Ranting For Redmayne (not Rowling)

Today I am feeling pissed off about the whole Eddie Redmayne / J K Rowling controversy.

Backstory: J K Rowling has been saying stuff and written a book perceived as transphobic which I have commented on before. Personally I see this as slightly problematic on two grounds
(i) personally I think she is less transphobic and more feminist: women are being erased from the women's rights they fought to gain by a movement to avoid trans exclusion
(ii) people are failing to differentiate between trans people and bog-standard liars who are using gender identity as a screen for their wrongdoing (and as this blog is largely about acting just Google the number of films this is an element of - eg Mulan, Mrs Doubtfire, LotR). Yes, it is an unfortunate stereotype but everyone who writes of predatory males and / or nurturing females is perpetuating gender stereotypes but when we try to dictate what stories can or should be told we're on very shaky ground.
Eddie Redmayne played Lili Elbe in the 2015 film The Danish Girl - a role he was vilified for as Lili was a trans or intersex woman at the time of her death. He is now playing Newt Scarmander in the J K Rowling spin-off Fantastic Beasts series. Redmayne has also been criticised as abelist for playing Stephen Hawking in The Theory of Everything (2014) which has been brought up repeatedly in this latest controversy.

Disclaimer: I am agender (biological female) and, in amongst everything else, I am pissed off that there is a new binary here - trans or cis. There is NOTHING in the narrative for agender, non-binary, genderfluid, non-conforming segment of society. These are my opinions from my point of view and I mean no disrespect to others who disagree.

First off...
The interview that's got everyone's knickers in a twist has been grossly misrepresented as Redmayne defending Rowling, as if he were supporting her comments. No, he said categorically that her comments were absolutely out of line; what he also said was that death and rape threats are totally unacceptable, whatever 'provocation' people may perceive. People might try reading the story, not just the deliberately provocative headlines.
I have seen comments not only saying that Rowling deserves death and rape threats because she's a 'public figure' but that she's a valid target because she's rich and white. I am with Redmayne on this: no matter how awful a person may be threatening violence is VILE. Just because a person is 'privileged' doesn't protect them from fear, being able to afford security doesn't guarantee protection from violence. The fact that trans people are frequently victims of violence does not make this okay either.

The criticisms against Redmayne for The Danish Girl...
CASTING
Once upon a time I went for a job as a sales assistant. I had no experience. My mental arithmetic is shaky. I have social anxiety. Did I turn down the job offer saying 'there's probably a better candidate out there'? Of course I didn't! I took the job and by the time I left (to care for my mum) 9 months later I was acting deputy manager!
Sure, actors get paid A LOT more than a sales assistant earns but if they're offered a job expecting them to refuse if kinda loopy. As it is director Tom Hooper claims he ONLY considered Redmayne for the part. Presumably he was chosen for his acting skill and resemblance (although I don't see it); presumably he accepted because he wanted to take on the challenge. 
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/real-reason-eddie-redmayne-was-cast-trans-woman-danish-girl-10480658.html
In a weird parallel I suppose Alan Rickman 'should have' rejected the role of Severus Snape in Harry Potter as he was way too old - but J K wanted Rickman. So they made an entire generation of characters older to match and created a bunch of timeline issues instead. Over the years I have seen some very odd casting decisions but film makers quite often know what they're doing. I am still amused that English actor Colin Firth revealed with some awe that Australian actor Guy Pearce (who I remember best from his days on Neighbours) did a better English accent than him in The King's Speech (2010).
Endlessly bitching about actors 'stealing' a role from another actor is ludicrous. Maybe some people ought to have thought twice before auditioning but a director / producer / casting agent made the most important call.

ACTING
I am really baffled by this attitude that only a trans person should play a trans character. This logic doesn't follow to other criteria. Childless people play parents, vegans play omnivores (see the fake Twinkies poor Woody Harrelson had to eat for Zombieland), innocent people play serial killers... unless Keanu reeves really is a vampire there's a serious lack of creature-of-the-night representation. Sorry, I know that's being stupid but acting is all about pretending to be someone you're not, right?! There shouldn't really be any expectation that an actor is (in any way, shape or form) the character they're playing. Probably because of being agender myself I don't read a character's gender as a defining characteristic unless it is written / played that way.
The only time I see an actor's reality being significant is when it's regarding race as whitewashing / black-face / yellow-face etc need to be things of the past. However, racial ambiguity is also a thing and if someone looks right for the part (especially in biopics) surely that is 'enough'? Colourism and racism within ethnic groups are equally problematic as the more commonly thought-of form.

