Sharron Davies goes Full Bigot

Xandra goes full bitch!

Whenever anyone claims to want to have a ‘debate’ about the position of transgender people in society, no matter how ‘reasonable’ they may at first appear, no matter how much they claim not to be prejudiced, one need only scratch the surface to find the full-blown transphobe underneath.  But nothing prepared me for the vertigo-inducing bigotry and stupidity of former Team GB Olympic swimmer Sharron Davies MBE.

In a Tweet on 1 July Davies stated,

”If you put 2 biological females on an island humanity dies out (but they’d talk loads) if you put a biological male & a trans female on an island humanity dies out. But if u put a male and a female there we might have a chance!   Providing they can fish of course.   Binary Sex matters.”

Yes, Sharron, dear.   Thank you for stating the bleeding obvious. Nobody is denying that sexually reproducing species are dependent upon a sexual binary. At least not for now ~ I’ll get to that later. As to the rest of this Tweet, it is not only obviously transphobic ~ as Davies fully intended it to be so ~ but it is also homophobic, ableist, and it defies science in so many ways it’s simply not funny.

Sharron Davies used this analogy, she claims, to highlight the differences between biological females and transgender females. Yet, as just about every lesbian and gay person will recognise, it is an age old analogy which has often been used by homophobes, usually but not always of a religious bent (no pun intended, dears).   It is straight out of the “Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve” stable, in an attempt to discriminate against homosexuals, with people with as much of an understanding of human behaviour, biology, gender, and sexuality as Sharron Davies evidently has.  Indeed, one person replying on Twitter posted an old Spanish homophobic comic strip using the same sort of argument.

But the analogy is also ableist. Let us assume Sharron’s island, with a cisgender man and woman the only inhabitants. What if one or both of them is infertile? What if the woman has been born without a womb (it happens)? What if the man is born without or has lost his testes (it also happens)? What if the woman is post-menopausal, and thereby no longer producing eggs? What hope humanity then? There is obviously none.

And of course, what if one or more of their offspring turn out to be gay, or “Gulp! Horror!” transgender? What hope humanity then? Although to be fair, if it were a transgender girl and a cisgender girl, or a transgender boy and cisgender boy, there is still the possibility of reproducing.   Newsflash, Sharron; some transgender people do raise families of their own, whereby a transgender man (biological female) is willing to be impregnated and give birth, or a transgender woman (biological male) is willing to impregnate a cisgender woman. That does not in any way diminish their identity as transgender. Know why?   Because biological sex has nothing to do with gender, and even genitalia itself does not have a gender. There is no such thing as a male penis or a female vagina.

Thomas Beatie and family

In 2008, Thomas Trace Beatie, an American transgender man who still had a womb, gave birth to his first child, a daughter. This was followed by two more children, both boys, in 2009 and 2010. In 2018, English transgender man Hayden Cross put off fully transitioning to have a child, a beautiful little girl. I am well aware that Sharon Davies and those who think like her would scream that these people were both biologically ‘female’.

Hayden Cross and daughter

However, as much as they may still have their ‘lady bits’, Thomas Beatie and Hayden Cross are indeed mentally men.   Or is Sharron suggesting that men can’t have babies, like they have no right to do so? Thomas Beatie, in an interview on the Oprah Winfrey Show stated, “I have a very stable male gender identity. I see pregnancy as a process, and it doesn’t define who I am. It’s not a male or female desire to want to have a child—it’s a human desire… I’m a person, and I have the right to have my own biological child.” There it is – it’s a human desire. And if Sharron Davies wishes to argue against that, and try to argue that only women have the right to bear children, can we add misandry (hatred of men) to her ever-growing list of prejudices?

And of course uterine transplants for transgender women are just around the corner. While uterine transplants are still in their infancy, they have been carried out in some countries for women who have a ‘dead’ or damaged uterus, or those born without one. While there have been complications with some pregnancies, which sadly have not gone full term, in September 2012 the first baby was born from a uterine transplant in Sweden. In 2017 a baby boy was born to a woman with a uterine transplant in Dallas, Texas, USA.

The next logical step is of course uterine transplants for transgender women, to enable them to become fully ‘women’ – “biological females” Sharron Davies might call them. And of course this terrifies some transphobes. “No so-called sex-change has ever begged for a uterus-and-ovaries transplant; if uterus-and-ovaries transplants were made mandatory for wannabe women they would disappear overnight.” wrote Germaine Greer in 1999. Really?   Because obviously Greer, who is very strong in asserting that no man can know the workings of the female mind, suddenly has some magical insight into the workings of the transgender mind?   Right?  In fact, personally I have few regrets in life, but one of my biggest ones is that I was never a parent. As Thomas Beatie said, that is a human drive, not a female one. And there are transgender women aplenty who would dearly love to experience motherhood. It may also interest the likes Greer to learn that the world’s first transgender woman to undergo a ‘sex change’, Lili Elbe, died due to complications from a failed uterine transplant. But Lili Elbe died 92 years ago, when medical science in the field of sex assignment surgery was in its infancy. The very fact that cisgender women can now have successful uterine transplants means that they are now not far off for transgender women. Indeed, large obstacles to this happening appear to be on “ethical” and religious grounds.   These pillars must also soon crumble, and when they do, Sharron Davies and those who think like her will have their minds blown. Oh, and if you didn’t notice it, that blows your claims in your Tweet out of the water, Sharrony-poos.

But then, Sharron may completely discount all this sciencey stuff, as she patently doesn’t believe that it does any good.  In another Tweet, Sharron stated, “I’m not really religious but I’m not really sure messing with biology is very healthy in the long term. Evolution is pretty good at getting it right.”  There you have it folks; Sharron Davies does not believe in mucking about with biology (and it that’s not anti-trans, you tell me what is) long term. Oh, except of course when she had her boob job, and the Botox she took for 20 years, which she claimed was the only way for her to look good.

And don’t get me wrong; Ms Davies does look good. She looks nowhere near her 56 years and is a stunningly beautiful and sexy woman. So how does she do it? Well, in an interview in Hello magazine in April 2016, Sharron stated;

“I’d been having Botox and fillers since my late thirties – not because I want to appear to be a different age but to look the best I can at any age – and this new procedure has worked wonders for me in a soft, subtle way. I was recommended it by my cosmetic doctor, Dr Tracy Mountford of The Cosmetic Skin Clinic who has been looking after all my cosmetic needs for many years, which is why I decided to have the Silhouette Soft treatment to my brow as it has niggled me for years. I’ve always trusted her advice because she is known for soft, subtle enhancement procedures, and it’s important for me to look natural and refreshed.”

Sharron Davies had a boob job after having her third and final child, and stated in the same interview of cosmetic surgery;

”It frustrates me when I know people are going off to have similar treatments are claiming the way they look is all down to eating organic food and sleeping well. When it comes to gravity and age, there is no magic formula.”

So, it is somehow wrong for transgender women (and men) to “mess with biology”, but when it comes to a cisgender women like herself, suddenly that’s okay for Ms Sharron Davies, and indeed, is the only way she thinks she can look healthy and youthful?   Has it ever crossed that small grey thing between Sharron’s ears that her forty plus years of swimming, and her energetic lifestyle, which includes walking and cycling may just have a wee bit to do with that as well?

And she has the utter gall to decry transgender women while at the same time admitting to having Botox treatment. Sharron, dearie, while many transgender people may go to great lengths to make themselves look more natural, I’ll think you’ll find that few of them, like most human beings, tend to veer away from having a deadly poison injected into their system. And should you wish to argue that, let me point out that “Botox” is an abbreviation for botulinum toxin. It is wholly alien to the human body, and while there are various medical uses, they come with their own dangers, including ranging from allergic reaction to muscle weakness, paralysis, seizures, respiratory arrest, and death.

In researching this, I also discovered that Sharron Davies is quite the dog lover – good on her – and has been photographed with various breeds of dogs, from pugs to lurchers.   She obviously cares very much about them. So much so that obviously she’s willing to ignore the fact that each and every single one of these breeds is down to “messing with biology” and ignoring evolution. This just in, Sharron; had mankind not messed with biology and evolution, then all those dogs would still be wolves, and would have eaten you, luv.

Human evolution, in the way it has left our species, is terrible. And Ms Davies while claiming not to be religious is nonetheless coming across like an intelligent design proponent. What’s so great about our bodies?   Our heads that are too large for our spindly necks and our skulls too thin to protect the brain. The oesophagus being dangerously close to the trachea can cause us to choke. The appendix is more likely to kill us than be of any use. In men the testicles have to hang outside the body to keep sperm cool, thereby making one of the most sensitive parts of the body extremely vulnerable. Also in men, we have the penis serving as a delivery system for both urine and sperm. In both men and women, the genitalia are way too close to the anus, which can easily cause infections. Our ankles are too spindly to support the entire fame. Our bodies rot with age, causing various problems in the bones and organs. Our hearing goes, and most people over 40 need some sort of corrective lenses for their eyesight. This is why we rely upon “messing with biology” to keep us healthy and give us much longer lives than our ancestors. You know, Sharron? In exactly the same way that medical science has allowed you to live into your 50s.

Of course, Sharron Davies may argue that on her imaginary island, there wouldn’t be all this science.   No, there wouldn’t be ~ and most people would die in their 30s, if they survived at all, due to another little fact which she didn’t consider.

No matter what the Bible may tell you, you cannot propagate an entire population from two adults.   Well, you can try, and the results may be good for swimmers like Sharron in a few generations – due to their webbed feet. I believe the minimum of healthy adults you would need would be 160 (or have I been watching too much of Salvation on Netflix?), and they would have to unrelated. If not, then within just a few generations you would have a population of incestuous, inbred idiots, with a host of congenital defects, eyes so crossed that each eye would be in the wrong socket, and who would need a week’s notice to stop grinning. Oh, and with each passing generation, life expectancy would decrease dramatically, and infant mortality would become commonplace. In fact, such a population may not make it to a few generations before dying out completely.

