Politics Thread 3: With A Vengeance

[Guest mickisnot]

Jo's post deserved some recognition.

 

For the work, thought, and research that went into it.

 

Like Jesus, I sacrificed myself to show it, because I knew none of you would be capable.

 

So, as my last order of business here, let me just state, unlike Jesus, you can all go to hell.

 

Peace out.

 

Sorry.

 

Can only hear people that have a seat at the table.

[wendybr]

Jo's post deserved some recognition.

 

For the work, thought, and research that went into it.

 

Like Jesus, I sacrificed myself to show it, because I knew none of you would be capable.

 

So, as my last order of business here, let me just state, unlike Jesus, you can all go to hell.

 

Peace out.

 

I'd have done it more like this!  

[TheDugong]

The hatchet job on free trade happening in here is giving me the chuckles.

 

Nothing has lifted the developing world from extreme poverty than trade liberlisation. Opponents of free trade pretend to care about sweat shops in asia and elsewhere but this is yet another distraction. A distraction from what? That's where it gets interesting.

I oppose free trade if it cannot benefit us as a country and I couldn't give two crackers about sweat shops in Asia in the grander scheme of things.

[wendybr]

Jo's post deserved some recognition.

 

For the work, thought, and research that went into it.

 

 

Having now read Jo's post...a serious response from me.

 

I know nothing about global economics...so  I don't know who's closer to the realities of the situation on this subject.

 

But like Zip, I think Jo's post is a really strongly argued and articulate expression of his viewpoint!

 

A great contribution to the debate!

[Legionista]

 

The hatchet job on free trade happening in here is giving me the chuckles.

 

Nothing has lifted the developing world from extreme poverty than trade liberlisation. Opponents of free trade pretend to care about sweat shops in asia and elsewhere but this is yet another distraction. A distraction from what? That's where it gets interesting.

I oppose free trade if it cannot benefit us as a country and I couldn't give two crackers about sweat shops in Asia in the grander scheme of things.

 

 

Another distraction.

 

You oppose having to compete in the global economy cause that means you might have to work harder. You might have to think harder, you might have to innovate, you might have think outside the box.

 

People in America, UK, Australia just want to go to work and go through the motions and get paid insulated from the outside world. You want to give a dollar here and there for a kid in Africa but never want to be competing against that kid in the global economy.

 

That's the issue here. Free trade gives them a chance, a chance that might mean you (or me) miss out.

 

That scares people.

 

Let out your feelings.

[Cynth]

Thanks Jo, your essay was impressive. I don't however agree with many of your statements or conclusions. The following two in particular....

 

1. "We cannot however keep lifting the debt from poverty stricken nations because it will set a precedent. Nations will continue to be extremely irresponsible in the knowledge that their debt will be written off anyway. They need to take responsibility and cannot rely forever on handouts and goodwill. In any case, how much does charity actually do for the extremely poor? Not much at all. If they take responsibility and start planning for the future then development will come."

 

To me this represents what is wrong with the world. The idea that the rich can tell those that are poor that they are irresponsible and charity is wasted on them, to me this is highly patronising. You perhaps, but definitely me, was born into this wealthy country, I was given opportunities because of the place I was born and as you stated wealth perpetuates wealth. All nations strive for a better standard of living and to be wealthier but there still remains countries whose economies can't lift their people out of poverty. It's pie in the sky to say, if they take responsibility..development will come. This is simply the rich justifying their fortunate positions by saying the poor only has themselves to blame.

 

 

2. "Yes the West have a lot more money and better standards of living and they do not want to give that up. Why should they? They are simply working like all other living creatures to extend their self preservation and own enjoyment of life. This has to be accepted as a reality. There is only a tiny fraction of a fraction who would not act in such a manner. The rich will exploit the poor but this is what will lift the poor out of their poverty stricken lives."

 

Seriously, exploitation is really helping them out of their poverty stricken lives!! Another justification to help the West sleep at night! Apparently we exploit because it's good for the poor!!

 

I dont have a strong opinion on free trade agreements, I'd rather judge each on their merits but I draw the line at justifying inequality as "this is a reality we must all accept"...you would call me idealistic, not a realist...maybe you are right...but I'll stick to my idealism thanks.

[jocosmic]

 

 

 

 It is not the system that's to blame here it is the individuals themselves

Really...

 

I like this rational, as it flows from the top down..Not the system (mechanism that the powerful control), we will blame individuals..those poor bastards wanting plasma TV`s again..

 

Sort of works in reverse when an individual, lets say from a low socio-economic background appears in court and his legal defense presents a case that attempts to shift blame from the individual to the system, saying that he is a victim of society and systemic failures..haha, love the irony  when those with power that design the SYSTEM shift the blame back to the individual. 

 

 

 

 Free markets, free trade, free society

You really believe that is the way it works, or your like me and think it sounds nice in theory.

We are a freer society now than any other period in history. The free market still needs further deregulation. Of course people in a market with less control and intervention are more free. Would you argue the opposite? Please give me your argument for your belief.

 

As for your plasma TV argument, I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. The consumer is not to blame for having their desires. My argument was that individuals who manipulate a system for their selfish ends are to blame. How did you conflate that with consumers wanting tv's?

[jocosmic]

The other thing I'd like to say Stav, in response to your last bit there about being free in reality or theory, do you think the Chinese are less free with the introduction of the free market?

[jocosmic]

Cynth, thank you for your rebuttal.

