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".  

A "strictly vegan" woman

can face extra difficulties in pregnancy. 

I was told this one day while she was explaining cholesterol readings to me.  I am not quite sure how or why it came into the conversation but it did. I have not forgotten this.

Is it true? I have not done enough research to know but I suspect there are issues which need to be addressed. 

I say this because I know a number of people who follow diets out of conviction rather than necessity. There are at least three who are fanatical about their diets. 

The one who claims to have "absolutely no animal products" in her diet is thin to the point of anorexia. She looks unwell. She is unwell. This woman has no stamina. She is frequently ill with "colds" or "the 'flu" and says she "doesn't know" how it is she gets these illnesses so often. 

There is another who has a long list of things she will not eat. She comes to see me occasionally and brings her own "organic" tea - from some concoction she makes up. I just boil the water but at least she does not expect the water to be filtered.

I have several friends who do not eat meat of any sort. That is much easier to handle but one won't eat any sort of dairy products "because they are bad for my cholesterol" and another is "allergic" to eggs. 

I once had a neighbour who really was allergic to eggs. My mother once cracked an egg open in front of this woman and a moment later she was gasping for breath and had to rush outside. It sounds ridiculous but the reaction was there and it made life very difficult for her. 

My only aunt is vegetarian by choice but what this really means is she does not eat meat. She will eat cheese, drink milk and put butter in the pan when she makes an omelette. She taught chemistry at a university and is well aware of her need to eat a balanced diet.

I simply try to eat a balanced diet. I don't eat much meat because I am simply not fond of it but I do not ask other people to abide by my choices.

And that brings me to a man called Chris Packham. It seems he has succeeded in having two advertisements taken down in the UK. The advertisements concerned dairy products and meat. They were part of a campaigning backing farmers. Mr Packham is some sort of media personality. He is also a vegan. He objected to the advertisements and had them pulled down by claiming they were misleading. Their statements about their "carbon footprint" were apparently misleading. 

Perhaps it is time to look at the environmental damage by almonds or soy? Perhaps it is also time to look at the environmental damage done by plastic and or clothing ourselves in acrylic. 

Perhaps the real damage is being done by people like Mr Packham. It is why I spent a short time yesterday visiting a young woman who has just lost a second child while following that "strictly vegan" diet. Her mother is worried for her and I am too.  

   

Our failure to vote for the Voice to Parliament

is apparently the reason the five year old niece of the Senator died. 

I was told this yesterday after watching the speech given by the Senator. She was in tears...and I was close to that too. 

I am also angry. I am angry because those who could do something about the situation are not doing anything. They are not going to do anything.

The media has reported the speech. I saw one report on the news service I watch last night. Oh yes, it showed the Senator in tears. That was about it. After that came the usual "we must do something" and then the same old solutions were trotted out. 

The Senator had said something entirely different. She told the Senate things had to change. She told them there could not be more of the same. The "solutions" are not working. They will not work.

The "Intervention" sequestered welfare payments so mothers could feed their children. Many of those involved welcomed that. They did not have to hand over their money to be spent on alcohol. They could not. The money was not there. The "alcohol free" zones were much harder to police but alcohol related incidents were noticeably reduced. Children were going to school more often.

We stopped that because sequestering welfare payments was seen as "undignified" and "racist". Is it undignified to have the ability to feed your children? As for "racist" then why is it racist to do this for one group and not another. There are others who also have their welfare payments dealt with in this way. It is sometimes done at their request to prevent the very same sort of problems indigenous women were facing. 

There is a town in a remote area I knew well when growing up. There are indigenous "camps" around it. Back then attempting to get the children to school was a major problem for the Education Department. Some came, some came sometimes, some came when the weather was bad. The girls were much more likely to attend than the boys. By the end of their primary years however it was rare to see them in school and truancy officers had no power to get them there.

"Oh, we will have to teach them in their native language!" came the cry, "That will solve the problem. They will engage. They will want to be there."

Of course it has done nothing of the sort. The curriculum could not be taught in the local language. The local language barely existed, There were just a few very elderly people who spoke nothing else. The next generation spoke a mix of that and English. The generation after that would have spoken almost nothing but English but there was the push to "revive their language" and teach them in it. Everyone was assured that doing this would solve the problem of getting them to school and keeping them there. That would lead to higher levels of achievement and employment.

It has done nothing of the sort of course. Why would it? The resources are not there. They were never there. They will not be there. Despite this those with the responsibility to handle the affairs of indigenous people persist with this as if it is the answer to the education of "our people".

It is one reason why the good Senator was struggling to speak yesterday. She knows how important education is. It is how she has got to where she is today. 

I watched her and listened to her yesterday. I felt, and still feel, angry. Nobody should have to stand up in our national parliament and say what she had to say. She knew that the proposed "Voice" would not work because it would just bring about more of the same. It is a "same" which does not work.

And when I support her...well then I am supposedly "racist". 

  

Ah, those Ministerial "expenses"!

The current kerfuffle over one of the Federal MPs claiming a hefty sum as "expenses" in order to attend the birthday party of a friend is interesting.

