Oh dear, reality disfunction.

"Today, however, five genders seems comparatively modest. The Australian Human Rights Commission acknowledges 23 genders, and Facebook recognizes 58 genders, all of which are also recognized by the Australian Broadcasting Commission, so you have a wide choice."

Most excellent... My chances of getting lucky on a Saturday night have improved beyond my wildest expectations.

As for the pronoun issue suggestions, 'youse' works in all situations and requires no pause for thought in matching singular or plural cases.

"You see I also think I am Margaret Thatcher, and I hope you will applaud my bravery and courage in "coming out". I just happen to be trapped in this small brown Indian body, but I hope you will all treat me with the respect due to the Prime Minister of Great Britain."

I applaud your bravery and courage, even though you seem not to have had to do anything tangible to achieve this status. However, your reincarnation seems to have been complete with the dementia as you can only expect to be treated with the respect due to an ex-Prime Minister... you might want to ask Gordon Brown what that's like or Julia Gillard or for the most recent case, Tony Abbott.

Notice the ABC does not in their recognition of 58 genders seem to recognise the legitimacy of a man having multiple wives?

This is a ramble about nothing substantial.

This is an illogical non-sequitur -
"If Bruce Jenner can be "Caitlyn", why can't that lady be Margaret Thatcher?"

The lack of brainpower exercised in the creation of this article borders on the surreal. The lady quite possibly had the benefit of an education in the past, but if so, steadfastly refuses to put it to good use.

"...is it any more likely that Bruce Jenner is a woman than a reincarnated Napoleon?"

The mere fact that Ms Francis can ask this question, without pause to consider its utter stupidity, sets the scene perfectly. In a single sentence it denies any separation of mental and physical attributes, a concept that most of us take for granted. Let us hope that should the lady (heaven forfend) suffer a brain tumour, she does not, in a fit of solidarity, elect to be treated with psychiatry in lieu of surgery.

>>Hindus believe in reincarnation, so a man who has fathered several children, is just as likely to be a woman<<

This fails the simple logic test of A, therefore B, from every conceivable angle. There is absolutely no connection whatsoever between the statements (A) Hindus believe in reincarnation and (B) a Hindu man is likely to be a woman. Let alone the mysterious, and equally irrelevant, requirement that he fathers several children before turning into Napoleon. (Although, to be fair, having kids does very strange things to the brain after a while...)

To build a speech on such flimsy - no, actually spurious - premises shows a supreme disdain for the conventions of normal communication, which necessarily include a level of honesty with which to present an argument. This piece lacks this ingredient in every sentence.

But at least she was in excellent company when she made the pitch to the Eagle Forum in St Louis Missouri.

http://www.eagleforum.org/

As perfectly-formed a bunch of xenophobic Tea Party fruitloops as you could ever wish to meet. I'm sure they were sublimely happy to hear her message, incoherence and inconsistency patently being their preferred means of communication.

I agree Pericles, it seems the author shoots herself in the foot at regular intervals in this article. What I want to know Babette is why someone like Bruce Jenner wanting to change his name and dress up as a woman is any business of yours?
He/she isn't hurting anyone but himself, with all the abuse and nastiness directed at him by people like you.

As mad as you think all these people must be for daring to 'come out' as someone they feel they have always been, I find many religious people mad for believing they were 'created' by some invisible God in the sky. Mind you, this same God of yours also must have created all the different people you mentioned in your article....maybe he/she had an off day?

Jardine, I believe polygamy and bigamy are illegal in Australia, while all the other forms of relationships or sexual orientations are not.
Simple really....

I'm not surprised by the misfit responses to this post, alluding to "nose out of joint".

So, extrapolating from the information supplied in the article, gay marriage will be, (as all with intelligence presuppose) the tip of the iceberg.

Yes! Why not google Right Wing Watch and the Eagle Forum and find out more about (benighted) company that Babette keeps.

Susieonline

"Jardine, I believe polygamy and bigamy are illegal in Australia, while all the other forms of relationships or sexual orientations are not."

Circular, my dear. The question is whether they should be illegal. According to your reasoning, if homosexuality were illegal as it was for many centuries until recently, there's nothing wrong with that, that's fine to throw people in prison for their sexuality, and you can't see any reason why it should not be illegal, since the government, according to you, has the right to criminalise consensual sexual relationships.

