Sometimes you just have to reminisce and endulge yourself.
As great today as it ever was.
From 2020 the UK government have made a law that you will automatically be a body part donor in the event of your death whether you have chose to be or not.
Personally i find this disgusting. That a bunch of politico cunts will lay claim to any or all of your body parts after you died as their property to do what they like with without your prior, voluntary consent is a step too far, and is, most certainly, another step closer to ‘Soylent Green’.
And what happens when someone important to the government wants a specific body part from a specific blood group, etc.. All your genetic, blood, tissue, etc., details are being collected into an ever expanding government database and whenever they require an organ from any specific type of person then it’s not too far fetched to imagine what can happen when they have deliberately and legally turned you into an organ harvesting animal at their disposal whenever they want — which is what this law does.
It’s all well and good if you don’t mind your body being chopped up and used however politicans decide their agents can use it, but if that’s the case then you should opt in, which has historically always been the case. But it’s not the case any longer. From 2020 the UK government will claim ownership over your whole body once you are dead and butcher it up like an animal carcass to do whatever they like with unless you specifically opt out.
You can do so by going to the ‘Refuse to Donate’ webpage of the NHS.
If the government was truly concerned about you, the people, then they would have created a completely different method of farming human organs: that of offering services in return to the donor.
It’s not too far fetched an idea that if the NHS uses any part of your body after you die then the government should pay a decent sum of money to the next of kin towards funeral/cremation costs of what remains after they’ve finished harvesting. There’s always people complaining about the cost of funerals, so why not offer free cremations for all body part donors? This will also have the effect of making people look after themselves a lot better because if their organs aren’t healthy then they won’t get used. But this isn’t even an option. The politicos will take whatever bits they want and send the bill to dispose of the rest to your next of kin.
It’s very simple, if enough people opt out then the government will have to change the system and start offering a fair price towards funeral/cremation costs for all body parts donated. It really is that simple.
I just read this… “Zoopla bars ‘no housing benefit’ rental ads”
What strikes me as utterly shameful is this line…
Parliament’s Work and Pensions Committee has launched an inquiry into discrimination against benefits claimants.
Like they really need an inquiry? Another few years will go by and landlords will still be discriminating against people who claim benefits. People on benefits have for decades been forced into substandard housing because that’s nice for the Government because they don’t have to pay as much housing benefit for sub standard housing.
All the time we hear the tired old crap of MP’s paying lip service about bad landlords with tenants being forced to live in squalor, while those same MP’s have done absolutely nothing whatsoever, for decades, to deal with the very situation that causes it.
We don’t need another pointless inquiry, what we need is legislation now that bans any prospective landlord from discriminating against any prospective tenant in this way. This can be done immediately if the government are serious about it. But they’re not. What we need is legislation that bans anyone from discriminating against another human being for simply having to claim benefits.
It’s a very simple law to enact… If anyone is refused a tenancy on the grounds of race, sexuality, gender, religion, benefits, etc., then the landlord should have their property confiscated and handed over to the local council for social housing. That would soon stop all this happening.
But that won’t happen because the wealthy MP’s and their wealthy friends won’t like it. So we’ll just have an inquiry and come up with some pointless recommendations that will be certain to not change any fucking thing, whatsoever, and anyone who feels like it will be allowed to continue to discriminate against the poorest within our society.
So i was asked the other day as to what my position was on E.U. leave/remain thing. I was asked like i had to be either on one side or the other — like there was only the two options.
This shows how fucking brainwashed and retarded the electorate truly is when they can only conceive of the options given to them by the Corporatocracy.
So i informed this person that there was a third option: that the whole leave/remain referendum was nothing but a means to manufacture consent to be ruled. The real choice of that referendum being to either be ruled from Brussels, or from Westminster, and that either way the Corporatocracy would be pulling the strings of the politico puppets and running the country. The true purpose of any ballot is to gain consent — from all taking part — for whatever outcome that ballot produces.
I then pointed out the third option within that referendum. A third choice of not voting and refusing to consent to be ruled by either Brussels or Westminster. A third choice being not consenting to be ruled at all.
