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.

See how power works in this country.

News done fearlessly. Join us for just $99.

JOIN US

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).

See how power works in this country.

Independence, to us, means everyone’s right to tell the truth beyond just ourselves. If you value independent journalism now is the time to join us. Save $100 when you join us now.

Peter Fray
Peter Fray
Editor-in-chief
SAVE 50%