Sharron Davies came in for a lot of stick from her original Tweet, and she attempted to climb down from it. At 2:14am (been on the wine, Sharron?) on 2 July, she Tweeted, “My goodness peeps are overthinking the island analogy.. it’s just a way of saying – humans to reproduce need the binary sexes. Sex & gender are different, sex is non changeable. Nothing to do with being gay. This relates to sport & male biology in females races being unfair.”

The only factual statement in that Tweet is “Sex & gender are different”. The rest is rubbish. We already know that sex is indeed changeable. We already know that the original Tweet is an ages-old homophobic trope. And as to sport, what exactly is fair about the fact that the vast majority of transgender athletes do not win, and its only when they do win that people like Sharron Davies throw a hissy fit? Where are all the transgender women Olympic gold medallist swimmers, Sharron? What is exactly fair about runner Caster Semenya, a cisgender woman, being banned from running due to having large amounts of testosterone in her body? And if it all about women in sport, perhaps Ms Davies would like to explain why she never once mentioned such in her original Tweet?

No. Davies can try to claim she was not being bigoted all she wants. But the fact remains that her original analogy was deliberately transphobic, it used an old homophobic argument, which also, not matter how inadvertently, castigated every woman unable to bear children, and every man unable to father such, for medical reasons, as well as demonstrating her complete ignorance of science.

And if we are to take Ms Davies claims of not being bigoted seriously, then why did she post that second Tweet, in which she ignorantly condemned “messing with biology”? How else are we to take that other than an attack upon transgender people ~ particularly coming from a hypocrite who has had a boob job and Botox treatment? Indeed, how are we to take her comment “Sex is non changeable” other than a complete denial of the very existence of transgender people? The fact is that Sharron Davies is yet another transphobe who is trying to have gender defined by biological sex, despite her saying that they’re not the same thing. Bad news for her and her ilk; that is not how science defines gender. Without going into the sciencey bits (to spare Shazza’s limited intellect), but to use the old adage, sex occurs between the legs, gender occurs between the ears.

There were quite a few people who attacked Sharron Davies on Twitter, and some of their comments were rude and abusive. I would never do that. It only gives Davies and the rest of the TERF army ammunition, while they try to claim they are only exercising their freedom of speech and expression. No, I’d sooner use her own words to completely condemn her, which I hope to have done in this article. Yes she does have freedom of speech and expression, but with that right comes responsibilities, including not abusing it to attempt to malign entire sections of society. Well, I too have freedom of speech and expression, and so long as I have that right, I shall use it to fully expose and call to account unintelligent bigots like Sharron Davies.

 

Where is your Pride?

CEMB at Pride in London

When you deny your own a voice, you have none.

Pride parades and marches can be wonderful events. They are a celebration of one’s sexuality and gender. They are all about LGBTQ people being loud and proud. They are also a firm statement to the cishet majority, “We’re here, we’re queer; get used to it.”

The Pride movement grew out of the Stonewall riot of 28 June 1969, when police raided the Stonewall Inn in Greenwich Village, New York City. The Stonewall inn was a progressive bar which was frequented by the local LGBTQ community. The riots which followed the raid led to “Stonewall” becoming a bye-word for LGBTQ direct action. A year later, on 27 June 1970 the first “Gay Liberation” march took place in Chicago, followed by Los Angeles and Philadelphia the following day. These marches were to remember Stonewall and to stand up for gay rights. It was from these that annual marches sprang up across the globe, taking the name “Pride” and coming to encompass the entire LGBTQ movement. As society moves towards a greater understanding of sexuality and gender, but with a great deal of prejudice still existing they are more important now than they have ever been.

We therefore see that Pride events are deeply steeped in political activism and taking a stance for LGBTQ rights. So you would think that they would be a legitimate time for protest, wouldn’t you? Except in the United Kingdom, you would be wrong.

On 8 July Pride in London took place, at which members of the secular group “Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain” (CEMB) took part, with some carrying placards stating “Allah is Gay”, “Fuck Islamic homophobia”, “Islamophobia is an oxymoron” and “Throw ISIS off the roof”. Enter East London Mosque, who lodged an official complaint with Pride in London, who objected to the “Islamophobia” from the CEMB.

Mosque spokesman Salman Farsi stated “We’ve raised a complaint with the co-chairs of the event that the group was inciting hatred against Muslims, and in particular [in relation] to our good name, based on absolutely groundless reasons. For us to see such a mainstream event that is supposed to celebrate tolerance and love used as a hate platform was really quite shocking. One of the signs said ‘Islamophobia is an oxymoron’. Our religion doesn’t promote hatred or homophobia. Yes, there might be theological topics dealing with homosexuality in Islam, but that’s clearly very separate from promoting hatred and homophobia,”

Except of course, you cannot separate the two. Islam, like all the Abrahamic faiths, IS a homophobic religion. And the East London Mosque is rarely out of the news, having been investigated on more than one occasion for links to Islamist hate preachers.

So, how would you have expected Pride in London to respond to this? One would have expected them to rally behind their own LGBTQ participants, wouldn’t one? Except you would be wrong. Instead Pride in London sided with the East London Mosque and condemned the CEMB.

Pride in London responded, “If anyone taking part in our parade makes someone feel ostracised, discriminated against or humiliated, then they are undermining and breaking the very principles on which we exist. Our code of conduct is very clear on this matter. All volunteers, staff and parade groups agree that Pride celebrates diversity and will not tolerate any discrimination of any kind. While our parade has always been a home to protest, which often means conflicting points of view, Pride must always be a movement of acceptance, diversity and unity. We will not tolerate Islamophobia.”

Where was the hate? Where was the alleged “Islamophobia”? It surely cannot be in saying “Allah is Gay”, as that could only be an insult if being gay was in any way derogatory. Contrary to press reports, there were no signs saying “Fuck Islam”, but rather “Fuck Islamic homophobia” – those are two different things. And sorry, but Islamophobia IS an oxymoron; a contradiction in terms which ultimately makes sense, like “military intelligence”. Islam is a hateful and hate-filled religion. That is not a statement against individual Muslims, but rather against the barbaric dark ages bastard child of Christianity. Islam is one of the biggest threats in the world today, and most of those who suffer at its hands are in fact Muslims. That’s not prejudice, it is a fact.

It appears to me that Pride in London really shot themselves in the foot over this one. So having calmed down from headdesking, I was just about over it when story No.2 broke.

Belfast Pride took place on 5 August, in the wake of the UK having a General Election and the Conservative Party only squeezing back into power after doing a deal with the biggest party in power in Northern Ireland, the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP); a Christian-based party known for their extreme conservative opposition to equal marriage and other LGBTQ and human rights issues. Northern Ireland is the only part of the British Isles which still does not allow same-sex marriage, and that is a direct consequence of DUP policies.

Eleanor Evans (right) at Belfast Pride

Bisexual woman Eleanor Evans attended Belfast Pride carrying a home-made placard stating “Fuck the DUP”. She was already halfway thought the parade, having passed a number of police with not problem, when a Belfast Pride official came running towards her and shouting at her. Evans clam that the official told her “Either put the sign down or leave the parade.” before trying to rip the sign out of her hands and pushed her. Evans, an LGBTQ charity worker, who attended the event with her transgender sister, reported the incident at an information point, and was curtly told she would have to email them for official action to be taken.

Belfast Pride duly investigated that matter, have utterly denied that Eleanor Evans was pushed or assaulted, or any other wrongdoing on the part of the official concerned, and have not offered any apology. Seán Ó Néill, Chair of Belfast Pride, instead claimed that Eleanor’s sign “breached the Parades Commission’s guidelines”, which state that parade participants “refrain from using words or behaviour which could reasonably be perceived as being intentionally sectarian, provocative”. Eleanor’s sign was most certainly not sectarian – it did not single out the DUP as being Protestants – and I have personally seen much, MUCH more provocative signs at many parades. Including the extremely provocative Orange parades which are a blight upon both Northern Ireland and my own native Scotland, many of which are attended by DUP politicians and other members.

Oh, and were it not enough that Belfast Pride enforced Evans to take her sign down, a DUP politician has now reported her to the Police Service of Northern Ireland for “hate speech”. Tell me that’s not victimisation of an LGBTQ person?

So, reeling from a double whammy, I breathed a sigh of relief, and though I could not be there, I was happy for friends who were attending Glasgow Pride on 19th August, and all the happier that it would be opened by Nicola Sturgeon, First Minister of Scotland.

It was in the late afternoon that people started posting of arrests at Glasgow Pride. Homophobes? Transphobes? Nope. LGBTQ people.

Arrests at Glasgow Pride

In a bloc of LGBTQ members of Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) one marcher carrying a placard declaring “These Faggots Fight Fascists” was approached by police, and he and another IWW member were arrested for “alleged breach of the peace with homophobic aggravation, police obstruction and resisting police arrest”. Except the sign was not homophobic, as the man carrying it is gay, and identifies as a ‘faggot’. Arresting a gay man for carrying a sign saying “faggot”, claiming homophobia, is akin to accusing a black person using the N word of being racist, and arresting them for hate speech. The protestor was carrying the sign to reflect recent events in the USA, where neo-Nazis descended on Charlottesville University. It was a message of solidarity to those fighting fascism across the Atlantic Ocean.

In a separate incident another man, and two women of the LGBTQ women’s drumming band Sheboom were arrested but later liberated after breaking from the parade and playing outside a Roman Catholic cathedral. Glasgow bye-laws prohibit this.

So, again you would expect Pride to stand by LGBTQ participants, and again you would be wrong. In a press statement, Pride Glasgow said;

“Pride Glasgow is extremely disappointed in the actions of a small group of people that tried to target the Pride Glasgow Parade yesterday. Whilst Pride Glasgow promotes an Equality for all agenda and free speech the actions of this group jeopardised the safety of everyone attending the parade.

The Pride Parade in Glasgow has always been a platform for protest alongside a celebration of LGBTI life and we are saddened that this shameful attempt to sabotage the parade has come from within the LGBTI community.

Pride Glasgow fully encourage the participation of uniformed services in the Parade including the Police and whilst we understand that others may have a different view on this. Actions which endanger others will not be permitted.

Pride Glasgow support the actions of Police Scotland in dealing with this group to ensure the safety of everyone on the Parade and the Festival. Pride Glasgow has worked closely with the police and relevant agencies to put appropriate measures in place to deal with incidents at all levels especially given the current threat level.

