Crossdressing and Sexual Fetishism

A fetish?  My arse!

They are rarely one and the same thing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’m Genderqueer, and I won’t boycott Zoolander 2

Benerdict Cumberbatch as “All”

Complainants don’t know what they are talking about.

It has been 14 years since ‘Zoolander’ was released, a zany comedy which mocks the modelling industry, in which Ben Stiller plays Derek Zoolander, a narcissistic and slow-witted male model who becomes the unwitting tool in a plot to kill the Malaysian Prime Minister.

We’ve waited a long time for the sequel, which is due out next year and in which Benerdict Cumberbatch plays the latest top model, called All, who is of a heavily androgynous appearance.

No sooner did the trailer for Zoolander 2 appear than a bunch of keyboard social warriors got all butthurt about the character of All, claiming that it mocks non-binary people and that a genderfluid actor should have played the part, instead of the cisgender Cumberbatch.  So up in arms are some commentators, that a petition has been launched to boycott Zoolander 2 and complaining to the makers, Paramount Pictures about their portrayal of All.

So, having found the petition, it appears the person who started it does not know what the hell she is talking about – oh there’s a surprise – or anything at all about gender issues – no surprise their either.

“In the “Zoolander 2″ trailer, an androgynous character played by Benedict Cumberbatch is asked by Zoolander and Hansel if he is a ‘male or female model’, and if they ‘have a hot dog or a bun,” bemoans petitioner Sarah Rose on Care2Petitions, “Additionally, Cumberbatch’s character is clearly portrayed as an over-the-top, cartoonish mockery of androgyne/trans/non-binary individuals. This is the modern equivalent of using blackface to represent a minority.

“If the producers and screenwriters of Zoolander wanted to provide social commentary on the presence of trans/androgyne individuals in the fashion industry, they could have approached models like Andreja Pejic to be in the film. By hiring a cis actor to play a non-binary individual in a clearly negative way, they film endorses harmful and dangerous perceptions of the queer community at large.

“Tell Paramount Pictures, Ben Stiller, and Benedict Cumberbatch that mocking transgender/androgyne/gender fluid individuals is not okay – sign this petition to pledge to boycott the film!”

It never ceases to amaze me the number of people who haunt the internet apparently looking for something to complain about.  They remind me of the Socialist Worker’s Party, who are always looking for this week’s ’cause’, and moving onto whatever is topical / popular the following week.

It also never fails to amaze me just how many of these people get their facts wrong, or do not know what they are talking about.  So if we are going to mention gender bigotry, I am going to pick Sarah Rose up herself on that very topic.

Notice how in the first paragraph above, she states “Additionally, Cumberbatch’s character is clearly portrayed as an over-the-top, cartoonish mockery of androgyne/trans/non-binary individuals.”  In the second paragraph she says “trans/androgyne” and “hiring a cis actor to play a non-binary individual” and in the final paragraph she states “mocking transgender/androgyne/gender fluid individuals is not okay”.

By making these statements, it is clear that Sarah Rose equates all three groups – transgender, genderfluid, and androgynous – to be one and the same. This is so much ignorance, it is vertigo-enducing. And what is the name for making generalisations and assumptions based on uninformed ignorance? Bigotry, that’s what.

Some transgender people appear androgynous, as do many genderqueer people. Many do not. Indeed, I am sure that many of my trans and non-binary friends here shall, like me, be bloody furious about any inference that we are androgynous, especially after the time and money we put into appearing feminine.

Some non-binary people appear male, some appear female, some appear androgynous, and the same pertains to transgender people (I have to admit though, all my trans and genderfluid friends here are drop-dead gorgeous women – luv you all). They are not and never shall be all one and the same thing. Hands up all my trans readers who consider themselves genderqueer. Hands up all my genderfluid readers who consider themselves trans. Hands up all of you who think you are “androgynous”. Nobody? No, thought not.