So we began this article with a picture of Mandy Android, which some of you possibly know as Theresa May. Mandy Android was the designation the design engineers gave to the prototype android in the lab where it was made. It was only after they had finished the project that it was renamed Theresa May. Don’t be fooled by anyone claiming that it is a human woman, it isn’t, it is an android.
This, on the other hand, is a picture of a cute kitten…
Consider it a palate cleanser for your visual cortex after having been subjected to that picture of Mandy Android, but also to add a bit of balance to the imagery of this article, which is always something to consider in publishing. And it’s also to soften up all you hard-hearted, narrow minded bastards out there — because who doesn’t like a cute little kitten? Awwww….
So, with all that out of the way, let’s get down to Brexit…
The very idea that the U.K. was going to break away from the E.U. was laughable.
The whole plan from the very beginning was to manufacture consent to willingly remain fully in the E.U. and to put to rest all Europhobe dissent for at least another generation. I would also suggest that the Corporatocracy wants to get rid of Sterling and that this manufacturing of consent, and eroding of dissent, was simply the first step in the process of the U.K. abandoning Sterling and joining the Euro currency — which is a topic for another day but, do remember, you read it here first!!!
To begin, the Corporatocracy got a clown named Boris to spearhead the leave campaign in an attempt to make the whole idea look utterly ridiculous. But that didn’t work, oh fuck!!!
Boris, and even Farage, publicly pooped their pants at the result, both resigned and wrung their collective hands of the whole idea of getting themselves involved any further. And then Cameron, who originally stated he wasn’t resigning because that statement wasn’t written for him yet because remain was supposed to have won, was told by the Corporatocracy that he was resigning so that Mandy Android could be put in charge of Brexit. Because Mandy Android had been programmed from the very begining for this task and had it programmed into its ROM chip that the only solution was to remain. Mandy Android is incapable of conceiving any other result being possible or even occurring — it simply doesn’t compute in her circuitry.
So Mandy Android has been doing exactly what it was programmed to do from the very beginning — fuck the whole idea of Brexit up. And fuck it up so royally, and so badly, that the government will then be able to convince the whole country that a second referendum is needed to get us out of the mess, and then the country will gladly vote to remain because next time there won’t be any credibility left for anyone to be leading a leave campaign.
Nearly all the politicos started off stating that there would never be a second referendum, Brexit means Brexit, blah blah. But now they are all saying that there possibly could be in the right circumstances. And it won’t be too long before that ‘possibly could be’ will become a ‘definitely will be’.
The government will vote to delay leaving the E.U.. The EU will accept under the condition that there is a second referendum — because that’s the only way the E.U. will accept a delay. And the second referendum will be overwhelmingly in favour of remaining in the E.U..
And then Mandy Android will leave the government and go back to the laboratory and be dismantled for further research and to salvage any usable spare parts.
I wrote the following article a few years ago for another website which no longer exists. But i still like it so i’m republishing it here…
So once again Starbucks are in the news…
What perplexes me is why so many people get their knickers in a twist about this and think that complaining about Starbucks’ tax avoidance is something to get all uppity about.
Let’s put it simply… No one, other than a complete fool, pays taxes that they do not have to pay by law.
You show me one of these anti-corporate-tax-avoidance-protest-moaners who pays tax that they are not legally required to pay by law and you’ll show me a utter fool. So why do they think that they have a moral right to start bitching and whining about others who do not pay tax that they are not legally required to pay by law?
Everyone does tax avoidance. Tax avoidance is simply not paying taxes that the law does not require you to pay. People who run their own businesses put every receipt (loss) that they are allowed to by law through their accounts to lower their tax requirements for the year, this is no different to any other business putting any receipt (loss) that they are allowed to by law through their accounts to lower their tax requirements for the year.
Yes, ok, one could argue about the level to which this is done by these huge multi-national corporations, but that isn’t the fault of the corporations, it’s the fault of the political classes who allow these loop holes in the tax laws to exist purely so that their own personal corporate investments can bring them bigger returns, and also to please their corporate masters who fund their election campaigns. It’s not the corporations you should be complaining about, it’s the political classes who have their snouts in the corporate trough that are the problem. And none of this is ever going to change while we have an unelected plutocracy/corporatocracy, like the House of Lords (whose only purpose is to ensure that new legislation looks after corporate interests for the rich, wealthy and powerful), overseeing new legislation — but that’s another topic for another day.
