Thanks to Emma Darwin I came across

something called "Goodhart's Law" yesterday. It is something I had not heard of before but Emma found it interesting and it left me pondering it too.

Put simply it is stated as "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure." One of the examples given by the internet when I looked it up was how the Soviets once measured the output of a nail factory by the total weight of the nails produced. The factory then produced a smaller number of very heavy and unusable nails to meet the required quota. As this was not working those in charge switched the goal to the number of nails produced. This resulted in factories making millions of tiny and equally useless nails. 

It is an easy to understand example that makes sense to me. It is the way humans will work if they can. I suspect most of us are naturally lazy unless we see some benefit for ourselves.

But Goodhart's Law also works in other ways. We probably would not even see it as being relevant to things like housing or discrimination measures but it might be.

Buying a second house (or more) and then renting it out has been a means of bringing in money for centuries, for as long as people have had houses. Not everyone can afford to do it but those that do are providing a service for those who need a roof over their heads. Yes, I know there are "greedy" landlords out there. I know there are landlords who are renting out sub-standard accommodation for inflated prices. We hear about them all the time. 

There are also landlords, and I suspect they are the majority, who keep the property in good repair and charge a fair rent. They do it because it makes economic sense to do it. This is the way they do not make a loss and may make a small profit. There are people who do it because they see it as the way they will not need to be dependent on a government pension. It makes sense that they should not be penalised for doing this. Recent government changes will penalise them. It might not be to the same degree that future landlords would be penalised but there is still a penalty there. It is going to reduce the number of dwellings available to rent - in a serious housing shortage.

It also makes sense to try and ensure that there are measures in place to ensure that other people will be able to own their own homes if they wish to do so. It makes sense not to put obstacles in the way of home ownership if this is what people want. 

There are also measures which should not be undertaken in order to achieve these goals. It is those measures which the present government is now pursuing. They sound good. Of course they sound good but the reality is that they are not good. 

That person with their "own new build home" on a five percent deposit actually owes more than they will ever be able to pay back. The government effectively owns the home and has restricted their ability to move anywhere else because of the way the scheme is set up.  In an age where many people need to be flexible and change employers in order to keep working this presents problems. There will be other issues later too.  I know of one person who had to continue renting because he knows he could be transferred interstate at any time. The scheme does not help him at all. There are many more people like him. 

In another area there is the law which was intended to ensure there was no sexual discrimination. It was changed to give "rights" to a tiny group of individuals and has now ended up giving rights to nobody at all. 

There are laws around agriculture which were brought in to increase yields and now harm the environment but are still in place. There is the environmental damage done so we can "save the planet from global warming".

It all sounds good but perhaps we should just have a "law of unintended consequences"?  

 

 

 

 

"Too hard to buy a house"

comes the cry. "Housing is too expensive" and "Young people can't get a foot on the ladder of the housing market these days" and... well, you know how it goes.

My parents married in 1947. Yes, not long after WWII. There was a severe shortage of housing, of building materials for houses and the land on which to build houses. There were many people out of work too. 

The Senior Cat was a teacher in a small country town (village to those of you in Upover).  There was no spare housing at all. He had been boarding with a family, sharing a bedroom with another teacher from the high school. It was not an ideal situation and marrying Mum meant that finding something else was not only urgent it was absolutely essential. 

One of the local farmers had a galvanised iron shed on top of a small hill just outside what were then the boundaries of the town. It was unlined. The floor was just packed dirt. Some old linoleum was found, a spare wood burning stove was found. Other odds and ends were found. The windmill was connected to the water supply and a "long drop dunny" was dug for use. My parents moved in. They lived in it for the next two years. They sat on fruit boxes and ate at a collapsible card table. When it had been cleared at night lessons were prepared under the light of a kerosene lamp. 

I came along at the end of the first of those years and it was my home for the first year of my life. I have small memories of the place from occasional visits to it when I was around two years of age. 

My parents considered themselves incredibly fortunate because, as teachers, they were eligible for one of the new "Housing Trust" places being built in the township proper. These were "fibro-asbestos" homes that the government was putting up as quickly as they could for essential workers. Some of those homes are still occupied today. They are very basic structures. They are small. They had no air conditioning. In winter you heated the house by opening the oven door of the wood burning stove and allowing the hot air from the oven to escape into the room. 

Three years later the Senior Cat was promoted and transferred to a larger school in the city. For the next few years we lived in a house my paternal grandfather had found. We shared it with one of my mother's aunts and her five children. 

From there, as the Senior Cat was promoted from one place to another, we lived in housing belonging to the government. My parents had no choice. It was all there was. It was a roof over their heads and they considered themselves fortunate to have it. The rent they paid was the same as anyone else would have paid for similar accommodation in the city. 