DANGER OF HARM TO ACTORS
A big cause of a trans-gender person's dysphoria is the expectation that they play a certain role society has assigned to them and this can be the root of deep and lasting trauma.
I saw several comments querying what danger it would pose to a trans-woman actor to be obliged to present as male, to relive their transition process. Certainly there are actors who'd be up to the task but even so it shouldn't be taken lightly. One douchebag person on set could make it horrific; and for that actor to have their former gender onscreen, online, made into GIFs and memes... that's a helluva Pandora's Box to open.
OBVIOUSLY that should be a trans-actor's choice but I feel that the public 'demanding' a trans-actor put themselves through that is a bit much. Different if the vocal opponents are themselves trans-actors who feel they should have been cast. Meanwhile, critics are saying a cis actor (who is at near zero risk from harm in the role) is unable to understand or explore gender identity? That's pretty insulting - do you really expect an actor who plays a rocket scientist, a politician, a doctor or a lawyer to understand those roles? Probably not. Can an actor understand those roles? Quite possibly, actually. People can have a great capacity for empathy and comprehension.

ASSUMPTION OF GENDER IDENTITY
I can't find anything where Redmayne confirms his gender identity as cis/male...or cis/het for that matter. This bothers me because the Twitterati are out baying for his blood because 'as a cis/het male' he should never have 'stolen the role' from a trans-actor to play a trans-woman. He never 'stole' anything - he was given it, and assuming his gender (and sexuality) seems off to me. He could easily be non-binary or genderfluid. Why do the general public feel so comfortable in assuming who he is?!
Eddie Redmayne is 38 years old... I was about that age when I realised I was agender, which tbh I didn't know was a thing until people started on about being cis-gendered. Lots of people 'come out' far later in life, or never. Just because someone is famous doesn't mean we're entitled to know how they identify. Using a masculine name and pronouns doesn't actually mean anything about how a person FEELS. Please stop assuming someone is cis/het 'just because' they're not out 'out' as anything else. they don't have to be. And NEVER 'out' anyone - maybe they haven't figured themselves out yet.

TRANS vs CIS
Over and over I've seen the comment that trans actors ONLY should play trans characters, while cis actors should stick to cis characters.
First up, why should any actor be limited to roles conforming to their gender identity, and once a person has transitioned why should they be pigeon-holed and type-cast as a trans-actor? They should just be an actor, as any other - right?! 
Secondly, if an actor such as Redmayne were genderfluid / non-binary / whatever where would that fit in?! Not to say a non-binary person could do it any better than a cis person.
Thirdly, if gender is not binary (male / female) then it follows that gender identity is not binary either (cis / trans). So who can non-binary actors play??? Who can play a non-binary character?! If I were an actor it'd be nice to think I could 'do' a cis woman. Maybe I'm deluded (I'm certainly no actor) but it *should* be possible.
In my humble opinion the depictions that should be condemned are the humiliating, derogatory ones where a trans or ambiguously gendered character has been used and often abused 'for a laugh'. How the role is portrayed ought, imho, be more important than who played it.

As for criticisms of ableism against Redmayne...
The Theory of Everything covers Hawking's early development of Motor Neurone Disease. Exactly how are you going to find an actor with the right type and level of disability to portray a character before and at the onset of their symptoms?
I should like to see greater representation for disabled actors but I can't deny that there are logistical problems here, especially for a progressive and incurable condition. There are also psychological considerations - how does such an actor cope mentally with 'acting' their real-world traumas?
In a story like Hawking's where he was well known there is also an importance of having an actor play him who can 'pass' as him. Assuming you find a disabled actor who is physically and mentally able to take the role what are the chances of them looking like a particular celebrity?!

TERFS vs Womanhood

Before I begin I want to clarify a couple of things...

