Trans Rights–Some thoughts on Being and Choosing

I’ve been reading the article entitled “Choose your own gender WITHOUT seeing as doctor: Government to rip up rules on switching sex” in the Mail Online together with some of the comments made by people.

I’m saddened by the way that some people contribute to and make comments on articles like this without really seeming to think about the people that they are talking about.

I believe that for a person to be trans doesn’t make that person a sexual predator. It doesn’t make them a sexual deviant. Doesn’t make them into a person that wants to sneak into toilets and changing rooms to sneak peaks at people. Or go to rape crisis centres or prisons to abuse people.

I haven’t met anyone that identifies as being trans who says “I just woke up one morning and thought I’d like to be a girl” … or “boy”.

I know a lot of people that have faced years and years of struggling with a sense of guilt, shame and denial before reaching a position where they began to accept the fact that they are trans.

At Sparkle this year there were quite a few people wearing T-shirts a bit like this:

The article “Check the Science: Being Trans Is Not a 'Choice'” provides some interesting reading on the subject. It includes these thoughts:

We should know then that to be transgender is not a choice.

It is not a choice when meta-analysis of suicide rates indicates that lifetime prevalence of attempted suicide in transgender individuals is ~40 percent as opposed to ~4 percent in the overall population. It is not the same as deciding whether you will wear a red tie or a green one.

It is a choice for us to educate those who mistakenly believe that allowing transgender people to use bathrooms appropriate for their identity endangers women and children. Such people either do not know transgender people or, more likely, know them but do not know they are transgender.

And those that believe that real sexual predators will be dissuaded by a sign on a bathroom door are truly lost.

It is a choice for those of us who study the complexities of biology and the human brain to inform those who are not neuroscientists so that they can understand why it is not “a choice” for transgender people; it is who they are.

And there is this comment:

Scott T. Parkhurst · Santa Rosa Junior College
Look, all I know is that transgender people are just humane beings who want to be left alone and be treated with respect just like everyone else....because they are everyone else.

And as far as using the restroom...for Gods sake, they...us, we, just want to go in and use it and hopefully wash your hands and then walk out and go about with your day!

They do not choose to be male or female because they are born male or female in their brain and not what is between their damn legs. They are trapped and they are in a lot of pain and suffer in silence and a lot of them do kill themselves and I can promise you the rate is VERY high.

A lot of you have sat and worked and talked to some and never knew it. They are the gender that they feel they are in their brain and soul. There's no questioning it.

Their not going/saying "Oh, I think I'll be a women or guy today so I it will be fun to dress up"...which I have a few folks write and think that's what transgender people do and or think.

…

Never in my law enforcement career have I ever had problems nor arrested a transgender person in a restroom for being inappropriate either.

But I sure did arrest mostly middle age white men who were doing nasty crap in there! And they were from all walks of life too....

So don't be so quick to judge each other if you haven't walked in ones shoes....Just my up close and on the job 2 cents. Thank you.

There are people around who are predators, molesters and abusers.

But is it right to allow such people to set the standard by which genuinely trans people are to be treated?

Is it right to make innocent people suffer because bad people exist?

The article in the Mail Online says: “Reforms to help transgender people choose their legal sex, which include speeding up the bureaucratic process, will go out to consultation in the autumn.“

Which means that at the moment nothing has changed.

It’s simply the beginning of a conversation and of a process.

And yes, of course there are and will be challenges to face and obstacles to overcome.

But please, let’s not write the whole thing off before it’s even started.

Transphobia and Misogyny

Please see here for a description of why I’m recording these discussions and comments.

Transphobia

The Article

The comment was made in response to the article: “Children In Britain Are Being Sent To Clinics To Be Told That They Are Transgender”.
The article was attributed to Theodore Shoebat.
The text of the comment was originally recorded here: http://shoebat.com/2017/07/10/children-in-britain-are-being-sent-to-clinics-to-be-told-that-they-are-transgender/#comment-3421045030
The comment was made by Andrea Wright (https://disqus.com/by/disqus_u52jnKnZ6E/) and addressed to Theodore Shoebat, the author of the article.
On 23 July 2017 the discussion reads as follows:
Andrea Wright to the Author of the article - (17 July 2017)

Hello Theodore,

Please could you confirm if I understand what you are suggesting.

You believe that the parents of all the children who have been referred to gender identity clinics should be arrested and executed?

And also that if any of the children cannot be rehabilitated then they should be stoned to death with stones?

Also I'd appreciate it if you'd let me know if you have contacted any of the parents, children or medical staff involved in this to seek out their opionion to find out what's actually happening or if you're suggesting that executions should happen based on an one report at CP World?

I note on the web site of the American College of Pediatricians, that when asked "Does the College advise its members to refuse care to LGBQT-identified children and families?". It answers as follows:

"Of course not. As expressed in our mission, vision and values statement, the College and its members are committed to compassionately caring for all children regardless of their family structure, race, ethnicity, ideology or sexual preference. We physicians extend unconditional respect to our patients who may hold different views, and we ask that our own convictions and professional judgment be likewise respected."

Would you therefore say that members of the American College of Pediatricians should be subject to a similar punishment?

Thanks,
Andrea

As at 7 August 2017, no response had been made.

Misogyny

The Article

The comment was made in response to the article: “How Modern Women Are Destroying Society (And Before You Scream Sexist, WATCH THE VIDEO)”.
The article was attributed to Theodore Shoebat. And I did watch the video.
The text of the comment was originally recorded here: http://shoebat.com/2017/07/19/how-modern-women-are-destroying-society-and-before-you-scream-sexist-watch-the-video/#comment-3428175333 
The comment was made by Andrea Wright (https://disqus.com/by/disqus_u52jnKnZ6E/) and addressed to Theodore Shoebat, the author of the article and maker of the video.
On 23 July 2017 the discussion reads as follows:
Andrea Wright to the Author of the article - (21 July 2017)

Hi Theodore,
Some of the statements made in this video are unconvincing and some appear to be incorrect.
As an example, there is an assertion that "most people do not agree with homosexuality".
If you look here: http://www.gallup.com/poll/... - the figures show that the assertion made in the video is incorrect.
Also there is this: http://www.people-press.org...
And it's not only "millenials" that feel this way.
If you don't trust these figures then perhaps you could point to alternative credible figures elsewhere and I'd be happy to take a look.
I can accept the argument that just because the majority of people are in agreement about something doesn't make that thing correct.
What I'm unhappy about is that statements are made that appear to be incorrect in supporting any kind of an argument.
There's quite an emphasis upon the wife of Lot in the video. The implication being that because one woman behaved in a particular way then all women are the same.
It's similar to someone saying "I read a story about someone that was gay that molested a child so all gay people are child molesters."
Or someone else saying "I know that there have been Catholic priests that have molested children, so all Catholic priests must be child molesters."
This kind of thinking is patently absurd.
I've re-read through the account of Abram (later Abraham) and Lot's lives as recorded in the book of Genesis from chapters 12 through to 20.
Here are some things that stand out to me.
Very little is said about Lot's wife other than that she "looked back" and what happened to her as a result of that.
There's a lot more about Abram and Lot.
Abram (and then later as Abraham), had a habit of pretending that he wasn't married to his wife. This resulted in his wife being used sexually on at least one occasion and also made Abram into a wealthy man. The people having sex with Abram's wife didn't know she was married to Abram. In fact Abram had led them to believe that she was unmarried and available. The only people to suffer as a result of this were the people that Abram lied to. Abram effectively made a prostitute of his wife.
Lot, who often seems to be characterised as a "righteous man" offered his virgin daughters to a mob of people, and said the mob could use them anyway they liked. Granted, this was to get the mob to not molest his visitors, but it's an appalling thing to do nevertheless.
Later, Lot allows himself to get so drunk that he has sex with his daughters. He was so drunk he couldn't remember doing it. They both had children as a result of having sex with their father.
I know gay people. None of them have prostituted their partners or had children with family members.
Yet I am told to believe that they are evil and that Lot and Abram are righteous?
The story of Abram, Lot and Lot's wife seem to say a lot more about the way that men have the potential to destroy society than it does about women.
To use the story of Lot's wife as a way of tarnishing the reputation of women without taking a look at the entire story in context seems to me to be misleading and disingenuous.
When Jesus told people to "remember Lot's wife" He wasn't making a statement about women. He was telling people not to look back when there was an urgent need to move forwards.
Please, if you are going to attack women and gay people do it with honesty and integrity and not, as appears to be the case here, by taking passages of Scripture out of context and tarnishing the reputation of large groups of people based on your experiences of a few.
Thank you,
Andrea

Randy Perez to Andrea Wright (24 July 2017)

There is no demographic group called "gay" just like there isn't a demographic group for thieves. Scripture is enough to attack, which is a good emotional manipulative word to make Theodore look like some time of abuser, sodomites and Women.
Theodore's overall point is correct. Men go out of their way toto please women, even being yes men. Even bars and clubs are set up to please women. Why? Because the men will go also.
God had homosexuals executed, yes even someone who picked up sticks on a sabbath. Yet He let Lot lived.
He even had someone executed for someone saying the equaling of OMG. Do you think those judgements were unjust?

