Women must now wear Hi Vis at all times in Australia’s Parliament House in Canberra after the seat of government was declared a site of high risk women. The new law comes into effect immediately and means that female politicians, staffers, bureaucrats, security staff, media, ancillary staff and visitors will be denied entry if they are not wearing some form of Hi Vis clothing.
“Parliament House is not a safe place for women,” confirmed a government spokesman.
“All women who work in, or visit, the seat of government must wear at least one piece of Hi Vis clothing at all times while they are on the premises, for their own safety.”
The law was created in response to various highly-publicised example of mistreatment of women in Parliament House, including allegations of rape, masturbation on other people’s desks, distribution of sexually-explicit videos and visits by prostitutes, as well as an underlying culture of toxic masculinity.
Authorities stressed the law was not rushed through after Barnaby Joyce’s return.
“It’s just coincidence”
The rationale behind the law is simple, according to its creators.
“Forcing women to wear Hi Vis is much easier than creating institutional or cultural change which would keep them safe. Forcing these conditions on women also allows the men who perpetrate crimes and offences against women, and those who protect the men, to blame the woman if she does get attacked or harassed, or mistreated in any way. A woman will never be bothered if she is wearing Hi Vis. Thus, if she is not, she can be accused of failing to take necessary measures and of breaking the rules.”
Hi Vis clothing can take any form, and authorities believe women will be happy to wear them.
“Hi Vis apparel comes in pink these days, so women will love it. We believe they will enjoy matching their Hi Vis with their outfits and make-up every morning.”
Critics slammed the new law, and said that if women are forced to wear HI Vis, then men in parliament house should be forced to wear a bell around their neck, the same way that cats wear a bell to stop them from killing native wildlife. The government replied:
“What a ridiculous suggestion. It would make us a laughing stock around the world.”
Government insiders also pointed another benefit of Hi Vis clothing in the halls of power.
“Hi Vis is normally worn by Tradies and construction workers, and they are now the most sought-after constituents of both major parties, so women are likely to be well received. Hi Vis is also worn by workers at mining sites, and we know how much the LNP, and even large parts of the Labor Party, love the mining sector and do so much to protect them.”
Authorities see only one potential problem with the introduction of the new law.
“Now we have to get ScoMo and Matt Canavan to stop doing so many photo ops in Hi Vis.”
AGL has been officially recognised for actively including the LGBTQ+ community in its destruction of the planet. The energy company was awarded Gold Employer status for LGBTQ+ inclusion at the AWEI Awards while simultaneously earning the title of Australia’s biggest domestic contributor to climate change by Greenpeace.
Greenpeace argues that AGL emitted 42.2 million tonnes of carbon emissions in 2019-2020. Greenpeace data confirms that the energy company creates,
“…24.6% of electricity sector emissions and 8% of Australia’s total emissions, which primarily comes from the coal burned at the energy giant’s three coal-burning power stations: Liddell, Bayswater, and Loy Yang A. AGL’s own data confirms that 85% of energy generated by the gentailer comes from burning coal.”
At the same time, AGL boasts publicly that:
“This is the third year we have been awarded Gold Employer status, and the fifth year that we have participated in the AWEI. Our employee-driven LGBTQ+ network, AGL Shine, was created in 2014. The network focuses on providing a safe and inclusive environment for all our employees – while also advocating internally and externally for gender inclusion beyond the heteronormative binary.”
Data from the environmental activist group indicates that:
AGL is accelerating the climate crisis for Lesbians
AGL is accelerating the climate crisis for Gay people
AGL is accelerating the climate crisis for Bisexual people
AGL is accelerating the climate crisis for Trans people
AGL is accelerating the climate crisis for Queer people
AGL is accelerating the climate crisis for Intersexed people
AGL is accelerating the climate crisis for Asexual people
AGL is also accelerating the climate crisis for hetero-normative people and for any other possible definition within the gender and sexuality spectrum that has not been acknowledged above.
The company reinforced its commitment to treating everyone on the planet equally.
“AGL understands that the natural environment in crucial to the survival, prosperity and wellbeing of every single person on the planet, regardless of gender, sexuality, race, religion, colour, age or nationality. This is why we have ensured that no one single group or sub group of Australian society or any other global society is discriminated against by our destruction of the natural environment.”
“We will all suffer together.”
