When I grow up I want to be Swedish.

The release of a gender-neutral toy catalogue has reignited a fierce debate in Sweden

Now, if all you know about Sweden are ABBA and IKEA, I understand you might be a little confused, but put down your Dancing Queen vinyl and flat pack furniture and listen up. Sweden is way cool. Especially if you’re a woman.

Since the 1960s, the Scandinavian country has been championing the sexual revolution with gender equality calling shotgun in the front seat. Sweden has the highest proportion of working women and in 2010 was designated by the World Economic Forum as the most gender-equal country in the world. It’s also considered a progressive, liberal country with widespread acceptance of alternative sexualities. Its gender-neutral marriage laws are the envy of many LGBTQ people across the world, and same-sex families are not at all uncommon.

I already knew Sweden was very forward thinking in lots of ways. Then this week, I stumbled across an article about the release of a gender-neutral children’s toy catalogue by a Swedish company and my admiration for all things Sweden was reignited. The Swedish edition of Top Toy, who also produce catalogues for Toys ‘R Us, features a boy playing with dolls and a girl looking pretty badass wielding a machine gun, and another toy catalogue has switched things around with a boy in a Spider-Man costume pushing a pink pram and girl riding a yellow tractor.

I was delighted. Spend more than five minutes with either of my parents and I’m sure the story of the time I threw several dolls out of a pram and used it to ferry rocks from one end of the park to the other will be brought up. I was rarely happier than when I was creating traffic jams on the car mat with my brother or turning a game of Action Men into a steamy gay love affair, but I wasn’t adverse to a Barbie or a Polly Pocket on occasion either. I just wanted to play with toys and it didn’t matter to me if they were for boys or for girls. I didn’t realise I was subverting anything—from a very young age, I simply thought it was an horrendous injustice that my brother would get far cooler things to play with than I did. To this day, I’m still bitter that he had a Ghostbusters proton pack and trap and I didn’t.

Top Toy’s director of sales Jan Nyberg said: “With the new gender thinking, there is nothing that is right or wrong. It’s not a boy or a girl thing, it’s a toy for children.”

These things do not just happen by accident. The strategy was a conscience decision after the company was criticised in 2008 by an advertising watchdog in Sweden for encouraging outdated gender roles in their imagery.

Nyberg continued: “We have produced the catalogues in a completely different way this year. For several years, we have found that the gender debate has grown so strong in the Swedish market that we have had to adjust.”

A prominent feminist blog in Sweden called Lady Dahmer explained why toys have become the frontline in the war against gender inequality: “The problem with toy stores and their catalogues is that they’re selling a concept; an idea about boys and girls and what kinds of qualities and interests they should have. It’s about money because as long as they can fool us into believing boys and girls are fundamentally different, they can keep selling us twice as much.

“Children have a strong need to fit in, not stand out. When they see what is ‘right’ for their gender, it becomes less likely that they dare break the norms.”

Allowing children to express themselves regardless of gender isn’t a concept unique to Sweden. Back home, Hamleys ‘gender apartheid’ has been slammed by people like Laura Nelson who says the toy giant should follow the example of retailers like Marks and Spencer who recently revised the way they segregate toys. Nelson said: “Hamleys should follow suit so that girls and boys are free to choose what toys are best matched to their individual interests and potential rather than a pre-conditioned and artificial notion of what the different genders should aspire to.”

But it seems toys are just a drop in the vast gender ocean. Sweden is going further and pushing toward something greater than gender equality—cleansing the notion of gender entirely. Nathalie Rothschild explains: “The idea is that the government and society should tolerate no distinctions at all between the sexes.

“This means on the narrow level that society should show sensitivity to people who don’t identify themselves as either male or female, including allowing any type of couple to marry. But that’s the least radical part of the project. What many gender-neutral activists are after is a society that entirely erases traditional gender roles and stereotypes at even the most mundane levels.”

Gender cleansing, while somewhat extreme for many tastes, isn’t just peddled by a minority or a passing fad that will soon fall out of fashion, but something that is even woven into the national curriculum. Gender advisers are common in schools across Sweden and there is a pre-school in Stockholm who says its aim is to ‘free children from social expectations based on their sex’.

I asked my friend Pete, who moved to Sweden when his daughter was born, what he thought. Was this a concept that was on the fringes of society or something prevalent in everyday life? He told me that it was common for people to confront you for referring to you child as ‘him’ or ‘her’ and that ‘hen’, a gender-neutral pronoun, was becoming increasingly popular. It has even spawned Sweden’s first gender-neutral children’s book called ‘Kivi och Monsterhund’ by Jesper Lundqvist.

Pete also said that it was controversial for parents not to subscribe to popular opinion and those who allowed children to follow traditional gender roles were marginalised in big cities like Stockholm or Göteborg. He said: “You would definitely get a dirtier look for dressing your girl in a pretty pink dress than dressing your boy in a pretty pink dress.”

Sweden’s attitude to gender will no doubt be considered radical, or even dangerous, especially in a country like Britain where gender roles and stereotypes are thoroughly entrenched in everything we do. I can just see the Daily Fail headlines now. One critic, Swedish blogger Tanja Bergkvist said: “This equality idea, it has become so absurd, it has become a really stupid industry.

“Gender researchers have convinced politicians that the solution to all problems is a gender perspective. That’s quite dangerous because they spend money and resources on the wrong things.”

But whether or not you agree with the Swedish way of tackling inequalities, you have to admit that it’s worrying that we’ve come to believe it’s something in our genetics rather than societal factors that makes boys want to play with guns and girls play with dolls and that makes men want to earn lots of money while us women simply cannot wait to get home to iron his shirts.

