A Tale of Two Court Cases

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.

Court of Session, Edinburgh: Lorna M Campbell, Wikimedia Commons

I’d love to know just what gets into the minds of Scotland’s judiciary, when they can make two judgements on separate cases concerning gender diversity on two consecutive days, which are apparently contradictory.

The first case concerns the forthcoming Scottish Census, which has been put back to 2022 due to the Coronavirus pandemic. The census will contain the mandatory question, “What is your sex?”, to which people can answer “male” or “female”, and a voluntary question related to gender diversity. Guidance on the census shall state “if you are transgender, the answer you can give can be different from what is on your birth certificate – you do not need a gender recognition certificate (GRC)”

The “women’s” group (which excludes transgender women, so not really a women’s group) Fair Play for Women (FPFW) launched a legal challenge in the Court of Session to this question and guidance, arguing that it contravened the 1920 Census Act. Their legal representative, Roddy Dunlop QC (notice that this “women’s” group had to rely upon a male Queen’s Counsel) argued that the distinction between sex and gender is “recognised in law”, as stated on either a birth certificate, or Gender Recognition Certificate (both of which would stick rigidly to the traditional gender binary – so much for us poor enbies), and that allowing to do otherwise would “approve unlawful conduct”, more or less saying that being transgender is effectively a crime.

Dunlop stated, “The position of the petitioner is that you have the sex you’re born with and you have a gender recognition certificate – those are the two legal possibilities, there is no other.”

Defending for the Scottish Govenment, Douglas Ross QC countered that the Census Act was “designed to evolve with the times and accommodate changes”, adding that FPFW were asking a “rigid and unaccommodating definition”, which he recommended the court should reject.

In his written judgement on 17 February, Lord Sandison, presiding, sided with the Scottish Government, stating there existed “no general rule or principle of law that a question as to a person’s sex may only properly be answered by reference to the sex stated on that person’s birth certificate or GRC”, adding, “an answer provided in good faith and on reasonable grounds would not be a false answer in the relevant sense, even if persons other than the respondent providing it might not think it the ‘right’ answer… …Some transgender people at the very least would not be answering the sex question falsely by stating that their sex was other than that recorded on their birth certificate and the guidance merely acknowledges that.”

Lord Sandison, who is fast becoming my favourite magistrate, also said that gender issues were “much more openly and widely discussed and debated” today than they were in 1920, when the original laws were drawn up. He also stated, “I would accept the suggestion that biological sex, sex recognised by law, or self-identified or “lived” sex as at the date of the census are all capable of being comprehended within the word.”

FPFW were hoping to win this case, as they won a similar case in the English courts in 2021, which resulted in a simliar gender question in the 2021 census for England and Wales being changed. However, Lord Sandison made the very valid point that Scots Law differs from English Law. And quite rightly too, as had FPFW won, then it would effectively have seen English Law imposed upon Scotland, which not even the architects of the 1707 Act of Union envisaged. When the Treaty of Union was drawn up, it was agreed that Scotland and England would retain their own unique law, education, and ecclesiastical systems.

Lord Sanidson concluded that Scotland’s census guidance was “notably limited in nature” compared to that in other parts of the UK, stating “it does not positively instruct or even recommend any particular mode of answering the sex question in individual cases”.

So, that’s a win for gender diversity, and a loss for FPFW, who appear to have lost their census (sorry, dears, I couldn’t resist).

The second case is not such good news. The group For Women’s Scotland Limited (yes, they have registered themselves as a limited company) raised a civil case in the Court of Session, following a judgement last year by Lady Wise, when they failed to convince her to rule that the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018 was unlawful.

Their argument is that the above Act breaches the Equality Act 2010, which was passed by the UK Government, and that the Scottish Government cannot contravene this as equalities law is a reservered matter for Westminster.

Take note here; For Women Scotland claim to in favour of Scottish independence and are often present at independence marches and rallies.

