This evening I picked up a friend of my wife who was doing us a favour. He climbed into the car and began with ‘Do you realize that if I wanted to live as a woman all I would need to do is dress as a woman for 2 years, get a letter from a psychiatrist and then I would get a new passport, new birth certificate and so on. But my question is what would the law be if I went into the wrong toilet.”

My initial response was ‘that sort of question isn’t entertainment — people don’t set themselves up for public discrimination just for the fun of it’ My passenger did say that he wasn’t asking the question for entertainment but in wonder that the law of the land could be so willingly tied into a tangled unenforceable knot.

I cannot recollect every detail of the conversation which went on for some time. Later I said, Only the most extreme would argue that a male must or is by definition 100% male and the female is 100% female. How can some males demonstrate less than 100% masculine traits unless there is indeed some sliding scale of male-female or masculine-feminine.

Inconveniently, logic then says — if there is a sliding scale then there will be some men who feel so feminine that they are uncomfortable in their bodies. Logic then continues — If they feel that uncomfortable, then what are they supposed to do about it — deny their inner feelings, change their appearance, reject the stance which has been expected of them for some years — what should they do?

People who do make this step to go out dressed and trying to pass are not relying on the law to protect them by the issuing of documentation or instructions by MPs that some differences must be accepted. The reality is that the general view will be that ‘these people are different’ - and all too often the reaction to difference is distaste, disgust, dislike, fear, anger and a variety of similar outcomes.

In all too many cases, anecdotal, real or expected — the outcome for demonstrating ‘I am different’ is loss of family, loss of friends, loss of marriage, loss of job, loss of status, persecution, hurt and damage far beyond what is decent, proper or reasonable. Partly because the current social pattern is to see differences on the sexual or gender scale as indicative of perversion and by immediate implication — ‘people like that’ are probably p-dophiles.

I know this because I have been revealed to my wife [via the report of psychiatric interviews which I let her read] — that I did use to dress sometimes. Personally, I knew the activity was past and superseded by a satisfactory marriage but also by the not-quite-discreet-enough reading of TV material (Fictionmania, BCTS and the like). Unfortunately, the outcome is a description of me as perverted and similar. The discovery of some of the less attractive Fictionmania ‘sissy’ and ‘domination’ stories also has me described by her to others as a p-dophile. What can I say, I did read those stories and they were discovered.

But to get back to the original topic — my passenger is known by me to be a deeply certain and determined Biblically-oriented Christian - everything in the Bible is true and unarguable etc etc. Personally, I have difficulties with this attitude. I also have difficulties with those who are extremist, intolerant or who press their certainties on others with the arrogance and unbendingness of which extremists are capable.

I was and am confident from other things he has said that he was asking the question about people in the ‘wrong’ toilet in order to be able to say that he thought homosexuals and all the other perverts ie non-Christian and non-missionary-position should be made to see that they are damaging the fabric of society by their refusal to behave according to Biblical rules. I did not notice any acceptance by him that homosexuals (2%), bisexuals (2%) or transvestites or transsexuals might have a valid point of view and might deserve to be treated equally with so-called normal people.

I cannot find the statistics for the percentage of adults who commit adultery. Nor can I find data for the number who have other ‘perversions’ such as bondage, anal intercourse or any other activity vetoed or not mentioned in the Bible.

Interestingly, he did agree that common-sense was important, that there was a masculine-feminine scale and that people at the extremes of those scales could have difficulties. He was however adamant that accepting differences not endorsed by the Bible was contributing to the downfall of society.

My wife asked what we had talked about. Surprisingly, I did not answer at first. This morning, I did begin to tell her and she exploded. I thought I veered off the TV-subject to talk about tolerance and the law - but apparently I did not veer fast or far enough. So she told the passenger how inappropriate it was to raise such a subject with a husband who 'all he wants to do is dress as a woman' !!!!! (how many exclamation marks would be appropriate??)

Later she did comment that the law of the land as per Parliament was little more than the current whim of the ruling class being enacted. As to the enforceability of any such law - well if the populace didn't agree then they would take no notice.

What should I have done? What should I have said to either of them?
Alys