Should we ban homophobic hate speech? The house of Lords says no. And strangely I agree with them. Now lets make clear what they were defending:
The provision at issue provides protection for “discussion or criticism of sexual conduct or practice” when it can be proved it is not intended to stir up or incite hatred.
Now the Westboro Baptist church would, I fancy, still fall foul of this, since they quite obviously ARE intending to stir up or incite hatred. But in general, just banning folks from saying homosexuality is a sin, orquoting the Bible probably isn’t a good idea. Not just because I believe in *free speech* (actually though I’m chary about banning anything/anyone, I think there have to be some limits) or even because I agree with Judith Butler that:
If speech depends upon censorship, then the principle that one might seek to oppose is at once the formative principle of oppositional speech
-translation into English, ban something and you elevate it to a central position of importance in the discourse. No my reason is a lot simpler. Homophobic Christians are funny. May their homophobic God bless ‘em.
I just read a post on ‘Why do lesbians hate Bisexuals’? I don’t know. I don’t necessarily believe that lesbians do hate bisexuals. I know that a lot of lesbians wouldn’t want -for various reasons - to go out with (we’re Brits darling, we don’t say date, that’s what you eat at Christmas)/shag/have a sexual relationship/delete as applicable with a woman who identifies as bisexual. Yet some people seem to equate this with ‘hating’ bisexuals’ or being ‘biphobic’.
Equally some people who define themselves as lesbian but have male bodies (ie penises) seem to think it’s ‘transphobic’ if a female person who identifies themselves as a lesbian would not want to have sex with them, or contemplate having sex with someone like them.
And finally we have all those poor menz, who are -through no fault of their own – being denied their right to sex. Because selfish wimmin just won’t shag them voluntarily.
Listen up peeps. Nobody is under an obligation to have sex with anyone else. It is a voluntary activity. And if someone rules out having sex with people of your particular type, for whatever reason it is NOT discrimination. It is personal preference, which everyone has every bloody right to exercise. And if you say otherwise, you have the mentality of a rapist.
And you’re probably a munter/minger too. The real reason why you can’t get laid. (Thanks DJ Spoony).
And now from those crazy evo-pscyh dudes, an ovum’s right to choose. It appears that, contrary to what I was told in O Level Biology, ova can actually decide what type of sperm they want to be impregnated with.
Wealthier mothers tend to have more sons while hard-up women produce more daughters, a study claims.
Scientists have unearthed a fascinating link between the financial status of a woman and the proportion of boys and girls she can expect to have.
The discovery adds to the increasing evidence that the sex of a baby isn’t just a matter of chance but is influenced by lifestyle and environment.
According to evolutionary theory, when conditions are good, and babies are likely to be healthy, a mother’s best chance of passing on her genes to another generation is to have boys.
Fit, healthy boys will see off rivals and can potentially father hundreds of children, ensuring the survival of the family line.
But if a mother is unfit or malnourished, a baby boy is a poor investment.
A weak, sickly male is unlikely to beat off competition from other males and may not become a father or even survive.
In these circumstances it makes more evolutionary sense to have a girl who does not face competition to become pregnant to continue the family line.
Ok – logical fallacy no 1. “Evolutionary conditions are good = mother is rich.” Why should a poor person be more likely to have a sickly child? If someone is malnourished certainly they may have a sickly child, but a lot of rich women are actually malnourished tha’ knows. This only applies where food is actually in short supply.
Logical fallacy no 2. Ova can somehow choose what type of sperm to be impregnated with. No they bloody well can’t. It’s a matter of chance. Pure and simple. It depends which of the swimmy tadpoles gets there first. Learn some basic biology!
But how then to explain the *science*? Well here’s what the research consisted of:
To test the influence of a mother’s wealth and fitness on the sex ratio, Dutch researchers used a database of more than 95,000 Rwandan mothers compiled in 2002.
They compared the proportion of boys each woman had, with her marital status – an indicator of her wealth and health.
Like many African countries, Rwandan men are allowed more than one wife.Within a polygamous marriage, there is usually a tight pecking order
Higher ranking wives tend to have more influence, and income, than lower ranking ones. And the more wives a man has, the less food and money there is to share.
As expected, lower ranking wives produced more daughters on average than the higher ranking wives or the women in monogamous marriages, the researchers report in the journal Biology Letters
Oh right, so it’s a pretty patriarchal society. How do the wives get to be *high ranking* then? By producing (more valued) sons maybe?