Everything is gendered. Not just the big things, but little things that you might not have even thought about. Why do our shirts and our jeans have to button up differently? The shampoo we use, moisturisers, razors. Bathrooms, changing rooms, classrooms. How come my brothers can get their haircut for a fiver but I’m paying £40? Aren’t Diet Coke and Coke Zero exactly the same thing?

All these supposedly unimportant, mundane anomalies stack up, reinforcing the belief that we are fundamentally different until we’ve reach crisis point. May I remind you of the gender pay gap? It might be closing, but it’s still there, and I think that homophobia and transphobia stem directly from restrictive gender roles and the assumption that men and women are supposed to behave in a certain way.

Not everyone will agree with the motives of raising a gender-neutral child, for example, but I certainly believe there are a lot of lessons we can learn from our Swedish bröder och systrar. Besides. They do make really good meatballs.

The Mums in this video have a long way to go.

The video cannot be shown at the moment. Please try again later.

TV can sometimes reveal how parents repress their children. In the ABC show “What would you do?” actors playing a mother and a son walk into a costume store in New York City and argue about what Halloween costume the little boy should wear. Meanwhile, a hidden camera picks up the shoppers’ attitudes towards this conflict:

The video cannot be shown at the moment. Please try again later.

This is a perfect format to catch people saying what they believe. When people feel their privacy is protected, they talk.

In the October 19 episode of “What would you do?” the little boy wants to be Belle, the princess in Disney’s “Beauty and the Beast.” His mom wants him to be anything but a princess. She talks openly with other mothers about wanting to “nip in the bud” this “phase” of his. This fear and disapproval is perhaps one of the boy’s first experiences not being accepted or loved for who he is.

The little boy could not care less for the costumes his mom suggests. He wants to be a cute princess with a bow on her hair. Now—up to this point all this is a dramatization and we know to suspend our disbelief.

But then the regular public intervenes. When a real-life shopper says “that’s for a girl. And you are not a girl, right?” she shows that society is a unified front. It rejects what the boy wants. And what he wants is not only a costume. He is trying on a potential identity; who he might become. Now he knows that, according to his mother, and mothers in general, what he wants is wrong. With this, society throws him and his princess costume into a corner of rejection and isolation—that is, into the closet.

It doesn’t surprise me that all the children in the clip rehash the message they have heard from their mothers casually, but relentlessly, throughout their lives. Their ears are tuned in. They want to belong. Belonging is, after all, safety. They apply the gender-normative message because they see it as a condition for being accepted. When other kids stray, they enforce conformity. They become guardians of the closet—bullies.

Luckily other voices are being heard, and kids are finding support in unexpected places.

When a girl walks into the store asking for a Spider-Man costume the moms beat the message of conformity, one of them expressing fears about bullying. I can’t help to think that the kids who hear her will take her words as a warning—if you want to be bullied, try wearing the wrong costume.

Then something unexpected happens: two shoppers surround the little girl, assert that what she wants is to be a strong woman—what can be wrong with that? When the mother “takes a little walk” to relieve some stress, one of the strangers promises to stand with her and defend her. She touches her shoulder warmly, looks around cautiously before whispering in the girl’s ear—“there are more girls like you.” With this she shows that not all of society demands a sacrifice. There are people who understand and celebrate who she might become. The woman shows for the girl the way out of the closet her mother unwittingly threw her into. Please watch the video till the end.

Thanks for being loud and brave

This November, Thanksgiving was celebrated in the US. I have many things to be thankful for, including acts of kindness from strangers towards kids who are trapped in society’s strictures.

Instead of silence and conformity some people are coming to the rescue of children who are different, telling them that who they are is not only acceptable but beautiful. Encouraging them to say their truth. To be loud and brave. Singer-song writer’s Ezra Axelrod’s song says it best:

We crossed every line just to find our own way to be / Let the waves crash into you, I’ll betcha never felt so free, felt so loud / Max, I see the fire in your eyes, I know that you will always be loud and brave.

The video cannot be shown at the moment. Please try again later.

There is a shortage of foster carers in the UK, with The Telegraph reporting that 9,000 new foster homes are urgently needed. Fostering agencies are particularly keen to attract carers from the LGBT community as they represent a huge potential resource, yet are largely underrepresented as carers.  

In light of these findings, Rosie Hayes spoke to bestselling author Cathy Glass who supports LGBT fostering and gave a wonderful insight into the life of a foster carer.

Cathy is a divorced mother of three. Over the past 25 years she has cared for around 100 foster children as well as authoring 15 bestselling books which have sold over 1.4 million copies. Additionally, she provides training to other foster carers and spends up to four hours a day corresponding with her fans.  It would be easy to imagine she also wears a superhero cape and can fly to the moon, but Cathy is refreshingly down to earth.

She does, occasionally read or watch television, although finding the time to have a relationship has proved a little tricky; “It would take a very understanding person to take me on with everything going on in my life”, she jokes before adding, “I might think about having a relationship when I retire”.

Since her book Damaged, the true story of a foster child who suffered horrific abuse at the hands of a paedophile ring, was published in 2007 Cathy Glass, has become a household name.

Each of her books tell the story of a child she has fostered; the reason they came into care, the behaviours and disclosures that occur while they live with her and the resolution of the children being returned to their natural family or being adopted.

Cathy believes sexuality is irrelevant when fostering and knows a lesbian couple who have fostered successfully for 15 years. She she suggests interested carers apply to an agency that already has same sex couples on their register, as they are likely to be the most supportive.

Cathy Glass (not real name) has been a foster mother for the last 25 years. She has written 3 bestselling books about some of the children that she has looked after. Her books include, Damaged, Cut and Hidden.

Cathy writes under a pseudonym and changes all names in her books to protect the identities of her foster children, meaning none of the children featured in the books, or any of their parents, have identified themselves. Her secret identity as a bestselling author is only known to her three adult children, who “take it in their stride”. She would like to think they are proud of her, but they rarely get a chance to discuss it.

