Julia Hartley-Brewer on Owen Jones

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/14/the-orlando-shooting-is-not-about-owen-jones-despite-what-his-ha/

So Julia Hartley-Brewer says that she is clear that this is about gay people and homophobia. She says “this is about the dozens of young gay Americans who went out clubbing on a Saturday night and are now lying dead in an Orlando morgue simply because their killer Omar Mateen thought they loved the wrong people.” She adds “It is not about one gay journalist and his apparently hurt feelings”.

However, she goes on to say “Not that I am, strictly speaking, allowed to make that judgment call, of course, because I am not gay and therefore I am required to check my heterosexual privilege at the door before venturing to offer an opinion on anything that affects gay people. ” – Ooops – not bitter then Ms Hartley-Brewer?

She continues “Forget the inspiring we-are-all-one-humanity sentiment of “Je suis Charlie” after the Charlie Hebdo massacre; now we must all establish our right-on credentials before uttering a word of condemnation or sympathy about anything that affects people who are not in our own “community”” Ooops – still not bitter then?

As I have said elsewhere, this is the equivalent of those who respond to anyone saying “Black Lives Matter” by asserting “All Lives Matter”. “Mark Longhurst’s fatal mistake was apparently to say that gay people are “human beings””. No one said that the lives of all human beings do not matter, but allow us please to focus on what is important right here and right now. Ms Hartley-Brewer however seems to be repeating the same pattern, which in effect, proves the original point.

“it’s a very worrying state of affairs if straight people aren’t allowed to be horrified by crimes against gay people” – I think his point was that they were not being horrified that it was unequivocally a crime against gay people during the interview and they were trying to reinterpret it. When Owen Jones said it was an attack on LGBT people, Mark Longhurst argued with him that it was an attack “on the freedom of all people to try and enjoy themselves” also questioning that it was “deliberately targetted on one part of the community rather than the freedom to enjoy yourself no matter what your sexual orientation.” I am confused. Please explain how this fits with “this is about the dozens of young gay Americans who went out clubbing on a Saturday night and are now lying dead in an Orlando morgue simply because their killer Omar Mateen thought they loved the wrong people.” as she now says.

“I am still at a loss as to what Owen Jones found so disgusting . . . . . because nothing was said that could remotely have caused such a scene.” It was what was NOT said, or NOT acknowledged in the interview that was the problem and she is still in reality dismissing it now.

She lists what she sees as Owens points. “And the third was that neither Mark Longhurst nor I were entitled to venture any opinion on any issues arising out of this crime because we were straight and therefore could not presume to care as much about the deaths of 50 gay people as Owen. In his own words: “You don’t understand this because you’re not gay.” ” Owen Jones was perhaps unlikely to go on a mainstream show, if he believed that the presenters were not entitled to venture an opinion because they were straight. As a journalist I would guess that he talks to straight people all the time. He merely commented that what was being said reflected that they did not understand it, not having the insight perhaps of someone who has been on the receiving end.

I might point out too that the article appears to repeatedly question his right to venture his opinion.

“Our heinous crime was simply not to play along with Owen’s preferred narrative”

“All three of these points are of course completely wrong and, frankly, really rather stupid”

“But why let actual facts get in the way of a good old bit of self-indulgent offence taking, eh?”

“Mark Longhurst’s fatal mistake was apparently to say that gay people are “human beings”. How anyone can manage to stir up offence at that innocuous remark defies all logic.”

You refer to the discussion dismissively as “this stupid row”

“he chose to make the entirely false claim that we had attempted to silence him. Under the headline “On Sky News last night, I realised how far some will go to ignore homophobia”, Owen wrote this: “I walked off in disgust during a discussion about the massacre: it was an instinctive reaction to an unpleasant and untenable situation. The presenter continually and repeatedly refused to accept that this was an attack on LGBT people.” – Correct me if I am wrong, but saying that someone is IGNORING or REFUSING TO ACCEPT that it was homophobia, is not the same as MAKING A CLAIM THAT WE HAD ATTEMPTED TO SILENCE HIM. He did not make the allegation that she claims he falsely made. That she claims was a flat out lie. They just refused to hear the point he was making.

By the way, I did not see that “when we did speak, he shouted us down”. There were two of them their voices were louder and they talked over him and it is interesting too that they edited the video of the events down soely to the part where in my eyes he WALKED out, rather than STORMING OUT as claimed.

