Seeing my first gay pride parade

Outside of our hotel here in Winnipeg the annual Gay Pride parade marched by yesterday afternoon, and the journalist in me forced me outside to observe. Suggestion to the Gay, Lesbian, and Transgendered community: If you want to become socially acceptable, parade in business suits or go business casual. Lesbians and transvestites, wear nice dresses. Gentlemen, wear shirts. Also trousers. Everyone, keep your leather fetish gear in the closet, if I may use that term, and try to defy, rather than confirm, the stereotypes. If heterosexuals carried on like you do, they wouldn’t be allowed to get married either.

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • http://pencilnub.com/ Steve

    You hit that one squarely on the head. Sometimes the activist gay community can be their own worst enemy.

  • http://pencilnub.com/ Steve

    You hit that one squarely on the head. Sometimes the activist gay community can be their own worst enemy.

  • Susan aka organshoes

    My late, blessed mother-in-law instilled the wisdom in me that, if you’re going to go out of your way to show yourself as one against the tide of society, you have to be willing to accept the consequence of society’s reaction to you, as there will be reaction.
    Mind, she’d say, that you’re not just whining.

  • Susan aka organshoes

    My late, blessed mother-in-law instilled the wisdom in me that, if you’re going to go out of your way to show yourself as one against the tide of society, you have to be willing to accept the consequence of society’s reaction to you, as there will be reaction.
    Mind, she’d say, that you’re not just whining.

  • Brian

    The whole trans-gendered thing cracks me up. I keep waiting for my local town to have a trans-species parade. I’ve been feeling a little animal-like lately and need to publicly let it out. Roooar!

  • Brian

    The whole trans-gendered thing cracks me up. I keep waiting for my local town to have a trans-species parade. I’ve been feeling a little animal-like lately and need to publicly let it out. Roooar!

  • Joe Mama

    Brian, have you seen those people who are transforming themselves into cats and lizards and the like? I’m afraid your scenario is not so out-there.

    I’ve written a number of short little satires, trying to be over-the-top, and am always amazed when the truth far surpasses my wildest imaginings.

  • Joe Mama

    Brian, have you seen those people who are transforming themselves into cats and lizards and the like? I’m afraid your scenario is not so out-there.

    I’ve written a number of short little satires, trying to be over-the-top, and am always amazed when the truth far surpasses my wildest imaginings.

  • fw

    “If heterosexuals carried on like you do, they wouldn’t be allowed to get married either.”

    hmmm. playboy magazine. hustler magazine. big breast fetish magazines… um. check out the swinging singles scenes at craigs list. especially the ones in small towns in the midwest… bill clinton ” I did not have sex with that woman ” anyone. followed by any number of public hetero figures…. um my understanding is that usually it is heterosexuals who abort and murder babies…. caligula and nero were heterosexual as far as i know…. abe lincoln was being treated for syphilis at his time of death…

    oh and strip clubs…. whorehouses….nightclubs that heteros refer to as “meat/meet markets”. men who take sex vacations in thailand to meet underaged girls… the rather huge hetero porn industry…. the female form objectified and therefore dehumanized by madison avenue to the extent that no one even THINKS to find that disgusting (think of your mama in a bikini holding a beer can on a billboard designed to get men to oogle her breasts just to sell a lousy six pack of coors)…. I could make this list more repulsive and you all know that…

    Now…..I would not think that gay “pride ” parades represent homosexuals anymore than my above list would represent “typical ” heterosexuals. Or maybe some of you would choose to argue this point with me and discuss whether such types (heterosexuals) should be allowed to marry….

    and I do not think that the above list is about “activists” trying to promote and agitate for heterosexuality as opposed to…. not sure what…

    …. maybe modesty , self control, virtue, sex-connected-to-selfworth-love.

    It would be wierd if they were thusly , firmly and righteously opposed to homosexuality , advocating and protesting and making a fuss…..as if somehow objectivizing and denegrating womanhood is somehow seen as a not-an-unnatural act. These (heterosexual ) things are exactly what st paul discusses in romans chapter one. romans one applies equally to heterosexual and homosexual. as does the entire rest of the bible. including the holy gospel by the way.

    I find this all disgusting. exactly as I (as a homo) find alot of “gay” stuff disgusting. ok. so the point is then? and does it really have to tar all of us homos?

    should I take this post personally?