Andrea Wright  to Randy Perez (24 July 2017)

Hello Randy,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
I'm not sure what point you're making exactly in saying that there is no demographic group called "gay".
Time Magazine http://time.com/lgbt-stats/ has an article about efforts in the USA to define a gay demography. Similarly in the UK the Office For National Statistics have done some work to define this: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peop...
The point that I made was that the in the video Theodore asserts "most people do not agree with homosexuality". Yet there is no evidence to suggest that this is the case - in fact the evidence is that this assertion is incorrect.
Do you not think that if it were really true that "men go out of their way to please women" then that's a "man" problem rather than a "woman" problem?
It's interesting to take a look at the statistics regarding violence against women committed by men compared with violence against men committed by women.
The kind of thing that I mean is how many men rape women each year compared with women raping men. Or beat them. Or threaten them.
The World health Organisation has some information here: http://www.who.int/mediacen... and Wikipedia here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wi....
Reading the Bible or a history book or a daily newspaper shows that where there are problems of violence and hate in the world - the kinds of thing that destroy society - the majority of the perpetrators of this are men.
I'm not, in any way, suggesting that all men are bad.
But asking me to believe that women are the main "destroyers of society" ... well ... I need actual evidence rather than pronouncements based on a couple of personal experiences and three words of Jesus that are taken out of context.
The point I made about Scripture was that if it's going to be used to make a point then the passages used should be used in context.
It's not enough to simply quote a few words and then make a big issue out of them. The way that the words "Remember Lot's wife" are used in the video does exactly this.
It's kinda like someone coming out with a headline that says "It's official: The Bible says 'there is no God'" without mentioning the words that come just before it that say "Fools say in their hearts."
Please could you point me to a place in the Bible where God has someone executed because they are homosexual - rather than because they are part of a group of people that want to gang-rape strangers?
You asked me if I think the executions that you mention were "just".
I've spent a while researching the incident mentioned in chapter 15 of Numbers about the man executed for gathering sticks on the Sabbath.
I think that for a person that believes that God only ever does just and loving things, and also believes that it was God that commanded the executions then the answer is maybe simple. The executions had to be an expression of justice and also of love. We just might not be able to see enough of the full picture to understand why.
For everyone else it's maybe more complicated.
In several posts on this web site I've asked people if they are willing to share with me why it is that they believe what they believe. I've mentioned the passage in 1 Peter 3:15-16 that says:
"but in your hearts sanctify Christ as Lord. Always be ready to make your defense to anyone who demands from you an accounting for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and reverence".
So far, no-one has done this.
The closest I got to a response has been "Why should I answer you when you appear to be sympathetic toward fags?".
I'd appreciate it if you'd take some time to explain to me why you believe, rather than just what you believe. Maybe this would help me understand why you believe in the justice and the love of God.
To me it seems that the New Testament defines a New Covenant.
The New Covenant doesn't talk about executing people.
I've just spent a while reading chapter 5 of Matthew's gospel.
Whatever the results of disobedience to God's laws might be in the afterlife, it's really difficult to find any talk of executing people for picking up sticks, saying OMG or being homosexual.
If you can find anything that really suggests that it's what Jesus would want you to do then please tell me where it says that.
Anyway, thank you again for your reply.
Andrea

Randy Perez to Andrea Wright (24 Jul 2017)

I dont care and God does not care that you have degenerates trying to make homosexuals a demographic group. GOD calls them an abomination.
You talk about domestic violence. It was the woman who chose these men. It was the woman who raised these men.
When Jesus Christ is ruling on Earth, He will ruling with a rod of iron. Very authoritarian, even though its the NT. Do you think Christ will let the unregenrate people sin without punishment when He sets up His Kingdom?

Andrea Wright to Randy Perez (24 Jul 2017)

Hello Randy,
Thank you for replying.
I'll try to respond with gentleness and reverence.
Firstly, I'm very much saddened that you weren't willing to share the reasons for your faith with me.
Is there a reason for that? Do you hate me? Or are you afraid of something? Or do you not have reasons for your faith?
Jesus spent time talking with people that the religious zealots of the time would have preferred to have stoned. Do you think he was mistaken in doing that? Chapter 8 of St John's gospel is worth reading.
I'm still listening if you change your mind.
Just to clarify a few other things.
The term "demographic group" isn't defined anywhere that I know of in the Bible. If I'm wrong please let me know.
Demography is defined as the "scientific study of human populations, especially with reference to their size, structure, and distribution".
The gender and sexuality of people reflect aspects of the structure of a society - whether those people are an abomination or not.
If you don't care about demography I'm not quite sure why you mentioned it in the first place.
I didn't specifically mention domestic violence. I wrote about rape, beatings and threats.
Am I correct in understanding that you think that women who are raped, beaten and threatened actually caused it themselves?
Do you have scriptures to back this idea up?
Also I didn't mention anything about the time when "Jesus Christ is ruling on earth" or what conditions would be like then. I'd be interested if you would tell me which passages of scripture you are basing your understanding on. I don't know enough about the topic at the moment to be able to answer your question.
I actually wrote about the things that Jesus said and about living in the here and now. That in the here and now the New Covenant as described by Jesus isn't compatible with executing people because of their gender or sexuality. Again I'd be interested to know if you can point me to any part of the New Testament to show that I'm mistaken in believing this.
So, thank you again for taking the trouble to reply.
I'd appreciate it if you could give this some more thought and reply again.
Andrea 

Randy Perez  to Andrea Wright (25 July 2017)

