gender theory

Victoria’s Revised Inclusive Language Guide unable to define terms

/ MurrayCampbell

“To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself. That was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word ‘doublethink’ involved the use of doublethink.” (George Orwell, 1984)

It was only a few years ago that everyone knew what a man was and what a woman was. Addressing a woman with female pronouns and speaking to men with male pronouns was commonsense, polite, and normal. In Victoria today, this is no longer the case.

The Victorian Government has recently revised its LGBTIQ+ Inclusive Language Guide for public servants.

Gendered titles such as Mister or Miss should be avoided. Referring to husband or wife has been deemed inappropriate. Such language has been deemed exclusivist.

According to the story in the Herald Sun, 

some judges are refusing to use “gendered” titles like “mister”, instead referring to people before them in court as “citizen” or “plaintiff”.

We know ‘Citizen’ worked really well for the French Revolution, so why not here in Victoria!?

There is nothing more welcoming and personal than to address people by impersonal pronouns. I’m sure we would appreciate a Government worker make introductions by asking, are you a woman or a man or…?

The guide to Victorian queer theory contradicts itself in two glaring ways.

First of all, the guide acknowledges that most men use “he” and most women use “she”. The fact is, almost all men use “he” and almost all women use “she”, but according to the guide there is no “normal”. If 99%, 98%, or 95% cannot be considered a norm, I don’t know what can. One notes how politicians frequently use numbers to establish a mandate and to define moral norms. Isn’t that what happened with the same sex marriage plebiscite in 2017, where 61.6% of respondents supported a change of definition? 

Secondly,  “A report on the strategy said an appendix of “Language & Terms” had been removed because “wording and understanding in this space changes incredibly quickly, and the appendix would soon have been out of date”.

In other words, the Guide that instructs 300,000 employees how to address people cannot even define its own terms because the meaning of words is constantly changing. Doesn’t that communicate a rather obvious issue with their approach? 

How insulting to men and women that you can no longer address them as such. Isn’t rather demeaning to ignore the fact that a woman is a woman? Imagine the approaching the desk at the public swimming pool and you ask for the changing room. The employee responds by asking, ‘how do you identify?’

Let’s assume that at least some of the persons involved in writing this Guide are trying their best to look out for people and to avoid injury and insult. Good intentions is not the definition of what is good or right. Daniel Andrews and his legion of bureaucrats are not saving humanity, they are tearing human identity and dignity asunder. 

What happens with single sex schools? What happens to women’s sport? What about prisons? What happens with gender quotas? Where individuals decide that they don’t identify as male or female but as one of growing list of alternative genders, how do they fit into all of the above contexts? 

The absurdity of this Guide means we can no longer trust our eyes and the facts we see. No longer can we depend on common sense. Biology is to be ignored (which as you can imagine creates all kinds of problems), instead public servants are told to assume that each person’s self identification is authentic and accurate. 

Ultimately gender and sex become meaningless categories, which of course is the end game in Queer theory. Names are an infringement on personal freedom, which ultimately leaves parents with zero permission to name their own children, let alone presuming what their child’s sex and gender is. Does our baby have a penis? Apparently such realities are irrelevant. What is their name? We have to wait until they are old enough to decide their gender preference and then they can choose their own name.

This Guide to language is of course a one way street. The Government’s latest move is the Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Bill 2020. 

If a child is wrestling with their gender identity, this Government is preparing to imprison mum and dad if they don’t consent to filling their child with hormone replacement therapy. These children can taken away from their family and brought the child into the loving care of the State who will gladly abuse the physical body in aid of this unyielding new ideology. 

A Church leader who explores the Christian view of sexuality with an individual can be charged and jailed for 10 years. Should a pastor or priest dare pray in accord with say 1 Corinthians 6, they can also face a prison term or a fine of $200,000.

