Sex and Gender

 Yesterday I read two articles in the Guardian.

One is : Labour’s contradictory policies on trans and women’s rights must be addressed by Susanna Rustin. The emphasis of the article is upon sex based rights as opposed to gender based rights and is a plea for the labour party to move in this direction in a clear and unequivocal way. The article ends with the words:

... a group called Labour Women’s Declaration advocates for sex-based rights within the party, and is also engaged in cross-party efforts. Currently, between 20 and 40 Labour MPs are known to be sympathetic. I hope they can persuade Labour to shift its position with regard to the sex-based rights of women. Not only because I agree with them. But because I don’t think it would be at all surprising if voters were to turn against politicians who speak in riddles about the differences between male and female bodies – and deride advocacy on behalf of biologically female people as a relic from prehistory.

The other is: Labour needs to own its policy on gender - and unequivocally back trans rights by Zoe Williams. The emphasis here is somewhat different, and the article ends with the words:

Labour needs to take a stand based on principles of equality with which they are familiar. They could also maybe learn from their history of being wedged – on Brexit, and long before that, on nuclear disarmament – by political enemies who care much less about the issue than they enjoy watching Labour fall apart.

Underneath this manoeuvring is careless cruelty to trans people, who despite being 1% of the population are apparently the issue of the age, and yet whose suffering and exclusion doesn’t feature in the discourse at all. Beneath every confected outrage about trans athletes, trans prisoners and men pretending to be trans in order to lurk in toilets, there is a consistent theme, that trans people are not victims but predators. It’s such a fanciful reversal of reality – in which trans people are beset by horrifying levels of hate crime, homelessness and domestic violence – that the entire debate is starting to sound baffled and stupefied. That’s no excuse for Labour, who should be able to see exactly what course to take.

My own feelings are much more in line with Zoe Williams than Susanna Rustin. 

Who we are

A friend, Anne Yarwood,  recently asked if I would mind writing something about Surrey Swans for a web site that she has been involved with setting up.

For me, the opportunity to write this was another reminder of the way that things are changing. It was a great encouragement to meet with Anne and talk things through as part of the process of putting it together.

The article is titled Who we are and is on the Stories page of The Imagination Acts web site here.

The text reads like this:

Who we are

In 2003 a group of people began to meet at the function room of the Lion Brewery in Ash, Surrey. They adopted the name Surrey Swans. People have met there 11 or 12 times a year since then.

Those that come long are transgender or the friends or partners of people that are transgender.

I first went along in 2007 and began organising the meetings in 2011.

Why did the meetings begin? And why do they continue?

For me, the story runs something like this.

I was born a boy in the 1950’s. As a teenager, and then as I grew older, I occasionally dressed in clothing that’s generally classified as being ladies.

It was a secret. It resulted in mixed feelings. Pleasure. Guilt. Shame. Sometimes I would buy things. Other times I would throw them away.

In the nineties and noughties things were changing. Trans-related issues began to be discussed openly on WEB sites.

In 2007 I booked a makeover. It felt a bit like meeting myself for the first time. In a way, Andrea was born.

And then Surrey Swans began to make a big difference in my life. To be more precise, people at Surrey Swans made a big difference.

No longer alone. No longer a total secret. Guilt and shame giving way to self-acceptance, wellbeing and healing.

So began a journey.

Today, Surrey Swans matters to me because of the people.

It’s a place where I spend time with friends.

It’s also a place of safety, acceptance and friendship where people who are in the process of discovering themselves can meet other people that are travelling in a similar direction. People who are able to pay attention, to listen, to care, to take seriously and to empathise.

I believe that love is a kind of giving of attention, and of listening. And so, in its way, Surrey Swans is a place where people receive love.

It may be that one day there will be no need of places like Surrey Swans. That our perceived social norms will no longer result in people feeling ashamed or guilty about the way that they dress. That we won’t jump to conclusions about who people are based on stereotyped images projected by the media. We’ll understand that a person is more than the clothing that they choose to wear.

As transgendered people are empowered and encouraged by each other they are more able to go about their daily lives in a way that better reflects who they really are. Able to celebrate rather than self-recriminate.

As people and groups of people that once stigmatised, chastised and criticised learn to tolerate the transgendered. And then to accept them simply as people. And to welcome them.

Until one day, no one even notices.

And little by little this is happening. Right at this very moment.

And some footnotes:

The term transgender is broad. It conjures up other words like transsexual, transvestite and crossdresser. And more modern terms such as genderqueer, gender dysphoric and non-binary.

The same word can mean different things to different people. Different things in different countries. A word that one transgendered person identifies with can sometimes profoundly offend another person.

Here isn’t the place to discuss the precise meaning of these terms. If you’re interested in the meaning you could try here as a beginning: http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Transhealth/Pages/Transhealthhome.aspx

In truth, as with many collective nouns, the words are open to stereotypical abuse.

The only way to begin to find out what the term means to a particular trans person is to spend some time talking with and listening to that particular person. Everyone has a unique and special story. And not everyone fits into a specially predefined category.

