Andrina and enter the women’s Wimbledon and get the prize money that way?”

Well, I can think of several reasons why he would not undergo gender reassignment, not least of which is the fact that Scotland’s wonderful Andy Murray (tennis playing star for those not in the know, dears) is not transgender.  If he were, I have no doubt that he would have done something about that many years ago.  I would also guess that his relationship with his long-term girlfriend Kim Sears and their recent marriage would never have happened.  Indeed, if Andy were transgender, I reckon Kim would be somewhat disillusioned (and given that he’s such a pretty boy, so would I).

The reasoning behind Davy Baby’s thinking is that he cannot and will not accept that being transgender is natural and normal.  Rev Robertson lives in a black and white world where if someone is born with a vulva, they female, and if someone is born with a penis, they are male.  He refuses to accept that gender and sexuality have more to do with psychology than they do any biological factors, and that both are decided in the womb.  As far as he is concerned, his God made us to be male and female, and that is the end of it.

And of course his argument immediately falls flat on its face when one considers babies who are born intersex, with both male and female genitalia.  If that is the work of his God, then there goes the conservative Christian black and white view of the world straight out of the window.  Hmmm.  Male and female created He them, perhap?

So the question is, faced with an intersex baby, would David Robertson have that child operated upon to define one gender (and thereby supposedly undoing his God’s work), or would he leave the child until they were old enough to decide themselves if they are male or female?

If he did the former, he would be defining that child’s gender for them; not the child, and not his God.  If he did the latter, then he must admit that gender is a psychological construct, not a biological one.  And if that is the case, then the same goes for not only intersex people, not only transgender people, but every person on the face of the planet.  Bottom line; there is no such thing as a female vulva or a male penis; bodies come in all shapes and sizes.

Regular readers of my articles will know that Malta recently became the first country in the world to make gender reassignment on intersex babies illegal.  If a tiny country which has been steeped deep in the Christian faith for two millennia can take a such a huge leap forward, it makes one wonder what is wrong with the rest of “Christendom”.

And the point of his blog?  I’m not sure but it appears to be about public lavatories;

“If we can’t have gender specific toilets why should we have gender specific sports tournaments.  That’s the madness of the modern world.”

Except of course, it is not most trans people who are asking for gender-neutral toilets.  Firstly, gender-neutral toilets are dangerous; they actually marginalise and identify trans people as trans, and thus make them far more likely to be targeted and attacked by bigots.  Secondly, gender-neutral toilets actually deny the gender of the trans person.  The inference is that transgender is neither male nor female, but somewhere in-between.  Strange as it may seem, the vast majority of human beings still want to use gender-specific toilets; men want to use the gents, and women want to use the ladies, and whether the individual in question is transgender should make absolutely no difference to that.

In fact, the only people who appear to be calling for gender-neutral toilets are those who think they are doing the right thing, but are not, those who are uncomfortable with transgender people using the same facilities as them, or those who do not and will not accept that transgender people are the men or women they identify as at all – the latter including people like Reverend David A Robertson.

Notice also the reference to Caitlyn Jenner in the above paragraph, and Rev Robertson’s insistence on calling her by her redundant birth name.  I am not surprised at this, as in a recent podcast for the Solas Centre for Public Christianity, Reverend Robertson and his co-host cruelly derided Caitlyn Jenner, continually referred to her as “he” and “him”, used his birth name, called him “the pit of our culture in society”, “gut-wrenchingly nauseating”, and “It is part of the attempt to dehumanise humanity, to take away from us not just sexuality, but to take away from us gender.”  The link to the podcast also carries an old photo of Bruce Jenner with a banner superimposed on it with “Call me Caitlyn” across it, and the words “Right, Bruce in the corner.

I would not normally give this squalid little man the publicity he so desperately craves but I feel that his latest ignorant and transphobic outbursts, which border on hate speech, cannot in this instance be ignored.  I know that friends of mine here, including Christians and those of other faiths, shall be utterly disgusted at his words and shall assert that he does not speak for them, nor the Christian faith in general.

As for Andy Murray, I have no doubt he would not lower himself to reply to Robertson’s comments.  But if he were pressed to do so, given that his head coach, Amélie Mauresmo is openly lesbian (and soon to be a mum), and Andy in 2013 stated that there would be “no problem” with an openly gay tennis player, methinks he would be first to condemn the Moderator’s poisonous words – and to voice his support for Caitlyn Jenner.

---

The Wee Flea, End of Term Report, can be read here:

https://theweeflea.wordpress.com/2015/07/06/end-of-term-report-some-reflections-for-summer/

Quantum of Solas No. 32 can be found here.  The part about Caitlyn Jenner starts at 5:35:

http://www.solas-cpc.org/wp/2015/06/quantum-of-solas-32/

DOWN with this sort of thing! Careful now!

But she’s apparently kind to animals…

I was going to do a full blog challenging every one of these points, Loves, but there’s simply too much to address.  So instead, I’ll leave this here to judge for yourselves.  I will however make a few observations upon it.

Every election throws up candidates who are controversial, eccentric, offensive, and downright barmy, and the UK General Election, which takes place on 7 May 2015 is no exception.  Susan-Anne White could fit all the above categories and is standing on the above ticket, which even puts UKIP in the shade for bigotry, ignorance, and frankly daft ideas.

Claiming to be “Biblically correct NOT politically correct”, Ms White’s agenda is anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-adultery, and pro-child discipline.  Her agenda also includes other measures such as the UK pulling out of the EU, banning the legalisation of dangerous drugs, opposing global warming science (which she claims is pseudoscience), CCTV in all abattoirs and banning Halal slaughter, which of course are clearly Biblical because… …ah… …ermm… …perhaps Ms White would like to explain those ones herself?

