Rachael Eyre's Blog - Posts Tagged "lgbt"
Why coming out matters
It's always revealing when a public figure comes out. Not what it says about them, which is self explanatory, but the wider reaction. In amongst the messages of support and the odd tirade by bigots, there are two comments to be wary of. Firstly, the "Why is this news?" school of thought; secondly, the "We'd already guessed, sticks out a mile" party.
Both attitudes are harmful in their own way. Although "Why is this news?" may have good intentions - in a perfect world, somebody's sexuality wouldn't need to be the subject of a press conference - it carries the subtext that they wish that the celebrity hadn't said it, that they and other LGBT people should shut up and go away. It's the sort of invisibility that's been forced on gay people for years, whether it's being abused for holding hands in public, gay interest magazines being hidden in the shops or doctors awkwardly referring to your "friend" when you've already introduced them as your partner.
Speaking from a position of heterosexual privilege, how can these naysayers possibly know what it's like feeling as though you're the only one in the world? There were no Ellen Pages and Tom Daleys when I was growing up - not some bygone era but the Noughties. Questioning teenagers had to turn to books or TV for their role models. While there were gay men aplenty in classic literature, lesbians were thin on the ground. Switching to TV, I saw my future career paths were either rural vet or embattled convict.
Not only do these celebrities assure LGBT people of all ages that they're not alone, the support they receive lets them know that they won't be automatically ostracised; that the people who matter will still regard them with love and respect. These gifted men and women show them they can aim for the very top and there is no need for them to feel guilty or ashamed.
The other type of sneering, the "We already knew", is equally damaging. Not only are they denying that person agency and the right to privacy - nobody "knows" anything until they actually confirm it - it smacks of negative stereotyping. Nobody's gaydar (vile phrase) is one hundred percent accurate; I defy most straight people to pick a lesbian or gay man out of a line up. If it's tricky enough for us to decide whether someone's a potential love interest or friendly and open minded, what makes these straight critics such experts? The double takes many of us receive when coming out proves there is no such thing as a gay "look" or behaviour.
So please stop undermining these brave men and women for choosing what is right over what is easy, and acknowledging to the world who they are.
Both attitudes are harmful in their own way. Although "Why is this news?" may have good intentions - in a perfect world, somebody's sexuality wouldn't need to be the subject of a press conference - it carries the subtext that they wish that the celebrity hadn't said it, that they and other LGBT people should shut up and go away. It's the sort of invisibility that's been forced on gay people for years, whether it's being abused for holding hands in public, gay interest magazines being hidden in the shops or doctors awkwardly referring to your "friend" when you've already introduced them as your partner.
Speaking from a position of heterosexual privilege, how can these naysayers possibly know what it's like feeling as though you're the only one in the world? There were no Ellen Pages and Tom Daleys when I was growing up - not some bygone era but the Noughties. Questioning teenagers had to turn to books or TV for their role models. While there were gay men aplenty in classic literature, lesbians were thin on the ground. Switching to TV, I saw my future career paths were either rural vet or embattled convict.
Not only do these celebrities assure LGBT people of all ages that they're not alone, the support they receive lets them know that they won't be automatically ostracised; that the people who matter will still regard them with love and respect. These gifted men and women show them they can aim for the very top and there is no need for them to feel guilty or ashamed.
The other type of sneering, the "We already knew", is equally damaging. Not only are they denying that person agency and the right to privacy - nobody "knows" anything until they actually confirm it - it smacks of negative stereotyping. Nobody's gaydar (vile phrase) is one hundred percent accurate; I defy most straight people to pick a lesbian or gay man out of a line up. If it's tricky enough for us to decide whether someone's a potential love interest or friendly and open minded, what makes these straight critics such experts? The double takes many of us receive when coming out proves there is no such thing as a gay "look" or behaviour.
So please stop undermining these brave men and women for choosing what is right over what is easy, and acknowledging to the world who they are.