In this piece Ms Hartley-Brewer criticised his opinion in a way that seemed not only dismissive and condascending, (If a black person said that something was racist, would she dismiss it and them in the same way, or might she reflect on their words?) but also quite frankly, in a way that is highly questionable.

“from where I was sitting, the entire thing has been ENTIRELY about you all along”.

“The truth is that Owen didn’t walk out “in disgust”. He wasn’t making a statement. He had had a bad day, was tired and emotional, and was spoiling for a fight. This wasn’t a call to arms, this was just a childish tantrum.”

“the professional offence-takers have chosen to create their own fantasy version of events in which Owen is a tragic victim . . .”

and the rather spectacular “This is peak Generation Snowflake: I don’t like what you say or the way that you say it so I’m going to scream and scream until you give in” Wow. Just wow. I never noticed what an emotional diva Owen Jones was till she pointed it out, over and over and over? Just how limp does Ms Hartley-Brewer think his wrist is? If Owen Jones had been a woman, I wonder if she would be asking if she was on her period?

Those that comment too are “the professional offence-takers”

“Owen Jones does not deserve an apology and he certainly won’t be getting one from me. And neither does anyone else who has jumped on the perpetually offended bandwagon.”

“It’s proof that there are now thousands – if not millions – of people in Britain who regard the taking of offence as not just their hobby but their full time job.” with the headline referring to his “hate mob”.

At every point, rather than simply arguing a point, Ms Hartley-Brewer undermines anyone who does not agree with her. I belive that it betrays her underlying views, supporting rather than countering the original complaints about their stance. How dare these divas stamp their feet? When Diane Abbot referred to her denial – It seems to me that she was entirely right.

Ms Hartley-Brewer says “They seek out offence and hidden insults wherever they may be, and even where (as in this case) there are none” – Well I believe I found a few.

She has a stunning parting shot “If Owen Jones wants to live in a world where people can only say what is on the officially approved list of platitudes, then perhaps he has more in common with Islamic State than he thinks.” Wow – Gay people, quite a lot of them, asking for unequivoval recognition of homophobia after over a hundred people in a gay club were shot, are the same as terrorists. From “it’s a very worrying state of arrairs if straight people aren’t allowed to be horrified by crimes against gay people” to comparing Owen Jones to Islamic State. Very gay friendly of you Ms Hartley-Brewer. Take a bow.

Poem. Religion and Homosexuality.

YOU’RE ALL GOING TO HELL

Black man of God

Preacher man

Spouting hatred.

Member of one oppressed group

Hating another.

GOD IS LOVE?

Not according to this man.

Homosexuals will all go to hell.

Didn’t some send black people too to the fires of hell?

No distinction?

Paedophiles

Rapists

Thugs

No mention?

But Homosexuals will all go to hell.

Such hatred is inspired by what exactly?

By loving someone the same as you?

Is God really that intolerant?

I somehow doubt it.

Maybe you Mr Preacherman

Should Go to Hell.

September 2009

Homosexuality Religion and the Inconvenient Issue of Intersex.

I recently experienced someone telling me that they could not fully accept homosexuality on religious grounds.   Athough this individual might be said to ‘love the sinner, but not the sin’,  it upset me that they might view it as a sin.   There are far worse things to condemn in this world than loving someone who has the same bits as yourself.  Murder, rape, robbery, domestic violence, child abuse to name a few.   If there is a God, surely they would advocate LOVE and being slightly less shallow than a concern only with the wrapping paper.   So I wrote a paper on my thoughs and sent it to them to consider.   The arguements often floor people who are religious and though it may be upsetting to have your beliefs challenged, denial of someones very existance has to be worse.   I would be happy to hear your views.

HOMOSEXUALITY, RELIGION AND THE INCONVENIENT ISSUE OF INTERSEX

Homosexuality has been condemned on a number of fronts often on a religious basis.

You often hear it said that the Bible says that God created Man and Woman and that sex should only be between a man and a woman, within the institution of marriage. People also say that homosexuality is not natural. God Created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

Not Natural – Actually – Homosexuality is found throughout the animal kingdom and is now thought to have evolutionary advantage, hence why it has continued, despite the fact that homosexual individuals are less likely to reproduce. Google can show many examples.

Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve – Actually this argument is flawed at a very basic level.

