Edinburgh Fringe: My Reviews

I've just come back from The Fringe and these are my thoughts. You can scroll down to see play-by-play reviews but I have a short pre-amble first. Theatre has been a passion of mine for quite a long time so I'm surprised it's taken this long to get up to Edinburgh. On the basis that I didn't know when I'd next be up I took full advantage of my trip and saw as much stuff as I could; and as varied stuff as I could. I like taking risks with theatre because in my experience, for every 3 shit things you see, you see 1 thing that stays with you for a very long time. I've rated what I saw below but it comes with two very strong provisos: 1. These are personal opinions shaped by, among other things: my life; my hopes and expectations of theatre; how I felt during the show and the particular performance I saw. A high grade means I enjoyed it and is no guarantee you will do the same. 2. Everybody who came up to Edinburgh to put a show on is amazing for contributing to the cultural hotpot. A poorer review does not reflect on my views on the people behind it. They are all genuinely great artists for throwing so much into the melting pot. I've given 'A' to three shows, all very different. This is as close as I'll get to giving you my 'pick of the fringe'. * Michelle McManus: The Musical. A great crowd pleaser for lovers of cheese and musicals. * The Last Resort. A dark semi-immersive examination of Guantanamo Bay. * John Robertson (Dominant). Do not go if you are at all prudish or shy, but if you are not this is a anarchic comedy tour de force. With that, on to the reviews: (Monday August 7th) The Dark Room: B+ Comedy based on getting audience members to play an impossible 80s retro text-based game. It had built a cult following - which did not improve the show for first time viewers. The formulaic game portion was surely innovative and hilarious at one point, but now felt like an inside joke with the repeat audience chanting along from the start. That said, the new material and the improvised audience interaction was great and kept it fast-paced and snappy. 5 Guys Chillin': B- A drama exploring the gay 'chill'/sex party scene using verbatim quotes from interviews. This felt like it wanted to be eye-opening and expose a subculture. The problem is that it was exposing a subculture I'm well aware of. I knew the people they speak about and their words. It was certainly interesting and well-acted, but (for me), it slightly outstayed its welcome. This is not culturally significant: D A naked one-man character-driven show that seemed to build itself on the brief 'emotional whiplash: the sketch show.' It seemed to be well-received by many in the audience so it's possible I missed something. The problem for me was that the humour never hit hard enough and the vulnerability felt quite contrived. The actor and especially the technical team were excellent, but the content felt like it was at 60% of what it needed to be to make an impact. (Tuesday August 8th) Briony Redman: B A traditional 'Harold' comedy sketch show exploring screenwriting and modern genres. It was an gentle show, never offensive, often giggly. However, it lacked the bite to be hysterical. None the less, it was sweet and fast-paced and always had something interesting to say. The Canon: B A comedy sketch show based around the literary canon. There is nothing groundbreaking or truly original about this show, but it does present a lot of interesting scenarios and garners a steady stream of laughs. Bonus points for Taylor Swift/Shakespeare mash-up. Shame: B+ A drama about female sexuality told half through vlog and half through live action theatre. This was a really interesting medium that added to the story, made up of likeable but distinctly human characters. The ending packed an emotional punch but the moments leading up to it were slightly too expositionary and fell a bit tepid. Michelle McManus: The Musical: A Actual Michelle McManus from actual Pop Idol puts on a Glaswegian Hyacinth Bucket character for her fictional comedy musical revue. This is a riot from start to end. The songs (ballads from broadway) add to the show and are delivered powerfully and comically. The numbers are linked by an extremely funny and well-delivered performance that surprised a lot of the audience. Evocation: E A retelling of Giraud poems through the medium of gothic puppetry and drone music. This mark may be very harsh, and reflects more my inability to interpret what the hell went on than any mistakes the production team made. It looked gorgeous and chilled me out. It turns out watching theatre has a hard mode and this is it. Reformed Whores: B Musical comedy duo, satirising country and western through sex-positive messages. I like country music and the songs here were definitely catchy. There was a danger they relied a little too strongly on shock humour at times. The biggest problem here was the venue. These are performers that need interaction and raucousness. You're never going to get that in a sterile, small conference room. (Wednesday August 9th) Heroes: B+ A drama from an Icelandic company about how demonising enemies of war impacts young communities. This was well-acted, and the young cast clearly had a great time putting it on. There were definitely scenes in this that had strong impacts on the audience, and this made it well worth watching. However, the characters and fictional backdrop of the play were so one-dimensional and far-removed from reality. I feel like this eroded the social commentary they wanted the play to take on. The Last Resort: A A dark and invasive play, in which you play residents of the recently converted Guantanamo Bay holiday resort. This is excellent and a key example of why it's worth taking risks with theatre. The semi-immersive approach is a great way to make you laugh and relax before the show takes a dark and eye-opening turn. You will feel uncomfortable and you will love it. Oxford Imps: C A standard improv troupe from Oxford Uni. I saw them a lot whilst I was there and enjoyed them, so I went in with high hopes. Despite a few great moments, this was generally a disappointment. Enough of the troupe felt like they were trying to get their own ideas heard at all costs. This made the scenes feel messy and loose because they didn't agree on a reality. Monster: B+ A one man show about toxic masculinity as it relates to domestic abuse. An excellent character actor explains how tapping into unsavoury characters to method act leaks into his every day life. The blurring of all the characters builds into a heavy momentum. There's no payoff here - though I wonder if possibly that's the point. It's an interesting piece of theatre with a great actor but one that feels a little unsatisfying at the end Paul Sinha (Shout out to my ex): B Chaser/Comedian/Former GP performs a stand-up set about the annus horribilis since his partner left him. Stand-up comedy has a different job from a lot of the other work I've seen. First and foremost it's about making you laugh: and the show did that. The audience was in a good mood and the personal anecdotal style kept the laughs rolling. It may not have made me cry, or think, or challenge my beliefs but that's likely beyond its brief. John Robertson (Dominant): A This was billed as stand-up, by a crude and acerbic Australian (host of The Dark Room). In reality, none of it was scripted and instead we got a loose collection of thoughts inspired by the audience and his S&M past. It was a small audience (15ish people) and so all bets were off. Anarchy reigned and all audience members were involved. It was shocking, anarchic and unsubtle but constantly hysterical. He is a master of his work. We're All Going to Die: C+ An ensemble comedy about a group of scientists dying one-by-one on a remote research station. This had a young cast, and I assume this was scripted by them as well. The script was trite and lacked direction or purpose. The constant quipping removed anything but facile humour from what we watched. The characters were all one-directional. That said, it was enjoyable enough. There were some fun one-liners and set ups. It was a perfectly pleasant way to pass an hour. Thief: B+ A dramatic monologue by a queer sailor who puts a brave and defiant face on being forced into sex work. The acting deserves considerable credit here for bringing this complex character to life. In lesser hands this would surely fail, but it was a captivating if invasive performance. The show never knows what it wants to do with the character, though, making his backstory almost comically dark. There is an attempt at moralising at the end that feels a little too neat and tidy. At the end, I left feeling impressed at what I watched, but wondering why I watched it. (Thursday August 10th) Salome: D A one-man production of the Oscar Wilde epic. In typical Wilde fashion the dialogue is clever and knowing and that pulls you through this otherwise ropey production. Production values are low; characters are barely distinguished (Salome speaks falsetto and wears a scarf) and audiences are left questioning whether Salome really needed a one-man production. Kafka & Son: B A dramatic monologue adapted from a letter Kafka wrote to his father explaining his fear. The aesthetics of the play were beautiful and the team clearly had a great deal of respect for Kafka. It was an interesting and relevant biography: I feel like I'll see Kafka's works very differently now. The issue was the content of the show was dry, and at multiple times I found myself looking at my watch. The Odyssey: B+ A highly energetic physical performer reads the story of the Odyssey with pep, gusto and silly noises. The energy and tightness over the whole 70 minute show was impressive and brought a lot of life to the performance. The problem was, I felt like nothing was added to above the story. It brought back feelings of sitting cross legged on the floor in primary school being read classics. It was certainly charismatic and enjoyable but unmemorable. Noose Women: C- A comedy-drama about a TV production company who are convinced by a charismatic cult leader to host a reality show where the prize is death. It was perfectly watchable but a deeply flawed production. The story was paper thin and all drama was resolved within seconds. The central conceit took a back foot to meandering subplots that went nowhere. None of the characters were likeable or consistent; and unfortunately the humour did not make up for it. You could do much better than this at The Fringe.

