I’d be PURPLE – if I could
In fact, why should I hide the fact that I LIKE being different - even though some of THEM don't like it.

There’s so many of us – different labels and identifiers that is. There’s a rumour that the FBI has over 200 categories. And NOT ONE OF THEM IS RIGHT for me and my friends.

Long ago, in the times of the decline in American segregation – a bus driver had a load of arguing passengers; the (excuse me) blacks wanted to sit at the front as they had not been allowed to, the whites disapproved. Eventually the driver said ‘Stop all this fuss, I don’t care whether you’re black, white, green or whatever, but the dark greens will sit at the back and the light greens at the front’.

I’m not green – I don’t know who I am. I don’t know what I am. I think I’m certain about my gender – but sex and who I’m attracted to – that’s a bit close to zero. So again I ask – who am I? What am I? I might even be purple. Where should I go? Where do I fit in? As for this strange decision to have 30, 40, 50, now 60, then 70, then 80 and as of a few days ago some 100 different categories for self-determined sex and gender categories. Wow.

Even with the most generous statistics not many will argue that about 3% and maybe as many as 10% of the population are non-heterosexual and maybe somewhat fewer are gender-uncertain and maybe 1% actually being near a T-type category. It is VERY likely that some will argue belligerently with some of these numbers, For which I apologise – I know that the figures are indicative – but I do believe they are not dreadfully inaccurate. Please be mildly accepting rather than vituperative. The numbers are NOT ZERO.
-------------------------------

I’m so tired.

I’m so tired of not being able to be me. But as I’ve already written – Who am I, What am I? Maybe also Why, Where, When and How. I can answer some of those enough to give a background.

Everything I do seems to conspire to prevent me being me. And it seems to all come down to the ‘choices’ I have made. And then I read how few these ‘choices’ actually are. It seems to no longer be a choice as regards sexuality, gender or even race. There are some who may believe that there is a choice to have as regards religion, ethics, morals, behaviour and attitude.

Is it just me who feels that the silent majority is too often silent and that tiny numbers of small minorities shout very loudly?

I hugely accept that some people have things they should shout about ……. But.

Is there a point at which the demands of a minority – any minority – should prevent others from expressing their opinion even where it differs from that small group who are shouting? At what point does the minority opinion take priority?

I’m white – and nowadays that’s not a popular ‘choice’.

Due to circumstances, I don’t know well [emphasise 'well' – of course I interact somewhat] anyone who is other than European pinky-white. Do I have to do as one ancient guide said ‘go out into the streets and find those who are different from you’.

I’m not Jewish, Italian, French, Greek, nor do I have, as far as I know, any recent non-English heritage – and it’s increasingly obvious to me that this is not a ‘choice’ I should have made. Is some of the modern 'liberal / woke' logic a little illogical?

I’m middle-class – and nowadays that’s not something you should admit to.

I’m mildly Christian because I have grown up in England where the judeo-christian ethos of what I call ‘do as you would be done by’ has been deeply rooted for centuries.

I’m enormously ignorant about the difficulties faced by almost everyone else. Except as an exercise in imagination or wishful thinking, how can I have certain knowledge. But I question the certainty of some of the passionate. How can THEY know how others think or hope - even if with some of their shared experience.

From previous comments – and excuse the use of a sequence of ‘wrong’ words – I’m not black, brown, yellow, beige. I’m not gay, homosexual, bisexual (as far as current experience has taken me). I’m not Moslem which seem to be the only accepted religion nowadays. I’m not Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Jain, Sikh or Communist.

At times, I wonder about ‘god’ so while I am not atheist and deny the possibility of ‘god’, I am at times puzzled and therefore presumably agnostic. I do believe that Evil exists -and I think that I've come across Good as well.

I don’t have red-hair – is that a disadvantage in the minority stakes?

I’m not blonde – and blonde is definitely a minority option.

I sometimes have a beard – is that a plus or a minus as a minority experience?

I have been fat-ish but never significantly obese; I have never experienced bulimia or anorexia. Am I prevented from making any comment or having a view?