First, I am not a feminist of any kind. I am an egalitarian.
People are people and NO ONE should have more rights than another. [all people are equally bloody awful]
I have a bunch of issues with a lot of forms of feminism, most notably the concept of a patriarchy that oppresses women at every turn. OBVIOUSLY there are communities & cultures that applies to but hearing privileged white western females complaining how hard done by they are (while advocating a feminism that has no place for people like me*) sticks in the craw.
I grew up in the UK - born in 1978 my youth was shaped by a very female led society:

• Queen Elizabeth II
• Margaret Thatcher
• Female teachers (out of 4 schools I recall less than 10 male staff)
• Female GPs, ophthalmologists & hospital staff (I had lots of eye appointments in my youth)... fairly sure the only male medical pros I encountered were dentists.

Moira Stewart reading the news, Gloria Hunniford on the radio, Madonna was the queen of pop, women were going into space, I could name more female 80s sportspersons than male (Fatima Whitbread, Tessa Sanderson, Jane Torvill) - it literally never crossed my mind that being 'a girl' was in any way shape or form a barrier to doing ANYTHING.
Yes, I know that's not everyone's experience but why precisely would I have thought men were in charge of anything?!

The second point is that I am AGENDER* (https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/preview/4204385888142636354/5145961804380033180
https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/preview/4204385888142636354/2373217817352024212) - I am biologically female and have birthed offspring from my own unmentionables - but I absolutely DO NOT ascribe to this concept of womanhood, sisterhood, female solidarity. My experiences are my own and not dictated by my genitalia.
The idea that because I have no Y chromosome / am possessed of a uterus / have a tendency to wear bras (or any other criterion for femaleness you might come up with) should have ANY impact on my world view or life experience seems ludicrous.

So what is it that I want to say about TERFs you ask?
Well, obviously I do not identify as a Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist but that is not to say I don't have an issue with the contentious Gender Recognition Act.

First up I absolutely support Trans rights. EVERYONE should be able to live their life free of oppression, hatred and disenfranchisement.
Secondly I absolutely support the concept of gender recognition being de-medicalised. The current system is INSANE.

Personally, I would like to see gender recognition done via a solicitor in the same way as a Deed Poll document changes a person's name for all official purposes. I changed my name age 15 by common usage in 1993 and by Deed Poll circa 1999 for a passport.
Three gender options: male, female, non-binary. Can only be changed every six months or so. Great solution!
This would be suitably easy yet official, and would rule out the principal objections to 'self identification' that a good number of 'women' (who are promptly ostracised from the debate as TERFs) not unreasonably have (more about that in a sec).
What a lot of TERFs / cis people at least CLAIM to fear is that predators will hide behind legislation which is genuinely needed to protect trans people. It is the FORM this legislation takes that needs some proper thinking about. And successive gov'ts have not shown themselves to be any good with the joined-up-thinking. For example, civil partnerships were introduced in the UK without a procedure in place to dissolve the union. 

These objections are founded in fear and habit.
Females of the species (NOT just CIS women) have for generations experienced certain 'special treatments' - women are routinely given lighter jail sentences, women's prisons frequently have far better living conditions than male jails, women are given preferential treatment in domestic violence cases and child custody hearings. THIS IS SEXISM. Even though I or my female offspring could benefit I DO NOT APPROVE.
I have blogged before about this:
(https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/preview/4204385888142636354/2393350157861380543)

HOWEVER, some 'perks' of womanhood exist for solid reasons, such as:

• sex segregated toilets
• sex segregated changing rooms
• sex segregated hospital wards
• refuges

I have no objection whatsoever with an 'actual' trans person using any of these spaces and I abhor people who do have a problem with that. Women can be assaulted by women, men can be assaulted by men. What nobody should want is a scared mum being charged for gender discrimination for challenging the person who only chooses to identify as a woman to perv over kids in the swimming pool changing room. I personally think it is that loophole of self-identification that worries people.
You notice I specify 'sex segregated' here? As an agender person I take no offence at using the facility assigned to my biological gender both for my own protection and for the security of those around me. I do realise that others experience this differently but the point that it is not just for your own comfort or safety is, I feel, important.
I have experienced some odd gender moments - being challenged by a man as to why I was 'following' him (I was walking to work the same route), having a man be extremely embarrassed when I walked in on him in the loo (I was a cleaned, doing my job) - the idea that men feel no embarrassment or vulnerability is frankly ludicrous; they often treasure their single sex spaces as much as women do. Men want to feel some protection from bogus allegations of assault and to feel safe when they pee.

