The Danger and Futility of Healing Through Religion

During my research for future posts, I came across a blog called “Healing from Cross-dressing“. It’s a blog run by, and with contributions from, former Cross-dressers who, through their Christian beliefs, have recanted their old ways and are now helping others to do so.

Before I begin, I’ll just say that if that’s what they believe, far be it from me to criticize. Their methods and motivation, on the other hand, I’m not too sure about.

Deuteronomy

Whenever I research such things, the book of Deuteronomy is an old chestnut that I see around a lot. Whenever a short-and-simple quotable is needed to demonise an entire demographic, this book is full of them. In this case, Verse 22:5 is the one most-cited:

A woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God.

What I recall of Deuteronomy’s many laws can be split into two areas: ritual and moral. The ritual laws are there to constantly remind you of what’s ultimately important which, in the Christian faith, is obviously God. It’s the same as kissing Sanka’s lucky egg in Cool Runnings to remind them of why they were competing in the Olympics. The moral laws – murder, theft, assault and all that – are the ones that form our legal system today. If putting on a “woman’s cloak” was heinously immoral, it would have become illegal in most countries with a Christian majority but, as it stands, Cross-dressing is as illegal as other so-called “abominations” such as eating bacon, trimming your beard, eating with foreigners and being a shepherd.

The most detailed commentary I read of this passage – approached with significantly more emphasis on historical culture (let’s not forget the law was passed down to cultures many centuries and many miles distant from our own) – said this:

The danger of “cross-dressing,” according to the analysis followed here by Rashi and the Shulhan Arukh, is that it might allow men to enter women’s groups and women to enter men’s groups. In societies in which gender segregation was widely observed, this subterfuge was seen as a real danger.

Today the concern would be that men or women would sneak into the other gender’s locker rooms or bath rooms. Given that men and women in our society mix freely in other settings, it is hard to see how heterosexual adultery is a particular danger of what is called “cross dressing.”

Here, we see where the moral code applies- it doesn’t condemn the act of cross-dressing in itself, but the motivation for doing so. Women can go around wearing fake beards if they want to, as long as they don’t go to any stonings. Why? Because it’s written… that’s why!

Bit of Python – love it!

Addiction

Comparing Cross-dressing to a drug addiction seems a bit of a false analogy as it ignores the myriad of reasons some people cross-dress in the first place.

C10Ka6lXAAALeDaIf you’re an entertainer who regularly cross-dresses in public because it’s how you earn a living, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. There’s nothing you can do about it either – ask Brendan O’Carroll to relinquish his role as Mrs. Brown and I’m sure he’ll have a few choice words in response.

If cross-dressing is how you get your motor running, so to speak, you might be able to replace it with something else, but if it gets your partner’s motor running too, what’s the harm? Poking your nose into other people’s love life is a sure-fire way of getting said nose broken.

Seriously though: spread your search a bit wider, and you’ll find a significant number of cross-dressers who testify to having done so since they were very young. Children can be quite curious and fickle – for them to carry something with them throughout their life, it must really resonate with who they are. I discovered my love for music at a very young age – 4 or 5 – and I’ve not exactly grown out of it thirty years later. I’ve still got the first single I bought back in 1985.

I doubt anyone who has cross-dressed since their infancy is able to just switch it off and keep it switched off permanently. If you put the “addiction” in your brain yourself, you can remove it – if it was there to begin with, it’s there for life. It’s like if someone has a natural speaking voice in a higher register, you can’t exactly train them to defy their vocal cords and speak in deeper, “masculine” tones. Besides – why would you? Don’t answer that one, Brother Hyles.

Healing

I believe trying to “fix” someone through guilt and shame is rather dangerous in certain circumstances. In children, a little guilt and shame is needed to instil a sense of empathy, but it only works on behaviour they have control over. Making someone feel guilty for something they have no control of is going to have severe effects on their mental health. The stronger their efforts to abstain, the easier it becomes to relapse. The more they relapse, the worse they feel about themselves. The worse they feel about themselves, the less stable they become. Is it really worth the mental damage just because your interpretation of a single Bible verse condemns it?

It’s the same as trying to “cure” homosexuality: you may feel like you’re doing them a favour by cleansing their soul, but when the cleaning products you’re using are so abrasive, you end up scrubbing away a little piece of them each time.

If God made us all who we are and, as I’ve heard many transphobic pastors yell, God does not make mistakes, then what exactly are you trying to correct?

How can you be so certain that what you’re fixing should indeed be fixed, and that you’re the one to fix it?

Could it be that their higher purpose is to show you what you need to fix within yourself?

I didn’t know what an “SJW” was either.

During my weekend YouTubing, I watched a couple of videos that appeared to be ragging on so-called “Social Justice Warriors”, or SJWs. Like the term “special snowflake”, it’s not one I’ve come across until recently – it might just be more prevalent in the US than over here. Rather than continue in blissful ignorance, I looked it up.

