#LGBTQI

Why are the 99.6% required to opt in for gender on birth certificates?

7D3A8E2F-A916-4B8E-B9EF-3CA73B95674D.jpeg

So Tasmania’s lower house has passed the motion to remove gender from birth certificates allowing people to choose what they identify with from age 16. Apart from the biological and genetic implications, one question is why must the majority opt in as opposed to the minority opting out? It can only be viewed as a form of constructed  re-education.

According to the ABS Census of 2016, only 0.4% identify as other than male or female. 10,000 out of 24 million. Therefore 99.6% are comfortable with traditional biologal gender.

What are the risks? At what point will legislation be tied to the use of puberty blockers? We can’t rule out some parents might try to encourage their young child to associate with the opposite gender?  It has already happened in the US. Parents will know that it is not hard to manipulate a 10yo. It is not to rule out completely that a child may truly identify as the opposite of biological gender but statistically it would be improbable to suggest it is a majority or all. So to dispense puberty blockers under false pretenses is a dangerous risk. Assuming a 10yo is of sound peace of mind to take such drugs, why not give them the ability to vote?! Effectively that is the decision making process being put forth. It is ludicrous.

Assume a child is coerced by guardians/parents (even if a small subset) into believing they are the opposite sex than biological gender and get government permission to take puberty blockers. We do not have enough empirical evidence to know if terminating these drugs will automatically lead to a natural resumption of puberty.

Scientific research has noted that side effects of puberty suppression hormones can lead to arrested bone growth, decreased bone accretion, can prevent full organization and maturation of the brain, cause sterility, coronary/cardiovascular disease, elevated blood pressure and lead to breast cancer. Hey, it is worth it for inclusion, right?

That’s a horrible set of risks to put on a child who might potentially grow out of gender dysphoria. That child’s life could be irrevocably ruined for the sake of ideology determined by those who shouldn’t be in a position to enforce such directives.

The Gender Identity Development Service in the United Kingdom saw a 2,000% increase in referrals over seven years—from 94 children in 2009/2010 to 1,986 in 2016/2017. Is this a case of creating a market to allow people to file for  gender dysphoria? Note this is not to cast aspersions on those who may properly suffer from the condition.

Hruz, Mayer, and McHugh wrote in a Supreme Court brief filed in the Gavin Grimm case that most-cited studies conclude most children with gender dysphoria come to embrace their birth sex but caution hormone therapy often solidifies a child’s gender dysphoria.

800 children in the UK aged as young as 10 are taking puberty blockers. Are we buying time or merely arresting development? The risks seem more like a concerted  push for institutionalized child abuse.

Ultimately who is the arbiter to determine between whether a child might be confused or properly gender dysphoric? Get it wrong and that life might be irreparably damaged. But hey, as long as it was done for the sake of progressive goals, such sacrifices are all in the name of diversity, no?

Oppression Obsession

Profanity laden but Jonathan Pie sums up what CM has long held about the divisiveness of identity politics and the unnecessary lengths corporates go to politicize products when all customers want to do is to consume what they’re actually paying for.

First Ladies

BF44E1E8-3A4A-49F8-BFB0-0040124CE42E.jpeg

LGBTQ Nation notes Jennifer Aniston will star as the first lesbian president in the yet to be written, First Ladies which has the tag line “Behind every great woman…is another great woman.”  Her partner (stand-up comedian) Tig Notaro will play the First Lady. Will Ferrell is also supposedly starring in the film, which suggests a comedy. Even if it is humour one hopes Aniston is elected on her abilities rather than what she does behind closed doors.

Even though CM despises identity politics, the marketplace for free speech should be counted, weighed and measured by the film’s success at the box office. It is a film investment like any other. If it is found wanting then will someone dare to write a terrible review based on content or will they feel compelled to talk it up for fear of being labeled? That maybe more telling than the film itself.

CM doesn’t care what gender, sexual orientation, race or religious background a politician is provided they are the most qualified to run a country for the people that democratically elect them. That should be the only factor. Many claim that Hillary missed out because she is a woman, not because she treated the election as a coronation, stuck to $1,000 plate fund raisers in the Democratic Party hot spots, her email scandals, her husband’s chance encounter with the Attorney General on the tarmac or alienating deplorables? Or could it be she is on a world tour still griping about it?

The marketplace for free speech weighs Wolf & Trump

0DDA3817-B905-4CEE-8389-D32655BBE425.jpeg

Poor old Michelle Wolf. You know, the young lady whose fingernails-down-a-chalkboard voice made off-coloured jokes surrounding abortion, Trump’s bedroom prowess, his daughter being as useful as an empty box of tampons and even portrayed WH Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders as a fat softball playing lesbian Uncle Tom for white women. Adam Sandler has just shredded her $4mn contract to star in Little Niki via Twitter. While CM is always against boycotts, compelled speech and virtue signaling, we’re struggling to work out whether Sandler terminated it on the basis of tasteless content or awful delivery? A combination perhaps?

