Bernard Gaynor’s Penis


In the light of Bernard Gaynor’s prolonged and persistent persecution of distinguished transgender army officer, Lt Col. Cate McGregor AM (e.g. Malcolm can’t be a Cate; Some Jokers are real), I propose to follow Gaynor’s example and make a completely misinformed, inexpert, medically and psychologically inaccurate and inutterably malicious ‘diagnosis’ about what fuels his obsessive transphobia.

It seems to me that Bernard Gaynor must have an exceptionally small penis; teeny tiny – infinitesimal actually. We’re talking sub-atomic particles here.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERAStop laughing! You can’t say it’s a novel thought. Just about everyone I talk to about this conservative Catholic failed politician has suggested the same. In quiet conversations over dinner if his name is mentioned, a little finger is invariably cocked and wiggled.

It’s true. The size of Bernie’s dick has been the subject of much back-room chatter on Facebook and Twitter. But, today, I’m bringing it out in the open – the question that’s been on the tips of everyone’s lips:

Does Bernard Gaynor have an exceptionally small penis?

Of course, even if he does, it would be incredibly cruel and insensitive to publicly humiliate Bernie for having a pinky sized pecker. If his member is actually as small as I think it is, it’s not his fault.

Indeed, if Bernard’s love-rod is Lilliputian it’s only because he was born that way; it’s the way God made him.

If Bernie is as tragically underendowed as the social network grapevine suggests, it would be grossly inappropriate to torment him about it in a blog. And really, there would be little purpose. It’s not as if he can’t divert us with a whole host of personal failings over which he does have some control. Gaynor is, after all, the politician who distinguished himself by being expelled from Bob Katter’s party for being too extreme! There’s a whole comedy routine in that alone!



Hmm, ok, that’s no fun. Let’s not.

Lest I be accused of responding to Gaynor’s cruel bigotry against Ms McGregor with an ad hominem attack let me make it clear. I am not saying that Bernard Gaynor is a misinformed, narrow-minded, nit-witted bullying thug because he has a small penis. That would be ad hominem. I’m saying that this despicable piece of transphobic shit deserves a good dose of his own medicine – preferably administered where the sun don’t shine and without lube.

Bernard Gaynor relies on out-dated religious prejudice to rationalise his persistent persecution of Lt. Col. McGregor.  Catholic transphobia stems from a bastardisation of St Thomas Aquinas’ thoughts on ‘natural law’. Based on Bernie’s troglodytic attempts at theology, it’s also entirely possible to misrepresent Thomistic philosophy to suggest that to be considered a natural man, one should be able to view his cock without squinting.

But, come on! Let’s be fair. Medical experts agree that penises come in all shapes and sizes. There might be an ‘average’ but there isn’t really a ‘normal’. Penises can be big, small, fat, thin, straight, bent, stiff, flaccid, light, dark, wrinkly, smooth, handsome or just plain fug-ugly.

It’s a lot like human sexuality really; there’s a spectrum of penises and not everyone’s going to conform to what you might think is normal or natural.

So, if Bernie’s smallgoods put him in a minority, that doesn’t mean he’s abnormal and it certainly doesn’t mean he should be held up for ridicule – no matter how much fun that might be for the rest of us.

Sure, we all have our personal preferences with regards to genitalia (I’m thinking of a particularly fine example as I write) and we’re entitled to our opinions about what is ‘optimum’. But, the fact is, if you don’t like someone’s penis, you don’t have to stand around looking at it, laughing at it, pointing at it and making its owner feel bad about it. Just move on, for Chrissakes – their penis is no more your damned business than their sexuality.

It’s actually been suggested (chiefly by me) that a lot of penis prejudice derives from the Old Testament. For example, Ezekiel (23:18-20), speaks admiringly of Egyptians ‘whose members were like those of donkeys, and whose issue was like that of horses’. Using the logic of religious bigots like Gaynor, it’s entirely reasonable to rip this single quotation from its context in order to argue that having a small dick is un-Christian.

Indeed, using Ezekiel as my inspiration, I may just start a religion which only admits men whose dicks dangle at least two inches below the knee. It will be a small congregation but I’ll be happy.

But seriously, is it really fair to take a passage from an ancient text and use it to crucify someone for a trait they were born with and can’t help? If Bernard’s tackle is the size of a hamster’s and his issue is more like that of a dripping tap than a rutting stallion is it ethical to name and shame him publicly for that?

No! That would be like – well … like hammering someone cruelly and repeatedly for having a medically acknowledged condition like gender dysphoria and suggesting they’re just playing ‘dress ups’.

To continually taunt Gaynor with small prick epithets would be as much an act of uncivilised red-necked bastardry as continuing to call a woman who has made the brave transition from male to female ‘he’, when she has made it crystal clear that she now identifies as a ‘she’.

Yet, perhaps there is a difference. May I submit that to suggest that religiously motivated bullies like Gaynor may have pin-sized pecker syndrome is probably the mildest criticism that can be made of them.

The fact is, Bernie old cock, people (like penises) simply don’t conform to a narrow view of ‘natural’ – neither yours nor mine. And, nor should they.

