Thread: the political correctness and do gooders have gone too far

Originally Posted by DT-P38

<snip>

One thing is for sure... my senses of fairness and social logic are pretty well battered and assaulted by all this nonsense. Just because people build themselves up to feeling different (or are just alone in this world) doesn't mean they should get a "special" case built around them. Isn't it about time people learned to accept that EVERYONE IS SPECIAL and we do not need to manage every minority or variable on an individual basis? Being a part of a community should be about welcoming the involvement of everyone and embracing that inclusiveness, not continually defining and managing the differences.

The whole discussion makes me wonder how much "It" has contributed in "It's" life Vs. how much "It" has taken/cost the community. What is the value equation in all this for the community? You can bet there is an army following "It" around 24-7... social workers, case managers, psychiatrists, psychologists, doctors of all types and kinds, lawyers, barristers, etc, and etc. ALL ultimately booking their services up to the taxpayer. That's "special" alright, especially for all the "specialists" involved.

These bleeding hearts should be forced to work for free on 'minority' stuff like this. We would soon see how much they really believe in a "special" cause when the gravy trough isn't there to feed them. That would cook a few geese straight away!

I still can't believe the hypocrisy in your comments.

At one point you you are marginalising and discriminating against this person by vilifying them as "it", and the next you are purporting to be a community minded "embracing that inclusiveness".

You can't have it both ways, you can not stigmatise a person by defining them as gender neutral (it) and then in the next breath tell them that they can not have a legal definition acknowledging that same neutral gender.

Originally Posted by DT-P38

I didn't say disband, to be clearer, I meant don't waste their time (and our $'s) on this subject. Get the courts to move on with more important work like maybe clearing the detention centre backlogs.

BTW, your sarcastic slagging and baiting isn't appreciated. If you don't stop it, I will report you.

Seeing as you might actually be truly curious though... my feelings aren't actually hurt by any of this. And I can not even think why you would wonder why they should be. In saying that, it does seem to me that way too many people use their feelings when making the "poor dear, yes we can help (pay for you to feel better)" decisions with other peoples money.

One thing is for sure... my senses of fairness and social logic are pretty well battered and assaulted by all this nonsense. Just because people build themselves up to feeling different (or are just alone in this world) doesn't mean they should get a "special" case built around them. Isn't it about time people learned to accept that EVERYONE IS SPECIAL and we do not need to manage every minority or variable on an individual basis? Being a part of a community should be about welcoming the involvement of everyone and embracing that inclusiveness, not continually defining and managing the differences.

The whole discussion makes me wonder how much "It" has contributed in "It's" life Vs. how much "It" has taken/cost the community. What is the value equation in all this for the community? You can bet there is an army following "It" around 24-7... social workers, case managers, psychiatrists, psychologists, doctors of all types and kinds, lawyers, barristers, etc, and etc. ALL ultimately booking their services up to the taxpayer. That's "special" alright, especially for all the "specialists" involved.

These bleeding hearts should be forced to work for free on 'minority' stuff like this. We would soon see how much they really believe in a "special" cause when the gravy trough isn't there to feed them. That would cook a few geese straight away!

Perhaps you can share with us how you propose that the High Court would clear detention centre 'backlogs'? Perhaps by first explaining what those 'backlogs' are, then moving on to explain how a body with the remit to 'to interpret and apply the law of Australia; to decide cases of special federal significance including challenges to the constitutional validity of laws and to hear appeals, by special leave, from Federal, State and Territory courts.' Would go about clearing them?

Before you tackle this monumental task, perhaps consider that the high court was asked to rule on this matter by the state because the law was not clear. THAT IS THE JOB OF THE HIGH COURT AND THEY HAVE NOTHING ELSE 'TO BE GETTING ON WITH'.

I hope you'll excuse my shouting, but I'm deaf in one ear and the noise in this place makes it hard for me to know that you've understood my point.

Adam

Originally Posted by DT-P38

The whole discussion makes me wonder how much "It" has contributed in "It's" life Vs. how much "It" has taken/cost the community. What is the value equation in all this for the community? You can bet there is an army following "It" around 24-7... social workers, case managers, psychiatrists, psychologists, doctors of all types and kinds, lawyers, barristers, etc, and etc. ALL ultimately booking their services up to the taxpayer. That's "special" alright, especially for all the "specialists" involved.

These bleeding hearts should be forced to work for free on 'minority' stuff like this. We would soon see how much they really believe in a "special" cause when the gravy trough isn't there to feed them. That would cook a few geese straight away!

Knew a guy about 35-40 years ago who had a similar sort of problem to someone like Norrie. It wasn't his sex that was the issue it was his name.

Through a legal process he changed his name to 'Simon'. No second name, no name family - just Simon. The law enabled the name change process to take place and recognised his name was just Simon. However, what he found was he could not execute some ordinary legal documents (tax submission / claims forms, insurance forms etc.) because it was mandatory to supply a full name, ie a first and a last name in the required fields on the forms before they could be accepted for processing.

The law had allowed one thing to occur in one place but had not allowed it to be used in another place. I don't know how he resolved things in the end but it is not dissimilar to Norrie's problem in that it is a legal anomaly and nothing to do with some people wanting to feel 'special' nor is it about 'bleeding hearts with their snouts in the trough'.

The gender 'X' is an accepted alternative in some documents (passports) but in others only 'M' or 'F' are accepted alternatives. That is the crux of the matter.

As pointed out previously in post No. 21, the person named Norrie was not responsible for taking it to court in the first place. It was a govt. department that needed a ruling for their own purposes, most likely to bring things in line with other govt. departments.

It was not about an individual deciding they need 'special' treatment at taxpayer expense.

I actually met 'Simon', in an official capacity. Government records have him as 'Simon Simon' as computers would not accept one name only. Koreans have a bit a difficulty with government as their family name is first and most dumb people in government can't figure how to enter their names on forms.

Simon the mathematician from Newcastle University? If so, he was my maths tutor.

What was his reason for just one name?

Was a mathematician and didn't want to waste time and resources involved with the writing of superfluous words!

Is it any different to:

• Norrie
• Ghandi
• Totti
• (The artist formerly known as Prince)

Should have gone with Graham.