Interesting to note that Ms White wants to “recriminalise” homosexuality.  She would have a hard job, as homosexuality was never actually criminalised. Buggery, Sodomy and Gross Indecency (under the Labouchere Amendment of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885) were the offences under which gay men were prosecuted, but being homosexual in itself was never a criminal offence.   It’s equally interesting to note however that she claims that after stating “Oppose the LGBT agenda while showing compassion to those who struggle with gender confusion.”  Yes, the LGBTQI community have encountered that particular brand of “compassion” many times before.

Please note I am using Ms White’s terminology here, as I have no doubt she thinks gay men and lesbian women “struggle with gender confusion” and is unaware that gender and sexuality are two different things.

No doubt I am the very sort of person who would make Ms White want to heave.  I like dressing in pretty, feminine clothes, right down to frilly panties and I’ll happily shag anything I fancy, male or female, which moves – and a few things that don’t.  To steal a line from one of my favourite movies, Chopper Chicks in Zombietown, “my tongue has been places you don’t even know you’ve got and it’s great.”  And being a pansexual genderqueer crossdresser, I’m not struggling with gender confusion at all.  I fully embrace it, I love it, and far from feeling any shame, I’m proud of it.  One can only wonder just how much “compassion” Ms White would afford the likes of me?

Another bizarre stance is to raise the age of consent to 18 and enforce the law.  I don’t know how Ms White imagines teenagers with raging hormones are going to obey that law, how she intends to enforce it, or what point needlessly making criminals of young people and wasting police time would achieve exactly.

I would also question her claim that she is being “Biblically correct” on this one.  This is what the Bible has to say on Mary’s conception of Jesus; “Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.“  (Matthew 1:18, KJV).  Now, at that time Jewish girls were betrothed in arranged marriages at age 12.  So if Joseph had not “known” Mary before she conceived, then that could mean she was as young as 12 years old when she conceived Jesus.

That’s before we even get onto the story of Rebekah, whom even rabbinical and Biblical scholars agree may have been as young as three years old, that’s right dears – 3, when she was betrothed to Issac.

What was that about being “Biblically correct”, Ms White?

But then, for a woman, we see that Ms White’s manifesto is particularly misogynistic. when we consider that she wants to “Oppose feminism and restore dignity to the stay-at-home mother” (which no serious person has ever seriously questioned the dignity of women who choose that noble role), and “Restore the concept of the family wage with the father as the bread-winner”.

Which only leads me to wonder just why she, as a woman, does not choose to “stay-at-home”?  Particularly when being so “Biblically correct”, she should be staying at home and not be seeking political office at all;

“The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;  That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,  To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.”  (Titus 2:3-5, KJV)

“Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.  But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence^.  For Adam was first formed, then Eve.” (1 Timothy 2:11-13, KJV)

Them’s the words of the Bible, which you claim to be the unerring word of God, Ms White dear, not mine.

---

UPDATE: Susan-Anne White came last in the constituency of West Tyrone, polling a mere 166 votes and thereby losing her deposit.  So far no reaction has been posted in her blog.

---

North England / Scottish parents most accepting of Gay / Trans kids

But it’s bad news for London

In a shock result, a poll has shown that London parents are the most likely in the UK to reject a gay or trans child, with the north of England and Scotland being the most tolerant.

The poll by YouGov and commissioned by Pink News showed that 13% of those polled in London would be least likely to support a gay child, while 20% would be likely to reject a trans child.  The north of England proved to be the most tolerant, with only 1% saying they would reject a gay child and 9% not accepting a trans child.  Scotland was just behind them, with 2% indicating they would reject a gay child, and 10% being against accepting a trans child.

The result has come as something of a shock, as London being such a cosmopolitan city, has long been considered to be the most tolerant part of the UK, while more rural and tradionalist parts, such as the north of England and Scotland, being considered more parochial and guarded against change.

Listening to a discussion on the matter on LBC Radio, I heard two callers trying to play the Islamophobe / racist card by suggesting that immigration and the large number of Muslims in the English capital was to blame for the apparent homophobia.  One gay caller however refuted this, stating that the majority of prejudice he faces comes from white men.

When I heard the claims of religion being responsible, I immediately shook my head, for that does not explain the high amount of tolerance in Scotland, despite bigotry from the Christian churches.  Scotland remains the most Presbytarian country in the world, and due to our bloody history, to this day there is sectarian bigotry between Protestants and Roman Catholics.  However, one of the few things which unites the Protestant Kirks and the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland is their shared opposition to the LGBTQI community.  The Free Church of Scotland and the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland were two of the most vocal opponents of equal marriage when the Bill was going through the devolved Scottish Parliament.

Consider also that the 1984 Bronski Beat hit Smalltown Boy was based upon Scots lead singer Jimmy Somerville’s own experiences of familial rejection and homophobia in a Scotland with a prejudiced, small town mentality, and why he had to get away from it.

There has obviously been something of a sea change in Scots attitudes to the LGBTQI community since those days.  Of course, it’s still 2% and 10% too many (and we’re apparently trailing north England – come on Scotland, let’s show these Geordies), and I would not for one moment suggest that Scotland is by any means a “Rainbow Paradise” – there are certainly areas I simply will not even enter.  However I for one cannot help feeling a wee bit rightfully proud.

And come on London, pull your socks up.  You’re letting the side down.