Now, I have to admit, I’m only guessing that Bernie’s prick is petite. But why let the truth get in the way of a good mud-slinging, eh G-man? I’m sure you won’t consider anything I’ve said here as defamatory. After all, you’ve been making inexpert, misinformed and cruel jibes about Lt. Col. Cate McGregor for months now and apparently that’s perfectly OK.  Besides, Bernie, it’s going to be a bit hard to argue in court that you can’t get a job because someone on the internet suggested you might have a small prick – everyone knows your prick is the least of your problems.

Let me be clear. Men with small penises did not choose to be that way and do not invite or enjoy the ignominy heaped upon them for something they can’t (easily) change.

Similarly, gender is not about the hardware you are born with, it’s about your ‘core sense of self’. And, if that ‘core sense of self’ tells you that you are a woman, despite being born as a male, then you are, in fact, a woman.

And let’s be fair. I’ve had no more access to Bernie’s trousers than he’s had to Cate McGregor’s medical records (the Lord be praised!). We are equally ignorant about the subjects we’re writing about. I readily concede that it’s quite possible Bernie’s penis is no more miniscule than Cate McGregor is a ‘shemale’. (Although, on the basis of probability, I would argue strongly that the former is far more likely than the latter.)

But I have taken no more liberties with the truth than Bernard, himself. Just as I have ‘supposed’ that Bernard’s member is disconcertingly diminutive, Gaynor has assumed (based on absolutely no credible evidence other than religious prejudice) that Cate McGregor is a man masquerading as a woman. With respect to Cate, nothing could be further from the truth, but it doesn’t stop Gaynor rabbiting on with cruel, nasty, juvenile jibes that would put a fifth grade school yard bully to shame. It certainly dishonours the ADF and the Catholic Church with whom he is associated.

Cate McGregor is all woman but she’s twice the ‘man’ that Bernard Gaynor is. And, even if it turns out Bernard’s penis is the size of a blue whale’s wanger, I would still argue that his conduct in respect to Ms McGregor reveals him as a flaccid little milquetoast of a man whose obsessive transphobia suggests he has far more issues with his own masculinity than even a very small penis might engender.

I believe the Australian Defence Force is considering kicking Bernie’s sorry ass to the curb.  They’re taking their time. Does the Australian Army really tolerate this level of incivility and abuse from its members towards a distinguished serving officer? As the daughter of a military family, I had hoped for better.

SelfieMay I also respectfully address Cardinal Pell, and suggest that the church officially distance itself from this travesty of a Catholic who rivals even Pell’s valiant efforts at bringing the church into disrepute.

And Bernie, love …  if you want to quash the rapidly spreading rumours about your wee willy, just whip it out, take a selfie, get a JP to confirm that it’s ‘really you’ and not some penis-double you hired for the occasion, and I’ll gladly publish it here on my blog. Can’t say fairer than that.

Chrys Stevenson

Related News

The Australian – Former KAP Candidate Facing Army Sacking

If you like this post (and who the fuck doesn’t like a post about penises???) you might like to subscribe to this blog. Just click the appropriate link in the top right side-bar.

And/or you can follow me on Twitter @Chrys_Stevenson or send me a friend request on Facebook.

Want to know more about me? (Hint – I don’t have a penis.)  Check out my profile on LinkedIn.

63 thoughts on “Bernard Gaynor’s Penis

  1. Team Oyeniyi

    You are becoming worse (or better depending on perspective) than I am at being outspoken! 😆

    Love it! Do let me know if you post the wee willy.

  2. Di Pearton

    I think that when people like Gaynor are being cruel and bigoted, the very least that they should do, is own it. To stand behind the sanctimonious apron of religious righteousness is definitely medical evidence of a teeny weeny willy.

  3. Kristine Hayes

    Bernie GAYnor is worse than a school yard bully for he is supposed to be a mature male. One day someone bigger than him will come along and put him in his place. The sooner the better.

  4. TheBabelFish

    Hi Chrys, I won’t attempt to compete with your erudition (impressive as always, and quite hilarious) on the point of this prat’s putative puny penis (well, maybe just the one alliterative slash ;-)) but I do want to raise, if you’ll pardon the unintentional semi-pun, a couple of related topics.

    Firstly, what’s in a name? As far as I’m concerned, in the case of a given, or chosen name, not very much. It is primarily a self-identifier, many people choose nicknames for themselves, it’s not a big deal and is an entirely private matter. I’d be much more concerned if the name the good Lieutenant Colonel wished to change was ‘McGregor.’ Because, as a Scot, I have to tell you that is a clan name, and as such it means everything. Not merely personal identity, but history, connection, blood and belonging. It reveals not only who your ancestors were, but also the ‘country,’ to use the term in the indigenous sense, to which you belong. Lose touch with that and you are truly lost. I’ll give an example.

    Back in the days when John Howard was PM and the issue of the ‘stolen generations’ was occupying many of us, he said that we are in no way responsible for the actions of our ancestors. I was appalled. Aboriginal people did not understand how he could say that, and as a Celt I completely get why they didn’t understand. We can no more disown our ancestors than they could disown us. To me it was a shameful and disgraceful thing to say. Call me Derek, Del, Den, Des, I’ll answer to pretty much anything starting with D. Indeed a number of my friends do call me ‘D,’ and I’m fine with that. But I AM a MacPherson. I carry it with pride. Get that right, or I WILL be offended. Seriously.

