The "Google Manifesto" which got a Google employee fired (FULL)

(Ben McGinnes) #101

Why is the link to non-binary always made to trans? Which I didn’t even refer to at all in the previous post. Those three classifications deal with a broad overview of intersex conditions.

Anyway, here’s some numbers for you since either way those ones are way off.

Approximately 1.7% of any given population will have one of the 40+ conditions which are classed as intersex conditions. 0.05-0.07% (of total population) will be diagnosed with genital ambiguity at birth, resulting in an immediate surgical intervention; others may be subject to surgery later in life. The low end of the genital anomalies is where that outdated figure of “1 in 2,000” that is often cited comes from.

Current figures on transgender populations indicate their numbers to be somewhere between 0.53% and 0.58%. This is generally rounded up to 0.6% for convenience and to account for people who don’t admit to such things on a census or survey. This figure applies to all those who simply identify as transgender. Restricting that to those who are or have undertaken medical transition (HRT and/or surgery) and the figure drops to less than 0.01%, but it too is rounded up to that point.

So there’s no way you’re working with 99% or more, Miles was closer.

If you want to exclude intersex from dimorphic analysis, then you’re dealing with 98.3% of the population, maybe less. If you also exclude transgender then that drops to 97.7%, maybe less.

Don’t worry about overlap between intersex and transgender, most diagnostic methods for diagnosing gender sysphoria (formerly gender identity disorder) require the subject to not be intersex; once someone is diagnosed as intersex they can’t be diagnosed as transgender. Sometimes people will claim to be both, but more often than not that’s a transgender person trying to prop up some kind of argument somewhere. The exceptions to that are rare.

As for the rest of your answer, I’ll have to come back to it a bit later. There are currently PAX stuff requiring my attention.


Not clear from the article if the marketing for the positions are women-only or the actual positions are women-only


Actual source:

We’re recruiting! Yes, again.
The AFP needs more women in its ranks. We need a better gender balance – with our ultimate goal being a 50/50 representation of men and women. This is because we need to be representative of the community we serve.
As a result, for this recruitment round, we are unashamedly targeting women.
We’re looking for smart women. Agile women. Keen women. Women who want to take advantage of the unique opportunities we provide to work both in Australia and overseas. Women who want great career opportunities and an exciting future.
If this is you, join our Facebook group, check out our website, give us a call or drop us an email. If you like what you see, now’s the time to apply.

There’s been a lot of commentary on the fact that we’re targeting women with this recruitment. We’d like to clarify a few things.

In the AFP, women currently comprise 22% of sworn police and 13.5% of protective security officers. Our goal is to increase this proportion to 35% in both streams by 2021.

Today’s ‘special measure’ recruitment action is designed to supplement our current recruitment process - we already have a pool of suitable male and female candidates who applied recently.

This action we’re taking will provide us with additional female candidates. It’s not going to displace existing recruitment pools and it will require applicants to meet all the existing gateways.

Under Section 7D of the Sex Discrimination Act, the special measures we’re taking to achieve substantive equality between men and women in this organisation are legal.

Hmmmm… Interesting way of going about it.