Why Feminism? (for me)

Whilst on a conference in Berlin, one of my colleagues managed to talk about a lot of issues that I'm really passionate about. If you know me, you know that if you go near an issue I care about, then you're going to get what I think about it like an emotionally driven firehose. (With the obvious proviso of trying hard not to speak over those whose lack of privilege means that the conversation that we had was necessary.)

After recovering from my opinions (among them the idea that T.S. Eliot is 'buttwank', but that's a story for another time), my colleague asked the question "What got you into feminism?"

And it made me think.

But more, it made me think about what did get me into it, and it would've been during my time working on the Oxford University LGBTQ society.

The society was great for me, as a member at my first year of university that was newly out. It gave me drinks events, the places to meet my first boyfriends and access to clubs that let me kiss my first men. 

I had the easy journey: I had the coming of age story that goes like the dime-a-dozen gay Bildungsroman that sit, fermenting on HMV's shelves. I had role models to aspire to; narratives to follow; and a country's genuine understanding of what 'gay' means when I come out to them. It was the common story among a lot of people and because of that the society that I took part in and saw (whilst blind to the other aspects of LGBTQ advocacy). In fact, being gay had almost given a lot of people a form of pseudo-privilege in the doors it opens into LGBTQ spaces and networking outweighed the (for me) very infrequent negative aspects.

This was my first gay identity (though there have been more through the years) - and I joined the committee that organised events thinking my role would be to bring people the ability to have the same experiences.

But when I joined meetings, and spoke to people, and saw more of the people for whom I was helping create spaces, it opened my eyes. There were so many people in the LGBTQ scene that didn't share my identity - and I was aware that I stereotyped the community and the issues that the people in it felt. In fact, even assuming it was one community and that there is a single idea of the 'issues' to get over was a stereotype. The only reason I saw this simple identity as the point of the group was because the voice that espoused it was the loudest, and the one that had the biggest part in organising future events.

Noticing a hegemony within the LGBTQ groups was my first introduction to what I would later learn was kyriarchy - an almost fractal like structure of intersecting groups where subsubsubcultures can have hegemonic subsubsubsubcultures within them. In this case - the idea that people can face discrimination (implicitly or explicitly) for their gender identity within a group of people that gather for discrimination in another form.

I learnt over time, that this meant that to be a good LGBTQ advocate, I had to be a good feminist as well because otherwise, I would just be supporting the privileged people in the scene (in my case: confident, white, well-spoken gay men). In order to create safe and empowering spaces for those who would need them most, that includes looking at, fighting for and celebrating other aspects of everybody's identity and not just at the ostensible reason that they may have come to our event.

And that, in a nutshell, is how I became an advocate, who was proud to use the word 'feminism.'

Welcome to the Herd

Here's another article from my technical podcast about counter-cultures and how the internet can support them: this time about the craze known as "Bronydom"

Hi, I'm David Simons - Software Developer, Self-Proclaimed Geek and Brony.

Yes, that's right, a Brony. For those of you who don't spend your life in the subreddits and may not know what this is - Brony is an abbreviation of "b" and "pony" - a subculture that enjoy My Little Pony, and tries to spread its gospel.

Today, I'm going to play internet meme archaeologist to discover why My Little Pony has become so popular; and what we can learn from it.

My Little Pony first aired on TV in 1984, but because of a combination of vapid characters and facile, misogynistic plots never took off. The toys remained popular, however. When Hasbro, who owned the brand, launched a TV channel, they realised it was the perfect franchise to launch with.

To avoid the mistakes of previous incarnations they hired a crack team of writers. The first milestone in the history of Bronydom came on October 10th 2010, when Ponyville (a village in Equestria) first made its way on to screens.

The characters were varied and interesting - Applejack made the deep south cool years before Miley Cyrus migrated from the Disney channel, without ever once needing to twerk.

The plots were able to provide both the simplistic pantomime story lines for the youngsters; and a lot more. One plot involved a surprisingly-light-touched Native American metaphor demonstrating compromise becoming necessary after the ponies realised they had used the land of the war paint-laden buffalos. 

But regardless of how good it is: how did the internet react to the show?

A hunt to find where the sudden surge in pony-related frenzy kicked off takes us to an opinion piece about how productisation of cartoons is ruining quality - Amid Amidi claimed that producers no longer have artistic freedom because all cartoons are just extended adverts for toy franchises.