Wolf tweeted back that she was fine with that because she was to play a role in the reboot of Bride of Chucky. Unfortunately that film role has also been cancelled, costing her another $410,000.

Freedom of speech is a funny thing. Wolf has every right to express what she chooses but should not complain if her backers (including her liberal mates) retreat because she picked the wrong audience to showcase them. Humour is always about fine lines. Sadly for Wolf she couldn’t even memorize her humour, having the read her jokes (?) out. The best comics don’t need scripts and can shred people off the cuff. That’s what makes them funny.

Yes, many have equated Wolf’s remarks to Trump’s greatest hits saying it’s unfair to pick on her. As a reminder Trump said,

grabbed her by the p*ssy”,

“I moved  on her like a bitch”,

“African countries are sh*tholes”

or

Michelle Wolf was over the top

Yet the market for free speech weighed his and her offensiveness. American voters had every opportunity to make sure he didn’t enter the White House on the basis of his vulgar remarks about women made over a decade ago. (Un)fortunately for them, his election to blow up the establishment was deemed more relevant to Americans than locker-room talk made in private over a hot mic.

Presumably, Wolf, much like Kathy Griffin (of bloodied severed Trump head fame), offer absolutely nothing outside their careers. They’re most unlikely to be able to force two nations to take up peace negotiations or shirt front dictactors. So when they stake their risky actions on going ‘viral’ to boost their careers and it blows up in their faces, the sole responsibility is theirs. No sympathy. In fact if it wasn’t for Trump they’d be virtual nobodies.

So is the marketplace for free speech unfair? Think of the price of people, stocks, bonds or anything else you can think of  varies depending on the market weighted bid/offer of the underlying assets. Sadly for Wolf and Griffin, the bids dried up almost immediately. For Trump, market expectations have long since been priced.

Jordan Peterson slays Trudeau’s Bill C-16

Professor Jordan Peterson articulated the reasons why Canada’s Bill C-16 (protection of gender expression and gender identity under the Human Rights Act)   is so reprehensible. Less so on grounds of ‘intent’ per se but the fact that it is grounded on unsubstantiated research with zero scientific backing and loose ideology rather than reality. Listening to the Canadian Senate ask questions, Peterson manages to make perfectly reasonable retorts to the identity politics driven nature of the bill. He even goes as far as to say that the people proposing it hadn’t even consulted those with “non-standard genders” to get their feelings on the matter. Peterson said he’d received countless letters to back this up

In typical Trudeau cabinet style, the issues surrounding the identity and gender bill were mostly assumed positions. In much the same way as Bill M-103 operates it is a law which is one way only. One can bet that if a person identifying as their biological gender (99% of us) complained that his or her feelings had been hurt by a transgender person who didn’t acknowledge their gender identity/expression it would be thrown out before it even reached a courtroom. Had the person who identified as a  “non-standard” gender complained the case in the reverse thennthe book would be thrown at the perpetrators. This is the problem. A law must have exactly the same application to everyone rather than a selective bias to protect a few.

No one is questioning a basic requirement for basic human rights. However Peterson makes the point very clear that the very people who proposed the law are by far and away the least appropriate people to enforce it. It is a law that seeks to muzzle free speech. To curb language. Peterson labours the point that the state shouldn’t have a right to prosecute people on the basis of a law that essentially forces them to pretend to accept someone’s subjective opinion on what they happen to identify with. Ironically Peterson tells the panel that the law actually works against “non-standard” genders because when they’re not part of the process they feel misrepresented.

The biggest flaw with such laws is the idea that the argument (as Peterson refuted so well) is so weak on its own that it must be made a statute of law to defend what can’t support with rational debate. The day that diversity has to be indoctrinated is the day we know it has no basis. Much like the hypocrisy surrounding white South African farmers. Many on the left proved their own inner racism and twisted logic by suggesting their skin colour precluded them from the same basic human rights afforded to the groups it peddles constantly. That’s the beauty of identity politics. No solutions are ever sought. Perpetual grievance is the goal in order to ensure equality in misery.

Diversity in Japan

AA89B2B7-E426-4562-87C6-5D8014EA584F.jpeg

Mizuho Bank was one of the first Japanese companies to openly embrace diversity and LGBT in a pride parade it promoted around 6 months ago . All the placards of ‘diversity is our strength’ and ‘inclusive society’ were displayed. The bank says it is the first in Japan to offer products which include housing loans that can be taken out jointly by same-sex partners, as well as principal guaranteed trust products — under which assets can be passed on to a same-sex partner.

According to an online survey by Dentsu in 2015, 7.6% of the population identified as LGBT. LGBT is not necessarily frowned upon at all. In fact many celebrities make a small fortune for being so. Matsuko Deluxe is a great example. She maintained her top spot in last year’s edition of the Nikkei Entertainment’s annual “Talent Power Ranking“.

