Long term sandpit readers will probably have caught on to my generally unqualified commitment to personal autonomy. I hold to the classical libertarian ideal that an adult individual should not be prevented from doing anything as long as the realizing those desires does not impinge upon the liberties of any other individual. Thus when it comes to individuals who want to reconstruct or modify their body in novel ways it boils down to the usual question of any harm that they may be doing to others.
So this means that although I tend to think that those who want to change their appearance so that they have the appearance of a person not of their biological gender are addressing the wrong side of their gender dysphoria equation with permanent physical mutilations rather than attempting to reform their mindsets individuals are of course entitled to do as they please with their bodies. What I don’t think that they have though is a right to expect that their vanities must be respected.
“I think from my teenage years, when I decided I needed to express my femininity, I was happy with the way I looked. But SRS [sex reassignment surgery] is kind of the last part – it’s sort of the icing on the cake,” she told Style.com.
Andrej Pejic has been chosen by Jean-Paul Gaultier to star in both his womenswear and menswear shows in Paris.
“It makes me feel freer than ever. Now I can stand naked in front of a mirror and really enjoy my reflection. And those personal moments are important.”
The model, who has been cast to star in Sofia Coppola’s remake of The Little Mermaid, is now listed as a female model with all of her agencies around the world. Her agents at Chadwick were among the first to list her solely in the women’s division.
The problem is though that the social aspects of gender are not the reason that humanity exists in the male and female aspect. We have male and female because that is what is necessary to reproduce our species> We need both in full working order to make children. No surgical procedure can make a man into a woman, or a woman into a man . At best all that a surgeon can do is create the illusion that an individual who was born one gender is the other. Frankly I think that it must take determined self-delusion for individuals like Pejic to believe they are a “real” woman.
There is also the question of the so called “fashion” industry and the way that it influences he way that our young people view and understand themselves. Its bad enough that young women’s self images are in the thrall of male homosexual sensibilities and notions of body image and beauty but now they are going to be exposed to the example of Pejic pretending to be a woman (which he can never be) and on top of the already unhealthy body images that young people are constantly bombarded with from the fashion Industry they now have idea that being a woman is a manufactured reality to contend with and I for one don’t think that this is a positive development for society.
You would be hard pressed to find anyone who love the ABC less than I do but I’m going to tell you that I don’t know about this latest Chanel promotion using a mutilated version of “Throw your arms around me”
You see my problem is that the original song is just so good, its the perfect song of love and longing as far as I am concerned and it seems like blasphemy to not only use it for a commercial purpose (admittedly for the ABC) but to also change its entire narrative with a namby-pamby “feel good” social message.
Or am I just being too precious here?
Find below an interesting essay By Paul Russell that I reproduce under its Creative Commons license from Online Opinion. I think that Paul makes a quite persuasive argument that Dr Nitschke goes too far in trying to make suicide seem more rational than it often is one thing we can be sure of and taht is its not as sweet as its presented in Soylent Green
Bouquets to Jeff Kennett and the Beyond Blue organisation for their clear and appropriate condemnation of the actions, or rather inactions, of Dr Philip Nitschke in relation to the suicide death of a Perth man in the story that ran on the ABC’s 7:30 report a little over a week ago.
According to the media reports and to Dr Nitschke’s twitter feed, he is basing his defence, in part at least, on his claim that there is such a thing as rational suicide.
The idea that suicide can be somehow a rational choice is not new. In fact, an organisation exists in the UK called the ‘Society for Rational Old Age Suicide’ and there has been one study that I am aware of that canvasses the issue.
Dr Nitschke has consistently maintained that every adult should have access to the means to their own end. The faux lower limit, in light of this, seems more about trying to soften the public perception of this macabre death industry than it does about any corporate sense of public duty.
When we think of suicide we commonly understand that people who contemplate ending their lives will be viewing their problems through a very dark lens that does not, at that time, offer them any hope or possibility that what troubles them could be dealt with in a less dramatic fashion.
But there is always hope; there is always some other solution. Time, good counselling, talking to family and friends, taking exercise and a good night’s rest can all help us see past those solitary, dark moments. We can all help.