The small number who liked the show took to a website that few make it back from - 4Chan. To those not in the know, 4Chan is a brewing pot that spawns a lot of common memes. It's not for the faint hearted, with their general chat board having little censorship, making pornography and gore common.

My Little Pony fans started in the more mellow cartoon board, and started trying to undermine Amidi's claim by posting pictures and excerpts from the show. This quickly descended into posting image captions, and soon spread across the board like a rash.

This is where the term brony came from - the main 4Chan board was called "b" which combined with ponies gave the movement its name. Other movements, such as the pegasisters have also spawned with similar motivations.

The level of vitriol directed towards what seems like such a harmless subculture was shocking - pony threads were often shut down because they were derailed into mindless gore. Many describe the brony vs. anti-brony debates as one of the great civil wars of the internet.

Faced with this level of negativity, they left 4chan and left for pastures new making their own sites and subcultures dedicated to discussing and making artwork based on the franchise.

It's an interesting piece of history: but what does it say about the power of online communities?

Firstly, my mind turns to those who watch the fans who are met with scorn because they fall so far outside the target audience of My Little Pony. I'm glad that when they "come out," so to speak, they're rewarded with such a big and vibrant community. 

I've discussed before the power of the internet linking those who may not have otherwise felt welcome.

But this is bigger than that: this isn't an existing community from offline, but one that the internet created: They've developed their own language based on the show - negative people are parasprites and their secret handshake is a "brohoof". Characters such as Derpy Hooves and Doctor Whoof have been named by the community taking keen interest in background characters.  Advertising frequently targets older people - "bronies" have even been explicitly mentioned in a Katie Perry parody video made my the MLP team themselves. 

In my opinion, what makes this message particularly special? 

For me, it's that the franchise exists to promote positivity and tolerance - the community have embraced the show's subtitle: "friendship is magic".

This proves to me that the internet is bigger than the sum of its parts - all the wires and electrons in the world couldn't do this, but when you add the human touch, it makes communities online something special.

So, if you're interested in the Brony Community - check out Equestria Daily or other similar sites, and if you agree with me that Friendship IS Magic: Welcome to the herd.

Female Tropes in "Bare"

A little while back, I went to see a musical called "Bare." It was about two boys graduating from a catholic school who have an ongoing (gay) relationship. The secrecy necessary to prevent the church from knowing is too stressful for one of them, so he pressures his other half to open up with him. This wouldn't work well for the facade of the perfect high school jock life and so he pushes back: leading to issues that the play explores.

There's a lot of good things to say about the musical: a review would pick up on the excellent acting and strong music. The plot, though nowadays dime-a-dozen, is entertaining enough and surprisingly moving as it explores a range of issues about modern day life.

This isn't a theatre critics blog, though. It's the blog of an amateur feminist, who left the play disappointed. Why? The lazy characterisition of women that is becoming more and more common in these male-dominated coming of age stories.

My mind is pulled to the two supporting female characters in the show, who in the first half both have solos carving out vaguely interesting plot points about them:

Nadia, the brother of one of the protagonists, is bullied for her weight and becomes defensive in the form of bullying others. Her exposition is in the song "Plain Jane Fat Ass" and she sums up how she feels as:

Plain Jane fat ass Hungry for love, she's a sensitive soul Plain Jane fat ass Keeping society so ill at ease and loving her role.

The other major female character is Ivy - a young, attractive girl who has a lot of sex and captures the attention of the other male characters. So much so, that they only ever think about her as a sex object, and forget that she may have other traits:

Portrait of a girl Object of rumour A pose at play They say she's fairest of them all .. Now the portrait has captured the girl

These were tropes that, although arguably simplistic, were at least interesting portrayals of female characters. The portrayals, to some degree, draw attention to societal perceptions. In both cases, suggesting that we need to look at more than how a woman thinks and acts; but also how she thinks and acts when nobody (consciously or subliminally) is telling her how to do so.

I was optimistic, going in to the second half. Oops.

Ivy, the girl who complained about slut-shaming, played exactly one role in the latter half and that was to seduce the jock and get pregnant. Her entire point in the overarching plot is defined by her having sex. Meanwhile, Nadia is annoyed at Ivy and delivers all the bitchy one-liners, and barely says any words outside this the entire second half: forgotten about, and fighting for attention through pithy one-liners.

Despite the characters' potential, the needs of the plot were clearly too great, and we fell back to lazy archetypes. The irony should not escape: the playwrights themselves were guilty of the same bullying and typecasting they accused their schoolmates of.

I look forward to the day when we have interesting - or at least likeable - characters of all genders in all shows, but that seems more and more depressingly far off.

Everyone Makes Mistakes

A long time ago, I made this remark about a feminist forum at Oxford:

Any event that promotes itself as a feminist forum will be unwilling to hear views about ways in which males are discriminated against (and some of these do exist in mainstream society, even if they are overshadowed by what may as well be institutional sexism against women.)

And well, I just want to say... I'm wrong.

When I wrote that blog post, I would've been very sceptical of embracing the feminist label: Yes, I wanted equal rights, greater representation and safe spaces for people regardless of gender. But feminism as a term had been (in my mind, and assumedly to a larger part of society) co-opted by a large hateful collective to mean pointless and aggressive pandering to militant women.

Having spent the last few years actually allowing feminists to define their cause, I actually realise that... well, it's not that. It's much more than that: a banner which, even if it originally came from grassroots women's movements, now rallies for any form of equality surrounding gender identity. Given that, who wouldn't want to embrace that label too?

(As an aside, I should clarify, that this is not me saying that the support or blessing of any one individual is somehow necessary to fight the causes any group can fight... Just that you can expect my voice to join the rallying cries of feminism on a number of issues.)

Why do I bring this up? Because being able to change your opinions is of fundamental importance whilst having them. Never be scared of having been wrong in the past: if you hold your hands up and say "I screwed up" with sincerity and an attempt to change, the world respects you much more than when you had a pig-headed self belief that becomes accepted through attrition alone.

LGBTQ in Technology

I'm a contributor to a weekly technology podcast, called TechTalk and hosted by ZoneOne radio. I've talked about subjects as wide ranging as Bronies and Open Data, but even if you take the boy out of the identity politics, you can't take the identity politics out of the boy!

I recently wrote an article about how technology helps LGBTQ communities, focusing on personal experiences as a gay man, and hoping to give a light touch to other issues. I know that this article is unrelentingly positive, which doesn't match a lot of people's experiences, but the intention was to provide a basic intro to the subject, many of whom wouldn't have thought about issues surrounding LGBTQ people at all.