This year’s Parade was one of the biggest ever to happen in Glasgow and with over 90 floats and walking groups alongside over 6000 individuals the majority of which followed the correct guidelines set out by Glasgow City Council for Parades but we were disappointed that Sheboom a group who have taken part historically in the parade felt the need to break this by splitting the parade and continuing to play music outside the Cathedral which is a requirement from Glasgow City Council for all Parades to cease music during the passing of any place of worship.”

I would love to see just how anyone was put in danger by peaceful protestors. Yes, IWW objected to the police presence on the parade – which I do not agree with them protesting; it’s only right that we show that LGBTQ people are in ALL walks of life. But on the other hand it appears to me that the police got heavy-handed. I am actually a veteran steward of many peace marches and I would immediately like to know why police officers, supposedly taking part in the parade, took it upon themselves to approach the individual with the “These Faggots Fight Fascists”, or Sheboom, without approaching Pride Glasgow stewards or officials first. That is the usual course of action to take, and it is only when stewards will not act that police action is usually taken.

As to Sheboom, if they broke from the march and played outside a RC cathedral, they were indeed in the wrong.  However, the bye-laws concerning playing outside places of worship were instituted to prevent sectarian provocation, which too often has erupted in violence.  In the past.  To arrest peaceful members of a lesbian drumming band on the same pretext is unspeakable.

As far as I can see, no-one jeapordised the safety of anyone at Pride Glasgow. Well, certainly not until members of Police Scotland started wrestling peaceful protestors to the ground and handcuffing them.

For Pride Glasgow to say that they promote free speech whilst supporting the arrest of a man stating that he fights fascism is in itself derisory. I have heard that some were against the parade being “politicised”. Well, if that’s the case, then why did Pride Glasgow invite the Scottish National Party (SNP) First Minister of Scotland to open it? You don’t get much more political than that – particularly in Scotland. Indeed, whilst I appreciate the importance of a serving First Minister of Scotland opening Pride Glasgow, if they are so fond of free speech and non-partisan, why did they not invite ALL party leaders in Scotland to jointly open the event? In fact, that would have been much more fitting, given that Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson and Scottish Labour Leader Kezia Dugdale are both openly lesbian, and the co-convenor of the Scottish Green Party, Patrick Harvie, is gay.

The behaviour of Pride organisers in London, in Belfast, and in Glasgow, over these incidents has been disgraceful. Well, this faggot fights fascists too. And that includes the fascism of political Islam, the fascism of the DUP, and of the fascism of the extreme right both in the USA and here at home. I stand by the CEMB, I stand by Eleanor Evans, I stand by the IWW, and I stand by Sheboom – all of whom were taking a stand against those who would quite happily kill every participant in every Pride event. It is only a pity that Pride in London, Belfast Pride, and Glasgow Pride apparently do not have the guts to make that stance too, but are quite happy to sleep with the enemy instead.

Pride? Try “Abject Shame”.

Pray for Orlando – but make sure you MEAN it.

Moment of silence, Orlando vigil

Beware of hypocrites in sheeps clothing.

I have been trying to write this for over a week, but my mind’s not been in the right place to do so. I’m not sure it’s still in the right place, but I am satisfied that I did the right thing in waiting.  However, if I don’t get this out, I am going to make myself ill.

The shooting in the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida, where 49 LGBT+ people enjoying a night out in what they believed was a safe place, was truly stuff of horror. I have never been so moved to tears, so utterly shaken, since the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001. Four nights running I cried myself to sleep. As the days went on, it became clear that the gunman, Omar Mateen, had very complex motives indeed.

The first thing we learned, which the media were very quick to tell us, was that Mateen was a Muslim. As more facts emerged, it was reported that he swore allegiance to the leader of Daesh. Then he was reportedly “angered” by the sight of two men kissing. Then it was reported that he used to beat his ex-wife. It was said he drove miles seeking out a gay nightclub to carry out his massacre. The media gradually built up a picture of an angry, homophobic, misogynistic, radicalised Muslim, with possible links to Islamic State.

Then as time went on, we found out that as well as Daesh, Mateen had also claimed allegiance in the past to Al Queda, the Taliban, Hezbollah, and various other radical Islamist groups, whose ideas and interpretation of Islam all disagree. His ex has stated that he rarely attended mosque but merely paid lip-service to Islam, the FBI stated that while there was evidence he was radicalised, there was no proof of links to any radical Islamic group. It seems then that far from the “soldier” which Daesh were quick to portray him as, Omar Mateen was a lone nutter with a chip on his shoulder, who claimed allegiance to conflicting radical Islamist groups, while really knowing diddly-squat about any of them.

Probably most damning of all revelations were that far from seeking out a gay nightclub, Mateen was in fact a regular customer and well-known at Pulse, Orlando, and that he had profiles on gay dating apps. So now of course, he is being portrayed as a self-loathing, semi-closeted gay man, and that’s why he carried out his crime.

Not one of us knows the inside of Omar Mateen’s mind, so we will never know the true motives behind the killing. It could have been religious based, it could have been self-loathing, he could have been mentally ill; we simply do not know, and that he was killed, we will never know.

Can we then absolve the influence of religion upon his crime? Some seem to be doing so, including those who are maintaining that it was a purely homophobic attack. That was certainly the view of political columnist and author Owen Jones, when he walked out of a Sky News interview about the attack, accusing them of downplaying the homophobic nature of the attack.

Of course, Jones was right. Sky were deliberately trying to push the Islamist nature of the attack and completely ignoring the homophobic element. It cannot be ignored. Even the US media, whilst touting the pulse attack as the worst gun attack in US history (wholly inaccurate; try Wounded Knee), they completely ignore one sobering fact; the Pulse attack was the single largest killing of LGBT+ people in one place since the Nazi holocaust. That little fact is something which must be pressed as much as possible.  Likewise, unlike the media trying to play this massacre down, I will call it what it is; a terrorist attack.

For cishet people, through their cishet media mouthpieces, to try to portray the Pulse shooting as anything else than primarily homophobic in nature is either to pursue an agenda against Islam, or ignore it as “not my problem”. To portray the shooting as a ‘gay-on-gay’ attack, is tantamount to blaming the victim.

But all the rhetoric coming out of the media begs the question, can we equally ignore the religious element in this mass murder? Not for one moment. Whether confused about his sexuality or not, there is one thing for sure; Omar Mateen was a homophobe, and that begs the question, just where did that homophobia stem from?

Bigotry, all bigotry, is a learned behaviour. No person wakes up one morning thinking “I hate all gays.”; it comes from indoctrination. As I said, we’ll never know the inside of Omar Mateen’s mind, but it is already known he had been radicalised and had some knowledge of Islam, which like it’s Judeo-Christian cousins, is a deeply homophobic religion. Some people, particularly apologists for Islam and for other religions, can try to downplay the Islamic religious element all they want, but it cannot be ignored. When Daesh are pushing gay men off the top of buildings, when there are Islamic countries where being gay or any other part LGBT+ can earn one anything from a jail sentence to being lashed in public, or even the death penalty, to ignore the homophobic influence of Islam is to bury one’s head in the sand, while wearing blinkers at the same time – a good trick if you can manage it. Unfortunately, there are so many today who think “Ooh, we can’t upset the Muslims.  How dare you be so Islamophobic.” (I hate that word), that we are all supposed to walk on eggshells.

Well, tough titty dears. Call me an Islamophobe all you want. Indeed, call me anti-relgious – I am – because I am not going to miss Christianity in this article either. And once you’re done calling me all your names, you can go kiss my sweet atheist arse. But I am not for one moment going to refrain from pointing the finger firmly at Islam for the Pulse shooting, when it most certainly was one of the motives.

But Islam as a faith is only part of the indoctrination. We then have to ask where it began, and as is usual with most bigotry, we need look no further than the home environment and parental influence. There is a lot of truth in the old Scots saying “Fools and bairns speak at the cross whit they hear by the ingleside.” Look to a bigot, any bigot, then look to one or both of their parents, and nine times out of ten, you shall find that they are equally bigoted, and have brainwashed their child into the same poisonous mindset. And of course, that is never more true where the family has deeply held religious beliefs.

Omar Mateen’s father, Saddique Mateen, after the killing gave an apology and claimed his son’s terrorist act had nothing to do with religion. Less than 24 hours later, Mr Mateen senior released a video, supposedly an apology, in which he stated “God will punish those involved in homosexuality… …not an issue that humans should deal with.” It later transposed that Saddique Mateen hosts an extremely pro-Taliban TV show on the California-based Durand Jirga Show, and in Facebook videos has often appeared in uniform, declaring himself the leader of the “transitional revolutionary government of Afghanistan”, that he has ties to the US congress and his own intelligence agency, which he says he will use to subvert and overthrow the present Afghan government. If Omar Mateen was a nutball, it seems it must have been hereditary.

But we also see that Saddique Mateen is indeed an Islamic fundamentalist, he is indeed a homophobe, and we then see where Omar Mateen’s Islamist leanings and his religious homophobic bigotry began; at the hands of his own father.

And that of course does not, for one moment, justify the worst ever terrorist attack upon LGBT+ people. It was a truly evil thing for Omar Mateen to do. But while he may have been mentally-ill (and the continued media stigmatisation of the mentally ill is not lost on me either), I sincerely doubt he was a psychopath and / or did not know what he was doing was wrong; that is, he was not of the legal definition of insane. I maintain he deliberately set out to kill as many gay men and women as possible, in full knowledge of what he was doing, and if anything, that makes it all the worse. However, his Islamist brainwashing does go to some extent to explaining the complex motives he held.

Not that I would ever wish to stir up anti-Islamic hatred. This is not the point of this article, but rather it is a reaction to and a criticism of a faith with a Dark Ages view of sexuality. Don’t worry Christians, I’m getting to you and I’m not going to miss you either. Just you take your place in the queue, because know what? You’re next in line.

I certainly would never wish to be seen as buying into the rhetoric of Donald Trump, who was obscenely quick to make the Orlando shooting about him, and try to claim that it supports his plans if elected US President to ban Muslims from entering the USA. Trump claimed on Twitter that he had been right about Islamic terrorism, and then Tweeted “Appreciate the congrats for being right on radical Islamic terrorism, I don’t want congrats, I want toughness & vigilance. We must be smart!”

