Dubious subbing, and the article has rather too many double-entendres, but what do you think of actual event?
Flashing women to be a traffic stopper
The “green man” on traffic lights is going to be turned into a “green woman”, at intersections around New Zealand’s parliament, to mark New Zealand being the first country in the world to give women the vote (‘though of course, women in Wyoming got the vote earlier, and as a self-governing colony / territory / wev, their political organisation was about the same as New Zealand’s at the time – but why let the facts get in the way of a good story).
I would far rather that the government concentrated its gender equity efforts on something of real substance, like say, pay equity. On the other hand, I’m rather bored with the constant positioning of maleness as the “real” gender, and everyone else being “other”. This is a tiny, tiny change in the direction of maleness not being normative.
If they can do it for a few sets of traffic lights, why not for lots of them. Like say, about half.
Our local shopping centre (quite large, well supermarketed and fashion boutiqued, bookshops, pharmacies, wine cellars and all that) has a lighting scheme for its underground carparks. Each park has a light above it, which shows green if the space is available, and red if it is taken. So you can drive in and spot where there’s an empty space without too much trouble (unless of course, you have a different colour perception range than the norm). Miss Ten delights in spotting both false negatives and false positives. It’s called “smart” parking.
But there are different coloured lights for some car parks. The lights always show red if the park is occupied (except for the false negative problem) but the parks for people with disabilities who use an access parking card show blue when they are not occupied. Blue seems to be a recognised colour for signalling accessibility parking, ‘though I couldn’t find any regulations to that effect.
But guess what colour they used to signal a vacant “Parents with prams and buggies and babies and toddlers” park? Go on! Take a wild guess, right now, before reading on.
Okay. Made your guess?
The answer is below the fold, and a few spaces down (to give people using feed readers a chance to make an unbiased (hah!) guess).
Take a look at this article in The Age: Transsexual takes to the footy field. The language is perfect, uniformly, throughout. The photo – meh. Gotta have the physical evidence, eh.
And huge props to the the Victorian Country Football League Officials:
Will, who does not want to give his full name, recently met Victorian Country Football League officials to ask if he was eligible to play for one of their clubs. He also wanted to ensure he would be protected from abuse on the field.
At the meeting last month, VCFL chief executive Glenn Scott told him he could play, but for insurance purposes he would have to legally change the gender on his birth certificate to male. Scott has promised to educate players on transgender issues in a bid to ensure Will is not vilified.
NB: This is all Aussie Rules. The football code which seems to be full of
gang-rape “group sex” is rugby league. See the latest Down Under Feminists Carnival for links relating to the women-hating horror that is professional rugby league.
From Google today (Mother’s Day):
Such lovely pinkification.
Good grief! Can we please, please get over this girl = pink nonsense, and the constant infantilising of women by associating them with soft, pinky, girly colours.
The local rag (and that’s being polite) is such a special paper that it is even allowed to misquote judges. Justice Diana Bryant of the Family Court has signed a court order allowing a 17-year old boy to have his breasts removed. The boy has body-dysmorphic disorder, so despite having a female-sex body, he identifies as male. Justice Bryant’s court order allows him to have surgery so that his body better matches his understanding of himself.
But here’s what The Advertiser reports.
Court lets girl remove breasts
And then it reports Justice Bryant saying:
Justice Bryant said it was better for the teenager to have the surgery at 17 as she would qualify for support from state social services, and it was also a crucial time in her social and mental development.
But that’s not what Justice Bryant said. She said (reported in The Age):
“It’s a year when he’s really cementing his friendships with peers that will stand him in good stead for moving into university and the wider world, and it was very important to him that he be able to do that confidently as a boy.”
Spotted the difference?
Feh! How about having a little respect for what the judge actually said, and much more importantly, how about having a LOT of respect for what this boy says about himself.
Also discussed at Hoyden about Town and The Dawn Chorus.
Posted in Media