I've got the first slot on this weeks show, so you can click here to listen to it: http://www.zoneoneradio.com/2013/10/techtalkfest-connected-home-making.html

Hi I'm David Simons, and I'm lucky enough to work and play with technology every day.

In the year since I moved in to my flat, I've set up a TV system hooked into a computer mainframe hooked into light bulbs that can shine any colour all at the control of any of my or my flat mate's multiple mobile devices. I can't think of any facet of our life that would be better without technology.

I can think of many that would be different, though, and my love life is definitely one of those. Especially since, I'll admit my love life tends to be like my USB cables: male-to-male. 

Think back to 50 years ago when sodomy was still illegal. Cultures were built around finding others who would commit the crime: the language Polari was claimed by the gay subculture, for example, and resourceful gentlemen could show, by a well-placed colour-coded hanky, exactly what someone had in mind that evening.

Now, however, we're in a society that legally and politically accepts the lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and queer movements. 

There is still some cultural concern. Disproportionately, those from areas of societies with more traditionally conservative backgrounds (such as older generations and socially deprived communities) - can often be quite harsh. For me, coming on to someone in a club risks scorn or sometimes worse.

That makes the traditional dating pool a bit harder to enter. And that's where technology comes in.

At school I shared the "only gay in the village" experience, like so many other 17-year olds in the suburbs around the country. The lucrative market of online dating opened up a whole new treasure trove.

With my first free reign on the internet, I could find a list of men offering to queue at my door to show me a good time. There was no longer just one slightly grotty gay bar. The closest I came to meeting Prince Charming was losing my shoe on my run out as the clock struck midnight. Admittedly, that was because my trainer refused to budge from the beer-soaked carpet as I fled from security realising I may have been underage.

Nowadays, we have apps and websites galore that claim to show us another side of the LGBTQ community. 

Gaydar is the mainstream site of choice; but grindr exists for those who like their encounters vapid and full of grunting. Recon is for those with more adventurous tastes and Guardian Soulmates has a "same sex" section for those who like their dates to be like something out of Pride and Prejudice.

A lot of my dates have come from some combination of those sites and they've been of, well, varying qualities. Most importantly now, though, is my current partner, who was introduced to me by somebody I first spoke to online. With a pinch of cynicism, these sites can provide a lot of friends, great experiences and a sense of community that 50 years ago would've seemed impossible.

Despite all this, I'm one of the lucky ones. 

Imagine the trans* members of our community. That is (without wanting to put too strong a definition on how people identify) those whose gender somehow fails to describe some aspect of them completely. In some reports, trans* people can represent 2-5% of the population, but those with the opportunity or courage to stand up and identify themselves are lower. 

In my day to day life, my happiness comes from my boyfriend, and my squeamishness comes from finding out that 'fun' with two F's is not a typo.

But over 80% of trans* people report some level of domestic abuse. And nearly 50% of people attempt to take their life.

For many, their happiness is a solitary person accepting them, and their bad days can be, well, their days.

In this instance, I like to see the good side of the internet. And that is providing those who identify in a niche group the ability o find others who share their identity - be it a niche hobby, or religion or, as in this case, gender identity. 

The internet's reputation for harbouring trolls is deserved, and we see on a weekly basis the damage they can cause - but every cloud has a silver lining - and in this case all we can do is trust human nature to not let the petty, vitriolic minority have the loudest online presence.

Those who would normally see nobody they think is like them in real life, can finally find support groups and a community online. They can bond and make friends and answer questions. They can learn words and labels they hold close to them moving forward - that without the internet they never would have known existed. 

Words like Genderqueer, Asexual, Polyamorous and more. Words that, because of the one-relationship-fits-all-approach of sex education in this country, were so far away from those who needed them. Far away, until the rise of Google gave people the very real possibility to search for others who can help, support and most importantly, befriend them.

Why Manchester has No Pride

I was recently linked to an article discussing the negatives that come from overly commercialised LGBTQ pride events, and I wrote this piece as a comment about it surrounding why I dislike what Manchester Pride is, does, and stands for.

Potentially loaded, so I'd be interested to hear opinions.

For context, here is the original article:

http://www.theskinny.co.uk/deviance/features/305181-beyond_barriers_alternative_pride

Thank you Ana for your viewpoint - although there are bits I'm sure we disagree on, it summarises a lot of my views and opinions. It was also interesting to your read your background Neil, but I think I agree with that less.

The nature of what we need from Pride is changing. 10 years ago, Section 28 was still in force. Now, a conservative prime minister has been one of the loudest voices for the legalisation of gay marriage. Institutes such as the Spanner Trust, the Beaumont Society, Loving More are all springing up to support and promote diverse aspects of the Queer Identity. More actors, artists, dancers and even sportsmen are coming out to provide positive queer role models to society.

Currently, in this country, there is a significant group who are happy and comfortable in their queer identity – in fact, it’s one of the reasons the word queer has been so reclaimed. These people enjoy the celebratory spaces of prides, but are less dependent upon some of the support or empowerment they can provide. So who is that pride for now? In my opinion: those who do not have the ability to live comfortably with themselves.

It’s the 16-year old from the traditionalist family who is scared to come out. It’s the trans* person who is afraid to take the first step in admitting their gender identity. The asexual person who peer pressure has mentally scarred through ill-thought-through sex. And the married man who all his life has had doubts whether it was him or society that made him truly love the woman he married. All of those people and more: all the ones who struggle on a daily basis to get to grips with who they are and what they feel.

By even knowing about pride and considering attending, they are starting to open up about the fact that they may identify in some way queer. But they don’t know strongly and this can lead to internalised hatred, low self-esteem and depression.

This is why it’s truly great to make prides a place where all people, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, can have a positive space. It’s not just for tradition’s sake, but to give the event and venue a positive and empowered atmosphere. Vulnerable people need all the reassurance they can get from both individuals and society at large. Both of these things happen at a Pride event, where those questioning their identity can see the happiness, or the comfort, or the sheer non-affectedness of the LGBTQ people. This in turn helps them to see a community where people cannot just be accepted, but celebrated, for their queer identity.

My background comes from over 2 years of working on each of the LGBTQ student societies whilst at University and also on Oxford Pride. My work on both has aimed to create a safe, welcoming and empowering environment for members of the every walk of life regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.

The work I considered my most important with those LGBTQ organisations was organising events where people can be themselves with as low a level of worry or strife it is possible to create.

