Dear Foxy,

I have read your reply on the other thread:

«You told us that you wanted to live in the outback without clothes and only primitive weapons»

Not quite - that was only "for example": I am vegetarian and wouldn't personally go about hunting animals.

«There may be laws against wondering around naked in the outback on other people's properties -
the police and property owners may have some concerns. As may park rangers, et cetera.»

Exactly, but aboriginal-born people who live in their traditional lifestyle are in many cases exempt from these laws.

There are still countries where one is not allowed to change their gender, socially and physically.
There are still countries where one is not allowed to change their religion.

In former centuries, this used to be the case in Australia too (and previously in Britain), but no more: in the Australian brave new world we live in, people are legally able to change both their gender (socially and physically) and religion.

Which raised my question here: shouldn't we just as well be legally able to change our race (socially and medically-allowing, physically too), then enjoy the same legal exemptions (and suffer the corresponding restrictions) as those who were born into our new race have?

yuyutsu,

Our laws and legislation are as you know passed by parliament.
And they often vary from state to state - and depending on
the circumstances they may differ. Sweeping generalisations on
any subject are not a wise idea - for me this discussions has
now run its course - your questions regarding laws and
circumstances affecting either our Indigenous People or our
transgender folk - could perhaps best be put to the Attorney
General's Department in Canberra. I'm not a lawyer - and it's
best you consult with someone who is.

Enjoy your day - and see you on another discussion.

Dear Foxy,

One does not need attorney generals to tell what the present law is:

Suppose a person walks out and about naked (in a rural/remote area), lives on other people's property where a native title applies, hunts and fishes with primitive weapons protected species or in places where hunting and fishing is generally forbidden, and is caught, then:

If that person is a "white", non-aboriginal person, then they would be prosecuted regardless of their lifestyle and racial identification, but if they are of aboriginal ancestry and live in the traditional aboriginal way, then they would be left alone.

In Australia, there are no legal hindrances to religious conversion, because religion is not even registered by government (which is ideal).
As for gender, it is presently registered by government (which is less than ideal), but there is a legal pathway for converting from "male" to "female" or from "female" to "male". However, in the matter of race, Australia does officially register whether one is "aboriginal" or "non-aboriginal", yet recognises no legal pathway of conversion from non-aboriginal to aboriginal.

I am asking you time and again whether this state of affairs is good and acceptable or not, whether in your view it should remain so or change - and you seem to actively avoid my question by providing irrelevant responses and now, by attempting to close this discussion.

Is the hierarchy of the Catholic Church all transgender? They're all male, and they all wear skirts! Must be...... Christ and his disciples were all in frocks! Bloody trend setters!

yuyutsu,

I have answered your questions.
I have made it quite clear that there are 3 criteria
that have to be met before you can be legally recognised
by the government as an Aboriginal. Which is fair enough
to protect our First Nations People who have a special
place in our nation as the original people.

Transgender also have laws that apply.

I didn't realize that this was so difficult to understand
for you. Therefore I recommended a legal department for you
to consult who you perhaps may understand.

In any case as I have nothing further to add - yes I am
trying to leave this discussion.

Dear Foxy,

«I have made it quite clear that there are 3 criteria»

This describes the present - it says nothing about what you like to see in future.

«to protect our First Nations People»

That term is a slanderous insult to aboriginal people: why should anyone attribute these innocent people with the white-man's vices (i.e. with nationalism)?

«In any case as I have nothing further to add - yes I am trying to leave this discussion.»

Because you feel pressed to answer an inconvenient question:

Why do you consider it OK to legally allow, recognise and support people's voluntary change of gender, but not of race?