![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Compulsory acquisition divides Broome
The Government's decision to compulsorily acquire the land near Broome for a $30 billion gas precinct has polarised the town.
Aboriginal and green groups say it is an outrageous decision and one that will galvanise opposition in the Kimberley, interstate and overseas.
The Broome Chamber of Commerce says it will be a boost for local business and ensure the town's long-term prosperity.
Higher appeal over transgender decision
Last year, the two, who were born female, won the right to be legally considered male even though they had not undergone surgery to remove their reproductive organs.
The state's Attorney General appealed against the decision, arguing it could mean a person could be legally male but still bear children.
The Government's decision to compulsorily acquire the land near Broome for a $30 billion gas precinct has polarised the town.
Aboriginal and green groups say it is an outrageous decision and one that will galvanise opposition in the Kimberley, interstate and overseas.
The Broome Chamber of Commerce says it will be a boost for local business and ensure the town's long-term prosperity.
Higher appeal over transgender decision
Last year, the two, who were born female, won the right to be legally considered male even though they had not undergone surgery to remove their reproductive organs.
The state's Attorney General appealed against the decision, arguing it could mean a person could be legally male but still bear children.
Tags:
no subject
What's WRONG with being legally male but being able to bear children? Like, what is the point of view that I'm missing? There are plenty of cis women who CAN'T bear children, no one in this day and age really thinks that makes them LESS women. So why does a man bearing children equal something to talk about?
no subject
The closest thing I've heard to an "argument" is that it messes up government records. As someone who used to work with Western Australian government records for a living, I'll admit that this is true to some extent, but our records are also somewhat broken by adoption, remarriage, women who don't know who the father of their child is or do but are in a relationship with someone else at the birth etc. Also trans people break the system a bit already by changing their registered gender. So do people who have really long names. Same sex marriage would cause major issues if it ever gets legalised, and while I don't recall ever encountering a same sex defacto couple being registered as parents I'm sure it happens and the system has no space for it, let alone for genderqueer or intersex people.
My response to which is: maybe we should CHANGE THE SYSTEM TO REFLECT REALITY rather than trying to get people to fit the system. My coworkers agreed with me too when we discussed it, and we were the ones who'd have to deal with the "hassle" of such changes. *flails at the absurdity of it all*
no subject
But per was adamant that same sex marriage simply meant 'Prospective Spouse' or 'Spouse' and then another section labeled same.
When it comes to fathers (if one thinks of fathers as purely male) having children, I can't see why 'Parent of Child + Parent of Child' would be such a huge change.
While I can understand:
Biological Parent of Child + Biological Parent of Child
Legal Guardian of CHild + Legal Guardian of Child [See bottom space for more]
Might be an issue of total restructuring of the system.
But it is just amazing (in that OMGWTF way) to me that this is LITERALLY THE SYSTEM keeping humanity from evolving with compassion and equality. Really? A computer program and a set of forms means things can't change EVAH?!
Also is there actually a need to know who precisely gave birth to said child vs for the sake of adoption (searches) listing the biological parents? Because those will just be two and there's already two slots for it.
no subject
And none of the records we had made any distinction between biological and non-biological parents (whether they be adopted, step-parents etc), they just had slots for "mother" and "father". It's possible that there are spaces on the form for "Are these the biological parents?" and we just didn't get given that info but for example I know from personal experience that the marriage records don't ask.
But yes, if you define "mother" as "the parent who was pregnant" and "father" as "the one who wasn't" then you just need to make sure both slots can be either male or female, which is less effort than say fixing the Y2K bug.
Plural marriage would be more complicated, though I think you could start by messing about with the structure of defacto relationships in the law since they're already more flexible.
In both cases I think the logistics excuse is just an excuse. The people I've heard making it have not been public servants (who have to deal with the actual forms) but politicians (who have to deal with public opinion) If these relationships were accepted then the law would change and the public service would find possibly dodgy workarounds and get by like it always does.
no subject
(Although I suspect that a lot of people do believe that not being able to bear children makes a cis woman lesser. These same people may unfortunately be in charge of our federal government soon - argh!)