The opening paragraph on Wikipedia describes the term as “a pejorative term for an individual promoting socially progressive views including feminism, civil rights, multiculturalism, and identity politics”. Okay, so basically anybody whose politics leans to the left. It continues: “The accusation of being an SJW carries implications of pursuing personal validation rather than any deep-seated conviction, and being engaged in disingenuous social justice arguments or activism to raise personal reputation, also known as virtue signalling.” So, by that definition, an SJW is someone who expresses left-leaning political views to serve their own reputation and not out of conviction. Is that right?

The way these videos were describing SJWs, you’d think they were trying to create a new world order by censoring and arguing with everybody who has less-progressive views than them. This actually sounds a bit extreme to me, and I doubt such actions are applicable to most progressives, whether they class themselves as an SJW or not. However, by such definition, it’s not all that different from a vocal Brexit voter shouting down anyone who wants anything but an immediate, hard Brexit. I’m also willing to bet that it’s these extreme fringes that get the press attention and, with simplified black-and-white thinking applied, we all get tarred with the same two brushes.

I hold rather progressive views – I make no apologies for that – but while I’ll express them here and on social media, I don’t insist everybody agrees with them. I’m all for civil debate, but I won’t get involved in a flame war.

I do also hold feminist views, but I’m somewhat more relaxed compared to how feminists are described in those YouTube videos. Again, I make no secret of my feminist views, but you’re more likely to find me acting upon them than preaching about them – it’s called “leading by example”.

In the whole debate about identity and gender politics, while I’m not all that keen on labels personally, I now understand how a lexicon of identities, labels and pronouns is important to those exploring and defining their identities – if a definition already exists, there’s at least one other person who identifies the same way. You’re not alone! I still maintain that all this exploration around gender identities adds vibrancy and colour to what is traditionally a strict monochrome. There does need to be some accommodation on both sides though, especially around the use of pronouns like “xe” and “hir” – it’s easy to add new nouns or verbs to your vocabulary, but as pronouns are woven into the fabric of the English language, new ones take a lot of getting used to, especially to a native speaker of almost 40 years. The singular “they/them/their” comes a lot more naturally.

The way I understand it, activism is a bit like driving a car. Those at the extreme ends have their cars in low gears with the needles on their tachometers constantly in the red: their engines are noisy and angrily revving away, but they’re not going anywhere fast and are likely to be doing more harm than good. The rest of us cruise along in higher gears at a more relaxed pace and make good progress.

I could sum all of that up in just two words…

Calm down!

Gender, Marketing and a New Year’s Challenge

Last Summer, as previously reported, I made quite some headway into giving society the middle finger and expressing myself the way I wanted to, disregarding the opinions of complete strangers and trying my hardest not to read their minds or interpret their body language. Compared to how I was this time last year, I ended the year more confident and secure but still recognising I’d still got some way to go. Going out and around the Midlands in a utility kilt was perhaps the most outwardly-expressive thing I did towards this, but as the winter has taken hold, doing so has not been a good idea. With management approval, I wore it to work for Children in Need day back in November (which was a bit scary and a little stoopid, but still raised £15), but still feel I’ve lapsed somewhat and fallen “out of practice”.

I’ve become more aware in recent months of how gendered marketing is and why, some examples of which are borderline comical. I found one superficial example in my own home. There are two cans of shaving cream in my bathroom – one “for him” and one “for her” – and I compared the ingredients of the two. Apart from the odd minor ingredient, the only real difference was that my wife’s had aloe vera and mine didn’t, but the mere presence of aloe vera doesn’t make an item “for her”; if I went a little upmarket as opposed to buying my toiletries from Lidl, I would find plenty of shaving creams “for him” containing aloe vera. In a nutshell, the only real difference was that her can was white and pink while mine was grey and blue.

Obviously those who deny that gender is “a social construct” are oblivious to how much money is being made gendering identical items, playing on our insecurities to prevent “him” and “her” from sharing.

If anything, I’m a pragmatist or, at least, I’d like to be – brushing marketing aside, an item’s purpose should be of higher priority than its demographic. Scroll back through the contents of this blog and you’ll see that I’ve also mentioned “Mantyhose” a couple of times. While this would enable my utility kilts to make an appearance during the winter months, and also push my bravery/confidence/not-giving-a-fuck to new levels, there are always safety concerns. I’ve heard stories about people being assaulted for not conforming to the normal expectations of male behaviour and appearance, but in the same breath, I’ve not heard about anything like that happening in the UK. Even so, such an attack would be rare. Would anyone be even remotely bothered, or am I just over-thinking and grossly underestimating the population’s open-mindedness?

2016 may have been a bit of a bastard for many, but I have to reflect on and feel proud of the progress I made. A new year means new challenges, and I want to try and blast even more neuroses and anxieties than I did last year.

“Be yourself. Give your free will a chance. You’ve got to want to succeed” — Jon Anderson

Why shouldn’t we let boys wear skirts to school?