Her style comes under the genre “Inspirational memoir” (rather disparagingly nicknamed “misery lit” by the publishing industry), yet her books differ, and have large appeal, because they are written from her perspective and not the child’s. Although the subject matter is dark, Cathy manages to make each story a heart-warming read.

“I focus on the optimistic outcome of the care order” explains Cathy, “unfortunately it just isn’t possible for some children to be returned to their mothers but in some instances, like in the case of Aimee (the girl described in her book Another Forgotten Child) a child will go and live with relatives who are able to provide them with a stable and loving home”.

Cathy weaves anecdotes from her own life, and those of her three older children (one of whom she adopted following a foster placement) into each book and readers soon get a wonderful sense of her personality and the challenging yet hugely rewarding life she leads.

“I am incredibly lucky” she says, as though her successful career has just happened upon her rather than being the result of years of dedication and passion, “I am really happy with my life and the work that I do and I have a great circle of friends. The only thing I would change is I would have liked for my marriage to continue but that ended a long time ago now and there’s no use crying over spilt milk”.

Warm and open, with an unmistakeable kindness in her voice, as well as a no-nonsense attitude that reveals her inner strength, Cathy declares her favourite thing about fostering is being able to return a child to their natural mother.

“You know from the outset that fostering is very rarely a route to adoption. You are performing a role, and when you have worked alongside the parents and the child has made such good progress, it is incredibly satisfying to return that child to a parent or parents who have overcome their difficulties which are usually drink and drug related. It makes up for the pain of their departure”.

And how does she cope when a child leaves her home?

“Of course you develop attachment to the child. You wouldn’t be human if you didn’t and it is terribly sad when a child leaves your home.  Not only do you miss their physical presence but it’s the little things, likes their shoes suddenly no longer being in the hallway or their coat no longer hanging up with the other coats, which can suddenly hit you”.

She explains the feelings of loss and grief are normal after a child’s departure, and accepts that it is okay to cry and in fact a lot of foster carers do cry when the child leaves their home. Cathy always has a break between the departure and arrival of her foster children to give her and her family time to adjust.

The worst part about fostering for Cathy, are the times when there is no happy ending and a child spends most of his or her life in and out of care resulting in a series of different foster home, a sad situation she has witnessed a few times but is yet to write about.  Unless there is a residence order in force, the child’s parents or Guardian can collect the child from their foster home at any time which can be very disruptive. “It is terribly unsettling for the child, and some children have had as many as 50 different homes” says Cathy sadly.

“The local authorities try and keep the kids at the same school as it gives them stability, but you can imagine if they are in and out of care, living with different foster carers in different areas this can be difficult.”

“Some of these kids have had 20 or 30 homes and have so many behavioural and psychological difficulties by the time they reach adulthood they have to be institutionalised.”

Her experience ties in with research from Professor Judith Masson from Bristol University  that looks into the pros and cons of local authorities reaching a protective ‘agreement’ with parents to keep children in care. Professor Masson found that social workers had “a clear preference for using section 20 (the voluntary accommodation provision) rather than seeking an emergency protection order.”

Sadly, the experience of children being moved from home to home is not uncommon, and neither are the stories of physical, sexual and emotional abuse that Cathy recounts in her books.

The volume of emails she receives from people who have been victim to abuse in their childhoods has caused Cathy to believe cases reported to the police are “just the tip of the iceberg”.

“It has been a real eye opener” she says, “It made me realise so much goes on behind closed doors. When the allegations came out about Jimmy Savile I was not at all surprised. So much abuse occurs that is never uncovered”.

Her role as a foster carer is vital for abused children, who thrive in the stable and loving environment of their foster home where they are able to disclose their experiences.

Cathy’s style of caring is to listen to and understand the child, while giving them clear guidelines for acceptable behaviour. She is vehemently against parents smacking their children.

“It’s a form of abuse” she states firmly, adding “it should be outlawed”.

Cathy feels strongly that no form of physical discipline, even a slap on the wrist or a light tap on the bottom, should ever be used as punishment.

“It makes me cringe when I see a child being smacked. It is degrading for both the child and the parent; the child being humiliated and the adult clearly losing control.  Additionally, it is a really bad example to give the child. How can you tell them off for fighting in the playground when you are behaving no better yourself by hitting them?”

Cathy has coined the Three Rs technique: Request, Repeat, Reassure which she outlines her in parenting manual “Happy Kids”.

She has a slightly different method of dealing with teenagers, saying “Humour works the best in our household.”

She goes on to explain that teenagers have changes occurring in their brains that they have not experienced since they were toddlers.

“A lot is going on for them and you have to be in tune with their needs and know when they just need to be left alone. Of course, if something is really important to them then I would never laugh at them, but generally if they are having a strop, saying something funny can break the ice and bring them out of it and we can all laugh together. “

Considering her hectic daily schedule, it is hard to imagine Cathy ever being at all lazy or self-indulgent. When asked how she treats herself, she instantly replies “Chocolate” and gives a hearty chuckle. It is clear the emotional rewards she receives from both fostering and writing are huge, and she has received thousands of thank you letters from her readers who say her books have helped them come to terms with the past.

LGBT fostering and adoption week is March 4th – 10th 2013

For more information about LGBT fostering visit the New Family Social website.

There are two categories of people who go to Tegan and Sara gigs. The first category is made up of people who love the band. The second category are lesbians. The second category have no meaningful appreciation for the band or their music; they go to the gigs because they are lesbians and because Tegan and Sara are lesbians. But they’re ruining it for everyone.

So, why do lesbians love Tegan and Sara?

