Monday, 6 January 2020

My submission on the Morrison "government" 's proposed religious discrimination bill.

This is the final version of my submission - just emailed off.

Apologies for the formatting - I lost most of what I had around indents etc when I pasted this in.



Submission on the proposed “Religious Discrimination Bill”

1.        Introduction

1.       Personal details:
Name:                                  <redacted>
Title:                                    Ms
Address:                              <redacted>
For communication:          <redacted>
2.       For the sake of my family’s peace, safety and wellbeing, as well as the quiet enjoyment of our home, and my security of employment (particularly in the event that the proposed bill is passed), I request that my address and communication details NOT be made public.
3.       I was raised for the first decade and a half of my life by my (adoptive) parents as an Anglican. After that, I found Buddhism, which was my faith for the next three decades, and for the last nearly two decades I have been Pagan. My experience as a Pagan includes being a Priestess and an Elder, and my considerations of “what (religious) path to follow” has, in my opinion, given me significant insight into the relativities of various religious and spiritual paths. In addition to that, I have experience with interfaith work. (Unfortunately, I have had to cut back my involvement in interfaith work to address health, family and work demands.)
An aspect that will become relevant further on in this submission is that my personal family history includes Irish convicts, and, more recently (through my birth family), German Lutheranism.
I work as a civil engineer, and wish to make it clear that I have no legal qualifications.
I am also a transgender lesbian, and thus likely to be directly affected by the proposed bill.
4.       I wish to consider the proposed Religious Discrimination Bill (the proposed bill) under the following points:
a)       Religion;
b)      Economic impact;
c)       Social impact;
d)      Governance;
e)      Legal;
f)        Science; and
g)       Human rights.

Executive Summary

This submission is being made by a woman who has strong religious faith, and is also part of the LGBTIQ+ communities.
The proposed bill is not supported, and is in fact considered extremely harmful, by members of religions (including Christianity and other Abrahamic religions), parental groups, human rights organisations, members of those groups in society who are likely to be most affected (including women, and LGBTIQ+ people) and business.
The religious people who support the proposed bill can be challenged theologically. In fact, support for the proposed bill can be considered spiritually, religiously, and morally harmful for its proponents.
The harms of the proposed bill include:
·       absurd situations where people who have opposing religious beliefs can contend endlessly with each other;
·       a risk of increased discrimination against religion in general, or particular religions;
·       conflict with the internationally accepted definitions of freedom of expression;
·       increased bullying in workplaces leading to reduced productivity, reduced access to Australia’s human capital, and ultimately, possibly a basis for refugee claims;
·       problems with regard to consumer choice, including the ability to have choice over how one spends one’s money;
·       harm to Australia’s social fabric, including increased domestic and other violence, and increased rates of self-harm and suicide;
·       the behaviour that the proposed bill would allow would run counter to, and directly undermine, all counternarrative efforts being used against religious extremism
·       undermining of the separation of powers in Australia;
·       undermining of the nature of Australia as a modern, secular nation.
The proposed bill would constitute poor, if not harmful, governance.
The proposed bill is contrary to science.
The proposed bill was not supported by the Expert Panel examining religious freedom.

2.        Brief review of proposed bill

1.       In preparing this submission, I have relied on the following materials:
·       media articles:
o   Religious discrimination bill: what will Australians be allowed to say and do if it passes?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/14/religious-discrimination-bill-what-will-australians-be-allowed-to-say-and-do-if-it-passes
o   The Coalition's religious discrimination bill: what's changed and can doctors refuse treatment?
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/dec/11/the-coalitions-religious-discrimination-bill-whats-changed-and-can-doctors-refuse-treatment
o   Rationalist Society of Australia letter
https://www.rationalist.com.au/religious-discrimination-bill-2019/
o   When “Biology” Becomes a Cover for Anti-Trans Bigotry
https://newrepublic.com/article/156104/biology-becomes-cover-anti-trans-bigotry

