“Turing’s Law” Passed in England and Wales

_0000TuringGood – but not good enough.

Thousands of deceased gay and bisexual men in England and Wales convicted of sexual offences for partaking in gay sex when it was still illegal were pardoned posthumously when the Policing and Crime Bill received Royal Assent on 31 January 2017.

The Act is known as Turing’s Law, recognising the ill-treatment of the gay computer scientist Alan Turing, who committed suicide in 1954 after his conviction for Gross Indecency. Turing was given a posthumous Royal Pardon in 2013, but the new Act pardons 50,000 to 100,000 men convicted of Gross Indecency with Another Man or Buggery before 1967.

Justice minister Sam Gyimah said it was a “truly momentous day… …We can never undo the hurt caused, but we have apologised and taken action to right these wrongs.” This is the same Sam Gyimah who last year infamously ‘filibustered’ a Bill in the Westminster Parliament; speaking out its alloted time and thereby preventing a vote being taken upon it.

There are some however who do not think the Act goes far enough Scottish National Party (SNP) MP John Nicholson, who tabled the Bill filibustered by Sam Gyimah, asked what provision there will be for those men still living. The Prime Minister, Theresa May, replied that men still living could make applications for pardons. In 2016 Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon announced that the SNP administration in the devolved Scottish Government is about to introduce their own legislation, under which men still living will be automatically pardoned, along with those deceased, which Mr Nicholson was very quick to point out.

There are very good reasons for doing this. Many of the men convicted are now very elderly and simply physically unable to go and get the forms and fill them out, or indeed fill them out online. A caller to LBC Radio on 1 February 2017 also highlighted another potential problem. He stated he was a gay man who had been convicted, served time in prison, and had subsequently changed his identity. Should he have to apply for a pardon, that would mean having to use his original identity. If the pardon was automatic for living persons, there would be no need for him to run this risk of being exposed.

The Act must be welcomed, as must the upcoming legislation in Scotland, but there is still fault on both sides of the border. Many, myself included, feel that a ‘pardon’ is insufficient, as it still assumes guilt. What is needed is for all convictions completely quashed and a clear apology given, to both the deceased and the living.

There may even be an argument for monetary compensation for those living. After all, many of them faced imprisonment, violence from police officers/prison officers/fellow inmates (including rape in many cases), some fines, most lost their jobs, and were ostracised by family, friends, and society in general.

Those are lost lives, stolen by the state, and those men affected and still alive deserve a HUGE sorry – preferably along with a big, fat cheque.

And while LGBT rights campaigner Peter Tatchell maintains that the Act will pardon men convicted of sexual offences “under discriminatory anti-gay laws between 1885 and 2003”, I question if that is actually the case. I cannot find anything in the Act which mentions men convicted of “underage” gay sex between 1967 and 2001. To explain, the gay age of consent was set at 21 in 1967. It was not until 1994 that it was lowered to 18, and in 2001 it was lowered again to 16, to bring it into line with the age of consent for heterosexuals. This means that there are a great many men still alive today who were convicted of having sex with a “minor”, with all of the attendant stigma that carries. Are they to be pardoned? And if not, why not?

We should never forget the words of Tom Robinson:

Have you heard the story about Peter Wells,
who one day was arrested and dragged to the cells?
For being in love with a man of eighteen;
the vicar found out they’d been having a scene.
The magistrates sent him for trial by the Crown;
he even appealed but they still sent him down.
He was only mistreated a couple of years ~
cos even in prison they “look after” the queers.
(Tom Robinson, “Glad to be Gay”, original version)

All in all, the Act is a step in the right direction, but with all the deaths, the heartache, the loss of liberty, loss of family and friends, ostracisation, violence from the authorities, prison inmates and members of the public alike, loss of livelihoods and much, much more which anti-gay UK laws produced, neither the new Act nor the upcoming legislation in the devolved Scottish Government go nearly far enough to addressing past wrongs.

Get the cheque books out, Theresa and Nicola.

She’s Baaaaack…

aaa-agenderqueerHELLO DARLINGS!

Wow! I cannot believe how long it has been since I was in here. So what’s been happening?

Well, I went into something of decline, and then the Festive Season caught up on me, and what with work, I really did not have a lot of time for social networking.

During my decline I did at one point consider killing Xandra off, reckoning that I created her, so I can destroy her.

HA!

Not a chance. No way did “HE” (my male alter-ego) create Xandra; I am my own creation, and I had to have an “out” sooner or later. “HE” could delete this account all he wants, but there’s no way that would be ‘killing Xandra’, and “HE” knows it. It would be trying to kill part of himself ~ a partial suicide in fact. And it wouldn’t work, because as long as “HE” exists, I exist, and “HE” knows it.

It’s actually very bad of me to have these thoughts. I’m a very naughty girl and deserve a sound spanking ~ PLEASSSSE!

Of course I have also watching lots of movies starring Johnny Depp, Leonardo DiCaprio, Chris Pine, Heyden Christensen, etc, ~ but that’s purely because I admire their acting abilities. It IS I tell you. Stop laughing you lot.

So, I do hope everyone else has been behaving themselves in my absence. Well, as well as you can behave. 😉

Luvs

Xandra xxxx

The Shame of Operation Midland

aaa-harveyFalse paedophile allegations are as damaging as child abuse.

I think I have made it patently clear in this forum that I not only have no time for Conservatives, but I utterly despise them and consider most of them filth. On an evolutionary scale I would not place them in the primordial soup ~ they are much further down than that. So it may come as some surprise to many of my readers that upon listening to former Conservative MP Harvey Proctor on LBC Radio on Tuesday, 8 November, I was moved to tears by him.

Harvey Proctor was Member of Parliament for Basildon from 1979 to 1983, and Billericay from 1983 to 1987. Very much to the right, Proctor was a member of the right-wing Monday Club for many years, including spending time as it’s secretary. He won his 1979 seat on a ticket of reducing the number of “coloured” (his words, not mine) immigrants, opposed the Anglo-Irish Agreement, and supported the return of capital punishment.