Tegan and Sara are Canadian born twins, musicians and lesbians. They have just finished supporting the Killers on their UK tour. But this is not the first time the twins have been to the UK. It’s their ‘hundredth’ – or so they said at their own gig at the HMV Forum in London in November 2012.

I love this band. The main reason I love them is for their music. However, even I have to admit that if it wasn’t for their sexuality, I’m not sure I would have discovered their music. So, their sexuality probably is the route to their music for a lot of women.

A Tegan and Sara gig is a phenomenon – at times there’s the kind of hysteria you might witness at a One Direction concert. At this recent gig, there was a moment when I felt like I was witnessing some kind of evangelical church gathering (for those of you who are fans, you have to admit that Where Does the Good Go has a kind of religious feel to it when everyone is singing along). There is no doubt about it; people who love these girls really do love them.

And yet, some people go to the gigs even though they don’t care about the band. A group of women stood behind my partner and I at the last gig, and they didn’t just talk over the music, they shouted over it. They were destroying the experience for anyone within a 5 meter radius, and predictably, my partner is a ‘b**ch’ and a ‘c**t’ for asking them to take their conversation elsewhere.

Why do lesbians go to Tegan and Sara gigs if they don’t like the music?

I go to a lot of gigs, and yes, this happens regardless of the gig, but there is something unique about it in this context. If those lovely women had let me get a word in I would have asked one question: why are you here?

Were they there because they like the band? Or were they there because they felt like they should be there – because it was a ‘lesbian’ event in London? They didn’t want to miss out. Or maybe they had nowhere else to go. After all, they spent £22.50 each to stand there with a drink, gab with their mates, and ignore the actual show.

This opens up a whole load of other questions about services for lesbian and bisexual women and about representation in the media. Do limited representations mean that lesbians flock to the few that are available? If this is true, have Tegan and Sara benefited or have they suffered commercially?

Are lesbians ruining it for Tegan and Sara?

Tegan and Sara are very much known as a cult ‘lesbian’ band. It has been difficult for them to break into the mainstream – because they are labeled so heavily as a ‘lesbian band’ and therefore niche. Do they feel hard done by? Sara said on stage at their gig last week that she does sometimes wonder if she should have just become a lawyer – but gigs like this make her think “nah”.

So ultimately, Tegan and Sara appreciate their fans. They appreciate people spending money on tickets and coming to their shows. But, I do remember hearing them complain at another gig a few years ago that they wished that people who came to their gigs also bought their CD’s.

So, to the nasty little creatures who swore at us and almost ruined our night; at least buy the CD. You can pre-order the new album, Heartthrob on iTunes from Wednesday 21st November. It is out in February 2012.

Here they are on David Letterman. Enjoy!

The video cannot be shown at the moment. Please try again later.

Talking about gay marriage is all the rage at the moment, as one of the last legal barriers towards full equality. There’s other things that we need to talk about, like hate crime, and homophobia in schools, but same sex marriage being the very last form of obvious legal inequality between LGBT people and heterosexuals, it’s important. And it’s about to topple.

Or is it?

It is a fact rarely acknowledged, but the Conservative Party policy is to support civil, and not religious, same sex marriage.  This was noted in the consultation document that they published, in which they said:

“Marriages solemnized through a religious ceremony and on religious premises would still only be legally possible between a man and a woman. The Government is not seeking to change how religious organisations define religious marriage and any subsequent legislation would be clear that no religious organisation could conduct a religious marriage ceremony on religious premises for same sex couples.”

Presumably this policy was formed with the intention of heading off objections from the Catholic Church and the Anglican Church; if so, it failed miserably.

In the meantime, this policy actively discriminates, not only against the LGBT people who wish to marry in a place of worship, but against the places of worship which wish to admit them.

Religious people can be gay – get over it!

Allowing religious same sex marriage simply means that churches who want to perform same sex marriages will be able to – specifically the Quakers, the Unitarians, and Liberal and Reform Judaism.

The situation in 2015, if the proposed legislation becomes law, is that those denominations will not be able to perform same sex religious marriages, even though they want to and are specifically lobbying the government for this. Religious same sex marriage will still be illegal, for everyone, whether they want to perform them or not.

There are fears that same sex religious marriage will result in lawsuits against churches which refuse to perform same sex marriages. A poorly worded law might result in that happening, but otherwise it’s hard to see how these fears could otherwise be realised.

Types of marriage

There are two types of marriage law. Civil marriage, which is performed by registrars. And religious marriage, which is performed by “authorised celebrants” in venues recognised by the approved denominations, which are Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, the Non-Conforming Churches, and the United Synagogue, the Orthodox Jewish organisation (which for the purposes of marriage includes Masorti Judaism, Reform Judaism, and Liberal Judaism).

Everyone else, the Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims etc, have to have a registrar present at their wedding ceremonies, or hold a private civil wedding beforehand.

Civil marriage is regulated by the state, and is open to everyone over the age of 18 of sound mind.

Religious marriage is open to the rules set by the denomination which performs them. Catholics can turn down divorcees, and rabbis can refuse to perform interfaith weddings.

So if your church, synagogue, mosque or temple wants to refuse to let gay people marry, or rich people marry, or adulterers marry, then they can. But allowing gay people to marry? Out of the question.

The Conservative Party’s heart isn’t in it

It is a disappointing law that will be coming in then, if only because, as one of the only pieces of LGBT legislation that has been put forward by the Conservative Party and they haven’t even managed to bring themselves to embrace it wholeheartedly.

The Labour Party support both religious and civil same sex marriage, by the way. So do the Lib Dems. (Interestingly, the Green Party doesn’t. What an odd pairing.)

In Scotland, where the SNP is currently legislating for same sex marriage, they have not sought to make such a distinction, and the leaders of the Scottish Conservatives, who is herself lesbian, has promised to vote for it.

