This was originally posted on my main blog at https://gnwmythr.blogspot.com/2021/01/post-no-1758-opposite-of-poverty.html.
***
I am watching the film "Just Mercy", which led me to Bryan Stevenson, and his TED talk and book, and the following, very profound saying:
The opposite of poverty is not wealth; the opposite of poverty is justice.
I'm thinking of making this a regular weekly post, so here's my next batch of comments on recent news articles:
Some time ago, I read a book called "The Death of Expertise": to simplify considerably, it was a book decrying the loss of trust in expertise.
We're paying for that now, quite obviously, with conspiracy fantasists attempting a coup in the USA and ludicrous fantasies about vaccines (they connect you to the Internet? Really?? FFS IPOCs!!!), but part of the problem is also the arrogance and small-mindedness of university graduates - which is partly shown in the flawed basis of the Engineer's Registration Act in my home state.
I'd like to give an example of that arrogance, and how it has contributed to the loss of trust in expertise.
In the 1980s a coastal town needed a wastewater (which is term that has been used in many places for sewage for about four decades now) collection and treatment system. We did the usual thing and provided a range of options - tertiary treatment (i.e., reduction of nutrients - which is far more advanced than used to be provided at the Eastern Treatment Plant, by the way - certainly far more than was done at that time [those who think "tertiary" means final treatment should be using "polishing" - or "disinfection"] ) so it could be discharged to the ocean, secondary treatment (reduce BOD5 from 300 mg/L to 20, but no extra nutrient reduction beyond what the microorganisms consumed for their growth) which allows reuse for irrigation.
In those bad old days (and still in some areas), secondary treatment was also used for discharge to the ocean (actually, it was even worse quite often: sometimes there was only removal of settleable solids, or even no significant treatment). The idea was that the dilution was a solution . . .
Yes, I know - it is incredible, and has always been - although some poorer areas of the world may not be able to afford anything else without international aid. (Also, as I have written elsewhere, we knew in Queensland in the 1980s that nutrient discharge off farms was a problem: the powerful farming lobby, however, insisted that towns reduce their few per cent of the overall problem first, and town clerks in local Councils said "no" because it wasn't a big part of the problem. Stubbornness and evasion on all sides.)
This is also where the arrogance of engineers comes in to it, as many would say "well, the numbers we measure look good when we dilute it, so what's wrong with just diluting it?"
Well, IPOCs, the problem is that the numbers used (then - we have more use of data looking at toxic and other impacts now) are limited and based on other contexts - public health and rivers, and don't go anywhere near to picking up all the effects.
When engineers make comments outside their area of expertise as part of their official duties (they're allowed to shoot their mouths off outside of work - subject to same links as everyone else), they create an image of being out-of-touch elitists, and those affected by or using the engineers may start to lose trust in the credibility of the engineers. (Don't make the mistake of thinking the approval of others in your social bubble mean widespread approval or acceptability from society).
Engineers need to learn to say "That is outside my formal area of practice, and if I were to provide a comment it would be an inexpert opinion." Which, incidentally, is in the Engineers Australia Code of Ethics . . .
(And for those engineers I've argued with over the years who think the EA Code of Ethics doesn't apply because they're not members of Engineers Australia [a decision often made, in my experience, because they wrongly think EA should be a union], any court case is likely to consider the EA Code of Ethics an indicator of what is accepted [by an august professional body] as being a reasonable expectation of engineers work - and that has been so throughout my career, including when social and environmental obligations were introduced.)
Fortunately, we have an EPA, and they set a science-based limit on nitrogen and phosphorus for this application.
Nitrogen is typically of more concern than phosphorus in salt water, whereas in fresh water, phosphorus is the nutrient of major concern. Nitrogen can be fairly easily reduced to very low levels, but at that time, techniques for reducing phosphorus were being developed and refined, and weren't as good as what we now have.
The EPA decided phosphorus should reduced from 12 mg/L in raw wastewater to around 5 mg/L in the treated effluent; the local water Authority was keen to "do the right thing", and chose to adopt a phosphorus limit of 3 mg/L (so, better for the environment, but increases costs). After a public consultation process, the local community went a step further and - knowing it would cost more - adopted a phosphorus limit of 2 mg/L.
