//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