Is gender a social construct?

[bjorb]

It's actually pretty shocking how quickly this is spreading. I could've sworn just 5 years ago this wasn't a thing, fringe and largely unknown at best. It seems like almost overnight, all the college kids I've spoken to in the past year or so accept this as "normal" [...]

Same here. For me it felt like this has happened overnight. It was "LGBT - I'm super proud" week recently in Spain and it was all over the TV with parades on every single place, including the highly conservative and traditional town where I live. The other day I had to endure 20 minutes of TV interviews with the most absurd things I've ever seen while I had dinner at work. Granted, I haven't watched most of the videos quoted in this thread. I tried to watch one, but the urge to do anything else was greater.

Yep, me too. It was like all of a sudden the order went out, and these concepts were literally saturating the media from every possible angle. Then it got pushed into the schools, for younger and younger children, and it's everywhere! It's just so blatant and obvious, at times it's hard to fathom why people aren't noticing the big focus on this, or asking why are we spending all this energy and money on this instead of solving the basic problems like providing food and shelter for all?

It kind of came out of nowhere, especially considering the sudden dramatic rise of 'gender-dysphoria' under the population, a research paper about it states: http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/growing-pains

●The Gender Identity Development Service in the United Kingdom, which treats only children under the age of 18, reports that it received 94 referrals of children in 2009/2010 and 1,986 referrals of children in 2016/2017 — a relative increase of 2,000%. The service also reports that it received six referrals for children under the age of 6 in 2009/2010, compared to thirty-two referrals for children under the age of 6 in 2016/2017 — a relative increase of 430%.

 

[angelburst29]

Washington, D.C. has made "X" a gender option on driver's licenses and identification cards, making it the first jurisdiction in the United States to offer gender-neutral identifications.

DC Becomes First in US to Offer Gender-Neutral Identification
http://freebeacon.com/issues/dc-first-in-us-offer-gender-neutral-identification/

A group of people became the first in America to receive gender-neutral driver's licenses on Tuesday in the nation's capital, CNN reports. They prefer "X" as their gender marker instead of male or female because they identify as gender fluid, gender non-conforming, agender, or another category.

Nik Sakurai was the first to receive one of these licenses and made a Facebook event to celebrate. Sakurai identifies as agender and prefers the pronoun "they."

"I don't feel that sense of gender as something that is part of my core innate experience," Sakurai said. "I'm glad to finally have an ID that actually matches who I am."

CNN cited LGBTQ advocates who say that gender-neutral identification lessens the chances of harassment when someone's gender does not seem to match that person's physical appearance. Oregon will come out with its own gender-neutral licenses on Saturday.

D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser announced last week that this change was intended to improve the health and wellbeing of all Washingtonians. She said that the new identification option "aligns District gender identity policies with D.C. values."

"Washington, D.C. has long been a leader in LGBTQ rights and gender issues, and this change is the most recent example of our city's commitment to inclusivity," Bowser said.

The director of the city's human rights office, Monica Palacio, said that part of the goal was to change how residents think about gender.

"This important step taken by the Department of Motor Vehicles not only validates a person's chosen identity but also creates broader acceptance, reducing potential incidents of discrimination against individuals for being who they are," Palacio said.

 

[Turgon]

A group of Conservative Senators just recently stopped a Bill here in Canada that would have effectively changed the lyrics of the National Anthem to being gender neutral. But if you read the rest of the article, the people that are pushing for this only see this as a minor setback and are gonna keep pushing for it.

_http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/dreams-gender-neutral-anthem-1.4180545

Canadians will not be singing a gender-neutral national anthem on Canada Day after a bill before Parliament to officially change the lyrics has stalled.

The House of Commons overwhelmingly passed a private member's bill last summer that would alter the national anthem by replacing "in all thy sons command" with "in all of us command" as part of a push to strike gendered language from O Canada.

Although the bill sailed through the House with government approval, Conservative senators opposed to the changes have scored a victory in the Red Chamber. A yearlong campaign successfully punted a vote on the bill until the fall, at the earliest, and even then the legislation faces an uncertain future.

"I'm trying to protect the tradition rather than, you know, water it down with a politically correct version that is historically inaccurate," Conservative Senator David Wells said in an interview with CBC News on Tuesday.

"I don't misrepresent why I'm [using parliamentary stall tactics] … I don't like this bill, and I will do what I can to ensure it doesn't pass."