Having said that, of the people that I know, each in our own uniqueness, we all agree that our trans-ness isn’t about any label that tries to attach itself to us. Really, it’s just who we are.

andrea.wright@hotmail.co.uk

http://surreyswans.blogspot.co.uk/p/introducing-surrey-swans.html

Shop Assistants, Surgeons, Gender, Science Fiction and Artificial Intelligence

Several weeks ago a friend said that she was recently shopping in a pretty well know UK store when an assistant at the store referred to her as Sir. This, obviously, wasn’t a good experience and she recounted the incident on social media. She was surprised to be contacted by the store and was invited to meet with the store manager who offered apologies and coffee and promised to take actions to help ensure that similar incidents don’t happen in the future.

More recently I also heard of an incident where a surgeon at a hospital consistently referred to a trans patient as he even though the patient was clearly presenting as female. After the surgeon had left, a newly qualified doctor spent quite a while apologising for the surgeon’s behaviour.

There seems a strange irony in this. A commercial world where senior people are anxious to ensure that everyone,including junior workers, deals with trans people with curtesy. And a part of the National Health Service where junior doctors are left apologising for the discourtesy shown by senior colleagues.

I know that the whole gender thing can become complicated. But, a person presenting as female probably wishes to be referred to as she. A person presenting as male probably wishes to be referred to as he. This isn’t the whole story, I know. Some people prefer gender-neutral words. But it is never more complex than simply asking a person what there preference is and then having the courtesy to go along with their wishes.

I recently read a trilogy of Sci-Fi books by Anne Leckie (Ancillary Justice, Ancillary Sword and Ancillary Mercy). They are amongst the most enjoyable books that I’ve ever read, so if you have a chance I recommend reading them. In the future presented by these books gender is something that is significantly less significant than it is today. People are generally referred to as she regardless of gender. People dress as they wish, regardless of gender They wear makeup as they wish, regardless of gender. And in a curious kind of way AI (Artificial Intelligence) is presented in a way that shows a potential for love that exceeds the way that people sometimes behave.

Unconditional love and the death of a teenager

There’s a story in the news today about Leelah Alcorn. It’s in the Independent here and the Daily Mail here.

The articles mention that 17 year old Leelah committed suicide and that a contributing factor in this was her Christian parent’s inability to accept Leelah’s gender identity.

Leelah’s mother says that she loved her son unconditionally, but seems unable to use the word daughter.

I’ve spent a while reading through some of the comments that readers of the Daily Mail article have made.

To me it seems that there are some very harsh things being said.

Some people believe that all religions are evil and intolerant. That the influence of religion on people is always bad.

And some religious people make comments that seem to confirm this stereotypical view of religion.

As often seems to be the case, a surprisingly large number of people seem to think that there is a single one size fits all solution to dealing with transgender issues and religious beliefs. Unfortunately the one size fits all answers that are offered by different people are different.

There was a time when I viewed myself as being a Bible believing born again evangelical Christian. Not a fundamentalist. But I believed things like the apostles creed.

There were some things that I found difficult. The idea of hell, for example. And the concept that even though God is love and God loves everyone, it was likely that the vast majority of all people that have ever lived would be spending an eternity in hell.

I think that when people believe this, the result can be that they do a lot of seemingly unloving things with a motivation of what they believe is love.

If a person believes that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people are bound for an eternity in hell then it might seem loving to do almost anything that would save them from it.

In some ways I think this helps me understand the feelings and actions of Leelah’s parents.

But, it doesn’t stop me feeling and believing that they are wrong. Just as I believe that I was wrong. In offering Leelah what they believed to be “unconditional love”, they seem to actually have been attaching all kinds of conditions to it.

There’s an article that’s worth reading: What to know, say and understand.

In fact, not all Christians share the views and beliefs of Leelah’s parents. It depends upon how they interpret the Bible.

I know Christians that don’t associate homosexuality and transgender with “sin”.

I also know other Christians that say that people with such views are not Christians.

I’ve never actually met a Christian that takes these words of Jesus literally:

"He who has two coats, let him give to him who has none. He who has food, let him do likewise."

But I have heard Christians explain why they should not be taken literally.

These days I don’t see myself as being Christian. Some would associate this with dogs and vomit, pigs and mud. My own feelings are more complex than that.

Gender Fundamentalism

The New American has an article here with the headline: The Transgender Con? Many “Transgender” People Regret Switch.

Interestingly when I read the article there was an advertisement for hormone therapy included.

The New American article led me to an article here in The Federalist, headed Trouble In Transtopia: Murmurs Of Sex Change Regret.

The New American also led me to http://www.sexchangeregret.com/ which is put together by Walt Heyer.

I’ve read the two articles and some of Walt Heyer’s web site.

I was left with the impression of people that have decided that whatever their own personal experiences are, then everyone must be the same. With almost no room for diversity.

I was intending to put together some kind of a critique of this but came across this article headed Walt Heyer, the Fallacious Transsexual written by Alison Hudson.