 

On your first paragraph, could you please explain to me seriously what the alternative is? "Wrong with the world" and all these statements do nothing to offer solutions.

 

I have facts and history on my side. The free market has lifted nations out of poverty and is continuing to do so as we speak. Foreign aid in its own will always keep poor nations subjected to the whims of others. They have to be given the mechanism to be self reliant.

 

Your second paragraph, has economic exploitation of Asia allowed it to boom or not? Answer that question with facts. Weren't the populations of Europe exploited all those years ago?

 

What do you suggest we do?

[lloydy136]

Jo - it is possible to admire a very well researched and put together argument. well played. doesn't mean I agree with much of what you have said. your post is too big to quote so I will take snippets and put your stuff in italics......

 

One of the main claims in the video is that debt is forced upon extremely poor nations. I cannot disagree with this but I will disagree with the claim that the system (putting aside the ulterior motives of some corrupt people) is designed so that they will always remain in debt and never come out of poverty. If this was the case then, the World Bank and all these other institutions would allow the interest of these nations to bury them. However there are debt relief funds in place that have been enacted such that nations have even received 100% debt write offs.

 

The aim of the IMF is to open up these markets for the benefit of TNC's. The organisation is paid for by the tax dollars of the western nations (US contributes about 20% I think with Japan, UK, Germany etc making up most of the rest). The aim is not to bury them in debt - this would be counter-productive - they don't want a Greece that can't service the debt. The aim is to ensure that the 'structural adjustment policies' must be followed so that further loans will be granted. Any writing off of debt has always been under these conditions. Debt is an excellent motivator and a key to our current system both on a macro and micro level - it keeps nations subservient just as debt (eg mortgage, HECS) keeps people subservient.

 

 

 

We cannot however keep lifting the debt from poverty stricken nations because it will set a precedent. Nations will continue to be extremely irresponsible in the knowledge that their debt will be written off anyway. They need to take responsibility and cannot rely forever on handouts and goodwill...........Yes the West have a lot more money and better standards of living and they do not want to give that up. Why should they?

 

I never advocated ignoring the debt. My argument all along has been that 'free trade' and the pressure exerted by western nations to 'liberalise' and 'structurally adjust' are all euphemisms to open countries up to allow TNC's to utilise them for their own benefit. 'Free Trade Agreements' are almost always one sided. We are expecting countries to live by standards that the West will not. The west demands uninhibited access to these markets via organisations like the imf or world bank yet the west refuses to live by its own rules with some of the highest subsidies in the world for countries like Japan in agriculture and australia in mining.

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-14/malcolm-turnbull-correct-on-farmers-subsidies/5252596

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/cost-of-state-mining-and-energy-subsidies-revealed-20140623-3aoxr.html

 

To me this is about as hypocritical as you can get. The west subsidises and protects its own industry then offers bailout loans to countries or gets them to sign free trade agreements imposing economic principles that they themselves won't abide by and for what? so their own TNC's can make a bigger profit? in many of these nations local farmers have been forced to switch to export crops by imf conditions rather than staple foods for the local population - how does this help?

 

Wouldn't it make more sense to use some of that money to protect local industry or improve local infrastructure (ports, roads, airports etc built by local business so the money stays in the country) (as the west does) and develop local industries rather than have TNC's come in and suck up all of the profits to elsewhere?  protection and subsidies are a key factor for many of the western nations and their industries - its one of the things that allows us to maintain our standard of living - if this really was the imf/world bank etc goal this is what they would do.

 

The same has happened in Asia and it is still continuing with China and India now set to be the economic powerhouses of the not to distant future

 

These countries are no doubt the success stories of globalisation and economic liberlisation BUT they never had these principles forced upon them - they picked and chose what aspects of globalisation, liberalisation and free trade that they wanted to implement to benefit themselves. Stigliz explains it better than I could......

 

 

The video makes claims about the Bataan nuclear plant in the Philippines. I don't know much about that case. A little reading on it however uncovers the fact that this was something that Marcos called for and it was their decision. No company can take the blame for that. The Philippine government has to take responsibility for that. It is not the job of US companies and banks to safe guard the Philippine population. They have elected their own governing body for that themselves.

 

Except that the US propped up and supported Marcos (Imelda and Nancy Reagan were besties lol) despite being fully aware of his human rights and corruption activities (right up until his last few years in office). The decision to build the plant (with public money going to a US TNC) would have been a heavily US influenced one.

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/03/19/magazine/reagan-and-the-philippines-setting-marcos-adrift.html

http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/philippines/tl03.html

 

I also would like to bring to light that Corazon Aquino speaks of the ills of her nation's economic condition and massive debt within the context of a restrictive market. Considering that the video is from 1992 when many Asian nations were simply contemplating deregulation but were in fact closed markets, I wonder if that little snippet is taken out of context. That's just personal conjecture. The Philippines now is a fast growing economy.

 

 

I acknowledged when I introduced it that it was an old doco but I felt still had some relevance (a more recent example of something similar though is the congo oil pipeline - cecil rhodes would be proud of that one). It is true that many Asian nations have experienced growth since then.  the philippines has experienced growth but a broader perspective provided by the hdi (http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/table-1-human-development-index-and-its-components) shows it still in the bottom half of countries when health, education etc are taken into account (it is just ahead of iraq but below el salvador to give some context). life expectancy is still pretty low as is mean years of schooling - so while some in the country may have benefitted economically (has to always be remembered that growth, average earnings etc are always averages and often hide inequality and don't show social capital at all) the overall society is still struggling despite the wonders of free trade (low life expectancy and education speaks directly to cuts in government spending in such things - another requirement of imf type agreements)

 

We need more nations embracing the principles of the free market and engaging in free trade. If free markets help nations out of poverty, then think of free trade as a global free market. It needs tweaks and changes along the way but I certainly think it is the way forward. Free markets, free trade, free society.