It was not until the Senior Cat was finally given a city appointment we stopped living in departmental housing. (My parents then moved into my mother's old family home as her mother had just died.) It was only then they could even think about buying their own home. That was not easy but, late in their working lives, they managed it. They had actually ceased working when they finally moved into a home they could really call their own.

Now though it seems that newly weds want their own home, or they are told they want their own home. They are told this is what their parents and grandparents had and they have a "right" to it as well. The present government is telling them this even while telling them there is a severe housing shortage. They are being told they "need" a range of white goods and the garden needs to be landscaped right up to the patio. 

My parents generation had none of this. Middle Cat and Brother Cat took thirty years to pay off the mortgage and did the improvements themselves as they could afford to do it. I saved every cent I could and found a place for my sleeping mat less than two years ago. It does not have many of the things considered "essential" but it has all I need - and I know I am lucky to have it.

Getting a foot on the housing ladder is difficult. It was always difficult. I suspect part of the problem now is what people are being told they "need" and trying to find somewhere with what they actually need. There's a difference.  

There is a second transgender case

appeal being heard in the Supreme Court next week. This time it involves someone being required to pay $95,000 to two transgender people who identify as female being "vilified" by another person who is female. Apparently she raised concerns about them playing sport on a women's football team.

The definition of "vilification" is generally considered to be something like speaking or writing very derogatory or abusive or untrue words about someone and thereby ruining their reputation and making other people think negatively about them. The court seems to have taken it a step further and said simply stating a fact can cause vilification if the person of whom the statement is made takes exception to it. 

There has been plenty said about transgender people participating in sport. I have not yet found any articles about transgender people who identify as male participating in men's events. They may exist and I would be interested if anyone can direct me to stories which show they have successfully done this. 

There are of course multiple stories about transgender people who identify as female participating in women's events. There have also been concerns raised about "unfair advantage" and, even more seriously, potential harm caused by larger, stronger participants injuring smaller participants. These are issues which need to be addressed.  If the court does not allow the upcoming appeal then it will raise issues of concern about the safety of women in sport. What will happen if a much smaller woman is seriously injured by someone who is much larger and stronger and identifies as female?

My paternal great-grandmother was among those who obtained the right for women in this state to vote. She saw differences which a disadvantage and, like others, attempted to change that. Are transgender people really so disadvantaged?  Are they more badly treated than some people from a different racial background, people with a different religious or cultural background or a disability? What really matters here? 

The fine issued is, by any standard, excessive. If the court goes the same way as it did for Giggle v Tickle then there may be  further grounds for an appeal to the High Court.  All this may seem ridiculous and a waste of court time to those who say "what does it matter if a person identifies as male or female?"  It does matter however when the one percent of the population who identify as varying from the sex they are assigned at birth are attempting to claim more rights than those who have tried to obtain equal rights.

There is a "street library"

not far from here. I pass it quite often. I have stopped and looked less often but it has usually been to donate an extra book or two. I have twice borrowed and returned something that caught my eye. I tend to use the big local library instead.

The person who cares for the library was repairing it yesterday. He was not happy. I am not happy for him. He saw the incident. 

Two teenage boys had come along on their motorised e-scooters and deliberately knocked the little library of its base. Why? They apparently thought this was funny. They shouted abuse at the man who built it and maintains it. 

"I didn't say anything," he told me, "I wanted to. I felt like thrashing them. Why do they do it?"

I suspect the adrenalin kicks in. It's a "thrill" for a few minutes and then they need to look for the next thrill. They are "bored" and do not have enough resources to entertain themselves in other ways. They would never think to use the library for themselves.

It took the conversation to who does use the library. I know people who do use street libraries. They donate books they have already read and no longer want. They borrow books to read if they are going on holiday. Harassed mothers have been known to grab a picture book to keep a child quiet. Older children have found another book in a series their parents refuse to buy for them. Someone walking a dog has found something they want to read. An older person slowly going past will sit on the fence and look at something from their childhood or a romance they can't quite bring themselves to borrow from the library. The latest winner of a literary prize is there and someone takes it "to see if it really is any good".  I could go on.

And there are two homeless men who appear around the district occasionally. They borrow books, read them and return them to other street libraries. For them it is their library. They won't even enter the local libraries. I know them and they know me in the "recognise your face" sort of way. We acknowledge each other.

The repairs complete I helped the owner of the structure put the books back. I hope the two men who borrow from it find something new to read.   

"I think it's a cult"

There is a story in this morning's paper about a university student who, for a short time, succumbed to the "friendliness" of a cult like religious group. He was delivering a warning to other young people about the group. 

I have no doubt the same group will now try and trash his reputation. It is the way these groups work. 

I was reminded of my very first lecture at Law School. It had little to do with the law. We were informed about the standard of behaviour expected of all law students. This included such things as the boys opening the doors for the girls and everyone opening the doors for anyone who was going through them with a load of books in their arms. It included the "if you do not get it in on time then it won't get marked" warning. (There were a few exceptions to that but very few.) There were the library rules. Put books back on the trolleys not on the shelves. If they are put back in the wrong place nobody can find them. (I ignored that one with the blessing of the staff the day one of them caught me putting a book which had been wrongly shelved in the right place.) 