"I'll try to respond with gentleness and reverence." You have been gentle, but rude as well. You should stop ignoring what I said.
"Firstly, I'm very much saddened that you weren't willing to share the reasons for your faith with me." I already told you why I agree with Theodore about topic.
"Is there a reason for that? Do you hate me? Or are you afraid of something? Or do you not have reasons for your faith?" There you go with your gentle rudeness and false assumptions. I already told you why I agree with Theodore.
"Jesus spent time talking with people that the religious zealots of the time would have preferred to have stoned. Do you think he was mistaken in doing that? Chapter 8 of St John's gospel is worth reading."
This is called mercy not tolerance. Just because God gives people second chances does not mean that he let's it go unpunished. If you were consistent you would take chapter and say, "You see, now we can't punished thieves and murderers."
"The term "demographic group" isn't defined anywhere that I know of in the Bible. If I'm wrong please let me know.
Demography is defined as the "scientific study of human populations, especially with reference to their size, structure, and distribution".
The gender and sexuality of people reflect aspects of the structure of a society - whether those people are an abomination or not." So according to you, thieves l, rapist, and murderers and a demographic group.
"If you don't care about demography I'm not quite sure why you mentioned it in the first place." Gentle, but rude. Gentle, but rude. Maybe you should re-read what I wrote. I basically said, "I don't care about man's definition of the use of words." I'm more concerned about what God considers a demographic group. In other words, If God was in front if you and you asked Him what would He say.
"I didn't specifically mention domestic violence. I wrote about rape, beatings and threats." Okay? So? You didn't refute anything I said.
"Am I correct in understanding that you think that women who are raped, beaten and threatened actually caused it themselves?" No, I said they chose men that are bad so they are going they get hurt. I say the exact same things to men who complain about their wife. They chose women that are trash. Women choose trashy men.
"Do you have scriptures to back this idea up?" The first Chapter of proverbs is about warning people to be careful who they choose their friends. Why? Because they may lead you astray into a world of sin. In 1st Corinthians, Paul tells Christians to marry other Christians. Why? To prevent a bad marriage a land to raise Christian children. Many places in scripture tells you "Do not be deceived." If you are deceived, it is your fault for not seeking God's wisdom, which is what The entire book of proverbs is essentially about.
"Also I didn't mention anything about the time when "Jesus Christ is ruling on earth" or what conditions would be like then. I'd be interested if you would tell me which passages of scripture you are basing your understanding on. I don't know enough about the topic at the moment to be able to answer your question." I mentioned it because when Jesus is ruling here on earth, He will be ruling under the NT. Although He will be ruling under the NT, He will still rule authoritarian. I have scripture for this.
Revelation 2:26 And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations: 27 And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father. 28 And I will give him the morning star.
Read the entirety of Psalm 2.
Daniel 7:18'But the saints of the Highest One will receive the kingdom and possess the kingdom forever, for all ages to come
Basically, When Christ comes Christ will be the King of all. He will be the highest Authority Figure as King with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Christ will give people who truly believed in Him before His coming glorified bodies. Bodies that have no imperfections and probably have access to see and go through dimensions that We can't see in our fallen state. You can see this on Luke after He was risen. Bodies that are perfect and amazing in everyway. The people who did not believe in Him before His return, some will be spared of the lake of fire be allowed to live in the New Universe under one condition. They must live under the authority of Christ. Christ will give the Glorified believers land where the degenerate people live so that the Glorified people of God can rule over the degenerate people. Angels because they act more like soldiers would probably be like the enforcing what the Glorified people made into law. The laws that glorified people will write will be laws that Christ Himself tells them to write, so We won't do our own Will, but His will be done. Very aspect our our lives will be dictated by Him, but it'll feel like we are doing our own Will because we would be glorified.
"I actually wrote about the things that Jesus said and about living in the here and now. That in the here and now the New Covenant as described by Jesus isn't compatible with executing people because of their gender or sexuality. Again I'd be interested to know if you can point me to any part of the New Testament to show that I'm mistaken in believing this." I already explained this. God will Rule very authoritarian. Even if He doesn't execute people, He will possibly put people in Prison in His kingdom. But in the OT there were no prisons. So we see the nature of God's justice that God doesn't like prisons. Since He won't put people in Prison, He would probably have them Whipped or executed, or pay the person harmed. The rule over the nations is to be strong, but it is to be loving also. To those who obey it, it will be a shepherding; only those who resist it will be dashed in pieces. 

Andrea Wright to Randy Perez (25 July 2017)

Hi Randy,
Thank you for your reply.
And I apologise if I've ignored what you've said or if I've been rude at all. That wasn't my intention.
When I asked you to share the reasons for your faith with me I wasn't asking why you agreed with Theodore about this specific topic. You had already explained some of those reasons.
I was wondering what it was that led you to have faith in Christ. I'm sorry if I didn't make this clear, and I would honestly appreciate it if you could share that with me.
I was trying to avoid false assumptions by asking questions rather than making statements, and apologise if this seemed rude. I was wondering why you hadn't shared your faith with me and realise now that I hadn't made it sufficiently clear.
You mentioned mercy as opposed to tolerance. I hadn't mentioned either, but I agree with you. Though I also think that the word mercy includes connotations of forgiveness as opposed to punishment. The point that I was trying to make, though, is that Jesus talked with people that were sinners. He didn't verbally abuse or physically abuse them. He didn't make death threats.
Maybe there will be a time for punishment and reckoning.
But when I think about the way that Jesus dealt with people, that time has not yet arrived.
So it saddens me when I see people saying and writing stuff that gives the impression that they believe that gay people or trans people or a whole load of others who commit "crimes" that society doesn't classify as crimes should be thrown into prison or even executed just because they are gay or trans. I just don't see that attitude in the life of Christ.
So far as demographics are concerned, I was trying to use definitions accepted by people that "do" demographics - the Office for National Statistics and the sources mentioned in the article in Time magazine for example. I don't classify these people as being "degenerates trying to make homosexuals a demographic group". As I said, I don't know what God's definition of demography is which is why I asked if you could point me to one. I wasn't at all intending to be rude. I was simply asking why you'd used the term if you weren't willing to use the definition of it that seems to be used by demographers. Particularly since I hadn't used the term in my original comment on Theodore's video.
When I mentioned rape, beatings and threats to women I wasn't exclusively talking about it in a domestic setting. Women get raped, beaten and threatened outside of the domestic environment. But even then, the point I was making was that if you look at the facts, men are typically more involved in doing things that destroy society than women are. It's not just about women choosing bad men. I was pointing out that modern men probably put more effort into destroying society than do modern women.
Thank you for the insight you gave me in your understanding of the end times - if that's the correct term.
But, do you not think that this isn't where we are at just at the moment?
I had thought that Jesus wanted, and would still want, his followers to live and behave as he described in Matthew chapters 5 and 6.
Anyway, thank you for taking the trouble to reply to me.
And if you would be willing to share what it was that led you to faith in Christ I would be very appreciative.
Andrea 

Randy Perez to Andrea Wright (27 July 2017)

What led me to Christ was the fact that the universe can't create itself. Someone who is eternally existent and powerful had to create the universe. That is number one. Number two is the eye witness testimony of the apostles. You may say, "they claim to be eye witnesses, but they could be lying." But this is absurd. How do I know they weren't lying? Because when they were spreading the gospel, they were persecuted, beaten, jailed, mocked, lived in poverty, and executed for spreading the gospel. People lie so that they can get out of trouble, to get rich, or to get women. The apostles life were made much more difficult. This is how I know that their EYE witness testimony is true.
"Though I also think that the word mercy includes connotations of forgiveness as opposed to punishment."
No, forgiveness is not harboring a grudge over someone. This does not contradict punishing someone.
"The point that I was trying to make, though, is that Jesus talked with people that were sinners."
Theodore talked with people who were sinners.
"He didn't verbally abuse or physically abuse them. He didn't make death threats."
He said "it is not right to take the children's bread and give it to the dogs" when talking about The woman. Even when talking about The New Jerusalem it says no dogs allowed and the context was about sinners. He called the scribes and Pharisees brood of vipers. Death threats? He made threats of sending people to Hell forever, which is called the second death. In terms NT, God killed people. He even killed Christians for lying. Look at Jesus of the Book of revelation when He is sending the messages to the Christ Churches.
"But when I think about the way that Jesus dealt with people, that time has not yet arrived."
Look at the final verse of Matthew."All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth" In other words, there was a time when Christ didn't have all authority in Earth. I believe He had all authority in Heaven, but not on earth. When he was risen from the dead and glorified, that is when all authority was given to him on earth. When Jesus said my kingdoms not of This world, that was before He was Risen. Now His kingdom is not originated from world, but now owns it.
"So it saddens me when I see people saying and writing stuff that gives the impression that they believe that gay people or trans people or a whole load of others who commit "crimes" that society doesn't classify as crimes should be thrown into prison or even executed just because they are gay or trans. I just don't see that attitude in the life of Christ."
Being sad won't change anything. You're still wrong. You dont see that attitude, but I see it. Not only do I see it, I provide scripture. You admit it yourself that Christ will send Homosexuals and all types if weird people to the lake of fire forever. Which is worse? Putting them in Prison where they can get reformed or putting them in lava forever? Your problem is with Christ, not with me.
Concerning demographics. God calls these people sinners. That is Number one identifier. That is how God sees them. There are two groups of people in this world. Children of Adam and children of God.
"But even then, the point I was making was that if you look at the facts, men are typically more involved in doing things that destroy society than women are. It's not just about women choosing bad men. I was pointing out that modern men probably put more effort into destroying society than do modern women."
Little crimes here and there do not destroy society. Also, it is the women who raise these men. The women are the ones who are raising these rapist and murderers and thieves. When men were the head of the household and respected as an authority figure, that is when Crime rate was lower.
"Thank you for the insight you gave me in your understanding of the end times - if that's the correct term."
That wasn't the end times. That was after the end times.
"But, do you not think that this isn't where we are at just at the moment?"
Yes That is where we are at this moment because all what I described was under the NT. The NT is here an active His kingdom come, His will be done on earth as it is in Heaven. His kingdom is already here because the Kigdom of heaven is within us and wherever two or more Christians gather, that is where Christ will be.
"I had thought that Jesus wanted, and would still want, his followers to live and behave as he described in Matthew chapters 5 and 6."
Oh we will because like He demanded in Chapters 5-7, but we Will also behave like he commanded, through his apostle Paul, in Romans 13. 