What i want to rant about in this post is what is really annoying me about this Starbucks thing. Yes, what annoys me more than politicos with their snouts in the trough, and the corporatocratic take over of the House of Lords, is that people are only boycotting Starbucks because of this tax thing; and they simply take their business elsewhere to other corporate clone outlets like Costa and Cafe Nero. Like they think that makes them a bit more morally superior. Well it doesn’t!
Every town that i’ve ever visited, and i’ve visited a lot of towns in my time, has a treasure trove of independent cafes and coffee shops that are small independent businesses that are fully part of their communities and only exist within their own communities. So why is there even a discussion about Starbucks, et al, in the first place?
Next time you want a cuppa when you’re out and about, don’t got to a corporate clone outlet and look like a total fucking loser who thinks they’re in with the in crowd. You’re not in with the in crowd, you’re just a stupid fucking herd animal that can’t think for yourself. Instead, start frequenting your local, independent coffee shops and cafes, and get to know the owners and the staff and have a nice chat with nice people who are civilised and sociable and a real part of their communities. There would be no corporate tax avoidance going on by these corporate clone coffee shops if everyone just used small independent coffee shops instead. And you might even find that you will get a far nicer cup of coffee.
A good local cafe is run by local people for local people. I’ve found many a local cafe/coffee shop with a notice board and leaflet shelves overflowing with local events, clubs, etc.. I’ve been in quite a few cafes that also serve as art galleries displaying local artists’ work for sale all over the walls. And you can find good local cafes like this in every town if you just take a few moments to look around — and they’re not ripping millions out of the UK economy for their overseas, corporate masters’ profit margins.
So, have a good long think about where you’re going to buy your next cuppa when you’re and about next. And remember, every penny you spend in life is a vote on how you want your world to be. I’d like mine to be nice and local and lovely, but you can make your own choice. Just don’t cry to me about Starbucks, i don’t care what Starbucks are doing with their profits because i don’t give them any.
The following is an old article i wrote way back when Edward Snowden was doing his thing, and as that website no longer exists i’m re-publishing it here for you to enjoy — or maybe not.
So are you sitting comfortably?
Then i’ll begin…
To be quite honest, i really don’t care about the NSA and GCHQ trawling through loads and loads of data and building ever bigger data farms, employing more and more staff while driving the U.S.A. & U.K. budget deficits ever higher. I think the whole thing is quite amusing.
Take this article for example… ‘Google patents ad tech linking restaurant to taxi ride’.
I would hazard a guess that Google has far more information about people’s internet habits, email contacts (and contents), purchasing history, etc., than the NSA do. If you could go and have a look through Google’s data farms you would find billions, maybe even trillions, of people’s emails; and not just the meta data but the full contents. Every email on gmail is in a Google server farm somewhere, all of it: contents, contacts, meta data, ip addresses, and the full contents of the email message itself.
For Google to be investing into this ‘ad tech’ thing, and other future technology to such an extent, shows very clearly how much information they already have on people and their habits and contacts and whereabouts; and it also shows how much more information they’re likely to collect in the future. There would be absolutely no point in patenting and developing these kinds of schemes if they didn’t already have access to any of the information needed to make them work.
The above, Google example, was just one example. You can look around the internet and find many more examples of this kind of corporate data farming going on, with social networking websites like facebook making the NSA look like rank amateurs at data collection.
So why all the hoo-hah about the NSA and the government doing the same thing?
Nearly everyone is more than willing to hand over whatever data and personal information the corporations want from them, whenever they want it, simply at the claim of…
…followed by the ubiquitous, biblical fashion and length, terms and conditions that no one ever reads but we all tick the boxes accepting them anyway, accepting that the corporations can do whatever they like with our data just as long as they sell us the latest knick-knack or service at a good price. We really don’t care when it comes to corporations gleaning as much personal information from us as it’s possible to glean. The lengths that the corporatocracy go to to extract every last nuance of data from our lives is extra-ordinary, but we all turn a blind eye to it.