LGBTory, the pressure group within the Conservatives, has already submitted a consultation response to the government calling for religious same sex marriage to be permitted on the same basis as civil.

So, with Labour already committed to religious same sex marriage and likely to form the next government, it seems like a wasted opportunity for the Conservatives to actually do something right by the LGBT community.

But the real losers will be the thousands of LGBT couples who want to be married in their own communities who are stuck waiting for a government willing to make our marriage laws make sense.

Today, across the world marks the Transgender Day of Remembrance (20th November 2012). A day to memorialise those killed due to transphobia - the hatred or fear of transgender and gender non-conforming people – and raise awareness to the continued violence endured by the transgender community.

816 deaths of transgender people were reported between January 2008 and December 2011 according to a report by TGEU. 52% of those deaths occurred in Latin America.

The Transgender Day of Remembrance, founded in 1998 by Gwendolyn Ann Smith; a transgender graphic designer, columnist and activist, was originally created in memory of the murder of Rita Hester in Allston, Massachusetts.

Recognised in over 185 cities through over 20 countries, the day is observed in London this year by way of speeches, performances and a reading of the names of Latin American trans people deceased. The event will take place on the 1st floor of the ULU building, Malet Street, Bloomsbury, London WC2 at 7pm and is a collaboration of  Translondon, Birkbeck College SU, Camden LGBT Forum and the University of London Union.

Further events are due to take place this evening in the UK at 7pm in:

Here in Ireland there will be a candle lit vigil at the Millennium Bridge, Dublin at 7pm.

A celebration of trans lives also took place on Saturday 17 November 2012 at the Dublin Unitarian Church, off St. Stephen’s Green. The service was beautiful, with members of the Dublin Trans Support Group, lesbian group Running Amach and Josh Johnson performing on the night. The ceremony was organised by Lynda Sheridan and Sara Philips of TENI. Here, Deirdre O’Byrne and Sara Philips talk on Dublin City fm

Across Ireland at 7pm tonight lantern launches will take place at:

• BELFAST: Lagan Lookout at 7pm – bring your own lanterns.
• DERRY: Peace Bridge, Derry/Londonderry 7pm
• DUBLIN: Millennium Bridge, 7pm. Please bring a candle.
• WATERFORD: John Roberts Plaza on the Quay, 7pm.
• CORK: Amphitheatre, University College Cork, 7pm. Followed by Talk on Legal Barriers and Gender Recognition in West wing Room 6

Oi, Sappho! Stop wasting valuable time and money already!

The British Government don’t seem particularly keen on equality. And who can blame them? It’s an outdated concept that carries dangerous connotations of socialist conspiracy and time-wasting bureaucracy.

You just need to glance at the news to see the latest salvo in the long, hard war on equality. There are plans afoot to scrap equality impact assessments, for which public bodies are required to consider the affect that new policy will have on minority groups such as LGBT people. David Cameron insists that such measures amount to little more than “bureaucratic nonsense”.

How about judicial reviews? This process offers ordinary people the chance to challenge the authorities over issues such as homophobia within the asylum system,  discriminatory fertility services and ill-justified arrests. It’s an expensive and difficult system to navigate. But not expensive and difficult enough, says our Prime Minister:

“We urgently need to get a grip on this. So here’s what we’re going to do: reduce the time limit when people can bring cases, charge more for reviews so people think twice about time-wasting, and instead of giving hopeless cases up to four bites of the cherry to appeal a decision, we will halve that to two.”

Cameron argues that we’re in the midst of “the economic equivalent of war”, and that such measures are necessary to save “British business” (his speech was, of course, addressed to the Confederation of British Industry). But it’s difficult to see how this supposed war to save the economy is not also a war on “equality”.

For instance, the Government has had the Equality Act in its sights for a long time now. Its “Red Tape Challenge” website is still suggesting that the Equality Duty be scrapped. This would mean that public bodies such as councils, colleges and the police no longer have a duty to think about how different groups of people might be affected by their decisions and actions.

Similarly, the NHS Equality and Diversity Council was recently replaced by a shiny new Personal, Fair and Diverse Council. If you’re wondering what that actually means then the official explanation is delightfully opaque:

“The name change has been agreed in response to the Council’s new responsibilities for health inequalities and human rights as part of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 and supports its wider role to act on behalf of the whole health and social care system.”

You have to wonder just what changes to the NHS would warrant the unceremonious exit of “equality”. It does, however, make perfect sense in the context of the Government’s unrelenting war on a dangerous idea.

Of course, it could be that this particular action of NHS rebranding is actually entirely without meaning, with the council in question still committed to ensuring equality for all. But wouldn’t that mean that this change is little more than “bureaucratic nonsense”? Better get Dave on the case.

 We all know how it goes: you find a brilliant girl and it’s all going well. You question, “What could go wrong? This is so perfect.” Then she reminds you that you’re yet to meet her family. Just your luck the perfect girl has parents from hell. Use this guide to work out how best to deal with your girlfriend’s parents.

Be yourself, unless you’re a psychopath with stalker tendencies…then it’s probably best you don’t be yourself. It’s also probably best you check yourself into a mental institute and leave the girl alone.

Be interested in her families lives. I’m not saying if they’re into polo, you go out and join a polo club, buy a horse and all the equipment (especially when you’ve never even been on a horse). I’m saying if they’re talking to you about their book club, knitting group, or football team, then act interested, act like you care, even just a little bit.

Rise above any comments and be the bigger person. Although your girlfriend’s parents are adults (we hope) they are really big kids inside. If they make a snide comment at you, don’t argue back. Worst thing you could do is engage in an argument over the dinner. No one wants to see the nicely cooked turkey flying everywhere.

