The word is sex, not gender. Gender is better employed in grammar. There are only two sexes, male and female, and it is hideous that courts have any say in the matter.

I find that the UK judge exhibited a level of bigotry and discrimination in handing down a patently flawed finding. We cannot, must not, follow suit least we open another can of worms!

If a person's mental well being is absolutely dependant on gender reassignment? And proceeded by years of introspection and soul searching!

Then who is he or any judge to find against that? He or they, have no medical expertise, nor equipped by his/their belief systems, because that's what is on display here, I believe, to render such a self-evident, biased and discriminatory judgement!?

Perhaps it needs to be decided, if anyone else has that particular right, by a jury of peers!?

Therefore, if you agree with that premise, then that jury should consist of twelve, gender reassigned, fellow citizens!

These matters are rare and deeply personal and should/needs must, remain that way!
Alan B.

The Tasmanian Government, The Victorian Government and the judges
cannot make decisions like they have.
All three should be removed from their positions and examined by
psychiatrists for sanity.

If such decisions are allowed to stand then no one can be expected to
obey any law enacted by those madmen and madwomen.
As they are of unsound mind they must be removed from positions of power.

If they can justify this, they could bring in any unworkable law.
They could adopt the UN proposal that the speed limit should be 30km/hr.
Imagine this; I might build an addition to my house that contravenes
a state law then could I defend that case by stating that the
lawmakers are insane and cannot perform their duties when they passed
the law on building additions.
Asked to prove my case; They think men can become woman and vice versa.
They might also believe that the number one can be number two.
They might also believe that up and down are the same.
After all they are demonstratively insane.

Hi Holly,
Thanks for your article and info.

"Do we really want to live in a society in which women can be fired from their jobs for denying that a 6 foot 2 inch bearded male is a woman?"

I'm sorry, but you're a little bit late on this, it's already happening.
People are already being fired, it's not a precedent it's an agenda.
- Part of the 2030 agenda and in line with UN Sustainable Development Goals.

"An experienced Christian doctor in the United Kingdom was forced out of his job as a disability benefits assessor for refusing to use transgender pronouns while working for the British government. Now he has lost his lawsuit against the government after refusing, hypothetically, to refer to a six-foot-tall bearded man as madam."

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/2019/october/christian-doc-loses-job-as-uk-judge-rules-biblical-view-of-male-and-female-violates-human-dignity-nbsp

No-one seems to get it.

They're undermining all collective forces other than their own in their efforts to undermine national soverignty in support of globalism.

Basically they are stealing the ownership of nations away from those nations national citizens and into the hands of global governance beaurecrats.

First they disempowered your men.
- But you didn't see it because you were too busy thinking about women and equality, they used you.
Now they're disempowering you as well.

They're happy to empower you if it disempowers your men.
- But then they will use some minority or disadvantaged group to disempower you too.

They are trying to erase any semblance of real identity.
So we're all fighting with each other but not seeing the bigger picture;
And so no-one can ever be unified to fight back against it.

They play both sides against the middle, and in the chaos, continue shifting the goalposts.
There's no such thing as national democracy in a 2 party system where one platform is an immigrant platform.
What that is, is international democracy being imposed upon nation states.

I think you'd do better to stop looking at the individual issues and to start looking at the bigger picture.

Don't you see the aim is to remove any semblance to any previous identity, most importantly national identity, in order to replace it with a global generic identity where nations don't exist?
- Or at least don't mean anything in terms of the people living there or their culture.
i.e exist in name and place only.

Is it really that difficult to people to get their head around?

All of it must be subverted for the globalist agenda.
It's right there in your UN SDG's
You didn't read the fine print.

And those judges aren't mad, they're doing exactly whats expected of them to forward the agenda, just like all their other judge mates.
Probably owned or compromised.

We 'the normal born-here Aussies' make arguments like:
'Foreigners should assimilate into the country they're coming into.
Existing citizens shouldn't have to assimilate into the country they came from.'

Many people think this is what's happening, and so thats how they relate to it.
But that's not whats happening, is it?
What's actually happening is every western soverign nations citizens are themselves being assimilated into the generic global identity.

This idea of 'assimilation' comes from a past belief that this was OUR country and belonged to US.
- But it's not anymore.

And this is why you won't hear any talk about foreigners assimilating anywhere.
None of any of this is about them assimilating into our culture.
Foreigners assimilating into our culture is the opposite of what they want.
- It's about us assimilating into the new global culture, and us identifying as global citizens instead of national citizens
As global citizens, we're completely removed from being the owners and decision makers of our own country.

With the nation polarised, and the people completely disunified
There's no way we can become unified to fight off these shackels of PC globalism.
And you don't necessarily have to persecute people to dispower them
You just remove their ability to take part in society.
Make them jobless if they don't follow the global narrative.
Censor them on social media, and hound them to death by making global minorities a more powerful voice than national majorities.

