Well, I've got to pack my bags and drive to Nottingham this evening. Last time I went there, I arrived at the hotel only to find I had left my handbag at home. Must make sure not to do that this time.
Then from Nottingham it's up to Edinburgh to see a new client. To be honest, I'm looking forward to that part of the trip, even though it's going to take me over 5 hours to get from Nottingham to Edinburgh, and I'll get there in the dark. I'm staying over at a friend's in Newcastle on the way back, and the drive through the Borders should be glorious - no, I'm not going along the A1. I'm also looking forward to doing the installation in two days time - hiring a car and getting into the Highlands (well, the Perthshire bit) on an evening. I need the mountains!!!
I must get on and book something in Wales for the end of May. I'm sure there won't be anything left...
J and I watched a fascinating programme last night about science and spirituality. It was actually presented very well, asking questions like "what constitutes madness?", "what actually goes on?" It was odd, watching the snip from the Hillsong church in London. It was very like the church in Leeds used to be - and there was an emotional tug there - almost as if I just wanted to be back in that environment, even though I knew it was an emotionally manipulative one. They had some speaking in tongues too - well, I can still do that, and I know that's not an exclusive Christian experience.
J and I discussed it at the end of the evening. I don't think she believes in Christianity at all now - she said it was unimportant, and said today that she doesn't believe the Bible (or believe in the Bible). But she does feel a connection to something bigger than herself - which I can understand even if I no longer feel it. I think she's slowly realising that the only reason she wants to go to the small group is for the social side - she said as much this morning, and my response is the same, I would willingly go for the social elements but it's too difficult to opt out of the spiritual ones and you end up with few points of contact. She said she almost went tonight (see, I thought it wouldn't last much beyond the standard break), until she found out what was on the agenda. So I think we're trying to arrange some social stuff to "fill the gaps".
Tuesday 29 April 2008
Monday 28 April 2008
Birthdays and Deaths
So, it's J's birthday today. Usually we go to the nearest Chinese restaurant, which does absolutely fabulous food, for lunch. Last year J's parents joined us - and the plans hadn't changed for this year - until around 11 o'clock when J's mum phoned and said that J's dad had volunteered to drive somebody into the town's hospital for an 11:45 appointment - so much for having lunch at 12...
To be honest, it pissed both J and I off. The in-laws seem to specialise at putting people in front of family - they almost always manage to find someone "in need" who needs them more at a particular time than attending a family event, or who would be lonely if they weren't at the family event. It would be nice to know that, just some times, they valued family more than others, and that they recognised there are other people who can help at such times.
The lunch was OK - J's dad didn't arrive until 1:20, just as the starters had been served - and they did pay for it all. J's mum asked about baby-sitting on Tuesday evenings so that we could go to small group - embarrased silence. J had signed up this morning to be a volunteer to visit old people who are housebound. While I don't have a problem with it particularly, it's yet another contact made through the church - although it appears that the organiser now also has problems with church, it's irrelevance and the arrogance that lots of believers display. Tonight's not the night to talk about it all - and then I'm away until Friday afternoon, and then we're out on Friday night...
Humph Lyttelton died on Saturday. While he probably should be best known as a jazz trumpeter (and the bits I have heard him play have been almost magical), I remember him as the dead-pan chair of I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue. I was actually quite moved by the news, with an odd mixture of sadness and chuckles. Few celebrities move me this way. Radio 4 broadcast a tribute show on Sunday, which J and I listened to over the web before today's lunch. It had Willie Rushton on it - the one member of the ISIHC group I had actually met. Happy memories...
To be honest, it pissed both J and I off. The in-laws seem to specialise at putting people in front of family - they almost always manage to find someone "in need" who needs them more at a particular time than attending a family event, or who would be lonely if they weren't at the family event. It would be nice to know that, just some times, they valued family more than others, and that they recognised there are other people who can help at such times.
The lunch was OK - J's dad didn't arrive until 1:20, just as the starters had been served - and they did pay for it all. J's mum asked about baby-sitting on Tuesday evenings so that we could go to small group - embarrased silence. J had signed up this morning to be a volunteer to visit old people who are housebound. While I don't have a problem with it particularly, it's yet another contact made through the church - although it appears that the organiser now also has problems with church, it's irrelevance and the arrogance that lots of believers display. Tonight's not the night to talk about it all - and then I'm away until Friday afternoon, and then we're out on Friday night...
Humph Lyttelton died on Saturday. While he probably should be best known as a jazz trumpeter (and the bits I have heard him play have been almost magical), I remember him as the dead-pan chair of I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue. I was actually quite moved by the news, with an odd mixture of sadness and chuckles. Few celebrities move me this way. Radio 4 broadcast a tribute show on Sunday, which J and I listened to over the web before today's lunch. It had Willie Rushton on it - the one member of the ISIHC group I had actually met. Happy memories...
