|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Same-Sex Marriage in Australia
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
I'm not an Aussie but married to one (who happens to be of the same sex as me) here in the US of A. Down Under a large majority of people have supported same-sex marriage for some time but:
First they had a Labor PM who opposed it (or said she opposed it because she wanted to keep her slim majority with independents together).
The last two Liberal (meaning conservative) PMs, including the current one who says he personally supports SSM, have said the vote on it should be done by all the people and not just parliament. This appears to be their way of delaying things and appeasing socially conservative backbenchers. It also prevents Liberal (and their National allies) MPs from having to have a conscience vote that would make them subject to attack from social conservatives or social liberals in the next election.
The Labor leadership now supports SSM (although some backbenchers still oppose it) - correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Opposition Leader Shorten say he'd use the party whip to compel support for SSM? - but they and the Greens refuse to allow a plebiscite, even if this means that SSM will not happen until there is a change in government.
The opposition and gay rights groups argue that a plebiscite would bring all kinds of homophobia (not just opposition to SSM, but comparisons to pedophilia, polygamy, incest, bestiality, and the like, along with the dangerous notion that homosexuality is a disease or that same-sex attraction can be "cured") out into the open, potentially lead to antigay violence, hurt gay children and their families who are exposed to homophobic rhetoric, and cause bullying of gay kids in school.
I have the privilege of having experienced very little overt, in-person discrimination for being gay. I am aware that people who, unlike me, are poor, of color, members of a religiously conservative family, or are from areas with more socially conservative laws and beliefs, and also happen to be gay, know much more firsthand about what gay activists are afraid a plebiscite would unleash.
By the way, Australia has compulsory voting, and the plebiscite proposed would also be compulsory.
The plebiscite has failed in the Senate, where the Liberal-National government lacks a majority, multiple times now, and the government is saying it will do a postal vote where voting is voluntary instead. This postal vote will also not be binding, so Parliament would have to vote on gay marriage in order for it to really happen. It does seem to give socially-liberal Liberal MPs cover for that later vote though, because they can say that they are merely following voters' wishes.
Already at least one independent MP and gay activists are trying to block the postal vote in the courts. Labor MP Penny Wong who is gay herself, has said any public vote on same sex marriage would oppose children to hatred.
I'm willing to listen to those who have experienced oppression themselves, but the longer a vote on same sex marriage is delayed, the more elderly gay couples die without ever having the chance to be married. I have never seen a country before where a public vote for gay marriage that is likely to pass has been so vehemently and widely opposed by gay rights supporters - especially when without it there might not be gay marriage at all for several years.
Maybe socially liberal Liberal backbenchers will revolt and there will be a parliamentary vote on same sex marriage. Maybe not. Maybe the postal vote will be blocked too and there will still not be same sex marriage in Australia, which makes it unique in the wealthy English-speaking world.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
As I've said on the Hell thread, all that is needed is a simple amendment to the Marriage Act. It's hard to understand why this is not being done and preferably with no party-directed vote.
FWIW, this is not a party issue here, as it would be in the US for example. There's virtually no equivalent to the religious right as it seems to exist there. There are several government members who are openly gay and were first elected with that known to their electorate.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tukai
Shipmate
# 12960
|
Posted
The High Court, to my surprise, ruled that it is fact legal to use the Finance Minster's contingency fund to pay for the so-called survey. I say so-called because being voluntary and unstratified, it is almost certain to be unrepresentative of the adult population. So at vast expense to the taxpayer, the postal "survey" is now underway; with results due about November.
And, as noted above , the politicians are under no obligation to take any notice of the results. Unlike a "referendum" , which under Australian law would be [a] compulsory, and [b] binding.
--------------------
A government that panders to the worst instincts of its people degrades the whole country for years to come.
Posts: 594 | From: Oz | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Highfive
Shipmate
# 12937
|
Posted
I thought I'd put this forward to the shippers:
Material with unidentified source which may breach Australian electoral law removed - Hosting
You may have read a lot of this before, but it's what is under "What are you being asked to agree to?" that interests me.
quote:
The Attorney-General’s Department’s Submission (Submission 78) to the Inquiry into the Exposure Draft Bill said: “Under this definition, … couples … who are intersex or of a non-binary gender, would be able to marry.” So persons of any fluid gender could marry.