 

 

Not sure if China's embrace of the free market has led to them becoming a free society - secret trials, executions etc but that's a side note.

 

Back to my main argument which is that the mantra of 'free trade' & 'economic liberalisation' has been used by western governments to promote the interests of their TNC's through apparatus like the imf & free trade agreements. But that its more about marketing than reality. the aim isn't to promote free trade - its modern imperialism. if free trade was the answer to an economic utopia then all of the western nations promoting it would have free trade themselves. they don't. none live by the same rules they enforce on others through debt. this has created growth in these nations of that there is no doubt but that growth has created more inequality, it has reduced services for the people and the primary beneficiaries have been TNC's who have profited exponentially taking money & resources out of these nations - all paid for by our tax dollars - socialising the risk for the TNC's. Yay free market!

 

Again excellent post Jo and it gave me plenty of food for thought. Time for me to fade into the ether again. cheerio.

[Guest mickisnot]

 

 

 

 

The hatchet job on free trade happening in here is giving me the chuckles.

 

Nothing has lifted the developing world from extreme poverty than trade liberlisation. Opponents of free trade pretend to care about sweat shops in asia and elsewhere but this is yet another distraction. A distraction from what? That's where it gets interesting.

I oppose free trade if it cannot benefit us as a country and I couldn't give two crackers about sweat shops in Asia in the grander scheme of things.

Another distraction.

 

You oppose having to compete in the global economy cause that means you might have to work harder. You might have to think harder, you might have to innovate, you might have think outside the box.

 

People in America, UK, Australia just want to go to work and go through the motions and get paid insulated from the outside world. You want to give a dollar here and there for a kid in Africa but never want to be competing against that kid in the global economy.

 

That's the issue here. Free trade gives them a chance, a chance that might mean you (or me) miss out.

 

That scares people.

 

Let out your feelings.

Wot?

[Zelinsky]

Regarding the sex/gender issue raised earlier: here is some more food for thought.

 

In the Western world we tend to think as sex and gender as the same thing, and that there are only two kinds: in one corner are those in pink, in the other corner are those in blue. However, an understanding has emerged that sex has to do with biology, and gender with culture. Monash University has this to say:

 

---

 

Sex = male and female

Gender = masculine and feminine

So in essence:

Sex refers to biological differences; chromosomes, hormonal profiles, internal and external sex organs.

Gender describes the characteristics that a society or culture delineates as masculine or feminine.

So while your sex as male or female is a biological fact that is the same in any culture, what that sex means in terms of your gender role as a 'man' or a 'woman' in society can be quite different cross culturally. These 'gender roles' have an impact on the health of the individual.

In sociological terms 'gender role' refers to the characteristics and behaviours that different cultures attribute to the sexes. What it means to be a 'real man' in any culture requires male sex plus what our various cultures define as masculine characteristics and behaviours, likewise a 'real woman' needs female sex and feminine characteristics. To summarise:

'man' = male sex+ masculine social role

(a 'real man', 'masculine' or 'manly')

'woman' = female sex + feminine social role

(a 'real woman', 'feminine' or 'womanly')

 

---

 

This view is flawed where it ties sex to the presence and absence of male and female sexual organs. The biological reality looks different.

 

For starters, is a man/woman still a man/woman if he/she is born with the correct set of chromosomes, but without a penis/vagina? Or are men/women still men/women if they need to have their testes or ovaries removed?

 

It doesn't stop there: Fausto-Sterling suggests there are at least five sexes: pink and blue, and at least three subgroups captured under "intersex", namely:

• hermaphrodites (who have one testis and one ovary)
• male pseudohermaphrodites (have testes and some aspects of female genitalia but no ovaries)
• female pseudohermaphrodites (have ovaries and some aspects of male genitalia but no testes)

 

Intersex births are far from rare. John Money (from wiki: specializing in research into sexual identity and biology of gender) suggested that as many as 4%  are born with intersex traits. Nowadays they are dealt with at birth with hormonal and surgical treatment and quietly slip into the blue and pink camps . Even if the figure is only 0.4%, intersex is far more common than we think.

 

Those of us who know that they are "man" and "woman" and feel that way are blessed. They fit in with the stereotypes of society where only blue and pink are valid. Those who sit between the chairs are forced to do so uncomfortably. Fortunately the official attitude towards the g8y community has changed. After all, why would one want to disadvantage 4% of women and 3% of men in Australia because they are g8y? Especially if 9% of men and 19% of women have been playing with someone wearing the same colours? http://www.publish.csiro.au/?paper=SH14117

 

Blue/pink ignorance is shining brightly when those wearing the culturally/socially/religiously correct colours are making "objective" statements about someone's subjective experience. We can only truly have an idea what it is like to drive a car when we have driven one. What do we "know" about what it's like to having been born in the "wrong" body, or preferring to play with those wearing the same colour, or both?