In June 1986 The People newspaper published allegations that Proctor had taken part in sexual relaitonships with men aged 17-20, when the age of consent for homosexuals sex was 21. The following year he was charged with Gross Indecency, and resigned his candidacy for his Billericay seat. He pleaded guilty and was fined £1,450. Wanting to put the whole matter behind him, he opened a prestigious shirtmakers shop in Richmond, London.

In November 2014 the Metropolitan Police launched Operation Midland into historic child sexual abuse allegations against politicians, celebrities, and VIPs, and included the allegation of a possible homicide or a child. Some of the allegations came from an anonymous complainant known only as “Nick”. On 4 March 2015, police raided the home of Harvey Proctor on the Belvoir Estate, based upon the allegations of “Nick”. Proctor denied any wrongdoing but resigned his post with the Duke and Duchess of Rutland on 25 March 2015 “with immediate effect”. He was interviewed by police in June 2015, and again in August 2015. On 25 August 2015 he gave a press conference in which he called the inquiry against him as a “homosexual witch hunt” and stated “I’m a homosexual. I’m not a murderer or a paedophile. I’m completely innocent of all these allegations.”

Meanwhile, Operation Midland was falling apart as claim after claim of “Nick” proved to be false or unproven. Among others investigated had been Army Lord Bramall and Lord Leon Brittan, who was gravely ill when his home was raided and he was questioned by police. Lord Brittan died in January 2015, without being told charges against him had been dropped. Harvey Proctor was the last person to be investigated by police, until 21 March 2016, when he was told that no further action would be taken, and Operation Midland was subsequently wound up.

On 8 November an independent review into the £2.3 million Operation Midland, which never resulted in one arrest, found several failings by the Metropolitan Police, and said the decision to abandon it should have been taken “much earlier”. Against many of their criticisms was the readiness of police to believe “Nick”, who had also implicated heads of UK security services.

The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, accepted “accountability for these failures” and stated “It is a matter of professional and personal dismay that the suspects in the investigation were pursued for so long when it could have been concluded much earlier. He apologised to Lord Bramall, the widow of Lord Brittan, and Harvey Proctor.

Speaking on LBC Radio, Harvey Proctor, now 69, told just what a toll Operation Midland had taken on his life. He told show host Iain Dale “It’s been devastating. Unrepairable. As you know I lost my job, my home, my family, unusual family although it might be, split asunder.

“I received death threats, and I am now destitute. I have no money. When other people say they have no money, they are down to their last hundred thousand. I have no money.”

Iain Dale then asked what the darkest time was, and for a good number of seconds the line went silent. Then Mr Proctor responded, sobbing audibly ~ and I openly cried along with him, and I cried, and cried as my heart went out to him.

No innocent person, whoever they are, deserves to be reduced to that.

As my regular readers will know, I am a survivor of childhood sexual abuse. And some may wonder then why I should care so much because of someone under investigation for paedophile offences. A chance to clear his name, surely? No, loves, it is precisely because I am an abuse survivor that I am sad ~ and angry ~ at the haphazard dealings of Operation Midland and the way that innocent men had their lives destroyed by an individual whom I can only describe as a fantasist, a police force too ready to believe him, and a police commissioner who should have had the sense to close down the operation much earlier.

Allegations of being a child sex abuser are among the most devastating anyone can have laid at their door. As we have seen in the case of Harvey Proctor, it destroys lives. Those accused can lose their marriages, family, friends, their jobs and livelihoods, their homes and their entire reputations, and can face endless verbal abuse, threats of and actual violence. And because the public believe “no smoke without fire”, that follows the suspect to the end of their days. Now, where the allegations are true, then as far as I am and concerned, much of that ~ short of actual violence ~ they deserve everything they get. And I mean that from the child sex attacker, right down to the paedophile who masturbates to images of naked children. Contrary to what some claim, it is not a victimless crime to view naked kids ~ someone, somewhere, is abusing those children, and because it is about supply and demand, every paedophile viewing those images are complicit in that abuse.

But where the suspect is innocent of all allegations against them, it becomes a very different matter altogether. To have your life destroyed because you are labelled a “pervert” by society is certainly an experience too many reading this will be all too familiar with. Many here will have had to change their identity, and maybe even to move home, perhaps many times over. They may have been cast out by their families, had partners shun them, denied access to their children, lost their jobs, been completely ostracised by society, almost certainly faced verbal abuse and threats, and in many cases, been subjected to actual violence. Many will have suffered mental trauma, perhaps even clinical depression, due to the treatment they have suffered. Innocent suspects of paedophilia suffer exactly the same. Indeed, in some cases it can be worse.

I recall in the late-1990s, some red-top newspapers stirred up a “paedophile panic” in the UK, from which we have never recovered. It led to lynch mobs chasing innocent people, mostly men, out of their homes and beating them up. The satirical magazine Private Eye one week ran a cartoon which showed a man running from a mob with the caption “I’m a PAEDIATRICIAN, you morons.” The following week it actually happened, when a woman paediatrician had her surgery burned out.

Feeling was particularly strong in Scotland, in the wake of the 1996 Dunblane massacre, when paedophile Thomas Hamilton gunned down 16 schoolchildren and their teacher. Just down the road in the Raploch district of Stirling, housewife Mags Heaney had set herself up as head of a vigilante mob which was attacking the homes of single men suspected of being paedophiles. When one such man complained to police, Mrs Heaney was taken to the man’s door, along with cameras from Scottish Television, and was forced to apologise to him. Mags Heaney’s family at the time were among the largest drug dealers in Scotland, who were selling everything from cannabis to herion to the very kids they claimed to be protecting. So arrogant they were that they even called themselves “Heaney Heroin Limited.”

Prosecutions and jail terms against many of the Heaney family, including “Big Mags”, followed, but they had done untold damage to the lives of many men, who had to move their homes, had lost their jobs in the process, and some of whom actually changed their identity to avoid future persecution.

I cannot reiterate just how dangerous false allegations of paedophilia are, and especially as a survivor of child sex abuse, how damaging it is to those of us who genuinely suffered. Why damaging? Because every time the police are busy investigating a false accusation, every time they have to deal with misguided vigilantes, every time they have to investigate themselves for failing to recognise false allegations, a child somewhere is being sexually abused, and the attacker is getting away with it.