Over and over I hear that 'trans people aren't a threat' and it's certainly true that a trans person is far more likely to be a victim of violence. However, being trans is not, in itself, proof of goodness or innocence.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/seven-sex-attacks-in-womens-jails-by-transgender-convicts-cx9m8zqpg
Saying 'a trans person wouldn't rape' is as dumb as claiming female paedophiles don't exist or that children can't kill. I believe that ALL people need their rights and safety protected as far as is feasible. 

Another issue I have is the erasure of womanhood - even though I don't buy into it myself.
Not so long ago women had to fight to be able to buy sanitary products freely (you used to have to ask in the chemist and be handed a plain brown papered package because menstruation was shameful). I am all for the erasure of the insidious PINK of 'feminine' products (I mean WTF with the pink OUIJA BOARD?! (https://dangerousminds.net/comments/hasbros_new_ouija_board_for_girls) 
Now it's all 'people who menstruate' and 'we're pregnant' and IVF being taught in gender neutral terminology. 
I am all for inclusivity BUT when we're talking about things which are exclusive to biological females being stripped of that recognition is very discomforting.
When I was pregnant *I* was pregnant, not the man whose (ahem) contribution was over in 5 minutes. I've heard IVF dads rant against that use of 'we' when they're not going through all those invasive tests, procedures, hundreds of injections... Obviously there is no simple solution to the terminology but I can see why feminists are pissy.

Women fought for generations for recognition and now they're being erased from the narrative. Cis women are the bulk of female identifying people and now they're being just as 'misgendered' as the small number of disenfranchised trans / non-binary / agender / gender fluid etc people under the previous system. How is that right or fair?!

Agender and Angry

So last night (21:30, 29 Nov 2019) I was on the receiving end of what I consider to be a gender identity hate crime - it has been reported to the police as such.

It started when I was out for a walk. I mostly only get out briefly of an evening, between my daughter getting home from work and when she needs to get to bed. Sometimes my dad will sit with my mum so I can get out for a bit during the day but that's not relaxing - that's time for banking or shopping or running errands. I hate being cooped up inside. I hate that I am regaining the weight I worked so hard to lose (in part) from lack of exercise. That little bit of time in the evenings is so important to me.

So I'm out, playing PokemonGO, when this lad on a bike cycles straight at me on the path - and this is a path about 2m wide so the turd was definitely aiming at me. I moved aside - he moved the same way, definitely trying to hit me - no idea how we didn't collide. Anyhow, I spin round as he misses me by a whisker and gave him a piece of my mind. He's cycling on the path where he has no business to be, cycling at night with no lights, acting like I'M the one in the wrong? GAH!

The row escalated and he's being really nasty and one of the things he says is "if you weren't a woman I'd f*ck*ng punch you" and that is the sort of thing that makes me see red cos it is not okay to punch a complete stranger, even if they're yelling at you (especially if they're - A - justified in their yelling at you and - B - in no way shape or form physically threatening you) regardless of how they present, their gender identity or biological sex.

I don't think you get many feminists arguing that particular point because the 'don't hit a girl' rule works in their favour but it really annoys me. It's a form of misogyny to treat females as weak / vulnerable / whatever. Males of the species are not fair game for mindless violence.

Then there's the just don't go there thing of presuming my gender. I am biologically female, I present (vaguely) as female I guess, I'm okay with female pronouns but I don't feel like I have any kind of connection with the average cis female so please don't call me a girl (especially as I'm bleedin' middle aged) and while I might refer to myself as a woman it's mostly a force-of-habit thing. This is why I am egalitarian (the doctrine that all people are equal and deserve equal rights) - I believe women's rights, men's rights, trans rights, non binary rights are the SAME rights.

So I'm like "please don't assume my gender, for your information I am agender". This was possibly a mistake cos the jumped up little twat goes from derogatory comments about my womanhood and presentation (yeah cos I am gonna dress more 'womanly' to appease a complete stranger who is taking offence at my WELLIES...I mean, this lad was completely NUTS) to full on transphobic shit. Cos obviously he doesn't even know what 'agender' is "What you think you're a man? You wanna be a man?" he's screaming at me - and I swear this is the best bit - then this little runt comes out with "it's the 21st century you're a f*ck*ng woman intcha?!" WOW someone totally missed the memo on gender identity and equality. My 77 year old dad doesn't get it but he's still more clued up than this dipshit.