Wells and roughly 20 other senators have said they oppose efforts to tinker with the lyrics written by a man long dead.

(The lyrics have been changed since they were first penned by Robert Stanley Weir in 1908, but not since O Canada officially became the country's national anthem in 1980.)

The late Liberal MP Mauril Bélanger introduced the bill, and many MPs backed the legislation as a salute to a colleague on his death bed.

"The bill was passed in the House compassionately and out of sadness for a dying colleague. While that is touching, it is not the way we make public policy in this country and it is not the way we do our legislation," Ontario Conservative Senator Lynn Beyak said.

Senate amendments stall bill

A flurry of amendments were introduced to the bill in the last few weeks of the parliamentary sitting — all failed to pass in the face of opposition from most Liberal and Independent senators — which dragged out debate considerably. Parliament rose for summer break before a final vote at third reading could be held.

Ramona Lumpkin, the president and vice-chancellor of Mount Saint Vincent University in Halifax, and a strong proponent of the bill, said she was deeply disappointed by the developments.

"We're so close and I really regret that there are a few senators who seem to have dug in and decided to delay. I hope it's not a permanent block," said Lumpkin, in an interview with CBC News.

"It's not as if the words were brought down from Mount Sinai on stone tablets like the Ten Commandments, they are words created by humans and subject to change as our social and cultural conditions change, and thank goodness they do," she said.

'Political correctness run amok'

Wells said national symbols cannot be altered to simply adhere to the "flavour of the day." He said Canadians were not consulted by the government and that there hasn't been an adequate conversation about a fairly significant change.

"I'll be working my hardest to delay this bill until there's a full debate," he said. "I get a lot of emails, and many comments to me personally, from people who don't want to see the anthem change, who see it as a part of our tradition and who see this attempt to change it as political correctness run amok. It is a slippery slope. Calls for inclusion will always be there, but my belief is all Canadians are already included in the national anthem."

He said pictures adorning the walls of the Senate depict men in combat during the First World War. "Would we now airbrush females into those pictures to accurately reflect what it might be today with those pieces of Canadians' history? My answer is no, that would be an abomination, and I think that's what it is with the anthem as well."

 

[angelburst29]

“Queer Kid Stuff,” a YouTube channel geared toward teaching children about sexual preferences, homosexuality, transgenderism, and more, celebrated “Pride Month” by releasing a video talking to kids about people dressing in drag.

‘Queer Kid Stuff’ YouTube channel seeks to teach kids about dressing in drag and transgenderism (2 Videos)
http://postnewsd2.blogspot.in/2017/06/queer-kid-stuff-youtube-channel-seeks.html

The producer and host of “Queer Kid Stuff,” Lindsay Amer, created the channel in June 2016 to help children ages 3-7 better understand the LGBT community, according to the show’s website.

“Young queer people need to see themselves represented in their media and that is exactly what I aim to do,” Amer wrote.

In the videos, she and her co-host Teddy, a stuffed bear, invite guests on to explain various parts of the LGBT community, including the definitions of “gay,” “gender,” and “intersex.” They also discuss the subject of consent and include a sing-along video to go with it. Additionally, the channel discusses the Disney movie, “Frozen,” and how Elsa is allegedly homosexual.

In the latest video, Amer invites Jeff to explain the concept of drag queens to the kids. Following the pattern of every “Queer Kid Stuff” video, Teddy begins by asking the guest what his pronouns are and how he identifies.

Jeff explains that he is a male and uses male pronouns before explaining that drag is dressing up as the opposite gender in a very exaggerated way. Lindsay goes on to explain that drag queens often utilize extravagant costumes and a lot of makeup in order to transform into someone else.

The group then snaps their fingers, and Jeff magically transforms into a drag queen character named “Ms. Ter” with a black wig, heavy facial makeup, long-painted nails, white eye contacts, and jewelry.

Teddy asks “Ms. Ter” what his pronouns are and how he identifies, and Jeff explains that as “Ms. Ter” he identifies as female and uses female pronouns.

“Ms. Ter” goes on to explain that drag queens are the “hosts” of the LGBT community, making sure that everyone has a good time with dance numbers and lip-synching. “Ms. Ter” then notes that while not all drag queens are transgendered, some are.

At the end of the video, Teddy exclaims that drag is “so cool” and expresses its wish to put on dresses, makeup, and “do all those cool things.”

In a separate video, Amer shows children how Jeff transforms into “Ms. Ter.”