Paedophilia, be it active or inactive, is much more prevalent than most give credence to. And what is more dangerous is the fact that by and large it is rarely a case of “stranger danger” or the myth (which it is) of the dirty old man in a shabby raincoat in the park; the overwhelming majority of child sex attackers are known to the child and their family, often family members or friends. And because none likes to think any bad of their family or friends, few are willing to admit that. Therefore, even in 2016, when there are many more cases of child sex attacks coming to light, and many more historical survivors coming forward, what we see remains very much the tip of the iceberg. The overwhelming majority of child abuse cases still go unreported, precisely because far from being strangers committing these crimes, it is those close to the victims.

And Harvey Proctor’s sexuality, and past convictions, are not lost on me either. There is certainly evidence that many thought Mr Proctor must be guilty because of his convictions for sex with boys aged 17 to 20, and that includes among the officers investigating him. Again, there are many reading this will know all too well that all too often the public think gay / bi / lesbian / anything other than straight must equal paedophile. All us “queers” are castigated by the cishet pubic majority as perverts, and to their uneducated hive mentality, if we indulge in one “perversion”, we must indulge in all of them. In fact, not only are the majority of paedophiles known to their victims, but they are mostly heterosexual men ~ even those men who prey upon little boys (this was true of my attacker). Whilst the incidence is much lower, heterosexual women make up the second highest proportion of paedophiles. But LGBT+ paedophiles are way down at the bottom of the scale, with the incidence of sex attacks on children among the community being extremely rare indeed.

So, in the wake of the findings of the inquiry into Operation Midland, where do we go next? Harvey Proctor has called for the immediate resignation of Met Police Commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe. I fully back that. Sir Bernard has already opted for early retirement, due to other incompetent incidents under his tenure. I personally think that January 2017 is too late for him to go, he should go NOW. But then, I reckon if Sir Bernard had one shred of decency left in his entire frame, he would go into an empty room with a loaded gun, and take the last honourable step left open to him. And yes, dears, I do mean that.

A review of how suspected child sex attackers are identified is definitely needed, including education of police officers to recognise that sexual diversity does not equal paedophile. Do I think the Met are homophobic? Yes, and one need only look at the way some LGBT+ people have been treated by the police in London to recognise the truth of this. But then, they are not alone among police forces in that respect.

I would also urge that police across the UK receive retraining and education in the entire subject of paedophilia, it’s incidence and the huge number of historical cases which go unreported, with the survivors often staying silent until their abuser is dead (as was my experience).

Anonymity should not only be afforded to accusers, but also to the accused. Those affected by Operation Midland not only had their lives destroyed by the authorities, but also faced trial-by-media, and are to this day suffering from a cishet public who still believe “no smoke without fire”.

The investigation of accusers should always be taken seriously. But at the same time, such allegations themselves need to be thoroughly scrutinised. I would suggest interviews of accusers not by police psychologists but by independent psychologists who can be called in to do so.

“Nick” needs to be prosecuted for the enormous damage he has done to a great many people. And unless found himself to have serious psychological problems, once convicted, I do believe he should be named and shamed ~ for his activities have been every bit as damaging to innocents as child sex attackers.

Unfortunately, all this is locking the stable door after the horse has bolted, and it may have done irreparable damage to future investigations of suspected child abusers. The independent inquiry into Operation Midland made 25 recommendations, including;

  • The instruction to officers to “believe a ‘victim’s’ account” should cease.
  • Investigators should be informed that false complaints are made from time to time and should not be regarded as a remote possibility.

Whilst false complaints are indeed serious to the point of being devastating to the accused, these recommendations are nonetheless disturbing. There are so very many silent survivors of childhood sexual abuse simply because nobody believes them. I know this, because I was one. These recommendations may make that all the more difficult, and an unwillingness to believe accusers may cause a great many more children to suffer some of the worst trauma possible in silence.

Fools and Bairns

gay-marriage-child-3Who is fit to parent?

A Christian couple have had their application to adopt two boys they were foster parents to turned down, and are now claiming that they are being persecuted for holding “anti-gay” views.

The couple fostering the children had been told that a couple had been found to adopt the boys. But two days later, when they heard that the couple in question were two gay men, they put forward their own adoption application, stating it would be the “best option for them and their emotional wellbeing.” The couple had made a previous application to adopt the boys, which was turned down on the grounds that their family home was too small, which they accepted at the time.

Describing themselves as “a normal couple”, they wrote to their local council, stating “We are Christians and we expressed the view that a child needs a mother and father. We love everyone (regardless of sexual orientation) and we love the children and believe that they would benefit from the foundation offered by a mother and a father,”.

They continued that they had “not expressed homophobic views, unless Christian beliefs are, by definition, homophobic.”

Their local council then responded to the couple, telling them “having heard that the prospective adopters were a same-sex couple you shared some opinions in relation to this proposed placement which are concerning and which would not enable the service to progress an inquiry to be assessed as prospective adopters, as these views could be detrimental to the long-term needs of the children.”

In steps Andrea Williams of the Christian Legal Centre and Chief Executive of the anti-LGBT group Christian Concern (no show without Punch). Williams, who has a past record of championing heterosexual ‘traditional’ marriage and condemning and fighting same-sex marriage and parenting, stated that she and the Christian Legal Centre were standing by the couple and affirmed “This couple’s viewpoint is lawful and mainstream.”

Interviewed by Maajid Nawaz on LBC Radio, Williams claimed that studies proved that children were best brought up by a mother and father (married of course), but when asked to provide a source for these studies, she failed to give a reference to any UK-based scientific research, instead making reference to a single, obscure, Christian-based source from the USA, and skirted round the question. When Maajid Nawaz further pressed her that her views would also logically preclude single parents, she equally side-stepped that question. Frankly, Maajid (a lovely, very handsome young man, who is a reformed Islamist extermist ~ I would dears, in a New York minute) had her tied in knots and getting extremely flustered. It was a treat to listen to.

Andrea Williams claimed that the couple had not put tried to make an ideological stance on this case. I utterly refute that, but even if they had not, it is pretty obvious that Williams certainly is doing so. But then she has a past track record of jumping in with her twisted bigotry, which pays little or no regard to children she may be harming in the process.