    The majority of homosexuals that i PERSONALLY know, including myself, are for virtues and moderation and modesty….call us the “silent majority”. and this does not mean that i, therefore, as a direct consequence need to be opposed to heterosexuality to be consistent in my views in any way or assume that all heterosexuals are represented generally, or preponderantly by the above list.

    am i making sense to anyone at all here??!!

  • fw

    “If heterosexuals carried on like you do, they wouldn’t be allowed to get married either.”

    hmmm. playboy magazine. hustler magazine. big breast fetish magazines… um. check out the swinging singles scenes at craigs list. especially the ones in small towns in the midwest… bill clinton ” I did not have sex with that woman ” anyone. followed by any number of public hetero figures…. um my understanding is that usually it is heterosexuals who abort and murder babies…. caligula and nero were heterosexual as far as i know…. abe lincoln was being treated for syphilis at his time of death…

    oh and strip clubs…. whorehouses….nightclubs that heteros refer to as “meat/meet markets”. men who take sex vacations in thailand to meet underaged girls… the rather huge hetero porn industry…. the female form objectified and therefore dehumanized by madison avenue to the extent that no one even THINKS to find that disgusting (think of your mama in a bikini holding a beer can on a billboard designed to get men to oogle her breasts just to sell a lousy six pack of coors)…. I could make this list more repulsive and you all know that…

    Now…..I would not think that gay “pride ” parades represent homosexuals anymore than my above list would represent “typical ” heterosexuals. Or maybe some of you would choose to argue this point with me and discuss whether such types (heterosexuals) should be allowed to marry….

    and I do not think that the above list is about “activists” trying to promote and agitate for heterosexuality as opposed to…. not sure what…

    …. maybe modesty , self control, virtue, sex-connected-to-selfworth-love.

    It would be wierd if they were thusly , firmly and righteously opposed to homosexuality , advocating and protesting and making a fuss…..as if somehow objectivizing and denegrating womanhood is somehow seen as a not-an-unnatural act. These (heterosexual ) things are exactly what st paul discusses in romans chapter one. romans one applies equally to heterosexual and homosexual. as does the entire rest of the bible. including the holy gospel by the way.

    I find this all disgusting. exactly as I (as a homo) find alot of “gay” stuff disgusting. ok. so the point is then? and does it really have to tar all of us homos?

    should I take this post personally?

    The majority of homosexuals that i PERSONALLY know, including myself, are for virtues and moderation and modesty….call us the “silent majority”. and this does not mean that i, therefore, as a direct consequence need to be opposed to heterosexuality to be consistent in my views in any way or assume that all heterosexuals are represented generally, or preponderantly by the above list.

    am i making sense to anyone at all here??!!

  • fw

    “#3 The whole trans-gendered thing cracks me up.”

    well brian…

    ok. so lets assume that trans-genders are really sick. so then can i assume that terminal cancer, mental illness, and those kinds of things make you laugh uncontrollably as well? what kind of sick…..( I will let you complete that thought….)

    men and women who feel they are men-trapped-in-a-womans-body are some of the most abused and unwanted and rejected and unloved persons on the planet.

    as such they sound like near-perfect candidates for me to reflect the healing love of Jesus to them. these men and women are rejected even more by homosexuals than by heterosexuals. imagine. even those dirty disgusting homos dont want to get near them! wow.

    and they have mothers and fathers who worry for their wellbeing and happiness. they are sons and daughters. their parents worry. often for their physical safety.

    they crack you up.

    and they long to be loved and held and not looked at with disgust and rejection…..

    I am saying by this that they deserve to be looked upon as fully human and nothing less than that. to be accorded the highest dignity as creatures of our God. whose blood has bought them. I personally struggle at this. I do not understand how they came to be this way. it is not given to me to understand. it IS given to me to look at them and have that look look like love.

    I know many personally from my volunteer work. I love them all as best as i can. I am often wierded out. I see that as MY problem and as a hindrance to vocation actually.

    these persons, beloved and lovely to their maker, therefore come up often in my private confessions to my pastor as examples of my lack of love for them and therefore, their Maker.

    so I am saying that I am complicit in your sin brian.

    am I making sense to anyone here?

