Comments on: Australian government withdraws non-specified gender status

By: Rob_N

Rob_N — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 18:09:54 +0000

Paul: Please f_ck off with your paranoid ramblings.
Just because somebody disagrees with you does not mean they are homophobic.

Have ever thought maybe sometimes LGBT people CAN be wrong?

By: Pumpkin Pie

Pumpkin Pie — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 06:57:34 +0000

Thanks for the article link, Abi. That was a really interesting read.

By: paul

paul — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 01:13:18 +0000

Australia. Where it’s NOT alright to be different, to not be white, to not be straight, to not be christian. Sound familiar, world?

By: xyl

xyl — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 16:25:31 +0000

“So I take it by your remark you have no problem in having mixed gender changing rooms or toilets? Either that, or the intersex people would choose an option for one or the other, and if they do that, then they should equally be addressed in the same way.”

I have no problem with using mixed gender toilets or changing facilities. As for your assertion that if non-binary people choose to use a male or female toilet then they should be referred to as male or female, why?! There is no reason for that, at all. Does my gender magically change depending on what toilet I use. I’ve used male and female toilets in the same day before, does that make me suddenly bigender?!

By: Abi1975

Abi1975 — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 09:43:48 +0000

Maybe RobN should read this article in The Independent yesterday and get a little education before he starts mouthing off on this again!

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/features/the-third-sex-the-truth-about-gender-ambiguity-1922816.html

By: Pumpkin Pie

Pumpkin Pie — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 01:12:36 +0000

You want to not only change a vocabulary, but an entire grammatical construct. That would mean all dictionaries,language books (for all languages) and education would have to be changed.
Every form that says M or F would have to be reprinted. Every database holding the same would need to be appended. Any place where there was a gender specific role would have to be altered.
This would make Y2K or decimalisation look like a walk in the park, just so a few people would feel comfortable about how they should be addressed. Frankly, you are out of your tiny tree.

It’s not that big a deal. All these things are constantly updated and changed, anyway. Especially language books. Unless you’re learning contemporary lingo, you’ll sound a bit odd when speaking to the natives. Nothing but crossing t’s and dotting i’s, not a problem in the slightest.

By: Rob_N

Rob_N — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 23:28:33 +0000

XYL: “It’s binary people who don’t want to share a bathroom with the ‘icky weirdos’ who are insisting that three bathrooms would be necessary.”

So I take it by your remark you have no problem in having mixed gender changing rooms or toilets? Either that, or the intersex people would choose an option for one or the other, and if they do that, then they should equally be addressed in the same way.

By: xyl

xyl — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 16:40:21 +0000

RobN: My sex and my gender are NOT dysfunctions. “it is far better that they try and come to terms with their dysfunction than expect the rest of the planet to come into line with their flavour of gender/sex/DNA” I have come to terms with what I am but that’s not what you’re really saying is it. What you’re demanding isn’t coming to terms it’s repression and erasure.

“Have you even considered the COST!?? Like EVERY application form, document and bill would have to be changed to fit a third gender. You would also need three types of lavatory in every public building.”

I’m sure the same arguments were made about altering databases and forms to allow two people of the same sex to be partnered/married. Big deal. Altering forms isn’t hard. As for bathrooms, I keep hearing male and female identified people pulling out the idea that there would need to be three bathrooms. Why three? There are more than three genders, why not four bathrooms, five bathrooms, ten bathrooms. In fact most non-binary people I know just want the right to pee in peace. It’s binary people who don’t want to share a bathroom with the ‘icky weirdos’ who are insisting that three bathrooms would be necessary.

On a different note, why are we even dragging chromosomes into this discussion. There are people who are all sorts of genders and all different types of bodies with XX chromosomes, likewise for XY, XXY, XX/XY, XO, XXX etc etc.

By: AKyth

AKyth — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 16:23:25 +0000

Rob, you misunderstood. my comment was aimed at people who would get their knickers in a twist about another gender being recognised. Yup, its rare, but it does exist. If you want to compare it to wheelchair access, go ahead, seeing as there have been laws passed to make sure there is disabled access to buildings! Do you think disabled toilets are a ‘right-on PC’ waste of money?

