German elections and the strength of the left
Duroyan Fertl's analysis of German elections (GLW #809) missed two issues. Firstly, election results for the Green Party (Thuringia: 6.2%, Saarland: 5.9%, Saxony: 6.4%). The Greens have established themselves around the 6%-mark crossing the 5% hurdle that guarantees seats in parliament.
Secondly, the Social Democrats' (SPD) role is missing. Even since the SPD's chancellor Willy Brandt coined the term "the majority left off centre", the SPD has faced severe problems. Recent elections have shown that there is a "majority left off centre" (SPD, Greens, Linke).
If the fiasco of Hessen is anything to go by, then conservative rule is assured in Germany. In 2008, voters in the state of Hessen had supported a "majority left off centre". The distribution of seats was 42 for both SPD and the conservative CDU, with 11 seats for its conservative free-market junior partner FDP (CDU/FDP = 53), 6 seats for Die Linke, and 9 for the Greens (SPD/Greens/Linke = 57).
With 57 seats, the left had a majority (conservatives 53). In the subsequent months, the SPD squandered its majority "left off centre", unwilling to work with Die Linke to build a majority "left off centre". The SPD engaged in engineering political suicide by self-accusations, bickering, infighting, etc. — unwilling to take political power.
This has been the tradition of the SPD. Before co-operating with the Left [USPD (1919); KPD (1933), Linke (2008/2009) the SPD prefers to stand by while the right-wing takes the helm. This might well be repeated during the next federal election set to be held on September 27.
Thomas Klikauer
Coogee, NSW
Caster Semenya I
I have read Farida Iqbal's article on Semenya (GLW #811) and think it is about the very best on this subject I have seen.
Congratulations Iqbal on your research skill an on your sensitive intelligence. You have unpacked this subject beautifully.
I especially appreciate you drawing the readers' attention to our complete lack of human rights in Australia.
Gina Wilson
Organisation Intersex International (by email)
Caster Semenya II
Farida Iqbal betrays an overly-postmodernist approach in her article "The Caster Semenya Case: Sports and Sexuality" (GLW #811).
Rather than dealing robustly with the problems that intersex people have in a society with outdated views, Iqbal tries to change reality by making claims which are simply not true.
Iqbal is not correct to say that "there is no clear cut dividing line between who is intersex and who is not". About 99% of people are clearly male or clearly female and the dividing line between those who are intersex and those who are not is about as strong as it gets in the human sciences.
It is simply wrong to say that there is "no natural clear-cut dividing line between male and female". For 99% of the sample of the human species it is very clear cut.
Iqbal is also wrong to say that "all of us have male and female characteristics". In fact, fewer than 1% of us have male and female characteristics. Nipples on men, for example, are not a "female" characteristic. It is a characteristic belonging to both sexes.
It is also a little misleading for Iqbal to say that "testosterone is supposed to be the male hormone" as men and women produce testosterone. There is nothing "suppose" about it. Testosterone is overwhelmingly responsible for male primary and secondary male sexual characteristics and is produced in men about 10 times more than women.
Neither Iqbal (as far as I'm aware) or myself are endocrinologists specialising in sexual differentiation and so both Iqbal and I could be talking nonsense.
However, you don't have to be a medical expert to appreciate that Iqbal is right to sympathetically point out the problems faced by intersex people in a society with outdated views. Iqbal is right to desire a future world where people are not locked in by restrictive gender roles.
But I don't believe that it helps intersex people or anyone else to believe a list of claims that don't stack up.
Dale Mills
Waterloo, NSW