Anyway, the encounter concluded with him punching me several times in the head and giving me a good solid kick in the ribs. I was bloody tempted to hit back but smacking other people's children is frowned upon. Actually surprised the scrawny little asswipe had it in him - definitely had him pegged as the all-mouth-no-trousers type, not least of his (largely incomprehensible) ranting seemed to have something to do with his mummy. I'll add here that he identified himself as being FIFTEEN - 15 and he's on about his mummy and assaulting middle aged pedestrians for being angry he tried to hit them with his bike...what even?!

So I called the police and made a statement. I don't expect anything to come of it but maybe someone caught something on their dashcam...or maybe it'll get linked to the next person he lays into...or maybe he's enough of an asshole to actually upload the video he was taking of me while he was being a d*ck to me.

If feels weird to have been on the receiving end of a hate crime. Fortunately, although I haven't known the term 'agender' all that long in the great scheme of things, I am confident enough in my own identity to own that identity and not back down from it in the face of jumped up little chavboys who obviously aren't mature enough to be out on their own. What this would do to someone who is struggling with their identity, suffering from dysphoria or insecure about themselves doesn't bear thinking about.

INJURIES

• Swollen left ear & bruise* on bone behind
• Very tender lump on left temple under hairline
• Bruised* underside left cheekbone, down face to under lower jaw
• Bruised* lower left-hand ribs

(* all bruises are felt, but still not visible at 24 hrs)

Not that it matters but as the gender identity abuse because he was belittling my presentation as (he assumed) a woman I'll include here a run-down of how I appeared:

HOW I WAS PRESENTING AT THE TIME

• Hair close cropped (went over it at a grade 6 about a week ago), usual piercings (nose, helix, multiple lobes and 10mm tunnels) & jewellery (copper bangles, mala beads, snake ring), no make up as is standard - I generally resemble a potato
• Baggy dark green tunic under unisex FVK hoodie
• Black leggings
• Black wellies with white spots

Not feminine, not masculine, just Heggie. Probably the most 'feminine' thing about me is the fact I have boobs. It honestly appalls me the shit transgender people have to face and having had the tiniest taste of it I am LIVID at how badly educated even young people apparently are cos if this turd is the future we're all fucked.

Still discovering my labels...

So my (adult) kids were trying to guess my sexuality... UGH! I only figured out I was agender a few years back (updated blog here: https://heggie31.blogspot.com/2018/01/agender-ex-cinderella-and-name-change.html) and given the plethora of sexualities available these days I so very much didn't want to go there. I have been happier to assume I'm straight than that I was cis so whatever.

But anyway, the topic came up last night and there are my twenty-somethings looking at me speculatively trying to figure out what I am when I have no damn clue myself.

So here I am, forty-one-and-a-bit, trying to work out where I fit using nothing but Google and Instagram hashtags to find something that seems to be 'me'.

And I *may* be wrong but I *think* I found it - Heteroromantic Demisexual. 

I can't spell it, I'll certainly never remember it. Kill me.

So the official-ish definitions go like this:

A heteroromantic person is a person who is romantically attracted to a member of the opposite sex or gender. Heteroromantic asexuals seek romantic relationships for a variety of reasons, including companionship, affection, and intimacy, but they are not necessarily sexually attracted to their romantic partners. Most heterosexual people are also heteroromantic. (source: http://wiki.asexuality.org/Heteroromantic)

A demisexual person is someone who does not experience sexual attraction to another person unless or until they have formed an emotional connection with that person. It's more commonly seen in, but by no means confined, to romantic relationships.

When describing demisexuality as an orientation to sexuals, it is often mistaken as an admirable choice rather than an innate orientation. Demisexuals are not choosing to abstain; they simply lack sexual attraction until a close, emotional, relationship is formed.

Though factors such as looks and personality do not affect primary sexual attraction for demisexuals (since demisexuals do not experience primary sexual attraction), such factors may affect romantic attraction, as with any other orientation.

(source: http://wiki.asexuality.org/Demisexual)

RIGHT. So the way I'm interpreting this (and feel free to sort me out if I'm wrong)...

Heteroromantic (nearly forgot that 2nd RO again, dammit) - I'm agender but I'm still happy to identify with she/her pronouns as a biological female so the 'hetero' element doesn't feel problematic. When I look at a cute guy I may have soft squishy feels, not X-rated ones. Decidedly more "I hope they're a nice human, I'd kinda like a candlelit dinner with that one" than "Yes, I would totally boink that". In fact, I only just discovered 'normal' people look at people of their preferred gender (if applicable) and skip the 'I'd like to get to know you' for the '...biblically' bit. Weird.