Weird Girl Notes: Sister, Not Mister
In some of my Weird Girl blogs I'll be discussing issues that affect women, and gay and bi women in particular. Today we'll look at something that happens to far too many of us: being mistaken for male.
The first time this happened to me I was seventeen and working on a checkout. I was wearing the standard supermarket uniform - blouse, scarf and gilet, my name prominently displayed. I was helping a customer with her shopping and she said, "Thanks, lad."
I thought I had misheard, but when she repeated it moments later, I realised she genuinely believed I was a boy. Yes, my hair was bobbed and I wasn't wearing makeup (I still don't), but surely my voice, face and the fact I was wearing a freaking badge with my name on it should have tipped her off?
Once you've let somebody get away with it, it's surprisingly difficult to turn round and say, "Actually I'm a girl." It seems rude, even though they're the ones who made the faux pas in the first place. I decided to give her the benefit of the doubt - she was an older lady, so perhaps her vision wasn't the best. When it started to happen on a regular basis, in and out of work, it went from being mildly entertaining to downright infuriating. It still happens often enough - at least once every few months - for me to be stung, and I never recover in time to put them right. The last time was last week, when I was going through customs at Manchester airport.
The strangest thing about this continued misidentification is I honestly don't resemble a boy. At all. I'm not tall and wiry - I'm below average height for a girl (five foot four) and on the voluptuous side. Yes, I never wear skirts, but my clothes are definitely female clothes: trousers or jeans, smart tops or T-shirts. I favour my Converse sneakers above all other footwear, but it can't be outside the realm of possibility for a woman to wear them. Even now I've swapped my androgynous square glasses for a daintier set, the offensive mix up goes on. I've had people say, "I can't tell if you're male or female" when I've been wearing a dress.
I thought my problem was unique, but when I chatted about it with my female friends, many of whom are lesbian or bi, a pattern emerged. The most frustrating part, we all agreed, is that even when the person realises they've made a mistake, they make no attempt to apologise. One woman had the nerve to say to a friend - a soft butch - "whatever [sex] you might be." While most people aren't as obnoxious, they pull a face that says, "If you didn't look like that, I wouldn't have cocked up", as though their lousy observational skills are your fault.
To put it bluntly: if many people see something other than the quintessential long hair, makeup and skirts of femininity, it doesn't compute that the person they're looking at is female. I was once advised in an interview - by a woman, no less - to wear cosmetics and jewellery "so they can tell you're a girl." Complete strangers think they have the right to critique your appearance; I can't go into certain stores without the fake baked, garishly painted staff harassing me to have a makeover. Perhaps I'm being overly sensitive, but since this seems to happen to a disproportionate number of lesbian and bi women, you wonder if it's a veiled form of gay bashing.
Whichever spin you put on it, this trend isn't positive. In the best case scenario they're ignorant and haven't looked at you properly. In the worst their worldview only accepts a toilet door notion of women and they feel threatened by anything that challenges it.
A common response to my dilemma is to say, "Well, if it upsets you so much, why don't you ..." with undoubtedly well meaning suggestions to glam up. This is playing into the precise prejudice I'm talking about: that the problem is somehow with me, not with society. Why should women have to change their appearance for the sake of a few yahoos?
Stay fabulous, ladies!
The first time this happened to me I was seventeen and working on a checkout. I was wearing the standard supermarket uniform - blouse, scarf and gilet, my name prominently displayed. I was helping a customer with her shopping and she said, "Thanks, lad."
I thought I had misheard, but when she repeated it moments later, I realised she genuinely believed I was a boy. Yes, my hair was bobbed and I wasn't wearing makeup (I still don't), but surely my voice, face and the fact I was wearing a freaking badge with my name on it should have tipped her off?
Once you've let somebody get away with it, it's surprisingly difficult to turn round and say, "Actually I'm a girl." It seems rude, even though they're the ones who made the faux pas in the first place. I decided to give her the benefit of the doubt - she was an older lady, so perhaps her vision wasn't the best. When it started to happen on a regular basis, in and out of work, it went from being mildly entertaining to downright infuriating. It still happens often enough - at least once every few months - for me to be stung, and I never recover in time to put them right. The last time was last week, when I was going through customs at Manchester airport.