Alison’s article is very full of insight …  which is shorthand for saying that I agree pretty much with all that she says there. That doesn't mean it’s correct of course … but read what she has to say and see what you think. The refreshing thing is that Alison doesn’t claim to have all the answers. Walt Heyer, on the other hand. Well he’s much more of a fundamentalist and crusader.

Some of Alison’s words:

I am not going to judge Heyer’s personal experience nor his decision to detransition. That’s a private journey and only he can be the judge of it. What I will take issue with, however, is the way he’s chosen to turn his negative experience into a crusade against SRS [Sexual Reassignment Surgery] and the transgender community.

…

his [Walt Heyer’s]view on the matter: perverted gender imposters and greedy surgeons are going to get your kids if you don’t fight back! Won’t someone think of the children?

…

The main ways that Heyer backs up his extreme position are overemphasizing the importance of individual studies, cherry-picking data, and relying on a fallacious black-and-white view of the debate,. These are tactics are straight out of the pseudoscience playbooks of the anti-vaccination and anti-GMO movements.

…

In a larger sense, all of these flaws expose Heyer’s true problem: confirmation bias. He has an agenda that he is promoting, and therefore he selectively presents and overemphasizes the import of anything that agrees with his view while dismissing science that does not agree. Ironically, he accuses his opponents of “ignor[ing] studies that do not support their fabricated false information.” I’m sorely attempted to invoke the “takes one to know one” defense here.

In addition to these flaws, there’s the simple fact of Heyer’s general anti-trans rhetoric. He uses terms like “delusional” and “gender-imposters” when referring to transgender people, and calls transgender advocates “gender non-compliant activists” and “pushers of sex change.” He’s clearly not interested in an open dialogue, and certainly not interested in changing his mind.

Ultimately, is Heyer right about trans being purely a mental disorder? The scientific jury is still out. But his approach to defending his position is full of the worst sort of pseudoscientific flaws. It’s selectively edited, riddled with fallacy, and shackled by a concrete anti-trans agenda. It’s hard to take his conclusions seriously when they are so poorly argued in so many ways.

And here are some of Walt Heyer’s words taken from his blog here:

Transgenders want laws that protect them so they can provoke others with their often flamboyant, even obnoxious, behaviors. They want legal protections as transgenders so they can freely provoke, taunt and bully non-transgenders, secure in knowing they are protected from any consequences.

A bit further up he does say, in a smaller and not-so-bold typeface:

We are not talking about the transgenders who prefer to remain under the radar, blending in unnoticed. This discussion is about the gender non-compliant activists who want to be in your face, not blending in at all.

I guess that, like Alison:

I am not going to judge Heyer’s personal experience nor his decision to detransition. That’s a private journey and only he can be the judge of it.

But none of the transgender people that I know want laws to protect them so they can provoke others.

They are just people that are trying to get by.

Does that mean that there are no transgendered people on the planet that have obnoxious behaviours?

Of course it doesn’t.

People who are transgender are a diverse bunch.

People are diverse.

And so are their needs.

The real problem that I have with Walt Heyer is that based upon the experiences of some people, he develops an entire ideology that he seeks to impose upon all people.

Girls, Guys, Shades of Gender, Suspender Belts and Pay Cuts

A little while ago I was involved in conversation with a transvestite that raised some thought provoking ideas.

She seemed to feel that all transvestites are on a path that leads to a need for more and more time to be spent as a girl. Less and less as a guy.

That as time passes there’s a need to be more and more girl-like and less and less guy-like.

And that there’s an inevitability in all of this for all concerned.

As we talked I expressed my disagreement.

For myself I feel at peace with where I am at. My life is a mix of guy and girl, masculine and feminine. I don’t feel a need for the balance that there is at the moment to change.

I know that different people have different feelings and experiences. But I also know what my own are.

Actually at times all these kind of terms can get surprisingly confusing.

Girl, guy. Man, woman.Male, female.Masculine, feminine.Gender, sex. And I think that we (including myself) sometimes use some of these words interchangeably when they aren’t always quite so interchangeable.

However, having spent a little time looking around the WEB at definitions of some of these terms, there seems to be some confusion there as well.

There’s an interesting article here: Sex Difference vs. Gender Difference? Oh, I'm So Confused! – but it isn’t easy reading.

There’s an article on the UK National Health Service WEB site entitled : Gender dysphoria which also seems a little odd. It says:

Biological sex is assigned at birth, depending on the appearance of the infant. Gender identity is the gender that a person “identifies” with, or feels themselves to be.

and also says:

Gender can be defined using very narrow medical terms such as what types of chromosomes you have, or what types of genitals you were born with. However, many transsexuals (and also many experts in the treatment of gender dysphoria) find this type of narrow definition both unhelpful and offensive.

Whilst the World Health Organisation says:

"Sex" refers to the biological and physiological characteristics that define men and women.

"Gender" refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women

My own feeling is that there is more to gender than the World Health Organisation gives credit to. And they definitely have a different understanding of the word sex than do most of the people that I know.

I have a feeling that somewhere in all of this the word psychology should also appear.