Abi’s point still stands, some people would say that homosexuality is a medical dysfunction too: a minority of people are gay, and theres a strong probability that its partly genetic in its origins.

By: Rob_N

Rob_N — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 13:30:02 +0000

Abi: Chromosomal differences are NOT the same as homosexuality, they are medical dysfunctions. Unfortunate and all that, but fairly rare, and as AKyth pointed out, why should we move the whole planet just to accommodate an extremely small problem?

I suspect the Australian government though is was a good and right-on PC thing to do and allowed it through until they examined the massive implications it would have when they actually looked at it more closely.

It’s like fitting wheelchair access to every building in the country. Nice idea, but totally impractical. Have you even considered the COST!?? Like EVERY application form, document and bill would have to be changed to fit a third gender. You would also need three types of lavatory in every public building.
Stop reacting so emotionally and use your head for once, you naive woman!

By: Abi1975

Abi1975 — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 10:39:27 +0000

“it is far better that they try and come to terms with their dysfunction than expect the rest of the planet to come into line with their flavour of gender/sex/DNA to a point where it requires actually changing not even just the vocabulary, but the entire language to accommodate what is, a very minor detail in human sexuality.” – RobN

What has this to do with sexuality you stupid fool! Get it into your thick head that XX & XY are not the only genders XO, XXX, XXY and XYY also exist along with many other individuals who do not follow the typical patterns (such as individuals with four or even more sex chromosomes).

What your saying RobN is as insulting as saying homosexuals are just straight people with mental problems and its not a valid sexuality.

By: AKyth

AKyth — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 10:16:56 +0000

When they discovered the sun didnt go round the earth, people had to get over it or get on with it. I disagree with dumbing down or ignoring something which runs counter to common belief just to avoid upsetting a few hysterical people.

By: Rob_N

Rob_N — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 00:20:04 +0000

Oh good. At least somebody sees a bit of common sense.
Although I recognise that there may be some people that “fall between two stools”, it is far better that they try and come to terms with their dysfunction than expect the rest of the planet to come into line with their flavour of gender/sex/DNA to a point where it requires actually changing not even just the vocabulary, but the entire language to accommodate what is, a very minor detail in human sexuality.

By: Peter

Peter — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 23:45:27 +0000

It was the NSW government, not the Australian (Federal Government) that did this. It is a dysfunctional government, full of conservative Roman Catholics and will more than likely be kicked out at the next election – althought the opposition is even more right wing and fundamentalist christian. Sadly, gay people in Australia, while having basic rights, are about 10 years behind England and the more enlightened parts of Europe. This same government recently refused to allow gay adoption, despite their own unanimous report that it ought to go ahead. No reason was given.

By: Pumpkin Pie

Pumpkin Pie — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 22:22:51 +0000

Damn it. I should’ve guessed that Australia’s government would have had second thoughts over being so progressive. Un-progressive, illogical, anti-science (the facts are there for all to see) and cruel.

By: Brenton

Brenton — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 20:16:50 +0000

The Premier of NSW is another dreaded Catholic! Our poor country is being overun with these papists!

By: Xaria

Xaria — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 18:01:15 +0000

for intersex people they measure the bits and decide what it closer resembles and then get to (surgical) work…

its barbaric.

on this case. sad but no unexpected. after a moment of liberal sanity australia returns to its natural state (that of a country fond of kicking minorities)

By: AKyth

AKyth — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 14:57:16 +0000

What I want to know is what do they do in the case of a biologically intersex person? Flip a coin to decide m or f?

If they do recognise the existance of intersex people, and recognise the existance of people whose chromosome status is at odds with their gender, why exclude people like Norrie? It doesn’t take a huge leap of imagination to see that it’s ridiculous to acknowledge one thing and not another.

I feel bad for Norrie and others who this involves.