Advocate Aiden O’Neill QC (another women’s group depending upon a man) argued that Lady Wise was incorrect in her interpretation of the law. He argued that the Equality Act contains “protected characteristics” to protect people from sex discrimination, and those characteristics were defined as being either male or female, or a group of people like men or boys, or women or girls, adding that case law on sex discrimination defined women on the basis of unique biological features – such as fertility.

Pretending to be a trans ally, Mr O’Neill added that a separate clause in the Equality Act to protect transgender individuals.

He argued that the Scottish Government’s proposals to help transgender people gain greater representation on public boards undermined the rights that women had under the Equality Act.

The case was heard by judges Lady Dorrian, Lord Pentland and Lord Malcolm, and on Friday, 18 February, just one day after the FPFW case in the same court, Lady Dorrian gave her written judgement that the Scottish legislation does indeed broach the Equality Act 2010, and that the 2018 leglislation was “outwith” the legal competence of the Scottish Government.

She wrote;

“By incorporating those transsexuals living as women into the definition of woman the 2018 Act conflates and confuses two separate and distinct protected characteristics, and in one case qualifies the nature of the characteristic which is to be given protection.

“It would have been open to the Scottish Parliament to include an equal opportunities objective on public boards aimed at encouraging representation of women. It would have been open to them separately to do so for any other protected characteristic, including that of gender reassignment.

“That is not what they have done. They have chosen to make a representation objective in relation to women but expanded the definition of women to include only some of those possessing another protected characteristic.

“In any event, the definition of woman adopted in the legislation includes those with the protected sex characteristic of women, but only some of those with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

“It qualifies the latter characteristic by protecting only those with that characteristic who are also living as women.

“The Lord Ordinary (Lady Wise) stated that the 2018 Act did not redefine ‘woman’ for any other purpose than ‘to include transgender women as another category’ of people who would benefit from the positive measure.

“Therein lies the rub: ‘transgender women’ is not a category for these purposes; it is not a protected characteristic and for the reasons given, the definition of “woman” adopted in the Act impinges on the nature of protected characteristics which is a reserved matter.

“Changing the definitions of protected characteristic, even for the purpose of achieving the gender recognition objective is not permitted and in this respect the 2018 Act is out with legislative competence.

“For the above reasons the reclaiming motion succeeds.”

Notice the wording here; “transsexuals living as women”. That is transphobic language. Not only by using the oudated pejorative term “transsexuals”, but also by inferring that transgender women are not women, but merely “living as women”.

So we lost that one. And we have lost it because a bunch of TERFs, who claim to support an independent Scotland, are more than happy to have matters of gender equality decided by a government which Scotland never voted for, and courts which have no bearing in Scots Law.

We’re not equal, because Westminster has decided we don’t even exist.

The law is indeed an ass; a huge, cisgender, transphobic ass.

20 November ~ Transgender Day of Remembrance

32% to 50% of transgender people will attempt or commit suicide.  Of that figure, 14% are young / teenage.

368 transgender and non gender conforming people have been murdered worldwide in the past year alone.

Almost 3000 transgender and non gender conforming people have been murdered in the past ten years.

And no-one speaks out about this silent genocide.

Remember them, and stand up to fight bigotry against and bigotry committed upon transgender people.

Where’s your Pride, London?

Pride In London taking their hard line against TERF hatemongers

Hello, dears.

Been a long time, I know.   A little thing called life keeps getting in the way of my writing.

It doesn’t help that I am only back here with another whinge, and for a second year running, condemning the actions of Pride In London.

The Pride In London march went ahead on Saturday, 7 July, on what was a scorching hot day.  This is the biggest LGBT+ event the length and breadth of the UK, and I only wish that I could have been there.

Or maybe not.