This doesn’t seem to be a possibility the evo-psychs have considered (probably because it’s too easy and logical) But there’s another one of course.
Women have no control over whether they have boys or girls. But some studies suggest that unborn baby girls are tougher – and less likely to be miscarried if the mother is stressed or ill.
The influence of status on the sex of a baby is likely to be stronger in countries such as Rwanda, where 75 per cent of the population are below the poverty line and the average life expectancy is just 50, than in countries such as Britain.
Which seems a lot more likely explanation to me than ova developing mysterious sperm selecting powers. Girls are just a lot tougher. Well I already knew that.
And for the nine millionth time – learn to understand the bloody theory of evolution please, oh Male. FTR it is:
1)Mutations occur at random.
2)Those organisms with mutations favourable to survival are more likely to survive, and thus breed, passing on the favourable mutation.
3)Thus over time the favourable mutation becomes dominant.
Ok Butterflywings just pointed out something that made my head hurt. Now I could leave a comment on the blog in question, but I’m fairly certain it won’t be published. However, as ever, anyone who wants to reply here, and has a genuine point to make is welcome to do so.
Now as I’ve said before, and I’ll say again, anyone who believes that human beings aren’t capable of changing their sexual preference should go to a prison. Sexual orientation (in terms of who you sleep with) is fixed is one of the nine million things that I allegedly said that in fact I never. I’ll tell you the other 8,999,999 when I’ve got time.
However call it laziness, call it a lack of adventurousness, call it exposure to too many Melanie Phillips pieces in the Male, a lot of us tend to get a sexual orientation and stick to it. Rather like not bothering to move your bank account even though you know the charges are outrageous. Can’t really be arsed.
But some folks do of course, and the second of the nine million things I never said is that they’re not allowed to. And most people can find somebody to shag if they look hard enough. Even Simon Cowell. So unless you’re on a desert island you won’t really be sex deprived. So what’s the problem? If you’re really stuck try yahoo personals.
Now the first thing I would like to address is this. It is not (at least in this country) gay rights activists who are trying to prove there is a gay gene. It’s scientists, with a hidden agenda. Or not so hidden after the Male’s infamous ‘abortion hope after gay gene finding’ headline.
Most of us take the line of Peter Tatchell, which is that if you have to find an explanation for something, that means that you think there’s something wrong with it in the first place. So we have replied that *Questions about nature are irrelevant*. If you are writing about the gay rights movement, can I suggest it would be a good idea to find out what the gay rights movement (which is not a homogenous mass)is actually saying first, rather than just making stuff up?
However, the idea that people can have fixed orientations does not, contrary to what the author writes, mean that intersex people cannot have an orientation
Transpersons and intersexed persons do not have a definitive place of the gender binary to call their own. Thus, they cannot call themselves either straight or gay.
- since a lot of intersex people HAVE an assigned sex that they’re completely happy with . Or indeed that trans* people cannot have a fixed sexual orientation. Since a large number of trans* people would say that their gender has not changed (whatever the external perception may be) then as far as they are concerned they have always been a girl/woman attracted to girls/women, a boy/man attracted to girls/women, or any other combination you can think of. The point is, that as far as that individual is concerned, they may well have an unchanging orientation. Or they may not. Because apparently taking oestrogen makes you fancy men. It’s never worked for me, but there you go.
We can skim briefly over stuff like this:
Yet, because orientation is determined mostly by one’s attraction to the opposite or same sex, rather than other variables1 these people occupy a tentative place in gay theorizing and are often thrown in as an afterthought or excluded altogether. An example would be a gay bar whose patrons are not friendly to the expression of heterosexual relationships therein. How do they create a place for the bisexual woman with a male partner?
By pointing out that a)gay bars are not a social service, they’re bars and actually a lot of lesbians would like a man free space to go to, but in Manchester at least, where the one and only *lesbian* bar is quite happy to let in male/female couples in search of threesomeswe don’t have any, and that b) *gay* bars are now ILLEGAL in the UK.
And this
For example, a gay man might marry a woman in order to hide his sexual preferences and enjoy the many privileges legal marriage grants. However, he never feels fulfilled. But it is also the case that a man can marry a woman and be fully fulfilled in that marriage, only to later turn around afterwards (through divorce, death, or separation) and find that the company of other men is just as satisfying, even though it was not before.