Some years ago now, my work with homeless and at risk youth gave me a very clear window into this issue. That’s why I’m so grateful for the work of Beyond Blue and other suicide prevention organisations. Suicidal people can often appear to be quite rational; their plan and their reasoning behind it, quite compelling. Were we to have accepted the assertion that any of these people should simply be left unchallenged and unsupported because they could put up a calm and cogent argument for their actions we would have been abandoning them in their time of deepest need. The intuitive assessment that suicide should be shunned and is never the only option is natural, normal and something hardwired into humanity. Thank goodness!
And while the argument about whether or not someone can be genuinely rational is, intuitively false – an oxymoron as one commentator put it – it is largely academic and should not be brought to bear upon suicide prevention nor our natural responses to those in need. The message would be a dangerous one and bears within it the distinct possibility of an implied endorsement of some suicides.
Think about it. At the end of this article and of every story on this subject we’ve grown to expect that responsible media will always carry a closing line saying something like: “If this article troubles you, phone…….. for confidential help.” If Dr Nitschke’s argument holds true, would public policy then demand that we add something like: “Unless you consider yourself rational; in which case contact Exit on….”? Yes, I know an example in extremis but I think it makes the point.
That the public commentary has focussed on the WA man is understandable in as much as he had direct contact with Dr Nitschke. But the ABC’s story also told of the suicide death of a 25 year old Victorian man who used the services of Exit to purchase information and thereby, a prohibited substance to end his own life. Nitschke’s defence here that the man lied about his age on a tick box on an Exit website is as ludicrous as is Exit’s self-imposed supposed lower age limit of 50 years for such services.
It is this supposed right-to-die that is the false over-arching philosophy by which the death of a young person can be somehow ‘rationalised’ by Nitschke and Exit. In 2010, in response to a Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine Report showing that two thirds of deaths in the preceding decade using the Exit drug-of-choice, Nembutal, were for people under the age of 50 with nearly one-third being younger than 40 and six being in their 20s, Nitschke said: ”There will be some casualties … but this has to be balanced with the growing pool of older people who feel immense wellbeing from having access to this information.” Tell that to the families of the two men featured in the 7:30 Report! Suicide prevention should never accept the notion of acceptable casualties!
And herein lies a bigger question which suicide prevention organisations and the Australian public generally need to come to terms with: How is it that we have somehow grown to accept that it’s okay for older people to seek to end their lives; that there’s somehow a distinction to be made about access to suicide methods and suicide ideation, generally, based upon age?
This notion that somehow ‘older people…feel immense wellbeing’ from having the means to kill themselves is very odd indeed. Certainly, studies on people who have accessed suicide methods in Oregon under their legalised suicide system do point to this as an outcome for some. But if we apply the same general thinking towards people who are suicidal as described earlier (and I argue that we should), we should be thinking clearly about the reality that there is always another way past presenting difficulties and dilemmas – even if these problems ultimately include advancing age or a difficult prognosis.
We should be preventing suicide by treating every suicidal person with equal respect and act the same in every case. If not, then aren’t we at risk of failing people in the same way as Nitschke’s cry for the recognition of rational suicide would?
It’s about time this macabre and clandestine industry was subject to public scrutiny.
by SockPuppet ~ hung like a Puppy
Life can be tough in Tassie for a rough-as-guts 43 yearold single mum of 2 and exMilitary Corporal down on her luck and who hasnot had anyone venture into her map-of-Tasmania-overgrown-bush for more than 11 years (*).
(* see below – her words notmine)
What can she do? How can she get a life and some money letalone a root?
Well she could always turn Leso I suppose but not our Jacqui Lambie.
No Jacqui joins the Clive Palmers Puppy Party of course and gets herself elected to the Senate thats what she does.
And then she goes on some ‘Fun’ radio station in Hobart and lets everyone know shes looking for a guy ….,…
…… a rich guy
….. a “WELL HUNG” rich guy:
newly elected Palmer United Party senator Jacqui Lambie has taken the trend (of hooking up) to a new level by using talkback radio to search for a potential suitor – preferably one “well-hung” and loaded with cash.
Here’s how it went down. Lambie was appearing on Hobart’s Heart 107.3 breakfast show with Kim and Dave.
…. Kim asked Lambie about her bikini line and it was full steam ahead on the Oversharing Express.
“Right now the state I’m in, you’d want to bring out that whipper snipper first,” replied Lambie. “It’s a very scary area to talk about this morning.”
(Whoa – too much information Jacqui but carry on)
…. And then it got better.