AGL is the biggest polluter in a country with the highest per capita carbon footprint on the planet.
Critics of the energy giant highlighted the futility of supporting the rights of one particular group of society, when every group in society will suffer from the burning of fossil fuels, to which AGL replied:
The starting team is failing. The run on team isn’t up to scratch. What do you do?
You give the reserves a chance.
You put on the replacement players, the ones who’ve been waiting for a chance to show what they can do. It might work, and the team might return to winning ways. It might not, but surely it’s worth a try.
It’s time to take the men off the field, and give women a chance. Men have ruled the world since time began, and the harsh reality is that the world is in a bad way. Man are dropping the ball, missing tackles, throwing forward passes, missing an open goal, and often show a complete lack of effort.
So why are they still on the field?
When sporting teams fail, starting players are replaced – some of them never return. The replacements are given a go, to see if they can fix the problems. Fans demand change. Managers and club bosses demand change. Sponsors demand change. Something always changes when a sporting team is performing poorly for an extended period of time.
If we demand such action for our favourite sporting teams, why are we not demanding the same of the leaders of our society? After all, sporting teams just play sport – it’s not that important. On the other hand, societal leaders, especially politicians, make laws and decisions which effect the daily lives of all of their constituents.
Having multiple women in genuine positions of power could solve some of the world’s biggest problems including overpopulation, environmental destruction, rising inequality, corporate greed, exploitation and human trafficking.
Overpopulation is the biggest problem facing the world right now. Men cause population growth, and men have prevented it from being addressed. Men continue to stifle efforts to control population growth by standing in the way of methods such as the use of contraception, and the legalisation of abortion and assisted dying. Even suicide is illegal in many countries.
Acceptance and decriminalisation of same-sex relationships could limit population growth, because same-sex couples cannot naturally reproduce. Furthermore, it is known that fewer children are born into relationships with greater gender equality.
Interestingly, organised religions outlaw or criminalise many all of the actions which could limit population growth. Men control organised religions.
Trafficked people can be male or female, adults or children. Many are forced into hard labour, many are forced into prostitution. Who runs the corporations which benefit from cheap labour? Usually men. Who uses the services of prostitutes? Usually men.
Corporate greed, as well as overpopulation, is driving environmental destruction. The climate crisis is causing extreme weather events, which can be disastrous or even deadly. The climate crisis has created environmental refugees and has reduced the amount of resources available to people, at the same time that the world is becoming more populated. Men run the corporations, and created the culture of greed which underpins the corporate world. Corporations and their leaders are obliged to return higher and higher margins of profit at every reporting period. Even business and finance experts agree that this can only be achieved either by acts of economic genius, or by the exploitation of the environment and/or people.
Business experts also argue that female directors can often adopt a different style of management.
It is well documented that during a recent economic downturn, major banks in Iceland suffered massive losses, and were threatened with closure. The economic meltdown was blamed on a banking and business culture that was labelled ‘buccaneering’ and ‘reckless’ – and was overwhelmingly male. The economy was rescued in large part by women.
Three women in particular were credited with boosting the economy. Halla Tómasdóttir and Kristin Petursdóttir are the founders of Audur Capital, and they teamed up with one of Iceland’s most famous names, the singer Bjork, to establish an investment fund that invested in green technology. They made a deliberate effort to incorporate female values into the world of private equity, wealth management and corporate advice. From all reports, it worked.
Iceland’s northern neighbour, Finland, is the origin of Women’s Bank, a fund that supports sustainable entrepreneurship and livelihood among women in developing countries.
According to the Women’s Bank;
“…gaining approval for women’s entrepreneurship is the most efficient way of decreasing poverty in the world, as women and girls often form a forgotten resource.”
Perhaps the best way to harness this resource is to place more women in charge.
Still in Finland, the country has recently earned the distinction of having the world’s youngest leader. Sanna Marin was 34 when elected as prime minister, and remains one of the few women to run a country. Many of her party colleagues are young and female. Is Finland prospering? It appears to be. A detailed analysis of the country’s performance is too lengthy for this article, but the country consistently performs highly in international standardised education tests.
Another young female national leader is Jacinda Ardern, the Prime Minister of New Zealand. New Zealand has almost returned to ‘normality’ after negotiating its way through the COVID-19 pandemic. It’s management of the pandemic is held up as world leading practice. Results that Scott Morrison, Donald Trump, Boris Johnson and Jair Bolsonaro could only dream of.
