The politics of organ donation

I’ve just carried out a transaction on a government website, and at the end I was invited to consider opting in for organ donation when I shuffle off this mortal coil. As a young man I always carried an organ donor card, but I lost it at some point, and had always meant to register again. So I registered online, it only took a couple of minutes. The link is here.

The form had clearly been designed by a hatchet-faced narcissistic feminist. In the title options, which start with the following, she placed her personal option first:


Historically, ‘Mr’ would always have started such lists. Now we’re #6.

The gender options:

Male (first option, surprisingly… probably not for much longer)
Prefer not to say

The top-level options on race:

Asian or Asian British
Gypsy or Irish Traveller
Black or Black British

If everyone who read this gave us just £1 – or even better, £1 monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.

About Mike Buchanan

I'm a men's human rights advocate, writer, and publisher. My primary focus is leading the political party I launched in 2013, Justice for Men & Boys (and the women who love them). I still work actively on two campaigns I launched in early 2012, Campaign for Merit in Business and the Anti-Feminism League. In 2014 I launched The Alternative Sexism Project, aiming to raise public understanding that the sexism faced by men and boys has far more grievous consequences than the sexism faced by women and girls.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
  • cheannaich

    The change in language has been going on for quite a few years now. I remember my daughter’s English GCSE homework. It seemed to be written from a feminist perspective and considered the use of words and how it portrayed dominance and submission. Have you noticed how it is the norm to have ‘women and men’ throughout society. In days gone it was standard for: ‘boys and girls’; ‘men and women’ and ‘ladies and gentlemen’ to be used.
    As for the rest of your story vis-a-vis gender, sexuality and race, brings to mind my experience with the plod. I was a witness to some minor criminality and the ploddery appeared in my living room to take further details. At the end of it all they demanded my date of birth, my place of birth, my ethnicity, sexuality, age.
    I now witness sod all and avoid the plod as much as possible.

  • As a software developer for many years, I have often had to create options for titles. Over the years, the options have grown both as a result of my own appreciation of possibilities and as a result of ‘strange’ choices becoming more popular.

    Women have three common options of title. They can proclaim themselves as married (“Mrs”), or as single (“Miss”), or as undeclared (“Ms” – increasingly common). Males have no shorthand way to distinguish their social position in the same way as women – all the three female options are bundled together into the homogenous option “Mr”. Offering “Master” as an option without also offering “Mister” as well as “Mr” is inconsistent and, at any rate, is nowadays understood more to do with age than with marital status.

    Along with which options should be offered, the ordering of the options is also considered. “Mr” is the most commonly selected option so there is a reason to put that at the top. Depending on the application, the majority of respondents might well be female, so there is a reason for putting the female options first and the only problem with doing so is that all three common female options need be offered, ahead of the one most commonly selected.

    In most target audiences, following the single option for men and the three options for women in popularity is “Dr”, which doesn’t even appear on that site.

    If one is going to account for the honours system then at the very least both “Sir” and “Dame” need to be offered as choices but even this can lead to contention. For example, “Dame” is not necessarily accurate for somebody who has been knighted in her own right (as opposed to marrying somebody with a title); they might only be accurately addressed as either “Lady”, “Miss” or “Mrs”. Regardless of the honour system it is not inaccurate nor an insult to address an honoured person with one of the more common four titles; for this reason it is best simply leaving them out of such options.

    Likewise, there is no need to include any of the religious titles but for goodness sake if one of them is going to be included (such as “Father”) then every single one of the others should be available for selection – and that’s an awfully long list.

    Now (if you are still with me) comes the crunch. If you are really trying to be inclusive then you must allow somebody to choose none of your preprepared options and type in their own instead. This enables you to cater for a French married woman (“Mme”), an African Noble (“Zala”), a Chinese male peasant (“小人”) or anything else the person prefers. And do you know what most people choose other than the top six? Nothing. For whatever reason, and who really cares, a great many people choose to simply not bother with the title.

    There is no need of daft options like “Mx” when you allow people the freedom to select what they want; even to decide that they don’t need a title at all.

    • Thanks. I only included the first 10 or so of the titles, it’s a long list.

  • cheannaich

    When I get my flu jab text reminder it states:
    “your appointment is at ….(time) with Ms, flu jab clinic.

    • epistemol

      I don’t understand.
      A flujab is a muslim headpiece surely?

      • cheannaich

        some might say they are the same thing i.e. both a pain in the butt.

  • epistemol

    They make fools of themselves by adopting this juvenile tactic, and simply reveal their own insecurities