The strangest thing about this continued misidentification is I honestly don't resemble a boy. At all. I'm not tall and wiry - I'm below average height for a girl (five foot four) and on the voluptuous side. Yes, I never wear skirts, but my clothes are definitely female clothes: trousers or jeans, smart tops or T-shirts. I favour my Converse sneakers above all other footwear, but it can't be outside the realm of possibility for a woman to wear them. Even now I've swapped my androgynous square glasses for a daintier set, the offensive mix up goes on. I've had people say, "I can't tell if you're male or female" when I've been wearing a dress.
I thought my problem was unique, but when I chatted about it with my female friends, many of whom are lesbian or bi, a pattern emerged. The most frustrating part, we all agreed, is that even when the person realises they've made a mistake, they make no attempt to apologise. One woman had the nerve to say to a friend - a soft butch - "whatever [sex] you might be." While most people aren't as obnoxious, they pull a face that says, "If you didn't look like that, I wouldn't have cocked up", as though their lousy observational skills are your fault.
To put it bluntly: if many people see something other than the quintessential long hair, makeup and skirts of femininity, it doesn't compute that the person they're looking at is female. I was once advised in an interview - by a woman, no less - to wear cosmetics and jewellery "so they can tell you're a girl." Complete strangers think they have the right to critique your appearance; I can't go into certain stores without the fake baked, garishly painted staff harassing me to have a makeover. Perhaps I'm being overly sensitive, but since this seems to happen to a disproportionate number of lesbian and bi women, you wonder if it's a veiled form of gay bashing.
Whichever spin you put on it, this trend isn't positive. In the best case scenario they're ignorant and haven't looked at you properly. In the worst their worldview only accepts a toilet door notion of women and they feel threatened by anything that challenges it.
A common response to my dilemma is to say, "Well, if it upsets you so much, why don't you ..." with undoubtedly well meaning suggestions to glam up. This is playing into the precise prejudice I'm talking about: that the problem is somehow with me, not with society. Why should women have to change their appearance for the sake of a few yahoos?
Stay fabulous, ladies!
An Open Letter to Julian Fellowes: Please Don't Kill Off Thomas
I know what I'm about to say won't change matters one jot; filming finished months ago. But I think I speak for legions of Downton Abbey fans when I say: don't drive Thomas Barrow to suicide.
In the show's heyday Thomas was the servant viewers loved to hate. A kind of discount Iago, he and his equally reprehensible pal O'Brien used to skulk by the back door, sharing sneaky cigs and craftier schemes. We never learned the reason behind Sarah's motiveless malignity, but Thomas's secret torment was soon revealed: he's gay.
Normally I hate the "X is horrible because they're gay" hypothesis. It's cliched, lazy and smacks of homophobia. In this case, it's not only excusable, it's almost inevitable. Remember that Thomas lives in a world where most people believe the tenets of Christianity, and therefore Leviticus. Oscar Wilde's trial was within living memory; if someone with his fame and influence could be destroyed by the legal system, what chance does a friendless working class lad have? Thomas is forced to live at a time where he's considered mentally ill at best, a pervert and a sinner at worst. Otherwise likeable characters tell him his feelings are "foul", even while acknowledging he can't help who he is.
I know Thomas fan girls exist. I'm not one of them. I hate bullies, snobs and hypocrites, and he's all three. But over the past few seasons we've been made to appreciate the loneliness and emptiness of his life. How he hoards letters from a worthless ex; how he craves affection and will pursue men who aren't remotely interested; how at one point he started taking an abortive "cure", nearly poisoning himself in the process.
This past series has seen him suffer one humiliation after another. The staff don't bother to hide their dislike, he can't make friends with another young man without suspicion. He knows his job is on the line but has nowhere else to go. His future looks bleak - and, in the last few episodes he's reached breaking point. If this was a novel of the time there would be no path open to him but suicide.
