The Australian Senate has passed a motion disallowing the federal government from using gender-inclusive language in anything it does.
It passed 33 to 31.
“Our fundamental biology and relationships are represented through the following descriptors – mother, father, son, daughter, brother, sister, boy, girl, grandmother, grandfather, aunt, uncle, female, male, man, woman, lady, gentleman, Mr, Mrs, Ms, sir, madam, dad, mum, husband, wife,” the motion reads.
“Broad scale genuine inclusion cannot be achieved through distortions of biological and relational descriptors.”
The motion calls on the federal government to “reject the use of distorted language such as gestational/non-gestational parent, chest-feeding, human milk, lactating parent, menstruators, birthing/non-birthing parent”.
It also says that any material produced, including legislation, websites and employee documentation and training must ignore these terms.
It comes after Australian National University researchers suggested ditching terms such as “mother”, “father” and “breastfeeding” to be more inclusive.
How many of us scurried for our dictionaries when Pauline Hanson was asked if she was xenophobic, and she responded ‘please explain’? I had never heard of the term, but wasn’t going to admit my ignorance; I knew what racism, elitism, sexism, nationalism was but, come on, xenophobic was not only wankerish, but clearly intended to try and portray Pauline as ignorant – when it backfired and garnered sympathy from many Aussies who thought it an unfair question. How many of the 44 who supported the this recent One Nation motion were similarly too frightened to speak up (until One Nation said what they were all thinking)?