There were some problems with the consultation process (the permanent residents considered they were drowned out by those who were rich enough to have second homes in the town and were less affected by higher rates, so this was to some extent - no matter how good it was for the environment - a form of gentrification), but, in the context of this post, the point is:
It is not for engineers to say what is a reasonable cost - that is not taught in our courses (although triple bottom line style approaches are getting better, but we need experts to advise us on social and possibly [depending on the complexity of the situation] environmental impacts), and it is hubris for us to think that a numbers-based course gives us insight into the daily struggles of people being affected by our decisions (few engineers have had contact with poorer people - some have, particularly engineering volunteers, but it is a profession that is plagued at higher by arrogant, self-satisfied, pompous right wingers [not so evident on the project I am writing about, fortunately] - or used to be: it is getting better as new managers rise up through the ranks).
(Some of these comments apply to University lecturers.)
It is for us to prepare the information on engineering options for decision makes (in this case the community, but all others need to remember that if they are making decisions it is on behalf of a community [even a business can be considered to be a small community] ), and then to shut up and let decision makers (stakeholders, as they're termed these days) do their decision making, and provide additional information as the decision makers consider that they require.
Some of this also requires expertise with communication, which is something engineers in those days often lacked. (Incidentally, there is still a problem with engineers over rating their ability to do drafting [some efforts look like a three year old with crayons] / under-estimating the demands drafters face, but that is a topic for a another post, maybe.)
Here's another example of arrogance: out of touch IPOCs in the medical profession who think the victim-blaming term "adjustment disorder" is non-stigmatising. Are you insane???!!!!
What's more likely is that the right wingers in the US medical profession have done a tavern test (that's the rich folks' version of a pub test) and decided that they consider depression a stigmatising term because they think it is taken on by people they think are slackers so they'll give the people they think are slackers another label to show they're - in the opinion of the right wing minority of the US medical profession - slackers and then - for a joke - claim it isn't stigmatising.
FFS.
My experience of the real world is that terms like depression are understood to be real problems deserving of sympathy, not victim blaming.
That is also the view of experts in the area (e.g., here).
Fortunately, there are also decent people in the medical profession, just as there are also decent people in engineering.
They just need to learn to communicate, and - not only the medical right wingers I've treated with disdain, but also other professionals - accept that they serve society, not the other way round. (Any engineers in Australia who doubt that should look at the Engineers Australia Code of Ethics. I've got a few more thoughts on this topic here.)
Bit now we get to politics.
On the left we have a lot of caring people who are often intelligent (I mean that - it is not a snarky reference) but may tend to make the mistake of assuming that everyone else finds intellectualism pleasant and a satisfying way to make decisions.
Please allow the world (not me) to introduce you to emotions.
On the right, the thinkers and decent people are being drowned out in recent years by the conspiracy fantasists and religious extremists, but before that, they were often too much like the engineers who get angry (i.e., emotional) about not being emotional.
Please allow the world (not me) to introduce you to self awareness.
The right wingers - and I include Murdoch's media empire as a right winger - have communicated effectively;
time for the left wingers to do the same.
And time for all professionals to accept that they are informing decision makers who may well have a better grasp of "the big picture" (such as the impacts of life matters such as work demands on time and energy, or impact of costs on budgets), not giving imperial or royal orders which must be obeyed, just as it is time for people outside of a particular profession to remember that, although the professionals in a particular profession may be IPOCs outside of it, there is actually a good chance they know what they're doing in it.
Here's a final thought: if I want a bridge like, say, the Sydney Harbour Bridge, designed, or a heart transplant performed, I don't want a University Graduate: I want someone with real world experience in the use of their training. Even staying up-to-date is of less importance than experience, and it is the cumulative body of experience that matters - not idiotic and arbitrary restrictions such as only what has happened in the last five years. Expertise is, above all else, experience - as I often tell graduates, their hard work is admirable but their degree is a licence to start learning.
OK, time for a cuppa - and I think I'll use the "tavern test" term again . . .
PS - poorly explained decisions like the recommendation not to give a vaccine to the elderly don't help: that, despite the normal first reaction to the way that decision was reported, is not because of risks to the elderly, but just lack of evidence that it works - and the article here was very badly written: it's not meant to be an exercise from a drama class where you build up tension, you get the information out as quickly and clearly as possible. How many people did you lose before you got to the point, scientist and journalist behind the article?
A few articles that are, in my opinion, worth reading and considering.
Firstly, an utterly appalling revelation that the United Nations has been identifying activists to CCP repression - and has continued to do so even after claiming it stopped!
