Rude!
If English judges are so troubled by my orgasms…the least they could do is ask me about them!
Central to the recent Tavistock ruling over the use of puberty blockers for trans kids was a panel of cis folks pontificating on the potential impact, further down the transition road, of their impact on fertility and “sexual function”.
Bad enough that these remarks demonstrate a degree of absolute ignorance about trans sexuality: the equivalent of blowing smoke out of their perfectly manicured legal bottoms. The fact, though, that they could hold such a discussion without inviting a single trans person to comment is beyond shameful.
Now read on.
Legal duplicity
Over the last week I have mostly left the recent Tavistock judgment on the prescribing of puberty blockers to trans children to the lawyers. After all, I would trust that such people are far better qualified than I to indulge in such legal nit-picking. Let the experts stick to their knitting.
Which is why I was perplexed by one point in particular. That is not just the obsession of the Honourable Lords and Lady involved in the case with trans orgasms — but their willingness to go ahead and invent a whole load of untruths around discussion of them.
Surely not! But oh yes. After explaining how they are not going to pronounce on the efficacy of puberty blockers (a sure sign that they are going to do exactly that), they…went on to do exactly that. At great length and in multiple places throughout their ruling.
“But go search. If you dare, you will find the final judgment sprinkled throughout, like a sixpence-stuffed Christmas pud, with reference to “fertility” and “sexual function”.”
Judges with O-bsessions
Not only! They also ruminated at length on the ability of trans folk to orgasm. Really, jane? Absolutely. Not in so many words. But go search. If you dare, you will find the final judgment sprinkled throughout, like a sixpence-stuffed Christmas pud, with reference to “fertility” and “sexual function”. And — forgive my French! — what is…