The library of videos on the channel do not seem to be well received by the public. The majority of of comments left in the comments section of the videos are negative. Amer has also disabled the ratings system for the videos.

However, the series is celebrated by outlets such as the Huffington Post that regularly promotes “Queer Kid Stuff” on its website.

 

[Joe]

It's just so blatant and obvious, at times it's hard to fathom why people aren't noticing the big focus on this, or asking why are we spending all this energy and money on this instead of solving the basic problems like providing food and shelter for all?

Maybe a lot of people are, but they're part of the silent majority, or maybe a majority of people are mostly unaware of the entire debate. We have to remember that, while these things are 'big deals' for us and those in our cultural milieus, there are billions of people out there who probably have never heard of the term "social justice warrior".

To make it more complicated, on your point above about providing food and shelter for all, much of the anti-SJW camp on the political 'right', would take serious exception to the idea that food and shelter should be provided for all. That sounds far too much like socialism or communism to them.

 

[Hindsight Man]

It's just so blatant and obvious, at times it's hard to fathom why people aren't noticing the big focus on this, or asking why are we spending all this energy and money on this instead of solving the basic problems like providing food and shelter for all?

Maybe a lot of people are, but they're part of the silent majority, or maybe a majority of people are mostly unaware of the entire debate. We have to remember that, while these things are 'big deals' for us and those in our cultural milieus, there are billions of people out there who probably have never heard of the term "social justice warrior".

To make it more complicated, on your point above about providing food and shelter for all, much of the anti-SJW camp on the political 'right', would take serious exception to the idea that food and shelter should be provided for all. That sounds far too much like socialism or communism to them.

I've noticed that as well,while I agree with quite a bit of what anti-sjw's say,what irritates me is that as soon as you mention something that sounds like basic empathy they have a knee jerk reaction and call you a commie.The sheer detachment from the left has allowed nazis to be very prevalent in those social circles,at least on youtube and other entertainment platforms.For example on Jordan Peterson's video's,particularly ones discussing russian authors like Solzhenitsyn,you get the obligatory ''commies aren't people'' comments.What bothers me the most is that they are,at least on the surface,moving in the right direction with family unit,masculinity and self development,but then you have the strong authoritarian aspect that is fostered by role-playing nitwits who still think it's 1934.

 

[Hindsight Man]

Also,I hope this isn't too off topic,but I came across this video.To give you a bit of a background first,the whites in South Africa are on genocide watch and you're more likely to die as a white farmer there than you are as an american soldier in Iraq.The crimes that are routinely commited against them are staggering in their brutality and sadism.This isn't really talked about because it's not politically correct.

So there was this guy called Siener Van Rensburg,who was kind of like the Edgar Cayce of South Africa and he made some interesting predictions which are covered in this video,such as Europe in turmoil,ww3 and Turkey goating Russia into conflict,an american president having hair that looks like a wig (isn't that pertinent!) and the genocide of white south africans.The interview is only 30 min long,so take a look,if nothing else it's at least interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oz94ONpLMdY

 

[Joe]

It's just so blatant and obvious, at times it's hard to fathom why people aren't noticing the big focus on this, or asking why are we spending all this energy and money on this instead of solving the basic problems like providing food and shelter for all?

Maybe a lot of people are, but they're part of the silent majority, or maybe a majority of people are mostly unaware of the entire debate. We have to remember that, while these things are 'big deals' for us and those in our cultural milieus, there are billions of people out there who probably have never heard of the term "social justice warrior".

To make it more complicated, on your point above about providing food and shelter for all, much of the anti-SJW camp on the political 'right', would take serious exception to the idea that food and shelter should be provided for all. That sounds far too much like socialism or communism to them.

I've noticed that as well,while I agree with quite a bit of what anti-sjw's say,what irritates me is that as soon as you mention something that sounds like basic empathy they have a knee jerk reaction and call you a commie.The sheer detachment from the left has allowed nazis to be very prevalent in those social circles,at least on youtube and other entertainment platforms.For example on Jordan Peterson's video's,particularly ones discussing russian authors like Solzhenitsyn,you get the obligatory ''commies aren't people'' comments.What bothers me the most is that they are,at least on the surface,moving in the right direction with family unit,masculinity and self development,but then you have the strong authoritarian aspect that is fostered by role-playing nitwits who still think it's 1934.

Yeah, the whole 'debate' for me has had the flavor of 'divide and conquer', which I why I haven't wanted to take any specific 'sides', while at the same time trying to see what is valuable in both perspectives.