All this would be hilarious if it were not so serious. This new cultural imperialism will not lead to clarity, it produces mountains of confusion. This is not dignity building, it is demoralising as we create a generation of young Victorians who are taught not to trust their own biology or even their parents. Eventually, we will be left with a society where we can no longer identify anyone or know anything to be truly true. The further my State of Victoria entertains this project, the more we harm ourselves. We are losing our grip on what it means to be human as we exchanged the soul for acceptance at the table of identity politics. Perhaps, the advise given to judges is correct, all we will be left with is a label, “Citizen”. 

Students of history understand that when cultures abandon moral goods, the trajectory can persist for extended periods. The road that our society is making didn’t start last week. It’s a project that is now many decades old, and while the final kilometres of this road are yet to be made, the direction should concern all of us. 

These ages of experimentation are detrimental to the lives of the people who find themselves living through it, which is what makes them so dangerous. This current negation of man and woman effects real people in real time. However, reality cannot be subdued forever. 

When the cultural influencers of Jesus’ day argued over marriage and tried to subvert the ‘normalcy’ of the Scriptures, Jesus responded, 

“Haven’t you read…that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female”.

Eventually we will return to the paradigm of Genesis 1. For now, in Victoria, we need to be prepare for a long and windy road trip. We pray that God brings us back sooner than later.

None of this is to ignore people in our community for whom heterosexuality or binary gender identity are things that don’t sit easily with them (or not at all). These individuals should be shown compassion and treated with respect. Indeed, I would argue that the good news of Jesus Christ offers greater hope and life and freedom than the constantly changing deluge that is queer theory. Remember the encounter of the Samaritan woman with Jesus. The outsider who had transgressed the norms of marriage was welcomed and loved by Jesus, not because of her background but on account of Christ’s own character. Jesus did not approve of her past, he extended to her a future,

“a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.” (John 4:23-24)

JK Rowling, Cancel Culture, and the Gradual Demise of the West

/ MurrayCampbell / 12 Comments

Real life dementors are swooping around JK Rowling and they’re coming for you too.

JK Rowling has found herself caught up in cancel culture. Both JK Rowling and Harry Potter are currently trending on Twitter. There are 100,000s comments and memes expressing outrage. Indeed many of these tweets are themselves outrageous and even abusive. 

What did JK Rowling say to invoke such anger? She dared challenge the culture’s narrative.

“If sex isn’t real, there’s no same-sex attraction. If sex isn’t real, the lived reality of women globally is erased. I know and love trans people, but erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to meaningfully discuss their lives. It isn’t hate to speak the truth.”

Let’s be clear, JK Rowling hasn’t said anything controversial. She has simply noted an established fact: a scientific, biological, and sociological fact. Indeed, sex is one of the few self evident truths that has been universally accepted in all human history and across cultures, that is, until the last few years. In today’s Western world, to affirm that women are women and that men are men is to speak heresy. To suggest sex is real is paramount to signing your own incarceration to Azkaban.

lbj101-1113_2018_185535

Our societies have been occupied by other important issues of late, especially the COVID-19 pandemic and now racism. The response to JK Rowling is a reminder however that even a pandemic and racism don’t diminish the fervour of those following the latest chapter in the sexual revolution. Again note, we are talking about half a million comments stemming from a simple statement affirming that women are women. This shows us how nothing is to excuse, distract, or dilute, full and unquestioned adherence to the sexual milieu.

While our attention has been necessarily elsewhere, the Victorian Government is still planning to introduce legislation this year that may well prohibit classical Christian teaching on sex and gender. Also, over the past few days, The Australian has published two important articles exposing the wrongful conflation of autism with gender dysphoria. Girls with autism are being misdiagnosed with gender dysphoria and are undergoing treatment to change their gender.

“Professor Attwood, a psychologist based in Brisbane and author of the guide known globally as the “Asperger’s bible”, said unhurried and thoughtful gender change could be a success but he worried about a crash back into depression if trans status was embraced with impulsive and unrealistic hopes of a fix for autism“Once they’ve changed gender, they still have autism and when (gender) transition doesn’t solve their problems they think, Oh no, that was the only option I had, what’s the point of life?,” he told The Australian.

