‘Humane intervention’: the international protection of animal rights

This paper explores the international implications of liberal theories which extend justice to sentient animals. In particular, it asks whether they imply that coercive military intervention in a state by external agents to prevent, halt or minimise violations of basic animal rights (‘humane intervention’) can be justified. In so doing, it employs Simon Caney's theory of humanitarian intervention and applies it to non-human animals. It argues that while humane intervention can be justified in principle using Caney's assumptions, justifying any particular intervention on behalf of animals is much more difficult – and in present circumstances impossible. If these claims are correct, a number of important conclusions follow. First, all states lack legitimacy because of the horrors that they inflict upon animals. As a result of this, all states are prima facie liable to intervention by external agents. To remedy this situation, all states have the responsibility to massively transform their relationship with non-human animals, and to build international institutions to oversee the proper protection of their most basic rights.     

Effects of neutral toys on sex-typed play in children with gender identity disorder

This study assessed the relative influences of approach and avoidance behaviors toward same-sex and cross-sex toys in the play of children with gender identity disorder and in normal boys, normal girls, and psychiatric controls. Three forced-choice situations with toys and three forced-choice situations with dress-up apparel were presented that paired same-sex and cross-sex stimuli, same-sex and neutral stimuli, and cross-sex and neutral stimuli. In the same-sex/cross-sex situation, the gender-disordered group played a significantly shorter time with the same-sex stimuli and a significantly longer time with the cross-sex stimuli than the normal boys and the psychiatric controls, whereas the play patterns of the normal girls fell in between that of the gender-disordered group and the other two control groups. Within-groups analyses showed that the normal boys and the psychiatric controls preferred the same-sex toys, whereas the gender-disordered group and the normal girls showed no preference. When the neutral toys were the alternative, avoidance of cross-sex toys appeared to be stronger than the attraction to same-sex toys in the normal boys and in the psychiatric controls. The relative influence of approach-avoidance tendencies was more equivocal in the gender-disordered group, though they appeared to have a weaker attraction to same-sex toys and less avoidance of cross-sex toys in comparison with the normal boys and the psychiatric controls. The approach-avoidance patterns of the normal girls fell in between that of the gender-disordered group and the other two control groups.