Were that vile Tweet not enough, the fact that there was an armed police officer outside of the Pulse nightclub was not enough for Trump; he thinks that people in clubs should be armed. On Monday, 13 June, he stated on CNN, “If you had some guns in that club the night that this took place, if you had guns on the other side, you wouldn’t have had the tragedy that you had. If people in that room had guns with the bullets flying in the opposite direction right at him… … right at his head, you wouldn’t have had the same tragedy that you ended up having.”

Of course, we all know that Donald Trump is electioneering, and we know that his electioneering is based on a ticket which is equally bigoted against Muslims and Latin Americans. Unfortunately for the Donald, there are certain facts where his racist and anti-Islamic rhetoric falls down completely;

• Omar Mateen was not an immigrant; he was a US citizen, born in the USA. Therefore, a ban on Muslims entering the USA would not have made a blind bit of difference.
• People carrying guns in nightclubs, in a crowded place, with alcohol mixed in, would indeed have a very different outcome; with bullets flying in all directions, it would be a bloodbath in which many, many more would perish.
• Of the 49 dead and 53 injured in the Pulse nightclub, the overwhelming majority were Latinx. Would Donald Trump and those in the US gun lobby who support him be so ready to push the “arm everybody” line if they were aware of that fact?

That the majority were in fact Latinx, the irony of the attack was that it was a US citizen attacking people at least from immigrant backgrounds, and some of whom were more than likely immigrants, which of course is the complete mirror of Donald Trump’s racist rhetoric – about immigrants killing US citizens.

So, what about the response from some Christians, and why do I have such a problem with them?

Well, firstly there was the response from some Christian homophobes, which was to be expected. Even as the attack was happening, one particular lowlife crawled out from under his stone long enough to Tweet “Someone is doing God’s work in Orlando. #FeelingBlessed” There have indeed been many bigoted Christian pond scum who were just rubbing their hands with glee at 49 LGBT+ people being wiped out. Of course, some didn’t realise at first that it was a Muslim terrorist, and soon changed their tune when they found out. Others simply did not care who did the shooting, so long as somebody did it. When it comes to LGBT+ people, creationism, subjugation of women, abortion, atheism, wanting a theocratic government, declaring their God is the only true god, and being willing to kill for that belief, you could not get a pubic hair between some Christian fundamentalists and Islamist fundamentalists.

Of course, many of such are keyboard warriors; trolls stuck in their mom’s basement who can only pull their obese arses away from their computer long enough to waddle off for another 2 litre bottle of cola (and it’s always diet cola – WTF?), and another share-size bag of cheetos, sweating profusely at the exertion of doing so, whom we should not worry about too much. But others may be physically fit, heavily armed, and easily influenced by Christian pastors ‘rejoicing’ the killing and continuing to spread their homophobia. One such is Pastor Roger Jiminez of Verity Baptist Church in Sacramento, who stated;

“People say, like: Well, aren’t you sad that 50 sodomites died? Here’s the problem with that. It’s like the equivalent of asking me — what if you asked me: Hey, are you sad that 50 paedophiles were killed today?’ Um, no, I think that’s great. I think that helps society. You know, I think Orlando, Florida, is a little safer tonight.” He added: “The tragedy is that more of them didn’t die. The tragedy is I’m kind of upset that he didn’t finish the job… …I wish the government would round them all up, put them up against a firing wall, put a firing squad in front of them, and blow their brains out,”

Jiminez also posted a video of his sermon, which YouTube promptly removed for violating their hate speech policy.

Not that Jiminez was alone in his twisted rhetoric. He was soon echoed by Pastor Steve Anderson of the Faithful World Baptist Church, of Tempe, Arizona, who came out with a similarly vile rant in another video, also removed by YouTube;

“…we’re supposed to be sad because a bunch of perverts in a gay bar are killed… … we’re supposed to sympathize with that. Well, frankly, I’m not sad about it at all. I don’t condone violence, I never have… but I’m not gonna sit here and cry about it and say it’s a tragedy, because it’s not…”

The video followed earlier comments by Anderson, in which he stated there were “fifty less paedophiles in the world”. Same rhetoric as from Jiminez, except of course it is a fact that children are much safer in the company of LGBT+ people than they ever have been in the company of Christians, particularly Christian clergy. Yes dears, I went there – and I make no apologies for that, because it happens to be a fact. The vast majority of paedophiles, both active and inactive, are cishet men; even men who prey upon little boys tend to be otherwise heterosexual. The LGBT+ community has the lowest incidence of paedophilia -fact. And it’s not gay clubs hiding and protecting kiddy fiddlers – it’s the Vatican doing that. Stick that one RIGHT up your cassock, Frankie Baby.

I only wish it were easy to ignore the insane rantings of the likes of Jiminez and Anderson. Unfortunately, as we in the LGBT+ community know all too well, we cannot. They are every bit as dangerous as fundamentalist Islamists. In fact, given that Christianity is still the largest religion in the world, and there are many, many more people out in western, developed, at least ‘culturally Christian’ nations than there are in Islamic countries, homophobic Christian preachers are probably a greater danger, due to the hate they stir up. Steve Anderson is the natural successor to the leader of the 16th century Scottish Protestant Reformation, John Knox. And if he thinks that’s a compliment, it’s not. Just like Knox, people like Anderson stir up the hate, which inevitably leads to violence. But when that violence happens, he is nowhere to be seen and claims not to condone it. And that dears, is and always has been, the worst kind of cowardice.

But it is not so much the hate preachers who anger me. Not even crazy TV evangelist Pat Robertson who says Christians should just sit back and “let Muslims and gays kill each other”. Because of course, the LGBT+ community are well-known for launching attacks upon Muslims. Look out, Daesh, we’re coming for you – to redecorate your tents with hanging drapes and throw pillows.

No dears, the ones who have really got my backs up have been the hypocrites, with their crocodile tears for the Orlando victims; who all too often have been the same people who have sought to further oppress the LGBT+ community.

If someone hates me, let them hate me, and I’ll fight them with my intellect, my sarcasm, and where it is called for, with kindness and a soft word. What I cannot stomach is the hypocrite who pretends to be my friend, and yet holds a deep-set prejudice against me. Those are the ones you have to watch out for, or you’ll soon find a knife sticking out of your back.

In the wake of the Orlando shooting, there were a number of “good Christians” on social media posting “Pray for Orlando”. Some of the people I noticed posting this had in the past, the recent past, applauded moves to repress LGBT+ legislation. Indeed, in the two weeks prior to the shooting, there were two instances of American politicians calling upon anyone spotting a transgender woman in a ladies restroom to kill them. Some of the people I spotted posting these stories, agreeing with them, were among the same people posting their “Pray for Orlando” memes. Another such was one woman who posted a story about young children being taught to respect gender differences, and who stated “Well, that’s mine being home schooled.”

The hypocrisy is vertigo inducing.

But if keyboard warriors trying to find a salve for their guilty consciences was bad enough, those “in authority” doing exactly the same thing was bloody infuriating and insulting in the extreme. Governor of Florida Rick Scott (Rep), Texas senator Ted Cruz (Rep), Speaker of the House Ted Cruz (Rep), North Carolina senator Richard Burr (Rep), Texas representative Louis Ohmmeter (Rep), and Kentucky senator Mitch McConnell, are among just some of the US politicians who offered “thoughts and prayers” for the Orlando victims, but who have not only voiced strident homophobic and transphobic statements, who have not only pushed anti-LGBT+ legislation, but some are actually continuing to do so.

The very state the shooting took place in, Florida, and it’s governor are actually a prime example of this. Governor Scott is known to be against equal marriage, and while he says it is a matter best left to the courts, he made sure that Florida continued to drag it’s heels on the issue, long after other states had given up. More recently, Florida’s Children and Families Department began moves to remove sexual orientation and gender expression from the definition of bullying in care homes. As recently as March 2016, Governor Scott personally signed into power the state’s Pastor Protection Act, which shields churches and their clergy who refuse to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. It took until the Thursday after the shooting for Governor Scott to even admit that the attack was targeted at the LGBT+ community.

When such vehemently anti-LGBT+ politicians come out with meaningless platitudes about offering “thoughts and prayers” for the victims, one has to ask if they truthfully mean it, or are they saying these things purely for their own publicity and ratings?

Likewise, on Sunday, 12 June 2016, the Vatican released this statement:

“The terrible massacre that has taken place in Orlando, with its dreadfully high number of innocent victims, has caused in Pope Francis, and in all of us, the deepest feelings of horror and condemnation, of pain and turmoil before this new manifestation of homicidal folly and senseless hatred,

“Pope Francis joins the families of the victims and all of the injured in prayer and in compassion,” the statement said. “Sharing in their indescribable suffering he entrusts them to the Lord so they may find comfort.

“We all hope that ways may be found, as soon as possible, to effectively identify and contrast the causes of such terrible and absurd violence which so deeply upsets the desire for peace of the American people and of the whole of humanity,”

I would ask all to study that statement carefully. Notice anything? There is not one mention of “gay” or “LGBT” anywhere in it. There is not even a mention of the Pulse nightclub, or even that the shooting took place in a ‘gay’ nightclub, or that the LGBT+ community was specifically targeted.  Little difference to Governor Scott’s initial response, and with spin that any career politician (which the Pope is, really) may be envious of.

This does not surprise me in the least. For a pontiff who has ‘opened a dialogue’ with and claims not to condemn the LGBT+ community, Pope Francis is vastly hypocritical on LGBT+ rights. The Roman Catholic Church, as ever under the mistaken impression that they have full rights over marriage – and families – has continually and consistently stated they will never recognise same-sex marriage, and the present Pope has himself called it “a major threat”. As recently as November 2015, the Vatican lambasted same-sex marriages and called attempts by same-sex couples to adopt children were “a great danger”. HA! And allowing their priests access to children isn’t?  Frankie; beam, mote, brother’s eye, Sweetie.