By their own words and actions, as far as I can see from the scarce information available, the couple have condemned themselves. Their very use of the term “normal couple” should be enough to set off alarm bells in anyone’s head, because that strongly infers that same-sex couples are not normal. They only acted to adopt the boys two days after being told adoptive parents had been found, and only then when they were told that the propective parents were two gay men. And they made this application despite previously being told, and accepted, that their family home was too small to adopt the children. Terms like “ we expressed the view that a child needs a mother and father” and “they would benefit from the foundation offered by a mother and a father” certainly suggest that a same-sex couple could not offer the same support and foundation of that of a heterosexual couple.

They can claim “We love everyone (regardless of sexual orientation)” and they had “ not expressed homophobic views” all they want, but that sounds too much to me like the person who says “I’m not a racist, but…”

And no, Christian views are not by definition homophobic. Far from it, if Jesus ever existed, then he never, not once, made any reference to anyone’s sexuality. But what I will say is that there are many ‘Christians’ ~ including this couple, and the odious Andrea Williams ~ who concentrate too much on the Old Testament while paying too little attention to the man whom they claim is their saviour. The same man who allegedly told his people not to judge, accepted all, and turned away none.

As for her part, I am not afraid to call Andrea Williams out as a bare-faced liar right here and now. According to Premier.org.uk, Williams stated “They (the Christian couple) said immediately we want to look after them”. This is not so. Again, the couple did not act until two days later, and again, only when that the children may be placed with a same-sex couple.  So hardly “immediately”.  This is not the first time I have caught a ‘Christian’ blaspeming their own faith by breaking the Ninth Commandment, and “lying for Jesus”. In fact, the more conservative the Christian, the more common it becomes, to the point I have come to expect it.

In the LBC interview, Maajid Nawaz was of the view that just because people hold illiberal opinions, that should not preclude them from fostering or adopting children, and went further to say that as children are naturally prone to rebel, it does not follow that any child will share the views of the parents. I would agree, to an extent. However, we are not talking merely about political or ideological views here, but religious indoctrination and brainwashing. I have seen too much of it to ever be convinced that a strict religious upbringing does not have an effect upon the views of children; I happen to know of a anti-Catholic sectarian street preacher from Kirkcaldy, Fife, whose own two sons are as equally brainwashed and bigoted as he is.

And Maajid Nawaz himself is an interesting case in point. He had an upbringing in a traditionally conservative Muslim home. His own rebellion took the form of throwing himself into Islamist extremism, for which he spent five years in an Egyptian prison. Having worked with Amnesty International, he turned his back on that and turned right around, now holding very liberal views. Yet he remains a devout follower of Islam; a religion which holds some very disturbing, illiberal views on LGBT+ people.

Even from a political / ideological viewpoint, children will often follow in the footsteps of their parents. My grandad was a communist. My dad was a socialist (although became a bigoted old bastard in his latter years). To this day I describe myself as “slightly to the left of Leon Trotsky”. I am a diehard socialist, proud to be one, and I learned much of that from my father. By equal measure, one could hardly ever see Carol Thatcher carrying the banner, left breast bared, leading the revolution, could one?

So certainly, having views which are illiberal or controversial should not be a barrier to fostering or adopting ~ within limits. How many of the thugs running about with the EDL/SDL or Britain First came from parents who hold equally bigoted views? Quite a few I would venture.

As we say in Scotland, “Fools and bairns spik at the cross whit they hear by the ingleside.”, and if a local authority feel that anyone is unfit to parent a child because they fear that child may be indoctrinated with hate speech, which may manifest itself in a dangerous form later in life, then I for one would have to agree with them. In effect, authorities who make such bans are only saving the children from future heartache of perhaps ending up in court, or even in prison.

So who is fit to be a parent? The Christian couple and Andrea Williams openly state that it is only heterosexual same-sex married couples. That got me to thinking; but what if it was two straight men or two straight women who merely shared a house, and brought up a child, would Andrea Williams complain about that? Did she ever have a complaint about the movie “Three Men and a Baby”, it’s sequel “Three Men and a Little Lady”, or the US sitcom “My Two Dads” (apart from how bloody awful all of the above were ~ Charlie Sheen, what were you thinking?)? If she ever did object to these things, I’ve certainly never heard her saying so. Ah, but then, the characters in them were all heterosexual.

And that got me to thinking further; traditionally just who did bring up children? Did all children historically have the upbringing of a mother and father? Guess what? For the most part, no, they did not.

Among the working class of the UK, it was largely mothers who brought up the children. And when I say mothers, I emphasise the plural. It was certainly a truth, even in my lifetime, that mothers rallied together and helped each other out. As kids we were all in and out of each other’s houses, and every mum treated the children of others as their own, and looked after them as needed. Most fathers were the breadwinners, often working long hours, whom the children rarely got to see and had little contact with; another reason why mothers turned to each other, because they had no-one else to turn to.

And even among the middle and moneyed classes, it was not a matter of children ‘benefiting’ form the upbringing of a mother and father. Middle class fathers were in professions which often involved them working long hours, while those further up capitalist ladder would often be away to meetings or even out of the country. As to the children themselves, many were brought up in their formative years by nannies or au pairs, before being shipped off to boarding schools, where they spent most of the year being supervised by all male or all female staff, depending on whether they were at a boys or girls school. I don’t hear many religites shouting blue bloody murder about girls being brought up in all-female convent schools, do you?

So, having seen that side of it, I wondered if there was ever an instance when men brought the kids up. Yes, there was one, and it was right here in bonny Scotland. From the late 19th to the early 20th century, the city of Dundee became famous for it’s three main industries; “Jam, Jute, and Journalism”. Of these three industries, it was only the latter which was an all-male preserve. The jam works and the jute mills which covered Dundee employed women almost exclusively. Because it was women who were the breadwinners ~ and who controlled the purse strings ~ it was the fathers who stayed at home and looked after the children. Dundee women of the time condescendenly referred to their husbands as the “tea bilers” (boilers). Aye, you don’t like it when the boot’s on the other foot, do you fellas? Like working class women, these men had to rely upon each other in their community to help with and look after their children. No-one could ever say that any Dundonian ever suffered from being brought up by an entire community of “dads”.