For me, there are some key things that are necessary in order to do this:

There should be no worries or concern about entering the event regardless of how confident you are in your identity. It is often those that are most scared of coming that could use the support there the most.

There should be no pressure to be anybody other than who you are; or who you want to be. Any form of stereotyping or peer pressure does not empower people to find their own way to identify or live, but creates a reinforcing hegemony whereby people feel like they must act like a popular majority to be accepted.

Nobody should feel intimidated at the actions of others. We need to temper the potential outcome of being so welcoming – we don’t want to open our gates to those who are going to undermine and bully any individual.

Honestly, I don’t see that Manchester Pride in its current guise fulfils these needs.

It clearly does a lot of good, especially in its charity work. I feel, however, as though they are catering too much to the commercialised mass market. To this extent, they’re neglected the needs of those for whom a pride event must be more than just a good time, but is a vital event to help them gain self-confidence and self-esteem.

When an event costs money then it makes it a decision to go in, and this decision can often be artificially linked to the (incorrect) belief that one must have a cast iron identity at all times. It may prevent those who are still questioning their identity from attending. It may artificially accelerate development of a person’s queer identity in a negative way. All of these can stop a questioning person from taking their first steps into an LGBTQ community; or make them feel as though they have to conform to a stereotype they incorrectly see as negative the first time they tentatively approach the scene.

I also think that the need to chase so much money has done damage to the Manchester Pride website and advertising material. There are so few parts of the site – notably none of the top half – that initially do anything other than advertise chargeable tickets and sponsors. A small number of blog posts contain support links, as does the community tab at the top but these are not shown or emphasised – and to find any talk of empowerment I had to use the search bar.

I know and understand that festivals such as these are expensive. I know the hidden costs involved in insurance, the need to audit accounts and many other overheads it’s easy for others to forget about. However, I genuinely believe that you can make changes that will both reduce the cost and also make it fulfil the modern need of a pride event better.

I’m not claiming to know the full story, but as one example, Manchester Pride have this year chosen to book The Feeling, Misha B, Sam Sparro, Mutya Keisha Siobhan, Patrick Wolf, Kate Nash, Lucie Spraggan, Rylan, the cast of Wicked, the cast of Rent and many other acts. I have no idea why such a star-studded line-up is necessary to fulfil Manchester Pride’s aim to “celebrate LGBT life” and “provide opportunities for empowerment, participation [and] access.”

Their presence makes the event significantly more popular and more promotable. However, it also makes the event more expensive. The popularity will make it harder for many to attend, again making it hard to believe that the event is committed, as it says, to “participation” and “access.” The selection of acts seems more focussed on popularity and stereotypes than trying to get a diverse angle of acts to represent LGBT life which gives the false and artificial impression that stereotypes are more prevalent – or worse, the only way to be queer – at such events.

Instead of actively hunting out those in the community Manchester Pride ought to support, they are listening to the vocal majority who are crying out for ever bigger, and by corollary, (for many) more intimidating, parties. I’m sure Manchester Pride provides a brilliant and necessary space for many LGBTQ people, however, I also believe that it is also missing out on providing the event that those who need it most: ironically, those who cannot speak out without the empowerment the event could otherwise provide. 

Pride Double-Booking

I spent four years of my life in Oxford as a student and a lot of my time was spent working with and around the LGBTQ scene. I spent two years on the student committee, almost two years working for Oxford Pride (much of which overlapped); a year working for LGBT-targetted bars in the Thames Valley area; and most of this time doing fundraising work or advocacy work for other local LGBTQ charities including THT, Oxford Friend and HALT.

I knew the Oxford scene (and it knew me!) fairly well by the time I left.

I don't want to be an old fogey and sit, maliciously, talking about how it's awful that it's deviated a long way from how it was when I had power and also, I would like to preface this by saying I have been out the loop for a year, so I don't know the full story.

Cards on the table: I like Oxford Pride 

(EDIT: To avoid detracting from the central debate I've removed some less important context here that others found risible)

Oxford Pride is an annual event that starts as a march through the city centre, and culminates in a festival. The festival plays host to a number of business who pay for stalls which help finance the event; and a number of LGBTQ-centred charity or community groups who get stalls for free. Acts who have traditionally worked heavily with the LGBTQ community; or are members of the community themselves perform music all day.

Other pride events charge for entry; or fence it off and make it a conscious decision to enter the event. I'm not keen on these sort of prides as it makes self-identifying as anything on the queer spectrum seem like a definite choice one has to make - you choose to identify when you cross the threshold. This makes identity seem like some sort of barrier to cross and can intimidate.

But Oxford Pride is a festival, an open field where anyone enters of any age regardless of SOGI (Sexual Orientation/Gender Identity). It's even on dog walking routes and next to the busiest car park in the city. It's still a celebration for LGBTQ people but not a self-indulgent one. People are there to have fun, and under this guise, people of any identity come along and realise that being queer isn't a reason to discriminate against them. Under this circumstance, those struggling to come to terms with how they'd like to identify can come without fear of anyone second-guessing their identity. We're providing positive LGBTQ role models and experiences to everyone, regardless of who they are.

(EDIT: I've since been informed that Oxford Pride are fencing it to increase security and allow moderation of drink. There have been significant issues with this in the past, so I can support this decision, but in an ideal world I would fight against this point vehemently.)

This year, the Oxford University LGBTQ Society elections are on the same day as this event, from 3-6pm which covers the vast majority of the event (not the march, but the lion's share of what will happen on the festival site.) The society have been aware of the march/parade event for some time, but have not promoted it and launched an event on the same day. (They have said "it's to allow people to do both": both the invite/event description makes no mention of Pride).

I think this is bad, and really damaging to LGBTQ communities. Here are five reasons I think why

1. It reduces the number of events that LGBTQ people can go to.  More events for LGBTQ people are good. It is my experience that having a fun event to go to where your SOGI is irrelevant is one of the best forms of welfare by giving people a space where they don't have to hide an aspect of themselves, which can be very stressful. By double-booking these events, quite simply these people have less events to go to. Which is sad.

2. It perpetuates a false dichotomy between "Town" and "Gown" on LGBTQ issues. Working on aspects of LGBTQ culture in Oxford on both sides of the student vs. not necessarily student schism has given me a very interesting viewpoint and it seems to me that they both think that the other side hates them. The number of students who would get advice from THT; or attend one of the local LGBTQ-focused venues or volunteer for Oxford Pride is very low. And on the flip side, the student societies do little to promote these other charities and/or venues. This is bad. And to see the students turn their back on an event like this will only ostracise them further from the opportunities that the organisations outside the walls of the university can provide.