For a culture that appears on the outside excessively conservative, variety shows embrace the very characters that shatter that myth. In such an orderly, consensus driven society their popularity stems from the fact they so brazenly buck the cultural stereotypes. After 20 years living here there would seem to be little evidence of blanket ‘discrimination’ against LGBT communities. Japan has existed more on a “don’t tell” mentality.

In the workplace more Japanese companies are embracing ‘nadeshiko’ to promote women. It was not uncommon to have a Japanese company look to marry off females to the legions of salarymen. So women were often overlooked for promotion for fear they’d raise kids and quit. While a terribly weak excuse to be sure one would hope that Japanese managers today  focus on hiring the best talent rather than hit predetermined gender quotas. There are plenty of talented Japanese women who can comfortably be selected on ability not gender. Although some will argue hard quotas will be needed so as to make companies feel comfortable they aren’t seen as ‘behind the times.’ Having said that government guidelines saw 90% of corporates adopt independent directors on their boards. Peer pressure seemingly works here.

However following ‘guidelines’ for the sake of it makes little sense. Were females more competent than the similarly ranked males on a 3:1 ratio in one company why not promote on that basis rather than a state suggested 2:1? If another company saw men 3:1 more skilled than women why wouldn’t a company want to rationally promote on those grounds? Indeed if companies look to succeed they should make decisions based on what is best for profitability and shareholders.

One corporate was asked this question of hiring more women at the AGM.  The CEO said he’d be only to glad to do so provided he could source suitable candidates. Hard to hit targets if the slew of applicants is 99% male. Indeed the company hires based on what it perceives as best fit for the business.

Things are changing in Japan on many fronts.

With marriage rates dwindling and childbirth nudging the 1mn mark per annum, more women are choosing to put the career first and have kids later and later.  Shotgun weddings now number 25% of all marriages and several companies are capitalizing on this trend by offering express matrimonial services. Society is changing. Note the report we wrote on the breakdown in the ‘nuclear family’ which tables in detail those seismic shifts.

Diversity in Japan. Far from wearing pussyhats and protesting with hostility there would seem to be many awaiting some centralized guidelines. While most would expect CM to tear strips off Mizuho for lining up for politicizing the workplace for once I’d credit it for “PROACTIVITY”. Indeed it wasn’t so long ago that then PM Koizumi had to tell corporate Japan that it was ok to take ties off in sweltering summer with power shortages in what was coined as “cool biz”.  Such a decision of common sense couldn’t be formulated by proactive management.

Mizuho’s credit doesn’t so much revolve around its appeals for more diversity rather for making a bold step to decide to do something like this without waiting for external guidance. With more internally driven open mindedness like this it paints a better role model for creating change.

This does not call for indoctrination of social ideals in the workplace. By all means provide hiring managers with better training on identifying talent but do not force identity politics in the office. Individual ability trumps identity every time.

So full marks to Mizuho. The message for Japan Inc to grasp from it is proactivity and common sense, not awaiting to be told what to do by some bureaucracy that is probably a worse offender of the guidelines it will inevitably seek to push.

Oxford giving extra time in exams to help women

855E4521-8BAF-4159-8186-008D887A06E8.jpeg

In the fight for equality, Oxford University is allowing students ‘extra time’ during exams to help more females pass The only thing that rings in the mind is what an insult to women to think they need a leg up to make up for their supposed shortcomings in dealing with time pressure. More cultural Marxism pervading schools. The Telegraph reports

exam times were increased in a bid to improve the low scores of women, it has emerged…Students taking maths and computer science examinations in the summer of 2017 were given an extra 15 minutes to complete their papers, after dons ruled that “female candidates might be more likely to be adversely affected by time pressure”. There was no change to the length or difficulty of the questions...It was the first time such steps had been taken. In previous years, the percentage of male students awarded first class degrees was double that of women and in 2016 the board of examiners suggested that the department make changes to improve women’s grades.”

One wonders why Oxford  bothers with extra time and hand women first class degrees with a simpler test. What is the male to female ratio of students? Is that a factor? If men graduated with first class honors at double the rate of female students and it happened that men outnumbered women 2:1 then the system is surely showing no perceived bias.

What next? Give LGBT students an extra 30 minutes? Deduct 15 minutes for Caucasians? Or if you’re a disabled transgender aboriginal Muslim do you get as long as you like with the answer booklet to make sure of 100%? Sound extreme? 10 years ago if someone said women should get 15 minutes extra time people would think you’re mad. Anything goes. The ability to shut down freedom of speech and freedom of thought are rife through the education system. Full marks to them. Afterall we’ve happily submitted to accepting this nonsense.

It is utter lunacy to think that the only way to address equality is by stopping it dead in its tracks by blatant acts of educational vandalism. For Oxford to woefully submit to such stupidity speaks volumes about its future as a reputable institution that wants to foster free thinking.

One has to question why girls need a leg up when, as an example, the NSW HSC results for 2017 revealed:

76 girls snapped up first place certificates compared with 44 boys.”

Surely the boys have a right to 15 minutes extra to address this imbalance!