And that is of course before I get to women (or men) who were widowed by the rampant disease of the past, industrial accidents which were all too common, or indeed war, and who ended up single parents (funny how single mums often get castigated, but if their partners died in war they are ‘heroe’s, isn’t it?) as a result. Again, this was overwhelmingly women, and again it was other women, other mothers, they turned to for help, who were only too happy to offer that help, to welcome the children of others into their homes, and look after them like they were their own. Indeed, even of those servicemen who survived, they were often away for years, while mums were left to bring up the kids by themselves, and with the help of other mothers in the same boat as them.

Despite many more women working today, and some men becoming “househusbands” (hate that term – a homemaker is a homemaker, regardless of gender, and it’s one of the hardest jobs in the world), this community spirit between women survives in many places to this day. Nature teaches us that the majority of species have a nurturing instinct in the female of the species. Why then should it be any different for Homo Sapiens Sapiens? It is still true that women will rally around each other where needed, and above all, they will instinctively protect children, even those of others, and even if that means putting themselves in a place of danger in the process. Women are indeed strong, and they are never stronger (or more vindictive) where the welfare of a child ~ any child ~ is involved.

Yet men can and often do demonstrate similar instincts. The example of Dundee proves this, as do the dad’s who want to (and sometimes do) lay out the referee at a sports match who cards their kid, or the dad of the kid who has just fouled their kid. I’m not for one moment condoning such behaviour, but it does display an instinct to defend and protect. It would also be a sorry excuse for a man who could ever turn away from a child in need or danger. Indeed, do not the traditionally male roles in the armed forces, the police, and the fire service underline this need to nurture and protect?

Therefore, the claim that a child needs the input from both male and female parents is clearly a false one, for the simple reason that it has rarely happened. And Andrea Williams and those of her ilk need not worry about children same-sex parenting, because for generations of countless millions of children, that has always been the norm.  Probably even for you reading this.  Probably even for Andrea Williams.

A Tale of Two Trans Kids

10887151_349427518572852_6878044040955739326_o

With the kind permission of Sophie Labelle

One who isn’t, one who is.

There are two stories which have broken in the UK over the issue of gender identity in youth, and both are in their own way heartbreaking and extremely emotive.

The first case involved a 7-year-old little boy who was brought up as a girl by his mother, and whom the Family Court in England awarded custody to his father. The mother maintained that the boy identified as a girl, and to this end dressed him as a girl, was bullied at school for dressing as a girl, was registered as a girl with his GP, and on official forms.

The boy’s father, who is separated from his mother, however doubted the mother’s assertion that the boy identified as transgender. These doubts were shared by some school staff. The father filed for custody, and won his case.

Mister Justice Hayden, presiding judge, stated “This is not a case about gender dysphoria, rather it is about a mother who has developed a belief structure which she has imposed upon her child.

“I am bound to say that had the concerns [of school staff] been given the weight that they plainly should have, it is difficult to resist the conclusion the boy could have been spared a great deal of emotional harm.”

Mr Hayden added, “Transgender equality has received a great deal of attention in recent times. I believe that in this case the profile and sensitivity of the matters raised by the mother blinded a number of professionals from applying their training, skill, and, it has to be said, common sense.

“They failed properly to investigate the mother’s assertions, in part I suspect, because they did not wish to appear to be challenging an emerging orthodoxy in such a high-profile issue.”

This ruling has thrown further division between cisgender and transgender people, with the some transphobes seeing it as a victory, whilst I have seen some trans people lambasting Justice Hayden as a transphobe himself. In fact, Mr Justice Hayden is no stranger to transgender issues, having ruled in many such cases, and in most he has come down on the side of the transgender person. Before this case he actually wrote “My experience in the Family Division leaves me with little doubt that some children, as young as 4, 5, 6 years of age may identify strongly with their opposite gender. Such children can experience rejection and abuse arising from ignorance both on a personal and institutional level.” These are hardly the words of a transphobe. Far from it, I would consider those to be the words of a strong and powerful ally of transgender children.

It seems therefore that in this case we have a mother who, for reasons best known to herself, decided her son was transgender and imposed a female gender upon him. That has potentially done untold damage to the child. We in the LGBT+ camp must never condemn Mr Justice Hayden for his ruling. He has all the facts of the case; we do not.  Indeed, I think he should be applauded for his thoughtful handling of a highly emotional case.

Needless to say however, the gutter press was quick to link the above case to that of a 14-year-old trans boy – and whose devoutly Christian parents are now taking their local authority to court.

In this case a 14-year-old assigned female at birth has identified as male, and has laid out his plans to transition as soon as he is old enough, and has expressed his wish to be known by a male forename in school. He has received the support of his local authority’s Social Work department, after he underwent psychiatric evaluation. The parents have been warned that if their child’s wishes are not implemented, then he may present a high suicide risk, and if guidance of social workers is not acted upon, then their child may be taken into care.

The parents have responded by taking their local authority to court. They are being defended by The Christian Legal Centre, who are also funding the case. Andrea Williams of the Christian Legal Centre stated “The transgender cultural movement is creating a new ‘conflict of rights’ within the family. This is the emperor’s new clothes. Authorities are forcing an agenda that is not true, and harmful to children. This case demonstrates shocking disregard for parental authority: no one is listening to what the parents want or have to say. They know the child the best, and have the child’s interests at heart.”

So, there you have it readers; according to the Christian Legal Centre, this trans boy and all we who are transgender / genderfluid are not behaving the way we simply are, but are following a ‘culture’ which is “not true”. I wonder if it would be possible to have Andrea Williams arrested for hate speech? No – we don’t want the Christian Taliban screaming persecution, or making a martyr of her.

The mother of the trans boy has stated “The rights of parents in the UK are being eroded, especially those who have traditional Christian values. It is leaving parents to feel fearful, vulnerable and intimidated.”

I would first of all like to know what ‘traditional Christian values’ preclude being transgender? I don’t know if the parents, Andrea Williams, or anyone else in the Christian Legal Centre have noticed, but nowhere in the New Testament does Jesus, at any point, make any mention of any sort of gender – not once. I can only assume therefore that the parents and their representatives are relying upon the Old Testament; “The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God.” (Deuteronomy 22:5, KJV). Well, that’s equally all right, because a trans boy is just that – a boy. So if God actually existed, then he must have made the boy in question transgender, and intended him to dress and behave as male. Although an atheist myself, I know some lovely transgender and genderfluid people who fully believe that their God made them as intended.