Last night, I read an article by Glosswitch, published on the New Statesman website. The article mused about why we should let all boys wear skirts to school. If you’ve been following this blog for any length of time, I’m sure you’ll already know my response would be “why not?”. As the article already points out, a number of schools in the UK have already unified their uniform policies and, so far, it hasn’t caused any deaths, economic crashes or biblical apocalypses.

The article doesn’t have any comments section (just as well) – but I can imagine the response if it did. If you discount the attention-seeking brain-farts of the ultra-conservative trolls, the majority would be supportive. Parents today are getting wise to the ways in which their children are being rigidly gendered – particularly by marketing departments keen to reduce the number of “hand me downs” eating into their profit margins – and the success of the Let Toys Be Toys campaign is testament to how this practice is in decline. I can, however, see some valid concerns being raised.

What if my son doesn’t want to wear a skirt to school?

There always seems to be some confusion between a “right” and a “rule”. Your son may have the right to wear a skirt to school if they want to, but nobody’s forcing them to. It’s an additional freedom – it’s yours whether you want to make use of it or not.

What if it makes them go… well… you know…?

And so what if it does? They’re still your children. You might not like the idea now, but you may find you react differently if they do. They’re just clothes at the end of the day – what you wear on the outside has no effect on what’s on the inside, but if they do have some symptoms of gender dysphoria, I reckon it’s better for their long-term health if they express it rather than repress it.

Won’t they get bullied?

I don’t know any parent who would disagree that bullying is part of a larger, unrelated problem. Bullies will target anyone different to them, whether that difference is visible or not, but we have to remember that we’re talking about primary school children here. Children are far less prejudiced at that age and look to their elders for guidance – that’s where the school’s culture has a lot of influence. If they see another boy turn up to school in a skirt, they may think it’s a bit extraordinary but, if they see no negative reaction from their teacher, it’s likely they will accept it. They will take this acceptance with them.Parental attitude also has a lot of influence too, and it’s important that parents work with the school to ensure any kind of bullying does not go unpunished.

Schools are there to help give our children the fundamental knowledge they’ll need to get on in life. When they grow up and enter the workplace, they will be required to work with others regardless of such arbitrary characteristics; most companies take a zero-tolerance approach to discrimination and harassment, so it helps our children in the long-term if such social skills are instilled in them at an early age (Glosswitch’s article refers to this as “the indoctrination of non-indoctrination”).

The Bathroom Debate: A British Perspective

Previously, I briefly mentioned my views on the whole ‘bathroom’ debate, so I’m going to go into a little more detail.

To reiterate what I said before, I can understand why women would get rather defensive if a man – or someone they believed to be a man – walked into the ladies’ bathroom. It’s obvious there are some serious trust issues and men – or, to be more accurate, patriarchies – are largely to blame for them. A major change of attitude is required, but a sense of perspective is required too.

I have read some comments where some women have, in exceptional circumstances, used the men’s bathroom – usually when a queue has formed outside of the ladies’ bathroom and they just can’t wait any longer. Needless to say, these weren’t “risky” places like pubs or football stadia, so they came out of there completely unscathed. Whether or not there were any men in the room at the time is unclear, but had I been in the room at the time, they’d be perfectly safe – and I’m no special case. Why is that?

I’ve learned from writing some of my recent posts that there are still some pockets of American society that still believes men have power over women, that men have to be the strong, dominant and decisive ones; while women must be submissive and obedient. This is largely absent in British culture. Here, the overwhelming majority of men, whether they call themselves feminists or not, at least know how serious a crime sexual assault is. We wouldn’t wish it upon anybody, least of all our friends and family, and we certainly don’t defend anybody found guilty of it. We have a few “lads” and “players”, but there is a very solid line between promiscuous and predatory behaviour. Victim-blaming rarely goes unchallenged.

Rather than go on my observations and assumptions, I’d like to hear your opinions on this.

Let’s say, for example, we’re in a supermarket and the men’s toilet is closed for repairs. The only toilet available for men is a single disabled toilet, and a large queue has formed outside because the inconsiderate bloke occupying the toilet has taken in a copy of the Daily Mirror. He’s not going anywhere for the next 10 minutes. Under those circumstances, would any women object if any of the following broke away from the queue and went to use the ladies’ room, or would they feel threatened or unsafe? We’ll assume they did the polite thing by knocking first and asking rather than barging in.

  1. A father with an infant child who is in desperate need of the toilet and is screaming the place down
  2. An elderly gentleman with a weak bladder
  3. A man with Cerebral Palsy accompanied by a female relative or carer
  4. A boy aged between 10 and 12
  5. A man wearing motorcycle leathers
  6. A man with a non-threatening appearance

Please feel free to leave your comments or opinions below.

Meet Brother Hyles Part 2: Walk This Way!

Ladies, Gentlemen and everybody in-between… I am proud to present… more from Fundamentalist Christianity’s answer to Trinny and Susannah… PASTOR JACK HYLES!

In the first part, we learned that:

1. Pastor Hyles doesn’t like men with long hair
2. Pastor Hyles doesn’t like women wearing trousers
3. Pastor Hyles thinks that those who do are going to hell

I pick things up at the second part of his sermon, entitled “The Devil is using long hair on men to break down the barrier between the sexes.”

