Is Mise,

All that is being stated, and clearly explained
through out - both in the media and in my posts
in this discussion, is that these figures (61.6% YES
and 38.4% NO) are representative of those eligible
voters who chose to vote rather than being representative
of all eligible Australians.

Therefore 61.6% of Australians did vote YES. They were
the ones who were eligible and did choose to vote.
Those that
chose not to vote were not included in this survey.
That is the way the survey was counted.

I have nothing more to say on this subject.

Josephus,

While political correctness and embarrassment over the word ‘sex’ have seen ‘sex’ often replaced with ‘gender’, the two words have different meanings.

Sex:
Either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions.

http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/sex

Gender:
Either of the two sexes (male and female), ESPECIALLY when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones. (Emphasis added)

http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/gender

The ‘especially’ bit is what social scientists mean when they speak ‘gender’, and it is what is meant when gender fluidity is discussed.

So, again, gender is a social construct based on the biological sexes. No-one is telling children that they can change their biological sex just by believing a certain way. This is a misconception of your own making, based on your ignorance of the difference between sex and gender.

You should be relieved by this news. Instead, it appears you want or need to believe that the world has gone mad. Whatever helps justify your paranoid delusions regarding Marxists, I suppose.

And, again, humans have been around a lot longer than 5000 years.

--

Paul1405,

Yeah, I figured the crazy ‘5000’ figure had to come from Josephus’s young-earth creationist beliefs.

--

ALTRAV,

No, Josephus does not understand the difference between sex and gender, and gender as a social construct exists whether you reject it or not. Traditional gender roles, for example, are a social constructs, and have been around for a very long time. They are nothing new, and they certainly didn't form by themselves.

When you say, 'they are nothing new'. I hope you mean, within the last hundred years. It was not a socially or culturally accepted thing many years ago.

Refer my previous post for clarity.

No, ALTRAV, I mean since before our ancestors were even human.

<<When you say, 'they are nothing new'. I hope you mean, within the last hundred years.>>

Gender roles (whatever their form) have existed at least since our ancestors became social creatures.

<<It was not a socially or culturally accepted thing many years ago.>>

Sorry, but I can't think of time where gender roles were considered unacceptable. When was this, and how did people live in these times? Did both males and females act as though they were perfectly identical?

Or are you suddenly talking about homosexuality now? I wasn't. Josephus deflected to gender fluidity. Remember? We're no longer talking about sexuality - even if he is trying to conflate the two with conspiracy theories.

You're not keeping up with us here, are you ALTRAV. You sound rather confused. I hope you're alright.

<<Refer my previous post for clarity.>>

I'm afraid they were of no help. I can't see where you have said anything much about gender as a social construct. Other than to take the bizarre position of denying the existence of gender, that is

Foxy,

"All that is being stated, and clearly explained
through out - both in the media and in my posts
in this discussion, is that these figures (61.6% YES
and 38.4% NO) are representative of those eligible
voters who chose to vote rather than being representative
of all eligible Australians."

You said
"61.6% of the Australian population votes YES"

that is clearly incorrect, the correct statement is
'61.6% 0f the eligible Australian voters vote(d) YES"

and nowhere did the ABS say what you did and you cannot give a reference that they did, however, I note that you know that the statement was wrong and acknowledge the fact.

So run!

Philips, you may think it is a 'bizare' position to deny gender as a social construct. What the hell does that mean?

It was created/constructed by people? If so yes I agree. It was never a word used in every day life in the past, until the queers latched on to it as a foundation word to further their perverted cause.

All these stupid words, fluidity, gender alignment, etc; and so on, all extracted from a dictionary somewhere and adopted to push their point.

I don't abide by the taking of a word and using it to suite another agenda. 'Gay', 'fluidity', etc; etc;

I never heard these words till you and your mates started pushing this SSM crap. Suddenly, it's as if we had created a new thesaurus.

If these words are truly based on having been created by people then adopted by queers, I then hereby reclaim those words on behalf of the 'normal' majority of the population and declare them not to be used in relation to anything pertaining to poofterism.

It was only last century when these words were re-configured and adopted by the queers, so it was not the norm before then.