2.       I note that:
·       the caveats that “statements must be made in good faith; not be malicious or harass, vilify or incite hatred against a person or group; not advocate for the commission of a serious criminal offence” are:
a)       absurd - an abusive statement, which the examples given all are, cannot reasonably be considered to be good faith, in my opinion - and the opinion of many other Australians;
b)      statements of the type given are inherently malicious, harassment, and vilification; and
c)       enabling such abusers to make such statements will lead to other assaults - as exemplified by the homophobic abuse committed by some young persons [1] , and by the general history of abuse of others caused by Catholicism’s past homophobia/transphobia, misogyny, and incorrect assertions that Jews were responsible for the death of Christ.
·       My initial consumer-based questions about medical aspects of the proposed bill are provided in Section 7.
In addition, overriding measures against the unscientific practice of so-called “conversion therapy” [2] would result in suffering and deaths, and be of no benefit whatsoever to anyone.
·       The examples around employment have been limited to arguments commonly made, and do not address issues such as indirect discrimination, toxic workplace culture, bullying [3] and other problems that will dissuade women and minorities from doing their utmost to contribute to the Australian economy, and may stop their participation - possibly even driving some on to welfare.
·       The one and only example I consider of any merit is the ability of a Christian organisation running a campsite to be able to ban a Church of Satan “black mass”, and I question whether this bill is needed to enable such activities to be rejected.

3.        Religion

3.       My understanding is that a key aim of the proposed bill is to enable people with genuinely held religious (or atheistic) beliefs to express those.
4.       Australians genuinely hold a wide range of religious beliefs, including religious denominations.
5.       That range of beliefs includes, as an example, religions - some mainstream, others not - that are supportive of inclusiveness and realisation of opportunity for people on the basis of race, sex/gender, marriage status, sexuality, gender identity, and disability.
As an example of that, representatives of the Islamic faith were generally supportive of the proposed addition of the attribute of gender identity to the Victorian Equal Opportunity Act in 2000, except for the issue of trans and gender diverse (TGD) teachers.
6.       A minority of religions are not inclusive on these matters, or not inclusive on all of these.
7.       This proposed bill could therefore result in a somewhat absurdist situation where two people, each holding diametrically opposing views, are allowed by the proposed bill to express those views to each other.
In such a situation, the question can reasonably be posed, who “wins”? Which opposing argument is allowed to take precedence, or does this continue as an unproductive, unending and unedifying “slanging match”?
In a workplace, such tension could seriously and adversely impact on business operations and effectiveness.

8.       In considering this situation that the proposed bill makes possible or even likely, it should be noted that the common conception of “freedom of expression” is usually incorrect.
9.       Freedom of expression [4] :
·       is intended to ensure that democracy can function, by allowing citizens to discuss matters of public interest, or to criticise the government;
·       from Handyside v. United Kingdom (1976): “it is applicable not only to ‘information’ or ‘ideas’ that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also those that offend, shock, or disturb the state or any sector of the population”.
·       does not mean that anything at all can be said, with exceptions including:
(i)      Firstly, the rights of others. For instance, the right to privacy, to reputation, the protection of minors, or the right to a fair trial.
(ii)    Secondly, national security or public order. On this basis, restriction may be imposed, for instance, on the publishing of military secrets, or for the sake of law enforcement. Another example is the relation of speech in public spaces.
(iii)   Thirdly, the authority or impartiality of the judiciary.
(iv)   And finally, certain important social values, such as public health.
10.   Freedom of expression does not mean that one can indulge in abusive behaviour - an indulgence which is contrary to the goals of many religions.