I look at cute females and have rather different soft and squishy feels - decidedly more "Why can't I be like that instead of an agender potato?!" again, rather than "I would totally go there".

Not ruling out one-night-stands (or getting off with a female of the species) but these things don't seem at all likely. Not saying I'd have to be IN a relationship with someone either, more that I'd have to WANT to be in a relationship with them to contemplate the other. Does that make sense at all?

And that's where the Demisexual bit comes in - I don't get the primary sexual attraction thing like AT ALL. I haven't been single all these years by choice, obviously a huge element is because I'm a hideous potato person who no one looks at that way, but also I am not interested in seeking a meaningless encounter for the sake of getting my jollies. 

Sure, sex is great but have you tried having self-esteem in the morning?! 

Unlike some definitions of demisexual I have (I assume) a perfectly healthy sex drive (TMI? Definitely. Soz.) it's just not so...overwhelming? that I want to do the you-know-what without getting to know someone at least a little bit. 

Looks and personality of course I have my preferences but even finding someone who ticks a lot of boxes by the time you KNOW they tick those boxes you've developed an attachment, y'know? Or at least that's how I work.

EXAMPLE) My most recent humungous crush of which many of you will be painfully aware went like this:

• *sees for 1st time* Who is he? Who is he? Who is he?
• Band member? Check. *looks up name of band* Singer? Obviously. Guitar? Bonus!
• *looks up photos* Damn he's cute in close-up... Hazel-green eyes? Why am I not surprised.
• *reads interviews / watches youtube clips* Smart? Check. Funny? Check. How tall is he? 6' 2", excellent! Pronounces 'scones' correctly? Meh, no one's perfect.

And it was about THEN what's left of my hormones kicked in. I'll happily call it 'love at first sight' but I wouldn't call the attraction 'sexual' per se.

To close, I really like this joke:

Obviously the crux of the joke is that their 'sexuality' is basically just straight (with a preference for smart people they're already bonded with) and I can see why people would be offended by the 'queer' label being applied. As I said at the start, I've spent the best part of four decades presuming I'm just hetero, it's only learning that 'primary sexual attraction' is a thing that has made me realise any differently. I certainly don't see myself as 'queer', not least as that term seems derogatory to me although I know a lot of people embrace it.

Also, 'sapiosexual' is a virtually 'joke' sexuality identifier that is an attraction to brains, quite aside from any zombie tendencies. But it's also kinda true: intelligence is attractive. A dumbass'd have to be hella attractive in other regards...passion for a pet interest can be sexy, for example. Depends on the pet interest though... Dude could be REALLY hot, but then he says or does something incredibly stupid and it's like a bucket of ice on the libido.

Do you ever look at a dumbass and wonder how the hell they came to have a partner / spouse / significant other?! Especially when said partner / spouse / significant other is of normal or higher intelligence. 

EG I have no idea what X sees in Y, what he lacks in smarts he makes up for in nose hairs.

So yeah, I am a biological female interested in males romantically with a view to more. Basically straight but experiencing it slightly differently, so it would seem.

Agender ex-Cinderella and Name Change Schizz...

Apologies if I have already blogged on this but I had a browse of my titles and nothing seemed to suggest I had so here I am.
Also, I have an update so...

AGE THREE
I was a bit of a git as a child. For example, I can't remember ever being unable to read. Somewhere, around age 3 I remember reading something in one of my grandparents' old Readers' Digest magazines about Elton John's 'Candle In The Wind'. This (somehow) led to my mum explaining that Elton John wasn't HIS birth name and Marilyn Monroe wasn't HER birth name. That is when I *discovered* that if you were famous you could choose a new name...so, naturally, I spent the next few years trying to decide how I was gonna become famous. Cos I LOATHED my birth name, even then.

AGE SIX
Boys and girls confused me. Girls, even at that age, were weird and shallow and bitchy. I wanted none of that. Boys were better but I was neither one of them nor able to become any kind of honourary member. This was the start of a lifelong whatever of being antisocial and a bit of an outcast.