So what difference then that the government, essentially another corporate entity, does similar things in order to improve their services and provide you the citizen a better, safer experience living in your country?
I suppose some might argue that corporate data farming isn’t being done at the tax payer’s expense. Which is a fair point. But it is done at the consumer’s expense and either way you, the citizen/consumer, are paying extra for goods and services from the government/corporation to fund the data farming which the government/corporation would argue allows them to keep the prices down and offer you better goods and services for a better price. Once again…
So it’s a little retarded to allow a big supermarket to track your every purchase by giving you 1% off everything you buy with your loyalty card (that 1% having been added to the price of everything in the shop to fund the loyalty card program in the first place), and then to bitch because the government knows who you phoned last week when your phone company already stores all that information already. And all that information can be stolen at will by any hacker or simply sold to the highest bidder by any poorly paid, disgruntled employee.
You see, the problem isn’t really whether the NSA should be farming all this data or not, because every organisation that wants to profit from and exploit you is doing it legally anyway and have been doing so for a very long time. The NSA are mere amateurs at what corporations are expert in doing. The problem is that our illusion that we actually have any privacy in this new information age has just been shattered for most people. For some of us, we never had that illusion in the first place, so we really don’t care about what Snowden has revealed because we already knew that it was going on years ago.
And i just noticed that while i was busy writing all the above the BBC have also been busy writing…
…which makes interesting reading.
I think that it’s fairly clear from this article that the NSA is only sifting through information that private corporations already control and have in their possession. So why is it that people don’t think twice about allowing their private data to flow through private corporations, like ‘Level-3 Communications’, that they know nothing about, know nothing about who owns them or what their ultimate motive is?
As i alluded to earlier, if you’re willing to give all your private information to a corporate entity then you can’t really start bitching on about your privacy being eroded.
The one thing that stands out for me in the above article is the last few paragraphs…
“The Snowden revelations may lead to a change in how governments and large organisations use the internet. There has been talk of the internet “breaking up” so that, for example, communications which start and end in Europe only travel along European cables.
“Data is power, and data is money,” security expert Bruce Schneier, who has analysed the Snowden documents for journalist Glenn Greenwald, told the BBC.
“These discussions about who has control of data are bigger than the NSA, bigger than surveillance, and they are the key questions of the information age.”
But technology experts say this would make business more difficult to carry out online and may make the easy global access to which we have become accustomed a thing of the past.
“I don’t think we know what the internet is going to transform into because of this,” Mr Schneier said.
I very much doubt for one moment that anyone is seriously considering ‘breaking up’ the internet in this way. Too much is invested in this global entity. And it’s not just about corporate global reach, but also the personal global reach of people.
I, like many other personal internet users, love the global reach of the internet. I don’t want what i write in the UK to be limited to only those in the EU because some idiot is worried about their privacy being invaded. I want what i write to be open to any computer anywhere in the world, and if that means the NSA and GCHQ’s computers, then so be it. If people want total privacy then maybe i would suggest that you go away somewhere without phone lines and other modern conveniences and revert to living in the 18th century because modern life isn’t private and was never meant to be private. The internet was designed and started up to share ideas and thoughts, and it’s doing that perfectly well and doesn’t need fixing because the NSA and GCHQ decided to poke their noses into some of those ideas and thoughts. As far as i’m concerned they’re just as welcome to my ideas and thoughts as anyone else.
Now let’s look at these two paragraphs in particular…
“Data is power, and data is money,” security expert Bruce Schneier, who has analysed the Snowden documents for journalist Glenn Greenwald, told the BBC.
“These discussions about who has control of data are bigger than the NSA, bigger than surveillance, and they are the key questions of the information age.”
As it’s says, these discussions are bigger than the NSA and surveillance.
What i believe it comes down to is this thing that we have about privacy.