The march was meant to be led by London Mayor Sadiq Khan.  However, a bunch of 10 TERF (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists) forced their way to the front, and lay on the ground to stop the march from proceeding, while police and stewards looked on, doing absolutely nothing.  After short negotiations, the TERFs were allowed to get up, and astoundingly were allowed to lead the parade for it’s entire length.  They carried banners and placards stating “Transactivists erase lesbians”, “Lesbian=female homosexual” and “Get the L out”.  As the march proceeded, they were even allowed to distribute transphobic leaflets.

One of the TERFs told Pink News “We want to get the L out of Pride, a man cannot be a lesbian, a person with a penis cannot be a lesbian.”, while another stated “Men are saying they are trans, they are lesbians and they pressure lesbians to have sex with them.”  The same woman ‘complained’ that she had been called a TERF online, trying to whine that it’s a hate speech term.  No, it’s fucking well not, and that is what you are, bitch; a fucking TERF, and if I ever meet you, I’ll call you a TERF to your face, and follow you down the street, shouting “TERF!” all the way.  If the cap fits, fucking well wear it, sweetie.

That they were allowed to get away with this at all was appalling enough.  But to add insult to injury, Pride In London gave a truly pathetic statement supposedly explaining why the TERFs were allowed to proceed at the front of the march.  A Pride In London spokesperson stated;

“Given the hot weather and in the interest of the safety for everyone attending today’s event, the parade group was allowed to move ahead.

“We do not condone their approach and message and hope the actions of a very small number of people does not overshadow the messages of the 30,000 people marching today.”

The hot weather?  Really, sweetie?  And in the interest of safety?  For whom?  For the thousands of transgender and non-binary people attending who regularly come under attack from these evil harpies?  No, you would sooner bow to a minority of ten ill-informed, low-intelligence fucktards.  Tell me, would you allow ten members of Britain First to lead the Notting Hill Carnival, handing out racist leaflets, for ‘safety’ grounds because of ‘hot weather’?  Because believe me, the brand of fascism spouted by TERFs is little different.

Had it been down to me, the march would have gone ahead ~ right over the prone bodies of the TERFs.  Nobody knows what 30,000+ pairs of feet can do to the human body, but I’m going to hazard a guess that the result would not be at all pretty.

And yes, it has cast a shadow over the march.  A great many people have complained about this disgusting and divisionary move, and LGBT+ Lib Dems. Chair Jennie Rigg said “I am appalled that transphobic protesters were allowed to lead the march and the crowd asked to cheer them on. This is a betrayal of the thousands marching. The Pride organisers should resign and offer a full apology.”  I could not agree more.

This is not the first time Pride In London has courted controversy.  At last year’s Pride In London, there was a group of gay ex-Muslims who carried banners saying “Allah is gay”, “Fuck Islamic homophobia”, “Islamophobia is an oxymoron” and “Throw ISIS off the roof”.  This caused the East London Mosque to lodge a complaint, and instead of rallying behind the ex-Muslims against what is indeed a homophobic faith, Pride In London upheld the complaint and warned people against carrying “Islamophobic” placards.

Now we have this nonsense of TERFs, who deny the very existence of transgender people, being allowed to hijack what is supposed to be an all-inclusive LGBT+ event.  It makes one wonder if Pride In London actually want the letter ‘T’ in LGBT at all.

Not that it should surprise any of us in the queer community.  Sad but true, there is no shortage of transphobic gay men and lesbian women.

Careful dears, your cis privilege is showing.

The only London Pride worth bothering about

Looking for an Ark Encounter?

You have to see this, dears.  Creationist Ken Ham, founder of Answers in Genesis (AiG), the Creation Museum in Pittsburg, Kentucky, and Ark Encounter in Williamstown, Virginia, has had the latter lit up in rainbow colours at night.

Ken Ham, maintains that the Biblical record of creation is historically and chronologically accurate, the entire universe being created by God in six days, 6000 years ago.  He completely refutes biological evolution, despite looking so simian himself that he could get a part in a Planet of the Apes movie – without any need for make-up.