Brothers and sisters can be a pain, but let them be. You don’t need to impress them, not really (unless your girlfriend and them are really close…then you might need to do a little work impressing the siblings. Siblings were made to be annoying; it’s in their genes. If you’re dating their sister, they’re more than likely going to be annoying towards you too.

Awkward questions will always be awkward. Older people, especially parents, have a habit of asking exceedingly awkward questions at surprisingly busy times. So if they ask you when it was you lost your virginity, or how many people you have slept with, either answer in the most honest way you can, or swiftly continue to chew your carrots and change the subject.

You’re dating your girlfriend, not your girlfriend’s Mum or Dad. There’s being friendly with your girlfriend’s parents and then there’s being too friendly. When you reach the stage of her parents inviting you over and forgetting to invite her… you’ve gone too far.

Likewise, on another level, you’re dating your girlfriend, not her parents. Don’t let them rule your relationship. Sure let them offer you their advice, but at the end of the day there’s two in a relationship, not four.

It’s recently been reported that Maria Miller, the new Culture Secretary and Equalities minister brought in during the latest cabinet shake up, has announced that gay couples will be banned from suing churches that refuse to marry them by being prevented from using European human rights laws.

According to the Sunday Times, Ms Miller said:

“To make sure there is no element of doubt, we would be legislating to protect the rights of religious institutions to continue to have freedom on this matter. We would achieve that through some very clear and absolute locks on that freedom within primary legislation.”

This coming from the lady who is backing the ‘Out4Marriage’ campaign, thus leading to a headache as it seems she’s doing the typical political trick of ‘saying one thing and doing another’. What’s absolutely horrific about these claims is not the fact that Ms Miller is preventing people from suing churches if they decide not to marry a same sex couple. Of course, churches, and any other religious institutions, should always have the right to refuse, as it’s up to them who they want to marry, whether it’s same sex, a Christian and a non believer, or anyone else who have decided to celebrate their love. What’s utterly unforgiveable is the fact that Maria Miller has aimed this ban toward the LGBTQ community only.  It should be a blanket ban on suing churches, not just aimed towards the gay community, but society as a whole. Instead, she’s out casted and singled out a minority group

How can Maria Miller stand up and campaign for gay marriage rights one day, then propose such unequal, unfair, unjust removal of rights another day? I’m flabbergasted at the thought of any other member of society still has the freedom to sue a church if they wish to, yet if you’re gay, you can think twice about that. Please Ms Miller, I implore you to rethink this utter ridiculous proposition, and if you want to ban people from suing the church, then ban us all, not just the LGBTQ community.

Although at this stage the Equalities Minister’s proposition is just a mere proposition, but the very essence of the thought process that’s gone into it is absolutely terrifying. We have an Equalities Minister that’s proposing bans that alienates and segregates the very people she’s meant to be representing.

“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”

George Orwell’s words have never rung so true.

2012 is the year for LGBT rights in the US of A. Not only did Americans re-elect a president that has continued to fight for equal rights (thank heavens!) and reject a man that was intent upon revoking equal rights, they also voted for equality in four different states with LGBT issues on the ballots.

These wins have finally upset the 32 state streak of voters favoring anti-gay marriage laws. Finally that streak has been broken! To top it off, Wisconsin elected the first openly gay Senator, Tammy Baldwin, to office. When I think about what this means for the LGBT youth of America, I can’t help but beam with pride. What an inspiring role model for any young person with political ambitions and dreams. This is just the start of the future. High five Wisconsin!

On the ballot in Maine was an initiative to allow marriage licenses for same sex couples. Even though citizens of Maine defeated a same sex marriage bill just three years ago, it appears that the people have had a change of heart. Perhaps it has something to do with the millions of dollars the Human Rights Campaign has poured into the fight for equality, or perhaps it is just a natural progression reflecting the attitude of the country as a whole. Whatever the case, high five Maine for voting pro-equality!

In Maryland, Governor Martin O’Mally urged voters to pass Question Six, a measure that would uphold the state’s marriage equality law that was passed earlier this year. With the help of the Governor, the Human Rights Campaign, the NAACP, and hundreds of volunteers, Maryland voters stood their ground and chose equality. High five Maryland!

Earlier this year, Washington passed a law allowing same sex marriages. Today voters came out to uphold the law, officially making their mark on the history books. Over a million people in Washington came forward to cast their vote, and now loving couples can continue to get married if they choose, without discrimination. Washington, you warm my heart, and high five to you!

On the ballot in Minnesota was an amendment to the state’s constitution that would ban same sex marriages. Nothing like a ban of equal rights to rile a girl up, and the race was a close one. Thankfully for gay Minnesotans and gay Americans everywhere, Minnesota did not approve a ban on same sex marriages. Minnesota, you deserve a high five!

In addition, Iowa retained Justice Wiggins, despite some backlash after his support of gay marriage. Way to stand firm, Iowa! In Massachusetts, pro-equality Elizabeth Warren took the Senate seat. Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill retained her seat, defeating Republican challenger Todd Akin, the man made famous by his infamous remarks about “legitimate rape” earlier this year.

Like many of my LGBT family and friends, I breathed a smiling sigh of relief when Obama’s victory was announced. Yes, he has not been a perfect president, but he is an ally. And with marriage equality winning in four states, this election is a landmark one. HRC President Chad Griffin stated,

“When the history books are written, 2012 will be remembered as the year when LGBT Americans won decisively at the ballot box. The dreams of millions of fair-minded Americans were realized as discrimination crumbled and equality prevailed.” A powerful and heartwarming truth; high five America!

Stonewall’s annual awards celebrate the LGBT community’s heroes and villains. But is the category ‘Bigot of the Year’ just unhelpful name-calling?