This is not simply same sex marriage – this is transgender (or gender fluid) marriage.
In the links inside that article, you can find Submission 78. Under 3.1, what is quoted above is right there. So it's true.
And if that's true, then everything below that makes perfect legal sense.
[ 26. September 2017, 00:34: Message edited by: Louise ]
Posts: 111 | From: Brisbane | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
Why link to a homophobic hate site? And what's wrong with trans folk being able to marry?
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Highfive
Shipmate
# 12937
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Why link to a homophobic hate site?
Find me a quote in that article that actually puts down homosexuals.
quote:
And what's wrong with trans folk being able to marry?
'trans folk' is a broader definition that I thought. I thought true transexuals were either either women who have undergone surgery to become men or men who have undergone surgery to become women. If someone is a man identifying as a woman, they are still legally a man posing as a transvestite.
Gender fluidity is simply too broad a concept to be defined in legal marriage. I never imagined that our government would actually make a submission to make gender fluidity an essential part of the definition of marriage.
In a nutshell, I could identify as a woman, marry an actual woman, sue anyone for discrimination who says to my wife, "Can you introduce me to your husband?" and then suddenly say, "You know what. I think I might go back to being a bloke again".
That might be a stupid scenario, but if gender fluidity is accepted into legal marriage, what is the more realistic scenario?
Posts: 111 | From: Brisbane | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Highfive:
That might be a stupid scenario, but if gender fluidity is accepted into legal marriage, what is the more realistic scenario?
If you decide that same-sex couples can marry, then don't all the gender-fluid people just come along for the ride?
Because the logical way of extending marriage so that same sex couples can enjoy it is to change all the references to a "man" and a "woman" to a "person" and another "person", which would automatically include anyone who didn't wish to identify as either man or woman, and would include people whose gender identity changed.
(The real example here is to begin with a married man & woman, have one of the couple decide that they are trans, and have the couple decide to remain living as a couple. In the UK, there are couples in exactly this situation who were compelled to divorce and then acquire a civil partnership. I don't know what the state of play is now that same-sex marriage is legal, but the sensible option would be that two people who were married and wish to remain married can remain married.)
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Highfive:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Why link to a homophobic hate site?
Find me a quote in that article that actually puts down homosexuals.
From quite a wide choice, the nastiest I found was:
quote:
The LBTGI+ extremists don’t want equality - they're not looking to be accepted, tolerated or loved. What they want is to impose their ideology on you and receive full compliance to groom and sexualise young children, remove gender and remove any resemblance of a family unit as we know it today.
No definition of "extremist" is given - in context it's a pure ad hominem attack on the real reasons behind the pro-SSM campaign.
I suppose you could say that strictly, the writer is not suggesting that all gay people want to groom and sexualise young children, but he is definitely saying that a sufficiently large number of gay people want to groom and sexualise young children, and are lying about it, for such a motive to be considered characteristic of the gay rights movement as a whole.
There are lots of other allegations where the precise quantities of fantasy, hysteria and malice that produced them is difficult to ascertain, but for my money, the one quoted is probably the most hateful.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
The writer also goes on to say, 'they don't even want marriage'. This presumably refers to activists who argue that marriage is a pile of crap.
But this is the slippery slope with a vengeance. Equal marriage will lead to the abolition of marriage, and trans activists will start telling you what pronouns to use, and how to address your kids, and not to dress the boys in blue, and if you do this, you will be hauled off to jail. Well, I exaggerate slightly.
None of these things have happened in the UK. Wow, is this panic or just good old fashioned right wing politics?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Highfive:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Why link to a homophobic hate site?
Find me a quote in that article that actually puts down homosexuals.
Maybe not but it is scaremongering – ‘they’ want to impose their views on others (don’t these straights?)
They’re handing out death threats
the age of consent might come down to 10
and with links to The Daily Mail, what more needs to be asaid?
It's barking mad.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Highfive:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Why link to a homophobic hate site?