I have a heart condition – which proves that technically, at least, I have a heart.

I’m heterosexual – and, wow, that’s not the ‘choice’ that I think is any longer approved.

I must have homosexual friends – but I don’t know for certain who they are. There's certainly nobody I could think of that I could discuss the topic in a non-meaningful way. Nor any other of the non-hetero, non-cis sub-categories. Who would answer if I asked 'Do you have a fetish you would like to tell me about?' Ha.

I must have friends with fetishes or strange behaviours – but I don’t know who they are. I do know one person who has a model railway – is that strange enough?

I’m self-employed – and it’s obvious how much the government hates that (while it still wants my money).

I am in my fifties – and I have read that since age is a mental construct that I should no longer give my age or rely on it for benefit or disbenefit. This I do not clearly understand.

I’m male – and that’s a can of worms to have to admit to. But now I’m told that it is my choice!

I cross-dress – but I have never thought of myself as strongly or actively intending to be or become female, nor does transgender seem to fit my thoughts and actions. For me, I'm a male who cross-dresses. Not every day. Not that often.

But on this platform, it is the “crossdressing but not saying that I am transgendering” that makes me feel uncomfortable. For myself, I think that my confidence in myself is reasonable and viable. I have looked at fashion over the centuries, and how it differs in some countries, and at some levels of class – and there is no strong ‘law’ which states what a male may or may not wear.

I would like it if I could wear what I wish more often, and that would include pretty underwear, colourful outerwear of nice materials. Whether I would then wish to present with a womanly figure – that I am less sure about. For myself, when I get dressed sometimes I wear a bra and sometimes I don’t. My general silhouette is far too cylindrical than I would wish but the pressure demanded of garments to ensure a womanly figure are oppressive and, for me, restrictive. I merely wish to wear pretty clothes. How does the law reflect that? How does social pressure cope with that? I do like the feel of the bra - the strange constriction, the downward view with curves below my eyeline. It feels .... satisfactory. As for panties - I love them. Slinky materials - lovely. Necklaces and jewellery - interesting. skirts - nice. Dresses - nicer.

Where exactly this places me in the crossdressing spectrum? I don't know. For me, it doesn't matter. I'm not a woman - I just like the feel of it all.

What I do have certainty about is that I dislike extremism. I dislike abuse, bullying and all that goes with powergames.

Do I realize that my various characteristics have put me into a position of power above many of these belittled minorities? Yes. What am I supposed to do about it?

I could do what the christian bible suggests: ‘Give all your money to the poor’ but I have never been told how I would then provide for myself or my family. Quibble-priests say that Jesus was talking to a specific person about his specific situation. But many godists say that their bible-equivalent is perfect and without error and must be obeyed to the letter. Nothing about ‘depending on the situation’. And this is 'truly' the word of God.

Yes, some of this is triggered by the whole Black Lives Matter situation. In particular, the reaction to the professor who quoted Nelson Mandela - and was drastically, dramatically outed, questioned and bullied for what she said. Or more truly, what people were told she said or were told what somebody else thought she said. Ha. The huge reaction by some was, to my reading, far too often done by reaction to reaction rather than the reading of her original words.

Other aspects - for example the reaction to J K Rowling and her comments on women that were quickly taken as an attack on transgender. And as stated above, in identical fashion - the huge reaction by some was, to my reading, far too often done by reaction to reaction rather than a reading and assessing of her actual statement. I think, I repeat I THINK because I am not surely convinced in any degree - that being trans and having the relevant series of operations and medications eventually fails to convert a male to a female. I do not deny the intent. I do not deny the mindset and the perfectly reasonable statement that the person wishes to be female, to appear female and to be treated as female.

When dressed and out - I don't want to be seen as male. I want to appear and be treated as an ordinary woman. My particular 'differentness' is the ONLY one that I can think of (apart from skin colour and some traditional forms of clothing such as the niqab) where I and my appearance are on public display as soon as I step out of the door.

When did people become so intolerant of different views? To the extent that anyone who even faintly disagrees becomes an opponent, a target of hatred and even vitriol. It doesn’t seem right.