Jacinda Ardern is a woman. Jacinda Ardern got results. In contrast, Australia’s Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, responded to nationwide protests calling for an end to violence against woman by essentially telling protestors they should be grateful they didn’t get shot.
Is this goal realistic?
Mosuo and Scandinavian cultures prove that a society based on female empowerment can prosper.
Scandinavian societies traditionally enjoyed greater gender equality. Historical texts tell us that women carried out physical tasks alongside men, including hand to hand combat, and owned some of the land on which they worked. They ran a variety of independent businesses and were apparently able to keep the profits, and pass those profits onto their own children. Then this changed, and women were relegated to domestic roles and lost much of their independence. It is believed that this was largely due to the arrival of Christianity.
Mosuo women belong to a rare matriarchal society in Yunnan, south-west China. Apparently, Mosuo women are in charge, marriage does not exist and society follows a maternal bloodline. Men are called upon only for the act of reproduction and women own and inherit poperty.
Does it work?
Well, the system has been lived for thousands of years, and the Mosuo are surviving and prospering.
Great game in a losing team.
Of course. Not all men are performing poorly. Just like a sporting team, some men are doing a great job while those around them are failing. These starting players should be kept on the field when the reserves are brought on because they can be part of the change, part of the solution. Luckily, capable, qualified, skilled, dedicated, determined and proven reserves are ready to take their place of those who are not playing well.
Conversely, women need to be installed in positions of power in sufficient numbers. Individual women may be talented and capable, and some countries, states, provinces, organisations and corporations are led by women. But individual woman will struggle to make genuine change, and may only be able to, or interested in, perpetuating the cycle which caused so much damage to the world. Bringing on only one reserve when the team is being thrashed will not save the team – no matter how good that player is.
The ideal team is thus a combination of men and women who are capable and produce consistent results. A team selected by merit, not gender.
Men created and control the systems which have placed the world in such a precarious position. The systems need to change for a more optimistic future. Can those systems change while men are still in charge?
EXCLUSIVE: NSW Police Commissioner Mick Fuller has revealed that his controversial iConsent App was the cornerstone of his bid to land a role within the NRL and was designed to keep rugby league players out of prison. After failing to secure the NRL position, he proposed the App for the Australian public.
The proposed iConsent App was designed to record sexual consent and was expected to reduce the number of sexual assaults in the country. Reported sexual assault rose by 10 per cent in 2020, but only two percent of those cases led to guilty verdicts in court.
The commissioner was being considered for a role dedicated to improving the off-field behaviour of footballers, and he pitched the app to the NRL while three of its players were under investigation for sexual assault. NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian blocked Fuller’s appointment, so the commissioner offered the App to the wider public.
“This App is perfect for the NRL, and ideal for the country in general,” Fuller announced.
“No woman in Australia will ever be raped again once this App is operational. If it can stop NRL players from raping women, it can stop anyone from raping women.”
Fuller then revealed secret features of the App which were to be included for NRL players, but will not be available to the general public.
“It would have been great, and it’s such a shame Gladys prevented me from working with the NRL,” he stated.
“Players could have customised the App according to the colours of their current team, and they could have downloaded the team’s mascot. There was a scoreboard for recording how many women they had ‘pulled’ on any given night, and a setting to rank the appearance of those women – just like the origins of Facebook. We were also designing a filter to make the women more attractive and allow players to boast to their teammates about their conquests.”
“What’s more, they could change the colour settings to blue or maroon during Origin season, and to their favoured national team during internationals. Of course, it also allowed women to consent to group sex, because no self-respecting rugby league player would ever have sex with a woman if he was not joined by one or more of his teammates.”
Fuller also explained that the App would have linked directly to sports betting Apps, and the various social media platforms which land professional footballers in trouble, and was equipped with video settings to allow players to make and distribute sex tapes. Designers of the App had been ordered to constantly upgrade its settings for footy players, to cater for anything from the mundane to the wildly kinky, including the ability to get consent from a dog.
Fuller himself told the media the iConsent App could be “the worst idea I have all year”, but it is still better than any suggestion from the prime minister. The Minister for Women has also been silent, as has the Attorney General, who can’t comment after taking sick leave since being accused of rape, infidelity, affairs with young staffers and general sleaziness.
