A nine-year-old penned a sweet note to a gay couple after they received a homophobic letter from a hateful grandmother.

Dits Preece and his partner Allen, of Alderney, UK, received a scathing letter after appearing on TV as part of their local station's coverage of Pride month, per Pink News.

The anonymous grandmother who wrote the harsh words had seen them during the segment and scolded them for daring to be proud of their sexuality.

She told the pair: "⁠Did you and your partner see yourselfs on channle [sic] news Saturday evening. It put me and my husband and grandson off our Tea. My grandson asked why that man had his hand around the other one.

"A couple is a man and a woman it always will be. you looked like a joke. You look like a joke (the 2 of you). Try being in the circus."

Preece later posted the nasty note on Facebook, with the caption: "Hi to all my friends, you have to read this. How pathetic they can’t put [their] name to this and how narrow-minded they are. It’s a shame they didn’t enjoy [their] meal.

"Perhaps someone might know who it was. They just need to grow up. Still, you can’t please everyone. Whoever it was I hope you enjoy your next meal."

While intolerance towards gay people - as well as other members of the LGBTQ+ community - is still very much a thing, there are many who will proudly rally around those who are persecuted simply for being who they are.

One particular nine-year-old child is a testament to this.

The youngster - whose name is not known - took the time to reach out to Preece and his partner after reading the "appalling letter".

The letter, which was posted to the No Outsiders Facebook page, reads: "After reading your letter, I was in absolute shock! How could someone be so rude? I think whoever wrote this appalling letter is so insensitive!

"They need to think about your feelings. Everyone is equal no matter what. You should feel proud to be gay and go on television to speak about LGBTQ+. Ignore what negative people say about your relationship because they are wrong!

"They should say positive things about you two because you are amazing! In my school, we say ‘No Outsiders’ because we are all equal! I support you two all the way!"

What a wonderful display of tolerance! It just goes to show that we can learn a thing or two from our younger generations.

Featured image credit: Design Pics / Alamy

The Boy Scouts of America announced today that Girl Scouts will be admitted to some programs, in a major decision changing the direction of both organizations. The smallest groups of scouts, called Cub Dens, will remain all-boys. But some of the larger groups will admit girls, and in 2019 a program for older girls will also open. The BSA's chief scout executive, Michael Surbaugh, said: "We believe it is critical to evolve how our programs meet the needs of families interested in positive and lifelong experiences for their children. The values of Scouting — trustworthy, loyal, helpful, kind, brave and reverent, for example — are important for both young men and women." At first glance, this appears to be an uncontroversial progressive move, right? Well, not really. It may in fact turn out very badly, because one of the biggest critics of this move aren't conservative parents who want to keep boys and girls apart, but instead the Girl Scouts, who fear that the Boy Scouts are trying to totally eclipse them and squeeze them out of young girls' lives. The President of the Girl Scouts wrote in August: "I formally request that your organization stay focused on serving the 90 percent of American boys not currently participating in Boy Scouts ... and not consider expanding to recruit girls." Indeed, if the Girl Scouts already exist, why try to crowd them out to make the Boy Scouts absorb more girls, while meanwhile young boys are participating in the Boy Scouts at very low numbers? It just doesn't add up. Too often, these 'progressive' moves ignore the full picture of human social life, and end up undermining their own goals. I would prefer not to see the Girl Scouts become obscure and disappear because young girls all went to the Boy Scouts. Christina Cauterucci wrote a fascinating piece for Slate in August, arguing precisely why putting girls in the Boy Scouts is a bad idea: "GSUSA has helped girls exercise their power and test their capabilities in a space set apart from the boys by whose skill sets they might otherwise measure their own accomplishments. When girls don’t have to worry about how they’ll look if they perform a task better or worse than a boy, they’re more likely to explore the far reaches of their own potential. They also get opportunities that are harder to find in organizations where boys make up the majority—or even minority—of participants. When girls and young women must occupy all leadership roles, girls and young women learn how to lead." The Girl Scouts also fear that masculine activities will be used for both boys and girls, not allowing girls to pursue their own interests and individuality. She continued: "The 21^st century doesn’t need Boy Scout troops with girls in them. It needs a Boy Scout curriculum that challenges and expands traditional notions of masculinity, doing for boys what GSUSA has done for girls. Instead of chipping away at the Girl Scouts’ membership, the Boy Scouts should heed its example." Yet, one totally gender neutral program also seems stifling. Is it really so controversial to say that young boys and young girls deserve spaces of their own to pursue separate activities in order to develop properly into young adults? Of course, girls who identify as boys and boys who identify as girls should be allowed to join whatever Scout organization they choose. But trying to undermine the Girl Scouts is not a good idea. The Boy Scouts should sit down and acknowledge their place, right? What do you think?