Correct? That's what you're saying, isn't it?

What I want to know is why someone wanting to have more than one spouse is any business of yours?

Yeah we know guys when a woman belts a man she thinks she is one.

Jardine, you know as well as I do that the practice of polygamy is not a 'sexuality' trait.
You can't be born a polygamist! Some deviant men seem to get off on having several women available for their sexual needs, and usually very young women or girls, so paedophilia is common.

You can grow up in a polygamy household where a religion tells you it is ok (eg as some crazy Mormon's do in the US), but it is a choice, not a sexuality you are born with.
But even in those situations, many of those people leave the church because of that practice.

If ever it was considered for a legal lifestyle ( between consenting adults only) then I would imagine that women marrying several men would have to be made legal as well.
I think it would be awful on so many levels though.
But, it isn't the same as being gay or transgender, and I think you are already bright enough to know that.

Do you want to take the conversation to the next bizarre level now, as most homophobes do, and start discussing animals?

I'm not so much interested in the finer points of the article and the deconstruction of gender. I'm more interested in why we are suddenly being inundated with news stories about gender, transgender, hermaphrodites and all kinds of non-establishment sexualities. Suddenly, out of the blue, same-sex marriage - totally ostracised, ignored and pilloried for decades - mysteriously bursts on the scene with all the most powerful world establishments leap-frogging all over one another to make this all nice and comfy and legal. Transexual toilets have now become a vital part of contemporary discourse.

I'm not opposed to any of this. I just don't know why it's suddenly become flavour of the month. Sexual so-called 'deviancy' has been kept in the basement closet for centuries. Why,suddenly, has it all been dragged into the spotlight?

//I'm more interested in why we are suddenly being inundated with news stories about gender, transgender, hermaphrodites and all kinds of non-establishment sexualities. Suddenly, out of the blue, same-sex marriage - totally ostracised, ignored and pilloried for decades - mysteriously bursts on the scene with all the most powerful world establishments leap-frogging all over one another to make this all nice and comfy and legal.//

Short memory, Killa? We've been talking about same-sex marriage for years now. The first same sex marriage bill was introduced to the Parliament in 2009, and there had been discussion of the topic prior to that. I would say that the big thing which kicked off the debate in Australia was the legalisation of gay marriage in Canada and a few U.S. states during the mid-noughties.

The reason for all the sudden interest in transgender and transsexuality is more recent: it's the 'Caitlyn Jenner effect'. Which says a lot about the power of celebrity these days. Transsexuality is as old as the hills, but as soon as somebody from the Kardashians comes out as trans we all start talking about it.

Dear Killarney,

A very good question:

The deconstruction of gender became popular because it is perceived as a weapon against religion - especially the Abrahamic religions which emphasise distinct male-female roles (Deuteronomy 22:5). The louder Christians scream about the changes - the more pleasure their haters derive in taunting them further.

Babette is already aware that gender is incidental and not an identity. She should also be aware that her Hindu tradition does not look down upon transgenders: on the contrary, she should be familiar with the story of Sudyumna/Ila, which despite changing gender every month, became the progenitor of the illustrious lunar dynasty, culminating in the birth of Shri Krishna!

Excellent article, Babette, a breath of fresh air in the foetid morass of gender-mania, and revisiting the phenomenon of group madness.
In 1841 Charles Mackay published”Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds” dealing with this topic, and the book has been in print ever since it was published. He deals, in his book, with tulipmania, the South Sea Bubble, and witchcraft amongst a number of other examples of group-mania.
Today he would have Y2k, global warming and gender-mania as some of the many crowd aberrations now existing.
As David Stove said, when he was head of the Philosophy Department, of Sydney University, words to the effect:”As individuals, people seem quite sane, but once they are in a group, they become quite mad.”
Gender-mania is just one of the many current examples of group madness.

When the created deny its Creator all sorts of perverse outcomes take hold. That is why now evil is called good and good evil. The latest is women dialling for abortion. Poor teenagers are so confused today thanks to the godless engineers. We are dumb enough to ask why we have so much dv and suicide. The Government will continue to spend billions on masking the obvious cause to many of these problems. To think people are dumb enough to think confusing boys and girls about their gender is a good thing. No wonder so many take up the pseudo moral cause of gw.