Of course, there have been other churches have similarly made sanctimonious statements about Orlando, while at the same time condemning LGBT+ people and continuing to oppose equal marriage and same-sex adoption, but as the single largest Christian communion in the world, it is the RC Church which angers me most. Not least because these are statements from a bloke in a dress, who is celibate, trying to make the rules for all humanity. Just a word Frankie dearest, if you’re not going to play the game, do not assume to write the rules.

Some Christians of course may try to claim it’s a matter of “Love the sinner, hate the sin.” Another load of sanctimonious, platitudinous crap. I fail to see any difference between that particular Christian soundbite, and the half-assed and hypocritical apology Saddique Mateen offered for his son’s actions. But worse than that, every time a Christian comes out with an anti-LGBT+ statement, every time they speak out against equal marriage, every time they try to prevent a same-sex couple from adopting a child, they provide the fuel for the fires of hatred. They can put their hands on their hearts and say “Oh no, not me.” all they want, but the fact is that is starts with even one individual Christian saying that homosexuality is unnatural (unlike a woman emerging from a man’s rib, which, among other things in the Bible is obviously perfectly natural), and it ends with someone going on the rampage and killing people purely because of the sexuality they happen to have been born as. And in that respect, the homophobic / transphobic Christian churches are absolutely no different from Islam. Bigoted Christians can try to play at Pontius Pilate, attempting to wash their hands of the blood all they want, but the fact is that they are every bit as complicit in the murder of not just those in Orlando, but every LGBT+ murder – and suicide – as if they had carried out the attack themselves.

At this point, I was going to go on a tirade about prayer solving nothing and use it to illustrate how God does not exist. However, I have been humbled by an atheist friend who had a Roman Catholic upbringing, who has shown me that hate is never the way. Were I to go on my tirade, then I would be as guilty of abusing the Orlando terrorist attack as those I mention above, only from the opposite perspective. Also I fully realise that there are many Christian churches and communities who do not judge others, fully following the teachings of their saviour, but rather welcome LGBT+ people, and many others society has rejected, with open arms. The same can be said for Islam, but it has to be admitted, to a much lesser extent. I am equally aware that of the 49 dead, some were indeed believers in God, so for me to carry out a blanket condemnation of all religious faith would serve only to dishonour their memory.

And while I may be a hardened, cynical, atheist bitch who does not believe prayer does any good, I fully realise that those faithful who do indeed offer prayers do so with only the finest of intentions, and to throw them back in their face would be hateful indeed. So, genuine faithful, on behalf of the entire global LGBT+ community, thank you for your compassion and your kindness.

My article is therefore not directed at those faithful who accept all and turn away none. Rather it is directed at the hypocrites who on one hand seek to further, judge, vilify, oppress and persecute LGBT+ people, then on the other hand offer prayers and ask others to do likewise, which as far as I can see is for no other reason than their own self-aggrandisement.  Any of such who may be reading this, your false prayers and crocodile tears are not only not welcome, you actually do those who are genunine a huge disservice.  Shame on  you.

More than anything, it is in memory of the 49 young people, mostly Latinx – let us never forget that – who thought they were in a safe place, only to be gunned down in the worst anti-LGBT+ terrorist incident in history.

Goodnight, my sweet darlings. Nothing and no-one can hurt you any more.

Xandra.

XXX

Jehovah’s Witness video teaches children homophobia

Indoctrinating against equal marriage – and likening LGBT+ people to terrorists.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses have produced a series of videos aimed at children about JW faith. One of them, Lesson 22: One Man, One Woman, however is openly exhibiting and teaching children that same-sex relationships are wrong, and worse still, teaching them to spread that message to other children.

In the video a little girl draws a picture of her family at school, along with all the other pupils. Taking it home to her mother, she explains that a friend drew her “two mommys” and tells her mother that her teacher had said that as long as two people love each other, that is alright. The mother then tells her daughter that different people have different ideas of what is right and wrong, but it is making Jehovah happy which counts. She goes on to tell her that the Bible teaches leaving ‘wrong’ things behind, likens same-sex marriage to taking unauthorised items on a plane, and suggests that her daughter tell her friend about Jehovah and Biblical rules on same-sex marriage.

I was listening to a radio show concerning this, which had Jehovah’s Witnesses and other theists phoning in saying everyone is entitled to their opinions. The JW callers all said that they were tolerant and the video does not suggest that the little girl should end her friendship with the other girl, or judge the girl’s parents.

Really? Let’s go through the video, step-by-step.

Confronted with her daughter’s friend having same-sex parents and the teacher saying that is okay as long as they are happy, the mother retorts “People have their own ideas about what is right and wrong – but what matters is how Jehovah feels. He wants us to be happy and he knows how we can be happiest. That’s why he invented marriage the way he did.”

“You mean one man and one woman?” the daughter asks.

“Exactly,” the mother replies, “Look at Genesis 1:27. “Jehovah created Adam and Eve, male and female. Then in Genesis 2:24 he said a man will stick to his wife. Later, Jesus said the same thing. Jehovah’s standards haven’t changed.”

Right, fallacy one is that Jehovah “invented marriage”. This is a common claim one gets from Christian homophobes opposed to same-sex marriage, and it makes me spit. For if they are claiming that their God created marriage, then that would mean that not only would every same-sex marriage would be invalid, but likewise so would every marriage within other religions and cultures, as well as atheists who are married. If the Jobboes, or any other Christians, wish to tell people of other faiths and none that their marriages are invalid, then they are welcome to go on and try it. Most countries in the world recognise marriages in all faiths and cultures as being legally binding, so when the police get through with them for religious hate speech, they may wish to consider that same-sex marriage where recognised by the state is equally legally binding, and speaking out against it is homophobic hate speech.

Marriage is timeless, it has appeared in all cultures, and it well predates Judeo-Christian culture by thousands of years. Anyone questioning that would also have to be a Young Earth Creationist, and maintain that the Earth was made in six days, 6000 years ago.  And anyone who believes that sort of nonsense, which even the vast majority of Christians today relect, while not even worth debating, by trying to push creationism upon impressionable minds is every bit as dangerous as anyone who stands against same-sex marriage on the grounds of it being against their religion. The fact is that marriage has nothing to do with god(s), but rather it is and always has been a social contract between two people who love each other. And while most cultures have held to heterosexual marriage, same-sex marriage has not been unknown in many cultures, down throughtout history, in every continent across the globe.

Fallacy two is that Judeo-Christian marriage is for one man and one woman – and that “Jehovah’s standards haven’t changed”. Well, they certainly do not change in the Bible, where the most common form of marriage is polygamy, and monogamous marriage is in fact the exception rather than the rule.

In saying that Jesus says the same later, the mother is alluding to Matthew 19:4-5, which is mentioned at the start of the video, which states; “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?” In these verses Jesus does indeed appear to be stating that marriage is one man, one woman. Homophobic Christians often quote these verses, and some even try to get around Old Testament polygamy by claiming that because Jesus was allegedly bringing in the New Covenant, that monogamy was thereby the rule. Does this argument stand up to scrutiny? Not for one moment. For a start, Jesus was referring to the OT in stating that God made humans male and female, and that because of that a man shall cleave to his wife, singular. Yet given the huge plethora of polygamous marriages in the OT, does that mean that all of those in such marriages, including Moses who had three wives yet allegedly penned the first four books of the OT, were breaking God’s laws? According to the Jehovah’s Witnesses and others who maintain that, they must have been.

Was Jesus making the rule in the New Covenant that monogamous marriage was from there on to be the norm? Well, you would have to one, see if Jesus makes any direct rulings against that. He does not. Two, you would have to see if Jesus ever makes any mention of polygamous marriage. And whaddya know? There it is staring us in the face.

Also in the Gospel according to Matthew, in Chapter 25 we have Jesus relating the parable of the five wise virgins and the five foolish virgins. Likening the kingdom of Heaven to a marriage, Jesus tells a story of ten virgins going to meet the bridegroom, five of whom had oil for their lamps, and five who did not, and only those with oil are taken into marriage. In Matthew 25:1, Jesus states, “Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom.” Then in Matthew 25:10, he states, “And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut.” Hello? Did you see that? They went “in with him to the marriage”.

Therefore, in relating the parable, Jesus was alluding to a polygamous marriage. Some apologists try to maintain that yes, but he was only alluding to polygamy. But by equal measure, in Matthew 19, Jesus is only alluding to monogamy, with no direct commandment. More disingenuous apologists try to say the ten virgins were bridesmaids. The bridegroom choosing bridesmaids would not make any sense in Christian marriage, not even today, far, far less in Jewish marriage in first century Judea. Generally in that culture it was the bride’s mother who selected the bridesmaids.

So, by the very example of the Bible, there goes any notion of marriage being one man, one woman, completely out of the window.

The cartoon then takes a more sinister turn, by the mother using the analogy of someone attempting to carry something disallowed onto a plane flight, stating “It’s kind of like bringing something on an airplane – what happens if someone tries to bring something on that isn’t allowed?” The cartoon actually depicts a man with a large bag setting off an airport security alarm. In the modern age, when most people think of disallowed items on air flights, particularly in large items of hand luggage, they are immediately going to think of terrorism. Therefore the only inference I can take from this cartoon is that the Jehovah’s Witnesses are likening LGBT+ people to terrorists. Hmmm. Strangely enough, I can’t recall any instance of any LGBT+ person ever blowing up a plane or flying one into a building. But as for those who hold strong religious beliefs…

The mother then tells her daughter of Jehovah’s rules for reaching paradise, which means removing certain things from ones life. “At Matthew 7: 13 and 14, it talks about the road leading to paradise,” states the mother, “to get there Jehovah says we have to leave some things behind, that means anything Jehovah doesn’t approve of.”

Actually, Matthew 7:13-14 may state the former, but certainly not the latter. It says “Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.” Matthew 7:15-23 certainly does have Jesus stating to beware of false prophets, of knowing people “by their fruits” (this particular ‘fruit’ would never fit in, dears) and that only those who do the “will of the Lord” shall enter into Heaven. And whilst that is open to interpretation as to what is good and evil and what “Jehovah doesn’t approve of”, it says nowhere that the faithful need to “leave some things behind”.