By pointing out that a lot of people’s *orientation* in terms of who they sleep with does indeed *change*, and quite often it changes right back and that maybe, just maybe, these people are in fact bisexual and just shift where they are on the scale. Which could of course be a fixed orientation in terms of who you could be attracted to, but a changing preference.
And concentrate our minds on this.
Other groups that fall under the same oppression are those such as political lesbians—women whose political convictions imply that being a “woman-identified women” is more revolutionary than remaining straight
And this:
Is the political lesbian who chooses to seek romantic relationships with other women not oppressed? It would be absurd to deny that.
And say WTF?
Now first of all, if you go around in society in general and tell everyone you’re a lesbian, you’re going to get some adverse reactions. The key word there is tell. If nobody knows you’re a lesbian, nobody can react adversely to that fact. So if political lesbians actually have sex with women for political reasons and tell everyone about it, then sure they’ll suffer homophobia.
If however you stay firmly in the political closet, and just decide you’re just a womyn -focussed-womyn, (no sex involved) people (including me) might think you’re a bit odd. But you’re not being oppressed. Thorry. You lose the oppression olympics
So Polly – you say, -if someone isn’t a political lesbian, but the type of lesbian who has sex with women and they appear straight and they’re in the closet, are they being oppressed?
And the answer is doh! Yes!
If you are have an actual sexual orientation towards the same sex and you constantly have to hide that because eg, you’re frightened you might lose your job, or you are frightened you might lose the support of your family/local community then you are forced to lie about a very fundamental part of yourself all the time. And the reason you’re forced to do this is because of the homophobia of those who might reject you. So you’re being oppressed. Simple.
And of course, a woman without a visible male partner faces immense social pressure to find one – one reason I couldn’t stay in the closet is all those helpful people who try to fix you up with dire men on the assumption that you’re just a sad sack who can’t get one. And that incidentally is why bisexual women aren’t in an identical political position to lesbians. The non out lesbian has to constantly face questions about her lack of a partner. A bisexual woman who is not out about being attracted to women, but is known to have/have had male partners would just be assumed to be currently without a male partner. She wouldn’t be subject to the same kind of speculation a woman with no visible partners would be.
Now let us consider the in the closet political lesbian, who isn’t actually sexually attracted to women in any way, shape or form. Is she being oppressed?
Doh! No! Because she is not suppressing/concealing any genuine sexual attraction. And usually she will have had/is having sexual relationships with men, which lead everyone to assume she is heterosexual. Now you might say *but she can’t live as she wants to politically*. And I’d say that’s bollocks. If she is not actually attracted to women, and doesn’t live *politically* as a lesbian by being out of the closet, then her problem is wholly imaginary in any case. It’s dada-ist *oppression*.
Because her so called *lesbianism* only has any meaning when it is openly expressed. If it isn’t openly expressed, it doesn’t exist. Yup it’s schrodingers political lesbian. Only exists when she is perceived to exist.
And that dear reader, is why the position of *political* lesbians and actual lesbians (whom I have now decided to rename *fun* lesbians) is different. And why none of this is anything to do with whether or not sexual orientation is/is not fixed.
The Tories are shortly to unveil a far-reaching policy to put marriage at the heart of family life
Phew!
The family is the building block of society. If the institution of the family is broken, society breaks with it.
That is what has happened in Britain over the past four decades as part of a deliberate attempt by the ‘progressive’ intelligentsia to reshape society around the unrestrained gratification of adult sexual desire under the banners of ‘ liberation’, ‘equality’ and ‘rights’.
Damn right, Melanie give those progressive intelligentsia an inch and they’ll be promoting weave your own yoghurt orgies before you know it.
As a result, nearly half of all babies are now born outside marriage; Britain has the highest rate of teenage pregnancy in Europe; and women and children are at far greater risk of sexual and physical abuse.
Que? How do 1) and 2) lead to 3? Are you saying that if marriage was standard, and teenage pregnancies non existent MEN would be the main victims of sexual and physical abuse.
Yet for years the evidence of this catastrophe has been swept under the carpet or denied outright by those pushing this agenda.
Anyone who drew attention to it was pilloried as a bigot who wanted to turn back the clock to some mythical ‘golden age’.