That's the obvious direction to take. They'll probably try to justify it by saying "Thomas has always been a tragic figure" or "We've always had this arc in mind for him." I for one am sick of seeing gay characters as walking wounded or mere plot devices. In a cast of hundreds, why should the gay character be singled out for misery? We've seen other characters do appalling things - O'Brien, Rose's revolting mother, creator's favourite Lady Mary - but go unpunished.
Wouldn't it be great if Downton could break the mould? If, suddenly and wonderfully, Thomas finds love where he least expects it. If Bertie's cousin, currently painting boys in Tangiers, shows up and takes a shine to him. Or he gets a new situation and finds a likeminded friend. For all the men convicted for homosexuality, there must have been many more who had loving, fulfilled relationships - why should Thomas be cheated of a happy ending? Upstairs, Downstairs gave its gay character a sensitive, convincing love affair, so why can't Downton?
In the show's heyday Thomas was the servant viewers loved to hate. A kind of discount Iago, he and his equally reprehensible pal O'Brien used to skulk by the back door, sharing sneaky cigs and craftier schemes. We never learned the reason behind Sarah's motiveless malignity, but Thomas's secret torment was soon revealed: he's gay.
Normally I hate the "X is horrible because they're gay" hypothesis. It's cliched, lazy and smacks of homophobia. In this case, it's not only excusable, it's almost inevitable. Remember that Thomas lives in a world where most people believe the tenets of Christianity, and therefore Leviticus. Oscar Wilde's trial was within living memory; if someone with his fame and influence could be destroyed by the legal system, what chance does a friendless working class lad have? Thomas is forced to live at a time where he's considered mentally ill at best, a pervert and a sinner at worst. Otherwise likeable characters tell him his feelings are "foul", even while acknowledging he can't help who he is.
I know Thomas fan girls exist. I'm not one of them. I hate bullies, snobs and hypocrites, and he's all three. But over the past few seasons we've been made to appreciate the loneliness and emptiness of his life. How he hoards letters from a worthless ex; how he craves affection and will pursue men who aren't remotely interested; how at one point he started taking an abortive "cure", nearly poisoning himself in the process.
This past series has seen him suffer one humiliation after another. The staff don't bother to hide their dislike, he can't make friends with another young man without suspicion. He knows his job is on the line but has nowhere else to go. His future looks bleak - and, in the last few episodes he's reached breaking point. If this was a novel of the time there would be no path open to him but suicide.
That's the obvious direction to take. They'll probably try to justify it by saying "Thomas has always been a tragic figure" or "We've always had this arc in mind for him." I for one am sick of seeing gay characters as walking wounded or mere plot devices. In a cast of hundreds, why should the gay character be singled out for misery? We've seen other characters do appalling things - O'Brien, Rose's revolting mother, creator's favourite Lady Mary - but go unpunished.
Wouldn't it be great if Downton could break the mould? If, suddenly and wonderfully, Thomas finds love where he least expects it. If Bertie's cousin, currently painting boys in Tangiers, shows up and takes a shine to him. Or he gets a new situation and finds a likeminded friend. For all the men convicted for homosexuality, there must have been many more who had loving, fulfilled relationships - why should Thomas be cheated of a happy ending? Upstairs, Downstairs gave its gay character a sensitive, convincing love affair, so why can't Downton?
Stupid Things Straight People Say
Coming out is the fun that never starts. Since you can't go around with a PowerPoint entitled "I Like Muff", you have to do it with every new acquaintance, employer, doctor ... Maybe you should have a card engraved.
In an ideal world the standard reaction would be "Okay" and carrying on as though nothing had happened. Alas, there will always be dingbats who come out with howlers. The following are all bona fide comments made to me or my friends ...
* "I'd've never guessed / You don't look gay" - What is this? White noise? They behave as though it's a compliment and you'd be mortified if anyone knew - despite the fact you just told them.