Andrea Wright to Randy Perez (1 August 2017)

Hello Randy,
Thank you that you were willing to share that.
Like you, I have a great respect for people that are willing to die for their beliefs.
In reaching out to you I’m trying to understand what it is that makes you feel and think the way that you do.
The scriptures that you mentioned help in that, together with your description of how it was that you came to Christ.
The comments that I made at the beginning of this discussion thread challenged some of the statements made in Theodore’s video.
For example. Theodore said "most people do not agree with homosexuality".
In the UK and the USA this statement is incorrect. It has nothing to do with demography. The statement is simply incorrect.
The video emphasises the idea of “remembering Lot’s wife” as though Jesus was using this statement as a way of suggesting that all women are like Lot’s wife and that Jesus was making some kind of a comment about women who sympathise with homosexuality. This isn’t at all what Jesus was saying. To use the story of Lot’s wife as a mechanism for tarnishing all women is to misrepresent what the story is about.
I also made the point that statistically men do more things that contribute to damaging society than do women. This isn’t just my opinion. This is true.
You categorised rape and violence against women as being “little crimes here and there.” Surely they are more than that?
Of men who are rapists, murderers and thieves you said “… it is the women who raise these men. The women are the ones who are raising these rapist and murderers and thieves. When men were the head of the household and respected as an authority figure, that is when Crime rate was lower.” I’m still trying to figure out your meaning. It seems that you are saying that if a man rapes a woman, the person really at fault is the rapists mother. If that’s what you’re saying then I believe that you are wrong. If you’re saying something else then please let me know.
When I mentioned that Jesus talked with sinners, you said “Theodore talked with people who were sinners”
Yet on the video Theodore says of his “sodomite” cousins “I have two cousins who are sodomites. And guess what? I don’t talk to them. … I refuse to speak to these people because they are perverts”. He also says “Sodomites should be put to death. I would take my two cousins and have them executed, yes. It wouldn’t bother me in the least bit. Firing squad, whatever. It doesn’t bother me.”
So, I’m not convinced that you’re right in suggesting that Theodore talks with sinners. At least not with people that he classes as being “sodomites”.
As you will know, there are people that disagree with the way in which you interpret some of the scriptures that you quote. We could discuss eschatology, but that wasn’t the purpose of my original comment in this discussion. I’m not saying that I’m unwilling to. So, if you’d like to then please say and we can talk about that.
Personally, I don’t think that there is an after-life or a lake of fire.
I know that what I think doesn’t affect what is true.
But also, what you think doesn’t affect the truth either. And, at the moment, there is no incontrovertible way of proving the truth of what the Bible says about these things. Even amongst people that say they believe what the Bible says, there is disagreement.
You mentioned that being sad doesn’t change anything. But actually, it does. It can have a powerful impact on changing people. I’m speaking from experience here.
Maybe what you meant was that “being sad doesn’t change the truth”. And I agree with that. But there isn’t a way of proving that your views are the truth.
I’m ok with a person that says “this is what the Bible says …” so long as the Bible actually says that. Even if I disagree with it and don’t believe it personally.
What I’m not ok with is when people think it’s ok to punish other people for simply being who they are, when the things that they do don’t hurt other people. Even if there is a passage in a book that gives the impression that it’s ok to do that.
So, Theodore’s views on this are, to me, way off the mark.
I think that the early Christians were people that were willing to die for their faith. I don’t think that they killed for their faith. So, it saddens me that, because of his faith, Theodore thinks that it is ok to have people killed. I also firmly believe that he is wrong.
The video is disturbing because it paints opinions (a person’s interpretation of the Bible) as being “the truth” and then says it is OK for people to be killed based on these opinions. It also misrepresents the meaning of Jesus’ warning about remembering “Lots wife” and makes statements that are factually incorrect. 

As at 7 August 2017 there has been no reply from Randy. 

Discussions on homophobia

Please see here for a description of why I’m recording these discussions.

The Article

The discussions took place in response to the article: “Only Homophobes Will Make It To Heaven And All Non-Homophobes Will End Up In Hell”.
The article was attributed to Walid Shoebat.

Discussion with PaulF

The text of the first discussion was originally recorded here: https://disqus.com/home/discussion/walidshoebat/only_homophobes_will_make_it_to_heaven_and_all_non_homophobes_will_end_up_in_hell/#comment-3421006308
The discussion was between myself Andrea Wright (https://disqus.com/by/disqus_u52jnKnZ6E/), and PaulF (https://disqus.com/by/disqus_xmVDERDvoP/) PaulF frequents the following other communities: https://disqus.com/home/forum/cherald/, https://disqus.com/home/forum/telegraphuk/, https://disqus.com/home/forum/spectator-new-www/ and https://disqus.com/home/forum/spectatorwww/
On 21 July 2017 the discussion reads as follows:
Andrea Wright to the Author of the article - (16 July 2017)

I have to admit to feeling sad that you have these opinions. I have a feeling that you'd perhaps say that they aren't your opinions, they are what the Bible says and what God says. Nevertheless, it makes me feel sadness, not hatred.
 

PaulF to Andrea Wright - (16 July 2017)

What God says in the Bible aren't my opinions. They are the truth.

Andrea Wright to PaulF - (17 July 2017)

Hello Paul,

Please could you explain why it is that you personally believe that what the Bible says is what God says and that this is the truth?

And also what it is that leads you to interpret the things that are in the Bible in the way that you do?

I ask this in the spirit of 1 Peter 3:15
".. in your hearts reverence Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence".

Thank you.

PaulF  to Andrea Wright (18 July 2017)

Hello Andrea.'Faith is by hearing, and hearing is by the word of God' (Romans 10:17).That is exactly how I came to believe it. By hearing it; giving my attention to it.But my faith is not only my doing. It is the work of God in me. As Jesus says, "This is the work of God, that you believe in the one whom he sent" (John 6:29).If you don't yet believe, my advice is, pray for the gift of faith. God is certainly willing to give it to you.

Andrea Wright to PaulF (18 July 2017)

Hello Paul,
Thank you for sharing that with me.
It makes sense to me that faith in something or someone can only come about by hearing about that thing or person. And I appreciate you taking the time you've given to answering my query.
I was wondering as well, though, if there was any particular aspect of what you hears or any experience that led you to believe in the truth of it?
I think I understand as well, that belief and faith could be something that God gives to people as He works in their lives,
However, in reading John 6, it seems that Jesus is saying that people do the work of God when they believe in the One that He sent, rather than the work of God is to give belief to people.
Of course that's not to say that God doesn't increase people's faith.
Anyway, apologies if I'm misinterpreting that.
I'd be interested in hearing if there were any specific things that led you to your faith.
Thank you for your patience.

As at 7 August 2017 there was no reply from PaulF.

Discussion with Trevor

The text of the second discussion was originally recorded here: https://disqus.com/home/discussion/walidshoebat/only_homophobes_will_make_it_to_heaven_and_all_non_homophobes_will_end_up_in_hell/#comment-3421656152
The discussion was between myself Andrea Wright (https://disqus.com/by/disqus_u52jnKnZ6E/), and Trevor (https://disqus.com/by/trevorsgreene/) who maintains a journal here: http://atrevorsjournal.blogspot.co.uk/ and writes from what he describes as a Catholic-Orthodox perspective. He poses his own question on his Disqus profile: Am I a Christian or not simply because I chose to become Anglo-Catholic?
On 21 July 2017 the discussion reads as follows:
Andrea Wright to the Author of the article -  (16 July 2017)

I have to admit to feeling sad that you have these opinions. I have a feeling that you'd perhaps say that they aren't your opinions, they are what the Bible says and what God says. Nevertheless, it makes me feel sadness, not hatred.

Trevor to Andrea Wright - (17 July 2017)

A man sticking his johnson in another man's butt ok with you?

A woman licking another woman's hoo-ha ok with you?

A man having his way with a horse ok?

A woman allowing a horse to penetrate her ok?

Say yes to any of the above and you are damned.