It is interesting for several reasons. The first is that the "meeting" she claimed to be claiming expenses for did not take place. A chat on the sidelines of a birthday party is not a serious sit down meeting. I know how those work. I have attended a great many of them for one reason or another. 

The second is that it was only when a journalist did some digging that it was paid back. Perhaps the journalist was digging because this was not the first time there had been a dodgy claim? 

The third is that the Prime Minister appears to believe this is nothing to worry about "because she has paid the money back". Really?

This is the same PM who is claiming millions in travel related expenses so "a few thousand" almost certainly seems insignificant to him. Perhaps I need to be more understanding.

It seems they do understand. They managed to oust a previous Speaker even after she repaid for that infamous helicopter ride. They managed to oust a Premier when he failed to declare a bottle of wine worth less than a $100. 

And the fact that another MP, this time the highest law officer in the land, also has expenses related issues which need to be addressed? Of course it is not a problem - unless the Opposition is responsible for such things and the media is not on your side.

I have eaten a working lunch with a Supreme Court judge. We very naughtily ate sandwiches and drank orange juice in a small garden space while he asked me questions. We each paid for our own sandwiches. 

I went to meet a then Prime Minister in his office at his request. They offered to send one of their cars to pick me up. I took a taxi and paid for it myself and was thanked for doing so because it did not need to appear on any expenses sheet.  I have done the same sort of thing for every Ministerial meeting I have ever attended.  It is the way I work. 

But, I suppose I am guilty of accepting a ride on one occasion. The Ministerial driver concerned lived about two hundred metres from me. The Minister I was meeting that day told me this. His driver would be coming from home with the car. He could pick me up on the way. I accepted. 

The driver actually proved to be someone I knew by sight. He greeted me with the words, "Not really out of the way at all. I just go down this street and not the next one." 

It was an excellent trip into the city and I admit it was tempting to accept a ride home as well. Those drivers are exceptionally well trained. I didn't. I caught the train home. It felt better that way.   

The "Women's Minister" has just said

the earlier children enter into childcare the better it is for their development. She claims she is quoting "research".

Yes, there is strong evidence to suggest children do develop essential cognitive, social and language skills more rapidly in childcare. This is generally seen as a "good" thing. It is a good thing to develop the skills which will allow the child to do well in school.

I have no issue with young children going to "day care", "nursery", "kindergarten" or whatever you care to call it. I do have an issue with the way the Minister apparently said "the earlier the better". 

I do have an issue with the sort of "care" some children are getting. Good childcare requires a very high child-adult ratio. It is not often the "good" staffing levels are met. It is simply too expensive to do it.

I also have an issue with sending children of "normal" intelligence into an environment like that when they are not even crawling. They are, like it or not, simply too young.

And I have an issue with the amount of time some children spend in "daycare". All children need to be able spend time at home. They need to be left to their own devices. They need to be "bored" sometimes so they develop initiative, imagination and creativity.

It was a minority of my generation which went to what is known as "kindergarten" in this state. If we did go (and I did) it was only for a couple of hours twice a week. There were activities like painting, other craft, story telling, singing and learning some physical skills. Computers, as we know them, did not exist. We learned about the importance of taking turns, saying please and thank you and how to count to ten if our mothers had not already taught us. We did not know about Eid or Divali or play computer "games" designed to teach us by endless reinforcement. 

The amount it is thought necessary for a child to know before starting school has increased so much there is little time left for the sort of independent imaginative play we did in the back garden. Does this really mean the child is better off in day care, nursery, kindergarten, pre-school or call it what you will? Does it mean weekends need to be filled with adult supervised activities?

Like most things I suspect we need a balance. Is it just possible that we need to allow children to be "bored" sometimes? Do we need to allow them time to be independent? Going into child care at six months, or even twelve months, of age may allow a parent to return to work. The parent can then maintain their mortgage repayments and develop their career but at what cost to the child?

 

    

Culture or "tradition" or something else?

 This (below) appeared on the feed on X this morning and, given the subject of yesterday's post, it is worth repeating here.

 Yes, that painting you paid so much for is not from a thousands of year old tradition belonging to "the oldest continuous traditional culture." It really is a 1971 style taught by a "white" man.

The claim about "culture" is also wrong. There is no single culture among indigenous people in this country. There is no one language. The country is vast. People travelled on foot. After more than a few days journey they would not have understood each other. 

There were no "welcomes" or "acknowledgments". There were exchanges between closer tribes with similar languages - designed to find out if there was a friendly relationship in the past.

There were no "smoking" ceremonies. The fire to produce it had entirely different functions.

When there are claims that "culture" and "tradition" and "language" need to be "preserved" we need to ask what is really being done. The reality is that indigenous life before white settlement was very, very harsh. It was brutal. It was violent. It was short. The stories they told have changed in the way that those Grimm or Perrault collected have changed to be suitable for retelling to children.

There is money behind all this. There are billions of dollars spent every year on attempting to preserve something which did not exist - and which we are told we need to feel guilty about. It does not mean there is no heartfelt connection between the environment and the person or that some remnants of language and culture should not be maintained. We cannot discard thousands of years of culture "just like that" but we have to know what it really is we are trying to keep - and it may not be what we think it is.