I’ve heard it said, and I think that I’ve mentioned it previously in other blog posts, that there’s a view that gender is a line that joins masculine to feminine and that different people are at different places along the line.

There are times when people feel compelled to live their lives as though they were at a position on this line that they don’t really feel that they are really at.

Sometimes even at entirely the wrong end of the line.

Also, for many, the pressure to conform to a role that is either purely masculine or purely feminine has been intense and damaging.

The good news is that the pressure is, in some places at least, lessening. People are being allowed to be themselves. There’s still a long, long way to go, but at least things are moving.

I have this feeling that there are many more than 50 shades of gender, and that they aren’t all grey.

Over the years I’ve grown to accept and, in a way, celebrate, my own gender and have been fortunate enough to have family and friends that are able to accept it as well.

I feel that my position isn’t at either end of the gender line and I’m OK with that. The makeup and feminine clothing that I wear at times is an expression of this.

Actually it’s not just about gender in the sense of socially constructed roles. Nor is it just about sex or genital surgery. It’s more about who I feel that I am. It’s an expression of myself.

I think that different people are in different places when it comes to gender.

That there are lots of people that are in the process of still discovering who they are and where they are.

In a way, perhaps we all are still learning and still making discoveries about ourselves. And if we’re not then maybe we should be?

And I’m sure that the world is always a nicer place when people are allowed to be themselves when the way that  they are and the things that they do are of no harm to anyone.

And then … here’s a list of a few gender characteristics taken from the World Health Organisation:

• In the United States (and most other countries), women earn significantly less money than men for similar work
• In Viet Nam, many more men than women smoke, as female smoking has not traditionally been considered appropriate
• In Saudi Arabia men are allowed to drive cars while women are not
• In most of the world, women do more housework than men

There’s no mention of makeup, nylon stockings, suspender belts, skirts, blouses, dresses or high-heeled shoes.

Instead it’s a list of things that seem to be a result of men exercising unfair and unreasonable control over women. Although, I guess the smoking in Viet Nam represents something of an own-goal scored by the men.

And, ok, to be honest, I’ve heard is said that the history of high heeled shoes fall into that category as well. And there are perhaps people that would say the same of stockings and suspender belts.

As I said earlier. It’s a complex business.

But, for myself, I’d definitely rather have the suspender belt and stockings than a pay cut. Though immeasurably better would be the suspender belt, stockings and equal pay for equal work.

David Cameron, Lord Carey, Gender and Christian Persecution

Today I read this headline from the Daily Telegraph:

David Cameron 'feeds fears of Christian persecution', former Archbishop of Canterbury says

And this from the Daily Mail (PM is David Cameron, the Prime Minister):

The PM's done more than any leader to make Christians feel they're persecuted

The Daily Mail article is attributed to Lord Carey, former Archbishop of Canterbury.

Lord Carey says that he likes David Cameron and believes in his sincerity in making Britain a generous nation where “we care for one another and where people of faith may exercise their beliefs fully”.

A little later he suggests that many Christians doubt David Cameron’s sincerity. That according to a ComRes poll more than two-thirds of Christians feel they are part of a persecuted minority.

He does, however, point out that these feelings of persecution may not be justified since “few in the UK are actually persecuted.”

And yet, he says, the Prime Minister has “done more than any other recent political leader to feed these anxieties.”

What has the Prime Minster done?

• Allowed government lawyers to argue against the idea that Christians should be able to wear the Cross at their place of work
• More shockingly: is allowing the Equalities Minister to support a bill that would make the Parliamentary chapel of St Mary Undercroft into a multi faith prayer room
• He is working towards changing the law to allow same sex marriages
• The law might not offer religious believers who are registrars to refuse to carry out same sex marriages on religious grounds
• The law might force teachers to express agreement with the new politically correct orthodoxy (with respect to same sex marriage)

And what might this result in:

• The alienation of people who were considered to be pillars of society
• Christians not voting Conservative in the next general election
• Driving law-abiding Christians into the ranks of the malcontents and alienated

It’s not so long ago that things were very different. Same gender sexual activity wasn’t an accepted thing for people to be involved in. There is historical stuff here and more contemporary stuff here. And some background on LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) issues in the United Kingdom here. Though it actually says an enormous lot more about G than it does about L, B or T.

There have been times when sexual activity between  men resulted in the death penalty. More recently – within my living memory – it resulted in imprisonment. It seems that in 1957 the then Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Geoffrey Fisher, spoke out in favour of the decriminalisation of consensual and private homosexual behaviour.

It wasn’t until 1967, however, that this decriminalisation occurred when the Sexual Offences Bill was made passed.

A quote from Wikipedia:

Lord Arran, a sponsor of the Sexual Offences Bill, made the following remarks at the third reading in the Lords:

“Because of the Bill now to be enacted, perhaps a million human beings will be able to live in greater peace. I find this an awesome and marvellous thing. The late Oscar Wilde, on his release from Reading Gaol, wrote to a friend:

Yes, we shall win in the end; but the road will be long and red with monstrous martyrdoms.