In the first part, I could respond to some of the sections quite seriously but, in the second half of the sermon, he goes way off the chart so what some of my responses lack in length, they make up for in flippancy.


Marshall McLuhan asked theoretically, “In what may seem a ludicrous statement, they are sending a message to all who will listen: ‘We are no longer afraid to display what you may call feminine. We are willing to reveal that we have feelings and weaknesses'”

Yes. We all do. It’s part and parcel of being human. We all have strengths and weaknesses, even Pastor Hyles, but we play to our strengths. I have quite a strong sense of detail and logic, but I don’t have an abundance of confidence and charisma. That’s why I work as an Analyst and not a Sales Rep.

“Well,”” somebody says, “what about Jesus? He had long hair.” You’ve got to be kidding! “Well,” you say, “in all the pictures I’ve seen of Him, He had long hair.” What kind of camera was used to take that picture? Was it a Kodak? You know where we got those pictures? We got them from sissy artist who had long hair. If I drew a picture of Jesus, He would be balding!

Nobody really knows what Jesus looked like. He may have had long hair, he may have been balding, he may have had short hair. We’re in the realms of Schrödinger’s Haircut, where Jesus has every conceivable hairstyle… even a Skullet. Nobody is right, nobody is wrong. Nil points all round.

In Asia, men hold hands. Why? They do it because pagan religion is in Asia.

No, they do so because it’s how their culture expresses friendliness – just because it translates into something else in America does not change its original context. Also, congratulations on potentially offending almost half a billion people. Have you met Boris Johnson, by any chance?

In Russia, men kiss each other on the mouth! Boy! I’d go to the electric chair first!

Again, culture. That’s another 70 million people potentially offended. I’d recommend you stay out of Russia but, given that this is 1972, you probably weren’t planning a visit.

EDIT: Hyles’ ultimate fear:

1fncps

I was watching a basketball game the other day. The announcer came on, and he was a doll! You men who cover up you ears with your hair, you’re pitiful! It just curls around so only your beautician knows! Ladies, if your boy doesn’t want to show his ears, cut them off!

So, by that logic, if the boy doesn’t want to show his doodle, that should be cut off too? Wouldn’t that make him even more of a woman? Come on, Hyles – show some consistency man!

You high school girls ought to go home tonight, take every pair of slacks you own, and destroy them. A lot of them would if you mothers would keep you noses out of their business in that respect.

Being a bit paternalistic, aren’t we? I think someone’s taking a bit too much interest in the teenage girls’ wardrobes.

Let me tell you one reason why I’m against a female wearing slacks. A female in slacks can sit like a man with one leg up on the other knee, and they do it. No female ought to sit like that!

Show me the passage in the Bible that explicitly tells women how to sit.

Go on.

There isn’t one, is there?

Thought so.

Do you know what? We ought to have more girls at this meeting on Thursday night to learn how to be gracious and feminine than we have at any other activity in this church, apart from soul winning. You mothers ought to insist that your daughters get up here and let someone teach them how to walk and sit.

In other words, you want girls to come to what is, in effect, an obedience school. You’re equating teenage girls with unruly dogs – you know that, right?

I go to Hammond Baptist High School sometimes an, even though the skirts are long enough, you can see as much when the girl sits down as you can see when a girl is wearing a miniskirt. Why? They have not been taught how to sit.

How about we teach Pastors not to look up girls’ skirts when they sit down?! No wonder rape culture is still an issue.

In this class, on Thursday nights, they have the girls bring an encyclopaedia. Do you think they study that encyclopaedia? No. They put it on their heads and the girls learn to walk like girls. (Any boy who can take three steps without dropping is not right with God!) A girl ought to know how to walk like a girl. Girls are not “one of the guys.” Don’t walk like one!

Girls are also not robots, yet it sounds like you’re training them to be one.

Walk this way! Talk this way! Hey… there’s a hit song in there somewhere…

Bugger, Aerosmith beat me to it.

(EDIT: I can access the whole of Wikipedia on my phone. With my phone on top of my head, I was able to take more than 3 steps before it fell off. So does that mean I walk like a girl? To be honest, I couldn’t give a rats arse if it does.)

You say, “Brother Hyles, I’ll just pack up and go some place where a preacher doesn’t preach like this.” Well, good! It will keep us from borrowing two and three quarters of a million dollars. You can do it, but you know that the unisex crowd is pleased with your trousers. It’s time we had an old-fashioned altar call about women wearing britches, just like we do about drinking and smoking and gambling and everything else.

And you’ll be preaching to an old-fashioned congregation that, in time, will dwindle into nothing. If the Great Commission calls on you to spread the Gospel to all corners of the earth, why are you so intent on pushing people away from it?

While I’m at it, let me just pay my respects to the women’s liberation movement. I think everyone in it is right.

Wait. WHAT?!