    Q. And how do you spell that?
    A. Correctly!

    The other thing I want to explore is the matter of ‘Transphobia.’ To be honest I doubt whether it actually constitutes a thing in itself, I suspect it is really just another aspect of homophobia, and that’s what I want to discuss. Both clothe themselves, as you indicated, in (more than usually) perverted theology. As has been pointed out before, it is doubtful whether theology even qualifies as a real subject, but that’s not my point. Some religiously-minded people will of course apply it in justification of their own phobia, but I suspect such phobias have their roots elsewhere. Sexuality, like politics, is not a black and white, yes or no issue. It is a spectrum. There are as many points on that spectrum as there are people on the planet, so I’ll have to dip briefly into the murky world of statistics, and say that, as with most spectra, you could plot it on a graph, and it would produce a bell curve. The fact that it’s a bell curve is indicative of the fact that, as with politics, few people are at the extreme ends of that spectrum, and most are somewhere in between. Which is why it looks like a bell when you plot it. Let’s imagine we’ve plotted such a graph, and that the ends of it are characterised as ‘100% gay’ and ‘100% straight. Anecdotally we might surmise that, unlike the political bell curve, where almost by definition the high point of the curve defines the dead centre of the spectrum, the sexuality curve is probably somewhat skewed towards the heterosexual end. More people define themselves as straight. We know this. However, like any other such spectrum, the numbers of people beyond the 95th percentile, either way, are really quite small.

    Now, to explain the next bit, I suppose I’ll have to come out. Here, on your blog. Bit of a coup, don’t you think? I am one of that small number at the extreme end of the spectrum. The straight end. I am an unequivocally heterosexual man. There, I’ve said it. And my experience of living that reality is that I am entirely secure in my own sexuality, and entirely unthreatened by anyone else’s. I couldn’t, to be frank, give a toss (sorry, some puns are just too hard to resist) about anyone else’s sexuality. It concerns me not a jot. I have long suspected that the people who are threatened by the sexuality of others, the homophobes, are those who are not secure in their own sexuality, who are closer to the middle of the bell curve and consequently are internally conflicted about it. That’s where prejudice comes into it. They hate what they fear, they fear what they don’t understand, and what they don’t understand is essentially themselves, their own feelings and desires.

    Now, although I’ve long suspected this, last month I actually found the empirical evidence to back up my suspicion. I would have posted this last night, but I realised I’d neglected to bookmark it, so I had to spend several hours trawling through hundreds of my own tweets to find it. What they did was to get a bunch of men who self-identified as straight and gave them a questionnaire to determine whether they were or were not homophobic (the test they used for this is referenced in the article, which was published in the journal ‘Psychology Today’). Turns out the homophobes slightly outnumbered the non-homophobes, but that may not be entirely representative as the sample was not very large. Then they fitted them with a device which measured subtle changes in the circumference of their penises and had them watch three 4 minute sex videos, one featuring a man and a woman, one with two women and one with two men. All of these self-identified heterosexual men were somewhat aroused by the first two videos, but only and exclusively the homophobic men showed any sign of being sexually aroused by the third video. And all of them showed this, all of them. That is so clear cut that it cannot possibly be explained even by the relatively modest sample size.

    So I’m calling it. My theory is correct, the evidence is in. Homophobic men, most if not all homophobic men, are men who are conflicted in their own sexuality by unresolved same-sex attraction. See for yourselves folks:

  5. TheBabelFish

    Question. #IsItOK to refer to this hateful man as Bernie ‘Gloria’ Gaynor? Just because she is the only ‘Gaynor’ I’ve ever heard of, and because it would probably really annoy him.

  6. palmboy

    Mr Gaynor is an extremist who needs to get perspective and balance in his life. Thankfully more of society is seeing people who make ridiculous accusations like his, as fringe radicals who only do harm to their moral causes.

    Chrys, I love your angle of taking scripture and interpreting it for your gain (just as extremist nutters do):
    Many would like your thought of using “Ezekiel as my inspiration, I may just start a religion which only admits men whose dicks dangle at least two inches below the knee.”

    BTW – how big is a blue whales whanger??

  7. Theevilcarot

    Wow, I love how if you disagree with someone it’s okay to call them names like bigot. So much for freedom of speech in this country. I guess the only people who can talk are those that have the same view as you.

    1. Gladly, the Cross-Eyed Bear: Assorted Rants on Religion, Science, Politics and Philosophy from a bear of very little brain Post author

      Bernard Gaynor is a bigot. It’s not a name, it’s a description. Please tell me how I have infringed on Mr Gaynor’s freedom of speech? Have I called for him to be silenced? Have I organised for him to be thrown in jail? Have I asked his ISP to remove his blog? No. Instead, I have turned the tables on Mr Gaynor to show him up for what he is – cruel, misinformed, bigoted and, quite frankly, a ridiculous figure who has isolated himself at the fringe with his extreme views.