It strikes me that the final, broad-scale answer to this 'debate' that is happening on a kind of 'global' scale has been available to us for many years and it was provided by the Cs way back when. Of course, the same concept has existed in 'esoteric' circles probably for eons; the idea is that the 'living system' on this planet has a very definite design and purpose.

Adversity and suffering is 'built in' to the system in order that all sentient creatures might learn through it. No one who seeks to learn can avoid suffering because suffering is the raw material (or 'fertilizer) that enables learning and growth. So the extreme 'postmodern' idea of equality of outcome with the implied 'abolition' of suffering would seem to go directly against a very fundamental aspect of life itself (on this planet at least).

That is perhaps why all previous attempts to institute such an 'ideal' world have in fact achieved the opposite; humanity isn't ready for it, or doesn't want it (at some level) for pretty good reasons that most people are not consciously aware of.

Of course, that doesn't mean that we who have a bit of a clue should turn a blind eye to injustice and suffering, but this 'living system' perspective should inform how we go about it, what we support and what we do not. Ultimately, as Jordan Peterson says, the only real path to 'change the world' in a truly positive way that is open to the average person is to focus primarily on understanding and fixing the self and helping those close to us (or who are inclined to listen to us) to do the same.

Because in the end, does anything we do to combat injustice and war and unnecessary suffering have any effect? Maybe it does, to some small degree and only in terms of combating unnecessary suffering, but even that is through simply informing people, helping them to learn so that they can prevent their own unnecessary suffering. Trying to force it on others always turns out bad, it seems.

 

[Cosmos]

This is a good one:

http://<iframe width="854" height="...vE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Niall]

It's just so blatant and obvious, at times it's hard to fathom why people aren't noticing the big focus on this, or asking why are we spending all this energy and money on this instead of solving the basic problems like providing food and shelter for all?

Maybe a lot of people are, but they're part of the silent majority, or maybe a majority of people are mostly unaware of the entire debate. We have to remember that, while these things are 'big deals' for us and those in our cultural milieus, there are billions of people out there who probably have never heard of the term "social justice warrior".

There's been a large movement against it in France since 2012: 'La Manif Pour Tous' (Protest for All), specifically in opposition to the spread of gender theory in the education system. This now has Italian and Finnish chapters.

Some of the demonstrations apparently drew crowds of over a million people:

http://<iframe width="853" height="...Iw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[hlat]

Dave Chappelle has a stand up show on Netflix filmed in Texas in 2015, and an excerpt of his comment on this situation was:

I support anybody's right to be whoever they feel like are inside. I'm your ally in that. However, my question is, to what degree do I have to participate in your self image? Is it fair that I have to change my whole pronoun game up for this motherf*?

Someone else typed up the whole section of the show with all the explicit language. The transcription is missing a few words or sentences here and there, and the forum autocorrect has changed some words within "- -", but you get the idea. If you don't know who Chappelle is, he was prominently in American culture around 2004.

Everybody's mad about something. Recently I got attacked online by some gay bloggers and it hurt my feelings...I have no problem with gay people but I fucking hate bloggers. Not saying it because this person's gay, he was acting like a bitch online, mischaracterizing my jokes trying to make a point off of me when it's really like "I'm your ally, motherfucker. I'm not trying to stop gay people. I got better shit to do". This motherfucker was saying things to try to get gay people to beat me up. Seriously, he was like [gay voice] "Dave Chappelle jokes" I don't know how he talks. I'm just making this voice up. "Dave Chappelle's jokes were an affront to the manhood of all gay men." What the fuck does that mean? I didn't say anything that would allude to gay men not being men. I know you men. In fact, what could be manlier than fucking another guy in the ass? That's the most gangsta shit I ever heard in my life.

You know what I said? This is all I said. First of all, I'll tell you right now what I said and I'll tell you this is not a joke. It's a true story and I just happened to tell it. What happened was I went to a gallery party, alright. I don't know who in here's ever been rich before but these are very nice parties. Uh, you know, wine and cheese and a ball of conversation. And there were a few eccentric types. One of which was a very wealthy man that happen to be wearing a dress. I don't know what you'd call them nowadays. A tranny or drag queen perhaps. Whatever it was, it was definitely a man. And this man was definitely on drugs. I don't know what kind of drugs he was on but I knew he had too much. It wasn't good. He was [mimics swaying and being out of it sick] and all his friends were standing around him, concerned, trying to revive him. I don't know. It looked like some type of gay CPR where they were fanning him and shit. [mimics limp wristing fanning and blowing] I saw all this from a distance. And I should have minded my own business but I got curious. And I went over there and all I said was "Excuse me, gentlemen, gentlemen, is he ok?" And they looked at me like I was evil. [mimes outrage gay voice] "She is fine."