Religion would be the worlds biggest single identity of group madness, It stifles the worlds progression, and sways peoples minds in a way as not to believe science as a factual exercise.

I find it intriging how many of the anti-gay arguments get trotted out to attack pluralistic "marriages/relationships"
- its not natural - it has a long history with humanity and some parts of the animal kingdom
- no one is born that way. A lot of humans seem to struggle maintaining a single sexual partner over a sustained period. That looks to me like the case is not all that clear cut.
- those who like the thought are deviants. One of those nonsence words that has played a key role in homophobia.
- claims of paedophilia (sexual attraction to other adults is different to sexual attraction to children but it seems not uncommon that when people are forced to the fringes some who are less clear about what age bracket they like might take an in for a penny in for a pound approach)

Add to that a very paternalistic attitude to women that thinks most are incapable of making their own choices and some personal distaste for the idea and it so often seems like a rerun of the homophobic argument.

My preference is for the government to get out of the business of registering adult relationships. If they are in the business then I fail to see any good reason to discrimate on the basis of numbers involved (or the relative numbers of the genders involved).

The argument against looks like a backing for the earlier point that same sex is fashionable, its just that pluralistic is not.

I've yet to see a credible case against pluralistic relationships between consenting adults that does not resort either to the women are less than adult and can't make their own choices or which is based on the same generalised it's not normal and I don't like it approach that typifies homophobia. Same world view just a different target.

R0bert

Suseonline:

“You can't be born a polygamist!”

How do you know this? How do you know that you are born a homosexual? You can’t be sure you are a homosexual until you reach sexual maturity and you may not discover you are attracted to polygamy until you begin to think about marriage.

Why doesn’t the same awareness dawn on someone about their orientation towards polygamy as it does to homosexuality or heterosexuality?

Nobody is truly godless.

Some people centre their life and define themselves around sex without realising that they do so because they just worship different gods - their genes. When those genes say "hop", they ask "how high?", when they say "procreate" they fill up the earth with progeny even when they cannot support it; and when the genes say "F--K", they go to any length to obey and do this with whomever the genes command them to be attracted to, deluding themselves as if it's their own free will. Then as their gods are jealous and want no competition, those people are impelled to fight religion (including those among them who falsely consider themselves "religious" and identify with a corresponding group/organisation, even accepting its beliefs).

It matters not whether one defines themselves by the original 2 genders or by the newer 58 - both make the same mistake of worshipping the genetic idols.

It is those same genes that seduce us toward material "progress" (i.e. their own success), including the promotion of the science that is required for that end.

An honest look will reveal the sexual urge lurking behind this desire for human progress. Religion counteracts this wild urge.

I therefore thank you, Doog, for raising this point. I basically agree with your analysis and as a religious person I would proudly stifle this gene-induced progression and ignore the science that comes with it. I call on all religious people to do the same.

I think that if this is where democratic government is leading then before long democracy will be replaced by dictatorship. It is a colossal waste of public money to push these issues. Even without this nonsense most western governments are seriously dysfunctional.

Susieonline

You're contradicting yourself. Tell you what. You go away and actually *think* through your confusion over everything you're talking about, and when you're ready to rejoin the discussion with something other that circular biased slogans, come back and say something sensible and *non*-contradictory.

In the meantime, try to control your bigoted hateful belief that it's okay to have people caged and raped for private consensual sexual relations that are none of your business.

is feminism a mental illness?

do Sontag, Greer & Friedan display symptoms of PTSD, BPD or PNPD?

I've noticed a few people have enquired as to why all of a sudden has Governments started to push the Gender issues generally especially the Transgender and Gay communities.
This is not a hard question to answer. First you must look at endocrine disrupting chemicals. The vast array of these headed by BPA are all oestrogenic in nature. They are so entrenched in the environment that there is no avoiding a dose. The size of the dose is irrelevant, the smallest amount has a profound effect.
When males are exposed the body assumes that too much androgen has been made and reduces the androgen load by making SHBG. Thus reducing testosterone and leaving exogenous estrogen unchanged. Males become more female. With females same process only as testosterone has lower starting levels females hits testosterone crisis. Thus testosterone hits maximum production. Females become more male.
This also effects foetal development.
In the 60s it was estimated the transgenders and Gays generally made up 7-10% of the population. Today that is about 15-20%.
Just look around. Observation is one of the most basic scientific paradigms. I've also read some 200 peer reviewed papers on the subject. Happy to share.

