The science is settled. Not in relation to the increasingly discredited theory that man-made global warming is having a signal effect on the climate, but in relation to sex. On this, scientists agree that human beings are born male or female and that this is immutable.
This is being challenged by the latest fashionable elite dogma that one’s birth sex may be changed at will to the ‘gender’ a person chooses to affect.
The elites may believe this, but inserting this into the minds of vulnerable school children constitutes nothing less than child abuse.
Little wonder then that, by comparison with poorer countries, the performance of Australian children in mathematics and science is in serious decline, with instruction in history and the glories of our literature, minimal.
That this is happening demonstrates the truth in the proposition that there exists no significant problem in Australia which if it were not created by the politicians, has not been made significantly worse by them.
With few exceptions, our out-of-touch politicians have embraced the dogma of gender fluidity, just as they embraced fake republicanism, and just as today they so enthusiastically embrace the global warming cult.
Support for gender fluidity began under a Labor government, but was refined and adopted under the newly minted 2013 Coalition government.
Federal parliament, guided by Minister Birmingham and without even a vote, removed the definitions of ‘man’ as a member of the male sex and ‘woman’ as a member of the female sex from the Sexual Discrimination Act.
In their stead we have from the cultural Marxist lexicon, the Newspeak term, ‘gender identity’. This is defined as ‘the gender-related identity, appearance or mannerisms or other gender-related characteristics of a person (whether by way of medical intervention or not), without regard to the person’s designated sex at birth’. But as Patrick J. Byrne points out in his book Transgender, it is singularly wrong to claim that sex is ‘designated’ at birth. Instead, babies are normally recognised at birth for what they already are, boys or girls.
The legislation was followed by the ominously named Australian Government Guidelines on the Recognition of Sex and Gender. This requires that persons be described in passports, Medicare forms etc., as either ‘male’, ‘female’ or ‘x’. (Labor would remove any designation whatsoever.)
‘X’ means either ‘indeterminate’, ‘intersex’ or ‘unspecified’ .
Now it would not have been unreasonable at the federal and mainly state level to attempt to accommodate that small minority of adult men who demonstrably wish to appear as women and adult women who demonstrably wish to appear as men, so that they can avoid embarrassment.
But to turn this into an effective federal code upending the concept of sex and replacing it with the concept of an elective gender goes against common sense.
Worse, it is having serious unintended consequences and not only in sports and schools but in relation to public facilities and even employment. Legislation to protect women from discrimination will be undermined. What is happening in the schools, I must reiterate, is nothing less than a form of child abuse which should not be tolerated.
In indulging in this debacle, the Canberra politicians have delivered an egregious example of the exercise of powers never granted to them by the people under the Constitution either in its original state or under any amendment approved by them in a referendum.
This exercise demonstrates a pressing need for politicians to be made truly accountable to the people through significant constitutional reform.
One area where the consequences of this over-regulation in favour of a minority is having grotesque and unintended consequences involves women’s sports.
It is self-evident that men tend to be stronger than women, run and swim faster, punch harder and jump higher. The proof of this is in the fact that women rarely wish to become men to play in the male sports competitions. If a man, with all his advantages in size, strength and muscular power chooses to change his gender to female and is then allowed to compete as a woman, common sense must lead to the conclusion that this would be unfair and should not be allowed.
For similar and other serious reasons women should not be involved with men in infantry combat units.
As to schools, not only are there self-evident problems concerning lavatories, dressing rooms and sports, there is a greater problem when the concept of gender fluidity is put into the minds of susceptible children who until then were not suffering from what is called ‘gender’ dysphoria. (A feature of modern society is that classification into some psychological category is invariably presented either as a solution or a defence.)
The West Australian shadow minister for child protection, Nick Goiran MLC points to the appalling consequences of planting gender fluidity issues into children’s minds. He says that fifty-nine adolescents received Stage 2 medical intervention for childhood gender dysphoria at Perth Children’s Hospital in 2018.
He warns that the effect of puberty blocking treatment can lead to decreased bone mineral density, the likelihood of thrombosis, an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, cancer and sterility. The next step is surgery, something which should only be considered for adults. But there is evidence that at least five girls under eighteen have undergone bilateral mastectomy.
There are many issues, including fashion, attention-seeking and unrelated problems which can encourage a child to seek a gender reassignment. As the effects of the treatment can be irreversible, this should be rarely undertaken.
The point surely is that gender fluidity is not a matter for the classroom but, if ever, for the home. This is a serious national scandal which should be the subject of a Royal Commission under a lawyer of the calibre of an Ian Callinan, a Dyson Heydon or a Margaret Cunneen.
You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first 10 weeks for just $10