Wednesday 23 April 2008
Changes and Reality
I had a lovely lunch today with someone who was in the church I was in 15 years ago - and it must have been about that long ago when I last saw her. Obviously there have been a fair few changes in that time.
She remembered me having a huge impact on her life. Apparently shortly before I moved away from the south 15 years ago, she was pregnant but at considerable risk of miscarriage. In one of the meetings she remembered me repeatedly asking whether she trusted God or the devil. Eventually she was able to look me in the eye and say "God" - and at that moment she felt something change. She carried the baby to full-term - apparently he's 6' 1" today! And she said she always felt that God worked through me specifically to "save" that baby.
But what impressed me most was the way she had changed as well. She has decided to take a sabbatical from church because she just felt it had become a club. She said she had been ill and under a lot of stress recently, and the church simply didn't know how to react, so people ignored her, for weeks. The leadership of the church has apparently since apologised, and suggested that there was a bridge between her and the church - but that the church needed to make the effort to cross that bridge. She also had moved away from a standard evangelical position. She stated her view was now that God doesn't necessarily just look out for individuals - so that God's plan doesn't necessarily mean that everything is going to be OK - but she admitted that church usually preaches that it is.
She respected that my decision to move away from faith was catalysed by the pain inflicted at the church's hands, but that there was a thought process involved too. And I think it quite upset her, that someone she saw as so passionate for Christ had turned her back on that whole lifestyle. But she was gracious enough to not to start the re-conversion dialog that I've had a few times over the past few weeks.
It has occurred to me more than once that when reality strikes, people's faith does change, and people's perception of what God is changes. There seem to be many different variables - omnipotence, morality, personal interest - and everyone seems to come up with their own balance. I see this in J - God is no longer omnipotent, but rather something constrained by nature and who can only work through "willing victims". I saw this in myself - God couldn't possibly be x because of my experiences. The problem comes when everyone validates their own personal balance - and you're left with as much confusion as when you started. And I ended up with the ultimate position that God simply couldn't exist, at least in any way that was outlined in the Bible and in Christian teaching - there were too many things that God couldn't be.
If you take the view that God is simply a way of explaining the inexplicable, and doesn't really exist, then all of those variables become irrelevant. Nature is harsh and competitive - which is why bad things happen. You simply don't have to answer questions about the morality of nature in the same way that you do about a "god who loves you".
She remembered me having a huge impact on her life. Apparently shortly before I moved away from the south 15 years ago, she was pregnant but at considerable risk of miscarriage. In one of the meetings she remembered me repeatedly asking whether she trusted God or the devil. Eventually she was able to look me in the eye and say "God" - and at that moment she felt something change. She carried the baby to full-term - apparently he's 6' 1" today! And she said she always felt that God worked through me specifically to "save" that baby.
But what impressed me most was the way she had changed as well. She has decided to take a sabbatical from church because she just felt it had become a club. She said she had been ill and under a lot of stress recently, and the church simply didn't know how to react, so people ignored her, for weeks. The leadership of the church has apparently since apologised, and suggested that there was a bridge between her and the church - but that the church needed to make the effort to cross that bridge. She also had moved away from a standard evangelical position. She stated her view was now that God doesn't necessarily just look out for individuals - so that God's plan doesn't necessarily mean that everything is going to be OK - but she admitted that church usually preaches that it is.
She respected that my decision to move away from faith was catalysed by the pain inflicted at the church's hands, but that there was a thought process involved too. And I think it quite upset her, that someone she saw as so passionate for Christ had turned her back on that whole lifestyle. But she was gracious enough to not to start the re-conversion dialog that I've had a few times over the past few weeks.
It has occurred to me more than once that when reality strikes, people's faith does change, and people's perception of what God is changes. There seem to be many different variables - omnipotence, morality, personal interest - and everyone seems to come up with their own balance. I see this in J - God is no longer omnipotent, but rather something constrained by nature and who can only work through "willing victims". I saw this in myself - God couldn't possibly be x because of my experiences. The problem comes when everyone validates their own personal balance - and you're left with as much confusion as when you started. And I ended up with the ultimate position that God simply couldn't exist, at least in any way that was outlined in the Bible and in Christian teaching - there were too many things that God couldn't be.
If you take the view that God is simply a way of explaining the inexplicable, and doesn't really exist, then all of those variables become irrelevant. Nature is harsh and competitive - which is why bad things happen. You simply don't have to answer questions about the morality of nature in the same way that you do about a "god who loves you".
Tuesday 15 April 2008
Small Steps
J managed to get me to talk about surgery last night. It's something that has bounced around my head in some form for years, but over the last few months it has become more insistent. Taking a friend back home from Charing Cross in November after her surgery made me think that maybe I could do without it - similar to Russell Reid's parting comment to me - "if you can do without surgery, do without". All the complications she's had afterwards have also made me think. I don't "do pain" at all!