Say word? Oh. Sorry I didn't know this is what we were doing. Here's my thing. I support anybody's right to be whoever they feel like are inside. I'm your ally in that. However...my question is...to what degree do I have to participate in your self image? Is it fair that I have to change my whole pronoun game up for this motherfucker? That doesn't make sense. Seriously. If I put on a argyle sweater and I'm like [white voice] "Hey everybody. I feel like a white guy in this sweater. I want some goddamn respect and a bank loan." That's not going to work. You don't give a fuck how I feel, why should I give a fuck about how you feel? Nigger's a pronoun.

But there was no time for philosophical debate. This was an emergency situation. I said "FINE, sorry guys, I was just worried because...she looks terrible. And she just fell off the bench. It appears that her dick is popping out of her dress. Do you mind if I call an ambulance, champ? I'd rather not be at a party where a tranny OD's. That's too many questions to answer."

 

[bjorb]

Well, I'm not posting the followings pics with a lot of enthusiasm, but somebody has to do it.

It is disgusting, what a bunch of pervs, and all in the name of tolerance. Bringing children to a LGBT march or whatever they call it is inhuman and child abuse. Besides that, it's more a march of seeing the decline of human society first row center.

 

[Turgon]

How do the parents not see what they are exposing their children too? A person wearing a leather string for clothing and being led around on a leash?! And say what you will about the history of Christianity, but that's bad juju to do that to someone else's religious symbols. I'm reminded of a true crime book I read a few years back about a husband who was accused of violently murdering his wife, only to later find out it was the gay house cleaner that most likely did it, but who got away with it. A string of 'accidents' that left people dead, and him inheriting a lot of money followed the house cleaner around and eventually he became a successful interior designer. He had a fascination with 'black magic' and so one of his trademark designs was to either covertly or overtly invert the Christian cross somewhere in the house he was designing (he eventually did end up in prison, but not for the murders). Yeah, the Christian Church has persecuted homosexuality for a very long time, and I can understand why their is animosity coming from the gay community, but to wear a cross to cover your crotch, and stack a whole bunch of them together to (most likely) burn them, isn't just juvenile, but speaks of some seriously dark energies behind those kinds of motivations.

 

[Chad]

It seems the gender-fluidity madness has made it's way to the UK. And both political parties are giving it their backing. The article addresses how later this year the government will debate the idea that people can change their legal gender at will, without seeing a doctor - currently they have to live like their chosen gender for a year and have a medical review. It also notes that in Scotland they will look into lowering the age at which you can change your gender, from 18 to 16. The article does address how worrying and problematic this could be if implemented:

Choose your own gender WITHOUT seeing a doctor: Government to rip up rules on switching sex

Adults will be able to change their gender legally without a doctor's diagnosis under government plans
People will be able to 'self-identify' as a member of the opposite sex
Current rules mean people have to live for two years as their desired gender before they can officially change sex
The need to be assessed and diagnosed by clinicians is regarded as intrusive
Government also announced that it will make it easier for gay men to give blood

By Thomas Burrows for MailOnline

Published: 09:47 BST, 23 July 2017 | Updated: 16:11 BST, 23 July 2017


Minister for Women and Equalities Justine Greening said she wanted to cut the stigma faced by transpeople

Adults will be able to choose their sex legally without the need for a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria under government plans.

Men will be able to identify themselves as women - and women as men - and have their birth certificates change to record their new gender.

Minister for Women and Equalities Justine Greening said she wanted to cut the stigma faced by transpeople.

At present they have to provide evidence that they have been in transition for at least two years before they can apply to legally change their gender.

Reforms to help transgender people choose their legal sex, which include speeding up the bureaucratic process, will go out to consultation in the autumn.

It comes after Prime Minister Theresa May earlier this week suggested she was preparing to reform the Gender Recognition Act, saying that 'when it comes to rights and protections for trans people, there is still a long way to go'.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said May would have his support if she allowed transpeople to 'self-identify' their gender.