 

I very much doubt that universal views of who can know, at what age, and under what circumstances that there is gender confusion at play is helpful for those affected. Especially when those views are coming from those wearing pink and blue, I might ad.

 

 

 

 

[stavup]

 

 

The consumer is not to blame for having their desires. My argument was that individuals who manipulate a system for their selfish ends are to blame.

 

 

I hear what you are saying , I just have difficulty when terms like free society are coupled with capitalistic ideals (and im a fan of capitalism at its fundamental core, just not people)

 

Are consumers not individuals, we are all both are we not, and selfish ends and desires sound along the same lines.

 

I would argue "individuals who manipulate a system for their selfish ends" are the ones best placed within systems to achieve this. 

 

My reference to plasma televisions came from  a Joe Hockey comment a few years ago, when he made a comment about  Labor stimulus packages, and debt, insinuating that people buying things like plasma TV`s they cant afford are hurting our economy. Our discussion prompted that memory and although it has no direct context, I thought it still provided an example of system controllers blaming individuals.

 

Your question about the Chinese being less free with the introduction of the free market? We have discussed this issue previously on POL 1, just to reiterate,  I would argue that capitalism as a form of economic rationalisation and democracy or egalitarianism are not necessarily good bed fellows. China is an example of capatilism in its principal working despite a lack of democracy, however capitalism and the free market are dependent of growing economies and constant expansion..I find this concept in conflict with democratic ideals and notions of equality.  Furthermore,  I find there to be significant difference between "free trade" and "fair trade"

 

Does free trade, free market equal free society...??

[Guest mickisnot]

Regarding the sex/gender issue raised earlier: here is some more food for thought.

 

In the Western world we tend to think as sex and gender as the same thing, and that there are only two kinds: in one corner are those in pink, in the other corner are those in blue. However, an understanding has emerged that sex has to do with biology, and gender with culture. Monash University has this to say:

 

---

 

Sex = male and female

Gender = masculine and feminine

So in essence:

Sex refers to biological differences; chromosomes, hormonal profiles, internal and external sex organs.

Gender describes the characteristics that a society or culture delineates as masculine or feminine.

So while your sex as male or female is a biological fact that is the same in any culture, what that sex means in terms of your gender role as a 'man' or a 'woman' in society can be quite different cross culturally. These 'gender roles' have an impact on the health of the individual.

In sociological terms 'gender role' refers to the characteristics and behaviours that different cultures attribute to the sexes. What it means to be a 'real man' in any culture requires male sex plus what our various cultures define as masculine characteristics and behaviours, likewise a 'real woman' needs female sex and feminine characteristics. To summarise:

'man' = male sex+ masculine social role

(a 'real man', 'masculine' or 'manly')

'woman' = female sex + feminine social role

(a 'real woman', 'feminine' or 'womanly')

 

---

 

This view is flawed where it ties sex to the presence and absence of male and female sexual organs. The biological reality looks different.

 

For starters, is a man/woman still a man/woman if he/she is born with the correct set of chromosomes, but without a penis/vagina? Or are men/women still men/women if they need to have their testes or ovaries removed?

 

It doesn't stop there: Fausto-Sterling suggests there are at least five sexes: pink and blue, and at least three subgroups captured under "intersex", namely:

• hermaphrodites (who have one testis and one ovary)
• male pseudohermaphrodites (have testes and some aspects of female genitalia but no ovaries)
• female pseudohermaphrodites (have ovaries and some aspects of male genitalia but no testes)

Intersex births are far from rare. John Money (from wiki: specializing in research into sexual identity and biology of gender) suggested that as many as 4% are born with intersex traits. Nowadays they are dealt with at birth with hormonal and surgical treatment and quietly slip into the blue and pink camps . Even if the figure is only 0.4%, intersex is far more common than we think.

 

Those of us who know that they are "man" and "woman" and feel that way are blessed. They fit in with the stereotypes of society where only blue and pink are valid. Those who sit between the chairs are forced to do so uncomfortably. Fortunately the official attitude towards the g8y community has changed. After all, why would one want to disadvantage 4% of women and 3% of men in Australia because they are g8y? Especially if 9% of men and 19% of women have been playing with someone wearing the same colours? http://www.publish.csiro.au/?paper=SH14117

 

Blue/pink ignorance is shining brightly when those wearing the culturally/socially/religiously correct colours are making "objective" statements about someone's subjective experience. We can only truly have an idea what it is like to drive a car when we have driven one. What do we "know" about what it's like to having been born in the "wrong" body, or preferring to play with those wearing the same colour, or both?

 

I very much doubt that universal views of who can know, at what age, and under what circumstances that there is gender confusion at play is helpful for those affected. Especially when those views are coming from those wearing pink and blue, I might ad.

This is cultural marxism.

 

The premise of your argument lies in this question: Why should I disregard the entire sociological structure of our civilisation for the sake of 0.4% of the population?

 

Of course it isn't good, and of course we should strive to help these people. But it wasn't that long ago that giving birth was a dangerous procedure.

 

Your parents identified you as a male and you turned out fine. It was a system, it was and still is a system that works. There are clear physiological differences between a man and a woman.

 

Britains abandoning the gender "conformity" that your criticising. Funnily enough they're sure that three year olds a transexuals, 77 cases in 2012 which falls outside of biological boundaries lol. They've abandoned the "pink and blue" system, and you could argue that it isn't going so well.