They’re not women; they ought to be liberated! I think they’re right; they’re not Miss or Mister or Mrs. They’re just Ms.!

Oh, you were demeaning women again. This is becoming a recurring thing.

Then you fellows, for Pete’s sake, or Harry’s sake, or anybody’s sake, don’t walk like a girl- swinging your hips and being prissy as you walk! If I walked like that, I would go down to some Texas ranch and ride the wildest Brahma bull they had. You say, “I might get thrown off!” That’s exactly what I had in mind! You say, “He might stick his horns right through my gizzard!” You’ve got my second idea too, but at least I would come back a man! I would rather my boy have a bull’s horn through his gizzard and bury him tomorrow than for him to priss across the platform like Miss America.

I could hear through the channels of history the collective relief of all the women in the congregation as he lays into the men for once.

So, basically, what you’re saying is that in order to be a REAL MAN, you have to be BRAVE… and that bravery should come in the form of RECKLESS STUPIDITY. Tell me this, if America needs REAL MEN, then why are you trying to get them to come within an inch of killing themselves just to prove that they are?!

I’m teaching grown men how to walk. I’m teaching them that a man doesn’t lean back when he walks; a man bounces when he walks and walks like he’s going somewhere. I wouldn’t have to teach them if you moms and dads would teach them when they were kids. Cut their hair! Take the make-up off of their faces! Take your dresses off their bodies! Put some blue jeans on them! Let them get in a fight every once in a while! Make boys out of them, and I won’t have to try to correct them when they grow up!

If he seriously wants men to be strong, brave, decisive and dominant – what’s he going to do when someone squares up to him, decides he’s having no more of this crap and tells Brother Hyles EXACTLY where he can stick his walking lessons!


To be honest, I’m glad I’m now at the end of that sermon. That was gruelling! Obviously, I never knew Pastor Hyles, but based on this one sermon, I don’t think I’d want to.

It sounds like he has absolutely no respect for other people, as if he seriously wants to put hard limits on their individual expression so they conduct themselves the way he wants them to – if this was any random person in the street, they’d be brushed aside or dismissed, so he claims God’s authority for himself and uses the threat of damnation to scare his congregation into conformity. Well, the less critically-thinking ones at least. The man sounds like an absolute control freak! He told the women they were behaving like men, the men they were behaving like women and the parents that they weren’t doing a good enough job – pardon my French, but I’d have stood up and told him to mind his own business and go raise his own fucking kids!

It’s worth noting that, throughout the whole sermon, Jesus was only mentioned 5 times. Four of those times were when he was slating the “sissy, long-haired, effeminate, homosexual” artists who painted pictures of Jesus with long hair. That leads me to believe that his sermon was based more on his political beliefs than his spiritual beliefs. The Jesus I read about several years ago was far more concerned about people’s hearts than their clothes.

I’d even go as far as saying he’s afraid. Very afraid. What of, I can’t be too sure. It’s a bit concerning that he spent a portion of the second part sticking his nose into girls’ wardrobes and looking up their skirts to see if they’re “sitting correctly”. And why is he so afraid of men showing even the slightest bit of effeminacy? My guess is that he’s no different from any other ultra-conservative: keep the nuclear family sacrosanct so that more people get married and have children. There’s a 50/50 chance they’ll have a boy and, if they do, buy him some toy soldiers and teach him how to be strong and tough. Got to replenish the army somehow, haven’t we? Especially as, at the time, the US had sacrificed so many families’ sons in Vietnam.

I’m sorry, but just don’t get the “fundamentalist” way of thinking. From this angle, it looks comparable to a factory farm where people are caged, confined and fed a special diet so that they emerge with the most desirable attributes. But like a battery hen, there is no chance at a full life – you’re bound by what is and isn’t written in a centuries-old collection of books because the fear of eternal torment prevents you from taking a gamble on a less-literal interpretation. When I studied the Bible, I always saw the Old Testament as the historical context for the “life manual” of the Gospels. I cannot say with any certainty that Jesus existed and the records in the Gospels are historically accurate, but even if that Jesus exists only on paper, the teachings of that literary Jesus are still highly significant and relevant today. If there is a god (again, I’m uncertain yet open-minded) and Jesus is wholly representative of that god, it gives life a much fuller purpose than the god described by Pastor Hyles.

One thing I am certain though: whether or not a Heaven is waiting for us after death, there’s absolutely no reason why we can’t create one while we’re still alive.

Meet Brother Hyles Part 1: God wants REAL MEN.

I was in major need of a laugh, so I went back and had a look at the Divided by Truth website that I talked about earlier – in particular, the page that equated Feminism with Satanism. I’m not really going to comment on that article in particular (I’m still seething at the sexist “Mack Truck” comment) but, at the bottom of the article is a link to a sermon by Pastor Jack Hyles decrying the whole “unisex” movement.

As the page contains a transcription and not a recording of the sermon, I’m going to take it that the sermon actually took place and was not just fabricated and posted on the website posthumously. From the plethora of exclamation marks within the text, I’m also going to take it that there was a lot of shouting coming from the pulpit.