Kenny baby has now had his ailing exhibition lit up in an attempt to “reclaim” the rainbow from the LGBT+ community.

The photo on his Facebook page was accompanied with the following statement;

“We now have new permanent rainbow lights at the Ark Encounter so all can see that it is God’s rainbow and He determines its meaning in Genesis 6.

The rainbow is a reminder God will never again judge the wickedness of man with a global Flood—next time the world will be judged by fire.

The Ark is lit permanently at night with a rainbow to remind the world that God owns it and He decreed it’s a sign of His covenant with man after the Flood—Christians need to take back the rainbow as we do at the Ark Encounter.”

Personally, I think it looks simply FABULOUS!  I simply LOVE it.

Ark Encounter, which was originally meant to be a life-size replica of Noah’s Ark, with displays and anitromic animals – and dinosaurs – opened on 7 July 2016, after a controversial start.  Tax incentives were given to AiG to build the project on the grounds that it would attract tourism into the area.  Public money was used to build roads and other infrastructure to the attraction also on the basis that it would be recouped through tourism.  Both of these measures brought complaints from American secularists and atheists, pointing out that the US Constitution expressly establishes a ‘wall between church and state’.  Nonetheless, the project went ahead.

Then AiG discovered they could not make it as authentic as they liked.  Irksome little things such as health and safety laws, fire escapes, public lavatories, sanitation, electricity ducts, ventilation, light, etc, meant that instead of a full boat with one door and window, Ken Ham had to build half an ark with several windows, resting on concrete pillars, and supported by modern buildings to the rear.

Following complaints of discriminatory employment practices, the US Federal Court ruled in 2016 that AiG could insist in their terms of employment that employees must believe that the Bible is the historically accurate word of God and accept and believe in Young Earth Creation.

Ken ham  boasted that the number of visitors would be over 2 million per year.  In fact, people have failed to appear in such numbers, and Ham himself has kept downplaying the estimate of visitor numbers.  In an interview in Gospel Herald, Ham stated that in the first year Ark Encounter may hit their own lower estimate for the first year of operation of 1.1 million visitors.  The Lexington Herald Leader reported on 2 July 2017 that Ark Encounter co-founder Mike Zorath stated that the Ark would welcome it’s 1 millionth visitor in July.

And what caused this failure in visitor numbers?  Well, first Ken Ham tried to claim it was due to opening in the middle of the holiday season.  That may well be true, but it was Ken Ham himself who chose to open it on 7 July 2016, to reflect Genesis 7:7, “And Noah and his sons and his wife and his sons’ wives entered the ark to escape the waters of the flood.”  So if it failed, due to bad timing, Ham has no-one but himself to blame for that.

But then, he can always blame the atheists.  Which is precisely what Ken Ham did in a June 2017 AiG blog post;

“Recently, a number of articles in the mainstream media, on blogs, and on well-known secularist group websites have attempted to spread propaganda to brainwash the public into thinking our Ark Encounter attraction is a dismal failure.

Sadly, they (atheists and the secular media) are influencing business investors and others in such a negative way that they may prevent Grant County, Kentucky, from achieving the economic recovery that its officials and residents have been seeking.”

The latest controversial move is AiG selling the park – to themselves.  AiG applied for an exemption to a new local safety tax in Grant County, Virginia, on the grounds that it was a religious organisation.   On June 29, Williamstown City Attorney Jeffrey Shipp rejected their request, stating that it was clear that Ark Encounter is a for-profit entity, which is how it has been listed with the Secretary of State’s office since 2011.  AiG’s reaction was to sell their main parcel of land at the park, which the Ark sits on, to their not-for-profit subsidiary, Crosswater Canyon, for the princely sum of $10, so that it can be reclassified as a religious organisation.

Seems to me that Ken Ham and his associates need to make up their mind.  It is either a visitor attraction, or a religious organisation.  If it is the latter, then it should not be given tax incentives which would breach the secular US Constitution.