  • fw

    “#3 The whole trans-gendered thing cracks me up.”

    well brian…

    ok. so lets assume that trans-genders are really sick. so then can i assume that terminal cancer, mental illness, and those kinds of things make you laugh uncontrollably as well? what kind of sick…..( I will let you complete that thought….)

    men and women who feel they are men-trapped-in-a-womans-body are some of the most abused and unwanted and rejected and unloved persons on the planet.

    as such they sound like near-perfect candidates for me to reflect the healing love of Jesus to them. these men and women are rejected even more by homosexuals than by heterosexuals. imagine. even those dirty disgusting homos dont want to get near them! wow.

    and they have mothers and fathers who worry for their wellbeing and happiness. they are sons and daughters. their parents worry. often for their physical safety.

    they crack you up.

    and they long to be loved and held and not looked at with disgust and rejection…..

    I am saying by this that they deserve to be looked upon as fully human and nothing less than that. to be accorded the highest dignity as creatures of our God. whose blood has bought them. I personally struggle at this. I do not understand how they came to be this way. it is not given to me to understand. it IS given to me to look at them and have that look look like love.

    I know many personally from my volunteer work. I love them all as best as i can. I am often wierded out. I see that as MY problem and as a hindrance to vocation actually.

    these persons, beloved and lovely to their maker, therefore come up often in my private confessions to my pastor as examples of my lack of love for them and therefore, their Maker.

    so I am saying that I am complicit in your sin brian.

    am I making sense to anyone here?

  • http://www.geneveith.com Veith

    Yes, Frank, you are making sense.

  • http://www.geneveith.com Veith

    Yes, Frank, you are making sense.

  • Brian

    fw, you need to get off of your preaching stump and drop some of your assumptions about what I said.

    First off all, I said the whole “trans-gendered thing” cracks me up, as in transgendered argument. But since that kind of speech is perhaps lost on you let me be clear: the transgendered argument cracks me up. I think it’s a load of, well, you know what. I never said transgendered people are sick (I do think they are deluded, however), nor did I imply the same regarding cancer victims, mental illness, etc.

    Here’s what I *did* imply: a man who feels he is trapped in a woman’s body is focusing only on the subjective element of their life experience. I always find it amusing that this argument always says that the objective element of reality (i.e., a man has a penis) needs to be corrected by the subjective element (i.e., a man feels like a woman on the inside). It is never the other way around, at least on the Oprah show anyway. And a good clean full body mirror will aid in this.

    This actually happened to me the other day. I woke up and had this odd feeling that deep down inside I wasn’t me, but actually Napoleon Bonaparte. And as I passed through my bedroom in order to crown my self emperor, there it was, the mirror.

    Ontology. It’ll get in the way every time.

  • Brian

    fw, you need to get off of your preaching stump and drop some of your assumptions about what I said.

    First off all, I said the whole “trans-gendered thing” cracks me up, as in transgendered argument. But since that kind of speech is perhaps lost on you let me be clear: the transgendered argument cracks me up. I think it’s a load of, well, you know what. I never said transgendered people are sick (I do think they are deluded, however), nor did I imply the same regarding cancer victims, mental illness, etc.

    Here’s what I *did* imply: a man who feels he is trapped in a woman’s body is focusing only on the subjective element of their life experience. I always find it amusing that this argument always says that the objective element of reality (i.e., a man has a penis) needs to be corrected by the subjective element (i.e., a man feels like a woman on the inside). It is never the other way around, at least on the Oprah show anyway. And a good clean full body mirror will aid in this.

    This actually happened to me the other day. I woke up and had this odd feeling that deep down inside I wasn’t me, but actually Napoleon Bonaparte. And as I passed through my bedroom in order to crown my self emperor, there it was, the mirror.

    Ontology. It’ll get in the way every time.

  • http://www.patrolmag.com Nathan

    this is one of my favorite posts.
    period.