Find me a quote in that article that actually puts down homosexuals.
Really? That's the best you can come up with? I'm not going to play the game where you try and pretend every instance of homophobia isn't homophobia. That website is vile and you know it. Why link to it at all unless you're endorsing its insane hysteria?
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Highfive:
quote:
And what's wrong with trans folk being able to marry?
'trans folk' is a broader definition that I thought. I thought true transexuals were either either women who have undergone surgery to become men or men who have undergone surgery to become women. If someone is a man identifying as a woman, they are still legally a man posing as a transvestite.
"Posing as a transvestite"? I know I'm going to regret asking this, but what would it take to convince you someone is actually a transvestite?
quote:
Originally posted by Highfive:
In a nutshell, I could identify as a woman, marry an actual woman, sue anyone for discrimination who says to my wife, "Can you introduce me to your husband?" and then suddenly say, "You know what. I think I might go back to being a bloke again".
That might be a stupid scenario, . . .
"Might be"? I think you give yourself too little credit! Or maybe too much.
I admit I'm not overly familiar with Australian civil law, but it seems incredibly unlikely that a suit over improper form of address would be regarded as anything other than frivolous. Any chance you can cite the law under which such a suit might brought?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
Hosting
I have removed the link from Highfive's post, pending Admin/legal consideration as the site appears to be anonymously registered outside Australia and does not identify the people behind it/give contact details and as there are Australians on the Ship who could see it, it needs to be checked whether it contravenes Australian law in the light of the current same-sex marriage postal survey.
May I remind folks that Commandment 7 covers all illegal material and we expect people to err very much on the side of caution.
quote:
7. Don't post illegal material
Posting libellous material, copyright violations or links to sites advocating illegal activities puts us in legal hot water, which makes us very unhappy.
Thanks
Louise
Dead Horses Host
Hosting off
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Sorting out terms, like "transgender", "transvestite", and "transsexual" can be difficult. E.g., my understanding is that a transvestite isn't *necessarily* transgender.
I just now found "GLAAD Media Reference Guide - Transgender" (GLAAD). It has a glossary of related terms. "Transvestite" is gathered under "cross-dresser", as an older term--and is specifically not the same as "transgender".
OTOH, I didn't know that anyone still used "transsexual", particularly of themselves, but (per the link) they do.
FWIW.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
A transvestite is simply as the word says, one who wears clothing associated with a person of the opposite gender. A transgender person is one who identifies her/himself as being of the gender opposite to their sex.
But Highfive, I simply cannot understand any of your posts, particularly what is said to be a breach of anti-discrimination legislation. It's not an area I practise in, but I cannot see any form of wrongful discrimination in what you've set forth.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
But Highfive, I simply cannot understand any of your posts, particularly what is said to be a breach of anti-discrimination legislation. It's not an area I practise in, but I cannot see any form of wrongful discrimination in what you've set forth.
There isn't, of course. It's fear-mongering of the sort the "pro-family" faction does so well. Nobody with two brain cells ever thought the state (in the US) was going to force churches to marry same-sex couples, but the fear-mongers flogged it like nobody's business. And of course "gay marriage" was going to cause "real marriage" to collapse. Hasn't happened yet. So they gave up fear-mongering about gays and switched over to trans people. Anything to keep the fear and resulting hate at a fevered pitch. Because that makes them (right wing preachers, right wing politicians) necessary.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096
|
Posted
Stonespring wrote:
quote:
Already at least one independent MP and gay activists are trying to block the postal vote in the courts. Labor MP Penny Wong who is gay herself, has said any public vote on same sex marriage would oppose children to hatred.
I'm willing to listen to those who have experienced oppression themselves, but the longer a vote on same sex marriage is delayed, the more elderly gay couples die without ever having the chance to be married. I have never seen a country before where a public vote for gay marriage that is likely to pass has been so vehemently and widely opposed by gay rights supporters - especially when without it there might not be gay marriage at all for several years.
Maybe socially liberal Liberal backbenchers will revolt and there will be a parliamentary vote on same sex marriage. Maybe not. Maybe the postal vote will be blocked too and there will still not be same sex marriage in Australia, which makes it unique in the wealthy English-speaking world.