11.   From a religious / moral point of view, most religions are aimed at ways of living that include caring as a key aspect, in addition to ritual / theological observances.
There are theological differences around what form or details the caring may take, but the majority of religions, including many of the forms of Christian religion, have accepted the worldwide trend, since the “Enlightenment” of the 17th and 18th Centuries [i] (a period which includes John Locke’s defence of religious tolerance [5] ), towards a more inclusive manifestation of caring, developed in response to the improved understanding of the complexities of the human condition, and the benefits of realising human rights - including those rights relating to freedom of thought.
12.   As examples of that:
·       Divorce no longer precludes people from observance of their religion, in most faiths;
·       Being Irish is no longer an excuse for discrimination on the basis of a presumed religion (although that problem still exists for other groups);
·       Roman Catholic masses are no longer in Latin, and thus have increased accessibility;
·       Some religions have taken leading roles in issues such as ending slavery, countering poverty, and are now taking on activist roles against climate change.
In recent years, Christianity has formally acknowledged that Christ was killed by Roman soldiers, not Jews;
·       A number of Christian religions now allow women to serve in their Ministry;
·       At least one Christian religion and the Jewish faith have accepted transgender ministers;
·       Many Christian and other Abrahamic religions, or their adherents, are supportive of inclusivity, as was shown by the postal vote on Equal Marriage, and by several now performing same sex/same gender weddings - and some performing forms of recognition before the postal vote;
·       At least one Christian religion (the Metropolitan Community Church) was founded on the basis of being inclusive, and all Abrahamic religions have internal groups actively pursuing better inclusion of LGBTIQ+ people;
·       The lack of Christmas celebration in Scotland imposed by the Christian church in that nation (this was initially a ban, as was also applied by Puritans in England after the Civil War, until the restoration of monarchy [6] ) came to an end in 1958, after 398 years [7] ; and
·       The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act includes Section 116, which states:
The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.
13.   Religions are not fixed, rigid and unchanging. They are subject to development and growth, as illustrated, for instance, by changes that the Roman Catholic and Anglican Churches have implemented since the mid-20th Century, some of which have been listed above.
As the modernist American pastor Harry Emerson Fosdick [8] , known for his opposition to fundamentalists, said:
“Christians are supposed not merely to endure change, nor even to profit by it, but to cause it.”
14.   Such changes have also included accepting responsibility for wrongs, such as child abuse - albeit only after considerable pressure, investigations and charges, and at the expense of the health, wellbeing and, in too many cases, lives of those who have been abused - particularly after they spoke out.
15.   Those people who have partaken of the increased richness of the developments in their religions have benefitted in a religious / spiritual sense, while those who resisted or opposed that change have lost the benefits of those changes, much as those who have opposed changes in history such as the Enlightenment, the adoption, development and spread of democracy, and modern scientific understanding (with Galileo’s forced recantation, the reluctance to admit Copernicus’ theory, and the undue holding to discredited medical teachings such as “humourism” being notable historical examples, and the current anti-vaccination movement a more recent example), have also harmed themselves as much as, if not more, than others.
16.   On the basis of my life experience in several faiths, and my training as a Minister, I submit that those religions / persons who are supportive of the proposed bill are in conflict with others theologically, are certainly on the wrong side of history, and are harming themselves from a religious / spiritual perspective.
17.   Whilst being in conflict with a larger group does not necessarily mean one is wrong (for instance, those who opposed slavery were, initially, a minority), and while I - noting that I have a strong religious faith - support the principle that people should not be discriminated against on the grounds of their faith (which is already enshrined in all state laws), in this instance, my strongly held religious opinion is that, from a religious and moral point of view, those persons supporting the proposed bill are wrong.
18.   In support of my contention, I wish to provide the following, beginning with the words of Senator the Hon. Penny Wong, as cited in Margaret Simons’ “Penny Wong: Passion and Principle”:
“Compassion is what underscores our relationships with one another, and it is compassion which enables us to come to a place of community even in our diversity.”
I understand that Senator Wong has strongly held religious beliefs.
I also note the following comment, by His Holiness the Fourteenth Dalai Lama:
“I believe the purpose of all major religious traditions is not to construct big temples on the outside, but to create temples of goodness and compassion inside, in our hearts.”
Finally, Bishop Desmond Tutu, who I once had the honour of hearing, said:
“I believe the purpose of all major religious traditions is not to construct big temples on the outside, but to create temples of goodness and compassion inside, in our hearts.”
19.   There has been significant evidence that a significant number of religious groups do not see a need for the proposed bill [9] ;

20.   Another major issue here is the definition of religion.
21.   In addition to the concerns raised by others [10] (the questions about Buddhism are particularly apt, as is that of a Muslim woman sacked from a Muslim school for refusing to wear a headscarf), there are significant questions around the definitions of religion for minority, particularly non-Abrahamic, religions.
22.   In the apparent sense of the proposed bill, less formal religions, such as Paganism, which still have deeply and genuinely held beliefs, would be owed protection, but, given the focus on mainstream Abrahamic religions, the development of a system to define religions is likely to exclude those religions as a result of bias (possibly unconscious bias).