Before the internet we did most of our shopping in public, and we were all quite comfortable displaying our shopping habits in front of the whole world every Saturday. Everybody used to be able to see what everyone else was buying, and everyone was comfortable with that.
Then comes the internet, and suddenly people had access to items that they didn’t have access to before and could purchase them without anyone they knew knowing about it: the sex toy industry has boomed into a multi billion dollar industry since internet shopping came online.
And somehow people have got themselves into this idea that when they purchase something on line that they have total privacy. While they may be able to purchase the latest ‘Rampant Rabbit’ dildo vibrator, with batteries and water based anal lube in discrete packaging so the postman and their housemates won’t know, they seemed to have overlooked that every corporation that handled any part of the communications that made that transaction occur would know. They completely ignore the fact that all their financial transactions would be kept in historic corporate records for many years to come, available to any hacker, spy or law enforcement official who wishes to have a look at it; or any disgruntled, underpaid employee who wants to sell it.
We used to use snail mail to communicate, and this was considered private, but i have known people who steam open people’s letters and others who claim to have opened them by mistake (when it was clearly done on purpose). We accepted the risks of our snail mail being lost in the post, delivered to the wrong house, stolen, steamed open, opened by mistake (or not as the case may be). Yet when people send an email they expect it to remain between the sender and the receiver as though this is some kind of natural human right bestowed upon them by some god like entity. Like they never heard of copy/paste, forward, etc..
I think it’s time for people to stop externalising this debate onto the NSA and surveillance, and start to internalise it onto themselves and why they demand this complete privacy that has never existed in the first place.
I was born in a British Army hospital, i grew up in British Army housing in small British Army communities, and later served in the British Army. I was also in a children’s home as a teenager and also lived in small communities as an adult. With these parts of my life there was no privacy. For the most part of my childhood i shared a room with my brother, and when i wasn’t sharing a room my mother would continuously be snooping through my things.
In a children’s home, once again, there was no privacy. I shared a bedroom with 3 other boys and the other 6 boys that lived there would be in and out of our room whenever they felt like it. We had no concept of privacy. Everyone knew everyone else’s business, everyone knew why everyone else was in that children’s home. There was a real feeling of honesty to it all, where nothing could be hidden from anyone. Even if something was deemed private enough to be kept between a child and the staff, it wasn’t long before someone overheard a conversation and the whole place knew what was going on.
Then later i joined the army. Once again, sharing a room with 7 other men, with many others just walking in and out whenever they felt like, and having NCO’s and officers just going through all your cupboards and drawers on every inspection, killed any idea of privacy that might have arisen. There was no privacy, anything that anyone was going through was public knowledge, and you just got on with that and accepted it as part of your life.
So for me, privacy isn’t something that i find to be a normal thing. I’m used to having my life laid open for everyone to see.
So why is it that others seem to be so against this? Maybe it’s because if you’ve lived the opposite life to mine, where all you’ve known is privacy, the idea that others would know the minutiae of your life must seem horrendous.
I fully accept that my upbringing built into my character an openness that few have. It also built into my character a fucking good sense of humour and the ability to laugh at myself. But i think, most importantly, that it also built into my character an awareness that we’re all different and that we all have our kinks and odd ways of doing things and that these oddnesses are what makes people interesting and should be accepted and celebrated, not dissed and shamed.
But for someone who has grown up within a private environment, in an oversized community like a city, then i would presume that the opposite would take effect.
There are way too many people these days who completely lack the ability to laugh at themselves, who lack a fundamental sense of humility, who lack openness, and who walk around judging anyone that displays the slightest hint of difference. They, along with their friends, get their kicks out of watching reality TV shows, ridiculing and laughing at the weaknesses and quirks of others to distract attention away from their own weaknesses and quirks. I would say that voyeurism is a fetish that is fuelled by privacy, and that it’s an unhealthy fetish.