 

In layman terms your tellconformng us, why do we know better? But why do you know better to judge the system in the first place

 

In regards to your last paragraph, you're a healthy individual that's a product of the very system you're critiquing, I'd say that's guilt.

[jocosmic]

Yes China is not a democratic nation Stav but there is no way I'll be convinced that the free market has not given the Chinese more freedom than they had previously.

They may not be as free as you or me but they are freer than their previous predicament. They have to be otherwise capitalism would not work.

[jocosmic]

@ lloydy.

 

I'm with you mate, I really admire a well argued point whether I agree with it or not. That's why I still admire the arguments put forth by Karl Marx in Das Capital although I'm a free market advocate.

 

Your argument is well argued and I respectfully will disagree with SOME claims. I think there are issues both of us would agree on.

 

In any case, if you have disappeared into the ether then I'll save myself the trouble of honouring your argument with another structured rebuttal lol.

 

Till we meet again...

[Cynth]

Cynth, thank you for your rebuttal.

On your first paragraph, could you please explain to me seriously what the alternative is? "Wrong with the world" and all these statements do nothing to offer solutions.

I have facts and history on my side. The free market has lifted nations out of poverty and is continuing to do so as we speak. Foreign aid in its own will always keep poor nations subjected to the whims of others. They have to be given the mechanism to be self reliant.

Your second paragraph, has economic exploitation of Asia allowed it to boom or not? Answer that question with facts. Weren't the populations of Europe exploited all those years ago?

What do you suggest we do?

Jo, like I said, my opinion on free trade agreements is not strong. Where an agreement is fair and non exploitative, I have no objection. I can't make the suggestions you are asking for. I think Lloydy did a wonderful job of rebutting the economic arguments you put forward.

 

My objection to your post is the justifications put forward by you and by the Western nations in general to excuse their exploitation of poor countries and to justify cutting forego aid.. I stated them in my post. It's abhorrent to me for us to be blaming the poor for their position, it reminds me of our governments justifications for cutting welfare being " just get a job".

 

My one suggestion is that free trade is not the only answer. The cutting of the foreign aid budget to me is short sighted because now we will have more of the worlds population in hardship and less programs teaching and supporting communities to be self sufficient. Foreign aid has never been about charity but about supporting communities to be more self sufficient, educated and healthy. Increasing foreign aid rather than the drastic cuts they have made is my suggestion. Cheers.

[stavup]

 

 

 there is no way I'll be convinced that the free market has not given the Chinese more freedom than they had previously.

Who has more freedoms exactly ? and what are those freedoms ?

[Cynth]

Regarding the sex/gender issue raised earlier: here is some more food for thought.

 

In the Western world we tend to think as sex and gender as the same thing, and that there are only two kinds: in one corner are those in pink, in the other corner are those in blue. However, an understanding has emerged that sex has to do with biology, and gender with culture. Monash University has this to say:

 

---

 

Sex = male and female

Gender = masculine and feminine

So in essence:

Sex refers to biological differences; chromosomes, hormonal profiles, internal and external sex organs.

Gender describes the characteristics that a society or culture delineates as masculine or feminine.

So while your sex as male or female is a biological fact that is the same in any culture, what that sex means in terms of your gender role as a 'man' or a 'woman' in society can be quite different cross culturally. These 'gender roles' have an impact on the health of the individual.

In sociological terms 'gender role' refers to the characteristics and behaviours that different cultures attribute to the sexes. What it means to be a 'real man' in any culture requires male sex plus what our various cultures define as masculine characteristics and behaviours, likewise a 'real woman' needs female sex and feminine characteristics. To summarise:

'man' = male sex+ masculine social role

(a 'real man', 'masculine' or 'manly')

'woman' = female sex + feminine social role

(a 'real woman', 'feminine' or 'womanly')

 

---

 

This view is flawed where it ties sex to the presence and absence of male and female sexual organs. The biological reality looks different.

 

For starters, is a man/woman still a man/woman if he/she is born with the correct set of chromosomes, but without a penis/vagina? Or are men/women still men/women if they need to have their testes or ovaries removed?

 

It doesn't stop there: Fausto-Sterling suggests there are at least five sexes: pink and blue, and at least three subgroups captured under "intersex", namely:

 

• hermaphrodites (who have one testis and one ovary)
• male pseudohermaphrodites (have testes and some aspects of female genitalia but no ovaries)
• female pseudohermaphrodites (have ovaries and some aspects of male genitalia but no testes)

 

Intersex births are far from rare. John Money (from wiki: specializing in research into sexual identity and biology of gender) suggested that as many as 4%  are born with intersex traits. Nowadays they are dealt with at birth with hormonal and surgical treatment and quietly slip into the blue and pink camps . Even if the figure is only 0.4%, intersex is far more common than we think.

 

Those of us who know that they are "man" and "woman" and feel that way are blessed. They fit in with the stereotypes of society where only blue and pink are valid. Those who sit between the chairs are forced to do so uncomfortably. Fortunately the official attitude towards the g8y community has changed. After all, why would one want to disadvantage 4% of women and 3% of men in Australia because they are g8y? Especially if 9% of men and 19% of women have been playing with someone wearing the same colours? http://www.publish.csiro.au/?paper=SH14117

 

Blue/pink ignorance is shining brightly when those wearing the culturally/socially/religiously correct colours are making "objective" statements about someone's subjective experience. We can only truly have an idea what it is like to drive a car when we have driven one. What do we "know" about what it's like to having been born in the "wrong" body, or preferring to play with those wearing the same colour, or both?