4.        Economic impact

23.   There is no reasonable basis for doubting the benefits of inclusion and diversity in business.
My experience is that having people from different cultures included in a work situation improves the breadth, depth and quality of thinking - in a sense, the “diversity of thinking”.
24.   Just as behaviours such as hazing and bullying of new apprentices are accepted to be counter-productive and actually harmful to individuals (I submit that those who do not see that harm, are probably so harmed themselves by the effects of having undergone such behaviour, that they are unable to form a proper opinion on the subject), and thus robs the workplace of their skills and contributions, so too is participation of minority groups in workplaces limited by being subjected to abusive behaviours.
Apart from the disincentives of being overlooked for promotions and not being listened to in meetings as a result of direct discrimination, people tend to hold back on thoughts and ideas - again, reducing business effectiveness and thus reducing our economic gains.
25.   On a personal note, to avoid abuse from past co-workers I have often made my own way to sites, in my own car. That protects my wellbeing, but the bigotry of those former co-workers has directly robbed the company of the opportunity for us to collaborate and prepare on the way to site.
26.   The proposed bill would exacerbate the problems that block the Australian economy from accessing the full resources available to it in the Australian population, and thus be economically harmful. [11] This would occur as the proposed bill would enable homophobia, transphobic, misogynist, racist and other abuses (a minority of religious groups have made their backward views clear in recent years) that would harm the wellbeing of people from those groups in the workplace, and thus cause people from those groups to either leave or not enter the workforce, for the sake of their wellbeing.
It is possible that the proposed bill would, if passed, be the basis for refugee claims for a number of people.
27.   The proposed bill is not supported by business. [12]

5.        Social impact

28.   Australia is largely a diverse, multifaceted and pluralistic society - albeit with flaws, such as residual racism and other forms of bigotry. This land has been occupied for tens of thousands of years by Indigenous people, and nearly two and a half centuries by a mix of others, including Irish, British, Europeans, Asians, Africans and others.
The acceptance of continental Europeans after World War Two was a deliberate policy of the Commonwealth government, as was acceptance of our former allies from Viêt Nám in the 70s, and the adoption of a policy of multiculturalism, also in the 70s.
29.   The business benefits of diversity have been mentioned in the preceding section, but the social richness and variety of immigration and multiculturalism should not be underestimated.
30.   In addition, immigration has the potential to address our ageing population issues.
31.   Each new wave of immigration after 1788 has experienced discrimination, which has restricted the capacity of that group to contribute to our society. Discrimination against Indigenous people and Irish Catholics was probably the earliest forms of discrimination, with discrimination against Asians starting soon after.
32.   From a religious point of view, all those episodes of discrimination were, and still are, wrong.
33.   The proposed bill would further entrench divisions [13] that should be being overcome, in order to allow Australia to fully realise the talents of all its people, rather than pandering to a 1% [14] who are refusing to grow and develop spiritually / religiously.
34.   Examples of the sorts of behaviours that the proposed bill would permit have been provided in Section 2.
35.   For the sake of that 1%, the 8 - 11% who are LGBTIQ+ and the slightly over 50% who are women would have their involvement in Australia curtailed by the risk of being subjected to abusive behaviour.
The abusive behaviour would occur as the proposed bill would enable homophobia, transphobic, misogynist, racist and other abuses (a minority of religious groups have made their backward views clear in recent years).
There is no rational basis to consider this would be a benefit.

6.        Governance

36.   The purpose of governance is to ensure the optimal functional of the group or organisation being governed.
37.   In this context, it is Australia that is being governed, and thus the proposed bill must be assessed in that context.
38.   As demonstrated in the preceding sections on economic and social impact, the proposed bill will have a significantly deleterious impact on Australia.
39.   It therefore cannot be considered to be an example of good governance.
If implemented, it would, in fact, constitute exceedingly poor institutional decision-making.