And of course, by equal measure, there are those who appear androgynous but who are in fact cisgender. My own preference for men is not hunks, but androgynous ‘pretty boys’. For instance, musically I can’t stand that talentless fuck Justin Bieber (who also appears in Zoolander 2), but I would jump him at a moment’s unnotice.

This is an important distinction. There are scenes in the original Zoolander movie where Derek Zoolander and his adversary-come-friend Hansel (Owen Wilson) appear androgynous, while the evil Mugatu (Will Farrell) is of androgynous appearance throughout the movie. Strangely enough David Bowie, whom I can recall being very androgynous in the 1970s, had no problem with having a cameo in that movie.

And this is where the complainants appear to be missing the point of the movie. Many male models do indeed appear androgynous. There is always work in the modelling industry for young pretty boys of ambiguous gender. Don’t tell me there’s not, dears – I’ve seen more than my fair share of them. But because of the shallow nature of modelling, the Zoolander movies aim to parody that shallowness and the narcissism of the modelling industry. Therefore, if Sarah Rose and others think that Benerdict Cumberbatch’s portrayal is a “cartoonish mockery”, I suggest that she go and actually have a look at some (not all – before the keyboard warriors jump on my back) male models who do appear androgynous and some of whom are indeed “cartoonish”. I am reminded of a line from a Crass song “The painted mask of ugly perfection.”

I will go further, it could be said that Sarah Rose is guilty of bigotry by her use of the term “the queer community”. Now, I have read one of my friends here suggesting that instead of the steadily growing abbreviation of LGBTQIA (try making a word out of that in Scrabble), we all just use the term “queer”, and I happen to agree with that. However, for the LGBT+ community to refer to themselves thus is not in common usage, and it could be argued that to use the term ‘queer’ in this way still carries negative connotations. Unless of course, she was meaning the shortened version for genderqueer, which again would be wrongly conflating transgender and androgynous with genderfluid.

So, why not have a genderfluid actor play the part? Would Sarah Rose and her supporters be happy with that? Yes? Really? Strange that, because at first she complains of the comments directed at All, “if he is a ‘male or female model’, and if they ‘have a hot dog or a bun'”, then states that the role should not have been played by a cisgender actor. So, if the role was played by a non-binary actor, would that have made the comments okay? Actually, it could be argued that some non-binary actors would not play the role because of comments which could be construed as derogatory.

Incidentally, as a genderqueer pansexual crossdresser, I don’t have any problems whatsoever with those comments and take them in the humorous context they are intended. But then I’m grown up enough not to throw a hissy fit over the slightest little comment.

Interesting also that she suggests model Andreja Pejic as a replacement for Cumberbatch. Why not? Because Pejic is a model, not a fucking actor. Strutting on a catwalk and posing for cameras is no guarantee of acting ability, and there are plenty of models-turned-actors who have proven that. Can we take it that Sarah Rose could not think of any genderfluid actors? Has she never heard of Eddie Izzard? Laverne Cox? Ruby Rose? Jaden Smith (Will Smith’s son has recently been very active in challenging the gender binary)? I could mention many more, but then, unlike the Butthurt Brigade, I’m interested in cinema.

Zoolander is one of my favourite comedy movies purely because of it’s zany, wicked and at times cruel humour.  As a genderqueer person, I have absolutely no problems with Zoolander 2, which no doubt will have me as much in tears of laughter as the original, and I can’t wait for it to come out.  And I have no doubt a great many other non-binary people feel the same way.

When cisgender actor Eddie Redmayne played trans woman Lili Elbe in The Danish Girl, that was a legitimate cause for complaint, as was Elle Fanning playing the lead of a trans man in About Ray. Both of these were serious movies concerning the struggles which transgender people face, and quite rightly should have been played by transgender actors. Zoolander does not fall into the same category. Benerdict Cumberbatch is not playing a lead role, but a supporting one, in a comedy.  The movie does not seek to  “provide social commentary on the presence of trans/androgyne individuals in the fashion industry” but rather to parody and send up one of the most absurd industries on the face of the planet.