* "Who's the man in your relationship?" - Meaning what, exactly? If you mean logistics, that's none of your business. If you mean who's the bread winner or who's the handy one, congratulations. You've committed a double whammy of sexism and homophobia. Lesbian relationships aren't pallid imitations of straight ones.
* "It's a choice / selfish etc." - Are you seriously proposing I hook up with some poor man, never mind I won't find him in the slightest bit attractive, and breed despite having the maternal instincts of Atilla the Hun? Spend my life seething with resentment and having affairs? I'm sure that'll be hunky dory for everyone concerned.
* "You're the first gay person I've met" - You meet thousands of people a lifetime. How do you quantify your data?
* "I never thought I'd be friends with a gay person" - You're not now, either.
* "Don't you have any straight friends?" - Said by parents etc. when you're regaling them with your friends' wacky antics. Short answer: yes. Long answer: my best friends tend to be gay or bi because we have more in common. Like, duh.
* "Why do you write so many gay characters?" - Does anybody ask a straight author why they write so many straight characters? Double standards aside: it's what I know, what interests me and I'm offended by the two dimensional stereotypes in popular culture. There's no gay equivalent to Mulder and Scully, Claire and Jamie - and unless LGBT folk get scribbling, it'll stay that way.
* "I'll never read / watch anything with gay characters" - You've just locked yourself out of some of the best works of modern times. More fool you.
*On seeing two women holding hands: "LESBIANS!" - No shit, Sherlock.
* "Marriage is between a man and a woman" - Sorry, chuck, it's legal now. Whinging won't make it go away.
* "My sister in law / best friend / yoga teacher is gay" - Yes, all lesbians belong to the Grand Order of the Big Pink Dragon and know each other. Bonus points if they try and set you up.
* "When are you getting married / having kids?" - Bless, they're really trying. Now that the laws have changed they fondly imagine we're all sprinting to the nearest registry office and/or fertility clinic. The ultimate equality is allowing us to be as indecisive and apathetic as everyone else!
In an ideal world the standard reaction would be "Okay" and carrying on as though nothing had happened. Alas, there will always be dingbats who come out with howlers. The following are all bona fide comments made to me or my friends ...
* "I'd've never guessed / You don't look gay" - What is this? White noise? They behave as though it's a compliment and you'd be mortified if anyone knew - despite the fact you just told them.
* "Who's the man in your relationship?" - Meaning what, exactly? If you mean logistics, that's none of your business. If you mean who's the bread winner or who's the handy one, congratulations. You've committed a double whammy of sexism and homophobia. Lesbian relationships aren't pallid imitations of straight ones.
* "It's a choice / selfish etc." - Are you seriously proposing I hook up with some poor man, never mind I won't find him in the slightest bit attractive, and breed despite having the maternal instincts of Atilla the Hun? Spend my life seething with resentment and having affairs? I'm sure that'll be hunky dory for everyone concerned.
* "You're the first gay person I've met" - You meet thousands of people a lifetime. How do you quantify your data?
* "I never thought I'd be friends with a gay person" - You're not now, either.
* "Don't you have any straight friends?" - Said by parents etc. when you're regaling them with your friends' wacky antics. Short answer: yes. Long answer: my best friends tend to be gay or bi because we have more in common. Like, duh.
* "Why do you write so many gay characters?" - Does anybody ask a straight author why they write so many straight characters? Double standards aside: it's what I know, what interests me and I'm offended by the two dimensional stereotypes in popular culture. There's no gay equivalent to Mulder and Scully, Claire and Jamie - and unless LGBT folk get scribbling, it'll stay that way.
* "I'll never read / watch anything with gay characters" - You've just locked yourself out of some of the best works of modern times. More fool you.
*On seeing two women holding hands: "LESBIANS!" - No shit, Sherlock.
* "Marriage is between a man and a woman" - Sorry, chuck, it's legal now. Whinging won't make it go away.