      Freedom of speech does not imply freedom from criticism. The level of malicious ignorance displayed by Gaynor begs for the kind of criticism I’ve made here.

      Gaynor’s persecution of Lt Col McGregor is a particular kind of evil. Do you imagine if Jesus Christ were alive on earth today that he would spend his days maliciously attacking someone whose choice of gender makes no difference to anyone’s freedom or quality of life? Do you think Jesus would approve of publicly maligning someone in a way that causes them pain? Is there any evidence of Jesus using this approach in the New Testament.

      Gaynor calls himself a Christian but he is an embarrassment to Christians of goodwill and another nail in the coffin of a Catholic Church whose international reputation is already in tatters.

    2. Marty

      There is nothing, no law, preventing Gaynor from expressing his bigoted opinion, just as there is nothing, no law, from preventing free criticism of that bigoted opinion. I find it ironic that you would criticise that free criticism, an aspect of free speech, by referring to it as an attempt to prevent free speech, when in fact no speech was censored or blocked in any way. This article, in and of itself, is also freedom of speech. So, what exactly is your problem?

  8. Anthony

    [Note from CS: I would not normally publish this kind of comment but I have allowed a heavily redacted version in order to reply. I do not allow homophobic comments on my blog because of the untold harm they cause to young gay people in particular. I also do not allow personal abuse or grossly incorrect bigoted comments.]

    Do you think of yourself as a hilarious individual Chrys? Or are you another gayboy sticking up for … Mcgregor [redacted due to insulting comment]. You obviously have an affinity for the male genitalia, I suppose you frequent areas where vulnerable male teenagers like to mix together as well do you not? [Redacted] But really, it is homosexuality which you clearly support. You are a disgusting, filthy flog of an individual. You try to ridicule Mr. Gaynor but instead you succeed in showing yourself to be an uneducated typical screaming anti-homophobia gay angel aren’t you? [Redacted].

    1. Gladly, the Cross-Eyed Bear: Assorted Rants on Religion, Science, Politics and Philosophy from a bear of very little brain Post author

      Point 1:

      Now that we’ve established that I’m a straight, middle-class, middle-aged female ….

      Point 2: No, Anthony, I think of Gaynor has an hilarious individual though, does that help?

      Point 3: You are correct. NOT being gay, I have a tremendous affinity for male genitalia – well, one set, anyway.

      Point 4: Uneducated? 10 years at university, Bachelor of Arts, First Class Honours, University Medal for Academic Excellence, two scholarships to do my PhD and a semester’s study on the sociology of homosexuality (High Distinction).

      Point 5: Fuck off, Anthony – and if you find this puzzling, read my Moderation Policy:

  9. Lou

    Chrys, I feel sorry for you. Call yourself an academic and stoop to childish stuff like this? Pathetic. Bernard Gaynor is one of the few decent people around who has the balls (which perhaps you envy??) to say what needs to be said.

    1. Gladly, the Cross-Eyed Bear: Assorted Rants on Religion, Science, Politics and Philosophy from a bear of very little brain Post author

      Ah, Anthony’s wife, I take it? Don’t be sorry for me, Lou. I’m pretty sure my significant other doesn’t harbour homo-erotic fantasies. Yours, however, I’d be concerned about given a recent study from the University of Georgia: This is the second study to make this finding.

      1. John. K. Hart

        You place such store on rainbow science. You should place more faith in flower arranging. Homosexuality is not a state of being – the term describes a behaviour. There is no such thing as a closet gay. A person who may feel inclined to steal is not a thief unless he thieves. A oerson is not gay unless he practices that behaviour. If a person is attracted to a member of the same sex it’s not a problem unless it leads to disordered sexual behaviour. Is there anything wrong with chaste love between members of the same sex? If Lou’s spouse is like most husbands, which I have no doubt he is, he would be oriented towards women. If he loves her, and again I have no doubt he does, his love will be exclusive and faithful. But what if he did have some same sex attraction, meaning a bisexual aspect? Would he then be more likely to betray her love and if so, why? I think you need to gather your thoughts. I hope for your sake that your house isn’t as disorderly as your thought processes. The least you can do for your “significant other” is keep it tidy. You’re pretty sure, you say, that you’re SO doesn’t harbour any homo-erotic fantasies. You’re very sure of yourself, my dear, but your SO is not you. Can you be certain? And if he did have homo-erotic fantasies would it bother you? What if he turned to be a half Colonel McGregor and wanted to dispense with his bits and pieces and inveigle you into a “lesbian” relationship? How would you feel about that? It’s okay, darling, you can answer honestly. Promise we won’t judge you harshly and call you a homophobe if you don’t like the idea.

  10. Pingback: I get mail … | Gladly, the Cross-Eyed Bear

  11. R.M. Prospect

    Does the word hypocrite appear in your CV? You Madam, are a despicable, foul dissembler.

    So you have a BA? Is that really anything to boast about? I’ve never seen anyone make such a fuss about possessing one as you do. Is it the only thing you have going for you?