This makes the UN guilty of abuse, torture and murder - whatever those activists and their families went through.
Now, an interview - from nearly a fortnight ago - with the renowned Professor Timothy Snyder (see also here and here), who has written so much on fascism and other threats to democracy, on trump's attempted coup. (A few related links here, here, and here.)
A warning on "corporate sedition".
Next, a tech company that is threatening to leave my nation, Australia, over (flawed) attempts to support media (sadly, possibly the national neolib nitwits are motivated mainly to protect Murdoch tabloid trash), has just agreed to what we are asking for, in France. Hmm ................
Finally, a report that a Murdoch rag has been successfully boycotted for thirty years in one city.
If they can do it, so can others - and this demonstrates the power of consumer choice.
An email I sent to those who allegedly make the decisions about the honours system in Australia - and forwarded to my MPs.
***
Dear Members of the Australian Honours and Awards Secretariat,
Re: Considerations around award or cancellation of Australian Honours
While your response to last year's controversy over Bettina Arndt made some good points (e.g., “In a system that recognises hundreds of people each year, it is inevitable that each list will include some people who others believe should not be recognised. Unanimous community approval is not a criteria for Council to make a recommendation. These are Awards from the bottom up. Similarly, individuals are neither qualified nor disqualified on the basis of their political leanings, social views or religious convictions. The Council’s recommendations are not an endorsement of the political, religious or social views of recipients, nor is conferral of an honour an endorsement of the personally held beliefs of recipients. Nor are they directed by governments or influenced by lobbying or public campaigning”), and stated that consideration will be given to cancellation or termination for convictions for criminal conduct (e.g., George Pell, whose conviction was overturned on appeal and the issue of cancellation therefore not considered), the issue of controversial or unpopular awards can potentially cause damage to the Australian honours system.
Now, I recall the fierce pride I felt in recent years when one of my friends and someone else I knew were awarded honours under our system. They well deserved that recognition, and many of us celebrated, and it gave encouragement to others who were attempting to do such work that benefitted the Australian community.
However, to subsequently have people like Margaret Court, who has ACTIVELY and maliciously sought to perpetuate harm against Australians, a matter which goes beyond religious “convictions” (views which are disputed by other members of the Christian faith and members of other religions), also awarded honours, both cheapens the value of those awards to my friends, and risks bringing discredit on the entire honours system.
The issue here is not only formal conviction of a criminal offence; it is offence against Australian values and norms. For Court or anyone else to so egregiously act against inclusion, decency and tolerance - values confirmed by other awards that have been made - is, irrespective of criminality, unacceptable to most Australians.
This issue is akin to the protests overseas in recent years against honouring slaveholders from past eras: slavery had not yet been abolished, but there is a growing recognition that, notwithstanding the then lack of criminality, the awards were unacceptable.
Similarly, notwithstanding the (arguable) lack of criminality of the means Court has chosen to campaign for harm, we, as a society, accept that such harm is unacceptable - and have laws against the most egregious forms of that hate, actions which are regularly reviewed and no doubt will, eventually, include more clearly the actions of Court and others like her.
When that happens, past awards risk being viewed with, at the very least, discomfort.
However I suspect, in view of your response to the controversy last year, you will not change your stance on this year’s award.
I therefore, for the future of the current honours system, strongly urge you to be more careful and thorough in your future deliberations, lest you being the honours system into general contempt in the view of Australian society - whether that contempt be held by all, most, or significant sections of our nation.
The unsung heroes of Australia merit recognition, but they will not accept attempts to offer such recognition that gives them membership of a group some of whose members are viewed with contempt.
The term "war" implies two sides are fighting. In the case of China's economic attacks on Australia, China is behaving aggressively, but not Australia.
We have taken some matters to court, but that is presenting them to an independent arbiter - to pretend that is an act of aggression would require being as stupid as trump, the psychopath formerly in charge of the USA.
By continuing to misrepresent the situation, the media are implying that Australia is doing something wrong (and thereby actively obstructing a solution to the problem), and that is utter BS - or does the media think standing up for human rights is wrong or somehow an act of aggression?
As for the concept of never interfering in another's internal matters:
Stop writing as if you're a Murdoch acolyte, and start being accurate.
(This is being co-published on my two main blogs.)
The International Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which Australia's Nobel Peace Prize winning ICAN played a key role in formulating, has "come into force".