Business elites and banksters have now made slaves of all the workers again, you all just can't see it yet.
There's no protesting unless your forwarding THEIR politically correct agendas.
There's no unifying with like minded people, we're all too different now.
There's no civil war or revolution possible to remove tyrannical government because they've stiched that up with the Kigali Principles.

Humans have become slaves all over again.

As far as the UK is concerned the writing was on the wall years ago, but no-one cared or paid attention back then when Tommy Robinson was being unfairly targeted.

'Brave New World' is the problem.
It's an agenda.

Armchair Critic,
In a nutshell, the greedy are ensuring they get their way ! The rest is just too insipid to care because they're just as greedy, albeit not successful enough at it !

AC, well thought, good posting.
You have it down pat.
I find it frustrating that people are just not interested in these destructive and oppressive diseases such as PC, and for some reason actually embrace them, as if to want to be a part of some new cult.
It is so hard and frustrating, and incomprehensible to me, as I try to explain and find resistance, by people, to understand and believe what I say, and treat it as fantasy or untrue.
These things I say are not of my creation, but merely repeating what I have read or discovered elsewhere in the past.
Having found irrefutable proof of there being a sick agenda/conspiracy by an elite Jewish group, we know who I mean, and made others aware of their agenda of ruling the world, I could not believe the push-back.
As far fetched as it is, these facts I speak of are true and their end goal is, as you say, world dominance.
Just as these judges are following a preconceived ideology or plan, they are merely a part of a bigger picture.
To me, this idea of world dominance, one world order, an international govt, is a frightening one.
I akin it to a war without guns or aggression.
Why we allow the mentally ill and deranged rise to positions of power and wealth is beyond me.
I don't mind people becoming wealthy, but it seems they allow that wealth to go to their heads by presuming a position of power, which they rightly can if they are wealthy enough, they can buy their way to anywhere.
The absolute absurdity of these sick individuals is that there are other forces, countries and creeds that either have similar ambitions, and are not willing to compromise, or it is just impossible to convince/force all nations to heel to their whimsical, egregious and unjustifiable demands.
If only people would get off their collective arses, put down the beer, turn off the bloody sports, and stop talking sh!t, and instead start looking and listening to what is going on around them.

Anyone familiar with biology should note that the "binary sex" concept is flawed.
Development, in humans or other animals, is a complex process involving the interaction of genetics with environment.
Let us put aside the human aspect for the moment, and look at something less emotional, such as sex in dung beetles. In dung beetles there are TWO forms of male. One "sperm producer" [that is how I am defining male] is a small, hornless, gracile form. The other type of male is large, with prominant horn-like growths. The female [egg-producer] is small and gracile, so the gracile males and the females superficially resemble each other.
In yet other species, we can have males plus hermaphrodites, and female plus hermaphrodite combinations.
It should be clear from all this is that binary sex is just a generalisation, not an invariable and inflexible law.

Humans are no more immune from variation than other animals. And whatever the physical equipment an individual has, their individual behaviours may vary. So you can have males that think more like females, and vice versa. This is because development of the sex organs and brain may not always be in "sync". I say this without prejudice or judgement.
So gender orientation is a real thing. The problem is mainly political. Some people feel discomfort or disgust at those who are different.
But we are all people, and thus deserving of rights and respect. If you don't like gay or trans people, then fine- no one is asking anyone to be gay or trans. I am hetero, but I did choose to be that way, I just am. Nobody chooses their sex or gender. It just happens.
So people should just NOT be bigots. Value the person as the person. Why should a hetero person like myself defend gay or trans folks? Enlightened self-defence I call it. Because once bigotry and fascism starts, it is hard to stop, and no one is safe.
What adults do with their genitalia is their business, and no one else's, so long as free and informed consent is practised by all parties

Rob, you make some valid points, yes here it comes.
BUT, I am not prepared to accept what is by all accounts un-acceptable, to people like myself.
I elaborate by way of responding to your comment about everyone should be deserving of rights or respect and you mention, and so on.
You purposely avoid the central tenet of the issue or problem, and that is;
They have dared to force and threaten their way to a position and stature they are not entitled to.
This is so because of the extremes they went to achieve their goal, which was the permission to dare to become a part of a sacred institution which is a matter of nature, God, and society as a whole.
In other words they forced themselves into something they clearly do not belong to nor ever wanted nor would never have been accepted if not for the weak and those with no convictions or direction.
The offensive part also is that the act of physical engagement in a public place is also demonstrably disgusting, and before anyone says something stupid like, "look away", you can imagine what I say to them.
You say it's none of my business what they do.
Well it is, if it is in public.
And here is the best bit, because it is in public I am privy to seeing this disgusting display.
So I am disgusted by seeing this, here is my question;
In finding this act of public passion offensive and affects me emotionally to the point I am sickened, literally, who has more right they for carrying on unnaturally or me for reacting naturally to their display?
Your attitude suggests that if a dog urinates, it is natural.
So what if it urinated on someones foot?
The reaction would be similar the person would be justifiably disgusted, annoyed, angry, choose which one you prefer.
One thing I can tell you is, he will not be civil, compliant, agreeable, submissive, look the other way, condone, and generally be OK with it.
So therefore, now MY rights have been impinged upon.