3. It removes young people from the event to allow vulnerable youngsters to see positive role models. Largely, people empathise with people of their same age. We would be providing a great opportunity to make a striking image that it is possible for 16-25 year old people can be out and gay and proud. If there are a lack of people at this event around that age range, then it would be harmful as people think that people proud of their identity at that age is harder, if not impossible.

4. It forces a choice between volunteering to help at the Pride event and standing for a position in the OU LGBTQSoc committee. Whilst on the committee of the university society I tried to do as much as possible to liaise with other organisations. This gave me a great wealth of contacts - we could run fundraising events for relevant charities; book private venues at short notice and keep our finger on the pulse of events at LGBTQ events. And this started because I was a volunteer at Oxford Pride. We are hosting elections during the busiest part of the day - and that means that it is physically impossible for someone to both contest their election and volunteer at the most important point of the Oxford Pride day. This seems like a ludicrous restriction to impose.

5. It reduces the number of people who are able to donate to the causes that Oxford Pride support. Oxford Pride collect money for LGBTQ charities (for the first time this year both locally and internationally). This can only be a good thing. If less people are there, then buckets on the day will have less money in them. And less money goes to charity. And this can only be a bad thing.

I'm not saying that the committee or individuals who organised this event could have known this, and they may have some excellent reasons for this (I'd love to hear them!), but I would've thought that by double-booking with the biggest Oxfordshire LGBTQ event of the year they should have known that it could fragment, and potentially harm, LGBTQ communities in a large variety of situations and places.

Live Below the Line: The Results

So £5 for five days food. I already knew the pressure points: partly the sheer volume of food (I'm a growing boy... just) and some of the more expensive parts of the food pyramid - notably protein. The whole challenge was made harder by the oh-so-virtuous boyfriend insisting that I stick to ethical meats.

Here it is in all it's glory.

(For those wondering about how the sausages in the beans were ethical; I got away with that on the basis that we weren't sure if they were "meat" in the first place)

And here's how it broke down in to five moderately malnourished days:

Day Zero [Friday evening]

Friends were round to help me finish off the leftovers from my birthday party the week before, but midnight was the strict cut-off for when the week of hell began. This lead to the strange game of "Stomach Half a Bottle of Kahlua within 8 minutes;" but it was done, leading to...

Day One [Saturday]

Breakfast: None

Lunch: Veggie Stir Fry

Dinner: Veggie Broth w/ Bread

The first day involved a trip to Tesco to buy all the food. I was surprised how much it looked - for the first time (and maybe the last) since signing up to this I had hope! The food was fine, but hope short-lived as I went to a nightclub for the residual birthday celebrations that evening. A good night was had by all, even me, bopping in the corner, even if I was forlornly holding my tap water wistfully.

Day Two [Sunday]

Breakfast: None

Lunch: Veggie Broth w/ Bread

Dinner: Mushroom Chapatti Pizza

In retrospect this was the hardest day of the challenge - whilst digging in to my second portion of soup my stomach almost choked me as it leapt up to gratefully receive it. In fact, one bowl wasn't enough and I had to adjust my plan slightly to allow me to finish it off to placate my appetite.

Day Three [Monday]

Breakfast: Chapatti Pancakes

Lunch: Mini Mushroom Chapatti Pizzas

Dinner: Jacket Potatoes and Baked Beans with Sausages

To celebrate the middle of the week, I scheduled a treat - the one bit of meat, and the tastiness of processed beans: it was definitely worth it, and I devoured it hungrily. It was a shame that everyone else stayed in the office as well that evening for a pizza party. Bastards.

Day Four [Tuesday]

Breakfast: Mushrooms on Toast

Lunch: Tuna Sandwiches

Dinner: Roast Potatoes and Carrots (Carrots not pictured)

If it weren't for the fact the end was in sight, this would've been the day I gave in to temptation. After making (what I considered) a feast of mushrooms on toasts, the Metro featured an article about "how to make the perfect mushrooms on toast." Without commenting on the journalistic integrity: I must apologise to the author of that article. My mushrooms had no hollandaise sauce - apparently it is "the only way."

Day Five [Wednesday]

Breakfast: Chapatti Pancakes

Lunch: Tuna Sandwiches

Dinner: Sweet and Sour Mushrooms

So, last day - and it was the day of using up the supplies. I had an extra-healthy portion of pancakes to use up the pancakes and great portion of stir-fry. The highlight of this day will be clock ticking down until midnight, and...

Day Six [Thursday Morning]

... a glass of healthy, nutritious and flavoursome apple and raspberry juice I had bought for just such a special occasion. It was over.

So, what did I learn?

How to make Chapattis;

Which people in the office could stomach split pea broth-induced flatulence

People are willing to and like to pay to make fun of you (oh, and save lives too);

Having the support of people and the knowledge that the money you raise go to an important cause can make you face almost insurmountable challenges.

Thanks to all that supported me, and if you still haven't and would like to, the link is below. Remember that my company will match everything up to £500 raised so this is a great way to support a great cause; great person and donate money efficiently!

https://www.livebelowtheline.com/me/davidsimons

Live below the Line: What and Why?

People die. I remember losing people close to me and it's sad - but we are mortal and know that life does have to end.

However, we talk about one of the big injustices of life: dying at a time far beneath environment factors suggest. In our culture, it's genuinely sad and mourned; but imagine living in a third world country when a young person gets struck down by a preventable illness.

One of the UN goals is to reduce infant mortality; and for good reason. Clearly it has the same sadness as in our culture. More than that, though it stops a new, fit, healthy generation of strong workers to enter the economy and to later care for and look after the families afflicted by poverty. This leads to a spiral of decline where regions get more and more afflicted by the symptoms of poverty but lose the ability to pull themselves out.

My workplace has favoured SCI (Schistosomiasis Control Initiative) as their charity of the year this year - they target cost-effective medicine to stop preventable diseases that afflict the young. This allows them to learning, eventually working, and start to pull their regions out of poverty one smile-filled day at a time.

I recently completed their big annual fundraiser Live Below the Line for them; a sponsored starve-a-thon that aims to breed as much empathy as we can feasibly do to mimic what it's like to feed yourself on the "poverty line" - a worldwide measure (adjusted by cost for each country) that 1 billion people worldwide find themselves forced to live under.