Am I naïve? Foolish? Old-fashioned? Stupid?

Should I hide in a hole until YOU decide I have suffered enough to join some acceptable minority?

So when did YOU become THEY who must be obeyed?

Abusers of Power – I hate you.

Whether you deliver your nastiness by Abuse, Bullying, Cruelty, Discrimination, Extremism, Foulness, Greed, Hate or any other letter to Zealotry - what you begin with 'you hate anyone who differs from your self-written allowable behaviour.

And that means 'Different is Wrong'. And YOU make the rules about what is 'Different enough' and the 'right punishment'.
--------------

Just to try and show that I have been learning to be more politically correct – here is the above introduction rewritten for modern times.

Not recently, in the time of the necessary and essential recognition by the overbearing American elite that the non-elite were at least as important as they were (however poorly the improvements were delivered) – a person steering a public vehicle had a collection of passengers on board. There were dreadful scenes of anger, prejudice, neo-nazi intolerance and (probably) actual physical abuse when some passengers wished to sit where other passengers were used to sitting. Eventually the steer-person suggested in a stupidly condescending manner (having had no proper training from the politically-correct human-relations training department) that ‘folks should just sit as usual and let the bus get moving’. We can all guess how many complaints there were about his comments. And as is right and proper, he was sanctioned, fined and threatened with losing his job for making racist comments. None of the passengers gave evidence for or against. (And none of the passengers changed their behaviour in the slightest.)

I don’t want to get into any sort of argument about who is right and who is wrong. That would get very loud, very ugly and bear no fruit but ill-will.
--------------------------------------

I do want some suggestions about how people with very different views can come to some arrangement where both parties can speak about their views and attitudes. To a place where disagreement is neither denial nor aggression but an honest view that differences do happen. We are NOT equal and because we are not equal and identical then there will be differences.

Any worthwhile suggestions will be forwarded to both the Democrats and the Republicans who seem to have only their mutual hatred and their demand to be in power as issues in common. But neither Democrats nor Republicans offer honest views and allow any acceptance of difference.
Labour v Conservative;
Libertarian v Communist-reality or Fascist-reality or Power-Elite Democracy;
Religion v Church;
Atheist v any Cult/Religion you can think of;

I don't want to go down all the variations of Discrimination and mutual disapproval that such a conversation might develop.

Any similar (how do I say black and white issue nowadays) [I’ll try this] extremely antagonistic situation needs the same eventual determination to be reasonable.

Relevant options might include pro-abortion versus anti-abortion aka woman’s choice versus pro-life!!!!

....Pro-women-priests versus anti;

....Pro-Muslim versus Christian;

....Those who are Actually-Against-p**dophile priests versus those-who-keep-silent-hoping it-will-go-away!

....Those who are Actually-Against rape and abuse of power versus status-quo.

.... Those who think that the Patriarchy and the Monopolies and the System aren't the best system for 'the greatest good of the greatest number'.

I could get more cynical. All I ask is how does society deal with two vehemently opposed minorities? How should it deal with them? Who decides what is ‘right’? Please don’t hope that I’ve got answers to nastiness, hate, intolerance and brutishness. Does any aspect of government actually represent the Silent Majority? Or is it primarily responsible and responding to the most-recent-shouting-Minority/

So away from the general to the personal - I just want to be purple or a little bit different. Will YOU let me be me?

One question - even if you don't like what I do, how I act, how I dress - will you abuse, bully and harass me?

If YOU do something I don't like - how should I treat YOU?

But veering sideways and asking two final questions : –

With the pressure to ‘only talk about what is your own personal 'lived-experience' **phrasing it carefully** so that you give no minority opinions or skews for groups of which you have no ‘genuine’ part [how many tweaks can I use for my language] - can a crime author write about murder if he is not a killer, victim, detective, journalist, friend, neighbour, family or otherwise connected with the fictional story being written.

Can the part of Long John Silver be performed by an actor without the removal of his leg? Is acting allowable or only within the judgment of the
eventual audience? Can there be such a topic as fiction if everything must be solidly based on real-life?