If we look back over the centuries, back to when we used to live in tiny little hamlets, you will understand that people didn’t have any idea of the concept of privacy. I’ve even heard it said, and experienced it myself in our current century, that within small communities everyone knows everyone else’s business, and that’s a perfectly normal thing and everyone is fine with that. It’s only in the modern age of cities of millions where people become essentially anonymous, even to their immediate neighbour, that the idea of privacy has crept in. Yet this privacy has not been a desire that has become the driving cause here, it’s been an effect that has been driven. It’s been something that has come upon people through this anonymous lifestyle that big city living forces upon them. Because, in the city, you cannot know the other million people and they cannot know you, so privacy is something that has become an effect of this, not a cause of it.
Which means that what we should be asking is, ‘Is privacy healthy for our societies?’ Is it healthy for us as individuals? I would say, no, it isn’t.
Anything that leads to reclusive, secretive, ashamed behaviour is not good for any individual, and that is exactly where privacy leads. And if millions of individuals are being cast into anonymity and privacy by a city lifestyle then that society is going to suffer as the individuals who make it also suffer.
I lived in London for 12 years, and i have to say that it was the loneliest time of my life. It was unhealthy for me, and for everyone else there. To live in an environment where the strangers around you simply become objects that you’re not able to communicate with is totally messed up. It leads to stuff like paranoia and depression, and you can see this written on so many faces in big cities.
So back to the NSA… essentially governments are incredibly secretive. Anyone who seeks to rule you is not going to be honest to you — that is a fact! Those in power have just one goal, to retain that power. And the desire to retain power is no different than the fear of losing power. And the fear of losing power leads to all kinds of aberrant behaviour and thoughts — which must be kept secret in order to retain the power. This inevitably leads to paranoia, which then inevitably leads to the voyeurism towards those you wish to control.
Essentially, the NSA is nothing but the biggest bunch of screwed up, paranoid voyeurs the world has ever know. The fear that must lie at the heart of the US Government to be so utterly paranoid to resort to the level of voyeurism that the NSA is resorting to is unhealthy. But the voyeurism isn’t what should be being tackled as that’s only a symptom, and the fear that lies at the heart of the US Government isn’t what needs to be tackled, because that’s only a symptom also. What needs to be tackled is privacy itself.
Only in a world where there is no privacy, are there no secrets. Only in a world with no secrets will there truly be an opportunity for peace. Until then, privacy will create fear, and fear will create paranoia, and paranoia will create conflict.
I’m not saying we can change the whole world. But each of us can change our little bit of it. Really, give up worrying that some screwed up, paranoid voyeurs, like the NSA staff, are listening to your phone calls, or looking through your emails. Give up privacy, give up fear, find peace in openness and humility.
Until next time…
Another old post that continues on from ‘Same Sex Marriage’…
It seemed to me when i wrote that article that the BBC were being apologists for transphobic and homophobic points of view, and it still does, even more so after doing a little more research. Not only did the BBC not look very deeply into what human society means when they use the term male and female, they never looked into what it means in the natural world either. So i’ve done a tiny bit of research into Nature’s genderqueer/genderfluid/trans community.
Strangely enough, the first example is from the BBC, which demonstrates quite clearly that the BBC science department is fully aware that gender and sexuality are not as simple as male/female, hetero/homo. So why is it that the rest of the BBC don’t include any of this scientific stuff when they write an article on same sex marriage? Oh yeah, i remember, the people writing the original BBC articles on gay marriage were obviously transphobic and homophobic themselves.
So first up, Neotrogla.
So, the females have the penises and the females get pregnant. I like the fact that as soon as the female of one species gets evolutionary control of the penis it becomes barbed and the males get fucked continuously for up to 70 hours wherein he is drained half to death as the female fucks and sucks every bit of nutrition she can get out of him. Go girls!!!
Then we have the seahorse. In seahorses the females don’t have a penis, neither do the males, but the males get pregnant and give birth a few weeks later to live young… Seahorse Facts.
Apparently when there aren’t any females around some males will turn into fully reproductive females that can then get the other males pregnant.
Butterflies and birds can be half male half female with one side of the animals demonstrating male colours and the other side female.
Clown Fish have a dominant male and female in each group which do all the breeding. If the dominant female dies then the dominant male will become the dominant female and one of the adolescent males will become the dominant male.
Hamlet Fish have both male and female fully functioning sex organs, although they cannot self fertilise themselves, when they mate they take turns at being the girl and boy. Sweet!