7.        Legal

40.   The Separation of Powers is an important concept in the Westminster form of government.
That separation refers to the executive being separate from the branches of government which provide enforcement, in order to prevent excessive concentration of power, which brings the risk of corrupt practices and poor governances through insufficient accountability.
41.   A further concept is that religion and state should be separate.
Historically, the dangers of the two not being separate have been illustrated by episodes such as:
·       the Thirty Years War, which led to the Treaty of Westphalia that is often considered the start of the modern nation-state;
·       life in England under the Puritan republic between the end of the English Civil War and the later re-establishment of a constitutional monarchy - with the lack of a Christmas celebration in Scotland for around four centuries being a residual of those attitudes;
·       ongoing barbarity between Protestant and Catholic religions, including in the 20th Century - and to date, to some extent - in Ireland and northern Ireland;
·       the brutal massacre of thousands of Pagans by Charlemagne;
·       a long history of pogroms being tolerated or encouraged by authorities - and the “refuseniks” of Russia last century are an example of both that and the problems of the Soviet state;
·       the Holocaust created by Nazi Germany, which led to the creation of Israel, which is still mired in tensions including religious;
·       the Crusades in West Asia, which were a series of disasters that are still affecting that region; and
·       the attempt by fundamental extremists (Da’esh) to establish what they termed “a caliphate” in West Asia.
42.   The proposed bill directly undermines the Separation of Powers.
43.   Whilst Australia is unlikely to find itself in a state of war as a result of the proposed bill, it would, if made law:
·       directly and actively harm the wellbeing of women and minority groups, and increase rates of self-harm and suicide [15] ;
·       increase domestic and other violence; and
·       run counter to, and directly undermine, all counternarrative efforts being used against religious extremism.

44.   There are a number of consumer affairs matters that could potentially arise from this. Even if these matters would not lead to a successful legal action, they would result in people refusing to return to to certain organisations, and could result in people refusing to recommend businesses.
45.   As an example, a normal, loving parent who found that their doctor was homophobic or transphobic would - as part of their parental duty to look after their child’s welfare - certainly not recommend their child attend that clinic.
46.   It should be noted that parents have shown their clear disapproval of the proposed bill:
·       PFLAG launches new campaign against religious discrimination bill: https://www.outinperth.com/pflag-launches-new-campaign-against-religious-discrimination-bill/, which refers to:
·       https://equalitynotdiscrimination.org/.
47.   The initial questions I had when I first heard of the proposed bill, and had not read it, were:
·       Are the doctors who are going to refuse to perform certain procedures going to let members of the public know in advance so those doctors can be avoided?
·       If not, is there a way to avoid having to pay those doctors for what could be argued to be misleading/deceptive conduct (the appointment was made in good faith, but the doctor has not behaved in such a manner)? Apart from many Australians struggling to survive financially, no Australian deserves to be compelled to pay for lack of treatment - and the offensive language permitted would compel many patients to leave that doctor.
·       Is compensation going to be available to cater for the actual harm that the those doctors are causing by having their say? Are patients going to get an equal right of reply to the offensive comments that they may be exposed to?
·       Is there going to be a mechanism to enable patients find decent doctors? (This is particularly an issue for people living in regions, who are likely to be driven out by the proposed bill to seek decent services in cities.)
·       Will the government ensure that sufficient government funded services in ALL areas of Australia are provided by decent doctors to ensure adequate access for ALL Australians?
·       Is the doctor’s offensive language a breach of their Hippocratic Oath, which requires not doing harm?

48.   I note that Section 1.122 on p. 41 of the “Religious Freedom Review: Report of the Expert Panel” states:
“However, the Panel did not support enactment of a standalone Commonwealth enactment of this kind at this time. Specifically protecting freedom of religion would be out of step with the treatment of other rights. Moreover, the statutory expression of positive rights would need to be carefully crafted having regard to the need to reconcile them with the full suite of other human rights. As a matter of practicality, this necessitates a framework which provides equal treatment for a wide range of human rights.”