Of course, if he is really struggling, he could always turn the largest timber structure in the world into the world’s biggest LGBT+ nightclub.  Whaddya say, Kenny baby?

Michael / Joanna / Sister Mary Elizabeth Clark; An American Hero

Micheal Clark, US Navy / Joanna Clark, US Army

I have been reading of one of the most remarkable people transgender people ever born; Sister Mary Elizabeth Clark, formerly Joanna Michelle Clark, formerly Michael Clark.

Michael Clark was born on 16 June 1938 in Pontiac, Michigan, USA. From 3-years-old he found he felt he was different from other boys, he preferred the company of girls, and even tried to emulate them. “I tried to talk and act like a girl instead of a boy,” said Michael in an interview, “I believed I was one of them – even though I knew I had a male anatomy. When I started going to elementary school, the other boys called me a sissy because I walked without ‘macho’ stride and carried my schoolbooks like a girl.”

By the time he reached junior high school, Michael tried to discuss his transgender feelings, but could not make them understand. Obviously there was a great deal of prejudice at the time, and Michael tried to be what he perceived as normal, joining the US Naval Cadets while in High School. When he left school in 1957, he went into the USN full-time as an avionics technician, eventually rising to Chief Petty Officer and an Instructor/Evaluator in anti-submarine warfare, scuba diving and sea survival in Hawaii, and serving on active duty in Vietnam.

Michael married his first wife in 1961, still trying to prove he was ‘normal’. However, although fathering a son, he could never satisfy his wife, and of course suffered the frustrations of not being sexually fulfilled himself, which led to him throwing himself further into his Naval career. The couple divorced in 1972, and he never saw his son again.

Still blinded by the prejudice of others, Michael married again, and this time found a partner who was not only sympathetic to his plight, was to be instrumental in changing his life.

“My new wife was a girl that I really intensely loved as a person. I still love her today. We liked the same things – hiking, concerts. But she needed more from me than I could give. And she started having a guilt trip over our situation, thinking she was at fault. Finally I said to myself: ‘My God, I’m reining this beautiful woman’s life by keeping my secret from her.’ So I broke down and told her I was a transsexual – a woman trapped in a man’s body. Instead of making me feel ashamed, she talked about what we had to do.”

Clark’s wife encouraged him to tell his parents, who far from rejecting him as he feared, all too fully understood (good parents know, dears). Thereafter he underwent psychological evaluation, which must have been groundbreaking for the 1970s, as it confirmed that Michael was a woman inside.

The downside is that someone blew the whistle about Mark’s evaluation to the US Navy. He was discharged upon the spot, and although it was an Honourable Discharge, it left Mark “angry and bitter”. And quite rightly so; Mark had often been commended, had excelled in everything he did, his work undoubtedly saved lives, and he can thereby be considered an American Naval hero.

Michael Clark underwent hormone therapy and in June 1975 underwent gender reassignment surgery, emerging under her new name of Joanna Michelle Clerk. She then divorced her wife, and moved in with her parents in San Juan, California, and got a job as a clerk-typist. In 1976 she enlisted in the US Army as a Staff training assistant, acting supervisor Fort MacArthur. She rose to Sargent First Class in the WACS, but after the authorities became aware of her background, Joanna was dismissed from the Army Reserve 18 months later. This time Joanna decided she was not going to take it lying down a second time and took the US Army to court. It was eventually settled out of court with a stipulation that details of the settlement not be made public. However, it is known that Joanna received an Honourable Discharge, with credit for time served in the Reserve.

This put Michael / Joanna Clark in the unique position of having served in the US Navy and the US Army, as both a man and a woman. The only person in history to have done so. But there was more to come…

Having realised all too painfully how transgender rights are trodden upon, Joanna Clark successfully lobbied in 1977 for replacement birth certificates and driving licenses to be made available for transgender people in California. She wrote Legal Aspects of Transsexualism, an important document which continues to be referenced by the law fraternity in the USA to this day. She founded the ACLU Transsexual Rights Committee, which she chaired for many years, working endlessly for the legal rights and status of TS persons. In the early 1980s she worked with transgender campaigner Jude Patton as a TS advisor.