My Lords, Mr. Wilde was right: the road has been long and the martyrdoms many, monstrous and bloody. Today, please God! sees the end of that road.”

And yet, Lord Arran went on to say:

“I ask one thing and I ask it earnestly. I ask those who have, as it were, been in bondage and for whom the prison doors are now open to show their thanks by comporting themselves quietly and with dignity. This is no occasion for jubilation; certainly not for celebration. Any form of ostentatious behaviour; now or in the future any form of public flaunting, would be utterly distasteful and would, I believe, make the sponsors of the Bill regret that they have done what they have done. Homosexuals must continue to remember that while there may be nothing bad in being a homosexual, there is certainly nothing good. Lest the opponents of the Bill think that a new freedom, a new privileged class, has been created, let me remind them that no amount of legislation will prevent homosexuals from being the subject of dislike and derision, or at best of pity. We shall always, I fear, resent the odd man out. That is their burden for all time, and they must shoulder it like men—for men they are.”

It seems that,in the UK, it wasn’t until 2003 that gay relationships began to be permitted in a similar way to heterosexual relationships. Civil partnerships weren’t introduced until 2005.  The first civil partnership ceremony took place at 11:00 on 5 December 2005 between Matthew Roche and Christopher Cramp at St Barnabas Hospice, Worthing, West Sussex. The usual 14 day waiting period was waived as Roche was suffering from a terminal illness. He died the next day. The article here gives additional background.

In all of this I’m left feeling that for many, many, many years it has been gay people that have been persecuted. The levels of persecution were extreme. The perpetrators of this persecution have included the Church and the State.

Thankfully things have changed and continue to change. A reading of the history of it suggests that the House of Lords has been a lot less willing to support such changes than has been the House of Commons. And some parts of the Church are moving much more slowly than is society in general.

I believe that Lord Arran was right in saying that no amount of legislation would change the way that people feel about homosexuals and homosexuality. Legislation doesn’t do that kind of thing.

But thankfully his view that homosexuals would forever be the subject of dislike and derision or pity … a burden for all time …  demonstrated that he severely underestimated people’s capacity for change when propaganda and misinformation are no longer supported by the fear that unjust laws can engender.

I’m not at all convinced by the idea that Christians in the UK are being persecuted in any kind of systematic or state-supported way.

There have been instances of lack of sensitivity – but equally there have been instances where the law has mainly been involved in preventing people with strongly held religious beliefs imposing the restrictions of those beliefs upon other people.

I’m particularly saddened by the view that support for same sex marriages should be construed as some kind of a persecution of the Church. Thank goodness that there are many, many Christians who don’t hold this view.

If David Cameron has done so much to make Christians feel persecuted then I’m left with the feeling that there are perhaps a lot of Christians that suffer from an excess of paranoia.

Marriage, gender and my Member of Parliament

Way back on 19th December last year I got round to sending an email to my Member of Parliament (Adam Afriyie) to ask about his feelings on Same Sex Marriage.

I wrote:

I’m writing concerning the  recent resurgence of news in the press and on television regarding the proposed legislation on “Gay Marriage”.

I myself am heterosexual and am married, but I am in favour of legislation that would allow same sex marriages. I’m also in favour of allowing (though not forcing) religious organisations to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies.

My understanding is that the Prime Minister intends to allow a free vote on this issue at some point in the near future.

I am, therefore writing to ask you to let me know if you are able to let me know which way you would expect to vote on this?

I received a written reply through the post dated January 17th 2013.

Thank you for your email regarding equal civil marriage.

You are quite right to highlight an issue of importance to many people in Windsor, and across the United Kingdom. Judging from my postbag, this is clearly a contentious issue, with passionate arguments on both sides.

By way of background, it is the Prime Minister's view that marriage should be for everyone. He believes that society is stronger when people enter into a stable relationship, commit to each other and make binding vows to love and honour one another. In the light of this, the Government has published proposals to remove the ban on same-sex couples entering into a civil marriage.

Religious organisations play an important role in our society; and my biggest concern is that they will not be forced to conduct ceremonies but be able to do so if they choose. I will not support any changes that jeopardise religious organisations' power to choose whether they conduct same sex ceremonies.

It is important that the proposals strike the right balance and I suspect the devil will be in the detail of the legislation which arrives before parliament.

Thank you for taking the time to write to me on this important issue. You have my commitment that I will give the legislation the careful consideration it deserves when it arrives in the House of Commons.

I was a little underwhelmed in that there was no direct answer to my question. I replied by email as follows on January 23rd:

Thank you for your letter in reply to my email. I’ve attached a copy of your reply to this email.

My understanding of the law as it stands at the moment, is that religious organisations (as well as other organisations) currently have no choice in the matter since same sex marriages cannot take place at all.

Based on the content of your letter, am I correct in assuming that you will vote in favour of removing the ban on same-sex couples entering into a civil marriage providing religious organisations are given the power to choose whether or not they conduct same sex ceremonies?

If this is not the case please could you clarify what other issues would affect the way in which you will vote?