    Honestly, it doesn’t require much in the way of intelligence to obtain a BA. It would be far more impressive if you had a ticket to operate an excavator or a bob cat. You’d be more wealthy then, too, in terms of money and morality.

    Your topic here, Bernard Gaynor, is a very decent human being – vastly different from the mealy potted mouthed variety of the species personified by you and Lt. Col. Malcolm McGregor. He is pleasant, well mannered, highly competent and respected by real soldiers. Most service personnel would prefer to serve with Major Gaynor than your
    anti-hero McGregor and his fellow homosexuals and transsexuals. That may come as news to you but do the research and the facts will become manifest.

    Major Gaynor is also the father of five children so there is no question about his fertility But what about you? Do you have any children? I suspect not given that you have so much time to waste on your obtuse, opaque rants.

    I would hope that you are childless. Kids are entitled to decent role models – pity help any that fall under your influence.

    Women like you were once only found in back streets and slums, but in those times there was an excuse because they were economically, culturally and educationally deprived. They didn’t choose to be cheap, nasty, unappealing caricatures of womanhood. You do. And that rather aptly sums you up. You’re fast becoming an anachronism. Most women are not like you and have no desire to be.

    You obviously think you are funny and intelligent. Get some insight – you are neither.

    1. Gladly, the Cross-Eyed Bear: Assorted Rants on Religion, Science, Politics and Philosophy from a bear of very little brain Post author

      I am actually rather proud of my BA and my first class honors degree. I worked bloody hard to maintain a 6.7 out of 7 grade point average and win the University Medal for Academic Excellence, the Patience Thoms Scholarship, an APAWS scholarship and a Griffith University scholarship.

      Thank you for your comment. Your outraged pomposity has brightened my evening. You seem rather anachronistic. I’m imagining you in mid-19th century garb with a whopping handle-bar moustache and florid cheeks. I can hear you bellowing, “You, madam, are no better than a common whore!” before trotting off to bonk the scullery maid or count the hundreds of pounds you were raking in as a slum lord.

      But maybe my imagination is running away with me. Maybe, like Bernie, you’re just an ordinary old windbag with a very small prick.

  12. Aienna

    There’s something disturbing about a woman your age discussing the penis size of a much younger man. There are some desires that are not desirable. Your SO must be very familiar with that feeling.

    You are quite odd – distasteful and disgusting and you are no work of art but you have the yuk factor which explains your few yukky fans.

    1. Gladly, the Cross-Eyed Bear: Assorted Rants on Religion, Science, Politics and Philosophy from a bear of very little brain Post author

      Oh, thank you so much for a great laugh! What is the cut-off age for a 55 year old commenting on the size of a man’s penis? Is there something about it in the Bible? I missed it in the 10 Commandments.

      In general sexual desires played out between consenting adults hurt no-one. And, frankly they are none of your business.

      You are absolutely entitled to think some sexual practices are ‘yukky’ or even immoral. But what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms has no impact whatsoever on you and your life.

      But thank you, Aienna, you are good for my reputation. You make me sound a lot raunchier and edgier than I really am. And, you know what? As long as I have the respect and support of my ‘yukky fans’ I can do without the approval of you and your little mate, Bernie.

    2. Gladly, the Cross-Eyed Bear: Assorted Rants on Religion, Science, Politics and Philosophy from a bear of very little brain Post author

      Aienna, I spammed your last comment. You get to say mean stuff about me. I think it’s funny. But I won’t publish mean-spirited, misinformed, hateful comments about homosexuals on this blog. Perhaps before you spread any more of your nastiness you might think of the number of young homosexuals who commit suicide because of the toxic cultural atmosphere you and your kind create. I won’t have this blog add to that in any way.

    3. Marty

      There’s nothing disturbing about a consenting adult woman of any age discussing the penis size of a consenting adult male. But, I have it on good authority (read: observation) that you kinda missed the point of the article.

      Perhaps you should leave legitimate intellectual literary and character criticism to people with the brain capacity to determine the difference between “your” and “you’re”, however, just in case people notice you aren’t as smart as you think you are.

      As for “yukky fans”…

      I think the author’s “yukky fans” have miles more intelligence, integrity and fundamental humanity than Gaynor’s conservative, prudish and religiously fundamental ones. However, as long as you’re here trying to defend Gaynor’s penis, I will help to clarify the primary point of this article for you. Paint a picture, so to speak.

      The sexuality of another person with consenting adults is none of your business, and the only people who seem to be concerned about said sexualities of other people are the conservative, prudish and religiously fundamental minority of this particular nation. This article wouldn’t exist if people like Gaynor and his defenders simply started minding their own business. Riddle me this: why is Gaynor so interested in what goes on behind closed doors when the clothes come off?

  13. M.E. In The 21st Century

    Loving your replies Gladly.
    You are far kinder than I will be when these morons begin attacking me
    Some people have nothing better to do with their time.
    One hand on their keyboard, other hand,,,where???

    1. James

      You are a decrepit old tart, Chrys. And with all your high falutin qualifications from Griffith College of Tafe I’ll bet you’re still on welfare. Keeping your pecker up by embarrassing yourself with a drivelling rant about how big you imagine the penis of a young man to be is more than pathetic. Bernard Gaynor is young enough to be your son. You left it too late to get in the groove. This is the digital age. 45 ‘s and LP’s are museum pieces like you.

