Baz,

I'm going to stick with ‘Baz’ if that's OK with you. You've been Baz for a long time.

As for all this bloody technology, I'm convinced it hates old people, and I no longer try to keep up with it.

On the topic, Yuyutsu has a point - “Why should you even call them anything?”

I don't know any of these poor, deluded people, and am never likely to. I think that goes for most people. You could fit the number of those suffering from sexual dysphoria into a ‘phone box. And it's only a minuscule number of them who are so desperately looking for who-knows-what, apart from attention, that makes all the fuss.

The real pain is the obsession that some people in our society have with minorities, and the minorities’ obsession with themselves.

Why do so many try hard to avoid the important point of the discussion.
ie Does this verdict mean that the law can change the science.
That seems to be what the lawyers believe.
Yuyutsu goes on about people attitudes.
I couldn't care less except some people are very silly.
Get back to the important bit, can the law over rule science ?

Indyvidual,

Do you have a general expectation of how men and women should behave? If so, then you should be able to appreciate just how real a social construct is.

Social constructs are real, even though they don’t exist in a physical sense.

Money is another example. Collectively, we’ve agreed that pieces of paper and metal have value, and that agreement makes money a powerful and real force in our lives. The same goes for concepts like gender.

I think I know what you’re angling towards, though. You’re suggesting that the idea of a social construct has been contrived to excuse the “abnormal” behaviour of some, but this isn’t the case. Our understanding of social constructs can be traced back to philosophers like Immanuel Kant in the 18th century.

--

Bezz,

I’ve addressed the point by illustrating that the law isn’t trying to overrule science here.

Baz,

It seems that the law can overrule the science, and you can be punished if you publicly go against it. That doesn't mean that the law is right, fair or anything else. It's the law, according to one judge, who has slugged Sall Grover $10,000 plus costs, and the real punishment - the process - has cost her much more.

This absolute nonsense will remain the law unless it is quashed by the High Court.

We are seeing in Australia that tyranny does not necessarily come about through violence, as many people think. Tyranny is occurring in Australia by way of LAW.

A minority tyranny in China rules a massive minority; same in Russia, and in places like Iran. The majority doesn't stand up to the tyrants because they are not brave enough.

Do you think the majority of Australians will stand up to the LAW? Of course that will not: so the LAW will prevail over the science - unless another small group of unelected lawyers (High Court judges) decides otherwise.

ttbn,

What's the difference between biological sex and gender?

http://j.gifs.com/vb20nr.gif

"What's the difference between biological sex and gender?"

Well under the guise of biological sex a bloke will likely have a cock and balls hanging between his legs and a pronounced adam's apple in his neck.

Whereas under the guise of gendered sex, a bloke could have a vagina between his legs which is a attached to a uterus, a small adam's apple and scares where his tits had been removed.

Seems like an importance difference to me.