* "My sister in law / best friend / yoga teacher is gay" - Yes, all lesbians belong to the Grand Order of the Big Pink Dragon and know each other. Bonus points if they try and set you up.
* "When are you getting married / having kids?" - Bless, they're really trying. Now that the laws have changed they fondly imagine we're all sprinting to the nearest registry office and/or fertility clinic. The ultimate equality is allowing us to be as indecisive and apathetic as everyone else!
Being Gay in Today's World
In the wake of the Orlando tragedy there have been many extraordinary occurrences. People across the globe, straight and LGBT alike, have shown a moving solidarity, holding vigil in gay spaces. Megalomaniac Republican candidate Donald Trump has missed the point as usual, humble bragging that the massacre "proves" his stance against Islam. The oddest, and to my mind, most disturbing development is the seeming denial that this was a homophobically motivated attack.
The worst culprit is Sky News, whose intransigence caused journalist Owen Jones to walk out of an interview in disgust, but this attitude is surfacing elsewhere in the press. Commentators are determined to overlook a few blatant clues, namely that gunman Omar Mateen went into a gay nightclub at 2am and opened fire in what was clearly a premeditated attack. He could have selected any location at any time of day, but instead he chose the busiest gay venue in the area at the weekend. You do the maths.
The cluelessness heterosexual people are displaying - they're unable to see why we feel threatened and upset - betrays the ignorance many have about LGBT matters. They seem to believe that because lip service has been paid towards equality in a handful of countries - marriage here, the right to adopt there - the battle has been won and to ask for anything else is whinging ingratitude.
Let's put the clock back a few years, shall we? I can't speak for other countries, but when the UK population was polled in 1987, 75% of respondents claimed that homosexuality was "nearly always" wrong, i.e. three quarters of British citizens. That's not a misty moment in the distant past but a mere twenty nine years ago.
Shortly afterwards Section 28, the most repulsive piece of legislation to grace the statute books, was drawn up. Brought in by Mrs Thatcher and her acolytes, it banned the 'promotion' of homosexuality, particularly in the context of a 'pretended family relationship'. Though this only ever applied to local councils, schools tended to err on the side of caution, afraid to counsel gay kids in case it violated the rules.
I finished school in 2003, the year it was repealed. During that fifteen years, anything went: you could be bullied mercilessly for your sexuality, your tormentors going unpunished. The teachers implicitly sided with them, suggesting your feelings were "just a phase" or that you should "try not being this way" (thanks, Yoda!) Homophobia was endemic inside and outside the classroom: "queer", "peculiar," "dyke," "lezza" and a million variations were bandied about on a daily basis. It didn't surprise me that dismal lesbian saga The Well of Loneliness was set in Malvern, spitting distance from my hometown.
Although I'm grateful I can marry my partner and we're protected under British law, that isn't the be all and end all of our hopes. We still run the risk of abuse or violence if we kiss or hold hands in public. There are still numerous countries where homosexuality is punishable by prison or death. Organised religion still has a "love the sinner, hate the sin" mandate. People still believe it's a choice or can be cured; I don't know which is more laughable.
People often say: why are you so preoccupied with LGBT issues? Why do you write about them? The fact they're still asking this question in 2016, without any sense of irony, is why I continue this lonely, demoralising and entirely necessary fight. When straight people say 'inclusion', what they actually mean, intentionally or not, is that any differences should disappear ("Why do you need gay bars?" "What's the point of Pride?") There's enough room for everybody, gay or straight, black or white, religious or atheist. Diversity should be celebrated, not erased.
The worst culprit is Sky News, whose intransigence caused journalist Owen Jones to walk out of an interview in disgust, but this attitude is surfacing elsewhere in the press. Commentators are determined to overlook a few blatant clues, namely that gunman Omar Mateen went into a gay nightclub at 2am and opened fire in what was clearly a premeditated attack. He could have selected any location at any time of day, but instead he chose the busiest gay venue in the area at the weekend. You do the maths.