  • http://www.patrolmag.com Nathan

    this is one of my favorite posts.
    period.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/17639370291865261582 Cindy

    Brian, what Frank wrote in #6 was a fine piece of “preaching.” What he has written here makes sense to me. I don’t think I understand what you’re saying. What exactly is “the transgendered argument”? Do you mean that the idea of an anatomical male feeling overwhelmingly like a woman (or vice versa) is ludicrous, deluded, and silly? Sure, it’s unusual, but in now way laughable. I find it hard to separate the “argument” from the person. Transgendered people are not faking it or choosing it arbitrarily. Why would they? Perhaps it would help to imagine yourself being afflicted by such thoughts. It’s not really funny then, is it?

    I confess I don’t get your Napoleon comment either. Maybe I’m missing the joke, but it strikes me as insensitive. It is easy to make fun of people who are different. I do it too. It is easy to look at people who are different as “other.” I catch myself thinking this way almost every time I go to Wal-Mart and observe the cross-section of humanity represented there. “Why do people dress like that, talk like that, act like that?”, I wonder. I feel superior because I am “normal.” But then I remember that Jesus died for them. For the weirdos, the losers, the cripples – and for me. We are all the same. I am no better. These people whom we regard as so different, so strange-seeming? They are not “other.” We are all the same – loved – in God’s eyes. And thank God for that, because by his standards I am terribly confused, horribly wrong, an utter failure. But forgiven.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/17639370291865261582 Cindy

    Brian, what Frank wrote in #6 was a fine piece of “preaching.” What he has written here makes sense to me. I don’t think I understand what you’re saying. What exactly is “the transgendered argument”? Do you mean that the idea of an anatomical male feeling overwhelmingly like a woman (or vice versa) is ludicrous, deluded, and silly? Sure, it’s unusual, but in now way laughable. I find it hard to separate the “argument” from the person. Transgendered people are not faking it or choosing it arbitrarily. Why would they? Perhaps it would help to imagine yourself being afflicted by such thoughts. It’s not really funny then, is it?

    I confess I don’t get your Napoleon comment either. Maybe I’m missing the joke, but it strikes me as insensitive. It is easy to make fun of people who are different. I do it too. It is easy to look at people who are different as “other.” I catch myself thinking this way almost every time I go to Wal-Mart and observe the cross-section of humanity represented there. “Why do people dress like that, talk like that, act like that?”, I wonder. I feel superior because I am “normal.” But then I remember that Jesus died for them. For the weirdos, the losers, the cripples – and for me. We are all the same. I am no better. These people whom we regard as so different, so strange-seeming? They are not “other.” We are all the same – loved – in God’s eyes. And thank God for that, because by his standards I am terribly confused, horribly wrong, an utter failure. But forgiven.

  • kerner

    Brian,

    I have met a woman who was trying to live as a man and surgically turn herself into one (this, obviously, is a lot harder to do than going from male to supposed female), so it does happen this way, the lack of examples on Oprah notwithstanding.

    fw,

    You catch us at it again, old pal. We should never trivialize our own sin, just because we don’t understand the sins of others.

  • kerner

    Brian,

    I have met a woman who was trying to live as a man and surgically turn herself into one (this, obviously, is a lot harder to do than going from male to supposed female), so it does happen this way, the lack of examples on Oprah notwithstanding.

    fw,

    You catch us at it again, old pal. We should never trivialize our own sin, just because we don’t understand the sins of others.

  • Brian

    Cindy,

    Hi. Let me try to answer your questions.

    I was thinking of the trans-gendered idea that even though a man has a penis he thinks he is really a woman on the inside, thus letting the subjective feeling trump the objective reality. Hence my rude and sarcastic (and not well received) comment about me being Napoleon Bonaparte on the inside.

    When you write of the “anatomical male” I’m a bit confused, are you implying that there are non-anatomical males? But to answer your second question, no. I do not find it ludicrous per se. I would simply say their feelings are confused. Now if they were adamant that even though they have a penis they are really a female, then yes, I would have to say they are a bit deluded. As I would be if I insisted I were Napoleon.

    As to your third question, I wouldn’t suspect they would be faking it or choosing it arbitrarily.

    As far as being afflicted by such thoughts, if I thought I were a woman (despite being biologically a man) then no, it wouldn’t be funny. It would be sick and I would be attempting to delude myself.

    And if I didn’t shop at Target I would probably take offense at your Wal-Mart jab.

  • Brian

    Cindy,

    Hi. Let me try to answer your questions.