But I'm no longer sure I can "do without". The Androcur I'm taking on a daily basis has some side-effects, and I'm beginning to notice them - like breathlessness and weight gain. I've been tired for some time, and Androcur also exaggerates depressive feelings. According to the endo, the weight gain is not helped by the Androcur - and she wants to take it away, but is worried about the inevitable reintroduction of testosterone into the system. While I've lived without surgery for four years, it would be "nice" not to have to worry about tucking things away all the time, or wondering what people can see when things inevitably come loose. Also, there ain't no other way to get the bits I really want - magic, unfortunately, isn't real. I do wonder whether I will feel better about myself without this incongruity hanging around. It will resolve the "should I / shouldn't I" question.
Last night J indicated her support for surgery - she also finds the hanging incongruity difficult to deal with. She even offered to come out to Thailand (for Thailand it will be - you only get one shot at this and they really do seem to have the better surgeons there) for a week to help the recovery. Given that another friend also offered to come out there with me, the lack of companionship should no longer be a reason. Lack of money (after July) shouldn't be either, although lack of time will probably be. It will need scheduling in quite carefully to miss busy bits at work and also key family events like birthdays and Christmas.
So, this morning I emailed Dr Sanguan Kunaporn with some questions. Another first step.
But I'm no longer sure I can "do without". The Androcur I'm taking on a daily basis has some side-effects, and I'm beginning to notice them - like breathlessness and weight gain. I've been tired for some time, and Androcur also exaggerates depressive feelings. According to the endo, the weight gain is not helped by the Androcur - and she wants to take it away, but is worried about the inevitable reintroduction of testosterone into the system. While I've lived without surgery for four years, it would be "nice" not to have to worry about tucking things away all the time, or wondering what people can see when things inevitably come loose. Also, there ain't no other way to get the bits I really want - magic, unfortunately, isn't real. I do wonder whether I will feel better about myself without this incongruity hanging around. It will resolve the "should I / shouldn't I" question.
Last night J indicated her support for surgery - she also finds the hanging incongruity difficult to deal with. She even offered to come out to Thailand (for Thailand it will be - you only get one shot at this and they really do seem to have the better surgeons there) for a week to help the recovery. Given that another friend also offered to come out there with me, the lack of companionship should no longer be a reason. Lack of money (after July) shouldn't be either, although lack of time will probably be. It will need scheduling in quite carefully to miss busy bits at work and also key family events like birthdays and Christmas.
So, this morning I emailed Dr Sanguan Kunaporn with some questions. Another first step.
Monday 14 April 2008
Belonging
Another long and painful conversation last night. Apparently my view of what Christianity is has been warped by the extremes I encountered in my first churches. I don't know if that's true, but the picture that I see in all of the churches I've been in has been remarkably consistent - God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and will judge us one day. The inconsistencies that brings are numerous.
J has moved her view of God to being more like a "Counsellor" who works alongside us, but who is constrained by the laws of reality - no longer all-powerful. I don't know whether she believes such a god is also her creator, or whether the Jesus story is important. I'm pretty sure she doesn't believe the Bible is true. But she seems to have decided that she does want to remain part of the small group, but not resume going until May (that's only 2 weeks away!). I'm not sure whether she's a Christian or a theist.
She recognises the hurt going will cause me, but asks me to consider what her not going would do to her. She feels that, if I prevent or resent her going, then she will resent me, and that will do greater damage to our relationship. Possibly true. I hope we can look at alternatives - such as inviting individuals round here to discuss things.
J has moved her view of God to being more like a "Counsellor" who works alongside us, but who is constrained by the laws of reality - no longer all-powerful. I don't know whether she believes such a god is also her creator, or whether the Jesus story is important. I'm pretty sure she doesn't believe the Bible is true. But she seems to have decided that she does want to remain part of the small group, but not resume going until May (that's only 2 weeks away!). I'm not sure whether she's a Christian or a theist.
She recognises the hurt going will cause me, but asks me to consider what her not going would do to her. She feels that, if I prevent or resent her going, then she will resent me, and that will do greater damage to our relationship. Possibly true. I hope we can look at alternatives - such as inviting individuals round here to discuss things.
Saturday 12 April 2008
Meetings and Disagreements
J and I met the retiring leader this morning. Neither of us were sure what to expect. Basically he promoted the line that I appeared unwilling to accept that anyone could have a different view on transsexualism to mine, and it was that unwillingness that led the leadership to ask me to stop going. We responded that the other leader simply didn't make any effort over 18 months to even consider my view as a valid one. Basically their line appears to be "you agree with us or we throw you out". He admits that they may have handled me badly. I said that disagreements over the place of Israel in God's plans are fundamentally different to disagreements about who I am. I can live with people having different views on Israel to me. Heck, I can live with people having different views on God to me. But it becomes extremely difficult to live amongst people who simply judge you as "wrong" - especially when the leadership didn't want me to "evangelise" my position, nor investigate it for themselves. Basically, just soak it all up, and maybe the message that I am wrong would eventually seep through.