Only time will tell if the App finds its way into the nation’s bedrooms. In the meantime, Fuller has devoted himself to his policing duties, and to completing his highly-anticipated eBook, Mick Fuller’s Complete Guide to Romance, Seduction and Foreplay.
Australia will become the first nation in the world to force employers to pay female staff in a new currency called Pink Dollars when the system is implemented in the next financial year. Treasurer Josh Frydenberg announced the new scheme outside Parliament House in Canberra, just days after thousands of women protested against institutionalised gender inequality across the country.
“Australian women have spoken and we have listened,” boasted Frydenberg, who was flanked by Prime Minister Scott Morrison, and federal Minister for Women, Marise Payne.
“Pink Dollars will be used to pay female employees in every job, in every sector, throughout our great nation. The notes themselves will be pink on both sides, with the numerical value printed in the corner. Notes will carry images associated with women, like flowers, domestic appliances, pretty clothes, makeup, childcare etc,” he explained.
“Pink Dollars are an entirely new currency, which will operate alongside existing Australian dollars. The primary difference is that Pink Dollars will be permanently pegged at a certain rate to the Aussie dollar – one Pink Dollar will be worth 68 Australian cents.”
This will not alter the value of the Australian dollar, nor the wages of Australian men, according to the treasurer.
“Don’t worry fellas, we’re not touching your wallet. Men should never suffer whenever society changes for the sake of women,” he chuckled.
The treasurer then explained that while Pink Dollars will be used to pay women, they cannot be spent anywhere within Australia or overseas. Instead, women will have to collect their cash payment in person every fortnight before converting Pink Dollars to Australian dollars through government approved exchange bureaus. Only then will they have currency to spend on everyday living expenses.
“As of July 1, 2021, all Australian-registered employers must pay their female employees in Pink Dollars. We are announcing this new system today to give employers sufficient time to adapt their payroll procedures. We have also established a hotline within the Department of Finance to assist employers.”
Frydenberg was asked how the system will classify employees who identify in any way as gender fluid.
“What’s gender fluid?” he replied.
Minister Payne was also asked for her reaction, as the new currency will be paid to all female government employees, including the Minister for Women herself.
“I believe Pink Dollars will…”she began, before the prime minister interjected.
“Marise is very supportive of the introduction of Pink Dollars, as I’m sure all Australian women will be,” he said, before adding:
“Jen and the girls can’t wait to get their hands on some fresh new pink bank notes. They say the money matches the dresses they wear to church,” he smirked.
Frydenberg then reinforced this sentiment.
“Marise sees the economic benefit of this policy, for women and for Australia as a whole, and she cites it as yet further evidence that the Coalition excels at economic management.”
A boastful Frydenberg also expected Pink Dollars to be introduced to other nations.
“Mathias Cormann was instrumental in formulating the details of the scheme in its infancy, and he promises to use his influence to impose the policy on every member nation of the OECD.”
Australian women, meanwhile, have not been given the opportunity to respond to the policy announcement, but have been directed to a page of the government’s website entitled:
“Pink Dollars: Mansplained”
On this page, they will learn that their employers will soon be able to replace portions of their wages with pink flowers.
“Enthusiastic Newstart recipients will be on hand at local train stations to present women with pink flowers after a hard day at work.”
Peter Dutton has shocked voters and conservative colleagues with the news that they is gender neutral. Australia’s Minister for Home Affairs declared that their alter ego, Potato Head, has come out as gender neutral in the midst of the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras.
Mr Dutton will now be known as Dutton, or Potato Head, and has asked the media and party speechwriters to refer to them in gender neutral terms.
“I am declaring myself gender neutral,” announced Dutton at a press conference.
“Every year I feel like less of a man, especially after entering politics and overseeing the policies of Home Affairs. For that reason, myself and my alter ego, Potato Head, will now be known as gender neutral.”
“I have deliberated over this decision for a long time, but with Mardi Gras around the corner, and various political scandals involving my name, I decided it was a good idea to circulate this story in the media.”
It is not yet known whether Kirilly Dutton will retain her title of Mrs Potato Head, or also come out as gender neutral.
The Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, has also shocked Australians with his public support for Potato Head. He was expected to denounce the move on religious grounds, but said he consulted his wife Jenny before embracing the change.
“Now that Peter is no longer a man, they is better able to empathise with women, especially the four who have accused one of our party members of sexual assault just 50 metres from my office.”
Mardi Gras organisers rushed to congratulate Dutton and to invite participants to create a new ‘Potato Head’ float for the famous parade.
“We are overjoyed at the news that one of our most senior politicians has found the confidence and courage to declare themselves gender neutral. Being true to oneself and being proud of one’s identity are central to the founding philosophy of Mardi Gras, and we welcome Peter into our family. It would be wonderful to see Peter dancing on top of a float, beside a life-size model of the newly-outed Potato Head”
Mardi Gras organisers have extended an invitation to the minister to attend part of the weeks-long festival, including the street parade on the evening of Saturday, March 6.
“Obviously Dutton is a very busy person, but hopefully they can find time to party among friends. Maybe they could fly to Sydney for a day or two – we know they can affords the flights.”
Many Australians wondered how gender neutrality could be claimed at all by a creature that is not human, while cynics have pointed out that the decision was simply an attempt to revive interest in an increasingly unpopular, irrelevant and outdated character.
Dutton rejected those claims.
“That is an outrageous and offensive slander,” they replied.
“Myself and my party have a proven record of progressive social policies, especially in regards to gender and sexuality. One only needs to examine our response to the same-sex marriage debate and the treatment of women in parliament and society in general, to see that the LNP is and always has been a proud supporter of gender equality and inclusion.”
The Vogue magazine cover featuring Harry Styles is problematic. The decision to dress the famous singer in female attire has and saturated the mass media with supportive and critical gender-based commentary, and this is a problem.
Placing a man in a dress on the front cover of a mainstream fashion magazine is a distraction. It is a distraction from more important gender issues facing the modern world.
There are real discussions to be had, and real action to be taken, in the realm of gender inequality. A man wearing a dress is not one of those. If a man wants to wear a dress, let him wear a dress, it’s not a big deal.
Violence against women, workplace harassment, the gender pay gap, gender discrimination and domestic violence are all important issues.
Violence against women continues throughout the world. Women continue to be victims of violence at the hands of men, and this issue needs to be discussed and dealt with. The physical and emotional powerlessness of women in so many contexts needs to be discussed and acted upon so that women throughout the world can live without suffering violence.
If there is one advantage of the Vogue cover, it is the potential to challenge the toxic masculinity which fuels a lot of the violence against women.
The world should be discussing measures to end violence against women, not discussing Harry Styles in a dress.
Workplace harassment is a reality for many women throughout the world. In so many workplaces, women’s voices are not heard. They suffer power imbalances and the men who hold that power exploit it to harass women physically, mentally and emotionally. This continues to happen in every nation and can only be addressed when it is part of a daily discussion, and daily action.
Women are still excluded from more senior and more lucrative professional positions on the basis of gender. Women are still being excluded from the decision making cliques within workplaces, even though all of the decisions made impact upon them.
The world should be talking about ending workplace harassment, not Harry Styles in a dress.
Somehow, the gender pay gap still exists. In 2020, women are often paid less for doing exactly the same job as men, or earn less because the occupations in which they are more likely to work (health, education, community service…) earn far less than occupations dominated by men.
One of the most vulnerable groups in society is older women, who are not able to save as much money during their lowly-paid careers and find themselves in financial hardship later in life – but not many people talk about this.
It is said that pornography is the only occupation in which women earn more than men. Thus, the only occupation which collectively advantages women is an industry which objectifies women.
We should be discussing how it is possible to pay women less than men, and not the fact that Harry Styles wore a dress.
Underlying the gender pay gap, sexual and physical violence against women, and workplace harassment, is gender discrimination. Within society, within relationships and families, within the media and within other institutions such as religion and the legal system, women are still discriminated against.
Institutional and entrenched gender discrimination should be at the forefront of discussions in the media and society, not the fact that Harry Styles wore a dress.
It’s important to remember that the Vogue cover has generated an enormous amount of publicity. Whether opposing or supporting the cover photo, people are talking about Vogue (as is this article). Publicity was always going to accompany the first ever Vogue cover featuring a man, but the comments have all centred on his wardrobe choice.
