Interesting Links for 22-06-2023
Jun. 22nd, 2023 12:00 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
andrewducker- 1. Is GitHub Copilot Any Good?
- (tags:programming ai fail )
- 2. Secret Invasion's opening credits are made by AI.
- (tags:ai marvel TV )
- 3. Tories trying to destroy the conversion therapy ban by inserting a consent clause
- (tags:abuse LGBT OhForFucksSake conservatives )
- 4. New Zealand supreme court decides how to divide polyamorous property
- (tags:polyamory law newzealand )
- 5. A brief history of "Who framed Roger Rabbit" (35 years old today!)
- (tags:animation movies history )
Tags:
- abuse,
- ai,
- animation,
- conservatives,
- fail,
- history,
- law,
- lgbt,
- links,
- marvel,
- movies,
- newzealand,
- ohforfuckssake,
- polyamory,
- programming,
- tv
no subject
Date: 2023-06-22 12:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2023-06-22 12:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2023-06-22 01:32 pm (UTC)3.
Date: 2023-06-22 02:17 pm (UTC)For me the most obvious example is that when a monosexual person's partner transitions, and they don't want to either split up, open the relationship, or remain celibate, it should be possible for a therapist to help them seek out and nurture enough attraction to their partner to sustain a sexual relationship. As far as I can tell, the studies that show that conversion therapy doesn't work are all about turning someone from gay to straight. I've not been able to find any that look at the viability of shifting the needle from Kinsey six to five, or from zero to one, but both my intuitive sense and anecdotal evidence suggest to me that it's at least more plausible.
But if that can be offered to people whose partner transitions, it seems like it should also be possible to offer similar support to someone who wanted to enter a partnership with someone of a sex they're not usually attracted to whatever their reasons for doing so (obviously with the informed consent of the other party).
Similarly, if someone is exclusively same-sex attracted but has decided that their conscience doesn't permit them to act on that attraction, they may well need support in living out that choice and grieving what they have lost, and although this support can be given without trying to change someone's inherent sexuality, I worry that it will nonetheless be withdrawn because of fears of prosecution.
As I say, I lean towards accepting that losing the potential for this kind of support is the price that must be paid for eliminating the abusive and harmful practices that we generally mean when we talk about conversion therapy, but it is a real cost, and one which is likely to fall on vulnerable shoulders for the most part.
Re: 3.
Date: 2023-06-22 02:39 pm (UTC)I think that most therapy (in this space, if nothing else), should be of the "Accepting what kind of person you are, and exploring around that" variety. Asking people where that attraction lies, and what might be covered by it. Not in trying to get people to be a Kinsey 5 rather than a 6, but in asking "Are you really a Kinsey 6, or is that a belief that you've been pushed into?" and "If you are a Kinsey 6 then does that make your current relationship impossible, or are there things that you would be willing to do with this specific person, considering your specific relationship history with them, that would not apply to a general person of this type?"
Re: 3.
Date: 2023-06-22 02:40 pm (UTC)Re: 3.
Date: 2023-06-23 10:44 am (UTC)I don't even know how a ban would likely be implemented. I skimmed govt proposal https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/banning-conversion-therapy/banning-conversion-therapy and random EU summary https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2022/733521/EPRS_BRI(2022)733521_EN.pdf and mostly learned that drafting laws is complicated. I got a vibe of "details written by someone paying attention, in the direction proposed by political determination". I could imagine several different approaches, e.g. emphasising anything promising a complete reversal of sexuality, or emphasising things that are clearly coercive even if obstensibly consented to, or emphasising removal of attraction vs cultivation of attraction. I know some laws are surprisingly well written and seem to cover what they SHOULD cover and competently NOT cover what they shouldn't, and others are written bluntly over-broadly and ban all kinds of things that shouldn't ever have been banned, but I don't know when you get whihc sort.
4
Date: 2023-06-23 01:20 pm (UTC)I would not be hugely surprised if the New Zealand Supreme Court did not overturn this judgement in line with that opinion. The Court of Appeal could be said to have extended the scope of the legislation in a way that English common law systems are not too happy about.
Re: 4
Date: 2023-06-25 06:44 am (UTC)See also comments at https://andrewducker.dreamwidth.org/4307003.html?thread=30163259#cmt30163259
Re: 4
Date: 2023-06-26 09:13 am (UTC)I agree with the comments you've pointed to that this is a bit of stretch by the Supreme Court. Given that I thought they would overrule this decision I am, also surprised that they have made it.
Re: 4
Date: 2023-06-26 10:01 am (UTC)So either they have to rule that (a)entering a new one nullifies the earlier one even if it's ongoing, (b)that the new one doesn't count, or that (c)adding a new relationship means that you have multiple relationships that all count.
I can certainly see that the first two options would have uncomfortable ramifications, and they'd want to avoid declaring some people's legally recognised (if not legally codified) relationships void.
Re: 4
Date: 2023-06-26 10:35 am (UTC)Hard cases make bad law.
The right forum for resolving what happens in these situations is for the New Zealand Parliament to pass some primary legislation.