“One of the characteristics of autism is what we call a one-track mind, and sometimes the issue of gender dysphoria (discomfort with one’s body) and changing gender becomes a special interest with a phenomenal knowledge and determination.”

Not even medicine is immune to popular social theory. Our culture’s inability to affirm basic scientific and social truth exposes a growing distrust of authority and a preference to determine moral goodness by personal inclinations. This has the negative effect of harming children and creating greater social disharmony.

As today’s example with JK Rowling demonstrates, hardline secularists preach a message of tolerance that is soaked in hateful speech. They call for justice and acceptance while demeaning everyone around them and demanding their silence. Secularist sermons are as religious as the most ardent fundamentalist. They are as confident as the Titanic sailing from the shores of England and will prove to be as successful.  Except, in this case, the new moral arbiters are not waiting for the iceberg to hit, they are already busy throwing overboard anyone and everyone who questions the decided course, which is to hit the iceberg. That is the agenda. We are not witnessing the rebirth of Western culture as much as we are signalling its gradual demolition.

The project of relativising truth was all along about breaking down society in order to introduce a new and authoritarian truth. This new order exists without reason and grace and it insists on our total allegiance. Gender theory serves as the flagship for the new orthodoxy. The fact that this theory keeps bending and changing every few months is ignored by the most vocal evangelists. Whatever its latest iteration, unwavering conformity is demanded.

Paul Kelly has offered this insightful analysis of the fracturing of Western culture. He says,

“The progressive mantra is that Western liberalism is immoral with its tolerance of colonialism, invasion, racism, inequality, climate cowardice, sexism and patriarchy. While Australians are pragmatic and responsive to sensible changes in the liberal status quo, progressivism demands a new moral order that unnerves and divides the community. It is about power. It sees every issue in terms of a victim class and an oppressor class. It is more interested in power than solutions. It demands people change their values to fit its moral impositions and it is disgusted by how liberalism has tolerated so many reactionary views…”

“…American writer Yuval Levin argued in his 2016 book, The Fractured Republic, that culture was being re-engineered. It was now what the individual preferred it to be. Once your guiding star becomes your own self-expression then, as Levin says, we “recoil from any demands that we conform to the requirements of some external moral standard — a set of rules that keeps ‘me’ from being ‘the real me’, ‘true to myself’ ”.

Such rules were to be discarded. Indeed, they were to be mocked, with the Christian religion top of the list. Such individual empowerment leads to defiance of moral instructions handed down by church, state or nearly any authority. Those defying the authority are applauded because being “true to yourself” is seen as the ultimate morality.”

Jesus declares that the “truth sets us free”. Yet, we see our society abandoning truth on many fronts; not only Christian truths but also universal knowledge. We see it with our attitudes toward the unborn, we see it when society denigrates other races, and it’s evident in our whitewashing of sex and gender. The situation is made more complex because past generations have not always offered a better discourse. Examples abound of where Western culture has previously suppressed self evident moral truth in the name of other ideologies, but this is no justification for repeating the sin of Adam today.

As Paul Kelly suggests in his article, Western societies like Australia are likely to become more fragmented and tribal. One of the byproducts of this is that as we grow weaker, we become more vulnerable. The sun is slowly setting on the West, less because of emerging powers like Communist China, but because like Rome we have chosen to destroy ourselves. At times we highlight genuine issues and then weaponise them to knock each other out. Agreement is often aloof and kindness even more distant. It is telling that as a society we can no longer agree on what a woman is and what a man is.

That there are individuals who believe they are born in the wrong body cannot be denied. It is also a fact that most children who wrestle with this disjuncture find the issue resolved as they grow into adulthood. That some individuals continue to struggle with their gender identity does not mean we dismiss biological facts, but it does require us to find suitable ways to love and support them. Indeed, while Christian ethics is largely dismissed by today’s cultural elites, it is the Bible belief that all people are made in the image of God that teaches us that all people matter. We do not leave aside those who are crying for help, rather we come alongside them.