Andrea Wright  to Trevor - (17 July 2017)

Hi Trevor,

Thanks for that.

Is this what you believe the Bible says because you believe it to be the Word of God and the truth?

If so then I'd like to ask you the same thing that I asked Paul.

Please could you explain why it is that you personally believe that what the Bible says is what God says and that this is the truth?

And also what it is that leads you to interpret the things that are in the Bible in the way that you do?

Again, I ask this in the spirit of 1 Peter 3:15
".. in your hearts reverence Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence".

Thank you
Andrea

Trevor to Andrea Wright - (18 July 2017)

You failed to answer the questions.

Andrea Wright to Trevor - (18 July 2017)

Hello Trevor,

First, my apologies, I'd misinterpreted your reply.

I had thought that the questions were rhetorical and had been asked in that way to indicate a list of beliefs that would lead to a person being damned.

I am, of course, happy to answer your questions with what I hope is gentleness and reverence.

Do I think it is OK for two men to love each other?

Well, it's not something for me personally, but I think it's better for people to love each other than to hate each other.

I think the way that you phrase the question is, perhaps, a little over-dramatic.

Love between two men needn't be all about "A man sticking his johnson in another man's butt". Just as marriage between a man and a woman isn't only about "A man sticking his johnson in a woman's hoo-ha". Both ought to be about love.

I think the same applies to love between two women. Not for me personally, but love is better than hate.

The sexual relationship thing with horses is illegal in the UK where I live, and I'm happy with it remaining illegal. So I'm not OK with that.

I'd be happy to provide more information on why I think this way if you're interested.

And as I said before, I'd be honestly interested if you're able to answer my questions.

Why do you personally believe that what the Bible says is what God says and that this is the truth?

And also what it is that leads you to interpret the things that are in the Bible in the way that you do?

Thanks again,

Andrea  

Trevor  Andrea Wright - (19 July 2017)

So you answered poorly. God's Words is crystal clear on who WILL NOT enter the kingdom of heaven and He leaves no room for personal interpretation over whom will not enter.

It is why sodomites and their allies reject the Orthodox interpretation of the Scriptures and created the blasphemous "Queen" James Bible in order to justify their continuing in sins. It is why Romans 1 declared without apology "God gave them up to their own lusts," and at the end of Romans 1, St. Paul, without blinking, declared those who approved of the sodomites lifestyle were also worthy of death.

That's why people of your ilk have done more damage to Christianity because you opt to use "pick and choose" of the Scriptures to justify continuing in sins instead of adhering to how the Scriptures were interpreted by the Church through the ages.  

Andrea Wright  Trevor - (19 July 2017)

Hi Trevor,

Thanks for your reply.

I notice that you didn't answer my two questions.

In reading 1 Peter 3:15 I think it's saying that Christians should be always prepared to explain why they believe what they believe.

And this is all that I'm asking.

Mentioning specific verses from Scripture helps me understand what you believe, but not why you believe it.

I'm not quite sure how I've done damage to Christianity since I don't claim to be a Christian, I'm just a person that's trying to reach out and find out why you believe what you believe.

I notice that towards the end of Romans 1 Paul includes people that "have no love, no mercy" in the list of the types of people that are in trouble.

Verse 32 says "Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."

To me this seems to be talking about people who not only do these things but also approve of others doing these things.

I checked it in several different translations and they all seem to say this.

It doesn't seem to say anything about people who do not actively condemn a certain lifestyle. It's about people who adopt that lifestyle and also approve of it in others.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding this.

Either way, it would help me if you would explain how and why it was that you came to Christ.

Also, do you believe that all Scripture should be understood literally without any room for interpretation - for example the account of creation in the book of Genesis.

Thanks again for your time.

Andrea.

Trevor to Andrea Wright - (19 July 2017)

Why should I answer you when you appear to be sympathetic toward fags?

Andrea Wright to Trevor - (19 July 2017)

Hi Trevor,

Thank you again for replying.

You asked why you should answer me.

Well, I've been looking at 1 Peter chapter 3 again. I've included verses 8 to 17 below so you can read it in context - it's taken from the New American Bible (Revised Edition), but reads pretty much the same in other translations.

In saying "Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope" it does use the word "anyone" - it doesn't say "anyone except people that you think are sympathetic toward fags".

To use your phraseology, the meaning seems "crystal clear."

So really, if you were to answer me I'd see it as an act of obedience to the Scriptures that you believe to be the word of God.

Thank you,
Andrea

The passage in full (1 Peter 3: 8-17) reads as follows:

Finally, all of you, be of one mind, sympathetic, loving toward one another, compassionate, humble. Do not return evil for evil, or insult for insult; but, on the contrary, a blessing, because to this you were called, that you might inherit a blessing. For:

“Whoever would love life
and see good days
must keep the tongue from evil
and the lips from speaking deceit,
must turn from evil and do good,
seek peace and follow after it.
For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous
and his ears turned to their prayer,
but the face of the Lord is against evildoers.”

Now who is going to harm you if you are enthusiastic for what is good? But even if you should suffer because of righteousness, blessed are you. Do not be afraid or terrified with fear of them, but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts. Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope, but do it with gentleness and reverence, keeping your conscience clear, so that, when you are maligned, those who defame your good conduct in Christ may themselves be put to shame. For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that be the will of God, than for doing evil.
 

Andrea Wright to Trevor - (21 July 2017) Pending

Hello again Trevor,
At the moment I'm assuming that you either don't have an answer to my questions or that you're not prepared to answer them because you believe that I appear to be "sympathetic towards fags."
If you don't have an answer then it leaves me saddened that you aren't able to explain what it is that led you to having the beliefs that you have and yet are so vocal in expounding them.
If you aren't prepared to answer me because you believe that I'm "sympathetic to fags" then I'm saddened because it seems that you choose to be disobedient to the very Scriptures that you hold to be absolutely true in all circumstances.
The other possibility is that you haven't had the time to answer but that you will do in due course. If this is the case then I apologise unreservedly for jumping to conclusions and await your response with interest and also humility.
Thank you again,
Andrea

As at 7 August 2017 there has been no reply from Trevor.

Reaching out

First let me explain why I’m about to write what I’m about to write.

Here I wrote about watching the television program “Murdered for being Different”.

In writing about that I mentioned:

A thing that I take away from this is a renewed personal commitment to engage with people that I see as being different from me whenever that is possible. To not make assumptions about people without taking the trouble to get to know them.

And also to do what I can to make it safe for people, so that there is no need to hide. For, if we hide, then it may seem as though the idiots win. But when idiots win, we all lose. Idiots included.

Soon after that, here,  I mentioned a comment about my experiences  at Sparkle 2017.

This comment led me to an article entitled “Only Homophobes Will Make It To Heaven And All Non-Homophobes Will End Up In Hell”.

I believe that it’s important to challenge people that express these kind of opinions and beliefs.

From what I can see, if they had the chance then some of them would be more than happy to pass laws which resulted in the persecution and even execution of a whole lot of people that have different opinions about life than they do.

I get this feeling from the article that I just mentioned and also other such as this one: “Children In Britain Are Being Sent To Clinics To Be Told That They Are Transgender”.

So, I decided that I’d try to engage with these people – the people that write articles and post comments  on the web site http://shoebat.com/ to find out why they believe what they believe. It includes people like Walid Shoebat – with another view of the man here and his son Theodore Shoebat who is described here.

I’ll provide info on how this all goes as it happens in separate posts. I want to keep a track of conversations in my own blog in case the comments get removed from the place that I posted them.

First a summary.

I realise that this is based upon just a very small number of attempts at conversation with people and maybe it isn’t typical. But, sadly (and I do mean that) the responses fit into the stereotypical view that tends to see such people as bigots:

a person who has strong, unreasonable beliefs and who does not like other people who have different beliefs or a different way of life

I suspect that the people might not mind the term bigot being used to describe them, and a likely response is something like “if the truth is bigoted then I’m a bigot”.