      1. Marty

        So…. Gaynor is just some kid now instead of the adult with a bunch of kidlets of his own? Good to know, that explains why he isn’t as educated as we’d expect him to be.

  14. James

    Bernard Gaynor is a decorated army officer, returned soldier and father of five. He is 33 years old, the age at which Jesus Christ was crucified. He is well educated enough for the Australian Army to employ as an intelligence officer.

    The issue here is not Bernard’s age, but Chrys Stevenson’s. As has been pointed out she is old enough to be his mother and old enough for her interlocuters to expect a degree of maturity. A vain expectation.

    A 55 year old woman who carries on like a school girl with a “dirty” secret is not in the least edifying. Of course she has a perfect right to behave like a fool if she wants to, but it doesn’t mean she is right in doing so.

    1. Marty

      Funny you should mention that. My father is a decorated army officer, returned soldier and father of 3. He is 52 years old, achieved more service experience and a higher rank than Gaynor before retiring in comfort and style. He thinks Gaynor is a complete and utter mark of shame on the armed forces, as do many of his peers in senior command positions.

      YOUR issue, and only your issue, is anything to do with age. An anything-year old who is capable of maintaining a youthful nature is, in my opinion, a very happy person. I do believe I sense naught but jealousy from you.

      Perhaps there’s some deep secret you’re hiding that presses you to defend Gaynor’s penis?

  15. James

    My father now deceased was a decorated member of the Australian Army Training Team Vietnam, the most highly decorated unit in Australia’s military history. He has his own memorial tree at Canungra Jungle Training Centre.

    He would have approved of Bernard Gaynor, just as Brigadier Jim Wallace, former CO of the Special Air Service Regiment approves of him. Just as the vast majority of serving ADF personnel approve of him.

    I don’t believe a word of your fanciful officer father tale and nor will any other serving or retired defence force member. It was merely a ploy to shift the spotlight from the old TAFE student and it isn’t working.

    Krys Stevenson has made a fool of herself and your attempt to play the chivalrous white knight is like Don Quixote tilting at windmills. The issue remains the standard of behaviour expected of women the age of Rosinante.

    1. Marty

      “I don’t believe a word of your fanciful officer father tale”

      I don’t expect you to, as you shouldn’t expect me to believe yours.

      Also, Jim Wallace is a bigger crackpot than Gaynor.

      Also, Griffith isn’t TAFE. Pretending you’re better because you went somewhere you think is better is referred to as elitism. I guarantee you Chrys is more than twice the whatever you are.

      The thing is, what you think is a standard of socially acceptable behaviour for women of a certain age does not and never did apply. There is no such thing, it is a myth concocted by men in order to maintain control. What’s actually happening is, you’re projecting the foolishness you feel at witnessing a human being, an individual, who happens to be a woman of a certain age, act like an individual. That is, someone who doesn’t bow to what is a standard of socially acceptable behaviour.

      Because the only people she is really upsetting are those that are under the illusion that there is a standard of socially acceptable behaviour that exists somewhere outside of what is acceptable by law. I’m afraid the law doesn’t cover how old you are required to be to discuss the penis size of an adult male that is of consenting age. Your problem here, my friend, is your problem alone.

      1. Marty

        “That is, someone who doesn’t bow to what is a standard of socially acceptable behaviour.”

        I forgot to add that, as a result, the foolishness you feel is the result of you not having the control you expect to have as a male. Your archaic ideas of women have no place in the 21st century. They had no place in any century but alas, humanity in all its ‘wisdom’ allowed such myths to perpetuate for far too long, and hangers on such as yourself are merely afraid to let go.

  16. James

    You may wish for a world without standards but most people don’t. I’m quite happy for women to set their own standards and by and large they do and always have.

    Chrys Stevenson’s standards are lower than most women of similar socio-economic cultural background. One could call her a poor woman’s Catherine Deveny.

    You mention the law. Interesting that you don’t find the idea of law anachronistic.

    I might observe that individuals like you and Chrys Stevenson are essentially walking violations of the laws of nature. Now our courts don’t enforce those laws but nature has a universal jurisdiction and it will catch up with you sooner or later.

    Just a tip. When it does don’t represent yourself – hire a seasoned advocate. You’ll need one!

      1. Marty

        I expect the aggression is actually a sign of affection, as it so often is amongst males too uncomfortable to either admit they like you, or too afraid of a more direct approach.

    1. Marty

      No, don’t visit your mindless fallacies on me. I never said anything about a world without standards. I pointed out that your idea of standards for women of a certain age don’t apply.

      The law applies to choices that people make that require the enforcement of either restorative or punitive consequences. I would like to see you TRY to apply a law to these ‘standards’ you think exist.

      “you and Chrys Stevenson are essentially walking violations of the laws of nature.”

      Substantiate this please. Substantiate how we violate the laws of nature. Please ensure you include which laws apply, use any knowledge of physics, chemistry and biology at your disposal and don’t forget to show your work! Then explain how violating the laws of nature doesn’t have immediate consequences (ie jumping off a building, the laws of gravity are applied immediately).


