Jerry_Atrick

Hi Bebek, No.. and I am not a traitor, nor am I dumb (unless you consider leading a highly mathematical team, when I don't even have a degree as being dumb)... I do agree with some of your post, bit as someone who has previously worked in both civil and military nuclear, it is not a cut and dry answer to your question. But, I do agree. there should be a discussion based on the provrb you quoted.

Fark! Firstly, that is totally unAustralian.. Secondly, known to police, but can't release details until they confirm the identifity? WTF, do they take us as fools?

Just read about it... WTF? World is going crazy. Condolences to family and friends of the deceased. Hope the injured pull through OK. Hope the constable is doing well.

I had hit the enter key too early, then hit the wrong key which cleared everything.. What rights do women lose is this Tickle is found to be legally a woman? Do they lose their right to equality? Do they lose their rights over their reproductivity as a result of this case? Do they lose their rights to work as teachers while married? I think most reasonable people would answer no. So, no, not all legal rights of women would cease.. complete furphy. There are two primary legal issues, of which only one apparently hinges on whether Tickle is a woman - that being the discrimination issue in relation to access to the Giggle app. The other is simple harrasment, so if that part of the case is lost, it affirms that not even women are immune from their actions. Actually the issue doesn't even appear to be whether Tickle is legally a woman, but whether that legal classification of gender extends to the "sex" of someone for the purposes of the Sexual Discrimination Act. In other words, it appears that it is a staturoty interpretation exercise - does gender and sex mean the same thing, or is gender something that you are now, and sex is what you were biologically.. for the purposes of the act. Let's assume that the court finds that gender and sex are the same thing; Tickle has a female birth certificate, and therefore, Tickle is a she, and can use the app and attend female public dunnies and change rooms. From the perspective of a physical threat, would someone really go through all that trouble of slice and dice just so they could get into the ladies room and [no longer] rape or murder her? There may be a tiny minority of the population who would, but there are a tiny minoroty of the population who do all sorts of strange things with implements, yet we don't ban those implements. Let's face it, with the dark web and all, we would have banned the internet years ago. But, I do understand why there is a concern. I think the infolrmation here implies it is easy to change sex. I am sure a simple ear piercing wouldn't do it, a what is a gender affirming procedure - and what would be the minimum to be able to change one's sex in NSW? https://www.nsw.gov.au/family-and-relationships/name-changes-and-corrections/change-of-sex. It would be better to tighten when one could re-assign gender to be when the irreverisble has taken place.. slided and diced (or for women --> men, whatever is the equivalent). I am not saying trans people using womens facilities is not an issue, and IU certainly understand women feel threatened by it.. I am not a women and I can't know what the issues are for them. Of course, if the ruling was that all you had to do was get your ears pierced and say you're a woman, then I would be as aghast as anyone else. But, I a not sure that statistically this person would be any more a threat in the ladies than any other woman. This seems a little ideological and designed to sway the findings on policy and maybe a little on ideologiy: " CEO of a women-only social media app will not address a transgender woman as “Ms”, saying “I don’t think it’s kind to expect a woman to see a man as a woman”."

That is their assertion, but on what basis, exactly?

What policy is it, and what features of it would cause what problem,and require ove 130 countries to comply with an Australian court ruling, precisely? As I explained, when a country signs any international instrument such as a policy, treaty, convention, etc it does not bind that country or change the law in that country. The country has to ratify it and that, in most countries is a leglislative process. In Australia and every common law jurisdiction, a court will not recognise any obligations entered into without it having been leglislated. If we look at the International Convention of Refugees, of which Australia is a signatory, and our laws relating to refugees, we are grossly short of what we have signed up to. This is a matter of important public discussion, and I am discussing it, and I am being careful to keep ideology out of it and deal with the facts and legal points. I am not treating this lightly at all.