The BBC reported on the result if the Parliamentary vote on February 6th. They mentioned:

David Cameron says he is proud the love of a same-sex couple will now "count the same" as that of a heterosexual couple, despite almost half his MPs voting against gay marriage.

MPs voted in favour of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill by 400 to 175, a majority of 225.

But 136 Tory MPs opposed the bill.

For many people the voting raises some awkward questions about Conservative MPs and gender equality.

The reply to my email was by post and dated February 7th:

Thank you for contacting me about the changes proposed to marriage by the Government.

Judging from my postbag in recent weeks, the issue is a contentious one, and one which has divided opinion up and down the country. I appreciate the many arguments that have been raised and I am encouraged that so many people have taken the opportunity to share their views.

You should know that I voted against the second reading of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill.

Given that MPs decided to give the Bill a second reading, my main concerns now are to ensure that the Church and other religious organisations are not coerced to hold such ceremonies through the threat of litigation, and that those who wish to form same sex civil partnerships are treated equally under the law.

Thank you once again for taking the time to write to me on this crucial matter. Please rest assured that I will take a final view on the legislation once it has been closely scrutinised and amended in Committee and returns to the House of Commons shortly.

Again I was disappointed, though not surprised, that my question was unanswered.

I’m still left not knowing what Adam’s real feelings on the matter are and if there are any circumstances in which he would really vote in favour of the Bill.

So I guess I’ll write again again and see what comes back.

On being somewhat less than 100%

The post at http://andrea-wright.blogspot.com/2009/05/street-brummie-and-bisexual.html provides some background on these musings.

Maybe some people are 100% male.

Maybe some are 100% female.

Maybe it depends on how we define the terms.

Maybe masculinity and femininity include personality traits and preferences as well as genetic sequences.

Maybe there are a lot of “less than 100 percent-ers” around.

Maybe I am one of them.

Maybe you are.

Maybe not.

We are both, though, 100% people.

Maybe the proportion of masculinity and femininity within a single person can vary as time passes.

Maybe it moves back and forth, even over short periods of time.

Maybe there is no hard, fast link between femininity, masculinity (gender) and sexuality.

Maybe a person can be:

• 100% man and 100% gay
• 100% woman and 100% lesbian
• 100% either and 100% straight
• 100% either and bisexual
• not 100% either 100% and 100% lesbian
• not 100% either and 100% gay
• not 100% either and bisexual
• maybe terms such as not 100% male and gay are meaningless.

Maybe the terms gay and lesbian would only have real significance in a world occupied by 100% men and 100% women.

Maybe a person that is 51% male is 49% lesbian if (s)he isn’t gay?

Maybe you are getting a sense that to talk percentages is maybe to talk bullshit.

Maybe people who most loudly proclaim I am 100% are sometimes those that are most afraid that they aren’t.

Maybe it can be a good thing to not always be 100% .

Humour, obsession and charity

A few days ago I came across this story http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1165892/Tory-councillors-gender-joke-led-dressing-police.html

According to the Daily Mail:

As the 50 members of the public at the police liaison meeting were handed their electronic handsets to take part in a survey, an official told them: 'Let's start with an easy question to get us going.

'Press A if you're male or B if you're female.'

But it seems nothing is ever that simple. Someone asked: 'What if you're transgendered?'

'You could press A and B together,' quipped Conservative councillor Jonathan Yardley.

…

A complaint was made  -  and as a result, he was spoken to by police for his ' homophobic' remark.

I have no way of knowing how complete a record of events this is.

My own reaction to Jonathan Yardley’s quip would have been to have smiled and pressed both buttons – though I suspect that the electronics wouldn’t have coped with it. I’m not at all sure how the remark could have been construed to be homophobic. But maybe the story is incomplete

I think that within the transgendered community there people who feel they are men trapped in women's bodies, women trapped in men's bodies and people who feel that they are somewhere in between.

Maybe most people are actually somewhere between?

Either way, maybe the options of button A, button B or button A + button B are adequate.

It seems a really strange kind of thing to have required police involvement.

 

I had a little think about the Sermon on the Mount … the bit that I quoted yesterday at least:

But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed ADULTERY with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into HELL. 

What does it mean? I have the feeling that very few Christians take this at face value. Otherwise there’d be a lot more guys in churches with fewer than two eyes.

Is it meant to mean that anyone who looks at a girl and thinks … wow … she looks fit … has to make a choice between cutting out their right eye or going to hell? What about the left eye?

There are times, though, I can imagine, when a person can get very wrapped up in thoughts that are doing them no good at all. A kind of obsessiveness where the obsession is destructive. Obsessions are not usually good things.

In the end though I’m sure that thinking something is not the same as doing something. And i don’t think that was the idea that Jesus was trying to convey. Not at all.

 

There was a story on the news today that the government are planning to experiment in making grants to charities that involve themselves in political lobbying as part of what they do.

There was a guy defending the idea, and a lady that was saying how bad it was – that charities should be about providing aid to people in need and not involved in messing about with politics.