And if the social justice warriors cannot realise that, and cannot differentiate between transgender, genderqueer, and androgynous, then I suggest they attend a course at the Derek Zoolander School for Kids Who Can’t Read Good (and Want to Do Other Stuff Good Too).

 

---

 Zoolander 2 Trailer:

Missing the Target

Action and adventure…

Any step against gender labelling is a positive one

The US-based retail giant, Target, does not have any UK stores, and if you wish to buy from them you have to do so online.

Nonetheless, one has to applaud a decision they took recently, to remove gender-based labelling and decor from some of their departments.  All the more so because they took that decision in response to customer feedback.

On their corporate website, A Bullseye View, Target stated:

“Historically, guests have told us that sometimes—for example, when shopping for someone they don’t know well—signs that sort by brand, age or gender help them get ideas and find things faster. But we know that shopping preferences and needs change and, as guests have pointed out, in some departments like Toys, Home or Entertainment, suggesting products by gender is unnecessary.

“We heard you, and we agree. Right now, our teams are working across the store to identify areas where we can phase out gender-based signage to help strike a better balance. For example, in the kids’ Bedding area, signs will no longer feature suggestions for boys or girls, just kids. In the Toys aisles, we’ll also remove reference to gender, including the use of pink, blue, yellow or green paper on the back walls of our shelves. You’ll see these changes start to happen over the next few months.”

I like how Target are making the distinction of the more subtle differences here, such as not using pink and blue backing paper on shelves.  Sometimes gender segregation in store is more subtle than some people notice.

When I posted the Target story on Facebook, I was met with comments from people claiming they had never seeing aisles segregated by gender.  Of course, those making those comments were speaking from their position of cis privilege.  They don’t see them because they don’t look, and because they are cis, it does not register in their brains.

I was in a toy store recently and I could not help but notice that the store was indeed segregated, not by signage, but by colour.  One side was pink, and had dolls, dolls houses, kids make-up sets, and all the other toys traditionally associated with girls.  The other side was blue, and had toy cars, guns, cowboy outfits, and all the other toys traditionally associated with boys.

Were it not enough that this store was clearly making a distinction between genders and toys which the owners had obviously decided suited either side of the gender binary, I noticed something that made my blood boil.  The pink – girls – side had all the artists materials; the blue – boys – side had all the scientific toys.

What message is that sending, exactly?  And with attitudes like that, is it any wonder that many more men go into the field of science than women, and men taking an interest in or pursuing a career in the arts is still seen as fette among the cishet majority?

The backlash against Target has been considerable.  Their website is full of comments from disgruntled Americans saying they will not shop at Target any more.  Good, don’t let the door hit you on the arse on the way out, Sweetie.  On the plus side those bigots are getting a few replies from those supporting Target saying they won’t be missed.

And of course there has been the usual media backlash, particularly from the right-wing US media who claim to report news, but seem to exist only to push their opinions upon others.  And of course, Fox are leading the field.  On Fox and Friends, host Brian Kilmeade claimed he would have problems choosing what toys to buy for the children in his life.  Really Brian? Do what I do, dear; ask the parents – or even the kids themselves.  Probably most disturbing were the comments from psychotherapist Tom Kersting;

“I understand there’s this whole gender neutral agenda going on,  and I actually have clients of mine that are — don’t really know what gender they are.  I don’t want to confuse kids that are young when we take them to a toy store, having them question what their gender is,  That’s the problem I have with that.”

Who is Tom Kersting?  I did a little digging and found out he is indeed a therapist and counsellor, for marriages and families.  He is also a hypnotherapist, which given that is a highly controversial and scientifically unproven field – which has been proven to suggest false memories – sets alarm bells off in my head immediately.  He is also the therapist on the US ‘reality’ show, A&E.  As the above paragraph suggests, he has no expertise in the field of gender dysphoria, and the fact he refers to a “whole gender neutral agenda”, and claims that he has clients who do not know which gender they are, only serves to highlight his ignorance in the entire question of gender.  In other words he’s a television showman and a hypnotherapist quack who does not know what he is talking about and is unqualified to make any comment on the gender issue.  And that dears, is why I have a problem with him.