And just what do they mean by leaving some things behind which their god may not approve of? That suggests to me that the mother is telling the daughter to end her friendship with the other girl.

“But I want everyone to get to Paradise.” says the little girl. “So does Jehovah,” replies the mother, which is completely at odds with not just with what Jesus said, in the very part of Matthew the mother is referring to, but also with Jehovah’s Witness teaching. Matthew 7:21-23 states;

“Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”

Therefore, to claim that their god wants everyone to enter Heaven is a complete falsehood. Jehovah’s Witness theology itself, based upon calculations from the Book of Revelation, teaches that only 144,000 souls will enter Heaven, whereas the rest of the faithful (there are approximately 20 million Jehovah’s Witnesses worldwide) will live forever on Earth. Given that Jehovah’s Witness theology is also very big on predestination – that their god, being omniscient and omnipotent, has always known who the truly faithful are – even by their own theology, to claim that their Jehovah wants everyone to enter Heaven is likewise a falsehood, and actually quite hypocritical of Jehovah’s Witnesses to make such an assertion.

“People can change,” says the mother, “that’s why we share his message. So, what can you say to Kerry?”, encouraging her daughter to preach Jehovah’s Witness teachings to her daughter, even saying “let’s practice”.

That the cartoon says “People can change” is of course suggesting that the same-sex couple can change, and suggesting that her daughter go preach to her little friend that her parents will be banned from paradise unless they “change” is simply outrageous. This may only be a cartoon, but it is being directed at children, and asking them to proselytise that homophobic message to other children (do JW children get classroom doors slammed in their faces?).

As I said, there were many callers to the radio show trying to claim that Jehovah’s Witnesses are not judgemental but open to all. Well, dears, that is a whole pile of bullshit, no matter how they try to pretty it up. This very video shows a marked degree of intolerance in which it is suggested that only Christian marriage is valid, that LGBT+ people are no better than terrorists, that the little girl should cast off her friend, and that she should tell the other girl her parents are evil and unfit for her god’s paradise.

In my personal experience Jehovah’s Witnesses tend to be among the least tolerant of the religious sects – and they are a sect – against the beliefs of others, or lack thereof, and of LGBT+ people, and this very video, which is nothing but the indoctrination of children with hate speech, bears that out.

But as they are so very fond of quoting Matthew’s Gospel, allow me to finish with a message to the Jehovah’s Witnesses by also quoting from Chapter 7, one of the same chapters mentioned in the video;

“Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgement ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? 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 7:1-5)

---

All Biblical quotes are King James Version.

Ugly Bitch Uses Bigoted Language in Attack on Toddler

Janet Street Porter

Physician heal thyself, Janet

Hello dears.  I would like to make it clear to all my readers that I am a diehard republican; I want to see an end to monarchies, everywhere, and the British monarchy in particular.  I am not nasty about it, and I wish no member of the royal family any ill-doing.  That is not my way.  Please do not even attempt to post your arguments for retaining a monarchy, as I shall not approve them.  Undemocratic of me?  Yeah, how democratic is the monarchy?  I couldn’t care less if a monarch costs less than a president (which I sincerely doubt), I believe anyone becoming head of state by accident of birth is long-outdated feudalism which has no place in modern society.

And with that rant out of the way, I hope you all understand that his article is not in defence of little Prince George because he is sometingth in line to the throne; it is to defend him as a little boy, and to speak out on someone who claims to have socialist principles using bigotry to attack him.

Prince George, son of Prince William, celebrated his second birthday on 22 July.  On the woman’s magazine programme Loose Women on the UK’s ITV television channel, referring to a photo of George with his father, the panel all wished him a happy birthday.  All apart from celebrity journalist (?) and TV presenter, Janet Street Porter, who downright refused to do so.  Instead Porter shocked the panel by stating “Quite frankly he looks like a cross-dressing millionaire. He does, he’s a millionaire, and he’s got a girl’s blouse on!  All over the country it’s other two-year-old’s birthday’s, so happy birthday commoners!”

Some republicans were no doubt agreeing with Ms Porter, but not this one.   By deriding George because of his attire as “cross-dressing” and “he’s got a girl’s blouse on”, she has immediately chosen to castigate him because his attire appears feminine in her eyes.  And so what if it was feminine?  So what if it was a girl’s blouse?  He’s two years old, for christ’s sake.  How many toddlers play “dress-up” and don attire that is feminine, perhaps even girl’s clothing?  Quite a large proportion I would guess.  Show me the little boy who is not allowed to do so and I shall show you a child whose expression and individuality is being suppressed by ignorant, homophobic and transphobic adults.

And this is an important point.  Just who do Janet Street Porter’s words help?  Nobody but herself to make a cheap political point.  They certainly do not help the cause against homophobia and transphobia, as she is merely reinforcing ignorant, bigoted stereotypes and abetting those who ascribe to them.  She does not help LGBTQI children, as her words will be repeated by many bullies who pick on such children up and down the country.  She does not help the progress of changing cishet attitudes to the LGBTQI community, far from it she merely helps to entrench bigotry.

What if Prince George did turn out to be transgender or genderqueer?  Do her words help either camps?  Or do they merely further abet a monarchy which for hundreds of years has made excuses and downright lied about their own LGBTQI members, when it’s been obvious to all that some kings and princes have been FABULOUS!?  To this day there are apologists who try to claim that England’s King Edward II merely had a ‘loving friendship’ with his favourite, Piers Gaveston.  Hmm, except that Edward dressed outrageously, gave Gaveston – who was equally fabulous – all the queen’s jewels, and would enter court with Gaveston on his arm, while the queen walked behind.  And of course, we all know what goes on in the expensive fee-paying schools princes are sent to, yet the establishment and monarchists will flatly deny that any royal prince has never sought a ‘little comfort’ from another boy while at any such school.

And as long as the establishment, the monarchy and their supporters are pedalling such utter guff, they make being anything other than cishet appear abnormal.  And thus accusations of cross-dressing are used to smear others by ignorant and hateful bigots – like Janet Street Porter. She does no favours to socialism, because she has actively chosen to single out a 2-year-old and treat him as different from every other toddler, which is hardly a socialist principle.  Neither does she help republicanism because she has decided to target a child far too young to understand his position in the establishment.

Put Prince George in a nursery full of kids of the same age from council schemes and high-rise flats and he would no doubt play with them and make little friends (and little enemies), as any toddler would.  Children that young are like that – they have no side with them.

“An old dog will always love you, though you sometimes make mistakes.
God bless the little children, while they’re still too young to hate.
Ain’t nothin’ in this world is worth a single dime,
‘cept old dogs and little children, and some watermelon wine.”
(Tom T Hall, “Watermelon Wine”)

So, seeing as she is so perfect, so holier-than-thou, I decided to do a little digging about Janet Street Porter.  Seems Ms Porter isn’t short of a few bob herself, with one commentator stating that she is worth around £6 million.  What we do know is that she has three homes.  Oh such great socialist principles.

So Janet, dear, should you stumble upon this and are reading it, given that you have so much money, for fuck’s sake go spend some of it on decent dental work done.  Not only do you look like a fucking horse every time you open your mouth, it affects your speech and you sound like you’re chewing a fucking toffee every time you talk.

And surely someone with your assets could afford a plastic surgeon?  Go get a fucking nose job, for fuck’s sake.  The last time I saw a nose like that was at the Museum of Flight, where I saw Concorde.  I mean, really, how can you even kiss someone with that monstrosity in the way?  Not that anyone would ever wish to kiss an ugly hag like you.

At least you could do something about that hair of yours.  No!  Dyeing it that shade of red does not help, it only makes matter worse.  As for the top you were wearing on Loose Women, I am sure my mum had fibreglass curtains just like that in the 1970s.  And with what appear to be jogging bottoms, showing off just how big your bum is?  Really?  Do humanity a favour and go see a fashion expert, because – dang!

Not nice, is it dears?

Of course, I don’t mean a word of it.  But it shows that if I choose to, I can be a far bigger bitch than Janet Street Porter, and I will only use that bitchiness when I think someone deserves it.

And the huge difference is?  I would never be a complete bitch to a 2-year-old toddler, no matter who their family happens to be.  Unlike Janet Street Porter, I am simply not that mean.

Finally, Prince George’s his top is not a girl’s blouse – the buttons are on the right, but then it has long been commonplace, especially among the gentry, to dress their little ones in clothing which appear feminine.  Indeed, 150 years ago little boys were still being dressed in dresses until they reached school age.

Oh, and he is simply adorable in that pic.  But then, I’m not seeing two members of the royal family; I am only seeing a very happy wee boy, who obviously loves his daddy, and who is well-loved in return.

Belated happy birthday George, from Auntie Xandra.  xx

George and William

Amtrak Engineer’s sexuality blamed for fatal crash

Homophobes never let facts get in the way of a story

On Tuesday, 12 March 2015, Amtrak Northeast Region train 188 from Washington DC to New York City derailed at Port Richmond Junction, Philadelphia, killing eight people and injuring over 70.  The train was travelling at approximately 102 mph in a 50 mph section when it derailed on a left-hand curve.

The Engineer driving the train, 32-year-old Brandon Bostian, survived although he had to be taken to hospital to receive 14 staples to a laceration to his head.  Bostian stated at the time that he had no recollection of events prior to the accident.

As soon as he was identified, the right-wing press and religious fanatics in the USA discovered he is gay, a gay rights activist, put two and two together and came up with five.  Brandon’s sexuality and his gay rights activism are now being openly blamed for the crash, by people who know nothing about him, about train operations, and have pre-empted any enquiry into the incident.

Top hatemonger is right-wing blogger Charles C Johnson, who stated “Gays have a higher rate of mental illness than do straights. You decide if engineer’s homosexuality is worth noting. I report it.

“It is reasonable to ask if this night shift #amtrak188 train driver was on meth or had history with it, given gay proclivities to it.”

In fact, even before it was discovered the Engineer was a white gay man, Johnson immediately surmised that he may have been an African-American, and thereby somehow incapable of driving a train.

Johnson Tweeted;

“Affirmative action hiring low qualified blacks is more often to blame for train derailments than poor infrastructure.”

And…

“We need the name and race of the conductor. I’m offering $400 to first person to get it to me exclusively.”