 

I very much doubt that universal views of who can know, at what age, and under what circumstances that there is gender confusion at play is helpful for those affected. Especially when those views are coming from those wearing pink and blue, I might ad.

So well said FCB!

[stavup]

 

Regarding the sex/gender issue raised earlier: here is some more food for thought.

 

In the Western world we tend to think as sex and gender as the same thing, and that there are only two kinds: in one corner are those in pink, in the other corner are those in blue. However, an understanding has emerged that sex has to do with biology, and gender with culture. Monash University has this to say:

 

---

 

Sex = male and female

Gender = masculine and feminine

So in essence:

Sex refers to biological differences; chromosomes, hormonal profiles, internal and external sex organs.

Gender describes the characteristics that a society or culture delineates as masculine or feminine.

So while your sex as male or female is a biological fact that is the same in any culture, what that sex means in terms of your gender role as a 'man' or a 'woman' in society can be quite different cross culturally. These 'gender roles' have an impact on the health of the individual.

In sociological terms 'gender role' refers to the characteristics and behaviours that different cultures attribute to the sexes. What it means to be a 'real man' in any culture requires male sex plus what our various cultures define as masculine characteristics and behaviours, likewise a 'real woman' needs female sex and feminine characteristics. To summarise:

'man' = male sex+ masculine social role

(a 'real man', 'masculine' or 'manly')

'woman' = female sex + feminine social role

(a 'real woman', 'feminine' or 'womanly')

 

---

 

This view is flawed where it ties sex to the presence and absence of male and female sexual organs. The biological reality looks different.

 

For starters, is a man/woman still a man/woman if he/she is born with the correct set of chromosomes, but without a penis/vagina? Or are men/women still men/women if they need to have their testes or ovaries removed?

 

It doesn't stop there: Fausto-Sterling suggests there are at least five sexes: pink and blue, and at least three subgroups captured under "intersex", namely:

• hermaphrodites (who have one testis and one ovary)
• male pseudohermaphrodites (have testes and some aspects of female genitalia but no ovaries)
• female pseudohermaphrodites (have ovaries and some aspects of male genitalia but no testes)

 

Intersex births are far from rare. John Money (from wiki: specializing in research into sexual identity and biology of gender) suggested that as many as 4%  are born with intersex traits. Nowadays they are dealt with at birth with hormonal and surgical treatment and quietly slip into the blue and pink camps . Even if the figure is only 0.4%, intersex is far more common than we think.

 

Those of us who know that they are "man" and "woman" and feel that way are blessed. They fit in with the stereotypes of society where only blue and pink are valid. Those who sit between the chairs are forced to do so uncomfortably. Fortunately the official attitude towards the g8y community has changed. After all, why would one want to disadvantage 4% of women and 3% of men in Australia because they are g8y? Especially if 9% of men and 19% of women have been playing with someone wearing the same colours? http://www.publish.csiro.au/?paper=SH14117

 

Blue/pink ignorance is shining brightly when those wearing the culturally/socially/religiously correct colours are making "objective" statements about someone's subjective experience. We can only truly have an idea what it is like to drive a car when we have driven one. What do we "know" about what it's like to having been born in the "wrong" body, or preferring to play with those wearing the same colour, or both?

 

I very much doubt that universal views of who can know, at what age, and under what circumstances that there is gender confusion at play is helpful for those affected. Especially when those views are coming from those wearing pink and blue, I might ad.

So well said FCB!

 

Agreed mate FCB, I really value your insightful contributions

[Cynth]

 

Regarding the sex/gender issue raised earlier: here is some more food for thought.

In the Western world we tend to think as sex and gender as the same thing, and that there are only two kinds: in one corner are those in pink, in the other corner are those in blue. However, an understanding has emerged that sex has to do with biology, and gender with culture. Monash University has this to say:

---Sex = male and femaleGender = masculine and feminine

So in essence:Sex refers to biological differences; chromosomes, hormonal profiles, internal and external sex organs.Gender describes the characteristics that a society or culture delineates as masculine or feminine.

So while your sex as male or female is a biological fact that is the same in any culture, what that sex means in terms of your gender role as a 'man' or a 'woman' in society can be quite different cross culturally. These 'gender roles' have an impact on the health of the individual.

In sociological terms 'gender role' refers to the characteristics and behaviours that different cultures attribute to the sexes. What it means to be a 'real man' in any culture requires male sex plus what our various cultures define as masculine characteristics and behaviours, likewise a 'real woman' needs female sex and feminine characteristics. To summarise:'man' = male sex+ masculine social role

(a 'real man', 'masculine' or 'manly')'woman' = female sex + feminine social role

(a 'real woman', 'feminine' or 'womanly')

---

This view is flawed where it ties sex to the presence and absence of male and female sexual organs. The biological reality looks different.

For starters, is a man/woman still a man/woman if he/she is born with the correct set of chromosomes, but without a penis/vagina? Or are men/women still men/women if they need to have their testes or ovaries removed?

It doesn't stop there: Fausto-Sterling suggests there are at least five sexes: pink and blue, and at least three subgroups captured under "intersex", namely:

• hermaphrodites (who have one testis and one ovary)
• male pseudohermaphrodites (have testes and some aspects of female genitalia but no ovaries)
• female pseudohermaphrodites (have ovaries and some aspects of male genitalia but no testes)

Intersex births are far from rare. John Money (from wiki: specializing in research into sexual identity and biology of gender) suggested that as many as 4% are born with intersex traits. Nowadays they are dealt with at birth with hormonal and surgical treatment and quietly slip into the blue and pink camps . Even if the figure is only 0.4%, intersex is far more common than we think.

