Sex vs gender
There appears to be a growing trend in the mainstream press, that is becoming reflected in the progressive press, to make use of the term gender where sex is more appropriate.
Have you ever seen a questionnaire that asks "What gender are you?", or demands such as "gender equality on juries" or statistics comparing, for instance, health differences according to gender? Do you wonder what it means?
The two terms have quite distinct definitions and should not be used interchangeably.
Sex is a biological term that is either male or female, two quite distinct and separate categories. Gender is a socially constructed concept based upon the broad categories of feminine or masculine.
Gender as such is subjective, and lacks meaning unless put into a context. A particular person can have both masculine and feminine traits dependent upon who is doing the defining, the attributes under investigation, and what they are defined against or compared to.
Utilizing the term gender instead of sex will lead to gender losing its social identity. This can then reinforce the myth that masculine is male, feminine is female leading us all along the biological determinist path that denies our individuality and the effects of social relations upon our actions and choices.
Kevin L'Huillier
Hobart
Medical chauvinists
When will all those bloody chauvinist males stop hurting women?
We hear every day in the news how the legal profession attacks the rights of women, how they condone domestic violence and sexual harassment of women all around the place both at home, at work and even at centres of higher education as our universities.
Now we are presented with the unwarranted increases in medical fees requested and imposed on the community by the biggest and strongest chauvinist union in the country the AMA. These increases are going to hurt more us women who, in our condition of single parents or pensioners, are the ones who are going to suffer from higher medical fees.
We already have a country owned by multinational companies and pharmaceutical firms who control the prices and demand whatever they want for their potions. We know that they constantly manipulate the press and the news to propagate exaggerations and other scare tactics on mysterious illnesses that affect one child in a million but which could be easily cured if everyone in the country pays them a certain amount of money, which in total costs the country several hundred million dollars a year in vaccines and other unnecessary branded drugs.
And who controls these multinational companies, of course men.
In addition to the above, who is directing the economy and proposing all those stupid solutions to unemployment based in economic rationalism, favouring cheap imports and the destruction of South Australian jobs? Of course those disgusting men, Keating and Fraser, who rule the right wing of the ALP and the Reserve Bank, who else?
Male doctors are only motivated by greed and the desire to dominate women, they over-service them, perform unnecessary surgery on their bodies and prescribe tranquillisers to keep their minds under control so they can endure domestic and sexual abuse.
Boycott your local male doctor, choose one of your sisters to take care of your family!
Women united will never be defeated!
Karen Jennings
Magill SA
Burma
[After] trekking to the All Burma Student Democratic in the beautiful mountainous terrain on the borders of Burma and Thailand, I write, motivated by the spirit of the brave young men and women of 303 camp.
Despite shocking atrocities suffered under the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC) throughout Burma, they battle, undaunted by attacks on their mountain bases as they strive for democracy. The need for outside intervention is in my opinion clear. I cannot fathom why Clinton, Major, Keating and other world leaders, allow the indignity suffered by the Burmese to continue.
Many human rights violations within Burma have been relayed through the world's press, but due to, I believe, a lack of financial benefits available from action, the UN Security Council ignore the urgency of the situation.
Disappointing recent remarks from Paul Keating, on human rights violations to the American administration in Washington, were infuriating. Instead of asking for tougher sanctions against countries flaunting abuses, he calls for an easing of US military and economic interference. Should the Australian PM wish for a united Asia, it is a disgrace and surely impossible to ignore the embattled Burmese!
The spirit, commitment and passion within the ABSDF 303 camp moved me to act. They live a life of frightening complexity under the harshest conditions, yet remain dignified and outwardly happy. My best wishes and thoughts are with them, as I hope yours will until democracy is restored.
James Mallon
St Kilda Vic
[Edited for length.]
Anti-Mabo legislation
Who runs Australia? Rick Farley or the Federal Government?
The latest version of the anti-Mabo legislation (Oct 19) is a victory for entrenched interests, effectively extinguishing native title wherever it appears.
Applause by some Aboriginal leaders for this defeat of their interests reinforces the view that the political process has grievously failed Aboriginal people.
Paul Keating says that the legislation will warm the souls of the Labor Party for two generations.
Others may think their soles should be toasted with hot coals for two generations.
C. M. Friel
Alawa NT
Vaccination
I was shocked that in the same issue as your condemnation of the Pope, justifiably, for pushing fundamentalism, you publish an article questioning vaccination that can only be described as fundamentalist. By this I means it denies obvious and unavoidable facts and refers to allegations by some past questionable author as "proven" and "common knowledge in medical circles". To publish this article, asking "Do germs really cause disease?" is to give undeserved legitimacy to a lunatic fringe-dweller of the type normally known only in extreme right-wing anti-intellectual and anti-public health circles.
Jane Reed
Sydney
Vegetarian lifestyle
Max Lane holds a prejudice as is evident in the mood, method and content of his letter (GLW #113).
Max assumes that the only happiness is one that is subjective. Were those watching summary beheadings and witch burning, although laughing and cheering, possessors of great joy, or was their perception clouded by the preconceptions of the day? Happiness, with scant regard to the pain or death of another, is only called objective by the perpetrators and is illusory.
The ("unnecessary") production of meat, clothing, cosmetics and medicine etc., does cause unnecessary cruelty and death to animals and is escalating because "objective" thinkers are able to accommodate it.
Deforestation and desertification are worldwide problems, not just in developing nations. Every effort by every individual to halt these problems helps. To argue that to cut the demand for flesh is of no benefit is spurious and self-deceptive. Meat production anywhere in the world is overtly eco-costly.
Pigs, cows and chickens may not understand the concept of victory over the tyrant, but a non-tyrant understands that they require equal consideration. Immature humans or those with diminished responsibility also lack the same comprehension but should we have them as our protein source — or should we, as we do, afford them added protection because of their inability to survive without it. On this point Max is spouting semantic rubbish!
To choose a vegetarian lifestyle does not mean just a change in food habit. It is a complete lifestyle shift. Once fully realized how we use and abuse animals every day and in every way, it cannot be helped but to look at all other political and social aspects of our being, for they inter-weave.
For all to share in justice and equality a selectively compassionate humanity must, with reason and not prejudice, alter that which is a very basic fault in awareness of reality — speciesism!
David Nicholls, Lee Holmes
Weetulta SA.
Freud's fantasy
In response to M. A. Banfield (Write on, 13 Oct):
You suggest that Freud's inability to find a physical explanation for his female patients' symptoms and his assumption that they were subconscious psychological problems may have something to do with the corsets worn by women of the period hence leading to "hysterical" outbursts.
If you were up to date with both your feminist theory and your Freud you will know that Freud explained away as psychological problems or fantasy what were most evidently often accounts of childhood sexual abuse from his female patients. Obviously Freud's patriarchal paradigm could allow for notions of penis envy or Oedipus complex but not sexual assault.
Luckily psychiatry has come along way to allow female survivors of abuse to relive experiences so as to let go. I suggest that before you belittle these hysterical symptoms of Freud's female patients by explaining them via the period corset worn that you enlighten yourself with feminist critics of Freud. Or are you suggesting that for those sisters amongst us who find themselves in therapy today exhibiting "hysterical" symptoms that deeply affect relationships and work lives is quite simply only because they are wearing their bras too tight?
Hanna Sharp
Leichhardt NSW