Last week Stonewall announced that Scotland’s Roman Catholic leader, Cardinal Keith O’Brien, had been awarded the “Bigot of the Year” award thanks to his persistent and vicious homophobia, writes Anna Llewellyn.

Lesbilicious writer Carrie Lyell applauded the decision, saying “Sometimes, you have to call a spade a spade, and other times you have to call a Cardinal a bigot” and tweeted “Bigotgate. Stonewall vs the Catholic Church. Which side are you on?”

It is difficult to be nuanced in 140 characters, but ‘which side are you on’ immediately sets up an opposition between the church and a leading LGBT action group. Of course, Cardinal Keith O’Brien does not speak for all Catholics, which was rightly pointed out in the comments from readers.

However, for some people it can be difficult to identify as both LGBTQ and religious, as they are often positioned as mutually exclusive and in conflict. This applies to established gay folk finding their religious identity as well as lifelong religious people finding their sexual identity. This positioning is discriminatory and it is also unhelpful, as it stops us moving forward and maintains a division.

Bigots

Cardinal O’Brien may be pushing this conflict, but does that mean that Stonewall or the gay community have to follow suit? Is it fair, and morally just, to call someone behaving like a bigot a bigot? Is it fair and morally just to give them an award for such a thing? Moreover is it helpful and does it advance equality? My answer to these questions is no!

In the first instance the name ‘bigot of the year’ is directly aimed at a person not at a person’s actions. But even if they changed it to ‘bigotry act of the year’ I still wouldn’t advocate it. Since when do you fight name calling with name calling, especially if you want to live in an equitable and caring society.

I guess the more serious point is that Stonewall are making a stand against bigotry, raising awareness and asking some serious questions about human rights. They have got a lot of publicity from the award, which of course is an aim of an activist charity like Stonewall, but is this really the best way to do it?

I’m afraid I can’t see one positive reason for the award. If we position people, and/or groups, as bigots and publicly shame them, where is the space for redemption? Where is the space for conversation and for forward movement? Where is the space for sharing similarities and finding common ground?

You might think I’m being naive here, as Cardinal Keith O’Brien clearly thinks people like me are beyond redemption, but I am not going to lower myself to his level, and I will stand proud as a gay person who has no wish to vilify others, no matter their opinions of me.

Heckling and jeering in a room full of celebrities is nothing better than bullying, and I for one cannot condone this. Thus I suggest that it is time for Stonewall to cut the small minded negativity, to forget the ‘bigot of the year’ and to lead the way for a more caring and equitable society.

Anna Llewellyn works at the School of Education, Durham University. She is responsible for equality and diversity on Initial Teacher Training courses and as such runs workshops on ‘tackling and preventing homophobic bullying’ in schools.

The queer world is on tenterhooks.

The results of the US presidential election are imminent and soon we will know if voters have chosen Obama, supporter of equality and gay marriage, or Romney, the traditionalist who does not believe gays deserve equal rights.

Three cheers for these folk who simply and lovingly explained why they have voted for equality:

See the full list of supporters here.

Boo hiss to these (rather scary) kids who should take example from Jesus and learn to show compassion:

See the full list of villains here.

My vote is they learn to respect true love, discard their misguided judgments and embrace the wonderful, diverse world we live in.

Hey, Stonewall. Look, I know you’ve been having a bit of a hard time this week. It seems like everyone and their dog’s lining up to have a pop at you, doesn’t it?

Cardinal Keith O'Brien. Photograph: Scott Campbell

I mean, the Catholic Church were never your biggest fans anyway but then there was the corporate sponsors of your awards threatening to remove their support and your very own politician of the year Ruth Davidson, openly gay leader of the Conservatives in Scotland, criticising your decision to brand the head of the Catholic Church in Scotland a bigot. To top it all off, Alex Salmond’s went and got himself involved. But I just wanted to let you know that I’m on your side. Sometimes, you have to call a spade a spade, and other times you have to call a Cardinal a bigot.

Apparently he and his pals are a bit upset about it, probably in much the same way Nick Griffin gets upset when someone calls him racist. I wonder if they’ve given any thought to how their words and actions have affected my friends, my family, or me. I didn’t particularly enjoy being called grotesque, or a subversion, or O’Brien personally throwing thousands of pounds at a campaign to deny me the same rights as my heterosexual counterparts. Upset is an understatement. No corporate sponsors leapt to my defence then, or to the defence of the many vulnerable young people to whom these slurs cause very real harm.

First Minister Alex Salmond has backed O’Brien, and said: “Stonewall were clearly wrong to describe Scotland’s Cardinal in these terms in any case, should reflect on whether pejorative titles like this do anything to enhance their cause.”

Why wasn’t the same criticism leveled at the Cardinal’s pejoratives when he likened the campaign for same-sex marriage to slavery? Because losing the Catholic vote would be a disaster to the Scottish National Party’s bid for independence, I’m guessing. Hey Alex, I’ve got news for you. Your decision to press ahead with plans for equal marriage are all very well and good, but there’s no point supporting us legislatively if when push comes to shove, you cower back into your selfish little hole.

Let’s make things very clear. The Cardinal wasn’t nominated for the award because of his opposition to same-sex marriage, but because of the horrific slurs he’s directed toward the LGBT community and the unrelenting campaign of misinformation and hatred that he has spearheaded towards people whose only crime has been to believe in equality. There is nothing inherently wrong with disagreeing with equal marriage, if your arguments are based in logic and rational and not in hatred and intolerance. That, my friends, is bigotry. That isn’t name-calling, or offensive and out of date. It’s a fact.

You might be wondering why everyone seems to be getting their knickers in a twist when the equal marriage legislation is all but signed, sealed and delivered. Not quite, unfortunately. It’s far from over. We’ve still got at least three years and another consultation into views on religious freedom, education and freedom of speech before we can make a dash for the confetti.