You know what the real problem with the objectors is?  Ignorant homophobic and transphobic bigotry.  They are scared that if their little darling Johnny plays with dolls, or little sweetie Jenny plays with a train set, in their minds they imagine them becoming homosexual or transgender.  And of course, those of us who are better educated fully realise that decision has already been taken in the womb, and hell and high water will not change that.  And that fact just further underlines Tom Kersting’s ignorance upon this subject.  If he is unaware gender and sexuality are formed before birth, then one wonders just where he got his qualifications from, and how.  I played with Action Man as a child (GI Joe in the USA) and had a whole load of paraphenalia concering this militaristic toy.  It no sooner made me grow up cishet than it made me violent.  The ideas of toys conditioning gender, sexuality, or behaviours is completely bogus and has not one shred of solid scientific evidence to back it up.  Boys play with dolls and plushies, girls play with war toys and train sets (and we all still play with Lego), whatever their gender or sexuality – get used to it.

In the end, just what are Action Man / GI Joe, and action figures (which some never grow out of) if they are not dolls?

I see I have also been as guilty as most in concentrating upon children in this article, when of course Target are not only removing gender-based signs from many departments, not just toys, and are doing so based upon customer feedback.  The very words were, “some departments like Toys, Home or Entertainment, suggesting products by gender is unnecessary.”  Equally true.  I am very girlie (You don’t say, Xandra?  Oh I do say, dear.) but the devil will be skating to work before I ever watch a chick flick or read a trashy romantic novel.  Things like that give me, as we say in Scotland, the dry boak.  I base my bedding around the decor in my room.  Am I to be told that I cannot buy bedding because it’s based on gender?

If my female partner was frowned upon or patronised for going into a hardware department, she’d probably show the staff that there is more than one use for a staple gun.

I simply loved what one woman had to say in the comments on the Target website; thank you Ms Angela Yates of Richmond, IN.

“For all of those who are upset about this change, how would you feel if the cleaning supplies aisle said “Women’s” and the tool aisle said “Men’s” because we all know that only women can clean and do housework and men are the only ones handy with a hammer, right?!“

I cannot say that I am a big fan of Target.  I don’t buy from them online and if they had stores here in the UK, I would not enter one.  Not because of the above change but rather because earlier this year they closed down their Canadian stores and rather shittily made over 17,000 of their Canadian employees unemployed as a consequence.  Shame on you for that, Target.

Their step in ending gender-specific aisles and departments is one to be applauded, however; firstly, because it was an action in response to customer feedback, and secondly, because it is the thin end of the wedge which could very well make other stores follow their lead.

And should any readers of this think that would be the end of civilisation as we know it, or like Fox’s Brian Kilmeade think it will cause them considerable confusion in making choices when buying gifts for children and other loved ones, just ask yourself this question;

Just how do you reckon blind people make such choices?

---

The press release on the Target website (and attached odious comments) can be read here:

https://corporate.target.com/article/2015/08/gender-based-signs-corporate

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.

New Equalities Minister stood against Same Sex Marriage

Caroline Dinenage MP

(But she promises to support it now)

With a new Conservative government being formed at Westminster, the Prime Minister, David Cameron has appointed a new Equalities Minister for England, and his choice is Caroline Dinenage – who not only voted against Same Sex Marriage but took a strong stance against it in public.

In 2013 Ms Dinenage replied to a letter from a reader of Pink News in which she stated that marriage is defined in Canon Law as “one man, one woman”, that this definition is “distinctive”, that the state had no right to change that definition, nor was there any need for it in her opinion.

Ms Dinenage stated in her letter,  “As you may know, as the established Church, its own Canon Law is part of the law of the land and one of its canons states that marriage is in its nature a union of “one man and one woman”.