When I was growing up, my first exposure to gay culture came through watching episodes of the sitcom Will & Grace with my mum. Although a lot of the jokes seem dated now, it was the best way for an eight-year-old to understand that homosexuality was a perfectly normal and, above all, diverse lifestyle. You had Will, an outwardly-straight, sober, reserved lawyer who acted as a foil to Jack, who was camp, flamboyant and effeminate. Both characters were flawed in some respects and expressed their identity in different ways. For Jack, being camp (and sometimes attention-seeking) was how he expressed pride in himself and deflected homophobia; for Will, his sexuality was merely an incidental part of himself which he didn't draw attention to and was sometimes embarrassed about. What I took away from that show, even as a child, was that both portrayals were legitimate and that you didn't necessarily have to act "feminine" to be gay. What I didn't know then, is that this same dichotomy, between masculine and feminine, or "masc" and "femme" gay men, has driven a wedge between members of the gay community. [[youtubewidget||https://www.youtube.com/watchv=eYscfzP01WA]] Gay-oriented dating apps, such as Grindr and Scruff, have made it even easier for homosexuals to hook up and, in this hyper-competitive universe, many men have openly made blunt statements expressing their particular sexual proclivities. One of the biggest trends is that more and more gay men are becoming dismissive and hostile towards "femme" gays, to the point of discounting them entirely as potential partners. Instead, many online communities have sprung up which endorse the merits of "masc" gays who shy away from camp mannerisms. For a lot of gay men, especially those who feel that they've had to continually disguise how effeminate they are in public and repress themselves in order to find acceptance, this is a very sore point. It seems to be a case of imposing a pyramid hierarchy upon the LGBT community, with manly-men at the top, and "queens" at the bottom of the pile. I can only speak as a straight guy who has a tangential (at best) relationship to gay culture, but to me, this seems somewhat alarming. I would have thought that a movement that was defined in part by the persecution and bigotry society had inflicted on it would have been a little bit more inclusive. The reality is a lot more complex. [[youtubewidget||https://www.youtube.com/watchtime_continue=2&v=T3Fgk1dRWL8]] Perusing my friend's Grindr account, I did notice a few (though not many) profiles which mentioned things like "masc only" or "no fems". Looking up some of the masc forums, the men on it often expressed a preference for those who enjoyed stereotypically straight things, such as watching sports, working out and drinking beer. Knowing that my friend himself had a liking for straight-acting, straight-looking men, I asked him if he felt the same way about femme gays, and his answer surprised me. He told me: "I can guarantee you that most gay men aren't attracted to camp gays. I'd say that the majority of us prefer masculine guys, 100 per cent." This answer threw me. My friend loves gay culture; loves the camp aesthetic, attending Pride and watching drag acts. Yet he seemed to be saying that, while those parts of gay culture are cool socially, it's a turn-off for him in the bedroom. It's a statement that, in certain circles, would be met with outrage; yet I wasn't too quick to condemn it either. I'm sure that if we were all to state what our physical preferences in a potential sexual partner were, eventually almost all of us would sound bigoted or shallow through omission about something. That's what stating a preference means: excluding one trait to favour another, and the more narrow your wants are, the more prejudiced you appear to be. In the predominantly-liberal sphere of the LGBT community, where identity politics often demand ideological orthodoxy, this discernment could easily be mistaken for internalised homophobia. Is it right to police someone else's sexuality? Isn't the whole point of coming out so that we can enjoy liberty and personal autonomy as consenting adults? But on the other hand, maybe writing off a whole demographic is a little prejudiced. The issue of so-called "sexual racism" is a big debate at the moment. Some believe that finding certain races more attractive than others is a form of prejudice, while others think that distinguishing among partners on the basis of perceived race is justifiable. When I brought this up to my friend, he acknowledged his own misgivings and anxieties about what and who turned him on, and stated that his aversion to dating camp or flamboyant femmes might be an expression of a kind of self-loathing. "Personally, I think that the gay community has a fixation with straight men and 'straight acting' or masculine men, and that fixation has a relationship with the way in which we were raised to understand what it is to be men. We are not comfortable with ourselves, and it would be bizarre if we were because we grew up one way while everyone else that we knew grew up another," he told me.  This cognitive dissonance, between personal liberty and equality, has provoked fierce debate among online commentators. Writing for MTV news, journalist Justin Clay claimed: "I certainly find 'Masc 4 Masc' problematic. The phrase excludes feminine and androgynous queer individuals — a type of exclusion that speaks to a long legacy of internalised homophobia and misogyny both in the gay community as well as in broader American society. Ingrained homophobia teaches us to accept and normalise relationships that fit into a heterosexist framework and oppress queerness, while ingrained misogyny simultaneously teaches us to privilege masculinity over femininity." Clay thinks that by only legitimising masculinity (a very subjective trait at the best of times) the gay community is perpetuating a harmful patriarchal power structure and the sexist notion that femininity is something weak or embarrassing to be dismissed or not taken seriously. Reading his article, I have to admit that his argument seems quite convincing. On the other hand, journalist and blogger Jeremy Helligar also made an argument in opposition to this in The Huffington Post, stating: "Gay men can be obsessive when it comes to categorising themselves, especially when they hit the hook-up grid... Racial markers have practically become the bane of being gay. They limit our gay experience, pulling us apart rather than bringing us to together." Helligar added: "We spend so much time and effort rallying against gay stereotypes, but aren’t we only reinforcing them when we suggest that to desire masculine men is to somehow be anti-gay? ... Equating gay with feminine or flamboyant or camp does as much of a disservice to gay people as rejecting those qualities ... There’s no one way to be gay. Some turn on the camp, while others overcompensate with hyper-masculinity. Most of us, however, probably fall somewhere between the two." Helligar suggests that, for most gay men, one's masculinity or femininity is contextual, based on the company they keep or the situation, and that disparaging gay men for their masculine preference is just as harmful and homophobic. I also found this argument convincing. But where did that lead me? The best thing to take from both these viewpoints is the same lesson that Will & Grace taught me all those years ago: there isn't just one way to be gay. Not only that, but prejudice, even when internalised, can come in many varied - and often subtle - forms. I'm sure that there are gay men out there who are a little (even very) homophobic themselves, and feel superior to femmes because they can blend into the background of patriarchal society. This kind of prejudice is damaging and can do lasting harm. But equally, I'm sure there are plenty of guys out there who just like what they like and can't help that, and it might be a bit hyperbolic to label them as bigots or police their private desires to conform to standards of political correctness. I shared these feelings with my friend, and he seemed to concur, expressing a dualism that many gay men have to contend with. "I think the same impulse that I have to change the way I am is the same reason that I flinch if I'm on a first date and he has the 'gay voice.' I am not proud of either. In fact, I am ashamed of both. But I don’t feel comfortable saying it’s a preference and leaving it at that. I think some preferences, like sexuality or race, deserve to be interrogated and say more about [those making the judgements] than about those under scrutiny." He's right; whether it's a prejudice or a preference it's important that we examine it, even if we can't come to a definite decision, and that alone takes a hell of a lot of self-awareness and bravery.