I’m going to go through the sermon, much in the way I did with their “kilts are for sinners” article but, as it’s quite long, I’m going to go through it in two parts – much like the sermon itself – and focus on some of the more “absurdly alarmist” points.


One social expert has said, “By the year 2000, Father will do the dishes and wash the diapers while Mom washes the car and mows the lawn.”

I’m guessing this quotation is meant to imply that, by the turn of the century, traditional gender roles will have swapped around. They haven’t – they’re still the same old-fashioned gender roles. The only real difference is that very few people actually pay them any attention.

I became a father in 2007, and I have changed my fair share of nappies. Even some of the really nasty ones. I’ve cleaned up almost every kind of fluid my kids have spewed, spilled or excreted over the furniture. I do the washing up, I mow the lawn, I clean the car (well, as we don’t have a driveway or a garage, I take the car to someone who will do a far better job than I can for a few quid), I cook, I clean and I do the ironing.

And so does my wife. It’s called “co-operation”. It’s what married couples do.

When a little boy is born, we let him grow long hair and look like a girl, (now I’m going to make someone mad here) we name him Francis, (and one of the best friends I have in this world is named Francis) we curl his hair and put him in what we call a diaper shirt, (which is no more than a dress) and then we wonder why he turns out to be a sissy! Brother, when a boy gets home from the hospital, put him in blue jeans and cut his hair! If you don’t, he’s going to grow up and look like some of you Samsons sitting here in this room tonight!

For the first 18 months of his life, we let my son’s hair grow long. We never curled his hair (he has my genetics so it’d go that way on its own eventually) nor did we put him in a “diaper shirt”. Having had to attempt to remove my son’s dungarees after a rather nasty nappy, I can see why some parents would put their boys in (ahem) “dresses”.

If my son turns out to be what Brother Hyles so bluntly defines as a “sissy”… great! I’d rather him be an honest, compassionate and sensitive member of society than a brutish, domineering oaf.

I believe that ladies ought to be feminine and sweet and lovely and charming. I believe men ought to be strong and masculine and decisive. I’m opposed to anything that makes a man and a woman act alike, look alike, dress alike, or talk alike.

Okay, fair enough. It’s not my place to tell you what to believe, but you are kind-of describing a fantasy land. If you expect women to repress their negative emotions in order to be that sweet, lovely and charming woman you want them to be, you’re likely creating an emotional time-bomb. When she explodes in front of you and gives you a harsh lesson in what reality is like for a “conservative” woman, you’d be wise not to remind her just how ‘un-lady-like’ it is to have an angry outburst. And what happens to the men who are more creative and intellectual than strong and decisive? One person from history had an idea of what to do with the less-desirable members of society. It wasn’t pretty.

But I am the man about whom Hebrews 13:17 says, “Obey them that have rule over you.” You’ll be a lot better off to tell your girl she can’t wear her slacks because the preacher says it’s wrong- by the way, it won’t hurt her not to wear them- than if you just go ahead and let her wear them.

If you’re going to give people a list of expected behaviours based on what’s between their legs, you’re wasting your time. Micromanaging children is a futile and completely counter-productive effort: the more you try and control them, the more likely they are to resent and rebel against you. I’ve mentioned before – if you are in a position of authority, you must be able to justify why you hold that authority. The same goes for parents too. If you want your children to obey you, you’ve got to convince them as to why it’s in their best interest to do so. Finally, if you want them to approach God with a pure heart, making them so shit scared of eternal torment is NOT going to achieve that.

I am never purposely unkind to anybody who dresses contrary to the way I preach. But I’ll say this much: You’re going to face God for being a part of the unisex movement just as much as a man who wears makeup.

Somehow I think God has bigger fish to fry than who is and isn’t wearing makeup. Personally, when Eddie Izzard goes to meet his maker, I think said maker is going to be far more interested in his inexhaustible charity work than his shade of lipstick.

You know it’s true that if you’re walking down the sidewalk behind some couples, it’s hard to tell which is the male and which is the female.

Why is it so important that you need to be able to visually identify the sexes of two people YOU DON’T EVEN KNOW!? They’re walking down the street minding their own business – perhaps you should try doing that too.

“Today, mothers continue to work their way steadily back toward babyhood, trying on the looks of baby doll, little soldier doll, and little boy doll.” Let me stop and say a word about this. I don’t mind your boys having little soldiers to play with, but don’t give your boy a doll to play with.

[in sarcastic, mocking tone] Because it’s a sin for boys to learn how to become confident parents! That’s a woman’s jon! Men should be out shooting and killing foreign people and stealing their oil! Pacifism is for sissies!

Ad nauseam.

She goes on to say, “Simultaneously the teenage boy, the source of all this feminine emulation, was revolting against his father in the strongest way he could find to express disapproval- unmasculinity. Ornamented in fancy clothes, the young men now seem to dress as young women, masquerading as boys.” That’s not a Christian person saying that; that is the world saying that men and women dressing alike is part of the unisex movement.

