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".  

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".