The guy convinced me – though I was maybe already convinced. If a charity is involved in helping people and it discovers some kind of injustice that is built into the way that society is structured – then surely the charity needs to get involved in trying to change the way that society works – and that probably involves politics. The people that are being helped by charities are often not in a position to be able to bring about the changes themselves.

The guy seemed ok with the concept that it is ok for the government to supply funding to organisations that actually challenge the government and press for change. I think that’s a nice thought.

Of Sexualty and Gender

Towards the end of last year (December 23rd) I was, as usual, listening to the radio on the way to work.

There was a story about some words of the Pope. The same story was included in the news headlines on television and featured in headlines on Google news.

I haven’t read the actual words that were written and spoken – my Italian isn’t up to it. So my thoughts are based on second hand accounts.

On the radio, the suggestion was that the Pope had said that issues of humanity and gender need to be addressed and dealt with just as urgently as issues of the environment.

Reports say that no mention was made of homosexuality. But people seemed to be making accusations of homophobia. The implication seemed to be that gays, lesbians and the transgendered were posing a threat to the survival of the human race that was on a par with the threat posed by Global warming.

There were two ladies on the radio sharing their views on what the Pope had, or had not, said.

The first, who always referred to the Poe as “The Holy Father”, made the point that homosexuality is patently wrong – not just because the Church says so – but because biology and science say so. If everyone was homosexual then the human race would be doomed. Where would all the children come from?

There seemed to be a certain irony in this statement. The thought crossed my mind. If every man became a priest, or every woman a nun, then the human race would be doomed in just the same way. Where would all the children come from?

Of course, I don’t think that it is expected that every man should be a priest nor every woman a nun. But, nor do I expect every man and woman to be gay.

Ma y years ago, in my born-again evangelical days, I wrote an open letter to the University magazine at the place where I was a student. It expressed similar sentiments to those voiced by the lady on the radio. It seemed obvious to me that nature didn’t design people to be homosexual. I remember a small delegation of representatives from the Anglican Society, the Catholic Society, the Christian Union and the Methodist Society dropped by to congratulate me. It makes me smile to think about this – I know for sure that we did not all agree on doctrines such as the Virgin Birth, the Immaculate Conception, Papal infallibility or lots and lots of other things. But homosexuality was something we all felt the same way about.

Of course, people change - me too. And although Margaret Thatcher may not have been a lady in favour of U-turns, I’m happy enough to have made a few of them myself.

In my student days my feelings about homosexuality were strongly affected my understanding of what the Bible was. As a Bible believing Christian, all my beliefs and feelings were affected by this – in theory at least. I fell into the “typical conservative” camp as described at http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm . It was because I believed that the Bible was the Word of God and that the Bible condemned homosexuality that I wrote my letter to the University magazine.

In fact, I have always realised that the way that Nature works is not always the way that societies want to work. For example, Nature seems to select and favour the strong and allows the weak to pass away. Natures answer to high death rates seems to be to work towards even higher birth rates.

There was a time when I would have explained this contradiction between Nature and Society in terms of the “fall”. I believed that, in some ways, Nature had become broken when humanity decided to turn away from God. But not completely broken. So some aspects of Nature work in line with God’s will, but others do not.

I did, however, miss the point that it is, perhaps, disingenuous to use Nature in support of some theories and yet disregard other aspects of Nature wherever it didn’t fit in with the theories.

These days I think that Nature of itself offers little in the way of guidance on moral and ethical issues. Condemning homosexuality using Nature as the basis for the condemnation seems akin to using Nature in support of a policy that would cull the sick and elderly before they became a burden to society.

So, I’m left feeling that whatever Nature has to say about sexuality is not the final word. Societies are not obliged to condone or condemn certain aspects of human behaviour just because it appears to be natural or unnatural.

Ultimately what we condone or condemn is based on what we believe to be right or wrong. And there are many things that can contribute to these beliefs. Nature. The Bible. The Pope. Parents. Peers. Science. Religion.

My own feelings about Gay and Lesbian issues has been influenced by Indigo Girls. I discovered their music quite a few years ago when Napster was a source of vast amounts of music that you could download free. One night in a fit of nostalgia I had been doing some web searching – I almost used the word googling – but maybe Google had not yet been invented, so it may have been yahooing. I was looking for antiwar songs – or at least songs that included the word “war” in the lyrics. In amongst the results was a song called “You and me of the 10,000 wars”. I’d never heard of Indigo Girls and if Napster had not existed that would have been the end of it. However, courtesy of Napster, I was listening to the song ten minutes later – 56K modems took quite a while to download songs. In the years since then I have attended 5 or 6 Indigo Girls concerts and purchased all of their CDs – none of which would have happened with that first free download – RIAA please note!

I’d been listening to Indigo Girls music for a little while when I began to find out a bit about who they are. It was kind of surprising to discover that the love songs that they wrote were quite likely about lesbian relationships. I hadn’t been able to tell from the words. The words just seemed to express love. It’s hard to remember what it was that I’d thought before. But in lots of ways it came as a revelation of what maybe should have been obvious. Gay and lesbian love isn’t different from love. Without knowing it, Emily Saliers and Amy Ray have helped me begin to understand things in a different way than I used to.