As ususal, relying on a youtube video is not always a great way to work out the details of a case. And, yes, it is being reported in the mainstream media - it is just not getting a lot of attention because, Ms. Tickle is suiing Giggle for discrimination on the grounds that, although born a make, she is now a female after having gone through gender affirmation surgery and the like. But here is one MSM artive for you https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/apr/11/what-is-a-woman-court-asked-to-rule-on-definition-in-transgender-womans-case-against-giggle-for-girls-platform What Ms Tickle is suing for is damages for discrimination and harrasement resulting from online posts made by Ms. Grover that were, I guess, disparaging at best, but then may have unleashed a tirade of online hate. I have no idea who the Youtuber that presented that video is or what they stand for, but my spider senses tell me that they are not the likes of a social justice organisation. I have little idea of the gender bender issues at the moment, so I am only going to take a legal lense to this.. First, I think the claim that the decision will have world-wide ramifications is, at best, fanciful. Australia has no special seniority in the international legal order. It can be used as pursuasive precedent in other common law countries, and by pursuasive in the common law sense, means it can (but does not have to be) taken into consideration. Just because Australia is a signatory of whatever international convention that covers these things doesn't mean it is a legal requirement in Australian law (it has to be explicitly provided for either in legislation or much more rarely these days, case law before it becomes binding in australia). And other countries have to give power to the conventions (or treaties) in their own legal system - and they may do that to whateever extent they want. In other words, a) just because a country is a signature to an interanational convention or treaty, does not bind them to it until the legislate (or in the case of some countries such as Ireland, pass a referendum); and b) aother countries will implement their obligations in they way they see fit.. If they think Australia has gone too far or not far enough, that is all they will do - think it.. No country is obliged to implement anything that relates to a treaty or convention just because another country has. So, my BS radar is already showing up multipole contacts. I watched the first few minutes of the video, and I have to admit, I didn't think it was worth wasting too much of my time remaining on this earth with... Thee was a lot of posturing but not much fact on the ground... and that is another think that puts contacts on my BS radar. So, let's deal with the facts: A transgendered, male to female person wants to join an online women's only community. The transgendered person is initially acccepted but then booted out. It woud seem, legally, this transgendered person is a female if the article is to be believed - as the said peson has a female birth certificate. But, the peson was booted out for not being a female. the tansgendered person has had gender affirming surgery - so the full slide and dice, I would guess. It is alleged that posts by the defendant were at least disparaging (possibly inferring some form of political or ideological view) I would think, on the surface, Giggle does have a case to answer. I don't know this area of law at all, and I am not going to do hours of research for it, but I would suspect being in posession of a (valid) femal birth certificate would indicate that legally, Tickle is a female, and as an adult female, that make Tickle legally a woman. So, there may be damages for discrimination, as it does not matter how this person became a legal woman - if someone advertises a womem's only club and a legal woman is rejected on the grounds of how that person became one - an attribute of that person - there may well be a case to answer. The second part, which is the online harrasment will also turn on the facts; for example, was Giggle responding to harrasment by Tickle or notl was it excessive; was it designed to cause offence and incite online hatred, etc. In these cases, courts will take into account "policy", which the "unintended conequences" will be considered. I would like to think or hope they take a balanced approach. The question would have to be between the rights of this legal woman against the rights of genetic women (please I am not going into the debate of whether it is right or not.. I am only going on the legal points as far as I know or at least can guess them). For example, would those like Tickle, who live as a woman, went through the procedure (whatever it is) to obtain the legal classification of a woman, and have hasd the full slice and dice, act as a woman all the time, etc, be a threat to women in womens' only areas? Would people who generally identify as women be a disporoportionate threat to women, What about gender fluiditiy? Hopefully the judge will take these sorts of things into consideation when also determining if Giggle is a female or not. If I were a betting man, because Giggle has a female birth certificate, it will be very hard for a judge to say Giggle is not legally a female, unless there is something in the constituion that would override that. Australia does not have a bill of rights protected constitutionally, and judges have been willing to imply specific rights in specific situations. My guess will be, unless a constitutional construct can be found to invalidate Giggle's births certificate (and there would be a policy issue as well, because no doubt Giggle is not the only male to female transgendered person in Australia with a femal birth certificate), then Giggle will be found to be a woman, and the ratio (legal reasoning) will be a very narrow definition of what makes a trans person the other sex - such as no fluiditiy, has to have lived full time and publicly open about being the other gender and havem or be substantially down the road of non-reversible surgery or other medical treatment to being affirmed as the gender.. or something like that. Then there will be an appeal to the High Court - you can bet your arse on that one - and it will be finally decided. In terms of the threat to women - I will hold out until a decision - if it affirms TGs are in fact the gender they claim to be, then it will depend on the width or narrowness of the definition - if it is like above, then I would suggest it is not a big deal and that they represent no more threat statistically than women do to women. However, I have no numbers to back it up, so am happy to be corrected. If it was very broad and you are a woman when you think you are, then yes, I would consider that a very dangerous decision. Having said that, I understand why genetic women may not want a "proper" male --> female TG person in their womens only clubs.. It is seen as men or genetic males breaking down some of the privileges and rights they have fought hard for over the years. And I am not sure, no matter home much of a female a proper male --> female TG is, that they really are femaie in character, amongst other genetic females, so the conversations may be disporopritionately uncomfortable.. I don't know, of course. And then there is the question of sports, etc, which I have to say, I still think there should be a separate TG comp if they want to play sport. For the above, I think this: is, at this stage, hysterical scare mongering driven by the sensationalising of one side of the case. I think why those who support Giggle are trying to whip this up, especially with the ludicrouls claims of global ramifications, is to influence the policy component of the court decision, to save them a $100K payout amf further their ideology.