I am truly grateful to every single person who donated, or offered me support, or even mocked me. No matter how little you did, you still raised awareness (in yourself and others), and contributed to such a fantastic cause. I'm hoping to raise a little more from the publicity of my results blog (coming soon), but because of the generous nature of all the donations and my company for matching every penny I raise (up to £500) we have currently raised an excellent £700 for this fantastic cause.

There's still time to donate up until the end of July, so please if you haven't already (or have and want to give more!) then consider pledging just a small amount. This is a great cause to support - and a great way to do it as you will have your donation matched! The link is here:

https://www.livebelowtheline.com/me/davidsimons

Thank you all - you've been genuinely inspiring :)

What if I'm not "born this way"?

I don't think I can tell you how I happy I am with the latest news that comes from the Greater Manchester Police Force.

Abuse and violence against alternative subcultures, including goths and punks, will now be recorded as hate crimes by one police force in Britain.

Greater Manchester Police is thought to be the first force in the country to treat public offences against "goths, emos, punks and metallers" in the same way as they do attacks based on race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity.

Source

Born This Way, the song by Lady Gaga has always been a pet peeve of mine for suggesting this so well:

No matter gay, straight, or bi Lesbian, transgendered life I'm on the right track baby

Those third gendered, agendered people? Those in poly relationships? Well you can go away. You're not part of how I see minority people being so I'm not supporting your right.

For an official body to turn around and say "alternative subcultures" in such a general sense is a massive way forward. Any way you can identify yourself that may put you at risk or make you vulnerable is a characteristic that is worthy of protection.

It's very early days and there are still reasons to be trepidatious - for example who is going to define what is "alternative;" and perhaps more base are these even going to be applied? But the fact that it's being noticed that we are no longer able to enumerate the aspects of someone's identity that put them at risk gives me a massive sense of optimism

Segues

It's Easter, and speaking of Easter, do you know what I hate? Really bad segues.

When giving their political opinions, they write angrily to the editor. "Why has Generic Politician contributed to Ongoing Saga," they question. It is indeed common knowledge that Ongoing Saga is bad: it's contributed to widespread inequality, perhaps, or infringed people's rights. The political commentator gives an opinion as well: "Clearly this is because Unrelated Political Promise was not kept" And that's when it falls apart. Ongoing Saga is not caused by a non-upholding of Unrelated Political Promise, or at least not evidently so for the case to be made in such an off-hand manner. 

This kind of political argument grates with me for two main reasons. Partly because it's just logically wrong. The argument can be hidden behind semantic trickery (the two concepts sound the same so must be linked!) or emotional manipulation; but the logical structure of the argument is "A therefore B," where A and B do not appear to have any causal link.

But more than that, I dislike this way of arguing because it is political point-scoring at its most apparent; people try to use and often trivialise the memory of bad events to scaremonger people in to listening to what they're underlying opinions are.

I saw a particularly egregious example of this in the Metro the other day, which is what prompted this post. It argued that Hague and Jolie's recent visit to refugee camps aimed at stopping wartime rape was a wasted effort because the best way to stop wartime rape was to stop war.

This argument to me is simplistic at best and downright offensive at worst. Rape is bad. Full stop. There is such a prevalent culture of misogyny and patriarchy in many of these regions, and non-consensual sexual acts are symptomatic of this. It is, to me, unthinkable to imply that the only reason that the rape in these cases is bad is because of the fact that it is used in a weapon or committed in a warzone. 

Julie Burchill

those who think that Burchill should be able to say what she wants in the name of "free speech;" 

and those that think that there was no journalistic content in the article, and that giving undue weight to Burchill's opinions creates an idea that using perjorative terms against trans* people such as she did is justifiable.

My opinion? A lot has been said, and I don't know how much more I can add. But I would like to stake my opinion. People need to feel comfortable in themselves; and something that makes one anything other than the majority does make them vulnerable. As a broad list, sometimes it's vulnerable to measurable physical things (bullying, or violent crime); sometimes to mental torment (inappropriate sexual advances; threats or antilocution) and other times to subtle cultural implications (an underlying lack of role models; or a frustration/lack of ambition due to a perceived bias in opportunities). Since there is already this imbalance between how society is seen by different groups, it is important that when we see hateful opinions or hateful languages they must be challenged visibly. When attacks on those more likely to be vulnerable are presented in the same way as journalistic content (i.e. being given undue weight and authority;) they only add to the implicit idea that those who are outside the group are allowed to vilify, torment and ostracise those within it. One of the reasons this instance makes me so angry is (as I see it, admittedly) this is exactly what feminism is about. Women at one point were the minority group who could sign their rights away with various misogynistic laws; who were overlooked for positions at work purely because of apprehensions and misunderstandings of their gender and who fought for the right to overthrow the use of patronising words and ideals. And now in the name of feminism, a couple of journalists are dismissing a politically active minority group who are advocating equal rights. No, that leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.

Sport Magazine's Feature

I'm a commuter at the moment. Not for much longer, but I am one of those that get on the train and the tube every day. It's not too bad in all honesty, I'm looking forward to ending it but it makes me part of a target demographic for a large money-spinner: Free newspapers and magazines plastered with mindless content and swathes of adverts. I want to call attention to one in particular, Friday's offer "Sport Magazine"

http://www.sport-magazine.co.uk/

A Civil Action

We've been eating his fast food and drinking his coffee for years, but Uncle Sam just keeps on giving: this weekend, he's sent the NFL to London - with the St Louis Rams set to take on Tom Brady's New England Patriots at Wembley on Sunday.

With them, in his wisdom, the old chap has dispatched both teams' cheerleading squads, including Rams captain Ashley W. As a rule, NFL cheerleaders' surnames aren't made public, so you will just have to use your imaginations (like you're not already).

Were we to divulge such details, Miss W has the legal wherewithal to address such a misdemeanour - she is currently in her second year of law school at Saint Louis University, and spends her days away from the football (their football) field interning at the circuit attorney's office in downtown St Louis.

Her long-term goal is to serve as a judge - and we thought anyone looking like this working in law was confined to the scripts of Ally McBeal. So thanks, Uncle Sam, for sending your sport and your cheerleaders over for the weekend. A very civil action.

The St Louis Rams play the New England Patriots in the NFL's PepsiMax International Series, Sunday 5pm. For ticket details of London's two NFL games in 2012 visit nfluk.com

Let's play schools. I'm going to give you five minutes to find all the ways this is offensive, then let's reconvene. My answers are below:

-

The fact this article has NO content other than to justify aa picture of an attractive woman.  If you want to do a piece about cheerleading in sport, then great. They have an otherwise decent balance of men's vs. women's sports (by no means perfect, but probably matching the prominence society gives them) so it wouldn't stand out at all. Turning this into a proper article and interviewing would quash stereotypes and give an interesting insight into an often forgotten aspect of American sporting culture.