    I was thinking of the trans-gendered idea that even though a man has a penis he thinks he is really a woman on the inside, thus letting the subjective feeling trump the objective reality. Hence my rude and sarcastic (and not well received) comment about me being Napoleon Bonaparte on the inside.

    When you write of the “anatomical male” I’m a bit confused, are you implying that there are non-anatomical males? But to answer your second question, no. I do not find it ludicrous per se. I would simply say their feelings are confused. Now if they were adamant that even though they have a penis they are really a female, then yes, I would have to say they are a bit deluded. As I would be if I insisted I were Napoleon.

    As to your third question, I wouldn’t suspect they would be faking it or choosing it arbitrarily.

    As far as being afflicted by such thoughts, if I thought I were a woman (despite being biologically a man) then no, it wouldn’t be funny. It would be sick and I would be attempting to delude myself.

    And if I didn’t shop at Target I would probably take offense at your Wal-Mart jab.

  • Brian

    kerner, i too have met people that have done the same thing. Again, my point is that just because some guy thinks he is a woman on the inside, well, that doesn’t make him a woman. And just because a man has a surgical procedure to replicate a woman’s anatomy, that too does not make him a woman.

    And you missed my point, this stuff is all over Oprah!

  • Brian

    kerner, i too have met people that have done the same thing. Again, my point is that just because some guy thinks he is a woman on the inside, well, that doesn’t make him a woman. And just because a man has a surgical procedure to replicate a woman’s anatomy, that too does not make him a woman.

    And you missed my point, this stuff is all over Oprah!

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/17639370291865261582 Cindy

    Brian #12,

    Okay, I think we’re making progress. I didn’t mean anything special by “anatomical male.” I just meant a person who is male physically/biologically, as opposed to male in terms of self-identity. (I think there actually are non-anatomical males – people who have a Y chromosome but whose anatomy doesn’t match…but that’s not what I was thinking of originally.)

    Perhaps calling transgenderism deluded is not so wrong, although I wouldn’t say that those people are trying to delude themselves. I suspect most transgender people would rather not be that way, if they could help it. Delusion or not, it was the idea of finding these people’s plight laughable that bothered me. But you sound more sympathetic this time around.

    By the way, I wasn’t trying to insult Wal-Mart. I am a loyal customer. I’m just saying, you can see a lot of interesting people there. Perhaps their other customers see me as interesting, being a 6′ 3″ female freak of nature. :-)

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/17639370291865261582 Cindy

    Brian #12,

    Okay, I think we’re making progress. I didn’t mean anything special by “anatomical male.” I just meant a person who is male physically/biologically, as opposed to male in terms of self-identity. (I think there actually are non-anatomical males – people who have a Y chromosome but whose anatomy doesn’t match…but that’s not what I was thinking of originally.)

    Perhaps calling transgenderism deluded is not so wrong, although I wouldn’t say that those people are trying to delude themselves. I suspect most transgender people would rather not be that way, if they could help it. Delusion or not, it was the idea of finding these people’s plight laughable that bothered me. But you sound more sympathetic this time around.

    By the way, I wasn’t trying to insult Wal-Mart. I am a loyal customer. I’m just saying, you can see a lot of interesting people there. Perhaps their other customers see me as interesting, being a 6′ 3″ female freak of nature. :-)

  • Brian

    Cindy. Okay, I apologize for my sarcastic tone. Perhaps it was a bit strong.

    In the end, I was really only thinking of the philosophical assumptions behind trans-gendered ideas, mainly that one’s subjective feelings of sexuality trump the objective reality of one’s physical makeup. It seems that this is the assumption of those who make the argument that “I knew all along I was a woman inside” and then proceed to have the ‘gender reassignment surgery.

    I was kidding, of course, about the Wal-Mart thing!

  • Brian

    Cindy. Okay, I apologize for my sarcastic tone. Perhaps it was a bit strong.

    In the end, I was really only thinking of the philosophical assumptions behind trans-gendered ideas, mainly that one’s subjective feelings of sexuality trump the objective reality of one’s physical makeup. It seems that this is the assumption of those who make the argument that “I knew all along I was a woman inside” and then proceed to have the ‘gender reassignment surgery.

    I was kidding, of course, about the Wal-Mart thing!