Seems that Johnson thinks that African-Americans on the railroads are only fit to be porters and should all be referred to as “George”, after George Mortimer Pullman, as was once the case across the USA.  And of course, I would just love to see his peer-reviewed scientific evidence that gay men are more likely to suffer mental illness that heterosexuals.

Sandy Rios of the American Family Association stated she was not claiming that Bostian being gay was the cause of the crash, then inferred exactly that;

“Now I am not saying, I am not inferring to those of you that are gay rights activists and like to monitor this show, I’m not inferring that this accident happened because he was gay, but I do think it’s an interesting part of the story and you can bet it would be edited out,”

Rios said then tried to parallel the case with a transgender person she claims to know, whom she claims was “going through some confusion that has to do with the very core of who they are,”  Rios continued, “Someone I know who worked for a very large airline started taking hormone shots and put his entire plane at risk because he had an emotional, angry outburst to something that happened,”

If Sandy Rios does indeed know a transgender person, which I sincerely doubt, I do hope they slap the stupid out of her for her apparently thinking Brandon Bostian had a ‘gay hissy fit’, and explains to her that gay does not equal transgender, the two are different things, and gay men tend not to take HRT.

Here in the UK, the right-wing newspaper the Daily Mail screamed from their headlines “Engineer REFUSED to give interview to investigators”, and of course had to highlight that Brandon Bostian was gay and a gay rights activist.

More than 200 right-wing sites have reported that Brandon Bostian is gay, all claiming that his sexuality was somehow a factor in the crash, ranging from him being incompetent but employed because of his sexuality, through to claims that he was depressed and decided to commit suicide, taking as many people with him as possible.  The most bizarre comment I read was from someone claiming that because Amtrak are state-owned, it was all a conspiracy to kill as many innocent Christian Americans as possible.  There’s some real whackos out there.

Funny how everybody is an expert all of a sudden.  Just so happens that I am dears.  As surprising as it may seem, I have driven trains in my time.  In fact, on a local preserved railway, I have not only driven diesel trains, I have even on a few occasions driven steam trains, which are very hot, dirty, smelly – and one of the most wonderful fun things in the world.

So here’s a few facts about Brandon Bostian and Amtrak 118.

Far from being “incompetent” employed purely because of his sexuality, Brandon Bostian has in fact been an Engineer with Amtrak for the past five years, with no previous incidents.  Four years prior to that he worked with Amtrak as a Conductor.

The Los Angeles Times picked up this old post from Brandon’s Facebook account;

“At work, I run through a five-item checklist after I inspect my engine and before I touch anything. Then a 10-item checklist before I move the train an inch, and another four-item list at every station stop. So I guess it’s no surprise that I keep a checklist for packing a bag for an overnight trip.”

Does that sound like an incompetent to you?

Brandon Bostian has a record of criticizing Amtrak for not having methods of automatic train protection in place.  He has posted his concerns about this on several industry message boards, including this one from Trainorders.com:

“At any point over the previous EIGHTY years the railroad could have voluntarily implemented some form of this technology. I wish the railroads had been more proactive in adopting active signaling systems from the get-go. (The) reality is that they have had nearly a hundred years of opportunity to implement SOME sort of system to mitigate human error, but with a few notable exceptions have failed to do so.”

Brandon is absolutely correct, and I am somewhat disturbed that the US rail network does not have such a system in place.  As far back as the 1920s, here in the UK the Great Western Railway developed the railway Advanced Warning System (AWS), which was greatly improved as technology increased.  AWS is common across the UK rail network today and works by interactive exchange between signals and driver.  One electromagnet between the rails will send a signal to the cab, causing a bell or buzzer to sound.  The driver then has 3 seconds to hit a button, and if s/he fails to do so, an automatic brake in the train, which cannot be overridden by train crew, comes on.

The more advanced system Brandon Bostian favours is Positive Train Control (PTC), which computer-driven and uses GPS real-time positioning.  Under PTC the on-board computer would “know” track conditions, signalling and speed restrictions ahead, and automatically alter the speed, independent of the driver.  One day trains will have nobody in the cab but one person and a dog.  The person will be there to feed the dog – and the dog will be there to keep the person away from the controls.

Brandon has also on occasion posted about the stress train crews are put under;

“Everyone wants an extension to hours of service to avoid inconvenience, but what will you say when the crew that’s been on duty for longer than 12 hours accidentally falls asleep and passes a stop signal and rear-ends a loaded hazmat train, killing dozens or hundreds of people? A crew is probably not any less safe after 12 hours and one minute than they were a few moments ago, but you have to draw that line somewhere.”

Preliminary findings by the US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) have postulated that Brandon hit the emergency brake before the derailment occurred.  The section before the curve had a 70mph speed limit, dropping to 50mph in the curve.  The last recorded speed was 102mph.

Robert Sumwalt posted on the Board’s Twitter feed, “Moments before derailing, train was placed into “engineer induced braking,” with full brake application.”

Having looked at a grainy CCTV image of the derailment, and the pictures of how the carriages are strewn across the tracks, I would be strongly inclined to agree with Sumwalt on that. I don’t usually like to speculate, but it seems to me that Brandon Bostian suddenly discovered he was way over the speed limit, panicked, and hit the emergency brake.

In fact, I would go further and state that in all probability it was this sudden braking which caused the train to derail.  Ironic as it seems, had Bostian just rode the curve in excess of speed, then brought the brakes on slowly, that would probably have been the safer course of action.  This is why in the olden days Guards were in charge of trains, not drivers.  That fool up front was just there to drive the damned thing, but the Guard was the person trained in bringing a train to a controlled stop if necessary.

And strange as it may seem, the train derailing may have saved lives.  If the emergency brake was hit, then passengers can think themselves lucky that the train was on a curve, causing it to derail.  Had it happened on a straight section, the carriages would have been much more likely to “concertina” into each other, with much greater potential for fatalities.

Brandon Bostian initially refused to talk to investigators without an attorney present.  Once he had an attorney he fully co-operated with the NTSB.  Given that he cannot recall anything prior to the crash, no reasonable person could call this course of action anything but reasonable.

Brandon’s attorney, Robert Goggin, told ABC News that his client not only fully co-operated with police, but even offered up access to this blood, and addressing the claims of some that he may have been texting or on the internet, that he offered up his cellphone;

“Among other things, they indicated that they wanted to get a search warrant for his blood, which we consented to. He said, ‘You don’t need a search warrant, happy to give it to you.’ It had already been drawn at Einstein Hospital. They asked for his cell phone, which they had. [We] said, ‘Have it. Take all the information you want. You don’t need a search warrant for that either. We’ll give it to you.’ I’m assuming [authorities asked for the phone] because they want to see whether he was on the telephone at the time of the accident. So he’s cooperated, and not only that, he’s indicated that he would make himself available to the police if they need any more information.”

Goggin also stated that his client was devastated at the crash;

“The television was on in the police district, and the constant count and recounting of the incident was being broadcast in his face all morning, and he was distraught”

I usually post stories of the LGBTQI community being accused of all sort of things as humour.  On this one, I cannot do so.  I am merely sad and angry.  There are no winners in this.  Certainly not for the 8 dead, or the loved ones who are left to grieve them.

Neither does Brandon Bostian win in this.  He is a lifelong train fanatic who was living his dream job.  This derailment will of course be deeply investigated, and if Brandon was indeed found to be at fault, he faces the possibility of prosecution and imprisonment.  Even if he is not, he has to live the rest of his life with eight deaths on his conscience.  I know some train drivers, and they will tell you that even if it’s one life, it is with them every time they climb into the cab, and it never leaves them.  For a train fanatic like Brandon, this tragedy must be tearing him apart.

Unlike the haters, and unlike those who know diddly-squat about train driving, I am not going to cast judgement on Brandon Bostian, for the simple fact I was not there and I don’t know what happened.

And of course, neither do Charles C Johnson, Sandy Rios, or the rest of the homophobes, who may voice their mock outrage and cast all sort of accusations, pretending to care about the dead and injured.  Of course, they do not; they merely saw an opportunity to attack a gay man and jumped on it.  And in doing so, far from respecting those who died in the crash, they are doing them a gross dishonour by abusing those deaths to promote their own bigotry.

Within hours of the crash, Brandon Bostian blacked out pictures of himself on social media, and is said to be extremely upset at his face being plastered all over the media.  I therefore choose to respect his wishes and shall not be posting any photographs of him.

What the Hell is this “Truscum” business?

Another tool for LGBTQI division?

Thunder and lightning over Montrose as Xandra goes off on an angry rant…

I came across a post from an online trans friend who has been kicked out of her local trans group by “truscum” individuals, for questioning why they demand that trans people should always give an account of their transitioning, oh and apparently they referred to non-binary individuals and some trans women as “trannies”.

I’ve never encountered the word before, so I decided to Google it.

Top of the table comes the Transgender Teen Survival Guide in which an anonymous poster quotes Fox:

“Truscum are trans humans who believe that biological sex dysphoria is required to be trans– but it’s more than that. Truscum have many subnotes on their definitions of trans.

For example, if someone does not hate themselves for their genitalia and is not in constant agony of genital dysphoria, they are not trans enough. They must want to receive hormones and surgery at some point in time.

Those are the basics.”

Now, as I say Loves, this is Fox speaking, so I’m immediately wary of it. However if there is any modicum of truth in it, that sounds like one helluva lot of self-loathing to me, and I simply dont buy it. Okay, I’m not trans myself, I’m genderqueer, but if there is anything my experience has taught me, it is that you have to learn to embrace your gender and sexuality and far from self-loathing, you have to love who and what you are.

Urban Dictionary was a bit more helpful and gives two definitions:

“Truscum also known as transmedicalists are a commonly misunderstood community on Tumblr. They follow the medical definition of transsexualism i.e that it’s a medical condition and that you need sex dysphoria to be trans.

Bun: Truscum hate all non-binary people!

Truscum: Actually, 98% of us actually support non-binary people!”

“Trans people, mostly on Tumblr, who believe you need body dysphoria to be transgender. They police the identities of other transgender people and often mock nonbinary teenagers.