The responsibility for the fiasco last weekend was placed firmly on his wife's head. He didn't think that anyone would have had a problem with us attending. But J pointed out that the precedent was set by the leadership, as the reason given at the time of my expulsion was "people wouldn't cope". Basically the leadership were wanting my timescale of transition, if it happened at all, to be dependent upon the acceptance of others in the church. Yet, at the same time, he admitted that I probably did have to transition, otherwise I probably wouldn't be around today.
Ultimately, faith in Christ is dependent upon trust - it's a step of faith. When the church around you gives ample reason not to trust them, then you start evaluating whether your first step of faith was valid. After reading lots of things about the origin of the Bible, the origin of the Christ story, evolution and astronomy, I came to the conclusion that my step of faith was deeply flawed. I don't know whether there's a god or not. I strongly suspect that god was invented by early man in an attempt to explain the apparently inexplicable things around him. As our knowledge of the world around us has increased, the apparently inexplicable things have changed in their nature. We know what causes thunderstorms and earthquakes. We know what causes certain illnesses. We aren't able to conclusively answer questions about the origins of life - but the evidence around us seems to certainly deny the Genesis stories. I found no reason to trust Christians any more than any other religious group. And I felt that, basically, their message was simply "trust us" - a message that all charlatans broadcast.
Life's questions do become easier without having to make god jump through hoops or contorted logic. Simply put, nature is ferocious and, as a result, bad things happen. Humans are adapted to life in our particular environment, but that environment is fragile. Is this a miracle, depending upon a benevolent god, or just an amazing fact of existence? Adding an all-knowing or all-powerful god into the equation means that you have to start addressing the moral questions. Why is it acceptable for an all-knowing god to create beings, knowing they would "sin", then subsequently requiring them to trust without evidence. Isn't such a god then culpable for the destruction of that life? Why would a perfect, all-powerful god simply stand aside and let people suffer for no reason? Why is it morally OK to punish descendents for one ancestor's wrong-doing? Christians expend so much energy addressing such questions.
J appears to be talking and reading herself back into faith. I suspect that her moratorium on small group won't last beyond the small group's holiday break.
The responsibility for the fiasco last weekend was placed firmly on his wife's head. He didn't think that anyone would have had a problem with us attending. But J pointed out that the precedent was set by the leadership, as the reason given at the time of my expulsion was "people wouldn't cope". Basically the leadership were wanting my timescale of transition, if it happened at all, to be dependent upon the acceptance of others in the church. Yet, at the same time, he admitted that I probably did have to transition, otherwise I probably wouldn't be around today.
Ultimately, faith in Christ is dependent upon trust - it's a step of faith. When the church around you gives ample reason not to trust them, then you start evaluating whether your first step of faith was valid. After reading lots of things about the origin of the Bible, the origin of the Christ story, evolution and astronomy, I came to the conclusion that my step of faith was deeply flawed. I don't know whether there's a god or not. I strongly suspect that god was invented by early man in an attempt to explain the apparently inexplicable things around him. As our knowledge of the world around us has increased, the apparently inexplicable things have changed in their nature. We know what causes thunderstorms and earthquakes. We know what causes certain illnesses. We aren't able to conclusively answer questions about the origins of life - but the evidence around us seems to certainly deny the Genesis stories. I found no reason to trust Christians any more than any other religious group. And I felt that, basically, their message was simply "trust us" - a message that all charlatans broadcast.
Life's questions do become easier without having to make god jump through hoops or contorted logic. Simply put, nature is ferocious and, as a result, bad things happen. Humans are adapted to life in our particular environment, but that environment is fragile. Is this a miracle, depending upon a benevolent god, or just an amazing fact of existence? Adding an all-knowing or all-powerful god into the equation means that you have to start addressing the moral questions. Why is it acceptable for an all-knowing god to create beings, knowing they would "sin", then subsequently requiring them to trust without evidence. Isn't such a god then culpable for the destruction of that life? Why would a perfect, all-powerful god simply stand aside and let people suffer for no reason? Why is it morally OK to punish descendents for one ancestor's wrong-doing? Christians expend so much energy addressing such questions.
J appears to be talking and reading herself back into faith. I suspect that her moratorium on small group won't last beyond the small group's holiday break.
Thursday 10 April 2008
Judgements
J has decided to take a break from small group for an indeterminate time. She is obviously really struggling to work out where she stands. Should she continue to go to small group; should she challenge churches; should she leave and allow churches to continue hurting people; should she direct people away from churches; should she train as a counsellor for the "church wounded"?
