Western Australia: at least we have nice beaches

[sqbr]

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.

Comments

[willow]

I've heard the 'Breaks The Records' argument before, but in regards to PLURAL MARRIAGE. And it was by someone who'd want plural marriage, but admits that per thinks it is valid to say that 'We' meaning society 'Don't Have A Way To Track That Yet' - which is why per has no problem with it being way down on the list of things people might want to fight for.

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.

[sqbr]

For clarity: my job dealt with electronic versions of the records for reasons of demographic analysis, eg "What percentage of parents of children with diabetes have it too, and does the socioeconomic region they lived in during childhood affect this?", and we would figure that out from birth and marriage records as well as hospital admissions, the cancer registry etc since as I recall we weren't allowed access to adoption records.

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.