Firstly there is not just man and woman, Adam and Eve. This ‘Binary Gender Classification’ is inaccurate. There actually exists a number of physical conditions which fall between the two sexes. These are referred to as ‘Intersex’ conditions. As such the central tenant, that there is only man that should lay with woman and woman that should lay with man, is just not true. In truth, there are a range of in-between physical states, ie a sliding scale of gender from male through the various intersex conditions to female. This is about physical characteristics, nothing to do with lifestyle or choice and it in effect proves that the bible is lacking, it does not reflect reality.

A number of these intersex conditions are described by the Intersex Society of North America. http://www.isna.org/faq/conditions. It may involve for example, certain organs to do with the reproductive system not having developed, or having developed too far, the presence of organs from both genders etc. This may either be outwardly visible, or internal.

In nature, there are also certain in between states including Gynandromorphs – individual animals that are literally split sexually down the middle as in the following article. Half male and half female. BBC – Earth – These animals are male on one side and female on the other

Historically, children who have had intersex conditions that we have become aware of, ie generally where there are abnormalities of the genitalia, have been forced to fit into one or other of the two gender categories in general use, male or female, often through surgical intervention, although this clearly represents a false dichotomy. There were only two choices on a birth certificate or any other form, two toilet doors to choose from and children by and large are dressed in either blue or pink and are given toys which are deemed to be for boys or for girls. Parents in such cases have frequently discovered later on in their childs life, that they chose the wrong identity for their child, based as it was, solely on outward appearance and this was much more to do with their desire as socially conditioned adults, to make the child “fit in” with society or possibly even with what it says in the bible, just as gay people are pressured to fit in, rather than looking at the childs needs / how they may naturally have developed as they reached puberty etc. Sadly things are not as clear cut as the bible says. The insides and the outsides do not always match and this is the same for Transexual individuals.

The fact that the practice of surgical intervention in relation to visibly intersex children has gone on for years, is at odds with those who complain about transsexuals / trans gender individuals – those that feel that they have been born in the wrong body – having operations to align their body with the gender that they feel they are internally. If you are going to argue that it is not OK for a transsexual to adjust their body to fit with how they feel inside, how come it is OK for surgeons and parents to operate on childrens bodies in order to make the child fit in with societies expectations, or simply the parents preference in cosmetic terms, particularly when this pre-empts how the child might naturally develop or feel about their gender when they reach puberty and takes place without the child having any say in the matter? It must either be OK, or not OK, to interfere with what God gave you, if you believe in God and there is perhaps some irony where people have had their child operated on to fit in with the biblical definition of Male and Female, at the same time as arguing that Transgender individuals must not interfere with what God gave them.

For others who are physically intersex, the intersex characteristics are not obvious, perhaps being genetic or relating to internal organs and these individuals are often raised as the sex that they outwardly appear to be, with the anomaly only on occasions becoming apparent eg at puberty, or when the individual tries to conceive etc. It is likely that in many instances, the intersex condition may never be discovered. In reality it would only become apparent if eg the couple could not conceive and pursued answers to this through tests, which for the most part would require both access to medical care and also, that this is affordable. In many parts of the world, the reasons for a failure to conceive would not be pursued.

There are two recent cases that were reported in the UK. One was a person who grew up as a woman in the absence of male genitalia, who never went on to have periods and was later discovered to be genetically male. It was found that “she” had a tiny undeveloped womb and she was then given hormone treatment to develop the womb, going on to have twins, conceived through fertility treatment.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/real-life-stories/woman-who-genetically-man-gives-507526

The other concerned a man. He was complaining of stomach aches and eventually started to find blood in his urine. He went to the doctor fearing that he had cancer, only for it to be discovered that he had both male and female genes and the internal organs of a woman, as well as the external trappings of a male. The blood that he had been finding in his urine, was in fact menstrual blood which was emerging through his penis and the stomach pains were period cramps. In theory he had all he needed to impregnate himself and carry his own child. From his perspective however, he considered himself male, as he had been raised and he booked himself in for a hysterectomy to resolve the problem.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2952983/Pictured-time-British-businessman-set-hysterectomy-discovering-WOMB-normal-male-organs.html

Other examples are Kleinefelter Syndrome, where individuals have an extra x chromasome. Different From Birth : I Have Klinefelter Syndrome Story & Experience and a community where many children known as Guevedoces, are raised as girls but develop male genitals at puberty. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34290981

Clearly gender is not in the least bit clear cut, in purely physical terms.