Lambie – a mother-of-two who says she has been single for 11 years – outlined what she’s looking for in a man.
“They must have heaps of cash and they’ve got to have a package between their legs,” she said.
“They don’t even need to speak.”
Then Jamie, a 22-year-old listener, rang in to say he’d be happy to go out with the 43-year-old.
… After establishing that Jamie had inherited a “small fortune” and had experience with older women, Lambie inquired: “You don’t have any diseases do you?” (**)
No, Jamie assured her, before adding that he is “hung like a donkey”.
(** And I heard the audio – Lambie also asked Jamie if he was “well hung” before he said “like a donkey”. What a class act. You can listen to it too if you clickon thelink. The one in the words above. Above the quote. Scroll up. Use these ^ at the side of your PC. Or iPhone?)
Insightful commentary coming up:
Look I have nothing against girls chasing a good job.
And a bit of fame.
A lot of cock.
But I reckon if a 43 yearold cougar and single mum wants to root a rich young guy with a “big package between his legs” she shoulda at least shave the bush first don’t you?
I feel sorry for Jamie.
Weve got her for another 6 years youknow?
by SockPuppet ~ an Australian
This is a bloody national disgrace.
Next year is the 100th anniversary of Anzac Day, that day in April 1915 when thousands of underage Aussies (and Kiwis but who counts them?) were sacrificed by the Brits on some godforsaken Middle eastern outpost peninsula of bloody Turkey known as Gallipoli – nowknown as Anzac Cove and a tourist destination and camping resort for Gen Y.
But as Anzac Day falls on a Saturday next year guess what?
The citizens of NSW (and every other State except one!) will be short one public holiday next year: Anzac Day.
Both Anzac Day and Boxing Day fall on a Saturday but only one will be marked by an additional day off.
Unlike other holidays, no additional day is granted for the national day of remembrance in NSW under the Public Holidays Act.
Other states will face a similar issue: only West Australians will get a public holiday on Monday, April 27.
What is going on here?
If we cant get a holiday for the 100th anniversary of Anzac Day what else will be taken away?
Whats next, move the Melbourne Cup to a Saturday and take away that national day of celebrating horses too?
No holiday for Australia Day if that falls on the weekend too? What will the abos have to protest about?
Why not go the whole hog and have no public holiday for Christmas Day if that falls on a Saturday or Sunday too? Who needs one? Go to work!
And Easter: Yeah lets cancel Good Friday & Easter Monday because no one goes to bloody church and besides the Muslims have already taken over (just ask GD).
This is the slippery slope – the taking away of our days off .. but it doesnt end there!
Collingwood & Essendon will have to play there heroic Anzac Day battle on a Saturday and compete with all the other games on that day too. They will lose $millions.
And what will Gen Y do? They cant go to Turkey on the weekend because that is ‘hooking up’ time wasted.
Of course we could all move to Perth, the only State that recognises Anzac Day and gives us a day off.
But where the f*ck is Perth?
And what is there to do there?
Dont think this is a oneoff either folks – in 2016 Anzac Day falls on a Sunday so same deal, no public holiday!
I blame Tony Abbott.
We need an election.
COPENHAGEN – Copenhagen, Denmark’s capital, wants to be the world’s first CO2-neutral city by 2025. But, as many other well-meaning cities and countries have discovered, cutting CO2 significantly is more difficult than it seems, and may require quite a bit of creative accounting.
More surprisingly, Copenhagen’s politicians have confidently declared that cutting CO2 now will ultimately make the city and its citizens wealthier, with today’s expensive green-energy investments more than paying off when fossil-fuel prices rise. But how can deliberately limiting one’s options improve one’s prospects? These sound more like the arguments of green campaigners – and they are most likely wrong.
The first challenge that Copenhagen faces in reaching its zero-emissions goal is the lack of cost-effective alternatives for some sources of CO2, particularly automobiles. Denmark already provides the world’s largest subsidy to electric cars by exempting them from its marginal 180% car-registration tax. For the most popular electric car, the Nissan Leaf, this exemption is worth $85,000 (€63,000). Yet, just 1,536 of Denmark’s 2.7 million cars are electric.
If there is one thing that distresses me more than any other when it comes to warministas is their naive belief that the so called “alternatives” can be viable as this piece form Bjørn Lomborg argues in the piece that I quote that it needs much more than creative accounting and the pretense of viability .