The line "you will just have to use your imaginations (like you're not already)" assumes that all readers who find women attractive basically want to strip off the (already few) clothes she's wearing.

As a further point to the above, the fact that the magazine basically assumes that every reader finds women attractive. Surprisingly finding women hot isn't a prerequisite for liking sport - I'm a gay male example.

A small point, but Uncle Sam "sent over" the NFL teams, but "in his wisdom, the old chap has dispatched" the cheerleaders. Hm, I understand the journalistic need for synonyms but the connotations of those two sentences sound very loaded to me.

Assuming that a female lawyer's role is to stop misdemeanours such as releasing her surname to baying fans. No. Women lawyers are allowed to serve as important cases as men.

Tying her physical beauty in with her desire to be a judge. Why feel the need to link the two at all

Here is a women with the intelligence to study law and ambition to  be a judge; as well as the dedication to be a cheerleader for an NFL team. This is something to be celebrated and applauded, but we're linking her to a trashy American TV show set in a fictional version of the sector she wants a job in?

Fetishising powerful women. The whole article's tone right from the almost innuendo-laden puns to the phrase "address such a misdemeanour" stinks of only applauding powerful women because of how powerful they can be in the bedroom.

If this article, as they claim, is about cheerleading, why is all the information about the corresponding men's sport. Even if they had prefaced that last paragraph with "See the cheerleaders when...," as it is we're almost abusing the attractive women as a free advert or sideshow to the big grown up men.

And I know you can't see the image, but it really is demeaning. She is wearing the least possible clothing she possible can (think tribal-print Borat mankini) in front of a fountain in a provocative pose. This is a modelling shot, plain and simple.

I thought I'd stop at a round ten. I'm sure people could think of others.

I'm actually going to broach this matter with them, as this article demeaning women in the legal sector as well as the particular subject is a particularly bad example. In the past, we've had similar photos of women's hockey stars and partners of famous sportsmen.

I don't think I can underestimate how seriously I think we should take things like this. As a particularly current example, I think articles like this are partly to blame for the gender skew in city jobs. Personally, I think the two main things that this article does that disgust me so much are to (a) reinforce the stereotype to women that the city is a man's place to work that women may be deigned to enter; and (b) reinforce the stereotype to men that ambition, intelligence or influence in a woman are features that make her attractive in a sexual or fetishised way; rather than in a career-minded way.

One Direction

So, One Direction, yeah?

You're pretty. Oh my god, Niall Horan can have my metaphorical gay-babies.

And some of their acoustic songs are lovely. I think putting them in the Olympic Closing ceremony may be a little bit of a mistake if we look back in 10, 15 years and nobody knows them.

But this their big hit - "What Makes You Beautiful" - is a terrible song if you listen to the lyrics of it. The quote that I take exception at comes from the chorus:

"You don't know you're beautiful... That's what makes you beautiful"

The reason I don't like this song? It puts an unfair negative spin on the idea of female confidence. Five stereotypically attractive males are singing what may as well be a song TO some unidentified female listener. THe younger, more influential women are listening to this song because it IS directed at them, and what message are they given?

"Your physical attractiveness to me is based primarily on the fact that you do not believe in your beauty. If you achieve the confidence that would allow you to see yourself as beautiful then you would suddenly lose your appeal to me."

And to me? That's a really negative image for guys who, like or lump it, WILL influence younger women many of whom are disproportionately affected by the media, and could destroy women's confidence that they are being told that they can attract an attractive man is to lack self-esteem and a positive body image.

Misogynistic Translations

A slight hobby of mine is listening to Disney songs in other languages. Normally I like the sound of the phonemes, but given a decent level of Germa I noticed a very strange translation in the German version of Aladdin's A Whole New World that takes it quite far from the original. 

ALADDIN: A whole new world A new fantastic point of view No-one to tell us no Or where to go Or say we're only reaming

JASMINE: A whole new world A dazzlig place I never knew But when I'm way up here It's crystal clear That now I'm in a whole new world with you 

And the German version with the most faithful translations I could manage:

ALADDIN: In meine Welt (in my world) Fangst du ein neues Leben an (you can begin a new life) Hier horst du niemals nein, (where you never hear no) Hier kann dir keiner deine Traume nehmen (and none of your dreams will ever be taken)

JASMINE: In deine Welt (In your world) So neu, so vollig unbekannt (so new, so totally unknown) Mit dir auf Wolken gehen (going with you on the clouds) Und plotzlich sehen (and suddenly seeing) Dass deine Welt auch meine Welt sein kann (that your world can also be my world).

In the English version, the world is Jasmine's world that Aladdin is opening her up to; but in the German version, the world is Aladdin's and Jasmine is allowed into it.

When we consider that the context of this scene is about liberating Jasmine from the confines of her over-protective father, and that the "world" that is being opened up to her is both a loving relationship with Aladdin and the world beyond the palace walls, the fact that the courting male owns in leaves quite an unpleasant connotation behind.

LGBTQSoc Presidency: Cherwell Quote

I was recently quoted in the Cherwell regarding the LGBTQ presidency fiasco. It seems to quote me fairly well in context, but I feel it worth posting the full quote that I sent for posterity's sake:

At the start of the discussion, many of Alex's comments were not transphobic but merely ignorant of issues surrounding trans* people. Many do not realise that "tranny" is perceived in a perjorative sense because it is still, unfortunately, used widely in every day vocabulary. Similarly, without further consideration, the issues surrounding gender identity and those surrounding sexual orientation may seem distinct. However, what has annoyed so many people is Alex's inability to respond to people's later criticism and offence. Alex is being told by people with considerable more experience in the relevant area that he is being insulting and short-sighted. At times, he seems to be verging on close-mindedness and his repeated refusals to apologise mean that he is simply antagonising people.

Although a candidate for the presidency of the society who is not well-educated about issues surrounding trans* people and culture would not be ideal, it would be possible if they were willing to educate themselves and work fully towards creating a safe and welcoming environment for people regardless of their gender identity and history. Alex has demonstrated that he is not that person.

I feel most of the conversation has been already had, but I would not post these views if I was not willing to defend them. Facebook is probably the best place to do this.