Marriage was progressively undermined. With divorce court judges deciding they were no longer prepared to make judgments about who was to blame for the breakdown of a marriage, divorce soared.
All stigma and shame were removed from unmarried motherhood. Cohabitation numbers took off, fuelled by a tax and welfare system which provided incentives for couples to live apart while married couples were penalised.
If the Tories are now really going to tackle all this properly, it would be an act of conspicuous political leadership.
And to his credit, David Cameron has said consistently that he intends to do so.
The problem, however, is that his intention to repair the family is undermined by his support for gay rights.
Really? How exactly?
The far more serious point, however, is that the gay rights agenda undermines marriage.
The Tories insist that this is not so and that the two sit happily together. Promoting gay rights, they say, is merely about ending intolerance. It is irrelevant to family breakdown, which is a heterosexual problem.
Undoubtedly, the overwhelming reason is the collapse of constraints on heterosexual behaviour. But it is surely wrong to deny any connection.
The key point is the difference between homosexuals as individuals and the ‘gay rights’ lobby.
A liberal society should be tolerant of gay people. It is good that social attitudes are now far more relaxed. People’s sexuality should be an entirely private matter and should not be the cause of prejudice or, worse still, aggression towards homosexuals.
But is the gay rights agenda really about tolerance, or is it about trying to stop heterosexuality being the behavioural norm?
Oh right now I get it. The gays don’t only want people to stop beating them up, sacking them, or putting shit through their letterbox. No they are ON A CRUSADE to turn all the straights gay.
Yup it’s true, I admit it. In my case, only to improve nightclubs, but next it could be garden centres. And ‘Dave’ is enabling me.
Because it entails treating gay relationships as identical to heterosexual ones in every respect, any differences – over marriage or adoption, for example – are damned as discrimination and bigotry.
As a result, what started as a decent intention to eradicate intolerance has turned into intolerance as morality has been stood on its head.
Thus opposing gay adoption on the grounds that children need a replica mother and father is denounced as ‘homophobic’.
But hasn’t that been precisely the problem which the Tories are now – to their credit – trying to address in heterosexual family life, that children do need a mother and father and that family life has been wrecked by those who strenuously pretend otherwise?
Gay rights activists claim that ‘lifestyle choice’ means gay relationships should be treated identically to heterosexual ones.
But the core reason for family breakdown is precisely the view that marriage is merely a ‘ relationship’ for people to choose or not from a menu of alternative lifestyles.
And thus the truth emerges. Heterosexuality is an option so unattractive that if you let folks merely have a HINT that there are other options happily married young couples will be in Essential necking ketamine before you know it.
And Melanie’s solution to bring all the would be friends of Dorothy and KD Lang back into line? Be *tolerant* but have a gay bashing bishop to hand.
At the weekend the Bishop of Rochester, Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, called upon homosexuals to ‘repent and be changed’, which drew the immediate charge that he was promoting intolerance.
But since Christianity holds that sexual relations should be restricted to a man and a woman inside marriage, aren’t those who want to stop Christians upholding their own doctrine displaying intolerance? It is heartening that real prejudice against gays is now so much less than it was. But how sad that gay activists are now perpetrating a mirror image of the intolerance once shown to them.
And thus the word according to Melanie Phillips. Yes we can be tolerant of gays, and it’s a good thing. But not so tolerant we stop telling them that they’re shameful perverts who should repent. Or insinuate that they’re in any way *normal*, or else everyone will be at it.
I read everyone I can who writes about the subjectsI’m interested in on the net, some of whom, as a feminist, I’m apparently not supposed to read. And I’ll comment on those sites too, if the post inspires me enough.Perhaps someone could draw us all up a set of rules, so we all know where we stand and what we’re allowed to/not allowed to say, who we can link to/not link to, and so on.Or maybe, and this is a revolutionary idea, we can make all those decisions for ourselves, and if others don’t like it, they don’t have to agree with us or even read us. Simple as that.
‘Cos you know, women are still getting raped, women are still dying, women still face massive inequalities the world over, and personally I think raising awareness of, and trying to do something about those things comes a lot lot higher of the list of things-we-should-be-doing-something-about than worrying about who said what about who and who used a naughty anti-feminist word on the Internet.
Some of my best friends aren’t just gay, they are seriously gay. And I am worried for them – which may be a strange thing to say when David Cameron and Gordon Brown are tripping over themselves to be gay-friendly.