I think there is genuine concern here that the plebiscite will needlessly expose LGBTI people to abuse, directly and indirectly. I think that's clearly happened as we move towards the close of the plebiscite, even in this thread. In Victoria, there is a bill for voluntary euthanasia before State Parliament. That controversial bill has generated much less publicity than the SSM Plebiscite, simply because advocates for and against have to campaign. The conservatives have not even agreed that they will implement this plebiscite if most Australians vote yes.
As Gee D. says, all that is required is a straightforward amendment to the Marriage Act and the job is done. If the conservatives won't do that, well they only have a one seat majority. Labor is very likely to win the next election and pass the amending legislation rendering the plebiscite and the resulting public angst unnecessary.
--------------------
Human
Posts: 1571 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Highfive
Shipmate
# 12937
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Hosting
I have removed the link from Highfive's post, pending Admin/legal consideration as the site appears to be anonymously registered outside Australia and does not identify the people behind it/give contact details and as there are Australians on the Ship who could see it, it needs to be checked whether it contravenes Australian law in the light of the current same-sex marriage postal survey...
...Thanks
Louise
Dead Horses Host
Hosting off
Upon reading this, I put the web address through scamadvisor.com and confirmed everything you wrote. I'm embarrassed and extremely pissed at the professional web programmer who shared the article on social media.
I'm not aware of the implications of a non-Australian website promoting Australian politics, but I'd imagine it's serious.
There doesn't seem to be much point in me debating further without a link, but I can say that the Attorney General's submission to the amendment of the Marriage Act was the main area I was trying to draw attention to. Specifically:
quote:
The Exposure Draft (item 1) provides a new definition of marriage as ‘the union of 2 people, to the
exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life’. Under this definition the right to marry, under
Australian law, would not be determined by sex or gender. Same-sex couples, and couples including
people who are intersex or of a non-binary gender, would be able to marry.
My issue is that I do not want to embrace Golden Key's glaad.org reference guide as the means by which I can politely engage with the intersex, non-binary and transgender community. Currently, the onus is on them to tolerate mis-identifications by society and to diplomatically engage others in understanding how they want to be identified.
If members of this community adopt the titles of husband and wife, I'm concerned they will gain legal rights to be identified correctly. The onus will fall to the rest of society to adopt the glaad.org reference guide.
[ 26. September 2017, 13:51: Message edited by: Highfive ]
Posts: 111 | From: Brisbane | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Highfive:
If members of this community adopt the titles of husband and wife, I'm concerned they will gain legal rights to be identified correctly. The onus will fall to the rest of society to adopt the glaad.org reference guide.
You don't have a legal right to be referred to as someone's husband. "Husband" and "wife" are social titles/descriptors, like "Mr." and "Mrs.", and their use is not legally controlled.
It seems that what you're concerned about here is somehow being forced to call a trans woman a woman, for example, rather than any worries you might have about calling the members of a lesbian couple "wife and wife" (terms which some, but not all, couples prefer).
You are, it seems to me, of the opinion that biological sex is the same as gender, and is unchangeable, and you want to be able to refer to trans women as men in order to support your opinion. Do I have that right?
There is nothing in same-sex marriage that will force you to do that. The proposed amendment says that marriage becomes open to any two people, rather than to one man and one woman. That's it. It places no obligations on you to identify anyone by their preferred gender - and there is by no means any obligation for a married couple to use the terms "husband" and/or "wife" to refer to each other, and certainly no obligation to have one of each.
A person who does not identify with a binary gender would probably not choose to use either of the binary terms "husband" and "wife" to describe themselves, preferring some neutral alternative like "spouse".
But nothing here will force you to address people in the way that they prefer to be addressed - it will merely force you to recognize that A and B are a married couple, for whatever legal purposes that is relevant for you.
It may well be that refusing to address people with their preferred pronouns, for example, could be illegal in an employment context, if trans is a protected class under Aussie discrimination law. But that would have nothing at all to do with whether same-sex marriage was legal.