By the late 1980s, Joanna’s life became more spiritual and in 1988 she took her vows as a Nun and founded the Order of Saint Elizabeth of Hungary, a non-profit Episcopalian order. She transferred to the Order of St Michael of the American Catholic Church in 1997.

In 1990 Sister Mary Elizabeth founded AEGIS; AIDS Education Global Information System, the largest HIV/AIDS online information and website and BBS, which supplies reference material, information and an online meeting place for people worldwide.  Sister Mary Elizabeth has won several awards for her work fighting for LGBT+ rights, and HIV/AIDS awareness, and in 2005 was a Nobel Peace Prize nominee.

As Michael Clark, Joanna Michelle Clark, and as Sister Mary Elizabeth Clark, this is a truly remarkable woman, who despite giving everything she has done her utmost, often pushing the limits of endurance, and often for others with little thought for herself, remains nonetheless humble. Someone I think we can all, whatever our gender, can look up to.

“Of all the things I’ve done in my life, military-wise, or working with children, I don’t think I’ve had anything in my life that I’ve had more passion for. I really can’t put it into words. When you see letters from people and you know that you’re helping them, that’s what it’s all about.”

Sister Mary Elizabeth Clark

It’s 2017, Jeremy ~ not 1975

Does he choose to be a doddering old fart?

Watched too much of It Ain’t Half Hot, Mum?

Jeremy Corbyn (67) is leader of the Labour Party, leader of what is (allegedly) the official opposition in the UK parliament, and appears to be stuck firmly in the 1970s.

Speaking from his offices at the start of LGBT History Month – because Labour exploit everything and everybody to get themselves noticed – in a rambling and waffling speech, the Labour leader spoke of people who “chose to be gay, chose to be lesbian”, quickly wrapped up his speech, and disappeared without taking any questions.

In the video of the speech, posted on the Pink News Facebook page, distinct murmers are heard amongst the invited guests as he comes out with the gaffe.

The Labour Party have since given a statement to Pink News, saying that “Jeremy clearly doesn’t believe that being gay is a choice. He obviously meant people should be able to choose how they live their lives.”

I have problems with that. The first of them is that Jeremy Corbyn was not talking off the top of his head; he was reading from a prepared speech, typewritten on four (yes, four, told you he was waffling) sheets of A4 paper. As the leader of the opposition and one of Britain’s largest political parties, one would imagine that Mr Corbyn has a press office and advisors. So did he run the speech past them first, and if so, if he did not spot his gaffe, how come they did not? If he did not ask anyone to proofread his speech, then I would equally ask why not?

But my main issue comes with the Labour Party response to complaints about his mistake, and that is the magic word is missing; “sorry”. Jeremy Corbyn did not comment on his speech himself, but instead a spokesperson did so on his behalf, saying he did not mean what he said. Neither Corbyn nor that spokesperson have actually said “sorry”.

I am not for one moment accusing Jeremy Corbyn of being a homophobe ~ well, not an intentional one at least. But he is a straight man of the older generation, and as much as he would hate to admit it, I suspect that his views on sexuality have been somewhat coloured by the culture and times of his younger days. I personally am old enough to recall (just ~ shaddup you lot) television and movies in the 1970s, with the likes of Frankie Howerd, Kenneth Williams, Charles Hawtry, John Inman, Dick Emery, Danny La Rue, etc, playing camp “mincing poofs” ~ the BBC sitcom “It Ain’t Half Hot, Mum” even had Windsor Davies calling the concert party “poofs” every episode ~ and we were all supposed to, and did, laugh at that. Even that odious fucking Nazi and very unfunny ‘comedian’ Jim Davidson had a go at it.