‘Gay-friendly’ is one of those terms that sounds patronising. Because it is. Straight-friendly, anyone?
Cameron’s mea culpa was his apology for Section 28. ‘We got it wrong. It was an emotional issue. I hope you can forgive us.’
Actually, polls showing a large swing by gay voters towards the Tories mean that they may have been forgiven, but activists should not forget Section 28.
Gordon ‘you can’t legislate love’ Brown is hosting a reception in Downing Street but did not attend yesterday’s Pride march, apparently for security reasons. Sarah was sent instead. Is this not a little weird? ‘It’s very dangerous out there. Someone might try to kill me, so you go in my place, darling.’
Brown, though, is keen to remind us what Labour has done for gay people. Ben Bradshaw has warned us ‘a deep strain of homophobia still exists on the Conservative benches’. I believe him. It exists everywhere.
The Labour position is incredibly simplistic: gay people shouldn’t vote Tory, even though there are now openly gay Tory MPs in civil partnerships and many of the new younger breed are way more socially liberal than their predecessors.
This isn’t a party political issue. It’s a political issue. You are a deserving gay if you are grateful but don’t go around demanding yet more rights.
I don’t doubt that the likes of Cameron or Boris Johnson are personally comfortable around gay people; what they are not comfortable with are gay people who keep on pushing forward the agenda.
At the Pride reception in City Hall last week there was much giggling at Boris’s babblings about pink Stetsons. Boris was at his frothy best but shouldn’t he be dealing with the fact that London is seeing a rise in violent homophobic attacks?
Amazingly, the most prominent gay activist in the country, Peter Tatchell, was not invited to this event.
Nor, when I last spoke to him, had he been invited to Brown’s reception.
I happen to admire Tatchell’s courage enormously: his 40 years of campaigning not just for gay rights but for human rights is a huge achievement.
When Paul Burston, author of the bestselling The Gay Divorcee, complained about Tatchell not being invited, he received a ridiculous reply about lack of space meaning they had to ‘rationalise the invitation list’.
Burston is also deemed unacceptable in some quarters. Another undeserving uppity gay? Why?
Outside the Pride reception, some Christian fundamentalists were yelling rubbish about Michael Jackson and not wanting taxpayers’ money spent on Pride. Burston walked over and reminded them that gay people pay taxes, too.
He asked one particularly dumb creature whether she wore mixed fibres and ate shellfish which, if you have read your Bible, you will know is as forbidden as homosexuality.
The woman was so unable to answer any question, it appears she may have lived only on a diet of polyester, which has dimmed her capacity for all rational argument.
As a result of posting about this on Facebook, Burston was banned from commenting further by Facebook censors. So, yes, it’s all lovely for gay people now, as long as they don’t rock any boats.
The public is thankfully way ahead of politicians on many issues. A recent poll showed that 61 per cent of those questioned supported the idea of a full civil marriage. Why aren’t heterosexuals also demanding civil partnerships instead of marriage? We would all benefit.
But just as we are told feminism has gone too far when, in fact, women still earn less than men and can’t walk the streets at night safely, so gay people are being incorporated into the system as long as they don’t want to change it.
Vicious, nasty and gutless homophobia exists on the many political blogs, just as it does on the streets. There is still a long way to go. Politicians of all parties want the gay vote. They just don’t want the serious politics that might go along with that.
Bravo Ms Moore. Yes the truth is that politicians of all stripes, and liberals of all stripes, love to go on about how gay friendly they are. A lot of this gay friendliness of course consists of insisting that *hey gay people are just like straight people*.
I’ve said this a lot of times before, but I’m going to keep repeating it.
“Tolerating” lesbians as long as they’re nice and feminine and don’t scare the horses is homophobic.
The woman who said to me *but aren’t you scared if you go for an interview, looking like that, and they can tell you’re a lesbian, you won’t get the job* was homophobic. She didn’t mean to be, but she was.
Only having straight actresses playing straight looking *lesbians* on TV soap operas so as not to “reinforce stereotypes” is homophobic.
Calling a lesbian *elitist* because she doesn’t want to sleep with straight women is homophobic.
‘Gay-friendly’ is one of those terms that sounds patronising. Because it is. Straight-friendly, anyone?