This does make some sense, but as I’ve said before, if you’re more of a dictator than a parent you shouldn’t be surprised that your children turn against you. I’ve heard stories of how children in similar relationships can’t wait to start college/university so they can get away from their fathers’ strict control and constant condemnation.

The fact that celebrities like Mick Jagger and David Bowie were crossing the gender boundary shows how lateral thinking became more liberated during the 60’s and 70’s. They had an air of femininity in their appearance, but you never doubted their masculinity. That post-war generation saw women becoming more independent in their appearance and aspirations – the fact that young males were keen to emulate women’s appearance can be regarded as validating their independence and equality. This effeminacy in men was by no means undesirable – a man in tune with his feminine side (we all have one, however small) was less likely to become an abusive or misogynistic husband.

Girls come to my office in deep trouble, and practically every one who does has been told by her mother or dad, or in some cases by both, “Brother Hyles isn’t God. You don’t have to do everything he says.”

Correct. Brother Hyles is a human being and is as corruptible by “the devil” as everybody else. When I was an active church-goer and Bible-studier, I theorised that if “the devil” is the ultimate trickster and liar, then it’s not improbable for him to sow confusion by pretending to be God. This is why I always felt that, if it wasn’t in the Gospel, it wasn’t a true reflection of God. Even though I no longer identify as a Christian, I still follow the Gospel from a philosophical point of view.

Dr. Ralph Grimson is a clinical professor of psychiatry at U.C.L.A. School of Medicine; he told the American Medical Association, “I believe one of the reasons that young males and females wear their hair alike and dress alike stems from their fear of the opposite sex.”

I’m beginning to think this whole sermon is a result of Hyles’ own fear of the opposite sex. He doesn’t seem to have a lot of respect for women. Or for men, if I’m honest.

For 14 years and 3 months there has been a man behind this pulpit. I may be mean and stubborn, and I may be bigoted, and I may be right-winged- in fact, I happily plead guilty to all of those things- but there is one thing you have had for all of these 14 years. You’ve had a fellow whose tail you couldn’t twist! This country is in dire need of men!

When you have such a stubborn and inflexible approach to life, you lose the ability and the willingness to move beyond the obstacles in your way. In those 14 years and 3 months, the congregation has moved on with their lives, but Hyles refuses to. Rather than catch up with his congregation, his stubborn and conservative solution is to get everybody else to roll back to a point more suitable to him.

Maybe that’s why, almost 45 years later, his words still sound stubborn, bigoted and right-winged. Throughout the course of the sermon, he has chastised and brow-beaten many of the people present. That was never going to work. If you want people to change, you inspire them… and you can’t inspire people with such hostile negativity.

Back in my Bible study days, I concluded that God doesn’t make mistakes, but challenges. If you believe that God created two sexes, male and female, and that all people are created by God – where does that leave the intersex minority? They’re not mentioned in the Bible anywhere purely because the people of the time would not be able to comprehend the complexities of child development and hormones, but if they’re still God’s creation, where do you stand? Do you twist some OT verses into black-and-white rhetoric like “God created Man and Woman – you’re neither, therefore you must be the work of the devil”, or do you follow Jesus’ commandment to “love one another”? Last time I read that chapter, there weren’t any specifications or conditions.

I don’t believe anybody ought to be a big bully and go around picking fights. I don’t believe you ought to want to fight. But I’ll tell you one thing! I don’t believe a boy ought to open his purse and get out scented tissue to wipe his tears because he is afraid of the big bully in the school!

And finally, something we can both agree on, but also something of a circular argument. If you emphasise to your kids the need to be strong, assertive and dominant, as Brother Hyles commands, then they will practice that dominance and assertion on others – they will become, in effect, bullies. Instil them with confidence and empathy, and they become productive members of society. No bullies and no fighting equals no scented tissues. Job done.

Ironically, by using the threat of eternal torment to scare the congregation into conforming to your world view, I’m afraid that makes you the bully.

“Sod being gender-normative… winter is coming!” – Experiences with ‘Mantyhose’

A few months ago, I wrote a short post about reactions to what’s known as “Mantyhose” – I know there are afficionados out there that don’t like the term, but it does help avoid confusion when you happen to be writing about them in particular. Here in the UK we’re in the middle of autumn, and while it’s been relatively mild the past couple of weeks, temperatures in my neck of the woods have recently dropped to just below freezing.