The cluelessness heterosexual people are displaying - they're unable to see why we feel threatened and upset - betrays the ignorance many have about LGBT matters. They seem to believe that because lip service has been paid towards equality in a handful of countries - marriage here, the right to adopt there - the battle has been won and to ask for anything else is whinging ingratitude.
Let's put the clock back a few years, shall we? I can't speak for other countries, but when the UK population was polled in 1987, 75% of respondents claimed that homosexuality was "nearly always" wrong, i.e. three quarters of British citizens. That's not a misty moment in the distant past but a mere twenty nine years ago.
Shortly afterwards Section 28, the most repulsive piece of legislation to grace the statute books, was drawn up. Brought in by Mrs Thatcher and her acolytes, it banned the 'promotion' of homosexuality, particularly in the context of a 'pretended family relationship'. Though this only ever applied to local councils, schools tended to err on the side of caution, afraid to counsel gay kids in case it violated the rules.
I finished school in 2003, the year it was repealed. During that fifteen years, anything went: you could be bullied mercilessly for your sexuality, your tormentors going unpunished. The teachers implicitly sided with them, suggesting your feelings were "just a phase" or that you should "try not being this way" (thanks, Yoda!) Homophobia was endemic inside and outside the classroom: "queer", "peculiar," "dyke," "lezza" and a million variations were bandied about on a daily basis. It didn't surprise me that dismal lesbian saga The Well of Loneliness was set in Malvern, spitting distance from my hometown.
Although I'm grateful I can marry my partner and we're protected under British law, that isn't the be all and end all of our hopes. We still run the risk of abuse or violence if we kiss or hold hands in public. There are still numerous countries where homosexuality is punishable by prison or death. Organised religion still has a "love the sinner, hate the sin" mandate. People still believe it's a choice or can be cured; I don't know which is more laughable.
People often say: why are you so preoccupied with LGBT issues? Why do you write about them? The fact they're still asking this question in 2016, without any sense of irony, is why I continue this lonely, demoralising and entirely necessary fight. When straight people say 'inclusion', what they actually mean, intentionally or not, is that any differences should disappear ("Why do you need gay bars?" "What's the point of Pride?") There's enough room for everybody, gay or straight, black or white, religious or atheist. Diversity should be celebrated, not erased.
Free Promo: The Artificial Wife
Beginning tomorrow and running over the next few days, you can get my latest novel The Artificial Wife for free!
Summer and Elle meet, bond and fall in love. Unfortunately they are artificial humans, or arties, and owned by insufferable academic Robert. What's an AI in love to do?
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Artificial-W...The Artificial Wife
Summer and Elle meet, bond and fall in love. Unfortunately they are artificial humans, or arties, and owned by insufferable academic Robert. What's an AI in love to do?
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Artificial-W...The Artificial Wife
Diary of a Teenage Lesbian
I'm delighted to report that my new novel, Diary of a Teenage Lesbian, will be available on Amazon soon. It's a lesbian coming of age story set at the turn of this century - nearly twenty years ago but thankfully far, far away.
What do you do if you're in love with your best friend? Or when your mum is dating your creepy teacher? Will life always be this turbulent and embarrassing?
What do you do if you're in love with your best friend? Or when your mum is dating your creepy teacher? Will life always be this turbulent and embarrassing?
Everything You Need to Know About Diary of a Teenage Lesbian
* Our heroine, Laura, is thirty two at the beginning of the story, but prompted to dig out her teenage diary by big bro Ben.
* If you're gay, chances are that one of your siblings will be gay or bi. Despite this being incredibly common, I've never seen it reflected in any book or show and felt I had to write about it.
* To non British readers: Section 28 really existed. It was in force from 1988 to 2003 (thanks, Thatcher) and blighted countless young lives.
* I started writing the novel due to the media attacks on trans children, but the recent campaigns against LGBT inclusive education gave it a new impetus. I wanted to show where this damaging rhetoric can lead.
* It's possibly my most autobiographical book to date, with several scenes lifted directly from life. Depressingly, my outing experience was *worse* than Laura's. A happy ending with a cute girlfriend was a long way off.