Hi ALTRAV,
Interesting that you raised a theological argument. There are two ways of looking at human origins. One is the biological argument, that we, like other animals, are a product of biological and cultural evolution. The second is to claim that we are directly or indirectly, creatures of a creator-god.
So let's look at the theological argument first, since it is easy to address. If we ARE creatures of a creator-god, then that same god made gay folks? OK so far?
So, if god created gays, and gays are evil, then that is HIS problem, not ours. And one questions why a supposedly good god would create something evil anyway. In other words, there is no sense to it.
Biology? Yes, the biology of sexuality, including variations, is being better understood.
I am sorry if a gay person peed on your foot. But I don't imagine it is a common occurrence. It certainly never happened to me.

Rob, I'm not sure if you're taking the piss?
Firstly a queer did not piss on my foot, I said a dog, pissed on someones foot.
And here I was thinking I was conversing with a mature above average person with a modicum of intellect.
Apparently I am wrong, anyway.
So about your religious take on gaiz.(I do not subscribe to the name 'gay', I will however submit to the word 'gai'or gaiz')
I reject PC so as the word gay is absolutely and totally inappropriate and quite frankly an egregious attempt at trying to make themselves more amenable and acceptable to the community as a whole.
As it turns out they are anything but gay.
Forget the God thing, you and I both know religion is guilty of a lot of things being born different is not one of them.
On the other hand we look at biology, which by the way, you have nothing to offer except for a dog pissing on my foot?
So let me take the lead on your biological angle.
If humanity evolved naturally from nature, then it is only natural that we have flawed fauna or humans just like flawed flora or plants.
The problem is that in life, there are set rules and demands, that when they are breached cause the individual to be considered sick, unwell or abnormal.
For example if the body temperature is above or below a certain amount, it's not normal, they are sick, and have to be cured.
When a person is born, with any physical abnormalities, again, not normal.
Now any attempt at saying otherwise is futile, sure there are others with the same illness, flaws or faults.
These people exist, they can even join up to form a group, they can do many things 'normal'people do, but they are not 'normal'.
The difference with gaiz is that their abnormality is psychological, or neurological or whatever but not physical.
So because they look normal, they don't act normal.
So by definition and deduction they are abnormal.
Therefore they cannot be treated as normal.
They are abnormal!

Hello ALTRAV,
You don't see to have much of a clue about biology. Personal reproduction in social species is not necessary. Social species have a "division of labour". For example, in bees and ants most females [the workers] do NOT produce eggs or mate. That is the job of the queens. The workers tend the young, defend the nest, etc, etc. Some mammal species, like Meerkats and Naked Mole Rats also reproduce cooperatively.
So there is nothing "biologically" "sinful" about non-heterosexual behaviours.
In biology one is only on very firm ground with FORM and FUNCTION. Inferring PURPOSE is more difficult. Take an "easy" example, like the wings on a bird. yes, these organs have the FORM to allow the FUNCTION of flight, but birds can use them for other purposes. Penguins use their "wings" to "swim" in water, but flightless birds do not use wings for flight.
So you can see how assumptions can get us into "hot water" very quickly.
And how about haemoglobin and red blood cells? Essential for complex animal life yes? Well, no, not always. For example, take the family of fish called the Channichthyidae. These bloodless "ice fish" live in Antarctic waters. They have no need of haem or RBC's because the ice cold waters are rich in oxygen.
The "take home" message from this is that in evolution, "context is everything".
So no naturalistic fallacies, if you please. Is that really the best you have got?
So far you have not produced any rational argument either biological or theological, that would support your bias against non-heterosexual folks