Those of us who know that they are "man" and "woman" and feel that way are blessed. They fit in with the stereotypes of society where only blue and pink are valid. Those who sit between the chairs are forced to do so uncomfortably. Fortunately the official attitude towards the g8y community has changed. After all, why would one want to disadvantage 4% of women and 3% of men in Australia because they are g8y? Especially if 9% of men and 19% of women have been playing with someone wearing the same colours? http://www.publish.csiro.au/?paper=SH14117Blue/pink ignorance is shining brightly when those wearing the culturally/socially/religiously correct colours are making "objective" statements about someone's subjective experience. We can only truly have an idea what it is like to drive a car when we have driven one. What do we "know" about what it's like to having been born in the "wrong" body, or preferring to play with those wearing the same colour, or both?

I very much doubt that universal views of who can know, at what age, and under what circumstances that there is gender confusion at play is helpful for those affected. Especially when those views are coming from those wearing pink and blue, I might ad.

This is cultural marxism.

The premise of your argument lies in this question: Why should I disregard the entire sociological structure of our civilisation for the sake of 0.4% of the population?

Of course it isn't good, and of course we should strive to help these people. But it wasn't that long ago that giving birth was a dangerous procedure.

Your parents identified you as a male and you turned out fine. It was a system, it was and still is a system that works. There are clear physiological differences between a man and a woman.

Britains abandoning the gender "conformity" that your criticising. Funnily enough they're sure that three year olds a transexuals, 77 cases in 2012 which falls outside of biological boundaries lol. They've abandoned the "pink and blue" system, and you could argue that it isn't going so well.

In layman terms your tellconformng us, why do we know better? But why do you know better to judge the system in the first place

In regards to your last paragraph, you're a healthy individual that's a product of the very system you're critiquing, I'd say that's guilt.

Mickisnot,

Should we stick to a system just because it's what we've always done? And because it used to work?

Or should we incorporate the knowledge we are gaining in medical, psychological, biological, genetic fields etc and keep evolving our ideas in light of this knowledge?

[Zelinsky]

Mick,

 

This is cultural marxism.

*** Cultural marxism? Now there's a nice label, if I've ever seen one. Which part?? First I thought you were making this up, but an Internet search taught me that there are indeed people who put that label onto other people, just like WSW supporters put sticker bombs on traffic signs in the Moore Park area.

 

The premise of your argument lies in this question: Why should I disregard the entire sociological structure of our civilisation for the sake of 0.4% of the population?

*** That's your reading, not what I was trying to say. To me it is too simple to disregard 0.4% or 4.% (take your pick). There is a concept called 'co-existence'.

 

Of course it isn't good, and of course we should strive to help these people. But it wasn't that long ago that giving birth was a dangerous procedure.

*** "These people", huh? What isn't good, I wonder? That people exist who don't fit into black/white ideas of how the world is supposed to be, according to certain culturally/socially/religiously/ethnically informed rule books? A female biology student did a chromosome count as part her studies, and it was then that she realised that she was, biologically, a man. What meaningful help would you want to offer her? Do you try and help her by accepting her as she is? After all, she could have been your sister, or she could be your daughter one day.

Your parents identified you as a male and you turned out fine. It was a system, it was and still is a system that works. There are clear physiological differences between a man and a woman.

*** If I've turned out fine is a matter of opinion. But how would I have turned out had I (or you, for that matter) been raised as a girl (as it can happen in Samoa)? That's when "clear physiological differences" aren't that clear any longer and count for very little. Gender is a socially formed.

 

In layman terms your telling us, why do we know better? But why do you know better to judge the system in the first place. In regards to your last paragraph, you're a healthy individual that's a product of the very system you're critiquing. This is guilt.

***Do I "know better" by pointing out the reality that a lot of people don't fit into sex/gender stereotypes for various reasons? Am I guilty because I accept that, for example, Fa'afafine live amongst us? If taking issue with ignorance translates = being judgemental: guilty as charged.

 

I don't consider myself as the "product" of a "system". I wasn't manufactured, and I didn't jump off a conveyor belt in a factory either. I grew up and lived in a society, and was shaped by it. For the last 20 years I've lived in a different society, and continue to be shaped by it. We are human beings, not bicycles.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fa%27afafine

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest mickisnot]

Hilarious stuff that sociology believers are calling me out buzz words. An entire degree and department that only exists because the tax payer funds it. No substance at all just sloganeering. Pot calling the kettle black. Intersexual, transexual, pansexual, bisexual, <insert prefix>- enabled other kin status etc etc etc

 

I've heard your argument a thousands times before. I used to buy into it back at university. But I wanted to make this a two part post.

 

If you're deriding the system by blindly placing forward egalitarianism and forced equality then you're going to be called out for cultural marxism.

[lloydy136]

@ lloydy.

I'm with you mate, I really admire a well argued point whether I agree with it or not. That's why I still admire the arguments put forth by Karl Marx in Das Capital although I'm a free market advocate.

Your argument is well argued and I respectfully will disagree with SOME claims. I think there are issues both of us would agree on.

In any case, if you have disappeared into the ether then I'll save myself the trouble of honouring your argument with another structured rebuttal lol.