* Too many YA novels end with the protagonist making friends with their parents' new partner, however much they disliked them initially. This is often impossible in real life - a situation I've hopefully made clear with Mr Cunningham.
* Honey is a female, dastardly version of my childhood cat Jester. Most of her antics happened!
* Although I never explicitly name the setting, you can go to Stourport on the bus, Worcester on the train and Malvern's within spitting distance. It's based on Kidderminster, where I lived aged twelve to fifteen.
* Calvary Hill is a mashup of my middle and high schools. The schools themselves weren't bad places but homophobia was universal at this point. St Blaise's is a mixed sex version of the private school I attended aged eleven to fifteen - and as the novel suggests, that was an even more hostile environment.
* The lesbian themed novels Laura reads are all real, and worth checking out. Apart from The Well of Loneliness. That's a historic artefact only.
* Most of Laura's opinions about various bands/celebrities are similar to my own. I was a rabid Spice Girls fan in my youth.
* The unofficial theme song for the story is Don't Speak by No Doubt.
* If you're gay, chances are that one of your siblings will be gay or bi. Despite this being incredibly common, I've never seen it reflected in any book or show and felt I had to write about it.
* To non British readers: Section 28 really existed. It was in force from 1988 to 2003 (thanks, Thatcher) and blighted countless young lives.
* I started writing the novel due to the media attacks on trans children, but the recent campaigns against LGBT inclusive education gave it a new impetus. I wanted to show where this damaging rhetoric can lead.
* It's possibly my most autobiographical book to date, with several scenes lifted directly from life. Depressingly, my outing experience was *worse* than Laura's. A happy ending with a cute girlfriend was a long way off.
* Too many YA novels end with the protagonist making friends with their parents' new partner, however much they disliked them initially. This is often impossible in real life - a situation I've hopefully made clear with Mr Cunningham.
* Honey is a female, dastardly version of my childhood cat Jester. Most of her antics happened!
* Although I never explicitly name the setting, you can go to Stourport on the bus, Worcester on the train and Malvern's within spitting distance. It's based on Kidderminster, where I lived aged twelve to fifteen.
* Calvary Hill is a mashup of my middle and high schools. The schools themselves weren't bad places but homophobia was universal at this point. St Blaise's is a mixed sex version of the private school I attended aged eleven to fifteen - and as the novel suggests, that was an even more hostile environment.
* The lesbian themed novels Laura reads are all real, and worth checking out. Apart from The Well of Loneliness. That's a historic artefact only.
* Most of Laura's opinions about various bands/celebrities are similar to my own. I was a rabid Spice Girls fan in my youth.
* The unofficial theme song for the story is Don't Speak by No Doubt.
Free Promo: The Governess
My debut novel The Governess is free this week on Amazon!
So if you like love, sex, death and skulduggery in Victorian England, check it out!
It was longlisted for the 2013 Polari First Book Prize.
So if you like love, sex, death and skulduggery in Victorian England, check it out!
It was longlisted for the 2013 Polari First Book Prize.
Publication of Book 666
I’m delighted to announce that Book 666 is now available on Amazon. A paranormal dramedy, it follows our two heroines as they go from enemies to friends to love.
Being a demon is no picnic. Especially when your full-time job is trying to Tempt a nine year old who thinks unicorns are the coolest thing ever. Oh, and you’re expected to give your evil uncle regular updates. No pressure.
But when Meg Wormwood falls in love with Selina, the Guardian Angel at her posting, all hell breaks loose. In fact, it may even mean the end of humanity as we know it ...
Book 666
Being a demon is no picnic. Especially when your full-time job is trying to Tempt a nine year old who thinks unicorns are the coolest thing ever. Oh, and you’re expected to give your evil uncle regular updates. No pressure.
But when Meg Wormwood falls in love with Selina, the Guardian Angel at her posting, all hell breaks loose. In fact, it may even mean the end of humanity as we know it ...
Book 666