My experiences so far suggest:

• They seem to place a lot of emphasis on the truth but don’t seem to be good at (or even willing to  get involved in) articulating why a person ought to believe their version of the truth.
• They tend not to respond well when challenged about this. The answer often seems to be either silence, some Bible verses or some kind of rudeness, vulgarity or profanity
• They seem to have no capacity for accepting that their view might be wrong and someone else’s might be right. Even though some admit to the fact that they once believed something else and then changed their minds about that. They seem to believe that their current beliefs and understanding of things are absolutely correct and will never change.
• They tend to be disrespectful, unkind and even hateful to people who have opinions that are different from their own
• They tend have very extreme views. Believing that laws should be changed so that people who disagree with them on issues of sexuality and gender should face extreme penalties. Some believe that execution for people with such views would be acceptable. Even for people people that they class as sympathisers rather than perpetrators of the things that they condemn.
• It seems almost impossible to get involved in a reasonable discussion with them.

I have a feeling that some people I know might think that I’m wasting my time.

But it matters to me, and, I guess, it’s my time.

During this process, if I encounter people that affect the thought’s that I listed above then I’ll try to remember to update them appropriately.

Phobias, Love and Hate

kold_kadavr_ flatliner left a comment on my account of Sparkle 2017.

He says:

That's totally whorizontal, dood.
Wiseabove.
Follow us on the journey Upstairs:
I'd looove to meet you
in Seventh-Heaven...
yet, you first must be prepared:
Find-out what RCIA means... and join;
classes are free,
starting early September.
Aint no joke, earthling:
our indelible soul is on the line.
What's 77ish years compared to
the length N breadth of eternity?
What's the Tyranny of Progressivism
compared to the saving of our soul?
Doesnt make any difference
if you're an atheist;
doesn't make a whole-hilla-beans
wortha difference when you croak.
You'll be crying-out for JEEE-SIS!!!
...yet, if you've been a non-believer
your entire, finite existence,
Jesus maaay not hear you.
Billions of everlasting souls
are now in Hellfire without
the basic nessecities for eternity.
Are you actually willing
to take THAT risk of being condemned?
Again, Jesus laughs when you
should've learned the
meaning of wisdom N discernment,
mortal sinner... as am I.
Im not better than you...
yet, I gotta lotta d'knowlijj
which'll save-your-soul, kapiche??
Sorry for the New Yoirk accent.
Again, find-out what RCIA means.
Make Your Choice -SAW
PS 'Saving souls from Hell
should be your
primary occupation'
-Jesus

There is an image on the Google+ page of  kold_kadavr_ flatliner that looks like this:

It’s taken from here, a posting from Mike Warren, Disciple, Husband, Father, Soldier.

Warren says:

“Better is open rebuke than hidden love,” (Prov 27.5).

We love others when we see them as individuals to be loved as differently as they are from one another but always in accordance with how God commands.

If we really loved them, and we know that love is defined by God, then helping them learn how to love God should be our ultimate aim, even if such love would be defined by our world as “hate.”

But there are still problems here. In knowing about the things that are defined by God. Just believing something doesn’t make it true. Even having faith in something doesn’t make it true. Having it written down in the Bible doesn’t make it true.

In the context of the original article I think a fair translation of the text on the image is:

My opinions

sound

like hate

to those

who hate

my opinions.

Hateful words aren’t made less hateful by being based on a persons interpretation of what the Bible says.

Here,  a comment from Kold_Kadavr_flatliner links to here. The About Me section of this page takes me to -blessed holy socks, the non-perishable-zealot which says that his Web page is here. The July 15th feature is headlined:

Only Homophobes Will Make It To Heaven And All Non-Homophobes Will End Up In Hell. This kind of thing makes me struggle with the idea of freedom of speech. It seems to stem from a persons belief in their correct understanding of a book that they claim is infallible giving them the authority to speak with absolute certainty about the mind of God. Coupled with an inability to understand people and a propensity to pass judgment. Walid Shoebat says of himself: For the record, my name is Walid Shoebat. I used to be a radicalized Muslim willing to die for the cause of Jihad until I converted to Christianity in 1994. So perhaps he has changed from being a radicalized Muslim to being a radicalized Christian?

Earlier today I wrote about a “renewed personal commitment to engage with people that I see as being different from me whenever that is possible. To not make assumptions about people without taking the trouble to get to know them.” And I have to admit that I’m struggling with this at the moment. It’s difficult to draw alongside someone who gives the impression that they speak for God, that God hates you and that they hate whoever God hates.

I haven’t any Hellfire to threaten people with. I don’t lay claim to understanding the mind of God. I’m don’t believe that I am homophobic, biphobic or transphobic. These are some of the differences that seem to exist between myself and Walid Shoebat.

Things that we might have in common. I accept the fact that I’m fallible. I make mistakes, do wrong things. I don’t know all the answers. I hardly understand the questions. Maybe Walid is like that as well?

Anyways I added the following comment to the posting:

I have to admit to feeling sad that you have these opinions. I have a feeling that you'd perhaps say that they aren't your opinions, they are what the Bible says and what God says. Nevertheless, it makes me feel sadness, not hatred.

At the moment it says: Hold on, this is waiting to be approved by Walid Shoebat. I find that a bit curious.

Anyways. if anything comes of this I’ll post it somewhere here.

Being Different–Love and Murder

A few days ago I watched “Murdered for Being Different”.

It’s a “real life drama” that tells about the love between Sophie Lancaster and Robert Maltby. It also tells about the murder of Sophie, and the equally brutal attack on Robert that left him almost dead.

A significant motivating factor in the attack and murder was the fact that Sophie and Robert, as goths,  were seen to be different.

There’s an article in Cosmopolitan here that talks about the people and what happened. And a review of the drama by Julia Raeside in The Guardian here. As she says, "It’s not a programme you’ll love, but it will stay with you long after the credits have rolled."

At the end I was left wondering. How can people do that? What makes them that way?

And it has stayed with me.

Julia Raeside mentions this moment:

When they are chased by another gang of youths, Rob wants to hide. “Hiding means the idiots win,” she tells him, grinning and inviting him to the pub.

Simon Usborne wrote an article based on an interview with Robert Maltby that was published in the The Guardian here. A few extracts from this:

 “My initial memory was seeing the coffin and thinking, that’s too small,” he says. “Her entire life shouldn’t have fitted into that small box. That’s when I began to crumble. And I’ll be honest, I was resentful of the fact so many people were there. They had the best intentions, but I was thinking: ‘Did you ever eat a meal with her? Did you know how she took her coffee? You just saw this archetype on the news. You didn’t know her.’”

…

But for Maltby, struggling alone in Bacup, the “goth murder” narrative widened the gap between his and the public understanding of what had happened, and who Lancaster was. “I have never seen it as a hate crime,” he says. “It was always like: ‘Sophie Lancaster was killed because she was a goth.’ No she wasn’t: she was killed because some arseholes killed her. Why can’t we ask what it is about them that made them want to murder someone? Not what it is about someone that made them be murdered.”

…

To Maltby, the media focus on their appearance in the aftermath of the crime felt like a form of victim-blaming. “Besides being patronising, the goth thing was also an oversimplification of a much broader social issue,” he explains. “Life hasn’t progressed in these poor areas. There is still that dissatisfaction, that stagnation. These areas are still forgotten, and forgotten people will feel like … well, it can breed nihilism. I’ve never tried to demonise the attackers and, in many ways, they were victims.”

…

After the funeral precipitated a steep decline in his mental health, he became a recluse. On receiving proper treatment, eventually he felt ready to return to the park, and then to visit Lancaster’s grave in a nearby village. “I said: ‘I’m sorry, I have to find my life again’,” he says. “If anything, it was a ceremony for myself, to go: ‘Look, this has happened but now I need to be me again.’” Going back to university became part of that process. He studied illustration with animation at Manchester School of Art and moved to the city for his final year. But none of these moments felt like breakthroughs. “They were both incredibly profound and entirely meaningless,” he says. “There is no panacea, no one big thing that snaps you out of it. It has been gradual and hard.”

…

Maltby was not in court when his attackers were sentenced, but a lawyer read out a statement. “Before all this happened I was settled into a life quite independent,” he said. “Now I’m finding the whole world a terrifying place.” Today, he no longer lives in fear, but finds life “terrifyingly meaningless”, albeit in a strangely reassuring way. “Life is chaos, anything can happen and it doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of things,” he says. “No matter how significant something is to you, the universe doesn’t care. But there’s something freeing in that: do what you want, what makes you happy.”

What is it about some people that makes them want to murder someone? Hate? Fear? Ignorance? Evil?

I don’t know the answer. But I think that there’s more than one.