The West is in trouble. As a Christian, my primary focus is not on keeping the West. However, to say none of it matters is simply naive. With all its flaws and failures, Western civilisation has given the world liberties and life that have not grown elsewhere. Again, the very notion of human equality and dignity depends on Judeo-Christian teaching.  If the West is to be saved, we need to rediscover the very doctrines upon which it was built, and indeed the very same teachings that are now flourishing in many other parts of the world; name Christianity. This exercise, however, requires humility and even repentance. At the moment, there is little appetite for either.

We can learn from NSW…sometimes

/ MurrayCampbell

I know we like to dislike our northern neighbours in NSW, but sometimes we really ought to take notice and learn from their example. No, I don’t mean playing football with an oversized egg or drinking their faux coffee. Yesterday, The Australian  reported that students in NSW schools will no longer be permitted to learn gender theory,

Students will no longer be taught that gender is a “social construct”, or that sexuality is “non-binary”, occurring on a ­continuum and “constantly changing”.

An edict encouraging teachers to “de-gender” their language will also likely be scrapped, along with sexually explicit case studies and teaching aids such as the “Genderbread Person”, which promotes the idea that there are “infinite possibilities” of gender identity.

The decision follows an independent inquiry that reported in September last year. The review was headed by Professor Bill Louden (of the University of Western Australia) and examined sex and health education resources for NSW schools. It appears as though changes are being implemented not only with Safe Schools, but any part of the State curriculum where a de-gender and gender-continuum message has been integrated.

img_9452

Of particular relevance for Victoria is  that Professor Loudan’s review is finding bi-partisan support in NSW. In fact,  NSW Labour MP Greg Donnelly has taken the unusual step of writing an open letter to the Victorian Premier, imploring him to give this report due consideration,

“Politicians in one state do not generally take kindly to colleagues in another state giving them advice. There can be exceptions but the unwritten rule is that if you stick your head out and give advice across the border, you are likely to get it knocked-off. With that said, let me now give some advice to my Labor colleagues in Victoria.

The Safe Schools program that the Victorian Government is imposing on public schools in that state is political poison. While it may be just starting to show up in focus groups and other polling activities undertaken by the Labor Party, do not underestimate its malignancy. When it fully manifests, it will be like a fully laden freight train that you will not be able to stop.

The problem for the Premier and the Minister for Education is that the Safe Schools program from the get-go was never about anti-bullying. It was about inculcating into school children hard edged sexuality and gender ideologies. The same ideologies that are examined and debated when undertaking Gender Studies units at university. The same units that such students elect to do by choice; no compulsion or requirement. Not only are these ideologies being presented to school children as a matter of fact i.e. sexuality and gender are not to be understood in any other way, but parents are being kept completely in the dark about what is being presented to their children and by who.”

Mr Donnelly continues, “Premier Andrews and Education Minister Merlino have been both doctrinaire and obstinate about the Safe Schools program. As a case in point, in March last year following a review of the resource material located on the Safe Schools Coalition Australia website it was recommended by the reviewer, Professor William Louden, that certain content was not fit for purpose. It was subsequently removed from the Safe Schools Coalition Australia website. In Victoria though the material that was removed from the website was immediately uploaded onto the state’s Department of Education and Training website, presumable under instruction from the Premier and/or Minister for Education. That material still sits on the Department’s website and is being actively promoted. In other words instead of taking into account what were rather modest recommendations by Professor Louden, the Victorian Premier and Education Minister got all hairy chested and gave the whole review exercise the middle finger.”

I totally get why Victorians build rhetorical walls to keep out this colony of convicts. Listening to a New South Welshman may sound like a Banshee singing Justin Bieber, but on this occasion we Victorians are fools to ignore such sage advice.