8.        Science

49.   In 1957, a study by Evelyn Hooker (“The Adjustment of the Male Overt Homosexual” [16] ) famously showed that same sex attracted men were basically no different to heterosexual men - no better, no worse. The study did not consider lesbians or bisexual people, but was instrumental in beginning to establish an evidentiary basis for the normalisation of the status of same sex attracted people.
50.   Subsequently, in 1973 the American Psychiatric Association de-pathologised “homosexuality” [17] , and transsexualism was removed from the eleventh edition of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems.
51.   More recently, improved understanding of gender has led to a wide acceptance that gender/sex is not binary.
I had intended to cite multiple sources on this, but I consider it well enough demonstrated to provide only one commentary here (and some additional comments are in Appendix A):
Olsen, K. R., Berenbaum, S., 2018, “The Trump Administration's Proposed "Redefinition" of Gender Is Scientifically Absurd”, Scientific American, 29th October, 2018
URL: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/the-trump-administrations-proposed-redefinition-of-gender-is-scientifically-absurd/
52.   Same sex attraction has also been widely observed in the natural world - i.e., in animals.
53.   Those who are trying to deny the weight of scientific evidence, no matter how uncomfortable that evidence may be or how much it may conflict with one’s worldview, are doing themselves, their religion, and society a grave disservice.
They would be better served personally by reflecting on what flaws within are holding them back from this next stage of their personal, spiritual / religious and community growth.

54.   It is true that there have been problems with what is often considered to be science, or scientific application - for instance, thalidomide, agricultural practices, and the climate crisis can be attributed to the effects of the Industrial Revolution.
55.   However, in my opinion, all of those can be attributed to the unbalanced way that science was used, rather than the scientific knowledge itself.
·       Thalidomide was released onto the market despite knowledge of its side effects;
·       Land degradation results from over-intensive agriculture in the quest for improved profitability and/or lower costs; and
·       Similarly, the Industrial Revolution was driven by beliefs around the purpose of existence being development at all costs.
56.   The beliefs that “the purpose of existence being development at all costs” is the Protestant work ethic, and the Christian view that the world is subordinate to humans.
Those religious views have led to problems such as clearing land on the premise that natural forests “are of no value”, and allowing harm to environment (pollution) and to some classes of society to enable increased economic productivity (e.g., the notorious poor houses and workhouses of Britain up until last Century).
However, I contend that those views are actually misunderstanding or misapplication of religious principles, particularly when the essence of the Christian New testament is taken into consideration.
Such misunderstanding or misapplication of religious principles also include problems such as protecting child abusers.
Similarly, what are apparently problems with science are actually misunderstanding or misapplication of the scientific method, and thus I consider that there is no basis for doubting good science - and I contend that the improved understanding of sex, sexuality and gender is good science.
Where this becomes relevant to the proposed bill is that supporters have stated that their (scientifically wrong and morally/religiously/spiritually indefensible) beliefs about sexuality and sex/gender is a key reason that they are supporting the proposed bill.
57.   It is also noteworthy that Indigenous people have often had a healthier relationship with land, a relationship that is only now being appreciated. That relationship is probably largely cultural, but could also possibly be attributed - to some extent, at any rate - to their healthier, more people and environment focused religions.
The proposed bill would allow those religions who consider Indigenous people “primitive” or natural, unspoiled environments to be “unproductive” (notwithstanding tourism benefits) to advocate for their harmful and backward positions.
58.   The proposed bill would be a misapplication of religious principles comparable to those which led to colonialisation, environmental degradation, and ultimately the current climate crisis.

8.        Human Rights

59.   As I have doubts that an appeal to human decency would be properly considered, I’ll leave the human rights issues mostly to what is in the preceding sections.
60.   The one additional comment I wish to make is that the proposed bill is a choice between Australia being a modern nation-state, built and capitalising on the developments of recent centuries, or a mediæval theocracy, backward, out of touch with modernity, and mired in superstitious distrust.

9.        Conclusion

61.   Australia is best served by actively enabling as many people as possible to actively participate in, and contribute to, our economy and our society.
62.   The proposed bill would seriously adversely impact the participation and contribution of more than half of the population.
63.   In addition, from a religious perspective, the proposed bill would harm that small group who support it by preventing them from undertaking the reflection and spiritual growth that they need.
64.   The proposed bill has only harm, and no benefits, and must not be made law.