Thank you for the information, JustGiveMeALLTheFacts,

But rather than chemical pollution, is overpopulation not the predominant factor in neutralising sexuality?
In any case, is not overpopulation the root cause for the production of those endocrine disrupting chemicals?

Isn't it a pity that we had to reach this stage and suffer those pollutants instead of using our intelligence and will-power much earlier to overcome the tyranny of our genes?

Dear Yuyutsu,
ALL the endocrine disrupting chemicals(EDC's) have alternatives that are inert and similar priced. Companies have over produced these chemicals and don't want to get caught holding the baby, so to speak.
In Europe they fought EDC's right up until they signed a free trade agreement with the US only weeks ago.
Over population as an argument is rubbish if you look at distribution studies done in the UK. We (the world) produces 4 times the amount of food then it needs. Our ancient distribution systems (which is based on the Roman model: All roads lead to Rome. Or put another way: All roads lead to our central distribution hub)waste more than is presented to the consumer. Case in point - A company in Nth Qld imports a product. For a shop across the road to sell this product it has to be shipped to the parent company in Brisbane (1000 km away) then sent back up (another 1000 km) to the store across to road. The initial cost if purchased from the importer was about $20.00. The cost from the shop across the road $130.00. After distributor and transport costs. Insane. Banana's grown in Nth Qld have to travel the same distance before the consumer gets them. They could have originally grown in the same town. By the time they travel that far there second or third rate. I could go on.

On this topic:

"The word gender has been used since the 14th century as a grammatical term, referring to classes of noun designated as masculine, feminine, or neuter in some languages. The sense ‘the state of being male or female’ has also been used since the 14th century, but this did not become common until the mid 20th century. Although the words gender and sex both have the sense ‘the state of being male or female’, they are typically used in slightly different ways: sex tends to refer to biological differences, while gender refers to cultural or social ones."

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/gender#gender__11

So terms like "same sex marriage" are much more recent (in fact can be laughed off in comedy show). For example at the Adelaide Cabaret Festival this year, Anne Wills was asked in a comedy style interview session if she supported same sex marriage - and she gave references to sexual activity that was always the same.

Terms like gay for example, also can be written off by some, as the more historical meaning of this word was happy, and yet a person who is attracted to another person - may be suffering from severe depression.

For myself, I am not attracted to anyone (in terms of a very personal relationship). I'm only attracted to family, friends, volunteering, community and environment.

So when doing an internet search, I was very offended being "told" by a particular group's website in terms of a 'yes' definition of "asexual" on their Q&A page:

http://www.asexuality.org/home/?q=general.html#ex2

It says: I don't find anyone sexually attractive. Does that mean I'm asexual?

Answer: By the definition, yes. Again, only you can decide to use asexual as a label for yourself.

Sorry to this group - I am simply myself, I believe what I want and I stand up for myself.

Too many people have been subject to a silent "gun lobby" on a range of issues - including personal choice and this includes relationships.

When I raised to a higher level and decided to go vegetarian, it was my choice, even though my parents didn't support it.

I will let you in on a secret;
I am from the 3rd planet from DG1326 in Sagitarious and there we have
either three or seven genders. Note that 3 & 7 are prime numbers.
So we encode our selves using something like PGP just to confuse the
authorities.
As many of us are living here on earth I must make an official complaint of discrimination
as 50 genders is not enough for us Clydidians.
We have a triple helix dna and I have an objection to the UN's restrictive
classification !

The whole thing makes me insane !

I have just seen the post put up by my arenda self and I object to
sec's comments we must stay strictly in our gender at least until the
next eclipse of the crandeck moon and fental.
We may then divide by any prime number and adopt our new gender.

I offer that technique to you humans of whatever gender.