He said legislation could be passed with Labour's backing, despite the prime minster's deal with the socially conservative DUP. [the DUP who May needed to form a government are known to be against homosexuality and abortion and some believe the biblical interpretation that the world was created 6000 years ago - but May gave them a Billion pound in funding for 'social projects' so they may be a little more open to the idea]

However critics warned it could lead to legal cases over access to women-only hospital wards, prisons and rape crisis centres.

Stephanie Davies-Arai of Transgender Trend, a parents' group, told the Sunday Times: 'This has huge implications for women. There will be legal cases. The most worrying thing is if any man can identify as a woman with no tests and gain access to spaces where women might be getting undressed or feel vulnerable — like women's hospital wards, refuges and rape crisis centres — women will just stop going to these facilities.'

Simon Calvert of the Christian Institute said: 'It is worrying when the leaders of the main political parties are so out of touch with the concerns of ordinary people.

'We need to inject a dose of reality into these discussions about transgenderism before the current political fashion runs away with us altogether.

'Allowing men to self-identify as female without any medical diagnosis allows them to invade the privacy of women and girls. Where this policy has been tried in the US, women and young girls have experienced the fear and humiliation of finding themselves sharing toilet and changing facilities with men.

'Transgender people aren't the only people with rights. Women have rights too.

'If politicians believe we can redefine our own gender at will, it's no wonder others are following this to its logical conclusion and advocating transracialism and even transageism. It's time for a reality check. Some things can't be changed.'

Prime Minister Theresa May earlier this week suggested she was preparing to reform the Gender Recognition Act


Ms Greening, who is in a relationship with a woman, said the Government was building on the progress on tackling prejudice made in the 50 years since the partial decriminalisation of homosexuality.

The Sexual Offences Act 1967 made private homosexual acts between men over the age of 21 legal.

The current need to be assessed and diagnosed by clinicians is seen as an intrusive requirement by the trans community.

Ms Greening said: 'This government is committed to building an inclusive society that works for everyone, no matter what their gender or sexuality and today we're taking the next step forward.

'We will build on the significant progress we have made over the past 50 years, tackling some of the historic prejudices that still persist in our laws and giving LGBT people a real say on the issues affecting them.'

Suzanna Hopwood, a member of the Stonewall Trans Advisory Group, said: 'I am really pleased that the Government is making good on its commitment to review the Gender Recognition Act. Reform is one of the key priorities in our vision for removing the huge inequalities that trans people face in the UK.

'The current system is demeaning and broken. It's vital that this reform removes the requirements for medical evidence and an intrusive interview panel, and finally allows all trans people to have their gender legally recognised through a simple administrative process. That's what we'll be calling for during this consultation, and I'm looking forward to seeing the law change soon after.'

Ruth Hunt, Chief Executive of Stonewall said: 'We're pleased the Government recognises there is still more to be done to ensure all lesbian, gay, bi and trans people are accepted without exception, and welcome the announcement of new measures to tackle some of the remaining inequalities.

'We need a simple process which isn't medicalised, intrusive or demeaning. We would urge the Government to ensure that all trans communities are consulted and to act quickly on their concerns.'

Ben Wilson, Equality and Human Rights Commission executive director, said: 'There's still so much more to do to ensure trans people can live as they choose without fear of discrimination or hostility.

'We welcome that the Government is prioritising this and seeking views from trans people themselves.

'We'll feed in information about a wide range of issues raised with us from school and work to other areas of life.'

The consultation will also address whether those whose gender is 'non-binary' should be able to define themselves as 'X' on their birth certificates.

A separate consultation in Scotland goes even further and proposes a cut in the age at which people can change their gender from 18 to 16.

The Government has also announced the deferral blood donation period for men who have sexual contact with other men, will be reduced from 12 months to three months increasing the supply of donor blood available for life-saving operations.

Fears over infections led to a ban on gay men giving blood at the height of the Aids epidemic, but in 2011 that was changed to allow men to donate blood a year after having sex.

This will be reduced again in 2018 due to medical advances under plans for the NHS in England.

Ethan Spibey, Founder, FreedomToDonate said: 'Today's announcement from the Government marks a world-leading blood donation policy for gay and bisexual men and the other groups previously restricted.

'I'm so proud that the work of FreedomToDonate and our supporters will help ensure more people than ever before are allowed to safely donate blood. I began this campaign because I wanted to repay the donor who saved my granddad's life after a major operation and this announcement means I'm closer than ever to doing that.'

 

[mkrnhr]

On a more humorous note, even ISIS/Daech is pro-gender fluidity: