I’m in shock - Australian newspaper

[timeisnotaline]

It’s the Saturday issue to be fair but this is actually on the front page, and extends to a full page spread inside. It’s paywalled unfortunately and I don’t have a log in.
www.theage.com.au/national/inclusive-language-risks-dehumanising-women-top-researchers-argue-20220126-p59red.html

Good inclusive language just needs to use "and":

Mothers and other lactating parents.

Women and other people who menstruate.

Obviously for those who don't share a faith in the magic of gender declaration the words after the "and" can just be ignored, but for those who have female bodies but don't consider themselves women, those words are vital. Using "and" means that the majority who recognise the reality of sex get clear communication, while thise who don't are not excluded.

Given the Australian love of sport was there any push back or negative reporting about Hannah Mounsey?
A great visual for not allowing males into women's sport. I did see a report of HM complaining that fellow team members didn't want to shower with HM

Yep it sure does Sherlock! To the world saying it doesn’t

Good inclusive language just needs to use "and"

Exactly and if anyone was interested in including people born female but who identify as men or non binary then and would be sufficient. However, the erasure of "woman ", when discussing female biology , is to placate the male people who identify as women. If women = female biology, then they can't be women.
Out of interest, do male health charities still use the word " men" ?

Male health charities in Australia

@Helleofabore

I am rather surprised to see someone post that they have not witnessed racism against Aboriginal people though.

I guess maybe I have family, and I grew up in, in an area rife with visible social issues of indigenous Australians. Issues exacerbated by not only inherent racism, past and present, but also racism from people they encounter everyday.

I think it highlights just how marginalised aboriginals are that physically they are so invisible to many city dwellers (even though the highest indigenous population centre is in Sydney not remote rural).

I think an anti-conversion therapy bill would be unlikely in NSW right now with a conservative state government and it would be unlikely to get through the upper house anyway. The Victorian, QLD and ACT bills were all passed by labor governments.

Looking at auspol Twitter media types there’s a lot of “well, I don’t mind being called a chest-feeder, so why should anyone else?”

I think it highlights just how marginalised aboriginals are that physically they are so invisible to many city dwellers (even though the highest indigenous population centre is in Sydney not remote rural).

Yes.

I took her to mean direct as in a person saying or doing something directly racist towards another person. Not microaggresions and that kind of thing, but calling names, denying service, saying they don't want them around, etc.

Whether on not she's sheltered is sort of beside the point, which was, as I understood it, about the difference in coverage compared to other instantiations of racism.

Apologies if this has been posted already. This is the journal article the newspaper report is based on.

www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgwh.2022.818856/full?fbclid=IwAR1GmMyg9yC58i3SargXSSpsw1NgaVoD6raB8cz40YuEgx9VxFTr5A4m4OQ

Very clear, extremely important.

@DifficultBloodyWoman

FlickFlak, I don’t live under a rock. Please reread my post.

I think it was quite clear that I don’t doubt that there is racism in Australia, both direct and indirect, directed towards both the Aboriginal and Chinese communities. I have personally witnessed more aggression towards the Chinese community than the Aboriginal community.

Those of Chinese descent are a larger and more visible population. Perhaps that is why I notice it? And yet it isn’t reported as widely in the media. Perhaps that is politically motivated?

I think SantaClaws understood the point I was trying to make. Thank you.

I knew what you were saying. It was really clear and you took pains to say 'obviously I don't mean this thing I might be misinterpreted as saying'.

Not that that helped much

I have great hopes for the Age. They got their first female editor in 165 years about one year ago - Gay Alcorn. They have published some gender critical ideas recently. And in her first editorial www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/a-note-to-readers-from-new-editor-of-the-age-20201002-p561ii.html she said the following:
"One of the reasons I wanted to lead The Age was because of my increasing concern in recent years about the media becoming so polarised, reflecting perhaps the polarising of our community. I worry that if people only read or watch what they agree with, the chance for us to have conversations and debates about our big and complicated challenges diminishes. Liberal democracies depend on robust debate and are weakened when 'sides' assume the worst of each other.....I want The Age to engage with all of that, but I want our journalism to be curious and probing, too. I want us to approach our stories with an open mind, rather than through an ideological lens.....We publish opinion pieces with diverse views - not many media organisations do that now. In some other publications, you’ll get a "left" view or a "right" view and little else. We won’t publish extremist views and we are not interested in hateful views - we need to be constructive, not destructive."

@BuanoKubiamVej

Good inclusive language just needs to use "and":

Mothers and other lactating parents.

Women and other people who menstruate.

Obviously for those who don't share a faith in the magic of gender declaration the words after the "and" can just be ignored, but for those who have female bodies but don't consider themselves women, those words are vital. Using "and" means that the majority who recognise the reality of sex get clear communication, while thise who don't are not excluded.