That means it is, as of this day, a part of international law. It is now illegal to (and I am simplifying here - text is here) develop / test, manufacture, have, transfer, receive, threaten to use or use nuclear weapons (multi-language version at https://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/2017/07/20170707%2003-42%20PM/Ch_XXVI_9.pdf).
Nations must provide a declaration of their current holdings, move towards total elimination of all weapons, and assist victims, remediate the environment and cooperate with others.
This is a great day, but there is more to be done, sadly.
The nuclear armed (Russia, the USA, China, France, the UK, Pakistan, India, Israel and North Korea) and hosting (Turkey, Italy, Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands) nations have not signed, nor have some of their key lickspittles - such as my nation, Australia (that would require us to be as ethical as New Zealand, which is something I doubt Scotty from Marketing could be).
Despite that, this is, as stated, a great day, and I commend the 87 nations which have signed, particularly the 49 which have ratified and the 2 who have acceded to the treaty.
As a first point, blogger has been at it again and withdrawn yet more functionality. You really have to wonder whether they want to keep customers or not! In my case, I'll stick with them because trying to shifts thousands of posts from 14 years of blogging, and the hassles of trying to re-establish readership, is not something I'm interested in doing - particularly given the many other demands on my time.
So, moving on to the news.
***
First up, the poem that was read at Biden's inauguration was impressive: there is a copy of the text at https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/20/amanda-gormans-inaugural-poem-the-hill-we-climb-full-text.html. It is well worth going there and having a reads, as well as listening to the eloquent reading by the poet, Amanda Gorman (various links available from an internet search).
***
Next, an excellent description of the political shift (from Ministerial competence to slavish political loyalty) that the utterly evil John Howard was responsible for: see https://johnmenadue.com/australias-political-talent-pool-more-like-a-puddle/.
***
Now, there has been a move for some time to get tech companies to pay news companies for the news stories that the tech companies use. One of the key inventors of the Internet has raised concerns about this (as have others - although I consider the tech companies bleating about getting more clicks is meaningless and suggests they do not understand how news companies work), but as the article at https://theconversation.com/webs-inventor-says-news-media-bargaining-code-could-break-the-internet-hes-right-but-theres-a-fix-153630 explains, the problem is not links to articles, it is the re-framing of the news articles that allows the tech companies to profit from ads.
Even better, the article suggests a small change that would fix the problem.
For those of you in Australia, I suggest bringing the attention of your local MP to the article - I've already done so.
***
Finally, the notion of recovering student loans from the dead has resurfaced yet again - see https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/jan/21/australian-government-urged-to-try-and-recover-student-loans-from-the-dead. Quite apart from being inhumane and a discouragement to those considering further training, this makes bad economic sense:
This suggestion just goes to show the ideological blindness and addiction to zombie economic ideas of neoliberals.
Have a good day 😊
Something that has been reasonably widely acknowledged for around 15 years now is that there are problems of discrimination within and between the various LGBTIQ+ communities. Publicly acknowledged for around that length of time, but known for longer - and I am thinking of several people I knew in the 90s who were quite eloquent on the topic, and one in particular talked about the evidence from history of how some members of minority groups reacted to discrimination in a way that I - today - would describe as collaboration.
Some of the problems also include broader forms of discrimination - for instance, sexism and racism are also problems found within some LGBTIQ+ people.
Some of the problems relate to the desperate struggle for survival that many LGBTIQ+ people are forced into.
Of the latter, the issue of transition is an extreme challenge for TGD (trans and gender diverse) people, and can be all consuming because of the bigotry and hate from society. One well known trans woman I knew in the 90s (and afterwards) commented then that some TGD people would find themselves at a loss after transition - "what do I do now?"
Others were happy to disappear into the community and get on with their life.
Unfortunately, as I wrote here and elsewhere, society has a history of trying to control people who transgress its barriers of comfort, and thus every few years tries to coercively control or regulate TGD people and members of other minorities - e.g., the utterly evil John Howard's ban on Equal Marriage.
The latest such effort is the ABS's attempt to - allegedly - count LGBTIQ+ people (which potentially involves risks to those LGBTIQ+ people who are identified as such in the event of us getting an even worse government than we have now). Unfortunately, the ABS has chosen to do so in a way that is psychologically harmful; even more disturbing, they've done so after "consulting broadly" - including with a number of LGBTIQ+ groups.