Who decided to put the pop star in a dress? Did Styles decide? If so, good luck to him. Did Vogue decide? It is a fashion magazine compiled by fashion experts, so perhaps it was a stylistic decision. Perhaps a designer or fashionista decided that Styles looks good in a dress – don’t forget that fashion is entirely superficial and based on appearance, and aesthetics had to have been a major consideration when arranging the clothing for the photo shoot.
It’s all good publicity for Styles, for Vogue and the designer. In an era of global financial hardship and falling magazine sales, the publicity generated by this cover is extremely valuable. The internet is also flooded with merchandise featuring the famous image.
The end of masculinity.
Scores of men rushed to social media to decry the end of traditional masculinity, but did Styles ever conform to stereotypes of traditional masculinity?
Harry Styles put on a dress. Someone took his photo, and it appeared on the cover of a magazine. It’s not a big deal. Gender discrimination which underscores violence against women, workplace harassment and the gender pay gap are all big deals. This is what we should be talking about.
And don’t forget, this debate surrounds a magazine cover featuring…a man.
Someone I have never met told me they thought I was a woman. I’m not. They made this assumption based on my Instagram account.
The person is a friend of a friend and stumbled upon my Instagram account, as people do within the world of social media. They requested to follow, I accepted, and they perused my photos.
The person then messaged me in surprise and told me that she thought I was female.
Because of the content of my Instagram posts.
Essentially, all of my posts depict nature or books. Once I’ve read a book that I like, I take a photo of the cover and maybe and excerpt from the book and I post it on my account. Actually, I haven’t done this for a while, I think I just forgot.
Otherwise, my Instagram account contains images of nature. When I go hiking, cycling, camping or into nature, I like to take photos of sunsets, beaches, plants, trees, skylines and animals. I’d like to have more photos of animals but they’re hard to capture with a basic smartphone lacking a decent zoom. If I do capture an animal it’s always a bonus.
Almost every one of my posts depicts lakes, rivers, mountains, trees, rocks, sand, sun and surf, because I love nature and try to spend as much time in it as possible. My account contains almost no images of myself.
I don’t like appearing on camera and I’m not vain or beautiful enough to be an Instagram model, so I don’t take many selfies. I do appear in other people’s photos or have friends take photos of me, but I just have no interest in posting them online.
I explained to the woman that I am in fact a man, and we had a good laugh about it. It did make me think, however.
Why would someone think that I was female after seeing photos of books and nature?
Have we been conditioned to think that an interest in or respect for nature is feminine? Can only women appreciate and express an appreciation for nature, and is this linked to a woman’s role as a nurturer and care giver?
If this is the case, does it explain the current state of the world’s climate and the natural environment?
Mother Earth, as we often call it, is in trouble after years and years of human abuse, and this abuse is continuing even though we now know better. We now know that previous practices are harming the planet upon which we rely for our survival but we continue with these practices.
Is this cycle of destruction perpetuated because men still rule the world? Certain organisations, businesses and countries have a woman in the top job, but the system which was created by men is still controlled by men. If a man is not expected to love nature, even via an Instagram account, protecting the environment into the future will be very difficult, because men are still making most of the decisions which determine the state of the planet.
Is it time to give women a turn? Really give them a turn. Not just appoint a few women to the position of national or corporate president, not just vote women onto boards or executive positions, but replace men in large numbers at every level of government, business and other sectors of society. Men had their turn running the world, the planet is in very bad shape, so maybe it’s time they were replaced.
If the men running the world were the starting players on a sporting team, their results suggest it’s time they were taken off and replaced by those who have been waiting their turn on the reserves bench.
Can you love nature and still be a man?
Do we have to change paradigms of masculinity to include respect for nature and pride in publicly expressing a love for the natural world?
Do we need to reach a point at which assumptions cannot be made about someone’s gender because they display images of nature on a social media account?
The biggest problem facing the world at present is overpopulation. Gay people could help us solve that problem.
The number of people on the planet is placing enormous strain on resources and population numbers look set to increase. One solution to this problem is to limit the number of children being born, and gay people could play a large part in this.
Before we continue, it is important to establish that, for the sake of this article, ‘gay’ and ‘homosexual’ refer to men in relationships with other men, and women in relationships with other women. Yes, the article does use a very narrow definition of gender, but the premise of the article is based on the simple fact that ‘gay’ people cannot naturally reproduce.