Increasingly parents of intersex children, where this is apparent, are choosing to allow their children to develop without being forced surgically into one gender or the other, such that they can choose this for themselves once they are older, if they want to. In addition however, as tolerance and understanding grows, there are an increasing number who are deciding not to choose one gender or the other within the traditional binary classification system, but to self define as an “Intersex” individual.

There is an argument to say that there should indeed be a third category, for example on birth certificates and monitoring forms, such that people can choose male / female or “other” – which might include intersex, transgender and a range of other options, a scenario which would much more accurately reflect reality and Facebook status options now recognise this diversity as of Feb 2014, as do others.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/technology-science/technology/facebook-gender-option-facebooks-new-3144022

This being the case, the concept that there is a clear cut man who should only “lie” with a clear cut woman, within the institution of marriage, is inadequate to cover the physical reality. Are intersex individuals to be condemned to never be allowed to have a sexual relationship, particularly if they are unable to marry, not on a moral basis, but as a result of their genes or how they were made physically, when, if you believe in God, those intersex individuals were made by God in his image? What if a woman has married, believing herself to be a clear cut woman, only to later discover that she is in fact genetically male. Should the marriage be disallowed? In all likelihood there will be a number who fit this category, women or men who marry and eg do not go on to conceive, but who did not find out the reality as they did not pursue the answers? Technically they would already be in “same sex” marriages, regardless of the legality of this in their countries. In reality this could apply to unknown numbers of people. Limiting marriage to being between a man and a woman is already inadequate and it should be changed if only to address the issue of the relationships / marriages of intersex individuals.

Finally if it is acknowledged that there is a variation in physical characteristics, a continuum rather than a clear cut dichotomy between men and women ie all shades of grey in between, who is to say that such differences in physical characteristics might not also be mirrored in terms of both sexual preference and also gender identity. Sexual preference / who a person might be attracted to / their gender identity etc may also each be on a continuum, such that in the end we have men who are attracted to men, men who are attracted to both men and women, men who are attracted to women, women who are attracted to men, women who are attracted to both women and men and finally women who are attracted solely to women, as well as transgendered individuals – men and women who feel that they are living with the wrong genitalia and all the intersex individuals and whoever they prefer, with all the various categories of individuals taking their place somewhere on the various continua. In short – Intersex conditions prove that the insides and the outsides are not always in alignment and this is the situation with both gay and lesbian individuals and also trans individuals.

Homosexuality is condemned by some on a religious basis, with passages from the bible used to support this. Throughout history however, it is my understanding that a number of other things have also been condemned in the bible as Abominations, which now are viewed as acceptable. For example it is said that people should be stoned to death for eating shrimp, cursing your mother, cutting your hair or having a tattoo etc. Other things were deemed permissible, which now would not be seen as acceptable eg it was ok to take slaves, to marry your wifes slaves, your rape victim, your prisoners of war etc etc. If we have seen fit to end some of these practices, when as a society we have advanced in our thinking, we have to recognise that we are in fact picking and choosing what we WANT to condemn and as such we can also choose to move forward in our thinking in relation to homosexuality.

In reality, if homosexuality was mentioned in the bible and has been condemned ever since this time, yet it is still here even despite an inability on the part of practicing homosexuals to reproduce ‘naturally’, perhaps we really do have to conclude that although gay people may have been forced historically to “fit in”, just as intersex individuals were in a very physical way, in reality homosexuality is a naturally occurring phenomenon. It is part of a continuum of sexual preference, just as there is no strict binary gender distinction and no set gender identity, with all the different groups being natural and normal, being mirrored within many animal populations etc and all of whom might be deemed to be made in Gods image with an equal right to happiness.

At the time the Bible was being written, the science to understand the reality of the diversity of gender, gender identity and sexuality that existed, was not around and without the media and its ability to raise awareness and with the weight of expectation on people to fit in, many gay people attempted to do just that. Now as understanding is increasing, people are not “turning” gay, they are finding the courage to express who they really are. In reality, for many this is a process. Finding out who you really are and getting to the point where you can live that, is like peeling back the layers of an onion, undoing all the socialization and expectation that has been placed on you, gathering the courage and support to face the fear of rejection and condemnation which has abounded, until you are finally able to express your true and natural self.

With these advances both in science and also awareness, the false distinctions in terms of gender, sexual identity and also sexuality and the rules that follow need to be dismantled.

God – if he or she exists – made all of us and his biggest thing it seems is to say we should love and accept everyone.