14 March 2010

The House of Genders

The Telegraph reports plans to replace the House of Lords with a chamber of three hundred persons (half of them women) elected by proportional representation.

What's proportional about that? Since, as we all know, 'feminine' and 'masculine' are artificial divisions imposed on society by the phallocentric patriarchy, a mandatory three-way split is clearly required to reflect the rich diversity of the New Jerusalem.

Perhaps the homosexual third might be further sub-divided into fems and butches. And obviously there should be seats (sic) reserved for cuprophiles, flagellants, transvestites and bondage devotees.

Although, come to think of it, that would probably increase the proportion of bog-standard heterosexuals in Parliament. The BBC would not approve. Let all tremblingly obey.


  1. Bog Standard sounds good to me. Let's take it while we can get it.

  2. I cannot forebear from commenting on Hugh's unwarranted slight of our need for a much stronger Transsexual representation in the new House of Lords. For the Future's sake, what else are we paying our tax money to the NHS for in order to create so many of them? Come on, Hugh. Get with it.

  3. Presumably they would be go into the quota assigned to whatever surgical gender they chose.

  4. Apparently, in NYC now, you can be legally identified as whatever sex you say you are; I'm not sure that this extends as far as alternative public loo privileges or preferring to be confined in a woman's prison, but how about M/W/F Male, T/R/S/ Female, and rest on the Sabbath?