The news today that Colin Coward of Changing Attitude has received death threats just makes me wonder how such people can reconcile their actions with a supposed gospel of love. But then people's beliefs seem to trounce evidence again and again. For example, lots of Christians believe that homosexual people have a choice to be homosexual, despite all the evidence, so that flawed view becomes their reality - and they simply won't listen to alternatives unless it hits very close to home.
J wondered this morning whether the Christian church's policy is based more on the "yuck" factor - the idea of homosexual acts is "not nice" for heterosexual people to consider. I promoted the view that homosexual people probably find the idea of heterosexual acts "not nice" as well - and this effectively leads to bullying by the majority.
We also discussed the two-faced nature of the "enforced celibacy" rule - heterosexual people should be allowed to enjoy sex but homosexual people should not. This leads me to the view that the idea of God being involved in the creation of each and every person is deeply flawed. Either he was and is wilfully sadistic - creating people with a core driver that should simply be denied - or he never created people in the first place. Of course, that assumes that such a God exists in the first place... It really is easier to assume that God doesn't exist!
We have come to yet another decision point - and this one's entirely in J's court. All the points which were raised four years ago seem now to be viewed in a new light. I don't think she's prepared to subject us to any more pain from this area, but she hasn't really got a clue what to do about it - or, if she does, where does that actually leave her. Me - I'm not sure if I can be bothered to help church any more, but I do want to protect J from yet more hurt.
On a separate point, the credit crunch seems to have claimed our first victim. We were waiting for confirmation of sale for a proposed installation in a couple of weeks time. The customer is a solicitors practice that does a lot of conveyancing. In the current economic climate, the purchasing partner is apparently panicking - their income has dropped through the floor because no-one is able to get new mortgages so no-one is moving house - so all new IT spend is on hold. I wonder whether we will start to find it harder to sell our software. Sure, there's an element of talking ourselves into recession, but the Government does, at times, seem to rely too much on the power of words being able to talk us around it.
The news today that Colin Coward of Changing Attitude has received death threats just makes me wonder how such people can reconcile their actions with a supposed gospel of love. But then people's beliefs seem to trounce evidence again and again. For example, lots of Christians believe that homosexual people have a choice to be homosexual, despite all the evidence, so that flawed view becomes their reality - and they simply won't listen to alternatives unless it hits very close to home.
J wondered this morning whether the Christian church's policy is based more on the "yuck" factor - the idea of homosexual acts is "not nice" for heterosexual people to consider. I promoted the view that homosexual people probably find the idea of heterosexual acts "not nice" as well - and this effectively leads to bullying by the majority.
We also discussed the two-faced nature of the "enforced celibacy" rule - heterosexual people should be allowed to enjoy sex but homosexual people should not. This leads me to the view that the idea of God being involved in the creation of each and every person is deeply flawed. Either he was and is wilfully sadistic - creating people with a core driver that should simply be denied - or he never created people in the first place. Of course, that assumes that such a God exists in the first place... It really is easier to assume that God doesn't exist!
We have come to yet another decision point - and this one's entirely in J's court. All the points which were raised four years ago seem now to be viewed in a new light. I don't think she's prepared to subject us to any more pain from this area, but she hasn't really got a clue what to do about it - or, if she does, where does that actually leave her. Me - I'm not sure if I can be bothered to help church any more, but I do want to protect J from yet more hurt.
On a separate point, the credit crunch seems to have claimed our first victim. We were waiting for confirmation of sale for a proposed installation in a couple of weeks time. The customer is a solicitors practice that does a lot of conveyancing. In the current economic climate, the purchasing partner is apparently panicking - their income has dropped through the floor because no-one is able to get new mortgages so no-one is moving house - so all new IT spend is on hold. I wonder whether we will start to find it harder to sell our software. Sure, there's an element of talking ourselves into recession, but the Government does, at times, seem to rely too much on the power of words being able to talk us around it.
Monday 7 April 2008
The Story Goes On
So, after a long weekend with the in-laws, the knock on the door came again this morning. The pastor's wife (M) reiterated what she had said to me on Friday afternoon, but to my partner (J) this time. M was obviously upset, and was trying to take all the blame herself. We weren't having that - M acted out of love and acceptance inviting us, and was now shielding others who could not love or accept.
Then, about an hour later, M came round again. We were now welcome to attend.
I just feel numb, really, like being hit repeatedly on the same bruise, or getting a dead arm. Do I want to go? Not really, not now - but I may feel differently later.
J has become all militant. On Saturday she said she'd emailed the leaders of the small group she is currently a part of saying that she'd be taking a break from going. She didn't sleep well on Saturday night, and on Sunday morning sent a long email to various members of the "offending" church just pointing out exactly what was being said in their name. Today she's spent most of the morning composing emails. She's doing what I am - writing out her feelings. Her campaign seems to have become "teach the church that prejudice is simply unacceptable". I don't think she'll succeed.
Then, about an hour later, M came round again. We were now welcome to attend.
I just feel numb, really, like being hit repeatedly on the same bruise, or getting a dead arm. Do I want to go? Not really, not now - but I may feel differently later.
J has become all militant. On Saturday she said she'd emailed the leaders of the small group she is currently a part of saying that she'd be taking a break from going. She didn't sleep well on Saturday night, and on Sunday morning sent a long email to various members of the "offending" church just pointing out exactly what was being said in their name. Today she's spent most of the morning composing emails. She's doing what I am - writing out her feelings. Her campaign seems to have become "teach the church that prejudice is simply unacceptable". I don't think she'll succeed.
Sunday 6 April 2008
The Uninvited
Earlier this week I was invited to see a one-woman show for which my cousin had "designed" the costume. Liz, the actress and singer, is a friend of my cousin. She and her partner, Steve, had written a show, called the Uninvited, to highlight the plight of asylum seekers. There were some pithy comments. It was a bit "knit-your-own-yoghurt" style, which isn't really me, but I did find it amazing how Liz managed to keep your attention through over an hour of just singing various songs and recounting journals and other observations. How does someone remember so much material?
What actually struck me was the conversation afterwards, where people who were involved in supporting asylum seekers were talking about the work they were doing. The difficulties they outlined - the government denying that 3am raids took place, the inability of asylum seekers to work, the rules about torture not being applied, the sheer inhumanity of it all - all had parallels in how the trans community is treated and, no doubt, how other communities are also treated. Walking back, my other cousin and I boiled it down to respect. The politicians hide behind the system, the people who actually do the job hide behind the system, and the system is inhumane. No-one actually has any respect for the person on the other side of the fence any more.
Shortly after I wrote Friday's posting, there was a knock on the door. My family and I had been invited to the retirement do of one of the leaders of the church that I had been asked not to attend. We were unsure, but felt that, because we were no longer members of that church, someone had gone out of their way to invite us and it would be churlish to respond negatively. The knock on the door was from the wife of the retiring church leader. Apparently people in the church "were not going to cope" with me, so the invitation was being withdrawn. Could I not share this with my partner until after her parents' golden wedding anniversary celebrations were over? Well, no I couldn't. I don't think it's fair to keep secrets or news any more.
Needless to say, she was extremely upset and angry, really that the church hadn't moved on. She has been deeply hurt by this, and can see my pain - as could others who I've shared the news with. In fact, all of them have been absolutely aghast and appalled at the church's action. To "uninvite" someone is a huge slur. It's yet another body blow. Whenever I open myself up to church, I just seem to get heavily thumped. It's not happening again. I've had enough, and I simply don't want anything further to do with church in any form. Individuals - fine - as long as they don't seek to re-convert or fix me. Church groups - steering well away from them now. Needless to say, this is going to increase the strain when my partner decides to go to her small group on Tuesday evenings.
What actually struck me was the conversation afterwards, where people who were involved in supporting asylum seekers were talking about the work they were doing. The difficulties they outlined - the government denying that 3am raids took place, the inability of asylum seekers to work, the rules about torture not being applied, the sheer inhumanity of it all - all had parallels in how the trans community is treated and, no doubt, how other communities are also treated. Walking back, my other cousin and I boiled it down to respect. The politicians hide behind the system, the people who actually do the job hide behind the system, and the system is inhumane. No-one actually has any respect for the person on the other side of the fence any more.
Shortly after I wrote Friday's posting, there was a knock on the door. My family and I had been invited to the retirement do of one of the leaders of the church that I had been asked not to attend. We were unsure, but felt that, because we were no longer members of that church, someone had gone out of their way to invite us and it would be churlish to respond negatively. The knock on the door was from the wife of the retiring church leader. Apparently people in the church "were not going to cope" with me, so the invitation was being withdrawn. Could I not share this with my partner until after her parents' golden wedding anniversary celebrations were over? Well, no I couldn't. I don't think it's fair to keep secrets or news any more.
Needless to say, she was extremely upset and angry, really that the church hadn't moved on. She has been deeply hurt by this, and can see my pain - as could others who I've shared the news with. In fact, all of them have been absolutely aghast and appalled at the church's action. To "uninvite" someone is a huge slur. It's yet another body blow. Whenever I open myself up to church, I just seem to get heavily thumped. It's not happening again. I've had enough, and I simply don't want anything further to do with church in any form. Individuals - fine - as long as they don't seek to re-convert or fix me. Church groups - steering well away from them now. Needless to say, this is going to increase the strain when my partner decides to go to her small group on Tuesday evenings.
Friday 4 April 2008
Church Hurts
I find that "church" is the main cause of strife between my partner and I.
When I was just starting the gender transition process, starting to take female hormones to see how I felt about what they did, the church we were in asked me not to come on Sunday mornings any more. In reality, I hadn't been on a Sunday morning for a few months anyway, as I was fed up with half-baked theology being presented from the front, and Bible verses being taken completely out of context. But the request was an affirmation that I was a "non-person" in the eyes of people who profess to love everyone. My partner continued to go - and I can understand why - she needed some level of continuity in an environment where her main relationship was being turned upside-down. But it hurt - and every Sunday and every Tuesday or Wednesday she would go out to "be holy", leaving me to do as best I could to maintain faith.
After 18 months, there was an episode where an offer to host a small group meeting at our house caused a major upheaval in some peoples' eyes. She decided she couldn't cope with the reaction, and cancelled the meeting, then decided she needed to challenge the leadership on their "scriptural position". Unsurprisingly there wasn't one. It was all based on feelings. The church leader's position was that he couldn't face God on Judgement Day and say why he let my son be damaged by my transition. Quite an odd argument - wouldn't God ask this to me instead, and what about the damage that had been done to me? My partner extricated herself from that church, and then started going to another one - despite what we had agreed about taking a break and then looking for something together. Kick in the guts number 2.
After a year she was asked whether she wanted to go to a small group. What, I asked, we were going to do together. Well, I could come - but that also caused strife. One of the group's leaders wanted to tell everyone about me before they'd had a chance to meet me - "there'll be someone called Helen coming along and she used to be a man". Great... That was sorted, but I'd been so long out of the church environment that I found some of the "routine" difficult. I couldn't support the church-centric events because I was told that the church would treat me differently to my partner should we want to become members - I was, again, a "non-person", a theological discussion point. I also had severe questions about Christianity at that point, and it became very obvious to me at the start that such deep questions were not going to be permitted.
The year in the small group did nothing to answer any of my questions - in fact, they continued to increase. I felt that my partner also had questions, but didn't really know how to address them. We were invited onto a "questioning Christians" course, but when the agenda came out, she wasn't sure she wanted to go - but if she did go she wanted me to go as well. Then she seemed to be talked into going on her own, and I was kept completely out of the loop. Kick in the guts number 3. I left the group. We did eventually go to the course together, and those few weeks were great because we were able to talk openly with each other as questioning individuals.
So, on Tuesday, the group had a social, so I went along really to say goodbye. I don't have a problem with the people - I have a problem with the group dynamics and what Christianity in groups does to people. But the same group leader as before collared me, and started grilling me about my attitude, "why couldn't I see myself going to any more socials?" She simply didn't seem to accept that the whole thing has been just so painful for me over a number of years, and that I simply want it to stop. She couldn't accept that each time my partner goes, it's yet another kick in the teeth.
To be honest, yes, I want my partner to stop going. From what she has described, she doesn't fit there any more, yet she's looking for excuses to stay - possibly because she wants to be talked back into faith, possibly because she's scared of being lonely, possibly because she's scared of having to confront this issue with her parents. But I can't say anything because I'm then accused of trying to control her life. So this pain will continue for the forseeable future. When she doesn't go, it eases. When she goes, I feel cut out of her life, and things are different between us for a while. On Tuesday there was misunderstanding about me going to this social which then seemed to cause resentment. And it all seems totally unnecessary.
I transitioned because the pain of being male was just too much. Transition teaches you that you can change things, you don't have to be powerless. But I struggle to see how I can change this painful situation constructively.
When I was just starting the gender transition process, starting to take female hormones to see how I felt about what they did, the church we were in asked me not to come on Sunday mornings any more. In reality, I hadn't been on a Sunday morning for a few months anyway, as I was fed up with half-baked theology being presented from the front, and Bible verses being taken completely out of context. But the request was an affirmation that I was a "non-person" in the eyes of people who profess to love everyone. My partner continued to go - and I can understand why - she needed some level of continuity in an environment where her main relationship was being turned upside-down. But it hurt - and every Sunday and every Tuesday or Wednesday she would go out to "be holy", leaving me to do as best I could to maintain faith.
After 18 months, there was an episode where an offer to host a small group meeting at our house caused a major upheaval in some peoples' eyes. She decided she couldn't cope with the reaction, and cancelled the meeting, then decided she needed to challenge the leadership on their "scriptural position". Unsurprisingly there wasn't one. It was all based on feelings. The church leader's position was that he couldn't face God on Judgement Day and say why he let my son be damaged by my transition. Quite an odd argument - wouldn't God ask this to me instead, and what about the damage that had been done to me? My partner extricated herself from that church, and then started going to another one - despite what we had agreed about taking a break and then looking for something together. Kick in the guts number 2.
After a year she was asked whether she wanted to go to a small group. What, I asked, we were going to do together. Well, I could come - but that also caused strife. One of the group's leaders wanted to tell everyone about me before they'd had a chance to meet me - "there'll be someone called Helen coming along and she used to be a man". Great... That was sorted, but I'd been so long out of the church environment that I found some of the "routine" difficult. I couldn't support the church-centric events because I was told that the church would treat me differently to my partner should we want to become members - I was, again, a "non-person", a theological discussion point. I also had severe questions about Christianity at that point, and it became very obvious to me at the start that such deep questions were not going to be permitted.