She continued, “I therefore believe that the institution of marriage is distinctive and the State has no right to redefine its meaning – these proposals were not included in any of the three main manifestoes nor did it feature in the Coalition’s Programme for Government. As I have mentioned, under current law same-sex couples can have a civil partnership but not a civil marriage and I believe that there is no legitimate reason to change this.”

Ms Dinenage subsequently also voted against same-sex marriage in the last parliament.

Caroline Dinenage is the Conservative Member of Parliament for Gosport.  In 2013 the MP, who is also a mother of two children, left her husband and entered a relationship with fellow Conservative MP, Mark Lancaster.  Lancaster walked out on his wife of 12 years, Katherine, in 2007 and moved in with Journalist Amanda Evans.  18 months later he left Evans, just four months after the birth of their baby daughter, and entered a relationship with election agent Kathryn Buckie, but their relationship soured.  After Dinenage and Lancaster entered into relationship in 2013, the pair married in February 2014.

Strangely enough, for all her moral outrage against same-sex marriage, Caroline Dinenage has never once made any mention on what the Bible has to say about a wife disobeying her husband, divorce, adultery, and sex outwith marriage, all four of which she has participated in.

With her new appointment however, Ms Dinenage claims to have had a change of heart.  She told Pink News that she is now “fully committed” to LGBT equality and that she was “looking forward” to her new post.

Caroline Dinenage stated “I know that some of your readers will be concerned about my voting record on same-sex marriage however, I want to be clear – I am fully committed to advancing the cause of LGBT equality and support the law on same-sex marriage.

“I’m proud that the UK has just been named the most progressive country in Europe for LGB & T rights for the fifth year running, but as the new minister for equalities I know there’s no room for complacency.

“That is why I’m particularly looking forward to taking forward this government’s work on tackling homophobic bullying in schools and implementing our manifesto commitment to introducing a new law that will build on the posthumous pardon for Alan Turing by erasing the historic convictions of those who would be completely innocent of any crime today.

“I’ll be meeting with LGBT organisations such as Stonewall as soon as possible to discuss this Government’s priorities for this parliament.”

I for one shall believe it when I see it – and I’m not holding my breath. Right away I am concerned at the lack of “Q” and “I” in that statement.  At least the Scottish Parliament has extended their definition to “LGBTI”.

It also may interest Ms Dinenage to learn that while boasting “the UK has just been named the most progressive country in Europe for LGB & T rights for the fifth year running”, it was actually Scotland, which she will have no remit over (thank goodness) which led the league table, with 92%, while the rest of the UK achieved 86%.  One can only wonder if England would have achieved that figure had Ms Dinenage’s appointment been known when IGLA (International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association) drew up this year’s “Rainbow Index”?  I sincerely doubt it.

Meanwhile in a poll in Pink News, over 90% of readers have voted that Caroline Dinenage should never have been appointed Equalities Minister.

During the UK General Election, Conservative Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, said of Scottish National Party leader Nicola Sturgeon, “You wouldn’t get Herod to run a baby farm, would you?”  Where England’s LGBTQI community are concerned, it seems to me that Boris’s old school chum and Conservative Party leader, David Cameron has just done precisely that.

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

But it’s bad news for London

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Little Malta leads the world on Intersex Babies

Tiny country with a huge heart bans unnecessary surgery

The Republic of Malta can hardly be called one of the biggest players on the world stage.  A tiny archipelago of islands in the eastern Mediterranean Sea, it has a land mass of 122 square miles and a population of a mere 450,000.  HIstorically it has always been an important port of strategic importance, and a crossroads of civilisations.  The Phoenicians, Romans, Moors, Normans, Sicilians, Habsburg Spanish, the Knights of Saint John Hospitalier, French and the British Empire all ruled it in turn, before it became independent in 1964, and a republic in 1974,  Since Saint Paul (allegedly) was shipwrecked on the islands, it has been an important centre for Christianity.  A stronghold for Crusaders, it was the Knights of St John who gave us the Maltese Cross.  To this day the island republic remains fiercely and fanatically Roman Catholic.