Till we meet again...

This is why I asked for your opinion specifically because of your knowledge of free market thinking and ability to pur together a reasoned argument.

 

I do think we have some common ground on the issue.

 

But need to maintain my rep as the 'ghost' who haunts this thread' and disappear lol.

 

Cheers mate.

[stavup]

Great book for you Mick...I haven't read it but I am buying it..you can read after me if you like..

 

Takes a swipe at traditional Sociological approaches and theory...Up your alley 

 

 

 

Social Problems in a Free Society: Myths, Absurdities, and Realities

 

 

[Guest mickisnot]

I'm on my mobile phone. I got my info graphics on the hard drive. Will get them out when I get to it. Value systems, identity and all that...

Great book for you Mick...I haven't read it but I am buying it..you can read after me if you like..

 

Takes a swipe at traditional Sociological approaches and theory...Up your alley

 

 

 

Social Problems in a Free Society: Myths, Absurdities, and Realities

 

 

I've been recommended this book before.

 

I'm reading "Concept of the political" by Carl Schmiddt at the moment.

 

Reactionary, right wing philosophy lol

[Guest mickisnot]

My thoughts on this gender debate (in a nutshell):

 

If we work within the confides of a bell curve. You'll have whatever number of deviations that fit 90% of the population. So you can safely presume that there is a propensity towards people with male genitalia will have XY chromosome.

 

With new research we are finding more about those that live outside the "meaty part of the curve"

 

Given the value system in place, it's uncomfortable for these people to live. However does this mean we tear down a system that's worked? Blindly push forward untested sociological hypothesis'? And lastly politically press for greater equality? And other such marxist ideals?

 

My answer to all of the above is both no.

[jocosmic]

Re genders,

 

Just see it for what it is. Most people fit the gender deliberations and choose to do so. Just teach tolerance for the minority groups be they gay, trans gender, gender neutral or whatever. There's no need to change the 'system' or to blindly stick to the 'system'.

 

My only question would be public restrooms. What happens there? Legitimate question, I know it sounds trivial but it is important.

My thoughts on this gender debate (in a nutshell):

If we work within the confides of a bell curve. You'll have whatever number of deviations that fit 90% of the population. So you can safely presume that there is a propensity towards people with male genitalia will have XY chromosome.

With new research we are finding more about those that live outside the "meaty part of the curve"

Given the value system in place, it's uncomfortable for these people to live. However does this mean we tear down a system that's worked? Blindly push forward untested sociological hypothesis'? And lastly politically press for greater equality? And other such marxist ideals?

My answer to all of the above is both no.

Yeah there will always be a group that complains no matter which path we take.

 

When gender roles were clearly delineated, with women at home and children, and men out working, women were oppressed.

 

With women now actively engaged in the work force people are complaining that children do not get proper parental role models.

 

The thing is that there is no one proper way. Each has its merits and each has its pitfalls.

Edited April 10, 2015 by jocosmic

[Zelinsky]

Mick,

 

Bell curve? Deviations? Research? I thought we are talking about people here, not science class. Beats me why you are suggesting that I am blindly following something, forcing something onto someone, and calling me overtly or covertly a Marxist. I could accuse you of the same or similar, and could easily call you something else in the process.

 

As I mentioned further upstairs: "I very much doubt that universal views of who can know, at what age, and under what circumstances that there is gender confusion at play is helpful for those affected. Especially when those views are coming from those wearing pink and blue, I might ad."

 

A good friend of mine happens to be g8y. He won't go to the toilet at work because he doesn't want to inconvenience others - and he doesn't want to be accused of inconveniencing others. Another g8y man I know was disowned by his Christian parents once he came out. Then there is the Royal Commission. And I hear that transgender and transexual people are finding it tough getting a job, and end up in the prostitution trade. I also believe that in SA and QLD the "gay panic" defence still exists (which sounds utterly moronic to me). Is that the value system that needs to be protected you are talking about?

 

How any of this translates in Marxist (=bad) ideas and views is beyond me. Your argument is not with me though. It's with "these people".

 

 

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/insight/tvepisode/transgender

 

If you are a religious man: start praying that you don't end up with a child or children with gender confusion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest mickisnot]

Re genders,

 

Just see it for what it is. Most people fit the gender deliberations and choose to do so. Just teach tolerance for the minority groups be they ***, trans gender, gender neutral or whatever. There's no need to change the 'system' or to blindly stick to the 'system'.

 

My only question would be public restrooms. What happens there? Legitimate question, I know it sounds trivial but it is important.

 

My thoughts on this gender debate (in a nutshell):

If we work within the confides of a bell curve. You'll have whatever number of deviations that fit 90% of the population. So you can safely presume that there is a propensity towards people with male genitalia will have XY chromosome.

With new research we are finding more about those that live outside the "meaty part of the curve"

Given the value system in place, it's uncomfortable for these people to live. However does this mean we tear down a system that's worked? Blindly push forward untested sociological hypothesis'? And lastly politically press for greater equality? And other such marxist ideals?

My answer to all of the above is both no.

Yeah there will always be a group that complains no matter which path we take.

 

When gender roles were clearly delineated, with women at home and children, and men out working, women were oppressed.

 

With women now actively engaged in the work force people are complaining that children do not get proper parental role models.

 

The thing is that there is no one proper way. Each has its merits and each has its pitfalls.

We are entering one large pitfall imo