Somewhere in it all, I think, is the fact that we don’t know each other. Rob’s words made me stop and think:

‘Did you ever eat a meal with her? Did you know how she took her coffee? You just saw this archetype on the news. You didn’t know her.’

And I didn’t.

It can be surprisingly easy to harbour phobias about the kind of people that we don’t know. And phobias aren’t good things. At the heart of them there is no sense. Just non-sense.

A thing that I take away from this is a renewed personal commitment to engage with people that I see as being different from me whenever that is possible. To not make assumptions about people without taking the trouble to get to know them.

And also to do what I can to make it safe for people, so that there is no need to hide. For, if we hide, then it may seem as though the idiots win. But when idiots win, we all lose. Idiots included.

Sparkle 2017

How large a grey suitcase does a person need for a 3-day trip?

The truth is that it depends upon the trip and the person.

If the trip is to Sparkle and the person is Andrea then the answer is larger than you might think.

To be fair to Andrea though, the same is true if the person is Tina. Except the suitcase is more of a red colour with a floral pattern.

The plan to Sparkle was laid back in February.

The time: July 7^th to 10^th 2017.

The accommodation: The Premier Inn, Portland Street, Manchester.

The event: Sparkle 2017

Thursday July 6^th is a day to pack the larger than you might think suitcase.

It begins with makeup.

There’s a dinky pink little suitcase thing. It’s a little like a Time And Relative Dimension in Space machine. It doesn’t do time or relative dimension in space travel. But it almost seems to be dimensionally transcendental. Which is a mouthful of a way of saying that it fits more on the inside than you would think by looking at it from the outside. It’s a shame that its big grey brother is more dimensionally challenged.

The dinky pinky receives Foundation. Max Factor X, 106 Natural beige, 35 ml. Times two. And yes, this is a lot of Foundation for a long weekend. But, thinks Andrea “one of them is half empty … and a bit left over at the end of the weekend is better than not enough at the wrong time of day during the weekend”.

Hindsight being the thing that it is reveals that Max Factor X cartons may also be dimensionally transcendental.

Kryolan Transluscent Powder. Also known as Transparent Puder, Poudre transparente, Polvo transparente, Cipria transparente. 60g. Times 2. That’s a lot. A bit like Max Factor X. It took a long time to type all that. And, having checked the spellings, I now have a keyboard spattered with Cipria transparente. A lot less than 60g. But a little bit of powder … as you might know … goes a long way. One might almost say that it is dimensionally transcendental. But only almost.

StarGazer 31 Eye Dust. 1.8g. AKA hyper pigmented loose eye shadow powder.

Max Factor Earth Spirits 495 Smokey Gold Lidschatten. 4g. Just another name for eye shadow.

Revolution Redemption Palette Iconic 2. 14 g. 12 shades. This stuff is “a perfect mix of pearl, shimmer and matte shades. Totally collectable and a pure sellout”. Must be something to do with all that ethylhexyl palmitate. It’s also, eye shadow. Complete with an eye shadow applicator tool.

That adds up to a lot of eye shadow for someone with just the regular two eyes.

Body BC Collection classic gold. 12 shades of eye shadow. 3 shades of rouge. It makes it into the pink TARDIS by virtue of one shade of rouge.

Maybelline Master Precise liquid eyeliner. Black/Noir. And also, Noir – Black. 0.4mm point. Which is a Pointe Ultra-Fine in anyone’s language.

Maybelline Pulse Perfection Vibrating Mascara. Yes. Really. It has a battery. 6.5 ml.

Max Factor Lipfinity lip colour, 108, Frivolous. That being the shade.

Maybelline Super Stay 24 Colour, 510, Red passion. 19 ml.

Then comes the additional hardware.

Fingers. Not necessarily the most chic way to apply foundation. But they work and are pretty low cost. These stay attached to hands rather than adding to the payload of the petite pink thing.

Powder puff applicator pad to put the Cipria transparente on.

Powder brush to brush it off again.

An eye shadow brush.

And another one.

That’s two.

Andrea has two eyes and they are different shapes. The bristles on the brushes, that is.

A Ms Makeup rouge brush. Only one.

Lipfinity and Super Stay are self sufficient.

MAC Vernis à Ongles. Nail Lacquer. Cream Shirelle AA4 being the colour. 10 ml being the size.

Rimmel 60 Seconds Super Shine. Nail polish. 340 Berries and Cream. 8 ml.

Nail file. Nail clippers. Tiny scissors. Little tweezers.

Cotton wool buds.

Balls. Of cotton wool that is. More than two.

The rest make it into the pink wash-bag.

Nivea Soft Moisturising Cream. Superdrug Nourishing Nail Polish Remover (Acetone free with Aloe Vera and Vitamin E no less). Cotton wool roll. Simple Cleansing Lotion.

3 shavers (Panasonic, Braun, Phillips). 1 toothbrush (Braun). Toothpaste (Colgate).

Then come the reasons for the grey case needing to be so big.

Three wigs. This could be considered an extravagance for a girl that has only a single head.

Two breasts. Silicone. Fairly modest in size. Exactly the right number.

A lingerie of assorted knickers, bras, suspender belts, stockings and tights.

Three skirts … blue denim, floral cotton, black faux-leather.

Three blouses … pink, black, white.

Three t-shirts … black, pink, pink + white stripes.

Six dresses … short black times two, pink, long with white spots on black, long floral, long patterned.

Three pairs of shoes.

Two pairs of sandals.

Three handbags.

Two belts.

Four necklaces. Two rings. One watch. Three bracelets. Four pairs of earrings.

No room for the partridge.

Or the pear tree.

Experience has shown that haste and nail polish do not make good partners. And that loading a car boot with recently painted finger nails is certain to lead to tears.

So, Thursday evening sees Berries and Cream being leisurely applied to toe nails. Cream Shirelle to finger nails. A trickier process than initially envisaged. The Berries and Cream brush has somehow been sadly deformed, making it surprisingly easy to paint toes as well as nails. Cream Shirelle is runny, but thankfully there is no rush. Andrea is glad to be a girl with time on her hands. Not to mention Cream Shirelle on her fingers.

07:30 Friday July 7^th, 2017. Body shaving and ablutions. Dress. Breakfast. Extremely large grey suitcase gets loaded, thankful that polish is hardened.

09:45 Tina arrives. Floral suitcase having proportions just as generous as Andrea’s grey beast, but looking prettier.

Hitting the road soon after, Andrea and Tina are DRAB alter-egos.

A308

A308(M)

A404(M)

A404

M40

Slow down it flashes. Incident.

All clear it says with signs of no incident at all.

This is par for the M40.

M42

The newly smart M6 – it could not possibly be dumber than the M40

Hard shoulders turned soft.

60, 50, 40, 60, 50 …

WC and Coffee

Susan phones to say she has arrived.

M6

Sat Nav selected detour involving the A500

M6, the dumb version, complete with roadworks to make it smart

60, 50, 40, 30, 20, 10, 0 all without the aid of added intelligence.

The journey to smartness has its inconveniences

M6

0, 10, 20, 40, 60, 70

A re-envisioned A556

Calculating … Calculating … Calculating … Calculating whispers the Satellite Navigation system patiently

M56

Princess Parkway

Princess Road

Medlock Street

Great Bridgewater Street

Chepstow Street

Portland Street

Dickinson Street

191 miles and it’s about 14:40.

Tina rolls things to reception.

Andrea cruises to St James Street and Q-Park and makes a careful mental note of where the car is.

Reception is a busy place. A bunch of people are checking in personally.

Andrea and Tina go for the faceless option. Touchscreen, credit card and PIN number. Done in a jiffy. Or maybe two. Room 328. Susan is 302.

15:00 “Susan we’re here. See you in about an hour”.

This is an ambitious target indeed.

Fiddle with the air conditioning.

The room is fine, but hasn’t been designed to cope with the contents of elephantine suitcases.

Three hangers for Tina and three for Andrea.

Three into 3 skirts + 6 dresses + 3 blouses.

Two dresses per hanger, remainder 3 skirts + 3 blouses folded neatly in the suitcase.

Let the undressing, redressing and makeup begin.

A Master Precise eyeliner does, in fact, need a master (or mistress) with precise fingers. And patience. And cotton wool buds help a lot as well.

Susan is waiting at the bar.