I think, as well, that as my opinions on Gay and Lesbian relationships has changed it has become possible for me to begin to accept my own sexuality. I am, like most transvestites, heterosexual. But I guess I am not 100% macho male either.

There was a time when I felt guilty about that. I hid it. I denied it. I buried it. I was, I believe, burying myself.

I was a long time coming, but I have accepted myself. I am happy with the whole TV / transgendered thing.. I don’t feel bad about it. I don’t at all understand it. But that’s ok – I don’t understand lots of things.

A song that Emily Salliers wrote has an interesting perspective on beliefs. Is it beliefs that make people – or people that make beliefs?
We're sculpted from youth
The chipping away makes me weary
And as for the truth
It seems like we just pick a theory

And it's the one that justifies
Our daily lives
And backs us with quiver and arrows

To protect openings
Cause when the warring begins
How quickly the wide open narrows

It may be that one day whoever is Pope and whoever is leading all those Conservative Evangelical Christian groups might be able to see sexuality from a different perspective. Over the years churches have learned to accept things that, once upon a time, would have been an anathema. Perhaps sometime in the future people will look back and smile and think ... “how could they ever have thought that?”

Boy George, Herman Goering, Berry and me

A couple of days ago I found myself involved in an online conversation with a lady named Berry. Of course, I don't expect that berry is her name and I have no way of knowing that she is a lady.

She said she lives in Romania.

We talked a little about society and she asked me what life in the UK is like ... is it less rigid than it used to be.

I said yes ... it's different than it used to be. She seemed suitably impressed.

After a while I mentioned that I sometimes cross dress.

"What ... you dress like a woman?"

"mm ... well ... yes."

I pointed her in the direction of my blog.

A few minutes of silence.

"Are you shocked?"

"Yes. It makes me think of Goering and Boy George."

These thoughts make me smile.

Berry works as a chemical engineer. She plans to learn computer programming in her spare time. She asks about the programming languages I use and we discuss the merits of C#.

She is thinking about setting up a web site, but thinks that there ought to be a way of segregating the Internet. I think she means a way of fixing it so that serious stuff doesn't get all mixed up with personal stuff. Maybe a way of making sure that blogs written by tgirls don't get mixed up with blogs written by "normal" people.

She is a vegetarian. She says she is a naturist.

"You don't have any clothes on?" I ask.

She laughs in a "hahaha" kind of way, and we work out that she means environmentalist.

Being a tgirl is just as unnatural as eating meat.

She is mildly appalled at whatever has happened to England. Why should there be so many men that want to dress like ladies? It must be that someone or something is filling people with unnatural desires or stresses. Somehow forcing people into a way of life that is not of their choosing. She thinks that if people could get to understand this then they would be freed from the need to cross dress.

Now for an admission. I watch quite a lot of Star Trek. I know. In some people's eyes this is more weird than a guy taking pleasure in wearing stockings. Be that as it may, I'm reminded of a Star Trek Next Generation episode where they visit a planet that has eradicated the concept of gender. No masculine, no feminine. Or so it seems. One of the citizens of the genderless planet ends up working with Commander Riker. It seems that once in a while a citizen begins to realise that they actually want to be female or male. She wants to be female. Of course, they fall in love. But, those that discover gender have to hide. They have to pretend to be like everyone else for fear of being found out. Of course, she gets found out. She is treated. She is cured. She is no longer she.

I explain to Berry, that for me it seems the opposite. For every tgirl that I know it was the opposite. The pressure and stress is all about hiding it. Feeling guilty about it. Denying it. The freedom is in being able to embrace it.

I try to explain that not so long ago, society in the UK was so rigid that for a man to be dressed as a woman was kind of appalling. But that things, in that respect at least, are getting better ... less rigid.

Of course, a long time ago it was quite normal for a man to wear a wig and skirts.

I get the feeling that Berry and Andrea have different understandings about what "less rigid" means.

She seems to think that if stuff were more segregated then it would be healthier. After all, she says, urine and blood should not be mixed. I'm not at all sure about the relevance of this analogy to anything that we've been talking about. It sounds like the beginnings of a justification for apartheid.

Me ... I'm more of an integrationist than a separatist. I see things in shades of grey rather than black and white.

It seems that developing this greyness happens as people grow older and it's not restricted to hair colouration.

Of course, some would say that it is a bad thing. A loss of conviction. A sign of unacceptable compromise.

For me, it's an acceptance of diversity. A conviction that wherever there are two extremes, there are usually a whole load of places somewhere between the extremes. And it's not wrong to be somewhere in between.

I see gender in this way. If there is an ultimate macho male and an ultimate girlie girl, there are a lot of people that are somewhere in between. In fact, most of the people that I know are somewhere in between.

There are, of course, nice people and nasty people at all positions along this male ... female continuum. The fact that Herman Goering may have been a transvestite has no more significance than the fact that Adolf Hitler wasn't.

Ideas of extremes and of segregation are ideas that bother me.