Posts Tagged 'anti-kink'

BMA attempts whitewash, fails badly

Thanks to Pink News I saw that the British Medical Association (BMA), the professional association and trade union for UK doctors, had released a “report which describes the experiences of LGBT doctors and medical students working in the NHS” to mark LGBT History Month.

I’m really not sure whether to just post the particular paragraphs from their press release or to mercilessly dissect it –

“Societal attitudes towards homosexuality have changed over the years. There was a time when homosexuals were imprisoned as criminals and treated with electroshock therapy to ‘cure them of their disease’. The 2004 Gender Recognition Act was a major step forward and at last offers legal protection to homosexuals.

“Like the UK, the NHS has come a long way in recognising sexual and gender equality since it was founded in 1948. Many of the stories in the report show that LGBT doctors are out and proud at work and this is brilliant news, however, there are still accounts of discrimination which shows we still have a long way to go.

“The doctors who have spoken out in this report have been incredibly honest and brave and I hope their accounts will inspire other lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender doctors to be proud of their contributions to the NHS and to patients.”

- Dr Justin Varney, Co-chair of the BMA’s Equal Opportunities Committee (EOC) 


Fuck it, this one is just too failworthy to let go. 😛

  1. LGBT =/= homosexuality
  2. The whole thing seems rather …confused about itself. “Homosexual” one minute, then LGBT, then “sexual and gender equality” (i.e. Queer (+ Intersex) + Gender Variant + Kinksters + Ethical Non-Monogamy + Sexworking + ethical Sluts) and back again. Kinda different in scope, aren’t they.
  3. Sure, there was a time when we imprisoned and enforced state-organised abuse on “homosexuals” to ‘cure them of their disease’, but now we just reserve that for perverts, trannies, and whores.
  4. The 2004 Gender Recognition Act was a major step forward and at last offers legal protection to homosexuals.”
    1. ….
    2. lol!
    3. would this qualify for ‘epic’ fail?
    4. I’d also challenge that it was “a major step forward“. It might have been in 1997 or whenever, when it was first submitted to Parliament, but by the time it did get passed it was pretty much relegated to tokenism to shut up the normative fluffy tea-and-crumpets trannies.
    5. Legal protection. Only just. The tiniest ‘wafff-eh thin’ sliver of legal protection …and only for those trannies that are certified as ‘Twue Transexuals’, oh, and guess who has that job – Doctors.
  5. Completely fails to acknowledge the role of the BMA itself, and many of it’s members in either actively supporting, or at least refusing to challenge the widespread Antisexualist, Anti-trans, Anti-Intersex, and Anti-Kink prejudices and *acts* of clinical (mal)practice endemic within the UK Medical industry/community, included of course;
    1. performing major surgery without consent,
    2. refusal of life-critical treatment,
    3. false pathologisation,
    4. pressurising patients to conform to stereotypes and have surgery, and
    5. misleading patients with regard to treatments.
  6. Using a suspect term of reference favoured by attackers (“homosexual”) to reference tothe audience you are trying to schmoose.

So all in all I have just one message to the BMA and all doctors and other medics out there:

with regard to what we need and how to treat us – for fucks sake just listen to us, your patients  …ALL OF US (not just the normative types).


Eternal Draft: Evidence of ‘hidden’ Queerphobic bias in Antisexualist and Kinkphobic measures

…Or why all Queers (L, G, B, P, A, T +) should worry about and be allies in the fight against anti-sex and anti-kink laws.

[updated 07/03/09, first written 07/01/09]

The following is a collection of indicators or references to where Antisexualist and/or Kinkphobic legislation, case law, and other authority measures have had a bias against queer sex, while not specifically being declared by their enactors to have anti-queer intent. The purpose of this is to provide a succinct pool of backing evidence for the hypothesis, based on observation, that where antisexualist or anti-kink prejudices are enshrined in rules they will invariably also enshrine an amount of anti-queer bias, due to the shared root in a fear of people seeking to enjoy their own bodies’ and/or use them for pleasure.

I started putting this together ages ago following a conversation with a fellow activist where I explained I felt the constituency of a Queer conference she was heading to (and all Queer people) should care about the criminalisation of kinky porn since in the past antisexualist and anti-kink laws in the UK have always impacted harder on gay/bi/pan people and same-gender erotic materials than on comparable hetero ones, due to the common undercurrent in thinking amongst the heteronormative world that there is something inherently ‘immoral’ or ‘perverse’ in queer sex, simply due to it’s queerness.

This is an evolving document, and any other evidence (ideally as legislation/regulation/etc or comment with citation as opposed to non-citing comment or opinion pieces) would be gratefully accepted. Please send any text or pointers to

~ jessikat

Within UK –

  • “…Legislation in this area is likely to throw up more problems than solutions. In Canada, one of the first prosecutions under that country’s tighter anti-porn laws was a consensual lesbian SM publication. Here, in the UK, our anti-porn laws were used successfully in the 1980s to prevent explicit safer sex advice to combat HIV. …”
  • Public sex in SOA2003 – brings in aggressive laws against any sexual activity in public toilets, a.k.a “cottaging” i.e. male-on-male sex, while not doing the same for outdoors sex or “dogging” i.e. predominately heterosexual sex, thus disproportionately criminalising G&B men.
  • “Same-sex age of consent offences are treated much more seriously than equivalent heterosexual offences: “for consensual heterosexual intercourse with girls between 13 and 16 the tariff [a band, established by Appeal Court decisions, within which a sentence is supposed to fall] is [set at] a fine or a conditional discharge or imprisonment [of] up to 1 year for older offenders. In practice, the male partner is usually given a caution or, if prosecuted at all, no more than a fine. For consensual sexual activity by a man with a boy of corresponding age, however, the tariff, which in this instance the courts tend to follow, is 3 – 5 years imprisonment.”
  • “… The [anti-SM] law also appears to discriminate unfairly against gay men, compare the decisions in R v. Wilson and R v. Brown. In Brown the gay “passive” partners were prosecuted and convicted whereas in Wilson and Emmett the heterosexual “passive” partners were not prosecuted.”

Abroad, Similar ‘Western’ nations –

RSS Current Actions & Consultations

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

Sticky Posts

  • • Fuck Lifestyle!
  • • Do we need Hate Crime law?
  • • What are the Tasks facing Sexual & Gender Diversity movements?
  • • A proposal for pragmatically judging the priorities for SGDMs