The year in the small group did nothing to answer any of my questions - in fact, they continued to increase. I felt that my partner also had questions, but didn't really know how to address them. We were invited onto a "questioning Christians" course, but when the agenda came out, she wasn't sure she wanted to go - but if she did go she wanted me to go as well. Then she seemed to be talked into going on her own, and I was kept completely out of the loop. Kick in the guts number 3. I left the group. We did eventually go to the course together, and those few weeks were great because we were able to talk openly with each other as questioning individuals.
So, on Tuesday, the group had a social, so I went along really to say goodbye. I don't have a problem with the people - I have a problem with the group dynamics and what Christianity in groups does to people. But the same group leader as before collared me, and started grilling me about my attitude, "why couldn't I see myself going to any more socials?" She simply didn't seem to accept that the whole thing has been just so painful for me over a number of years, and that I simply want it to stop. She couldn't accept that each time my partner goes, it's yet another kick in the teeth.
To be honest, yes, I want my partner to stop going. From what she has described, she doesn't fit there any more, yet she's looking for excuses to stay - possibly because she wants to be talked back into faith, possibly because she's scared of being lonely, possibly because she's scared of having to confront this issue with her parents. But I can't say anything because I'm then accused of trying to control her life. So this pain will continue for the forseeable future. When she doesn't go, it eases. When she goes, I feel cut out of her life, and things are different between us for a while. On Tuesday there was misunderstanding about me going to this social which then seemed to cause resentment. And it all seems totally unnecessary.
I transitioned because the pain of being male was just too much. Transition teaches you that you can change things, you don't have to be powerless. But I struggle to see how I can change this painful situation constructively.
Tuesday 1 April 2008
Stereotypes
I met a someone I've known a long time for coffee in Birmingham city centre on Friday. We first met over 25 years ago at university because we went to the same church, and became good friends, sharing a house for nearly three years, and doing drama and radio together. Some distance crept in when he moved to Birmingham, then got married, then divorced, then I moved and got married, then he got married again. My wife and I supported him financially as he was starting up in Christian radio, and then, four years ago, I dropped the news of my transition on him – contact had reduced to one or two “contacts” a year by then.
On Friday he said he was very hurt, primarily because he felt I’d presented him with a fait accompli. Quite what he expected to do to make me change my mind, I don’t know. But apparently I did his head in, so he effectively dropped contact. Because he’s arranging a church reunion in May, he got in touch again and apologised, and we agreed to meet up.
Now, here’s the thing. He couldn’t cope with the idea that I was still the same person inside, and seemed freaked that I could remember things from our past. He also didn’t seem to cope with the idea that I could have “lost” faith. (Was I “disillusioned by God” – no, I was disillusioned by the church, initially.) He wanted to start a new friendship rather than adapt the old one. He still couldn’t say that I’d done the right thing in transitioning, despite me saying again that the alternative was probably death – I don’t think he believes it. And my “hope that was OK” message has so far gone unanswered. My thoughts – he can’t cope with me at all. As a female ex-Christian, and one who has rationalised herself out of faith, I’m simply no longer the kind of person who he would naturally socialise with. To be honest, that hurts, especially given the distance and time given. But then he has always been one to want to control the rules around a relationship.
It seems that evangelical Christians tend to only think in stereotypes – Christian or non-Christian, male or female, leader or follower. When the stereotypes get merged – like a female Christian leader – that’s where the problems start. What I’ve done, of course, is just completely override the stereotypes. The view being that someone who looks like a guy simply can’t be female inside, it doesn’t make sense. And so my friend, along with pretty much all the evangelical Christians I’ve known, just dropped contact. I don’t fit their world view any more, so I must be wrong. Of course, there are a few exceptions to the rule. But I find it incredibly arrogant that the majority of Christians should simply assume that their world view is completely, 100%, unalterably right.
Then I remember Saturday night. Another, even longer-term friend (from school) came to a choral concert I was singing in – I’d invited him and he had willingly accepted. Now this friend, also an evangelical Christian, (but softly evangelical , if that makes any sense) has accepted my gender change, on the surface at least. He said on Saturday night that that was largely because he saw himself as leading a colourful life, and so viewed me in the same sort of light – someone who didn’t know how to deal with the issues they had. But even so, he still said that he took time to adjust how he related to me. Now, I might be being super-sensitive here (a big problem for transsexual people) but once again this “stereotype” came up. But then my wife also says that she relates to me differently now than when I was male.
Don’t get me wrong – it’s very releasing and relieving not being treated as male, but why do people who know me well still want to revert to stereotypical gender relationships? Or is this simply because I’m surrounded by evangelical or pseudo-evangelical Christians?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