[ 26. September 2017, 15:11: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
People refer all the time to my legally married same-sex partner as my wife. That boat sailed long ago. They did it well before we were married.
We actually prefer "partner" for equality reasons. When we got married, the Registrar asked us which term we preferred.
Highfive, the law will not stop you from being able to be rude or inconsiderate towards your Quiltbag community members.
--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Highfive:
If members of this community adopt the titles of husband and wife, I'm concerned they will gain legal rights to be identified correctly. The onus will fall to the rest of society to adopt the glaad.org reference guide.
What "legal rights" are you referring to? As Leorning Cniht points out, there usually aren't any legal penalties associated with using improper forms of address. Exactly what legal penalties do you think currently apply to using improper address for opposite sex couples? Sure, it may be momentarily embarrassing to ask a man "is this your daughter?" when the woman with him is actually his wife (or vice versa), but I don't think there are any legal penalties for doing so, even in Australia.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
Presumably for this "concern" to be significant enough to ally oneself with hatemongers and bigots there must be dozens of cases in other countries with equal marriage has occurred that have resulted in serious consequences for the mis-titler?
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Highfive:
If members of this community adopt the titles of husband and wife, I'm concerned they will gain legal rights to be identified correctly. The onus will fall to the rest of society to adopt the glaad.org reference guide.
What "legal rights" are you referring to? As Leorning Cniht points out, there usually aren't any legal penalties associated with using improper forms of address. Exactly what legal penalties do you think currently apply to using improper address for opposite sex couples? Sure, it may be momentarily embarrassing to ask a man "is this your daughter?" when the woman with him is actually his wife (or vice versa), but I don't think there are any legal penalties for doing so, even in Australia.
I might be being generous, but it is Wednesday morning, a good time to be so. It is possible (not easy, but possible) to read Highfive as saying that the concern is to ensure they do in fact gain the right to be identified correctly. It can't really be any positive legal right, but rather a right not to be referred to as someone's so-called husband or wife. That phrase may well amount to a breach of the transgender vilification provisions of the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act and I assume that there are similar provisions in the other States.
But the posts are so obscure that it's hard to know what is being meant.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
It can't really be any positive legal right, but rather a right not to be referred to as someone's so-called husband or wife. That phrase may well amount to a breach of the transgender vilification provisions of the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act and I assume that there are similar provisions in the other States.
Well, perhaps that's what Highfive means. But if it is, it's an awfully thin straw that's breaking his back here. If it would be a breach of the transgender vilification provisions of the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act to refer to a trans woman as someone's "so-called wife", then it is already a breach of the the transgender vilification provisions of the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act to refer to her as a "so-called woman". I'm not sure that that would rise as far as "vilification" but let's run with it.
That's an awfully fine line to draw, that says that you accept that you can't call someone a so-called woman, but not being able to call them a so-called wife is getting you all excited.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Highfive
Shipmate
# 12937
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I might be being generous, but it is Wednesday morning, a good time to be so. It is possible (not easy, but possible) to read Highfive as saying that the concern is to ensure they do in fact gain the right to be identified correctly. It can't really be any positive legal right, but rather a right not to be referred to as someone's so-called husband or wife. That phrase may well amount to a breach of the transgender vilification provisions of the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act and I assume that there are similar provisions in the other States.
But the posts are so obscure that it's hard to know what is being meant.
That's pretty much bang on, and you are being generous.
My personal stance is that if a biological man transitions to a transsexual female, they'd better be absolutely sure about it and be willing to stay there. I'd be willing to refer to them as 'she' in that case.
If a biological man becomes a transgender women and, at some point, they faint in a shopping center where I have a duty of care, I will be cutting off the gaff tape binding their chest to attach the defibrillators and calling, "Sir! Can you hear me, sir?"
If their defacto partner discovers me doing this and accuses me of abuse, am I safer from legal vilification than if their spouse discovers me doing this and accuses me of abuse?
(Thank you, Arabella Purity Winterbottom, for your perspective on how you would be called in the Registar. I assumed 'husband' and 'wife' are the only titles on offer)
Posts: 111 | From: Brisbane | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Highfive:
...