The 60-minute target stretches on and on.

It’s a short black faux-leather skirt and white blouse for Andrea.

By about 15:45 Susan, Tina and Andrea are sitting and chatting in the bar.

Hazel pops by and says hello.

The trio adjourn to The Paramount just around the corner. A Sauvignon Blanc. Two halves of Imperial Stout.

Talking is of journeys. To Manchester. Through life.

A trip to the hotel.

A long patterned dress for Andrea.

A walk to Canal Street.

“Can I have a picture with you all? You look fantastic”.

Sackville gardens. Things are in preparation.

Delicatezze which was once Eden. The bar, that is. Not the garden.

It’s a nice place. Sparkle Weekend Guides at the bar.

We sit on the barge and sip drinks. A Sauvignon Blanc and two halves of a rather nice slightly coffee flavoured beer.

Another trip to the hotel.

All buses seem to lead to Didsbury. East or West.

A short black dress for Andrea. High heels and a handbag full of sandals.

An excellent dinner at Red Chilli. Beef. Chicken. Duck. Rice boiled and crispy rice – which is a bit like rice crispies.

A visit to Via.

Via is a nice place. Though a little bit of care is needed when negotiating the winding staircases.

Susan and Tina:

Tina and Andrea:

We talk of cars. Self-discovery. Self-acceptance. Sons. Daughters. Wives. Friends. Religion. Freedom. Persecution. Life. Death. Trans. Non-binary. Gender-fluid. Sauvignon Blanc. Two halves of Fosters.

We smile.

Andrea’s round. Of drinks that is.

“A glass of Sauvignon Blanc please”

The girl at the bar searches the cabinet.

Then it’s in with the corkscrew.

And yes, it should be out with the cork.

But corks can be stubborn.

Andrea smiles patiently as another girl at the bar repositions the corkscrew.

Pulls.

Pushes.

The cork takes a two-nil lead.

“How would a glass of house wine be?”

“Sauvignon Blanc would be nicer.”

Andrea smiles with gentle amusement as a boy at the bar repositions the corkscrew.

Pushes.

Pulls.

They think it’s all over.

It is now.

Three-nil to the cork.

“They’ll have some at the bar downstairs” says the first girl and kindly offers to go and get some.

Andrea smiles and picks up a diet coke and a Fosters and is happy to trot to the downstairs bar herself.

The trot is actually a careful little trip-trap out of respect to the winding staircase.

“A glass of Sauvignon Blanc please”.

The boy checks out the cabinet, unscrews the top and pours a glass.

A bit of a let-down. But it’s a decisive 1-nil victory to the boy. Not a cork in sight.

The day ends with another visit to The Paramount and the customary Sauvignon Blanc and Imperial Stouts.

Rise and shine at 9:00 on Saturday morning.

At 10:30 Andrea, clad in a knee length denim skirt and pink blouse taps on the door of 302.

At the Paramount it’s 2 traditionals plus one for a child or person with a smaller appetite. Three filters.

A visit to the hotel rooms bumping in to Nikki and Rachel on the way.

A short walk to Sackville Gardens.

Security is more evident than last time we visited. There are barriers across the ends of roads. Bags are searched at the garden entrances.

The sun is shining and everyone is friendly.

Zarah dances.

Introductions and safety information. A mention of Alan Turing, who sits in the park.

Poetry is read.

Ded.pixel play.

Tina and Susan pose.

Places to buy clothing, shoes, hair, snacks, drinks, makeup, makeovers. Trades unions. Police. NHS. Lloyds Bank. Asda.

A trip back along Sackville Street, turning right at Canal Street in search of seats in the shade from the warm early afternoon sun.

All the way to Minshull Street. Lots of seats and tables. All paired up with people.

About turn.

Andrea pops into Velvet, admiring the fish in the floor.

“Any chance of a table for three for tonight?”

“Sorry … we’re fully booked from 6 o’clock”.

All the way to Princess Street. Seats. Tables. People.

So, it’s back across the little bridge to sit on the barge at Delicatezze. Accompanied by Sav Blanc and her coffee flavoured friends.

And another visit to the park.

A table is booked for 7:00 pm.

At the hotel again Andrea confirms that it is possible to remove bristles and renew foundation without ruining lips and eyes. A trick that is worth 90 minutes.

7:00 pm and carbonarra, calzone and rib-eye. Accompanied by the usuals.

The trip to the Paramount is via Via. At this point my spell checker wants me to “Delete Repeated Word”. But the word survives because it’s what happened.

Andrea’s turn to visit the bar. She recognises the girl.

You perhaps guessed. “A glass of Sauvignon Blanc please.”

The girl behind the bar searches the drinks cabinet and retrieves a bottle.

Together with a corkscrew.

The corkscrew penetrates.

Pull. Push. Pull.

Andrea smiles.

“I had this same trouble last night.”

“I know.”

“Ohhhhhh it was you!!!!!” she smiles.

We settle for a glass of house white with a non-diet lemonade and Fosters.

At the Paramount it’s the usuals.

Sleep followed by Sunday.

A Paramount breakfast.

A Pop bar seat.

“A glass of Sauvignon Blanc please”.

“We only have house white.”

“Then a medium glass of house white please”.

“We only have large and small glasses.”

“Mmm … then a large glass of house white and two cans of Guinness please”

A short wait.

“Two cans of Guinness and a glass of paint stripper … mmm … house white. That’s nine pounds and forty pence please.”

Andrea wiggles a visa card.

“Sorry … there’s a one pound fifty pence charge for that.”

Andrea fiddles with her purse for a while.

Pound coins. Fifty pence pieces. Twenty p’s. Tens. Fives. Ones.

Nine pounds and forty pence it is.

Rachel says hello and goodbye as we sip.

Back at the gardens the stalls are buzzing.

Susan poses with a policeman. Andrea suggests the handcuffs would look cool, but its not to be.

The music is acoustic.

And the judges are looking serious.

Jordan Gray not-so-serious.

The scores are almost in:

And we have a runner up:

And a winner:

Time for Susan to set off home.

A phone call from Sarah, the elder daughter of Andrea.

We meet at the Paramount via Q-Park, just to check on the car, passing the rainbow police.

At Q-Park Andrea discovers that the careful mental note of where the car is, wasn’t quite so careful. A little bit of a search reveals its location.

At the Paramount its beers, lemonade and chatter.

Then it’s a walk in the park.

And Canal Street complete with all the Gordons:

Back to the barge. G&T’. Coffee beers. Chatter.

And now we know the identity of the drinkers of Sav Blanc, coffee beers and G&T.

The gardens again.

The bus stop for Sarah. East and West Didsbury are ever popular destinations.

Doombar, King Prawns and Chicken Caesar at the Paramount.

A hiatus followed by Doombar, Stout and Porter, in no particular order.

Sleep and all of a sudden it’s Monday.

Packing. Paramount. Premiere Reception.

“Checking out?”

“Yes please.”

“Which room?”

“238”

The receptionist checks it out.

“Oh … are you sure you’re leaving today.”

“Yep”.

Andrea nods. And Thinks.

“But I’m not sure about 238 … that should be 328.”

Problem solved.

Q-Park and the drive home via a short visit to see Sarah and Ollie.

Tina and Andrea are DRAB.

“So … do I still call you Tina?” asks Sarah with a smile.

“Oh … and Paul asked if I call you mum when you are Andrea” she asks.

Andrea and Tina are happy to leave the choice to Sarah.

And then, the journey home.

So … how was Sparkle?

For me, it was great.

Most of the above is just an account of events. But Sparkle is much more than a series of events.

The specialness is about people.

The time spent with Tina, Susan, Sarah, Ollie and others.

The things we talked about. Things that matter to us. Friends. Families.

A place where trans people and any people … all people … can relax and be at peace as well as party.

A place of diversity. Acceptance. Trans, bi, lesbian, gay, Muslim, Hindu, Christian, Humanist, non-theist … the list goes on … can be different and can still be together.

For me, the acoustic music was special. The dancing of Zarah. The humour of Jordan Gray. The helpfulness of the police force. The friendliness of people at the Premiere Inn and Weatherspoon's Paramount, the Via and Pop bars, Red Chilli and Delicatezze. The time and effort put into the organising and running of Sparkle by so many people.

The weekend is more than the sum of its parts.

Thank you.