Acronyms and Glossary

65.   Equal Marriage   Equal access to Marriage for same sex/same gender attracted people
66.   LGBTIQ+               lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and gender diverse, intersex, and
                              queer/questioning and others
67.   MOOC                  Massive Open Online Course
68.   TGD                       transsexual/transgender and gender diverse
69.   URL                       Uniform Resource Locator

References

70.   MOOC Chile (2014) - Introduction to Human Rights (Universidad Diego Portales)
see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iN_S8xcGefo&list=PLQ-vn9R272FjsmryxhlYOMhuwlXNp724L
71.   Robertson, G. (2006) “The Tyrannicide Brief”, Vintage Books, London, ISBN 9781407066035

Appendix A - Comments on Biological Sex

72.   Sources for this summary were https://twitter.com/claudistics/status/1207794227637374976 and https://twitter.com/RebeccaRHelm/status/1207840701247053826.
73.   Sex is not binary in many species.
74.   Species could be:
·       hermaphrodites (two functional sets of sex organs, sometimes at same time, or at different times during their life cycles;  includes plants, invertebrates and some vertebrates [e.g., the clownfish in “Finding Nemo”]);
·       parthenogenic - fertilisation to have offspring is not required (species include invertebrates and vertebrates [including Komodo dragon, hammerhead sharks chickens]) species are.
75.   Chromosomal variations include:
·       Z and W, not X and Y, chromosomes (birds);
·       as few as one (worms, snails, snails, slugs, bees, spiders, dragonflies, crustaceans, fish, some moths) or as many as ten sex chromosomes (platypus);
·       different numbers of chromosomes for male and female, or sex selection by temperature when developing.
76.   There are also single celled organisms reproduce asexually.
77.   In humans, the SRY gene on the Y chromosome selects chromosomal sex, but SRY gene can shift to X chromosome. Genes signal hormone production, but sometimes cell don’t respond to sex hormones.
78.   The upshot of this is that one could be genetically male or female, chromosomally male or female, hormonally male / female / non-binary, with cells that may or may not respond to the male / female / non-binary hormonal signal, and thus have a body that is male / non-binary / female.
79.   Around 1 - 2% of humans are intersex - which is too high to meet the biological definition of “rare” (affects fewer than 1%). These people are born with a combination of primary and secondary sex traits traditionally considered male or female. There are around 26 variations of intersex (thus it is not a third sex), and some can reproduce.
80.   Those sex traits include:
·       karyotype (type and number of sex chromosomes);
·       genes;
·       external genitalia (forms and function);
·       internal sex organs’ form and function; and
·       hormone types and levels.
81.   For more on this, see https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6300(200003/04)12:2%3C151::AID-AJHB1%3E3.0.CO;2-F (first pub. 11th February, 2000).

Endnotes


[4] MOOC Chile (2014), Lesson Nine
[5] MOOC Chile (2014), Lesson Four
[6] Robertson (2006), e-book location 2305
[7] Campsie, A., “When celebrating Christmas was illegal in Scotland”, The Scotsman, 23rd December, 2019, updated 24th December, 2019, URL https://www.scotsman.com/heritage/when-celebrating-christmas-was-illegal-in-scotland-1-5066334
[15] As examples of that, see:
Unambiguous evidence LGBTIQ discrimination harms health (a two-year study of peer-reviewed scholarship on the link between LGBTIQ discrimination and mental health by Cornell University)
https://qnews.com.au/unambiguous-evidence-lgbtiq-discrimination-harms-health/
One of the ways that discrimination causes harm is by forcing people to hide their identity. One of the more likely consequences of the proposed bill is not a decline in the number of LGBTIQ+ people, but an apparent reduction as LGBTIQ+ people go back into hiding. See, for instance, https://10daily.com.au/views/a191213zufbs/why-i-have-to-hide-my-identity-around-religious-people-now-20191215
Suicide rates fall after gay marriage legalised in Sweden and Denmark
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/14/suicide-rates-fall-after-gay-marriage-laws-in-sweden-and-denmark


Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)