Fucking right on Suzanne. It is not MY job, nor any other lesbian’s job to make themselves more acceptable to straight women by being an Aunty Thomasina. I have no quarrel with straight women, some of my best friends are straight women. I don’t expect straight women to become lesbians for the *cause*, in fact I would very much prefer they ceased appropriating lesbian culture straight away thank you. I certainly don’t believe you can’t be straight and a feminist. But I’m not living my life to please anyone. And if you then withdraw your *friendship* I don’t care. Bye bye!
Oh dear, prepare to split your sides. The head of MI6 is on facebook.
Details about the personal life of the next head of MI6, Sir John Sawers, have been removed from Facebook.
The Mail on Sunday says his wife, Lady Shelley Sawers, put details about their children and the location of their flat on the social networking site.
The details, which also included holiday photographs, were removed after the paper contacted the Foreign Office.
Ya know why I’m not on facebook dude? Because if I’m ever arrested for something, I don’t want the Male on Sunday running straight to my account and using it to trash me.
Really. I can see that our country’s security is in safe hands here…..
The way women dress, how flirtatious they are and their levels of drunkenness really do have an effect on the likelihood of them being raped, claim scientists.
Now as T’grauniad points out there are so many holes in the Torygraph’s story, you could reuse it as a colander. However this got me thinking. And here are Polly’s amazing facts about rape.
1)Women are more likely to be raped when sober. Twice as likely in fact since in only 1/3 of reported rapes occur when the victim has been drinking. Therefore to avoid rape stay drunk at all times.
2)Women are more likely to be rapedif they have/have had a male partner. 56% of reported rapes were committed by current or former partners. To avoid rape, be a lesbian.
So there you have it. To avoid rape, the best thing a woman can do is go to a lesbian bar and get drunk in the company of people she doesn’t know*. Do it now laydeez, and if anyone questions you, remind them it’s only a matter of health and safety.
*proof positive of all the above, I have never been raped whilst performing this very activity.
Ohdon’t be stupid. No. However, it doesn’t seem to improve when women get involved.
Lame also points out that, while effeminacy is outdated among gay men, overt femininity – the wearing of dresses and lipstick – is frequently rejected outright by gay women. She remembers how, on arriving in London from the US 15 years ago, she was turned away from lesbian clubs because: “I was wearing a skirt. I felt a real sense of rejection.”
Another Gay Shame performer, Karen Tom McLeod, similarly spent the 90s feeling as though “if you were a feminine-looking lesbian, you were second-rate. It was such a bizarre thing – it was almost misogynist.” It was so important to Lame and McLeod that Gay Shame address this “femme-phobia”, they arranged a private salon for Casson, Whitmore and a group of women to discuss femininity within the lesbian community. It proved so fruitful that Lame has set up two public debates on femininity (one each for men and women), to take place this month.
Oh Karen Tom McLeod, how many times I have heard this particular whinge? Well more or less every month in the letters column of Diva. Occasionally in the local paper (woman whinging that she was turned away from a lesbian club because the door staff did not not believe she was a lesbian). Etc etc etc. More times than I could possibly count from femme lesbians.
Look pet, the sad but simple truth is- it’s not generally that cool for lesbians to wear pretty frocks, lipstick and look like straight women. Even now – the most fancied character on the L word was Shane. And most lesbians- unlike Eminem- think Sam Ronson is far hawter than Lilo. Of course if you’re getting all that heteronormative privilege for looking straight, it’s obviously a bit of a disruption to said sense of entitlement when non psychic door staff assume you in fact are straight. Not that it happens these days anyway when you have to fight your way through crowds of straight women and their boyfriends in most ‘lesbian’ bars.
Rejecting *femininity* is only misogynist if you’re assuming that woman = * conventionally feminine*. What if it doesn’t?
A Sam Ronson lookalike who wasn’t actually Sam Ronson would be unlikely to be able to get into lot of the straight bars in Manc, which demand full on WAG-ness. And she’d get funny looks/abuse in most of the rest. So why is it so bad that women who are denigrated in the rest of *normal* society actually get one bit of the planet to call their own eh?
It must indeed be a shock to suddenly be *second rate* if you’re used to walking around feeling superior to *butch* women (read any woman with shortish hair, apparently). However how is this *femme phobia* pray? It ain’t. It’s the tables being turned. Get used to it.