Whilst I would not want anyine ot hve their lives cut short unnaturally, he was one that I feel the world is a bit better off without.

I just don't see the problem it is solving. Are you expecting the working day to be aligned as well so that we are all started to work at 9am on 135th Meridian time zone? West have to get up early while the east get to sleep in? Or will people conduct business in the same hours but just call them different times. I am not saying its a bad idea - I just don't see what the change will gain? People who work in areas where they have to bend to a different time zone already do it (I gave the trader in WA as an example).

Wrhoo? Ne'er heard of em.

That's an insult to mad monks 😉

Maybe I am underthinking this one, but I don't think it really matters. Let's take the extermities in Aus; Perth and Sydney, which is a 2 hour time difference. If I am stock trader inPerth and I want to trade on the ASX, I just have to be ready by 7am... But I have stopped trading by 2pm or thereabouts and spend the next couple of hours doing my after-trading stuff. If I am a purxhasing clerk, I know I have to get my orders into the Sydney office of a supplier by 3pm while it is 5pm for East Coasters. I can't imagine my retail shop getting terribly busy at 7am with people buying shows or whatever, because that is 9am in Sydney when the shops open. If we all had the same time zone calibrated to the East coast/Sydney time, I would probably find myself in Perth opening my doors at 11am and dtaying open to 7:30pm.. (well I know these are no longer the hours we keep, but you get my drift). If I am a dairy farmer, cows will do it to their time, I guess. To take the logic further, we may as well do away with a local time zone all together and use UTC.. At least I wouldn't have to calculate UTC for flight planning.

He might get a bit of a tummy ache if he goes to Woolloomooloo

Wharapilla (assuming you meant in the order but not in sequence).

And a landslide victory in 2013 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Australian_federal_election#:~:text=This election marked the end,along with the Abbott Ministry.

Welcome too my nightmare

And Abbott.. or abutt

I am not sure 1m people being without mobile phones is going to take them back 20 years. Firstly, today's societal ills will still be here, they will probably find accessing many services more difficult if they are not excluded from them, as a result.. services they may have had ready access to in earlier days. So, maybe it would take them all the way back to the war years or something.. Was there less corruption and greed 20 years back? No way. Its just people are less willing to punish those who facilitate it. And the press, which have corporate interests, have moulded most of us to be ideological nutjobs one way or another. I was originally a Luddite when mobile phones came out.. but now I wouldn't be without one. I can connect to the world from almost anywhere for £20/month unlimited. Add £5/month and I get roaming in most countries I would visit. Sadly, particularly the older people get left behind with technology (my mother is a good example). When I was at Bendigo Bank, I laughed when they said they still operated [expensive] passbook accounts.. but they reminded me very quickly elderly people rely on them... Sadly our cultural changes are not the product of a mobile phone,

What's brown and sticky? . . . .. . A stick!

The photo of the car in Birchwood looks like a GTR-X, but the Hurricane is a seriously cool looking car... from teh front. The back would need some work and the petrol cap would have top be moved, but as a prototype, it looks to have some great potential in its day. It would be intersting to read why they didn't take it forward.

Or may buy shares for a short hold in mobile phone retailer.

Hopefully none as a time machine owuld be an advanced bit of kiot, and they hopefully considered someone entering a dud date and not have a breakdown.. Otherwise, a.

I believe in the Roman times.. https://www.romanbaths.co.uk/ Despite common misconceptions, the English are a hard lit.. they shower in cold water (they can't afford hot water ;-))

Probably the most inaccurate stereotype floating around these days...

When I worked for AV Jennings, this was the system I worked on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_System/360_Model_30 They decomissioned it not long after I left (can't remember how long I was there - maybe a year or so).. As I recall, there was a tall filing cabinet sized disk, which held a whopping 64mb - or maybe it was 128.. it was some time ago. Gigabytes were not for those However, while that was the oldest system I used (had core memory which where like ferris doughnuts), the fiirst system I worked on that got my career started was a Prime 750 (last photo here): https://www.chilton-computing.org.uk/acd/icf/mums/p014.htm That big box to the left is a line printer - oh the fun we had with thise thinhs... The phot above shows the removable disk drives we used - they were a whole 300mb each... And they were heavy. The latest in the lineup I used was a 9955 Mod II here: https://www.banjohangout.org/photo/71150 Their downfall was they claimed they had a 64 bit system,. but it was really 32 bits... they just moved two "words" (32 bits) at a time to make the operating system think it was 64 bits.. Of all the systems I worked on, I still preferred the Primos operating system the most. Rock solid, easy to use, and super flexible in programming.. Apols for the thread drift... Here is a corny joke to make up for it: Why is Cinderella so bad at football? She keeps running away from the ball.