In the past decade or so, we've seen massive progress in the rights for LGBTQ+ citizens in most parts of the Western world. The atrocities in Chechnya and the Trump administration's work to undermine that progress still remains, but on the whole, society has got the idea, and I think we're definitely better for doing so. With gay, lesbian and transgender people being much more included in our cities and schools, there's a good chance that any parents out there will see their children come out as, or make friends with LGBTQ+ kids. The only problem with this is that the rules we all grew up when we were younger with have changed along with the societal boundaries. Of course, as parents, you know better than to let a teenage boy stay the night with your teenage daughter. It's a pretty surefire way to ensure that you're a grandparent way too early, right? But what if that teenage boy is gay? That evolving idea of parenting is something that a lot of moms are going to have to contend with, and I hope their response is as outrageous (and hilarious) as this one from a mom in Indiana. Meet Mason Brain Barclay from Indiana. As you can see, Mason is a bright young man, and he just happens to be gay. He wanted to be included in an all-girls sleepover at his best friend Houston's place, and I think he was well within his rights to do so. He very easily could have gone along and explained himself once he got there, but instead, he decided to do the courteous thing: he texted Houston's mom to ask very nicely if he could be allowed over for the sleepover. "Hey Mrs Shelton [Houston's mom]! This is Mason Brian Barclay, I am one of Houston’s best friends. If she had people over on Friday would I, a very homosexual male, be able to take part in the sleepover? I think the common meaning behind only allowing the same sex to share sleepovers is due to the typical interest in the opposite sex, when in this case, I do not like the opposite sex. Thank you for your time and consideration, have a great night. Amen." [[twitterwidget||https://twitter.com/maymaybarclay/status/887476263413264390]] What a polite young man. Sometimes, these stories can take somewhat of a dark turn, as the parent in question becomes outraged at the thought of a homosexual entering their home, devolving into homophobic abuse and lots of tears. Thankfully, this is not one of those times. Mrs Shelton is one of the good ones. She's also one of the funny ones; instead of answering in the affirmative and commending Mason for being so darn polite, she instead asked him something way more important. "Hmmm. Well my husband is hot. Should I worry?" [[twitterwidget||https://twitter.com/maymaybarclay/status/909914593522266117]] Nailed it, Mrs Shelton. I don't know Houston very well, but with a best friend and mom like this, I think she's a pretty lucky gal.

