“The changes mean Australians can identify their sex of choice and select
Male, Female or X. The ‘X’ choice is available to intersex Australians.”

So legally there is no longer a binary distinction when it comes to gender in Australia. This is exactly the point made above which in turn renders the whole issue of male/female permitted/restricted membership moot.

I assume he wrote it, although the website gives the impression that this essay is some sort of offical document.
Perhaps is it for this group calling themselves the “offical U.H.J.”, and because of this indirectness or lack of clarity, it has made me suspicious.

Many of the arguments about ‘rigal’ and the service of women are stated in this 1988 paper,
http://www.h-net.org/~bahai/docs/vol3/wmnuhj.htm
which sticks to reliable sources (some of Stephen’s references are not, of course I’m not suggesting that makes the argument wrong, just that I would like it if I was directed to a paper that did stick to only using sources that were certainly what Baha’u'llah or ‘Abdul-Baha expressed).

However the essay is also filled with the author’s interpretations about Shoghi Effendi’s motives and then 3/4 of the way through this essay is a reference to a true or appointed U.J.H. made in 1991 and then I realised that the point of the essay was not to discuss the issue of the membership of women on the U.H.J., but is promotion for a splinter group which have their own committee calling themselves the ‘official U.H.J.’.
Now I thought, why write such a very long essay, full of various arguments, some good, some I would research before I would dismiss, except as an exercise in deception.

Not a very good way to promote the idea of equality in my view.

That you visit with the native americans fascinates me. I've always been attracted to the culture, the spiritual philosophy, and the history. And it would be lovely to discuss and share experiences with eachother.

My email is rhapsodistnine@gmail.com