Labor's Push For A National Gender Centre Is Informed By Radical Academic Philosophies And Not Facts

Should it be elected on the weekend of May 18, the Labor Party has promised to offer free sex change procedures, set up a tax payer-funded National Gender Centre, and appoint a new Commissioner for Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status Issues.  This is completely in keeping with the party's fixation with social justice.

To be clear, when the Labor Party talks about social justice, it doesn't mean things like equality before the law, the equal claim to rights as citizenship, or free speech, which it clearly considers to be outdated and antiquated ideas which should be consigned to the dustbin of history.

No, when the Labor Party talks about social justice, it means the complete rearrangement of society, so that there is no privilege, no ­hierarchy and no difference.  This has everything to do with engineering, and very little to do with justice.  One of the ways it proposes to fulfil the party's self-proclaimed mission to reshape Australian ­society in its own progressive image, is to get society to a point in which we are a genderless, ­androgynous mass.

It genuinely believes that a genderless world in which there are neither men nor women, boys nor girls will be better, because if there are no men, women, boys or girls, there can be no difference between us.  And if there is no difference, there can be neither oppressor or oppressed.  Hey presto, you have a world of perfect equality.

A reading of the party's 320-page manifesto entitled "A Fair go for Australia" reveals Labor's preoccupation with all things gender.  For example, the word "gender" is mentioned 148 times, "intersex" 55 times and "transgender" a total of 35 times.  Compare this to "homelessness" (45), "immigration" (24) and "red tape" (3).  We can see where Labor's pri­orities lie.  The manifesto's authors have ­clearly cast themselves in the role of ­social justice warriors.

Many of would have undoubtedly been through the university system, where they have absorbed the postmodern radical gender theory has been peddled in the humanities as unquestionable orthodoxy since the 1960s.  It is evident from the manifesto, that its authors have clearly been worshipping at the altar of the high priestess of gender theory, French feminist and social theorist Simone de Beauvoir.  Back in 1949, she concluded that "one is not born but becomes a woman".  She argued that while there is a distinction between sex and gender, where sex is the biological framework of male and female, gender is the social construct of experience and of masculinity.

There is no doubt that they will also be acolytes of Judith Butler, who ­decided in 1990 that the perception of gender had become outdated, posing instead that gender is nothing but a ­performance.

Take the University of Sydney's Gender Studies blurb.  "The Gender Studies major", it claims, "encourages you to think beyond commonsense ideas about what it means to be male or female, and to recognise instead the many different ways that people ­embody and experience gender ...".

Meanwhile, over in the Women and Gender Studies Department (WGS) at the University of New South Wales, the department boasts that its "scholars are outward-looking, politically engaged and theoretically innovative:  we aim to make WGS an area of study that has the capacity to explain the world and perhaps even change it".

And by Jove, they are doing their level best to change it.

By way of example, last year the Herald Sun reported that in Victoria the Manningham and Melbourne City Councils were going to remove all books and toys deemed to enforce gender stereotype from their kindergartens, schools and libraries.  Noddy, Winnie the Pooh, Thomas the Tank Engine and Barbie were all going to be discarded on the grounds that they were not "gender neutral" enough.

Unsurprisingly, the source of this madness was the Australian National University, which at the councils' ­request wrote a report called "Building Children's Resilience through Respectful and Gender Equitable Relationships Pilot Project".

The upshot of the document was that it claimed that children as young as two were not only guilty of stereotyping but that they were also developing signs of gender bias:  "Although it is often thought that children are relatively free of the social biases and stereotypes that adults exhibit", the authors lamented that, "the evidence suggests that the foundations for these stereotypes are actually set very young".

But wait, there's more:  "Research also suggests that stereotyping and prejudice along race and gender lines can be observed in children as young as 3-4 years of age".  According to the ­report, toddlers who are barely out of nappies and who are just coming to grips with their existence, are ­apparently guilty of stereotyping and gender bias.

Thankfully, the reports' recom­mendations were not taken up by the councils.

In Tasmania, the Greens and the Labor Party have already passed a bill to remove gender from birth certificates, because they believe it to be a form of discrimination.

In South Australia, the birth certificate options are "non-binary" and "intermediate/intersex/unspecified".

The visionaries at the Australian ­Bureau of Statistics have decided that in the 2021 census, Australians will be asked about "non-binary sex and/or gender identity;  sexuality orientation".

These are examples of just how wide the divide is between mainstream Australians and the political elite.  It is clear that the latter believes that one of the most pressing needs for mainstream Australians in 2019 is to establish a ­National Gender Centre.

What is of great concern as the election looms, and Australians should be rightfully concerned, is that the Labor Party, if elected, will impose this radical gender theory to society, whether society wants it or not, and at society's expense.