If a biological man becomes a transgender women and, at some point, they faint in a shopping center where I have a duty of care, I will be cutting off the gaff tape binding their chest to attach the defibrillators and calling, "Sir! Can you hear me, sir?"...
I think you've got the chest-binding backwards and you're actually saving a trans man, in which case Sir is probably ok. Or you could just go with, "Can you hear me?"
(BTW, AEDs come with a nice diagram showing where to place the electrodes - usually above and below the mammary glands. If you're doing external chest compressions, however, you do use the nipples to locate the sternum.)
I work with a colleague who is punctilious about addressing our customers with proper titles and salutations, so we've had a number of discussions about how we address our customers, cis and trans. (Doctor and Professor are very useful in academia - non-gendered, and if mis-applied, flattering!) It's simply good business practice to address your customers as they prefer to be addressed. We've also decided that a customer's sex or gender is pretty much irrelevant for our purposes since we don't have sex with our customers.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Highfive:
... My personal stance is that if a biological man transitions to a transsexual female, they'd better be absolutely sure about it and be willing to stay there. I'd be willing to refer to them as 'she' in that case....
So how often do you get trans people applying to have you approve their gender? Do they get an official certificate (suitable for framing?) if you're satisfied? Do you have, like, a gender police badge or something?
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Highfive:
... My personal stance is that if a biological man transitions to a transsexual female, they'd better be absolutely sure about it and be willing to stay there. I'd be willing to refer to them as 'she' in that case....
So how often do you get trans people applying to have you approve their gender? Do they get an official certificate (suitable for framing?) if you're satisfied? Do you have, like, a gender police badge or something?
And how long do they have to "stay there" before you approve and use the pronoun they have asked for? One year? Five? Ten?
If someone, say someone named Erin, decides she wants to be known as Tina, and goes through the legal rigamarole to have the records changed at the courthouse, do you say, "I'm going to keep calling you Erin until I'm sure you mean it, and aren't going to go back to your old name"? It's presumptuous and rude and unkind to call someone anything other than what they've asked to be called, whether that be nouns or pronouns.
The morality or permanence of their name (or gender) change is not anyone else's business. You don't call someone something they have asked you not to. Basic golden rule here.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Leorning Cniht, the vilification is in the use of "so-called". A trans woman is not "so-called" but a woman. A quick glance does not show any equivalent section for vilification in relation to marriage. Of course there can be no discrimination against a person on the basis of marital status (or gender status for that matter). The lack of positive legal right means that a trans person has no right to walk up to Highfive and demand to be called a woman; just rights not to be vilified. I would not call that a vey fine line myself but it's irrelevant.
Highfive, I'd again suggest that you think very seriously about what you're saying. No post so far is a winner, all are horribly confused.
Otherwise, and subject to some technical points, what Mousethief says.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Leorning Cniht, to go back to the "so-called wife" point - it would not be discrimination simply to say that about the second wife of a man who divorced his first wife. A very strict Catholic may well say that. What is wrong is to treat the second wife in a manner different to that in which you would treat the first when providing any goods or services.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Leorning Cniht, to go back to the "so-called wife" point - it would not be discrimination simply to say that about the second wife of a man who divorced his first wife.
No but it would be rude and uncharitable.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Highfive:
If a biological man becomes a transgender women and, at some point, they faint in a shopping center where I have a duty of care, I will be cutting off the gaff tape binding their chest to attach the defibrillators and calling, "Sir! Can you hear me, sir?"
So you see a person wearing women's clothing collapse in your shopping centre, don't utter a word until you've opened their clothing, and then address them as "sir" based on what? Your judgement that the nipples you've just exposed don't look female enough for you?
(Also, I don't think transgender means what you seem to think it means.)
That seems exceedingly odd to me, but there you go. Let me assure you of a few things:
1. The legality or otherwise of same-sex marriage does not affect whether you have an obligation not to misgender someone you're attempting to resuscitate. I'm confused as to why you think it might make a difference. A trans woman isn't more of a woman because she's married to a man.