Not content to respect the decision of the government, Scotland for Marriage have pledged to spend thousands more to oust members of the Scottish Parliament who support equal marriage rights. They say that they have established a nationwide network of volunteer activists in each constituency who will pile pressure on MSPs to “make local voters aware” of their politician’s stance on same-sex marriage.

A spokesman said: “Some people might have thought the gay marriage fight was over just because the government ignored the results of its own consultation and decided to proceed with legislation, despite two-thirds of respondents being against it. But nothing could be further from the truth.

“We have a clear agenda for action allied to a properly planned and well-funded programme which will be professionally executed.”

Thankfully for us all, Stonewall are sticking to their guns and their director in Scotland has defended the decision to give the Cardinal the title of Bigot of the Year. Colin Macfarlane said: “People nominated for the award this year have called gay people Nazis, they have compared them to bestialitists and to paedophiles, and one of the nominees suggested that gay people should be put in front of a firing squad and shot dead.

“So I think what we are doing is highlighting the very cruel, very nasty, very pernicious language that is being used by some people. I think we are right to highlight that kind of discrimination.

“We have no problem with people not agreeing with equal marriage—and there is a strong debate going on in Scotland around the proposals. We at Stonewall do not agree with them, but we do so in a dignified and respectful manner. Sadly, the Cardinal hasn’t done that. He has compared equal marriage to slavery, to paedophilia and bestiality. He has said he is going to declare war on supporters of equal marriage.

“I feel a man of the cloth declaring war on another section of Scottish society is pretty despicable. It’s disheartening and depressing. It is Stonewall’s job to shine a light on discrimination and to stand firm in tackling it.

“What I want is for the First Minister and all MSPs to say no to the kind of language used by the Cardinal and others when discussing lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues and to stand firm with Stonewall and call it what is is. Bigotry. It’s cruel and it doesn’t do anyone any favours.”

Make no mistake about it. This is another blatant misuse of religious freedom by Cardinal O’Brien to attack the LGBT community and their supporters and he is using the excuse of defending traditional marriage as a stick to beat us.

There is nothing Christian about his behaviour or his words, and the views he holds are the very definition of intolerance and bigotry.

2012 just keeps getting better and better for London 2012 gold-winning boxer Nicola Adams, as she finds herself taking top podium spot in this year’s Pink List. Household name Clare Balding scooped up an impressive silver, and human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell took home the bronze.

The Pink List, which lists the 101 most influential lesbian, gay and transgender figures in the UK, placed 3 Olympic and Paralympic athletes in the top 10. This is not only a great day for the lgbt community but a great day for sport.

‘Men Only’

I am thrilled for bisexual boxer Nicola. Not only is she (literally) a strong female role model, but Nicola also represents a sport that until the 2012 Olympics was strictly ‘men only’, and so she is the first ever woman to win an Olympic boxing medal. She stormed to the podium with an incredible 16-7 point victory in the flyweight category; completely outclassing three time World Champion, China’s Ren Cancan who beat her in the 2010 World Championship.

It is vital that we continue to recognise the contributions, talent and straight up fight that it takes to really make a difference in this world. What is even more wonderful is the diversity of achievement the Pink List demonstrates this year. From politicians to sports personalities, from the co-chairs of SchoolsOUT to the CEO of the Arts Council, writers, comedians, lawyers and many many more.

Elly Barnes

Let’s also not forget Elly Barnes who took the 2011 Pink List top spot. Elly pushed the boundaries of the education system to successfully challenge homophobia in our schools. Elly has now made way for Nicola. Nicola, who at only 13 won her first ever boxing bout. 13, a school child, and already moving toward something great.

Nicola Adams

So congratulations to Nicola, the 101 lgbt people who made the list, to everyone who was nominated, and to the unnamed warriors who continue to do everything they can to make the world better, safer, and diverse.

Watch Elly Barnes talk about the 2012 nominations and why she’s pleased that the winner is Olympic boxing champion Nicola Adams:

The video cannot be shown at the moment. Please try again later.

Following the already cult kiss of Julia and Auriane last week, on Tuesday the 23^rd of October 2012 in Marseille, the resistance is organizing to counteract the anti-gay marriage campaign.

Julia and Auriane in Marseille on 23/10/2012

The spontaneous kiss of Julia and Auriane in Marseille has been inflaming the medias and social networks for a week. That day, on 23/10/2012,  anti gay-marriage demonstrations were taking place in 75 French cities.  Julia, 17 and Auriane, 19 are not gay but they spontaneously kissed in front of the anti-gay marriage protesters to ‘piss them off’ and show support to the LGBT people. They never imagined that their picture would circulate on the web and they would become a symbol of the LGBT fight for marriage. Shortly after its release, the picture was already predicted to become cult.

The way to go still seems long till the actual legalization of marriage and adoption, as we stated in a previous article.  Multiplication of debates and homophobic comments are thriving in the medias, including from representatives of the Republic, and the public opinion is shifting towards more hostility against marriage for all.

LGBT and gay-friendly people are mobilizing and if you want to contribute, here are two simple things you can do and/or forward to your friends :

Here is a link for the petition addressed to the French Government in order to show your support to legalization of homosexual marriage in France:

http://www.allout.org/fr/actions/egalite_maintenant

Sign and share!

Finally, a nice way to combine activism and pleasure with the ‘Kiss in’ taking place in Paris, in front of Hôtel de Ville, on Thursday, the 15^th of November 2012 at 7pm. Plenty of same-sex couples will be kissing for 5 minutes on the street!

For more info, just have a look at the Facebook page of the event!

http://www.facebook.com/events/379254685484737/