And that takes us back to the problems of discrimination between LGBTIQ+ communities - in this case, discrimination that is possibly based on ignorance, but also possibly based on cis-normativity.
If cis-normativity were not a problem, we would not have had decades of surveys that lump all TGD people into "trans" - despite TGD people pointing out for decades that such was a problem, and explaining why.
When that is done, that constitutes erasure of binary TGD people - it is as damaging and as offensive as lumping all male and female people into "cisgender" . . . but that is what I am seriously contemplating doing (e.g., addressing communication to "Dear privileged cisgender person", or using CG as a courtesy title rather than Mr/Ms/Mrs/Miss), to try to get through to cisgender people in the LGBTIQ+ people what they are doing.
There is also the issue that, in their struggle to survive, non-binary TGD people may not be aware they are erasing binary TGD people - that is an error I also saw in the 90s and 2000s, although more often TGD people erasing IS people. (There were also problems such as MTF erasure of FTM or operative vs. non-operative.)
In any case, it is wrong.
But . . . I am also so devastated by the discovery of consultation, that I think I will - again - withdraw from the LGBTIQ communities.
Of course, it may be that the ABS has misrepresented what the submissions to it were, but if that is so, then those who made the submissions need to go public - and that does NOT mean through the "gay press": many LGBTIQ+ people do not access the "gay press", which was something I knew even back in the 90s.
It is not only the US police and US government who have problems with systemic, endemic racism:
The brother of someone close to me left the UK police years ago because of their racism, and I have now read an interview with a man who left the WA police because of their racism - violent racism, also found in other police forces. In fact, the situation is so bad that we have been described as "'choosing to invest' in hurting Indigenous kids".
These problems were also a key part of Australia's grilling last night as part of our submission for the third Universal Periodic Review on human rights before the UN's Human Rights Council (which I will write about in due course - and most of the questions we were asked were, in my opinion, quite valid).
It's not enough to say these problems with racism aren't acceptable and focus on improved accountability, transparency and education of police - vitally important thought those are: the entirety of Australian society needs to be taught how to be anti-racist - which is an active reversal of centuries of social engineering by bigotted elites, and we need also to actively reverse the problems of toxic masculinity and "white male effect" (which I now consider behind many OHS, workplace culture, and societally destructive [such as binge drinking] problems), and to address the issue of the legacy of abusive, inappropriate leaders of organisations (many current leaders are well aware of the need to be inclusive, although they have not yet reached the stage of being stewards of company resources yet [see also here], but they've inherited problem situations and cultures amongst too many older [and some younger] managers). Following human rights activism, the rise of activist shareholders will play a key role in changing corporate culture, and that will start to influence thinking on leadership - including in governmental organisations.
As that will be a slow process, it needs to be paralleled by continued human rights activism, and that includes media articles such as those I've linked to: bigots everywhere, not only in police and child services, need to have some consciousness raising and to be held accountable for their hate - including unconscious hate (it is far too strong to be called unconscious bias).
PS - see this, from Human Rights Watch, this, and this.
After a four year nightmare, preceded by two increasingly worrying years, the world has taken a step back towards decency with the removal of twice impeached, corrupt psychopath and attempted coup leader trump from the position of elected monarch of the Unexceptional States of America.
In his place, the USA now has (46th) President Joe Biden, and (49th) Vice-President Kamala Harris.
The election of Kamala Harris breaks several barriers - first woman and first member of two minority groups to hold that position, and this is both important and an accomplishment to celebrate.
The election of the Biden-Harris team stops the rot and massive damage that trump was causing - anyone who thinks it was in any way acceptable for trump to stay in power until the perfect - or a better candidate - was elected is, frankly, a moron (another four years would have seen the USA wind up with widespread violence and possibly civil war - recovery would been unlikely, although the USA's position of power has probably been ended, which, IF democratic nation step up, is a good thing).
And Biden is not a particularly progressive candidate, but that is what happens when you don't prepare the electorate by effectively arguing your case throughout most of it - which is a task for progressives, not the US Democratic party, and similarly, in other nations is also a task for progressives, not specific parties, if you want it driven by principles, rather than being modified to suit political realities.
You must take people with you on the journey.
Biden sees his task as healing and re-unifying his nation. The situation is very similar, in many ways (in my opinion), to that in the USA just after the US Civil War, when Lincoln's assassination left a corrupt (he was impeached) political choice of Vice-President and evidently white supremacist Andrew Jackson in charge, who caused massive damage (a lot of which was undone by his flawed [politically naïve - too trusting] successor, President Grant).