Okay, okay, so I am one of the biggest camp mincing poofs going. But that’s just me, darlings. I can’t help being FABULOUS!!!.

But all the same, those TV shows and movies did a great deal of harm by ingraining inaccurate stereotypes about gay men and others within the LGBT community, which we still live with unto this day.   And know what?  That was 40 years ago.

Anyone can make a mistake, particularly if they have been brought up in that kind of culture. But see when they do make such a mistake? I expect them to put their hands up, admit they made a glaring mistake, say “sorry”, mean it, and endeavour not to do it again.

What I do not expect is for the leader of a major political party to make such a mistake in a carefully-written speech, for such an auspicious occasion, with neither themselves nor anyone else in their party picking up on it and correcting it, or after having made that mistake, not having the guts to actually say “sorry”.

Speaking of LGBT activism overseas, Jeremy Corbyn stated “After all, an injury to one is an injury to all.”  Quite so, Jeremy ~ so learn from your own words.

I also question one claim that Jeremy Corbyn made in his speech, that he was instrumental in ‘saving’ a gay centre from the neo-Nazi National Front. Corbyn claimed that in the 1970s there were derelict buildings, one of which was taken over by gay activists as the “North London Gay Centre”. He went on to claim that the National Front were going to attack the centre, and he and other community councillors gathered the local community to chase the NF off.

I had never heard this story, but it did ring a bell of the reports I have read about the courageous “Brixton Faeries” and such a centre in south London. The South London Gay Community Centre started life when some gay men broke into a boarded-up shop on 78 Railton Road, Brixton, London in 1974. They remained there for the next two years before being forcibly evicted in 1976. During that time they highlighted not only LGBT rights, but the poverty and rampant racism (including a great deal of which came at the hands of the Metropolitan Police) which existed in Brixton at the time.  A group from the centre – the Brixton Faeries – took activism against homophobic and racist pubs.  They stood by their community, and their community stood by them. When the NF did indeed come a-marching down Railton Road to picket the centre, it was the local Union Place Community Resource Centre who supported the gay centre, and sent the NF packing.

Far be from me to ever call Jeremy Corbyn a liar, but a search of the internet turned up nothing for a North London Gay Centre, and I would suggest that his memory is playing tricks on him. If that is the case, and he made no attempt to check his facts on that first, then I would seriously suggest his suitability for the leader of the opposition, or even (“Shudder!!!”) a future British Prime Minister.

Of course, it may well be I who is mistaken. And if either Mr Corbyn or anyone else can enlighten me as to this north London centre, then I will admit I was wrong, and I’ll say sorry, and mean it ~ because that’s what nice people do when they are in the wrong, Jeremy.

I do not for one moment attempt to hide my antipathy towards the Labour Party, collectively or Jeremy Corbyn as their leader. Labour have betrayed their working class support and roots ~ particularly true here in Scotland ~ and Jeremy Corbyn has made so many u-turns that he is now spinning erratically in the road, he wouldn’t know a socialist if one bit him on the bum, and enforcing a three-line whip on his own MPs to vote in favour of the Tory government taking the UK out of the EU was nothing short of cowardly and hypocritical in my opinion.

But when the leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition in 2017 can make comments about people choosing their sexuality ~ and fails to say sorry, and whose memory appears to be failing them, then they are either an out-of-date anachronism, or they are just simply past it. Either way, their suitability for any public office has to seriously be called into question.

---

The story in Pink News and the video can be found here:

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/02/02/labour-obviously-jeremy-corbyn-does-not-believe-being-gay-is-a-choice/

Fools and Bairns

Who is fit to parent?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Tale of Two Trans Kids

With the kind permission of Sophie Labelle

One who isn’t, one who is.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes

John Nicolson MP (SNP)

Or, never trust a Tory.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

Crossdressing and Sexual Fetishism

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!