<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Scavenger: Sex not specified: Australia leads the way with legal document</title>
	<atom:link href="http://oiiaustralia.com/7044/scavenger-sex-australia-leads-legal-document/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://oiiaustralia.com/7044/scavenger-sex-australia-leads-legal-document/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 01 Apr 2012 03:23:53 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: norrie mAy-welby</title>
		<link>http://oiiaustralia.com/7044/scavenger-sex-australia-leads-legal-document/#comment-380</link>
		<dc:creator>norrie mAy-welby</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 08:13:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://oiiaustralia.com/?p=7044#comment-380</guid>
		<description>Perhaps Tracie was refering to individuals identified by doctors are having some intersex feature that makes it hard to put m or f on a birth cert, which does become political as it is deemed legally important to register the birth with a certain time with one of the two standard sex categories,  and I know personally of one case where parents were pressured to approve of surgery to make such a classification in time to register the birth within twelve months. The butchery of babies to conform to legal niceties or social expectations IS political, and demands strong political opposition. With the option of not specifying sex, there is no legal emergency, and thus less imperative for non-consensual surgery. 
There is no third sex implied here, by the way. &quot;Not Specified&quot; means just that; it is not a third sex, but simply a statement that sex is not specified.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Perhaps Tracie was refering to individuals identified by doctors are having some intersex feature that makes it hard to put m or f on a birth cert, which does become political as it is deemed legally important to register the birth with a certain time with one of the two standard sex categories,  and I know personally of one case where parents were pressured to approve of surgery to make such a classification in time to register the birth within twelve months. The butchery of babies to conform to legal niceties or social expectations IS political, and demands strong political opposition. With the option of not specifying sex, there is no legal emergency, and thus less imperative for non-consensual surgery.<br />
There is no third sex implied here, by the way. &#8220;Not Specified&#8221; means just that; it is not a third sex, but simply a statement that sex is not specified.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
<!-- This Quick Cache file was built for (  oiiaustralia.com/7044/scavenger-sex-australia-leads-legal-document/feed/ ) in 0.28376 seconds, on May 17th, 2012 at 4:12 pm UTC. -->
<!-- This Quick Cache file will automatically expire ( and be re-built automatically ) on May 17th, 2012 at 5:12 pm UTC -->