This, therefore, is the starting point for our theory.
Gay people cannot naturally reproduce, and, therefore, cannot naturally add more people to the population. Even in countries in which same-sex marriage has been legalised, biology prevents couples from creating their own children.
What about artificial insemination?
Yes, gay people can turn to modern medicine to help them start a family, and this has been successful in many cases. But, remember, effective and safe insemination services are only available in wealthy countries, and sometimes only to the more wealthy people in those countries. Most people in the world are not wealthy, most people work very hard to put food on the table every day. So, while this option helps create loving families in some parts of the world, it is not a realistic option for most couples.
Plus, artificial insemination adds another human to the planet.
What about surrogacy?
Like artificial insemination, this is another successful method used to bear children. But, like insemination, it is often only realistically available to couples from wealthy countries. Many women is poorer countries do act as surrogates, but only out of sheer economic desperation. Surrogacy can place significant strain on a woman, and lead to dire results. Furthermore, many men in these patriarchal societies are unlikely to approve of their wives carrying a child for other people – unless there is significant financial compensation.
Plus, surrogacy adds another human to the planet.
A one-child policy?
China tried the one-child policy. It didn’t work, for the simple reason that any system that is created by humans can be exploited by humans.
Interestingly, in the case of the one child policy in China, apparently, the ‘one child’ referred only to the women. If a man divorced his wife, then re-married, he was apparently allowed to have another child with the new wife – therefore bringing two children into the world.
What about adoption?
Yes, gay couples can adopt, and many of them do. Through adoption, a child finds a home and a couple is gifted a child to love. It is usually a very positive outcome for all concerned, and it is a positive outcome for the planet because an adopted child has already been born. The parents of the adopted child are not creating another child and are therefore not adding to the world’s population.
Thus, gay couples adopting children is one effective solution to reducing the number of children being born, and this is clearly the most humane solution to limiting population growth.
What are the other methods of limiting population growth?
A human cull.
Extermination of people in order to reduce the number of humans on the planet.
Yes, this is a deplorable suggestion, but it has been attempted before. It has been attempted by all of those people who filled the pages of your highschool history books – Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao Zedong…many of whom deliberately attempted to eliminate particular groups of people. Surely this could never happen again, you argue, we are now too enlightened, we’ve learned from our mistakes.
Examine the rise of extremism throughout the world, and examine how many of these extremists are unemployed, poor, displaced and affected already by overpopulation.
Unfortunately, if population increases as it is expected, and if the world continues to operate according to the current reality, it is natural forces that will reduce population numbers.
This is not good.
Natural forces include hunger and starvation, borne from poverty, as more people compete for fewer jobs. Another natural force is environmental destruction, which is already destroying access to clean water, food sources, clean air and spaces fit for human habitation. Some people are already dying as a result of environmental destruction, and informed projections indicate that this phenomenon will only increase.
Another natural force is conflict. Conflict is inevitable in humans, but this primal trait will manifest itself more frequently and more obtusely in a world full of hungry, disillusioned people who have become economic and environmental refugees.
If gay people can help save the world, what is stopping this from happening?
Religion is an impediment to limiting population growth. Religion stigmatises or even criminalises homosexuality and same-sex relationships which not only causes harm to homosexual people, but often forces them into marriages they do not want. These marriages produce children. Often those children are loved, and provided for, but they would not have been born if one, or both, of the parents had not been heavily pressured to conform to their society’s dominant religious belief.
We might also digress and examine the fact that religion discourages contraception and many religious families bear many children. Furthermore, religion, of any kind, is often a barrier to abortion and so many women give birth to child that they either didn’t want or can’t realistically support. Legalising and providing safe access to abortion is one way to not only to control population numbers but it helps to ensure that many children do not enter the world without the love and support that they need in order to thrive.
As long as men control women’s bodies and reproductive rights, limiting population numbers will be impossible. Men still largely control legislation, relating to issues such as abortion and LGBTQI rights. Men still control religions. Men still control relationships and, in most parts of the world, men determine if a woman will fall pregnant.
Ignorance and intolerance.
Ignorance, intolerance, hate and criminalisation of homosexuality often forces many men and women to remain in the closet. As discussed earlier, many gay and lesbian people are living in marriages they would not choose if it were not for the stigma attached to homosexuality in their societies.
