The gender agenda

Joe Boswell writes: Re. “Keane: defining terms in the great misogyny conspiracy” (yesterday). Bernard Keane’s piece missed one of the most glaring examples of the phenomenon he describes by concentrating on “misogyny” rather than “s-xism”. For example: “… a hatred not merely of Gillard herself, but of her gender. This isn’t casual s-xism …”.

S-xism is a prejudice based on s-x. But it is now unacceptable for anyone to be labelled by s-x in the plain and useful biological sense, a point illustrated by Keane’s determined avoidance of any mention of Gillard’s s-x. It is years since I heard the word used in that sense in relation to people. Even the government, in the various forms it issues, is no longer interested in knowing my s-x, and demands instead to know my gender. I do not know why. So, surely “s-xism” too is wholly obsolete and we can argue instead about genderism and the genderists responsible for it.

Pedants’ corner

Adam Perrett writes: Re. Comments (yesterday). Regarding the “King Rupert comment” by John Richardson — I am sure a legion of Trent Reznor fans will point out, for the sake of accuracy, that Reznor wrote the song Hurt, and Johnny Cash covered it (albeit extremely well).

Peter Fray

Get your first 12 weeks of Crikey for $12.

Without subscribers, Crikey can’t do what it does. Fortunately, our support base is growing.

Every day, Crikey aims to bring new and challenging insights into politics, business, national affairs, media and society. We lift up the rocks that other news media largely ignore. Without your support, more of those rocks – and the secrets beneath them — will remain lodged in the dirt.

Join today and get your first 12 weeks of Crikey for just $12.

 

Peter Fray
Editor-in-chief of Crikey

JOIN NOW