So, one may think with such a long history of religion, and staunch adherence and blind loyalty of the population to the diktats of Rome, that Malta would be strongly against the rights of the individual to determine their own gender.  And you would be wrong.  In a move which completely surprised me, on Wednesday 1 April 2015, the Maltese Parliament voted to ban surgery on intersex babies (i.e. babies born with organs of both biological genders).

In passing the new law, the Maltese Parliament is determined that the identity of a child as male or female must lie with each individual themselves as the grow, and shall now work with medical professionals to ensure that the rights of intersex children are protected.  They also seek to ensure that any surgery which may take place is wholly and not “driven by social factors without the consent of the minor”.

This new law also contains protection for trans and intersex people and is being hailed as some of the most progressive in the world.

“I am very proud to be from a country that has from now on the most comprehensive and respectful laws when it comes to the rights of trans and intersex people.” said Maltese Member of the European Parliament, Miriam Dalli, “No one should be declared mentally ill, undergo forced surgery or being forced to go through a divorce, in order to be recognised as who they truly are. I sincerely hope that the whole of Europe will follow Malta’s example, and that such degrading practices will be issues of the past.”

I couldn’t agree more.  Malta has not only led Europe and the world in one of the most progressive steps in protecting gender identity ever, but they put the rest of the world to shame.  They have proven that size and prestige really does not matter.  You don’t have to be the biggest or most powerful on the world stage to be the most progressive, or to take a very brave stand against the powerful, i.e. Rome, who would frown upon your acts.  A small voice is sometimes the most effective.

Arja Voipio, co-chair of Transgender Europe, stated, “Lawmakers in the rest of Europe should take inspiration from this trail-blazer for swift action.”

Indeed they should.  And I in particular look to my own little Scotland to follow their lead.  Now that Scotland has hate crime laws and some of the most progressive equal marriage laws in the world, it is time for intersex children to have legal protection.

Let little Stephie steal your heart away

Sophie Labelle informs about transgender issues – through cartooning

Hello dears, following an earlier post about her, cartoonist Sophie Labelle has very kindly given me permission to copy her artwork here to promote her work.

Sophie draws a cartoon strip I follow on Facebook, “Assigned Male – A webcomic about a transgender girl”  The cartoon follows the life of Stephie, a little trans girl and her struggles with the perceptions of others, some of which is based on the artist’s own life experiences.  Stephie can make you laugh one moment, cry the next; reading the comic you can go from joy to anger, and back to joy, in just a few panels.  Like all good cartoon characters, Stephie finds a way into your heart, and stays there for good.

The work Sophie Labelle is doing is quite fantastic, as she is using the medium of cartooning on social media to deliver positive messages and inform people about transgender people, as well as tackling other political gender issues.

Ultimately Sophie, through Stephie and her other wonderful characters, informs about gender issues, corrects mistaken perceptions and misconceptions about trans people, challenges bigotry and gender dichotomies, and reinforcing the message that all genders are valid, with bold statements such as “I am the expert of my own gender identity” – now there’s a truth everyone, regardless of gender, can identify with.

Cartoon strips apart, Sophie Labelle has other works available, including A Short Guide for the inclusion of trans, intersex and gender non-conforming youth in the classroom, for which her school has recently given her a scholarship to put into printed form.  My own particular favourites though have to be Surprise Box and Penguins Won’t Judge; colouring books which teach children (and some adults) that everyone is different and there is no shame in being so.

And this is why I champion Sophie Labelle so much dears.  I have no personal contacts to her, I just believe in what she is doing and that the way she is doing it has massive potential to reach a wider audience, and thereby inform and educate about gender issues.

Assigned Male and other works by Sophie Labelle can be found on Facebook, Tumblr and Etsy.  Come along and have a look, and let her steal your heart away too:

https://www.facebook.com/assignedmale/timeline

assignedmale.tumblr.com

assignedmale.etsy.com

Those wishing to sponsor Sophie Labelle can do so on Patreon:

www.patreon.com/sophielabelle

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

National Union of Students passes discriminatory motions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pope Nukes Trans People

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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