Democracy in the USA is still at risk: 70 million people in the USA voted for the tyrant trump, some were so gullible and stupid that trump persuaded them to attempt a coup on his behalf - before he abandoned them to their fate, and others around the world have drunk the trumpism Kool Aid.
And their fate is still being decided. The coup continues to be investigated, and trump did not use his pardon power on his sheeple, nor his family or himself - which had been my biggest fear (although he did abuse it).
More broadly, the fate of democracy globally and of the world generally also remains to be decided - despots like Museveni, Lukashenko, Putin, Xi, and Kim still hold power, and, aided and abetted by incompetent "thinking", populism, and neoliberalism, are actively attacking the rights and wellbeing of societies and people across the world.
We're down one tyrant, but there are more to be - peacefully - dealt with, with will necessarily include raising the consciousness of their puppets, and we still face the existential threats of nuclear weapons and THE CLIMATE CRISIS.
This topic, terrible thought it is, is providing quite a bit of information - albeit US-focused in many cases.
An interesting case is the video "COURTSIDE - Episode 63 - Trump’s troika of Bannon, Flynn & Stone facing new legal trouble", which covers impeaching officials who are no longer in power. This has points I may consider should such a topic come up here - and, in fact, now that I know the British system has impeachment in it, I will do some research on what, if any, reference to impeachment is included in Australian law (what I've found so far suggests a focus on the leader of a nation, and fails to recognise that it applies to other officials as well, but I've found nothing yet similar to impeachment in the UK or USA).
***
There are continuing concerns about the infiltration of white supremacists into police forces - and not only in the USA. Police here (Australia) have been seen using white supremacist symbols, and there are concerns about other forms of bigotry - including misogyny facilitating domestic violence (in two states).
This has also extended to the troops guarding the inauguration, with the FBI vetting all troops to try to prevent an "insider attack".
***
A video on some of the violence that occurred elsewhere in the USA.
***
trump may issue 100 pardons in the next few days - which has always been one of my major concerns. Pence and the other cowards in the US republicans whop refused to remove trump under the 25th amendment are directly implicated in this subversion of justice.
Here is an interesting article on terminology that could be used for the actions of the trumpettes on 6th January. (I'll stick to coup and insurrection - I consider "revolution" or "rebellion" potentially gives them a glow of approval from the times in history that such has been used to overthrow despots. Also, although it was probably more "autogolpe" than coup, as no-one knows the former term I'll keep using the latter.)
PS - I have now received a reply, and it is as I feared: this position was adopted after consultation with LGBTIQ+ groups as "what could be tolerated". To say the least, I am feeling utterly devastated and betrayed.
***
The ABS are going to start trying to count LGBTIQ+ people.
A lot of LGBTIQ+ people who do not know their history have been pushing for this, but it involves incredible risks - identifying a group is one of the early steps in genocide, and to have that information collated at the ABS is to trust that no future government here will be surrendered to the bigots in it (people like Christenson, Dutton [who came close to being PM], Kelly, and Abetz), wind up like the trump regime in the Unexceptional States of America, and order access to that information for the purpose of identifying TGD or LGBTIQ+ people - there is already a movement of transphobic bigots in Queensland who want a public register of such information. Do those advocates really think the ABS can hold out against legal changes and orders from the likes of the three bigots I named above and anyone who comes in future who is like them?
So what the ABS is going to do (see https://www.sbs.com.au/news/australian-census-to-include-a-gender-non-binary-option-for-the-first-time), is force TGD people to identify themselves by their sex at birth first, and then use the less significant term “gender” to identify a subsequent “change”.
These IPOCs just don’t get it: TGD people have ALWAYS been the gender we say we are - in the ways that really matter, our inner essence. To claim that we used to be our former gender is moronic.
Whoever from academia - or elsewhere - who told the ABS it is completely and utterly harmless to ask a post-transition TGD person what their assigned sex at birth is, is, in my opinion, either incompetent or a bigot.
That concerns me, as there has been a growing religious bigotry working on the national government for some time now. If such people have caused this latest travesty, knowing it is harmful, they should, in my opinion, be charged with attempted murder.