Banana Slugs are similar to Hamlet Fish with the benefit that they can fertilise themselves if need be. Oh the joy of having to consider birth control methods when masturbating.
Over 70% of male bass in USA waters are now found developing eggs in their testes.
Male frogs that have been exposed to a common pesticide called atrazine can become fully functioning reproductive females.
The bass and the frogs clearly demonstrating how susceptible our sexuality, sex organs and gender identity can be to the substances that we absorb from our environment/food.
The above list is not by any means the limit, that’s just a small little bit of research to show what Nature’s views on gender, sex and sexuality are, there are many more examples if one just cares to open ones eyes and look. Things only survive in Nature if the phenotypes benefit the species, so if these species are surviving then there must be some benefit to the species for gender/sex variance, and that gender/sex variance is perfectly natural and perfectly normal within Nature for it to have survived for so long.
Why then would any intelligent society even be listening to, let alone publishing, the views of bigots who want to ban all forms of gender/sex variance because it doesn’t conform to some idea that they claim was written 3000 years ago, in a country 3000 miles away, whose capital city only had a population of 3000, and whose understanding of the natural world you could have written on the back of a postage stamp with a marker pen? Should we really be basing our laws, our world view, our social ethics and morality upon the word of some despotic tribal chieftain from so long ago, so far away, who had the intelligence level of a modern 8 year old, who still thought his city was the actual centre of the universe and the world was a flat disk?
Certainly a bit of food for thought for those of you who still think that gender is a simple binary system of either male or female and that every single one of us has to live in only one of those two boxes our whole lives. Well it isn’t, and we don’t! And also food for thought for those of you who still think that how we express our gender defines our sexuality — it doesn’t! Just because i’ve got a mini skirt on does not mean i want to have sex with a man — understand? If you don’t understand, go back and watch the video again.
Open your minds a little and see the world in a much more wonderful way. A world where people aren’t defined by what genitalia they have or haven’t got, but a world where people are defined by who they are and who they chose to be within any given moment.
On a side note… i do really like Sam’s presentation of this. The way he jumps between prose and poetry and back again is just delightful and gives what is a very serious topic a nice light-hearted approach, which i hope makes more people pay attention and listen than otherwise would.
Another post from the past that i’m re-publishing.
Once again the absolute best journalists the BBC has to offer have written an article that i just can’t help but add to.
It seems to me that the article is nothing but the BBC pandering to homophobic bigots, because i don’t see any counter argument against any of the bigotry that is being presented. And it is bigotry. Oh sure, you can dress it up as being faithfully religious if you like, but people who hide behind an archaic ideology that has no relevance whatsoever in the 21st century in order to justify intolerance and discrimination are nothing but bigots.
Let’s look at this in a little more detail, let’s provide a little journalistic endeavour to this article and see where it leads. Because one thing’s for sure, the BBC journalists certainly did not apply any journalistic endeavour towards their article.
So basically, according to the homophobic bigots, if one of you has female on your birth certificate and the other has male on it, then marriage is ok. If they both have the same sex, then it isn’t. But just because a birth certificate states something doesn’t mean it is true. A birth certificate is simply a piece of paper issued by the political state for their own political purposes, and is not, and never has been, approved by any god for the followers of their religion to be used to judge, approve or oppress anyone.
Where, in any religion, does it state that the clergy should ask the political state to intervene on the sex judgement of those that the clergy are marrying? Because that’s what the clergy are doing when they refer to a birth certificate.
I can absolutely guarantee that all of these religions who are so opposed to same sex marriage have performed many same sex marriages without their knowing. Why? Because they have no way of knowing if the birth certificate is accurate and true. They also have no way of knowing about anyone born with an intersex condition, or if that intersex condition has been defined correctly on their birth certificate.
You can read all about intersex here. Go on, educate yourself and be a lot wiser. And the next time some ignorant, homophobic bigot tries to tell you how utterly sinful same sex marriage is, you’ll have plenty of ammunition for your debate.