A gay man who recently came out to his grandfather has shared the wholesome response he received - and it has left Twitter users in tears.

Make no mistake, homophobia - even in the Western world - is still very much a thing. So, when a young man named Travis came out to his grandpa, people were overwhelmed by the loving response he received.

Earlier this week, Travis, under the handle @chipotletwink, took to Twitter to share the loving text message his grandpa sent him following his coming out.

Alongside two screenshots, the young man wrote: "Finally came out to my grandpa and his response is so [teary-eyed emojis]."

His grandpa's lengthy text begins: "Well Travis, I guess you're saying you're 'coming out'. First of all, our suspicions of this began many years ago, It's not something easily hidden but it certainly wasn't for us to come forth and ask you.

"Your mom is right, we don't care, we love you, want you to be happy and wish you success, and will support you with whatever you choose to do with your life. I just don't want you to sell yourself short."

The grandpa then goes on to say that he is sorry Travis was "afraid" to approach him and talk openly about his sexuality.

"I thought I told you several times in the past that you can talk freely with me about anything that concerns you. Even in 2021 though, this can be a tough path for people to follow. Being heterosexual is much easier as you don't face possible criticism and prejudice."

He then adds that Travis' boyfriend, Enrique, seems like a very nice man, and he'd welcome him over with open arms anytime.

"Love you," he signs off the sweet message.

Since the tweet was posted just days ago, it has managed to rack up 8.5K retweets and over 200K likes.

Travis even posted a photo of him and his boyfriend in a follow-up tweet.

Needless to say, the original message made a lot of people very emotional.

One person said: "I'm going to cry so much right now. wish my parents could tell me the same things, but no. they're radical homophobic."

Another said: "Now I’m crying, my experience was the exact opposite."

A third joked: "Who is cutting onions in here?"

The grandpa also received plenty of praise for being so accepting of his grandson:

And some people shared their own coming out stories:

Overwhelmed by the outpouring of love and support his post received, Travis later wrote in a separate tweet: "the replies under this are so sweet. im glad everyone is being nice to each other [sic]".

Featured image credit: Marc Bruxelle RF / Alamy Stock Photo