AGE SEVEN
The discovery ordinary people could change their names!!! Maybe I don't have to become an author after all...although that would be nice.

AGE TEN
Contemplating the name 'Jennifer'

AGE ELEVEN
My mum sent me (kicking and screaming) to an all-girls school. A cruel and unusual punishment in my opinion. Five years later I'd gone from disliking girls to loathing them outright.

AGE THIRTEEN
Contemplating the names 'Henrietta' and 'Harriet'. Henry or Harry...

AGE FIFTEEN
I discovered the nickname I'd been using for years - 'Heggie' - was actually a *real* name, albeit a surname, and I changed it - by public declaration, on 15th December 1993.

AGE TWENTY
Despite already being 'Heggie' on everything (GCSE certificates, medical records, my kids' birth certificates etc) I had to get a Deed Poll document for my name change so I could get a passport. The name-change laws are pretty daft TBH. Weirdly I've only ever needed it for passports, a cleaning job and a meeting with a solicitor.

MID TWENTIES
I did a spot of investigating and found out that the name Heggie was a branch of the McIntosh clan, originating from the Western Isles (according to my source).

MID THIRTIES
After years of being anything from low-key annoyed to high-key pissed off that I was expected to think, act or FEEL any particular way because of my birth sex I discovered the term 'agender'.
One of my biggest bugbears had been the whole 'sisterhood' thing. No. I am an only child, thanks. I would have loved siblings but my biological sex wouldn't make me closer to a sister than a brother. That would surely be down to personality, life experience, interests etc.
I found the term 'cisgender' particularly offensive because all the time I assumed I was a biological woman identifying as a woman it seemed to be negating a lot of the stuff I'd felt over the years. Turns out the reason being assumed to be cis annoyed me so much was because it simply wasn't me...although I still suspect cis people don't always have it easy. Like you don't have to be gay to have questioned your sexuality.
To me 'agender' means exactly its definition:

It can be seen either as a non-binary gender identity

or as a statement of not having a gender identity.

People who identify as agender may describe themselves

as one or more of the following:

Genderless or lacking gender.

I am not lacking biological sex, I am not androgyne, what I am is not buying into any dumbass stereotypes, or the idea that mentally experienced gender is even a thing (obviously it is for most people but it's like explaining vision to someone blind from birth). I don't feel gender neutral as such...I just don't feel gender AT ALL.
I really hate labels but finding the term agender was liberating to me. Suddenly I understood why I couldn't understand, if you follow my meaning. Gender issues simply made no sense to me because to me it's not a thing. There's biology and how you choose to identify and a bunch of social norms (which are fairly ludicrous TBH) but to FEEL a particular gender? Nope, does not compute.
For the record I am fine with her/ she etc etc, I guess I generally present in a feminine light but I am also not over my mum telling me (as a preteen) that my wanting to wear jeans and Doc Martens meant I was a transvestite. I care not at all what gender my clothing has. I have no interest in chick-lit or chick-flicks. I don't do the makeup thing or nails or hair, particularly for that matter... I have shaved my head more than once. Nothing gets my back up more than someone projecting their gender stereotype bullshit onto me: i.e. No, I will not stop swearing and be more 'ladylike', dad!

AGE THIRTY NINE YEARS, TEN MONTHS AND ONE DAY
After umpteen times discussing my name change issues, often with the disclaimer - "not that it's comparable with your transgender experience" - I suddenly clocked the comparison.
I had chosen for myself a gender neutral name a full two decades (and change) before I identified myself as being agender. Even then it took at least another two years to see that the two things might have been connected.
I don't want this to come across as me trying to muscle in on or try to assume my issues are in any way shape or form comparable with those experienced by trans men and women because I know damn well that it's not but I honestly had never connected the two issues before: rejecting the (girly) name my parents had given me and accepting my gender identity. Asserting my own sense of identity.

Ultimately, be who you want to be. Let your outside reflect your inside if that makes you happy. Not that you have to, of course. Live your life as YOU choose not as anyone chooses for you or tries to dictate how you should live. If the name chosen by people who hadn't even met you yet doesn't fit the person you've become - you can change it. You have the power, no one else.

The Great Loo Debate

I have seen an awful lot on social media lately about transgender people's right to use the bathroom of choice and I want to put in my tuppence worth on the topic.