Kei: i’m a demigirl and my pronouns are fae/faer/faeself.
John: OHHH MMY GOD! SPECIAL SNOWFLAKE! IM A REAL TRANS
Kei: shut up truscum”

We see in the first definition that there is an actual online discussion quoted, in which the person defining themselves as a truscum claims that 98% of truscums support non-binary people. Yet in the second one, we see a truscum openly insulting a non-binary person.

The latter is obviously the experience my trans friend encountered before being thrown out of her trans group.

Here is a selection of quotes from the truscum community;

“There are a group of predominantly trans guys who view their gender as a medical condition, transsexualism, and anybody who does not view their trans-ness as such isn’t really trans and is therefore appropriating their medical condition.”

Who the hell is this guy to judge who and who isn’t truly trans? And “trans-ness”?  Someone please call the Grammar Police.

“Anyone who just wakes up in the morning and thinks “I should be trans. That sounds fun” needs a new definition of fun. Bring this way is one the least of last fun things in the world.”

Non-binary / genderqueer people do not just wake up one morning and think it would be fun to be trans. We fully realise that we are not trans, most of us are pretty well read on trans people and fully support them. Of course, we will never fully know what it is to be trans, but we don’t judge either.

“It’s basically a bunch of generally straight kids who want to feel special but rather than wait for time or necessity to build a personality will come up with stuff like “Gloomgender” instead of being one of those cis scum going through a goth phase.”

‘Cis scum’?  And notice that anyone who doesn’t fit this person’s definition of trans is “generally straight”.

“Dysphoria is basically the state of having sex organs that the brain perceives as incorrect. I’d assume that non-binaries just require something that isn’t male or female.”

Then you assume wrong. I don’t choose to be genderqueer or dress in feminine clothes, and I’m sure my non-binary friends here will agree with me on that.

“Genderqueer or genderfluid refers to a person who feels very strongly male some days and female others.”

No, it really doesn’t. I don’t wake up in the morning and think “I feel particularly male / female” today. If this person thinks that of genderqueer people, then they are as thick as shit in the neck of a bottle. Like any gender / sexuality, being genderqueer is never a choice.

So, for all the claims of some who identify as truscum, we see that there is an awful lot of hate and ignorance out there.

On top of the above we have my trans friend’s experience of her group demanding that trans people must give an account of their transition – or they are not “true” trans, and referring to non-binary people and some trans woman (one would assume pre-op) by the deeply derogatory term, “trannies”.

I have no doubt my friend’s experience is a severe example, but just what sort of person demands that someone divulge the details of their medical history, and then judges them as less than worthy when they refuse to do so? Seems to me that any trans person faced with that should tell those asking to fuck right off and mind their own damned business.

As strange as it may seem – and I know it is rarely known – I could be wrong (sorry to disillusion some readers but I’m not perfect after all), but it seems to me that this truscum identity can only ever be detrimental to the cause of gender / sexuality human rights of all.

I can fully appreciate that many trans people do have gender dysphoria. However, to say you are only a “true” trans if you do have gender dysphoria seems more than a little authoritarian to me. Some truscum say they are taking the medical definition. Fair enough, take that medical definition – which was given to us by a cisgender heterosexual hierarchy. Surely, as little Stephie in the cartoon above makes the point, if a trans woman is pre-op and has a penis, they are still no less a woman, just as a pre-op trans man with a vulva, is still a man? Where then does that leave those born intersex who identify as one or the other of the gender binary? Where indeed does it leave the trans person who would dearly love to transition, but simply will not ever be able to afford what is an extremely expensive procedure?

If some truscum people are maintaining that if you cannot be a “true” trans unless you fit their criteria, and that non-binary people are simply making a “choice”, then that is gender fascism as every bit as insidious as the TERFs. By making such definitions and demands, they are indeed reinforcing the gender binary, and are attempting to set themselves up as a ‘gender elite’ – and we are all aware just how dangerous those sort of ideas can be. Ultimately such views can only be harmful to the LGBTQI community as a whole.

All of us in the LGBTQI community need each other. We have too big and too powerful an enemy in the form of homophobes and transphobes, and even just the cishet “norm”, to be fighting among ourselves. If one group within the community is attacking any other group, then they are not only doing the bigots job for them, they have joined the bigots.

If any truscums, or anyone else, thinks that I make a “choice” to be genderqueer, then bring it on dears. You know nothing about me, so you are hardly in a position to judge me. I am the expert on my body, my gender and my sexuality; you are not. I understand what it is to be genderqueer; you know fuck all about it.

I did not suddenly wake up one morning and decide to start crossdressing and act feminine. It is something I fought all my adult life, and that caused me no end of depression. I only came to begin to accept it around five years ago, and even a cursory glance at the history of my blog will make people realise that I was still trying to work out my actual gender and sexuality when I first came on here. I was in denial for a long time before identifying as pansexual and genderqueer. I didn’t go through a lifetime of angst and confusion, just for some know-nothing fuckwit to tell me I am merely making a choice. Particularly if it’s some acne-ridden little squit of the type who tend to patronise Reddit. Come back in 20 years when you have some life experience, dearies.

Finally, I see that some truscums use the term “Special Snowflake” to deride non-binary / genderqueer people. I’m not sure what that’s about, but know what? I kinda like it, so I’ll embrace it, purely because I am camp, I am a fairy, I am what is known here in Scotland as “a big Jessie”, and I’m PROUD of it; I am a feminine pretty girlie, and I’ll be a FABULOUS special snowflake.

Loch Lomond venue twice turns gay couples away

“We can’t allow people like you here”

With the advent of same sex marriage becoming legal in Scotland, John and Stephen Devaney, who have been in a civil partnership since 2006, looked to becoming legally wed.  Having entered into negotiations with Loch Lomond Waterfront, Balmaha, John thought he had found the perfect romantic setting for their wedding.

But when owners Charles and Suzanne Cottam realised they were dealing with a same sex couple, it suddenly became a different matter.  Suzanne Cottam bluntly told John “We can’t allow people like you here.” and when John remonstrated that marriage is now a civil right in Scotland, Mrs Cottam retorted “I’m the owner. I can do as I like. A marriage should be between a man and a woman.”

Left reeling, and seeking an alternative venue, John Devaney told his story to Glasgow-based newspaper the Daily Record, so that others may know how they were treated.  He told the newspaper “We’ve fought for many years for equal rights. That woman stripped me of them in an instant.”

Following the story however, another same sex couple, known only as Greig and John, contacted the Daily Record to tell how they too had been turned away by the Cottams for same sex wedding.

Like John and Stephen, Greig and John have been civil partners for four years, and looked to change their relationship to a legal marriage.  To that end Greig emailed Loch Lomond Waterfront with enquiries concerning a same sex marriage.  Charles Cottam replied by email, “it would be wrong to keep from you and your family our deeply-held religious beliefs and our sincere adherence to the traditional view of marriage. This is why we would prefer not to host a civil partnership wedding.”

Greig replied by email to point out that they wanted a wedding ceremony, not a civil partnership one, and to date has received no reply to date.

The Daily Record has since contacted the Cottams who deny the claims and that they are taking legal advice.  Well, I certainly hope they are, considering that the Daily Record has published the email from Charles Cottam to Greig in full, and that the couple have now broken Scots Law on two occasions.

And I do hope that any resulting court action teaches the Cottams that they cannot refuse service on grounds of discrimination, that they cannot do as they like, and that any court case is costful to them in the extreme – hopefully to the point that it puts them out of business altogether.  Frankly, we can’t allow people like them in Scotland.

---

Report in the Daily Record can be found here:

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/we-cant-host-your-ceremony-5241356

Conflict within the LGBT community – a rant.

Right, listen up and listen up good.  I have just about had enough of conflict within the LGBT community.

I have been reading things which suggest that I am something less than equal because I am not transgender.  Apparently according to some – and you know who you are – I merely put on a “persona” as a woman.  Those stating this claim it does not make a difference.  Well if it doesn’t, why even say it then?

You are defining a difference.  And when you do that, you demean another human being.  Well to Hell with  you.  I am making a stand for myself and crossdressers everywhere.  You don’t know who I am, you don’t know other crossdressers, so don’t bloody well tell me I am “different”.

Do you know what you are saying is like?  It is like making a racist comment then saying to anyone of a different race to you “Oh but not you.  We know you’re okay.”

I’ll even go one further.  I once encountered a man-hating feminazi who dismissed the entire crossdressing and transgender community on the grounds that no male to female transgender can ever be a women as “I have a womb, they do not.”

How does that feel?  Make you feel uncomfortable, does it?  Insulting?  Hurtful?  Good.  Now you know how I and other crossdressers feel when you say we are just “putting on a persona”.

You may see it that way but Xandra is an integral part of me – perhaps the better part of me, and when you try to make any differences, your words are hurtful.  You may wish to keep that in mind.

Your claims are every bit as insidious as the gays and lesbians who deride bisexuals and claim they don’t exist.  We are all in the LGBT community, we – of ALL people – should be the ones standing by each other and presenting a united front against the bigots.  One would have thought the trans community would be the first to realise that.

Oh, and as I have been crossed, you have brought the bitch out, so my final parting shot is to the person whose blog mentioned this in the first place.  I’ll remind you dear that it was not too long ago you were writing about going back to being a man, and it was me among others who advised you that it wouldn’t work.

Bigots force Scots Transwoman to Flee Home Town

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/trans-woman-flees-scottish-town-which-branded-her-witch130613

I found that a lot of the people who worked in security would be standing around laughing and staff workers would also follow me around, jumping to conclusions. – See more at: http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/trans-woman-flees-scottish-town-which-branded-her-witch130613#sthash.Yx3MEqu4.dpuf

I found that a lot of the people who worked in security would be standing around laughing and staff workers would also follow me around, jumping to conclusions. – See more at: http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/trans-woman-flees-scottish-town-which-branded-her-witch130613#sthash.Yx3MEqu4.dpuf

I found that a lot of the people who worked in security would be standing around laughing and staff workers would also follow me around, jumping to conclusions. – See more at: http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/trans-woman-flees-scottish-town-which-branded-her-witch130613#sthash.Yx3MEqu4.dpuf