Who are the other lactating parents? Fathers?

Who are the other people who menstruate? Men?

If fathers don't lactate and men don't menstruate, then this type of phrasing makes no sense.

I disagree that this is 'good, inclusive language'. It's actually nonsensical as well as literally thought-stopping, in that everyone who who reads such phrases will pause as they try to figure out which people the second clauses are referring to. You can't 'just ignore' that an absurd proposition (fathers can lactate, men can menstruate) has been tacked on to the end of every sentence that references women's or maternal health.

Nor should women give an inch of ground to this ideology in the name of inclusiveness or kindness. This attempt to distort the language of pregnancy, birth and motherhood has NOTHING to do with concern for the health of those who claim transgender status. If gender ideology advocates gave two shits about that, they'd be calling for proper research into the health effects of exogenous testosterone on the female body, for a start.

Rather, it is about imposing on the entire world an ideology whose core tenet is that sex is socially irrelevant. Women need to remember that 'kindness' and 'inclusiveness' are just the cover they use in the service of this totalising project - they are not real concerns, but rather effective tools to guilt trip the rest of us into enacting or accepting their ideology.

Female patients who are dissociated from their femaleness should be treated with sensitivity and respect by medical professionals, and specific guidance should be issued for doctors and nurses to use when treating these patients. They should not be permitted to impose their dissociation from their sexed bodies on the rest of the population, who still need clear and accurate medical language.

The Age/Sydney Morning Herald just published and immediately deleted a review of three books about gender ideology including Helen Joyce’s book. No explanation given. Bernard Lane from The Oz appears to be following up:

twitter.com/bernard_lane/status/1487616033238454272?s=21

[quote GlorianaCervixia]The Age/Sydney Morning Herald just published and immediately deleted a review of three books about gender ideology including Helen Joyce’s book. No explanation given. Bernard Lane from The Oz appears to be following up:

twitter.com/bernard_lane/status/1487616033238454272?s=21[/quote]
Interesting. I alerted Helen Joyce to the pulled review.

@SantaClawsServiette

It seems like countries like Australia and Canada may be starting to see the very first glimmers of push back.

God, I hope so. It must be like a reverse Gilead over there.

We’ve had a glimmer of push back

I remember listening to the speeches at HoL re the word mother and feeling tearful, I emailed to say thanks to the main four

I’d like to see more though, much more

If you follow the twitter above you will see a link to a pdf of the review. It took ages to load but it was very positive and obviously written by someone without the wool over their eyes. I imagine it would have really made certain people angry!

It's worth a read, actually.

[quote GlorianaCervixia]The Age/Sydney Morning Herald just published and immediately deleted a review of three books about gender ideology including Helen Joyce’s book. No explanation given. Bernard Lane from The Oz appears to be following up:

twitter.com/bernard_lane/status/1487616033238454272?s=21[/quote]
Is this the review?

<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20220128070714/www.theage.com.au/culture/books/tiptoeing-into-the-world-of-transgender-politics-20220121-p59q7d.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">web.archive.org/web/20220128070714/www.theage.com.au/culture/books/tiptoeing-into-the-world-of-transgender-politics-20220121-p59q7d.html

Good article

I managed to read it by disabling java scripts

Works on android

Yes, that's the review. For some reason the Wayback Machine link says it hasn't been archived but I have the pdf.

It's a shame it's been pulled down because I think Helen Joyce's book would really help change a few minds here.

@GlorianaCervixia

Yes, that's the review. For some reason the Wayback Machine link says it hasn't been archived but I have the pdf.

It's a shame it's been pulled down because I think Helen Joyce's book would really help change a few minds here.

It seems to have been deleted from the archive. You should still be able to see it at that link if you click on it, then immediately disconnect from the internet (same way as you can sometimes see paywalled newspaper articles).

Thanks for the link OldCrone. Interesting comment on Playdon's book referring to it as a work of " historical fiction".

Late to the party as usual, but I just wanted to say ... a couple of months ago I was visiting friends and we were watching the ABC news. The ABC ran one of its puff "trans" pieces and it provoked an outburst - and a very interesting subsequent discussion. It appears nobody in the room was buying it, though everyone in the room was traditionally left-of-centre.

And judging by the discussion online when topics like the Coogee Women's Pool and Hannah Mouncey bring things into focus, most of the Australian general public isn't buying it either. On the other hand, most of the media and the "progressive" political class seem to be thoroughly captured!

Senator Claire Chandler in Tasmania is worth keeping an eye on: www.youtube.com/channel/UCrQFue5ocynuudNXNp-sLuQ.