Trigger warning: This post is about a piece of British legislation called The Sexual Offences Act 2003. It is absolutely not the rant of a “rape apologist”. If you might find this post triggering, please read it only on understanding that you read it at your own risk.
Category Archives: Star post
One of the clichés often uttered or written in what nowadays passes for intelligent “debate” of contemporary social issues, is that those who are most vociferous against the evils of homosexuality (the behaviour, not the recently-postulated “orientation”), are often people who have experienced most strongly the temptation to engage in homosexual behaviour themselves.
In short, homophobes are often accused of being “gay people” themselves, and of “being in denial”.
“You and me me baby ain’t nothing but mammals. So let’s do it like they do on the Discovery Channel.” [Bloodhound Gang]
It should humble us to remind ourselves what we are. Biologically speaking, humans are animals, who reproduce sexually, by mating. Some say that that is all we are. Even those who say we are more than this, admit that we are, at least, this.
Many other species have instincts that determine the mating behaviours used in their sexual reproduction. These behaviours cover a wide range.
Who gets the better deal? Transgendered people, or transoriented people?
Today, not for the first time, I read a comment complaining that people who are transgendered face problems of non-acceptance. It reminded me of the non-acceptance experienced by people who are, or who want to become, transoriented.
Transgendered people and transoriented people both experience non-acceptance, and for the same basic reason.
Transgendered people are (for example) male, but want to be accepted in future as female (or vice versa). In some cases, trangendered people have had their bodies changed, so that they resemble more their acquired gender, and less their birth gender. Transgendered people experience rejection on the part of people with strong, fixed beliefs. Beliefs that it is impossible for a man really to change himself, or be changed, into a woman (or vice versa).
A counterblast to Michael Swift’s famous essay
published in Gay Community News, 15-21 Feb. 1987, often referred to as “The Homosexual Manifesto”.
You will probably enjoy this more, if you read Swift’s original essay first, re-published here, by Jesuits.
Trigger warning added later: Please do not read this piece at all if you are likely to be offended by the hate speech of Michael Swift in his original 1987 essay, of which this a parody.
This blog post
about this judgment of the Court of Protection
has set me thinking.
. . .
A tense, life-or-death, courtroom drama
Pitched against her own legal team, the mental patient, Mrs SB, had two psychiatrists, her mother, her father, her husband (presumably the baby’s father) and the NHS hospital in which she was sectioned, along with their various solicitors and barristers, all agreeing that she was “not thinking straight”.
Present (though hardly as a disinterested, mere spectator), was the enterprising would-be sub-contractor who had put in a last-minute bid to do the job, less than a week before the mother reached 24 weeks pregnant, and the baby’s life would have become untouchable. “A doctor employed by a well known body”, is how the judge described this potential beneficiary of the judge’s own hard day’s work, when the abortionist put in his own “hard day at the orifice”. Continue reading