Oh, if only sex and gender could be defined so easily as male or female. Nature simply isn’t like that. Depending on what scale you judge intersex on, you could be looking at up to 2% of the population with some kind of physical intersex condition. That’s a lot of people!
Sex and gender is a spectrum, not a binary objective that we all either fit this one or that one. This is a fact! And more and more science is proving this fact again and again. The only people who don’t accept this are bigots, totally ignorant, retarded bigots.
And how many transgender people have been married who have had their documents changed to reflect their new gender identity? Do any of these religions have any idea on how many trans men have been married by them to cis women and vice versa? I doubt it.
The other point that the wonderful incredible BBC journalists fail to look further into in a journalistic way in this whole article is the procreation aspect presented in the homophobic bigots’ arguments…
We read in part 1, this…
“Marriage is a unique kind of relationship that involves a man and a woman and their ability to create new life in the form of children,” says O’Reilly. “The church isn’t looking to impose its understanding of marriage on others, but it is looking for its understanding of marriage to be protected.”
And from part 2…
“The main reason for the state to be involved with marriage is children,” says Prof David Paton, an industrial economics lecturer at the University of Nottingham and a supporter of the Coalition for Marriage, a group arguing that traditional marriage is beneficial to society and would be undermined by a definitional change. “It seems reasonable for the state to treat the one type of relationship from which children can directly result in a different way to others, and this is the basis for marriage laws,” says Paton.
So let’s look at this a little closer…
Is this what marriage is really about? I know people who have been married for years and years and have never had children and do not want children. So why did the priest or registrar marry them and why isn’t the church or government annulling their marriage? Surely, if the religious/political argument against same sex marriage is that they can’t have children and that the sanctity of marriage should be protected for only those lucky few who can actually have children together, they should make sure that only fertile people are allowed to marry and that they should produce a child within a certain period of time else their marriage shall be null and void in the eyes of the lord and the state.
But they’re not doing that. These churches, and the political state, very clearly don’t care whatsoever as to whether two people they marry are capable of producing a child, or if they are capable whether they actually want to have a child. So why is this point of view, that marriage should be about the production of children, being used by the bigots now when it very clearly has never been the case for either church or state to insist on the production of children for a marriage to be valid?
One should also ask whether the church considers the intervention of science with IVF, allowing two people to produce a child, counts in their proper marriage thing. Because one thing is for sure, that those people could not, just like two men could not, or two women could not, produce a viable living human child without the intervention of modern science. So are these homophobic bigots calling for the annulment of marriages that use IVF to produce children? No they’re not. But it’s reasonably feasible for two women to make a baby using IVF techniques, so why can’t they be married the same as a male/female couple who had to use IVF to produce a child?
And if it is all about raising children and being a family, then why can’t two gay men who are raising a child (whether adopted or from a previous relationship or surrogate) be allowed to marry in the same way a man and a woman who have had to adopt because IVF didn’t work or for some other reason?
To sum up…
Sex and gender are quite complex topics and they should not be given over to ignorant, retarded bigots to define how they are treated by society as a whole. I’m sure that 2 or 3 thousand years ago, when we were not much more highly educated than chimpanzees, we could only manage to comprehend gender as either being male or female. It either clearly has a penis, or a vagina, and anything else is obviously the result of sorcery, and/or evil malignant spirits, and must be drowned at birth. Keep it simple for the morons. But this isn’t 2 or 3 thousand years ago and i don’t think that people who chose to follow a narrow minded, world view, that was defined in dark ages of unadulterated ignorance no better than a baboon’s, should be allowed to go around freely spouting their retarded, homophobic bigotry at all and sundry.
I did find Rupert Everett’s bit to be about the only piece in the whole thing with any level of intelligence…
Actor Rupert Everett perhaps gave the most colourful argument against, in a 2012 interview in the Guardian. “I loathe heterosexual weddings. The wedding cake, the party, the champagne, the inevitable divorce two years later. It’s just a waste of time in the heterosexual world, and in the homosexual world I find it personally beyond tragic that we want to ape this institution that is so clearly a disaster.”
More interesting thoughts on the topic of gender and sex to follow in the next article.