I work in an office and I’m sitting down for the best part of my 8-hour shift, so I like to go for a walk at lunchtime to stretch the legs and get some fresh air. While my upper-body is protected from the elements by my shirt and winter coat, my trousers offer only a thinnish layer of cotton and polyester with which to cover my legs. When it’s both cold and windy, my legs feel like two blocks of ice. Being quite open-minded, I bought a couple of pairs of Mantyhose in anticipation. I don’t care what you think or what you say – if you haven’t tried it, you don’t know what you’re missing.

a04a1280_largeThe two pairs I bought were both made by Polish hosiery experts Adrian – I bought the footed “City” and the footless “Hunter” varieties. You’re not likely to find them on the high street, but you can get them on eBay for around £6 with free postage.

hunterBoth are incredibly comfortable under trousers. When sat in the office, they add a moderate amount of compression (you hardly notice they’re there) which helps reduce any restlessness or fatigue. Outside, in temperatures colder than my fridge, they prove their worth compared to walking with increasingly-numbing legs. The “City” pair are less bulky, but they do occasionally feel as if my shoes are too big; you need socks with the footless “Hunter” pair, which may be preferable if you’ve got new shoes rubbing your feet, but they are made of significantly thicker material. The only major difference between these varieties and women’s equivalents, as far as I can tell, is the overall sizing and the addition of a “male comfort panel” which adds extra room at the front for that place where some men keep their brains.

aec2a1c0870e27cee14e953ea11dc034Would I ever wear them visibly, for example, under a pair of shorts like the model pictured on the left? Possibly. Definitely not with the striped shorts, that’s for certain. It’s not widely-known that men’s varieties exist so, on one hand, I’d like to educate, but on the other, I’d continue to be mindful of time-manner-place:

At an Eddie Izzard gig – definitely. I likely won’t be the only one.

Visiting a National Trust property with my family – very probably.

In a busy town centre – depends on whether the local football team is at home.

In the vicinity of my local pub – definitely not. I think that would be borderline suicidal.

Are people “objects”?

Another day, another YouTube video, another scroll-down to the comments section and yet another question I’m left asking.

The video I was watching told the story of a young couple, both of whom are transgender – not that you’d know that unless you knew them personally or had watched the video.

I scrolled down to the comments section, and there were at least a couple of people asking:

“So what are they?”

Not who, but what! Did this make them gay, straight, pansexual…?

It got me to question why some people feel the need to label other people as if they were objects. I came to think of it this way:

20161029_135638

This is commonly known as a Vinyl Record. It is a disc made of polyvinyl chloride with an etched spiral groove from which analogue sound can be reproduced.

20161029_140401.jpg

This can also be described as a vinyl record as it has the same characteristics as the one above. The grooves look identical to the casual observer but there is a major difference between the two – one plays a recording of Scoundrel Days by a-ha, the other Legion by Mark Shreeve. We can verify this by listening to the original master copies of each recording and comparing them to the signal etched in the grooves.

They are objects. They also have labels telling you what they are, so you can easily tell at a glance whether you are about to listen to a-ha or Mark Shreeve. Vinyl records are static and not sentient – the a-ha record will always play the same music every time, as will the Mark Shreeve record. Vinyl records come in all shapes, sizes and colours but, as long as they are made of polyvinyl chloride and have an analogue signal etched into a spiral groove, they will always be Vinyl records.

These are humans. Unlike Vinyl records, they are sentient and not static in that their behaviour is not so accurately predictable. Talk to either of them about a subject, and talk to them about the same subject a month later, and you may find that their two answers differ. Their sentience gives them what’s called a personality, and this personality will be significantly different when compared to other humans.

They can be divided into sub-groups called male and female based on their respective biology, but in terms of personality, the distinction is not so clear. Ryan and Jasmine have biological differences, but there will be areas of their personalities that they share with the other.

But all that is a rather long-winded explanation.

Unlike Vinyl records, human beings are not produced to serve a single, predictable function. They are not cut to spec, nor are they mass-produced – no two humans are entirely identical, ergo they are not objects and cannot be labelled as such.

So, to answer the question of what they are, just so you can give them the appropriate label, there is only one answer:

Humans.

Gender Variance and Bullying: A Quick Response

Picture courtesy of Queens University in Kingston Ontario
Picture courtesy of Queens University, Kingston Ontario

I’m just going to write a very quick post here, again based on videos I’ve watched and comments I’ve read.

It appears some people believe that, if a child shows signs of gender variance, it is the parents responsibility to force their child into conformity. By allowing their child’s variance to continue, they are setting their child up to a life of social exclusion, bullying and maybe even physical assault. In doing so, they are failing to protect their child from potential danger.

If that’s the way you feel, I believe you have your priorities the wrong way round. That is tantamount to admitting that is is not acceptable to raise a gender-variant child, but it is acceptable to raise a sociopath with little-to-no empathy, who believes it is okay to police other people’s appearance and behaviour with physical and psychological abuse. If that’s what you teach your children, then you are setting them up on a path that may lead to criminal behaviour.

In an earlier post, I mentioned that I am all in favour of gender-neutral bathrooms under certain conditions, but never mentioned what those conditions were. Well, they tie in with what I mentioned above. A lot of my opinions are echoed in this video:

There is a perfectly-rational reason why some women are concerned for their safety in such bathrooms, and so my main condition is something of a root-cause analysis: we stop teaching men and boys all this macho, patriarchal bullshit. You do not need to be highly-intelligent to know that it is wrong to assault women just because you are bigger and stronger than them. Being born a man does not give you this right!