And then there was "The Warning". This was to ignore and not associate with anyone at "That Place" (just off campus) where the Scientologists lurked. They were offering "free psychological tests" that were of course nothing of the sort. 

I had arrived a couple of days before that lecture. I had been approached and given them short shrift. I was all too well aware of how dangerous they were. Mum's brother was ensnared by them for a short time. When he came to his senses and realised what they were they tried all sorts of ways to retain him. (He had been dead some years when we got a letter from somewhere in America from someone who was still in the group feeling "concerned" about him.) I made no secret of what I knew about the group and I do not think any of the law students were caught by them while I was there.

Other students were of course. They were often very vulnerable in other ways. They would be away from home for the first time in their lives and having someone offer "friendship" when you are homesick can seem wonderful. That would be enough.

I read this morning's piece and remembered all of that. I remembered being approached when the Scientologists were trying to get a foot hold in the city. The two girls who approached me seemed shocked I did not want a "free psychological test" or that I might be so much happier if I had one. I was fortunate enough to know enough about psychology to know such things did not legitimately exist and permanent happiness is a myth.  

It seems to me that this might be part of the problem with all the gender issues too. We keep being told that "happiness" is what we want. We are told it can be attained if only we do this or that or become this or that. I do not go along with the member of the other cult like group who once told me "God did not intend for us to be happy". That is nonsense. What I do believe is that "happiness" is not a constant "good" feeling. Our level of "happiness" is variable. It has to be if we are really to appreciate life.  

In the Giggle v Tickle case

 the court had to apply the law. This is how the courts work. The law can be absolutely ridiculous but it still has to be upheld by the court.

In effect this is what has happened here. They have found the Sex Discrimination Act provisions apply to those "identifying" rather than biological reality. The court has decided that this is the way the law reads and that is what they need to apply.

This may be reversed when the matter goes to the High Court but, until that happens, any man who identifies as a woman will have the right to enter female only spaces. Could a woman who identifies as male enter a male only space too? Yes, under this ruling it could happen. 

Transgender people are thought to be less than one percent of the population but the ruling has much wider implications. We already have men in women's prisons. They can be housed there even when they have perpetrated crimes, especially sexual crimes, against women. This ruling makes it even more likely this will happen. All that will be needed is for someone to "identify".

It means those who "identify" will also be able to enter shelters for women. That these shelters are intended to protect women from male abuse and violence will not cover the male who identifies as female.  Men who identify as women also have access to spaces where a woman should be able to quietly breast feed an infant. 

Whether you think all this is right or wrong is up to you but the present ruling could go even further. All the moves to see more women on boards and in other positions of authority are now potentially at risk. They could be taken by anyone who identifies as female. All the "diversity, equity and inclusion" work everywhere is now going to be subject to the demands of someone who identifies as something other than what most people see as biological reality.

I am not sure if the DEI issue has hit home yet. Most people who just see the Giggle v Tickle judgment as "wrong" will not have gone that far but there are some who have. It is why there needs to be an appeal and that appeal needs to happen quickly. How the High Court will decide is their affair but I suspect there are some members of parliament who are preparing for a means of reversing the legislative changes brought in by the Gillard government.  

 

A judgment in the Giggle v Tickle appeal

is due to be brought down today. It will be very, very interesting to see which way it goes.

For those of you who do not know what it is about I suggest you do a little searching on line for details but here is a very brief summary.

A woman called Sall Grover developed a site called "Giggle for Girls". It was for girls/women only.  Someone calling themselves Roxanne Tickle joined it and was then barred from it because they did not meet the site's definition of "girl". Tickle appealed the decision. The Human Rights Commission became involved and supported Tickle. A judgment supporting Tickle was made. Grover was hit with a list of demands and has appealed.  It is the judgment in that appeal which will be delivered today.

If she fails Grover has already made it clear she intends to go to the High Court. If she fails then women in this country will lose a great deal. If Tickle fails then it will be interesting to see if they appeal - and who supports them.

The case is being watched closely in other countries. The outcome is important. I know people who have strong views on both sides. Whichever way it goes there will be people who will not accept the judgment.

In this morning's paper there is something related to this. One of the council's in a neighbouring state has put aside a room for "chest feeding" and the terminology is, rightly, being questioned. It is for "lactating parents to feed or express milk" and there is a quote from one group about "the validation of trans-masculine and non-binary parents" and the usual "diversity, equity and inclusion" remarks. Apparently all those contacted in other councils failed or declined to comment.

Whatever we might think about any of these things I remain puzzled about "chest" feeding. Last time I looked everyone I know, whatever their gender,  had "breasts".