Removing stigma, criminalisation and discrimination against the LGBTQI community should enable more people to live as they want to live, and may, in turn, help reduce the world’s population and create a more livable planet for everyone.
People who identify as Gender Neutral define themselves as having no gender. They are not male, they are not female and they are not transgender. They identify as having no gender at all, regardless of the gender at the time of their birth. With this in mind, how do they classify their sexuality?
Gender Neutral people don’t necessarily fit into any of the categories encapsulated within the LGBTQIPPAK+ spectrum.
They can’t be classified as Heterosexual because, in order to be Heterosexual, one must be either male or female and be attracted to people of the opposite sex. Gender Neutral people are not male or female.
They can’t be labelled as Gay, because, according to the LGBTQIPPAK + nomenclature, Gay refers to a man who is physiologically male and is attracted to another man who also possesses all of the necessary moving parts. Gender Neutral people do not identify as male.
Gender Neutral people cannot be placed in the category of Lesbian either, because a Lesbian is a female, with female physiology, who is attracted to other women with female physiology. Gender Neutral people do not identify as female.
Gender Neutral people are not necessarily Bisexual. They might be Bi, they might not be. They can only be Bi if they are attracted to both males and females and the term Gender Neutral does not specify their preference for both men and women.
Well then, they must be Transgender.
Transgender seems initially to be the most accurate label for a person who identifies as Gender Neutral, but this is not necessarily true. The difference between these two definitions is that Transgender people self-identify with a particular gender. For example, a person who is born male, and possesses male physiology, identifies as being female because that person feels like a female – physically, mentally and emotionally. A person who identifies as a particular gender, cannot be Gender Neutral.
It is also important to remember, at this juncture, that Transgender is not the same as Transsexual. Transsexual people have made physical changes, usually through surgery, in-order-to alter their gender. Transgender people have not necessarily undertaken any physical alteration.
Gender Neutral people might be identified as Queer. Queer is a broad term which can define anyone within the LGBTQIPPAK+ spectrum. It can include anyone who is not sure of their gender or sexuality, or people who don’t want to be affixed with a specific label. This would seem to be the most appropriate label for a person who is Gender Neutral.
The sexuality of Gender Neutral people is not Intersexed. Primarily, because Intersexed does not describe sexuality, it describes gender. Secondly, because Intersexed people are those who are born with both male and female anatomy and, as we have established, the term gender neutral does not refer to someone’s physical make up, it refers to someone’s conviction that they do not have a specific gender.
They might be Asexual, but they also might not be. Asexual refers to people with a low interest in sex, or not interest in sex at all, for whatever reason. Gender neutral people may have little interest in sex, but this may not be true and, again, the designation of Gender Neutral does not indicate a lack of interest in sex.
Pansexual also sounds like a term that could be attached to Gender Neutral people, but upon further consideration, it is also not a sufficient definition. Pansexual people declare an attraction to people of any gender or sexuality and often a heightened interest in sexual activity. Miley Cyrus recently declared herself Pansexual and her public behaviour certainly places her firmly within this category. If Gender Neutral people share Miley’s proclivities, then, yes, they could be defined as Pansexual, but if they are faithful to one person, or attracted to only one gender, then they are not Pansexual. So, they may or may not be Pansexual, just as Miley Cyrus may or may not be Pansexual, depending on the sales of her latest single or album.
Similarly, Gender Neutral people may or may not be Polyamorous or Polygamous, depending on their attachment to one person or gender, or their willingness to enter into an open relationship. This depends on the individual.
Who knows, they might be Trisexual if they enjoy threesomes.
Finally, a person who identifies as Gender Neutral may or may not fall under the category of Kink. Kink refers to…yes, you guessed it…people who enjoy Kinky escapades and adopt a more open-minded approach to sex and sexuality. Gender Neutral people may or may not be Kinky, depending on their breadth and depth of their imagination or the number of times they have watched Fifty Shades of Grey or read the Kama Sutra (or just looked at the pictures).
Thus, the most accurate category in which to place a person who is Gender Neutral appears to be Queer, which actually exists in order to avoid categorisation. This, in itself, suggests that narrow and definitive labelling of people’s sexuality is perhaps futile and unnecessary and that an open mind among all members of society will allow people to discover their own gender and sexuality in their own time and space.