      1. TheBabelFish

        Marty, you’ve reminded me of an article I read many years ago, by a motorbike enthusiast. He wrote, “30mph – that’s a rule, and as we all know, rules were made to be broken. Gravity – that’s a law. You have to obey the laws.”

        Speaking of which, these people who speak so much of laws, natural or otherwise, seem to have forgotten something I’d have expected them to be well aware of: MAJOR Gaynor’s attacks on Lt COLONEL MacGregor constitute gross insubordination, and if I was him I’d remove them as quickly as possible, lest I find myself facing a Court Martial.

  17. TheBabelFish

    And to James, and your fellow travellers, I confess I am somewhat surprised to find myself here once more, commenting on what is now quite an elderly article. Why are you still arguing, when I definitively ended this discussion on the 30th of September last year? Really, if you are going to get involved in such a debate, the least you could do is to familiarise yourself with what has already been said. If you take five minutes to go back and read my earlier post, you will see that I have conclusively shown that your discomfort with (and frankly disturbingly obsessive interest in) what other people do in the privacy of their own homes is a result of the conflict between your chosen concept of ‘morality’ and your own unresolved same sex attraction issues. I suggest you go away and make a start on resolving them, and keep your noses out of other people’s business, in which you have absolutely no legitimate interest.

  18. James

    BTW Babelfish an order commanding a soldier to acknowledge a man as a woman is an infringement of his human rights. Refusing to obey an unethical order is not insubordination.

    Moreover, every charge levelled against Major Gaynor has been unable to be substantiated and they have all been withdrawn. You obviously don’t know that insubordination is wilfully disobeying the order of a senior officer.

    Thus Major Gaynor’s comments about Lt.Col McGregor do not represent insubordination.

    You should research the facts before presenting yourself as a grossly ignorant correspondent.

      1. Marty

        If you’ve got accurate statistics, James, then you can show us where they came from, how, and what they represent. It’s called citing your sources, backing up your claims. Just stating that they’re accurate does not prove to us that they are. Who are you that your word alone should mean any more than half a fuck to anyone?

    1. TheBabelFish

      James, I did have time to glance at your other post (but not to respond to it, I’m not usually available for comment during business hours) before it was removed. It contained an utterly ludicrous assertion, the offensive nature of which got the comment bumped. You made no attempt whatsoever to back up said assertion by reference to any credible source. Or indeed any source at all (hint: you are NOT a credible source). I, on the other hand, did back up my assertion about people like you (the one I made in September) with a reference to a peer-reviewed study published in an extremely reputable professional journal, Psychology Today. So I maintain, YOU are suffering from a condition known as cognitive dissonance, due to the conflict between your adopted value system and your unresolved same sex attraction issues. The best advice I can give you is to seek professional help in dealing with this difficult condition.

      You also made a few personal comments about me, which I must admit did give me a good chuckle. If by ‘weirdo’ you actually mean ‘person much more intelligent than you,’ then yes, I’m a real weirdo. As are Chrys, Marty and several other people who also dismissed your ridiculous and offensive comments.

      Now, on your remaining post, you say,
      “an order commanding a soldier to acknowledge a man as a woman is an infringement of his human rights. Refusing to obey an unethical order is not insubordination.”
      Wrong. This is a seriously confused paragraph. Refusing to obey an ILLEGAL order is not insubordination. Ethics, on the other hand, are an individual matter. Many people would consider it unethical to shoot someone for instance. Clearly the army would not share that view, or it would scarcely be able to function. Serving members of the armed forces are therefore not afforded the luxury of applying their own code of ethics and are required to obey all LEGAL orders. It is, however, a moot point, as to the best of my knowledge nobody has been ordered to acknowledge anything. The insubordination is in publicly attacking and vilifying a senior officer.

      Thus Major Gaynor’s comments about Lt.Col McGregor DO indeed represent insubordination.

      “You should research the facts before presenting yourself as a grossly ignorant correspondent.”

      Well you see James, unlike yourself, I always do. This is why I present myself as a very well-informed correspondent, and in this case, as usual, I am of course 100% RIGHT. 🙂

      1. TheBabelFish

        Thank you Chrys, And thank you for forgiving me my little egotistical flourish. I probably should add that if you, or anyone else, think I am wrong on a particular matter, you need only present me with superior evidence and I will change my mind. Yell unsupported assertions at me as James did and I will just laugh. 😀

      2. Andrew Drake

        Marty is incorrect. In the Australian Army it is not insubordination to disobey an illegal or unethical order. An unethical order is illegal. For example, a direct order to acknowledge a man as a woman would be unethical. Marty is further incorrect in saying Major Gaynor should be charged with insubordination over his comments related to a superior officer. Major Gaynor was under no order to not discuss his private opinion of Lt Col McGregor’s actions in “changing sex”

      3. Marty

        @Andrew Drake

        I never said anything about insubordination to be incorrect about. However, you’re talking about ethics as if it’s the same thing as subjective morality. It’s not, and you’re also forgetting that the legality of orders in the armed forces isn’t based off what’s ethical OR moral.