  • Rob

    While, no doubt, there are some transgendered individuals who do so out for attention, or out of a perverted fetish, it is safe to speculate that transsexual impulses are rooted in genuine medical conditions:

    http://www.hmc.psu.edu/childrens/healthinfo/i/intersex.htm

    To me, this whole discussion should not lead us to further bifurcate the objective and subjective, or the body and soul, but should rather indicate that the body and soul are, in reality, an inseparable union (or, if you prefer, are inseparably fused).

  • Rob

    While, no doubt, there are some transgendered individuals who do so out for attention, or out of a perverted fetish, it is safe to speculate that transsexual impulses are rooted in genuine medical conditions:

    http://www.hmc.psu.edu/childrens/healthinfo/i/intersex.htm

    To me, this whole discussion should not lead us to further bifurcate the objective and subjective, or the body and soul, but should rather indicate that the body and soul are, in reality, an inseparable union (or, if you prefer, are inseparably fused).

  • Rob

    *pardon my typo(s)

  • Rob

    *pardon my typo(s)

  • Susan aka organshoes

    Oh, I think the subjective is way important on this matter, though not on this matter alone.
    We’re so convinced by our inner feelings to profess all sorts of things–our inner, gut feeling drives so much of what we say we believe nowadays, and so strongly, that objective evidence can little compare to the power of evidence produced by our feelings. Strong feelings govern so much thought and so many opinions, about all sorts of matters, from sexuality to global warming to politics to economics to religion.
    I think of the song Jesus Loves Me: we no longer have the need to state ‘The Bible tells me so,’ nor see any relevance in that statement. We are far more likely to hold that ‘My heart tells me so’ and ‘Can’t you just feel the love?’
    That’s the issue for many of us in the openness of the gay pride/transgendered parade: the people in the parades aren’t asking us to accept them; they’re shoving their sins down our throats, demanding we validate that ‘It’s all good.’ And why? Because they feel this way.
    That’s the objection. Not to the gay person or the gender-conflicted person or to their conflicts or desires, but to the persons whose subjective feelings have driven them to rude displays that do not cry, ‘Love me. Forgive me.’ but ‘Here I am. Deal with it.’
    Granted we’re all desirous of love and acceptance (I believe ‘affirmation’ is the recent buzzword). But we’re not entitled to it on the basis of the strength of our feelings and intuition alone. And I’m not required to offer it on that basis, anymore than I’m entitled to any acceptance of my own rudely flaunted sins.
    The sexual vendors and their clientele are no less worthy of our Christian concern as those who parade their Pride. To pit those who sin in secret against those who sin in the daylight is neither fair nor Christian. We can’t only love whom we will, nor those for whom we feel.

  • Susan aka organshoes

    Oh, I think the subjective is way important on this matter, though not on this matter alone.
    We’re so convinced by our inner feelings to profess all sorts of things–our inner, gut feeling drives so much of what we say we believe nowadays, and so strongly, that objective evidence can little compare to the power of evidence produced by our feelings. Strong feelings govern so much thought and so many opinions, about all sorts of matters, from sexuality to global warming to politics to economics to religion.
    I think of the song Jesus Loves Me: we no longer have the need to state ‘The Bible tells me so,’ nor see any relevance in that statement. We are far more likely to hold that ‘My heart tells me so’ and ‘Can’t you just feel the love?’
    That’s the issue for many of us in the openness of the gay pride/transgendered parade: the people in the parades aren’t asking us to accept them; they’re shoving their sins down our throats, demanding we validate that ‘It’s all good.’ And why? Because they feel this way.
    That’s the objection. Not to the gay person or the gender-conflicted person or to their conflicts or desires, but to the persons whose subjective feelings have driven them to rude displays that do not cry, ‘Love me. Forgive me.’ but ‘Here I am. Deal with it.’
    Granted we’re all desirous of love and acceptance (I believe ‘affirmation’ is the recent buzzword). But we’re not entitled to it on the basis of the strength of our feelings and intuition alone. And I’m not required to offer it on that basis, anymore than I’m entitled to any acceptance of my own rudely flaunted sins.
    The sexual vendors and their clientele are no less worthy of our Christian concern as those who parade their Pride. To pit those who sin in secret against those who sin in the daylight is neither fair nor Christian. We can’t only love whom we will, nor those for whom we feel.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X