2. Trans women who have legally changed their gender can already marry men. They don't have a same-sex marriage.
3. With same-sex marriage legalized, a person who identifies as a trans woman but who has not taken any legal steps to change gender will be able to marry her male partner.
4. With same-sex marriage legalized, the big burly man from the leather bar will also be able to marry his male partner. I'm pretty sure you're not confused about his gender.
5. Nobody, under any circumstances, is going to attempt to prosecute you for misgendering someone while trying to resuscitate them.
(Soror Magna: if I have to use an AED on someone, I'm automatically cutting away a bra or other chest covering with the shears that are in the box, because I'm not going to hang about thinking about whether it is underwired or otherwise contains metal.)
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Leorning Cniht, the vilification is in the use of "so-called". A trans woman is not "so-called" but a woman [..] trans person has no right to walk up to Highfive and demand to be called a woman; just rights not to be vilified. I would not call that a vey fine line myself but it's irrelevant.
I think you missed my point. Your law about vilifying trans people exists. If calling someone "so-called" rises to the level of vilification, then it is already illegal to call a trans woman a "so-called woman". If Highfive is concerned about being unable to call someone a "so-called wife" in the future - well, he already can't call them a "so-called woman". That's my fine line - being concerned about being able to call someone a so-called wife when you already can't call them a so-called woman.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
And the people involved might not even be RC, so RC rules wouldn't apply.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Highfive
Shipmate
# 12937
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
So you see a person wearing women's clothing collapse in your shopping centre, don't utter a word until you've opened their clothing, and then address them as "sir" based on what? Your judgement that the nipples you've just exposed don't look female enough for you?
The last... um...Cisgender...female I saw was working in the tool section of a hardware store...She had short hair and was wearing the polo shirt, shorts, apron and toolbelt that all staff wear. There will be circumstances where feminine dress can't be worn.
With some thought, I reckon if I addressed her as sir, there wouldn't be an issue.
Now that I've found the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board's definition of Vilification, that gives me a clearer idea of what can and can't be said.
It's vilification if I say someone is transgender when they are not. It's not vilification if I say someone is straight when they are transgender.
As said before, that definition does not have anything to do with same-sex marriage.
I'm sorry towards all those whom I offended. I can say that because I definitely won't be having this kind of conversation again.
I'd be more diplomatic in my approach if I could, but there's a real world out there and I couldn't give a shit.
Posts: 111 | From: Brisbane | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Highfive:
As said before, that definition does not have anything to do with same-sex marriage.
Yes. That's what the rest of us have been saying. So why did you bring it up at all?
By the way, "same sex marriage" is a slight misnomer, and maybe that's what's getting you confused. The proposal is not to have "marriage" open to a man and a woman, and "samesexmarriage" open to two men or two women - the proposal is to have "marriage" open to two people.
So it doesn't matter at all what sex, gender identity, or whatever else the two people are. They just have to be adult people.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Which is why it's better not to use the term same sex marriage but rather to call it marriage equality - it covers an enormous range of variations.
As to the so-called point: I'd expect that the court or tribunal hearing the case would have little difficulty in finding that to say of a transgender person that they were a so-called man or so-called woman. I'm not sure quite what damages would flow from that, each case of course would be different. But a so-called wife/husband does not fall into the same category because neither needs be trans as the divorce point applies. A Mousethief says, its rude and uncharitable and there'd be very few Catholics strict enough to say it these days.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
But a so-called wife/husband does not fall into the same category because neither needs be trans as the divorce point applies.
Don't think I agree. Not if you're calling someone a "so-called wife" because you think they're really a man - that has exactly the same information content as "so-called woman".
If the trans woman or her spouse were previously married, you might get away with "they're not married because X is still married to Z" - but if you're calling someone a "so-called wife" because they're trans - well, I think that's about the same as "so-called woman".
Your statute requires "hatred, serious contempt or severe ridicule" for vilification. Merely describing someone as a "so-called woman" is clearly contemptuous, but is it "serious contempt"? I'm not convinced - but I'm not Australian either. Could you come up with a statement that you think isn't "serious" contempt - something that's contemptuous but not serious enough to count as vilification?