I would also point out that women were wearing ‘harem’ trousers, and both male and female Greek horse riders were wearing trousers, while Moses was writing Deuteronomy – dressed in his robes. Oh, and high heels were originally invented for men to hold stirrups while horse riding (Oh, go on boys, you know you want some).

Then there is the hypocrisy of parents of this ilk, who want their children to grow up with ‘Christian values’ on one hand, yet claim they are too young to know their own gender on the other. Ermm, I would venture that anyone who is old enough to start to fully grasp Christian theology – as a 14-year-old would be – is more than old enough to understand their own body and mind.

Social workers have also stated the boy is in a “heterosexual” relationship with a 13-year-old girl, according to the newspapers. Well, of course he bloody well is, because if their editors and their readership were to actually study the issue, they would know that gender and sexuality are not one and the same thing. Anyone can be straight, gay, bi, pan (like me), or even asexual, completely regardless of being cis, trans, or like me, genderfluid / whateva (I’m not choosy, dears).

Perhaps the saddest fact of this case is that there are no winners either way.

I have no doubt that the Christian Legal Centre and the boy’s parents will be made fully aware of matters surrounding gender dysphoria in court, and they are on a hiding to lose this case.  In which case a teenage boy will be removed from his parents, who are so bloody indoctrinated by Bronze Age goatherders mythology about an invisible sky pixie, that they are willing to put their beliefs before the welfare of their child.

But in the unlikely event that the parents should win their case, and keep custody of their child, what then? Will he thank them for it? When he is forced against his will to dress and act like a girl, excluding the very real danger of suicide, what happens once he turns 16? He’ll be off like a shot, and may well cut off all contact with his parents, that’s what.

Either way, I see nothing but heartache coming from this case, all for the short-sightedness of parents, and the transphobic hatred of a bunch of religious zealots who are backing them.

Transphobic red top rags and their equally transphobic readership, using incorrect pronouns – as to be expected, have been all over both stories, with many trying to claim that the case of the 7-year-old is a victory. In fact it is nothing of the sort, and if anything, both stories actually back up gender diversity. Not only are the parents of the 14-year-old giving their faith priority over their child, but the case of the 7-year-old actually highlights how some parents, far, far from what Andrea Williams and the Christian Legal Centre claim, do not always know their children best and do not always put their best interests at heart.

What both cases does highlight is just who is the real expert on anyone’s gender; none other than the individual concerned. Each and every one of us is first and foremost a unique individual, with our own gender, sexuality, peccadilloes, likes and dislikes. Therefore to try and use one case to back up another is not just a false dichotomy, it is downright dangerous.  We are none of us clones, and each and every person’s gender (and sexuality) being unique to them, can never be used as an example for any other human being.

In the final instance, whatever anyone proclaims their gender to be, we need to take them fully at face value. And that pertains to cisgender people every bit as much as it does to the transgender and genderfluid. And, as Mr Justice Hayden asserts, that can indeed apply to children, even those as young as 4-years-old.



Readers please note that certain references to Christianity in this article are not intended as an attack upon the Christian faith in general, but are merely to highlight what I perceive in this particular case of the degree of religious fundmentalism of those involved. When anyone displays a strong degree of religious fundamentalism, whatever their faith, they need to be shown up for the danger they represent.

Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes

$$-Nicolson.jpg

John Nicolson MP (SNP)

Or, never trust a Tory.

I have never for the life of me ever understood how any LGBT+ person in the UK can be a member of or support the Conservative Party. It really seems like turkeys voting for Christmas, and this is not personal on my part. Okay, so it is. I make no bones about the fact that I think all Tories are scum who need to meet with an accident down a dark close. But the fact is I could never support the Conservative Party, on the grounds that I am evolved way beyond the primordial soup and qualify as a human being.

But people of all sexualities and gender do exist within the Tories. Even the leader of the Scottish Conservatives (a rare and endangered species, on a par with porcine birds), Ruth Davidson, is openly lesbian and has been in a relationship with her partner for many years.

Therefore, with such diversity, the Tories can be trusted with LGBT+ legislation, right? Wrong. Dead wrong.

On Thursday, 20 October, John Nicolson, openly gay Scottish National Party (SNP) MP for East Dunbartonshire, tried to introduce a Private Member’s Bill in the House of Commons for legislation which would give wide-ranging pardons to gay and bisexual men still alive who were convicted of having sex with underage men when the gay age of consent was still 21. The Bill had previously received support from Conservative and Labour Party MPs, as well as Mr Nicolson’s own fellow SNP MPs. The Tories even promised not to block the Bill.

The Bill was touted as a “Turing Bill” or “Turing’s Law”, after the gay computer scientist Alan Turing, who was convicted of offences of gay sex with minors, underwent voluntary chemical castration, and subsequently took his own life. He was pardoned in 2012.

When the Bill was introduced in the House of Commons however, Conservative Justice Minister Sam Gyimah spoke on the government’s opposition to the bill. And he spoke on, and spoke on, and spoke on; eventually taking up the full 25 minutes of debate, when the Bill should have gone to the vote. There were cries of “shame” from supporters as it became clear that the government were deliberately setting out to scupper the Bill.

Mr Nicolson’s Sexual Offences (Pardons) Bill proposed a blanket pardon for all dead and living men convicted of sex with minors when gay age of consent was 21. The government opposition quite insidiously concentrated upon men convicted of sex with boys under 16, and victims of rape. This is wholly disingenious, as John Nicolson’s Bill had already taken such men into consideration and they would not be covered by the Bill.

Instead, the day before the Bill was to be read, the Tories did a deal with the Liberal-Democrat Party, accepting an amendment to the 2012 Policing and Crime Bill by (unelected) Lib-Dem Lord Sharkey, whereby those convicted but since deceased would be granted an automatic pardon, and those living could apply to the Home Office for a “disregard process” to clear their names. The all-too-obvious elephant in the room here is that the Sharkey amendment would automatically clear the names of dead men who did prey upon little boys and under-16 teens.  Former Liberal leader Cyril Smith about to have his name cleared, anyone?