Similarly, any person who leaks, or allows the information about TGD people to be accessed - whether deliberately or through incompetence - is involved in actions that are a breach of the Privacy Act (pending any future changes by the bigots - and I suggest any f***wit who thinks that is unlikely has a look at the Unexceptional States of America), possibly guilty of inciting assault (again, I suggest any f***wit who thinks that is unlikely has a look at the Unexceptional States of America), and possibly guilty of attempted murder.
Murder charges in Victoria, last time I checked, can be laid by individuals, but it has to go to a Grand Jury first.
There are also a lot of good changes, but I have seen nothing in that which orders ABS staff to use the current gender, and not the sex at birth, and have no reason to believe that staff - who are only now, years after the best organisations, issuing instructions on this basic aspect of manners.
Final point: this, and the engineers registration bill, shows that bureaucracy is, in effect - and irrespective of the actual motivations - vindictively and maliciously transphobic, as every few years another attack on TGD people is implemented under a disguised claim of trying to make something better.
You need to start listening to us.
The text of the email I have just sent on this follows below.
***
Dear recipient,
I note that, according to an article on the SBS website yesterday (here), you are proposing to make changes to how gender is managed at the ABS and in the Census.
While some of the changes are admirable, what appears to be forced self-outing of transgender and gender diverse (TGD) people is gravely concerning, and collation of material that could harm the safety of TGD people places a heavy burden on the ABS.
My recollection is that the last census had a flawed choice along the lines of:
Male
Female
Transgender or other
This is false: I am not a sexless thing: I am female - how that was recognised by society makes my medical history transgender, but to deny that I am female is a direct, active, and malicious attack on who I am.
Such idiotic choices have always been ignored by many TGD people, who often see them as no more than an indication of hostility or outright bigotry that refuses to accept the reality of who we are.
Such approaches treat TGD people differently to cisgender: to be fair and provide a similar basis for comparison of needs and the like, you should have made the choice:
Cisgender
Transgender or other
Intersex
That would have treated cisgender variations (male and female) the same as TGD variations (MTF, FTM, non-binary, other), and thus, as noted above, would have been fair and provided a similar basis for comparison of needs and the like.
(It would also have identified intersex people properly.)
The approach you actually took treated TGD people differently to CG people, thus differentiating in a way that is discriminatory. Furthermore, your approach made it impossible to obtain any useful information.
To illustrate that:
MTF people have voice training and different
surgical and other medical needs (including prostate) to FTM people, who
in turn have different surgical and other medical needs that MTF
people don’t.
FTM people do not need voice training or future prostate surgery.
The hormones for each are different.
By lumping all TGD people into the one category, you made it impossible to gain any useful information to allow for proper planning of future medical resources.
You also actively caused psychological harm to binary TGD people by denying the reality and validity of their actual, real identity - which is not, as you term it “sex assigned at birth”.
Your insistence that binary TGD people self-identify their - psychologically incorrect - “sex assigned at birth” is likely to cause massive psychological harm, and I hold grave concerns for the wellbeing of TGD people you will subject to this.
Did you seek appropriately experienced advice on the medical impacts of this matter?
If not, you should have; if you did, I suggest you get someone with better experience and/or qualifications.
How many TGD - or LGBIQ+ - people were directly involved in the decision making on this matter - not providing feedback or review, but in the final decision making? If any were involved, why did they not raise the issues of psychological harm or other issues?
As a suggestion, the following - which is similar to what I have been advocating for LGBTIQ+ groups to use for over a quarter century - would be more useful, and less psychologically damaging to TGD people:
Cisgender
Male
Female
Transgender
FTM
MTF
Non-binary
Other
Intersex
It is also vital to note that you have, by collecting this information, taken on yourself the burden of ensuring the safety of TGD people from abuse, discrimination, physical assaults or even murder if any of the information in your is ever leaked - whether accidentally or deliberately - with any identifiers. That applies not only now, but also in the event that transphobic bigots gain a position of political power - and I note that such has nearly happened with the national Liberal government and there is a significant transphobic group in Queensland pushing for public exposure of TGD people - and have laws changed to compel exposure of TGD or LGBIQ+ people.
Can you guarantee such exposure will never happen - now or in the future?
As someone who has experienced and lost several people to violence and discrimination, I am fed up with the risks of such harm or violence being ignored or trivialised.
Will you also ensure that, given the massively invasive and, frankly, offensive change to information you are collecting, you will allow people who may have previously agreed to future disclosure of their information to change their position on that?
Their past agreement has been rendered invalid by these dangerous proposed changes.