Rob, I will take your last post as an attempt at humour, or at best a scattering of biological babel.
You have given us examples of the intricacies of some of natures more unusual animals.
So what.
I am discussing the human animal, and it's flawed examples.
I am not swayed by 21st century PC rubbish.
I begin with the basic forms of human, MALE and FEMALE!
Anything else is a flawed example or abnormal or compromised, either physically or mentally.
This is where gaiz slot into one of these imperfect, or broken categories.
You and others may not want to hear it, but the specifications and terms of reference of a 'normal', healthy human, is well and truly cataloged and confirmed some many years ago now.
Medically speaking, gaiz do not conform to what is described in medical circles as normal human beings.
They may look normal physically, but not in other areas, such as mental or emotional.
I reject any attempt at trying to call them normal, simply because they exist.
They would be considered normal in a group of other gaiz, but not the greater majority of the population, who are not flawed and therefore ARE typically normal.
Your examples of various forms of different animals, may be of interest to you, but it has absolutely no bearing on the topic of what is considered or regarded as a NORMAL human being.
I find your stance as incredulous, and that you are unwilling to accept that ANYONE who is gai, is not mentally or psychologically ill or abnormal.
I am not assuming anything, I am clear about the fact that there are only two types of humans, male and female.
The rest are something else, such as gaiz, hermaphrodites, midgets, albino's, and many more different life forms that try to identify themselves as a human, with flaws of course, (if they were being honest).
And they are human, but until they and others accept that they are a sick form of human, we can never settle this impasse and move on.

"Anyone familiar with biology should note that the 'binary sex' concept is flawed."

Anyone familiar with biology will understand that it requires both an XX chromosone and and XY chromosone for human procreation.
XX and XY is the natural union for procreation in human beings.

If 2 gay men want to have a baby, they need to go rent a womb.
(Before they can raise that child together with the likely mentally disturbed outcome)
Any idea that deviates from XX and XY is itself flawed.

This isn't about deciding whether to choose a bum or a vagina for your personal pleasure.
It's about the natural order of procreation in human beings.

Now maybe you think humans can somehow continue to populate the planet by rubbing penises together, but I have to say I'm very sceptical.

But XX + XX creates nothing.

And XY + XY creates nothing.

God didn't necessarily create gay people any more that the union of an XX and an XY did.
Gay people are not procreated through the practice of gay sex.

"So you can have males that think more like females, and vice versa. This is because development of the sex organs and brain may not always be in 'sync'."

If your explanation is it's 'not in sync' then by your definition should one not accept or conclude that something is wrong or abnormal?

"So far you have not produced any rational argument either biological or theological, that would support your bias against non-heterosexual folks"

Why does he have to?
Is there some reason or law that states he's not entitled to his own opinion?
There's no law that states he can't hold bias towards non-heterosexual people, just in the same way there's no law you can impose that forces him to celebrate non-heterosexual people.

Hi Rob,

Back in the seventies, Edmund O. Wilson put forward his theory of 'Sociobiology':

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociobiology

The Left quite properly debunked it. Amazing that it's now being used by some to justify, well, practically all human behaviour. I remember quite violent reactions to it on university campuses, and to the related racist theories of Hans Eysenck.

Joe

Loudmouth, I had a quick read of your link on Wilson, and I find his main field was, ants.
I'm not sure how that would qualify him to comment on gaiz.
Also what was he suggesting that was debunked on campus or by the left?
I cannot find the jist of the point you are making about the reference leading to violent reactions to "it" on university campuses.
Could you please explain what are you referring to?

Hi Altrav,

He was suggesting that we can learn a lot about human behaviour by studying plants and animals, and their behaviour. Seriously. Much of what he asserted seemed to suggest that any human behaviour was inevitable and could be explained - determined - by our links to other animal and plant life and how they behaved.

That was (I think correctly) seen by the Left as outrageous, but I recall opposing any need for violent reactions (at uni, where I was a 'mature' student), and the shutting down of discussion, so the whys and wherefores were never really discussed, certainly not by the Left. It was perceived as a Right-wing view of human behaviour, which excused everything as inevitable, and that as all that needed to be said about it.

So now, homosexual behaviour and gender preferences (and so much else) are being explained in the same way as Wilson would have done forty years ago, as natural, unavoidable, and prope, nothing we can do about itr. Yes, I know the Right (and the Left too) are very broad churches, but it's fascinating to see what was regarded correctly as Right -wing back then is seen as somehow Left-wing now.

Cheers,

Joe

The different want to be accepted as normal & once accepted they want special treatment.

Loudmouth2, right gotcha, thanks for clarifying.

@ ALTRAV:
"I am not swayed by 21st century PC rubbish."
Well, clearly this is the case with you. Would 12th century rubbish be more to your liking?
"But XX + XX creates nothing.
And XY + XY creates nothing".
Congratulations for missing the point, and the "straw man". What part of "personal reproduction" can't you understand. I was NEVER claiming that two males or two females could naturally produce a child!
The only thing I can conclude is that you are just a trolling, bigoted child, happy in his wilful and bigoted ignorance.

Whoa, Rob. I think I hit a nerve, and your emotions have carried your answer to AC's comments, but aimed at me, because as I said, I think I hit a nerve.
Just to clarify, I did not say anything about X's or Y's, but merely MY reaction and take on the issue and supported, justified and clarified it with clear reasoning.
So sorry Rob, I think you might have to take it up with AC, I can't help you, as the posting was not mine to defend or explain, especially as I'm not up with any of this X and Y stuff.