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Perhaps I did not really make clear that I was moving from the specifics of a marriage with a transgender spouse to the general. Does that address your concerns?
As I said some time ago, I don't practice in that area and can't really come up with specific examples. If some well-known athlete was in a parade with a transgender spouse???
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Coming back to this, I think the example I gave was the reverse of what you were seeking. That would amount to vilification as defined. Perhaps a passing reference in a pub to X and the so-called woman he's always seen with may not be seen as vilification.
BTW, I have no idea what provisions if any apply in other states or territories. They are as likely to be different as those in the various States and Districts of the US,
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Highfive:
In a nutshell, I could identify as a woman, marry an actual woman, sue anyone for discrimination who says to my wife, "Can you introduce me to your husband?" and then suddenly say, "You know what. I think I might go back to being a bloke again".
quote:
Originally posted by Highfive:
My issue is that I do not want to embrace Golden Key's glaad.org reference guide as the means by which I can politely engage with the intersex, non-binary and transgender community. Currently, the onus is on them to tolerate mis-identifications by society and to diplomatically engage others in understanding how they want to be identified.
If members of this community adopt the titles of husband and wife, I'm concerned they will gain legal rights to be identified correctly. The onus will fall to the rest of society to adopt the glaad.org reference guide.
quote:
Originally posted by Highfive:
My personal stance is that if a biological man transitions to a transsexual female, they'd better be absolutely sure about it and be willing to stay there. I'd be willing to refer to them as 'she' in that case.
If a biological man becomes a transgender women and, at some point, they faint in a shopping center where I have a duty of care, I will be cutting off the gaff tape binding their chest to attach the defibrillators and calling, "Sir! Can you hear me, sir?"
If their defacto partner discovers me doing this and accuses me of abuse, am I safer from legal vilification than if their spouse discovers me doing this and accuses me of abuse?
quote:
Originally posted by Highfive:
I'd be more diplomatic in my approach if I could, but there's a real world out there and I couldn't give a shit.
That seems like a pretty big reversal. In all your prior posts it seems like you gave a very big shit indeed. The shit you gave was so big that you advocated for using the power of the state to discriminate against same-sex couples because of your professed desire to give shit to the transgendered. Now suddenly you're shitless? What happened?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
In all your prior posts it seems like you gave a very big shit indeed. The shit you gave was so big that you advocated for using the power of the state to discriminate against same-sex couples because of your professed desire to give shit to the transgendered. Now suddenly you're shitless? What happened?
Maybe that's what happens when one has got more shit to go round than one knows what to do with?
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Highfive:
There will be circumstances where feminine dress can't be worn.
Can't. This implies a must or at least a should in circumstances where it is possible.
Hair length, or clothing style, being an indicator of femininity or masculinity is ridiculous. And arbitrary.
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
But the posts are so obscure that it's hard to know what is being meant.
Obscure. What a polite way to put it.
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Maybe that's what happens when one has got more shit to go round than one knows what to do with?
Could be that he is looking for a pony, so doesn't mind flinging all that shit around?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
And now it comes out that the Sydney Anglican Diocese made a one million dollar donation to the No vote. Have they nothing better to do with their funds?
Makes me really, really sick.
--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
APW--
During one of our California campaigns about a state anti-SSM law, IIRC both the Mormon church and the RCC quietly donated boatloads of money, and weren't happy when that came out.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
The poor will always be with us, right? Jesus didn’t say gay people needed to be.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Apparently the Anglican Diocese of Sydney is so flush with cash they've got AUS$1,000,000 to blow on political influence. I'm sure their parishioners will be relieved to know their contributions to the church won't be wasted on feeding the hungry or other trifles like that.
I hope parishioners will vote with their wallets -- I would donate to worthy causes and put nothing in the plate. But this is Sydney, so are they used to their money going to things like this?
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
This is a diocese so well managed that over $100m was lost in the GFC. The diocese had a solid endowment, used it as collateral for borrowings to raise more money, and then had to have a fire sale when loans were called in.
At that time, some clergy were railing against chocolate wheels at church fetes as a form of gambling, but said nothing about this.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
So.....Victory!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