1a. Gendered bathrooms are a thing we are taught to expect from early childhood, a lot of people are going to be pissy (no pun intended) if expected to do something they are distinctly uncomfortable about. Given that estimates put non gender conforming people at around 1% of the population that leaves a huge majority of people who could be left feeling potentially unable to use public restrooms.

1b. Being uncomfortable about using public bathrooms leads to shy bladder / shy bowel syndrome which leads to issues like urinary tract infections, constipation and even incontinence. I understand that a lot of trans people may well suffer from this but dispensing with segregated bathrooms is likely to exacerbate the issue and become a health risk for a lot more people.

1c. Who have you shared a bathroom with of the opposite biological gender? For a lot of us only EVER family members and people we were otherwise intimately acquainted with. Maybe YOU have a background where you've shared facilities with a range of people but a lot of us haven't and would never willingly to do so.  Also I should imagine that for women of very conservative religious backgrounds particularly this is could be a deeply problematic thing. I'm no expert on religious issues but given that strictly religious women of several failths have to be separate from men in many day-to-day activities anyway this is bound to be a deeply divisive issue which could lead to cases of religious discrimination if segregated facilities were not upheld.

2. We're being told that 'bathroom predators' are a myth but tell that to the numerous men, women and children who've been assaulted in that way. Yes, most people are raped / abused by people they know but assaults by strangers can and do happen; yes, we know same-sex assaults happen but statistically women are more likely to be assaulted by men than other scenarios - and public restrooms have always been considered a high risk place. Girls go to the loo in packs for REASONS, and those do not generally include fear of basilisks.

3a. No one is specifically equating being trans with being a 'bathroom predator' BUT...being trans doesn't make you a good person. Sorry but your identity does not equate to your morality.

3b. How are we planning to ascertain whether someone is trans? Disabled people have to carry ID / radar keys to access locked facilities which they have to have medical proof of their NEED for such a thing (which, lets face it, is an utter disgrace. Adults, especially those with incontinence issues, should not be having to ask to use the bathroom in the 21st century!) - you see someone using the disabled bathroom you can challenge them on their right to do so. What people are REALLY concerned about here is predators PRETENDING to be trans; a system so bogged down by political correctness that a man entering a women's bathroom (for example) is not challenged.

4. Not an issue that is usually raised but...if genderless bathrooms become commonplace / people are not challenged on entering a bathroom contrary to their apparent birth sex it may well also lead to an increase in *ahem* bathroom assignations / public indecency issues and I don't suppose anyone wants that.

Question: if a man in a gender-free bathroom comes out of a cubicle with his fly unzipped / if a woman comes out with her skirt tucked in her knickers will they risk being done for exposing themselves??? These things happen a lot and are usually rectified before leaving the restroom thanks to mirrors / friendly fellow occupants. Mixed bathrooms could seriously complicate that.

I personally think trans people who are undergoing treatment - psychological, hormone or surgical - should be able to use the facilities of choice and being issued with a medical ID (like the disabled version) to prove their case if challenged. Simply saying 'I identify as a man' or 'I identify as a woman' is too easy for paedophiles and other sexual predators to do.
There are few statistics on either but there are likely to be more gender non-conforming people than sexual predators in the UK but this is not about numbers this is about perceived risk. Sexual predators pose a risk and changing how public bathrooms operate will certainly increase that risk as well as perception of it.
It would be a good idea if all new public buildings were required to provide a gender-free FOURTH bathroom type (after male, female, accessible - previously disabled) - being for trans and others such as parents who need to supervise opposite gender children (which can be a major headache, especially if you have an older child with special needs who is not 'disabled' as such). A similar requirement could be put in place that all refurbishments should provide this fourth category of restroom wherever possible. By being a fourth type it would give people the choice, and choice is important - for ALL of us.

EDIT (2019)
I identify as agender and I am biologically female so I have always used female loos. I have cleaned bathrooms for a living and have no desire whatsoever to share facilities with males of the species - even at home! When my stepdad visits I make him use one particular loo cos he pees on the floor!
I was assaulted by a teenage lad the other day for being agender... and that was out on a busy main road - heaven knows how much danger people could be at in an enclosed, private space like a bathroom. Sexual assault, gender assault, religious persecution, an innocent lad getting mistaken for a paedophile because he took his little sister into the bathroom?! The possibilities are endless and while not all are limited to shared public loos they'd certainly make it easier to attack someone.