Mr Andrews and Mr Merlino, as a Victorian and parent of 3 children, I strongly urge you to re-examine your position on Safe Schools, and the unscientific and harmful gender theories now being forced upon our children. It’s ok to once in a while to redress mistakes and poor policy; humility is in fact a virtue that we value in our political leaders.  In winding back ‘Safe Schools’ and aspects of the ‘Respectful Relationships’ program, we do not have to wind back the clock on caring for children who may be working through issues of their own sexuality. We want to see them safe and flourishing, and this is achievable without having to promote ideology that is demonstrably skewed and unsuitable for the classroom.

‘Safe Schools’ and the Danger of Polemical Rhetoric

/ MurrayCampbell / 3 Comments

Just days after writing a piece on how to speak and engage in public, today the Australian public has witnessed further examples of immature and dishonest debate.

Earlier today in the halls of Parliament there was a brief and unpleasant exchange between Bill Shorten and Cory Bernadi. Mr Bernadi called Mr Shorten a ‘fraud’, while Mr Shorten yelled out, ‘At least I’m not a homophobe, mate’.

bill_shorten_worried

SBS News

In today’s The Age, Jill Stark has presented what is now an all to  common false-antithesis: either we are progressive, enlightened and support gender theory, or we are conservative, culturally regressive bigots.

She writes,

“We cannot let the march of equality be held to ransom by a powerful minority of religious zealots who dress up their bigotry as concern for children.”

“These are desperate acts from ideological crusaders who refuse to accept that the inequality they have built their privilege on is in its death throes.

But fear is a powerful emotion. If you can scare conservative voters into thinking the by-product of equality is a world in which their children will be forced into some sort of state-sanctioned gay induction camp, facts are no longer necessary.”

Is Stark right? Are our only options, be caring citizens who support Safe Schools or hate-filled degenerates who wish children harm? Of course not.

  • There are many Australians who don’t identify with conservative politics and who reject current gender theory.
  • There are many Australian Christians not aligning with the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL), and who affirm the historic Biblical understanding of gender and sexuality.
  • It is possible to be appalled and saddened by bullying in schools, and not support the Safe Schools program.
  • It is possible to actively care for and support families who have children identifying as LGBTQIA, without introducing Safe Schools.
  • It is possible for our schools to teach values such as respect and kindness amidst diversity without pushing specific and questionable gender theory. Many schools are doing an excellent job discouraging bullying without needing Safe Schools.
  • It is possible to have legitimate concerns over Safe Schools and not be homophobic and all the other insidious and untrue name calling that Jill Stark and others are resorting too. There is a sad note of irony in how  these anti-bullying advocates are among the most quick to disparage and heckle those who don’t support their social engineering project.
  • It is possible parents don’t want their 11 and 12 year old children  children being encouraged to explore sexuality in school.
  • It is possible many parents would be concerned if our schools permitted male students to use female toilets and change rooms.

I know many many people in the community who fit all the above statements, although most remain quiet and anonymous because they fear retribution from the kind of journalism Jill Stark is scripting.

Finally,  Jill Stark tries to reassure readers with this concluding remark,

“For the record, Safe Schools does not teach children how to be gay. It encourages young people to be themselves without fear of persecution or judgment, and fosters empathy for those who are different to them.

There is no “gay manual” because sexuality is not something that can be learned. Any suggestion to the contrary is a deliberate attempt to deny the very existence of LGBTI people.”

While I understand her logic, I can only assume Jill Stark hasn’t read all the material and that she has ignored the links on the Safe Schools website. Also, as a parent I am all to aware how what my children read and what they watch influences how they think and behave. It is simply benighted, or least naive, to conclude that Safe Schools will not impact the behaviour and thinking of children.

I am not interested in the politics of this debate, but I am speaking as a concerned parent, and as a person who is concerned by the continued untrue rhetoric certain journalists and politicians would have us believe about Australians who dare question current gender ideology.