Besides which of course, many of the men convicted and still alive are very elderly, some in their 80s and 90s. Their lives already ruined, to ask them to go through the trauma of applying to have their names cleared is despicable and thoughtless beyond belief.

Lyn Brown, Labour MP for West Ham, stated “The living would have to apply for a disregard and only then would they be granted a pardon. The onus would be placed right back on the victims of injustice, which, I worry, rather reduces the quality of the apology being offered.”

I partially agree, except for one point; the planned amendment is not even an apology. It is a pardon, which still presumes guilt. Some Tory wets stand by this. Former Tory MP Harvey Proctor, himself once convicted of having sex with a young man of under 21, stated on LBC Radio that as it was a crime when he was convicted, then there’s no need to apologise to him.

John Nicolson’s Bill would have set aside nearly 50,000 convictions, of which approximately 15,000 apply to men still alive today. It was a brilliant opportunity, which the government pretended to support, and then pulled that support at the last minute, then completely abused the procedures of the Westminster parliament to bury it.

John Nicolson later stated “I’m very disappointed that the Tory government decided to filibuster and talk out the Turing Bill.

“The bill was intended to be kind and bring closure to generations of gay and bisexual men found guilty of homophobic crimes no longer on the statute book.

“Many of these men are now elderly and have lived with unjust convictions for years – my bill would have given them an automatic pardon.

“I was delighted to receive cross party support from Conservative, Labour and SNP MPs so I was sad on their behalf as well as on behalf of the men that would have been pardoned to see the Tory Justice Minister use political manoeuvring to see off a popular bill.

“As MPs of all parties made clear today there was no good reason for the government to block this Bill. The compromise amendment being suggested instead does not go far enough to right the wrongs committed against these men and their families.

“The Tory whips promised that there would be ‘no tricks and no games’ on their side but it is to their shame that they broke their word.”

Really John? And what else do you expect from a heterosexual Tory Prime Minister, Theresa May, who “changed her mind” on equal marriage and stood against adoption of children by gay parents, from heterosexual Sam Gyimah, and from equally heterosexual John Sharkey – whose own party leader, Tim Farron, is a God-botherer who abstained on the equal marriage vote?

Ain’t it amazing how all these straights seem to think they know what is best for us queers? Ever been patronised? You have now.

And of course, we all know what the real opposition to John Nicolson’s Bill was: “SNP BAD!”; to the government’s mind, if it’s an SNP idea, it must be opposed, simple as that.


Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes; “I fear the Greeks, even when they bear gifts.” (Virgil, Aeneid; alluding to the legend of the wooden horse of Troy)

Crossdressing and Sexual Fetishism

DSCN5890.JPG

A fetish?  My arse!

They are rarely one and the same thing.

This article is about sex, and will probably be one of most read articles, and for some, probably one of the most disappointing. I warn the reader now that I shall make reference to sexual acts; heterosexual, homosexual, and fetishistic ~ some of which may shock and / or disgust some. And if you feel you may be offended, look away now. For all others who are adult enough to read about intimate acts without reaching for the sick bag / getting all moralistic / going into giggle mode, please read on.

I once remarked in a previous article that there is a sexual dynamic to crossdressing, and added that the sex can be fantastic, and I fully stand by that statement. However, there are those who try to claim that all crossdressers are sexual fetishtists, or even perverts. Not only is this untrue, but as to the sexual dynamic attached to crossdressing, I say so what, would like to know just what business it is of the accuser, and would ask them who gave them the right to judge?

If crossdressing was merely a sexual fetish, then consider that there are some men who go well out of their way and spend a small fortune on their fetish. I am talking about those people, assigned male, who actively pursue a female persona, even to the point of going out in public dressed and made up as a woman. That is a far cry from the guy who waits until his female spouse is out then dons her lingerie for a wank. I look at some of my sisters here in the WordPress crossdressing community who are absolutely gorgeous and who maintain their female persona as much as possible. Some go for nights out with “the girls”, some even go to weekend meet-ups with other crossdressers. This includes going to bars and clubs, and other social events, where sex may ~ of may not ~ become part of these encounters. If it does, then who is anyone to judge? Tell me, would you equally condemn two gay men meeting up for sex?

There are of course some men for whom crossdressing is purely a sexual fetish, but I don’t see how anyone can really condemn that either. I will admit I do my best to avoid guys like this, because in trying to be an actual physical pain in my arse, they merely end up being a metaphorical one. I seek out online groups and individuals who take crossdressing seriously as part of their psyche, so when I’m trying to discuss crossdressing thus, the last thing I want is some creepy guy begging me for pics of my cock and arsehole in lingerie (and / or sending me pics of theirs), or saying how much they would like to suck and fuck me. Attention, any such guys; it is far from flattering, and all you are doing for my libido is reducing it to zero (particularly if you don’t shave your legs – eughhh!). Or to put another way, you should be so bloody lucky. Yet, if there are guys feel the need to don female underwear to masturbate, then I am certainly not going to condemn it. Given that is exactly how I and many other crossdressers started to explore our femininity, and given I still wank in lingerie, then it would be completely hypocritical for me to point the finger at others for doing the same. The persona and gender may not be the same, but the sexuality certainly is. But even if I were not a crossdresser, I still wouldn’t condemn it, for the simple facts that a, it is doing nobody any harm, and b, it’s none of my damned business.

I actually wonder however, just how many of sexually fetishistic crossdressers are in fact heterosexual. The Kinsey study on human sexuality determined that the overwhelming majority of crossdressing males are in fact heterosexual, and many charities and support groups stand by that study. Yet Kinsey’s findings are coming up for 70 years old, and while it covered gender identity in as limited the way it could in those unenlightened days, it never mentioned gender fluidity as a concept, because it was unknown of at the time. I had not even heard of it myself most of my adult life, and if you go to earlier articles of mine, you will find me claiming to be a bisexual and cisgender male. Imagine how much a bolt from the blue it came to me when I realised that I am in fact genderqueer (I prefer that term to the much more boring “genderfluid”), as well as pansexual ~ another concept unheard of in Kinsey’s time. I wonder then just how many fetishtic crossdressers are in fact genderqueer, and possibly pansexual, or at the least bisexual. Yet by equal measure, there are crossdressers who are indeed otherwise cishet, whose female partners wholly support them, and who have fantastic sex, with both wearing “female” attire.  Jammy bastards!