      4. TheBabelFish

        Oh Andrew. Pay attention mate. Marty didn’t say it, I did. Look back at the post to see my detailed explanation of the difference between ‘ILLEGAL’ and ‘UNETHICAL.’ An example of an illegal order would be an order to commit a war crime. You’d in fact be legally obliged to disobey such an order. But what would be an unethical order? Well, you say:

        “For example, a direct order to acknowledge a man as a woman would be unethical.”

        Says who? According to whose code of ethics? Yours presumably. This is the problem with you religious types, you use terms like ‘ethics’ and ‘morality’ as if they have a fixed meaning, as if there is a universal code of ethics, only one variety of morality, when really you are simply trying to impose YOUR subjective idea of morality on the rest of us. It doesn’t work like that. Ethics and morality are individual, to all of us.

        ‘”…I managed to save myself by the most astonishing and – I say this in all modesty – fabulous piece of ingenious quick-thinking, agility, fancy footwork and self-sacrifice.”
        “What was the self-sacrifice?”
        “I jettisoned half of a much loved and I think irreplaceable pair of shoes.”
        “Why was that self-sacrifice?”
        “Because they were mine!” said Ford crossly.
        “I think we have different value systems.”
        “Well mine’s better.”
        “That’s according to your . . .oh never mind.”‘
        Douglas Adams (Mostly Harmless)

        You say, “Major Gaynor was under no order to not discuss his private opinion of Lt Col McGregor’s actions in “changing sex””

        Nor was he under any order to discuss it. According to MY code of ethics, he had no right to any opinion on the matter whatsoever. It is quite simply none of his business. But he chose, entirely of his own accord, to make public, offensive, insulting, abusive, defamatory statements about a superior officer, statements which quite possibly constitute hate speech, contravening Australian anti-discrimination laws which apply even to civilians, never mind serving military personnel. If he had done such a thing in wartime he’d have been shot!

  19. James

    The blog owner won’t publish them. But you can check out the 33 per cent stat yourself. By definition sexual offences against boys by men are homosexual offences.

    1. Gladly, the Cross-Eyed Bear: Assorted Rants on Religion, Science, Politics and Philosophy from a bear of very little brain Post author

      That’s not true, James. The comment I deleted made reference to statistics without supplying the name of any study, referencing any credible peer-reviewed academic journal in which such a study may have appeared or providing a hyperlink to such a study. The claim that sexual offences against boys are perpetrated by homosexuals is completely false and is not even accepted by Catholic authorities. This is a claim that has been made by Jim Wallace which, I understand, having sighted some correspondence from the Australian Christian Lobby, even THEY now resile from because it is simply unsustainable.

      You may wish to refer to the John Jay study of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church, undertaken not by members of the ‘gay mafia’ but by the Catholic Church. The John Jay study is a 2004 report by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, commissioned by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, based on surveys completed by the Roman Catholic dioceses in the United States. Here is a summary of the findings in this respect:

      “T]he researchers found no statistical evidence that gay priests were more likely than straight priests to abuse minors—a finding that undermines a favorite talking point of many conservative Catholics. The disproportionate number of adolescent male victims was about opportunity, not preference or pathology, the report states.

      What’s more, researchers note that the rise in the number of gay priests from the late 1970s onward actually corresponded with “a decreased incidence of abuse—not an increased incidence of abuse.”

      How is this possible, particularly given the widespread stereotype of the abusive or predatory homosexual priest? How else to explain so many male victims of abuse?

      First of all, nearly every reputable psychologist and psychiatrist, not to mention almost every scholarly study, decisively rejects the conflation of homosexuality with pedophilia, as well as any cause-and-effect relationship. The studies are almost too numerous to mention.” Source:

      You’ve had your little play on my blog, James. I’ll refer you to my Moderation Policy to explain why your comments are no longer welcome here. Go and spew your ignorant hate elsewhere. I can’t be bothered with you.

    2. Marty

      That’s incorrect. If you can find substantiated statistics that explain what makes a man who sexually assaults a boy homosexual by nature, I guarantee you the blog owner will, however reluctantly, accept that they are demonstrable statistics.

      But while we’re on the topic of statistics, let’s discuss the ones regarding how many religious youth leaders, people in positions of authority over impressionable young men, have committed these offenses.

    3. Marty

      The thing is, you have no substantial citation, because there is no evidence that sexual orientation has anything to do with sexual deviance. There is, however, in contrast, a tonne of evidence that demonstrates that the abuse of children occurs at roughly the same rate amongst gay men as it does amongst heterosexual men.

      But your assertion is that by molesting a boy, that makes a man gay by virtue of a sexual act taking place between two people of the same gender. This is not a good enough qualification, I’m afraid, because it doesn’t stack up to a tonne of studies that investigate the attraction of men to young boys. The findings are conclusive, there is no relation to sexual orientation, especially considering that female children are victimized nearly twice as often as male children.

      Google Scholar is your friend. Google Search, on the other hand, is restricted to your biased queries.

  20. Pingback: As old as Rosinante | Gladly, the Cross-Eyed Bear

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s