What I am getting at here is that there are none of us should condemn the sexual fetishes of another, so long as they do not harm another human being ~ particularly children ~ or any animal. We all have our own particular sexual peccadilloes (should that be peccadildoes?) and kinks (yes you do, dear ~ you can lie to me all you want, but don’t lie to yourself), which we would be the first to take umbrage at others condemning. Therefore, so long as they are not hurting others or animals, show others the same respect.

There is a huge gamut of sexual behaviours which could fill a dictionary from A to Z, from Anilingus to Zoophilia, and that which turns one on often leaves others quite, quite cold. I for instance once dabbled with BDSM, and while what I partook of was quite fun, I could never count myself part of the “lifestyle”, because it is a lifestyle. Although I am sometimes a very naughty girl who needs (and thoroughly enjoys) being thrown across someone’s lap, my skirt pulled up, my panties pulled down, and given a good hard spanking until my arse glows red. I also enjoy being bound and helpless, to be used as a sex toy. But could I ever get into the gimp suits, ball gags, being dragged around on a leash by a mistress or master, etc? Not in a million years. And NOBODY is coming near my naked body with anything sharp or hot ~ I’m way too much of a coward for that.

Similarly, when I was younger I was very promiscuous and had a penchant for gay sex in public places, which included me once sucking a guy’s cock up a back street in broad daylight, where anyone could have caught us at any time. The danger of doing such a thing was part of thrill for me and to this day the very thought of sex in public gets me going. But even in private there are few places my fingers, tongue and cock have not been on and in both male and female partners ~ who have explored my body with equal intimacy. I am not ashamed of that, and do not see why I should be; in fact, I thoroughly enjoy it, am proud of it, and I view the whole human body ~ male, female, intersex, transgender, genderqueer ~ as one huge erogenous zone to be explored as intimately and as thoroughly as possible ~ outside and inside ~ in as many fun ways as possible. I have had sex with men and women from those in their late teens to the elderly, sucked more cock than I have eaten pussy (and I love both), done things and had things done to me which would positively disgust some, and enjoyed every moment of it, and intend to enjoy fingering, licking, sucking and fucking every orifice with partners of various ages, genders and sexualities for a good time to come. And before anyone reaches for the sick bucket and attempts to condemn me, examine your own sexual behaviours and experiences, and ask yourself if you can honestly say you are in any position to judge? No? No; thought not.

However, if there are some self-righteous, holier-than-thou cishet bastards who have sex occasionally with their opposite-gender partner in the missionary position who think that does somehow give them the right to judge, I’ll remind you that I did warn you at the top of this article what it was going to be like, and I’ll add what a boring bastard you must be. Nobody’s interested in your opinion, least of all me.

Getting back to the main crux of this article, that of crossdressing and its sexual dynamic, I have seen some transgender people condemn crossdressers as sexually fetishistic “drag queens”, “trannies”, etc, and claiming that we diminish the hard-fought for rights of transgender people by claiming to identify with being trans. Nothing could be further from the truth. If those who claim that would care to examine my profile and those of my crossdressing sisters here on WordPress, or anywhere else for that matter, you will be hard pushed to find anyone of us who would ever attempt to define ourselves as transgender. Yes, there are those who claim that crossdressers come under the “transgender umbrella”. I wholly reject that, as I am sure most other crossdressers do. I will never understand what it is to be transgender, for the simple fact that I am not. But then, by equal measure transgender people cannot even begin to imagine what it is to be genderqueer, for exactly the same reasons. Yet, if you look at the claims of the “transgender umbrella”, then you will find that genderqueer people are included as well. When you look at it in those terms then I am sure that, like me, you will begin to question whether the transgender umbrella concept was dreamt up by a cisgender heterosexual (more than likely a cishet man at that).

And should any transgender person try to claim that their gender is natural but crossdressing is a lifestyle choice, I will say do not be so bloody ignorant. Do you think I choose to be a crossdressing genderqueer pansexual? Do you think similar of every one of my crossdressing sisters here on WordPress, or elsewhere? Do excuse me, but just when did you become the expert on my gender and sexuality? You are not, and never can be. Nor are you the expert on anyone else’s; no more than anyone else is or can be the expert upon your gender and sexuality.

For those transgender people who do thus condemn crossdressers, consider that you are in fact feeding into a bigoted cishet agenda. The same agenda which says that “men should be real men” (and women should be real women), which sees some women emasculate, cuckold and hurt crossdressers by flaunting ‘real men’ in their faces, which degrades and condemns crossdressers as perverts, which still treats crossdressing in men as ‘abnormal’ and a ‘disease’ to be treated, which sees crossdressers arrested, threatened, actually beaten up, even murdered ~ with the approval of most of cishet society ~ and which ultimately can lead to depression and suicide.

And remember that those in the cishet majority who condemn crossdressers all too often equally condemn and persecute all of the LGBT+ community. If there is one thing that really galls me it is LGBT+ infighting, because it is doing the job of cishet bigots for them. Ultimately, while we all have differences within the community, our fight is your fight ~ and vice versa.  If anyone is diminishing transgender rights, it is yourself, along with my rights, and those of every other LGBT+ person.

Human beings are fickle creatures in the terms of sexuality, be we genderqueer, trangender, intersex, asexual, or indeed cisgender. None, not one of us, has the right to condemn the sexual behaviours of others, so long as the sex is consensual, does not hurt others, and especially does not harm children and animals. Just as not one is the expert on the gender of another, and thereby has absolutely no right to condemn them for that gender.

So let’s forget about differences of others, never be afraid to experiment with whatever or whoever you fancy, do whatever pleases you to the point you are satiated, completely drained, cross-eyed, and with a silly smile it takes a good while to recover from, along with the ability to form a coherent sentence.

The final thought goes to the immortal words of The Stories;

If it feels good;
If it feels good;
do it (yeah);
do it (yeah);
do it (yeah);
do it!